Ow ow ow...

Well, I took Capoeira last night and my feet hurt again. While I did not actually end up with bleeding feet as it was predicted to me, I did end up with feet that are very torn up. I don't have blisters: I have what happens when you do something that gets you a blister and then you just keep going, tearing the blister to shreds, and then rubbing the skin under that raw. It hurt a lot last night. This morning was pretty bad too, but after two walks today, the hurt has dulled a lot. Did I have fun? Would I have put myself through so much pain if I wasn't? I had a great time.

Now, however, I'd like to complain about a phrase I keep hearing and reading: "not combat effective." Other than Krav Maga, the official martial discipline of the Israel Defense Forces, I've heard that phrase applied to basically every martial art I've ever heard of. "Karate's great, but it's not combat effective." "Kungfu is great, but it's not combat effective." "MMA looks good for TV, but it's not combat effective." Let's just get this out of the way: every time someone says that or any variation on it (e.g. (Karate/Kungfu/Taiji/Taekwando/Akido/Jujitsu/Judo/Hungar/Hapkido/etc) isn't combat effective for (whatever reason)) this is what you should be thinking: BULLSHIT.

I've heard over and over that Karate is not combat effective. What a load of shit. I trained in Karate for fifteen years. I've seen Karatekas get into fights and win. I've seen Karatekas get jumped by several people and win. I know a pair of brothers who I worked out with each of whom was mugged by the same guy in the same night, and the first brother beat the crap out of him and the second brother put him in the hospital. Karate is, without any doubt, combat effective.

I've also heard that Kungfu is not combat effective. Putting aside the point that there are over a thousand modern styles of Kungfu, I've seen the results of Kungfu fights and they're no prettier than Karate fights.

Lastly, and lately, I've heard that Capoeira isn't combat effective. I'll grant that my new favorite martial art doesn't exactly look effective, what with all the jumping around and dancing and what not, but Capoeira is supposed to look innocuous. It was developed by slaves who were hiding their martial art in dance moves so that their owners wouldn't just kill them. But do you really think that a guy who can easily dance, kick, and do acrobatics for hours on end isn't going to be strong?

Will it help you in a fight? That's what answers if something is "combat effective". Will Karate help in a fight? Well, with the intense training, the pushups, the kata, you're strong, flexible, and fast. Also, depending on how long you've trained, you probably know a lot about anatomy and where to hit for maximum benefit. When you hit someone in an adrenaline pumping situation, it's going to hurt them. And who are you fighting? A soldier of an enemy army, or some jerk in a bar? More likely the latter. You're probably going to win.

Kungfu? Same basic story. You're trained, you're fast, you know how to move. You might know moves in animal styles that are designed to cripple your opponents. Use them in a bar fight and watch yourself win. Kungfu is absolutely combat effective.

Capoiera? Even with only having trained for two sessions, it is VERY clear that to be a Capoeirista you must be immensely strong. You're used to falling down a lot (a LOT) and getting kicked. You're incredibly fast, know how to play the distance game, and you kick like a fucking mule. Some guy in a bar throws a punch and you kick him in the face? He's going to lose teeth and the fight.

You might be wondering, "Who is the idiot telling you these things aren't combat effective?" The answer might surprise you: people in martial arts. Other than my Karate school and one of my Taiji teachers, almost every single martial artist I've ever known has dropped that line or at least said that whatever they were studying was better than any of the other options. Nothing frustrates me more than someone studying a martial art who looks at another art, say Karate, having never studied it, and then says something derisive about that style.

I have studied no less than seven martial arts seriously. If you consider all the other styles I've had experience with either through demos, workshops, a teacher giving me something new, etc, that number triples. I have studied all these arts, and you know what I think? It's all good. They're all combat effective. People are constantly trying to compare one to another and say one can beat another, but it's all nonsense. Sure a professional MMA fighter can probably beat any average Karateka, but can an MMA fighter beat a Karateka who trains as hard as the MMA guy? You can't just definitively say yes or no. The argument that the MMA is better on the ground and therefore means he'll win is a stupid argument since any Karateka worth his salt will either know what he's doing on the ground via Karate, or simply won't go to the ground at all knowing how to do that via Karate.

I'm not saying Karate beats MMA. Neither am I saying MMA beats Karate. I'm saying that all this macho bullshit "my martial art is better than your martial art" is a waste of time. It's no more useful than kids telling each other "my dad can beat up your dad". You want to tell me how Kungfu is better than Karate? Study Karate for as long as I have. Then, when you tell me that Kungfu is still superior, I might listen to you. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

Lastly, is the phrase Battlefield Effective. This I don't mind so much. Is Karate battlefield effective? No. Sorry, but modern armies employ machine guns, guided missiles, helicopters, tanks, battleships, and freaking laser weapons at this point. All of these martial arts I've mentioned fail in the face of an enemy army. Though armies do employ martial arts for hand to hand combat training, like the IDF with Krav Maga, the main thrust of fighting is with deadlier weapons. So talk shit about MMA, or Karate, or Kungfu, but on the battlefield you better pray you have an army with you and some goddamn guns of you're going to die. This phrase I don't mind hearing, mostly because I love imagining some douchebag who knows some martial art trying to jump kick a missile out of the air.

The point I've been laboriously avoiding is this: martial arts are combat effective. That's why they exist. No one martial art is better than another, because they're all good. Some may be more effective quickly, some may take a while, but you get no more out of a martial art than what you put into it. There are individual instructors or schools that may be less good than others, but the martial art itself is not to blame. Martial arts are good for you. Go, take, have fun. Just ignore the my martial art is better jingoism you're likely to run into. An open mind is always better than a closed one. Empty your cup.

Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.

Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring.

The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. "It is overfull. No more will go in!"

"Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"