Jump to content

Talk:Cornish wrestling throws

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Possible mistakes in some of the alternative names

[edit]

First of all, to whoever wrote and edited this article, thank you it's great. I think that there are some minor mistakes in the alternative names to some of the techniques, but out of respect for the person(s) who must have put a lot of effort into this article, I didn't want to change anything without discussing it first.

So following the order in which they appear in the article; the "outside stroke" is given as an alternative name for a "fore heave". I believe this to be incorrect, the "outside stroke" is more similar to a "toe".

The "flying horse" is given as an alternative name for the "under heave". The "flying horse" is more like a fireman's carry and doesn't seem to have an equivalent in modern Cornish Wrestling.

The "fore crook" is given the alternative name of the "inside click". I believe the "inside click" is closer to the "back step". Confusion might have arose here from the fact that Breton wrestler call a crook, a kliked or click, but Cumbrian wrestlers use "click" to refer to something different. I also think calling the fore and back crooks a falx or faulx is incorrect, but that argument depends on something I'll bring up in a bit.

This next one is debatable I'll admit, but usually the "buttock" and "cross buttock" are seen as too different techniques, with the "buttock" equating to the "fore hip" and the "cross buttock" equating to a variation of the "heel". The "cross buttock" is even given as another name for that "heel" variation in the relevant section.

Next up are the alternative names for the "scat un back". I don't think the "hank" or "inside clamp" fit here. Neither one seems to match when you compare the descriptions.

Lastly are the alternative names for the "back step". I know Guy Jaouen equates the "back step" with the "click on the side" in his book but the two techniques seem very different to me. Then there's the "inturn" / "turne" / "intourne" / "in-turn". This one again is open to debate, but I think the "inturn" is actually another name for the "crook" rather than a variation of the "back step". Im basing this off of Zach Wylde's description, and the fact that he says the "inturn" can be taken forward or backward. Also he says the defence for the "inturn" is to plant your leg firmly in the ground and "spring" your knee joint straight to release the other guy's lock around your leg. Sir Thomas Parkyns writes basically the same defense for the "in-lock" (another name for the "crook") in his book.

If the "inturn" is really a "crook" then that has a knock-on effect on the "faulx" / "falx". Both Carew and Drayton list the "falx" and "inturn" in their lists of Cornish wrestling throws so they both can't mean "crook". So if I'm right then "falx" couldn't be a "crook", but then what's a "falx"? My guess is that it might be an older name for the "heel", or at least the variations of the "heel" where you swing your leg in a reaping motion like the same variation that's also called a "cross buttock".

Anyway I hope that whoever wrote an edited this article reads this and takes these into consideration. I'm more than happy to supply further reasoning for some of these points if needed. Gallowglass1504 (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. All valid challenges. I need some time to formulate a detailed response. Some of your comments were where I had originally put things, but since moved. Will try and outline my thinking (not that they are necessarily conclusive) when I get a moment.

A problem we have is that different people used names differently depending on background(eg wrestling training), region, point in time, etc and it is hard to draw the pieces of evidence that we have together.

Yes I agree that people using the same terms to mean different things in different times and places can be a problem. I look forward to your response, and I'll try and follow up with my own, if needed, when I get time. Gallowglass1504 (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In turn

[edit]

Quote from Cornishman - Thursday 21 April 1898, describing a match between King and Rowett (USA)

"Coming together again both men were very cautious, several holds being broken by each man. King finally got the crook, but Rowett, who is as quick as a cat, turned frontward and threw King three points down, a pretty fall, with the inturn."

If King has a crook then they are facing the same direction. Rowett twists (so they are now facing opposite directions) and uses the hook already in to throw him down, as per description in the article.

Quote from Cornishman - Thursday 13 April 1905 describing a tournament in South Africa

"Trudgeon essayed an in-turn and both fell." "Giles, having vanquished Carbis by means of a high crook, turned his attention to Rudd for the first prize" "In the first hitch play was pretty fast and even, but on the second encounter the lighter man effected his favourite inside crook, which landed the Cumberland lad square on his back, to the accompaniment of loud cheering."

