The "Martial" In Martial Arts

[MJS]

While surfing FB today, I came across an interesting question. This person asked, "What happened to the Martial part in all the so-called martial arts today?" I know that we often talk about the art side, and how some feel that its missing, but I thought that it would be good to talk about the other side as well.

So, what do you all think? Is the 'martial' side missing? Is it there but watered down?

 

[MJS]

To answer my own question: I think its a little of both. I think in some cases its really watered down, and in others, missing altogether. The main reason I began my training was for self defense, which is the 'martial' side, IMO, and its still my main focus today.

As I've said in other threads that I've started here, I think that in many cases, people are afraid to use their training, for fear of the end results, in addition to others putting talking or the 'verbal Judo' as their one and only goal.

I also think that due to the sue happy world that we live in today, that todays teachers are afraid to go too hard on their students, out of fear they'll have a lawyer knocking on their door, or their classes will dwindle down to 2 people, because people will run off to another school that isn't as intense. I know there're schools out there that still maintain that hardcore training, although it may be slightly toned down, but its still harder than what we see in many of the mcdojos.

Personally, I'd rather have the hard workouts and contact. IMO, if you can't handle the dojo setting, then you probably won't be able to handle the real world setting, should you need to defend yourself.

 

[knuckleheader]

For me personally, the martial is there. It's the modern(not all) school that needs to pay the rent that may water down the lessons. People are spoiled, they don't want to work hard and feel pain. Most everyone here already knows this.

 

[seasoned]

To answer my own question: I think its a little of both. I think in some cases its really watered down, and in others, missing altogether. The main reason I began my training was for self defense, which is the 'martial' side, IMO, and its still my main focus today.

As I've said in other threads that I've started here, I think that in many cases, people are afraid to use their training, for fear of the end results, in addition to others putting talking or the 'verbal Judo' as their one and only goal.

I also think that due to the sue happy world that we live in today, that todays teachers are afraid to go too hard on their students, out of fear they'll have a lawyer knocking on their door, or their classes will dwindle down to 2 people, because people will run off to another school that isn't as intense. I know there're schools out there that still maintain that hardcore training, although it may be slightly toned down, but its still harder than what we see in many of the mcdojos.

Personally, I'd rather have the hard workouts and contact. IMO, if you can't handle the dojo setting, then you probably won't be able to handle the real world setting, should you need to defend yourself.

Here in lies the most important element, it's not what you can dish out, but how much you can take WHILE you are dishing it out.

 

[nerdette_007]

I tried to find a balance in my training...my initial interest was eskrima, because I have a love for weapons and found it very fast-paced and graceful, in a way. So though there's practicality, I view this training as mostly art...it's not like I can carry those giant sticks in my purse.

On the flip side, I also study Whitson's Counterpoint Tactical, which is a fusion of several FMAs for the purpose of street fighting. The footwork's similiar, and we occasionally use a stick, but CT focuses on the what-ifs of an actual attack, and it's full contact. We also do a lot of sparring, which I agree is probably crucial for a "real life" scenario. Brutal stuff.

I find that both systems compliment and balance each other.

 

[Big Don]

There are things I can learn in the air, punches, kicks, stances, but, there are a whole bunch of things I haven't been able to learn without FEELING it. The way my sifu explains this: Karate isn't about learning to punch and kick, any two year old can punch and kick, Karate is about learning to TAKE a punch and a kick.
At my school, the kids (12 and under) don't do any attacking back and forth on techniques, there have been a few rude awakenings after joining the adult class.
Personally, given a choice, I'd much rather work out with a partner, attacking back and forth on techniques.

 

[ATC]

No one on MT is doing anything close to Martial. The Martial Arts were created to protect ones farm land or family from war warriors. Then those same warriors started to use the Martial Arts as well on the battle field. They were hardened and use their arts to kill or they were killed.

We today don't have the same motivation so we won't train to the same standards. Most won't ever use what they train so hard in so most won't even know if what they are learning will even work.

It is all watered down. No one here is getting wacked or whipped for doing a bad stance. No one here is challenging anyone for top position in the school. It really does not matter if your school is making money or not. Back then many became crippled practicing their Martial Art, and a few even died.

We all need to be able to work and do other things that get us through life so no one is doing any old time Martial Arts anymore. There is no need.

 

[Bruno@MT]

No one on MT is doing anything close to Martial. The Martial Arts were created to protect ones farm land or family from war warriors. Then those same warriors started to use the Martial Arts as well on the battle field. They were hardened and use their arts to kill or they were killed.

We today don't have the same motivation so we won't train to the same standards. Most won't ever use what they train so hard in so most won't even know if what they are learning will even work.

It is all watered down. No one here is getting wacked or whipped for doing a bad stance. No one here is challenging anyone for top position in the school. It really does not matter if your school is making money or not. Back then many became crippled practicing their Martial Art, and a few even died.

We all need to be able to work and do other things that get us through life so no one is doing any old time Martial Arts anymore. There is no need.

QFT

You simply can't have anything close to 'the olden days' without accepting the downsides, and in todays society that simply isn't possible.

