Martial Arts: What Were They Designed For?

[MJS]

I'll start this thread with a simple request: Please stay on topic. We have numerous BJJ vs, and TMA vs. threads going on, so again, please stick with the topic.

Ok, that said, in the "Sport and TMA...Again" thread, Chris Parker made a comment here.

As for the second question, well, I suppose that would be both yes and no. To aid in fighting? Yes, that's a part of what some, or many martial arts are about... but, by the same token, even in that it's just not as cut and dried as "martial arts are for fighting". Self defence, though? Nope, not at all. No martial arts are really designed with modern self defence in mind... the closest would be the RBSD systems... but they aren't actually martial arts, more ways that martial arts (and other things) can be approached.

So, going on that, what are the arts about? For me, while everyone will have their own reasons for training, I've always felt that the main goal, has been SD. Sure, what you're defending against has probably changed. I mean, we don't see people walking around with a sword in todays time, and we don't see people wearing body armor, so training to defend a sword probably isn't as practical as training to defend a knife.

If we look at the RBSD systems, we see a lot of what we typically see in the various arts, meaning kicks, punches, blocks, etc., however, the application of these things, the way they're executed, most likely is very different. You're not going to see kata training done in a RBSD system. You'll most likely see the basics (punches, kicks, etc.) trained in a more fluid fashion, more pad work, boxing type footwork, etc.

I may be wrong in my assessment here, but that is what I've always figured. I'm looking forward to hearing the thoughts of others, as well as Chris, since it was his post that caught my eye.

 

[geezer]

"What were MAs designed for?" I'm not sure that there is a simple answer to this question, since few if any of the martial arts were invented and "designed" from scratch by a single individual. Like most human endeavours, martial arts grow and evolve organically, changing over time, serving multiple purposes that reflect the cultures and social conditions in which they emerge, as well as the particular inclinations of the individuals who practice them.

I suspect that even those arts that emerge in wartime and are survival, or self-defense based have multiple purposes. Humans are complex, muddled creatures, and what we do reflects this.

And what about those of us who want to train "realistic and practical" martial martial arts, but who never intend to actually use them against another person. I watch my gentle little Shih Tzu fiercely attacking his favorite stuffed toy growling and shaking it like a pit bull in a fight. A regular canine Walter Mitty. But it makes him happy.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

"What were MAs designed for?"

To me, it's fun.

When

- someone tries to knock/take me down and fail, or
- I try to take someone down and succeed,

I would smile in my dream for many nights. That kind of fun even money won't be able to buy it. As long as I can continue to have my fun, I can't care less whether I have to use it in street or not.

 

[Mark Lynn]

I'll start this thread with a simple request: Please stay on topic. We have numerous BJJ vs, and TMA vs. threads going on, so again, please stick with the topic.

Ok, that said, in the "Sport and TMA...Again" thread, Chris Parker made a comment here.



So, going on that, what are the arts about?

I do believe they were created and practiced for self defense purposes first and foremost. Self defense of a person, defense of one's tribe, city, militia, etc. etc. I believe it started there over time especially during times of peace or forced occupation they morphed into something more spiritual or training of one's mind etc. etc. Later on it grew into sports and character development programs for students. So I believe they have developed in a progressive manner that people see as different things and all call it "martial arts".

Gichin Funakoshi wrote in Karate-Do Kyohan pg 3 Introduction What is Karate "It is said that one who masters it's techniques can defend himself readily without resort to weapons and can perform remarkable feats-" Clearly this shows that SD was one aspect of training as well as the development of the person's health and agility (shown in the amazing feats he describes). In the next paragraph he writes "True Karate-do is this: that in daily life, one's mind and body be trained and developed in a spirit of humility; and that in critical times, one be devoted utterly to the cause of justice." Here he is making the connection that it is more than SD but also health, mental and spirit (related to humility but yet justice).

George G. Yoshida wrote in the foreword of Jiu Jitsu complete by Kiyose Nakae 1958 4th printing
"JiJutsu is a method of defense and offense without weapons in personal encounter. For many centuries in Japan it was practiced as a military art, together with fencing, archery and the use of the spear."

