I'm going to post a rather interesting exchange of messages, between myself and Milo Thurston of the Lineacre School of Defence.
I'm going to do this, because I feel it helps lay certain cards on the table, so to speak, regarding looking at our chosen subject through various lenses; be they romantic, scholarly, practical or any number of others.
It's worth noting that military history, for instance, is studied by professors; but it is also (more importantly) studied by soldiers.
Of course the soldiers wouldn't HAVE the history to study, learn from and PUT TO USE if it wasn't for the researchers...
-----------------------
MODERN ANTAGONISTICS-
Hi there,
How's it going?
I've been reading some texts recently related to Defense Dans La Rue and similar, and I just wanted to ask, how well has your pugilism fared against modern boxers?
Have you needed to employ any of the wrestling strategies, etc.?
I'm really curious, because some of the older stuff seems more defensively minded, rather than the modern- typically aggressive- style.
I appreciate your insights and experiences.
Many thanks,
................................
LINEACRE SCHOOL OF DEFENCE-
Unfortunately I’ve not really had any great opportunity to test it against modern boxers; on the one occasion I did have a decent bout against someone very experienced in the modern sport he was also a skilled wrestler and we both avoided closing.
Although I do study various pugilistic arts my time is limited and most martial arts time is devoted to fencing.
From what I’ve seen, Renaud’s comments about the “American” system being best in the ring sounds about right.
Are you a modern boxer yourself?
Regards,
................................
MODERN ANTAGONISTICS-
Hi,
Thanks for the reply.
I have done a bit of boxing, judo and freestyle wrestling, and have begun to practice La Canne Vigny-
but I've not (yet!) got the skill or experience to call myself a boxer, judoka, wrestler or stick fighter!
I think some of the old styles of boxing probably would lend themselves better to MMA, with the wider stances and hands lower, ready to wrestle.
Punching only, I would guess that modern boxing is generally superior and would overwhelm an old pugilist, all things being equal.
We may never know this, as there are no professionals who have trained diligently for years in the old methods (that I am aware of), to make the comparison/test/challenge fair.
I'm planning to train in savate fairly soon (the modern sport version), and -as with the boxing, although to an even greater degree- I intend to blend aspects of 'old and new' when it comes to my own self defence approach.
Both have something to offer, to my mind.
Defense Dans La Rue provides the strongest framework for me,
both technically and philosophically, to marry or bridge the two modern fields of MMA and 'Reality Based Self Defence'/Combatives.
The old 'sport' vs 'street' argument is a moot point for me;
I have fought in both (more extensively in the latter), and I feel that a solid grounding in the former, adapted to the harsh demands of reality and factoring in an awareness of personal security,
represents that PERFECT MARTIAL ART (or as near to it) that many people are probably always seeking:
with health, social and play elements coupled with the ability to really fight, if circumstances demand.
I respect greatly the work of trailblazers like yourself and others (even if your aims aren't exactly the same as mine).
WATCH THIS SPACE for not just HEMA, but maybe MEMA (Modern European Martial Arts) ! Emoticono smile
Take care,
Good luck with your work.
.........................
LINEACRE SCHOOL OF DEFENCE-
(Quote) 'We may never know this, as there are no professionals who have trained diligently for years in the old methods (that I am aware of), to make the comparison/test/challenge fair.'
Indeed, that is a considerable difficulty. However, even if we can’t have that sort of test it does at least seem reasonable to assume that a style designed for the protection of the knuckles when punching without gloves or wraps is probably the one to pick when it comes to a defensive system.
(Qoute) 'I respect greatly the work of trailblazers like yourself and others (even if your aims aren't exactly the same as mine).'
Thanks! I hope that by providing material I can be of some service to those who have other focuses in the arts.
....................................
MODERN ANTAGONISTICS-
Hi again,
Here's where I can agree with you on the one part..........and agree to differ with you on another!
Punching without gloves indeed has its risks.
I know that, because I broke a bone in my hand on someone's head, which has psychologically put me off hitting anyone with a bare fist (not that I want to hit anyone nowadays- that's all in my wild past!).
