Pugilist fighting.

[Fusen]

Or do some MMA sparring, (which is as close as your going to get to oldschool boxing) where you want to be bladed off at a distance and more square on when close, so you have both hands active and dont suddenly find your one arm controlled by their two hands. Which incidentally matches a lot of how classical arts are taught.

[AZeitung]

Originally Posted by skuggvarg

The positions and the striking used in early pugilism do seem to have resembled the stances and punches used in Bujinkan. Check old sources and you will find out why. Gradually distance, stances and way of attacking changed, especially after gloves were introduced. Indeed it seems step through strikes were far more common then. I read a great article about bare knuckle fighting before the Queensbury rules and if I remember correctly some of the things pointed out was that the distance was greater, you put your arms farther out from your body angling it to the opponent so to not present a target and you didnt hit to the face as much,mostly to the body. Since you couldnt "absorb" strikes with your gloves you had to stay out of distance. Early pugilism also seem to have involved wrestling, head buts, stomping and kicking the opponent on the ground from time to time.

You are correct that early pugilism contained things other than punches and that the introduction of gloves does make a difference. However, I think Mitlov's post, which is linked to in this thread makes a good point--that the photos and especially *drawings* you see don't reflect all that well what the actual fighting looked like in motion.

I heard this argument before, with Jack Dempsey, that a picture of him looked something like a karate punch. However, if you watch him fight, he never looks like he's doing karate punches.

Also, I'd like to point out that after watching the first video in Mitlov's thread, I can say with certainty that professional boxers these days would tear either of those guys apart. And that makes sense, since the quality of just about every sport has improved since the early 1900s. Runners run faster, swimmers swim faster, weight lifters life more--why would boxing be the one sport that has degraded in quality since then?

I think the changes in stances/hand strikes are not so much due to the introduction of gloves (which were already used in fights in the first two videos I watched--the second one being from 1894, and I know have been used in training for centuries) as it is due to the sport improving, and here are two reasons why:

1) I think it's probably somewhat similar to what happened with the position of jockeys riding race horses. People have been riding horses for thousands of years, but over the last century the jockey position has changed dramatically, with jockeys adopting a lower position, leaning forward, and pumping their arms. Jockeys used to ride fairly upright, and only recently have they developed riding positions where they have to a lot of work, but it takes a lot of load off the horse. I think similarly, boxing has seen big advancements over the past 100 years and the new strikes/stances are more efficient, powerful, and fast.

2) In MMA, the hand strikes used are fairly standard boxing strikes. Since only small, 4 oz gloves, which act nothing like boxing gloves are used, and takedowns and kicks are allowed, it seems unlikely that MMA fighters would incorporate standard boxing techniques if other punching techniques were better under those conditions (or rather, the first one to figure that out would have a lot of money to be made).

Shouldnt be totally surprising though. Do you think the ichimonji no kamae and the tsuki is only there for fun?

Maybe? I have no idea, as I don't study your art.

[Connovar]

Originally Posted by garth

Kagete posted



Kagete, you may indeed be correct its been years since I left studying JKD/Kali. Maybe I was mistaken and Dan Innosanto probably didnt say that the filipinos use to cut the front hand of pugilists with a knife, but are you saying that your evidence that he didnt say this is based on two you tube clips?

Please

YouTube - Bruce Lee Concept Lesson (Jeet Kune Do) - Part 2 [ 3 ] 4 5

Also did you not hear what he said at 1:07.

"If you put your hand out here they will cut it off"

Do you not realise that British sailors some of who were pugilists found themselves in the filipines in the 1920s



By By Lilia Inosanto. Howe

http://tovakkali.blogspot.com/2009/0...lutionize.html

Oh and by the way, I didnt get what I said from a You tube clip. My old instructor would train with Dan Innosanto and others who trained with dan so it MAY have come from him.

Garth

I heard it myself, Inosanto make those speculations at a seminar I went to in the mid 90's.

