# Why did Western martial arts eliminate leg moves (esp kicks) as they became sportified (esp boxing)?



## 7BallZ (Dec 11, 2015)

So far there is a notion in pop culture that until East Asian martial arts were brought over Post WWII and the Bruce Lee craze, Western martial arts never never used any leg techniques such as the triangle choke and in particular kicks.

Anyone who began studying martial arts in depth will eventually come across HEMA and other local regional styles in Europe such as Viking Wrestling, Savate, and Pankration that emphasizes using leg techniques like sweeps and kicks to the point such techniques are essential to using such local European styles.

However these styles never became big in the West as popular fighting sports. In fact its starting in the 1700s many popular western fighting sports like boxing and collegiate wrestling style began to develop into their modern forms; prior the older variations were almost like earlier incarnations of MMA with bare knuckle boxing allowing open hand strikes, grappling, and even kicks and stomping and old school wrestling pretty much being No Holds Barred minus striking.

As they became their popular sports form, eventually associations develop rules to focus entirely on arm-based techniques and eliminate legs other than for footwork and movement to launch throws and punches.

It'd take a over a century for the concept of "kicks", leg chokes and take downs, stomping and other leg techniques to begin to be as acceptable in mainstream fighing sports with East TMAs and Bruce Lee inspiring new sports like kick boxing and MMA in the West.

Its precisely because of the transition of boxing and college wrestling into banning kicks, stomps, sweeps, and other leg based techniques that came the notion that kicking is a uniquely Asian thing and Westerners prefer fighting with their hands only.

Anyone who studies Asian martial arts in depth would realize a lot of styles like Karate and TKD were actually dumbed down even in their home country to eliminate dangerous moves and thus forms are more like sports emphasizing flashiness

Despite the huge dumbing down and sportification fo Asian martial arts, in Asia using leg techniques like triangle choke, sweeps, and especially chokes were never eliminated from mainstream martial arts and fighting sports and indeed in many Asian countries like Thailand and Mongolia its kickboxing and No Holds Barred Wrestling styles that are among the MOST popular sports.

Even in countries where "traditional Western fighting sports" like boxing became huge in such as Japan and Korea, the popularity pales in comparison to traditional martial arts sports emphasizing kicks and leg based takedowns and grappling. I mean for how big boxin is in Korea, the amount of TKD dojos outnumber them by a huge margin.

However in the West, its the opposite where martial arts sports utilizing kicks and sweeps like Zipota, Sambo, Savate and Pankration and many no holds barred local wrestling styles are practically obscure and waaayy out of the mainstream's radar. Even in European countries that pride themselves in keeping their local martial arts and wrestling styles alive like Russia and North Europe, boxing and collegiate wrestling and other arm-based sports remain DOMINANT as far as as popularity goes.

I am curious why is there such a huge contrast in the transitioning of martial arts into their sportified forms between Asia and the West? Why do kickboxing and No Holds wrestling styles like Icelandic wrestling and Savate that were developed indigenous to Europe were left as UNDERGROUND things and never got the mass appeal the way TKD, Judo, and Karate got in Asian countries?

Bonus question: In the west why did fighting sports restricting techniques to arm usage quickly outpaced local styles utilizing bodies such as Pankration in popularity (especially boxing)?

I mean even older schools of boxing once utilized leg movements to pin an enemy from escaping as you pummel him  in the ring while both you and your enemy are standing up. There was even a point when pugilism had sweeps and kicks. Go a few centuries earlier and British boxing resemble a far more brutal incarnation of MMA in which everything goes from choking an enemy to stomping them on the ground to gouging their eyes and the only thing preventign it from being real street violence was the lack of weapons and the existence of a referee to decide the winner and help the loser get up so he could go to the nearest hospital.


----------



## MartialMasters (Dec 12, 2015)

It is no doubt a combination of many factors, not just one single thing!

From knights on the lists, to tournaments, to private duels, hundreds of years of change in Europe through the late middle ages into the renaissance meant all kinds of shifts in historical martial arts, influenced by so many economic, moral, political...and often simply pragmatic reasons. Take the practice of ransom with Knights (and heavier armour) which meant that ground fighting and that whole avenue of leg-based fighting simply did not grow the way it did in Japan.

Then there was the technology. Gunpowder and all the rest. Leading into the past few hundred years, the prevailing moral and religious mindsets in the West also still promoted a bit of an unspoken attitude against what was seen as more unrestrained and bestial forms of fighting (but as you mentioned, some early forms of boxing were still pretty nasty).

For a small example (also from Britain), some of the considerably less honourable brawlers around the Victorian era made themselves early versions of steel-toed shoes (actually!), and in many scuffles, this led to very short-lived and unpleasant fights. Not very sportsmanlike, and it was greatly frowned upon as being a most unfitting practice (unworthy of a true gentleman). In many circles this contributed to an increasing attitude of disallowing any kicking altogether.

Also, off-record...Europeans are often a very pragmatic lot, I dare say often to a fault...and that did mean high-flying kicks never really caught on! But look at the old fight manuals and get out of the sporting ring...and you'll definitely see some leg-work!

To summarize, I'd say there's no easy answer...it's lots of things, really the whole story of the growth of Western and Eastern Civilizations!


----------



## drop bear (Dec 12, 2015)

I was having a look at the history of boxing. And part of its dominance in popular culture could have been because you could bet on it.

I mean if fighters spectators and promoters are all getting money from a rule set. That is going to become pretty popular.

History of Boxing


----------



## 7BallZ (Dec 12, 2015)

MartialMasters said:


> It is no doubt a combination of many factors, not just one single thing!
> 
> From knights on the lists, to tournaments, to private duels, hundreds of years of change in Europe through the late middle ages into the renaissance meant all kinds of shifts in historical martial arts, influenced by so many economic, moral, political...and often simply pragmatic reasons. Take the practice of ransom with Knights (and heavier armour) which meant that ground fighting and that whole avenue of leg-based fighting simply did not grow the way it did in Japan.
> 
> ...




There's a lot of problems with your post.

Despite the popular notion that the development of gunpowder brought Western martial arts to extinction remember GUNPOWDER WEAPONS were first developed in China. Hell it wasn't even Asians who brought it to Europe but the Turks (and despite the heavy development of gunpowder warfare in their civilization during the Ottoman period, even modern Turkish wrestling styles still have sweeps and other leg-based movements and techniques). 

I mean it was even in the late Medieval Ages when Europeans began to import their more effective rifles back into Asia during the same period of the Warring clans in Japan and the Ming dynasty of China. And the Chinese armies and Samurais were QUICK to adopt European rifles in large numbers (with several sources stating Japan even having far more rifles than most European nations at the time minus the superpowers such as France,  England, Portugal, and Spain- and Japan's numbers  of rifles used in warfare were scarily on the same scale as the European superpowers when compared individually).

Even romanticized wars that are often portrayed as conflicts in which  traditional martial arts were used to fight back modernization influenced by European culture such as the Boxer Rebellion and the Meiji Restoration actually had  gunpowder projectiles used as the primary weapon by the Asian conservatives trying to to maintain the status quo and wipe out Europeans from entering China and Japan. Far more Chinese rebels attempted to fight via Napoleonic Warfare than attempt to close in and hack European soldiers and the Shogunate was frequently using European artillery in their battles against the revolutionaries.

SO I don't buy the notion of advances in technology being responsible for elimination of Western arts and for dumbing down the ones that still exist by removing movements other than arm techniques  (and even restricting what arm techniques can be used- no open hand palm strikes in boxing for example).

I mean Asia was often advancing just as much alongside Europe  up until the period when the "AMerican colonies" were developed. Yet it was able to maintain rich martial traditions in which the entire body used headbuts, stomps, and triangle chokes. ANd even when Asia was lagging back, the gap wasn't as great as say central Africa (as Asians developed organized systems of administration that amazed even racist European explorers and soldiers).

The knights fighting in heavy armour and medieval warfare is also baloney because not only do medieval manuals show Judo-style throws and leglocks....... But Asian armies have been pretty much fighting in a similar manner with formations, utilizing combined arms of infantry and cavalry and more units. 

You just have to watch a documentary of a battle between Chinese lords to see just how much  the Samurai fought akin to the Roman Legion with disciplined solid formations using shield walls.

Not to mention European armor isn't really that heavy and varied throughout the Medieval period. an 8th century knight would have been wearing leather with chainmail on topwhile a 16th century knight would have been fighting quite similar to what we often call as Napoleonic Warfare (which armor becoming less and less used).

Even at their peak when they resemble the stereotypical plates that we see in film, knight's armor was never that heavy. Modern military equipment and uniforms are actually far heavier than a typical complete suite of plate armor.

Knight's armor would have been similar in weight to a Samurai's armor (and the Samurai even used a plate armor of sort at some points in their history-not exactly plate but definitely utilizing  metals forged ina  similar manner and built to  cover the body in the same exact way as the knight's uniform).

So no a lot of your assertions are false and would be called BS by any practitioner of HEMA or even anyone who has knowledge of Medieval Warfare. 

The Victorian Era and boxing honor is also nonsense considering just before the invention of London Prize, stomps were allowed on enemies.

So the notion of Europeans being far more pragmatic in violence is a slap in the face against historical evidence considering how in actual warfare both EAst and WEst for the most part fought int he same way utilizing formations and adopting the latest equipment..

Which is why its quite bizarre the most popular fighting sports (that still maintain a  lot of fans and are even more popular than fighitng sports with more available techniques like kicks) are boxing and wrestling in contrast to the rest of the world (minus Mexico).

I mean to use a non-Asian example, African regions use wrestling styles that are No-Holds-Barred as one of the popular sport. Did I mention modern Turkish style still maintaining their medeival techniques? Even South America where boxing is popular, grappling styles resembling MMA without strikes are far more popular (especially in Brazil).

I mean at a time Savate was even comparable to boxing in popularity  in Europe as a whole yet boxing overtook it even in its home country France! Same can be said with folk rwestling styles (which eventually got overshadowed by collegiate wrestling and Queensberry Rules boxing).


----------



## 7BallZ (Dec 12, 2015)

It also doesn't explain why boxing and collegiate wrestling removed kicks and leg techniques despite the fact that modern MMA exploding in popularity precisely because its considered more exciting to watch due to the variety f different techniques that can be used rather than just simply punching each other for 15 rounds or trying to pin your enemy using your strong arms (but not being allowed to throw them on the ground or  pull their leg and caused them to trip with your hands).

You'd think with the MMA craze that those who codified boxing and college wrestling into their modern forms would have left sweeps and kicks because they're more exciting to watch than just limited arsenals the current sports employ.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 12, 2015)

ROFLMAO wrestling didn't 'remove' kicks, it didn't have them to start with because ...you know...it's wrestling! We have several styles of wrestling here, all of them as old as the hills, they don't have kicks in because the people that do them enjoy wrestling as do many others, wrestling isn't dead, never has been. It's not ;underground' either.
Who decided that gunpowder made European martial arts extinct?
Ah, the dumbification of martial arts idea, always a good laugh that one.
While I think it may be a compliment that you think we are too genteel to use kicks I can assure you that no one actually thinks the way you seem to think we do. Kicking is a s good as anything and no one worries about whether it's sportsmanlike or not.
Turkish wrestling...now that looks like fun, they cover themselves in oil and reach into each others underpants, yes really, look it up, I'm not making it up.


----------



## 7BallZ (Dec 12, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> ROFLMAO wrestling didn't 'remove' kicks, it didn't have them to start with because ...you know...it's wrestling! We have several styles of wrestling here, all of them as old as the hills, they don't have kicks in because the people that do them enjoy wrestling as do many others, wrestling isn't dead, never has been. It's not ;underground' either.
> Who decided that gunpowder made European martial arts extinct?
> Ah, the dumbification of martial arts idea, always a good laugh that one.
> While I think it may be a compliment that you think we are too genteel to use kicks I can assure you that no one actually thinks the way you seem to think we do. Kicking is a s good as anything and no one worries about whether it's sportsmanlike or not.
> Turkish wrestling...now that looks like fun, they cover themselves in oil and reach into each others underpants, yes really, look it up, I'm not making it up.



Some older styles "dubbed" as wrestling had kicks such as Pankration (which if you ever see history texts, its always described as "Greek wrestling" even though its far more accurate to describe it as MMA with even far less rules and much higher fatalities).

And I mention "leg based techniques"  which is more than just kicks but includes sweeps, leg locks,  knees strikes, and other techniques focusing on using the leg to cripple an opponent or strike them to earn points.

Older styles of wrestling such as local folk styles across Europe (whcih still has practitioners even to this day) have extensive use of sweeps, triangle chokes, arm bar, and other techniques associated with Asian martial arts.

Its a common assertion among many westerners who are theorizing why medieval and western fighting systems became extinct was the advancements in military technology namely gunpowder. Even the HEMA guys are claiming technological advancements  led to Eurpean martial arts becoming extinct. 

For over a century boxing and collegiate wrestling has dominated the West so much that the notion of kicking an opponent has been ingrained as cowardly  and many basic kicks (roundhouse, sidekicks etc) other than the soccer kick have been lost . Boxing and wrestling remains in arsenal  for your average brawl at school or in a bar. 

Its only in the Asian studies (and any subculture heavily involved with stuff made in Asia such as Hong Kung Fu cinema, anime/manga, etc) , military, (to a lesser degree) street police, and hardcore criminal and prison circles where kicks were frequently taught and used before the coming of the  martial arts craze Bruce Lee inspired back in the 70s. Outside of those specific circles, the "fighting techniques" being taught were wrestling and boxing and any brawl that didn't use weapons  was pretty much purely punch to punch or attempts to outwrestle each other.

SO your average brawl between college boys would not involve kicking or even stomping on someone because westerners have been so conditioned to punch in the manner of a boxer. Hell even open handstrikes were considered weird by your average Joe engaging in a riot or amateur hoodlums duking it out in the streets of California. 

(though I must point out among hardcore criminals particularly in prison and those affiliated in gangs, kicks and handstrikes other than punching remained common).


----------



## MartialMasters (Dec 12, 2015)

Orcophile said:


> There's a lot of problems with your post.
> 
> Despite the popular notion that the development of gunpowder brought Western martial arts to extinction remember GUNPOWDER WEAPONS were first developed in China. Hell it wasn't even Asians who brought it to Europe but the Turks (and despite the heavy development of gunpowder warfare in their civilization during the Ottoman period, even modern Turkish wrestling styles still have sweeps and other leg-based movements and techniques).
> 
> ...



Guess I needed to be a bit clearer! I am absolutely not claiming that gunpowder "killed" Western Arts. But it certainly did make an impact (in the West and East). Just to let you know, I've practiced HEMA for over five years, and am a senior student at one of the biggest schools for Western Swordplay in the world. And I trained under a legit Samurai in Kyoto (not a bullshido guy, but 33rd generation grandmaster from an unbroken line originating in the Warring States period), so I'm not a "keyboard warrior" who just wathces Anime and jackie chan movies and thinks himself an authority! The West and East systems and histories are not unfamiliar to me! Not just from book reading, but first-hand learning, too! Not that I'm a walking encyclopedia, either...

But I can say, the European medieval manuals show Judo-style throws, yes...but basically only in unarmoured wrestling (like good old master Ott and the rest!). Much of the pole-axe and sword work for full armour, you'd try to simply imbalance your opponent and let the weight of the armour do the rest (look at the Burgundian 'jeu de la hache', or good old Fiore)!  At some international symposiums for swordplay, instructors in this area expressed the same idea, too...I promise I'm not making this up! But yes, I definitely mentioned the late middle ages for that element, because I know that the 8th century was quite different from the 14th. Heck, the "cnicht" was barely a twinkle in anyone's eye shortly after the fall of Rome. You just had footmen in light armour known mainly as "milites". But Knights in the sense we usually think came about later. Stirrups, plate armour, lances for shock combat and lists...that all happened after 1000AD!

