Martial_Artist

For me, head kicks work like this: For some people they are fine. For others it would be foolish to use them. I use them only when I should. And I have used them on the streets. Just like any attack, you just have to be smart with it. You wouldn't use your hand to grab the blade of a knife, right? So you wouldn't throw the head kick, if you knew it would be countered. Conversely, I only use the kick when I'm sure it will make contact. Experience has taught me that the head kick is invaluable. At the same it is this experience that has shown me prudence in using the head kick. You should be able to do them, because you never know when it would be useful to do it. Better prepared than unprepared.

LeaF, I understand where you come from with regard to your story. Without disrespect to O Sensei-san, I was merely pointing out the statement you made clear in your post. I appreciate havin input from many sources. The more sources, the better chance we have of filtering out what works and what doesn't. About where you live, I apologize if my statements about ignorance were offensive. It was not a direct personal attack calling you ignorant. It was more a comment about a state of mind, ie being ignorant of conditions, or not being aware. I chose ignorant because it is a stronger adverb than the phrase not being aware. I wasn't saying that you are ignorant. I was referring to perhaps you being unaware of certain bad elements surrounding you. Obviously, I was wrong. It is good to hear of those who can avoid potentially harmful situations by simply being aware of their surroundings. Just earlier this evening on a walk with my wife and son, we avoided a potentially dangerous situationa by veering away from a group of 'thugs' engaging in not so becoming activities. My point really didn't refer to relative safety of our streets. Compared to places like the Philippines(I lived there for 4 years), Israel, or other turbulent nations, our lands are significantly safer. I was referring to the possiblity of danger. That's why I quoted the story about a friend. Even three homes away from his he was mugged. Anyplace, no matter how safe it is relatively, can become dangerous under the right circumstances. That is why, personally, self-defense is paramount. I have a family to protect, and I need the ability to do such if, ever, the circumstance presents itself. Believe me, I will do anything to prevent that, including veering a different path away from potential danger. Relatively speaking, today's society is not war ridden, but there are parts of the US that violence is just as relevant as it was in Feudal Japan. Think inner-city. Luckily I don't live near such places, but the influences of those places seem to spread themselves further out to where I live. I was once a Boy Scout, "always ready." Kampai (japanese for cheers)

Are you for real? Scott sucks at kungfu. Where did Scott learn to throw his punch? If he sucks at his art, then obviously he sucks as well with his punch. Jim knows TKD. Jim is good at TKD, (You said so yourself) So if Jim is really all this good at TKD then he is going to know how to use his body better than Scott, because Scott sucks(like you said) and Jim is good. So Scott loses. The skill of the fighter in his art won. If neither of them had training, then the skill and experience of the fighter wins out. If they have formal training its going to be who has the better training. It's the fighter....I've heard it all before Thug. The fighter plays a good role in fighting, but the fighter can only do as well as he has been trained. If you're a great athlete, good co-ordination, but don't know jack about the mechanics of fighting, how well do you think you'll do against someone mediocre in athletic ability, but extremely gifted in the mechanics of fighting? You'll more than likely get your butt handed to you, and spend the rest of the day wondering why being the better fighter didn't win you out. The fighter can only do as much as his body has been conditioned to do. The body can only do what it has been conditioned to do. The mind can only perform as it has been cultivated to do. Understand that? Pretty simple, right? Basic scientific knowledge of how the body works, how the mind controls the body when it comes to how it performs will direct you to the same conclusion. The greatest person in the world can only do as much as the tools he has before him. If you were the greatest carpenter on earth and were pitted in a contest against some mediocre carpenter to carve a relief out of wood. How well would you do if all you had to do that with was a plastic spoon? You'd probably lose the contest. You know what, I must be nuts. Einstein was called nuts by "experts" in the field. You know it can't possibly be that I'm right, it MUST be that I'm nuts. DO YOU TYPE JUST TO TYPE? You've answered the question then.

