With the growth of popularity of mixed martial arts there has been a lot of criticism of so called “traditional” martial arts. The internet has played a big role in this as numerous YouTube channels have grown large audiences on a platform of critiquing fake martial arts masters and obvious frauds. Many of these YouTubers are former practitioners of traditional arts themselves who have “seen the light” and had an epiphany realizing their art was not effective. Most of these have gravitated to mixed martial arts, Brazilian Jujitsu and Thai Boxing and tout these practices as the most effective - citing their success in UFC or other sport fighting organizations as proof.
This is not new. In my early days of martial arts training (early 1980’s), PKA (Professional Karate Association) matches were often looked to as evidence of the most effective fighting styles. Certain fighters rose to the top of the PKA ranks and this was seen as proof their styles were the most effective styles. This was, of course, a fallacy then and still is today. There can be little doubt that training in mixed martial arts and incorporating training from Thai Boxing, Boxing, Brazilian Jujitsu and even Judo will be beneficial if you plan to compete in mixed martial arts matches. Such training will surely also be of great benefit in a self defense or mutual combat scenario. Indeed, this would indicate that the best “martial arts” training would be MMA style training. I would, however, offer a different point of view for consideration.
First a little background. I have been training in martial arts, wrestling, fighting, military combatives, law enforcement defensive tactics and close quarters battle for about 39 years. I began my journey as a young man in “traditional” Okinawan Karate. I put traditional in quotes for reasons I will get into later. For the sake of brevity I will simply list the combat arts I have trained in: Karate, Kung Fu, wrestling, Aikido, American Kenpo, Marine Corps Combatives, Law Enforcement Defensive Tactics. It would be of value to this topic to note that I have also actually used all of this training in numerous real life scenarios from self defense to mutual combat (street fights) to military situations to law enforcement incidents. I have fought at close quarters with every type of opponent from mutual combat to self defense to someone just trying to get away from me to someone trying to kill me. I don’t say this to brag but to emphasize that I have a pretty good idea what works and what doesn’t in various situations.
There are a few key factors that should be addressed in order to have a sincere conversation about this topic.
- We must define “traditional martial arts”. This is one of the most prevalent misunderstandings I see in conversations about martial arts. This misunderstanding is even held by many experienced martial artists. Perhaps I shouldn’t say misunderstanding as it may be a matter of differing definitions. I will address my definition of traditional martial arts.
- We must understand the different types of combat. What may be effective and useful in one type of combat may or may not be affective and useful in others. I will address these different types of combat.
- There are differing degrees of ability and potential amongst practitioners. This a is a big factor that should be considered when determining what is effective and what is not.
What is “traditional” martial arts. Let me start by saying this is my definition. Others may have a different definition that is just as valid. Nonetheless is important to come to an understanding of the terms used in any discussion. Let’s use Karate as an example but this can be applied to many civil combat systems. The term Karate is relatively new. Few are aware of this, leading to a great deal of misunderstanding. It is generally agreed that the term Kara Te “empty hand” was first established in 1935 as a means of defining the Okinawan fighting arts in a manner that was acceptable and understandable to the Mainland Japanese. It is important to understand that Japan and Okinawa (formerly the RyuKyu Kingdom) were very different places at the time.
Along with the new term defining karate came changes in the way the fighting arts were taught, practiced and demonstrated. This was a time of great nationalism in the Japanese Empire and many Okinawans did not want to be left behind. Without getting too deep into the weeds the Karate that most people refer to as “traditional” is actually quite modern and is often referred to as “sport karate”. Before Karate was spread through Japan there was Judo and Kendo (both sports). Okinawan teachers started referring to their art as Karate Do in order to ride the popularity of Kendo and Judo. They even adopted the uniform and rank structure of Judo to give it popular appeal (gi and belt). Along with the uniform and belt came new techniques such as high kicks, deep stances and exaggerated punches and blocks.
All of these things added to the appeal of karate and helped it spread throughout the globe. This is what most refer to as “traditional” karate but what did Okinawan martial arts look like before all of these changes? We can say with confidence that civil combat arts go back to at least 600 AD in Okinawa or the Ryu Kyu Kingdom as it was known before it was annexed by Japan. Many are not aware that Okinawa and it’s surrounding islands is actually closer to China than Japan. These islands lie along established trade routes connecting all of East Asia. Over several hundred years combat arts were developed in the melting pot that was the Ryu Kyu Kingdom (Okinawa’s former name). Much of it coming from the Fujian province of China.
Fujian was akin to the Wild West where law and order was up to the individual and families. It is in this time and place that what we now call Karate and Kung Fu developed and spread. In a time and place such as Fujian and the Ryu Kyu Kingdom in the early first millennium, where law enforcement was rare and ineffective, self defense and the defense of family was critical. Fighting arts were developed and spread by a simple standard - what worked. There was no room for fluff or ineffective dogma. The arts that rose to the top in Fujian (White Crane and Shaolin being most dominant) did so because of the renown fighting ability of their practitioners.
Historically, in fact, there have been several times when the civil fighting arts in China and the Ryu Kyu Kingdom were so effective they were considered a real threat to the government and banned as a result. One such example in China is what has been labeled the Boxer Rebellion where a large, unarmed Kung Fu cult nearly overthrew the well armed Chinese government but for the intervention of an international coalition which included the US Marines. This leads us to what I mean when I say traditional martial arts: the civil fighting arts developed in Fujian China and Okinawa before its modernization in the early 20th century.
The best definition I’ve heard is put forth by Martial Arts Historian Patrick McCarthy who refers to early Okinawan martial arts as the rehearsed response to habitual acts of violence. This is the essence of traditional martial arts. This is not to say that modern karate isn’t useful. Of course it can be but just because it is useful doesn’t mean the old stuff isn’t. I will say that modern sport karate should not be taught as effective self defense. A distinction should be made between training for sport and training for civil combat or self defense. Someone who wins at point karate, full contact or mixed martial arts matches may or may not also be skilled in self defense and vice-versa.
This leads us to the different kinds of combat. I like to break it down into three types: self defense, mutual combat and military close quarters battle. They have different stakes, different desired outcomes and should be treated differently. Training for one should differ from training for another. In self defense the objective should be to evade or avoid attack, defend against attack, escape attack and survive the legal consequences. In mutual combat, whether it be sport or street fighting, the objective is to win. In military close quarters battle the objective is to quickly kill an enemy without exposing yourself to other enemy attacks.
Traditional civilian martial arts in China and Okinawa, before modernization, were dedicated to the first kind of combat - self defense. There were, of course, martial arts focused on military close quarters battle but that was separate. The perfect example of this is the Okinawan style of Choki Motobu, today known as Motobu Ryu. This is a strict self defense system. The Motobu family is also the custodian of the ancient close quarters combat art of the Okinawan Royal Palace Guard known as Motobu Udundi. These are two separate systems, one for self defense and one for martial combat.
The truth is most of the karate taught today is sport karate. This can be a fun, challenging and rewarding practice and can even produce great fighters. Much of this type karate training centers around sparring (kumite) or forms that have been transformed for competition or exhibition. Again, this is all excellent for personal development, athletic improvement and fitness. It must be clearly distinguished from self defense. Take for example the “fighting stance” emphasized in sparring. Two fighters squared off, facing each other probing for an opening to exploit in an attack. In reality, the minute you square off with someone and assume a fighting stance, you are no longer in a self defense situation - it has become mutual combat. The type of attacks you would experience in mutual combat are likely to be different from the type of attacks you would experience in a self defense situation and that is the difference between “traditional martial arts” and “modern karate”. It’s also what leads to a common perception that traditional martial arts aren’t effective. Indeed, traditional martial arts aren’t often effective in a mutual combat encounter such as an MMA match or street fight. That’s not what it was meant for. In the end, the many various types of martial arts all have strengths and weaknesses. It is important that teachers and practitioners remain aware of them and teach and practice accordingly.