The author uses the term crook (indeed distinguishes between different types of crook), yet separately describes a throw as an in-turn. It would seem unlikely that they were referring to the same throw. I should add that the author also describes someone as being thrown with the back-strap.

Well I did say that interpretations of the "inturn" were definitely up for debate. There is another reference to the inturn that I don't think you've mentioned. It's in the 1688 book "The Academy of Armoury" by Randle Holme. Here's the quote, "Inturn, is when he puts his Thigh between his adver∣saries Thighs, and lifts up his Thigh". Sounds like a fore crook to me.

The inturn in the King v Rowett match seems like what Cumberland and Westmorland Wrestlers call a "back-heel". Would that be counted as a "back-step" in Cornish Wrestling even though the trip is made on the outside rather than the inside?

I checked again in Zach Wylde's book, and he specifically calls the "in turn" a "lock". Here's the quote: "in this Capacity you may close a Lock, called, The In turn; that is, put your Leg the inside his left, and clap the Lock in the Ham of his left Leg". So in "in turn" in this case is the same thing as an inside lock / in-lock aka a crook.

That match in 1905 does seem to imply a difference between "inturn" and "crook" alright, but I wouldn't be certain. That said I agree there's no way that the technique described in the King v Rowett match could have been a crook.

Still even though there probably was more than one meaning for the word "inturn", I think giving Zach Wylde as a reference in the "inturn" subsection of the "back step" is probably not right, seeing as his definition of an "inturn" doesn't seem to be a variation of the "back step".

Now, as they give us descriptions we cannot know for certain what the likes of Carew and Drayton meant, but I'd guess, given their early date, they likely used the word in a similar way to Wylde or Holme.Gallowglass1504 (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In case you're interested, here's the rest of the wrestling terms from Holme's book

Terms used in Wrastling.

Catch & Hold, is a running catching of one another.

Trip, a striking with the Foot against his adversaries Leg.

Cross Trip, is when the Legs are crossed one within another.

Inturn, is when he puts his Thigh between his adver∣saries Thighs, and lifts up his Thigh.

Running Buttock, is when by Girdle and Elbow, he turns his Buttock on his adversary, and lifts him up on his side.

Hugg or a Cornish Hugg, is when he has his adversary on his Breast, and there holds him.

Collar, is to fix or take hold on the adversaries collar.

Elbow, is to fix on the Elbow, and so to turn and wind him.

Lock, is when the Legs are cross one the other.

Twist,

File, is to cast the adversary down on the hand and foot, or elbow, or breeches: this is looked upon to be no fair fall.

Fall, is when he is cast on his neck and shoulders; or thrown flat on his back Gallowglass1504 (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. eg I had not come across Holme's book before.

My issue with Wylde's description is that the ham is essentially the back of the thigh, not the calf. The back of the thigh would not be a crook and sounds like a back-step. Having said that, his description of doing the move forwards and backwards, supports it being a crook, rather than the back-step. The name "in turn" itself suggests a crook as it suggest turning your body eg so that you are both pointing in the same direction.

To be fair, in my first version of the page I had put this as a name for a crook (mainly based on Wylde's description). Since then, I saw the quotes I added here. I would note that there are many hundreds of detailed descriptions of Cornish wrestling matches in the newspaper archives and it is very rare to mention the inturn. I suppose I gave more weight to descriptions definitely referring to Cornish wrestling rather than Wylde who it is not clear was a Cornish wrestler.

From Holme's book: "Inturn, is when he puts his Thigh between his adversaries Thighs, and lifts up his Thigh." This does not mention that one moves so that you are both facing the same direction, except in so far as the name "inturn" implies a twist. Without a twist, it would be a back-step. Having said that I have seen mention of a move where (when facing each other) you push your leg between their legs and use the top of your thigh to raise their leg and then push them backwards.

