Kangaroo choke, martial philosophy and nature.

[nordin]

I would like to share some of my thoughts and reflections about martial arts, combat sports and nature. But first, please watch this surprising video of a kangaroo fight from 3:58 :

[video=youtube_share;D_P8-FoiaBA]http://youtu.be/D_P8-FoiaBA?t=3m58s[/video]

Few days before I came across this video, I had a conversation with a friend about combat sports and martial arts. He showed me few videos on youtube where some martial art teacher explained his views on martial arts and combat sports. Basically this gentleman explained that
1. combat sports are not realistic for self-defense
2. combat sports especially full contact are immoral because they are violent and only add to pains of the world
3. combat sports make people admire and imitate fighters who can't be called martial artists since they earn money by fighting i.e. hurting others.

While first point didn't change a lot for me, second and third got me thinking. I tried to bring up that combat sports teach humans humility in a loss, discipline, value of hard work and determination, but then my friend added that it is same for any other sport and many other pursuits. I don't change my mind all the time, but I do question my views from time to time just to see why I think certain way about things. So few days I was really self-reflective. I don't like violence yet I don't mind watching combat sport. I see harsh quarrel with light slap to face or pushing around on the street and I get little upset, yet when I see pro kickboxing or MMA fight where two fighters are waling on each other I feel fine. Is it blood thirst combined with excuses?
Then I accidentally clicked on this video. Oh great. Kangaroo strikes, falls down, finds himself in rear naked choke, gets choked out and then goes away on wobbly legs. Somehow this video resonate with me, it was in a very deep contrast to video of this martial teacher who was telling how real life fights are all about death and crippling. I started to read about different animal fighting habits. Suddenly I noticed one aspect that is often neglected when talking about violence.

We are often told that full contact sports are just extension of humans animalistic instincts to kill. This however isn't really truth.
Animals, especially mammals, very often fight without intention to kill or even seriously injure. Kangaroo's reaction to let go of a choke and leave opponent alone wasn't coincidence. Even more, before the fight one animal will offer a fight with certain posture, other can accept or decline. Anytime in the fight kangaroos can give up by breaking off and leaving. Similar "fighting competitions'' or ritual fights happen in almost all species of vertebrates like dolphins, whales, reptiles, giraffes, bears, canines, monkeys, apes etc. These fights usually give individual animals chance to improve dominance for mating, territory and/or food. Level of contact varies; sometimes there are a lot of rules, sometimes there are only way to pick up the fight and give up. Some animals limit their attacks to few techniques like giraffes necking. Both ''fighters'' can have friendly and even close social interaction both before and after fights. Even those herbivore animals that have no natural predators start to practice this kind of fighting in early childhood. Also animal babies practice fighting even if they are raised by humans in total isolation.
Main point is that there is fighting without intention to kill or seriously injure and there are rewards for it. It is not a fighting to kill a prey, fend-off resource competition from different pack or different specie or baby defense. It is as real/realistic fighting as hunting, but with different social role, intentions and rewards.

Competitive fighting is universal for humans too. Even the most isolated cultures have not only combat systems, but also some form of fighting SPORT with rewards like money, food or admiration. Why are we so sure that its main goal is to teach ''way of war'' and maybe self-defense? It definitely has crossovers into pure survival situations; but is the sport side just to pressure test techniques? I think that it is poor excuse to make huge sold out boxing or MMA bouts to study life and death fighting/self defense.

I think that human has this deeply ingrained psychological need (probably genetic) to be a part of non lethal (yet physical) competitive struggle against other human being.

Of course we don't have to go back to all the ''primitive'' ways of living. However humans have tried to ignorantly cut out certain occurrences under premise ''it's not good/moral, it's too animal like'' just to get startled later when things give out in other aspects. Good examples are appendix, tonsils and adenoids; there was a time when everyone thought that taking them out is almost nothing. Now doctors start to understand better these organs' important role in immune system. Humans discovered how to produce, modify and store food thus helping to survive; today we still search for ways to deal with consequence of food modifications and abundance. Same with different social constructions. We have to be very careful how we achieve certain goals. Just because something seems bad doesn't mean it is and vice versa.

Yes there are natural things that we don't practice the same way as thousands of years ago. Obviously we have different approach to hygiene, social interaction, procreation, eating etc. Notice, we don't just abandon these things. We change them. When we physically can't live without the process, it is easy to see that only way is to modify (sometimes improve) not stop it. We can't avoid defecation or eating. I think that psychological phenomenas should be respected too.
Some people feel ok competing only in business or mind sports or verbal battles. Others find their balance in no contact sports. That is very nice. However I don't see way it should be acceptable to frown upon combat sports fans or practitioners since they watch or participate in the original human competition? We definitely should work on safety measures, but same is true for other sports as well. Pain and even minor injuries are integral part of many sports. So why segregate something that is no worse in intentions or realization? Why martial artist shouldn't be combat athlete as well? What is wrong with earning money by fighting?

What do you think?

(Sorry for long post)

 

[RTKDCMB]

They should have settled their differences in Kangaroo court instead.

I like one of the comments on YouTube - KFC - Kangaroo Fighting Championship.

 

[lklawson]

What do you think?

I think your position is well thought out, well stated, consistent, and has both current research and historic context supporting your thesis.

I have long stated that most male-to-male interaction has some level or another of Male Dominance Ritual. We're just getting better at understanding what it is, when it happens, and why as well as being able to use and manipulate those instinctive responses. Politicians absolutely love the research into Social Dominance cues and deliberately train it all the time. Idiotic things like how you shake hands, how you walk, and where you look at a person's face when talking to them are all important cues and religiously studied and manipulated by politicians.

Martial competitions are just another avenue for these Social Status rituals and, in some ways, are truer to the origin. You're also right that injuries tend to be minimal and infrequent, and deliberately so.

If it makes you feel better, the "fight sports are too violent for civilized people" is a really old complaint. In western Boxing alone, I can document the debate to 1840 and earlier.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[nordin]

I think your position is well thought out, well stated, consistent, and has both current research and historic context supporting your thesis.

I have long stated that most male-to-male interaction has some level or another of Male Dominance Ritual. We're just getting better at understanding what it is, when it happens, and why as well as being able to use and manipulate those instinctive responses. Politicians absolutely love the research into Social Dominance cues and deliberately train it all the time. Idiotic things like how you shake hands, how you walk, and where you look at a person's face when talking to them are all important cues and religiously studied and manipulated by politicians.

Martial competitions are just another avenue for these Social Status rituals and, in some ways, are truer to the origin. You're also right that injuries tend to be minimal and infrequent, and deliberately so.

If it makes you feel better, the "fight sports are too violent for civilized people" is a really old complaint. In western Boxing alone, I can document the debate to 1840 and earlier.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Thanks for response and patience to read through my overextended post

I will definitely check out the book; always enjoy those old books that often hide little and forgotten gems of wisdom.

 

[nordin]

The latest one...

 

[drop bear]

You are looking at the difference between consenting behaviour and predatory behaviour.

 

[nordin]

You are looking at the difference between consenting behaviour and predatory behaviour.

Well both human combat sports and most of animal ritual fighting is a consenting behavior.

 

[Paul_D]

1. combat sports are not realistic for self-defense

Hopefully we can all agree on that.

2. combat sports especially full contact are immoral because they are violent and only add to pains of the world

I am not sure how something that is violent is automatically immoral. If someone breaks into my house I am going to get violent, but I doubt anyone in their right mind would accuse me of being Immoral as the dictionary defines it (unethical, bad, wrong, evil etc).

I am also not sure how combat sports add to the pain of the world. They are, as you state, consensual. I think soccer adds more pain to the world as it has deliberate malicious challenges designed to cause injury in a sport where the goal isn't to injure your opponents.

3. combat sports make people admire and imitate fighters who can't be called martial artists since they earn money by fighting i.e. hurting others.

My main problem with this is the sheer arrogance of this gentleman to think he is entitled to be the judge of who can and can't call themselves a martial artist, based purely on his own interpretation of what he thinks a martial artist should be.

 

[drop bear]

Well both human combat sports and most of animal ritual fighting is a consenting behavior.

Quite often street violence is predatory. Even that you have to go out of your way to avoid a fight and all the social pressure that is included.

Sports fighting is also more about human endevor and not instant reward. Like a street fight. You are really risking loosing in a sports fight.

 

[Tez3]

Hopefully we can all agree on that.


I am not sure how something that is violent is automatically immoral. If someone breaks into my house I am going to get violent, but I doubt anyone in their right mind would accuse me of being Immoral as the dictionary defines it (unethical, bad, wrong, evil etc).

I am also not sure how combat sports add to the pain of the world. They are, as you state, consensual. I think soccer adds more pain to the world as it has deliberate malicious challenges designed to cause injury in a sport where the goal isn't to injure your opponents.

Soccer players are often emulated too on their off pitch bad behaviour. Their on pitch behaviour is bad enough, arguing with officials, deliberately inflicting harder tackles than needed, faking injuries etc What may well be considered immoral is the obscene amount of money they are paid to play. Fighters I've found are fair more aware of the need to play fair, to show sportsmanlike behaviour when fighting and actually try not to inflict damage on an opponent with the intention of deliberately maiming or ending a career, unlike soccer players.


My main problem with this is the sheer arrogance of this gentleman to think he is entitled to be the judge of who can and can't call themselves a martial artist, based purely on his own interpretation of what he thinks a martial artist should be.

I agree with you on the arrogance.

 

[nordin]

Quite often street violence is predatory. Even that you have to go out of your way to avoid a fight and all the social pressure that is included.

Sports fighting is also more about human endevor and not instant reward. Like a street fight. You are really risking loosing in a sports fight.

I am definitely not talking about mugging or jumping on street. Its analogues in nature would be territorial fights with foreign individuals, packs from same or different specie, fights for food or even defense of cubs. These conflicts can be extremely violent, without ''rules'' and opponents mosty of the time are not avoiding to injure or kill each other. Ritual fighting on the other hand is much more similar to combat sport competitions since there is no intentions of injuring opponent, there are ''rules'', there are way to offer, refuse as well as give up the fight. After fight many species share friendly social interactions with the opponent.

 

[RTKDCMB]

I would like to share some of my thoughts and reflections about martial arts, combat sports and nature. But first, please watch this surprising video of a kangaroo fight from 3:58 :

[video=youtube_share;D_P8-FoiaBA]http://youtu.be/D_P8-FoiaBA?t=3m58s[/video]

After the fight both individuals were tried and convicted in a Kangaroo court.

 

[RTKDCMB]

I would like to share some of my thoughts and reflections about martial arts, combat sports and nature. But first, please watch this surprising video of a kangaroo fight from 3:58 :

[video=youtube_share;D_P8-FoiaBA]http://youtu.be/D_P8-FoiaBA?t=3m58s[/video]

I like one of the comments on the YouTube video:


"KFC=Kangaroo Fighting Championship"

Wish I thought of it.

 

[nordin]

I like one of the comments on the YouTube video:


"KFC=Kangaroo Fighting Championship"

Wish I thought of it.

Kangaroo no. 1: Ah, I wanted KO, but opponent gave me his back so I took it and got the choke.

Kangaroo no. 2: I had a bad training camp, barely made a weight and get caught in that choke by mistake... I need rematch...

 

[drop bear]

Kangaroo no. 1: Ah, I wanted KO, but opponent gave me his back so I took it and got the choke.

Kangaroo no. 2: I had a bad training camp, barely made a weight and get caught in that choke by mistake... I need rematch...

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2CcLwswW7lU

 

[nordin]

I think that human has this deeply ingrained psychological need (probably genetic) to be a part of non lethal (yet physical) competitive struggle against other human being. [..]
Yes there are natural things that we don't practice the same way as thousands of years ago. Obviously we have different approach to hygiene, social interaction, procreation, eating etc. Notice, we don't just abandon these things. We change them. When we physically can't live without the process, it is easy to see that only way is to modify (sometimes improve) not stop it. We can't avoid defecation or eating. I think that psychological phenomenas should be respected too.
Some people feel ok competing only in business or mind sports or verbal battles. Others find their balance in no contact sports. That is very nice. However I don't see way it should be acceptable to frown upon combat sports fans or practitioners since they watch or participate in the original human competition?

Another interesting theory that fighting was very important part of human hand evaluation. Turns out for us humans closed fist striking is perfectly natural

"I think there is a lot of resistance, maybe more so among academics than people in general - resistance to the idea that, at some level humans are by nature aggressive animals. I actually think that attitude, and the people who have tried to make the case that we don't have a nature - those people have not served us well.''