The thing is, I had been hitting with a fist in numerous street fights over the course of many years, and until then had been quite happy with the 'product'! LOL
Modern boxing puts a lot of emphasis on aggressive exchanges and the knock out (unless you happen to be a sublime technician like Floyd Mayweather).
Perhaps in general, the average prizefighter today is weaker (or at least less careful) defensively than even those of 50 years ago- let alone 100 or 200.
One upshot of these differences is that the fights nowadays don't go 100 rounds or whatever- and the public love a fighter who can 'blow out' the opposition in quick time- incidentally exactly the sort of attacking, repeated blows that end most street fights.
In altercations of less intensity- where maybe someone just needs to be kept at bay, the jab night find more of a home (which conversely is where it can potentially help against multiple attackers, too).
Most real fights, if you can't get away from them, are best resolved by just smashing into the other guy (preferably using deception and 'going first'), and keeping on 'motoring' until he goes down.
The 'fencing with fists' of times past is more for a match fight, where you can take your time and work the other guy out, look for (and create) openings, wear him down.
You also know that no-one else is going to suddenly join in, nor will the police arrive and arrest you etc.
Most real violence and criminal assaults are fast, frenzied and chaotic,
and a particular approach to sport combat is needed to be kept in mind,
if one wishes to 'fit' it to contemporary self protection.
Obviously not everyone wants or needs to focus on that unpleasant side of life;
I'm just on a mission, to use my troubled past as a platform, to help other people stay somewhat safer.
'Old school' boxing/pugilism for me provides clues (implicit rather than explicit) of how wrestling and weapons fighting can be integrated with the hands; how an overriding method can fairly seamlessly 'do different things'.
Let's not forget (I'm sure you don't) that 'MMA' is not a new phenomenon, and that boxing has often been practiced as only one aspect of an individual's combat skillset.
Form follows function, in combat more than anywhere.
A 'style' is there to work; to do a job.
If there's room for too many aesthetic or theoretical considerations, that's our immediate notice that we are no longer dealing with SERIOUS COMBAT WITH SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES.
And while I respect greatly the 'scholars' and 'fans' of HEMA,
it must be understood that the historical characters they so admire and are fascinated by,
have much more in common with people like me.
The training ground or training hall was only ever meant to be preparation for one thing...
I'm going to do this, because I feel it helps lay certain cards on the table, so to speak, regarding looking at our chosen subject through various lenses; be they romantic, scholarly, practical or any number of others.
It's worth noting that military history, for instance, is studied by professors; but it is also (more importantly) studied by soldiers.
Of course the soldiers wouldn't HAVE the history to study, learn from and PUT TO USE if it wasn't for the researchers...
-----------------------
MODERN ANTAGONISTICS-
Hi there,
How's it going?
I've been reading some texts recently related to Defense Dans La Rue and similar, and I just wanted to ask, how well has your pugilism fared against modern boxers?
Have you needed to employ any of the wrestling strategies, etc.?
I'm really curious, because some of the older stuff seems more defensively minded, rather than the modern- typically aggressive- style.
I appreciate your insights and experiences.
Many thanks,
................................
LINEACRE SCHOOL OF DEFENCE-
Unfortunately I’ve not really had any great opportunity to test it against modern boxers; on the one occasion I did have a decent bout against someone very experienced in the modern sport he was also a skilled wrestler and we both avoided closing.
Although I do study various pugilistic arts my time is limited and most martial arts time is devoted to fencing.
From what I’ve seen, Renaud’s comments about the “American” system being best in the ring sounds about right.
Are you a modern boxer yourself?
Regards,
................................
MODERN ANTAGONISTICS-
Hi,
Thanks for the reply.
I have done a bit of boxing, judo and freestyle wrestling, and have begun to practice La Canne Vigny-
but I've not (yet!) got the skill or experience to call myself a boxer, judoka, wrestler or stick fighter!
I think some of the old styles of boxing probably would lend themselves better to MMA, with the wider stances and hands lower, ready to wrestle.
Punching only, I would guess that modern boxing is generally superior and would overwhelm an old pugilist, all things being equal.
We may never know this, as there are no professionals who have trained diligently for years in the old methods (that I am aware of), to make the comparison/test/challenge fair.
I'm planning to train in savate fairly soon (the modern sport version), and -as with the boxing, although to an even greater degree- I intend to blend aspects of 'old and new' when it comes to my own self defence approach.
