Why and What of techniques; learning to understand them...

[JusticeZero]

However, in being a TKD practitioner, I've found that the history that is taught can be a bit suspect at times.

That means you are actually learning history. History is about what really happenned, not propaganda stories. It's a shame that they don't teach all that much history in grade school, instead teaching a certain specific sanitized and often inaccurate story which is honestly a lot less interesting and impressive than the real thing. I don't remember reading much about the native americans in high school, and a lot of what everybody knows about history has been found to be somewhat outmoded. Revere rode with a lot of other people and was probably immortalized in spite of his performance, not because of it, because his name rhymed. There were several U.S. presidents before George Washington. The most important factor in womnens liberation was very possibly the invention of Dunlop's pneumatic bicycle tire. History is important to learn; propaganda stories with suspect origins aren't history.

[bushido_man96]

You're spot on about the propaganda. And I do enjoy history, for the most part. I'm more interested in the warrior culture and histories of civilizations more than anything.

[DWx]

Great topic.

I'm a bit late to the party but have some thoughts on a couple of things:

Now, for most of you that have posted here for long enough to know my take on things, you probably realize why this passage got my attention. To me, self-defense is the first line of what a Martial Art is supposed to by. If you aren't learning self-defense, then you are really just exercising. I also take a bit of an issue with the idea that if you only learn self-defense, then you aren't learning a Martial Art. This idea bugs me as well.

Although I have no issue with someone studying a martial arts primarily for self defense, I don't think it's fair to say that if you aren't learning self defense then you are just exercising. Martial arts encompass so much more than that and there are many different reasons for people to study. Yes self defense can be a focus but Karate, Judo, TKD, Kung Fu are all art forms too. As such, just like dancing or painting or playing an instrument, martial arts are also about expression and can be an art form to be mastered, not just exercise. Studying a style in this way can involve more of a focus on preserving technique and history rather than studying it for self defense. TBH some martial arts aren't even that relevant as a self defense system nowadays anyway because they were developed in a different era for different situations but that shouldn't mean you're not doing martial arts if you study them.

Also the problem I have with this statement is that some martial arts weren't developed for self defense anyway. Ninjitsu wasn't for self defense - it was for espionage and assassination. Boxing developed as a combat sport and not self defense style.

I suppose in a way this kind of also goes back to that thread on whether Karate has no soul without kata. If you aren't studying the system in it's entirety when does it stop being Karate and become just techniques?

My question is this: how is it that if I spend lots of time drilling a technique in the realm of self-defense scenarios over and over again, analyzing how it works in response to different scenarios, attacks, angles, etc, how is it that I am NOT learning the "what" and "why" of the techniques? How is it that I am also not going to gain as much "understanding" by learning the self-defense aspects of techniques?

As far as this goes, I kinda agree with him. Largely because there can be reasons buried in the history, philosophy or culture surrounding a style that mean things are taught in a specific way. And often, either due to ignorance or sometimes to justify the way things are done, people give meanings to things which are plain wrong or make little sense! Or things are done in a way that is no longer all that relevant. But without looking more into the whole style and not just the self defense component, you might not explore this.

For example, for both of us, since we both do TKD and the same forms, it's worth remembering that the vast majority of it comes from Karate (Shotokan). I don't know about you but the idea of the non-punching arm being used to pull the opponent isn't something which is taught specifically in my TKD or looking at those crossed-arm chambers for blocks, the idea of them being a trap or part of a tuite sequence isn't taught either. Yet it can be applied to that move. Without studying more outside the self defense focus and looking at the martial art as a whole the you'd be unlikely to find that info yet it will only strengthen your self defense.

[bushido_man96]

What it appears to sound like to me is that if one is studying to learn self-defense, then they aren't studying Martial Arts, and that's what bugs me. Ninjitsu, although a style with a specialized focus, did contain techniques that were combat techniques, whether with weapons or hands. It was a broad skill set, but yes, still Martial Artists.

The idea behind a Martial Art, if it is going to be titled as such, was that it has Martial application in some way, shape, or form, for fighting. Otherwise, I just don't see how you can attach the name to it. I do agree that there are other reasons to study Martial Arts nowadays; for personal expression, for exercise, for sport, etc. But, at the very base of it, learning applicable self-defense should be at least a side affect of learning a Martial Art. If its not, then I just can't call it that.

Yes, Boxing is a combat sport, but it has evolved over the years, and in its beginning, it was a more inclusive, well-rounded fighting style that was self-defense. Even Medieval Combat styles, including sword combat, can be applicable in the use of sticks in self-defense.

For example, for both of us, since we both do TKD and the same forms, it's worth remembering that the vast majority of it comes from Karate (Shotokan). I don't know about you but the idea of the non-punching arm being used to pull the opponent isn't something which is taught specifically in my TKD or looking at those crossed-arm chambers for blocks, the idea of them being a trap or part of a tuite sequence isn't taught either. Yet it can be applied to that move. Without studying more outside the self defense focus and looking at the martial art as a whole the you'd be unlikely to find that info yet it will only strengthen your self defense.

I think we have different points of view here. I think that by looking at the moves from a self-defense perspective, you can derive what the moves mean, and how to apply them in self-defense aspects. We both appear to be arriving at the same place, with different points of view.

I guess this would sum up my view on this whole argument: it appears that it is ok to learn a Martial Art as "a way of life," and study and cling to all the aspects of the philosophies and ideals of said style (which is really nothing more than the thoughts and beliefs of the person who didn't even necessarily create the style, but was able to codify it to the point of bringing it to the public), with self-defense as a secondary or tertiary aspect, and one is referred to as a Martial Artist. But if one is learning the self-defense aspects of the Martial Arts first and foremost, and doesn't necessarily give a lick about someone's ideals, philosophies, and history, more often than not, many are reluctant to refer to them as a Martial Artist, but rather as just a person who fights. I just don't agree with this, and think it is a short-sighted point of view.