OK, here's the thing. I have found nearly squat-all instruction in standard WMA texts from the 18th C through the end of the 19th which include instruction on safe falling techniques. The two exceptions being first Edwards "Art of Boxing" (1888) in which he says: "If ever you are caught in any of these traps, look rather to your tumble than struggle to prevent it, for, the more desperate your efforts, so much the more severe will be your fall, because of the great strain and tension on all muscles at the moment of impact with the hard ground; but if you let yourself go limp, and rather assist than fool your fall, you are not liable to sustain half so much injury as when you fall while struggling to prevent it." Secondly is Walker's "Defensive Exercises" (1840) section entitled "The Art of Falling Down" which I am convinced would lead to shoulder or wrist injury if followed. Of course, Walker says to do his falling methods in order to avoid head injury, so I guess it's preferable to break your wrist instead of your head, but still... Following the introduction of Japanese JiuJitsu at the turn of the 20th Century we begin to see the introduction of ukemi into texts but even then it begins sparsely and limited to books on JiuJitsu or JJ influenced self defense. Wrestling manuals continue to largely ignore the subject. This fact surprises me. Pugilism and Wrestling in the 18th-19th C. had a strong focus on throwing and tripping so "falling down" happened a lot in these arts. But I see no documentation of safe falling techniques. I am, therefore, left with one of three conclusions. First is the possibility that these falls just didn't create that many injuries because they were wrestled or boxed on comparatively "soft" and "giving" material and/or the throws/trips performed weren't all that likely to result in injury. I reject this because I've seen the throws documented and read too many accounts of boxing & wrestling on hard-packed dirt, wooden floors with straw covering, etc. Second, is the possibility that during this time part of the Western mind set was that a man just sucked it up. If you were injured, keep a stiff upper lip and don't complain. Keep going. There is some merit to this argument. For instance, in Boxing the term "Bottom" (and later "sand") was used to refer to a boxer's ability to withstand the blows of his opponent and keep on. Further, many wrestling styles concentrated on "strength" based contests. So an argument could be made that the Western concept of safe falling during this time period was simply "Man up and grow a pair." Third, is the possibility that safe falling techniques *were* in fact known but were simply not recorded in the manuals because it was something that "everyone knows" so why bother recording it? To that end I am looking for period material which, though not specifically "martial," would indicate a more sophisticated understanding of safe falling than "just go limp" or "don't cry like a little girl." The most logical texts which come to mind are those intended as introductory instruction for Tumbling, Gymnastics, and Acrobatics. So, with in this 200 year range, does anyone know of any Tumbling, Gymnastics, and Acrobatics manuals which discuss safe falling? (yes, I'm currently working library angles too) Peace favor your sword, Kirk
Hi Kirk. Sorry I can't help you with your explicit question. But if I can offer an opinion, I think it is most likely a mixture of the last two. When people practice something for a period they'll pick up ways of keeping safe naturally and instinctively. So perhaps it was observed and expected. Or perhaps it was limited to some corrections when necessary. like, don't do that do this, because xyz. The majority of people are involved in play fighting when young which usually takes the form of wrestling. i know I did tons of it with my young playmates when we were lads, even up to the ages of 10, 11. We didn't ever really hurt ourselves badly as I recall, and we were falling around the place all the time, whilst never ever being taught how to fall safely. yes it was all untrained, but I wonder if that's safer or not - I have no idea! I remember once being grabbed round the neck from behind and executing a picture perfect over the shoulder hip throw. Never been instructed on it ever in my life, I must of been about 10 years old. My cousin at the time was winded as he landed flat on his back quite hard on no more than regular carpet - it was in a bedroom. But no real or lasting damage to speak of. neither of us were trained in anything. he couldn't have changed his landing even if he wanted to. Also like to take this chance to thank you for your research and work. Awesome.
My input will allso be guesswork, but we have many examples from manuals that they take things for granted. In the oldest manual, the I-33, one section says something along the lines: "Then there are a lot of common techniques that I will not go into in this manual", or somthing like that. Fiore do a lot of wrestling, there is a lot of grappeling, and yet, there is no mentioning of rolling-techniques. It seems there is a great fokus on depriving the opponent the possebility to roll when you throw them, using the ground as the ultimate anvil, made of cobblestone, and that you should stay on foot at any cost (fiore compares your balance as a war elephant with a tower on his back; pretty important to stay up) One similar example is showing cuts to the hands in medieval daggertechniques; they are only shown in one (german) manual. I doubt they were that rare, the ability to cut the nearest target was probably taken for granted. The same goes for fiore sword, a lot of his swordwork asumes that you have read german longsword first(IMHO)
Thanks guys. I'm currently reading over several pre-1900 gymnastics manuals. The idea of "common knowledge" is pretty popular and has many documented examples. But it's not very helpful to modern researchers. Peace favor your sword, Kirk
Not in the last 200 years, but the arma essay mentions that Monte notes the importance of knowing how to fall correctly, but I don't know if it actually mentions how. As for how they learned it I would immagine that it was trained as they were doing the throw. Some people I have spoken to, say that you don't learn breakfalls when learning moden wrestling, and rugby players don't usually learn breakfalls. They just learn to take a fall as you go. I have also seen in a magaizine somewhere that Shuai Jiao does not learn the normal breakfalls that you see in Japanese styles. I believe that there is also mention of leaping on and off horses as knightly training. Perhaps they learnt how to fall while learning to ride and doing other military style training. Cartwheels, handstands and other gymnastic techniques are mentioned as being possible in full armour. If they have been trained to do this I don't imagine they would have left out how to fall. This would be less relevent for civilian training.
Perhaps it isn't that it was assumed people already knew how to fall, but that they didn't attribute preventable risk to falling. I'll try and explain what I mean. If you are training in a sports hall or a tatami lined dojo learning how to fall well can make a massive difference to the level of injury you may suffer, but if you are fighting outside then it is the irregularity of the ground that is the biggest factor. So much so that your falling technique makes little difference. In Kendall's Art of Cornish Wrestling he tells you to make sure you clear the ground of loose stones that might cause an injury, but he says nothing about how to fall. So he obviously accepts that falling can cause injury, but doesn't seem to care that you know how to land, just that you need to make sure you land somewhere safe. That being said it has just occurred to me that he does spend a lot of time telling you how not to get thrown. Perhaps the assumption was that spending time learning how to fall was time wasted. If you spent that time learning how to counter the actions of your opponent instead you wouldn't need to know how to fall. Just kinda thinking out loud... (so to speak)
What a interesting topic, One that I cant add much to exept to say I know that within the older Thai Martial arts they did have a method or methods of falling from heights such as from a elephants back,I belive some of these methods were taken from observations of monkeys as the Thai arts have a lot of climbing techniques in the older systems. Sorry it doesnt add anything other than perhaps another viewpoint of why we may have to use falling methods.
Well, you're right that it doesn't answer any questions directly related to my original line, but it is interesting nonetheless. Thanks! Peace favor your sword
I have a 1905 copy of 'The Text-Book of Ju-Jutsu — As Practised in Japan', by S. K. Uyenishi (Raku), published by Athletic Publications Ltd., London. On page 32 there are two photographs showing the start and end positions of the First Breakfall (falling to the rear from a squatting position). On page 33 there a full written description to accompany the photographs shown on the previous page. Further breakfalls are both illustrated by photographs — including small sequence shots that were obviously copied from a motion / movie film of some kind — up to and including page 46. I also have a Second Edition (1927) copy of The Complete Kano Jiu-Jitsu (Jiudo) by H. Irving Hancock and Katsukuma Higashi, published by Putnam. The First Edition was published in 1924. After all the usual introductions, etc., the book starts on Page 3 with No. 1. Trick 1. Phase 1 "First of all it is of great importance that the pupil should learn to fall correctly. Skill in this seemingly simple art of yhrowing himself just right will save the pupil from many injuries, and make his work easier, as he goes on in the practice of the art." The book then continues with description and illustrations of various breakfalls for a further 11 pages. Which suggests (to me at least) that they definitely didn't leave things to hope and chance during practice sessions and / or training in the early 1900 at least. As far as Wrestling is concerned, before those sort of times, all bouts would have been competitive and, as such, would have meant that the emphasis for both fighters was NOT to be thrown (much as we see in competitive Judo today, where a clean throw — onto or across the back — equals total victory). In which case, it was likely that the mentality was indeed to endeavour not to lose ones footing under any circumstances, for fear of the pain and possible injury of being thrown heavily onto the ground — rather than onto a nice Judo Tatami!
Thanks. I'm really looking for methods which predate the introduction of EMA to Europe. Thus something prior to Barton-Wright's use of Jui-Jitsu in his Bartitsu club circa 1901. (Yes, there are Pearson's articles from 1898 but they don't teach falling methods.) I am currently researching pre-1900 tumbling texts and have a tantalizing line on a sort of undocumented method which includes taking the fall on the heels. Peace favor your sword, Kirk
Are you able to share any more information on this yet? That is ringing bells for me and I don't know why!
Sure, it's not secret. I've opened threads on several other forums, soliciting input and it was from one of those others. The Bartitsu_Fourm on yahoo groups, MartialTalk, and Bullshido's Western Martial Arts forum. All my best leads are from these (including MAP) forums. Peace favor your sword, Kirk
Hi Kirk...just wondering how many of the manuals you have looked at describe how to train each move rather than describing how each move is done. It would seem that learning how to fall from throws would be in the former rather than the latter. Alot of people on forums seem to believe that, for example, fiores manual is written for people who are already training with a teacher or have trained in this art before. If later manuscripts follow this prinicple then it is understandable why they dont show how to fall.
My research is still in the early stages so I can't really make any firm statements. However, this is what I have to start with: In 18th & 19th Century "Western Martial Arts" manuals in the English language, "safe falling" techniques are almost not discussed at all. As would be expected, it is not addressed in manuals dealing with swords, knives, spears, etc. However, there is a striking absence from manuals which deal part-and-parcel with falling; i.e. Wrestling and pre-Marquis Boxing. My preliminary investigation of period tumbling and gymnastics texts shows that gymnastic "falling" skills were not unknown by any means and covered what we could consider the "basics." There are some other lines of pursuit which I am investigating but I just don't have enough information to draw conclusions yet. I doubt there will ever be any firm answers. Peace favor your sword, Kirk
