Is Combat really Evolving? Or are we just rediscovering it?
In the first UFCs, the strikers were dominated by the grapplers because once the strikers were taken to the ground, they do not know anything.
Gracie Jujitsu was supposedly Japanese Jujitsu that was taught to the Gracie family by a Japanese immigrant... and the Gracies modified its techniques. If Jujitsu is such a great system, then it mustve been used by the NINJAS in medieval Japan. But all I hear in here about Ninjitsu is it being bullshido and being bashed all over the place. Crappy instructors for ninjitsu or what?
...Then there's all this talk about mcdojos who only care about money and dumb down martial arts and churn out lousy students... etc... etc...
...Then there are people in Bullshido and other related sites (Sherdog, Subfighter, etc...) who say that martial arts should have contact and real fighting because that is what it is supposed to be.
So has combat REALLY evolved today just like any other piece of technology? Or are we just rediscovering what the ancient people knew about hand-to-hand combat? Roman gladiators had to put their lives on the line every single fuckin day... and in every civilization that was before modern times... people were trained to fight at an early age since we were all about little kingdoms//tribes//whatever...
So is it REAL DEAL ---> McDojo ---> Back to REAL DEAL
REAL DEAL ---> Fighting has REALLY been improved and perfected today... that if there is a time machine to send back Matt Hughes and make him fight the best Roman Gladiator or any ancient warrior (unarmed... no weapons!)... he will be kicking their asses in no time at all!!!
What is it really? I'm no expert in martial arts. I only have little BJJ and kickboxing experience so I dont really know much about it.
If you invented a time machine to bring you back to ancient rome and all you wanted to do was watch two guys fist fight in the gladiator pit then I'd suggest that your not an expert in having fun either :)
Well, you can rationalize that while their has been much more training knowledge gained in the last 2 thousand years, most of it has been in the health/training/nutrition fields. As far as unarmed NHB combat, I mean, assuming this went on back in Roman days (why wouldn't it, after all), there are some ways of breaking people that can't be much improved upon until maybe cyborgs or some ****. I remember some physio class or whatever when the TA talked about how it's funny how the armbar really is just about the most anotomically efficient way of breaking someone's elbow.
I mean, it didn't take the gracies to figure out that:
Most of the muscles in your body
You: 1 Elbow: 0
Actually verifying this histrorically is going to be a little harder.
Although I do remember going to an exhibit at the SD art museum ' In Stabiano: Exploring the Ancient Seaside Villas of the Roman Elite' while I was high and there were a pair of mosaics with a naked guy called 'the boxer' I think and he had MMA-style wraps and stuff, I dunno.
Personally, I think the best unarmed fighters are alive today, not hundreds (or thousands) of years ago. Not because of whether what they're doing is new or not, but because of the advancement in training methods, nutrition, increased knowledge of strength training, etc. I think that's pretty typical of athletics in general. Our ability to share our knowledge on such a wide scale is also key.
As far as your example of gladiators - I definitely wouldn't use them as my gold standard of what a fighter should be. And no, the best gladiators didn't put their lives on the line every day. The best fighters weren't usually forced to fight to the death because people wanted them alive so they could keep watching them fight. Gladiators that fought to the death were usually unskilled slaves, prisoners, etc.
Greek pankration fighters were probably much more skilled unarmed fighters than the Roman gladiators because of the high value the Greeks placed on skill and athleticism. The Romans just took what the Greeks did and cheapened it by turning it into a pure blood sport.
Obviously, today's fighters aren't constantly reinventing the wheel. Most of the techniques and ideas are nothing new. But there's no question that fighting is evolving, and it will keep doing so.
I can answer this at least. First Ninjutsu aren't fighting techniques, they are spying/esponiage techniques. Maybe schools had them in addition to their Bujutsu (War Techniques).
Originally Posted by Da_AzN
So, coming from a different angle, what about the fighting techniques of the Iga Region people. The people historially called Ninjas. Well, they used Jujutsu. Remember that Jujutsu is not a tight term in Japan like it is the west. Well refering to any older style unarmed combat, the term Jujutsu was used. Some schools used Koppojutsu/Gohojutsu/Koshijutsu/KumiUchi/Aikijutsu/Taijutsu to name a few. However, the over arching term for these systems is Jujutsu. Therefore arts like Gyokko Ryu and Koto Ryu which fall in the realm of Ninjutsu Arts, contain Jujutsu inside there school. Therefore, Ninjas did Jujutsu.
Source: Classical Fighting Arts of Japan by Serge Mol
Great little thinker you've started here Da_AzN. I think Camus really hit the nail on the head bringing up all of the non-fighting technique advancements that have been made. Recovering from injuries, both armed and unarmed, today is a lot easier than it used to be.
I think it's also important to consider the realities in which non-modern fighting was taking place. By and large training was done in the context of reasonably large scale fighting; bloody battles where you weren't necessarily killed so much as you were maimed to the point of non-resistance.
It really comes down to training and situations. The fighters of today have the advantage in terms of mind set (how many fighters do you know that didn't choose to participate) and training (specific rule set trained towards, vast amount of knowledge to draw on to get the most from their bodies and effort).
If every now and again modern fighters were handed a sword or a gun, sent to war and told they probably wouldn't come back, I think we'd have a very different picture than we do.
...I'm sorry, what was the question?...
Oh yeah, I'd say that basic unarmed combat hasn't changed, and won't until human physiology changes. And I don't think that the McDojo phenomenon has affected true combat as much as it may seem. Hard training, be it for boxing, grappling, etc. hasn't gone anywhere, it's just that the promotion has changed. Groups of guys that beat the hell out of each other today aren't much different from groups of guys that beat the hell out of each other 20, 50 or more years ago.
Styles and fads may change, but asskickings look the same whenever they happen.
(Well I hope I got my point across, if not ask me yes/no questions, those are more my speed)
I think that maybe the scientific aspect of fighting (meaning studies on the best angle for armbars, increased knowledge of nutrition, easier acces to information on your opponent and so on...) Has evolved. Nowadays, people who want to perform in fighting have more efficient ways of doing so. At least, that's what I think. Of course, double leg takedowns probably looked pretty much the same back then, but things like suplex dummies and protein shakes did'nt. (As far as I know.)
the halo reference in this thread title pisses me off.
I'd vote for today's fighters being much better unarmed fighters - simply because there wasn't much percentage in training unarmed combat before modern professional fighting came along. Why would you spend your life learning how to hit with your hands when some doofus with an axe could easily take you down? The only reason these arts evolved in the East were because the peasants were banned from carrying weapons.
As for western wrestling and boxing - sure people did them but which would you spend the most time on - fighting with weapons to save your ilfe or mucking around with your mates?
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO