Is SCA "Combat" a martial art (however impractical

[Josh W]

It sounds to me like Mr. liguanming hears the phrase "Martial Art" and thinks only of comparatively modern strip-mall dojo imagery. He defines the term very narrowly, like most people with a background in modern Asian "martial arts," totally ignoring the origin of the English term.

I contend that things like Tae Kwon Do, Karate, Ninjutsu, etc. absolutely do not qualify as Martial Arts because they orginate in cultures that do not revere Mars, the war god, from whose name the term is derived.

[liguangming]

Josh,
I think i was simply looking for the systematic and codified study of the martial material. Eastern or western make no difference, it's simply a different word for the same thought, war or warring For instance in the chinese language wushu means military skill or method.

As the SCA in general we do not have systematic technique tutelage.

[Nissan Maxima]

...

[Saritor]

Nissan, you're only a helmet and a green miniskirt away from being dressed like Marvin...

[DukeAvery]

I find your cognitive process of transferring information very tasty.

I did have to fire up the smoker and lay down a haunch bathing in green chilies and apple juice.

[Steve S.]

But the definition of art does not require you have an actual opponent only that you train in a system of actual combat/self defense (SCA is not actual combat we train for the sport of SCA tournament) and archery and shooting guns meet the definition however like I said above who calls it a martial art?

Well, my definition of a martial art does require an actual opponent.

As Wikipedia says, "Martial arts or fighting arts are systems of codified practices and traditions of training for combat."

By this definition, SCA combat qualifies.

Steve

[Kilkenny]

The systematic study of scientific and pragmatic techniques used for attack and defense of one self or others, either armed or unarmed.

mm.. "scientific and pragmatic" ?

While I am not at all willing to buy into the above definition, I'm going to say that it would absolutely include SCA fighting.

Pragmatic - damn straight it is, we've worked this stuff up through 40 plus years of trial and error on the playground of the school of hard knocks. What we do works - what doesn't work gets abandoned pretty quickly.

Scientific - where does one want to go with that part ? We've got sophisticated understanding of the kinesthetics of our form. We've got some pretty decent understanding of how we generate power for our strikes. We've looked at what kind of damage is done by blows (both within context of our own combat and in the context of historical combat with the actual weapons our style seeks to simulate).

The problem is, both martial art and SCA fighting are the Elephant, being described by the three blind men, each touching a different part.

The Elephant remains an Elephant, whatever the descriptions may be

[Foxman]

The problem is, both martial art and SCA fighting are the Elephant, being described by the three blind men, each touching a different part.

The Elephant remains an Elephant, whatever the descriptions may be

LOL - if we can't agree on a definition of what a martial art is, we can't get to the next step, which is SCA combat a martial art or not.

I think the Wiki entries on Martial Arts and Sport Combat are the best unbiased definitions to use.

[Count Johnathan]

Damnit. Now our martial art/ sport/ whatever has been reduced to an elephant with blind men touching its...ahem parts.

That's just great.

Better than a lonely rhino I guess.

[Francisco Lopez de Leon]

If it is a technique or skill-set, designed for, or intentionally applicable to, voluntarily causing pain and trauma to the body of another human being in the pursuit of aggression or defense therefrom, it is a martial art.

[Theoderic]

There is only one way to test this out.

One martial artist using martial arts techniques vs 1 SCA fighter, each of advanced prowess. Each is allowed to use there own techniques, with some exceptions to avoid killing a person or permanently crippling them. The determining factor will be if one person yields to the others prowess.

I'd wager that the SCA fighter will be able to competently defend and attack the person that is under the classical interpretation a martial artist.

In MMA fighting almost no "Kung-Fu" styles exist as dominant martial arts in this fighting arena. Yet this does not demote such Chinese styles of martial arts from being a martial art.

My google-fu yields several SCA fighting styles all of which have proven to be affective in SCA and after viewing such form they appear a sound way to defend ones self or that of others in need. I have also read about events where SCA techniques are practiced such as one entitled 'Sport of Kings'.

