Hello
how are all?
How many pure styles of Martial Arts? please quickle anwser me anywho read this question and who know this answer

How many pure styles of Martial Arts?

The answer goes from zero to infinity, depending on how one defines pure styles.

If martial arts is defined solely in terms of the arts used by the military, in today's world almost nothing is a pure martial art, where the world now uses planes, missles, guns and bombs, etc.

If you're defining pure style as systems which have remained unchanged over say the last 100 years, I also believe the answer is there are absolutely NONE in the world.

If you define pure style as systems alive, requiring effort from instrutors and students to meet changing conditions, then almost any system may be a pure style.

The quick answer depends on which definition you want to hear.

Respectfully,

Victor Smith
bushi no te isshinryu

Ask this question in the Martial Arts Talk thread and you will get answers, not only quick, but by the ******** load and probably start another flame war between Dullblade and Pyungshin.

Defining the word "pure" is like defining "best"

What is the best MA?

If you mean styles that were 'unadulterated' then none.

If you mean 'original' maybe.

If you mean 'complete' some.

If you mean 'perfect' none.

If you mean 'pure' i.e. without non-martial elements like philosophical / religious underpinnings, many.

As Bruce Li said -- we humans have only two arms and two legs and there is just so many ways you can use them in a fight. To be 'pure' i.e. never been seen or done before anywhere, anytime, you will have to grow an extra arm or leg.

If there was a war in heaven between Angels, maybe you'll find a 'pure' MA.

Sorry for waisting your time

I mean "original" and "complete".

No, you aren't wasting my time, its just the quick answer you're seeking doesn't exist.

As for how many arts are original and complete, the answers are about the same as I've quoted.

If you consider Shaolin trianing original and complete, I've read the Shaolin temple taught hundreds of forms. Nobody could learn but a fraction of them. Does that make original Shaolin incomplete because you only learn a few (say 50 to 100)?

Likewise in Okinawan karate, opinions of some of the members not withstanding, nobody can really prove what was original because there were no records kept, the training was oral and personal. Taking the oldest Okinawan from say 50 years ago, their word isn't proof that the training they offer was original. For there is no concrete proof. The only proof was that others accepted it as so, and frequently we find what others accept is often still wrong.

I'm afraid its up to you to describe in greater detail what arts you're interested in so others may offer their suggestion of an answer.

For myself I think the past, except for a general guide, is a very poor way to run an art. What ought to be important is whether the current training one can find is working today. And if it is, how it came into existence is relatively unimportant.

Peacefully,

Victor Smith
bushi no te isshinryu

Thank you very very much