Titles in the Martial Arts - Good or Bad?

There are a plethora of titles given to various degrees of experience and skills in the martial arts.  There are strict and not so strict rules associated to each title.  Many require a certain age combined with a set number of years at a black belt dan, or rank.  Some refer specifically to a dan ranking, and some are used as an indication of a person’s impact on the martial arts as a whole.

I have nothing against titles.  Using certain titles can be a way to show a deep amount of respect for someone’s skill level, their teaching ability and dedication to their students and their art.

I find it curious then, when certain high ranking black belts insist on being called by certain titles.  They are offended by anything other than being referred to as 'grandmaster' this or 'high commander' that.   It strikes me as an indicator of either arrogance or insecurity.

I believe there should be a degree of proper etiquette in a dojo or training facility.  Titles are part of this, and should be used appropriately, but in my opinion, no one should be offended if they are referred to simply as ‘Sensei’.  

Translated, ‘Sensei’ most closely means ‘one who has come before’, and usually refers to the status of teacher.  In my mind, this is a both a compliment and an indicator of respect.  You have, in many ways, given yourself up to them, trusting in them to provide proper instruction and lifesaving knowledge.  

There are times I refer to my Sensei by another title, but this is most often done in times of introduction or ceremony.  And typically, use of these titles is initiated by the students, or by other instructors, not at the insistence of the 'title-holder'.

Again, there are times when certain titles should be used, but I would have to question anyone who was offended if I referred to them as ‘Sensei’ during training.  

Sadly, I have seen one such “grandmaster” refuse to acknowledge a very new student during his visit to another dojo because the young lad didn’t know his 'exalted' status and referred to him as Sensei on the mats.  What was sad is that he completely ignored the young man who was (innocently) asking a question.  

Looking back, it is more comical really, conjuring up an image of a “master” covering their ears and saying “I can’t hear you, na na na na na” with a bewildered young many having no idea what was going on.  That would make a cute cartoon…

There are ways to correct a misstep of protocol or etiquette, but you can’t force respect on someone.  If you need to be called a certain title in order to feel validation, perhaps you need more work in the area of ego.  

For me, calling someone Sensei will always be a sign of true respect.

Where tradition meets reality

This post is inspired by a few things.  One is my recent introduction to a qualified instructor in traditional martial arts, Jiu Jitsu, Karate, sword and weapons. Another is my last post about understanding the traditional arts and another is from the comments left on that post.

Sue's comment on getting back to the 'roots' of Karate and Michele's comment on concepts of movement and Brett's on the intent of technique all got my brain working.

Now, all martial arts are based on traditional martial arts, in one way or another. It's your definition of what 'traditional' means that can have such as effect on whether or not you think traditional systems are superior to reality based systems or even mixed martial arts.

My definition of what traditional means is that they are based on true combat. The techniques were forged on the battlefield.  They were tried and true.  If they worked, they were passed on.  If they didn't, well, they weren't.  And you weren't there to do so.

They were also flexible and adaptable.  Although there is usually a syllabus to follow in a traditional martial arts school, the arts themselves were never stagnant.  They changed as the world changed around them.  They were, in essence, reality based systems as well.  

So traditional martial arts are (were?) reality based systems and reality based systems were (are?) based on traditional systems.  Hmmm...

Having these discussions can sometimes turn into a bit of a loop.  And that's good. Style to style, system to system, art to art, there's really not as much of a divide as some might think.

In many ways, we're all studying the same thing.

The human body only moves in certain ways.  There are not real 'new' kicks under the sun, no secret joint is as yet undiscovered that can be exploited.  The body is the body.  It's how you approach combat, self defense and fighting that separates us.

The issues and subsequent debates over one style or system being superior to another come not from the arts themselves, but from the people passing them down and their understanding of the 'roots' or core concepts of the art.  It is also very much in the intent of the student and the teacher.  No one can become proficient and be able to apply their art in a real violent encounter if they haven't prepared themselves mentally for the challenge.  

Rules, while good for competition and safety, can get in the way of being able to protect yourself during a real attack if you've never turned your head to fighting without them.  

You fight as you train.  And much of your training occurs inside yourself, not on the mats.

