Why Do People Believe That Traditional Martial Arts Are Fake?

Traditional martial arts often face criticism, with many enthusiasts and practitioners questioning their authenticity. Some even go as far as labeling these systems as 'fake.' This article delves into the reasons behind such beliefs and provides insights on how to evaluate these ancient arts more accurately.

Understanding the Cynicism

There is a perception among some that traditional martial arts instructors are frauds. This skepticism carries a strong emotional charge, with the belief that much of what is taught in these schools is merely busy work designed to consume class time without imparting any useful techniques. My own journey into martial arts included moments of doubt, as two instructors from the styles I studied confirmed that 90% of instructors are frauds. This assertion shocked me until I moved to a new area and sought instruction from four different schools, all of which ultimately failed to meet my standards.

Four Main Reasons for Cynicism

Despite the strong emotions involved, it's essential to approach this topic with an objective mindset. Here are the four primary reasons why some people consider traditional martial arts to be 'fake,' along with an exploration of each perspective:

Lack of Understanding

The first reason stems from the lack of deep understanding. Many people pass judgments based on limited experience or ignorance, making their opinions unreliable. Just as one cannot criticize the art of painting by someone who has never held paintbrushes, these uninformed individuals may fail to see the value and depth within traditional martial arts.

Inappropriate Evaluation

The second reason involves evaluating a martial system not according to its intended purpose. For example, battlefield combat systems like Karate or kung fu are often judged against the standards of combat sports like kickboxing or MMA. Such an evaluation would be like judging a fish by its ability to climb a tree. Traditional systems are not designed for sports or martial arts competition; instead, they are meant for personal and spiritual growth. Therefore, it is inappropriate to use standards better suited for combat sports to judge the effectiveness of these ancient arts.

Blaming the System for the Practitioner's Faults

The third reason involves attributing the shortcomings of a practitioner to the martial system itself. This is akin to blaming a wrench for a car's failure to make it to Hawaii or a plumber for not fixing a leak properly. Martial systems are tools designed to accomplish specific tasks. The perceived inadequacies of a practitioner should be attributed to their training, experience, or technique, not the system they are using.

Comparative Standards

The fourth reason involves evaluating a martial system in the context of individual achievements. For instance, when two boxers enter a ring, everyone accepts that one may be better than the other, rather than questioning the authenticity of boxing itself. Similarly, if one martial arts style outperforms another, it's important to recognize that this speaks to the skill and dedication of the practitioners rather than the system's authenticity.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while it's natural to have skepticism, it's crucial to approach the assessment of traditional martial arts with respect for their history, context, and intended purpose. Understanding these systems within their proper frameworks demonstrates a deeper appreciation for their rich heritage and reinforces the belief in their authenticity and value.