Be or not to be....Martial artist or sport martial artist?

[Pakua]

Today many martial arts teach to get in to a competition, to get results, medals...but where is the real meaning of practicing martial art?. I mean, the real idea of practice martial art, if you will use in a real situation, is just for one reason: survive.

But today is not what we see....The simple practice for the "art" or to find the meaning of practice being a better human being, growth in a physical and spiritual way...where is all this today?.

Training to be the best in a competition is great, nothing against that, but you are not doing Martial Art, you are just practicing Sports....like anyone that practice football, cricket or archery.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martial Arts UK and Worldwide: http://pakuauk.blogspot.com

[Nomad]

Different people will place their emphasis on different areas; some come at things completely from a self-defense point of view while others may view the grace that accompanies a great kata performance as a worthy goal. Or winning sparring competitions in tournaments and being declared "the best" (of their division, who registered and competed in that venue, on that day ;))

I disagree that this different focus makes them "not martial artists". For that matter, if your only goal is self-defense, then other aspects of traditional martial arts including the spiritual growth mentioned would also be completely extraneous.

Personally, I don't love the sport aspect of tournament competition, but I greatly respect the long training hours that those who are really good at sparring or kata have to put in to get to that point. It's difficult for me to see how this sort of dedication and commitment to a goal doesn't also make them a better martial artist in the process.

[Haze]

I don't think great kata should be based on grace!!!! It should show the power and force of the battle one is training for,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Obviously, I'm not into the sport that uses kata or forms as a way to judge gymnastic ablity.

If it has no self defense aspects taught and trained then it is not karate for that is what Karate is. :) JMO :)

[Chris Parker]

Hi,

I'm actually going to come at this from another angle.... essentially, I'm going to state that no martial arts are designed for self defence. And the real meaning is not self defence, or even combat effectiveness. That is simply the vehicle used to get to what they are really all about.

Okay, a little different I'll admit, martial arts aren't about fighting and all that, but I'll explain.

To begin with, let's look at them objectively. Martial arts, as we often say, take at least a lifetime to master. It is an ever-constant journey towards the refinement of mind, body, spirit, and more. Self defence, or combat effectiveness, on the other hand, requires short term training. There's no point taking a potential soldier, and teaching them for 4 decades until you consider that they have "mastered" the combat enough to be sent out on duty. By the same token, someone who needs self defence capabilities needs them now, not 15 years down the track. So, to be completely honest about it, martial arts are not really the best approach for self defence.

As a case study, we'll look at a very highly respected martial art, the Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu, as well as more modern systems, such as Aikido.

The Katori Shinto Ryu was said to be founded in 1447 by Iizasa Choisai Ienao, who, after a long, distinguished career as a soldier (using spear and other long-arms on the battlefield), came to the Katori Shrine. One of his men allowed Iizasa's horse to be washed in a sacred shrine. The horse actually then died, which Iizasa took as a good sign, showing the power of the Deity of the Katori Shrine, known as Futsunushi no Mikoto, a warrior deity. Iizasa then spent the next 1000 days training and praying at the shrine, at the end of which he had a dream in which the Deity of the shrine appeared to him, telling him he would be the teacher of the future of Japan's Shoguns, and handing him a scroll called Mokuroku Heiho no Shinsho. When he awoke, he had the scroll in his hands. As a result, he named the new art Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu (The correctly transmitted from Heaven martial arts and spiritual traditions of the Katori Deity - loosely translated).

The teachings of this Ryu begin with the words "heiho wa heiho nari", meaning "the ways of war (heiho - soldier methods) are the ways of peace (heiho - written with different characters)", showing that the Ryu holds the belief that peace is preferable, and therefore the combative techniques are to be trained so you can avoid violence. Add to that the rules you must abide by when you join the Ryu include the dictate that you are not allowed to cross swords with members of other systems until you have achieved complete mastery in the Katori Shinto Ryu (in other words, if you are a member of the Katori Shinto Ryu, a highly respected system which has produced some of the finest swordsmen in Japan's history, then you are forbidden to engage in fighting, or even friendly competition with anyone else). This, to me at least, doesn't seem like the structure for a system primarily concerned with self defence or combative effectiveness.

So that's the philosophy. But how about the techniques? The Katori Shinto Ryu has a large curriculum, involving a range of weapons, but focusing on the use of sword. Now, at the time of Iizasa, the sword was not a primary battlefield weapon (it never was, really), instead, naginata, yari, and yumi were (Japanese halberd, spear, bow and arrow). The sword would, at best, be a secondary weapon that you would fall back to if you lost your main one. However, the sword is incredibly good for teaching strategy, angles, targeting, distance, spirit, and more, and by being skilled with the sword, the art then teaches you how to use it against other weapons. However, it really should be noted that these weapons and techniques are taught not for combative effectiveness (although they certainly are highly effective), but for the other benefits that the training brings. After all, being focused on swordwork at a time when sword was least likely to be used is not the hallmark of a systems based on combative use.