The initial intent of the SCA was not a fighting system as many martial arts were. However the SCA has developed into a sport and a fairly competent fighting system.

I do not feel I would stand a chance against Anderson Silva however given a situation that required me to defend myself I would prefer to have learned SCA fighting opposed to nothing at all. SCA fighting helps break the fear of getting hit and analyzing a situation. In a pinch several items that can be found generally lying around and used as a weapon.

In searching these boards several threads have been uncovered discussing techniques and even comparing them to other martial arts of both the eastern and western persuasion. There is a constant evolution of the techniques involved as any great martial arts follows such an evolution in fighting.

As I understand it several knights impart lessons in and out of the SCA on living a good moral life. Many knights can also trace their lineage back several generations of knights.

In conclusion, the SCA is a form of Martial Arts that sprung from an innocent experiment in medieval and fantastical foray of combat, companionship and pageantry. The body of the SCA over several decades have shaped it into a fighting art that has adapted techniques from various styles and created new techniques as well.

[Sigifrith Hauknefr]

google-fu is not martial art.

[Count Johnathan]

I once was going to take a class in chow-dung but then I thought better of it.

All funny aside I have always been shocked by the lack of transfer from one martial art to another. I have seen many perform their eastern martial arts with grace and style. Then when they come play SCA rattan swordfighting it's like they put on a dunce cap.

I am not sure what it is about putting on armor that throws people off so bad but I have been able to train with many people who were quite advanced in their preferred martial art who had a hell of a time fighting in armour and using a weapon. All of the "martial artists" I have fought with were stunned by the speed and power of it and most were not used to getting hit. That seemed to be pretty shocking to them.

I still wouldn't want them to kick me in the face but my experience has been that what we do often is much faster, harder and more technically difficult to perform then what they expected after merely observing our fighting.

[Gaston de Vieuxchamps]

Most of you probably know Dog Brothers Martial Arts. They do full contact, unarmoured MMA style combat with rattan sticks and no armour. Most other FMA (Fillipino martial arts) guys think they are nuts.

About 8 years ago Baldar and I wanted to try it out (we eventually decided to do Three Seas instead) so I spent some time on their message boards reading and getting a feel for it. This was back when they mostly fought with their sticks. Since it's open to people from all styles, it's shifted more towards Brazilian Jiujitsu in recent years. The Dog Brothers started losing to 280lb grapplers so they all started studying Gracie, go figure.

Anyway, the subject of SCA fighters came up from time to time on the boards and the responses were very interesting. Typically you'd read stuff like, "Those guys have no technique", They're really slow", "They really don't like getting hit in the hand.".... but the Dog Brothers do their gatherings with full contact fighting a few times a year, the rest of the year most of them are like other modern martial artists and mostly do kata and drills. So Crafty Dog, who was probably their top instructor at the time responded with, "be careful not to underestimate SCA fighters." He went on to say our technique might not be pretty but we're used to getting hit a lot more than most of them are and we can take a hit better than 95% of the guys on the boards. Be prepared to get hit really hard and for the fight not to end quickly. Aim for the head and hands. Don't bother with the leg or thigh. Tire the SCA guy out....

A very revealing analysis I thought.

G

[RoaK]

My thinking is the effort you put into SCA heavy fighting equals about the result you get out of it. So it’s my opinion that SCA fighting can go between a recreational sport to a martial art.

Same goes for Kingdom armies efforts to be real armies.
That varies greatly for each reigon or kingpom

[Jon Barber]

Most of you probably know Dog Brothers Martial Arts. They do full contact, unarmoured MMA style combat with rattan sticks and no armour. Most other FMA (Fillipino martial arts) guys think they are nuts.

About 8 years ago Baldar and I wanted to try it out (we eventually decided to do Three Seas instead) so I spent some time on their message boards reading and getting a feel for it. This was back when they mostly fought with their sticks. Since it's open to people from all styles, it's shifted more towards Brazilian Jiujitsu in recent years. The Dog Brothers started losing to 280lb grapplers so they all started studying Gracie, go figure.

Anyway, the subject of SCA fighters came up from time to time on the boards and the responses were very interesting. Typically you'd read stuff like, "Those guys have no technique", They're really slow", "They really don't like getting hit in the hand.".... but the Dog Brothers do their gatherings with full contact fighting a few times a year, the rest of the year most of them are like other modern martial artists and mostly do kata and drills. So Crafty Dog, who was probably their top instructor at the time responded with, "be careful not to underestimate SCA fighters." He went on to say our technique might not be pretty but we're used to getting hit a lot more than most of them are and we can take a hit better than 95% of the guys on the boards. Be prepared to get hit really hard and for the fight not to end quickly. Aim for the head and hands. Don't bother with the leg or thigh. Tire the SCA guy out....

A very revealing analysis I thought.

My friend Rob (an SCA knight and Count) went out to one of the gatherings and fought - he did pretty well. We've done that sort of thing here too and the SCA guys do well enough.

[Zafir al-Th'ib]

It is, I think, a misguided question, ultimately.

The number one lesson of a decade of MMA is this: that (many) sport styles trump (almost all) "martial arts", because sport styles stress simply techniques that can be communicated relatively quickly and utilized in a high-stress free-form environment. So the divides between sport / budo / bujutsu are very much contested and complicated.

The SCA shares many positive things with the common MMA sport styles - to its credit. Limitations in equipment (real armour is rare), scope (way too broad), and technique (lack of training in many areas, lack of grappling) limit it somewhat.

Comparing, at a basic level, what SCA combat is, it can probably best be described as a somewhat limited recreation of 14th century behourd combat with a number of signal-to-noise issues. I'll still a bearpit over doing an invented kata based loosely on three drawings any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

[lochinvar76]

Chiming in late here... but when I first started fighting I thought of the SCA as nothing more than a simple game of 'boys hitting eachother with sticks' and greatly enjoyed that.

Then one night when I was stopping at a corner gas station to buy twinkies when I heard a girl scream from around the back of the store. Not going deep into details... but with just a broken 2x2 from a pallet on teh ground I was able to fend off four men, two armed with knives, and never took an injury to myself.

It was a life changing moment and to me, SCA fighting suddenly became a martial art. As my time in the game has gone on I've learned far more than simply hitting someone with a stick. I've learned how to command small units of men. I've learned how to sense and feel opportunity. I've learned to be aware of danger and gained a sense of everything around me. To see through the chaos of combat and know what I need to do.

Perhaps the act of swinging sticks aren't applicable in any form of true, armed combat, but the leadership and awareness is... and I can tell you, your local TKD dojo isn't going to teach you that.

[James B.]

It is, I think, a misguided question, ultimately.

The number one lesson of a decade of MMA is this: that (many) sport styles trump (almost all) "martial arts", because sport styles stress simply techniques that can be communicated relatively quickly and utilized in a high-stress free-form environment.

I could not disagree more; MMA is dominated by Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and Muay Thai combination fighting; they are both martial arts.

TDK and Karate are the ones that have gone down the road of sport as American water down the actual practice of martial arts and you don't see many fighters using TDK in the MMA ring.

[Zafir al-Th'ib]

It is, I think, a misguided question, ultimately.

The number one lesson of a decade of MMA is this: that (many) sport styles trump (almost all) "martial arts", because sport styles stress simply techniques that can be communicated relatively quickly and utilized in a high-stress free-form environment.

I could not disagree more; MMA is dominated by Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and Muay Thai combination fighting; they are both martial arts.

Well, I love BJJ and Muay Thai to death - did it BJJ for 8 years until having to retire because of knees - but BJJ was developed from Judo, and both BJJ and Judo stress constant open competition, the elimination of techniques 'too dangerous to use in comps' (and thus too dangerous to practice regularly), and a grab bag of using whatever works, no matter where it comes from (Kano stole the single-leg shoot from freestyle wrestling when developing Judo, for instance).

Leg kicks and elbows from Muay Thai are necessary for any fighter to learn, but other than that, it has had to be adapted pretty heavily to a freeform combat environment.

