Has Fighting Changed?

[MJS]

In my "What Is A Traditional Art" thread, one of the people posting, mentioned evolution, in terms of fighting. Some views are that over the years, nothing has changed, ie: we all still have 2 arms, 2 legs and 1 head, so how has anything changed?

So, that leads me to this thread. In your opinion, do you feel that fighting has changed or has it remained the same, for the most part?

 

[MAist25]

I would have to say that fighting has changed over time, from soldiers to your common street thug. The way soldiers fight in battle and the equipment they carry has changed so much over the years that it forces a modification of how we use our martial arts techniques. I think everyone would agree with this...

But for your common street thug, I think the most influential thing that has changed fighting with them is technology, to be honest. When I was a young teenager before I started martial arts I actually had thought about what I would do if I ever got into a fight, and I realized that I honestly didnt even know how to throw a punch. I had never really watched boxing as a kid and MMA had not come around yet, and nobody ever showed me how to punch so I honestly didnt know how. I think the same concept is true for people going back in history. Most average, everyday people were never taught how to fight and never saw anything that could give them any kind of direction on how to fight. Because of this, someone who was trained in some sort of martial art would have absolutely destroyed them in hand to hand combat simply because they had trained how to use their body as a weapon and the other person didnt have a clue.

In todays world, somebody who practices martial arts simply does not have such a vast advantage as they would have in earlier times before television and such. People are constantly seeing things involving fights. Kung fu flicks, action movies, UFC, boxing, video games, youtube clips, etc. Even people who do not train in martial arts but watch UFC do learn some things whether they know it or not. Simply seeing how a punch is thrown correctly on television improves their odds in winning a street fight by a lot. Humans are learning creatures. We are very observant of our surroundings and can learn how to do things just by seeing them done. In this way, I thing fighting has evolved over time because people are much more aware of how to fight and how to use their bodies as weapons.

 

[Thesemindz]

I brought this up years ago in another thread and got some interesting results.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?13189-I-could-beat-the-british-a-boxer-and-your-best-knife-fighter&highlight=

Basically, fighting is probably the same, although it is effected by environment. Technological advances, such as firearms, and cultural trends, such as the popularity of MMA and BJJ by extension, all have an effect on how average people fight. So while anyone in the last ten thousand years could have worked a straight arm bar from the mount, it's probably more likely to happen in a bar fight today than it was in a bar fight two hundred years ago. And you could only shoot someone with a pistol over the last few hundred years, so that wouldn't even have been a consideration before.

And of course, athletes have access to better training methodologies, sports science, and nutrition, as well as better drugs, so their performance will continue to improve along with those aspects. A stronger, tougher, faster, smarter, healthier fighter will be more effective than a starving caveman with an infection.

Most people don't actually have any training in fighting. So if they get attacked, they act on instinct. Their brains try to mimic whatever their subconscious thinks fighting is. So if boxing is the most popular combat sport you're more likely to see punches. In kicking cultures you see more kicks. But those are just civilians. They aren't really fighting, their just reacting.

Fighters train. And they'll fight the way they train. So when the training changes, the fighting changes. When I started kenpo we never even discussed ground fighting. For probably five or six years it really didn't even exist for me. Because no one ever brought it up. Looking back, it seems strange, but there was a hole in my mind that I didn't even know was there. Now that I've been exposed to ground fighting and spent time practicing it, it's a significant part of my method. I don't always intentionally go to the ground, but if I choose to or I end up there, I have many options at my disposal now. My fighting changed, because my training changed.

In local cultures that don't allow firearms, we see more knife attacks. That's a change.

In local cultures that emphasize the individual we see more "one on one" fights, in local cultures that emphasize the clan or group we see more gang fights. That's a change.

In local cultures that see the head as the vessel for the "person" we see more strikes to the head, in local cultures that see the body as the vessel for the "person" we see more strikes to the body. That's a change.

Fighting is a part of the human experience. It is affected by all the same things that humans themselves are. Weather, environment, circumstances, technology. We invent bullets, so we invent kevlar, so we invent kevlar piercing bullets. It's always an arms race and it never stops.

