PDA

View Full Version : MMA - WITH SWORDS! From Fox Sports



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

captain zorikh
4/24/2015 2:23pm,
It's MMA...WITH SWORDS!
So Fox Sports is getting on the bandwagon...
https://www.facebook.com/foxsports/videos/10153821561429552/?fref=nf (https://www.facebook.com/foxsports/videos/10153821561429552/)

RynoGreene
4/24/2015 2:30pm,
And... Grappling for the win.

Ice Hole
4/24/2015 7:46pm,
And... Grappling for the win.

Wrestling is at the core of most weapon based arts. Something I think is lost on a lot of weapons practitioners is the need to actually learn to grapple with their weapons. Obviously with swordplay there is hacking and slashing but clinching with some weapons is fundamental, and you won't learn that without resistance, legwork. This is especially true as the weapons get shorter.

Staff is a another great example of a weapon that requires significant back and leg strength and practice clinching up with the weapon.

I've read this now in a few difference places, in both in English and Chinese war manuals, but wrestling/grappling was generally an agreed upon thing amongst generals, regardless of hemisphere. I can try to find the sources if anybody wants.

Fuzzy
4/25/2015 2:59am,
You would not believe the rage this **** is causing in some HEMA circles.

PointyShinyBurn
4/25/2015 1:11pm,
You would not believe the rage this **** is causing in some HEMA circles.What specifically don't they like? Not a million miles from what went on at mediaeval tournaments, no?

Fuzzy
4/25/2015 3:02pm,
What specifically don't they like? Not a million miles from what went on at mediaeval tournaments, no?

Yeah, from what I understand its not vastly dissimilar to what happened at certain tournaments during a certain period.

The beef seems to be that the techniques allowed are pretty limited and anti-armour stuff specifically described in the manuals is prohibited (because it literally is too deadly).

People also complain that its "just guys doing MMA with armour and swords" and "it would look the same if they had boxing gloves, they're just whaling on each other".

Some people also seem to believe that it detracts from what "legitimate" HEMA schools are trying to do (revive specific "styles" of combat).

My perspective is a bit different since I'm coming at the whole HEMA thing from an FMA/MMA perspective, I think this stuff and HEMA fencing is apples and oranges.

The FMB/Bohurts guys clearly have solid skills in their arena and are probably hard as nails, so I'm happy for them to do what they do.

Speaks Softly
4/25/2015 6:42pm,
I luv it.

I'm sure Bellatore will have it soon.

Guird
4/26/2015 1:50pm,
I'm pretty sure there are already HEMA tournaments. How did they solve the 'too deadly anti-armor' problem? The HEMA schools I've seen moostly assumed no armor, and competed with padding under a point system.

maybe we should just give the combatants rubber-headed maces instead of swords, would the HEMA guys be ok with that?

on the grappling angle, I don't remember it that well as I was simultaneously trying to pay attention to a conversation, but I once watched two HEMA guys doing longsword sparring where one consistently defeated the other without using his sword offensively. He would parry, bind, and then rush in to clinch too close for his opponent to use his sword, followed by a takedown.

Fuzzy
4/27/2015 3:21am,
I'm pretty sure there are already HEMA tournaments. How did they solve the 'too deadly anti-armor' problem? The HEMA schools I've seen moostly assumed no armor, and competed with padding under a point system.

maybe we should just give the combatants rubber-headed maces instead of swords, would the HEMA guys be ok with that?

on the grappling angle, I don't remember it that well as I was simultaneously trying to pay attention to a conversation, but I once watched two HEMA guys doing longsword sparring where one consistently defeated the other without using his sword offensively. He would parry, bind, and then rush in to clinch too close for his opponent to use his sword, followed by a takedown.

They address the problem by considering the guy in the fencing mask and padded jacket etc to be unarmoured, so a hit to the head is counted, in terms of points, as landing on a bare head etc. The difference with this stuff appears to be that they're in armour AND CONSIDERED BY THE RULES to be in armour.

Basically, when you're fighting someone in armour its not super-practical to just pound on him with a one-handed sword - he's not going to feel it particularly. The thing to do is to jam something pointy in the weak parts of the armour, then use it like a can opener. To some degree what these guys are doing is trying to open a can by pounding on it with a spoon.

Grappling is definitely a huge part of medieval systems, both armoured and unarmoured.

Bneterasedmynam
4/27/2015 12:13pm,
I'm pretty sure there are already HEMA tournaments. How did they solve the 'too deadly anti-armor' problem? The HEMA schools I've seen moostly assumed no armor, and competed with padding under a point system.

maybe we should just give the combatants rubber-headed maces instead of swords, would the HEMA guys be ok with that?

on the grappling angle, I don't remember it that well as I was simultaneously trying to pay attention to a conversation, but I once watched two HEMA guys doing longsword sparring where one consistently defeated the other without using his sword offensively. He would parry, bind, and then rush in to clinch too close for his opponent to use his sword, followed by a takedown.

You just described exactly how I like to sword spar, bind and bash. I can't imagine not having grappling in a sword fight. Without grappling you get fucked real fast in close, a sword is damn near useless once past the tip. You can use the pummel to an extent, but having a good grappling background tips the scales in your favor.

Ice Hole
4/27/2015 12:29pm,
I noticed in the video these don't appear to be real swords, but more like thin bars of some low quality looking alloy. So they are in fact more like clubs made to look like swords. They also have spring which means they're not particularly dense.

I think on "da street", an unarmored person might have serious advantages including grappling over a man in a tin can suit. And with certain weapons, not the hack and bash type in the OP but precision weapons, and fencing has a whole range of those especially suited to going straight for sensitive points.

It's very possible a real skilled fencer could kill a knight in armor. They'd be faster, less encumbered, better visibility. They'd be facing a slower opponent wearing a helmet with limited visibility and nice big eye sockets providing a target for the fencer.

For some reason I can also just see somebody being able to easily take a knight in armor from behind, take them to the ground, and break their neck.

Jujutsu wins again.

Bneterasedmynam
4/27/2015 1:10pm,
I noticed in the video these don't appear to be real swords, but more like thin bars of some low quality looking alloy. So they are in fact more like clubs made to look like swords. They also have spring which means they're not particularly dense.

I think on "da street", an unarmored person might have serious advantages including grappling over a man in a tin can suit. And with certain weapons, not the hack and bash type in the OP but precision weapons, and fencing has a whole range of those especially suited to going straight for sensitive points.

It's very possible a real skilled fencer could kill a knight in armor. They'd be faster, less encumbered, better visibility. They'd be facing a slower opponent wearing a helmet with limited visibility and nice big eye sockets providing a target for the fencer.

For some reason I can also just see somebody being able to easily take a knight in armor from behind, take them to the ground, and break their neck.

Jujutsu wins again.

The biggest problem with armor is visibility, you get somewhat use to the weight and movement. I think a grappler with some object to block with might have a chance since armor does have a bit of a turtle on its back feel on the ground. Passing the tip of the sword would be the main key and remaining close enough to the sword to take away its ability to hit hard.

A fencer I'm not sure about though, a fencer would be trading strikes with someone that only needs one strike to win.

Permalost
4/27/2015 1:40pm,
I think on "da street", an unarmored person might have serious advantages including grappling over a man in a tin can suit.

That must be why warriors never wore armor.

PointyShinyBurn
4/27/2015 2:38pm,
That must be why warriors never wore armor.
I always got the impression that invulnerability to missile weapons was the major selling point. Once firearms replaced bows heavy armour disappeared quite quickly even though quite a lot of edged weapon and spear fighting was still going on.

Bneterasedmynam
4/27/2015 3:11pm,
Armor wasn't a one size fits all thing either. Different situations would call for different armor. You might wear lighter armor for a duel, and heavier for a castle siege. And then there is the difference between movement in a single duel vs. a battle line.

Ice Hole
4/27/2015 4:59pm,
Armor wasn't a one size fits all thing either. Different situations would call for different armor. You might wear lighter armor for a duel, and heavier for a castle siege. And then there is the difference between movement in a single duel vs. a battle line.

Right.


That must be why warriors never wore armor.

lol..OK obviously there are a whole range of armor types that allow for far more sight and mobility. Full field plate always seemed more associated with knight on knight fighting.

It still seems like unarmored or more flexibly armored (leather, chainmail etc) warriors would maintain some significant advantages not the least of which is being able to outrun anyone wearing full plate armor while still wearing decent protection. Sure the guy in full plate only needs to hit you once, but if you're not wearing a hundred+ pounds of metal, you can not only avoid but stay out of the danger zone entirely.

I'm not that up to speed on medieval armor etc but weren't innovations like chainmail specifically invented to deal with the types of disadvantages knights had in full plate, namely the weight and maneuverability? Not to mention no need for a squire.

I noticed watching Game of Thrones last night how some field plate was so cumbersome you literally needed an attendant/squire to help put it on or remove it. I was reminded of the detailed descriptions of jousting tournaments in Ivanhoe, too, with whole teams almost like medieval NASCAR pit crews, repairing weapon, chain, plate etc in between rounds. To me this seems like a huge logistical disadvantage for a warrior with survival in mind. It makes more sense to me if you were fielding a whole troop of these kinds of human tanks...strength in numbers etc.

So, the full plate like a great idea if you are gearing up to head into battle with other armored troops, against 1,000 similarly armored foes...but one on one, especially against a loose, nimble opponent? Jousts etc always involved equally armored combatants correct? They weren't like bullfights.

It doesn't seem to be in your best interest to tank up like that against someone who can dance around you, trained well enough they could put their thrusting blade (rapier or whatever) right through your visor, or right through a vulnerable point in the armor. Yeah one blow landed can kill, but a lighter armored foe might be able to attempt 10 strikes in the time the full plated guy can get in one or two "hacks".