Martial Arts History & Influences

[oftheherd1]

Chris Parker - Again thanks for your insight and knowledge. I enjoyed reading what you wrote. But it did seem to me just a little Japan-centric. I don't know if you have any connection with Japan other than MA, but I did believe I could see that. I try not to be anything-centric, but it is difficult since the two arts I have studied were Korean, my wife is Korean, and I have spent over seven years there.

That aside, I have tried to see beyond nationalistic pride of those who in the last 50 to 60 years have struggled to gain/regain a nationalist identity. And I don't for a minute deny you the same. We know that martial arts were part of Chinese, Korean, and Japanese history, going back over two thousand years. How much came from India, I don't know, but don't personally put a lot of stock in that since I am unaware of a tradition in India that resembles that of the major Far Eastern players.

I just don't think any country has a claim with great antiquity in the MA, with the exception of China. But who contributed the most is now difficult to say. We can probably give a great deal of credit to China as first, then Japan since they warred internally for so long, and then some externally for the last 300 or so years, but not always successfully. I did find interesting the thought that MA transitioned in emphasis due to changing culture and rule. I hadn't thought of that before, but it makes much sense. And of course, the Koreans have their own history of internal strife during the 3 Kingdoms era, and subsequent dynasty changes.

At any rate, thanks again. I consider myself to have learned much from your posts.

 

[oftheherd1]

I'm on the fence at the moment about whether knowing your art's history makes you a better martial artist or not. It seems to me you can practice your art perfectly well without knowing it's history or 'knowing' a made up history. I can't see how knowing it's history will make me punch or kick better, or how to fight better though I may well be too literal in thinking that. I think it can enhance your enjoyment of your art if you know where it comes from. For those who want to do the same art in the same way as it's founders I can see it's important and I can see that following successful foundrs is going to be important if the art isn't to be watered down and made ineffective. Is that the same as knowing it's history?
You can see I'm grasping at concepts and understanding here!


It is an interesting discussion, I'm not sure I contribute anything but I have to agree with Chris that you're on the wrong thread if you think martial arts history is totally irrelevant!

First off I think any discipline worth anything should be able to trace its history. That includes martial arts as well as brick layers, police, lawyers, whatever. What that adds to a particular MA is indeed open to debate. I think it has value in demanding dojo discipline and methods of training. Probably also in direction of emphasis in methods used: Karate used to be known for emphasis on hands, TKD for emphasis on feet. That has blurred some in the last 40 or so years. How about emphasis on joint locks, pressure points ans such as in Jujutsu, Aikido, Hapkido and Kook Sul Kwan? As a Hapkidoist it would be easy for me to say that Karateists and TaeKnonDoists have limited themselves. But if mostly all you do is block, punch and kick, you are going to be awfully good at it, and Hapkidoists fail to take that into consideration at their peril.

I don't know how much any individual art is enhanced by its history, but it may help to know if you can figure out such things as why emphasis is placed where it is, and if you really want to buy into that or change arts. Maybe, maybe not. That is sort of an aside to the reason for this thread though.

 

[JohnEdward]

Now the discussion has really gotten complicated. TEZ3 puts up a good question (not directly), do you need to know history of an art, i.e. who is who, dates, places, etc. to be a better martial artist. I am assuming TEZ3 is referring to skill and ability, being a kick-*** fighter that is, when saying that. Knowing history doesn't improve your timing for example. And Pls. TEZ3 if I am wrong pls. correct me.

oftheherd1 seems to define it differently, saying, and also correct me if I am wrong, history is important to being a martial artist. Like a martial artist should know the pen and the sword, kind of thing.


I have known many martial artists, who have very little knowledge of their arts or the subject of martial arts history and fight very well. I have known those who are not as good and are walking text books. Here is the matter, does knowing history make a better martial artist than those who do know their history?
I studied a koryu jujutsu, does not knowing all the history of the art, or all the related subjects in depth make me any less of a koryu practioner. To some yes, when in a discussion, but most no. But, when my butt is on the line in a fight...does knowing the history like the demarcation date determining a koryu or not, no. That is what makes it complicated.

