Groundfighting Techniques

[Joshua Cook]

I've seen on this forum that many people don't seem to realize the level of groundfighting in ReMA that is actually there. While I concede that there is very little in the way of techniques that are specifically designed for use on the ground, there is an interesting passage from Ringeck:

"Then seize him with wrestling, whichever you can do best, and follow the wrestling with breaks and Widerbrche (this is a tricky word it could mean illegal breaks, unnatural breaks, or opposing breaks). You can apply the same breaks and opposing breaks in all situations: on horseback, on foot, prepared (I assume this means either armoured or armed) or unguarded, in coming in close, lying down or standing."

This is included in the passage of instruction on the First Death-Blow. In this particular section, he makes mention of how the same breaks can be used in all situations, including lying down or standing. To me, this final part says that the same breaks that are used on foot are also applicable on the ground. I have found that in practice, deploying locks and breaks that are shown in the manuals on foot, while on the ground, results in a method that is not all that dissimilar from Modern Military Combatives or BJJ. Now, while I concede that this is probably a result of my interpretations and opinions, I was curious as to what some of the more seasoned scholars on this forum might think.

[Stewart Sackett]

The basic mechanics of the breaks function standing or on the ground. Because a standing opponent is more mobile it is probably not going to be possible to secure a lock as is common in ground fighting, however a fight on the ground makes a dynamic break just as possible as it is standing up.

The difference between Ringen & BJJ isn’t so much a matter of the specific techniques. It is instead a matter of how extensively the relevant positions were drilled & explored. Ringen manuals show a preference for standing grappling.

EDIT: Just to be clear. I love Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu & practice it regularly. I also like modern boxing (I train a bit but am not good at it). I like Muay Thai. I don’t think they translate directly to Ringen. I do not believe that means Ringen is a lesser art, only that Ringen is ill equipped to compete in certain arena such as: unarmored/unarmed striking matches in which clinching or throwing are prohibited, or grappling matches on the ground. There are other arts, which translate more readily to Ringen such as Judo, Greco-Roman Wrestling, Freestyle Wrestling, etc. They do not contain Ringen’s exact technical syllabus but the underlying principles are the same since all those arts focus on controlling an opponent in the clinch & throwing them to the ground.

[Joshua Cook]

Those are some interesting points, Stewart, but let me be clear. I'm not trying to argue against what exists in the manuals. Personally, I prefer a standing grapple myself. However, I'm just finding it interesting to see many people on these forums seeming to forget the passage that I quoted on my previous post. To reiterate, I'm not saying that there is a preference to groundfighting in Ringen, but rather there are many standing techniques that can also be applied on the ground, should the fight end up there.

BTW, What is your opinion on Catch Wrestling? The only fighting methods that I have practiced were Ringen and BKB as shown in Mendoza's chapbook. In a sparring match against my father-in-law, a Muay Thai and BJJ fighter, I held my own in the standing, but when he took me to the ground I found myself at a severe disadvantage. From what I have seen of it, adding it to my repetoire (is that the right spelling?) might be advantageous to my ground game.

[Will Adamson]

Two things in regards to the appearance of not as much ground fighting are cultural. A man off of his feet was seen as having his grounding taken away and to fight from his back as a matter of purposeful tactic (as seen in some BJJ) could be seen as cowardly, no matter how effective it may be. Another is that wrestling was such a part of a fighters education in childhood that it was not really addressed in the manuals. I can't quote directly, but there are several passages in Ringeck (and a few others I believe) that say something along the lines of, "...throw him to the ground and use your wrestling." Which is pretty much the same as the quote you gave. It would be like having a chapter on how to read at the beginning of a Tolstoy novel.

I don't think any ARMA member who has sparred much will tell you that there is little to no ground fighting. There can be a lot at times, especially in armor. Some folks do a lot of it. It is another tool in the toolbox of a fighter. If you know that your opponent is not good at it, and maybe better than or equal to you with the sword, then the fighter should move to what they have the advantage in. However, if one relies on it too much he will be ignoring the tool in his hand (if armed) and thus putting himself at a disadvantage.

[Brian Hunt]

There is some unterhalten shown in the manuals (look at Paulus Hector Mair), but the emphasis is on remaining on your feet while putting him on the ground. It is also my opinion that a large number of the locks found in Ringen may be applied in a friendly manner (wrestling for fun) or may be used as a destruction (wrestling for self defense or war). It is also my opinion that ground fighting is best used when wrestling for fun than on the street or battlefield. If he has friends and you are on the ground, you are in a bad defensive position. Also, the possablity that he may have and draw knife while wrestling on the ground is a bad place to be (most of the Armoured wrestling shows one guy finishing the other guy off on the ground with a dagger). I feel you have a better chance unarmed against a guy with a knife when you are on your feet than on the ground.

