Evolutionary Biology and Wrestling

[wildc@t]

When you watch a nature documentary you will often hear the comment that animals are playing as a form of training. They are learning the skills necessary for hunting or evading a predator or something like that. I believe this is at least partly accurate and some of play serves as training. The animal doesn't need to be conscious of this "purpose" and it also does not need to be unconscious of the fun of play. Fun itself is the reward that motivates the "desired" behavior.

I qoute "purpose" and "desired" because what is really at work here is just the genes and the fact that genes which contribute towards rewarding certain types of play with fun are selected for.

IMHO, nothing contraversial there and probably either known or obvious to many of you. It was just meant as background.

In light of that, consider boys wrestling and sex (I mean between an adult male and female) and rape. Where did the idea that a pin was a win in wrestling come from? Something that someone invented or has a pin been the object of wrestling for all of human (earlier) history? Think about the first time, after puberty, that you climbed on top of a girl and how that felt.

Thoughts?

[tshort]

[ QUOTE ]
In light of that, consider boys wrestling and sex (I mean between an adult male and female) and rape. Where did the idea that a pin was a win in wrestling come from? Something that someone invented or has a pin been the object of
wrestling for all of human (earlier) history?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrestling was first used as military training and the goal certainly wasn't to pin your opponent to the ground.

In original Greek wrestling, you had to score so many points. You could do so by forcing your opponent out of the ring, getting his back to touch the ground, or forcing him to tap out.

I assume a pin would have become *one method* of winning a wrestling match because it the position to where your opponent has no defense. You can win wrestling matches by scoring points from improving your position (takedown, escape, near-falls, reversals.


.
.
.

As for the rest of your post, I have no idea what you are getting at. Evolutionary biology has led to the anatomy of humans which causes us to be most defenseless when we are pinned on our backs.

I don't think it has anything to do with whatever else you were trying to convey in your post.

[bisonbison]

THe pin's a logical point of defeat that's stood the test of time. Because you're so helpless in the pin, if fights were allowed long past it, there'd be too many injuries and/or losers would be too unwilling to continue.

In much the same way that punching in the face is not acceptable in most codified forms of wrestling, stopping at the pin prevents escalation.

[wildc@t]

[ QUOTE ]
Wrestling was first used as military training and the goal certainly wasn't to pin your opponent to the ground.

In original Greek wrestling, you had to score so many points. You could do so by forcing your opponent out of the ring, getting his back to touch the ground, or forcing him to tap out.

I assume a pin would have become *one method* of winning a wrestling match because it the position to where your opponent has no defense. You can win wrestling matches by scoring points from improving your position (takedown, escape, near-falls, reversals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrestling wasn't first used as any kind of organized military training. Little dogs wrestle, little monkeys wrestle and little people wrestle. There was certainly wrestling a long time before there was ever a military.

What I'm getting at is that wrestling is a behavior which has certainly been subject to the forces of evolution. It's not something that someone created like basketball. Our ancestors have certainly wrestled since long before they were human. A pin is not just how you win or get some points in formal wrestling, it is the object of children's wrestling.

[ QUOTE ]
As for the rest of your post, I have no idea what you are getting at. Evolutionary biology has led to the anatomy of humans which causes us to be most defenseless when we are pinned on our backs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are much more defenseless when pinned face down than face up. I think the police agree.

[wildc@t]

[ QUOTE ]
THe pin's a logical point of defeat that's stood the test of time. Because you're so helpless in the pin, if fights were allowed long past it, there'd be too many injuries and/or losers would be too unwilling to continue.

In much the same way that punching in the face is not acceptable in most codified forms of wrestling, stopping at the pin prevents escalation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, obviously wrestling predates codified forms. Do you think pinning is a modern invention?

[soko]

Watch MMA. A win is when your opponent can no longer defend himself (it's possible to kill him) either by knock out or submission (where you would either choke him to death or break a bone/joint).

[wildc@t]

[ QUOTE ]
Watch MMA. A win is when your opponent can no longer defend himself (it's possible to kill him) either by knock out or submission (where you would either choke him to death or break a bone/joint).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm talking about a connection between wrestling as child's play and sex. Not the MMA. If I has some point about MMA being gay, I'd just say it. That's pretty obvious anyway.

[soko]

Pinning is the line between play fighting and real fighting, it's not an invented rule, it exists so that friends stay friends, it's a mutual agreement that you don't want to hurt your friends in a game.

[soko]

smoke less weed.

[Blarg]

Real fighting, individual or group or as an army, is not done unarmed. Unarmed fighting is for when you have already lost and it's basically a hail-Mary play even if you're highly skilled, especially since your opponent(s) may be multiple and/or armed. People discussing their ideas of the value or purpose of all sorts of fighting -- striking vs. wrestling and forms of sportfighting are the popular forms of this discussion these days -- often make all sorts of statements about fighting based on a misunderstanding of how martial arts were developed and what they have generally been for.

The majority of training an individual receives in armed forces is with weaponry, because it is with weapons that a fight is pretty much won or lost.

A fighter on his back, even sword in hand, is basically helpless against weaponry. He doesn't have the leverage to block well from almost any positions, and from those that he does, he has exposed limbs that are fairly immobile and easy to strike. Neither can he initiate blows with any power, speed, flexibility, or deception.

In a fight with weapons, the man on his back is pretty much out of the game. Only an extremely unlikely and uncommon amount of skill can change those odds even a little.

This is also why wrestling and arts like BJJ fall far down the list on arts that are taught to soldiers. It is imperative that fighters remain in a position to either evade weapon attacks or initiate them. You may be able to duck under a punch or not care if one bounces off your back or skull, but getting inside a spear or sword is far, far harder, and even a glancing blow can cripple or kill.

Sport fighting has its own demands, but they are only tangentially related to real combat. Someone being on his back is a sign of defeat easily recognizable to all, at least in the days before guns. It means you can't properly use your weapons, whether armed or unarmed.