Intellectualising Martial Arts?

[Damien]

What do you all think about intellectualising martial arts?

Some systems were created/evangelised by illiterate people, others by those who could read and write, and even had the social standing to publish books.

I personally think that sometimes really analysing what you are doing and pulling things apart can lead to a greater understanding, which is especially important when teaching.

These last few weeks for example, I've been thinking about stances more than any sane person would, in the process of writing a Shaolin kung fu stance guide. I've ended up drawing on concepts I explored in my PhD to explain them. I'm attempting to make something which is simultaneously easy to grasp for beginners, but allows those with more experience to really understand how and why stances are used.

It's a very fine line, but one which I don't think I'd be able to walk without thinking deeply on the subject.

So what do you reckon? Think deeply, or just go hit stuff?

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Some systems were created/evangelised by illiterate people, others by those who could read and write, and even had the social standing to publish books.

Really? From my understanding most of those that actually created systems/styles were scholars in some sort. What systems were known to be created by someone illiterate?

 

[Flying Crane]

My personal opinion is that people often overthink this stuff and make combat more complicated than it really is or needs to be.

However in developing good technique, the details matter.

 

[Damien]

Really? From my understanding most of those that actually created systems/styles were scholars in some sort. What systems were known to be created by someone illiterate?

There are lots of small styles in rural regions of China which have only ever been practiced by people living within a small area, at least until relatively recently. You don't get many scholars living out there. The more well known ones are more likely to have been created or spread by scholars though, as they have the time influence and money to do so.

Now there is an assumption there that these people were illiterate, but hundreds of years ago, most people in China would have been. One of the reasons Pinyin was pushed by the government in the 50s was to improve literacy rates.

 

[drop bear]

I am a fan of intellectualising martial arts.

but i am not a fan of rationalising martial arts.

 

[punisher73]

The "problem" is that good martial arts are a kinesthetic learning. You have to "feel" what it is like to have your structure in alignment versus not in alignment for example. This was the original learning method. Body learns it first to understand it. Now too often, people get an intellectual understanding based on an explanation and never work it enough to get their body to understand it. My instructor often says that "until you have put a gallon of sweat into a technique you don't really understand it".

Throw the "perfect punch" and it feels effortless when everything works together. Many beginners have it completely backwards and when they say that their punch "felt strong/powerful" what they are actually telling you usually is that they had a lot of tension and their own body was reabsorbing the energy it was creating (mechanical/kinetic not "chi").

But, I think that good theory and explanations are good for a more intermediate/advanced student to understand intellectually why it is they are doing things a certain way.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Some systems were created/evangelised by illiterate people, others by those who could read and write, and even had the social standing to publish books.

Most Eastern masters were from the aristocratic class and were indeed educated, or at least literate. But beyond giving them basic tools of organized thought, did that come into play in the development of MA? Did they employ higher mathematics to compute stress tolerances, acceleration, momentum, velocity and force? I don't think so.

While in modern times we can do it - We even have an engineer or two on this forum that have explained such things to us (I usually skip those posts or risk dozing off. ). Maybe looking at the physics now can help us understand why a certain move works effectively and be entertaining to some, and perhaps merely appreciated by others, but I don't think it really helps us to any great extent in execution. The "right" way has been pretty much discovered and refined thru centuries of field-tested trial and error.

BUT, the above deals with physics. There is the physiological aspect to consider. This is where the education of the MA founders came into play. By the early 1000's, Chinese physicians had mapped out chi meridians on the human body. Three hundred years later, acupuncturist and Shaolin martial artist, Zhang Sanfeng, studied how such knowledge could be used to identify "vital areas" most vulnerable to attack. Yang Yiyuan came up with the method of attacking 36 vital points in the 1600's. This led to Dim Mak and principles used in original ju-jutsu and, later, karate.

Intellectualism certainly came into play in the expansion of karate to Japan. Itosu was not that well educated, so Funakoshi, a refined teacher, was designated to present karate to the government's board of education.

It doesn't take a genius to do well in MA. Understanding and studying the basic principles is needed. While more intellectual study can be rewarding, it is physical practice and mental attitude that will carry the day.

