| Author |
Message |
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
 Posted: Fri 05 Dec, 2008 6:22 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I'm not really following this discussion other than to watch the bickering and make sure you guys stay in line. Frankly, I'm giving a lot of leeway here and I'd appreciate you all rein it in without sarcasm or snide remarks. It's getting old.
Having said that, I want to comment on one thing, even though it's off-topic here, since I'm an avid MMA fan:
| Chris Fields wrote: | | By the way, you arguements are also null because Cung Le won each of his MMA fights almost soley with his Kung Fu kicks, and no grappling at all. |
Cung Le won all but one of his MMA fights against cans. Fryklund was a good opponent, considering where Le was in his short MMA career, but he's nothing more than a low-level gateway fighter nonetheless. Le's fight with Shamrock (which I saw live, by the way...), was the only fight against a top-20 opponent. This is especially telling in that Le fights in one of the weaker weight divisions and in an organization without a deep pool of talent. Shamrock decided to stand with Cung Le and play Le's own game, rather than using what is arguably his own best skills: the ground game. Shamrock chose a gameplan that was more geared at showmanship than warfare or competition. He, in fact, chose gamesmanship over both those.
Le's MMA career is not well developed (by his own admittance, so this is not to be debated), and so any discussion of how his skill set translates into MMA competition is by and large moot given the competition he's faced.
As has already been mentioned within this topic, a fighter with a background only in a single martial art (kung fu, karate, wrestling, boxing, etc.), typically does not do well at all in today's MMA. The only exception to this rule are those who are at the absolute upper level of their discipline. Josh Koscheck is a very good example of this in that he entered MMA with a pure wrestling background and essentially nothing else other than pure athleticism. However, his wrestling pedigree is exceptional and so was able to win matches due purely to control ("lay and pray") rather than damage. This did not make for a good fight (or combat, for that matter), but it did result in a win. Likewise, it would not likely translate into other, non-sport, combat either.
A better example of how martial arts such as karate (Shotokan Karate, in this case) can translate well into MMA is Lyoto Machida. But even he has extreme amounts of cross-training in other disciplines and, still, his fights are widely criticized as being more about "scoring points" and less about combat.
.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
|
|
    |
 |
Gavin Kisebach
|
| Posted: Fri 05 Dec, 2008 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Am I the only person who feels that the term "Martial Arts" has been stretched almost beyond meaning? I take martial to mean "relating to war" but the term is used now to include brawling and even more commonly man-to-man non-lethal fighting.
Jousting is one on one, but it has a direct link to it's wartime application, the heavy cavalry charge. Tactical shooting can be for fun and competition, but is a very short hop from actual activites routinely encountered in war. SCA mass combat is certainly closer to a war than two guys kicking each other in the face. Harneschfechten has an obvious martial application. Yabusame, Kendo and Buzkashi are all martial persuits, but to me fisticuffs is not.
The "MMA" videos that I just watched have nothing to do with martial persuits as I understand them; they are "fighting arts" I bring this up because in the numerous threads that I've read where the sport combat / combat training are debated, a kind of imbedded parallel discussion of fighting arts inevitably springs up.
To clarify, I would personally define a "Martial Art" as one that:
1. Involves the tools and equipment used to wage war or a safe approximation thereof (wooden or rebated swords, armor, rifles, horses, bows, etc)
2. Involves skills, tactics or techniques that apply to war and or soldiery ( tilting at rings, marksmanship, swordplay, troop movements, horsemanship)
3. Can be used in a lethal confrontation between groups. Using all of your enery and focus to choke out one person has less martial application than, say, learning how to throw a pilum, or shoot a bow from horseback.
This is not to say that grappling never comes up in war, or that punches and kicks weren't ever used in a battle. I am only noting that the term Martial Arts conjures up in most people's minds the end of the spectrum that is furthest away from the battlefield, and I think that causes undue confusion.
There are only two kinds of scholars; those who love ideas and those who hate them. ~ Emile Chartier
|
|
 |
|
|
Max Chouinard
Location: Quebec, Qc Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 108
|
| Posted: Fri 05 Dec, 2008 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I know plenty of folks who have boxed, and who have used it successfully on the street. A lot of folks who train at Renzo Gracie's BJJ Academy in NYC also happen to box. A lot of them also either work as bouncers, or live in really rough areas, or both. |
Ok, I'll repeat one last time. Boxing can be effective for the street. There, I said it again. But then there is the other thing you say:
| Quote: | | We already covered this, Max. You don't see ANY exponents of a single art succeeding in MMA today. Cross-training is essential in the modern game. |
So it would be usefull for a boxer to learn lets say BJJ, even if he's really good, only in case he has to wrestle and can't use his boxing skills? If not then I'm really not following you.
Do you only disagree because agreeing would mean that the evolution of the sport of boxing actually discarded every wrestling techniques from it (like it did in karate actually, figure out they thought that if Judo was already covering all of that, then they didn't needed any wrestling in karate!) and rendered the reverse engineering that is MMA today necessary?
| Quote: | | It wouldn't hurt. Both modern and classical fencing have a great deal to offer. Boxers sometimes train in modern fencing, to sharpen up their sense of timing and distance. My own modern fencing background only helped my training in Filipino stick-and-knife, and I already listed other martial artists who have had similar experiences (like Ray Floro). |
You know what? I'm completely agreeing with you on this. But answer this one simple question that you divert every time: Would fencing alone, not anything else just that, prepare a fencer against another one who is trained in wrestling if they started to wrestle? Again if you say yes you contradict what you said before, if you say no, then we are agreeing and there is no need to pursue this argument.
| Quote: | Show me your sources, then.
Funny how Silver doesn't mention this "great stick", among the Elizabethan English arsenal. He does mention how the use of the two-handed sword was based upon the play of the "short staff", but Silver's "short staff" is not the same as the "great stick". |
No problem. You'll have to explain to me the difference between a staff and a great stick though, I am unaware of the typology in english (and unsure of the relevance in the present debate, I could have said they used a swiffer it wouldn't have changed my point, although its credibility I would guess...). The first source concern the provost though, I was mistaken as mastery doesn't involve the staff and seems to include it in plays too (to what degree I don't know). : "Following the completion of his apprenticeship the student could petition his master for a provost's prize through a demonstration of mastery of the two-handed sword, the back-sword and the staff." Directly from The schools of defence in elizabethan London, by Jay P. Anglin in renaissance Quarterly 1984. It's source is from 1568.
The other one is much more what I had in mind (in french originally): "The experience required (experience being the test to attain master status) a combat with the espadon (two-handed sword) and a demonstration of skill with the two-ended stick and the halberd. " The source is Croiser le fer, violence et culture de l'épée dans la France moderne by Pierre Serna 2002. The date of his source for this matter is unclear but I get from the context of the passage that it is from the beginning of the 17th century.
| Quote: | There's nothing for me to "concede", Max. If you had a worthwhile argument, I would gladly modify my stance, but you frankly haven't presenting anything of note in this case.
As for the "sport" definition "which is normally accepted", don't impose your own preconceived notions of what that "definition" should be, on the rest of us. |
Well I said what I had to say. I'm sorry but youre the one who's imposing your view of sport from the beginning when you argued that ARMA was doing sport and refusing the view from one of their member. Don't point the finger to me. I'll just refer to your previous post as I didn't had time to respond to it completely.
| Quote: | | It's something that boxers have always been aware of. I have previously shown that gloved boxers have been aware of these things, from the turn of the 20th century onwards. |
Oh I'm including any so called combat sport that teaches a credible amount of techniques not aimed for the ring to be martial arts. Don't get me wrong, if their aim is to produce people that can fight in the real world, martial art it is then, if their aim (and that's the important point here) is to produce ring champions, then it's a combat sport.
| Quote: | | You simply cannot separate the two, Max |
Of course you can, it's called a concept and actually quite logical. 
| Quote: | | And yet, modern fencing still contains plenty of techniques applicable outside of the "competitive encounter". |
Again, and again, and again, I'll repeat: I agree. But they only teach techniques to be used in competition. Now before you accuse me of generalising please read this one : If they don't, then they are aiming at a martial art, obviously, as their aim is not competitive sport anymore.
| Quote: | | LOL--sounds like something that was written by some bitter traditionalist. |
Maybe, but it still makes sense.
Oh and I agree with you about the whole point that many people in the MA world are not in shape, which is, form my point of view, one reason why most didn't got through MMA.
Maxime Chouinard
Antrim Bata
Quebec City Kenjutsu
I don't do longsword
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anders Nilsson
|
| Posted: Sat 06 Dec, 2008 1:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hello all
A very interesting diskussion.
I have followed it for some time and here are some thoughts.
As to historical training, wrestling, weapons etc.
The old norse/Icelandic laws are interesting and give quite a few hints on this.
It´s evident that they train for war by using different games. For example snowball fights. Both kids and adults played and the goal was to storm a snowfort and "Mula" kill your oponent. The word "Mula" is still used today in Sweden. It´s when you press your oponents face in the snow, when you do it he´s out of the game. I have clues that says that snowball fights was used by the Karl XII to train his soldiers to storm walls.
Now back to the Norse.
There are hundreds of games found. All designed to train different things, stamina, pain threashold, strenght etc etc. An interesting thing is the status the games had. You could be an outlaw, but did you "Sala grid" shake hands. You where allowed to participate in games, and during the game, you where not considered an outlaw.
Wrestling
Wrestling was widely used as training by the norse, and they had several types of wrestling.
Closedgrip wrestling
Waistgrip - Both fighters held around the oponents waist. (It´s used in Grecco-roman aswell) The goal was to throw the oponent to the ground.
Glima/trouser grip - Both fighters held each others pants and tried to throw each other to the ground.
The interesting with these wrestling is that it´s an upright wrestling that ends when one oponent is thrown to the ground. That´s belived to be the combat benefit. When fighting in a closed battle, you don´t want to end up on the ground, because you would probably be hacked by spears, swords etc.
Free wrestling
As far as I can see this was the norse MMA. This wrestling ended with submission. In the sagas you can read that the fighters whare bruised and bloodied after a fight, so it was pretty rough.
The combat benefit of this is evident.
There is an interesting variation of free wrestling. It´s a game when the fighters start at the ground and the goal is to get to your feet while the oponent is still down.
This could simulate a battlfield situation when both men scramble to their feet to get their wepons.
