'Beliefs' in martial arts.

[fangjian]

Hi everyone, I was attempting to start a blog today. The original intent of my blog is going to be about my disbelief in gods and other religious ideas. But my first post is about beliefs in martial arts. I as hoping some of you would check it out and let me know what you think if you have a minute. All criticism is welcome. It's my first time trying it and would welcome advice. Here's the link below.

http://ath3istbydefault.blogspot.com/2011/02/beliefs-in-martial-arts.html

 

[Aiki Lee]

I think it is important for the sake of argument to be able to differentiate between blind faith and informed or reasonable faith when discussing certain subjects whether it be martial arts or religion or science.

 

[Ken Morgan]

Its funny, I was reading your post and thinking "peer review", then half way through you mention it!

Not all MA require you to go toe to toe with someone to prove your worth, or the validity of your art.

No matter what industry/profession you are in, you will always have those on the peripheral who will always try to make a buck or elevate themselves to a position of authority in their little world. Generally they have half assed qualifications, but try to pass themselves off as more then they are.

Who decides who is qualified? Groups of like minded people get together and start judging others, who are they to judge?

My MA is iaido and jodo, I can tell, just from 12 years of experience who “has a clue” just by watching someone for 30 seconds, it doesn’t matter if I know that school or not, I will know.

Sorry….all over the place….

 

[Balrog]

I think it is important for the sake of argument to be able to differentiate between blind faith and informed or reasonable faith when discussing certain subjects whether it be martial arts or religion or science.

You can't differentiate. Faith, by definition, is blind. This is why religions exist.

faith (feɪ&#952 — n 1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence 2. a specific system of religious beliefs: the Jewish faith 3. Christianity trust in God and in his actions and promises 4. a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason

 

[fangjian]

You can't differentiate. Faith, by definition, is blind. This is why religions exist.

This is correct.

You either believe something with evidence ( evolution, Newtonian mechanics, some m.a. styles ARE better than others ) or you believe something with no evidence (homeopathy, gods, no touch knockouts)

 

[girlbug2]

It raised questions for me, such as, what are some examples of those claims that you are satisfied have been put through peer review, and also some examples of those which have not.

 

[fangjian]

It raised questions for me, such as, what are some examples of those claims that you are satisfied have been put through peer review, and also some examples of those which have not.

GREAT QUESTION!
I'll start this but would love to hear other's opinions.

Peer reviewed: Jab, Cross, snap kick, round kick, sprawl, headbutt


NOT peer reviewed: no touch knockouts, supernatural protection from harm(anting anting), dubious techniques that are low percentage/high risk, which make up 90% of a style's curriculum

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

This is correct.

You either believe something with evidence (evolution, Newtonian mechanics, some m.a. styles ARE better than others ) or you believe something with no evidence (homeopathy, gods, no touch knockouts)

Actually, faith is essentially trust. You have faith in a person for various reasons. Or more specifically, faith in their actions, abilities, or decisions. Usually, it is based upon past experience with the person or the related past experience of another trusted individual with that person.

Everytime you start your car, you have faith that it will, in fact, start. The less you know about automobiles, the more blind your faith in this simple act is.

For most everything that we believe, we rely upon the research and conclusions of others, which is also faith. The further removed you are from the field that your belief is tied to, the more blind your faith is.

Kenshin made reference to informed reasonable faith, which does exist. The dictionary definition posted by Balrog as supportfor his statement that all faith is blind does not actually read as such. It does say: 1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence.

Generally, the term faith is used to describe belief in somethng that lacks some kind of evidence or support, though the term is not exclusive to such beliefs.

Then you get into what comprises evidence in the mind of the person who holds the belief, whatever it may be.

People who believe in no touch KO's, for example, may believe in the idea because they 'saw' it happen in their dojo. They may not have really seen one; it may have been a case of a sensei who's students will automatically drop for whatever technique he dishes out. The believer is then shocked when the sensei cannot duplicate the result on a non member.

Like starting the car, the believer in this scenario has no reason for his faith to be shaken until his proverbial car won't start. He has "seen it with his own eyes" after all.

So is his faith really blind? Or just visually impaired? Or tricked by an optical illusion?

