Journey to a new style...

[_Simon_]

Do you have large quantities of cotton wool and bubble wrap?

I do not. I do have some nice meditative music, and puppy cuddles from a challenging very bitey puppy?

 

[drop bear]

I mostly agree with this sentiment. Sport requires the bastardization of TMA for safety, entertainment and scoring purposes. This can be (and is) carried to the point that sport ceases to be TMA, but a system unto itself. But there can be, IMO, exceptions to them being completely incompatible.

In some tournaments, kata competition is done traditionally with no favor to non-combat moves as gymnastics, dramatic posing, and throwing or spinning weapons midair. But it's often hard to find judges with enough sense to discount such moves. Strict, knowledgeable, and traditional judges can do much to preserve the traditional aspect.

During rare sparring competition I strove to employ TMA karate kata techniques as much as practical. Nowadays I put this goal equal to that of winning as a personal challenge to demo the effectiveness of TMA, even in a sport environment. It is often effective as the opponent has not experienced such techniques.

But I'll again stress, the premises of TMA and sport MA are mostly at odds with each other.

Not really.

It is dishonest to argue that sport doesn't train fighting because it is not fighting. If what you are training is not fighting also.

So yeah. If say a swordsman who has killed 50 people goes on about realism. Then yeah. Good point. But otherwise no.

So I will expand on this. And it is hard to explain because there is generally a blind spot that supports the general premise.

So the idea is Karate is all of Karate. And sport Karate is some of Karate. Or TMA or whatever. And generally this is attributed to TMA,s focus on self defence or fighting.

But nobody trains TMA and covers all of it. For example. If sport does not allow eye gouging. The TMA also doesn't allow eyegouging.

" Yeah we do. We are super realistic." Right?

Wrong

The TMA might pretend to do eye gouging but will very rarely actually gouge eyes in training.

Both systems don't do all of the system. They just approximate all of the system in different ways.

Let's use kata. Traditional kata is more realistic because it more closely represents a fight. Nobody is throwing backflips in a self defence situation.

But.

Athletic people are just better at fighting. If you did acrobatics you would become better at athletic pursuits.

So again. It is not all the system vs a part of the system.

 

[drop bear]

Jeff chan is a very good example of someone you can drop in to any system and he will do pretty well at.

There is definitely natural ability. But the training he does also makes him increasingly versatile.

So for me there are three major components.

The objective.
The deliver system.
The risks.

To have all of the system you need to address all of those components.

 

[Gyakuto]

I remember an interview with Morio Higaonna, 10th Dan Goju Ryu, who said, ‘…competition and contests are to encourage children…’

 

[_Simon_]

Did a mock grading today! Yes, the day after my mountain adventures haha. Went really well, covered every aspect that I could, took about 2.5 hours, and had a large Aussie pizza with anchovies afterwards. Hurrah!

 

[HighKick]

Did a mock grading today! Yes, the day after my mountain adventures haha. Went really well, covered every aspect that I could, took about 2.5 hours, and had a large Aussie pizza with anchovies afterwards. Hurrah!

Congrats!
But anchovies, ewww!!!

 

[_Simon_]

Congrats!
But anchovies, I can't think of anything better!!!

There ya go, you made a bit of a booboo, corrected it

 

[isshinryuronin]

I remember an interview with Morio Higaonna, 10th Dan Goju Ryu, who said, ‘…competition and contests are to encourage children…’

I know this quote raised some hairs on our sport-oriented MA members . To put this in perspective, Master Higaonna began his goju training under Miyagi's heir just after the Founder passed. So, he is a product of old time, "original style" karate. Donn Draeger, perhaps the West's first MA scholar and a Marine who participated in the Battle of Iwa Jima, called Higaonna "The most dangerous man in Japan in a real fight." For further creds, Master Higaonna was a combat instructor for the Soviet Secret Police Forces and elite Kremlin Guard (from his Wikipedia bio).

