Is formal MA training necessary?

[ap Oweyn]

On top of that: many traditional systems had their techniques tested in liefe and death battles. Everything that survived for centuries probably has solid foundations.

I'm not opposed to traditional systems. Much of my own background has been in "traditional" styles. But that line of reasoning seems flawed to me for two reasons:

First, they haven't survived for centuries. Or rather, they haven't survived battlefield conditions for centuries. They haven't been used in battlefield conditions for a very, very long time. So they've actually only survived the public consciousness. And a thing can survive there for lots of reasons aside from effectiveness. Impressive aesthetics, good PR, etc.

Besides, we'd have to accept that things in a style haven't chained one iota since they were used on the battlefield. No changing of standards, shifting of emphasis, or alterations in curriculum in hundreds of years. We'd have to accept that the material has remained precisely the same even though the "classroom" (ie, the battlefield) has changed dramatically. It's the classroom that makes the difference.

Finally, battlefield martial arts wouldn't have been judged on their ability to bring home one soldier alive. Today, we're very saliently made aware of the loss of every single poor soul in the war. But in the age we're referring to when we say "battlefield martial arts," victory would have been about how many of your men and how many of the opponents' men make it to their objective. Now, if a thousand men are taught the same basic sword technique, and seven hundred of them survive that battle, is the sword technique a good or bad bet for personal protection?

I don't know. But it's being taught to an army isn't a very good gauge of its use to an individual. Ease of transmission to large groups doesn't necessarily indicate the "best" technique.

I mean this with no disrespect to anyone who serves or served in the military. But melee combat hasn't been on the military forefront for centuries. And when it was, group tactics were the name of the game. That doesn't necessarily translate to individual martial artists.


Stuart

 

[Ken Morgan]

What we consider iaido today had its roots 400 years ago, just as peace was finally coming to Japan, it is not a battlefield art.

The sword was a weapon of last resort on a Japanese battlefield. Statistically it was something like 5% of all deaths on a medieval Japanese battlefield where caused by swords. The vast majority were caused by rocks, arrows and musket balls, all long distance weapons. Kill the enemy before they close, it's a f&*@ of a lot safer!!

What you learn in a sword kata is only the basics, the light bulb goes off in your head after about ten years, when you realize what the kata really means.