SOMEONE PLEASE DEFINE "REAL MARTIAL ARTS".... part 2

Alright, talking about "real martial arts", "real techniques" and such...check this out....  Back  in those “BKKM” days (Before the Karate Kid Movie the original one with Pat Morita and Ralph Macchio) when most Masters would train you so hard to see if you would quit, they still followed that pattern of constant repetition of simple techniques until you absorbed it and were able to advance to more complicated and intricate maneuvers.

            Going from the simple to the more intricate and advanced is the same basic procedure followed in academic classrooms.  Once the student has absorbed the simple theories, they are capable of moving forward to the more advanced.  You don’t throw algebra at a student until they have understood basic math.  You don’t have them read James Joyce or Albert Camus until they have figured out what Dick, Jane and Spot were doing.

            You can’t just throw information at people and expect them to retain it.  Hence we have the “gup” and “dan” curriculum.  Each new skill and technique is built on the previous one that was taught.  As the student progresses, the techniques and materials come at a faster pace.  But even then, one doesn't throw a new technique at a student until they have absorbed the previous one.

            Throwing someone to the lions in order to teach them how to hunt is not really that effective.  One sure thing is that you do not have a huge number of returning students.  It sounds great on your brochure, and the fact that you may have a couple people that went through your program and are now hunters is great publicity.  But the truth of the matter is that you probably do not have that many students at all.  It’s a wonder if you even have a double digit amount of students.

            To be fair, most of the MMA teachers that I know follow a “traditional martial arts” type of curriculum.  They have beginner techniques that the students must absorb before they move forward.  Also, most of their students already have previous experience, Judo, wrestling, Tae Kwon Do, Hapkido and so on; as do the instructors.

            The problem with traditional martial arts is not with the art, it may be the way the art is taught at that particular location.  There may be particular Masters who does not have certain knowledge or experience so their particular dojang, or system, may be lacking.  But that is the fault of the Master, not a tenet of the entire martial art.  If you study traditional arts, completely study them, including all the rituals, traditions and so on, you will discover applications of the techniques that are as valid today as they were when the art was first conceived.

            True, we may not carry or even use swords in today’s society.  However, if you study the sword, break down the techniques, breathing, hand positions and so on; you may discover how those same hand positions are useful in executing particular joint locks and throws.  You will also discover that you can apply sword strike theories and some techniques to the Bo staff, baton and knife.  Plus, it's a wonderful avenues for meditation.

            I know, I’m preaching to the choir.  We are quite aware that traditional martial arts do possess effective, “real” techniques that are useful on today’s streets.  If your art doesn’t have effective self defense techniques, you may need to change schools because it’s probably that particular instructor, not the art.

That's it for now, until later....