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.