my take on the first wrestling
A few month ago, Following a conversation with Kwan-dao on the very subject I though I would do a little vid on the subject.
Since I am that quick and organised, I used the lesson 2 weeks ago to shoot it.
I just put that up on you tube this is pretty much I think the 1st ringen is or covers.
Anyway it could be a staring point to get the discussion going.
Thank you for sending me a message about this. I'm sorry I missed that you put this up. I liked the fact that you're actually grabbing cloth (as the extended arms only make sense in that context), but you might want to get your people some cheap gi jackets so that you can work the grip fighting with a bit more intent. I also really enjoyed your apology at the end of the video. I'll be stealing that text when my group starts putting things up on youtube.
Just a few things that jumped out at me:
There are a lot of throws (like the first 1 you demonstrated) that depend on stepping around the opponent to stand at 90 degrees to him with your lead foot behind his near foot. I tend to divide them into those that drop, those that lift & those that wheel/push/pull. When pushing/pulling the opponent back to achieve the throw, it's important to break his posture & therefore his balance. I notice that in the first example your arm turns his jaw & so accomplishes that, but it's less evident in later examples (of course, the other examples transitioned to the leg lift & that's a different throw all together). Rather then doing that takedown with a rotation of my body I often do it by ruddering my knee into the back of my opponent's knee (thus breaking his posture) & then sinking my arm/weight onto him to take him down. I think which you use is circumstantial but it's good to be aware of both.
With the clothesline throws (beginning at 3:08) there's a moment as you step in when you're neutral with your opponent & may be countered. It is possible that your momentum will prevent this, but it's risky in particular against strongly rooted opponents. Once you get your arm under his chin, flare your elbow up. That will tip his head & break his posture, then even a strong man will fall down.
On the whole I'd say this video is better then average for HEMA grappling. I look forward to seeing more from you. Please let me know if you put up any sparring footage. I watch your video more later & post back if I think of any questions or further comments.
Edit: & if you grab a little closer to the crown of the head it will give you better leverage in your collar & elbow tie.
Last edited by SBG-ape; 10/01/2009 5:59pm at .
Thank mate it is really appreciated. I will try to take that onboard.
Originally Posted by SBG-ape
I don’t know you, but I find it much harder to make open hand video than sword. I think the text is more vague and constraining at the same time.
For example, I do agree with you on the different type of throw and leg sweep that can come from that type “entry” and what ever you end up doing will be contextual to an extend. I fact I think that the 1st ringen is more a set up than anything else so as you said there is much more throw than we can do from there.
I tried to keep to the same type of throw all the time because the 1st ringen and the break, which I think is the actual throw and not a break against the 1st ringen, so to be consistent with the text I wanted to keep the arm that strike the neck continue to go around it.
And on the other had you could say that sticto sensus the only 1st ringen on the video is the half assed attempt at 2:25 and the less half assed version at 2:30.
What’s your take on the 1st ringen?
About not taking the posture, man, tell me about it ….
At 1:24 I explain how to break the posture bringing his elbow towards y us and striking with the other elbow. And of course at 1:30 after all that explaining I just do not do it…
You are right, the strikes should be more defined instead of my "he gave it to me, its not needed, lets go to the next step".
As you said in a long range/more committed zu laufen the momentum/commitment will enable you to get away with it. But in the case of a close range zu lauffen (i.e. some fighting form an organised position breaking the distance, the strikes need t be there.
As for sparing there is not really happy with any format as yet, so open hand sparing is really more “form sparing”. For example, one side has to do a dlt or bear hug and the other has to counter and that from different range and position with or without weapon present.
I haven't done much work with Ringeck. Mostly I've been working from the Codex Wallerstein & just recently Fabian von Auerswald, while dabbling in a few others. I'm frustrated to say I've never gotten to read the original Ott material, so I'm left to guess as to how that ties the books together.
The text I have says: "The first technique; place your lower arm over his upper arm before the neck and the other behind his knee."
