Should Karate go back to its roots? [Archive]

Saz

17-Apr-2003, 02:54 AM

Good thread Kensai :)

I think a lot of it depends on how you view your training, whether you see it as an art or just another exersize. Personally, I like hard training, which is why I do this style. Kyokushinkai is pretty much geared towards Knockdown fighting these days. There's a good interview here (http://www.shikon.com/articles/articles_steve/beyond_technique/steve_arneil.htm) about Hanshi Steve Arneil and his kyokushinkai training in Japan. Its a good read :)

I'd love karate to go back to its roots some more, but I wouldn't like to see it go totally back. Some of the things they did in the old days of karate were just plain crazy. One reason I can see for karate dumbing down is money. Some people pay money to go to karate classes, and then don't like the fact that it's hard to do, or hurts a bit or they can't do the techiniques. Some clubs would have had to soften up just to survive. I think we've come a long way since the 1800's, and even more in the 20th century. A lot of dangerous exersizes and techinques have been filtered out, and its become a lot safer to practise than it has been in the past. Unfortunately, this has also made some styles/clubs go overboard on the safety issues and take out a lot of the stuff that made karate great, in an effort to be 'safer' and to appeal to as many people as possible.

Thats just my opinion

Knight_Errant

04-Jun-2003, 05:00 PM

I sympathise with many of the kyokushin girl's points. Karate and roots, hmm... It would be better if karate's roots were more accessible and open to all. It would also be better if you could go into a karate club and walk out a few months later with some functional knowledge of fighting techniques, which does not happen. It's all too secretive.

Kwan Jang

08-Jun-2003, 07:27 AM

-I think in many ways we can have the best of both worlds. The positive aspects of itosu's do for character and personal development, especially for the children. For the adults, however, the original combat art should be there as well. I feel too many people think these have to be seperate. I don't feel they are contradictory at all. I may be struck by lightning for this, but for once, I actually agree on a point by Errant. The constant hiding of technique, especially "the good stuff", is outdated. I realize that it takes time to both mentally grasp and physically be able to perform a lot of the more advanced material, but instructors should provide the students w/ the value of what they came to their school for. Give them functional self-defense(at least as much as they can digest), fitness(as much as they can handle), personal growth, ect. right from the start and you'll retain the students because they see real progress. THAT is the way to be financialy successful and grow your school and to provide value to your community.

hongkongfuey

08-Jun-2003, 07:43 AM

It's not just Karate that this applies to, but all martial arts. Not many westerners have the dedication or time to practice a true traditional martial art.

Cooler and myself went to a traditional kung fu instructor for a while and spent the first 3 months sitting in horse stance for most of the 1 hour class. Needless to say, the class was not full of students!

In the end we left, as unless you practiced sitting in horse stance for several hours a week outside the class there was no way you could progress. However, the students that had remained at the class were some of the best martial artists I have come accross.

I agree with Kyokushin_girl in that it all depends on what you want out of your art.

Telsun

08-Jun-2003, 08:55 PM

Whats all this about "secret techniques"? I have been training for a good many years and have never been shown any "secret techniques". The techniques evolve as you progress. Just as you can't go straight for algebra without learning to add up first.

Going back to the roots. I love reading about tales from the karate (martial arts) legends. It all seemed so honourable. But I consider the routes being a fight to the death. Defeating an instructor to make him loose his students respect and thus become the new instructor, etc, etc. Forgive me if I am way of track here.
Karate has become a bit soft as some instructors teach what the student wants. I think that training should be very hard but as Kyukoshingirl said the training has moved with the times to avoid injuries, which is good.
If the soft/ Mcdojo clubs (of which there are many) were all erradicated and only the very best clubs and karateka remained to rebuild the legend that karate once was I would consider that a return to the roots.

