Are modern martial arts watered down and stagnant?

Question

Martial arts in the old days were about combat. It meant killing or maiming people. Now, outside of perhaps what militaries teach, it seems as though it's just a ring sport.

Additionally, back in the old days, there were swords, sticks, spears, bow, etc. incorporated into martial arts. Yet it seems to have stopped there. I can't go to a martial arts school and learn how to clear a house with a pump action shotgun, for instance. Martial arts, which were originally about combat, have not kept up with the advances of weaponry.

Answer 1

sandy.. unfortunately esp here in the USA yes they are watered down and stagnant. NOT all though. You just have to look harder and more carefully to ensure you do not get into a McDojo or McDojaing.

If you can get your BB in one year, your know your in one.
If you learn four forms or katas in one year, your in one.
If you Sensei or teacher is 22 and is 8th degree, your in one

We cannot compare to the lives of ancient or even 100 years ago. Life is not the same for all of us, but we can still learn traditionally and properly with out sport karate involved.

One example is Shotokan and Shotokai, basically the same style except you find many Shotkan people in sports karate and more Shotokai practising Budo and philosophy over a kumite or forms competition. It is just a seperate mind set and teaching method.

I learned both shotokan and shotokai so I got both luckily. those who never learn a non sports style do not know what they are missing out on. I hope they get the chance to experience it for real one day.

Answer 2

There are over 300 different distinct martial arts, some are and always were purely "sport" oriented (Judo was intended to be a sport, IIRC). Others like Hapkido and Ninjitsu do not have a sporting version.

Many--Like Ninjitsu and Kali/Escrima start teaching the use of weapons almost immediately. I study in the Bujinkan, and in the last two years have trained in sword, knife, hanbo (3' stick) and bo (6' stick).

Many, if not all, arts have become watered down to some degree because throughout most of the world we have dedicated personel to dealing with medium to large scale violence (police to deal with the medium scale, and militaries for the large scale stuff) leaving most people not really ever needing to actually defend themselves, and if so only against one or two attackers.

Heck, Ninjitsu teaches almost nothing of camouflage or concealment. Most schools do not, or rarely teach how to launch an attack etc.

Our society also looks down to one degree or another on those who believe that violence is a useful tool, and so we've started selling our arts as "moving meditations" (Tai Chi) or "exercise" or "Disipline".

It's horse ****. Like you said, it's about fighting and killing.

As to clearing a house with a pump shotgun, there are places you can go--as a civilian--that will teach you the skills you need for that, but we know a LOT about hand to hand fighting, and fighting involving swords, sticks and knives. We've been doing that for over 2000 years. Shotguns and clearing houses is relatively new and it's a still evolving art. Plus you just don't have to do it all that often unless you're a cop or a soldier.

If you want to know where a civilian can go to get these sorts of classes, ask and I'll try to dig up a list.

Oh, and Sgt V--when the US Constitution was penned "the country" was the 13 original colonies, and was about the mix of undeveloped, "rural" and city that we have now. The Founding Fathers had, 13 years prior (remember that there was an interm government between the end of the Revolutionary War and the current constitution) finished fighting a revolution against a country that had tried to take the arms of private citizens, and believed that every citizen (with some clear exceptions) had the right to the tools of self defense, which included firearms.

And you're wrong about there being no art to it. There is as much art to the deployment of a pistol in combat as there is the use of a bow. There is as much craft in the use a shotgun in a combat environment as there is a sword. I've done a LOT of pistol work, and a bit of rifle/carbine work. It's Not just point and shoot--at least not if you want to hit anything.

Answer 3

When you ask if modern martial arts are watered down-in so far as combat yes I have to agree. The karate class that I started with was much more physically demanding and was two hours long and no children. Times have changed so while I agree with you on your point I don't think you can discard some of the other reasons and purposes for martial arts such as a means of physical conditioning, mental discipline, building self-confidence and self esteem and how it has helped so many people to become better within themselves.

