Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
A discussion in another thread got me to thinking about something, and I thought I'd branch off and see where this discussion might lead...
I was thinking about what the above phrase means, "Updated for the Modern World". I often see this used to describe some of the martial methods that are practiced today, whether it be a "reality based" method or some new twist on a traditional art or a combination of several arts that seem to offer complimentary skill sets. What I believe is implied by this description is: More effective, more practical, skillsets to deal with situations that did not arise in the past.
I think to some degree this may be true. But on the other hand it could mean something else: Watered Down. It could actually mean both of these things at the same time, as they may not be mutually exclusive, and neither is Watered Down necessarily an endictment of the method.
Here's what I'm thinking.
First, we need to consider the history under which many of these arts originated. In many parts of Asia in the past (and perhaps even in the present), the common citizen could not depend on the police or a legal system to protect them and defend them from criminals or marauders or thugs. The legal system was not highly developed, and probably there was not a heavy police presence in many areas, especially the rural areas away from the main population centers. The legal systems of the time probably did not care much about the well-being of the average peasant either, and was more concerned with the well-being of the wealthy and the elite classes. In short, I believe the masses were largely ignored, unless they needed to be punished for a transgression against the elites.
Under these circumstances, Everyman was responsible in a very real way, for his own well-being, including his physical protection. This would extend to the protection of his family, and village. So they devised effective methods of fighting, both empty-handed and with weapons, and the techniques utilized by these methods were meant to maim and kill quickly and efficiently.
I've heard it said that in old China, most villages had their own specific martial method, and it was their first line of protection against bandits and marauders. The villagers all trained in their method and would work together to fight off attackers who might seek to do them harm, and these methods could be used in personal self-defense as well.
At any rate, that is what these methods were intended for: killing and maiming, and nothing short of that because they couldn't pick up the phone and call 911 and have a squad car there beside the Yangtse river in under two minutes. They needed to handle matters themselves. It was a different way of life, and life was valued differently than it is today.
Now, flash forward to the present day, at least here in most parts of the First World. We now have extensive, well trained and equiped, and effective police forces to establish order. We can call 911 to get help quickly. We have a legal system in place to prosecute criminals and keep them out of society so they cannot do further harm. If we need to defend ourselves, it is only for the very short term - i.e. get away from the immediate threat, so we can call 911 for additional assistance. This is a far cry from the older era when a thug who was not dealt with in a decisive and final way may just come back to get us later, and the legal system didn't exist to deal with this on our behalf.
As a society today we tend to look down on violence, even within a legitimate self-defense situation. We are concerned with criminal liability if we overstep certain limits in defending ourselves. We have this notion that we can only respond to violence with the minimum amount necessary to be safe, and no more. In short, we need to protect our assailant from "unreasonable" harm, when we fight back.
So our needs within the martial arts have changed. We now hold back when we defend ourselves. We do not execute extreme techniques that are designed to end a life, and we even express abhorrence when a method still contains these kinds of techniques. Because in our modern society, they are not necessary. And most of us rarely, or never, need to actually defend our very lives, so our experience with this kind of combat is minimal and our practical skills as a whole decline thru lack of need and lack of use, even tho we continue to practice.
The other side is the competition aspect. The old arts were never meant for competition. And when competition happened, often serious injury resulted. But competition has become a big part of modern martial arts. But there are rules designed to avoid serious injury, so the focus is on being as effective as possible, within a certain parameter. And that parameter excludes maiming and killing. So competitors have become very good at what they do, but again, they "hold back" from being truly destructive, altho many of their techniques may have the potential to be truly destructive. But there is never an opportunity to use them in this way.
Some modern developments that an "updated" art may include is firearms handling and defense, which didn't exist in the past. In this case, "updated" could mean "cutting-edge". So certainly this kind of thing is part of the picture.
Old weapon arts cannot really be updated and stay true to what they were. Weapons, by their very nature, intend to kill. It's kind of difficult to "sort of" stab someone with a sword or knife or spear. If you use a sword or knife or spear on someone, you intend to kill him, altho he may manage to survive. Likewise, I cannot "sort of" shoot someone with a bow, and intend to not kill him. He may survive, but when I loose that arrow, the intention would be that he dies. These methods are stuck in the past, and cannot really be updated and scaled back, while maintaining their original integrity.
So, this brings us back to my topic: Updated, and what does it mean.
Modern needs have changed the reasons why we train, and what we are allowed to do with our training. This is why I believe that when you look at the big picture, "updated" often means "Watered-Down".
And this is not intended to be a comparison or indictment of modern or sporting methods. They all serve their purpose remarkably well, it's just that their purpose has changed from the old days.
And neither is this an attempt to say "my traditional art is just too deadly, so I can't spar with you" or some other nonsense. In truth, as I stated above, thru lack of need, I believe most people are simply unable to utilize these methods in a truly destructive way to the same level as previous generations did. Most of us may practice these methods, but we probably don't truly understand them the way our ancestors did, so we are simply not as good.
