MODERN SELF-DEFENSE NEEDS?

 By Phillip Starr

Anyone who's practiced a traditional martial art for some time has no doubt heard the expression, “That traditional, old-fashioned stuff won't work nowadays”, or something similar. And then there are those who speak authoritatively on “reality-based” methods of combat (as opposed, I guess, to the “unreality” methods). Oddly enough, I've never heard one of these “authorities” explain just why the traditional methods don't work, and if they ever did, exactly when did they become obsolete?

Apparently, a good number of these critics believe there actually was a time when an aggressor chambered one fist on his hip and advanced with several straight punches that the intended victim blocked effectively when stepping back into a solid front stance...kind of like a fight scene in an old 1970's grade B kung-fu movie...or a basic karate/taekwondo class. When was this? When did the local thugs attack with crisp reverse punches and clean lapel grabs that enabled the victim to perform nifty joint techniques?

I've followed the logic of these “experts” for a very long time and it seems that the change in how people fought occurred sometime back in the 70's...about the same time that “full contact” karate came into vogue. It seems that someone woke up one morning and had an epiphane; real fights involve head butts, eye gouges, punches thrown in flurries, and wrestling maneuvers. Wow! How brilliant of these innovators to realize these previously unknown truths and to have set out to remedy things! We should all be thankful for their insight!

It's typical of some people, usually those of an adolescent mentality, to believe that nothing important happened prior to their own lifetimes. They seem to believe that before the advent of grappling, contact-type sports, fighting arts consisted of dorks attired in weird pajamas throwing “unrealistic” punches, fancy kicks, and, of course, “judo chops” at each other. And we must conclude that the old “traditionalists” were either involved in some massive cult-like deception, or that bad guys back then were really stupid and easily defeated by such methods.

Face it....in so far as hand-to-hand fighting is concerned, people have fought (whether on a battlefield or a local bar) in much the same way that they always have. Physiologically, we haven't changed much in a long time! True, culture plays a role in how we fight. I remember when I was very young, anyone who kicked in a schoolyard scuffle was regarded as a sissy. Of course, that's very common now. A century ago, an English schoolboy would expect his opponent to admit defeat if his nose was bloodied. City gangs back in the 50's often had semi-elaborate rituals and posturing as they approached each other in anticipation of a fight. Nowadays, they just drive by and spray gunfire. And practical aspects of daily life can influence the approach to combat...for instance, feudal Japanese martial arts rarely involve kicking because wearing a kimono or hakama made kicking very problematic.

But those are secondary considerations. When it comes to single hand-to-hand combat, we haven't discovered anything new. That's why it's silly to talk about “traditional” forms of fighting or “reality” combat disciplines. It's more important to think of differences in APPROACHES to learning how to fight effectively. Naturally, there are inferior and superior ways of teaching and learning how to engage in personal combat. A karate, taekwondo, or gong-fu school that practices forms robotically (as a rote exercise) is not engaging in traditional training. In fact, what they are doing is practicing an inferior method...probably because the instructor learned it that way from someone who didn't know any better and passed on his inferior method to his students, who will pass them on to others. A grappling school wherein students go to the mat immediately and never provides regular practice of the fundamentals...providing haphazard instruction in the hopes of finding “what works” in the heat of the moment, is not doing anything new at all. It's just bad training...akin to tossing someone off the end of a pier to teach them how to swim.

If karate or judo practitioners fail to adequately defend themselves, it is certainly no indication that their arts don't work. If I am practicing a sort of pantomime, watered-down version of judo or taekwondo and I don't fare well in a fight, it's no reflection on the effectiveness of the art. I'm simply not doing it correctly. They certainly worked very well in the past (taekwondo made its debut in Vietnam where it was shown to be highly effective at close-quarters).

To argue that these arts are no longer effective because we've “moved on” is to say that an M1 Garand is no longer a viable weapon...the military no longer uses it. But even the most modern rifles aren't effective if instructors fail to teach recruits how to use them effectively.

One chooses to practice a martial Way not because it is magical, perfect, or flawlessly reliable. One practices it because it is a serious way of confronting and dealing with violence...a Way that has been proven again and again over many generations. However, you can, if you so choose, believe that people just didn't know how to fight as effectively in the past as we do now; that the “traditional” Ways are outmoded and you are witness to (and may have participated in) a new and unique creation in the field of personal combat. Congratulations...

IS IT REALLY NECESSARY?

