REY MISTERIO
White Belt
or is it the other way around ? has martial arts from today got rid of use less manuvers and will those use less manuvers comeback in the future as long lost knowledge only to be reinstated again in new various systems ?
is martial arts from before better than martial arts from now ?
- Thread starter REY MISTERIO
- Start date
It's probably fair to say it is a mixture of both. New arts appear then they evolve. Old arts might die out, or they might be reinvented and reinvigorated. Others remain unchanged over generations. Nothing to say one is better than another as it depends on what you want to get from the MA you practise.
:asian:
:asian:
Martial Arts evolve and adapt accordingly......The main reason I left the TMA world for the combatives and RBSD world is to free myself to explore anything and everything from the standpoint of what works for me based on my strengths. I like concepts from Systema, Silat, Aikido, Thai Boxing, pressure point and nerve striking among others. In the end however I respect where these arts have come from.
I never had an appreciation for Tai Chi until I got into my late 30's and now early 40's because my "mind" got in the way. My appreciation for it today has made my own personal journey a more complete and rounded one.
I never had an appreciation for Tai Chi until I got into my late 30's and now early 40's because my "mind" got in the way. My appreciation for it today has made my own personal journey a more complete and rounded one.
It's amazing what people knew in the old days, but it's also amazing what modern training methods can achieve. The bigger issue is probably that the nature of the threat changes in ways big and small and so if self-defense is the goal then you have to change with the times. I've been taught as many or more techniques for attempting to keep a samurai from fully drawing his sword to strike me as I have for disarming someone with a handgun. These are not equiprobable threats in today. (I emphasize these were techniques to interrupt a long-sword draw from a scabbard, which is an unlikely scenario--techniques against an already-drawn sword are of course still relevant.) I personally like the preservation and practice of older arts, as a hobby--for self-defense, it's the Jeet Kune Do mindset for me.
donald1
Senior Master
I'm not sure what kind of answer your looking for but that's a question that varies depending on what you consider "unnecessary " to be. Usually something useful can easily be recognized, but that's not in all cases. Most things have there reasons. I wouldn't say the older ways were better because both of them have their advantages vs disadvantages.
Good question, makes you wonder
Good question, makes you wonder
Zero
Master Black Belt
That's a tough question (almost impossible to answer in a general manner without use of a time machine and even so, given the enviornments we live in today differ so much from those of yesteryear, the comparison may well be unfair and biased - an imperfect control/test). It also will depend on the interpretaiton of what a martial art is.
Certain training methods, diet, etc may be far superior now for elite athletes than in days gone by. If you put a martial artist or warrior unarmed from the 11th Century in the octagon with a modern athlete then the MMA dude may hand out a whooping due to the larger and/or more muscular physique. However, transport an elite MMA or K1 fighter onto an 11th Century battlefield in Japan and the odds are they would not last more than 30 seconds (at best), even if you put a sword in their hands.
Outside of a ring fight, on a pound for pound basis, the reality is that the K1/Pride/MMA/UFC champs of our times are not combat tested (as in on a battlefield or hand-to-hand confrontations on the street (or in the paddy fields etc)), so how can we say how they would stack up in a confrontation against an experienced, superior fighter/martial artist of days gone by and from a time where skills were employed in reality to defend oneself and or kill others? Mind set and environment is a big determinant. The MMA's initial attitude may be "i'm gonna F You Up", the 11th century samurai's attitude from the start will be "I'm going to kill you now and/or die". You may be the best go-cart racer there is but step into Formula One off the bat and you will most likely get nuked. It's like when you compete against an opponent who does not mind playing dirty or when you train in the dojo and agree that all moves/counters (to a certain amount of control) are allowed - suddenly those head locks aren't so easy to apply when the guy is jamming his finger in your eye with the desire of blinding you. Reality can be a real b@t#h.
I also suspect if you were to put a top Iaido practitioner of today in the mix with a top samurai/swordsman from the age of battle...well I know who I am putting my money on.
Summary:
I think on a competitive/sports level the fighters of today may be superior. But on a "reality" level, in general, across the board, I think we are far from what once was. That is not a bad thing, it is indicative of the times and how we now engage in armed military conflicts.
Certain training methods, diet, etc may be far superior now for elite athletes than in days gone by. If you put a martial artist or warrior unarmed from the 11th Century in the octagon with a modern athlete then the MMA dude may hand out a whooping due to the larger and/or more muscular physique. However, transport an elite MMA or K1 fighter onto an 11th Century battlefield in Japan and the odds are they would not last more than 30 seconds (at best), even if you put a sword in their hands.
Outside of a ring fight, on a pound for pound basis, the reality is that the K1/Pride/MMA/UFC champs of our times are not combat tested (as in on a battlefield or hand-to-hand confrontations on the street (or in the paddy fields etc)), so how can we say how they would stack up in a confrontation against an experienced, superior fighter/martial artist of days gone by and from a time where skills were employed in reality to defend oneself and or kill others? Mind set and environment is a big determinant. The MMA's initial attitude may be "i'm gonna F You Up", the 11th century samurai's attitude from the start will be "I'm going to kill you now and/or die". You may be the best go-cart racer there is but step into Formula One off the bat and you will most likely get nuked. It's like when you compete against an opponent who does not mind playing dirty or when you train in the dojo and agree that all moves/counters (to a certain amount of control) are allowed - suddenly those head locks aren't so easy to apply when the guy is jamming his finger in your eye with the desire of blinding you. Reality can be a real b@t#h.
I also suspect if you were to put a top Iaido practitioner of today in the mix with a top samurai/swordsman from the age of battle...well I know who I am putting my money on.
Summary:
I think on a competitive/sports level the fighters of today may be superior. But on a "reality" level, in general, across the board, I think we are far from what once was. That is not a bad thing, it is indicative of the times and how we now engage in armed military conflicts.
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
Just last weekend I watched Taiji guy do a demo, someone tried to grab his wrist and he moved ever so smoothly and quickly and stopped just short of breaking the other guys arm and then…a slight move backwards and the aggressor fell down. This move is old school Chen style and was applicable then as it is applicable now.
I also know that the Dao form in Yang Taiji can be better understood if you think that many of the moves are for defense against a spear. Not a whole lot of people fighting with the Dao these days and probably fewer fighting with a spear, But it could be used stick against stick.. or a baseball bat as well.
As already stated above, I think the answer to the question is both, But do not confuse one not wanting to take the time to learn the Chen move that uses little muscle with it being obsolete and needing to muscle your way into the hold. In some cases it is some want to take the time and some do not or some have the luxury of time and others do not. As for the Dao...it could go either way
I also know that the Dao form in Yang Taiji can be better understood if you think that many of the moves are for defense against a spear. Not a whole lot of people fighting with the Dao these days and probably fewer fighting with a spear, But it could be used stick against stick.. or a baseball bat as well.
As already stated above, I think the answer to the question is both, But do not confuse one not wanting to take the time to learn the Chen move that uses little muscle with it being obsolete and needing to muscle your way into the hold. In some cases it is some want to take the time and some do not or some have the luxury of time and others do not. As for the Dao...it could go either way
Langenschwert
Master Black Belt
That's a hard question to answer. The human body hasn't changed in a long time. Any given MA is going to be optimized for it's particular context. What is prevalent today is sportification, which incorporates artifacts into techniques that were formerly used for lethal encounters. Modern training methods can certainly produce impressive results, but the ancients were no dummies either. For example, examinations of the skeletons found in medieval battlefields show the same level of stresses that are found on modern Olympic athletes. Those guys trained hard and well.
What's important to avoid is "historicism", the belief that history marches from an imperfect past into an increasingly perfect present. In my own discipline, one can see the biases of Victorian fencing masters when they wrote about their medievel forebears. They viewed their own fencing as the culmination of swordsmanship, which meant in their view medieval swordsmanship was crude and relied on brute strength and so forth, when in reality the medieval systems were at least as elegant and sophisticated as the finest swordsmanship the Victorian age could produce. The problem was that the failed to understand the context of older arts, and also failed to understand a lot of the techniques that they saw in ancient fencing manuals. This attitude was typical of the Victorian era and it still persists today.
It depends on what the purpose is. While learning armoured grappling would be very handy for a medieval armoured duel, and the principles would transfer to unarmoured grappling, it's not going to do me much good in an MMA match compared to a wrestling and BJJ training regimen. And the reverse is true. As long as we can remember that, we can evaluate an MA based on its correct context.
-Mark
What's important to avoid is "historicism", the belief that history marches from an imperfect past into an increasingly perfect present. In my own discipline, one can see the biases of Victorian fencing masters when they wrote about their medievel forebears. They viewed their own fencing as the culmination of swordsmanship, which meant in their view medieval swordsmanship was crude and relied on brute strength and so forth, when in reality the medieval systems were at least as elegant and sophisticated as the finest swordsmanship the Victorian age could produce. The problem was that the failed to understand the context of older arts, and also failed to understand a lot of the techniques that they saw in ancient fencing manuals. This attitude was typical of the Victorian era and it still persists today.
It depends on what the purpose is. While learning armoured grappling would be very handy for a medieval armoured duel, and the principles would transfer to unarmoured grappling, it's not going to do me much good in an MMA match compared to a wrestling and BJJ training regimen. And the reverse is true. As long as we can remember that, we can evaluate an MA based on its correct context.
-Mark
lklawson
Grandmaster
My thoughts exactly. I've written I don't know how many times about every martial art evolves in its own context.
As read your first sentence on "historicism" I immediately thought, "how very Victorian" and then I read the second sentence in which you elaborate and specifically point to Victorian fencing. hahahaha
I must have read the same authors you have.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
Is that really the case? The average height and weight have increased and in most countries the general nutrition and health is better. On top of that society has changed dramatically from feudal times and weapons have changed.
In the past particularly in Asia, martial art training could have been the difference between life and death, on or off the battlefield. Today we can walk around most places quite happily with no need to fear for our safety.
A lot of martial arts have changed their focus to adapt to those changes. Most have taken the teaching of lethal techniques out of their training and many martial arts are more focused on sport and competition. With the change in weaponry we have seen the introduction of more military based MAs like Krav and Systema and although it is much older I would include the Filipino MAs in that category.
So lots of factors have changed and most MAs have changed to fit the environment.
:asian:
I really understand your point about your mind getting in the way.The same thing happened to me, and I wouldn't open my mind to anything that wasn't traditional. If Sifu said it had to be "this way" then there was no other way as far as I was concerned. Now my mind is open and what a world of difference it makes.
Langenschwert
Master Black Belt
It also depends on what your purpose in training MA is. If your aim is to preserve an art so that it stays as close as possible to its original form, then you've got to be fairly selective on what's acceptable and keep variations within the traditional limits. If your goal is to adapt an art so that it suits YOU best, then the sky's the limit. There are merits in both approaches, and neither one is better or more laudable than the other. However, when dealing with traditional systems, beware that changing an art to keep it up to date with the times can (and has) resulted in that art's extinction in the long run. I'm sure the fencing masters of the day had the best of intentions when they started focusing on foil, epee and sabre to the exclusion of older traditional combat arts. But what went into extinction was the whole comprehensive art that included everything from longsword, staff, and grappling to knife defence and even mounted combat. That's what a "fencing" master was supposed to know... what would have amounted a "sogo bujutusu" had it been Japan rather than say, Germany. Were it not a for a few forward-thinking masters who wrote their stuff down 500 years ago, all of it would have been beyond retrieval for us today.
So be careful what you ask for. It's very easy to take modernization to the point that the original art is gone forever.
-Mark
chinto
Senior Master
I would say as far as the arts are concerned, its a matter of perspective. If you mean effectiveness in killing the attacker, and staying alive, I would say that the TMA arts are more proficient at that. That said in some places at this time using some of the things that would have been used with out thought as far as techniques and such would land you in prison today.
the BJJ or XMA or a lot of what I see people do in competition would get you dead say 150 years ago. but they win in competition. if you want to compete and want to look amazing, a lot of newer arts are very good. if you want to survive a confrontation, I would prefer the traditional type arts.
As to the military combatives, they do what they are designed to do. namely teach a limited number of techniques and principles to some one quickly, in a very limited amount of time. they are designed to give a conscript or in some cases a new cop in a bad aria a chance in a hand to hand combat situation to survive and even prevail. They were NOT intended to train some one to face a skilled trained Martial artist with years of training.
the BJJ or XMA or a lot of what I see people do in competition would get you dead say 150 years ago. but they win in competition. if you want to compete and want to look amazing, a lot of newer arts are very good. if you want to survive a confrontation, I would prefer the traditional type arts.
As to the military combatives, they do what they are designed to do. namely teach a limited number of techniques and principles to some one quickly, in a very limited amount of time. they are designed to give a conscript or in some cases a new cop in a bad aria a chance in a hand to hand combat situation to survive and even prevail. They were NOT intended to train some one to face a skilled trained Martial artist with years of training.
Langenschwert
Master Black Belt
My point was that such is often not the case. Many MA (particularly in Europe) went extinct due to a push towards modernization. Today in Japan many koryu are struggling to survive, whereas kendo and judo are doing very well. It's a parallel cycle of modernization in MA and unfortunately the Japanese are not learning from what happened in Europe. As a general rule, their founders didn't leave behind detailed technical manuals like the Germans and Italians did, so once they're gone, no reconstruction will be possible. And reconstruction is damned hard, even with huge amounts of written material to work from (60 manuals in the German tradition alone). I would much rather have learned from a living lineage of German martial arts and supplemented it with the manuals than having to hack away at it (see what I did there?) while being removed from the last instructors of the lineage by three hundred years.
-Mark
lklawson
Grandmaster
Crap tons.
- Armor is and may be different: Maille is different from quilted.
- Clothing: Heavy cloths in cold climates, light clothes in hot.
- Available materials and technology: There's a reason that Aztec swords were obsidian shards embedded in a wood paddle and bronze age "swords" looked nothing like high Renaissance swords.
- Laws: There are many examples of certain weapons that were legal only to restricted groups. Try being a Spartan merchant class and carrying a Dory.
- Social context: There were plenty of times where certain weapons, certain techniques, and/or certain results have been unacceptable socially as the result of a fight.
- Lots of other possibilities.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
I think there isn't really a true answer to this question... One could argue that practicing an art in a traditional sense keeps the art alive and pays respect to the early masters of that art. Others say that while knowing what the traditional methods were but training in a more modern way is better...
I say know where your art comes from but focus on where it is going...
I think that any art that has stood or will stand the test of time will adapt its methods to fit better into what society throws at it... Just imagine, how you train today could be considered archaic 50 years from now!
I say know where your art comes from but focus on where it is going...
I think that any art that has stood or will stand the test of time will adapt its methods to fit better into what society throws at it... Just imagine, how you train today could be considered archaic 50 years from now!
Hanzou
Grandmaster
People are larger and stronger now, have access to a variety of systems and styles, and have the benefit of sports science.
Its like comparing a football team from early 1900s to a modern NFL team. The NFL team would demolish them and not even break a sweat. The same applies to a modern martial artist/athlete versus a martial artist from centuries ago.
Its like comparing a football team from early 1900s to a modern NFL team. The NFL team would demolish them and not even break a sweat. The same applies to a modern martial artist/athlete versus a martial artist from centuries ago.
Similar threads