But you've left out the other two dominant MMA arts, freestyle wrestling and boxing, both sport arts, the former arguably much more than BJJ. A wrestler with 6 months of submission defense training will give a BJJer fits - hence, the fact that submission endings in MMA fights have been on a pretty sharp downward turn the last five years.

What do BJJ, Judo, Boxing, and Wrestling have in common? What I listed above. How do TKD and (most) karate fail? Katas, yeah, but their 'sport' does not closely mimic the environment they desire to train in. People will adapt their technique to win; it is human nature. So if your rules are off, your sport mutates into something that is less and less applicable to why you started training in the first place.

Now, SCA fighting is different, as almost none of us are really training to fight. But it's clear to me that we would be, and are, further along the path to actual fighting ability than any other group except maybe the Tu-Chux, because we test our technique in a fairly open environment, even if a lack of grappling, nonsense armour standards, and other pecularities have caused us to develop some odd and ineffective hiccups in our game.

[mordreth]

Insane Irish I'm not kidding at all.

The techniques vary for region to region and are not something we would have seen on the battlefield of the ancients.

Each area/kingdom/principality/barony/ are different so overall there is a complete lack of codified tradition.

No system that progresses from this movement to the next to complete a technique.

No ranking outside of one mans word and "peers". No ranking to dictate, on this level you learn this and so on.

It's played for our own fun and enjoyment much like cowboys and indians was when we were children.

The techniques vary for region to region and are not something we would have seen on the battlefield of the ancients.
My glave/halberd style (with which I have had some success) is primarily based on McClellans drill for the rifle musket, with bayonet, some parts were modified using an armed forces manual from the 30's - they were very much living martial arts when they were written.
I would like ot point out that Spanish/German/English styles were recognised

No system that progresses from this movement to the next to complete a technique.

What on earth are you talking about? I routinely use multiple attacks to open an opponent and there is very much a progression

No ranking outside of one mans word and "peers". No ranking to dictate, on this level you learn this and so on.

so what? When I played with escrima quite a while ago the philippinos tended to refer to someone as a master after he had kicked a sufficient number of asses.

[rob(in)]

My friend Rob (an SCA knight and Count) went out to one of the gatherings and fought - he did pretty well. We've done that sort of thing here too and the SCA guys do well enough.

hi, my name's Rob and i have a limited interest in my own safety.

yes i did the 6/05 Dogbrothers Gathering in Redondo Beach,CA.

at the time i had 13 years of SCA heavy and about two months of Balintawak training. my motivation was "does this stuff (SCA) really mean anything?" and it seemed like a good venue.

i was able to hold my own. best things the SCA gave me were: timing/angles/range. power generation was also no slouch. a lot of the DB guys use sticks about 24" long and about 1" thick. i just grabbed couple of my sword blanks for the trip, 36"x1.5". the big stick scared some of the guys. i couldn't hit as often, but i got results. while trading shots i got a nasty scalp cut, while breaking my opponent's radius. i was uncomfortable, he was down a limb. still almost choked me out with the good arm though.....*grumble*.

the problem with FMA as currently taught by many traditions is that it is a "wounding" style, meant to incapacitate you and allow for a big finish. this is excellent with the blades that FMA was based around, but with a stick you have to be ready when your "move" doesn't have the desired effect.

style was also on my side. none of them had seen offside snaps delivered w/ power or a molinee. also, caving in someone's fencing mask with a thrust was unheard of. some two handed body thrusts were seen, but none to the face like i did. not to mention i got to aim for knees/ankles after avoiding them for so long.

also, the SCA made me not afraid to be hit.

i don't know who showed up before me, but they really poo-poo'ed the idea that i was SCA, until i started hurting people.

a GREAT venue/group if you have the time and insurance.

on the OT, if you can call standing around in pj's, screaming and punching at air a martial art, then why not SCA heavy? i don't care about the label.

[brewer]

taking the techniques in Codex Wallerstein to understand how to displace the opponent's blade, snap his forearm and then stab him in the testicles with his own knife is a martial art.
learning the same actions by yourself while fighting in Glasgow's gorbals in the 1990's, however, *is'nt* a martial art - unless you take the techniques you learnt and start teaching them to others, in which case the martial art of "see yous jessie cunts, ye'z gunna die" is born.

