Is it still a martial art if...

[loki09789]

There was a tv show that last night about Japanese martial arts that relates to the general view, not the best or the most correct, but the generally accepted view of martial arts.

All of the instructors they talked to made comments that could be summarized in the following:

Martial arts has its roots in combat, but ultimately about dealing with three battles: body, mind and spirit.

Training the body well is a 'battle' against unhealthiness, softness...

Training the mind is a battle of focusing, learning and mastering control, bearing and choice making under pressure

Training the spirit... well, more training the student to tap into spirit to overcome fear, embrace danger and be able to tap into the energy flows that usually get called chi or Qi.

I don't know if I totally agree with this, but it seems to be the trend of Martial arts from "Jutsu" or combat focus, to "Do" or philosophical/spiritual focus of training.


Paul Martin

 

[Black Bear]

GoNad-Itchy-Ryu, :rofl: Good one.

I know perfectly well that many senior MA'ists in TMA will never say in conversation, "I do MA". But I personally find this mildly pretentious. When I'm speaking to people, I talk in a language that they understand. I don't throw out a word they don't know.

It's for that same reason that I even use the term MA at all, silly word that it is. I use it because other people use it, and it gives a point of reference for communication to occur. Which is the point of all talking really.

fringe_dweller, as you point out, it IS a matter of degree. If a MA is quicker to be effective, it is de facto more effective.

However, I am not a big believer in these so-called "master arts". People believe that time is the causal factor here. I believe it's at least as likely that the elapse of time sees a particular sort of "self-selection" process creep in, aka "differential mortality bias". Those in the minority with natural attributes (agility, response speed, endurance) who can apply the stuff are more likely to continue to practice, than others. We see them do these incredible things, but it's as much credited to natural ability as to the learning they've developed over the decades.

Not to mention, how effective are a lot of them really? Aikido is effective against a certain range of energies but not others. And to the extent that it has some limited effectiveness, it takes darned long. So to me it's not "effective". I'm not saying that it has no effectiveness. As we've said, effectiveness is a continuous variable, not a dichotomous one.

As to Mr. Prime Minister's remarks on the movement from jitsu to do, I disagree. For many decades, MA has enjoyed a reputation as a wellspring of ancient wisdom and personal growth. Especially in the present American "culture of fear" I see more people increasingly interested in assault risk reduction and, well, "effectiveness". Now most of the public may not recognize that there are differences in the effectiveness of one art vs. another. But that safety/fighting aspect is more on their radar screen now I believe. I think the pendulum is going the other way.

Anyway, Mr. Prime Minister, do you believe that the Japanese really had a tripartite view of the human? (body/mind/spirit) Or might this have just been some crock where a modern person imposed his values filter on the arts? I know next to nothing about Japanese thought. But all the pundits say you're a very well-read and philosophical man.

 

[loki09789]

"Anyway, Mr. Prime Minister, do you believe that the Japanese really had a tripartite view of the human? (body/mind/spirit) Or might this have just been some crock where a modern person imposed his values filter on the arts? I know next to nothing about Japanese thought. But all the pundits say you're a very well-read and philosophical man."

Well, that summary was of comments made by a Japanese Aikido instructor (ethnically Japanese, but in LA) and UechiRyu instructror (ethnically Okinawan in Okinawa) as well as others I don't remember off the top of my head. My mother is Okinawan as well, and based on that stuff, I would think that they do make a distinction between the three mind/body/spirit, but every culture has some hint of this.

The Jutsu to Do comment was really about the trend of goals over the course of centuries, not decades. I agree that there are more combative/fight art schools getting recognition and now.

By the way the name is Paul, and I said that I don't know if I believe what was presented on the show, just passing it on.

Paul

 

[loki09789]

I think the martial arts, regardless of which one, matters less than the person when the fight is on. Effectiveness is about the man, preparation is about the art/system...

Put two equally ranked martial artists in a fight, not a tournament, and the one who wants it more will win. There are white belts in 'ineffective' arts that I would rather have watching my back than some black belts in 'effective' arts.

Paul Martin

 

[loki09789]

Black Bear,

Just curious, I checked your profile and was wondering if your job title is the equivelant of school counselor here in the USA?

Paul M

 

[Black Bear]

Originally posted by loki09789
I think the martial arts, regardless of which one, matters less than the person when the fight is on. Effectiveness is about the man, preparation is about the art/system...

Put two equally ranked martial artists in a fight, not a tournament, and the one who wants it more will win. There are white belts in 'ineffective' arts that I would rather have watching my back than some black belts in 'effective' arts.

Paul Martin

Well that's true. But in addition to choosing the kind of person we are becoming, we also choose a martial art which is a system or process of physical education. It is something you go through that will develop attributes as well as a repertoire of skills.

