The Definitive LEGITIMATE Surviving Western Martial Art/Combat Sport List

American Catch Wrestling

American Catch (Catch-as-catch-can) wrestling. Not too common, but sounds interesting.

http://www.combatwrestling.com/catchwrestling.html

www. robertolaura.com

(sorry, the site’s in german)

supposedly a mix of several italian systems

I studied Spanish-influenced fencing in Portugal for 4 years, and NOW you tell me it isn’t a surviving art !!

Damn it, I had a time maching and I didn’t even know it !!!

But yet both is Listed under “Western” martial arts. It sounds very Eurocentric.

Medieval (~9th C to ~14th C), I highly doubt. Renaissance (~15th C to ~17th C), I would have a hard time believing. Baroque-era (~17th C to ~18th C) MAYBE, but I would say no earlier than Enlightenment era (~18th C). (Feel free to correct me on these dates)

The REASON these arts died out is because they had no practical battlefield implementation after the dominance of the gun. However, for some time after, dueling (read: NOT martial in the strictest definition of the word) fencing became popular. In such systems, there were certain rules each participant was expected to follow, and there had to be an official present, as opposed to the MEDIEVAL systems whose only rule was “Don’t die.” Modern “olympic” fencing is a direct result of the dueling systems.

Mind you, that doesn’t discount these systems from this discussion, as it is not only about “medieval” era arts, but any surviving western arts.

In Western Martial Arts circles, the acronym WMA refers to any fighting style of European origin and includes both recreated and surviving systems.

HEMA (Historical European Martial Arts), Historical Fencing, etc. specifically refer to martial arts that have either died out or evolved into completely different forms and which are being revived through study of the detailed manuscripts and treatises that were produced by the original masters. Many people practice both WMA and HEMA, many others specialize in particular styles.

Just a note also that almost all the surviving WMA I listed in my last post were preserved at the “folk sport” level, most especially in countries that were not deeply involved in the first and second World Wars or affected by the Great Depression of the 1930s. The Wars and the Depression were the final death-blows for a number of HEMA that had survived up until the early years of the 1900s. These styles also managed to survive the homogenising effect of the modern Olympic Games movement, which saw many practitioners of more obscure HEMA/WMA styles shift allegiance to the “approved” codes in pursuit of government funding, etc.

Medieval fighting arts are still practiced today, albeit in a recreated form. Unless you meant “survived… as a living tradition.” Although, there are some who claim to practice various medieval styles as part of a living tradition (usually a side thing claimed by fencing Maestros). Ronin knows someone who claims that (and I think studied it too!).

This is a very controversial area; we know that some earlier forms of fencing (with the two-handed sword, rapier and dagger, etc.) were being taught in European fencing salles long after they had become obsolete on the battlefield and in personal duelling, but we can’t be certain whether these were actual survivals or reconstructions.

We do know that groups of fencing masters in London and Paris were involved in reconstructing Medieval and Renaissance fencing styles during the late 1800s and it is not unlikely that some of their teachings have survived. French fight directors (stage combat, etc.) have inherited one stream of training from the pre-WW1 Parisian Academy of Arms (they call it “escrime historique”) and there is evidence of similar survivals in Germany and Italy. However, obviously, this is not the same as saying that these ancient fighting styles have literally survived from the Medieval or Renaissance periods to the present day.

You need to read more carefully.

I specifically listed the arts in question as:

Composite Styles, drawing from both East and West

I still think old west sharpshooting/trick shooting should be listed as an MA.

My take on the gun “arts” would include at least two among the “surviving Western martial arts,” although they’re so new compared to some of the empty-hand arts being discussed that calling them “surviving arts” may imply more antiquity than is the case.

“Sharpshooting” is definitely an art, if by sharpshooting you mean rifle fire at longer ranges, but it dates back farther than the heyday of the American West. In terms of the United States, sharpshooters using rifles were astounding British officers with feats of marksmanship during the French and Indian War and the Revolution. There are several surviving examples of correspondence between British officers and government officials which mention the surprising efficacy of American sharpshooters. The British, like every other army in the world in those days (including the American forces) emphasized numbers and maneuver by troops wielding muskets, which were far faster and more accurate than most people assume today, but still no match for rifled weapons in accuracy. Sharpshooting as we know it today could be considered to go back to Europe, however.
http://www.nrahq.org/compete/highpower.asp

“Trickshooting” is, well, trickier. What is it? Are you talking about spinning pistols, shooting over your shoulder, quick-draw? These things were never really very important to men who actually fought with guns in the American West. The way they used pistols was really developed by the American cavalry forces in the Civil War (unless there was some European conflict that predated it and featured the use of repeating handguns.) To call it a “surviving art” requires one of several interpretations. “Quick-Draw Shooting” underwent a revival in the 1950’s, and today is practiced at Cowboy Action Shooting events.
http://www.cowboyactionshooting.com
http://www.sassnet.com

I would call firearms a separate art. From there, it gets murkier and your individual biases will begin to show. Do you separate shotguns, rifles and handguns into separate “arts?” I don’t really know. They are quite different, but no more different than the various weapons one karate or kung fu school might teach. For that matter, they might simply be considered applications for different ranges of the same combative problem, much like teh grapple, clinch and striking. Pistols at contact to about 30-50 yards max, shotgun at 10-100 yards, rifle at 10-1000 (if you’re good enough.) Then again, one of the fastest-growing forms of competition is the Three-Gun match, where you shoot all three types.

