Martial Arts Evolution/Revolution?

[Drag'n]

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?

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

I dont know about your dojo so I really cant say much about your particular art. All I have is my own experience to go on.

Now I know this is really going to stir up some people. Let me apologize before hand. I'm not really out to personally disrespect any one. Just speaking frankly about what I have experienced. If you can say or even better show me something to change my mind. Great! I will have learned something new.

I havent stepped inside a TMA school for at least 6~7 years now, but most of the traditional schools I have trained at used archaic methods of training which were slow to produce effect skills. They ignored modern training equipment and sport science in favor of protecting the old ways."If it was good enough then its good enough now" mentality.

I couldn't disagree more with this hard core traditionalist attitude.

Back in the day they didnt have sparring equipment so they couldnt really spar with realistic contact without seriously injuring each other. So they had to compromise by finding less effective ways to train that enabled them to practice their art without maiming each other. Thats not so much the case anymore. We have a variety of equipment that enables us to go at it pretty hard without serious injury.

Now I'm sure most of us are taking advantage of this and sparring hard frequently.That experience itself is surely going to open your eyes to things that those who never got to spar were not aware of. Yet I still see guys who refuse to acknowledge when things they have been taught are simply unrealistic.They just get better at finding ways to justify it.

Most(but not all) of the guys teaching pure TMA that I have met have never been in any kind of fight. They've never even had any one seriously try to knock them out.They dont really know what its like to face that level of aggression. All they have is their tradition, based on something someone used a long time ago, presumably effectively, against the type of attacks that were common in that region and time period. Passed down by generations of teachers who never really tested them out but had lots of time to theorize and systemize their art.

When I first started training most of the traditional schools didnt spar full contact. In fact they hardly sparred at all. Lots of unrealistic kata applications and one step drills where some guy does a telegraphed lunge punch and the other does a multiple step counter while the attacker just stands there. Why is it that the lunge punch is so common in traditional arts anyway? Do you know anybody besides a TMArtist who punches like that? Could it be due to the influence of some of the thrusting techs used by armed warriors in the past? Today you'd be better off learning how to defend jabs crosses uppercuts knees takedowns submissions knife and gun attacks multiple attackers etc. The types of attacks that are popular in our time. As I'm sure most of you do.

In the past communication with and sharing of techniques between dojos was rare. More often teachers were very secretive about their styles. So they didnt get to see what others did or think about how to counter them. Now we have competitions on every week somewhere. The internet where you can go online and study other styles techs.Dojos with doors open to anybody interested in testing their skills.( something I have always made an effort to take advantage of) The UFC where highly trained fighters go at it under very liberal rules with any style they choose. Interestingly they always seem to chose the same styles though. Ones that are progressive in their thinking, constantly growing adapting and testing their arts BY FIGHTING AND EVOLVING.

Why would you chose to ignore these things? I'm sorry I just dont get it.

Another thing to consider. If it takes 20 years to become truly effective in your style maybe you should be looking for ways to improve on the way it is practiced and taught.

I know many of the TMA dojos I trained at were crap. And that there are good ones out there. But there is just as much rubbish being justified by tradition refusing to grow as there is rubbish being created by mixing things up.

"There is only one thing which is unchanging in the universe. It is the fact that everything is in a constant state of change"

 

[WC_lun]

Something I found out over the years is that many so called "traditional martial arts" are anything but traditional. It is to the point where I really dislike that term. Traditional martial arts were about self defense. They were taught to keep a person's possessions thier own and thier lives intact. Many were also part of a military. Those skills were tested and tried. Today most schools classified as "traditional martial arts" are about training to compete in a sporting event or to sell the mystique of martial arts. The sporting thing is a valid reason to train and does a lot for many people, but it is not traditional.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

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.

I'm 51, but likewise claim no specialized understanding of how people used to hit each other. However, we have historical documents like the Bubishi which seem to make it pretty clear.

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.

I agree that guns are a new thing. However, as I said, tuite or hand techniques to trap, disarm, and otherwise neutralize a hand-held weapon still work. If you are suggesting that 'change' is necessary for that particular threat, I'll go along with that to some extent. Since the way a hand-held firearm is to be defended against is new, I can see where new techniques could be quite useful. But I would also consider this one very small subset of a very large set of skills.

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

But he was indeed Soke. It was his style, he invented it. However, as I understand it, his accommodation consisted of practicing very good body mechanics, which works in all cases; it was just required against a very large and powerful opponent. And one might argue that since Isshin-Ryu is a relatively new style (just over 50 years old), it represents the very kind of change and evolution you're talking about. But it came directly from Shorin-Ryu and Gojo-Ryu. Not much changed except that the stances tend to be taller, the fist tends to be vertical.

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.

I am with you; I should have started long ago. But I do my best to apply myself now.

The basic point I am getting at is this. The question 'do the arts need to change to match the times' presupposes that the times have changed. In the ways that matter to unarmed self-defense, I do not think the times have changed to begin with. If they times haven't changed, then the question becomes moot. There is also a bit of a supposition in there on the part of the O/P that those who practice traditional martial arts do so because they are traditional, which is not, I think, a valid assumption to make. Certainly not true in my case. My knowing a few words in Japanese or bowing or wearing a gi does not affect my self-defense skills one way or another. They do not help, but neither do they hurt; and in any case, I do not train in Isshin-Ryu because I like to wear a gi or say things in bad Japanese.