Kensai, Why are you accepting an apology not directed to you? My apology was solely for Omnifinite. Who are you to say I am not a great master? Are you the final judge that proclaims to all that stand upon this earth who is a great master, and who isn't? Do you know me? Do know my students? Do you know the martial art I practice? Do you know my standing in that martial art? You don't know me, Kensai, and since you are obviously not the one to declare who is a great master, you cannot say that I am not, without knowing first who I am. In the art I live, you do not know my standing, my position amongst the students and teachers. Who are you--someone who knows nothing of the martial art I live--to say I am not a great master? History tells who are the great masters? Ha! Tell that to the great masters back when they were young, and history didn't account unto them such a haughty honor. So, by your definition alone, a great master is only one remembered. So, then, Hitler was a great master of military might. He is quite remembered today. What of the martial artist past who studied their arts and mastered their technique, but were not head-full of seeking fame as to not expose themselves. Are they not masters? Do you know any such man? I don't believe you have had the martial arts immersion to know who is a master and who is not. You seem too limited and caught up in your self-serving philosophies as to not see beyond the doors of your own dojo. You ask me not to take offense? And why should I not? Because your statement is supposed to possess some inkling of truth? Perhaps, my friend, to you it does; but do not be so liberal in your labelings to me. You do not know me, Kensai. Do not pretend to know me, either. No one is contradicting what you do or do not like. I have not entered any discourse to change your mind. I merely answer questions and reply to statements. I offer only what I know; I don't offer to change anyone's mind. I suppose, though, that that's just you. It doesn't really matter to me. I have my life, and I am content with it. I am continually seeking improvement and progression in the martial arts world. I don't seek fame, or fortune, or even recognition for my deeds or contributions. I would live out my days in anonymity and be content to know I have succeeded, even if it is only to myself I know such a thing. Whether history or memory has never a mark of my existence, neither of those two things have authority to declare that I have not walked the path, lived the life, and earned the honor. You, nor anybody else, cannot sit there behind your computer and say to me, "No offense, but you are no great master." Tell that to my students and they will most likely beat you up. I am more forgiving. I have already said it, Kensai, you may continue doing what pleases you most, I'm not here to convert you to my way of thinking. Therefore, adieu.

Omnifinite, I see where your comment is coming from, and I must apologize for being somewhat rash. It's just that the sillyness of wriggling toes, &c. didn't come across as serious, so I didn't treat it as such. The ancient masters I don't have a problem with, for the most part(some semi-contempory teachers I do). It's what their modern students have done to their arts. The ancient masters had more to say about learning what worked and what didn't than what their modern counterparts have to say on the subject. Their modern counterparts would rather catalogue, and catagorize every movement and say this is kenpo, or this is karate, and fight over their names and styles. Just read Sun Tus, Lao Te Ching, or Musashi Miyamoto--among other great ancient masters. Those guys didn't say x form, to y pattern for z result. They gave working guidelines, concepts and philosophies towards fighting mechanics, to govern the movements of human form. For Sun Tsu, that was governing an army, for Lao te Ching, the spirit, and for Musashi, the body. These ancients didn't sit around and conjure up X Style to be taught X way. They found that, through experience, some things, some concepts worked better in fights than did others and they shared those philosophies. The ancients found what worked and taught it to others. There was no crime in giving their experiences names, the only bad side to it was that their modern counterparts have taken those names to heart. I am grieved to say that your feeling was right. I don't mean to offend, sometimes I just get energetic. The martial arts means a lot to me. It is more than just a hobby or exercise program; it has been my life. Humbly, I apologize. I'm not out to pick fights or make enemies. Sincerely, Martial_Artist.

