The best of the new is the long forgotten old

[Maciej]

it's a russian saying.

 

It applies interestingly to martial arts. If you seek actual fighting efficiency, you have to look in the very old or in the

 

very new.

 

Why the old?

 

The oldest art is Kung Fu. But what is kung fu? The name applies to every single chinese martial art. What

 

was kung fu in the streets of old China (a place more brutal and dangerous than Bronx and Queen melt

 

together)? Simply survival. The temples took the techs, inventend new ones and sharpened the old ones, but

 

kung fu lived before Shaolin. Despite the common opinion, kung fu is far from outdated... at least, ironically, the

 

OLDEST forms of kung fu.. and ironically the most rare. I'm talking Snake here, which is almost pure Dim Mak,

 

being a blend of two VERY old snake styles. Even more so, I'm talking Eagle. This particular style is hardly

 

taught anymore not because it's outdated, but just because it's too lethal and relatively easy to learn! It's a

 

fierce ripping system, aiming mostly at throat and eyes (but not lacking other targets), and doing so with the

 

utmost efficiency. Those of you who have confidence with military training will recognize the spirit. You will also

 

know that this kind of apporach worked on the fields and on the streets all across the world. There are other

 

examples, but enough with kung fu now.

 

Muay Thai is an art for the ring now. Fierce, efficient, fearful, but still for the ring, and incomplete. OLD Muay

 

Thai, on the other side, had pretty much EVERYTHING, including weapon training, quite a bit more grappling,

 

and finger strikes, and ground techs. It was the art used in war.. exactly like Hsing I in China.

 

The evolution of both Kung Fu and Muay Thai brought them far from their original purpose, ironically.

 

I could go on... there are several other archaic forms of fighting doing far too well on the field.. quite probably

 

better than some of those that followed them (the first forms of jujitsu for instance, ninjutsu...).

 

What's in the middle?

 

In the middle... well, we have karate, judo, taekwondo, modern Muay Thai, Savate... I do not believe they are

 

as good on the street as their ancestors (please, do not flame me, I'm going to explain my reasons soon).

 

Why? Simply because they were not tested on the street, or on the fields. I respect all of the arts I quoted, and

 

greatly. I believe they are practical, and good means of self defense. Yet, much of the street-wise components

 

were lost in the codification, or intentionally breeded out because of the aim for which the art was created. Judo

 

lacks punches and kicks (at least in the non combat version) because Jigoro Kano wanted a mean of self

 

growth without the risk of injury to his students. Karate incluldes a LOT of that deadly kung fu, but then again

 

you see that stuff only in katas... and you are never really taught how to use it. Many styles have developed

 

such a love of stability that they end up lacking some mobility. And you do lack ground fighting and quite some

 

grappling...

 

Above anything else, in _most_ of these arts you do not learn any kind of weapon... and you often CAN get

 

yourself some kind of weapon on the field.

 

Please, feel free to counter me on this, or on the rest for the matter. Just a theory of mine, let's discuss it

 

friendly...

[AnonymousOne]

I would not agree that Chinese arts are the oldest. History shows that the Mesopotanians had a martial art thousands of years BC.

 

China got its arts from India and its thought that India got its arts from Greece because of the trading and sharing of cultures.

 

The Gladiators had a highly developed art with and without weapons.

 

Martial arts are far older than many think

 

 

[Joecooke007]

Whew you really know your stuff! Good article.