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.
Its complete to a point.
