"I always thought that fencing only focused on games and not traditional weapons"

Discussion in 'Western Martial Arts' started by Mitlov, Jul 9, 2010.

  1. Domenico

    Domenico Valued Member

    I think you misunderstood me, I *would* typify Muay Thai as a Martial Art. It is designed to inflict pain, defend oneself against an assailant of unknown speed/strength/technique/tool, and cause bodily harm. Fencing never gets that far.
  2. Mitlov

    Mitlov Shiny

    You're assuming that "sport/hobby" and "martial art" are two mutually exclusive categories. I see no reason why that's true; I think there's quite a lot of overlap. Not all martial arts are sports, and not all sports are martial arts, but there are quite a few martial arts that ARE sports. Just look at some of the styles subcategories on "Martial Arts Planet"...boxing, BJJ, karate, kickboxing, MMA...there are as many martial arts that ARE sports as martial arts that aren't (such as aikido, koryu bujutsu, ninjutsu, etc).
  3. Domenico

    Domenico Valued Member

    I'll cede ignorance on the Tai chi front. I know it is kung fu at it's root, it was that I've never encountered any reference to it's Teachers saying "...and then we speed it up and kick some ass..."

    My apologies for a bad analogy. :)
  4. Mitlov

    Mitlov Shiny

    It's designed to put the tip (or edge) of a long, thin piece of metal into an opponent of unknown speed/strength/technique (not sure what you mean by tool; all Muay Thai participants have the same "tools"). There are two of your criteria.

    As for causing bodily harm, in Muay Thai, bodily harm is caused because it's an art all about blunt force trauma. In fencing, severe bodily harm isn't caused because the harm comes not from blunt trauma but from a sharp tip/edge that has been removed to prevent death. Training in competitive epee causes no less bodily harm than training in classical epee (plenty of bruising, plus some cuts and scrapes), so I'm not sure where you're going with this.

    People who fence competitively have a whole lot more experience facing off with an opponent of unknown speed/strength/technique than almost anyone who doesn't (there may be exceptions, like the Dog Brothers, but they're VERY rare). Every single competition you go to, you're going to be facing complete strangers who you've never fenced before (unless you've competed so much you know all the hundreds of fencers in your region). It's hard to amass that much experience regularly facing off with strangers outside of a competition format.
  5. Domenico

    Domenico Valued Member

    I think you just made my point for me. Irrespective of the everyday lack of swords, the fencer has few skills to rely on in his Fencing experience to support him in an encounter like this.

    He is an Athlete trained in a Sportive Combat, not a Martial Artist. His Ballestra may surprise his opponent, he may know how to keep and close distance, but he is otherwise outmatched.
  6. lklawson

    lklawson Valued Member

    First, you're quoting the co-author, Phillipps-Wolley. Second, by his time period, as related to his target audience (general civilians), it was. As he specifically states.

    But gunpowder has taken the place of "cold steel," and arms of precision at a thousand yards have ousted the "white arm" of the chivalrous ages, so that it is really only of single-stick as a sport that men think, if they think of it at all, to-day.

    Feel free to ignore the first part of that quote because it disagrees with your thesis that singlestick is only "Sportive Combat, not a Martial Art." Also feel free to continue to ignore the first part of said chapter where Phillipps-Wolley also specifically says,

    Single-stick is to the sabre what the foil is to the rapier, and while foil-play is the science of using the point only, sabre-play is the science of using a weapon
    "L'Escrime" is, no doubt, the national sword-play of France, and, for Frenchmen, fencing may mean the use of the foil, but broad-sword and sabre-play are indigenous here, and if fencing is to mean only one kind of sword-play or sword-exercise, it should mean single-stick.
    Single-stick really combines both styles of fencing [point - as in rapier/smallsword, and edge - as in broadsword & saber]. In it the player is taught to use the point whenever he can do so most effectively; but he is also reminded that his sword has an edge, which may on occasion do him good service.

    Phillipps-Wolley then goes on to DERIDE those who think of singlestick as only a "game," saying,

    ...the only sound objection to single-stick being that the sticks used are so light as not to properly represent the sabre.