For example look at the ancient Spartans; a warrior society through and through. Before anything else, they started by simply killing the male babies that were not up to standard. Sounds good so far?

From age 7, they had a brutal training which left them scarred, and with a very real possibility of ending crippled or dead. No foam padding during fighting, no rules. They were underfed to make them resourceful (for stealing food) and to make them used to hunger during a campaign. So... is that as a viable way to teach MA these days? And is there any point? If not, then you have to accept that the martial side of things will be watered down, except for the arts which do not typically involve hand to hand combat (like e.g kyudo).

 

[Cirdan]

"It is crucial that you think of everything as an opportunity to kill" -Miyamoto Musashi

I guess the martial part of it has a different meaning to everyone, but to me this quote pretty much sums it up.

 

[xJOHNx]

Depends, when training is done by the owner of the school (he's frequently on seminars) it's hard and all in. We do the locks and stuff a little more slowly, because nobody wants a broken wrist. But the essence behind it is still to train like he is an attacker.

We also talk alot about what would work on the street and to have no mercy when attacked. Feeding the mental side if you want.

But you are right, when faced with voilence I'm not always sure if I could use certain techniques because of the damage they do.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hi,

Well, my take is going to be slightly different....

Frankly, I am not sure that many people have a really accurate understanding of how the martial arts really developed. What has been handed down did not, for the most part, have it's origins on the battlefield. And that's perfectly fine, because they are not teaching killing skills as a primary goal, regardless of point in history. Even the vaunted Musashi quoted above was making his comment only in regard to actual combat, not as an over-arching statement on life. He actually specifically put his guides for life down on paper, in the form of the Dokkodo, in which he advises, amongst other things, to cultivate interests in other arts, and to not let future generations have an attachment to weapons. Not exactly a "kill kill KILL!!!" type of thought pattern...

Although Musashi survived (prevailed in?) quite a large number of violent, life and death encounters, by his own account, he "won" only by luck, and sheer brutality, rather than by Hyoho (strategy) or superiority of technique. It was only after he lad left this life behind that he began to formulate his Hyoho and by extension his art of Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu. So if he didn't actually use his technical superiority, or his understanding of deeper strategy to survive so many duels, and his art was created seperately from such encounters, can it really be said that it was created on the battlefield?

The thing to remember about martial arts as a study is that they are not, nor have they ever been, for the mass army to learn. They are a specialised area of study using combative techniques to teach the lessons that they want to get across. If you think of martial arts more like a University Masters degree you're more on the right track. Martial arts were studied by the elite, the generals, the rulers and leaders of armies, not the soldiers themselves. They would be lucky to get basic instruction ("You hold the blunt end, and just keep jabbing the pointy bit at the other buggers until there's no more of 'em. Or they jab you good and proper, of course.... try not to let 'em do that...."), with the more organised and professional armies getting more of a chance to practice and drill, but still essentially being rather basic in their technical approach. There really is no place for martial arts-style techniques on a battlefield.

This of course brings us to the question of what martial arts are really designed for, and what they are supposed to teach, if not battlefield survival skills. Well, that's a lot of different things, really, depending on the system itself. The Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu teaches Musashi's approach to life, his Hyoho, his spirituality (Bhuddism), and more. It teaches a determined mind-set, and a "don't give in" attitude. It teaches you to commit to seeing through any action you take on. And it does this through the medium of swordsmanship.

So as to whether or not the arts these days have lost the "martial" part of their teachings, well in a very real way, they never had them. They are romanticised to make us think they did, but that idea simply doesn't hold up. Martial arts simply teach nothing that is battlefield in anything other than symbolic methods, they teach with techniques that would be completely out of place on a battlefield, they often teach weaponry that would not actually be found in the combat of their day and so on.

What happens with each new environment, though, is that the way things are taught adapts to the new environment it finds itself in. Sometimes that is interpretted as "watering down" the system, but it's really not. Each society will take from the arts what they need, it seems that at present the primary need is more on social skills, often engendared through competitive systems, rather than the handling of violence. As mentioned, in todays sue-happy society, arts teaching "The True Deadly Methods of The Secret Assasin Cannibal Tribes of Western Iceland, Every Move a Lethal Destruction Outlawed in All Decent Societies From Here to The East Indies!" are simply not required. And if you do need immediate methods of handling real violence, enrol in a Security Training Course, or do some RBSD courses. But as they don't have anything to do with the army (the military), you can argue that they aren't "martial" either (meaning doing with the waging of war).

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The word 'martial' means of or pertaining to war, and hence the domain of the military. The term 'martial arts' is a misnomer, because it is neither martial nor an art.

Rather than try to change what self-defense skills that have come to be known collectively as 'martial arts' is to resemble military prowess in battle, I would sooner see the term changed to something more resembling what it was always intended to be (outside of the military, of course). I have always liked the term 'karate-do' because it is a 'way' and not an art, and karate (various interpretations) is 'empty-hand'. Karate-do is the way of the empty hand.

