Complete martial arts?

[MJS]

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.

So going on this, does this leave any room for changes in the art?

 

[Rabu]

'martial art'

Hmmm.

'Of a military nature' combined with 'an expression in a medium'. Not to mention that 'art' by its very nature must have no practical application in order to be 'art'.

So the live action roleplaying people are the only ones with a 'complete' Martial Art.

More seriously though, what most of the above posters have said is good enough, imho.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Lasers and eye beams not offensive enough?

That is purely a matter of application, not intent or strategy.
Any weapon can be used for purely defensive or purely offensive purposes.
And learning to use any weapon for either purpose does not make you an expert at the other.

 

[Bruno@MT]

So going on this, does this leave any room for changes in the art?

I can only answer for Japanese systems. It is the responsibility of the soke (grandmaster and in normal circumstances also menkyo kaiden holder) to make changes to the art where necessary, but keeping the techniques etc in line with the underlying philosophies. He and only he can do that because he has both the authority (as soke) and the required understanding (as menkyo kaiden holder) to do so in a way that doesn't compromise the art itself.

That is why e.g. ninpo does not contain spinning jump kicks. They simply don't fit with the underlying principles of the art itself. It is not just a matter of shoving in new techniques, it is a matter of keeping the art consistent with itself when faced with changing requirements.

 

[Shin71]

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?

Everybody is going to have a different answer so I will say what I have done to complete my training .....to date.

I work out six to seven days a week and mix it up but I have my own program I follow but is aimed at maxing out the Army PFT but making me capable of trying out for ninja-warrior without looking like a pansy.

I find a martial art/system I like and do my best in getting as much out of it as I can. Being in the military I cannot always be in one spot all the time so I when I can I go to class, I stay late, arrive early and bug the instructor and other students during breaks and outside of class (without being a...). I worry less about combos than picking up the mechanics of the system.

In training I never miss a physical workout either before or after and often I will try and make the training harder by wearing weights on my ankles, wrists or both and I often train in my ACU's to include boots (even body armor) or I will show up in civillian clothes to see how it will differ.

I watch a lot of video and then I will watch it again with fellow MA's and non-MA's and throw questions out there. I even watch some of the MA movies to get an idea on potential techniques.

I compete a lot and as soon as I lose I stick around and watch other fights. If the fighter or his group is willing I ask them what I did wrong (I sometimes have a friend tape my fights).

I spar 2-3 times a week with my training group and at least half the time it is with a ranged fighter like a tang soo do or a TKD guy or I will pick a ground guy since my strong point is long to medium range and my ground game has always been weak.

I shoot a lot and compete in multi-gun matches as often as I can and go to as many armorer schools as I can afford; great resource on new ideas and contacts.

I also, since the military pays for it, take different classes as often as I can (mostly distance ed.) to keep the gears spinning on other topics so I dont burn out.

I have also begun volunteering with law enforcement agencies; I was a Reserve Officer in California and trying to do the same thing in Colorado, for the additional (free) training and real world experience outside of combat.

But in all of this I am single, frugal and in a line of work where I want to be the best I can be in the martial field.

 

[K-man]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?

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?


Quote:
Originally Posted by K-man
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.

Considered Krav but discarded it because normally it doesn't do a lot on the ground and in the civilian form, doesn't include firearms.

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.

And that's why


Quote:
Originally Posted by K-man
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.

Sorry Chris, totally disagree, with this point. The attacking methods of the time of the traditional martial arts were just as they are now. Pushing, finger poking, kicking, grabbing, punching, hitting with blunt objects, knives etc.

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.

Agree totally about the ground, but you still have to know what to do if you end up there. (nothing to do with armour - MA = civilian SD) Grappling by its very nature is in close so you have agreed with two of my three requirements.


Quote:
Originally Posted by K-man
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.

Agreed. But the OP was completeness. And if self defence isn't the measuring stick for a MA, what is?


Quote:
Originally Posted by K-man
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...


I qualified my statement because there are exceptions .. few and far between. As taught in most places, Aikido fails against resistance and does not include atemi. And all the holds, throws etc of Karate-jutsu have been removed in karate-do which was developed predominantly for fitness and then modified for sport.

Quote:
Originally Posted by K-man
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.

Have to disagree again. Cross training karate may cover different aspects more fully but in the main would be totally confusing. Stances are different, 'blocks' are different and even kata of the same origins are different. Katate-do, as practised in 99% or more of schools is incomplete if it is compared to Karate-jutsu. If Nin-jutsu became Nin-do you would have the same concerns I have. I have found Aikido great for adding back the missing elements. Jujutsu would be the alternative but has too much 'ground' for me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by K-man
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.

