Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 31, 2014, 10:34:29 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
81392 Posts in 2243 Topics by 1046 Members
Latest Member: MikeT
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  DBMA Martial Arts Forum
| |-+  Martial Arts Topics
| | |-+  Fighting strategy
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Fighting strategy  (Read 2744 times)
SB_Mig
Guest
« on: September 23, 2004, 11:12:31 AM »

Here's a question for y'all:

Ever since man/woman first picked up a stick/rock and made the conscious decision to fight over food/mate/possessions/property, there has been some type of strategy involved.

In medium to large scale warfare, we have seen changes to the strategic approach (from phalanxes and cavalry charges to guerilla warfare and long range bombing). Most would argue that changes in tactics are necessary on a large scale because of the advances in technology and the perception of warfare. And for the most part, these advances have attempted to "refine" warfare to minimize casualties (both civilian and military).

My question is this:

Although we have seen advances in weaponry and been exposed to a myriad of fighting techniques (i.e. martial arts) in various cultures, has the strategy of a one-on-one fight really changed that much since the first caveman hit his neighbor with a stick?

Does the practice of a particular style of martial arts necessarily mean that you won't simply try and bash the other person's head in? Or does the approach to fighting become more "refined" once an individual knows 3-3000 techniques to win a fight?

Whadda ya think?

Miguel
Logged
SB_Mig
Guest
« Reply #1 on: September 23, 2004, 02:07:20 PM »

In response to a friend's response to my question, I offer the following:

Have we made an evolutionary jump in one on one combat?

And has this come about because of the increase in training "old" styles (Kali, Silat, Karate, etc.) with solid scientific bases, or because there has been a fundamental shift in the way people fight?
Logged
Guard Dog
Power User
***
Posts: 652


« Reply #2 on: September 23, 2004, 08:46:16 PM »

I have heard forms of these quotes from a horde of people:

?You either fight or you don?t fight?

This quote obviously insisting that there are no real styles of martial arts, they are all fighting.  I also like the analogy that style is an individual fixation on a personal level.  Style can be tight, weak, quick, smooth, loose, heavy, soft, hard, or any other description for that matter; but what it can?t be is one set thing.  For instance, you don?t hear people saying ?I study the ?Babe Ruth? form/style of baseball.?  People may study Babe Ruth?s attributes, but there is no such thing as a ?Babe Ruth? style of baseball.  In conclusion, you either fight or you don?t fight.


?As long we humans have two arms and two legs it will all be the same when it comes to fighting?


Gruhn
Logged

Ryan “Guard Dog” Gruhn
Dog Brothers Martial Arts Association
Business Director | Full Instructor | Black Dog Tag
"Smuggling Concepts Across the Frontiers of Style”
ryan@dogbrothers.com | www.dogbrothers.com
SB_Mig
Guest
« Reply #3 on: September 24, 2004, 11:00:35 AM »

Hmmmm...

You fight or you don't. Granted. The question is, has fighting evolved?

Let's take your Babe Ruth analogy:

?I study the ?Babe Ruth? form/style of baseball.

Baseball has evolved since Ruth played the game. Technically, it has changed in the type of equipment used, surface it is played on, rule changes, etc. Physically it is a different game as well due to advances in sports medicine, atheletic training, size of athletes, etc.

So while the basic game is the same, the sport has evolved exponentially since its inception.

?As long we humans have two arms and two legs it will all be the same when it comes to fighting?

"Is it really the same?" is my question.  

Boxing has moved from stiff hands forward stances to more fluid movements. Wrestling and groundfighting have seen additions with the discovery and creation of new styles. The sidekick that was so popular to Karate in the 70's is thought of as too telegraphic in some circles these days.

How have we advanced in our approach to fighting?

Miguel[/i]
Logged
Guard Dog
Power User
***
Posts: 652


« Reply #4 on: September 24, 2004, 11:50:34 AM »

Woof Miguel,

Great points!

I think another point I should bring up is the definition of fighting.  I have always thought of boxing, wrestling, and so on to be so called ?sports.?  Fighting on the other hand is more NHB where everything and anything goes.  The differences are the rules; in fighting there are close to no rules and in the sports there are strict limits.  Because of this I would most defiantly consider DBMA for instance, fighting and point sparring for a sport.