When we look at more modern systems such as Aikido, Karate, Tae Kwon Do, and pretty much all others that get labelled as martial arts, we find similar things. They are teaching techniques that, frankly, are not designed for the style of assaults that aer encountered today, as well as often teaching responces that are inappropriate, overkill, or in a number of cases, unrealistic. However, that denies why they are there in the first place. Just like the Katori Shinto Ryu teaching sword when it is not of primary use, teh techniques of many martial arts are designed to teach a number of other skills/tactics/strategies and so on, rather than the more commonly thought "answer A to attack 23" type of structure.

Aikido's attacking rhythms, for example, are unarmed representations of sword attacks. Are you likely to be attacked that way? No. Does it allow Aikido to teach their philosophies and strategies in a highly effective way? Yes. And for an art, that is far more important than being immediately applicable for self defence.

So where did this idea of martial arts being good for self defence come from? Well, we've been exposed to a large number of images from movies, TV shows, comics, and more. We get bombarded by advertisements from martial art schools who all claim that they are teaching "effective self defence", so we naturally believe it. After all, every source of information around us tells us that all martial arts are good for self defence. Unfortunately, no martial arts are. They are simply not designed to be.

So what should you do if you want self defence? Well, that's where RBSD systems come in. They are not concerned with breadth of knowledge, philosophies, skill sets, or anything that gives a martial art it's depth. Instead, they are concerned almost exclusively with drilling you to be able to handle a modern assault. They are best coupled with Defensive Tactics Programs (DefTacs), which give a small technical base, again without the depth of a full system. But to be good at them, they need to be trained hard, and feature a huge amount of repetition. Unfortunately, as there is very little to the system in the first place, it doesn't lend itself to long-term study.

When it comes to sport systems, the sporting (competitive) side of things is just another way to approach the arts. Realistically, it is kind of halfway between the two methods (the "pure" martial art, and the DefTac approach). It will give greater longevity than a DefTac approach, but not as long as a more traditional martial system.

I guess in the end, it comes down to what are you wanting out of your study. If it's purely self defence and combat effectiveness, to be blunt, martial arts are not the best. But that is a rarity, that it is needed immediately, and martial arts can certainly give you all the skills you need for self defence. It should just be recognised that that is not what they are for. And that is not very well recognised these days.

[Pakua]

Tks Chris, that was a very complete answer...

And let me continue with the idea of the subject....

Yes I agree that Martial Art is not only self defence... No one today join a martial art class because he want to defence for some one in the street or so, today you have people carrying knifes or even a gun, which kind of martial will help you against that?.

For that reason I believe that martial arts it's a way to growth like a human being, like a person in a society that want to be better, better than himself of yesterday, better inside the mats and in a daily basis....in they personal life, in they family environment...And I don't think that competitions help in this way, think a little bit, the all society push you all the time to compete, in the school, at work, everywhere, we growth competing with everyone. Why?, why need this?, why I need to be better than you, or him?. I just need to be better than me!, be better than the others is easy in some point, but be better than yourself is the real challenge.

And please, don't forget the main reason why someone join a martial art class, inside or not, that person feel fear...

[Chris Parker]

I would really go so far as to say that martial arts are not at all about self defence, they are simply marketed that way. It is just too deep an area of study for it to be about such a reason. As to the reason everyone starts a martial art being fear, well, I'm not convinced of that either. From my experience it is that they are looking for the life-skills represented by the arts, some of it may come from fear ("if I don't have these skills, I will be in trouble/get hurt/have something bad happen to me"), but fear is not an essential reason. For example, I train in things such as very old Kenjutsu systems, and that is in no way because I am scared of being caught out in a sword fight. I would suggest that people who train Iaido, Kendo, Jodo, Tai Chi, and more are there primarily out of fear.

[Revenant777]

I believe that participating in competition makes you better at self defense. Therefore I see no inherent difference between "sport martial arts" and "martial arts for self defense". I feel that they are often the same thing.

[ShelleyK]

And please, don't forget the main reason why someone join a martial art class, inside or not, that person feel fear...

I COMPLETELY DISAGREE with this statement.

