The Science Of Techniques - Part II: Different but the Same
There is very little difference between real military based martial styles. The only difference really is the approach each style takes to transmitting their information and what their focus (weaponry, kicking, punching, grappling, etc.) is. For most authentic forms of military arts we all get to the same point of the training pyramid, we just get there from different directions.
Truth be known, the individual practitioner actually has more to do with the success of a fighting system, than the actual system. Sorry, I’m sure you didn’t want to hear that. However, I will concede the fact that some systems prepare people better than others.
For example, Musashi was a great swordsman, undefeated in over 60 duels. However none of his students ever achieved the fame he did, using only what he taught them. Musashi, the man, was a great fencer, and most likely developed some wonderful fighting techniques. However his techniques were suited to meet his needs, his physical prowess, and his mental outlook on the ways things had to be done in order to be successful. What he did worked for him, and not necessarily for anyone else, past or present.
In addition, Musashi did not fixate on only one method or style of fighting while developing his style of swordsmanship. He took advantage of learning from anyone he thought had something to offer him. He was willing to see what others were doing, examine if they had anything of value for him to assimilate, and maybe most importantly of all was willing to travel as far as it took to search this information out. He clearly researched his craft.
I think we call this "cross training" today, but it isn’t a modern innovation after all.
How martial artists train, how they seek out and comprehend information given to them or discovered on their own, their natural ability, and their resolve, are all factors that contribute to the success they will have within their particular martial form.
In other words, two people studying the same system, for the same amount of time, with the same amount of effort, might not both become equally good.
Further more, even if the style they practice is considered as the "ultimate" style, there is no guarantee either of these two individuals will be unbeatable. There is no certainty that either of them will be the "ultimate" warrior.
In a real fight, there are just too many variables to consider to truly believe any one person, any one style, can be the best. In a real fight, sometimes luck is more important than skill.
An interesting article I came across a couple of years ago was titled, "The Medieval Knight vs. The Feudal Japanese Warrior," written by J. Clements the director of ARMA (The Association for Renaissance Martial Arts) http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm.
In this article Mr. Clements asks the question; what would happen if a European Knight fought a Japanese Samurai? It’s an interesting question that can surely be debated to death. Depending on ones stance--something normally based ones affiliation to a specific martial art the--answer is simple. If I practice Japanese arts, I say the Samurai would win. If I practice European martial arts (yes they had them), I think the Knight wins.
However, the answer is not so simple. Both the Knight and the Samurai were warriors. Both spent their lives training to fight. Both had battle experience.
If you placed 20 Knights on a battlefield and had them face 20 Samurai, I’m positive there would be casualties on both sides. One group might ultimately win the battle, but that does not mean they would ultimately win the war.
Surely how the Knight and the Samurai trained for battle was determined by their needs, and based on their knowledge of warfare in their geographic location. Of course there were also technological differences, but that can be said for both sides. However, to say one group was better than the other is fatuous.
The honest truth is, there is a limited number of ways the body can be used as a weapon and we humans can injure/kill each other. Evidence supports the assertion that by the dawn of civilization most of the fighting skills we practice as martial artists today were already known. In fact, it is safe to state that all the fighting skills we practice today, (except for firearms and explosives) were already being utilized as far back as 5000BC by the soldiers of Sumer (an ancient civilization located around the Lower Tigris and Euphrates rivers, in what is now modern day Iraq). This was a long time before Japan was Japan or the nations of Europe existed.
Of course methodologies varied from country to country, changed over the centuries, and adapted to the advent of new and better weaponry. However, the basics (roots)--the science--of hand-to-hand combat have remained the same.
Truth be known, the individual practitioner actually has more to do with the success of a fighting system, than the actual system. Sorry, I’m sure you didn’t want to hear that. However, I will concede the fact that some systems prepare people better than others.
For example, Musashi was a great swordsman, undefeated in over 60 duels. However none of his students ever achieved the fame he did, using only what he taught them. Musashi, the man, was a great fencer, and most likely developed some wonderful fighting techniques. However his techniques were suited to meet his needs, his physical prowess, and his mental outlook on the ways things had to be done in order to be successful. What he did worked for him, and not necessarily for anyone else, past or present.
In addition, Musashi did not fixate on only one method or style of fighting while developing his style of swordsmanship. He took advantage of learning from anyone he thought had something to offer him. He was willing to see what others were doing, examine if they had anything of value for him to assimilate, and maybe most importantly of all was willing to travel as far as it took to search this information out. He clearly researched his craft.
I think we call this "cross training" today, but it isn’t a modern innovation after all.
How martial artists train, how they seek out and comprehend information given to them or discovered on their own, their natural ability, and their resolve, are all factors that contribute to the success they will have within their particular martial form.
In other words, two people studying the same system, for the same amount of time, with the same amount of effort, might not both become equally good.
Further more, even if the style they practice is considered as the "ultimate" style, there is no guarantee either of these two individuals will be unbeatable. There is no certainty that either of them will be the "ultimate" warrior.
In a real fight, there are just too many variables to consider to truly believe any one person, any one style, can be the best. In a real fight, sometimes luck is more important than skill.
An interesting article I came across a couple of years ago was titled, "The Medieval Knight vs. The Feudal Japanese Warrior," written by J. Clements the director of ARMA (The Association for Renaissance Martial Arts) http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm.
In this article Mr. Clements asks the question; what would happen if a European Knight fought a Japanese Samurai? It’s an interesting question that can surely be debated to death. Depending on ones stance--something normally based ones affiliation to a specific martial art the--answer is simple. If I practice Japanese arts, I say the Samurai would win. If I practice European martial arts (yes they had them), I think the Knight wins.
However, the answer is not so simple. Both the Knight and the Samurai were warriors. Both spent their lives training to fight. Both had battle experience.
If you placed 20 Knights on a battlefield and had them face 20 Samurai, I’m positive there would be casualties on both sides. One group might ultimately win the battle, but that does not mean they would ultimately win the war.
 |  |
| Mouri Shinsuke (left) attacks Imagawa Yoshimoto from the Tale of Heike. 12th century | 15th Century fechtbuch “Gladiatora” |
| The armor and weaponry may be different, but in both these pictures a spear-wielding attacker is countered in basically the same manner. In both prints the spear is evaded and grabbed and the defender is about to counter strike. | |
Surely how the Knight and the Samurai trained for battle was determined by their needs, and based on their knowledge of warfare in their geographic location. Of course there were also technological differences, but that can be said for both sides. However, to say one group was better than the other is fatuous.
The honest truth is, there is a limited number of ways the body can be used as a weapon and we humans can injure/kill each other. Evidence supports the assertion that by the dawn of civilization most of the fighting skills we practice as martial artists today were already known. In fact, it is safe to state that all the fighting skills we practice today, (except for firearms and explosives) were already being utilized as far back as 5000BC by the soldiers of Sumer (an ancient civilization located around the Lower Tigris and Euphrates rivers, in what is now modern day Iraq). This was a long time before Japan was Japan or the nations of Europe existed.
Of course methodologies varied from country to country, changed over the centuries, and adapted to the advent of new and better weaponry. However, the basics (roots)--the science--of hand-to-hand combat have remained the same.
<< Home