Revealing Fake Martial Arts

[Kenpoguy123]

No such thing as a fake martial art just a fake teacher

 

[JowGaWolf]

Okay… so you're saying that if the topic wasn't the topic, it'd be better? So… isn't that like saying you would love this salad if it was ice cream?

What I'm saying is that this guy would do more good by helping people to identify the Martial art that will be best for a person by actually understanding the goal of the person. For example, If a parent who wants their child to get a black belt as fast as possible, then a "McDojo" school may be solution. From this perspective of getting a black belt as fast as possible, the "McDojo," may be an excellent fit for this parent and if it is, then that school isn't a fraud no matter how bad they teach or how many worthless techniques they have. The goal of the parent was to get a black belt as soon as possible and the McDojo was able to make that happen. If you send this parent to a school where the child is going to take 10 years before they get a black belt then parent isn't going to be happy, because the school isn't doing what the parent wanted.

So instead of trying to tell people what is fraud and what isn't, people should help others on how to identify schools and systems that will deliver what the person wants. If a parent wants a black belt and they want a school that works hard and teaches effective techniques then don't send that parent to my school, because my school doesn't have what the parent wants.

Only if they actually had the ability to be able to answer such questions. Sadly, I feel the answer would not be in their favour.

I don't know. I just know that Fraud is not a straight forward concept in terms of Martial Arts. A martial art school can be really horrible and still not be a fraud. The concept of fraud takes into consideration that a school initiated wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain. If the student got what they wanted then it's not a fraud. If a student thought that what they were learning would be useful in a real fight, but then found out later on that it wasn't, then maybe the first question that should have been asked by the students during the research phase was. How can I tell if a school is actually training students how to use techniques to fight?

Hmm… is that a back-handed comment about other arts, by any chance?

No it's not a back hand comment. it's a reality. Belted systems do have cool uniforms my schools uniform is a T-shirt and Kung Fu pants which is the dress code for Jow Ga. So if someone is looking for a cool uniform then Jow Ga is the wrong school. My school doesn't have awesome martial arts moves. Part of my attraction to Jow Ga was that it didn't have any of those flashy kicks and board breaks. I just wanted something that was practical and Jow Ga is very practical, do I think Jow Ga is cool, but I have always described Jow Ga as being very practical and not very flashy at all. I'll put it this way. The Jow Ga schools that do have flashy kicks only have flashy kicks because they included Wushu (non-Jow Ga) techniques into the system. So if someone is looking for cool TKD and Karate type kicks then Jow Ga isn't going to have it.

That will depend entirely on your definition of "martial arts for entertainment"… as MMA competition is very much "martial arts for entertainment"… so BJJ, Judo, and many others are very well suited there

I'm referring to extreme martial arts where they do flips, tricking, and moves and techniques that were meant to be visually pleasing but lack real fighting application.

And? Are you suggesting that a school that features "tricking" as part of it's syllabus (and likely competitive format) can't also cover other areas and interests? Or that the abilities and attributes used for tricking, while not overtly combatively pertinent, offer a fair amount of tangental benefits to the students in the other areas?

The point is that many (most, most likely) schools can, and do, cater for a large range of interests and personal requirements… it's simply nowhere near as cut and dried, nor as black and white as you're implying.

I'm saying that not every TKD or Karate school is a tricking school, some do it while others don't. Just because TKD or Karate is on sign, doesn't mean they teach tricking techniques by default.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Maybe a good thing to show would be the opposite of fraud-busting: "here's a technique that some people think is bogus, but actually works."

I thought the same thing, but that may not work either because some people don't care if a technique works or not. In addition, a technique may appear to be bogus due to not understanding the technique in the first place.

I'm stuck of course in the police/legal definition of fraud, which mean to gain pecuniary advantage or services by deception ( there are nuances to this but that it in general). Lying about your experience but still providing a good service ie good instruction isn't fraud whereas teaching with bad skills, knowing that and taking money for that instruction could well be fraud.

That the definition that I was using too. But if I say that you can get a black belt within 5 years and I teach you bad skills, but give you a black belt on year 5, then is that fraud? . If my school claims to teach self confidence, respect, and discipline, then it would be possible to fail on everything else except what I claim and my school wouldn't be considered fraud. Even if the parents thought that I would make their child a better fighter, I would only have to show that I accomplished what I claim the student will learn, and that I never claimed the student would be a better fighter. I look at the big Martial Arts schools because they word their statements in a way that provides maximum legal protection against claims of fraud.

I could literally make up a fake martial arts and claim that the students learn self-defense (which we know isn't always physical), that they will lose weight (which we know doesn't require fighting), learn discipline and respect, while learning my martial arts. In my fake martial arts I would have Chi balls, incredible moves and acrobatics, and awesome demos of students catching chi balls and then eating chi balls to power up. And I would tell students that my Martial Arts isn't for fighting. I could take all of the money in the world and still not be a fraud so long as I deliver on my claim that students will learn self-defense, lose weight, and learn discipline and respect. The fact that I say that my Martial arts isn't for fighting also clears me. If someone wanted to sue me for Chi Balls, on what grounds would they sue me for? The only claim that I made were the realistic ones. I may look silly but there's no fraud.

 

[Midnight-shadow]

I'm stuck of course in the police/legal definition of fraud, which mean to gain pecuniary advantage or services by deception ( there are nuances to this but that it in general). Lying about your experience but still providing a good service ie good instruction isn't fraud whereas teaching with bad skills, knowing that and taking money for that instruction could well be fraud.

What about the people who think they are teaching good skills when actually they aren't. This seems to be more likely in the MA community. Is it fraud if the person teaching believes they are teaching good skills? As for the person who provides good instruction but lies about their past experience, I guess it comes down to how much do you care about lineage or fighting experience when training under someone? Some people think that's the be-all and end-all of their art in terms of its validity, personally I don't. I like knowing the lineage of my art but purely from a curiosity standpoint, and that doesn't affect which art I choose.

 

[Tez3]

What about the people who think they are teaching good skills when actually they aren't. This seems to be more likely in the MA community. Is it fraud if the person teaching believes they are teaching good skills? As for the person who provides good instruction but lies about their past experience, I guess it comes down to how much do you care about lineage or fighting experience when training under someone? Some people think that's the be-all and end-all of their art in terms of its validity, personally I don't. I like knowing the lineage of my art but purely from a curiosity standpoint, and that doesn't affect which art I choose.

Fraud is an odd one to classify, I believe that it's all in the intent. If you are teaching something that you honestly believe is value for money I don't think anyone can claim 'fraud' if it turns out that you are incompetent and they stuff you teach doesn't work. The definition of theft here is 'dishonestly appropriating property of another with the intent to permanently deprive', fraud is theft so it's the intent that is important here. if people are teaching for money, being paid, then under yet more laws here they have to provide something that is 'fit for purpose' and offer value for money. When people talk about frauds in martial arts I doubt they are seeing it from a legal stand point though.

 

[Chris Parker]

I'm stuck of course in the police/legal definition of fraud, which mean to gain pecuniary advantage or services by deception ( there are nuances to this but that it in general). Lying about your experience but still providing a good service ie good instruction isn't fraud whereas teaching with bad skills, knowing that and taking money for that instruction could well be fraud.

I'd say that it's more to do with the intent to defraud, which might be for financial or other advantage… the "other" is important… it could be done for ego boosting, for example…

But to look at your two hypothetical approaches, yes, lying about your experience (in order to represent yourself in a way that is misleading, regardless of skills) is fraud… say, a person claiming to have been a Navy SEAL, when all they did was a desk job for 18 months in the Army, as part of their advertising ("Learn the Secrets of the Navy SEALS, the most Lethal Military Force in the World from a Navy SEAL Instructor!!"), then it doesn't matter what they teach, they're defrauding the public. On the other hand, if someone is teaching "bad skills", but is a legit teacher who has not invented a false history, and is simply poorly skilled, that is not fraud… and, honestly, I'd be surprised if anyone teaching such lacking skills actually recognised it… which takes the reality out of that hypothetical.

