TMAs are battlefield proven.
I have read a lot of arguments for TMAs using some variation of the following logic. My art, [pick a traditional eastern martial art], is an effective form of self defense because it was proved for hundreds of years on the battlefields of [pick a county in Asia].
As a fan of military science fiction I have read a couple of books on civilization collapsing due to some outside force preventing modern tools from working. In particular one book by John Ringo had the local inhabitants using a Roman Legion as the model for their forces and went into some detail describing the training.
What stuck out for me was the whole concept of fighting as part of a formation where foot work would be limited, team work was essential and the reliance a solider would have on those around him. Primary skills involved moving in formation, movement within the formation, such as replacing the front row troops with fresh troops with out losing the integrity of the formation or shield wall, being able to cover large distances quickly on foot while carrying large amounts of equipment and supplies, and the ability to quickly erect defensive fortifications sometimes within a few hours of arrival at camp.
This is a completely different skill-set than is taught in a martial arts class and the skills that make a good individual fighter or dualist are not the skills that make a good solider. The converse applies also in that a good fighter as a solder would not have the correct skills for one on one combat although he would be better off than your average person.
Comments, thoughts, complaints and flames are welcome.
Sounds sensible to me. I highly doubt much historic warfare involved individual soldiers using "martial arts" on each other.
I want to punch a ************ in the face everytime I hear someone go on about how Shaolin warriors defended the temple with their bare hands and shaolin kung fu.
+rep for good point
-283569265065 rep for reading John Ringo, uberhack.
TMA's are battle tested each time a practitioner performs a Kata. They never loose.
Wow, The Question has been swearing a lot lately. Maybe he's always been like that and I've never noticed.
Yeah, people don't seem to realize that martial arts for war, martial arts for health, martial arts looking cool, and martial arts for fighting in the ring need different training methods.
You're not going to win a battle doing a butterfly twist.
Originally Posted by Hui_Xiu
I don't have any trouble buying the argument that legitimate weapon arts (kendo, western fencing, kali) have "battlefield" origins. My question would be is there a style that claims its unarmed techniques were used exclusively to fight wars? I can't think of one.
You can win a battle doing a butterfly twist if it was in the movies. LOL
Originally Posted by Hui_Xiu
People don't realize that different training methods are needed for what you wish to accomplish in the MA. It's just like the same thing for weightlifting. Different training would be required for muscle endurance, then training for muscle strength.
Actually, what is sad is they trained weapons. One of their early legends involves weapons.
Originally Posted by The Question
That is what makes it stupid.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO