Striking in unarmed Medieval/renaissance MA

[Jason Taylor]

I agree with most of the above.

Jason, that would be wonderful. I´d love to get an eye on your project. I won´t alas be there in person, but if you could send it it would be super.

One thing I´ve been thinking about is ringen in a competing contex, was the handstrikes and the kicking banned in such contests and as such mostly abandoned during the period between 400 and 1700 AD? In pankration it´s clearly evident it was in use and in the early modern era the pugilism became popular. But in between?

Absolutely; I'll send it along when it's done. I'll probably deliver it and then make adjustments (I always find things to change when I'm teaching something) and then send it your way. I'd like to hear your take on some of it as a Kampfringen guy, as well.

I think the injury potential is another good reason that we see wrestling separated: without high-density foam and other headgear/gloves, it's tough to practice full-out striking with intent and not kill yourself or your knuckles.

Jason

[ericbryanwiggins]

Ok, I'm going to totally regret bringing this up.

Disclaimer: The group I'm in is in no way historical. We do not fight with historical techniques or historical weapons or wear historical gear. I'm not proposing that what we do in this group is in any way a perfect comparison to harnisfechten, but it is "dudes all-out punching and kicking other dudes in gear that is kinda like armor."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HTiTVW5QKE --> "Hardest Hits" video, including lots of grappling and striking (make sure your audio is turned down to avoid the Drowning Pool)
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... =0&spell=1 --> General search for our other vids, in case you're interested in what our matches actually look like.

In my experience, melee strikes are definitely effective at disorienting and temporarily disabling armored opponents. I've had my helmeted bell rung numerous times by punches and kicks and have "rung a few bells" myself. I would not say they are in any way superior to weapon strikes, but think they are definitely a useful tool in the right situations.

There is an account of a duel de Gueslin, the marshal of France, once fought . It started on horseback, then went to standup. Eventually, the combatants ended up wrestling and then on the ground, both fully armored. The account says that de Gueslin won the fight by reaching under the skirt of the other guy's chain mail and grabbing his junk. If he could have produced good results by pounding the guy in the head with his mailed fist, I would think he would have done so. Yet he didn't. Why?

Most European armor is like an enclosed carapace. When an armored opponent is in contact with the ground, most of the force of your blows is transferred through the armor to the ground. Unless you crush the armor in, little of the force is transferred to the wearer. When an armored opponent is upright, you get the whole "brain ganging against the skull" effect but your opponent is the brain and the armor is the skull, if that makes sense.

[John Harmston]

Most European armor is like an enclosed carapace. When an armored opponent is in contact with the ground, most of the force of your blows is transferred through the armor to the ground. Unless you crush the armor in, little of the force is transferred to the wearer. When an armored opponent is upright, you get the whole "brain ganging against the skull" effect but your opponent is the brain and the armor is the skull, if that makes sense.

+1

[Jonathan Waller]

While experience of modern situations of wearing "armour" and how effective it is or isn't against punches etc. is interesting it doesn't mean much in relation to the historical works that show few or no such strikes.

As has been pointed out in a enernest situation weapons would be involved or close at hand, as such you need to control or prevent the weapon. So whats the return on a strike in comparrison to grappling? If my life is on the line I'll go for percentages and take the option that works the most often.

This for me explains the lack of striking in European and Japanese armoured combat ringen.

While modern experience in things like armoured fighting gives insights we have to remeber that we are "playing" and how our minds and bodies react to hits and the stress we are under, doesn't tell us anything about how we would react if the fight were in ernest.

Best

[Jordan Hinckley]

Perhaps this si just my take on the matter. but I honestly, it seems like throws and disarms and whatnot could be more useful in a grapple than a straightaway punch. You are better, (in my mind at least) to close the distance and throw your opponent to the ground than to just punch him. But then again I have never understood simply punching when there are ways that you can move your opponents body as you need to without punching him but rather grabbing and throwing or putting a foot to the back of the knee thus throwing them off balance.

[Mike Ruhala]

But then again I have never understood simply punching when there are ways that you can move your opponents body as you need to without punching him but rather grabbing and throwing or putting a foot to the back of the knee thus throwing them off balance.

Because none of that is a fight stopper. If you throw someone to the ground they can get back up, or just lay there and blow out your knee with a kick. If you restrain someone that's great but what are you going to do with him? What are you going to do about his friends who are fast approaching?

Striking is not about making touches or inflicting pain. It's about destroying vision, depriving your opponent of the ability to breathe, breaking bones, inducing unconsciousness or even death... sometimes with a single blow. That's why every combat sport I can think of deprives strikers of the majority of their most effective techniques and forces them to wear padded gloves. There are grappling techniques that can do all that too but they require you to be all wrapped up around your opponent which can be problematic in some circumstances. That's why you need some skills in one even if you specialize in the other, both striking and grappling have their strengths and weaknesses. A good way to think about it is one's the cut and the other's the thrust.

