Martial Arts Evolution/Revolution?

[Wo Fat]

If you try to down block a jab, and you're not a very tall person, I think you're going to eat some fist. So that's different than a lunge punch.

On the other hand, if you slip a lunge punch, the same technique slips a jab. Huh, wonder how that worked?

My point is that a down block has lots of valid applications, but if your opponent doesn't throw anything that would respond well to a down block, it would not be smart to try to use it. However, there are an awful lot of ways to respond to a lunge punch; some of those ways will also work on a jab. A well-trained martial artist will (hopefully) know when to use which defense.

One of the drills we've done in my dojo is pretty enlightening to me; you might enjoy seeing it. Our instructor will tell us to use a particular defense and then have our partner start throwing whatever at us. We have to make the defense he gave us work. Most of us can't (I sure can't) do it all of the time. But can it be done? You bet. Our instructor will demonstrate by having someone throw whatever punch and he'll defend it using the same technique. When we do this, we throw just as hard and fast as we can - he gets mad if we throw slow, off-target, or wimpy punches at him.

I understand what you're saying about schools that don't teach a full range of skills to their students. That's a shame, those students are being robbed.

But that doesn't really say anything about the applicability of TMA to the modern world, since we both agree that sub-standard schools aren't representative of TMA, right?

I teach a very similar drill. My students are required to perform a curriculum technique against anything other than a step-in lunch punch. Without fail, the "karate" stances are gone and a boxer's stance becomes the preferred "ready" position.

You mentioned that a slip works as well against jab as it does a kata-style lunch punch. I agree.

Always love seeing the adaptation of boxing into the karate.

 

[Drag'n]

so you head into the ring with a boxer. What next. Is the boxer wearing gloves? Can you kick or grab his throat? Unless your going to impose rules to limit the attacks it is an uneven playing field and if you say you will just work against the boxers punches then what is the point? You are only using a part of the TMA's skill set.

You're right a boxer is probably not the best choice. Bill was talking about punches not being any different. Thats why I brought up the boxer idea.
Perhaps someone with decent boxing skills but with a wider experience in other arts.

As for what you allow, its up to you and what kind of defenses and counters you want to test, and what the other guy is willing to agree to. Sure I understand you wont be able to use your entire range of counters. But I just dont buy the BS that some guys say "our art is too dangerous for sparring" There is still a lot you can use. Wouldn't it be worth testing out even part of your skill set?
It doesnt have to be a ego driven battle to prove who is best.

I've had such experiences with some good TMArtists that proved very enlightening for both sides.

 

[Drag'n]

Hello Oaktree.
Its taken me a little while to get back to this post but I think it warrants some explanation of where I stand.

Most of the people who do a sport MMA never been in any kind of street fight either doesn't mean either the TMA or the MMA can not apply their art effectively.

Personally I think the only way to fight is by fighting. Even if some rules are imposed if it involves 2 people trying to seriously hurt each other its going to teach you a lot more about how to fight than any other exercise. The less rules and the more variety of techs the better. If you have never experienced having someone trying to pound you senseless, then you have no right to be teaching any body how to fight.

I've read all the threads saying how MMA is bad for SD etc. Lets just say I dont agree. I've trained with a variety of people over the years and if I ever had to pick someone to watch my back in a bar fight it would be a pro MMA fighter. They are far more effective at taking someone out quickly and efficiently than any other group of MArtists I've trained with. While they dont train for SD and some of the things they normally do in the dojo wouldn't be smart to do in the street, at least they really know how to fight.

Can you please present an art that never has faced real battle encounters or faced challange matches? I mean Aikido has Ueshiba who faced life and death encounters,
Even Taijiquan faced challange matches.

Have you ever met a practitioner of either of those arts with under 20 years experience who could really fight? I haven't. But maybe my standards are too high.