This incredibly accurate "news story" demonstrates that point: Report: Average Male 4,000% Less Effective In Fights Than They Imagine

No such thing as a fake martial art just a fake teacher

Oh, how I wish that were true… but sadly, no, it's not. There are absolutely such a thing as fake martial arts. In fact, all fake teachers are only so because they're teaching fake arts…

What I'm saying is that this guy would do more good by helping people to identify the Martial art that will be best for a person by actually understanding the goal of the person. For example, If a parent who wants their child to get a black belt as fast as possible, then a "McDojo" school may be solution. From this perspective of getting a black belt as fast as possible, the "McDojo," may be an excellent fit for this parent and if it is, then that school isn't a fraud no matter how bad they teach or how many worthless techniques they have. The goal of the parent was to get a black belt as soon as possible and the McDojo was able to make that happen. If you send this parent to a school where the child is going to take 10 years before they get a black belt then parent isn't going to be happy, because the school isn't doing what the parent wanted.

So instead of trying to tell people what is fraud and what isn't, people should help others on how to identify schools and systems that will deliver what the person wants. If a parent wants a black belt and they want a school that works hard and teaches effective techniques then don't send that parent to my school, because my school doesn't have what the parent wants.

No, you missed what I was saying. My point was that you were suggesting that the topic of the thread be something other than the actual topic… not what you were suggesting the topic be. And, for the record, neither the OP, nor Jermaine Andre strike me as being able to offer much informed opinion or insight either way.

I don't know. I just know that Fraud is not a straight forward concept in terms of Martial Arts. A martial art school can be really horrible and still not be a fraud. The concept of fraud takes into consideration that a school initiated wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

Er… yeah. That's pretty straightforward, really. The issue is when people try to say something is fraud simply because it doesn't match their values or expectations of what martial arts are supposed to be (and be like).

If the student got what they wanted then it's not a fraud.

Not necessarily, no. To take the example again of my friends school, the students there all feel they're getting what they want… but that doesn't change the fact that it's not a Japanese art (it's presented as one), it's not a traditional Japanese methodology (it's presented as one), it's not authentic weapon usage (it's presented as such), it's not an accurate representation of Japanese classical traditions (it's presented as such). But they enjoy it, and get the feeling that they're getting all of that, as it matches what they think such things are like…

If a student thought that what they were learning would be useful in a real fight, but then found out later on that it wasn't, then maybe the first question that should have been asked by the students during the research phase was. How can I tell if a school is actually training students how to use techniques to fight?

Which has nothing to do with fraud or not. That's been the point.

No it's not a back hand comment. it's a reality. Belted systems do have cool uniforms my schools uniform is a T-shirt and Kung Fu pants which is the dress code for Jow Ga. So if someone is looking for a cool uniform then Jow Ga is the wrong school. My school doesn't have awesome martial arts moves. Part of my attraction to Jow Ga was that it didn't have any of those flashy kicks and board breaks. I just wanted something that was practical and Jow Ga is very practical, do I think Jow Ga is cool, but I have always described Jow Ga as being very practical and not very flashy at all. I'll put it this way. The Jow Ga schools that do have flashy kicks only have flashy kicks because they included Wushu (non-Jow Ga) techniques into the system. So if someone is looking for cool TKD and Karate type kicks then Jow Ga isn't going to have it.

Yeah, gotta say, the blanket generalisations, combined with the lack of any real insight into what you're disparaging in favour of your Jow Ga do come across as a rather back-handed insult to other arts… which is where we get into the "no art bashing" part of the rules… I mean, do you have any evidence of any system advertising themselves on the basis of their "cool uniforms"? Or students taking up a particular art because of them? The usage of a t-shirt is also not uncommon in (particularly) Chinese and Filipino systems… but not exactly unheard of in many other arts as well (including Japanese… I know, for example, of one Koryu sword system where the students are just as likely to be wearing jeans and a t-shirt as keikogi and hakama in regular keiko, with the "formal wear" only really used in embu… and I've seen many examples of such arts trained and taught in very much "regular" clothing…).

What I'm saying is you might want to watch how you present your point on occasion… promoting your system is fine… but it will come down to how you do it.

