I completely agree that standup grappling (Jujutsu, wrestling) is a great supplement to armed fighting and was used commonly by Samurai and medieval knights. Got that out of the way.
Yes, together with ground fighting. Wrestling isn't and wasn't limited to takedowns, and both are present in the source material. There is more clinching and throwing than groundwork, though.
I may be wrong but I believe that boxing and cane fighting were more popular arts for self deference in the later 19th and 20th century. Boxing was often refereed to as the "Gentleman's way of fighting". For other arts see below:
My point is that in "unarmed times" (when carrying weapons was uncommon) stick fighting and boxing / kickboxing were the most popular means of self defense.
No objection to that claim, but I'm getting a little confused here, as I thought you were talking about much less recent developments. Most of the discussion in the last few pages have been about far earlier times than the 19th century.
I'm well aware of the much greater prominence the striking arts gained in Europe in later times, but my main point is that during the centuries where hand-to-hand combat is actually a central part of any conflict, wrestling (both standing and on the ground) is really strongly emphasised, while striking isn't.
You have a point there. There must have been some technique for ground fighting of course, just pointing out it would be completely different from the stuff people refer to as "ground fighting" today.
Quite different, yes, and with a greatly different emphasis. But at the same time, all effective grappling will have quite a bit of strong similarities as well. I think e.g. Lesnar-Mir 2 featured somewhat similar ending (a grapewine and a trapped arm, not the dagger).
Just to make it clear, I don't think anyody will ever claim the medieval battlefield was dominated by unarmed guard-pulling knights in full plate armor and their amazing helicopter armbars, but grapevines, trapped arms, half-nelsons and the like are still not what I would consider completely different from today's ground fighting, and most pinning techniques today are also really good stabbing positions.
As for getting up, I believe that a knight in full plate armor couldn't get up on his horse without assistance so I'm guessing that getting up from the ground during a battle would be challenging at least. Especially with armed enemies running your way.
This is a myth created by Mark Twain in his
A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. With the exeption of very late tourny gear, armor is generally relatively managable. I don't doubt that having the weight of a skilled opponent on top of you, together with the combined weight of two sets of armor holding you down would make a situation such as in the picture a complete nightmare to escape from, but it's important to understand that the lack of mobility of armored combatants have often been greatly exaggerated.
Agreed, the dagger does change the ground "game" though.
For sure.
Boxing (pugilism) as a significant part of unarmed combat in Europe, as well as a popular sport?
I think this thread (and my posting in it) suffers from the staggeringly wide time period we appear to be discussing. Yes, for the 19th and 20th century, your statements are absolutely correct.
