MA in the modern day

[Windsinger]

the bottom line is that the history really does matter. If you don't understand where the art came from, then you aren't going to understand the context to which the art applies.

(my advance apologies for what is going to be severe thread drift!!!)

but if the context has changed (i.e. We are not in 1850 okinawa or even 1945 post-wwi korea but in 2009 usa/europe), then the art must change, right?

So why are so many folks locked into learning applications for 1850 okinawa? If you are training in the martial arts for self-defense, don't you think the student's time is better served practicing and discovering responses to today's habitual acts of violence?

In that case, why not get info from the fbi as to the most common street crimes and practice responses? Wouldn't that be much more efficient than trying to figure out boonhae from the korean interpretation of an okinawan kata? In fact, why bother with a martial art at all-just get a weapon.

Okay, before I start here, let me say this: Miles, if I took your comment out of context (no pun intended), my apologies.

Now, then, this comment came up in another thread, in order to avoid the thread drift Miles mentions, I thought I'd put this up in a new thread.

Reading this (speficially the paragraph about responses to today's violence) brought a question to mind: Is there really so much of a difference between violence in (using Miles' examples) 1850 Okinawa, post-WWI Korea, and today? Granted, guns are more prevalent now than before, but I'm thinking more along the lines of attacks that MA are designed to defend against. Wouldn't, say, defense against a knife wielding attacks be the same, regardless of the era?

As someone relatively new to actually practicing MA (as opposed to the years I've been fascinated by it), I'm curious what other, more experience people here think about that.

 

[YoungMan]

I don't know. Is boxing from 1850 or even 1890 the same as boxing today? Based on the photos I've seen of guys from that era, I'd say quite a bit so.

 

[Spookey]

Dear Sir(s),

I believe this has happened over time, arts have evolved to address concerns at a specific period in time. Taekwondo of the 1950's (kwan era) was one of those evolutions in traditional martial arts.

The attack and defense sequences being translated into modern day infantry use. The continuation of knife and blunt weapons defense (as would be applicable to edged weapons and improvised devices) as well as the application of firearms disarms, specifically rifle / long gun disarms.

Regarding modern hand to hand combat as is applicable to civilian, street self defense, and even modern battlefield application...take into account the modern day reliance on the firearm as the enemies preferred weapon (whether enemy soldier or street thug). Honestly, I believe the reliance on firearms has reduced the amount of training acquired in other skills of person to person combat (ie bare hand, edged weapons, and improvised devises). Thus making the "ancient methods" more effective as they were created for use against SKILLED ATTACKERS!

Personally, I consider my self a true student of Martial Arts (not simply a student of Taekwondo). Traditional TKD serves as the foundation of my structure. From the base I develope functional hand to hand combat ability, warrior spirit, and confidence. Upon this foundation I personally include firearms training, edged weapons training, and the utilization of improvised devices to my over all training.

Understand, that certain systems of their time where applicable for combat in their time. Japanese and Chinese arts often included weapons training that was applicable in their time. Accordingly, the developement of TKD came about when firearms where the prefered tool on the battlefield. Therefore serving as the hand to hand combat portion of the soldiers training, but I assure you that same soldier was also trained in mondern warfare and weapons of the modern time.

Final conclussion, we evolve to survive in our environment, however we also know the past often repeats itself. Before the invention of machine fed firearms, laser assisted aircraft delivered "smart bombs", etc. the Generals and military advisers had to give great strategic thought to there battle plan. That is why to this day the leaders of our military still study the ancient text of batte. The Greeks, Romans, Japanese, Chinese, and others!

Regards,
Spookey

 

[searcher]

Spookey here is something to chew over, do the arts change for the times we are in with regards to defensive needs or do/did they change for marketing reasons?

I read the posts and it got me to thinking. Seems to me that most have changed for economical reasons and marketing.

 

[Brad Dunne]

"do the arts change for the times we are in with regards to defensive needs or do/did they change for marketing reasons?"

This is really a two part question with a two part answer.

Answer 1) Since today's arts have either gone wholeheartedly into sports mode or have at least embraced a segment of sport attitude within their structure, then the change for marketing is the reason.

Answer 2) IMO, defensive needs have been overshadowed for the above and there are limited venues for strictly defensive learning. Granted, one can learn some defensive aspects, regardless of which art they study, but it's the mindset that stipulates the desired difference.

As Spookey referenced, the today's weapon of choice is the firearm and unless you train against it, you'll most likely make the wrong move if you attempt to defend yourself when confronted. Granted, there's not a whole lot of training that's needed, but what is needed must be accomplished and the correct mindset established. Same goes for an edged weapon.

The biggest thing for folks to remember is that if your up against a situation where your confronted with either of these weapons, your most likely not facing a "trained" attacker, but rather someone who is hopefully looking to grab and run. I say hopefully, because reading the statistics offered from the Justice Department; circa 1998, which showed that in 50% of situations in which a weapon was present (robbery, assualt), there was serious injury and/or death. One can assume that as of today's time frame, that 50% is more likely to have risen. Now I don't know about you, but those odds stink, so my training and mindset is altered accordingly.

 

[Spookey]

Those statistics are correct, you stand a greater chance of losing your life if you fail to resist. The time of "cooperate and this will all be over soon" is diminishing rapidly!

As to the previous question...the U.S. specifically went through a long period of complacency in which there was no great domestic threat, or for that matter a great threat abroad. Accordingly, marketing began to direct efforts towards sport, recreation, and "personal development".

Now, with the spread of street gangs and narcotics organizations from larger cities into small towns, and with the threat of terrorism, and even domestic socialism, the proliferation of the "thug mentality" etc. I believe more people than ever are walking into dojangs looking for post Vietnam era hardcore martial arts training for self defense, but are left high and dry as the majority of instructors on the floor came from a recreational, sport mentality and cannot produce the desired instruction!

Regards,
Spookey

 

[searcher]

Very well put Spookey. I am a firm believer that we need to stick to the hardcore training. Though the students grumble while they are training, they see the benefit and don't mind that much. I had slipped away form the hardcore mindset for a while, but it is back now................and with a vengence.

 

[CDKJudoka]

Hardcore is the only way to go. I train because I like it, and I also train, and have trained, keeping in the back of my mind that I will be able to protect myself and my family should some bad shizzy goes down. And in my mind, it will sooner or later. That may be a defeatist attitude, but human nature has proven itself to be very animalistic and cruel in it's pursuits.

 

[dancingalone]

I don't know. Is boxing from 1850 or even 1890 the same as boxing today? Based on the photos I've seen of guys from that era, I'd say quite a bit so.

The SPORT of boxing has changed. Boxing commissions mandate 10 rounds at the most now and a doctor is always present. Contrast this to the days of John L. Sullivan when boxing matches continued until a KO winner was determined, and championship level matches often reached over 100 rounds.

Now if you are referring to violent attacks that a martial artist should train for, those haven't changed: pushes, grabs, haymakers, groin kicks, knife and stick attacks, etc. Those are all attacks that kata bunkai address, so this type of training is still very much relevant today for the traditional martial artist.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Not to mention that boxing at one time had some grapples. Modern boxing is based on Queensbury rules. John L. Sullivan, incidentally, fought in bare knuckle matches.

Daniel

 

[searcher]

Let us not forget that boxing back in the Greek days had grappling adn the fighters used studded leather for gloves. It was originally used by soldiers and gladiators for combat. Not until the introduction of rules around the turn of the century, did it start becoming a sport. Before that it was pretty darn brutal.