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

Discussion in 'General Martial Arts Discussion' started by Sarute Uchizaki, Jul 17, 2019.

  1. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    If Wing Chun is boxing, and gorillas using hammerfists is boxing, then your definition of boxing is so far-reaching as to make it meaningless.

    Oh, and while "pugil" is an ancient Greek word, "pugilism" is not.

    There is not an unbroken lineage from modern boxing to ancient Greece, either.
     
    Smitfire likes this.
  2. Grond

    Grond Valued Member

    Sorry, yes I wasn't clear. The sculpture is Greek (Athenian to be precise), but it's physically in Rome.

    It's in Rome because Rome and Greece shared much of their boxing traditions. In fact, Greeks greatly respected Roman Cestus Boxing (see link I just posted, amazing stuff). And honestly that cultural sharing ended up becoming what you and I think of as modern Western boxing. It's a 2,000 year old game, if you want to think of it that way. And it's a game that I'm arguing has primeval roots that can be seen by watching our primate ancestors.

    Are apes boxers in the sport sense? Of course not, but they have the same basic tools as you and I do. And, they are more instinctive, less introspective, relatively fearless. Our big brains can think about boxing all day long (and I believe some martial arts totally overthink fighting in general) but it's not rocket science.

    I think this is all good topical discussion by the way. Traditions are the subject and I have been arguing that boxing in 2019 is as awesome as it is because of the 2,000+ year old traditions surrounding it. I think if you read the page on Cestus boxing and have boxed yourself you'll see what I have been trying to articulate (perhaps poorly).
     
  3. Smitfire

    Smitfire Cactus Schlong

    Hahaha...you've posted a link there that says the cestus boxers would fight in different styles depending on if they had padded, spiked or hard cestus.
    So even the links you think support your assertion that "boxing is boxing" and essentially the same now as it was then show that no..."boxing" changes with context, rules, equipment, etc.
     
    Dead_pool likes this.
  4. Smitfire

    Smitfire Cactus Schlong

    .
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2019
  5. Dead_pool

    Dead_pool the merc with the mouth MAP 2017 Moi Award

    Apes can't form a fist, so they cant punch.

    Your thinking of kangaroos:

     
    IronMaiden1991 and Grond like this.
  6. Smitfire

    Smitfire Cactus Schlong

    Kangaroos clearly kick box.
    That means muay thai goes back millenia!
     
    IronMaiden1991 and Dead_pool like this.
  7. Dead_pool

    Dead_pool the merc with the mouth MAP 2017 Moi Award

    You mean muay Australia surely!
     
    IronMaiden1991 and Smitfire like this.
  8. Smitfire

    Smitfire Cactus Schlong

    Apes aren't relatively fearless.
    They posture, show off, bash their chests/tree roots, throw branches and mock charge precisely to avoid direct physical violence and make the other back down rather fight it out.
    It's why the posturing and body language that often preceeds human violence os called the 'monkey dance' in self defence circles.
     
    Dead_pool likes this.
  9. Dead_pool

    Dead_pool the merc with the mouth MAP 2017 Moi Award

    Incorrectly as well, monkeys arn't apes!

    I'll get my coat!
     
  10. Smitfire

    Smitfire Cactus Schlong

    If 2000 year old boxing is basically the same as boxing now then monkeys are basically apes.
    They look roughly the same right?
     
    Dead_pool likes this.
  11. Smitfire

    Smitfire Cactus Schlong

    Guys, guys....boxing actually goes back 410 million years.
    That's when mantis shrimps branched off and evolved and they basically have fists for front legs and clearly throw punches strikingly similar to a jab or cross.
    In the words of the immortal Goldie they are "virtually identical!!".
     
    axelb likes this.
  12. SWC Sifu Ben

    SWC Sifu Ben I am the law

    A jab and a lead hand strike aren't the same thing.

    Apples to oranges; we no longer practice combative charioteering.

    Hand to hand fighting ≠ boxing. You're moving the goal posts again.

    I think Smitfire covered this one pretty well.

    Wing Chun includes punching, elbowing, kicking, throwing and weapons, and was initially far more weapon-centric. Calling Wing Chun boxing means you're making use of the word 'boxing' to just mean fighting, in which case you need to distinguish it from modern boxing, because it's about as similar to what goes on in the squared circle between professional athletes as a cactus is to a pine tree.