They must be special, because karate relies on 'predictive response'. When you are fighting more than one attacker you cannot use the system of the MA. You need to take them out on at a time. Against two or more attackers you are just fighting relying on the skills you have learned. You cannot have predictive response against multiple attackers.


Quote:
Originally Posted by K-man
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.

If you are on the ground with an attacker and he has a couple of mates, you are doomed .. effective or complete!

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.

What karate was and what karate is are as different as judo ond jujutsu.

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.

Not sure what you're saying here. The OP is purely complete or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by K-man
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.

Sorry, I regard MAs as forms of self defence. Boxing may be effective but it is not complete. Nor is judo. The OP was asking for complete MAs.
__________________

Interesting discussion.

 

[Chris Parker]

Oh, boy. This is going to take a while. Sorry.

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!

Hi, Brian,

I'd actually argue that all martial arts need to be complete in the first place, otherwise they won't have a firm basis to adapt and expand from.... okay, this is sounding like semantics, I know, but it's really not.

If there is not a complete base to the martial art, you end up simply adding bits of different other systems, and end up with a true mongrel of a martial art. And they never last. Complete doesn't mean "covers every technique and situation possible", at least not to me, it means that it is completely self-contained (in terms of it's philosophy), and internally consistent. Take some of the Bujinkan Ryu-ha, for instance: Koto Ryu has no kick defence, Togakure Ryu has no strike defence, Kukishinden Ryu has no weapon defence (in the Dakentaijutsu), and so on. But they are all complete systems in and of themselves, as they are internally consistent, and have complete guiding philosophies.

Continuing to expand and explore the combative applications possible is really only possible with a complete martial art. So IRT more than qualifies, I'd say! In fact, I'd go so far as to say part of the guiding philosophy of IRT is to continually develop it's technologies, and that only adds to it's internal consistency, and it's completeness!

So going on this, does this leave any room for changes in the art?

Well, Bruno got in before me this time, so I'll refer to his answer, and see if I can add to it. He didn't leave much room, though.....

I can only answer for Japanese systems. It is the responsibility of the soke (grandmaster and in normal circumstances also menkyo kaiden holder) to make changes to the art where necessary, but keeping the techniques etc in line with the underlying philosophies. He and only he can do that because he has both the authority (as soke) and the required understanding (as menkyo kaiden holder) to do so in a way that doesn't compromise the art itself.

That is why e.g. ninpo does not contain spinning jump kicks. They simply don't fit with the underlying principles of the art itself. It is not just a matter of shoving in new techniques, it is a matter of keeping the art consistent with itself when faced with changing requirements.

Yep, didn't leave much room at all.... as I wrote in another thread, it really depends on the system itself. Sticking with Koryu systems, some refuse to change at all, some only allow recovery of lost techniques, some allow adaptation and change on a regular basis (such as Araki Ryu). The thing really comes down to what the philosophy of the individual art itself is. But to give some examples:

Koryu change all the time. The important thing is that the essence remains pure, the methods of transmitting that essence are up to the Soke (or in some cases Shihanke or similar), as it is their responsibility to see that the teachings are best preserved and passed on to the next generation. If that is not possible, it is their responsibility to see to it that the art does not fall into disrepute by becoming something that it is not (hence Niita Sensei needing to approve the recovered Nagamakijutsu kata for Toda-ha Buko Ryu).

As said, Kim Taylor has a great article on the changes that occur: http://ejmas.com/pt/2009pt/ptart_taylor-3_0909.html

Techniques get lost (as in Katori Shinto Ryu, not recovered), recovered (Toda-ha Buko Ryu), added (Hontai Yoshin Ryu Iai), adapted (Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu) or even created (Shinto Muso Ryu's Gohon no Midare, created by Shimazu Sensei). Ryu get restructured and re-organised, changing the very order and make up of the technical curriculum, and even get renamed (Shinto Muso Ryu changed from Jojutsu to Jodo under Shimazu Sensei.... but even more dramatically, the most meticulously followed Ryu, Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu has been known variously during it's existance as Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu, Shinryo Shinto Ryu, Katori Shinto Ryu, Tenshinsho Den Shinto Ryu, and only came back to Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu at the end of the 1940's under the 19th Soke).

