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

[Juany118]

I know Iklawson, my issues is NOT that they ceased to exist. The question the OP proposed was why did they not have the wide spread penetration, that they never gained "mass appeal" or as he said "underground." I was simply answering as to one of the prime factors of that narrow issue. If it came off like I was saying they stopped existing or being developed that was never my intent.

Also just for the record. I did note sword use in one response and how that survived, especially in the Cavalry (I am a freak for Cavalry as I still have my Stetson from being Cav) until WWI when trench warfare put done to that, and how bayonet was still trained when I was in back in the 90s, though I am not sure now.

As for my HEMA sword comment you are correct, I should have simply said "weapons."

Kirk,

Late edit. Now that first bit I note I believe synergizes with other things in popular culture. In Europe, even though they eventually became democracies, Aristocratic influence permeated society. So fencing, even if not practiced by society at large, was still solidly placed in the popular consciousness but fisticuffs seemed to be looked on with disdain. To my knowledge, before Queensbury rules, if you were a person of some wealth and you went to bet on a fight you were essentially "slumming." A "gentleman" used a sword and or a pistol to settle matters.

In the US on the other hand, we were kinda a combination of a knife (as we discussed elsewhere) and a gun culture then when repeating rifles and pistols came about the knife culture began to fade.

Again of course their were full featured Martial Arts in the West. New arts were even created as I noted elsewhere; Savate, Bartitsu etc, I have read of how some Europeans and Americans learned Native American wrestling arts etc. It's just a matter of why such "full featured" martial arts either faded or never gained traction in society as a whole in the West.

I, and others (my ideas aren't ones I came up with wholely on my own but from books on Military History and articles I have read) get the idea I note is, I will admit, comparing the way warfare in general evolved in the West vs the Far East. Short form, it makes sense to do training in extensive armed and unarmed martial arts training when you don't face repeating rifles, machine guns and accurate, rapid firing artillery. Then the manner of warfare captures the popular consciousness.

Look at literature. As an example. Chinese Wuxia tales go back thousands of years and persist to this day, some of the tales of those books are arguably actually believed in today, such as iron shirt gi gong and by iron shirt I mean "my skin can stop a sword" or as some said during the Boxer Rebellion even bullets.

In the West we had the tales of our great warriors as well, but we go from Gilgamesh, Heracles etc to Knights, to Musketeers, to Cavalrymen and (in the US, heck even Europe had a fascination with em) Cowboys. Then we had Sherlock Holmes. Yes he knew Bartitsu but also said "Watson don't forget your pistol" even James Bond was largely a gun guy. The heroes in both cultures tied to the technology and methods of he day. Then Bruce Lee hits the screen shortly after soldiers were bringing Asian Martia l arts back home when they returned from Pacific deployments and the field is changed dramatically.

 

[Juany118]

And one last late edit. As I said this is not entirely my idea, it is shared by others. I didn't want to name any specifically until I could quote them directly. Here is the view of Sifu Danny Zahn as expressed in his book, "The Tao of Wing Chun."

.I believe that authentic martial art pretty much died out in the nineteenth century. With the introduction of Western imperialism and guns into China, close-range weapons and hand-to-hand-combat arts were bound to fade into oblivion. The best of the martial artists at the time were no match against guns. Slowly but surely the martial arts began to decline in China. Those who relied on them professionally were reduced to the level of street or stage performers. And the generations that followed simply produced more performer.

Having said this, there were some masters during these periods that continued to value and preserve their respective arts, with the result that their arts are still alive today.

So while we may still disagree on this point, I think, this is one of those things that is in large part subjective and so an "agree to disagree" topic

 

[lklawson]

I know Iklawson, my issues is NOT that they ceased to exist. The question the OP proposed was why did they not have the wide spread penetration, that they never gained "mass appeal" or as he said "underground." I was simply answering as to one of the prime factors of that narrow issue. If it came off like I was saying they stopped existing or being developed that was never my intent.

Fair enough. I think that your repeated use of terms such as "died out" made me think that you believed that they, well, died out.

[Also just for the record. I did note sword use in one response and how that survived, especially in the Cavalry (I am a freak for Cavalry as I still have my Stetson from being Cav)[/quote]Well, you also specified only the military officers or the rich. But that's not accurate. The British Navy taught (and used) the Cutlass (and the Singlstick training system for it) up until a bit past WWI to their non-officer Seamen. German Police were issued and trained with Sabers up until at least WWI if not past (I haven't looked at how long it lasted, honestly). Those are just two examples. There are, of course, others.

until WWI when trench warfare put done to that, and how bayonet was still trained when I was in back in the 90s, though I am not sure now.

I've done extensive reading and training in Bayonet going up to WWII, focusing on U.S. Civil War, a specific U.S. WWI manual, and a specific British WWII manual. The gist of it remains the same. Several of the Civil War systems contain material not in WWI and WWII surrounding fighting from atop trenches downward. I found the lack of that material in WWI manuals surprising but the focus in WWI was not in using Bayonet to defend the trench but, instead, going over the trench in a group assault.

It should also be noted that once inside the trench, melee combat was remarkably common and weapons were made, issued, and taught specifically for those conditions. This includes "trench knives," "trench nails," "trench clubs," and even a trench sword or three.

As for my HEMA sword comment you are correct, I should have simply said "weapons."

I have a friend teaching in the Fiore system (Italian branch of Knightly Martial Arts) who actually went out and learned the basic of wrestling so that he could better (correctly) understand the grappling in the Fiore system. Grappling, particularly throws and joint breaks, are an important part of Medieval Knightly Martial Arts.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Juany118]

Fair enough. I think that your repeated use of terms such as "died out" made me think that you believed that they, well, died out.

Well, you also specified only the military officers or the rich. But that's not accurate. The British Navy taught (and used) the Cutlass (and the Singlstick training system for it) up until a bit past WWI to their non-officer Seamen. German Police were issued and trained with Sabers up until at least WWI if not past (I haven't looked at how long it lasted, honestly). Those are just two examples. There are, of course, others.

I've done extensive reading and training in Bayonet going up to WWII, focusing on U.S. Civil War, a specific U.S. WWI manual, and a specific British WWII manual. The gist of it remains the same. Several of the Civil War systems contain material not in WWI and WWII surrounding fighting from atop trenches downward. I found the lack of that material in WWI manuals surprising but the focus in WWI was not in using Bayonet to defend the trench but, instead, going over the trench in a group assault.

It should also be noted that once inside the trench, melee combat was remarkably common and weapons were made, issued, and taught specifically for those conditions. This includes "trench knives," "trench nails," "trench clubs," and even a trench sword or three.

I have a friend teaching in the Fiore system (Italian branch of Knightly Martial Arts) who actually went out and learned the basic of wrestling so that he could better (correctly) understand the grappling in the Fiore system. Grappling, particularly throws and joint breaks, are an important part of Medieval Knightly Martial Arts.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

You are right, I should have specified that it appears to have "died out in terms of mass appeal" or something similarly specific.

As for the Officer Class etc (and swords) I will admit I was not aware of the 20th century cutlass training. I was aware of the trench knives though, but was looking at that as "knife fighting" I wasn't aware of just how big some of those could get.

Well glad to see Bayonets are still used/trained in today. I know they were right up onto when I went in back in '91 but wasn't sure if it was still taught because, with the much shorter length of the M-4 vs the M-16, I wasn't sure if it would still work as well. The training wasn't just about the use of the bayonet itself and with the collapsing stock and shorter length I don't know if I would want to "butt stroke" someone. Lol

Oh and auto correct sucks... the Sifu in my other post is Danny Xaun, not Zahn.

 

[Tez3]

British army still teaches the bayonet, it was used in Afghanistan too.
Soldier who led Afghanistan bayonet charge into hail of bullets honoured

 

[lklawson]

Kirk,

Late edit. Now that first bit I note I believe synergizes with other things in popular culture. In Europe, even though they eventually became democracies, Aristocratic influence permeated society. So fencing, even if not practiced by society at large, was still solidly placed in the popular consciousness but fisticuffs seemed to be looked on with disdain. To my knowledge, before Queensbury rules, if you were a person of some wealth and you went to bet on a fight you were essentially "slumming." A "gentleman" used a sword and or a pistol to settle matters.

Sort of yes, sort of no. British gentlemen did practice fisticuffs, but almost never professionally. They also were huge in the British fisticuffs culture. Indispensable, actually. Without the aristocracy sponsoring fighters and matches, it would not have been possible as we know it.

There was a general push against Boxing in pre-Marquis Rules Britain. But it was mostly from what we would, today, think of as "The Moral Majority" group. It was the same people who wanted to outlaw alcohol. There were several noted defenses and (classical) Apologia of Boxing, particularly from influential aristocracy. One of the reasons that the Marquis wrote his rules was to "civilize" the sport and make it more acceptable to "the Moral Majority."

In the U.S., on the other hand, Boxing (and wrestling of course) was welcomed. Boxing and wrestling were popular pastimes for everyone from the common man through the powerful and famous such as Washington, Lincoln, and Teddy Roosevelt.

In the US on the other hand, we were kinda a combination of a knife (as we discussed elsewhere) and a gun culture then when repeating rifles and pistols came about the knife culture began to fade.

Nah. The fighting man, both military and otherwise, matched unarmed with melee weapons and guns. Lincoln's bodyguard carried pistols, a bowie knife, and a civilian flail weapon called a slungshot. Police carried firearms and melee weapons such as billie clubs, jacks, and slungshot. Same for the "criminal element": Bare hands, guns, knives, clubs, etc. It was common. Still is.

Again of course their were full featured Martial Arts in the West. New arts were even created as I noted elsewhere; Savate, Bartitsu etc, I have read of how some Europeans and Americans learned Native American wrestling arts etc. It's just a matter of why such "full featured" martial arts either faded or never gained traction in society as a whole in the West.

My best guess: Less entertainment value combined with a general misunderstanding of what real fighting is.

I, and others (my ideas aren't ones I came up with wholely on my own but from books on Military History and articles I have read)

Anyone I know?

get the idea I note is, I will admit, comparing the way warfare in general evolved in the West vs the Far East. Short form, it makes sense to do training in extensive armed and unarmed martial arts training when you don't face repeating rifles, machine guns and accurate, rapid firing artillery. Then the manner of warfare captures the popular consciousness.

Well, yeah. Of course. But it was also pretty well understood that 1) civilian fighting was different from military fighting and 2) civilian fighting not only didn't go away, it's actually more common.

Look at literature. As an example.

In the Western martial arts world? I've read them. I have good friends writing them. I've written some myself.

In the West we had the tales of our great warriors as well, but we go from Gilgamesh, Heracles etc to Knights, to Musketeers, to Cavalrymen and (in the US, heck even Europe had a fascination with em) Cowboys. Then we had Sherlock Holmes. Yes he knew Bartitsu

Yeah, you could say that I'm familiar with Bartitsu.

but also said "Watson don't forget your pistol" even James Bond was largely a gun guy. The heroes in both cultures tied to the technology and methods of he day. Then Bruce Lee hits the screen shortly after soldiers were bringing Asian Martia l arts back home when they returned from Pacific deployments and the field is changed dramatically.

A big part of that is because, to mind of the western fighting man, firearms were just one (very very important) aspect to fighting. That said, I agree that to much of the non-fighting public, they couldn't really understand the need for unarmed or melee methods in light of the obvious superiority of the gun (and it truly is a superior weapon).

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

You are right, I should have specified that it appears to have "died out in terms of mass appeal" or something similarly specific.

Fair enough.

As for the Officer Class etc (and swords) I will admit I was not aware of the 20th century cutlass training. I was aware of the trench knives though, but was looking at that as "knife fighting" I wasn't aware of just how big some of those could get.

U.S. Navy singlestick practice during Spanish-American War.

"Cutlass Drill on H.M.S. 'Niobe,' Cape Town, South Africa. Copyright 1900 by Underwood & Underwood."

Well glad to see Bayonets are still used/trained in today. I know they were right up onto when I went in back in '91 but wasn't sure if it was still taught because, with the much shorter length of the M-4 vs the M-16, I wasn't sure if it would still work as well. The training wasn't just about the use of the bayonet itself and with the collapsing stock and shorter length I don't know if I would want to "butt stroke" someone. Lol

Yes. Changing the size, weight, length, and "durability" of the rifle and the bayonet changes how it must be used.

Oh and auto correct sucks... the Sifu in my other post is Danny Xaun, not Zahn.

You and me both, my friend. Autocorrects from my phone can often be, umm..., "entertaining."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Juany118]

Sort of yes, sort of no. British gentlemen did practice fisticuffs, but almost never professionally. They also were huge in the British fisticuffs culture. Indispensable, actually. Without the aristocracy sponsoring fighters and matches, it would not have been possible as we know it.

There was a general push against Boxing in pre-Marquis Rules Britain. But it was mostly from what we would, today, think of as "The Moral Majority" group. It was the same people who wanted to outlaw alcohol. There were several noted defenses and (classical) Apologia of Boxing, particularly from influential aristocracy. One of the reasons that the Marquis wrote his rules was to "civilize" the sport and make it more acceptable to "the Moral Majority."

In the U.S., on the other hand, Boxing (and wrestling of course) was welcomed. Boxing and wrestling were popular pastimes for everyone from the common man through the powerful and famous such as Washington, Lincoln, and Teddy Roosevelt.

Indeed but Teddy was a very unique man. If we were in Ancient Roman times I would have an idol to him as he would be my "House god" lol.

Nah. The fighting man, both military and otherwise, matched unarmed with melee weapons and guns. Lincoln's bodyguard carried pistols, a bowie knife, and a civilian flail weapon called a slungshot. Police carried firearms and melee weapons such as billie clubs, jacks, and slungshot. Same for the "criminal element": Bare hands, guns, knives, clubs, etc. It was common. Still is.

Yes but I am talking formalized martial arts in society as a whole. For some reason those specific realities don't appear to have filtered into "middle america" for lack of a better term. That is largely my issue

My best guess: Less entertainment value combined with a general misunderstanding of what real fighting is.

Agreed, hence why I also think popular culture has a big influence.

Anyone I know?

I properly named him in my last post. Are you familiar with Danny Xuan | eWingChun. However contrary to that brief bio he is back in Canada now. Teaching small classes and closed door training from what I know. I only know him from his book "The Tao of Wing Chun" but I did quote him in the prior post as he explains what he saw as the cause of the decline of Martial Arts in China in the late 19th and early 20th Century.

Well, yeah. Of course. But it was also pretty well understood that 1) civilian fighting was different from military fighting and 2) civilian fighting not only didn't go away, it's actually more common.

It is more common now, in terms of formal martial arts. My point is that, specifically and only in terms of societal mass appeal, there was a "dark age" of sorts in the West that slowly began in the 1500's, accelerated with the industrial revolution, and then saw a "roll back" in the post WWII era.

In the Western martial arts world? I've read them. I have good friends writing them. I've written some myself.

oh they certainly exist but again as a "niche" genre, I am talking about what would, for lack of a better term be the "mass paper back" sales, New York Times best sellers list etc. They again have certainly seen a resurgence in the post WWII era but that "drought" of mass appeal that lasted a couple centuries did have an effect.

Yeah, you could say that I'm familiar with Bartitsu.

I want to become familiar with it. There is a gentleman who gives demonstrations regularly near me BUT he doesn't run a formal school from what I have heard and instead just does demonstrations and private training. Mark Donnelly profile

A big part of that is because, to mind of the western fighting man, firearms were just one (very very important) aspect to fighting. That said, I agree that to much of the non-fighting public, they couldn't really understand the need for unarmed or melee methods in light of the obvious superiority of the gun (and it truly is a superior weapon).

That middle bit is basically my main thrust. Even though we seem to be having a resurgence in Martial Arts though I sometimes fear that Sifu Danny Xuan was correct when he said this as well...

The person who thinks that he can just go to any MMA school, learn some techniques, and walk into the ring or cage for a match, is likely to go home with a concussion instead of a gold belt and the bullion he expected. So don't think for a moment that we're living in a martial arts renaissance period presently just because we have thousands of schools and millions of practitioners, or because Hollywood, Hong Kong anjd Cable TV are producing a multitude of shows featuring martial arts and martial artists. In fact, this is more an indication that martial arts, per se, is now at its nadir rather than it's zenith. When ever Tom, Dick and Harry is now a sensei, sifu, grand master or great-grand master, you know that the martial arts are not experiencing the richest period in their history.

This is why, when I decided to go back to martial arts, it took me a year to find the right sifu (no exaggeration). I didn't even really care what art it was. I called and emailed teachers regardless of the art, I simply asked them questions regarding my specific needs. I tried a couple but in the end said "nope". Not to the arts themselves but to the sifu's. Some were insisting that techniques would work in real life and after almost 20 years in my career I would say "bull hockey", though never out loud. Though I will admit, out of frustration, once to dropping a Hapkido black belt with a simple rush and arm bar because he was all about big telegraphing kicks and did diddly with his arms. The school was one of those classic McDojo's where Hapkido meant TKD with some wrist locks thrown in. Yes that was my last day there and I will admit I largely tried it because I could walk to the place from home in less than 5 minutes. Finally I found my current sifu, who knows what "combatives" mean (and has operational experience to back it up), BUT it was a LONG time to find him, even though his place is only a 20 minute drive away, simply because in my area there is so much to wade through.

Here is the "short list." (meaning just within 20 minutes of my house.)

1 school that teaches Tien Shan Pai, Hung Gar, Yang and Sun style Tai Chi, Qugong, Hsing I, Wing Chu and Wushu. This place has 15 "sifus", 3 assistant instructors and one person calling themselves Sigung. That made me nervous out of the gate, especially when on the Web site the guy is refered to as "Grand Master".
1 Wing Chun and Inosanto Kali (my school)
1 Wing Chun and Yang style Tai Chi
1 Ryushinkan Karate
something like a dozen TKD/Hapkido schools
1 Aikido Dojo but the Sensi was honest and admitted to teaching the non-combative form out of the gate
2 Krav Maga

I actually could keep going with all of the "Karate" dojos. One calls itself karate teaching "the hybrid martial arts styles of Tae Kwon Do, Kung Fun, and a Phillippino stick art." That made me twitch. There are just so many I wonder sometimes if this resurgence is a good thing.

 

[lklawson]

Indeed but Teddy was a very unique man. If we were in Ancient Roman times I would have an idol to him as he would be my "House god" lol.

You and me both, my friend. He's my favorite president. I'm in the middle of a biography right now focusing on his post-presidency years.

I properly named him in my last post. Are you familiar with Danny Xuan | eWingChun.

No, not a friend of mine.

I want to become familiar with it. There is a gentleman who gives demonstrations regularly near me BUT he doesn't run a formal school from what I have heard and instead just does demonstrations and private training. Mark Donnelly profile

Mark is a friend. When I wrote that I'm familiar with Bartitsu, I was being a bit self-effacing I'm afraid. I teach Bartitsu and am considered one of the founding members of The Bartitsu Society, though not the driving force in it. I also am credited in both Bartitsu Compendium's I & II (compendi?) for my contributions of historic material (mostly in pugilism) and assistance in editing, though, again, I wasn't the driving force behind either of those. I've taught a number of seminar classes on Bartitsu. I don't remember if I was Tony's assistant at the seminar where Mark was first exposed to Bartitsu or not, but it's possible. Mark is a talented martial artist and researcher. I really enjoyed his work on Naval Cutlass. If he's close enough to you and you have sufficient interest, most definitely go train with him.

This is why, when I decided to go back to martial arts, it took me a year to find the right sifu (no exaggeration). I didn't even really care what art it was. I called and emailed teachers regardless of the art, I simply asked them questions regarding my specific needs. I tried a couple but in the end said "nope". Not to the arts themselves but to the sifu's. Some were insisting that techniques would work in real life and after almost 20 years in my career I would say "bull hockey", though never out loud. Though I will admit, out of frustration, once to dropping a Hapkido black belt with a simple rush and arm bar because he was all about big telegraphing kicks and did diddly with his arms. The school was one of those classic McDojo's where Hapkido meant TKD with some wrist locks thrown in. Yes that was my last day there and I will admit I largely tried it because I could walk to the place from home in less than 5 minutes. Finally I found my current sifu, who knows what "combatives" mean (and has operational experience to back it up), BUT it was a LONG time to find him, even though his place is only a 20 minute drive away, simply because in my area there is so much to wade through.

