Isolationism versus Exploration in the MA

[chrispillertkd]

However now a days there is more of a disconnect between kata, applications of it's moves, and the real in depth study of the kata that comes from it being your main focus. Now it is practiced for sport, or for rank progress, or physical agility (skill) etc. etc. but self defense? If you are studying a kata for sport competition than it gets altered to fit the needs of sport; high kicks, adding in splits and back flips, along with many hours practicing your mean look in the mirror (to show everyone how serious you are). If you are into sparring with the emphasis on kicking than you try and adapt the kata to fit your sparring needs such as the TKD forms Chug Mu, Hwa Rang etc. etc.

snip

Take a good look at Nahanchi Shodan and compare it to say Chug Mu (ITF TKD form); now Nahanchi is older and Otsuka (founder of Wado ryu) stated it is very deep kata and it would take a life time to master it, (referring to the combative applications found within it,) but it is very simple compared to Chug Mu. I believe that Nahanchi has more to offer than Chug Mu in terms of material for self defense, but Chug Mu has a much wider series of techniques, with a elevated jump kick, side kick turn kick combinations, a jump up and 360 deg. turn, a spear hand, groin grab (or throw) etc. etc.

I'm not really sure how familiar you are with the Taekwon-Do patterns you've mentioned. According to your profile one of the arts you've studied is "American TKD" but if you're familiar with the development of the patterns you've mentioned you'd know that it had little to do with sparring. They are also not called "kata." And you have consistently misspelled one of their names.

In regards for SD it needs to be simple not complex.

And yet almost all of the techniques you list are found in Okinawan karate kata.

Pax,

Chris

 

[K-man]

K-Man, on the subject of Chi flow, strikes to one area affecting specific organs in another, the relative worth of Traditional Medicines versus Modern Medicines, and whether first millennium Buddhist Monks knew as much about functional anatomy and physiology as current day anatomists, or even their contemporary Chinese anatomists, I will have to pass, for the purposes of this thread!

I am far from expert on striking one point to affect internal organs. For me vital points are more for immediate gratification i.e. hit here and the person passes out. Chi is a whole complex question which can generate enormous diversity of ideas and understanding, best left alone here.

You seem to dismiss a great deal of what I have to say on the basis of the current state of Karate. Which is fine, we can certainly argue that Karate is less effectively taught and trained than it was 100-150 years ago in Okinawa. That, however, is a very minuscule and limited segment of, not only the range of martial arts, but also the progress of martial arts. You say that Karate reached a peak. How then, did it get there, if not by adding what seemed good, and removing what failed to work?

I'm not dismissing what you have to say. The way karate is normally taught in the West is the way the guys learned it post war in Okinawa and Japan. What I meant was peak was when one master had possibly two or three students and passed on the full knowledge to just one of them. A great deal of knowledge was withheld from Westerners even up to the present. I was trying to discuss some of those things with a top Okinawan man a year or so ago and despite the fact that his moves demonstrated certain knowledge, there was no way he was going to help me with it. He denied it existed. I was asking about kyusho. The other point is, Mutsumura, Higaonna, Uechi and others went to China and studied for years before bringing their knowledge back to Okinawa and blending it with the local systems. The systems were already tuned so they didn't have to discard, but they did add, an enormous amount, that gave life to karate.

IF we re-direct the conversation to specifically Okinawan Karate, and specifically the past 15 years, than there could very well be a pattern of decline. If we look at the original topic, martial arts, I think we realize that what we are looking at is an anomaly. We all agree, I think, that martial arts grew and progressed around the world. SOme of us think they reached a peak and are in decline, and can only be maintained; some of us think they can continue to grow.

I'm not sure where the pattern of decline over the past 15 years comes about. I would suggest that in the past 20 years an enormous amount of previously restricted knowledge has become available. Of course I am referring specifically to karate but the same applies to the Chinese arts as well. Ninjutsu practitioners would argue that their art was passed down in its entirety and things like Daito Ryu as well. As to whether an art has peaked and is in decline depends on the view point of the observer. If you had a picture of a farmyard and some cut out the bit with the cow and put it in a frame. It is still a picture of a farmyard but the horses and chickens are missing. If you put the horses and chickens back in the picture, is that adding and growing or is it restoring what was already there. In karate when it went into the schools they made massive changes. They took our the close quarter combat, they took out all the nasty joint breaks, neck breaks, chokes and throws, and they changed open hand techniques into closed fists. So in karate when I am teaching a joint lock from a kata am I adding or restoring?

You're right. Escrima and Shotokan are completely different. You can't really compare them. I didn't, I contrasted them, to illustrate that they ARE so very different. My point in bringing up Escrima vs Shotokan vs Taichi Chuan vs Win Chun vs TKD is that they ALL bring something different to the table. Whether or not you like it, whether you find it applicable is up to you, but each does something better than another, each does many things worse. To say, "I do Shotokan, I will not borrow theory from Escrima," is to risk *becoming* that Shotokan practitioner who thinks stances are not a momentary source of power, but that he can sit motionless in a stance and not be, as you say, cut to ribbons. But if he deigns to learn from Escrima, perhaps his art will adapt in a way which makes it stronger.

There are principles in all martial arts that can be applied in others. We were teaching Escrima in my classes until I lost my instructor. But that was supplementary training, nothing to do with karate although the empty hand disarming was one of the principles contained in both.

The desire to take a system which openly has "pieces missing" which are either lost or withheld indefinitely, to me, seems less like a study in what works, and more like a study in history. Both are incredibly valid, neither better than the other. Again, the danger which *I* see in this mindset is that, by refusing to incorporate from outside or innovate from within, you have to trust that your generation will someday achieve, maintain, and pass on perfectly the complete body of knowledge. If you only manage to successfully transmit 97% of it, the next generation is that much poorer. It is unlikely that THEY will be any better at informing the next generation, and then the body of knowledge is only, say, 95% of the original. 100 years later, perhaps 20% is missing, unless innovation is encouraged.

I would not disagree with that position. But I reckon I started with only about 10% of the knowledge for my first ten years of training. I have no idea where I am now. Let's say I have 50% of understanding. I can only transmit what I know and there is realistically no way I can transmit 100% of what I know. But what I am imparting to my students is the idea that there is far more out there somewhere that they must find for themselves. It is not a position far from yours. Just that you see what you are adding as something new and I see what I am adding as something that was there to begin with.

Also, I have an innate discomfort with the idea that there are a few people who hold the secrets of an art, but are unwilling to disclose them, and that until they do, we can't have a full understanding. And Also another Also, that is again Okinawan Karate specific. There's always the chance, too, that should the secretive Okinawan Masters for some reason choose to disclose *their* understanding of Karate, we might find it functionally inferior to what hundreds of thousands have had to figure out for themselves in their absence and silence.

Speaking with Hokama Sensei in Okinawa, I have absolutely no doubt that he has an enormous depth of knowledge that he will only pass on to his top students who have demonstrated a lifetime of loyalty. Why would he offer it to someone like me when he has no idea of who I am or what I do? If you have time there is an interview with him you might find interesting, especially the bit about the high raking visitors.
http://www.shinsokai.com/interview_hokama_tetsuhiro.php

I seem to have forced myself into the role of advocating change at the expense of tradition, which is not really my stance. I only take it because the popular viewpoint seems to be the inverse, which is ALSO not my stance.

I don't think our positions are far apart. I think that adding to your practice can be a good thing to do but in many cases it is restoring, rather than adding that will bring you style back to life.
:asian:

 

[Stargazer]

Really good thread. I agree with the poster that exploration is a good thing as is testing techniques should be encouraged. I've seen the isolationist speech at some dojos, too. Most recently I had a teacher tell me that exploration or cross-training "is disrespectful to the lineages of each art.". It was like he was trying to shame his students into not exploring. Found it weird too.

 

[TKDTony2179]

Explore, and learn. Add what is useful for you and disregard what is useless. Simple.

