Sport vs. War, according to the Greeks

[Kung-Fu Joe]

Found an interesting blog post, while doing some research for a different topic.

http://www.yachigusaryu.com/blog/200...-sport-in.html

At first glance, it just looks like yet another TMA practitioner defending dead drills and philosophy against the popular and growing sport of MMA. However, the plethora of quotes from the Greek Classics intrigued me. So I re-read the essay with a more critical eye, and I realized that I completely agree with the Greeks, even though I disagree with the author.

The Greeks were making a completely valid point, in their denigration of sports as not preparing men for war. However, that is not the same as the point put forward by TMA'ers: that combat sports are ill-equipped to prepare a person to fight when compared to TMA's.

The difference is fundamental. The Greeks weren't talking about making fighters. They were talking about making soldiers. I think we can all agree that combat sports are not the best preparation for soldiering, just as soldiering is not the best preparation for combat sports. Case in point, even before I started training boxing and BJJ, I used to beat my Marine Corps pal in friendly (and stupid) backyard sparring. However, even now that I've been training for a couple of years with UFC fighters, I'd never claim that I could be half the soldier that he was.

The TMA'er is confusing soldiering and fighting, and thereby misrepresenting the intentions of the Greeks he has quoted.

--Joe

[Gabetuno]

Found an interesting blog post, while doing some research for a different topic.

http://www.yachigusaryu.com/blog/200...-sport-in.html

At first glance, it just looks like yet another TMA practitioner defending dead drills and philosophy against the popular and growing sport of MMA. However, the plethora of quotes from the Greek Classics intrigued me. So I re-read the essay with a more critical eye, and I realized that I completely agree with the Greeks, even though I disagree with the author.

The Greeks were making a completely valid point, in their denigration of sports as not preparing men for war. However, that is not the same as the point put forward by TMA'ers: that combat sports are ill-equipped to prepare a person to fight when compared to TMA's.

The difference is fundamental. The Greeks weren't talking about making fighters. They were talking about making soldiers. I think we can all agree that combat sports are not the best preparation for soldiering, just as soldiering is not the best preparation for combat sports. Case in point, even before I started training boxing and BJJ, I used to beat my Marine Corps pal in friendly (and stupid) backyard sparring. However, even now that I've been training for a couple of years with UFC fighters, I'd never claim that I could be half the soldier that he was.

The TMA'er is confusing soldiering and fighting, and thereby misrepresenting the intentions of the Greeks he has quoted.

--Joe

^^^^^^^^^^^THIS.^^^^^^^^^^^

Ancient warfare does not equal a fight, either then nor now. I can't list all the reasons, because there are too many, but some of them are:

• Modern society revolving around laws and technology which enforces said laws.

• GUNS! :qright1:
• Warfare is to the death, fights are most likely not.

[Stu-Jitsu]

Ever heard of MCMAP?

[Kung-Fu Joe]

^^^^^^^^^^^THIS.^^^^^^^^^^^

Ancient warfare does not equal a fight, either then nor now. I can't list all the reasons, because there are too many, but some of them are:

• Modern society revolving around laws and technology which enforces said laws.

• GUNS! :qright1:
• Warfare is to the death, fights are most likely not.

Going even further, there are a ton of non-combat aspects of soldiering which are not even touched upon by combat sports. THAT's what the Greeks were referring to. Hierarchies of authority, duty to one's unit, discipline, readiness, and everything that goes along with being a soldier.

A person can be a great soldier without being a fighter, and vice versa. But you can't be a great fighter without being a fighter.

--Joe

[OiScout]

Not to mention TMAs usually spout the self-defense idea, while soldiering seems a bit more aggressive and offensive.

[capt. moroni]

The phalanx.

The bravest were those who did not break from the ranks to fight one-on-one. If a hoplite left his place, he directly endangered the man to his left by depriving him of his own shield. Unit cohesion was paramount.

Individual training did help the individual hoplite, but not the phalanx.

Even with the deterioration of the unwritten hoplite warfare code that came with the Athenians' radical democracy, which shifted power away from the oligarchical base of small farmers towards the unlanded trireme rowers in the city, and continued through the Peloponnesian War (Plato's time), the phalanx was still the core of a Greek army.

Sports training is 1v1. That is almost worthless to the phalanx.

[Osaka peach]

The phalanx.

The bravest were those who did not break from the ranks to fight one-on-one. If a hoplite left his place, he directly endangered the man to his left by depriving him of his own shield. Unit cohesion was paramount.

Individual training did help the individual hoplite, but not the phalanx.

Even with the deterioration of the unwritten hoplite warfare code that came with the Athenians' radical democracy, which shifted power away from the oligarchical base of small farmers towards the unlanded trireme rowers in the city, and continued through the Peloponnesian War (Plato's time), the phalanx was still the core of a Greek army.

Sports training is 1v1. That is almost worthless to the phalanx.

wow you sure know a lot mister! I want to know more! how did the phalanx stopped being so dominant?

[Ming Loyalist]

wow you sure know a lot mister! I want to know more! how did the phalanx stopped being so dominant?

you might want to read up a bit on the battle tactics of the roman army.

[Osaka peach]

you might want to read up a bit on the battle tactics of the roman army.

I sure will! Now my legendary curiousity is wide awake meow! :angel8:

[Mr. Machette]

wow you sure know a lot mister! I want to know more! how did the phalanx stopped being so dominant?

Flanking.

[Lebell]

Ancient warfare does not equal a fight, either then nor now. I can't list all the reasons, because there are too many, but some of them are:

• Modern society revolving around laws and technology which enforces said laws.

• GUNS! :qright1:
• Warfare is to the death, fights are most likely not.

yes and no.
what made several greek citystates great, (and later after marius' reforms the roman republic) was the relatively new concept of teamwork.
phalanxes could render cavalery useless in a direct head on assault, and for the first time in recorded history army units were closely and orderly working together.

despite what popular movies would make you believe there werent that many casualties during the fighting.
most people died in two significant timeframes: the moment their line broke (enemie sends in cavalery to finish fleeing oponents off) and in the weeks/months after due to infections of wounds.

an average medieval battle would take 20 to a 100 fatal casualties.

[Lebell]

here's some footage taken by the most excellentseries ' Rome' which is known for its accuracy (small army of historians advising etc):

YouTube- Caesar's Conquest Of The Gauls.

[P Marsh]

If you look at the Romans, only the heavy infantry used phalanx tactics. The initial wave of light infantry would charge in first before the heavy infantry reached the front line and the lights would use slings and other easy hit and run weapons before retreating back behind the phalanx.

Individual combat depends on what kind of warfare you're involved in. Charioteers and cavalry men would often jump from their horses and engage in standard combat if needed so individual training would be valuable depending on your position.

[excludedmiddle]

The Spartans are an exception. They practiced their pankration to the death. Of course, this meant the death of their slaves (the helots) who they were practicing on and who probably had no training at all. They must have gotten pretty good at it, though, since they were barred from competing in Olympic Pankration.

[Uglybugly]

They trained soldiers like they did in the old days because it was the best way to train a man to function in a military unit. to train a fighter in the same way is not automatically going to produce fight ability. A fighter needs well.. live sparring and some good tricks that would work against whoever he is fighting.