On the other hand I doubt the speculation of the lead hand be pulled back because of knives is likely to cause western boxing to make the change. Changes in glove size or change in methods or even rules etc would more likely have been the cause.

Either way boxing or fighting like that now is quaint. Both modern boxing and MMA find such a method less effective now. For example the sideways stance still used in classical boxing is dangerous when grappling is allowed. It makes it more likely to for a takedown to occur or to have your back taken. MMA now often uses various shielding methods using the elbows and forearms which protects better and still allows them to close with their opponent.

Nowdays turn sideways and you go down. Leave the hand out and you get caught in an arm drag. Leave your leg out and you get thai kicked.

[Devil Hanzo]

So you're trying to validate the way you do things by comparing extremely old/poorly drawn STATIONARY pictures of a well-proven striking art to your own art's kamae/striking postures. It's very easy to see what you want in this situation.

Basically, in my opinion, what you're doing is saying, "Pugilism was violent and bareknuckle, much more realistic than today's modern boxing and MMA sports. It even contained headbutts and stuff. Hey! Look at these old paintings! Don't they kinda look like what we do? Doesn't that kinda sorta look like this kamae and that lunge punch? TAKE THAT WORLD!"

What about pankration?



They're bareknuckle too, and there's no lunging step punches to "maintain distance because the severity of a counter attack is much higher than modern day MMA with gloves."



That also appears to be two fighters in close proximity trading blows.

What about pankration ground fighting?




So what you've established is that pugilism was an effective means of combat. You feel that, based on paintings, BBT is similar to it, thus making BBT an effective means of combat. However, by using the same methods of examining imagery, pankration [which is also a proven effective means of combat] looks nothing like BBT, yet looks remarkably similar to modern day MMA.

I'm really not trying to debate or prove one thing is better than another, I'm just trying to point out that this thread is sort of ridiculous and you can see whatever you want if you look hard enough for it.

[Kagete]

Originally Posted by garth

Kagete, you may indeed be correct its been years since I left studying JKD/Kali. Maybe I was mistaken and Dan Innosanto probably didnt say that the filipinos use to cut the front hand of pugilists with a knife, but are you saying that your evidence that he didnt say this is based on two you tube clips?

1. Stop clutching at straws. Please.

2. It's Inosanto with a single N.

3. I'm saying that, as can be seen in these two clips, what he said has been distorted and taken out of context.

EDIT: New attempt:

http://www.krishnagodhania.org/articles/boxing.html

[Don Roley]

Originally Posted by Fusen

Anyone here ever tried walking in this old school nanban-aruki way?

Actually, a few years ago an author wrote and article for hiden that pretty much shot down the idea that ancient Japanese went around walking in an extreme fashion like some are saying today.

Instead, it seems most likely that the Buke class had an ideal of keeping just the hips and shoulders in line. The arms could pretty much swing and still keep the essential core intact. If you take a look at traditional things like Noh you can see that the hips and shoulders seem to stay on line with each other, most often facing straight on while the feet below the knees make the movements.

I'll leave you to the latest Garthism.

[garth]

Kagete posted

1. Stop clutching at straws. Please.

2. It's Inosanto with a single N.

3. I'm saying that, as can be seen in these two clips, what he said has been distorted and taken out of context.

I think your the one that is clutching at straws as your whole argument is based on two you tube clips.

As Connovar said, he himself heard Dan Inosanto say it himself back in the mid 90s when on a seminar.

As I said previous to that I had also heard that he had said it. BUT because you cant find it on you tube your argument is that he didnt say it.

3. I'm saying that, as can be seen in these two clips, what he said has been distorted and taken out of context.

Please Kagete stop clutching at straws. I'm sure Mr inosanto said a lot more thing than were posted on youtube.

Garth

[benkyoka]

Originally Posted by Fusen

Then again Jumonji no kata has the same striking with the lead hand, with the front leg stepping forward (not the back leg stepping through) to generate power.

Does it?

[garth]

Don Roley posted

I'll leave you to the latest Garthism.

Is that your pathetic attempt at an insult Don?

Maybe you need to get back to your "We dont need no stinking instruction thread" where more than a few people think your talking out your butt.

And maybe after avoiding (Ducking) some of the points made over there we could invent a new term. The DONALD DUCK.

Garth

[Kagete]

Originally Posted by garth

I think your the one that is clutching at straws as your whole argument is based on two you tube clips.

As Connovar said, he himself heard Dan Inosanto say it himself back in the mid 90s when on a seminar.

As I said previous to that I had also heard that he had said it. BUT because you cant find it on you tube your argument is that he didnt say it.

For once, behave like a goddamn adult and just admit that you may have misinterpreted something you heard years ago.

To begin with, I also provided a text, which you conveniently seem to have ignored.

Second, I have provided two clips with Dan Inosanto commenting on the matter in a way that clearly signifies that the matter is more complicated than you make it out to be.

Third, logic dictates that since the Filipino boxing, i.e. Panantukan in this case, is BASED on edged weapons fighting and that this art was already highly developed by the time the Western boxers came to the Philippines, it is obvious to anyone that Inosanto's argument is NOT that the Westerners arms got cut by knives every time they got into a fistfight with the natives - but rather that the art was ALREADY developed in that direction and that the tactics were then adopted by the Westerners.

I will post this link one more time hoping that your ego, lacking intelligence or a combination of the two won't prevent you from having a look at it.

http://www.krishnagodhania.org/articles/boxing.html

"Western Boxing came to the Philippines (via US servicemen) in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. As can be seen from the above, it was already a highly evolved art. Manong Dan Inosanto has mentioned that "when the Americans saw the Filipino's box (early 1900's) - they noticed a high on-guard position, unusually quick punching and lots of footwork...unknown to them - this was as a result of previous training with knife"."

[Decision Tree]

Originally Posted by Devil Hanzo

So you're trying to validate the way you do things by comparing extremely old/poorly drawn STATIONARY pictures of a well-proven striking art to your own art's kamae/striking postures. It's very easy to see what you want in this situation.

Basically, in my opinion, what you're doing is saying, "Pugilism was violent and bareknuckle, much more realistic than today's modern boxing and MMA sports. It even contained headbutts and stuff. Hey! Look at these old paintings! Don't they kinda look like what we do? Doesn't that kinda sorta look like this kamae and that lunge punch? TAKE THAT WORLD!"

What about pankration?



They're bareknuckle too, and there's no lunging step punches to "maintain distance because the severity of a counter attack is much higher than modern day MMA with gloves."



That also appears to be two fighters in close proximity trading blows.

What about pankration ground fighting?




So what you've established is that pugilism was an effective means of combat. You feel that, based on paintings, BBT is similar to it, thus making BBT an effective means of combat. However, by using the same methods of examining imagery, pankration [which is also a proven effective means of combat] looks nothing like BBT, yet looks remarkably similar to modern day MMA.

I'm really not trying to debate or prove one thing is better than another, I'm just trying to point out that this thread is sort of ridiculous and you can see whatever you want if you look hard enough for it.

Actually, Devil Hanzo, I'm not trying to validate anything. I dont need to validate my training to someone on the internets called Devil Hanzo, papa smuerf or anyone else. I'm happy with my training thank you.

Your opinion of what I'm trying to say means nothing to me at all. It's wrong.

I have not metioned modern boxing and I haven't mentioned MMA. I'm not trying to prove anything to the 'world' about Bujinkan training (by world, you're talking about people who come onto the Martial Arts Planet forum.)

I haven't established that pugilism was an effective means of combat. I haven't done nearly enough research into it. It seems effective for its purpose based on what I have read. Also, I did note that they were illustrations and the implication of that was/ is that as they were drawings, they were not extremely reliable. However, most of the picures I found on google images looked like the ones posted.

You obviously have an adgenda. I'm really not interested in starting another TMA vs MMA thread so if that's all you're looking for, perhaps you should look some place else.

Originally Posted by Devil Hanzo

You feel that, based on paintings, BBT is similar to it, thus making BBT an effective means of combat.

This is a great example of projecting and basically putting words in my mouth.

I'm pointing out that based on those pictures that I saw, perhaps early pugilism and the schools that make up the Bujinkan share some similarities. This isn't really supprising to me becasue when you stop trying to point out all the differences between things, the similarities start coming out. Things like balance, distance, timing, angles, dominant positioning etc are there in all martial arts/ martial sports that I have trained in. Our Soke called what he was doing the 'Martial arts of Distance.'

When you realise I'm not here to prove to myself and everyone on this forum that the Bujinkan is the best martial art there is, and I'm not here to win arguments against people who have avatars instead of names on an internet forum, you will probably decide not to bother with your stupid posts.

[garth]

Kagete posted in post 25

For once, behave like a goddamn adult and just admit that you may have misinterpreted something you heard years ago

See post 15 where I said

Kagete, you may indeed be correct its been years since I left studying JKD/Kali. Maybe I was mistaken and Dan Innosanto probably didnt say that the filipinos use to cut the front hand of pugilists with a knife,

And at no point did I say that it was asimple as that and that there were not other reasons why the boxing stance became what it has become.

But your whole point is based on watching 2 you tube clips. Thats called clutching a straws. All I said was that Dan Innosanto (So I have heard and Connovar agrees) that he said it. NOT that it might be a bit more complicated than that.

Garth

[Kagete]

Originally Posted by garth

But your whole point is based on watching 2 you tube clips. Thats called clutching a straws.

HEAR YE! HEAR YE!

Gary Arthur has now admitted to the entire MAP community that he is too stupid to read articles provided to him twice. It should come as no big surprise.

http://www.krishnagodhania.org/articles/boxing.html

And your statement about that being the entire scope of my argument is also a BS-ridden lie. I've met the author of the text provided above several times and am about to do so again in the near future. And let's not forget, Gary, that you said "the reason" - not "one of the reasons". My entire point has been about what you said being distorted and taken out of context, which is also obvious to those who have watched Inosanto's instructional series of videos available here:

http://inosanto.com/store/product_in...products_id=33

[benkyoka]

Originally Posted by garth

But your whole point is based on watching 2 you tube clips.

This is me being a jerk. Garth, a lot of what you think you know about this art comes from watching videos.........................

[skuggvarg]

Attention to AZeitung (and possibly Devil Hanzo):

The introduction of gloves of "fair-size" also changed the nature of the bouts. An average pair of boxing gloves resembles a bloated pair of mittens and are laced up around the wrists.[12] The gloves can be used to block an opponent's blows. As a result of their introduction, bouts became longer and more strategic with greater importance attached to defensive maneuvers such as slipping, bobbing, countering and angling. Because less defensive emphasis was placed on the use of the forearms and more on the gloves, the classical forearms outwards, torso leaning back stance of the bare knuckle boxer was modified to more modern stance in which the torso is tilted forward and the hands are held closer to the face.

Taken from Wikipedia (couldnt find my old article on early pugilism but this one says about the same thing).

However, by using the same methods of examining imagery, pankration [which is also a proven effective means of combat] looks nothing like BBT, yet looks remarkably similar to modern day MMA.

Yes, I can see the similarities there, two naked men on the ground in akward position, hugging each other. Looks about the same.
All kidding aside, Im no expert at greeko-roman wrestling or boxing but Im fairly sure those activities included rules and protective wraps around the hands. Otherwise you could be sure they wouldnt punch each other in the face that much.

Maybe? I have no idea, as I don't study your art.

Well, I do think its fun to train but Im sure the founders of the style did think of other uses than mere entertainment.

Best regards / Skuggvarg