Forgetting the "Martial" in "Martial Artist"

[Sharp Phil]

Thought the folks here might enjoy this.

Forgetting the "Martial" in "Martial Artist" (http://www.philelmore.com/martial/martialout.htm)

[apoweyn]

Good article. More thoughtful than a lot of the arguments I've seen on the subject.

But I'm not a huge fan of this position in the first place. I think you make a good point about people's realistic (or less-than-realistic) views of what we do. At the same time, highlighting dictionary definitions of the word 'martial' is a tired tactic, in my opinion. We all know it means 'pertaining to war.'

To my mind, on this forum at least, the bias lies with the martial approach. In theory, at any rate. People here are more likely to side with the combative camp, by and large. (Granted, their interpretations on what that means will vary from person to person. But we don't tend to get a whole lot of arguments about moral authority, the spirit of budo, etc.)

Here's my thing: There are people who strike me as paranoid or unrealistic in their assessment of life as a daily struggle for survival. And there are people that infuriate me with esoteric discussions about bushido and martial virtue. But whatever. If some guy got the ever-loving crap kicked out of him and said, "enough's enough", who am I to tell him that he's being paranoid and unrealistic? Likewise, if a person's never had a fight in his life (like me) and trains because the cultural aspects of the study fascinate him, then who am I to tell him he should be more 'martial'?

This is where, in my opinion, the word 'art' gets downplayed. Art is interpretive and expressive. An artist gives shape and form to his own thoughts and priorities. And just like an abstract painter is going to come up with a very different depiction of a bowl of fruit than a realist might, different martial artists are going to have different depictions of their martial arts. Some will be less 'realistic' than others. And as far as I'm concerned, that's their prerogative. If a person is happy with their work, then that's all that matters. What we do is an art that's inspired by the subject of personal conflict. The degree to which an individual artist faithfully recreates that subject is up to that individual (just as it is with any other sort of art).

I think the real problem is honesty. With oneself. If someone spouts off about this 'martial' or 'combative' viewpoint indicating a lack of self esteem, naivete, or overt hostility, then the real question is, "do you say that because you believe it or because something about that view intimidates you?" And if it does intimidate that person, why? Is it fear? Or is it a genuine moral abhorrence?

People are bound to have differing viewpoints on the subject of violence and how it fits in to what we do. The important thing, I think, is that we learn to distinguish between what we believe and what we hide behind in order to avoid addressing something else. And I'm sure that there are members of both camps that are guilty of that.

For a long time, I bought into the whole "learning to fight so you don't have to fight" viewpoint. But the truth is that I clung to that viewpoint because I was afraid of getting hurt, embarrassed, etc. It was very easy to tell myself that I was doing right by an idealistic framework held by warriors through the ages. But when I was being totally honest with myself, I knew that much of that was avoidance. Well supported avoidance.

It's very easy to align ourselves with different camps in order to avoid going through the experiences and making our own judgments about fighting, realism, morality, etc. Whether we address our fears by aligning ourselves with NHB badarses or enlightened 'scholar warriors', the net effect is the same. We haven't done the legwork ourselves. And, in my opinion, that's no good.


Stuart B.

[yenhoi]

Dunno 'bout the article, but ap sure has alot of words to type!

:D ;)

Im in the kickass camp. Kick st00's ass.

:eek:

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by yenhoi
Dunno 'bout the article, but ap sure has alot of words to type!

:D ;)

Im in the kickass camp. Kick st00's ass.

:eek:


Where's the love? :)

[Robinf]

The article is interesting and Ap, you make some good points.

I have another point about "martial arts." There is the claim that it promotes discipline. But, doesn't it also promote a military obedience? Martial arts isn't just to learn combat, but it is to build a military. Militaries are to show might and to use might. That, to me, trickles down to the individual. Martial Arts builds that kind of obedience to the leader and to the use of might.

Sorry, I'm not quite as eloquent right now as Ap or the article, but my boss keeps popping up behind me and it's hard to write like that.

Robin

[red5angel]

Im in the kickass camp. Kick st00's ass.

You have to put him in a dress first....

Stil reading the article but I think Ap is pretty accurate in his opinion.

[apoweyn]

Robinf,


Originally posted by Robinf
The article is interesting and Ap, you make some good points.

Cheers.


I have another point about "martial arts." There is the claim that it promotes discipline. But, doesn't it also promote a military obedience? Martial arts isn't just to learn combat, but it is to build a military. Militaries are to show might and to use might. That, to me, trickles down to the individual. Martial Arts builds that kind of obedience to the leader and to the use of might.

Well, it certainly can create a sense of obedience, yeah. I think that depends a lot on the school. Martial arts haven't served a truly military function in a very long time. And that shift has certainly filtered down to some degree over the years.

But yeah, there's still a very real sense in which the priorities of the teacher (whether those be combat, sport, health, etc.) can become the priorities of the student.

Ideally, the teacher will emphasize free thought (in my opinion). In this day and age, martial artists don't need to be unquestioning soldiers. On the battlefield, there wouldn't have been much time for the questioning of orders. And obedience would've been a premium. Today, I don't see as much reason for that sort of setup. Not to say it doesn't still happen. But even 'combative' programs are now dealing more with individual preservation than military coordination. In that case, the individual needs to be able to make personal judgments regarding the situation.


Sorry, I'm not quite as eloquent right now as Ap or the article, but my boss keeps popping up behind me and it's hard to write like that.

Not at all. I think you've raised a good point. The teacher teaches according to his priorities. A student should probably give thought to whether his own priorities fall in line with those.


Stuart B.

[dwid]

I have another point about "martial arts." There is the claim that it promotes discipline. But, doesn't it also promote a military obedience?


This is a disturbing facet of some schools. I think its characterized in practices such as forcing students to memorize useless information for testing, engaging in excessive displays of respect, a general intolerance to questioning the effectiveness of any technique, and punishment such as pushups for any failure to follow the often idiosyncratic procedures involved in each class.

These disturb me, I suppose, because they are essentially some of the same methods the military uses to extract blind obedience from recruits, and it serves no purpose in a martial art class other than to condition students to be blindly devoted to the instructor.

[Budokan]

Ap's insightful and thought-provoking post was better than the article. Good work!

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by Budokan
Ap's insightful and thought-provoking post was better than the article. Good work!

Cheers Budokan. I appreciate that.

[rin]

I agree with the article. Those that study martial arts need to remember the roots of their arts. It is based in fighting. It is not about learning forms, just so you can do pretty things to impress your friends at parties. Trying to take the moral high ground by walking away from a fight, and not starting one, is of course, a mentality we should all practice. But it is impossible to try to make a split second judgement about the intentions of three guys jumping you from behind on the street. I am not saying that we should fall back on fear- but if someone attacks me unprovoked on the street- I have to assume that a) he is armed and b) he means to kill or rape me. At that point, no holds barred. I think it is naivete to assume that at three in the morning in a parking garage, a guy with a knife deserves my "respect". Or that you can neccessarily avoid every bad situation. Chances are you will never face that dread scenario, but if you ever do, and turn out to be the stupid heroic type. It could be your last.

[apoweyn]

Rin,

You've got a point. But I don't think anyone's suggesting that we adhere to the 'fighting without fighting' idiom once things escalate that far.

If you're staring down three thugs in a darkened parking lot in the wee hours of the morning, I think everyone can agree that it's on. And that the time for philosophical vagaries has passed.

Whatever we're debating, I think it occurs before that. What do you think?


Stuart B.

[Vapour]

Originally posted by apoweyn
Rin,
If you're staring down three thugs in a darkened parking lot in the wee hours of the morning, I think everyone can agree that it's on. And that the time for philosophical vagaries has passed.

Whatever we're debating, I think it occurs before that. What do you think?


Stuart B.

I once read a article by someone who grew up in very rough neigbourhood. He stated that tough guys in the hood always run when **** hit the fun not because they are coward but they put their safety and life first and don't go out their to prove size of their ****.

Large part of the self-defence is not physical. You shouldn't put yourself in the situation where you're staring down three thugs in a darkened parking lot in the wee hours of the morning in the first place.

People, who rant about how invincible they are, are idiots who are likely to get themselves killed when real self-defence situation arise. They often actively enage in behaviour which put them in dangerous situation and often escalate such situation because of their idiocy.

Another idiot is the one who freeze when similar situation arise. Both I'm-****ing-invincible and Oh-please-don't-hurt-me type are trapped in their fear and thus puting themselves in danger.

Large part of the benefit of martial arts training is mental rather than physical. Firstly, you know what you can and can't do physically. Secondly, because you know your capability, you can sensibly avoid situation which put youself in danger and lastly, when **** hit the fun, you won't freeze and start thinking.

[apoweyn]

Vapour,


Large part of the self-defence is not physical. You shouldn't put yourself in the situation where you're staring down three thugs in a darkened parking lot in the wee hours of the morning in the first place.

Amen.


Large part of the benefit of martial arts training is mental rather than physical. Firstly, you know what you can and can't do physically. Secondly, because you know your capability, you can sensibly avoid situation which put youself in danger and lastly, when **** hit the fun, you won't freeze and start thinking.

In theory, yes. In practice, I've frozen before. Good thing, as it turned out. If I hadn't frozen, I'd have decked an undercover cop.

But I get your point, yeah.


Stuart B.

[Robinf]

Vapor,

Excellent retort.


Large part of the benefit of martial arts training is mental rather than physical. Firstly, you know what you can and can't do physically. Secondly, because you know your capability, you can sensibly avoid situation which put youself in danger and lastly, when **** hit the fun, you won't freeze and start thinking

First, ahmen. And my sentiments exactly.

It does, indeed, depend on your point of view what you take away from it. And the training to react is part of the martial art. If you want violence, then the mental part of your training will be fixed to learning to be violent on contact. If you want non-violence, then your training will teach that mental part of you how to avoid violence.

But, all in all, the martial in martial arts is the violent aspect. What people gleem from their learning, violence or non-violence, is personal mental disposition.

Robin

[rin]

My last post was mostly in response to some art forms that teach a strict philosophy of "defensive maneuvers only" After two years of TKD some time ago, in which the teacher taught to kick to get distance and then run away, it occured to me- How do I know that I can outtrun the bad guy? Isn't it better for me to make sure the bad guy cannot move, through one way or another before I disengage? That is the kind of philosophy that I was debating. And as for don't put yourself in a garage @ 3:00 AM. I live alone in the city, and I work nights. Parking garages at 3 am are a daily thing. Caution, yes, but this isn't a "bad things don't happen to smart people" kind of world.

[Vapour]

Originally posted by rin
My last post was mostly in response to some art forms that teach a strict philosophy of "defensive maneuvers only" After two years of TKD some time ago, in which the teacher taught to kick to get distance and then run away, it occured to me- How do I know that I can outtrun the bad guy? Isn't it better for me to make sure the bad guy cannot move, through one way or another before I disengage? That is the kind of philosophy that I was debating. And as for don't put yourself in a garage @ 3:00 AM. I live alone in the city, and I work nights. Parking garages at 3 am are a daily thing. Caution, yes, but this isn't a "bad things don't happen to smart people" kind of world.

The thing about defensive maneuver aside from running away is that you still have to engage in fight. O.K. you might break his knee but I would rather not find out what he is hiding in his pocket. Anyway, I can try such manuever when he managed to corner me in the alley.

Since you can't avoid going into car park at the middle of the night, you could pay attention to where you park the car. Plus, you should pay attension to where possible attacker could hide and sneak up on you so the moment you entered the car park, you know where to watch out. Another thing you could keep in your mental note is which direction you could run away.

The same thing with you house. There are lot of sensible personal safety book out there which tell you what kind of precaution one can take to avoid intruder as well as how to be street smart. If you live in ****-happen kind of world, my recommendation is to read some of these books.

I'm not saying all martial arts techniques are useless. I'm saying that those technique should be put into much wider context of personal safety rather than thought of it as combat techniques.

I came across a site about personal safety and self defence while ago. Most of my idea presented in this comment I got it from there. I will look for it and send you the link.

[iron thread]

Vapour,

Your last post makes you seem paranoid.

[ZIM]

Its interesting to me that some people get into martial arts with one mindset and come out of it with another sometimes. Maybe they lose their stomach for fighting [akin to hunters losing taste for killing, I suppose] or maybe they get more into it...

The article was very good, BTW. To me, it just said the obvious: fighting is fighting, not a momentous moral choice. 'Repent at leisure...'

Anyhow, its good to do MAs because at least you can see for yourself, in a real way, what you are repenting of, if that becomes your choice. I don't fault people for choosing that [not focusing on fighting] if they do- its just not what's being studied.

[rogue]

I hate alot of fighting, but I really like sparring, training is challenging and the self defense comes in handy. At least that's where I am right now with the martial arts. If that's not martial enough than so be it.:)

[LeeCasebolt]

iron thread -

Paranoid's a matter of where you live. I grew up in a small town in Iowa, where I was perfectly safe leaving my house and car unlocked overnight. I quit that as soon as I went to college (Macomb IL is no sprawling metropolis, but 20,000 college kids is a sure recipe for petty crime). Working late nights in northside Springfield IL convinced me to start paying a lot more attention to things like where I park and who's around when they probably shouldn't be. I imagine taking the step up to, say, Chicago or LA would likewise make me a little more aware of my envirornment.

Sometimes, they really are out to get you.

Lee Casebolt

[Goldenmane]

Ap said:


Art is interpretive and expressive. An artist gives shape and form to his own thoughts and priorities.

From what I understand, this is a very different definition of the term "art" than what it used to mean. Art used to mean, basically, skill.

Hence, "martial arts" = "skills of war"

The defining of the word "art" to carry the extra baggage pertaining to "interpretation and expression" gives it too much weight, in my mind, and a bias that lends itself to the phenomenon of the "martial artist" who has no real ability to fight... but they can look pretty.

People will interpret and express anyway. This is a large part of the use of any skills. But "art" is simply the use and ownership of skills... the fact that they are used to display personal perspectives and viewpoints should not be confused with the skills themselves.

Hell, in the old ways, one would not be called a martial artist, but a student of the martial arts, or arts of war, or perhaps an adept in the martial arts... if you were a sculptor, perhaps an adept in the art/s of sculpting.

So from this, it may appear that "martial artist" is just a poorly understood/phrased way of saying "warrior".

See, "sculptor" = "one who sculps", "painter" = "one who paints", "warrior" = "one who wars".

I am not a martial artist. I am a student of the skills of war.

Poor student, perhaps, but nevertheless...

-geoff (yeah, I know... that wasn't as coherent as it could be)

[Vapour]

Originally posted by iron thread
Vapour,

Your last post makes you seem paranoid.

Am I? :) I'm just saying that I take care of myself If I ever *have to* go into dark alley or abandoned car park alone.

And making sure one lock your doors and windows or not displaying anything valuable from your car or house is a common sence.

[apoweyn]

Goldenmane,


From what I understand, this is a very different definition of the term "art" than what it used to mean. Art used to mean, basically, skill.

Hence, "martial arts" = "skills of war"

The defining of the word "art" to carry the extra baggage pertaining to "interpretation and expression" gives it too much weight, in my mind, and a bias that lends itself to the phenomenon of the "martial artist" who has no real ability to fight... but they can look pretty.

Well, I'm not really trying to 'attach baggage' to the term. I'm just trying to use it in a way that reflects real life. If you stopped a thousand people on the streets and asked them, dictionary aside, whether there was a difference between skill and art, I believe they would say there was. Further, I believe that they would identify the difference as the interpretive and expressive aspects of one over the other.

In any event, semantic arguments are never really all that compelling in the first place. It's why I always cringe whenever someone cuts and pastes the definition of 'martial' into one of these discussions.

That said (and hypocritical though it may be): 'Of war.' Not 'of brawling.' Not 'of self defense.' Of war. And let's be honest. Martial arts haven't been used in war for an age.


People will interpret and express anyway. This is a large part of the use of any skills. But "art" is simply the use and ownership of skills... the fact that they are used to display personal perspectives and viewpoints should not be confused with the skills themselves.

Well, okay. Let's go with that definition. Use and ownership of skills. The flashy dude with the tournament trophies and the glow-in-the-dark kama has skills. How martial they are is a question, obviously. But I still maintain that that's an understanding people have to come to on their own. Musical forms drive me bonkers. But I'm still going to chalk that up to personal preference rather than some violation of the definition.


Hell, in the old ways, one would not be called a martial artist, but a student of the martial arts, or arts of war, or perhaps an adept in the martial arts... if you were a sculptor, perhaps an adept in the art/s of sculpting.

So from this, it may appear that "martial artist" is just a poorly understood/phrased way of saying "warrior".

Well, the word 'warrior' comes with a lot of baggage too. But I get your drift. If martial arts where, at one time, genuinely martial (used on the battlefield), then they'd have been called 'soldiers' perhaps.


See, "sculptor" = "one who sculps", "painter" = "one who paints", "warrior" = "one who wars".

Well, yeah. And I don't debate that definition of warrior. I keenly support it. I think that calling yourself a warrior without any direct experience of the military (or some comparable experience) is a bit silly. But that's different from martial arts in this day and age. Or I think it ought to be.


I am not a martial artist. I am a student of the skills of war.

I think that's a fair distinction.

But here's where it gets a bit unwieldy, the definition game: When I was about 21, I began studying eskrima. I was fit, well coordinated, I had lots of free time on my hands, and I did pretty well at it. In sharp contrast, there was a woman who, deep into her 70s, decided that she was going to use what little time she had left to try things she'd not done before. Eskrima, ballroom dancing, tap dancing, aerobics...

Now, realistically, she was never going to be a fighter. Or a soldier. Or a 'warrior.' But if an 80-year-old woman can walk two flights of stairs three or four times a week to train sticks with a bunch of younger men and women, then I'll be ****ed if I'm going to judge her 'unworthy' of the title 'martial artist.' She overcame more, achieved more, and worked harder than me or anyone else in the joint. And she probably couldn't have cared less whether people considered her a martial artist. But I figure that she deserves the title just as much, if not more, than I do.

(Please forgive this paragraph if it sounds accusatory. It's not intended to. I know this isn't what you were suggesting.)

Now, I know a 70+-year-old woman is different from the tournament wizard with the luminescent kama. But what it comes down to is this: People are going to have their own perspectives on what we do, as you said. And while I may think that Joe Kiai is kind of a tool, I'm not going to tell him what he should and should not consider himself. How he views and describes himself is his business. To my mind, martial arts have become a very varied field of endeavor. Some aspects of it make me roll my eyes. Others, I dig. But I'm going to try and maintain enough respect for the people around me to let them make those same sorts of judgments for themselves. Telling people that I disagree with that they have to find something else to call themselves just seems... daft.


Poor student, perhaps, but nevertheless...

I doubt that.


-geoff (yeah, I know... that wasn't as coherent as it could be)

I thought it was just fine. Thanks for responding.


Stuart B.

[GeneChing]

I agree it's a fault to forget the "martial" in "martial artist", but it's as much a fault to forget the "artist" in "martial artist."

Especially in our era of firearms, chemical mace, stun guns, etc., self defense is more easily attained through other means. Sure you can come up with all kinds of different scenarios for hand-to-hand only, everything from "are you going to carry a gun everywhere?" to the no weapons rule of Han's island, but the incidence of injury and fatality with modern weapons cannot be ignored. That being said, I think the value of martial arts shifts today. Sure, it's great for health and good for self defence, but where it really has value is on a spiritual level. This doesn't have to be as lofty as some Buddhist enlightenment. It can be as simple as the confidence to merge on to a busy freeway smoothly.

Not everyone who walks the road of the warrior has to become a fighting machine. But everyone can benefit from casual stroll, even on the most rudimentary level, and that is a good thing.

[HuangKaiVun]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with doing "martial arts" just for exercise's sake.

You are literally defending your body and mind against the ravages of living. What's more important than good health?

Besides, even the most noncombative martial arts class of any sort has no small amount of combative training.

That's usually enough to teach people to avoid violent encounters.

[Goldenmane]

Ap (may I call you Ap?)




Well, I'm not really trying to 'attach baggage' to the term. I'm just trying to use it in a way that reflects real life. If you stopped a thousand people on the streets and asked them, dictionary aside, whether there was a difference between skill and art, I believe they would say there was. Further, I believe that they would identify the difference as the interpretive and expressive aspects of one over the other.

Aye, this is a valid point. The only reason I even bother dealing with the semantics is that I think that knowing where a term comes from is helpful in understanding it. The point being that as the term "art" has changed in general perception, this has reflected upon what people think of when they hear the term "martial arts"...

Hmm... I'll try to clarify my point (excuse the lack of coherency, please, I became an uncle last night, so I'm a little woozy. :) )

We use words (stating the obvious here) to communicate meaning. The meaning of any given word is dictated largely by personal experience - if you are only ever exposed to the word "banana" as referring to a small furry primate, you're going to run into problems when someone uses it to refer to a fruit, if you see what I mean.

So when a particular word (art) mutates in it's generally percieved meaning, this flows over to its use in any context. Hence, "martial art" comes to mean something dramatically different to the person who understands art to mean skill and the person who understands it based on some other definition.

Gah... still not quite saying it right.


In any event, semantic arguments are never really all that compelling in the first place. It's why I always cringe whenever someone cuts and pastes the definition of 'martial' into one of these discussions.

Heh. I can understand that.


That said (and hypocritical though it may be): 'Of war.' Not 'of brawling.' Not 'of self defense.' Of war. And let's be honest. Martial arts haven't been used in war for an age.

Here's the rub: I consider tactics and strategy, on both large and small scales, to be "martial arts", as it were, because they are part of the "skills of war". Some may disagree with me on this.

I also consider propaganda, acting, lying, cheating, stealing, seducing, and so on to be inherently essential skills "of war"...

Many people disagree with my take on these things.

And, of course, I consider the modern skills of combat (driving a tank, for example, or firing a gun) to also fall under the heading "martial arts"... of course, I haven't had much chance to drive a tank or fly an assault aircraft, not being in the military, but that's a little beside the point. They still, to me, fall into the category.

My ability to fight hand-to-hand with someone is a very small skillset in those terms, and given that my definition is so broad, I cannot see how I could look at, say, Musical Forms Boy and declare that he is not studying the martial arts. I would on the contrary say that it is a novel application of certain skills that fall under the heading.


Well, the word 'warrior' comes with a lot of baggage too. But I get your drift. If martial arts where, at one time, genuinely martial (used on the battlefield), then they'd have been called 'soldiers' perhaps.

Indeed.

I do find it interesting that people attach so much baggage to certain words... but that's getting a little too far off topic.


I think that calling yourself a warrior without any direct experience of the military (or some comparable experience) is a bit silly.

I do find it amusing when people pompously declare themselves to be warriors because of the "baggage" they attach to the word. But, again, my definition of war is a little too vague and hazy to be of much use in a semantic sense... war to me is just another way of saying human interaction... :D

Ok, so that was a little silly. Nevertheless, the consideration of the point that "the best fight consists of defeating your opponent before the fists start flying" is floating around my brain here. Is "War" only military conflict, or is it a wider thing? Can you have a "Cola War", business war, etc if there is no armed conflict, or does the term war extend beyond this to the simple idea of trying to defeat an opponent... ?


But that's different from martial arts in this day and age. Or I think it ought to be.

Fair enough. As I said before, my definitions are somewhat indistinct. I'm not a very cut-and-dried type of guy, and just have a little difficulty seeing anything as rigidly bounded. In fact, I see everything as inherently inseperable from everything else. Oddly enough, it was studying physics that taught me that you can't in actuality isolate anything... but again, that's off topic.


Now, realistically, she was never going to be a fighter. Or a soldier. Or a 'warrior.' But if an 80-year-old woman can walk two flights of stairs three or four times a week to train sticks with a bunch of younger men and women, then I'll be ****ed if I'm going to judge her 'unworthy' of the title 'martial artist.' She overcame more, achieved more, and worked harder than me or anyone else in the joint. And she probably couldn't have cared less whether people considered her a martial artist. But I figure that she deserves the title just as much, if not more, than I do.

Here's my thing: I cannot, really, consider that the title "martial artist" is valuable, or carries worth. I certainly admire the lady's determination and tenacity - would like to have more of it myself :) - but as time goes on I find it more and more difficult to get into the mindset of judging people on such criteria. Is Joe Kiai more or less 'worthy' of the term martial artist than Bob Kickass?... I dunno. I don't think I can get into the mindset to have an opinion. Is he a 'better' martial artist?.. it doesn't compute with me. He's **** good at what he does... good for him. It's not what I do, but then I don't own a car either. It's irrelevant. Why should I care, and what earthly good does it do for me to try and dictate these things to others?

The only judgement I see of any use to me in these terms is the judgement of whether or not this person has something they can teach me that I want to learn right now. All else aside from that smacks, to me, of a form of arrogance (which also, betimes, has its uses).

Nothing is worthless, given the right context.


(Please forgive this paragraph if it sounds accusatory. It's not intended to. I know this isn't what you were suggesting.)

Oh, I didn't for a second think it was intended to be accusatory... but it wouldn't likely have mattered if it were. I'd still try to debate the point intelligently. (Note the word 'try') :D


Now, I know a 70+-year-old woman is different from the tournament wizard with the luminescent kama. But what it comes down to is this: People are going to have their own perspectives on what we do, as you said. And while I may think that Joe Kiai is kind of a tool, I'm not going to tell him what he should and should not consider himself. How he views and describes himself is his business. To my mind, martial arts have become a very varied field of endeavor. Some aspects of it make me roll my eyes. Others, I dig. But I'm going to try and maintain enough respect for the people around me to let them make those same sorts of judgments for themselves. Telling people that I disagree with that they have to find something else to call themselves just seems... daft.

*claps hands, bows*

Nicely put. Not quite my take, but rather close enough and more coherent for me to applaud. :)


I doubt that.

You're too kind, but thank you.


I thought it was just fine. Thanks for responding.

You're welcome. It's a subject I find terribly interesting.

-geoff

[GeneChing]

The Warrior way has incredible metaphoric power. It shifts depending one who you define as your enemy. Most young guys might define it as some street thug - sort of an instinctive throwback to battleing to be the alpha male. But what about some old woman? Maybe her enemy is that staircase or that childproof pill bottle. If she can conquer that through her practice of watered down tai chi, she is just as heroic if not more so.

Just wait 'till y'all get old. It'll make more sense then. :cool:

[apoweyn]

Goldenmane,


Ap (may I call you Ap?)

Yeah, mate. By all means. Everyone here does.


Aye, this is a valid point. The only reason I even bother dealing with the semantics is that I think that knowing where a term comes from is helpful in understanding it.

True. Sorry. I don't mean to completely dismiss the value of semantics. (Though I know I have a paragraph in my last post that explicitly does just that.) More accurate to say that semantics are a clue. Not the whole shooting match. Some people tend to argue, "it says martial, so it's settled." Obviously, it's not settled. It's just a piece of the puzzle. And I don't like how some people present that word as if it answers everything. That's all. And that's very, very different from what you're doing here.


I became an uncle last night, so I'm a little woozy. :) )

Then congratulations are in order. :)


We use words (stating the obvious here) to communicate meaning. The meaning of any given word is dictated largely by personal experience - if you are only ever exposed to the word "banana" as referring to a small furry primate, you're going to run into problems when someone uses it to refer to a fruit, if you see what I mean.