I'm referring to extreme martial arts where they do flips, tricking, and moves and techniques that were meant to be visually pleasing but lack real fighting application.

Yeah, I get what you were referring to… my point was that the concept went a lot further.

I'm saying that not every TKD or Karate school is a tricking school, some do it while others don't. Just because TKD or Karate is on sign, doesn't mean they teach tricking techniques by default.

Er… that's really not anything to do with my actual question, though… in fact, it's not anything to do with what I asked. I asked if a school does teach "tricking", does that mean (to you) that they don't teach anything else that might have more realistic value?

That the definition that I was using too. But if I say that you can get a black belt within 5 years and I teach you bad skills, but give you a black belt on year 5, then is that fraud? . If my school claims to teach self confidence, respect, and discipline, then it would be possible to fail on everything else except what I claim and my school wouldn't be considered fraud. Even if the parents thought that I would make their child a better fighter, I would only have to show that I accomplished what I claim the student will learn, and that I never claimed the student would be a better fighter. I look at the big Martial Arts schools because they word their statements in a way that provides maximum legal protection against claims of fraud.

Yeah… still not what is meant by fraud in the martial arts…

I could literally make up a fake martial arts and claim that the students learn self-defense (which we know isn't always physical), that they will lose weight (which we know doesn't require fighting), learn discipline and respect, while learning my martial arts. In my fake martial arts I would have Chi balls, incredible moves and acrobatics, and awesome demos of students catching chi balls and then eating chi balls to power up. And I would tell students that my Martial Arts isn't for fighting. I could take all of the money in the world and still not be a fraud so long as I deliver on my claim that students will learn self-defense, lose weight, and learn discipline and respect. The fact that I say that my Martial arts isn't for fighting also clears me. If someone wanted to sue me for Chi Balls, on what grounds would they sue me for? The only claim that I made were the realistic ones. I may look silly but there's no fraud.

You're still mixing up different aspects… if you make up a fake martial art (which is not saying what you'll get out of it, it's saying what it is in the first place… in other words, if you say it's a secret Chinese art passed down by a hidden sect of Jesuit monks, to the only teacher left, who you met in a park when you were three, and he named you the only grandmaster of said art… that would be a fake system), it's a fake martial art. If you make claims about what you'll get out of the art, but it doesn't live up to that, it's a bad martial art. These are not the same thing.

What it comes down to is exactly what the claims are… if the claims are about where the art came from, and what it is, but are a lie, that's a fake system (think fake "Koga Ryu Ninjitsu" arts). If the claims are about "this will make you the best street fighter in the world", but the students are lack-lustre, that's not fraud, it's simply a bad system.

What about the people who think they are teaching good skills when actually they aren't. This seems to be more likely in the MA community.

Then they're, realistically, simply delusional.

Is it fraud if the person teaching believes they are teaching good skills?

No, not necessarily. Simply sad, really.

As for the person who provides good instruction but lies about their past experience, I guess it comes down to how much do you care about lineage or fighting experience when training under someone?

Er… no, I wouldn't agree with that. My thoughts are best presented by Ellis Amdur, a practitioner of both modern and classical systems, as well as an author of a number of books covering modern applications of topics such as de-escalation, and more: The Importance of Paper in Japanese Martial Traditions – 古現武道

Some people think that's the be-all and end-all of their art in terms of its validity, personally I don't. I like knowing the lineage of my art but purely from a curiosity standpoint, and that doesn't affect which art I choose.

Integrity is the important aspect here.

 

[Tez3]

I'd say that it's more to do with the intent

As I said, intent is everything I think. I still have 'police' brain even though I'm retired so when people say 'fraud' it immediately goes to the criminal act rather than a quasi philosophical idea. People will say so and so is a 'fraud' because he says he has a black belt and he hasn't but I'm thinking, oh is he taking people money or goods off people illegally then, when actually he's just a liar.

 

[JowGaWolf]

No, you missed what I was saying. My point was that you were suggesting that the topic of the thread be something other than the actual topic… not what you were suggesting the topic be. And, for the record, neither the OP, nor Jermaine Andre strike me as being able to offer much informed opinion or insight either way.

