Should the arts evolve?

[sensei8]

It's impossible to not evolve the art, and trying to hold the art rigid is likely to create twisted bits of silliness.None of the context is stationary. The material will be received differently by students than it was by the teachers. "ancient tradition" is a bit of a conceit.

Everything, including evolving of the art, is impossible; nothing's guaranteed, imho!! It's a hopeful thing, if nothing else.

[bushido_man96]

I think the Arts should evolve. We discover new ways to do things better all the time in many facets of our lives. The training of Martial Arts shouldn't be treated any different. I don't mind tradition, but to remain stagnant in adherence to tradition doesn't really benefit anyone.

[tallgeese]

I couldn't agree more.

Think about this analogy. Both combative firearms and martial arts are designed to deal with deadly force encounters. Both fill different ranges of the same core issue. Deadly force against you.

Now, what if we did not push firearms training forward and just trained as they did in the late 1800's or even early 1900's? What if we ignored the technology livable to us and what it could do and still shot revolved type side arms is a single handed grip. Is that most effective for dealing with a deadly force threat in today's world? Of course not. No one trains like that.

Why do the same with unarmed arts?

Now, the argument becomes that the weapon is a technological piece of gear so the analogy doesn't hold. Okay, let's just look at the training and take the machine out of it.

Heading into WW I we trained sliders (and cops) to shoot at bulls eye targets. This lead to radically high non-shooting numbers when soldiers were confronted with deadly force. Now, we realized this and moved to more and more realistic targets. We then watched the percentage of non-firing soldiers go down and down with each training leap we made.

Forget what they are shooting. It's irrelevant. It's the type of training that they were doing that mattered. It is so widely accepted now that there is case law on how LE has to train based on this sort of thing. It's light years beyond how we trained even two decades ago. Let alone the '70s. By the time you look back to the late 1800's it's a different language altogether.

Someone training in that method would be hamstrung fighting today's CQB incidents involving police. Forget the equipment (although it makes a world of difference as well) just look at how far behind the TRAINING curve that individual would be.

Yet when we argue that martial arts should not evolve that's the type of thing we set ourselves up for. The use of outdated training to prepare us for today's conflicts.

Take a look at how we're changing training in LE even today to account for what psychology and neuro-anatomy can tell us about the bodies reaction to combat stress. Those intellectual leaps are changing training. Force Science Institute is one of the front runners on leading these changes. Logical, operational changes to tactics and training based on empirical evidence.

It's how we progress, we listen to current understanding and make things better. I think a better question, based on what we're seeing in other combat arenas and how much better quality warrior's we're turning out is "Why wouldn't you want an art to evolve?"

Again, looking at martial arts thru the lens of combat readiness.

[sensei8]

I couldn't agree more.

Think about this analogy. Both combative firearms and martial arts are designed to deal with deadly force encounters. Both fill different ranges of the same core issue. Deadly force against you.

Now, what if we did not push firearms training forward and just trained as they did in the late 1800's or even early 1900's? What if we ignored the technology livable to us and what it could do and still shot revolved type side arms is a single handed grip. Is that most effective for dealing with a deadly force threat in today's world? Of course not. No one trains like that.

Why do the same with unarmed arts?

Now, the argument becomes that the weapon is a technological piece of gear so the analogy doesn't hold. Okay, let's just look at the training and take the machine out of it.

Heading into WW I we trained sliders (and cops) to shoot at bulls eye targets. This lead to radically high non-shooting numbers when soldiers were confronted with deadly force. Now, we realized this and moved to more and more realistic targets. We then watched the percentage of non-firing soldiers go down and down with each training leap we made.

Forget what they are shooting. It's irrelevant. It's the type of training that they were doing that mattered. It is so widely accepted now that there is case law on how LE has to train based on this sort of thing. It's light years beyond how we trained even two decades ago. Let alone the '70s. By the time you look back to the late 1800's it's a different language altogether.

Someone training in that method would be hamstrung fighting today's CQB incidents involving police. Forget the equipment (although it makes a world of difference as well) just look at how far behind the TRAINING curve that individual would be.

Yet when we argue that martial arts should not evolve that's the type of thing we set ourselves up for. The use of outdated training to prepare us for today's conflicts.

Take a look at how we're changing training in LE even today to account for what psychology and neuro-anatomy can tell us about the bodies reaction to combat stress. Those intellectual leaps are changing training. Force Science Institute is one of the front runners on leading these changes. Logical, operational changes to tactics and training based on empirical evidence.

It's how we progress, we listen to current understanding and make things better. I think a better question, based on what we're seeing in other combat arenas and how much better quality warrior's we're turning out is"Why wouldn't you want an art to evolve?"

Again, looking at martial arts thru the lens of combat readiness.

Super solid post...I thank you for it!!

I want the ART to evolve, but I must evole first...imho!!

[inventor]

How many practitioners of a traditional martial art, understand the art well enough to contemplate modifying it?

[tallgeese]

Hopfully, anyone who's earned a couple of dan grades or so. That's what we're saying at a certain level, right? That one understands the art they practice and the hows and whys of it?

[Howard]

There are many traditions that can be maintained such as bowing, showing respect, even sing the language of the country of origin.

These can be maintained while modifying and adding things to make the art more effective.

I am really fascinated by your opinion about revolution must needed in traditional martial arts because if we rely on traditional martial tactics it won't be very effective according to today's world demand and don't able to face robbers, criminal or any kind of emergency situation.

[sensei8]

There are many traditions that can be maintained such as bowing, showing respect, even sing the language of the country of origin.

These can be maintained while modifying and adding things to make the art more effective.

I am really fascinated by your opinion about revolution must needed in traditional martial arts because if we rely on traditional martial tactics it won't be very effective according to today's world demand and don't able to face robbers, criminal or any kind of emergency situation.

I disagree with this because the worlds demand isn't knowledgeable enough concerning the MA, let alone traditional MA, imho!!

Imho, traditional techniques are effective. While they may have been developed from empirical data collected during, or as a result of conflict, they have a sound basis in physics and medical science, especially when it comes to atemi and torite techniques.

It is widely understood that technique should be synchronized with breathing for the greatest effect. In ths simplest form this involves linking exhalation with offensive technique, the effect of which is to scatter the energy over the surface of the opponent's body. In its more advanced form, offensive technique is linked with inhalation, and the effect created is extremely penetrating. It feels almost as if one is punching right through the opponent's body at the moment of impact. To practice this synchronicity with breathing. Sanchin is very important and Tensho is even more important than Sanchin for inhalation techniques. So we practice Tensho a great deal in Shindokan advanced black belt classes.

Edited July 25, 2013 by sensei8

[andym]

Sorry I'm a bit late to this one, so I might be repeating what others have said. But, at a simple level, is it the art that evolves or the martial artist ? I think the martial artist evolves as part of a natural process and thus the art evolves. This is not the same as a deliberately thought-out, I will do, this needs changing, that needs adding, process.

[bushido_man96]

How many practitioners of a traditional martial art, understand the art well enough to contemplate modifying it?

A few things here.

1. There are arts out there that wouldn't be deemed "traditional," but are instead rooted in the type of techniques and training tactics used by LEOs and armed forces. There needn't be any kind of traditional background to begin with.

2. I don't think I need to totally come to a complete understanding of my TKD training or my Hapkido training to realize if it is going to suit my needs in combat. Lets take same very basic points of emphasis from my TKD class. a) no shoes allowed in class b) bowing c) 90% of the class is done in a solo manner, i.e., basics with no partner, forms with no partner. Then we get into the problem with sparring and one-steps: one attack, and then a pre-planned defense for one-steps, and sparring is rules based, semi-contact, no kicks below the belt, no hand techniques to the head.

So, in my years of TKD training, I can see holes that aren't helping me become a better fighter when it comes to self-defense. Which will benefit me more at this point in my training, continuing to refine my stepping punch in a front stance, or working some jabs and crosses with a moving partner holding pads, who also throws out a punch I have to defend? Or, a pre-planned one-step defense against a stepping punch thrown from a "bad guy" standing in a front stance and down block, rather than a scenario based "one-step" in which the "bad guy" is talking crap, getting animated, and then attacks or is deterred by some verbal judo?

So, as you can see, it isn't too difficult to find issues in traditional styles. These are just examples from my TKD training, and will not be conducive to all traditional styles. All I'm saying is that if you analyze what you are doing, you can take a good honest look and see what and where a shift in training will be beneficial to students.