Arts of the white man and the native american

[Touch Of Death]

The "punch" exists as part of pretty much every codified martial art I've ever heard of. Seems natural enough going by the evidence. I'll give you that hammer-fists are even more natural as an instinctive movement.

And a martial art. Going on from it's reintroduction to England by Figg, Boxing has been considered an unarmed martial art of self defense. Boxing is a "sport" in the same way that Judo and Tae Kwon Do are "sports."

But still easier than any other empty-handed martial art, however.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

It may be easy to fight like Tyson, but it ain't easy to fight like Holyfield.

 

[Touch Of Death]

The "punch" exists as part of pretty much every codified martial art I've ever heard of. Seems natural enough going by the evidence. I'll give you that hammer-fists are even more natural as an instinctive movement.

And a martial art. Going on from it's reintroduction to England by Figg, Boxing has been considered an unarmed martial art of self defense. Boxing is a "sport" in the same way that Judo and Tae Kwon Do are "sports."

But still easier than any other empty-handed martial art, however.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

I think they were probably smart enough to not try to break their hands in the heat of battle.

 

[lklawson]

It may be easy to fight like Tyson, but it ain't easy to fight like Holyfield.

You don't have to fight like Holyfield to learn how to box old school. It's not complicated.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

I think they were probably smart enough to not try to break their hands in the heat of battle.

I can't tell if you're serious.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Touch Of Death]

You don't have to fight like Holyfield to learn how to box old school. It's not complicated.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Sure it is. I think it is science... a sweet science, even. I think you are placing to much complexity on these other arts. It is just about the same damn thing. How are they more complex? And why do the boxers fair so well against them in the ring? I will give you that adding outward motion to boxing makes it more complex, but its one move. LOL
Sean

 

[lklawson]

Sure it is. I think it is science... a sweet science, even. I think you are placing to much complexity on these other arts. It is just about the same damn thing. How are they more complex? And why do the boxers fair so well against them in the ring? I will give you that adding outward motion to boxing makes it more complex, but its one move. LOL
Sean

The K.I.S.S. Principle. Depending on how you catalog them, boxing only has half-a-dozen punches or so and fewer "guards." It's not "complexity" you're thinking of, it's "sophistication." Boxing can be very sophisticated because of the many ways that a single given boxing technique can be refined and applied, assuming the practitioner has spent the time to develop that level of sophistication.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Touch Of Death]

I can't tell if you're serious.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

I am very serious. They probably punched the enemy about as much as our soldiers do now.

 

[lklawson]

I am very serious. They probably punched the enemy about as much as our soldiers do now.

Then I refer you to the extremely long and painful thread in which I discuss that you just have punch properly.

The thread was long, painful, and not particularly fruitful. The reader's digest version of my statements is, "learn to punch right and you have very little chance of breaking your hand."

For exactly how that is done, rather than retype if all yet again, I refer the interested readers to any number of period Pugilism manuals, some of which are referenced in the stickied thread in this sub-forum. But if you don't like 19th Century or early 20th Century English, then just read Jack Dempsey's description. He writes it very well.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Touch Of Death]

Then I refer you to the extremely long and painful thread in which I discuss that you just have punch properly.

The thread was long, painful, and not particularly fruitful. The reader's digest version of my statements is, "learn to punch right and you have very little chance of breaking your hand."

For exactly how that is done, rather than retype if all yet again, I refer the interested readers to any number of period Pugilism manuals, some of which are referenced in the stickied thread in this sub-forum. But if you don't like 19th Century or early 20th Century English, then just read Jack Dempsey's description. He writes it very well.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

They used sticks, stones, and arrows. If they fought hand to hand, the idea was to take your enemy off his feet, not square off for the entertainment of others.
Sean

 

[Touch Of Death]

Then I refer you to the extremely long and painful thread in which I discuss that you just have punch properly.

The thread was long, painful, and not particularly fruitful. The reader's digest version of my statements is, "learn to punch right and you have very little chance of breaking your hand."