Essentially, a change to the curriculum does not mean necessarily a new Ryu, provided it is a congruent shift in accordance with the Ryu's teachings, instigated or at the very least supported by the head of the system at the time, and followed universally by all students of the Ryu itself. Ultimately it is up to the head of the Ryu as to whether or not to class changes as a new Ryu or not. The techniques are actually the least of all the aspects of a Ryu, and are not it's core. They do, however, spring from the true core of the Ryu itself. And so long as they do that, the Ryu remains pure and unadulterated, despite changes to the techniques or structure to the syllabus.

So, yes, they can change. In some cases, the philosophy will demand it. Sporting systems demand it. Military systems will demand it as well. And that change is part of the thing that makes that art complete in the first place.


Okay, onto the fun. Since K-man has taken my trademarked blue here, I'll go for red (this won't possibly get confusing, will it?).....

Originally Posted by 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?

Originally Posted by Chris Parker
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?


Quote:
Originally Posted by K-man
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.

Considered Krav but discarded it because normally it doesn't do a lot on the ground and in the civilian form, doesn't include firearms.

Well, Krav's focus on the ground is actually the same as ours, get up quickly! Focusing on the ground doesn't make it any more or less complete than anything else, really. Just for fun, at the end of this I'll go through everything I can think of that may be found in a "complete" system according to this definition.....

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.

And that's why


Quote:
Originally Posted by K-man
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.

Sorry Chris, totally disagree, with this point. The attacking methods of the time of the traditional martial arts were just as they are now. Pushing, finger poking, kicking, grabbing, punching, hitting with blunt objects, knives etc.

Sorry, K-man, but they do. Sword attacks are not common street attacks, and the methods of knife attack are very different. Grappling attacks focus on different methods of grabbing, with different body methods and so on. For example, something as simple as a grab and punch, if in a traditional system, typically involves a stepping action with the punch, whereas a modern attack will have the punch launched off the rear foot (no step). This changes the body shape, distance, available targeting, and more. A traditional attack resembles a modern one the same way a 16th Century costume resembles jeans and a t-shirt, and for much the same reasons.


Simply saying "well, a punch is a punch" is grossly over-simplifying the way these attacks (and by extension the defences) work.

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.

Agree totally about the ground, but you still have to know what to do if you end up there. (nothing to do with armour - MA = civilian SD) Grappling by its very nature is in close so you have agreed with two of my three requirements.

Well, the armour was explaining why few old Japanese systems cover the ground. But to say that MA = civilian SD, I feel, is to miss a huge part of what martial arts are. They are not civilian self defence, frankly. To begin with, I don't believe that any martial art is designed for self defence in the modern world at all. My reasons are documented here in a number of threads, so no point going over old ground.

But the other side of things is that they are not all civilian methods. A number of them are older military methods. Oh, and I used your three requirements as a frame of reference, not that I agreed with them as criteria for a complete martial art, by the way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by K-man
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.

Agreed. But the OP was completeness. And if self defence isn't the measuring stick for a MA, what is?

Er, everything I said above? Self defence is not the criteria that all martial arts can be judged by (I give you Iaido, Kyudo, Jodo, Kenjutsu, and more, just to begin with....)

Quote:
Originally Posted by K-man
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...


I qualified my statement because there are exceptions .. few and far between. As taught in most places, Aikido fails against resistance and does not include atemi. And all the holds, throws etc of Karate-jutsu have been removed in karate-do which was developed predominantly for fitness and then modified for sport.

But they remain true to their inherrant philosophy, and that is my definition of completeness, not whether or not all bases are covered. As others have said, if that is your definition, then it will be a long and fruitless search to find it.

Oh, and throws and locks can still be found in Karate (Iain Abernathy is a great source there), and there is atemi in Aikido. In fact, I believe Ueshiba was quoted once as saying it was the atemi that allows Aikido to work. These are just not the emphasised aspects. And the question then becomes why? Well, because they are martial arts, and that actually means, for most arts, combative effectiveness is not the main concern (particularly for Aikido). This is not to say that they are not effective, or that they cannot be so, but that they are more focused on something else. Because, really, if combative effectiveness was the only thing they had, none of these arts would still be around.

Quote:
Originally Posted by K-man
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.

Have to disagree again. Cross training karate may cover different aspects more fully but in the main would be totally confusing. Stances are different, 'blocks' are different and even kata of the same origins are different. Katate-do, as practised in 99% or more of schools is incomplete if it is compared to Karate-jutsu. If Nin-jutsu became Nin-do you would have the same concerns I have. I have found Aikido great for adding back the missing elements. Jujutsu would be the alternative but has too much 'ground' for me.

I didn't mean different forms of karate, more just different instructors in the one system. I agree that cross-training in different forms of karate would be confusing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by K-man
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.

