While Silver wrote that as a criticism of the rapier & noted the importance of wrestling, at the same time he also generally discouraged grappling with his preferred weapons. For his "short sword" (which wasn't short, a 37-40in blade) alone, he had the following advice: "Do you never attempt to close or come to grip at these weapons unless it be upon the slow motion or disorder of your enemy." He viewed grappling as primarily defensive, something a fencer needed to know in case the enemy closed but not something they should seek out in most cases.
Excellent summary! As always, context is key and the qualifier "it depends" should be used liberally. Since the original discussion that Oz came up with I think stemmed from the fact that many people enter HEMA as their 'first' entry into a martial arts system, especially one with a combative/resistive element to it, he rightfully says that if you have prior experience in a combat system (in his personal experience 'wrestling') you will do better, and perhaps he feels HEMA as we think of it is Incomplete as a martial system if it's not preparing it's students to be able to deal with actual resistive opponents. Matt echos this by saying folks who do Olymic fencing are better at HEMA for it. I think your points have broader application, as if we look at many traditional martial arts which may not practice against non-compliant opponents (live sparring etc), and only go through individual forms, or paired kata, then those systems will struggle to be 'complete' martial systems, and their practitioners will only benefit if they have some other 'live' system that they are using in tandem...even if it is not entirely related. Your points about unarmed fighting not being a substitute for armed technique at the end of the day I think are spot on. Supplemental to, yes: replacement for, no.
Great point about the sport/kata distinction. You kind of need both specialized armed wrestling techniques and a context to practice them against resistance.
Grappling skill is certainly important for anyone who wants to be a well-rounded martial artist. Giacomo di Grassi expressed the belief that martial skill was about being able to defend oneself with anything whatsoever based on fundamental principles. Similarly, Silver thought "professors of arms ought to be skillful with all manner of weapons" & considered wrestling important. While grappling might not matter much for someone who just wants to do well in sabre tournaments or whatever, it was a key skill for historical soldiers, warriors, & anyone who wanted to be able to defend themselves in all situations.
But that is not the point of this discussion. Today many and many students of ANY martial art cross train other things in order to be well-rounded. But the point here is whenever HEMA should be based on wrestling or not. If it should be integral part if its traning. And simple answer is: No. For 2 reasons. 1st it was not designed that way. Every european manual we have (as far as i know) was designed with separate wrestling done by other teacher in mind. (cross training basically) (exception: Monte) 2nd it was prooven that it doesn't bring benefit for pure competition fencers. So it should remain recommended thing to cross train for people that wants to become more well-rounded. The same way Bjj is good for thai fighter or boxer if he wants that. But it is waste of time and effort to teach bjj class in boxing gym for people that want to compete in boxing.
I had a year or two of wrestling in middle school and I felt it was very valuable towards understanding the more stand up parts of Kung Fu and also weapons training like staff, dao, fan and spear. I made some similar conclusions to yours in a video response to Matt Easton's grabbing katanas video. Long relatively dull weapons like spear and rapier are excellent for grabbing, but the shorter and better at cutting a weapon is the more complicated grabs and grappling are. With a 5 inch blade controlling the opponent's weapon might be necessary to win, but you can easily die in the attempt.
Nah. In modern enviroment no takedowns / throws are allowed in both competitions and sparring. As we do not practice in a ring or on mats. So muay thai clinch-work and sweeps is far superior for fencer. Edit: Also there is one difference. In greco-roman your stance is better e.g. in folk/freestyle, but you are not training how to defend strikes while entering that much... and with weapons it is far worse than in e.g. MMA to take shot while entering. (jab into rib cage, with knife means puctured lungs). While in Judo you also rely a lot on Gi to make stuff work. The other thing is that in folkstyle / freestyle, sure you can time my attack and level change into takedown... but just turning my e.g. knife into icepick grip i can start taping you with that weapon into you back. Same as against bjj you can often tap them on side / back... that is all fine in unarmed stuff... but with arms... these taps are problem that needs adressing.... and these arts like Muay Thai or Sanda do better job at that.
