A short thought problem

Let me ask you a question: you're in a tourney where there's no barrier around the list field, just lines on the ground, and the Marshal in Charge says that anyone who goes outside the lines loses - do you try to force people out of the list field, or is that dishonorable?

Does honor require you to beat your opponent with skill alone?

But isn't footwork and situational awareness part of a fencer's skill?

Is it honorable to win based on a mere technicality?

Aren't all rules "mere technicalities"?

Is it honorable to basically win through intimidation?

Isn't the psychological game 90% of fencing?

What are some other arguments for or against winning by forcing your opponent off the field?

Sheeped

So I got sheeped last weekend.

For those of you who are not familiar with the term (which is probably most of you, since it's my own term), being sheeped is when you win another group's champion's tourney where only a member of the local group can be named champion. The origin of the term goes back about fifteen years to an odd off-hand tourney in Sentinel's Keep. They had such things as a harp, a lute, a mug and, yes, a sheep. Each round you'd roll a die for your off-hand and I kept getting the sheep.

And I kept winning.

Truth be told, Albion won the tournament and I think I took second, but since I'd done so well with the sheep, I was presented it in court. Well, the same thing happened again this last weekend, only I actually won the tournament and this time it was an oven mitt, but their reasoning was the same: I was the most effective with the odd off hand.

Which ties into a conversation I've had with Master Cormack several times over the years. For any of you who hasn't had the pleasure of fighting against him, he is probably the ultimate specialist. He is a killer with sword and scabbard. He also does well with single point, but not nearly so well with the other forms. His view on the subject is that it works for him, so why change it?

I, on the other hand, am quite possibly the ultimate generalist. My goal is that no matter what you hand me, I can use it, and use it well. While the reality falls short of the goal, I have made great strides in that direction: hand me a weapon or weapon combination and while I may not always win, I can guarantee that I won't embarrass myself while dying.

A more concrete example can be seen comparing me and Cormack's weapons cases. Cormack has one sword, a dagger, I think, and his scabbard. That's it. My case is a little more crowded. Not counting the pair of Rawlings I pack around as training aids, I have 7 swords, both straight and curved, with blades ranging from 28" to 43", 2 daggers, 2 bucklers, 2 cloaks and a baton. For some reason, I'm one of the first ones people go to when they need to borrow equipment.

This is another one of those cases where neither philosophy is better, but they each have their strengths and weaknesses. A specialist is actually more likely to be the better technical fighter: give them their preferred style and nine times out of ten, they'll come out on top. But, throw in a wrinkle or two - required style, limited or increased fighting space, broken or unusual ground, and so on - and while the generalist still may not be the best fighter on the field, but their more varied bag of tricks allows them to adapt quicker.

Of course, that's not the real reason I won with the oven mitt. The truth is that I just fought it like single point.

Hmmm...

Maybe I do have a specialty. Maybe the reason I have all those blades is to add a little variety to my life...