They must be special, because karate relies on 'predictive response'. When you are fighting more than one attacker you cannot use the system of the MA. You need to take them out on at a time. Against two or more attackers you are just fighting relying on the skills you have learned. You cannot have predictive response against multiple attackers.

Yeah, we're pretty special, all right....

Quote:
Originally Posted by K-man
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.

If you are on the ground with an attacker and he has a couple of mates, you are doomed .. effective or complete!


My point was more that SD is not the single defining aspect of the worth of every and any martial art. It may be for you, but not for the rest of martial arts and martial artists.
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.

What karate was and what karate is are as different as judo and jujutsu.


Well, Judo is Jujutsu, just a different school, really.... And I stand by my comment that it is, and was, a generalist system.
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.

Not sure what you're saying here. The OP is purely complete or not.


Simply that the defining aspect of "completeness" can only be referenced internally within the art in question, and if it is a generalist system or specialist system, regardless of what it contains or doesn't, it can be considered a complete system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by K-man
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.

Sorry, I regard MAs as forms of self defence. Boxing may be effective but it is not complete. Nor is judo. The OP was asking for complete MAs.

You are, of course, absolutely free to do so. But what JKS was asking was what do WE consider "complete". And for me it has nothing to do with the SD "effectiveness", the technical curriculum, or anything similar. For you, it is obviously different. Agreed?


Interesting discussion.

That it is, my friend, that it is....

Now, just for fun, let's see what would have to be in a "complete" system if we are looking at technical curriculums, shall we?

Striking. Striking defences. Kicking. Kicking defences. Grappling. Grappling defences. Ground work. Ground defence. Weapon work, bladed (short). Weapon defence, bladed (short). Weapon work, blunt. Weapon defence, blunt. Weapon work, bladed (long). Weapon defence, bladed (long). Firearm defence (pistol). Firearm use (pistol). Firearm defence (shotgun). Firearm use (shotgun). Firearm defence (rifle). Firearm use (rifle). Pre-emptive tactics. Evasive tactics. Group tactics. Group defence tactics. Body guarding tactics. Protective driving tactics. Protection of others. Anti-surveilance. Verbal defusion. Recognising pre-fight indicators. Awareness drills. Intuition.

Sure I forgot a few things there... but for the record, almost everything there (as well as a lot pertaining to classical Japanese systems, such as spear work, staff work, and so on) have been covered by us in the last year or two. But we have no sparring, competitive aspect, or more, so according to many we are not complete either, as I haven't covered training drills as a method of completeness either.... So I prefer to look at what the art actually teaches, rather than the technical aspects it teaches through. But that's me.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Hey Chris,

I would have to completely agree that any system has to have a guiding philosophy and a way of movement to make it what it is. That philosophy plus the movement allows for them to then continually explore and grow and refine.

As always your posts are a joy to read!

 

[K-man]

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?

I think I'll start again. As Chris Parker has said, ALL systems as devised by their founders are complete because the founder put together a number of techniques and possibly philosophies in a package and taught it as a system. Assuming his successor taught exactly to that system it by definition is complete. Chris also said that complete doesn't equal effective and it's hard to argue that in this context.

Now, as to what I personally have done to make my training complete. What I have seen taught at the Jundokan in Okinawa, which is the school established by Eiichi Miyazato Sensei, the appointed successor of Chojun Myagi Sensei, is very different to the Goju Karate that I have seen taught in Goju karate schools elsewhere. It is hands on with focus on close contact and the reliance on kata as a blueprint for fighting. As a result of my personal observation, and what I've read in publications of Iain Abernethy, Rick Clark, and Laurence Kane & Chris Wilder, I believe that Goju karate was significantly changed to make it suitable for teaching in schools in Japan. The original karate-jutsu was changed to karate-do. What is being taught at the Jundokan is karate-jutsu. All I have seen in Goju in Australia is karate-do, propagated and promoted to enable competition in sport. My principle weakness was the locks and holds so I began training Aikido four years ago to remedy my perceived shortcomings.
Another shortcoming I identified was the absence of vital point striking in karate-do. I have studied Kyusho to put that aspect of accuracy in striking back into my training. Finally I am studying advanced applications as contained in the kata that are not taught in all the places I trained prior to about five years ago. Now I believe my training is as complete as I can make it. :asian:

 

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

No art is complete, being complete would mean you have all the answers and there is nothing else to add.

Now some arts are more comprehensive than others but even that has alot of room from Dojo to Dojo.

On it's surface BJJ is a component art about 90-95% grappling, Boxing is a component art mostly punches, blocks and footwork.
But you will find BJJ schools that do a good deal of standing work and add strikes and you might study Boxing with someone who understands and can pass on alot of the techniques and tactics for the street.

