About Wrestling

[Rainbow_Warrior]

Many people say that wrestling is not MA. It may be right today

But the thing we know as western ´´wrestling´´ is derivated from the greek phalanx and roman legion hand to hand war combat training , so , it was really heavy hard stuff.

In some military forces , today wrestling still in the basic training , countrys like Russia , or ( as far I know) some US forces...

But where is the limit between Martial art , defense technique, self defense and contact sport ? Some people say that MA have own philosophy and spiritual teaching.....It ´s a very thin line

[ps1]

I think you make some good points, especially in pointing out the history of wrestling. In the same vein, I would say that any form of combative art that is practiced soley for sport would not be a martial art. Rather it is a martial sport. Wrestling, like boxing, XMA, Olympic TKD and so on all fall into this category. That is not to say they may not be useful in self defense, just that it is not the primary purpose of practicing them anymore, regardless the history of them.

A martial art, however, should have the sole purpose of teaching it's proponent the self defense techniques and stratigies necessary for that persons tasks of every day living. That is, if your a bouncer, the martial art you study should be applicable to your line of work. Same goes for police and military along with the low risk jobs such as accounting. The martial art should include all the basic elements that person would need. So, for example, a police officer who never bothers to train how to use the weapons on his/her belt, would not be training a complete martial art. Often times, more than one instructor is necessary to complete what they need to learn.

While I am a huge proponent of attaching a moral code with teaching a martial art, it is my understanding that morality is a personal matter. I know of three high ranking black belts in my area that have gone to jail for various offenses. You can tell a person what morality is and means, but you can't make them be moral. Therefore, I don't think it is a necessary part of the martial arts. Even in Japan the philosophical and spiritual codes were not in place until relatively recently (last 200 years or so). A Samauri used to be allowed to behead a "lower class" person simply for being in his way. Big morality conflict there I think. Until Japan came into a period of extended peace, the big spiritual push was to make the warrior class not be afraid of dying.

I guess the point of all this is that, yes, you make a good point that wrestling has a strong combative history. However, that does not make it a martial art any more than wheels on a wagon make it a car. It's a combative/martial sport. It can be used for self defense, but that is no longer it's primary mode.

[bushido_man96]

I feel that wrestling is a martial art, along with boxing and Thai boxing. I don't think that just because the competitive aspect of these acitvities is at the forefront to the public demeans their value as fighting styles. They all have something to offer, and no style is complete.

[Rainbow_Warrior]

A Samauri used to be allowed to behead a "lower class" person simply for being in his way. Big morality conflict there I think. Until Japan came into a period of extended peace, the big spiritual push was to make the warrior class not be afraid of dying.

Yes , Samurai were the european medieval knight equivalent in japan.And many knight could atack a peasant just for looking his horse.I know what you mean.But , the samurais had codes of life....and in theory they had to adjust to several rules of the bushido that includes honor and helping other people ( close to ´´ help the opressed´´ of the knights).

I understand what you said abot philosphy... but most MA had one. I think that people associates MA with ASIA....so generally speaking the MA are eastern things for the average person. Many person forgets their ancestors heritage .

[ps1]

A Samauri used to be allowed to behead a "lower class" person simply for being in his way. Big morality conflict there I think. Until Japan came into a period of extended peace, the big spiritual push was to make the warrior class not be afraid of dying.

Yes , Samurai were the european medieval knight equivalent in japan.And many knight could atack a peasant just for looking his horse.I know what you mean.But , the samurais had codes of life....and in theory they had to adjust to several rules of the bushido that includes honor and helping other people ( close to ´´ help the opressed´´ of the knights).

I understand what you said abot philosphy... but most MA had one. I think that people associates MA with ASIA....so generally speaking the MA are eastern things for the average person. Many person forgets their ancestors heritage .

The bushi class were not required to help anyone. Their lives were dedicated to doing the bidding of their daimyo and no one else. I'm afraid to tell you that you are buying into myth. The samauri opressed many people. Just ask the Okinawans. Honor was a matter of three things only: Loyalty, Obligation, and Justice (as it applied to the laws of their daimyo). If the problem in front of the bushi did not apply to one of those three things, it did not concern them.

The confusian and shinto theories were forced upon the bushi by the bafuku as a means of controlling them during a time of peace. The Japanese government was afraid seperate clans would rise up and rebel.

[Jiffy]

Ah, the age old question, what is a martial art? To some it's a fighting art. To others there's more to it.

Perhaps it's best to say that a Martial Art is a fighting art that contains many various aspects as included by the practitioner.

[DokterVet]

Who doesn't think wrestling is a martial art?

[ps1]

I don't.

I believe Wrestling, boxing, thai boxing, mma, xma, olympic tkd and anyother system being trained soley for sport are combative or martial sports.

As I wrote above, A martial art should have the sole purpose of teaching it's proponent the self defense techniques and stratigies necessary for that persons tasks of every day living.

I should add that, most of the above mentioned sports can be trained and used for self defense. It's really about purpose of training more than anything. And, in the US, wrestling is predominantly trained for sport.

[bushido_man96]

I believe that sports training, like those you describe above, actually prepare people for self-defense better than some non-sport styles, due to their training methods. Their bodies are better conditioned, and they are familiar with being in a fighting situation.

[bushido_man96]

While I agree that the nature of the training for boxing and wrestling is what makes it very effective. But that same type of training can and should be applied to those who train for self defense reasons.

Here's a small example of what I'm saying. In wrestling, all movement must be circular or toward the opponent. So, in the BJJ academy I train in, when wrestlers come in, they initially have problems using take downs because they're not used to someone simply backing away as they shoot. Of course, they eventuall adapt and learn stratagies to use them in new situations. Those stratagies are what can seperate a martial art from a sport and can mean life and death.

The rules are what tends to hurt the wrestlers more, but after some time in BJJ, they will adapt, like anyone else. Just because there are rules, however, doesn't discount the fact that it can't be a useful MA. That was the big thing with judo; make some rules to allow for more realistic training. BJJ has been a benefactor of Kano's visionary changes to JJJ. Since wrestling is used as primarily a sport, like judo, then the rules are still carried with it. It also has different goals, like pinning the opponent, not making them tap out. In TKD, the rules I fight under don't encourage tapping someone out, but it does allow win by knockout, so there is just a difference in rules.