European Martial Arts?

[Saxtonite]

1) there is/was no decay, instead there were adaptions and improvements

I mean how "traditional" styles of fighting were forgotten due to those improvements (the earlier posts about asian martial arts being more 'traditional' based and not so much practical)

2) the eastern yuros does not differ with any significance vs western yuros. See my earlier posts above for examples.

I believed that they preserved more of their ethnic distinctions in specific styles of martial arts though.

For something to be a martial art I'd argue that they at least have regular training and a basic concept of how that training works.

I meant that street fighting is not a "formal" thing, is not regulated the same as 'formal' martial arts and is say, more uncoordinated. It doesn't seem like you can build a tradition of written texts of improvement from people fighting in the streets (I do admit I can be wrong). It's also a lot more 'base' and does not emphasize any 'artisticness' (I think you can argue that wrestling can be considered as such due to their roleplay)

I think part of it is that boxing and wrestling are somehow viewed as "not really" martial arts by some people. They're relatively informal, often associated with the lower classes economically, and they don't have a big body of mysticism to make people think they're cool.

So people just ignore the existence of these 'western' martial arts, or think of them as just a slightly improved version of the usual sort of mindless grappling and punching that completely untrained people do in unarmed combat.

In my opinion, it is mainly the informalness of boxing and a lack of strong ritual, as you said. And I heard that there were a lot more european martial arts which were ethnically based before it was whittled down to boxing and whatnot.

What does this talk of decay mean exactly, anyway? Every city of any decent size has always had a few boxing gyms, and every high school and college has a wrestling team. I mean you should listen to a bunch of "classic boxing" enthusiasts argue over the relative strengths and weaknesses of fighting and training techniques from a hundred years ago versus now.

"decay" as in all the preindustrial martial arts that were forgotten due to tech increases, and due to eastern europe being less developed things like 'hopak' were still intact. I remember reading of that on wiki in the past.

[Spoonist]

1) there is/was no decay, instead there were adaptions and improvements

I mean how "traditional" styles of fighting were forgotten due to those improvements (the earlier posts about asian martial arts being more 'traditional' based and not so much practical)

Yes, I realise that, merely pointing out that that is not a decay. Instead there has been an ever increase in martial arts and a differentiation of them.
Then with the wave of reenactments etc the revival of the old is stronger in yuroland than it is in asia right now. Instead asia is heavily influenced by the yuro game approach and its martial arts are starting to reflect that. So a revival-going back to the roots is bound to happen in another 50ish years or so.

2) the eastern yuros does not differ with any significance vs western yuros. See my earlier posts above for examples.

I believed that they preserved more of their ethnic distinctions in specific styles of martial arts though.

So lets see, the scandinavians/norse have their glima, the scots have their backhold, french their gouren (sp?), greeks have a dozen or so, even as far "west" as the canary islands you have a distinct wrestling and stickfight art. That's from memory alone, if I'd look it up I could name hundreds of different ones still practiced today.
Its only from lack of knowledge that you could argue that eastern yuros would differ. Sorry for the tone, but I don't know how to rewrite it not coming across like a dick.

I meant that street fighting is not a "formal" thing, is not regulated the same as 'formal' martial arts and is say, more uncoordinated. It doesn't seem like you can build a tradition of written texts of improvement from people fighting in the streets (I do admit I can be wrong). It's also a lot more 'base' and does not emphasize any 'artisticness' (I think you can argue that wrestling can be considered as such due to their roleplay)

I see your point, but I'd disagree. Lots of folk wrestling is based on what happened at streetcorners and at festivals etc. But the yuro approach has always been the "game" approach, ie a set of rules within them you can improve as well as you can.
So stuff that happened outside of the ring would definately creep into techniques used in the ring, then that would be copied down etc.

I think part of it is that boxing and wrestling are somehow viewed as "not really" martial arts by some people. They're relatively informal, often associated with the lower classes economically, and they don't have a big body of mysticism to make people think they're cool.
So people just ignore the existence of these 'western' martial arts, or think of them as just a slightly improved version of the usual sort of mindless grappling and punching that completely untrained people do in unarmed combat.

In my opinion, it is mainly the informalness of boxing and a lack of strong ritual, as you said. And I heard that there were a lot more european martial arts which were ethnically based before it was whittled down to boxing and whatnot.

Boxing is very formal and have lots of rituals??? Lots of yuro styles of competitive fighting have ethnic origins. But why would they stay within those boundaries? Its like saying that bushido wouldn't be bushido outside of japan.
Its a very prejudiced view you hold, I hope you realise that.

[hongi]

I believed that they preserved more of their ethnic distinctions in specific styles of martial arts though.

What are ethnic distinctions?

[DudeGuyMan]

Boxing is very formal and have lots of rituals

It's also a western martial art that has spread to the east with great success. Muay Thai and some other arts have come to incorporate the techniques and paraphenalia, and of course there have been plenty of great champions in "western" boxing from countries like Japan, Korea, the Philipines, Thailand, and so forth.

Savate deserves a mention here as well. There's some interesting history in the 19th century between boxing and savate. Savate began evolving from an almost entirely kick-based style into something closer to it's modern form in the 1840's after some sparring between savateur Charles Lecour and English boxer Owen Swift. And John L. Sullivan, the first heavyweight boxing champion in the way we recognize the term today, was famously decked by a kick from a savateur in a cross-style exhibition match toward the end of the century.

There's plenty of martial arts history in the west. It just wasn't called "martial arts".