And I do think though some people place too much emphasis on history and shift from martial artist to martial scholar.

 

[ralphmcpherson]

I would not argue one bit that the historical influences are important to how the art is formulated NOW.

I just think that knowing of your art's antecedents is not relevant to how you practice it right now. If you are interested in the history of your art then that is fine. Otherwise, you can happily practice your art in a vacuum of no other arts having come before yours (or being sister arts to yours) and it will not impact one bit upon the effectiveness of your art.

I also do not understand which valuable things you can learn (aside from satisfying your interest in history) that will assist your art and how you practice it NOW. Perhaps I am overlooking something?

I agree. Aside from martial arts my other passion is playing guitar. I have been involved with both playing and teaching guitar for over 20 years and yet would not know the first thing about the history of the guitar, yet it has never affected my playing or teaching (both of which I have done proffessionally). I view martial arts the same way, the history may be an interesting side note occasionally, but I really see no need to become too entrenched in the history of martial arts because it doesnt seem to affect what Im doing 'now'.

 

[Tez3]

First off I think any discipline worth anything should be able to trace its history. That includes martial arts as well as brick layers, police, lawyers, whatever. What that adds to a particular MA is indeed open to debate. I think it has value in demanding dojo discipline and methods of training. Probably also in direction of emphasis in methods used: Karate used to be known for emphasis on hands, TKD for emphasis on feet. That has blurred some in the last 40 or so years. How about emphasis on joint locks, pressure points ans such as in Jujutsu, Aikido, Hapkido and Kook Sul Kwan? As a Hapkidoist it would be easy for me to say that Karateists and TaeKnonDoists have limited themselves. But if mostly all you do is block, punch and kick, you are going to be awfully good at it, and Hapkidoists fail to take that into consideration at their peril.

I don't know how much any individual art is enhanced by its history, but it may help to know if you can figure out such things as why emphasis is placed where it is, and if you really want to buy into that or change arts. Maybe, maybe not. That is sort of an aside to the reason for this thread though.

Perhaps a reason for learning martial arts history is to understand what others do? Karateka are able to do far more than kick and punch, for example there's throws, groundwork, locks, pressure points, submissions and a lot more involved in practising it. I'm not sure whether the history aspect would deal with this or not, perhaps that's exactly what it does.

 

[Cyriacus]

Perhaps a reason for learning martial arts history is to understand what others do? Karateka are able to do far more than kick and punch, for example there's throws, groundwork, locks, pressure points, submissions and a lot more involved in practising it. I'm not sure whether the history aspect would deal with this or not, perhaps that's exactly what it does.

This is pretty much why I Research many other Arts.

From Aikido to Kali, from Judo to BJJ.

Though ive No real interest in actually doing any of them, I love learning about them, and a bit of their background.
Nothing too detailed though.
Yet.

 

[Jenna]

This is pretty much why I Research many other Arts.

From Aikido to Kali, from Judo to BJJ.

Though ive No real interest in actually doing any of them, I love learning about them, and a bit of their background.
Nothing too detailed though.
Yet.

Yes, I understand all this and but learning THE HISTORY of either your own art or another art will not alter how you practice your art with hands and fists and feet and weapons. Is that not so? You might have an idea of why it was deemed right to do it a certain way and but that makes no difference to how you do it right NOW, no?

Though I am open to the idea, I have not read any concrete examples of how knowing of the HISTORY of your art makes any difference at all to how you actually practice your art in reality. What do you think?

 

[Tez3]

Jenna, I'm with you on this, at the moment I can't see how knowing the history of your art will help you fight (or defend yourself...for the less agressive types lol). I wonder if weapons styles would be different?
One thing we have been doing here is going into the history of Pankration and the first Olympics, there is purely to help convince councils, the media and suchlike that what we do in MMA has been done throughout history, we also go into other arts history to a certain extent to try and convince people that we aren't the barbarians they think we are though this comes unstuck with people who hate boxing and martial arts!