That said, almost every lock you can do standing you can do on the ground (often with greater results because you can use the ground as a lever so he can't try to escape the lock). For example, in Passchen he shows a wrist lock, then he shows the escape which requires being able to step in and elbow your opponent in the face, if you are on the ground you don't have the mobility needed for the escape.

just some thoughts on this.

Brian Hunt
GFS

[Stewart Sackett]

BTW, What is your opinion on Catch Wrestling? The only fighting methods that I have practiced were Ringen and BKB as shown in Mendoza's chapbook. In a sparring match against my father-in-law, a Muay Thai and BJJ fighter, I held my own in the standing, but when he took me to the ground I found myself at a severe disadvantage. From what I have seen of it, adding it to my repetoire (is that the right spelling?) might be advantageous to my ground game.

I find catch wrestling interesting, but have never had the opportunity to practice it. The major practical downsides to the art are simply that it is harder to find then BJJ, Judo & Submission Wrestling; & that there is less of a uniform level of quality among those who teach & practice catch wrestling.

As a matter of personal taste I think I prefer the ground fighting of BJJ. I like the guard game (although, all things being equal, I’d rather have mount) & the BJJ philosophy of position before submission. All the Catch wrestlers I’ve seen showed a strong preference for leg locks, which I’m personally not fond of. Leg lock attempts tend to end with no clear positional dominance & both fighters scrambling to lock the other’s leg. As I said, I tend to prioritize secure position before attempting to submit.

[Jeffrey Hull]

Yes, there is the unterhalten (holding down / groundwork) in Ringeck and PH Mair, and in Gladiatoria (and its related prototype MS KK5013) and also in Hundtfeltz via Von Danzig. They had it, it is just a matter that we practice it. Even though it is for armoured fight, a lot can apply to unarmoured.

[Jay Vail]

Two things in regards to the appearance of not as much ground fighting are cultural. A man off of his feet was seen as having his grounding taken away and to fight from his back as a matter of purposeful tactic (as seen in some BJJ) could be seen as cowardly, no matter how effective it may be. Another is that wrestling was such a part of a fighters education in childhood that it was not really addressed in the manuals. I can't quote directly, but there are several passages in Ringeck (and a few others I believe) that say something along the lines of, "...throw him to the ground and use your wrestling." Which is pretty much the same as the quote you gave. It would be like having a chapter on how to read at the beginning of a Tolstoy novel.

I don't think any ARMA member who has sparred much will tell you that there is little to no ground fighting. There can be a lot at times, especially in armor. Some folks do a lot of it. It is another tool in the toolbox of a fighter. If you know that your opponent is not good at it, and maybe better than or equal to you with the sword, then the fighter should move to what they have the advantage in. However, if one relies on it too much he will be ignoring the tool in his hand (if armed) and thus putting himself at a disadvantage.

Well, I for one believe that there was little ground fighting in kampringen. The purpose of ground fighting is limited only to putting your opponent into a position that allows you to pull your dagger and kill him. There is very little wrestling around on the ground when one of the players has a knife. I have sparred this scenario and I can tell you that a lot of that cool BJJ stuff just goes out the window. If I have the knife and some guy puts me in a guard or tries to lock me up, I just stab him. The converse is true. He stabs me. End of story.

This is pretty representative of what happens when you go to ground and try wrestling against a knifer: http://youtube.com/watch?v=izDQwDT_ERg&feature=related

Those older manuals to show ground fighting (Talhoffer and Gladiatoria) only do so in conjunction with the use of the dagger to dispatch the opponent.

[Stewart Sackett]

I agree with Jay as to the level of ground fighting that was historically practiced. I also agree that such fighting centered on pinning & stabbing.

Having said that, the demonstration video referenced was somewhat dependent on it’s use of a stupid grappler. Wrestling includes more than the body lock & double-leg takedowns. I’ve seen several knife vs. wrestler demonstrations but none of them vary from this inadvisable pattern.

My first priority in sparring unarmed vs. knife is always to go for some kind of 2-on-1 arm control on the knife arm & work to keep that arm far enough away from the other that my opponent cannot switch hands. Greco-Roman wrestling teaches this (although there’s rarely a knife when wrestlers drill such techniques), it’s also a strategy I believe is supported by the fightbooks & the Greco-roman control helps feed into many of the throws & breaks that were historically practiced.

Wrestling a knife on the ground is just like wrestling a knife in the clinch; in that the primary dangers are in either not seeing the knife or failing to address it, there is also the added problem that wrestling for control of a knife while on the ground can (depending on your position) put you at increased risk of being submitted/suffering joint breaks.

[Jeffrey Hull]

Yes, Jay has a valid point. The unterhalten, which is almost exclusively armoured, has the goal of controlling foe and stabbing him as much as controlling foe and breaking a joint. The dagger is often the decisive element.