However, since the term 'martial arts' is what is commonly used, I'm OK with it. It's like calling the USA's system of governance a 'Democracy' instead of a Representative Republic. It isn't a democracy, but eh, that's what we commonly call it, so I won't argue the point. People insist on calling chinos 'khakis' (khaki is a color, not a style) and Van Dyke facial hair styles a 'goatee,' which it isn't. Life goes on. But I love to argue about them anyway.

 

[Blade96]

Martial side - definitely there with us.

 

[Bruno@MT]

The word 'martial' means of or pertaining to war, and hence the domain of the military. The term 'martial arts' is a misnomer, because it is neither martial nor an art.

Depends on what you do that is labeled 'martial art'.
Archery for example is a good example of something that is both martial, and and art.

 

[Chris Parker]

Yeah Bill, I'm also going to disagree with your statement that "it is not an art". Of course, art is said to be in the observing, and highly subjective, so that's not a big deal. It really depends on how you define art, I guess.

For me, art is something that is based in technical skills, and allows expression in a personal form, whether by freely adopting the technical principles, or by adhering to the parameters without deviation showing the perfection of personal expression. In that regard it is like a band coming up with their own original songs, or a conductor interpreting a classical score for an orchestra. And in those regards, the martial arts are most certainly art forms. But, as I said, that's me and my take on what art is.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Martial side - definitely there with us.

I don't actually see it that way. The warrior seeks out battle, the person engaged in self-defense avoids it. The warrior intends to kill, the SD'er intends to defend themselves. The warrior intentionally uses the most lethal tools at their disposal, the SD'er is generally constrained from using deadly force except under certain conditions. The warrior uses weapons of mass destruction indiscriminately in a war zone and collateral damage is . The SD'er is constrained from engaging those who are not attacking them. The warrior acts as part of a team and obeys the orders of superiors, the SD'er is generally solo and not acting as part of a predetermined scheme to take land or other objectives.

About all the military person and the self-defense person have in common is that they use violence in self-defense and they are trained to do so. But their weapons, tactics, training, even the reasons they engage in violence are all very different.

Having served in the military and being a current humble karate-ka, I find the two very different and am glad of it in general.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Depends on what you do that is labeled 'martial art'.
Archery for example is a good example of something that is both martial, and and art.

Agreed. I don't put archery in the same category as say, karate or TKD or judo, etc, but your point (no pun intended) is well-taken.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Yeah Bill, I'm also going to disagree with your statement that "it is not an art". Of course, art is said to be in the observing, and highly subjective, so that's not a big deal. It really depends on how you define art, I guess.

For me, art is something that is based in technical skills, and allows expression in a personal form, whether by freely adopting the technical principles, or by adhering to the parameters without deviation showing the perfection of personal expression. In that regard it is like a band coming up with their own original songs, or a conductor interpreting a classical score for an orchestra. And in those regards, the martial arts are most certainly art forms. But, as I said, that's me and my take on what art is.

I agree that there are aspects of both 'art' and 'science' involved, so I would not stand up and shout that MA is not an art if pressed. The aspects of self-defense that are basic to the martial arts are, to me, more of a science. Like the boiling temperature of water, it conforms to rules. Pressure points are pressure points; joints are joints; leverage is leverage; force is force. However, there is a world of difference between how the water is boiled; from the short-order cook to the famous chef; and I would agree that MA is 'art-like' in that sense.

 

[Cirdan]

Hmf.. I do in no way advocate a "kill kill KILL" attitude to training.

Also, I refuse to get into a lengthy discussions about what glorified words such as budo, martial art, warrior, solider etc "truly" mean as it is completely meaningless. Things are what they are no matter what you call them.

The thing is, what we train is sophisticated systems that at least in part focus on snuffing out human life as quickly and effortlessly as possible. If you fail to recognize this you are pretty much a child playing around with a bowie knife thinking it another shiny toy.

Just my honest opinion. Doesn`t mean the arts can`t be used as a veichle to improve any number of other things in life. It certainly has improved mine.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hey Bill,

You know, I've said this here a few times, but I really don't see martial arts as being self defence either. The two are superficially similar, and martial arts are often marketed as self defence, however the actual practicalities of self defence deny the martial art concept in and of itself.

Self defence is geared towards what I refer to as "getting home safe", martial arts are geared towards teaching a guiding philosophy through combative-themed technical methods. Self defence is, by necessity, gross-motor and simple, martial arts are often fine-motor, complex actions in order to teach things such as co-ordination and movement, and so on.

So, to me, martial arts and self defence are not actually related. But, as said, that is my take and understanding of them at my current place in my training and life (some 22 years of it training now... gee, I feel old....).

Cirdan, while I agree with most of your comments, not every art deals with the snuffing out of human life, whether in the quickest method possible or some slower form. For example systems such as Aikido actually go against this idea, other systems such as BJJ may teach rather nasty locks/holds/chokes etc, but their extreme form is geared to breaking and knocking out, not killing or snuffing out lives. And at certain times arts such as the Tea Ceremony and Ikebana (flower arranging) along with poetry have been considered martial arts themselves....