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

[drop bear]

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]

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]

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]

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



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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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]

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?

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]

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.

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]

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

 

[Tez3]

Amazon savage tribes who survive in their lifestyle

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.