My daughter asked me a question I have no answer for!

B

bigalexe

New member
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Hi All,

My daughter asked me a question I have no answer for, and I was wondering if anyone had a decent answer.

She asked me a question that essentially boils doen as follows.

In the west, and I exclude the USA and the new world only because of their relatively young age, European Matial Arts boil down to boxing, wrestling and fencing / weapons skills.

In Asia, the martial arts are much more "complex" with locks, pressure point attacks, strikes, kicks, throws etc. There also seems to be more awareness of anatomy and how best to imobilise or disable a person.

In comparison, wrestling and boxing, (I am dating them back to Ancient Greece, but they probably came much before that as well), are not so sophisticated, and fencing (although I have to say that I am in awe of an expert fencer) and the weapons skills practiced and utilised by the common soldier / warrior of Europe (and I have practiced several European Weapons skills including: halberd, pike, Danish axe, broadsword, sabre, musket and bayonet) are, obviously, very effective, but not as "precise" (and that is loosley used here) as Asian Martial Arts.

In essence I suppose I am asking is why European and Asian unarmed combat, and armed combat are so very, very different? What is it that made the fighting systems quite different in Europe and Asia? And basically why are the Asians more inventive in ways (especially in unarmed combat) of immobilisation, and "causing pain"?

Your thoughts are most welcome.

Quozl
 
Perhaps bladed weapons were widely available in Europe earlier than they were in Asia. The military tactics used by the Romans were hardly unimpressive - indeed, some of the techniques they pioneered have survived to this day. From my (limited) knowledge of the evolution of Asian unarmed fighting systems, many were popularised because peasants were forbidden from owning weapons.
 
Quozl posted



Maybe because what you are looking at in relation to Asian martial arts is the modern translation of those battlefield arts.

Now I know I am sticking my neck out here but I suspect myself that actually a lot of what we see in some (Not all) koryu bears only some resemblance to how weapons were used on the battlefields of the feudal period.

I believe that the Japanese battlefield (Like all battlefields) was a bloody affair and techniques that we see today in some of the koryu are much more formalised affairs.

I guess from what you said that you understand that fencing itself bears little resemblance to fighting with a bastard sword, or that boxing bears little resemblance to pugilism, and so it may be that what we see in the koryu today may bear little resemblance to what actually happened on the battle fields of feudal Japan.

Garth
 
I really think it's a matter of practicality.

What happened in the early days of Judo when Jigaro Kano's school challenged the other Jiujutsu schools in Japan? They won nearly every single match, and went to a draw in the one or two that they didn't win. Judo doesn't have any fancy joint locks or so-called "elaborate" techniques and is a lot like wrestling while wearing a gi.

A lot of the martial arts in the east, it seems, began to change as they were used less and less for war, and handed down without that kind of battlefield testing during peace time. The kung-fu that a lot of Chinese monks did seems to be almost purely for show. When you actually try to fight and have to test your skills against other skilled opponents, you find that you can't string together one flying jump-spin kick after another and actually expect it to do anything, like when you do pre-rehersed patters. You can't even pull off the same number of things as you can in light or no-contact sparring.

Wrestling is a great, practical martial art. And there are even forms of western wrestling that include submissions. Boxing is also a really great martial art. When it comes to hand strikes, absolutely nothing is better. I don't really train very hard, but a couple years back, I used to have a brown belt in Kuk Sool Won. I studied tai chi for a while, before finally moving on to a little bit of offtopic, then BJJ when I started grad school (and trying to get back to offtopic now). I cannot hit a really good boxer (if only hand strikes are allowed), period. There is an incredible amount of skill that goes into boxing, and the skills you pick up from training boxing are worth a thousand times more whatever fancy hand strikes you might be learning in a so-called "traditional" eastern martial art.

Of course, boxing used to include more hand strikes, a few throws, and even some kicks, but that was slowly removed over time, as safety concerns, laws, and interests began to change.