Judo is always a great option,moreso here for its focus on foots sweeps and trips. Still,i believe that Aikido and Aikijutsu,for their wrist control,are also great choices. Shodokan maybe?
I'm reminded of a historical account where two samurai were fighting and neither could get the upper hand. (what follows is my paraphrase) One samurai's retainers helped wrestle the other guy to the ground. The standing samurai attempted to repeatedly cut the guy's head off but he had an iron neck protector. In the end the prone samurai told him to remove the neck protector then cut his head off......because he was going to die from embarrassment. Then the prone guy's retainers showed up, wrestled the other samurai to the ground where the formerly prone warrior chopped off his head. The moral of the story is that knowing how to wrestle can determine whether you are the chopper or the choppee.
i think wrestling moves are pretty important for swordsmanship, but its certainly not something you can just force. its important to be able to use your offhand to engender the opportunity for a safe finishing move. The difficult thing is that these opportunities are quite transient, and if you attempt to initiate one too optimistically you risk tossing your initiative while opening yourself up in a single moment. It works well if your opponent expects you to retreat and play keep-away.
Hi, Thanks for the well thought out response! Firstly, can I say how much I'm enjoying the debate around this subject. It makes a real pleasant change for a group of HEMA folk to disagree online and still be able to be friendly and respectful. I think thr point around different types of weapons needing different grappling styles is a very interesting one and I'm glad you raised it. I do think though, like Matt did, you miss thr fundamental reason why so many of the original masters recommended it. It's not to add extra techniques to your fencing repertoire, it's so you can develop the fundamentals of combat in a way that is relatively safe, while still allowing you to train with 100% resistance. Even now, we can't do that when weapons are involved... That makes you a better fighter. No question.
Thanks for clarifying! I have also thoroughly enjoyed this discussion, and without a doubt I believe that training grappling is much better than not. In the context of getting good at Hema tournaments, I am still not sure if focusing on grappling before picking up the sword is necessary for weapons like military saber. However, I do think that you are onto something because in Chinese martial arts, most systems trained unarmed skills at the beginning before moving on to weapons training.
None of the manuals say that. None of them were designed with wrestling as part of the class done by fencing master. But as a cross training excercise done by someone else. If gaining combat fundamentals were the goal of it, than it would be supervised by fencing instructor and part of same martial art. (as it is in some chinese traditions)
@@EnglishMartialArts Ok i have cooled down a little. So i will be more mature. (i will explain why this topic is triggering on so many level later) What i dislike about your points mostly is additions of "why", by your side. Nobody is arguing that some master claim that wrestling is base of their art. Some more some less. But none write why they claim it. And you present thing like "because it builds you up, makes 100% resistance possible safely etc etc."... Well that is nice theory. But still a theory. And the problem with that theory is that it simply doesn't make sense for these reasons to be even considered at that time. All we need to do is to look e.g. at Castiglione's Il Libro del Cortegiano. What are some of the physical excercises noble should do? Bullfighting, Group battles, jousting etc etc. You seriously consider fencing less safe? Or feats of Bohemian expedition to French court... slaming full speed full force into the wall from horseback... yeah fencing is soooooo unsafe for these people. What makes far more sense why would one claim that his art is based on wrestling is status. Wrestling was noble activity, fencing was not. Sure one needed to know how to defend onself, but it was not to be practised to often. (once again look e.g. in the Castiglione) While most fencing masters looks like burghers that got into nobility because of their skill. And as many scholars claim, the whole fencing masters (e.g. in German speaking countries) are based on really good guys that prepared people or taken in stead the judicial duel. So it would make sense for them to claim it is based on something more noble and more complex. But every guess is as good as the other. But we can look at data. I was one of the guys promoting wrestling in HEMA rules long long time ago. As i started with it. But i am also well aware because of it, that it really doesn't offer much for fencing. Sure one can build sandcastles about it. But just look at the evidence. How many wrestler based HEMAist do well in competition, compared to other bases? Not many. Far more sport fencers do well. And that is the thing why it triggers me. It is a lie. It will not help you develop fencing, it will only slow you down. It is harmfull to do in my opinion (which can be wrong) for competitive fencer now. Sure if you looking for something to cross train or need different explanation go for wrestling, it is probably after muay thai / sanda clinch work best option for you. But if you do not need it, don't bother with it. And i even do knife fighting and i would still say kick-boxing with clinch work (like said muay thai or sanda) is better for cross training. Other thing that is triggering is that you nitpick to much. E.g. you say something like: "lichtenauer tradition is based... because this guys wrote this..." well sorry to break it for you. But this tradition has huge ammount authors, that correct, change and edit huge ammount of stuff over the years, you can't nitpick one and say the system is based on something.
