Editorial

Martial arts sports versus combative styles
How much credibility does your instructor really have?

I have occasionally been asked why I studied judo and kendo when I obviously have a deep interest in the more historical Japanese martial practices of jujutsu and kenjutsu. Aside from mundane issues like spare time or limited access, the principal reason is the traditional Japanese martial arts as taught today have a serious lack of credibility.

At the risk of being overly simplistic, the primary goals of martial arts study can generally be classified into three areas. The most popular objective today is sports competition, to win against others in organized contests. Many others study martial arts to enhance various other aspects of their personal lives, to develop both physical and emotional qualities. Ironically, the least common reason today was likely the original historical objective, that is, to kill or maim an opponent.

Organized competitions have been around a long time. The Japanese certainly don’t have any monopoly on combative sports, either. Greco-roman style wrestling was one of the first Olympic events in ancient Greece. Boxing was popular long before the Marquis of Queensbury established standard regulations. In Japan, sumo matches were apparently held in their earliest recorded history as well.

Sporting styles often originated as combat forms. The founder of Kodokan Judo based his new martial art on several earlier forms of jujutsu or unarmed fighting styles. Originally a method of safely practicing swordsmanship skills, the first kendo competitions emerged many decades later. Some still study these martial arts for personal and social growth, yet today the primary objective of both styles remains to develop contest skills.

Classical martial arts practiced for personal development occasionally incorporate sporting aspects. Classical combat forms, such as iaido and kyudo, and modern combat forms, such as aikido, are widely practiced today as means to develop the individual spirit. Yet, organized iaido and kyudo contests are often sponsored in Japan, especially for high school and college practitioners. There have even been some attempts to introduce a sport form of aikido, although it has never proven to be very popular.

Traditional Japanese martial arts are usually classified as either koryu, those founded before the Meiji era, or as gendai, those created after the end of the Edo period even if based on ancient forms. Some practitioners of both koryu and gendai martial arts seek to preserve their historical value or to develop themselves through the strict discipline imposed in a traditional dojo. Yet, the vast majority allegedly prefer studying such traditional style martial arts for their intended purpose, to kill or maim others.

Exponents of koryu or gendai martial arts bicker endlessly about the value of historical linage versus the effectiveness of specific techniques. The koryu folks proudly point to various records testifying that their particular style was originally created in some long ago feudal era and thus is a far more "legitimate" martial art. Even though they still adopt most of the traditional paraphernalia, gendai folks often counter their lack of pedigree is irrelevant, contending that their unique style is far more "street effective" and thus more appropriate in this modern world.

Many students often assume their martial arts teacher is experienced and will provide them with good solid information. With the possible exception of a few involved in law enforcement or the military, though, nearly all of the instructors of these combative martial arts have no real-life experience. In fact, their teacher and even the one who taught their teacher is unlikely to have ever faced an opponent in actual mortal combat.

Many people join martial arts classes because of a fear, whether real or imagined, that they may require combat skills in some unforeseen life-or-death circumstances. They may seek self-defense training to build confidence or just in case they are ever confronted by an assailant intent on depriving them of their property or their life. Yet, most instructors have no verified practical knowledge of the same situations in which they claim expertise.

What other endeavor would anyone trust learning from another totally inexperienced novice? No matter how much a teacher professes to understand the theory of application, who would take scuba diving lessons from a person who has never been deeper than their bathtub or sky diving lessons from someone who has never been higher than their kitchen stool? Yet there are literally hundreds of martial arts instructors teaching defensive tactics when they have never themselves been in a true life-and-death situation.

Teachers of martial arts sports typically do not suffer from any such lack of authority. If a former tournament competitor suggests modifying a shinai grip or shifting the hip in execution of a throw, they are likely speaking from actual experience. Even if they are no longer able to participate themselves in contests due to advancing age or other physical limitations, one can still respect their opinion because they know exactly how it feels to stand on the mat and face an opponent. They have been there. They know what works, and more importantly, what doesn’t work in contest situations.

 Former sports competitors can typically draw on a range of actual experiences to enhance their teaching skills. Even if past their own prime and no longer able to compete themselves, they are generally still qualified as authorities on contest techniques.

On the other hand, many so-called combative martial arts teachers offer dubious advice even to the point of being absurd. A few years ago, it was quite common to learn that an atemi strike applied with the base of the hand to the bridge of an opponent’s nose would drive bone fragments into the frontal lobe of their brain, killing them instantly. Although this is now known to be anatomically impossible, there are still many martial arts instructors who believe such silly fallacies and pass misleading concepts on to their students.

