cidirkona
Member
You guys need to rent the movie Equilibrium. It's Matrix-ish but alot better and uses guns like a martial art - goes into it and everything. Damn good movie with the guy from American Psycho.
-Colin
-Colin
What about a martial art WITH firearms?
- Thread starter Cosmoline
- Start date
- Status
Devonai
Member
I was happy enough practicing Ching Ching Pow.
Paul Gomez
Member In Memoriam
A fight is a fight.
Whether you carry a gun is inconsequential if you cannot bring it to bare when needed. If you do not have unarmed skills integrated with your gun skills, you are deluding yourself if you believe that you are adequately prepared to defend yourself in the real world.
As with all things, it's incumbent on you to analyse and synthesize what you need from what is available. If you do not have recourse to someone/someplace who offers integrated gun/unarmed training, look around and find what is available separately. See what you can find that you can integrate to get the results that you desire.
A short format program is a great way to jump-start your skill development. Ongoing study groups, martial arts class, etc are a great way to augment your understanding. I'm fortunate in that I've got a group of around a dozen people who are interested in ongoing training and they show up on a weekly basis to beat the heck out of each other and experiment with unarmed, knife, gun & stick.
One of the reasons that traditional martial arts don't address modern firearms usage is that there is a certain elitism involved [on both sides]. Martial Artists don't need guns because they can fight and Gunnies dont' need to know how to fight because they can shoot. Both camps are deluded
Just some rambling thoughts...it's the nyquil
Whether you carry a gun is inconsequential if you cannot bring it to bare when needed. If you do not have unarmed skills integrated with your gun skills, you are deluding yourself if you believe that you are adequately prepared to defend yourself in the real world.
As with all things, it's incumbent on you to analyse and synthesize what you need from what is available. If you do not have recourse to someone/someplace who offers integrated gun/unarmed training, look around and find what is available separately. See what you can find that you can integrate to get the results that you desire.
A short format program is a great way to jump-start your skill development. Ongoing study groups, martial arts class, etc are a great way to augment your understanding. I'm fortunate in that I've got a group of around a dozen people who are interested in ongoing training and they show up on a weekly basis to beat the heck out of each other and experiment with unarmed, knife, gun & stick.
One of the reasons that traditional martial arts don't address modern firearms usage is that there is a certain elitism involved [on both sides]. Martial Artists don't need guns because they can fight and Gunnies dont' need to know how to fight because they can shoot. Both camps are deluded
Just some rambling thoughts...it's the nyquil
Gomez nailed it. It's all about ~really~ understanding what's going on. You're best off not looking for one school to practice self-defense skills any more than you're better off looking for one shooting stance. Go hunting, fight in the SCA, shoot in IDPA and IPSC, enroll in one or a couple different martial arts dojos, etc. You'll learn things in one that will carry over to the others and you'll be ahead of the game.
Take for example when the Portugese rapier fighters and the Japanese katana fighters first met. Their styles were so dramatically different that both fighters usually died as a result. The consequences of fighting someone who just so happens to fight in such a manner that addresses weak points you didn't know you had will be severe. The only way to prevent that from happening is to fight against as many different people with as many different styles as you can.
Don't just learn how to execute technique A in situation X. Learn why technique A gets executed in sutation X and internalize it. That way, if you don't agree with it you can change it to suit your needs.
How's not enough; learn why.
Take for example when the Portugese rapier fighters and the Japanese katana fighters first met. Their styles were so dramatically different that both fighters usually died as a result. The consequences of fighting someone who just so happens to fight in such a manner that addresses weak points you didn't know you had will be severe. The only way to prevent that from happening is to fight against as many different people with as many different styles as you can.
Don't just learn how to execute technique A in situation X. Learn why technique A gets executed in sutation X and internalize it. That way, if you don't agree with it you can change it to suit your needs.
How's not enough; learn why.
aroshi
Member
Integration and Internalization
I agree with most of your points, and in most situations, I would agree with all of them. Though not everyone would have the energy to do everything you've listed, nor the time (and money).
