‘Real’ Martial Artist Get Their Hands Dirty?

(This is an interim, 1^st rough draft, article, which will be amended later)

There has been numerous comments by numerous martial artists who seem to think that a ‘real’ martial artist is one who get his/her hands dirty by engaging in ‘actual’ or ‘real’ martial arts, such as RMA or Tae Kwon Do.  

In order to evaluate a martial art,  we must first understand clearly and explicitly what a martial art is.  Then only we may determine whether it is a ‘actual’ or ‘real’ martial art.  

By ‘actual’ or ‘real’,  those self professed experts meant the usual martial arts that the general public knows of, such as the Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Thai, Burmese martial arts, ……..  for example,  Karate, Tae Kwon Do, Tang Soo Do, Ju Jitsu, Judo, Aikido, Kung Fu, Tai Chi, Pa Kua, Muay Thai, Bando etc etc.   Many ‘martial arts’  which do not fall into these categories are treated with some suspicion,  or even contempt,  and their practitioners regarded as ignorant and incapable of martial arts techniques,  and incapable of defending themselves.  

However,  these above *** popular *** martial arts mentioned above, are very varied in their techniques, modes, theories and methods,   and there is not a clear and unambiguous definition of what a martial arts is when we come down to the detailed nuts and bolts.  What constitutes a martial art?   What are the components of a martial arts.  Should a martial art comprise these components only,  to the exclusion of all else?   To date, I have not yet seen a valid listing of components of a martial art - what must an art contain, and not contain, in order to be classify as a ‘true’ martial art.

In order to answer “whether ‘true’ martial artist get their hands dirty by practising ‘real’ martial arts” like RMA and WTF Tae Kwon Do (using a phrase that somebody in the internet used), we must know what a ‘real’ martial art is, and what a scam or fraudulent martial art is.

If a martial art has elements that is not included in those components listed by the so-called experts (who I really doubt are real experts as the real ones will never slam another system as not a ‘true’ martial arts),  then should that art be slammed as a horrid scam?   For example,  if the art emphasises health aspects,  is it still a martial art?  Examples of these are Tai Chi Chuan, Pa Kua Chang, Xing Yi Chuan, Wu Chi Chuan, Yi Chuan etc. 

If an art emphasises meditation,  is that still a martial art?  Examples of these are Yi Chuan (the Japanese form is Tai Ki Ken, founded by Master Kenichi Sawai) which emphasises standing meditation as a foremost,  and in fact, its main practice.  Most Chinese arts (especially the internal arts) have some form of standing meditation (Zhan Zhuang).  To exclude meditation as a valid component of martial arts means most Chinese martial arts are scam martial arts.  Since standing meditation is the main practice of Yi Chuan,  we have to conclude that Yi Chuan is not a ‘real’ martial art, and as many so-called experts made such derogatory remarks that meditation is for the weak, females and the infirm or the funny-headed and not for the ‘real’ martial arts,  we must conclude that Yi Chuan is a scam.  I challenge these so-called martial arts experts to publicly make their defamatory statements again and again in the forums using their real names,  and email me persistently with such defamatory statements so that I may forward them to the various Chinese Kung Fu schools for their legal representatives to action.   

If a martial art emphasises religious and spiritual aspects,  it that art still a martial art,  or it that art a scam?  Such arts are usually those still deeply rooted in their local cultures and traditions. These arts have not been popularly promoted to the Western world,  nor popularly practised in the Western world.  The ideas, philosophy, theories, and techniques of these art still remain half-obscure to the so-called martial arts experts in the West.  (Yes,  it is these armchair experts who shout the loudest!!!!!).  Examples of such arts are the various Indian arts (such as Kalaripayat, Gatka, Silambam etc),  and the Malay/Indonesian arts of Silat/Pencak Silat. 