??? Ok. I literally just told you what I was talking about and then you are going to that I was trying to suggest something else?

Here are my statements
The statement below refers to the guy in the video. Jermaine

His efforts reminds me of an MMA guy that used to train with our school. He would come to the school to pick up pieces of various techniques that he thought he could use in his MMA. The problem was that there is usually more to a technique than just swinging the arms a certain way. A detailed understanding of a technique is often required in order to effectively deploy a technique at the right time and in the right situation. I wonder if this guy is doing the same thing while trying to answer questions about what's fake or not.

The statement below refers to what Jermaine is trying to accomplish and the OP via Jermaine. If you watch the video it sounds as if Jermaine is trying to be helpful, but instead of him trying to identify fake martial arts, he should help people pick the martial art that's right for them based on that person's Goals. Which is why I stated "Not everyone takes a martial arts to lean how to fight"

I think a conversations like this should be based on what goals people may have. Not everyone takes a martial arts to learn how to fight.
I think if the topic was centered around goals such as:
1. If you want to learn how to fight using martial arts then look for this type of training which will get you half way there, the rest is up to you
2. If you want to learn how to martial arts for entertainment then look for this type of training which will get you half way there, the rest is up to you.
3. If you want to learn how to a martial arts for self-improvement then these systems directly focuses on that while these other systems achieve self-improvement as a by product.
4. etc.

I think if the OP and MC Jermaine were to take this type of approach then their efforts would actually help more people.

Those comments that I made weren't about what is being said in this discussion. It's about what was said in the video and how he could better accomplish his goals. Had Jermaine taken the approach that I spoke of. Then you guys wouldn't be jumping down his throat about what he knows and how he doesn't have the authority to say what's fake or not. And instead of offering suggestions to help him better accomplish his goals, people here just kind of do the "pile and bash" response.

Nothing in that video made me think he was intentionally trying to put other people or systems down. It's just that going at it from the perspective of "what's fake" isn't going to be a productive effort in comparison to a "How to pick the martial arts that's right for you." approach.

THIS IS WHAT I'M SAYING, So don't post a response telling me that that I'm suggesting that the topic be changed. I'm telling you what I'm saying. What I said doesn't have anything to do with changing the topic. You could change the topic of this room to "I like ice cream and cake" and the video would still be about "fake martial arts." If I wanted to suggest that the topic be changed then I would have simply saved you from reading a long post and just stated it.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Not necessarily, no. To take the example again of my friends school, the students there all feel they're getting what they want… but that doesn't change the fact that it's not a Japanese art (it's presented as one), it's not a traditional Japanese methodology (it's presented as one), it's not authentic weapon usage (it's presented as such), it's not an accurate representation of Japanese classical traditions (it's presented as such). But they enjoy it, and get the feeling that they're getting all of that, as it matches what they think such things are like…

There is a difference in "feeling that you are getting what you want" and actually "getting what you want."

Ask your friends do they want to take classes there because it's a Japanese art. If they say yes. Then tell them that their current school is not a Japanese Martial Art even though it's presented as one. If they say "O.K. no big deal, it's not that important to me" and that stay at the same school.. Then guess what. You have just verified that the school is giving them what they want.

I say this because I have told many parents about this when telling them the difference between a school that trains to fight and a school that just hands out black belts. I had a brown belt try one Kung Fu class at a beginner's level that was toned down so it would be easy for him. The brown belt kid was surprised at how difficult it was to him compared to his karate school. His mom liked it (she took the same class) and told her son that we taught more martial arts in that one class than the karate school did in 5 months. Guess what school the kid decided to practice martial arts? The karate school where he got his belts from. That's what he wanted and the school is giving him what he wants so how can that be fraud.

Sometimes what we see that is important in martial arts isn't the same thing that's important to other people. I had one guy who paraded his daughter around because after 3 years of leaving the Jow Ga Kung Fu school, she was a few months from taking her black belt test. Her dad was so proud and he was so happy that the instructor did low impact punches for kids (kids didn't punch or kick pads). He thought her new martial art school was gold. 3 years and she is getting a black belt. Man that's just awesome. While that school may be a fraud to you, it's not a fraud to the parent because they are giving him just want he wants. An easy black belt for his daughter so he can brag about her and feel proud about her having a black belt.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Oh, how I wish that were true… but sadly, no, it's not. There are absolutely such a thing as fake martial arts. In fact, all fake teachers are only so because they're teaching fake arts…

You're still mixing up different aspects… if you make up a fake martial art (which is not saying what you'll get out of it, it's saying what it is in the first place… in other words, if you say it's a secret Chinese art passed down by a hidden sect of Jesuit monks, to the only teacher left, who you met in a park when you were three, and he named you the only grandmaster of said art… that would be a fake system), it's a fake martial art. If you make claims about what you'll get out of the art, but it doesn't live up to that, it's a bad martial art. These are not the same thing.

I think it makes more sense to talk about the fact that a given art may be presented with a fake history than to say that the art itself is fake or real. Even on those terms, the concept of "fake" can be a bit fuzzy.

In the early days of BJJ, Helio Gracie used to claim that the art he was teaching was the authentic unarmed art of the samurai and that this "judo" stuff was a watered down version created by the Japanese to fool westerners. It's not clear whether he actually believed this or was just bullshitting. Did that mean that BJJ was a "fake" art during the time when he was making that claim? Later on he changed his claim to say that he had single-handedly created the art by refining it the techniques that Maeda had taught his brother. This is much closer to the truth, in that Helio was one of the important early contributors to the art, but it still isn't fully accurate. Does that mean BJJ is a fake art in those schools which still teach this simplified hagiography?

Wing Chun was almost certainly not developed by a Buddhist nun named Ng Mui and probably has no historical connection to the Shaolin temple. Does that mean Wing Chun is a fake art? Or is it only fake in the schools which pass on that origin myth?

Did Tae Kwon Do suddenly become a fake art during the period when General Choi started spreading the story about its ancient Korean origins? Did it recover its authenticity as the actual history became more well known again?

Is Togakure Ryu a fake art since it certainly isn't 800 years old and may even have been created by Takamatsu himself in the early 20th century?

I could go on for pages, but you get the point.

I think there's value in knowing the accurate history of an art. I just don't think that "fake" and "real" are particularly useful descriptors for the art itself.

 

[JowGaWolf]

in other words, if you say it's a secret Chinese art passed down by a hidden sect of Jesuit monks, to the only teacher left, who you met in a park when you were three, and he named you the only grandmaster of said art… that would be a fake system), it's a fake martial art.

How do you prove that someone studied under a person that you never heard of?

I studied under a Sifu who had a fight against 3 people and broke the arm of one of the attackers and beat the other 2 within 30 seconds. Now how you are going to prove that what I just said is false?

 

[Tez3]

I studied under a Sifu who had a fight against 3 people and broke the arm of one of the attackers and beat the other 2 within 30 seconds. Now how you are going to prove that what I just said is false?

For me, I don't care whether it's true or not, my criteria quite honestly is simple, can you fight? I don't care much for lineages, for me the proof is in the pudding so it's always going to be 'can you fight'?

 

[Azulx]

Why would someone call themselves Master Chief? This is the only Master Chief I know.

 

[kuniggety]

Why would someone call themselves Master Chief? This is the only Master Chief I know.

View attachment 19923

It's the highest enlisted rate in the US Navy, so there's lots of folks running around calling themselves Master Chief.

 

[Midnight-shadow]

I've been thinking about this topic a lot recently, and specifically those closed-minded people who think that a true Martial Art is one that works in real combat. The thing is that most Martial Arts that are practiced today have either been specifically designed for sport (e.g. Boxing, Judo, BJJ, etc) or have been watered down and altered for sport (Wushu, Muay Thai, Karate, etc). So, going by that distinction that the only true Martial Arts are those designed for real world combat, there are only 2 "true Martial Arts" that I can think of, those being Krav Maga and Sistema. These 2, unlike all the others, were designed for the the military for real world combat. All the others, while they can work in real combat, are not specifically designed for it. They are designed to be used in a fighting ring under strict rules, or as performances.

