PDA

View Full Version : From combat to dueling, how modern martial arts evolved?



Pages : [1] 2

AAAhmed46
10/29/2008 5:13pm,
YouTube - Renaissance Martial Arts - the Web Documentary: Part 10of10 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8o-Fv3Gs_7o)

I found this very interesting, loved the history behind it all, and why some styles are the way they are.

Anyway, discuss.

EDIT: more or less, does anyone else see the same pattern with unarmed combat?

danno
10/29/2008 6:45pm,
when you stop testing your style by sparring and fighting and start to adjust your techniques until they just look right, you're fucked. and when you start making up new techniques altogether and decide that they'd work because it looks like they would, you end up with something like aikido.

i also think it would be difficult to recreate good sword fighting to any great degree because you're omitting too many variables with the sparring. i'm sure that if you used real swords and had people pretty much fight to the death, a lot of new things would pop up that you couldn't have anticipated by sparring with padded sticks and so on.

Scott Larson
10/29/2008 6:48pm,
haven't got to watch it all yet, but starting at 1:10, those dudes got fucked up.

TheRuss
10/29/2008 6:49pm,
Well, I haven't had a chance to use one yet, but I'd imagine that shock knives are a pretty good substitute for actual knives. I'd imagine you'd have to modify the design to allow for blade-on-blade contact with them, but still, it's probably a step in the right direction.

danno
10/29/2008 7:01pm,
Well, I haven't had a chance to use one yet, but I'd imagine that shock knives are a pretty good substitute for actual knives. I'd imagine you'd have to modify the design to allow for blade-on-blade contact with them, but still, it's probably a step in the right direction.

but are you learning the most effective way to cut someone? would it just draw blood or kill them?

it's like boxing without ever punching hard enough to drop someone. increasing the level of contact changes things quite a bit. in this way, i think that live blades would be similar.

that's why i don't think that we will be ever be able to develop armed combat (excluding guns, as in modern times there have been plenty of wars to find out how to use them properly) to the level that we have developed unarmed combat.

unless we bring back the gladiator stuff.

DdlR
10/29/2008 9:12pm,
Ta-daaa -

YouTube - Ars Dimicandi - i Gladiatori (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDCOILg_9QY)

TheRuss
10/29/2008 10:49pm,
but are you learning the most effective way to cut someone? would it just draw blood or kill them?

it's like boxing without ever punching hard enough to drop someone. increasing the level of contact changes things quite a bit. in this way, i think that live blades would be similar

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

Permalost
10/30/2008 12:46am,
A shock knife in longsword form would be the most awesome thing ever invented.

Hertzyscowicz
10/30/2008 4:12am,
There is a similar trend visible in Martial arts in general, but fortunately we have the internet now, and anyone can look up just how big a pile of bullshit their Wang too low grand master's last lecture was.

Moenstah
10/30/2008 4:58am,
It's more like a wave thing. A sport/art starts, is quite rough and harsh, then the bureaucrats step in: ever more rules, emphasis on rank and the organisation becomes a purpose in itself. Then a group breaks off, and forms its new thing, which will face the same fate.

I don't think that it's a bad thing, it's just a sign of the vigour of the bourgeois values and culture. 'fighting' and 'civilisation' are inherently at odds with eachother.


PS: damned shame that I can't join one of those groups, they're too far away in my country :'(

danno
10/30/2008 5:51am,
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
10/31/2008 1:21pm,
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
10/31/2008 2:47pm,
That video was pretty bad ass.


Group shankings were hilarious.

AAAhmed46
11/01/2008 1:28am,
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
11/01/2008 4:34am,
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
11/01/2008 4:42am,
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.