# I could beat the british, a boxer, and your best knife fighter



## Thesemindz (Feb 22, 2004)

Ok, I see statements online all the time to the effect that fighting today is an entirely different fight than it was forty or fifty years ago. I see people talk about how fighting has evolved and changed and grown. I see them say that what worked then just doesn't work today. Sure, that technique was effective in the fifties, but these days people know how to fight, and that sorta thing won't work anymore. People talk about adjusting to the reality of "today's streets," or they make comments about how "fighting isn't like it used to be." My question is, is there really any validity to this?

I mean, people have been killing each other for thousands of years. Thousands of years. Have we come up with something in the last fifty years that nobody thought of before now? How is that possible? It seems unlikely to me. I don't know, cause I haven't been around all that long, but how could we have suddenly figured out something about unarmed combat that nobody caught on to until now? Even knife fighting and stick fighting is nothing new. People have probably been hitting each other with stuff almost as long as they've been hitting each other without it, how did they miss what we've supposedly figured out all the sudden?

Like I said, I see this kind of blanket statement all the time and nobody ever challenges it. Today I happened to get into this discussion with some friends of mine, some older, and one of them said, "Yes, fighting is different now than it was in the fifties, sixties, seventies." He was there. He said, "Look at your gun fighters. The best quick draw in the old west would be dead before his gun left the holster if he went up against some of todays shooters. Combat always evolves. The British beat everybody for a hundred years by walking in a straight line until we started doing the Viet Nam thing and shooting them from behind trees and bushes. Your best boxer from fifty years ago might have been undefeated in his prime, but he wouldn't last a minute against one of todays fighters." He has a point. But I'm still not convinced.

For instance, he's right about the Brits and the Revolutionary War, but isn't he also right to use Viet Nam as an analogy? Wasn't that, all poor executive decision making aside, a similar situation? We wanted to fight a conventional war where we march through the forest and crush everything in our path, and the enemy shot from behind trees and bushes. Doesn't that show that rather than evolving, we just see that certain tactics work better in certain situations?

What about the quick draw and the boxer? Would they really get smoked today? It's easy to say, because there's certaintly no way to test it, but it seems a little like hubris to me. To think that we are somehow a superior breed of man. Something made those guys the best in their day, doesn't it take a little away from their accomplishments to say it was just that they didn't have any real competition? Or is that just stating facts?

I see this stance with knife techniques alot. Someone will start talking about their favorite knife disarm or defense technique, and invariably someone chimes in and says, "That would never work these days. People today know too much about knife fighting to pull that maneuver off." Are we really supposed to believe that today's technique makes yesterday's obsolete? Were trained knife fighters such wimps forty years ago, or four thousand years ago, that you could use poor technique and still win? Or were these techniques always dicey at best, and difficult to pulled off against a skilled opponent?

The only thing that I can see that could crush my position is the increasing influence the media has over our training. As evidenced by that fact that you are reading this post, we all incorporate the media, through television, computers, video, and print, into our own training in ways that our forebearers did not. I can go online and see examples of hundreds of different techniques, and then judge for myself which I like and wish to add to my style. This could lead to a honing and evolving of combat in general, as the good is kept and the truly obsolete is discarded. But is this really all that new a phenomenon? Didn't yesterday's warriors compare notes? Didn't they sit around and get drunk and tell old war stories? And don't I still have to practice the technique? Even if I have a better repetoire of techniques, won't I still either be skilled or unskilled? Or rather, some degree of each in various aspects of combat? How is this really any different from how it's always been? Many of us practice techniques that we at least pretend are thousands of years old. Doesn't this imply that people have been at about the same general level of skill for at least that long? Haven't we always had a range of ability as a species that encompasses everything from the unskilled dork to the professional warrior?

I guess it just makes me wonder. Many of you have been around longer than I. Have you witnessed this great evolution in combat? Have you seen some kind of mass subconscious fighting expertise develop in the common man? We don't seem all that invincible to me. I can't fly, shoot lightning from my fingers, or move things with my mind. So if we've improved so much in only fifty years, and we still suck this much at fighting, were we just a bunch of uncoordinated idiots throwing rocks at each other three hundred years ago? 


-Rob


----------



## loki09789 (Feb 22, 2004)

I would say it is more a cyclical pattern that has a lot of factors of influence, but, as par for the course, by the time the 'most up to date' responses or innovations hit the organized program they are already 'obsolete'.  I think the 'martial arts' movement as evolved and changed, not always for the 'fight' reasons that are usually assumed.  Look at the 'familiy' martial arts center as a phase of change - not the most obviously 'fight' effective, but maybe the 'most making' effective or the 'most postively influencial to the most people' effective.  Take the majority of these ranked artists out of the dojo and they are near useless.  But they are great embassadors of martial arts to the general masses.

As far as 'fight' evolution, I think that it has more to do with the influence of various arts and ecclectics on the training approach and mentallity.  If speed of mastery is your goal, now you can find an FMA/combatives/self defense program and get there quick with some fundamental skills - if the instructor is worth his/her weight.  If tradition and technical perfection is the goal, you can fall back on the standards of TKD, Karate (styles vary),....