Another issue with discussions of non physical things in martial arts, such as ki, people often have different definitions for the same term. Look up ki, chi, or qi on MT and look through the threads and you'll see as many different descriptions of ki as there are posters on MT.

Do I "have faith" in the existence the ability to harness one's Ki? Sure, but I define it as breath. The ability to control your breathing is fairly essential to any physical endeavor, so by my definition, ki not only exists, but its application is provable and replicable. So my faith in the idea of harnessing ki is grounded in something tangible.

On the other hand a person who believes that ki is like the force will have a hard time furnishing what would be considered acceptable proof by most, though he or she may believe in it due to a personal experience.

Frankly, most people who believe in something without evidence, regardless of what it is, and refuse to question it, responding with "I have faith," simply want to believe what they believe and are unwilling to look beyond just having faith either out of apathy or out of fear that looking will reveal their belief to be with out base.

Regarding your blog, I didn't find any fault with it. It would be nice to have an actual peer review publication with no investment in any specific art or arts to exhaustively test and conclude.

Daniel

 

[fangjian]

It would be nice to have an actual peer review publication with no investment in any specific art or arts to exhaustively test and conclude.

Daniel

In regards to the above, we do have this peer review. It's called sparring. We all know what styles and techniques work for whatever circumstances. We also know the ones that are b.s.

In regards to the word 'faith'. I always use it to denote a belief in something without evidence. For example I don't have 'faith' that when you throw a ball up, it will come back down. All of the evidence suggests it WILL come back down, and we can also pinpoint exactly where and how fast. Same thing with my techniques (although not with as much certainty, of course). They are testable, observable etc.
I agree with most of the things you said but, I am assuming most people use the word 'faith' the way I am, no?

I'd hate for this to be a matter of semantics though.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

It seems relevant that the relationship between most people and science is the same as that of many people and religion. I "believe" in quantum physics, but I've never run the math. I couldn't if I wanted to. I accept what the priests of science tell me is so, as do most of us.

The difference between my going to the doctor and a 10th century peasant going to a witch is cosmetic at best.

Also true in martial arts. Each dojo has a priest (often in funny robes) who others believe in. Though you can expose your faith to some peer review in sparring, you're sparring against members of your own faith.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

In regards to the above, we do have this peer review. It's called sparring.

I have to disagree with this statement. Sparring is a component in peer review, but is not itself peer review. Sparring is more like lab work. For example, one might wish to reveiw taekwondo and compare it to other styles by having the taekwondoist spar people of different specific styles (karate vs. taekwondo, boxing vs. taekwondo, BJJ vs. taekwondo, etc.) followed by taekwondo vs. an competitive MMA fighter.

Then you have the question of the context of the art. Boxing is a sport that focuses on hand techniques. WTF sport TKD is a sport that focuses on foot techniques. Wrestling is a sport that focuses on grappling. Sport/competition has value in and of itself. Football is not a martial art, but a sport. Nobody cares how effective it is against baseball or against MMA; it has value to fans and players that is independent of its practical usage off of the field. Likewise, a taekwondoist going for the gold at the olympics is unlikely to be concerned about whether or not he can beat the current UFC champ in the same weight class. Then you have the crossing over from fighting system to martial gymnastics and physical art. Would you use XMA in self defense? Probably not, but it's darned cool to look at. I can't do it, nor would I want to, but its cool to watch. Many martial arts have sportive and artistic elements in addition to their martial element. So these arts will have a different value placed on these different aspects by different people.

Also, you have peers who will argue that 'sparring is not fighting/self defense/whatever,' and not always in defense of arts that fare poorly in UFC matches.

Then you have arts that have no sparring component at all. How would you peer reveiw a new style of iaido with sparring? Most kenjutsu ryu do not have actual sparring either. A more common add on to KMA dojangs is Haidong Gumdo. No sparring there either to my knowledge. In Koryu arts, lineage and tradition are major components, which have nothing to do with sparring. People seeking out such arts are generally interested in getting the most authentic feudal Japanese experience and can be more concerned with pedigree.

A peer review would require that the art be evaluated as to how well it functions within its context. Sparring may or may not be a component of that depending upon the art.

We all know what styles and techniques work for whatever circumstances. We also know the ones that are b.s.

Do we all? Obviously, we don't all know, otherwise those styles would not have any adherents.

Not to mention that I see 'styles' mentioned frequently that I have never heard of. Most of the time, a bit of research reveals that they are spin offs from another style, usually one with wider recognition, which may or may not itself be a spin off from something else.

I for one would love as periodical that would do concise and informed peer reviews. Partly because as an instructor, it would make a valuable trade publication. Secondly, as an MA geek, it would be another cool thing to read.

In regards to the word 'faith'. I always use it to denote a belief in something without evidence. For example I don't have 'faith' that when you throw a ball up, it will come back down. All of the evidence suggests it WILL come back down, and we can also pinpoint exactly where and how fast. Same thing with my techniques (although not with as much certainty, of course). They are testable, observable etc.
I agree with most of the things you said but, I am assuming most people use the word 'faith' the way I am, no?

I'd hate for this to be a matter of semantics though.

That is how you and more than a few others use the word, but that is not the limit of the word's usage, nor is that usage universal. Though for the context of this thread, I'm fine with your usage.

For the most part, 'faith' in the context that you use it, in the martial arts is usually had in either esoteric aspects of some arts (throwing chi balls, no touch KO's, channeling chi, and usage of chi in areas beyond simple breath control) or in arts with either dubious backgrounds or which are much more focused on self improvement and lifestyle than they are on practical application, or arts of dubious background making outlandish claims of being all encompassing and superior, yet having no mechanism to test techniques, or to test them outside of their own studio.

However, in schools that teach a legitimate art that may include things like knife defenses, students have 'faith' that these techniques will work if they are ever attacked by a knife wielding assailant. Their faith is reasonable faith: their instuctor has just demonstrated the techniques with a knife wielding black belt student and they work every time. If the student is knowledgeable in some way with regards to how a knife wielding opponent is most likely to attack you (perhaps he or she has a background in law enforcement or was the victim of a knife attack), then they may also have 'informed and reasonble faith' in what the instructor is teaching. Or they may consider it worthless.

Daniel

 

[Aiki Lee]

Daniel pretty much summed up everything I would have said, except he said it much better than I could have done.

But just to add to it, blind faith is what you get when you never question what you are taught and simply assume you know the truth. I do not live my life this way. The intelligent religious people I know do not view faith this way, but I'm not going to discuss religion at this time, because frankly I don't think that was the purpose of the OP.

Back to MA, Daniel makes a point using the knife fighting scenario. If you think your teacher has demonstrated he has enough skill and knowledge to share with you a proper knife defense, you will believe him when he tells you that his particular method would work. You train in it believing that if you had to use this skill it could save your life. You don't know it for sure. The only way a person can test themselves to know for sure if what they do works is to do it for real which would either make that person a violent sociopath or an utter idiot.

With sapring and randori, even if you go as realistic as possible, deep inside no one wants to injure or kill their training partners so it never gets that far. All we have in the end is faith in our system,faith in ourselves, and faith in our teacher.

edit: Oh and before I forget, a lot of people do use the idea of faith being "belief without evidence", but spiritual people will sate to you they have plenty of evidence on which to base their decision. Faith is reasonable when you can argue it logically and provide reasonable evidence. You say the evidence does not exist, I say it does. You and I are not disagreeing on science, we are disagreeing on philosophy.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Daniel pretty much summed up everything I would have said, except he said it much better than I could have done.

Actually, I think I'm frequently overly wordy in my responses.

With sparring and randori, even if you go as realistic as possible, deep inside no one wants to injure or kill their training partners so it never gets that far.

No, they don't, which is where people will say "sparring isn't fighting." I think that the point of the OP with regards to sparring is that sparring will enable you test the viability of techniques with a resisting opponent. While I agree wholeheartedly, I do not consider sparring to be the equivalent of a peer review.

Daniel

 

[shesulsa]

What you're really talking about is not faith, it is not belief, it is the exposition of perceived fraud. If that's your goal, have fun.

There are problems with exposing fraud in martial arts - one of them is the simple fact that there are many people out there who have never trained in any fighting art who have successfully defended themselves, even against armed attacks. So to say Mom 'n' Pop's Stopthedrop Shop Self-Defense Club are frauds because either they don't have lineage, made up their fighting style or can't win you sparring but they can successfully fight off an armed robber in the middle of the night with a broomstick ... well, that just becomes a bit of a problem.

It would be nice if self-defense and good fighting arts were separated by obvious skill, but it's just not that easy, or to say if you can't successfully spar that you can't successfully defend yourself. It's just not necessarily true.

Peer review is not necessarily bad, but it is also not necessarily a true test of ability and really, everyone comes to martial arts with their own goals. There's not really anything wrong with that.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Peer review is not necessarily bad, but it is also not necessarily a true test of ability and really, everyone comes to martial arts with their own goals. There's not really anything wrong with that.

Ideally, a peer review should review the art in its intended context and give a well researched and cogent comentary about how the art compares to similar arts, dissiliar arts, and how well it fares in its context, in self defense, and if applicable, in scenarios where multiple styles are allowed in competition, such as MMA (not really a possiblity for weapon arts).

Even in unarmed arts with no sparring component, the techniques are not magic or unique, and some means of testing them is always avaialble.

I would not view a peer review as a test of a martial art, but as exactly what it is: a review. The whole point of a review is to inform. In the case of a peer review, it should inform the reader as to what peers think about a specific art. It is up to the reader to decide from there, based upon the information, what they themselves think.

Daniel

 

[clfsean]

GREAT QUESTION!
I'll start this but would love to hear other's opinions.

Peer reviewed: Jab, Cross, snap kick, round kick, sprawl, headbutt

Basics. Ok good...

NOT peer reviewed: <<snipped>> dubious techniques that are low percentage/high risk, which make up 90% of a style's curriculum

Really curious about this statement. What style, exactly, are you alluding to? If you have something to say about something, say it. With the certainty you speak with, you should have no problem sharing .

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

GREAT QUESTION!
I'll start this but would love to hear other's opinions.

Peer reviewed: Jab, Cross, snap kick, round kick, sprawl, headbutt

I would add to this elbow strikes, knee strikes, shin kicks, side kicks, arm bars, and an assorment of locks and twists for which I don't have a formal name but see used in both various grappling arts and by fighters on the occasion that I watch a UFC bout.

NOT peer reviewed: no touch knockouts, supernatural protection from harm(anting anting), dubious techniques that are low percentage/high risk, which make up 90% of a style's curriculum

I agree with you with the qualification that low percentage high risk can be relative. Also, I am assuming that when you say "a style's curriculum" that you mean style in the general sense and not a specific style (if you are refering to a specific style, please identify it).

Another factor is that most modern martial arts are taught with a bent towards self improvement and personal development through martial training rather than as self defense arts. So mastering a technically challenging technique that one may never use in either sparring, tournament, or against a violent assailant may have a non-martial value.

Also, some "high risk/low percentage" techniques that I have seen are not intended for use in sparring, but are meant to help the student to understand some principle of how the human body moves or bends. So it sometimes is a matter of teaching pedagogy.

This is often an area that martial arts are criticized for. The teaching pedagogy of most traditional martial arts does not tend to produce rapid results, and exercises meant to build flexibility and develop ballance are often mistaken for something with martial appliction, when in fact, it is just an exercise to build flexibility and develop ballance.

The trap that many students of traditional arts fall into is thinking that black belt makes them expert, when in reality, they have just reached a point where they are able to start taking the principles out of the technique sets and begin applying them.

The trap that many school of traditional martial arts fall into is teaching the basic curriculum and never adequately communicating to the student that after two to four years of study, he or she has just learned basics and now is ready to start applying principles.

Different arts are more susceptible to this than others due to their nature. I feel that striking arts tend to avoid this trap more easily because striking is easier for students to get, though they still fall into it, usually with regards to students defending against non realistic attacks (i.e. every attack for them to counter is a reverse punch sort of thing or never preparing students for the possiblity of their kick being grabbed).

Daniel

 

[fangjian]

I want to go ahead thank all of you for responding to my post. I appreciate all of your insights.

When I said 'sparring' is our 'peer review'. Yes that is not entirely accurate.
Maybe instead of the word 'sparring' maybe better to use words like " experiment, testing, observations, empirical evidence..........."

I teach martial arts for credit at a nearby university and was going over this with my Taijiquan students. To keep it simple I will go over "Mirror grab of the wrist" or sometimes called "same side grab".

So the guy brags my wrist. I think the first escape I learned from here would have to be where you just bring your elbow upward like you are 'running you fingers through your hair' and escape through the grip between their thumb and index finger. Now let's say I do this techniques a few hundred times and it works every time. Then I have some one twice my size grab my wrist. All of a sudden it doesn't work for me anymore, because his strength is overwhelming. Basically it's an anomaly. My technique always worked before but now we have a small discrepancy. So now what I do is place both hands together in a 'gable grip' and, do the same technique and it works again. My new one didn't necessarily 'prove the other one invalid. There were just discrepancies that needed to be resolved. Ok so now I know how to deal with the 'big guy'. So I do these techniques a thousand times, they always work. All of a sudden, both of them don't work because my 'grabber' knows those escapes so he easily counters. Another anomaly. So now I add a quick strike to his face with the free hand first, and now use the free hand to push his grabbing hand down while my 'grabbed hand' jerks upward ( in a scissoring motion) to escape. There. I just cleaned up another 'anomaly' and used a new technique also.

This exactly how science works( sorry I'm kind of a science nerd, so I use it for analogy). Just like Isaac Newton's discoveries described how many things worked. Of course, there were some anomalies, like the orbit of Mercury, etc. So Einstein came along and cleaned up many of Newton's discrepancies. He didn't prove Newton WRONG everywhere. Just cleaned up a few things. Just like with the adding of more techniques we are just cleaning up discrepancies.


And when I say 'sparring', I guess I mean all types of pressure testing. Rolling, chi sao, tuishou, sanshou, randori............

 

[fangjian]

Also, just like the other thread about 'Combat proven martial arts......' recently. Everyone wants me to name names. I understand why, since it would clear things up as to what I'm talking about.

Well, just as in the other thread I was stating that not all martial arts are equally effective. And I don't mean in different contexts. I mean that some styles I would naturally assume are actually superior to other styles. I still think a good example of this would be, Modern western boxing. And Thai Boxing.

I think that the style of Western Boxing is an inferior fighting system when compared to Thai Boxing.

Many people in the other thread were disagreeing with me that, of course a boxer is able to defeat a Thai boxer, and that it depends on the person. I agree with this to an extent. However I'm not talking about a bout with Queensbury rules or Muay Thai rules. I mean as a 'fighting system' in general. For ALL circumstances and probabilities. The more tools (techniques, conditioning, methodology) in a style you have, the better. A kick-boxer has an edge over a boxer. I would imagine that if you could run a program where (everything being equal, height, weight, experience, heart) you have a boxer face a Thai boxer in a near infinite amount of scenarios, the Thai boxer would win the majority of the time.

In the same way that a platoon that uses cover and concealment as there 'style' will have an edge over a platoon that marches forward into battle as a marching unit. Right?

And about 'naming styles', any martial art that has overwhelming amounts of supernatural lore ( i've seen it in aikido, systema, combat ki, pressure point styles, etc. ) , or unrealistic movements is kind of 'suspect' to me. I am very critical of many fighting methods, and just trying to look at them all OBJECTIVELY.

About the supernatural styles that involve things like spirit and qi etc., can anyone point me to any scientific testing to their validity. If there is 'something' there, we can likely measure it.

I look forward to your responses.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I want to go ahead thank all of you for responding to my post. I appreciate all of your insights.

When I said 'sparring' is our 'peer review'. Yes that is not entirely accurate.
Maybe instead of the word 'sparring' maybe better to use words like " experiment, testing, observations, empirical evidence..........."

So a peer review would be "experiment, testing, observations, empirical evidence..........." by multiple peers who then compare what their results.

Experiments and testing would need to be be in a variety of formats to account for the art's strengths in various circumstances. Specifically, the art's primary focus should be tested and its evaluation should be in light of that focus. For example, a grappling art should not be deemed inferior to a striking art 'because there's no punches to the head' in the sparring, but it should instead be compared to other grappling arts (BJJ to judo, judo to wrestling, etc.).

Arts that have multiple elements (sportive, SD, performance) should be evaluated in a complete manner and not as one element compared to another complete art. For example, when evaluating taekwondo, more than just the olympic sport should be taken into consideration.

If the art is a lifestyle/self improvement art, it should likewise, be evaluated in that light. Though instructors of lifestyle/self improvement arts need to make that clear to students.

Daniel