tai chi ground fighting???

[JadecloudAlchemist]

Thank you for the clarification.

I thought maybe QFT=Quit from talking or worse!!
Quit (four letter) talking. :uhyeah:

 

[jarrod]

Is it THAT common in other countries? Throughout history?

My impression is that for most cultures throughout history, in the context of martial arts and warfare, being on the ground is as good as dead (for either the attacker or the defender). Many martial arts go further to say losing your balance is as good as dead (again for either attacker or defender).

It's more like there's an overemphasis today on groundfighting where you don't get penalized for staying on the ground too long. In the battle field, if you get into a wrestle hold with your opponent for even more than a second you're pretty much open to one hit kill shots.

Ancient Chinese warfare was quite different to other countries as well.

It was centred around the general. They rode in the front with pole weapons guiding the formation and also going around stabbing and chopping up people. A Chinese saying (at least from what I remember from the Three Kingdoms story) is that a good general is worth 10,000 foot soldiers.

There's not so much use for groundfighting when a guy riding a horse will decapitate you. But it's much better that you're standing up prepared for it rather than down on the ground with your opponent even if you're doing a ground and pound.

yup, that common, although most are folk-arts rather than military (jujitsu, pankration, & sambo being the first military grappling styles to come to mind).

you have bok in mongolia, glima in iceland, backwrestling in ireland, highland wrestling in scotland, greco-roman from the obvious, ssireum from korea, pehlwani from persia, lancashire wrestling in england. sambo is rooted it judo & styles from about six other countries including georgia, armenia, & uzbekistan. one of my students was in the peace corps in west africa & told me about some sort of harness wrestling there, though he didn't remember the name. then there is sumo, judo, freestyle, collegiate...all the familiar ones. so it is pretty common in other nations.

clearly, being on the ground in the battlefield is not a great position. however, there was evidently a need for it in some cultures or else it wouldn't have developed. i did not know that chinese warfare was conducted as you said; it sounds like formation fighting was pretty highly developed there & that going to the ground would probably mean getting trampled before anyone even had to bother to kill you.

rome & greece also praticed highly disciplined formations during battle BUT single combat challenges on the battle field were not uncommon, which may explain why pankration & greco-roman were still utilized.

if you look some of the medieval fencing manuals, wrestling techniques are included. once again, they are typically in the context of one-on-one, armoured combat, since duels & tournaments were fought in full armour.

anyway, the initial statement that i took issue with is that striking/grappling followed an urban/rural division. it appears to me that grappling as a military art developed in regions where one-on-one armoured combat was likely to take place. since combat on the battlefield was strictly formational as you say, & one-on-one combat was typically unarmoured (making striking more effective), this may explain why groundfighting was never emphasized in china.

thoughts?

jf

 

[Bodhisattva]

does anyone know of youtube videos or otherwise that show tai chi ground fighting or any type of internal system going to the ground... not so much throws, but what to do from the ground...
thanks...

I've never seen it.

 

[Xue Sheng]

yup, that common, although most are folk-arts rather than military (jujitsu, pankration, & sambo being the first military grappling styles to come to mind).

you have bok in mongolia, glima in iceland, backwrestling in ireland, highland wrestling in scotland, greco-roman from the obvious, ssireum from korea, pehlwani from persia, lancashire wrestling in england. sambo is rooted it judo & styles from about six other countries including georgia, armenia, & uzbekistan. one of my students was in the peace corps in west africa & told me about some sort of harness wrestling there, though he didn't remember the name. then there is sumo, judo, freestyle, collegiate...all the familiar ones. so it is pretty common in other nations.

clearly, being on the ground in the battlefield is not a great position. however, there was evidently a need for it in some cultures or else it wouldn't have developed. i did not know that chinese warfare was conducted as you said; it sounds like formation fighting was pretty highly developed there & that going to the ground would probably mean getting trampled before anyone even had to bother to kill you.

rome & greece also praticed highly disciplined formations during battle BUT single combat challenges on the battle field were not uncommon, which may explain why pankration & greco-roman were still utilized.

if you look some of the medieval fencing manuals, wrestling techniques are included. once again, they are typically in the context of one-on-one, armoured combat, since duels & tournaments were fought in full armour.