For exactly how that is done, rather than retype if all yet again, I refer the interested readers to any number of period Pugilism manuals, some of which are referenced in the stickied thread in this sub-forum. But if you don't like 19th Century or early 20th Century English, then just read Jack Dempsey's description. He writes it very well.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

I understand how to not hurt my hand when punching, but would an entire tribe spend a lot of time on it?
Sean

 

[lklawson]

They used sticks, stones, and arrows.

So?

If they fought hand to hand, the idea was to take your enemy off his feet

The same as grappling; as a way to supplement and enhance weapon work, or when a weapon was not available.

not square off for the entertainment of others.
Sean

I never claimed that they did.

 

[lklawson]

I understand how to not hurt my hand when punching, but would an entire tribe spend a lot of time on it?
Sean

Who said "a lot of time?" The evidence indicates that empty handed punching was what you did if you did if you didn't have a weapon or as a supplement to the weapon already in hand, much like wrestling.

This isn't rocket surgery.

 

[PhotonGuy]

Leaving aside the rest of the post, I just wanted to point out that to the best of my knowledge armored European knights did not use boxing or any other form of fist fighting in combat. Punching an armored opponent just doesn't work. They did have close quarters grappling techniques for putting an opponent on the ground.

Keep in mind that if you were to punch an armored opponent you would probably be wearing a metal gauntlet so it would have some effect. And besides, not all your opponents wore metal armor. The common foot soldier would usually just be wearing leather.

 

[PhotonGuy]

That looked like kenpo to me.

That's because, what I know of Adrian "chief" Roman, he incorporated Kempo into native american fighting systems.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Who said "a lot of time?" The evidence indicates that empty handed punching was what you did if you did if you didn't have a weapon or as a supplement to the weapon already in hand, much like wrestling.

This isn't rocket surgery.

I think more rockets die than you think. LOL

 

[lklawson]

I think more rockets die than you think. LOL

OK then, so what is the basis for your conclusions?

 

[Touch Of Death]

OK then, so what is the basis for your conclusions?

I think we watch too many movies, and have a very small filter in which we view history. The punch as we know it is a specialization. Your a martial artist... go ask you non martial art friends to punch you in the stomach as hard as they can. It is great fun watching them hut their hand, but then you have trust issues.

 

[lklawson]

I think we watch too many movies, and have a very small filter in which we view history. The punch as we know it is a specialization. Your a martial artist... go ask you non martial art friends to punch you in the stomach as hard as they can. It is great fun watching them hut their hand, but then you have trust issues.

I don't think that answers my question, unless you're answer is, "I base my conclusions upon movies."

What is the basis for your conclusions?

 

[Touch Of Death]

I don't think that answers my question, unless you're answer is, "I base my conclusions upon movies."

What is the basis for your conclusions?

To be honest, I was told this by one of my karate teachers, and his question to me was, why is something that is so hard to do well, so, common? I came up with, entertainment, and it seems a less dangerous way of stabbing (or jabbing) which is sort of a sexual thing, but who knows? The bottom line is that, punching occurred a lot less through human history than you have been led to believe. It is more likely you babied your hands, so that you might still hold a weapon.

 

[jks9199]

Keep in mind that if you were to punch an armored opponent you would probably be wearing a metal gauntlet so it would have some effect. And besides, not all your opponents wore metal armor. The common foot soldier would usually just be wearing leather.

Not necessarily. Medieval European? Maybe... but, though I don't have hard facts handy, I suspect that the run of the mill soldier wasn't wearing metal gauntlets. Native American? I'm pretty confident that they had hide gloves at best. I've never seen much showing that they had a lot of extensive metal use like that. Bone, leather, wooden armor? Sure.

A standing, professional soldier class is something that it takes a certain level of both warfare and technology/cultural advancement to support. Otherwise, the culture just can't spare a few bodies from farming or hunting or other survival tasks just to stand around and be ready to fight. (Heck, in many of the cultures we think of as having them -- the folks whose primary role was fighter were really a minority and viewed as leadership, not the rank & file.)