How did each martial art become so specialized?

The simplest answer is that the change in lifestyles and the need for life protection arts is not as it was. In centuries past the martial arts were necessary for life protection. As such those that studied them trained daily. Today we, for the most part don't have the same level of threat. We also don't have the time to devote to training every day for hours. It is very difficult to teach an entire style/system to someone that comes to class 1 -3 times a week for an hour. most of these people do little or no real training outside of class. They are what I call, "wind-up martial artists". They fool themselves int o believing that they are mastering a martial art. Even if they study in a dojo that teaches the real martial arts, no one can possibly learn an entire system in only a few hours of training a week. As such many instructors are doing good to just maintain the level that the students are at. In all the years that I've taught martial arts (since 1973), I have only taught my entire system to one or two students. Out of the thousands of students I've trained, less than 40 have made it to black belt. Only four students have made it above second dan. Only two made it above third dan. One of them holds a 7th dan.

Today you also have many instructors that themselves were taught only a small part of their style.

So they can only teach what they know. If an instructor likes to kick, he is likely to teach more kicking than striking. Those that like other aspects of their art will likely teach more of that aspect. In any case, no matter what the instructor knows, hen can only teach and get student to learn so much. If they don't spend every day learning and training they either don;t learn very much, or learn a lot, but never master any of it. Better to master a few things, than to know a lot of techniques you don't do well enough to bet your life on.

Edit:

Official Policy.... There could be a number of reasons. I've watched so many new generations of instructors over the last 4 decades. Each seems to know less and less. On top of that, they understand less of what they do know. Many schools & organizations now are controlled by such people. To me it seems that those in charge often have no idea what should be taught, how to teach it correctly, .... One of the biggest problems seems to be what to require for promotion. Instead of teaching in the older traditional way, they have invented list of techniques. The students don't have to master the techniques. They only have to memorize them, and make some attempt to be able to do them. Examples of that are everywhere on Y/A. If you wathc, you will see questions from people claiming to be testing for some black belt rank in a few days. They want someone to give them a Link to a web site that will show them how to do some form they don't know. This is not only the mentality of most students, it is the way schools/instructors/organizations think (Or I should say don't think). Testing and attitude has become simply wait so many weeks, learn a few more moves on some list, and test for your next belt. Students not only expect to be promoted if they come to class, they demand it. The comments here on Y/A often reflect that mentality. Black belt clubs, recommended belt ranks(What is that , and What Idiot thought that up?). These are the things that govern the majority of martial arts schools and organizations today. I believe that these are the main reasons why organizations have standardized requirements into something that reads like a recipe for making a desert. Put so many things in,and wait for it to magically appear. As I grew up in the martial arts, rank requirements were mostly a mystery. It seemed almost like the masters in charge knew something about when students were ready for promotion than they taught us. I have witnessed first hand, on many occasions, instructors working out with a few senior students and trying to map out what their rank requirements should be. It has been a mystery and continues to be for lots of them.

Keep in mind what I said about there not being enough time for instructors to teach most students more than a small piece of any style, and the fact that many instructors never learned much more of the style themselves. you can't teach what you do not know yourself. so you are certainly not going to set requirements for things that you don;t yourself know.

That's my guess. If anyone has a better explanation, I'd sure like to hear it.

NOTE: Another observation I noticed in increasing frequency over the last few decades is the requirement by many groups for the students to write a report for some ranks. While this sounds like a good idea at first thought, the results I've witnessed have been mostly a joke. Students write papers that mean nothing. They copy what they find. They ask on Y/A for things to write. My questions is, how much does this have to do with a student being able to defend themselves? Also, what does it have to do with if they can perform at the level they are testing for?

**** NOTE: Watch for my Question soon on what should be required for black belt ranks?

...

Both Kokoro and Matsi have excellent points and the host country where the games are held can have one of their own sports in the Olympics as a demonstration sport when they host the games. Will Brazil have BJJ or MMA is the question and there is an article about this already out on the newstands that I just saw a few days ago. Otherwise getting a sport put in the Olympics is a very difficult and often times lengthy process which is what Kokoro there is outlinning. I don't see it as happening other than if Brazil, who is hosting the summer games in 2016, decides to have BJJ or MMA added because they are hosting the games. The fact that Anderson Silva is the current champ and the UFC just held a major event there and Dana White has said they plan on holding several more is an interesting sideline to all this though.

Your question is flawed so the answers here are as well. You are over generalizing. Most martial arts are NOT specialized.

Chinese arts in all the variances at least to some degree address striking with all limbs, throws and to an extent locks and weapons.

Pankration is a mix of all ranges not too dissimilar from MMA.

Muay Boran (the non sport Muay Thai) still trains weapons.

South East Asian arts all have striking, some control/seizing and weapons.

African arts are mostly focused on weapons, but do have some unarmed aspects.

The issues you are referring to are more from 2 specific cultures. Japan and Europe. You need to ask why are these arts specialized? Japan is easy, it has always segmented its arts into distinct skills. Taijutsu, Bujutsu, Jiujitsu, kenjutsu, etc, etc. Though there is some cross-over. Like how old school karate actually did have some stand-up seizing techniques. But in the way the Japanese made distinct arts of everything (tea, flower arranging, etc) they segmented their various ranges. So then in turn in only makes sense that when their arts were transmitted to other cultures, that same segmentation progress (ie. Judo going to Brazil and becoming BJJ, TKD being influenced by Japanese occupation).

Then you have the Europeans. Greco/Roman wrestling and boxing. Where they split I don't remember. But it most likely had to do with demilitarization of the arts and becoming more sport oriented.

But to say all martial arts are specialized is false. Most aren't. It just so happens that the most marketed ones, are...

Nobody can be good at everything. One can only be a "complete fighter" in comparison to amateurs; you don't beat an subject matter expert at their own game.

The specialization of an art and the rules of friendly competition are two separate issues. NHB matches are generally banned because they are barbaric. Sports are governed by the rules of sportsmanship, not the rules of war. Once you have established the rule set, those who value winning competitions above all else will inevitably start "teaching to the test." Result: specialization.

One of many reasons why I like Bujinkan. It's a complete martial art. But I do have to say that I agree with Pugpaws2. Seems like everyone decided to write a book on the subject. lol.

I don't believe judo was anything other than grappling. Is there any evidence to suggest judo ever included striking?

i would read this but im inpatient..

From what I know of Judo it has remained close the what was taught originally. They have removed some throws that were later deemed too dangerous for competition. I recall one throw that I can't remember the name that was removed. There was this one 2nd Dan that used it often. He wasn't very good in my opinion. He was what we called a dirty fighter. What he was doing would have been perfect for self defense but not for competition. When doing this one throw you were supposed to trap or scissor the legs for the take down. However, on guy the he was struggling against he would intentionally attack their knees. Often they would be injured and couldn't continue. Therefore he would win by forfeit. I've seen him do it many times. I knew it was coming. A green belt from our school beat him and he ended up in the hospital with a broken collar bone from osoto maki komi. There are many injuries that occur from that throw, but it might have been an adrenaline rush.

Judo was born with the intent to remove many of the too dangerous techniques allowing more full contact sparring. BJJ was born out of judo with the emphasis on a smaller guy being able to beat a larger guy while still being able to spar full contact.

Jujitsu the father of judo and jujitsu you could not do full contact sparring. Competitions were banned because it was to violent in nature. Everyone one left injured. Some were killed while others were maimed. There person with the least injuries was likely the victor. In this art the idea is the break a bone or to tear someones ligaments and or muscles.

As for karate when taught correctly you include throws, take downs, and joint locks, etc but that is not part of competition. Again this would be considered to violent or inhumane. However there are some events that still allow some sweeps and take downs. You then have a second or two to perform a strike for the point or they will stand you back up. I've seem a few of those in the last 10 years but it was rare.

TKD from what I know is not exclusively kicks. It does have strikes, but you must have so many kicks to a strike or something like that. Most schools would not compete in open tournaments. I have seen a few schools try to compete that would compete before. They didn't do too well.

Today we have to worry about insurance therefore some instructors will not teach certain things. Other instructors simply do not know. Many open their own school after being award their 1st Dan. These are those that hope to make it rich by teaching martial arts. Poor guys..lol Then you have those that do not teach the art. Thy only teach for tournaments. The judge how good they are by how many trophies they can accumulate. This is the attitude that lead to growth of MMA.

Edit:

A friend of mines has his own school. I was a brown belt at the time. He opened this school as a 1st Dan. The heads of the organization that he belonged to at the time would come and visit him occasionally. They offered him little support but they made sure he paid his representation fees. He was preparing to test for his 2nd Dan. He asked my instructor to help him by teaching him some jujitsu. He knew I learning martial arts, but he didn't know this guy was also my instructor. My instructor asked me to go with him to assist him in teaching this guy some jujitsu. We were all shocked that we all knew each other, small world. He grew up watching my sensei and remember how great he was. As we started to teach he some very basic things he was like wow, why don't you go ahead and get your black belt seeing you know all of this? I explained rank didn't mean much to me. I just wanted the knowledge. Then he asked why don't my instructor open a dojo where he can make a lot of money especially with all of his knowledge. I explained that he does not charge and that he teaches those that might not be able to afford lesson as a way of giving back to the community. He always teaches us that at some point you have a responsibility to give back. It doesn't have to be in the manner that he does, but you should give back. This back belt had to demonstrate 3 scenarios on how to defend himself against 3 or 5 attackers. I don't remember which one. Then as we taught him some techniques he said something that surprised my sensei and I. He said let me write this down step by step. We were puzzled, but he explained that he has to bring his own attackers. They will use a scripted series of attacks for his demonstration. I couldn't believe it. My instructor would always do something unscripted. We never knew what was going to happen, but we knew we better prepared to defend ourselves. There were time when he turned the light out. We had to be shirts and skins. Shirts were on the same team and you had to fight in the dark. Then we taught him a few more basic things for him to use. He was excited. The next time I saw him he had went out of state to be tested. They were so impressed they awarded him his 2nd Dan and 4th Dan. I was amazed. He wasn't that good at doing those basic techniques but he fooled those grandmasters..lol It is my understanding that he was a very good competitor, but he should have been teaching his own school at that point in my opinion. Even today many of his student aren't that good, but they all have high ranks. They all pay well to get those ranks. He is very organized and he has since left the organization and in under no supervising board. My instructor still comes over to teach him but mostly he teaches some of his black belts. I go every now and then to help or to test one of his black belts.

Edit:

Non,

I think you misunderstood me.I'm not taking away from judo being a martial art. I completely agree with that statement. I'm aware of judo being used at the time and being taught to the police and military. I'm aware of the early struggle Dr, Kano had with his art and those of th jujitsu communities. I can tell you of the history of the competitions between to 2 in which those that used kodakan judo won. But I can also tell you of the ones they later started losing and had to modify the system in order to win. However, Dr. Jigoro Kano had a desire as an educator for this art to be taught in P.E. classes. Therefore changes had to made. Hence judo was born. Judo Ju - gentle. Do - way. The gentle way could be practiced and taught safely in schools. Being an educator and practitioner I have the background knowledge..

http://judoinfo.com/kano4.htm

Edit:

Non,

I m also aware of atemi waza (strike) in judo. In my class we were taught how to take a strike and use it the throw the attacker. We spent very little time preparing for tournaments. We spent most of our time focusing on perfecting technique and using proper kasushi. Tehn we worked on self defense. We were shown the difference in sports judo and judo. Even though we didn't practice for tournament I believe that we were successful in tournament because of our training methods. We were relaxed and more aggressive than most of the people we competed against. Personally I wasn't taught any strikes in judo. I've only seen them in judo kata when demonstrating weapons defenses using judo. When were used strike and elbows we were being taught jujitsu and how to defend ourselves against multiple attackers.

I am also aware of the early beginnings of judo when many in the martial arts community called judo and jiu jitsu they all called it jujitsu. It is my understanding the Dr. Kano want the name change to show difference and that judo more accurately described his art. There are still some that will say jiu jitsu and jujitsu is all the same. I met a gentleman a few weeks ago that still has the philosophy. He has been training with us since he moved from Chicago to St. Louis. While there are likenesses and the all have the same parent in jujitsu I would say they are different.

I think we were saying the same things, but we said it differently. I have argued in the past about judo being a martial art. Many people that were learning karate had problems with calling it a martial art. Some felt is was inferior to karate. they gave me argument on how they don't want anyone to put their hands on them. These same people never learned their full art and didn't know how to execute a throw or how to fall. They often get choked out is a few seconds by much smaller guys...lol hadaka jime :-)

It’s a very good question, Shiro Kuma, that I was thinking a lot about myself and will try to comment on this occasion (I don’t expect to give you complete answer).

It’s hard (if ever possible -:) to compete with Pugpaws2 on knowledge of modern state of things in MA development (especially here in the US). And I don’t want to.

However, I think this is addressing just one side of the coin. The other side is hidden in your question and pointed out (unfortunately not very articulate on this point) by Chris P: “Nobody can be good at everything”. Chris P continued with brief, but very comprehensive in my view, analyses of sport related specialization (“teaching to the test”) that I have nothing to add to, but to say that I’m completely agree and no one can say it better.

You question underlying assumption, Shiro Kuma, sound like those ‘complete’ MA styles are EVENLY complete. And I don’t believe that it is correct assumption (don’t catch me on word yet – I’m not sure that I’m phrasing it correctly, but I would explain).

From my view to be 'complete' for MA is means to cover all possible scenarios of defense and attack, but it doesn’t mean that all scenarios should be covered by the same exact means.

This how I understand Chris P “Nobody can be good at everything” statement: all people are physically different and each of us has his own strengths and weakness. So, development of MA from the very beginning was in line with specialization to accommodate different physical (and mental – people learning things different way too) qualities.