Here is the "short list." (meaning just within 20 minutes of my house.)

1 school that teaches Tien Shan Pai, Hung Gar, Yang and Sun style Tai Chi, Qugong, Hsing I, Wing Chu and Wushu. This place has 15 "sifus", 3 assistant instructors and one person calling themselves Sigung. That made me nervous out of the gate, especially when on the Web site the guy is refered to as "Grand Master".
1 Wing Chun and Inosanto Kali (my school)
1 Wing Chun and Yang style Tai Chi
1 Ryushinkan Karate
something like a dozen TKD/Hapkido schools
1 Aikido Dojo but the Sensi was honest and admitted to teaching the non-combative form out of the gate
2 Krav Maga

I actually could keep going with all of the "Karate" dojos. One calls itself karate teaching "the hybrid martial arts styles of Tae Kwon Do, Kung Fun, and a Phillippino stick art." That made me twitch. There are just so many I wonder sometimes if this resurgence is a good thing.

Your story is dishearteningly common. Lots of places and too few which are any good and also match your needs and personality. I'm glad you found something that you like.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[7BallZ]

OK this is getting far from the original topic.

As the OP, I was asking why boxing and mainstream wrestling REMOVED eg based attacks. Why not even styles that were flourishing locally such as Savate and Native American Wrestling ever became big enough to at least come into the Olympics?

Why did Queensberry style boxing in the West for example far surpass MMA style ring fighting equivalents that existed back then?

I mean Vale Tudo and other similar MMA style sports quickly exploded into popularity in Brazil but look further and you'll not Brazillians always had a UFC style sport even before Asian martial arts penetrated that country.

To put another anoalogy hell Russian Sambo was gaining quite the rage before World War 2 and that was before Asian influence severely entere the movesets. Early "Sambo" competitions were using traditional Russian moves. But once the Soviet Union began to move more and more into a Western style society within the confined of communism, boxing and American style wrestling exploded into popularity. Far eclipsing Sambo (even though tis still a popular style for beginners to learn as they enter MMA).

Russia is an example of this European phenomenon of highly restricted sports quickly eclipsing local styles however popular they were including one, endorsed by the Soviet military which is Sambo.

How come in Asia and South America even as boxing became a cashcow mainstream sport, they never eclipsed local styles that focused on more bodily movements such as arm bars, sweeps, etc?

I already know there is mention of boxing's gambling system but why couldn't savate and other sports develop the same thing in the West? I mean there were "MMA style" gambling in Brazil for as long as the country had its independence as an example. We can even include kung fu tournaments in the 18th and 19th century China if we want to be lenient in definition of "gambling" and "spectator" sports.

 

[Juany118]

You and me both, my friend. He's my favorite president. I'm in the middle of a biography right now focusing on his post-presidency years.

No, not a friend of mine.

Mark is a friend. When I wrote that I'm familiar with Bartitsu, I was being a bit self-effacing I'm afraid. I teach Bartitsu and am considered one of the founding members of The Bartitsu Society, though not the driving force in it. I also am credited in both Bartitsu Compendium's I & II (compendi?) for my contributions of historic material (mostly in pugilism) and assistance in editing, though, again, I wasn't the driving force behind either of those. I've taught a number of seminar classes on Bartitsu. I don't remember if I was Tony's assistant at the seminar where Mark was first exposed to Bartitsu or not, but it's possible. Mark is a talented martial artist and researcher. I really enjoyed his work on Naval Cutlass. If he's close enough to you and you have sufficient interest, most definitely go train with him.

Your story is dishearteningly common. Lots of places and too few which are any good and also match your needs and personality. I'm glad you found something that you like.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Thanks on the last. Regarding Mark though he comes to Bethlehem and other places near me for demonstrations. But Harrisburg is a good 90 minutes away. Not only would I love to study Bartitsu but he also teaches at a Dueling and Fencing Academy out there and I LOVE fencing, even though I haven't practiced the art since before I joined the Army.

 

[Juany118]

OK this is getting far from the original topic.

As the OP, I was asking why boxing and mainstream wrestling REMOVED eg based attacks. Why not even styles that were flourishing locally such as Savate and Native American Wrestling ever became big enough to at least come into the Olympics?

Why did Queensberry style boxing in the West for example far surpass MMA style ring fighting equivalents that existed back then?

I mean Vale Tudo and other similar MMA style sports quickly exploded into popularity in Brazil but look further and you'll not Brazillians always had a UFC style sport even before Asian martial arts penetrated that country.

To put another anoalogy hell Russian Sambo was gaining quite the rage before World War 2 and that was before Asian influence severely entere the movesets. Early "Sambo" competitions were using traditional Russian moves. But once the Soviet Union began to move more and more into a Western style society within the confined of communism, boxing and American style wrestling exploded into popularity. Far eclipsing Sambo (even though tis still a popular style for beginners to learn as they enter MMA).

Russia is an example of this European phenomenon of highly restricted sports quickly eclipsing local styles however popular they were including one, endorsed by the Soviet military which is Sambo.

