Tweet
Great read from Don Rearic whether you love him or hate him, it's still a good article.
People are beginning to shy away from the term "martial arts" when they are seriously discussing close quarter combatives. I think this is a shame. I understand why it is happening and the roots of this attitude and shift has been brewing for over two decades. People who have insisted that their sporting and "self-improvement" endeavors are suitable for combat have basically made the words "martial arts" a couple of dirty words to a lot of people.
People started calling their martial art, "combat martial arts," and a plethora of other names to accentuate the fact that they were not merely teaching some traditional form of oriental fighting. The mindset was totally different, sometimes tradition was thrown out the window, techniques were pared down to the most brutal and efficient that the particular style of martial art had to offer. The rest of what was considered meaningless "fluff" or "ballerina" material was tossed out. The traditional gi was discarded and people went to street clothes to practice in, the same clothes they would be wearing on the street. And a lot of these martial arts pioneers started training with weapons, up to and including firearms. Why do I think it is a shame that people are beginning to throw away those two words, "martial arts?" That's easy, it's a shame because the words are very descriptive. I remind people all the time, martial, from Mars, the Roman god of war. Martial art, an Art suitable for War, it's an excellent term if you believe as I do, that self-defense is war in microcosm [that phrase has been used by many people, I did not coin it, but I agree with it].
Martial arts
If you meet a Martial artist and the conversation drifts to self-defense, one of the first things that they tend to ask is, "what style are you taking?" Most of the time, they show an interest in style and level of training. If your answer does not fit their view of what a "martial art" should be, they blow it off. If you say something like, "I study Filipino martial arts and anything else that works," they might raise their eyebrows at that and say, "isn't that just sticks and knives?" And if you reply, "yeah, it's heavy on sticks and knives, but there are empty hand movements in there as well, some intrinsic to the use of the knife, you just don't have the knife in your hand anymore...there are joint locking movements in there as well as kicking..." they sort of look at you like you're a nut.
If you get one of these emotionally unstable or extremely macho people, they might even say something like, "sticks and knives? That's for pussies! "Hey, don't shoot the messenger for the message, I've seen that happen. I've seen it happen if the conversation turns to firearms as well, "guns are for sissies...I'll kick you in the face if you try to get a gun."
Apparently, they have been watching way too many movies and they are living in one. It would be nice, on one level, to be able to actually draw that gun and watch them urinate in their panties...but I digress. The reasons that some people have a tendency to respond this way is because they might be immature and childish, or they might feel really threatened by the fact that you know how to use sticks, knives and guns. It varies, some of them have been sold a lie and because they have spent so much money and expended so much time, blood, sweat and tears into a system that held certain beliefs, they automatically defend anything that threatens what they have invested their time and money into. On one level, I really cannot condemn them, yes, they are ignorant and yes, some of them tend to be arrogant. However, some of them are good people who have just been swindled. Yes, they have been taken and sold a lie.
Selling a Lie
"Selling a lie" has been going on for decades in the martial arts. Sure, there have always been those involved in iaido, kyudo and kobudo, there have been nunchaku, bo, tonfa and sai portions of competitions for years...but in general, a lie has been sold. People buy that lie and they spend time within that lie...and they believe that lie. That lie is, that Empty Hands, Unarmed Techniques, are superior to weaponry. This is all backwards. Not everyone does it, but enough people seeking to commercialize or sport-si-tise the martial arts have perpetrated this in order to promote empty-handed arts.
What army in the last few thousand years ever went into combat without weapons by choice? If we take the meaning of the words, "martial arts," and we apply them and we do so in an honest and meaningful way, we see that in order for something to be a "martial art," it has to be martial meaning, "suitable for war." We routinely see people involved in the martial arts who study the most stupid knife defenses that you can imagine, why do they study them, pay good money to learn them and worst of all, believe in them? Because they have been sold a lie that flesh and bone beats steel, that's why. Unarmed Techniques are inferior to weapons, that is just a fact of life. Because I want these movements to save my life, I cannot delve in fantasy or stroke my ego and ignore reality.