The title of my blog includes the line:

"The study of Japanese Jiu Jitsu as a reality based martial art"

This means more to me every day.

Thanks for reading.

Traditional Martial Arts

Not long ago, I received some impressive training at a seminar that my Sensei and I attended.  I’ve reflected a lot on what I saw and did that day.  It was like watching my Sensei for the first time, all those years ago.  I was blown away. 

The Sensei putting on the seminar is an expert in several traditional Japanese systems, including weapons.

The observations I made are fodder for many posts.  Below I’ll list some of the main points I took away.  Then, in this and future posts, I’ll delve into them a little deeper.

So, here goes:

1.  Traditional systems are nasty.  Most were designed to  cripple or kill  armed attackers. 

2.  Traditional systems often employ the same movements or concepts to armed and open hand techniques.

3.  Traditional systems tend to have far more committed attack/defense movements than many modern-day, or sport based systems.

I’ve made mention of this before, but traditional systems were bred and tested on the battlefield.  Many times in life or death battles.  Often against armed or armoured opponents.  At its simplest, if it didn’t work, you were dead.  

Techniques that were passed down worked, period.  Battle tested is something far more difficult to accomplish nowadays.

If you’re pursuing a traditional art, it’s important to find someone that understands the original technique fully.  This is key.  We adapt deadly techniques so they’re safe enough to practice, which is absolutely necessary, of course.  Once you’ve learned how to do them (or before), you need to understand what modifications have been made.  You need to know how they’ve been ‘watered down’.

One of the statements that struck a chord with me was when the instructor was talking about how throws aren’t really throws.  

Huh?

It means that the throws we practice in the dojo are done as a method of allowing your partner to exit a technique safely and in one piece.  Most traditional techniques don’t allow the opponent an ‘out’.  This isn’t to suggest someone isn’t going to be accelerated into the ground, but it does mean, at its core, that you have made a choice to allow your training partner to avoid injury.  Done traditionally, there’s no thought to ‘releasing’ your opponent. 

It is this ‘watering down’ effect that can have long term ramifications in the quality and effectiveness of the martial arts.  This is why it’s crucial to find someone that understands the original art.  As techniques get passed down from person to person, the original intent and technique is often lost, leaving only the ‘safer’ version.

This also isn’t to suggest that these safe versions can’t be effective for self-defense.  They can still work.  The concern lies in the scenario when you truly have to fight for your life and you may only get one chance.  Allowing a person to roll out could then be a fatal error.

Traditional systems are also good at identifying tried and true targets on the body.  The areas that are targeted are vulnerable, even in armour.  There’s not many, “this might work” stuff thrown in.  Joints, eyes, groin (in some cases), throat are all targets.  They can’t defend themselves.  And they take very little muscle to injure.

Traditional techniques are by their nature, far more committed.  Not a lot of ‘feeling out’ occurred in feudal times.  Your attacker was committed and so were you.  This is in stark contrast to the MMA sport competition style. 

Many contain deeper stances for power generation at the time of the attack.  I’m back and forth on mobility vs. power generation, but when you look at sword or traditional weapons training, the attacks are fully committed, powerful techniques.

Speaking of weapons, traditional systems often have what I’ll call ‘cross-over’ techniques.  Meaning that most techniques can be performed armed or empty handed.  I’m a big believer in this.  Train a concept or pattern of movement, not separate systems within a system for armed and unarmed work.  There are some exceptions of course.

Any modern day system is built upon a traditional system.  Martial arts need to continue to evolve and adapt to the realities of the environment around us.  We are not in feudal times, so many self defense techniques are, and should, be altered to fit the world around us.  This is a good thing, and essential to responsibly use force and react to some forms of lower level violence. 

When you lose sight or understanding of the original technique, however, you reduce your available options in a real violent encounter.  If in practice, you don’t really understand the underlying, or original technique, and you just sort of go with it with your partner, that’s all you’ll have available when you need to defend yourself.  

Understanding the original, traditional, or core techniques allows you to ramp up your response, if needed.  Understanding the origins can give you an edge in combat.

Train well.

A Deeper Understanding: Is Your Art Battle Tested?

