Has Fighting Changed?

[ATACX GYM]

Yes, I would class Capoeira as one of those very visually pleasing martial fighting styles. And I accept, as I know you will too, that beauty is subjective

I think that it is not that those more aged styles are any less functional and but I believe (just personally) that when referencing older and more modern fighting styles, there is a difference between efficiency (which I feel both have) and expediency which I feel is a product of the modern "get the job done at any cost" fighting / defensive model.

I am not saying that older styles have unnecessary frills, I am only alluding to the idea that they have had time to mature with their designers who would siphon out not only unnecessarily awkward, uncomfortable, inefficient and probably overly forceful or brutal technique.

To me older fighting styles they LOOK like mature arts.

Modern fighting applications appear to me as more industrial as though they have been almost designed to a cost like a machine or CNCd piece of metal. They will get the job done and possibly last forever. Or perhaps they will only last until the designer implements a new production run. I think in this sense, the word you have used economic (in terms of efficiency) can also be used in terms of that business analogy. Again, I am not deriding modern applications as being of lesser worth, not at all, no ways, rather just giving my preference

Regarding what has changed, as I say, I do not believe there have been necessarily any gains in efficiency or economy of style, I think rather that modern fighting applications give a *perception* of gains having been made. I think again that this is a product of our instant gratification society that precludes lengthy training and honing of technique and favours results-based teaching.

Thank you for your conversation, and to MJS' OP, it is interesting to me, Jenna

My position is a combination of the two previous posts: We have 2 arms and legs,1 head. Most of the things that we do visavis combat will be directly impacted by technology and the refinement and evolution of combat tactics.Tactically,I see a pretty sharp change over the centuries because the general store of combat knowledge,it's practice,and the general availability of said combat knowledge has undergone a gigantic change. The proliferation of combat knowledge visavis weaponry training athletic performance tactics etc. causes a constant and rapidly accelerating synergistic evolution in combat performance of same...but it's not wholly new per se. The PERFORMANCE LEVEL IS AT HERETOFORE UNREACHABLE HEIGHTS,and the WEAPONRY forces tactical and technological REVOLUTION,but until the human species itself wholly evolves (say low grade psionics or some catalyst that causes actual human structural evolution occurs) there won't be utterly new categories of human combat capability.

Like one of main GYM motto says:"IT'S NOT JUST WHAT YOU KNOW,IT'S HOW YOU TRAIN".

The classic styles can still be very effective in the modern day,if their training is adjusted accordingly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf44kawWBvY&feature=related

But the more that the pressures of the modern combat scenarios and real life situations impact the classic fighting styles that never had to face these pressures,the more that they evolve until you have a comprehensive hybrid. You can have incredible firearms skills AND incredible classic fighting skills modified to be functional in the modern era:

TAIWAN SWAT TEAM

THE DEADLY KOREAN "WHITE TIGER" FEMALE MEMBERS OF THE SPECIAL FORCES

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6A_eaP_k14&feature=related


KOREAN SPECIAL FORCES

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoYwc30x-C4&feature=related

But without the functional training base,all of this is impossible..."IT'S NOT JUST WHAT YOU KNOW,IT'S HOW YOU TRAIN".

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I think that different people fight different ways, across time and cultures. Americans throw fists at your head. That requires a different response than a person perhaps from somewhere else.

 

[hongkongfooey]

Has fighting changed? Don't know about that, but I do know that martial arts have changed. Too many people forget about the martial aspect and just focus on the art. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

 

[MJS]

I understand I think (imo) that very many of the modern applications are quite utilitarian; effective and direct, yes and but utilitarian adn functional and I mean that in a pejorative way. I think many of the modern fighting applications lack the finesse, though this is simply to my eye. In that respect, I do not find so many of these modern fighting styles at all interesting to watch especially compared to more traditional styles.

So I think in terms of the application yes there has been a change to a more horribly expedient or "get the job done" fighting style. I think we are supposed to fight in a more guerrilla manner now which I think is a fair reflection of the environments that most of us have to live in. I think this is unfortunate, yet it is not to say that older applications are anachronistic. I think there is a place for both, as usual, depending upon the specific needs of the practitioner.

Good points. I've seen this in the UFC. I've seen guy who're very technical with their fighting, while I've seen others who're not as technical, basically, more brawling than anything technical. OTOH, and I'll use Kenpo as an example, many times, things are pretty or shown with more finesse, during demos, yet when an unknown attack is thrown, the finesse goes out the window. Is this a bad thing? Yes and no. If you're so sloppy that the person is just swinging away, with no reason behind the swings, then yeah, its a bad thing. But if what you're doing is simple and to the point, not necessarily pretty, but still has that effectiveness.......

 

[MJS]

No there are still quite a few 1-on-1 fights happening nowadays. There's a gajillion on youtube,and I saw one here in the hood of the LBC which resembled a energetic but unskilled bareknuckle boxing+sloppy Greco-Roman match.When one guy got knocked down,the fight pretty much ended as both men were too winded to continue,and both walked away.Nobody got shot.

Not 20 minutes later and one block away,somebody DID get fatally shot though...over what? I have no idea.

True, but alot of those seem to be mutual agreements, basically to prove who has the bigger balls. LOL. Take Kimbo for example. 1 on 1, yet there were lots of people standing around, watching, yet nobody else got involved, only punches were thrown, no weapons, etc.

 

[MJS]

First are you talking about MA only?

I'm talking about fighting in general, whether its a sparring match in the dojo or a confrontation outside of the dojo.

The reasons for fighting haven't really changed. We fight because we are unable to conform to social mores, because we want territory (to defend or acquire), we want to impress others as having greater prowess than most (we feel empowered and gain mates), because of other reasons, but they haven't really changed over the centuries.

What is allowed in in conflict, that is, how far are we allowed to go without sanction, that changes, so does technology to use in fighting; sticks, knives, swords, guns. For some of us, ritual fighting is sufficient, that is sparing.

Has fighting changed, or just its manifestations and the level of participation we are willing to commit to?

I agree with you on the weapons. As for the fight itself....I'd still say that its evolved.

 

[MJS]

OK, has fighting changed, NOPE. Look when two men engage in combat for real its the same now, as say 5000 years ago. Its still the same number of limbs and vitals are in the same place, and we are as tough and fragile as we were back then. some of the weapons have changed, but not hand to hand combat. In Europe as in Asia unarmed combat and weapons use before firearms was very very developed. and then like now, when two men fight for real some one if not both will die.

now the differences if any are in the technology and weapons employed, and what kind of threat is usually manifest in the avaridge encounter. 150 years ago it would be very ritualized in a duel. 500 years ago on a road it was with out rules except survive. depends on where you are and at what time in history. often the treat was higher then then now, but not always. Either way the actual fight if unarmed has not changed at all. If its armed the weapons have changed but the intent is the same.

I dont think anyone is disputing the number of limbs. IMO, using that as a basis to change is moot. As for your 2nd paragraph....well, to me, that reads that there is change. Like I said, the change doesnt have to be growing a 3rd arm. I mean, cars back in the day still had 4 tires like they do today, but I dont think you can dispute that the way cars are built are very different today.

 

[Buka]

I believe fighting has changed quite a bit.
Social violence among youths has both increased and become more tactically dangerous.
Fighting in Martial Arts improves with each and every generation - as it should. If our students are not an improvement over us, what the hell are we teaching for? In turn, their students will be an improvement over them.

Fighting, as in deadly violent encounters, has become increasingly nasty. Here is an interesting article by Darren Laur, whom I respect greatly. It's long as far as posts go, but well worth the read, especially since there are far more ex-cons on the street today than there were fifty years ago.

Gladiator School By Darren Laur

Very recently, due to my line of work, I had the opportunity to speak with a parolee who had just been released from serving 15 years of hard time in some of the toughest maximum-security federal penitentiaries in Canada. In the beginning, we both tested the waters with one another and were more adversarial, much like the mongoose and the Cobra, but as trust and report were established, I was able to get some very important insight into how violence inside some of the most violent prisons in Canada is taught, learned and used. This person, who I will call Bob, estimated that he had been involved in approximately 130-150 violent confrontations while inside. Bob has experienced all levels of violence while in our prison system, both armed and unarmed, and has seen death several times. IMO, based upon Bob’s experience with violence, he is a subject matter expert on the topic of real world violence, and as such, has a lot of valuable insight to offer to those of us who are willing to listen; listen and learn I did. I hope you the reader will also glean some information from what it is I am about to share with you.

Full post HERE