You Are Here >> Home > Register | Login
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
..::Forums...duh! ::.. Minimize
 
 
  
Subject: Gorgets
Prev Next
You are not authorized to post a reply.

Author Messages
RaoulUser is Offline
Has a lot to say...
Has a lot to say...
Posts:268


08/10/2006 11:35 AM Alert 
In light of the current discussions regarding leather gorgets, would it be worth considering the following amendment:

  1. 11. The Neck
    1. 1. All fighters must wear rigid neck protection. The protection must cover the front, sides, and back of the neck. Some examples of acceptable neck protection are a gorget with a high collar or a layer of rigid material covering the outside surface of the bib and the back of the neck. Neck protection must be sufficiently rigid that it maintains its shape when not worn by the fighter.

I recognize that common sense should dictate here and in a perfect world such an amendment would not be required.  However, we have the problem in this kingdom that there are still areas that are sufficiently remote that their primary source for how to do things is the RABC. If it says 8 oz leather and some foam is sufficient, then that's what's going to be believed is sufficient.

The alternative would be to change the definition of rigid, removing the examples so as to avoid too literal interpretation:

Rigid Material (RM): Any material that redistribute the force of a blow.  Armour made from rigid materials will maintain its shape when not worn by the fighter.

Does that sound like it would work/be a good idea?

Raoul


"So let us go and get killed where we are told to go. Is life worth the trouble of so many questions?" -Athos
SimonFencerUser is Offline
Provost
Provost
Posts:132


08/10/2006 12:10 PM Alert 
I think that would work.

Paul

Paul Franklin

in the SCA: Simon Valdez, AoA, cadet to Mouse

Around the triple W: Simonfencer
SebastienUser is Offline
Has a lot to say...
Has a lot to say...
Posts:207


08/10/2006 3:29 PM Alert 
That would work I believe.

Sebastien de Caen

There is no kill like overkill.
jgreywolfUser is Offline
Hai Gioco?

Posts:682


08/12/2006 4:49 PM Alert 
I think what does not work for me is this idea of "...maintaining shape when not being worn..."

8oz leather, and 1/4" of closed cell foam. This has been listed as an acceptable material for 10+ years. Why do we all of a sudden feel that it is more dangerous, or that we need to change the definition (lets ignore that fact, for the moment, that the Society Rapier Rules has a different definition).

Just curious really.

Justin Greywolf (SCA: Ramon Diaz de la Vega)
Director
Old World Martial Arts - Teaching Historical Italian Swordplay in the Pacific Northwest
jgreywolfUser is Offline
Hai Gioco?

Posts:682


08/21/2006 8:10 AM Alert 
Posted By Raoul on 08-10-2006 11:35 AM
In light of the current discussions regarding leather gorgets, would it be worth considering the following amendment:

  1. 11. The Neck

    1. 1. All fighters must wear rigid neck protection. The protection must cover the front, sides, and back of the neck. Some examples of acceptable neck protection are a gorget with a high collar or a layer of rigid material covering the outside surface of the bib and the back of the neck. Neck protection must be sufficiently rigid that it maintains its shape when not worn by the fighter.

I recognize that common sense should dictate here and in a perfect world such an amendment would not be required.  However, we have the problem in this kingdom that there are still areas that are sufficiently remote that their primary source for how to do things is the RABC. If it says 8 oz leather and some foam is sufficient, then that's what's going to be believed is sufficient.

The alternative would be to change the definition of rigid, removing the examples so as to avoid too literal interpretation:

Rigid Material (RM): Any material that redistribute the force of a blow.  Armour made from rigid materials will maintain its shape when not worn by the fighter.

Does that sound like it would work/be a good idea?

Raoul


To follow up here, this does not work for me.  For the simple fact that, no, armor made from rigid materials does NOT have to maintain its shape when not worn. 

I have updated the definition to be in line with the Society rules, and removed the single layer of 8oz leather example, as I do not see this meeting the definition. 

Justin Greywolf (SCA: Ramon Diaz de la Vega)
Director
Old World Martial Arts - Teaching Historical Italian Swordplay in the Pacific Northwest
RaoulUser is Offline
Has a lot to say...
Has a lot to say...
Posts:268


08/22/2006 5:06 PM Alert 
From what I understand its not the thickness that is the issue either. 1/4" thick leather can be stiff or supple depending on how its been treated.

Maybe this is more of an educaiton issue as well. The primary definition of rigid, that it will not significantly flex, should be what gorgets are judged by, not the literal application of examples of materials.

Raoul

"So let us go and get killed where we are told to go. Is life worth the trouble of so many questions?" -Athos
You are not authorized to post a reply.



ActiveForums 3.6
 
 
 Print   
 
 
 
 
 
  www.nwrapier.com | Privacy Statement
Terms Of Use | Copyright 2007 by NWRapier.com