In Chinese Kung Fu,  there is a generic reference to any martial arts that is based on or uses spiritual forces,  or spirit beings as “Shen Da”,  which can be roughly translated as “Spiritual Martial Arts”.  This is a loosely defined system of martial arts and has no real structure.  Its practitioners enter into a semi trance state in which their practitioners think that they have been ‘possessed by a spirit or god,  or the spirit of an animal,  or the spirit of an ancient warrior.  The practitioners of animal systems imagine their bodies are animated by their totemic animal spirits,  such as the White Tiger, Black Tiger, Eagle, Bear, Snake, Dragon, Cat, Dog,  etc etc.,  which cause them to move with the flavour, style, and power that is characteristic of that animal.  Some more well known modern Kung Fu arts such as the Snake Boxing, Eagle Claw and Monkey Boxing are believed to be descended from such Shen Da of the ancient times, and slowly ‘culturalised during history (eg.,  Eagle Claw and many Xing Yi systems trace themselves to General Yueh Fei of the Song Dynasty).  The history of most Shen Da arts is lost in ancient times.  

Shen Da or ‘Spiritual Martial Arts’ also exists in many part of the world,  in their local  cultural context.  Many traditional martial arts that are deeply rooted in tradition and have not completely emerged to participate in the ‘modern’ world still have religious or shamanistic elements.  The question is  -  are ancient martial arts such as these martial arts or scam?  Alternatively,  the question is – are modern martial arts we know of ‘true’ martial arts or are they scams.  Arguing on a similar vein,    are we seeing each type of martial arts regarding the other side as scam and not ‘true’ martial arts?  

In a similar regard,   is modern contemporary Wu Shu from mainland China ‘true’ martial arts and the old style martial arts not ‘true’ martial arts?  More that 10 years ago,  my sister-in-law who comes from China insisted that my Tai Chi Chuan and Shaolin is not martial arts because martial arts in China is Wu Shu,  ad Tai Chi is not Wu Shu.  My traditional Tai Chi Chuan is not part of Standard Wu Shu,  so it is not a martial art.  After some ‘lively’ discussions,  she agreed it is ‘Wu Gong’ but not ‘Wu Shu’ because my Tai Chi Chuan is for fighting.  It is an art of combat.  It is not a martial art.  Wu Shu is a martial art,  by their definition.  Well,  that is news to me.  But that is how people define martial arts.  So, we still have to come to define and discuss what is a ‘martial art’  before we accuse other systems of being scam martial arts.  This is a reasonable proposal,  is it not?  

Some truly traditional arts have emerged to a greater extent,  and these are the arts that the so-called martial arts experts (those who shout loudest) might have some familiarity with.  examples are Muay Thai and Eskrima.  Muay Thai emerged from a hardcore bare-knuckle broken-glass fisted martial art into a sport that is similar to and comparable to Western boxing.  In this way,  the traditions of Thai martial arts can grow and flourish in the modern world.  Similarly,  eskrima has evolved from the blade to the stick,  and this has ensured its survival and popularity in the modern world.  However,  please note that there are still remnants of the old religious and spiritual beliefs in Muay Thai  - the essential homages to the gods, masters, and spirits of the ring which are mandatory to any truly traditional Thai fighter.  In eskrima,  some of the old masters still practise anting-anting or orascion which they believe have the power to make them strong and invincible.  Since this so-called ‘religious mumbo jumbo’  or  ‘superstitions’  are still intact within Muay Thai and Eskrima,  and not merely the physical fist and foot techniques,  do we classify Muay Thai and Eskrima as scam martial arts?  

Deeply traditional Malay/Indonesian martial arts,  as found in rural and not-so-easily accessable areas are steeped in magic and sorcery,  or at least mysticism,  or the practices of Internal Energy (Tenaga Dalam).  Some of the masters of these arts are very skilful and deadly  -  more so than their more well-known city counterparts who are known to the West.  These traditional masters invariably belief in their mystical ilmus of invulnerability, invincibility and power to knockdown opponents from a distance without contact.  They are no ‘pussies’,  as many so-called experts in the internet imply.  A traditional Silat master will not display his skills in ilmu.  Ilmu is for using in a real (REAL) life-and-death situation,  not a faked test situation,  nor a demonstration or challenge-test.  It is not tested out of curiousity,  nor for show-off.  It is reverently regarded as truly ‘sacred’,  and not to be used or talked about.  But,  the question,  again,  remains  -  are these arts,  (which have been practised for fighting and self defence for many centuries),  martial arts at all?  These arts have served as very effective fighting methods,  but by our MODERN and seemingly ‘very educated’ assessments (oh,  pride, oh pride …),  they are classified as scam martial arts.   This, again,  begs the question of what is a martial art.  

Regarding Malay/Indonesian martial arts again: every Silat master knows and is familiar with the ilmus. Whether the master choses to practise it more, or to rely on his own physical art is his choice. In Malay/Indonesian society, a Silat master is expected to know the ilmus, and is expected to know how to deal with the ilmus of any opponent. The more ‘purer’ or ‘austere’ types of Silat, especially if they are influenced by fundamentalist Islam, tend to avoid ‘spiritist’ or paganistic type of ilmus, but concentrate more on human Internal energy (Tenaga Dalam). Still, this is an Ilmu. And even such masters, while denouncing the practice of sorcery, do believe in the existence of such ‘horrid’ practices, and devise counter strategies for them. As a master of Perisai Diri Silat told me personally “In Perisai Diri, we do not have Kebal because we do not believe in Kebal. We use Tenaga Dalam. Other Silat may have Kebal, but we do not believe in it. Kebal is a second rate form of invulnerability. Tenaga Dalam is the best method of invulnerability. Tenaga Dalam can destroy Kebal immediately because we develop strong Internal Energy which can destroy Kebal. Kebal works only if you are not strong enough. Kebal is easily destroyed. If other Silat use Kebal, our Tenaga Dalam will destroy it. So, even though there is Kebal, there is no Kebal as far as Perisai Diri is concerned. We only have Tenaga Dalam. Other Silat may have Kebal, but we have Tenaga Dalam”. I find this to be a more reasonable and educated point of view. This Perisai Diri master is not denying that invulnerability and knocking down does exist, but he is saying that certain invulnerability practices are not reliable and do not work when their ideal conditions are taken away. They may be ‘destroyed’ by a person who has strong Internal Power or strong charisma or by a ‘holy’ person (eg, a priest or a yogi). This is the common belief in Malay/Indonesian Silat circles. Trust the REAL experts on this subject. Do not trust those who have not studied, nor practised the subject matter for decades.

There are also some martial arts, or rather arts that are accepted as ‘true’ martial arts by the general public that are created from true martial arts (ops! That is not a slip of the tongue, I am afraid). Muay Thai is one example. But a more well known example is Professor Kano creating the sport of Judo (Ju Do) from his experiences in various traditional Ju Jitsu ryus in existence at that time. Ju Do is not an ancient art. It is very modern.

Similarly, Karate is also a recent development, and yet most, if not all people seem to regard it as a ‘true’ martial art. Are the ancestors of Karate any less of a ‘true’ martial art? Is our understanding of what a ‘true’ martial art so warped that we have reduced our recognition to only what we know and are familiar with in these modern times?

My own personal experience:-   I practise the traditional eskrima style of Kalis Ilustrisimo which is under the leadership of Antonio Tatang Ilustrisimo (1900 – 1997).  Tatang Ilustrisimo is a truly incredible fighter who has killed dozens of people.  He was arrested 17 times in Manila alone for causing ‘untimely demise’ of people.  He killed scores during World War 2 as a guerrilla fighter where his code name was “The Executioner”.   He was undefeated in all matches.  He is a truly very great fighter,  and not a pussy or woozy.  Tatang Ilustrisimo,  in spite of his great and legendary physical fighting prowesses,  is a believer and practitioner of anting-anting or orascion,  which he used with effectiveness with his physical fighting skills.  His students include some prominent martial artists from other styles – no pussies either.  If Tatang Ilustrisimo is a scam martial artist,  why was he undefeated in matches with other martial artists in real combat?   Why was he able to kill and dispatch of opponents (his first kill was when he was 17 years old when he cut off the opponents head with only one stroke of his sword in Jolo,  the capital of the Islamic Sultanate of Sulu).  Why was he arrested 17 times in Manila?  All these shows he was a fighter and not a pussy.  He was a fighter who cleverly mixed his physical fighting art with spiritual or mystical powers.  His uncle was the famous Agapito Illustrisimo who lead the spiritual community on the sacred Mount Banahaw  -  the most holy mountain in the Philippines.  Tatang Ilustrisimo may not be a ‘true’ martial artist by the definition or understanding of the so-called martial arts experts in the West,  and may’,  by their lack of true understanding,  be a ‘fool’ and ‘’pussy/woozer’,   but he is a great fighter and combat expert who is expert in using the mystical arts for fighting,  as many ancient warriors do.  We are faced with an uncomfortable position of denouncing Tatang Ilustrisimo as a scam martial artist and a ‘fool’.  To resolve this impasse,  this still begs the question,  again,  what is a martial art?   

