Renaissance Martial Arts

[vvvooo]

I don't know if this has been posted previously but it's an interesting find.

Renaissance Martial Arts
The Web Documentary

http://www.thearma.org/Videos/RMAWD.htm


Enjoy:)

[Aengus]

Yeah, that's good stuff.

Here's a link to an up coming WMA event. Some of the guys I train with are planning to go to it.

http://www.wmaw.us/2009/

[vvvooo]

Dale thanks for the link.

[Coach Larson]

Check this one out.
It illustrates how historical and modern combat arts are two sides of the same coin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHldHRSi-jo

[Aengus]

Nice! :)

[vvvooo]

cool find

[vvvooo]

What are your thoughts on this?

The Challenge of Defining a Martial Art

http://www.thearma.org/essays/Defining-A-Martial-Art.html

[lorenzodamarith]

Check this one out.
It illustrates how historical and modern combat arts are two sides of the same coin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHldHRSi-jo

hello,

coach larson, they are NOT two sides of the same coin. they are the same thing.

still, it is an interesting video. periodically, the military initiates a "study" to "improve" their combative "system". invariably, they look to martial systems that have been handed down for a long time. the more of these techniques the military adopts, the more they resemble the "classics".

thanks

[lorenzodamarith]

What are your thoughts on this?

The Challenge of Defining a Martial Art

http://www.thearma.org/essays/Defining-A-Martial-Art.html

hello,

vvvooo, this article is pseudointellectual rambling.

thanks

[vvvooo]

Hi lorenzodamarith,

aside from pseudointellectual rambling, any thougts or input on the subject matter?

[Coach Jones]

Looking at the article, I didn't get a clear understanding of the writer's point. By the end it seemed a long way to go to say that people define "martial arts" in various ways...yes...yes they do.

The video shows some good examples of how, irrespective of country of origin, the need for effective and efficient fighting methods would result over time in many peoples coming up with similar (if not idential) technical approaches - at least at a base level.

The problem isn't with defining the martial part - but the art. What makes something a martial art, or someone a martial artist.

Art is by definition, subjective. In the end, the interpretation comes down to the individual doing the evaluating and thier criteria. For example, I get just as much enjoyment out of watching a tournament Wushu athlete, who would struggle to fight sleep, as I do a good boxing or MMA match, as I do a "traditional martial artist" or CQC expert. In my subjective definition ALL of these people are martial artists and what they do IS martial art.

However, typically when we speak about martial artists or martial art we are assuming an element of proficiency in fighting as well. The fighting side of the house, is an art unto itself. No system on the planet ever has or ever will, TEACH a person to fight. You don't learn to fight from a system, you learn to fight with a system.

Now, conventionally, when we talk about martial arts there is an assumed connection to fighting. Some of us like to emphasize the "self-defense" or "self protection" aspect - but it's fighting. Whatever the genesis of the confrontation, an aggresive exchange with physical contact is fighting. If we enter into a discussion where we allow ourselves that assumption, and we place a premium on the ability of a "martial artist/art" to include the aspect of fighting then the discussion must come down to quality of training and depth of knowledge and experience of the ones doing the teaching/coaching.

There is a very good reason why world-wide and throughout history, traditional martial arts were passed down in the way in which they were.

Nowadays, we live in a world where systems which took decades to master are taught in a weekend. Teachers are made without ever having to be tested. Without having to prove themselves or, as the saying goes, "put their money where their mouths are". I would go so far as to say that the majority of martial arts instructors - world-wide - would fail the "practical" part of their final exam if they had one.

Now is this necessarily bad?

IMO, no. I would've had a different opinon a few years ago, but as i've gotten older i'm beginning to see that there's more to martial arts training than just fighting. There's something to be said for the value of Hoplology.

For those who may be unfamiliar with the term, Hoplology is the academic study of combat psychology, methods etc of martial arts. Now, in my opinion, this in no way makes one a martial artist, but it is interesting, fun and a worthwhile course of study. Exposure to traditional or non-traditional training, concepts and methods is great and there's nothing wrong with it in the least. I think every martial artists should make a study out of Hoplology - but I also think that those teachers who have this background vice a more "practical" background should be clear and honest with themselves and thier perspective students. It's one thing to understand, very well, how a fish breathes but it's quite another to sprout gills.

This brings me to the subject of Rennaisance Martial Arts.