I did not join martial arts because I have fear in me! I joined because I LOVE the arts! I train in Taekwondo and I have a great respect for all other martial arts. I had absolutely no fear of getting my butt whooped before I started training because I knew I could already take care of myself in most situations.

I train for the love of this art/sport, I compete for personal growth not to be better than somebody else. If I win then that is great, if I dont I am not sad or angry because I know then that I need to work on whatever it was that I was doing correctly or doing well enough.

Just my 2 cents!

[MJS]

Today many martial arts teach to get in to a competition, to get results, medals...but where is the real meaning of practicing martial art?. I mean, the real idea of practice martial art, if you will use in a real situation, is just for one reason: survive.

But today is not what we see....The simple practice for the "art" or to find the meaning of practice being a better human being, growth in a physical and spiritual way...where is all this today?.

Training to be the best in a competition is great, nothing against that, but you are not doing Martial Art, you are just practicing Sports....like anyone that practice football, cricket or archery.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martial Arts UK and Worldwide: http://pakuauk.blogspot.com

As we all know, or should know, everyone trains for a number of reasons. Additionally, there are also a number of benefits from the training. Weight loss, making friends, self defense, something to do after work/school, the traditional, spiritual, benefits, etc.

Personally, I don't hold anything against anyone for whatever they want/not want to take from the training. I have my reasons that I train, which are primarily self defense. The other things are side benefits...if I reap some, great. If not, well, thats ok too. :)

I've worked with people who are not interested in SD, and many times, I dread that, because I don't get the same feeling or intent when we're doing techs., but I make do. :)

As for competition....yup, I used to do tournaments all the time. I've won some, I've lost some. If someone wants to compete, thats fine. However, there are differences between the two, although some will disagree with that.

[MJS]

I believe that participating in competition makes you better at self defense. Therefore I see no inherent difference between "sport martial arts" and "martial arts for self defense". I feel that they are often the same thing.

I do agree that there are benefits from competing that help self defense, however, there are huge differences between the two as well. Many of the techs. are the same, however, the application should be different.

[blindsage]

I believe that participating in competition makes you better at self defense. Therefore I see no inherent difference between "sport martial arts" and "martial arts for self defense". I feel that they are often the same thing.
Competition may make you better at a fighting or 'dueling' context. It does not necessarily make you better at self-defense. Depends on the person, their mentality about training and their actual training itself. It's one tool that may help with SD.

[repz]

Sports was everywhere, from greece to rome. Sports replaced WAR in times of peace, and built training for it. Like it or not, over 2000 years ago, they saw value of sports for purposes of combat, and it still holds true to today. You have this in greece, rome, china and japan. And these warriors were the best of its time. So sports share a very strong history with martial arts. Like it or not, sports martial arts is the truest oldest tradition that is older than many of the oldest traditional arts.

Sparring, is the only way to use any and all techniques in a live as close to realistic manner, this includes, but is not limited to; footwork, evasion, striking, etc., etc. If you claim that perform arts that is pre-arranged but that stops inches from contact is more real, then its not, its a false sense of distance and reaction (since you know the technique is coming, and you created roles as one attacker, and other defender). If you perform, any of the above, any technique, against a living human being, you are doing it under control, and under some rules, which still doesnt make it any more realistic than sports (since sports is actually sparring, so to debate sports is to debate sparring), it actually conforms to sports, since you have obviously stepped into the same restrictions and rulings similar to sports.

Sports is application of combat techniques under a rule set for protection. This same definition can be applied to any and all arts when training, since techniques and combat will never favor over the safety of the person. Just because sports get trophies and belts, doesnt mean it seperates it from "self defense training" even tho they have the same restrictions (and depending on the art, even more rules).

Only thing that a self defense artist can safetly argue, is the banning of certain techniques, and the single mindeness of focusing only on a one on one encounter. But these techniques will never be done live against someone in another dojo to replace this lack of realism (live as in no gear and not pre-arranged, anything else is walking the fine line of rules, no different than sports). I do agree that some multiple opponent training is good, and too much focus on one on one can be a problem, but I always reasoned, that group sparring (sparring, which again is what sports is) can help with this, not pre-arranged scenes with assigned rules.

Knife disarms is a touchy subject. One, because I think you are insane if you would try to disarm someone, and two, because I have disarmed someone, I am alive to tell it, and I got the scars from it. But even in this case, I would promote live sparring, one person with a concealed knife and he attacks, or defends, as he sees fit, which still walks the fine line of sports-like rulings.

