shango

Your previous response below reads: Here, you said "swords." That is what prompted the wording of my response. I don't think anyone is claiming that MMA has reinvented the wheel of Martial Arts. What MMA has done, however, is look at the way training is done, and how it can be done to focus on Martial success in the competitive environment, as well as in self-defense. I disagree once again. I don't think the lack of a forms curriculum in MMA, or other more "traditional" training aspects degrades to mere brawling. The athletes involved spend way to much time training for it to be considered brawling. The reality of combat is chaos, and this is seen in the competitive MMA environment; its rarely pretty, in either sense. The beauty is in the intricacies of subtle movements that shift weight, targets, and hence strategy just enough to tip the balance of a fight to the favor of the victor. Another important point is the need to realize that in the higher levels of MMA, the competitors are so advanced that the lay person may not understand the intricacies of what the combatants are doing in order to get an advantage on the other. I would also note that there is no reason the techniques MMA fighters learn wouldn't work for self-defense; there have been several articles posted about demonstrating how some fighters have defended themselves successfully. As far as teachers being like fathers goes...that's up to the interpretation of each individual for themselves. I don't really want a father figure as a teacher; I'm a grown man who doesn't really need to have my views and philosophies on life altered by another. I want a competent teacher that teaches well, and knows his stuff, and is an above-board type of person. All of the aspects of traditional training have actual applications in contemporary confrontations. At the advanced level of the training process, any similar object can be used for self-defense purposes. Kalaripayattu, Thang Ta, the African art of the Kadiang society, that of the Kako of Central African Republic, Libanda and the traditional forms of Chinese Nei/Wu Shu are complete forms of combat which have effective self-defense applications. Sword and knife study have extremely lethal applications, at least that of which I am familiar. All of the systems I have noted above contain the full range of combat scenarios, one need only study them properly and at the length an individual requires in order to learn these. As far as learning from a father figure, that is part of the guidance of a seasoned exponent. Most cultures understand that experts in the field will represent the wisdom on the battlefield experienced by older veterans of combat, something not likely partaken by junior members of a society. It's not enough to be proficient in how to use a technique in a "friendly" atmosphere, but when to use it that is just as ( if not more) important as regards fighting. Many times more injury then needed to be has been inflicted on someone because an exponent lacked the maturity in properly evaluating when to use a technique, a factor that seems to come more out of the Western/U.S mindset then from anywhere else. Ones manhood relative to combat is only important as it regards actual experience. It has little to do with ego. Most younger people lack the patience to see the whole picture of combat, looking forward to, instead, a victorious outcome. Few have the wisdom to be proficient beyond the x-y and zs of combat. This last factor is a part of the art of combat, not just the "hows," but the "whys" of it. Thank you for the discourse.

Agreed that there are quite a few martial arts which do not feature weapons work. My point, first of all, is that the newbie MMA is not inventing the wheel, so to speak. Most martial arts feature the varied ranges of combat MMA is supposed to have invented/reinvented. Perhaps folks need to study longer, or find qualified instructors to teach the complete curriculum. As for swords, I said nothing about them. My exact words were bladed weapons: which means knives/daggers and such which can be translated into the usage of other sharp implements-razors, keys, etc. More people have access to knives than guns; certainly guns are a prominent factor. That said, MMA is primarily a display of personal martial bravado, not much art. To me, it is a gladitorial brawl. There are more to martial arts than physical prowes. There is the use of techniques for self-defense, the defense of ones community, and the life long lessons one gains from a responsible teacher (whom, in effect, should be like a father). But, that's another matter. MA has not reinvented the wheel. If you have practiced a traditional form of Kung Fu, for example, and have not reached a level of self defense to thwart an attack, reexamine your training, instructor, or version of the system you have learned. Traditional arts for the most part contain all you need to meet most confrontational situations.

I'll second others. Two decades is quite a bit of time for a fad to run. You have to remember that it's a combat art designed for a narrow set of parameters where weapons aren't allowed. It'd be a waste of training time for them to worry about it. As for battlefield arts already having what MMA currently has I disagree. Regardless of the theory behind several arts, you didn't see any of them do well in early UFCs. Zip. No traditional "battlefield art" despite it's claims of supremacy in a single range or those claiming "grappling" as part of their art managed to come away well represented. Some of this has to do with training methods. I've argued this before (respectfully) that most trad arts are behind (or were) the curve compared to the direction that MMA took with it's very high value on live training. So many battlefield dirivitive systems lack the level of live training associated with MMA gyms. This makes a difference. MMA, fad or system, probably has it's biggest, lasting influence in the realm of martial arts in this aspect. You're talking about a sport, not lethal combat. Lethal combat is no holds barred. That means swords, knives, daggers and techniques that would be illegal in any MMA confrontation. If you do not train to cut flesh with a sharp, bladed weapon then you will not be prepared to face one in a real confrontation where there are no rounds to end the conflict. I am not arguing the power of the art in the ring, but it cannot be called MMA if it does not include all ranges and dynamics of combat, and if these ranges have already existed (they have and had), then it did not invent the wheel. This is my point.

I don't think Cassius Clay had experience in African Martial Arts. As far as his Boxing skills went, he used great footwork, and the ability to bob and weave to evade strikes, reducing the number of direct powerful hits he took considerably. The understanding of body movements relative to spinal and hip flexibility is a hallmark of African dance, much of which has direct relationships with traditional African martial arts (as in "Sanguar," the ability to use a thousand twists and dodging movements to evade blows, also found in Libanda). Perhaps he may not directly had, but his understanding of it in combat harkens back to an African sensibility regarding such movement in combat. Spacial awareness is a direct result of this sense of the body and how, therefore, to apply movement in physical combat. In otherwords, his understanding of this type of movement did not come out of a cultural vacuum.

This is why you'll find in traditional African martial arts the concept of the body moving as if it has no bones. There is an African martial arts evasion technique wherein one evades blows by moving the shoulders, spine, etc., in a snake like manner. Power, in the African systems, is derived from flexible joints (the hips) moved in or out of the direction of attack. Black boxers like Muhammed Ali exemplified some of this African martial concept in their boxing styles.

I have a problem with this whole fad. I cannot think of a single battlefield system which would not already feature what this Johnie-come-lately has claimed to have invented/reinvented: grappling with striking. In fact, lacking weapons training, I would argue that the MMA fad is not really "MMA" enough.

The ARMA was the one addressed here. Certainly there are others. In New York, there's Master At Armes Ramon Martinez Renaissance Martial Arts school. He comes from an actual Western martial arts lineage in addition to his reconstruction research, as opposed to one only reconstructing Western martial arts.

Soceities developed martial arts based on need...The word civilization is used too often to know exactly what each individual using that term means by it. Micronesians developed Bwang, but would not have a society which took the path some would accept as a civilization. Bwang, according to the works of William Lessa, was a highly evolved Micronesian martial art which survives throughout the various Micronesian atolls to this day (such as in Truk). That's just one example. We may have to change our current, often outdated views relative to how and why our species developed (and continue to develope) the cultural practices we have so far documented.

Right. Its basically stick fighting with armor on. Still, its a ton of fun! I can remember the bruises and batterings I took when we did it. I still have stick swords, shields, and armor in my garage, waiting for the dust to be knocked off.... I believe there are enclaves throughout the U.S. and Europe now; finding a branch in your general area shouldn't be that difficult if you forward requests for interaction on arma's site directly.

The ARMA, formerly the HACA, was founded by John Clements, is based out of the U.S. (Texas, if memory serves me correctly). They are not a reinactment group but researchers reconstructing the authentic western martial arts traditions (at least as they see it). Peace