Prof.David Carrier

Protective buttressing of the human fist and the evolution of hominin hands
FIGHTING SHAPED HUMAN HANDS
BBC News - Fighting may have shaped evolution of human hand

 

[Elbowgrease]

I would say we are more than just a little bit aggressive by nature. I would say your average human can easily cross the line into brutality. More than just on the physical level, the way people treat each other can be absolutely ruthless, cold, merciless, whatever you need to call it. As far as combat sports and morality, I don't really see the issue. I think it would be immoral to throw innocent, untrained people into a fight to the death for sport. I think that intentionally killing someone in a fight when you really could just injure them, as severely as necessary, would be immoral. I think that selling someone the idea that training in a sport would fully prepare them for a no rules fight to the death is also immoral.
We might be better off in an honor based justice system.

 

[K-man]

Another interesting theory that fighting was very important part of human hand evaluation. Turns out for us humans closed fist striking is perfectly natural

"I think there is a lot of resistance, maybe more so among academics than people in general - resistance to the idea that, at some level humans are by nature aggressive animals. I actually think that attitude, and the people who have tried to make the case that we don't have a nature - those people have not served us well.''

Prof.David Carrier

Protective buttressing of the human fist and the evolution of hominin hands
FIGHTING SHAPED HUMAN HANDS
BBC News - Fighting may have shaped evolution of human hand

I think people need to recognise that this is just a theory. There is no evidence to back it up. Part of this supposition is the locking of the first two fingers to make the stronger structure. Now I did boxing over 50 years ago. We just had gloves, no wraps or anything else. We were never shown how to make a fist and with boxing gloves your thumb goes alongside your index finger. It was never taught that if you were fighting bare knuckles your used your thumb as a lock.

To be honest the first time I was taught to make a proper fist was when I started karate. If the fist had developed along with human evolution then surely that type of locked fist should be instinctive and it is clearly not.

The other points about developing power etc depend on the loosely clenched fist clenching on impact, again a relatively recent phenomenon.

I read a book years ago that suggested that the British introduced the clenched fist into Africa many decades ago. I can't remember if it was the 18th or 19th century. Surely if the clenched first was paramount to human evolution it would have been in Africa thousands of years before anywhere else.

It's an interesting hypothesis that takes the finished product and works backwards to find a reason for its existence. Who knows, maybe our hands just changed as our dexterity increased.

 

[nordin]

I think people need to recognise that this is just a theory. There is no evidence to back it up. Part of this supposition is the locking of the first two fingers to make the stronger structure. Now I did boxing over 50 years ago. We just had gloves, no wraps or anything else. We were never shown how to make a fist and with boxing gloves your thumb goes alongside your index finger. It was never taught that if you were fighting bare knuckles your used your thumb as a lock.

To be honest the first time I was taught to make a proper fist was when I started karate. If the fist had developed along with human evolution then surely that type of locked fist should be instinctive and it is clearly not.

The other points about developing power etc depend on the loosely clenched fist clenching on impact, again a relatively recent phenomenon.

I read a book years ago that suggested that the British introduced the clenched fist into Africa many decades ago. I can't remember if it was the 18th or 19th century. Surely if the clenched first was paramount to human evolution it would have been in Africa thousands of years before anywhere else.

It's an interesting hypothesis that takes the finished product and works backwards to find a reason for its existence. Who knows, maybe our hands just changed as our dexterity increased.

You are right- it is definitely only theory with its flaws.
However I am not sure I understand your argument of the finished product and working backwards. As I understand from the first link they where looking at most basic clenched fist with fingers curled and flashy base of the thumb (thenar eminence) squeezing against index and middle finger as a support. This description allows some minor variations (like exact position of thumb) and I would say is consistent with a lot of striking arts from around the world. Boxing glove do change the position of fingers, but the basic curled fingers and base of thumb support remains.

There are several paintings, drawings and sculptures from different continents(including Egypt, Africa) as old as 5000 years showing people striking with closed fists. In this picture you can see exact 'modern' bare knuckle boxing fist 500 yeras B.C. In contrast our closest relatives chimps and bonobos don't or possibly even can't make this kind of clenched fist.

 

[K-man]

That's all true but did the changes in hand come about for reasons of manual dexterity or was it because of fighting? As the early humanoids developed they were using tools and sticks. They would have used the sticks as weapons of choice just as now you wouldn't try to fight a war without weapons.

I'm not saying humans didn't fight using clenched fists, but I am saying that it is a tenuous link to suggest that our hands were a result of our ancestors beating the crap out of each other with their fists.