Thanks, Logan. I watched this as someone who has a little bit of interest invested in a person who has been doing armored/rattan combat in the SCA for 40+ years now. :) I thought it was interesting that his conclusion seemed to be that rattan fighting probably posed less risk than what HEMA is doing. (Admittedly I know very little about HEMA.) The "perceived risk" metric was also interesting--I know the general perception out there is that armored combat in the SCA is more dangerous than steel combat, so by that metric it would seem armored fighters would tend to take fewer safety risks. I don't really know how our cut-and-thrust compares with what the organizations he was talking about do.


On 6/23/2019 7:25 AM, Clayton Neff wrote:
[log in to unmask]">
An interesting talk on HEMA fighting and the potential for brain injuries.Even though he praises the SCA, there is more that we could be doing, I think. Especially regarding educating people on the perceived risks.

-- Logan -- 

-- Manage your subscription at https://LISTSERV.UNL.EDU