Should martial arts always keep changing or be kept in traditional ways?

Not wanting to get to deep into this, but a martial art or style changing does not mean it leaves tradition behind. Yang style came from Chen taijiquan. Wu style came from Yang style, Wu/Hao came form Chen and Yang. Sun came from Wu/Hao, Bagua and Xingyi, Multiple Xingyiquan styles came from Dai Xinyiquan. Multiple Bagua styles came from what Dong Haichuan taught in combinations with what his students already knew. Many styles came from Shaolin (possibly even some of Chen style taijiquan) There are multiple styles that morphed into other styles, all the way to Sanda/Sanshou in China, which is a combo of Eastern and Western styles (and traditions) of fighting arts. Also, no two people are alike so there can even be variations within a style, look at the postures of Yang Chengfu as compared to any of his students.

Go to Japan, Jiujitsu was the root of Aikido and Judo and Judo is the root of BJJ.....all came from a tradition, all developed their own tradition and in some cases maintained part of the traditions from which they came. And even with individual branches of style, traditions change, and evolve.

Nothing wrong with tradition, nothing wrong with adhering to one style, but if you look and what you do in the style and look at what your teacher does, or what your teacher's teacher did, you will see differences, some minor, some not so minor. Also nothing wrong with going your own way, if you have the background to do so; see Yiquan/Dachengquan, Sanda, JKD, TKD, etc. and from there traditions evolve to fit that style.

All have their good aspects and all have there bad and it all depends on the perspective of the practitioner in those arts. The only thing I wish is that there was more understanding and simple courtesy between styles, because then you can learn a whole lot about your style by working with others. One of the greatest learning experiences I have had in martial arts was a cross style sparing group I was part of about 25 years ago. Learned a lot about other style, gained respect for other styles and learned a lot about my style because I was now having to figure out how to attack and defend against someone who did not fight like I did, someone who was not trained like me....and try and do that within my style...and that is when it gets really cool

 

I respectfully both agree and disagree. Sure styles and tactics have changed, but not the basics of boxing. They had right crosses and left jabs in 10,000 BC. The same punches are still taught, the same defenses because these are very old, universal human skill sets. What works in the modern pro ring doesn't define "boxing" really, because there are all different ways of using the same basic art, basic punches. As far as clinching, the earliest recorded Greek rules of pugilism didn't even allow it. Roman boxing? They only trained with padded gloves. In the ring, they used the caestus, basically a weaponized glove that could kill a man with single blow. That was the Colosseum rule set.

As far as "old pugilism", a couple of points to make. First, this fresco is over 2,500 years old and it looks relatively modern in terms of what we think of as boxing today.



Point two, The Iliad's description by Homer himself

Later the Romans would borrow these ideas. First century BC Rome, a bronze statue of a boxer bearing caestus by Apollonius of Athens.



So, "bare knuckle" is not really "the old pugilism", and this is partly why boxing as a sport is usually considered a Western hemisphere invention, because it was in the Eastern hemisphere (Near East Asia specifically) that bare knuckled fighting was first identified in the historical record.

But basically I agree that tactics change depending on the specific context and environment. The basic of boxing are ancient, but the tactics required depend heavily on the ruleset. I believe this is why boxing in WBA or IBF is totally different than in UFC etc. Each case is the basic sweet science applied to a particularly place and time. But seriously, when I read the Illiad I connect with that idea that ancient guys and gals too probably did the same stuff we enjoy today as boxing.

Are boxers much different today than from Homer or Virgil's era? I really doubt it

 

Now for a truly "modern" art, consider Karate. People think of Karate as old, but it's really not. Hundreds instead of thousands of years. How much has karate changed in its few hundred years? Not a lot, in my opinion, because the traditional side of Karate isn't that different from the traditions of boxing. The core of both traditions are the basics that get transmitted from teacher to student.

There is a really old Roman saying in Latin about the meaning of "pugil", a pugil generally can mean boxer or fist but specifically it means the thumb and the first two fingers. Every boxer should know, that's what you hit with, those first two knuckles.

The Greeks and Romans perfected boxing way before we were born, in my opinion. The same is probably true for wrestling too, but I'll stop there.

 

Oh and this part from the Aenid. I meant add this before. This description of a Trojan-era boxing match sounds familiar.

 

Yes, yes they have. Look at videos of boxing matches from the 1920's. In only a hundred years footwork, guard positions, head movement, punch delivery, and tactics have changed dramatically.