Yes, for true complete MA all elements should be present, but not on the same level: striking in Aikido (you know it’s better) rare if ever trained on the same level as in any Karate style, even atemi is a key element of many Aikido techniques (be it Aikikai or Yoshinkan or any other; by statement attributed to O’Sensei in real fight 80% is striking).

From the diversity of Martial Arts that we have (I’m not talking about combat sports such BJJ) every one picking one to his liking based on Art specialization and I don’t see it as a bad thing.

This is a link to a recent question that answered by Shaemus (best answer): ‘http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=At_8e... I think Shaemus’s answer illustrates my point.

This is specialization between hard and soft, internal and external styles (I know that division is blurry and styles are overlapping, but no one looks ready to dismiss this division altogether).

Now, in addition to this specialization the other one is takes place too: as Pugpaws2 correctly stated “change in lifestyles” makes MA less critical for individual survival. Much less critical, I would say, then retaining day job and maintaining financial sustainability. This leaves much less time for MA training (unless it’s a career chose) and forces to filter out what is not looks vital. This gives raze to self-defense (not MA) training like Krav-Maga (most widely known) that concentrates on most likely scenarios (and those scenarios differ from country to country and place to place witch makes bad name, for a good reason, for franchises that ignore it; even in the same place such scenarios aren’t completely static ether and changing with time). This self-defense-like approach makes inroads into “classic” MA training, as Pugpaws2 observed, and I don’t see it as good thing ether (because we’re loosing collective MA knowledge with it).

With sport specialization (as Chris P perfectly described) nothing bad, in my opinion, as it just “rules of the game”. The benefit is that perfection of the permitted (specialized) techniques going to a higher level and sometimes even going back into parent Martial Art (assuming that it is good validation filter in place not to delude MA with sport-only techniques – example is faulty promotion of BJJ for self-defense).

Comments:

‘Pig on a stuck of money’ – please, do search on Yahoo or Google (results are slightly different) on ‘judo for self defense’ or ‘judo for combat’ or anything alike to get answer for your question (or you can go directly to http://judoinfo.com/ or http://www.judo-for-self-defense.com,/ but it’s not the only sources).

ADDED:

Jwbulldogs – I’m sorry, but your information on Judo is incorrect: original Kodokan Judo is a Martial Art and not combat sport. It is complete combat system that was standard for Japanese military and police. When Dr. Kano created Judo from jujutsu the goal was not to “soften” it for competition, but to revive jujutsu as full power combat system while adding additional social value (character building) to help survival of the Art (!) in Japan of early 20th century (jujutsu was literally dying out). Terms “judo” and “jujutsu” where used interchangeably at least till end of WWII. Introduction of the competition as a training method wasn’t the only change, but it was a significant one – look links that I listed above and specifically http://www.judo-for-self-defense.com/kodokan-judo.... and historic pages on http://judoinfo.com./ Look Judo self-defense kata Goshin Jutsu on this link: http://judoinfo.com/katagosh.htm. Look how competition rules changed on this: http://judoinfo.com/rules2.htm. Note that weight categories in Judo where introduced in competitions only in 1964. “Flying scissors” where prohibited relatively recently (in 1980th; for no good reason, in my opinion) after one high profile broken ankle (need to check exact year and name of Japanese judoka, Olympic gold heavy weight – not on top of my head at the moment -:). I used it successfully without any damage many times (but I don’t see it as a mainstream combat technique as it should be continued on the ground and this is high risk proposition in self-defense where it’s never one-on-one).

ADDED:

Strikes used in combat Judo as atemi – the same way it used in Aikido. I didn’t mean to imply that Judo ever was full scope striking art (like Karate) even I may sound this way (sorry if I did). Judo was build from predominantly throwing oriented styles of jujutsu aimed for battlefield use by armored fighters where not much openings for punching and kicking. About use of atemi in Judo see http://www.judo-for-self-defense.com/judo-atemi.ht...

ADDED:

Jwbulldogs – I’m sorry for misunderstanding -:) I completely agree with your clarification. The only point, I will add, that such changes effectively created two branches of Judo: combat Judo and sport/educational Judo. The sport Judo effectively become “the Judo” in common understanding (due to its wide proliferation) and combat Judo generally faded from the public view. This creates questions like “If Judo ever included striking?” The creation of sport Judo can be seen as specialization in grappling, and it makes this discussion relevant to the question, posted by Shiro Kuma. However, from my view sport Judo and combat Judo is not the same thing (one is combat sport and one is Martial Art) and specialization in each of them has different sources.

I think the source of our misunderstanding is more in terminology than substance and I didn’t question your qualification – your entries into any discussion are always worth reading -:). Sorry if I offended you – it wasn’t my intention.

Thank you for your comments, Jwbulldogs, and I think they helped me to make my point of view clearer. Thanks again -:)