Why I hate the western martial arts community

[Cain]

Also, fighting with a knife when you don't know what you're doing is a REALLY bad idea. I imagine a sword is the same x10. I've got the SAS knife fighting manual and have studied it and practiced much of it, and what it taught me is that the most important part of knife-fighting is knowing how to avoid getting knifed by the other guy. 99 times out of 100 I'm going to be better off having full use of both hands in close-quarters combat.

That was exactly what I got out of the Folsom Prison Knife-Fighting book, which I suspect is a little less comprehensive than the SAS book, though it gave the necessary basics.  While I'm fairly confident with a blade myself, it doesn't take a genius to figure out if you have a weapon, someone can take it off you and use it against you, and that should always factor into any decision to use one.  For most fights, which are really dominance displays, a knife is an unnecessary and dangerous escalation. 

[Cain]

People who for some reason think they are going to at any moment need to use their epic sword fighting prowess in a real life or death fight.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?  I can only think of one modern circumstance where a swordfight is even possibly likely to happen, and that's when you get accosted by The Crazy Guy Who Orders Samurai Swords Off The Internet And Then Goes Crazy And Stabs Someone (we had a spate of attacks like this in the UK a few years ago).  And if you're carrying around a sword in public, in the expectation you're going to duel some crazy guy with a katana...well, that makes you A Crazy Guy With A Sword as well.

[Cain]

When I was taking martial arts they always taught you not to fight, and that what you were learning was defensive. I never fully subscribed, sometimes there is no other choice, but the princpile seems to have been replaced/lost with competition dojos.

That's my beef with the current Army combative system. They start off teaching you how to make a transition from standing to the ground. They teach you to roll around on the ground and use submission holds. You have to be willing to do level 1 to get to level 2, when they start teaching strikes, to level 3, when they had...stick fighting, to level 4 when they teach you how to do all that shit but in your full battle-rattle.

I mostly believe the best defense is a good offense, though there are always exceptions to this rule (being outnumbered comes to mind).  In both martial arts I've done, basic attacks and blocks were the first techniques you learn, how to punch and kick essentially, and stop people trying to do the same to you.  In sparring, I almost always defaulted to these basic techniques.  Once or twice I did show off with a reverse turning kick or something, but that was me being an egotistical dick and showing up the other guy, nothing more. 

[Cain]

I'd be careful with that advice, actually knowing how to fight is a good way to get 'self defense' thrown out by the judge (this actually happened to me, and I didn't even cause any lasting damage).

How exactly do they confirm that?  I know when I was learning at a dojang I was signed up and put on some local list for law enforcement purposes...but the last class in any martial art I've taken was three years ago now.  I still practice the techniques and keep in shape on my own time...but would that be enough, in an American court, to throw out self-defence?

[Cain]

.

Meh. Belt degrees mean you know patterns.

Colored belt degrees just means you showed up when I did TKD, the only belts they did real testing for were black belts (which is why you see so many black stripes)

TKD has a terrible rep in this area, probably not helped by the fact the South Korean govt wants it to become the MOST POPULAR MARTIAL ART EPHAR! and so turns a blind eye to idiots teaching mall karate and giving out belts like candy.

The WTF are the ones to go to for Olympic style Tae Kwon Do, if that's your thing.  The ITF are the ones to go to for a more traditional take on Tae Kwon Do (more emphasis on upper body techniques than the WTF style, though still plenty of insanely useless kicking going on.  No-one is ever going to use the Upper Reverse Turning Kick in self-defense, and if they do, they deserve to have that leg broken.  Fortunately, most teachers seem to realize it's just some thing on the cirriculum, and punish anyone who actually uses it in sparring sessions).  Everyone else, as far as I can see, peddles pure crap.

[Don Coyote]

That's insane.  I admit I'm nowhere near an expert on swordfighting, but as I understand it, with the rapier and cut-and-thrust blades, a surprisingly high degree of the actual fighting involved grappling and wrestling while trying to stab the other dude in the kidney (or throat, or whatever).  It's why certain rapiers were designed to be brittle, so they could be broken on the ground and shoved into someone's vitals. 