[Jonathan Waller]

But saying that someone you throw to the groud can get up is is rather like saying some you punch can punch you back.
What we see in the manuals is grappling that throws you to the ground on your head. If you put them down its on their front or in a way so they can't kick out you knee and you are controlling them its so you can draw or pick up something as a weapon.
Controlling some one and smashing them into a wall is a way to strike them with something harder than a fist, knee or elbow.

Now i'm not saying that striking is ineffective. But we have to come back to the fact that it plays a very small part in the majority of sources.

The main reason in my opinion is that if 1 - you can strike then strike them with a weapon. 2 - If you don't have a weapon smash them in to the ground control them and get or draw a weapon and strkike them with it. 3 - they have a weapon and you don't. Then control them smash in to the ground and take their weapon or go to 2 and repeat if necessary.

Best

[Andrew Maxwell]

Hi Mike,

I don't necessarily disagree with everything you've said, but I have to take issue with this:

That's why every combat sport I can think of deprives strikers of the majority of their most effective techniques and forces them to wear padded gloves.

Boxing gloves are designed primarily to protect the hands of those hitting, not those being hit. Sparring gloves do have extra cushioning so hit a bit softer, but actual fight gloves do little to protect those on the receiving end. There is considerable evidence, actually, that boxing gloves make KOs and brain injury far more likely, because fighters can hit harder and with less fear of injury to their hands. I doubt many boxers would agree that the gloves deprive them of their best techniques, either. The reduction of the number of deaths in modern boxing has much more to do with Queensbury rules (no throws, limited round numbers and fighters eliminated if unable to stand) than it does to do with the introduction of gloves.

[Mike Ruhala]

What we see in the manuals is grappling that throws you to the ground on your head.

The same sort of throw is actually used in boxing as well, we call it the cross-buttock. Unfortunate name.

If you put them down its on their front or in a way so they can't kick out you knee and you are controlling them its so you can draw or pick up something as a weapon.

I don't know what manuals you specifically work from, I have Talhoffer and Meyer, my KDF instructor primarily teaches from Meyer. All I can say is that if you don't have hold of somebody you don't have control of them and even if you do have hold of them you still may not. I don't know where you live but if we happen to run into eachother at a seminar I think it'd be neat to go over some of these scenarios in a sportsmanlike manner. I have kind of a weird background so things like up/down or front/back don't mean the same thing to me when on the ground.

Controlling some one and smashing them into a wall is a way to strike them with something harder than a fist, knee or elbow.

I agree with that completely though being strike-oriented I'd be more likely to use a wall or the ground as an anvil. Kind of appropriate since I'm into blacksmithing... anyway hard isn't really the problem, focusing and delivering energy are what's really critical. For instance your palm is pretty soft but it can be a very effective striking weapon.

Now i'm not saying that striking is ineffective. But we have to come back to the fact that it plays a very small part in the majority of sources.

I'm with you actually, the only difference is era and context. KDF is very important to me but my primary study is the Art Of Defence as known in the 18th and 19th centuries. Grappling was alive and well in that era but boxing had also risen to prominence and between the two I personally prefer it except when swords are involved... even then much of the wrestling component of my boxing carries over.

The main reason in my opinion is that if 1 - you can strike then strike them with a weapon. 2 - If you don't have a weapon smash them in to the ground control them and get or draw a weapon and strkike them with it. 3 - they have a weapon and you don't. Then control them smash in to the ground and take their weapon or go to 2 and repeat if necessary.

Best

I'm all good with that. As I said it's like the cut and thrust, in this case your art is a little more cut oriented than mine. My main point is in any situation don't discount the strike, even if you don't use it much yourself your opponent may and if you're not guarded against it that might put you at a disadvantage... like a striker who doesn't grapple. A real world example would be I've been held from the rear and used the back of my head against my enemy's face till he let go which is usually pretty quick. Come to think of it that's been done to me too.

Control is a whole nother issue though. I toyed with the concept for a while when it was first introduced to me but I'm not a big believer in control anymore. I seek neutralization.

[Mike Ruhala]

Boxing gloves are designed primarily to protect the hands of those hitting, not those being hit. Sparring gloves do have extra cushioning so hit a bit softer, but actual fight gloves do little to protect those on the receiving end. There is considerable evidence, actually, that boxing gloves make KOs and brain injury far more likely, because fighters can hit harder and with less fear of injury to their hands. I doubt many boxers would agree that the gloves deprive them of their best techniques, either. The reduction of the number of deaths in modern boxing has much more to do with Queensbury rules (no throws, limited round numbers and fighters eliminated if unable to stand) than it does to do with the introduction of gloves.

Hey man, no offense taken or intended but that's incorrect. I've trained in one form of boxing or another for most of my life but for the past decade or more it's been the 19th century styles. Boxing started out bare knuckled, boxers had specific training methods they used to condition their hands for bare knuckled striking and while I don't currently do that I did it for years. Gloves, or mufflers as they were called, were introduced for the same reason foils, federschwerts, singlesticks and any other Western training weapon was introduced; to make practice safer. It's a matter of history and recorded in the manuals.

It's not the gloves that deprive boxers of their most effective techniques, it's the rules. The gloves do alter things quite a bit though, they change the way the strikes work and some even use them as shields.