221372 Bullies, 4256 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 1 to 10 of 58
Page 1 of 6 1 2345 ... LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. Kung-Fu Joe is offline
    Kung-Fu Joe's Avatar

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    929

    Posted On:
    12/04/2008 8:47pm


     Style: Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!

    Historical Discussion of Catch Wrestling

    Quote Originally Posted by Goju - Joe
    Catch as catch can says they can catch a submission from any position, and that the goal is to constantly inflict pain and damage.

    It is much older than pro wrestling or BJJ.
    It's only relatively recently that Catch-as-Catch-Can has become equivalent to sub wrestling.

    It seems that until sometime in the early- to mid-twentieth-century, Catch-as-Catch-Can, like most other forms of Western wrestling, was centered around securing pinfalls. There are numerous Wrestling manuals dating from the late 19th and early 20th centuries which describe the rules of Catch-as-Catch-Can in full. There were no provisions for submission, and chokes were specifically banned from the sport. Furthermore, I've yet to find a single early Catch manual which advocates using a hold for the sake of securing a submission-- as opposed to using it to put the opponent on his back for a pinfall.

    It is my most humble of opinions that Catch began to evolve when it started cross-pollinating with Judo. Catch wrestlers saw the Japanese applying an ude-garami and said to themselves, "Hey, that's the exact same grip as a Double Wrist Lock-- but instead of just using it to put the other guy on his back, that Judo guy is forcing his opponent to give up!"

    A number of techniques in early Catch were very similar in grip to Judo kansetsu-waza. The only difference was in the intent of the application. As more and more guys started to realize this, Catch wrestlers began to evolve into Submission wrestlers. Unfortunately, this evolution coincided historically with the point at which Professional Wrestling started to become worked. Hooking and true submission wrestling was forced off the stage, and never really came into its own outside of a handful of practitioners.

    Fast-forward to the 90's and the Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu boom. Suddenly, ground fighting is becoming popular, and latent memory of backstage sub wrestlers is brought to the foreground. Some guys who trained in hooks come to the foreground to get their voices heard. Other guys begin trying to reconstruct a modern style of Catch based on modern sub grappling.

    The simple truth of the matter is that practically no one trains Catch, now, the way it was trained 100 years ago, and the idea that Catch was an original form of Submission Grappling seems to be in error.

    --Joe
  2. Blue Negation is offline

    Woke up in the mortuary

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,228

    Posted On:
    12/05/2008 6:46pm


     Style: Judo, Sub wrestling

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by e.kaye
    Kung Fu Joe-That is an interesting theory except that the facts do not agree with it.
    Yet what you go on to provide has little to do with KFJ's post...

    The first Judo-Catch match is credited as a jacket match between Ad Santel and Ito in 1914. Santel won.
    Right, and? Not that it matters but Santel lost the rematch. But what does this have to do with what he said? Quote what you are responding to, please.

    American CACC goes back way before that. Your assertion that the rules were geaerd toward pins is correct for a very particular type of match in a particular time frame.
    Can you provide another set of rules backed by historical documents that are more in line with submission wrestling?

    BUt American wrestling had other "style" names in the past, such as Rough and Tumble, Collar and Elbow etc. All sorts of "dirty" fighting went on. The knowledge of submissions and hooks goes way back.
    Collar and elbow goes back to britain... and the names don't matter, the rules do. Do you have evidence that submissions were sought and explored in and of themselves and not as a means to a pin?

    And I disagree that Catch relies more on size and strength than BJJ.
    I would personally characterize it as Catch more openly supports the usage of strength and size as worthwhile attributes in a match.

    KFJ: have you considered Ed "Strangler" Lewis? It seems that there must have been some allowance for win by submission or he wouldn't have become named so, as I can't think of any strangles that lend themselves that well to pins except the arm triangle.
  3. Kung-Fu Joe is offline
    Kung-Fu Joe's Avatar

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    929

    Posted On:
    12/09/2008 8:52pm


     Style: Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Forgive me, guys. I know it's been a few days since you replied to my last post; I normally try to reply more quickly.


    Quote Originally Posted by e.kaye
    Kung Fu Joe-That is an interesting theory except that the facts do not agree with it.

    The first Judo-Catch match is credited as a jacket match between Ad Santel and Ito in 1914. Santel won.

    American CACC goes back way before that. Your assertion that the rules were geaerd toward pins is correct for a very particular type of match in a particular time frame.

