Fiore's wrestling...

[Eddie Smith]

Anyone have a guess as to why Fiore doesn't include any ground tactics in his section on wrestling.

[Jako Valis]

Perhaps because he doesn't want you to go to ground. Fiore says that you need to be able to put someone on ground without danger to yourself.

And fighting on the ground would be a bit ungraceful for an Italian nobleman, wouldn't it?

- Jako

[Eddie Smith]

Very interresting... Hadn't really thought of it but that seems to make some sence. Thanks

[Jaron Bernstein]

Well, this isn't a comment on Fiori, but wrestling seems pretty universal. The Danzig manual has all kinds of harnsfecten groundwork. There is even a paragraph that essentially says something like "fights in armor end up rolling around on the ground with daggers". That said, that is a German manual. I don't think Vadi really has groundwork either but for whatever reason I have seen a bunch of it in the German manuals. I don't know why, the difference is though.

[Jay Vail]

Most manuals neither depict or describe groundwork. This has been a source of angst for the afficianados of BJJ and collegiate wrestling, who can't imagine a form of wrestling that doesn't take place on the ground.

The matter has been heavily debated here in the past and there is no agreement on why the manuals don't stress groundwork. The leading explanation is that the point of throwing down is to put someone in a vulnerable position from which to be stabbed with a dagger.

[Shane Smith]

To me, it seems exceedingly unwise to roll about on a battlefield where sharp blades and running horses abound.Remember, these are battlefield arts to be used in war and duel. In war, your enemies have a great many friends,and all of them will be armed and capable of sticking you while you're trying to pass their buddies guard on the ground.

In this imperfect world however, I will not discount the value of being to handle yourself in the dirt, I just don't think it is/was the ideal.

[Matt_Bruskotter]

Many of the locks and tactics used for "upright" or "standing" wrestling can work on the ground as well. A general rule from my wrestling background was to keep the lock you had while standing and to continue it on the ground. Again, once your opponent is one the ground, he's at such a disadvantage a dagger will make quick work of him and they may have thought that there was no point in teaching any tactics.

[Mike Chidester]

Also keep in mind that it's rather likely that the men of the times will have been wrestling since they were kids. There was no need to teach them how to handle themselves on the ground, only how to de specific special techniques. And the manuals do mention that every standing technique can be applied to ground-work--they just don't say how. I've seen BBJ ground moves demonstrated in the clinch in the manuals.

[Eddie Smith]

I was thinking about what was said, and it occured that some other forms of European wrestling dont' include ground tactics, such as backhold wrestling, and Icelandic Glima. These could have also evolved as sport from more battlefeild type systems. Ya think?

[Jay Vail]

For those interested in seeing how ringen works in swordplay, there are now two ARMA videos online in which ringen was applied during fencing bouts with the longsword. If you watch them you can see graphically why ringen almost certainly did not emphasize ground work.

The videos are located at http://www.paulushectormair.com/ARMA/Orlando2005/.

The particular bouts are DavidKnightVsJay.wmv and JayVsMike.wmv.

In both bouts there came a point when the fighters were dangerously close together. One of them went to grips, much for the same reason that boxers clinch, to avoid getting hit. That fighter then employed throws which are ringen mainstays. In one bout it was the backward-over-the-leg throw, in the other it was an inside leg hook.

In both bouts the thrower retained the dominant position on top of the other fighter. In both cases, the thrower was in a perfect position to deploy a dagger, if he’d had one.

My experiments involving wrestling around on the ground where one fighter is armed with a dagger and the other is unarmed almost invariably have resulted in the unarmed fighter being “killed.” Thus, the presence of the dagger dramatically changes the nature of the confrontation and significantly reduces the utility of ground wrestling.

[JeffGentry]

Hey Jay

We have on more than one occasion here in Columbus, Had similar thing's happen's were in the middle of a sword fight one guy is taken down and then the one who did the take down usualy is able to recover one of the two sword's in short order and stab the crap out of the guy who got taken down.