Very good analysis. I saw both other videos before catching this one. I agree with you that it does depend on the actual weapon you are using to answer whether or not grappling would be beneficial. I did not think through why that is as carefully as you did. I will note, that those types of weapons that do seem to call for grappling do seem to teach grappling techniques as part of the system as a whole.
Thanks for watching! Yes, you are correct that the manuals for the weapons which are more grapple inclined involve grappling techniques. Though certain takedowns and throws which exist in these systems also appear in lots of modern systems and in my experience, the modern systems usually have much better technique, speed, and power than fencers who train an occasional foot sweep. Even the premier grappling art of BJJ frequently does a pretty awful job at getting students to execute clean takedowns despite the fact that it is immensely helpful in the sport.
I was always so curious about this sine I see some sword forms with kicks and how most saber forms have the palm extended with the weapon behind them or overhead
It happened to me the other way around. I started empty handed martial arts, and there were a lot of movements in the form that I didn t understand the purpose of, until i started learning weapons techniques.
The grappling , open-hand training is the base and recommended by a multitude of historical sources , either by the way these are laid out or by expressly stating it. Good examples of this are the Fiore MSs and the earlier Geselschaft Liechtenauers manuscripts.
When Oz said binding employs grappling he meant the dynamic of the bing is grappling-like, not that the range is closer. He discussed the pushing, yielding and redirecting involved in binding. I think this makes sense to Chinese stylists because we extend a grappling-like perspective to striking through sticky hands.
yes grappling is important, since you should train from long range to short range weapons, to be always prepared 1. ranged 2. spear 3. sword 4. knife 5. unarmed.
I would also say that if you want to grapple with a swordsman, you'd better have a weapon in your hand or you won't get close enough to grapple. Going unarmed against an experienced swordsman is akin to suicide.
traditional chinese martial arts tend to emphasize practicing empty hand kicking, striking, throwing, and grappling and joint locks before learning weapons since they lay the foundations for body mechanics and complement the closequarter part of weapons. Additionally, one shall master a style's dedicated tactics through empty hand techniques and these tactics carry over into weapons training later on.
Yes, a vast majority of styles are like this. However, some such as Wudang jian or qingping jian were weapons styles without any unarmed component. In the past this was more common with other weapons as well such as meihua spear, but eventually unarmed styles became more popular and they added the weapons to their curriculum over time.
Yes. And after years and years of training, they can't compete with advanced beginer practitioners of HEMA as was shown multiple times at competitions. It's waste of time. The idea is based on bad and outdated pedagogy. It's like saying: dude if you want to be good boxer, you should start with judo and than box.... No you shouldn't. If you want to box, than box... modern teachers now know how to teach body mechanincs and tactics in their art separately. You no longer need holistic training. Sure if you want to compete in MMA, than you should learn that. Or if you are just a scholar that want's to know for a sake of knowing. But if you do to much stuff you will excel at none.
@@thescholar-general5975 yeah i feel like some styles tend to use weapons as pure training tools, like the oversized bagua saber. it's definitely unwieldly as a weapon against other swifter weapons like katana or europear sabers.
@@lollel6149 Bagua is one of my favourite styles. It in my opinion realized one of the fundamental flaws in thinking that bodymechanics of unarmed stuff are transferable to armed stuff. In bagua "weapon is your teacher". Because swinging and manipulating relatively long and sort of heavy thing made out of metal / wood + metal changes everything. The momentum is soooooooo much different. And what is considered e.g. wide and compact swing in boxing and sabre fencing is very different. In some armed combat strikes done only with fingers and wrist can be legit small / light strikes (and proper body movement)...
I come down on side that its better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. I would point out that almost every sword culture also taught their warriors grappling. Because fighting is inherently chaotic.
We refer to the opinion of experts in lieu of more meaningful data which are easily available in other fields of sport and combat. The authority of an expert is measured by his fighting experience, knowledge of the relevant skills and by how much his opinion is valued by the community. That is weighed against any possibly bias. Someone who would have done well in both fencing and wrestling competitions would be the minimal requirement to debate the issue. Otherwise, no one and everyone is an expert on everything.
Thanks for watching! I have trained both fencing and grappling for a number of years, and while expertise is valuable, I think that evidence speaks for itself regardless of whether or not someone is considered an expert. You are correct that having real data is much more useful than speculation. That is why my claims here are informed by evidence presented within historical sources as well as lots of sparring footage and experience. My academic training relied primarily qualitative analysis of sources as opposed to quantitative methods. So I am mot really equipped to conduct proper data analysis with large sample sizes and statistics. If you or someone you know is able to conduct a quantitative study of grappling within sword combat arts, than I would love to see the results!
While Silver wrote that as a criticism of the rapier & noted the importance of wrestling, at the same time he also generally discouraged grappling with his preferred weapons. For his "short sword" (which wasn't short, a 37-40in blade) alone, he had the following advice: "Do you never attempt to close or come to grip at these weapons unless it be upon the slow motion or disorder of your enemy." He viewed grappling as primarily defensive, something a fencer needed to know in case the enemy closed but not something they should seek out in most cases.
Thanks for adding more context! Unsurprisingly, Silver has layers of rapier critique baked into his broader arguments.
Good point on the different types of grappling you tend to encounter with different weapons
Thanks for watching!
Excellent summary! As always, context is key and the qualifier "it depends" should be used liberally. Since the original discussion that Oz came up with I think stemmed from the fact that many people enter HEMA as their 'first' entry into a martial arts system, especially one with a combative/resistive element to it, he rightfully says that if you have prior experience in a combat system (in his personal experience 'wrestling') you will do better, and perhaps he feels HEMA as we think of it is Incomplete as a martial system if it's not preparing it's students to be able to deal with actual resistive opponents. Matt echos this by saying folks who do Olymic fencing are better at HEMA for it.
I think your points have broader application, as if we look at many traditional martial arts which may not practice against non-compliant opponents (live sparring etc), and only go through individual forms, or paired kata, then those systems will struggle to be 'complete' martial systems, and their practitioners will only benefit if they have some other 'live' system that they are using in tandem...even if it is not entirely related. Your points about unarmed fighting not being a substitute for armed technique at the end of the day I think are spot on. Supplemental to, yes: replacement for, no.
Great point about the sport/kata distinction. You kind of need both specialized armed wrestling techniques and a context to practice them against resistance.
Every HEMA-school I have ever seen or heard of does live sparring though
Grappling skill is certainly important for anyone who wants to be a well-rounded martial artist. Giacomo di Grassi expressed the belief that martial skill was about being able to defend oneself with anything whatsoever based on fundamental principles. Similarly, Silver thought "professors of arms ought to be skillful with all manner of weapons" & considered wrestling important. While grappling might not matter much for someone who just wants to do well in sabre tournaments or whatever, it was a key skill for historical soldiers, warriors, & anyone who wanted to be able to defend themselves in all situations.
Yes, I would agree that being able to wrestle makes a swordsman way more rounded and able to adapt.
But that is not the point of this discussion. Today many and many students of ANY martial art cross train other things in order to be well-rounded.
But the point here is whenever HEMA should be based on wrestling or not. If it should be integral part if its traning. And simple answer is: No. For 2 reasons. 1st it was not designed that way. Every european manual we have (as far as i know) was designed with separate wrestling done by other teacher in mind. (cross training basically) (exception: Monte) 2nd it was prooven that it doesn't bring benefit for pure competition fencers.
