I think you really ought to spar a competent capoeirista. Marcus Aurelio has some impressive looking capoeira knockouts, and Anderson Silva moderately applies it's principals here and there. Generally speaking, if you look beneath the flair and game aspect, you will find an interesting style good for throwing people off their game.
Who the hell are you asking about martial art lessons? I have never heard of a school that asks you to flip, even the ones that do sport karate tournaments. Even Wushu schools don't ask this.
The sad thing about this kind of training is when you get old, it's extream difficult (if not impossible) to maintain this ability.
I a real fight its useless. Great way to stay in shape, and I'm sure your cardio would be higher than most people's but otherwise it's ineffective in a fight
Nobody ever said it was for use in a fight... but it's not completely useless - any moves can have practical applications if you develop on how to practically apply them.. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW1rVG7oWS0"]Tim Man - May 2012 - YouTube[/ame]
The part about where there is rarely any power in these kicks when they land, its true, for most, [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLWhYmw7rZQ"]Patrick Salientes landing a 720 spin kick! A MUST SEE VIDEO!! - YouTube[/ame] like that one, but I've seen 540's connect with a huge amount of force. Which is a tornado kick where you land on your kicking leg. They aren't the most practical of all moves, but if they land, its a huge morale demolisher and also just really fun to do. Once we did board breaking, and me and my friends felt like trying out our 540's (on a board). When we kicked, the board broke into 3 pieces, and the middle piece was where our foot made impact, and that went flying, our feet hurt like no other after that, but it was fun to do.
People complaining about capoeira are totally missing the point. From what I've seen, capoeira gives you unstoppable powers at picking up girls. In my book, that's far more important than self-defence. Why be a fighter when you can be a lover?
A lot of the discussion I am seeing here reminds me of the old Tradition Martial Arts vs modern definition Wushu arguments. With regards to Caopoira, I think people need to remember the roots of it to understand it. Wasn't it disguised in dance because its origins were in slavery? Where people had to do this to be able to practice it under the nose of their "masters?" And that it is kick heavy because the idea was that the person's arms were cuffed or bound? What I am saying is the dance components were born out of necessity, which to me is an important distinction between that and tricking. I'll go along with the majority opinion here. Tricking is impressive, but more in the realm of gymnastics than a martial art.
I think they're myths. Why would slaves have their hands in chains and not their feet? it would be a bit hard to work and they could run away. IIRC, no one really knows how capoeira developed. I might have read that in Capoeira: The History of an Afro-Brazilian Martial Art by Matthias Röhrig Assunção. Let's see what our capo expert says.
No. There is no evidence to support that claim. In fact, researchers like T.J. Desch Obi are discovering that the 'dance' in capoeira is a part of the martial tradition in certain parts of Central Africa from whence the art came. No one, overseers, police, even European travelers (more recent research on capoeira's origins has taken into account the comments of travelers who witnessed and wrote about capoeira demonstrations) seemed to recognize something martial about capoeira--hence no one being fooled. It was hidden because it was often, well, hidden--performed in spaces away from the eyes of the authorities. Except when it was performed in public, which it was many times even back then. Though capoeira was repressed--even violently so at times--it was not officially illegal until the late 19th century. Much of slavery in Brazil was urban and slaves lived in certain sections of the city, away from the masters for whom they worked. In these areas, the maltas would practice and train. Even those on plantations were known for practicing in clearings in the bush known as capoeiras (thought to be a possible source for the origin of the arts name), away from the masters. Still, masters and even the powers that be had a complicated relationship with capoeiristas--repressing them even as they at times used them for the skillset that the government deplored (they at times hired capoeiristas to disrupt political rallies, to put down insurrections by European immigrants, etc, etc.). No. Please try to do any of capoeira's kicks with your hands bound--especially the inverted ones. Often, enslaved Africans would have their feet bound if they needed restraint as that would prevent them running away. It is kick heavy because it is descended from a tradition of fighting with the feet and using inversion that served as a martial game with cosmological implications in Central Africa that was transferred, along with the people, to Brazil. But the 'dance' components were apparently already there and, moreover, were not really dance (not in the way that word is commonly understood). Furthermore, that hardly seems to me the distinction between capoeira and tricking to me. The distinction seems to be that one has had in the past cultural and martial objectives (even if those martial objectives were executed in ludic fashion), while acknowledging theatrical fourth wall, and the other has been about performative proficiency in the main without ever, to my knowledge embodying martial aspects. There are far more distinctions than that, of course, but that seems to be the main one to me. By the way, I know that tone is hard to identify over the internet, so I'd like to clarify that the above is not posted snarikily/sarcastically.
Let me know when the capoeira expert gets here! In the meantime, I'll just say read the books of T.J. Desch Obi, Maya Talmon-Chvaicer, the articles of Thomas Holloway and John Thornton. The story of capoeira's origins is far from complete (if anything can EVER be said to be complete in history), but there has been quite a bit more research in the past few years.
Not taken that way at all. That was a very informative post. I know hardly anything of Capoeira, and apparently even less than I thought I did! (Which is why I phrased what I thought I knew as a question.) Although now, I am interested in reading more reliable sources about this MA than what I have in the past. Do yoiu know any good Internet sources? Thanks for the information.
Well, if you're affiliated with a university, I'd say that JSTOR is a good source for articles. Actually, you could use JSTOR even if you're not with a university, it's just that you may then have more limited access to the articles therein. Google Scholar may be another source, too. Using either of those sources should bring up quite a bit of material on capoeira, while weeding out more suspect stuff (there was one guy I came across on the internet who acknowledged capoeira's African origins but claimed it was from some art from the region now known as Ghana and was 10,000 years old! Strange!).
Thanks for the informative posts dormindo. I guess we'll have to make do with those until the expert turns up Any idea where you can get Thomas Holloway and John Thornton Articles from? JSTOR? (I actually have no idea what that is! Investigating now). Any in particular you would recommend? As for the books, do you mean: Fighting for Honor by Obi The Hidden History of Capoeira by Talmon-Chvaicer Let me know...I owe myself some presents.
You are spot on with the books. As for the articles, here goes.... Holloway: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2516095 Thornton: here Could not find the Thornton I was thinking of which means I'll dig through a box of articles at home tonight to try to find the exact title for it. Article by Talmon: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/hispanic_american_historical_review/v082/82.3chvaicer.html