A Deeper Understanding.

So many things to talk about.  What a month!  I was away from blogging for longer than I expected, but in hindsight, it was a nice refreshing break.  I did actually manage to completely un-plug from all things electronic for over a week.  No news, no television, no internet.  It was very freeing, and a little unnerving.

I’ve had some great and intense martial arts training and experiences followed by a complete break as well, which is also good for mind and body.

I can’t fit everything into one post, so I’ll touch on one highlight.

I had the opportunity to train with a master of ‘Classical Jiu Jitsu’.  Now I often refer to ‘traditional’, but I’ve not often heard of ‘classical’ being used to describe the art very often.  I do understand the difference between modern, or ‘gendai’ systems and more traditional ones, and I do know that my own style is heavily influenced by the small circle theory, but I got the opportunity to explore the ‘classical’ side a bit more.

At the end of the day, of course, it doesn’t really matter what you call it, good Jiu Jitsu is good Jiu Jitsu, but I did get to make some interesting observations.  In experiencing this master’s style, I was able to gain a deeper understanding of my own style, and that of many martial arts, I suspect.

On the surface, there are some fairly obvious differences in the way techniques are applied.  Bigger motions here, smaller ones there, emphasis on this or that, but nothing more than you might see from Sensei to Sensei, or school to school.

Two major things did stand out though:

#1.  In classical Jiu Jitsu, the ending of a technique was normally the complete destruction of your opponent.  This stems from the very fact that the techniques contained in the classical system are as closely connected to true ‘kill or be killed’ nature of the battle field of feudal times. 

Many of the techniques adapted for more modern styles contain more options.  You can more easily choose to control first, then break, then maim etc.  There is a more escalating scale of options.  There are fewer of these options in a more classical style. 

The movements also tended to target larger areas, or entire limbs, a throwback to the need to deal with armored opponents, with a focus on the areas that remained vulnerable, such as joints.

So, modern styles may contain more options, and have been adapted to deal with modern realities, which are arguably a benefit, but the classical roots are still there. 

Which brings me to my second major observation:

#2.  We have altered many more destructive techniques to allow for safer training.  This may seem obvious, but it goes deeper than that. 

We alter techniques to allow us to apply them to our training partners.  That makes sense.  You can’t train if you’re injured.  Many techniques end with a break-fall, a roll or a tap.  What some practitioners may not know is that the ‘original’ or ‘classical’ systems often simply did not contain an opportunity for any of these things.

Many of the throws and techniques illustrated (notice I didn’t say demonstrated) did not allow the opponent to break-fall, or to ‘go with it’.  After the illustration, the technique was then adapted, or altered, and demonstrated on the uke, to allow them to, well, survive it. 

I realized that this doesn’t just apply to Jiu Jitsu, it applies to most martial arts with classical roots.

I can’t say these concepts are completely new to me, but I’m now realizing just how many areas have been adjusted in modern styles.  This is not a criticism, just an observation.  Having a more scalable set of options in an advantage in many ways, considering our modern times and legal considerations. Also, this doesn't mean that the altered, or 'softened' techniques aren't effective.  They still work.

It is important, however, to understand the original, or ‘parent’ techniques, to obtain a deeper understanding of your chosen art, whichever one that may be.

I hope everyone has had a great summer.  Train well.

Tradition vs. Reality?

The Strongest Karate (check out his blog here) left a comment on my last post that go me thinking.  The comment was in reference to my assertion that before you could discard a technique, you really need to learn it first.  It’s in the same vein as Bruce Lee’s ideas on ‘keep what is useful, discard what is not’, a central concept in his vision of Jeet Kun Do.

The Strongest Karate said the following:

"Very informative post. 

You make the distinction that one must understand a technique fully before they can decide whether it is useful or not. I agree with this, but it does present us with a problem: one may have to practice every technique 10's of thousands of times before they really understand it and, regrettably, our lifetimes just aren't long enough. 

This, I suppose, is why the arts are passed down the generations, but then I run the risk of throwing away a technique that wasn't useful to me (due to size/strength/injuries/other limitations) but would be perfectly suited for someone else. "       

I agree with him.  We can’t master every technique before deciding to keep it or throw it away.  My concern is that many martial artists are too quick to throw something away.  If it didn’t go right, or it was hard, or it felt awkward or they simply weren’t good at it the first couple times, they throw it away, citing the ‘keep what is useful, discard what is not’ mantra.  Doing this without at least exploring it to discover a deeper understanding is a mistake. 

I’ve had serious doubts about the usefulness of techniques that I initially learned.  At the time I was convinced they’d end up in the mental trash bin.  I continued to work on them when required by syllabus or by Sensei.  Over time, some of these have become some of my preferred techniques.  Had I discarded them at the outset, I would have denied myself several valuable tools.  It took exploring the mechanics, the application and the variations to give me enough insight to determine their value. 

This brings me to the next point touched on in the comment.

“This, I suppose, is why the arts are passed down the generations…”

Good point.  To a degree, we must have faith in our art and our teachers.  This is not to suggest we should blindly follow without thought or question, but if you’ve managed to find a good teacher of high skill and character, you must accept a degree of the teachings as being valuable, even if not immediately apparent.  

This leads me into one of the powerful arguments in favour of keeping the tradition in traditional martial arts (TMA).  With a move towards the next reality based system (RBS) and the increasing popularity of mixed martial arts (MMA), we run the risk of losing what it took hundreds of years to learn, a comprehensive and complete system of effective, battle tested techniques. 

I’m saying this over genuine concern that with each new generation, we are increasingly getting ‘watered-down’ versions of what were once truly combat arts, or martial systems.  I’m not slamming MMA or RBS; I’m actually a fan of both, for different reasons.  What I am saying is that when you strip away large portions of a TMA’s system in favour of a ‘quicker-fix’ or rules based system, valuable history can be lost.

Not everyone is pursuing TMA for the long haul, and this is fine.  RBS and MMA are viable and effective options, each with their own focus and value. 

A significant challenge for teachers is to maintain and teach techniques that they may not feel are overly effective, for them, at least.  A technique that doesn’t work particularly well for one, due to height, weight, gender, flexibility, health etc. may be perfect for someone else.  So must a teacher maintain a group of teachings and techniques that they wouldn’t necessarily use themselves.  

What I fear is that martial artists, who start in TMA, but too quickly discard ‘not yet fully understood’ techniques in favour of a less traditional method, end up being the next generation of instructors in the martial arts.  This if fine if their instruction is confined to RBS or MMA, but it is an insufficient knowledge base to teach anything else.  You either have TMA systems not being passed down with the historical knowledge and understanding, essentially fizzling out, or you get unqualified people teaching an incomplete system.  Both are equally troubling to me.

You can see this all over the place.  It’s one of the reasons finding a good qualified teacher can be so challenging.  Many people, who I consider to be masters, are giving up on teaching.  I suspect this is due, in no small part, to society’s ‘quick-fix’ mentality.  The ‘now generation’ want it fast, and want it easy.  While I agree a training environment needs to be comfortable and respectful, too many students want to be coddled in their pursuit of a shiny belt.  The faster the better, and don’t make it too hard… 

I’m not a fan of some of the ‘old school’ methods of training that resulted in unnecessary injuries, but by and large, many students have ‘gone soft’ and are loath to experience pain or discomfort at the hands of a serious teacher or in training.  Sadly, the schools that provide a ‘no touch’ position on training are attracting a large student base.  This is also problematic for new students who don’t know any better.  Again, for fitness, fun and camaraderie, this is all fine, but for those seeking skills to protect themselves and their loved ones from real violence, they come up short.

I’m all for kid’s martial arts programs.  They build confidence, discipline, self control, and the kids have fun and develop social skills while getting fit.  It’s tough to be critical of any of that.  What I do have an issue is when the only real difference you see between the ‘kiddie-class’ and the adult class is the age of the participants.  

Obviously, I have strong opinions on the topic.  This is because I believe that TMA are just that, traditional martial arts born on the battlefield.  Tried and true techniques tested in (often) life or death situations and real combat.

