Complete martial arts?

[jks9199]

This phrase comes up a lot... "This art isn't a complete art" or "that art is a complete art" is the typical way...

What is a complete martial art? What makes one art more complete than another? Is YOUR art complete -- or what have you done to make your training complete?

 

[MJS]

This phrase comes up a lot... "This art isn't a complete art" or "that art is a complete art" is the typical way...

What is a complete martial art? What makes one art more complete than another? Is YOUR art complete -- or what have you done to make your training complete?

What complete means to me? An art that addresses all ranges of fighting....punching, kicking, clinch, grappling, as well as weapons.

Now, I suppose if we look at an art, we could say that its complete. I'll use my art, Kenpo, as an example. We punch, kick, we have weapon defenses, defenses against grabs, defenses against grappling. Does it have a solid grappling base? IMO, no. Are the weapon defenses the greatest? IMO, no.

Doesnt mean its ineffective, just that like anything, theres always room to improve. Its complete to a point.

What have I done to make my training more complete? I crosstrain. I train in Arnis, which gives me a much deeper understanding of weapons, including how to use them better, how they can be used against me, defense. I also grapple, which gives me a better understanding of the ground. I've taken the basics, and just work them over and over. I dont claim to be an expert on the ground, but I feel comfortable enough that should I end up there, against the average person, I feel confident enough to survive.

 

[Blindside]

For me, a complete martial art would have strategies, tactics, and techniques to deal with single to multiple competent attackers at any range.

Based on that defintion, I don't think there is a single complete art, by necessity most of us don't have the time to learn everything that could possibly happen, most of us are specialists. Me? My main arts focus on close quarters offense and counter-offense both armed and unarmed. I have sought out additional instruction in BJJ/submission wrestling and firearms to supplement my training in those areas, but I won't claim to be an expert.

Is it necessary to be "complete," nope, but it depends on what your focus is. No one would consider kyudo or modern wushu to be a complete art, but no one is trying to teach that for self-defense either.

edit:
It appears that I have managed to repeat MJS' post almost verbatim, including the exact wording of "I don't claim to be an expert." Well, thats what I get for leaving the window open for an hour....

 

[David43515]

I don`t like to repeat what others have said so well, but I`ve always thought that a complete art contains striking/kicking, throwing/grappling, jointwork, and weapons. If there`s some kind of sports medicine componant as well, that`s just icing on the cake.

Every style will have a range or a type of techniques it favors, but a complete style should have some material for all of the above.

 

[Drac]

Yeah, what they said..

 

[Big Don]

in weapons, I would include hand guns and long guns, don"t know of any art that includes the use of either, much less both

 

[Blindside]

in weapons, I would include hand guns and long guns, don"t know of any art that includes the use of either, much less both

Well PTK does, I have seen and practiced some of the Pekiti gun seguidas, but haven't been exposed to much of that fairly rare portion of the art, as far as I know it is mostly about handguns.

 

[Omar B]

When some dude figures out how to block a bullet or really focus on your sanchin and withstand an explosion then it'll be complete.

 

[terryl965]

Yeah, what they said..

I can only echo what Drac has said....

 

[K-man]

For me, a complete martial art would have strategies, tactics, and techniques to deal with single to multiple competent attackers at any range.

Based on that defintion, I don't think there is a single complete art, by necessity most of us don't have the time to learn everything that could possibly happen, most of us are specialists. Me? My main arts focus on close quarters offense and counter-offense both armed and unarmed. I have sought out additional instruction in BJJ/submission wrestling and firearms to supplement my training in those areas, but I won't claim to be an expert.

Is it necessary to be "complete," nope, but it depends on what your focus is. No one would consider kyudo or modern wushu to be a complete art, but no one is trying to teach that for self-defense either.

edit:
It appears that I have managed to repeat MJS' post almost verbatim, including the exact wording of "I don't claim to be an expert." Well, thats what I get for leaving the window open for an hour....

Perhaps by these requirements Systema may be the answer because IMO it is the only self defence system that has a military focus.
If we look at the traditional styles, to me a complete MA must be comfortable in close, grappling and on the ground. It must also take into account the vital points. This discounts modern styles like TKD and Judo and most karate because these are all sports oriented. Any MA which is working from a distance of a couple of metres is not relevant to SD. If someone is 2 metres from me, they are not a threat. Once they move into my space, I need the competencies I listed above.
Now, I train Goju karate and Aikido. As these are taught in most schools, neither is complete. Aikido needs the atemi to be effective and karate needs the holds, locks and throws. To my mind karate as taught 100 years ago is complete. In fact I believe it was the MMA of its day. It lost its 'jutsu' when it went into the schools. I am trying to return to the days when all the competencies were taught but my teachers each only have a portion of the information I require. Therefore I need to cross-train.
Returning to Blindsides observations. Most MAs cannot plan to combat multiple attackers because ultimately numbers will prevail. However, any style that relies on grappling is doomed, as is any style that goes to the ground. Any style that works on the premise 'one strike, one kill' has the potential to keep moving and ultimately prevail. Therefore a complete MA, under these circumstances, needs to be stable on the feet and clinical in its strikes. A style as taught to this criteria that come to mind is Bagua.

 

[Big Don]

When some dude figures out how to block a bullet or really focus on your sanchin and withstand an explosion then it'll be complete.

Using the definition of martial, defense isn't the be all end all of martial arts.

 

[Omar B]

Using the definition of martial, defense isn't the be all end all of martial arts.

I didn't feel like bringing up the lightning bolts or lasers, sue me.

 

[David43515]

Say K-man, you might be interested in koryu-uchinadi.com or some of the bunkai-jutsu stuff at iainabernethy.com

Both groups look at the traditional karate kata and say they`re full of wrestling and thows. The koryu group is down there in Oz, and Abernethy gets down there to do seminars a couple times a year.

 

[K-man]

Say K-man, you might be interested in koryu-uchinadi.com or some of the bunkai-jutsu stuff at iainabernethy.com

Both groups look at the traditional karate kata and say they`re full of wrestling and thows. The koryu group is down there in Oz, and Abernethy gets down there to do seminars a couple times a year.

I lurk on his site and have several of his books and many of his articles. I missed his seminars earlier this year. It was a choice of seminars with Iain or kayaking with penguins, seals and whales in Antarctica. Guess which won ..

? But it is true to say that Iain has influenced my understanding of karate more than most. This change to my understanding has totally changed the way I practise and caused me to break away from the organisation I was with.
I have read a lot of Patrick McCarthy's material as well but not had the opportunity to meet him.

 

[Bruno@MT]

I didn't feel like bringing up the lightning bolts or lasers, sue me.

I think Don means that a 'complete' martial art should also cover offensive / attack tactics and strategies.

 

[Chris Parker]

This phrase comes up a lot... "This art isn't a complete art" or "that art is a complete art" is the typical way...

What is a complete martial art? What makes one art more complete than another? Is YOUR art complete -- or what have you done to make your training complete?

Okay, me being me, I'm going to come at this from another angle here...

A martial art, as I've said more than a few times, is not it's techniques. It also isn't it's drills, weapons, training methods, or any other. Each of these things are representations of the actual martial art itself. So what is it?

A martial art is a philosophy which is taught and passed down through the means of combative actions and movements. The techniques, drills, weapons, training practices, and so on, are simply expressions of that philosophy. So a "complete martial art" is anything that has a complete philosophy, adhered to through it's methods, and adapted while staying true as required.

By this definition, any martial art is complete. It is just up to the practitioner to find what about it ensures adaptability to real situations. This extends even to such seemingly limited arts as Iaido, Kyudo, and others. To take Iaido as an example, the modern (and most common form of Iai), Seitei Iaido, consists of only 12 kata (or forms), all of which are done solo, and all of which are performed using an archaic weapon (a Japanese sword). So how is that a "complete" martial art?

Well, Iaido is consistent in it's expression of it's philosophy, and teaches much more than just how to draw and cut with your sword. It teaches methods of correct mind-set, balance, timing, visualisation of a goal, distance, angle of entry, and far more. Essentially, by training Iaido properly, you will develop the calmness of mind essential to remain calm in a high stress situation, among other benefits. Sure, you may not have your trusty sword by your side, but that doesn't make the art any less complete. It is complete in and of itself, as it doesn't need to be any more than it is. In fact, to be more than it is isn't consistent with it's philosophy, so would actually detract from the art itself.

Does it give you methods of handling every form of violence? No. But then again, that's not the point of a martial art. And that in no way diminishes it's completeness.


Okay, onto a few more particular details. K-man, I hope you don't mind, but your post has many of the details I would like to cover, so I'm going to use it as a sounding board. Let's have fun, shall we?

Perhaps by these requirements Systema may be the answer because IMO it is the only self defence system that has a military focus.

I'd also include Krav Maga, which is probably more military than Systema (not going into the issues with historical claims here....), most will also include MCMAP as well (although it was not developed primarily for combative effectiveness... although we'll cover that little detail in a moment), and a few others.

This does, of course, beg the question "Is military training really the same as self defence?". Honestly, the answer is no. They have different ideals, aims, values, and ways of measuring success. Self defence is self defence, and military is military, and although there can be a lot of cross-over when it comes to physical techniques and methods, the basic philosophy (what makes them what they are) is rather different.