The other thing I think you have to also do is separate the ring sport and competition aspects from the traditional aspects. Many schools compete very little or not at all and that is sometimes the reason why. When you see student or black-belt compete and do a non traditional kata with a lot of flash extremely well and then turn around and do a traditional one just as well or point fight and then turn around and do some excellent self defense techniques it says something about that martial artist I think. They obviously are well schooled and well trained and pretty well grounded in the aspects of their particular martial art I think.

Answer 4

"Martial arts" means something different as far as the language is concerned, to non-Asians then it does to Asians.

The term, whether in Chinese or Okinawa Hogen, means:

Wu, Bu = Stop Fight

and

Shu, Jutsu = Art or Skill.

To non-Asians, it is mistranslated = war. This shows me the mentality of the interpreters.

This idea does not denote violence. The way humans apply these arts determines whether they are for stopping violence or commiting savagery.

I complain about how watered down most arts are. Even within my own arts, the Okinawan, the conversion to "DO" from "Jutsu" is rampant.

I do not practice or teach "do", only "jutsu", however, when I see the mind of some people out here, I am glad that they are watered down.

The Okinawan weapons are not weapons at all, but farming tools. They were not violent people. The term Bushi is the term for a Martial Artist Gentleman or Scholar.

The assumption that Chinese and Okinawan Martial Arts should keep with the times by including the whole shotgun thing, is absurd and misleads the beginner into thinking violence instead of stopping violence.

Answer 5

This is why they're martial arts, as opposed to martial training. Practicing martial arts partly has to do with respect for past tradition. There is more going on than an attempt at being efficient at combat. Martial arts are also designed to instill a certain mindset and a certain philosophy. For the average citizen, they also can be used for basic self-defence, but even then street smarts is what you should be focusing on if that's your only purpose. They will also be used in competitions against people who have had the same training as you and in that sense, there are more a sport than a true fighting art (In which there are no limits to what you can do to an opponent). The whole idea that they can be used for street-fighting is also a missunderstanding of what street-fighting is. A real street fight is not a sporting contest; it is an attempt to injure and/or incapacitate another person and there's no guarantee the person fighting you has any concept of restraint when it comes to the means of doing that. So if you keep using martial arts to get into street fights, sooner or later, you're going to cross the wrong person so it is a really, really bad idea.
But you are absolutely right, martial arts as thaught today (even for those who do teach to use swords or sticks, etc...) would be of little use on a battlefield today. If you wanted to train in modern combat, you would go in the military where that's what they would teach you and where you would be subjected to the military's rules. But that is not the real focus of martial arts.

Answer 6

Nothing wrong with sports if they are full contact, since it is still a form of combat.

Since if practitioners are attacking with enough force to wipe out other highly conditioned fighters, they are certainly doing enough to flatten the average guy in any other scenario.

The problem is the sports and styles which are semi-contact or no contact and they are certainly very stagnant.

The main reason is they are businesses. And businesses make money targetting the average guy who makes up by far the most numbers. Whether it is selling burgers or cars often the best product does not sell as good as a cheap or easier one.

The average guy is not interested in breaking too much of a sweat, or getting very hurt.

So if you can sell him something that makes him feel safer without breaking a sweat, you make money, he is happy, and everyone loves the deal.

The lucky thing is he will probably not have to use it anyway, so you can keep selling it to him, and he will log on here telling you about the great benefits of 6 tiger, praying mantis yoga stye turning invisable for real life combat applications.

That said almost any martial art can become realistic if used enough.

Once again most people are not interested in doing that. If they were they would be testing it for fun at MMA clubs.

Answer 7

It would be a contradiction in terms to talk about guns and martial arts. There is no art involved in shooting people especially with automatic weapons which should be banned except for military use. The NRA nuts quote the Constitution relating to "the right to bear arms" without any thought to the fact that at the time the Founding Fathers penned it 85% of the country was wilderness!
My son took a type of karate a few years back and his instructor taught in Japanese and taught his students how to use the martial arts weaponry. The sensei taught at West Point (U.S. Military Academy) You need to find an instructor, and a discipline that teaches what you are interested in learning. If you want to shoot people then join the USMC and go shoot people to your heart's content in Iraq or Afghanistan. Also you have the idea of martial arts screwed up. Most disciplines are defense based not just for killing or maiming people. I served in the USAF with a guy who was going to be a martial arts instructor for the Air Force. He had to go through medical training first and I never saw him start anything. I did see him react when needed.

