"Martial Arts Don't Work"

Many times I've read, heard, and seen people insist that martial arts are completely uneffective, not real, and/or they are actually detrimental to the practicioner in that martial artists begin to think that the highly stylized attacks are actually how people really fight and/or assault eachother. The most popular complaint I've run into is that the methods of training used in East Asian martial arts are not realistic. I believe that it IS good to be somewhat skeptical of things, but there is a concept that most of these nay-sayers are missing.
You see, martial arts training is alot like math class. In a math lesson you are given a problem to solve in the form of an equation. The equation is written out for you in the easiest possible manner for you to understand. This numerical problem is an idea, and it's in its cleanest, most ideal form. For all intensive purposes it seems like the equation is useless because it isn't applied to anything. This is why alot of students get frustrated and say "When are we ever going to use this"? When the teacher finally gives a real world situation, like finding the amount of current it takes to light a flourescing light bulb.Then people can understand it's real world use.
Martial arts is alot like this. The techniques used and attacks used are ideas that are not connected to actual situations. They are in thier most perfect form (The ideal situation). This is so students can fully understand the concepts and physics behind the techniques. Of course no one actually attacks like that, and the movements in the technique are all exagerated. But this is so you can see what is going on. Once a good grasp of the concept in its most perfect form is understood then can a student try to apply it to a more real world situation. The exaggerated technique is compacted and applied at high speed. It is then thrown into the chaos of a realistic barrage of attacks. Though it is much more effective when done this way it is practically impossible to discern from the other defenses and is therefore useless as far as teaching is concerned (accept for maybe showing what a technique looks like in a realistic fight vs. a controlled training). As a word problem is to math, sparring is to martial arts. As an equation is to math, a basic two person, slow motion self defense kata (form) is to martial arts. Sparring is not real combat, but it is about as close as you can get to actual combat without getting seriously injured.

I encourage my students to try these techniques at a faster speed, from different attacks, and during sparring sessions. The more they use the technique the more likely they are to actually be able to apply it if attacked. The more variety they have during training with each technique, the better they will be able to adapt. So, do martial arts work? That is completely up to the practicioner. It's the man who makes the art, not the art who makes the man.

All That Glitters...

Last night before class I was researching taijutsu ground fighting techniques on the web to review and find basic techniques I could teach in class. While searching around I came across a site that had a jiujutsu/wrestling/mixed martial art ground technique. I found this technique that had a really cool name and was really fancy. The person showing the technique in the video made it seem like it was very easy, so I thought I'd try it out to see if it was any good. I am always looking for new material to add to the system I teach as I pride myself in teaching an evolving and contemporary art that is still steeped in tradition. when I finally tried the technique out I realized , for real combat, it was completely useless. First of all, it was obviously designed to be used by, and on people who are the exact same size. I'm a big guy and the student I was attempting it on was much smaller, making it close to impossible for me to make the movements I needed to make for the technique to work.The position I had to be in initially to execute the technique was one that occurs vary rarely. In fact , I don't think I've ever seen it in an actual fight. And last but not least, the maneuvering to execute the technique was complicated, intricate, and took way too much time. With all the experience in the world a person can still fall victim to good marketing and the desire to look cool. I almost fell for it, but since I know to test techniques before I teach them in front of 10 people and possibly humiliate myself; I save a whole lot of grief. So, in conclusion: just because something looks cool does NOT mean it's going to be usefull and/or practical. Just because it glitters, doesn't make it gold.
Other than a dud technique , class last night was really good. I had a new student come to class. My senior student helped me teach since I'm still partially healing from an injury, I can't do alot of rolling and falling, and some excersizes I simply can't do at all. It was really satisfying to see the new student soak up all the information, genuinely try hard, and have fun. My senior student showed alot of progress. His rolls have gotten quieter. He has a working knowledge of the basics, their names, and some of the finer nuances that are important to teaching. Basic Taijutsu is so much easier to teach now since we have the online basics tutorial. Now I can teach a technique, have the student practice it several times so I can correct him and talk about the important aspects, then I can instruct him to practice at home using the videos online as a refference. This saves time so I can make sure I teach each set in its entirety. At the end of class we had a very good discussion about some of the mental aspects of martial arts training and Taijutsu. My students had quite a few questions, but I made sure I answered them to the best of my ability. I can't wait for next practice!

Is it old because it's good, or good because it's old?

I just wanted to take some time to talk about Zenpo Nagare(forward breakfalls). It's safe to say that I've been studying and practicing Taijutsu on and off, mostly on, for about 18 years. In this time I've pretty much accepted all the dynamics and techniques in the art to be fact. Because it's an ancient art and it's managed to be around for so long I assumed it was because it was so effective that it stood the test of time. It wasn't until recently that I began to question some of the usefulness of certain techniques and/or what their real purpose was if not for actual combat or use. The biggest problem I have with any of the techniques in the art is called "Zenpo Nagare". "Zenpo Nagare" is a foward breakfall where you bow your body foward to get closer to the ground then drop your upper body to the floor, landing on your forearms and kicking your rear leg up. All the rolls and breakfalls in Taijutsu are said to be performable on black top or concrete, Zenpo Ukemi included. Now, the rule of thumb behind break falls is to fall on the fleshy parts of the body and avoid the boney parts so you don't break anything, or at least minimize your chances of breaking something. I don't know if it's just my body or if it is for everyone but when I fall on my forearms while executing a foward breakfall; my elbows and a bone in my wrists always hit the ground first. I've practiced this nagare for a long time. I've tried to adjust the way my arms were and they way I fell but I always land on those same places. This led me to question if this technique was designed to stop you from breaking something, or to make you break LESS things. As far as I'm concerened a breakfall should be practiced only if it provides maximum protection. If this technique is only a lesser of evils then I think I may remove it from my lessons.
If something is around a long time, or part of a paradigm that is essentially good; does it mean that it's good by default? Should I teach something that may be harmful to my students just because it's been there a long time and is accepted? Or should I , at least, try to find some other more effective method to replace it? This is why I teach the way I do. This is why I've modernized the art. I'm trying to keep all the things that make the art good, and trying to remove or replace outdated, obsolete, or otherwise useless techniques that may actually cause more harm than good. There are certain things that are obvious, but Zenpo Nagare isn't quite so easy as I've never had to use it. I've fallen forward many times but have always rolled or shifted myself so I ended up falling on my side using "Yoko Nagare" (side breakfall). I guess I will think and experiment with this technique to see if it will continue to be included in my lessons.

Is it old because it's good? Or good because it is old?