225243 Bullies, 4042 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 11 to 20 of 60
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 12 3456 LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. SBG-ape is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    499

    Posted On:
    11/20/2009 8:27pm


     Style: Jiu-jitsu & HEMA

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    did the fact that they(warriors in the middle ages) assumed that the opponent would be wearing armour or at least thick clothes cause them to neglect striking?
    I think the fact that everyone carried a knife made unarmed striking less important. It's also certainly true that boxing doesn't work well against armor while grappling retains much of its effect.
  2. DdlR is offline
    DdlR's Avatar

    Light Heavyweight

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    4,772

    Posted On:
    11/20/2009 11:00pm

    supporting member
     Style: Bartitsu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by RedCrane View Post

    Re-ground fighting: I think the value would depend on the context of combat. I think that in the history of many fighting systems, cultures etc., there's cases of "single combat", both "recreational" and "mortal", where holding someone down and finishing them off would be handy, because the "rules" kept one safe from multiple attackers.

    I would agree that systems for the "battlefield" (or some such designation) would clearly avoid ground fighting, but that other forms of combat, like "dueling", it might actually be prudent to ground out the enemy.
    Ground combat can happen whether you want it to or not, whether you're prepared for it or not. A strong, heavy, skilled and/or simply lucky opponent (or two, or three) can easily take a fighter down; it seems imprudent for battlefield arts to fail to prepare fighters for that eventuality.
  3. RedCrane is offline

    Featherweight

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    19

    Posted On:
    11/20/2009 11:47pm

    Bullshido Newbie
     Style: Bartitsu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by DdlR View Post
    Ground combat can happen whether you want it to or not, whether you're prepared for it or not. A strong, heavy, skilled and/or simply lucky opponent (or two, or three) can easily take a fighter down; it seems imprudent for battlefield arts to fail to prepare fighters for that eventuality.
    Yes I see your point, and am of a similar mind- it sure can happen as you say.

    My thinking was that the pro-active use of ground fighting in "battlefield" or "en masse" situations wouldn't be "high probability", but I agree with you that reversing the ground situation would be something best studied.


    All the Best,

    -Chris Amendola
  4. Sley is offline

    mr. Hobbes

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,390

    Posted On:
    11/21/2009 12:00am


     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by RedCrane View Post
    Sley,

    Not sure your intention with the usage of "traditional" in a WMA setting ("Asian" arts?, or do you mean "historical"?).

    Re-ground fighting: I think the value would depend on the context of combat. I think that in the history of many fighting systems, cultures etc., there's cases of "single combat", both "recreational" and "mortal", where holding someone down and finishing them off would be handy, because the "rules" kept one safe from multiple attackers.

    I would agree that systems for the "battlefield" (or some such designation) would clearly avoid ground fighting, but that other forms of combat, like "dueling", it might actually be prudent to ground out the enemy.

    All the Best,

    -Chris Amendola
    I find the idea of a unarmed duels to the death being common in Medieval Europe rather far fetched
  5. Matt_Werk is offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Posts
    9

    Posted On:
    11/21/2009 12:19am

    Bullshido Newbie
     Style: Judo, SubGrappling, TKD

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    ^^^

    Actually why would you say that??? (unless you are joking, I cannot tell, its the internet)

    There is plenty of evidence of duels to the death from the beginning of mankind all the way to Aaron Burr vs A Hamilton. Burr and Ham was fought with guns, but you get the point. Our ancestors meant business. Killing and being killed was a part of everyday life. Weapons were definitely a part of everyday life also, but that should not cause people to neglect all the skills one needs to fight, including the hand only ground techs.

    I mean, your life is at stake, so why should you give up so easily? Just because you are on your back does not mean you should just lay there and take a beating. If my opponant has a weapon, and I am on my back, I will still try to do something: roll away, kick his legs out and make him fall, grab the spear as it is coming in.

    I had a book called chinese fast wrestling. It had some tech to deal with a standing opponant when you are on your back. The book contained lots of trips to use against a standing enemy.

    But lets take two unarmed combatants. They are fighting and one guy falls down. It is logical to assume the downed opponant is not just going to walk away now that he has fallen. Our ancestors must have known ways to deal with this situation, namely, to finish the fallen opponant without weapons.

    Like someone had already stated. Martial arts are not only developed for the battlefield. What about self-defense outside of a duel when you did not have a weapon?
    Last edited by Matt_Werk; 11/21/2009 12:25am at .
  6. RedCrane is offline

    Featherweight

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    19

    Posted On:
    11/21/2009 12:20am

    Bullshido Newbie
     Style: Bartitsu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Sley View Post
    I find the idea of a unarmed duels to the death being common in Medieval Europe rather far fetched
    Sley,

    I didn't mean to imply that in that time period there were unarmed "duels" to the death. In that time period I would just imagine it might be easier to pin down an armored man and kill him there, than trying to finish him "toe to toe" if you will. (Notice I did not say "submit", so think dagger through the visor while sitting in something like a mount).

    Also, even in later European times (less armour, but still armed), I can imagine that there would be times in "duels" where putting someone on their backside and then holding them down would be of great tactical advantage, for example if they were quick and their opponent was not.

    Thanks,

    Chris Amendola
  7. GenericUnique is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    55

    Posted On:
    11/21/2009 5:00am


     Style: WMA Lichtenauer Longsword

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    The few ringen techniques on the ground can all, afaik, be summarised into:

    a) a "pin" that lets you work a dagger into some chink in his harness. Often no more than sitting or kneeling on him and knocking or holding his arms clear of wherever you want to stab.

    b) (rarer) an extension of a lock that you already had standing. I think the idea may have been that they're continuations of a dagger defence - for example, you achieve a lock on his dagger-arm, and use it to take him down, and it would be unwise to let go of the hand to draw your own dagger. Deal with the sharp thing in his hand first, by disarm or breaking the limb.
  8. Sley is offline

    mr. Hobbes

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,390

    Posted On:
    11/21/2009 2:53pm


     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by RedCrane View Post
    Sley,

    I didn't mean to imply that in that time period there were unarmed "duels" to the death. In that time period I would just imagine it might be easier to pin down an armored man and kill him there, than trying to finish him "toe to toe" if you will. (Notice I did not say "submit", so think dagger through the visor while sitting in something like a mount).

    Also, even in later European times (less armour, but still armed), I can imagine that there would be times in "duels" where putting someone on their backside and then holding them down would be of great tactical advantage, for example if they were quick and their opponent was not.

    Thanks,

    Chris Amendola
    I have seen some depictions on what looks like foot soldiers raming daggers into knights arm pits.

    I'm just assuming they wanted to just throw the men as the shock caused by being thrown while in say heavy chain male would be stunning, allowing a good old fashion stomping and clubbing to death.
  9. DdlR is offline
    DdlR's Avatar

    Light Heavyweight

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    4,772

    Posted On:
    11/21/2009 3:07pm

    supporting member
     Style: Bartitsu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    The Huntfeldt (sp?) treatise has an written section describing a series of pins/locks designed for armored groundfighting with daggers, and also leverage reversals to many of the pins/locks. Similar techniques are scattered around the kampfringen sections of other treatises, sometimes just as written descriptions, sometimes illustrated.
  10. lklawson is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Dayton, OH
    Posts
    964

    Posted On:
    11/23/2009 9:16am


     Style: Bowie

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Sley View Post
    I find the idea of a unarmed duels to the death being common in Medieval Europe rather far fetched
    Nothing would surprise me. I wouldn't find it surprising to learn that a sub-culture of dueling with bobby pins and hair curlers emerged.

    I'm currently working on transcribing "The History of Duelling" (yes, that's how it's spelled) for a friend and I can tell you that, if the work is at all accurate, our forefathers were frick'n NUTS.

    Two dueling methods recorded therein I can't get out of my mind. First, the two combatants were stripped to the waist, locked in an empty room by the Seconds, with two knives placed on the floor, and the lights put out. The two suicidal fools had a knife fight, completely blind, in the dark. Second, the two "combatants" were provided, by their Seconds, with two "pills." One innocuous and the other poison. The duelists would, each one, select and consume one pill at random from the two, and then stare at each other until one frothed at the mouth and died (and here all this time I thought that the "Duel of Wits" in the Princess Bride was fiction).

    So, yes, fistfights "to the death" wouldn't surprise me a bit (though I don't recall seeing any specifically alluded to in the book - then again, I'm not finished transcribing yet).

    Peace favor your sword,
    Kirk
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.