Is science killing the art in martial arts ?

M

Mike Clarke

Guest
Hi all,

In magazines and on the book shelf over the past few years I've noticed a lot of writing on the science of the martial arts.

I'm not talking about kyusho-jutsu etc, but the way some people have started to explain techniques in scientific (or Medical) language.

I've never been big myself on wanting to know the 'how' of things, I've just wanted to understand the 'when', 'where' and 'why' of my martial art (goju-ryu karatedo).

So I'm wondering, do we really need to know the scientific reason for someone falling down when we hit them ? And if we do, isn't this killing the 'art' ?

I look forward to your comments.
Mike.
 
All arts are scientificaly based. By knowing the "why" and "how" you can understand and apply said principles. I guess it all depends on what you're in the art for, and how you wish to apply it. Delving into the science is like all things, good for some, bad for some. It depnds on what YOU want out of it I guess.
Just my 0.02
 
Mike,

I agree.
I think the new wave of "scientific" MA books is the new "Buzz word" or topic in this case for martial marketers.
These are the folks that figure out the latest angle on how to make a buck or get that extra student into their dojo.
I have always been of the mind set that 1,000 hours of book reading and theory can't replace 1 hour of actually hands on training in the dojo.
Knowing the scientific names for the muscles I am smashing, the tendons I am twisting or bones I am cranking on or the "color by numbers kyusho point" has never been much use for me. Hitting certain sensitive areas, twisting things the wrong way is always effective. As my teacher said to me on several occasions "No hurt, no down". That is about as "scientific" as I need to get.
 
Originally posted by Mike Clarke



So I'm wondering, do we really need to know the scientific reason for someone falling down when we hit them ? And if we do, isn't this killing the 'art' ?
Click to expand...


Why do we fall down when hit?

Simple..............because it bloody hurts.;)
 
I have noticed something of an increase in pseudo-scientific discrptions. Some people asume that if the karate guy is using fancy words they don't understand than they must be smart.

However, that certainly doesn't mean that just because something claims to be "scientific" doesn't mean its bad. Deadly Karate Blows: The Medical Implications (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_4/102-1987028-3735342?v=glance&s=books), Brian Adams famouse Black Belt Thesis would be one well known example.
 
I see both sides of this issue...

I agree that lots of "book-learnin" is pretty much useless if you don't get on the mat or floor and do the WORK...and I also agree that an hour of good, hard practice is always worth more than reading a book (or watching a video).

But, on the other hand, if you understand the WHY of a given application, you can apply that principle to other aspects of your art...

The traditional Chinese arts look at the four treasures in the development of a warrior...The brush, the inkstone, rice-paper, and the sword...the implication is that scholarly work is also necessary.

What I see in the publications, however, is pretty elementary stuff being passed off as scholarly OR stuff that is "way out there" (baffle them with ********)...Most people who want to sound "scientific" really don't have a clue on what real science is.

That being said, if some one hits me hard and it HURTS a lot...I don't need to be a scientist to figure out next time I better move, block, or strike first...

:asian:
chufeng
 
Hi again,

Look, I'm not saying that those who think in scientific terms about martial arts are wrong. I just think that those who try to make martial arts into a science are missing the point.
I don't agree that "All arts are scientificaly based." I believe that people long ago found out what worked and what didn't by experience, not experiment. When your health or your life depends on it you have no time to experiment.
If the martial arts can be explained soley in scientific terms, what has happened to the "art" ?

Mike.
 
As a Kenpo student I have to say that "no, getting scientific does not kill the art."

If anything it lets you know the "why" so that perhaps you have more options later on.

I also agree that mat time is better than book/video time until about Brown/Black level when you might know enough and have enough mat time by then to pick something up from a book or video.

In Kenpo we use the Equation formula which tells us that we can pretty much alter a technique to suit our circumstances. So for example, if I know something about nerve strikes and how they work, I might go for a "humane" knockout and see what happens before I move into crippling my opponent so that they can not retailiate. Yes, I know everything happens at high-speed, but even in sparring I know some of you have thrown a strike that you may have thought would do something but went ahead and followed it up if you did not accomplish your original purpose.

Anyway, as they used to say on the GI cartoon "Knowing is half the battle." I think the Science stuff enhances the Art, but as I said, Mr. Parker gave us a system built this way so my viewpoint is naturally going to reflect this.
 
Originally posted by Mike Clarke

Hi again,

Look, I'm not saying that those who think in scientific terms about martial arts are wrong. I just think that those who try to make martial arts into a science are missing the point.
I don't agree that "All arts are scientificaly based." I believe that people long ago found out what worked and what didn't by experience, not experiment. When your health or your life depends on it you have no time to experiment.
If the martial arts can be explained soley in scientific terms, what has happened to the "art" ?

