Armored combat on martial arts fight card?

[JohnnyCache]

No offense, but your sca stuff with extras for botn has got to be a goatfuck.

If someone tried a karate lunge punch on you in armor would you or would you not lol and butcher? I can think of few things i'd prefer an unarmed man do over a lunge punch. Moreover, just striking with someone in plate would probably get you killed. I've never worn Japanese armor, it may be different/more topheavy

[captain zorikh]

No offense, but your sca stuff with extras for botn has got to be a goatfuck.

If someone tried a karate lunge punch on you in armor would you or would you not lol and butcher? I can think of few things i'd prefer an unarmed man do over a lunge punch. Moreover, just striking with someone in plate would probably get you killed. I've never worn Japanese armor, it may be different/more topheavy

I suppose, like many martial arts moves, it would depend on the situation. If I knew it was coming, had time to prepare myself, and had a weapon in my hand ready to use, your assumption would be correct. If, however, I had no weapon, or my weapon was being fouled or for some other reason was out of position, and I was not expecting the blow, like if I had just turned around not expecting my enemy to be there, and he put enough power into a strike to my chest (I must admit unfamiliarity with the "lunge punch") that it took my center of gravity off my base, I might go down. I certainly went down when punched to the head with a shield when I didn't expect it and/or was net set up to receive it. However, once I expected it, once I was ready to receive and counter, even a hard jab to my face with a shield did not stop me.

[captain zorikh]

No offense, but your sca stuff with extras for botn has got to be a goatfuck.

Never having copulated with a goat, I can't speak for the applicability of your metaphor, however I can say that the extra armor on top of my SCA stuff was a PITA.

[JohnnyCache]

If you had to fight a guy in a suit of plate unarmed, what would you, personally, do? I'd clinch and throw. I don't think anyone could reasonably tip someone over with a single punch to a breastplate.

[lklawson]

Why do that weird, goofy-looking, DANGEROUS-TO-THE-PUNCHER looking "lunge" punch?

Because you want to hit him. Duh.

Oh you mean why do it that way!

Specifically you do it that way because you're trying to punch him from way, way out of normal hand-striking range. To put it in WMA terms, it would be somewhere in Silver's "Time of the Hand, Body, and Foot" or further. Why so far out that you have to practically execute a punta lunga in order to simply punch your opponent? Well, logically there's basically only one of three reasons. 1) your opponent has moved way back because he want's to have lots of time to react to your attack (say, for instance, if you have a weapon) - remember the reason Silver calls this a safe "True" time? 2) Because you have deliberately moved out of range - you know, maybe your opponent has a weapon you don't want to get hit with. 3) Because you don't want to be close enough to be grabbed at prior to your attack.

Now, it just so happens that there is, in fact, a striking tradition which teaches similar style out-of-range, lunging, linear striking which is exceptionally well documented: Old style boxing. LPR and early styles of boxing taught these sort of linear punches, frequently called a Straight Left/Right, or Left/Right Lead. Old school, pre-Marquis Boxing (let's call it "Classic Pugilism" just to differentiate it and sound pretentious) frequently held "out of range" distances for boxing. Why? Grappling. Classic Pugilism allowed grappling. If you're close enough to hook and jab, then you're close enough to grab a-hold and hip-toss.

You see a similar (though not identical) evolution has occurred in modern MMA. Grappling and other factors have pushed the range of MMA fighters out past traditional Boxing range in most circumstances. While both hooks and jabs, and other close-range boxing techniques, are still sometimes used in MMA, they're not as common as in Boxing and certainly not mainstays of the sport. Instead, you're seeing a lot more variants of the superman and hopping jabs and the like. Why? Grappling and also kicking, that's why. You don't stand toe to toe with a fella when he can cut-kick the ever-luv'n snot out of your lead thigh or grab you and kosoto gake you, land on top of you, take mount, and then pummel the (aforementioned) ever-luv'n snot out of your face.

The above embedded video of samurai wannabes almost illustrates this dynamic but also clearly shows that the participants do not grasp the reason for the striking they're doing. Their ranges are frequently screwed up as are their targeting. Once you know the reasons for doing those weird punches you can see why they might "fit" into the kata those gentlemen are doing as clearly as you can see the reasons that they don't. Everything about that vid is almost right while being off enough to show that the practice is for tradition rather than from understanding. Heck, the comments about why punch when you've got a weapon are spot on. And you certainly wouldn't want to punch anything but the face and only then if he's not wearing the facemask/mempo (or maybe if your gauntlet/tekko is strong enough). Watching the vid. felt a bit like watching a movie where the sound was a little out of sync and the focus was just a bit blurry: it always felt like it was almost right but not quite. Maybe I'm missing something about it. :P

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

[lklawson]

If you had to fight a guy in a suit of plate unarmed, what would you, personally, do? I'd clinch and throw.

DING DING DING DING!!!!

We have a winner!

If you look at historic western "knightly" treatises, you find that this occupies a significant fraction of the material.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

[captain zorikh]

On of the unique things about the Battle of the Nations rules is that if you lost your weapon in a melee you had to get a new one from the sidelines and were not allowed to defend yourself or attack, while your opponents were allowed to attack you. In singles they would stop the fight ant penalize you 10 pts while you picked up your weapon.

With regards to clinching, your would have to get past your opponent's weapons, fists, and feet to clinch, and then, of course, have the skill to execute the takedown. But as they say, "that's just the trick."

[lklawson]

On of the unique things about the Battle of the Nations rules is that if you lost your weapon in a melee you had to get a new one from the sidelines and were not allowed to defend yourself or attack, while your opponents were allowed to attack you.

What is the justification for this bizarre rule?

With regards to clinching, your would have to get past your opponent's weapons, fists, and feet to clinch, and then, of course, have the skill to execute the takedown. But as they say, "that's just the trick."

"Passing the Point" of a weapon is always the trick. When weapons aren't an issue, passing through fists and feet to clinch is actually pretty easy.

There's a reason that armoured half-swording shows up in so many of the knightly manuals.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

[JohnnyCache]

The rule is there too keep people from discarding their weapons to throw

[Zwerchhau]

Please place your comment in context and I will reply appropriately.

Well, there are many historical fighting manuals that deal with armored combat. (Known in the German manuals as Harnischfechten as opposed to Blossfechten fighting unarmoured and Rossfechten fighting on horseback) There is ample historical evidence as to exactly how armored fighting is done correctly and it isn't with tons of edge blows. Swords cannot cut through armor. Therefore most of the major manuals dealing with combat in armor emphasize halfswording, (which is where you grip the blade of your weapon turning it into a gigantic lever) the manuals then typically emphasize grappling (ringen) to immobilize, lock or throw an armored opponent where you can then use the sword as a gigantic crab pick to pry open the joints and stab into them, or hit with the hilt (mortschlag) to disorient and momentarily shock and incapacitate to effect further throws and joint locks. You can't stab or cut through full plate, but you can still break a guys arm with an arm lock through the armor, or dump him on his head with a nice big high energy hip throw. It's very obvious when people don't know what they are doing in armored fighting when they stand back in Zufechten (the outer distance, outside of grappling/ unarmed striking range) and exchange edge-blows, as this is not effective, nor how it was historically done. If you would like I can send you various links to historical manuals covering armored combat (Harnischfecthen).