Martial Arts as an Open Science

[JGTevo]

Here's an interesting question I'm sure will have some differing viewpoints...

Do you feel that systems, techniques, principles, strategies, and secrets must be protected and closed to outsiders or that Martial Arts should instead be an open science, with all knowledge published for everyone to view?

On the one hand, I understand that many people make their living off of teaching... on the other hand, if we were to have everything out in the open, it could be developed to an even higher level.

It also stands to reason that even if an inexperienced practictioner were able to get ahold of even the most advanced material, he would not be able to grasp it.

It would also allow more experienced instructors/masters to critique the knowledge and experience of frauds.

But for instance, if I want to learn about math, I can obtain a thousand reliable sources for even extremely advanced techniques. Done correctly, with little to no argument of that aspect from anyone.

If I want to learn about cars, computers, programming, architecture, anatomy, psychology, medicine, or any number of professions, I have the same resources to draw from...

But for martial arts, I am limited to either finding a teacher in my area, or finding that rare good book on the subject.

People say you cannot learn through videos, or books, and for the most part I agree. But I also say that an experienced, knowledgable, intelligent practictioner can understand and apply knowledge gained in written form. There is little that cannot be explained in the English language, if intelligent, knowledgable people would just take the time to do it.


So what is your opinion? Should Martial arts knowledge be open to everyone? Or should we continue following the closed-door policy of only really teaching those who can afford it(or live near us)?

[sanjuro_ronin]

You can lead a horse to water...

The excuse of not showing the public the "real" thing is ridiculous, especially in this day and age.
perhaps in the past there could have been the issue of an "enemy" learning a secret move and you would be dead meat, nowadays that is beyond silly, firearms anyone ?

As for lineage issues, that is another joke, keeping the "real" *insert token TMA here* to a limited few or even one is not only a sure way to create crap in the system, it is also a fine way to make a system die a nice ugly death.

[jdhowland]

True. Many systems, including mine, are dying because of the tradition of secrecy.

But let me play devil's advocate and say something in favor of exclusiveness. The whole of martial theories and practices are not mutually beneficial. Conflicting strategies, styles and strengths do not a system make. One of the benefits of the paai (sect) or ga (family) systems is that a student is bound to a teacher or regimen and learns a self-consistant style.

I see no problem in publishing the knowledge from all systems, but pick-and-choose-from-a-menu gung fu is a recipe for mediocrity, at best.

The best systems I know of allow for reducing the number of outward forms, techniques and theories as the practitioner matures and the training becomes internalized. Eclectic borrowing does'nt make a system until the borrowed elements have been run through the nervous system of a skilled fighter and teacher and the inconsistencies have been filtered out.

[mantis108]

There's a difference between developing knowledge (conscious) and awakening the instinct lying dormant inside (subconscious) of "you". When you reach the dynamic balance between consciousness and subconsciousness, you have effectively approach the gate of Kung Fu.

Nowadays, people have forgotten the mystic tradition (direct experience), which is the root of TCMA. Knowledge (rationalizing) is just to help navigate, the actual driving is done by instinct. To use a modern methaphor - knowledge is the right hand of God that is doing, is the left that holds being (instinct). It's doing vs being. The trick is first to learn to balance them and then forget about it all together. That's Kung Fu.

Mantis108

[JGTevo]

True. Many systems, including mine, are dying because of the tradition of secrecy.

But let me play devil's advocate and say something in favor of exclusiveness. The whole of martial theories and practices are not mutually beneficial. Conflicting strategies, styles and strengths do not a system make. One of the benefits of the paai (sect) or ga (family) systems is that a student is bound to a teacher or regimen and learns a self-consistant style.

I see no problem in publishing the knowledge from all systems, but pick-and-choose-from-a-menu gung fu is a recipe for mediocrity, at best.

The best systems I know of allow for reducing the number of outward forms, techniques and theories as the practitioner matures and the training becomes internalized. Eclectic borrowing does'nt make a system until the borrowed elements have been run through the nervous system of a skilled fighter and teacher and the inconsistencies have been filtered out.