That thing about the steel-toed shoes I got recently from a Bartitsu instructor who had just reviewed a book written from the Victorian era about the subject. I know one flower doesn't make spring, and one book isn't everything...but I'm not making that up, either! And it certainly is true that the Victorians were pretty obsessed with being gentleman, although not all were, and it often got expressed in funny ways! Still...I mentioned that only as one of the many tiny little things that did add to the mix. And it wasn't a problem of stomping with steel-toes (you stomp with your heel), but of shin kicking (and groin shots too...now that's a cringe-worthy thought!)!

I didn't mean to ruffle any feathers, I'm certainly not claiming that Asia is stupid and Europe is amazing...just wanted to express that it is a composite cause behind the change, and that since both cultures and civilizations are different, the way they developed differed!


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 12, 2015)

Orcophile said:


> Older styles of wrestling such as local folk styles across Europe (whcih still has practitioners even to this day) have extensive use of sweeps, triangle chokes, arm bar, and other techniques associated with Asian martial arts.



Wow, imagine that eh, 'folk styles' still being practiced! yes I'm being sarcastic because yes of course we still do what you quaintly call 'folk' styles. They are very popular right across Europe.



Orcophile said:


> Its a common assertion among many westerners who are theorizing why medieval and western fighting systems became extinct was the advancements in military technology namely gunpowder. Even the HEMA guys are claiming technological advancements led to Eurpean martial arts becoming extinct.



I think you'll find we prefer to say that western fighting systems just moved with the times. However I wouldn't say Western fighting systems are extinct, certain things have never changed, the Archery club close to me has been going since the Middle Ages.



Orcophile said:


> For over a century boxing and collegiate wrestling has dominated the West so much that the notion of kicking an opponent has been ingrained as cowardly and many basic kicks (roundhouse, sidekicks etc) other than the soccer kick have been lost . Boxing and wrestling remains in arsenal for your average brawl at school or in a bar.







Orcophile said:


> SO your average brawl between college boys would not involve kicking or even stomping on someone because westerners have been so conditioned to punch in the manner of a boxer. Hell even open handstrikes were considered weird by your average Joe engaging in a riot or amateur hoodlums duking it out in the streets of California.



You are being very North American-centric, you will find that in Europe we don't 'do' collegiate wrestling, it's not a common sport you will find in colleges and universities here. We have the Olympic styles and the local styles.  I don't think we have your equivalent of 'college boys' either, college here is for 16-18 years olds to take their A levels or who go into a trade. They don't tend to fight much. We have universities for 18+, if they fight and brawl which doesn't actually happen a lot then they will do it the same way as any other young person, they don't think kicking is cowardly at all, far from it, it's not 'ingrained' here as I keep telling you, I really wish you wouldn't project your thoughts of how you think things are, on us Europeans. Whatever you think we do we don't besides we have Rugby. Enough said.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 12, 2015)

MartialMasters said:


> And it wasn't a problem of stomping with steel-toes (you stomp with your heel), but of shin kicking (and groin shots too...now that's a cringe-worthy thought!)!



We still have shin kicking competitions.


----------



## MartialMasters (Dec 12, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> We still have shin kicking competitions.


Well, of course...those shins aren't going to kick themselves! Hehe!


----------



## MartialMasters (Dec 12, 2015)

Orcophile said:


> Some older styles "dubbed" as wrestling had kicks such as Pankration (which if you ever see history texts, its always described as "Greek wrestling" even though its far more accurate to describe it as MMA with even far less rules and much higher fatalities).
> 
> And I mention "leg based techniques"  which is more than just kicks but includes sweeps, leg locks,  knees strikes, and other techniques focusing on using the leg to cripple an opponent or strike them to earn points.
> 
> ...



I hate to be a wet blanket, because I love digging out truths as much as the next guy...but stepping back, it looks like you've asked a question of a group of instructors and long-time practitioners, and then as soon as they take time out of their busy days to offer a word or two, you seem to ream into them and tell them why they are wrong and why you are right. If you already have all the answers, know all the facts, and know better than us...why ask in the first place? Maybe that wasn't your intent, but speaking from the other side of the coin...it just seems a bit like that. Admittedly, some responses may have been a bit unclear (mine included)...but this is just an online forum, we're not peer-reviewing articles for national publications here!

Again, don't want to ruffle feathers, the last thing anyone needs is a big mud-slinging battle online. It just seems a bit odd the way this thread has progressed! Interesting topic, though!


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 12, 2015)

Orcophile said:


> Some older styles "dubbed" as wrestling had kicks such as Pankration (which if you ever see history texts, its always described as "Greek wrestling" even though its far more accurate to describe it as MMA with even far less rules and much higher fatalities).



I've never seen or heard of it described as 'Greek wrestling' but always what it was. I wouldn't describe it as MMA though because it isn't mixed martial arts which is what it says it is, a mixture of many different arts from different cultures used by a fighter to win competitions. Pankration was a Greek martial art in itself.
What you call 'folk' styles of wrestling often have no leg techniques whatsoever, some don't even go to the ground. Some are just leg techniques funnily enough.
I think there are great many experienced posters who have yet to put their tuppenceworth in, I'm making popcorn so I can enjoy the exchanges.


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 12, 2015)

Orcophile said:


> Some older styles "dubbed" as wrestling had kicks such as Pankration (which if you ever see history texts, its always described as "Greek wrestling" even though its far more accurate to describe it as MMA with even far less rules and much higher fatalities).



Ancient Greece had wrestling, boxing and pankration.  Boxing was generally considered the most dangerous of the 3.  But pankration and wrestling where separate events in the ancient Olympics.

[/QUOTE]
For over a century boxing and collegiate wrestling has dominated the West so much that the notion of kicking an opponent has been ingrained as cowardly  and many basic kicks (roundhouse, sidekicks etc) other than the soccer kick have been lost . Boxing and wrestling remains in arsenal  for your average brawl at school or in a bar.
[/QUOTE]

Not really, collegiate wrestling doesn't exist outside of the US.  Most wrestling is Freestyle and Greco-Roman.  But wrestling never had kicking... it's wrestling.  Boxing in the west never had kicks weather, they weren't lost, they just where not part of that sport.  Some trips and throws where if you go back far enough, but not kicks.


----------



## 7BallZ (Dec 12, 2015)

Andrew Green said:


> Ancient Greece had wrestling, boxing and pankration.  Boxing was generally considered the most dangerous of the 3.  But pankration and wrestling where separate events in the ancient Olympics.


For over a century boxing and collegiate wrestling has dominated the West so much that the notion of kicking an opponent has been ingrained as cowardly  and many basic kicks (roundhouse, sidekicks etc) other than the soccer kick have been lost . Boxing and wrestling remains in arsenal  for your average brawl at school or in a bar.
[/QUOTE]

Not really, collegiate wrestling doesn't exist outside of the US.  Most wrestling is Freestyle and Greco-Roman.  But wrestling never had kicking... it's wrestling.  Boxing in the west never had kicks weather, they weren't lost, they just where not part of that sport.  Some trips and throws where if you go back far enough, but not kicks.[/QUOTE]

Some of the earlier incarnations of "pugilism" as seen in the 14th-16th century had kicks and stomps as a common technique. Even as late as London Prize Rules, there were boxers who attempted to "cheat" by stomping on the enemy's feet to prevent them from escaping via footwork. And  before London Prize, stomping on someone in the ring was quite common in the less formal and organized bouts.

While  most Wrestling styles didn't use kicks, older styles from as far as Medieval Europe utilized sweeps and other leg-based movements and techniques

However some styles dubbed as a "local wrestling" variation was more accurately MMA in that strikes were used in addition to submission and grappling. Pankration (which many books on Ancient Greece tended to describe as a Greek style of wrestling or "wrestling combined with boxing") is one such example.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 12, 2015)

MartialMasters said:


> I hate to be a wet blanket, because I love digging out truths as much as the next guy...but stepping back, it looks like you've asked a question of a group of instructors and long-time practitioners, and then as soon as they take time out of their busy days to offer a word or two, you seem to ream into them and tell them why they are wrong and why you are right. If you already have all the answers, know all the facts, and know better than us...why ask in the first place? Maybe that wasn't your intent, but speaking from the other side of the coin...it just seems a bit like that. Admittedly, some responses may have been a bit unclear (mine included)...but this is just an online forum, we're not peer-reviewing articles for national publications here!
> 
> Again, don't want to ruffle feathers, the last thing anyone needs is a big mud-slinging battle online. It just seems a bit odd the way this thread has progressed! Interesting topic, though!



We could be wrong. I don't think anybody here is a boxing historian. So I will counter this and suggest that he takes nothing we say at face value. Regardless of how experienced we are. 

If he thinks we are wrong it means he needs to think about and support why we are wrong. If we think we are right then we need to think about and support that as well.


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 12, 2015)

Orcophile said:


> However some styles dubbed as a "local wrestling" variation was more accurately MMA in that strikes were used in addition to submission and grappling. Pankration (which many books on Ancient Greece tended to describe as a Greek style of wrestling or "wrestling combined with boxing") is one such example.



You do realize that the term MMA is a pretty knew one, which was certainly not in common usage when most things written on Pankration where published?  "MMA" is a term created in the UFC, describing it as a "Mixed Martial Arts" event in that it had a mixture of martial arts styles represented.  It evolved to mean the style itself that comes about from the rules used.  But people still occasionally describe it as a mix of boxing and wrestling.


----------



## MartialMasters (Dec 12, 2015)

drop bear said:


> We could be wrong. I don't think anybody here is a boxing historian. So I will counter this and suggest that he takes nothing we say at face value. Regardless of how experienced we are.
> 
> If he thinks we are wrong it means he needs to think about and support why we are wrong. If we think we are right then we need to think about and support that as well.



Fair enough!


----------



## drop bear (Dec 12, 2015)

MartialMasters said:


> That thing about the steel-toed shoes I got recently from a Bartitsu instructor who had just reviewed a book written from the Victorian era about the subject. I know one flower doesn't make spring, and one book isn't everything...but I'm not making that up, either! And it certainly is true that the Victorians were pretty obsessed with being gentleman, although not all were, and it often got expressed in funny ways! Still...I mentioned that only as one of the many tiny little things that did add to the mix. And it wasn't a problem of stomping with steel-toes (you stomp with your heel), but of shin kicking (and groin shots too...now that's a cringe-worthy thought!)!
> 
> I didn't mean to ruffle any feathers, I'm certainly not claiming that Asia is stupid and Europe is amazing...just wanted to express that it is a composite cause behind the change, and that since both cultures and civilizations are different, the way they developed differed!



The concern modern day is someone steel toe kicking. Down guy in the face.

Most pubs here ban them.


----------



## frank raud (Dec 13, 2015)

Marquis of Queensbury rules. Enough said.


----------



## Langenschwert (Dec 13, 2015)

drop bear said:


> I don't think anybody here is a boxing historian.



Kirk is. 

Here's one of the things about western combat sports (and combat sports in general, this can apply equally to kendo) is that they tend to test a very limited skillset. Foil fencing is much simpler than longsword or messer fencing, and modern boxing has a very restrictive ruleset compared to pre-MQB rules. Somewhere along the line competition became more important than a more serious application of MA. It was considered more important that someone could score a "touch" with a foil than skewer someone with a smallsword while disarming him or taking him down with a trip. It also became more important that someone get a pin in wrestling than break the opponent's arm. It became more important that boxing matches be settled with big gloves and only punches than bare knuckles and takedowns.

Perhaps the sportification of an art necessitates a reduction in the amount of techniques? Even in tournament HEMA, there are banned technques, and rightfully so. We want people to survive tourneys.


----------



## 7BallZ (Dec 13, 2015)

Langenschwert said:


> Kirk is.
> 
> Here's one of the things about western combat sports (and combat sports in general, this can apply equally to kendo) is that they tend to test a very limited skillset. Foil fencing is much simpler than longsword or messer fencing, and modern boxing has a very restrictive ruleset compared to pre-MQB rules. Somewhere along the line competition became more important than a more serious application of MA. It was considered more important that someone could score a "touch" with a foil than skewer someone with a smallsword while disarming him or taking him down with a trip. It also became more important that someone get a pin in wrestling than break the opponent's arm. It became more important that boxing matches be settled with big gloves and only punches than bare knuckles and takedowns.
> 
> Perhaps the sportification of an art necessitates a reduction in the amount of techniques? Even in tournament HEMA, there are banned technques, and rightfully so. We want people to survive tourneys.



However this doesn't explain why in Asia (and toa  elsser extent other countries where boxing and collegiate wrestline iis not the dominant combat sport such as Brazil, parts of Africa, Russia, etc) despite the dumbing down of popular local styles to remove dangerous techniques, they still left in kicks, leg locks, and other movements utilizing the legs.

I mean I cannot understand who the hell thought "kicking" was a sissy's technique thus removing it from boxing.

Well in fact when kicking was re-introduced in mainstream Western fighting sports (as seen in the explosion of kickboxing when it was initially introduced in the West, the still remaining popularity of Asian sportified MAs, and MMA) one of the novelty of how so many young people were eager to take Asian MAs was the use of legs and other bodily parts.

I mean BJJ is now quickly reaching Collegiate wrestling's popularity (and its only the lack of university sposorship that prevents it from overtaking restricted forms of wrestling popular in the mainstream West). And a big part of this is attributed to the use of legs and elbows to pin an enemy instead or relying almost entirely on hands.

I mean there was even a point Savate was raging in popularity in Europe and far surpassed boxing in its home country.

But  boxing and other fighting sports only using hands or arms (not counting use of elbow to hit or pin an opponent) overtook Savate and its not until post-1970s that kickboxing came out in the west as somewhat mainsream (but still paless in comparison to boxing even during the initial explosion).

I mean using the restriction explanation you put above, how come Asia and the rest of the world never had a form of sport restricting to just using your hands (or more specifically fists)? How come its only in the west where s sport that only allows punching exploded in popularity? I mean I have yet to see a historical evidence for "MQ" or even "London Prize" style sports existing in Asia before Westerners brought over their now sportified form of pugilism in the late 19th and early 20th century.

Even styles that rely primarily on hands utilize some kicks or sweeps every now and than in combos and their handstrikes include hammerfist, open palm strike, spear thrust and backfist rather than just pure punching.

The same can be asked about the development of sport wrestling in the West. Even Mongolian wrestling, the closes equivalent I can think of in Asia, allows sweeps and Judo style throws (as long as only arms are used) despite the fact the sports emphasize arm style wrestling to the point of even looking exactly as collegiate wrestling the overwhelming majority of the time. 

If the closest equivalent in Asia still allows leg movements, it makes me wonder what the hell were Western promorters thinking when they sportified wrestling and boxing!


----------



## drop bear (Dec 13, 2015)

Langenschwert said:


> Kirk is.
> 
> Here's one of the things about western combat sports (and combat sports in general, this can apply equally to kendo) is that they tend to test a very limited skillset. Foil fencing is much simpler than longsword or messer fencing, and modern boxing has a very restrictive ruleset compared to pre-MQB rules. Somewhere along the line competition became more important than a more serious application of MA. It was considered more important that someone could score a "touch" with a foil than skewer someone with a smallsword while disarming him or taking him down with a trip. It also became more important that someone get a pin in wrestling than break the opponent's arm. It became more important that boxing matches be settled with big gloves and only punches than bare knuckles and takedowns.
> 
> Perhaps the sportification of an art necessitates a reduction in the amount of techniques? Even in tournament HEMA, there are banned technques, and rightfully so. We want people to survive tourneys.



My theory was betting. There was money in being good at the boxing skill set. And I don't think there ever was the same money in wrestling sword fighting or savate


----------



## frank raud (Dec 14, 2015)

Savate's decline can be attributed to WW1, killing of many of its practitioners.


----------



## lklawson (Dec 14, 2015)

Orcophile said:


> So far there is a notion in pop culture that until East Asian martial arts were brought over Post WWII and the Bruce Lee craze, Western martial arts never never used any leg techniques such as the triangle choke and in particular kicks.


You are still ill informed.



> Anyone who began studying martial arts in depth will eventually come across HEMA and other local regional styles in Europe such as Viking Wrestling, Savate, and Pankration that emphasizes using leg techniques like sweeps and kicks to the point such techniques are essential to using such local European styles.
> 
> However these styles never became big in the West as popular fighting sports.


This is just wrong.  Regional styles were freaking *HUGELY* popular in their regions.  



> In fact its starting in the 1700s many popular western fighting sports like boxing and collegiate wrestling style began to develop into their modern forms; prior the older variations were almost like earlier incarnations of MMA with bare knuckle boxing allowing open hand strikes, grappling, and even kicks and stomping and old school wrestling pretty much being No Holds Barred minus striking.


Collegiate wrestling is a variation of a French regional wrestling style which existed well prior to the 20th Century and boxing didn't include kicks and stomping unless you're wanting to include pre-Broughton fighting.  The first codification of rules for boxing, by Broughton, made sure that kicks and stomps were illegal.  



> As they became their popular sports form, eventually associations develop rules to focus entirely on arm-based techniques and eliminate legs other than for footwork and movement to launch throws and punches.


*AS* they became?  They were popular anyway.  What you're missing is a huge social movement working against Boxing and analogous to the Temperance Movement (often populated by the same people).  Read the "Defense of Pugilism" by Magistrate Beaumont in Chapter 1 of Owen Swift's manual to get an idea.



> It'd take a over a century for the concept of "kicks", leg chokes and take downs, stomping and other leg techniques to begin to be as acceptable in mainstream fighing sports with East TMAs and Bruce Lee inspiring new sports like kick boxing and MMA in the West.


No.  What it took was WWI.



> Its precisely because of the transition of boxing and college wrestling into banning kicks, stomps, sweeps, and other leg based techniques that came the notion that kicking is a uniquely Asian thing and Westerners prefer fighting with their hands only.


This is just wrong.



> Anyone who studies Asian martial arts in depth would realize a lot of styles like Karate and TKD were actually dumbed down even in their home country to eliminate dangerous moves and thus forms are more like sports emphasizing flashiness


Oh, good gravy.  I'll let the Karate guys beat you up over that one.



> Even in countries where "traditional Western fighting sports" like boxing became huge in such as Japan and Korea, the popularity pales in comparison to traditional martial arts sports emphasizing kicks and leg based takedowns and grappling. I mean for how big boxin is in Korea, the amount of TKD dojos outnumber them by a huge margin.


What do fans pay to watch at live events or on TV?



> However in the West, its the opposite where martial arts sports utilizing kicks and sweeps like Zipota, Sambo, Savate and Pankration and many no holds barred local wrestling styles are practically obscure and waaayy out of the mainstream's radar. Even in European countries that pride themselves in keeping their local martial arts and wrestling styles alive like Russia and North Europe, boxing and collegiate wrestling and other arm-based sports remain DOMINANT as far as as popularity goes.
> 
> I am curious why is there such a huge contrast in the transitioning of martial arts into their sportified forms between Asia and the West? Why do kickboxing and No Holds wrestling styles like Icelandic wrestling and Savate that were developed indigenous to Europe were left as UNDERGROUND things and never got the mass appeal the way TKD, Judo, and Karate got in Asian countries?


I'll pretend this is a serious question, and not just ill-informed rambling that it appears to be, for a moment.  Two things: The Olympics and changes in modern warfare.



> Bonus question: In the west why did fighting sports restricting techniques to arm usage quickly outpaced local styles utilizing bodies such as Pankration in popularity (especially boxing)?


Still the Olympics.



> I mean even older schools of boxing once utilized leg movements to pin an enemy from escaping as you pummel him  in the ring while both you and your enemy are standing up. There was even a point when pugilism had sweeps and kicks. Go a few centuries earlier and British boxing resemble a far more brutal incarnation of MMA in which everything goes from choking an enemy to stomping them on the ground to gouging their eyes and the only thing preventign it from being real street violence was the lack of weapons and the existence of a referee to decide the winner and help the loser get up so he could go to the nearest hospital.


The lack of weapons?!?!  What are you on about?  Look, I'm not sure where you get your information but it seems clear that you have misunderstood the context of most of it.  Everything has a social context and it's way more complex than you seem to think it is.


----------



## lklawson (Dec 14, 2015)

Orcophile said:


> There's a lot of problems with your post.


There's more with yours.



> Despite the popular notion that the development of gunpowder brought Western martial arts to extinction remember GUNPOWDER WEAPONS were first developed in China. Hell it wasn't even Asians who brought it to Europe but the Turks (and despite the heavy development of gunpowder warfare in their civilization during the Ottoman period, even modern Turkish wrestling styles still have sweeps and other leg-based movements and techniques).
> 
> I mean it was even in the late Medieval Ages when Europeans began to import their more effective rifles back into Asia during the same period of the Warring clans in Japan and the Ming dynasty of China. And the Chinese armies and Samurais were QUICK to adopt European rifles in large numbers (with several sources stating Japan even having far more rifles than most European nations at the time minus the superpowers such as France,  England, Portugal, and Spain- and Japan's numbers  of rifles used in warfare were scarily on the same scale as the European superpowers when compared individually).
> 
> ...


You're acting as if he only said "gunpowder."  That's not right.  That was one facet of it, but there was a lot of social forces operating.



> I mean Asia was often advancing just as much alongside Europe  up until the period when the "AMerican colonies" were developed. Yet it was able to maintain rich martial traditions in which the entire body used headbuts, stomps, and triangle chokes. ANd even when Asia was lagging back, the gap wasn't as great as say central Africa (as Asians developed organized systems of administration that amazed even racist European explorers and soldiers).


You are sill laboring under the false impression that these "dirty techniques" were forgotten or verboten and not taught.  All of those "dirty techniques" were still in military fencing and were even allowed often in civilian duels.  McBane's manual documents and teaches both.  But, again, you're also ignoring social forces and conventions, as if you're depending on Victorian era internal propaganda to guide you're information.



> The knights fighting in heavy armour and medieval warfare is also baloney because not only do medieval manuals show Judo-style throws and leglocks.......


Which knightly armored Fechtbuchs show leg-locks?  I'm passingly familiar with all of the Italian manuals in the de Liberi tradition, am passingly familiar with some of the German tradition stuff, and own a hardcopy of Talhoffer.  I have PDF's or webbed versions of most of the armored Fechtbuchs but I don't remember any leg-locks.  Might have been in some of the late-period wrestling manuals, but I don't recall for sure.



> Not to mention European armor isn't really that heavy and varied throughout the Medieval period. an 8th century knight would have been wearing leather with chainmail on topwhile a 16th century knight would have been fighting quite similar to what we often call as Napoleonic Warfare (which armor becoming less and less used).


"Mail" or "Maille."  And it is indisputable that armor became less and less used in Europe because of advances in firearms.  You can clearly see proofing marks from firearms on some very heavy breast plates.  Bullet resistant armor has never been given up on, but when plate-steel was the dominant method of construction, it was little used because its weight limited the practicality.



> The Victorian Era and boxing honor is also nonsense considering just before the invention of London Prize, stomps were allowed on enemies.


No.  Broughton made stomps illegal in his rule set, which well predate the London Prize Ring rules.



> So the notion of Europeans being far more pragmatic in violence is a slap in the face against historical evidence considering how in actual warfare both EAst and WEst for the most part fought int he same way utilizing formations and adopting the latest equipment..


No.  What is a slap in the face is the assumption that all martial arts were created for the same reason.  Broadly speaking, there are both distinctly Civilian and Distinctly Military martial arts and, quote frankly, one is not necessarily appropriate for use in the other venue.  And beyond that, there is a clear difference between Military combat martial arts and espirit de corps martial arts as there is a difference between Civilian self defense martial arts and "sporting" arts.  To be blunt, Judo ain't Kenjutsu and Highland Broadsword ain't French Court Sword but you're mixing them all together as if they were.  Every art exists in its own context.



> I mean at a time Savate was even comparable to boxing in popularity  in Europe as a whole yet boxing overtook it even in its home country France! Same can be said with folk rwestling styles (which eventually got overshadowed by collegiate wrestling and Queensberry Rules boxing).


There are dozens of different reasons most of which you seem intent on ignoring.  Here are two.  First there is a distinct (and I believe deliberate) homogenizing effect of the Olympics.  Second there is the absolute carnage which WWI wrought.  Depending on which estimates you believe, as much as something like 99 out of 100 savate Silver Gloves died in the trenches.  WTH do you think happens to the viability of a population when you cull it by 99%?


----------



## lklawson (Dec 14, 2015)

Orcophile said:


> Its a common assertion among many westerners who are theorizing why medieval and western fighting systems became extinct was the advancements in military technology namely gunpowder. Even the HEMA guys are claiming technological advancements  led to Eurpean martial arts becoming extinct.


For certain definitions of "extinct."



> For over a century boxing and collegiate wrestling has dominated the West so much that the notion of kicking an opponent has been ingrained as cowardly  and many basic kicks (roundhouse, sidekicks etc) other than the soccer kick have been lost .


For certain definitions of "lost."



> Its only in the Asian studies (and any subculture heavily involved with stuff made in Asia such as Hong Kung Fu cinema, anime/manga, etc) , military, (to a lesser degree) street police, and hardcore criminal and prison circles where kicks were frequently taught and used


So, westerners in the Military, LEO, Criminals, (and you forgot quite a number of Civilian Self Defense instances as well) kept doing all this "lost" stuff?

Doesn't sound very "lost" to me.  



> before the coming of the  martial arts craze Bruce Lee inspired back in the 70s. Outside of those specific circles, the "fighting techniques" being taught were wrestling and boxing and any brawl that didn't use weapons  was pretty much purely punch to punch or attempts to outwrestle each other.
> 
> SO your average brawl between college boys would not involve kicking or even stomping on someone because westerners have been so conditioned to punch in the manner of a boxer. Hell even open handstrikes were considered weird by your average Joe engaging in a riot or amateur hoodlums duking it out in the streets of California.


So you're entire thesis rest upon the very narrow subset of Middle Class Civilian Sport, specifically excluding Civilian Self Defense?  Do you see a problem yet?



> (though I must point out among hardcore criminals particularly in prison and those affiliated in gangs, kicks and handstrikes other than punching remained common).


Then you also point out that your thesis is completely negated.


----------



## lklawson (Dec 14, 2015)

MartialMasters said:


> That thing about the steel-toed shoes I got recently from a Bartitsu instructor


Who?  Might be a friend.  



> And it certainly is true that the Victorians were pretty obsessed with being gentleman, although not all were, and it often got expressed in funny ways!


I think it's more accurate to say that a certain powerful subset of Victorians were obsessed with appearing to be gentlemen and promoting the idea that every one else should be as well.  It's a combination of propaganda and early social engineering.  ...that failed.



> Still...I mentioned that only as one of the many tiny little things that did add to the mix. And it wasn't a problem of stomping with steel-toes (you stomp with your heel), but of shin kicking (and groin shots too...now that's a cringe-worthy thought!)!


The French Apache were, umm...   Well, let's just say that they earned the right to swipe the name of the North American tribe.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Dec 14, 2015)

drop bear said:


> We could be wrong. I don't think anybody here is a boxing historian.


I am.  About some specific information.  I wrote a book about it.  The OP is a little bit right about certain techniques being used in some periods.  But it's all filtered through his inaccurate thesis which gives him a nasty case of Confirmation Bias.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Dec 14, 2015)

frank raud said:


> Marquis of Queensbury rules. Enough said.


No, it isn't.  There were numerous rule sets.  Outside of the Marquis rules (which morphed many times over the passage of years), I'm familiar with Broughton's rules, The London Prize Ring rules, and the American Fair Play rules.  All of these were popular and influential to the sport.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Dec 14, 2015)

drop bear said:


> My theory was betting. There was money in being good at the boxing skill set. And I don't think there ever was the same money in wrestling sword fighting or savate


Wrestling was massively popular, particularly as an amateur past time.  Betting on it, especially in the U.S., was more than what you seem to think.  Fencing, as a civilian past time, was mostly considered a upper-crusty hobby.  Think of it like Snow Skiing or something.  Savate was devastated by WWI.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Dec 14, 2015)

frank raud said:


> Savate's decline can be attributed to WW1, killing of many of its practitioners.


*^ THIS!!!*

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 14, 2015)

Sadly the First World War took the lives of a generation of gifted young men from many sports and disciplines. Many sports and even professions were damaged by this lost.


----------



## Langenschwert (Dec 15, 2015)

frank raud said:


> Savate's decline can be attributed to WW1, killing of many of its practitioners.



The same thing happened to many HEMA pioneers. We are in the second great HEMA revival, not the first.


----------



## 7BallZ (Jun 3, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> Sadly the First World War took the lives of a generation of gifted young men from many sports and disciplines. Many sports and even professions were damaged by this lost.



Even at their peak, they never matched the HUUUGGE popularity that boxing and wrestling quickly had upon being codified  post-London Rules. I mean Savate was mostly exclusively to France for examle even before WWI. While boxing and college wrestling was taking the storm beyond the Anglosphere as seen by its explosion in Mexico and later South America, Italy, Germany, and eventually Russia post World Wars. Hell I already mentioned boxing and wrestling even surpassed other European styles in popularity in Asian nations where sports utilizing kicks and other bodily movements are still the craze such as Korea.

THats what I don't understand. Considering MMA and Asian martial arts got the craze for the past decades because they utilize more types of other bodily movements than punches and other arm-based techniques, why did it take so long for kicking, sweeps and the such to make a comeback in Western fighting sports once Savate and local styles were nearly killed off?  I mean its arguable without Bruce Lee, Jackei Chan, The GRacie bros, adn other mainstream martial arts name the west would still be restructed to boxing and other arm based fighting sports. WE needed the influence of -non Europeans to bring back  triangle chokes and  roundhouses to make using legs acceptable in mainstream ringfighting again.

Whereas Asia.Africa, and even South America-in particular Brazil- never lost leg based movements in their mainstream fighting sports. Even with boxing and college wrestling becoming popular in those regions.


----------



## 7BallZ (Jun 3, 2016)

lklawson said:


> You are still ill informed.
> 
> This is just wrong.  Regional styles were freaking *HUGELY* popular in their regions.
> 
> ...



Firsty I never said that modern karate and other TMAs were sissified to the point they are utterly useless. I definitely rather pay several hundred bucks than get into the ring with a TKD world champ blackbelt and so on. But as Mar MacYoung stated, sportifications eliminated the original stuff that made these TMAs instant killers within three moves. 