Individually, we are all just rediscovering the same things that have been discovered by others before. I haven't seen anything truly new yet. In fact, the more I look in to the history of combat, the more techniques I see demonstrated hundreds and thousands of years before I ever learned them.

I think the next truly new fighting techniques will come from either transhumanism or space exploration. Fighting an enhanced or altered human would be something new, and fighting in another gravity would be something new. Other than that, it's like you said. 2 arms 2 legs. I don't think there's anything new, only things that are new to me.


-Rob

 

[MJS]

Thank you both for your replies! Hopefully this will turn into a good discussion!

IMHO, I feel that fighting has changed. We no longer see people walking around with body armor, dressed as a Samurai. We no lnoger see the 'fair fight' in which 2 people would trade punches, with no weapons involved and no bystanders getting involved. As the last 2 posters have said, with the rise in popularity of MMA, you're more likely to come across a much more well rounded fighter, someone who will not only punch, but also kick, clinch, work locks, chokes, as well as take you to the ground.

As for the punches and kicks....sure, they will probably be the same, but the application will most likely be different. That said, that alone will make someone more skilled.

 

[Jenna]

I think the reason that many old and even ancient martial arts have survived is exactly because of the 8-limbs principle. Humanity has not evolved whatsoever. We are still the same species with no evolutions. Certainly as Thesemindz post states, we are healthier and have more efficient training and diet regimes now. Still, it is a testament to the efficacy of those older / traditional arts that they work as well now as they ever did - if not better due to those aforementioned efficiency improvements and advances.

 

[Jenna]

IMHO, I feel that fighting has changed. We no longer see people walking around with body armor, dressed as a Samurai. We no lnoger see the 'fair fight' in which 2 people would trade punches, with no weapons involved and no bystanders getting involved.

Mike that is simply the environment though and which is different from the actual mechanics of fighting (two fists, two feet etc), no? I think the fight "arena" has changed dramatically exactly as you say though within that, the "way" of the fight is very little changed I think, no?

 

[ATACX GYM]

My position is a combination of the two previous posts: We have 2 arms and legs,1 head. Most of the things that we do visavis combat will be directly impacted by technology and the refinement and evolution of combat tactics.Tactically,I see a pretty sharp change over the centuries because the general store of combat knowledge,it's practice,and the general availability of said combat knowledge has undergone a gigantic change. The proliferation of combat knowledge visavis weaponry training athletic performance tactics etc. causes a constant and rapidly accelerating synergistic evolution in combat performance of same...but it's not wholly new per se. The PERFORMANCE LEVEL IS AT HERETOFORE UNREACHABLE HEIGHTS,and the WEAPONRY forces tactical and technological REVOLUTION,but until the human species itself wholly evolves (say low grade psionics or some catalyst that causes actual human structural evolution occurs) there won't be utterly new categories of human combat capability.

Like one of main GYM motto says:"IT'S NOT JUST WHAT YOU KNOW,IT'S HOW YOU TRAIN".

 

[MJS]

Mike that is simply the environment though and which is different from the actual mechanics of fighting (two fists, two feet etc), no? I think the fight "arena" has changed dramatically exactly as you say though within that, the "way" of the fight is very little changed I think, no?

Good point. I guess where I was trying to go with that was...movement and the way things are thrown. I'd say that would fall more in line with what I said about application.

 

[ATACX GYM]

...
We no lnoger see the 'fair fight' in which 2 people would trade punches, with no weapons involved and no bystanders getting involved...

No there are still quite a few 1-on-1 fights happening nowadays. There's a gajillion on youtube,and I saw one here in the hood of the LBC which resembled a energetic but unskilled bareknuckle boxing+sloppy Greco-Roman match.When one guy got knocked down,the fight pretty much ended as both men were too winded to continue,and both walked away.Nobody got shot.

Not 20 minutes later and one block away,somebody DID get fatally shot though...over what? I have no idea.

 

[Stealthy]

The drive to find an ancient "battle proven" martial art is well founded because the reality is modern war is fought with bullets and missiles and therefore the sciences of unarmed combat and armed combat with more archaic weapons are not needed.

To accurately relate a modern martial art to a Samurai art of Sengoku Jidai you would need to focus on Tactical Schools staffed by ex-special forces and related military personnel and these people have not needed to rely on unarmed combat against Samurai swords.

