Is experience really essential?

[Shizentai]

Does a lack of experience using martial arts in live situations or full-contact type bouts really disqualify someone from being a knowledgeable and skilled martial artist? How about as an instructor?

There are two ways I'd like to divide up this question:

1. Would a competition/street-fight inexperienced person be to teach students how to win in a competition or a street fight?

2. Can a competition/street-fight inexperienced person have insight into marital arts in general?

1. I think the best way to learn to compete is by being taught by people who have competed well. I think the best way to learn how to deal with self-defense is to be taught by people who have successfully defend themselves against the threats you'd like to defend yourself against (guns, knives, empty hand, multiple attackers, throws, etc.).

...but, that's not all a martial art is.

I wouldn't dismiss a martial artist who's never used their craft on the street, or in a ring as "fake." On some level, "art" is the key part of "martial art."

^ this is kind of getting at my thoughts on number 2.

I remember the first time I heard the definition of "do" that really rang home with me. I mean, I can read kanji. I know it means "road" or "way," but up till I was almost a ni-dan I interpreted the deeper side of "karate-do" as "karate is a way of life." which... isn't wrong, but wasn't really complete either.

While on a business trip, I decided to visit a nearby friend and instructor who grew up in Japan. I arrived early to take his advanced class. At this time he was finishing up with the kids' class, and had all of them sitting around in a circle. He asked them "What is 'do' from "karatedo'." One kid said "way," another kid said "journey," but this wasn't the answer he was looking for. The instructor proceeded on to explain that "do" implied that whatever else the activity was used for before in terms of practical application, people had changed their reason for practicing it over time to something independent from that original purpose. He said that the act of practicing "do" becomes its own meditative and complete experience in and of itself.

This kind of blew my mind. It was something I kind of knew deep down to be the case, but I never had heard the words or ideas so well formed in that manner. I myself appreciate the times in my life that karate has spared me from harm, but I don't keep coming back to the dojo because I'm banking on being attacked in the future to make it all worth while. I don't keep coming to the dojo because I can't get enough medals. ...it's something else. I'm pretty sure it's "do." After than I began to think about many other types of "do" and to think about the common threads it has with karate.

To answer the original question, I think having experience as a streetfighter helps you master "jutsu" (practical use). However, I don't think you need to be a competitor or a street fighter to get and to teach "do." Each is its own thing, and technically a competition could judge either, depending on what type of competition it is.

...but a person can have one, both, or neither. Both are good.

For reference check out these really striking videos of other "do"

kyudo -

sado -

judo -

[Spartacus Maximus]

maybe this will complicate the initial subject, but here is a follow-up question: How about someone who lacks experience, but was taught by an instructor who does? If the instructor has experience(competition or whatever else) and is a competent teacher, should it not follow that the student's skills be credible and legitimate even though said students do not have their teacher's experience of applying their skills?