How come in Asia and South America even as boxing became a cashcow mainstream sport, they never eclipsed local styles that focused on more bodily movements such as arm bars, sweeps, etc?

I already know there is mention of boxing's gambling system but why couldn't savate and other sports develop the same thing in the West? I mean there were "MMA style" gambling in Brazil for as long as the country had its independence as an example. We can even include kung fu tournaments in the 18th and 19th century China if we want to be lenient in definition of "gambling" and "spectator" sports.

And I explained it earlier. In terms of Sports, it was about making them "civilized" similar to all the rules MMA has today. In terms of societal popularity at large, all you need do is look at West vs East and then look at the pace of technological advancement, especially in war/aka martial arts.

Savate has its origin among French merchant sailors... not exactly people that the bulk of French Society looked up to as an example.

Kung Fu tournaments still existed in China in the 18th And 19th Centuries because firearms were FEW and far between. If you look at a post of mine above I quote a Wing Chun Sifu born and raised in Asia who ties the decline of MA in China to the Western Powers showing up with modern firearms in the late 1800's actually.

 

[lklawson]

OK this is getting far from the original topic.

As the OP, I was asking why boxing and mainstream wrestling REMOVED eg based attacks.

Kicks were comparatively rare in Boxing to start with. This was true for a number of reasons, mostly related to social pressure. For instance, retaining a lot of kicks would make Boxing, the English fist-fighting art, seem too similar to Savate, a French fist-fighting art. You remember how much the English and French loved each other, right?

There was also a distinct difference in fighting "strategies." English boxing, prior to the Marquis rules allowed grappling, tripping, and throwing. If the other guy had better hand skills, crash range, clinch, and throw him. That strategy doesn't really require good kicking and, in fact, a base assumption to it is that kicking range either will not be entered or will be quickly passed through if one of the fighters desires that. This assumption seems to be born out in the many Boxing vs Savate matches as well as in modern MMA where kicking range is only maintained as long as both fighters decide to stay there.

Why not even styles that were flourishing locally such as Savate and Native American Wrestling ever became big enough to at least come into the Olympics?

Gads! The Olympics are the great homogenizing force of the sports world! Put something in the Olympics and pretty soon that becomes the primary focus of most of the practitioners of that art or sport. Just as any Judoka who studied (or lived through) the inclusion of Judo in the Olympics.

Why did Queensberry style boxing in the West for example far surpass MMA style ring fighting equivalents that existed back then?

Money and booze-grabbers. Moral crusaders of the time thought that pre-Marquis boxing and especially American "Up and Down Fighting" was brutal and uncivilized (and Up and Down really was). Fans also would drink and philander at fights. All very unchristian. The Marquis rules helped civilize it. There's also the fact that to be truly popular the general public has to want to try it themselves. Most people, even then, didn't want serious training injuries and a black eye was bad enough even up through the 40's to label one as a ruffian and not someone who you'd let date your daughter. There was some pushback on this, of course. Everyone knows the Boxing Catholic Priest cliche. So the rougher sports weren't as likely to get and keep people who couldn't go to their factory job with a tweaked shoulder. People don't want to pay to get hurt and they would rather pay to watch people engage in a sport they are familiar with and practice. No one in the U.S. wants to play or watch rugby and no one in the U.K. wants to play or watch American Football.

I mean Vale Tudo and other similar MMA style sports quickly exploded into popularity in Brazil but look further and you'll not Brazillians always had a UFC style sport even before Asian martial arts penetrated that country.

Cultural differences. Was there a Brazilian version of Carrie Nation?

To put another anoalogy hell Russian Sambo was gaining quite the rage before World War 2 and that was before Asian influence severely entere the movesets. Early "Sambo" competitions were using traditional Russian moves. But once the Soviet Union began to move more and more into a Western style society within the confined of communism, boxing and American style wrestling exploded into popularity. Far eclipsing Sambo (even though tis still a popular style for beginners to learn as they enter MMA).

Umm... Sambo has Judo and Jujutus as core base arts.

I already know there is mention of boxing's gambling system but why couldn't savate and other sports develop the same thing in the West?

They did. But you're forgetting two things. First, WWI hit France way harder than England. It's been estimated that over 95% of all Savate Silver Gloves (highest rank) were killed in WWI. Then the Olympics homogenized "combat sports" and there was a greater emphasis on Boxing and none, internationally, on Savate.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[7BallZ]

And I explained it earlier. In terms of Sports, it was about making them "civilized" similar to all the rules MMA has today. In terms of societal popularity at large, all you need do is look at West vs East and then look at the pace of technological advancement, especially in war/aka martial arts.

Savate has its origin among French merchant sailors... not exactly people that the bulk of French Society looked up to as an example.

Kung Fu tournaments still existed in China in the 18th And 19th Centuries because firearms were FEW and far between. If you look at a post of mine above I quote a Wing Chun Sifu born and raised in Asia who ties the decline of MA in China to the Western Powers showing up with modern firearms in the late 1800's actually.

Many of the early pugilists tended to come from manual labor background with a significant portion being criminals.

Hell even today most professional boxers are from poverty background with some famous names even being from violent ghettos and a few even being ex- gang members.

Not to mention very few upperclass men would shame themselves by going into prizefighting for a living. They tended to hire random blokes who looked strong for their bouts.

