Federico Calboli
13th April 2001, 00:24
Dear all,
let me apologize in advance for what i am going to write for it is completely off topic but I just read something that pulled a trigger ...
Mr Amdur wrote:
The same thing applies to the concept of naturalness. On one level, everything is natural, being of nature. (Of course, this tautology doesn't get us anywhere). We sometimes refer to efficient or fluid movement as natural. But a punch, by definition, is not an act "natural" to humans. The bones of the fist are not made to strike. {I recently saw a great video of a chimpanzee attacking a naturalist - ripped off an ear and a finger in the process - and the natural attack was flailing downward palm strikes, a jump on the guy's head and a lot of biting.}
Sorry to say that but apes/monkeys are not the best way to judge human aggressive behaviour, at least in its "technical" manifestation. The reason is that apes/monkeys rely heavily on biting in what is called affective aggression: an act meant to impose one's own dominance among members of the same species.
Human have a very complex facial anatomy geared toward speaking ability; one of the cost associated to that ability is a great reduction in the canine teeth. Have you ever noticed how big the canines of apes and monkeys ? Monkeys rely mostly on biting when they fight while apes use overhead strikes as well as biting, for their anatomy (they are anatomically built for a locomotion called brachiation, if my english is correct, that gives the arms greater mobility) starts to favour this "approach". Incidentally, chimps use a "smile" as a threat, for they show their teeth, and extend their lips to cover them when amicable. They also extend their arms and hands as a sign of pacification, for they put the hand at risk of being bitten.
Also the fine motory skills of the ands of apes are poor compared to humans, and our hands are free from locomotion all the time. To put it anatomically, our arms and mouths are innervated differently from chimps and this has an effect on our "spontaneous" use of them as a weapon.
Want spontaneous human aggressive "technique" ? Watch two babies fight: they push the other to the ground and use overhead strikes. Biting is a minor part of the thing if not completely absent.
A second thing that got on my nerves is the fact that the video is "great". Cannot see anything fun in a poor fellow being attaked and mutilated by a chimp, especially considering these animals are immensely strong and fast compared to ANY human being no matter training in ANY martial art.
My undercultivated sense of humor is probably missing the fun bit.
Anyway, I am among the number of the ones that read Mr Amdur's book and I think it is a really excellent work.
Best,
Federico Calboli
let me apologize in advance for what i am going to write for it is completely off topic but I just read something that pulled a trigger ...
Mr Amdur wrote:
The same thing applies to the concept of naturalness. On one level, everything is natural, being of nature. (Of course, this tautology doesn't get us anywhere). We sometimes refer to efficient or fluid movement as natural. But a punch, by definition, is not an act "natural" to humans. The bones of the fist are not made to strike. {I recently saw a great video of a chimpanzee attacking a naturalist - ripped off an ear and a finger in the process - and the natural attack was flailing downward palm strikes, a jump on the guy's head and a lot of biting.}
Sorry to say that but apes/monkeys are not the best way to judge human aggressive behaviour, at least in its "technical" manifestation. The reason is that apes/monkeys rely heavily on biting in what is called affective aggression: an act meant to impose one's own dominance among members of the same species.
Human have a very complex facial anatomy geared toward speaking ability; one of the cost associated to that ability is a great reduction in the canine teeth. Have you ever noticed how big the canines of apes and monkeys ? Monkeys rely mostly on biting when they fight while apes use overhead strikes as well as biting, for their anatomy (they are anatomically built for a locomotion called brachiation, if my english is correct, that gives the arms greater mobility) starts to favour this "approach". Incidentally, chimps use a "smile" as a threat, for they show their teeth, and extend their lips to cover them when amicable. They also extend their arms and hands as a sign of pacification, for they put the hand at risk of being bitten.
Also the fine motory skills of the ands of apes are poor compared to humans, and our hands are free from locomotion all the time. To put it anatomically, our arms and mouths are innervated differently from chimps and this has an effect on our "spontaneous" use of them as a weapon.
Want spontaneous human aggressive "technique" ? Watch two babies fight: they push the other to the ground and use overhead strikes. Biting is a minor part of the thing if not completely absent.
A second thing that got on my nerves is the fact that the video is "great". Cannot see anything fun in a poor fellow being attaked and mutilated by a chimp, especially considering these animals are immensely strong and fast compared to ANY human being no matter training in ANY martial art.
My undercultivated sense of humor is probably missing the fun bit.
Anyway, I am among the number of the ones that read Mr Amdur's book and I think it is a really excellent work.
Best,
Federico Calboli