Absolutely, yeah. And you're right. In the case of 'art', it's not very clear cut at all. I mean, has the definition changed? (I'm arguing against my own points now, God help me.) If the definition is 'skill', then it's still as applicable to artwork now as it ever has been. If we, the general public, attach some more meaning to it (baggage), at what point does that actually change the definition of the word? I honestly don't know.


So when a particular word (art) mutates in it's generally percieved meaning, this flows over to its use in any context. Hence, "martial art" comes to mean something dramatically different to the person who understands art to mean skill and the person who understands it based on some other definition.

Gah... still not quite saying it right.

No, I get what you're saying. It's funny though, these semantic arguments. After a while, I have to avoid the temptation to conclude that martial arts are now more 'interpretive' than they used to be simply because the definition of the word (according to my take on common use) now suggests personal expression and interpretation. When in actual fact, surely it has more to do with the advent of the firearm. When swordplay and the like really did constitute 'cutting edge technology' on the battlefield, there presumably wasn't a whole lot of need/incentive for interpretation and expression. Bring the guy down. Make sure he doesn't get up. Repeat as necessary.

Now that martial arts (in the narrow sense) aren't the order of the day on the battlefield, they've in some sense been freed to expand in meaning. The thing is, though, that now that they aren't used on the battlefield, there are fewer measuring sticks to build a coherent definition around. Traditional guys might claim to keep the spirit of the battlefield arts alive by not compromising their arts with sportive rules. But they have no realistic way to test whether their lack of compromise has paid off. Sportive guys have made that compromise in favour of live, fully resisting feedback. But they don't learn the breadth of techniques. Health-oriented martial artists (be it mental, physical, spiritual or some combination thereof) make a different concession according to different priorities. As do the performance guys. But they all have that 'option' because martial arts aren't strictly about combat anymore.

Even your most diehard 'street self defense' guru isn't dealing with the same situation as battlefield combat. There's deescalation, threat assessment, legality, and countless other issues that figure in. And all this in a society in which (regardless of how bad the crime rate is in any one particular neck of the woods) the odds are still against us ever being in a life-or-death battle using martial arts. A friday night p-ssup gone bad, sure. But combat? I know it happens. But I don't know that it constitutes the norm.


Here's the rub: I consider tactics and strategy, on both large and small scales, to be "martial arts", as it were, because they are part of the "skills of war". Some may disagree with me on this.

I also consider propaganda, acting, lying, cheating, stealing, seducing, and so on to be inherently essential skills "of war"...

Many people disagree with my take on these things.

Personally, I don't. I think that's a perfectly valid definition. I'm just not going to hold anyone else to it. (And, clearly, you're not either.)


And, of course, I consider the modern skills of combat (driving a tank, for example, or firing a gun) to also fall under the heading "martial arts"... of course, I haven't had much chance to drive a tank or fly an assault aircraft, not being in the military, but that's a little beside the point. They still, to me, fall into the category.

They're certainly part of the same spectrum, in that they address the issue of direct human conflict. Though I definitely regard what I do as being on the opposite end of the spectrum from what any member of the armed forces does.


My ability to fight hand-to-hand with someone is a very small skillset in those terms, and given that my definition is so broad, I cannot see how I could look at, say, Musical Forms Boy and declare that he is not studying the martial arts. I would on the contrary say that it is a novel application of certain skills that fall under the heading.

Yeah, exactly.


I do find it amusing when people pompously declare themselves to be warriors because of the "baggage" they attach to the word. But, again, my definition of war is a little too vague and hazy to be of much use in a semantic sense... war to me is just another way of saying human interaction... :D

I blame Forrest Morgan. ;)

There's certainly room for a lot of different 'takes' on this. And, honestly, I think there should be. That's why, despite thinking that musical forms (for example) are a bit silly, I'll usually argue that they're still martial arts. I just don't see any need to divide things so rigidly. I know that my practice isn't much like 's practice. I don't need to delineate it beyond that.


Here's my thing: I cannot, really, consider that the title "martial artist" is valuable, or carries worth. I certainly admire the lady's determination and tenacity - would like to have more of it myself :) - but as time goes on I find it more and more difficult to get into the mindset of judging people on such criteria. Is Joe Kiai more or less 'worthy' of the term martial artist than Bob Kickass?... I dunno. I don't think I can get into the mindset to have an opinion. Is he a 'better' martial artist?.. it doesn't compute with me. He's **** good at what he does... good for him. It's not what I do, but then I don't own a car either. It's irrelevant. Why should I care, and what earthly good does it do for me to try and dictate these things to others?

I think that's exactly my viewpoint as well. She couldn't have cared less whether people viewed her as a martial artist. And I guess, ultimately, I don't care whether people view me as one either. I think maybe it's the predilection for judging one another that puzzles and, yeah, irritates me.


The only judgement I see of any use to me in these terms is the judgement of whether or not this person has something they can teach me that I want to learn right now. All else aside from that smacks, to me, of a form of arrogance (which also, betimes, has its uses).

Well, yeah. Good point. I'm all for getting more detail. Going more into it. Joe Point Fighter can call himself a martial artists as far as I'm concerned. But if he goes one step further and calls himself a 'self defense expert', I'm going to want to know that he's got experience specific to that part of the spectrum. Personally, I taught martial arts. I [i]never taught self defense. Because I've never defended myself. I never taught competition sparring. Because I rarely competed.


Nothing is worthless, given the right context.

Amen.


You're too kind, but thank you.

Likewise. Welcome to the mutual admiration society. This ticket is good for two free pints at the bar.

Regards,


Stuart

[KC Elbows]

Good thread.

I think the trap a lot of people fall into is that they want to define martial artist as someone practicing at their intensity level and above. And that's not really a definition, since most everyone at some point or another thinks they're the ****, and later find out they're assessment had one too many 'the's' in it. I think what I mean is that they make a relative statement that there are no relativities: see, only WE are martial artists, and those LIKE US, but there are no bad martial artists, because the only real martial artists are LIKE US, and WE'RE not bad martial artists, because we're LIKE US. And then they throw in the illusion of scale by talking up their teacher.

Bad was probably too loaded a term, but you get the point. You could substitute 'somewhat okay' or 'mediocre' or 'hobbyists'. I always try to remember that there's a mediocre martial artist out there who can perform brain surgery, whereas there's some fantastic kung fu prodigy who can't open the safety seal on a peanut butter jar without coaching from his teacher.

And the warrior thing is one I don't mind as much as others. I think of it more as a mindset. When we're training, especially when we're training extremely hard, when I see someone suddenly get that 'I'm achieving this no matter how difficult or painful it is', I'm always tempted to encourage them, to say "you warrior, you eat ****ing girders for a snack, you ****ing monster". I don't think it's a big deal. We've trained with recon marines(my teachers bro is one, and he brings his buddies out) and they do the same thing, so I figure it's okay.

[apoweyn]

Good (and, not surprisingly, funny) post, KC.