This is probably the best post in this entire thread.

I think you confused "knife" with "broken Newcastle bottle", however, and need to add "Stitch this, Jimmy!" to the list of battle cries.



Here's the latest photo of the Glasgow Green School of Thuggery:

[Zafir al-Th'ib]

hi, my name's Rob and i have a limited interest in my own safety.

I always respect that in a man.

Great story. Have anything else to say about SCA techniques in that environment? Did you find yourself wary of, say, throwing wraps (as opposed to outside moulinets) because of the possibility that you might be taken down?

[rob(in)]

hi, my name's Rob and i have a limited interest in my own safety.

I always respect that in a man.

Great story. Have anything else to say about SCA techniques in that environment? Did you find yourself wary of, say, throwing wraps (as opposed to outside moulinets) because of the possibility that you might be taken down?

the molinees that i threw were "change ups": pass the head and hit the knee, and the reverse. those seemed to confuse them. threw one wrap, trying to get around the fencing mask and find some bone. landed well, but only stunned my opponent because he had about 4" of thick dreadlock padding. we did end up on the ground after he rushed me. i don't mind a ground game (Judo in highschool/college), but not my preference by a long shot.

also, the flat snap was a great tool. FMA patterns typically involve ascending/descending shots on the angles, with power focused on the forward third of the stick/blade. throwing my typical "stick punch" flat snap through the target, connecting with the middle of the stick really rocked one guy. this was because of the timing. crossing his centerline with my foot and using the middle of the sword brought the shot in sooner than he expected. he was planning on me throwing a long range shot and taking out my fingers while i was at full extension.

in FMA, the hands/wrists are primary targets. it's the old (now cliche') "defang the snake" approach.

[James B.]

It is, I think, a misguided question, ultimately.

The number one lesson of a decade of MMA is this: that (many) sport styles trump (almost all) "martial arts", because sport styles stress simply techniques that can be communicated relatively quickly and utilized in a high-stress free-form environment.

I could not disagree more; MMA is dominated by Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and Muay Thai combination fighting; they are both martial arts.

Well, I love BJJ and Muay Thai to death - did it BJJ for 8 years until having to retire because of knees - but BJJ was developed from Judo, and both BJJ and Judo stress constant open competition, the elimination of techniques 'too dangerous to use in comps' (and thus too dangerous to practice regularly), and a grab bag of using whatever works, no matter where it comes from (Kano stole the single-leg shoot from freestyle wrestling when developing Judo, for instance).

BJJ came from Jiu-Jitsu; the Gracies learned from a Japanese count living in Rio. Learning from a Gracie school you learn the martial art aspect as much as the sport aspect just like any other traditional school.

In your longer post which I did not want to quote the whole thing you leave out the fact that MMA, mostly BJJ, is also practiced by our modern military and if that is not proof of it being the vary definition of a martial art I don't know what is.

[Zafir al-Th'ib]

BJJ came from Jiu-Jitsu; the Gracies learned from a Japanese count living in Rio.

This is incorrect. BJJ evolved from Judo, as taught by a Kodokan Judoka named Mitsuyo Maeda, one of Kano's best students, who was one of Judo's 'ambassadors to the world'. Maeda never trained in what we think of as 'jiu-jitsu'; judo in its early days was often called 'Kano Jiu-Jitsu'. A quick net search will turn up the whole story.

Learning from a Gracie school you learn the martial art aspect as much as the sport aspect just like any other traditional school.

This is, again, a false dichotomy.

In your longer post which I did not want to quote the whole thing you leave out the fact that MMA, mostly BJJ, is also practiced by our modern military...

Because, being a practical, simple, competition-based system that has been tested, it works. Note however that even the U.S. Military is not immune to hype, and BJJ was introduced to military training at the same time the early UFCs were going on; contests that were essentially rigged up as infomercials for BJJ.

(sorry about the thread derail, boys; if you want to continue the conversation, James, let's do it in Off Topic)

[Kevin M]

I'm not an armored fighter in the SCA, so i've got no bone in this discussion either way.