I'm all for people training in the style they feel is best suited for them; I'm sure we both agree on that. And I would never doubt your ability to defend yourself effectively. I just think that the 'should we change things' question proceeds from a couple of assumptions that may not be correct.

 

[MJS]

I dont know about your dojo so I really cant say much about your particular art. All I have is my own experience to go on.

Now I know this is really going to stir up some people. Let me apologize before hand. I'm not really out to personally disrespect any one. Just speaking frankly about what I have experienced. If you can say or even better show me something to change my mind. Great! I will have learned something new.

I havent stepped inside a TMA school for at least 6~7 years now, but most of the traditional schools I have trained at used archaic methods of training which were slow to produce effect skills. They ignored modern training equipment and sport science in favor of protecting the old ways."If it was good enough then its good enough now" mentality.

I couldn't disagree more with this hard core traditionalist attitude.

Back in the day they didnt have sparring equipment so they couldnt really spar with realistic contact without seriously injuring each other. So they had to compromise by finding less effective ways to train that enabled them to practice their art without maiming each other. Thats not so much the case anymore. We have a variety of equipment that enables us to go at it pretty hard without serious injury.

Now I'm sure most of us are taking advantage of this and sparring hard frequently.That experience itself is surely going to open your eyes to things that those who never got to spar were not aware of. Yet I still see guys who refuse to acknowledge when things they have been taught are simply unrealistic.They just get better at finding ways to justify it.

Most(but not all) of the guys teaching pure TMA that I have met have never been in any kind of fight. They've never even had any one seriously try to knock them out.They dont really know what its like to face that level of aggression. All they have is their tradition, based on something someone used a long time ago, presumably effectively, against the type of attacks that were common in that region and time period. Passed down by generations of teachers who never really tested them out but had lots of time to theorize and systemize their art.

When I first started training most of the traditional schools didnt spar full contact. In fact they hardly sparred at all. Lots of unrealistic kata applications and one step drills where some guy does a telegraphed lunge punch and the other does a multiple step counter while the attacker just stands there. Why is it that the lunge punch is so common in traditional arts anyway? Do you know anybody besides a TMArtist who punches like that? Could it be due to the influence of some of the thrusting techs used by armed warriors in the past? Today you'd be better off learning how to defend jabs crosses uppercuts knees takedowns submissions knife and gun attacks multiple attackers etc. The types of attacks that are popular in our time. As I'm sure most of you do.

In the past communication with and sharing of techniques between dojos was rare. More often teachers were very secretive about their styles. So they didnt get to see what others did or think about how to counter them. Now we have competitions on every week somewhere. The internet where you can go online and study other styles techs.Dojos with doors open to anybody interested in testing their skills.( something I have always made an effort to take advantage of) The UFC where highly trained fighters go at it under very liberal rules with any style they choose. Interestingly they always seem to chose the same styles though. Ones that are progressive in their thinking, constantly growing adapting and testing their arts BY FIGHTING AND EVOLVING.

Why would you chose to ignore these things? I'm sorry I just dont get it.

Another thing to consider. If it takes 20 years to become truly effective in your style maybe you should be looking for ways to improve on the way it is practiced and taught.

I know many of the TMA dojos I trained at were crap. And that there are good ones out there. But there is just as much rubbish being justified by tradition refusing to grow as there is rubbish being created by mixing things up.

"There is only one thing which is unchanging in the universe. It is the fact that everything is in a constant state of change"

This is pretty much what I was trying to get at in my last post. The only thing I'm going to comment on here, is what you said in regards to sparring. As of this month, it's been a year that I joined a Kyokushin dojo. The training there is nothing like I've experienced in other schools. I really enjoy it. As for the sparring...all we wear are cloth hand pads, shin pads, and a head gear...thats it. The groin cup and mouth piece are optional, however, I do wear them. Anyways, the contact is very hard. Needless to say, the pads really aren't padding much, as you're feeling every shot, as if nothing was on the hands at all..lol. When my teacher was training, they didn't wear any protection and the sparring was pretty damn brutal. Now, I can't speak for every TMA dojo out there, just mine. We don't spar every class. If we're not sparring, we're working drills, however, the contact is still there. I come home and my ribs are pretty tender.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I dont know about your dojo so I really cant say much about your particular art. All I have is my own experience to go on.

Fair enough.

Now I know this is really going to stir up some people. Let me apologize before hand. I'm not really out to personally disrespect any one. Just speaking frankly about what I have experienced. If you can say or even better show me something to change my mind. Great! I will have learned something new.

I havent stepped inside a TMA school for at least 6~7 years now, but most of the traditional schools I have trained at used archaic methods of training which were slow to produce effect skills. They ignored modern training equipment and sport science in favor of protecting the old ways."If it was good enough then its good enough now" mentality.

Then your dojos were indeed different than mine. What training equipment do you refer to? What science have we not accounted for? I'm just asking.

I couldn't disagree more with this hard core traditionalist attitude.