 

[oftheherd1]

Perhaps a reason for learning martial arts history is to understand what others do? Karateka are able to do far more than kick and punch, for example there's throws, groundwork, locks, pressure points, submissions and a lot more involved in practising it. I'm not sure whether the history aspect would deal with this or not, perhaps that's exactly what it does.

My recollection of Japanese Karate of 45 years ago or so was that it, like TKD, was mainly block, punch, kick. But not having studied it I can't be sure. I can say that the TKD I studied back then was like that. I think that in both arts, the addition of throws, joint locks, and such was an addition to make the art more "useful," and as understanding of some of the kata became known. Okinawan Karate may have had more techniques like that, but I don't know. I foolishly never darkened a dojo door while there.

If I am wrong, please correct me.

 

[Jenna]

Jenna, I'm with you on this, at the moment I can't see how knowing the history of your art will help you fight (or defend yourself...for the less agressive types lol). I wonder if weapons styles would be different?
One thing we have been doing here is going into the history of Pankration and the first Olympics, there is purely to help convince councils, the media and suchlike that what we do in MMA has been done throughout history, we also go into other arts history to a certain extent to try and convince people that we aren't the barbarians they think we are though this comes unstuck with people who hate boxing and martial arts!

Yes Tez, see you are looking into the history to satisfy the interests of those that want to know about it. And but that is all it is, interest. And is for whatever reason EXCEPT to make a difference to your technique as you do it right now.

Me, I learn that a certain technique is performed a certain way because when the art was designed the opponent would have began this attack with hand raised as though to bring down a long bladed weapon on my head and so now I perform the technique, closing distance that his "long blade" is less effective and so now I know why I do this the way it is done. Super.

Alternatively, I could have foregone that and just said that this technique is my defence to an overhead strike as was shown to me by my teacher. I am not taking anything on spec, I have tried this and used it and practiced it and it works for me. No historical reference was needed on the part of my teacher to have shown me this technique (though it makes interesting background) and none is needed for my understanding of it AS I DO IT NOW.

If I was being glib I would say that I am armed with technique. I am not armed with history.

I am not glib though so I am still open to the idea if there is a concrete example of how historical context makes an iota of difference to how I practice my art RIGHT NOW.

 

[Tez3]

My recollection of Japanese Karate of 45 years ago or so was that it, like TKD, was mainly block, punch, kick. But not having studied it I can't be sure. I can say that the TKD I studied back then was like that. I think that in both arts, the addition of throws, joint locks, and such was an addition to make the art more "useful," and as understanding of some of the kata became known. Okinawan Karate may have had more techniques like that, but I don't know. I foolishly never darkened a dojo door while there.

If I am wrong, please correct me.

It's all there, always has been, in the kata! As I said I did Wado Ryu and learned about the throws, locks, pressure points etc. They are in the Kihons as well. The best book about karate I've found is Shingo Ohgami's 'Introduction to Karate', it is Wado but he says...

"Even a whole book may not be enough to explain what karate is, but here I would like to define it in a few simple words. Karate is a martial art system in which all the possible parts of the body and all the possible movements which a human body can perform are to be used (author's italics)
The training of karate generally starts with various techniques of punching, hitting, kicking and blocking. Other karate techniques include throwing, balance-breaking, grappling, controlling and so on, which make it possible to win combat"

Ohgami Sensei started karate in 1960 under Ohtsuka Sensei the founder of Wado Ryu. It's true of Wado that these things have always been there, I imagine they have been in Shotokan, Wado's 'parent', perhaps a Shotokan karateka can eleborate? I think we are delving into history here lol!

 

[Cyriacus]

Yes, I understand all this and but learning THE HISTORY of either your own art or another art will not alter how you practice your art with hands and fists and feet and weapons. Is that not so? You might have an idea of why it was deemed right to do it a certain way and but that makes no difference to how you do it right NOW, no?

Though I am open to the idea, I have not read any concrete examples of how knowing of the HISTORY of your art makes any difference at all to how you actually practice your art in reality. What do you think?

