This is my first technical post.
One of my dearest friend, Sung Gyun Cho, Master of Aikido, Kankukan Style, wrote about this argument.He spoke specifically about Aikido and personal defence, but I think this is interesting when you study whichever classical martial art!
So I put here some of his words, that I share, changing the term Aikido with Classical Martials Arts, and adding some consideration from my side!
Here it is .
We often read people talking about self-defense and if classical martial arts are effective or not for that purpose. To me, Classical Martial Arts have other purposes, which may then also be incorporated into the Defence Staff. But there is no doubt that the goals differs. I am a lot against to those who teach Classical Martial Arts techniques presented as realistic and useful for personal defense. As you will read (of course for those interested in doing so) my opinion is that the classical techniques are actually effective, but must always be contextualized. The techniques proposed in the study of Classical Martial Arts are more clearly the study of the principle that lies behind the technique. Therefore, one who suffers the technique must inevitably be a participant in an intelligent way to our work because he has the responsibility to make it possible to us to learn to do the technique.This is the case in many combat sports, to offer the situation we have to study, in order to improve some skills!
But this is only one study! Why? Because in reality things are very different. You should not go to seek a technique such X or Y, but the technique should be created by the situation, and since the position in space.So you don' t force to use this technique or that technique. The fact remains that those who understand this, you can give your body a memory of the movement that it can be recreated almost always. This is the reality. Create a memory neural movements such that they can recreate in different actions. Do not try to apply the technique in X as taught in the gym. This is very important to understand.
But if the classical technique is plausibly effective (if it happens), why can't it be a personal defense?
Old Classical Martial Arts have purposes. Those who learn them, learn to live with the principles and make them his own. Obviously if there is a situation where defense is needed, Old Arts being born in conflictual situations, in order to manage those, a true practitioner nowadays would have to be able to defend and win the battle. But this self-defense is not what we mean with self-defense, in 2011.Personal defense is much more!Personal defense is a continued work on prevention, the study of' escalation, of descalation, on how to escape, and a lot of other things!
Old Martial Arts find application in another sense. In winning themselves. In winning against stronger opponents. They are also a review \ reconstruction of what was happening on the battlefield in ancient times, or in well defined situations, typical of ancient times, so they are Personal Defense, updated to more ancient times ... but don't emerge as modern Personal Defense styles.
So I think that those who teach Old Classical Martial Arts referring to it as Personal Defence, say basically false. Because the defense is not the number of techniques that one has, but is now an art in itself, where they are analyzed things that, let's face it, no course of Old Martial Arts is worried about.The goal of our training is the ultimate "victory over oneself" (this is a Morihei Ueshiba's teaching,as well as a Siu Lam teaching, and maybe this is a teaching of our most important Olders in Classical Martial Arts). Recognizing the fear and accept it. Recognizing our limitations and knowing how to overcome!
As some of you know, in many Classical Martial Arts there are many things to consider: from "wrestling", to tehniques for percussions, etc etc.So how can art be considered "complete"?
I asked this question and I considered that it was right to respond to a question that is often asked in different contexts and in different parts of the world: are Classical Martial Arts complete? Can be they applied as self-defense?
Looking at technical point of view, most of these Ancient Arts can be considered "complete ".
Obviously as classical artists we do not have specific groundfighting technique, for example, like Brazilian Ju Jutsu has, but it does not matter! It makes no sense to enter something into a structure that was created for valid historical reasons: the battles (if you went to have a battle and you went incidentally to the ground, you had to get up quickly!).But what people have lost and have forgotten this is not because one has not, there is a disadvantage! Not because art does not include the fight on the ground, must be considered uncomplete or ineffective!Many peoples have forgotten that the idea is to train well in our classical principles. And our principles tell us to remain standing.Because Classical martial Arts, when they were created, were learnt for their application in a battlefield!
This does not mean that those who can fight on the ground are not effective! The groundfighting of Judo or some schools of Ju Jutsu and that of Brazilian jiujitsu, are techniques and methodologies that in their field show that logic and power worthy of the best art created by humans.
Unfortunately, nowadays people spend only on the facade. This is not about to seek the absolute efficacy, much less to seek the spiritual side of technical perfection. This is not wrong because it is part of the path of the Classical Martial Arts! Unfortunately decontextualise our art from their history has been how to make those arts as just a bunch of techniques to mimic as monkeys! Then of course, not everyone has that ability or historical interest in the research on it. But this does not preclude that without the ability to understand the context in which this techniques grew up, can never understand the spirit of what we do!
Today we see the emergence of techniques designed against sucker punches that knocks the man down in the street. Very interesting techniques to tell the truth. But the point is that things are often explicitly designed against an ordinary person. Let us tell the truth, even the common person can be lethal. Indeed it is. But if you are studying techniques for them, then you are working only for a class of people. But applied against those who can not fight, they are efficient.Applied against an expert, I do not know what results can give.
This is because the courses of Personal Defense is expected to address more against the common man. This is very true in the final. How many chances a person has to meet a practitioner of muay thai on the street ?!?!?
But it is precisely here that appears the first difference between Classical Martial Arts and the modern systems of Self Defense!In Classical Martial Arts, instead, a person learns to cope with the worst enemy .. ie one who knows your secret (and thus at the end facing yourself !!!),beacause it was created often for warriors against warriors, in period of conflict.In a course of self-defense they take into account a person X who is not a martial artist or a fighter but it is the common man (which as I said can be deadly if not taken seriously into consideration !!!).
This is the first real difference.
Second:
In traditional schools learn all human knowledge that allows us to understand the movement of our body (and then of the others). Our techniques are without a doubt, more precise and more "powerful" if you learn well. And there are many techniques.In a course of self-defense techniques instead, they study a few techniques and specialize in them, as happens with boxing, where they specialize in a few lethal blows.
But where is the reality? Obvious that in the course of Personal Defense are taught a few things for everyone to give to people. Their final goal is to survive. In a traditional school you learn to fight to win (then we can define what is victory).
But then the traditional schools are better schools self defense?
My answer is absolutely not!!
Having lots of techniques does not mean being the best! But it is also true the contrary: that a few functional techniques(even if extrapolated from Old Martial Arts, or not) doesn't mean to be better in respect to Old Classical Martial Arts!!
So we can talk about how they fought in a certain historical period and the dangers of those times, but it is not th goal teaching in a course of Old Martial Arts what are the dangers of 2011!
We are not talking of effectiveness of the technique! Remember this! The defense begins with the study of PREVENTION .. the ability to understand and avoid any escalation and to discourage the attack. Then comes the technical discourse.
Instead we study old martial techniques contextualized in their historical reality. But during our lessons, we do not speak about prevention but about effectiveness. They are two very different things and I want you could understand it!
In general, what a traditional school has lost is the approach to today's world.
Prevention, situational study, legal aspect etc etc.
Thank you for reading!
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento