Good fighting VS Good MA

[red5angel]

I put up a thread similar to this elsewhere but thought here would be a good place as well.
Is it possible to be a good MA person but not a good fighter? If so, is this the way MA should be taught?
Obviously you can be a good fighter and not be a good MA person, but can it go the other way?

[apoweyn]

i think it comes down to this: one term is very open to interpretation (martial artist) while the other (fighter) is relatively cut and dry. if you say that someone is a good fighter, there is generally going to be a pretty clear measuring stick for that statement (once you've established a venue, that is). a good point fighter has presumably won a lot of matches. a good NHB or full-contact fighter has won a lot of bouts. a good streetfighter has persevered in a lot of altercations. etc.

but a good martial artist. the standards for that will vary because the definition will vary. for some people, it encompasses more spiritual, more, or artisitic elements. for others, the definition is essentially identical to 'good fighter.'

i suppose that for one, it's highly dependent on your values. for the other, your values aren't really the issue.


stuart b.

[red5angel]

But if you were a Martial artist, wouldnt that imply that you studied the arts of combat, or fighting?
I mean, I understand and totally agree with what you are saying Ap, but are you a good Martial artist if you cannot fight? Are we to accept that the word MArtial, even when tied into artist has been had a fundamental change to its meaning?
Should we maybe give the MA a different tag? Like the MArtial Way, for those who study the fighting arts?

[apoweyn]

i've always thought that the emphasis on martial was overdone, honestly. people drag out the dictionary and plonk down some definition like, "of or pertaining to war" and then carry on as if that were definitive. but it's really not.

art is, according to some definitions, interpretive and expressive. so personally, i prefer to define 'martial art' as a personal expression inspired or informed by combat. for some people, that inspiration will be less interpretive and more realistic. for others, the opposite is true.

look at other forms of art. painting, for example. the painting 'la guernica' pertains to war. but nobody gives the artist crap because it's an abstract piece and doesn't really look like war. it's the expression of an idea. and the artist would maintain that he had successfully expressed something of the essence of war in that picture.

now, when we get into more concrete terms (e.g., fighting, self defense), it becomes easier to dictate success and failure. defending yourself isn't interpretive really. if a school claims to teach fighting or self defense, i think they need to be able to back that up. but martial arts should be left open to individual interpretation.


stuart b.

[red5angel]

Agreed, terms need to be concrete to determine success or not. Would you say that the generl consensus in th eMA world is that Martial Art may no longer hae to do with having to do with war or combat?

[Maestro1700]

I disagree, for one the chinese believed the martial arts served multiple purposes..and they do but the main reason for any martial art system, or the main reason behind the founder is for self defense

but martial arts can be beautiful to watch..or exciting etc

so thats how and why boxing,kick boxing ie brutal fighting is so popular! throughout history people have loved to see "brutal" fighting, the greeks and romans did, we do nowadays with UFC and all that

then theres people who used taiji etc for presentation and..to be basically artistic fully that is..most all of these taiji dancers wouldnt have a prayer in a real fight, they might attain some of the health benefits..but they still will never master taiji or come close to what it really was designed for

so..what im saying is martial art systems or styles..whether they be asian..or european or whatever their main reason for being was to provide self defense, and later on things go along with these ma that make them even more beautiful than what they were once thought of

but i also dont think all systems of styles of ma are great or anyone who trains in them will have a huge advantage over an ordinary person..basically though this is what a ma is..to give a person a huge advantage over another person or persons in different scenarios etc some people just dont derive the combat skills from their martial arts..as they should be..they may be able to kick hard or punch through wood etc..but most of the time things like breaking a piece of wood(usually really weak wood) with your head or something..is just to boost your ego and confidence in your style etc
(im not saying external training is a crock thats not what i mean here)

an example of this is as follows;
a friend of mine who was in the army during vietnam knew a guy who was a TKD "master" he said he could jump up and kick the ceiling and all that, and he would constantly brag about it and how powerful he is with his kicks bla bla
and their was another guy who supposedly had grown up on the streets and was involved in fights his whole life..and when the TKD insulted him and challenged him the guy ran inside on him, worked his whole body and knocked him out in a matter of seconds..

now this could be for multiple reasons..but still a good fighter should have known when they were bragging and ****ing off a guy like this..and to challenge him that..well hes gonna come at ya, and thats just an example..im not saying TKD sux or anything..so sick of saying this kinda stuff everyone takes it so personally..but thats my example of the subject of this post..hope it helps

[apoweyn]

no, i don't think that's a consensus at all. and i don't honestly think it ever will be. perhaps it doesn't even need to be.

if we're going to get semantic about it ("of or pertaining to war"), then martial science is all about firearms, grenades, and what have you. you were a marine, right? so you have a grounding in genuine martial practice. but martial arts is something different.

the trick isn't to pin down a working definition of martial arts. the trick is simply to have an informed consumer. the problem has never been than MA1 is looking for a way to keep fit and learn about another culture while MA2 is looking for a way to restrain hostiles and defend himself. the problem is when one is lied to about being the other.

if the martial arts community could learn to be more honest with consumers and with themselves about what they do, much of the problem would be alleviated. but it's largely marketing. to hook parents, schools will put 'improves self confidence' as if it were magic. and that's nonsense. it can work, but it's not magic. it works on the same principles that improved self confidence works anywhere else.

same thing for claims of self defense. you aren't magically able to defend yourself or win fights simply by virtue of being a martial arts student. and we, as a community, need to be honest about that. too many of us aren't.

so to my mind, the problem isn't about driving out teachers that don't meet a given definition. the problem is educating people outside of the system to know what they're looking at and whether it's what they're looking for.


stuart b.

[red5angel]

I agree Ap - Education could be the key for the masses. Too many schools out there teaching an art plus jazzerboxercardiojumpasize. I have even seen wing chun schools who advertise health benefits, well there are some, but not what people are generally looking for!
But just between us martial artist. Lets say the terms are important, Would you describe your self as a martial artist? Would you want that to imply you can fight and fight well at you level?
I am not trying to turn this into a this is not a martial art, and this is argument. But it may be necessary to express some opinions on it. for instance, woudl you consider someone who does Tai Chi at your local YWCA/YMCA for health a martial artist?

[apoweyn]

maestro1700,


"I disagree, for one the chinese believed the martial arts served multiple purposes..and they do but the main reason for any martial art system, or the main reason behind the founder is for self defense"

odd. last week, the main reason for shaolin gung fu was enlightenment. now the main reason for shaolin gung fu (assuming that shaolin gung fu is, indeed, included in the phrase 'any martial art system') is self defense.

"then theres people who used taiji etc for presentation and..to be basically artistic fully that is..most all of these taiji dancers wouldnt have a prayer in a real fight, they might attain some of the health benefits..but they still will never master taiji or come close to what it really was designed for"

i'm not disagreeing with that. and those people would probably not refer to themselves as 'fighters' would they. but i'm saying that the solution is not to somehow prohibit them from thinking of themselves as martial artists. by your definition, they're not. and that's fine. in my opinion, they are welcome to refer to themselves that way. that doesn't mean i think they can fight. it doesn't mean i think they can defend themselves. it means that i respect their interpretation of a term that's inherently open to interpretation.

"so..what im saying is martial art systems or styles..whether they be asian..or european or whatever their main reason for being was to provide self defense, and later on things go along with these ma that make them even more beautiful than what they were once thought of "

and when that happens (the addition of aesthetic elements coupled with the general evolution of combat), the main focus ceases, in some cases, to be combative. take naginata-do for example. a polearm used on the battlefield. cutting-edge (pun intended) technology for the time. now, imagine a battallion of naginata wielders trying to stand up against virtually any modern military force in existence. can't see it, right? so while the original intent was combative, people training today aren't really combative. it isn't going to happen on the battlefield. it isn't going to happen in self defense. so am i going to tell them that they aren't in fact martial artists? no, i'm not.

"but i also dont think all systems of styles of ma are great or anyone who trains in them will have a huge advantage over an ordinary person..basically though this is what a ma is..to give a person a huge advantage over another person or persons in different scenarios etc "

so do we stop calling anyone who hasn't defeated someone a martial artist?

"a friend of mine who was in the army during vietnam knew a guy who was a TKD "master" he said he could jump up and kick the ceiling and all that, and he would constantly brag about it and how powerful he is with his kicks bla bla
and their was another guy who supposedly had grown up on the streets and was involved in fights his whole life..and when the TKD insulted him and challenged him the guy ran inside on him, worked his whole body and knocked him out in a matter of seconds.. "

okay. that martial artist was a tool. the public perception is that martial artists are all somehow more refined and wise than the rest of us. and it's nonsense. in truth, the martial arts are lousy with tools. that's not really the issue. this 'master' lost that fight. so i ask again: do we then stop calling everyone who's lost a fight a martial artist?

"now this could be for multiple reasons..but still a good fighter should have known when they were bragging and ****ing off a guy like this..and to challenge him that..well hes gonna come at ya, and thats just an example..im not saying TKD sux or anything..so sick of saying this kinda stuff everyone takes it so personally..but thats my example of the subject of this post..hope it helps"

yes, a good FIGHTER should have. i don't think we disagreed on this as much as you'd like to think, maestro.


stuart b.

[red5angel]

"and when that happens (the addition of aesthetic elements coupled with the general evolution of combat), the main focus ceases, in some cases, to be combative. take naginata-do for example. a polearm used on the battlefield. cutting-edge (pun intended) technology for the time. now, imagine a battallion of naginata wielders trying to stand up against virtually any modern military force in existence. can't see it, right? so while the original intent was combative, people training today aren't really combative. it isn't going to happen on the battlefield. it isn't going to happen in self defense. so am i going to tell them that they aren't in fact martial artists? no, i'm not. "


I would also like to point out that this is a specific example, a small part of an art? for example we in wing chun do the pole form. the chances of me actually getting into a fight while I am holding onto a spear is pretty slim. But what if I am holding onto a broom, or an oar? As a Martial Artist I explore all martial or combatitive options in everything I train. Should all MArtial Artist do this?

[apoweyn]

red5angel,

i do consider myself a martial artist. i don't want that to imply that i'm a good fighter or an expert in self defense.

am i either of those things? i don't know. the events themselves decide that sort of thing. i train in and teach martial arts. i try to do so with a slant toward realism. but until such times as i have more fight or self defense experience under my belt, i'll lay claim to the one title that seems to apply: martial artist.

what else would you call someone who's trained for 17 years but never once been in a fight?

the guy training taiji at the local YMCA? it's a good question. i suppose i'd consider them a martial artist, yeah. question is what would they consider themselves? if they're doing it strictly for health purposes, then perhaps their practice genuinely isn't informed by or inspired by the idea of combat. in that case, you could make a pretty strong case for not calling them a martial artist.

but i guess that's my point. there's grey area in that term. there's room for it. but in the terms 'fighter' and 'self defense expert' there's far less. or there should be.


stuart b.

[red5angel]

Thats an excellent point about experience. If you have trained your whole life but never fought, how do you know if you do it well? But then are you a martial artist? Should you try as a martial artist to fight?

[apoweyn]

red5angel,

actually, i don't think that naginata-do is part of a bigger art. i daresay it does get practiced in conjuncture with other arts often enough. but i don't think (and feel free to correct me if i'm wrong) that it's considered an inherent part of another style in the way that wing chun pole is a part of wing chun. naginata-do is taught as a distinct art where wing chun pole isn't.

anyway, i'd say that the ability to improvise your pole tactics with a broomstick certainly qualify you as a martial artist and additionally as a good fighter (assuming you're doing so in a combat situation). but if a person has trained faithfully in naginata for years and years, but has never fought, they still qualify as a martial artist, to my mind.


stuart b.

[apoweyn]

"Thats an excellent point about experience. If you have trained your whole life but never fought, how do you know if you do it well? But then are you a martial artist? Should you try as a martial artist to fight?"


my opinion: yes you're a martial artist. you've devoted yourself to the study of an art inspired by or based on the art of personal combat.

should you try and fight? well, i leave that up to the individual. most of us fight in some way. (i believe sparring is very important.)

me personally? well, certainly, i wonder whether i could win a streetfight. i'm not going to go looking for them though. as for 'realistic' training experiences, i personally like them. stickfighting, boxing, etc. i'm slowly getting into a bit of grappling (courtesy of merryprankster). so it's a priority for me. but i regard that as a personal choice.



stuart b.

[Liokault]

Being a good fighter,being good at a martial art and being good at self defense can be totaly differant things or can be related to each other.

I have met guys who sucked in class but were very good fighters.

I have also met very good martial artists that in reality could not fight.

Even a good fighter is not nesecerily good at self defense as theres more to it than fighting ability.

AND sparring is not fighting. Even full contact fighting against some one who wants to win is not the same as fighting OR self defense.

[apoweyn]

liokault,

agreed on all counts.

weren't expecting that, were ya. :)

[red5angel]

Ap - I think what it comes down to in general is that it is very hard to define what makes a martial artist, much less what makes a good martial artist. If we settled on the idea that it is someone who is training to fight, then those that are not training to fight would be offended. the combination of those two words, martial, and art make it confusing, especially in a day and age where 'law' rulkes over the land and many poeple do not have to fight for survival on almost a day to day bases.

[apoweyn]

red5angel,

nicely said. i think that about sums it up.


stuart b.

[red5angel]

"I have also met very good martial artists that in reality could not fight"

Liokault - would you mind explaining this a little?

As for self defense vs fighting, What if I said that a good martial artist should be able to defend him/herself? Or should they?

[apoweyn]

i suppose the difficulty in that question is that there's no real way of answering it without advocating that martial artists go out and get into real streetfights. and even then, the question isn't aptly answered unless it was a genuine life-or-death fight (as opposed to some friday night p*ssup).


stuart b.

[red5angel]

You are correct sir!

[Liokault]

"I have also met very good martial artists that in reality could not fight"

Liokault - would you mind explaining this a little?

As for self defense vs fighting, What if I said that a good martial artist should be able to defend him/herself? Or should they?

Ok if we are calling Wushu danceing a martial art then i have seen many nice fast forms done by guys who have never hit a bag or done any real resistance training or sparring.

I have also met black belts in traditional styles who thought that they were good till the first time they came and tried to fight full contact....the first time you get hit in the head hard is something of a shock for them.


Also a good martial artist is not nesecerly good at self defense as no matter how fast he or she is or how hard they can hit if they think its ok to get drunk then walk down dark alleys or be totaly unaware of their surroundings then they are not good at self defense (this is obviousley only a small example).



Again good martial artists are not nessecerly good at fighting as they may be great at sparring with a guy who is interested in his defense but put them against a guy who is just going to walk forwards hitting to the head and is not worried about taking a few hits them self. This same guy will not even probably make the martial artist aware that any hitting is about to take place.

[yenhoi]

I dont consider myself a martial artist - yet.

At the moment I am a individual engaged in personal combat TRAINING. I train for different ranges of personal combat. I train "realistically' - whatever that really means - I deal with knives, sticks, firearms, fists and other bodyparts.

I can break bones and draw blood and fight, and Im sure eventually I will be a Martial Artist when my skill at combat becomes an art.


However, I agree with ap, and specially take intrest in his definition of Martial Artist:

"art is, according to some definitions, interpretive and expressive. so personally, i prefer to define 'martial art' as a personal expression inspired or informed by combat. for some people, that inspiration will be less interpretive and more realistic. for others, the opposite is true. "

nicely said.

[Mantis9]

Let me take a crack at this.

I think Martial Artist aspire to be educated combatants. Fighter don't. A good analog to illustrate the difference might the difference between a car engineer and an auto mechanic. Both have a running knoweledge of cars, but one designs and attempts to foresee and therefore eliminate problems with a car, and the others gets his hands greasy fixing the problems.

At the elemental level their both the same, but look at the situation from a different vantage.

Anyway, I've got to go. I shouldn't have started this, because I have so much more to say about it. I'll try the add later.

Good thread.

[omegapoint]

I agree! Cool thread. I think that in this modern age where the term fighter = a MMA, the words say it all. The terms martial arts and martial science have often been used interchangeably. The distinction, between MAs as "dao" (in Japanese "do") or the philosophical "way" and MAs as a purely combative science or defensive/offensive "art" (in Japanese "jutsu"), is often vague. That aside they both use the precepts of war as a means to fight the battle that rages in us all.

A lot of us will never have to fight in a street fight. The people who accomplish that are, in a way, one step ahead of many of the MAs "Masters", past and present. The aim of most martial arts is awareness, self-confidence, smart noninjurious training, camraderie, enhanced physical/mental health, self-preservation, preparedness, discipline and a myriad of other adjectives. Most traditional "masters" could fight very well. Many lived to be beyond 80, before the turn of the 20th century. I'd say they got the self-preservation part right, for sure.

Some people get into martial-related sports as a means to defend themselves and to test their mettle. That's another path to self-identity. I would classify these individuals as more "Marticians" (a la Robert Smith) than Martial Artists. Great technicians of fighting principles. I think they probably have just as good a chance to defend themselves on the streets against some untrained or even moderately trained or experienced ruffian, as an advanced practitioner of a good classical or traditional style. Do they need the philosophical underpinnings in order to be considered "martialists" or martial artists or scientists?. Ask any Mixed-Martial Artist what he thinks, and I'm sure he will say the answer is in the name. Will any of these people that train in martial sports like Shidokan, Muay Thai, full-contact karate, wrestling, boxing or whatever be able to use their fighting techs when they are 60+ like they could in their 20s-40s? I don't know. Prob not. Modern asian combat sports are a recent phenomenon. Will these sports masters live to be a healthy, fully functional, uncrippled 80+? Modern medicine says probably not.

Train for you.

P.S. I consider GJJ a Martial Art/Science. Helio Gracie is almost 90, and he still does his stuff very effectively!