Adam

08-Jun-2003, 09:12 PM

Karate is softer because society is softer. Back when it was invented, attacks by robbers were more common than they are today, people starved more and there was more anarchy. Stability and peace has weakened the warriors.
Also, I believe the invention of firearms might have meant something. What good is being a close combat master when the people coming at you can kill you at a long distance?
It was originally a warrior art. The warriors of today carry rifles and machineguns, with little use for close fighting. That's why I think karate has softened. It has become obsolete and the need for it to maintain it's lethality has gone.

Andrew Green

09-Jun-2003, 03:18 AM

I don't think anyone really knows what its roots really are.

stump

09-Jun-2003, 10:50 AM

<<<Karate is softer because society is softer. Back when it was invented, attacks by robbers were more common than they are today, people starved more and there was more anarchy. Stability and peace has weakened the warriors.>>>

If you look at the UFC that argument doesnt hold. As organisations develop and grow they need to organise, develop beauracracy and standardise. It is these traits that was watered down karate. If you want to appeal to the masses you have to sell them a product they want. Less people want to train like real fighters with real contact than want to play at martial arts or do it for self development reasons. Therefore karate and other arts changed their focus, droppped the less appealing parts of their training and attracted the masses.

Personally speaking looking back is never a good idea...identify what is wrong and then fix it in a way suitable for modern society.

If you start looking back you become a historical society....an anachronism

Adam

09-Jun-2003, 11:17 AM

UFC? Who says there wasn't a million karatemen in the age of shoguns that wouldn't have been able to whoop every man in the UFC?

I BELIEVE that both the people and the fighters have become weaker, as you don't really have to learn fighting techniques to survive those days.

I do believe that increased mysticism and tradition had a part in weakening bushido though.

Andrew Green is right. It's just what I personally believe them to be.

stump

09-Jun-2003, 02:15 PM

A quick question. Has the world record for the 100m sprint increased or decreased in the last 100 years? How about the record for running the mile? Improved training methods and the cumulation of knowledge have lead to improved performance in practically every sphere of life.

There were no karate men in the age of shoguns btw ;)

Adam

09-Jun-2003, 03:33 PM

I base my thought on the stories I've heard and read about the strength of people in the old days. (I had vikings in mind when I wrote the last post.)

I think the human race has degenerated rather than evolved over the last few hundred years. As for the 100m sprint, if you look at the difference in training methods and the size of the runner's leg muscles between now and 100 years back, of course the runners of today are better. They train harder, it doesn't mean they train better.

Again, Andrew Green is right.
We will never find out what the ancient fighting styles were like though, unless someone like Miyamoto Musashi or the Tiger King is suddenly found frozen in an glacier.

Knight_Errant

09-Jun-2003, 06:30 PM

I think the human race has degenerated rather than evolved over the last few hundred years
We are going to end up cutting up rough again if you keep saying things like that. Compare that to hitler's crazy rantings and you'll find uncomfortable similarities. Go to africa, or asia or a farm in scotland, and you'll soon learn the truth.

Andrew Green

09-Jun-2003, 07:05 PM

Ok, I want a new rule:

No one is allowed to say something like this:

Originally posted by Adam
UFC? Who says there wasn't a million karatemen in the age of shoguns that wouldn't have been able to whoop every man in the UFC?

I BELIEVE that both the people and the fighters have become weaker, as you don't really have to learn fighting techniques to survive those days.

and something like this:

[/QUOTE]
Andrew Green is right. It's just what I personally believe them to be. [/QUOTE]

in the same post...

Karate is primarily a cultural art with some self-defence side-effects. Treat it as such and you will enjoy it and get into less fights over it.

But it is not about fighting and it is not particularly good for fighting, that is not what it does. The structure/posture and the training methods that we do know where used do not support the theory that karate ever developed great fighters.

The oral history does, but it is also clearly exagerrated and not all that accurate.

If defending against attackers and fighting battles was an issue they would have had weapons.

Knight_Errant

09-Jun-2003, 07:46 PM

Well, all the good karateka I know take self-defense or something else outside of lessons. Karate isn't particularly good for exercise. I hesitate to refer people to the shotokan planet AGAIN, because it might bore people. I was under the understanding that karate was developed in Okinawa for unarmed peasants to defend themselves against the armed ruling clan.

