Who should fight (was)R

[Lori Jones]

> Ah, so anyone can enter the list if they meet these basic requirements
> whether they are the best or worst fighter and then it is just a
> matter of deciding who is the best on the field that day? NOT!

Which part did you disagree with?  The part about anyone being able 
to enter, or the reference to whoever was best on the field that day?

I have to think back several years to remember the last time I heard 
of someone actually being told they wouldn't be allowed to fight in 
Crown.  That doesn't seem to indicate an abuse of power on the part 
of the Kings.

As to the fighter being the best on the field "that day", I've 
actually heard it put exactly that way by the competitors.  Some of 
them were  knights, some were not.  Many times it was the person who 
won.  Something to the effect of "I was just the best *that day*".

> No, the list is not completely random. Sometimes the list is set up
> so specific fighters are set against specific fighters. 

Sometimes.  It really seems to depend on who is sitting the throne.  
I've seen lists where a King actually made the pairings.  I've also 
seen tournaments where cards were drawn completely at random and 
in plain sight of the populace.  The majority of the list mistresses 
I've spoken with have said the lists were mostly "random draw" - 
except to split those who obviously fought each other all the time.

The issue of fairness is really moot, anyway.  Fair or not, Crown 
is the King's Tournament and can be run any way the king deems 
appropriate (i.e. a certain weapon style, a shield size limit, set 
pairings, etc.).  At least that's how it was explained to me.

> the list is initially set so that no knight fights another knight
> thus guarranteeing that more knights make it into the upper tiers of
> the tournament. 

What about the non-belted fighters who take knights out in the first 
round?  It doesn't happen the majority of the time, but it is far 
from uncommon.

> Interesting since in period it was much more likely that a knight
> would ONLY fight another knight, the non-knight being below his
> station. 

SCA kings are decided in such a way as to allow a larger number of 
people to experience that role - as opposed to one every few to fifty 
years, as was more period.  If our kings reigned for that long, 
most would end up bankrupt or clinically insane.   On the other 
hand, if the majority of Kings had been chosen every 6 months, by 
tournament, in the actual middle ages, chaos would have been the 
order of the day.  

Maybe it's just as well (at least in this respect) that the SCA's 
focus isn't on chosing our kings in the most period way possible.  
Maybe not.  Opinions vary.

> So, why is "Ducal perogative" any fairer or worse than the current
> manipulation of the lists? Although whether the crown list should
> be fair by modern sensibilities is another question.

Who ever said "Ducal prerogative" was *fair*?  It simply holds 
true by the laws of our kingdom that an individual who has sat the 
throne twice shall have the right to withdraw from Crown list at any 
time.  It is as set in stone in our Kingdom as the right of a Peer 
to wear the insignia of their order. 

I've seen a lot of threads about "fairness" in general, of late, and  
I think we're losing sight of something important.  The Middle Ages 
were definitely NOT the fairest of times.  Democracy (i.e. majority 
rules) was not the order of the day, etc.  Monarchy (one person 
deciding the welfare of the group) was a way of life, fair or not.  
Traditions, also, were very important.  Oddly enough, the SCA 
seems to recreate that pretty well.
 
> Ld. Stefan li Rous
> Barony of Bryn Gwlad
> Ansteorra

Bs. Katrionna MacLochlainn
CSS,CSM,CIM,QG,KG,LoW,SC,SCo,ST,SF
Barony of Wiesenfeuer, Kingdom of Ansteorra

"Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; 
 argument an exchange of ignorance."  
  - Robert Quillen

*********************************
Lori Jones
Oklahoma School of Science & Mathematics, Library
LJONES at ossm.edu