I understand that pick-and-choose-from-a-menu doesn't work.. However, techniques can be simplified and grouped into scientific concepts. The same goes for principles, strategies, stances, footwork, etc.

So instead of teaching say, how to fight as a Chu Gar practictioner, it would be the scientific method behind a Chu Gar principle, and from that you would be able to understand it's strongest and weakest applications. In the same way that schools don't teach you only how to do 2+2, or only how to add, but the principles behind addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, etc. so that you can apply it to any situation.

As an open science, style or system would cease to exist.

[jdhowland]

This is already happening as public exposure to once-secret methods increases. We are living in the info age. Many styles that were formerly well guarded are losing their mystique. Sad, in a way. The mystique is one of the qualities that enticed me to spend forty years of my life in what many people consider "unusual pursuits."

But I don't think any amount of publicity or analysis will kill the systems for a few reasons.

#1: Look again at what Mantis108 said. There is much in our training methods that cannot be analized scientifically. Modern science has a bias toward quantification. It can attempt to measure some attributes of a technique, but has no way of predicting what is possible among the intangible qualities.

#2: Humans have a need to socialize many of their behaviors. Associating with personalities (even in imaginary ways) gives a sense of belonging and value that
may become more important than the techniques they teach. It may be ridiculous that a student of a student of someone who learned from Paganini is held in a certain esteem, as if musical genius can be taught, but there is power in the story itself--an imaginary link that can inspire and drive someone to excellence.

#3: A repeat of what I said before. There is just too much information to make a convenient stockpile. As soon as you come up with a master text, someone will break the rules and do something better. Boxing no longer has "schools" or interpretations. It has been reduced to four techniques and highly restrictive rules of use. Until that happens to CMA you will get idiots like us arguing about what works.

Be well.

[JGTevo]

Can you list any instances in which your training methods cannot be analyzed scientifically? Can you explain how science having a bias toward quantification, hinders the scientific analysis of martial arts?

I understand that it is much more difficult to scientifically prove whether a technique does, or does not work, the principles behind those techniques should be able to be scientifically analyzed. For an extremely basic example: If I swing my torso I am able to generate more power from a variety of applications.

That's a basic principle. More advanced principles should at least be able to be explained in a logical way that can be scrutinized or refined by other experts who can understand it, or perhaps inspire new principles to be created.

As for the #3.. I don't believe there is "too much information". When you analyze and simplify the techniques, they can be grouped together under a similar principles. A single principle can be applied to a vast number of techniques, and those principles can be grouped together to form more techniques. The human body can only move so many different directions and so many different ways. We may not realize it, but every technique in every style shares the same basic principles, just grouped with different principles or applied in a unique, less or more effective way. Some principles are under-developed and lacking, or fundamentally wrong, and so you have people who can jab with power and people whose jabs are weak, for instance.

As for boxing having four techniques, jab, cross, hook, uppercut? What about the defensive techniques in boxing? What about individual technique's like the Smash or Jack Dempsey's Roll(using the falling step principle)? It's the principles that created these variations. Such interesting, powerful variations in just four offensive techniques because these guys decided to think outside the box.

[jdhowland]

Was I oversimplifying? Sorry. Just trying to contrast a more circumscribed system that has a clear set of fundamental ideas with the experience of hundreds of disparate styles of TCMA.

I think we are in complete agreement that the physics behind the techniques can be analyzed. The biochemical and behavioral aspects can be studied. And, yes, you could derive good training methods from such a study. In law enforcement statistics informs policy and policy creates the authorized training systems.

My old naginata training helped me to understand the spiraling and grazing of chinese spear technique which, in turn, applies very nicely to body movement in san shou. My students and I frequently observe that "there is only one style of martial arts...but many individual interpretations."

Despite this I still have to maintain that the intangible assets of the traditions are as important as the physical technique.