anyway, the initial statement that i took issue with is that striking/grappling followed an urban/rural division. it appears to me that grappling as a military art developed in regions where one-on-one armoured combat was likely to take place. since combat on the battlefield was strictly formational as you say, & one-on-one combat was typically unarmoured (making striking more effective), this may explain why groundfighting was never emphasized in china.

thoughts?

jf

OK last time Chinese wrestling, the oldest of all existing CMA styles today

Shuaijiao

jiao di (2697 BC)>Jiao li (between the twelfth and third century BCE) >Shuaijiao (the Goushu Institute of Nanjing in 1928)

You will find Shuaijiao to varying degrees in multiple CMA styles

 

[Myrmidon]

OK last time Chinese wrestling, the oldest of all existing CMA styles today

Shuaijiao

jiao di (2697 BC)>Jiao li (between the twelfth and third century BCE) >Shuaijiao (the Goushu Institute of Nanjing in 1928)

You will find Shuaijiao to varying degrees in multiple CMA styles

Check the video in post #17

 

[Xue Sheng]

Check the video in post #17

I did

Did you see this one? (turn the volume down before you play it, it is old and nothing but white noise.


Also
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWwiIYRORHg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-XWRGeP5mY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTr87RE5nRI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8r2C5EvEc0&feature=related

Training
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyR5gIqgHC0&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqQy-Ynz1zQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiBjfO2C3tU&feature=related

EDit

And here
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47414&highlight=shuaijiao

 

[oxy]

you have bok in mongolia, glima in iceland, backwrestling in ireland, highland wrestling in scotland, greco-roman from the obvious, ssireum from korea, pehlwani from persia, lancashire wrestling in england. sambo is rooted it judo & styles from about six other countries including georgia, armenia, & uzbekistan. one of my students was in the peace corps in west africa & told me about some sort of harness wrestling there, though he didn't remember the name. then there is sumo, judo, freestyle, collegiate...all the familiar ones. so it is pretty common in other nations.

As Xue Sheng says, Shuai Jiao.

What you're really asking, then, is why aren't all CMA jack-of-all-trades arts.

clearly, being on the ground in the battlefield is not a great position. however, there was evidently a need for it in some cultures or else it wouldn't have developed.

Well, for one thing, a lot of the wrestling arts gives heavier people advantage. I guess the Chinese were a lot more interested in arts where weight isn't an advantage, hence the emphasis on stand up fighting. That's just one possible reason, not the only one of course.

And you have to consider that many Chinese martial arts are based on Chinese medicine theories where quick strikes to vital spots could end a fight. If people were allowed punches to the throat in wrestling competitions, you'd see a lot less wrestling.

i did not know that chinese warfare was conducted as you said; it sounds like formation fighting was pretty highly developed there & that going to the ground would probably mean getting trampled before anyone even had to bother to kill you.

rome & greece also praticed highly disciplined formations during battle BUT single combat challenges on the battle field were not uncommon, which may explain why pankration & greco-roman were still utilized.

In Greco-Roman warfare, there were no generals riding around killing 3 or 4 people with one stroke of their incredibly heavy halberd. Also, there's the immense size of Chinese armies compared to anywhere else at the time.

if you look some of the medieval fencing manuals, wrestling techniques are included. once again, they are typically in the context of one-on-one, armoured combat, since duels & tournaments were fought in full armour.

Well, Chinese warfare was conducted on a scale at least 10 times greater than European warfare during those times. It was not uncommon to have armies of 100,000 per general fighting each other in one battle. Metal armour was scarce and the Chinese crossbow could easily penetrate metal armour anyway. So that was unnecessary weight. Given the lack of personal defences, then wrestling was just no use when another person can kill you with just an accidental hit of their sword.

 

[jarrod]

well now i think we're headed in the right direction. i was aware of shuai jiao, what i did not know is that it is present in varying degrees in different styles of kung fu. to someone with a only a passing knowledge of CMA (that's me) it looked as if china produced one form of wrestling & hundreds of forms of striking. i was asking about the disparity, & that has been answered.

i put forward the theory that grappling as a MILITARY martial art developed in countries where there was at least some likelyhood of armour-wearing combatants facing each other one-on-one. your information that chinese warfare did not emphasize single combat & that armour was seldom worn supports that theory, but of course there are other variables as you mentioned. thanks for the information.

jf

 

[oxy]

i put forward the theory that grappling as a MILITARY martial art developed in countries where there was at least some likelyhood of armour-wearing combatants facing each other one-on-one. your information that chinese warfare did not emphasize single combat & that armour was seldom worn supports that theory, but of course there are other variables as you mentioned. thanks for the information.

I was being a bit too imprecise about the armour. This is just for if you're interested, otherwise you can just ignore it.

Chinese soldiers did wear armour, but it was mostly leather and copper mail which didn't cover most of the body. It protects from the minor accidental things. Heavier armour wasn't worth it due to, as I've said, crossbows and heavy pole weapons on horses as well as the cost.

There's more to this as well. The Chinese had been using combustibles in warfare way before the invention of gunpowder. The Tang and the Song, after the invention of gunpowder, had developed many explosive weapons. Grenades, flash bangs, bombs and guns among the most common. So Chinese hand to hand military combat had a few hundred years ahead of anywhere else where ground wrestling arts are simply too inefficient for the speed needed against modern weapons.

You can see how "modern" weapons like guns and rifles have changed "modern" warfare. There is almost no scope in today's warfare to do any wrestling and Chinese armies were fighting "today's" warfare for hundreds of years more than anywhere else.

 

[jarrod]

interesting stuff.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Remeber, one thing China has is people and a lot of them

Want an idea of the size of an ancient Chinese army. Just look at the number of terracotta soldiers found at the tomb of Chen Shi Wang Di and then know that is only a fraction of the size of his army. I believe there are about 7000 terracotta soldiers in the pit and that is only one of 3 maybe more pits.

And, as Oxy mentioned the crossbow, the Qin Crossbow was capable of piercing the armor of the day. And we are talking from 221 BCE to 210 BCE for Qin. With the weapons they had and the number of horses and chariots running around a Qin battle field you really did not want to be on the ground and much of the rest of Chinese military history is the same.

 

[Tez3]

I think a lot of ground fighting/wrestling came less from a need for a fighting style in battle but more as a competitive type of fighting where basically men can show off their strength, agility and prowess to others. It had to be a useful skill though, you can read in many old stories about warriors challenging each other to wrestling matches, wrestling competitions being held between tribes etc. One of the joys of competing in MMA today is playing mental chess with your opponent, it's a game but with good training involved as well. Similiar I think to the javelin, hammer throwing etc in modern track events which would have been vital skills for warriors who could compete against each other to train.
It would have been important to be able to demonstrate your power and strength but you couldn't always go round killing people! Wrestling is also a very good training exercise for other forms of warfare, one where the young men of the tribe could sort out their differences, bravery and character without too much damage being done. I think this is also why so much of regional wrestling is still popular and is probably seen as 'folk art' as one poster put it.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I think a lot of ground fighting/wrestling came less from a need for a fighting style in battle but more as a competitive type of fighting where basically men can show off their strength, agility and prowess to others. It had to be a useful skill though, you can read in many old stories about warriors challenging each other to wrestling matches, wrestling competitions being held between tribes etc. One of the joys of competing in MMA today is playing mental chess with your opponent, it's a game but with good training involved as well. Similiar I think to the javelin, hammer throwing etc in modern track events which would have been vital skills for warriors who could compete against each other to train.
It would have been important to be able to demonstrate your power and strength but you couldn't always go round killing people! Wrestling is also a very good training exercise for other forms of warfare, one where the young men of the tribe could sort out their differences, bravery and character without too much damage being done. I think this is also why so much of regional wrestling is still popular and is probably seen as 'folk art' as one poster put it.

Good point look at Mongolian wrestling. The Mongols were not really know for wrestling on the battlefield they are better know for their horsemanship, archery and ferocity on the battlefield but wrestling is certainly a big part of their culture and used in competition.

 

[Tez3]

Good point look at Mongolian wrestling. The Mongols were not really know for wrestling on the battlefield they are better know for their horsemanship, archery and ferocity on the battlefield but wrestling is certainly a big part of their culture and used in competition.

