is martial arts from before better than martial arts from now ?

[Koshiki]

Well I base my opinion not on any perceived "magical power" but on the theory that you never teach someone EVERYTHING you know... So take for instance an art that spans 100 years. Suppose a new generation of instructors comes about every decade... That is 10 times that an instructor has left something out of what they were taught, making the new practitioner less knowledgeable than the first practitioners.

Or, that's 10 times every hundred years that a new generation has a chance to test, adapt, and possibly improve upon what came before. Look at it in terms of high visual art in the Western World. It has not been degrading in quality every ten years since the 10th century. It has been growing, changing, adapting, and generally becoming more and more comprehensive and impressive.

On a different note, there are 100 hours of video uploaded to youtube every minute. That's over an hour and a half of new video hitting the site, every. Single. Second. You can demonstrate any general premise with youtube vid. I suggest that conversation might progress more interestingly and meaningfully if video was reserved to demonstrate very specific items, not possible to clearly convey through words, rather than using video as general proof or support of anything... Just my ha'penny...

 

[DennisBreene]

Again your talking professional athletes vs normal people. FFootball players 100 Year ago worked real jobs during most of the year and only played football a few months. Players today train and work out all year long. But again if we go apples to apples a normal martial artist today vs normal martial artist 200 yrs ago. Old guy trained to save his life. Modern guy trains for fun.

I have trouble with the entire apples to apples approach to this comparison. The earlier fighter is better described as a martialist, a professional soldier of his day. There are few modern martialists, or professional soldiers, who utilize the empty handed techniques taught in traditional karate etc., regularly in combat (opting for modern weapons of war). I submit there were fewer martial artists, ie., non professionals practicing martial techniques for sport or avocation, in those days. We can no more compare the martialist of yesteryear with the martial artist of today than we can compare the professional military rifleman of yesteryear with the modern hunter or target shooter. As for comparing martial arts: we may not be able to go back much farther than the early 20th century when these arts were codified. Are todays arts or artists better than the arts or artists of 1940? I think you fall into the same trap you have when you try to compare current arts and artists among themselves. What criteria does one use to judge one art form against another? To date, I have never seen a consensus as to criteria and certainly have seen no consensus as to art form.

 

[Langenschwert]

I have trouble with the entire apples to apples approach to this comparison. The earlier fighter is better described as a martialist, a professional soldier of his day. There are few modern martialists, or professional soldiers, who utilize the empty handed techniques taught in traditional karate etc., regularly in combat (opting for modern weapons of war). I submit there were fewer martial artists, ie., non professionals practicing martial techniques for sport or avocation, in those days. We can no more compare the martialist of yesteryear with the martial artist of today than we can compare the professional military rifleman of yesteryear with the modern hunter or target shooter. As for comparing martial arts: we may not be able to go back much farther than the early 20th century when these arts were codified. Are todays arts or artists better than the arts or artists of 1940? I think you fall into the same trap you have when you try to compare current arts and artists among themselves. What criteria does one use to judge one art form against another? To date, I have never seen a consensus as to criteria and certainly have seen no consensus as to art form.

I think your definition of martial artist is rather too narrow. Martial means "military", or "of or befitting a soldier". One of the earliests uses of the term "martial art" in the English language (1639) refers to rapier fencing, which wasn't a hobby... that was a martial art designed to save your life in a very violent society, both in duels and back alley assaults. They considered themselves martial artists, and even used the term. Civillians, particularly guild members were instructed in martial arts as part of their civic duty. Each guild was assigned a part of the city wall to defend in case of siege. Soldiers would to go martial arts schools sich as a the Brotherhood of St. Mark in order to be certified as a "doppelsoldner" and therefore entitled to double pay defending the standard with a Zweihander.

Martial Arts don't have to be archaic to be termed as such. Any military combat art is by definition a martial art, not only civillian systems. It doesn't have to be empty hand, or asian, or ancient (or modern), or have a funky uniform, or be soley the domain of people who never have to fight.

You are right in saying that the comparisons are sometimes nonsensical. But what you're saying is basically the same thing with regards to hobbiests vs. professionals. There are arts that date back hundreds of years and have the paperwork to back it up. Those studying TSKSR today are studying the same things they did hundreds of years ago. But those training today more than likely won't have to use it to defend their lives.

-Mark

 

[Tony Dismukes]

There are two types of fool. One says "this is old and therefore good." The other says "this is new and therefore better."

 

[lklawson]

I think your definition of martial artist is rather too narrow. Martial means "military", or "of or befitting a soldier". One of the earliests uses of the term "martial art" in the English language (1639) refers to rapier fencing, which wasn't a hobby... that was a martial art designed to save your life in a very violent society, both in duels and back alley assaults. They considered themselves martial artists, and even used the term. Civillians, particularly guild members were instructed in martial arts as part of their civic duty. Each guild was assigned a part of the city wall to defend in case of siege. Soldiers would to go martial arts schools sich as a the Brotherhood of St. Mark in order to be certified as a "doppelsoldner" and therefore entitled to double pay defending the standard with a Zweihander.

Martial Arts don't have to be archaic to be termed as such. Any military combat art is by definition a martial art, not only civillian systems. It doesn't have to be empty hand, or asian, or ancient (or modern), or have a funky uniform, or be soley the domain of people who never have to fight.

You are right in saying that the comparisons are sometimes nonsensical. But what you're saying is basically the same thing with regards to hobbiests vs. professionals. There are arts that date back hundreds of years and have the paperwork to back it up. Those studying TSKSR today are studying the same things they did hundreds of years ago. But those training today more than likely won't have to use it to defend their lives.

-Mark

I regret that I can hit "thanks" on this only once.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

Just to throw a monkey in the wrench:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...r-dash-one-race-every-medalist-ever.html?_r=0

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

is martial arts from before better than martial arts from now ?

- My teacher's teacher could stand in horse stance to finish his dinner.
- My teacher could stand in horse stance to finish watching Beijing opera.
- I can stand in horse stance to finish a beer.

The new generation's foundation is not as good as the old generation. People in the old generation did spend more time in basic training.

In the following picture, it's not hard to do this when you are young. If you can still do this when you are old, you would need serious training when you were young. That assume that you haven't quit your training through your life.

http://imageshack.us/a/img199/3853/mayintu.jpg

 

[DennisBreene]

I think your definition of martial artist is rather too narrow. Martial means "military", or "of or befitting a soldier". One of the earliests uses of the term "martial art" in the English language (1639) refers to rapier fencing, which wasn't a hobby... that was a martial art designed to save your life in a very violent society, both in duels and back alley assaults. They considered themselves martial artists, and even used the term. Civillians, particularly guild members were instructed in martial arts as part of their civic duty. Each guild was assigned a part of the city wall to defend in case of siege. Soldiers would to go martial arts schools sich as a the Brotherhood of St. Mark in order to be certified as a "doppelsoldner" and therefore entitled to double pay defending the standard with a Zweihander.

Martial Arts don't have to be archaic to be termed as such. Any military combat art is by definition a martial art, not only civillian systems. It doesn't have to be empty hand, or asian, or ancient (or modern), or have a funky uniform, or be soley the domain of people who never have to fight.

You are right in saying that the comparisons are sometimes nonsensical. But what you're saying is basically the same thing with regards to hobbiests vs. professionals. There are arts that date back hundreds of years and have the paperwork to back it up. Those studying TSKSR today are studying the same things they did hundreds of years ago. But those training today more than likely won't have to use it to defend their lives.

