Is it the Artist or the Art?

[Water Dragon]

I say neither really. I think it has a lot more to do with your coaches training (not teaching) methods and the caliber and intensity of your fellow students/training partners. You can only get as good as the people you're training with.

discuss

[Ikken Hisatsu]

depends whether you're an introvert or an extrovert. an introvert doesnt need the people around him to even be there to train hard, whereas an extrovert draws on them to keep going (this is why 90% of the SAS is made up of introverts)

but yeah you might be the most hardout guy there is, if you have bad teaching it wont help you.

[norther practitioner]

concepts.. coach and artist.

[MasterKiller]

I have mixed feelings about this issue.

I think a good fighter is 99% of the time the product of good training intensity and proper conditioning.

I also believe there is a lot of crap being taught that significantly hinders a persons ability to fight.

[AshidaKimFan]

I would have to agree with WD to a certain degree. But I also think that pure aggression and the "I'm going to kick your a$$" attitude has to be there. Tank Abbot comes to mind, he's defeated MMA guys and so-called masters. Yes, he's been beaten, BUT guys who's beaten him actually came out after him in an aggressive manner, either that or they just waited until he ran out of gas.

[backbreaker]

The Muay thai people I have learned from would say the style is most important. Benny Urquidez was defeated by Muay thai so there. Kungfu does not have a proper gaurd with the hands up so they will be knocked out. So xinyi or "mindboxing" cannot win supposedly. Every xingyi guy I seen on the internet wants no part of fighting and just wants to pretend they are so intelligent. Punks. Screw them. Think their so intelligent. I don't really care, a loss is a loss, so WTF, why all politics and sticky hands ****? Just fight or you shouldn't say **** if you practice second hand styles or "official standardized" **** that these chinese everything "experts" who interfere practice. MMA rules, TMA sucks is the general consensus on internet forums, but most people don't care about martial arts anyways so who cares how adult or intelligent and "real" you think you are. There's some retarted **** in TMA , so do real stlyes like the 2000 year old fighting tradition of Muay Thai for standing, and a ground style , it's the future.

[Water Dragon]

You reallly should take your meds like the nice doctor told you to backbreaker.

[AshidaKimFan]

you can borrow some of my meds, bro

[AshidaKimFan]

two asian women in an erotic position
























69

[norther practitioner]

Kungfu does not have a proper gaurd with the hands up so they will be knocked out.

[Chang Style Novice]

This is a good example of why I consider fine arts and martial arts to be completely seperate.

In martial arts, only one thing counts - results. It doesn't matter how it happened, if the fight ends with you healthy and the other guy not so much, you win. Therefore it is neither the artist (physical and mental attributes) or the art (concepts, methods, techniques) that matters, it is only the artifact (a KO, a surrender, some debilitating injury.)

In fine arts, everything counts. Among the many things that a work of art is judged on include: the medium, the style, the history of the medium, the history of the style, techniques, ideas, clarity of communication, currrent fashions, the fame or lack thereof of the artist, the venue in which the art is presented, the opinions of critics, dealers and the public, etc.

In essence, fine arts is almost totally subjective, and martial arts are almost totally objective. I think it is a grievious error to misconcieve of either in terms of the other.

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
This is a good example of why I consider fine arts and martial arts to be completely seperate.

In martial arts, only one thing counts - results. It doesn't matter how it happened, if the fight ends with you healthy and the other guy not so much, you win. Therefore it is neither the artist (physical and mental attributes) or the art (concepts, methods, techniques) that matters, it is only the artifact (a KO, a surrender, some debilitating injury.)

In fine arts, everything counts.* Among the many things that a work of art is judged on include: the medium, the style, the history of the medium, the history of the style, techniques, ideas, clarity of communication, currrent fashions, the fame or lack thereof of the artist, the venue in which the art is presented, the opinions of critics, dealers and the public, etc.

In essence, fine arts is almost totally subjective, and martial arts are almost totally objective. I think it is a grevious error to misconcieve of either in terms of the other.It's true, but it only applies to the factors that determine victory in a fight.

I disagree....to an extent. I've heard plenty of people say someone won a fight with low-level kung fu, or in modern terms, as a brawler....

While winning is ultimately the most important aspect of fighting, I believe there is room for self-expression in combat.

The ultimate goal of a good running back is to move the ball downfield....But Barry Sanders and Emmit Smith did this in completly different ways, and both were successful. Emmit had more yards and touchdowns, but who was a better running back?

[norther practitioner]

Anyone in a fight is a craftsman, the person who wins used his tools in a greater fassion. Someone who makes that look good is an artist. What you concider looking good, that is the question

[Chang Style Novice]

To answer MK's question, anything besides yards and TDs is irrelevant to his worth as a running back. You can argue that since football is a spectator sport style and panache will count for the fans, but I'll bet if those fans see a spectacular run that nevertheless fails to score the winning touchdown they won't be talking much about the style and panache thereof. In any case, the good looks of the run are about showmanship and not football.

To answer NP's assertion, that's complete nonsense.

PS - I edited the last sentence out of the post that MK is quoting because it refers to a digression I made but decided against including, only somehow that sentence didn't get deleted with the rest of it. No big deal, but it didn't make a lot of sense without its context.

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
To answer MK's question, anything besides yards and TDs is irrelevant to his worth as a running back. You can argue that since football is a spectator sport style and panache will count for the fans, but I'll bet if those fans see a spectacular run that nevertheless fails to score the winning touchdown they won't be talking much about the style and panache thereof. In any case, the good looks of the run are about showmanship and not football.

To answer NP's assertion, that's complete nonsense.

PS - I edited the last sentence out of the post that MK is quoting because it refers to a digression I made but decided against including, only somehow that sentence didn't get deleted with the rest of it. No big deal, but it didn't make a lot of sense without its context.

OK.....What determines if a piece of furniture is art? Its function or its form? I argue it's a little bit of both.