So it should remain recommended thing to cross train for people that wants to become more well-rounded. The same way Bjj is good for thai fighter or boxer if he wants that. But it is waste of time and effort to teach bjj class in boxing gym for people that want to compete in boxing.
I had a year or two of wrestling in middle school and I felt it was very valuable towards understanding the more stand up parts of Kung Fu and also weapons training like staff, dao, fan and spear. I made some similar conclusions to yours in a video response to Matt Easton's grabbing katanas video. Long relatively dull weapons like spear and rapier are excellent for grabbing, but the shorter and better at cutting a weapon is the more complicated grabs and grappling are. With a 5 inch blade controlling the opponent's weapon might be necessary to win, but you can easily die in the attempt.
Greco Roman or Judo are probably the best options for swordsmen looking to accelerate their grappling for swordfighting I think.
I would tend to agree, but I practice Judo so I am definitely biased here lol
Nah. In modern enviroment no takedowns / throws are allowed in both competitions and sparring. As we do not practice in a ring or on mats. So muay thai clinch-work and sweeps is far superior for fencer.
Edit: Also there is one difference. In greco-roman your stance is better e.g. in folk/freestyle, but you are not training how to defend strikes while entering that much... and with weapons it is far worse than in e.g. MMA to take shot while entering. (jab into rib cage, with knife means puctured lungs). While in Judo you also rely a lot on Gi to make stuff work. The other thing is that in folkstyle / freestyle, sure you can time my attack and level change into takedown... but just turning my e.g. knife into icepick grip i can start taping you with that weapon into you back. Same as against bjj you can often tap them on side / back... that is all fine in unarmed stuff... but with arms... these taps are problem that needs adressing.... and these arts like Muay Thai or Sanda do better job at that.
Judo is always a great option,moreso here for its focus on foots sweeps and trips. Still,i believe that Aikido and Aikijutsu,for their wrist control,are also great choices. Shodokan maybe?
I'm reminded of a historical account where two samurai were fighting and neither could get the upper hand. (what follows is my paraphrase) One samurai's retainers helped wrestle the other guy to the ground. The standing samurai attempted to repeatedly cut the guy's head off but he had an iron neck protector. In the end the prone samurai told him to remove the neck protector then cut his head off......because he was going to die from embarrassment.
Then the prone guy's retainers showed up, wrestled the other samurai to the ground where the formerly prone warrior chopped off his head.
The moral of the story is that knowing how to wrestle can determine whether you are the chopper or the choppee.
i think wrestling moves are pretty important for swordsmanship, but its certainly not something you can just force. its important to be able to use your offhand to engender the opportunity for a safe finishing move. The difficult thing is that these opportunities are quite transient, and if you attempt to initiate one too optimistically you risk tossing your initiative while opening yourself up in a single moment. It works well if your opponent expects you to retreat and play keep-away.
Hi, Thanks for the well thought out response!
Firstly, can I say how much I'm enjoying the debate around this subject. It makes a real pleasant change for a group of HEMA folk to disagree online and still be able to be friendly and respectful.
I think thr point around different types of weapons needing different grappling styles is a very interesting one and I'm glad you raised it.
I do think though, like Matt did, you miss thr fundamental reason why so many of the original masters recommended it. It's not to add extra techniques to your fencing repertoire, it's so you can develop the fundamentals of combat in a way that is relatively safe, while still allowing you to train with 100% resistance. Even now, we can't do that when weapons are involved...
That makes you a better fighter. No question.
Thanks for clarifying! I have also thoroughly enjoyed this discussion, and without a doubt I believe that training grappling is much better than not. In the context of getting good at Hema tournaments, I am still not sure if focusing on grappling before picking up the sword is necessary for weapons like military saber. However, I do think that you are onto something because in Chinese martial arts, most systems trained unarmed skills at the beginning before moving on to weapons training.
None of the manuals say that. None of them were designed with wrestling as part of the class done by fencing master. But as a cross training excercise done by someone else. If gaining combat fundamentals were the goal of it, than it would be supervised by fencing instructor and part of same martial art. (as it is in some chinese traditions)
@WilliamKeloren none of the manuals say that? Really? You've read all the manuals? Even the ones I directly quoted from?