 

[Gyakuto]

It’s ‘horses for courses’, Damien. I have a teacher who is, highly educated, intelligent, articulate and able to explain very complex ideas in a novel way. Naturally, he attracts students who appreciate this type of ‘dissection’ and we have a neuroscientist/anatomist/physiologist (me!🙂) a professor of engineering, an ESA astroscientist, a general surgeon, a documentary film maker etc. However, at national seminars those less able to understand things in an analytical manner, dislike his teaching stating that it’s too wordy and they ”...wanna to do 745 reps of each kata while being shouted at…” (hell yeah! 🙄)

I generally find the martial arts world is anti-intellectual (in fact, recent years have suggested the whole world seems to be generally anti-intellectual!). Perhaps this is because of the types of people who ‘made it to the top’ and steered things in their preferred direction, or because of Zen-influenced Japanese Budo, (Zen: where intellectualising is looked down upon compared to ‘direct experience’).

Nice topic, Damien!

 

[Buka]

These last few weeks for example, I've been thinking about stances more than any sane person would,

So what do you reckon? Think deeply, or just go hit stuff?

Love this post, really love the above two lines.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Nothing wrong with intellectualizing.... just as long as it is not a substitute for actual training

 

[Xue Sheng]

There are lots of small styles in rural regions of China which have only ever been practiced by people living within a small area, at least until relatively recently. You don't get many scholars living out there. The more well known ones are more likely to have been created or spread by scholars though, as they have the time influence and money to do so.

Now there is an assumption there that these people were illiterate, but hundreds of years ago, most people in China would have been. One of the reasons Pinyin was pushed by the government in the 50s was to improve literacy rates.

Many of those that were able to write about their martial arts tended to use metaphors as descriptions since a Chinese metaphor was known by many. But don't know the metaphor and it is not as obvious. Example: "Jīngāng dǎo duì", 金刚捣碓 (Buddha's Warrior Attendant Pounds Mortar). Makes a lot of sense to Chinese from times gone by and even Chinese today. Not so much to your average westerner. It is a description in few words

 

[hoshin1600]

Who says you can't do both, I like to hit things but I don't know many people who dig into things as deeply as I do.
I do find most martial artists only view their art on a superficial level. That's ok, it's fun to hit things. I like to dig deep and think hard.
One analogy is a car. We all know what a car is. Conceptually a car is a thing that takes you from one place to another. That is until the car stops working. Then I'm on the side of the road with the hood up and I realize I have no freaking clue what a car is.
Same for MA you can use it as a vehicle or you can pull the thing apart and spend your time looking at every little component. how it works, why it works, what can go wrong and the history that went into it.
Problems can arise when you are only looking and thinking about abstractions and its easy to confuse the map from the land.

 

[skribs]

For me, a lot of things are dependent on the experience level of the fighter. Cross-training is a similar example. In general, I don't think beginners should cross-train, because all you're doing is adding a second firehose to drink from. But for someone with a lot of experience, cross-training can be a great way to fill gaps, build new skills, or just to avoid burnout from doing the same thing over and over.

As far as intellectualizing martial arts, it again depends on how much you're training, and how much you've trained. Someone who's only training an hour a week for a month, and then off for two months, you would be served much better by going out and hitting stuff. If you're regularly training several times a week, or if you have a lot of experience behind you, then you have time to intellectualize it.

 

[Damien]

Most Eastern masters were from the aristocratic class and were indeed educated, or at least literate. But beyond giving them basic tools of organized thought, did that come into play in the development of MA? Did they employ higher mathematics to compute stress tolerances, acceleration, momentum, velocity and force? I don't think so.

It doesn't take a genius to do well in MA. Understanding and studying the basic principles is needed. While more intellectual study can be rewarding, it is physical practice and mental attitude that will carry the day.

You're right it certainly doesn't take a genius! I didn't necessarily mean applying maths etc. but the way in which you explain things, such as subtle differences between techniques or detailed explanation on how to do them correctly. Sometimes I feel that in modern sports arts this is overlooked. Having trained with 6 different Muay Thai coaches and 3 boxing coaches (some only a couple of times), there definitely is a trend of here's the move, go do it.

It’s ‘horses for courses’, Damien. I have a teacher who is, highly educated, intelligent, articulate and able to explain very complex ideas in a novel way. Naturally, he attracts students who appreciate this type of ‘dissection’ and we have a neuroscientist/anatomist/physiologist (me!🙂) a professor of engineering, an ESA astroscientist, a general surgeon, a documentary film maker etc. However, at national seminars those less able to understand things in an analytical manner, dislike his teaching stating that it’s too wordy and they ”...wanna to do 745 reps of each kata while being shouted at…” (hell yeah! 🙄)

I generally find the martial arts world is anti-intellectual (in fact, recent years have suggested the whole world seems to be generally anti-intellectual!). Perhaps this is because of the types of people who ‘made it to the top’ and steered things in their preferred direction, or because of Zen-influenced Japanese Budo, (Zen: where intellectualising is looked down upon compared to ‘direct experience’).