 

[Omar B]

I don't know why, but I think this guy has the answers.

 

[K-man]

No art is complete, being complete would mean you have all the answers and there is nothing else to add.

Now some arts are more comprehensive than others but even that has alot of room from Dojo to Dojo.

On it's surface BJJ is a component art about 90-95% grappling, Boxing is a component art mostly punches, blocks and footwork.
But you will find BJJ schools that do a good deal of standing work and add strikes and you might study Boxing with someone who understands and can pass on alot of the techniques and tactics for the street.

I'm with you. That was what I was saying in my original post, but if you read Chris' definition all styles are complete by that definition. (and, for what it's worth, within that definition comprehensive is not relevant.)

 

[Chris Parker]

You know, it makes it really hard to argue when you are agree with me! Well put, K-man.

 

[MJS]

I can only answer for Japanese systems. It is the responsibility of the soke (grandmaster and in normal circumstances also menkyo kaiden holder) to make changes to the art where necessary, but keeping the techniques etc in line with the underlying philosophies. He and only he can do that because he has both the authority (as soke) and the required understanding (as menkyo kaiden holder) to do so in a way that doesn't compromise the art itself.

That is why e.g. ninpo does not contain spinning jump kicks. They simply don't fit with the underlying principles of the art itself. It is not just a matter of shoving in new techniques, it is a matter of keeping the art consistent with itself when faced with changing requirements.

Yep, didn't leave much room at all.... as I wrote in another thread, it really depends on the system itself. Sticking with Koryu systems, some refuse to change at all, some only allow recovery of lost techniques, some allow adaptation and change on a regular basis (such as Araki Ryu). The thing really comes down to what the philosophy of the individual art itself is. But to give some examples:

Perhaps the confusion lies in the fact that I dont come from a Koryu background. I've had similar discussion with folks in the Kenpo section, on similar subjects, regarding the techniques. We could have 2 different Parker Kenpo schools, we could have 5 students from the same school...chances are, you'll see slight variations from everyone.

I teach things the way my teacher taught me. However, many times while running thru a kata, someone will notice I do something different. Now, IMO, if a change is made, fine, BUT, the change should be for the better, not the worse.

I dont think that Remy Presas and Ed Parker wanted their arts to stay stagnant, but instead to grow.

Now, if we go back to the Koryu arts for a moment... while we could say that a punch is a punch, a kick is a kick, a knife is a knife, and so on, I would say that the applications of things have changed. Were guns used when these arts were created? Are techs changed, modified, etc., to take into consideration that people will punch differently, move differently, possibly because body armor is no longer worn?

 

[Chris Parker]

Hey Mike,

Well, you certainly asked a mouthful there! Honestly, the answer is absolutely yes, definitively no, and most assuredly maybe. Then again, the answer is without a doubt sometimes, and quite often "it depends"! Aren't Koryu fun?

I'll go through in a bit more detail...

Perhaps the confusion lies in the fact that I dont come from a Koryu background. I've had similar discussion with folks in the Kenpo section, on similar subjects, regarding the techniques. We could have 2 different Parker Kenpo schools, we could have 5 students from the same school...chances are, you'll see slight variations from everyone.

Really, in essence that is no different in Koryu. The kata should remain the same, but the individual performing it will naturally have their own expression, based on their individual body type, limb length etc, and that of their training partners, as well as their individual experience and skill level, and their personalities (yes, that does make a slight difference here).

A good case study is the two dominant factions of Katori Shinto Ryu, the Otake Dojo (mainline), and the Sugino Dojo. If you know what you are looking for, there are some fairly big differences between the ways both dojo teach the kata (different use of hips etc), mainly due to the different instructors (Sugino having an extensive background in Judo and Aikido, and stating that the reason he was so skilled in Kenjutsu was that everything [for him] comes from Taijutsu. His son, Sugino Yukihiro, is a highly skilled Aikidoka, keeping the tradition of Taijutsu being used as a base, or at least a reference, for the expression of Katori Shinto Ryu). The difference even extends to the particular training weapons used, with the Sugino Dojo using smaller weapons, most notably the Naginata (a "regular" naginata, rather than the very large "O Naginata" of the Otake Dojo) due to Sugino Sensei being smaller in stature than Otake Sensei.

It has even been spoken of that the four previous Shihan who taught both Otake and Sugino Sensei each had their own personal expressions of the kata of the Ryu. Individual expression is essential to keep the techniques alive, really. That said, that doesn't mean the order of the cuts, the footwork, or any of the technical details of the kata are allowed to be changed. Just the way they are performed.

