230780 Bullies, 5469 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 11 to 20 of 58
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 12 3456 LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. e.kaye is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    47

    Posted On:
    12/11/2008 4:10pm


     Style: Boxing

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!



    The pic is from my buddy's site and scans are on this page:

    http://stickgrappler.tripod.com/catch/farmer.html.


    There is probably a lot of stuff in Stickgrappler's archive.
    Last edited by e.kaye; 12/11/2008 4:29pm at .
  2. Vince Tortelli is offline

    Light Heavyweight

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    4,000

    Posted On:
    12/11/2008 7:02pm

    supporting member
     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    There is a website that has an entire wrestling manual penned by Farmer Burns in e-viewable format...I used to be a regular viewer, I'll see if I can find it and post the link. (Allegedly, it's the same manual that Matt Furey used to charge people to buy...) I do remember that Burns specifically says strangle holds are illegal in wrestling, although he does offer a couple of ways to counter them in case you find yourself confronted by a cheater or jujutsu stylist.

    Oh, and to whoever talked about the Gracies defeating catch stylists...have you ever heard of an Japanese MMA fighter named Sakuraba?
  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:
    12/11/2008 11:57pm


     Style: Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu

    --
    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.
    Again, I'm not saying that Catch-as-Catch-Can was devoid of painful holds. Quite the contrary, I fully admit that its wrestlers employed a vast arsenal of techniques which could cause excruciating pain. My contention is that the end goal was always a pinfall, and that the concept of submission grappling was alien.

    Additionally, I'll posit that the term "lock" had an entirely different connotation to late 19th and early 20th century wrestlers than it has for modern sub grapplers. The way the term is utilized in many early wrestling manuals, it seems to be more in regard to the immobilization of a limb than to the hyperextension of a joint. Many great examples of this can be found in Liederman's book, one of which follows:


    This is certainly unlike anything we'd normally think of if someone mentioned a Wrist Lock or an Ankle Lock.

    There are a great many holds and locks from early Catch that are certainly painful in application; however, the purpose of the hold was NOT the infliction of pain, in and of itself. The purpose was to force the opponent onto his back for the pin. Gotch's toe-hold was designed in this manner. Ed Lewis' neck yoke was set to this purpose. Double Wrist-Locks (same grip as Kimura and Americana) and armbars and a great many other holds were used by wrestlers to force other wrestlers into different positions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Skellington
    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?
    Unfortunately, I haven't been able to discern exactly where Evan Lewis' neck yoke was learned, or even how it was performed. If I were to go on conjecture alone, I would say that it's quite likely that Evan Lewis just made slight modifications to existing Wrestling techniques. All it takes is one headlock-accidentally-turned-blood-choke for someone to say, "Wow! Let me try that again!"

    If my guess is right, and these techniques-- though painful-- were primarily intended to secure pinfalls, it may just be that Evan Lewis was one of those sadistic jerks who cared less about winning by the rules, and more about causing his opponent so much discomfort they lose all sense of their own technique. From different descriptions I've read of the gentleman, this certainly seems likely. He was often noted for his brutality and penchant for punishing holds.

    --Joe
    Last edited by Kung-Fu Joe; 12/11/2008 11:59pm at .
  4. e.kaye is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    47

    Posted On:
    12/12/2008 2:48pm


     Style: Boxing

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    KFJ-Sorry that you remain unconvinced. Certainly in matches "holds" were used to get the pinfall. But as I have pointed out at least one source refers to "submission falls".

    It is more likely that matches had all sorts of rules, agreed upon by the contestants in advance.

    It is also clear from reading any of this material that the wrestlers were well aware of the potential damage that the holds could inflict. Dangerous holds were banned. How would they know that they were dangerous, had someone already inflicted harm with them. Like the Full Nelson.

    I will see if I can find any information on Evan Lewis' stranglehold for you. It was mentioned in at least a couple the books.
  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:
    12/13/2008 12:57am


     Style: Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by e.kaye
    KFJ-Sorry that you remain unconvinced. Certainly in matches "holds" were used to get the pinfall. But as I have pointed out at least one source refers to "submission falls".
    Right, but the source you pointed out which contained "submission falls" was published in the 1930's, well after the cross-pollination of Judo and wrestling began. If anyone can find such a reference in earlier manuals, I'd be extremely interested.

