As we see droves of children going to martial arts classes on a daily basis and a dojo on just about every street corner, it is hard to believe that what they are learning today is one of the same deadly fighting skills that garnered the moniker martial art.
As its name implies, this is an art based on warfare. There were no judges on the battlefield giving you points and the first one up to 3 wins. People died in battle, often in ugly and brutal ways. You, have one purpose during war stay alive and kill the other guy. Do you really think on the field of battle when people lost their weapons they gave each other space bowed and then in a highly stylized form punched and kicked each other until one either gives up or is submitted? Death, maiming or severe injury was the only outcome that was acceptable.
So the question is, how much of what we learn today as a martial art is what was originally taught? We are essentially learning killing arts in a recreational form for exercise and entertainment. If that is the case all of the really violent and ruthless things each martial art has shouldn’t, won’t, or can’t be taught because we are not learning it for war, and by extension true self-defence.
I remember watching the Karate Kid III, Mr. Miyagi was the clam Zen like teacher of Daniel san. The other guy was this macho, pony tailed martial arts guy that was everything we are told martial arts isn’t. He was arrogant and pursued martial arts for all the wrong reasons. He was vicious. I remember him saying, if your opponent can’t breath he can’t fight, if he can’t see he can’t fight, if he can’t walk he can’t fight, excellent advice for anyone wanting to finish someone off quickly with complete disregard for the consequences. How common was this thinking during the times the various martial arts were created? In a life and death situation more likely than not this attitude is used to great effect.
Is this considered the wrong use of martial arts? In today’s world probably, but this depends entirely on the situation of course. Injuring someone so save another is noble, isn’t it? Injuring someone for something to do, or to show complete dominance is obviously a character flaw that can’t be fixed. For these types of people there is no recourse, they will always be like that. The question you need to ask yourself is, if they approach you and after you have repeatedly walked away from the conflict find there is no choice but to engage him do you have the skills as well as the mental attitude to subdue your opponent effectively or permanently?
Most street fights don’t take long to finish; in combat it is the same injure/kill your opponent as fast as possible without getting injured yourself. Does it really make sense to fight for 10 minutes when 10 seconds does the job? The longer the fight the greater the possibility of getting hurt. Martial arts from my perspective was designed to kill/maim your opponent as fast as possible without getting injured yourself. If we agree that was the point back then what is the point today? I think learning a martial art today is less about learning to defend yourself and more about exercise, self-defense is second possibly third.
If you are learning martial arts as exercise or something else how prepared are you for hand to hand combat of any kind? I am also curious to know how many people actually feel they can handle themselves in any form of hand-to-hand combat because they have taken martial arts. This is not the same question, what you can do is different than what you think you can do. If martial arts gives people a false sense of security is it doing anything legitimate with regard to self-defense? It may boost someone’s confidence but is that all it is designed to do? Confidence is great and in many cases can diffuse a situation just by the mere act of not being scared or intimidated, but what happens when that isn’t enough?
The world is a very different place today than when marital arts were developed back in the day. Kung Fu for instance, was created/developed around 1500 years ago when life was substantially harder and more ruthless. Do you really believe that people learned the arts as recreation or sport? There was a practical need to know and understand martial arts back then so is what we are taught today in keeping with that?
As we evolve, society norms change and If martial arts have changed in keeping with the norms of society, which I believe they have, can it still be called a martial art when the entire purpose has changed from protection and warfare to exercise and entertainment?
If that truly is the case, do a majority of the people who practice marital arts have the ability to defend themselves using the skills they have learned in class or do they just think they can? In real life no one bows, or uses a point system to determine a winner. You can either subdue your opponent or not, if and when the day comes does the martial art you learned come in handy or escape you in your time of need?
For a majority, I think the answer is more the latter than the former.
(4 out of 5)
Loading ...