Perhaps ironically, the state of mainstream martial arts may be feeding the problem, or causing what I see as the decline of good TMA.  If students taking watered down martial arts are critical in their thinking, they may seek out a RBS to get real combat skills.  Or they may be attracted to MMA, which, for all its faults as a true combat art, does incorporate real and hard training against resisting opponents.  A hands-on sport based style can be better than a hands-off McDojo.

So, if students are creating a market for real combat skills development, they may naturally find themselves seeking out RBS.  And if qualified TMA teachers are frustrated with the business of martial arts or the desires of mainstream or ‘soft’ students, they may naturally find themselves instructing a RBS program. 

This can be good but also creates the very situation that I see as the problem.  When the TMS turned RBS teacher stops teaching, the next generation is only left with what was taught in the RBS.  Lost then, possibly forever, is the more comprehensive, and complete TMA system. 

So you either get TMA schools teaching watered down versions of a combat art and subsequent teachers who don’t have a complete understanding of the original art and its application or you get branched-off RBS systems which miss out on the larger body of work.

I’ve done a pretty good job identifying the problem.  The harder part is coming up with the solution.

If your goals of learning go beyond just the down and dirty of a RBS (which is valuable and more than sufficient for many), find a good TMA instructor and stick with him/her and the art.  Give the system and the techniques a chance before making any rash decisions about their worth.   Ultimately, I agree with the concept of discarding what is not useful.  Just make sure you’ve done enough of the work to make that assessment.  And, as always, keep an open mind.

Train safely.

TMA versus MMA and being a good uke

I imagine the debate between what is better, traditional martial arts or mixed martial arts, of for that matter, reality based martial arts.  
Of course, there is no real clear cut answers.  Each have strengths and weaknesses.  I suspect there really isn't as much of a gap between the arts.  The quality of the teacher and the mindset of the student are the most important elements.


To touch on the TMA vs. MMA debate:

One argument in favor of MMA is that there are resisting opponents.  The lack of uncooperative training partners is often this is cited as one of the main failing in some traditional systems.  And I agree, it is...to a point.

The cooperative partner is a problem, yes. Operating under the illusion that your opponent will be compliant is not only unrealistic, but dangerous.  

This is why the effective use of distraction, or softening techniques, and a corresponding understanding of the body's reaction to pain is essential to practice realistically.  If this is not covered then MMA is probably a good idea because at least you've experienced some form of a struggle or a fight (albeit with a low chance of injury, it has rules after all).

In my opinion, if you understand action and reaction, then non 'rules based' traditional systems are superior.   It's just harder to judge the outcome for those who have never used any of the techniques in a real environment or in real confrontations.

Having said that, one of the biggest challenges in TMA is how to train realistically. After all, how can you practice an elbow joint lock and break against a resisting partner?  Overcoming the resistance ends with a broken elbow.

That why learning and practicing to be a good uke is so important.  


The use of a responsible amount of force in the softening techniques will illicit at least a moderate realistic physical response, allowing you and your partner to learn to react appropriately to the application of a technique.  

Mix it up so the uke doesn't know where you'll hit, pinch, kick, or slap next.  This will give a reasonably accurate marker of the natural pain and shock response.

If you don't study how a resisting partner will react to pain, distraction, techniques and follow up, you're really only studying half of what you need to know.

MMA has a lot going for it.  Working with a resistant partners is sometimes overlooked in TMA circles.  MMA is also very demanding and great for fitness, timing and sport fighting.  It's also very entertaining.  Hey, I'm a fan who watches the events.  


For those who don't have access to teachers who understand the body, pain, action and reaction, adrenaline and stress, MMA may be the better choice.  After all, you get a peek at all these areas, all the time.  


The bottom line though, is that MMA is too geared towards the safety of the participants to be deemed a truly effective system for actual street combat.  TMA is superior to MMA for effectively responding to real violence, but only if the teacher and student understand the cause and effect of the techniques being learned.

Traditional Martial Arts (TMA) vs. Mixed Martial Arts (MMA)

I'll have lots more on this topic in the future, but I came across an interesting comment made on another blog by a fella by the name of Ed ( I have no other details)

"We are not talking about "TMAs v. MMAs" here. What we are talking about is separating the "Sports" or "Hobbies" from the path of warriorship. A warrior wears no label. He honestly inventories his surroundings and threats and compares them to the tools he already possesses. If his arsenal contains an effective response, great, he works to perfect the employment of that tool. If it does not, he MUST (because he is a warrior, not a student of a specific style) seek out an answer to the problem. If that search crosses the TMA/MMA border in either direction, so be it."


I could not agree more.  For all the arguing and discussion out there, it really all just boils down to finding what works, for you.


To whoever Ed is, thanks for the insight.

What are you training for? Think hard and answer honestly...

J.C. over at Bujutsu: The Path made an interesting comment several months ago.  From time to time it rattles around in my head.

We had been chatting about martial arts and the pros and cons of different styles and the effectiveness of some techniques we'd been working on, and how some people are critical or others or have strong theories of what will or will not work and who knows what else when he said, somewhat in passing:

"There's faster ways to learn how to fight"

That statement has bounced around in my mind since then.  Any readers of this blog will know the emphasis I put on learning realistic techniques that can translate to the real world and work in dynamic stressful situations.

I have also met lots of people out there that are examining and exploring their martial art to gain a deeper understanding and to compare what they are learning to what they need to know to defend themselves, should the need arise.

Some enlightened artists are discarding some techniques.  Others are discovering ways to apply a learned technique or are discovering deeper layers to their art which translates into real world usability. A few are abandoning what they study or are at least supplementing their training.

Many are moving towards the many Reality Based Systems out there, feeling that they strip away all that 'other stuff' and just teach pure technique.

All these things are good.

Two simple but important questions that you need to ask yourself:

# 1. What am I training for?

# 2.  Is my training reflective of my goals (#1)

These are mental checks that should be done from time to time to make sure you're on track.  It's a simple but effective way to keep yourself on the right path.

If your goal is purely self defense, and time is of the essence, perhaps a reality based system is right for you.

If however, you just like the fitness and camaraderie of it all, well, you don't need to be as selective.

Can you have different goals?

Yes, but they can't be conflicting goals.  My main goal is learning a realistic effective flexible martial art that works on the street, under stress, every time.

My other goals are to improve myself, perfect my character, find inner peace and banish ego.  These goals compliment each other, and often work in tandem.  My main goal, however, is always my priority.

It is possible that as I continue my journey over the years, my focus may shift.  If it does, it will likely be as a result of mastery of my primary goal.  I believe that this is the process Morihei Ueshiba went through when he created Aikido.  He moved towards the loftier goals of self improvement and harmony, but only after he had mastered several different disciplines and styles of martial arts.

If you feel your training is not reflective of your goals, you need to figure out why.

Most important, is your head in the game?  Do you approach your own training in a serious manner?  If you don't, it doesn't really matter what martial art you take.

It's rarely the martial art itself.  Each art has strengths and weaknesses, it is the students and the teachers that are most often lacking.

My suggestion is to cross train.  Take a reality based seminar.  Try out a different art for a bit.  See what's out there and if that training lines up with your goals.  Don't abandon your art in favour of a 'quick fix', however.  Most true martial arts are just that, martial systems that were proved in combat as some time.

I found that while taking some seminars, watching videos, experimenting in this and that and doing some reading, that I kept seeing Jiu Jitsu techniques.  It confirmed that my style, and more importantly, my Sensei, was teaching a relevant and effective system.

Know yourself.  What do you want to get out of training?  Almost everyone you talk to who takes any martial arts will say they're in it for self defense.  I believe that they believe that they are, but I suspect that for many, it is not their primary goal.  Their approach, mindset and expectations don't always match up to their words.

This isn't always a bad thing.  It's not wrong to put a priority on the social aspects of martial arts study.  It can boost physical fitness, improve confidence and teach a few good techniques to almost anyone.

In fact, the true understanding of combat application may be unrealistic for some.  Many people have never been in a real fight in their adult lives, and many never will.  There's no frame of reference from which to measure training against real world violence.  For those that have, or for those who's profession comes into contact with violence, it's a different story.  So know what you want and need.

I read a thought provoking post over at the Chiron blog touching on this. Worthwhile reading.

One interesting thought that emerged for me as I was chewing on these topics is how difficult it is to know how well you are doing if you abandon an established system with a curriculum and grading system.  If you focused solely on reality based seminars and courses, how would you know how you are doing?  It's not like you typically get a black belt in a reality based system.  A counter argument could be that a black belt in a martial art which isn't taught with a focus on real world application isn't an indicator of anything either (if your only goal is reality self defense).

What started as an innocent comment from J.C. sparked quite a bit of thought on my part.  Sure, there are faster ways to learn how to fight, but I'm not sure there's necessarily better.  I feel I could teach a seminar on reality self defense.  I have taught new police recruits in restraint and control and arrest techniques with success.  There are some pretty good crash courses out there for self defense.  For many, this is enough.  For me, I expect a little bit more from my training.

I guess at the moment,  I'm majoring in combat, with a minor in self improvement and perfection of character.

Challenge what you know

Anyone practicing martial arts for a period of time needs to examine their chosen art.  They need to decide what they want to get out of their training.

I've stated before that I believe that most traditional martial arts are effective systems of self defense and combat, the only thing lacking in them are the mindset of the student and the quality and manner of teaching.

I study Japanese Jiu Jitsu as a reality based martial art.  I look at it as such, my Sensei teaches it as such and I am lucky that my fellow students are like minded.

I look at each technique with a critical eye.  I try to determine how effective it would be in the real world and we make sure we try it against resisting partners.  I test everything I learn against the real world.  Will it work on a big person, a drunk person, a drugged out person?

Recently,  J.C. over at Bujutsu: the Path pointed me towards a post on another blog.  This blog is written by an experienced Aikido practitioner and one post really grabbed my attention.  The central theme of the blog seems to be that the author is testing his art against reality type combat situations.  It tied in nicely to  J.C.'s post on  The Boxer.

Take a look at the following post and the video clips.  I think they're valuable to anyone, regardless of their art.  It shows a method of challenging your knowledge against a more dynamic situation.

Check out the blog post at Physics of Aiki.  It doesn't really matter if you take Aikido or not, but I respected the way they approached their training.  It's not always pretty, but I feel they came away with some valuable lessons.  And they pulled off some nice technique in the process...

Loyalty vs. Obligation (Giri)

Giri, or obligation, is a concept often associated to the Japanese martial arts.  It stems from a time when an aspiring martial artist essentially pledged themselves to a martial arts master, in return for their knowledge and instruction.  The student would never dream of leaving his/her master or studying with another.  They felt an obligation, often a burden of obligation, sacrificing their own wants for the happiness of their master.  This is a gross oversimplification of the concept of Giri, of course, but it leads into this discussion.

Modern day warriors often talk about obligation to their teacher.  They regard their understanding of it as a positive thing.  I believe the concepts of loyalty and obligation are often confused.  When most people talk about Giri, I think they are really talking about loyalty (at least here in the West).

I do not feel a sense of obligation to my Sensei but I do feel a powerful sense of loyalty to him.

Interestingly, I am likely more loyal to him because he has always encouraged me to experiment with other martial arts and artists.  He has never once said that Jiu Jitsu is the only martial art I should study or that he is the only one I should learn from.  He knows what he knows, and he knows it well.  If it works for me, he'll provide instruction to me.  If it's not for me, no hard feelings.

Have I shown my loyalty?  From a distance, it might not look like it, but my sense of loyalty runs very deeply.

My Sensei started me on my journey many years ago.  He awoke my love of martial arts which has lasted since then.  I learned from him for several years before I stopped training with him.  This was due to moving, starting a career etc.  Geographically it became impossible for a time.  I trained with several other schools and teachers, often earning several belts.  I enjoyed and benefited from all these experiences.  I've also taught work related self defense to my co-workers.

No matter where I went, the lessons I learned originally always stuck.  My original Jiu Jitsu training always bubbled up to the surface.  This showed me just how deeply the lessons I received had an effect on me, and how an effective teacher could really reach a student.

So how did I show my loyalty?

I always remained true to the lessons I learned.
I never pretended to be an expert or know more than I did.
I strove to find techniques that worked for others, not just for me.
I always insisted the techniques would work in the 'real world'.
I encouraged others to learn all they can from whoever they can.
I kept an open mind.
I respected others.
I learned from everyone.
I tried to be a positive example of a martial artist.
I tried to avoid unnecessary conflict.

Ultimately, I returned to my Sensei and started over.  I like to think this is how I've been loyal to him.

For those years I wasn't training under him?  A friend of mine once joked that I was like a Ronin, a masterless Samurai combing the countryside, searching for a teacher.

In truth, it turns out I was just trying to find my way back home.

I feel no obligation, but I am loyal to the core.

Traditional Martial Arts vs. Reality Based Systems

This is a hot topic of late. Which is better, traditional arts or reality based? There seems to be an article in every martial arts magazine debating which is better and more effective. The internet is full of material on this hotly contested issue.

Reality based systems are big business. Are they a fad? Are they better than traditional systems?

Let me begin by saying something that I feel is often missed in both camps as they banter back and forth. Traditional martial arts were all reality based. The techniques contained were battle tested. If a technique didn't work, you didn't come home. Pure and simple.

So why the debate? Reality based systems tout that traditional schools are outdated and don't reflect the realities of modern conflict.

Are they right? Sort of.

Traditional martial arts were never called traditional in their day. They were a matter of survival. These systems had to evolve and grow and adapt to new circumstances. Look at Japanese Jiu Jitsu. It contains many joint breaks and throws. Why? Fighting armoured opponents. Attackers were protected from many strikes due to their armour. So combatants learned to target the joints which remained vulnerable for reasons of mobility. This knowledge of leverage and human physiology just so happens to remain relevant today as it is still effective, armour or not.

No system ever said "That's it, we don't ever need any new techniques" They adapted to whatever the reality of the day was.

So if this is true, why the debate?

It all comes down to teaching. I have studied several martial arts over last two decades, and you know what? They all contain techniques that would work in reality. The manner in which they are taught and the mindset of the student is what makes or breaks them.

I think the argument is really which teaching methodology is better.

Critics of traditional systems say that the techniques aren't realistic. When someone throws a punch, they don't leave their arm out there extended while you perform your defense/attack. This is true, of course. What may be missing is the fact that this slower, more exaggerated attack that just hangs out there should only be one part of the learning process. It should be a step to teaching a student the mechanics of a technique. Once the student has learned the basics, the attacker needs to pull back the attacking limb if it is not trapped. It's all about training progressively. The technique speeds up as time goes on, getting more and more realistic. If a traditional school never moves past the 'leave it out there' stage, then the teaching is flawed, not the technique.

I believe the reality based movement is a good thing for the martial arts. They are presenting material and teaching in a more realistic way. Traditional schools are starting to re-discover what already exists in their art.

I have previously shared my views on mindset in the martial arts. No where is this better illustrated than in the battle between traditional and reality based systems.

Reality based systems tend to be purely focused on real attacks. Most reputable instructors have been involved in real world conflict, be it in military, policing or security. Many instructors in the traditional schools have not been. I believe this to be where the main gap between the two exists. This is not to say you have to be a soldier, cop or security officer to teach and practice effective techniques. My Sensei does not come from one of these fields but I have no doubts of his ability to apply his techniques in a real situation. It all comes down to understanding. If one Sensei never really understands a technique or how to adjust it if an opponent zigs when he should have zagged, how can he/she teach it to someone else?

It comes back to mindset. People who seek out reality based instructors are looking for simple, effective techniques that will work on the street.

People who seek out traditional schools may be seeking the same thing, or they may be looking to improve their fitness, or they might like the social aspect, or the uniforms, or their kids might go and they want to share time with them.

All these things can be good, but will they teach you how to survive a violent confrontation? As students, we need to understand our own motivations for taking a martial art.

As for me, I take a reality based traditional martial art. The combination of my teacher, my mindset and the teaching methodology makes it complete. My journey is also about self improvement and seeking inner harmony.

Examine what you want to get out of your training and then find a teacher and a school that provides it.

In the end, traditional systems are actually reality based and reality based systems have traditional roots. So what are we arguing about?