Posts
(newest first)
Monday, July 04, 2005
Further Theory of Martial Arts evolution
So let us take the premise that many martial arts are based on warfare, battle and hunting skills, all part of the hunter/gatherer tribal society of neolithic prehistoric eras.
There will always have been particular individuals who are extremely adept at their chosen skill, either in some way as a 'natural' talent, perhaps because of good reaction skills, quick movement, strength. strategic thought etc, or through practice of the skill in one way or another, be it direct or indirect (a butcher practices his knife wielding skills everyday for example, and this might be easily translated to battle technique).
Societies naturally attribute those who have such skills as an expert, and, by extension of intent and use, as champion or master. So the inquisitive human mind, such that we have, we search to improve self, for selfless or selfish reasons regardless, but those who do will strive to better their current range of skills.
To continue this premise, it might be easy to make a further assumption that a sword user practising daily with his peers or students might experience being disarmed, so then that practicioner will want to still defend themselves in some way, so unarmed combat becomes a requirement.
We see that a lot of old pugilistic arts revolve around wrestling (and boxing, but I consider the two together as one), so once disarmed, the defender might either make a retreat or, if that is unlikely, to face their opponent without weapons.
This thought might have passed through the minds of any passingly decent fighter, warrior or military commander, and might well have been an issue of concern, so its imaginable that they would have taken steps to focus on unarmed combat skills as a complement to their usual weaponry.
The other possibility is that even armed, you still have use of other limbs: your feet, your free/shield hand, your head, so its not inconceivable to use a simple punch or kick to complement your armed skills mid-combat.
Another path of evolution, perhaps less well-trodden, is the hunter's, either as a pack or solitary. The hunter may be hunting a strong, vicious animal like a large predator (a tiger? a leopard?), so needs to develop a combat style when confronting said beast. Perhaps such experiences led adept hunters to create a system of meeting the beast in a confrontation and so led to the creation of a fighting style.
A hunter is also usually a warrior, so the skills, we can surmise, must translate easily between the two disciplines.
And perhaps the deciding factor as to the style of individual martial arts systems is most likely the environment, with cultural, genetic, environmental and social influences going to shape how a martial art system is founded.
J
There will always have been particular individuals who are extremely adept at their chosen skill, either in some way as a 'natural' talent, perhaps because of good reaction skills, quick movement, strength. strategic thought etc, or through practice of the skill in one way or another, be it direct or indirect (a butcher practices his knife wielding skills everyday for example, and this might be easily translated to battle technique).
Societies naturally attribute those who have such skills as an expert, and, by extension of intent and use, as champion or master. So the inquisitive human mind, such that we have, we search to improve self, for selfless or selfish reasons regardless, but those who do will strive to better their current range of skills.
To continue this premise, it might be easy to make a further assumption that a sword user practising daily with his peers or students might experience being disarmed, so then that practicioner will want to still defend themselves in some way, so unarmed combat becomes a requirement.
We see that a lot of old pugilistic arts revolve around wrestling (and boxing, but I consider the two together as one), so once disarmed, the defender might either make a retreat or, if that is unlikely, to face their opponent without weapons.
This thought might have passed through the minds of any passingly decent fighter, warrior or military commander, and might well have been an issue of concern, so its imaginable that they would have taken steps to focus on unarmed combat skills as a complement to their usual weaponry.
The other possibility is that even armed, you still have use of other limbs: your feet, your free/shield hand, your head, so its not inconceivable to use a simple punch or kick to complement your armed skills mid-combat.
Another path of evolution, perhaps less well-trodden, is the hunter's, either as a pack or solitary. The hunter may be hunting a strong, vicious animal like a large predator (a tiger? a leopard?), so needs to develop a combat style when confronting said beast. Perhaps such experiences led adept hunters to create a system of meeting the beast in a confrontation and so led to the creation of a fighting style.
A hunter is also usually a warrior, so the skills, we can surmise, must translate easily between the two disciplines.
And perhaps the deciding factor as to the style of individual martial arts systems is most likely the environment, with cultural, genetic, environmental and social influences going to shape how a martial art system is founded.
J
