Human v. Human Sport : Stick Fighting (single stick)

[The Prosecution calls the noted scholar Markus Greeley.]

Prosecution: What is the object of the sport?

Greeley: To break head.¹

Prosecution: Could you enlighten us on what that entails?

Greeley: Sorry, I mean to make the other person bleed, to draw blood.²

Prosecution: How much blood?

Greeley: At least one-inch worth. … Though another way to win can be gained by knocking out the other person’s teeth.¹

Prosecution: Is this a brutal way to determine a victor?

Greeley: Yes, it.

Prosecution: How is the game played?

Greeley: Two men stand against each other with one stick each. The two attack and defend till the blood has been taken.

[The Defense Cross-Examines Greeley]

Defense: Have you ever lost an inch of blood?

Greeley: Yes.

Defense: Was the loss of blood a permanent damage to you?

Greeley: No.

[The Defense calls Edmund Browning to the stand.]

Defense: Is single-stick a game of skill?

Browning: Yes, it is.

Defense: In what ways?

Browning: It is no different than fencing, it only utilizes another type of instrument. Two men compete and the better wins.

Defense: Is this sport safer than similar ones?

Browning: Unlike in a sword fight, you usually do not cut up the opponent.

[The Prosecution Cross-examines Browning.]

Prosecution: Is it possible that their could be a point system to determine a winner instead of a blood meter?

Browning: I guess so.

Prosecution: So, then why don't you determine a winner based on a system of points?

Browning: It would not be manly.

Prosecution: Then, blood, pain, and misery is manly?

Defense: Objection your honor, he is twisting his words.

Judge: Overruled.

Browning: Yes.

COMMENTARY: Similar to the arguments on cock-throwing, both sides suffer from a scarcity of information on the sport.