Combat System vs. Martial Art

[Uke]

Many of the arts that started as combative systems, like Capoeira, that we would now consider more "art" than "functionality" ceased to adapt at some point ot the changing circumstances of combat. When they "froze" in time because they were no longer needed in combat, they became methods of preserving the glories and vicories of days when they were needed.

As with anything that was effective at one time, it's likely some people will still make it work in modern circumstances. But there's not any real effort to adapt and evolve with the times. To me, that's the part that differentiates a former combative system that's now an art from a combative system that's still a combative system.

I feel that way too, but God if you ever say that to a real capoeirista you may find yourself in a fight. But I agree with the "froze" in time analogy. Very good.

Remember Mike Brewer, that many people will argue that there isn't a need for evolution in a complete system because the human body can only move certain ways, and unless someone has grown extra limbs some systems are fine.

In my own way, I agree with that. I agree that there isn't much of a need for evolution as some perceive it. Evolution of combat in most people's eyes is nothing more than arts and systems that have been kept away from each other due to cultural and language barriers come together and examine each other's methods for efficiency. That's not really evolution IMO. Its more of a technique swap meet where effectiveness is the theme.

For instance, examine the Gracie phenomena. There was nothing new about the Gracie's approach. It had been done and emphasized since the Fusen Ryu method. However, it was de-emphasized by Kano later on and people became more interested in achieving the throw. Then, we watched the Brazilians come in a NHB event using that old discarded method and go on a winning streak. People saw it, loved it and began training in it.

An old set of techniques somehow revolutionized the way a generation practiced martial arts. So who is to say that other "frozen" arts cannot and will not do the same at some point? As much as some people here believe that capoeria, savate, and tae kwon do are high kicking, impractical arts, many people neglected newaza range because they thought it was impractical too! And we see were BJJ is now.

Its seems that every now and then, someone pulls something new out of an old bag of tricks and for a while it becomes popular. Then someone labels it an evolution.

[Uke]

double post

[Uke]

The human body can only move in so many ways? Real warriors have realized that from the earliest periods in time. They overcome the limitations of the body, however, with weapons and tactics. That's where a true combative system defines itself. A person can only punch or kick you so many ways. But saying that there are only "so many ways a person can move" is akin to saying "there are only so many notes a musician can play." There are only eight notes in music. Period. That's all any musician has to work with. But look at what varying the composition can do! By playing with the spaces in between, the harmonies, rhythms, and various other sublties (tactics), we have a diversity that ranges from Mozart to Garth Brooks to Marylin Manson to Yanni - all with the same eight notes.

That's almost word for word what the Professor has always said . Do-re-mi.

The argument that the human body can only move in so many ways should be shut down in prgmatic terms precisely because of the endless array of systems and arts out there. In the strictest sense, yes, there are only so many ways we can move. But there are endless combinations for putting it together. And when we run out of ways to move, there's always human ingenuity as it applies to the fine art and craft of weapon building.

You can have a so-called "complete" system, and it will still fall apart if it doesn't evolve with technology and tactics of the day. A "complete system" in 1450 would hardly be considered complete in the Old West, where nearly everyone was armed with handguns and rifles. See also: Boxer Rebellion.

Tactics change, too, and they change faster than weapons and technology do. You never know when your idea of a complete system is going to fall apart because a group of people attacks in a way you never considered.

All that comes back down to "There will always be good and bad "deliveries" of the same base ideal." That statement suggests a lot in a few words. We can all aspire to the same things but that doesn't not mean that all thing are equal due to their aspirations.

Like nature, the evolution of a combat system does not happen in a vacuum. Animals evolve to better fit in with their evironments, better overcome the obstacles that shorten their lifespans. So do combat systems. Every loss is a lesson. Every new tactic encountered by the enemy is absorbed, examined, dissected, and either adopted or countered. In short, it evolves based on changing needs from day to day, not based on the predictions of someone who thinks they can create a "complete system" that covers all the bases. In that respect, your Vee-Arnis in no more complete than my JKD. e both have to take it upon ourselves to outgrow the style in favor of adaptation to necessity. That is, if we're practicing a combative system and not a martial art. Now, I said before that there are plenty of martial arts that are still plenty effective. That's natural. But I would submit to you that if those systems are encapsulated and defined as they exist today, they will someday fall short due to some combination of tactics, weapons, and technology. Only those systems which continue to evolve and adapt will ever keep pace.

Again, I don't believe that we've experienced any evolution. Changing hand to hand tactics isn't an evolution. Evolution implies that we've gained a higher degree of proficiency at something, and we haven't.

Animals evolve out of necessity. They need to hunt to survive. They need to fend off predators to survive. Most humans have no such need. We're not evolving. I do not believe that everything new is better. We, in our so-called advanced society, still cannot figure out or replicate the way the pyramids were built thousands of years ago.

IMO, the real evolution happened a while ago. When men like Musashi fought over 100 duels with a wooden bokken against men who had steel swords, that was a true test of rising above even the highest levels of known swordsmanship. When men like Oyama fough 270 non-sport matches against wrestlers, boxers, karateka, judoka and any one else who would fight him and not one match went over 3 minutes, and most were ended with only one punch ...that was a true test of of rising above even the highest levels of empty hand combat.

What most people do today is seek to be better than what is commonly perceived to be out there. That's why on this site alone we read people writing things like "6 months of BJJ is enough to deal with the average this and that" and "how many street thugs do you think actually know this and that". People train according to their own comfort levels today, not for survival. Therefore there can be know evolution of hand to hand combat. The necessity has been taken out and a casual study of combat has replaced getting men ready for the inevitable violence that used to exist. So now, we rely on police to handle situations. We rely on politicians to tell us what we are and aren't allowed to do. We wait, and wait, and wait and mostly are not men of action anymore. What kind of evolution do you think comes from that?

Do you know what separates a stone-cold killer from a martial artist or combatives practitioner? Its not the technique, although a MA or combatives practitioner may have better form or technique. Its the willingness to kill without hesitation. Its the ability to follow through with intent, whether with a bullet or a knife or with just his bare hands ... its in the ability to follow through with intent. Just about every so-called "art" started out as a way to kill invaders, attackers and thieves. People used those arts to survive against men with better weapons and armor. Those arts and the makeshift weapons found in them were born out of necessity, not a leisurely activity.

Today, very few if any Americans live in conditions that require that level of conditioning. And the men who train and teach in that manner are often seen as fanatics and crazy. The men who cling to the "old ways" of gutter-fighting know that the so-called evolution of the last couple of decades has served more to dull the cutting edge of combat than sharpen it.

[Uke]

Combative systems have indeed evolved. In many ways, gaining proficiency in a thing is evolution. That's all any evolution is designed to do after all - increase proficiency at something. A lizard's tongue evolves so it can better catch flies. A snakes scales evolve so they can better hide under leaves. A fighters ability and tactics evolve so it can better handle new situations. Same, same. Discussion to the contrary is arguing over semantics. Call it evolution or development or whatever else you want - my point is that combative systems are always changing to suit the changing tactics, technologies, and weaponry around it.

Hand to hand combat hasn't changed dramatically enough to even say that there has been a real change, let alone an evolution. For instance, the philosophy of JKD wasn't a new idea when it was written as the premise was already in practice before Lee's birth. Taking what works and discarding what doesn't was in practice before Lee's birth. Crosstraining was in practice before Lee's birth. Even the idea of formlessness was in practice before Lee's birth.

The blade and the gun haven't "evolved" so much in the last 500 years to say that the unarmed methods that deal with them have had to change. They haven't had to.

I never claimed that tactics haven't changed. Meaning tactics as they apply to strategy, not hand to hand technique applications. I think you're taking this subject out of context. We are speaking in terms of hand to hand combat, not technology and space age weaponry.

[Uke]

Leaving out the apparently contentious term "evolution," my premise is that a martial art is less concerned with changing to suit the times or the immediate needs of practitioners than is a combative system."

I agreed with that part above, especially the frozen analogy, but found a new point that I thought would be interesting for us to discuss. And I was correct because here we are.

[wsdddoa012]

Uke,

well said and I dont think I need to add anything.

[wsdddoa012]

Uke,

well said and I dont think I need to add anything.

[The_Judo_Jibboo]

The way a lot of you are using the word "art" it's clear you think of it in the way painting or ballet is art. But art (jutsu) is closer in its original sense to "craft". like wood-working is the craft of a carpenter, the original practitioners of the "arts" live and breathed fighting. they often made their living at it, or else there were very good reasons for them to know how to fight, aside from self-improvement The confusion of the term itself probably led to alot of the problems you guys are lamenting, such as the idea that aesthetics should enter into your combat mentality. regardless of whether they call themselves arts (jutsus) most are practiced today as "dos" or "ways," taking a wider view of the usefulness of learning the old combat techniques, which has pros and cons.

*sniff* Boarspear and i used to argue about this... good times.

[fenwick99]

re

Military combatives involves fairly simple, no-nonsense moves like
palm hooks to the ear, knees to the testicles, and chops to the neck.
Martial arts is much more sophisticated, with complex kinematics, dynamics, and theories of movements. Actually, I think combatives are martial arts that are streamlined for quick results. A SWAT officer wants a toolbox of 10 empty hand moves in case he should ever need them; he may not have the time or interest to spend 15-20 hours per week in a kwoon or dojo or dojang.
In this sense, combatives are an adumbration of martial arts.

[wsdddoa012]

respone

To put it simply. Combatives are a more simplified and easier form of martial arts. Basic self defense, Defensive tactics, military hand to hand, "reality" based- self defense, what am I missing? are all forms of combative arts. Difference being, Martial Arts is a philosophical way of living, Combatives you just learn to fight.

Brain Freeze, what am I missing?