NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/martial/16351

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-01 | 5.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!ogicse!reed!todd
From: [e-mail] (Todd Ellner)
Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts
Subject: Re: Just Curious...
Keywords: Traditional Martial Arts, Evolution
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 2 Jan 93 02:42:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1993Jan2.024200.10224
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Reed College, Portland, Oregon
Lines: 82

When one of my teachers started training in the martial arts his mother and
grandmother didn't ask him "Does X teach a traditional martial art?" or even
"What martial art does he teach?". They asked him "Can he fight?" In that vein:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ray Terry) writes:
>The Koreans, as do the Japanese and Chinese and ..., like to claim that they
>can trace the martial arts "in their homeland" back to some very early date
>in history.  For some reason they all want to be able to claim that martial
>arts were born there.  Does it really matter?  IMHO, no, it doesn't.  An
>older martial art is not necessarily a more effective martial art....

This has always amused, bemused, and confused me. The "my art is n years old"
thing (where n has to be expressed in scientific notation) "and we teach it
_exactly_ as the Master taught it, no changes at all", that is. People say
this with great pride, as if it makes their art and their practice better
than something with a shorter pedigree. I would find this attitude sad if it
were not funny or maybe funny if it were not sad, and here is why:

None of our Arts, not one, sprung fully grown de novo from the brow of Zeus.
Each of them came from something else and was the result of people learning
from their teachers and from their own experience. Furthermore, as the founder
of an art encounters different people and as his body and mind change over
time. The art you would learn from him/her at 30 may be completely different
from what s/he teaches at 60. This may account for arguments among students
about what the "real" art as taught by the founder was. They simply learned
from their instructor at different times in his/her life and the development
of his/her art. So what we see here is that people practicing the "original
unmodified art" are practicing exactly what was passed down by a particular
person to a particular person at a particular time in their lives.

I said above that arts evolve, and I think this bears a little examination.
Martial arts do not evolve in a vacuum. Not only the founders' personal
conditions but their social and martial environment must be kept in mind. An
art which developed in the warm, wet, mountainous forests of Sumatra with
unsure footing and limited visibility will needs be different one which
evolves in the cold open plains of Manchuria. What people wear, the weapons
and tools they use, whether they ride horses, walk, or paddle boats, the
martial arts of the people they fight, and the work they do all affect the
way they fight. If Tae Kwon Do really were two thousand years old and hadn't
changed since then  it might be perfect for fighting people on horseback
dressed in armor if you are a Hwarang warrior or a peasant. It might need
some modification to be optimal for fighting boxin' wrasslin' football
playin' farm boys from El Paso. I personally do not train much with the sai,
the bo, the Kwan Dao, or certain other traditional weapons. I train with the
tools and weapons I use every day and am more likely to come up against,
the machete and hoe (we are starting a farm), the small knife, gun, stick,
and pick handle. I also spend more time learning how to deal with boxers
and wrestlers than I do learning how to fight people on horseback, people with
armor and swords, or people dressed in sarongs. In short, different conditions
and environments dictate different development of one's art and practive, the
way one expresses the art one learns.

Even if the "original art" were perfect for the founder and perfectly appli-
cable for our situation it would still not be a perfect art which should
never be changed. We are not identical to our teachers, and what works for
them may not work perfectly for us. For example, let's consider the assistant
instructor at the school I attend. He's a fantastic boxer, and I want to learn
everything he has to teach me. But I can't fight the way he does, nor should
I. Guro Matt is at least 6'6" with long arms and long strong legs for his
height. I'm built like a 5'9" brick and have to modify what I am taught
accordingly. Similarly Pak Serak, the founder of the Silat system of which
I study two expressions, had one arm, one good leg, one clubfoot, and other
physical conditions which affected the way he fought. I have two arms, two
legs, bad eyes, and no contractures. Thus it would not make sense for me to
train in the original art with no modifications whatsoever.

ON THE OTHER HAND I AM NOT SAYING THAT WE SHOULD NOT APPLY OURSELVES AND TRY
LIKE HELL TO LEARN EVERYTHING OUR TEACHERS AND THEIR ARTS HAVE TO TEACH US.
The people we learn from have spent years making mistakes and making tech-
niques work for them. It would be stupid not to take advantage of their
experience and the generations of people who have come before them. I am
trying to say that the people who are proud of never having an original idea
and never learning a thing from the fights they get into are missing the point
of the martial arts. They are turning them into a lifeless, unchanging thing.
This is both historically ludicrous and willfully blind to the way the Arts
have evolved and must continue to evolve if they are to remain vital useful
practices.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Ellner  [e-mail]
"What has the study of biology taught you about the Creator Dr. Haldane?"
JBS Haldane:"I'm not sure, but He seems to be inordinately fond of beetles."