Now, I know that a lot of you here practice and/or are into these arts. It's not my intention to be condescending or insulting so if it comes off that way I appologize ahead of time.

My opinon of the RMA is that there is a lot to be learned from them in terms of the Hoplological side of the house. Some of the aspects can easily be adopted by those with the experience and background to do so. My biggest issue with them is that there is very little to no practical line to follow. In my experience, the people out their claiming to "teach" these arts as a practical alternative to more traditional and/or combat sports oriented programs are misguided. A picture in a book is not the same as quality, first-hand instruction from a qualified and reputable teacher. Interpretations of the material in a book are not the same as those gleaned from practical experience. Again, I do think there is a value to this type of training - I don't think it's worthless by any stretch of the imagination. I just feel personally, that it's often promoted as being on par with the more traditional or classical styles and methods of teaching when at best, it's a Hoplological study. Again, nothing at all wrong with that - but it isn't comparable to more traditional/classical/ or even modern combative methods where there are litmus tests in place and those teaching have the proper (and hard earned) experience to evaluate, interpret and apply the methods with the correct perspective.

If i'm teaching someone a classical system, I take one of two approaches. I can teach it fom a Hoplological perspective or from a more traditional perspective. I have never and will never award a belt to someone coming at it from a Hoplological angle. To study an art in this manner is still beneficial, educational and fun - though incomplete. This is more akin to studying how a swimmer - swims. The more traditional approach requires a heavy emphasis on the practical side of the house. That means they are going to not only understand how the swimmer swims but they are going to get in the water, get wet and get to swimming.

Again this is just my opinion.

[vvvooo]

Coach Jones

Thanks for your well thought out insights; your input is always appreciated.

[lorenzodamarith]

Hi lorenzodamarith,

aside from pseudointellectual rambling, any thougts or input on the subject matter?

hello,

vvvooo, apologies for taking so long to get back to you on this. also, apologies for misunderstanding your original question. it appeared you inquired about the merits of the article itself. now it is clear you asked about the subject matter.

firstly... much agreement with coach jones on the subject.

now then. personally, never had the desire to define "martial artist" or "martial arts".

for as long as there has been internet (and likely much longer) the debate has raged... what constitutes "martial art"... what is "real"... what is "show".

it is silly. usually, articles like this originate with the uninformed, the inexperienced.

"combat" or "martial art" or "military science" is whatever it accomplishes at the moment.

an example argument is "what is real sambo".

sambo: samooborona bez oruzhya/samsazsheta bez oruzhya.
self defense without weapons.

ok.

this nomenclature just described a situation. it does NOT describe a collection of techniques or philosophies. therefore it follows that "sambo" is whatever YOU say it is. you would be the one that has to do it.

usage of the term "martial art" amounts to one person's attempt to impose their view of reality on others.

combat is a situation.
combatives are collections of techniques brought together in an attempt to deal with the situation.
combative techniques are known by many who do not fight.
combatants (those who fight) don't often know any of these techniques.
martial arts is the term used when the observer can't identify the situation at hand.
martial artist is someone that can't identify the situation at hand.

it is therefore a waste of time to try to "name it". if one has a particular purpose in mind, there exists a skill set that will satisfy that purpose. that's about it.

thanks

[Aengus]

Vinny, thanks for bringing up the subject.

First off, I’ve only been studying a “real” Western Martial System for about a year. It’s from Fiore dei Liberi's system that he wrote down 600 years ago. My Western Martial SPORT (SCA Armored Heavy combat), I’ve been involved with for 25 years as well as studying and practicing a Traditional Martial Art (Shotokan Karate).
As far as the author of the link you posted, I’ve read a few of his articles in the past and even bought a book of his and my opinion is that he has bought into his own press and from people that I know who I trust, their opinion is the same.

I think the essence of a Martial Art is a system or style that teaches a person to kill or subdue an adversary or opponent pure and simple. East, West, or any culture that has had to defend itself against an enemy, has a fighting system. Differences depend on their culture, environment or even the ruling government. Yet, even with this great variety of styles, the similarities are amazingly the same, it’s the delivery systems that differ. I notice that in Western Martial Arts, particular Fiori, the similarities of fighting techniques with a long sword against someone armed the same and both not having any armor are very similar to Mushasi style in the book of five rings. The unarmed hand to hand combat are as well. The Western Fighting Culture is very rich and detailed. They problem is that it is all written down in text and drawn in pictures and unlike Oriental styled schools weren’t taught t in a formalized setting or, if they were, the tradition was lost hundreds years ago so, it is pretty much up to interpretation .There are people out there who are studying the works of these old sword masters but not many folks read Latin today that are interested in Fighting Arts. Plus, it pretty much went away with the advent of gunpowder and only has survived through evolving into fencing and boxing. Besides, the Eastern Fighting Arts have had a better publicist and WMA hasn’t.

But be that as it may, imo, a what makes martial art is many faceted. We have a lot kids in class so we to try and put them in the crucible to push them so they can know their limits and give them the mindset they need to survive always under the parent’s supervision of course. At some point in time though you do have to try and put these techniques to use. I am a big proponent of putting strain on a person to give the them confidence and tools needed when the Suck factor hits 11.

As for Hopology. I’ve never come across it before but from what I’ve read, it’s interesting. “Gates of Fire” is one of my favorite books and deal a lot with this.

[lorenzodamarith]

As for Hopology. I’ve never come across it before but from what I’ve read, it’s interesting. “Gates of Fire” is one of my favorite books and deal a lot with this.

hello,

aengus! what's shakin'? zounds! thou dost knoweth much swordplayeth! hahahahaha!

you may have studied a bit of hopology without realizing it. several individuals such as tony blauer (blauersystems) made a serious study of combat psychology. often, the clinics and seminars they gave included treatments on the subject.

if you have interest in hopology, you can look into tony blauer or a fella name of don draeger (r.i.p.). they both have good material. best of all, you won't need to know latin!

thanks

[Aengus]

aengus! what's shakin'? zounds! thou dost knoweth much swordplayeth! hahahahaha!
Yeah I've studied a bit. :) Actually I feel my years in the SCA has giving me a little perspective on Armored combat and tactics.



you may have studied a bit of hopology without realizing it. several individuals such as tony blauer (blauersystems) made a serious study of combat psychology. often, the clinics and seminars they gave included treatments on the subject.

You know you can't train in the martial arts without reading the "Book of Five Rings" and the "Art of War" and pick up on stuff.
Hopology looks very similar to these old Warrior Codes od Bushido and Chivalry. But with a modern emphasis on it. Which is good.
Bushido and Chivalry, Samurai and Knight all go hand in hand. To be one you must be prepared to die. Both Codes are deeply rooted in religion and philosphy which teaches you how to deal with combat to the death as well as dealing with life.
The "Hagakure", "Ramon Lull's Book of Knighthood and Chivalry", and "Living the Martial Way: A Manual for the Way a Modern Warrior Should Think"
by Forrest E. Morgan are great books on this subject that really influenced my thinking and training.

[lorenzodamarith]

Bushido and Chivalry, Samurai and Knight all go hand in hand. To be one you must be prepared to die. Both Codes are deeply rooted in religion and philosphy which teaches you how to deal with combat to the death as well as dealing with life.
The "Hagakure", "Ramon Lull's Book of Knighthood and Chivalry", and "Living the Martial Way: A Manual for the Way a Modern Warrior Should Think"
by Forrest E. Morgan are great books on this subject that really influenced my thinking and training.

hello,

aengus, this is just window dressing. these philosophies and ideas existed to put killers in a favorable light. knight/samurai/rentacop/commandos aren't the only ones prepared to die. the are the ones perpetually told to be prepared. it is another thing entirely to come about that preparedness by oneself, and it happens often.

the point is that "martial art/artist" is an artificial idea with the sole purpose of making the observer comfortable with the combatant. anyone pursuing such a goal is pursuing something that is essentially a faerie tale notion. knights/samurai/commandos likely don't/didn't see themselves as "martial artists".

of course, knights/samurai/commandos are not without their uses. certain segments of society always need disposable operatives, particularly those that think of themselves as disposable. no, the knights/samurai/commandos aren't stupid, they are just.... convinced. there are obvious practical reasons for this sort of attitude as well.

still, none of it amounts to art. pure martial artists admire movement for it's own sake. no different from a dancer, aerialist or mime. martial art is merely an exploration of movement that is normally undertaken under the supervision of an "instructor".

pure combatants are something different altogether. they are rare, and very very dangerous. obviously, they have motives as well, but these motives are almost never born of anything resembling "martial art" or martial tradition. real fighters typically aren't concerned with what is jutsu, jitsu, do, fu or anything else.

this sort of individual isn't alive after all the action because they are "badass".

they are considered "badass" because, after all the action, they are still alive.

it is certainly possible for a martial artist to be exceedingly effective in certain situations, but this is rare, an anomaly. pure combatants are almost never decent martial artists.

the really difficult thing about discussing combat from the past is that none of us were ever there. we don't know why most of those individuals fought or trained. we don't know what they fought for. we don't even know if many of the "historical accounts" are accurate.

we have some pictures.

we all know that "martial artists" and pure combatants use many of the same techniques, and that they may even be taught formally. the questions are "does the practitioner pursue art, or combat" and "does the practitioner know the difference"?

oh yeah, those medieval fencer wannabes are pretty impressive. knew a guy named russ brinson in washington. he and a bunch of guys used to practice at a park'n'ride under the interstate 5 overpass, downtown. he liked the rapier/main gauche combination. no helmets. these guys were really good. russ competed and by all accounts was pretty good. wouldn't want to duel with that guy. hahahahahahahaha!

thanks

[Coach Jones]

Well, that's really the essence of the discussion isn't it?



still, none of it amounts to art. pure martial artists admire movement for it's own sake. no different from a dancer, aerialist or mime. martial art is merely an exploration of movement that is normally undertaken under the supervision of an "instructor".

pure combatants are something different altogether. they are rare, and very very dangerous. obviously, they have motives as well, but these motives are almost never born of anything resembling "martial art" or martial tradition. real fighters typically aren't concerned with what is jutsu, jitsu, do, fu or anything else.


For the above to have merit, we'd have to define what a "real fighter" is. I disagree completely that it isn't art. Art is by definition subjective. You can have a liking for impressionism and hate modern art, for example, but it doesn't mean that it isn't art. Opinions, we are all entitled to, but how much we value a thing doesn't mean it is or isn't art.

In my experience, martial arts is absolutely an exploration of movement, but much more than that.

Martial arts is like anything else passed down from generation to generation. There is always a degree of baggage that comes with it, there will always be misunderstandings and confusion since "none of us were there". There is also something to be said for any skill that has been passed on throughout history. This is true as well regarding martial arts.

With this discussion, the problem is, and is going to continue to be that we're not all speaking the same language. We haven't defined what any of the terms mean.

What is martial arts?
What is a "real fighter"?
What is a "combatant"?

These are difficult to impossible to define because their meanings are different from one person to another.


real fighters typically aren't concerned with what is jutsu, jitsu, do, fu or anything else.

Again, this entirely depends on your concept of what a "real fighter" is.

In virtually every country in the world, history would disagree with the above statment, brother. The great fighters of China, Japan, Indonesia, Thailand, India and the Phillipines as well as those of the western world were very concerned about what exactly they were doing. Books were written, manuals created, art reflected it. It's why we have so many arts still around today - because real fighters were concerned with what it was they were doing.

Developing your skill is always a progression. We start of dumb as a box of hair and then through the guidance of someone better, more knowledgable and more experienced we improve. We may have an original epiphany or two along the way, but without that guidance the number of people who can develop real skill to the level of art is such a ridiculously small mumber it's not worth thinking about.

The concept of the "real fighter" is problematic because everyone has a slightly different idea of what a real fighter is. By definition a "real fighter" would simply be someone who fights. Doesn't mean they have to be any good.

If we lose the "real fighter" classification, we can focus on the question you pose below:


we all know that "martial artists" and pure combatants use many of the same techniques, and that they may even be taught formally. the questions are "does the practitioner pursue art, or combat" and "does the practitioner know the difference"?


There doesn't need to be a difference. Nor should there be.


it is another thing entirely to come about that preparedness by oneself, and it happens often.

I would adamantly disagree with the above statement. In my thirty years plus of martial arts combat sport, having met and trained with some great martial artists, combat sports athletes and military folks, I have never once seen this person - ever.

It's really a simple matter of realizing that learning anything is a process. We start out completely ignorant and have to build from there. Without appropriate and quality teaching and coaching even the most brilliant of individuals would be stuck reinventing the wheel. Trying to figure out the concepts, methods and tactics that could be taught to them much earlier and with much greater precision and understanding.

There are levels of knowledge in anything, it's impossible to grasp and understand something of high level without the necessary background. Take a physics class without basic math skills and you're going to have a problem. Try to tackle medical school without any previous education and you might as well try to flap your arms and fly to the moon. Aint gonna happen.

Now I have seen people with "natural ability" but that doesn't equate to skill. Just means they'll absorb concepts and be able to apply them quicker than most. It only ever goes so far. It's true in everything, sport, combat or otherwise.

What any of us can "come up with" or "develop" on our own is nothing compared to what heights we can reach under a great teacher/coach.

[Joseph David]

I am enjoying this discussion. Thank you for the insights.
:)

[Chuck Kechter]

What Coach Jones said!


hello,

aengus, this is just window dressing. these philosophies and ideas existed to put killers in a favorable light.

Opinion. Not fact.

[Aengus]

aengus, this is just window dressing. these philosophies and ideas existed to put killers in a favorable light. knight/samurai/rentacop/commandos aren't the only ones prepared to die. the are the ones perpetually told to be prepared. it is another thing entirely to come about that preparedness by oneself, and it happens often.

the point is that "martial art/artist" is an artificial idea with the sole purpose of making the observer comfortable with the combatant. anyone pursuing such a goal is pursuing something that is essentially a faerie tale notion. knights/samurai/commandos likely don't/didn't see themselves as "martial artists".

I don’t think that these Ideas or philosophies were created to put these warriors in a good light. I think they were guidelines that developed over time on how to deal with the stress of going into combat and doing violence on another person and just how to treat people in general. Now originally they only applied to people of their own class if your weren’t of the noble class then the kid gloves were off but I think it the Codes of Bushido and Chivalry and any other “Warrior Code” should now applied to everyone martial artist or not. Many of the ideals we hold true today such as fair play and good sportsmanship came from theses philosophies. The cowboy of the old West was an offshoot of the Knight-errant legends of old, riding into town to save the day.



of course, knights/samurai/commandos are not without their uses. certain segments of society always need disposable operatives, particularly those that think of themselves as disposable. no, the knights/samurai/commandos aren't stupid, they are just.... convinced. there are obvious practical reasons for this sort of attitude as well.

still, none of it amounts to art. pure martial artists admire movement for it's own sake. no different from a dancer, aerialist or mime. martial art is merely an exploration of movement that is normally undertaken under the supervision of an "instructor".

To me what makes martial arts what they are, is the beauty of movement and the perfect execution of technique. Being in the zone where time slows and you pull of the perfect technique without even thinking, or where training takes over and you’re in the center of the storm is hard to describe if you haven’t been there. But the “dark side’ is that martial arts themselves are violence and we use philosophy and training to control this violence.

Yeah there folks out there who are just mean sumbitches who get buy on size strength and intimidation and are hell in a fight. That makes them a fighter and sometimes they just love to fight. One of the most formidable men I ever met was a little old man from Atlanta who train in the martial arts and used them in the jungles of Vietnam but you would never know by just looking at him. Quite spoken and humble he was like Yoda. Moved with small slow movement until he walked out in the dojo floor then he was greased lightening. I don’t think he though of himself as disposable nor do I see myself as that way nor anyone who is willing to put there life on the line to protect or save another no matter their profession.




this sort of individual isn't alive after all the action because they are "badass".

they are considered "badass" because, after all the action, they are still alive.


Mostly these guys that are still alive consider themselves lucky and would gladly trade there live to get their buddies back.


the really difficult thing about discussing combat from the past is that none of us were ever there. we don't know why most of those individuals fought or trained. we don't know what they fought for. we don't even know if many of the "historical accounts" are accurate.

we have some pictures.

Yeah we do have pictures but we also have text. Western martial Arts have the uphill climb because folks are translating text and reverse engineering it in parts and like any martial art, it is all open to interpretation.

Look how Jeet Kune Do has fragmented over the years. And it was all written down in a book with pictures.



oh yeah, those medieval fencer wannabes are pretty impressive. knew a guy named russ brinson in washington. he and a bunch of guys used to practice at a park'n'ride under the interstate 5 overpass, downtown. he liked the rapier/main gauche combination. no helmets. these guys were really good. russ competed and by all accounts was pretty good. wouldn't want to duel with that guy. hahahahahahahaha!

Why does it have to be a fencer wannbe? Maybe he is a fencer. I know plenty of folks who fight in the SCA that are hell on wheels in their sport and they (and I) look it as a sport and martial art mostly because of the historical traditions involved.

[vvvooo]

Thanks everyone;
it has been interesting and infomative reading the different observations.
:)