Moderators: Webmaster, Stacy Clifford
Having good knowledge of ground fighting is never a negative. However, as the article points out the negative is in placing so much emphasis on it that people choose to go to the ground before they have to rather than as a last choice. When you are on the ground everything you have on you is within his reach, including your knife, and you are very much within reach of his mouth. Introduce biting into MMA and see how the game changes!the emphasis is on groundfighting but I don't think the army sees that as a negative.
No one is saying "avoid groundfighting." Obviously, going to the ground is a possibility that must be examined and explored in any real fighting context. What the article argues is that STAYING on the ground in a combat situation is dangerous because of the possibility, especially during the Middle Ages and Renaissance, that your opponent will have a dagger and/or his buddy will be coming behind you to smack you on the head with a pommel.Everyone when they spar goes in with the mindset that they are not going to kill their opponent, and hopefully none of us want to. Is that "sportification"? We don't gouge eyes, bite, attack the groin. "Sportification" can lead to rules with degrade the martial art aspects, that has clearly happened in wrestling, boxing, fencing, kendo etc. But as Musashi said, there is no substitute for mortal combat and by saying avoid groundfighting you impose a rule on combat that doesn't exist. Maybe it isn't the best tactic for every situation but it does work. It seems to me that the majority of fightbooks studied deal mainly with a one-on-one dual of like weapons, which is probably the best way to study. But that is far from the reality of war. Any matial art based on a blade, is a killing art and therfore harder to learn. And until the zombie invasion of 2012, I intend to keep my sword in it's sheath
Return to “Unarmed Skills Discussion”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 74 guests
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||