its paid sponsors, whose products you need!
“Stay ‘unreasonable.’ If you
don’t like the solutions [available to you], come up with your
own.”
Dan Webre
The Martialist does not
constitute legal advice. It is for ENTERTAINMENT
PURPOSES ONLY.
Copyright © 2003-2004 Phil Elmore, all rights
reserved.
Reality Check
By Phil Elmore
Me? A traditionalist?
Recently someone told me that I was “relentless” in my desire
to see traditional martial arts taken seriously as combative systems.
This surprised me. I don’t consider myself a traditionalist in any sense
of the word, nor am I particularly tied to or invested in a specific martial
tradition. I do hold in high regard the things I do and the arts in
which I train but only because they work.
“Tradition” isn’t a dirty word provided your
traditions test well against reality.
It is always fascinating to look at yourself from the outside.
I thought about the idea of traditionalism and my relationship to it for quite
some time. I’ve been accused of many things over the course of my online
punditry and pedantry. The profoundly stupid have called me a quasi- or
pseudo-intellectual. The followers of alternative combat systems have
accused me of sycophantic devotion to a single WWII Combatives instructor.
The unskilled have called me hateful and the self-absorbed have called me
arrogant. The unyielding have called me a liar and the unfeeling have
called me cold. The irrational have called me paranoid and the
hoplophobic have called me afraid.
I had never before been called a traditionalist,
however.
In the time I’ve used the Internet as a communications and
publishing medium, I’ve said, read, and seen a lot. I’ve seen
friendships born and destroyed, virtual communities rise and fall, loyalties
shift, lies told, truths revealed, hatred fed, hope born and dashed, wisdom
imparted, foolishness propagated, and every permutation and combination of the
preceding across a spectrum from mild to mind-numbing.
Over that time I’ve received a lot of mail and read a lot of
things to me and about me. (I’m not special in that regard. You’ve
done and read the same thing if you’re online.) Good friends with whom
I’ve disagreed have kicked me in the teeth. People I’ve despised have
surprised me and shamed me. People I didn’t know existed have praised me
and damned me and asked me for advice.
There is only one constant at the center of that dizzying storm
of words and war, of weakness and wealth. That, regardless of what you
may hear or think, is my honesty my firm conviction to approach the
martial arts with objectivity and an active mind.
I throw around the terms “combatives” and “martial arts” fairly
casually because I see the two as synonymous. To engage in combat with
another human being to use physical force is a science that, through
diligent study and training, can be elevated to the level of art.
Exponents of pure combatives the “Thug Fu” adherents whose
members dismiss all but the most elementary of violent mechanics (on the
ground that the rest is needness complication and delusion) are right
in their thinking. They are right because they measure what they do
and what they scorn against the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong:
reality.
To these men and women, the word “art” is somehow dirty.
They associate it with the impractical and the unworkable. There is much
ridiculousness in the martial arts community and therefore I cannot fault
combatives exponents for making such an association.
My Webster’s desk dictionary defines art first as “the ability
of man to arrange or adapt natural things or conditions to his own uses.”
Alternatively, it calls art “skilled workmanship.” These are both, to
me, the art of the martial arts: skill in adapting.
That is why I view the terms “combatives” and “martial arts” as
synonymous. I dismiss the unworkable as not “martial” at all.
Anything that works anything that can be “adapted to my own uses” is
viable as a martial application. As a result I try not to dismiss
anything out of hand without critical analysis, the hallmark of the active
mind.
I find myself, then, standing within two spheres of thought,
two martial philosophies, that sometimes intersect and sometimes do not.
I measure everything I do and everything in which I train against the
yardstick of reality. I find value in some traditional arts the
infighting system of Wing Chun Kung Fu, as well as the stick- and
knife-fighting of Kali and the Filipino Martial Arts in general, for example
and not in others. I modify components of my training to suit me and my
pragmatic, nontraditional goals.
I am speaking of myself because I can speak for no other
person. I would expect anyone reading this who seeks success in self
defense to do the same. I’ve published articles from contributors
with whose work I did not completely agree because I see value in the
exchange of ideas and the stimulation of thought. When I express an
opinion, I do so believing it to be well-reasoned. That does not mean,
however, that I will not listen if you try to persuade me to the contrary.
This, too, I expect from others. I place a high premium on such an
exchange.
At the same time, The Martialist truly is for those
who fight unfairly. A fair fight is no fight in which I want to find
myself. I’ll take every advantage I can get and employ every piece of
knowledge and training I can glean. I’m a pragmatist. I won’t look
down on any tool or piece of training if I think it can help me. I’m
also a realist. I won’t accept any tool or piece of training if I find
it ridiculous.
I often do find benefit in traditional methods and systems.
At all times, however, I integrate what I learn with practical combatives and
with a baleful eye on reality’s harshest limits.
It saddens me that there are people who take me more seriously
than I take myself. I won’t deny that it always causes me sorrow when my
willingness to get on this virtual soapbox, to tell you what I believe,
to share my experiences and those of our contributors, to dare to have my own
opinions and seek my own way, causes friction with those whom I respect.
Some disagree but remain silent. Others tell me honestly and
respectfully what they think. Still others resent the temerity with
which I presume to offer my thoughts in the field of self defense.
In the course of publishing The Martialist, I’ve gained
and lost friends. I’ve listened and I’ve spoken. I’ve been
surprised and unmoved, pleased and angered, happy and sad, prolific and
preoccupied.
I have not, however, been anyone but me.
Effective fighting is a function of content, not
origin.
The Martialist is not traditional and it is not opposed to
tradition. It is not ideological save in opposition to ideologies that
are self-destructive. It has only one guideline: success in
self-defense. It has many friends, but no individual can be
considered its enemy. It is my labor of love but it is your
publication.
We all share one goal: pragmatic preservation of our
loved ones, ourselves, and that which we’ve earned through our efforts.
That will always be the purpose of this publication.
Thank you for reading this and for supporting something very
important to me. If you find value here, you honor and flatter me.
I, in turn, offer you my respect and my friendship as a staunch supporter of
your right to defend yourself. We are all in this together.
Happy Holidays.