Are the skills of the contemporary martial artists inferior compared to the martial arts masters centuries ago?

let me put it this way:

a USMC sniper team would likely kill every samurai that ever lived before the samurai even knew what was going on.

hypothetically knowledge SHOULD improve, technology SHOULD improve.

however, depending on how one trains, many people today don't train with the mentality to fight for combat. (and take out the obvious technology improvements in weaponry)

i wouldn't imagine there were too many hobbyists back in the day.

today we have teh POTENTIAL to be better and by all means we should, but depending on the context and the art in question i don't see that in all cases we would be since there are not always pressure testing outlets for all arts on the same level.

its really hard to say that you can't really generalize.

by all rights we should be, but youhave to take into context that most people today are hobbyists and don't train to fight and kill the way martial arts (aka fighting) were originally designed for.

and there is no cause for this- again however, balance that against the building on past knowledge and the loss of past knowledge and the dilution of it through poor masters and not testing it to learn it properly and the intensity and desire of the student and the societal context that learning to fight actually fits in, and its really anyone's guess to the point that i don't think you can generalize one way or the other.

Who knows? There is no video of these artists, all we have is their writings and anecdotes or legends.

There isn't even video of Chuck Norris when he actually competed in his prime so we cannot judge how good he was then.

no. Modern masters are probably more dangerous and well trained than ancient masters for a few reasons:

- knowledge has a tendency to grow, not diminish. The master's duty is to teach students to surpass the master.

Exposure - modern masters have been exposed to more people, other masters, outside techniques, and training methods which would have been impossible 200 years ago. This further increases the knowledge base of the masters.

- physical attributes. Nutrition and medicine lead to stronger, bigger, and longer living individuals. All other things being equal, the bigger guy wins.

- scientific and technological advances. Modern protective equipment, weaponry, and armor is lighter, stronger, more comfortable and more durable than the ancient equivalents. In a weapons based battle, the modern master wins by virtue of superior "stuff". Plus with protective gear they can train harder and more realistically than the masters of the past with less risk of injury or death.

I think that some legends of the ancient masters made them seem more than they really were. These men were great minds, great masters, great fighters, and great leaders, but as things go the legend can surpass the man. I'm not saying that this is the case every time, but sometimes it certainly is.

the people that took martial arts a century a go or so had a different mind set. martial arts was not point fighting or a sport. many of them were fights to the death.
when you had a student that training with you, you didnt have to worry about him suing you because he sprained his ankle or something stupid like that. in some case they were lucky if they could find a good instructor.
if you look at the titles of the famous karate instructors 99% held a title of peichin class(samurai), a noble rank they were not pesetas, or farmers. a good portion of them worked in the castle. and were the kings body guards.
or the were an office of the court, or were more like a high ranking police officer.
fighting a person and fighting a person to the death are to different mind sets.

in many case you are comparing people that were trained soldiers did in the past to what civilians are training using martial arts to defend themselves on the street.

Hi there

Its like comparing soldiers to modern day re-enactment actors!

Theres so many things wrong with this question that theres no point to it! The mindset of a soldier vs the mindest of a sportsman?

Id stick to reading MAI or BBM if i was you.

Best wishes

idai

Thought of it my self but thats really really really hard to know. Why?
There is nothing solid to compare them with. Just pictures and writing maybe. We have no way of seeing how fast or well they moved or how hard they hit.

Thus I don't concern myself with this much. I am sure however they used more dangerous techniques. (eye strikes, throat) compared to today where we seem to focus more on control in order to avoid harming the other person or getting in trouble with law.

Be interesting if we could compare, no?

Most martial arts in the past was very focused on specifics elements. I dont want to say one-dimentional, but they were pretty close.

Bruce Lee invented his own style called Jeet Kune Do. With this style he basically "borrowed" all the best elements from all the other styles and turned them into one. The best punches, kicks, etc.. etc... This was one of the first times a martial art started to "mix"

Now we have the classification of MMA which embodies any and all types of mixed training. It would be ridiculous to have to think of a new name everytime someone thinks of a new combination.

Most skilled MMA artists (present) will defeat the old style martial arts, mainly because a true MMA artist has more tools up his sleeve. We have seen proof of this when one dimensional fighters fight in the UFC (or even someone like Gracie coming back to fight Matt Hughes)

Although, with all that said, Lyoto Machita just won the UFC title belt and his primary skill is Karate.... Although he has strong Ju Jitusu, so he would still be classified as a MMA Artist.