Wrestling in water
This was essentialy freewrestling in water, the goal was to submit you oponent. This could be used by drowning him. The game was played in deep water so you had to swim all the time.
For a people that depended on boats and fought on boats, the combat benefit is evident.
Well, if you want to read moore, there is a book by Lars Magnar Enoksen on the subjekt.
Well, what can we learn from this today?
The norse called their training games. That indicates that they where supposed to be fun, and not the real thing.
The games was designed to train different things. Wrestling, athletisim, scrambling, jumping, strenght, stamina, painresistance etc etc. Just one game didn´t make you a warrior, all games put toghether made you a warrior.
That´s something that we should think about. We can train variuos thing that put toghether makes us complete fighters. There is no way we can train one single thing to make us complete fighters. I train longsword, I can never train it for real, that would end in casualties. I can train it in parts, in what the norse would call games. I can train with the pell, I can train drills, I can sparr with safe weapons. I should also train strenght, stamina, wrestling etc.
All things that put togheter would give me the skills needed to be able to fight for real with a longsword.
It´s like the military do today, they can´t train for real, casualties would be horrendous. Instead they train parts, that put toghether gives the skills nedeed in a live situation.
The same goes for martial arts today. Competitions is only competitions, the norse would have called them games.
Many martial arts today has started to train only for competitions, that doesn´t make them bad, but it leaves holes in the game that could be exploited in a real fight. Many martial arts still train for the real thing (Krav maga, Systema etc), but it cant be used in competitions, because it would end with casualties.
Well, thats some thoughts.
Cheers
Anders "Nelle" Nilsson, Instructor Angermanna Mnhfs
To train martial arts without fighting is like slalom without snow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taylor Ellis
|
| Posted: Sat 06 Dec, 2008 2:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
One thing that makes me laugh is traditionalists argueing that taking away street fighting moves like biting or eye gouging from MMA comps explains their chosen arts lack of success. If you put those moves into MMA, whose going to be in the better position to use them, the (kung fu/karate/tae kwon do etc) stylist or a wrestler? Obviously the wrestler.
Another straw man in the multiple opponent scenario. So 2 or 3 karate guys can kick the hell out of a wrestler who goes for a takedown. Fair enough (though wrestling is not just ground fighting). How about 1 karateka against 2 or 3 wrestlers? One the first wrestler pins him, the others have free reign to do whatever they want. Therefore, wrestling is especially important in a multiple attacker scenario.
The fact is wrestling is the foundation of all effective fighting systems. That doesn't mean a wrestler should always go for a ground based submission, it simply means they can effectively put themselves into a position most advantageous to their context (be it keeping distance from another grappler, putting someone on the ground, or wearing a superior striker down with an effective clinch and dirty boxing strikes). If your art doesn't include honest, pressure tested wrestling, its leaving a massive, gap in your skillset, simple as that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taylor Ellis
|
| Posted: Sat 06 Dec, 2008 3:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Greg Coffman wrote: | | David Black Mastro wrote: | | And take a look at the folks who dismiss combat sports out of hand--they are folks who don't typically work with resisting opponents. Many of them are pretty clueless to begin with. They deal purely in theory. |
This is not true of ARMA. We are highly committed in keeping our art from devolving into a combat sport, but we also put a very high value on working with resisting opponents. |
From Wikipedia;
A combat sport (also known as a combative sport) is a competitive contact sport where two combatants fight against each other using certain rules of engagement, typically with the aim of simulating parts of real hand to hand combat.
In what respect does ARMA's free sparring differ from this?
The whole point of a combat sport is to improve the parts of a martial art that can be safely used. Its whole purpose is to increase the chances of a martial artist surviving a real situation. And as long as it retains a working knowledge of the parts that can't be safely used, it does exactly that.
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sat 06 Dec, 2008 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Taylor Ellis wrote: | From Wikipedia;
A combat sport (also known as a combative sport) is a competitive contact sport where two combatants fight against each other using certain rules of engagement, typically with the aim of simulating parts of real hand to hand combat.
In what respect does ARMA's free sparring differ from this?
The whole point of a combat sport is to improve the parts of a martial art that can be safely used. Its whole purpose is to increase the chances of a martial artist surviving a real situation. And as long as it retains a working knowledge of the parts that can't be safely used, it does exactly that. |
I'm sure the HEMA folks will say they don't have an evolved set of rules like other sport organizations, therefore it isn't a sport. But they do have at least one rule in what they do: Don't kill the other guy. Probably take pains not to hurt him, either. Therefore, in my mind it's not true combat as originally devised because the life-or-death factor has been removed.
That's not to denigrate what they do (or what the SCA does for that matter). I say just call it what it is.
Many of us want accurate weapons capable of doing what historical weapons did. Some of us want to learn how to use them as our ancestors did. But almost every one of us (God willing) will never use the weapon in the situation it was most designed for: killing or hurting someone else.
So while you may be learning a system designed for real combat, the application of that system will never be fully real for most people (unless they get themselves in a bad situation).
That's no put-down to anyone, so please keep the flames to yourselves.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Fields
|
| Posted: Sat 06 Dec, 2008 6:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dave - Again, we'll have to agree to disagree, and I think we only disagree on one main point.
