COMBAT EFFECTIVE?

 By Phillip Starr

I occasionally receive mail from readers asking if a particular traditional martial arts system is “combat effective.” Some even state outright that a given traditional system is not. My knee-jerk response is to tell them that a traditional system, particularly those that are fairly old, MUST be “combat effective.” Their age is a good indication that they were likely used in combat. This is especially true of traditional Japanese martial disciplines – known as “koryu” ( 古流), which means roughly, “old style” and refers to disciplines developed and used prior to the Meiji Restoratio in 1868)- which were very likely to have been used on the battlefield. Those systems that weren't effective died out along with their practitioners... only those that proved efficient survived for obvious reasons.

Most traditional Chinese martial art systems were never formally used on the battlefield, although they were applied repeatedly by their adherents, most of whom were civilians at the time. Like the more formalized systems of Japan, those that didn't work well were buried along with their founders/followers who realized the inefficiency of their method too late.

More modern martial arts such as aikido, karate, and judo were never tested in battle, although the forerunners of judo (forms of jujutsu) and aikido (aikijutsu) certainly were. Much of the concern as to their “combat effectiveness” seems to be regarding the fact that they place so much emphasis on form/kata and not necessarily (if at all) much emphasis on various versions of freestyle sparring...

The two-person katas used in most Japanese koryu are, in my opinion, just as, or more, effective in developing combative skills than freestyle practice. This kind of training was also used widely in many gong-fu schools. What a neophyte sees as simple “one-step fight” drills involve much more than what appears on the surface. Practicioners develop and fine-tune their sense of distance, timing, and rhythm.

A more advanced method, known as “freestyle one-step fight”, is also utilized by many systems. This is a highly effective training exercise, which is, in my opinion, more difficult than freestyle sparring. It really hones all of the skills required for actual combat; it hones them to a much finer edge than just “sparring.” The legendary masters of days gone by didn't engage in “sparring” because it was regarded as being too dangerous and no one had taken the time to develop it as a training routine; they felt that to do so would be superfluous. And they were correct. The training of freestyle one-step is the bridge between one-step fight routines and form/kata. This training exercise is covered in my book, MARTIAL MANEUVERS.

The true test of “combat effectiveness” is, of course, to test the system in actual life-and-death combat, which is a bit impractical nowadays. And there other drawbacks, as well. There could be no rules that would enhance safety and only one combatant would walk away from the encounter. And maybe not. In any case, it's a bit unwise. So we rely on the traditional forms that are comprised of movements and techniques that our martial arts forefathers used with success. Why try to reinvent the wheel?