In the end, unless we grow a third eye, extra appendage or change genetically in some way, there are only so many ways to throw a hand strike, leg strike, body committed motion for blocking/hitting.... until that changes, it is all good if it keeps you alive.

Paul M


----------



## loki09789 (Feb 22, 2004)

Okay, bad typing night.  I meant 'most money making'...oops


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 23, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> In the end, unless we grow a third eye, extra appendage or change genetically in some way, there are only so many ways to throw a hand strike, leg strike, body committed motion for blocking/hitting.... until that changes, it is all good if it keeps you alive.
> 
> Paul M



This is my way of thinking. The warriors of yesterday had two arms and two legs. They had elbows and knees that were jointed like ours. And they probably wanted to live as badly as we do. Many, though not all, spent a significant part of their life training for combat. Certaintly more than most of us ever will. What other criteria are neccesary to be successful in fighting? 

I tend to believe that the unskilled have always been uncoordinated and unlikely to triumph in combat except through sheer luck, and the highly trained professional has always been a dangerous opponent who would succeed in battle against the vast majority of opponents. I think most of us probably lay somewhere inbetween the two. 

Notice I said unskilled, not untrained. I think a person can be naturally adept at a particular skill set, or aquire skill through methods other than formal training. A professional football player who'd never hit someone in anger in his life would still be a very dangerous opponent, based solely on the physicality and athletic abilities that are a part of his career.

Basically, I don't think the baddest bad dudes of today are significantly stronger or meaner or nastier or badder than the baddest bad dudes of yesteryear. Everything that I've seen suggests that since the inception of modern man there has been very little evolution on the physical level. We're still basically the same species that used to draw on caves with sticks and fight with the animals for the same food sources. We may have better tools, but the hands weilding the weapons haven't changed.

I'm not just talking about here in America either. I mean man in general. Maybe the situation has changed here in the "civilized" world, but there are many places still left on this earth where man lives in fear and squalor, and where "the reality of combat" is not the subject of discussion for theorists on computers.


-Rob


----------



## moving target (Feb 23, 2004)

Well I'm relatively young also so I can't answer as to what fighting was like 50 years ago, but I would point out that in your post you didn't really give much argument to your side in relation to the example your friend posted. Now I'm not going to try to argue that any of us could beat the crap out of anyone from the 50s, but I do think we improve most if not all of our abilities with time.

As to the Vietnam thing, it is my understanding that our kill rate far exceeded our casualty rate; it wasn't so much that we lost a war of attrition due to a lack of skill, but rather we left due to political pressure. From what I have read, for political reasons we lacked the ability to make certain strategic attacks to cut enemy supply outside of Vietnam for the majority of the war. Now because our enemy there was basically a fascist military organization with no regard to human casualties, this severely inhibited our ability to gain strategic victory. This is not the same thing as wanting to &#8220;fight a conventional war where we march through the forest and crush everything in our path&#8221;. I tend to think of Vietnam as a mistake not in the military&#8217;s ability to execute, but rather politician(s) not knowing what they want. And I would point out that in Vietnam we did adapt a great deal not only to the specific aspects of fighting a war in tropical terrain, but in our over all ability to fight wars.

As to boxing and shooting, you&#8217;re right, there is no way to make a direct comparison between people who lived before there were any real empirical methods of testing various attributes. I&#8217;m not going to challenge the gun fight thing directly because for one, there&#8217;s a real lack of info concerning &#8220;old west&#8221; gun fighters and two, I don&#8217;t think quick draw methods have changed as much as methods of fighting.

But even with a boxer who lived before we could measure the speed at which he threw his punches and before we could film his fights, I think you could make a pretty good argument as to his capability in a modern fight. You can argue on the bases that fighters today spend a lot more time training in a more scientific way than fighters then did. Fighters today tend to be stronger than fighters in the past and their methods of fighting have defiantly changed (if you read an old boxing manual you generally see differences in the footwork described). I can argue that fighters today are stronger than in the past on the basis that consistently through out (recorded) history that humans have been breaking human records in regards to physical activity. Records for running the fastest, jumping the highest and lifting the most weight overhead have been broken time and again over the past 100 years. Human training methods have become better with time and boxers today take advantage of this. As to methods of fighting, better fighting methods yield consistently better results. In the example of boxers, boxers spar a lot, it&#8217;s easy to test out new ideas and it&#8217;s easy to see what works on what kind of fighters, The best methods get used, and if methods differ over time when the circumstances are the same, than the newer methods tend to be best (that only applies to a situation where methods are consistently compared against each other and only the best kept).

 Today every science on the face of this planet moves forward by ever increasing amounts day by day, we know far more about everything today than we did 100 years ago. Also today athletes across the board train harder and are more focused in their training than they have been in the past. As a third note, as you pointed out the media has changed. I can get books on virtually any subject by ordering over the Internet if not by going to a large bookstore. Fourth training groups are much more readily available all across this nation in martial arts from all around the world. Weather boxing, some form of silat or historic European fencing, you can find people who will teach you what you want to know in a lot if not most major cities. And finally, Training gear has improved a great deal so it&#8217;s much safer to practice theoretical/hypothetical situations as well as fight more &#8220;realistically&#8221; Today than in the past.