Omnifinite, Are you a child, or serious? Wriggling your toes? Touching your nose with your tongue? You're not trying to be funny are you? You wouldn't be limiting yourself because you are the one making the decision and not simply being taught a robotic pattern, or form. When you are novice to the martial arts, you are taught patterns that have been decided upon for decades. You aren't taught the essence of martial arts in the neophyte years. You are taught patterns, many of which have lost their combative usefulness and are not efficient any longer. You're right, students can feel that what they're training in is quite complete. (Take Kensai for example, he's more than satisfied his art is complete) But that feeling the student possesses doesn't make it fact. You can believe the moon is made of cheese all you want, but it will never change the composition of the moon. I don't think many students of modern martial arts have the same goal as I, but many do, and many try. I only try to help along the way, using my experience and training as a guidepost. I don't speak from conjecture, or hypothesis. What I say has been tried and true. Styles are limiting, more than just the set number of moves that are programmed into the fighter, but the philosophy that there is nothing beyond their art and that it is complete. If you were to attend an elementary algebra course and your teacher were to tell you that this is all the math in the world. That there is nothing further out there. That this is complete. That he is the only instructor who knows it, and it full. You wouldn't believe him, would you? Because you know better. Beliefs are wholly based on what we consider to be truth, regardless of if there is any fact in that belief. Kensai, You are funny. For you this is about changing minds. About who's wrong or right. I could never win a battle with someone over their beliefs of right and wrong. For me, this has been about greater martial arts truth, about learning what we can as a martial artists to expand our horizons and develop ourselves as people. I said in the beginning, I'm not a preacher, nor will I try to convert you; to change you to my way of thinking. I will only offer information I believe helps other martial artists. I never said martial arts were SOLELY about fighting. I said that fighting is what makes the philosopher, art, and philosophy martial. Take out the fighting and you might just as well become a yoga guru. Fighting is so much the heart of martial arts, that if it wasn't after the masters of ancient created it they would have abandoned training in times of peace, and stuck to meditation. I don't think you'll believe me though, and that is sad. Because before you is an opportunity to grow as a martial artist and you are passing it up as if it were common rubbish on the street. I suppose that is why I am so adamant about making sure I'm clear. But, then again, it doesn't really matter, does it? In no way am I going to change your mind on the subject. LeaF, Read my post to Kensai. Have you never walked a street at night? My friend was mugged not three houses away from his. Where is this wonderous place you speak of where you can walk around and not expect someone to come at you? Or do you simply walk around ignorant that there are people out there who would do you harm if given the chance? I do not know where you live, perhaps no one has ever tried to beat you up. Every fight I have been in I did not seek. I did not go out looking for trouble. I was walking to a dance; going to see my friends; walking to pick up my younger siblings; just standing on a corner. If you don't think that the core of martial arts, that the reason for their creation, is self-defense, then I believe that you have the common misconception. The martial arts were not created to replace religion. Even the ancient masters of old built the martial arts around the current religions of their era. The martial arts are a supplement. I have religion. I do not need the martial arts to develop my mind or soul. I have religion to do that for me. Martial arts supplements that development by helping me to cultivate my body, and develop physical prowess so as not to be a sloth. What has happened, is that modern students do not understand this, because it has not been conveyed in the teaching. When the art is taught in the east, the philosophies of shinto and buddha are commonplace, in fact almost every student already leads that sort of life. The martial arts is not taught to replace that belief, but to complement it. In the West, the fact that the martial arts is not a religion was lost to the western students. They saw the East as a whole and took the art as such. So, it translated into the martial arts being taught along with the eastern philosophy. This, doesn't replace religion. it was never intended to. I don't the martial arts to help me find spiritual essence or power. My religion does that fine enough for me. So, whether you realize it or not, you don't the East to teach you how to become a better person. The religion written into martial arts is present because the ancient creators of the traditional styles were raised that way since childhood. They didn't know anything else. To wonder why it is found in the traditional styles is simple: the creators were followers of that religion. The creators of Western martial arts have philosophy as well, but religion is left to the practioner. The ultimate goal of karate-do is to perfect the fighter. To give him tools to both defend and tools to carry his character as one with honor. I don't pity the student who is spending years learning how to defend himself. You can never get perfect, and the threat never leaves. It doesn't vanish with old age. So the student who learns to fight his whole life is doing so because he feels the need to be better. You can never attain perfection, so that requires that you endlessly study to improve. About that story, only you hold O Sensei Richard Kim in the regard as one of the greatest martial artists of this century. So declaring that in the opening is quite braggardish. Also, anyone can write a story to tell his point. Artistotle, Cicero, and countless other rhetors of old have taught us that rhetoric is the tool of the rhetorician. Because O Sensei san, wrote this fable, doesn't make it true. Would he tell a tale that would contradict what he believes? Would you? Belief isn't always truth/fact. People tend not to veer from what they believe to be truth. Perhaps the story could be written: the fox and the cat spoke and said the same, let us simply change the setting. There are no trees. As the cat eloquently stated, "All is lost." The dogs come and the cat has no defense. As the fox was depicted as a dote, I will not show him as such. The wily and fast fox quickly found a solution and evaded the dogs as his companion the cat, not knowing what to do outside of his single technique, was devoured. What does the fable prove? Only what the writer wishes it to prove. You three have only simply shown, and displayed, where each of you stand in the martial arts. Clearly and without reservation. I appreciate that. Your words have spoken a thousand times over in describing yourselves. I respect that. I'm not here to convince anyone they are wrong and I am right. I keep repeating it, but some people just don't get it. They just seem to take it as if I'm trying to make them think the same as I. I just share information I have found helpful to myself. Do with it what you will, it doesn't matter to me. However, I won't stop sharing what I feel helps, and pointing out what I feel is hindering.

