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!
.jpg)
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.
.jpg)
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.
.jpg)
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...