Let's also not forget that the French martial art of Savate is a western martial art that includes kicks.

As for weapon work--I fenced through out all of high school and for two years before that. I will go up against anyone from an eastern martial art who practices sword forms/kata any day of the week. All those elaborate movements are completely worthless and the forms are useless.
 
I thought the question was gonna be the one about where little brother came from I was relieved
 
LOL, Yeah, I suppose I could have had a better title!



I've quoted this in full as it incorporates all the other answers as well, and raises a couple of other points. WRT fencing, i would have to agree that get a great Italian Fencing Master, and a top Kendo, or similar Oriental fencing style master, and I would have to bet on the Italian since the point is to me anyway, faster than the edge. However, take a broadsword expert and an oriental style of fencing expert, and I wouldn't bet against the oriental style.

I think you are all right, in that, on the battle field it is a bloody, messy affair, and the "fancy" oriental martial arts are probably not exactly what took place.

However, in the same way, fencing isn't the same as sword fighting!

So I suppose Oriental sword arts, such as Kendo, are the oriental "fencing" as opposed to sword fighting.

Also, everybody's points about boxing is spot on. I would not like to be hot by a boxer, even a feather weight, as, pound for pound, they are the hardest hitters going, seemingly scientifically proven as well!

I suppose what I am thinking of, with regards to unarmed martial arts are why the Oriental Arts have a better understanding of pressure points, and joint locking, that I haven't seen in Occidental Martial Arts. Is there an understanding of these areas in Western Arts?

Many thanks, all.
 
I'm no expert, but, according to these folks, "Renaissance unarmed fighting methods were no less developed and no less sophisticated than their contemporary Asian counterparts"
In the vid, you can see illustrations of what looks like pretty sophisticated joint locks, throws, and disarms.
YouTube - Renaissance Martial Arts - the Web Documentary: Part 4of10
Other vids in the series give an interesting account of how the sports of boxing, fencing, and wrestling evolved from earlier battlefield and self-defence techniques.
 
[provocation]
perhaps because western martial arts tend to focus on things that actually work?
[/provocation]
 
AZeitung posted



Two points to the above post.

1/ In the early days of Judo its likely that Judo boar more of a resemblance to Jujutsu than what we see today. It probably contained a lot of joint locks and in fact if one looks at old Jujutsu books one can still see some of the old techniques that were in the system.

2/ I have heard that in the early days that Jigaro Kano hired fighters from other schools to help him win his battles and make his Judo look good from what I understand the throw that was used a number of times to defeat opponents was Yama Arashi (Not a throw that is in judo today).

Garth
 
Frownland posted



I agree, to think that we in the west ourselves who probably experienced more warfare than the Japanese ever did, did not produce their own well developed martial arts system is a non sense.

Garth
 
A look at the (western eastern swordsmanship a comparison) thread shall show that western swordsmen had all of the pragmatism and subtlety of the eastern swordsmen AND the jujutsu like grappling.

I think it is because the oriental martial arts came from "the mystical and exotic" east that westerners tend to see the "differences" when in fact there are FAR MORE similarities.


regards koyo
 
I would be more inclined to believe it's more to do with the better recording and passing down of techniques in Eastern cultures. We know that they most likely started earlier and were better at it than Western counterparts.

There is also more emphasis on lineage between students and teachers. So these two points you could say assist in the passing on of knowledge including more sophisticated techniques, which you could argue include certain jointlocks.

So even though such techniques may have existed in Western martial arts, they just haven't been passed on effectively.
 
Righty posted



If you mean writing then you are almost totally incorrect. Writing did not start in Japan until the 7th century AD. Whereas we had writings in the west going back to the Romans a Greeks. Vitelius for example.

In fact it would be interesting to see just how many scrolls we actually have from Japan that go back before the 1600s.

Garth
 
I think Frownland's video clip indicates that there would appear to be some pretty good manuals of western martial arts from the renaisance that have survived.