Mike.
Click to expand...

Could you elaborate on how you diferantiante between expereince and experimentation? Most people try something new and see how it works when they are sparring or what not, that sounds a lot like experimentation to me. I don't think any of the "martial science" people go so far as to claim they are doing strict experiments (ie just one independent and dependent variable).

I think it would be a combination of both. Okay I'll try this, this, and this. Well all of them lead to a royal **** kicking so my expereince tells me that they are bad things to do. Maybe I'll try something else next time.
 
OK,

What is the essence of the scientific method?

If "a" happens, "b" follows...
I do "a" 1000 times and "b" always occurs...
Now, I isolate out any potential variables that may influence "b" and do "a" 1000 more times and see if "b" occurs...
Now I get someone who knows NOTHING about the process and ask him to measure "b" (after teaching him how)...then I get 500 people and do "a" and I get 500 people and do something that looks like "a" (but isn't) and then compare the results of what the blinded non-interested party actually measured and see if there is any difference between "a" and "not-a" as expressed by "b."

Acupuncture can't be explained by Western medicine, but that doesn't mean that there is no science behind it..."a" causes "b" has been measured and documented over a couple of thousand years...we are just now trying to explain it in terms of Western medicine...but it has stood up to the test of science (in its most rudimentary form)...

I think the same can be said of Karate and other martial arts...those that didn't work, went to the grave with the founder...those that survived were actually battle tried...

:asian:
chufeng
 
I pretty much agree with chufeng as well.
I regard Mr. Parker as a scientist.
 
Originally posted by Mike Clark

I don't agree that "All arts are scientificaly based." I believe that people long ago found out what worked and what didn't by experience, not experiment.
Click to expand...

Mike, i dont think the argument was made that martial arts were originated by people working wholely within the modern western scientific method, but that martial arts are pysical arts, and are therefore subject to the laws of physics, and those arts that work utilise physics to their advantage - eg Judo, Aikido..actually, by definition, all of them....

I think any argument against a method for explaining MA (which is all these books are) is essentially faulty. If u dont find any personal resonance within any particular method for describing an art, then dont read it....describing an art scientifically does not prevent anyone from describing it as it has been traditionally. Adding to the body of knoweldge doesn't take anything away from it.

That being said, any individual effort for describing an art should be weighed on its individual merits...and there are more than a few ***** "science of MA" books out there.
 
Thanks for your comments everyone,

I'm I to take it then that we all train in Martial Sciences, and not Martial arts?

My main point was not to dismiss the idea that Martial arts can't be talked about in scientific terms, but whether or not this should be our 'benchmark' ?

Some people on this thread seem to still train with the idea that if their passing grading tests and reaching a particular rank, then they have some ability? (BIG MISTAKE !!!).

I'm not anti science at all in the M.A.'s I just don't see the need for me to understand the 'how' when I know the 'why', 'where' and the 'when'.

Mike.
 
Mike,

I still view what we do as an art...

It is not simply kinesiology...
It is not simply physics...
It is not simply strategy...

It is all of that AND more.

We, in YiLiQuan, work on developing the ability to "feel" the attacker's intent...according to the classics...first Yi, then Qi, then the body moves...if we are able to develop a sensitivity to the other's Qi, we feel the attack before the opponent actually makes a physical movement...then we are not there when the actual attack arrives.

That clearly is not based in science as we view it in the West, and may border on mystical...however, we downplay the mystical and focus on the practical...

We also learn how to infuse our techniques with Qi...

Can I demonstrate that Qi exists??? No
Can I hit you with a physical punch and then an "internal" punch and ask if you can tell the difference? Yes...but that doesn't prove anything...I may have held back on the first technique...

So, the hard to explain subtleties of our art is what makes it an art...it is not all science.

What makes me analyze our movements down to the tiniest detail are the questions my students ask...so, the more I teach, the more I understand the "why" of something...and the more I realize how little I really know...

Great thread, thanks for starting it.

:asian:
chufeng
 
Once again I agree with chufeng although I don't know much of anything about Ki/Chi/Qi or how to perceive an attack before it happens and I admit I don't think he is talking about "spider-sense." I just wanted to say that I agree.
 
I believe that there is some phenomenon, some "energy" that is referred to in Chinese as qi, and in Japanese and Korean as ki (although the translation and understanding in each language is somewhat different).

I believe that that "energy," that (in the Monty Python vein) certain something, can be developed, manipulated and controlled by a person to augment their martial techniques.

I believe these things and more based both on personal experiences (email me if you want weird stories), as well as an objective belief that we simply don't know all there is to know in the world.

