My kung fu school teaches defense from knives and guns along which of course was not a part of the original kung fu philosophy, hwat are your views on thsi? I think that while it is not traditional it can saves your life and is good to know.
well, last I checked, you don't see cops carrying jians around instead of handguns, and criminals typically leave their plum flower spears at home. I don't see anything wrong with making your self-defense training relevant to modern weapons. Being traditional has more to do with attitude, in my opinion, than anything else. It'd be somewhat silly, anyway, to teach stuff that can't really apply in an age of uzis and shot-guns.
I think that for many people it is important to be traditional while studying their art. That being said, it is possible to incorporate modern day techniques and philosophies into training, while still enforcing traditional guidelines and values.
Traditionalism The reality is that if we focus on tradition, we will miss what the tradition has to teach. Tradition for the most part has become tradition because of the underlyng principles that the tradition taught, look past the tradition and look at the principle, once the tradition has taught you the principle, you are no longer bound by the tradition, you can then take the principle learnt and adapt it to a more contexualised setting
The art would not be true to its original, traditional spirit if it failed to recognize and deal with new threats such as guns. If guns had been around and available back in the day of the Shaolin monks, you better believe they'd have had a target range set up in back of the temple. They probably would've been the best shots around, too. Of course, it doesn't really take much skill to pull a trigger. Defending against a gun, however, is another story.
My school is fully traditional and knife fighting is included in the system, which does make sense since knives has been part of human society since the stoneage. Guns on the other hand ... I'd give up my wallet and pride anytime!
Very well said. Any martial arts needs to adapt, change and evolve in order for it to remain 'viable', especially in todays society which seems to be getting more and more violent. :woo:
Put in quite a complicated way, but essentially correct. You adapt your 'traditional' principals to your environment.
The main thing styles have to adapt to in the modern day is lazy students . Traditional training tries to instill in you the virtues of the ancient fighters. Do not worry about fitting in to the strictures of modernity. Modernity isn't a thing of itself - it's a state of mind. Modern is just new/current and traditional is, if you make it, old/current. I distrust new, unless it's a computer game. Ok, firearm disarms are a good idea but remember: projectile weapons aren't new. Catapults, darts, bows and cross-bows, shurikens, boomerangs, knives, tomahawks and others all pre-date firearms by anything up to millennia. (I'm reminded of the atlatl I used to make and play with when I was a kid http://www.hollowtop.com/atlatlbob.htm except I used string as the handle part.) That's a weapon that makes you feel bionic when you see the range you get. Rgds, David
Just to be pedantic about this.... there are shaolin monks around today. They don't practice fire-arms training. That said, I get what you mean and it's a good point. I'll have to take issue with this too. There's alot to know about fire-arms, which is useful whether your using them or defending yourself from them. A weapon like that is dangerous, but far more dangerous in the hands of an expert than a novice. On the original topic of the thread, having a MA adapt to new threats is never a problem IMO. The only problems arise when they do so in an unrealistic way (like try to use existing moves from the system just because they're part of the system as opposed to being particularily suited to the purpose). Also, I'm pretty sure that early shaolin monks had to deal with knives. They're not a particularily modern weapon.
of course, if one is one day in a position where there is no option but to defend oneself against a gun (not that most of us will ever be there) then a certain knowledge of guns would always be useful. could help the eagle eyed tell the difference between a super soaker and an m16
Teaching people to defend against guns and knives is not a good idea in my opinion. It provides them with a false sense of security. Gun and Knife training should only be for police or military or people who have a basic unarmed combat skill. Getting cut with a knife is easy. For someone who has been training a year or so to try to fight with a knife guy is gonna end up being big trouble. The unarmed skills translate over to weapons naturally anyways. I was arguing with a guy. He reached into his pocket and pulled something out. I didn't know what it was except it looked metallic. I backed away keeping my eyes on him the entire time. I picked up a stick off the ground, keeping my eyes on him the entire time. We argued some more and then he began to advance on me. Without even thinking about it I slammed him with the stick. I saw his shoulder begin to move forward and there was no way that hand with the metallic object was going to get anywhere close to me. He tried again and I hit him with the stick again. It was a few feet long so whatever that metallic thing was, I had more range, He could not get in. If I had tried that with my arms only, I think he would have cut me.
If i wanted to learn how to defend against a gun or knife id go to self defense or law enforcement classes. If i wanted to learn kung fu, id go to a kung fu class.
What BillyJohnston said. When fighting against guns and knives, it's far too easy to get serious hurt. With a hammer or a baseball bat, it's all about force - something your martial arts trains you for. But how do you block some thing that can cut through what you block with? If you're VERY good you can try and get control of their arm before they can hurt you, but I doubt that I'll ever be in a situation where I can do that comfortably.
It seems to me, from a historical perspective, that "Traditional" is a relative matter. For example, the martial arts of the Qing Dynasty were quite different from those of the Ming Dynasty, both in the ways they were tought and what they focused on (for example, weapons became less prevelent in the Qing Dynasty, so empty hand became more important). They adapted to the times, but does that mean that the Qing Dynasty martial arts were "nontradtional"? Just some food for thought on the issue.
Weather or not being strictly traditional is a big deal depends on you and what you want to study. Guns were introduced into china while Martial arts were still the main way of fighting so some gun defenses and disarms can actual be traditional.
very well said man.Just give your wallet and let go of your pride when someone points a gun at you...
This is right on the money. The concept of a "traditional art" is a relatively new creation. The history of the Chinese martial arts (and most martial arts in general) is one of constant evolution based on environmental and cultural factors (see TheMightyMcClaw's analysis). Efforts to suspend such evolution are if anything counter traditional in my opinion. On to knife and gun defenses. I disagree with the notion that teaching them is a dangerous thing. Reckless teaching of them is. However, many Filipino systems and western programs like S.T.A.B. have done an excellent job creating a solid approach to surviving weapons encounters. It's rediculous, and counter to the idea of our arts, to simply throw up our hands and say that something is undefendable. It also invests far too much power in the weapon (arguable fetishizing it and only adds to gun culture myths). - Matt
also on the money, the whole reason that their are 1.6 million CMA's (note figures maybe inflated) is that they where one day in the nmiddle of defendeing their lives and all of a sudden they thought, "bugger me, that would work" and hence tradition was born