I dunno. I think its kinda Cool that the Form Im Learning was used by the Korean Special Forces at one point.

 

[Tez3]

I dunno. I think its kinda Cool that the Form Im Learning was used by the Korean Special Forces at one point.

I agree and I like that what I do was also done by people in the past but it doesn't make the techniques any easier to learn or make them more effective. I like making patchwork quilts, this has a long history, different patterns, different meanings and cultural differences but when I'm sitting sewing it doesn't make any difference that people have done this before me, it's a connection to those people but it doesn't involve the stitching or the making up of those quilts. I still prick my fingers now and again, history can't change that!

 

[Cyriacus]

I agree and I like that what I do was also done by people in the past but it doesn't make the techniques any easier to learn or make them more effective. I like making patchwork quilts, this has a long history, different patterns, different meanings and cultural differences but when I'm sitting sewing it doesn't make any difference that people have done this before me, it's a connection to those people but it doesn't involve the stitching or the making up of those quilts. I still prick my fingers now and again, history can't change that!

Not from THAT Perspective. But its the Mindset. The Mentality.
The Way you Think.

I like thinking that Im Practitioning a Militaristically Inclined Style, as opposed to a Sporting One. That isnt a Criticism of Sporting Ones, just that I prefer it this way.
And that Mentality... Kind of keeps me Focused. That may just be Me.

 

[Jenna]

I dunno. I think its kinda Cool that the Form Im Learning was used by the Korean Special Forces at one point.

Oh yes, exactly, I understand that learning of history is as you say cool. I agree with Tez and I would not dispute that nor am I passing comment on your desire to learn the history. That is perfectly fine.

I would ask though, what difference has this knowledge made to how you execute your techniques now?

 

[Tez3]

Not from THAT Perspective. But its the Mindset. The Mentality.
The Way you Think.

I like thinking that Im Practitioning a Militaristically Inclined Style, as opposed to a Sporting One. That isnt a Criticism of Sporting Ones, just that I prefer it this way.
And that Mentality... Kind of keeps me Focused. That may just be Me.

It's just you! :salute:


Seriously, I think we go towards styles that suit us emotionally and physically, not sure that has anything to do with their history though. Like minded people have always gathered together. A 'sports' style can easily be a 'military' syle, it depends on who's training it and it's instructors. We do MMA, we train full on but could just as easily train lightly and just go through the motions. As we've seen before in other discussions TKD can be trained as sport or as a combat art.

 

[frank raud]

I agree. Aside from martial arts my other passion is playing guitar. I have been involved with both playing and teaching guitar for over 20 years and yet would not know the first thing about the history of the guitar, yet it has never affected my playing or teaching (both of which I have done proffessionally). I view martial arts the same way, the history may be an interesting side note occasionally, but I really see no need to become too entrenched in the history of martial arts because it doesnt seem to affect what Im doing 'now'.

You may not know the history of the guitar, but do you know some of the history of music? When a young, new student asks as an example to learn how to play the Black-eyed Peas "Pump it", do you point out the guitar work is actually Dick Dale's Miserlou? The guitar has changed very little in its timeline(the invention of the electric guitar in the 40's being the obvious start of two schools of guitar), yet the styles of playing have changed and evolved. Many artists have "gone back" and studied the musicians who influenced the musicians who are their main influences, or older musicians have gotten a career boost when a younger superstar brings them back in the spotlight( SRV jamming with Lonnie Mack, the Rolling Stones having Muddy Waters, Ike and Tina, etc open for them, Eric Clapton performing with BB king, or Freddie King, Clapton doing straight blues albums like From the Cradle.) A punch may just be a punch, but like notes played on a guitar, how it is combined with other techniques or notes, differentiates it from how it is performed elsewhere, either in a timeline, or in a different country.

 

[Cyriacus]

It's just you! :salute:


Seriously, I think we go towards styles that suit us emotionally and physically, not sure that has anything to do with their history though. Like minded people have always gathered together. A 'sports' style can easily be a 'military' syle, it depends on who's training it and it's instructors. We do MMA, we train full on but could just as easily train lightly and just go through the motions. As we've seen before in other discussions TKD can be trained as sport or as a combat art.

True;
I Suppose My Point is that I feel that in Knowing that Aspect of its History, it Alters My Mindset, which in Turn Aligns My Approach to things. To a Degree.
That aside, I will concur that Knowledge of History isnt likely to make you Better, beyond perhaps focusing you.

 

[elder999]

In no particular order:

What was the founder's physical makeup? There are kata in Japanese/Okinawan karate where this (the physical attributes of the kata's author) is clearly evident. In my own family, while we have some of the trade axe/tomahawk, boarding pike and knife/cutlass techniques of my ancestors, a great many of those men, right up to my great grandfather and his brother, my namesake, were like 6'10" tall-many of the things that they managed to do and codified worked less for my grandfather at 6'4", and even less for me, at a mere 6'2". Likewise, Chris Parker pointed out the various lines of aikido that are extent, and how understanding their historical basis adds meaning to what's being done: as a Yoshinkan student, it's important that I know why Ueshiba emphasized different things to different students at different times. It's also important that I understand some of the fundamental structural differences between what we do and what the rest of the aikido world is doing.

As a kyokushinkai karate student, it's important that I know at least a little of what influenced Mas Oyama in its devlopment-even developments that I was witness to, like the introduction of Muay Thai leg kicks. As a Miyama ryu jujutsu student, it's extremely important that I recognize the way judo was practiced from the 40's to the 60's, when the founder was learning it, and what influence Sosuishitsu ryu jujutsu had on him, and what his time as a sniper in WWII and learning Army combatives of that period did for him, and what his time in Aikido training meant-all these things influenced the development of Miyama ryu, and are important to me, as a practitioner and teacher. To someone who just wants to learn to defend themselves, maybe not as much........

 

[Chris Parker]

Ah, this'll be a long one, sorry about that... Those involved may just want to scan through for their bits, if you want!

Chris Parker - Again thanks for your insight and knowledge. I enjoyed reading what you wrote. But it did seem to me just a little Japan-centric. I don't know if you have any connection with Japan other than MA, but I did believe I could see that. I try not to be anything-centric, but it is difficult since the two arts I have studied were Korean, my wife is Korean, and I have spent over seven years there.

Yeah, agreed. There's two main reasons for that, though. Firstly, it's the area I'm most familiar with and most comfortable with, so it's an automatic go-to area for reference when it comes to martial arts for me. Secondly, though, and more important for that post itself, was that I was answering your specific question where you asked "how much had the Japanese borrowed from China or Korea". The later post was simply following that original course of conversation, really.

When it comes to things like areas of study, there are good and bad things about specialisation (same as specialist and generalist martial arts, really, with both having benefits and limitations....). The good things are that you get more information and better insight into that area, which cannot be gained by trying to take everything into account. The flip side, of course, is that there are areas that you just don't know about.

That aside, I have tried to see beyond nationalistic pride of those who in the last 50 to 60 years have struggled to gain/regain a nationalist identity. And I don't for a minute deny you the same. We know that martial arts were part of Chinese, Korean, and Japanese history, going back over two thousand years. How much came from India, I don't know, but don't personally put a lot of stock in that since I am unaware of a tradition in India that resembles that of the major Far Eastern players.

Yep, agreed.

I just don't think any country has a claim with great antiquity in the MA, with the exception of China. But who contributed the most is now difficult to say. We can probably give a great deal of credit to China as first, then Japan since they warred internally for so long, and then some externally for the last 300 or so years, but not always successfully. I did find interesting the thought that MA transitioned in emphasis due to changing culture and rule. I hadn't thought of that before, but it makes much sense. And of course, the Koreans have their own history of internal strife during the 3 Kingdoms era, and subsequent dynasty changes.

Hmm, I'm trying to see what you mean here... by "great antiquity in the martial arts", do you mean as a point of origin for other arts, spreading out to other nations and cultures? If so, then I'd even argue China, really. Each individual culture has had it's own form of systematized combative lessons, and there is not necessarily even a real link or connection between the systems and approaches of two neighbouring cultures, let alone a single source for the concept of "martial arts". Japan has it's own, China has it's own, Korea had it's own, India has it's own, and so on. As time went on, and the arts came into contact with each other, in friendly and less friendly ways, they would adapt and alter, but there was little universality to that. There is more likely to be universality within a culture, rather than between different ones.

At any rate, thanks again. I consider myself to have learned much from your posts.

My pleasure.

Now the discussion has really gotten complicated. TEZ3 puts up a good question (not directly), do you need to know history of an art, i.e. who is who, dates, places, etc. to be a better martial artist. I am assuming TEZ3 is referring to skill and ability, being a kick-*** fighter that is, when saying that. Knowing history doesn't improve your timing for example. And Pls. TEZ3 if I am wrong pls. correct me.

oftheherd1 seems to define it differently, saying, and also correct me if I am wrong, history is important to being a martial artist. Like a martial artist should know the pen and the sword, kind of thing.

Honestly, I feel the answer is somewhere inbetween, with the emphasis being greater or lesser depending on the art itself. To be an actual martial artist is not the same thing as being a fighter, frankly, and it does involve knowing more than just the punches and kicks of your system. Do you need to know every single detail, every name, date, event, and so on? No, not unless you're interested, or it's a part of the systems direct transmission methods. But knowing where it comes from can be a big part of understanding why it does what it does, which can directly influence performance of the techinques... but I'll answer Jenna about that in more detail in a bit.

I have known many martial artists, who have very little knowledge of their arts or the subject of martial arts history and fight very well. I have known those who are not as good and are walking text books. Here is the matter, does knowing history make a better martial artist than those who do know their history?
I studied a koryu jujutsu, does not knowing all the history of the art, or all the related subjects in depth make me any less of a koryu practioner. To some yes, when in a discussion, but most no. But, when my butt is on the line in a fight...does knowing the history like the demarcation date determining a koryu or not, no. That is what makes it complicated.

And I do think though some people place too much emphasis on history and shift from martial artist to martial scholar.

I'm going to take a few things out of this and deal with them specifically, if you don't mind John.

First: "Does knowing the history make a better martial artist than those who do not know their history?" Actually, yes. Whether it will make them a better fighter, on the other hand, is a different question to my mind. And there, the answer can be yes again... depending on how intelligently it's approached.

Second, and this kind of is non-negotiable here: "I studied a koryu jujutsu, does not knowing all the history of the art, or all the related subjects in depth make me any less of a koryu practitioner?" Yes, it absolutely does. Especially not knowing the history. Koryu is one of those cases where the history is more important than the physical methods, in a very real way, to not know that is to not know the Ryu, and therefore not be a Koryu practitioner. The related subjects, well, it would depend on what you meant by that really. But if they are part of the transmission of the art, the only excuse you could have is that you are a relatively new practitioner and haven't gone into it much yet. Anything other than that, and you're not studying Koryu, you're learning techniques. That is a very different situation.

I agree. Aside from martial arts my other passion is playing guitar. I have been involved with both playing and teaching guitar for over 20 years and yet would not know the first thing about the history of the guitar, yet it has never affected my playing or teaching (both of which I have done proffessionally). I view martial arts the same way, the history may be an interesting side note occasionally, but I really see no need to become too entrenched in the history of martial arts because it doesnt seem to affect what Im doing 'now'.

Not really the same thing, though, Ralph. This is more about knowing the history of the music you're playing, why some chords are used, why common progressions are found, what songwriting structure is, and so forth. It's knowing what the influences are for the music you create, and gaining an understanding of the various genres, rather than knowing about the instrument itself.