Both have something to offer, to my mind.
Defense Dans La Rue provides the strongest framework for me,
both technically and philosophically, to marry or bridge the two modern fields of MMA and 'Reality Based Self Defence'/Combatives.
The old 'sport' vs 'street' argument is a moot point for me;
I have fought in both (more extensively in the latter), and I feel that a solid grounding in the former, adapted to the harsh demands of reality and factoring in an awareness of personal security,
represents that PERFECT MARTIAL ART (or as near to it) that many people are probably always seeking:
with health, social and play elements coupled with the ability to really fight, if circumstances demand.
I respect greatly the work of trailblazers like yourself and others (even if your aims aren't exactly the same as mine).
WATCH THIS SPACE for not just HEMA, but maybe MEMA (Modern European Martial Arts) ! Emoticono smile
Take care,
Good luck with your work.
.........................
LINEACRE SCHOOL OF DEFENCE-
(Quote) 'We may never know this, as there are no professionals who have trained diligently for years in the old methods (that I am aware of), to make the comparison/test/challenge fair.'
Indeed, that is a considerable difficulty. However, even if we can’t have that sort of test it does at least seem reasonable to assume that a style designed for the protection of the knuckles when punching without gloves or wraps is probably the one to pick when it comes to a defensive system.
(Qoute) 'I respect greatly the work of trailblazers like yourself and others (even if your aims aren't exactly the same as mine).'
Thanks! I hope that by providing material I can be of some service to those who have other focuses in the arts.
....................................
MODERN ANTAGONISTICS-
Hi again,
Here's where I can agree with you on the one part..........and agree to differ with you on another!
Punching without gloves indeed has its risks.
I know that, because I broke a bone in my hand on someone's head, which has psychologically put me off hitting anyone with a bare fist (not that I want to hit anyone nowadays- that's all in my wild past!).
The thing is, I had been hitting with a fist in numerous street fights over the course of many years, and until then had been quite happy with the 'product'! LOL
Modern boxing puts a lot of emphasis on aggressive exchanges and the knock out (unless you happen to be a sublime technician like Floyd Mayweather).
Perhaps in general, the average prizefighter today is weaker (or at least less careful) defensively than even those of 50 years ago- let alone 100 or 200.
One upshot of these differences is that the fights nowadays don't go 100 rounds or whatever- and the public love a fighter who can 'blow out' the opposition in quick time- incidentally exactly the sort of attacking, repeated blows that end most street fights.
In altercations of less intensity- where maybe someone just needs to be kept at bay, the jab night find more of a home (which conversely is where it can potentially help against multiple attackers, too).
Most real fights, if you can't get away from them, are best resolved by just smashing into the other guy (preferably using deception and 'going first'), and keeping on 'motoring' until he goes down.
The 'fencing with fists' of times past is more for a match fight, where you can take your time and work the other guy out, look for (and create) openings, wear him down.
You also know that no-one else is going to suddenly join in, nor will the police arrive and arrest you etc.
Most real violence and criminal assaults are fast, frenzied and chaotic,
and a particular approach to sport combat is needed to be kept in mind,
if one wishes to 'fit' it to contemporary self protection.
Obviously not everyone wants or needs to focus on that unpleasant side of life;
I'm just on a mission, to use my troubled past as a platform, to help other people stay somewhat safer.
'Old school' boxing/pugilism for me provides clues (implicit rather than explicit) of how wrestling and weapons fighting can be integrated with the hands; how an overriding method can fairly seamlessly 'do different things'.
Let's not forget (I'm sure you don't) that 'MMA' is not a new phenomenon, and that boxing has often been practiced as only one aspect of an individual's combat skillset.
Form follows function, in combat more than anywhere.
A 'style' is there to work; to do a job.
If there's room for too many aesthetic or theoretical considerations, that's our immediate notice that we are no longer dealing with SERIOUS COMBAT WITH SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES.
And while I respect greatly the 'scholars' and 'fans' of HEMA,
it must be understood that the historical characters they so admire and are fascinated by,
have much more in common with people like me.
The training ground or training hall was only ever meant to be preparation for one thing...
No comments:
Post a Comment