I would imagine even with larger and heavier weapons such as the longsword, using one's shield and the heavy weight of one's armour would be a key part of combat.  And given people would've been wearing heavy armour back then (admittedly, armour they had trained for years to use and so could be surprisingly fast and dangerous in), falling down would be a pretty common problem, especially on a battlefield, which were hardly ideal conditions for fighting in, what with the mud, the blood, the piss, the dying people around you etc.  If you couldn't manouver while on the ground, some peasant bastard was liable to slit your throat.  And on top of that, wrestling and hunting were the two major activities undertaken by nobles in preparation for weapons training, so the idea they wouldn't recall or rely upon some of that in a fight is insanely ahistorical.

Cain, no, just no.

I'll go into detail after what ever retarded crap my platoon is doing for PT. But no, some rapiers were not designed to be brittle. Longswords are not heavy and were not used with a shield, nor used to deliver percussive blows in armor. Armor being heavy is subjective. At the height of the Age of Plate (LOL) a full harness designed for combat, as opposed to tilting in the lists, would weigh there abouts as much as I would carry for a ruck march, only since it's like clothes isn't as heavy feeling, but at the same time, yes there are a few take downs used in single armored combat that involve you falling on your opponent after you brought him to the ground.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

That's insane.  I admit I'm nowhere near an expert on swordfighting, but as I understand it, with the rapier and cut-and-thrust blades, a surprisingly high degree of the actual fighting involved grappling and wrestling while trying to stab the other dude in the kidney (or throat, or whatever).  It's why certain rapiers were designed to be brittle, so they could be broken on the ground and shoved into someone's vitals. 

I would imagine even with larger and heavier weapons such as the longsword, using one's shield and the heavy weight of one's armour would be a key part of combat.  And given people would've been wearing heavy armour back then (admittedly, armour they had trained for years to use and so could be surprisingly fast and dangerous in), falling down would be a pretty common problem, especially on a battlefield, which were hardly ideal conditions for fighting in, what with the mud, the blood, the piss, the dying people around you etc.  If you couldn't manouver while on the ground, some peasant bastard was liable to slit your throat.  And on top of that, wrestling and hunting were the two major activities undertaken by nobles in preparation for weapons training, so the idea they wouldn't recall or rely upon some of that in a fight is insanely ahistorical.

Cain, no, just no.

I'll go into detail after what ever retarded crap my platoon is doing for PT. But no, some rapiers were not designed to be brittle. Longswords are not heavy and were not used with a shield, nor used to deliver percussive blows in armor. Armor being heavy is subjective. At the height of the Age of Plate (LOL) a full harness designed for combat, as opposed to tilting in the lists, would weigh there abouts as much as I would carry for a ruck march, only since it's like clothes isn't as heavy feeling, but at the same time, yes there are a few take downs used in single armored combat that involve you falling on your opponent after you brought him to the ground.

Correct Motorcycle!

Though Morazzo does say the best thing to do with a single hand sword was parry the other guys blade so you could get inside to play the close game, ala drop your weapon and take him by the throat . However, he didn't say anything about breaking the blade. Some of his dagger vs unarmed 'may' provide a real world value if someone jumps you with a knife, but only if you've trained the grapples/ into muscle memory.

Agree on the armor issue too, full plate etc is OK for a guy on horse, but on the ground he's one slip/trip from being a big unmoving target.

The only thing I disagree on is your comment about not going from cut to cut in WMA. Morazzo very much pushes Posta di Dona ->Fendente->Porto Ferro->Dente di Chinghale->etc because Fendente can be voided or parried so the sword is lined up for the second attack and multiple attacks force the enemy to be defensive.

The thing that really sucks in WMA currently is that they expect to see the forms in real sparring. I may start in Posta come in with a fendente but if the opponent parries me differently that a cut down, I'm not gonna manhandle the weapon to get it into a low guard. Its like they confuse "This is a picture of a form" and "this is a fucking fight"... the real plus side to WMA for me was having some good evidence to get past the stupid 'honorable' fighting crap... punch/pommel to the face, bind and break the arm, throw them on the ground... screw that "Oh mi'Lord you dropped your sword, please pick it back up". Fuck that, you kick that butterfingers arse!

[Cain]

Cain, no, just no.

I'll go into detail after what ever retarded crap my platoon is doing for PT. But no, some rapiers were not designed to be brittle. Longswords are not heavy and were not used with a shield, nor used to deliver percussive blows in armor. Armor being heavy is subjective. At the height of the Age of Plate (LOL) a full harness designed for combat, as opposed to tilting in the lists, would weigh there abouts as much as I would carry for a ruck march, only since it's like clothes isn't as heavy feeling, but at the same time, yes there are a few take downs used in single armored combat that involve you falling on your opponent after you brought him to the ground.