The musket rifles is BS explantation since we are talking about civilian ringfighting. I mean what about Brazil with it MMA style gambling? The country had gained its independence in the 1800s and it was by that point modern enough to have riflemen as the norm.

Why did boxing become so popular in Mexica in the 1800s even though it was much more modern relative to many colonies at the time? Mexico even defeated France, a world power, around the same time the Civil War was going on.

Yet even though boxing has far dominated the Mexican sport scene with only baseball and soccer surpassing it, Mexican Lucha is pretty big. I know its mostly choreographied but Lucha includes kicks, elbow smash, sweeps, leg loocks, etc.

So that doesn't explain the West's giving up on leg techniques in mainstream sports.

 

[7BallZ]

Kicks were comparatively rare in Boxing to start with. This was true for a number of reasons, mostly related to social pressure. For instance, retaining a lot of kicks would make Boxing, the English fist-fighting art, seem too similar to Savate, a French fist-fighting art. You remember how much the English and French loved each other, right?

There was also a distinct difference in fighting "strategies." English boxing, prior to the Marquis rules allowed grappling, tripping, and throwing. If the other guy had better hand skills, crash range, clinch, and throw him. That strategy doesn't really require good kicking and, in fact, a base assumption to it is that kicking range either will not be entered or will be quickly passed through if one of the fighters desires that. This assumption seems to be born out in the many Boxing vs Savate matches as well as in modern MMA where kicking range is only maintained as long as both fighters decide to stay there.

Gads! The Olympics are the great homogenizing force of the sports world! Put something in the Olympics and pretty soon that becomes the primary focus of most of the practitioners of that art or sport. Just as any Judoka who studied (or lived through) the inclusion of Judo in the Olympics.

Money and booze-grabbers. Moral crusaders of the time thought that pre-Marquis boxing and especially American "Up and Down Fighting" was brutal and uncivilized (and Up and Down really was). Fans also would drink and philander at fights. All very unchristian. The Marquis rules helped civilize it. There's also the fact that to be truly popular the general public has to want to try it themselves. Most people, even then, didn't want serious training injuries and a black eye was bad enough even up through the 40's to label one as a ruffian and not someone who you'd let date your daughter. There was some pushback on this, of course. Everyone knows the Boxing Catholic Priest cliche. So the rougher sports weren't as likely to get and keep people who couldn't go to their factory job with a tweaked shoulder. People don't want to pay to get hurt and they would rather pay to watch people engage in a sport they are familiar with and practice. No one in the U.S. wants to play or watch rugby and no one in the U.K. wants to play or watch American Football.

Cultural differences. Was there a Brazilian version of Carrie Nation?

Umm... Sambo has Judo and Jujutus as core base arts.

They did. But you're forgetting two things. First, WWI hit France way harder than England. It's been estimated that over 95% of all Savate Silver Gloves (highest rank) were killed in WWI. Then the Olympics homogenized "combat sports" and there was a greater emphasis on Boxing and none, internationally, on Savate.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

But early boxing had stomping and were not against using the legs to prevent enemies from escaping or even "sweeping" to score points during clinch range (even if it was against the rules as regulations were getting stricter, it was still being done). Even by London Prize Rules, it was still common to step on another boxer's foot so you can prevent him from outboxing while pummeling him. Not kicking techniques, but still using the legs in a way to hurt or aid in scoring.

Early Sambo, in its experimental stage, was mostly Russian wrestling. Hell the Soviet Union initially used the term as a catch praise for a style uniting all Russian wrestling and hand to hand before Judo and Jujutus were significantly added into the style by the 30s. Even than, boxing and modern western wrestling still surpass pure sambo as a sport (despite sambo's popularity as a starting style to learn for MMA).

Another analogy, Catch as Can Catch wrestling isn't popular in the Anglo world as arm-based college wrestling is outside the UK and even there boxing surpasses it in popularity. Even before Greco Roman, arm-based wrestling was more and more popular In colleges and academies in the west. Wrestling is nowhere as brutal as boxing and bar fights are with the submission/pinning point rules. Don't tell me moral guardians found even that violent?!

 

[Juany118]

Many of the early pugilists tended to come from manual labor background with a significant portion being criminals.

Hell even today most professional boxers are from poverty background with some famous names even being from violent ghettos and a few even being ex- gang members.

Not to mention very few upperclass men would shame themselves by going into prizefighting for a living. They tended to hire random blokes who looked strong for their bouts.

The musket rifles is BS explantation since we are talking about civilian ringfighting. I mean what about Brazil with it MMA style gambling? The country had gained its independence in the 1800s and it was by that point modern enough to have riflemen as the norm.

Why did boxing become so popular in Mexica in the 1800s even though it was much more modern relative to many colonies at the time? Mexico even defeated France, a world power, around the same time the Civil War was going on.

Yet even though boxing has far dominated the Mexican sport scene with only baseball and soccer surpassing it, Mexican Lucha is pretty big. I know its mostly choreographied but Lucha includes kicks, elbow smash, sweeps, leg loocks, etc.

So that doesn't explain the West's giving up on leg techniques in mainstream sports.