The 'warrior' thing is strictly a pet peeve. I see no real harm in it. Like usual, I mostly object that the word tends to get used as a substitute for thinking about what we do. "I'm a warrior" doesn't really lend me any insight into the thought processes of an individual.

But like I said, strictly a pet peeve.


Stuart B.

[KC Elbows]

****, I was hoping it was surpisingly funny.

BTW, Ap, you're a real warrior.

[apoweyn]

Er, that's 'worrier', I think you mean.

[Goldenmane]

By all means. Everyone here does.

Thanks.


True. Sorry. I don't mean to completely dismiss the value of semantics. (Though I know I have a paragraph in my last post that explicitly does just that.)

Heh. Seems to happen a lot in discussions, I think. One approaches something from one point of view, to make a point, and then looks at it from a slightly different place and realises that it seems to say something categorical that doesn't really work as such. This is the problem I always run into when trying to be concise... concise statements can be all too easily taken to be blanket statements, and the subtleties behind them are missed.


More accurate to say that semantics are a clue. Not the whole shooting match. Some people tend to argue, "it says martial, so it's settled." Obviously, it's not settled. It's just a piece of the puzzle. And I don't like how some people present that word as if it answers everything. That's all. And that's very, very different from what you're doing here.

I used to fall into the trap you're delineating here. I think that it is largely one of those "steps along the journey"... It's a place that people reach, often, in their development of understanding. I'm currently at the point of needing a *lot* of backup before I take any statement of fact as being anything other than opinion.

To create an analogy (I think it's an analogy...heh): my teacher once provided an interesting framework for thinking about the levels people have reached in their abilities in MA. It went something like this: There are three levels, in essense, and they can be viewed as Novice, Adept, and Master. A Novice is a beginner - the stage where you have to think about every step of what you are doing in order to do anything at all. An Adept is someone who has reached the next level - you have trained your responses such that you don't think, you just react in a manner you have trained yourself to react. It's all in muscle memory by now. A Master is the top level - where you have trained to the point that now you have time and the ability to choose your reaction, rather than responding as dictated by your body...

Or something like that. Anyway, the basic point is that there are stages along the way that pretty much everyone goes through. Some people get stuck at certain stages longer than others, and often this is because they don't really recognise that there are other stages beyond where they are, or that they just don't desire to go any further down this path.

The "this is the definition and that's all there is" stage is not universal, but it's fairly common.


Then congratulations are in order.

Cheers. I'm gunna be a daddy come Sept., so I'm watching developments with interest. :D


In the case of 'art', it's not very clear cut at all. I mean, has the definition changed? (I'm arguing against my own points now, God help me.) If the definition is 'skill', then it's still as applicable to artwork now as it ever has been. If we, the general public, attach some more meaning to it (baggage), at what point does that actually change the definition of the word? I honestly don't know.

Neither do I. I used to think that the dictionary was the be-all, end-all authority on such matters, as I have said, but these days I think not so much. It's more just a tool that needs to continually adapt.

I find it pretty amusing these days when people complain when dictionaries are adjusted to reflect the current state of the language. If language is set in stone, surely then it becomes stagnant, and this restricts the development of imagination and the communication of such?


...surely it has more to do with the advent of the firearm. When swordplay and the like really did constitute 'cutting edge technology' on the battlefield, there presumably wasn't a whole lot of need/incentive for interpretation and expression. Bring the guy down. Make sure he doesn't get up. Repeat as necessary.

This is a good point.

I was recently involved in quite a lengthy discussion on another board that dealt with the teaching of moral codes in MA schools. Some people asserted that it should be done, some asserted that it shouldn't. One of the arguments for it being done was that this is the way it was always done - an argument that I don't really give much weight to for several reasons, not least of which being that in the context we might be considering, you would probably be spending a great deal more of your life studying under your teacher than you have time to do today, and as such would be actively expecting your teacher to teach not just the skills of fighting but their own personal morality as well .. the view of "sifu" meaning "father/teacher", and as such carrying a different weight than "coach" "instructor", etc.

Anyway, that rambling aside, (I lost my point in there somewhere) I agree with your points.


I blame Forrest Morgan

Gah... I don't get the reference. Help?

Edit: Just did a search... I've not actually read his stuff, but I will if I get the chance.


There's certainly room for a lot of different 'takes' on this. And, honestly, I think there should be. That's why, despite thinking that musical forms (for example) are a bit silly, I'll usually argue that they're still martial arts. I just don't see any need to divide things so rigidly. I know that my practice isn't much like [insert prominent forms champion here]'s practice. I don't need to delineate it beyond that.

Agree.


Joe Point Fighter can call himself a martial artists as far as I'm concerned. But if he goes one step further and calls himself a 'self defense expert', I'm going to want to know that he's got experience specific to that part of the spectrum.

That's it, alright.

Analogy: I can code Fortran, and a few others (fat lot of good that does these days... heh) but if I claimed to be a Unix guru, then I'm really gunna have to sit down at the machine and do some coding before anyone can be expected to take me seriously.


Welcome to the mutual admiration society. This ticket is good for two free pints at the bar.

Woohoo!
*wanders over to unsuccessfully chat up the barmaid*

-geoff

[Goldenmane]

Originally posted by KC Elbows
Good thread.

I think the trap a lot of people fall into is that they want to define martial artist as someone practicing at their intensity level and above. And that's not really a definition, since most everyone at some point or another thinks they're the ****, and later find out they're assessment had one too many 'the's' in it.

Heh. Good point. I know I've been there.

-geoff

[KC Elbows]

Yeah, I'm having one of those weeks where I AM there. Nonetheless, I keep going. Because I want to be like Ap. A warrior.:D

[Goldenmane]

*chortle*

(Not enough people chortle these days, I think...)

-geoff

[Serpent]

Nor do they guffaw enough!

*guffaw!*

[apoweyn]

Best I can offer is a heartfelt snicker.

*snicker*

Such is the way of my people.

...

Warriors, that is.


Stuart B.

[KC Elbows]

Someday I'll have a warrior's snicker. For now, it's more a titter.

[apoweyn]

Goldenmane,


Originally posted by Goldenmane
This is the problem I always run into when trying to be concise... concise statements can be all too easily taken to be blanket statements, and the subtleties behind them are missed.

Yep. That explains (though perhaps doesn't excuse) why my posts tend to be entirely too long.


I used to fall into the trap you're delineating here. I think that it is largely one of those "steps along the journey"... It's a place that people reach, often, in their development of understanding. I'm currently at the point of needing a *lot* of backup before I take any statement of fact as being anything other than opinion.

I think I've dodged a lot of bullets by not really aligning myself with any particular school or style. It's not really a 'no way as way' thing. It just frees me up to flounder around a bit and make up my own mind as I go along.


Or something like that. Anyway, the basic point is that there are stages along the way that pretty much everyone goes through. Some people get stuck at certain stages longer than others, and often this is because they don't really recognise that there are other stages beyond where they are, or that they just don't desire to go any further down this path.

