Medieval and Renaissance Martial Arts and "groundwork"

[Kampfringen]

Here is a great article on groundwork and medieval and Renaissance European Martial Arts.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/WheresAll ... hting.html

Tell me what you think and

how does this concept relate to your Martial Art?....

how does this differ from detailed "groundwork" of Martial sports/MMA/submission wrestling?

[Zach Zinn]

Yeah, most traditional MA don't involve that level of groundfighting because in a self protection or combat sense it is pretty crazy to willingly hang out on the ground hunting for a submission. I am unaware of any non-sport oriented traditional MA that utilizes this kind of groundwork.

That said, it is exceptionally foolhardy (and unfortunately something I see traditional martial artists do a lot) to underestimate the usefulness of the skills you can learn from arts like Judo or BJJ, positional grappling on the ground is not what you want to do if you can avoid it....

However, it does teach you a variety of useful things, depending on the format you learn to:
defend against submissions and attempts to positionally dominate you, you learn to keep a dominant position on the opponent, and most importantly if you train for "self defense" in any sense, it can teach you how to effectively get away from a ground entanglement.

When I've grappled (not that common but i've done a little bit) my whole goal as someone who does a "stand up" art and is admittedly not a grappler is to develop the ability to maintain side control, pass someone's guard, deal with being mounted, and be able to disengage, basic positional stuff that is relevant to self defense, especially if things go wrong.

The kind of 'groundfighting' he is talking about in terms of finishing moves from takedowns etc. seems to exist in most TMA.

It's interesting to mention that this exact controversy (how much/what kind of groundfighting is historically in the art) is not unique to what you do..it's a huge debate in the Karate world (though imho it shouldn't be), and I imagine it's something hotly debated in a wide range of TMA circles.

Why? That's easy, MMA is very popular, MMA has at it's heart the early successes of BJJ, and BJJ is of course still a big part of it. This has caused some people to believe that an art is "incomplete" without comprehensive training in "all ranges". There might be some merit to this argument on the surface, but it ignores the historical context of virtually all martial arts. It would have been sheer lunacy for a soldier, civilian defending himself etc. to rely on hunting for a submission on the ground to save his donkey in the heat of things, so you simply do not see it outside of arts that involve some competitive aspect where two people have a dedicated, consensual bout.

The standard MMA based argument is that MMA events like the UFC "prove" the need for this comprehensive training, my argument is that what is needed for good MA training is all context-driven, so what you need for MMA should be, and probably is different than what you need for other environments.

That said, once again it is foolish to assume that arts which emphasize groundwork aren't useful for self-defense, they definitely are, especially when you train them with a mindset of self protection rather than competition.

[Kampfringen]

"That said, it is exceptionally foolhardy (and unfortunately something I see traditional martial artists do a lot) to underestimate the usefulness of the skills you can learn from arts like Judo or BJJ, positional grappling on the ground is not what you want to do if you can avoid it...."

I think the foolhardyness that TMA's exibit comes from their unrealistic training and free-play/sparring or the lack of sparring, or sparring with MMA rules. Find the TMA's that train realisticly or free-play without the MMA rules and those folks have no problem with even the Pro MMA'ers. If you want to know who and where I'll post them. The TMA's had done only Historical Fencing for about a year and a half and they "played friendly".

"The standard MMA based argument is that MMA events like the UFC "prove" the need for this comprehensive training, my argument is that what is needed for good MA training is all context-driven, so what you need for MMA should be, and probably is different than what you need for other environments."

Yes two completly different intents.

"That said, once again it is foolish to assume that arts which emphasize groundwork aren't useful for self-defense, they definitely are, especially when you train them with a mindset of self protection rather than competition."

What do you think the TMA's, when taught properly, do not teach you to deal with from Martial sports? What would be the self defense learned from the sports? Defense against submissions and attempts to positionally dominate you? Learning to keep a dominant position on the opponent, and teaching you how to effectively get away from a ground entanglement are things that TMA's should be teaching you already.

