Style, in combat.

[Patch]

There is no fighting style that exists that cannot be subjected to contempt, if you so want to. Krav Maga can be scorned, boxing can be derided, you can condemn SCA heavy, or disrespect Joms Viking, NAAMA can be sneered at or BON the subject of uproarious laughter, Norse combat can be ridiculed, or Roman formation work mocked, but in the end it is the mocker who is mocked because the vast majority of what the mocker is spouting is complete and utter bollix.

Having watched this kind of dismissive folly for decades I can say without reservation that in my opinion all of this scorn is clearly arrogance, and ignorance, and insecurity. Every fighting style wants to claim to be “the best fighting style ever in the universe”, and all over the place you will find people who can’t stand that this is not really true and start bad mouthing other styles to try to build up their own.

There is a perfectly natural trend to focus on the one thing that that your own style does better than it’s imagined foes and it is easy to hold this one trait aloft as if it were a holy grail that abolishes all the other virtues of every other group.
"I am the best because I train more violently that that other group, better dressed than those guys down the road, more historical than thou, more energetic than thou, more authentic than thou", etcetera ad nauseam. It is much easier to attack the other styles for simply existing and having another opinion than it is to show your own strengths, and respect the power of other ways of fighting.

Of course scorning the other guys is something that will always happen, the important thing is not to do it yourself, not to believe it just because someone said it, and not to care too much when other people say it about you, coz it will happen.

Every fighting style has great and passionate champions and I have never met a style that is not evolving, never come across one that is not carefully thought through and never met one that does not have great virtues and can teach you new and powerful things. They are all fun. They are all violent. They are all good for all sorts of different reasons.

Personally, having tried a lot of different styles, I like NAAMA fighting the most (and actually the head-blow variants), for these reasons; you are not burdened by heavy cumbersome armor if you don’t want to be, but you can flash up in heavy kit if you do. The fighting is fast and dynamic. It supports an incredible variety of different styles. You explicitly can and will face Roman legionaries, Renaissance duelists, Medieval Crusaders, Greek Hoplites, Saracen warriors, Scots highlanders and more, often in the same battle, each will present new challenges and new styles of combat and that is incredibly awesome. You will fight sieges, forest battles, river battles, bridge battles, field engagements, capture games, Pythonesque duels and desperate close fought engagements, and you will face all these things and all these people because they are not excluded in rules or in spirit.

But most of all I prefer NAAMA combat to other varieties because it is a fighting style that is manifestly skill based, that has an emphasis on technique as its foundation and core, that allows for the greatest personal excellence and glory.
For me, and for a whole lot of other people too, it is simply the best.
But there a lots of other schools as well, and pretty much all of them are also magnificent and fun and brilliant.
My recommendation? Give everything a fair go and find what you like.

Cheers,
-Patch.

[conal]

What he said.

[stephan]

well said patch

well said

[Victorius]

I like all the codes, though I think headblow is safer than non-headblow (with suspension harness and padded arming cap). I'd prefer that gambies be made compulsory, just as gloves and helmets are though...

My issue with NAAMA-style combat, such as my issue is, isn't really an issue. I'd like the strikes to be a little more powered-looking (I had a thread on this earlier, and will try to advance this idea at NAAMA this year). But if the majority aren't keen, then so be it.

It would also be good if NZ combatants were aware of the basics of the Jomsviking system. Once they know what it's about, they can decide whether to adopt it, or adopt only part of it - or not, as the case may be. But if it really is growing in Europe for Dark Age combatants, then it's really important that we here in NZ know how it works. Whether it can be adapted for Ancient or High Medieval periods is another matter. I believe elements of it certainly can...

[mikronn]

Hi all

It is interesting to see this debate played out (again?) as it is often a topic in Eastern Martial Arts circles where the debate over Olympic vs points vs Kyokushinkai full contact vs MMA is regularly re-hashed.

First - Patch has it right.

They all have merits ... and issues. You can learn from them all, even if you find that one or more don't suit because of age, temperament, leaning or whatever.

I have always preferred the contact versions of the arts (Eastern and Western) but it is a personal preference rather than any system bias. In the Eastern schools I have done the lot (well not really competed in MMA).

I've not seen NAAMA combat and am hoping to make it to Justin and Sophie's Taumaranui version to see it for myself - I'm studying WMA with Colin and Callum.

In terms of true ability is usually the school/students over the system. I have certainly found that cross-training has improved my ability in my areas of preference and I look forward to continue to learn.

cheers

mike

[MartinC]

[MartinC]

I got style based on books twer fechtbuk , talhoffer fiore meyer licthenauer/ ringnect jocchaim mair Vadi Silver Cappo de ferra and a few more recent fencers hungarian italian french and even afew odd English men

[Ben Halliwell]

[MartinC]

Hi Ben Style with modified technique then so no broken bodies !!Without a good technique you have no control,