Rapier v. court sword

In rec.sport.fencing on 17 Nov 2003 16:55:49 -0800
William Marshal <trebuchet30303@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Chris Zakes <moondrgn@austin.rr.com> wrote
>
>
>> Boxing is considered a "sporting event".
>
> Sure. But WHY, exactly, is it so considered? How did it manage to
> acquire exempt status, when it is so violent? Two men trying to hurt

Consider history. How long has boxing been legal, has it ever been
illegal, what changes have been made?

That will give you your answer.

Zebee

Zebee Johnstone <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote

>
> If there are rules that both abide by, rules designed to limit injury,
> and both agree limiting injury is good (limit, not avoid completely)
> then it's OK. If the rules are clear, and so each person has a well
> founded informed knowledge of what they can expect.


And there were never any such rules made governing duelling?

I'm still trying to get at what, exactly, the law sees as the real
difference between the two activities, as opposed to "Because we, the
Courts, say so." ( I once asked this same question in a substantive
criminal law course, and got no real satisfaction there,
either---"Precedent", was what it seemed to boil down to. )

"Bryan J. Maloney" <cavaggione@sbcglobal.nmungemungt> wrote

>
> Tell you what--go over to your local legal authorities and tell them how
> utterly wrong-headed and stupid they are. Then demonstrate by holding a
> duel in front of them. I'm sure your logic will win them over.

My, what a carefully crafted and logical argument. I believe it bears
a family resemblance to the ad lapidem fallacy...

Tell YOU what---if you're just so very vexed with my wooly-headed
refusal to see the penetrating Truth of your assertions, just don't
bother reading or answering them.

"Trim Plus Expert" <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote


> and i never said that it is not legal because they say so. I said that boxing > is a sport, fencing is a sport and that both are legal.

This is exactly what I have been trying to understand: WHY does the
law recognize one activity as a sport and not another? WHY is one
acivity
( boxing ) legal and another very similar one ( duelling ) heavily
penalized? As far as I can tell the only answer so forth offered,
apart from the pretty weak ( IMO ) ones about safety equipment and
some sort of inherent harm differentials, has been a kind of
amorphous, unspoken "Because the law says so". This is circular,
though, is it not?

If that wasn't implied in what you were saying, excuse the
misinterpretation. But---what, then, in your estimation, might BE the
core rationale?


> And why again
> do you relate boxing and duelling ?

Because that's the essential question I am trying to get at. Why is
boxing
( two men fighting it out, with risk of injury and even death a
possibility ) legal and a mere "sport" under the law, but duelling (
two men fighting it out, with risk of injury and even death a
possibility ) illegal and sanctioned as attempted murder, assault, or
what have you? It's boxing vs duelling that's at issue, not boxing vs
fencing. No more than would be boxing and golf.




> Boxing is like fencing .... duelling is like streetbrawl.

I do not agree that fencing is anything like boxing. Modern fencing is
vastly farther removed from its combative roots than boxing is from
bareknuckles fighting. IMO it is like true swordplay in name only.




> The
> governement dont ban an activity it ban the risk everyone are paying taxes
> so they dont want them to die, nor to be injured and not be abe to work &
> shop.


How then do you explain the vast number of risky activities it doesn't
ban?

William Marshal writes:
> This is exactly what I have been trying to understand: WHY does the law
> recognize one activity as a sport and not another?

Motivation, intent, probable outcome, impact on society.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI

trebuchet30303@yahoo.com (William Marshal) nattered on
thusnews:dc7987e.0311201818.31d9313e@posting.googl e.com:

> "Bryan J. Maloney" <cavaggione@sbcglobal.nmungemungt> wrote
>
>>
>> Tell you what--go over to your local legal authorities and tell them
>> how utterly wrong-headed and stupid they are. Then demonstrate by
>> holding a duel in front of them. I'm sure your logic will win them
>> over.
>
> My, what a carefully crafted and logical argument. I believe it bears
> a family resemblance to the ad lapidem fallacy...

