From combat to dueling, how modern martial arts evolved?

[danno]

Technology's a wonderful thing. Blades that are pressure-sensitive (more pressure = harder shock) are possible.

you should be better off after training like this than if you weren't going to do it at all. i just don't think you can develop it to the technical level of the hand to hand arts unless someone is testing the real thing constantly. and that just isn't feasible.

[rocketsurgeon]

After looking up the Ars Dimicandi guys I think the lesson is that if you get a group of guys together who trust each other enough to really, truly try to take each other's heads off, you come out with some aggresive training and functional skillset.

Ars Dimicandi is a small group that the other Roman groups think hits too hard. To me, that's a place I want to play.

I think danno's go it exactly right that you find out more of what works the closer you get to brutalizing each other.

[MrBadGuy]

That video was pretty bad ass.


Group shankings were hilarious.

[AAAhmed46]

Yeah, i thought it was awesome.

Everyone looked so tiny! I mean i bet i outweighed most of those guys by like fifty pounds, and im pretty light!

[Godhand]

you should be better off after training like this than if you weren't going to do it at all. i just don't think you can develop it to the technical level of the hand to hand arts unless someone is testing the real thing constantly. and that just isn't feasible.

I think that one needs to compare apples to apples.

Whilst I agree that training with weapons for a battlefield would be harder than training MMA for a ring, training weapons for full contact competition (ala Dog Brothers or whatever) would be easier than training for the street.

After all, you arnt REALLY "testing the real thing constantly", as no one is going to be doing eye gouges, groin kicks and biting or whatever in an MMA class.

Now, Im sure you would agree that the lack of such techniques in class training certainly dont drastically lower the effectivness of MMA in relation to self defense, so why then would controlled weapons training be any more detrimental to the realism of weapons arts?

Add to that the notion that athletes are vastly superior in other respects to our ancient counterparts (thanks to better nutrition, knowledge of training methods etc), and I think you can make the case that a professional level full-contact weapons fighter (Again, Im thinking of the Dog Brothers) could be at least as capable as some of their ancient battlefield counterparts.

[danno]

I think that one needs to compare apples to apples.

Whilst I agree that training with weapons for a battlefield would be harder than training MMA for a ring, training weapons for full contact competition (ala Dog Brothers or whatever) would be easier than training for the street.

After all, you arnt REALLY "testing the real thing constantly", as no one is going to be doing eye gouges, groin kicks and biting or whatever in an MMA class.

Now, Im sure you would agree that the lack of such techniques in class training certainly dont drastically lower the effectivness of MMA in relation to self defense, so why then would controlled weapons training be any more detrimental to the realism of weapons arts?

Add to that the notion that athletes are vastly superior in other respects to our ancient counterparts (thanks to better nutrition, knowledge of training methods etc), and I think you can make the case that a professional level full-contact weapons fighter (Again, Im thinking of the Dog Brothers) could be at least as capable as some of their ancient battlefield counterparts.

stick fighting is no problem. we can do that - the dog brothers are a great example.

but who is chopping each other up with swords? the blunt weapons people use would approximate stick fighting closer than sword fighting.

[Moenstah]

Aren't blunt steel weapons relatively heavier and differently balanced than sticks?

[danno]

true, i guess they'd be more like metal poles!

i'm thinking that the techniques you need to fight with long bladed weapons are different to long blunt ones.

[Moenstah]

Some blunt steel weapons aren't safe enough to spar/train with like those Italian gladiators do. I once visited a medieval reenactment group, and they showed me why they never 'sparred' freely (it wasn't completely free sparring, thrusts weren't allowed and they blocked full on the cutting edge) with one-and-a-half longswords: those things are too heavy. Bonebreakers pur sang.

[DdlR]

Some good discussion here. The issue of safety/realism in weapon sparring (especially historical fencing styles, everything from Ars Dimicandi to Renaissance-era rapier fighting) usually comes down to the balance between equipment (weapons and protective gear) and levels of "acceptable risk," which varies a lot between groups.

A well-balanced steel longsword simulator, for example, is typically a very close reproduction of the original historical weapon. It can only be safely fought full-contact if both fighters are wearing serious, i.e. steel, armor, which usually means that the combat is closer to armed wrestling (because armor works against swords):

YouTube - Harnischfechten-Armoured Free Play

Lighter, more flexible steel longsword sparring weapons (often nicknamed "federschwerter", "feather swords") and the recently-developed fiberglass longswords can be more safely used with lighter armor, even with very little protective gear if the fighters trust each other enough and are prepared to accept the risks:

YouTube - ARMA Free-Play in Gambesons with Federschwerter
YouTube - Free-play with spadone longswords.

The Ars Dimicandi guys fight with fairly realistic weapons, hit about as hard as they can and do get injured; that's part of their notion of acceptable risk. They box and wrestle in the ancient Olympic styles, too:

YouTube - Ars Dimicandi lottatori - fighters