Dealing with change as a Martial Art system

[Shaolinfist]

My self i don't believe in a complete style or system as needs change so do systems of MA.

I am curious as to exactly what kind of needs of todays martial artists do you think would require something more than what a system of martial art that has been developed over centuries for use on the battlefield against multiple armed opponents could offer? Of course the needs have changed, but my point is what could they possibly need in addition to the ability to handle such a situation?

With regards
Phil

[stonecrusher69]

That's simple all things in nature and socieity change and evolve. The way we war on other countries is different then the way we did 100 years ago. We simple have to adopt and change. to the times. If I was to use a long pole on the battle field it would be ineffective no matter how good you are at .iIt woould I would simple get my self killed.. If we where to war on a country the way we did 100 years ago we would have no chance.today. Due to new technologly we are forced to change. This also applies to hand to hand combat. What works today might not work tomorrow. As your opponent adapts so it forces you to.

[stonecrusher69]

We are getting off topic..but I replied anyway.

[Shaolinfist]

Sorry if this is off topic, I just wanted to point out that I wasn't implying that you could use a staff or even most other traditional weapons on a modern battlefield! Of course in todays warfare you need guns or you will die, however Shaolin Kung Fu, which was forged by masters, generals and warrior monks over centuries for use in those days is in my opinion more than enough to deal with the violence that most people will encounter as a civilian today.

As for our opponent changing, a complete martial art like Shaolin teaches you to expect the unexpected and spontaneously modify your technique to adapt to the situation. This is actually a fundamental skill that is taught very early on in the Wahnam syllabus and is another example of skills being more important than techniques.

[George]

Now you are on-topic again - problem solved!

(Original thread: http://wongkiewkit.com/forum/showthread.php?p=91848)

[Shaolinfist]

YAY! Thanks George!

[Matt F.]

Dear George,

Thank you for making this a new thread. I am also curious to see the sides in this debate/conversation.

I feel that drawing parallels between modern war/ancient war and hand-to-hand combat is not fair. Weapons change, and due to this the tactics have changed tremendously. However, hands are still hands, feet are still feet. The weapons of hand-to-hand combat have not changed.

If we speak in terms of sports, then sure, sport combat needs to change with the times to be competitive. Certain sports have certain rules, and it is in the best interest of each competitor to adapt to the techniques and tactics that give the largest advantage under the specific rules of that sport. This does not only apply to sport combat, but to any sport.

I hear the argument that "combat arts needs to change with the times" most often from people who feel that MMA-style fighting is the pinnacle of combat. I have heard many times that if you do not train against MMA attacks, then your art is not good. This may be true if one wants to compete in an MMA competition. However, as a blanket statement about all combat and self-defense it is rediculous.

While certain self-defense situations may exist today that did not exist 100's of years ago, they are not so different as to require drastic over-hauling of a combat art. While firearms, tazer-type weapons, and automobiles are new, the defense tactics against an attack from them should be very similar to defense against arrow/projectile attack, knife attacks, and horse back attacks. So, even battle field arts are still useful today.

From what I have thought of, I can't see much evidence that would back up a statement like, "hand-to-hand combat needs to change with the times, or it is a dead art." I am sure I have not thought of every possible scenario. I would be interested to hear of other situations that may require changing with the times.

I think this is an interesting conversation.

-Matt

[Shaolinfist]

Now you are on-topic again - problem solved!

Great spontaneous modification there by the way George!

[stonecrusher69]

Sorry if this is off topic, I just wanted to point out that I wasn't implying that you could use a staff or even most other traditional weapons on a modern battlefield! Of course in todays warfare you need guns or you will die, however Shaolin Kung Fu, which was forged by masters, generals and warrior monks over centuries for use in those days is in my opinion more than enough to deal with the violence that most people will encounter as a civilian today.

As for our opponent changing, a complete martial art like Shaolin teaches you to expect the unexpected and spontaneously modify your technique to adapt to the situation. This is actually a fundamental skill that is taught very early on in the Wahnam syllabus and is another example of skills being more important than techniques.

Hello Shaolinfist,

Yes, I agree a good art like Shaolin is more then enough for someone to know how to defend themselves. What I ment by the opponenet changing or adopting to you was not ment to be taken as a unexpected attack,but was to be taken as your opponent is adopting and adjusting to your techniques and skills. Exm would be in the early UFC almost all the striking arts lost to gracie Ju Jit su.The other fighters where not familiar or used to fighting someone like this. After awhile now the gracies where not wining as much do to the opponents adapting to and learning gracie ju Jit Su. This what I ment by a style can not be stagnet it must change and adopt to the situation. So if one is always changing and adopting then one's art is not complete. If it was then no change would be necessary. the quest for perfect never ends.Thats why they say you never reach the end in your training.There is always a bigger mountain to climb.

[Shaolinfist]

Exm would be in the early UFC almost all the striking arts lost to gracie Ju Jit su.The other fighters where not familiar or used to fighting someone like this. After awhile now the gracies where not wining as much do to the opponents adapting to and learning gracie ju Jit Su.

Hiya Stonecrusher,

The reason they lost is an example of the one faceted nature of what they practiced rather than an example of how martial arts need to evolve. What they practiced was not a complete martial art, but a martial sport that was limited by rules. Once those rules were removed the weaknesses were exploited by the Gracie's unexpected tactic of submissions, for which they had no defense.