 

[TKDTony2179]

Take a good look at Nahanchi Shodan and compare it to say Chug Mu (ITF TKD form); now Nahanchi is older and Otsuka (founder of Wado ryu) stated it is very deep kata and it would take a life time to master it, (referring to the combative applications found within it,) but it is very simple compared to Chug Mu. I believe that Nahanchi has more to offer than Chug Mu in terms of material for self defense, but Chug Mu has a much wider series of techniques, with a elevated jump kick, side kick turn kick combinations, a jump up and 360 deg. turn, a spear hand, groin grab (or throw) etc. etc.

In regards for SD it needs to be simple not complex.

I am not ITF but I do practice the Chang Hon Tuls and I say that the Nahanchi Shodan kata I saw on youtube do look simple and reminded me of Po Eun (a little) but if it is deep in meaning and hidden secrets ok. But that won't make it simple in SD. Looking at Choong Moo tul, you will see ( what I think are ) simple movement that can be altered as well. Example, the back kick or rear side kick in the form. If someone is coming up behind you with somthing in your hand a back kick is all that is needed to slow that person down. I don't see that in the N-kata. The twin C-grab. Many different usage. Throat grab or grabbing a full set of hair and following up with a knee strike just like the tul indicates. Or may I use it as a mean of grabbing someone and then just pushing them away. What about the back fist in the tul? Or the high block reverse punch at the end? Am sure that could be used as a self-defense.

I would say that Choong moo has more to offer than Nahanchi kata. It looks like that kata have to be studied way to long to understand and giving the fact that the world is moving faster and want more simple self-defense tech, I would think choong moo would be the way to go. JMHO.

 

[Koshiki]

The problem with that approach is that until you really know the art, you're only guessing as to which components are missing.

Very true. I have no idea what is missing from the original application and understanding of Naihanchi Shodan (Naw-gee, 'round these parts, yikes!), especially as compared to the Okinawan ideal. I do, however, know, or can at least try to discover what is missing from my OWN understanding and, through exploration and understanding, attempt to acquire it. It's very unlikely that I will be able to access that pure strain from Okinawa, but I can certainly find someone who can "pollute" my understanding and make it more effective, albeit different.

When I was teaching Tai Chi, I had students who would come in from various arts and want to cherry-pick techniques to supplement their arts. Quite simply, this does not work. At least not in any way that even closely incorporates the principles of Tai Chi.

I agree. Trying to cherry pick techniques is a good way to end up confused and ineffective. Most of what I see of outside martial arts I never really consider. Most of what I do look at, I don't want. A lot of what I see, examine, and like, just doesn't mesh with anything else I do. But, every now and then, I say, "hey, that's something that has been a weakness, and these guys do it really well, and it fits really well, and I LOVE it!"

I'm not so much talking about trying on a new armbar, picking up a cool kicking technique, although that can be part of it. A lot of what I love about different schools and styles are there training methods. One school does hard-contact mixed grappling and striking. Cool. That's probably the best way to get used to a full on forceful attack. One school does Tappy-tappy tag-sparring. Fun, I bet they have great speed and timing, though their distance is likely a bit too long to be effective. One school does push-hands gentle-wrestling type stuff. Bet there balance and weight control is amazing. One school does slowed down, controlled free flow sparring. Bet they have great distancing and can really get used to utilizing clean technique on the fly. One school works mainly with a brief attacker/defender type of sparring. They probably have a great ability to really adapt themselves ideally to the other person's movement.

I think grabbing a whole bunch of cool techniques will just confuse your style and your self. Varying your training as much as possible, sparring in as many different ways as possible, I think is the BEST way to avoid the false assumptions that any one style of rules-incorporated sparring will inevitably instill.

Granted, if you try to do EVERYTHING, you will, as everyone likes to say, do nothing well. However, I see no harm in borrowing from others what I lack in myself.

I suspect that the real reason that many of these arts have degraded is that there were too many people who were not truly qualified to teach who ended up in teaching positions. Tai Chi seems to have been especially susceptible to this. It went from being a highly regarded martial art to something that old people do in the park; a type of moving meditation or yoga.

Agreed. I was just trying to point out, that even with someone Incredibly qualified to teach, a real master in the truest sense, they will likely not have learned EVERYTHING that THEIR teacher tried to teach them, at least not perfectly, or to as great a depth of understanding. That's where I pulled my 97% from. I find that percent almost unbelievable, I would guess that the average master student probably never really gains more than an 80-90% knowledge of their source material. But even with the unrealistically high 97%, you can't have perfect preservation of the purest understanding. Where than, can we look to maintain the art, to allow it to grow, even, if not outside material and inside innovation?

On the note of Taichi Chuan... My first experience with Taichi Chuan was an unforgettable one. The teacher was having us gently push each other's centerline and deflect smoothly, returning the push. At an exceptionally knowledgeable and wise 11 years old, wordly and full of deep understanding, I though it was a load of, well, nothing good! Tai Chi is that stuff the boring people in funny pants do down boat landing in the Summer, right? Really slow, definitely not martial arts!!! Anyway, my haughty dismissal was probably showing on my face, because I got picked out of the line up for the demonstration of the MANY ways a push to the chest can be redirected into something full of varying degrees on ouchy and embarrassing.

Since then, I am quite respectful of Tai Chi as practiced as a martial art!

(Just to clarify, the Sifu is really nice guy, and not mean spirited at all. I'm glad he picked me to toss around on the sand!)

I don't think our positions are far apart. I think that adding to your practice can be a good thing to do but in many cases it is restoring, rather than adding that will bring you style back to life.

I agree, I think our positions are almost the same, really! I just make the distinction that restoring will bring your style back to life with little risk to it's integrity, but can be immensely difficult to do; while adding will give your style new life, is easy to do, but has to be applied very carefully, for fear of creating an incoherent mass of ineffective schtuff.

Really good thread. I agree with the poster that exploration is a good thing as is testing techniques should be encouraged. I've seen the isolationist speech at some dojos, too. Most recently I had a teacher tell me that exploration or cross-training "is disrespectful to the lineages of each art.". It was like he was trying to shame his students into not exploring. Found it weird too.

There's obviously a balance between the knowledge that one's style is beautiful and complete, and that tampering can ruin this, even when borrowing from other beautiful complete styles; and a style-supremacist who dismisses all else, while simultaneously fearing that someone will find out that there is something better out there.

On the note of the "last 15 years," I missed a zero. I meant to write, "last 150 years!"

I am not ITF but I do practice the Chang Hon Tuls and I say that the Nahanchi Shodan kata I saw on youtube do look simple and reminded me of Po Eun (a little) but if it is deep in meaning and hidden secrets ok. But that won't make it simple in SD. Looking at Choong Moo tul, you will see ( what I think are ) simple movement that can be altered as well. Example, the back kick or rear side kick in the form. If someone is coming up behind you with somthing in your hand a back kick is all that is needed to slow that person down. I don't see that in the N-kata. The twin C-grab. Many different usage. Throat grab or grabbing a full set of hair and following up with a knee strike just like the tul indicates. Or may I use it as a mean of grabbing someone and then just pushing them away. What about the back fist in the tul? Or the high block reverse punch at the end? Am sure that could be used as a self-defense.

I would say that Choong moo has more to offer than Nahanchi kata. It looks like that kata have to be studied way to long to understand and giving the fact that the world is moving faster and want more simple self-defense tech, I would think choong moo would be the way to go. JMHO.

If you want simple self-defense, then perhaps learning a couple elbows, a foot stomp, and some eye rakes and grab escapes for good measure might be the way to go. The thing is, many people want to take themselves beyond the level of self-defense, to the level of martial art. As I mentioned earlier, the distinction is fuzzy at best, but at some degree of nuance and comprehension, the style goes from teaching ways of getting out of scrapes, to being skilled at, even *artful* at getting out of scrapes. Yes, most grabs could probably be nullified by repeatedly bashing the other guy's face, but some of us want more than that.

If what you want is fast, easy, effective self-defense which can be learned without much effort to keep up with the fast pace of the world, than sure, go with a form that says, "here's a kick, here's a punch, here's where you grab their hair and bash their face off your knee." There's nothing wrong with that, (although *some* might claim that the more you try for fast, simple martial arts, the closer you get to the dreaded Mc Dojo. Not me, just some.)

I think though, that most of the people reading this thread, probably WANT the long study and practice required by something a little more obscure. I, for one, like kata that are difficult to interpret because they DO take a long time to get used to, and they DO require you to really inspect, consider, and experiment with each technique and sequence to see what works, what could work in certain situations, and what just doesn't work at all.

It's a balance, sure, there are probably techniques open to exploration in Choong Mu, (though I don't know the form), and there are certainly techniques in Naihanchi that can seem fairly simple and obvious, without much to study. In Naihanchi, what many of us love, is that it can be so many different things. It's like a mnemonic for personal growth.

----------------

I still think though, that given that nearly every style, no matter how traditional, was once something else, that every style has a background, has roots, and that to become the wonderful and complete style that is or has been, it had to have changed and evolved from those roots, it is hard to dismiss the value of change.

I realize no one has said that they dismiss the value of change, but only cautioned against careless advocacy. I agree. With tradition, you have a more or less guarantee that you are doing something that works and has survived. With change, you can very easily end up with a whole lot of things which together are a whole lot of nothing. We can all think of a mixed-style or two which might be more readily called a hodge-podge than a style, but I'm sure we can all think of a couple that have shown themselves to be noteworthy, and likely to take their place among the traditions and classics of future generations.

Remember folks, after 100,000 years, the Platypus is still going strong!

 

[K-man]

Remember folks, after 100,000 years, the Platypus is still going strong!

Mmm! With deteriorating water quality and loss of habitat coupled with climate change, 'going strong' may be a slight exaggeration.

Factors contributing to the platypus’s vulnerability to predicted longer-term patterns of climate change include the animals’ complete dependence on adequate surface water for survival, their characteristically low population density and low reproductive rate, and the fact that female platypus are likely to be out-competed for food by larger (and more aggressive) males and therefore suffer disproportionately high mortality rates when surface water is severely limited.
http://www.platypus.asn.au/distribution_and_status.html

Perhaps the better analogy may have been; "after at least 2 million years, the saltwater crocodile is still going strong".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltwater_crocodile
:asian:

 

[K-man]

Very true. I have no idea what is missing from the original application and understanding of Naihanchi Shodan (Naw-gee, 'round these parts, yikes!), especially as compared to the Okinawan ideal. I do, however, know, or can at least try to discover what is missing from my OWN understanding and, through exploration and understanding, attempt to acquire it. It's very unlikely that I will be able to access that pure strain from Okinawa, but I can certainly find someone who can "pollute" my understanding and make it more effective, albeit different.

Actually, the first inkling I had that there was more to kata than performing a set pattern was a video put out by George Dillman on Naihanchi many tears back. It is still available ... http://www.amazon.com/16-Naihanchi-Level-II/dp/B00BFG5UNK
:asian:

 

[Koshiki]

Mmm! With deteriorating water quality and loss of habitat coupled with climate change, 'going strong' may be a slight exaggeration.

Perhaps the better analogy may have been; "after at least 2 million years, the saltwater crocodile is still going strong".

Nooooo, but I want the PLATYPUS! I guess then, struggling as he is, Mr. Platypus should try exploring a testing out some new ideas. Perhaps more poison barbs. Maybe ditching the egg laying thing...

Actually, the first inkling I had that there was more to kata than performing a set pattern was a video put out by George Dillman on Naihanchi many tears back. It is still available ...

Interesting... pricey, but interesting.

I mean, at my school we tear apart kata bunkai as much as possible. "Kata" classes, at least among upper ranks, tend to be along the lines of, run the form a few times, make sure everyone is on the same page, answer any questions, then delve into applications of each technique/series. When we teach Kata to brandy new students, its generally with someone illustrating some very simple, obvious, blocky-strikey type bunkai, (perhaps not practical, but they get the mind into the mindset of 'this is application', rather than 'this is dance.') I didn't really start from a just-do-the-pattern mindset.

BUT, I know pretty nothing about what applications were originally intended for each technique, and not much more about which ones are generally considered by traditional experts. Here is where I have to fill the gaps in my knowledge of tradition with whatever works...

 

[colemcm]

It sounds like we're really not too far off on our opinions. Most likely due to my previous experiences, I interpreted your position as many others I've met; where the martial arts are treated like a buffet. Kind of like trying to climb a mountain by taking five trails at the same time.

