7/01/2006 10:50am, #11Originally Posted by Da_AzN
Do you do MMA and BJJ and kickboxing?More human than human is our motto.
7/01/2006 11:41am, #12
I think this is a double edged sword here.
Now: Better nutrition, better training technology, better medical technology.
Then: More time available to train, desperate mentality.
--This reminds me of a Chris Rock stand up routine he did on HBO a few years ago. He was talking about the difference between an Olympic javelin thrower and an African tribal hunter. He joked about the African hunter coming to the Olympics and chucking spears at the announcers, since they train to kill things and not to win an event.
Same kind of deal.
The African tribal hunter has worse nutrition and archaic training methods...but this is what he does for a living! If he misses with that spear throw, his family might die of starvation. Therefore, his continued survival is only assured by his continued growth as a "Spear Thrower".
The Olympic thrower, on the other hand, does this for fun and for competition. At the end of the day, he probably goes home to easily accessible food that he bought with his non-spear throwing job...and not once does he think, "If I miss with the javelin, my wife and kids might die of starvation."
Ultimately, I feel that the events we focus on are the events that we will become superior at. If we were to transport a Grecian Pankration champ to the future and throw him in the ring with gloves, a mouthpiece, and the UFC rules set...then I think Matt Hughes would eat him for breakfast.
If we transported Matt Hughes into the past and had him fight the same Pankration champ in a Grecian ring with Grecian Pankration rules...then I think we'd be out one excellent modern fighter.
7/01/2006 5:33pm, #13
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Richmond, VA
I'm with Satori.
I think there is only so much you can learn involving breaking other people, whether its today or 500 years ago. Cross training isnt a new idea. Unarmed training isnt a new idea. Ground fighting isnt even a new idea. Ground fighting was so ground breaking because people nowadays can afford the luxary to be down there. Being on the ground 500 years ago means getting stomped on by horses and having crazy sword weilding vikiings chop off your head.
Meanwhile, training with swords now a days, wont get you far, but 500 years ago would save your life. I dont think that any kind of training is actually EVOLVING, if anything as a human race we are just specializing in different areas of combat than we did 500 years ago.
But then, of course, we go to firearms, and then to cannons, and then to bombs. Maybe soon they'll be a fighting art that uses laser beams on the end of our hands. Cool. The only real thing that us humans have truely evolved is the ability to think and create new technology. Once new weaponary becomes available, new technology, maybe then fighting would be different. But as of now, limbs, sticks, sharp things, and bullets still hold the majority of ways to attack and kill another human.
7/07/2006 4:43pm, #14
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
Training methods are safer these days,
less injuries, better nutrition, better recovery.
All adds up to an easier path to expertise.
BUT I think the crucial thing is communication.
A 'secret' technique could win you the whole contest ...
Not now, what is secret one day is common knowledge the next.
7/07/2006 6:59pm, #15
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
I think most of you underestimate the Romans when it comes to medical treatment/nutrition, because at the time, the gladiators were a sort of an industry, the star gladiators got the best treatment that was available, and that included even different sorts of wellness and massage, etc. . As for the Injuries during training, I am pretty sure that the experienced gladiators watched out for that.
As for the olympic contestants, I think this was also a sort of profession, because the homecity payed a rent to the winner of an olympic contest.
And as in todays sports (boxing vs. mma), I think historic sources claim that in boxing they had much worse injuries than in pankration, partly due to not having modern kinds of gloves, which is to me another evidence that the people at the time were not so different.
So I am pretty sure that the best roman gladiators or for that matter olympic contestants would not be that inferior to MMA competitors, but of course they would also not own them.
However with the Fall of the roman empire, I think there was no economic reason anymore to support gladiator schools plus its "unchristian", and the roman empire changed to christianity towards its end, and through the middle ages a lot of knowledge got lost, especially scientific knowledge, where interestingly enough, a lot of that was rediscovered in the renaissance through arabic translations of greek/latin texts.
I've heard all this stuff at school a long time ago and forgot most of it, so I apologize if not everything is correct, but if youre interested, I'm sure you are going to find a decent history book.
As to the secret techniques: I would disagree, in the sense that once shown in a big arena, the secret technique is known to other gladiator schools too. So they could maybe train to "avoid" a particular speciality of a contestant. However I agree that it is much more difficult to actually learn the technique, so maybe one of the biggest changes in martial arts and sports in general in the 20. century was the universal use of videotapes, for analyzing the opponent/ones own movements/....
One last thing: Aliveness. I know that most of you emphasize that a lot, and that some of you think that traditional training methods do not emphasize that.
I am not sure whether this is the case, because today MA has become a sort of leisure activity, along with fishing and golfing. But at the time (I am sure this applies as well to the romans and greeks, as to the japanese) , people practiced their MA, either as a competitive sport or for survival. And at some point I am sure they were sparring, all of them. Otherwise they just got beaten/dead in teh real fight.
To you japanophiles: didn't even Myamoto Musashi prefer the Bokken ?
But as soon as you want to market your MA to anyone as a funny hobby, possibly with a philosophical undertone, then black eyes and other remnants of a real punching, or broken ankles suddenly become uncool...
