The sharp question

Discussion in 'Fencing Discussion' started by bdavis, Sep 27, 2012.

  1. bdavis

    bdavis Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2011
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. Inquartata

    Inquartata Podium

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    Messages:
    36,125
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Yes, duelling is illegal. I doubt that these gentlemen could have convinced the police or a court that they were not doing that.
     
  3. rudd

    rudd Podium

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,373
    Likes Received:
    119
    The love child of SCA and Jackass.
     
  4. jkormann

    jkormann Podium

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2002
    Messages:
    2,700
    Likes Received:
    140
    Perhaps one of the dumbest ideas I've ever read. And I've read alot of dumb things working in IT.
     
  5. neevel

    neevel Armorer

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2000
    Messages:
    3,171
    Likes Received:
    202
    What springs to mind is an observation by Chris Amberger about Mensur duelling, to the effect that it's quite understandable why a man at age 18 might do it, but anybody still doing it after 30 should probably seek counseling.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2012
    LordShout likes this.
  6. swordsen

    swordsen Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2000
    Messages:
    1,369
    Likes Received:
    26
    This somewhat reminds me of a story my coach told me of going to a tournament in Mexico when he was in college, where, (fortified by much Tequila) they fenced saber where only head touches counted. The fencers wore a mask, but not a jacket or shirt.
     
  7. touchefriend

    touchefriend Made the Cut

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    263
    Likes Received:
    7
    Reminds me of MMA, in that you could be seriously injured or even die. Maybe thats why MMA is so popular? Fencing will never have that level of popularity, probably because the sport evolved from something real, necessary and potentially deadly. Games(in the days of dueling) were more likely cards, dice and charades.
     
  8. Tomasdc

    Tomasdc Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, fun fact, this "duel" would not be illegal in Canada.

    Yes, it is true that most duels are illegal in Canada. Here's the Duel provision: RSC 1985, c C-46, sec. 71


    However, according to the Supreme Court (R. v. Lucas, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 439) the purpose of s. 71 is the protection of reputation. which means that the definition of dueling must relate to the protection of reputation or honor.

    And also:

    Therefore any "duel" that takes place that does not have its root in the protection of reputation is not by definition a duel.

    Well there must be some other law against it? Nope. Because it was by mutual consent there's nothing illegal about it.


    According to R. v. Jobidon, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 714 the giving of consent to a "rough sporting activities" separates it from the illegal. It does not fall under assault or any other law if consent is given and there is no expectation of death. Because the "duel" was to first blood it doesn't reach the level of "serious hurt or non-trivial bodily harm" (and by this they are referring to injuries which in will in all likelihood cause death) which would remove the protection of consent as you cannot consent to potential death by combat.



    So, in Canada it's not technically a duel if it is not about a matter of reputation. And it's not assault if there's consent. And it doesn't even fall under the unconsentable sections as it was planned and was designed to be stopped at the first minor injury rather than to continue until near death.

    Smart... well that's up to you, but illegal it's not.
     
  9. Inquartata

    Inquartata Podium

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    Messages:
    36,125
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Ah! So in Canada a knife fight down at the local dive bar is legal because both parties "consent"? Good to know!

    Here in the US, boxing matches are legal, and even a death during one is excusable. An informal "fight club", though? Slightly different thing in the eyes of the law. A shootout between rival gang members, even more dimly viewed. ;)
     
  10. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper Podium

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2004
    Messages:
    2,223
    Likes Received:
    303
    So the answer to "The Sharp Question" is: If two overweight Canadians with neither honour nor reputation engage in a public combat with semi-sharp swords, it will result in minor cuts or scrapes but not prosecution under Her Majesty the Queen of Canada nor lead to a decrease in maple syrup rations.
     
  11. K O'N

    K O'N Podium

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    3,574
    Likes Received:
    449
    I wonder if something like this might not be found to be more like a fist fight than a "rough sporting event". It's certainly not fencing, in fact I'd say it's about to fencing as a fist fight is to boxing. If that doesn't shelter fist fighting, I would not think fencing would shelter this sort of nonsense. Not that I know anything about Canadian law, I'm just noodling on what you quoted.

    K O'N
     
  12. Allen Evans

    Allen Evans Podium

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2003
    Messages:
    4,754
    Likes Received:
    777
    If you build a cage or stadium around it and charge admission, all sorts of nonsense becomes a "sporting event".
     
  13. Gav

    Gav Moderator!!

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2000
    Messages:
    3,378
    Likes Received:
    468
    Golf?

    Oh, I take your point...
     
  14. K O'N

    K O'N Podium

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    3,574
    Likes Received:
    449
    Well, that appears to be entirely true. Ok, it's a sport.
     
  15. Inquartata

    Inquartata Podium

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    Messages:
    36,125
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Not according to Mr. Carlin.
     
  16. ladyofshalott99

    ladyofshalott99 DE Bracket

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    60
    So, two friends decide they want to duel, and do it just to see what it's like?

    This..is stupid.

    Not that duelling isn't stupid anyway, but if you're going to do it--Do it with someone you have a beef with. Unfinished business, a score to settle. Something to resolve. Don't be a moron and do it with a friend you actually like. That's just asking for Darwin to slap one of you into non-existence.

    Again. Stupid.
     
  17. Inquartata

    Inquartata Podium

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    Messages:
    36,125
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Says the woman whose avatar seems to be counting to ten before turning and firing... :)
     
  18. OROD

    OROD Podium

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,840
    Likes Received:
    237
    It's a perfectly nice gun-wielding lady avatar... hater!
     
  19. K O'N

    K O'N Podium

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    3,574
    Likes Received:
    449
    That is a little funny.
     
  20. Bonehead

    Bonehead Podium

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    2,563
    Likes Received:
    137
    I'm actually really torn on this idea.

    First off, it's stupid, because duels themselves were stupid. The notion that a dispute can be settled by one man cutting another (or possibly killing depending on the time period), in a ritualistic blood sport is, simply retarded. We have this romanticised belief that it rewards honor, and practice and skill, but it's just not true. Anyone who's ever fenced a one touch bout knows that even after all that practice, it can still just come down to luck, especially if it's someone you've never fenced before. And even if it was all practice and skill and not just luck, who the **** cares - that doesn't tell you which one insulted whom. It's no different than a pistol duel or a cannon duel, or just lobbing grenades at each other, or even all that much different to russian roulette. Killing is killing, and just stupid.

    But in a way it's awesome. Okay, but say you take it at face value that duels, are cool, and are representative of some sort of degree of honor and skill, then actually doing it is the best way to see what it's like. We all know so many, erm, interesting people, that prattle on about "If it were sharp" this and "If it were sharp" that. And for the sake of this paragraph, taking it at face value that "if it were sharp" matters at all, they often say things that just seem like it would not be true, even "if it were sharp". But how do we know? You gotta test it! I would completely remiss to say "This would work in a real bout", but never do it in a real bout. If I've never been in or seen a real bout, I shouldn't talk with any certainty or authority on the matter, only saying things "I've read this, but that might not be true". Especially on something as kinaesthetic and difficult to make a record of as fencing. Similarly, if "if it were sharp" was the most important thing to you, you would be completely remiss to not actually try it. It's experimental, and in it's way, kinda scientific, and that's awesome.

    But then again it's completely stupid. Because fencing your friend whom you don't want to *really* hurt is only one very specific kind of idiotic ritualistic duelling (which admittedly did happen). What if the other guy wants to kill you? Would it work the same? What if you want to kill him? What if you want to kill him and you don't mind getting hurt? What if you're willing to take a blade through the arm if it means you will kill him. What if you're willing to die if it means that you kill him? What if he's willing to die? Standing trying to cut the arm of your, obviously, very good friend doesn't answer these questions very much more than speculation. All it tells you is what a first blood feud, not to the death, between two people who weren't very mad at each other, might have been like. But generally that's not the kind of "If it were sharp" scenarios the "if it were sharp" crowd are talking about. I bet neither person made a single legitimate attack to the torso or head. How can you talk about "if it were sharp" foil, if no one ever makes a thrust to the torso or head.

    But then again, It's also very awesome. If your friend said, they were going skydiving for the experience, it wouldn't bring the same "You're an idiot" wrath that this has. Probably it's not much more dangerous. Base jumpers and wing suit guys are way way way more likely to die than a couple of friends carefully semi-duelling. But all these things require bravery. I don't care how stupid these things are, I'm still impressed by the bravery. We sent a man to the moon "because we can". People regularly attempt and die on everest. This is a stupid stunt for sure, but it's still an interesting one, and I respect the bravery it takes to do it.


    I think in the end I fall more on the "It's stupid" side than the "It's awesome" side, but much like wingsuit flyers, I'm kinda morbidly glad that there is a group of the right mix of brave and stupid to actually try it out.

    If only we could get a large enough population of people to all duel to the death. And make sure than one group of them were trained to duel using x school, and then another group was not. We would also need a placebo school, that was invented but has no reason to work any more than anything to test against (in case the belief of proficiency has an effect on outcome). Probably a number of other things we should test for too. Where's tina turner when we need her.
     

Share This Page