I have not experienced that attitude, so I can see we have a different basis. We routinely examine techniques from outside our own style in my dojo. We try them, we see that many of them work quite well. Perfectly usable and quite acceptable for self-defense. It is made clear to students that it is not part of our style, but we also are taught that what is important is that the technique does or does not work, not where it came from.

Back in the day they didnt have sparring equipment so they couldnt really spar with realistic contact without seriously injuring each other. So they had to compromise by finding less effective ways to train that enabled them to practice their art without maiming each other. Thats not so much the case anymore. We have a variety of equipment that enables us to go at it pretty hard without serious injury.

Actually, many traditional martial artists in Okinawa worked their techniques by maiming and killing each other. Not in a sporting event, but from bar to bar, village to village. They were also not uncommonly called upon to defend themselves against drunks, bandits, and even invaders. They honed their skills by seeing what worked for themselves and for others when they were defeated. It was in fact a matter of life and death for them to get it right. I actually think that trumps protective equipment that allows people to hammer each other hard to see what works.

You and I may live our entire lives without ever having a brigand jump in front of us on a path and demand our money. In older times, this was just not that uncommon. We live in a much more peaceful world in many ways than our ancestors. Their martial arts inventions were designed to counter threats which actually existed, not theoretical threats which might happen. They had to find out if their skills worked as they hoped they would by applying them for real, against real people who were really trying to kill them.

Now I'm sure most of us are taking advantage of this and sparring hard frequently.That experience itself is surely going to open your eyes to things that those who never got to spar were not aware of. Yet I still see guys who refuse to acknowledge when things they have been taught are simply unrealistic.They just get better at finding ways to justify it.

Well, I'm not sure what to tell you there. I'm sure you're right. I'm glad to say that I can demonstrate that my skills work. And if my abilities are not yet up to my statements, I have senseis who can and do demonstrate it with alacrity. I have never yet seen anyone say "Oh yeah? Then what do you do when THIS happens [throw technique]" and not have it utterly defeated with extreme ease.

Most(but not all) of the guys teaching pure TMA that I have met have never been in any kind of fight. They've never even had any one seriously try to knock them out.They dont really know what its like to face that level of aggression. All they have is their tradition, based on something someone used a long time ago, presumably effectively, against the type of attacks that were common in that region and time period. Passed down by generations of teachers who never really tested them out but had lots of time to theorize and systemize their art.

Again, not my experience. And I've got a solid background of law enforcement and military experience fighting that tells me what's BS and what isn't. I'm not claiming to be a great fighter or to have even had that many 'street' fights, but I've had my share. I am not going to tell tales on my senseis, but suffice to say they have been around the block more than once. They walk it like they talk it.

When I first started training most of the traditional schools didnt spar full contact. In fact they hardly sparred at all. Lots of unrealistic kata applications and one step drills where some guy does a telegraphed lunge punch and the other does a multiple step counter while the attacker just stands there. Why is it that the lunge punch is so common in traditional arts anyway? Do you know anybody besides a TMArtist who punches like that? Could it be due to the influence of some of the thrusting techs used by armed warriors in the past? Today you'd be better off learning how to defend jabs crosses uppercuts knees takedowns submissions knife and gun attacks multiple attackers etc. The types of attacks that are popular in our time. As I'm sure most of you do.

This is where, in my world, it becomes more difficult to explain to those who dislike TMA. No, you won't commonly see a lunge punch in self-defense situations. But what you will see is that the defense to a lunge punch is very useful for very many things - if you've been shown the bunkai by people who know how to teach it and understand how it works. The same block I would use against a lunge punch (as an example) applies just as easily to a punch to the head or even a kick. I raise or lower my arm a bit. The mechanics are the same, the movement is the same, and if applied correctly, the result is the same.

As regards the self-defense to a punch to the head, in my experience, most non-trained Americans wind up and throw a haymaker. So yes, they telegraph. However, part of our training is learning to look for the 'tell' that lets us know the punch is coming. Nearly everybody telegraphs their intentions if you know how to look for it. And we practice those fast-twitch reflexes that let us throw our counter before the punch even draws back to be thrown at us if we want to respond that way.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I believe an awful lot of people with a negative view of TMA have only had experience with poor teachers in bad dojos teaching watered down skills that have drifted and become more-or-less useless. And there are a lot of those, and yes, that's a real shame. But I have NEVER had an instructor of mine say "We do it that way because that's the way it is done!" NEVER. We ask and we are shown - often painfully - what the technique is for, how it is applied, why it works, what the variations on it are, and so on. This is what good instruction does. And (again, no insult to you intended), there are also a lot of crap students out there. Two years of training, 1st degree black belt, and they open their dojo and start teaching. It's BS, IMHO. That's a business, it's not an art.

In the past communication with and sharing of techniques between dojos was rare. More often teachers were very secretive about their styles. So they didnt get to see what others did or think about how to counter them. Now we have competitions on every week somewhere. The internet where you can go online and study other styles techs.Dojos with doors open to anybody interested in testing their skills.( something I have always made an effort to take advantage of) The UFC where highly trained fighters go at it under very liberal rules with any style they choose. Interestingly they always seem to chose the same styles though. Ones that are progressive in their thinking, constantly growing adapting and testing their arts BY FIGHTING AND EVOLVING.

We don't have any secrets. I communicate here all the time. What would you like to know?

As to UFC fighting and evolving, yes, indeed. And do you know why? Because fighting in a cage for sport with two men and a referee is relatively new in this country. People are still figuring out what works and what does not. This was done a long time ago with regard to hand-to-hand self-defense outside of a ring or a cage.

Why would you chose to ignore these things? I'm sorry I just dont get it.

First, I don't ignore those things. If I wanted to fight in a cage, they'd be excellent skills to have. Second, you assume a great deal.

Another thing to consider. If it takes 20 years to become truly effective in your style maybe you should be looking for ways to improve on the way it is practiced and taught.

Or maybe the concept of mastery is lost on some. 20 years should get a person well on the way towards mastery. I can defend myself now, after 4 years. I'm just going to keep getting better.

I know many of the TMA dojos I trained at were crap. And that there are good ones out there. But there is just as much rubbish being justified by tradition refusing to grow as there is rubbish being created by mixing things up.

So we agree that people who teach crap skills are harming martial arts. And it doesn't matter if they teach so-called TMA or more modern combative arts. Right? So yes, crap is crap. That does not easily extend to a blanket condemnation of traditional martial arts. I'm not sure how you are making that leap.

"There is only one thing which is unchanging in the universe. It is the fact that everything is in a constant state of change"

This demonstrates a lack of understanding of the concept of rate of change. Yes, everything changes. But we will not all have three arms in the next generation. Change is constant - and often quite slow. There is a need to change responses to threats which have changed. But if the threat has not changed, then the response does not need to change.

The first question is to evaluate the basic premise - have threats requiring self-defense capability changed? If yes, then how have the threats changed? If not, then the ways that worked then, work now. And we're not a whole lot smarter than the people who thought up and tested self-defense techniques that got them dead or maimed if they didn't work.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Something I found out over the years is that many so called "traditional martial arts" are anything but traditional. It is to the point where I really dislike that term. Traditional martial arts were about self defense. They were taught to keep a person's possessions thier own and thier lives intact. Many were also part of a military. Those skills were tested and tried. Today most schools classified as "traditional martial arts" are about training to compete in a sporting event or to sell the mystique of martial arts. The sporting thing is a valid reason to train and does a lot for many people, but it is not traditional.

I guess we see things differently because we view them through a different lens. Our dojo does not train for sport or competition, nor for any mystique. We train in Isshin-Ryu, which happens to be an effective self-defense system, as it was designed to be. We can and do use it for sport - if we want to. I've competed in kata and one-point sparring. I am the first to say that one-point sparring has very little in common with self-defense or my own style of martial arts. But it's fun, so I do it from time to time. And the kata argument will go on forever. People who don't get that there are thousands of very valid techniques inside the kata are always going to see them as a pretty but useless dance. If that's what they think kata is, then I can't change that. I know it is not that; it's the core of self-defense in our style. It's all in there, you just need a good instructor who can show you how to unlock it.

 

[oaktree]

Hi Drag'n I'll address some of your points:

Back in the day they didnt have sparring equipment so they couldnt really spar with realistic contact without seriously injuring each other.

Many masters of old fought hand to hand combat and they are well documented.
Alot of times there were challange matches sometimes people died. In some cases more "friendly" encounters resulted but to say that no one knew about full contact is not true.

So they had to compromise by finding less effective ways to train that enabled them to practice their art without maiming each other.

It seem to work for them when the engaged in physical challange matches. Look to the Leitai in China.

Most(but not all) of the guys teaching pure TMA that I have met have never been in any kind of fight

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.

They've never even had any one seriously try to knock them out.They dont really know what its like to face that level of aggression

Well that is Your experience, but like someone on LSD seeing things it does not mean it is everyone else's reality or experience.

All they have is their tradition, based on something someone used a long time ago, presumably effectively, against the type of attacks that were common in that region and time period.

Granted it was designed in a particular time period and region however if you understand the underlying theory then applying the technique works regardless of the time period.

Passed down by generations of teachers who never really tested them out but had lots of time to theorize and systemize their art

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.

When I first started training most of the traditional schools didnt spar full contact. In fact they hardly sparred at all

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.

Lots of unrealistic kata applications and one step drills where some guy does a telegraphed lunge punch and the other does a multiple step counter while the attacker just stands there

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 is it that the lunge punch is so common in traditional arts anyway

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.

Today you'd be better off learning how to defend jabs crosses uppercuts knees takedowns submissions knife and gun attacks multiple attackers etc

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.

In the past communication with and sharing of techniques between dojos was rare. More often teachers were very secretive about their styles.

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.

The UFC where highly trained fighters go at it under very liberal rules with any style they choose.

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!

Interestingly they always seem to chose the same styles though.

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.

 

[Nomad]

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?

Have you read any of Rory Miller's books? He does a phenomenal job breaking violence down into its component parts and talks about different strategies and tactics the bad guys tend to use. Meditations on Violence is a good place to start.

In brief, there are many different types of assault with different goals, and these may not all be amenable to a single solution.

One concrete example of the way things have changed from when most martial arts were developed is the aftermath of a physical assault; you are much more likely now to face criminal charges or be sued by your attacker than one would have been in Okinawa in the 19th century. This alone should merit a change in tactics, and possibly in technique.

It could also be argued that with the rise in popularity of the UFC, you are more likely to be caught up in a grappling match than you would have even 20 years ago (everyone watching at least thinks they are a BJJ blue belt, if not higher )

From what you've written, you are very lucky in that you've found what sounds like a phenomenal school with a solid base and understanding of what they're teaching. This isn't always (or even all that often) the case.

 

[Nomad]

The UFC where highly trained fighters go at it under very liberal rules with any style they choose. Interestingly they always seem to chose the same styles though. Ones that are progressive in their thinking, constantly growing adapting and testing their arts BY FIGHTING AND EVOLVING.

I actually agree with most of your post, but wanted to mention that the UFC (and the fighters therein) have not chosen the same styles; they are constantly evolving as well. In the beginning, BJJ and the Gracies ruled. As the other fighters became better and better BJJ fighters, they tended to neutralize one another, and striking (boxing, muay thai) became much more heavily emphasized as the best strikers started to win more matches. As the general level of striking rose, then wrestling took predominance. Now we have several fighters with strong TMA backgrounds doing new things in the sport (spinning heel hook knockouts for instance, that everyone involved said would never work in that venue).

Personally, I don't think it matters whether your style is "traditional" (what does that mean again), or modern... what matters much more is that the system's techniques are realistically and frequently pressure tested. This is where many traditional arts fall short (point sparring is not pressure testing, IMHO, though I think it does have other values).

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Have you read any of Rory Miller's books? He does a phenomenal job breaking violence down into its component parts and talks about different strategies and tactics the bad guys tend to use. Meditations on Violence is a good place to start.

Yes. I am not a callow youth.

In brief, there are many different types of assault with different goals, and these may not all be amenable to a single solution.

Let's make it simpler. A punch to the head is a punch to the head. People did it a hundred years ago, people do it now. And the block that was taught then, works now. It has NOT changed.

What changes is how attackers choose to attack, and that is based on things like culture. We Americans like to punch to the head. Fortunately, Okinawans also punch to the head, although not as frequently perhaps. Either way, there are specific defenses for it.

This is not something deep and philosophical. Punch. to. the. head. Same then as now. Simple.

One concrete example of the way things have changed from when most martial arts were developed is the aftermath of a physical assault; you are much more likely now to face criminal charges or be sued by your attacker than one would have been in Okinawa in the 19th century. This alone should merit a change in tactics, and possibly in technique.

Nope. My goal in self-defense is to defend myself. I do not pick techniques to minimize my chances of being sued, even supposing there was such a method.

It could also be argued that with the rise in popularity of the UFC, you are more likely to be caught up in a grappling match than you would have even 20 years ago (everyone watching at least thinks they are a BJJ blue belt, if not higher )

Fortunately, a well trained karateman can stop take down attempts.

Note that I am not claiming to be able to do so myself - any or all of the time. Nor am I claiming that any given karateman can avoid a takedown by any given grappler.

What I am doing is agreeing with you. There are lots of people out there now who think they know grappling because they have watched it on TV. If they attempt to take my leg, I believe I can stop that from happening a reasonable amount of the time. It's right in my art already. No changes necessary.

From what you've written, you are very lucky in that you've found what sounds like a phenomenal school with a solid base and understanding of what they're teaching. This isn't always (or even all that often) the case.

I don't disagree with you, and I do feel my school is terrific and I'm lucky to be a student there. But that's a different argument, isn't it? The argument is that fighting has changed, therefore martial arts must change. I say that fighting has not changed, which renders the second part of the statement moot. You're adding an addendum - a lot of traditional martial arts schools are terrible at imparting TMA skills. Though this may be true, it has nothing to do with whether or not fighting has changed, or martial arts must change to accommodate those changes. I would even take it a step further and say if a given TMA school sucks, a similar modern combative school would also tend to suck just as badly. The percentage of crap to truth appears to be constant.

 

[Nomad]

Yes. I am not a callow youth.

ROFLMAO

Nope. My goal in self-defense is to defend myself. I do not pick techniques to minimize my chances of being sued, even supposing there was such a method.

The "method" here is knowing how and when to disengage... when self-defense becomes assault. This is something I've not often seen taught at TMA schools, and those that do teach it necessarily are using the modern (and local) definitions rather than the archaic (a change from how it was originally taught).

I have often seen the take the knife away from your attacker, then return it pointy end first drills for instance. Even if the knife disarm itself works under pressure (a fairly low percentage, I suspect), most of the time the threat is removed or lessened greatly when their weapon is taken away, and this type of drill can cross a legal line from self-defense to attempted murder pretty easily.

Fortunately, a well trained karateman can stop take down attempts.

It depends...

