Who are YOU training to fight?

[SzabolcsWaldmann]

Dunno, hes insights seem plausible for me. I was advised to read his articles about Martial Art Cults back then when there was a discussion about such, and it made me think.
But I belive, there is no place for self defense in a historical martial art in the first place - we are taught to fight people with historical weapons. And while there is a possibility that all this knowledge can help avoid or survive a deadly situation, it is in my opinion not a training against ninja-commando-obsessed-with-violence-Todd. That's all I wanted to express with the quotes.

Szab

[William Savage]

If a Todd hated me, i dont think id train with anything, id just save my pennys for a really nice shotgun, with a laser sight. Id also put a dummy in my bed and sleep under it wiht my gun. <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

I think im training for the battle of Agincourt (1415AD.)

Id say its all the same thing too. Unless your role playing RMA is about being the best you can at what you doing, whether Todd does or doesnt threaten you. People who are entertained by MA are enjoying there improving skills, and people who train to fight Todd are striving to improve their skills.

If your not training to hurt someone(and hoping you never have to) go join the SCA or an over styelized EMA.

[TimSheetz]

I disagree. If you are training to fight in earnest, it has self defense built into it. Jsut because I focus on longsword doesn;t mean I am not traiing in self defense.

In fact, I find most "self defense" focused folks do not understand how to manage their opponent at long seord range. Replace long sword witha large blunt object and I am still effective.

Tim

[Brian Hunt]

Ummm,

while I realize I may never be attacked with a sword in my local mall while I also have a sword, I would have to say that all ringen and dagger techniques equate very well to self defense in today's world. Plus quarter staff techniques work very well with various broom handles, etc. Fighting is fighting whether it is with your bare hands, or a historical weapon. Timing, distance, footwork, speed all translate well in a self defense situation.

just my opinion.

Brian Hunt
GFS

[Aaron Pynenberg]

I'll go a step further and say that even without a blunt object, when learning to manage the fight fencing is supreme. If you can fight at longsword range, then you can fight at close range as well. I believe that the principles learned throughout this art are easily applied in every range and directly translate to stand-up skills (all ranges) groundfighting, shooting etc...

[TimSheetz]

I agree Aaron, I just didn't have too much time to post more.

Tim

[William Savage]

So Tim Brian Aaron

Were you agreeing or disagreeing with my post Or not reffering to it at all?

[jeremy pace]

I have to say i completely disagree. Just because it is historical does not make it a martial art. And the key difference between a painting and a sword strike is the killing.... the MARTIAL in art. If you are training as you would for a dance and not a real fight then you arent training, as you say, historically. To fully appreciate a martial art you have to put it into context. Whether you are training for Todd or are a survivalist or maybe just want to put yourself in the shoes of a 15th century warrior you are training to kill.... that is the purpose of this art and if you take that out of it you might as well be learning how people originally played baseball.

As far as I am concerned i follow more the path Jake is talking about. I train to beat my ideal opponent whom i have never met and wears my face. I would love to cross blades with anyone and everyone in ARMA.... just the thought of it gets me giddy! I fight anyone who will pick up a weapon and use it. I think i am probably a lot of people's Todd myself <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> ..... at least im pretty sure that applies to the people i spar against.

Swordsmanship has its benefits in hand to hand. Swordsmanship teaches resourcefulness and the ability to outthink an opponent.... this applies almost everywhere but especially in combat of any sort. Try cross training against someone who uses lets say a EMA staff technique. If youve never done it before then you have to adapt fast or get whacked. I fight against every kind of weapon and just about any style and i have the opinion that combat is experience no matter where or what you are learning. Most of the people ive met in ARMA are former/current EMA practitioners and i bet that even if they no longer do it they probably dont feel the time as wasted..... Its all about the killer instinct and the will to engage and you can learn that in a lot of places. But hey, if Todd comes then bring him on! If he doesnt kill me then maybe we can compare notes. <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

[TimSheetz]

Hi William,

You can see on my post that it follows yours, but it was a response to Mr Waldman. He had said that self defense had no place in the historic study. I strongly disagree.

Peace,

Tim

[Mike Cartier]

i also disagree that HEMA has onthing to do with self defense, it has everything to do with it. I train it precisly the same way i train in modern arts.

[Brian Hunt]

Hi William,

I was responding to the same thing as Tim.

Brian Hunt
GFS

[Gene Tausk]

"I'll go a step further and say that even without a blunt object, when learning to manage the fight fencing is supreme. If you can fight at longsword range, then you can fight at close range as well."

Well said and 100% in agreement.


---------------&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;gene tausk
SFS
Study Group Leader - Houston ARMA Southside

[s_taillebois]

Well, it all has a use. And any working offensive system or a defensive one tends to have some commonalities. What works, works.
Ironically, if one were to place this back into a Renn. late Gothic framework. Todd (whoever this might be) probably would have had his head, stuck on a pike, decorating the Baron's or Duke's gateway.
In that period, concealed carry of a firearm, when it was into a nobles venue, was asking for it. As was undue weapons or attitudes (beyond the usual daggers) in certain situations-usually those wherein one's lords or other social superiors were involved. Essentially, if the falcons were out, or it was under other equally strong social constraints, even jostling someone the wrong way...could end your life, put your families title under constraint (or end it).
Anyway, under our own peculiar aristocracy, not prudent to answer a question as to who one's training to 'fight' . Interesting how some things change but don't change that much...

[SzabolcsWaldmann]

Okay folks, but if you look at our training stuff, it is self defense in the very sense, but not - or not completelly - for our times, is it? You could have defended yourself in the 15th century probably, but that does not necesserely teach you how to survive a _real_ bar fight with knives or whatever. Or a _real_ ambush with 3 people against one. Hoping that you would find a stick or an iron bar you could use as a 'sword' is probably futile, speaking of the art of the sword. Dagger fight is okay if you face a dagger or have one yourselves. Wrestling and historical unarmed fight can be okay. But what you miss in my opinion is that it's a martial art, teaching how to fight. Fight is not self-defense, fight is illegal and will be punished by the law, if you use it. I strongly disagree with the modern law system of self-defense, but one has to live with it. And while it can be different from state to state, how they interpret the word "self-defense", breaking a man's whatever after a hand-lock is not self defense any more, as far as I was told and basing on situations what I've heard of. We have a lawyer here, of course hunagrian, and the system we use can differ from the one in the states; yet essentially self-defense should mean the defense from imminent danger. One points a gun at you, yo kick his weapon from hand or whatever, and finish the move in a hand lock - everything what's happening afterwards will be questioned by the court. If the lawyer of the assilant can prove you had a better opportunity than doing him 15th century harm, you could end up in jail. Please correct me if I'm wrong with this.
That's why i believe that actually no martial art in the world is valid self-defense. A self-defense system should IMHO involve many other factors as well, from psychology, victim mindset, right up to noticing danger in the first place. Then moves, which are _really_ useful if a 160kg bull tries to crack your head in a barfight. I belive there are a lot of moves in historical european martial arts which could be used in the creation of such a system, but not all.
Final notes: many of the fechtbuchs deal actually with juristical duels (gladiatoria, talhoffer for example) or old-style swordsmanship sport (Meyer). All those systems base on the fact that you have one opponent, whose intentions are clear and you can actually prepare yourself for the fight.
If you are drinking in a bar and Todd lurks at you from behind (you missed him when entering the bar - first self-defense error) and hacks you to pieces with a barchair, that's probably a different situation.
I would very much like to read your opinion about this. Please take no offense.

Szab

[s_taillebois]

Provided of course we survived the rye molds, famines, runaway horses, intractable oxen, soot lungs from fires, or birth.
And M. Waldman, good observation on the variability of these unfortunate events. Nothing lends itself to a declarative, especially in discussions of this sort.
And on my part, not that interested in Todd's problems, but did want to point out his probable fate in about c. 1400.