Perhaps we're looking at this in the wrong way. Rather than asking "Is SCA combat in general a Martial Art?" we should be asking "Do I treat SCA combat as a Martial Art?". It's very clear that many on the board treat their SCA fighting as a martial art. There seems to be an issue about whether SCA fighting as a whole is a martial art.

As an outsider, it's hard to answer this question. There are guys in the SCA who go to practice a couple times a month and then get out to war a couple of times a year. Are they martial artists? They do SCA fighting, is their SCA fighting a martial art? There are others who train two or more times a week, do conditioning on the off days and try to integrate the philosophical aspects of medieval knighthood into their daily lives. Are they martial artists? They fight in the same places as the guys above, but they treat their fighting in a completely different way.

As a WMA guy and Classical Fencer, I used to mock modern fencers and anyone who hadn't seen the HEMA light. I laughed at SCA Armored combat as "slugs hitting each other". As I've grown, I've come to realize that it's not about WHAT they're doing, but HOW they approach what they're doing. I've seen too many "classical fencers" who use “it's classical fencingâ€

[Count Johnathan]

I agree whole heartedly with your perspective Kevin. Good post.

As a rattan fighter in the SCA I have seen many who do practice our fighting with a serious martial artist mindset and others who treat it like a game where they get to club folks like wild cavemen.

Both are correct in their approach yet they are very different.

[Syrfinn]

Very well put, Kevin.

[Richard Blackmoore]

Sydney Anglo's book covers western martial arts related to what we do fairly well, delving not only into the renn era combat of the title but also the medieval background that it developed from.

For me SCA combat is definitely a martial art. One that adapts elements of combat with weapons of war as well as those of medieval sport including baton combat a la Renee D'Anjou, with modern safety rules and thoughts, into a usable system. Those of us who can also ride a horse, would not be terribly out of place in a medieval tournament whacking each other with wooden clubs.

Is the SCA perfect? No. Is some of what we do silly? Sure, at times. But I'm more worried that an SCA trained fighter would kill me in a real fight assuming he had a stick in his hands, it would not even need to be a real sword or mace, than someone practicing several other martial arts. We practice SCA combat in a sporting format, certainly.

Go look at the Webster's definition of martial art. Heck I'll post it here:

If you don't think it is a practical combat art, the emergency room Dr.'s who treated the perfect 'nightstick fracture' of my ulna caused by relatively soft rattan, thinking it might have been from a hardwood police baton, would disagree.

I love the last paragraph of the Anglo intro's paragraph below. Certainly it isn't a stretch to say that the SCA version of combat is an extension of a martial art that my ancestor William the Conquerer used at the battle of Hastings to change the world forever.

Look at James Liu's MMA definition. Certianly it is a mixed martial art, an amalgm of a number of existing marshal arts, everything from boxing to Eastern/Asian, to Greco Roman wrestling to WWE, modifed heavily for safety with restrictions that prevent many of the more lethal techniques, some safety equipment (not much), modified to fit the chosen sporting environment (chicken wire or fencing material circles or UFC's modern stylized octagon version of cage fighting). Is the SCA's version of sword/club combat really that much different than medieval combat? No more so that MMA.

And we try to retain some of the ideals of the original spirit of the combat, sport and art, where MMA is really now mainly about winning and doing whatever you have to to win, whether it is true to the original sport/art or not. It makes what we do unique.

In MMA (which I like, so this isn't a complaint), you pick the most effective techniques that are legal based on the current rules and exploit them to maximum effect. In the SCA, we pick the most effective techniques that are legal based on the current rules and exploit them to maximum effect, but often eschew certain things we could use under the rules, simply choosing not to as we feel it inappropriate to the spirit of the combat & era (most people would won't use madu's for example, feeling they don't belong in medieval European combat. Many won't use a bow, even if it gives them an advantage, wanting the opponent to have a chance to strike them, not die at a distance where one is not putting oneself at risk.).

For all the SCA's flaws, it does quite a bit right.

