Well, some unknown person emailed me and asked me to respond. I have a natural distrust with internet communication unless I know for sure who I am communicating with, so I can’t help but think that this was a bait of some sort. But, **** it. I’ll chime in. Why not?
I don’t think I am going to receive much agreement or understanding on my opinion, but that is OK. I am just hoping a different perspective will be valuable to some.
The topic asks the question of is FMA is “devolving,” and basically asks if FMA is loosing realism. I feel that the subject matter is tainted with erroneous assumptions from the very beginning.
First, to believe in devolution, we have to assume that FMAers of the past were better then those of today. I think that this is a narrow belief, and without looking into it with more depth points to the logical fallacy of ‘appeal to antiquity’ so common in the martial arts of today. Teachers of the past did not have super human, unattainable powers. They simply may have had a different life circumstance that set the conditions for them to be very good at their discipline. For example, if stick dueling was a popular practice in the 1950s and 60s then it would stand to reason that instructors got good at that out of necessity. That doesn’t make these people were more capable then anyone else today; what their circumstance did do was it gave a catalyst of realism, where little room was left for wild stipulations and hypothetical’s when going into a fight, as a mistake in training could result in getting hit with a stick and injured. Yet, even with that catalyst of realism, were there still a lot of practices of flowery, non-practical techniques? You bet’cha. Why? Because there are many socio-psychological dynamics that play into what people trained, even back then. I wish this weren’t true sometimes, but MARTIAL ARTS HAS NEVER BEEN ONLY ABOUT WHAT IS PRACTICAL. To get into these socio-psychological factors would require a novel, and my post is long enough. So, I would conclude that masters of the past aren’t necessarily “better” then those of today. Instructors today vary in their focus on realism about as much as they did back then. The main difference is that back then only a small % of everyone trained, where as today in the global economy the amount of people dabbling in FMA is much greater. But if we look at the “best” that we got today vs. back then, the variance will have more to do with individual differences and whom we are comparing. That is assuming that we can compare those from the past to now, which is impossible because of the legendary status that people receive after death.
To summarize: We have no basis or actual evidence to assume that as a whole, stuff was better in the past then it is today. Therefore, no evidence of devolution. All we know is that the dynamics and catalyst of realism are different, though not inferior or superior. So, the fight I might encounter in 2010 is different then the fight I might encounter in 1950. That makes things different, but not better or worse.
Point number two: All martial arts, regardless of type, are fantasy. Stick with me on this one before you jump through your computer, freak out and immediately tell yourself how different your style is from everyone else’s, or run to the shower crying for the next hour and repeating some sort of mantra as to how tough you and your art really is. I will repeat: All martial arts, regardless of type, are fantasy.
Let me explain. The only “traditional” art I train (the other stuff I train is more reality based, or more modern and eclectic) is Balintawak Eskrima. I love it. However, the system is primarily a stick dueling system. So, as it applies to real fighting, for me to use Balintawak directly in a fight, I would have to be in a situation where I have an eskrima stick, he has an eskrima stick, and we pummel each other until one of us is no longer moving. In all likelihood, this will never happen. There is no modern day self-defense scenario or battlefield scenario that will involve me dueling with another person with a stick. Therefore, the direct skill I am getting from Balintawak applies only to a fantasy scenario.
The eskrima example is an easy one to follow, but the example holds true in your empty hand systems as well. Take BJJ for example. I love BJJ; it is a great art. There is no modern day self-defense scenario where I am going to roll with someone for as long as it takes, be it 5-30 minutes, with no interruption, until someone submits. To assume that scenario is to believe that fantasy is real.
And there in lies the problem. Many people who train, from the lowest level to the most prominent master, cannot separate fantasy from reality when it comes to this stuff. So then we end up with discussions on whether or not so and so’s trapping sequence is “real” enough. If we can except that none of it is “real,” then we will be far better off. But, that will never happen on a large scale. I wish I could say that people’s inability to separate real from fantasy was solely based in lack of experience or exposure to violent encounters, but that is not the case because you don’t need to be in a lot of violent scenarios to address what is fantasy and what isn’t; you can look at statistics and talk to those who have been in violent encounters to get the picture. Yet, martial artists generally don’t do that, and there are a whole lot of reasons for that going beyond this post as well. But to put it simply, it is a natural defense mechanism to want to feel in control of what could happen if you were in danger, and therefore putting up a fantastical scenario where you or your art gets to be the winner placates to that psychological need.
In a nutshell, this is why dissecting someone’s trapping sequence from a video clip and trying to determine if it is “real” or not is silly. None of it is real. That would be like me arguing that smurfs are far more realistic then fragile’s, and let me list all the reasons why. Sheesh.
Final point then: Why do we train anything if none of it is “real”?
One answer: attributes
Let’s pretend for a second that I have been on a few combat tours in the mid-east and that I did a lot of dismounted patrols in very small teams looking for High Value Targets and Targets of Opportunity. Part of my training for this job involves 5 mile timed runs, sprints, heavy lifting, crossfit style circuits, etc. I will tell you that I have never done a 5 mile run to get to a bad guy, or a heavy dead lift while on a patrol. So, why did I do those things to train for my mission? Those activities may not have been of direct help, but the physical conditioning became a huge asset when I needed it.
We train martial arts for many different reasons that have nothing to do with fighting: fitness, mental well being, social interaction, self-esteem, etc. But as it applies to fighting, by training martial arts we develop attributes that should give us an advantage in a real fight. So, though you will likely never grapple someone into submission for 30 minutes in a fight, the attributes and grappling and body positioning skills of BJJ can be extremely advantageous, making BJJ a practical art. Pretending for a second that I have been in my fair share of real life encounters, its safe to say that I have never used Balintawak Eskrima directly. But the attributes of discipline, timing, distance management, kinesthetic awareness, and so on have all been invaluable to me.
So the question we should be asking here isn’t “will that trapping sequence or drill work in a fight?” as this question is plagued with erroneous assumptions to begin with. The question should be “what attributes or skills does that drill train?” Or, “What is the objective and value of that exercise, and can its objectives be accomplished better with something else?” These questions, to me, seem more logical.
Before I end the post, I have a final recommendation. You may train great martial arts, developing attributes and skill sets that indirectly apply to real fighting. But, great martial artists fail in fights all the time because they have never rehearsed for the likely self-defense circumstance that they will be in, and those attributes never connect or come out when the real scenario occurs. So I suggest that all training should be augmented with non art specific, scenario-based training rehearsals. I have heard some reference to “pressure testing” and so forth already, which is good. But that doesn’t mean just wrestling around with your buddy and trying that wristlock, or putting your buddy in a wristlock and then saying, “er…now try to get out of it!” It means setting up the environmental/tactical scenario where you are rehearsing possible self-defense situations with the use of modern day equipment (padded suits for example) so that you can train as live and full force as possible within the limitations of safety considerations. The difference between martial arts practice and a scenario based rehearsal is that in a rehearsal you are setting up the likely conditions you will be in if you have to fight in real life, you know for your consideration the limitations of your training environment ahead of time, and you are able to train, adjust and maximize your probability for success if that real encounter should occur.
That is my take on the topic. I hope some of you find something of value in my lengthy post.
Thanks,
Cruentus