Some more thoughts:
Dedication to your goals is key, but the way to get there should not be too diverse or you will spread yourself too thinly. If you are to study a martial art to learn from it... then do that. Don't join several arts and try to do all of them at once. One thing that most people don't realize is that most often, pre-approx-black belt training is merely just covering basics.
Internalization of your practice is the only way it will benefit you on the street. No technique practice in a class works on the street. Anyone who has practiced long enough realizes that. Just like no shooting stance at a range prepares you for battle. "The map is not the territory."
Find something you like, that benefits you and run with it. If you find that it is something you don't like in the first couple months, leave it.
A good system allows you to work with your training and adapt it to your needs. Most sheople don't have needs and take it to learn what is being taught. Too many cookie-cutter classes have developed from this. Avoid them, and that mentality. Same as with shooting, same as with life.
I agree with most of your points, and in most situations, I would agree with all of them. Though not everyone would have the energy to do everything you've listed, nor the time (and money).
Some more thoughts:
Dedication to your goals is key, but the way to get there should not be too diverse or you will spread yourself too thinly. If you are to study a martial art to learn from it... then do that. Don't join several arts and try to do all of them at once. One thing that most people don't realize is that most often, pre-approx-black belt training is merely just covering basics.
Internalization of your practice is the only way it will benefit you on the street. No technique practice in a class works on the street. Anyone who has practiced long enough realizes that. Just like no shooting stance at a range prepares you for battle. "The map is not the territory."
Find something you like, that benefits you and run with it. If you find that it is something you don't like in the first couple months, leave it.
A good system allows you to work with your training and adapt it to your needs. Most sheople don't have needs and take it to learn what is being taught. Too many cookie-cutter classes have developed from this. Avoid them, and that mentality. Same as with shooting, same as with life.
aroshi
Member
Every art has its 'way'.
It's interesting that you mention that, especially with the quote from Hatsumi-soke. In all actuality, the nine arts for which he is a grandmaster are said to be some of the most lethal and deadly arts still trained today. And with a lineage of 13 to 33 grandmasters (in the various arts) before him, those arts have been tested thoroughly.
Many of the arts associated with this training have their uses in not only martial combat open-handed, but with weapons such as the handgun, long rifle, shotgun, and others. These are only but a few arts derived from his teachings:
Sojitsu - Spear fighting
Bojitsu - 6-foot staff fighting
Jojitsu - 4-foot staff fighting
Hanbojitsu - 3-foot staff fighting
Tantojitsu - knife fighting
Kappojitsu/Koshijitsu - Bone and muscle striking and manipulation
Hojojitsu - binds, ties, and escapes
Other similar arts:
Philippino Escrima - knife and stick fighting
Kubotan Personal Self-Defense Training
All of these would be worthwhile training for those individuals interested in CQB with or without firearms. But once a firearm is out of ammo or can no longer fire, or is not a viable option, these are all very useful forms of self-defence.
As has been stated before, though, I feel that your training will inevitably be tailored to your personal beliefs and needs. Find something that works for you. The most important aspect of a person's individual training is attitude.
----
"The mind is like a mirror. It grasps nothing, it expects nothing. It reflects but does not hold." -- Masaaki Hatsumi
It's interesting that you mention that, especially with the quote from Hatsumi-soke. In all actuality, the nine arts for which he is a grandmaster are said to be some of the most lethal and deadly arts still trained today. And with a lineage of 13 to 33 grandmasters (in the various arts) before him, those arts have been tested thoroughly.
Many of the arts associated with this training have their uses in not only martial combat open-handed, but with weapons such as the handgun, long rifle, shotgun, and others. These are only but a few arts derived from his teachings:
Sojitsu - Spear fighting
Bojitsu - 6-foot staff fighting
Jojitsu - 4-foot staff fighting
Hanbojitsu - 3-foot staff fighting
Tantojitsu - knife fighting
Kappojitsu/Koshijitsu - Bone and muscle striking and manipulation
Hojojitsu - binds, ties, and escapes
Other similar arts:
Philippino Escrima - knife and stick fighting
Kubotan Personal Self-Defense Training
All of these would be worthwhile training for those individuals interested in CQB with or without firearms. But once a firearm is out of ammo or can no longer fire, or is not a viable option, these are all very useful forms of self-defence.
