Other Views on Martial Art Versus Combat Sports
I think it is worth adding a little outside context to Gary's post about distinction between "Martial Art" and "Combat Sport". There is a strong intellectual current in the martial arts that preaches a view somewhat the opposed to what Gary wrote, espousing the value of full intention sparring over traditional training. This view is growing in popularity along with the rise of Mixed-Martial Arts (MMA). I think that it is best articulated by the "Aliveness" doctrine. The essay Why Aliveness?.... by Brazillian Jiu-Jitsu exponent Matt Thornton is a very thorough treatment.
To my understanding, there are two basic points in the theory of aliveness and importance of sport. First, alive sparring is the only way to learn to fight with full commitment against total resistance in a world where most of us do not regularly engage in combat. Second, testing your skill against a non-compliant opponent is the only way to really know if your martial arts are any good (this point is especially made by MMA folks who previously learned a poor quality or fraudulent "traditional" martial art). These are important ideas and deserve to be taken seriously.
Another interesting point of view was given to me by a Zen teacher who practiced kendo. He felt that the full commitment of sparring, where you can let go of all inhibitions and attack with the full force of will, is vital for the awareness and spiritual training of martial arts—which he felt were more important than learning how to fight with swords.
I think there is a lot of depth in this debate as far as the history of martial arts goes. The example of the Greeks that Gary wrote about is just one of many times the same sequence has repeated:
For another viewpoint on the differing approach and value of traditional jujutsu compared to MMA, see the excellent article Assumptions by Toby Threadgill. The 3d paragraph about Takamura Sensei "sparring" a brash young challenger is priceless.
To my understanding, there are two basic points in the theory of aliveness and importance of sport. First, alive sparring is the only way to learn to fight with full commitment against total resistance in a world where most of us do not regularly engage in combat. Second, testing your skill against a non-compliant opponent is the only way to really know if your martial arts are any good (this point is especially made by MMA folks who previously learned a poor quality or fraudulent "traditional" martial art). These are important ideas and deserve to be taken seriously.
Another interesting point of view was given to me by a Zen teacher who practiced kendo. He felt that the full commitment of sparring, where you can let go of all inhibitions and attack with the full force of will, is vital for the awareness and spiritual training of martial arts—which he felt were more important than learning how to fight with swords.
I think there is a lot of depth in this debate as far as the history of martial arts goes. The example of the Greeks that Gary wrote about is just one of many times the same sequence has repeated:
- Warriors develop martial skills and master them in order to survive.
- In peacetime these skills are passed on as they were before, but without a life-or-death imperative, they tend to degenerate into empty form.
- A sporting version the arts are developed to bring vitality back into training.
- The sports become an art on their own and the original fighting skills atrophy.
For another viewpoint on the differing approach and value of traditional jujutsu compared to MMA, see the excellent article Assumptions by Toby Threadgill. The 3d paragraph about Takamura Sensei "sparring" a brash young challenger is priceless.
Labels: Essays, The Martial Arts

<< Home