The reality is we can only draw on the past for anything other than current modern battlefield strategies and tactics.

The real question is "how well have the traditional arts preserved their knowledge?"

The way I see it "yes" fighting has changed but with the exception of "modern battlefield warfare" not for the better.

The addition of highly effective projectile weapons has virtually negated the need for unarmed, blunt force and edged weapon combat skills on the battlefield.

Previously the inclusion of a new weapon forced the refinement of older systems. When people started using blunt force weapons unarmed combat had to advance. When Swords came along unarmed and blunt force combat systems had to advance. Modern projectile weapons completely remove the possibility of rushing across a battlefield and engaging hand to hand and as such the battlefield was irreversibly changed.

It's important to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges and ALL of the martial arts were pinnacles of military advancement at their respective times until the advent of effective small arms. At which time everything that came before landed squarely and solely onto the laps of Civilians while the Militaries had to start fresh.

edit: here's an example of a modern street fight versus an ancient street fight.

The ancient street fight utilized actual battlefield weapons and techniques quite likely by a person who refined them on the battlefield or had at least been trained by someone who had.

A modern street fight under the same circumstances would be fought with an assault rifle.

Therefore you can't rely on the traditional method of fighting abilities transmission into civilian life since that would involve learning how to fight from a retired marine and then using a grenade in the local pub. So we are forced to turn to skills that passed from the Military to Civilians before the advent of modern small arms.

 

[Jenna]

Good point. I guess where I was trying to go with that was...movement and the way things are thrown. I'd say that would fall more in line with what I said about application.

I understand I think (imo) that very many of the modern applications are quite utilitarian; effective and direct, yes and but utilitarian adn functional and I mean that in a pejorative way. I think many of the modern fighting applications lack the finesse, though this is simply to my eye. In that respect, I do not find so many of these modern fighting styles at all interesting to watch especially compared to more traditional styles.

So I think in terms of the application yes there has been a change to a more horribly expedient or "get the job done" fighting style. I think we are supposed to fight in a more guerrilla manner now which I think is a fair reflection of the environments that most of us have to live in. I think this is unfortunate, yet it is not to say that older applications are anachronistic. I think there is a place for both, as usual, depending upon the specific needs of the practitioner.

 

[ATACX GYM]

I understand I think (imo) that very many of the modern applications are quite utilitarian; effective and direct, yes and but utilitarian adn functional and I mean that in a pejorative way. I think many of the modern fighting applications lack the finesse, though this is simply to my eye. In that respect, I do not find so many of these modern fighting styles at all interesting to watch especially compared to more traditional styles.

So I think in terms of the application yes there has been a change to a more horribly expedient or "get the job done" fighting style. I think we are supposed to fight in a more guerrilla manner now which I think is a fair reflection of the environments that most of us have to live in. I think this is unfortunate, yet it is not to say that older applications are anachronistic. I think there is a place for both, as usual, depending upon the specific needs of the practitioner.

I agree that the emphasis on practicality has dramatically changed the obvious aesthetic of martial movements,but I have two responses to that:

1) The economic,fluid application of no-nonsense techs and it's effectiveness all by itself represents a brutally beautiful aesthetic

2) There are still very beautiful but highly functional disciplines like my Urban Capoeira out there that merge the best of both worlds.

 

[Cyriacus]

Well, i think its easy to spot.
Fighting hasnt changed in the way it ultimately functions, but the specifics sure have.

For example, in the early 1900s, up until the mid 1900s, just about *Everyone* of any stature partook in Pugilism.
As such, most engagements were Hand To Hand, with a few Elbows and Knees.

Around World War 2, that started changing, to flow with the more Militaristic need of Martial Arts.

After WW2, around when younger people started partaking in society more (I.e., you werent just a kid until you were 21), the awareness of Fighting became more apparent to the general population.

As a result, nowadays, instead of a fight being an engagement between experienced individuals, it is an engagement against who knows what.
The average Street Thug will be of little threat to a Martial Artist, not because of anything they can do, but due to everything they cant.

Multiple Thugs is the idealogy upon which i can appreciate Multiple Attacker Free Sparring.