I don't disagree with you, and I do feel my school is terrific and I'm lucky to be a student there. But that's a different argument, isn't it? The argument is that fighting has changed, therefore martial arts must change. I say that fighting has not changed, which renders the second part of the statement moot. You're adding an addendum - a lot of traditional martial arts schools are terrible at imparting TMA skills. Though this may be true, it has nothing to do with whether or not fighting has changed, or martial arts must change to accommodate those changes. I would even take it a step further and say if a given TMA school sucks, a similar modern combative school would also tend to suck just as badly. The percentage of crap to truth appears to be constant.

True enough. Just saying that it may give you a different perspective than others... and that's certainly not a bad thing!

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The "method" here is knowing how and when to disengage... when self-defense becomes assault. This is something I've not often seen taught at TMA schools, and those that do teach it necessarily are using the modern (and local) definitions rather than the archaic (a change from how it was originally taught).

The self-defense stops when the threat ends. Even if that was not taught in TMA, I am former law enforcement. It's really not something I spend a lot of time worrying about. People who are not LEOs seem to, though. I never understood that.

I have often seen the take the knife away from your attacker, then return it pointy end first drills for instance. Even if the knife disarm itself works under pressure (a fairly low percentage, I suspect), most of the time the threat is removed or lessened greatly when their weapon is taken away, and this type of drill can cross a legal line from self-defense to attempted murder pretty easily.

Tuite is not that.

It depends...

But again, that's the point. Of course it depends. However, the fact is, takedowns can be avoided. It's not a guarantee that an untrained person who tries for a single or double-leg takedown is going to get it against a semi-skilled karateman.

True enough. Just saying that it may give you a different perspective than others... and that's certainly not a bad thing!

I'm just responding to a question. The way it was asked should give anyone reason to ponder the logical progression.

For example: Given that people can now flap their arms and fly, shouldn't we all be giving up walking? The second part of the question assumes that the first part is true. You can't answer the question unless you agree that the first part is true. All I did was to point out that the first part of the O/P's question was not, IMHO, correct. That makes the second part moot.

 

[ballen0351]

Bill I think part of the reason you dont feel it need to change is because your style was created by change. Its fairly new and the Creator was still alive less then 40 years ago. He already changed it for you.

 

[WC_lun]

Bill, your points are actually the same as mine, not different. There are indeed traditional martial arts schools that still teach a program that is applicable to self defense, but most schools that say they are traditional, are not. Most are sport or tournament orientated. Traditional schools have base concepts and physlosophies that do not change much over time. That doesn't mean they don't experience new things in the martial arts world and test thier skills. For traditionalist, those skills must be tested.

There are a lot of bad schools out there that teach a lot of bad stuff. They aren't relegated to traditional, MMA, or any other subset of martial arts.

 

[K-man]

I havent stepped inside a TMA school for at least 6~7 years now, but most of the traditional schools I have trained at used archaic methods of training which were slow to produce effect skills. They ignored modern training equipment and sport science in favor of protecting the old ways."If it was good enough then its good enough now" mentality.

I couldn't disagree more with this hard core traditionalist attitude.

This is part observation are in reality, more of a question. What is a TMA school? I would hazard a guess that there would be very few I would call TMA, at least in the karate area.

Back in the day they didnt have sparring equipment so they couldnt really spar with realistic contact without seriously injuring each other. So they had to compromise by finding less effective ways to train that enabled them to practice their art without maiming each other. Thats not so much the case anymore. We have a variety of equipment that enables us to go at it pretty hard without serious injury.

Believe me! I have mates that are still training that were beaten about so badly in the 60's and 70s that their bodies are still compromised. It wasn't quite so bad in the early 80's. We at least had mouth guards but I copped my fair share of injuries from the hard sparring. That changed later in Australia when the insurance became an issue.

Now I'm sure most of us are taking advantage of this and sparring hard frequently.That experience itself is surely going to open your eyes to things that those who never got to spar were not aware of. Yet I still see guys who refuse to acknowledge when things they have been taught are simply unrealistic.They just get better at finding ways to justify it.

I'm not sure that the things that where taught were necessarily unrealistic. They were trained and explained in an unrealistic way. All of us who trained years ago were subjected to that. My explanation is detailed below.

Most(but not all) of the guys teaching pure TMA that I have met have never been in any kind of fight. They've never even had any one seriously try to knock them out.They dont really know what its like to face that level of aggression. All they have is their tradition, based on something someone used a long time ago, presumably effectively, against the type of attacks that were common in that region and time period. Passed down by generations of teachers who never really tested them out but had lots of time to theorize and systemize their art.

Like has already been said, there can be close links to the original style. I train with the student of Miyagi Sensei's successor. He was an undercover police officer. My immediate instructor is ex-Army involved in setting up the Australian Army's HTH combat training. I think both of them have experienced a reasonable dose of reality. If they say something works I have this strange tendency to believe them.

When I first started training most of the traditional schools didnt spar full contact. In fact they hardly sparred at all. Lots of unrealistic kata applications and one step drills where some guy does a telegraphed lunge punch and the other does a multiple step counter while the attacker just stands there. Why is it that the lunge punch is so common in traditional arts anyway? Do you know anybody besides a TMArtist who punches like that? Could it be due to the influence of some of the thrusting techs used by armed warriors in the past? Today you'd be better off learning how to defend jabs crosses uppercuts knees takedowns submissions knife and gun attacks multiple attackers etc. The types of attacks that are popular in our time. As I'm sure most of you do.