Telsun

09-Jun-2003, 08:51 PM

Karate isn't particularly good for exercise
?
It is where I train!!! Down to the club, me thinks.
It has been said a couple of times that the roots are not known, this is indeed true. We can only take from what we learn from living legends.
But I do not think that the 'roots' is what is being seeked. I think that it is the times of quality karate, a time when charlitan clubs did not exist, when people trained hard and if they couldn't they didn't train. Karate should not be soft. If people want soft they should try Tae Bo. After all if someone can't swim they don't go in the water. But if they really have the desire to learn they will go in for as long as it takes.
Of course those days will never return. There are hundreds of "new" martial arts nowadays and unfortunately karate is deemed as one of the least effective of all arts. This saddens me.

gingerninja

10-Jun-2003, 12:00 AM

Originally posted by Knight_errant
in Okinawa for unarmed peasants to defend themselves against the armed ruling clan.

Nope, karate evolved out of a combination of introduced Chinese styles and the Okinawian art of te (tode, tuite) - a all in art (stricking, throwing, joint manipulation and groundwork) that was taught to the upper and ruling classes. This eventually spread out of the traditional family heritage system into the relative mainstream.

Andrew Green

10-Jun-2003, 03:48 AM

Originally posted by Knight_errant
Well, all the good karateka I know take self-defense or something else outside of lessons. Karate isn't particularly good for exercise. I hesitate to refer people to the shotokan planet AGAIN, because it might bore people. I was under the understanding that karate was developed in Okinawa for unarmed peasants to defend themselves against the armed ruling clan.

First, karate was primarily a thing FOR the upper classes.

Second there is no way in hell an unarmed peasant is going to fight off a armed professional soldier/

Shotokan planet has some good stuff, and some bad stuff. If nothing else from that site you should have gotten that you should not take things for granted, even things on that site.

Knight_Errant

10-Jun-2003, 08:59 AM

For the upper classes? My god, I've been lied to...
Depends on the armed proffessional and on the peasant. A fit, healthy peasant with lots of real pub fights under his belt would whip the arse off a lax, undisciplined young soldier without much practice...
I think the important point here is that karate's 'roots' are only part of the wider scene. We can select what we want from what is available, new and modern, western and eastern.

stump

10-Jun-2003, 11:46 AM

<<<They train harder, it doesn't mean they train better.>>>

Yes it does. That's the whole idea. No-ones doubting the dedication of generations of atheletes, but nutrition, science etc have gotten better and rather than sitting on their arses people have used these advancements to push themselves to new heights.

You've got a pretty idealistic view of the past. If things were so good back then we wouldn't have moved on

Telsun: I'm not picking a fight with you (I'd lose!!!) but have you ever trained in a thai boxing/boxing or vale tudo group? I think you'll find they push themselves harder than the average karate class.....if you've got a karate club that really push the CV you're lucky and more power to you!!! Unfortunately that's the exception, not the rule

Adam

10-Jun-2003, 01:28 PM

I think that's true. Sad, but true.

Telsun

10-Jun-2003, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by stump
Telsun: I'm not picking a fight with you (I'd lose!!!) but have you ever trained in a thai boxing/boxing or vale tudo group? I think you'll find they push themselves harder than the average karate class.....if you've got a karate club that really push the CV you're lucky and more power to you!!! Unfortunately that's the exception, not the rule

Hey Stump, I'm sure you would do better than you would admit in a fight with me!!
Yeah you're right. I have trained with boxers & kickboxers and their fitness training was extremely demanding.
My karate class does put a very strong emphasis on fitness, as my Sensei is fully aware of the importance of being fit. He was also a veteran fitness champion when he was in South Africa (he has never told us but some of his associates have! Typically modest). I wouldn't put it far behind the fore mentioned styles but, yes, I would put it way above the karate class norm.
Although in saying this Karate will offer the average person some benefit.

goatnipples2002

10-Jun-2003, 08:22 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by kensai
Its clear that it Itsou changed Karate at a time when it was indeed dying. Although alot of people dislike him for it, without it most of us would not have had the oppotunity to study the fanastic Ryukyu's arts.

But at a time when people are so interested in self defence techniques, should Karate change back to the way it was in the 1800's? [/QUO

Me personally I would have to say for self defense purposes why go back? Self defense then was not meant for the streets of the inner cities. People had honor back then. To put a reverse time warp on kara te would be like you asking to get you ass mugged or killed in the streets. For show/kata dances and things like that it would be very good to go back to its roots.

But why practice and dedicate your life to something that won't save your ass or your family's lives?

Knight_Errant

12-Jun-2003, 09:50 AM

I very much doubt if people had as much honour back then as you imagine. Street fighting is not a game, or a sport played according to the marquess of Queensbury rules. In the 1800s, as now, it has to be hard, brutal and short or it's no use.

Adam

12-Jun-2003, 11:11 AM

I agree with Knight_errant. Robbers, hooligans and muggers were probably not more honourable than they are now.

PS: That's a pretty macho rant you got for a signature, goatnipples :D

goatnipples2002

12-Jun-2003, 07:19 PM

What I meant by homor was that they probably went hand to hand 1st off instead of just pulling out weapons and fighting like bitches. I still think that arts that were made because of war like muay thai don't need to change because they are straight forward and to the point. Arts like kung fu need to be more contemporary in order to help you survive.

kakushidi

15-Jun-2003, 01:20 AM

I think the big challenge in taking karate back to its roots lies in the systems we study and that they impose requirements that are at odds with the way karate was practiced 100 years ago.

Today, students, as a rule, practice relatively infrequently. A couple of times a week, maybe three, an hour and a half per session, sometimes two. Yes, many practice more, but this is the norm for average students in many, many karate schools.

We do know something about how karate was practiced 100 years ago. First, Itosu said you should practice 2-3 hours every day.

Unfortunately, we can't change the fact that we have busier lives now, and many of us simply have too many commitments to practice much more, at least over the long term (10-20 years).

But what is really different is how we practice. In Itosu's time, there was a heavy emphasis on kata, and a heavy emphasis on practical fighting, or ti. But the way kata was taught was far different.

Funakoshi said many masters knew only one kata, or perhaps a few. Funakoshi said it was common for a beginner to practice Naihanchi for 3 years before learning a second kata, and also states that under Itosu, that is the way he learned, even though he had years of training under Azato at the time. One of Itosu's top two students, Yabu Kentsu said you need to practice a kata 10,000 times to make a kata one's own.

Higaonna, Miyagi's teacher, was known to have students do only Sanchin for many months, before teaching another kata.

What is important to realize is that with the 2-3 hours per day, and heavy emphasis on kata practice, these "beginners" cranked up 10,000 reps relatively quickly. Motobu was said to practice Naihanchi up to 500 times per day. If you can do that for a month, you can get to 10,000 reps. My guess is the average karateka studying 2-3 hours per day, had no problem getting to 10,000 in a year, and probably did so much faster.

Now, in our 2 classes per week we do warmups, conditioning, kata, self-defense, kumite, bag work and sometimes kobudo. But here is the unfortunate part. We learn kata quickly, and require them for rank, guaranteeing that only the most dedicated will ever get near 1000, let alone 10,000.

And with so many kata, with so many movements, it is near impossible to practice bunkai with partners to make even a small percentage of movements truly useful.

Why don't we go back to just a few kata? Because we are locked in systems that require kata be taught at a rapid rate. Over the years a few masters "collected" kata, and now we have to practice them all.

IMHO, this is a prescription for lousy self defense.

-Kakushidi

Andrew Green

15-Jun-2003, 08:23 AM

They also had to walk 10 miles barefoot in the snow everyday to get to the dojo, uphill both ways.

Ituso taught "school" karate, constinant repetition and strict discipline to keep kids in shape, follow orders, stamp out individualism and prepare them to join the army...