The "this is the definition and that's all there is" stage is not universal, but it's fairly common.

Yeah. There's a lot of appeal in completion, in knowing something. In having it settled.


Cheers. I'm gunna be a daddy come Sept., so I'm watching developments with interest. :D

Then congratulations again!

Me, I'm an uncle by marriage. And that's about as close as I plan to get. I'll show up, give horsey rides, buy the cool toys, and so on. The 'hip' uncle. (You know. The one that still uses words like 'hip' even though he's only 32.)


I used to think that the dictionary was the be-all, end-all authority on such matters, as I have said, but these days I think not so much. It's more just a tool that needs to continually adapt.

I find it pretty amusing these days when people complain when dictionaries are adjusted to reflect the current state of the language. If language is set in stone, surely then it becomes stagnant, and this restricts the development of imagination and the communication of such?

Well, and people seem to view it like that's a new development. Like language hasn't always been shaped by common use. Like you said, it would stagnate. If language changed according to the dictates of the dictionary, it wouldn't change at all. What would be the dictionary's incentive to change? And what would give them the authority? Nah. The dictionary follows our lead, which is precisely how it should be. Without that principle, all my friends wouldn't be able to give me a hard time about the extra 'u' in 'colour.' They'd be right there with me.


I was recently involved in quite a lengthy discussion on another board that dealt with the teaching of moral codes in MA schools. Some people asserted that it should be done, some asserted that it shouldn't. One of the arguments for it being done was that this is the way it was always done - an argument that I don't really give much weight to for several reasons, not least of which being that in the context we might be considering, you would probably be spending a great deal more of your life studying under your teacher than you have time to do today, and as such would be actively expecting your teacher to teach not just the skills of fighting but their own personal morality as well .. the view of "sifu" meaning "father/teacher", and as such carrying a different weight than "coach" "instructor", etc.

Agreed. The relationship was very different. Therefore, the domains of lessons was different. Akin to the military again. I wouldn't find it odd for a drill sergeant to 'teach' his guys about honour, loyalty, self discipline, and the like. Those are directly related to the things he'll be asking of them. And that is essentially the framework of the original martial arts 'classes.'

Nowadays, I think I'd liken moral lessons in the martial arts schools more to older brother/younger brother. Experience without authority. I wouldn't feel odd telling my students my feelings on a moral question, addressing questions they might have from my standpoint. But I also wouldn't expect them to fall in line with my way of thinking by virtue of the fact that I'm their teacher. You're right. Martial arts teachers are now generally part of a bigger context in individual education. Very different place in the hierarchy.


Gah... I don't get the reference. Help?

Edit: Just did a search... I've not actually read his stuff, but I will if I get the chance.

It's actually quite a good book. But it solidified the buzzword 'warrior.' And, like I said to KC, I don't really have a problem with it. Least of all with Forrest Morgan (despite my earlier gag). He says the word, and then goes to great lengths to explain what that means in his conception. And if we all take some time to think about what it actually means, rather than using it as shorthand, then I'm cool with it. (As if that matters to anyone. ;) )


Woohoo!
*wanders over to unsuccessfully chat up the barmaid*

If it's an American barmaid, relax. She'll dig the accent. Believe me.

Fate is a cruel mistress. I lost my accent just in time for high school, where it might really have come in handy.


Stuart B.

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by KC Elbows
Someday I'll have a warrior's snicker. For now, it's more a titter.

Well, that just elicited a very unwarriorly snort. Now, I'm off to stare menacingly at some peasants.

[Goldenmane]

That explains (though perhaps doesn't excuse) why my posts tend to be entirely too long

Ditto. I find I have an almost overwhelming urge to address everything in great detail... a habit I'm working on breaking.


It just frees me up to flounder around a bit and make up my own mind as I go along.

*chuckle* Works for me...


There's a lot of appeal in completion, in knowing something. In having it settled.

Aye, but it's a form of laziness, and I'm too lazy as it is.


The dictionary follows our lead, which is precisely how it should be. Without that principle, all my friends wouldn't be able to give me a hard time about the extra 'u' in 'colour.' They'd be right there with me.

Heh... it's all a matter of which dialect you favour... :D


Nowadays, I think I'd liken moral lessons in the martial arts schools more to older brother/younger brother. Experience without authority. I wouldn't feel odd telling my students my feelings on a moral question, addressing questions they might have from my standpoint. But I also wouldn't expect them to fall in line with my way of thinking by virtue of the fact that I'm their teacher.

Hmm.. reminds me of my teacher, in a way. Considered that he was teacher only when we were training. Outside of that, he sought more a friendship. The desire to be liked and respected for who you are, rather than (excllusively) what you can do.


If it's an American barmaid, relax. She'll dig the accent. Believe me.

Heh. I've been aiming to do some outside-of-oz travelling for ages, but last year it got sidetracked by travelling around the inside of oz. Maybe will again soon.

(On that issue, I'll hope to set aside as much time as possible to train with some more of the peeps I know/know of from the net. Only got around to one last year. Tooooo long between training.)


Fate is a cruel mistress. I lost my accent just in time for high school, where it might really have come in handy.

Bug.ger....

-geoff

[No_Know]

"Attack, attack, attack -- come at your target from every possible direction and press until his defenses overload. Never give him time to recover his balance: never give him time to counter.

- Heroes Die, Matthew Woodring Stover"

"Does this," the participant asked, "point to underlying fear?"

"A number of individuals -- who would, if asked, describe themselves as martial artists -- responded in the affirmative. The attitude expressed by the quote was indeed very fearful, they opined. It was not a realistic attitude. It betrayed an ignorance of Japanese Budo, the focus of the discussion site in question. It was, in fact, an attitude exemplified by the infamous fictional Karate instructor portrayed by Martin Kove in The Karate Kid."

I notice here an answer And an opinion

Perhaps people who are afraid want to know what to do but can only handle small phrases when afraid. So helpful advice is condensed to catchy phrases so that they can be recalled when useful and the person too Scared to think otherwise-ish.

When fearful, one focuses. When afraid you'll lose your job you try to be more promt, dress better, better hygiene upkeep, try to be more professional one focuses on areas that might have been more laxed.

When afraid you are going to get caught you focus on the options to keep you safest.

When faced with an opponent one's confidence determines where the focus goes.

"What motivates a martial artist to look at that quote and see mindless killing, bullying, bravado, and mental illness?"

There might tend to be a me or them, mentality which can refer to a willingness to kill (because if you don't kill them they might come back and kill you) so that you don't die and I have no other options sort of thing. Some people in the United States of America have an innocence to the Survival level at which the felt Need for this type of thinking might occure.

Some parents shelter their children. They can grow into unaware adults. Hopefully they die Not Needing nor Knowing how terrible things can get or people can on their darker sides be.

"What martial artist in his or her right mind would claim that it is "great" to be attacked, because when an attack occurs one is in "total control" of the situation?"

Along that general line, There are a lot of options. Some think they don't think well. At least some can be indecisive. When attacked The options in the world get priortized. And one can Know what to do.