You keep claiming that there is no difference between boxing and dueling.
Too bad a filthy appeal to reality violates your "logic". That's the
miserable thing about reality. It's real, not systematic.

trebuchet30303@yahoo.com (William Marshal) nattered on
thusnews:dc7987e.0311201852.715313a5@posting.googl e.com:

> amorphous, unspoken "Because the law says so". This is circular,
> though, is it not?

So what? So it's circular? So what? Point out the part of the law that
prohibits the law from being circular. You are laboring under the grand
misapprehension that law and logic have any necessary relationship to each
other. The historical tradition is that boxing has been seen as a
"sport", and the law treats it as such, while dueling has been seen as
"combat", and the law treats it as such. Why? Why is it "bad" to eat dog
in the USA but not "bad" to eat dog in at least some parts of China or
South Korea?

It is a matter of historical custom enshrined in law. Not logical? So
what?

William Marshal writes:

>If that wasn't implied in what you were saying, excuse the
>misinterpretation. But---what, then, in your estimation, might BE the
>core rationale?

My guess would be that duels caused sufficient social harm that the powers that
be decided to outlaw them. In particular, duels were more likely to kill or
seriously wounded participants then boxing matches, and those killed or
seriously wounded in boxing matches would generally be from the lower classes
then those so harmed in duels. Which probably led legal authorities to outlaw
duels and not boxing matches.

(But take the above with a grain of salt - it's all based on guesswork.)

trebuchet30303@yahoo.com (William Marshal) nattered on
thusnews:dc7987e.0311201810.57f675d9@posting.googl e.com:

> Courts, say so." ( I once asked this same question in a substantive
> criminal law course, and got no real satisfaction there,
> either---"Precedent", was what it seemed to boil down to. )

Too bad you have such a hard time dealing with reality. Please quote that
part of the law that states the law MUST agree with "logic" as you
understand it.

> Well, try google'ing lincoln and Harriet Beecher Stowe but also
> http://www.harrietbeecherstowecenter.org/life/

Got it, thankyou.

JDzik writes:
> ...those killed or seriously wounded in boxing matches would generally be
> from the lower classes then those so harmed in duels.

More importantly those killed or seriously wounded in boxing matches would
not be likely to have participated reluctantly out of fear of being called
cowards. One is not "challenged" to a boxing match. There is no social
disgrace in not being a professional boxer.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI

"Bryan J. Maloney" <cavaggione@sbcglobal.nmungemungt> wrote in message
news:Xns9439C58549FE4dogfaceinsightbbcom@206.141.1 93.32...

> The next most recent judicial duel permitted in England that I'm aware of
> was in 1571, when a field was granted and justices appeared at Tothill
> Fields, but the petitioner didn't show up at the appointed time and place,
> so his suit was refused.

The p[oint about judicial combat is that it isn't a 'duel'.

A duel is a matter of honour between gentlemen (or ladies)

I think that everyone had recourse to 'trial by combat'.

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

"William Marshal" continues to ask:

> This is exactly what I have been trying to understand: WHY does the
> law recognize one activity as a sport and not another? WHY is one
> acivity
> ( boxing ) legal and another very similar one ( duelling ) heavily
> penalized?

Do you know why a duel to to the first degree of blood can (sometimes)
satisfy honor? The reason a single drop of blood is enough to satisfy honor
is that it proved that we were using deadly weapons, not merely sporting
equipment, and that therefore we were risking death

Dueling is not now and never has been a sport. In boxing, I hope my
opponent will be fine tomorrow. If he dies, I will be very upset, because
that is not a legitimate outcome -- even though it sometimes happens. In
dueling, I hope to wound or kill my opponent. If he dies, I will feel
totally justified.

The essential fact is that dueling always carries at least a potential
intent to kill. Boxing doesn't.

In Elizabethan England, fighting with bated blades was a sport and a
display. Fighting with sharp weapons was dueling, and usually illegal.
Note that fencing with bated blades was *not* done differently from dueling,
and in fact was training for dueling and self-defense. The London Masters
of Defense held prizes and exhibitions for the public. These were intended
to show the skills learned in self-defense training, and were completely
legal, even though there was risk. (One prize was postponed because the
prizor was hurt too badly to continue.)

