Modern Versus antiquated self defence

[RTKDCMB]

On many other threads there have been many posts that have mentioned 'modern self defence', 'modern violence', 'antiquated methods'. So what constitutes a modern attack, and why is it different from an antiquated one? How has violence changed over the centuries so that we need modern methods to combat it?

 

[Kong Soo Do]

On many other threads there have been many posts that have mentioned 'modern self defence', 'modern violence', 'antiquated methods'. So what constitutes a modern attack, and why is it different from an antiquated one? How has violence changed over the centuries so that we need modern methods to combat it?

That's actually a pretty good question. I'll offer a few thoughts. As far as a physical attack, well, a punch to the nose a thousand years ago is pretty much a punch to the nose today. What has changed though would be along the line of weapons as one example. Not too many folks walking around the mall with a sword. This doesn't mean a sword isn't a good weapon, but society has transitioned away from its use. So a more modern weapon such as a firearm could be factored into 'modern self defense'. Additionally, people were on drugs a thousand years ago, however, imo I would suggest that the % in the modern era is much higher. Not only do we have more people in general, but we have more drugs and more types of drugs. Dealing with someone on spice or bath salts is a 'modern' consideration. And it is a very serious consideration.

Just some thoughts to toss out.

 

[geezer]

Yeah, people today have more things. Besides things that didn't exist in earlier times (cars, computers, smart phones), we have more access to food, medicine, ...and weapons ...and drugs. Although, depending on where you lived in ancient times, things like alcohol in the Western world and hashish and Opium in the East were widely abused.

Another thing. People today are much more culturally diverse. Travel is a lot faster, safer and cheaper and the world is a smaller place ...so we are interacting daily with people from all over. The old norms and unspoken "rules" for fighting don't apply. People fight in a lot of different ways and you have to be prepared for whatever comes. Interestingly there's a term for that in Tagalog, "Bahala na!" ... A good attitide to have.

 

[Zero]

...so we are interacting daily with people from all over. The old norms and unspoken "rules" for fighting don't apply. People fight in a lot of different ways and you have to be prepared for whatever comes. Interestingly there's a term for that in Tagalog, "Bahala na!" ... A good attitide to have.

Yes, that is a very good point, with so many different cultures and peoples mixing in so many geographics and areas, it can be hard to establish what the "norms" are or will be at times in certain places; you need to be very on to it as to ascertaining who/what you are dealing with and the one approach (such as SD/diffusing tactic) will not be successful with all. This "bahala na" approach you speak of makes sense for any person to apply.

 

[MJS]

On many other threads there have been many posts that have mentioned 'modern self defence', 'modern violence', 'antiquated methods'. So what constitutes a modern attack, and why is it different from an antiquated one? How has violence changed over the centuries so that we need modern methods to combat it?

I'm pretty much in agreement with what KSD said. People back then, had 2 arms and 2 legs, just like people of today have. Things that probably have changed: the types of weapons used today, the method of attack that people use today, the mental state of people, etc. With MMA being a huge craze, the odds of potentially facing someone with varying degrees of skill, is also a possibility.

 

[sopraisso]

The old norms and unspoken "rules" for fighting don't apply.

I'm wondering what those ancient "unspoken rules" for fighting could possibly be. I've never heard people in the past fought - in self-defense situations - under any kind of rules.

Actually I would say someone would possibly be more likely to use "cheap shots" in the old times than now, because common people nowadays generally have misconceptions about physical fighting created through movies and combat sports. Further, today we have very clear self-defense laws and they actually become a concern for someone who might fight for self-defense: knowing the right moment when to react - and when not to react - has probably become a more complicated issue, as well as being able to control oneself and avoid overreacting.

Generally, the advent of more universal and strict laws is an important difference concerning self-defense fighting today.

Enviado de meu GT-I9300 usando Tapatalk

 

[Chris Parker]

On many other threads there have been many posts that have mentioned 'modern self defence', 'modern violence', 'antiquated methods'. So what constitutes a modern attack, and why is it different from an antiquated one? How has violence changed over the centuries so that we need modern methods to combat it?

As with Kong Soo Do, I think that's quite an interesting, and important question... but I'm going to disagree with quite a bit of what's been said before coming back to deal with these specific questions themselves.

That's actually a pretty good question. I'll offer a few thoughts. As far as a physical attack, well, a punch to the nose a thousand years ago is pretty much a punch to the nose today.

Actually, no, that's not quite the case. What's often meant by comments such as "a punch then is a punch now" is that the physical damage being done is the same (sometimes it's meant that the physical attack itself is the same, and that's simply incorrect for a variety of reasons we'll cover), which (broadly) can be seen as basically correct... but that's not what the actual similarities and differences are about.

What has changed though would be along the line of weapons as one example. Not too many folks walking around the mall with a sword. This doesn't mean a sword isn't a good weapon, but society has transitioned away from its use. So a more modern weapon such as a firearm could be factored into 'modern self defense'.

This is more like it. Of course, as you note, it's just one aspect or part of the story.

Additionally, people were on drugs a thousand years ago, however, imo I would suggest that the % in the modern era is much higher. Not only do we have more people in general, but we have more drugs and more types of drugs. Dealing with someone on spice or bath salts is a 'modern' consideration. And it is a very serious consideration.

Cool... this is all focusing on the particulars of some threats that could be faced (and they're correct in that sense), and, while part of it (or, more realistically, an result of), it's not quite where the real differences are.

Just some thoughts to toss out.

Cool, good start to the thread.

Yeah, people today have more things. Besides things that didn't exist in earlier times (cars, computers, smart phones), we have more access to food, medicine, ...and weapons ...and drugs. Although, depending on where you lived in ancient times, things like alcohol in the Western world and hashish and Opium in the East were widely abused.

Okay. To be honest, though, I'm not seeing where this is showing any differences (or similarities) between antiquated and modern violence (and approaches to it).

Another thing. People today are much more culturally diverse. Travel is a lot faster, safer and cheaper and the world is a smaller place ...so we are interacting daily with people from all over. The old norms and unspoken "rules" for fighting don't apply. People fight in a lot of different ways and you have to be prepared for whatever comes. Interestingly there's a term for that in Tagalog, "Bahala na!" ... A good attitide to have.

This is getting much closer to it! Although I would say that we're less culturally diverse, specifically because we're so globalised and more familiar with different cultural ideas and concepts... but we'll come back to that.

Yes, that is a very good point, with so many different cultures and peoples mixing in so many geographics and areas, it can be hard to establish what the "norms" are or will be at times in certain places; you need to be very on to it as to ascertaining who/what you are dealing with and the one approach (such as SD/diffusing tactic) will not be successful with all. This "bahala na" approach you speak of makes sense for any person to apply.

Sure, you'd need to be aware (as much as possible) of the cultural realities of wherever you are... but this still isn't dealing with the initial question itself. I also wouldn't class SD as "one approach", as it never is. Again, we'll come back to this.

I'm pretty much in agreement with what KSD said. People back then, had 2 arms and 2 legs, just like people of today have.

That's the thing, Mike, what they had isn't the question.... it's what they did with them, and how they did it that is. I mean, we have (basically... there are differences) the same bodies as our ancestors, but we dress differently, speak differently, move differently, walk differently, eat differently, and more.... which is really getting to the actual answer.

Things that probably have changed: the types of weapons used today, the method of attack that people use today, the mental state of people, etc.

Again, in part, yes... but this is like talking about different styles (what skirts and shoes are "in" this season) and trends rather than different basic forms of clothing... and, as such, is only a result of the actual differences and changes.

With MMA being a huge craze, the odds of potentially facing someone with varying degrees of skill, is also a possibility.

Skill? Not necessarily. Familiarity, yes.

I'm wondering what those ancient "unspoken rules" for fighting could possibly be. I've never heard people in the past fought - in self-defense situations - under any kind of rules.

There are always rules, some are enunciated, some are not. And no, I'm not talking about laws here (although those are certainly one form), I'm talking about social and cultural rules. People have always fought under them, whether you've heard it or not. The concept of social stigmas associated with transgressing these rules is not new, and is not to be underestimated... especially when looking into older accounts.

Actually I would say someone would possibly be more likely to use "cheap shots" in the old times than now, because common people nowadays generally have misconceptions about physical fighting created through movies and combat sports.

You might be very surprised, then.

Further, today we have very clear self-defense laws and they actually become a concern for someone who might fight for self-defense: knowing the right moment when to react - and when not to react - has probably become a more complicated issue, as well as being able to control oneself and avoid overreacting.

They are a concern, and should be addressed by self defence teachers, but in the moment, I really doubt that they're the most pressing thing in your head.

Generally, the advent of more universal and strict laws is an important difference concerning self-defense fighting today.

"Universal"? Actually, they're far from universal. Look at the different laws concerning firearms, stand-your-ground provisions versus duty-to-retreat, and so on. "Strict"? Depending on where and when you're talking about, current laws can be considered quite lenient... I mean, you don't get commanded to commit suicide by opening up your stomach for getting involved in a fight in a bar... 17th Century Japan, on the other hand....

Now, back to the original post again:

On many other threads there have been many posts that have mentioned 'modern self defence', 'modern violence', 'antiquated methods'. So what constitutes a modern attack, and why is it different from an antiquated one? How has violence changed over the centuries so that we need modern methods to combat it?

