Actually there is a massive crossover between hema sca and larp in Melbourne anyway. A lot of guys do all three.
Can someone explain SCA? I looked it up, but fail to see how it differs from LARPing.
I guess it depends on where you're at. I just got back from teaching at Combat Con in Vegas. They had a fairly well attended series of HEMA tournaments. My friend Nathan took first in both Singlestick and Rapier and could have taken first in Sidesword & Buckler because that's his specialty but he dropped out of that event, telling me that he didn't want to be "that guy." The scores weren't even close. Nathan is an SCAdian. I know a number of WMA/HEMA people who were or are still current SCA members.As far as I know there is zero crossover between them in my neck of the woods. We take great pains to distance ourselves from SCA, Larp and sport fencing. They are welcome to come train with us, but not to bring the baggage with them. To be honest, in my area, SCAdians and Larpers are unwilling to put in the required conditioning to progress well in HEMA. Not one has stuck it out for even a couple of months in our club during the past 9 years of its existence.
Many of them have now discarded that concept. They still do "Heavy Combat," but they understand and accept the fact that it's non-representative.One of the initial goals of the SCA was to create medieval combat, with the theory being if one uses period gear and fights a lot, you'll eventually come up with the same solutions that medieval fighters used.
While "Heavy Combat" and group combat are still used to determine hierarchy within the SCA (from what I can tell), apparently there is an ever increasing push for avenues allowing for more authentic and realistic study and recreation. Original texts are translated and studied with as much fervor as in any HEMA club. One element that I've noted is a slightly greater focus on "what works" in fighting over a strict adherence to what appears to be written in the manual. What I mean by that is not that they just look at something and go, "well that can't work" and throw it away. Instead, "experimental archeology" methods are used, including using period accurate clothing (and often terrain; how many HEMA clubs do that?) are used to "pressure test" techniques. If it works under pressure then it is included. If not, then it is not used, meanwhile research (again, often "experimental archeology") is conducted into why a given technique didn't "work." Was it not done right? Was the technique or images misunderstood or misinterpreted? Was the technique simply a low percentage technique that was included because the master liked it or it was flashy enough to gain students?While likely true to some degree, they don't use historical gear (rattan is not steel), and the rules are abstract to the point of being useless for that kind of experimental archaeology. For example, strikes below the knee are prohibited, as is grappling. This makes the sword & shield combination unduly potent, as one of its main weaknesses is striking below the shield to the knee and ankle. People are largely unwilling to make combat more realistic for both safety reasons and the fact that those who do well in the sport don't want the rules changed, thereby ruining their current advantage and placement in the hierarchy.