Sparring is an agreement between two people with rules and safety it is not realistic fighting. It can help with your training but without other things like realistic scenerios and drills it is only a fraction of the equation in some cases sparring can hinder you in the effects that you rely on training which focuses on rules giving you memory and conditioning dealing with realistic fighting in a sport context. For example you might spar and you go for double take downs which is a great move but because you are condition for your opponent to sprawl in real fighting your opponent might just pull out a knife and stab you in the back. Sad to say in most sparring training in that kind of arrangement does not exist.

Sure sparring has its limitations like everything else. I agree you need more than just sparring. But I also think it is an essential exercise to learn real timing, distance, defense, fighting spirit, speed and a other essential qualities you will need in a real fight.

A lunge punch is a drill. It is a straight line. A jab is also a straight line. The one step is to train you in distancing and timing.
If you are just starting out having someone rush in on you and throwing jabs may not build up the foundation needed to deal with those type of attacks yet.
Aikido has grabs of the wrist which most of the time noone is going to just grab you they are going to throw a jab, but the principle of how to deal with a straight line attack is there.
Why do people train for jabs when the most common punch is the Haymaker? Most cases the Haymaker is thrown with a step in punch. It is a training tool thinking of it as anything else means you do not have a firm grasp of what is being done.

I understand what you are saying. OK its a drill. I just dont think it is a very good one. Or even necessary. There are far more efficient ways to teach the same principles. Its an out dated method of instruction.

Again there is no point in learning how to defend these types of attacks when you are having difficulty defending a lunge punch. When you understand how the lunge punch works on a straight line, how to create distance, timing then you can apply it faster and change the type of attack. It is not the techniques it is do you understand the underlying principle being expressed? All TMA arts can be applied to today modern world if the underlying principles are understood.

I agree that its the principles that are of real importance. Techniques are the applications of those principles. Some applications work well in one scenario but not in another. Some applications are just bunk and will only work against a novice who is not seriously trying to hit you. I honestly dont think a lot of teachers are recognizing this.

Many cases teachers trained and knew each other. It was common in Chinese internal arts for people to train with each other. Kano sent one of his students to train with Ueshiba. So maybe on deeper levels yes but I think teachers knew of each other and to some degree what they did.

But no where near the extent of what we have today. Some of you guys seem to be idolizing the past. Personally I think we are in a golden age of martial arts development right now.
I remember what it was like in the 80's. " learn deadly secrets of the Dim mak death touch" "50 ways to kill an opponent with deadly karate blows!" etc
Boy what a joke it was. These days we have a huge melting pot of styles being tested blended and developed. Some good some bad. But at least (some)people are really learning how to fight.

Alot of rules. http://www.ufc.com/discover/sport/rules-and-regulations
In fact most of the rules band things that are used in a real fight!

Because it is a sport. It has grappling and striking, it has rules, time limits, you have to throw punches, be aggressive is part of it you can not just wait and run around to tire your opponent out either.

I think I've already expressed my views on this, which I know many of you may disagree with.

At least we can disagree and have an intelligent discussion about it. Props to this forum.
Try having a discussion like this on one of the mma forums and it quickly turns into an insult slinging contest. One of the bad developments of our age. These young kids just have no respect for anybody these days.

 

[K-man]

You're right a boxer is probably not the best choice. Bill was talking about punches not being any different. Thats why I brought up the boxer idea.
Perhaps someone with decent boxing skills but with a wider experience in other arts.

As for what you allow, its up to you and what kind of defenses and counters you want to test, and what the other guy is willing to agree to. Sure I understand you wont be able to use your entire range of counters. But I just dont buy the BS that some guys say "our art is too dangerous for sparring" There is still a lot you can use. Wouldn't it be worth testing out even part of your skill set?
It doesnt have to be a ego driven battle to prove who is best.

I've had such experiences with some good TMArtists that proved very enlightening for both sides.