@@EnglishMartialArts Ok i have cooled down a little. So i will be more mature. (i will explain why this topic is triggering on so many level later)
What i dislike about your points mostly is additions of "why", by your side. Nobody is arguing that some master claim that wrestling is base of their art. Some more some less. But none write why they claim it. And you present thing like "because it builds you up, makes 100% resistance possible safely etc etc."... Well that is nice theory. But still a theory. And the problem with that theory is that it simply doesn't make sense for these reasons to be even considered at that time. All we need to do is to look e.g. at Castiglione's Il Libro del Cortegiano. What are some of the physical excercises noble should do? Bullfighting, Group battles, jousting etc etc. You seriously consider fencing less safe? Or feats of Bohemian expedition to French court... slaming full speed full force into the wall from horseback... yeah fencing is soooooo unsafe for these people.
What makes far more sense why would one claim that his art is based on wrestling is status. Wrestling was noble activity, fencing was not. Sure one needed to know how to defend onself, but it was not to be practised to often. (once again look e.g. in the Castiglione) While most fencing masters looks like burghers that got into nobility because of their skill. And as many scholars claim, the whole fencing masters (e.g. in German speaking countries) are based on really good guys that prepared people or taken in stead the judicial duel. So it would make sense for them to claim it is based on something more noble and more complex. But every guess is as good as the other.
But we can look at data. I was one of the guys promoting wrestling in HEMA rules long long time ago. As i started with it. But i am also well aware because of it, that it really doesn't offer much for fencing. Sure one can build sandcastles about it. But just look at the evidence. How many wrestler based HEMAist do well in competition, compared to other bases? Not many. Far more sport fencers do well. And that is the thing why it triggers me. It is a lie. It will not help you develop fencing, it will only slow you down. It is harmfull to do in my opinion (which can be wrong) for competitive fencer now. Sure if you looking for something to cross train or need different explanation go for wrestling, it is probably after muay thai / sanda clinch work best option for you. But if you do not need it, don't bother with it. And i even do knife fighting and i would still say kick-boxing with clinch work (like said muay thai or sanda) is better for cross training.
Other thing that is triggering is that you nitpick to much. E.g. you say something like: "lichtenauer tradition is based... because this guys wrote this..." well sorry to break it for you. But this tradition has huge ammount authors, that correct, change and edit huge ammount of stuff over the years, you can't nitpick one and say the system is based on something.
Very good analysis. I saw both other videos before catching this one. I agree with you that it does depend on the actual weapon you are using to answer whether or not grappling would be beneficial. I did not think through why that is as carefully as you did. I will note, that those types of weapons that do seem to call for grappling do seem to teach grappling techniques as part of the system as a whole.
Thanks for watching! Yes, you are correct that the manuals for the weapons which are more grapple inclined involve grappling techniques. Though certain takedowns and throws which exist in these systems also appear in lots of modern systems and in my experience, the modern systems usually have much better technique, speed, and power than fencers who train an occasional foot sweep. Even the premier grappling art of BJJ frequently does a pretty awful job at getting students to execute clean takedowns despite the fact that it is immensely helpful in the sport.
I was always so curious about this sine I see some sword forms with kicks and how most saber forms have the palm extended with the weapon behind them or overhead
Yes, striking in sword fighting is a whole different topic to cover at some point!
It happened to me the other way around. I started empty handed martial arts, and there were a lot of movements in the form that I didn t understand the purpose of, until i started learning weapons techniques.
@@leonardovegaolmedo5483 Yes this is another important thing to consider, especially in Chinese martial arts.
@@thescholar-general5975 indeed
The grappling , open-hand training is the base and recommended by a multitude of historical sources , either by the way these are laid out or by expressly stating it. Good examples of this are the Fiore MSs and the earlier Geselschaft Liechtenauers manuscripts.