In summary, weve gone from Formal Match Ups, to Informal Fist Swinging Whilst Running Face First Into Danger, in terms of Thugs.

As a result, Martial Arts which function in a more Modern Manner can look much less "Technical", whilst still being extremely Technical, albeit based more on being Effective.
But at its core, Fighting hasnt changed. Attacker/s; Defender/s -- Both Sides Want To Win, One Side Will Prevail.

 

[Buka]

What a wonderful discussion!

 

[oftheherd1]

First are you talking about MA only?

The reasons for fighting haven't really changed. We fight because we are unable to conform to social mores, because we want territory (to defend or acquire), we want to impress others as having greater prowess than most (we feel empowered and gain mates), because of other reasons, but they haven't really changed over the centuries.

What is allowed in in conflict, that is, how far are we allowed to go without sanction, that changes, so does technology to use in fighting; sticks, knives, swords, guns. For some of us, ritual fighting is sufficient, that is sparing.

Has fighting changed, or just its manifestations and the level of participation we are willing to commit to?

 

[seasoned]

People are people, with the will to survive hard wired in. So each one of us has the potential to do damage, if given the right circumstance. With the laws of the land the way they are, those laws would give pause to the law abiding person, but for the animal minded person, they have not changed.
From a martial arts perspective I have seen a remarkable change in the way dojo's teach, over the years.

 

[Jenna]

I agree that the emphasis on practicality has dramatically changed the obvious aesthetic of martial movements,but I have two responses to that:

1) The economic,fluid application of no-nonsense techs and it's effectiveness all by itself represents a brutally beautiful aesthetic

2) There are still very beautiful but highly functional disciplines like my Urban Capoeira out there that merge the best of both worlds.

Yes, I would class Capoeira as one of those very visually pleasing martial fighting styles. And I accept, as I know you will too, that beauty is subjective

I think that it is not that those more aged styles are any less functional and but I believe (just personally) that when referencing older and more modern fighting styles, there is a difference between efficiency (which I feel both have) and expediency which I feel is a product of the modern "get the job done at any cost" fighting / defensive model.

I am not saying that older styles have unnecessary frills, I am only alluding to the idea that they have had time to mature with their designers who would siphon out not only unnecessarily awkward, uncomfortable, inefficient and probably overly forceful or brutal technique.

To me older fighting styles they LOOK like mature arts.

Modern fighting applications appear to me as more industrial as though they have been almost designed to a cost like a machine or CNCd piece of metal. They will get the job done and possibly last forever. Or perhaps they will only last until the designer implements a new production run. I think in this sense, the word you have used economic (in terms of efficiency) can also be used in terms of that business analogy. Again, I am not deriding modern applications as being of lesser worth, not at all, no ways, rather just giving my preference

Regarding what has changed, as I say, I do not believe there have been necessarily any gains in efficiency or economy of style, I think rather that modern fighting applications give a *perception* of gains having been made. I think again that this is a product of our instant gratification society that precludes lengthy training and honing of technique and favours results-based teaching.

Thank you for your conversation, and to MJS' OP, it is interesting to me, Jenna

 

[chinto]

OK, has fighting changed, NOPE. Look when two men engage in combat for real its the same now, as say 5000 years ago. Its still the same number of limbs and vitals are in the same place, and we are as tough and fragile as we were back then. some of the weapons have changed, but not hand to hand combat. In Europe as in Asia unarmed combat and weapons use before firearms was very very developed. and then like now, when two men fight for real some one if not both will die.

now the differences if any are in the technology and weapons employed, and what kind of threat is usually manifest in the avaridge encounter. 150 years ago it would be very ritualized in a duel. 500 years ago on a road it was with out rules except survive. depends on where you are and at what time in history. often the treat was higher then then now, but not always. Either way the actual fight if unarmed has not changed at all. If its armed the weapons have changed but the intent is the same.

 

[Langenschwert]

OK, has fighting changed, NOPE. Look when two men engage in combat for real its the same now, as say 5000 years ago. <snip much good common sense>

Couldn't have said it better myself.

The only thing that changes is the cultural context and technology.

Best regards,

-Mark

 

[Buka]

Are we talking about "fighting" as we all know it in Martial Arts? Or are we talking about "fighting" as it pertains to street violence?