If we look at the traditional styles, to me a complete MA must be comfortable in close, grappling and on the ground. It must also take into account the vital points.

I'd disagree a bit there, and it starts to bring us back to the "effectiveness" thing. A complete martial art must have a complete congruent philosophy, end of story, traditional or modern. And if we are looking at the ranges covered, then you are looking at effectiveness in the modern world, not completeness, and that is a very different thing. Traditional systems, by the way, regardless of the ranges and skill-sets utilised, will be dominantly against attacking methods that are not common to today's world, removing that aspect for them to be considered "effective" as well.

And if we are looking at your three aspects (in close, grappling, and on the ground), a great number of old systems (at least the Japanese ones) will not cover ground work with any real emphasis, as you do everything you can to avoid ending on the ground (very bad place to be in armour....). But grappling will be very highly emphasised. So these arts, complete in and of themselves, will, for reasons of their origins, not have certain aspects you are defining there.

This discounts modern styles like TKD and Judo and most karate because these are all sports oriented. Any MA which is working from a distance of a couple of metres is not relevant to SD. If someone is 2 metres from me, they are not a threat. Once they move into my space, I need the competencies I listed above.

While I agree wholeheartedly for self defence, who ever said that that was the one and only aim or measuring stick for martial arts, particularly sport ones? Once again, if complete and congruent within it's philosophy, a sport martial art needs only be what it is, and nothing more.

Completeness and effectiveness/self defence are two different things, I believe.

Now, I train Goju karate and Aikido. As these are taught in most schools, neither is complete. Aikido needs the atemi to be effective and karate needs the holds, locks and throws.

Personally, I don't believe this is so. Each are complete in and of themselves. Effective, that's another issue entirely. Whenever you bring up the term "effective", the question is "effective for what?". Aikido is incredibly effective at teaching you the lessons of Aikido.... not so good at handling a three-sectional-staff, though. If we are talking about SD as a grounds for effective, then we get to another issue. Essentially, SD effectiveness is based far more on training methods than technical ranges and actions. But that's an argument for another time, I feel...

To my mind karate as taught 100 years ago is complete. In fact I believe it was the MMA of its day. It lost its 'jutsu' when it went into the schools. I am trying to return to the days when all the competencies were taught but my teachers each only have a portion of the information I require. Therefore I need to cross-train.

Sounds like a good idea, and a wonderfully lofty goal. Do you mean cross-train as in with other Karate instructors, or in different arts? If the former, that sounds like a good plan, if the latter, well, I'd wonder how deep you can get into your understanding of karate by training other arts. They may give you new ways of approaching the art, but they won't actually take you any further into karate itself.

Returning to Blindsides observations. Most MAs cannot plan to combat multiple attackers because ultimately numbers will prevail.

Er, just so you know, Ninjutsu does teach defences against groups, both modern and classically... so does Krav Maga in it's drills, as do RBSD systems. And we all have the same idea, get out and get away. We just have different (although only slightly) methods of doing just that.

However, any style that relies on grappling is doomed, as is any style that goes to the ground.

Again we're dealing with SD, yeah? Okay, rather than repeat again about effectiveness versus completeness, I'll revisit the concept of what a complete philosophy is.

Essentially, there are a number of different ways of differentiating martial arts from one another. One way is a generalist system versus a specialist system. The general concensus here seems to be more towards the "generalist" approach, which is great, but many try to achieve that by forcing together a few specialist systems (for the record, I feel that Karate was, and is, a generalist system in and of itself), which is not the best idea.

The main difference between them is based on how the distance is managed. A specialist will always want to take any situation to where they feel strongest (into their area of specialisation), and a generalist system will always want to move any situation away from where their opponent feels strongest (out of the enemies area of specialisation). By combining two different specialist systems (with their own complete philosophies dictating that you go into a specific range or area) you aren't really getting the benefit of a generalist system, which specialises in changing distances out of one, rather than into one. It's similar, but really quite different. So either pick a generalist system or a specialist system, and both will be complete, then it's the training of that system that will make it effective.

Any style that works on the premise 'one strike, one kill' has the potential to keep moving and ultimately prevail. Therefore a complete MA, under these circumstances, needs to be stable on the feet and clinical in its strikes. A style as taught to this criteria that come to mind is Bagua.

Or boxing. Or karate. Or Judo. Or anything, really. Depends on how it's trained. But one last time, this is to do with effectiveness in a self defence realm, not completeness of a martial art. Painting is not every art form in itself, but it is a complete art form in itself. Same with martial arts.

 

[MJS]

Okay, me being me, I'm going to come at this from another angle here...

A martial art, as I've said more than a few times, is not it's techniques. It also isn't it's drills, weapons, training methods, or any other. Each of these things are representations of the actual martial art itself. So what is it?

A martial art is a philosophy which is taught and passed down through the means of combative actions and movements. The techniques, drills, weapons, training practices, and so on, are simply expressions of that philosophy. So a "complete martial art" is anything that has a complete philosophy, adhered to through it's methods, and adapted while staying true as required.

By this definition, any martial art is complete. It is just up to the practitioner to find what about it ensures adaptability to real situations.

Nice post as usual Chris. I agree withe the last part as well. Now, let me ask you this....above, you commented about the philosophy that is taught and passed down. What happens though, if those philosophies were flawed or not in line with what someone else may feel? I mean, you could have 2 people who train in the exact same art, even if it were the same school, and have different philosophies. So, what is complete to me, may not be complete to others.

Thoughts?

 

[Chris Parker]

Ah, but this is not a personal philosophy, it is the philosophy of the art in question. Now, that can be passed down incompletely, or incorrectly, but not really in the way you're describing here.

Within Japanese systems, the way to ensure it is passed down completely and accurately is the Menkyo (licence) system. Menkyo Kaiden (licence of complete transmission) is, ideally, only awarded to those who completely learn the art (the philosophy) accurately and according to the way it is taught. Anything lower than that, and there is a real chance you're getting a flawed version of things. This is one of the main reasons that lineage is so important in Japanese (and Chinese) systems.

Ideally, if the philosophy is not in line with a particular student, they won't be students there long enough to gain such a licence. And if they do stay with it that long, then the philosophy of the art will be "trained" into them (really what the training is for, after all).

These days it's common for there to be many instructors of a particular system, from Shodan up, really, rather than just the person(s) who have achieved this complete transmission (that does still exist, though, such as in Katori Shinto Ryu, where only Otake Sensei was recognised as the teacher of the tradition for many years.... for the record, his son has now taken over his role as Shihan for the Ryu, and the Sugino Dojo seems to have been accepted back, or is at least being brought back in, as a branch dojo of the Ryu, headed by Sugino Yukihiro), leading to many people being taught an incomplete, or flawed version of the art. If you have seen the movie Kuro Obi (Black Belt), there is a great master of Karate, who is killed by the Army, leaving his three main disciples to go on. Each of the disciples has their own approach, one purely offensive, another very defensive, and a third pacifist, following the master's teachings. This is an example of incomplete transmission, as it ends with all three being spent, and only at the end coming to some understanding of what their master was trying to teach them at the dojo.

In terms of the philosophy of the art being flawed itself, well, that usually ends up as a very short lived martial art! Without a complete basis (philosophy, a guiding set of values and beliefs giving rise to the behaviours, or techniques and training methods), there will be no way to continue after the person who developed it passes. Often they have an internal congruent philosophy, but don't successfully manage to put that into their system, and that dooms it from the beginning.

Bear in mind, though, that none of this is really anything to do with the personality of the individuals learning it (although certain personalities will be drawn to, or repulsed from, certain specific philosophies, or arts). So the idea of "complete" to one person or another really doesn't enter into it.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

in weapons, I would include hand guns and long guns, don"t know of any art that includes the use of either, much less both

Well PTK does, I have seen and practiced some of the Pekiti gun seguidas, but haven't been exposed to much of that fairly rare portion of the art, as far as I know it is mostly about handguns.

In IRT we also train in all types of firearms as well!

I have not met any system yet that I would say is complete. To say that would mean that growth is finished within that system and that there are a finite amount of skill sets to learn. Instead, personally I prefer to look at the idea that their are no absolutes in the Martial Sciences. Because of this then any system should be in a constant state of exploration in all areas including weapons/tools, kicking, hand strikes, trapping & joint manipulation and of course grappling. A system should adress all of the above also in the three ranges of combat long, medium and short. This of course is my opinion only but a practitioner even when a system does not address certain areas can take it upon themselves to explore and learn in other areas. I know several Tae Kwon Do practitioners who area also firearms instructors. Budo Taijutsu itself does not have kata for firearms and yet in the Bujinkan there is a great many people that work with them regularly and Hatsumi Sensei also shows movement in relation to firearms. Bando, Krav Maga, Systema, etc. all look very well rounded as well! However unless there is no creativity left I imagine they are not complete and will grow when needed!

In IRT we will continue to explore, expand and include what we feel is relevant and necessary. If new tools come on the scene we will address them as necessary!

 

[Omar B]

I think Don means that a 'complete' martial art should also cover offensive / attack tactics and strategies.

Lasers and eye beams not offensive enough?