Yes baseball and boxing have evolved but it is still the same thing, a sport.  I think fighting has evolved into a more tactical event but is more or less the same as when we first started fighting.  

Just My Opinion,

Gruhn
Logged

Ryan “Guard Dog” Gruhn
Dog Brothers Martial Arts Association
Business Director | Full Instructor | Black Dog Tag
"Smuggling Concepts Across the Frontiers of Style”
ryan@dogbrothers.com | www.dogbrothers.com
SB_Mig
Guest
« Reply #5 on: September 24, 2004, 12:21:07 PM »

I think fighting has evolved into a more tactical event but is more or less the same as when we first started fighting.

I most definitely agree! The next question is: how has fighting evolved and how will it continue to evolve?

I.e. while UFC is considered by most as sport, the introduction of BJJ changed the entire playing field. But, this change to the sport also influenced the training of many "practical" martial artists (those who train for self-defense/combat) in terms of individuals adding the ground aspect to their fighting repetoire.

Where do we go from here? Or is there anywhere to go from here? Is the evolution of fighting an individual process or does it happen on a larger scale through osmosis?

Once again, I find myself rambling... wink

Miguel

Miguel
Logged
buzwardo
Power User
***
Posts: 784


« Reply #6 on: September 26, 2004, 01:43:09 PM »

My guess is that there are two prime movers here, albeit ones that work in different directions. The first is modern training regimens. I think it can be demonstrated pretty categorically that human performance in most every sporting venue has improved vastly in the past century. Whether it's sports medicine, diet and nutrition, equipment, training, coaching, and so on, all aspects have benefited from advances that allow athletes to ramp up their performance. I'd argue that enhanced performance leads to enhanced tactics and strategy, hence fighting arts can evolve.

Despite sundry technological revolutions, however, fewer and fewer people able to take advantage of these amazing changes have had to confront the raw brutality of a one on one fight to the death. There was a time when most folks thought nothing of grabbing a chicken from the yard, walking over to the stump, lopping the critter's head off, then watching its body run around the yard pumping blood. Do that in an auditorium these days and people would probably stampede.

In the nasty, brutish, and short days of yore traumatic amputations and grisly deaths were things folks were a lot more likely to witness. A blooded warrior would not have a problem lopping off pieces of an opponent. Outside of modern Special Forces, you'd have trouble finding an elite level athlete inured to violent death, and even elite operators are going to be doing most of their death dealing with weapons that allow them to stand off from their opponents. Bottom line is I think an elite athlete would have the capability of taking one on one fighting in new directions, I just don't think you are going to find many willing to pay the bloody dues these days.
Logged
Makena
Guest
« Reply #7 on: September 27, 2004, 05:06:26 PM »

My Serbian cousins are shepherds in Eastern Bosnia and they are wicked with blades.  Their tolerance for gore is huge from slaughtering animals...watch fi dem farmboys!

Aloha
Logged
rob
Guest
« Reply #8 on: September 27, 2004, 07:12:09 PM »

i think we are better atheletes today. faster and stronger today. we have better attrribrutes for delivering techniques today and evolved sport to help question are training methods. the only real weakness in practial experience. how many of us have gone into battle and learned those hard earned lessons.
Logged
Anonymous
Guest
« Reply #9 on: September 27, 2004, 08:11:30 PM »

Quote from: rob
how many of us have gone into battle and learned those hard earned lessons.


Its also obvious that the average age of a person who trains in the arts most likley lives longer now a days because they don't go to battle.  In a way I think that makes up for them lacking practical application.

Gruhn
Logged
Anonymous
Guest
« Reply #10 on: September 28, 2004, 10:21:39 AM »

Quote from: SB_Mig
And for the most part, these advances have attempted to "refine" warfare to minimize casualties (both civilian and military).




Just to nitpick, but I think you mean the 'refinement' of warfare is for the purpose of minimizing friendly casualties, while increasing those of our enemies.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!