ReMA vs. MMA

[Gene Tausk]

Jay:

I agree with Senor Norwood that the thread should stay open, and it will. We seem to be getting back on track to where we belong, although as I stated, I am extremely disappointed in some of the comments made on this forum. There is no place for that kind of nonsense here.

Very truly yours,


------------------>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gene tausk
SFS
Director - ARMA Houston Southside Study Group
Forum Moderator

[Gene Tausk]

Jaron:

Let me throw this out for you. You study Shuai-Chao at OSU, and I took two quarters of the art for phys ed and enjoyed it immensely. One of the statements made by Prof. Weng during one of the classes was that SC was traditional Chinese battlefield wrestling and that groundwork was not included because on the battlefield, once you are down, you will be kicked, punched, or, if the attacker has the ability and chance, he will pick up a sword or knife and run it through you. Or, if you are on the ground, one of his buddies will come up and finish you off.

Now, it seems to me that this is much of the theory of ringen - you get the person off of you and then finish him off by any means necessary. It is my interpretation that ringen enjoys a great deal in common with SC.

Comments?


----------------->>>>>>>>>>>>gene
SFS
Director - ARMA Southside Houston

[M Wallgren]

This is a good point!

A follow up question; Is ringen only for the Battlefield or as many of the longsword stuff to put in use in duells?

A lot of the technics in Codex W. is technics where you intensianally go to the ground with your advesary to finnish him of! For example the one where you defend aganist a dubble knee takedown by grabing the neck of your opponent and jump back to land on his head with your torso in order to break his neck. There is also a number of neck throws where you intensionally go to the ground.

I Agree that on the battlefield this would be risky so why so many of these in C.W. for example?

We also have Gladiatora where armoured ringen in a juridical fight is presented! There it is clearly a matter of man to man combat not battlefield fighting!

Any toughts and commets on this?

[JeffGentry]

Hey Gene

I actualy have been in the midst of sparring with Jaron and done exactly what you stated, we went down and i immediatley began looking for our sword's and found them and stabbed Jaron in the side while he occupied himself choking me.

A follow up question; Is ringen only for the Battlefield or as many of the longsword stuff to put in use in duells?

If it is for dueling there in this time period you still run the danger of them getting away and getting to a weapon.

On the battlefield it would go both way's as far as someone coming to the rescue, If you take a guy to the ground what's to say your friend won't kill him while you hold him down as opposed to his buddy killing you.

I think this is a relative question the fechtbuch's do state this can be used in earnest and in play.

I wonder what they considered earnest/play? Tournament's? wonder what kind of rule's they had?


Jeff

[Bill Welch]

M.wallgren states
"A lot of the technics in Codex W. is technics where you intensianally go to the ground with your advesary to finnish him of! For example the one where you defend aganist a dubble knee takedown by grabing the neck of your opponent and jump back to land on his head with your torso in order to break his neck. There is also a number of neck throws where you intensionally go to the ground."

I would think,these attacks that you mention, are designed to kill the opponent and then you can jump right backup so someone doesn't come along and kill you while you are wrestling on the ground.

[Jaron Bernstein]

"Let me throw this out for you. You study Shuai-Chao at OSU, and I took two quarters of the art for phys ed and enjoyed it immensely. One of the statements made by Prof. Weng..."

I have never had the chance to meet the man, but I hope to someday.

".... during one of the classes was that SC was traditional Chinese battlefield wrestling and that groundwork was not included because on the battlefield, once you are down, you will be kicked, punched, or, if the attacker has the ability and chance, he will pick up a sword or knife and run it through you. Or, if you are on the ground, one of his buddies will come up and finish you off."

That has to do with multiple opponents in our context. If you can be assured of only facing one person (whether in a MMA match or a medieval tourney against one person), then you can go to the ground safely. With you opponents friends around to help out....maybe not.

"Now, it seems to me that this is much of the theory of ringen - you get the person off of you and then finish him off by any means necessary. It is my interpretation that ringen enjoys a great deal in common with SC."

I tend to agree, but I am far from familiar enough with all of the manuals to say. I guess the question for that would be for those more familiar with the manuals than me: what % of the extant ringen materials deals with what we would call groundwork today? If the answer is "not much", then I would suggest that you are right and ringen was primarily meant to be a "stay on your feet" art. OTOH, if there is a good amount of groundwork in the manuals (as our Swedish friends believe to be the case), then maybe not.

In terms of modern MMA utility, I would suggest that without extensive groundwork (if that is indeed the case, which I am not sure of), taking ringen into an MMA match (even if you trained it properly) would have some disadvantages if you end up on the ground.

[M Wallgren]

The First Ground Technique

If you wish to apply the first ground technique, then allow yourself to fall down. Lift the knee as high as possible and hold him firmly about the back. Pull him with you on the knee; if you then stretch out your leg, he will slide off. Follow through with both the hands and feet, and immobilize him with one of the holds.

The Second Ground Technique

If your opponent applies an upper grasp, then duck down until your head is under his chest and pull him with you. Bend your knee, seize him with any hand between the legs and throw him over you. Then throw yourself over him to make a hold.

The Third Ground Technique

If a man has you under him, then observe which of his hands is above. Seize on the same side at his arm. This is called a Leg-break and is often used in wrestling. Seize with the full strength of your hands and your legs and with your entire body, until you have brought the man under you. Then make one of the holds described above.

Death-blows

The First Death-blow

Seize the man with the left hand above the belt, where you want. At the same time punch with your left fist with your full strength against his heart. 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 taken from S Ringeck translation on the Online manuals here on the ARMa homepage. ( http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Ringeck.htm )

In the last part there is a reference I want to take a further look at. Here S.R. say that after you have don a Mortstoss (Murderpunch) you should get in and wrestlig.

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 just one example of the notion in the manuals that Ringen can be used both on foot and in groundfighting.

A other interesting statement in this passage is this:

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).

Here the translation has some difficulty to interpret the word "Widerbrche". Let me have a go with my close lighuistic relationship to my mothers tounge Swedish.

Wider (Old Ger.) - Vidare, förbi (Swe) - Yonder, Beyond, Pass away, (Eng.)

What I want to say here is that the reference to "illegal breaks, unnatural breaks, or opposing breaks" could be slightly of. Why?

Well the "brche" is translated into break witch is okey but not the full meaning of the word. The swedish word "Bryta", is the translation of this and can both mean to brake something of, to make it broken, but can also mean to put pressure on not nessesary make it snap. This could hence be interpreted as "submission".

My thought could be summed up as:

Brche- "submission"
Widerbrche- "submission beyond the breakingpoint of the joints and bones"

Intressting that S.R. makes a difference between them!!

cheers...

Martin

[philippewillaume]

Hello gents
I think it is pretty much like knight vs samurai debate. Or is aikido valid as a martial art.
Well it depends who is doing it to who.

As to going to ground technique in ringen.
My understanding of ringen is that you do not go to the ground but well it is very arguable:
That what it is based on

Von mort stossen: der erst.
About the murder stike the first
Greyff den man an mitt der lincken hand ober der gürtel, wo du wilt. Domitt stoß in mitt diner gerechten hand zugeschlossene (73 v )mitt kröfften ansin hertz. Do mitt greyff ain ringen, so es dir beste werden mag, vnnd folgdem ringen mitt brüchen vnd wider brüchen. Die selben bruch vnd widerbruch thu in allen ringen: zu rosß, zu füssen, gewäpnet oder bloß, zu lauffens, ligend oder vffstendig.

Grab/attack the man with the left hand above the belt, where you whish/want. At the same time with the hand appropriately (gerechten substantive form of gerechter ?) /or right hand closed/locked strike at his heart. Then engage him with a wrestling you may think is the best. An follow up with the breaks and counter breaks (if wider is wider=against it is possible to be more breaks wider = wieder but less likely) the same break and counter-breaks done in all the wrestling: on horse by foot, armed (as in armoured) or naked (as in with normal clothes), getting at each other, couching/waiting for or raising up/going against (ligen can have the idea of accepting the technique as in blending with it and raising up=to go against. So I am not too sure of the ground thing since there is none in the manual )

But we know that we should know how to wrestle so may be ground technique are assumed to be known.

The other thing to take into consideration is that, If you take talhoffer and CW, I think this is to be use in the context of a judicial dual. (I.e. one to one.)
So going to the ground is not a bad idea since the friend of your opponent cannot beat the proverbial out of you. (And if we believe the text lots of judicial duels in Armour finished there).
And you can go all the ringen on your knees so…

I am not sure a clear answer can be found.

Ps
For the purpose of that discussion I did not take in account where you throw your opponent or where you do locking maneuvers on the ground. By going to the ground I mean actually fighting each other on the ground.

[M Wallgren]

I think it is pretty much like knight vs samurai debate.

My point with the innitial post was to shed light on how simmilar it is. MHO is that ringen is the medival equallent(sp?) to MMA, a system collected from all the known fighting in it´s day! I don´t remember where but I heard or read that J. Leichtenauer went about Europe to larn his fighting from "all" the masters and then he "destilled" the information and learning he got into his "System"...

(Sorry for all the "***" stuff but I don´t know how to explain it better... hehe)

Cheers!!!
Martin

[philippewillaume]

Det ar bra... I understood every thing (and do not worry because it is easier to understand you than saying 7 in Swedish)

I cannot disagree wit you here, I think manual are basically “that works for me” type of book. And I think that at lest the originator of the tradition had a very broad knowledge. (and probably the glossator as well)

Have you found any other manual (15 cent) where you are told where strike.
So far I have found only Ringeck and Fiore. (As far as I can tell Ringeck is the only one to tell us when and how to strike.)

[Jake_Norwood]

The Third Ground Technique

If a man has you under him, then observe which of his hands is above. Seize on the same side at his arm. This is called a Leg-break and is often used in wrestling. Seize with the full strength of your hands and your legs and with your entire body, until you have brought the man under you. Then make one of the holds described above.

This looks a great deal like BJJ's "arm-trap and roll" from Drill One.

Jake

[Mike Cartier]

This looks a great deal like BJJ's "arm-trap and roll" from Drill One.

Jake they call that oompah in BJJ. Thats what I thought too but I don't get the leg break reference. Everything else sounds like the reversal of positions used in BJJ to get from being mounted to being on top and in the opponents guard, an essentially neutral position.

[Jake_Norwood]

Perhaps the "leg break" is the leg trap with the ankle.

Jake

[Jaron Bernstein]

Or it could be what BJJ calls a sweep if memory serves, where you use your leg to sweep the other fellow over from your guard.

OK, consider me convinced. IMO Ringen does involve groundwork.

[Jake_Norwood]

Could be. The line "Seize with the full strength of your hands and your legs and with your entire body" is what has me thinking of a trap, though.

Jake