In Shaolin though there are no rules, it is an art which can maim and kill an opponent in one move, which is one reason why we cannot/do not spar with full contact. And we train for every possible combat situation with the aim of never being hit, whether from high attacks, low attacks, side attacks, kicks, throws, tackles, sweeps, locks, weapons, multiple attackers etc. There are no rules, there are no "dirty" moves or fouls, and in a real life combat situation you have to expect everything.

As Drop360 rightly said, when you are talking about MMA and other combat sports of course the exponents have to adapt their style to the changes in tactics and rules. However can you think of an example of a real combat situation where the rules have changed in the last 1000 years?

Sure when it comes to firearms there is a huge one, however there is nothing really anyone can do when they have a gun pointed at them, no matter how much they adapt. I seem to remember in fact an answer from our Sigung in his questions and answers to what a Shaolin master could do against 2 armed hijackers on a bus, and his reply was simply that he would not make a move while the barrel of the gun was pointed at him. However I am sure that once he does make his move his tactics would be similar to something he has trained for, like a qi na grip to the nearest enemy to take the gun from him, then possibly use him as a shield to defend from the shots of the second gunman.

Kind regards
Phil

[Shaolinfist]

This what I ment by a style can not be stagnet it must change and adopt to the situation. So if one is always changing and adopting then one's art is not complete. If it was then no change would be necessary.

This seems to be a contradiction, you say that ones style must always change and adopt, yet you then say that if one is always changing and adopting then their art is not complete.

Am I missing something? Sorry if I have misunderstood you!

Regards,
Phil

[Matt F.]

The reason they lost is an example of the one faceted nature of what they practiced rather than an example of how martial arts need to evolve. What they practiced was not a complete martial art, but a martial sport that was limited by rules. Once those rules were removed the weaknesses were exploited by the Gracie's unexpected tactic of submissions, for which they had no defense.

Kind regards
Phil

I may be wrong, but I believe that the early UFC matches did have some rules. So, the Gracies winning was not due to exploiting the weaknesses of strikers once the rules were removed, but rather gaining the advantage of the new rules of MMA competitions. If the strikers were to compete with the Gracies in a boxing match, the strikers would most likely have won.

That shows one of my points. You cannot compare the sporting tactics from one game to another fairly. MMA competitors have developed skills and tactics that work best within the rules of their game. So have boxers, and wrestlers, etc. To say one is the superior combat style makes no sense, as all the tactics and techniques are limited to and by the rules of each game.

What is complete for one game, may be very much incomplete for another. Because of this, certain "styles" (those developed for competition) are not complete. However, when speaking of complete martial arts styles, there is little in hand-to-hand combat that is new. If one style contains attacks and defenses for striking, kicking, gripping, felling, and weapons, what changes in time will necessitate a change in the style?

-Matt

[Shaolinfist]

I may be wrong, but I believe that the early UFC matches did have some rules. So, the Gracies winning was not due to exploiting the weaknesses of strikers once the rules were removed, but rather gaining the advantage of the new rules of MMA competitions. If the strikers were to compete with the Gracies in a boxing match, the strikers would most likely have won.

In the original UFC I believe that there were only a couple of rules like no biting and no eye gouging. The Gracie's had an advantage as the lack of rules were more in their favor compared to the strikers. The jujitsu practitioners are more disadvantaged now than they were then because of the inclusion of gloves, exclusion of gi's which they successfully employed to trap and strangle opponents, and various other rules like not hitting the back of the head, no 12 o'clock elbows from the full mount, no kicks and knees to downed opponents etc. all of which are particularly useful in a fight on the ground.

If one style contains attacks and defenses for striking, kicking, gripping, felling, and weapons, what changes in time will necessitate a change in the style?

And if one style contains all attacks from boxing, muay thai and kickboxing, all the throws from judo, all the locks from aikido, plus many techniques that are not present in any other martial art? A style that has been developed by the greatest minds from the civilization with the longest and richest history of the world! Do any of us here think that we can better such an art?

Not me!

Humbly,
Phil

[stonecrusher69]

This seems to be a contradiction, you say that ones style must always change and adopt, yet you then say that if one is always changing and adopting then their art is not complete.

Am I missing something? Sorry if I have misunderstood you!

Regards,
Phil

What I mean is simply that any art no matter how great it is IMO is not complete. All systems evolve and change it does so because it has to. I simple don't believe in a complete system. A system could never reach completion as one could could add , improve,or take something a way. Which is what happens all the time. When I look at myself and everything I've learnt in the last 25 years I know only a small fraction to what there is to learn. I know some things very well because I've spent a lot of time training it to a high level but other things not so much,so I'll never be complete but to me if I can improve myself a little bit everyday then that is enough for me.

[Mark A]

Evolution

Hey Guys,
Just something to think about.

Yes we have been talking about a how an art evolves. Lets look at Shaolin or Chinese arts that were developed to fight on the battle field.

Who fights on a battle field today?

Who knows the terror of rushing into a horde of screaming barbarians with swords.

Now look at an art like Shaolin, Combat Efficiency is only one aspect. There is the Health and Spiritual aspect.

Now the opposite way. Tai Chi has devolved in the west, from a great fighting to a series of dance like movement for health?

Yes we can talk about the enviroment, such as car jacking, being on trains, Sky scrapers

sports vs martial arts. or self defence systems, and the law

Most commonly used weapons and crime, looking at drugs, gang culture.

Also you may want to take into account that these arts were once secret, due to the times, But access to DVD's the internet has changed these arts.

Ok now that is enough of a ramble.

Here is the point I would like you to think about.

Yes the art evolves but so does the practitioner

Mark