I teach things the way my teacher taught me. However, many times while running thru a kata, someone will notice I do something different. Now, IMO, if a change is made, fine, BUT, the change should be for the better, not the worse.

Yes. The thing is, does the person making the change have all the facts and reasons for why the kata was done in the original way in the first place? Here is where the Menkyo Kaiden system comes into it, ensuring that only those who have been given the entire system (including the reasons for the actions, which are not always apparent when you are learning the movements) are in a position to affect any changes. Once they have Menkyo Kaiden, though, they are able to do so. That said, if changes are made, that may not be recognised as the same Ryu anymore (up to the current Soke/Iemoto), so the decision to make changes is not to be taken lightly.

Then there are Koryu systems that encourage pressure testing in order to keep the syllabus "pure" in terms of it's application (Araki Ryu Kogusoku). That is the rarity within Koryu, though, and has lead to Araki Ryu being rather odd in it's branching system, with each Menkyo Kaiden being expected to essentially form their own branch! Not all will, and many will continue to teach using the name of the branch they learnt, but realistically they should be new branches. For example, Ellis Amdur is licenced in Araki Ryu, and he continues to use the name and form he was taught, although he employs pressure testing and adrenaline based training to constantly look for improvements to the Ryu he is a part of.

I dont think that Remy Presas and Ed Parker wanted their arts to stay stagnant, but instead to grow.

Okay, without getting too much into the psychology here, the main reason is most likely cultural. In the West, we value innovation, improvement, advancement in technologies etc. The Eastern cultures, especially Japan, values tradition, and keeping things the way they are. The attitude isn't "what can we do better today?", it's more "If it worked for my great-granddad, it's good enough for me!".

The other thing to realise is that you are comparing very modern systems, wanting to speak to a modern audience/student base, with old systems, centuries past their practical usage, which are there to appeal to those wanting to preserve older teachings.

Now, if we go back to the Koryu arts for a moment... while we could say that a punch is a punch, a kick is a kick, a knife is a knife, and so on, I would say that the applications of things have changed. Were guns used when these arts were created? Are techs changed, modified, etc., to take into consideration that people will punch differently, move differently, possibly because body armor is no longer worn?

Realistically, "a punch is a punch..." doesn't really apply to Koryu. For one thing, you are dealing with a system that is designed to preserve old training and teaching methods, with old-style attacks and defences. And that kinda rules out the idea of taking into account the different applications and attacking methods. But what the Koryu are more concerned with are preserving their teaching methods, not how to punch and kick (aside from that making up the kata themselves). This is why when someone copies a kata from a Koryu system, they are labeled "kata thieves". Often they try a defence along the lines of "well, you can't copyright human movement.... you can't say that this particular cut belongs only to this Ryu..... ", which completely fails to take into account what the Koryu actually are, or why that particular defence is completely invalid.

In terms of firearms, when they were introduced, yes, there certainly was adaptation there. There are numerous examples of armour being designed to be "bullet-proof" (with often less-than-effective results...), and there are Koryu who include firerarms in their teachings. In fact, schools such as Morishige Ryu are only really the use of firearms. Of course, being Koryu, the design of their guns haven't changed since the late 1600's, and they often do their demonstrations in full armour (although not in this clip):

When it comes to changing the actions based on armour not being worn anymore, the Yagyu Shingan Ryu may be a good example there.... there are two main branches of Yagyu Shingan Ryu, the first is Yagyu Shingan Ryu Heiho, and teaches and demonstrates in armour, and the other is the Edo line, Yagyu Shingan Ryu Taijutsu (or Goto-ha Yagyu Shingan Ryu). The technical make up of each school is similar, but the expression is a little different.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAbq61LxhaY&feature=related (This is the Heiho variant... not the best, but shows how the "armoured" kata is performed out of armour. Note the "flip" at the end....)

(this is the Goto-ha Taijutsu branch, and tend to do their performances suhada [plain clothes]. Note that the flipping action at the end is not present, although there is a "lifting" action. Both these actions are representative of the same movement, dropping the enemy on their head).

So although this is an armour based school, it is trained out of armour, and sometimes demonstrated in armour, sometimes out of it, and techniques are changed to suit. This is one of the challenges in watching Koryu, you won't always know if you are watching something that should have very different context to the one you are watching it in....



PS. Feel free to turn these clips into embedded ones, can't remember how to do that!

 

[Balrog]

For limited definitions of complete....

 

[pmosiun1]

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?