    BUt American wrestling had other "style" names in the past, such as Rough and Tumble, Collar and Elbow etc. All sorts of "dirty" fighting went on. The knowledge of submissions and hooks goes way back.
    By no means am I claiming to be an expert on the subject-- I may very well be completely wrong.

    Do you have any evidence to show submission fighting in Western wrestling predates the cross-pollination with Japanese wrestling? Any accounts of matches which ended by submission? Any listing of rules which make provisions for submission holds? Any mention of "hooking" prior to Japanese influence?

    I'm not trying to be belligerent here-- I'm genuinely interested. If submission grappling was once represented by the Western martial arts prior to Japanese influence, I'd love to know.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Negation
    KFJ: have you considered Ed "Strangler" Lewis? It seems that there must have been some allowance for win by submission or he wouldn't have become named so, as I can't think of any strangles that lend themselves that well to pins except the arm triangle.
    From what I understand, Ed Lewis first took the "Strangler" nickname in homage to Evan "Strangler" Lewis, a Catch-as-Catch-Can champion from the late 19th Century, due to the fact that many reporters found Ed to be very reminiscent of the earlier wrestler.

    Later on, Ed Lewis began utilizing a maneuver that was alternately called a "neck yoke," a "neck lock," and a "head lock," depending on who was describing it. In its article on Evan Lewis, a Wikipedia author claimed that the "neck yoke" is old terminology for what we now know to be a rear naked choke; however, I find this to be doubtful for a number of reasons.

    As I mentioned earlier, all versions of the Catch-as-Catch-Can rules I've ever found are geared toward Pinfalls. Even if one made provisions for Submissions, the fact of the matter is that one can very easily succumb to a pinfall even when applying the very best of Rear Naked Chokes. It would make for a poor maneuver, when your goal is to keep your shoulders off the ground.

    Secondly, there is a description of Ed Lewis' version of the "neck yoke" in the Chicago Sunday Tribune's November 30th, 1913, edition (Neck Yoke Helps Strangler Lewis In Bid For Honors). This same maneuver is described, with pictorial illustration, in Paul Prehn's Scientific Methods of Wrestling, published in 1925 and available for free at Kirk Lawson's Lulu storefront. Both descriptions fit more closely with a side headlock than with any sort of finishing stranglehold, as can be seen in this picture taken from Prehn's book:


    Thirdly, once again, are the published rulesets for Catch-as-Catch-Can that I've been able to locate. Paul Prehn's aforementioned book, Earle Liederman's The Science of Wrestling and the Art of Jiu-Jitsu (1923), and Ed James' Boxing and Wrestling (1878) all specifically mention strangleholds as being illegal maneuvers.


    Finally, there are the accolades of the first "Strangler," Evan Lewis.

    There is an account of Evan Lewis in a bout against Matsada Sorakichi, from the January 29th, 1886, edition of the New York Times (A Brutal Wrestling Match). The article describes Matsada Sorakichi being choked into unconsciousness by Evan Lewis. In their next bout, apparently Mr. Lewis leglocked Mr. Sorakichi, doing enough damage to his knee that he was unable to continue (New York Times, February 16th, 1886: Sorakichi's Leg Broken).

    While this may, at first, seem like evidence that Catch-as-Catch-Can was, indeed, submission oriented, I think such a claim would be glossing over a few incredibly important facts. We cannot ignore the outrage at Evan Lewis' usage of such techniques. That tells us more about the sport than the fact that he used them. Sorakichi, a very accomplished Catch-as-Catch-Can wrestler in his own right, disdained the attacks as poor sportsmanship and unfair. The crowd booed, hissed, and cursed at Lewis after he leglocked Sorakichi-- a clear indication that such a thing was not commonplace in Catch-as-Catch-Can wrestling.

    There's also the fact that Sorakichi didn't submit as a result of the attacks. Any novice submission grappler knows to give up when he can't escape a good choke or joint lock. Since Sorakichi certainly wasn't a novice, and since he didn't submit, we can assume he had no idea submission was an option.

    It seems very likely that Evan Lewis was the exception to the rule. While he obviously knew how to apply holds in a punishing or damaging fashion, it was clearly not the rule of the day to do so. In fact, many point to Evan Lewis as being primary amongst the reasons the stranglehold became banned from Catch-as-Catch-Can wrestling in the 1890's.

    This all seems to point to the idea of submission holds being an alien concept in Western wrestling, at the time.