-Mark

With apologies for the delay. I was attempting to respond a few days ago and my computer crashed. So forging on with iPad...
i will readily concede that many of our martial traditions have long and well documented roots. I was attempting to make what is largely a connotative distinction between the martial traditions that were contemporary with techniques used in the battles of their day and similar traditions practiced in the modern era. And yes, one of my points was that that can reduce the comparison to that of the professional vs the amateur. But it doesn't have to. There are many excellent practitioners who practice extremely diligently and with careful regard to maintaining both the historical roots and incorporating modern training theory.
The reality is that the very fact that these techniques and practitioners are largely untested in battle probably alters the paradigm enough that comparison is risky. A combat veteran is likely different than the identically trained but untested soldier but you can compare groups of both and probably make some valid observations as to what training and what techniques are successful based on whatever criteria you wish to apply. The modern practitioner ( with the limited exception of the rare soldier and professionals like LEOs) enters training knowing that there is little likelihood that their skills will ever be used; let alone, used in mortal combat on the battlefield in war. How does one factor in that distinct difference in mind-set? What criteria does one use to compare modern techniques that are not identical to historically vetted techniques, against those historical techniques? It clearly becomes theoretical and is a variation on the recurring theme we see about which art is better. Can well grounded experts, armed with adequate historical information make some educated guesses? Probably; and that discussion might be interesting. I believe it would require rigorous attention to adhering to criteria for such an analysis ( whatever those might be). I suspect that any other approach would deteriorate to a relatively unenlightening and frequently repeated "my style is better than your style" type debate.

 

[Langenschwert]

How does one factor in that distinct difference in mind-set? What criteria does one use to compare modern techniques that are not identical to historically vetted techniques, against those historical techniques? It clearly becomes theoretical and is a variation on the recurring theme we see about which art is better. Can well grounded experts, armed with adequate historical information make some educated guesses? Probably; and that discussion might be interesting. I believe it would require rigorous attention to adhering to criteria for such an analysis ( whatever those might be). I suspect that any other approach would deteriorate to a relatively unenlightening and frequently repeated "my style is better than your style" type debate.

Well, we'd have to have a lot of people run around killing each other to get meaningful data... perhaps a modern day Roman Games. Probably not such a good idea. In swordsmanship, we have what we call "salon aquisitions". That's a technique that works in sporting competition but falls apart under the pressure of a real duel with sharps. Modern sport fencing is rife with them, since that's the whole point of the sport. Your body reacts differently when you know your life is on the line and there's a person right there, trying to kill you. In that situation, you need techniqes that can be performed when you've lost fine motor control, have tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, and may well be defecating yourself, all of which are common in a life-or-death encounter... you need stuff your lizard brain can do. Sometimes modern practitioners have unrealistic expectations of the damage they'd take in a real fight. One should be more than willing to trade a broken nose for saving one's life, or a possible cut to the hand grabbing an immobile blade in a sword duel. That's the reality. Someone who intends to use it for real has that in their mind all the time. Others less so.

-Mark

 

[DennisBreene]

Well, we'd have to have a lot of people run around killing each other to get meaningful data... perhaps a modern day Roman Games. Probably not such a good idea. In swordsmanship, we have what we call "salon aquisitions". That's a technique that works in sporting competition but falls apart under the pressure of a real duel with sharps. Modern sport fencing is rife with them, since that's the whole point of the sport. Your body reacts differently when you know your life is on the line and there's a person right there, trying to kill you. In that situation, you need techniqes that can be performed when you've lost fine motor control, have tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, and may well be defecating yourself, all of which are common in a life-or-death encounter... you need stuff your lizard brain can do. Sometimes modern practitioners have unrealistic expectations of the damage they'd take in a real fight. One should be more than willing to trade a broken nose for saving one's life, or a possible cut to the hand grabbing an immobile blade in a sword duel. That's the reality. Someone who intends to use it for real has that in their mind all the time. Others less so.

-Mark

Thanks Mark,
That is exactly what I was getting at. We spend a lot of time debating such questions (admittedly it's our time to spend) and we rarely have any meaningful data to support our conclusions. So; whatever the entertainment value is, I hope that people aren't unaware of the illusion that we can really compare ourselves to warriors of old.