 By Phillip Starr

When I was living in China, I was once approached by a young man who was one of my English students. He knew that I practiced martial arts and asked why I bothered to practice such an arcane art. I told him that there were several reasons but he went on and said, “But you can't make a living that way (I could easily argue that point but I understood what he was saying) and since we have modern-day policemen, why continue to train in an ancient form of self-defense? He felt that it had very little, if any, practical use in today's “modern” society.

Ah, the blissful ignorance of youth!

Violent crime is very rare in China and even more rare in Japan. This is not, as many contemporary leftists believe, due to the lack of availability of firearms, but because of the culture of these nations. Still, it does occur and even more so in other nations! The need for effective self-defense is probably greater now than ever before.

I'm reminded of a story here about a scholar who took a small ferryboat to cross a rather large river. As the boatman handled the rudder, the scholar asked him if he'd ever read some of the great Confucian classics. The boatman said that he'd never learned to read and the scholar smugly replie, “Ah, what a waste! You have lost half a life!” Time passed and before long a a squall had come up and the boat began taking water from the crashing waves. The boatman turned to the scholar, “Can you swim? The boat's going to sink.” The scholar replied that he'd never learned to swim and the boatman said, “Ah, what a waste...you have lost all of a life!”

Stress in unquestionably responsible for many more deaths annually than violence. It is insidious and our “modern” society, with all of its creature comforts, only serves to increase it. Everywhere we turn, there are “new and effective” programs being hawked as ways to reduce one's stress level. Martial arts is an excellent way to reduce stress. Whether it's taijiquan, taekwondo, judo...they're all effective.

Fitness is another story altogether. Looking at the current generation of both children and adults, it's clear that some sort of regular fitness program is needed more than ever! Getting fit and staying fit contributes to both mental and physical health. Many “fitness programs” have a central problem that is one of the main reasons people don't stick with them for very long (if at all)...boredom. But martial arts are anything but boring.

And then there's discipline. As with fitness, the need for discipline is needed by both adults and youngsters nowadays. Desperately. My most senior student hails from Japan, where he trained in various forms of gong-fu for many years before we met. He told me that discipline is one of the greatest benefits he derived from his training when he was young.

Today's world is, in my opinion, more violent and dangerous, more confusing, stressful, and undisciplined than ever before. Laws can be passed all the livelong day but to no avail. Each of us must take responsibility for ourselves.

Taking responsibility for ourselves and striving to perfect ourselves (or at least, to improve ourselves to some measurable degree) gives us a goal...and without a goal, we are lost.

THE IMPORTANCE OF SUBTLETIES

 by Yang Xuangxing

As you acquire more experience in your practice of martial arts, you have likely taken notice of numerous “subtleties” that can dramatically affect your technique and/or your ability to effectively apply it. At least I hope you have.

For instance, in iaido the sword is to be gripped just so. In fact, you mustn't use an actual “grip” (like holding a stick or baseball bat) when drawing the sword; the hand isn't closed as the sword is drawn! This has to be learned from a qualified instructor and it took me more than three years to get it (and I'm still working on it). In “open” tournament Weapons Division, it's not unusual to see a competitor swagger into the ring attired in a hakama (that often looks like it was made from the curtains of a New Orleans bordello) with his sword thrust improperly through his obi (wide sash). In fact, the sword is often placed on the left side, which is incorrect.

When said wannabe swordsman draws the weapon, he grasps the handle and pulls it from the scabbard. This is wholly incorrect; the scabbard is actually “removed” from the sword with the left hand. Learning to do this requires a great deal of practice over an extended period of time.

And yes, there are good reasons for gripping the sword in this way initially. It's not a Louiseville Slugger (an old brand-name baseball bat) and gripping it in that fashion makes the wrist all but totally inflexible, which slows down both the draw and the initial cut. And that means that you'd likely lose your hand at the very least...

Two-handed cuts with the Japanese katana are made mainly with the left hand. Cutting with the right is a serious error that causes momentary loss of control of the weapon. And you can imagine what that means. Learning to execute the cuts with the left hand requires years of practice.

Akira Hino, a Japanese martial arts genius who I met in Japan in 2016, emphasizes the importance of numerous subtleties...like the proper use of the elbow when punching or striking. It's very subtle and once fully understood (which takes quite a while), much practice is required. He emphasizes that one of the great secrets to emitting tremendous power with what appear to be a “casual” punch or strike is proper use of the elbow. And at the age of 72, he happily demonstrates it.

Tatsuya Naka, one of the top instructors of the Japan Karate Association, who I met in 2016 in Japan, also speaks of small subtlties that enable him to suddenly drive out and strike an opponent with a lunging thrust. He never misses and top-ranked martial artists who have practiced with him say that they just can't see it coming. One of the vital keys is the proper use of the front knee and hip. Like Hino sensei's advice, it is difficult to understand and once understood, it requires extensive practice.

Hino sensei also speaks of the correct use of weight shifting for power as well as stability as well as the use of the shoulders (especially in the use of weapons). Trying to observe these subtleties by watching such men perform is useless. The small nuances of which they speak are so small that they're truly invisible. But they make all the difference in the world.

THE FIRST THING YOU LEARN

 by Phillip Starr

It was obvious that the young man was very excited about joining my martial arts school. He was all smiles as he asked, “So, what's the first thing I'll learn?” My response didn't do anything to keep the smile on his face. “Courtesy”, I said. “And manners.”

And that's exactly what I told anyone who asked me about what students learned first in my school. They were generally rather surprised; they were expecting to hear something about the horse-riding stance or basic punch. But it was important to me that students begin by learning proper behavior and protocols before engaging in more exciting things.

Most Westerners are something less than thrilled at having to learn and adhere to special forms of courtesy and manners. Most of us tend to be what we call “laid back.” Very casual. And although Eastern folks are, for the most part, equally “casual”, they still follow certain protocols and their martial arts teachers often tend to adhere very closely to them. For instance, it's important to learn not only when and to whom or what one should bow, but exactly HOW to do it...many, many Westerners (including those who teach martial arts) think they're doing it correctly but they're wrong and although an Eastern instructor might not curtly correct them (particularly if they're in the Eastern country), they do make a mental note of it...

Frankly, when I was sometimes confronted with a potential enrollee who lacked good manners, I regarded him as undisciplined (I still do) and I figured he wasn't particularly teachable. In any case, he'd make a poor student.

So make it an important point to master the courtesies of the culture from which you martial form is born. Consider how the teachers of that culture would see you if you didn't do so; if you haven't bothered to take the time and effort to learn fundamental courtesies, how can they expect you to put in the necessary time and discipline to learn the art that they teach? If you're not serious about the most basic things, you're clearly not very serious about more advanced things...

DON'T OVERDO!

 By Yang Xuangxing

I often see and hear of instructors (and over-zealous students) “over-doing” certain training routines, which lead to naught or, in some cases, may result in injury. Convinced that “more is better”, they stand in stances that are much too deep (and in some case, incorrect, which can lead to serious injury), fire off a very large number of basic techniques, and so on.

Holding static stances is a favorite training routine, especially in the Chinese martial arts community. The revered “horse-riding stance” sits at the top of the list. And holding this stance for a period of time certainly will toughen and strenghen the legs and hips and help foster the development of a strong “root.” But...although this kind of routine has been practiced for centuries, I believe it's actually counter-productive after a certain point. A proper horse-riding stance, for example, relies on certain muscles. When those muscles become overly fatigued, they call on certain “support muscles” for assistance. These support muscles are not normally used when standing in this stance but if holding the stance is done too often, your body will automatically call on these support muscles from the beginning and a bad habit is then developed; the stance is incorrect. It's much better to limit the standing time to no more than about five minutes at most.

Oftentimes, students stand in a horse-riding stance that is too low; with the buttocks at the level of the knees or even lower. The places too much strain on the ligaments of the knees and can result in injury (I can hear some of you cheering). Properly, the buttocks should be somewhat higher than the knees. In any case, you'll never utilize such a low stance when applying techniques or sparring, so standing so low shouldn't become an unconscious habit...you're unable to move quickly from such a position.

The above situation holds true for any posture that is held statically for lengths of time. The popular “zhan zhuang” (stake standing) practice of internal martial arts is a fine example. In holding such a position for great lengths of time, the main muscles used to suppport the arms and shoulders become fatigued and eventually call in support muscles to bolster them. And a bad habit is quickly developed. I suggest holding such postures no more than fifteen minutes or so. The primary muscles won't become overly-fatigued and the practitioner can keep his mind focused properly.

Further, such exercises also become very painful to maintain once the primary muscles become too fatigued. For decades, it's served as a rite of passage; students are expected to “gut it out” and hold on. But...the mind, which is supposed to be focused on the breathing, is completely taken over by the pain. Students are gritting their teeth in pain, unable to concentrate on anything else. This is counter-productive. Trying to develop a lot of machismo just won't cut it.

Firing off a hundred punches in a row is equally counter-productive. Not only do the muscles get tired and call on support muscles to support them (which makes the following punches incorrect), the mind wanders because it's bored! The first twenty or so punches will be well-focused but after awhile, mental focus wavers and then disappears altogether; students are just lobbing their fists out there and keeping count. There's no spirit. And it's not their faults; the fault lies with whoever is pushing them to exercise in this way.

Extra-strenuous training is reserved for the tradition of “gasshuku” (合宿), which means roughly, “to stay together.” It refers to keeping the mind and body together as the tough training tempers them. This is done only at special times and the object is to develop an indomitable spirit rather than refined technique. A gasshuku usually lasts only a weekend or so anyway, so refinement of technique isn't really possible. But gasshuku-type practice should not become a regular diet and done in every class.

Good, progressive training takes time. More isn't necessarily better. And training isn't about becoming a Mr. (or Ms.) Macho, anyway...

COMMON SENSE

 by Yang Xuangxing

Sometimes we just have to use a little common sense. I have been, over the years, directed to certain websites that are devoted to various martial art system(s) that the website owner has allegedly studied for years. And there have been many occasions wherein I've been approached by an enthusiastic student or teacher of some odd system(s)...that were supposedly developed and practiced in some secluded monastery somewhere and maintained in absolute secrecy for hundreds of years...

Not likely.

Records of martial arts systems in Japan have been (and still are) well-maintained pretty much since the ancient inhabitants of that island nation established a system of writing. Back in the day, the local daimyo (lords) of a given village(s) were more than a little concerned about the possibilities of their subjects rebelling...records were kept and VERY close scrutiny was maintained regarding any and all activities that might suggest that prospect. There were no martial systems taught that they didn't know about. Period. And the records regarding martial systems that were taught are still available today! “Secret” Japanese systems? Not.

As for Chinese systems...I've often been approached by people who claim to practice a rare form of gong-fu and the name of it is either part Chinese and part Japanese, Korean, or Yiddish...and IF they know the founder's name (many of them don't), his name is certainly NOT Chinese (although someone tried to make it sound authentic). It would be like introducing someone who claims to be an American, but whose name is non-sensical, like “Mr. Bhjkifls.”

This kind of thing wasn't uncommon in the 1970's, when most Americans knew next to nothing about China. But nowadays, there's just no excuse for coming up with some bizarre name that doesn't exist in that culture...if nothing else, a quick trip to a nearby Chinese restaurant would easily remedy the problem.

Many of these people can specify the rough time that their form was founded...like 1,500 years ago, but they can't name anyone who practiced it before 1984. Some of these folks can readily provide anecdotes and the like about their art and/or its followers (who they usually can't name) that took place centuries ago (the further back, the better) but if you ask about more recent events or followers, dates, and places, they start to mumble or fidget.

It may not be the current student's fault...this kind of chicanery was more than a little common back in the 70's. If the history/lineage of an art isn't clear to one of its followers, a little research is necessary. And some common sense.

COMBAT EFFECTIVE?

 By Phillip Starr

We hear it all the time; “That traditional martial arts guy would be easily beaten in an MMA match!”, and other more colorful variations. It's an old argument that has no basis in reality. MMA, per se, is a sport. The object of an MMA match is NOT to render the other fellow unconscious...it's to WIN THE MATCH! And that doesn't require a knockout. Moreover, participants must adhere to certain rules, they must wear the proper protective gear, they fight in timed rounds with brief breaks in between, and they've never been tested (at least on a large scale) in battle.

Traditional martial forms were designed for life-and-death scuffles where there's no second place winner. The object is to survive. Period. There are no rules whatsoever, no protective gear, no timed rounds...you fought until one of you was incapable of continuing. And a number of these arts have been put to use in actual combat. They're still with us...because the survivors valued them, kept them, and passed them on to the future generation.

Back in medieval times, the game of chess (which is thought to have originated in India) was used to teach principles of battlefield tactics to the aristocracy. After all, in the event of a military conflict, they were the ones who would fill positions of command. This kind of tactical thinking (chess) was used clear into the 20^th Century with considerable success. By and large, both sides were using the mindset of chess, which was created as a game. Until Vietnam.

The NVA command (which was in close contact with communist China) used the tactics learned in weiqi (more commonly known as the game of go), which had been considered one of the “four essential arts” of the cultured scholars in ancient China going back to the 4^th Century. And the Chinese book, “The Art of War” (written by Sun-Tzu more than 2,500 years ago), was their playbook, which had been created for combat and used innumerable times. They weren't playing by our Western rules. The end result has been that at military academies in the U.S., all students are now required to study Sun's book.

In short, assessing genuine combat effectiveness between something that is a recently created sport and things that have proved their mettle on the battlefield is silly. And inaccurate.