I said longswords were larger and heavier, not that they were heavy.  And I was mentioning the use of a shield in addition to practicing in armour, not as part of it.  I can't remember where I heard about the rapiers, but it wasn't an excellent source, I will admit.

[Don Coyote]

Agree on the armor issue too, full plate etc is OK for a guy on horse, but on the ground he's one slip/trip from being a big unmoving target.

I think you misunderstood me. You + armor on the ground = no big deal. You + guy in armor falling on you suddenly = big deal, especially with some of the take downs that involve you falling on the other guys head. If you cannot get up off the ground easily when not being harassed in a full harness, you have shitty armor.

The thing that really sucks in WMA currently is that they expect to see the forms in real sparring. I may start in Posta come in with a fendente but if the opponent parries me differently that a cut down, I'm not gonna manhandle the weapon to get it into a low guard. Its like they confuse "This is a picture of a form" and "this is a fucking fight"

If your fight doesn't look like it supposed to look and you are "manhandling the weapon" that means you are making up techniques most likely because you have not internalized the art enough. Or I could be misunderstanding you.

... the real plus side to WMA for me was having some good evidence to get past the stupid 'honorable' fighting crap... punch/pommel to the face, bind and break the arm, throw them on the ground... screw that "Oh mi'Lord you dropped your sword, please pick it back up". Fuck that, you kick that butterfingers arse!

Yes and no. That all depends on context. In a friendly deed of arms, you most likely would, or the fight would be stopped by what ever person was hosting the deed of arms. The same would apply when things come to grips.
In a judicial duel, which is a duel to the death to settle legal disputes, no. You would kill the butterfinger.

I said longswords were larger and heavier, not that they were heavy.  And I was mentioning the use of a shield in addition to practicing in armour, not as part of it.  I can't remember where I heard about the rapiers, but it wasn't an excellent source, I will admit.

Most rapiers weighed as much as or more than longswords.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Agree on the armor issue too, full plate etc is OK for a guy on horse, but on the ground he's one slip/trip from being a big unmoving target.

I think you misunderstood me. You + armor on the ground = no big deal. You + guy in armor falling on you suddenly = big deal, especially with some of the take downs that involve you falling on the other guys head. If you cannot get up off the ground easily when not being harassed in a full harness, you have shitty armor.

Hrmmm, I was thinking of either the War of the Roses or the Hundred Years War where guys in harness were laying on the ground until they expired (can't recall, just remember it was 1400's & English).

The thing that really sucks in WMA currently is that they expect to see the forms in real sparring. I may start in Posta come in with a fendente but if the opponent parries me differently that a cut down, I'm not gonna manhandle the weapon to get it into a low guard. Its like they confuse "This is a picture of a form" and "this is a fucking fight"

If your fight doesn't look like it supposed to look and you are "manhandling the weapon" that means you are making up techniques most likely because you have not internalized the art enough. Or I could be misunderstanding you.
[/quote]

Maybe miscommunication... in the WMA groups I've been to they are expecting to see Posta->Fendente->Porto Ferro->Dente di Chinghali->etc in free sparring... However, if the opponent come up from Porto Ferro and parries your Fendente up and to the left, its better to recover to the reverse Posta rather than the Boars Tooth. Does that make more sense?

... the real plus side to WMA for me was having some good evidence to get past the stupid 'honorable' fighting crap... punch/pommel to the face, bind and break the arm, throw them on the ground... screw that "Oh mi'Lord you dropped your sword, please pick it back up". Fuck that, you kick that butterfingers arse!

Yes and no. That all depends on context. In a friendly deed of arms, you most likely would, or the fight would be stopped by what ever person was hosting the deed of arms. The same would apply when things come to grips.
In a judicial duel, which is a duel to the death to settle legal disputes, no. You would kill the butterfinger.

[/quote]

Of course, in a deed of arms you're not likely to be killing your opponent, dropped weapon or not ... However, in a deed of arms it would be far more likely that either you would win, or you would be moving into Joko Stretto.... It doesn't seem that you would just back off, hang out and wait for the fool to pick up the weapon.

I said longswords were larger and heavier, not that they were heavy.  And I was mentioning the use of a shield in addition to practicing in armour, not as part of it.  I can't remember where I heard about the rapiers, but it wasn't an excellent source, I will admit.

Most rapiers weighed as much as or more than longswords.

