By Loren W. Christensen
- Recently, someone read where I commented that I’ve been teaching “realistic martial arts” for several years. They wanted to know what I meant by the term.
When I began training in 1965, my teachers would say: “You must do it this way because it is what the old master passed on to us.” Or “We must respect the style’s teachings.” Or “We must do it this way because . . . well, I don’t remember why, but I know this is what the masters said to do.”
OK, fine. But the masters aren’t here with me right now on this dark street with this big ape, and I can’t get the master’s stuff to work on him.
I began training in kong su, a Korean style that was heavily influenced by Japanese karate. We used deep stances, stylized blocks, stiff footwork, robot movements, and so on. I discovered quickly as a military policeman patrolling the extraordinarily mean streets of Saigon, Vietnam, that I had trouble making it work for me. To be clear, the material was good, but I was having trouble adapting it to the street.
Dealing with rocket attacks, terrorist bombings, anti-American riots, bar brawls, combative AWOLs, street fights, drug overdoses, assaults, and murder investigations kept me humping 12 to 14 hours every shift, every day. It was an intense, enlightening, and horrific time in which I put my skills to the test, discovering what worked and what didn’t in the martial arts—at least for me. There was no place in a back alley of Saigon or in all-out bar brawls for deep, static stances and stylized blocks. I made some quick modifications to help me survive the year and then promised myself I would spend the rest of my martial arts career studying and teaching techniques applicable to real-life survival.
When I joined the Portland Police Bureau a year after getting home, I intensified my efforts to search out techniques that my street-oriented martial arts teacher friends, fellow police defensive tactics teachers, and I deemed street functional. I’ve been studying and teaching that way for over five decades.
- Another person asked if I thought the term “martial arts” was misleading for street and self-defense.
I think at one time the term “art” was used to refer to “any skill or mastery.” Of late, it’s often defined as “deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses and emotions.” I’m guessing that when used to reference karate, jujitsu, muay Thai, and many others fighting systems, it implies skill and mastery. That said, if you beat on someone to the extent that you have “deliberately (re)arranged their elements,” you no doubt have “affected their senses and emotions.”
I like the term “martial science” because it suggests looking at the “why” behind every action:
- Why block this way as opposed to another?
- Why angle your body this way as opposed to moving another way?
- Why hit here instead of there?
- Why use this body weapon instead of that one?
- Why hit at this angle as opposed to another?
- Why hit now instead of waiting a couple seconds?
It can be argued that the answers to these and many other “why” question are based on science:
- You use this block because it deflects the force and discombobulates the attacker’s thinking.
- You angle your body this way because it removes you from the threat while aligning you perfectly for a powerful counter.
- Hitting here compresses the nerves, shocks the brain, and requires less force than hitting there.
- This body weapon uses less force but creates more acute pain.
- Hitting at this angle shocks the organ more intensely than other angles.
- Hitting high and low forces the attacker’s brain to play catch-up to your action.
While it’s all about science, it also relates back to the old definition of art: skill and mastery.
- How can a person balance respect for the history and culture of traditional martial arts with its effectiveness (or lack of) in a violent street confrontation?
While Buddhism is 2,500 years old, it’s relevant today because it teaches that everything is transient, impermanent. It teaches that change is fundamental and basic. Sadly, some martial arts systems have not changed with the times. They have not adapted new concepts, improvements, sports medicine, exercise science, and combat psychology, all of which are pertinent to the betterment of the martial arts.
A martial arts teacher once told me that his style didn’t include the backfist because the founder didn’t believe in it. Never mind that it had knocked out a lot of fighters. A friend of mine, who was my student early in his martial arts career, went on to be a national karate champ, winning grand champion in more than 60 tournaments. On one occasion, he fought five national champions from a country (I’ll refrain from mentioning which one) and beat them all soundly. This is because he fought in a circular fashion while they fought in a linear one. Their style refused to recognize things like circular footwork, circular offense, and circular defense.
Finding the balance between respect for the history and culture of a fighting art and its functionality, or lack there of, is the task of the teacher. It’s also up to the students to respectfully keep the teacher on his toes. The teacher challenges the student, and the student challenges the teacher. “Sensei, I understand that this technique was a favorite among the samurai, but how do I make it work on a thug assaulting me at a 7-Eleven?”
Just as Buddhism has adapted to the passing 2,500 years and to the many cultures that absorbed it, the teaching of the martial arts must adapt as well. It’s fine to study an art for the culture and the tradition, but if it purports to be teaching self-defense, the teacher and the students need to ensure that it’s realistic.
• • •
Please note that I am in no way criticizing traditional martial arts. I have known some absolutely incredible traditionalists whom I would hate to face in the ring or on the street. As I said earlier, for whatever reason in Vietnam — my own immaturity (only two years training at the time) to name one — I had trouble making some of the movements work for me in the street.
Loren Christensen is the author of two dozen Paladin books and videos, including Fighting in the Clinch; The Brutal Art of Ripping, Poking, and Pressing Vital Targets; and Speed Training. Loren was a military policeman in Saigon during the Vietnam War and retired from the Portland, Oregon, Police Department after more than two decades of service. He has been training in the martial arts for more than five decades. He can be contacted through his website at www.lwcbooks.com.
