Mohammed (Mo) (not verified) — Fri, 2004-01-09 15:06
I'm a guy who has never Larped, but I have done several Martial arts in my younger days ( Karate, wing chun, kempo jitsu, numerous freestyle semicontact bouts). I have also studied martial arts techniques and philosophy (book of 5 rings, tau of jeet kun do etc).
I want to comment on this subject in two respects. Firstly from an authenticity point of view. Secondly from a safety point of view:
AUTHENTICITY:
Of course its imposibble to be 100% authentic. The players are generally not as strong, as fit, or as skilled as trained fighters. Also weapons cannot be as heavy as real ones for safety reasons. Also, as anyone who has done semicontact or full contact martial arts knows, real pain and real damage, completely alter the nature of combat, making fighters much more cautious. The purpose of Larps is surely not to be very authentic, but to have some fun in a physical way. Of course a measure of authenticity is necessary in order to maintain the fantasy. My own opinion is that thrusting strikes by pointed weapons should be allowed because there are many weapons that are meant to be used in this way. Such weapons can surely be adequately padded, or eye and throat protection worn to minimise the risk of injury.
SAFETY:
Note that there has been a lot of disagreement about safety in this thread. This is because safety is a matter of attitude. Some people genuinely prefer to take greater risks in order to achieve a more realistic or stimulating experience. Even within martial arts philosophy, there is a vast range of attitudes to safety and the purpose of combat. In general, modern and recreational martial arts thinking tends to emphasize safety and self defence. But traditional, professional, and military martial arts teaching can be much more aggressive. There is a great deal of nonsense spoken by particular schools and particular teachers about the superiority of their philosophy over other philosophies. Its important to realise that the level of realism and danger required depends upon the purpose of the activity. My own opinion is, that Larps are not about serious combat. They are about a fun physical activity that should be performed in a safe way. If using latex weapons, then there should be little risk. If using harder weapons as suggested by Potter, then head, face and throat protection, heavy clothes and gloves should be used. My problem with Potter is not that he likes a more physical game. This is a matter of preference. But he does not appreciate the risks and take adequate precautions. His attitude is cavalier.
I'm a guy who has never Larped, but I have done several Martial arts in my younger days ( Karate, wing chun, kempo jitsu, numerous freestyle semicontact bouts). I have also studied martial arts techniques and philosophy (book of 5 rings, tau of jeet kun do etc).
I want to comment on this subject in two respects. Firstly from an authenticity point of view. Secondly from a safety point of view:
AUTHENTICITY:
Of course its imposibble to be 100% authentic. The players are generally not as strong, as fit, or as skilled as trained fighters. Also weapons cannot be as heavy as real ones for safety reasons. Also, as anyone who has done semicontact or full contact martial arts knows, real pain and real damage, completely alter the nature of combat, making fighters much more cautious. The purpose of Larps is surely not to be very authentic, but to have some fun in a physical way. Of course a measure of authenticity is necessary in order to maintain the fantasy. My own opinion is that thrusting strikes by pointed weapons should be allowed because there are many weapons that are meant to be used in this way. Such weapons can surely be adequately padded, or eye and throat protection worn to minimise the risk of injury.
SAFETY:
Note that there has been a lot of disagreement about safety in this thread. This is because safety is a matter of attitude. Some people genuinely prefer to take greater risks in order to achieve a more realistic or stimulating experience. Even within martial arts philosophy, there is a vast range of attitudes to safety and the purpose of combat. In general, modern and recreational martial arts thinking tends to emphasize safety and self defence. But traditional, professional, and military martial arts teaching can be much more aggressive. There is a great deal of nonsense spoken by particular schools and particular teachers about the superiority of their philosophy over other philosophies. Its important to realise that the level of realism and danger required depends upon the purpose of the activity. My own opinion is, that Larps are not about serious combat. They are about a fun physical activity that should be performed in a safe way. If using latex weapons, then there should be little risk. If using harder weapons as suggested by Potter, then head, face and throat protection, heavy clothes and gloves should be used. My problem with Potter is not that he likes a more physical game. This is a matter of preference. But he does not appreciate the risks and take adequate precautions. His attitude is cavalier.