I feel less comfortable commenting on the specific text of the first ringen in Ringeck then on the general species of throw. I don't know, for example, how much scholarship has gone into connecting that text with period images or to defining what's meant by "lower" & "upper" arms.
I will say that when doing the throw with rotation (rather then a drop) & lifting the near leg, the version I've found most comfortable is to reach across from an underhook (thus the arm on his face/neck comes from below his arm). I don't know if that's the throw being described in Ringeck or just another variation, but I thought it worth mentioning.
I am by no means a great wrestler, but as the only member of my study group with training in grappling it has been up to me to lead our studies. The basic format I've developed is this:
We begin with basic postural drills (stolen from modern sources) so that people develop a feel for the range & the basic postural requirements of that fight. Then will drill achieving & maintaining a specific position described in the fight books & then we'll practice a few throws that the manuals give for that position. In the end we'll have people pair off, start at neutral grips at the elbows & wrestle to pin. I'm hoping to get the group to kampfringen sparring by next fall, but I want them to have a strong base in a sportive flavor of grappling first; as I feel that will help mirror historical biases in the art.
By the way, what source/translation are you using? I can't read German myself, so I'm stuck with David Lindholm's books. I find it frustrating to try & read a primary source with interpretive art all over the pages it makes it difficult to draw my own conclusions (rather like trying to remember a particular song when another song is playing loudly).
Well that makes two of us not so good wrestler then….:happy7:
Hopefully we are going in the right direction.
I find you comment very useful, at the end of the day I put here to get that type of feedback.
Regardless of the throws and how we egg the pudding, I believe that the first part of any throw is pretty much a strike, and I definitely fell short in that respect in the video.
Anyway have a look there http://www.arma.lh.pl/zrodla/zrodla.html there is Ott in VD/goliath, Speyer and Lew.
If you need a quick and dirty translation riddle with spelling and in pigeon English let me know.
On the vocabulary
We know that those term can describe upper arm and forearm , the problem is that the sentence can be understood with the arm that is the lower and the arm that is the higher as well.
If my etymology serve me right, arm and forearm=latin origin
Upper limb and lower limb = saxon-proto German -Scandinavian
In the German medieval ringen, However when there is a throw involved, it is quite consistently called either a break or he tells you to throw explicitly as in wriff im somewhere or over some part of his anatomy or from.
I can understand what you mean about not being that familiar with Sigmund.
The presentation is radically different from the others.
In ringeck you have plenty of throw with and without hips, leg sweeps standing up immobilisation bone breakers , you get grabbed from behind, bear hugged, you almost aikido/daito ruy technique, you have the 3 wrestling that works from ringen proper and zu lauffen alike, he tell you where to strike/press.
The little wrestling we have in Dobringer seems to go along the same path but with a different format.
But unlike Ott, Ringeck does not give you a normal wrestling position.
ie here is Ott( in V speyer) and my quick and drity translation
Wenn du mit einnem ringen willt, aus den armen, so gedennckh albeg daß du in fasst, mit deinner linncken hant in der mauß, seinnß rechten armß, Unnd mit der rechten hannt fasß in auswenndig seinß linncken armß, unnd mit der linncken hannt die du in der mauß hast, druck frisch zu ruck, unnd mit der rechten hannt begreif im sein linncken hannt vornnen, unnd zeuch
vast zu dir, unnd wenn du ainen also gefasst hast, so treib die ringen die hernach geschriben steen welcher dich am besten dunckht, .
When you want to wrestle with someone, out of the arms, so always arrange that you grab him with your left hand in the biceps of his right arm. And the right hand grab winding outside his left arm. And with the left hand that you have on the biceps push briskly back and with the right hand attack his left hand front and jerk quickly toward you and when you have grabbed on like so. Then you can do the wrestling hereafter written according to whichever you think best.
Now I think lots of throws are common to all authors of that lineage, but think that Ott or Lignitzer start from the wrestling at the arm position to explain things. Whereas ringeck, “dobringer”
come more from a “the wise don’t like a man that let himself be tied up” and the lonsword comes from messer, messer comes from wrestling. So I don’t think they see a clinch or arm garb as a foundation for better technique but more like something your opponent will try to do to you.