Kensai, If what you believe about the martial arts is true, then why practice the punch, the kick, the attack? Why use these things to express your soul and what you believe in? The punch, the kick, what do they do to help you express yourself? You contradict yourself at one major point. If martial arts are not about combat then why not take up philosophy at the university, follow the Dalai Llama, or learn yoga? Why learn to fight to express your soul and what you believe in? "One must experience form, before one can appreciate formlessness." So you admit that eventually you will find your art too constricting and have to progress to formlessness? If you believe what you have written, then what have you been debating? Your last comments are contradictory to everything you have written previous. The martial arts are a continuing evolution of life...so to confine them would hinder that evolution, right? You must progress from form to formlessness, right? (One must experience form, before one can appreciate formlessness) So eventually the destination to be reached is a realization that no form allows the acquisition of all form. So, what is it you are trying to say? Form is better than formlessness? That the continuing evolution of life, you call martial arts, isn't really that continuing because you limit yourself to one art? That you express your soul through combative movements yet claim not to be a combatant? I think you would be happier as a yoga guru, or disciple of the dalai llama, rather than as a martial artis: a philosopher that studies combat to find inner expression. You didn't answer my question, "How can you find purity in limitation?" Allow me to answer for you: you can't. Confining it, restricting it, declaring it whole, while removing its greater parts; that is the furthest from pure that the martial arts can become. The martial arts are an expression of the soul, of what one believes in. This I agree with you on. We express this 'self' through the punch, the kick, the essence of the fight. That is what makes us MARTIAL artists, and not yoga guru's, ballet dancers, or disciples to the Dalai Llama. Think about it. Clarify your thoughts before response. Listen to logic, listen to your heart. There is more to the martial arts than you have been exposed to. You are perhaps yet young, and hopefully not fully rooted in bad ground. The advantage of youth is the prospect of change towards progression. When the oak has set its path, it cannot be easily changed. The sapling can be cultivated to grow to an oak unbreakable by any wind. Until you can present yourself without contradiction to your own statements I cannot process your remarks. It would seem that even you yourself do not fully understand where you stand. I respect your enthusiasm in defending your beliefs. I only hope that you will defend such without the narrowmindness appearent in most. My "style" (if it could even be called a style) is furthest from limited. I possess every style, because I do not align with any one style. Good luck in your personal quest for martial knowledge.

Hola, Venezolano! ¿Cómo estas tú? ¡Bienvenido!