I am fully aware of social movements against boxing. Hell there is still groups today in the west opposing boxing and wanting it banned. But it doesn;t explain why westerners wanted to limit moves to arm based techniques as the Olympics got on. I mean karate, tkd, and such are now officially olympics sports. So that doesn't explain why the popular fighting sports of the west is arm based.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 3, 2016)

Orcophile said:


> Firsty I never said that modern karate and other TMAs were sissified to the point they are utterly useless. I definitely rather pay several hundred bucks than get into the ring with a TKD world champ blackbelt and so on. But as Mar MacYoung stated, sportifications eliminated the original stuff that made these TMAs instant killers within three moves.
> 
> I am fully aware of social movements against boxing. Hell there is still groups today in the west opposing boxing and wanting it banned. But it doesn;t explain why westerners wanted to limit moves to arm based techniques as the Olympics got on. I mean karate, tkd, and such are now officially olympics sports. So that doesn't explain why the popular fighting sports of the west is arm based.



Chicken or the egg? 

Is the west arm biased because of the popularity of boxing?


----------



## 7BallZ (Jun 3, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Chicken or the egg?
> 
> Is the west arm biased because of the popularity of boxing?



Keep in mind modern mainstream wrestling was being codified at the same time boxing was.

WHich is why I am wondering where it came from. I mean Pankration utilized primarily pugilist strikes and arm-based throws but it still kept sweeps, leg based holds and pins, and kicks in their arsenal.

Even Mongol and Turkish wrestling can easily mistaken for college wrestling most of the time but even they used sweeps in their styles- despite triangle chokes and other leg based beings being banned in orthodox rules.

I mean it doesn;t explain why South America even before ASian martial arts came already had popular wrestling styles that utilized leg movements and at one point capoeira was even mainstream among the poor classes of the populace in certain regions. If I recall a lot of capoira uses dancing style kicks.

Even American prisoners are shown in videos  throw "soccer kicks" against standing opponents.

So I can't understand where this anti-kicking thing comes from in the WEst-especially in England and America. I mean in the former isn't soccer the biggest sport?


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 4, 2016)

Orcophile said:


> I mean in the former isn't soccer the biggest sport?



Football is a ball sport, nothing to do with martial arts and it was banned for a while under Cromwell.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 4, 2016)

While there are many factors I think the issue is the evolution of warfare.  The West embraced gunpowder to a huge extent and continued to advance it technologically.  As such the Martial Arts slowly, over time, began to be moved more and more into the Sporting area.  In Asia, even though China was the first Nation to use gunpowder, didn't embrace it until they began their pushes to Westernize so the use of Martial Arts in Warfare survived into the 20th Century.

The thing is self defense in civilian life tends to mirror what is seen as the most effective combat technique in your society and in the West, by the 18th century that was guns and blades, 19th and since guns.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 4, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> While there are many factors I think the issue is the evolution of warfare.  The West embraced gunpowder to a huge extent and continued to advance it technologically.  As such the Martial Arts slowly, over time, began to be moved more and more into the Sporting area.  In Asia, even though China was the first Nation to use gunpowder, didn't embrace it until they began their pushes to Westernize so the use of Martial Arts in Warfare survived into the 20th Century.
> 
> The thing is self defense in civilian life tends to mirror what is seen as the most effective combat technique in your society and in the West, by the 18th century that was guns and blades, 19th and since guns.



Boxing and wrestling have always been sports.And date back to about 4,000bc.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 4, 2016)

Orcophile said:


> Even at their peak, they never matched the HUUUGGE popularity that boxing and wrestling quickly had upon being codified  post-London Rules. I mean Savate was mostly exclusively to France for examle even before WWI. While boxing and college wrestling was taking the storm beyond the Anglosphere as seen by its explosion in Mexico and later South America, Italy, Germany, and eventually Russia post World Wars. Hell I already mentioned boxing and wrestling even surpassed other European styles in popularity in Asian nations where sports utilizing kicks and other bodily movements are still the craze such as Korea.
> 
> THats what I don't understand. Considering MMA and Asian martial arts got the craze for the past decades because they utilize more types of other bodily movements than punches and other arm-based techniques, why did it take so long for kicking, sweeps and the such to make a comeback in Western fighting sports once Savate and local styles were nearly killed off?  I mean its arguable without Bruce Lee, Jackei Chan, The GRacie bros, adn other mainstream martial arts name the west would still be restructed to boxing and other arm based fighting sports. WE needed the influence of -non Europeans to bring back  triangle chokes and  roundhouses to make using legs acceptable in mainstream ringfighting again.
> 
> Whereas Asia.Africa, and even South America-in particular Brazil- never lost leg based movements in their mainstream fighting sports. Even with boxing and college wrestling becoming popular in those regions.




What you have said here has nothing to do with my post you quoted.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 4, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Boxing and wrestling have always been sports.And date back to about 4,000bc.



And anyone with a History degree like me knows that.  The question was this.



> I am curious why is there such a huge contrast in the transitioning of martial arts into their sportified forms between Asia and the West? Why do kickboxing and No Holds wrestling styles like Icelandic wrestling and Savate that were developed indigenous to Europe were left as UNDERGROUND things and never got the mass appeal the way TKD, Judo, and Karate got in Asian countries?



And other posters noted other European Historic arts.  The Point was simply to illustrate the key difference between East and West when it came to the Martial Arts.  Europe had even into the Renaissance Era a fully fleshed out MA systems that were even codified into Manuals BUT firearms became king.  How many times do we hear the "brings a knife to a gun fight?" and that is not a 20th century axiom.

Btw boxing wasn't a sport as we know it today.  Back then the Olympic Sports served two purposes, 1 demonstrating acumen in martial, meaning military arts (yes running counts to) and doing so in a religious ceremony honoring Zeus.  Even the discus was part of military training.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 4, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> And anyone with a History degree like me knows that.  The question was this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Anyway money. Those martial arts that convinced rich people to participate were surprisingly more successfull.

Kano with judo in universitys the government with tkd. Mestre bimba with the previously underground capoera. The Gracie's with the beej.

Has boxing wrestling judo ever not been a part of military training?


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 4, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Anyway money. Those martial arts that convinced rich people to participate were surprisingly more successfull.
> 
> Kano with judo in universitys the government with tkd. Mestre bimba with the previously underground capoera. The Gracie's with the beej.
> 
> Has boxing wrestling judo ever not been a part of military training?



It's the mindset in Culture overall that matters.  People see as effect combat arts what they see their "guardians" use, Militaries and Law Enforcement.  The "warrior ethic" in the West, outside of the Cavalry, has revolved around the rifle for centuries.  What HtH training they received was focused, primarily on the use of the bayonet and the rifle as a striking weapon.  What Martial arts training they received, until the post WWII era, was basically nil beyond that and even after, outside of special operations, cursory at best (more often than not) and focused around getting the bad guy down so you can get back to your gun.

In the East, martial arts as a legitimate battle field tool survived in many Nations into the 20th century.  So in one society you see the martial arts relegated to sport as in the West where rules are created to minimize the possibility of death and serious bodily injury, in the east that transition started MUCH later so living practitioners of these "real" arts survived into out Grandparent's, even parent's lifetimes.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 4, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> It's the mindset in Culture overall that matters.  People see as effect combat arts what they see their "guardians" use, Militaries and Law Enforcement.  The "warrior ethic" in the West, outside of the Cavalry, has revolved around the rifle for centuries.  What HtH training they received was focused, primarily on the use of the bayonet and the rifle as a striking weapon.  What Martial arts training they received, until the post WWII era, was basically nil beyond that and even after, outside of special operations, cursory at best (more often than not) and focused around getting the bad guy down so you can get back to your gun.
> 
> In the East, martial arts as a legitimate battle field tool survived in many Nations into the 20th century.  So in one society you see the martial arts relegated to sport as in the West where rules are created to minimize the possibility of death and serious bodily injury, in the east that transition started MUCH later so living practitioners of these "real" arts survived into out Grandparent's, even parent's lifetimes.



I am facebook friends of a living practitioner of life or death hand to hand combat in war who used martial arts as as a legitimate battlefield tool. 

His name is paul cale. 

I dont think he is Asian.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 4, 2016)

drop bear said:


> I am facebook friends of a living practitioner of life or death hand to hand combat in war who used martial arts as as a legitimate battlefield tool.
> 
> His name is paul cale.
> 
> I dont think he is Asian.



You are missing my point.  First point cultural trends is a society do not happen over night.  They take decades, sometimes a century or more to take route.  HEMA is using arts that existed in the Middle Ages.  Those arts stopped being taught when gunpowder became THE weapon of war in the west.  That didn't happen in the Far East until the Europeans started rolling their Navy's into their ports in order to force trade.  This trend continued, though until WWI the Cavalry still practiced the art of the sword, upon until WWII.  Prior to the lead up to WWII the US and Japan had been allies of a sort so some Martial Arts had entered into the service but it was training that was basically a combination of boxing and Judo that was never refreshed after basic training. the following was the standard Military training in the west... note this is the training that when stationed at say "Ft Such and Such" would be refreshed on some sort of basis... the Martial Arts training was "your done training, you're done Martial Arts."

1. Marksmanship.
2. Melee combat with bayonet affixed to Rifle
3. rudimentary knife combat

The occupation of Japan had soldiers (re)learning the benefits of a fully fleshed out martial art.  American Soldiers did not only bring it home to civilian life but brought it into Military training.  Even then the martial Arts training taught to you "standard" Infantry man by the Military is basic Judo again.  That's it.  Nothing fancy, if you run into a rank and file Infantry Man and he knows Martial Arts he learned it on his own accord, not from the Military.  Why?  Because the Military focuses on Firearms.  

This same standard is what Law Enforcement is trained in.  When you run into Cops who actually know Martial Arts again, they did it on their own.  When I was in the Army I trained with the British, Germans and Norwegians.  The US is not alone in this regard.  Many a fight in Modern Warfare has devolved into hand to hand BTW, especially in WWI.  They were brutal, barbaric, violent encounters won far more so by sheer and utter violence, not by Martial Training.  This again doesn't mean Soldiers aren't trained today BUT it does fall into the lines I note above.

Now with all of that said Special Operations are all over the map.  As an example the SEALS get trained in a multitude of arts.  Boxing, Judo, Jujutsu, Inosanto Kali Instructors (even Dan Inosanto himself) have hired to train them in knife fighting etc.  I don't know what knife fighting training Green Berets get but I know they train the first three other arts noted above.  The Rangers use a martial art designed by the Military that involves quick HARD attacks designed to stop and drop an enemy, allowing the Ranger to get distance and go for a weapon, the acronym they use for the art I have forgotten atm.  This however is Special Operations training... not what you rank and file Soldier is trained in.  The rank and file soldier is trained in a way to be "soldier proof".  Before any one says "wtf" I am a Vet, other Vets know what I am talking about.

This all ignores the OP's point though.  Why the West lost touch with the full featured Martial Art has NOTHING to do with WWII forward.  It has to do with the transition from melee warfare to gunpowder warfare.  Canons alone weren't enough but by the 1500's with the European Wars of Religion, the Era of melee combat went away at an accelerating rate.  Due to the Feudal System still in existence the only people that got "real" Military training were the standing Armies of the King.  When the King's Army stops learning Martial arts and instead Marksmanship, in essence, society stops learning Martial Arts and then it dies off along with it's existing practitioners.  This is why HEMA is based on manuals written in the middle ages discovered in some German Archive (I forget where precisely).


----------



## drop bear (Jun 4, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> You are missing my point. First point cultural trends is a society do not happen over night. They take decades, sometimes a century or more to take route. HEMA is using arts that existed in the Middle Ages. Those arts stopped being taught when gunpowder became THE weapon of war in the west. That didn't happen in the Far East until the Europeans started rolling their Navy's into their ports in order to force trade. This trend continued, though until WWI the Cavalry still practiced the art of the sword, upon until WWII. Prior to the lead up to WWII the US and Japan had been allies of a sort so some Martial Arts had entered into the service but it was training that was basically a combination of boxing and Judo that was never refreshed after basic training. the following was the standard Military training in the west... note this is the training that when stationed at say "Ft Such and Such" would be refreshed on some sort of basis... the Martial Arts training was "your done training, you're done Martial Arts."



So we should see a shift from learning non competitive arts to competition arts at about the time of gunpowder?

A quick look at wiki would say the 1500,s

History of the firearm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now Queensbury rules happened in about the 1700,s so there should have been some sort of shift about then in military technology to support your claim.
Marquess of Queensberry Rules - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 4, 2016)

drop bear said:


> So we should see a shift from learning non competitive arts to competition arts at about the time of gunpowder?
> 
> A quick look at wiki would say the 1500,s
> 
> ...




Hey look... actually read my freaking post and you would see I already mentioned the 1500's.  What a shocker, you selectively read again.  No not shocking actually.

Secondly we aren't talking about the rules for SPORTING fights...  please read the first paragraph of your second link where it says "...accepted rules in the sport of..."

We are talking about Martial Arts in western society, not in boxing rings.  With the rise of the firearm martial arts simply were not practiced outside of raw swordsmanship and that was practiced by the Cavalry, Officer Class and those wealthy enough to afford the training.  The rules you note were to civilize what was, largely, simply learn by experience street fighting there was no formalized art of boxing in Western Europe until the various rules started to be put into place.  

Martial Arts in society feeds off of two thing, primarily, 1. What the "guardians" (whether de facto or de jure) of society use for war, hence the term "martial" and 2. Popular culture.
2. Is important because fencing was still practiced even after it was useless on the battle field thanks to people like Alexander Dumas.  It also is evident in the fact of the resurgence of Martial Arts in the West in the modern era.

These are facts.  What I find most humorous is this.  A. You clearly did selective reading or you wouldn't have bothered linking the first link, I already pointed that out.  B. The second link is practically a non-sequitur because we aren't talking about a specific sport, we are talking about Martial Arts in general across a society.  As an example Savate and Bartitsu existed in the 1800's.  How many people know Savate vs Karate?  How many people know about Bartitsu period?  The answer is pretty simple and since I assume your have some intelligence I must assume you trolling since you actually didn't refute a single point I made, you just regurgitated one point I made and mentioned rules for boxing like it was somehow relevant to the almost 400 years of martial evolution (or devolution depending on your point of view) that occurred before.


----------



## Langenschwert (Jun 4, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> This is why HEMA is based on manuals written in the middle ages discovered in some German Archive (I forget where precisely).



Many different manuals, from many different libraries and private collections. There are about 60 manuals in the German tradition alone. Not just the middle ages either, and most of the early manuals would more accurately be termed early Renaissance, some going as late as the 1700's which is not medieval at all. And then there's Bartitsu, which is decidedly 20th Century in origin.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 5, 2016)

Langenschwert said:


> Many different manuals, from many different libraries and private collections. There are about 60 manuals in the German tradition alone. Not just the middle ages either, and most of the early manuals would more accurately be termed early Renaissance, some going as late as the 1700's which is not medieval at all. And then there's Bartitsu, which is decidedly 20th Century in origin.




I have to chuckle because I just mentioned Bartitsu right before you did.  Not many people know about that.  There is actually a gentleman about 45 minutes from me in Bethlehem PA who gives demonstrations and, I think, does closed door training in it.  I don't know if I would put that in this bunch though, strictly being anal retentive, because of its origin.  The founder (I forget his name) was a Brit who lived for a number of years in Japan.  When he came back he basically sold it like MMA.  It started as basically bringing Jujutsu and Judo to GB but then integrated Boxing, Savate and some other things BUT it started as bringing the Arts of the East to the West.  Because of that I wonder if it really fits as something that we can categorize with the earlier European Arts.

I mentioned it for the sake of the argument regarding Western Martial arts being "under the radar."

My only point is to say with the gunpowder age Martial Arts, in terms of knowledge/practice in society at large, all but died in the West, so we are talking starting in or about 1500 and they really didn't revive in interest until the post WWII era.  Not that the arts did not exist.


----------



## Langenschwert (Jun 5, 2016)

From what I understand Bartitsu was more Judo than Jujutsu. I kind of think of it as a precursor to JKD. It seems pretty cool. I'd love to learn some Vigny La Canne, but my plate is already full with HEMA, Modern Combatives, JSA and Judo. I'd also like to learn some Catch Wrestling and see what I can apply to my HEMA and Judo.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 5, 2016)

Langenschwert said:


> From what I understand Bartitsu was more Judo than Jujutsu. I kind of think of it as a precursor to JKD. It seems pretty cool. I'd love to learn some Vigny La Canne, but my plate is already full with HEMA, Modern Combatives, JSA and Judo. I'd also like to learn some Catch Wrestling and see what I can apply to my HEMA and Judo.



Same but my work schedule is so craptastic (gotta love 12 your shifts) and I am big on running and cycling that I have time for Wing Chun, Kali and that's it. . Of course I could ignore the wife but yeah that doesn't work lol


----------



## drop bear (Jun 5, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Hey look... actually read my freaking post and you would see I already mentioned the 1500's.  What a shocker, you selectively read again.  No not shocking actually.
> 
> Secondly we aren't talking about the rules for SPORTING fights...  please read the first paragraph of your second link where it says "...accepted rules in the sport of..."
> 
> ...



Ok.  Lets refute one statement that makes the rest of it basically null.

You say these are facts.  And have nothing to support them.  I think you may be confusing facts with opinion.

Now we both agree 1500, should be the turning point. But i cant see any sort of shift in martial arts in that time period.

I also dont see any evidence of society following the martial arts of its guardians. 

Now as weapons changed.  Then i can see a possibility that historical weapons go out of favor but i am not sure how that applies to the topic of unarmed martial arts.

And boxing has existed as long as martial arts has existed.  It is the best indicator of changes to martial arts culture. Rather than bartitsu that had a very short life span.  

Fencing.  No idea how long thats been going.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 5, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Ok.  Lets refute one statement that makes the rest of it basically null.
> 
> You say these are facts.  And have nothing to support them.  I think you may be confusing facts with opinion.
> 
> ...



First you are completely missing the OPs question.  They aren't asking "why did Western Martial arts die" they are asking why these arts have no where near the following, in the West, of Asian Martial arts.

That is in part because, outside of sport, Western Martial Arts were either lost (and rediscovered, case in point HEMA), were culturally isolated (Pankration), were priced out of the market (fencing) or for whatever reason remained niche (Savate, Bartitsu etc).

Why did this happen, look at the difference between the evolution of warfare.  You may disagree but your average person on earth defends themselves the way their defenders do.  In the West it was the sword, the gun.  In the East it was the sword (spear whatever) and the body.  So one side becomes a gun culture the other a Martial Arts culture.  For gosh sakes the Irish had a martial art that was a form of stock fighting, it died out though because stick does not beat gun.

This isn't my idea btw.  It comes down to the simple fact that until that last half of the 20th century firearm ownership was common through out all of the Western world.  It wasn't until the post WWII period that Nations, besides the US started clamping down on private firearm ownership.  In that kinda of environment people will naturally chose guns over Martial Arts.

Regardless here is how debate works.  I laid out a time line starting in 1500 in the West I drew parallels between the increasing use of guns there and how, if you bother to look, study of martial arts fades in the West.  I also have said, and please feel free to Google to confirm, how Firearms were not ubiquitous in Far East warfare until the late 1800''s early 1900's to explain why Martial Arts remained culturally relevant there. 

You will also note in a prior post I stated that in the 20th Century we now have popular culture being a driving force behind the "defenders".  It has some impact in the 19th Century (I specifically named Dumas) but it wasn't until our era that "Pop Culture" could move society so quickly.  And look since Pop Culture in Martial Arts took off because of Asian Martial Arts what are most US and European kids learning?  Asian Martial Arts, because Asia kept their arts alive and vibrant because they HAD to because when 600,000 Americans died under gunpowder during the Civil War Asians were still, for the majority fighting with Martial Arts.

Now the way debate works is that you don't say "I don't buy it" you actually state fac ts that prove my facts wrong or inaccurate.

So far I have essentially seen "I don't by it."  That is not how debate works.  If you want to debate please respond with some fact regarding society's practice as a whole as I have.  If you just want to do what you have done elsewhere, namely say "I just don't agree with no facts to support my argument, it's just because I don't agree" please save us both the time because otherwise I will simply cut and paste this paragraph.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 5, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> First you are completely missing the OPs question. They aren't asking "why did Western Martial arts die" they are asking why these arts have no where near the following, in the West, of Asian Martial arts.



No.thats not correct.

This was the question.

I* am curious why is there such a huge contrast in the transitioning of martial arts into their sportified forms between Asia and the West? Why do kickboxing and No Holds wrestling styles like Icelandic wrestling and Savate that were developed indigenous to Europe were left as UNDERGROUND things and never got the mass appeal the way TKD, Judo, and Karate got in Asian countries?
*




Juany118 said:


> That is in part because, outside of sport, Western Martial Arts were either lost (and rediscovered, case in point HEMA), were culturally isolated (Pankration), were priced out of the market (fencing) or for whatever reason remained niche (Savate, Bartitsu etc).


 
No they were always sport. Mostly.
Historical European martial arts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Juany118 said:


> Why did this happen, look at the difference between the evolution of warfare. You may disagree but your average person on earth defends themselves the way their defenders do. In the West it was the sword, the gun. In the East it was the sword (spear whatever) and the body. So one side becomes a gun culture the other a Martial Arts culture. For gosh sakes the Irish had a martial art that was a form of stock fighting, it d



Your opinion.



Juany118 said:


> This isn't my idea btw. It comes down to the simple fact that until that last half of the 20th century firearm ownership was common through out all of the Western world. It wasn't until the post WWII period that Nations, besides the US started clamping down on private firearm ownership. In that kinda of environment people will naturally chose guns over Martial Arts.



Yet nobody else has said it is their idea.



Juany118 said:


> Regardless here is how debate works. I laid out a time line starting in 1500 in the West I drew parallels between the increasing use of guns there and how, if you bother to look, study of martial arts fades in the West. I also have said, and please feel free to Google to confirm, how Firearms were not ubiquitous in Far East warfare until the late 1800''s early 1900's to explain why Martial Arts remained culturally relevant there.
> 
> You will also note in a prior post I stated that in the 20th Century we now have popular culture being a driving force behind the "defenders". It has some impact in the 19th Century (I specifically named Dumas) but it wasn't until our era that "Pop Culture" could move society so quickly. And look since Pop Culture in Martial Arts took off because of Asian Martial Arts what are most US and European kids learning? Asian Martial Arts, because Asia kept their arts alive and vibrant because they HAD to because when 600,000 Americans died under gunpowder during the Civil War Asians were still, for the majority fighting with Martial Arts.



I can't find anything really either way on this which leads us to.



Juany118 said:


> Now the way debate works is that you don't say "I don't buy it" you actually state fac ts that prove my facts wrong or inaccurate.
> 
> So far I have essentially seen "I don't by it." That is not how debate works. If you want to debate please respond with some fact regarding society's practice as a whole as I have. If you just want to do what you have done elsewhere, namely say "I just don't agree with no facts to support my argument, it's just because I don't agree" please save us both the time because otherwise I will simply cut and paste this paragraph.



So your suggestion is that you just say any old unsubstantiated claim. Lets  call them "facts"

Now my job is to refute your "facts" with my "facts" which I also assume can be any old unsubstantiated claim.

You don't think that is a bit insane?

Oh and it is a "fact" you kick puppies which apparently I don,t have to prove.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 5, 2016)

drop bear said:


> No.thats not correct.
> 
> This was the question.
> 
> ...



Umm it's the same thing, "Mass Appeal" is speaking directly to society at large, the definition being first coined in marketing circle as essentially using a shot gun approach to appeal to as many customers as possible.  

So that said I assume you aren't an unintelligent person it's not even worth copying and pasting what I noted above because you are clearly just looking for an argument for arguments sake regardless of what you must do to perpetuate it.  Cheers.


----------



## 7BallZ (Jun 5, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> First you are completely missing the OPs question.  They aren't asking "why did Western Martial arts die" they are asking why these arts have no where near the following, in the West, of Asian Martial arts.
> 
> That is in part because, outside of sport, Western Martial Arts were either lost (and rediscovered, case in point HEMA), were culturally isolated (Pankration), were priced out of the market (fencing) or for whatever reason remained niche (Savate, Bartitsu etc).
> 
> ...



I don't buy much of the arguments here. It ignores that not only in Asia has swords and other focuses you claim HEMA concentrated on been the PRIMARY weapon of wars and civilian violence-even at one point the most developed Asian countries such as Japan, China, Korea, India, Mongolia and Siam had adopted gunpowder weapons during the Medieval, Renaissance, and early modern period- but there were various points when the sword edicts were lifted and every male old enough to start a family (depending on the era this can be as low as 13) were walking to town with a military grade knife or sword.  Even kids and women depending on how militarized a society was during specific time periods had short sword or other genuine military weapon and knew how to use them for self defense.

On top of that Europe had just as many sword hunting and bans throughout its history and even onto the 1700s-20th century there were gun bans and even staff bans in some country-well bans on anything that was showing a rise in murder rates. Hell right now there are people advocating knife bans in the UK.

Guns and even swords were not always cheap weapons that the lower classes could afford so I doubt that explains why Irish stick fighting or American clubbing etc died out by the 20th century because your average dockworker or farmer would be more concerned about putting food on the table than getting a gun.

Many of your historical claims are utter BS for example by the Civil War in America, the JAPANESE were fighting the Meiji Restoration. Guess what? MOST TROOPS other than Samurai police such as the Shinsengumi and other specialized soldiers were using RIFLES and CANON ARTILLERY to kill each other. In the Bakamutsu specific there were even epic neaval battle in which canons were hitting each other and even a few clad iron ships.

Nevermind the Chinese having their own riflemen albeit heavily outdated when they were fighting civil wars over dynastic succession in the same century as well as Siam having a relatively modern army and so on.

EDIT

What about non Asian societies? The Turks were the earliest empire to adopt gunpowder on a mass scale beyond mere siege weapons yet they kept their wrestling styles albeit modified to be safer.

Capoeira and Brazil anyone? Which would have had musket armies by their independence. Same for other Latin America countries some which are so corrupt pistols can be bought on the street. Yet local machete and knife styles still survive despite guns being smuggled in that a poor farmer can afford them. Indeed even the Amazon savage tribes who survive in their lifestyle before the Spanish came have adopted rifles to a large extent, in some tribes hunting with the rifle even became the norm . Yet their spear arts still survived as well as their traditional lifestyle (living in huts with the earth as the floor, wearing strange clothes including half naked dress for men, worshipping pagan gods, etc).

So thee volution of warfare is BS explanation.


----------



## JP3 (Jun 5, 2016)

I think the answer to the question is contained in the O/P's final phrase of his final sentence. Hospital.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 5, 2016)

Orcophile said:


> Amazon savage tribes who survive in their lifestyle





Orcophile said:


> Yet their spear arts still survived as well as their traditional lifestyle (living in huts with the earth as the floor, wearing strange clothes including half naked dress for men, worshipping pagan gods, etc).



You are quite insulting towards these people aren't you? Who exactly were the savages? Those who lived in the country or those who invaded, raped and killed for gold? Who are you to decide that their lifestyle was 'strange' and their gods 'pagan'? Their culture is theirs and should be respected.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 5, 2016)

Orcophile said:


> I don't buy much of the arguments here. It ignores that not only in Asia has swords and other focuses you claim HEMA concentrated on been the PRIMARY weapon of wars and civilian violence-even at one point the most developed Asian countries such as Japan, China, Korea, India, Mongolia and Siam had adopted gunpowder weapons during the Medieval, Renaissance, and early modern period- but there were various points when the sword edicts were lifted and every male old enough to start a family (depending on the era this can be as low as 13) were walking to town with a military grade knife or sword.  Even kids and women depending on how militarized a society was during specific time periods had short sword or other genuine military weapon and knew how to use them for self defense.
> 
> On top of that Europe had just as many sword hunting and bans throughout its history and even onto the 1700s-20th century there were gun bans and even staff bans in some country-well bans on anything that was showing a rise in murder rates. Hell right now there are people advocating knife bans in the UK.
> 
> ...



They adopted gun powder weapons, canons etc, but the rifles they adopted did not advance for some time.  Many of them were using muzzle loaders, even then hardly universally i might add, when the Europeans showed up with repeating rifles in the 19th century.  You also have nations such as Japan that would allow firearms, then ban them even from their Militaries off and on.  Please also note I also specifically state that this trend in Asia ended in the 19th century which is when the Meji restoration occurred.  The fading of Martial Arts in the West did not happen over night.  It was a transition over time.

I think what you are missing is the OPs point of "mass appeal" in the West vs Asia and he specifically named certain MA.  I specifically focus on the topic at hand. 

While European powers did have sword bans etc, unlike Asia, in the West the fighting arts always spread from the military.  You don't have temples with Martial Monks who then spread their Arts as an example.  The Church, when it had military orders was a Power in and of itself. 

I could break it all down, the differences in Religious Institutions, the differences in Governmental structures that evolved along with the technology Asks chose not to pursue.  If you want I will literally lay out the reasons that a few books have covered comparing and contrasting the east and west military sciences during that time frame as it was very relevant to the 19th century relations that led to Meji etc.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 5, 2016)

Late Edit... HEMA as practiced today in mostly sword...however that is but one facet.  There is also an extensive grappling art that was practiced by the Chivalric classes of Europe the manuals of which have seen a revival in recent decades.

Short for as to difference between European culture (and the Middle East actually, Ottomans anyone) versus Asia.  Europe embraced technology to an insane degree.  They used gun powder as weapons long after China who discovered it but by the late 19th Century they showed up with repeating rifles, early crew served automatic weapons, long range artillery and Iron Hulled ships.  China had some smooth bore muzzle loading Rifle Units but those were special units because they lacked something, Industrialization.  Now the pace of change in the West between the 1500s and 1700s was at a measured paced but once the industrial revolution hit in the mid 1700s it was off to the races in the West.  Asia really doesn't change for hundreds of years, until the Europeans show up forcing their will upon even the Empires of China and Japan.

What this meant was this.  The hey day of Western Martial Arts was 300 years or more past by the late 1800's.  The people who studied them long dead.  The gun was king.  In Asia however people who studied Martial Arts before the the Meji restoration were still alive in the pre WWII period and teaching.  Those learning Chinese Martial arts before the Boxer Rebellion, well they were still alive and teaching in the 1960s and 1970s.

Soldiers from WWII come home from Pacific Occupation and the Korean War and bring Asian Martial Arts with them.  That is why Japanese Korean Arts take off first.  Chinese arts took longer, in part because outside of Hong Kong and other European possessions and Taiwan they were seriously surpressed by Mao and the Cultural Revolution.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 5, 2016)

Fighting arts spread from civilian life to the military. That ww1 boxing camp is a prime example. And they still do.

Sword fighting,not sure, but it would be easy to find out.  Because either these famous sword guys were civilians or soldiers.

There are exceptions like defendo and krav.

We can even look at Asian martial arts and see if it worked the same way.

Judo karate and tkd pretty sure were civilian first.

Just had a look kano was in Europe in 1881. That was before ww1 and well before any western soldiers were stationed anywhere near Okinawa.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 5, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Umm it's the same thing, "Mass Appeal" is speaking directly to society at large, the definition being first coined in marketing circle as essentially using a shot gun approach to appeal to as many customers as possible.
> 
> So that said I assume you aren't an unintelligent person it's not even worth copying and pasting what I noted above because you are clearly just looking for an argument for arguments sake regardless of what you must do to perpetuate it.  Cheers.



Only arguing with the bits that are either made up or do not make sense.

It only seems like i have an issue with all of it because there is so much of it.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 5, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Fighting arts spread from civilian life to the military. That ww1 boxing camp is a prime example. And they still do.
> 
> Sword fighting,not sure, but it would be easy to find out.  Because either these famous sword guys were civilians or soldiers.
> 
> ...



If you say so man and again you ignore that pesky little point the OP noted "Mass Appeal".  Now if you want to talk about that, cool because that is the topic here.  Want to continue to ignore it due to its inconvenience, well it's not worth my time.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 5, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> If you say so man and again you ignore that pesky little point the OP noted "Mass Appeal".  Now if you want to talk about that, cool because that is the topic here.  Want to continue to ignore it due to its inconvenience, well it's not worth my time.


Not at all inconvenient.

No mass appeal is still money.  If you teach the rich or powerful you get more intrest.  Nothing to do with civilian or military it impacts both. 

Boxing was more popular than bartitsu because you could bet on it.  

Look at gjj.  No name martial art goes world wide in a decade.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 6, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Not at all inconvenient.
> 
> No mass appeal is still money.  If you teach the rich or powerful you get more intrest.  Nothing to do with civilian or military it impacts both.
> 
> ...


Yep betting= mass appeal.  I wish there was a facepalm or shaking my head emoji.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 6, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Yep betting= mass appeal.  I wish there was a facepalm or shaking my head emoji.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 6, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> View attachment 19913



Lol


----------



## lklawson (Jun 6, 2016)

Orcophile said:


> Keep in mind modern mainstream wrestling was being codified at the same time boxing was.


No it wasn't.  Not unless you consider the proliferation of sports related "chapbooks" during the end of the 19th Century and early 20th to be the same thing as being codified.

Wrestling styles, particularly regional styles, had distinct rules and traditions, often predating Broughton era.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 6, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> We are talking about Martial Arts in western society, not in boxing rings.  With the rise of the firearm martial arts simply were not practiced outside of raw swordsmanship and that was practiced by the Cavalry, Officer Class and those wealthy enough to afford the training.  The rules you note were to civilize what was, largely, simply learn by experience street fighting there was no formalized art of boxing in Western Europe until the various rules started to be put into place.


Everything about this paragraph is wrong.

I don't really have time to pick it apart right now, and that approach probably wouldn't convince  you anyway.  Nevertheless, while firearms did, in fact, reign as king, many armed and unarmed methods of fighting, both civilian and military, continued on.  This includes middle class and lower "swordfighting."



> These are facts.


"Afraid facts mixed up"









> Bartitsu existed in the 1800's.


Well, 2% of the 1800's anyway.  



> How many people know Savate vs Karate?  How many people know about Bartitsu period?  The answer is pretty simple and since I assume your have some intelligence I must assume you trolling since you actually didn't refute a single point I made, you just regurgitated one point I made and mentioned rules for boxing like it was somehow relevant to the almost 400 years of martial evolution (or devolution depending on your point of view) that occurred before.


Look, I agree that firearms reign supreme in many ways.  As 1) reliable 2)multi-shot firearms became available, much of the general western culture not interested in fighting kinda thought that unskilled brawling was all that there was left.  But it really wasn't so.  Skilled knife fighting and skilled unarmed fighting, even (especially) "dirty fighting" was still taught and documented.  I have several old boxing manuals from the late 19th Century and early 20th ("chapbook" era) which documents this.  In further example many of them refer to boxing as "The Art of Self Defense" and it was pretty common for them to document "foul blows," talking about how only base fighters would think of using them in a fight, then the authors would explain in detail how to accomplish them and give pictures or drawings.  There was a healthy dose of <wink><wink><nudge><nudge> there.  I also have a few old boxing manuals which discuss kicking, though it was less common because that was too much like Savate and the centuries old rivalry between England and France extended to their cultural unarmed fighting systems.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Jun 6, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> I have to chuckle because I just mentioned Bartitsu right before you did.  Not many people know about that.  There is actually a gentleman about 45 minutes from me in Bethlehem PA who gives demonstrations and, I think, does closed door training in it.


Mark Donnelly?  He's a friend.



> The founder (I forget his name) was a Brit who lived for a number of years in Japan.


Edward William Barton-Wright.



> When he came back he basically sold it like MMA.  It started as basically bringing Jujutsu and Judo to GB but then integrated Boxing, Savate and some other things BUT it started as bringing the Arts of the East to the West.  Because of that I wonder if it really fits as something that we can categorize with the earlier European Arts.


Pretty close, but there are some points which need tweaked.



> My only point is to say with the gunpowder age Martial Arts, in terms of knowledge/practice in society at large, all but died in the West, so we are talking starting in or about 1500 and they really didn't revive in interest until the post WWII era.  Not that the arts did not exist.


But that's simply not right.  Sorry.  Depending on where you were at certain things were more or less popular.  For instance, in Ireland, they had Factions (sort of like Gangs) which engaged in systemized instruction of stick fighting (canes, the classic "Shillelagh").  Some factions had the equivalent of a fencing master to teach stickfighting.  ...and purring.  ...and boxing.  ...and wrestling.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Jun 6, 2016)

Langenschwert said:


> From what I understand Bartitsu was more Judo than Jujutsu.


Barton-Wright studied several different styles of Jujutsu, apparently, including "Kano ha." He quickly brought over Tani and Uyenishi to teach jujutsu at his club.  Both were noted in jujutsu and eventually joined Judo.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Jun 6, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> FWhy did this happen, look at the difference between the evolution of warfare.  You may disagree but your average person on earth defends themselves the way their defenders do.  In the West it was the sword, the gun.  In the East it was the sword (spear whatever) and the body.  So one side becomes a gun culture the other a Martial Arts culture.  For gosh sakes the Irish had a martial art that was a form of stock fighting, it died out though because stick does not beat gun.


I know two people who claim that their father's taught them their ancestral Irish faction fighting stick systems.



> This isn't my idea btw.  It comes down to the simple fact that until that last half of the 20th century firearm ownership was common through out all of the Western world.  It wasn't until the post WWII period that Nations, besides the US started clamping down on private firearm ownership.  In that kinda of environment people will naturally chose guns over Martial Arts.


Sorry, but the base assumptions just aren't quite right.




> Asian Martial Arts, because Asia kept their arts alive and vibrant because they HAD to because when 600,000 Americans died under gunpowder during the Civil War Asians were still, for the majority fighting with Martial Arts.


You are perhaps not aware that Kano, Ueshiba, and Takeda all were reported to have difficulty promoting their martial arts because Japanese society frowned on Jujutsu.  Many smaller Jujutsu systems, apparently, did die out and what was left had very small groups of practitioners.  

Now the way debate works is that you don't say "I don't buy it" you actually state fac ts that prove my facts wrong or inaccurate.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Jun 6, 2016)

Orcophile said:


> Guns and even swords were not always cheap weapons that the lower classes could afford so I doubt that explains why Irish stick fighting or American clubbing etc died out by the 20th century


It didn't.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Jun 6, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Late Edit... HEMA as practiced today in mostly sword...


Mostly?  Hmmm...  Only if you discount all the spear, pole-arm, grappling, and dagger they do.



> What this meant was this.  The hey day of Western Martial Arts was 300 years or more past by the late 1800's.  The people who studied them long dead.  The gun was king.


*cough*bayonet*cough*

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## drop bear (Jun 6, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Yep betting= mass appeal.  I wish there was a facepalm or shaking my head emoji.



Well yeah.  

Because people will hold events that make money. Fighters will do arts that makes them money. 

So you get mass appeal. 

Ever been to a bjj championship? 

Me neither.


----------



## Steve (Jun 6, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Well yeah.
> 
> Because people will hold events that make money. Fighters will do arts that makes them money.
> 
> ...


there's no betting in BJJ???


----------



## drop bear (Jun 6, 2016)

Steve said:


> there's no betting in BJJ???



None i have seen.  Could be cultural.

Looked it up.  Metamoris of course. And well mass appeal.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 6, 2016)

lklawson said:


> Everything about this paragraph is wrong.
> 
> I don't really have time to pick it apart right now, and that approach probably wouldn't convince  you anyway.  Nevertheless, while firearms did, in fact, reign as king, many armed and unarmed methods of fighting, both civilian and military, continued on.  This includes middle class and lower "swordfighting."
> 
> ...



I know Iklawson, my issues is NOT that they ceased to exist.  The question the OP proposed was why did they not have the wide spread penetration, that they never gained "mass appeal" or as he said "underground." I was simply answering as to one of the prime factors of that narrow issue.  If it came off like I was saying they stopped existing or being developed that was never my intent.

Also just for the record.  I did note sword use in one response and how that survived, especially in the Cavalry (I am a freak for Cavalry as I still have my Stetson from being Cav) until WWI when trench warfare put done to that, and how bayonet was still trained when I was in back in the 90s, though I am not sure now.

As for my HEMA sword comment you are correct, I should have simply said "weapons."


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 6, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> I know Iklawson, my issues is NOT that they ceased to exist.  The question the OP proposed was why did they not have the wide spread penetration, that they never gained "mass appeal" or as he said "underground." I was simply answering as to one of the prime factors of that narrow issue.  If it came off like I was saying they stopped existing or being developed that was never my intent.
> 
> Also just for the record.  I did note sword use in one response and how that survived, especially in the Cavalry (I am a freak for Cavalry as I still have my Stetson from being Cav) until WWI when trench warfare put done to that, and how bayonet was still trained when I was in back in the 90s, though I am not sure now.
> 
> As for my HEMA sword comment you are correct, I should have simply said "weapons."



Kirk,

Late edit.  Now that first bit I note I believe synergizes with other things in popular culture.  In Europe, even though they eventually became democracies, Aristocratic influence permeated society. So fencing, even if not practiced by society at large, was still solidly placed in the popular consciousness but fisticuffs seemed to be looked on with disdain.  To my knowledge, before Queensbury rules, if you were a person of some wealth and you went to bet on a fight you were essentially "slumming." A "gentleman" used a sword and or a pistol to settle matters.

In the US on the other hand, we were kinda a combination of a knife (as we discussed elsewhere) and a gun culture then when repeating rifles and pistols came about the knife culture began to fade.

Again of course their were full featured Martial Arts in the West. New arts were even created as I noted elsewhere; Savate, Bartitsu etc, I have read of how some Europeans and Americans learned Native American wrestling arts etc.  It's just a matter of why such "full featured" martial arts either faded or never gained traction in society as a whole in the West. 

I, and others (my ideas aren't ones I came up with wholely on my own but from books on Military History and articles I have read) get the idea I note is, I will admit, comparing the way warfare in general evolved in the West vs the Far East.  Short form, it makes sense to do training in extensive armed and unarmed martial arts training when you don't face repeating rifles, machine guns and accurate, rapid firing artillery.  Then the manner of warfare captures the popular consciousness. 

Look at literature.  As an example.  Chinese Wuxia tales go back thousands of years and persist to this day, some of the tales of those books are arguably actually believed in today, such as iron shirt gi gong and by iron shirt I mean  "my skin can stop a sword" or as some said during the Boxer Rebellion even bullets.  

In the West we had the tales of our great warriors as well, but we go from Gilgamesh, Heracles etc to Knights, to Musketeers, to Cavalrymen and (in the US, heck even Europe had a fascination with em) Cowboys.  Then we had Sherlock Holmes.  Yes he knew Bartitsu but also said "Watson don't forget your pistol" even James Bond was largely a gun guy.  The heroes in both cultures tied to the technology and methods of he day.  Then Bruce Lee hits the screen shortly after soldiers were bringing Asian Martia l arts back home when they returned from Pacific deployments and the field is changed dramatically.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 7, 2016)

And one last late edit.  As I said this is not entirely my idea, it is shared by others.  I didn't want to name any specifically until I could quote them directly.  Here is the view of Sifu Danny Zahn as expressed in his book, "The Tao of Wing Chun."



> .I believe that authentic martial art pretty much died out in the nineteenth century. With the introduction of Western imperialism and guns into China, close-range weapons and hand-to-hand-combat arts were bound to fade into oblivion. The best of the martial artists at the time were no match against guns. Slowly but surely the martial arts began to decline in China. Those who relied on them professionally were reduced to the level of street or stage performers. And the generations that followed simply produced more performer.
> 
> Having said this, there were some masters during these periods that continued to value and preserve their respective arts, with the result that their arts are still alive today.



So while we may still disagree on this point, I think, this is one of those things that is in large part subjective and so an "agree to disagree" topic


----------



## lklawson (Jun 7, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> I know Iklawson, my issues is NOT that they ceased to exist.  The question the OP proposed was why did they not have the wide spread penetration, that they never gained "mass appeal" or as he said "underground." I was simply answering as to one of the prime factors of that narrow issue.  If it came off like I was saying they stopped existing or being developed that was never my intent.


Fair enough.  I think that your repeated use of terms such as "died out" made me think that you believed that they, well, died out.  

[Also just for the record.  I did note sword use in one response and how that survived, especially in the Cavalry (I am a freak for Cavalry as I still have my Stetson from being Cav)[/quote]Well, you also specified only the military officers or the rich.  But that's not accurate.  The British Navy taught (and used) the Cutlass (and the Singlstick training system for it) up until a bit past WWI to their non-officer Seamen.  German Police were issued and trained with Sabers up until at least WWI if not past (I haven't looked at how long it lasted, honestly).  Those are just two examples.  There are, of course, others.



> until WWI when trench warfare put done to that, and how bayonet was still trained when I was in back in the 90s, though I am not sure now.


I've done extensive reading and training in Bayonet going up to WWII, focusing on U.S. Civil War, a specific U.S. WWI manual, and a specific British WWII manual.  The gist of it remains the same.  Several of the Civil War systems contain material not in WWI and WWII surrounding fighting from atop trenches downward.  I found the lack of that material in WWI manuals surprising but the focus in WWI was not in using Bayonet to defend the trench but, instead, going over the trench in a group assault.

It should also be noted that once inside the trench, melee combat was remarkably common and weapons were made, issued, and taught specifically for those conditions.  This includes "trench knives," "trench nails," "trench clubs," and even a trench sword or three.














> As for my HEMA sword comment you are correct, I should have simply said "weapons."


I have a friend teaching in the Fiore system (Italian branch of Knightly Martial Arts) who actually went out and learned the basic of wrestling so that he could better (correctly) understand the grappling in the Fiore system.  Grappling, particularly throws and joint breaks, are an important part of Medieval Knightly Martial Arts.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 7, 2016)

lklawson said:


> Fair enough.  I think that your repeated use of terms such as "died out" made me think that you believed that they, well, died out.
> 
> Well, you also specified only the military officers or the rich.  But that's not accurate.  The British Navy taught (and used) the Cutlass (and the Singlstick training system for it) up until a bit past WWI to their non-officer Seamen.  German Police were issued and trained with Sabers up until at least WWI if not past (I haven't looked at how long it lasted, honestly).  Those are just two examples.  There are, of course, others.
> 
> ...