The codex W seem to quite close to ringeck especially in the second wrestling section. In what it shows, it is much closer than I though. I think the difference is in how things are presented and some slight technical differences and my be a greater willingness to accept the clinch. But I think it is much closer than Ott is.
Last edited by willaume; 10/04/2009 7:19am at .
I do the translation and the transcription myself when I can.
the 3rd pin have been bothering me for ages this is, the best i can come up with.
YouTube - medieval DLT to the 3rd unterhalten work in progress
any ideas on the topic
You know, as soon as I started rereading my Ringeck, the third pin jumped out at me. It's one of those places where you feel like you're beating your head against a wall.
The first part makes sense to me. You do a bull/Japanese double leg & then elevate your opponent's feet so that his hips are off the ground.
The third part makes sense to me. You feed your opponent's 2 legs into 1 hand (either tucking them under your arm or cupping the heels or grabbing lose material on either his pants or shoes), then you are free to attack with your empty hand or to transition past the legs into another control position.
The second part of this technique, the middle part of the technique, makes no sense to me. I've read Lindholm's translation of the movement & I've read your translation & both state clearly that you're driving your knees into the groin. Now I can see driving the knees into your opponent's ass as part of elevating his legs & bringing your hips in, but text seems to be telling you to put you legs between your opponent's. I don't see any significant tactical advantage to that & in fact it seems like it would get in the way of trying to hold the 2 legs with 1 hand because your opponent would have space between his knees due to the presence of your knees, so you couldn't effectively bring the legs/feet together.
I wish I could be of more help. If nothing else, I'm actively pondering Ringeck now so I may come up with something in the future.
P.S. My group has been meaning to put together some videos before the end of the year. We were planning to just put together sparring footage, but maybe I'll get some technique interpretations on film for discussion.
Last edited by SBG-ape; 10/04/2009 9:35pm at .
I do think Ringeck's Ringen has a good deal in common with the codex material. They seem to be of the same tradition or of very similar traditions & they both focus on Kampfringen. My impression, as someone who has not read Ott, but has read of him (please correct me if I'm wrong in this), is that Ott shows more of a sportive style of wrestling.
Certainly it's well documented that sportive wrestling was a favorite past-time during the medieval period. It has always seemed likely to me that kampfringen was essentially medieval sport wrestling + joint breaks/blows/various gouges, rather then a wholly separate grappling art. That opinion has colored my view of the elbow grips.
In my experience there is a lot of strategy in how people come to grips, but there is a profound difference between circumstances where striking is or is not allowed. Much of the hand fighting of modern wrestling, & the grip fighting of modern Judo, becomes irrelevant when you can use strikes to close the distance.
If the concern is training a sportive art in such a way that the skills will readily transfer to a battlefield art, then it makes little sense to train sport specific hand fighting. The elbow grips are essentially neutral & in themselves offer fairly poor options for throwing, but by starting with those proscribed grips it makes it possible to focus on the attached fight that will translate directly to combat.
Whether that was Ott's reasoning or not, I have no idea. In my study group we work pure grappling from the elbows & start free-standing only when we're going to be including strikes.
Originally Posted by SBG-ape
Yes that is the main problem for me as well, For the very same reason.
And just as an added bonus, this had to work in full plate as well because it is in Humpfreld kamfringen (in the vocabulary of the time kampft ringen= armoured wrestling)
Baide/baiden can means each of the two or either of the two
My understanding of medieval grammar is that when it is used with a plural name it means both (as in both at the same time)
And hode is definitely testicule.
My rational for 2 is the following, just so that you know where I come from.
uff has a meaning of direction as much as destination.
A little bit like that modern German with the in+accusative and in+dative
Or in English you are walking to the garden is not the quite the same as you are walking in the garden
To be fair if you get both leg one side in more MMA like you can get in the position and turn him around but it is much fiddlier and it does no work really work in plate.
That piece is even worse that breaking a static alber.
ps yes I think using vid is the best way to discuss technique.