FIORE is the BEST! | Why comparisons to find the best HEMA martial arts are actually quite stupid
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 10. 2019
- There’s no such thing as the “best” martial arts system. Only systems with good and bad applications for certain things. Comparisons are good, comparisons to find the best are stupid.
Cheers
Marky
#Exilesvlogs
#Fioredeiliberi
#HEMA
#Sword
#Martialarts
Excellent discussion. During the first world war, the italian Arditi were trained in hand combat to hand and knife fight on the badis of Fiore's techniques
hahaha love the video. Fiore is the best.
Really good discussion. If I ever make it out to the UK I hope I get a chance to drop by one of your studios!
Late to the party, but I'm down a similar road that began with the same video you stipulated here with the two guys sparring.
I like your analogy with boxing vs MMA. In my club, we pick and choose devices and techniques based solely on martial usefulness in competition. Meyer may have something that works reliably, but so does Fiore. So, we teach both. Why handicap our fencers by being exclusive? Especially in the realm of competitive fencing, where realistically you'll encounter people that will use a variety of techniques that may or may not be covered under Fiore or Lichtenauer or whoever.
If people are asking this question in the context of what they should study, the answer is always whoever they find to be the better instructor in their local area, regardless of systems. Even if system A is found to have an objective edge over system B, you will get more mileage if you find a better system B instructor
Exiles is the best HEMA organization, hands down. I mean that. Just a pity there aren't any Exiles within 200 miles of me. Tfw: Solo HEMA practice & no Wyvern shirt to wear & feel cool. Seriously, Exiles are the best, full stop.
To an extent you are right, but if you take your premise to its extreme it falls apart. For example some martial arts have stipulations and methods put in place that make them less effective in application Vs other styles. One example kyokushin karate does not allow head strikes and when kyokushin guys fight muay thai guys due to their training, they get hit in the face and shell shocked. Also styles like dim mak and russian dance slapping exist. They are not on par. Also styles that drill high kicks like tkd, will come off poorly Vs a wrestler. Also comparing styles with swords is important, because usually you are dealing with foreign weapons and unfamiliar techniques. Some styles suit close in fighting due to their short weapon and form etc. So there are styles and weapons that you could say are optimized in different enviroments. Some styles are actually designed for people with different body types. Take Chinese systems the northern favour tall people and southern short
So you can de facto say southern styles are better than northern if you are short. You miss lots of nuances with your blanket statement.
Londinium Armoury
Londinium Armoury Londinium Armoury
Actually, you’re completely supporting my point. The points you make about different arts is the right way to compare arts. Tall people vs. Short.. or specific arts suited to specific things.
The main point in that you’re breaking things down. That being said, where you say less effective in application... which application? Again, that’s my point.
Different arts suit different things. That’s not the same as saying that one is better than the other. It would be better too say one particular art is better suited to X or Y... but again, this is subjective.
There’s a rapier guy out there who could take out a guy with a poleaxe. Is that the system he studies? Or the fact that he’s just good with the weapon. That’s the point.
Londinium Armoury
And. Of course I miss nuances.
It’s an 8 minute video dude 😛
@@theexiles7919 Gotta give you a bit of rib poking whenever i see a gap in the armour, and get the chance. 😎
@@theexiles7919 Yeah I do support your point, except that treating of all arts as viable for fighting. I do believe that some systems are inferior to others. I also believe that lots of things inside each art can be discarded, I don't have a universal respect for all systems. It is true and this is where I strongly agree with you, that it;s the fighter not the system that should be compared in matches etc. But and this is a big but, that doesn't mean all styles are equally effective when you strip all of their little rules away. Because muscle memory does not discriminate, so if your system drills into you a form or technique that is detrimental to actual combat then you can safely discard that tradition. Bruce lee angered lots of traditionalists by doing this when he created Jeet Kun Do. Manuals and systems are just instructions and advice given by peoples personal rpeferences when they found something worked for them. If you put every system side by side that has ever been invented by masters of the last 2000 years, you will obviously see that some systems are more "complete" than others for learning the arts of combat. A system with more techniques gives you more options. So if somebody does a system with 12 techniques, and another does a sword system with 95 techniques, and both have mastered their systems, who has the most options drille dinto their muscle memory?. I think saying everything is equal is wrong, we can see proof of this in un armed fighting competitions. A guy who only trains TKD will 9 times out of 10 get beat by soembody who cross trains a more complete system that deals with grappling, striking, chokes and submissions. So yes I think comparing systems is not only valid but we have documented proof. Frind me a TKD guy who consistantly wins UFC or Pride. We can say better fighter all day, but I think we can all see that TKD is not a complete fighting system for unnarmed combat. Like how Kyokushin kumite will not prepare you for a punch in the face. if the fighter cannot do something because of his system, then it's not the fighters fault he cant dos oemthing, it's his incomplete systems fault.