 

[MAfreak]

I've been thinking about this topic a lot recently, and specifically those closed-minded people who think that a true Martial Art is one that works in real combat. The thing is that most Martial Arts that are practiced today have either been specifically designed for sport (e.g. Boxing, Judo, BJJ, etc) or have been watered down and altered for sport (Wushu, Muay Thai, Karate, etc). So, going by that distinction that the only true Martial Arts are those designed for real world combat, there are only 2 "true Martial Arts" that I can think of, those being Krav Maga and Sistema. These 2, unlike all the others, were designed for the the military for real world combat. All the others, while they can work in real combat, are not specifically designed for it. They are designed to be used in a fighting ring under strict rules, or as performances.

there are martial arts, which have it all. when i think of my karate back then, there was "art" = kata; there was "combat sport" = kumite and there was specific self-defense training, too. well i wouldn't say that their kind of combat and every of their self-defense techniques would be good, but basically, its all in. and it isn't the only martial art that does so.

 

[kuniggety]

I've been thinking about this topic a lot recently, and specifically those closed-minded people who think that a true Martial Art is one that works in real combat. The thing is that most Martial Arts that are practiced today have either been specifically designed for sport (e.g. Boxing, Judo, BJJ, etc) or have been watered down and altered for sport (Wushu, Muay Thai, Karate, etc). So, going by that distinction that the only true Martial Arts are those designed for real world combat, there are only 2 "true Martial Arts" that I can think of, those being Krav Maga and Sistema. These 2, unlike all the others, were designed for the the military for real world combat. All the others, while they can work in real combat, are not specifically designed for it. They are designed to be used in a fighting ring under strict rules, or as performances.

Most of what you said was all backwards. BJJ and judo were not designed for sport. They both grew sport variants over time, Muay Thai, like boxing, was specifically designed for sport. MT was designed specifically for the ring (two of its ancestors being judo and boxing... Along with native Thai martial arts). You have Krav Maga competitions (sport) and KM fitness classes. It's another art, like BJJ and judo, which have turned into sports. Modern wushu was designed to be for fitness and not as a martial art. It was a stifling of the actual martial arts by the Chinese government. I think the only one you had right was karate.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Why would someone call themselves Master Chief? This is the only Master Chief I know.

View attachment 19923

Maybe he meant to say Master chef?

 

[Midnight-shadow]

Most of what you said was all backwards. BJJ and judo were not designed for sport. They both grew sport variants over time, Muay Thai, like boxing, was specifically designed for sport. MT was designed specifically for the ring (two of its ancestors being judo and boxing... Along with native Thai martial arts). You have Krav Maga competitions (sport) and KM fitness classes. It's another art, like BJJ and judo, which have turned into sports. Modern wushu was designed to be for fitness and not as a martial art. It was a stifling of the actual martial arts by the Chinese government. I think the only one you had right was karate.

According to my research, Muay Thai was originally developed by the roaming nomads to defend themselves against other tribes in the Asian plains. Then, when one tribe settled in Siam (later known as Thailand), they developed it into a sport, taking away a lot of the more lethal moves and imposing the rules that have developed into what it is today. I was mistaken about BJJ and Judo so apologies for that, and in fact they follow the same principles of the other Martial Arts, with a lot of the more lethal techniques taken out to make it safe as a contact sport. The same thing happened with Karate and Taekwondo. And yes, while there are Krav Maga competitions and fitness classes which have been watered down, the military still practice the original version that was designed for real world combat.

Chinese Martial Arts have a very interesting history. It Basically started out as a set of exercises used for fitness by Buddhist monks so that they could meditate for longer periods of time without their bodies suffering too much. Then after the Northern Shaolin monastery was ransacked by bandits, the monks turned those exercises into a fighting system, while at the same time learning how to use weapons in order to defend against them. Then in the 1900s, Martial Arts were banned in China and performance Wushu was developed. Now it is primarily used for fitness and performance, which is what it was originally used for.

 

[Tez3]

Do you want to cite your sources for these 'histories'?