As has been stated before, though, I feel that your training will inevitably be tailored to your personal beliefs and needs. Find something that works for you. The most important aspect of a person's individual training is attitude.
----
"The mind is like a mirror. It grasps nothing, it expects nothing. It reflects but does not hold." -- Masaaki Hatsumi
Harold Mayo
Member
I must strongly disagree with aroshi's statement. Perhaps nothing taught in the schools with which you have experience is practical on the street but this blanket statement is a gross inaccuracy on your part. It's like saying that you might as well not train because nothing in which you train will apply in a "street" situation.
Gotta also disagree with Hatsumi and JShirley on this one. A fight is a fight, regardless of the times. Valid is valid. What is perceived as valid changes with the times but that's it. Perception is the only thing that changes. A knife fight today is no different than it was 400 years ago. Steel cuts flesh just like it did then. Just because there is better technology doesn't change anything.
aroshi
Member
I agree.
It would seem you misunderstood my statement... and as such, I completely agree with you. I, in no way, think that training is impractical. In fact, I think training is the only way to learn and make better those skills which will benefit you on the street.
My statement was less generalized as interpretted. In fact, what I was saying is something that many students and teachers have found to be true about training. No training, nor technique, as it is practiced will ever work out on the street just as it is practiced. There are too many factors and variables, and the situation is too different to perform exactly as you would in practice. In one sentence there is no way to say just that without seeming to generalize.
Training on targets or practice partners is not the same as training with live subjects whose intent is to do bodily harm or kill you. Your actions will be different.
As for Hatsumi-soke's statement, which I believe JShirley quoted properly, is also accurate, but misunderstood. Just as it would be different for a 5-foot tall Chinese man to fight a broad, 7-foot tall American... your weapons and strategies change. I don't believe his intention with that statement was to say that knives will not cut the same tomorrow as they do today. That would be ridiculous.
I believe the statement intends to point out that war and people change, as do the weapons they use. Just as the trench war-fare of WWI was much different from WWII and in Desert Storm and current operations, the weapons we use in our hands will find different uses and meaning.
I don't think you're statement was incorrect, Harold Mayo, I do believe that it was merely a lack of understanding the statements that JShirley and I had made / quoted.
It would seem you misunderstood my statement... and as such, I completely agree with you. I, in no way, think that training is impractical. In fact, I think training is the only way to learn and make better those skills which will benefit you on the street.
My statement was less generalized as interpretted. In fact, what I was saying is something that many students and teachers have found to be true about training. No training, nor technique, as it is practiced will ever work out on the street just as it is practiced. There are too many factors and variables, and the situation is too different to perform exactly as you would in practice. In one sentence there is no way to say just that without seeming to generalize.
Training on targets or practice partners is not the same as training with live subjects whose intent is to do bodily harm or kill you. Your actions will be different.
As for Hatsumi-soke's statement, which I believe JShirley quoted properly, is also accurate, but misunderstood. Just as it would be different for a 5-foot tall Chinese man to fight a broad, 7-foot tall American... your weapons and strategies change. I don't believe his intention with that statement was to say that knives will not cut the same tomorrow as they do today. That would be ridiculous.
I believe the statement intends to point out that war and people change, as do the weapons they use. Just as the trench war-fare of WWI was much different from WWII and in Desert Storm and current operations, the weapons we use in our hands will find different uses and meaning.
I don't think you're statement was incorrect, Harold Mayo, I do believe that it was merely a lack of understanding the statements that JShirley and I had made / quoted.
Harold Mayo
Member
I'll agree with the clarification of your own statement, aroshi. Pretty much nothing is going to be exactly the same as what you practice but you/we practice to get used to reacting and actually doing something as well as to acquaint ourselves with fighting in general. I have no problem with that clarification. "No plan survives contact with the enemy" and all that...
I still stand by my statement about the ninja's quote, though. Of course things change in terms of technology and tactics but the fundamentals are always the same. There is no difference in a fight between a 7 foot tall man and a 5 foot tall man now than there was 500 years ago. The knife analogy wasn't meant to be taken literally (or it was meant to be taken literally AND as an analogy to other things, I suppose), btw. Perhaps I take the quote too literally, though. A knife is a knife, a sword is a sword, a gun is a gun. These things don't change. For example, Nathan Bedford Forrest's statement that the secret of winning is to "git thar fustest with the mostest" might not sound as intelligent as Masaaki Hatsumi's (and it is doubtful that anyone ever called him "Nathan-soke") but is far better understood and far more applicable to any and all confrontations.
As I read it, Masaaki Hatsumi's quote is pretty easily MISunderstood, I suppose. I still don't agree with it since I am taking it literally.
I still stand by my statement about the ninja's quote, though. Of course things change in terms of technology and tactics but the fundamentals are always the same. There is no difference in a fight between a 7 foot tall man and a 5 foot tall man now than there was 500 years ago. The knife analogy wasn't meant to be taken literally (or it was meant to be taken literally AND as an analogy to other things, I suppose), btw. Perhaps I take the quote too literally, though. A knife is a knife, a sword is a sword, a gun is a gun. These things don't change. For example, Nathan Bedford Forrest's statement that the secret of winning is to "git thar fustest with the mostest" might not sound as intelligent as Masaaki Hatsumi's (and it is doubtful that anyone ever called him "Nathan-soke") but is far better understood and far more applicable to any and all confrontations.
As I read it, Masaaki Hatsumi's quote is pretty easily MISunderstood, I suppose. I still don't agree with it since I am taking it literally.
Harold,
Soke says a lot of things that sound counterintuitive. Since he may be one of the most dangerous people in the world at close range (or perhaps any range, not sure about your thoughts on that), I'm not likely to criticize.
I think the point Dr. Hatsumi was making, was that we must be adaptable. I believe taijutsu practitioners will be the first to tell you that body mechanics do not change, but our tools will. Further clarification...? Who am I to say? I have studied for 9 years, at mediocre levels, what Dr. Hatsumi has studied for more than 40 years at high intensity.
Soke says a lot of things that sound counterintuitive. Since he may be one of the most dangerous people in the world at close range (or perhaps any range, not sure about your thoughts on that), I'm not likely to criticize.
I think the point Dr. Hatsumi was making, was that we must be adaptable. I believe taijutsu practitioners will be the first to tell you that body mechanics do not change, but our tools will. Further clarification...? Who am I to say? I have studied for 9 years, at mediocre levels, what Dr. Hatsumi has studied for more than 40 years at high intensity.
Harold Mayo
Member
I can agree far more with what you just said than with the aforementioned quote. Adaptability is key to success in pretty much any endeavor.
Cosmoline
Member
"Adaptability is key to success in pretty much any endeavor."
To spin off of that thought a bit, I wonder how any martial art can continue to be relevant without incorporating firearms. Yes, it's possible that the ammo will run out. But that's not exactly a ringing endorsement of an art's continuing validity. It seems to me that most martial arts HAVE failed to adpat to the modern world. Folks are still learning to fight with tools which made sense 300 years ago, but which make little sense how. Spears, swords, ornate weapons, etc. Knife fighting is relevant, but only as a backup.
"In all actuality, the nine arts for which he is a grandmaster are said to be some of the most lethal and deadly arts still trained today. "
Well yes and no. As lethal as these arts no doubt are, a 180 grain Barnes X bullet at 2,800 fps is going to be a lot more lethal. How relevant can a martial art be that pretends firearms don't exist? Modern firearms aren't just lethal, they're the single most lethal small arms ever created. In the modern world, they fill the role that the peasant's tools and the warrior's weapons filled.
What I find frustraiting is how much each "camp" could learn from the other. I have no doubt that a master at martial arts could contribute enormouly not just to short-range handgun fighting techniques but to the ergonomics of rifle stances and the mindset brought to a violent encounter. Conversely, the same masters need to recognize the overwhelming importance of the bullet and its awesome lethality, rather than deriding it as a coward's choice or simply ignoring it.
It's as if our best racers continued to ride horses rather than drive, or our best divers refuse to use SCUBA tanks.
To spin off of that thought a bit, I wonder how any martial art can continue to be relevant without incorporating firearms. Yes, it's possible that the ammo will run out. But that's not exactly a ringing endorsement of an art's continuing validity. It seems to me that most martial arts HAVE failed to adpat to the modern world. Folks are still learning to fight with tools which made sense 300 years ago, but which make little sense how. Spears, swords, ornate weapons, etc. Knife fighting is relevant, but only as a backup.
"In all actuality, the nine arts for which he is a grandmaster are said to be some of the most lethal and deadly arts still trained today. "
Well yes and no. As lethal as these arts no doubt are, a 180 grain Barnes X bullet at 2,800 fps is going to be a lot more lethal. How relevant can a martial art be that pretends firearms don't exist? Modern firearms aren't just lethal, they're the single most lethal small arms ever created. In the modern world, they fill the role that the peasant's tools and the warrior's weapons filled.
What I find frustraiting is how much each "camp" could learn from the other. I have no doubt that a master at martial arts could contribute enormouly not just to short-range handgun fighting techniques but to the ergonomics of rifle stances and the mindset brought to a violent encounter. Conversely, the same masters need to recognize the overwhelming importance of the bullet and its awesome lethality, rather than deriding it as a coward's choice or simply ignoring it.
It's as if our best racers continued to ride horses rather than drive, or our best divers refuse to use SCUBA tanks.
Rise thread! Rise out of the ashes! I call you back from the dead to serve my bidding!
(giggle)
Ok, I have been a member here for a while, but the last thread I posted on about the subject of looking at a holistic approach to martial arts including firearms, how to keep them and deploy them in a real situation while keeping the principles learned before degenerated into a talk about silly movies and was closed.
I lived for about 15 years in Japan learning all I could about martial arts and trying to get to the principles behind them so I could apply those principles to the present.
I also did time in the military before I moved when I was young and was employed as a pistol instructor at a gun range.
Now I am back in Colorado Springs and am looking to take this concept further. I am bugging you all for some insight you might have as well as opening the door for anyone within traveling distance of Colorado Springs to maybe play and explore some of the things I think I have discovered. And of course, I would like to see what others have to offer and talk about what they think.
I am of strong opinions, but eager to try things out and learn more.
(giggle)
Ok, I have been a member here for a while, but the last thread I posted on about the subject of looking at a holistic approach to martial arts including firearms, how to keep them and deploy them in a real situation while keeping the principles learned before degenerated into a talk about silly movies and was closed.
I lived for about 15 years in Japan learning all I could about martial arts and trying to get to the principles behind them so I could apply those principles to the present.
I also did time in the military before I moved when I was young and was employed as a pistol instructor at a gun range.
Now I am back in Colorado Springs and am looking to take this concept further. I am bugging you all for some insight you might have as well as opening the door for anyone within traveling distance of Colorado Springs to maybe play and explore some of the things I think I have discovered. And of course, I would like to see what others have to offer and talk about what they think.
I am of strong opinions, but eager to try things out and learn more.
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
Thread necromancy is not permitted here.
Seriously, if you want to bring up a dead topic, LINK TO THE DEAD THREAD in your first post in a NEW THREAD on the topic....
lpl
Seriously, if you want to bring up a dead topic, LINK TO THE DEAD THREAD in your first post in a NEW THREAD on the topic....
lpl
- Status