I was thinking about what the above phrase means, "Updated for the Modern World". I often see this used to describe some of the martial methods that are practiced today, whether it be a "reality based" method or some new twist on a traditional art or a combination of several arts that seem to offer complimentary skill sets. What I believe is implied by this description is: More effective, more practical, skillsets to deal with situations that did not arise in the past.
I think to some degree this may be true. But on the other hand it could mean something else: Watered Down. It could actually mean both of these things at the same time, as they may not be mutually exclusive, and neither is Watered Down necessarily an endictment of the method.
Here's what I'm thinking.
First, we need to consider the history under which many of these arts originated. In many parts of Asia in the past (and perhaps even in the present), the common citizen could not depend on the police or a legal system to protect them and defend them from criminals or marauders or thugs. The legal system was not highly developed, and probably there was not a heavy police presence in many areas, especially the rural areas away from the main population centers. The legal systems of the time probably did not care much about the well-being of the average peasant either, and was more concerned with the well-being of the wealthy and the elite classes. In short, I believe the masses were largely ignored, unless they needed to be punished for a transgression against the elites.
Under these circumstances, Everyman was responsible in a very real way, for his own well-being, including his physical protection. This would extend to the protection of his family, and village. So they devised effective methods of fighting, both empty-handed and with weapons, and the techniques utilized by these methods were meant to maim and kill quickly and efficiently.
I've heard it said that in old China, most villages had their own specific martial method, and it was their first line of protection against bandits and marauders. The villagers all trained in their method and would work together to fight off attackers who might seek to do them harm, and these methods could be used in personal self-defense as well.
At any rate, that is what these methods were intended for: killing and maiming, and nothing short of that because they couldn't pick up the phone and call 911 and have a squad car there beside the Yangtse river in under two minutes. They needed to handle matters themselves. It was a different way of life, and life was valued differently than it is today.
Now, flash forward to the present day, at least here in most parts of the First World. We now have extensive, well trained and equiped, and effective police forces to establish order. We can call 911 to get help quickly. We have a legal system in place to prosecute criminals and keep them out of society so they cannot do further harm. If we need to defend ourselves, it is only for the very short term - i.e. get away from the immediate threat, so we can call 911 for additional assistance. This is a far cry from the older era when a thug who was not dealt with in a decisive and final way may just come back to get us later, and the legal system didn't exist to deal with this on our behalf.
As a society today we tend to look down on violence, even within a legitimate self-defense situation. We are concerned with criminal liability if we overstep certain limits in defending ourselves. We have this notion that we can only respond to violence with the minimum amount necessary to be safe, and no more. In short, we need to protect our assailant from "unreasonable" harm, when we fight back.
So our needs within the martial arts have changed. We now hold back when we defend ourselves. We do not execute extreme techniques that are designed to end a life, and we even express abhorrence when a method still contains these kinds of techniques. Because in our modern society, they are not necessary. And most of us rarely, or never, need to actually defend our very lives, so our experience with this kind of combat is minimal and our practical skills as a whole decline thru lack of need and lack of use, even tho we continue to practice.
The other side is the competition aspect. The old arts were never meant for competition. And when competition happened, often serious injury resulted. But competition has become a big part of modern martial arts. But there are rules designed to avoid serious injury, so the focus is on being as effective as possible, within a certain parameter. And that parameter excludes maiming and killing. So competitors have become very good at what they do, but again, they "hold back" from being truly destructive, altho many of their techniques may have the potential to be truly destructive. But there is never an opportunity to use them in this way.
Some modern developments that an "updated" art may include is firearms handling and defense, which didn't exist in the past. In this case, "updated" could mean "cutting-edge". So certainly this kind of thing is part of the picture.
Old weapon arts cannot really be updated and stay true to what they were. Weapons, by their very nature, intend to kill. It's kind of difficult to "sort of" stab someone with a sword or knife or spear. If you use a sword or knife or spear on someone, you intend to kill him, altho he may manage to survive. Likewise, I cannot "sort of" shoot someone with a bow, and intend to not kill him. He may survive, but when I loose that arrow, the intention would be that he dies. These methods are stuck in the past, and cannot really be updated and scaled back, while maintaining their original integrity.
So, this brings us back to my topic: Updated, and what does it mean.
Modern needs have changed the reasons why we train, and what we are allowed to do with our training. This is why I believe that when you look at the big picture, "updated" often means "Watered-Down".
And this is not intended to be a comparison or indictment of modern or sporting methods. They all serve their purpose remarkably well, it's just that their purpose has changed from the old days.
And neither is this an attempt to say "my traditional art is just too deadly, so I can't spar with you" or some other nonsense. In truth, as I stated above, thru lack of need, I believe most people are simply unable to utilize these methods in a truly destructive way to the same level as previous generations did. Most of us may practice these methods, but we probably don't truly understand them the way our ancestors did, so we are simply not as good.