I suspect that it may be more accurate to have in turn as a variant of the back-step, but also as a name for the crook (forward inturn and backward inturn). I have allowed for multiple uses of the same name elsewhere. Mab an Garrek (talk) 09:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I hope my posts aren't coming across as too argumentative, I'm definitely no authority on the subject. I'm just presenting my thoughts as an outsider who has read a lot of old wrestling books, but has never actually done Cornish Wrestling or even seen a match in real life. I've been researching Irish collar and elbow wrestling and so have read a lot about Cornish wrestling along the way. Gallowglass1504 (talk) 12:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Wylde definitely wasn't a Cornishman. He even said something to the effect of Cornishmen are the best huggers in Christendom, the fact that he doesn't include himself in that statement is telling. I think "Ham" in those days meant the back of the knee rather than the back of the thigh, so maybe his lock was high up on the back of the calf rather than down near the ankle. Gallowglass1504 (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, if I come across as defensive. Actually, it is great to converse with someone interested in this! I am very grateful, especially for introducing me to Holme. Are there any other books we might have missed? I have tried to put all the ones I have referred to in the references. Am I wrong in interesting the Ham as thigh then? Mab an Garrek (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No you didn't come across as defensive at all. I'm just conscious of the fact that I have no real experience with Cornish Wrestling or Cornish history in general. If I remember any relevant sources that aren't mentioned in the article I'll be sure to let you know. Yes Ham, at least according to dictionaries of the time, is the hollow at the back of your knee. That's where we get the word hamstring. Gallowglass1504 (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So I was thinking more about the inturn from the King v Rowett match, trying to see if there are ways in which it could fit with the other descriptions we have of the inturn.

So King gets the crook on Rowett. The article doesn't say but let's imagine King used his right leg to crook Rowett's left. Rowett being quicker turns towards King and throws him with the inturn. Is it possible the Rowett kept his left foot firm on the ground an used his right thigh on the inside of Kings left leg, lifting it up and throwing King backwards? This would end up looking a bit like a hype from Backhold wrestling, and it fits with the description of an inturn from Holme.

I'm probably clutching at straws here, but I find it hard to understand how, if Rowett countered King's crook with a trip on the outside of the leg, how that is an inturn. You would think the "in" of "inturn" is short for inside, as in inside or between the legs. Gallowglass1504 (talk) 10:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just found another reference to the inturn in the book, "Of the most auspicatious marriage: betwixt, the high and mightie Prince, Frederick; Count Palatine of Rheine, chiefe sewer to the sacred Roman Empire, Prince Elector, and Duke of Bauaria, &. and the most illustrious Princesse, the Ladie Elizabeth her Grace, sole daughter to the high and mightie Iames, King of great Brittaine, &c. In III. bookes: composed in Latine by M. Ioannes Maria, de Franchis. And translated into English." by Joannes Maria de Franchis and published in 1613.

Here's the quote

"At first encounter, cunningly they set Their stable nimble feet, next with their hands This seekes, that striues, how surest hold to get, That he may spoyle his Aduerse as he stands: Where arme with arm, and foot with foot combining, They trip, preuent, chip, fall with inturns twyning."

Inturns twyning suggests a crook like entanglement. Gallowglass1504 (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another one from 1614. "Lucans Pharsalia containing the ciuill warres betweene Cæsar and Pompey. Written in Latine heroicall verse by M. Annæus Lucanus. Translated into English verse by Sir Arthur Gorges Knight. Whereunto is annexed the life of the authour, collected out of diuers authors."

"And fiercely both his armes did fold About Antaeus bending waste, And wringing girds his bowels fast; Whilst he his foot with skill did slide Betwixt his shankes, and made him stride. Then with an in-turne following that, Vpon his backe he threw him flat."

This one actually seems a lot like a hype from Backhold wrestling. I know that these suffer from the same issue as Wylde, not being in reference to Cornish Wrestling specifically, but they might help us understand how the word was used in a wider context in England. I found these new references, and the Holme one, on the Early English Books Online website. Gallowglass1504 (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re King v Rowett match. Getting a crook on, means getting your leg around their leg, not necessarily lifting it up. It is a common 50:50 position that the person being crooked can effectively invite. It would not be uncommon if someone does this to you to either turn into them and (i) push the leg that was wound round behind you and throw them back or (ii) push your other leg between their supporting leg and push it back and throw them back. Either of these would qualify for what I describe. I would note that these only work if you hold their centre of gravity close to your centre of gravity. You do this by either an arm around the waist or an arm over the shoulder and back under the reverse armpit (in what feels like a sort of headlock). If you have an arm round the waist people are more likely to try to heave or hug. Whilst Cornish wrestlers do these moves, noone currently calls this an inturn.

For the quote: Here's the quote

"At first encounter, cunningly they set Their stable nimble feet, next with their hands This seekes, that striues, how surest hold to get, That he may spoyle his Aduerse as he stands: Where arme with arm, and foot with foot combining, They trip, preuent, chip, fall with inturns twyning."

It is not clear to me that they are not face to face when their feet entwining.

The other quote

"And fiercely both his armes did fold About Antaeus bending waste, And wringing girds his bowels fast; Whilst he his foot with skill did slide Betwixt his shankes, and made him stride. Then with an in-turne following that, Vpon his backe he threw him flat."

They do seem to be face to face in this one.

I agree with the point that the word inturn was clearly used outside of Cornwall. I would note here that in the 1600s, the Cornish language was still widely used, especially amongst the working classes. In turn may have meant something different outside of Cornwall, but Cornish wrestling was massive outside of Cornwall during this time. eg the Cornwall and Devon wrestling Society (set up in 1752) had the Prince of Wales as patron and gave out ridiculously large prizes for matches in London.

See https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Table_Book_of_Daily_Recreation_and_I/ZMpCAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=william+hone+wrestling&pg=PA664&printsec=frontcover In an article from 1827 entitled as "Wrestling in Cornwall and Devonshire" each of the following are separately described: the heave , the crook , the inlock , the clamp , the forward heave , the in - turn and the Cornish hug. The in-turn is described as a defense against the heave, which only makes sense of you effectively get a hook in whilst facing each other. As with all these older articles, there is still some interpretation as to exactly what the move entails. However, it is clear that the author does not think it is a crook and is definitely only thinking about this in the context of Cornish wrestling.

Mab an Garrek (talk) 10:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I'm more confused now than ever. I'm still fairly confident that the inturn is a crook in Wylde, but as you said he wasn't a Cornishman, so his book might not be relevant. Sir Thomas Parkyns has an in-lock in his book that I think you'll agree is a crook, and the defence he gives to the in-lock is the same as what Wylde gives for the inturn. So there is still that connection.

I was actually going to bring up Hone's Table Book. Could a crook not be used as a defence to a heave? I think in one one Guy Jaouen's books he uses a crook for such a purpose.

It does seem to be different techniques in different sources. I feel now like there's so much uncertainty about the inturn that maybe it shouldn't be applied to any particular technique. Same goes go faulx/falx, maybe these terms should mention somewhere separate where it says that we don't really know what they were? Gallowglass1504 (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Cornish Telegraph - Wednesday 21 June 1854 "wrestling": The following throws were cited: left in-turn and fore-hip. ie unclear
  • Cornubian and Redruth Times - Friday 16 May 1884, "Wrestling at Redruth".The following throws were cited: left in-turn and hug. ie unclear
  • The Cornish Telegraph - Thursday 11 September 1884, "Wrestling at Penzance": The following throws were cited: kick back, back crook, fore crook, heel, in-turn, back-strap, heave, toe. ie In-turn is not a crook
  • The Cornish Telegraph - Thursday 02 October 1884, "Wrestling at Lelant". The following throws were cited: heel, in-turn, heave, back-step, . ie unclear

You could crook on as a defense against a heave (you could not do a fore crook), but it would be much more effective and easier to sprag on. A back crook is a classic defense against an under heave. It is more the case that a heave is a defense against someone trying to do a crook on you. If you are f2f when someone is trying to heave you, then the best defense is to push your leg and knee between their legs and hook your heel around their leg and if they try and pull you up, you scoop their leg backwards and push them over. Chances are that if you get that position they are unlikely to try to heave. This is what I am describing as the in-turn.