There are also divisions within the weapon types. Pistols in particular have at least three identifiable “schools” of philosophy–Bullseye/target, “Instinctive” or point shooting, and the “Modern Technique.”

Bullseye is the closest to the “Old West” method. Bullseye competition consists of standing in a bladed stance and using the pistol in one hand, fully extended, to shoot as accurately as possible. It’s slow and “untactical” by modern standards, but until Jack Weaver introduced his two-hand system into IPSC-style practical shooting, it was universally accepted that the pistol was designed to be used in one hand. This goes back to the cavalry, the first people to use repeating pistols as a primary arm of war, who usually had reins or another weapon in the other hand (or both.)

Instinctive or point shooting is the method of using the entire body to align the pistol. The sights may or may not be used, but adjusting the sight picture by moving the hand is not the primary method of aiming. The instinctive shooter tries to get his stance natural and “pointed” enough that every time he falls into his crouched, squared stance his pistol is pointed at what his eyes are looking at. In many ways it’s the opposite of Bullseye competition, and it doesn’t really have a competition arm, but it is still taught and advocated for combat use. It is rarely used by itself to the exclusion of one- or two-handed “aimed fire” technique, but it’s trained that way. Does that mean it’s a separate “art?” Good question! It depends on who you ask.
www.alliancemartialarts.com/pointshooting.htm
www.pointshooting.com/ (This guy’s a bit of a nutty troll, but he gives a good account of what point shooting is here and is an example of the “surviving” part as he teaches it to law enforcement and “civilian” shooters.)

The Modern Technique is a broad term I use for everything popularized by Jeff Cooper, Clint Smith, Jack Weaver, etc. Broadly, this is the “practical shooting approach” that emphasizes two-handed use of the pistol, “tactical” reloading techniques, use of cover and concealment, drilling for failure to stop, etc. One of the few close-range arts in the world that realistically deals with multiple opponents. This covers a LOT of ground, but it all goes back to Jack Weaver joining the practical shooting league Cooper shot in back in the 1960’s and 1970’s and cleaning everyone’s clocks with his two-handed “Weaver” technique. He showed that although the Hollywood cowboy “quickdraw” techniques looked fast, he was actually much faster at accurate fire by taking the extra tenths of a second to bring the gun into his two-handed firing grip.

Currently, practical shooting’s competitive elements are having a war of words over who has “Teh Real Practical.” The International Practical Shooting people (IPSC) date back to the 1970’s. They might be considered the boxing or wrestling in this story. They have many classes that cater to people who play the “game” to win and use techniques and equipment that wouldn’t necessarily work well “on the street.” Sound familiar? In shooting, this means “race guns,” open skeleton holsters that are fast but offer no security or concealment, minimal or no use of cover or concealment, “tactical reloads” that aren’t, “pre-running” stages over and over before firing them, use of reduced-power loads, etc.
The International Defensive Pistol Association runs matches that are supposed to take us back to “the real tactical” by requiring the use of concealment holsters, limiting round counts, not allowing specially modified “race guns,” etc. Whether all this makes them more “practical” is open for debate, but they’re trying. There’s a lot of animosity between the two organizations, but more and more people are beginning to shoot both.

You can split hairs further than this, but I don’t have much confidence that even the divisions I’ve made are really warranted, so I’m going to stop there.

When I was younger my grandfather taught me a little cane fencing originating from Calabria Italy. He was born and raised there than moved here at 30. He taught me basic stance, a few strikes and how to spin it around in my hand. The stance was some what like the false leg stance in Tai Chi Chuan or cat stance in karate.

i have heard something called turkish wrestling
i think its practised alot in turkey but i have no idea what
the rules are or how old it is

Iranian grappling?

http://www.pahlavani.com/

I’d add in the Mensur as a seperate sword art. Way different rules, a different ritual. It’s also from Amberger. Waster combat survives as a practice with the SCA and HACA…at least with the hardcore members the last time I fought. I’d ALMOST consider adding SCA as a new combat art. They’re getting there, slowly. Very, very slowly.

Irish Stick Fighting don’t know the proper name though.

Narodno Rvanje (Serbian wrestling)

Here is a deccent web site
http://ejmas.com/jwma/jwmasplash.htm

Shillelagh?

I almost positve that is the stick they use but what I ment to say was I don’t what the proper name for the art is. Probablly what ever is gaelic for Stick Fghting.

Also would Capoeira be a western art or a composite.

Irish stick fighting is known as Bata (also batareioght, etc.) - plenty of info. online.

Thanks, do you know if it is taught any where in the US?

Try the Bata email group - http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/bata/

Iran is a Western country…?

According to G.W.Bush it isn’t.