Validating what we do in martial arts

[KeithFarrell]

I wrote this article for Encased in Steel, and I think it is something that is worth discussing:
http://historical-academy.co.uk/blog/2013/05/03/validating-what-we-do-in-martial-arts/

How do other schools/instructors/practitioners approach the issue of validating what we do when we practice? Or indeed, IS validation an issue for other schools/instructors/practitioners? I would be very interested to hear how other people go about testing and validating things, to see if there are any similarities and any differences. Is our method too long and too strict? Or are we not validating enough?

I would love to hear what you all think

[Randall Pleasant]

In the About (http://www.thearma.org/about.htm) page of the ARMA site John Clements states, "The ARMA’s efforts are directed toward resurrecting and recreating a legitimate craft of European fighting skills in a manner that is historically valid and martially sound." Since the beginning of ARMA this statement has guilded all of our efforts. Historically valid means an interpretation of a technique must match all of a historical master's description of a technique. Martially sound means the application of the interpretation must work in heavy sparring against an adversary who is actively trying to make the interpretation fail.

[KeithFarrell]

In the About (http://www.thearma.org/about.htm) page of the ARMA site John Clements states, "The ARMA’s efforts are directed toward resurrecting and recreating a legitimate craft of European fighting skills in a manner that is historically valid and martially sound." Since the beginning of ARMA this statement has guilded all of our efforts. Historically valid means an interpretation of a technique must match all of a historical master's description of a technique. Martially sound means the application of the interpretation must work in heavy sparring against an adversary who is actively trying to make the interpretation fail.

That sounds like steps 1 and 4 of my set of tests: matching against the sources, and matching in sparring against a non-cooperative opponent. Do you believe cutting tests or other destruction tests carry any weight for deciding if an interpretation or application of a technique is valid and meaningful?

[Stacy Clifford]

That sounds like steps 1 and 4 of my set of tests: matching against the sources, and matching in sparring against a non-cooperative opponent. Do you believe cutting tests or other destruction tests carry any weight for deciding if an interpretation or application of a technique is valid and meaningful?

In general, yes, although we probably don't approach it in exactly the same manner you do. As a general rule, all cuts must follow one of the lines of the segno, and all cuts on the segno can be made with either edge, and we make it a point in our core curriculum to practice cutting all lines with either edge using the appropriate body mechanics to generate speed, power, and proper edge alignment. Since any interpretation of a technique in a manual should result in one or more of these cuts that we've practiced (if not a thrust), then the necessary mechanics you describe are already incorporated and therefore accounted for as part of the interpretation. That doesn't exempt us from trying things in test cutting, which we certainly do, but with sufficient experience you should be able to tell if something would have done damage even without a sharp. That experience can only be built by actual cutting, however, and incorporating sound, proven mechanics in our curriculum from the beginning. In essence I think we are both assuming the same requirements for a good interpretation, you are just spelling out cutting as a more explicit and separate test at a different stage of the interpretation process. By and large, the philosophy your article describes is very comparable to the one ARMA has always followed. My compliments on a well-written article.

[KeithFarrell]

That sounds like steps 1 and 4 of my set of tests: matching against the sources, and matching in sparring against a non-cooperative opponent. Do you believe cutting tests or other destruction tests carry any weight for deciding if an interpretation or application of a technique is valid and meaningful?

In general, yes, although we probably don't approach it in exactly the same manner you do. As a general rule, all cuts must follow one of the lines of the segno, and all cuts on the segno can be made with either edge, and we make it a point in our core curriculum to practice cutting all lines with either edge using the appropriate body mechanics to generate speed, power, and proper edge alignment. Since any interpretation of a technique in a manual should result in one or more of these cuts that we've practiced (if not a thrust), then the necessary mechanics you describe are already incorporated and therefore accounted for as part of the interpretation. That doesn't exempt us from trying things in test cutting, which we certainly do, but with sufficient experience you should be able to tell if something would have done damage even without a sharp. That experience can only be built by actual cutting, however, and incorporating sound, proven mechanics in our curriculum from the beginning.

That is a very interesting point of view. It does make sense: if people know how to do all the long and short edge cuts along the various lines just as part of standard training, then more specific techniques shouldn't be much of an issue. Likewise, I try to instill good body mechanics from the beginning with my students. It means a lot of hard and relatively boring work for the students, but it definitely pays dividends later in their studies.

In essence I think we are both assuming the same requirements for a good interpretation, you are just spelling out cutting as a more explicit and separate test at a different stage of the interpretation process. By and large, the philosophy your article describes is very comparable to the one ARMA has always followed. My compliments on a well-written article.

Thank you very much Stacy. It does seem like we have a very similar approach to validation of our skills