[Stewart Sackett]

I'm never very good about remembering historical language, so I really appreciate the fact that the word unterhalten has been brought into this conversation. The very fact that the historic ground techniques were called ‘holding-down’ gives insight into how the ground phase was understood & practiced. The central emphasis was on pinning.

This leads me to ask 2 questions.

First: what pins were commonly taught? I’ve seen pictures that resemble the positions I know as knee-ride & half guard but don’t feel that I’ve seen enough examples of unterhalten to draw any definite conclusions as to which positions were most common. In the cases of those positions I have seen they were all ways depicted with the top man holding a rondel.

Second: do the fightbooks make any mention of specific details of pins or escapes? So far the only pinning I’ve seen has been unaccompanied by text & I’ve seen nothing to suggest techniques for escaping from secure pins, although there are methods for getting out from under an opponent who’s sprawled on top of you.

[David_Knight]

First: what pins were commonly taught? I’ve seen pictures that resemble the positions I know as knee-ride & half guard but don’t feel that I’ve seen enough examples of unterhalten to draw any definite conclusions as to which positions were most common. In the cases of those positions I have seen they were all ways depicted with the top man holding a rondel.

There are several unterhalten techniques depicted in the unarmoured chapters of Paulus Hector Mair's manual: knee-rides, half-guard, full guard and back mount. In all of them, the top man is the attacker (even when inside his opponent's full or half-guard), and the emphases are on either pinning his arms or choking him while kneeing him in the groin, or striking him. It is also worth noting that these appear outside of the dagger chapter. The takedowns in the polearms chapters, for example, are usually counters to disarms or when the opponent rushes in too close for you to effectively use your weapon.

Second: do the fightbooks make any mention of specific details of pins or escapes? So far the only pinning I’ve seen has been unaccompanied by text & I’ve seen nothing to suggest techniques for escaping from secure pins, although there are methods for getting out from under an opponent who’s sprawled on top of you.

Yes, and they're dirty. Here is an excerpt from the Shortstaff & Spear chapter of my book that typifies Mair's groundfighting:

"If [your opponent] throws you down and tries to pin you, then make sure from the start that your hands are not captured, quickly seize his face with one hand (hook your thumb under his chin and press the other fingers into his eyes, gripping firmly), forcefully strike his groin with the other, kick out whichever leg is freer, and quickly draw it back, thus kneeing him in the groin." – Cod. Vinob. 10825, 162v; C93, 191v

Mair doesn't go into the rest of the escape, though. The focus seems to be on inflicting pain, presumably so you can sweep him or stand up while he is distracted, both of which are staples of wrestling and, as others have said, were probably taken for granted.

[Stewart Sackett]

There are several unterhalten techniques depicted in the unarmoured chapters of Paulus Hector Mair's manual: knee-rides, half-guard, full guard and back mount. In all of them, the top man is the attacker (even when inside his opponent's full or half-guard), and the emphases are on either pinning his arms or choking him while kneeing him in the groin, or striking him. It is also worth noting that these appear outside of the dagger chapter. The takedowns in the polearms chapters, for example, are usually counters to disarms or when the opponent rushes in too close for you to effectively use your weapon.

Thanks for the reply. I'll definitely need to spend some time looking at Mair. I'm very interested to hear that chokes were advocated, as most of the material I've seen does not emphasize them. I’m also curious to see what, specifically, was suggested for fighting inside the guard as that could be considered indicative of the general sophistication of the bottom game.

[Martin Wallgren]

Sorry for the tread necromancy!

But, what if Meister ringeck is refering to Underhalten as a good way to be the defender on the ground. i.e. the one who have been thrown. Because I can see lot´s of techniques in Wllerstein or from Otts line of wrestling in general that could be used if i was in full or half guard on my back. even against a knife.

Widerbrche (this is a tricky word it could mean illegal breaks, unnatural breaks, or opposing breaks)

Here I might be some help. The term Bruch (brche) is derrived from the same root as the swedish "bryta" that could be translated into Break, but it also has the the meaning to bend or putt pressure on. The word Wider is almost the same as the swedish Vidare that translade into futher. So first you put preasure on something with a bruch, then you widerbruch i.e. breake.

[Stewart Sackett]

I try to be careful about examining Ringen with my "jiu-jitsu goggles". It's true that there are universal principles in human body mechanics which give rise to related techniques across styles but it's also true that cultural factors profoundly shape martial arts &, although my knowledge of the ground does give me strategic options off my back, I haven't seen any evidence that such techniques were advocated in medieval Europe. I'm very curious about the ground game in Ringen but reluctant to compare it to jiu-jitsu.

Which plays, specifically, strike you as indicating a guard game?