Watering Down The Arts

[Flying Crane]

And that is a good point. I think that some MMA's are more technical than some TMA's.

But I think that the physical is only one layer of an art. When I think of depth, generally I think of mental/spiritual aspects of a TMA, not MMA. (I'm not directing this to Andrew or anyone in particular, just laying out some thoughts...)

well, personally I think mental and spiritual aspects are separate things and cannot be considered as one.

I think all the martial arts have a mental aspect. It's focus and concentration and creative thinking and whatnot.

Not all arts, including TMA, push a spiritual aspect. Not everyone wants that, even if they train a TMA. In my experiences, if you want that aspect, it may be available if the instructor is into it, but it seems like usually you need to specifically pursue that. I haven't seen it pushed on anyone much.

 

[Monadnock]

well, personally I think mental and spiritual aspects are separate things and cannot be considered as one.

I think all the martial arts have a mental aspect. It's focus and concentration and creative thinking and whatnot.

Not all arts, including TMA, push a spiritual aspect. Not everyone wants that, even if they train a TMA. In my experiences, if you want that aspect, it may be available if the instructor is into it, but it seems like usually you need to specifically pursue that. I haven't seen it pushed on anyone much.

Sure, in the end, it all comes down to the school and teacher. To me, the term "MMA" is just a name given to a sport, which are games that have rules to keep people safe while they play. While the risk of injury is there, in the end your playing field is the ring, while the arena trained for in the TMA is the battlefield.

How you train will vary, of course.

 

[Andrew Green]

Battlefield? No, very few martial arts that are practiced are battlefield arts. Unless you're training primarily weapons and considering battlefield tactics, it's either a self-defence system, a personal health system, or a dueling system.

 

[kaizasosei]

the highest thing i would consider to be awareness. awareness of oneself, ones body and movement, awareness of the others.

not to train like a mma guy or a tma guy or a supermarket guy- not even to train against them. most important i think is to try stay open for any constructive training. i think it would be good to train with all kinds of people to get more awareness and skill.
you mentioned that you do not want to compare your an mma guy. who said anything about comparing. competition and sparing is also educational.

of course, people train in different ways, some more destructive or unaware as others. but even with skilled practitioners, accidents can happen. so if you strictly controll how and who you spar with and who you don't, then that is natural to a certain degree. however, as far as selfdefense goes or dangerous fight situations, one cannot always have the luxury of choosing ones attackers.

but if you train with all kinds of people including people you barely know, then you can be certain that things will escalate and the chance for injury drastically rises. even when it is agreed not to go wild, it does tend to escalate if there is one or more things like competition, hatred or disrespect for self or others, unawareness... and because almost every person and many martial artists have not completely understood how to integrate these facts(that we are all internally a bit competitive, resentful or hateful at times), accidents happen. not only accidents, even some kind of harsh inconsiderate training can also lead to damaging ones body rather than protecting it.

so what is the 'big' difference anyhow, there will be all sorts of masters and all sorts of beginners out there.
i would understand if a master of one art would be scared of a master of another art. but i sense that there is competition and fear ingrained in this issue-so if one is confident with his art. i don't see why one would have to fear a mma that is a beginner. but that is what it looks like. mma is art just like anything else.. internal and external are just different starting points. most of the time, the internal and the external end up meeting each other somewhere in the middle.



j

 

[Monadnock]

Battlefield? No, very few martial arts that are practiced are battlefield arts. Unless you're training primarily weapons and considering battlefield tactics, it's either a self-defence system, a personal health system, or a dueling system.

I respectfully disagree. If it is a "martial" art, it has something to do with a military.

A martial way is derrived from a martial art, and is generally practiced to preserve combative traditions and includes those nice little bennies you mentioned like health and fitness.

All the American sports and self defense systems really have nothing to do with TMA's other than they wear belts and "kiai."

Self defense really has nothing to do with the martial arts. But that is another thread, eh?

 

[kaizasosei]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Green
Battlefield? No, very few martial arts that are practiced are battlefield arts. Unless you're training primarily weapons and considering battlefield tactics, it's either a self-defence system, a personal health system, or a dueling system.

I respectfully disagree. If it is a "martial" art, it has something to do with a military.

A martial way is derrived from a martial art, and is generally practiced to preserve combative traditions and includes those nice little bennies you mentioned like health and fitness.

All the American sports and self defense systems really have nothing to do with TMA's other than they wear belts and "kiai."