So, somewhere along the line, people started selling the fable that unarmed arts are superior to weapons arts and history is a terrible thing when it proves you are peddling nonsense. As a matter of fact, to illustrate this more point more clearly about people being sold a lie, let's look at the Samurai for a moment. I don't think it would be misleading to say that the bow and arrow, then spear/halberd, then katana, wakizashi, tanto and aikijujutsu, in that order, was the basic order of "weapons" used by the Samurai. I'm oversimplifying to make a point. The weapon of last resort was the empty hand skills; they were not PRIMARY and then came the weapons! Yet, that is the way martial arts are sold today! Furthermore, the aikijujutsu on the battlefield had a goal in mind, which was to survive until another weapon could be obtained. Do you see what I mean? Nowadays weapons are shunned and through the commercialization of martial arts to make them palatable to parents and to the squeamish, this has been promoted as a tradition, a history, and a philosophical method of dealing with violent attackers when it is actually a bastardization of warrior arts...martial arts.
I'm NOT condemning unarmed combat systems/techniques, most certainly you should be fluent in the ways of destroying an attacker with hands, elbows, feet, knees, head butts, your teeth...whatever you can use to survive. That is not the point. The point is, in the real world, weapons rule and they have always ruled. You have to keep everything in a realistic perspective or you fall prey to your own myopic views.
An Interesting Example: Splitting The Atom
We see a division now; we see sports parading as "martial arts" because the origin of the Sport was a martial art, like judo. Judo was intended by Jigoro Kano to be a sport and to popularize what he created and spread it far and wide (In my opinion and the opinion of others who know more than I do). Jujutsu, and more accurately, aikijujutsu, was the samurai's unarmed combat art, the way of fighting without weapons that they studied. I don't quite know how aikijujutsu and jujutsu interact, I know there is a distinct difference between aikijujutsu and some forms/styles of jujutsu, I don't know how the differences came into being. Maybe they were just different ryu (Schools) and maybe with the more effective jujutsu systems they just dropped the "aiki" off the front. I honestly do not know.
I do know this, however...aikijujutsu/jujutsu split off and had two "children." The one child was a sport and the other child was a spiritual endeavor. The sport was judo and the master was Jigoro Kano; the spiritual "endeavor," a way of self-Improvement, was aikido and the master was Morihei Ueshiba. That much I do know.
As far as I know, when Judo was first introduced, it was a lot more combative; a lot of the strikes and chokes, which made it so combat-effective, were removed to make it safer. There were two distinct schools of thought back then, one was more combative and more like the parent art and the other began to peel away the combativeness and focus on the sporting element. Now we see judoka who call their Art, "combat judo," or whatever, referring back to the roots of the art.
Everyone knows that Ueshiba was a powerful fighter. The reason for that was not because he invented aikido or any such thing, the reason he was so powerful and so effective was, in order to create aikido, he was a master of a much more effective combat martial art, that art being aiki [ju] jutsu. Now we see people who realize that aikido is not the epitome of self-defense methodology and they have, like some people in judo, gone back and retraced a circle back to the parent art. Some people in Aikido went back to the Parent Art of aikijujutsu and some have begun to start hybrids that bring in more combative methods like tomiki-ryu Aikido (as I understand it).
Please understand, I mean no disrespect, if what I am saying is wrong, please show me where it is wrong and don't merely e-mail me in anger, I'm not interested in that. I know that Ueshiba was powerful and awesome, that is not in question, what is in question are those people that did not truly follow what he said. So, Ueshiba gave aikido to the world as a combat method or as a spiritual path to self-improvement? It is my understanding that it was the latter and not the former. I don't think you can judge aikido as a "martial art." For this reason…as the founder, he created nothing more combat effective than what he was already a Grandmaster in?
If we could ask Ueshiba a question, "did you intend for aikido to be a method of self-defense or...?" How do you think he would answer us? I think I already know, I think you might too. Yet, when the discussion turns to self-defense and someone has been studying aikido and they are promoting that as a combat method and you point some of these things out, they get upset. They get upset because they are trying to make their art into something it was never intended to be. I would only ask a very elemental question to anyone demanding that aikido is an effective art for self-defense.
What is more effective for self-defense, aikido or the parent art of aikido, daito-ryu aikijutsu? We do have some of the words and thoughts of Ueshiba; I have obtained them from an online resource and believe I can take a few excerpts from this 1957 interview; this should cast some light on the matter. Ueshiba was asked several questions; I think from the answers, just looking at the answers provides a commentary.
"In my opinion, it [aikido] can be said to be the true martial art. The reason for this is that it is a martial art based on universal truth. This universe is composed of many different parts, and yet the universe as a whole is united as a family and symbolizes the ultimate state of peace. Holding such a view of the universe, aikido cannot be anything but a martial art of love. It cannot be a martial art of violence. Since I taught martial arts to be used for the purpose of killing others to soldiers during the War, I became deeply troubled after the conflict ended.
People are beginning to shy away from the term "martial arts" when they are seriously discussing close quarter combatives. I think this is a shame. I understand why it is happening and the roots of this attitude and shift has been brewing for over two decades. People who have insisted that their sporting and "self-improvement" endeavors are suitable for combat have basically made the words "martial arts" a couple of dirty words to a lot of people.
People started calling their martial art, "combat martial arts," and a plethora of other names to accentuate the fact that they were not merely teaching some traditional form of oriental fighting. The mindset was totally different, sometimes tradition was thrown out the window, techniques were pared down to the most brutal and efficient that the particular style of martial art had to offer. The rest of what was considered meaningless "fluff" or "ballerina" material was tossed out. The traditional gi was discarded and people went to street clothes to practice in, the same clothes they would be wearing on the street. And a lot of these martial arts pioneers started training with weapons, up to and including firearms. Why do I think it is a shame that people are beginning to throw away those two words, "martial arts?" That's easy, it's a shame because the words are very descriptive. I remind people all the time, martial, from Mars, the Roman god of war. Martial art, an Art suitable for War, it's an excellent term if you believe as I do, that self-defense is war in microcosm [that phrase has been used by many people, I did not coin it, but I agree with it].
Martial arts
If you meet a Martial artist and the conversation drifts to self-defense, one of the first things that they tend to ask is, "what style are you taking?" Most of the time, they show an interest in style and level of training. If your answer does not fit their view of what a "martial art" should be, they blow it off. If you say something like, "I study Filipino martial arts and anything else that works," they might raise their eyebrows at that and say, "isn't that just sticks and knives?" And if you reply, "yeah, it's heavy on sticks and knives, but there are empty hand movements in there as well, some intrinsic to the use of the knife, you just don't have the knife in your hand anymore...there are joint locking movements in there as well as kicking..." they sort of look at you like you're a nut.
If you get one of these emotionally unstable or extremely macho people, they might even say something like, "sticks and knives? That's for pussies! "Hey, don't shoot the messenger for the message, I've seen that happen. I've seen it happen if the conversation turns to firearms as well, "guns are for sissies...I'll kick you in the face if you try to get a gun."
Apparently, they have been watching way too many movies and they are living in one. It would be nice, on one level, to be able to actually draw that gun and watch them urinate in their panties...but I digress. The reasons that some people have a tendency to respond this way is because they might be immature and childish, or they might feel really threatened by the fact that you know how to use sticks, knives and guns. It varies, some of them have been sold a lie and because they have spent so much money and expended so much time, blood, sweat and tears into a system that held certain beliefs, they automatically defend anything that threatens what they have invested their time and money into. On one level, I really cannot condemn them, yes, they are ignorant and yes, some of them tend to be arrogant. However, some of them are good people who have just been swindled. Yes, they have been taken and sold a lie.
Selling a Lie
"Selling a lie" has been going on for decades in the martial arts. Sure, there have always been those involved in iaido, kyudo and kobudo, there have been nunchaku, bo, tonfa and sai portions of competitions for years...but in general, a lie has been sold. People buy that lie and they spend time within that lie...and they believe that lie. That lie is, that Empty Hands, Unarmed Techniques, are superior to weaponry. This is all backwards. Not everyone does it, but enough people seeking to commercialize or sport-si-tise the martial arts have perpetrated this in order to promote empty-handed arts.
What army in the last few thousand years ever went into combat without weapons by choice? If we take the meaning of the words, "martial arts," and we apply them and we do so in an honest and meaningful way, we see that in order for something to be a "martial art," it has to be martial meaning, "suitable for war." We routinely see people involved in the martial arts who study the most stupid knife defenses that you can imagine, why do they study them, pay good money to learn them and worst of all, believe in them? Because they have been sold a lie that flesh and bone beats steel, that's why. Unarmed Techniques are inferior to weapons, that is just a fact of life. Because I want these movements to save my life, I cannot delve in fantasy or stroke my ego and ignore reality.
So, somewhere along the line, people started selling the fable that unarmed arts are superior to weapons arts and history is a terrible thing when it proves you are peddling nonsense. As a matter of fact, to illustrate this more point more clearly about people being sold a lie, let's look at the Samurai for a moment. I don't think it would be misleading to say that the bow and arrow, then spear/halberd, then katana, wakizashi, tanto and aikijujutsu, in that order, was the basic order of "weapons" used by the Samurai. I'm oversimplifying to make a point. The weapon of last resort was the empty hand skills; they were not PRIMARY and then came the weapons! Yet, that is the way martial arts are sold today! Furthermore, the aikijujutsu on the battlefield had a goal in mind, which was to survive until another weapon could be obtained. Do you see what I mean? Nowadays weapons are shunned and through the commercialization of martial arts to make them palatable to parents and to the squeamish, this has been promoted as a tradition, a history, and a philosophical method of dealing with violent attackers when it is actually a bastardization of warrior arts...martial arts.
I'm NOT condemning unarmed combat systems/techniques, most certainly you should be fluent in the ways of destroying an attacker with hands, elbows, feet, knees, head butts, your teeth...whatever you can use to survive. That is not the point. The point is, in the real world, weapons rule and they have always ruled. You have to keep everything in a realistic perspective or you fall prey to your own myopic views.
An Interesting Example: Splitting The Atom
We see a division now; we see sports parading as "martial arts" because the origin of the Sport was a martial art, like judo. Judo was intended by Jigoro Kano to be a sport and to popularize what he created and spread it far and wide (In my opinion and the opinion of others who know more than I do). Jujutsu, and more accurately, aikijujutsu, was the samurai's unarmed combat art, the way of fighting without weapons that they studied. I don't quite know how aikijujutsu and jujutsu interact, I know there is a distinct difference between aikijujutsu and some forms/styles of jujutsu, I don't know how the differences came into being. Maybe they were just different ryu (Schools) and maybe with the more effective jujutsu systems they just dropped the "aiki" off the front. I honestly do not know.
I do know this, however...aikijujutsu/jujutsu split off and had two "children." The one child was a sport and the other child was a spiritual endeavor. The sport was judo and the master was Jigoro Kano; the spiritual "endeavor," a way of self-Improvement, was aikido and the master was Morihei Ueshiba. That much I do know.
As far as I know, when Judo was first introduced, it was a lot more combative; a lot of the strikes and chokes, which made it so combat-effective, were removed to make it safer. There were two distinct schools of thought back then, one was more combative and more like the parent art and the other began to peel away the combativeness and focus on the sporting element. Now we see judoka who call their Art, "combat judo," or whatever, referring back to the roots of the art.
Everyone knows that Ueshiba was a powerful fighter. The reason for that was not because he invented aikido or any such thing, the reason he was so powerful and so effective was, in order to create aikido, he was a master of a much more effective combat martial art, that art being aiki [ju] jutsu. Now we see people who realize that aikido is not the epitome of self-defense methodology and they have, like some people in judo, gone back and retraced a circle back to the parent art. Some people in Aikido went back to the Parent Art of aikijujutsu and some have begun to start hybrids that bring in more combative methods like tomiki-ryu Aikido (as I understand it).
Please understand, I mean no disrespect, if what I am saying is wrong, please show me where it is wrong and don't merely e-mail me in anger, I'm not interested in that. I know that Ueshiba was powerful and awesome, that is not in question, what is in question are those people that did not truly follow what he said. So, Ueshiba gave aikido to the world as a combat method or as a spiritual path to self-improvement? It is my understanding that it was the latter and not the former. I don't think you can judge aikido as a "martial art." For this reason…as the founder, he created nothing more combat effective than what he was already a Grandmaster in?
If we could ask Ueshiba a question, "did you intend for aikido to be a method of self-defense or...?" How do you think he would answer us? I think I already know, I think you might too. Yet, when the discussion turns to self-defense and someone has been studying aikido and they are promoting that as a combat method and you point some of these things out, they get upset. They get upset because they are trying to make their art into something it was never intended to be. I would only ask a very elemental question to anyone demanding that aikido is an effective art for self-defense.
What is more effective for self-defense, aikido or the parent art of aikido, daito-ryu aikijutsu? We do have some of the words and thoughts of Ueshiba; I have obtained them from an online resource and believe I can take a few excerpts from this 1957 interview; this should cast some light on the matter. Ueshiba was asked several questions; I think from the answers, just looking at the answers provides a commentary.
"In my opinion, it [aikido] can be said to be the true martial art. The reason for this is that it is a martial art based on universal truth. This universe is composed of many different parts, and yet the universe as a whole is united as a family and symbolizes the ultimate state of peace. Holding such a view of the universe, aikido cannot be anything but a martial art of love. It cannot be a martial art of violence. Since I taught martial arts to be used for the purpose of killing others to soldiers during the War, I became deeply troubled after the conflict ended.
Comment