By total coincidence, in the video you linked, Vincent's opponent Jon was Assistant instructor at Dr. Yang's seminar over the weekend. Small world.
love how you say it out has fact
I am glad you enjoyed the video!
When Oz said binding employs grappling he meant the dynamic of the bing is grappling-like, not that the range is closer. He discussed the pushing, yielding and redirecting involved in binding.
I think this makes sense to Chinese stylists because we extend a grappling-like perspective to striking through sticky hands.
yes grappling is important, since you should train from long range to short range weapons, to be always prepared 1. ranged 2. spear 3. sword 4. knife 5. unarmed.
I would also say that if you want to grapple with a swordsman, you'd better have a weapon in your hand or you won't get close enough to grapple. Going unarmed against an experienced swordsman is akin to suicide.
Yeah, I didn’t even mention that in the video because pulling that off is way more luck than skill.
traditional chinese martial arts tend to emphasize practicing empty hand kicking, striking, throwing, and grappling and joint locks before learning weapons since they lay the foundations for body mechanics and complement the closequarter part of weapons. Additionally, one shall master a style's dedicated tactics through empty hand techniques and these tactics carry over into weapons training later on.
Yes, a vast majority of styles are like this. However, some such as Wudang jian or qingping jian were weapons styles without any unarmed component. In the past this was more common with other weapons as well such as meihua spear, but eventually unarmed styles became more popular and they added the weapons to their curriculum over time.
Yes. And after years and years of training, they can't compete with advanced beginer practitioners of HEMA as was shown multiple times at competitions.
It's waste of time. The idea is based on bad and outdated pedagogy.
It's like saying: dude if you want to be good boxer, you should start with judo and than box.... No you shouldn't. If you want to box, than box... modern teachers now know how to teach body mechanincs and tactics in their art separately. You no longer need holistic training. Sure if you want to compete in MMA, than you should learn that. Or if you are just a scholar that want's to know for a sake of knowing. But if you do to much stuff you will excel at none.
@@thescholar-general5975 yeah i feel like some styles tend to use weapons as pure training tools, like the oversized bagua saber. it's definitely unwieldly as a weapon against other swifter weapons like katana or europear sabers.
@@lollel6149 Bagua is one of my favourite styles. It in my opinion realized one of the fundamental flaws in thinking that bodymechanics of unarmed stuff are transferable to armed stuff. In bagua "weapon is your teacher". Because swinging and manipulating relatively long and sort of heavy thing made out of metal / wood + metal changes everything. The momentum is soooooooo much different. And what is considered e.g. wide and compact swing in boxing and sabre fencing is very different. In some armed combat strikes done only with fingers and wrist can be legit small / light strikes (and proper body movement)...
A tree's stem or trunk has a minimum 3-inch diameter at 4.5 feet above ground. The stem then has a full crown of foliage at the top.(copy paste
I come down on side that its better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
I would point out that almost every sword culture also taught their warriors grappling. Because fighting is inherently chaotic.
We refer to the opinion of experts in lieu of more meaningful data which are easily available in other fields of sport and combat. The authority of an expert is measured by his fighting experience, knowledge of the relevant skills and by how much his opinion is valued by the community. That is weighed against any possibly bias. Someone who would have done well in both fencing and wrestling competitions would be the minimal requirement to debate the issue. Otherwise, no one and everyone is an expert on everything.
Thanks for watching! I have trained both fencing and grappling for a number of years, and while expertise is valuable, I think that evidence speaks for itself regardless of whether or not someone is considered an expert.
You are correct that having real data is much more useful than speculation. That is why my claims here are informed by evidence presented within historical sources as well as lots of sparring footage and experience. My academic training relied primarily qualitative analysis of sources as opposed to quantitative methods. So I am mot really equipped to conduct proper data analysis with large sample sizes and statistics. If you or someone you know is able to conduct a quantitative study of grappling within sword combat arts, than I would love to see the results!
😀
Thanks for watching!
dao is more stable on the chen structure
Do you care to elaborate? Do you mean the dao as is the saber and Chen structure as in Chen Taiji saber?
*promo sm* ☺️
the hat on your head is dao