    This is a grave objection to the game, when the game is regarded as representing real business...

    By all means, please feel free to continue to ignore the text surrounding the cherry-picked quote supporting your assertion. You are equally encouraged to ignore the other resources such as "Archery, Fencing, and Broadsword" which discusses Singlestick as a training mechanism for Broadsword (aka "Military Saber") and the photo of U.S. Naval Sailors practicing with Singlestick. Don't bother to search for old newspaper articles of turn-of-the-century German Police using Singlestick to drill for use of their police issue Sabers.

    Your "it's just a martial themed game" thesis is entertaining, and you are well within your rights to continue to hold it, but it doesn't really have any effect on the documented history.

    Really, enjoy the fantasy.

    Peace favor your sword,
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2010
  7. Mitlov

    Mitlov Shiny

    Are we talking about a hypothetical sharp-tipped-epee-duel erupting in a modern back alley, or a realistic modern back-alley-brawl like the one the Krav Maga guy and the Muay Thai guy would be in? If it's the latter, I fail to see how a classical epeeist is any better off than a modern epeeist, so all you're establishing is that ALL fencers (classical or modern) are not "martial artists" by your standard.

    Edit: Video of real epee dueling with sharps. This is certainly no better preparation for a modern street-fight than modern fencing is. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL9BWkN-Wcg"]YouTube- 1958 Epee Duel Lifar vs Cuevas[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rElNQuBvFeQ"]YouTube- 1911 Epee Duel: Pierre Mortier vs Gustave Tery[/ame]
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2010
  8. lklawson

    lklawson Valued Member

    For that matter, how directly applicable to modern day self defense are most weapons arts? Jian? Katana? Tomahawk? The Machete of Garotte Larense? The Fokos? The Medieval Longsword?

    I love these vids. I think I saw you post the first one elsewhere. Great stuff.

    Peace favor your sword,
  9. Domenico

    Domenico Valued Member

    Jesus Christ, am I really getting drawn into a postcount pad ****ing match here?

    Thank you. Semantics aside, I quoted the Author's name on the title of the book, I missed the "contributions" line at the top of the page. My bad.

    I'm missing your point, but let's let the Author finish his thought.

    "As a sport it is second to none of those which can be indulged in in the gymnasium, unless it be boxing; and even boxing has its disadvantages. What the ordinary Englishman wants is a game with which he may fill up the hours during which he cannot play cricket and need not work; a game in which he may exercise those muscles with which good mother Nature meant him to earn his living, but which custom has condemned to rust, while the brain wears out; a game in which he may hurt some one else, is extremely likely to be hurt himself, and is certain to earn an appetite for dinner."


    Not a complete fighting form designed to train one to defend themselves, which is what I think is at the core of "Martial" Arts. Mind you, I'm not poo-pooing their application, I'm a Fencer for God's sake (not been active for 15 years, sadly), but I never once considered it a well-rounded fighting form. It was a skill.

    I fail to see the disagreement, and I would further invite one to read the passage in whole:

    "Single-stick is to the sabre what the foil is to the rapier..."

    I read this first phrase as Single-stick (training aid, and a rule-laden milquetoast substitute) is to the Sabre (a Military weapon, mostly out-of date in common society) what the foil (training aid, and a rule-laden milquetoast substitute) is to the rapier (a Weapon, primarily Civilian, but a common sidearm among the Military, LONG out-of-date in common society).

    Yes, they are comparable, which I've never disagreed with, they both are primarily utilized in Salons and Gymnasiums, and while Military Institutions have incorporated both as training aids, I would hesitate to describe them as Martial Arts. They have a finite application, are besotted with rules of conduct, and neither fully employ all aspects of their "weapon-ness". There are no pommel strikes, there is no grappling, there is no "in the round" aspect. It is a finite system of fighting which has rules peculiar to their form and application.

    The second part of that statement:

    "...and while foil-play is the science of using the point only, sabre-play is the science of using a weapon, which has both point and edge, to the best advantage."

    The purpose of the statement is not to call the Sabre (or Single-stick) a weapon and leave the Foil off in the cold, it is to draw attention to the fact that the Sabre has two aspects to the foil's singular one.

    I like the full passage, as it has both your feelings and mine contained within it:

    "It seems, then, to me, that single-stick is the most thoroughly practical form of sword-play for use in those "tight places" where men care nothing for rules, but only want to make the most out of that weapon which the chance of the moment has put into their hands."

    Yup, single stick is more applicable to more of life's situations than a Foil. Tipping into Martial Art territory.

    "It may further be said that as the sabre is still supplied to our soldiers, though rarely used for anything more dangerous than a military salute, whereas
    no one except a French journalist has probably ever seen, what I may be allowed to call, a foil for active service..."

    And yet the Author acknowledges the application/analogue of Single stick to the Weapon it is meant to represent is falling by the wayside. It is less a tool for learning lethal skills, and more back in the Sport/Game/Excercise camp.

    "...the science of single-stick has some claim to practical utility even in the nineteenth century, the only sound objection to single-stick being that the sticks used are so light as not to properly represent the sabre."

    Some practical utility, by all means...

    "This is a grave objection to the game, when the game is regarded as representing real business; but for all that, the lessons learnt with the stick are invaluable to the swordsman."

    I think here is where you and I read this passage very differently. The way I read it is that "This [The sticks do not properly represent the Sabre] is a grave objection to the game [overall], when the game [Single-stick] is regarded as representing real business;"

    Rephrased: "Single-stick as a game is not to be regarded as representing real business with Sabres".

    That's my point. Single-stick is Sportive Combat. A training aid, an excercise, applicable for sure, but too narrow a scope to be defined as a fighting art.

    He closes with:
    "The true way to meet the difficulty would be to supplement stick-play by a course with broad-swords, such as are in use in different London gymnasiums,
    with blunt edges and rounded points."

    And we're back to the Mensur, with the more dangerous, but still sporting, combat of blunted steel weapons. Additionally, it is the admission that the stick play is simply one aspect of a larger body of skills, fighting, with sword.

    For the rest, I'll just let it go, as I've been trying to offer some different perspective on your discussions, and clearly your patronizing tone belies your unwillingness to revisit some of your principles, as well as make sure you come off as top dog in your forum. Whatever. If you don't care for my definition and choices for terminology, whatever, no harm done but to pop off contemporary usage references as a refutation to my posit that the Fencing Sabre and Shlager were Salon training excercises based on 18th+ century Military Sabres has failed, and leaves my screen smelling vaguely of Strawberries and Vinegar.

    As to the sharpened Epee duals, interesting films, thank you, and I'm more inclined to liken these back to the Mensur, a bloodsport used to settle differences, but I fear my opinion is unwelcomed within the narrow confines of your opinion and self-righteous tone.

    Have a nice day.
  10. lklawson

    lklawson Valued Member

    If you want. I don't really hang here so I don't know.

    Not patronizing. ****ed off, rude, and antagonistic. This is because you are trying to apply your own bizarre theory in direct contradiction to the best modern scholarship and the historic documents themselves which clearly state in example and specific language that Singlestick is a training mechanism for Military Saber.

    BWA-HAHAHAHAHAHA My post count on this forum is, what, 350? Over the course of six years! That's what? About 1 1/4 posts a week or something?

    It's not "my" forum. You just irritate me by continuing to try to defend your blatantly incorrect thesis even when you have to contradict or ignore period sources.

    Which is fine except for the fact that your "definition and choices in terminology" fly in the face of period records. Have you even gotten to "Grand Assault at Arms" yet? Short story, a crapload of British military dudes doing military drills and training for display and competition, including Singlestick.

    Bah. [waves hand] I don't particularly care about that. What I take exception to is your continuing mischaracterization of Singlestick. I note that you are now not even bothering to defend that and have retreated to "Fencing Sabre and Shlager were Salon training excercises" while still attempting to claim that such were training vehicles for Military Saber as opposed to Dueling Saber. They weren't. Never were.

