bassfacekevin said:
How do I know that every martial art has something useful? Because they still exist today. Every martial art has something good to offer, or it would have died out long ago. We humans have a knack for erasing/forgetting things that are of no use to us. Call it evolution if you will.
~K
Ok, I haven't read through this whole thread, but I was asked to come here to help set a few things straight due to the fact that there's quite a bit of misconceptions about the martial arts floating about here. I'm gonna try to keep this as short as possible to allow for some discussion, so I'll stick to the main points. Generally a) the purpose of MA training and b) misconceptions about current day MA training. What is often lacking in the MA world, is serious analytical thinking as opposed to the love affair with the romanticized image of being a "martial artist."
Now the first issue is as I said, what is the purpose? To me I feel that if you claim to be training in a martial art, that you are then training in something that is teaching you how to overcome another human being in some form of physical combat. The form of combat that takes place can be restricted depending on the art. Now if you wish to train in an art that professes it's primary benefits to aid in health, flexibility, longevity, exercise, and having a role model sensei figure who teaches you morality you should have learned as a child, then I'd say take up jogging, yoga, and join an evangelical church for a more direct and effective solution to your goals.
Now for the misconceptions I see 3 main ones. Unfailing belief in instructors who claim that their arts are 1)ancient 2)battle tested 3)effective without any evidence of such in any category.
To the first mention of an art being ancient, here is a brief list of some of the more popular martial arts foundings:
Japan
Shotokan 1921
****o Ryu 1930
Wado Ryu 1939
Aikido 1942
Shorinji Kempo 1946
Shukokai 1950
Kyokushinkai 1951
Koei-kan 1952
Renbukai 1964
OKINAWA
Matsubayashi Shorin Ryu 1947
Isshin Ryu 1954
Korea
Chung do kwon 1945
Tang Soo Do 1945
Chang moo kwon 1946
Tae Kwon Do 1955
Hapkido 1950's-60's
Hwarang do 1960
Kuk Sul Won 1966
America (and it's territories)
Danzan Ryu 1930's
Kara-ho Kempo 1940's
Kajukenbo 1947
American Kenpo 1950-60's
Karazenpo Go Shin jitsu 1958
Lima Lama 1968
Shaolin Kempo 1971
I know Grandpa is old, but I wouldn't call something created in the mid to late 1900's ancient.
Onto #2: Styles being battle tested. Well judging from this list, what battles have practitioners of these styles seen, and where did they get the chance to use their skills? Wars fought in the 20th century mostly involved the use of firearms, and H2H combat was a bit of an afterthought. I doubt that flying kicks and submission grappling were high on the skillset list of those involved in WW2. Even if you do date back to a style that was utilized before the inception of the gun, you still had people fighting with spears, swords, arrows, knives etc. Technically speaking, Capoeira has more of a battle-tested history than most "traditional" style martial arts.
#3 Effectiveness. Well the copout line, as used in this post I'm replying to, "how did they survive so long if they don't work?" And the answer is quite simply cult-like stupidity. I've been a victim of it myself, as have thousands upon thousands of other martial artists. When you have a guy in front of you with 8 stripes down his BB telling you something works, and then beats the life out of his compliant demonstration partner, you tend to listen to him. But in the end, reality rears it's ugly head, and the truth that not all styles are equal, and that some things are just downright useless and silly. The key is training in an "alive" resistant, realistic environment with lots of hard sparring and an honest assessment of oneself. For a better idea of aliveness click here:
Invalid Link Removed
(at least thats what I keep telling myself!!)