I would say that from every angle of the equation a fighter today has more going for him than fighters in the past.


----------



## moving target (Feb 23, 2004)

Humans may have fought each other for a long time, but that doesn&#8217;t mean we perfected our methods of fighting. In the past (I mean centuries not decades) it has been rare for people to analyze fighting in a scientific way (I base this on writings concerning fighting) and doing otherwise would mean that you do not necessarily improve on a given situation.

I would point out that from the time of the Romans to the beginning of the 19th century metallurgy as it related to non-gunpowder weapons did not advance very much. Yet swords in Europe changed, as did the methods of using them. Over 1700 years and things were still changing up until firearms made the sword obsolete.

Take a look at some of the manuals off this web site and tell me if you think methods of fighting with weapons has changed much over time. 

http://www.aemma.org/library_top.htm


----------



## loki09789 (Feb 23, 2004)

The science comment is really where I am coming from too with the idea of change and evolution.

Now, there are sports psychologists, performance evaluators, sports sciences.... Creatine, Sports supplements, power drinks that focus on the development of the individual 'athlete' (for lack of a better term), since we are really training in an athletic endeavor, albeit within a VERY different arena, but most sports are 'combat' training/prep at their root anyway.

Before there were Chi masters, Mystics, Guru's, Monks....Potions, Dietary cures like Alligator's tail....

But, flip through any sport specific/performance workout manual and they have stolen technique and training from martial arts/eastern philosophy and redefined it to fit their goals.

Spiritual meditation and Koans has become Mental imagery and 'self talk'

Yoga/Tai Chi motions that were to develop mind body connection for Shakra alignment and chi flow have become 'proprioceptivity' ....

The old monks might not have known what the exact chemical or ingredient in an "alligator's tail" type of cure had, but even now that they do, it is still an "alligator's tail" cure because we just kill the 'gator and extract the ingredient, turn it into a powder and sell it as sport supplement.

Scientific approaches have paid homage to what worked before by absorbing it and explaining why/how it works according to the laws of natural/human science.  The BIG distinction is, where the original philosophies and religions were more about the outcomes/performance as a manifestation of internal/self improvement or enlightenment, the scientific approaches are more about performance results.  Philosophies are about discoveries and sports sciences are about results.  Maybe it is the better way for combatives training, but it is not the ONLY way to go for martial arts training.

Some modern programs still consider the 'whole person' development as important, but only in relation to how a distracted person/underdeveloped personality will affect the athletic performance.  The more competitive/elite the modern arena, the more it is about winning.  

Paul M.


----------



## OULobo (Feb 23, 2004)

It's all about environment. Every martial art has evolved to it's peak by people who wish to take it to an extreme, but always within the logical constraints of their environment. Fencing evolved as unarmoured urban dueling, because people didn't need armour in the cities and found it distastful/dishonorable to fight in groups. Boxing evolved into a fist oriented striking art (no trapping or locking) because again at the time only fists were considered acceptable and gloves were added restricting gripping and locking. FMAs evolved stick and knife work because machetes became illegal to carry for many and knives were easily concealable. Currently we have a different set of restrictions than previous generations so we have arts that fit the environment a little better. I think if all the stops were out, we'd fight like the military, with efficient guns and armour. Barring firearms everyone would be using horses with spears and armour. The tricky part comes in barring weapons and a natural setting. In that case I would probly say NHB stuff is prime. Truth be told the best martial art of the day could be lawyering, the beaurocratic NHB.


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 23, 2004)

* The loss of our Dueling heritage *

I think that fighting has and does change over time. "How" it changes depends on environmental factors more then anything else; and it doesn't always change for the better.

One thing that has changed dramatically over the last hundred or so years (the change has been more recent in areas like the Phillipines and Thailand) has been the prohibition of dueling. Dueling (Dictionary Definition "Duel": a combat between two persons; specifically: a formal combat with weapons fought between two persons in the presence of witnesses.) has been in every culture for as long as we know. Many of our martial arts developed from a dueling culture. Now, I think it is a mistake to classify dueling as "competition" rather then combat as many people do today because in a duel, lives are on the line. Plus, even though parameters were set up and there was often a ref or witness of some sort, there was no glass ceiling to prevent someone from breaking those rules. This is far different then a "NHB" tournament where the ref stops the fight if rules are broken. However, you can't classify "dueling" as civilian self-defense, or military combat, because the objectives are completely different. So, really, dueling is in a class all on its own.

For better or for worse, we now have lawsuits instead of duels to settle disputes. However, in my humble opinion, the "practice" of dueling (meaning practicing techniques "one-on-one" with a partner) is the best way to improve your abilities on a technical level as a martial artist, because you learn how to move "in harmony" (for lack of a better term) with a resisting opponent. However, as a general practice, "dueling" has been replaced by sport and lawsuits.

In terms of hand-to-hand combat evolution, this loss of "dueling" as a means of settling disputes has hurt us as much as it has helped us.

Lets take the boxing example. Somewhere around the 1830's I believe, "London Rules" boxing was introduced. The name "London Rules"  itself was a tease, because there were very few rules. The boxers fought bare knuckle. They could eye gouge, grapple, fishhook, purr, bite, or what do whatever they want. The only thing the "rules" set up were enviornmental factors such as the rounds, and what determined a win (the loser is knocked out or throws in the towel). There were no limit to the amount of rounds you had in a bout. Anyways, to prevent all the nasty things that could happend in a clinch under these "rules", these boxers learned to put their arms way out, hence the "funny" looking stances that you usually see some guy with a handlebar mustache using in an old photograph. They also learned to punch differently as to not break their hands. The techniques and strategies back then were far different then todays boxers who have rules to protect them from grappling and such, and who's hands are protected by heavy gloves. How would a "london rules" boxer fair with todays rules? They'd be destroyed with all those constraints. But, I can bet that todays boxer would have been destroyed even worse by a boxer in the old days under the "London Rules." This is an example how something that was more of a duel evolved into sport.

The evolution of "dueling" in the Phillipines into "self defense" can be seen in the art of Modern Arnis. The founder of the art, Remy Presas, came from a dueling culture. The bulk of his stick training came from "Balintawak" which was primarily a stick dueling art. Back in the early 1900's until about the 1970's, people in the Phillipines often settled disputes through duels. Because of the possability of legal repricussions, they often faught with stick instead of blade. The government had put a ban on dueling, but it wasn't until the 70's or so that the Law was enforced. But, if someone had their head chopped off, and witnesses said it was a duel, there could have been legal repricussions. If the person was "only" pummeled with a stick, then there was no murder investigation, hence no enforcement of the law. This doesn't mean that the blade was never used; it just means that sticks sort of became the "weapon of choice." Remy Presas developed a great amount of skill during this time period. But, he didn't want to promote violence, and he recognized that "dueling" wasn't appliable in modern times. So, he made his style more "self defense" friendly. The positive side is that this redirection from dueling to self defense, which has now happened in many Filipino styles, has made these arts more user friendly, and more appliable to todays standards. However, there are some losses as well. I conject that it will be a very long time (if ever) before we have a dueling culture that prefered sticks over something more deadly like in the Philippines in the 1900's. Because of this, I doubt that we will ever develop stick dueling systems as advanced as the Filipinos had developed in the 1900's. So, maybe with the way of "self defense" Filipino styles are more improved today, but with the way of stick "dueling" I think that in many styles much has been lost, or will be lost over the next century.

Military combatives have also seen evolution, but is it better? It depends on what is needed. WWII combatives, in my opinion, were more effective in trying to disable or kill your opponent quickly then what is used by the Army today. Yet, for the objective of "control your enemy until your buddy arrives with a weapon", Army Combatives todayare more advanced. So it depends on what the objective is.

So, in a nutshell, the prohibition of dueling has caused us to evolve to other things that are more "self-defense" friendly. However, many things are lost in this evolution.

* The technology factor *

I think that technology is a major factor with the evolution of combat. For one, I think that our "tactics"(as in short range strategies for for deploying your martial art, not the martial art itself) for civilians, LEO, and Military are far more advanced today then they were 50 or a hundred years ago. We just have had more time to scientifically study and learn more about what works on the battlefield or civilian circumstance. We know more about the psycholigy and behaviors of a rapist today then a hundred years ago, for instance.

The other thing that technoligy has helped us with tremendously is with defense of other styles from other environments. 100 years ago, your martial art taught you how to defend against people from your town, and the neighboring towns/provinces. So my art in the middle of china may work well in my environment, and may work well against my immediate neighbors. However, I could take this art to Thailand or Europe and find that certain elements in my style are completely ineffective against what they do given their environment. Today, we have the ability to know what people are doing all over the world, and we have the ability to learn how to defend against their methods. So today, I don't have to worry about style being ineffective against some style from another country because I can learn about what other styles are doing and I can adjust.

So the evolution of technoligy has done alot to help us improve our martial arts as well.

PAUL  :asian:


----------



## Black Bear (Feb 23, 2004)

I do believe that there have been genuine innovations in the past 50 years. Not in techniques--kung fu had chin jabs a gazillion years ago, and the tactical SPEAR was called the "dive" a bajillion years ago by silat players. But there have been advances in two areas that matter: 

1) EPISTEMOLOGY: How do we know what stuff IS good and what stuff isn't? A fellow named Demi Barbito stated that there are a thousand ways to do something (like disable an attacker). He further asserted that he was onlyh interested in the best way. Not the worst way, and not the 998 ways in between. Now though I think that's an overstatement (you might want to narrow yourself to the top 20 and suspend judgement while you train your butt off and make the determination of the best five, which are good in different ways, and so on) he has a point. The modern scientific method has only been around for a century or so. Sure, there was the experimental method, basic stats used for agriculture, etc. for ages past, but even something as rudimentary as correlations is about a century old (Francis Galton) and multiple regressions, structural equation modeling, and the like have all come from that. Ditto the means of controlling experiments in behavioural research (combat is certainly behavioural). So our ability to identify what are the best delivery systems of combat is still very young. 

2) PEDAGOGY: I'm ignoring the distinctions between pedagogy, andragogy, heutagogy, etc. I'm just talking about the way in which we train. Advances in psychology, educational theory, neuroscience, etc. are huge in the past 50 years, and this HAS to impact the way we train. If several systems have the same move, and some people seem to be able to pull it off at the right moment and others don't, why is it? It's because of the training method. The tactic is ageless, the means of effectively inculcating it into the student is very young. 

For someone to say that one approach is valid merely on the basis of it being older or newer is indeed silly. But if we are to look at all the classical systems, there is some good stuff and a lot of crap. Likewise, the "modern" systems have some good stuff and a lot of crap. But our ability to evaluate and educate has advanced tremendously in recent years. My bottom line: yes there have been advances, and my encouragement is that all folks should give cautious consideration to modern systems to see how they could contribute to their effectiveness as fighters and educators.


----------



## loki09789 (Feb 23, 2004)

The tactic is ageless, the means of effectively inculcating it into the student is very young.

Well put Black Bear, the Prime Minister concurs....Session is closed, break out the Nachos .... Aide de Camp, get my PP dress

Paul M


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 23, 2004)

Black Bear said:
			
		

> 1) EPISTEMOLOGY: How do we know what stuff IS good and what stuff isn't? A fellow named Demi Barbito stated that there are a thousand ways to do something (like disable an attacker). He further asserted that he was onlyh interested in the best way. Not the worst way, and not the 998 ways in between. Now though I think that's an overstatement (you might want to narrow yourself to the top 20 and suspend judgement while you train your butt off and make the determination of the best five, which are good in different ways, and so on) he has a point. The modern scientific method has only been around for a century or so. Sure, there was the experimental method, basic stats used for agriculture, etc. for ages past, but even something as rudimentary as correlations is about a century old (Francis Galton) and multiple regressions, structural equation modeling, and the like have all come from that. Ditto the means of controlling experiments in behavioural research (combat is certainly behavioural). So our ability to identify what are the best delivery systems of combat is still very young.



Ok, I can buy this, but is it really as new as all this? I mean, certainly the codified method of accomplishing this goal is a fairly recent innovation, but didn't people exchange notes in the past? It just seems natural to me that if two fighters were fighting, and one kept winning, the other would go, "Gee Bob, you sure keep winning, what technique is that you're using there. Oh, I see. Hmm. I'll give that a try. Hey look, here's a way to counter it." I know this happens all the time with my training partners and I during training, how can I believe that people haven't been doing this for thousands of years?

Maybe it's just that with the inception of mass media, we can share these moments with each other more easily. Instead of every person having to figure out on their own how to roll a mounted attacker, we can all just go online or down the street to the BJJ studio and learn the new technique. We still have to practice it to make it effective, but the time saved in technique innovation and discovery could create a cumulative effect in our training where we progress further faster by elminating alot of the exploratory practices.

Is this really that great a thing though? I mean, for short term gain I suppose it is, but alot was gained from those explorations that the "masters" underwent to discover the bridge and roll. Could we be missing out on discovering new techniques because we don't have to look for ourselves and can simply take what we already know works? In the long run, does this make us better fighters, or better parrots? I guess you need a base to start from, so the simple beginner techniques like this one or the basic positions give you a framework within which to explore. I don't want to give the impression that there is no need for formal training. I thoroughly enjoy my training and gain greatly from it. I'm just talking about the creation or discovery of something no one has seen before.

Then again, are there any "undiscovered" techniques left? I can't get away from the fact that what we've been doing for five, ten, or fifty years has been re-hashed and refined for thousands of years before that. Didn't proffesional soldiers in the past have it in their best interest to learn the most effective methods of combat? Isn't that where most of the Classical systems were derived from in the first place? 


-Rob


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 23, 2004)

Just to throw another hand grenade into the crowd...

In regards to traditional styles, how do we know that (for example)  what the Samurai did in combat resembles any of the modern Japanese styles? We don't.

I suggest that when an art is passed down it is changed. If it gets passed down too many generations without having "what works in combat" as a consideration, the art can move in a direction that renders it useless for combative application. So, just because you may run into a guy claims he does Japanese jujitsu and claims that his style was what was taught to the samurai, yet you could mop the floor with him using your modern system, this doesn't mean that what you do is superior to what the ancient samurai did.

In many cases we don't really know what was taught in some of these ancient arts exactly. Also in many cases, instructors of these arts don't really know what would work in reality or not to recognize if they have learned something combat effective.

Point is, I think that anytime someone is training for a circumstance where their life will depend on their training, then you will see a good quality art. It doesn't matter if the art is being practiced today or 2000 years ago. Where the art turns inapplyable is when we attempt to pass on these arts. What IS different today then a 1000 years ago is that we have modern CQC science to help us determine what is useable and what isn't. Instead of only stepping our martial skills up when we have to battle, and culturely forgetting  these skills when it isn't as needed as it has been in our history, with Modern CQCombat science we can maintain methods that work, and we can determine what will work even from our traditional styles.

PAUL


----------



## Black Bear (Feb 23, 2004)

_"Ok, I can buy this, but is it really as new as all this? I mean, certainly the codified method of accomplishing this goal is a fairly recent innovation, but didn't people exchange notes in the past? It just seems natural to me that if two fighters were fighting, and one kept winning, the other would go, "Gee Bob, you sure keep winning, what technique is that you're using there. Oh, I see. Hmm. I'll give that a try. Hey look, here's a way to counter it." I know this happens all the time with my training partners and I during training, how can I believe that people haven't been doing this for thousands of years?"... "Then again, are there any "undiscovered" techniques left?"_ 
Remember, we're not talking about techniques, but the epistemology for how we know what techniques should be kept or discarded, and the way that that we train people to be able to access it in the stress of a real attack. Epistemology and pedagogy, not technique. I'd be surprised if any techniques were genuinely "new", unless they were associated with a certain technology. (I sometimes see techniques in modern systems that were "invented" by some guy, that are new TO ME, and I check around and can't seem to find anyone who did it before, in any system. But that happens rarely, and it wouldn't surprise me if they're somewhere in a forbidden chin na text I've never seen, or the "trademark move" of an Indian system I've never heard of.) It's like how JKD Concepts people such as Vunak used to rant that "It's the TRAINING METHOD that makes a difference, people!" Now they didn't explain it in a very specific manner, but they obviously have the idea. 

_"Is this really that great a thing though? I mean, for short term gain I suppose it is, but alot was gained from those explorations that the "masters" underwent to discover the bridge and roll. Could we be missing out on discovering new techniques because we don't have to look for ourselves and can simply take what we already know works? In the long run, does this make us better fighters, or better parrots? I guess you need a base to start from, so the simple beginner techniques like this one or the basic positions give you a framework within which to explore. I don't want to give the impression that there is no need for formal training. I thoroughly enjoy my training and gain greatly from it. I'm just talking about the creation or discovery of something no one has seen before." _ 
I could MAKE A TIRE. 

I could. I could grow rubber trees. It would take some years I guess, but eventually I could harvest the rubber. Galvanization can't be that difficult--I'm sure I could obtain all the information I need from a public library. I could do it. I could make a tire. I could make a whole car. If I knew exactly what I wanted, I could make a car better suited to my needs than anything out there on the market today. It would cost a fortune, it would take years of my life to figure out what I'm doing with certain areas I'm not particularly knowledgeable in, and I might lose a couple fingers in the course of tinkering, but I could do it. 

OR 

I could do research on what exists out there, and buy the closest fit. I could customize THAT car so that it suits my needs. I can learn what there is out there in BJJ, catch, or whatever else, before going, hmm... what's the best way to add grinds and gouges here, and to deny my opponent targets to do the same to me? 

Now, why do we need epistemology? Because good evaluations, consumer reviews, etc. have to be based on good epistemology. You have to have a good empirical basis, you have to parse out and quantify the important variables, etc. in order to make a rational decision. And hey, because of the free market, the same process and logic by which cars are evaluated and compared is the same process and logic by which car manufacturers improve their own cars, and create new product lines from scratch. 

Why do we need pedagogy? Because the analogy breaks down here. We're not looking at cars here, we're looking at systems of physical education. That's what MA/SD is primarily (though it's a lot of other things). It's not the collection of techniques. It's what your instructor is doing to you, and what you are doing, so that in a test situation you apply those techniques judiciously and effectively. 

Did people in the past "get it right" without the benefit of modern science? You can bet that some did! But when you shop through the systems, you are trying to get the information from people who are trying to sell you on something. As I mentioned on another thread, everyone can give you a plausible-sounding reason why their system is "the best". Many systems, old and new, suck outright, many have gaps in knowledge, and many contain flaws here and there. Only a minority of "new" systems utilize science well to make a better system... many new systems are fuzzy carbon copies of older stuff. 

The progress of recent years in helps us evaluate and adapt what we do in an intelligent manner. See my Darren Laur article for some examples of how a few good folks have held their training method to the mirror of neuropsych, and made some smart adjustments. 

I dunno, this is a big topic, and I don't know if I'm explaining myself very well. But I'll just put it out there and see what folks think.


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 23, 2004)

Black Bear said:
			
		

> I could MAKE A TIRE.
> 
> I could.
> 
> ...



I think this is a really good point. What about the expert car designer though. He's seen cars. He's built cars. Now he wants to build something new. If all he ever does is mimic the cars other people have made, without anything of his own to add, then though he may have something to contribute, it isn't anything new.

I'm not saying I'm an expert. Far from it. But I think some martial artists, even experts, are doing alot of mimicing, and not much creating. I wonder if the experts sometimes get so caught up in what has been taught, that they forget why it's been taught. 

We've kind of gotten off topic here, but even if the expert comes up with something he's never seen before, that doesn't make it new. I wonder sometimes if we're all just re-discovering what our predecessors found again and again for thousands of years. Like maybe we're all constantly re-inventing the wheel. It just seems to me that if we were really evolving and adapting and growing as martial artists, then we should have evolved way past the limited forms of unarmed combat we see today. 

Even the "modern" styles and the MMA styles seem to be a de-evolution in fighting. I'm not saying they aren't effective. I'm saying that they tend to be based on simple strikes that can be employed in a wide variety of situations. How is this different from when my caveman ancestor hit your caveman ancestor with a balled up fist over the last of the mammoth meat? I'm still not convinced that today's fighter is any stronger, meaner, more skilled, more dangerous, or more effective than yesterday's.


-Rob


----------



## moving target (Feb 24, 2004)

Has anyone discovered any new musical notes in the past 2000 years? No, but music sure as hell changed.

As to the argument that today's science is simply yesterdays science with longer names for things. I would point to all the physical advances our science has given us today and I would reiterate the fact that year after year humans break old human records for highest physical achievements in all sorts of scales.

I agree with the statement that someone somewhere sometime has probably done a lot if not all of what we attempt to do today as well if not better than we can do it. There have always been prodigies and mavericks, that does not mean the majority of people in a given time were comparable. To give an example in science, when Fibonacci was introducing algebra to Europe only a handful of people knew what he was showing. Now by accounts of his time and by existing works of his it appears that he was rather talented at solving various mathematical puzzles. Most likely he could rival many modern day mathematicians in his ability to manipulate algebraic equations, but most high school students know far more about math today than the majority of scholars did than.


----------



## Black Bear (Feb 24, 2004)

Thesemindz said:
			
		

> I think this is a really good point. What about the expert car designer though. He's seen cars. He's built cars. Now he wants to build something new. If all he ever does is mimic the cars other people have made, without anything of his own to add, then though he may have something to contribute, it isn't anything new.
> 
> I'm not saying I'm an expert. Far from it. But I think some martial artists, even experts, are doing alot of mimicing, and not much creating. I wonder if the experts sometimes get so caught up in what has been taught, that they forget why it's been taught.
> 
> ...


If we are to use the evolution analogy, most folks think of evolution as the "survival of the fittest" as per Darwin. That is, the selection of more "fit" phenotypes (systems) and the emergence of increasingly fit NEW phenotypes (systems) as the genetic (mimetic) permutations work their way through the gene pool (MA community). 

Now this is not a perfect analogy because the selection pressures of the MA marketplace don't always select for effectiveness... but give me a break. I'm pulling this stuff out of my a** as I go along. 

So maybe simple, versatile, gross-motor, easily-acquired and easily-retained strikes are more fit (a better fit to the environment). They don't seem like a "higher" form then say something more intricate. But it's survival of the fittest, not survival of the "highest". 

We are so off topic it's not even funny. I don't even know the point of what i just said. 

The point is, I like the music notes analogy.


----------



## loki09789 (Feb 25, 2004)

PAUL said:
			
		

> Just to throw another hand grenade into the crowd...
> 
> In regards to traditional styles, how do we know that (for example)  what the Samurai did in combat resembles any of the modern Japanese styles? We don't.
> 
> ...


----------



## loki09789 (Feb 25, 2004)

Sorry for the cut off, that pesky teaching job gets in the way....

The way I was starting to go with the above post was that there are key fundamentals of combat, whether single or mass, regardless of the nature or environment that can be identified.  Other than technological improvements that improve the range of sensitivity (spie sattelites, binoculars, ....) and range of effect and damage (guns, explosives....), the basics are the same.  Studying 'classical' systems are ways of getting chewable size bites of older values, applications.... but the fundamentals are the same.  I see it cyclically because the delivery systems might have changed, but the fundamentals are essentially the same.

First echelon, static battle tactics were the foundation for mass combat from ancient cultures (greeks, romans, chinese...) at points in history all the way up to the civil/wwI.  If you look at the types of individual fighting styles of those times as well, they reflected this to a degree as well.  Pankraton (sp?) as an empty hand art (greek) was more about fixed position combat as well as the up right boxing examples that Paul J mentioned already.  Not much in mobility.  Even with that said, the maneuver element was evident in chariot and cavalry tactics using bows and lances to strike and run, string out undisciplined infantry....

When the shift to mobility in tactics occured the fundamentals were still there, but the balance shifted from mobility supporting the main body of fixed combatants to mobility being the main effort.  Again, the individual combative styles have shifted - at least in relation to combat instruction and not classic style preservation/cultural indoctranization - from the 'fixed' style to more mobile styles too.  Again look to the change in boxing.

The fundamentals are the same, technology, social/educational foundations and other factors may shift fundamentals take the center of application, but they are all still there.

Volley fire, whether it is thrown rocks, sling stones, arrows, catapult loads, musket/cannon fire, artillery, bombing runs... is still volley fire.

Paul M.


----------



## Doc (Feb 26, 2004)

Thesemindz said:
			
		

> I guess it just makes me wonder. Many of you have been around longer than I. Have you witnessed this great evolution in combat? Have you seen some kind of mass subconscious fighting expertise develop in the common man? We don't seem all that invincible to me. I can't fly, shoot lightning from my fingers, or move things with my mind. So if we've improved so much in only fifty years, and we still suck this much at fighting, were we just a bunch of uncoordinated idiots throwing rocks at each other three hundred years ago?
> -Rob


Over the years especially in the Western Hemisphere, increasingly there has been a blurring of the lines between what Ed Parker called Combat, and what is euphemistically calling fighting. 

The great majority of the media tends to focus on sporting contests and promotes them as fights. Of course they are not combat, but in a sense as the American public understands it, they are fights. After all we call boxing matches fights and most think of kick boxing as karate so this misunderstanding is systemic in the American martial Arts consciousness. 

In fact, the popularity of the martial arts in general in this country is based on much publicized contests, and therefore its winners are our popular masters and martial arts heroes.

It is a fact these competitors, many of whom are indeed great athletes and competitors, are not masters or in most cases even knowledgeable of the higher information of the arts. Sporting contests are, and have always been the lowest common denominator expression of the arts.

Clearly all of your best hard-core competitors are of a relatively young age compared to what the Eastern Hemisphere used to consider masters. They are essentially competitors too young to have accumulated significant knowledge, and too consumed by necessary training to actually begin to pursue it.

The martial sciences were never designed for competition, but instead combat. Kill or be killed with no rules of engagement beyond survival. The limited applications allowed in competition preclude real combat conditions of the street.

Also because of the inherent limitations, competitors are prone to attempt things they would not do if the stakes meant losing and eye or someone running down the street with your testicles in their hands. The worse that happens in the ring is you lose. Consider all the locks and holds that would be eliminated if you simply were allowed to gnash your teeth into any soft flesh that came close to your mouth.

This improvement and argument of skills is usually related to sporting events and venues. On this level it makes sense. In football we have quarterbacks and running backs that would have been lineman twenty years ago. I still look at Fred Dryer and wonder how he ever was a defensive end in the seventies. Boxers are bigger stronger, and quicker. Track competitors are faster and stronger running and jumping to new world records every year. Baseball pitchers are throwing faster and harder, and clearly baseball players are superior athletes in comparison to their history.

The science of human anatomy training and nutrition has steadily improved over the years, and we now have scientific means of measuring and improving results, (not withstanding illegal supplements) never available in the past.

Combat is another story. While it is true more people are exposed to the martial arts today through the media, this does not necessarily translate into martial skill. Instead there are more people who have the flavor of the arts through commercial schools where the majority promote either competition (that word again) or totally unrealistic self-defense skills with barely street application in mind. 

Realistic street training requires; knowledge of the street, knowledge of the science, and students willing to withstand the rigors of learning to survive in a combat environment. In truth, most are not really interested in street self-defense but rather; want to feel they are learning the martial arts. They want to get a belt, and they want it today if possible, and long-term training and study is an anomaly. Statistically most schools are populated by children who want black belts, (which they are getting), and/or trophies from tournaments.

Back in the day, martial artists fought for survival. It was kill or be killed. Many made their living as professional mercenaries for hire, and you could tell the ones that were good because they were still around. My point is a simple one. No slight to anyone but I would take Colonel Rex Applegate with a blade in his hand over any so-called modern knife fighter, and same goes for the gun fighters, and the average Joe on the street in a confrontation. Even more recent martial arts history tells tales of blood on the mats, missing teeth, and broken ribs that I witnessed myself in the fifties and sixties. Such training really doesnt exist today. Too many lawyers and too many videos where you can get your black belt in your living room without breaking a sweat. Besides who has the time while youre trying to make a living, pay your bills, and send your kids to college. Ed Parker Sr. used to always say, There is no such thing as a part time ninja.

People who had to fight for their lives versus modern day competitors and wannabe street fighters. Take your skills into some of the hoods and find out how tough you are not. Besides all the tough guys I know and work with today carry heat - so its really a moot point.

Pass the ammo, and tell me what style was he again?


----------



## moving target (Feb 26, 2004)

> Even more recent martial arts history tells tales of blood on the mats, missing teeth, and broken ribs that I witnessed myself in the fifties and sixties. Such training really doesn&#8217;t exist today. Too many lawyers and too many videos where you can get your black belt in your living room without breaking a sweat. Besides who has the time while you&#8217;re trying to make a living, pay your bills, and send your kids to college. Ed Parker Sr. used to always say, &#8220;There is no such thing as a part time ninja.&#8221;


Great post, but in this last part, I personaly think it's the lawyers that prevent hard fighting. There are people out there who do fight hard (dog brothers for example) but even if there where any there who would like to fight harder, how could they? Sooner or latter they would have a lawsuit. Now I'm not saying the majority of people aren't lazy, but through out history the best martial artists were not "average" people.


----------