"What sort of worldview prompts a martial artist to say that one should "respect" one's attacker? "

I've heard it said that guns should be respected. Regardless of the literal it seems to refer to not underestimating.

"What attitude is behind the opinions of martial artists who look down on their fellow fighters who carry legal handguns or tactical folding knives?"

Bad, for some is other than Bad as Bad can get~.

When I play video game of stratey/fighting I set the options of gameplay to hardest at which for me to win. Strongest, most opponents, with the most resources.~ To my, fewest additional resources, most sensitive to getting damaged, weakest damage done...~. Whatever degrees of success I have under these conditions develops me.

I use a calculator. But my math calculating is embarassing because it's at elementary school level (a tool that crippled a person in his right mind?). I've ridden bikes down hills or level ground. But when returning tired or going back up the hills I had pounds of bicycle to push when winded or fatigued.

Not an assist.

If I rely on a gun or other tool to win when confronted, The perhaps Vital first part of the first (few) second(s) in that confrontation has my mind distracted to thoughts of where's the weapon I've been training to use in just this situation/I need to get something in my hands to use against this person/I wish I had my _____...

And forgetting that I am to keep my mind on handling the potentially lethal opponent with other thoughts comming in as primary thoughts Could be my peril.

"To believe you can, with any degree of certainty, "totally control" a given situation is to display such complete ignorance of the reality of fighting that rational discussion is nearly out of the question."-Sharp Phil

"Overwhelming an opponent with aggression, when done by a fighter who understands the principles-- of fighting and is skilled and experienced in their application, will always decide a violent altercation. It will also decide a violent altercation in favor of the assailant if the defending "martial" artist fails to grasp the importance of it."-Sharp Phil

" Anyone who believes an attacker is someone to be "respected" has never met a human predator ready and willing to gouge out another man's eyeball and pop it. Any martial artist who thinks he or she will have the time and information necessary to assess the intentions of an attacker who has just come from behind to smash a beer bottle over his or her head has no idea just how quickly real attacks occur."

Regardless of the literal it seems to refer to not underestimating. Do you believe that a person willing to gouge out anotherperson's eye and pop it should be underestimated?

"In the same vein, a martial art or martial artist whose attitude towards weapons is one of contempt, mistrust, fear, or condescension tells you volumes about its, his, or her "martialism." Weapons are force multipliers

A force multiplier theoretically would multiply the force of my techniques. A bullet fired can be forceful, but not the same technique as my punch (general area damage) it does not multiply the force of my technique-- tools that perform the same function as hammers, levers, and pliers in that they make it easier to accomplish a specific task. As the purpose of a martial art is to deliver force against another human or group of humans, only the most ignorant of martial artists would dismiss or reject tools that make performing this task more efficient and less risky."

And with my attention on the tool and not my fingers/hand, I now jeopardize more greatly my fingers/hand than if I was taking precaution to guard them against harm with no tool in my hand.

"There is no such thing as an immoral tool. There are only immoral tool users."

"Overwhelming an opponent with aggression, when done by a fighter who understands the principles-- "Introduction: Origin: Oath: Principals: Levels: recommended reading.


Guard the Center
Face the Point of Contact
Economy of Movement
Touch Reflexes: Chi Sao
Watch the Leading Elbow
Use Linear Striking Action
Avoid Fighting Force Against Force
Train to Use Two Arms at the Same Time
Uses Pressure Points to Make Striking Techniques More Effective
Uses the Same Meridian Pressure Points as Treatment of Sports Injuries



Copyright © 2002 Syracuse Wing Chun Academy" of fighting and is skilled and experienced in their application, will always decide a violent altercation. It will also decide a violent altercation in favor of the assailant if the defending "martial" artist fails to grasp the importance of it."

You might agree that if I was not wearing a parachute during free fall, grasping the importance of a parachute in free fall does not greatly aid me.

"Those who understand the purpose of the martial arts and the foundation for all fighting systems do not live their lives in fear. They are, however, realistic about their chances, about the myriad of factors they know they cannot control when faced with attacks by unknown assailants possessing equally unknown motivations and intents. Real fighting is messy, brutal, aggressive, and fast. It is not a dance, it is not a kata, it is not a form, and it is not an exercise.

We forget this at our peril."

To forget, one might have to know. By that you would have to really fight to understand fighting?~ Your instructors would have to really hurt you or you hurt them. You would learn from them hurting you. If you hurt them you learned and need new teachers because they weren't better then you?

Perhaps they don't live in fear. But if they didn't get scared it seems as though they are in the same category as the disillusioned supposed "martial" artists to which you've referred.

[Goldenmane]

I've heard it said that guns should be respected. Regardless of the literal it seems to refer to not underestimating.
Of all you said on this, this particular line is what jumped out at me. Nicely put. Very nicely put.

-geoff

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by rin
My last post was mostly in response to some art forms that teach a strict philosophy of "defensive maneuvers only" After two years of TKD some time ago, in which the teacher taught to kick to get distance and then run away, it occured to me- How do I know that I can outtrun the bad guy? Isn't it better for me to make sure the bad guy cannot move, through one way or another before I disengage? That is the kind of philosophy that I was debating. And as for don't put yourself in a garage @ 3:00 AM. I live alone in the city, and I work nights. Parking garages at 3 am are a daily thing. Caution, yes, but this isn't a "bad things don't happen to smart people" kind of world.

I like her. Welcome to KFO.

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by Vapour


I once read a article by someone who grew up in very rough neigbourhood. He stated that tough guys in the hood always run when **** hit the fun not because they are coward but they put their safety and life first and don't go out their to prove size of their ****.

I can tell you from first hand experience that the guy was wrong. not ALWAYS.

Large part of the self-defence is not physical. You shouldn't put yourself in the situation where you're staring down three thugs in a darkened parking lot in the wee hours of the morning in the first place.

That's true, but

1. you can't always help it.
2. things happen in crowded areas in broad daylight too. My post about helping a guy I saw get jumped happened in broad daylight on a busy street. I've seen several fights at concerts and shopping malls - crowded places in general. broad daylight, lots of people.


Another idiot is the one who freeze when similar situation arise. Both I'm-****ing-invincible and Oh-please-don't-hurt-me type are trapped in their fear and thus puting themselves in danger.

that person isn't an idiot. That person is the one who doesn't spar hard. The one who doesn't have the mindset needed to fight. That person could be anyone. you included.

Large part of the benefit of martial arts training is mental rather than physical. Firstly, you know what you can and can't do physically. Secondly, because you know your capability, you can sensibly avoid situation which put youself in danger and lastly, when **** hit the fun, you won't freeze and start thinking.

firstly, what you can and can't do may not matter. you may have no choice but to fight your way out against three guys. you may know that you can't do it, but you may not have the option of doing otherwise.

secondly, you can avoid most situations, but may not be able to avoid them all.

lastly, if you're not training right, you WILL freeze. Training MA doesn't make you not freeze.