This is why I don't think we have a true martial art in the US, and one would actually be useful.
The purpose behind the martial arts in Japan was because the peasants couldn't carry swords and had to rely on hand-to-hand, or improvised weapon training.
I feel like a good martial art for the modern era would include weaponized environments, multiple attackers, and uneven or obstructed ground. You still need to learn the basics, but specializing in one particular "form" of fighting defeats the purpose of a martial art.
It depends entirely on the style and how it's taught, good teachers know the styles really well and the old styles do in fact have a variety of techniques based around this. A lot of people don't know this and misinterpret Shotokan moves badly especially the kata as a result and think the movements are pointless.
Right up until the point they try using them with weapons or use certain techniques for wrestling, takedowns and joint locks. As an example because I know about Shotokan, you can in fact do lots of the kata using either Tonfa or Sai and it makes perfect sense. A lot of the blocking methods are in fact taken from sword styles as well based on what direction you block in with a katana so that can be translated to weapons as well.
Many moves in Shotokan kata as well are bonafide wrestling or grappling techniques. I've chatted to people on youtube about this and made the point and they think that because you have to adjust them to make them work for their situations that makes it wrong. No it's the exact opposite, it's going back to the true roots of the technique the styles often get completely butchered by westerners.
If a style doesn't have this kind of history to it, either the teachers are shit and are just making it up and don't know what they're doing, or it's a made up style.
This is why I don't think we have a true martial art in the US, and one would actually be useful.
The purpose behind the martial arts in Japan was because the peasants couldn't carry swords and had to rely on hand-to-hand, or improvised weapon training.
I feel like a good martial art for the modern era would include weaponized environments, multiple attackers, and uneven or obstructed ground. You still need to learn the basics, but specializing in one particular "form" of fighting defeats the purpose of a martial art.
It depends entirely on the style and how it's taught, good teachers know the styles really well and the old styles do in fact have a variety of techniques based around this. A lot of people don't know this and misinterpret Shotokan moves badly especially the kata as a result and think the movements are pointless.
Right up until the point they try using them with weapons or use certain techniques for wrestling, takedowns and joint locks. As an example because I know about Shotokan, you can in fact do lots of the kata using either Tonfa or Sai and it makes perfect sense. A lot of the blocking methods are in fact taken from sword styles as well based on what direction you block in with a katana so that can be translated to weapons as well.
Many moves in Shotokan kata as well are bonafide wrestling or grappling techniques. I've chatted to people on youtube about this and made the point and they think that because you have to adjust them to make them work for their situations that makes it wrong. No it's the exact opposite, it's going back to the true roots of the technique the styles often get completely butchered by westerners.
If a style doesn't have this kind of history to it, either the teachers are shit and are just making it up and don't know what they're doing, or it's a made up style.