|
|
Author: Bret Gordon
The second episode of the new "Martial Twilight" video podcast with my instructor Steven Hatfield and myself is live! Join us as we continue the discussion on the rabbit hole that is self defense, and why most martial artists don't actually teach it...
0 Comments
Author: Bret Gordon
The first episode of the new "Martial Twilight" video podcast with my instructor Steven Hatfield and myself is live! Join us as we discuss the rabbit hole that is self defense, and why most martial artists don't actually teach it...
Author: Bret Gordon  There is a current trend in the martial arts community to want to separate martial arts from self defense. On one hand, "martial artists" want to separate themselves so that they aren't held accountable for their students being unable to defend themselves. On the other, self defense enthusiasts want to emphasize what they do is meant to prepare you to survive a violent encounter and has nothing to do with the strip-mall kiddie karate that permeates the country. They are both missing the mark.
Martial arts are quite literally skills of war. Since the beginning of codified fighting systems, martial arts have been developed for both unarmed and armed combat. Their sole purpose for existing is to train the individual to survive. Now in our civilized society we have decided to focus on the side effects of martial arts training, such as character and personal development, etc. But in truth, that's like eating a side salad without the steak and potatoes. No one doubts the tremendous and countless benefits that the martial arts has on your life, but the essence cannot be lost... And that essence is to give you the tools to protect yourself and the ones you love. Of course, this has opened the door for MMA to steal the spotlight claiming to be the most realistic form of training around. While we can certainly debate that for a host of reasons, like the fact that fighting a consensual one-on-one unarmed encounter on a padded floor with ample space couldn't be farther from the reality of the majority of violent attacks, the foundation of the argument comes down to one simple truth: individuals who train to fight often fight more in training. They consistently test their training against opponents who are actively resisting. But why can't we do that as well? Author: Bret Gordon I want to give a shout-out to Ryan Hoover from Fit to Fight® for one of the realist things that has ever been said in the martial arts community. In his video below, he sheds light on the unnecessary obsession with lineage and credentials that seems to permeate through the martial arts and is the source of countless internet trolls rushing to their keyboards to prove their piece of paper is more important than your piece of paper. The truth is that rank, titles or licenses never saved someone's life. The only thing that truly matters as a martial artist and instructor are your physical skills and knowledge, and your ability to impart that skill and knowledge to your students so they can protect themselves and their families. The rest is immaterial...
Author: Bret Gordon  With the explosion of the internet, social media is flooded with videos of martial artists from around the world demonstrating their art. This has also coincided with the rise of MMA, which has challenged the validity and practicality of many styles and their training methods (rightfully so). There are now entire websites and pages dedicated to exposing "frauds" in the martial arts. Unfortunately, because of the prevalence of MMA they don't always get it right. A common sentiment is that if you're not training BJJ, what you study is garbage. I get it, we're all partial to the arts we study. If we didn't think it was advantageous to do it, why would we? But the terms "real" and "practical" get thrown around a lot, and in this article I want to clarify the two because they are not the same thing.
For something to be real, it means that it is genuine. What you just saw really happened, and it was not faked or contrived. That said, not everything that is real is practical. For something to be practical, in a martial sense, it must be viable for self defense or survival in a live, violent encounter against another human being with malicious intent. Therefore, it is entirely possible for something to be real but not practical. That said, practicality is determined by the context something is being practiced for. You would not judge the practicality of archery by whether or not you can fire an arrow inside the Octagon. No one denies the efficiency of a side kick to the xiphoid process, except when there's a gun pointed to your head. Context is everything. In order to demonstrate the difference between real and practical, let's look at everyone's favorite subject: "No Touch" techniques. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you've probably been living under a rock but to summarize, there are countless videos of martial artists using "chi" to move or throw another person without actually touching them. Now, there have been videos done where independent third parties have come in with medical equipment and detected measurable effects on the recipients of these techniques that otherwise have no explanation. That said, it was not able to be replicated on someone from the outside. Does this mean it was fake? No. Something happened. There was a physical, biological response to the stimuli offered by the person executing the technique. Because of its inability to be replicated with those who have not been initiated into the school, we can conclude that the response was triggered psychologically. The power of the human mind is something we still struggle to fully grasp, and if one believes they will be affected by something, they usually are. Author: Bret Gordon  One can hardly take part in a martial arts class, self defense seminar or anti-bullying clinic without becoming familiar with the phrase "Stranger Danger." As kids, we're taught never to accept gifts from strangers or get in their car. Of course these are valuable lessons, but are we avoiding the real threats? It's easy and neatly packaged to say those who are threat to you are strangers, but that's not what the statistics show.