The new Prime Minister of Canada is named Paul Martin. It's just a haha. n/m

My job as an educational psychologist relates to the role of school counselor, but it's usually not the same. I do psychoeducational assessments, mainly in schools and junior colleges. When a student is identified as having special needs, I use standardized tests (such as IQ, visual-spatial processing tests), interview information, and behavioural observations to identify the causes of their difficulties and develop recommendations for their education. I also do the hated job of "diagnosis" aka "labeling".

We usually go from site to site, whereas school counselors are attached to one or two schools. We look after special ed needs moreso than socio-emotional ones, though sometimes we identify emotional disturbances as being a factor in the learning problems.

 

[Ty K. Doe]

This is starting to remind me of that Saturday Night Live skit, where the moderator of a panel keeps asking everyone on the panel questions where he always replies, "WRONG!!"

What's your name?
WRONG!!

Let's check the ego at the door. You study your "art" and I'll study my "art". If I get my but kicked, you have my permission not to worry about me.

 

[Black Bear]

Originally posted by Ty K. Doe
This is starting to remind me of that Saturday Night Live skit, where the moderator of a panel keeps asking everyone on the panel questions where he always replies, "WRONG!!"

I disagree.

Let's check the ego at the door. You study your "art" and I'll study my "art". If I get my but kicked, you have my permission not to worry about me.

I don't have to do what you tell me to.






















I'm kidding.

 

[loki09789]

Tells you how up on world events I am, the only celebrity link I knew of was a rookie hockey player, I believe with the NJ Devils, that came up this year.

If it is strictly art/system effectiveness being discussed:

Is a coaches system of hockey play effective if it doesn't create advantages offensive/defensive oportunities? No, this is a physical/mental pursuit. If it don't last in the 'game' that you are training for, it don't work.

Paul Martin (I wonder if I should try picking up one of his pay checks, where's payroll office?)

 

[7starmantis]

I think effectivness is a combination of many variables. You can train as realisticly as possible and as effectivly as possible, but I don't believe you can train to be 100% effective 100% of the time. Also, the few times you are unsuccessful at being effective, does not discredit your system or training.

7sm

 

[Black Bear]

Well, the original question was all about whether it's still a MA if it's ineffective, which ultimately I said I think it is.

About condemnation...

I never tell anyone that they shouldn't do something, or that it's stupid, just because it's ineffective. It's a free world, a wide wide world. Cheerleader baton twirling is ineffective/useless. Clowns pieing each other in the face is ineffective/useless. Guys pulling train cars with their teeth is ineffective/useless. A lot of things in this world are not all that useful but that doesn't make them bad. In fact, I still like to watch them. Several things I do myself aren't much use for anything at all, except for my amusement or stress relief. So why would I condemn "Method X"? They are extras or bonuses in life.

The only time that ineffectiveness is a problem is when effectiveness is needed. If someone is in this martial arts game because they want to make themselves and their family safer, or need to learn how to fight, I don't want them kidding themselves, and I don't want other people kidding them. That just leads to a waste of human potential.

And Mr. Prime Minister's point about individual variation is important. It's like the clinical nutrition example. You're not going to make some guy into a champion discus thrower, or make another guy live 120 years, just by virtue of the way you feed him. There are so many other factors, the largest of which is natural ability/genetics. The point is to feed the athlete the best you can, or to extend life EXPECTANCY by 10 or 20 years by eating the right stuff. Life "expectancy" means nothing if you get hit by a drunk driver next week. But it's still a worthwhile thing to do, if that's something that's important to you.

Anyway, some people are annoyed with this thread. If they read ALL my posts on it with an open mind, they'll see that my point is the exact opposite of what they probably thought. I'm saying NOT to be elitist in the way we use language, and to use "martial arts" the way everyone else uses it because the purpose of words is to communicate and express ideas. As I said, I favour a MORE INCLUSIVE definition of MA, not one that depends on effectiveness. The effectiveness thing was just a reductio ad absurdum. But I guess those who don't get it, won't get it.

 

[Makalakumu]

I think the more realistic you train, the less time you are going to spend in that art. Your body can only take a beating for so long. For example, a Muey Thai player's training life span is usually less then five years. And then they can barely walk when there done. Which makes them more likely to be attacked. So was all the hard training worth it?

 

[Black Bear]

That really depends on what population of muay Thai players. That "well-known factoid" is thrown out regarding poor Thai country boys who go to live-in gyms and train to make their fortune in pro fights. Kind of like some minority boxers in the US. Yeah, people can only kick coconut trees so long. They'll have nerve damage of varying severity and sure enough, there'll be a few that were champions and then, ironically, walking around with canes.

But I indirectly know a lot of successful NAmerican MT competitors. I don't know a cripple among them. IIRC, Mike Miles' place (mentioned in the wmatti thread) does not, to my knowledge have a wheelchair ramp.

 

[Makalakumu]

I trained realistically and hard for five years in my late teens and early twenties. Part of this training was for competitive fighting and part for my job on the street. The following is a list of injuries I acquired;

Broken nose
Broken nose
Broken nose
three broken ribs
Torn cartiledge in the chest
Torn carltiledge in the right knee
Broken wrist
Broken wrist
Boxer break
Boxer break
Broken finger
Broken finger
Broken finger
Broken collar bone
concussion
concussion
stab to the hand
stab to the flank

Uncountable numbers of sprains, strains and pulls.

My body is a patchwork of pain some morning when I wake up to train. If you train realistically, you can expect injuries. In fact, if you are not getting injured on a regular basis, you are NOT training realistically. You are NOT learning how to "fight."

In realistic training, your body will acrue injuries, your body will wear out. I have been in one self defense situation in my life and I can say that all of that training all of that pain and wear and tear on my body was not worth it for that. I am not going to be 35 years old and hobbling with a cane because I harbor this fantasy that my physical being is constantly in danger.

Self defense is different. Self defense can be a lot of things, but it is usually only a few things to many MAists. One of those few things is fighting - which happens to be the least effective self defense. A martial art that teaches a person how to defend themselves and preserves that person's body is an art to be cherished. Will that art teach the person how to fight? Maybe, maybe not, but that is not the point.

Not anymore at least.

 

[kenpo12]

upnorthkyosa,

Great post!

 

[Black Bear]

Dude, I'm not here to judge your past decisions, but from the range of injuries you present with, I'd have to say that folks don't have to train the way you trained in order to train effectively/realistically. A lot of what you talked about can be minimized through alternating taped hands or gloves with isolation of open-hand stuff, a bit of leather gear, replica weapons as opposed to live blades.

If people trained realistically, with real blades, they'd be getting cut constantly, often several times in a minute. If they trained realistically with a soft blade of thermoplastic elastomer or something of the like, they could get lots of good training in. Where many ppl in the FMA/JKD culture love the aluminum knives, I dislike them because I can't stab people full speed without leaving gaping holes in their bodies and my conscience.

As far as I can tell, there are two elements to realism:

1) aliveness
2) ecological validity

Aliveness is described in the linked articles and interviews at the wmatti thread. It's a complex subject whose explanation I shall leave to its living pioneers. Ecological validity means that the training is relevant to the environment you live in, the modeled threats, etc. It means that instead of doing sport stuff, you work with common street attacks, multiple assailants, blades, impact weapons, probably firearms, different spatial arrangements, cement-friendly groundfighting, etc.

Good training, as Tony Blauer said, should usually hurt but rarely injure. In fact, now with the increased popularity of technologies like Proform invisible mouthguards, wrestling shoes, impact reduction gear, and safe replica weapons, it's easier and easier for a conscientious coach to offer increasingly "real" synthetic experiences with less injury risk than many contact sports.

You make an important point that people ought not to injure themselves in training for fear of getting injured in an assault, and I agree wholeheartedly.

As for the place of fighting skills within self-defense, I recall that someone here has a sig that says that "Violence is seldom the solution, but when it is, it's the only solution." I couldn't say it better. A self-defense system that does not teach fighting skills has a huge, gaping hole in it.

 

[Makalakumu]

Fighting skills are used to dominate an opponent. Self defense skills are used to defend ones person. These two rarely coincide. If you are in a "self defense" situation and you are forced to dominate another person, only then are "fighting" skills uselfull. This situation rarely arises in realistic scenarios.

 

[kenpo12]

upnorthkyosa,

I agree. Alot of people seem to think they are the same thing.

 

[pknox]

I don't think they're the same thing, but is it possible they can be related?

I define "self defense" as doing what is necessary to prevent oneself from being harmed in an altercation. To me, "self defense" and "self preservation" are one in the same. The way I see it, if an altercation is imminent, there are 3 possible responses:

1. Take the offensive (i.e. attack before you are attacked)
2. Take the defensive (i.e. respond after your assailant attacks you)
3. Run (i.e. what Royce Gracie calls "foot jiu jitsu" )

Granted, it may not be possible to use #3 in every altercation. #2 seems to be especially utilized by aikidoka, but could also be utilized by some other grapplers (the old "wait till he shoots, then I'll guillotine him" approach), as well as strikers who are expert at counters (incidentally, if given the choice, #2 is a great option legally, as throwing the initial strike may not endear you with the jury -- however, we are not always given the choice, of course). #1 is used if you think you can surprise the guy, or you think you're just quicker. Wouldn't #1 kind of be considered "fighting", or at least related to it? Or does "fighting" only refer to attacking an opponent when there are pre-determined rules involved, and the fact that the altercation is on the street precludes it from being "fighting?"

 

[Tgace]

Kind of a tangent, but this thread from the Modern Arnis forum sort of meshes with what upnorthkyosa just said about fighting vs. "self-defense". Actually, upnorthkyosa started it (I just helped hi-jack it ).

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12631