Instructors, especially those teaching self-defense techniques, may even be encouraging illegal actions, often without realizing the full ramifications of their ill advice. One well-known instructor of a rather dubious Japanese martial art recommends a lethal response to even the slightest provocation. As he explained to his students, "If anyone attacks you, they have forfeited their right to live." Fairly strong words, especially when expressed by a high school educator who has never been involved in anything more confrontational than a schoolboy squabble.

Even if they are not dispensing all the "one strike, one kill" nonsense, many instructors of gendai martial arts still suffer a basic lack of integrity due to their relentless pursuit for external recognition. They often adopt absurd sounding titles or dubious teaching credentials. This often extends to their students who exhibit amazing self-denial tendencies. Faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, many followers still cling to ridiculous fictions created about their school’s source or their teacher’s training background. Despite such efforts to create an air of legitimacy, these tactics usually only fool the most naïve and certainly don’t help their credibility as martial arts practitioners.

Sometimes the more preposterous the pronouncements, the more fervent the believers. One seemingly popular martial arts instructor claims to studied secret martial arts techniques that make practitioners invincible to blows to their vital areas. Although most of his training credentials have long been discredited, prospective students still line up in his seminars where they are subjected to kicks and punches to their chest, throat, and groin even to the point of unconsciousness.

Even those associated with authentic koryu martial arts schools do not often fare much better when it comes to credibility. Many reflect a common attitude that their style or teacher’s legitimacy surpasses the basic requirements of actual experience or effectiveness. Furthermore, they are often convinced of their own moral superiority when compared to those who have not trained extensively in such "genuine" arts as they may have done.

Of course, for those seeking to preserve and continue a historical tradition, training in an authentic koryu style is mandatory. Yet, some become so disdainful toward what they consider inferior styles that they become arrogant. Affected by their own sense of legitimacy, they often extend this attitude to other related aspects, believing themselves to be the sole authorities in all martial arts or related cultural matters.

A jo-jutsu practitioner once explained that his style refers to the end of the jo as jo-seki. While the Japanese term sentan also refers to a tip, he went on to assert that this could not be considered "official budo terminology" since such references are not used within his particular style or by his teacher. Expertise in jo-jutsu certainly does not qualify one as an authority on the proper naming conventions for sticks. Yet so filled with his own self-importance, he failed to realize that others might also have a legitimate perspective or that his own limited experience does not necessarily extend to all situations.

One koryu exponent represents himself as the U.S. leader for a renowned Japanese jujutsu style. Although his credentials are definitely legitimate, he and his students are apparently unable to perform even rudimentary techniques with any skill. This seems disquieting until he confesses that he studied for only a few months in Japan before being awarded this lofty title by the style's current headmaster. 

The condescending attitude damages more than just their personal credibility. More importantly, it also blinds them to the fact that their respective style may have been modified so much over the years that it bears only the slightest resemblance to the original form. While claiming to be preserving historical traditions, the revisions inevitably brought on by evolving social conditions frequently have so dramatically altered actual practices that they may no longer reasonably be considered authentic.

It is particularly disturbing when combative martial arts organizations employ cult-like control techniques. Frequently, they are based around one central charismatic individual who defines their reality. Members are not allowed to question or doubt the organization's leadership, much less examine any critical information. Like many cults, some martial arts groups seemed designed to attract addictive and codependent members who share similar traits. Once involved, they are indoctrinated to the point they rationalize or accept otherwise negative influences.

One very popular martial arts group is centered around the ninja mythology of ancient Japan. Despite allegations the founder was previously associated with a fanatical domestic terrorist organization and has expressed personal support for xenophobic and racist doctrine in the past, his legions of followers speak of him with undeniable reverence. The strongest proponents display obvious paranoid behavior, viewing outsiders as enemies, especially anyone critical of their leader's viewpoints or their own distorted historical outlook.

Some might believe the solution seems simple, requiring only a bit more personal introspection regarding one's real motivations before seeking martial arts instruction. One oriental proverb states, "It is far better to spend years searching for the right teacher than to study for any time with the wrong one." Yet, most chose a martial art style or instructor based on simple practical reasons. The school or the schedule is convenient or the instructor seems credible.

The famous pitchman, P. T. Barnum once claimed, "There's a sucker born every minute." As one pundit further explained, "There are far too many who are fooled far too easily by far too few." Thus such sticky issues as instructor credibility within the martial arts are unlikely to be resolved any time soon. In the meantime, training with those who have demonstrated competence in what they actually profess to teach or those with enough self confidence to acknowledge their own practical limitations is likely to lead to a more positive overall experience.