Message from @HunDread
Discord ID: 600635031064543242
people wanted exciting martial arts and not boring "guys grappling each other on the floor for minutes" type of action
Add a dose of "oriental mysticism" and it's like waking in the park
And tbf, old martial arts like karate do work. Problem is that people don't know the context it was designed for
Most martial arts have that problem
lot of context is ignored because some average people don't know what context is
Exactly
Asian martial arts really benefitted from the fact that it was less about practical combat training, and more about entertaining the emperor or shogun. That meant the moves were often really fancy, which made them look more appealing from an entertainment point of view.
European martial arts is often better in a street fight, but it doesn't look pretty. So people don't watch it.
Eh, yes and no
Karate was peasant art
Entertainment.
That's my point.
heh
wrestling
ANd it had the context of "we don't have weapons, nobles do"
And no, it wasn't entertainment
Lolgay
the ancient sumo technique
Sumo was samurai art
**literally with your nose**
technically peasants still had walking sticks and farm implements
HEMA isn't pretty.
Viking fights mostly involve two guys hopping around each other, trying to get around a big ass wooden shield so they can poke him with a sharp knife and hopefully kill the other guy.
Knight combat manuals mostly involve grappling and then jamming a sharp blade into the eyes, armpits, and groin.
Yes, but that why it was about singular strikes, and not like boxing
If you have to fight unarmed against someone without weapons, your first attack must succeed or you die
European armor was far superior to Asian armor, so combat was almost always drawn out. It was mostly about getting the other guy on the ground so you can end him with a dagger. Ideally in the eyes, armpits, or groin, because those are the parts that wouldn't be covered by plate armor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZz0x69ATE
what do you fuccbois think of this gay canadian's assessment of the
samurai vs knight vs viking debate
Weapon arts are usually completely different to unarmed stuff
tldr is he says viking wins
Samurai swords wouldn't do shit against European armor. Their spears might have a chance, though.
ooogedy boogedy i huntedded a chicnen adn nad egg
Knights should win
Comparatively, Vikings fight naked
Taekwon-Do follows many karate principles, except it focuses more on kicks
Note, I am not talking about the Olympic type. That is silly
Sure, they have some chain mail, but so do knights
Europe pretty much abandoned swords for mainstay combat, anyways, because swords are shit against plate armor. They only remained popular as a status symbol (expensive to make) and because they're convenient to carry (mount the scabbard onto your belt).
In the 1400s, most knight combat is two heavily armored people going after each other with big ass war picks.
Did vikings use gambesons?
Original TKD was for soldiers, and it was made within the korean armed forces in the 50's
TKD is shit.