Martial Art, Fighting Art, etc.

I have been reading and thinking a lot recently about the phrase or term "martial art" and karate's purpose.  From different sources I have heard the same things over and over: karate is not a martial art.  To understand that statement, we need to understand the distinction that many people make between a martial art and a fighting art.  In the Japanese traditions it would be the difference between bugei and budo.  The difference being made is the intent behind the system.  Bugei were traditional battlefield arts intended to be used by professional soldiers and warriors, whereas budo are the more modern civilian derivations of those arts with an emphasis on spiritual and personal development.  Both are fighting methods but they have different emphasis.

Here is a little something from someone more in tune with modern law enforcement needs and the combative training available from a modern and traditional point of view.

http://prevailtraining.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/martial-arts-and-cops/

This has made me wonder - what do I want from my own martial abilities?  Do I want an art intended for self defense and self perfection?  Do I want to be a warrior with a variety of skills and weapons under my belt?  Do I want an art that is intended to protect others?

I know I want a complete set of skills, and I know that my own skills are far from complete.  But will mixing my own karate with something from a bugei bring me completeness?  Or will it be divisive to my training and the end result left with more holes than bridges?



--Post-Publish Edit--

Here is one of the articles I have been reading.

http://www.kowakan.com/?p=1613

I have been reading a few books at once, and I can't find which one discusses something similar.

Resolutions and Training

Better late than never.  Here is more great advice from Mr. Charles Goodin:

http://karatejutsu.blogspot.com/2012/01/resolutions-for-karate-students-for.html

I can't help but write Mr. Charles Goodin - he is so respectful and humble in his blog that I find it infectious.

Ma-ai and a deeper level of martial arts

I read another excellent post over on the Classical Budoka: Fluid Space in Budo

When I read such great articles and posts from others, it makes me ask a few questions:

1. Why bother writing when better people are putting out such awesome stuff?
2. What can I learn from this to better myself

So, in response, here are some of my thoughts coming from that post.

The first thought was that there are many levels to the martial arts.  There are the surface techniques: throwing, stabbing, punching, kicking, grappling, slicing, bludgeoning coming from striking, grappling and weapons arts.  Without correct distancing and timing it is impossible to utilize any of those techniques effectively.  If you act too soon, your opponent will not be there - they will use a different attack.  If you are too late...well, it will not be a problem for much longer.  Wrong distance on a punch and it has no impact, or results in injury.  While my grappling experience is more limited, as is my weapons experience, I do know this applies as equally.  So the first level of ma-ai is in its usefulness.

The next level down is the use of ma-ai alone to conquer and achieve victory.  Mr. Muramoto provides a story about Miyamoto Musashi on this point, but needless to say there are several dozen such stories of martial arts masters winning through the force of their ki.  As suggested in the Musashi story, there is more to it than just ki - mental unbalancing through space and time manipulation.

I experienced this in a 12 hour seminar this summer.  We were doing a session on Ni Ten Ichi Ryu (Musashi comes in again - odd I didn't realize this until just now) and the particular waza involved closing the distance and controlling the uke through the timing and movement.  My Sensei asked how this was possible and at which point the uke lost.  I couldn't explain it in so many words, but I suggested a good kick would solve the problem.  My Sensei agreed in the sense that it was an issue of distancing and timing.  This incident came back to me upon reading the above post.

The Way is in Training

Just a quick link and lesson for the day:

http://karatejutsu.blogspot.com/2011/12/look-good-or-be-good.html

My favourite line from this post:

So if you don't mind, I will just train.

The way is in training.  Training will never let you down.  Words spoken by wiser people than I.

Iaido and Karate

During an iaido seminar I went to a few weeks back, we were working uke nagashi.  Here is a link for those interested: Uke Nagashi - skip to about 25 seconds in, for some reason nihon-me is at the beginning of the video and is in pretty rough shape to boot.  But sanbon-me comes through clearly.

Anyways, during this seminar we were working on getting the angle of the cut correct according to where the opponent is standing.  To make a long story short, we didn't sit at a 90 degree angle to the opponent but rather more like 125 degrees.  This allowed us to check that we were cutting what was originally in front of us.

It got me to wonder and ask myself some questions about iaido and karatedo:

• Where is your opponent?
• What is your opponent doing?

And then further to that:

• When will your opponent attack?
• When will you counter?

There is a certain way in which we were practising uke nagashi.  In koryu, I am told that you block firmly and then cut.  In seitei, we were trying to "empty out" at the right time, similar to what I believe many aikidoka and jujutsuka are familiar with.  This requires not only great timing and technique and distancing, but total focus on each of those.  Otherwise, why would your opponent attack when they know they can't win?  It really drives home the lesson of knowing your forms, down into the very sinews and bones of your body.

Another thought I had was that in iaido, for the most part, the explanations are present.  But even these have been reverse engineered to a large extent.  I have yet to hear a complete and rational reason for sitting in tate hiza, a sort of half seiza position.  So in that manner, perhaps iaido and karatedo are not that dissimilar - some separation from the core art and intent has created a set of fantasy moves that may well have little purpose.  Dangerous thinking in a traditional mindset, but it bears on reality so I feel it is important to meditate upon.

Finally, this all brings me back to riai and karate.  What is a typical attack in karate?  What are we defending against?  Is it reasonable to practice defending against punches and kicks, or are we misguided in our intent?  It makes sense in koryu to work grappling as this was usable in armour - it would be very dangerous if you couldn't access your weapon due to an opponent restraining you and preparing to use a weapon against you.

This is all tied to the question of practicality in traditional martial arts.  Looking at aikido, you might ask why they train to defend against a downward chop.  But considering its basis in arts where defending against swords is normal, it suddenly makes a lot more sense.  Karate's forming arts are to a large extent hidden, and the question becomes what is the focus, and should there be only one?  What is the ideology of our defensive work.