From what I can see, (i) there are zero references to an in turn which is Cornish in origin that can be interpreted as a crook (or are entirely ambiguous) and (ii) there are zero references to an in turn post 1800 that can be interpreted as a crook (or are entirely ambiguous). Am I wrong? Mab an Garrek (talk) 08:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed reply. No you are not wrong. In the 19th century Cornish sources, the "inturn" does indeed seem to be something other than, and separate to, a crook, I will concede that point. Unfortunately all of the post 1800 references to the "inturn" seem to be ambiguous. The King v Rowett is the only one that describes the move in any detail, and that it's even 100% clear.

But this raises the question, when is it ok to use non Cornish sources? Should the likes of Wylde be discounted altogether? I'm guessing you might say it's ok to use them as long as they don't contradict a Cornish source.

In Hone's Table Book it seems that the "forward heave" is more like an under heave than a fore heave. If I remember correctly he says something about putting both of your arms across his belly, or something similar. So crooking a leg would be a defensive option in this scenario.

It is possible, even likely, that the meaning of "inturn" changed over time. I would argue that Wylde, even though not Cornish, being closer in time to Carew and Drayton is more likely to be using the word in a similar way to them. Actually now that I think of it, Drayton wasn't Cornish either. If you don't agree with this line of thinking, that's fine, no worries. I could well be wrong. Gallowglass1504 (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that none of this is clear. I also agree that names changed over time. I would add that we cannot think of this in the way we would now, in terms of naming. This history of Cornish wrestling, is not of classes with an agreed syllabus of moves being taught to everyone. Rather it is of techniques being taught mainly in families (father to son), with each family potentially having their own terminology. There is bound to have been some copying of moves that work, but it would be easy for misunderstandings to occur re names. ie names are unlikely to have been consistently used.

It might be worth adding commentary at the start highlighting this point.

In Hone's book, the two arms in front of belly sound less like our version of a fore heave, I agree. In fact the release sounds more like a half heave. With an underheave, you tend to get your shoulder under them. With the half heave, you step forward and roll them down your leg (while scooping back leg - sometimes). Hone's version sounds a bit in between. Sounds a bit out of control - think you could twist, if you tried it this way, so as not to land on your back. :-)

In the article, I have attempted to address uncertainties by using loose wording (ie "Most commonly known as..." and "also known as...") rather than being too definitive. This oversimplifies as actually "commonly known as..." would change over the years and potentially by region. I think that is ok, though, as too many caveats would make the article impossible to read for most of the intended audience.

I don't think we can ignore non-Cornish sources, even if they are not explicitly referring to Cornish wrestling (Carew and Drayton are clearly only talking of Cornish wrestling). Cornish wrestling had a massive influence up country. eg Parkyns learnt his wrestling in Grey's Inn, not in Cornwall.

For inturn, I propose putting Wylde's reference under crooks as an also known as inturn. For King reference as variant of back step as currently. Mab an Garrek (talk) 08:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything you said here, and I appreciate you taking my opinion into consideration.

Here's another one. Have you every considered that Parkyns' "pinnion" might, at least in some cases, be similar enough to a "lock arm" to be considered as an alternative name?

This isn't the right place to ask questions I know, but would you mind discussing a related topic. Do you happen to have any idea about when the jacket was introduced into Cornish Wrestling? We know from Carew and Drayton that Cornish wrestlers used collars and girdles to grip instead of jackets. This seems to have been the case in many parts of England as evidenced by the all the carved misericords in various churches. The poem "Hobbinol" by William Somerville published in 1740 suggests that collars and girdles were still used at the Cotswold Olympiks at this time. Parkyns unfortunately makes no reference to jackets, collars, or girdles.

