The title is somewhat counter-intuitive. Everyone knows that Chinese martial arts never fared well in octagon, and Aikido does not even compete publicly. That makes the title effective to pique curiosity. I did pick up the book.
First, he points out that what we think as "martial arts" is a very limited part of the bigger picture in "martial arts".
When we think of "martial arts", it's in the boxing ring, in the octagon, in the cage or in a (limited) field. There will be two unarmed contestants. They fight following the rules, over a duration of usually limited time, and one emerges victorious according to the rules.
The author points out that we tend to believe an art or a champion is better than others, if the art or a champion fares well in a particular format. For example, Brazilian Jujutsu fared well in the octagon. Now we tend to believe BJJ is a good "martial arts".
Then he points out that "martial arts" have many different aspects. There are many different situations, in which you deal with;
one unarmed opponent
one armed opponent
two or more unarmed opponents
two or more armed opponents,
in a closed area (like ring or octagon where you cannot flee). or,
in an open area where you can run.
Moreover, "you" may not be one single person."You" may mean you plus someone else, like family member(s). In the case, they may be a liability in terms of fighting ability. Or, like in military or in gangs, they may be comrades in combat.
If you are armed or not, is also a changeable factor. Type of weapon (gun, knife, baseball bat, stone, belt, other environmental objects like wall, floor, chair, etc) is a factor, too.
Unless you are trained in some way, like in military, police, gang or mafia, peaceful civilian life can make you forget martial aspects of life.
After questioning our assumptions on martial arts, the author points out that these traditional martial arts, Chinese martial arts and Aikido, are products of different era and paradigm. In the older era, one-on-one, unarmed contest was rarity. "Martial arts" were actual means of combat between armed soldiers, police officers, or gangs.
From the viewpoint, the author reviews various techniques in Chinese Martial arts and Aikido, and shows that these techniques are, in fact, meant to be used in armed combat situations. A technique useless against boxing jab turns out to be designed to redirect sword or knife slice, and disarm the opponent in the following move. Some funky footwork in a forms sequence, which appears meaningless, are usable to move among multiple opponents, break away encirclement, and run for survival.
Many techniques in traditional martial arts are useful in the original situations such as armed combat and one-against-many. But we forgot how and when to use them.
We are conditioned to think a style effective in "one-on-one, unarmed, time and area-limited, and refereed" contest, as an effective "martial arts" style.
Perhaps, we may need to break this mental conditioning and see "traditional martial arts" from a different angle, with the original usage in mind. That was a major message in the book.
His argument was convincing enough for me to rethink my opinion. It helped me to broaden the scope of "martial arts". It is a joy of reading to find such books.
[A brilliant example of "martial arts"]
The author also asserts that fear and panicking are major performance disruptor, and it may take a few experience in tough situations to get over the fear and panicking. Probably the same goes for many different kind of performances, including dancing in public.
