Is the mystique gone?

[Merryprankster]

I have a question, and if you choose to take it as trolling, that is your business.

It seems to me that there is a lot more interest in the competitive sports as martial arts these days, then there ever has been before.

When I wrestled in high school, for instance, neither me nor my teammates thought of what we were doing as a martial art. Yet, at its foundation, it is. Same with boxing. I will make clear that as they are practiced, they are martial SPORTS, which is yet another subset of martial art, but the term martial art is nonetheless inclusive.

My question then, is this: Up until recently, CMA, KMA, JMA, etc... never had to defend themselves to the public as workable self defense. "He knows Karate/is a black belt," was enough to get taken seriously in a lot of situations, regardless of actual style or skill level.

What, when, why, and how did it change?

I think the following occurred:

1. MMA events showed "traditional" martial artists getting their asses handed to them by "non-traditional" (sport) artists. I am NOT vouching for the skill level of the participants, so please don't talk about how much the traditional artists sucked and your sifu would do better. I'm ONLY trying to say that this is what people SAW.
While this is not enough to make a style vs style comparison, many people took it that way. They didn't say "Royce Gracie is very good," they said "BJJ, muay thai, wrestling etc is cool, and other arts suck."

2. The success of grapplers made people sit up and take notice. Punching and kicking, which most people consider "martial arts," had failed to win frequent and decisive victories over grapplers the majority of the time. My point being that even if the wins are split 50/50, grappling could no longer be ignored or discounted. The public is now aware of this range of fighting, and is skeptical of claims made by "striking only," arts (in their eyes...I'm fully aware that throwing is an integral part of many arts."

The above lead to a loss of mystique for traditional arts, which now means that their entire way of DOING things is questioned and justification is now asked for.

Thoughts?

[Mr. Nemo]

Good riddance, I say.

[apoweyn]

Merryprankster,

Not surprisingly, I agree. The martial arts have been demystified, I think. And I think that's ultimately for the best.

As you said, recent competition formats have served as an eye opener on several fronts. Not to discredit certain arts, but to expose the arts, overall, to a higher degree of scrutiny.

It's kind of a volatile subject because, with that sort of scrutiny, people are bound to uncover things that they would rather have left alone.

I remember the first time I got taken down in a sparring match. By a veritable newbie. But he was a scrapper. And he new he was stronger than me. So he dived in and took me down. Didn't know what to do once we were there, but then neither did I. First I was angry with him. Then with myself for being unprepared. And I think that's the situation that lots of us got into. We have been working with a common understanding. Strikers strike. Grapplers grapple. Then NHB came along and showed us what would happen when the twain shall meet.

(Yeah, I know this wasn't the first time it ever happened, but it was my first real exposure to the idea. The first time it sunk in.)

Initially, grapplers were overwhelmingly dominant. Now, things are a little more balanced. Not because grapplers are losing to strikers. But because those distinctions are blurring more. People are both integrating elements of each format into their personal practices and/or finding elements within their own styles to address needs they didn't perceive before.

Take some of the kickers from early on. They'd launch into spinning kicks right off the bat. In striking, they could get away with it. Cover up, and even if the opponent does close distance, he's going to box you. So as long as your guard is up, all's well. But suddenly, they were in a position where keeping your hands up wasn't enough. The grapplers didn't care whether the kicker was guarding his face. They wanted his legs. And down he went.

But over the years, people have learned. They've had to change and improve their setups. Take Maurice Smith. He learned enough grappling to survive (though not enough to dominate on the ground) and learned to better set up his strikes against a grappler. Open with punching so that you can keep your feet under you and maintain your footwork. Then when the opening is there, in with the kick. Wear the opponent down a bit, then unleash the big gun. That sort of thing.

(I'm talking from the striking side predominantly because I don't really understand the grappling side. Yet.)

I believe that the experience hasn't invalidated any art. Only improved it by asking it to step up and address (or redress) needs that had gone unaddressed for a long while. It expands the art in a way. Or revitalizes elements of it that had faded a little. Same probably holds true from the other direction. People like Dan Severn had the skills to take a person down but then didn't know how to finish it. By many wrestling formats, I believe, his job was done when the opponent hit the floor on his back. But this was different. And he learned.

So, yeah. It did demystify the arts in a way. It showed us application in a way that I, for one, hadn't seen before. And it sharpened the distinction between real practitioners and casual participants (even those who teach).

I don't believe that only those styles that compete are valid. Far from it. But I appreciate NHB for reminding us of what's real. Not real as in what wins on the street. But it stripped away the bravado. If 'real' for a practitioner is a holistic health practice, then I applaud that reality. If it's a celebration (capoeira, for example), I applaud that too. If it's fighting, same deal. But I appreciate the impetus to look at what we do with fresh eyes. Not to tow the party line or buy into the marketing. But to look honestly at what we do and ask ourselves whether it's real, whatever 'real' is for each of us.


Stuart B.

[LEGEND]

I think what disturbed people the most was watching a thug like TANK ABBOTT decimate MARTIAL ARTIST out there. TANK ABBOTT although may not be truly skilled in one asset is the REASON why we train. He's a badass and he enjoys hurting people. Eventually there were several that kick his ass...but watching a common bar room brawler kick ass woke a lot of people up.

A

[apoweyn]

Legend,

Too right, my friend.


Stuart B.

[Snake]

I would agree with a lot of what has already been said on this thread, however it is also my opinion that the vast majority of the general public still has no idea what mixed martial arts, bjj, or even UFC are all about. On the other hand, most people I talk to do know, at least in the general sense, what kungfu/karate/TKD are and still respect them in the same manner that they always have. My friends who don't study MA at all have never seen a MMA event have no clue who the Gracies are or what bjj is, however, they do ask about my kung fu training and how it is alike or different from other traditional martial arts.

I think we in this forum tend to forget from time to time that we have a greater interest in martial arts in general than the average person, and have far more knowledge on the subject. Heck, I have people in my class who have never watched a MMA event and don't know a thing about bjj. I just feel that those of us on this board, and others like it, are in the minority on topics such as these. Just my thoughts.

Snake

[shaolinboxer]

I don't think this is as relevant to Martial Arts in general as most people seem to think.

Yes, there are many people in persuit of a well rounded capacity for combat, but relative to the martial arts community as a whole it is a very small percentage.

Most people who wanted to learn tai chi are still practicing tai chi, non-CMA are as popular as ever if not more so (tae kwon do, aikido, the many schools of karate), reputable kung fu masters still have a lot to offer and people still WANT to learn kung fu.

I think the influence of MMA has been strongest on those who are interested in open (meaning fewer limitations) competition.

It seems to me the next big thing creeping up is going to be "reality fighting", like Krav Maga and Systema (and just wait until the US military creates their own system and offeres a version to the public). It will again mystify the martial arts, because you can't really fully execute these techniques without hurting anyone so you will have to trust that they work. And then people will wonder, where did all of this come from? And they will return to tradtional marital arts.

The cycle continues....

"She ain't got no muscles in her teeth."
- Cat

[Waidan]

As for the de-mystifying of traditional MA, I don't think there's any question it's a good thing. Note, however, that I don't feel the arts themselves needed to be "exposed", but rather the artists.

TMAs exist because they work. A fighting style will die with it's creator if it can't prove itself on the street/battlefield/whatever. However, in our increasingly "civilized" society, practitioners have gotten away from the training and methods required to properly perform their material. MMA has helped to show us this.

It bears mentioning that what happens in the ring is not indicative of how things go down in RL. There are many x-factors in a real-world conflict that cannot be implemented in a ring. This is important, because if we take UFC (for example)as the benchmark for fighting prowess, we may be trading one illusion for another.

[apoweyn]

Snake,

Good point. The general public's perception of martial arts may well be influenced more strongly by Billy Blanks than by Tank Abbott. But even that serves to demystify the arts somewhat.

Think about, say, five years ago. If someone said they practiced kickboxing, I'd have thought that they trained and fought in the ring. Now, I generally assume that they're referring to an aerobics class.

Things like tae bo have made martial arts more accessible to the general public. But I think Merryprankster made a very good point. If you're talking about the general public, you're talking about public perception. So while we, as actual practitioners, may understand that tae bo doesn't represent the totality, or even more than a small sample, of martial arts, the general public doesn't know that.

Lyle has a good point as well. With recent events being what they are, the next wave may well be reality based. 'Military' arts like Krav Maga. But, again, that will be the image rather than the reality. The image will be on practicality rather than Eastern esoterics. But it'll be an image all the same.

I think that anytime you introduce new people, nonpractitioners, or casual practitioners, you're going to run into issues regarding mystification. An understanding of the truth of the matter comes with time and experience. (How much of each, I've yet to determine.)