    It is more likely that matches had all sorts of rules, agreed upon by the contestants in advance.
    I certainly agree with this. It seems that even with established rulesets, like those of the AAU, many wrestlers still clung to their own variations and modifications to the standard.

    It is also clear from reading any of this material that the wrestlers were well aware of the potential damage that the holds could inflict. Dangerous holds were banned. How would they know that they were dangerous, had someone already inflicted harm with them. Like the Full Nelson.
    Once again, I completely agree, here. My contention has never been the presence of dangerous holds; I've only made claims about their purpose and application.

    I will see if I can find any information on Evan Lewis' stranglehold for you. It was mentioned in at least a couple the books.
    Thanks! That'd be greatly appreciated!

    --Joe
  6. Kung-Fu Joe is offline
    Kung-Fu Joe's Avatar

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    929

    Posted On:
    12/13/2008 10:35am


     Style: Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Victor Parlati
    ***DON'T be too amazed about that, e.kaye. If you go back and read some of this thread at it's early stages you'll find that Kung Fu Joe's approach to the theme of this thread and the nature of catch as a true grappling submission art was almost always an attempt to trivialize or minimize the implications of the evidence or logic presented.

    That's been his pattern all through this thread, in fact.
    Come on, Vic-- I've hardly been unfair in my claims or arguments. I haven't been the kind of guy to just dismiss Catch-as-Catch-Can and claim that BJJ is superior to all. I do have a deep respect and a hearty interest in historical Wrestling. I don't collect and read old Catch-as-Catch-Can manuals because I disdain the art. I present my argumentation with evidence, and respond to directly evidence presented to me.

    ***NEEDLESS to say, of course cacc has always been about both pin falls and submission falls; and yes, this was true both in Wigan, England and the American midwest long before the arrival of the Japanese arts.
    If this is true, why was it never represented in any written form until after the influx of Japanese wrestling? Why was Evan "Strangler" Lewis booed and reviled in the late nineteenth century for employing techniques solely to induce pain? Why was the stranglehold barred from competition in the 1890's?

    If anything, it's "Gracie" jiu jitsu that has played fast and loose with history as regards the true submission nature of catch and it's influence on BJJ.

    Perhaps some folks might want to go back and re-listen to the Josh Barnett interview I posted recently wherein he talks about how judo's Maeda was actually influenced by catch (when he wrestled professionally as Count Koma)....BEFORE he actually landed in Brazil around 1916 and taught the Gracie's.
    I can agree to this. I think it goes without saying that Maeda's experiences in bouts against Catch-as-Catch-Can wrestlers likely influenced both his teachings and his methods. I'm rather sure the Gracie propaganda with which we are all familiar was borne mostly out of the family's own ignorance of Maeda's experiences-- which, in turn, was likely caused by the language gap between Maeda and his students.

    Heck, I still find people who believe that "Count Koma" was a true Japanese viscount.

    In addition, I believe I also tried to explain much earlier in the thread some of the reasons behind the secretive nature of some cacc "hookers" (those who mastered submmissions) due to always wanting trump cards in their back pockets due to the gambling ($) that infiltrated cacc circles pretty much right from the get-go (ie.- early 1900's)...

    but as I recall kung fu Joe was one of those with very sceptical ears about this.

    That's his prerogative, I guess...
    I wasn't skeptical about the existence of hookers, nor of the punishment which one could impose through use of hooks. My argument is-- and has always been-- the purpose and intention of the attacks.

    I fully believe that professional wrestlers utilized hooks as a trump card in prize bouts against amateurs. I don't believe that they did so in an attempt to force a submission fall.

    Again, though, I fully admit that I am no historical expert on the subject. The whole of my understanding comes from what I've been able to find on the Internet or in a few books from the turn of the century. I would absolutely welcome any evidence that submission grappling existed in Western wrestling prior to Japanese influence. Not just painful attacks, mind you, but actually grappling with one's primary goal being to force a submission.

    --Joe
  7. jnp is offline
    jnp's Avatar

    Titanium laced beauty

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    8,243

    Posted On:
    12/13/2008 11:47am

    supporting memberforum leaderstaff
     Style: BJJ, wrestling

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Victor Parlati
    If anything, it's "Gracie" jiu jitsu that has played fast and loose with history as regards the true submission nature of catch and it's influence on BJJ.

    Perhaps some folks might want to go back and re-listen to the Josh Barnett interview I posted recently wherein he talks about how judo's Maeda was actually influenced by catch (when he wrestled professionally as Count Koma)....BEFORE he actually landed in Brazil around 1916 and taught the Gracie's.
    Anyone who is remotely serious about learning the history of BJJ should be aware that CACC influenced Maeda during his travels and subsequently BJJ Victor.

    Ironically, it seems a substantial percentage of CACC practitioners, such as yourself, are unwilling to cross train in modern BJJ, which would, in a sense, complete the circle.

    Luckily, BJJ is willing to beg, borrow or steal from any effective grappling art.

    Pride in your art stops being a good thing if it restricts your learning process.
  8. e.kaye is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    47

    Posted On:
    12/14/2008 11:36pm


     Style: Boxing

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I am going to address a bunch of things in no particular order, because this thread is all over the place.

    1-I understand Internet ball busting, but you guys are either real good at it or as stubborn as they come. The constant insistance that CACC did not have submissions or hooks prior to the Japanese coming to the US is ridiculous.

    First, since around 1700, the US had a tradition of wrestling most often called Rough and Tumble. There are other "names" and I am looking for an old artilce that is all about this tradition, but I do not know if it is still online. Rough and Tumble persisted unitl the mid 1800's when CACC took over and the rules were civilized. That does mean that overnight every guy in the US lost 150 years of knowledge of submission, hooks, gouging and all of the other nasty stuff that took place. Please think about this rationally.

    2-CACC rules persisted at least until 1930, when it would seem that All In style and rules took over(as I already proved some CACC matches already were using submission falls prior to this). You can say what you want about the Japanese influence, but all that I can find is that the Japanese influenced the rules, I think that knowledge of the subs were always there, just that was not what CACC rules called for.

    3-CACC as the name is used today has nothing to do with CACC as it existed around the turn of the century. I think that a lot of the argument comes from one side insisting that CACC today is the indentical twin of CACC of 1900 and it is not. CACC in the 21st century is discussed, basically because of one person, Tony Cecchine. I have said this before on other forums, Tony teaches his "art" and he calls it CACC. What he was taught and what he teaches is Tony Cecchine's CACC. It has nothing to do with rules, pins or any of that nonesense. None of these discussions would be taking place if he had called it ROugh and Tumble or Hooking and Gouging or Break Dancing for that matter. His knowledge was handed down to him by a wrestler, who knows what he called it. CACC went through the Pro Wrestling Era for over 60 years before MMA emerged and agressive grappling became the vogue again. The Pro wresting patina has nothing to do with discussion, but I think often confuses the issue.

    4-Victor may not express himself to your satisfaction, but he believes in his art. As far as the bottom is concerned, CACC as taught by Tony Cecchine has a bottom game. That bottom game is different than the BJJ bottom game. What Victor has tried to say is that the CACC guy as Tony teaches it, is constantly looking for the escape. As Tony teaches, the escape, if done correctly, usually enters into a hook. The escape leads to a hook or a hook leads to an escape. They are not done separately they are intrinsic to each other. THe insistence that CACC today does not have a bottom game is just false. One, the bottom game is WRESTLING. WRESTLE your way to the top. Second, for all of the naysayers, I personally hosted a five hour seminar where Tony taught nothing but escapes from the bottom. He knows them, can teach them, they exist, period.



    Sorry, if this is a little disjointed. I will try to respond to any reasonable questions.
  9. e.kaye is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    47

    Posted On:
    12/15/2008 1:39am


     Style: Boxing

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
  10. Kung-Fu Joe is offline
    Kung-Fu Joe's Avatar

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    929

    Posted On:
    12/15/2008 8:13am


     Style: Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    e.kaye, thanks for bringing the thread back to an intellectual discussion regarding historical occurrences. The last thing this thread needs is another 10 pages worth of Vic Parlati pretending there's some major difference in modern CACC versus modern BJJ.

    Quote Originally Posted by e.kaye
    I am going to address a bunch of things in no particular order, because this thread is all over the place.

    1-I understand Internet ball busting, but you guys are either real good at it or as stubborn as they come. The constant insistance that CACC did not have submissions or hooks prior to the Japanese coming to the US is ridiculous.
    Once again, the contention is NOT that hooks and other punishing holds did not exist. The contention is that they were not the end goal.

    First, since around 1700, the US had a tradition of wrestling most often called Rough and Tumble. There are other "names" and I am looking for an old artilce that is all about this tradition, but I do not know if it is still online. Rough and Tumble persisted unitl the mid 1800's when CACC took over and the rules were civilized. That does mean that overnight every guy in the US lost 150 years of knowledge of submission, hooks, gouging and all of the other nasty stuff that took place. Please think about this rationally.
    Rough-and-Tumble was just another term for "anything goes" or "no holds barred" fighting. The fact that it persisted does NOT necessarily insinuate a level of submission grappling knowledge anywhere close to even what could be found in the early Red-and-White Tournaments in Japan. There's a big difference between people fighting with bites and gouges allowed, and strategic submission fighting.

    2-CACC rules persisted at least until 1930, when it would seem that All In style and rules took over(as I already proved some CACC matches already were using submission falls prior to this). You can say what you want about the Japanese influence, but all that I can find is that the Japanese influenced the rules, I think that knowledge of the subs were always there, just that was not what CACC rules called for.
    Except that many of the Wrestling manuals at the time-- often written by champion Catch-as-Catch-Can Wrestlers-- mention quite frankly how the Japanese jiu-jitsu practitioners had very different, and very unique, outlooks on Wrestling and its applications. If it were truly the case that the arts were so similar, this surprise at Japanese methodology should not have existed.

    George Hackenschmidt recommends cross-training in Jiu-Jitsu in his book, The Complete Science of Wrestling, even going so far as to say that jiu-jitsu practitioners use their legs in an offensive manner during mat-wrestling, and that this was a rather unheard of concept amongst Catch-as-Catch-Can wrestlers before Japanese influence.

    Now, I may have missed the proof you posted, earlier, about sumbission falls existing prior to Japanese influence-- I'll retrace the thread and attempt to locate that. I do remember your mention of Dick Cameron's book containing Sub Falls in the ruleset, but that was published well after Japanese influence. If there is evidence of submission fighting utilized prior to Japanese influence, I'd absolutely love to see it.

    3-CACC as the name is used today has nothing to do with CACC as it existed around the turn of the century. I think that a lot of the argument comes from one side insisting that CACC today is the indentical twin of CACC of 1900 and it is not. CACC in the 21st century is discussed, basically because of one person, Tony Cecchine. I have said this before on other forums, Tony teaches his "art" and he calls it CACC. What he was taught and what he teaches is Tony Cecchine's CACC. It has nothing to do with rules, pins or any of that nonesense. None of these discussions would be taking place if he had called it ROugh and Tumble or Hooking and Gouging or Break Dancing for that matter. His knowledge was handed down to him by a wrestler, who knows what he called it. CACC went through the Pro Wrestling Era for over 60 years before MMA emerged and agressive grappling became the vogue again. The Pro wresting patina has nothing to do with discussion, but I think often confuses the issue.
    This is a very excellent point, and one with which I wholeheartedly agree.

    4-Victor may not express himself to your satisfaction, but he believes in his art. As far as the bottom is concerned, CACC as taught by Tony Cecchine has a bottom game. That bottom game is different than the BJJ bottom game. What Victor has tried to say is that the CACC guy as Tony teaches it, is constantly looking for the escape. As Tony teaches, the escape, if done correctly, usually enters into a hook. The escape leads to a hook or a hook leads to an escape. They are not done separately they are intrinsic to each other. THe insistence that CACC today does not have a bottom game is just false. One, the bottom game is WRESTLING. WRESTLE your way to the top. Second, for all of the naysayers, I personally hosted a five hour seminar where Tony taught nothing but escapes from the bottom. He knows them, can teach them, they exist, period.

    Sorry, if this is a little disjointed. I will try to respond to any reasonable questions.
    The problem is that, regardless of Vic's insinuation, the idea that an emphasis on escapes and sweeps is unique to Catch is a misconception.

    You know what every single White Belt that enters my school learns before they learn a single submission attack from the guard? The Scissor Sweep. The way our White Belt program is set up, we've had some guys go a full month or more without ever learning a basic Guard sub-- but they will know sweeps from Guard and Half-Guard, and they will know escapes from Side-Control and Mount.

    The idea that BJJ emphasizes subs from the Guard over sweeps is preposterous.

    --Joe
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 12 3456 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.