For the record,  I urge those who doubt whether Tatang Ilustrisimo and his students are practising a ‘true’ martial art,  may try to investigate the matter deeper.  Do not make statements,  or worse still,  threats,  that you may regret later.  I warn - veiled and implied threats are still threats, no matter how you attempt to hide your threats. If you wish to threaten us, you might as well be a ‘true man’ and threaten us openly. We regard all threats as threats, no less, and it does not matter whether they are veiled or not. Be warned.

I am also a teacher of Yang Style Tai Chi Chuan. My Tai Chi Chuan is soft and is greatly influenced by lineage of Cheng Man Ching which went to Malaysia. Many Tai Chi artists in the West are brash enough to make outrageous statements such as “Cheng Man Ching is hopeless as a fighter”. This is presumably because Cheng Man Ching’s style is so soft and innocent looking and the master himself always stressed that his art is a peaceful art for health only. Cheng Man Ching seldom accepted challenges outright, but those fighters from other styles who have unfortunately fought him will testify that they lost! In addition, the Cheng Man Ching lineage in Malaysia and Singapore had seen much fighting action in the tumultuous 1950s and 1960s, being tested by many fighters of other styles. The lineage emerged victorious. The question is - is this pussy-like style a ‘true’ martial art? If it is a ‘true’ martial art, why don’t its practitioners dirty their hands in sparring (a fact, but perhaps a fact that lead other styles to look down on this lineage, and thus challenged it). Cheng Man Ching never believed in sparring, not in those martial arts practices the ordinary person believes to be “martial arts”. He never believed in getting his hand dirty - punching, kicking, elbowing and grappling. He was a great and cultured gentleman. While he may not be a ‘true’ martial artist, I believe he is a TRUE martial artist. I hope readers may know this subtle difference.

Many half-baked martial artists are so ‘full of themselves’ that they do not realise they know very little of the whole of martial arts. I have been involved in martial arts since I was a boy, and I still know so little. Criticising great traditional masters is certainly beyond my scope of experience and knowledge. Half-baked education is usually the mark of a virulent critic, especially a negative and abusive one. Remember the saying “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing”

Again and again,  I have shown the necessity to define and discuss thoroughly to allow us to understand what constitutes a martial art before making rash statements about people who practise a martial which seems very strange and foreign to our ideas of a martial art. 

In my opinion,  many martial artists are ignorant of and they lack proper deep understanding of what a martial art is,  and they shot their mouths off in denouncing people who practise the old way of martial arts as scams and frauds.   “Half-empty vessels make the most noise”  is the proverb I would use to describe the situation.  A true master of a martial will not so readily denounce other styles and their theories.  

It is time to reconsider our understanding of what a martial art is,  otherwise,  we should shut up.  Half-educated opinions are indicative of conceit and arrogance. They are also indicative of intolerance of other peoples beliefs, and their religions. You have your religion, but I have mine too. In your religion, I may be a fool who is destined for hot hells, but in my religion, you could be destined for far worse! I urge a more reasonable and tolerant attitude to other people’s beliefs. You do not need to vilify them!!!!!

Written by John Chow,    15 February 2005