    --Joe
  4. Jack Rusher is online now
    Jack Rusher's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    2,131

    Posted On:
    12/09/2008 10:49pm


     Style: ti da shuai na

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Hey Joe,

    I don't know much about CACC, but I have seen some things that lead me to believe there was some kind of submission grappling in the US at the end of the 19th Century. In particular, I've found old archive photos at the New York Public Library that show what look like crude submission holds.

    For example, here are some lads from a NY State reformatory (c. 1920), posed as if one has taken the other's back and applied a shoulder lock:



    And here's Joe Stecher sloppily back mounting and applying an armlock (c. 1912):



    Stecher vs Caddock, January 30th 1920 (NY Times coverage), the first pro wrestling match filmed:

    YouTube - Oldest Pro Wrestling on Film: Caddock vs Stecher, 1920

    ... it's hard going, given the bad film quality, but worth watching from around the 20:00 mark. There's loads of turtling and back taking, but it seems clear that the RNC is either unknown or against the rules, much as you've suggested (further supported by this photo of Strangler Lewis doing his thing). The fight ends with a pin secured via a wristlock / body scissors combo. :duckie:
    “Most people do not do, but take refuge in theory and talk, thinking that they will become good in this way” -- Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, II.4
  5. Kung-Fu Joe is offline
    Kung-Fu Joe's Avatar

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    929

    Posted On:
    12/11/2008 1:39am


     Style: Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Skellington
    Hey Joe,

    I don't know much about CACC, but I have seen some things that lead me to believe there was some kind of submission grappling in the US at the end of the 19th Century. In particular, I've found old archive photos at the New York Public Library that show what look like crude submission holds.

    For example, here are some lads from a NY State reformatory (c. 1920), posed as if one has taken the other's back and applied a shoulder lock:

    That is a body scissors and half-nelson hold. The attacker uses the body scissors to control his opponent's hips and prevent escape. He then turns his whole body into the direction of the half-nelson to force his opponent's shoulders to the mat and secure a pinfall.

    Earle Liederman describes this exact technique on pages 158 and 159 of his book The Science of Wrestling and the Art of Jiu-Jitsu.

    And here's Joe Stecher sloppily back mounting and applying an armlock (c. 1912):

    Another use of the body scissors, this time with a further bar arm hold. The body scissors serves similar purpose as in the previous technique. The further bar arm hold is not used in the manner we might in Sub Grappling. Rather, depending on which way the bottom man twists, the attacker can perform a number of movements whose end result will be a pinfall. In the picture above, if the bottom man continues bellying down towards his own left arm, the top man can pull him back up onto his left hip by use of the further arm as a lever. If the bottom man, instead, turns back towards the top man, he cannot post on his right arm, leaving his shoulders dangerously close to a pinfall.

    Paul Prehn describes a very similar attack on page 65 of his book Scientific Methods of Wrestling.

    Stecher vs Caddock, January 30th 1920 (NY Times coverage), the first pro wrestling match filmed:

    ... it's hard going, given the bad film quality, but worth watching from around the 20:00 mark. There's loads of turtling and back taking, but it seems clear that the RNC is either unknown or against the rules, much as you've suggested (further supported by this photo of Strangler Lewis doing his thing). The fight ends with a pin secured via a wristlock / body scissors combo. :duckie:
    There's also plenty of passed-up opportunities for armbars from back control, in that video-- though an armbar presents even more of a problem when Western pinning rules are in play than the RNC does.

    Blue Negation PM'ed me a link to this excellent pic of Ed Lewis:

    This is the neck yoke which was described in the articles I mentioned previously. While it certainly bears a resemblance to the Rear Naked Choke that we know and love, today, there are a number of things to note about this technique. First is that Ed Lewis-- unlike his Strangling predecessor, Evan Lewis-- competed at a time when strangleholds were illegal in Catch-as-Catch-Can Wrestling. Second is the article I mentioned above, which states that this hold is NOT, itself, intended for securing a fall (and, therefore, not a fight-ending hold).

    Finally, there's a comparison between the technique we see here and modern knowledge of the RNC. When a modern sub-grappler applies the RNC using this method of gripping, there are major differences in the application. Firstly, the hand of the attacking arm would be pressed much closer to the defender's own head and ear-- not out over the far shoulder, as above. Secondly, the elbow of the securing arm would be pressed closely down the back, rather than extended away from the defender's body. Thirdly, the attacker would hip-into the choke, adding leverage to the pressure and pulling the opponent off-balance; whereas, here, Ed Lewis has turned his right hip away from his opponent.

