Pretty sad I know, but I was in on Saturday night, at 7pm, and watching a TV show broadcast in the UK: 'Weapons that made Britain - The Sword' (http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/W/weapons/). This was the first part of a 5-part series presented by Mike Loades, a historical warfare expert. I didn't watch all of it because I had to take a phone call part way through, but from what I could see, sword fighting was more than just swinging a blade around. They focussed on the published teachings of a 15th-century German master swordsman and instructor Hans Talhoffer. The first comment was that you couldn't learn just from the pictures, but they were a guide - experimentation was necessary. They showed a large group of participants training using wooden swords. Not just using the blade, but also reversing the grip and holding the blade to use the pommel to hit the opponent, or the hilt to catch a blade. Grappling also featured alot when up really close. Looked like a medieval version of MMA. But what really caught my eye was a move against an overhead blow. Stepping in close and raising the arm in an L-shape to block the attackers arms and therefore the blow. This looked just like the barring arm (Lan sau) used in Wing Chun against hooking/circular attacks, and no doubt this shape is used in other martial arts as well. [In the program, after blocking,the defender drops to the attacker's waist and just picks them up and throws them over the shoulder.] So what does this mean? Not cross-fertilisation, but independent evolution of technique. There really is only so many ways to hit or defend. Some arts may have more distinctive signature techniques, e.g. praying mantis, but if you break it down into basics alot of martial arts actually look very similar.
Weapons that made Britain. Sounds like a great program. Hope it's aired here in the states on my "BBC" channel!!! I have long contended that a Shaolin monk would recognize the fighting moves of the Spartan peer and vice versa. Only so many ways the human body can move.
Two arms, two legs, one head, all connected by a central trunk, with a computer/reasoning system that is for the most part wired the same way on everyone. We know that for most major intellectual concepts there were unrelated parallel development efforts. History tends to remember the person who got there first. There's no way to move the body that hasn't already been done. If you think there is you're fooling yourself. We are all cursed to be in a "business" where we are constantly rediscovering what others came up with before us. At best we can hope to refine an idea. But never fool yourself into believing that you created a new technqiues. Or that one culture has the "lock" on the development of a technique. - Matt
Having said all that, where are the parallel 'Western' martial arts to something like Tai Chi? What is the equivalent Occidental philosophy in combat (internal/soft)? I hate to employ a stereotype, but it seems that all Western Martial Arts fall into the 'hard/external' category. But I should qualify that by what I have read about wrestling on these forums - that you need to be very relaxed in order to perform. I'm sure such a quality production will be shown around the world. Just don't know what the time lag would be, or which channel will get the broadcast rights.
I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't a pagan ritual of some kind that focussed on the internal aspect of the human body...Ill have a look later and report back.
Perhaps CFT, Westerm MAs just didn't use terms like hard /soft or internal/external. Perhaps it's this misleading separation that creates confusion and argument where there shouldn't be. Perhaps they discovered internal styles don't really work Calm down only kidding. Pop on over to the Westerm Martial Arts threads. Louie found a sword drill from the 15th century that all the Fillipino Martial Arts (that I know) use.