@Bez Nervoze I agree with most of what you said, but where doy ou draw the line between combat sports and martial arts. Because many families that created these arts that are combat sports would argue that their systems are for real self defense and are not combat sports. I gave kyokushin as an example because Mas Oyama didn't intend for his style of karate to be a combat sport, he certainly saw it as a real art which for him personally it was deadly effective. The gracie family is a good example, many including you possibly would say the gracie BJJ line is combat sports and not real martial arts. But they actually promote and define it as the opposite, they do nothing but promote it as a reals self defense style for the brazilian streets nowdays. Check out their CZcams channels and lately all you will see is gracie self defense break downs and how their art is for real life application. I'm not including things like touch karate and sport TKD, I was talking about systems that are promoted as real self defense fighting styles like BJJ, you can even see credited Navy seals like Jocko promote BJJ as the ultimate "real martial arts system" I don't think Kyokushin is considered a combat sport by most even today, it's taken seriously by many people as a real system for self defense. I was only saying certain systems can build up bad habits. Boxing also has detrimental things that condition you in the wrong way for real life application, even though boxing is useful for actual self defense, not everything is down to the individual sometimes systems and practices are to blame for causing detrimental side effects. Like boxing for example, most boxers train with gloves on and don't hit heavy bags bare knuckled, and boxers have been known to injure their hands in real life fights due to training for 10+ years with gloves on, and not knowing how to handle hand on skull impacts bare handed. So that isn't per se the fault of the individual, it was a result of his training that caused his hands to fail when he needed them most, where as somebody who spent the last ten years hitting a sandbag without gloves on has built up correct conditioning for actual bare handed punching against human heads. It's the same with traditional Muay Thai which I practice, Vs American kickboxing, there is a difference in our shin strength and density, my shin bones are covered in calluses as well as my forarm bones. This is a result of traditional conditioning methods that many styles neglect. There are still American kickboxers who tell us not to hit our shins with bamboo because it's damaging, and they advise us to just hit heavy bags instead which will not build up the bone callus we are looking for. I don't really see what you are objecting to, except calling things sport combat Vs real martial arts. When this was my point to begin with, and I am pointing out that some martial arts are not equal to others, when you just re phrase it to "Sport combat are not equal to martial arts" Well lots of people consider some sport combat to be the real deal, and I'm just pointing out that some styles promote bad habits. You are just saying "Martial arts" is different to "Combat sports" But that was my point, and most of the styles you consider combat sports are taken as real self defense styles by the general public. Like BJJ the family that invented that don't consider it combat sport, they are promoting it as a self defense system. My point is we can compare systems and say "This is bad about that system" or "This is good but this part over here is bad" it's up to the practitioners to realize what parts they are doing that once built into muscle memory or habit can be detrimental in the real world. Weapons systems generally don't have these problems until they are turned into sports, but that was also part of my point like with your example of Kendo and sport fencing, those are perfect examples that reiterate my point, they were once real combat systems, kendo came from Gekken which came from kenjutsu. Sport fencing came from real fencing, which was civilian and military systems for real combat and self defense. I don't think it's wrong to compare techniques and remove things you don't like about the systems. I don't see why we have to have a take it all or leave it all attitude. Many of the systems alive today are only here because people with my mindset did just that, removed things and added new things, just because something has survived in a treatise or manual at some point in history doesn't mean everybody will like to use everything in that system. Jeet kun do was formed as a real self defense system, and it was created by ripping apart traditional systems and taking somehting one person approved of. Historical treatise are not holy scripture that cannot be touched by mortal man, they are divine inspiration fromt he gods, I can take whatever I like and mix it with anything else I like.