Quantum physics has shown that the human mind has a direct influence on the fabric of space. In experiments dealing with subatomic particles, the intent (dare I say yi?) of the experimenters had a direct result on the outcome of the experiment. If such a phenomenon exists within the confines of "hard science," and since I believe the saying that "there is nothing new under the sun," I find it difficult to state with any degree of certainty that some things can't be done...

Feeling the movement of someone's qi seemed, the first time I was exposed to it, to be a bunch of nicely worded horse $h*t. Until I was able to do it the first time...

I was in class, and Sifu told us we were going to practice "connecting" to our opponent. So, at first, we held a staff between our lower abdomens and practiced mirroring our opponent's movements. After a time, he took the staves away. We continued practicing. Shortly thereafter, with and evil look in his eyes, he told us were were going to make it a little more difficult - he turned off the lights. Now we were trying to avoid half strength strikes and kicks without the benefit of seeing them coming (which, admittedly, wasn't helping all that much in the first place anyway). I spent quite a good amount of time just getting hit, over and over again. But then, without warning, I just felt a need to move, so I moved. And my opponent flew right past me. It happened again and again, interspersed with shots that landed. It was only the first time, and I got hit more than I got missed, but over the years I got better at it.

Call it what you want, while it isn't a "spider sense" like in the movies, sometimes it feels pretty darn close.

And ultimately, even if there is a really detailed scientific answer to it, I don't care. The answer would actually take away from the "art" of learning how to do it in the first place. Making it a clinical thing, instead of a wondrous development, would lessen the accomplishment in my mind. I don't pretend that it is mystical at all; quite the contrary I know it is something anybody can do. That doesn't make it any less wondrous when it is accomplished, however.

Just my useless and misinformed 2 cents...

Gambarimasu.
 
Please correct me if i am misunderstanding everyone, but there seems to be a meme operating here that details science as a thief of magic/wonder/art.

Why is science (as a monothithic, philosophical phenomenon) percieved as anti-art? Is science the martial artist's anathema? Why? Does having an explanation of a technique available (note: it's not necessary to read/discuss/value the explanation - one can ignore it at will) necessarily devalue its worth as a causal phenomenon? How? Does explaining the physics of a well-timed lead hook make the subsequent knock out less effective, or valuable? And in the more esoteric vein if Yi/Quantum effectual-intent, you will not find a physical scientist worth their salt who will discount the possibility of something not currently explained by science - because that which is currently unexplained by the scientific body of knowledge is the theoretical scientists bread and butter.

If you will permit a brief foray into etymology, the root of the words technique (that which we are taught in our arts) and technology (hardware that is the effective end result of science) is techne from the Greek, meaning skill. Technology is a skill, encoded as a piece of phyisical hardware; similarly martial arts are a technology, encoded as a set of rules in our wetware. The two, on many levels, are one and the same. The only difference is the method via which the techne is packaged.


Was it Asimov (BTW thats not rhetorical..i'm really asking...i cant remember) who said that any sufficiently advanced technology is to all intents and purposes, magic? Are our arts sufficiently advanced "wet" technologies? Learned people have been bug-fixing them for thousands of years...

Science and art are not IMHO oppositional. They are just methods of expression. The quanta does not have a problem with yi, and niether does yi with quanta...who the hell are we to start causing trouble? :D

this is a wicked thread.

cheers

Bao
 
Bao,

One man's science is another man's magic...no doubt about it...

the fact that we can do what we can do certainly can be explained at some point in time (perhaps what we call the future)...but let us old men enjoy our present illusion...;)

But really, I think what Mike and RyuShiKan are getting at is we spend too much time thorizing and not enough time training...

I agree...
Now let's get back to work.

:asian:
chufeng
 
Originally posted by Chufeng

the fact that we can do what we can do certainly can be explained at some point in time (perhaps what we call the future)...but let us old men enjoy our present illusion...

But really, I think what Mike and RyuShiKan are getting at is we spend too much time thorizing and not enough time training...

I agree...
Now let's get back to work.
Click to expand...

*rueful smile*


Good point, Shixiong.

Cheers

Bao
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

karate injuries?

Previous Thread

Left in Awe..

Next Thread

Similar threads

G
Kokusai Dentokan Bugei Renmei
Replies
1
Views
3K
Mike Clarke
M
B
Martial Science
Replies
4
Views
1K
Kenpodoc
K
G
Goju-Ryu - newbie
Replies
8
Views
4K
donald1
donald1
matrixman
Sponsored Topic: The Science of Matrixing
2
Replies
28
Views
5K
matrixman
matrixman
ammonihah99
Fighting Science or Art?
2
Replies
20
Views
3K
Josh Oakley
Josh Oakley

Latest Discussions

Back
Top