You are right, I should have specified that it appears to have "died out in terms of mass appeal" or something similarly specific.

As for the Officer Class etc (and swords) I will admit I was not aware of the 20th century cutlass training.  I was aware of the trench knives though, but was looking at that as "knife fighting" I wasn't aware of just how big some of those could get.

Well glad to see Bayonets are still used/trained in today.  I know they were right up onto when I went in back in '91 but wasn't sure if it was still taught because, with the much shorter length of the M-4 vs the M-16, I wasn't sure if it would still work as well.  The training wasn't just about the use of the bayonet itself and with the collapsing stock and shorter length I don't know if I would want to "butt stroke" someone. Lol

Oh and auto correct sucks... the Sifu in my other post is Danny Xaun, not Zahn.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 7, 2016)

British army still teaches the bayonet, it was used in Afghanistan too.
Soldier who led Afghanistan bayonet charge into hail of bullets honoured


----------



## lklawson (Jun 7, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Kirk,
> 
> Late edit.  Now that first bit I note I believe synergizes with other things in popular culture.  In Europe, even though they eventually became democracies, Aristocratic influence permeated society. So fencing, even if not practiced by society at large, was still solidly placed in the popular consciousness but fisticuffs seemed to be looked on with disdain.  To my knowledge, before Queensbury rules, if you were a person of some wealth and you went to bet on a fight you were essentially "slumming." A "gentleman" used a sword and or a pistol to settle matters.


Sort of yes, sort of no.  British gentlemen did practice fisticuffs, but almost never professionally.  They also were huge in the British fisticuffs culture.  Indispensable, actually. Without the aristocracy sponsoring fighters and matches, it would not have been possible as we know it. 

There was a general push against Boxing in pre-Marquis Rules Britain.  But it was mostly from what we would, today, think of as "The Moral Majority" group.  It was the same people who wanted to outlaw alcohol.  There were several noted defenses and (classical) Apologia of Boxing, particularly from influential aristocracy.  One of the reasons that the Marquis wrote his rules was to "civilize" the sport and make it more acceptable to "the Moral Majority."

In the U.S., on the other hand, Boxing (and wrestling of course) was welcomed.  Boxing and wrestling were popular pastimes for everyone from the common man through the powerful and famous such as Washington, Lincoln, and Teddy Roosevelt.



> In the US on the other hand, we were kinda a combination of a knife (as we discussed elsewhere) and a gun culture then when repeating rifles and pistols came about the knife culture began to fade.


Nah.  The fighting man, both military and otherwise, matched unarmed with melee weapons and guns.  Lincoln's bodyguard carried pistols, a bowie knife, and a civilian flail weapon called a slungshot.  Police carried firearms and melee weapons such as billie clubs, jacks, and slungshot.  Same for the "criminal element":  Bare hands, guns, knives, clubs, etc.  It was common.  Still is.



> Again of course their were full featured Martial Arts in the West. New arts were even created as I noted elsewhere; Savate, Bartitsu etc, I have read of how some Europeans and Americans learned Native American wrestling arts etc.  It's just a matter of why such "full featured" martial arts either faded or never gained traction in society as a whole in the West.


My best guess: Less entertainment value combined with a general misunderstanding of what real fighting is.



> I, and others (my ideas aren't ones I came up with wholely on my own but from books on Military History and articles I have read)


Anyone I know?



> get the idea I note is, I will admit, comparing the way warfare in general evolved in the West vs the Far East.  Short form, it makes sense to do training in extensive armed and unarmed martial arts training when you don't face repeating rifles, machine guns and accurate, rapid firing artillery.  Then the manner of warfare captures the popular consciousness.


Well, yeah.  Of course.  But it was also pretty well understood that 1) civilian fighting was different from military fighting and 2) civilian fighting not only didn't go away, it's actually more common.



> Look at literature.  As an example.


In the Western martial arts world?  I've read them.  I have good friends writing them.  I've written some myself.  



> In the West we had the tales of our great warriors as well, but we go from Gilgamesh, Heracles etc to Knights, to Musketeers, to Cavalrymen and (in the US, heck even Europe had a fascination with em) Cowboys.  Then we had Sherlock Holmes.  Yes he knew Bartitsu


Yeah, you could say that I'm familiar with Bartitsu.



> but also said "Watson don't forget your pistol" even James Bond was largely a gun guy.  The heroes in both cultures tied to the technology and methods of he day.  Then Bruce Lee hits the screen shortly after soldiers were bringing Asian Martia l arts back home when they returned from Pacific deployments and the field is changed dramatically.


A big part of that is because, to mind of the western fighting man, firearms were just one (very very important) aspect to fighting.  That said, I agree that to much of the non-fighting public, they couldn't really understand the need for unarmed or melee methods in light of the obvious superiority of the gun (and it truly is a superior weapon).

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Jun 7, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> You are right, I should have specified that it appears to have "died out in terms of mass appeal" or something similarly specific.


Fair enough.



> As for the Officer Class etc (and swords) I will admit I was not aware of the 20th century cutlass training.  I was aware of the trench knives though, but was looking at that as "knife fighting" I wasn't aware of just how big some of those could get.







U.S. Navy singlestick practice during Spanish-American War.





"Cutlass Drill on H.M.S. 'Niobe,' Cape Town, South Africa. Copyright 1900 by Underwood & Underwood."



> Well glad to see Bayonets are still used/trained in today.  I know they were right up onto when I went in back in '91 but wasn't sure if it was still taught because, with the much shorter length of the M-4 vs the M-16, I wasn't sure if it would still work as well.  The training wasn't just about the use of the bayonet itself and with the collapsing stock and shorter length I don't know if I would want to "butt stroke" someone. Lol


Yes.  Changing the size, weight, length, and "durability" of the rifle and the bayonet changes how it must be used.  



> Oh and auto correct sucks... the Sifu in my other post is Danny Xaun, not Zahn.


You and me both, my friend.  Autocorrects from my phone can often be, umm..., "entertaining."  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 7, 2016)

lklawson said:


> Sort of yes, sort of no.  British gentlemen did practice fisticuffs, but almost never professionally.  They also were huge in the British fisticuffs culture.  Indispensable, actually. Without the aristocracy sponsoring fighters and matches, it would not have been possible as we know it.
> 
> There was a general push against Boxing in pre-Marquis Rules Britain.  But it was mostly from what we would, today, think of as "The Moral Majority" group.  It was the same people who wanted to outlaw alcohol.  There were several noted defenses and (classical) Apologia of Boxing, particularly from influential aristocracy.  One of the reasons that the Marquis wrote his rules was to "civilize" the sport and make it more acceptable to "the Moral Majority."
> 
> In the U.S., on the other hand, Boxing (and wrestling of course) was welcomed.  Boxing and wrestling were popular pastimes for everyone from the common man through the powerful and famous such as Washington, Lincoln, and Teddy Roosevelt.



Indeed but Teddy was a very unique man.  If we were in Ancient Roman times I would have an idol to him as he would be my "House god" lol.



> Nah.  The fighting man, both military and otherwise, matched unarmed with melee weapons and guns.  Lincoln's bodyguard carried pistols, a bowie knife, and a civilian flail weapon called a slungshot.  Police carried firearms and melee weapons such as billie clubs, jacks, and slungshot.  Same for the "criminal element":  Bare hands, guns, knives, clubs, etc.  It was common.  Still is.



Yes but I am talking formalized martial arts in society as a whole.  For some reason those specific realities don't appear to have filtered into "middle america" for lack of a better term.  That is largely my issue



> My best guess: Less entertainment value combined with a general misunderstanding of what real fighting is.



Agreed, hence why I also think popular culture has a big influence.



> Anyone I know?



I properly named him in my last post.  Are you familiar with Danny Xuan | eWingChun.  However contrary to that brief bio he is back in Canada now. Teaching small classes and closed door training from what I know.  I only know him from his book "The Tao of Wing Chun" but I did quote him in the prior post as he explains what he saw as the cause of the decline of Martial Arts in China in the late 19th and early 20th Century.



> Well, yeah.  Of course.  But it was also pretty well understood that 1) civilian fighting was different from military fighting and 2) civilian fighting not only didn't go away, it's actually more common.



It is more common now, in terms of formal martial arts.  My point is that, specifically and only in terms of societal mass appeal, there was a "dark age" of sorts in the West that slowly began in the 1500's, accelerated with the industrial revolution, and then saw a "roll back" in the post WWII era.



> In the Western martial arts world?  I've read them.  I have good friends writing them.  I've written some myself.



oh they certainly exist but again as a "niche" genre, I am talking about what would, for lack of a better term be the "mass paper back" sales, New York Times best sellers list etc.  They again have certainly seen a resurgence in the post WWII era but that "drought" of mass appeal that lasted a couple centuries did have an effect.



> Yeah, you could say that I'm familiar with Bartitsu.



I want to become familiar with it.  There is a gentleman who gives demonstrations regularly near me BUT he doesn't run a formal school from what I have heard and instead just does demonstrations and private training.  Mark Donnelly profile



> A big part of that is because, to mind of the western fighting man, firearms were just one (very very important) aspect to fighting.  That said, I agree that to much of the non-fighting public, they couldn't really understand the need for unarmed or melee methods in light of the obvious superiority of the gun (and it truly is a superior weapon).



That middle bit is basically my main thrust.  Even though we seem to be having a resurgence in Martial Arts though I sometimes fear that Sifu Danny Xuan was correct when he said this as well...



> The person who thinks that he can just go to any MMA school, learn some techniques, and walk into the ring or cage for a match, is likely to go home with a concussion instead of a gold belt and the bullion he expected.  So don't think for a moment that we're living in a martial arts renaissance period presently just because we have thousands of schools and millions of practitioners, or because Hollywood, Hong Kong anjd Cable TV are producing a multitude of shows featuring martial arts and martial artists.  In fact, this is more an indication that martial arts, per se, is now at its nadir rather than it's zenith.  When ever Tom, Dick and Harry is now a sensei, sifu, grand master or great-grand master, you know that the martial arts are not experiencing the richest period in their history.



This is why, when I decided to go back to martial arts, it took me a year to find the right sifu (no exaggeration).  I didn't even really care what art it was.  I called and emailed teachers regardless of the art, I simply asked them questions regarding my specific needs.  I tried a couple but in the end said "nope".  Not to the arts themselves but to the sifu's.  Some were insisting that techniques would work in real life and after almost 20 years in my career I would say "bull hockey", though never out loud.  Though I will admit, out of frustration, once to dropping a Hapkido black belt with a simple rush and arm bar because he was all about big telegraphing kicks and did diddly with his arms.  The school was one of those classic McDojo's where Hapkido meant TKD with some wrist locks thrown in. Yes that was my last day there and I will admit I largely tried it because I could walk to the place from home in less than 5 minutes.  Finally I found my current sifu, who knows what "combatives" mean (and has operational experience to back it up), BUT it was a LONG time to find him, even though his place is only a 20 minute drive away, simply because in my area there is so much to wade through.

Here is the "short list." (meaning just within 20 minutes of my house.)

1 school that teaches Tien Shan Pai, Hung Gar, Yang and Sun style Tai Chi, Qugong, Hsing I, Wing Chu and Wushu.  This place has 15 "sifus", 3 assistant instructors and one person calling themselves Sigung.  That made me nervous out of the gate, especially when on the Web site the guy is refered to as "Grand Master".
1 Wing Chun and Inosanto Kali (my school)
1 Wing Chun and Yang style Tai Chi
1 Ryushinkan Karate
something like a dozen TKD/Hapkido schools
1 Aikido Dojo but the Sensi was honest and admitted to teaching the non-combative form out of the gate
2 Krav Maga

I actually could keep going with all of the "Karate" dojos.  One calls itself karate teaching "the hybrid martial arts styles of Tae Kwon Do, Kung Fun, and a Phillippino stick art." That made me twitch.  There are just so many I wonder sometimes if this resurgence is a good thing.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 7, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Indeed but Teddy was a very unique man.  If we were in Ancient Roman times I would have an idol to him as he would be my "House god" lol.


You and me both, my friend.  He's my favorite president.  I'm in the middle of a biography right now focusing on his post-presidency years.



> I properly named him in my last post.  Are you familiar with Danny Xuan | eWingChun.


No, not a friend of mine.



> I want to become familiar with it.  There is a gentleman who gives demonstrations regularly near me BUT he doesn't run a formal school from what I have heard and instead just does demonstrations and private training.  Mark Donnelly profile


Mark is a friend.  When I wrote that I'm familiar with Bartitsu, I was being a bit self-effacing I'm afraid.  I teach Bartitsu and am considered one of the founding members of The Bartitsu Society, though not the driving force in it.  I also am credited in both Bartitsu Compendium's I & II (compendi?) for my contributions of historic material (mostly in pugilism) and assistance in editing, though, again, I wasn't the driving force behind either of those.  I've taught a number of seminar classes on Bartitsu.  I don't remember if I was Tony's assistant at the seminar where Mark was first exposed to Bartitsu or not, but it's possible.  Mark is a talented martial artist and researcher.  I really enjoyed his work on Naval Cutlass.  If he's close enough to you and you have sufficient interest, most definitely go train with him. 



> This is why, when I decided to go back to martial arts, it took me a year to find the right sifu (no exaggeration).  I didn't even really care what art it was.  I called and emailed teachers regardless of the art, I simply asked them questions regarding my specific needs.  I tried a couple but in the end said "nope".  Not to the arts themselves but to the sifu's.  Some were insisting that techniques would work in real life and after almost 20 years in my career I would say "bull hockey", though never out loud.  Though I will admit, out of frustration, once to dropping a Hapkido black belt with a simple rush and arm bar because he was all about big telegraphing kicks and did diddly with his arms.  The school was one of those classic McDojo's where Hapkido meant TKD with some wrist locks thrown in. Yes that was my last day there and I will admit I largely tried it because I could walk to the place from home in less than 5 minutes.  Finally I found my current sifu, who knows what "combatives" mean (and has operational experience to back it up), BUT it was a LONG time to find him, even though his place is only a 20 minute drive away, simply because in my area there is so much to wade through.
> 
> Here is the "short list." (meaning just within 20 minutes of my house.)
> 
> ...


Your story is dishearteningly common.  Lots of places and too few which are any good and also match your needs and personality.  I'm glad you found something that you like.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## 7BallZ (Jun 7, 2016)

OK this is getting far from the original topic.

As the OP, I was asking why boxing and mainstream wrestling REMOVED eg based attacks. Why not even styles that were flourishing locally such as Savate and Native American Wrestling ever became big enough to at least come into the Olympics?

Why did Queensberry style boxing in the West for example far surpass MMA style ring fighting equivalents that existed back then?

I mean Vale Tudo and other similar MMA style sports quickly exploded into popularity in Brazil but look further and you'll not Brazillians always had a UFC style sport even before Asian martial arts penetrated that country.

To put another anoalogy hell Russian Sambo was gaining quite the rage before World War 2 and that was before Asian influence severely entere the movesets. Early "Sambo" competitions were using traditional Russian moves. But once the Soviet Union began to move more and more into a Western style society within the confined of communism, boxing and American style wrestling exploded into popularity. Far eclipsing Sambo (even though tis still a popular style for beginners to learn as they enter MMA).

Russia is an example of this European phenomenon of highly restricted sports quickly eclipsing local styles however popular they were including one, endorsed by the Soviet military which is Sambo.

How come in Asia and South America even as boxing became a cashcow mainstream sport, they never eclipsed local styles that focused on more bodily movements such as arm bars, sweeps, etc?

I already know there is mention of boxing's gambling system but why couldn't savate and other sports develop the same thing in the West? I mean there were "MMA style" gambling in Brazil for as long as the country had its independence as an example. We can even include kung fu tournaments in the 18th and 19th century China if we want to be lenient in definition of "gambling" and "spectator" sports.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 7, 2016)

lklawson said:


> You and me both, my friend.  He's my favorite president.  I'm in the middle of a biography right now focusing on his post-presidency years.
> 
> No, not a friend of mine.
> 
> ...



Thanks on the last.  Regarding Mark though he comes to Bethlehem and other places near me for demonstrations. But Harrisburg is a good 90 minutes away.  Not only would I love to study Bartitsu but he also teaches at a Dueling and Fencing Academy out there and I LOVE fencing, even though I haven't practiced the art since before I joined the Army.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 7, 2016)

Orcophile said:


> OK this is getting far from the original topic.
> 
> As the OP, I was asking why boxing and mainstream wrestling REMOVED eg based attacks. Why not even styles that were flourishing locally such as Savate and Native American Wrestling ever became big enough to at least come into the Olympics?
> 
> ...



And I explained it earlier.  In terms of Sports, it was about making them "civilized" similar to all the rules MMA has today.  In terms of societal popularity at large, all you need do is look at West vs East and then look at the pace of technological advancement, especially in war/aka martial arts.  

Savate has its origin among French merchant sailors... not exactly people that the bulk of French Society looked up to as an example.

Kung Fu tournaments still existed in China in the 18th And 19th Centuries because firearms were FEW and far between.  If you look at a post of mine above I quote a Wing Chun Sifu born and raised in Asia who ties the decline of MA in China to the Western Powers showing up with modern firearms in the late 1800's actually.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 7, 2016)

Orcophile said:


> OK this is getting far from the original topic.
> 
> As the OP, I was asking why boxing and mainstream wrestling REMOVED eg based attacks.


Kicks were comparatively rare in Boxing to start with.  This was true for a number of reasons, mostly related to social pressure.  For instance, retaining a lot of kicks would make Boxing, the English fist-fighting art, seem too similar to Savate, a French fist-fighting art.  You remember how much the English and French loved each other, right?  

There was also a distinct difference in fighting "strategies."  English boxing, prior to the Marquis rules allowed grappling, tripping, and throwing.  If the other guy had better hand skills, crash range, clinch, and throw him.  That strategy doesn't really require good kicking and, in fact, a base assumption to it is that kicking range either will not be entered or will be quickly passed through if one of the fighters desires that.  This assumption seems to be born out in the many Boxing vs Savate matches as well as in modern MMA where kicking range is only maintained as long as both fighters decide to stay there.



> Why not even styles that were flourishing locally such as Savate and Native American Wrestling ever became big enough to at least come into the Olympics?


Gads!  The Olympics are the great homogenizing force of the sports world!  Put something in the Olympics and pretty soon that becomes the primary focus of most of the practitioners of that art or sport.  Just as any Judoka who studied (or lived through) the inclusion of Judo in the Olympics.



> Why did Queensberry style boxing in the West for example far surpass MMA style ring fighting equivalents that existed back then?


Money and booze-grabbers.  Moral crusaders of the time thought that pre-Marquis boxing and especially American "Up and Down Fighting" was brutal and uncivilized (and Up and Down really was).  Fans also would drink and philander at fights.  All very unchristian.  The Marquis rules helped civilize it.  There's also the fact that to be truly popular the general public has to want to try it themselves.  Most people, even then, didn't want serious training injuries and a black eye was bad enough even up through the 40's to label one as a ruffian and not someone who you'd let date your daughter.  There was some pushback on this, of course.  Everyone knows the Boxing Catholic Priest cliche.  So the rougher sports weren't as likely to get and keep people who couldn't go to their factory job with a tweaked shoulder.  People don't want to pay to get hurt and they would rather pay to watch people engage in a sport they are familiar with and practice.  No one in the U.S. wants to play or watch rugby and no one in the U.K. wants to play or watch American Football.



> I mean Vale Tudo and other similar MMA style sports quickly exploded into popularity in Brazil but look further and you'll not Brazillians always had a UFC style sport even before Asian martial arts penetrated that country.


Cultural differences.  Was there a Brazilian version of Carrie Nation?







> To put another anoalogy hell Russian Sambo was gaining quite the rage before World War 2 and that was before Asian influence severely entere the movesets. Early "Sambo" competitions were using traditional Russian moves. But once the Soviet Union began to move more and more into a Western style society within the confined of communism, boxing and American style wrestling exploded into popularity. Far eclipsing Sambo (even though tis still a popular style for beginners to learn as they enter MMA).


Umm... Sambo has Judo and Jujutus as core base arts.



> I already know there is mention of boxing's gambling system but why couldn't savate and other sports develop the same thing in the West?


They did.  But you're forgetting two things.  First, WWI hit France way harder than England.  It's been estimated that over 95% of all Savate Silver Gloves (highest rank) were killed in WWI.  Then the Olympics homogenized "combat sports" and there was a greater emphasis on Boxing and none, internationally, on Savate.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## 7BallZ (Jun 7, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> And I explained it earlier.  In terms of Sports, it was about making them "civilized" similar to all the rules MMA has today.  In terms of societal popularity at large, all you need do is look at West vs East and then look at the pace of technological advancement, especially in war/aka martial arts.
> 
> Savate has its origin among French merchant sailors... not exactly people that the bulk of French Society looked up to as an example.
> 
> Kung Fu tournaments still existed in China in the 18th And 19th Centuries because firearms were FEW and far between.  If you look at a post of mine above I quote a Wing Chun Sifu born and raised in Asia who ties the decline of MA in China to the Western Powers showing up with modern firearms in the late 1800's actually.



Many of the early pugilists tended to come from manual labor background with a significant portion being criminals.

Hell even today most professional boxers are from poverty background with some famous names even being from violent ghettos and a few even being ex- gang members.

Not to mention very few upperclass men would shame themselves by going into prizefighting for a living. They tended to hire random blokes who looked strong for their bouts.

The musket rifles is BS explantation since we are talking about civilian ringfighting. I mean what about Brazil with it MMA style gambling? The country had gained its independence in the 1800s and it was by that point modern enough to have riflemen as the norm.

Why did boxing become so popular in Mexica in the 1800s  even though it was much more modern relative to many colonies at the time? Mexico even defeated France, a world power, around the same time the Civil War was going on.

Yet even though boxing has far dominated the Mexican sport scene with only baseball and soccer surpassing it, Mexican Lucha is pretty big. I know its mostly choreographied but Lucha includes kicks,  elbow smash, sweeps, leg loocks, etc.

So that doesn't explain the West's giving up on leg techniques in mainstream sports.


----------



## 7BallZ (Jun 7, 2016)

lklawson said:


> Kicks were comparatively rare in Boxing to start with.  This was true for a number of reasons, mostly related to social pressure.  For instance, retaining a lot of kicks would make Boxing, the English fist-fighting art, seem too similar to Savate, a French fist-fighting art.  You remember how much the English and French loved each other, right?
> 
> There was also a distinct difference in fighting "strategies."  English boxing, prior to the Marquis rules allowed grappling, tripping, and throwing.  If the other guy had better hand skills, crash range, clinch, and throw him.  That strategy doesn't really require good kicking and, in fact, a base assumption to it is that kicking range either will not be entered or will be quickly passed through if one of the fighters desires that.  This assumption seems to be born out in the many Boxing vs Savate matches as well as in modern MMA where kicking range is only maintained as long as both fighters decide to stay there.
> 
> ...



But early boxing had stomping and were not against using the legs to prevent enemies from escaping or even "sweeping" to score points during clinch range (even if it was against the rules as regulations were getting stricter, it was still being done). Even by London Prize Rules, it was still common to step on another boxer's foot so you can prevent him from outboxing while pummeling him. Not kicking techniques, but still using the legs in a way to hurt or aid in scoring.

Early Sambo, in its experimental stage, was mostly Russian wrestling. Hell the Soviet Union initially used the term as a catch praise for a style uniting all Russian wrestling and hand to hand before Judo and Jujutus were significantly added into the style by the 30s. Even than, boxing and modern western wrestling still surpass pure sambo as a sport (despite sambo's popularity as a starting style to learn for MMA).

Another analogy, Catch as Can Catch wrestling isn't popular in the Anglo world as arm-based college wrestling is outside the UK and even there boxing surpasses it in popularity. Even before Greco Roman, arm-based wrestling was more and more popular In colleges and academies in the west. Wrestling is nowhere as brutal as boxing and bar fights are with the submission/pinning point rules. Don't tell me moral guardians found even that violent?!


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 7, 2016)

Orcophile said:


> Many of the early pugilists tended to come from manual labor background with a significant portion being criminals.
> 
> Hell even today most professional boxers are from poverty background with some famous names even being from violent ghettos and a few even being ex- gang members.
> 
> ...



I think you are confabulating cultures.  In Western Europe and the USA it has been the Middle Class, since the Industrial revolution, that defines mass appeal/popularity. The one thing Marx got right was the power of the bourgeoisie.

If you noted I said that it was slow until the Industrial Revolution which brought us breech loading rifles, vs muskets, that accelerated the situation.  I also think you miss what Kirk speaks of, the puritan nature of Western European culture in the 18th and 19th century.

Finally, if you think France under Napoleon III was a "World Power" you need to study history again.  That France was a paper tiger which invaded Mexico under the idea of "free trade" because the tbought Mexico was an "easy target.".  Between the to the reconstruction of Paris and the sponsorship of the Suez Canal, Napoleon had greatly over extended France let alone invasions across the Atlantic.  They thought Mexico would be a "soft target".  Mexico fought an insurgency type war and all you have to do is look at Vietnam to see how those can go when the money and/or political will is lacking.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 7, 2016)

Orcophile said:


> But early boxing had stomping and were not against using the legs to prevent enemies from escaping


It was considered "unmanly" to do it very often.  Fans could (and did) get pissed at what they saw as "cheating" and crash the ring and beat the offender to death.



> or even "sweeping"


There is some evidence of techniques such as "The Chip" (which is analogous to De Ashi Harai) and lots of evidence for throws which include legs.  Those were closely associated with Bare Knuckle and were outlawed by the Marquis.



> to score points during clinch range (even if it was against the rules as regulations were getting stricter, it was still being done). Even by London Prize Rules, it was still common to step on another boxer's foot so you can prevent him from outboxing while pummeling him. Not kicking techniques, but still using the legs in a way to hurt or aid in scoring.


Score points?



> Early Sambo, in its experimental stage, was mostly Russian wrestling. Hell the Soviet Union initially used the term as a catch praise for a style uniting all Russian wrestling and hand to hand before Judo and Jujutus were significantly added into the style by the 30s.


No it wasn't.  Both of the "founders" of Sambo studied Jujutsu and Judo, one of them even was awarded his Nidan from Kano, ims.




> Another analogy, Catch as Can Catch wrestling isn't popular in the Anglo world as arm-based college wrestling is outside the UK and even there boxing surpasses it in popularity. Even before Greco Roman, arm-based wrestling was more and more popular In colleges and academies in the west.


I'm not entirely sure what you're claiming here. I think you're saying that CaCC isn't as popular as "Collegiate Wrestling."  While that's true, you seem to be unaware that many Coaches and wrestlers remembered, practiced, and continued to teach CaCC.  It's basically just a rule set that allows certain bars &tc.  Gallagher, coaching Collegiate and High School styles, certainly taught bars, locks, and chokes in his 1939 Wrestling manual.

Wrestling by E. C. Gallagher (eBook) - Lulu



> Wrestling is nowhere as brutal as boxing and bar fights are with the submission/pinning point rules. Don't tell me moral guardians found even that violent?!


Well, yes.  Amateur boxers often wrestled.  Amateur wrestlers often boxed.  So yeah, to a degree, they went after wrestling too. But that's not really the reason CaCC lost popularity, I think.  I think it's just that wrestling is harder to be a spectator sport.  A slick move in wrestling doesn't look like much and an audience, particularly if not well versed in wrestling, might easily miss a decisive movement.  It's easier to see a boxer hit a telling blow.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Kickboxer101 (Jun 7, 2016)

I remember an interview on a DVD with bob wall and he said in the olden days kicking was seen as dirty fighting but as the time went on and the influence came in it became more acceptable and people knew more. I'm no expert but I'd simply say lack of knowledge or simply misconceptions


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 7, 2016)

Kickboxer101 said:


> I remember an interview on a DVD with bob wall and he said in the olden days kicking was seen as dirty fighting but as the time went on and the influence came in it became more acceptable and people knew more. I'm no expert but I'd simply say lack of knowledge or simply misconceptions



And what time period was he talking about?  Such context is vital to this argument because we are basically talking, in terms of the the OP's question, about a time frame of 1500 through 1918.  Clearly after that the influence of Asian Martial arts did indeed start to change the landscape and that pace grew by leaps and bounds post 1945.

With that being the case, when you look at "new" arts that tried to gain traction outside of specific niche groups, that also had kicking; Savate, Bartitsu, when created never gained traction outside their initial circles.  Capoeria, invented by slaves, was practiced first only by slaves and then when slavery was abolished in Brazil was outlawed because the now free slave population was largely abandoned.  As such practitioners became bodyguards and hitmen for warlords and crime lords (yep that's a good reputation.). It wasn't until the 1920's that government repression of the art began to decline and it wasn't until 1932 that the first formal school was established.

What I find odd, and would like to investigate is why the Asian Martial Arts became so popular and clearly effective Western arts are still little known.  Most everyone knows the names "Karate" and "Kung Fu".  Savate, Bartitsu, Capoeria, not so much.


----------



## Langenschwert (Jun 8, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> What I find odd, and would like to investigate is why the Asian Martial Arts became so popular and clearly effective Western arts are still little known.  Most everyone knows the names "Karate" and "Kung Fu".  Savate, Bartitsu, Capoeria, not so much.



Exoticism is certainly a factor. Another factor is WWI where many practitioners were killed and Asian MA filled the gap. Certainly if say Catch Wrestling had taken off in Europe, Judo would not have made the inroads that it did.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 8, 2016)

Langenschwert said:


> Exoticism is certainly a factor. Another factor is WWI where many practitioners were killed and Asian MA filled the gap. Certainly if say Catch Wrestling had taken off in Europe, Judo would not have made the inroads that it did.



I always seem to forget just how severely WWI culled Europe's male population.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 8, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> I always seem to forget just how severely WWI culled Europe's male population.



Don't forget too that the influenza outbreak at the end of that war killed even more people than the war did. Current estimates are 50-100 million people died.


----------



## Juany118 (Jun 9, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> Don't forget too that the influenza outbreak at the end of that war killed even more people than the war did. Current estimates are 50-100 million people died.



Oi forgot about Spanish Flu.  It must have felt like the "end times" to some people.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 9, 2016)

Langenschwert said:


> Exoticism is certainly a factor. Another factor is WWI where many practitioners were killed and Asian MA filled the gap. Certainly if say Catch Wrestling had taken off in Europe, Judo would not have made the inroads that it did.


Interestingly enough, about the time that "Jiu-Jitsu" was being introduced to the West, many of the "Moral Crusaders" had begun to include the concept of generalized health through diet and exercise into the world view.  This was the (rather brief) rise of what is known as Muscular Christianity.  This movement embraced boxing, under strict Marquis-style rules, and encouraged other sports such as "Jiu-Jitsu."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------