I note his background because, although he has been named an Okinawan Intangible Cultural Treasure and is the most renown living karate master, he is not to be taken as some egotistical guy with imaginary theoretical views of fighting and blowing smoke out of his a**. His quote must be taken seriously.

Considering all the above, his view of karate is understandable. I have studied the very traditional Okinawan version of karate and have some appreciation of this view. But I am also a product of 1960's and 70's competition-rich era of karate in the US. The two are quite different. While Master Higaonna's statement sounds a bit extreme (even to me) it does shed some light on how early karate was seen by those who contributed to its development.

IMO, karate competition has its place (as does karate for self-development) but this place should be seen for what it is - a useful detour off the main road, a road we should not lose sight of.

 

[ap Oweyn]

I'm not sure I'll ever understand why this "TMA v. sport" thing is always so fraught. It's always framed in terms like "compromise" or--in this thread--"bastardization." (That's a new one in my experience.)

I just don't get the fundamental logic behind it. The argument always goes "you have to alter it from its original intent in order to get it to fit into a ruleset." But anyone in their right mind has done the same. Training is a ruleset. There are restrictions placed on training at every turn. Especially when you start talking about things like iaido v. kendo.

I understand that, at some point in time, some of these arts were employed to take human life. Or perhaps simply to cause bodily harm. But the taking of human life with a sword isn't something that osmoses through the ages simply by virtue of performing moves that were performed back then too. You're talking about generations upon generations of non-application.

How many of us have ever actually gouged someone in the eye? Or punched someone in the throat? Or even kicked someone full on in the cash and prizes?

Training is compromise. It's a tightrope walk between what's reasonable and what emulates an idealized notion of application. We don't get to lay claim to the prowess of people who actually fought in battles. Their experience is fundamentally different from ours. And nothing's going to change that.

Training is an approximation. A triangulation. Train in enough different ways that somewhere, just out of reach of all of these approximations, is some measure of truth.

I think what's really in dispute most of the time is a training culture. Me personally, I don't train in MMA, BJJ, etc. Not because I don't believe in their technical approach. I absolutely do. I don't train in those things because I'm not a competitive personality and I don't feel like that culture "fits" me. Now, if I were concerned enough with self-defense or fighting, I'd do it anyway. But I'm not. Not really.

What I do want is "proof of concept." I know that boxing isn't battlefield combat. But if the tin says that something is going to help me put my fist in someone else's face, then I want to experience the reality of that happening. And I also want to experience taking a fist in the face, approximately enough that I get some experience of that pressure without paying for it with my teeth.

Most of us should be deeply grateful that we'll never have the full experience of a real sword fight, knife fight, etc. The ticket to ride that train is probably way too expensive.

So we figure out the compromises we need to make to get us closer to where we want to be (wherever that is ultimately). Then we figure out what else we need to offset those compromises. With other compromises. Because we don't actually want the reality in most cases.

 

[Gyakuto]

I understand that, at some point in time, some of these arts were employed to take human life. Or perhaps simply to cause bodily harm. But the taking of human life with a sword isn't something that osmoses through the ages simply by virtue of performing moves that were performed back then too. You're talking about generations upon generations of non-application.

But we are taught, in the Koryu (old school) at least, to have the serious intent to kill. Not superficially but controlled, murderous intent otherwise it’s said one is just waving a sword around. It’s a frame of mind and although I know I’m not killing anyone, at the end of a kata I always say in my mind, ‘Please rise to heaven/Buddha/made up deity of your parent’s choice’.

How many of us have ever actually gouged someone in the eye? Or punched someone in the throat? Or even kicked someone full on in the cash and prizes?

True but when you punch or kick are you just going through the moves?

Training is compromise. It's a tightrope walk between what's reasonable and what emulates an idealized notion of application. We don't get to lay claim to the prowess of people who actually fought in battles. Their experience is fundamentally different from ours. And nothing's going to change that.

But again, there’s the intent. Should a person stand before me as I cut, they will die because I’m using a sword in a way that was devised to kill. The same probably doesn’t apply to empty handed arts since it’s very hard to kill another without a weapon.

Training is an approximation. A triangulation. Train in enough different ways that somewhere, just out of reach of all of these approximations, is some measure of truth.

It is an approximation especially in the weaponless arts, but in swordsmanship people did die in the honing of the techniques. I find it distasteful to flash those same techniques for shiny medals and a photo of the winner biting the medal.

I think what's really in dispute most of the time is a training culture. Me personally, I don't train in MMA, BJJ, etc. Not because I don't believe in their technical approach. I absolutely do. I don't train in those things because I'm not a competitive personality and I don't feel like that culture "fits" me. Now, if I were concerned enough with self-defense or fighting, I'd do it anyway. But I'm not. Not really.

I am highly competitive, but my competition is myself rather than another player.

What I do want is "proof of concept." I know that boxing isn't battlefield combat. But if the tin says that something is going to help me put my fist in someone else's face, then I want to experience the reality of that happening. And I also want to experience taking a fist in the face, approximately enough that I get some experience of that pressure without paying for it with my teeth.

So the greater the contrivance of training the less the ‘proof of concept’?

Most of us should be deeply grateful that we'll never have the full experience of a real sword fight, knife fight, etc. The ticket to ride that train is probably way too expensive.

Yes indeed. I don’t think an 8th Dan swordsman would stand a chance against a conscripted ‘ashigaru’ farmer with a bit of true combat experience.

So we figure out the compromises we need to make to get us closer to where we want to be (wherever that is ultimately). Then we figure out what else we need to offset those compromises. With other compromises. Because we don't actually want the reality in most cases.

I feel you haven’t really addressed the point you started off your post to address: sport and martial arts are/are not compatible.

Sporting, non-weapon martial arts, used in competitions are so contrived as to be virtually useless in true combat. Look at Olympic TKD compared to impressive traditional TKD. The intent in the former is to place the sole of the foot on the face of ones opponent to score points….one need not do more. In the latter, it’s to kick through the head with the intent of causing as much damage as possible even if the kick is focussed just before the target in a contrivance to prevent serious injury of people who have jobs and family!

Sporting combat arts are fine and dandy, just don’t conflate them with murderous intention in traditional martial arts.

 

[ap Oweyn]

But we are taught, in the Koryu (old school) at least, to have the serious intent to kill. Not superficially but controlled, murderous intent otherwise it’s said one is just waving a sword around. It’s a frame of mind and although I know I’m not killing anyone, at the end of a kata I always say in my mind, ‘Please rise to heaven/Buddha/made up deity of your parent’s choice’.

I'm just not sure what "intent to kill" actually means when you're training in a space where you know beyond reasonable doubt that this isn't a likely outcome. Saying something in your mind isn't the same. The map is not the territory. I can say and intend whatever I like, but that has a very limited effect on what's real.

True but when you punch or kick are you just going through the moves?

No, when I punch or kick, I'm not just going through the moves. That's a benefit to some of these sports training modalities. When you box or kickbox or whatever, you can both exercise intent and see it carried through. When I was sparring, I would visualize being aggressive enough to back my opponent into a corner, then overwhelming them with my offense. The thing is that I could then actually measure whether that intent was manifest. I know it's not the same as beating a man into unconsciousness (happily), but it was an observable metric. Intent without the means to measure it is fine if that's what you choose. I'm not here to criticize anyone else's choices.

But again, there’s the intent. Should a person stand before me as I cut, they will die because I’m using a sword in a way that was devised to kill. The same probably doesn’t apply to empty handed arts since it’s very hard to kill another without a weapon.

I don't understand that sentiment, if I'm honest. People died at the "hands" of archers, duellists, gun fighters, etc. Do you have similar objections to the Olympics, which feature all of the above? I mean, whether you're a fan of those sports or not, are you actively offended by the existence of competitive archery?

Yes, in an idealized scenario, someone standing in front of you as you perform a move as "written" would die. But that isn't really the question. Because what you're talking about is an unbalanced equation. Your perfect performance of a technique v. an opponent doing sweet sod all. Having been involved in weapon arts since 1989 (eskrima, fencing, etc.), I can attest to the fact that the moves don't always come off the way you wanted them to. The range is wrong, the timing is wrong, the angle is wrong, whatever. It's an inherently chaotic exchange, and it's the experience of chaos that's helpful. Sport martial arts give you the opportunity to get to grips with chaos. And that's valuable.

It's possible for people to behave distastefully coming out of competition. But I'm not entirely comfortable, myself, with the idea that visualizing killing someone without really knowing what that feels like isn't problematic in itself. It's the abstract idealization of taking life.

I am highly competitive, but my competition is myself rather than another player.

Of course. But, from context, you know that's not the sense in which I was using that word. Most people who get better at a thing could lay claim to that sense of competitiveness.

So the greater the contrivance of training the less the ‘proof of concept’?

I don't know what you mean by this. Apologies.

I feel you haven’t really addressed the point you started off your post to address: sport and martial arts are/are not compatible.

They are compatible. Sports feature training methods of high value to martial artists. How you feel about the culture surrounding those sports is a question only you can answer for yourself.

Sporting, non-weapon martial arts, used in competitions are so contrived as to be virtually useless in true combat. Look at Olympic TKD compared to impressive traditional TKD. The intent in the former is to place the sole of the foot on the face of ones opponent to score points….one need not do more. In the latter, it’s to kick through the head with the intent of causing as much damage as possible even if the kick is focussed just before the target in a contrivance to prevent serious injury of people who have jobs and family!

I practiced traditional taekwondo myself. I don't know the advent of Olympic taekwondo, but I do recall it not being a thing I was aware of in the early 80s. And not for lack of looking. So take this as coming from someone with a background in the latter you describe.

Again, intent is all well and good. I can tell myself whatever I like as I pull that theoretically devastating kick just before it theoretically obliterates my opponent. But that's just it. It's theory. I don't know what it was like to actually land that kick or have one landed on me unless I engage in a practice that allows for it. And, to your point, people with jobs and families aren't going to want to experience the full monty when taking a solid boxing glove to their headgear will make the point without being life altering. (And I'm going to trust we both understand how I'm using the word "point" there.)

Sporting combat arts are fine and dandy, just don’t conflate them with murderous intention in traditional martial arts.

To which I would say "don't conflate murderous intention with the psychological and physical capacity to do murder." Intention is an abstract exercise, just as much divorced from reality as any given sports format. I say this as far more of a traditionalist than a competitor.

But if you want to feel what it's like to face a highly motivated, trained, conditioned opponent, a sports format is likely where you're going to get that. Even with the abstraction of a bokken introduced to the mix, your opponent isn't committed to the reality of staving your head in with a wooden sword.

I've learned at least as much from having a rattan club slam into my lacrosse glove in eskrima competition than I would have done if all I ever practiced was sayaw (our kata).

 

[Gyakuto]

I'm just not sure what "intent to kill" actually means when you're training in a space where you know beyond reasonable doubt that this isn't a likely outcome. Saying something in your mind isn't the same. The map is not the territory. I can say and intend whatever I like, but that has a very limited effect on what's real.

Have you heard of method acting? It’s very similar.

No, when I punch or kick, I'm not just going through the moves. That's a benefit to some of these sports training modalities. When you box or kickbox or whatever, you can both exercise intent and see it carried through.

Intent, eh?

When I was sparring, I would visualize being aggressive enough to back my opponent into a corner, then overwhelming them with my offense.

You’re doing exactly the same thing as Iaidoka do, then!

The thing is that I could then actually measure whether that intent was manifest. I know it's not the same as beating a man into unconsciousness (happily), but it was an observable metric. Intent without the means to measure it is fine if that's what you choose. I'm not here to criticize anyone else's choices.

So you’re not contradicting me but saying the same thing!

I don't understand that sentiment, if I'm honest. People died at the "hands" of archers, duellists, gun fighters, etc. Do you have similar objections to the Olympics, which feature all of the above?

