What's up with the martial arts?

**mean_liar** · Posted On: 1/15/2006 11:08am

It doesnt help that lots of TCMA refined themselves in temples - places where its possible to train from a very young age, for a long time (10+ years). Learning speed wasn't a concern.

**Goju - Joe** · Posted On: 1/15/2006 11:19am

WTF!

Guns folks, firearms changed everything!

Before firearms, spears, swords, bow and arrows , lances and such all required some skill. When a 1 on 1 encounter between people with these weapons happened superior training, conditioning and technique would make the difference.

Because of that societies, not just in Asia but all over, developed the warrior class who trained and perfected their fighting techniques.

Gun's / fire arms leveled the playing field.

Load, point and shoot was easier and deadlier for people to learn to do.

Once gun's come on to the scene martial arts become far less relevent and the BS sets in.

**CanucKyokushin** · Posted On: 1/15/2006 11:28am

GoJu,this is not about the introduction of modern weapons today but the reasons' why the traditional stances were created in the first place.

**Goju - Joe** · Posted On: 1/15/2006 11:36am

Originally Posted by Canuckyokushin

GoJu,this is not about the introduction of modern weapons today but the reasons' why the traditional stances were created in the first place.

I understand that but I think it is relevent. When people had to fight wars, and battles hand to hand. They didn't have time for esoteric training. Only what was practical.

Peasant part time warriors, or elite warrior classes needed funtioning military training to survive. and needed to practice thoses skills when they could.

I think it's fair to say fire arms changed that dynamic and made the battle field testing of 'styles' and such irrelevent.

Which in turn left an opening for a lot of BS to go into, and turned fighting training that you need to surviv your next battle into 'Martial Arts'

My point is that hand to hand combat kept it real and firearms changed that.

**wagamichi** · Posted On: 1/15/2006 11:37am

Originally Posted by Canuckyokushin

GoJu,this is not about the introduction of modern weapons today but the reasons' why the traditional stances were created in the first place.

hang on thier chief! He is correct. as I stated In my post. After the warring time in Japan. That was after Toyotomi Hideyoshi, gained control of japan, (with peasants armed with guns) the "Do" movement got started in the arts. The nobles had time to "seek enlightenment".

**Goju - Joe** · Posted On: 1/15/2006 11:50am

Here's another thought. Look at zenkutsu dachi, ask your self does this have anything really practical to do with unarmed fighting?

The answer is no

Now do zenkutsu dachi with a 7 foot spear or pole arm and it becomes a practical stance.

With the advent of fire arms, spears become usless and the need to train for them is irrelevent, yet the forms remain and are taught in MA because of tradition.

A lot of forms and stances come from hand to hand weapons training.

**Virus** · Posted On: 1/15/2006 11:55am

Wagamachi the stuff you say is similar to the stuff I have heard. During the realative peacetime in Japan, you could afford to ponce around doing silly stances, which was more a type of art form than practical self defence. Tea Ceremony for t3h str33t. That is similar to the situation we have now, at least in many of the less violent parts of the world. You can go and train at the Monkey Love House, jump around doing silly kata and stances and not ever have to test your technique. Ok, here's the question then, if that was the case where did you get real effective fight training? I imagine that even though it was a time of peace, people still attacked one another and unarmed self defence would have come in handy.

Edited to add: Even though Judo is a "-do" martial art, and as such is supposedly "less deadly" version of the old battlefield killing arts, it stirred **** up big time and pwned all the traditionalists. This was I think due to it's focus on randori as opposed to two man kata training that is the norm in classical jujitsu. So does it all come down to training methods? Perhaps two man kata was the norm, even in times of war, but alive training was better but nobody really considered it. This raises a question, wasn't mock combat a standard method of training soldiersAnd if so, wouldn't this weed out bullshit?

**Virus** · Posted On: 1/15/2006 12:10pm

My brother said that the various styles of kung-fu were developed to counter another specific style, and then one was invented to counter that and so on. This leaves the question, why didn't someone just counter them all with the double-leg and ground and pound, such as what was the achilles tendon of kung-fu experts in NHB.

***DerAuslander*** · Posted On: 1/15/2006 12:22pm

Wagamichi is on point.

First, we should get some terminology out of the way.

There's no such thing as a stance.

Say it with me now.

"There's no such thing as a stance."

Stance = stasis = unalive = dead.

Anyone who tells you otherwise only has a limited view of the art they study.

Three main characters are used in the various arts which are mistranlated as "stance".

The Japanese arts most often use the term "構". This is pronounced "kamae". It literally translates as "frame" or "structure". It's how your bones are aligned at a given moment.

The Chinese arts use "步". In Mandarin, this is pronounced "bu". This literally means "step". It is not a stance, it is footwork. You step forward, you step backward, you turn.

The Korean arts use a compound term "姿勢/자세". This is pronounced Jasae. It literally means "a posture of force".

What all of these terms imply is movement. Not stance. Not staticness.

The zenkutsu dachi was brought up earlier. Let me give an example. Take up an average fighting stance, boxing style, Muay Thai, whatever. Just put your dukes up. Now, slowly, throw a cross punch.

At the apex of your punch, you're in "forward stance". It's not perfect, it's not pretty, and it's not gonna win you a medal at a Shotokan kata contest, but that's all it is.

A stance is a snap-shot of motion. You're there one second, and then your footwork and body are into something else.

As JFS said in a different thread, the important thing is not the stance. The important thing is the transition.

***DerAuslander*** · Posted On: 1/15/2006 12:23pm

Originally Posted by Virus

Edited to add: Even though Judo is a "-do" martial art, and as such is supposedly "less deadly" version of the old battlefield killing arts, it stirred **** up big time and pwned all the traditionalists. This was I think due to it's focus on randori as opposed to two man kata training that is the norm in classical jujitsu. So does it all come down to training methods? Perhaps two man kata was the norm, even in times of war, but alive training was better but nobody really considered it. This raises a question, wasn't mock combat a standard method of training soldiersAnd if so, wouldn't this weed out bullshit?

Alive training with armour and weapons and a battlefied isn't training. It's war.