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

[Langenschwert]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[lklawson]

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]

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).

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).

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

^ THIS!!!

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Tez3]

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]

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]

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]

You are still ill informed.

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

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? 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.

No. What it took was WWI.

This is just wrong.

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

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

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.

Still the Olympics.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.