In the publishers foreword of the same book "A working knowledge of Jiu Jutisu offers the average man (or woman) an ability to cope with and triumph over a physical attacker-and to do so with ease. This is whether the opponent is larger, more powerful, or armed with a knife or a gun."

R.H. Sigward writes in his book Modern Self Defense 1958 in the Introduction
"This book is the result of many years of research, practice and experience in self defense techniques. It is based upon the Japanese system of Jui-juitsu, but includes the latest improvements in the science of self defense. I call it Modern Self Defense because I have eliminated all out modeled, impractical and cumbersome modes of protection."

Likewise it is well documented that martial arts of the Philippines were used to defend Filipinos from the various invaders to their country whether it was the Spanish, the Japanese, The Americans etc. etc. or other tribes in the Philippines, coastal pirates etc. etc.

I believe history shows that martial arts were practiced for both SD and military reasons. With this in mind they were practiced with current needs in mind as in SD (at the time they were created and modified over time to suit current needs).

For me, while everyone will have their own reasons for training, I've always felt that the main goal, has been SD. Sure, what you're defending against has probably changed. I mean, we don't see people walking around with a sword in todays time, and we don't see people wearing body armor, so training to defend a sword probably isn't as practical as training to defend a knife.

I agree with your whole statement here. I believe there are reasons for practicing the old historical arts of Japan (or whom ever for that matter) and I believe the are all valid and up to the different individuals who practice and teach them. People who study the western martial arts; the sword fighting systems of yore, Irish stick fighting, bowie and tomahawk, etc. etc. are like the people (in a sense) who study the old eastern martial arts as well. Maybe there is the need for carrying around the small axe, or tomahawk, or the bowie knife, nor the claymore, or katana, but someone still gets something from studying those arts or weapons.

If we look at the RBSD systems, we see a lot of what we typically see in the various arts, meaning kicks, punches, blocks, etc., however, the application of these things, the way they're executed, most likely is very different. You're not going to see kata training done in a RBSD system. You'll most likely see the basics (punches, kicks, etc.) trained in a more fluid fashion, more pad work, boxing type footwork, etc.

I may be wrong in my assessment here, but that is what I've always figured. I'm looking forward to hearing the thoughts of others, as well as Chris, since it was his post that caught my eye.

I agree with your statement here however in the RBSD systems what I don't really think you see is longevity of the practitioners. In the RBSD systems what do you do, like you described you learn some simple kicks, punches, train combinations for pad work etc. etc. once you feel you can defend yourself and your needs for taking a RBSD system are met then later days. Off you go to spend your hard earned money and time off elsewhere.

How many karate-ka stay for 5 years, 10 years, 20 years +, or the aikido practitioner, Judo player, Tae Kwon Do student, or FMAer? I believe the number is a whole lot more than the RBSD systems. Just my opinion and I'm not doing the research to look it up if anyone disagrees fine, I don't care. In the martial arts as I believe general consensus on this MT defines them, the very things that people trash about them are the very things that appeals to the people that stay in the TMAs for long term. While it drives a lot of people away as well, it is what keeps the people there long term.

• A sense of a connection to the past, tradition.
• A way to measure ones progress for instance through kata.
• A way to set and achieve goals through rank advancement for one.
• For some programs character development (especially for younger students)
• A sense of belonging to a community all working together for the same goal.
• Mastering one self; mental and physical.

These are just a few things I came up with.

 

[K-man]

So, going on that, what are the arts about? For me, while everyone will have their own reasons for training, I've always felt that the main goal, has been SD. Sure, what you're defending against has probably changed. I mean, we don't see people walking around with a sword in todays time, and we don't see people wearing body armor, so training to defend a sword probably isn't as practical as training to defend a knife.

If we look at the RBSD systems, we see a lot of what we typically see in the various arts, meaning kicks, punches, blocks, etc., however, the application of these things, the way they're executed, most likely is very different. You're not going to see kata training done in a RBSD system. You'll most likely see the basics (punches, kicks, etc.) trained in a more fluid fashion, more pad work, boxing type footwork, etc.