[Bruno@MT]

Just because we don't spar doesn't mean we don't pressure test. As ones skill level goes up, so does the 'freedom' during the pressure test.
The reason we don't allow such freedom from day one is that in systems like mine, the student has to learn the basic moves first in a repetitive manner until they become second nature. As those basics get more and more ingrained, the pressure testing can become more complex. The attacker can use more different attacks and the person being attacked has to cope. Speed of the attack can also go up.

[Maiden_Ante]

I train exclusively for self defense. I don't enter competitions because I'm not a "competition" kind of guy. Our sensei's don't try to push us into entering competitions and we don't get any pressure about graduating - it's all personal choices.

(And we don't learn competition rules or ignore some techniques because "in a competition you'd get ruled out".)

I don't consider myself a martial artist or a sportsman. I consider myself to be who I am - a person who trains to fight if he ever needs to defend himself or another person.

[Pakua]

I COMPLETELY DISAGREE with this statement.

I did not join martial arts because I have fear in me! I joined because I LOVE the arts! I train in Taekwondo and I have a great respect for all other martial arts. I had absolutely no fear of getting my butt whooped before I started training because I knew I could already take care of myself in most situations.

I train for the love of this art/sport, I compete for personal growth not to be better than somebody else. If I win then that is great, if I dont I am not sad or angry because I know then that I need to work on whatever it was that I was doing correctly or doing well enough.

Just my 2 cents!

Fear can be of a huge number reasons... don't necessarily in a fight... fear of an accident, fear of the boss, fear of jump, of scream, of shame, of the wife/husband, of the rain, of the fire, of whatever someone can feel fear...

But the all point it's only if we can said that someone that practice martial arts only to get in tournaments, if that person we can call Martial Artist, or just some doing some sports?

Pa Kua School UK - http://pakuauk.blogspot.com

[Cirdan]

There has been too many debates about the right to words such as warrior, fighter, marital artist and so on already. Things are just what they are no matter what you call them.

Sports and self defense are different worlds and require different mindsets. On the other hand that doesn`t mean the skills you develop in say boxing are not very useful should you need to defend yourself.

As for people joining the arts because of fear.. for some this is probably true but most simply do it because it is an activity they enjoy. Now you could call that fear of being bored perhaps, but that would apply to a chess club as well.

[MattJ]

Today many martial arts teach to get in to a competition, to get results, medals...but where is the real meaning of practicing martial art?. I mean, the real idea of practice martial art, if you will use in a real situation, is just for one reason: survive.

But today is not what we see....The simple practice for the "art" or to find the meaning of practice being a better human being, growth in a physical and spiritual way...where is all this today?.

Training to be the best in a competition is great, nothing against that, but you are not doing Martial Art, you are just practicing Sports....like anyone that practice football, cricket or archery.

This type of divise elitism is pointless. Not everyone practices for the same reasons, and there are plenty of ways that "sport" training can prepare you for "real" use, in any case.

[Langenschwert]

Not everyone practices for the same reasons, and there are plenty of ways that "sport" training can prepare you for "real" use, in any case.

Damn straight.

In the middle ages and Renaissance, professional warriors (knights, men at arms, etc) trained both for sport and war. Sporting events like tournaments were where warriors could prove themselves at archery, grappling, melee combat and the like... this was the pressure testing they did when they weren't on campaign.

From the fechtbuch of Sigmund Ringeck (emphasis mine):

"Princes and Lords learn to survive with this art, in earnest and in play"

It doesn't get much clearer than that. If sporting combat was good enough for people who fought and killed hand-to-hand for a living, then by it should be good enough for us. They practiced martial arts because it was their job, not just a recreational endeavour and excuse to engage in navel-gazing.

Best regards,

-Mark

[Xue Sheng]

Today many martial arts teach to get in to a competition, to get results, medals...but where is the real meaning of practicing martial art?. I mean, the real idea of practice martial art, if you will use in a real situation, is just for one reason: survive.


See Japanese Martial Arts Do styles as compared to Jitsu Styles. Or look at the whole Chinese martial art Internal vs External silliness.

There has been a debate about internal vs external styles in China and now outside of China for over 350 years and it is, IMO, a silly waste of time. And this is purely speculation on my part but I am guessing there was a similar debate many years ago in Japan between do and jitsu.

And now Sport vs non-sport... just more wasting time



But today is not what we see....The simple practice for the "art" or to find the meaning of practice being a better human being, growth in a physical and spiritual way...where is all this today?.


Right there in front of you, just don’t categorize before you look



Training to be the best in a competition is great, nothing against that, but you are not doing Martial Art, you are just practicing Sports....like anyone that practice football, cricket or archery.

