hand blows in kampfringen

[StevenMann]

Question; has anyone taken a systematic approach at consolidating the striking techniques found in the manuals?

Hello All,

I've been perusing the forums, looking for a good place to make my first post. This, the striking, and unarmed combat in general, is an especially significant area of interest for me. I think that it is very important for WMA to have a complete system of unarmed combat if it is going to be highly effective as a modern system of self defense. I know most people don't carry longswords or daggers with them everywhere they go. Alot of people don't even carry pocket knives. I like what I have read of the ARMA approach, with the focus on martial intent and effectiveness. I think the development, or resurrection, of a system of realistic, effective hand to hand fighting techniques could become one of several things that separates this organization from others. I'm certainly not an expert, or even a scholar, but I think if would be awesome to see an effective, European, unarmed system that can be validated by historic texts. I know it's there, but it seems like it's resurrection is still in its infancy.

[Tyrone Artur Budzin]

There are a few things to consider before devising such a system for Ringen. The scholars and students who currently study this art concentrate on either the Medieval or Renaissance period. Do we therefore then use the Medieval or the Renassance lessons when creating this system? Or do we incorporate bits and pieces of the best lessons from both periods and perform a coin toss to decide which era we will name it after? Then again maybe we can approach Ringen as a holistic art and pour all the lessons learned over the ages into one system?

These questions need much pondering. The answer then has to be absolute and acceptable both historically and to us who are practicing the art.

[Jaron Bernstein]

There are a few things to consider before devising such a system for Ringen. The scholars and students who currently study this art concentrate on either the Medieval or Renaissance period. Do we therefore then use the Medieval or the Renassance lessons when creating this system?

These questions need much pondering. The answer then has to be absolute and acceptable both historically and to us who are practicing the art.

I guess it depends on when you define those periods. Our efforts are directed at the time period for which we have historical fencing treatises on which to base our reconstruction.

[Shane Smith]

I've long been interested in working in this area of research. I just may see what I can come up with...

[Tyrone Artur Budzin]

There are a few things to consider before devising such a system for Ringen. The scholars and students who currently study this art concentrate on either the Medieval or Renaissance period. Do we therefore then use the Medieval or the Renassance lessons when creating this system?

These questions need much pondering. The answer then has to be absolute and acceptable both historically and to us who are practicing the art.

I guess it depends on when you define those periods. Our efforts are directed at the time period for which we have historical fencing treatises on which to base our reconstruction.

You must then be focusing more on the Ringen material included in the fencing treatises from the 14th to 15th century. Until now there are still many varied opinions as to when the Medieval period ended and Renaissance started but most agree it would be somewhere during the 16th and 17th century. From then on we can still find fechtbuchs detailing Ringen techniques.

I believe over this long span of time Ringen had develped itself into a more sophisticated art of combat as seen in J. G. Paschen's work. To therefore incorporate all the lessons into one practical system for self-defense would still make the system historically accurate.

[Tom Keesler]

There are a few things to consider before devising such a system for Ringen. The scholars and students who currently study this art concentrate on either the Medieval or Renaissance period. Do we therefore then use the Medieval or the Renassance lessons when creating this system?

These questions need much pondering. The answer then has to be absolute and acceptable both historically and to us who are practicing the art.

I guess it depends on when you define those periods. Our efforts are directed at the time period for which we have historical fencing treatises on which to base our reconstruction.

You must then be focusing more on the Ringen material included in the fencing treatises from the 14th to 15th century. Until now there are still many varied opinions as to when the Medieval period ended and Renaissance started but most agree it would be somewhere during the 16th and 17th century. From then on we can still find fechtbuchs detailing Ringen techniques.

I believe over this long span of time Ringen had develped itself into a more sophisticated art of combat as seen in J. G. Paschen's work. To therefore incorporate all the lessons into one practical system for self-defense would still make the system historically accurate.

I personally beleive that the "holistic" approach is the preffered approach. After all, the techniques would have been developed much further back in history, but refined as time went on and documentation technologies advanced. We wouldn't consider the teachings of Lichtenhaur to be less relevant than those of J. Meyer. In fact, I sometimes look back to the older, less technically written texts to clarify on techniques.

Just because a source is from what WE consider a different time period doesn't change it's use, effectiveness, or relevance. To put ourselves in a "15th-17th century only" box is to limit our ability to fully revive and recreate our wonderfully effective European Martial Arts.

Tom Keesler
Scholar
ARMA DFW

"From intense complexities, intense simplicities emerge." - Winston Churchill

[Tyrone Artur Budzin]

I fully agree with Tom Keesler on this.