He also wanted to preserve a cultural art unique to his small country.

Karate is not well designed for self-defence/fighting.

That doesn't mean it is no good, just not very good at that.

Cain

15-Jun-2003, 09:06 AM

Hehehe, they seemed like tough nuts....I say bring it back to it's roots :D

|Cain|

Mike Flanagan

15-Jun-2003, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by goatnipples2002
What I meant by homor was that they probably went hand to hand 1st off instead of just pulling out weapons and fighting like bitches. I still think that arts that were made because of war like muay thai don't need to change because they are straight forward and to the point. Arts like kung fu need to be more contemporary in order to help you survive.

This seems like quite a romantic view of the past. As long as there have been people, there have been other people willing to take what doesn't belong to them by force, and with absolutely no moral considerations about harming their victim. What on earth makes you think that such people would go "hand to hand" if they had a choice to do otherwise? No, they'd lurk in the bushes and hit you with a big stick before you even knew you were being attacked. Consider that back then they didn't CCTV, fingerprint evidence, DNA evidence or any other type of forensic evidence. It was just you and them on a lonely path in the dark of the Okinawan (or Chinese or whatever) night.

Similarly why would a karateka defend themselves with only their hands if they had a weapon available. You would be stupid not to use a weapon if there were one available.

Violence is very rarely conducted in an honourable manner. More often, its just a question of how brutal it is.

I firmly believe that one aspect of old style karate was that it was intended to equip you with the skills to deal with violent assaults. If it is not fit for purpose now that is more to do with the changes that have been made to karate over the course of the 20th century.

As for Muay Thai, what makes you think it was an art made for war? Surely an 'art of war' would teach about using the weapons of war, which might include things like blades, projectile weapons and firearms, rather than knees, elbows and shin kicks.

Mike

kakushidi

15-Jun-2003, 12:49 PM

The notion that Itosu taught "school" karate is not completely accurate.

Itosu did introduce karate into the school system, and to do that made changes. Karate had not before been taught to large groups for short periods. It was made safe for children in much the way Kane created Judo because JuJitsu and AikiJutsu was not really safe for children.

That was in the early 1900s.

Prior to that and up until his death, Itosu taught in the earlier tradition. Yabu Kentsu and Chomo Hanashiro, both who had trained for years under Matsumura, and who had distinguished themselves in combat, remained with Itosu. And he trained several who would go on to form some of the major styles we have today. He taught in Shuri, which was the major town in Okinawa, every evening. As was customary, there was no charge for instruction, but he was very selective in picking his students, and trained a relatively small group.

Funakoshi was born in 1868 and began training in the early 1870s, which precedes the advent of "school" karate by 30 years. He is one of the authoritative sources on the history. When he writes that it was common for masters to practice just one or a small number of kata, it is likely to be accurate. He talks of how masters would specialize, be really good at one thing, and Itosu would take him to those masters to learn what they did well. There was an openness in sharing in the karate community.

Other sources note that Choki Motobu, a reknowned brawler, practiced and taught a small handful of kata, and when practicing kata, spent almost all of his time on Naihanchi.

I support the argument that Itosu's school karate represents really bad fighting, yet this is the norm in most systems today. But what most people don't recognize is that the practice of so many kata is what makes the effective use of these movemens near impossible.

To have something be truly reflexive, and fast and strong you have to do it thousands of times. It seems all sports but karate recognize this. Good Pro golfers can hit close to a thousand balls a day, baseball players swing bats hundreds of times a day. I could go on and on.

Only in karate do we "run through our kata". Typically that means doing each movement once, maybe twice. Think of it. Your life could depend on your instanteous execution (both incredibly fast, and incredibly powerful) of a series of movements designed to overwhelm a larger attacker. And for this, you practice it once, perhaps a few times per week. It is truly laughable. But really truly sad, because this is the way so many practice, yet it is such a bad way to train in fighting.

-Kakushidi

gingerninja

15-Jun-2003, 01:09 PM

Finally someone talking sense.

kakushidi

15-Jun-2003, 01:39 PM

Andrew Green said,

They also had to walk 10 miles barefoot in the snow everyday to get to the dojo, uphill both ways.

Maybe in an earlier ice age 10 or 20 thousands years ago. However, Okinawa is about 27 degrees latitude, a little South of Orlando Florida. Not a heck of a lot of snow there.

-Kakushidi

Andrew Green

15-Jun-2003, 06:58 PM

The point was that the truth tends to get exagerrated more and more as we get further away from it.

Blue Bloater

15-Jun-2003, 07:44 PM

kakushidi are you saying that kata should be done more often?

Baseball players practice with imaginary balls coming at them while swinging bats and basketball players imagine shooting free throws. This is much like kata but then again the baseball players actually do a lot of hitting baseballs and basketball players actually shoot a lot baskets with real balls.

Kata has a place but to be effective in self-defense you have to practice situations and reactions to them as realistically as possible. Some schools do this some just do kata or a little of both (but not enough of either).

I'm of the mind that originally it (Karate) was used for combat and it was somewhat effective. Have the techniques changed all that much? Or is it the way it's taught? It really has gotten away from what it originally was used and trained for. If it wants to survive at least in the west it needs to make its way back to its original roots. Otherwise it's going to end up like a lot of Chinese martial arts. People are leaving them by the droves and not many people are filling in for the ones that are leaving.

The argument that it would be to dangerous to teach in a pure combat context is baloney combatives like krav maga, Eric Paulson and others like that do it all the time. If people want exercise let them do soccer or Tai chi. How do I defend Karate as a legitimate martial art for self-defense?

Andrew Green

15-Jun-2003, 08:17 PM

Is everybody really 100% sure that the primary purpose of Karate was learning to fight?

I'm not.

kakushidi

15-Jun-2003, 08:53 PM

Blue Bloater said:

"kakushidi are you saying that kata should be done more often?"

What I am saying is that with so many kata, there is no way to make any of the movements truly effective. You can never get the right number of repetitions for any of them.

Virtually every boxer, and thai boxer has combinations they do with great repetition. For those that are right handed, a common combination is left jab, right cross. And this combination is often used after some parry. Parry with the right, followed by a left jab then a right cross. Very common.

How many times to boxers do this combination. A good professional boxer in his mid thirties will have done this hundreds of thousands of times. And there are many ways to practice it. In the air, against a bag, with resistance (say with weights when on your back), and against partners.

There are some on this forum and elsewhere that like to belittle this notion of massive repetition. If that is the case, why do boxers keep up the thousands of reps, after they have already done tens of thousands? The simple reason is that the more reps, the better the technique. The more reflexive, the faster, the more powerful.

Karate was practiced that way once. Massive repetitions. And unfortunately, it is no longer practiced that way in many, many schools. I advocate good fighting, and I, like many others, believe the key to that is massive repetition. In the air, against the bag, against a partner. They are three legs of a triad. All are important.

There are those that question whether the movements in kata represent effective fighting techniques. And there is good reason to question this. Most of the applications people use and teach are horrible fighting combinations.

But kata is greatly misunderstood. And this is true even by many Okinawan masters. And it is certainly true of many Japanese masters. Just go to www.usankf.org. Select training, then videowerks, and pick a kata. Then pick the analysis option, and you can look at horrible fighting combinations. These "interpretations" are just not good fighting.

Let me give you a good example. Pick Kanku Dai (Shotokan). One absurd movement is in application 12. Imagine you are facing straight ahead, and an opponent is 90 degrees to the right, one of the worst strategies is to spin 270 degrees counterclockwise. You turn your head away, rotate on the same point he is targeting, and have no chance whatsoever of blocking a good strike. To make it work in the video (and the dojo), the attacker has to have his strike end nearly two feet shy of the defender. In fact many of the applications shown have the attacker's strike end short of the defender. What else is lousy? Well, most use a single counter to the abdomen. Application 6 ends with a block, App 9 with a single backfist. I could go on and on. It's all bad.