In any event, the difference between fighting with bated blades and fighting
with sharps was well known and legally important back when the same moves
were being done in both. It still is.

Now, it occurs to me that you might be talking about sport fencing with live
weapons, rather than fencing. Back when dueling was common, this was
equally illegal, because otherwise, if you were caught dueling, then you
would claim to have been just playing around with live blades. If it looked
like a duel and quacked like a duel, it was prosecuted like a duel. These
days, it's probably illegal (assault with a deadly weapon), but I suspect
that it would not be prosecuted unless your opponent (or his widow) wanted
to press charges.

The only question is whether the sport of boxing is more like the sport of
fencing or like the intention to do harm of dueling.

Some people agree with you, and have tried to ban boxing because, since the
goal is to beat up your opponent, there is an intent to harm. No American
legislature has bought this argument yet, but it's possible. Issues
involved include:

You duel somebody because you want to get at him. Substituting somebody
else misses the whole point. You box for money, or to win a tournament, and
there is no hate or vengeance aimed at that person. If an opponent is
unavailable, you are just as likely to box someone else. In a tournament,
you don't know who you'll wind up boxing.

You could box with your best friend, when there are no issues between you.
No duel happens in those conditions.

An illegal duel is expected to continue until somebody is harmed. After a
certain number of rounds, the boxing match is over.

If, in a duel, you stop hating each other, the duel might stop,
inconclusively. If, in a boxing match, you start hating each other and
start hitting below the belt, the fight should be stopped by the referee.

But a knock-out is an acceptable outcome, so some degree of intent to harm
could be imputed.

So nobody has yet succeeded in suggesting that boxing is inherently assault,
as dueling is. But it's possible that the law could eventually agree with
you, and outlaw boxing. Some people think it should.

There is no chance that any legislature will agree with you and therefore
legalize dueling, however. Dueling is clearly assault with a deadly weapon.
(Note that "assault with a deadly weapon" is *not* the same as "assault with
intent to kill". In my state at least, an assault with a deadly weapon is
felony assault, regardless of intent.)

> As far as I can tell the only answer so forth offered,
> apart from the pretty weak ( IMO ) ones about safety equipment and
> some sort of inherent harm differentials, has been a kind of
> amorphous, unspoken "Because the law says so". This is circular,
> though, is it not?

No, the law says so because lawmakers believe it should -- for the reasons
given above.

> If that wasn't implied in what you were saying, excuse the
> misinterpretation. But---what, then, in your estimation, might BE the
> core rationale?

Original intent.
The legal distinction is between dueling and fistfights on one side, and
boxing and fencing on the other.

The purpose of dueling is to harm the other person. The purpose of
fistfights is to harm the other person. Dueling and fistfights are against
the law.

The purpose of boxing is to indulge in a sport as safely as possible within
bounds of the sport. There are risks, but there is no intent to harm. The
purpose of fencing is to indulge in a sport as safely as possible within
bounds of the sport. There are risks, but there is no intent to harm.
Boxing and fencing are legal.

> How then do you explain the vast number of risky activities it doesn't
> ban?

It doesn't ban voluntary risk. It bans intent to permanently harm.

Jay Rudin

William Black wrote:

> The p[oint about judicial combat is that it isn't a 'duel'.

You keep saying this. Sir Edward Coke disagrees with you (*The Third Part
of the Institutes of the Laws of England*). John Selden disagrees with you
(*Duello or Single Combat*). Francois Billacois disagrees with you (*Le
Duel*). Robert Baldick disagrees with you (*The Duel*). Frederick Bryson
disagrees with you (*The Sixteenth Century Italian Duel*). Nick Evangelista
disagrees with you (*The Encyclopedia of the Sword*). *Webster's Third New
International Dictionary* disagrees with you. The *Oxford English
Dictionary* disagrees with you. The *Thorndyke-Barnhart Dictionary*
disagrees with you.