Depending on the weapon, the country and the time... I mean "Rapier" is a modern term that gets applied to a number of different weapons from Spada di Roba to the English Small sword (depending on the accuracy of the individual speaking .

Also, you didn't mention it before... but people who think that turning yourself into a human sideways U = knowing Fabris should be shot.

[Don Coyote]

Stop using crazy Italian man. 

Hrmmm, I was thinking of either the War of the Roses or the Hundred Years War where guys in harness were laying on the ground until they expired (can't recall, just remember it was 1400's & English).

My history is fuzzy (irony) but I think that was because of exhaustion and/or sinking in the trampled gooey mud of the battle field.

Maybe miscommunication... in the WMA groups I've been to they are expecting to see Posta->Fendente->Porto Ferro->Dente di Chinghali->etc in free sparring... However, if the opponent come up from Porto Ferro and parries your Fendente up and to the left, its better to recover to the reverse Posta rather than the Boars Tooth. Does that make more sense?

They were expecting to see a specific sequence of techniques as detailed in a manual? Fucking tools.

Depending on the weapon, the country and the time... I mean "Rapier" is a modern term that gets applied to a number of different weapons from Spada di Roba to the English Small sword (depending on the accuracy of the individual speaking wink .

By rapier, I mean rapier. Which does not include late period smallswords. Or any of a class of swords with narrow long blades designed for thrusting with a complex hilt.

Also, you didn't mention it before... but people who think that turning yourself into a human sideways U = knowing Fabris should be shot.

Didn't mention it because all rapiers are merely turkey spits and not swords worthy of being called such, and as such not worthy of study.

To be honest, I can't rapier fence, I have a depth perception problem and I had my left elbow get fucked up by a LARPer who wanted to play with my shinai group in high school. Grasping a long bladed weapon and holding it out with an extended point forward guard is extremely unpleasant. Because of that I prefer earlier forms or late period backsword/military sabre.

[Adios]

I like swords because they are shiny.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Stop using crazy Italian man. 

Hrmmm, I was thinking of either the War of the Roses or the Hundred Years War where guys in harness were laying on the ground until they expired (can't recall, just remember it was 1400's & English).

My history is fuzzy (irony) but I think that was because of exhaustion and/or sinking in the trampled gooey mud of the battle field.

I think that may be right... the commentary said 'Due to the weight of their armor...' but it may well have meant that the weight of armor was a key factor when dealing with the mud or exhaustion.

Maybe miscommunication... in the WMA groups I've been to they are expecting to see Posta->Fendente->Porto Ferro->Dente di Chinghali->etc in free sparring... However, if the opponent come up from Porto Ferro and parries your Fendente up and to the left, its better to recover to the reverse Posta rather than the Boars Tooth. Does that make more sense?

They were expecting to see a specific sequence of techniques as detailed in a manual? Fucking tools.

Yeah, I understand if you want to see the sequence in drills/forms... but in actual sparring? WTF?

Depending on the weapon, the country and the time... I mean "Rapier" is a modern term that gets applied to a number of different weapons from Spada di Roba to the English Small sword (depending on the accuracy of the individual speaking wink .

By rapier, I mean rapier. Which does not include late period smallswords. Or any of a class of swords with narrow long blades designed for thrusting with a complex hilt.

Rapier is still a modern generic term for a whole class of weapons. Hilt style, blade sharpness, the fighting techniques etc all varied wildly from country to country across the 16th and 17th century.  In fact, among the Italian schools a long slender thrusting blade with a complex hilt would fit the 'rapier' concept exactly. Swept hilts, Cup hilts etc were all in vogue across that period with long slender thrusting blades. Not as slender as the later epee etc but a 2-3 pound weapon with a ricasso just under an inch and blade length near to 40" is a pretty standard description of a "rapier".

Also, you didn't mention it before... but people who think that turning yourself into a human sideways U = knowing Fabris should be shot.

Didn't mention it because all rapiers are merely turkey spits and not swords worthy of being called such, and as such not worthy of study.

Har Har Har

To be honest, I can't rapier fence, I have a depth perception problem and I had my left elbow get fucked up by a LARPer who wanted to play with my shinai group in high school. Grasping a long bladed weapon and holding it out with an extended point forward guard is extremely unpleasant. Because of that I prefer earlier forms or late period backsword/military sabre.

I began with rapier and slowly moved back to earlier spada techniques and currently playing mostly with Morazzo which is obviously earlier than the forward guard of  17th century 'rapier fencing'. Though since I trained mostly di Grassi the forward guard is far more relaxed than Fabris or even Fiore which is good for me. I took a shot to the knee in a SCA rapier melee at Pennsic three years ago(torn MCL, torn miniscus, bruised bone etc) and I am glad to know a style that doesn't involve lunges, cause I can't anymore

[Don Coyote]

I think that may be right... the commentary said 'Due to the weight of their armor...' but it may well have meant that the weight of armor was a key factor when dealing with the mud or exhaustion.

Who is the commentator? Lots of people get things very wrongs because they look at it through the lens the Victorians created of medieval armor.

Yeah, I understand if you want to see the sequence in drills/forms... but in actual sparring? WTF?

Recognizable techniques, and tactics YES.
Straight out sequences....means people are idiots.

Rapier is still a modern generic term for a whole class of weapons. Hilt style, blade sharpness, the fighting techniques etc all varied wildly from country to country across the 16th and 17th century.  In fact, among the Italian schools a long slender thrusting blade with a complex hilt would fit the 'rapier' concept exactly. Swept hilts, Cup hilts etc were all in vogue across that period with long slender thrusting blades. Not as slender as the later epee etc but a 2-3 pound weapon with a ricasso just under an inch and blade length near to 40" is a pretty standard description of a "rapier".

That is more or less what I meant. 

Didn't mention it because all rapiers are merely turkey spits and not swords worthy of being called such, and as such not worthy of study.

Har Har Har

Admit it. It is true. You just wave around a giant bird spit practicing your culinary skills on imaginary chickens.

I began with rapier and slowly moved back to earlier spada techniques and currently playing mostly with Morazzo which is obviously earlier than the forward guard of  17th century 'rapier fencing'. Though since I trained mostly di Grassi the forward guard is far more relaxed than Fabris or even Fiore which is good for me. I took a shot to the knee in a SCA rapier melee at Pennsic three years ago(torn MCL, torn miniscus, bruised bone etc) and I am glad to know a style that doesn't involve lunges, cause I can't anymore

And people say rapier fencers are a bunch of wire weenies.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think that may be right... the commentary said 'Due to the weight of their armor...' but it may well have meant that the weight of armor was a key factor when dealing with the mud or exhaustion.

Who is the commentator? Lots of people get things very wrongs because they look at it through the lens the Victorians created of medieval armor.

Yeah I know... I think I read that bit in "History of Wales 14something or other - 16somethingor other" (like that title? )

Yeah, I understand if you want to see the sequence in drills/forms... but in actual sparring? WTF?

Recognizable techniques, and tactics YES.
Straight out sequences....means people are idiots.

Exactly!

Rapier is still a modern generic term for a whole class of weapons. Hilt style, blade sharpness, the fighting techniques etc all varied wildly from country to country across the 16th and 17th century.  In fact, among the Italian schools a long slender thrusting blade with a complex hilt would fit the 'rapier' concept exactly. Swept hilts, Cup hilts etc were all in vogue across that period with long slender thrusting blades. Not as slender as the later epee etc but a 2-3 pound weapon with a ricasso just under an inch and blade length near to 40" is a pretty standard description of a "rapier".

That is more or less what I meant. 

Ah, well very good then we are in agreement Though personally I still find the slightly earlier weapon style far superior (spada di longa/spada di lato/espada ropera) ie the cut and thrust style as opposed to the focused thrust of the later rapier style.

Didn't mention it because all rapiers are merely turkey spits and not swords worthy of being called such, and as such not worthy of study.

Har Har Har

Admit it. It is true. You just wave around a giant bird spit practicing your culinary skills on imaginary chickens.

I began with rapier and slowly moved back to earlier spada techniques and currently playing mostly with Morazzo which is obviously earlier than the forward guard of  17th century 'rapier fencing'. Though since I trained mostly di Grassi the forward guard is far more relaxed than Fabris or even Fiore which is good for me. I took a shot to the knee in a SCA rapier melee at Pennsic three years ago(torn MCL, torn miniscus, bruised bone etc) and I am glad to know a style that doesn't involve lunges, cause I can't anymore

And people say rapier fencers are a bunch of wire weenies.

[/quote]

HA! To be fair that injury was due to an opponent being a complete prick and throwing a blind shot around a corner. He was aiming for the guy on the other side of me and didn't realize I was there... it never should have happened.

However, I have seen bruises in the fencing lists that rivaled some of the best smacks the armored guys have shown off