    Evidence Please

    Hand coverings ≠ boxing gloves. In fact most of where we have visual record of fighters there are no hand coverings or hand coverings used to increase the damage caused. Plutarch mentions padded training gloves (sphairai) which comprised fleece under the standard leather thong wraps which we can see in visual record are insubstantial, so that would nowhere near compare to modern gloves. Plutarch lived from 46 AD to 120 AD and we have no evidence of their use outside his lifetime, where we have evidence of hand wraps being used to increase damage. I would also point out that prior to modern mouth guards mouth protection was terrible, and we have no evidence of ancient mouth guards. We have evidence that in boxing prior to the invention of the modern boxing glove body, shots were more frequent than head shots. Combine this with a lack of head gear and even with the tanned leather over fleece there probably weren't too many people wiling to take hard shots to the head in training. Plutarch may have thought the sphairai made blows feel "painless," but he also never had someone like Foreman or Tyson swinging at his head while wearing no headgear and no mouthguard.
     
  13. Grond

    Grond Valued Member

    SO Wing Chun isn't boxing, eh? Tell me more, "Sifu". As far as the rest of your demands, no thanks, I've been more than productive. I provide the Encyclopedia Britannica, your response was "that's not science!", and now "evidence, please".

    No thanks.
     
  14. Grond

    Grond Valued Member

    You have yet to prove that boxing 2,000 years ago isn't almost the same as boxing today. In fact, I'm the only person who seems to post sources, like encyclopedias. Frescoes, statues, the Illiad, the Aenid, Homer, Athenian boxing... The rest of you are posting your singular opinions, in some cases, multiple times. The block quote assault is particularly uninspiring.
     
  15. Grond

    Grond Valued Member

    Yep you got me, as usual. I'm not the smartest one in the room, clearly.
     
  16. Grond

    Grond Valued Member

    That wasn't my assertion. I think you should re-evaluate your own assertions, Laugh all you want.
     
  17. Grond

    Grond Valued Member

    This part is worthy of discussion. You're claiming boxing isn't hand to hand combat? In one of it's best formats? You're suspect. I like to assume good faith but I'm having trouble with your case.
     
  18. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    That is the polar opposite of his claim.

    Hand to hand combat does not equal boxing.

    I really think this whole thread boils down to a disagreement over the definition of "boxing".

    You appear to feel that any striking with the hands is boxing, whereas everyone else is talking specifically about the modern sport of boxing.
     
    Dead_pool likes this.
  19. Smitfire

    Smitfire Cactus Schlong

    Hahah...I think you could have an argument in a room by yourself because I dont think you gave a cohesive point.

    Apes don't box.
    Wing chun is not boxing (as in it's not western 'boxing' in the pugilism, bareknuckle and then the marquis of queensbury rules tradition)
    Ancient frescoes and sculptures show us that greeks and romans engaged in sporting competitions involving hitting each other with the fists but tell us nothing of the techniques, part of the fist used, tactics, training or the other stylistic nuances we use to define something.

    Roman boxing could have looked identical to modern boxing. Or it may not.
    A Roman boxer could have wiped the floor with a modern boxer. Or maybe not.

    There's not enough evidence to be dogmatic and certain either way.
     
    SWC Sifu Ben and Dead_pool like this.
  20. Grond

    Grond Valued Member

    There is PLENTY of evidence. What do you think Homer and Virgil were writing about and why do you think Athenians were sculpting boxers like us millennia ago?

    I disagree, apes do box (I posted a video) and Wing Chun is a Chinese form of boxing as well. The Western boxing tradition itself is intrinsically tied to ancient Greece and Rome, which is why I think it's absurd to argue Western boxers are not following those traditions, if not exactly, linearly.

    Case in point, when the Boxer at Rest was showcased in New York City (my hometown), the Met had a lot to say about the subject.

    https://www.metmuseum.org/blogs/now-at-the-met/features/2013/the-boxer

    [​IMG]

    Sounds just like boxing to me. The rules change, the game stays the same.
     

Share This Page