Yes.

I mean, whether you're a fan of those sports or not, are you actively offended by the existence of competitive archery?

Not offended, I just find them ‘distasteful’.

Yes, in an idealized scenario, someone standing in front of you as you perform a move as "written" would die. But that isn't really the question. Because what you're talking about is an unbalanced equation. Your perfect performance of a technique v. an opponent doing sweet sod all. Having been involved in weapon arts since 1989 (eskrima, fencing, etc.), I can attest to the fact that the moves don't always come off the way you wanted them to. The range is wrong, the timing is wrong, the angle is wrong, whatever. It's an inherently chaotic exchange, and it's the experience of chaos that's helpful. Sport martial arts give you the opportunity to get to grips with chaos. And that's valuable.

We try and accommodate those factors by having a kaso teki.

It's possible for people to behave distastefully coming out of competition. But I'm not entirely comfortable, myself, with the idea that visualizing killing someone without really knowing what that feels like isn't problematic in itself. It's the abstract idealization of taking life.

Well I personally will never be able to resolve that dissonance, but Iaidoka attempt to in the confines of their imagination.

I don't know what you mean by this. Apologies.

Graciously accepted.

Iaido is supposedly a Japanese martial art in that the techniques were invented, honed and used by the elite military class of Japan. But I think it’s actually more like figure skating or dancing. The emphasis is upon beauty of movement and in the absence of practical application (which is impractical), we have to trust that they were of practical use in producing effective swordslingers.

Can the same be said of empty handed combat sports? I don’t know.

 

[ap Oweyn]

Have you heard of method acting? It’s very similar.

But method acting is acting. It's not being a thing. It's literally a way of simulating that you're that thing.

Intent, eh?

Yes. Intent coupled with measurable effect. Nothing wrong with intent. Of course there isn't.

You’re doing exactly the same thing as Iaidoka do, then!

Not exactly the same thing, no. You left out the bit where you then make that happen. Again, intent coupled with the demonstrable manifestation of that intent.

So you’re not contradicting me but saying the same thing!

I'd be perfectly happy if we were. But... are we? I thought you were saying that intent was this mindset and that the performance of the movements within this mindset was the practice. What's the metric for whether iaido achieved its stated aim?

Yes

Fair

Not offended, I just find them ‘distasteful’.

Aren't those the same thing? What distinction are we drawing?

Scratch that. It doesn't matter. Semantics.

I hear you. I just don't see it as being so radically different.

What is a belt system if not a public declaration to a viewing audience that you’re this good at simulating killing someone in combat? People tie that belt on knowing that it’ll be perceived as a semiotic representation of your capacity to do harm to another human being.

How is that so different?

We try and accommodate those factors by having a kaso teki.

I guess I'm looking for a deeper dive on that. How does the "invisible opponent" prepare you for a real opponent? I'm not saying "don't practice with kaso teki." I'm pointing out the value of having a motivated, living, breathing opponent who has permission to hit you back, which requires an abstraction of a different sort so nobody gets killed. Then you use this collection of abstractions to edge a bit closer to an actuality.

Well I personally will never be able to resolve that dissonance, but Iaidoka attempt to in the confines of their imagination.

I'm not objecting to people grappling with the ethical questions. And, hopefully, our imaginations are the only place that we'll ever grapple with it. Certainly, that's what the vast majority of the FMA knife-fighting crowd are doing.

But there are other valid ways to address that dissonance. One of things I found valuable in competition (not that I did a lot of it) was the ability to put myself in a certain headspace for the duration of that match, then come out of it again. During that match, you can sincerely want to beat someone into submission. But, once the match is over, you can go back into "nice guy" mode.

Graciously accepted.

Iaido is supposedly a Japanese martial art in that the techniques were invented, honed and used by the elite military class of Japan. But I think it’s actually more like figure skating or dancing. The emphasis is upon beauty of movement and in the absence of practical application (which is impractical), we have to trust that they were of practical use in producing effective swordslingers.

Yeah, I get that. And I know (in basic terms) what iaido is. But, in observing competitive martial artists, one of the things that I've valued is this mindset of "show me." Trust and faith are fine. I don't have an inherent problem with them. But if they're espoused as somehow being more realistic, I don't believe that.

Can the same be said of empty handed combat sports? I don’t know.

I read on another forum years ago something to the effect that "if you can't hit my face with a boxing glove, what on earth makes you think you could hit my eye with your fingers?" I think that gets to the point of it for me. Combat sports provide a way to develop the chassis on which these traditional techniques can realistically be bolted. And it's possible to embrace the technical benefits of a sports approach without necessarily embracing the sports culture. (Note: I don't have issue with the sports culture. I'm just not particularly "sporty.")

Again, take sports. Leave 'em. Whatever. But I think the idea that they're less valid to a martial artist's goals needs to be interrogated a bit.

 

[Fungus]

"if you can't hit my face with a boxing glove, what on earth makes you think you could hit my eye with your fingers?" I think that gets to the point of it for me.

My (limited) experience is that powerful strikes are ALOT slower and more telegraping. You need almost no power to jab the eyes and do damange, so hitting the eyes FAST with a whipping motion is ALOT easier.

We practice this at time(bot to body), and if power isnt a factor, it is very hard to beat your opponent by blocking.

 

[ap Oweyn]

My (limited) experience is that powerful strikes are ALOT slower and more telegraping. You need almost no power to jab the eyes and do damange, so hitting the eyes FAST with a whipping motion is ALOT easier.

We practice this at time(bot to body), and if power isnt a factor, it is very hard to beat your opponent by blocking.

Evading a skillfully thrown jab is an awfully good way to test that.

 

[Fungus]

Evading a skillfully thrown jab is an awfully good way to test that.

Not sure what you mean, are you saying that evaing a fast (relaxed whipping finger jab) is as easy as evading a boxing jab?

 

[Fungus]

For body shots (that we train) this is a non-issue as the superfast (weaker) strikes you dont need to block nor evade, same for superfast body kicks. But it is instructive to practice. It is striking how much easier it is to land a strike if all you care about is hitting - vs delivering KO power.

 

[ap Oweyn]

Not sure what you mean, are you saying that evaing a fast (relaxed whipping finger jab) is as easy as evading a boxing jab?

Yeah. In that avoiding a boxing jab requires serious training and practice, as it too is a quick, relaxed motion.

Though, really, that wasn't what I was saying. What I was saying is that a finger jab to the eyes is indeed a serious strike. But only if you can land it on your target. And, since you can't actually do that in practice, your ability to land a jab on a resisting opponent is a reasonable simulation of your capacity to land that eye jab.

 

[ap Oweyn]

For body shots (that we train) this is a non-issue as the superfast (weaker) strikes you dont need to block nor evade, same for superfast body kicks. But it is instructive to practice. It is striking how much easier it is to land a strike if all you care about is hitting - vs delivering KO power.

Maybe it's time to clarify a point. When I talk about the value of combat sports, I'm thinking (as my examples suggest) about things like boxing, muay thai, etc. Not 80s-90s point fighting. Formats in which knockout power is, in fact, the goal.

I do have a lot of respect for fencing, that said. But that's the thing about a weapon like a sword. You don't need knockout power if you're holding a rapier.

 

[isshinryuronin]

I'd be perfectly happy if we were. But... are we? I thought you were saying that intent was this mindset and that the performance of the movements within this mindset was the practice. What's the metric for whether iaido achieved its stated aim?

Special forces train to kill by bullet and knife. They practice the technique, but don't actually kill someone until they do. But they practice under stress and with intent. Their skill is measured by gun target practice and partner drills with fake knife. This gives them the ability to do it for real (along with mental attitude/intent) even though they don't actually kill during practice.

Iaido metric is by expert visual judgement of technique and tameshi giri, actual cutting of a target.