Richard Blackmoore
KSCA East

"Exclusive Excerpts from
The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe
Introduction

Both the significance of these arts, and the fact that they have been largely ignored by historians, are easily established. While nobody has ever doubted the importance of expertise in the handling of weapons to the knightly classes of medieval Europe, our knowledge of what these skills were and how they were acquired remains generalized and inexact. More remarkably, the same holds true of the Renaissance when, despite the constant reiteration by humanist educational theorists of the value of training the body as well as the mind, we still know next to nothing about the practice of physical education and the provision of combat training for youths.

Furthermore, the techniques of personal violence were studied not only by emperors, kings, and princes, but also by their most humble subjects. The carrying and the use of lethal weapons was normal throughout the social hierarchy.

From the late thirteenth to the mid-nineteenth centuries, artists worked with masters of arms trying to record the techniques of personal combat.

... the masters sought to bring their skills to a wider audience...recording series of movements and of conveying information…systems of movement notation and illustration.

…and it is largely because of their endeavours to give some sort of permanence to their ideas that we are able to attempt a reconstruction of a very important but relatively little-studied subject in the history of ideas – the martial arts of renaissance Europe.

But it is still necessary to establish the martial arts within the broader contexts of intellectual, military, and art history while establishing more precisely what these activities were, and how they were systematized.

But their neglect [by historians] still constitutes an historiographical curiosity. The only serious treatment of these matters has been by historians of fencing, by students of arms and armour and, more recently, by re-enactors and enthusiasts for historical modes of combat. Unfortunately, historians of fencing were at their most active a century ago when they confined themselves principally to tracing the evolution of swordsmanship towards a wholly notional ideal constituted by their own practice; while, in any case, sword play was only one part of the many activities which together constituted the martial arts of the Renaissance. Specialists in arms and armour have carried out much meticulous research but, in their case, the centre of interest has inevitably been more with artefacts than activities. Serious modern re-enactors, on the other hand, while frequently aware of a far wider range of combat techniques than the old fencing historians and far more pragmatic in their approach to physical action than the armour specialists, still tend to base their reconstructions upon a limited number of primary sources – although this situation is changing rapidly."

A great many problems are involved here: the influence of historical, military and civil fashion; the definition of what precisely constitutes fencing; and debate concerning the use of point an edge, general principles of fighting, the mechanics of movement, and the psychology of combat."
In conclusion [in The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe] I briefly consider the relationship (or irrelation) between the techniques of personal combat – as taught by medieval and renaissance European masters – and real fighting either on the battlefield, the dueling field, or in streets and taverns.

...the licence with which I interpret the ‘renaissance Europe’ of my title requires, perhaps, a word of explanation. Although the bulk of the material in this book derives from late fifteenth – to early seventeenth-century sources, I believe that in the history of ideas there are few precise cutoff dates and I have, accordingly, pushed as far back as the thirteenth century and as far forward as the eighteenth (occasionally even to the twentieth) century simply because the sense of the material demands it. In those earliest treatises there are techniques of exposition, as well as descriptions of modes of combat, which were to be repeated and developed by the maters of the sixteenth century and later.

Similarly, some combat techniques receive their most sophisticated exposition in later works which I use to throw a retrospective light on texts which are otherwise obscure, while it has also seemed worthwhile, from time to time, to demonstrate essential continuities. No master of arms woke up one morning to find that his teaching had been rendered obsolete overnight because the Middle Ages had suddenly ended or that he had just missed the Renaissance by a few minutes."

James Liu's MMA definition:
"Mixed martial arts, better known as MMA, is a form of sports that involves the use of a mixture of martial art combat techniques to win over the opponent. MMA has become very popular in recent years and MMA championships like the "UFC" or Ultimate Fighting Championships have become very popular. MMA began with pitting one martial art technique with another under minimal rules, so that the martial art which would be the most effective in day to day life could be found. Modern mixed martial competitions have evolved from such events, but rules are much stricter due to which, the sport has been promoted into acceptance. However, there is no centralized sanctioning authority for mixed martial arts and the rules vary from place to place or organization to organization.

