lgm

Karate is not only self-defense or sport. It is also therapy in motion for me. I say this every time I post in every martial arts forum I join. It is a constant re-affirmation of the boon I get from my brand of martial arts.

Your own statement reveals that you feel guilty about what you did because you "let [your] ego get into the way of [your]clear thinking and lost it". Your better judgment now after the incident told you that you shouldn't have used excessive force to right what you perceived was a wrong action done by another, right? There are many occasions in our lives when we act instinctively and do things that we regret later when we are out of the situation and the heat that we were in. That's quite normal, we are imperfect humans, we are not saints or superheroes. In my view, you will be the judge of what you have done and not the people here who may pass judgment on you but who were not in the same situation you were in at the time and are judging on an aposteriori, after-thought basis or via post-analysis. You may or may listen to the wisdom of their post-hoc evaluations and their advice. That's up to you. I don't need to comment or pass judgment on the action you took either. You already have passed the judgment on yourself. Now, you are either asking sympathy or absolution to what you did. You don't need too, mf. Listen to your conscience and do the right thing next time. What is the right thing? Many of your friends here have already given many good suggestions, choose what you think is right and I wish you the best of luck in your next possible street encounter.

Indeed, and if you have opted which martial art is better, you have to explain what you mean by "better". Is it better because you feel you can perform it better or because it is better for your purpose in learning it , either self-defense or sports competition. A more difficult question to settle is which of two martial arts is better for most people of a given location at a particular period. This will require a much more intensive and extensive scientific random survey of the general populaltion. Unfortunately, this cannot be accurately based on only a few opinions or a limited survey of the opinions of all KF members responding to the question, which is a less reliable biased convenience sampling.

Strength is only positively correlated with weight or mass if the weight is mainly that of muscles than fat. A fat fighter with the same weight as a muscle-bound fighter is no match in strength to the latter. Fighting skill is not positively correlated with strength. One can be strong but not necessarily skillful in fighting. Strength though it can be developed through weight training is more likely to be natural or inborn, while fighting skill is more likely to be acquired or learned. We cannot pit strength versus skill in predicting which will determine the result of a fight. In most fights, the two variables interact to jointly affect the result of a fight. Which variable will dominate and in what ratio in a particular fight will depend on so many intervening variables that coming up with an accurate predictive equation is at this stage of our science not yet possible. So, IMO, this question can never be resolved even if this thread will run into a million posts.

I will not disagree with most of differences you delineated between a gunrunner and an MA sensei. But, the claim is not that MA sensei is exactly the same as a gunrunner. As you detailed, there are essential differences between them and that is undeniable or need not be refuted. However, the claim is only that since the MA sensei deals in potential weapons of destruction like the gun runner, except the fact that his weapons are "natural" ones, not like the man-made weapons of the latter, he deserves to also be called a "lord of war". These two jobs may well be extremely diverse on all other points of comparison. They are purported to be similar only on this single point and nothing more. BTW, being a lord of war is not ethically bad in itself, if one is to be classified as "good" lord of war. One can aptly deserve this title, if one sells weapons only on the promise of the buyer to use them only for the defense of self, loved ones and country, then he is a good gun dealer. Isn't this the only moral requirement that a lord of war has to demand from his prospective customers to be morally right? But, as to whether the customer or buyer will keep his word is not his own look out, except that he should not deal anymore with this customer or client if it can be proved that he used the weapons earlier sold, contrary to the promise he made in the initial transaction. So, too, an MA sensei can be a good lord of war. He can teach anyone whom he believes will use his art for good and not evil, and after getting the latter's promise to do so, he will teach him the deadly skills. He also doesn't have control on how the student will use those skills, despite the latter' pledge. He can only refuse to have anymore association with him or continue teaching him if the latter seeks further training, and it is proven that he used his learned art for evil earlier. So, if an MA sensei has to be classified as a lord of war by logical association, he should be a good lord of war, IMO.

Yes, however, it is not just wild guessing, but calculated guessing (meaning it has some empirical or factual basis and not just taken out of the blue), which is true even in the field of science when exact figures cannot be produced to support one's conclusions more definitively. So, in the absence of exact figures to show that violent crime offenders have had martial arts training, I would assume the characteristic null hypothesis on the issue, because it is not natural to have martial arts training for a population as this training is acquired, not inborn. But, how "several" is "several well documented cases of martial arts instructors being involved in sex crimes"? You must state the ratio of this observation to the total observation of the phenomenon under investigation and test for its significance in the population given. Do you see the problem with statistics being qualitatively expressed? Highly speculative, but it is still a legitimate preliminary hypothesis to begin a scientific study on the problem. Liking to fight is a trait or emotional predisposition, while knowing how to fight is a natural but usually more of a learned skill. You have to prove the causative influence of one over the other for you to know this is empirically true. Liking to fight doesn't necessarily result to knowing how to expertly fight. That is the reality of news reporting and even of statistics itself when it is not done scientifically by experts. It is a limitation that we must live with in our search for the truth. But, having some information on a phenomenon is still better than no information at all.

Although almost everything that is used for fighting, maiming or killing people can be widely considered as possible "war weapon", from the WMBs to the nail of your finger, only those weapons whose original intent is strictly for fighting can be conventionally and lexically referrred to as "weapons" (both man-made weapons, like guns or natural weapons, like hands and feet, when used in unarmed combat). So, a car salesman, by this definition, cannot be considered a "lord of war", unless he deals in car bombs. He..he...he Ginsu knives are intended for kitchen use and when used on vegies and meat in the kitchen, they are not considered weapons, strictly speaking, but kitchen utensils/accessories. However, since they are knives and can cut, they can be used as weapons to hurt and kill people. In this context therefore, salemen who sell Ginsu knives as kitchen tools are not "lords of war" but "lords of the kitchen", while salesmen who sell Ginsu knives as weapons to for self-defense or killing are "lords of war". All depends on the nature of their trade.

It may not be valid statistics to you. But, for me and in my experience, it is statistics describing frequencies of observed phenomena in a qualitative form, and it means zero (0)count on violence perpetuated by criminal elements who have training in martial arts out of total violence reported from Jan. to October this year in our dailies and TV. This means all violence reported were done by non-martial artists, as far as I have noted. It is just another way of reporting statistics though not the in the form of exact numbers or quantitative measures. Unfortunately, in my country, no one is keeping counts exactly on how many crimes in total or sum that have been reported in these dailies and TV. But, for the purpose of this discussion, I believe it should suffice as it is the best I can produce for my country's situation. Do you have you own statistics in your country on this particular issue of "majority committing street crimes are martial arts-trained" which you yourself could positively contribute?

I would like to see those statistics. Does the definition of martial arts, as pertains to said statistics, include wrestling/boxing? And, in these statistics, is it merely formal training that defines whether someone is skilled in committing violent acts? I'm referring here to street attacks perpetuated by people who have been expertly trained in martial arts. In my part of the world, there's not a single mention in our daily newspapers or on TV for the months from January up to October this year of any kidnapper, carjacker, holdupper and other notorious street criminals as having a background of a formal training in a martial arts school. Can you cite your statistics in your area if you believe the majority of street attackers have been trained in martial arts, if you are of different view? Ordinary street threat? I wish there was such a thing. By "ordinary" street threat, I refer to the usual kinds of street attack reported in your community or area. In my community, we have such ordinary or usual street threat types, we also have rare ones and extremely rare types. As we live in different geography and socio-cultural milieu, we don't have the same specific types for these three classifications of street threats according to frequency. This is not an issue of paranoia, but of reality. Although we do not personally witness violent crimes being committed on a daily basis, they nonetheless do occur... and far more often than people would care to believe. It has happened to family members, to friends, and to me sufficient times that i do not dismiss it so easily. Violent crimes do occur, and you don't necessarily have to be at the wrong place, or at the wrong time. Where the area you live indeed has such violent crimes committed by people with knowledge of expert martial arts occurring on a daily basis, then one should realistically respond with commensurate measure of defense and technical preparedness for the near probability that you will be attacked by thugs who are experts in martial arts. Probably getting a license to carry a gun and be proficient in its use for such street emergencies will even be better than reliance on unarmed martial arts. These visualizations are useful and one should indeed drill and practice how they would respond to such street threats. Just bear in mind that where the attackers are armed, your unarmed martial arts may fall short of its expected efficiency to save your life. If it’s your possesion they want, lose it rather than your life, even if you pride yourself to be an expert in several forms of martial arts. If it’s your life that they want and they are advantageously armed, you have a choice to either cry in fear, do nothing and pray for a quick death, or die fighting. Again, if you truly believe your neighborhood is extremely dangerous to your health and survival, trust weapons more than your empty hands and feet. But, the better option is to change neighborhoods if it is within your means.

While I agree with you that they hold a different purpose than rabbi, priests & monks, I disagree with you that MA instructors are "lords of war" as you put it. The principle behind every martial art I've ever heard of is self-defense rather than training a miltary force for military purposes. The martial arts themselves follow a moral code that instructs its members not to go looking for fights. Fighting is an activity that can never be interpreted as peaceful. Fighting itself is violent and involves hurting others and being hurt by them. But, the purpose of fighting may be to achieve peace (considered positive) or total domination (considered negative). One must not confuse the means with the end or objective. They are not always equivalent or the same. Fighting as means is negative, but peace as objective is positive. Having said that, MA instructors may be labelled as lords of war, but we are talking only of the means they teach to others. Fighting or war are negative means. But, then, MA instructors may teach fighting (negative) to achieve a justifiable or good objective, like self-defense or peace with others. Being dubbed as "lord of war" doesn't necessarily mean, one is bad or evil. One can be a lord of war and yet being one for a good end or one who wages war for a justifiable or noble end. If so, his rightful title is actually "good" lord of war. I hope people would not think that being lord of war is always bad? You have a noble mission. But, in case some of your students become rotten in the future and use the martial arts you taught them for criminal activities, don't feel guilty as this is beyond your control and it is not your fault at all. I hope you will not claim that your students will never use the martial arts skill that you taught for evil or criminal activities, because I won't believe you as you have no control over their future behavior in the same manner that you don't have control over their present behavior right now. (Lest I'm misunderstood, I used the term "you", but I meant to address this to everyone reading this post and not particularly directed to you, IcemanSK)

I completely agree. To put it more bluntly, both gun runner and martial artist provide people the means to defend themselves or attack others. If the gun the gun runner sells is used by the buyer to commit a crime, it's not the fault or crime of the gun runner, but the buyer and user of the gun sold. In the same token, if the martial arts skill learned by a MA student is used to attack and oppress others, it's not the fault or crime of the MA instructor, but the student. This should be unconditionally clear, otherwise all teachers are guilty or accessory to the crime when the technical skills they teach their students, even such simple skills as writing and computing, are used by their students for illegal or criminal activities. I disagree. Most fighting skills are intended to cause pain, harm or even death to the attacker, but the purpose for doing so may either be for self-defense against criminal elements (considered justified or good) or unprovoked aggression towards innocent people (considered unjustified or bad).

Willanem has it right. If Cage's character in the film calls himself "sensei" its only to make himself feel better about what he does. Martial arts sensei are builders of character, not destroyers of it. Martial arts senseis are so called because they teach the art of fighting, techniques of attack and defense. By profession, they are neither therapists nor preachers whose main job is personality development or character formation. If ever shaping of character is attempted by a MA sensei, usually the traditional type, it is only incidental or vicarious to his principal task, as the main bulk of his work as sensei remains to be still teaching technical skills of fighting to his students and making them highly efficient in SD or sports fighting competition. So, by profession, they are "lords of fighting" or in more dramatic term, "war", not lords of peace. In contrast, priests, rabbi, monks and the like are "lords of peace".

Personally, if I have to address a martial arts teacher as "master", it simply would translates to me as "Sir" or "Teacher" or equivalent to "sensei", nothing more to it. I don't deify him or idolize him as a god. Being a Christian, when I address Christ as Master, it translates as "my Lord" or "my God". There's a big difference in the meanings attached because the term "master" is not univocal at all, but has several meanings depending on the context it is used. In truth, however, the address I use with all martial arts teacher that deserve my respect is "Sensei". In my organization, I call only one person that and he is our chief instructor. I have not called anyone "master" at all. If I do, it probably would only be Gichin Funakoshi, the acknowledged father of modern karate, as I view him as sensei of senseis. To every other karate great who came after him, I have always referred to them as "______sensei". Anyway, that's my own way. Others have their own idiosyncrasies as well.

Yesterday, I watched Nicolas Cage's "Lord of War" which is a film about gun running and gun dealing. Guns kill people and gun runners are often seen as "killers" too because they sell these guns that kill. While watching the film, I could not help but compare Yuri (Nicolas Cage) to a martial arts (MA) sensei. Guns kill innocent people, but guns also save innocent people. Guns in themselves are amoral, they don't kill, but the users of guns do. Martial arts in itself is also amoral, it doesn't kill, but people who use martial arts may do so. Now, like the gun dealer, a MA sensei also deals in (teaches) a deadly art of hand to hand fighting that can kill. In a way, he is similar to the gun runner. My question is: Is the MA sensei a "lord of war" too?

Different individuals have different perceptions of the level and quality of threat they would likely encounter in their personal life and/or their careers. If one perceives the threat would likely come from trained martial artists, then they would train to the level that will enable them to competently meet this level of threat. If we are talking about street attackers, current statistics will show that people expertly trained in martial arts do not constitute the majority, but in fact an almost insignificant minority. Hence, you will not need to develop your skill to the level of an accomplished expert and maintain it at that level everyday. Why kill a fly with a shotgun? However, if you want to make professional sports ring fighting as your career, then the odds is almost completely positively skewed in favor of trained martial artists, so you will need to spend much effort, time and money to reach a very high level of expertise. Nonetheless, if you believe you should be an expert and highly skilled even for ordinary street threat, I cannot blame you or criticize you for it. It's your personal investment and your anxiety. For as long as you realistically assess the threat confronting your situation and prepare for it adequately, you should be okay and won't need a shrink yet.