I'm citing legal scholars (Coke and Selden). I'm citing historical scholars
(Baldick, Billacois and Bryson). I'm citing fencing scholars (Evangelista).
I'm citing dictionaries (Webster's and the OED). What authority can you
provide for your assertion about the use of this word?

You're wrong. The word "duel" is not as restrictive as you have believed in
the past. Check your favorite dictionary.

It's true that most Americans only know about the kind of duels shown in
Musketeer movies, but the other kinds exist anyway.

The word "duel" covers many kinds of two-person combat, including the
judicial duel or trial by wager of battel.

Jay Rudin

"Jay and Diane Rudin" <rudin@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:vrsr3e5h4hopd4@corp.supernews.com...

> You're wrong. The word "duel" is not as restrictive as you have believed
in
> the past. Check your favorite dictionary.

OK then.

Then what I'm trying to do is point out that there is a difference between a
judicial fight and a social one.

The primary differences are that the first is legal and the second usually
isn't.

The secondary difference is that the judicial brawl is open to anyone, the
private fight is available, usually, only to a certain social class

Happy now?

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

In rec.sport.fencing on Fri, 21 Nov 2003 21:14:10 -0000
William Black <black_william@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Then what I'm trying to do is point out that there is a difference between a
> judicial fight and a social one.
>
> The primary differences are that the first is legal and the second usually
> isn't.

I dunno about "is". But jay gave you a bunch of refs that showed both
have been legal.

>
> The secondary difference is that the judicial brawl is open to anyone, the
> private fight is available, usually, only to a certain social class
>

Also not true as a reading of say Swetnam will tell you.

Zebee

"Bryan J. Maloney" <cavaggione@sbcglobal.nmungemungt> wrote


> You keep claiming that there is no difference between boxing and dueling.


Yeah, I do. You claim the opposite. This is a justification for
rudeness?

Which part of "Don't bother answering if you can't manage a civil
debate" did you not understand?



> Too bad a filthy appeal to reality violates your "logic".

Yeah, fallacies tend to do that. Funny, huh?

John Hasler <john@dhh.gt.org> wrote



> Motivation, intent, probable outcome, impact on society.


Promising. Care to elaborate?

Motives need not vary between the two: some boxers would certainly
like to kill each other, many duellists had no such wish ( Nadi, for
instance ).

Intent? Same here: some boxers probably intend great harm, some
duellists not.

Probable outcome? Yes, perhaps---but on the basis of statistics alone
deaths in the golden age of duelling ( not with pistols ) were deaths
really more frequent than in the days of bare-knuckle boxing ( which
latter was also considered "only a sport" )? And in modern terms,
which is really more dangerous, having ones head snapped back by an
uppercut or having ones arm scratched by an epee point?

Impact on society? How does a death by the sword do this so much more
than one by cerebral hemmorhage? Only insofar as duelling is more
likely to lay low men of quality and influence instead of dispensable
lower-class street denizens?

John Hasler <john@dhh.gt.org> wrote

> More importantly those killed or seriously wounded in boxing matches would
> not be likely to have participated reluctantly out of fear of being called
> cowards. One is not "challenged" to a boxing match. There is no social
> disgrace in not being a professional boxer.


I think there is an apples-and-oranges comparison here: there has
never been, AFAIK, a class of professional duellists. To compare them,
then, to professional boxers, or to compare their ruling ethos, is
not, I think, apt.

However, I do not believe that pro boxing is wholly free of elements
of social pressure, either. Certainly there are aspersions cast on
fighters who refuse matches with strong opponents, try for easy
matches, etc.

True, the ruling morality today does not place such value on
reputations as to drive reluctant men to duels. But that would seem to
me to militate AGAINST the need for continued legal protections for
them---and how does it address the duel between two men neither of
whom is reluctant?

Can anyone give the specific citation of the law that states that the law
must be 100% perfectly "logical" and not in any way influenced by custom,
historical accident, or other idiosyncratic precedent? That is, where in
the law does it say that law is not to behave as law generally behaves?