was musing today about different curriculums and the purpose behind individual arts.
It would seem that to make Karate or Taekwondo a self defence system is, for want of a better term, relativley easy because that was its original purpose the sport application came later and argueably uses only a fraction of the arts' syllubus if any. By this i mean that the core of Karate was selfdefence it was then applied to fighting. People, like Iain, are now bringing it back to the origin.
However, what about arts who have their base in fighting/sports, how easy would it be for practioners and instructors of those styles to incorporate a self defence aspect.
In the past i believe that Iain has said that the cross over between sport fighitng and self defence is so small that it can be disregarded. My apologises if I am incorrect in this reference.
So for example, a person who is teaching Muai Thai and would like to bring a practical self defence side to some of his/her classes. How easy do you think the tranistion would be? how much would they have to leave behind? how much extra material would they have to study? would it get to the point that the amount of actual Muai Thai that was being done would be so small that they'd be better off studying a seperate art?
I used Muai Thai as an example but i feel the same question could be asked by people studying a number of different arts for example, maybe Judo, Eskrima, or Capioera may face similiar challenges.