I suspect that when people start training they really only have a vague idea of what their training actually entails. They have a preconceived notion based on what they have seen or read. Why would they turn up to the dojo door? If they were considering WC they might have seen videos about Ip Man or Bruce Lee, for others, they may have been impressed by Steven Seagal, Chuck Norris or some other action movie star. Presumably they see themselves in the same role. Within a very short time they will probably realise that their first idea is totally wrong and one of three things will happen. Firstly, they leave pretty much straight away and may or may not seek another art. Secondly, they train for a reasonable length of time, sometimes even obtaining a black belt before almost inexplicably giving training away, or changing to another MA.

Then there are those who recognise what they are learning as a very long journey. Those few that take that road are more likely to be from the traditional martial arts.

Now I must confess I disagree with your premise regarding RBSD. If you had said 'modern' RBSD as in Krav, Systema and combatives, I would agree. But I would class many TMAs as reality based and those are the ones that will likely be trained by dedicated people for a lifetime.
:asian:

 

[Chris Parker]

I'll start this thread with a simple request: Please stay on topic. We have numerous BJJ vs, and TMA vs. threads going on, so again, please stick with the topic.

Ok, that said, in the "Sport and TMA...Again" thread, Chris Parker made a comment here.



So, going on that, what are the arts about? For me, while everyone will have their own reasons for training, I've always felt that the main goal, has been SD. Sure, what you're defending against has probably changed. I mean, we don't see people walking around with a sword in todays time, and we don't see people wearing body armor, so training to defend a sword probably isn't as practical as training to defend a knife.

If we look at the RBSD systems, we see a lot of what we typically see in the various arts, meaning kicks, punches, blocks, etc., however, the application of these things, the way they're executed, most likely is very different. You're not going to see kata training done in a RBSD system. You'll most likely see the basics (punches, kicks, etc.) trained in a more fluid fashion, more pad work, boxing type footwork, etc.

I may be wrong in my assessment here, but that is what I've always figured. I'm looking forward to hearing the thoughts of others, as well as Chris, since it was his post that caught my eye.

Hey Mike,

I won't have time to cover this tonight, so hopefully tomorrow or the next day, but when I do, can I clarify something? Are you asking what martial arts were designed for (the original intentions and contexts of the arts), as my comment was directed towards, or are you asking what they're (currently) about, particularly in regards to the reasons people might have to train in them? The topic title and my quote seem to be about one, your wording in your post (and many responses so far), the other.

 

[Hanzou]

They were designed for sports, fighting, and for warfare.

 

[K-man]

They were designed for sports, fighting, and for warfare.

They were designed for self defence, which would include fighting, and warfare. Some have been adapted for sport. Perhaps you could list the martial arts that you think were designed for sports.
:asian:

 

[Spinedoc]

They were designed for self defence, which would include fighting, and warfare. Some have been adapted for sport. Perhaps you could list the martial arts that you think were designed for sports.
:asian:

IMHO (VERY humble), they were primarily defense arts. We have to consider the era in which many were developed. The majority of combat then, just like today, was conducted with the use of weapons. Be they swords, spears, muskets, archery, etc.etc.etc.

The very notion of fighting without a weapon was considered a very dangerous, bad situation. Many of the arts were developed in response to one of two situations.

a.) Provided a way to develop a defensive system for warriors who were either caught without their weapons or were disarmed during combat, allowing them to at least defend themselves.

b.) Provided a way for peasants to develop fighting systems to allow them to defend themselves against oppressive overlords, warriors, or bandits.

Either way, they were defensive in orientation. The very notion of using them as an offensive system would have been considered a very strange notion to people in those eras.

They, excluding the modern systems, were never developed with "sport" in mind. As K-man notes, some have been adapted for sport and competition, but they were never intended for this purpose.

The other thing that developed with them, was a focus on oneself. It allowed people to not only learn how to fight, but also allowed people to focus internally and learn self control, how to calm their mind, and develop spiritually.

That's my 0.02 cents at least. If you think they were developed primarily for offensive combat or for sporting purposes, I think you might have missed the mark.

Peace,

Mike

 

[chinto]

the martial arts were originally designed and developed for self defense, or themselves, family and also used to defend themselves in warfair if they were some how cought with out a weapon or disarmed. that is it in a nut shell!

many unarmed systems were developed because of ocupation, and or denial of weapons to the lower classes. they still had to defend themselves, but with out weapons hand to find a way to do it unarmed. Once again, defense was the need and driving factor. ....


what they are now or some are becoming? well that is up for grabs in some ways. some are still for defense, and some are being modified so they are basically only good for sport.

 

[donald1]

In a way if you think about it, is there a correct answer?? Maybe in a lot of cases yes like modern martial arts there are answers

Modern martial arts generally its self defense to protect from different types of people who might attack you or sizes or number of people but more and more sport martial arts is coming out to get points or look nice

I brought the first point up because the really old martial arts, I'm sure many of you hear this in class that something your learning or have learned was for a certain purpose if you think about it it is possible that there are explanations that are no longer practiced and possibly forgotten. I could be completely wrong but that could be a factor...

 

[Tames D]

Kung Fu San Soo was developed for self defense purposes. Years ago Chinese Monks would travel, and find themselves in situations where they were robbed of their valuables. KFSS was their answer to these robberies. Nothing sporting about it, then and now.

 

[Hanzou]

They were designed for self defence, which would include fighting, and warfare. Some have been adapted for sport. Perhaps you could list the martial arts that you think were designed for sports.
:asian:

Boxing, Wrestling, Pankration, Jiao-Di, Muay Thai, and Sumo just to name a few.

 

[RTKDCMB]

That would depend on what the original creator or creators had in mind when they created each individual art.

 

[SENC-33]

I don't consider what I do (Survival Training / RBSD) a true martial art. The techniques I employ come from everything under the sun but I wrapped them up into a system that "I feel" will protect me under the most likely scenarios without ME getting into trouble with the law. The large majority of what I do is focused on pre-emptive striking and protecting myself from multiple attacks and common weapons attacks including avoidance and escape. This is what I enjoy doing......

I love TMA but I don't think they prepare people quickly enough to protect themselves because there is too much structure involved. With that being said life isn't always about quick justification. Many people need the structure that TMA provides and they have a strong desire to learn an ancient art form the traditional way which is awesome.

 

[ballen0351]

Boxing, Wrestling, Pankration, Jiao-Di, Muay Thai, and Sumo just to name a few.

It took 10 min of Google to find all of them except sumo and boxing trace its roots to military combat. And sumo was started as a religious ceremony and boxing well guys have been punching and beating each other up long before we named it boxing

 

[MJS]

Hey Mike,

I won't have time to cover this tonight, so hopefully tomorrow or the next day, but when I do, can I clarify something? Are you asking what martial arts were designed for (the original intentions and contexts of the arts), as my comment was directed towards, or are you asking what they're (currently) about, particularly in regards to the reasons people might have to train in them? The topic title and my quote seem to be about one, your wording in your post (and many responses so far), the other.

Hey Chris,

Sorry for the confusion. I was primarily talking about the comment that I quoted, however, now that you bring it up, I suppose we could disuss both...your comment and what they're currently about.

 

[K-man]

It took 10 min of Google to find all of them except sumo and boxing trace its roots to military combat. And sumo was started as a religious ceremony and boxing well guys have been punching and beating each other up long before we named it boxing

You could say the same about wrestling. Grappling was around long before you had wrestling. From the same source it suggests modern as a sport came from wrestling Jiao di but that is unlikely as the ancient Greeks had it as a sport in the ancient Olympics. But then are boxing and wrestling 'martial arts' in the true sense anyway?
It seems that Pankration is the only one that was developed purely as a sport.

The academic view has been that pankration was the product of the development of archaic Greek society of the seventh century BC, whereby, as the need for expression in violent sport increased, pankration filled a niche of "total contest" that neither boxing or wrestling could.

Basically the first MMA.

 

[ballen0351]

It seems that is the only one that was developed purely as a sport.

.

I read this so it looks like it was more then a sport.

However, pankration was more than just an event in the athletic competitions of the ancient Greek world; it was also part of the arsenal of Greek soldiers

 

[K-man]

I read this so it looks like it was more then a sport.

My original point was that martial arts were not designed for sport. Pankration is the only one of those listed that seems to have been designed for sport and from your posts may have gone from sport to the military. That might well be a first. As an aside I noticed that Bas Ruten is listed as a practitioner. I'm not sure Bas would make that claim as he had a Kyokoshin background although he apparently won the Pankration championship.
:asian: