If you could ask the Masters a Question?

European historical unarmed fighting techniques & methods

Moderators: Webmaster, Stacy Clifford

david welch
Posts: 453
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 5:04 am
Location: Knoxville TN

If you could ask the Masters a Question?

Postby david welch » Mon Oct 13, 2003 9:05 pm

If you could ask the Masters a Question about their unarmed art, what would it be?

Better yet, suppose you had a time machine, and could take a copy of Flos Duellatorum to Fiore de Liberi and ask him to explain it, but only about the unarmed, what would you ask? Better still, what if you could only ask him 10 questions?

Would you ask him what he meant by "this" technique? Would you ask him to explain how he had his techniques systemized? Or would you feel that the technique were only technicalities, and want him to explain his philosophy behind his art. Not so much his "how" but rather his "why"? Would you concentrate his art to a few small things so you had a few moves that you knew were "right", and then later try to build the rest around it, or would you try to look at it in such broad terms that whatever you put together when you got back was what you knew he _meant_, whether it was in his book or not? Lets tighten it up, some. Say you can only ask five questions. What do you think of his is the most important, his tools, or the principles behind them. If you can only ask him one question about his art, what will it be?
"A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand." Lucius Annaeus Seneca 4BC-65AD.

User avatar
Randall Pleasant
Posts: 872
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2002 3:35 pm
Location: Flower Mound, Texas, USA

Re: If you could ask the Masters a Question?

Postby Randall Pleasant » Mon Oct 13, 2003 11:38 pm

Four questions to Fiore:

1. How much ground fighting do you know? <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" />

2. Why did you leave ground fighting out of your manual? <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

3. Where do I sign up? <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" />

4. May I use video? <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/smirk.gif" alt="" />
Ran Pleasant

david welch
Posts: 453
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 5:04 am
Location: Knoxville TN

Re: If you could ask the Masters a Question?

Postby david welch » Thu Oct 16, 2003 3:42 pm

Well, I know the answer to #2. It is the same reason that the combat Jujutsu used by the Samurai has no laying down skills? Is it the same reason that NO martial culture has _ever_ taught it's fighters to lay on the ground unless they couldn't help it? That laying around on the ground in a battle could not possibly be an effective form of fighting?

A little history...

Teaching Grappling: The Combat Way

Dr. William Durbin

http://www.kiyojuteryu.org/soke/articles/grappling.shtml

"Many people are interested in teaching grappling skills, but too many of them have only a peripheral knowledge of grappling skill and that from the perspective of sport Judo, which taught techniques developed only for sport, not intended for combat. Now I am sure this supposition needs to be explained from a historical point of view, and the answer is actually quit simple.

Jujutsu, which has become the generic term for empty hand fighting skills in Japan, is a term believed to have been coined around the sixteenth century, but actually subsumes quite a few fighting arts. Those arts which came under the generic term Jujutsu included; Kempo, Torite, Yawara, Kogusoku, Koshimawari, Wajutsu, Kumiuchi, Taijutsu, and many others.

Most of these fighting arts were looked upon as auxiliary to the weapon arts. What this meant was that primary training was given to the weapons skills and the empty hand training was designed to back up the weapons, not as an art practiced only by itself. On the other hand, the weapon skills were in need of support for those times when a weapon was broken or simply knocked out of the hands.

What has confused most people is that since Judo has laying techniques and Kodokan is based on Jujutsu, it is supposed that Jujutsu has a set of laying down skills. But remember the cause of Jujutsu, it was an art used to back up weapon arts, such as; Naginata jutsu (halberd art), Yari jutsu (spear art), and Ken jutsu (sword art).

Ask yourself what would happen to a warrior who was facing an opponent on a battlefield, surrounded by enemy soldiers, trying to kill anyone wearing your uniform. Picture that you are engaged in a struggle with an enemy soldier and fall to the ground locked in an embrace over a sword, you having lost yours. Now you could lock the person up and seek to hold them on the ground, but then one of the enemy warriors would run you through with a spear, slice you with a halberd, or remove your head with a sword.

It is obvious, just by putting the Japanese grappling art in context, taking it out of the realm of sports, that laying around in a battle could not possibly be an effective form of fighting. Where then did Kodokan Judo’s grappling skills come from and why were they practiced as a laying down fighting method?

The answer lies in history. It seems that in 1900, the Kodokan, had made quite a reputation for itself by matching against other Jujutsu Dojo in a type of Randori Shiai, free play competition, winning with standing throwing techniques primarily. Much of the reputation was made by the standing throwing skills of Shiro Saigo, a practitioner of Oshikiuchi, the art of Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu.

But then in 1900, the Kodokan matched itself against the Fusen Ryu. At that time Judo did not have Ne Waza, laying techniques, instead they fought standing up, as Kano had been taught in both the Tenshin Shinyo Ryu and Kito Ryu systems he studied. Both Kito Ryu and Tenshin Shinyo Ryu had excellent striking skills and effective throws, since they were created by actual Samurai. Kito Ryu was known primarily for it’s body throws, while Tenshin Shinyo Ryu was famous for it’s immobilizations, very similar to those which are utilized by Aikido today.

When Kodokan Judo faced off against the Fusen Ryu Jujutsu, the Jujutsuka realized that there was no way they could defeat the Kodokan Judoka on an even footing in a regular standing Randori, thus they decided to use a very sneaky tactic. According to one source, when the Kodokan men and the Fusen Ryu men squared off, the Jujutsuka immediately laid down on the ground. The Kodokan men didn’t know what to do, then the Fusen Ryu practitioners took them to the ground and used chokes and ground joint lock to win the matches. This was the first real loss that the Kodokan had known in eight years.

Kano took this to mean that if they were going to continue matching other Jujutsu schools they needed a full range of laying techniques. Thus with friends of other Jujutsu systems, among them being Fusen Ryu practitioners, Kano over the next six years formulated the Ne Waza of Kodokan Judo which included three divisions; Katame Waza (locking techniques), Shime Waza (choking techniques), and Osae Waza (holding techniques).

Many of these techniques, while originally designed for combat, were so highly modified for sporting events, that they no longer retained their original combat significance. In some cases the moves have no immediate combat significance outside of the sporting arena.

Due to the Randori Shiai competitions between Judo and Jujutsu schools, the standing and laying techniques became well known throughout the Oriental world. As the arts spread beyond Japan, especially during the early 1900s, Judo and Jujutsu practitioners popularized their arts by taking on all comers in side shows or at theaters. This led to the idea of trying out the skills in a wrestling challenge as being a way of testing ones skill and creating interest in the art. Yet many of the skills used in these events were designed only for ‘friendly’ competition and not intended for life and death battle on the battlefield or even for self defense on the street. Many of these skills are only good for civilized competition, even when it is extremely brutal.

What then are the combat grappling skills? First of all, there are throws. The idea of throwing, combat skills, is to injure the opponent when they hit the ground or to set them up for a finishing move, which was usually designed to break a limb or damage a joint. Throws were designed to be done standing, though there developed a set of throws that took advantage of an opponent making you fall, which you then turned into a throw which hurled them to the ground as well. These were counter
throws or methods of taking a slip of the foot and turning it from a simple fall to the ground to a throw. In example, if a person is trying to throw an opponent with an Ukiotoshi, floating drop, but slips and begins to fall, they can change the standing throw into an Ukiwaza, floating technique, which throws the assailant in the same way, but as the defender falls to the ground.

Second there are joint techniques which generally attack the wrist, shoulder, or elbow. There are some designed to attack the knee, though these are less joint locks, though there are a few, and more low kicks intended to collapsed the knee or shatter the joint. Once again, these were intended for use standing.

Finally, there are chokes of three types. The first type attacks the air supply by collapsing the windpipe. These chokes were not originally designed to be applied gently, so that they cause a person to capitulate in competition. They were designed to be slammed on, many times causing severe damage which would kill their opponent quickly.

The second type of choke was a blood strangle. This was a movement intended to angularly apply pressure to the carotid
arteries. By cutting off the blood to the brain an opponent can be rendered unconscious in just five seconds. But once again, these were developed for fighting in actual combat and death can result from a blood choke in just seven seconds.

Finally, there is one more type of choke, but which uses the alternate meaning of Shime, the Japanese word normally translated strangle, but which can also mean, wring. This final division deals with breaking the neck of an opponent. Some of the most ancient methods were designed to utilize the helmet to aid in breaking the neck of an opponent in armor. But there were many developed during the Tokugawa and Meiji eras which were intended to be used on the necks of opponents in normal clothing.

Once again note, for combat, these can be applied standing. One does not have to go to the ground to apply a choke or hold it long enough to be effective. Neck breaking techniques are probably more effective from the standing position than a laying one. This is combat not sport.

These then were the original grappling skills of the Orient. Foremost were the throws, then jointlocks, and finally chokes. But the main difference, between sport techniques and original combat skills, was the purpose. Combat skills are designed to cause damage and leave a warrior on his/her feet to be able to continue fighting.

One more aspect does need to be mentioned at this point. In the fighting arts of the Orient, there was never a one dimensional martial art. What this means is that while Jujutsu is normally thought of as a grappling art, traditional Ryu also contained complete methods of striking with both hands and feet. These striking techniques also include elbows and knees. By the same vein, Karate was never a striking art only, but had a full range of grappling skills.

Due to the emphasis on sport techniques, and the rules which allow for safe competition, Judo removed all strikes so that a safe grappling match could be engaged in, just as Karate took away most grappling skills so that a safe sparring match could be held. Both the predecessor to Judo, which of course is Jujutsu, and that of Karate, the ancient art of Bushi Te, held full range of striking and grappling techniques.

If a Jujutsu system states that their striking skills are used only to sit up throws or other grappling methods, then they are more of a Judo system and not actually Jujutsu at all. One has but to study the history of Jujutsu and find out that strikes used in the ancient art were extremely sophisticated and effective.

Strikes were of two major types in Jujutsu. Against an unarmored opponent the strikes were devastating and could end a fight with just one hit. Though the Jujutsuka was always ready to follow up a hit with a grappling skill, just in case it was ineffective or missed it’s intended vital point.

The second type of strike was designed for use against an armored opponent and was more of a push to achieve Kuzushi,
breaking the balance of the assailant, to set up a grappling technique. It is believed that this type of ability was what has been misinterpreted in modern times as ineffective punching skills, but they were actually designed for use against armor, when an actual hit could not possibly have effect.

To teach real combat grappling, is to teach effective standing skills which can be used in genuine self defense. Real grappling starts with strikes, according to the leading Jujutsu masters of the past generation, most prominent of them being James Masayoshi Mitose of Kosho Ryu Kempo Jujutsu. Second, the actual grappling skills are throws, joint attacks, and chokes, all of which should be learned in a standing manner first. Third, going to the ground should be a last option and good grappling skills are intended to extricate the defended from a ground situation and allow them to get back on their feet as quickly as possible.

There are those who say that grappling skills need to be taught properly and this is correct. But teaching these skills correctly does not mean teaching the sport techniques to people and allowing them to believe they are actual combat skills. For the most part, grappling skills for combat are done standing on the feet. When one must go to the ground, good grappling skills get you back on your feet as quickly as possible. This is the method of combat grappling, found in the ancient fighting skills of Jujutsu and Bushi Te, still maintained by many traditional self defense teachers. If you want to learn true grappling, make sure it is designed for what you want. If you want to participate in a sport, learn the game and learn it well, but if you want real grappling skill, learn from a self defense specialist in the Japanese or Okinawan martial arts."


Note that in the beginning, even Kodokan Judo didn't have the laying on the ground stuff. He only developed it when IT BECAME NEEDED TO WIN SPORTS MATCHES.

Also notice:

"What then are the combat grappling skills? First of all, there are throws. The idea of throwing, combat skills, is to injure the opponent when they hit the ground or to set them up for a finishing move, which was usually designed to break a limb or damage a joint."

Hmmmmm... the same as in the Flower of Battle. <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" />
"A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand." Lucius Annaeus Seneca 4BC-65AD.

User avatar
Mike Cartier
Posts: 594
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2002 12:21 pm
Location: USA Florida

Re: If you could ask the Masters a Question?

Postby Mike Cartier » Fri Oct 17, 2003 9:36 am

ground fighting is not laying on the ground, its training to be more experienced and prepared on the ground than your opponent. That applies to both modern Brazillian Jiu Jitsu and ancient Pankration.
A true grappler does not lay on the ground he mounts you or takes a dominant position, but if he ends up on the bottom, (an easy thing to happen in throwing and being thrown) he will know how to get from underneath.

Fighting on the ground is inadvisable on the battlefield, but then again so is standing around with a sword without your army buddies to back you up, virtually any distraction at all from fighting your oopnenet will get you killed i should think.
So not only would i not want to go to the ground on a battlefield, i would not want to clinch you, punch or kick you or do much beyond keep my distance and work whatever army strategy our general has planned.
Any kind of fighting i might do that left me open to my opponents buddies helping him against me would be inadvisable.

Any art that doesnt train for ground fighting when they train for grappling (throwing etc) is forgetting that most throws when performed on skilled folks either will get you counter thrown or leave you both sprawled on the ground together.
Then the more experienced ground fighter will usually take the dominant position or at least neutralize the opponents dominant position and ready to reverse.
Mike Cartier
Meyer Frei Fechter
www.freifechter.com

david welch
Posts: 453
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 5:04 am
Location: Knoxville TN

Re: If you could ask the Masters a Question?

Postby david welch » Fri Oct 17, 2003 4:10 pm

"A true grappler does not lay on the ground he mounts you or takes a dominant position, but if he ends up on the bottom, (an easy thing to happen in throwing and being thrown) he will know how to get from underneath."

"To teach real combat grappling, is to teach effective standing skills which can be used in genuine self defense. Real grappling starts with strikes, according to the leading Jujutsu masters of the past generation, most prominent of them being James Masayoshi Mitose of Kosho Ryu Kempo Jujutsu. Second, the actual grappling skills are throws, joint attacks, and chokes, all of which should be learned in a standing manner first. Third, going to the ground should be a last option and good grappling skills are intended to extricate the defended from a ground situation and allow them to get back on their feet as quickly as possible."


"That applies to both modern Brazillian Jiu Jitsu and ancient Pankration."

These are both sports, not combat.


"Then the more experienced ground fighter will usually take the dominant position or at least neutralize the opponents dominant position and ready to reverse."

No.
"good grappling skills are intended to extricate the defended from a ground situation and allow them to get back on their feet as quickly as possible."

Aiki Ju-Jutsu and Kano Judo didn't even HAVE Ne Waza until the 1900s, and they only used them THEN to win at SPORTS COMPETITIONS. Did you read the article I posted, and see the history of how Ne Waza came about? And what it was used for? I am sure that the Samurai would have been interested in having it explained to them that they had been fighting WRONG for hundreds of years. As a matter of fact, they probably would have demanded a demonstration.


Look, I am not against BJJ. As a matter of fact, I am considering takeing some classes from somebody that got his brown belt from Rickson. Even the masters said that wrestling was good preparation to LEARNING combat skills. I know some people NOW that all they do is self defence and combatatives, and they hope if they ever get attacked, their MUGGER uses BJJ. I have had some combat FIGHTING training, and I have had some combat SPORTS training. And I like and appreciate Judo and MODERN Ju-Jutsu for what it is. A combat SPORT.

There are more people that you know right now getting real twisted because they can't stand that BJJ is a combat sport instead of a combat tool. I just don't get it. I have never had an Olympic wrestler think I was diss'ing him because I thought his art was not a battlefield tool. Step away from the marketing and take a cold hard look at what you are doing, and where you are training to do it. So unless you are takeing some kind of hard core aikijujutsu, argue with Dr. Kano. He is the one that claims to have taken the battlefield techniques out of them. From:
The Original Kodokan Judo Tournament Rules
#4. A contestant shall be deemed to have been defeated when from any cause or causes he may become unconscious. But it is not permitted to use serious tricks when the wrestling bout is between friends. Such tricks as kicking and the breaking of arms, legs, and neck are barred.


Modern fencing and stage fencing don't have anything to do with combat either, but it does not mean they are worthless. As a matter of fact, they are perfectly suited for what they are used for.

But I don't really care about why someting is NOT in Flower of Battle (even though the lack of something in a book described as a comprehensive and exhaustive look at combat OUGHT to tell you something <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" /> ) What I am really interested in the unarmed part is what IS there.
"A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand." Lucius Annaeus Seneca 4BC-65AD.

User avatar
Randall Pleasant
Posts: 872
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2002 3:35 pm
Location: Flower Mound, Texas, USA

Re: If you could ask the Masters a Question?

Postby Randall Pleasant » Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:57 pm

David Welch wrote:
...going to the ground should be a last option and good grappling skills are intended to extricate the defended from a ground situation and allow them to get back on their feet as quickly as possible.
I agree with you. I also think that Fiore knew a few techniques for getting back on his feet and most likely he had to use one or two of those techniques a few times during his life. I would love to know what he did not include in his known works.
David Welch wrote:
...the lack of something in a book described as a comprehensive and exhaustive look at combat OUGHT to tell you something...
First, Fiore is indeed comprehensive. However, there is <u>nothing</u> suggesting that Fiore is exhaustive. It is beyond any man, including Fiore, to write down everything that he knows. Besides, I think it would take a much bigger book.

Second, a negative cannot prove a positive! The lack of something never tells us anything except that it is lacking or missing. It never tells us that something does not exist. This is the same logic that some people try to use to justify edge-on-edge parrying by stating that since a master did not explicitly state to use an edge-on-flat parry when describing a technique that the master did not care how the parry was to be made, when in fact all it tells us is that the master did not describe how the parry was to be made. Likewise, the only thing that the lack of ground fighting in Fiore tells us is that Fiore did not include it for some unknown reason. Other sciences do not use this logic, if we are to truly be a “Science of Defense” then we too must not use this logic.
Ran Pleasant

Jay Vail
Posts: 558
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2002 2:35 am

Re: If you could ask the Masters a Question?

Postby Jay Vail » Sat Oct 18, 2003 4:16 am

Personally I’ve never been much for ground fighting. When I was a kid I was small and weak, and I’m not much stronger now. I used to get pounded on the ground until I learned to apply attacks to the throat and the eyes and certain pressure points around the neck. Then if I was on the ground about to imitate a pool noodle I could get free if I had one arm loose. This never failed me, but believe me you have to be willing to be ruthless and hurt the guy because there is nothing gentle or sporting about any of these techniques.

I read once an account of a traveler in the American West when the west then mean the Mississippi valley, Illinois, Kentuck, Tennessee and Ohio. The writer was puzzled why he kept meeting so many guys with only one eye, a missing ear, or only part of a nose. He discovered that these unfortunates had lost them in fights that went to the ground, where the noses and ears were bitten off and the eyes gouged out. That’s what real ground fighting is all about and what you risk when you go to the ground if you are not willing to be equally ruthless.

Real ground fighting is not this sporty BJJ stuff or judo ne waza. I saw a BJJ fight in which one of the Gracie opponents tried to stick a finger in the Gracie’s eye. It was a half hearted attempt that achieved nothing but generate scornful laughs from the commentator. Had the wrestler been willing to be a little more nasty and driven that finger home, Gracie would have let him go and might be wearing an eye patch today.

User avatar
Shane Smith
Posts: 1159
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2002 2:15 pm
Location: Virginia Beach

Re: If you could ask the Masters a Question?

Postby Shane Smith » Sat Oct 18, 2003 6:23 am

Ran said "First, Fiore is indeed comprehensive. However, there is nothing suggesting that Fiore is exhaustive. It is beyond any man, including Fiore, to write down everything that he knows. Besides, I think it would take a much bigger book."

There are many Asian Masters to this day that teach no-one EVERYTHING they know.Think about it,if you are still among the living and may still have preserve your life against another who may,or may not have read your book,do you want all of your likely techniques to be known or are you going to hold a few back...just in case? <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />
Shane Smith~ARMA Forum Moderator
ARMA~VAB
Free Scholar

User avatar
Mike Cartier
Posts: 594
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2002 12:21 pm
Location: USA Florida

Re: If you could ask the Masters a Question?

Postby Mike Cartier » Sat Oct 18, 2003 7:42 am

Well we have been down this road before haven't we. <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />
We can agree to disagree.
I think you guys have some misconceptions about modern mixed martial arts fighting sports though.
For starters NOONE trains in one style exclusively, your average professional fighter is training striking with Muay Thai and Boxing and training in takedowns, throwing and ground control from Wrestling. BJJ or Sambo or Catch wrestling In addition most of them come from some other art which filters into what they do as well.
I don't think I am a victim of BJJ marketing, BJJ is not a complete art, there is no complete art, not one single art covers all ranges and types of fighting completely.
Mixed martial art fighting may be a sport, but its a sport thats closer to how people fight than 90% of the martial arts i have seen out there care to train it.. The fact that noone is trying to rip of each others ears or poke out each others eyes doesn't make its developed skillset non-combative. Afterall how do you train to rip of and ear? Who lets you rip of their ears for training or poke out thier eyes? So you can never really train it on a real person you can only simulate it. That doesn't make it not effective, but it does make it largely untestable.

Don't be so sure that wrestling is about playtime either, your average wrestler can tear a hole through most of us martial artists who think we will knock them out as they try to take us down or we will just stand up if they take us down.
When a good athletic wrestler wants you on the ground you are on it unless you have equal or greater grappling skill than your opponent. Thats the place where strikers learn that striking on the ground means giving up a load of leverage and position. What you need to strike on the ground is the skill in grappling required to allow you to reverse the position and get to a dominant position so you can strike with full power.

Boxing is a sport too with all sorts of artificial rules, boxers are constantly being seperated when they clinch.
They tape up thier hands and use gloves and don't strike below the hip etc. All very non combative does that mean boxing is not extremely effective in a street fight?


There is no magic bullet to fighting, its not ground fighting and its not striking and its not dirty fighting. Its perparation for whatever situation you might be in. Thats rarely achieved though one art alone.
Mike Cartier

Meyer Frei Fechter

www.freifechter.com

User avatar
Jared L. Cass
Posts: 201
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2002 6:21 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Re: If you could ask the Masters a Question?

Postby Jared L. Cass » Sat Oct 18, 2003 4:08 pm

Mike wrote: "There is no magic bullet to fighting, its not ground fighting and its not striking and its not dirty fighting. Its perparation for whatever situation you might be in. Thats rarely achieved though one art alone."

Very well said!

Mike also wrote:
"Well we have been down this road before haven't we."

We certainly have! And I'm not so sure anybody on the opposing view points really learned much.

So at the risk of continuing this "ground fighting is good /bad /important /not import /ect /ect /ect <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> " I need to throw in what I consider proof of "some-sort" of ground fighting sensibilities. Namely: take a look at almost any mass battle painting/artwork done in the medieval period, renaissance, and Mid/Far East, and there will almost always be at least one pair of combatents crouching/kneeling/ or lieing on the ground where one is in a dominate position sticking a dagger into the neck, eye, or chest of his opponent.

Enoufgh said. And to qwote Mike again: "There is no magic bullet to fighting, its not ground fighting and its not striking and its not dirty fighting. Its perparation for whatever situation you might be in. Thats rarely achieved though one art alone."

Which IMO is why we study weapon arts, why we should study striking, and why we should also study ground fighting.

Jared L. Cass, ARMA Associate, Wisconsin

User avatar
Jared L. Cass
Posts: 201
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2002 6:21 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Re: If you could ask the Masters a Question?

Postby Jared L. Cass » Tue Oct 21, 2003 10:37 am

All right, getting this thread back on track <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

My questions to Fiore:

1). Hi there Mr. Fiore, who did you learn your unarmed art from?

2). Did you really train with Masters from Germany? If so, why don't you show any "fire-man's carry" type throws that the Germans seem to be so fond of?

3). What's the method of training you use to prepair yourself and your students for actual unarmed combat? Obviously you don't want to kill your training partner (but you do want to kill an actual enemy), so do you practice till submission or some other way?

4.) What I find refreshing about the German works is that they don't have any illusions that physical size really does matter in a fight. Do you agree? I weigh only 140lbs dripping wet and on a full stomach... what advise do you give for a smaller man like me vrs. a larger man?

5). You don't mention anything (that I'm aware of) like throwing sand in an opponents eyes. What are your thoughts on this and what are your faviorite "tricks" to give one the advantage?

Thank's for your time, Fiore! Now I need to travel back to the future. See ya' around. Hey, wanna' come with me? <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

Jared L. Cass, ARMA Associate, Wisconsin

david welch
Posts: 453
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 5:04 am
Location: Knoxville TN

Re: If you could ask the Masters a Question?

Postby david welch » Tue Oct 21, 2003 10:23 pm

First:
"First, Fiore is indeed comprehensive. However, there is nothing suggesting that Fiore is exhaustive. It is beyond any man, including Fiore, to write down everything that he knows. Besides, I think it would take a much bigger book."

"And this treatise will recite our entire knowledge and intentions of what we have seen from many masters and scholars and warriors and Dukes, and Princes, Marquis, Counts, Knights and Esquires and many more people from diverse provinces, and also things that we discovered ourselves."

I didn't mean so much that it was comprehensive and exhaustive, but that Fiore said it was. I am simply thinking that from his statements in the prologue, if he thought it was importaint he put it in the book. If he felt it wasn't he didn't. So, I think that if a man tells you ""This book will display all labors of war, that is with spear, poleax, sword, dagger and wrestling on horse, on foot, with harness and without and how it should be done." and then doesn't include something, you don't need a neon sign telling you he doesn't that is how you do it.

Second:
"5). You don't mention anything (that I'm aware of) like throwing sand in an opponents eyes. What are your thoughts on this and what are your faviorite "tricks" to give one the advantage? "

" And let us start from the unarmed combat, which is due to two reasons, which are amusement and anger, that is for life, with any trick, falsehood and cruelty possible to do." (Prologue (Getty's Version))

I don't think he would mind! <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

And third: I am currently haveing "real life" troubles with convincing some people that submission wrestleing and UFC isn't the ultimate in "H2H combat arts" and I am sorry if it I am letting my frustration with that bleed through to my discussions here. If you believe:
" ...going to the ground should be a last option and good grappling skills are intended to extricate the defended from a ground situation and allow them to get back on their feet as quickly as possible."
Then we are really on the same page and I will try to quit sounding so hostile about the whole thing. <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

Since this isn't going to work like this, let me explain a little about this thread. I study mostly H2H combat, and as a result, I am on the very, very, very far periphery of some of the big names in unarmed, hand to hand, combat. I have made a request of them, that I had no right to make, that I would like them to help me go over Flower of Battle , really for them to go over it _for_ me, and from the whole thing, try to extrapolate a complete, teachable, historically "correct" hand to hand combat system that would integrate into our knifework, dagger work, etc. I was honored to be told by these people "I'll think about it" instead of a flat out "no". One of the is even working with me now, but in little bites. I was asking what _you_ would ask Fiore, so I could start to get an idea of what I am going to ask "my" expert. JC has been kind enough to keep this project private for me for a while, but I still want to keep these people anonymous until they decide how much, or even if, they want to help me. But, if you saw their names, you would probably know who they are.

So there you are. Where do you think I need to go?
"A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand." Lucius Annaeus Seneca 4BC-65AD.

User avatar
Craig Peters
Posts: 230
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 5:08 pm

Re: If you could ask the Masters a Question?

Postby Craig Peters » Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:22 pm

If I could ask a master only one question, and one question alone, I'd probably go-for-broke: "Will you personally train me in your art?" <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/cool.gif" alt="" />


Return to “Unarmed Skills Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

 
 

Note: ARMA - The Association for Renaissance Martial Arts and the ARMA logo are federally registered trademarks, copyright 2001. All rights reserved. No use of the ARMA name or emblem is permitted without authorization. Reproduction of material from this site without written permission of the authors is strictly prohibited. HACA and The Historical Armed Combat Association copyright 1999 by John Clements. All rights reserved. Contents of this site 1999 by ARMA.