Re: Age vs. youth (was 1800 †)

From: Mikko Rintasaari <mikrin_at_...>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 14:56:39 +0200 (EET)


On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, Mike Dawson <mdawson_at_...> wrote:

>
> > Well, in the real world nobody took you seriously if you claimed to
> be a swordmaster (a teacher that is) and were under thirty.
> >
> > It takes a minimum of 10 years intensive study to really learn
> > swordplay, and the people who seriously train western swordsmanship
> > these days* usually expect to be "deadlier" with their blade(s) at
> the age of sixty than when thirty.
>
> Not if you're talking about honest-to-gosh full speed full power
> fighting with a sword, as opposed to fencing, which is what I have to
> think you mean by "western" sword work.

Nope. Italian style cloak and rapier, hand-and-a-half bastard sword... The real deal. Skill really does count more than the reflexes of youth.

<snip>
> In essence, there is a war between these two things:
>
> 1 "Age and treachery will always overcome youth and skill."
>
> 2 "My knees hurt."
>
> Mike, who smacked a lot of younger swordsmen in the head yesterday.

 =D Indeed.

Though there is nr. 2 there too. It's strange having somebody walk onto the training floor with a walking stick, and then proceed to beat the best blade in the club. It happens though.

        -Adept

Powered by hypermail