It depend on the person. If you are happy with only a striking art or a grappling. Then it is complete. Some might say a mixed of both is complete, but some would say without knowledge in using armed weapon, it is not complete. Different people, different definition of what makes a complete martial art.

 

[MJS]

Hey Mike,

Well, you certainly asked a mouthful there! Honestly, the answer is absolutely yes, definitively no, and most assuredly maybe. Then again, the answer is without a doubt sometimes, and quite often "it depends"! Aren't Koryu fun?

I'll go through in a bit more detail...



Really, in essence that is no different in Koryu. The kata should remain the same, but the individual performing it will naturally have their own expression, based on their individual body type, limb length etc, and that of their training partners, as well as their individual experience and skill level, and their personalities (yes, that does make a slight difference here).

A good case study is the two dominant factions of Katori Shinto Ryu, the Otake Dojo (mainline), and the Sugino Dojo. If you know what you are looking for, there are some fairly big differences between the ways both dojo teach the kata (different use of hips etc), mainly due to the different instructors (Sugino having an extensive background in Judo and Aikido, and stating that the reason he was so skilled in Kenjutsu was that everything [for him] comes from Taijutsu. His son, Sugino Yukihiro, is a highly skilled Aikidoka, keeping the tradition of Taijutsu being used as a base, or at least a reference, for the expression of Katori Shinto Ryu). The difference even extends to the particular training weapons used, with the Sugino Dojo using smaller weapons, most notably the Naginata (a "regular" naginata, rather than the very large "O Naginata" of the Otake Dojo) due to Sugino Sensei being smaller in stature than Otake Sensei.

It has even been spoken of that the four previous Shihan who taught both Otake and Sugino Sensei each had their own personal expressions of the kata of the Ryu. Individual expression is essential to keep the techniques alive, really. That said, that doesn't mean the order of the cuts, the footwork, or any of the technical details of the kata are allowed to be changed. Just the way they are performed.

So this still reads to me that there is little room for change. Ex: If techique #1 has the moves going a then b then c then d, that a student couldn't perform them as c,b,a,d? Still doing all the moves, just a different order.

Yes. The thing is, does the person making the change have all the facts and reasons for why the kata was done in the original way in the first place? Here is where the Menkyo Kaiden system comes into it, ensuring that only those who have been given the entire system (including the reasons for the actions, which are not always apparent when you are learning the movements) are in a position to affect any changes. Once they have Menkyo Kaiden, though, they are able to do so. That said, if changes are made, that may not be recognised as the same Ryu anymore (up to the current Soke/Iemoto), so the decision to make changes is not to be taken lightly.

Then there are Koryu systems that encourage pressure testing in order to keep the syllabus "pure" in terms of it's application (Araki Ryu Kogusoku). That is the rarity within Koryu, though, and has lead to Araki Ryu being rather odd in it's branching system, with each Menkyo Kaiden being expected to essentially form their own branch! Not all will, and many will continue to teach using the name of the branch they learnt, but realistically they should be new branches. For example, Ellis Amdur is licenced in Araki Ryu, and he continues to use the name and form he was taught, although he employs pressure testing and adrenaline based training to constantly look for improvements to the Ryu he is a part of.

This I can agree 100% with. Again, as I said, it all comes down to 'does the change make sense'? For example...I'm 5'10. Lets say I'm working with a person who is 5'3. The tech. we're doing requires me to do an elbow to the persons ribs. Well, unless I change my stance, body posture, etc., I probably wont hit the ribs, so instead, I change the target to the head. Makes sense. Now, if I totally re-wrote the tech, taking out the elbow, replacing it with something else, yeah, I better be able to justify why the change is better than that elbow. When I teach that tech, I tell people where the shot is supposed to go...but, I also tell them to take into consideration height, weight, the fact that the person probably isnt going to stand like a statue while I blast away.

I look at some of the empty hand kata that we have, talk to different teachers, and some of the things really leave me scratching my head, wondering, "Ummm...what the hell is this??"

Okay, without getting too much into the psychology here, the main reason is most likely cultural. In the West, we value innovation, improvement, advancement in technologies etc. The Eastern cultures, especially Japan, values tradition, and keeping things the way they are. The attitude isn't "what can we do better today?", it's more "If it worked for my great-granddad, it's good enough for me!".

The other thing to realise is that you are comparing very modern systems, wanting to speak to a modern audience/student base, with old systems, centuries past their practical usage, which are there to appeal to those wanting to preserve older teachings.

Points taken, however, whether or not it works/worked for my teacher, my teachers teacher, or 10 other people, what I need to know, is whether or not it works for me. I do understand that some people do like to keep tradition, etc., but IMO, and again, this is just my opinion, but I feel that it is important to stay with time times. That may not be the popular view, and thats fine.

Realistically, "a punch is a punch..." doesn't really apply to Koryu. For one thing, you are dealing with a system that is designed to preserve old training and teaching methods, with old-style attacks and defences. And that kinda rules out the idea of taking into account the different applications and attacking methods. But what the Koryu are more concerned with are preserving their teaching methods, not how to punch and kick (aside from that making up the kata themselves). This is why when someone copies a kata from a Koryu system, they are labeled "kata thieves". Often they try a defence along the lines of "well, you can't copyright human movement.... you can't say that this particular cut belongs only to this Ryu..... ", which completely fails to take into account what the Koryu actually are, or why that particular defence is completely invalid.

In terms of firearms, when they were introduced, yes, there certainly was adaptation there. There are numerous examples of armour being designed to be "bullet-proof" (with often less-than-effective results...), and there are Koryu who include firerarms in their teachings. In fact, schools such as Morishige Ryu are only really the use of firearms. Of course, being Koryu, the design of their guns haven't changed since the late 1600's, and they often do their demonstrations in full armour (although not in this clip):

When it comes to changing the actions based on armour not being worn anymore, the Yagyu Shingan Ryu may be a good example there.... there are two main branches of Yagyu Shingan Ryu, the first is Yagyu Shingan Ryu Heiho, and teaches and demonstrates in armour, and the other is the Edo line, Yagyu Shingan Ryu Taijutsu (or Goto-ha Yagyu Shingan Ryu). The technical make up of each school is similar, but the expression is a little different.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAbq61LxhaY&feature=related (This is the Heiho variant... not the best, but shows how the "armoured" kata is performed out of armour. Note the "flip" at the end....)

(this is the Goto-ha Taijutsu branch, and tend to do their performances suhada [plain clothes]. Note that the flipping action at the end is not present, although there is a "lifting" action. Both these actions are representative of the same movement, dropping the enemy on their head).

So although this is an armour based school, it is trained out of armour, and sometimes demonstrated in armour, sometimes out of it, and techniques are changed to suit. This is one of the challenges in watching Koryu, you won't always know if you are watching something that should have very different context to the one you are watching it in....



PS. Feel free to turn these clips into embedded ones, can't remember how to do that!

See above. That should address this part as well.

 

[Josh Oakley]

Here is Princeton's definition of "complete"

come or bring to a finish or an end; "He finished the dishes"; "She completed the requirements for her Master's Degree"; "The fastest runner finished the race in just over 2 hours; others finished in over 4 hours"
having every necessary or normal part or component or step; "a complete meal"; "a complete wardrobe"; "a complete set of the Britannica"; "a complete set of china"; "a complete defeat"; "a complete accounting"
bring to a whole, with all the necessary parts or elements; "A child would complete the family"
perfect and complete in every respect; having all necessary qualities; "a complete gentleman"; "consummate happiness"; "a consummate performance"
dispatch: complete or carry out; "discharge one's duties"
accomplished: highly skilled; "an accomplished pianist"; "a complete musician"
arrant(a): without qualification; used informally as (often pejorative) intensifiers; "an arrant fool"; "a complete coward"; "a consummate fool"; "a double-dyed villain"; "gross negligence"; "a perfect idiot"; "pure folly"; "what a sodding mess"; "stark staring mad"; "a thoroughgoing villain ...
write all the required information onto a form; "fill out this questionnaire, please!"; "make out a form"
having come or been brought to a conclusion; "the harvesting was complete"; "the affair is over, ended, finished"; "the abruptly terminated interview"
based on this definition of complete I doubt that a complete martial art is possible.

 

[ap Oweyn]

I don't think it much matters whether an art can be considered complete or not. An art only exists as it's operationalized by its practitioners. You could have an art that covered punching, kicking, trapping, groundfighting, archery, firearms, and bladed and blunt weaponry of various sorts, and tactics. But how much time would someone be getting to internalize all that information? Just because it's on the menu, doesn't mean you're going to get to eat it.

We have to make decisions. Breadth versus depth. Specialized versus generalized. Etc. And, in this day and age, we're pretty well able to draw from various influences. The appeal of a complete art is one stop shopping. Everything you need in one place, with a common thread running through it to make sure that things gel correctly.

But the concept of crosstraining is prevalent enough, in my experience, that drawing from various sources and synthesizing them really isn't a big fuss.

So the real question, in my view, is how complete are you?


Stuart