Hey Chris,
Sorry for the confusion. I was primarily talking about the comment that I quoted, however, now that you bring it up, I suppose we could disuss both...your comment and what they're currently about.
Cool. Let's see what we can come up with, then. I will quickly say, though, that what they were designed for, and what they're currently about can be quite removed from each other... as can "why people train"...
I'll start this thread with a simple request: Please stay on topic. We have numerous BJJ vs, and TMA vs. threads going on, so again, please stick with the topic.
Ok, that said, in the "Sport and TMA...Again" thread, Chris Parker made a comment
here.
ChrisParker said:
As for the second question, well, I suppose that would be both yes and no. To aid in fighting? Yes, that's a part of what some, or many martial arts are about... but, by the same token, even in that it's just not as cut and dried as "martial arts are for fighting". Self defence, though? Nope, not at all. No martial arts are really designed with modern self defence in mind... the closest would be the RBSD systems... but they aren't actually martial arts, more ways that martial arts (and other things) can be approached.
So, going on that, what are the arts about? For me, while everyone will have their own reasons for training, I've always felt that the main goal, has been SD. Sure, what you're defending against has probably changed. I mean, we don't see people walking around with a sword in todays time, and we don't see people wearing body armor, so training to defend a sword probably isn't as practical as training to defend a knife.
If we look at the RBSD systems, we see a lot of what we typically see in the various arts, meaning kicks, punches, blocks, etc., however, the application of these things, the way they're executed, most likely is very different. You're not going to see kata training done in a RBSD system. You'll most likely see the basics (punches, kicks, etc.) trained in a more fluid fashion, more pad work, boxing type footwork, etc.
I may be wrong in my assessment here, but that is what I've always figured. I'm looking forward to hearing the thoughts of others, as well as Chris, since it was his post that caught my eye.
Well, the thing is that "reasons for training" and "the reason for the arts design" are not the same thing... but we'll cover aspects of that as we go, using others posts to get to my points (hopefully!).
I will say here, though, that RBSD systems don't actually teach "blocks, kicks, punches" etc... they teach contextual application of such things, which (in many cases) are drawn from the students martial arts experience. RBSD are not martial arts, and no martial arts are RBSD (although they can be trained in a "reality based" method, that doesn't actually make them RBSD systems without completely changing them from being the art they originally are... we'll probably come back to this).
I do believe they were created and practiced for self defense purposes first and foremost. Self defense of a person, defense of one's tribe, city, militia, etc. etc. I believe it started there over time especially during times of peace or forced occupation they morphed into something more spiritual or training of one's mind etc. etc. Later on it grew into sports and character development programs for students. So I believe they have developed in a progressive manner that people see as different things and all call it "martial arts".
Hmm... no, can't say I'd agree with that. For one thing, it's just not that simple. I can name systems that are 600 years old that are centred on personal development and spiritual emphasis, and modern ones that don't care about it at all. Out of all the arts I study, which (when you add them up) is around a dozen, none of them are for self defence, let alone "first and foremost". There are some aspects that are related to self defence, but not in a modern context... the closest are my Iai methods. Some were created, as many of the older Japanese arts were, as a method of instructing in strategic and tactical thinking and application, more than as combative techniques per se.
Gichin Funakoshi wrote in Karate-Do Kyohan pg 3 Introduction What is Karate "It is said that one who masters it's techniques can defend himself readily without resort to weapons and can perform remarkable feats-" Clearly this shows that SD was one aspect of training as well as the development of the person's health and agility (shown in the amazing feats he describes). In the next paragraph he writes "True Karate-do is this: that in daily life, one's mind and body be trained and developed in a spirit of humility; and that in critical times, one be devoted utterly to the cause of justice." Here he is making the connection that it is more than SD but also health, mental and spirit (related to humility but yet justice).
There's a difference between hyperbole describing benefits and accurate description of the purpose of a martial art...
George G. Yoshida wrote in the foreword of Jiu Jitsu complete by Kiyose Nakae 1958 4th printing
"JiJutsu is a method of defense and offense without weapons in personal encounter. For many centuries in Japan it was practiced as a military art, together with fencing, archery and the use of the spear."
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Yoshida was either rather misinformed of the history of Jujutsu, or he was simplifying things to the point of inaccuracy. Personally, I think the latter.
In the publishers foreword of the same book "A working knowledge of Jiu Jutisu offers the average man (or woman) an ability to cope with and triumph over a physical attacker-and to do so with ease. This is whether the opponent is larger, more powerful, or armed with a knife or a gun."
Again, I'd caution against the acceptance of hyperbole as fact... I mean, if we're talking about Japanese Jujutsu (as indicated by the prior quote), then the gun defence would have been non-existant... and the knife defence rather different.
R.H. Sigward writes in his book Modern Self Defense 1958 in the Introduction
"This book is the result of many years of research, practice and experience in self defense techniques. It is based upon the Japanese system of Jui-juitsu, but includes the latest improvements in the science of self defense. I call it Modern Self Defense because I have eliminated all out modeled, impractical and cumbersome modes of protection."
Cool, except that that's a self defence system (in the form of a book), not a martial art. Additionally, if it's only dealing with techniques, it's the least of all aspects for self defence.
Likewise it is well documented that martial arts of the Philippines were used to defend Filipinos from the various invaders to their country whether it was the Spanish, the Japanese, The Americans etc. etc. or other tribes in the Philippines, coastal pirates etc. etc.
"Were used" and "were designed for" are, again, different. Each art is designed for a specific context, the trick is recognizing what that context is, and how it influences an art (when you can see that, you can see what the art is actually designed for).
I believe history shows that martial arts were practiced for both SD and military reasons. With this in mind they were practiced with current needs in mind as in SD (at the time they were created and modified over time to suit current needs).
Even there, it's not that simple... there are a range of arts that simply aren't designed for combative usage in their construction, at least, not in the basic understanding of it.
I'm actually watching a documentary on Bruce Lee at the moment... and it's striking me just how much I'd argue with a lot of what he said about the reasons for martial arts. If he was around now, and on the forums, I'd be telling him he's missed the point on a lot of things... hmm... but to the point, Bruce's take on martial arts is that they are about personal self expression, pure and simple, above and beyond, well and truly before the idea of self defence.
I agree with your statement here however in the RBSD systems what I don't really think you see is longevity of the practitioners. In the RBSD systems what do you do, like you described you learn some simple kicks, punches, train combinations for pad work etc. etc. once you feel you can defend yourself and your needs for taking a RBSD system are met then later days. Off you go to spend your hard earned money and time off elsewhere.
How many karate-ka stay for 5 years, 10 years, 20 years +, or the aikido practitioner, Judo player, Tae Kwon Do student, or FMAer? I believe the number is a whole lot more than the RBSD systems. Just my opinion and I'm not doing the research to look it up if anyone disagrees fine, I don't care. In the martial arts as I believe general consensus on this MT defines them, the very things that people trash about them are the very things that appeals to the people that stay in the TMAs for long term. While it drives a lot of people away as well, it is what keeps the people there long term.
- A sense of a connection to the past, tradition.
- A way to measure ones progress for instance through kata.
- A way to set and achieve goals through rank advancement for one.
- For some programs character development (especially for younger students)
- A sense of belonging to a community all working together for the same goal.
- Mastering one self; mental and physical.
These are just a few things I came up with.
Most RBSD systems are designed to be methods of approaching training, not methods of techniques etc themselves. As a result, they don't need to be concerned with longevity... they're not martial arts.
They were designed for self defence, which would include fighting, and warfare. Some have been adapted for sport. Perhaps you could list the martial arts that you think were designed for sports. :asian:
A fair few martial arts have been developed specifically for sports. They might have come from other arts that aren't (Kendo, which is designed for competition, came from a range of kenjutsu systems, which are not). The most recent, of course, is MMA.
IMHO (VERY humble), they were primarily defense arts. We have to consider the era in which many were developed. The majority of combat then, just like today, was conducted with the use of weapons. Be they swords, spears, muskets, archery, etc.etc.etc.
The very notion of fighting without a weapon was considered a very dangerous, bad situation. Many of the arts were developed in response to one of two situations.
a.) Provided a way to develop a defensive system for warriors who were either caught without their weapons or were disarmed during combat, allowing them to at least defend themselves.
b.) Provided a way for peasants to develop fighting systems to allow them to defend themselves against oppressive overlords, warriors, or bandits.
Either way, they were defensive in orientation. The very notion of using them as an offensive system would have been considered a very strange notion to people in those eras.
They, excluding the modern systems, were never developed with "sport" in mind. As K-man notes, some have been adapted for sport and competition, but they were never intended for this purpose.
The other thing that developed with them, was a focus on oneself. It allowed people to not only learn how to fight, but also allowed people to focus internally and learn self control, how to calm their mind, and develop spiritually.
That's my 0.02 cents at least. If you think they were developed primarily for offensive combat or for sporting purposes, I think you might have missed the mark.
Peace,
Mike
What makes you think that martial arts are about unarmed combat? Most old martial arts are primarily armed systems....
the martial arts were originally designed and developed for self defense, or themselves, family and also used to defend themselves in warfair if they were some how cought with out a weapon or disarmed. that is it in a nut shell!
many unarmed systems were developed because of ocupation, and or denial of weapons to the lower classes. they still had to defend themselves, but with out weapons hand to find a way to do it unarmed. Once again, defense was the need and driving factor. ....
what they are now or some are becoming? well that is up for grabs in some ways. some are still for defense, and some are being modified so they are basically only good for sport.
Again, martial arts does not equal unarmed. Additionally, they're simply not all designed for self defence. Some are designed with duelling in mind, for example. It's hardly self defence if you're going out to meet someone for a fight...
Full Definition of MARTIAL
1
. of, relating to, or suited for war or a warrior
2
. relating to an army or to military life
3
. experienced in or inclined to war
: warlike
The answer is simple, they were designed for combat, of all kinds. Anything else is just an activity. If you can't defend yourself, or you are not on the path to learning, you are not a MARTIAL artist, you are just an artist, a dancer, and a cultural dabbler--which is cool, to each his own.
G
Okay, you've been banned, so you can't answer, but the last comment here is plainly and flatly nothing but your own personal value system at play. Look at Kyudoka (Japanese archery), are they not martial artists? Kyudo doesn't teach you anything about self defence....
That is as silly as saying Goju Ryu is spiritual because Yamagucchi went down that track. Regardless, aikido is still a RBSD art if it is trained that way. :asian:
No, I'd disagree... Aikido (as many other arts) can be trained in a reality based way, but that doesn't make it an RBSD system... to make it that, you'd need to lose 90% of the system, and change a lot of what's left. With regards to the Goju Kai (Yamaguchi) analogy, no, I don't think I'd say they're the same thing at all. Ueshiba was rather vocal about the influence of the Otomo Sect on his Aikido post WWII, so to make that connection (with Aikido) can be fair for the most part. Obviously different forms have different emphasises, but it's still there (when dealing with Takemusu/Iwama Ryu it's far more obvious, Yoshinkan far less etc).
I don't think it is cut and dried at all. What martial art? If you are talking about okinawan karate and their katas then it was developed as a system of civilian self-defense. If you are talking about some other styles, they were developed for use on the battlefield (many of the japanese -jutsu styles come to mind).
Also, are we talking armed martial arts or unarmed martial arts? I can't think of ANY weapon based martial arts that were NOT developed for fighting/war.
To me, "martial arts" is just to nebulous to say "yes/no" as a whole as to the self-defense vs. war argument. You have many different arts, but I would say they were all developed for fighting of somekind.
"Jutsu" doesn't actually mean anything to do with "battlefield"... the "jutsu/do" distinction is more one of preferential terminology of the time than anything else, really. Iaijutsu, for instance, isn't anything to do with a battlefield/combat in war... nor are most Kenjutsu systems. I agree that it's just not that cut-and-dried, but that extends even through to the examples given... there just isn't a yes/no answer to this.
I don't consider what I do (Survival Training / RBSD) a true martial art. The techniques I employ come from everything under the sun but I wrapped them up into a system that "I feel" will protect me under the most likely scenarios without ME getting into trouble with the law. The large majority of what I do is focused on pre-emptive striking and protecting myself from multiple attacks and common weapons attacks including avoidance and escape. This is what I enjoy doing......
I love TMA but I don't think they prepare people quickly enough to protect themselves because there is too much structure involved. With that being said life isn't always about quick justification. Many people need the structure that TMA provides and they have a strong desire to learn an ancient art form the traditional way which is awesome.
Ummmm, in describing what you do, you just described how most TMA's were originally taught as a civilian self-defense system and also how they developed originally. Someone found something that worked for them in certain situations and they passed it on to others. The katas were a way to cram in multiple applications and information in a small easy to remember practice to pull from and practice.
Maybe some TMA's, but certainly not all, not even most, I'd say. Most just weren't designed as "civilian self defence" at all. It's even more of a gap when you look at specific cultural approaches... Japanese arts, more than anything else, are completely removed from the idea of civilian self defence. The main reason is that they were created by a warrior class, for use by the warrior class, typically against other members of the warrior class. Rory Miller has noted that most martial arts don't teach you to fight against someone untrained, they teach fighters to fight other fighters... which most don't realise or recognise. Anything military is designed to go up against other military systems/approaches, anything culturally based is going to be designed to go up against similar things from the same culture... which isn't necessarily just the same time and place, it means specific social groups etc, as well as the context it's designed for (strategic education, duelling, sporting contest, etc).
So, what were martial arts designed for? Well, that depends on the art itself. No two martial arts are designed for the exact same reason... sometimes it's a direct response to a situation, sometimes it's to provide a particular role in education, sometimes it's to give an advantage in a specific context/situation... but most commonly, it's not to handle "common" violence (untrained assaults). It's to handle trained, or skilled opponents. Which actually takes it away from being designed for self defence.
