I talked about how Budo isn't just about fighting, it's also about being a person of virtue (Bunbu Ryodo - the two fold way of pen and sword).
Within the last 100 years or so Budo has slowly changed. It has become modernised so that it can fit in with the modern world and the mindset of a modern practitioner.
When we talk about the modernisation of budo today, there is an additional element that has been added into the mix that has become an integral part of martial arts for many practitioners.
The large majority of modern martial arts clubs are making their focus on the sport and competition aspects of training.
The problem being that the above venn diagram can't exist. There isn't a way to balance sport, fighting system & virtue at the same time.
I know that many would disagree with the above statement, but if you have a closer look you'll find that it's like trying to force a square peg into a round hole and for it to actually work you need to compromise something and that something is quite often the virtue part.
First we'll look at each aspect of the above diagram, I'll explain my reasoning.
The three main elements of the diagram are:
- The Fighting System
- Virtue
- Sport & Competition
The culmination of this being the skills, ability and understanding that can be used in order to deescalate a potentially violent confrontation.
Virtue is all about the character development stuff. Learning to be a better person and everything that entails. It's about setting high standards for who you are and having the strength & integrity to live by those standards in your daily life.
The Sport side of it (as far as I see it) can be divided up into two parts. The first part is taking the martial system and using it as you would any other sport. It simply becomes a physical activity with an emphasis on the fitness and ability.
The second part of sport is about utilising the fitness and abilities you have gained from training in competition with others.
These 3 elements should be pretty obvious for any Karateka. The issues arise when you analyse the sections of the venn diagram that overlap.
- The Fighting System & Virtue makes Budo
- Sport & Fighting System make Glorified Violence (or something worse)
- Virtue & Sport makes some other thing
Budo is the fusion of the fighting style and the way of virtue. As I mentioned in last weeks post, this is what I think 'traditional' martial arts were in pre-modern times.
The 'Glorified Violence' section of the diagram, which is the combination of fighting and sport, has become two basic types these days.
The first type of fighting sport is what we know as UFC (and things like cage fighting). It's the world of Mixed Martial Arts. Where people train to be at the peak of physical fitness and learn techniques and skill with the aim of entering a competition to see if their skill and training is better than the skill and training of other competitors.
This is the epitome of the term 'Glorified Violence' when we analyse what this is.
A person literally trains with the ultimate goal of being able to get in a ring and pound the crap out of someone before that person is able to do the same to them.
Being a person of virtue can in no way be synonymous with this type of activity. For what reason would a virtuous person want to deliberately cause damage to another person?... None, there is no need to want to deliberately cause damage to another person (unless there is no other option, as is the case in a real self-defence situation)
It seems to me that the whole point of this type of fighting sport is to prove that your skill is better than the skills of others. A virtuous person is secure enough to not have any need to prove to anyone that they're better than anyone else, especially when it's really about making money as a show for spectators.
Obviously someone who is successful gains money and the notoriety, two things that a virtuous person doesn't compromise their values for.
These people do learn fighting skill, so they are capable of defending themselves and others, but what mindset does it perpetuate in people (both the practitioners and the spectators)?
That violence is good? That being the best at hitting people is somehow worthwhile?
I think that many people develop a subconscious attitude of "If I have a reason to get angry and someone stands up to me, then it's ok to physically beat them until they can no longer stand." Disagree with me? Look up the stats on domestic violence. Here you go.
Clearly there are people out there that think their anger is a good thing and that they can solve problems with violence.
I'm definitely not saying that UFC fighters and fans are all wife beaters, but when violence is glorified, idolised and sold as a good thing, people who lack self-control would be more likely to justify using it - even against loved ones... There is absolutely no virtue in this at all.
The second type of fighting sport is the tournaments. The average Karateka doesn't enter UFC type cage fights but can still compete in a relatively non-violent setting.
Tournaments are more the "sport" part of the fighting sport, hence it's this type of competition that will be included in the Olympics.
Tournaments can be fun but there are some serious flaws. The first flaw being that what is considered 'good technique' for a tournament is not the same 'good effective technique' in real world confrontation.
Generally tournaments have kata and kumite competition, both of these promote ineffective technique.
Tournament kata tends to ignore bunkai completely (bunkai is the practical application of techniques). The technique you see are all about looking good. In many cases techniques that have actually sacrificed something that might be strong, stable and effective just so that it can impress judges.
I have seen practitioners taking part in tournaments that have rules about no contact to the head, that learn to not bother guarding their head. This is, of course, utterly ridiculous. What sort of martial artist doesn't worry about protecting the most vulnerable part of the body???
Changing the fighting techniques to suit tournament rules isn't the only issue with tournaments kumite. The other problem is with the way tournament kumite is performed in general. Put simply, it's not real fighting.
What drives this need to change technique to become more and more ineffective over time?
Why do people feel the need to prioritise tournaments over a fighting system that really works as a fighting style?
Beyond promoting bad technique, karate tournaments also inherently instil a bad attitude, a culture of competitive pettiness and immaturity.