Striking and grappling are the common techniques used in MMA. Striking techniques involve kicks, knees and punches while grappling techniques involve the use of holds, sweeps and throws. Techniques like eye-gouging, biting and fish hooking are considered illegal in most MMA competitions. Other techniques like head butts, spinal locks and elbows may or may not be considered legal in different MMA organizations.

In MMA competitions, victory is based on the judge's decision, submission or knockout. A competitor's corner man can also decide the outcome of the match and so can the match doctor if the competitor is injured to an extent that he/she can no longer fight properly.

Competitors participating in MMA have to train themselves in a variety of fighting styles so that they can effectively overcome their opponents. MMA training usually involves stand up, clinch and ground combat. To make the stand up combat effective, boxing and kickboxing are taught. These improve kicking, punching, kneeing and most important of all-footwork. Freestyle wrestling is taught to improve clinching. Additionally, competitors are trained in Muay Thai to improve the striking power during a clinch. Training in Brazilian Jujitsu and Sambo improves ground combat by improving the competitor's positioning. Further, shoot wrestling, catch wrestling and judo are taught to enhance the competitor's ground combat abilities.

Some of the best competitors are well rounded fighters. But, they all specialize really well in one aspect of mixed martial arts. Sometimes this style is so dominant that it is overwhelming for the other opponent.

Success in modern martial arts lies in adapting many styles. These styles have to be altered accordingly. Today, MMA competitors do not train in a particular style but train all the styles together. Flexibility plays a very important role in succeeding in MMA competitions. MMA is physically a very demanding sport and being competent is the only key to success.



Read more: http://www.articlesnatch.com/Article/Mi ... z0kvRpbMNi
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution No Derivatives"

[rob(in)]

I agree whole heartedly with your perspective Kevin. Good post.

As a rattan fighter in the SCA I have seen many who do practice our fighting with a serious martial artist mindset and others who treat it like a game where they get to club folks like wild cavemen.

Both are correct in their approach yet they are very different.

heh. your post just made me think of two knights in particular that have the same opening attack: knock them to the ground. regardless of whether it hit the shield or the head, they'll get tired of getting back up eventually.

[Owyn]

I like Kevin's answer, too. I think you'll find that applies to most martial arts, though. My initial martial art was TKD - taught by an ex-infantry, ex-police officer. Did we go to tournaments sometimes? Sure. Did we train for that to the exclusion of real technique? Hell no. In fact, when I was later teaching Army combatives courses myself, the initial training I got was pretty useful.

Judo can be a martial art, or a sport, or both. Tai Chi is a very powerful and deadly martial art when taught that way - or can more closely resemble a dance class. The bottom line is that all of these things can be approached as martial art (a system of combat which includes a mental or philosophical element), or as a martial sport/athletic activity.

I definitely approach SCA combat as a martial art. I don't know that I'd have gotten involved if I didn't see that part of the activity.

[Ken Mondschein]

Since Kevin's jumping in (and I agree with his idea that we need to look at individuals in the SCA, rather than the SCA as a whole), I might as well, too.

I have a fencing student who's an SCA fighter, and in an e-mail to her earlier today vis-a-vis this very topic, I said that, rather than categorizing what the SCA does in relation to other activities or placing it in a presumed hierarchy (martial art = "good," martial sport = "bad"), we should just say that it is what it is, respect that people in the SCA feel the social relationships within the organization very deeply, and acknowledge that SCA people pursue excellence as it's defined in the SCA with the same zeal as everyone else pursues it within their own subcultures. It is not *bad*, it's just a completely different animal with different ends from koryu, the USFA, Western martial arts, academia, sci-fi fandom, etc.

So, rather than trying to classify it, why not just say it is what it is?

[carlyle]

Your post just made me think of two knights in particular that have the same opening attack: knock them to the ground. regardless of whether it hit the shield or the head, they'll get tired of getting back up eventually.

How perfectly medieval ...

So, rather than trying to classify it, why not just say it is what it is?

Seriously, dude, then how will we ever know if my fu is better than your fu ??

Alfred, all fu'd up