You'll need to provide the specific source from which you're drawing to say those biomechanics are the same, because as I said before, in only 100 years boxing has changed dramatically, and that's people using the same technology. Before that there wasn't really any ability to train with pressure or deliver repeated blows to the head safely in competition due to the lack of modern training and competition equipment (gloves, headgear, mouthguards, pads, etc), and professional boxers are a very recent development.

What works in boxing is boxing. Punching and boxing are not the same thing.

Let's see, flat feet, no guard, divot between elbow and bicep shows an arm with the elbow down like a wing chun punch instead of pronated as in boxing, chins untucked... That you think this bears any resemblance to boxing is an indictment of your understanding of boxing mechanics.

There's evidence of pugilism going back to early hominids. No specific region 'invented' hitting each other with a closed fist. Other primates do that and as our hand morphology changed we simply changed how we did what we have always done.

Do you read Ancient Greek? Do you have any formal education in ancient Greek history and culture? Because unless you have a graduate degree in something relevant which would give you at least a working knowledge of both you're basing your understanding on someone's translation without context. For example what word is being translated as 'guarding' and what did the original translator mean by that? What did the original author mean by that? You don't know.

They are and you should. Professional boxing with professional athletes, modern sport science, and the training technology to allow for high pressure training and repeated heavy blows to the head is very different from any kind of pugilism which preceded it.

 

I need a degree to understand the epic description of the boxing bout in The Illiad? You're funny. I won't even address the whole "indictment of your understanding of boxing mechanics" bit, I'll just assume you are ribbing me. Anybody can see the similarities in the fresco to today's concept of boxing.

As far as "punching and boxing are not the same thing", boxing is definitely the art of punching, and there is no better art on art for punching than boxing, really. So yeah, I have to disagree with you on that. Also have to disagree that professional boxing is a recent development, because professional Roman soldiers were doing it way before Britain or the UK were even nations. I think what you have is called perception bias, basically you're seeing "old pugilism" and modern Professional Boxing as so different, when in fact they are the same exact thing in two different times, kind of like a 10,000 year old banana and a modern banana. They're both the same fruit. Thanks for the critique, I dig what you are saying but I think it doesn't really address the fact that BOXING as an art, is as old as the human fist, specifically the thumb and first two fingers, if you were paying attention.

The traditions change over thousands of years, but not the pure skill set. Farming is farming, and you can still do it by hand. If you lost all the machines and electricity and stuff, if you knew the art of farming you could keep generations of people alive. Think about that tradition for a second, and how much all the technology and betterment means when you're stuck with nothing but water, soil, and a seed.

 

"There's evidence of pugilism going back to early hominids. No specific region 'invented' hitting each other with a closed fist. Other primates do that and as our hand morphology changed we simply changed how we did what we have always done."

There's no evidence of pugilism going back to early hominids. The earliest references are in the first two millennia BC. Specifically Greece and the Roman Empire. They were the original "sportists" if you want to call it that, when it comes to boxing. Hominids were much more savage.

 

You need a degree to understand it in the original ancient Greek, in context.

I'm not, I just laid out exactly why bio-mechanically that bears no resemblance to modern boxing and your response was to ignore that.

You need to look up the logical error called "affirming the consequent." Boxing is punching, punching is not boxing.

Professional soldiers not professional boxers. There is a MASSIVE difference between soldiers engaging in pugilism and highly trained professional athletes who do nothing but box for a living using significantly different training materials and methodologies.

So you're asserting that between being primates, where primates routinely punch one another as a form of social violence, and becoming homo sapiens, that in that entire period we...what...forgot how to hit one another with our fists? Also that would contradict your own assertion that "BOXING as an art, is as old as the human fist" given that it was in the transitional phase from primates to modern humans where we developed the ability to form a fully closed fist, a change which is coincidentally accompanied by a change in facial morphology in the form of reinforcement of the facial structures most likely to be impacted and damaged being struck by a fist.

Firstly that would be a cognitive bias. Secondly you're displaying blind-spot bias and confirmation bias. Thirdly you don't understand the distinction between punching and boxing and the significant differences between historical pugilism and boxing. Just because kids somewhere kicked a ball around in the B.C. era does not mean they were playing soccer or that they were professional soccer players, though asserting so would be a parallel for your argument.