Let's break it down:
Do violent attacks happen by strangers? Yes, however as you can see, they only account for a relatively small number of violent crimes. Unfortunately, that brings up a rather uncomfortable discussion. How do you tell children that the ones they love and trust are most likely to hurt them? Yeah, it sucks, but these are the conversations we need to be having with our children. We need to teach them to be vigilant and speak up if they feel uncomfortable, and not dismiss those feelings when we're told. But are we in the martial arts community at fault too?
Author: Bret Gordon
The deeper I go in my study of Aiki Jujutsu and internal power, the more styles of internal arts I've encountered. Lately, I seem to have gotten myself immersed in the Chinese internal arts community and have even taken up a cursory study of Baguazhang to help expand and refine my develop of aiki. The more I watch and engage with other internal practitioners, however, the more I notice a rather unsettling trend that's not unlike the rest of the martial arts community... The complete abandonment of practical martial application.
I've written countless articles thus far stressing the importance of maintaining practical and intensive training for self protection as a large part of your martial arts study, and the internal martial arts are not exempt from this. Let's not forget that the word "martial" implies a combative context and to ignore that section of the art (which in this context refers to a skill or discipline) is to do a great disservice to those who came before us and the legacy they left behind. While it's true that most martial arts are descended from combat systems, the internal martial arts have historically held a place of significance in protecting those of high stature. In Japan, the Minamoto and Takeda clans were charged as Imperial guards. They trained in the art of Oshiki Uchi (also known as Gotenjutsu) to protect the Emperor and/or Shogun for over 700 years according to oral tradition, an art that later became Daito Ryu - the root of all Japanese aiki arts. In China, Dong Haichuan was charged with teaching his art of Baguazhang to the guards after winning patronage by the Imperial court. Even Okinawa has its own internal martial arts tradition, Motobu Udundi, that was used for the same purpose. The internal martial arts were chosen for this purpose because of their superiority in allowing the practitioner to counter conventional fighting techniques through the use of structure and respond with devastating results. So how did the elite fighting system of the historical Secret Service equivalent become the laughing stock of the martial arts today, and how do we fix it? Author: Bret Gordon  Jujutsu, also commonly spelled "Jiu Jitsu" and "Jujitsu," is quickly becoming one of the most popular martial arts today. When most people think of jujutsu, they think of Brazilian or Gracie Jiu Jitsu, but the truth is that is just one variation in the large pool of jujutsu systems. So first, we must identify what is jujutsu and then we can discuss its numerous benefits!
Simply put, jujutsu (meaning “gentle art”) is any Japanese-based unarmed martial art that focuses heavily on joint manipulation and throwing techniques rather than striking. The Korean equivalent of jujutsu is yusul, and the Chinese equivalent is qin na. Regardless of origin, the idea of using “soft” techniques rather than “hard” striking gives one a great advantage... Jujutsu is one of the most effective self defense styles, because it allows anyone to subdue an attacker regardless of size! This is why it’s great for children! If an adult is trying to abduct a child, they can use their jujutsu training to break free of the hold and throw their attacker, giving them a chance to escape. Most children do not have enough power to effectively punch or kick an adult to fight them off, but jujutsu does not rely on strength. Instead, all jujutsu techniques rely on biomechanical principles that the body must follow. Regardless of size, a child can easily off-balance an attacker and throw them if they know how to (and have been practicing regularly with training partners of larger size). Author: Bret Gordon  There's an age-old debate in the martial arts about which type of training is "better." Now, "better" itself is a very subjective term. Better in what way? Everyone has their own definition, as well as their own personal goals they hope to achieve through the study of martial arts... So the "best" martial art is the one that can best serve your purpose. But putting that aside, there's an interesting (and rather frustrating) dilemma in the comparison of training methods. The two biggest debates I've seen are between traditional and sport martial arts, and between "reality-based self defense" and MMA. Let me first say that while some training methods are better suited for a particular purpose, all training has value. But let's say there was a way to determine which truly is better overall. That's where the problems start.
In order to determine which is better, there needs to be a level playing field, something that doesn't currently exist. You see, for a traditional karateka to prove his training is better, he has to beat the sport martial artists at their own game. He has to enter an open tournament, play by their rules and out-perform them. It can definitely be done, but at what cost? How much modification does he have to do to his art in order to do so? Doesn't that conformity already mean in that moment he's no longer performing traditional karate, but rather a version of it designed for sport? The reverse is true as well. For a NASKA competitor to do well at a WKF event, they have to play by their rules, and are therefore no longer performing sport karate. This isn't a new concept, however. The entire existence of Judo can be attributed to this dilemma. Following the end of the Samurai era, where classical martial arts could be tested on the battlefield (although Japan had just come off a 250-year peace period, where it could be argued the devaluation of traditional arts as "combat-ready" had already begun), individual ryuha began competing with one another. When Kano Jigoro burst onto the scene in 1882, naturally his goal was to prove that his new art of Judo was better by implementing a new form competition. So what did he do? He invited all of the classical arts to send their best fighters in order to compete in a friendly match, that he got to pick the rules for. Not only that, he stacked the deck by enlisting Saigo Shiro, adopted son of Saigo Tanomo (instructor to Daito Ryu's Takeda Sokaku), to be his prized fighter (read more about this by clicking here). So in essence, he used classical jujutsu to prove that Judo was better than classical jujutsu in a Judo-style tournament. Yeah, that makes my head hurt too. Let's extend that to the debate between RBSD and MMA... Author: Bret Gordon  This is going to be short, and more of a rant than anything else. I could drag it out, but I really hope that's unnecessary. People get hung up on the word "art" in martial arts, and take it completely out of context. They use it as an excuse for their material not being martial, combative or warlike (read "practical in any way"). Art is subjective, correct? Except that this interpretation of the word "art" is completely incorrect. To understand why, we must look at the root word and break it down. Of course the word "martial" comes from the Latin martialis, meaning "belonging/dedicated to Mars (or to war)." The original meaning of the Latin artem, from which "art" is derived, is actually synonymous with "skill" or "discipline."
However, considering the majority of martial artists study disciplines of Asian origins, let's look at how they write the term. In Japanese, the word for martial arts is bujutsu 武術 (in Chinese, the same characters are pronounced wushu, and in Korean it would be moosul). When you break up the kanji, the character jutsu 術 does not mean "art" at all. It literally translates to, can you guess? Skill, technique or discipline. So here again, we see the proper definition of "martial arts" being "skills/techniques of war." How does that imply anything other than all training should be combative in nature? Thankfully, there is a growing trend towards practicality and self defense in the martial arts community... But it should've never gotten this bad. At their core, martial arts are effective means of controlling, restraining, injuring, maiming and killing an enemy. When we forget that, we end up with XMA and tricking... All physical endeavors should be respected for the effort and dedication necessary for proficiency, but as for what should be classified as martial arts? I think you know where I stand. |
Enjoy Our Articles?In an effort to share information, each year we publish a book containing all of the articles written that year. This book is an excellent supplemental training tool for the beginner and master alike! To order the most recent volume, click the image below. For previous years, please contact our headquarters.
Articles of 2016
Archives
November 2020
Categories
All
Sponsored By
|