 

[K-man]

BUT, I know pretty nothing about what applications were originally intended for each technique, and not much more about which ones are generally considered by traditional experts. Here is where I have to fill the gaps in my knowledge of tradition with whatever works...

I would be extremely skeptical of anyone who claimed to know what applications were originally intended for. I know for a fact that there can be many explanations for each move and it is anecdotal that there were different levels of understanding of the techniques. Check out Iain Abernethy. He has an enormous amount of free material available on his website. Although he is Shotokan, most of his ideas and all his principles can be applied to other styles.
http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk
Then when you want to go deeper again, check out Evan Pantesi and his mates. It is even more pricey, but if you are at that level of your training, really interesting and worth investigating.
http://www.kyusho.com
:asian:

 

[Koshiki]

It sounds like we're really not too far off on our opinions. Most likely due to my previous experiences, I interpreted your position as many others I've met; where the martial arts are treated like a buffet. Kind of like trying to climb a mountain by taking five trails at the same time.

If we *were* far off in our opinions, I think it would be a boring conversation. If I say red, and you say green, we're likely to just keep saying red and green. If I say purple and you say violet, well, there's a more interesting exploration there!

I would be extremely skeptical of anyone who claimed to know what applications were originally intended for. I know for a fact that there can be many explanations for each move and it is anecdotal that there were different levels of understanding of the techniques. Check out Iain Abernethy. He has an enormous amount of free material available on his website. Although he is Shotokan, most of his ideas and all his principles can be applied to other styles.
http://www.iainabernethy.co.uk
Then when you want to go deeper again, check out Evan Pantesi and his mates. It is even more pricey, but if you are at that level of your training, really interesting and worth investigating.
http://www.kyusho.com
:asian:

I've seen some of Iain Abernethy's stuff on the youtubez. Evan Pantesi, huh? That's a new one to me... Zack is intrigued....

 

[Chris Parker]

There's also a great deal of evidence to support that an experienced martial artist was just passing on to students what worked and doesn't get you killed. There's also a lot of evidence that an experienced martial artist was looking to his career and retirement. Heck, apparently many "village styles" of Silat are represented by a single "kata" which apparently a traveling master would give to the village in exchange for some service such as room & board for a few seasons.

There is no "one path" by which a Martial Art was begun. However, I think we can all agree that at some point it was reduced to a guy or group who were essentially untrained and just trying to survive this fight. From there it grew. The question then becomes, at what point does a collection of knowledge about fighting become a "martial art?" Lot of ink spilled over that one.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Hi Kirk,

Yep, that's very true as well... however, I'd make a distinction between a warrior travelling around, teaching "here's how to not get yourself killed" for room and board and a seasoned warrior, having come to a new understanding after many experiences, codifying that understanding as a new approach to combat and passing on such methods. Of course, there were many cases where both individuals above were the same person... just at different points, or with different aims at that moment. We could also look to concepts such as the "commoner's yawara" schools that came about in Japan during peacetime (Edo Jidai), where what was taught was more basic ideas and approaches to combat/defense, whereas the actual martial arts (ryu-ha) were not taught there.

Ok, so if our inspired and experienced warrior developed his own understanding, which he began to teach as a small set of fundamentals, what had he been doing BEFORE that? Were he and all of his compatriots flailing wildly, or did they practice and drill and utilize certain techniques and theories? Certainly, any maintained fighting force, or even somewhat organized citizen militia must have had SOME sort of occasional drilling regimen, yes? Likely comprised of a small group of key, fundamental techniques?

Still backwards there... our "inspired and experienced warrior" didn't begin to teach a small set of fundamentals, they came later. But what had he been doing before? Getting the said experience... looking at a Japanese Ryu-ha (traditional school) as an example, that experience might begin by studying one or more previously established systems... it may involve a range of actual combative experiences... or it might involve both.

We may say that yes, they likely had such a fighting style, suited to their arms and armour and tactics. Where then, did this style come from? Was it a previous experienced warrior with a certain insight into combat? Perhaps, but then the cycle loops again.

Sure... but the thing is, you need to understand the distinction of what a martial art is... it's not just a collection of combat techniques or ideas.

The point is, at SOME point in time, the system and it's roots were simple and likely very shallow. As they grew, each contributor, or as you say, experienced, insightful warrior, furthered or changed the knowledge base.

No. In fact, that's quite opposed to many arts and their history. You're trying to see it all as a linear development, when that's really not the case at all.

With all respect due, the distinction cannot possibly be a big one. If we have a high school shoving match level of sophistication at one end of the spectrum, and (insert your favoured pure traditional martial arts icon here) at the other, there is a continual gradient or spectrum between, encompassing less refined martial arts, sport martial arts, martial arts derived exercise, and finally a couple basic techniques.

With respect returned, yes, the distinction is a very big one... again, a martial art is not it's techniques... and a collection of techniques is not a martial art. Additionally, you don't seem to have quite grasped what I said there... I'm not saying there's a gradient, I'm saying one thing is one thing, the other is something different. Not on a line of progression, a different thing altogether.

So, if a "couple basic techniques" is not a martial art, and (four favorite martial art) is, where is the line drawn? It's like the heap of sand analogy. As you take it away, grain by grain, when does it cease to be a heap? As you add a technique here, and an understanding there, and an application or theory here, when do you arrive at the level of martial art? Do we reach a certain point, firmly in the realm of "a couple techniques" and then, adding a new wrist throw, suddenly breach the huge gap, and arrive on the other side with the big distinction that separates the realms?

It's better to think of it like language... by your argument, all language is based on a grunt... which just isn't true. Grunting is not language... a small series of unrefined, basic techniques is not a martial art. It's grunting. But, to your second idea (the idea of adding a throw to a small group of, say, striking techniques to make it a "martial art"), no, again, that's not anything like the criteria I'd apply.

A martial art is a congruent approach, a philosophy, which is represented and applied through it's techniques (which, for the record, might or might not even be combatively realistic or "effective"... so such criteria miss the point as well). It doesn't matter if there's only a few techniques... or if there's a few hundred... it doesn't matter if the art applies in only one range/area/context, or if it applies in multiple... provided it is congruent and true to it's own ideas. For a new martial art to be developed, it needs to be based in a new understanding, which informs all other parts of the art (which goes far beyond just "techniques", of course)... it simply ain't just a new lot of techniques... and, if all you're teaching/being taught is just a selection of techniques, you haven't started in martial arts yet...

 

[Koshiki]

Still backwards there... our "inspired and experienced warrior" didn't begin to teach a small set of fundamentals, they came later. But what had he been doing before? Getting the said experience... looking at a Japanese Ryu-ha (traditional school) as an example, that experience might begin by studying one or more previously established systems... it may involve a range of actual combative experiences... or it might involve both.

With regard to the "small set of fundamentals," I thought I was quoting you directly:

"There's a great deal of evidence to suggest that the way it went was that an experienced warrior would come to some insight or understanding of the nature of combat, and they would express that in a small group of key, fundamental techniques... "

My one and only point, was and is, that in order for the warrior/teacher/sage/whoever to be able to teach this new martial art, he first had to innovate, and that he must have done so based on or working off of the surrounding martial art system. I guess I'm a little confused; to me it sounds like you are refuting me by rewording what I was trying to relate?

Sure... but the thing is, you need to understand the distinction of what a martial art is... it's not just a collection of combat techniques or ideas.

Right, but at some point, preceding the true martial art, the background from which it grew must have been just a few dis-coordinated bits and pieces of understanding. These were built upon, bit by bit, and eventually there was what you would call a martial art. It is very unlikely that one man suddenly created a martial art from nothing; if the process was gradual, the point at which the "mere bunch of techniques" became a "martial art" must have been a very subjective one.

No. In fact, that's quite opposed to many arts and their history. You're trying to see it all as a linear development, when that's really not the case at all.

Can you give us some examples of specific martial arts which did not evolve, step by step? If you mean that the heritage of each martial art is more convoluted and web-like than a simple step one, step two, than of course you are right. However, martial arts did, in fact, grow from surround arts, singular or plural, and build upon them. A pattern best approximated as linear.

When we speak of the development of martial arts, we speak of their "lineage."
Time is linear, and martial arts grew and changed throughout time, thus, the change was, by physical necessity, organized linearly.

To be sure, it's not linear in the sense that ONE fighting style was directly and completely replaced by ONE and ONLY ONE other, with no overlap. Style's mixed and morphed and blended and overlapped all throughout. Much like everything else that evolves in life forms and social groups on this planet.

With respect returned, yes, the distinction is a very big one... again, a martial art is not it's techniques... and a collection of techniques is not a martial art. Additionally, you don't seem to have quite grasped what I said there... I'm not saying there's a gradient, I'm saying one thing is one thing, the other is something different. Not on a line of progression, a different thing altogether.

I know you're not saying there's a gradient. *I* am saying that there is a gradient, and that at a certain level of sophistication, a simple fighting style or training method becomes martial art. If you think that combat training/practice/experience and the martial arts developed entirely separate from each other, I'm certainly interested in your theory, but I think a claim like that requires at the very least a few links to some short historical analyses of martial arts, detailing how they DIDN'T grow out of less sophisticated, earlier styles.

I agree that a martial art and a few punches are different, but as far as I'm aware, both common sense AND available history dictate that one grew from the other.

One or the other of us must still be misunderstanding.

It's better to think of it like language... by your argument, all language is based on a grunt... which just isn't true. Grunting is not language... a small series of unrefined, basic techniques is not a martial art. It's grunting. But, to your second idea (the idea of adding a throw to a small group of, say, striking techniques to make it a "martial art"), no, again, that's not anything like the criteria I'd apply.

(Interestingly, I started writing a language analogy earlier, and then removed it as unneccessary!)

Of course a grunt is not a language, but I doubt that there is a single reputable linguist alive today who would deny that language GREW FROM SIMPLE GRUNTS. Which is exactly the point I am trying, repeatedly, to make. First there were meaningless grunts. They took on simple meanings, perhaps thngs like pain, fear, pleasure, contentment. These evolved, changed, adapted, diverged, and eventually we see the plethora of complex idioms spread across the globe. At some point, grunts became language, but that point is a gradient, blurry and impossible to decisively pinpoint.

As far as my "second idea," that was not my idea. You'll note that I was asking a question about your hypothoses, not making one of my own. What I said was, "Do we reach a certain point, firmly in the realm of "a couple techniques" and then, adding a new wrist throw, suddenly breach the huge gap, and arrive on the other side with the big distinction that separates the realms?" What I meant to imply (I thought fairly plainly) was that if martial arts evolved from simpler roots, no single technique can have bridged the gap between "some techniques," and "martial art," exactly as no single word or grammatical construct could bridge the gap from "some grunts with meanings" to a full fledged language. But, at some point, those few techniques have grown up and become a martial art, and those few word like grunts have become a language, and as in neither case is there likely to have been a huge shift, there must have been, in both cases, a gradient. If Language and Martial art are NOW separate from slightly trained fighting and grunting, we have to remember that at one time, historically, they were not.

A martial art is a congruent approach, a philosophy, which is represented and applied through it's techniques (which, for the record, might or might not even be combatively realistic or "effective"... so such criteria miss the point as well). It doesn't matter if there's only a few techniques... or if there's a few hundred... it doesn't matter if the art applies in only one range/area/context, or if it applies in multiple... provided it is congruent and true to it's own ideas. For a new martial art to be developed, it needs to be based in a new understanding, which informs all other parts of the art (which goes far beyond just "techniques", of course)... it simply ain't just a new lot of techniques... and, if all you're teaching/being taught is just a selection of techniques, you haven't started in martial arts yet...

I think we all understand that martial arts are more than techniques. That said, remove all the techniques from most given martial arts, and I think they may be lacking. All of which is largely irrelevant to the point I was *originally* trying to make, which is that, as you say, for a new martial art to be born, or for existing ones to adapt, there must be newness. I maintain that this newness must come from outside influences or internal innovation. I also believe that, given that all our current martial arts were arrived at through such "newness," that such newness cannot be a bad thing, and that it is the true lifeblood of all martial arts.