Striking with the hand is as old as the primate fist, pugilism is as as old as the closed fist, and boxing is very modern.

There is no "pure skill set." Just boxing alone has changed significantly with the advent of modern protective gear, sport science, professional athletes, video recordings, and the sheer volume of boxing matches. Throwing a punch with your right hand and throwing a right straight are not the same thing there Grond.

That's an apples and oranges comparison; you're comparing a technology which allows a change in scale whilst using the same methods with one which allows a change in intensity and thereby changes technique significantly.

 

Let me stop you here. No I don't. The original ancient Greek is fictional, but rooted in Greek history. The rest of your post is, shall we say, debatable.

 

"Throwing a punch with your right hand and throwing a right straight are not the same thing there Grond."

You're right, one is boxing and one is punching with your right hand, and boxing does it better. Boxing as an art is at least 2500 years old, according to recorded history, and probably far older. Thank you, next.

 

"pugilism is as as old as the closed fist" also can't agree with this. Pugil-ism is a profession, a job, a hobby. Pugilism isn't as old as the techniques themselves. Boxing fundies are older then pugilism, in the Latin sense. Like I said, they are purely natural. Boxing is ancient, pugilism is what's new and modern. Pugilism required civilization first, in order to flourish as a pastime. Hence Greek and Roman civilization, and the flourishment of pugilistic art. But change whatever tool or tactic you want, boxing is still boxing. In fact, Roman soldiers in 0 CE were boxing with each other using the same techniques people use today. 10,000 BCE, same thing.

 

Comparing any old athletic/ sporting activity to the modern does show up differences, but it is often in relation to the athletes attributes etc.
I would argue in the past (with 'traditionalists') that in every persuit I could think of we have evolved and improved on it.

Yet, some traditionalists would hold on to the idea that somehow modern fighting was an exception to this pretty broad rule.

I think we, and by extension the current discussion, put too much stock in technique changes, or even tactical and or strategic changes, rules...
The big difference is in the people themselves - better diets, better training. Faster, stronger, bigger.

Absolutely; rulesets dictate much around permissable techs, tactics etc.
But people have had the same opponents, the same kind of bodies, the same sport vs. 'reality' considerations from the get go, ruleset changes and variety across place and time.
Today we could talk about 'dirty boxing', I'm sure plenty of boxing coaches can fight and coach other than what stricly goes in the Queensbury rules.

Anyway, to cut a long story short; it's an interesting (and knowledgable) discussion you guys are having about boxing. In the end we will all have nuances in how we filter and view what can be considered 'the same' and what is 'different'.

You might think it kinda matters, but it doesn't. There's really nothing new under the sun in terms of trying to hit someone whilst not beeing hit, when we are looking, or in need - we tend to find. Funny that? This stuff is and was there ever present, ever exisisting. waiting to be uncovered and realized by anyone and everyone at any time.

Neither the same or different can possibly be absolute, it's all a place on a spectrum leading to never ending discussions between people trying to push the needle to one end or other.

It's strikes me a a bit optimistic thinking seeing a bit of old film footage gives you a definitive insight into such a long and broad subject matter spanning so many cultures and centuries. I would venture that modern developments in technique etc. are down to boxers adapting to their own attribute performence evolution. Coupling this with a continuos environment will inevitablly lead to constant flux and change in how people adapt and perform according to the challenges standing in front of them.

You could make the argument that boxer like Lomachenko is bringing back to the ring, elements of broader pugilism than what boxers have tended to do in my lifetime. But you always get people like this poping up. people who seem to be doing 'new' and 'unique' things. Bu it's relative. Maybe the guys 2000 years ago had the odd exception to the rule, just like we get figers oday in any discipline that are a bit differnt or special a la Lomachenko.

So rather than change of techs etc. having the bigger effect of improving performance. I believe improved ability to perform through improved attributes has more of an influence on changing the techs, tactics etc. IOW, the other way round to perhaps the 'orthodox percepton'.

This is just my general feeling - that things remain both the same and different, no matter what, no matter when !

 

Even improved attributes is debatable. This holds true if you look at the general population since industrialisation, but not necessarily over the course of human history.

David Epstein: Are athletes really getting faster, better, stronger?

Ancient Hominids could kick Butt

Also, a much larger population of humans on earth, and with a lot more opportunity for them to pursue activities by choice rather than the social class they are born into, leads to a lot more exceptional people rising to the top in sport.