Jeff

[Jeffrey Hull]

MC said:

*Also keep in mind that it's rather likely that the men of the times will have been wrestling since they were kids.*

Your point is excellent. It seems to me that realising the simple fact that wrestling was the first martial art of a Med & Ren German only helps to give us proper perspective regarding all Fechten.

JH

[Jeffrey Hull]

Thanks for the reminder and videos.

Doing some research of a 1462 unarmoured longsword source recently, I am impressed how the source is consistent with armoured in that even when there is Ringen am Schwert and Werfen and so forth, there is no *ground work* -- the source tends to tell you to basically throw foe away or down and then strike him with your weapon.

JH

*****

JV wrote:

*For those interested in seeing how ringen works in swordplay, there are now two ARMA videos online in which ringen was applied during fencing bouts with the longsword. If you watch them you can see graphically why ringen almost certainly did not emphasize ground work.

The videos are located at http://www.paulushectormair.com/ARMA/Orlando2005/.

The particular bouts are DavidKnightVsJay.wmv and JayVsMike.wmv.

In both bouts there came a point when the fighters were dangerously close together. One of them went to grips, much for the same reason that boxers clinch, to avoid getting hit. That fighter then employed throws which are ringen mainstays. In one bout it was the backward-over-the-leg throw, in the other it was an inside leg hook.

In both bouts the thrower retained the dominant position on top of the other fighter. In both cases, the thrower was in a perfect position to deploy a dagger, if he’d had one.

My experiments involving wrestling around on the ground where one fighter is armed with a dagger and the other is unarmed almost invariably have resulted in the unarmed fighter being “killed.” Thus, the presence of the dagger dramatically changes the nature of the confrontation and significantly reduces the utility of ground wrestling.*

[Mike Cartier]

I agree with David knight but i would say that when you are in a dominant position and trying to use your dagger you are in fact using ground fighting because you are trying to hold him down and use your dominant position to apply the dagger effectivly. Ground fighting being any sort of fighting happening after one or both fighters knees hit the ground and especially when one fighter in a prone position with you on top. Its kind of obvious what needs to be done in these dominant positions so its not explained. But as many many throws do not result in a fight ending injury it could be assumed that the mere act of throwing should include ground techniques at the very least to learn how best to hold the dominant position while you use your weapon after you have done the throw.

[David_Knight]

I'll admit that I was doomed when I lost my footing in that clip, Jay, but I still disagree with your conclusions about groundfighting.

The staff bouts between Mike and me illustrate how a good throw or takedown does not necessarily end the fight, and how dominant positions are difficult to maintain against a skilled wrestler. I cannot speak for Fiore or the other 15th century masters, but the groundfighting that Mike and I engaged in is also entirely in keeping with the teachings of Paulus Hector Mair, who devoted an entire chapter in his manual to unarmed ringen in addition to finishing throws with weapons.

For example, there are several plates in the shortstaff section that specifically say to discard your weapon "backwards over your head", throw the opponent, fall on top of him, and subdue him using various chokes, pins, strikes, eye gouges, groin shots, and leg hooks, such as this one:



This particular plate emphasizes the need to restrain your opponent's arms and stay out of his guard by hooking one of his legs so that he cannot gouge out your eyes and sweep into a dominant position. Eye gouges and sudden reversals would be a valid concern with or without daggers.

Note also how the supine figure is lying on top of his staff, and the other staff is too far away for the dominant figure to grab; moreover, it wouldn't do him much good on the ground anyway.

The wording in some of the other plates is interesting, too, as Mair sometimes says "throw him away from you so that he cannot hurt you and withdraw". This suggests that the throw is not so much a finishing blow as a way to recover from, for example, a disarm, pick up your weapon, and continue the fight armed. Or run like hell.

The "no groundwork" argument also rides on the assumption that daggers were always present in combat. I am not so sure that this was always the case, esp. into the 16th century. JC published an interesting article in Spada: Anthology of Swordsmanship on wrestling and grappling in Renaissance combat in which he provides several documented instances of judicial duels in which daggers were not allowed (both parties could negotiate on the terms of the fight), and in which both combatants ended up on the ground after losing their swords (one particularly interesting duel ended with the victor stuffing dirt into his opponent's mouth <img src="/forum/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" />).