    Let's go back to "I don't give a crap" and "my argument is with your mischaracterization of Singlestick."

    It's easy to be self-righteous when I have the historic documents on my side.

    Peace favor your sword,
  11. Mitlov

    Mitlov Shiny

    Like I said, I'm not touching (har har) the history of singlestick with a twenty-foot pole, but two points I have to address:

    I certainly haven't agreed with lklawson on everything--far from it--but that's an unfounded attack if I've ever heard of one.

    Joined: November 2004
    Posts: 357
    Posts Per Day: 0.17

    If he's into "postcount padding," he must be mighty lazy at it.

    Some saying about stones and glass houses comes to mind.
  12. Domenico

    Domenico Valued Member

    You're right, I have a distinct lack of period literature under my belt. Sadly, I've only spent twenty years buried in these few paltry tomes:

    Title Author Year
    DuelloOrSingleCombat JohnSelden 1610
    GiacomoDiGrassiHisTrueArtOfDefence IG 1594
    GranSimulacroDell'ArteEdell'usoDellaScherma RidolfoCapoFerro 1610
    OfHonorAndHonourableQuarrelsTheSecondBooke VincentioSaviolo 1594
    OperaNova AchilleMarozzo 1536
    PallasArmata GS 1639
    ParadoxesOfDefence GeorgeSilver 1599
    PrivateSchooleOfDefence GeorgeHale 1614
    SchooleOfTheNobleAndWorthyScienceOfDefence JosephSwetnam 1617
    Teatro NiccoliGiganti 1606
    TrattatoDiScientiaD’Arme CamilloAgrippa 1553
    VincentioSavioloHisPracticeInTwoBookes VincentioSaviolo 1595
    WorkeForCutlers ThomasJhones 1615
    TraitéDeL'artMilitaireVegetiusDeReMilitari 1494
    AMyrrourForEnglishSoldiers Vale 1595
    ApproovedOrderOfMartialDiscipline GylesClayton 1591
    ArithmeticallMilitareTreatise ThomasDigges 1579
    ArithmeticallWarlikeTreatiseNamedStratioticos ThomasDigges 1590
    ArteOfWarre NicholasMachiavel 1573
    ArtOfWarre Machiavelli 1562
    ArtOfWarre Machiavelli 1588
    ArtOfWarre WilliamGarrard 1591
    BokeNamedTectonicon LeonardDigges 1556
    BookeOfHonorAndArmes RichardJhones 1590
    BriefeDiscourseOfWarre RogerWilliams 1590
    CertaineWayesFortheOrderingOfSouldiersInBattelray PeterWhitehorne 1573
    CertainInstructionOfOrdersMilitarie JohnSmythe 1594
    CertainWayesForTheOrderingOfSouldiorsInBattlerayAn dSettingOfBattayles PeterWhitehorne 1573
    DeclarationSurSaPriseDesArmes FrancoisDeLaNoue 1588
    DeclarationUponTakingArms FrancoisDeLaNoue 1589
    DefenceOfMilitarieProfession 1579
    DeReMilitari(Eng.NicolasLichefild) LuisGutierresDeLaVega 1582
    ForceAndEffectOfWeaponsOfFire HumfreyBarwick 1594
    FormesAndEffectsOfWeapons SirJohnSmythe 1590
    FoureBookesOfVegetius JohnSadler 1572
    HonourableReputationOfASouldier GeorgeWhetstone 1586
    InstructionsObservationsAndOrdersMylitarie SirJohnSmithe 1595
    InstructionsSurLeFaictDeLaGuerre1548(Eng.Instructi onsForTheWarres) WilliamDuBellay 1589
    LawesAndOrdinancesMilitarie RobertDudleyEarlOfLeicster 1586
    MilitiaDelGranDucaDiThoscana(MilitiaOfTheGrandDuke OfTuscany) PetruccioUbaldini 1597
    MirrorOfHonor JohnNorden 1597
    NewesFromSirRogerWilliams 1591
    NewPollecyeOfWarre 1542
    OrationMilitarie 1588
    PathwaieToMartiallDiscipline ThomasStyward 1581
    PathwaieToMartiallDiscipline ThomasStyward 1582
    PathWayToMilitaryPractice BarnabeRich 1587
    PolitickeAndMilitarieDiscourses FrancoisDeLaNoue 1588
    PreceptesOfWarre 1544
    ProverbesOfTheNobleAndWoorthySouldierSirJamesLopez DeMendoza SirJamesLopezDeMendoza 1579
    RegimentForTheSea WilliamBourne 1574
    RegimentForTheSea WilliamBourne 1577
    RegimentForTheSea WilliamBourne 1587
    SolaceForTheSouldierAndSaylour SimonHarward 1592
    StatuesOfWarre HenryVIII 1513
    StatutesForWarre HenryVIII 1544
    StrategemesSleyghtesAndPoliciesOfWarre 1539
    TheorikeAndPractikeOfModerneWarres RobertBarret 1598
    TheoriqueAndPractiseOfWarre Mendoza 1597
    ThreeBookesOfColloquiesConcerningTheArteOfShooting NiccolòTartaglia 1588
    ToxophilusTheScholeOfShootyng RogerAscham 1545
    TrumpetOfWarre StephenGosson 1598
    WatchwordeForWarre 1596
    WorthyTractOfPaulusIouius 1585
    ABCsOfArmes ITGent 1616
    AnimadiversionsOfWarre RobertWard 1639
    AphorismesCivilAndMilitarie Guicciardini 1629
    ArticlesOfMilitarieDiscipline 1639
    ArtOfFortificationOrArchitectureMilitaireAsWellOff ensiueAsDefensiue 1638
    ArtOfWar JS 1689
    ArtOfWarre DuPraissac 1639
    ByTheKingKeepingOfArmes JamesI 1620
    CastrametationOrTheMeasuringOutOfTheQuartersForThe IncampingOfAnArmie JohnCruso 1642
    ChristianSouldier TJ 1642
    CompleatBodyOfTheArtMilitarie RichardElton 1650
    CompleatBodyOfTheArtMilitarie RichardElton 1659
    CompleatCaptain 1640
    CompleatCaptain 1694
    CompleatSchooleOfWarre 1642
    CopiousEnglisgAndNetherduytchDictionarie HenryHexham 1660
    DirectionsForMusters 1638
    DiscourseOfMilitarieDiscipline GeratBerry 1634
    DiscoursesUponCorneliusTacitus VirgilioMalvezzi 1642
    DoubleArmedMan WNArcher 1625
    EnglandsDefenseATreatiseConcerningInvasion ThomasDigges 1680
    EnglishMilitaryDiscipline 1672
    ExcerciseOfArmesForCalivresMuskettesAndPikes JacobDeGheyn 1608
    ExcerciseOfMusketAndPike 1684
    ExperimentalDiscoverieOfSpanishPractices 1623
    FortificationAndMilitaryDiscipline 1688
    FreeSchooleOfWarre PaoloSarpi 1625
    FrenchMilitiaContainingSeveralBeautifulAndNotableI nstructionsOnWhatMustBeObserved LouisDeMontgommery 1636
    GuardMuster Anon 1683
    HonorMilitaryAndCivil WilliamSegar 1602
    InstructionsForMusters CharlesI 1631
    InstructionsForTheMusterMaster GLane 1667
    JournallOfTheTakingInOfVenlo HenryHexham 1633
    ManiementD'ArmesD'ArquebusesMousquetzEtPiques(Eng) JacobDeGheyn 1608
    MarsHisFeild 1625
    MilitarieInstructionsForCavalrie JohnCruso 1632
    MilitarieInstructionsForCavalrie JohnCruso 1644
    MilitaryDiscipline 1642
    MilitaryDiscipline 1689
    MilitaryDisciplineOrTheYoungArtilleryman WilliamBarriffe 1635
    MilitaryDisciplineOrTheYoungArtilleryman WilliamBarriffe 1639
    MilitaryDisciplineOrTheYoungArtilleryman WilliamBarriffe 1643
    MilitaryDisciplineOrTheYoungArtilleryman WilliamBarriffe 1661
    MilitaryDisciplineOrTheYoungArtilleryman WilliamBarriffe 1668
    MilitaryDisciplineWhereinIsMostMartiallyShoneTheOr derOfDrillingForYeMusketAndPike JacobDeGheyn 1623
    MilitaryGarden JamesAcheson 1629
    ObservationsUponCaesarsCommentaries ClementEdmonds 1604
    OfTheArtOfGreatArtillery ThomasDigges 1624
    PallasArmata Dickesonn Kelly
    PerfectionOfMilitaryDiscipline 1690
    PrinciplesOfTheArtMilitarie HenryHexham 1640
    PrinicplesOfTheArtMilitary HenryHexham 1637
    PrinicplesOfTheArtMilitary HenryHexham 1642
    ProspectiveGlasseOfWarre EdwardCooke 1628
    Remonstrance 1642
    RudimentsOfMilitaryDiscipline 1638
    SecondPartOfTheSoldiersGrammar 1627
    SoldiersCatechismeForTheKing ThomasSwadlin 1645
    SouldiersAccidence GervaseMarkham 1625
    SouldiersAccidence GervaseMarkham 1635
    SouldiersCatechismeForParliament RobertRam 1645
    SouldiersExcercise GervaseMarkham 1643
    SouldiersGrammar 1626
    StratiotikonOrDiscourseOfMilitarieDiscipline 1628
    TactiksOfAelian JohnBingham 1616
    ThreePartsOfThePrinciplesOfTheArtMilitary HenryHexham 1641
    TreatiseOfPike 1642
    TrveAndBriefeRelationOfTheBloodyBattelOfNievport 1600
    VoxMilitis GeorgeMarcelline 1625
    WarreLikeTreatiseOfThePike DonaldLupton 1642
    WholeArtOfWar JMoxon 1692
    DiderotArtsDesMines Diderot 17XX
    DiderotArtsMilitaires Diderot 17XX
    DiderotFabriqueDesArmesEscrime Diderot 17XX
    DiderotFonderies Diderot 17XX
    MilitiaOfGenoaMiliceDeGenes JeanGravier 17XX
    RomanHastaAndPilumOfTheBrassAndIronUsedByTheAncien ts RevJohnGrant 1792
    ConsidérationsSurL'artDeLaGuerre JosephRogniat 1817
    LesArmesEtLesArmures PaulLacombe 1877

    Wait, what's that? A distinct hole in my research in the late 19th century! An era rife with a re-emergence of single-stick unique in it's own world rapidly disarming itself of Sabres!

    Dude, I politely pointed out that I think you and I were talking two different single-sticks, and as a matter of fact, I did a very detailed analysis of your quotes, I further expounded upon them, I offered you an opportunity to clarify your point, and you complain that I don't even bother to respond?

    I also simply said that I was under the impression the Single-stick was the polite younger cousin of the Shlager. My research has born that out, and your Single stick research is focused on something from 150 years later!

    Furthermore, I never was "attempting to claim that such were training vehicles for Military Saber as opposed to Dueling Saber". I said that Salon fencing and the Mensur are Civilian analogues to a Military weapon, and the older Single-stick is a part of that as well.

    P.S. I almost forgot. Civilian analogues, far removed from their lethal counterparts, drenched in rules, and not what I would typify as a Martial Art.

    I think you just like to argue.
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2010
  13. lklawson

    lklawson Valued Member

    Life would be pretty boring if we all agreed about everything.

    Well, I am pretty lazy. ;)

    One of my favorite quotes: "...it's the nature of the media and the participants. A herd of martial artists gets together and a fight breaks out; quelle surprise." Chas Clemens

    Peace favor your sword,
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2010
  14. lklawson

    lklawson Valued Member

    If I say, "no" then I'm arguing, right?

