From: stark@dwovax.enet.dec.com (Todd I. Stark)
Subject: Re: kundaline & sinanju
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 26 AUG 92 11:01:50    


>: I have always been interested in a general "source" for martial arts, and in
>: trying to figure out how old it might be.  For example, a lot of the "older"
>: martial arts included both striking and grappling arts.  The newer ones tend
>: to be striking styles.  Does this reflect in any way the greater availability
>: and lethality of weapons in the last 2000 years or so?
> 
>I think it represents a change in the mindset of MA as a purely defensive
>strategy to one as an offensive weapon.  

I think it is generally conceded by most martial arts historians that the theory
about true single source (e.g. Africa, India, Greece) is a fallacy.  However, 
it certainly is not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and there is a more
metaphorical form of 'single source' theory based on cultural evolution
that I think has some merit.  That the concepts derive from similar
kinds of ideas and develop slightly differently in each culture.

I strongly believe this stuff about 'defensive' and 'offensive' is a 
greatly mistaken conclusion.  Largely because you can 
easily verify with even a tiny amount of research that there have always 
(as long as there has been organized culture) been specialized striking arts, 
specialized grappling arts, and combined figthing arts.  

The ancient Greeks had boxing, standing wrestling,
ground grappling, and pankration (combined martial arts), all as separate
activities - some being Olympic sports at various periods.
The East Indian cultures similarly had striking, grappling, and combined
martial arts.  And the African cultures.

The *values* attached to boxing by the Romans clearly were associated with
brutality (by our modern measure), as was most of Roman culture in general.
The Cestus, basically a vicious brass knuckles, sometimes with projections
for doing more damage, was used in many matches.  Especially by the 'pro'
fighters, and slave fighters.

However, that this is not an inherent brutal aggression value is shown in the
way the Greeks dealt with the sport, using thongs that were slightly closer 
to modern gloves than to the Roman Cestus.   Some of the worst injuries
occurred in the Pankration contests, where the highest test of general
unarmed martial arts skill was demonstrated.

>MA gives one the confidence to know that, if backed in a corner, one will
>win.  

Realistic confidence for fighting comes from faith in yourself and your 
abilities, and from paying your dues in rough fighting.   Not generically from 
'doing martial arts' or reading fantasy or pop Zen books.   A mediocre street 
tough has a lot more real confidence, and with good reason, than a superb 
fiction fan and martial arts philosopher-hobbyist.  Does that mean that this 
confidence prevents him from being aggressive ?  Of course not.  

Confidence in and of itself doesn't determine whether you fight or talk or 
run.   The principle that I believe is being referred to here is that lack of 
confidence tends to make it difficult to resist the temptation of fighting 
when you're goaded.  But that doesn't automatically imply that confidence 
*prevents* you from responding aggressively when you think it's called for.  
Dig it - confidence is a primary principle of warfare
as well as of 'conflict avoidance.'  Doesn't that tell you something ?

							kind regards,
								todd