Talk:Kegg's strike with sufficient force list

Spike - What do these numbers even stand for?

I don't think they stand for anything, they're just there to contribute a sense of scale. Chicken 15:10, 8 June 2006 (EDT)

This scale is retarded. Its not even internally consistent. At the bottom it says 50 is "sufficient force" but on the scale a 55 will only be taken by half of Belegarth in melee. I think this scale does more harm than good.

Spike - Not only that, but you'd have to go out and preform sufficient force surveys on everyone...*Whack!* Would you take that hit? I see. And THIS? *WHACK HARDER!*

Blackwolfe This scale is dangerous. No one needs hit- '80 - As hard as a 5'4" 100 lb. athletically fit person is capable of swinging.'

At 5'4 and 110lbs I put a fist through a car window.

A sharp sword, axe or polearm will hack through flesh just fine with far less force, look up Cold Steel's videos on hacking meat with a blade. Or better yet, go try it yourself. I have a butcher's knife that cuts through pig ribs with less effort than the average Belegarth swing, point being 'sufficient force' is not that much.

Galya - Blackwolfe, if you'll notice, the last time anyone said anything regarding this page was about 3.5 years ago. Most people agree with you, and as already stated, this is ONE person's opinion, not necessarily the law events are ruled by. The best policy to fight by is "hit hard, take light". If you feel it, take it. Don't worry about this scale; I assure you probably 75% of the sport doesn't even know it exists, and even less think of hit-taking this way.

Also, after reading it again, at the bottom it says an acceptable hit is about 50 on the scale, not 80. So why are you even worrying about that?

Blackwolfe Galya, since you agree with Me why does it seem you're calling Me out on something? (and I'm not sure what).

Galya - It wasn't my intention to "call you out". In your original comment, it sounded like you were under the impression that this hit scale is common thinking among Belegrim. I was simply pointing out that this is a very old article, and it is not widely used. Thus, there is no need to be concerned and point out that '80' on this scale is dangerous. I guess I just didn't understand why you were commenting in the first place. My mistake.