Let's take this piece by piece. What constitutes a modern attack? Well, pretty simply, it's an attack that can be reasonably expected to be encountered when involved in a modern (self defence) situation. The exact mechanics can range quite a bit, and might be one-on-one, a group against one, a group against another group (same size or smaller, commonly), it might involve weapons, it might not, it could be either social or asocial violence, and far more. Of course, none of this is unique to modern violence, but instead the way such things can happen. To understand how the "modern" aspect manifests itself, you need to go back a bit, though, and have a frame of reference outside of a single version of things. With that said, let's look at a contrast...

The biggest difference between old and new is largely to do with cultural context. And, as such, it's the same as between different contemporary systems from different countries. And, as a result, it's quite difficult to determine specific differences between "old" and "modern" attacks... you need to be far more specific. You can contrast old Japanese attacks with modern Western ones... old Chinese weapons with modern ones.... and so on. From there, of course, you need to understand the exact context of the system you're looking at... which can be rather specific. Martial arts are about fighting in one particular context, by and large, with each art having it's own context separate from others. The biggest problems I find is when people start to think that, just because they all deal with some form of fighting/violence, they're all dealing with the same context... which just isn't the case. MMA competition is a different context, and therefore a different approach and application of skills (both used and against), to a modern self-defence context... which itself can be any of a variety of different contexts (group, single, armed, unarmed, using improvised weapons or not, in public, in private, social or asocial violence, physical actions or emotional/intimidation methods, resource targeting, alcohol-fuelled venting, rage venting, road or otherwise, and so on and so forth), each of which require a different approach and response, different again to a duelling system and context (which again opens up to what form of duelling, armed or unarmed, socially regulated or not, to what end [death, injury, honour satisfaction/apology etc], culture and time period, legal restrictions and constraints, and more), to more "battlefield" contexts (which are commonly either to do with tactical lessons rather than practical combative methods, or simple combatively useful methods using common battlefield weapons of the day [bow and arrow, spears and pole arms etc], or a combination of both), to a self defence methodology (albeit still restricted or focused on the context of what self defence might have been for the systems historical applications and origins themselves, rather than the context of modern self defence needs), and so on. Simply thinking "well, self defence involves going against violent actions, so do martial arts, therefore it's the same thing" is to completely misunderstand both contexts.

So, why is a modern attack different from an antiquated one primarily by it's context and surrounding needs. This context gives different social cues, different senses of distance, different forms of attack, different pre-fight rituals, different restrictions and consequences, and so on. What exactly are the differences? Well, where are you talking about when you say "modern attacks"... the US? The UK? Australia? Japan? Brazil? Africa? Indonesia? Each of these will have some slight or large differences in all of the above areas... but they are getting closer and closer, particularly when the cultures are fairly alike (when it comes to media). With the globalization of many cultures, US television and movies being so prominent, as well as things like the UFC and boxing, the majority of people have been exposed (by movies and television) to very similar approaches to and representations of violence... pretty much everyone has an unconscious impression of what is "powerful", or what "works"... because it's what they see all around them (such as Western Hands/boxing handwork). This has lead to a more "generic", common approach found in many of the more developed cultures and societies around today... which can sometimes be seen as an indication that "we've always fought like this". No, we haven't. Even half a century ago, looking just at a single culture, violence has changed quite a bit. Go back further, and it's more removed (and, to be clear, I'm not just talking about physical "techniques" here). Take it to another country, another culture, and another place in time, and it can be almost unrecognisable.

Why do we need modern methods to deal with modern violence? Because that's what's suited to the needs of modern violence. An art that's designed to deal with a single, committed, probably armed attack from a distance just isn't designed to deal with a close-quarters, unarmed barrage. Thinking it is, because it's also dealing with "violence", is again, to just miss entirely the reality there.

 

[oftheherd1]

...

So, why is a modern attack different from an antiquated one primarily by it's context and surrounding needs. This context gives different social cues, different senses of distance, different forms of attack, different pre-fight rituals, different restrictions and consequences, and so on. What exactly are the differences? Well, where are you talking about when you say "modern attacks"... the US? The UK? Australia? Japan? Brazil? Africa? Indonesia? Each of these will have some slight or large differences in all of the above areas... but they are getting closer and closer, particularly when the cultures are fairly alike (when it comes to media). With the globalization of many cultures, US television and movies being so prominent, as well as things like the UFC and boxing, the majority of people have been exposed (by movies and television) to very similar approaches to and representations of violence... pretty much everyone has an unconscious impression of what is "powerful", or what "works"... because it's what they see all around them (such as Western Hands/boxing handwork). This has lead to a more "generic", common approach found in many of the more developed cultures and societies around today... which can sometimes be seen as an indication that "we've always fought like this". No, we haven't. Even half a century ago, looking just at a single culture, violence has changed quite a bit. Go back further, and it's more removed (and, to be clear, I'm not just talking about physical "techniques" here). Take it to another country, another culture, and another place in time, and it can be almost unrecognisable.

Why do we need modern methods to deal with modern violence? Because that's what's suited to the needs of modern violence. An art that's designed to deal with a single, committed, probably armed attack from a distance just isn't designed to deal with a close-quarters, unarmed barrage. Thinking it is, because it's also dealing with "violence", is again, to just miss entirely the reality there.

Do you think the differences you mention are in fact what make them similar? Differences in culture, time and place (the OP did not specify a time, place, or culture) will make a difference now as they would have then if two different cultures or social strata engaged with each other.

One thing that was mentioned was differences in fighting style. A boxer is an easy mark for most martial arts, unless the MA is forced to fight by boxing rules. Then the boxer should win. As a 'cave man,' if all you have is a club, no matter how good you are, a spear will be very dangerous to you.

 

[MJS]

That's the thing, Mike, what they had isn't the question.... it's what they did with them, and how they did it that is. I mean, we have (basically... there are differences) the same bodies as our ancestors, but we dress differently, speak differently, move differently, walk differently, eat differently, and more.... which is really getting to the actual answer.

Agreed, and that's what I was getting at in my post, when I mentioned method of attack. Odds are, the way things were done many years ago, has changed today.

Again, in part, yes... but this is like talking about different styles (what skirts and shoes are "in" this season) and trends rather than different basic forms of clothing... and, as such, is only a result of the actual differences and changes.

Umm...I think you lost me Chris. However, I think my answer was pretty clear and made sense. People existed years ago, just like today, however, the differences in the things I mentioned, should be clear.

Skill? Not necessarily. Familiarity, yes.

I disagree. You can have 2 people, 1 who is a backyard yahoo, who gets together with their friends, watches TUF and UFC, then heads out to the yard and mimics what they see, and 1 who goes to a MMA gym, trains under a coach, etc. The degrees of skill will be obvious, again, to anyone with a pair of eyes and common sense.

 

[Kframe]

Liking this thread.

All I can point to is Krabi Krabong and its sport offshoot Muay thai. One is newer, one is very old but most of mauy thai can be found in the syllabus of the old krabi krabong.

Watching old videos of early muay thai you can see how it was different from western violence. It had a distinct hands style, and worked nothing like western boxing. Then sometime later they adopted a large part of western boxing into the mauy thai syllabus and now you have modern muay thai that looks nothing like it did just 70+ years ago.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

On many other threads there have been many posts that have mentioned 'modern self defence', 'modern violence', 'antiquated methods'. So what constitutes a modern attack, and why is it different from an antiquated one? How has violence changed over the centuries so that we need modern methods to combat it?

I view both terms as misnomers. Really you have inclusive and exclusive.

A an exclusive art is just that; exclusive. It doesn't change to include new techniques or adapt to new threats. Each instructor seeks to be as true to what he or she was taught by his or her instructor. This creates a dynamic where body of techniques do not really change and where with the passage of time, the art develops no means to address circumstances that did not exist at the time that it was developed.

Some arts are exclusive by nature; a person trying to preserve an historical fighting art has aims that go beyond surviving his trip home.

An inclusive art is more adaptable. Techniques from outside are embraced when they compliment the art and defence methods adapt to keep pace with not only the changes in threats, but the changes in society. My sword skills are more than up to the task of dealing with an unarmed opponent. But swords are not carried as part of one's fashion and may not be legal to carry at all. So having 500 ways to defeat a mugger with a sword is rather pointless if I cannot carry it.

Bartitsu incorporates self defence with a bicycle. Useful for a cyclist, but not without the bicycle. However it does reflect that self defence at the time was inclusive of the development and use of the bicycle and addressed how one could defend one's self assailed while riding or walking the bike. Still useful today. However, tactics that involve advising one to walk in the middle of the road so as to have a better view of what might be along side the road and have time to react are not so applicable (though the principles are).

Modern self defence classes address things like cell phone usage, how one should handle parking a motor vehicle. These are elements that were not really a factor a century ago when motoring was in its infancy and cell phones did not exist. Some classes may even address things like internet usage, another thing that was inapplicable thirty years ago.

Additionally, physical training methods have changed a lot. Sports medicine is very different now than it was even thirty years ago and the physical training methods of today are much more scientific and focused than they were.

In my opinion, as KSD pointed out, a punch in the nose today is no different from a punch in the nose a thousand years ago. Human vital points are still in the same places and the human body still functions the same way. So an art developed two centuries ago, if inclusive, can remain very relevant and vital and avoid becoming antiquated or static.

 

[TKDTony2179]

Seems to me that every one do realize that time have change and that transportation have change. Meaning that I don't believe people were stealing your horse carriage like they do when they steal your car. Just more value in a car than a horse. Also the fact that culturally we see people attacking each others in a different manner. Some places are more violent than others. That is why you need to know about the place you are traveling to. I can let my guard down more in my home town rather than in a large city.

For example, I watched a video on fb and I saw somewhere in South America that a couple of guys got jumped. Three of them got away but two ending up brutally hacked and slashed from machetes. In that video no one is watching any of the cars approaching until it is to late. I although I watch and train from time to time to defend against multiple attackers, I don't see many reality fighting system even training against multiple attackers with weapons. So just show that you may not be prepared for everything.

Now can you learn to defend yourself against a sword? Possibly. Will you ever need that skill? Hardly every. But just shows you that how people are attack in Compton, California is not the same as in the jungle.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Now can you learn to defend yourself against a sword? Possibly. Will you ever need that skill? Hardly every. But just shows you that how people are attack in Compton, California is not the same as in the jungle.

We trained in unarmed defences against a sword in hapkido and geom beop. Though I am unlikely to run into a sword wielding opponent, a machette is available at Home Depot for less than ten dollars and the lessons of defence against a sword can be extrapolated to hand held weapons of greater than two or three feet in length.

 

[Chris Parker]

Do you think the differences you mention are in fact what make them similar? Differences in culture, time and place (the OP did not specify a time, place, or culture) will make a difference now as they would have then if two different cultures or social strata engaged with each other.

I'm not quite following you there.... are the differences what makes them the same? Uh... no. They're what make them different... or, more realistically, they are a way to define and recognize the differences. My point was more that the differences are to do with the cultures, part of which is the time period, part of which is the social structure and community values and beliefs.

One thing that was mentioned was differences in fighting style. A boxer is an easy mark for most martial arts, unless the MA is forced to fight by boxing rules. Then the boxer should win. As a 'cave man,' if all you have is a club, no matter how good you are, a spear will be very dangerous to you.

By "a boxer is an easy mark for most martial arts", if you mean it's easy for most martial arts to beat a boxer, I might disagree with that quite a bit... in no small part due to the boxers methodologies being more rooted in a closer context and culture to the application than most martial arts are... I'm not saying the boxer will definitely "win", but they're hardly going to be an "easy mark" either. Oh, and the cave man with a club can easily prevail over a spear.... depending on context... and the type of spear...

Agreed, and that's what I was getting at in my post, when I mentioned method of attack. Odds are, the way things were done many years ago, has changed today.

In society, yes. In the martial arts, not as much as you might think. There, martial arts are almost like a capsule (like a time capsule, but encapsulating far more than just the time period), so expecting that "things have changed, therefore martial arts have as well" isn't quite correct.

Umm...I think you lost me Chris. However, I think my answer was pretty clear and made sense. People existed years ago, just like today, however, the differences in the things I mentioned, should be clear.

I'll try to rephrase then.... you mentioned a few things that you say have changed over time (weapons, methods of attack etc), which is true.... however, the changing weapons and methods of attack are reflections of the culture that applied them. Certain weapons, attacks, tactical applications, environments etc are preferred due to the underlying culture itself, and it's values. So saying that weapons change over time (which is true) is really just looking at a direct response/reaction to the actual thing that changes, which is the culture itself. Those changes in culture influence the changes in weapons and attack methods, which can then (in turn) influence the culture one way or another, and so on back and forth. But it's really the culture that's the real crux of it.

I disagree. You can have 2 people, 1 who is a backyard yahoo, who gets together with their friends, watches TUF and UFC, then heads out to the yard and mimics what they see, and 1 who goes to a MMA gym, trains under a coach, etc. The degrees of skill will be obvious, again, to anyone with a pair of eyes and common sense.

Sure... but the odds aren't that you're coming up against the MMA guy, you're going to encounter the MMA fan... which is why I said familiarity, not skill, is likely.

I view both terms as misnomers. Really you have inclusive and exclusive.

Actually, I'd disagree with that, Daniel... I don't think there's really such a distinction, however there really is a genuine distinction between archaic/older methods and modern forms of violence.

A an exclusive art is just that; exclusive. It doesn't change to include new techniques or adapt to new threats. Each instructor seeks to be as true to what he or she was taught by his or her instructor. This creates a dynamic where body of techniques do not really change and where with the passage of time, the art develops no means to address circumstances that did not exist at the time that it was developed. Some arts are exclusive by nature; a person trying to preserve an historical fighting art has aims that go beyond surviving his trip home.

I don't think that has anything to do with "exclusive" or "inclusive", just to do with the values of the system itself. To go against it's values and principles would be to turn it into something else, really, which is the main reason not to. And, as I mentioned earlier, all arts are designed for dealing with/addressing a single context, or only a small number of contexts. No art deals with all, or even many contexts. Even those that you'd label as "inclusive".

An inclusive art is more adaptable. Techniques from outside are embraced when they compliment the art and defence methods adapt to keep pace with not only the changes in threats, but the changes in society. My sword skills are more than up to the task of dealing with an unarmed opponent. But swords are not carried as part of one's fashion and may not be legal to carry at all. So having 500 ways to defeat a mugger with a sword is rather pointless if I cannot carry it.

No, all that is is an art that has a value of looking at other things and taking ideas from outside. And, when all's said and done, that's still just sticking to an ideal of the art. The sword argument, honestly, isn't really much of anything here, other than showing that a context needs to be understood for an art to be considered valid in it's addressing of it.

Bartitsu incorporates self defence with a bicycle. Useful for a cyclist, but not without the bicycle. However it does reflect that self defence at the time was inclusive of the development and use of the bicycle and addressed how one could defend one's self assailed while riding or walking the bike. Still useful today. However, tactics that involve advising one to walk in the middle of the road so as to have a better view of what might be along side the road and have time to react are not so applicable (though the principles are).

Takenouchi Ryu teaches methods with umbrellas and cooking pots, so you know (dating from 1542...), EDO (Everyday Objects) are a common enough "modern" training concept as well... and older arts do change when they need to, or have a value to. Shinden Fudo Ryu Jutaijutsu/Jujutsu has a range of kata that were supposedly originally methods of Daisho Sabaki (movements where you and your opponent both have two swords) that were altered/adapted to be purely unarmed methods after the disbandment of the samurai ending the time of anyone wearing two swords... and that was the late 19th Century. I agree with principles being able to have application (almost) regardless of the context, but the actual application itself is rooted in the context, which is cultural.

Modern self defence classes address things like cell phone usage, how one should handle parking a motor vehicle. These are elements that were not really a factor a century ago when motoring was in its infancy and cell phones did not exist. Some classes may even address things like internet usage, another thing that was inapplicable thirty years ago.

Yep, agreed. And each of those is an element of the modern (Western) culture, when you look at it.

Additionally, physical training methods have changed a lot. Sports medicine is very different now than it was even thirty years ago and the physical training methods of today are much more scientific and focused than they were.

Hmm, they can be... depends on the system you're training in, really. Modern sporting systems? Yep, I'd certainly expect them to be taking full advantage of such advances... others, not so much (but most that I've seen in more recent sports science developments I can find analogues to in traditional methods.... just the way of explaining it seems to be different).

In my opinion, as KSD pointed out, a punch in the nose today is no different from a punch in the nose a thousand years ago. Human vital points are still in the same places and the human body still functions the same way. So an art developed two centuries ago, if inclusive, can remain very relevant and vital and avoid becoming antiquated or static.

Except that a punch to the nose today is a fair bit different to a punch to the nose back then... the effect is largely the same, but the delivery method can be very different. And, as such, in an art developed two centuries ago, it is very likely antiquated and less relevant.

Seems to me that every one do realize that time have change and that transportation have change. Meaning that I don't believe people were stealing your horse carriage like they do when they steal your car. Just more value in a car than a horse.

Not necessarily... speaking relatively, a horse might (at times) be far more valuable than a car is today.

Also the fact that culturally we see people attacking each others in a different manner. Some places are more violent than others. That is why you need to know about the place you are traveling to. I can let my guard down more in my home town rather than in a large city.

Sure, of course, that's only a part of it, and is to do with modern situations. It can be extrapolated back to older methods (and should be), of course.

For example, I watched a video on fb and I saw somewhere in South America that a couple of guys got jumped. Three of them got away but two ending up brutally hacked and slashed from machetes. In that video no one is watching any of the cars approaching until it is to late. I although I watch and train from time to time to defend against multiple attackers, I don't see many reality fighting system even training against multiple attackers with weapons. So just show that you may not be prepared for everything.

Look to RBSD systems, then.... just don't expect any guarantees even there....

Now can you learn to defend yourself against a sword? Possibly. Will you ever need that skill? Hardly every. But just shows you that how people are attack in Compton, California is not the same as in the jungle.

Yep, different cultures will have rather different approaches to violence.

We trained in unarmed defences against a sword in hapkido and geom beop. Though I am unlikely to run into a sword wielding opponent, a machette is available at Home Depot for less than ten dollars and the lessons of defence against a sword can be extrapolated to hand held weapons of greater than two or three feet in length.

Except that a sword attack and a machete attack are quite different mechanically, tactically, distance-wise, and more. A sword attack (as learnt when performing defences against them) will be a skilled, precise, controlled attack, largely to upper body targets, from an optimal distance for a sword. A machete attack, though, is more likely to be more frenzied, less controlled, less precise, less skilled, an attack of opportunity, with a weapon that is more blade heavy (giving the attack a very different rhythm and cadence), from a closer distance, and will target body extremities (initially), such as the arms and legs (legs are a very common machete target due to the primary "training" being using a machete to clear brush or similar, lending towards low chopping actions). While you can take some overall principles from sword defence, thinking that "I can defend against a sword, I can handle a machete" can be quite a mistake... there's really very little in common between them.

 

[oftheherd1]

I'm not quite following you there.... are the differences what makes them the same? Uh... no. They're what make them different... or, more realistically, they are a way to define and recognize the differences. My point was more that the differences are to do with the cultures, part of which is the time period, part of which is the social structure and community values and beliefs.

I was responding to your comment "So, why is a modern attack different from an antiquated one primarily by it's context and surrounding needs. This context gives different social cues, different senses of distance, different forms of attack, different pre-fight rituals, different restrictions and consequences, and so on" which I think is true throughout time and place." which since it will apply to all past times and all different places, make them of similar difference and similarity. Maybe I'm not expressing it well, but I believe those differences involve similarities.

By "a boxer is an easy mark for most martial arts", if you mean it's easy for most martial arts to beat a boxer, I might disagree with that quite a bit... in no small part due to the boxers methodologies being more rooted in a closer context and culture to the application than most martial arts are... I'm not saying the boxer will definitely "win", but they're hardly going to be an "easy mark" either. Oh, and the cave man with a club can easily prevail over a spear.... depending on context... and the type of spear...

Who said I was going to let a boxer get close to me? Why wouldn't I try to take out his legs before he is in striking range? That is not what a boxer trains against so he will be more vulnerable. To say otherwise would sound to me just to nit pick for an answer.

While I think I understand what you are trying to say about clubs vs spears, I disagree. As you mentioned about machetes, the club is a heavier weapon that relies on blunt force use. The spear allows the spear bearer to stay out of the range of the club to stride, so the club bearer must strike at the spear if it is thrust, and it may be withdrawn out of the range of the club before it is struck. While he is recovering, the spear bearer can then thrust with the spear, ending, or hastening the end of the fight. That will work even with a heavy shafted spear, since the only direction needed for attack would be forward and back. With a lighter more flexible spear shaft, other uses, defenses and attacks are possible. Mind you, I not an expert in either clubs or spears, but common sense seems to me to agree with what I say.

While I am at it, you comment on the machete is correct, but doesn't take into account training against the sword. There are slashes, at the side or top or bottom, as well as the downward cuts. In Hapkido, one is taught to move into the attack, normally allowing the defender to be inside the arc and unavailable to the sharp edge. Other methods may be used if one has the short stick available. I will grant, as you have perhaps heard me comment before, that speed and accuracy are paramount in Hapkido since one so often moves into the attack. But then aren't speed and accuracy important in all MA?

...


[/QUOTE]

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Actually, I'd disagree with that, Daniel... I don't think there's really such a distinction, however there really is a genuine distinction between archaic/older methods and modern forms of violence.

Of course there is such a distinction. And yes, there is a genuine distinction.

I don't think that has anything to do with "exclusive" or "inclusive", just to do with the values of the system itself. To go against it's values and principles would be to turn it into something else, really, which is the main reason not to.

Yes. Exclusive. Which is neither good nor bad, but still exclusive. You're welcome to disagree, but I stand by my post.

And, as I mentioned earlier, all arts are designed for dealing with/addressing a single context, or only a small number of contexts. No art deals with all, or even many contexts. Even those that you'd label as "inclusive".

Before I say that I agree or disagree with you, please elaborate on this point.

No, all that is is an art that has a value of looking at other things and taking ideas from outside. And, when all's said and done, that's still just sticking to an ideal of the art. The sword argument, honestly, isn't really much of anything here, other than showing that a context needs to be understood for an art to be considered valid in it's addressing of it.

I'd rather thought that that was what I was doing.

Takenouchi Ryu teaches methods with umbrellas and cooking pots, so you know (dating from 1542...), EDO (Everyday Objects) are a common enough "modern" training concept as well... and older arts do change when they need to, or have a value to. Shinden Fudo Ryu Jutaijutsu/Jujutsu has a range of kata that were supposedly originally methods of Daisho Sabaki (movements where you and your opponent both have two swords) that were altered/adapted to be purely unarmed methods after the disbandment of the samurai ending the time of anyone wearing two swords... and that was the late 19th Century. I agree with principles being able to have application (almost) regardless of the context,but the actual application itself is rooted in the context, which is cultural.

Sure. There are no doubt many such examples.

Yep, agreed. And each of those is an element of the modern (Western) culture, when you look at it.

I'm not sure what the relevance of your statement is to this conversation. Unless you're implying that eastern cultures don't use things like the internet, cell phones, or automobiles, which I don't think that you are. Those things are pretty well embedded in industrialized eastern cultures.

Hmm, they can be... depends on the system you're training in, really. Modern sporting systems? Yep, I'd certainly expect them to be taking full advantage of such advances... others, not so much (but most that I've seen in more recent sports science developments I can find analogues to in traditional methods.... just the way of explaining it seems to be different).

Sure. Apply as appropriate.

Except that a punch to the nose today is a fair bit different to a punch to the nose back then... the effect is largely the same, but the delivery method can be very different. And, as such, in an art developed two centuries ago, it is very likely antiquated and less relevant.

Regarding punches to the nose, or really punches in general, I disagree with you. Regarding the relevance of an art developed two centuries ago, that really depends on how adaptable and inclusive the art is. As I said, inclusive or exclusive.

Based on your statement, one could argue that Bujinkan Ninjutsu is very likely antiquted and less relevant (not an argument that I'm making). Would you say that that is an accurate statement? Or has the art adapted to address later methods of violence? If the answer to the second question is no, then you have an exclusive art. If the answer to the second question is yes, then you have an inclusive art.

Except that a sword attack and a machete attack are quite different mechanically, tactically, distance-wise, and more. A sword attack (as learnt when performing defences against them) will be a skilled, precise, controlled attack, largely to upper body targets, from an optimal distance for a sword. A machete attack, though, is more likely to be more frenzied, less controlled, less precise, less skilled, an attack of opportunity, with a weapon that is more blade heavy (giving the attack a very different rhythm and cadence), from a closer distance, and will target body extremities (initially), such as the arms and legs (legs are a very common machete target due to the primary "training" being using a machete to clear brush or similar, lending towards low chopping actions). While you can take some overall principles from sword defence, thinking that "I can defend against a sword, I can handle a machete" can be quite a mistake... there's really very little in common between them.

I made my comment the way that I did for the purposes of brevity. We trained for defence against more than one bladed weapon, more than one sword type, and attacks to the lower body. Just to be clear, I am not making the statement that if you can defend against a sword, you can automatically and without prior training handle a machete. In any cased, based on your statement regarding application of prinicples regardless of context, I would think that you'd get the point that I was making rather than compartmentalizing my statement. We're speaking on a very broad topic and I'm making, for the most part, fairly generalized statements.

 

[MJS]

In society, yes. In the martial arts, not as much as you might think. There, martial arts are almost like a capsule (like a time capsule, but encapsulating far more than just the time period), so expecting that "things have changed, therefore martial arts have as well" isn't quite correct.

So basically, nothing has to adapt or change? Am I understanding correctly? One would think though, that given the fact that change happens all the time, an art would change, even slightly, as well. I'll use the Bujinkan as an example. Your teacher trained in it for quite some time, correct? I understand he left, for reasons that I don't need to know, and you are now training under him. My questions are: has your teacher made changes to the art that he trained in? Do you/your teacher feel that the way things are currently taught in the Buj, are effective in todays world? To clarify, I'm talking about unaltered, no changes. If this is a sensitive topic, please feel free to PM me.

I'll try to rephrase then.... you mentioned a few things that you say have changed over time (weapons, methods of attack etc), which is true.... however, the changing weapons and methods of attack are reflections of the culture that applied them. Certain weapons, attacks, tactical applications, environments etc are preferred due to the underlying culture itself, and it's values. So saying that weapons change over time (which is true) is really just looking at a direct response/reaction to the actual thing that changes, which is the culture itself. Those changes in culture influence the changes in weapons and attack methods, which can then (in turn) influence the culture one way or another, and so on back and forth. But it's really the culture that's the real crux of it.

Ok, so if it's more a cultural thing...do you feel that things will still change or remain the same?

Sure... but the odds aren't that you're coming up against the MMA guy, you're going to encounter the MMA fan... which is why I said familiarity, not skill, is likely.

Ok, I can accept that. Of course, until things start to unfold, we might not know who we're facing...the fan or the actual student.

 

[wingchun100]

I haven't had time to read through every reply, so I apologize if I repeat.

There are certain weapons no longer in common use, although with proper training you could use those skills if you were holding an everyday item comparable to the "antiquated" weapons. Also, there are certain attacks that don't serve the same purpose: if a jump kick used to be for knocking people off horses, how would you use that today?

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I still don't buy the jump kick knocking off horsemen story, but you can use them in sport TKD today.

 

[oftheherd1]

I still don't buy the jump kick knocking off horsemen story, but you can use them in sport TKD today.

Horsemen or the kick?

It must be true, I've seen it in Korean movies.

I sure wouldn't want to do that against a swordsman with an unsheathed sword. I guess you could do it against an unarmed rider, or perhaps one armed with a spear and you were inside the arc of the spear. But in the movies I have seen that done in, and the clothing and equipment, they must have jumped from a trampoline.

I don't know for sure either way, but it surely takes tremendous strength, agility, and skill.