Answer 8

I personally believe your perception of what martial arts were, and how the art should be employed today is misguided or misinformed and that provides a poor basis for comparison between past and present.

Were martial arts in the "old days" about combat? There is certainly a school of thought that these arts were indeed developed in this way, and some arts certainly lend themselves to this perception such as the Samurai derived arts and so on. There is however an equally valid school of thought that believes the creation may have been purely spiritual with monks realizing that meditation and prayer alone was not enough to reach enlightenment, and that a physical balance equal to their spiritual journey was required.

Whatever the origins and purpose of the development of the arts, undoubtedly learning defensive techniques and concepts was a necessary evil then, as it is today, for many. And now, just as I'm sure it was back then, there are a variety of different disciplines to examine, learn, practice, and employ. Concepts and philosophies will vary, instructor competence, knowledge, and teaching skills will be different.

I think most modern traditional disciplines do evolve with the times and address current social issues that may affect their students. I know that the majority of instructors I'm fortunate enough to work with and train with most certainly discuss firearm, knife, bottle, and club defense as a part of their self-defense curriculum. Beyond the self-defens curriculum there is also the competitive or sport elements to many disicpines which to the untrained, inexperienced, and casual observer may seem invalid or inappropriate, but the purpose of these events is not directly defense related at all.

As to a discipline teaching someone to "clear a house with a pump action shotgun" ; What ?? Modern martial arts focus on defensive techique as they should. They focus on avoiding trouble, evading it when you recognize it, de-escalating it if possible, and in the worst of all possible circumstances, defending yourself or your loved ones physically when no other option is avialble. Clearing a house does not come close to falling into one of these categories.

A working knowledge of how firearms work, some technical ability to use them is a must for knowing how to effectively defend against them if you have to, and that would be of benefit to all martial artists. We held a Master Class just recently which involved weapon control using real unloaded firearms to provide students with a feel for the weight, action, and reality of trying to defend against the real thing, rather than a wooden or rubber replica. We do similar training with unsharpened steel daggers and knives to provide a similar reality.

Thus, I personally believe modern traditional martial arts disicplines are right up to date, depending on the school and instructor you are invovled with.

Ken C
9th Dan HapMoosaKi-Do
8th Dan TaeKwon-Do
7th Dan YongChul-Do

Answer 9

No martial art practiced today or at anytime in history was used by the military of any country.They are all the resullt of CIVILIAN society banned from carrying arms to learn to protect themselves.
The only true arts that have a military history are the weapons arts sword spear bow .All other weapons are farm implements used by CIVILIAN populations to combat military weapons.
The closest you can come to unarmed combat as a military art is muay thai and even then they carried a sword in each hand and called it krabi kabong and still do.
Martial art means military skills for military purposes so a marine learning how deploy scout gather information avoid ambush and ambush the enemy is more of a martial artist[ one who learns and uses military skills]then anyone in a dojo will ever be.Martial skills are not about self defense they are about killing people.

Martial arts was never used to describe what we do before 1960 and didnt appear in any dictionary prior to 1972.But the word martial appealed to a bunch of limp ***** who thought the word made them appear bad dudes so it stuck mainly as a money making gimmic.Much like some dojo who used to advertise ninjitsu or kung fu when they didnt know dick about either one.

Answer 10

Nope, some have, some haven't, some have gotten better. Martial arts will not be stagnant, as it is an artform. But yeah, compared to the technologies nowadays, it kinda falls short physically. But remember martial arts had their roots in war, combat, in fighting. What is the military if it is not a force to fight?

But yes, do you know what sort of ice your stepping across?