Last edited by MrMcHarHar; 7/07/2006 7:07pm at .
7/08/2006 2:04am, #16
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Edmonton, Alberta,
I also think it's a little of both.
Today we have a better understanding of anatomy and yes better nutriotion and training tools.
Back then there were not guns, so as a warrior or to survive, for war everything was blood and fire.
But honesly, look at old drawings of teh samurai and everything they do bears a closer similarity to MMA/submission wrestling then it does Traditional Jujutsu(other then the armor part)
Look at traditional boxing, i mean didnt they have shin kicks and take downs?
But today we have the internet, more books, tv and video. We are aware of stuff.
I have never taken boxing in my life, i know people who are boxers and talked with them but i have never trained in boxing.
When talking to them i already know everything they tell me about(theory i mean)
because i read about it on the internet.
Could a karate or boxer in the old days have the same fore-knowledge?
7/08/2006 6:49pm, #17
One aspect that hasn't been touched on - maybe because it's simply understood - is that combat evolution is also based on the individual fighter. What would happen if Matt Hughes went back in time to fight the Greeks? I would say it depends on who trains more, who had more experience; it would depend on who is the better fighter. I would be highly surprised if ancient wrestlers didn't know about armbars or RNC or submissions. Like the articles on aliveness, there are fundamental delivery systems that everyone should learn, after that it turns into a "who has a more effective style*" discussion.
Other than that, I would say one can see an evolution in certain areas where the fundamentals are reworked. Take boxing - how many people in professional boxing are standing toe-to-toe with their opponent, palms in and fists extended away from their body? The fundamentals of punching have changed since then, and I would imagine if you took a boxer of today and pitted him against a boxer of yore - no matter what ruleset - that the modern boxer would ruin the other guy's day.
*By style, I mean as defined by Thornton as an individual's application of the fundamentals and overall gameplay.
Last edited by Ajamil; 7/08/2006 6:57pm at .
7/09/2006 12:08am, #18
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
new or rediscovered
l started boxing about 1942 as a kid ,l have watched it ever since. most boxers in my day went 15 rounds , now its 4 or 6 max is 12 . they werent as pretty as some now,but to-day most couldnt do 15. also lots of things have been lost that was done then. as to martial arts how many to-day calling themselves master of this and that ever had to fight for his life? and then some even come up with a new style when they got wupped because they couldnt do what they had learned with any skill. then claim they have all the answers. the difference then was we did need to have to be able to fight we didnt have uzzis and so on. plus back then when you fought someone we had a code if you broke it you werent considered a man . when you say we didnt need to learn to fight , how about when factories had signs men wanted irish need not apply or no d.ps. and worse we sometimes had to . l remember when catholics and protestants still fought over religeon or when strikers got beaten by local police. what do think we used clubs. or rocks ?it wouldnt be manly. when l went to my first martial arts club the class was 3 hours long . the first was all workout and two hours of learnig how. we had to show up 3 times a week if we missed without calling wed be replaced as there was always some waiting for a spot. and yes we cross trained by fighting boxers , wrestlers , we even had a champion boxer in one class to play with. l dont remember to many back then did it for bragging rights or a hobby . we worked hard and played harder. we had no computers , tv , we had lots of time to train and we did. l am now over 70 (l wont go into how far) l still teach and still get time for myself. to say that without proffesional fighting nothing would have happened maybe if one lived in a closet and never came out. living now is easy not like the dirty 30s with back room bare knuckle fights to earn enoughj to eat. or trying to keep the locals from beating on you because you were the wrong race or from the wrong country. thats where martial arts in the beginning in asia and modern boxing got its start in alleys and back rooms. so one cannot compare with oldtimers against to-days fighter when you werent there . l respect anyone who takes the time to spend hours in the gym or kwoon to learn but you cant compare . like the boxers of old they learned from no videos or books but by doing. and the developers of arts in asia by doing . what you do have is the benefit of there experience. and no youve not invented anything new .
7/09/2006 4:14am, #19Originally Posted by lee
My theory is that person A learns an art, kicks a bunch of ass, and person B notices. Person B wants the same respect that person A has earned, but without the hard work, so instead uses crap like kata as the majority (if not entirety) of his art and claims the same skill as person A.
Now, of course, it's probably not that simple, and "person A" and "person B" are probably more likely "generation A" and "generation B," but you get the idea.
7/09/2006 5:04am, #20
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
Maybe it is not even that person A "learns" the art, maybe its just that person A is the only survivor of a series of battles- thus it may well be that he developed a large part of his martial art by himself.
But his "training" was to a large extent from real battles and thus he can not give this experience to his students - the experience that comes closest to this is of course randori/sparring.
Now for me personally, I do not think that "traditional" training methods like kata are always BS - in the case for example of kata, I think it is a sort of a mind training, which somehow uses other parts of the brain than the ones I am used to (Learning words/logical sequences,.. <=> Learning movements).
Now I agree that I could also learn dancing for that, but I think dancing isn't necessarily bad either. I think a dancer has even more feeling for rhytm and timing than the average bullshidoka.
Maybe one could say, martial arts without aliveness is dancing without music - without any negative undertone (at least for me).