Martial Arts Evolution/Revolution?

[jasonbrinn]

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?

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


Thank you in advance,


Jason Brinn

 

[Bill Mattocks]

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

Yes. No. Yes. No.

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

'We' should get our asses into the dojo and train and not worry about what other people are doing in theirs. That's my opinion. Preservation? Progression? Don't know, don't care.

 

[Nomad]

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?

Yes, martial arts do change. Some of these changes are organic in nature, and have to do with the preferences, skills, body types, strategies, and relative importance of different martial principles of the lead (and senior) instructors of a system.

Drift also occurs naturally as a martial art is removed further and further from it's original context (battlefield, fighting off street thugs, etc) into a "safer" environment often driven by sporting competitions with rules designed to protect the participants from injury.

Changes can also be conscious, such as instructors altering curriculum that doesn't make sense or "work" for them, or adding elements they see as missing.

Should martial arts change? It depends. It depends on the goals of the organization and of the participants. If the primary goal in your martial art is to win competitions, then it's ridiculous to resist change to techniques that work better for that situation. If your aim is clearly self-protection, then it makes sense to acknowledge that you don't need to worry as much about sword techniques as the roots of your art have in the past, and that other scenarios are more likely and need to be trained for.

If the primary goal is to maintain a time capsule of how the art may have looked originally, and pass on the strategies and techniques therein (which may also be completely valid for other purposes, such as self-defense in certain circumstances), then obviously the answer is "no"... although it likely will change over time anyway.

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


Thank you in advance,


Jason Brinn

It depends on what type of martial artist you want to be, and what your own goals are. Personally, I think martial arts (in general) benefits greatly from both attitudes. Each is appropriate to a different venue.

 

[sopraisso]

Nomad hit the point. I agree with him, it depends on your goals regarding martial arts.
Anyway, I can tell you that I enjoy that time capsule thing, you know? I just think there's a lot of good things we get from "traditional" martial arts ways, and I have the feeling that, if we don't work to maintain it, it'll be lost. I guess I've already been seeing that. I'm a taekwondo practitioner, and around my place most TKD schools have become just simple sports academies that don't keep most characteristics that I would call martial or that I would call arts. I mean, it just has becomes a sport. Is having a new sport bad? I don't think so, but the problem to me is when we lose other things to let only the sport stay.
So I think changes are totally ok, but as time passes, our we're not careful, chances are what we used to call martial arts could be dead and forgotten. Actually, many times I already have this feeling, as well as I feel that fortunately some people are trying to bring them back to life.

Enviado de meu GT-I9300 usando o Tapatalk 2

 

[pgsmith]

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

I'm with Bill on this. You do what you do, and I'll do what I do. Different martial arts, and indeed, different schools within the same martial art, have different goals and desires. If you don't agree with the goals and desires of the school you are with, then find one that you do agree with.

The problem comes in when someone that has their own school does not know what they want. It is much harder for someone in that position to go out and find what reverberates with them and start over. Too many times someone in this position will just try and change what they teach to reflect more of what they think they should be doing. Usually, this ends up as a hash of unrelated ideas and movements that don't really belong together.

If you wish to learn traditional martial arts, join a good, legitimate, traditional martial arts school and start at the beginning like everyone else. I've done that twice myself, and not regretted a moment of it.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I think the answer depends on the type of art your taking as well as your reason. For example;

• Is your reason to take something 'traditional' that has been passed down unchanged from its inception? Then it shouldn't change and doesn't need to change.
• Is your reason to engage in sport competition? Then it may change if the rules change. It may change if a better training method is developed.
• Is your reason for self-defense? Then it may change when better tactics/strategy are developed or lessons are learned from prior mistakes in training methodology.

 

[Aiki Lee]

I agree with Nomad as well.

Principles and strategies would like never need to change, but perhaps some training methodologies and the attacks you train against may change if you are concerned with self-defense only. If you are working on preserving a hisotrical system, then no it wouldn't change.

 

[seasoned]

I think the answer depends on the type of art your taking as well as your reason. For example;

• Is your reason to take something 'traditional' that has been passed down unchanged from its inception? Then it shouldn't change and doesn't need to change.
• Is your reason to engage in sport competition? Then it may change if the rules change. It may change if a better training method is developed.
• Is your reason for self-defense? Then it may change when better tactics/strategy are developed or lessons are learned from prior mistakes in training methodology.

I would fall into category number one . There is much to learn from old kata pertaining to combat and body principles within the kata (forms).
Techniques can always be added to because once you have a basic idea of what the originator of the kata was trying to convey, there is much hidden between the lines so to speak.................

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I agree with Nomad as well.

Principles and strategies would like never need to change, but perhaps some training methodologies and the attacks you train against may change if you are concerned with self-defense only. If you are working on preserving a hisotrical system, then no it wouldn't change.

If the 'historical' system is adept at self-defense, then it does not need to change. I think the assumption that 'old' systems are not able to handle 'new' threats is not very accurate.

 

[oaktree]

Hi Jason,

Do/should Martial Arts change?

Do and should really require two different answers. In a style one might change it but maybe they shouldn't because they have not grasp a well enough understanding of it.
Do they styles change? Some do, some don't. Some styles don't change but the way a person practices that style adding or subtracting things has his/her distinct flavor.

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

I think a martial artist should be able to do both. You can preserve tradition and think critical about your art. Changing techniques is not what makes progression, it is working out the theories and foundation of the art and adapting it to the situation that leads to progression.

 

[Nomad]

I think it's also possible for an art to incorporate new training methods or drills that effectively work to reduce some of the "drift" mentioned above, and bring the art closer to its traditional origins and goals. For instance, an art (or instructor or school) that has become sport or tournament oriented over time may make a conscious decision to focus more on kata (minus changes made for tournament competition) and the practical applications therein. In doing so, they may regain "lost" knowledge and bring the art closer to what it was at its inception (commonly a way to protect yourself against thugs).

Which brings up the question of what is "traditional" in the art and what are actually fairly recent changes that are masquerading as such. Is cross-training traditional, or modern? How about point sparring? One steps? Line drills? The answer for each of these, I believe, depends largely on how you define traditional. Is it how you initially learned the art? Your instructor? His instructor? The founder? In most arts, it's highly unlikely that each of these generations were taught in the same manner (exception would be arts less than a generation old, obviously).

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Which brings up the question of what is "traditional" in the art and what are actually fairly recent changes that are masquerading as such. Is cross-training traditional, or modern? How about point sparring? One steps? Line drills? The answer for each of these, I believe, depends largely on how you define traditional. Is it how you initially learned the art? Your instructor? His instructor? The founder? In most arts, it's highly unlikely that each of these generations were taught in the same manner (exception would be arts less than a generation old, obviously).

For Isshin-Ryu, it goes Soke -> 1st Gen -> 2nd Gen -> me. And I can see videos and talk to people who learned directly from Soke. So, although I have seen 'drift' as you say, not in our dojo, at least not with intent to change anything. Everything we do, we can verify it was taught that way originally. Biggest challenges are that Soke himself changed things from time to time, as it is told by those who learned directly from him.

 

[jasonbrinn]

For Isshin-Ryu, it goes Soke -> 1st Gen -> 2nd Gen -> me. And I can see videos and talk to people who learned directly from Soke. So, although I have seen 'drift' as you say, not in our dojo, at least not with intent to change anything. Everything we do, we can verify it was taught that way originally. Biggest challenges are that Soke himself changed things from time to time, as it is told by those who learned directly from him.

Mr. Mattocks, I am curious if you know a friend of mine by the name Danny Glover? Just curious.

 

[Carol]

I'd like to see more revolution in classes...such as teaching adults at times other than 7pm weeknights. As a person who worked second shift for 5 years, I find it quite ironic that the people that are most likely to use MA skills as part of their job are the least likely to be on a 9 to 5 schedule.

A big Muay Thai gym near Boston runs classes throughout the day, including 7am, middays, etc. Most crossfit gyms do too.

 

[ballen0351]

I'd like to see more revolution in classes...such as teaching adults at times other than 7pm weeknights. As a person who worked second shift for 5 years, I find it quite ironic that the people that are most likely to use MA skills as part of their job are the least likely to be on a 9 to 5 schedule.

A big Muay Thai gym near Boston runs classes throughout the day, including 7am, middays, etc. Most crossfit gyms do too.

That's why I drive over an hour and a half each way to class because it was the only place I could find that would open up during the day. Its normally just me and Sensei that are there and he never did it before until I called explained my schedule and that nobody here teaches during day. He said he would do it. Been going ever since.

 

[WC_lun]

The human body and how we fight unarmed have not changed. What made a fighting system effective 300 years ago is still relavent in today's world. The differences I see is communication and knowledge is shared easier, we are generally healthier, and most martial arts have switched to a sporting aspect. We also rarely have to fight, which is a good thing. However, that also has a bad side in that many people who study martial arts get sold the fantasy that has been created.

 

[MJS]

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?

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


Thank you in advance,


Jason Brinn

Yes, IMO, everything changes. Now, some may choose to not see it that way, but look around, look at non martial arts related things. There's a ton of stuff thats changed. People are always coming out with the latest, greatest, newest things. The way cars are built have changed. Homes, computers, phones, medicine, everything changes!

In similar discussions to this, I've had people say that while things change, is the change always for the better? Is a 1969 Mustang a better car than a 2013 Mustang? Some will say yes, some will say no. For those that are diehard fans of the classics, they'll probably pick the '69, while others, who're all about the body style and performance, they'll pick the '13. So, that said, I think no matter what, you'll always have 2 sides that're split on this.

If we relate this to the arts, people will say that since day 1, we all had 2 arms, and 2 legs, so whats changed. And they're right. Unless there were some early humans with an extra set of arms and legs....lol. I would however, venture to say that while we've always fit the above, fighting style has most likely changed. We don't see people fighting with swords and spears, other than in training. Today we see a different variety of guns and knives. So, IMO, we need to adapt to deal with those things.

Some people will be content, as I said, with no change. I prefer to keep my training current with the times.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Mr. Mattocks, I am curious if you know a friend of mine by the name Danny Glover? Just curious.

Only by reputation. I do know one of his students, who teaches Isshin-Ryu now in Tarboro, NC and was just inducted into the Isshin-Ryu Hall of Fame.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I would however, venture to say that while we've always fit the above, fighting style has most likely changed. We don't see people fighting with swords and spears, other than in training. Today we see a different variety of guns and knives. So, IMO, we need to adapt to deal with those things.

This is where I have to disagree. Speaking strictly in terms of self-defense, how do people fight that is different from when various martial arts styles were developed?

There may be some differences based on culture or geography, as I mentioned previously. Americans tend to be built differently than Okinawans, for example, and often throw haymakers at the head. However, people still did that on Okinawa, and blocking blows to the head is taught. There may be defenses taught to attacks that are not often seen in 'real life' in America, for example, but what of it? It's all part and parcel of a system that taken as a whole, has defenses to anything an unarmed person could throw.

As to swords and spears, the system I train in has no specific empty-handed techniques designed to deal with either one that I'm aware of. So I guess that's good.

As to knives, well, they were popular then and they still are. So knife defense techniques are taught. Tuite techniques still work.

Guns? Ah, that's different, yes. However, when a gun is within grabbing range, it is susceptible to the same techniques used to effect a hand-held weapon release of any kind, save one does not want the end of it pointed at oneself. At a distance, I am unaware of any empty-handed techniques, new or old, that would serve to protect one from being shot at twenty paces (for example).

In summary, I accept that there are changes in fighting styles. I do not accept that this represents any need to change the techniques which included those types of attacks originally, and for which they still work just fine.

If anything, I find that I may actually have an advantage, slim though it may be. Our Soke was maybe 130 pounds, dripping wet. He had to make his techniques work against gigantic American Marines who were built differently than Okinawans. Taller, more upper body strength, more tendency to throw punches instead of kicks. As a result, his techniques had to be based on body mechanics rather than brute strength in order to be effective. As a rather extra-large sized American, I can have even more effect by using good body mechanics, and my size and strength may even give me the ability to still be effective without having them perfect.

I do not study a traditional Okinawan art because it is a traditional Okinawan art. I study it because it's bloody fantastic. Then and now. I can't think of any way we modern Americans fight today which leaves a practitioner of our style unprepared.

What precisely is it that has to 'change' in order to adapt to modern ways of self-defense fighting?

 

[MJS]

This is where I have to disagree. Speaking strictly in terms of self-defense, how do people fight that is different from when various martial arts styles were developed?

There may be some differences based on culture or geography, as I mentioned previously. Americans tend to be built differently than Okinawans, for example, and often throw haymakers at the head. However, people still did that on Okinawa, and blocking blows to the head is taught. There may be defenses taught to attacks that are not often seen in 'real life' in America, for example, but what of it? It's all part and parcel of a system that taken as a whole, has defenses to anything an unarmed person could throw.

As to swords and spears, the system I train in has no specific empty-handed techniques designed to deal with either one that I'm aware of. So I guess that's good.

As to knives, well, they were popular then and they still are. So knife defense techniques are taught. Tuite techniques still work.

Disagree as we may Bill, I do respect your opinions. You and I have, IMO, had some good discussions on here. Anyways, to reply to what you said: I've only been alive for 38yrs Bill. How people fought 50+ yrs ago...couldn't tell ya. I can only assume it's changed, ie: fighting style, movement, etc, but I may be wrong.

Guns? Ah, that's different, yes. However, when a gun is within grabbing range, it is susceptible to the same techniques used to effect a hand-held weapon release of any kind, save one does not want the end of it pointed at oneself. At a distance, I am unaware of any empty-handed techniques, new or old, that would serve to protect one from being shot at twenty paces (for example).

Likewise, at a distance, well, you're pretty much screwed..lol. However, I was talking about the overall quality of guns from way back, to present time.

In summary, I accept that there are changes in fighting styles. I do not accept that this represents any need to change the techniques which included those types of attacks originally, and for which they still work just fine.

If anything, I find that I may actually have an advantage, slim though it may be. Our Soke was maybe 130 pounds, dripping wet. He had to make his techniques work against gigantic American Marines who were built differently than Okinawans. Taller, more upper body strength, more tendency to throw punches instead of kicks. As a result, his techniques had to be based on body mechanics rather than brute strength in order to be effective. As a rather extra-large sized American, I can have even more effect by using good body mechanics, and my size and strength may even give me the ability to still be effective without having them perfect.

Well, this is kinda what I was talking about. Your Soke had to make an accomodation for a larger opponent.

I do not study a traditional Okinawan art because it is a traditional Okinawan art. I study it because it's bloody fantastic. Then and now. I can't think of any way we modern Americans fight today which leaves a practitioner of our style unprepared.

Likewise, I'm training in what I am doing now, and yes, I too feel its bloody fantastic! My regret is that I didn't start sooner.