This is the opposite of virtue, it's these type of things that martial artists should be above, rather than perpetuate.
As far as I see it, people are driven to compete out of a subconscious sense of insecurity, which ultimately comes from immaturity.
They feel that if they 'win' then it means something, if they 'win' it will prove their worth to everyone (including themselves). A secure person finds self-worth from within, they don't try to find it externally. Externally derived self-worth is shallow, temporary and fragile.
I've seen people put a great deal of importance on how they do in a tournament, as if the entire world hinges on the tournament on that day. It's not just kids (who might be to young to understand), I've seen Dan grade adults lose it, even cry, when they fail to get the "gold medal".
Being that one of the main purposes of Budo training is character development and becoming a better (well-adjusted) person, this sort of behaviour is obviously not a part of real budo and the clubs that foster the "importance of winning" mindset are not teaching martial arts, it's just sport.
You might say something like: "I do tournaments just as a test of my ability, I don't care if I win or lose." and you might think that this is virtuous. While it is indeed a more mature mindset than the 'sooky la la' I mentioned above.
There is still no virtue in competition.
Competition with others gives you no actual indication of your ability level. If you compete and win against 7 other people on a particular day but those 7 people are of a horribly crappy standard, then you might go home mistakenly thinking you're of a better standard than you actually are. The same it true the other way around too, if you lose against 7 amazing experts, then you'll go home mistakenly thinking you're worse than you actually are.
To compare to other practitioners is always arbitrary, there's no baseline or standard by which you can measure to give any idea of the standard level. It will give you false-positives 95% of the time.
You might say: "I just compete in tournaments for the fun of it."
Well, you should always do what you enjoy and if you enjoy the tournaments and fighting competition then you should do it.
Having said this, don't fool yourself into thinking that it's Budo or even martial arts. It's sport, just like any other, it's no more budo than swimming or football.
Don't fool yourself into thinking that because you do good or bad in tournaments that it means you're a good or bad Budoka.
Bushi Matsumura (the greatest Karateka who ever lived, the man who influenced pretty much every style of modern Karate, your master's master's master's master's master [give or take a master or two]) once wrote:
If we investigate the martial arts, we also see that there are three distinct divisions or elements in them:
The first method, or division, is more like a game of psychology and tactics. It actually has no practical application in fighting, but it is more like pretty dancing. It is quite superficial.
The second method is nothing more than physical exercises. Its only goal is to win. In this there is no virtue. The practitioners of this method are contentious. Many times they bring injury to others and to themselves. Very often they cause dishonour to come upon members of their family.
The third method, in contrast, is always performed with conviction. The practitioners of this third method gain a solemn enlightenment, free of strife and depravity. It promotes loyalty among family, friends and country. It also promotes a natural demeanour, which develops a gallant character.
In my mind, both the UFC and tournaments are a mix of both the first and second methods that Matsumura mentions. As he says, there is no virtue in these methods. Hence why virtue and fighting competition are on the opposite side of the venn diagram.
This is also why fighting competition isn't Budo, as there is no virtue. in them.
The first method, or division, is more like a game of psychology and tactics. It actually has no practical application in fighting, but it is more like pretty dancing. It is quite superficial.
The second method is nothing more than physical exercises. Its only goal is to win. In this there is no virtue. The practitioners of this method are contentious. Many times they bring injury to others and to themselves. Very often they cause dishonour to come upon members of their family.
The third method, in contrast, is always performed with conviction. The practitioners of this third method gain a solemn enlightenment, free of strife and depravity. It promotes loyalty among family, friends and country. It also promotes a natural demeanour, which develops a gallant character.
In my mind, both the UFC and tournaments are a mix of both the first and second methods that Matsumura mentions. As he says, there is no virtue in these methods. Hence why virtue and fighting competition are on the opposite side of the venn diagram.
The part of the diagram that is the combination of virtue and sport (opposite the fighting system) is 'Not Martial Arts'.
I'm not entirely sure that this section can exist, as I don't think there is any way to reconcile competitiveness and truly being a person of virtue.
If there is, it's not really relevant, as being that it's lacking the fighting system, it has nothing to do with budo anyway.
I'm fully aware that many people will disagree with some of the things in this post. I don't claim that any of this is absolute certainty, this is simply my opinion and my point of view (as is everything in this blog).
I don't imply that a person who disagrees with my views are wrong, they simply have different views to me and we are all free to believe what we like.
I believe that the popularisation of Budo in modern times has resulted in a change that is not for the better. That change being the introduction of the mainstream acceptance of a competitive mindset. In the process of making budo more 'sport like', we have sacrificed other important aspects of Budo, so much that I wouldn't describe what the majority do today as 'Budo'.
To my mind, real Budo is practiced by people who learn to train and perfect techniques that work (rather than look good) and they have no inclination to compare or compete in an attempt to disprove some subconscious feeling of insecurity.
Thanks for reading.
Derm
ϾDerm