I think you are confabulating cultures. In Western Europe and the USA it has been the Middle Class, since the Industrial revolution, that defines mass appeal/popularity. The one thing Marx got right was the power of the bourgeoisie.

If you noted I said that it was slow until the Industrial Revolution which brought us breech loading rifles, vs muskets, that accelerated the situation. I also think you miss what Kirk speaks of, the puritan nature of Western European culture in the 18th and 19th century.

Finally, if you think France under Napoleon III was a "World Power" you need to study history again. That France was a paper tiger which invaded Mexico under the idea of "free trade" because the tbought Mexico was an "easy target.". Between the to the reconstruction of Paris and the sponsorship of the Suez Canal, Napoleon had greatly over extended France let alone invasions across the Atlantic. They thought Mexico would be a "soft target". Mexico fought an insurgency type war and all you have to do is look at Vietnam to see how those can go when the money and/or political will is lacking.

 

[lklawson]

But early boxing had stomping and were not against using the legs to prevent enemies from escaping

It was considered "unmanly" to do it very often. Fans could (and did) get pissed at what they saw as "cheating" and crash the ring and beat the offender to death.

or even "sweeping"

There is some evidence of techniques such as "The Chip" (which is analogous to De Ashi Harai) and lots of evidence for throws which include legs. Those were closely associated with Bare Knuckle and were outlawed by the Marquis.

to score points during clinch range (even if it was against the rules as regulations were getting stricter, it was still being done). Even by London Prize Rules, it was still common to step on another boxer's foot so you can prevent him from outboxing while pummeling him. Not kicking techniques, but still using the legs in a way to hurt or aid in scoring.

Score points?

Early Sambo, in its experimental stage, was mostly Russian wrestling. Hell the Soviet Union initially used the term as a catch praise for a style uniting all Russian wrestling and hand to hand before Judo and Jujutus were significantly added into the style by the 30s.

No it wasn't. Both of the "founders" of Sambo studied Jujutsu and Judo, one of them even was awarded his Nidan from Kano, ims.

Another analogy, Catch as Can Catch wrestling isn't popular in the Anglo world as arm-based college wrestling is outside the UK and even there boxing surpasses it in popularity. Even before Greco Roman, arm-based wrestling was more and more popular In colleges and academies in the west.

I'm not entirely sure what you're claiming here. I think you're saying that CaCC isn't as popular as "Collegiate Wrestling." While that's true, you seem to be unaware that many Coaches and wrestlers remembered, practiced, and continued to teach CaCC. It's basically just a rule set that allows certain bars &tc. Gallagher, coaching Collegiate and High School styles, certainly taught bars, locks, and chokes in his 1939 Wrestling manual.

Wrestling by E. C. Gallagher (eBook) - Lulu

Wrestling is nowhere as brutal as boxing and bar fights are with the submission/pinning point rules. Don't tell me moral guardians found even that violent?!

Well, yes. Amateur boxers often wrestled. Amateur wrestlers often boxed. So yeah, to a degree, they went after wrestling too. But that's not really the reason CaCC lost popularity, I think. I think it's just that wrestling is harder to be a spectator sport. A slick move in wrestling doesn't look like much and an audience, particularly if not well versed in wrestling, might easily miss a decisive movement. It's easier to see a boxer hit a telling blow.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Kickboxer101]

I remember an interview on a DVD with bob wall and he said in the olden days kicking was seen as dirty fighting but as the time went on and the influence came in it became more acceptable and people knew more. I'm no expert but I'd simply say lack of knowledge or simply misconceptions

 

[Juany118]

I remember an interview on a DVD with bob wall and he said in the olden days kicking was seen as dirty fighting but as the time went on and the influence came in it became more acceptable and people knew more. I'm no expert but I'd simply say lack of knowledge or simply misconceptions

And what time period was he talking about? Such context is vital to this argument because we are basically talking, in terms of the the OP's question, about a time frame of 1500 through 1918. Clearly after that the influence of Asian Martial arts did indeed start to change the landscape and that pace grew by leaps and bounds post 1945.

With that being the case, when you look at "new" arts that tried to gain traction outside of specific niche groups, that also had kicking; Savate, Bartitsu, when created never gained traction outside their initial circles. Capoeria, invented by slaves, was practiced first only by slaves and then when slavery was abolished in Brazil was outlawed because the now free slave population was largely abandoned. As such practitioners became bodyguards and hitmen for warlords and crime lords (yep that's a good reputation.). It wasn't until the 1920's that government repression of the art began to decline and it wasn't until 1932 that the first formal school was established.

What I find odd, and would like to investigate is why the Asian Martial Arts became so popular and clearly effective Western arts are still little known. Most everyone knows the names "Karate" and "Kung Fu". Savate, Bartitsu, Capoeria, not so much.

 

[Langenschwert]

What I find odd, and would like to investigate is why the Asian Martial Arts became so popular and clearly effective Western arts are still little known. Most everyone knows the names "Karate" and "Kung Fu". Savate, Bartitsu, Capoeria, not so much.

Exoticism is certainly a factor. Another factor is WWI where many practitioners were killed and Asian MA filled the gap. Certainly if say Catch Wrestling had taken off in Europe, Judo would not have made the inroads that it did.