A few years ago I would have agreed, I no longer do. Take a serious look at a whole lot of traditional MA schools out there and look at how and what they train and the goals of the students of those styles. Some do not train all that well and could not fight their way out of a wet paper bag some can fight really well and some of the students of these styles are just there for a good work out some are there for much more. Take a serious (without any preconceptions) look at sports Martial Arts schools and you will see the same exact thing

It is just a label; there are RSBD styles, Sports Styles, Non-sports styles. Or you could categorize them all into sport and non-sport or Martial Arts and Competition Arts or Combat vs non-combat... etc

[mook jong man]

Take a serious (without any preconceptions) look at sports Marital Arts schools and you will see the same exact thing


My wife reckons I could do with some training at one of them marital arts schools. :uhyeah:

[Xue Sheng]

My wife reckons I could do with some training at one of them marital arts schools. :uhyeah:


:uhohh: I have no idea waht you oare talking about :uhohh:

I just love the edit function :wink1: :D

[Shifu Steve]

I would have to agree with the posts stating that pure Martial Arts are really neither sports or self defense, although the aspects of sport and self defense can be found in any art. Why we practice our chosen style, system, whatever, is irrelevant. Everyone has their reasons (possibly fear but not in my experience) but those reasons are subjective and have nothing to do with the arts themselves. Personally, I began studying for the purpose of self defense but that is not the reason I continue to study. As we learn more and evolve as martial artists the depth and breadth of our chosen art becomes more apparent. Some choose to explore this further and subsequently find themselves on a never ending journey. Others stop short of that point and utilize the arts not so much as a path but as a tool. The reasons here may be ones that are limited by practicality or interest. Either way, once you choose to study for a reason that limits the art you cease to be purely studying a martial art and enter into some form of a grey area. I would describe it as utilizing the art for a specific purpose. I think the distinction here is, in my opinion, that the study of a martial art after time is a study of self mastery and an “outer expression of the inner self” to quote a great Grand Master of mine. If you choose to study an art in its entirety then I personally believe you could be great at sport or at self defense, provided your training regimen addresses those facets of the art. However, if you limit yourself to utilizing the art for a specific purpose, then I feel you miss the mark of being a “martial artist.” Nonetheless, it’s not for everyone and let’s not forget there may be great utility towards a single purpose such as training “just for...”

In my practice I have found and categorized techniques into systems that I feel are easy to learn and could be mastered in a short amount of time. I enjoy practicing them, having intense sparring sessions using them and teaching them. There are aspects to these techniques that lend credibility to their effectiveness in the ring or the street. I don’t claim they are the be all and end all to street fighting or sport, but they have principles behind them that are geared that way. Nevertheless, these are solely examples that don’t even scratch the surface of what I have set out to learn. The intricacies of breath, tension, concept, physics, relationships, etc (there are more examples then allowable characters) take many years to master. We also study Qigong. I don’t know of any arts that don’t include some form of it. Now I realize everyone has their opinion on it but if it’s part of your chosen style and you don’t study it then I don’t know how you can say you are studying your art. You are studying aspects of your art. Again, there could be valid reasons for this. If you want to excel in cage fighting and want to do it before you’re 40 you may not want to focus on Qigong. There may be other things that you can borrow from a few arts that would work for you in the ring more efficiently.

[Nomad]

I don't think great kata should be based on grace!!!! It should show the power and force of the battle one is training for,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Obviously, I'm not into the sport that uses kata or forms as a way to judge gymnastic ablity.

If it has no self defense aspects taught and trained then it is not karate for that is what Karate is. :) JMO :)

Not wanting to hijack the thread, but... ;)

The mantra for great kata is: Power, grace, technique, control

(in relative order of importance). If power isn't there, you have a dance, not a kata. If grace isn't there, the kata looks blocky and slow (grace here means things like balance, smooth transitions, no wasted movements, etc), technique is somewhat self-explanatory, and control helps iron out and prevent the bobbles, rising up, etc.

Sorry, just used the grace as an attribute of good kata; it wasn't meant to imply it was the only important thing!

[kungfu penguin]

what i hated about tournaments that i have seen silly nonsense techniques that score but would get you killed in the street the super gymnast/martial artist again probably not realistic also the politics i fought a guy from studio A all the judges were from studio A not one of my points were acknowledged and he beat the stuffing out of me drawing blood and dislocating and arm not one excessive contact also the crying dragons who would take a light hit or no hit and sell it like he was kicked from chuck norris he could bring tears in a heartbeat anyway a bunch of us from other schools got together and said if he is going to cry then give him a reason to cry so we hit him hard finally he asked why we did that i told him if im going to be disqualified i was going to hit hard enough to deserve it instead of feather touching a guy and get DQd for acting ability he wised up after that

[clfsean]

Punctuation... it is your friend. Don't be afraid of it.

[tellner]

Don't worry about what other people think you should want.
Don't give a flying fark about what "Tradition" or "The Art(tm)" demands.
Figure out what you want out of the time, effort and money you're putting into this hobby.
That should tell you what you're "supposed" to to be and how you should go about accomplishing it.

And recognize that your goals will change over time. This is only natural.

[pmosiun1]

Today many martial arts teach to get in to a competition, to get results, medals...but where is the real meaning of practicing martial art?. I mean, the real idea of practice martial art, if you will use in a real situation, is just for one reason: survive.

In boxing, a sport, if you cannot even out punch a boxer when there is rules. What makes you think you can out punch a boxer without rules in the street?



But today is not what we see....The simple practice for the "art" or to find the meaning of practice being a better human being, growth in a physical and spiritual way...where is all this today?.

You can find spirituality in anything you do, even sport such as football, basketball, swimming. I don't think you understand what is art. Art is in the doing. Basketball can be an art too, throwing the ball perfectly into the net. That is art.



Training to be the best in a competition is great, nothing against that, but you are not doing Martial Art, you are just practicing Sports....like anyone that practice football, cricket or archery.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martial Arts UK and Worldwide: http://pakuauk.blogspot.com

Competition keeps the martial art honest. Without it, any unrealistic technique would become part of the curriculum.

[ralphmcpherson]

In boxing, a sport, if you cannot even out punch a boxer when there is rules. What makes you think you can out punch a boxer without rules in the street?



You can find spirituality in anything you do, even sport such as football, basketball, swimming. I don't think you understand what is art. Art is in the doing. Basketball can be an art too, throwing the ball perfectly into the net. That is art.



Competition keeps the martial art honest. Without it, any unrealistic technique would become part of the curriculum.You probably wouldnt out-box him. You may kick him in the testicles, break his knee with a kick, put his arm in a joint lock , use pressure points , poke his eyes out etc etc. Im still yet to see multiple attackers , weapons , unseen attacks etc in sport fighting. Both fighters know the rules (and there are lots of them) , they know when the fight starts , they even wear clothing designed to fight in. Bottom line , it is a sport , it is nothing like a street fight and not everyone wants to learn a sport.

[72ronin]

PakuaUK, in parusal of your link, i could see no lineage information? May i ask, from what lineage is your PaKua?.

thanks
72ronin

[Tanaka]

Hi,

I'm actually going to come at this from another angle.... essentially, I'm going to state that no martial arts are designed for self defence. And the real meaning is not self defence, or even combat effectiveness. That is simply the vehicle used to get to what they are really all about.

Okay, a little different I'll admit, martial arts aren't about fighting and all that, but I'll explain.

To begin with, let's look at them objectively. Martial arts, as we often say, take at least a lifetime to master. It is .............................


When I first read this post; I was ready to disagree.
Then when I got towards the end of it... I started to agree.

[sgtmac_46]

Today many martial arts teach to get in to a competition, to get results, medals...but where is the real meaning of practicing martial art?. I mean, the real idea of practice martial art, if you will use in a real situation, is just for one reason: survive.

But today is not what we see....The simple practice for the "art" or to find the meaning of practice being a better human being, growth in a physical and spiritual way...where is all this today?.

Training to be the best in a competition is great, nothing against that, but you are not doing Martial Art, you are just practicing Sports....like anyone that practice football, cricket or archery.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martial Arts UK and Worldwide: http://pakuauk.blogspot.com


Only in martial arts do we criticize people for actually training AND doing, and laud people merely for training to do and never doing.

[sgtmac_46]

Tks Chris, that was a very complete answer...

And let me continue with the idea of the subject....

Yes I agree that Martial Art is not only self defence... No one today join a martial art class because he want to defence for some one in the street or so, today you have people carrying knifes or even a gun, which kind of martial will help you against that?.

For that reason I believe that martial arts it's a way to growth like a human being, like a person in a society that want to be better, better than himself of yesterday, better inside the mats and in a daily basis....in they personal life, in they family environment...And I don't think that competitions help in this way, think a little bit, the all society push you all the time to compete, in the school, at work, everywhere, we growth competing with everyone. Why?, why need this?, why I need to be better than you, or him?. I just need to be better than me!, be better than the others is easy in some point, but be better than yourself is the real challenge.

And please, don't forget the main reason why someone join a martial art class, inside or not, that person feel fear...

Originally those martial skills that we call an 'art' were designed for one thing, and it wasn't spiritual development or self-defense.........in their original, purest form they were designed for war............injuring and/or killing another human being on some field of combat.

Later came the 'self defense' application, and the 'spiritual' and 'physical' development application, and the 'sport' application.

And the reality is that the 'spiritual' and 'self defense' application aren't any purer or more basic an application, than the 'sport' application. They are all secondary applications of the primary original skills at arms.

[Chris Parker]

This I subtly disagree with...

The original skills for combative success were certainly designed with only that one thing in mind, however I think it is inaccurate to describe such teachings as martial arts, in the same way that I don't think modern military training is a martial art. It is a military, or martial teaching and education, but it is not an art.

If we go back in time, there is a theory that only the wealthy could actually afford to train in martial arts, as they were the only ones with enough cash to lure the secrets out of the warriors, and the only ones with enough time to actually devote to the study. To simply have combat effectiveness as an aim does not require (or demand) an art side of things (that type of depth of knowledge is actually counter-productive if you are going to battle next week). Instead, the arts are designed to teach more than just how to kill/injure other human beings.

As an example, in class last week I taught a range of topics (as our structure always does), including the traditional art techniques, weapon techniques (often traditional, but this time around it's a modern, and therefore less martial-art, and more DefTac program), and a modern self defence section (not martial arts). The weaponry section (this month) is a program for defending against a blunt weapon with a short bladed weapon (knife versus club/iron bar/baseball bat), the art side is dealing with joint locks (and their application in the traditional techniques), and the modern is RBSD-style applications, this month it's pre-emptive striking. That's a very simple exercise, where you are approached, you get distance, they continue in, and you strike, then escape. If all you were after was self defence, that's pretty much all you'd get.

But the art side is still there as well. The lock this week was Hon Gyaku (a wrist lock, similar to Aikido's Ikkyo), and we looked at a few applications, including a technique called Renyo. This technique has an attack sequence of a right punch, then a right kick, then a right grab, and finally a resistance to the applied lock. It's actions include evasive movements, a striking block, a counter-kick, a softening strike, an Ura Gyaku (inside wrist twist), and then finally as the opponent attempts to resist the Ura Gyaku, you apply the Hon Gyaku (other versions apply a different lock, but this is the one we were looking at...) As you can see, it's a slightly involved sequence, and is against attacks not common today, with responces not necessarily practical against the types of attacks you do come up against. Even back in it's day, such a sequence would be highly unlikely, so why is it taught like that?

Well, the technique has quite a number of lessons, including dealing with all the common standing unarmed ranges, teaching the student to alter the distance as required each time, as well as teaching a range of tactical and strategic aspects. But it is not what I would refer to as "combat effective". The lessons involved are, but the technique itself is not. And that is the common idea to all martial arts, the idea is transmitting knowledge, insight, values, strategies, tactics, not combat effective techniques.

If you watch Kurosawa's The Seven Samurai, the villagers there learnt combat techniques, not martial arts. They were given long bamboo poles, sharpened at one end like a spear, and tuaght basically how to hold it and thrust. And that is how you approach training for a war. Martial arts come afterwards, and are really seperate.

[sgtmac_46]

This I subtly disagree with...

The original skills for combative success were certainly designed with only that one thing in mind, however I think it is inaccurate to describe such teachings as martial arts, in the same way that I don't think modern military training is a martial art. It is a military, or martial teaching and education, but it is not an art.

If we go back in time, there is a theory that only the wealthy could actually afford to train in martial arts, as they were the only ones with enough cash to lure the secrets out of the warriors, and the only ones with enough time to actually devote to the study. To simply have combat effectiveness as an aim does not require (or demand) an art side of things (that type of depth of knowledge is actually counter-productive if you are going to battle next week). Instead, the arts are designed to teach more than just how to kill/injure other human beings.

As an example, in class last week I taught a range of topics (as our structure always does), including the traditional art techniques, weapon techniques (often traditional, but this time around it's a modern, and therefore less martial-art, and more DefTac program), and a modern self defence section (not martial arts). The weaponry section (this month) is a program for defending against a blunt weapon with a short bladed weapon (knife versus club/iron bar/baseball bat), the art side is dealing with joint locks (and their application in the traditional techniques), and the modern is RBSD-style applications, this month it's pre-emptive striking. That's a very simple exercise, where you are approached, you get distance, they continue in, and you strike, then escape. If all you were after was self defence, that's pretty much all you'd get.

But the art side is still there as well. The lock this week was Hon Gyaku (a wrist lock, similar to Aikido's Ikkyo), and we looked at a few applications, including a technique called Renyo. This technique has an attack sequence of a right punch, then a right kick, then a right grab, and finally a resistance to the applied lock. It's actions include evasive movements, a striking block, a counter-kick, a softening strike, an Ura Gyaku (inside wrist twist), and then finally as the opponent attempts to resist the Ura Gyaku, you apply the Hon Gyaku (other versions apply a different lock, but this is the one we were looking at...) As you can see, it's a slightly involved sequence, and is against attacks not common today, with responces not necessarily practical against the types of attacks you do come up against. Even back in it's day, such a sequence would be highly unlikely, so why is it taught like that?

Well, the technique has quite a number of lessons, including dealing with all the common standing unarmed ranges, teaching the student to alter the distance as required each time, as well as teaching a range of tactical and strategic aspects. But it is not what I would refer to as "combat effective". The lessons involved are, but the technique itself is not. And that is the common idea to all martial arts, the idea is transmitting knowledge, insight, values, strategies, tactics, not combat effective techniques.

If you watch Kurosawa's The Seven Samurai, the villagers there learnt combat techniques, not martial arts. They were given long bamboo poles, sharpened at one end like a spear, and tuaght basically how to hold it and thrust. And that is how you approach training for a war. Martial arts come afterwards, and are really seperate. You didn't really disagree. You agreed that in it's original the 'art' was martial skills.

Sport is art.


What much of this whole argument comes down to is semantics........and the root of that semantical argument is predicated on an desire to separate this from that, to somehow set what one is doing, as being inherently different and superior to what someone else is doing.

'I proclaim that what we are doing is art.......i'll now arbitarily define art to support my argument that what we are doing is art, and what you are doing is some lessor thing'.



What I don't understand is where this need to create distinctions really comes from. Is it a form of snobbery? Some misplaced energy to 'purify'? I don't get it.

If what one is doing is technically incorrect, in a mechanical efficiency sense, I can understand creating distinctions. But what we are creating distinctions on are goals........i.e. 'Training for sport is a perversion of the art, but training for some abstract love of the art is pure'..........where does that come from?



The reality is that it's ALL art..........so long as we are honest with ourselves about what we are doing I don't see the problem with having different goals and agendas.

[Chris Parker]

Well, those skills are used as the vehicle to get across what is a martial art, however I don't think those skills make a martial art at all. A martial art is a seperate thing and is not concerned with combat effectiveness, although the skills taught in them often are combat effective, having come from lessons learnt is such violent situations.

I suppose to me it's like saying that flour equals a cake. Flour is often a main ingredient, but it is not a cake. Military or martial skills (combative effectiveness) are not a martial art any more than a cake is flour. Saying that a martial art was originally designed for only one thing (killing/injuring other people) to my mind denies what makes them martial arts, rather than just military training. As I said, it is a subtle disagreement...

I suppose the disagreement is that when it's only concerned with combat effectiveness, it's not a martial art. And when it's a martial art, it's gone beyond being concerned only with combat effectiveness (if it still is at all). Does that make more sense?

[sgtmac_46]

Well, those skills are used as the vehicle to get across what is a martial art, however I don't think those skills make a martial art at all. A martial art is a seperate thing and is not concerned with combat effectiveness, although the skills taught in them often are combat effective, having come from lessons learnt is such violent situations.

I suppose to me it's like saying that flour equals a cake. Flour is often a main ingredient, but it is not a cake. Military or martial skills (combative effectiveness) are not a martial art any more than a cake is flour. Saying that a martial art was originally designed for only one thing (killing/injuring other people) to my mind denies what makes them martial arts, rather than just military training. As I said, it is a subtle disagreement...

I suppose the disagreement is that when it's only concerned with combat effectiveness, it's not a martial art. And when it's a martial art, it's gone beyond being concerned only with combat effectiveness (if it still is at all). Does that make more sense?

As I said, semantics and self-serving definitions.

The root of 'martial arts' is martial........so if we're talking purity, the martial is what makes it unique, not the 'art'. The art came after.

Therefore, what one does with those 'martial skills' whether it be sports OR dancing around in a pretty uniform is 'equally' art.

That's the point.

Again, we only have these weird discussions about martial arts...........one would hardly argue that what Michael Jordan did with a basketball wasn't 'art' because it was a sport.

So what is real interesting to examine are the motives people have for making the arguments that they do on the matter...........is it necessary for some folks to affirm the 'specialness' of what they do by attacking what others do as 'less special'?

The ONLY reason that subject would have merit is if what we are discussing is pure martial skill, i.e. which is practically most effective and efficient...........but when the subject becomes what is 'art' such distinctions become rather silly.