Martial Arts History & Influences

[Champ-Pain]

IMHO - History and Tradition are way over-rated and over emphasized, when it comes to Martial Arts. Neither one is the reason I took up M/A in the first place.

 

[Chris Parker]

J, the histories, giving the wherefore's of the art, are part of what makes it complete. Without that, it's not a complete entity. These arts didn't just erupt out of a bubble, there is a reason one art is the way it is, and a reason that another art is the way it is, and only by understanding where it came from can you understand that. Otherwise it's too easy to get it all wrong.

Oh, and Angel? If you're not interested in the history of martial arts, this is probably not the thread for you. Otherwise you're coming across as trolling.

 

[Champ-Pain]

Oh, and Angel? If you're not interested in the history of martial arts, this is probably not the thread for you. Otherwise you're coming across as trolling.

What? You can post on my threads all kinds of negative replies that contradict everything I say - but I can't do so on your threads? Even when the disagreement is real...

You've questioned everything about me - but you don't enjoy being questioned in the same manner? Hmmm... sounds like a lack of confidense on your part.

 

[Chris Parker]

Then let's clarify for you. On the other thread, you asked if winning was important or irrelevant, and for reasons why. Therefore, anyone with an opinion of such can answer, giving opposing or complimentary views. Here, it is specifically a discussion of history and it's influence on the development of the arts, where if you don't want to discuss the history, there's no reason to post. It's like turning up at a basketball game and complaining it's not football, whereas the other is simply backing the other team. I have both confidence (not sure that that's relevant at this point, though) and comprehension. You?

 

[Tez3]

I'm on the fence at the moment about whether knowing your art's history makes you a better martial artist or not. It seems to me you can practice your art perfectly well without knowing it's history or 'knowing' a made up history. I can't see how knowing it's history will make me punch or kick better, or how to fight better though I may well be too literal in thinking that. I think it can enhance your enjoyment of your art if you know where it comes from. For those who want to do the same art in the same way as it's founders I can see it's important and I can see that following successful foundrs is going to be important if the art isn't to be watered down and made ineffective. Is that the same as knowing it's history?
You can see I'm grasping at concepts and understanding here!

It is an interesting discussion, I'm not sure I contribute anything but I have to agree with Chris that you're on the wrong thread if you think martial arts history is totally irrelevant!

 

[Champ-Pain]

I said over rated and over emphasized - NOT irrelevant. Either way - I know where I'm not wanted, so I'm outta here, as you have suggested I do.

Thanks Tez

 

[Tez3]

I said over rated and over emphasized - NOT irrelevant. Either way - I know where I'm not wanted, so I'm outta here, as you have suggested I do.

Thanks Tez

Yeah pick on me! Just ignore Chris who actually addressed you personally!

Edit: after reading other threads I assume you are bringing an argument with Chris across from another thread, not a good idea.

 

[Champ-Pain]

Yeah pick on me! Just ignore Chris who actually addressed you personally!

Tez: I'm not picking on you. Please don't misread my post. I thanked you for your comment - as I believe you were right on point... how is that picking on you?

 

[Jenna]

J, the histories, giving the wherefore's of the art, are part of what makes it complete. Without that, it's not a complete entity. These arts didn't just erupt out of a bubble, there is a reason one art is the way it is, and a reason that another art is the way it is, and only by understanding where it came from can you understand that. Otherwise it's too easy to get it all wrong.

If it is ok, I do not quite agree with that Christopher.

I think that each new martial art is merely an evolution from another martial art.

I do not see how knowing the history of arts which are antecedent to my own brings anything to me in how I practise my art today.

My art is Aikido. So a technique as codified into Aikido by Ueshiba is kust that technique irrespective of which part of Ueshiba's former study inspired it or under what auspices the aim of that technique came about. Likewise it will not affect my application of my art knowing why or how the overarching concepts were of Aikido developed in the way they were. I just do it as it was shown to me. -Or- I modify it to suit my own phsique and my own applications. Either way, where it came from or how it came to be is not pertinent to my technical practice.

Yes, of course, I like to have a background on these things for my own interest, yet that has no direct impact on the application of my art as I do it. I maintain, one does not NEED to know the history of one's art for any other reasons than to satisfy their own curiosity.

 

[Tez3]

Tez: I'm not picking on you. Please don't misread my post. I thanked you for your comment - as I believe you were right on point... how is that picking on you?

Sarcasm...saying I suggested you leave. I didn't nor did I address you directly.

This is derailing a very good discussion, please don't trail arguments from other threads across to this one.

 

[Chris Parker]

Ah, you can argue with me all you like, young lady...

I see what you're getting at now, knowing and understanding about Daito Ryu as opposed to understanding about Aikido. Honestly, I'd say that understanding about Aikido and it's history (particularly as it pertains to your particular branch... whether it is the Yoshinkan founded by Gozo Shioda, when Ueshiba was still in the Jigoku Dojo days, or Takemusu, Iwama Ryu, when he had had his spiritual awakening) can be very relevant, understanding about Daito Ryu less so. Interesting, surely, and essential if you want the "full picture" (that does not mean studying Daito Ryu itself, but at least learning about Sokaku Takeda, for instance), but not completely needed for Aikido practice. Knowing and understanding the history of Aikido, though, is.

 

[Champ-Pain]

It is an interesting discussion, I'm not sure I contribute anything but I have to agree with Chris that you're on the wrong thread if you think martial arts history is totally irrelevant!

Not only were you addressing me directly, you miss quoted me, when using the word "irrelevant" and suggested that I'm on the wrong thread, as well.

 

[Tez3]

Champ pain, show me where I addressed you. I said I agreed with Chris that if you.... you in general as meaning the general readership of MT and this thread in particular... not you specifically, were on the wrong thread if you thought that history was irrelevant. I said irrelevant because I wasn't quoting you nor aiming this at you but making the general point that while I don't know if knowing martial arts history makes you a better martial artist or not, I'm open to persuasion on that, that knowing the history isn't an irrelevance. You decided it was a personal dig at you, it wasn't. As you can see if I'd wanted to make a comment to you then I would have done as I did subsequently.

I'm on the fence at the moment about whether knowing your art's history makes you a better martial artist or not. It seems to me you can practice your art perfectly well without knowing it's history or 'knowing' a made up history. I can't see how knowing it's history will make me punch or kick better, or how to fight better though I may well be too literal in thinking that. I think it can enhance your enjoyment of your art if you know where it comes from. For those who want to do the same art in the same way as it's founders I can see it's important and I can see that following successful foundrs is going to be important if the art isn't to be watered down and made ineffective. Is that the same as knowing it's history?
You can see I'm grasping at concepts and understanding here!

It is an interesting discussion, I'm not sure I contribute anything but I have to agree with Chris that you're on the wrong thread if you think martial arts history is totally irrelevant!

 

[frank raud]

IMHO - History and Tradition are way over-rated and over emphasized, when it comes to Martial Arts. Neither one is the reason I took up M/A in the first place.

So the appeal of earning your black belt( a historical sign of mastery of your art), the long tradition of competition effectiveness, the appeal of learning a foriegn art and some of the culture had nothing to do with you starting judo? The history of any art is very important. Nobody starts into martial arts with the burning question"Who was Jigoro Kano second Kito-ryu instructor?" but saying history and tradition is not the reason people start in the martial arts not true. The reason ALL arts put so much emphasis on tradition and history(embellished or not) is because it is so important.

Weren't you at one point complaining about watered down martial arts? How could that be, if you didn't have some knowledge of what martial arts used to be like?

 

[Tez3]

So the appeal of earning your black belt( a historical sign of mastery of your art), the long tradition of competition effectiveness, the appeal of learning a foriegn art and some of the culture had nothing to do with you starting judo? The history of any art is very important. Nobody starts into martial arts with the burning question"Who was Jigoro Kano second Kito-ryu instructor?" but saying history and tradition is not the reason people start in the martial arts not true. The reason ALL arts put so much emphasis on tradition and history(embellished or not) is because it is so important.

Weren't you at one point complaining about watered down martial arts? How could that be, if you didn't have some knowledge of what martial arts used to be like?

I'm not sure about the history being important as such, relevant yes but this was the way I thought the discussion was going to go, thank you! Can you eleborate please on why you think it's important that we know the history of our arts? Is it to appreciate those that went before or is it to keep the techniques as the founders did? I can see where you are going with the reference to black belts etc, it's giving me food for thought so more please!

 

[Cyriacus]

So the appeal of earning your black belt( a historical sign of mastery of your art), the long tradition of competition effectiveness, the appeal of learning a foriegn art and some of the culture had nothing to do with you starting judo? The history of any art is very important. Nobody starts into martial arts with the burning question"Who was Jigoro Kano second Kito-ryu instructor?" but saying history and tradition is not the reason people start in the martial arts not true. The reason ALL arts put so much emphasis on tradition and history(embellished or not) is because it is so important.

Weren't you at one point complaining about watered down martial arts? How could that be, if you didn't have some knowledge of what martial arts used to be like?

Just about EVERYONE starts MA for Self Defense, Fitness, or a Hobby.

Once thats served, its only Natural for many, if not possibly most, to move in to History and such.

 

[frank raud]

Just about EVERYONE starts MA for Self Defense, Fitness, or a Hobby.

Once thats served, its only Natural for many, if not possibly most, to move in to History and such.

Most people start MA for self defense,fitness, etc. Aside from location, one of the most relevant factors in choosing the particular martial art is its history, or perceived history. Even if it boils down to a soccer mom bringing her kid into the local community center to learn "Kurutty", it is because she is under the impression that her child will earn something of value. Most people won't take their child to a "streetproofing" seminar, where they will be shown a bunch of techniques taken from martial arts, but have no problem signing up their 6 year old for karate, judo or TKD lessons. Why? They will learn respect,tradition and an art with a (supposedly) proven history. Again, the beginner consumer is rarely interested in delving deeply into the history of their chosen art, but the perceived public history is hugely influential in making the intial choice.

 

[frank raud]

I'm not sure about the history being important as such, relevant yes but this was the way I thought the discussion was going to go, thank you! Can you eleborate please on why you think it's important that we know the history of our arts? Is it to appreciate those that went before or is it to keep the techniques as the founders did? I can see where you are going with the reference to black belts etc, it's giving me food for thought so more please!

The appeal of the martial arts, and the reality are often not the same. To a beginner, the thoughts of obtaining the black belt has tremendous appeal. Why? Because of social conditioning, movies, books ,etc. In other words, past references(history) makes the attainment of a black belt seem to be the attainment of mastery. After being in the arts for a while, we know that Shodan(or equivalent) is not the final level of mastery, but merely a step on the journey. Why do people choose a specific instructor? Often it is because of their competition record, ie former world champion is perceived as a better teacher than someone without that same title. We know that is not necessarily true, but it sure helps for marketing. So history of martial arts, or a specific martial art or instructor has a tremendous appeal to the average consumer. So what about the ultra traditional arts, like of koryu styles of Japan? Much of what is taught would need to be modified to be applicable in today's society, but that is not the point or appeal of studying a traditional martial art. It is a moment captured in time, a glimpse into a past that no longer exists. Is history important? The koryu are living histories.

I believe history is very important to the perception and understanding of martial arts. We often refer to martial arts "myths" and how we as martial artists think it funny that people still believe that martial artists need to register their hands as deadly weapons, but the trappings of the martial arts myths, the humble warrior monk, the invincible samurai, the 90lb weakling who through their arcane knowledge of forbidden arts is what drew most of us to the martial arts in the first place.

Even with the advent of MMA, where you have stripped away the quasi-religious or cultural attachments(no bowing, no ritual dances as in muay thai, etc),there is still the expectation that the coach has a proven track record, and a decent personal history in the core arts of MMA. It is a short history, but it is relevant still.

 

[jks9199]

All right, everbody.... Let's get some things straight before I put the big mod hat on and solve problems.

I split the initial posts out of another thread to avoid drift there, and because I felt they warranted discussion and would be of interest to others. Given the 2+ pages of good discussion running, I'd say I was probably right about that. I suppose I could have done the set-up a little more gracefully -- but considering I was a bit under the weather, and actually dare to have this silly life off-line with obligations, I did it quick & easy.

Let's keep the discussion on topic: how an art's history shapes and influences it. Personally -- the history of a region and the history of it's martial arts are intertwined and influence its expression. We see this in Western Martial Arts; targets, weapons... all shaped by Western Culture and beliefs. We see this in Japanese and Chinese arts, too. Let be build on the comments about Korean arts to show this: Japan repeatedly invades and conquers Korea, and so the Korean arts end up taking on a Japanese flavor.

If we have problems with people bringing axes from other threads here -- RTM the posts, and the Staff will deal with them. For those who may miss the warning implicit in that -- MT rules specifically prohibit following a person from thread to thread solely to harass and attack them. Follow the folks whose posts you like and you enjoy communicating with all you like... but don't bring trash from elsewhere to a new thread, either.

Everybody got it? Anybody need me to be blunter?

 

[Cyriacus]

Most people start MA for self defense,fitness, etc. Aside from location, one of the most relevant factors in choosing the particular martial art is its history, or perceived history. Even if it boils down to a soccer mom bringing her kid into the local community center to learn "Kurutty", it is because she is under the impression that her child will earn something of value. Most people won't take their child to a "streetproofing" seminar, where they will be shown a bunch of techniques taken from martial arts, but have no problem signing up their 6 year old for karate, judo or TKD lessons. Why? They will learn respect,tradition and an art with a (supposedly) proven history. Again, the beginner consumer is rarely interested in delving deeply into the history of their chosen art, but the perceived public history is hugely influential in making the intial choice.

Thats more Notoriety/Reputation methinks - But the Point stands.