-"As I have stated already, san shou also clearly incorporates non-Chinese fighting methods, so calling it "kung fu" is problematic at best."-
You don't believe that the extremely broad universe of Kung Fu includes many techniques similar to wrestling techniques, as well as hand techniques similar to boxing. I don't know how you can say that unless you know many styles of Kung Fu, but you can believe that, no big deal. I do believe Kung fu has those elements included, as my own style, though obviously not a perfect "end all" style with everything included (nothing is), but it does have moves and techniques incorporated such as those, that are chinese techniques. I have backed up this with links to the definition of San Shou and videos of Kung Fu winning NHB tournaments.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking wrestling, or any forms of it, they are all great to learn and know, I took high school wresting as well, and my kung fu helped me alot because many techniques were similar, so I knew them before we even started wrestling practice. Now obviously i didn't know all the wrestling techniques, but I knew many. And I strongly erge all my students to take wresting and ground fighting classes such as BJJ if they want to be well rounded. Again, I always say learn as much as you can.
Nathan - I am a huge MMA fan as well, I think any martial arts student who wants to learn as much as they can about self defense and such should be an MMA fan.
-"Le's MMA career is not well developed (by his own admittance, so this is not to be debated), and so any discussion of how his skill set translates into MMA competition is by and large moot given the competition he's faced. "-
My point with Le is that he is winning his fights with a majority of Kung Fu kicks and such that many dismiss as ineffective. Yes, Shamrock decided to go toe to toe with Le, a huge mistake on his part as he may never be able to fight the same again after having his arm shattered in two by Le's powerful round kicks. So here is a clear example of kung fu winning several NHB events, Le has also won in other NHB matches other than UFC, and you can't just dismiss that anymore. If someone wins using traditional techniques, then they obviously work.
I think we are starting to veer of the main topic though when diving into our "styles" debate. My main point from the beginning, concerning the main topic, is... yes, combat sports aid in real combat training, they are the best method for training for real combat... however... combat sports will always have a rule set, and the real world will not, so there is a difference, no sport can ever fully train you for reality, but just come really close.
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Tsafa
Location: Brooklyn, NY Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 599
|
| Posted: Sat 06 Dec, 2008 9:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chris Fields wrote: |
My main point from the beginning, concerning the main topic, is... yes, combat sports aid in real combat training, they are the best method for training for real combat... however... combat sports will always have a rule set, and the real world will not, so there is a difference, no sport can ever fully train you for reality, but just come really close. |
I think that this is a very fair and accurate statement.
No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
|
|
 |
|
|
Max Chouinard
Location: Quebec, Qc Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 108
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taylor Ellis
|
| Posted: Sat 06 Dec, 2008 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Max Chouinard wrote: | And I should probably be adding it to my signature by now but it doesn't make them ineffective as martial arts  . But like you said it creates exploitable gaps. |
I'd go further than that and say a martial artist who can't wrestle is like a boxer without footwork. He may win some fights against outmatched opposition through sheer power or athleticism, but as soon as he fights someone who has good footwork, he's toast.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taylor Ellis
|
| Posted: Sat 06 Dec, 2008 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey Chad,
| Chad Arnow wrote: |
I'm sure the HEMA folks will say they don't have an evolved set of rules like other sport organizations, therefore it isn't a sport. |
Of course HEMA practitioners have rules when free sparring, otherwise there would be deaths (which the arts were designed to achieve). I can appreciate that the techniques modified or not pressure tested for safety purposes are not discarded, but free sparring is the very definition of a combat sport. And personally, I'm very glad combat sports, often fatal ones, were a big part of historical fencing. It'd be a big shame if they were as stale and theoretical as the CQB junk I learned in the army.
|
|
|
|
|
Cory Winslow
|
| Posted: Sat 06 Dec, 2008 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here is an article entitled "Blossfechten and the Fechtschulen: German Judicial and Sport Dueling from the Dark Ages to the Renaissance" by Michael W. Rasmusson of AEMMA. It contains a lot of good information on the subject at hand, at least as it pertains to the German school of fencing. Very interesting stuff.
http://ejmas.com/jwma/articles/2003/jwmaart_rasmusson_0603.htm
Visit our school at:
www.memag.net
|
|
|
|
|
David Black Mastro
|
| Posted: Mon 08 Dec, 2008 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nathan Robinson wrote: | I want to comment on one thing, even though it's off-topic here, since I'm an avid MMA fan:
| Chris Fields wrote: | | By the way, you arguements are also null because Cung Le won each of his MMA fights almost soley with his Kung Fu kicks, and no grappling at all. |
Cung Le won all but one of his MMA fights against cans. Fryklund was a good opponent, considering where Le was in his short MMA career, but he's nothing more than a low-level gateway fighter nonetheless. Le's fight with Shamrock (which I saw live, by the way...), was the only fight against a top-20 opponent. This is especially telling in that Le fights in one of the weaker weight divisions and in an organization without a deep pool of talent. Shamrock decided to stand with Cung Le and play Le's own game, rather than using what is arguably his own best skills: the ground game. Shamrock chose a gameplan that was more geared at showmanship than warfare or competition. He, in fact, chose gamesmanship over both those.
Le's MMA career is not well developed (by his own admittance, so this is not to be debated), and so any discussion of how his skill set translates into MMA competition is by and large moot given the competition he's faced. |
Excellent observations, Nathan.
| Quote: | | As has already been mentioned within this topic, a fighter with a background only in a single martial art (kung fu, karate, wrestling, boxing, etc.), typically does not do well at all in today's MMA. The only exception to this rule are those who are at the absolute upper level of their discipline. Josh Koscheck is a very good example of this in that he entered MMA with a pure wrestling background and essentially nothing else other than pure athleticism. However, his wrestling pedigree is exceptional and so was able to win matches due purely to control ("lay and pray") rather than damage. This did not make for a good fight (or combat, for that matter), but it did result in a win. Likewise, it would not likely translate into other, non-sport, combat either. |
And look also at what happened to Koscheck when he ran into someone with a similar level of athleticism, but with a much bigger fighting toolbox--eg., his fight with St. Pierre.
| Quote: | | A better example of how martial arts such as karate (Shotokan Karate, in this case) can translate well into MMA is Lyoto Machida. But even he has extreme amounts of cross-training in other disciplines and, still, his fights are widely criticized as being more about "scoring points" and less about combat. |
Machida's standup is interesting, but he still depends considerably on his BJJ--eg., look at his fight against Sokoju.
"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
|
|
|
|
|
David Black Mastro
|
| Posted: Mon 08 Dec, 2008 8:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Max Chouinard wrote: | | Quote: | | I know plenty of folks who have boxed, and who have used it successfully on the street. A lot of folks who train at Renzo Gracie's BJJ Academy in NYC also happen to box. A lot of them also either work as bouncers, or live in really rough areas, or both. |
Ok, I'll repeat one last time. Boxing can be effective for the street. There, I said it again. |
Alright!
| Quote: | But then there is the other thing you say:
| Quote: | | We already covered this, Max. You don't see ANY exponents of a single art succeeding in MMA today. Cross-training is essential in the modern game. |
So it would be usefull for a boxer to learn lets say BJJ, even if he's really good, only in case he has to wrestle and can't use his boxing skills? |
Definitely. Boxing and BJJ make a good combo, as numerous practitioners of both arts at Renzo's academy (and other MMA schools) can attest.
| Quote: | | If not then I'm really not following you. |
No, we actually appear to be on the same page there.
| Quote: | | Do you only disagree because agreeing would mean that the evolution of the sport of boxing actually discarded every wrestling techniques from it (like it did in karate actually, figure out they thought that if Judo was already covering all of that, then they didn't needed any wrestling in karate!) and rendered the reverse engineering that is MMA today necessary? |
With regards to the evolution of boxing, it's simply a matter that, once wrestling was out of the mix, the competitors were obviously forced to concentrate purely on their fists. Thus, boxing simply evolved as a more specialized discipline, emphasizing a very specific skillset.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | It wouldn't hurt. Both modern and classical fencing have a great deal to offer. Boxers sometimes train in modern fencing, to sharpen up their sense of timing and distance. My own modern fencing background only helped my training in Filipino stick-and-knife, and I already listed other martial artists who have had similar experiences (like Ray Floro). |
You know what? I'm completely agreeing with you on this. But answer this one simple question that you divert every time: Would fencing alone, not anything else just that, prepare a fencer against another one who is trained in wrestling if they started to wrestle? Again if you say yes you contradict what you said before, if you say no, then we are agreeing and there is no need to pursue this argument. |
Assuming both contestants had a similar level of fencing skill, the pure fencer would most definitely be at a disadvantage against the fencer/wrestler.
| Quote: | | Quote: | Show me your sources, then.
Funny how Silver doesn't mention this "great stick", among the Elizabethan English arsenal. He does mention how the use of the two-handed sword was based upon the play of the "short staff", but Silver's "short staff" is not the same as the "great stick". |
No problem. You'll have to explain to me the difference between a staff and a great stick though, I am unaware of the typology in english (and unsure of the relevance in the present debate, I could have said they used a swiffer it wouldn't have changed my point, although its credibility I would guess...). The first source concern the provost though, I was mistaken as mastery doesn't involve the staff and seems to include it in plays too (to what degree I don't know). : "Following the completion of his apprenticeship the student could petition his master for a provost's prize through a demonstration of mastery of the two-handed sword, the back-sword and the staff." Directly from The schools of defence in elizabethan London, by Jay P. Anglin in renaissance Quarterly 1984. It's source is from 1568. |
In that case, it sounds as if the reference is to Silver's "short staff" (quarterstaff, 8-9 feet long), as opposed to the "great stick" (around 5 feet long).
| Quote: | | The other one is much more what I had in mind (in french originally): "The experience required (experience being the test to attain master status) a combat with the espadon (two-handed sword) and a demonstration of skill with the two-ended stick and the halberd. " The source is Croiser le fer, violence et culture de l'épée dans la France moderne by Pierre Serna 2002. The date of his source for this matter is unclear but I get from the context of the passage that it is from the beginning of the 17th century. |
"Two-handed stick" sounds like it could be any sort of staff.
I don't mean to be nitpicky, but I have always understood the term "great stick" to apply specifically to the 5-foot weapon used in Victorian-era French and Italian armies. The staff used by the London Masters of the 16th century was much longer. Both the Elizabethan quarterstaff/"short staff" and the later "great stick" have something in common with two-handed swordplay, but they are different weapons nonetheless.
Thanks for the references, Max.
| Quote: | | Quote: | There's nothing for me to "concede", Max. If you had a worthwhile argument, I would gladly modify my stance, but you frankly haven't presenting anything of note in this case.
As for the "sport" definition "which is normally accepted", don't impose your own preconceived notions of what that "definition" should be, on the rest of us. |
Well I said what I had to say. I'm sorry but youre the one who's imposing your view of sport from the beginning when you argued that ARMA was doing sport and refusing the view from one of their member. Don't point the finger to me. I'll just refer to your previous post as I didn't had time to respond to it completely. |
What ARMA does certainly fits the definition of "sport".
I don't know of any modern WMA/HEMA practitioners who are training to use their sword skills in earnest. As much as I am enamored with the skills of Cordoba's rodeleros, it's some 500 years too late to actually train with those folks.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | It's something that boxers have always been aware of. I have previously shown that gloved boxers have been aware of these things, from the turn of the 20th century onwards. |
Oh I'm including any so called combat sport that teaches a credible amount of techniques not aimed for the ring to be martial arts. Don't get me wrong, if their aim is to produce people that can fight in the real world, martial art it is then, if their aim (and that's the important point here) is to produce ring champions, then it's a combat sport. |
Hence the overlap.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | You simply cannot separate the two, Max |
Of course you can, it's called a concept and actually quite logical. |
"Conceptually" they can be separated, but in reality, they are inextricably linked.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | And yet, modern fencing still contains plenty of techniques applicable outside of the "competitive encounter". |
Again, and again, and again, I'll repeat: I agree. But they only teach techniques to be used in competition. Now before you accuse me of generalising please read this one : If they don't, then they are aiming at a martial art, obviously, as their aim is not competitive sport anymore. |
But so many of the techniques used in competition are still fundamental swordfighting moves, applicable off the piste.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | LOL--sounds like something that was written by some bitter traditionalist. |
Maybe, but it still makes sense. |
(Shrugs shoulders) I personally don't think so.
| Quote: | | Oh and I agree with you about the whole point that many people in the MA world are not in shape, which is, form my point of view, one reason why most didn't got through MMA. |
And that betrays a distinct lack not only of athleticism, but also of "martial-ness", on their part--wouldn't you agree?
Peace,
David
"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
|
|
|
|
|
David Black Mastro
|
| Posted: Mon 08 Dec, 2008 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Taylor Ellis wrote: | | Greg Coffman wrote: | | David Black Mastro wrote: | | And take a look at the folks who dismiss combat sports out of hand--they are folks who don't typically work with resisting opponents. Many of them are pretty clueless to begin with. They deal purely in theory. |
This is not true of ARMA. We are highly committed in keeping our art from devolving into a combat sport, but we also put a very high value on working with resisting opponents. |
From Wikipedia;
A combat sport (also known as a combative sport) is a competitive contact sport where two combatants fight against each other using certain rules of engagement, typically with the aim of simulating parts of real hand to hand combat.
In what respect does ARMA's free sparring differ from this?
The whole point of a combat sport is to improve the parts of a martial art that can be safely used. Its whole purpose is to increase the chances of a martial artist surviving a real situation. And as long as it retains a working knowledge of the parts that can't be safely used, it does exactly that. |
Well said!
"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
|
|
|
|
|
David Black Mastro
|
| Posted: Mon 08 Dec, 2008 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chris Fields wrote: | Dave - Again, we'll have to agree to disagree, and I think we only disagree on one main point.
-"As I have stated already, san shou also clearly incorporates non-Chinese fighting methods, so calling it "kung fu" is problematic at best."-
You don't believe that the extremely broad universe of Kung Fu includes many techniques similar to wrestling techniques, as well as hand techniques similar to boxing. I don't know how you can say that unless you know many styles of Kung Fu, but you can believe that, no big deal. |
Show me kung-fu guys with grappling skills like wrestlers or judoka.
You typically don't even find this in the native Chinese wrestling (shuai jiao)--Western wrestling and judo are simply competed at a higher level.
So, if you don't see that level of grappling in Chinese wrestling, what makes you think you're going to see it in other forms of kung-fu?
| Quote: | | I do believe Kung fu has those elements included, as my own style, though obviously not a perfect "end all" style with everything included (nothing is), but it does have moves and techniques incorporated such as those, that are chinese techniques. I have backed up this with links to the definition of San Shou and videos of Kung Fu winning NHB tournaments. |
San shou winning some MMA tournaments (and Nathan made a great point about the majority of Le's opponents being "cans"). San shou is not pure "kung-fu"--not by a long shot. Notice how Le's Greco-Roman background comes up in virtually every interview/article on him? The Western wrestling that he has done (that you have repeatedly dismissed) has clearly added to his arsenal.
"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
|
|
|
|
|
|
Max Chouinard
Location: Quebec, Qc Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 108
|
| Posted: Mon 08 Dec, 2008 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | "Two-handed stick" sounds like it could be any sort of staff. |
No, "two-ended", or bâton à deux bouts meaning having two ends. Could be anything frankly but it's still a long stick. The great stick was and is still practised as french bâton (now mostly with savate) we have traces of it before the 19th century mostly among civilians. Same thing goes for the Italians with the bastone siciliano, the Portuguese with Jogo do Pau or the Irish with the shillelagh bata.
| Quote: | | With regards to the evolution of boxing, it's simply a matter that, once wrestling was out of the mix, the competitors were obviously forced to concentrate purely on their fists. Thus, boxing simply evolved as a more specialized discipline, emphasizing a very specific skillset. |
So did karate, judo or any other martial arts in which competition dictated what the training should encompass. Boxing and karate both did the same thing, they threw out their grappling systems to specialise. And now they are both incomplete to face a MMA fight by their own and have some techniques that are difficult to do outside of a ring (an horizontal fist is dangerous without gloves, ask Mike Tyson, and you cannot block the same way nor have the same footwork on an irregular terrain).
| Quote: | What ARMA does certainly fits the definition of "sport".
I don't know of any modern WMA/HEMA practitioners who are training to use their sword skills in earnest. As much as I am enamored with the skills of Cordoba's rodeleros, it's some 500 years too late to actually train with those folks. |
Then were disagreeing in a very theoretical way. From my point of view someone can (and should) train in earnest even if there is possibly no real world application as of now. It's a mental concept. And you see you just used it to categorize HEMA . It's not that hard.
| Quote: | | "Conceptually" they can be separated, but in reality, they are inextricably linked. |
There are many things that are separated only by concepts in this world. An atheist and a catholic believer (don't want to mix religion here, just an example) can both go to church, one for the cultural the other for the spiritual. From an external point of view they are both doing the same thing, but there is still an important distinction. Of course you can say that they are both going to church, hence they are both believers, but that would be false, cause they don't go to church for the same reason. Or you can take a koryu and a gendai art, one was created before 1867 as to train warriors, the other was created later for other reasons. They can both be the same, have the same kind of training, but they are separated by a concept, one that is accepted in most JMA circles.
There is a theoretical need to separate martial arts and combat sports. Were humans, we conceptualise, we separate, give categories and names, it's easier for us to understand things this way. And that's normal. Combat sports mostly refer to a concept that appeared by the end of the 19th century in Europe (although it can be argued that in some cases it appeared much before, but surely not at the same rate). This concept is useful because it gives us a reason that can explain why the culture of martial arts changed so much. Violence was frowned upon and sportive encounters were thriving, people wanted to inculcate values through sports and it seemed only logical to extend it to martial arts. This revolution had good and bad things, it gave a second life to some outdated or endangered methods of fighting, but we also lost many techniques this way that had came from a direct lineage of martial artists. Same thing happened in Japan for example, kendo and judo totally supplanted the koryu schools and many closed. Would they have had disappeared completely if such sports didn't developed? Maybe, maybe not, it's hard to say. Now there is a regain of interest, both in the west and east, to return to more martial practises. I think it has a lot to do with the UFC, people saw that highly specialised sports had gaps, they could try to win by avoiding to fall in, but most of the time it didn't worked. And then we realised that older martial arts, most extinct by now, already had many answers to those problems. And so now it's back to the drawing board, doing reverse engineering by playing frankenstein with diverse combat sports or martial arts that can fill these gaps. It's not a bad thing, but maybe we should have seen it coming.
Maxime Chouinard
Antrim Bata
Quebec City Kenjutsu
I don't do longsword
|
|
|
|
|
David Black Mastro
|
| Posted: Mon 08 Dec, 2008 11:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Max Chouinard wrote: | | Quote: | | "Two-handed stick" sounds like it could be any sort of staff. |
No, "two-ended", or bâton à deux bouts meaning having two ends. |
My mistake.
In any event, doesn't any stick or staff have "two ends"?
And what does any of this have to do with supposed "great stick" use in Elizabethan London "Prize Playing" competitions?
| Quote: | | Could be anything frankly but it's still a long stick. The great stick was and is still practised as french bâton (now mostly with savate) we have traces of it before the 19th century mostly among civilians. Same thing goes for the Italians with the bastone siciliano, the Portuguese with Jogo do Pau or the Irish with the shillelagh bata. |
I have already mentioned the French and Italian use of the "great stick" in the 19th century.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | With regards to the evolution of boxing, it's simply a matter that, once wrestling was out of the mix, the competitors were obviously forced to concentrate purely on their fists. Thus, boxing simply evolved as a more specialized discipline, emphasizing a very specific skillset. |
So did karate, judo or any other martial arts in which competition dictated what the training should encompass. |
Karate was a striking system from the start. Some modern karateka speak of supposed grappling "hidden within the kata", but nobody made such claims until grappling became popular again, with the advent of modern MMA.
| Quote: | | Boxing and karate both did the same thing, they threw out their grappling systems to specialise. And now they are both incomplete to face a MMA fight by their own and have some techniques that are difficult to do outside of a ring (an horizontal fist is dangerous without gloves, ask Mike Tyson, and you cannot block the same way nor have the same footwork on an irregular terrain). |
Boxing is an integral part of MMA; karate cannot make that same claim.
| Quote: | | Quote: | What ARMA does certainly fits the definition of "sport".
I don't know of any modern WMA/HEMA practitioners who are training to use their sword skills in earnest. As much as I am enamored with the skills of Cordoba's rodeleros, it's some 500 years too late to actually train with those folks. |
Then were disagreeing in a very theoretical way. From my point of view someone can (and should) train in earnest even if there is possibly no real world application as of now. It's a mental concept. And you see you just used it to categorize HEMA . It's not that hard. |
I "categorize" HEMA as a combat sport, because folks don't fight with swords these days--that's plain as night and day, Max. Combat sport practitioners can (and do) train in earnest, but there certainly aren't any modern sword practitioners today who are using those skills in earnest.
So, if some modern practitioners want to actually fancy themselves as "swordsmen", more power to them--I, on the other hand, am not so bold as to put myself alongside the true practitioners of swordfighting throughout history, like Rome's legionaries, Cordoba's rodeleros, the Feudal samurai, et al.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | "Conceptually" they can be separated, but in reality, they are inextricably linked. |
There are many things that are separated only by concepts in this world. An atheist and a catholic believer (don't want to mix religion here, just an example) can both go to church, one for the cultural the other for the spiritual. From an external point of view they are both doing the same thing, but there is still an important distinction. Of course you can say that they are both going to church, hence they are both believers, but that would be false, cause they don't go to church for the same reason. Or you can take a koryu and a gendai art, one was created before 1867 as to train warriors, the other was created later for other reasons. They can both be the same, have the same kind of training, but they are separated by a concept, one that is accepted in most JMA circles.
There is a theoretical need to separate martial arts and combat sports. Were humans, we conceptualise, we separate, give categories and names, it's easier for us to understand things this way. And that's normal. Combat sports mostly refer to a concept that appeared by the end of the 19th century in Europe (although it can be argued that in some cases it appeared much before, but surely not at the same rate). |
That simply isn't true.
Once again, your are trying to impress your notion of what defines a "combat sport", onto the rest of us.
| Quote: | | This concept is useful because it gives us a reason that can explain why the culture of martial arts changed so much. Violence was frowned upon and sportive encounters were thriving, people wanted to inculcate values through sports and it seemed only logical to extend it to martial arts. This revolution had good and bad things, it gave a second life to some outdated or endangered methods of fighting, but we also lost many techniques this way that had came from a direct lineage of martial artists. Same thing happened in Japan for example, kendo and judo totally supplanted the koryu schools and many closed. Would they have had disappeared completely if such sports didn't developed? Maybe, maybe not, it's hard to say. |
Jigoro Kano combined the best of the various classical jujutsu schools into a new system (Kano Ryu Jujutsu, aka Judo), and combined that with the combat sport training methodology. The Kodokan showed the superiority of judo during the Tokyo Police Tournament of 1886, when judoka consistently defeated jujutsuka from various classical schools--so once again, the superiority of the combat sport training methodology was shown.
| Quote: | | Now there is a regain of interest, both in the west and east, to return to more martial practises. I think it has a lot to do with the UFC, people saw that highly specialised sports had gaps, they could try to win by avoiding to fall in, but most of the time it didn't worked. And then we realised that older martial arts, most extinct by now, already had many answers to those problems. And so now it's back to the drawing board, doing reverse engineering by playing frankenstein with diverse combat sports or martial arts that can fill these gaps. It's not a bad thing, but maybe we should have seen it coming. |
On the contrary--the practitioners of the combat sports always had the right idea--use "live" training, and have competition to hone the attributes necessary to apply techniques, and thus increase the talent pool of a given art/system.
I think we're just coming from two totally different schools of thought, as to how various arts have waxed and waned, over the centuries. I'm basing my ideas on the hard realities evident in the history of martial arts/combat sports, whereas you appear to be some sort of "Traditional Martial Arts Apologist", who criticizes the combat sports, and makes excuses for why the supposedly "street lethal" methods fail, when actually put to the test.
I seriously mean no offense whatsoever, but that's the impression I'm getting, with this discussion.
Best,
David
"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Fields
|
| Posted: Mon 08 Dec, 2008 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dave -
-"San shou winning some MMA tournaments (and Nathan made a great point about the majority of Le's opponents being "cans"). San shou is not pure "kung-fu"--not by a long shot. Notice how Le's Greco-Roman background comes up in virtually every interview/article on him? The Western wrestling that he has done (that you have repeatedly dismissed) has clearly added to his arsenal."-
I'm not dimissing his western wresting, I know it's there. All I am saying is that his traditional Kung Fu back ground, his kicks, etc.. is what won his MMA matches thus far. He used no grappling, nor any non chinese anti grappling moves. And took out, not just a top 20 competitor, but THE TOP competitor, using nothing but kicks, and hits. So it's clear that those techniques used are effective.
-"Boxing is an integral part of MMA; karate cannot make that same claim."-
What are the differences in basic punches, punch defenses, of Karate vs the basic punches/ punch defenses and boxing? Or Kung Fu, or any other art that involves the basic punches?
At the basic level, they are very similar. Again, because the human body can only throw a punch so many ways.
To say boxing is the only art that people are using the ring for stand up striking, is like saying that a certain sword swing was created by the japanese can only be done by the japanese, and if a western swordsman uses a similar swing with a long sword, that he must know JSA, even if he's never seen JSA before. I hope that makes sense,... might be alittle overly worded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic