Discussion Topic

[John_Clements]

Logically, to learn a subject we must devote ourselves to pursuit of that subject. So how then to seriously follow this all but vanished craft? Certainly the pursuit of other comparable disciplines with their own respective traditions and stylistic differences, such as modern sport fencing, classical 19th century fencing, and various forms of Asian swordplay, are inadequate to the task. Despite these arts utilizing same related principles and similar concepts, there are profound differences in tools, technique, and temperament that arguably make them inappropriate foundations for Renaissance martial arts in the same way that, for instance, learning the guitar is ill-suited to playing the violin or that, for example, study of Indian cooking is out of place for mastering the culinary demands of French cuisine. While insights may be gained from study of other extant martial arts of the word, there is also considerable cause to be concerned for the interference of preconceptions and previously learned methods. While true there are common universal principles at work in all fighting arts, if other styles were no different from one another why they would not exist separately in the first place. Irregardless, the resource materials now available on historical European combative systems are immense and complex enough by themselves to demand a student’s full attention and focus. Indeed, the subject arguably demands this complete attention.

Thoughts?

[Shane Smith]

John,
I struggled with the notion you put forth for my first couple of years in HACA/ARMA. I was convinced that my activities studying Kumdo(Korean Swordsmanship) and studying/teaching Tae Kwon Do were somehow complementary of the techniques I was learning in the Western arts.After a while,I realized that the two were simply NOT compatible,at least in my case.

By nature, I'm a 100 percenter and I found my attention was ever more deeply divided between these two very different activities...I had become in effect, a 50 percenter when it came to BOTH my Asian and my European training.That realization sickened me.Divided attention makes for mediocrity everytime it's tried.I knew that in my case,I had to choose wisely where to invest my time.I chose to follow the path of my ancestors and ceased my Asian training altogether. I'm an all or nothing kind of guy and for me, the WMA offers the greatest martial return for my investment.The productivity of my training and scholarship has increased dramatically and the dividends have made the gamble(As I deemed it at the time) entirely worthwhile.

[Jay Vail]

We have had this discussion before (at least part of it), and I’ve already stated my position on one part to the razzes of the audience: knowledge of other martial arts is useful in assisting in interpreting the fight books. It serves as a cross check of the validity your interpretation. The reason is that there are underlying similarities between Asian, Indian, Indonesian, and European Medieval martial arts that cannot and should not be ignored. This does not mean you should slavishly import Asian ideas, but you should bear them in mind as you interpret and practice, and if your interpretation differs from a comparable Asian technique, you should ask yourself why this is so and have a reasonable answer for it. This not mean, either, that you must make this cross check. It only means it is helpful. Think of it as a kind of peer review.

On focusing on one art: many people find they cannot properly learn one art while studying or training in another. If focusing on one system is what they need to make progress, fine. Everybody is different. I’ve never had that problem myself, but I am not a style slave. I am interested only in what is useful. No system has all the answers that fit your build and personality. You have to go shopping and build your own system.

[John_Clements]

Interesting. I understand where you are coming from, Shane. These very same sentiments have been expressed to me on many occasions by several other senior practitioners/long-time students of Asian martial arts who began studying with us ---each of which eventually decided to pursue Renaissance fencing studies exclusively. Partially out of interest, partially out of need after realization of it's depth and complexity.

I imagine that on the highest levels there are considerable core universals among all serious combative systems, in specific technique as well as general peinciples. But in the modern instruction of them, there is just too much cultural baggage that comes with the Asian martial arts that in my observation very often makes them, on the whole, incompatible (and even contradictory, from some experiences) to the rediscovery and reconstruction of our particular historical craft.

Yet, as Jay said above, and I must agree, knowledge of other fighting arts (whether boxing, wrestling, la canne, judo, etc.) is indeed useful in interpreting many techniques from the source texts as a way of cross-checking validity. In many instances I have seen this first hand myself (none of us interpret in a vacuum, after all). But then, I have also seen closed-mindedness and misinterpretation as well when a technique or action or concept was seen only through the “prism” of another style’s teachings, and in such cases the previous method caused confusion that limited the growth of the student. Whereas the popular Asian martial arts are, in a sense, “complete” and “finished” and get spooned out in morsels to a student, there is in contrast today a vibrant sense of discovery and exploration and research to our own craft, and this is what many of us find so exciting about it.

Perhaps then it is that, personally, as I achieve a higher level of understanding and knowledge in authentic Renaissance martial arts I see less and less necessity for making any reference to or comparison with existing Asian styles in order to teach this subject?

JC

[Jay Vail]

I have also seen closed-mindedness and misinterpretation as well when a technique or action or concept was seen only through the “prism” of another style’s teachings, and in such cases the previous method caused confusion that limited the growth of the student.

Yes, there is more than enough of that in the AMA. Fortunately in ARMA everyone seems really open minded, and makes for a very healthy outlook.

Whereas the popular Asian martial arts are, in a sense, “complete” and “finished” and get spooned out in morsels to a student,

I'd have to say that not all AMA are finished or complete. Karate in particular has many problems brought on by the fact that there are no standard applications for kata. This has been a great source of disagreement and misunderstand in the art, as well as confusion.

Spoon feeding, definitely. Also many of the AMA surround their teachings with mysticism and try to make the simple appear complicated. Yet the most useful is often very simple. What could be more simple and effective than a zornhau to a zornhau?

Going right to the core of things is one of ARMA's great strengths, and I think that's why people in this organization make such rapid technical progress.

[Jay Vail]

Perhaps then it is that, personally, as I achieve a higher level of understanding and knowledge in authentic Renaissance martial arts I see less and less necessity for making any reference to or comparison with existing Asian styles in order to teach this subject?

Well, you wouldn't need to make these comparisons at this point. You've been doing the stuff for so many years and have tested it under as realistic conditions as possible that you know what works and doesn't. You don't need to strain your brain with comparisons.

I, on the other hand, am still very new to EMA and so I am constantly comparing what I see and read about it with what I have trained in or been exposed to in the AMA. Besides, I am fascinated by the overlap between the various arts, always have been.

[JeanryChandler]

These very same sentiments have been expressed to me on many occasions by several other senior practitioners/long-time students of Asian martial arts who began studying with us ---each of which eventually decided to pursue Renaissance fencing studies exclusively.

I'll say this categorically. If you don't do sparring on a fairly regular basis with people who have different backgrounds, whether in fencing, AMA, stick fighting, or something totally different, then you will run a great risk of your martial art drifting away from reality, and becomming ineffective.

I recently had an argument with the director of another fencing school, who insinuated to me that he didn't fence with people who were not trained in his interpretation of martial arts, because they had a 'indestructable warrior complex' which made them too dangerous to fight (because they fought in a manner which would get themselves killed).

This is certainly a real phenomenon, but you can't have an effective martial art that depends on your opponent having a certain type of approach to fighting. If you can't fight even the most reckless amateurs and still win, then your technique is not a martial art at all, but rather a type of sport.

I've seen this with AMA fighters all the time. I know Jean Claude Van Damme is just an actor and not really a serious scrapper, but he certainly knows martial arts very well. He got beaten up by a bouncer in New Orleans about 5 or 6 years ago. Funny thing was, the bouncer in question is an aquaintance, and I know personally that he isn't even that great of a fighter, certianly not trained or anything. Just a fairly big guy with a good sense of situational awareness and a hard right hook.

I couldn't even count the number of obviously talented boxers and martial arts experts I have seen get their asses kicked on the streets of the French Quarter. Wrestlers seem to do a lot better, for some reason, I think because they are more likely to do a lot of informal play fighting with all comers.

Anyway, thats my opinion. Keep crossing those boundaries every once in a while to keep yourself honest, and to get an occasionally necessary reality check.

Anyway, thats my $.02.

JR