I also believe that western arts are obviously effective and well developed (I am not sure anybody is saying that the West didn't produce well developed MA's and effective at what they achieved).

It also seems from the video clips that quite possibly the Western Arts do appear to have the locks and presure points that the Eastern Arts do, but as righty says, they probably haven't been passed on as effectively (notwithstanding the issue of literacy and writing, and although Japan may not have had writing early on, surely China did, and, lets face it, India {who also have some pretty neat martial arts for that matter}).

A question comes to mind. How much does the Wests adoption of firearms and the availability of firearms change the way the Western Arts developed? Even though the East adopted firearms, it seems to me mainly the long arm rather than the short arms, and firearms do not seem to be as widely available to the civilians in the East as they appear to have been in the West.

I suppose if one has a gun of some description, one may not feel the need to learn how to fight??? Just a thought.
 
What do you base that on? I'm pretty sure that Kano is specifically quoted as being unsatisfied with the types of techniques used in traditional jiujutsu and wanted to boil it down to the most effective techniques and the ones that he could practice with full resistance and power--i.e. not joint locks.

Brazilian Jiujutsu evolved from Judo, or something close to it, at the beginning of the 20th century, shortly after Judo originated, and doesn't contain the type of wrist locks or standing small joint manipulations seen in other forms of jiujutsu, either.


I haven't heard that. Where did you read that?


Even if that is true, what's you're point? It's not like it's stylistically very different from any other judo throw. And if it's such a great throw, why get rid of it?

edit: On an unrelated note, I found this great quote on a Youtube video on Yama Arashi:
 
because asian martial arts are just what they are an art, the basis of asian martial arts were to develop the hara, diaphram, this produces qi, chi, were in turn, advanced coordiation stems and internal power, a long with relaxation and concentration, also the asians study the art from different angles, like you said anatomy, the overall concept is to devlop complete awareness of every part of your body along with your mind, the essence is hidden, itis an art
 
Hi Garth

In 1886 under the auspices of the Tokyo police matches between Kodokan Judo and Yoshin Ryu jujutsu were held with fifteen men on either side.

The Kodokan won losing only two matches and drawing one.

saigo Shiro won all of his matches using Yama Arashi although fighting on the Kodokan team..Yama Arashi was a technique he studied from Daito Ryu aikijujutsu.

I think mention of this can be found in the original Kodokan Judo book and Don Draegers Modern Bujutsu and Budo.

Kano Jigoro removed techniques from jujtsu which could be "dangerous to resist" in a competition.Someone attempting to resist Yama Arashi is most likely to go "in on his head" during the breakfall hence it's exclusion from Judo.

He also stated that Kodokan Judo techniques could be trained defensively and in an attacking manner while many jujutsu techniques were more defencive in nature.


regards koyo
 
So let me get this straight... western fighting systems are meant to fight, but eastern martial arts are "arts" along the lines of dance... riiiiight.
 
Zanshin asian awareness= watch your ass guys this isn't our turf.

Mushin asian no mind= come ahead I don't give a sh..

Give me a mystical asian martial saying and I will equal it with attitudes of your basic street fighter.

There is NOTHING mystical or magical in any of the martial arts eastern or western.

You MAY have to listen to ******** but you DO NOT have to swallow it.

regards koyo
 
I would also like to throw in the theory that Chinese have a more "creative style" as you put it, can also stem from Chinese religious/superstitious beliefs.
We have a lot of focus on animals and their meanings. Dragons, Cranes, Phoenixes (oh my) etc. and try to infuse them with ourselves (hence for example the Chinese Zodiacs are Animals) and therefore they are the inspiration for motion. (if I move like a Tiger, I'll be as strong as a Tiger train of thought)
And to only go back to the forms debates again, they (i believe) were created to differenciate each individual art amongst the 1000s that are out there back then and today.
 
Back
Top