Navarre
Master Black Belt
I'd be surprised if this hasn't been brought up before but I'm too lazy to research thousands of posts.
What is it that truly defines one martial arts style or system from another?
At first thought, a few characteristics come to mind:
Country of Origin:
It is generally easy to trace an art back to a given country. Karate is Japanese, Kung-Fu is Chinese, Tae Kwon Do is Korean, etc. Yet we are also aware of the influences so many arts of a given country have had from other countries. There are certainly some countries that have a martial art associated solely with them but I wonder how many were developed in complete isolation of anyplace else.
Traceable Lineage:
Similar to Country of Origin but referring to a direct line of "descendents" of the art in question. For those who study Jeet Kun Do or Kempo, this may be possible. For many other arts it is difficult or impossible.
Physical Technique:
To create a huge oversimplification, one might say that Tae Kwon Do relies on strength of the body and versatile kicks or that Aikido works on using the body's inertia drawn out into a wide circle before reversing back into a small circle to do damage. But we know that no art is quite that simple. Ultimately, all utilize body mechanics, the way the body responds under various physical conditions, to be effective. This would even apply in a broad sense to knife or other weapon arts because certainly the body responds in a certain way if a tendon is severed.
Philosophy:
Some arts are considered "hard" styles like Tae Kwon Do while others are soft like Aikido. Yet, at their heart, almost all martial arts are focused not solely on physical skill. They instead create an entire lifestyle to develop the mind, body, and spirit into a harmonious and enlightened whole.
Okay, I admit I'm one of those humanistic, free-love, world peace, we're-all-connected-in-spirit types. But I wonder sometimes if we become so distracted by the definition of our particular art that we isolate ourselves from other arts.
Various arts may have been developed in a certain country or by various individuals but they all had to work on the same principles. Human beings have certain emotional and spiritual similarities regardless of region. Most certainly, our physical bodies operate under the same principles of body mechanics.
The main advantage of having "distinctive" arts is that students of those arts feel a kinship to others of their system. Yet, for me, this creates some of the isolationism I referred to in the same way that white people should feel more kinship for other white people than with black people. (If I should have used a more "pc" term, sorry. That would only contradict my point. I'm not really white and black people aren't really black.)
Do those arts that remain firm on using only the techniques passed down through their given lineage do themselves an injustice? Is there any advantage in focusing on the same mental approach to combat through many generations instead of exploring all avenues?
Therefore, my question remains as to what truly defines a given art. Perhaps more to the point, Is there ultimately any reason to do so?
What is it that truly defines one martial arts style or system from another?
At first thought, a few characteristics come to mind:
Country of Origin:
It is generally easy to trace an art back to a given country. Karate is Japanese, Kung-Fu is Chinese, Tae Kwon Do is Korean, etc. Yet we are also aware of the influences so many arts of a given country have had from other countries. There are certainly some countries that have a martial art associated solely with them but I wonder how many were developed in complete isolation of anyplace else.
Traceable Lineage:
Similar to Country of Origin but referring to a direct line of "descendents" of the art in question. For those who study Jeet Kun Do or Kempo, this may be possible. For many other arts it is difficult or impossible.
Physical Technique:
To create a huge oversimplification, one might say that Tae Kwon Do relies on strength of the body and versatile kicks or that Aikido works on using the body's inertia drawn out into a wide circle before reversing back into a small circle to do damage. But we know that no art is quite that simple. Ultimately, all utilize body mechanics, the way the body responds under various physical conditions, to be effective. This would even apply in a broad sense to knife or other weapon arts because certainly the body responds in a certain way if a tendon is severed.
Philosophy:
Some arts are considered "hard" styles like Tae Kwon Do while others are soft like Aikido. Yet, at their heart, almost all martial arts are focused not solely on physical skill. They instead create an entire lifestyle to develop the mind, body, and spirit into a harmonious and enlightened whole.
Okay, I admit I'm one of those humanistic, free-love, world peace, we're-all-connected-in-spirit types. But I wonder sometimes if we become so distracted by the definition of our particular art that we isolate ourselves from other arts.
Various arts may have been developed in a certain country or by various individuals but they all had to work on the same principles. Human beings have certain emotional and spiritual similarities regardless of region. Most certainly, our physical bodies operate under the same principles of body mechanics.
The main advantage of having "distinctive" arts is that students of those arts feel a kinship to others of their system. Yet, for me, this creates some of the isolationism I referred to in the same way that white people should feel more kinship for other white people than with black people. (If I should have used a more "pc" term, sorry. That would only contradict my point. I'm not really white and black people aren't really black.)
Do those arts that remain firm on using only the techniques passed down through their given lineage do themselves an injustice? Is there any advantage in focusing on the same mental approach to combat through many generations instead of exploring all avenues?
Therefore, my question remains as to what truly defines a given art. Perhaps more to the point, Is there ultimately any reason to do so?