Stuart B.

[apoweyn]

Waidan,

Agreed. Nicely said.


Stuart B.

[Snake]

ap Oweyn,

I had never even thought about the "Cardio Kickboxing" craze that has hit the country over the past few years. You make some very good points. I totally agree with you that Billy Blanks has probably done more to demystify martial arts than anything that the UFC/Mixed Martial Arts have. The scary thing is that people who are taking a tae bo actually think they are learning something they can use in self defense, but mostly they are setting themselves up for a false sense of security. At least those getting into mma are learning techiniques to defend themselves effectively!

My thoughts on this were mainly based on Merryprankster's opening of the thread and his focus on MMA events and grappling. I would venture to guess that many more people have used tae bo or one of it's imitators, either through video or an aerobics class at their gym, then have ever heard or seen a MMA event.

Snake

[apoweyn]

Snake,

It's a bit scary, isn't it. I have no problems with tae bo as a practice. I don't even have a problem using it in conjuncture with the term 'martial arts.' I don't think it is one, but it is peripherally related.

But self defense? Good God, no.

Yeah, Merryprankster's original point related largely to NHB. And I have to agree that the impact of that is largely limited to us within the community. But I guess we're as much in need of demystification as anyone outside the community. Perhaps more so.

Thanks Snake.


Stuart B.

[Chris McKinley]

Kudos to all who have posted so far. This is perhaps the most intelligent, insightful, respectful and objective discussion of this topic I think I've seen in KFO. It's nice to see folks from 'both sides' of the issue able to discuss the matter as fellow martial artists.

I find what has happened in the last ten years to be similar to other such demystifying periods throughout history. As an example, throughout their history, the Chinese had rightfully developed pride in the martial arts they had developed over many hundreds of years, arts which were proven either in military battles or in civilian ones. However, as tends to happen with human nature, some of them let it go to their heads and became arrogant and complacent about it in certain areas, and their arts became more flowery and watered down. As the Chinese began to increase travel and migration across the Indonesian peninsula, they encountered the people of Indonesia. Again as part of human nature, fights occurred. Generally speaking, the Chinese assumed their famous arts would make quick work of the more 'primitive' people of Indonesia.

However, what they found was that the indigenous arts of Pentjak Silat, continually battle-tested on a daily basis, made quick work of the Chinese. After numerous humiliating defeats, some of these migrating Chinese sat back and took stock of the situation. They knew their own arts' reputations were well-deserved and that they were viable forms of combat, yet they were puzzled as to why these arts hadn't seem to hold up in actual combat with the Indonesians. They humbled themselves and realized that it wasn't their arts that had failed them, but that they had failed their arts.

Many of these Chinese practitioners had become too esoteric, 'artsy', metaphorical, and philosophical in their practice to the point of imbalance. Their arts had degenerated into formal, courtly versions of themselves as the practitioners had become caught up in a culturally self-congratulating loop of teachers and students. Those Chinese who had the humility to recognize this went back and scraped both the rust and the decorative lacy frills off of their arts and began to practice for real. They came back to Indonesia with the real thing, the genuine Chinese arts of old which had earned the fearsome reputation in the first place. These arts proved once again why they were to be respected, as these rejuvenated arts and artists began to experience victories once again. The battle versions of these great Chinese arts became the foundation for the various Kuntao arts of Indonesia, known for their devastating effectiveness and even cruelty in combat.

Another example of arrogance leading to crushing defeat was the Boxer Rebellion. In this example, the practitioners used legitimately effective Chinese martial arts, not flowery nonsense. However, they assumed that this genuine ability would allow them to prevail over the range weapons of the foreign enemy. As history shows, at those times where the Boxers were able to close to H2H range, they usually prevailed unquestionably. However, because they weren't able to control the range at which the fight took place, they were eventually gunned down and their rebellion was quelled.

The reverse has also happened. In WWII, American soldiers invading Japanese held islands found that their range weapons, i.e., the M-1 carbine etc., didn't give them the advantage they expected when confronted at close range with fanatical Japanese soldiers able to use their bayonets, swords, knives and empty-hand martial arts training. More often than not, the Japanese soldier enjoyed the advantage at that range.

Perhaps what is to be learned is that realism in combat training is vital, but so is the ability to fight at whatever range one finds oneself.

[apoweyn]

Cheers Chris. Just goes to show what we can manage when we aren't busy calling each other 'arsemonkey' all the time.

In addition to the Japanese, there were the Filipinos, who are credited with giving the Marines their nickname, the leathernecks. And with the adoption of the .45 caliber sidearm. (So the story goes)


Stuart B.

[Chris McKinley]

Sorry folks, more thoughts :p . Regarding NHB in the 90's to present: it has been observed by some traditional martial artists that the so-called NHB events of the last ten years have become a sometimes low-brow, often lowest-common-denominator, public thugfest devoid even of lip service to martial morality. Perhaps worse than the spectacles themselves is the mindset which this form of entertainment has fostered among both its adherents and its observing fans. A brash, loudmouthed arrogance totally disrespectful of other martial traditions, sometimes even of those traditions from which they originated. To be fair, this mindset was more often to be found in the beginners and fans than in the top-caliber fighters themselves; such fighters often proving humble, respectful and friendly in person.

Young lions looking to make a name for themselves in the NHB ranks often emulated the 'professional wrestling'-style bravado of the talented Gracie family, too often without yet putting in the years of practice it takes to be able to credibly make such claims. Traditional and other martial artists observed 18 yr. old punk kids with 6 months of BJJ training and no real fight experience of their own talking a level of trash as if they were top-level NHB competitors and lecturing real combat veterans on the futility of whatever they might be doing (as long as it wasn't grappling) in a real fight scenario. The absurdity of such lectures and the total lack of credibility of the lecturer caused many to discount, across-the-board, anything which NHB proponents might be saying, lumping them all into the same basket. Such dismissals were made all the easier by the seemingly mindless cookie-cutter nature of the propaganda being spewed by these young greenhorn but enthusiastic NHB advocates.

Unfortunately, the non-NHBers made the mistake of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Many were unable or unwilling to look past the vulgar, skin-deep disrespectful messenger to see the clear and overwhelming message: that many if not most traditional martial artists in the U.S. were either training in an unrealistic manner which failed against a resisting opponent, assuming that they would be able to control the range at which the fight occurred, relying too much on the past reputation of their arts, or perhaps all of the above.

All of the legitimate critique of NHB aside, it is perhaps the most valuable thing to happen to traditional martial arts practice in the U.S. thus far. As has been stated recently, sometimes your enemies will be more truthful with you than your friends will. The worst of what is NHB, as repugnant as it may be to some traditionalists or other combat veterans, still allowed them to discover and repair the weaknesses in their combat training from the comfort of their easy chair rather than face-to-face against an opponent in the street intent on taking their lives.

Personally, I've experienced training on both sides of the issue, having seen the whole argument of 'striking VERSUS grappling', even of 'traditional VERSUS MMA', as a false one. I've been a mixed martial artist since long before the term became fashionable, so I strongly and personally empathize with proponents of the MMA approach, at least in principle. I also appreciate the intent to create a crucible for effective combat training in the form of NHB events. The good intentions are definitely there. However, I've also experienced the value of traditional training. I've seen the superior ethical development it offers (with respectful exception to the unbelievable work ethic of top-level NHB fighters--nobody works harder). I've even seen the technical superiority traditional training can sometimes offer if one is patient enough to develop it. Hint: that's the reason I think even the most hardcore NHB purist would benefit in terms of real fighting skill from, for instance, extended training in arts like Taijiquan or Aikido.

I would also offer a third major faction to the mix, that of the non-NHB/MMA artist who trains for realistic life-or-death combat. Such people are, in some respects, no closer to the stereotype of traditional martial artists than are the current Pride or UFC contenders. In other words, those training for NHB events or in MMA schools aren't the ONLY folks interested purely in a 'use only what really works' approach to combat. Examples of such people would be those in law enforcement, the FBI, military and Special Operations personnel, etc. to varying degrees.

I've seen so-called traditionalists who could, and have, destroyed intermediate MMA guys. I've seen newbie-to-intermediate MMA guys who could, and have, waxed certain so-called masters of traditional martial arts without breaking a sweat. I've seen people who proudly label themselves traditional martial artists who had more grappling experience/trophies etc. than some professional NHB fighters. I've met MMA fighters who have more traditional martial ethics/Budo code etc. than certain traditional masters that I've met.

The very best on both sides of the issue, and those that eventually rise to the top, are those who put their egos aside, keep an open mind, and remain willing to learn, no matter the source of learning.