This post is about my belief that all martial arts share the same combat principles. Conversely, I have been told by some others that different martial arts have different combat principles. This may just be a difference in semantics. First a definition of principle: A principle is a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption. For purposes of martial arts, principles are often transmitted in the form of allegories and sayings. For example, there is a combat principle that goes, "do not get hit." In addition, the term "underlying principle" is often used to describe the reason why something works. With the above said, the question is, do all martial arts share the same combat principles? The answer to me is "Yes", but I have a caveat that different martial arts can both interpret principles differently and at the same time focus on specific principles while neglecting other principles. To better understand how the same principle can be interpreted differently, we can take the principle: "do not get hit" and apply it to different situations. In the context of self protection, the principle could be interpreted as "don't be there", in other words, don't go into places at times when bad things will happen to you. In the context of self-defense, the principle could be interpreted as "be a hard to hit target". In the context of an MMA cage fight, the principle could be interpreted as "use angles, get off the line of attack, and apply footwork" or something along the lines of "don't be where you will take the full power of an attack". My point is that the same principle applies across all martial arts, but depending on the context, the principle can be interpreted differently so that it is applicable to the situation. In the practice of martial arts, truly understanding principles can take a very long time because of the complexity of the subject. For example, in Aikido as a white belt, you might understand, "do not get hit", to mean evade the attack. However, if all you do is evade, eventually you will be hit. So after a bit, it could be understood as "evade the attack AND align the body to counter attack immediately"... so now we add the element of timing, angles, and fighting spirit to the formula. Then even after more training, it might come about that the best way not to be hit is to stop the attacker before they can strike... this then goes on to the timing of preemptive striking and even furthermore, the ability to "cut through the enemy's intention to attack"... so we come to breaking the spirit of the enemy so that they no longer have the will or want to fight. This is just ONE principle interpreted in many ways and there are tens of thousands of principles... so it is said. For my own personal education and for teaching my students, I spend a lot of time on principles as they apply to fundamentals. What I consider a fundamental to be is a "short application of a principle". For example, "turning the corner while sprawling" is a short footwork application of a principle. In this case it could be interpreted as flanking the opponent while applying constant forward pressure (even if the pressure is in retreat). Another short representation of this same principle could be using a "corner step" with a yokomenuchi (angular sword strike cutting down the shoulder). So are there those that also think as I do (I know Koyo and I agreed on this idea that combat principles are shared across all martial arts). If so, what are your experiences and thoughts to support this? On the other hand, are you one that does not believe that the combat principles are shared across all martial arts? Maybe you feel that boxing does not share combat principles with archery because they are so different? If so, what do you have to say about this subject?
For me, the question is usefulness. Principles are, in essence, teaching tools. We have principles so that we can communicate an internalized understanding to another party. So, if I were teaching, I'd treat "don't get hit" as a funny intro to a real discussion of evasion/positioning/footwork. Not as an actual principle. Simply because it's not particularly helpful in isolation. It's how someone actually operationalizes things that mark the learning process. When I say "don't get hit," I'll quickly go on to point out that we're talking about getting hit with a rattan club, knife, or machete. So my next point is the actual learning point. "Blades only need casual contact to do considerable damage, so a glancing blow isn't going to help you; DON'T GET HIT." In contrast, a muay thai or boxing exponent might be okay with getting hit, provided they hit harder, more often, and to better targets. I can think of lots of concepts that port over from one style to another. But very few that are literally universal. Some styles hold stability over mobility. Etc. I guess I feel like, if you were to identify things that are literally true of all styles, they would be so general as to be useless as teaching tools. Ex: Fighting several people is harder than fighting one. … Well… yeah.
One of my instructors described to me the practice of passing down information using "scrolls" in Japan from hundreds of years ago. He described the information as best practices and principles... he specifically said that technique was not passed down in the written form. There may be representation of technique in pictures but one could not know the details and thus steal the technique based on written information passed from one generation to another. Instead, to learn the details of technique, one had to get this word of mouth and hands on training from the source. He implied that the principles were considered very important to be passed down from generation to generation in a family. He also said that technique was to be kept secret, only for those deemed worthy. The understanding of principles starts with a "description of the principle" but the practical application of principles is in the fundamentals practiced and learned. In addition, principles are also a foundation in sound strategies. In Kajukenbo (martial art), there are many combat principles that are focused on, but one that is considered to be a primary principle is, "always assume an enemy can have a weapon and/or there could be multiple enemies." We do a lot of one-on-one training/sparring/drills, etc. However, the principle is demonstrated in many forms during training depending on the context of the lesson plan. We have something called the "7 second rule", which basically means at the point of contact (e.g. the point where you have the initiative and positioning for attack), you have 3 seconds to stun/unbalance/knockout the opponent, and then no more than 4 seconds to finish them on the ground before moving on. There are various drills on around this rule (best practice). It affects not just how we train, but how we apply techniques. It helps to ensure that what we train one-on-one unarmed at the fundamental level also applies to weapons and multiple attackers. As for the idea that some martial arts value mobility and others stability, this could be a strawman. All martial arts value mobility and stability both. The principle as told to me is, "maximum mobility, minimum movement." In BJJ training, for example, the principle was explained to me as "standup is a battle of feet, ground fighting is a battle of inches"... nevertheless, both value mobility. In fact, a great deal of BJJ training is in learning how to apply constant pressure and maintain mobility on the ground or against a wall. On the other hand, there are always multiple principles that apply in any situation. The importance of one principle over another in a situation just comes down to all principles are related. If you understand one principle, you can use that to understand other principles. Principles work together. Let's also not forget to consider that no one is perfect and even if someone claims to be demonstrating principles, they could in fact be doing a poor job of doing so and even neglecting other principles.
Sure, okay. But how revered would a scroll be if it read: "Don't get hit." Yeah. I'm not saying there's no such thing as principle. I'm talking about where the line is. What's principle? What's common sense? Hi. I'm the choir. I don't disagree with any of this. Yep. It's one I use a lot in teaching FMA as well. Unsurprising, given that part of Kajukenbo is based on Filipino martial arts. Yeah, and what's the useful principle there? That multiple attackers are tough to handle? I'd say that bit was common sense. That you can't commit too much time to any one attacker? That, to me, is the useful principle. And it's not covered equitably by all styles. Meaning it isn't universal. I don't think it is a straw man though. I would say that BJJ does value mobility. But I personally spent months fixating on footwork in fencing and FMA. And a comparable amount of time moving in stance in karate and taekwondo. Obviously, both move. But in FMA, we spent a lot of time doing reactionary evasion drills. Same with fencing. Light on your feet. Quick to change position. I would say that's a different focus from what we did in Shotokan and the taekwondo I learned (which also resembled Shotokan more than it did Olympic TKD). You're moving the goal post here Rebel. I didn't argue any of this. I argued that there weren't meaningful principles that literally crossed all styles. There may be a fancy bit of debate terminology to cover this as well. I'm not sure what to do with this, as it doesn't seem to have any bearing on what I wrote. But as a general observation, I guess that's true.
Literally it does not matter what the scroll says, it is revered because it is something that is "passed down from generation to generation" in a family. In reality, the true value of the scroll is in the lessons and details that are taught through hands on training with the source or subject matter expert. So in other words, a scroll that was revered because it was passed down from a previous generation could contain simply, "do not get hit" and be extremely valuable because with that scroll would be the hands on training with the subject matter expert (e.g. head of the family) who is supposed to understand the meaning of the principle so that it can be passed on to those deemed worthy in the next generation. Why can't a principle also be common sense? Would they not be the same? There are many interpretations of the principle depending on the context. Saying "you can't commit too much time to any one attacker" is one interpretation. Using this as an example, we train techniques in different ways, for example: 1) Start with "caveman" version, maximum damage in least amount of time using big circles with the intent of full speed and power. This is also known as "big person" martial arts because it is possible to use speed, size, and strength to compensate for bad technique. 2) Progress to better technique that does not encourage the use of speed, size, and strength to compensate for bad technique. This is known as "little person" martial arts. This requires the building of structure to support the technique. 3) The two above could be considered just adaptions of the same technique part of the perfection of technique. However, it can be said that the devil is in the details, the supplemental training, the hidden stuff. I learned how to apply a rolling armbar in a basic manner with bigger circles. This was necessary training, IMHO, but as time went on, I saw that to improve, I really needed to understand more than just the technique but the bigger picture. The only way to understand the bigger picture was to understand the intimate details. I found that having very subtle ways of using the whole body to apply a rolling armbar was not just considered better technique, it allowed me to apply the rolling armbar with minimal movement and very quickly. In other words, technique improved AND took less time to finish. I had to learn the details first, or I would never had been able to transverse from bigger circles to subtle circles. So in the bigger picture, perfection of technique follows combat principles. If you think you are perfecting technique but you are neglecting principles, you may not really know the details enough to see the bigger picture... maybe your technique isn't as good as you think. IMHO. I give a caveat that you don't have to have perfect technique for it to work... I'm just saying that maybe you could improve on it even more than you think by seeing the bigger picture. There is not enough time in the day for everything. I think your examples are valid examples of specialization, but this does not mean combat principles are not shared. I already stated that people will neglect some principles, no one is perfect. If you look at the difference between Judo masters of the past and Judo white belts of the same time period, you may see the areas of improvement. For example, at first someone might think Judo is about grabbing... I could take someone smaller and weaker than me and overpower them and throw them to the ground. In doing so, I might lock up with them and lose my mobility. I COULD get away with this because I am able to overpower them so it WORKS!!! However, can I do this the same to someone twice my size, stronger, bigger, and faster than me? Probably not. I falsely thought that to gain power I lose mobility, but look at Judo masters, they had great power but using the principles, such as the principle of JU, they kept their mobility AND threw opponents down. They only locked up at optimal times to finish strongly, so in effect they did not sacrifice mobility for power. Another example, say fencing... a beginner might believe that keeping mobility sacrifices stability. So I move very quickly to evade and attack... however, in doing so it could be said that I OVERREACTED to a threat. I move so much that I lose position and have trouble changing direction. I COULD get away with this if I had a longer weapon than the opponent. However, let's say I am fencing and the opponent has a longer and faster weapon than me? Now it would be very hard for me to overcome them due to my lack of stability and inability to change direction quickly. In order to change direction quickly, I need stability. So it may not be seen in the beginning but fencing masters have great stability, they use angles and can change direction very quickly... they do not overreact and sacrifice stability for movement. The caveat being that sometimes you have to bail out to protect yourself... this is understood methods of disengagement.
Want to address the idea of "do not get hit" in Muay Thai. The same principle applies in Muay Thai, but due to specializations, it is interpreted differently. The principle is applied in the sense that you "always protect vitals"... In other words, you accept that you can be hit so when it happens, you make sure that it is not full power and it is not to a vital area. It is exactly the same principle as in knife fighting, but due to the reality that it is near impossible to never get hit, Muay Thai takes a practical approach and they protect vitals and condition areas so that if they get hit, such as in the torso and legs, they are tough enough that they are not hurt badly. In other words, they accept being hit as a reality, so they mitigate the potential damage done to them as much as possible. As evidence, look at many of the great Thai boxers, and when they are able to, they intuitively move as little as a few inches or less to avoid taking a full power hit, sometimes even making it appear they are hit hard, but it is more of a glancing blow. In knife sparring, it is no different. Two trained knife fighters sparring, there is a very good chance it is "mutual slaying". Both get cut, so it is always protect vitals, when you get cut, make sure it isn't in a vital area. IME.
I think we're talking past one another here. I agree with many of the specific examples you're giving. And I think you're hearing me say many things I'm not. I'm not contesting the value of principles. Far from it. But your responses consistently suggest that you think I'm arguing that. I'm not sure what else to say except that, at the end of the day, principles are a method of transmission. So it really comes down to the individual to determine what makes sense to them as a mode of transmission. As a supervisor of mine once said of counseling theory, "theory is simply a way of organizing your work." We should all organize it in a way that makes sense to us. So, if this scheme makes sense to you, then it's right. End of.
Agreed. I guess I'm just using you to make counter points in general, since you are the only one that has contributed more than a sentence or two to this thread. Sorry, didn't mean to make this seem an argument.
No apology necessary my friend. Takes two to make an argument. If it was one, we're both to blame. But as far as I'm concerned, it wasn't. Dig?
