Martial Arts in the Military

Mightypeon

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Actually, and defense system that not uses groin attacks (imho overrated, groin has no musculature to absorb hits, and has a lot of nerve cells for pain creation, but it holds no systems crucial to the opponents offensive threat), eye gouging (important! Denies vision and information to the opponent, also possible with a minimum of invested force) and throat crushing (the hands down most reliable way of ending a life with bare hands) clearly shows that it is no defence system.
 

solarz

Brigadier
Actually, and defense system that not uses groin attacks (imho overrated, groin has no musculature to absorb hits, and has a lot of nerve cells for pain creation, but it holds no systems crucial to the opponents offensive threat), eye gouging (important! Denies vision and information to the opponent, also possible with a minimum of invested force) and throat crushing (the hands down most reliable way of ending a life with bare hands) clearly shows that it is no defence system.

Who said Martial Arts was only for self-defense?

Well keep in mind that martial arts is more than just fighting. Fighting is about gaining the upper hand regardless of what moves you use. Classical Chinese martial arts include less than graceful moves like groin attacks, eye jabbing, andthroat crushing and they were, as a matter of fact, very useful on the battlefield. However I really don't think those moves are good for sparring events or kungfu cinema .

Many kungfu practitioners practice Kungfu with health benefits and spirituality in mind. It really doesn't matter how "deadly" the moves are as long as they get good exercise practicing them .

Think about it though...

How would a martial art school be founded, and become famous enough that its styles are passed down through millenia? If styles were mainly for "health benefits", what would make one style more famous than another?

The fact is, many Chinese Wushu styles have a historical background, and that would not have happened if they were ineffective in a fight.

That's what bugs me: why do these styles exist, if today, the most effective hand-to-hand techniques are all pretty similar?
 

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Who said Martial Arts was only for self-defense?



Think about it though...

How would a martial art school be founded, and become famous enough that its styles are passed down through millenia? If styles were mainly for "health benefits", what would make one style more famous than another?

The fact is, many Chinese Wushu styles have a historical background, and that would not have happened if they were ineffective in a fight.

That's what bugs me: why do these styles exist, if today, the most effective hand-to-hand techniques are all pretty similar?

Keep in mind that most of the so-called millenia old martial arts school actually originated during the Ming and Qing Dynasties. A good example of this is how Shaolin, arguable the most famous martial arts school in China, historically started practicing Kung Fu in the Ming Dynasty (they were just ordinary monks before that). Hand to hand combat in the Chinese military, as evident in Qi Jiguang's works, were primarily used to improve a soldier's strength and agility and better prepare them for weapons combat.

As for martial arts that are mainly practiced for health benefits, I can't think of a better example than the famous Taichi. It is reputed to be very effective in fights but I don't think that the style currently practiced by old people in China are tailored towards efficient combat. You must take into account of the fact that the styles themselves evolve and adapt to whatever purpose they suit best.
 

solarz

Brigadier
Keep in mind that most of the so-called millenia old martial arts school actually originated during the Ming and Qing Dynasties. A good example of this is how Shaolin, arguable the most famous martial arts school in China, historically started practicing Kung Fu in the Ming Dynasty (they were just ordinary monks before that). Hand to hand combat in the Chinese military, as evident in Qi Jiguang's works, were primarily used to improve a soldier's strength and agility and better prepare them for weapons combat.

As for martial arts that are mainly practiced for health benefits, I can't think of a better example than the famous Taichi. It is reputed to be very effective in fights but I don't think that the style currently practiced by old people in China are tailored towards efficient combat. You must take into account of the fact that the styles themselves evolve and adapt to whatever purpose they suit best.

Sorry, but that's just not true.

Shaolin's martial monks were famous since before the Tang dynasty, when 13 martial monks rescued Li Shimin and later helped him defeat Wang Shichong. This is well documented.

As for Taichi, it actually contains many deadly moves such as elbow strikes, joint breaking, and throat strikes.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
is just something I found with a quick google. You can find similar information everywhere on the interent.
 

xywdx

Junior Member
I believe Taichi also contains groin attacks, it's just not commonly shown because Chinese think it's bad publicity.
 

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
I believe Taichi also contains groin attacks, it's just not commonly shown because Chinese think it's bad publicity.

Believe it or not Medieval/Renaissance swordfights also employed groin attacks. Goes to show just how effective it is and how everyone is embarrassed about them :D.
 

mkhan

New Member
A lot of the styles and forms are pretty much useless in an actual fight. They look good when being practiced between two equally trained fighters, but wont really hold up in an actual fight.
One clear example of the how some of the styles are flawed, just sit back and remember any old fight you have with other kids on the street or in school and so on Or any other fights you saw on the streets. Try to count how many of them were actually conducted in fully standing positions... making tactical kicks and trading punches. In my experience this number should come out to be pretty much 0. Most of the fights end up on the floor pretty quickly. This is one reason my most MMA fighters spend a lot of time paracticing wrestling, ju jitsu and other similar floor fighting styles as compared to say.. .various animal styles of kung fu.
 

solarz

Brigadier
A lot of the styles and forms are pretty much useless in an actual fight. They look good when being practiced between two equally trained fighters, but wont really hold up in an actual fight.
One clear example of the how some of the styles are flawed, just sit back and remember any old fight you have with other kids on the street or in school and so on Or any other fights you saw on the streets. Try to count how many of them were actually conducted in fully standing positions... making tactical kicks and trading punches. In my experience this number should come out to be pretty much 0. Most of the fights end up on the floor pretty quickly. This is one reason my most MMA fighters spend a lot of time paracticing wrestling, ju jitsu and other similar floor fighting styles as compared to say.. .various animal styles of kung fu.

If this is what you think, then you might want to consider the following points:

1. Forms are meant for learning a style, not for learning how to fight. Learning by rote is a staple of Chinese education. In wen (literary skills), students learned by reading and memorizing entire books. Likewise, in wu (martial skills), students learned by practicing forms.

However, just like someone who only memorizes books without any practice on actually applying the knowledge in those books will fare poorly in a real job, a martial arts student who only practices forms without sparring and even real combat experience will fare poorly in a real fight.

Again, like I said, there wouldn't be so many styles if they weren't effective in a fight.

2. If you think that MMA ground fights are examples of "real fights", think again. Going to ground, in any fight outside of a 1-on-1, is a really bad idea, as you'll be defenseless against your opponent's buddies. This is why in Sanda, they practice throws without following your opponent to the ground. In a real fight, if your opponent is down, and you're standing, you can quickly end the fight with a kick to the head.
 

RedMercury

Junior Member
re: point 2: exactly. The elaborate forms are so evolved, so many steps ahead of a common one-on-one street fight, that they look as if they are ineffective. These forms arise from centuries of evolution. Sure in a one-on-one fight or a cage sporting match, the fight ends on the ground, but in a one versus many situation, the one person has to stay mobile.
 

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
I think another great misconception regarding martial arts is that floor fighting styles are the more "practical" type of martial arts due to its prevalence in fighting sports. One must take into account of the fact that sport fights, too, are for show and numerous restrictions are placed upon the fighters to prevent death and serious injuries. In a real self defence or hand to hand combat situation the fighters are supposed to go for the weak points right away and end the fights as soon as possible. Floor fights and entanglement are not desired in such situations.
 
Top