My suspicion is that a jacket designed specifically for wrestling was a late 18th or early 19th century invention. I'd love to hear if you have any information on this. Gallowglass1504 (talk) 13:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should not really say here, but I am guessing you would appreciated this, I own Parkyn's own personal copy of the second edition of his book (1714), with his hand written notes in the margins (most of which became the 3rd edition). :-)

My reading of the Pinnion is that he is saying put your arm inside the opponent's arm when you srat, which is the opposite way to the lock arm. Having said that it is massively unclear to me exactly what he is describing. Donald walker talks of a Pinion, but under Cumberland, not Cornish wrestling. There were a load of moves that were banned during the 1800s - see Delbridge's guide to grab hold or Cornish style wrestling (1879), with most of the current moves, but with other more dangerous moves such as the Jaw breaker, Neck breaker, Over and under cut, the Old Harry etc.

The jacket is a difficult one and actually currently contentious in Cornish wrestling circles. I have read a lot about it, but not written down the links. Will try and see if I have anything with chronology. Have not seen anything from the diaspora that is pre jackets.Mab an Garrek (talk) 08:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow lucky you.

I've found the pinnion very tricky to work out and I'm not 100% satisfied with my interpretation, so I definitely wouldn't argue with you on that one. From what I can make out Parkyns must have expected his readers to understand what the pinnion was and so only gave a few setups for the move. Similarly he doesn't go into a lot of details about the flying mare, probably for the same reason.

As for the jacket I would greatly appreciate any help, though I know that nobody knows anything about it for certain. Gallowglass1504 (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly Jaouen and Nichols discuss the use of jackets in their book (Celtic wrestling, the jacket styles). Not sure I agree with everything they say, eg not sure where they get the date 1740 for Layton's book. I had it at 1830.

  • 1826: British Press - Monday 07 August 1826 - references use of "wrestling jacket" at a tournament in Redruth where a group were accused of murder

Mab an Garrek (talk) 09:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've seen Layton's book dated to 1836, but I don't know where that information comes from. Either way he seems to have published it at the end of or after his wrestling career was over, which would place it at least in the late 1820s. Gallowglass1504 (talk) 10:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may have come across this in your research, but in case you haven't, did you know that there is an English wrestling technique described in a German book which dates to about 1500. It isn't something that would have been well suited to a Cornish wrestler because it has you throwing your opponent on his stomach rather than his back, but it's interesting nonetheless.

Follow this link to see the associated image.

https://wiktenauer.com/wiki/File:MS_B.26_033v-c.png

And here's an English translation of the text

"A good English wrestle with holds or using the arms, holding someone with your right hand up, going over behind his left shoulder by the collar and seize him with your left hand behind his right arm by his elbow.

And don’t let him escape and have him held tightly. And when it suits you, then throw yourself around and allow your right arm to go up over his head and over his right side at the shoulder and seize him with the right arm behind his back on his waist or the belt. And lift him up and your arm goes around his and whilst you hold and lift such as you go at each other.

So throw yourself around so that your right shoulder and back stand against his stomach and during the throw-around (umbwurffen) and in all displacements (trips, versetz) done with your right leg winding in behind his right leg and balance and pull him with your leg, with your leg going upwards and outwards, and lift him up strongly at the back and turn yourself around on your right side, and lift his right arm strongly and throw him over with the hip. And wrap with the foot pulling at his back so with your back or arse you drop him onto his stomach." Gallowglass1504 (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carew describes wrestling in dublets and hosen, but untrussed. Whilst this is not a jacket as a we would understand it, it would be sufficiently familiar that the techniques would work. Mab an Garrek (talk) 14:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree. Gallowglass1504 (talk) 22:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought to check when I first mentioned Sir Arthur Georges' reference to the in-turn;

"And fiercely both his armes did fold About Antaeus bending waste, And wringing girds his bowels fast; Whilst he his foot with skill did slide Betwixt his shankes, and made him stride. Then with an in-turne following that, Vpon his backe he threw him flat."