To take it back to martial arts, you're not learning about the cotton that makes your gi, you're learning about why this form of karate has a three-quarter punch, rather than a full horizontal fist. If you don't know why it does that, and you use a different type of punch (due to not knowing why it's not used), is it still the same form of karate, or is it just fighting with whatever you're doing at the time? Then again, if you do know why it's used, you might find that a different punch works fine, or better, for the reasons the system gives, keeping it all correct. But you can't know without knowing the history, which gives the reasons. Otherwise it's like putting Death Metal chords through your jazz song, and not knowing why it sounds the way it does.

Yes, I understand all this and but learning THE HISTORY of either your own art or another art will not alter how you practice your art with hands and fists and feet and weapons. Is that not so? You might have an idea of why it was deemed right to do it a certain way and but that makes no difference to how you do it right NOW, no?

Though I am open to the idea, I have not read any concrete examples of how knowing of the HISTORY of your art makes any difference at all to how you actually practice your art in reality. What do you think?

Before I get to the concrete examples (yeah, I got some), I'm going to address the first part of this, namely whether or not knowing the history, and why things were done one way in the past, whether or not that affects the way you do it now.

First thing to do is to look at something I've inferred up to this point, and it's something that I've brought up before as well, and that's the concept of what a martial artist is, and what training in a martial art is in the first place. As Frank said earlier, the particular mythology, or public image and perception of a martial art is a big drawcard for potential students (probably right up at the top, along with location, time [availability], and price). What that means is that they are coming to learn a particular approach, whether or not that approach is what they expected when they first walked in the door is largely irrelevant, they will be paying and training to learn a particular approach and methodology; in a karate school, they are paying to learn karate, in a judo school they are paying to learn judo, in a hung gar school, they are paying to learn hung gar, and so on. So to understand what that means means you have to understand the history, where, when, why, and who developed the system, as well as any pertinent events in it's history. If you are just doing things because they seem to work for you, but might or might not actually fit in the system itself, you're going further and further from being that particular martial artist, and just being a fighter. All a fighter needs is the ability to fight, and preferably, to win. A martial artist is a different breed, and what a martial artist is, and what that martial art is, comes from the history. To not know it is to not know the martial art, including not actually know it's physical methods.

Okay, concrete examples. I did promise, after all, didn't I?

Without giving too much away, I'm a member of an informal study group for an old Japanese sword system, with a very famous history and founder. And, due to a range of circumstances, I am in a position where I am currently leading the group. One thing I am constantly doing is referring to the history of the system to explain the way things are done, the specific movements and approach to certain aspects, as well as the mentality and mindset of the system. For example, in this system, the "blocking" action, which in many other systems is done with more of an evasive, deflecting feel, here is far more aggressive. And without knowing the history, why it was done the way it was, and so forth, the technique can very easily come out "wrong", although it can still "work" in a real way.

With Aikido, as I said earlier, it comes down to knowing your particular lineage, where it branched out from Ueshiba Sensei (if it did), and why. That will lead you to understand why the techniques are done differently in the various forms, which does inform the way it is done today, rather than just taking some Yoshinkan, some Tomiki, some Ki Society, and some Takemusu, and thinking it's all the same. It isn't. But unless you get the history, and why the differences were formed, you might try to put it all together.

There's a lot more to this, but this is going to be a long post as it is, and essentially every art is enhanced in it's current practice by knowing it's history, as that informs the current practice. Whether it's consciously known or not, it's still there.

Jenna, I'm with you on this, at the moment I can't see how knowing the history of your art will help you fight (or defend yourself...for the less agressive types lol). I wonder if weapons styles would be different?
One thing we have been doing here is going into the history of Pankration and the first Olympics, there is purely to help convince councils, the media and suchlike that what we do in MMA has been done throughout history, we also go into other arts history to a certain extent to try and convince people that we aren't the barbarians they think we are though this comes unstuck with people who hate boxing and martial arts!

It won't help you fight, necessarily, but it will help you keep your practice on the same line, consistent and reliable, which will make the training that much more effective and powerful, as there's no internal conflict or contradiction, which will lead you to be a better fighter in that method. But again, if all you're looking at is 'fighting', then that's not the same as training and studying a martial art. A martial art is so much more.

