XMA - your feelings?

[clfsean]

We have basically a XMA program as a supplementary class in our school and some might even argue that our demo team (original West Coast Demo Team and later "Ernie Reyes' World Action Team") were some of the early forefathers of XMA. However, for us it has always just been a supplement. It began with demo team members hanging out after practice pushing the physical envelope. It is/was always something athletic and artistic that we did on the side and was never a substitute for our ""real" martial arts training. I would assume that is the case for the vast majority who do XMA.

As long as it's for demo only, why give it a different name? Why try to stand out as something singular, instead of a "but this is also what you can do with it..."?

I can only speak for my own school and knowledge of my Association's schools, but XMA has been popular among the younger advanced students (mostly teens) as a way of pushing that envelope and challenging themselves. We train in MMA, submission grappling, boxing, kickboxing(MT), and Escrima in our curriculum and classes. We have a strong legacy of high level fighters (both Strikeforce and American Kickboxing Academy have their roots directly from our schools), so the MARTIAL part is and always has been there, but for us it has never been and "either/or" thing. BTW, most of the guys who are better at XMA are usually some of the best athletes and often among the better fighters, too.

XMA people are generally top flight athletes that aren't satisfied with traditional training methods. I'd venture a guess most are Type A personality types that do that with most everything they do. That's great, but I'd rather take one of them & push them to the limit in traditional training to see what they really become as martial artists, not a performance artist with a martial background. But they would go for that necessarily either. To each his own.

I would not consider XMA a martial art unto itself, but I doubt very few of the people who do XMA are only doing that or thinking that way either. Mike Chat, who was the guy smart enough to organize and cash in on tricking and create the XMA brand, has always been the first to put an emphasis on good, solid martial arts basics as the roots and foundation that leads to what he does and sells. From my observations, it seems the ones trying to portray XMA as a martial art of it's own are it's critics who don't even participate in it.

I think we're going to agree to disagree with this paragraph. Granted I'm picking my points & there's 0 animosity in my comments, but they relate directly back to your statements of

Mike Chat, who was the guy smart enough to organize and cash in on tricking and create the XMA brand, has always been the first to put an emphasis on good, solid martial arts basics as the roots and foundation that leads to what he does and sells.

Good solid martial arts as the root & foundation... ok, I'm a bit of traditionalist & I'm not seeing it. Going from horrendous stance work (the absolute basics), no body connectivity when performing a technique, loose feet when kicking, to literal gymnastic floor routine runs, to tie-dyed hakama, weapons being flipped & thrown about like jugglers, no kobudo or bing shu background beyond what the routine shows (normally no regard for basics & common sense), tooth picks & aluminum being used in place of solid wood & steel... I'm not seeing basics/root/foundations there. I'm seeing performance enhancing tools & no basic training beyond what it took for them to start screaming their lungs out & throats sore.

and

From my observations, it seems the ones trying to portray XMA as a martial art of it's own are it's critics who don't even participate in it.

No I don't participate in XMA & won't. I teach Traditional Chinese Martial Arts. Heavy emphasis on the Tradition. My basics are solid & long in process. My students aren't tournament competitors, although some of the kids want to, I might start tournament training for them. They are simple & basic in their presentations and efficient/effective in their application of techniques. My students are more than capable (all things being equal & reality's grip firmly in place) of dealing with anything short of a firearm or experienced weapon fighter in order to go home safely & securely.

It's 30 years of experience, earning a couple of different dan ranks, traveling to China, competing in tournaments in my youth, being sorely beaten about before in training, training with LEO & military... that gives me my soapbox to make observations about XMA.

I hold NOTHING against them for doing what they do. They are marvelouys performers & exceptional athletes that are doing things that in my prime I'd question myself attempting to do. But to call it a "martial art"... that doesn't fly with me. Then again, neither does modern Wushu, so tit for tat.

 

[clfsean]

Is it part of the style or something you've added? You guys know better about CMA than I do, so you tell me. Don't guys who train in Wushu often train in Sanda or Sanshou or something like that, as well?

And, thinking it through, if we compare it again to movie choreography, the combat applications are apparent in a movie... it's just choreographed. The actor is taught what the purpose of the moves are, so that he or she can act them out. And we have all (I believe) agreed that movie fighting isn't a martial art.

In the What is Aliveness thread, I mentioned Bloom's Taxonomy of learning. The lowest three levels are Knowledge, Comprehension and Application. In my opinion, to be a martial art, you have to at least ALLEGE to get to Application in the combat system. I believe some martial arts schools fail this completely and others are only marginally successful, but at least they try.

Wushu doesn't typically, as I understand it, even allege to be a fighting system. It's a demonstration system related to a fighting system. As XMA is a demonstration system for TKD guys (or whoever else).

Nah... not all work on Sanda. Some get moved to Sanda if they show a proficiency for it or don't have quite the "knack" for the set performance.

 

[clfsean]

So what if I add the combat applications to my Modern Wushu forms? Is it martial arts now? When I would teach Modern Wushu, to get the 'black belt' type of level, I would require that my student know how to perform 3 forms of their choosing ( of maybe like 15-30 that I know). I would also teach them, all of the applications that I knew, or 'figured out'. Some movements I would be clear, that I didn't know the application, or if there was one.

Not really because the original martial intent/focus & associated training tools were removed at the source. However, you're (in my book) a step ahead for trying to put some back in. But's still been stripped of what it was intentionally meant for.

What if I only taught the applications 'sometimes'? Or what if ?

What if... two powerful little words.

Where ( about ) is the line drawn? I know, there probably isn't one.

Yeah... I think you got that one right...

 

[Flying Crane]

So what if I add the combat applications to my Modern Wushu forms? Is it martial arts now? When I would teach Modern Wushu, to get the 'black belt' type of level, I would require that my student know how to perform 3 forms of their choosing ( of maybe like 15-30 that I know). I would also teach them, all of the applications that I knew, or 'figured out'. Some movements I would be clear, that I didn't know the application, or if there was one.

What if I only taught the applications 'sometimes'? Or what if ?

Where ( about ) is the line drawn? I know, there probably isn't one.

Application is not the meat of what a form has to offer. Understanding application is important, but it's secondary important. What a form usually teaches in CMA is how to engage the fundamental skills in everything that you do and in every move that you make. that is where the power comes from. If this is not made paramount, and one focuses on application instead, that application will be weak because it has no rooted power behind it. It's a bit like taking a Ferrari and putting a VW Rabbit engine under the hood. It looks good but there's nothing giving it that Ferrari power. Likewise, a punch might look good, but without properly engaged fundamentals driving it, that punch is weak. Throwing your fist out there is not necessarily a good punch.

So understanding application is only a small part of the issue. Understanding how to engage the fundamentals is the bigger part of the problem, and that is where Modern Wushu typically is lacking. And it's not just a problem in Modern Wushu either. I see this problem in all kinds of martial practice, including schools teaching traditional methods. They just do not understand fundamentals, tho they will swear up and down that they do and that they focus on it and practice it to no end.

 

[Balrog]

In Chinese and Japanese the words for martial arts are 'wushu' and 'bujutsu'.

The first character wu (chinese) and bu (Japanese) translate to 'martial', 'war', 'fighting', 'combat' etc.

The second shu(chinese) jutsu (japanese) translate to 'techniques', 'methods' etc.

The 'art' thing in English, really throws it in a different direction and makes things confusing. All of the previous systems, styles or whatever you wanna call them, can be included in the umbrella term of martial arts.

I've always said that "martial arts" can be broken down as:

Martial - deriving from the name of the Roman god of war. The word now refers to combat or fighting.

Art - anything taken to a higher level. My drawing of a human being is stick figures. Michaelangelo's is art.

So "martial arts " can be construed as combat taken to a higher level. Six year olds know how to bunch up their hands and swing at someone, and they can and will kick at them. Martial artists take those same movements and train until they become much more efficient at them. Plus, they learn a whole lot of other things, not the least of which is how to restrain oneself and not have to fight in the first place.

But a martial art, first and foremost, is about self-defense. And that is what led to my OP - I don't think XMA is a martial art because it is not taught with a basis of self-defense, and 99% of what it teaches people to do would get their butts kicked in a defensive situation. And yet I have people who think I am the Anti-Christ for even daring to think such a thing about XMA. Go figure.

 

[Steve]

But a martial art, first and foremost, is about self-defense.

I agree with most of what you said, but I think this is a little off base. I'd argue that most Martial Arts are not about self defense, and of the ones that are, most of these are really geared toward one aspect of self defense. What I mean is, very few teach conflict avoidance, situational awareness and effective communications, even though these are the skills that will keep you safe in almost any situation.

I'd say that it's a little more accurate to say that martial arts are about learning to fight.

 

[Balrog]

I agree with most of what you said, but I think this is a little off base. I'd argue that most Martial Arts are not about self defense, and of the ones that are, most of these are really geared toward one aspect of self defense. What I mean is, very few teach conflict avoidance, situational awareness and effective communications, even though these are the skills that will keep you safe in almost any situation.

I'd say that it's a little more accurate to say that martial arts are about learning to fight.

And why do we learn to fight? To defend ourselves.

 

[Steve]

And why do we learn to fight? To defend ourselves.

Not always. I fight because it's fun. And fighting isn't always the best self defense. In fact, it's usually NOT the best self defense. I'd call it a last resort, where self defense is concerned. Particularly where weapons are involved.

 

[Tez3]

Would it bother or even offend anyone if someone came to their school/class and said they wanted to learn martial arts meaning XMA? If they came in believing that what they'd seen in an XMA demo would teach them how to fight/defend themselves? What would you tell them, how would you explain what they do and what you do is different?

 

[bushidomartialarts]

Certainly wouldn't bother or offend me. Might amuse me a little, if they came actually thinking it was combat effective.

Here's something I thought of the other day. Parkour: definitely not a martial art (in my thinking). XMA: qualifies as a martial art (in my thinking). I'm earnestly trying to find exactly where the hair is split for me, and it's somewhere in between those points.

 

[Tez3]

Certainly wouldn't bother or offend me. Might amuse me a little, if they came actually thinking it was combat effective.

Here's something I thought of the other day. Parkour: definitely not a martial art (in my thinking). XMA: qualifies as a martial art (in my thinking). I'm earnestly trying to find exactly where the hair is split for me, and it's somewhere in between those points.

I'm sure there's a thread somewhere on MT about Parkour either being close to being a martial art or as being part of a martial art, anyone else remember? My memory is hazy but I do remember people discussing it. It may have been on the Ninjutsu section.

I have visions of an old style sensei who demands the total concentration of his students etc having someone coming in and asking to be taught XMA complete with funky music

 

[Balrog]

Not always. I fight because it's fun. And fighting isn't always the best self defense. In fact, it's usually NOT the best self defense. I'd call it a last resort, where self defense is concerned. Particularly where weapons are involved.

You're pretty much arguing my case for me. When all else fails, we have to fight. And we train in m.a. so that if a situation degenerates to violence, we have the ability to defend ourselves.

Sparring is fun. Fighting isn't. When two people fight, two people get hurt.

 

[Balrog]

Would it bother or even offend anyone if someone came to their school/class and said they wanted to learn martial arts meaning XMA? If they came in believing that what they'd seen in an XMA demo would teach them how to fight/defend themselves? What would you tell them, how would you explain what they do and what you do is different?

I would explain that XMA is really nothing but dance routines; movie-fu, if you like. If they still don't get it, I'd fire up the computer and show them this movie clip and explain that if they tried to use XMA in a self-defense situation, something like that would happen to them. If they insist, I'll say have a nice day, go try the BJJ school a mile down the road.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I personally think that, regardless of the name, XMA is not martial arts. At best, it's dance routines, bad gymnastics combines with bad techniques that look kinda sorta like martial arts techniques. Sure, it's flashy, movie-fu stuff, but it ain't martial arts.

To be considered as a martial art, a discipline should have a grounding in self-defense. XMA has none. I have heard of schools offering rank in XMA and I consider them to be like the schools that offered rank in Tae Bo.

That's my opinion. What's yours?

I view XMA as a catch all category for cool acrobatic techniques that look great in demos. I sure can't do it. Never trained that way.

I am not in favor of schools offering rank in it, but in and of itself, I think it fits in well with the self improvement through athletic training aspect of modern martial arts.

Daniel