But Georges was actually of West Country stock, with one parent from Devon and the other from Somerset. I'm not sure if this effects how you interpret this information, but I thought that you might find this interesting to know. Gallowglass1504 (talk) 09:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Falx

[edit]

As you say, this is linked to the commentary on inturn.

Drayton and Carew refer to the Falx or Faulx having forward and backward variants, which make it like a crook (as per your argument about inturn using wording from Wylde). That makes it difficult for it to be a heel. It is clearly not definitive and links to what the interpretation is of the inturn.Mab an Garrek (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes faulx/falx is a tricky one. As you say my interpretation of falx kind of depends on the inturn being a crook. A falx is a sickle like tool so I can see why you would interpret that as a crook which can also be a similar tool.

In Gouren they use the word "fauchage" for a sweeping motion used with the back of the leg / heel. Fauchage comes from the same Latin root as faulx / falx. This connection might be tentative but it's worth mentioning.

So as there are forward and backward variations of the "heel", I think falx works as a name for a "heel" done with a sweeping sickle-like motion, either forwards or backwards. Gallowglass1504 (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This quote is taken from the Fédération de Gouren website

"Avec leurs pieds ils peuvent faire des fauchages, barrages, balayages, ou des kliked (enroulés de jambe). Les attaques de jambes doivent rester en-dessous de la ceinture."

"With their feet they can do reaps (fauchages), blocks (barrages), sweeps (balayages), or clicks (kliked (leg entanglements)). Leg attacks should stay below the belt. Gallowglass1504 (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Pinion = Lock Arm???

[edit]

Parkyns dedicates a whole section of his book to the "Pinion", but unfortunately he doesn't ever really describe the technique in any detail. Instead he talks of how to set it up from various grips your opponent might take on you, or how to use it off of you grabbing your opponent's wrist. The later application is found the section titled "A Method for the Inn-Play" no. 2. Here's the quote:

"With your right Hand, having your Palm upwards, take him by the left Wrist.... And if his Palm be upwards and yours downwards, you help the Twist at the first, with your left Hand, laying your Fingers upon his Wrist, and your Thumb upon his Knuckles and pain him easily; put your left Hand to his left Elbow, and pluck it inwards till his Arm falls in for the Pinion."

My interpretation of this is as follows. Our opponent has his left hand supinated, palm up thumb pointing outward. You grab his wrist with both hands and apply a wristlock by pushing the back of his hand with your thumbs. The wristlock will look like this image, only reversed because this one is applied to the right arm instead of the left

https://389979-1226798-raikfcquaxqncofqfm.stackpathdns.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Best-Arm-Locks-in-Self-Defense-7.jpg

From here you "pluck" his elbow inwards and then apply the pinion. He doesn't tell us how to apply the pinion, but elsewhere in the book he tells us that that the pinion is a good position to punch from with your free hand or to throw someone forwards. To my mind the only sensible way of achieving this would be to wrap our right arm around his left in what's called an overhook. If we were to grab his jacket in this position then we would essentially be doing a "lock arm".

Now I don't this the "pinion" was always the exact same technique throughout Parkyns' book. I think that the pinion probably meant a couple of different ways of immortalising one of your opponent's arms. In this specific instance though I think the "pinion" would have looked very similar to a "lock arm".

I know this is all speculative but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway. Gallowglass1504 (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mab an Garrek (talk) 11:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, those sources seem to be using the word pinion as a verb meaning to pin rather than as a specific wrestling technique. That said I think Parkyns' pinion probably meant to pin as well at least in some way, be it pinning your opponent's arm to his own body or to yours.

Either way I think we can probably agree that Parkyns' pinnion was a technique used to immobilise one of your opponent's arms to set you up to throw or strike him. It might not have been the same as a "lock arm" but it likely served the same purpose. Gallowglass1504 (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that I cannot find any newspaper articles referring to it as a move (other than references to Parkyns book), which suggests that it was not in common use after say 1750. Mab an Garrek (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cornish_wrestling_throws&oldid=1206795918"