The role of sportive grappling in HEMA

[Jake Norwood]

Done. The new thread is here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=76

Please return to discussion of Grappling!

Jake

[Stewart Sackett]

The entire point of this thread is to compile evidence that ground-and-pound/submission grappling techniques existed in HEMA and then to discuss ways those techniques can be incorporated into modern Ringen competition.

While that’s certainly an interesting area of discussion, I do hope the scope of this thread can be a little broader than that.

Historically, I believe, sportive grappling was taught as a base for developing skills that would carry over into combat grappling & armed combat. When I started this thread it was in the hope that there could be some discussion as to how a limited sporting rule set & the training methods of sport could be used to create a foundation for Ringen training, much as they were historically. The nature of ground fighting in the larger art & how it should best be represented in sportive rules/training methods is an appropriate part of that theme & an important part, but it’s not all there is to discuss.

EDIT: I just looked at your blog. I see you got married. Congratulations!

[Keith P. Myers]

So is the answer to make it just another throwing art that people can't tell apart from everything else, instead of a well-rounded system that covers all ranges of the fight?

---Like I said before, I haven't been able to follow this thread closely so I have to admit I don't know all that has been said about ground-fighting. I was simply voicing what I thought was a valid concern. Do you agree with that concern or not?

I find it interesting that you use the phrase "what we develop." The art has already been developed. "Developing" Ringen is not our place. Our job is to resurrect what fighting men far more skilled than us developed through actual use on the battlefield and in the dueling ring 500+ years ago.

---Sure it has "been developed", but the guys that developed it aren't around to share their skills or experiences with us. So we are in a stage of "redeveloping" based on what we find in the manuals. And what we "develop" should follow those manuals as closely as possible in order to remain historic. And the fact is, those manuals just don't put much of an emphasis on ground-fighting.



As far as I'm concerned, the Masters and the manuals are the only authorities on what does and does not belong in HEMA. Therefore, I will vehemently oppose any argument against incorporating historical techniques into what we do. I frankly don't care if I hurt anyone's feelings in the process, especially if the only evidence they can offer against a particular technique amounts to "well, I just don't like it."[/quote]

--Did I say that? I don't think so. I just voiced a concern, which from what you say here it sounds like you share. So I'm not sure why you are using this "tone" with me. Of course I could just be reading you wrong.

[David James Knight]

And what we "develop" should follow those manuals as closely as possible in order to remain historic. And the fact is, those manuals just don't put much of an emphasis on ground-fighting.

The "tone" in the last comment wasn't directed at you. I do, however, have to reject your suggestion that the number of times something appears in the manuals determines whether it is important. Would you ever dare apply that same logic to techniques relating to longsword or other distinctly "European" weapons?

There are only a few langenspiess (lance/pike) techniques in all of the manuals combined (in fact, there are more groundwork images than pike images), yet we know from written sources that it was a primary European battlefield weapon for two millenia. The same is true for the number of halberd plates. Should we restrict langenspiess and halberd techniques in HEMA events because those weapons only appear in one or two manuals? Of course not.

Why, then, would the same reasoning be permissible with regard to groundwork? IMO, the answer is that, deep down, a lot of HEMAists are either non-grapplers afraid to admit there is a huge hole in the overall skillset (cough cough JC) or more concerned with maintaining outwardly "European" appearances than martial effectiveness/historical accuracy.

Those who have known me for a while will remember that even when I was in ARMA, I had little patience for the institutionalized knee-jerk fear of things that "look too Asian." The same mentality is at play here when guys who are totally opposed to groundfighting argue that it will make Ringen "look too much like MMA/BJJ." The irony is that the very same logic that those people otherwise use to validate our weapon studies ("The human body only moves in so many ways, so of course there are similarities between HEMA and X") completely defeats the "If we do X, Ringen will look like Y" argument.

In reality, if we take groundwork out of the system, Ringen will just look like Judo/classical Jiu Jitsu/Aikido/whatever. Yet that scenario seems to be just fine for a lot of people (and I'd be willing to bet that most of them are non-grapplers).

Again, no one is saying that we should turn this into German JJ. We're hardly getting "carried away." We've pointed to about twenty instances of groundwork in the manuals and made a clear case for ground-and-pound, with the addition of some very limited submissions from mount. That's a far cry from turning Ringen into a clone of MMA. I'd say that we're being extremely reasonable, especially given the focus of this thread. The ones who are being extreme are the ones who want to cut those twenty techniques out completely.

[David James Knight]

To add to the above point, there are ONLY FIVE MEISTERHAUEN. Each of those strikes gets, on average, ONE mention in each longsword manual. Yet they are arguably the most important five strikes in the Lichtenauer school. Again, the correlation between frequency and importance just isn't there.

All the manuals tell us is that there were only a few techniques that the authors thought were necessary in order to dispatch your opponent if you went to the ground. The fact that there weren't many such techniques in no way means that lots of unarmed bouts didn't end with them.

You can be an awesome grappler and only know a few submissions. In my experience, good grapplers aren't the ones who know 100 different submissions; they're the ones who are frighteningly good at 3 or 4 techniques. They just know exactly when to use them. It's not about quantity.

Also, in the historical context of HEMA, the modern "You can only legally use the minimum force necessary to protect yourself, so throw him and run" mentality that many modern MAs use to justify their lack of ground skills just didn't apply. After you use one of the 100+ throws in Mair, for example, to toss your opponent to the ground, unless you break a critical limb in the process (note that limb breaking-throws are far from the majority), how are you going to finish him? Answer: by mounting him and beating his face in, or by securing one of a handful of chokes/locks.

[Keith P. Myers]

The "tone" in the last comment wasn't directed at you.

---Ok. No problem!

Again, no one is saying that we should turn this into German JJ. We're hardly getting "carried away." We've pointed to about twenty instances of groundwork in the manuals and made a clear case for ground-and-pound, with the addition of some very limited submissions from mount. That's a far cry from turning Ringen into a clone of MMA. I'd say that we're being extremely reasonable, especially given the focus of this thread. The ones who are being extreme are the ones who want to cut those twenty techniques out completely.

---Good. I agree with the above. Sounds like we share the same concern. I apologize for not going through the thread more closely before my post. It sounds like you are on target.

[Jay Vail]

A lot of ringen looks like judo/aikido because it has the same technique base. I'd just call it wrestling since that's what it is and get on the mats with it. You're all making too big a deal about this.

[Mike Cartier]

I would like to ad that I do not consider Brazilian Jiujitsu Asian at all, in fact I consider it a western art. Its transition from japanese JJ was done in a typically western Combat Sport fashion with lots of pressure testing on the street. Pankration/Greek Wrestling too is distincly western and arguably the first real Ground fighting art. So there should be no knee-jerk reactions against "asianmethods" when it comes to ground fighting.,

[Jay Vail]

Basically what y'all need to do is integrate your ringen with your weapons practice. We're doing that down here. This Saturday, David T and I played daggers. We clinched and he threw me with Auerswald's short hip. It was well done. He had only practiced it in drills, yet he was able to apply it in free play. Just get to that point: drill the stuff and allow it in weapons play.

[Joel Norman]

Yeah, what Jay said.