Nice topic, Damien!

Sounds like my kind of teacher!

Yeah I agree a lot of people do just want to hit stuff. When teaching I try to keep things as clear and practical as I can, but some things just aren't easily explained unless you go into detail. I had to think for quite a long time about how to best articulate the differences between Gong Bu and Yao Bu and why the two stances exist, because on the surface they do look very similar; which is why not many people within Shaolin have even heard of Yao Bu these days.

 

[Damien]

Many of those that were able to write about their martial arts tended to use metaphors as descriptions since a Chinese metaphor was known by many. But don't know the metaphor and it is not as obvious. Example: "Jīngāng dǎo duì", 金刚捣碓 (Buddha's Warrior Attendant Pounds Mortar). Makes a lot of sense to Chinese from times gone by and even Chinese today. Not so much to your average westerner. It is a description in few words

Completely agree. One of the ways I've defined stances is as simply a short hand description for a certain position. It doesn't quite capture the essence of it for all of them, but for others I feel it does. Why say, "stand on one leg, keep your hips square, lift the other knee up to hip height, point your toes on the lifted foot" when you can just say "do jin ji du li", possibly with some extra on the precise variation.

Of course forms/techniques that have been recorded with poems and have been largely forgotten of mis-taught over time can be hard to fully recover when literal language hasn't been used! As long as your tradition stays vibrantly alive though it shouldn't be a problem. I do wonder how things will change with more and more westerners learning and teaching these eastern arts. Will the terminology change? Wil the meaning behind it get lost? Or will everyone just have to keep learning pieces of a foreign language? I'd hope for the latter; it's a useful extra skill after all

 

[Damien]

Who says you can't do both, I like to hit things but I don't know many people who dig into things as deeply as I do.
I do find most martial artists only view their art on a superficial level. That's ok, it's fun to hit things. I like to dig deep and think hard.
One analogy is a car. We all know what a car is. Conceptually a car is a thing that takes you from one place to another. That is until the car stops working. Then I'm on the side of the road with the hood up and I realize I have no freaking clue what a car is.
Same for MA you can use it as a vehicle or you can pull the thing apart and spend your time looking at every little component. how it works, why it works, what can go wrong and the history that went into it.
Problems can arise when you are only looking and thinking about abstractions and its easy to confuse the map from the land.

I love that car analogy! That's a perfect example. You can get by just knowing enough to make it drive, but if something isn't working for you, you need a bit more understanding to fix it. If you want to teach someone how to work out what is wrong and fix it you need to know even more.

Do you mind if I steal that analogy for my guide? I think it would a perfect intro for one of the sections

 

[Gerry Seymour]

What do you all think about intellectualising martial arts?

Some systems were created/evangelised by illiterate people, others by those who could read and write, and even had the social standing to publish books.

I personally think that sometimes really analysing what you are doing and pulling things apart can lead to a greater understanding, which is especially important when teaching.

These last few weeks for example, I've been thinking about stances more than any sane person would, in the process of writing a Shaolin kung fu stance guide. I've ended up drawing on concepts I explored in my PhD to explain them. I'm attempting to make something which is simultaneously easy to grasp for beginners, but allows those with more experience to really understand how and why stances are used.

It's a very fine line, but one which I don't think I'd be able to walk without thinking deeply on the subject.

So what do you reckon? Think deeply, or just go hit stuff?

I enjoy the intellectual challenge of digging into fine points and even slightly esoteric bits.

 

[Buka]

I love thinking about Martial Arts. Good thing, too, as I can't really keep it out of my thoughts, but that's fun.

The more and longer I train, the more it pops into my head. I think we're all doomed.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I love thinking about Martial Arts. Good thing, too, as I can't really keep it out of my thoughts, but that's fun.

The more and longer I train, the more it pops into my head. I think we're all doomed.

Same here, and, since everyone is out of the house... as I type this I'm watching "An Eye for an Eye" Chuck Norris

 

[mograph]

Problems can arise when you are only looking and thinking about abstractions and it's easy to confuse the map from the land.

Yep. As the aphorism goes, "All models are wrong. But some are useful."

Too many folks craft their map, their model, and they say that it defines reality. However, they don't want to directly investigate the phenomenon with their own senses. They don't want to get their hands dirty. Yet they forget that science, a discipline which creates maps of nature, has to directly observe it.

So yeah, what you guys said.