A Miscellany of Projects - Gaming, SCA Combat, Arts & Sciences, and Travel

There has been a considerable discussion recently on tournaments, tournament fighting, and tournament formats in the SCA.  A lot of what I've seen and read can be generalized to pretty much any organized competitive martial art, though the historical background between, say, modern karate and historical martial arts from any continent is obviously not quite the same. So here's my take on tournaments: I don't like them.  I actively dislike tournaments. Before I continue, I should put some boundaries on that statement.  It is not a statement that tournaments are bad and should go away.  It is also not a statement that martial events  are bad or that fighting should not be competitive, that would be silly and defeat the purpose of fighting.  It is not even a statement of intent to boycott tournaments as a form, because the unwritten rules of the game require that tournaments are where you get people to listen to you. Now, why do I dislike tournaments? There ar...

A conversation at shinkage practice recently got me thinking.  The short version is that any time you pick up a new thing, you come with baggage, both good and bad, and especially early on, putting that baggage away and dealing with the material that is presented can be a challenge.  The specific context was a rapier fighter and montantera trying shinkage and visibly switching what she was doing to Figueyredo's Rule 6 mid-movement, which ruined her footwork, but another example was the deep refusal of the blade in Eisshin-ryu's vertical cuts, which shinkage doesn't do.  Obviously, Eisshin-ryu is more closely related to shinkage than Figueyredo's montante rules, but falling back on a previous body of knowledge can both aid and hinder understanding the art as presented. This leads to a broader problem, at least for me, that of generalists versus specialists.  I started shinkage with an advantage in certain areas; I know how to practice a specific skill or movement deli...

Hidden between Leander and Burnet, well off the beaten path, is Flanigan's Wine and Spirits .  Flanigan's storefront is  located in an old brick building in Bertram, with their production facility across the street.  Immediately upon entering, the first thing you notice is the spectacular decor - they have done a remarkable job of simulating a late-19th Century through Depression-era saloon-hotel, with alcoves, nooks, and private tables scattered across two stories and false doors giving the illusion of hotel rooms, a grand ballroom, and a much larger interior than is actually the case.  A large fireplace and common space dominates one side of the main room, and a bar runs the length of the other, with tables between. I have been to Flanigan's repeatedly, and each time have taken a slightly different approach.  The first time we were there, the proprietors, Kevin and Kathleen Flanigan, were quite busy, but got to us within fifteen minutes; the second, we arrived...

It feels appropriate to me to begin with the very first line of Munenori, as the first few paragraphs sum up much of his worldview. Hathaway: There is an old saying, "Weapons are in-auspicious tools.  They are shunned by Heaven's path.  Keep them ready without the intent to use them; that is Heaven's path." HPB (Ridgway): From antiquity it has been said, "Weapons are an inauspicious instrument, abhorred by the Way of Heaven, and to be used only when unavoidable.  That is the Way of Heaven." Satô: Here's what was said in the past: "Weapons are unfortunate instruments.  Heaven's Way hates them.  Using them when there is no other choice - that is Heaven's Way." Footnote 2: Allusion to Section 31 of Lao Tzu: Good weapons are unfortunate instruments.  People hate them.  So someone with Tao does not rely on them... Weapons are unfortunate instruments and not the wise man's instruments.  When he uses them because there is no other choice h...

I own four English-language editions of of Heihô Kadensho .  I actually own more than that, but the others are copies or extracts of these four.  Two of them, the Satô ( The Sword and the Mind ) and Wilson ( The Life-Giving Sword ) translations, are what could be called "mainstream" translations - that is, they are either at least partially informed by, or endorsed by, members of the school, and are relatively complete, with supplementary material that will help make sense of the original and provide it further context.  They are broadly similar; Yagyû Koichi, the head of the school today, prefers Satô, while Dave Lowry and a handful of other American budô practitioners encouraged Williams to make his translation.  In other words, in quality terms there is little to choose between them, other than personal preference, and one cannot really go wrong with either.  The third was a copy that I happened to pick up at Half-Price Books that did not match either of...

Having completed my review of the various editions of Fiore currently on the market (I suppose I should write up the Hatcher edition of the Getty, but it's been out a few years and is kind of a gold standard!), it's time for a project I've been delaying for months. That project is a comparison of the four editions I have found of Yagyû Munenori 's first volume, "The Killing Sword."  To understand why I'd be doing that, and why there have been delays, one must first understand who Munenori was, what the formative environment of Yagyû shinkage-ryû was, and why the school persists. First, the Yagyû themselves.  All Japanese noble families trace themselves, at least nominally, to one of three origins, the Taira, the Minamoto, or the Fujiwara.  The Taira and Minamoto (or, if one is feeling particularly fancy, the Heike and Genji, after their On'myo, or "Chinese-style," readings) were descendants of emperors who had been mediatized as nobles no l...

As I've said elsewhere, I believe that book reviews should provide what the reader really  needs to know up front, so here it is: I wanted very much to like this book.  The Hatcher and Chidester editions of the Getty and Morgan manuscripts, respectively, are impressive books both as Fiore manuscripts and as works of scholarship.  Unfortunately, the Paris manuscript is easily the most frustrating publicly available edition of Fiore, and that trend continues here. To understand why the Paris manuscript, before translators get involved, is so damn frustrating requires a little bit of explanation.  The Getty, the Morgan, and the Pisani Dossi were all at least made by someone familiar with Fiore's system, almost certainly Fiore himself, and by a series of linked artists - fairly well established in Chidester's edition of the Morgan .  The Paris manuscript, meanwhile, was made by someone who had no idea what the hell they were looking at, but sure liked the fancy draw...