I have great fighting techniques for Kusanku Dai. And all I did was think about these techniques and how they could be used effectively. It's not all that hard. The movements in kata can be really effective, but you have to use them the right way, practice them thousands of times, and do extensive partner and bag work, just like any other fighting system.

-Kakushidi

kakushidi

15-Jun-2003, 09:01 PM

Andrew Green said:

"The point was that the truth tends to get exagerrated more and more as we get further away from it."

What "truth" are you referring to? We have historical references to the period. Funakoshi wrote texts in the 1930s and 40s. Yabu Kentsu's statement was made prior to 1938 (He died in '37), Itosu's 10 principles were written before 1916, the year he died.

Which part of the historical record do you dispute? What is the exaggeration you claim?

-Kakushidi

Andrew Green

15-Jun-2003, 09:06 PM

All of it, none of it, some of it, we have no way of knowing.

Do you believe everything that someone today uses to market themself and their product?

Blue Bloater

15-Jun-2003, 09:54 PM

kakushidi I agree.

Try telling all (a lot anyway) these Karate instructors that. I guess you can't teach old dogs new tricks.

Mike Flanagan

16-Jun-2003, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by Andrew Green
Is everybody really 100% sure that the primary purpose of Karate was learning to fight?

I'm not.

Hi Andrew

I personally believe that the primary purpose of 19th century Okinawan Karate was to be a method of good health and longevity. Therefore the training methods would have been therapeutic in nature. But being able to fight would also be an important aspect, it is just another way of attempting to ensure longevity (ie. that you are able to survive violent confrontations, even better that you are able to avoid them in the first place).

Mike

stump

16-Jun-2003, 06:32 PM

as an aside...

<<<As for Muay Thai, what makes you think it was an art made for war? Surely an 'art of war' would teach about using the weapons of war, which might include things like blades, projectile weapons and firearms, rather than knees, elbows and shin kicks>>>

Mike, the weapons element of thai martial arts is called krabbi krabong and involves multiple weapons used singly and in combination...it's pretty rare nowadays but it does exist and can be found in Britain and Ireland.

Just taught you might be interested :)

Mike Flanagan

17-Jun-2003, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by stump
Mike, the weapons element of thai martial arts is called krabbi krabong and involves multiple weapons used singly and in combination...it's pretty rare nowadays but it does exist and can be found in Britain and Ireland.

Just taught you might be interested :)

Thanks yes, I'd forgotten about that. But I don't think it detracts from my point. The modern sport of Muay Thai has little to do with preparing young men for war. Elements of it, such as weapons practice, may possibly have their origins in military training, but such training is very far removed from the modern day sport.

Thanks for jogging my memory.

Mike

stump

17-Jun-2003, 03:57 PM

Wasn't disagreeing with you at all......I think it was probably designed to give off duty soldiers a way to stay fit, healthy and tough more than anything else. I think the greeks used to do the same with Pankration and wrestling...and I'll bet the modern armies encourage soldiers to undertake similiar training...not specifically for the direct benefits but again as a way to stay fit and healthy with benefits of unarmed combat thrown in. Just a thought....back to the thread though

Blue Bloater

18-Jun-2003, 03:48 AM

Even sport Muay Thai is still very effective for self-defense!

Mike Flanagan

18-Jun-2003, 06:26 AM

Originally posted by Blue Bloater
Even sport Muay Thai is still very effective for self-defense!

Oh I don't doubt that for a moment. From what I've seen of it I'm sure it can be highly effective. I merely questioned whether modern Muay Thai was developed in order to prepare soldiers for was, as had been earlier implied.

I think Stump raises a good point about Pankration and wrestling. The relevance of such disciplines in the military is usually more about fostering stoicism and fitness, rather than effective self-defence. I believe the British army does ( or at least used to do) something similar with an exercise called 'milling'. This is like boxing but you're not allowed to block or dodge incoming blows. You just take it and give it back. Its not about self-defence, its about developing an indomitable spirit.

Mike