    Truth is, I'm passionate about Singlestick (and some other stuff like Classic Pugilism, Bowie Knife, Tomahawk, Bartitsu, Irish Stick, etc.)

    Peace favor your sword,
  15. Mitlov

    Mitlov Shiny

    Even though, when pressed, you say Muay Thai is a martial art, you keep on tossing out these comments that would exclude it from being a martial art. Right here, it sounds like you're arguing that Krabi Krabong is a martial art but Muay Thai is not. After all, Muay Thai is a civilian practice, far removed from the no-rules battlefield art of Krabi Krabong, and is "drenched in rules."


    Rules of Muay Thai, from dress code to ring dimensions to scoring and fouls: http://www.muaythai-fighting.com/muay-thai-rules.html
  16. Domenico

    Domenico Valued Member

    Call me naive, wasn't Muay Thai a fighting *form* before a *sport*? I understand most people nowadays equate it to the ring, but I'm referring to the fundamental fighting strategies under the hood. Is Muay Thai strictly a competitive sport, or is it a school of fighting art and philosophy of training? My understanding is that it was a martial art for soldiers first. The bouting became a commercial spectacle later.

    Feel free to correct me on that, and as with Boxing, it is dangerous (in more ways than one... :) to not consider it a Martial Art, but....

    I still feel the "sportive combat" term appropriately discerns the Military from the Civilian aspects, and I'm not arguing whether one is useless over the other, I would simply typify the "sportive combats" being a far narrower focus of purpose (which *competitive* Muay Thai, Boxing, and Fencing would fall under), and that a Martial Art is a complete self-defense/fighting/killing methodology. Boxing and Muay Thai straddle those worlds, I think of Fencing, however, as being removed from the Martial Art sphere.

    I'm also still waiting for lklawson's response to my actual analysis of the text he provided, without the other crap.
  17. Domenico

    Domenico Valued Member

    Here is what I'm touching on (from the Muay Thai wiki entry)

    "As well as being a practical fighting technique for use in actual warfare, muay became a sport in which the opponents fought in front of spectators who went to watch for entertainment. "
  18. Mitlov

    Mitlov Shiny

    You act like "all of the above" isn't a possible answer. A strictly competitive sport CAN BE a fighting art and a philosophy of training. In my opinion.

    Let's talk about Muay Thai in 2010, as terminology was flexible in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Nowadays, if you want to practice fight people with with weapons or practice defending against multiple attackers, you won't find that at a Muay Thai gym, but instead at a Krabi Krabong school. At least nowadays, "Muay Thai" means the national sport of Thailand, which I consider a martial art AND a martial sport.

    How does modern competitive boxing "straddle those worlds" if modern fencing doesn't? It's as competitive and rule-laden as modern fencing is. Nobody learns knife defenses or groundfighting at a modern boxing gym. Nobody practices punching bare-knuckled at a modern boxing gym. Etc.
  19. Domenico

    Domenico Valued Member

    In brief, Boxing is an aspect of the whole of Pugilism. It is a certain framework of fighting techniques within a larger aspect of Western Unarmed Combat. While Fencing can certainly be viewed in the same light, you can "use" boxing without the gloves, outside of a ring, and you've still got all of the same elements at work, no adjustment is neccesary, and it is a combat art. It will break bones, it will draw blood, it will knock someone out.

    Remove the fencer from the strip, and he's in a 3 dimesional fighting space with a 2 dimensional skill, and can very precisely poke someone with his finger, but it's not effective without the tool (the blade), and most of the training tools at his disposal, even if he had them, are designed to flex and slap, not kill, injure, or maim (sharpened epee's notwithstanding, but a sharpened epee is technically a smallsword... :)
  20. Domenico

    Domenico Valued Member

    I'll back away from my Epee/Smallsword statement, as it appears many to view the Epee as a sword first, and a blunted epee as a training tool. I was referring to the epee as encounted in Sport Fencing, which is not designed to be a blood drawing weapon.

Share This Page