Self defense really has nothing to do with the martial arts. But that is another thread, eh?

ok, im stuck. don't want to get into philosophy...
you've succeeded in confusing me. i will have to think more about these ideas of battlefield vs.duelling vs selfdefense.

but i guess the very nature of a fight i think includes all. when a person fights, they are in some way defending themselves. also, in the case of a war with battlefield, it could be considered a duel between nations.

 

[Andrew Green]

I respectfully disagree. If it is a "martial" art, it has something to do with a military.

"Martial" is a English word, Taken from the Japanese "Bu". Which got applied to civillian arts like karate later on. When you take into consideration the role of martial arts in Japan at the time, through the Dai Nippon Budokai, the situation becomes even fuzzier.

But really at the end of the day, most of the hand-to-hand arts have descended from civillian arts, not military. Military arts use weapons. This is with the exception of Koryo systems and the like.

However even in Japan at this time the military aspects where more or less removed, at least in technical terms. Judo, Kendo and others where put up as physical education and sport, Karate in Japan followed that basic path as well in order to get into the DNB.

However a case could definately be made that the goal was to train military mindset through these arts, to prepare people for military service. Which is largely why the US shut it down after Japan surrendered.

Of course I would hope that building a nationalistic attitude and preparing the young for military service through training is no longer the goal of most clubs...

But you would be hard pressed to trace most open hand arts back to military origins, especially in a battlefield sense. As a way to train a aggressive mindset and "fighting spirit" maybe, but then BJJ falls into that as well, as does boxing and wrestling, which are all used by the US army, and I don't think that is the claim you are trying to make.

Self defense really has nothing to do with the martial arts. But that is another thread, eh?

If you like.

 

[Danjo]

I respectfully disagree. If it is a "martial" art, it has something to do with a military.

A martial way is derrived from a martial art, and is generally practiced to preserve combative traditions and includes those nice little bennies you mentioned like health and fitness.

All the American sports and self defense systems really have nothing to do with TMA's other than they wear belts and "kiai."

Self defense really has nothing to do with the martial arts. But that is another thread, eh?

I agree. Let's drop "Martial" Arts, and go back to calling them "Manly arts"

 

[tellner]

I agree. Let's drop "Martial" Arts, and go back to calling them "Manly arts"

Bad idea as a bunch of female MTers may be willing to point out to you.

 

[tellner]

"Martial" is a English word, Taken from the Japanese "Bu". Which got applied to civillian arts like karate later on.

Or the Chinese "Wu" which has slightly different connotations, or so the knowledgeable tell me. (I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just muddying the waters even further.)

Martial arts don't start and end with Japan.

But really at the end of the day, most of the hand-to-hand arts have descended from civillian arts, not military. Military arts use weapons.
...

But you would be hard pressed to trace most open hand arts back to military origins, especially in a battlefield sense. As a way to train a aggressive mindset and "fighting spirit" maybe, but then BJJ falls into that as well, as does boxing and wrestling

"They were infused by the spirit of Wu" from an old Chinese book quoted in Draeger's Comprehensive Asian Fighting Arts. Martial arts is a fuzzy, squishy term. But it's what we're stuck with, and for the most part we all know what we're talking about except for people who want to distinguish themselves for marketing purposes or want to toss others out of the Super Secret Budo Club out of spite :wink2:

 

[Xue Sheng]

Or the Chinese "Wu" which has slightly different connotations,

one of which is the number 5 another is a family name another is...etc etc etc.

Wu – Pick one

鋙, 兀, 嗚, 屋 巫 悪 於 汚 烏 誣

 

[tellner]

*sigh* Chinese. A million idioms and no grammar.

 

[Danjo]

Bad idea as a bunch of female MTers may be willing to point out to you.

Sarcasm: noun. A mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on ironic language.

 

[MJS]

Folks,

These posts were split from this thread. They didn't really pertain to the other topic, however, this is a good discussion, so I wanted to give it its own section.

Thanks,

Mike

 

[MJS]

So, I guess the question begs...why do people find it necessary to water something down? I mean, if the goal is self defense, which I'd assume that anyone who trains, that should be the main goal, you would want to learn something effective, not something that has little chance of working.

 

[exile]

I respectfully disagree. If it is a "martial" art, it has something to do with a military.

A martial way is derrived from a martial art, and is generally practiced to preserve combative traditions and includes those nice little bennies you mentioned like health and fitness.

All the American sports and self defense systems really have nothing to do with TMA's other than they wear belts and "kiai."

Self defense really has nothing to do with the martial arts. But that is another thread, eh?

I want to muddy the waters even further. One of our members, Langenschwert, supplied the extremely interesting observation that

The first extant literary use of the term "Martial Art" in the English language refers to an Italian art, namely rapier fencing. The work is the 16th Century English rapier manual entitled "Pallas Armata" which refers to the "Noble Martial Art of Fencing". Please note that the term fencing refers to fighting in general, not the use of the sword alone. There's not much philosophy in a back-alley rapier fight, but it's certainly a martial art, and an exacting one at that.
​

Note further that rapier duelling was not a characteristic battlefield tactic in the 16th century. I think this particular fact illustrates the general problem: we use the term 'martial art' because we've heard or read other people using the term, who in turn have heard/read other people using the term... and when you trace it back to the 'root' source, the use turns out to have been much more general than our current conception of what martial denotes.

In that sense, the way we use the term martial art(s) can't be derived by combining what we currently mean by 'martial' and what we currently mean by 'art'. It sounds to me as though 'martial' basically meant 'fighting' in its 15th c. usage, and 'arts' certainly meant 'skills'. So the term we use originally meant 'fighting skills'—encompassing streetfighting, formal dueling , battlefield combat techs... the lot.

So, I guess the question begs...why do people find it necessary to water something down? I mean, if the goal is self defense, which I'd assume that anyone who trains, that should be the main goal, you would want to learn something effective, not something that has little chance of working.

My guess is, a lot of people who study martial arts cannot actually visualize themselves in the incredibly unpleasant situation of fighting for their lives, literally, physically. They go to classes, they train, but they want to be believe that the training itself will somehow make them invulnerable. The idea that they may actually have to use this stuff triggers something that I would call denial if that word weren't so grossly overused these days. Assessing something as effective vs. ineffective requires however that you realistically picture yourself in a physically damaging violent conflict... so along with the rejection of that possibility goes the abandonment of any kind of appraisal of the tech for realistic effectiveness.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

So, I guess the question begs...why do people find it necessary to water something down? I mean, if the goal is self defense, which I'd assume that anyone who trains, that should be the main goal, you would want to learn something effective, not something that has little chance of working.

Absolutely and an amen, brother to that! Why would you?

I guess that some people would say that the personal protection skills are secondary to personal fitness, sport, fullfillment and spiritual growth, etc. That is just my guess.

 

[Monadnock]

Note further that rapier duelling was not a characteristic battlefield tactic in the 16th century. I think this particular fact illustrates the general problem: we use the term 'martial art' because we've heard or read other people using the term, who in turn have heard/read other people using the term... and when you trace it back to the 'root' source, the use turns out to have been much more general than our current conception of what martial denotes.

I agree it does illustrate the problem, but I think one would have a hard time making the case that it all stems from incorrect usage in the 16c. Although swords in the 16th c. were certainly the weapon of choice for standing armies.

It does spark my curiosity as to when the term hit the mainstream in the U.S.

The other issue is translation from foreign languages. From Japanese, the term is Bu, and does specifically refer to military arts and those arts do include empty hand techniques. Kogusoku, I believe is a term for grappling. An interesting read would be Dave Lowery's articles on Karate, which basically state it is not a martial art, in a strict (Japanese) sense of the term.

 

[exile]

I agree it does illustrate the problem, but I think one would have a hard time making the case that it all stems from incorrect usage in the 16c. Although swords in the 16th c. were certainly the weapon of choice for standing armies.

It does spark my curiosity as to when the term hit the mainstream in the U.S.

Yes... at what point did the term actually enter common usage... anyone have any clues?

 

[Xue Sheng]

Absolutely and an amen, brother to that! Why would you?

I guess that some people would say that the personal protection skills are secondary to personal fitness, sport, fullfillment and spiritual growth, etc. That is just my guess.

Agreed

And there is watering down for reasons that I have seen such as you can fool yourself into thinking you are a great master, just look at all the “forms” I know and there is watering down to gain more students to make more money because real live training can hurt and no one wants to get hurt you know. And of course there are other reasons as well. My main style Taiji is watered down by people not taking the time to actually learn it and combining it with something else or watering down by simple forms collecting for health purposes or dance purposes or again the I am a master because I know so many forms purposes as well.

But, believe it or not, this is leading to a question.

Is CMA watered down by Sanda (non-sport)? I train Sanda (and very traditinal Taijiquan), Sanda is effective it is from a multitude of CMA styles but it has removed the forms and the qigong training therefore would it be considered watered down, or just a logical (or illogical) progression? Or something new as far as CMA is concerned?