I couldn't agree more about he unrealistic kata applications. But what we do is pressure test them. If they work, great. If they don't work, or if they don't work for you, throw them out. Bunkai should be the application that works for you, not someone else. If you are being told that any particular kata element has to be a particular thing then leave immediately. Every move in kata has multiple applications.

As to the 'lunge punch'. To my mind it is a part of schoolboy karate. If you can't, or wouldn't, use any technique in a pub brawl then you haven't been taught or shown the real deal. All the attacks you list above, except the firearm, your TMA should handle. If it doesn't then, by all means, change your school.

In the past communication with and sharing of techniques between dojos was rare. More often teachers were very secretive about their styles. So they didnt get to see what others did or think about how to counter them. Now we have competitions on every week somewhere. The internet where you can go online and study other styles techs.Dojos with doors open to anybody interested in testing their skills.( something I have always made an effort to take advantage of) The UFC where highly trained fighters go at it under very liberal rules with any style they choose. Interestingly they always seem to chose the same styles though. Ones that are progressive in their thinking, constantly growing adapting and testing their arts BY FIGHTING AND EVOLVING.

Why would you chose to ignore these things? I'm sorry I just dont get it.

If you are into competition and the competition evolves, sure you have to change with it. However, if you are only interested in RBSD then I would argue, what was there originally is still as effective now as it was then.

Another thing to consider. If it takes 20 years to become truly effective in your style maybe you should be looking for ways to improve on the way it is practiced and taught.

Couldn't agree more. Well, more I would say if it was going to take 20 years to be truly effective, I would doubt that it would ever be effective. In my karate, I teach reality based application of the kata to white belts. Then again, after 6 years of aikido training, I feel I still don't know very much. Then when I come up against untrained people it works like a charm.

I know many of the TMA dojos I trained at were crap. And that there are good ones out there. But there is just as much rubbish being justified by tradition refusing to grow as there is rubbish being created by mixing things up.

Can I begin by saying, I didn't pick Drag'n's (can you use two apostrophes?) post to pick on it. Just is has a lot of interesting material.

I think we are only having this discussion because the martial arts have changed so much over the past 70 odd years in particular since WWII. My comments are based mostly on the way karate has changed. (i think the Chinese MAs are much closer to their roots.) More modern systems are still pretty much as they started. Goju Kai is markedly different from Okinawan Goju and Kyokushin is a Japanese adaptation that evolved from Shotokan and Goju Kai with sprinklings of Judo and Daito Ryu. I could argue that both of those have changed little since their inception. Although Issin Ryu is only a relatively recent MA it is regarded in Okinawa as 'traditional' and of all the newcomers, it is closest to the older Okinawan styles.

The biggest change in karate came about when it was taken from the back rooms of the Masters' homes and introduced to the schools and universities. For a start, prior to this time, most karate was practised with open hands. Closing the fists to prevent injury also introduces tension into the arms and body. TCMA generally is practised in a much more relaxed and fluid way to what you see in most karate dojos. At the same time the applications were no longer taught. So you have long lines of students practising a very mechanical form of martial art. Because the application is removed, the original intent of the martial art to kill or immobilise is also greatly diminished. Then you introduce competition, and of necessity rules, and the transformation is complete.

What the American servicemen learned in Okinawa after the war is as different from true karate as hunting rabbits is to actual warfare. This karate was introduced as 'traditional' and nobody was any the wiser. It is only in the past twenty years or so that the more traditional elements of karate have begun to emerge thanks to people like George Dillman, Patrick McCarthy and, more recently, Iain Abernethy.

So to say that the TMA schools are 'crap' is not really true. They are teaching the same martial arts that we were all exposed to 40 or 50 years ago. At the time it was all we knew and we thought it was fantastic. Now we can see it for what it was ... schoolboy karate. For those happy to stay with that, fine. But most of us have moved on and into two streams. The first, and by far the largest, is the stream that embraces competition. Because of the advent of MMA that necessitates a reasonable injection of grappling to remain competitive and that could be seen as evolution.

Some of us have tried to go back to what we can only imagine the martial art was like when guys like Bushi Matsumura and Kanryo Higaonna developed their art in Okinawa over 100 years ago. I can say, this is a most fascinating and rewarding experience. There is no sport component and no rules, just RBSD which I believe is as valid now as it ever was.

In between there are other positions and, from what he has written, Bill's Isshin Ryu is there too, with a fair dose of traditional Okinawan karate and the ability to compete in competition if you want to. So, with Isshin Ryu (or at least Bill's school) you might say it has no need to evolve. It is what it is. :asian:

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Bill I think part of the reason you dont feel it need to change is because your style was created by change. Its fairly new and the Creator was still alive less then 40 years ago. He already changed it for you.

I've already addressed that, I think. Isshin-Ryu is a newer art, yes, but Soke took the elements of it from both Shorin-Ryu and Gojo-Ryu, both of which have been around longer. Not that much changed, really. We stand in a slightly higher stance, and we use the vertical fist and the snapping kick. Our blocks are a bit different, but the body mechanics are the same. As I mentioned about Soke and making his techniques work against big ol' US Marines, it wasn't that he changed anything, it was that he had to make sure his body mechanics were superb. That's not a change - that's doing what was always done, but doing it very well as a matter of necessity.