It was the Mongolians I was actually thinking about, having watched a programme about them the other day. Wrestling would suit them as training/exercise/game playing, they wouldn't have the time to do anything frivolous and it's suitably warlike.
I believe it's a similiar thing with the ancient Greeks who wrestled and boxed but went to war with spears, swords etc as well as horses. The Spartans taught both boys and girls to wrestle.
Plus wrestling/ground fighting is what we call here a 'bloke thing' lol, boys and men are very fond of giving each other a punch or two then grappling around. Friends do it all the time, I think it's a subtle dominance thing as with puppies and cubs 'playing' but trying to be the one in charge! It's why men find it easier to do martial arts than women initially. I imagine the Chinese were and are little different but it just doesn't get regarded as being a martial art.

 

[Xue Sheng]

It was the Mongolians I was actually thinking about, having watched a programme about them the other day. Wrestling would suit them as training/exercise/game playing, they wouldn't have the time to do anything frivolous and it's suitably warlike.
I believe it's a similiar thing with the ancient Greeks who wrestled and boxed but went to war with spears, swords etc as well as horses. The Spartans taught both boys and girls to wrestle.
Plus wrestling/ground fighting is what we call here a 'bloke thing' lol, boys and men are very fond of giving each other a punch or two then grappling around. Friends do it all the time, I think it's a subtle dominance thing as with puppies and cubs 'playing' but trying to be the one in charge! It's why men find it easier to do martial arts than women initially. I imagine the Chinese were and are little different but it just doesn't get regarded as being a martial art.

And it was a Mongolian that won the men’s gold in Judo at the Olympics in Beijing.

I will admit I was into a bit of wrestling as a kid and even trained some in High school but, and this may get me ion trouble, I never saw it as something I wanted to strive for in a fight. It was fun then and what I see in BJJ and MMA today is no doubt effective but I still do not see it as something I want to attempt to go for in a fight. But then this could be all my other MA background speaking too. I just may have to give this other stuff a try here soon to see what it’s all about

 

[jarrod]

And it was a Mongolian that won the men’s gold in Judo at the Olympics in Beijing.

I will admit I was into a bit of wrestling as a kid and even trained some in High school but, and this may get me ion trouble, I never saw it as something I wanted to strive for in a fight. It was fun then and what I see in BJJ and MMA today is no doubt effective but I still do not see it as something I want to attempt to go for in a fight. But then this could be all my other MA background speaking too. I just may have to give this other stuff a try here soon to see what it’s all about

my preference for grappling is just a personal preference; it just seems natural to me. if i take a month off from striking (which i started in & still practice) i would come back incredibly rusty. if i take a month off from grappling i usually come back a little sharper than before. of course i've seen others who are just the opposite. to each his own.

regarding the mongolian judoka, i think he's also the national or world mongolian wrestling champion as well.

jf

 

[oxy]

my preference for grappling is just a personal preference; it just seems natural to me. if i take a month off from striking (which i started in & still practice) i would come back incredibly rusty. if i take a month off from grappling i usually come back a little sharper than before. of course i've seen others who are just the opposite. to each his own.

I'm a bit the same and I'm finding this out after beginning to spar with a friend from work, but I only do stand up grappling.

Was never really taught the grappling side of things in LHBF (my teacher has a preference for striking given his 7 star mantis training before). But I watched a few of Choi Wai Lun's videos and his grappling techniques for LHBF came naturally and effectively to me without having trained for it.

 

[jarrod]

forgive my ignorance, what's LHBF?

stand up grappling is definately an underrated skill. i would love to study some chin na when i get near a school.

i was thinking about it a little more, & i think my proclivity for grappling also comes from the belief that it's never safe to assume that any technique will be a finishing move. for example (& i'm just describing my personal tactics here) try to strike effectively enough to knock them out. if they are still standing once you've moved in, try to throw them hard enough to knock them out. if they are still a threat, remain standing & stomp, or follow to the ground & finish depending on the appropriate level of violence.

in any case, the principles of effective fighting are basically the same no matter what range you are in. if i'm pinning somebody, i'm still rooted to the earth, i just use that energy to crush my opponent. if someone is stiff-arming me, i'm still using circles to get inside, just like with push hands. the principles of CMA & various grappling styles really aren't all that different, they just have differnt external techniques & vocabulary.

jf

 

[mograph]

LHBF = LiuHeBaFa or LokHupBaFa or some variations thereof.

 

[jarrod]

wow...i have so much to learn about CMA. i have never even heard of that.

jf