My recollection of Japanese Karate of 45 years ago or so was that it, like TKD, was mainly block, punch, kick. But not having studied it I can't be sure. I can say that the TKD I studied back then was like that. I think that in both arts, the addition of throws, joint locks, and such was an addition to make the art more "useful," and as understanding of some of the kata became known. Okinawan Karate may have had more techniques like that, but I don't know. I foolishly never darkened a dojo door while there.

If I am wrong, please correct me.

Yeah, TKD was based (initially) on an incomplete understanding and knowledge of Shotokan, with other forms added in later. I remember seeing an article a number of years ago about the "Secret Bone Breaking Techniques of TKD!", and all it was was basic hyper extensions of joints, such as a basic arm bar. Nothing really secret about it, it's the type of stuff that most entry level jujutsu systems cover in the first few classes. I kinda got sad when I read that, actually, it just showed me the level of misunderstanding some people had about their own art.

Okinawan systems, depending on lineage, tended to have more grappling approaches than a number of more mainstream Japanese takes on the karate systems.

Yes Tez, see you are looking into the history to satisfy the interests of those that want to know about it. And but that is all it is, interest. And is for whatever reason EXCEPT to make a difference to your technique as you do it right now.

Me, I learn that a certain technique is performed a certain way because when the art was designed the opponent would have began this attack with hand raised as though to bring down a long bladed weapon on my head and so now I perform the technique, closing distance that his "long blade" is less effective and so now I know why I do this the way it is done. Super.

Alternatively, I could have foregone that and just said that this technique is my defence to an overhead strike as was shown to me by my teacher. I am not taking anything on spec, I have tried this and used it and practiced it and it works for me. No historical reference was needed on the part of my teacher to have shown me this technique (though it makes interesting background) and none is needed for my understanding of it AS I DO IT NOW.

If I was being glib I would say that I am armed with technique. I am not armed with history.

I am not glib though so I am still open to the idea if there is a concrete example of how historical context makes an iota of difference to how I practice my art RIGHT NOW.

Ah, but without that history, there wouldn't be that technique.....

I suppose it comes down to understanding what the technique is designed to deal with, which informs it's movement, and can indicate benefits and limitations. For example, knowing the history of that technique would give you the understanding as to why the forward movement is so important, and in fact, crucial to get the technique to work properly. Then, when teaching it and passing it on yourself, when you notice a student not moving in far enough, and you point it out, they may respond "oh, but I'm safe enough here", in which case you can demonstrate that they're really not. If you never got the understanding of the origin of the technique, though, you may be at a loss to explain the actual movement and the reason it works the way it does, which could lead to the next generation getting it wrong, and it getting weaker and weaker as it goes along.

It's all there, always has been, in the kata! As I said I did Wado Ryu and learned about the throws, locks, pressure points etc. They are in the Kihons as well. The best book about karate I've found is Shingo Ohgami's 'Introduction to Karate', it is Wado but he says...

"Even a whole book may not be enough to explain what karate is, but here I would like to define it in a few simple words. Karate is a martial art system in which all the possible parts of the body and all the possible movements which a human body can perform are to be used (author's italics)
The training of karate generally starts with various techniques of punching, hitting, kicking and blocking. Other karate techniques include throwing, balance-breaking, grappling, controlling and so on, which make it possible to win combat"

Ohgami Sensei started karate in 1960 under Ohtsuka Sensei the founder of Wado Ryu. It's true of Wado that these things have always been there, I imagine they have been in Shotokan, Wado's 'parent', perhaps a Shotokan karateka can eleborate? I think we are delving into history here lol!

Ah, but the thing to remember about Wado Ryu is that it is almost equal parts Shindo Yoshin Ryu Jujutsu as well, which gives is a rather different feel and approach, as well as movement to other karate systems, tending to more circular movement, less linear response, and more grappling applications. Hmm, history teaching why it does what it does to inform current practitioners in their practice....