[Zach Zinn]

What do you think the TMA's, when taught properly, do not teach you to deal with from Martial sports? What would be the self defense learned from the sports? Defense against submissions and attempts to positionally dominate you? Learning to keep a dominant position on the opponent, and teaching you how to effectively get away from a ground entanglement are things that TMA's should be teaching you already.

I didn't say they can't..but the fact is that most TMA don't have the same level of sophistication on the ground as combat sport, for the reasons already discussed. Your more than welcome to post some video of you dominating a Judoka or BJJ guy on the ground if you care to prove me wrong. The point is that combat sports which specialize in groundfighting can likely teach a perspective that those with less (most TMA's) might not.

"Rolling" in the sense that most combat sports do it teaches you stuff that just incidentally going to the ground, doing an occasional buck and roll can't. I grant you that there are plenty of traditional martial artists that do it, but it is more adoption of a method from combat sports I think. The only TMA I can think of that does it is Judo, and that is because Judo is both a sport and a TMA.

TMA can teach these things, but honestly rolling with people who really know groundwork from competition etc.. will give you a very different perspective on things. Believe it or not, your system (no one's system in fact) is not the be-all end all of combat, and there are people out there who can do stuff you can't, welcome to reality.

This whole "street vs. sport" argument is ridiculous, it's just people on each side repeating the same moronic mantras on forums, i'm not doing it.

Find the TMA's that train realisticly or free-play without the MMA rules and those folks have no problem with even the Pro MMA'ers. If you want to know who and where I'll post them. The TMA's had done only Historical Fencing for about a year and a half and they "played friendly".

So an ARMA guy beat a pro MMA guy? sure show me the video. In fact I think since you made the claim you should post the name of the "pro mma" guy too.

Gotta tell you, if you are claiming that ARMA curriculum is somehow more effective than say Judo or wrestling trained for h2h combat, I think that's a pretty spurious claim. I think what ARMA does is plenty effective in it's own right, and i've always admired it . Like any art though it has it's focuses and it's limits as well.

You strike me as someone who wants his art to be all things to all people, I don't take to that point of view.

[MattJ]

If you want to know who and where I'll post them. The TMA's had done only Historical Fencing for about a year and a half and they "played friendly".

Please share!

[Kampfringen]

So an ARMA guy beat a pro MMA guy? sure show me the video. In fact I think since you made the claim you should post the name of the "pro mma" guy too.

Whisper Goodman and others who train at Fox Valley Grappling in Appleton, Wisconson. The ARMA Wisconson study group went and cross-trained. I don't think they made video.

Gotta tell you, if you are claiming that ARMA curriculum is somehow more effective than say Judo or wrestling trained for h2h combat, I think that's a pretty spurious claim.

I think it is. Ofcourse that is my opinion, but it is a Marial Art. It is desighned for combat and self defense situations. FYI, Matt Larson, the MACP writer, was a ARMA member and consulted with ARMA directer John Clements when writing the MACP curriculum.

You strike me as someone who wants his art to be all things to all people, I don't take to that point of view.

It cannot be all things to all people.

[Zach Zinn]

What is MACP, and why would that convince me of your argument?

Whisper Goodman and others who train at Fox Valley Grappling in Appleton, Wisconson. The ARMA Wisconson study group went and cross-trained. I don't think they made video.

Once, my friends friends cousin saw a ghost. So, you are saying that an ARMA guy beat this pro MMA Whisper Goodman person? You'll have to forgive me if I expect more than just your word when you make a claim like that.

Why bother making a claim like that if it isn't something you have documented proof of, and not something you see often?

I think it is. Ofcourse that is my opinion, but it is a Marial Art. It is desighned for combat and self defense situations. FYI, Matt Larson, the MACP writer, was a ARMA member and consulted with ARMA directer John Clements when writing the MACP curriculum.

Not a good argument, if we take something like Judo as an example, properly it is trained both as a martial art and a sport, so the idea that you can't apply a martial sport for self defense is a ridiculous one, just because you do one thing in limited sport environment, doesn't mean that's all you do or know, it's all just about intent in training, and who is teaching you, for what ends.