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.

 

[MJS]

I'm 51, but likewise claim no specialized understanding of how people used to hit each other. However, we have historical documents like the Bubishi which seem to make it pretty clear.

To be honest, I haven't heard of what you're mentioning here.

I agree that guns are a new thing. However, as I said, tuite or hand techniques to trap, disarm, and otherwise neutralize a hand-held weapon still work. If you are suggesting that 'change' is necessary for that particular threat, I'll go along with that to some extent. Since the way a hand-held firearm is to be defended against is new, I can see where new techniques could be quite useful. But I would also consider this one very small subset of a very large set of skills.

Yes, thats pretty much what I was suggesting.

But he was indeed Soke. It was his style, he invented it. However, as I understand it, his accommodation consisted of practicing very good body mechanics, which works in all cases; it was just required against a very large and powerful opponent. And one might argue that since Isshin-Ryu is a relatively new style (just over 50 years old), it represents the very kind of change and evolution you're talking about. But it came directly from Shorin-Ryu and Gojo-Ryu. Not much changed except that the stances tend to be taller, the fist tends to be vertical.

Ok.

I am with you; I should have started long ago. But I do my best to apply myself now.

Better late than never, as the old saying goes.

The basic point I am getting at is this. The question 'do the arts need to change to match the times' presupposes that the times have changed. In the ways that matter to unarmed self-defense, I do not think the times have changed to begin with. If they times haven't changed, then the question becomes moot. There is also a bit of a supposition in there on the part of the O/P that those who practice traditional martial arts do so because they are traditional, which is not, I think, a valid assumption to make. Certainly not true in my case. My knowing a few words in Japanese or bowing or wearing a gi does not affect my self-defense skills one way or another. They do not help, but neither do they hurt; and in any case, I do not train in Isshin-Ryu because I like to wear a gi or say things in bad Japanese.

I'm all for people training in the style they feel is best suited for them; I'm sure we both agree on that. And I would never doubt your ability to defend yourself effectively. I just think that the 'should we change things' question proceeds from a couple of assumptions that may not be correct.

I quickly went thru some of the other posts on this thread, later on yesterday, however, it seems there are some things that were mentioned that I neglected to mention myself, such as the way techs were applied back then, compared to today, the legal issues, and things of that nature.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Bill, your points are actually the same as mine, not different. There are indeed traditional martial arts schools that still teach a program that is applicable to self defense, but most schools that say they are traditional, are not. Most are sport or tournament orientated. Traditional schools have base concepts and physlosophies that do not change much over time. That doesn't mean they don't experience new things in the martial arts world and test thier skills. For traditionalist, those skills must be tested.

There are a lot of bad schools out there that teach a lot of bad stuff. They aren't relegated to traditional, MMA, or any other subset of martial arts.

Again, that is true, but not related to the OP's point. He didn't say that most so-called TMA schools are not TMA and also by the way suck (that's a different question, and I might actually agree with it). He said that the way people fight has changed, so the way we respond has to change also. The way we fight has NOT changed. Someone show me where it has.

 

[MJS]

Have you read any of Rory Miller's books? He does a phenomenal job breaking violence down into its component parts and talks about different strategies and tactics the bad guys tend to use. Meditations on Violence is a good place to start.

In brief, there are many different types of assault with different goals, and these may not all be amenable to a single solution.

One concrete example of the way things have changed from when most martial arts were developed is the aftermath of a physical assault; you are much more likely now to face criminal charges or be sued by your attacker than one would have been in Okinawa in the 19th century. This alone should merit a change in tactics, and possibly in technique.

It could also be argued that with the rise in popularity of the UFC, you are more likely to be caught up in a grappling match than you would have even 20 years ago (everyone watching at least thinks they are a BJJ blue belt, if not higher )

From what you've written, you are very lucky in that you've found what sounds like a phenomenal school with a solid base and understanding of what they're teaching. This isn't always (or even all that often) the case.

I have the book you mention. Definately a very good read and something that every martial artist should be reading. He has another one out as well, though I dont have that one. Yes, Rory definately makes some damn good points, points that could certainly be of use to us.

As for the grappling....good point. I'm sure they had grappling arts back in the day, but as you said, in todays world, with the huge popularity of it, I'd agree that the odds of running into someone with a MMA/Grappling?Wrestling background, are high.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

As for the grappling....good point. I'm sure they had grappling arts back in the day, but as you said, in todays world, with the huge popularity of it, I'd agree that the odds of running into someone with a MMA/Grappling?Wrestling background, are high.

No, the odds are higher. They are still quite low, they are just higher than they were. Very few people, percentage-wise, have any form of self-defense training, especially recent training. If I had to guess, based on conversations I've had with co-workers and friends over the years, of those who have had any form of martial arts or self-defense training, most have said they trained in TKD as a child (for adults now in their 30s through 50s) or took wrestling in high school. Percentage-wise, you're more likely to come up against a person who played football or basketball than one who engaged in any form of self-defense training.