A different question about forms, kata and patterns

There are a few people who are in it for the money, the pyramid scheme franchise kind of stuff where instructors are brought up to "black belt" in a matter of weeks and are expected to do door-to-door sales, but the vast majority of karate instructors I've met have been genuine about wanting to do the best by their students, whether you agree that forms are best or not. Most operate out of village halls and barely cover their costs.

 

There are some scam karate instructors, sure. But there are also some MMA instructors and fight promoters who are "just in it for the money" and are scamming people in one way or another. The main thing is, I've never seen any evidence that this is statistically more common in karate than in MMA, gymnastics, dance, CrossFit, etc. That's a "humans are human and karate instructors are no exception" problem, not a karate-specific problem.

 

Not at all? I don't see any value in forms training, after all my posts? Even the one where I said I loved forms??

I see the problem...go re read my posts? My argument was about taking people's money for forms knowledge and how it outweighs the pragmatic cost of learning to fight. Forms for $ represents most of the martial arts economy.

You listed all the best examples yourself.

 

Really? With all those things thrown in?

 

I think the problem that folks are having with your argument is that you are starting from a very narrow base point, and assuming that everything starts from there when it doesn't. You continually equate "martial arts" and "fighting ability", and those are two entirely separate entities. If a person wants to excel at physical confrontation, then they pursue a particular martial art that focuses on this aspect. Oddly enough, there are more martial arts that don't focus on actual physical confrontation than those that do. Just because a martial art does not focus on "fighting", does not make it any less valid a martial art, in my opinion.

 

It does in mine, it makes it about as martial as a painting class, but then again there are some people who like painting. There are people who get duped, but I think a lot of those people are really getting exactly what they wanted and exactly what they paid for. You can go to the karate school which trains sanchin a TON as a training tool and then spars, or you can god to the school which makes you learn a ton of patterns and does compliant two man drills (looking at you Kenpo).

 

The problem is without using fighting as guideline, martial art can turn into dancing.

 

I never fight in the main martial art I practice, because people die if you fight with swords. Doesn't make it any less valid as a martial art.
I feel it's a very important point to not have too narrow of a focus when discussing martial arts. There are a great many different martial arts from around the world. Some are better for certain things, others are better for other things. Unless a person has mastered them all, said person can't expect to understand and grasp the reasoning behind all of those arts.

If a martial art fails to meet a person's definition of a martial art, perhaps that person simply has an excessively narrow viewpoint. I've seen and done enough in my life to realize that a broad and inclusive viewpoint is preferable in almost everything.

 

So you can't fight with wooden swords and wear armour protection?

Not being funny but if you aren't sparring or fighting its less a martial art and more historical reenactment which is all fine of that's what you are looking for but its not a martial art anymore really

 

You can always use bamboo or rubber sword to fight. Sword is 2 persons art. It's not designed for solo.

I have taught a group of old people in Taiji. I taught application along with each move. One old man said, "Do you expect us to use Taiji to fight at our age?" I said, "Fighting is the guideline. Without that guideline, you may teach it to others as dancing."

When you move both arms parallel to the ground from your right to your left, you can do in many different ways.

1. Both hand face down.
2. Both hand face up.
3. left hand face up, right hand face down.
4. left hand face down, right hand face up.

Without using fighting as guide line, you may do any way that you prefer. With using fighting as guide line, you will only do 4.

 

But even with HEMA there are certain things you can't practice full force, certain mechanics you can't really replicate, and certain tactics which become overemphasized because of the problems involved in judging contact in competition, etc. Weapon work has a lot more compromises which get made compared to empty-hand, so it requires more care to ensure your sparring is productive. I wouldn't want to not have sparring when training with weapons but I also wouldn't want to abandon the drilling for things where you can't make such good compromises for live training.

 

I would consider Kyudo a martial art. It involves no "fighting" whatsoever (it's meditative archery), and it's a very different sort of martial art than BJJ is, but in my mind that doesn't mean it's not a martial art.

I would consider Olympic taekwondo a martial art. Competitive sparring rules have minimal applicability to real-life altercations, but I'd still consider it part of the umbrella term "martial art."

I would consider Sumo a martial art. Competitive sparring rules have minimal applicability to real-life altercations, but I'd still consider it part of the umbrella term "martial art."

If someone is only interested in (1) martial arts that are directly applicable to MMA competition, or (2) martial arts that are directly applicable to real-life 21st-century street altercations, more power to them. But I don't think a martial art has to be one of those two things to call itself a martial art.

 

You could, but then I would no longer be practicing the same art as that's not how it was taught.

I must have missed the pronouncement when they made you official keeper of definitions. As our esteemed President has proven, people are entitled to believe whatever they want. However, he's also proven that just because a person believes something, that doesn't make it true.

I've had more than my share of "try to keep the other guy from killing you" fights both in my youth living on the bad side of town, and later in the military. I can tell you that what I've learned through my Japanese sword training has been much more relevant, given my experiences, than stuff that I've learned from other martial arts. You see, unless you are planning a career in law enforcement, security, or as a professional fighter, then the odds of you ever needing your fight training are pretty slim to almost non-existent. However, I use my training in situational awareness, adrenaline control, and threat assessment every day to ensure that I don't have to use my fighting skills.

So, I know which I consider more martial in nature, but I don't try and insist that others have the same opinion.

I agree.
Perhaps it's because of my long association with Japanese arts. The Japanese language is contextually driven, so it is virtually impossible to assign a single definition to any word outside of the context in which it is used. Lots of westerners have large problems with this, and want a given Japanese word to only mean one thing. I feel the same way about the words "Martial Arts". I feel that it very much depends upon the context in which a person is using the words. For example, XMA can be considered martial arts because of what it is based off of. A great many people will actually picture XMA routines in their head if someone mentions martial arts. However, if we're discussing good martial arts to learn for a career in personal security, then XMA is NOT something that would even be considered.

Just my thoughts and opinions, I'm sure others will vary.

 

Many people (include myself) train MA for fun.

If

- my opponent throws 20 punches at my head, but none of those punches can hit me.
- I can use the same throw to take my opponent down 15 times in a role.
- ...

I will smile in my dream for many nights. Even money won't be able to buy this kind of fun.

 

Then perhaps we should differentiate martial arts and fighting arts

 

How about a Venn diagram with two circles: "martial art" and "fight training." BJJ and Muay Thai are clearly both martial arts and fight training. Kyudo and Iaido are universally classified as martial arts, yet they're clearly not fight training. Air Force fighter pilot school and defensive handgun classes train people how to fight, but they're never referred to as martial arts.

 

Here's the problem with the venn diagrams and differentiation.

People (generally) associated martial arts with butt kicking skills. Not meditation, enlightenment, or inner peace by themselves. There are plenty of things you can do for mindfulness and so on that don't involve "learning to punch".

If you are punching kicking or doing whatever, you're claiming to be learning a fighting art. If that fighting art claims to be a martial art in the traditional definition (an art for fighting) but it's something else (not used for fighting), you can still call it art, but why call it "martial".

Martial arts are the arts of warfare, not peace or meditation. Kyudo isn't a martial art. It's an anachronistic simulacrum of Japanese bowcraft, but let's be real: none of those guys could cock a bow if they were in a real battle. Not one. There is really not a whole lot of "martial" there, except in a philosophical sense.

You could learn all the Kyudo you want but it would not prepare you to actually do what it is simulating (shooting people with arrows). Kata is a little like that, I think. You can practice those sequences all day long and not really learn anything "martial". Maybe something else. Grace, tranquility, emptiness, whatever you want to believe. "martial" has a specific meaning to the rest of the world.

A martial artist incapable of fighting is kind of a paradox. I think the term should be limited to fighters, quite frankly. Everyone who doesn't at least engage in fighting practice calling themselves a "martial artist" is kind of deluding themselves. I know a lot of people feel differently but if you asked the average person what a martial artist should be able to do, it'll probably be "fight", not anything else (e.g. trim Bonzai trees perfectly)

 

What would preclude them for firing a bow in battle?
I see nothing in their training that's any different to someone drawing a long bow at Agincourt.
For sure the mentality to actually kill someone is something else again but then that's true of people that train in arts you would allow in the "this a martial art" club.

 

But your statement depends entirely upon your definition of what fighting is. I can pretty much guarantee that whatever martial art you're currently training in, it hasn't taught you how to go out with your squad and fight a battle against a foreign army. Therefore, to my way of thinking you are deluding yourself by calling your art "martial" since you can't really fight a battle, you can only engage in carefully managed duels.

See, it is easily spun however you want when you have a closed mind. I much prefer to keep an open mind as I learn a lot more and have much more fun that way.

 

When martial arts became teaching businesses (way, way back in history), you can (do most anything) and call it martial arts, as long as it sells.

Can't help it. It earns money and comes packaged with "rep" included (rep aka the reputation of being a tough guy).

Put it in a modern way, nothing precludes a person from firing a gun, except in the circumstances that others are firing at him. Now his mettle is tested.

I'd rather trust a combat veteran who's triumphed under fire than a pure Olympic sharpshooter to cover my back when the bullets start firing...

A duel, no matter how constraining its rules, is still violence. Against a thinking opponent doing his best to be more violent than you.

To say that one can win a F1 race but doesn't drive around the city or can lead a regiment but unable to lead a 12-man squad is the height of folly. Same with those who say they can survive (and win) a violent criminal altercation with no rules and yet is fumbling in the dark when it comes to a highly constrained dueling match where there are safely measures involved.

Put it this way: dueling (in modern sanctioned rules) is basic math. If one doesn't even have a grasp of it, would he be even considered to be someone who is worthy to run a commercial store (aka the numerous myriad forms of violence)?

That's why, when I see or hear that prizefighting is not "real fighting," I agree with them and say combat athlete are using fake blood. All those bruises and swelling? Special effects and the wonders of make-up. ​