    I fully believe that Catch-as-Catch-Can Wrestlers knew holds which were painful and utilized such attacks in their matches. My contention is that securing these holds solely for the sake of causing the opponent to submit was NEVER a goal of American wrestling, and was a completely alien concept to Westerners until the cross-pollination of Judo influenced the sport.

    --Joe
    Last edited by Kung-Fu Joe; 12/11/2008 1:42am at .
  6. Jack Rusher is online now
    Jack Rusher's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    2,131

    Posted On:
    12/11/2008 11:06am


     Style: ti da shuai na

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Sweet research, Joe! As I said before, I don't know much about CACC, thus I was probably viewing those photos through the lens of my own sub-grappling experience. Do you have any insight as to where Evan "Strangler I" Lewis may have learnt the strangle and leg lock he used on Sorakichi?
    “Most people do not do, but take refuge in theory and talk, thinking that they will become good in this way” -- Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, II.4
  7. e.kaye is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    47

    Posted On:
    12/11/2008 11:26am


     Style: Boxing

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    KUng Fu Joe-I did a quick read through muy collections and found these tidbits. I will endeavour to be more thorough in the future when I have the time.

    It is clear that "locks" and "hooks" existed long before the Japanese co-mingled with the Americans.

    I have one book dated 1897(Leonard), that clearly refers to locks.

    I was able to find one book(by Dick Cameron), probably from the 1930s that list the rules for a Catch match as being won by falls. But in the definition of falls, was "Submission Fall" where the opponent obviously submits. In two or three other books, the listed rules did not mention submissions.

    Farmer Burns book dated 1911(I have a signed copy) clearly refers to locks and breaks. Burns was born in 1861 and was obviusly doing these things long before the Japanese arrived.

    Gotch's book clearly lays out that his toe-hold if done correctly will break the foot.

    EJ Harrisons books refer to locks.

    Basically, almost every book refers to locks. And forbidden moves that may break, cripple or kiill.

    Evidently, the Full Nelson was banned from competition before the turn of the century because someone was killed with it.

    So while not every legit "Match" may have included submissions, some did have submission falls, and clearly the "Art" included many moves banned from competition because they could main or kill. Among these, the Full Nelson and Strangles.
  8. theotherserge is offline
    theotherserge's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    North of San Francisco
    Posts
    4,458

    Posted On:
    12/11/2008 11:48am

    Join us... or die
     Style: sambo/crossfit

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    good posts guys!

    I've read/heard the same re: "fall"=submission or pin.

    It seems that in many cases, the wrestler would hunt for a pin against a lesser opponent as they were being merciful.
    Many things we do naturally become difficult only when we try to make them intellectual subjects. It is possible to know so much about a subject that you become totally ignorant.
    -Mentat Text Two (dicto)
  9. Stew is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Monroe, La
    Posts
    43

    Posted On:
    12/11/2008 2:03pm


     Style: Boxing

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by e.kaye
    KUng Fu Joe-I did a quick read through muy collections and found these tidbits. I will endeavour to be more thorough in the future when I have the time.

    It is clear that "locks" and "hooks" existed long before the Japanese co-mingled with the Americans.

    I have one book dated 1897(Leonard), that clearly refers to locks.

    I was able to find one book(by Dick Cameron), probably from the 1930s that list the rules for a Catch match as being won by falls. But in the definition of falls, was "Submission Fall" where the opponent obviously submits. In two or three other books, the listed rules did not mention submissions.

    Farmer Burns book dated 1911(I have a signed copy) clearly refers to locks and breaks. Burns was born in 1861 and was obviusly doing these things long before the Japanese arrived.

    Gotch's book clearly lays out that his toe-hold if done correctly will break the foot.

    EJ Harrisons books refer to locks.

    Basically, almost every book refers to locks. And forbidden moves that may break, cripple or kiill.

    Evidently, the Full Nelson was banned from competition before the turn of the century because someone was killed with it.

    So while not every legit "Match" may have included submissions, some did have submission falls, and clearly the "Art" included many moves banned from competition because they could main or kill. Among these, the Full Nelson and Strangles.
    Is there any chance you post any scans from some of these books? Not doubting you, I'd just like to see some more from the older material. Particularly the Farmer Burns book. I take it this is different from his mail order course?
  10. e.kaye is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    47

    Posted On:
    12/11/2008 3:50pm


     Style: Boxing

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I am not much for scanning, nor do I really have the time to do it. Sorry.

    Old catch books are available on EBay all the time. There are other sources on the net. One is www.antekprizering.com/bookswrestling.html. Old Boxing stuff too. Some are not that expensive either.
Page 1 of 6 1 2345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.