Fighting is subject to cultural context, and modern communications technology allows for near-instant cross-pollination of techniques and tactics. In the past this could have taken decades, centuries, or millennia, if it would happen at all.

 

"Pugilism" and "boxing" are synonyms. Some people more recently have tried to tie "pugilism" to older fighting arts, but the two words crop up in the English language around the same time, when boxing becomes a sport again in the 16th Century. "Boxing" is maybe a century or less older than "pugilism".

 

The fact that eastern martial arts are taught outside of their native countries, in English and to foreigners already means that martial arts have evolved tremendously.

Also, traditional martial arts would often involve wearing armour and using a sword to hack someone to death. That couldn't be taught in the west, as you'd get arrested.

The semi contact Karate that gets bad press by the MMA community, is not a traditional martial art. It's a modern, sports version of a traditional art. They were no refs and point scoring, on the battlefields of Ancient Asia.

So what we find now certainly has elements of traditional martial arts, but has already evolved considerably.

 

Yes you do. Translations are fraught with issues related to word selection and specific nuances which don't carry over between languages. Calling it debatable but not actually addressing it, nice attempt at evasion.

Again, provide evidence for your claims that the exact same techniques existed. Show me a source for Roman soldiers using the shoulder roll, the lean back, the same kinds of parries, the same guards, the same variety of ways to jab, etc. I asked you to provide evidence for your prior claim about the same mechanics existing in 10 000 BC for right crosses and left jabs, and you've yet to do that as well. Kindly provide some evidence for your claims.

That's like saying that Preying Mantis Kung Fu and Capoeira are the same thing because hitting people is hitting people. You also seem to be implying that Greece and Rome are the beginnings of civilization which is so immensely wrong

Let me try to put this as simply as possible for you to avoid potential semantic issues. Primates use striking with fists as a form of social violence but with the bottom due to the inability to form fully closed fists. This behaviour would continue as humans developed both the ability to form fully closed fists and the mental faculties to create ordered systems. As a result, striking of other humans with the front of a fully closed fist as an organized form of social behaviour rather than an instinctually reflexive one, will date to when both the morphology for a fully closed fist and the capacity for social organization are present, human urbanization is not a necessity for this which you also keep implying yet tribal populations have a long history of sport without urbanization. Our earliest evidence of social organization amongst human related hominids is about 400 000-40 000 years ago giving us the likeliest early era for organized non-instinctual social combatives. It is not enough to take the earliest written evidence as the definitive starting point for the organization of a behaviour which has been occurring since before humans could write.

Now, while humans continued to strike each other with the front of closed fists in an organized fashion over time, the significant changes in tactics, techniques, training, athlete selection, context, and equipment, starting around 150 years ago make the modern incarnation of organized humans striking each other with the front of a closed fist significantly different to its past incarnations, even the ones temporally proximal to it, as icefield pointed out.

 

No, I don't Dredd. The description of boxing in the Illiad is universal. And the Aenid. And the fresco, and Apollonyus' statue. And again, the personal attack. Evasion? You evaded me for a week without responding.

Who here thinks they can box or pugil better than a 1st century Roman centurion? Is your 21st century evolution beyond "tradition" any better than what professional soldiers were doing with their fists 2,000 years ago?

 

This can't possibly be true. There has to be millenia between boxing between men, and the artistic tradition of pugilism.

 

the conclusion of that TED talk seems to support my statement; here it is:
With new technology, body type adaptation, mindset, imagination, and understanding of what the human body is capable of, athletes have been getting faster, higher, stronger.

I think you can debate if you cherry pick the odd example, like Jesse Owens - someone who may have stood out as having great (way above average) natural attributes for the time. Just watching the footage of old races or old events, we have come on leaps and bounds I think.. It's as much the knowledge and training that leads to improved attributes - so we have to look at the mean average of athletic performance over recent history.. Of course there would be many athletes across history with great natural attributes. I think we have advanaced in an unprecedented way last century and this, in terms of enhancing athletic performance beyond 'natural attributes' and genetics. Though for sure, they will always be the foundation and major factor in an individuals success - in my opinion.

 

But sure.. It's debatable in terms of comparing to historical examples we have limited scope to fully understand where they were at re. physical performance attributes. But in many cases we have information regards average skeletal sizes, diet etc. that can be extrapulated and so on.

In general, we've probably never had it so good, for so long.