Same goes for wrestling, boxing, whatever, you can train something as both a sport, a martial art, or both. In fact, people having been doing so since time immemorial. The line between what is a martial sport, and what is a martial art is nowhere near as black and white as you make it out to be, and to be frank that is a very naive way of viewing the arts IMO. It is just as naive as all the MMA forum'ers who say that learning a few techniques and just going at it with "resistance" will magically make good martial arts, both points of view are missing something.

Anyway, if the grappling curriculum of ARMA is in depth enough to beat "pro MMA guys" there is no reason ARMA members shouldn't be able to take their skills and go apply them in NAGA or something, yeah I know, there's no rules on the street blah, blah...there's some merit to that argument but not enough for you to not get called out for making a post about how ARMA is superior h2h to so many other things.

The funny thing is, I am a "traditional martial artist" myself, so to some degree I get where you are coming from about the limitations of sport, however making the claim that what you or other TMA'ers do is capable on the whole of handling competitive MMA fighters, especially when you mention a pro one, is IMO a little silly.
At any rate, right now there aren't a bunch of TMA people cleaning up combat sports events, and until they are it seems pretty fruitless to make claims like this.

[Kampfringen]

MACP is the basis for H2H. Modern Army Combatives. I don't think it will convince you of my argument, just cool to know.

Not a good argument, if we take something like Judo as an example, properly it is trained both as a martial art and a sport, so the idea that you can't apply a martial sport for self defense is a ridiculous one, just because you do one thing in limited sport environment, doesn't mean that's all you do or know, it's all just about intent in training, and who is teaching you, for what ends.

I am not saying that you cannot apply a martial sport for self defense. I am saying that, why would you? You have to add to the sport for that purpose. If you want self defense you learn a Martial Art, no addition necesarry. Judo is a sport. If you use it for self defense, fine. It is lacking in self defense because it is a sport.

Same goes for wrestling, boxing, whatever, you can train something as both a sport, a martial art, or both. In fact, people having been doing so since time immemorial. The line between what is a martial sport, and what is a martial art is nowhere near as black and white as you make it out to be, and to be frank that is a very naive way of viewing the arts IMO.

Since time immemorial, the ancients have made a distinction between Martial Arts and Martial sports, especially when it comes to sport wrestling and combat wrestling. It seems NAIVE to think we today are some how smarter than they were. They didnot include all the rolling on the ground(submission wrestling) because it is not something they needed for self defense or combat. Find a Martial Art from before the 1700's that has all the submission wrestling and see if you find one that old that does not start with weapons training first.

Anyway, if the grappling curriculum of ARMA is in depth enough to beat "pro MMA guys" there is no reason ARMA members shouldn't be able to take their skills and go apply them in NAGA or something, yeah I know, there's no rules on the street blah, blah...there's some merit to that argument but not enough for you to not get called out for making a post about how ARMA is superior h2h to so many other things.

There is no reason for ARMA members to compete unless they want to. We are a Martial Arts Organization. Your point was that combat sports which specialize in groundfighting can likely teach a perspective that those with less (most TMA's) might not. The fact is the sport will teach you a sport perspective. If you are not going ot compete why bother with that perspective?

The funny thing is, I am a "traditional martial artist" myself, so to some degree I get where you are coming from about the limitations of sport, however making the claim that what you or other TMA'ers do is capable on the whole of handling competitive MMA fighters, especially when you mention a pro one, is IMO a little silly.
At any rate, right now there aren't a bunch of TMA people cleaning up combat sports events, and until they are it seems pretty fruitless to make claims like this.

Sporting events are the standard for Martial Arts efectiveness? I dont think so. That seems pretty silly to me.

Let's say you want ot train someone for combat in Irac, do you get them a Olympic marksman coach or aCombat instructer? Sure there are a few carry over skills, but there are very little of them. Sport or Combat? HMMMMM

[Zach Zinn]

Dude, evidentally there is no point in talking to you, you almost never address what I am saying, rather you try to piece together someone else's argument and assume it's what i'm saying.

If you think Judo is just a sport, and can only teach you "sport stuff" you don't know anything about Judo.

Sporting events are the standard for Martial Arts efectiveness? I dont think so. That seems pretty silly to me.

Let's say you want ot train someone for combat in Irac, do you get them a Olympic marksman coach or aCombat instructer? Sure there are a few carry over skills, but there are very little of them. Sport or Combat? HMMMMM

Where did I say this? I don't believe anything like this. Try responding to what people are actually saying, instead of what you want them to be saying. Maybe actually use the quote feature.

YOU are the one that brought up someone from ARMA beating a "pro mmaer", so YOU are the one who began the conversation with reference to sport being "beaten" by TMA in some kind of sporting contest, whether it was in a dojo/ training center or not. In fact, i've seen you obsessively bring up the "sport vs. street" thing in like half your posts on this forum, along with all the obligatory stuff about how weapon-based arts (especially your own) are evidently superior for everything, including h2h fighting. So, if you are not interested in some kind of contest between sport and street, maybe you should drop the sport vs. street paradigm. I think it's wonderfully ironic that you started this post off with a claim of a TMA'er winning some kind of an informal sporting contest, in order to prove to me how inferior combat sports are. Lol.

Personally I don't even think a long the lines of "who would win if", if you do that's fine, I think it's a pretty juvenile way to view martial arts and ways, it reminds me of little kids talking about which comic book character would win. Whatever the case though, you should really be willing to back it up when you make claims like that on a publicly accessible MA forum.

They didnot include all the rolling on the ground(submission wrestling) because it is not something they needed for self defense or combat. Find a Martial Art from before the 1700's that has all the submission wrestling and see if you find one that old that does not start with weapons training first.

If you'd actually paid any attention to what i've written in this thread, you'd see I agree with the above up to the claim that "rolling around on the ground has no self defense value" part, that's the part where your own biases are covering up what is useful about detailed groundfighting. It isn't the be all end all of martial arts, but it's most certainly a useful tool should you end up there, especially when it's being taught from a self-defense frame of mind rather than scoring points or obtaining submissions only. It's the usefulness of this training limited? Yes. Is rolling around on the ground hunting for submissions something you should do when the )(*& hits the fan, no of course not.

As far as the weapons, that is true of all older arts yes, but it doesn't in any way mean that they are more efficacious for self protection today, in fact one could easily make the opposite argument, being that no one today is walking around with Claymores, or Katana, or Yari. or whatever. Yeah I know principles transfer, but the fact is that to know good h2h you need to train h2h somehow, you can't absorb it by osmosis in your weapons training.

One last thing, something being a part of modern military training is often not an indicator of function, modern military cqc and h2h has more to do with stuff to keep troops occupied than skills that anyone expects to be used the field, ain't a lot of h2h fighting going on on battlefields these days. There is also a big part of the latest (I believe) h2h field manual that borrows extensively from BJJ, not because of it's combat superiority, but because it's a good thing to keep troop morale, encourage competition, etc.

OK, so i've said everything I want to say, and honestly this is like trying to talk to a brick wall sometimes, so have fun.

[lklawson]

The idea that ground grappling is incompatible with self defense is illogical. It is often mistakenly misapplied by honest individuals who believe that it would be foolhardy for a warrior to attempt ground grappling while engaged in battlefield melee. Most people agree, including ground grappling advocates.

The problem is that attempting to apply ground grappling in a battlefield melee environment is a misapplication of the skill and appropriate environment.

Ground grappling is most appropriate as a civilian self defense method. The fact is that civilian martial arts are different from "battlefield" martial arts and are that way for a reason. The environments and terms of engagement are different. No one used Smallsword on the battlefield. However, it was popular for civilian self defense and dueling. Equally, few people used the Military Saber in civilian self defense. No one used an Italian Stiletto on the battlefield, yet few will argue that it is more than applicable to civilian self defense.

The same goes for ground grappling. The fact of life is that modern and pre-modern industrial age civilian life lends itself easily to the application of ground grappling. Not always and in every circumstance, no. But quite often.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk