Re: [sig] Cossack Martial Arts
> Leszek said: The vast majority of unarmed styles were developed either for sport, or by the people who didn't have military weapons.Yes there were. You confuse "Zen" martial arts with all of the others. There are plenty of MA in China that have nothing to do with enlightement. Even now all Chinese MA fall into Wushu and - damn, forgot the word, it is translated as "fist art" or something like thta. The latter have long developed in parallel with the zen-based wushu styles, being strictly mundane. And - all modern MA schools in China are no older than 16 century, just note that. We know only of sheer prectical training before that period - Emperor's Guards complex, etc.
> No they weren't, not if you shed the modern trappings. Unless you limit them to their modern definitions, they're all based in spiritual and cultural conditioning.
>See above, first sentence. There are lots of MA beyond Chinese zen culture.
> Most martial arts styles all stem from the needs of people to achieve something greater. The classic is most Asian styles originating with monks' needs to meditate for extended periods while searching for
enlightenment. They are a physical manifestation of the 8-fold path (or the wheel of samskara) taught by the Buddha and yogis and a prayer for agrarian festivals (sumo is actually an ancient dance prayer for
weeeeeeeelllll.... Actually, there were THREE different schools in Asia: agrarian, wrestling-based, yogish (some consider daosist schools to be a kind of one) with their own body discipline, and buddhist - mostly zen-based. They did not mix until lately.
a bountiful harvest - according to the ancient Kojiki scrolls). These styles are designed to help the mind free itself from the body and its suffering. Consequently, most are also based in healing practices or have a 'partner' that is healing attuned. Unarmed combat is ritual combat - a symbolic defeat of the
RITUAL combat is a strictly separated discipline. I practiced some in Goritz fighting, and just searched through parallel practices on other schools. They HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH COMBAT.
plagues of humanity, or a demonstration of skill to prove worthiness or superiority - even though it's just as deadly.
And traditionally, it is based on very distinct restrictions - the ban to move from the ritual ground, to begion with. Just stand and grunt, and sweat - until you fall (die) or win.
>Sorry... Styles did not start as great separate entities. They were just schools first, as it is with Five Beasts Play in Shaolin. Not to mention the whole karate variety - that first was read as "Chinese hand", not "open hand", and started from several Chinese Wushu and (damn again that fist-art word) instructors. Just a school to start several styles.
> *Schools* or martial arts (as opposed to styles) were developed for fighting wars and battles. But even these techniques are still extensions of *unarmed* styles that you must learn first - if you can't manage your body, you can't manage a weapon.
> Exactly what constitutes a "military weapon" is another topic - rocks are a military weapon powerful enough to crack open a skull and have been used for millenia; as is a quarterstaff. Both are military weapons that even the most "primitive" people had access to. And wrestling, which utilizes weapons everyergm... not all wrestling is a MA. Only the one that has more than a set of tricks and techniques. A picture of teh world, to begin with. A style-based startegy of perception - not just in a fight, you will tell a wrestler from an escrima fighter in a conversation.
human being has, is one of the *oldest* recorded martial arts - with examples in nearly every culture on earth. Military contests have been decided by a wrestling match, or avoided by using one, throughout recorded history.
...because that WAS ritual fighting once. Brute force to reverence earth's growing power.
> > Militaries seldom study unarmed fighting to any significant degree.... just because in a modern too civilized society they have great pains to develop a person's aggression. That's why, say, they again started "obsolete" bayonette practices in the US Army back in 1980s.
> Huh? I don't know of a single military that doesn't train you for unarmed combat, at the very least because that training conditions the body to the rigors of war. The US Army has "Combatives"; the US
Marine Corps has it's own specialized martial arts program (custom designed for them), the Israelis use 'krav maga,' the Chinese teach kung fu, even the Canadian *Mounties* learn pressure point fighting including jujitsu. At the bare minimum, unarmed combat training provides physical fitness, discipline and stamina required for warfare. It's a component in every basic training and PT.
Yes, as PT. As a spetsnaz instructor told one of my buddies, "a spetsnaz can and should win a bare-hands fight. But before he should (censored) his SMG, his pistol, his knife, his helmet and his shovel, and he should find a place with no shooter to interfere, and a bad guy who also (censored) all the abovementioned". The same with the period fighting. It is just the last PDW that you cannot lose or break. But practising it takes so much time that it demands full dedication. And you cannot fully dedicate yourself to martuial arts, as simpler martial habits (lineup, etc) require similar time amount to practice. And in mass fighting there is no place for martial arts, as in tough bayonett charge there is no place for fencing. There is plenty of written reference for the latter, BTW.
>That means - centuries after the Japanese understood that they have a lot to learn from the Chinese. Mind the first translation of Karate hieroglyph.
> Point of fact, the origins of jujitsu predate modern martial arts and are in fact NOT based in "a handful of throwing techniques practiced by a few clans". Jujitsu is historically recorded to have been practiced as early as the 16th century, the Muromachi period, in over 2000 schools, and consists of
rappling, kicking, punching, evading, blocking, balancing and *minor* weaponry (like daggers) techniques and was a required companion to Samurai armed styles in the event the warrior somehow became disarmed.
I do not remind you that first the Samurai were simple mounted archers, you know that yourself...
And in the course of time they borrowed a greeeeeeat lot of thingys practiced on the continent...
> > Even the Samurai did very little unarmed training....in 16 century,- when the Samurai were already for several centuries involved in the 'spiders in a can" lifestyle, where you can be murdered anytime, anywhere. No wonder they practiced close combat, not just sword techniques.
> Historically and culturally incorrect. All Samurai were required to be proficient in multiple weapons AND unarmed combat. While one weapon may have been favored over others as more "noble", they still were required to learn them all.
> All of which is off topic (my apologies)....He would not. The Mongols never practiced punching or kicking, while the Hopak adepts never claim efficiency in wrestling - just jumps and kicks and punches. The same with the Scythians or Sarmatians. Plenty of wrestling nomads images, no punching or kicking.
> I would suspect a person seeking a Cossack martial art would find the foundations of the Cossack styles among the Mongolian martial traditions of the Hordes, the Polish Uhlan and the historical references to Sarmatians.
> Incidentally, Mongols did (and do) fight unarmed - Boke, or Mongol wrestling is one of the 3 "manly arts" required by Chinghis Khan of his soldiers to keep them in prime fighting condition (the others were archery and horsemanship)and he often used it to eliminate political rivals....while Battle Hopak pretends to nbe the quasi-Kapoeira shown in the Ukrainian show at last year's Eurovision.