Unfortunate flame-bait martial arts question

[Thalaxis]

I'm not disagreeing with you here.  What, again, I am saying, is that your current training with weapons is more for preservation of the art, as opposed to actual use.  Hence there will be differences in ability(jutsu vs. do applications). That being the reason that much of the knowledge has been lost.  While farm implements and anything heavy, hard or sharp can make a weapon, obviously swords and other weapons designed solely for combat make better weapons than things not designed for that.

True... though I think the loss of the knowledge of those weapons had more to do with the massive bombing that Okinawa underwent during WWII. That's not to say that you're wrong, though; it's just that being a very traditional culture, had Okinawa not been nearly annihilated, I think more of the knowledge would have been preserved as we are continuing to preserve it today.

It's relative lack of practical applicability wouldn't have changed for the better just because the place hadn't been bombed half way back to the stone age.

The only area where I differ there is that it's not limited to And you are also correct in that as well.  I'm sure there are great knife fighters in many other places where violence is all too common.  The point is where knife fights occur, only the good will survive.

The same applies for staves, sais, kamas, and many other weapons... :)

[Thalaxis]

I'm not disagreeing with you here.  What, again, I am saying, is that your current training with weapons is more for preservation of the art, as opposed to actual use.  Hence there will be differences in ability(jutsu vs. do applications). That being the reason that much of the knowledge has been lost.  While farm implements and anything heavy, hard or sharp can make a weapon, obviously swords and other weapons designed solely for combat make better weapons than things not designed for that.

True... though I think the loss of the knowledge of those weapons had more to do with the massive bombing that Okinawa underwent during WWII. That's not to say that you're wrong, though; it's just that being a very traditional culture, had Okinawa not been nearly annihilated, I think more of the knowledge would have been preserved as we are continuing to preserve it today.

It's relative lack of practical applicability wouldn't have changed for the better just because the place hadn't been bombed half way back to the stone age.

The only area where I differ there is that it's not limited to And you are also correct in that as well.  I'm sure there are great knife fighters in many other places where violence is all too common.  The point is where knife fights occur, only the good will survive.

The same applies for staves, sais, kamas, and many other weapons... :)

[Lyrax]

I have to say, martial arts don't suffer nearly as much when people have no weapons as they do when people have no good reason to kill each other man to man.  Why not?  Because a real martial art doesn't make sense to a culture unless they need to use it.  People will use the easiest means necessary to reach their martial needs.

[Nick the Nevermet]

It sounds like all this comes back to cultural institutions and social structures.  Why does society X have a martial art?  What is that martial art, and what does society X expect to do with it (spiritual growth, puit fighting, self defense in a bar, use on a battlefield, etc)?

Over time, society X shifts and slowly becomes society Y (maybe it had an industrial revolution, a consolidation of political power, or was taken over by someone else).  The question now is that you have a martial art tailored for a society that no longer really exists.  

So what happens?  Well, the martial art either is preserved as an anachronism, proves itself to still be useful, evolves to fit society Y, or dies off.  (and probably a few other variations I can't think of)  In my admittedly uninformed view, a question of weapons / no weapons would need to be part of this social change, and each particular case would do it differently, I think.

[Bankuei]

It sounds like all this comes back to cultural institutions and social structures. Why does society X have a martial art? What is that martial art, and what does society X expect to do with it (spiritual growth, puit fighting, self defense in a bar, use on a battlefield, etc)?

Which then brings up the question, if it no longer has martial uses, do we still want to define this as a martial art?  After all, boxing, wrestling, judo, fencing, kendo, even horseback riding technically all come from martial uses, and each contains bits and elements of their past, although most have been heavily modified and are not intended to be used in a "blood and guts, oh crap, this is my ass!" situation.

Chris

[Nick the Nevermet]

If we define a martial art as something that must have a clear military use, then a LOT of things popularly referred to as 'martial arts' would no longer qualify.  A glib response would be that any Japanese style ending with a 'do' is in question.  Is this a fair poke?  No, not really; its far too general to have any real meaning.

The reason why I bring it up, however, is that I'm a fan of using definitions that fit everyday life.  If 90% of a given population could agree X is a martial art and Y isn't, then IMO its pretty useful to try and articulate what the definition being used is.  The problem of course with a lexicon-based method is that terms sometimes end up being arbitrary or contradictory.

So, to answer your question, in my opinion, we should not use martial use as the sole criterion for whether something is a martial art or not.  What it actually is, however, is something I'm not as clear on right now :)

[Bankuei]

he reason why I bring it up, however, is that I'm a fan of using definitions that fit everyday life. If 90% of a given population could agree X is a martial art and Y isn't, then IMO its pretty useful to try and articulate what the definition being used is. The problem of course with a lexicon-based method is that terms sometimes end up being arbitrary or contradictory.

That's a fair definition.  My personal breakdown of various martial arts works as follows:  Martial use, self defense/civilian, competition/sport, health benefits, tradition/cultural.  Naturally some of these will have overlap, such as many of the Do arts contain 3 or 4 of the above.  

To go into detail, martial use is designed for killing/survival, and uses the most effective methods, regardless of fair play, etc.  Self defense/civilian use contains elements of the first, although it is usually empty hands, and concentrates more on disabling/control moves than destructive moves.  Often this is used by bouncers, police, etc.  Competition/sport is often a set of moves from an original art that fit within regulations and aren't too danagerous for regular use.  Health is not much different than either Yoga or Aerobics, Tai-bo and chi gung being the most obvious examples.  Finally, traditional/cultural may be completely divorced from the martial aspect, but has cultural merit, Chess being a good example of a martial training device no longer very applicable as a wartime tool.

Going back to the original thread question, what has happened to many Western arts is that they have been regulated to health and cultural use, and lost much of their original martial use.  Much of Eastern arts have at best been regulated to civilian use, some even at conception.

The problem with comparison questions about martial arts is that many people devolve into a superiority contest based on theory, instead of recognizing that all arts used in their original purpose, for survival, get parred down to effectiveness real quick.  Both Western and Eastern arts, in their original forms were highly effective.  Only in peacetime do you have room for non-effective arts to survive and thrive.    Western martial arts have been out of field use longer, and so, have been more civilized and altered from their wartime forms.  That's really the only difference in the two.

Chris

[Sneaky Git]

Back on the note of the initial thread question, martial arts(like any other trade or skill) survive when they get used.  If people don't use certain weapons, or have need to fight, then they lose those skills.  Most of us lack skills that children in 3rd world countries know by instinct, like finding water, what bugs are safe to eat, and that wind means a hurricane is coming.  Necessity is the mother of invention, and the murderer of the frivolous.

Well said.

One could argue that the gun is the modern form of WMA...which now rules the world of fighting and warfare (for better or worse).

[Here is the usual disclaimer..]  Far from a "martial artist" myself, I have spent a considerable amount of time studying history.. and agree with both of the above.  You use what you have.. and what you have need of.  Martial Arts in the West didn't die, they simply evolved into something else.

Bronze to iron.  Iron to steel.  Cast to forged.  Swords/spears/etc to firearms.  Progress.  Weapons and the skills to use them change with the times and needs of those projecting power.

Industrialization, rapid population growth,  and the development of reliable black powder firearms (snap, or flintlock weapons.. and then percussion cap.. etc) led to a new style of warfare.  And the need to master that style of warfare.  Martial arts dead?  Nah.. just different.

As for the East, I can only intelligently speak about Japan.. Why have so-called "martial arts" lasted longer than they did in the West?  I can't cay for certain that this is the only reason, but it certainly is a major consideration.. the Tokugawa Shogunate and its successors.  After the Battle of Sekigahara (which ended the Warring States (Sengoku) period in Japan, the Tokugawa arbitrarily and artificially froze Japanese society in place.  Weapons were forbidden to all save the samurai.. who had little else to do save hone skills they no longer had use for.  Gunpowder was tightly controlled.  In fact, the Exclusion Edict of 1639 forbade contact with Westerners (on pain of death) and things not Japanese.

It wasn't until the strongarm tactics of the American Navy that Japan turned its attentions back to the world.. a world that far outstripped it technologically.  What happened next is one of the great stories of rapid industrialization in the 19th and 20th centuries..

Anyway, back to what I was saying.. the Japanese had a class of citizens (and a favored one, at that).. as late as the end of the 19th century.. that still practiced traditional martial arts (as a form of class identity/imperative).  I don't believe the West could match that.

At least.. that's how I see it.