Actually, I think boxers are a good choice ... just not for an all up brawl. When I was doing a boxing class I tried to finish with a few three minute rounds with the boxer trying to hit and me just defending. You would be amazed at how many punches can be thrown in that time and how few actually land, particularly to the head. However it does show that our TMA training does allow us a more than adequate defence against boxers. This training has no ego as no one is really trying to knock the other out of the park. To avoid the risk of injury the boxer has gloves but I just use open hands.

I find it great training as you are defending against someone trying to hit you and because you are not countering you must exercise control and restraint. What it allows you to recognise frequently is the opportunity to counter if you had to. The hardest punches to receive are the low punches coming in under the ribs or even low abdominal strikes. Even then, the opportunity for a counter to the head is often provided.

Works for me.

 

[seasoned]

I teach a very similar drill. My students are required to perform a curriculum technique against anything other than a step-in lunch punch. Without fail, the "karate" stances are gone and a boxer's stance becomes the preferred "ready" position.

You mentioned that a slip works as well against jab as it does a kata-style lunch punch. I agree.

Always love seeing the adaptation of boxing into the karate.

It is hard to comment on everything, but, the stance/sparring thing jumped out. My Sensei would say to the higher belts, " Your everyday stance, and your sparring stance, should be the same".
What I got from it was the stances were technique specific, but, while facing an aggressor, mobility, balance, and shifting were all needed. Not all of our stances were wide, which lent itself to the above.

 

[Mark Lynn]

Good day,

This has been touched on various times in other threads, and possibly has had its own thread as well (sorry in advance for the rehash if so) but I am curious to hear responses to the topic specifically.

Times change. People change. Do/should Martial Arts change?

Times do change and cultures change and I believe that the martial arts as we know them change as well. The biggest factor that leads change is competition or challenge matches. In regards to self defense than things don't change as much but they still change.

Take sword fighting you have different types of swords, taught different ways, from different countries, therefore over time the arts changed from where they started they evolved. You have Japanese methods using one sword with both hands and then two swords (one in each hand). Likewise you have European methods and Spanish methods; some using one type of sword, some using a longer sword and a smaller one, some using a small shield in one hand and a longer sword in another etc. etc.

Empty hand arts evolved as well. Boxing has evolved from palms facing in and bare knuckles, to gloves with palms facing more to the sides. Catch as catch can fights had all sorts of things that are illegal now in MMA. Savate was developed as a self defense system for the french that became in time a sport form of kick boxing, it even had a walking cane method of SD attached to it. Muay Thai was much more brutal 30 years ago as a sport in Thailand than now since it has gone more main stream (different rules were adopted).

The difference between what was practiced in Okinawa and main land Japan was vastly different as time progressed. Largely due to the impact of sparring between the karate clubs in the universities. Sparring led to different kicks (i.e the roundhouse which was introduced from China in the 40's) I believe the head and chest high side kick as well. TKD was created and changed to distance itself from Japan and Gen. Choi introduced the emphasis on kicking techniques, spinning kicks and jumping kicks. Which has led to Olympic style TKD.

In the grappling arts, Aikido was created from Aikijujtsu and it has changed since then, Wa Do blended jujitsu with Shotokan karate, Judo came from jujitsu. BJJ developed from jujtsu. etc. etc.

In the FMAs you have arts that combined karate (or was influenced by karate) with the Filipino MA such as Modern Arnis, Balintawak came from Doce Pares, some were blade based arts others stick based, some arts didn't really have empty hand until it was added in the 60's (Cabalas Serrada), there were grappling methods (Combat Judo) and others that had a host of influences.

Jo was developed by a staff fighter who lost to Mushashi, Kendo came out of kenjitsu. And on and on and on. Evolution of the arts is constant.

As Martial Artists should we be focused/concerned with preservation or progression of the combative arts?

Thank you in advance,

Jason Brinn

I believe there is a place for both really. Historically speaking I believe that evolution is the norm and preservation isn't what the founders sought. It is what we as martial artists do to honor our system or the founders of our system to pay them respect. But I believe it fly's in the face of what they stood for. They obviously felt the need for some sort of change otherwise we would not have all of the variations that we do, we would have all of the Japanese karate systems, or the Korean systems, practiced the world over if there wasn't change. Nor would we have the multitude of FMA styles, the Muay Thai methods, the JKD practitioners, the Indonesian systems practiced the world over without changes.

However some of the more TMAs of Japan, China, and Okinawa I believe it is great to keep them the same as their father's or their instructors taught.

 

[Mark Lynn]

I honestly feel that I would respond the same way to the question if I were a student of any other TMA that I can think of. They were all developed in real-world situations, to defend against real-world attacks. They were honed and refined over time until they became systems that worked and could be seen to work, over and over again. I still do not see how a punch is no longer a punch, a kick is no longer a kick. The attacks haven't changed. Different cultures tend to prefer different types of attacks, but even those are comprehended and dealt with in the TMAs.

Not one person so far has explained to me how a punch to the head that an American typically throws is different than a punch to the head that an Okinawan 400 years ago might have thrown. Show me how they have changed, then we might have the basis to talk about the need to change the defense against it.

Bill

I understand the point that the punch is the same and yet the manner of delivery might be different. For instance in a book I read a interview with a JKA karate master and he said that during WWII he was stationed in Manchuria and studied martial arts there. When he came back to Japan after the war he introduced the roundhouse kick to the Shotokan students and they adapted it. Prior to that Okinawan karate didn't have or Funakoshi hadn't shown his students that kick. So a different kick and all of it's variations (i.e. low, middle, high, front leg rear leg, jumping kicks, double kicks etc. etc.) would not have had defenses developed against those kicks. Likewise add in "newer" techniques like the Thai roundhouse kicks (which are completely different than the karate kicks, or say the Savate round kicks that are delivered with the point of the shoes, and those are variations that I doubt that Soke developed defenses for with those kicks in mind. Not that defenses couldn't be adapted from what is there in the first place.

The Japanese Shotokan side kick is different than the Korean side kick and they are delivered differently. Now over time they might have blended but back then in the 40's-60's they were different. Even the Okinawan systems (if they had side kicks) would be different than the Korean version of the 50's/60's when TKD was being developed.

Likewise how would a Okinawan respond to someone from say Indonesia who studied some form of tiger silat who drops to the ground and crawls like a tiger? Or someone who is squatting on the ground with their legs crossed and springs up to deliver a kick. These type of defenses/techniques etc. etc. were developed to confuse the opponent making them look vulnerable when they weren't and they were effective to some extent.

I do believe that the TMA have a lot to offer and frankly they take a bad rap because I believe they were designed as I believe Funakoshi said as self defense against untrained attackers, which is the majority of attacks out there in relation to self defense anyway, and not for defending against trained attackers (such as sport competition).

 

[K-man]

I do believe that the TMA have a lot to offer and frankly they take a bad rap because I believe they were designed as I believe Funakoshi said as self defense against untrained attackers, which is the majority of attacks out there in relation to self defense anyway, and not for defending against trained attackers (such as sport competition).

So very true and something that many just do not seem to understand. :asian:

 

[Mark Lynn]

Preservation or Progression

I believe a good case is made really for both models respectively if we look back at history of karate on Okinawa and Japan (leave out the variants practiced across the globe for now). A good example is two styles of Okinawan Karate that both founders had the same master. Source material is from Classical Fighting Arts Vol 2. No 20 and 21 from a two part article "Tou' on Ryu The karate of Juhatsu Kyoda" by Mario McKenna.

Juhatsu Kyoda studied karate under Kanryo Higaonna along with Chojun Miyagi (the founder of Goju Ryu in latter years). Both students trained for many years "sometimes as friends and at othertimes as rivals" under the same instructor. "From 1908 onward Juhastu focused on his career as an educator..... Despite his career path Juhatsu continued to practice karate diligently under his instructor until the death of the latter in Dec. 1915." Chojun entered in the military and was stationed in Miyazaki Prefecture from 1910-1912, "Chojun also took up the practice of Judo and became so proficent within a year that the teacher was no longer able to beat him." "....I suspect that the two years that Chojun was absent from Okinawa allowed Juhatsu to learn many things from Higaonna. However following his absence from the dojo of Kanryo Higaonna, Chojun soon made up for lost time. Completing his military service, he returned home to Okinawa where he received private instruction from his teacher in the Miyagi home until the death of Higaonna Sensei three years later."

"After the death of Higaonna, Juhatsu and Chojun found themselves traveling very different paths. Like his teacher before him Chojun visited China to further his study of karate, while Juhatsu continued in his role as educator....... and he continued to teach his students just as Higaonna taught him." "Furthermore Chojun was an avid reseacher who developed several new kata fro his Goju-ryu including Gekki-sai Dai-ichi and Dai-ni, Tensho and possibly Saifa" From this point onward the article goes onto explain some of the technical differences in the execution of different kata found within both systems. This was from CFA vol. 2 No. 20.

In Vol 2 No. 21 pg. 53 in an interview with Kanzaki Sensei "Kyoda inherited Higaonna's kata and technique unchanged, however Miyagi made his own kata and changed others by introducing his own ideas. The most obvious is chambering the fist at the same height as the chest because he was barrel chested. In addition [Miyagi's] sanseru is completely different from that of Kyoda,....."

Looking back from today's perspective we would believe both systems are TMAs and yet the argument could be made that one art is taught as from the original instructor "Juhatsu's art" and the other art progressed into something newer "Miyagi's system".

Likewise in Vol.2 No.20 there is an article that describes training in the bo during the early years of sensei Funakoshi's Shotokan karate. How the bo was part of early training and was to be part of the curriculum but if we look at it from the manuals that we have during the 60's on forward the material is omitted. In fact introducing the bo now would probably be seen as progressive or adding to the art instead of "beside the empty hand kata, five bo kata were incorporated into the developing curriculum of historic Shotokan (1938-1945)..."

Pg 24 "Therefore, for Funakoshi karate didn't represent an art of exclusively weaponless technique. Yet, when he began to teach in main land Japan from 1922, he emphasized the weaponless forms in his first two books. From his perspective, carrying weapons was no longer appropriate, and so people were to practice a type of self protection that would enable them to counter potential aggression without weapons." It appears that while he stressed the importance of the empty hand, enough time passed that the EH aspect of the art took over and the bo instruction probably never gained enough support to become part of the curriculum among the teachers who passed the art on down to newer students.

Here we see that due to changes in culture one part of an art is emphasized while another is de-emphasized, just like in Modern Arnis where GM Remy (in a private conversation) the reason why he didn't teach the stick and knife (baston y daga/espada y daga) anymore. It wasn't applicable to today's society (especially in America). Shotokan being a TMA and Modern Arnis as a Modern martial art both changed or de emphasized things because it was felt that instruction was no longer applicable and other things were more important.

In conclusion I believe that it all comes full circle what was progressive becomes tradtional, what's left out is added back in later and is new again. Change happens.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I teach a very similar drill. My students are required to perform a curriculum technique against anything other than a step-in lunch punch. Without fail, the "karate" stances are gone and a boxer's stance becomes the preferred "ready" position.

You mentioned that a slip works as well against jab as it does a kata-style lunch punch. I agree.

Always love seeing the adaptation of boxing into the karate.

I just want to point out that a slip is part of Isshin-Ryu, not an adaptation from boxing (although whatever works, works).

This can be clearly seen in a number of our basic exercises, such as 'o uchi o uchi' and 'otoshi geri'. Both incorporate getting out of the way, followed by methods of counterattack.

One of the reasons I have been told that Shimabuku Soke incorporated the vertical fist in our system was because he noticed that was how people actually tended to fight.