Kensai, You see, I do not view the martial arts dependent upon their arts. I do not do a martial art. I do the martial arts. My life is given to the study of the martial arts, not to any one art. Let me elaborate. When I study to fight I do not look at my opponent and say to myself, "What technique have I been taught to use here?" or "What pattern/form can I use?" For me, styles are useless and only hinder the true progression of the martial artist. Why should there be a necessity to differentiate styles? We all have two arms, two legs, a body. We are all men (and women). When you move, it is not vastly different from how I move. Any move your body does, mine is capable of. Your punch, your kick can only move as the physics of the human body allow. Same as mine. There is no style or form, how could there be? The moment you define what the body can or cannot do(defined by the list of movements within the style) you have limited yourself as a martial artist. How can you find purity in limitation? How can you find completeness is boundary? What wholeness exists in the confined? I am a martial artist of the Pure Art. I have two arms, two legs, not unlike many others of the human species. When I fight, I fight in the purity of human form. I am not limited to what form, pattern, or style I have been taught. I am only limited by what the human body can and cannot do. Every movement you do, any attack you deliver or defense you offer I know. Your arm can only move in so many directions, the force behind it can only generate in so many directions, your body can only manuever is so many ways, what makes you think that your human body, which is the same as mine, can do anything that I cannot expect or see through? (because I have trained to recognize human form, human power, and human movement) It matters not if I know every move within the patterns defined by the 'style' of your martial art. You are a man, any and everything you do is based on the physics and creation of your body. An elbow can only bend certain ways, a wrist, a leg, a torso, where do you get your belief that any of those defined movements cannot be predicted, or seen through by someone who understands completely how the human form works under combat? What makes you believe that by limiting yourself to one style, dedicating your life to it, is going to make you complete in some way to prepare yourself for movements the creator of your style didn't see through? How do I know that there are movements that each style has a weakness to? The very existence of multiple styles tells me this. One man creates a martial art to give himself direction to defend himself. Another sees this, but finds fault, perhaps an attack the first did not think about, and builds a style on that. The very existence of different kinds of martial arts styls is proof that each style is incomplete and that someone somewhere found need to improve and change and create anew. You see, I don't find it my perrogative to do justice to any one style. I owe no style anything. Instead, I do justice to the martial arts. The study and practice of arts pertaining to war, combat, and fighting. I am not just a fighter, but a fighter with philosophy toward that fighting, I am a martial artist. If you're happy where you are, that's great. I'm happy for you. I'm just trying to help other martial artists realize the full potential of the martial arts. I don't believe in any one system, or style, so for me there is only one philosophy. And that is the philosophy of the martial arts. I've said it before, the martial arts are about combat. That is what differentiates us from ballet dancers, or yoga guru's. We study the punch, the kick, the attack, and the defense for combat. It is the philosophy that comes to governs that ability that makes us artists and not soldiers. But, the martial arts, are combat centered. Why else do you think your instructor is teaching you to fight? Because you are learning a MARTIAL art, and not a painting, or dancing art. As martial artists we decide what to do with that ability, and that is the philosophy that makes us martial artists. I really don't have anything else to say. If you want to know more (I don't like repeating myself) go read my thread under combative arts titled, "The Martial Arts". 50 some odd posts may help clarify my philosophy.

And thus, our difference lies in definition of the terms.

The definiton of a stop-hit is a kick that is used to kick the kick of your opponent, to stop the progression of his kick by kicking his calf, thigh to prevent his kick from moving towards you. An intercepting kick could be used to hit the opponent in a vital area(face, chest, stomach, groin) to intercept the kick and prevent it from doing any damage. Therefore, by certain definition, some being more specific than others, an intercepting kick is different from a stop-hit. So, I was correct when I made the distinction according to the way I use those terms. You may ambiguously use both interchangeably. I don't. So we are both right in our own spheres. I was demonstrating the need to clarify with your instructor how those terms are defined in the art you study. Because, as I have pointed out, for some whose definitions are specific the two terms are not interchangeable. And as you have demonstrated, for some the two terms are equal in meaning. So therefore, to be 100% clear ask your instructor for the meaning in the applications you will be learning.

Kensai, You don't have to agree. It doesn't matter to me. The more martial artists who continue to limit themselves, the better for me. The less I have to worry about facing an opponent who can do something I won't expect. I can see, that perhaps, you are novice in the study of the combative arts. A fighter who has faced multiple opponents is quick to see the advantage in carrying every weapon in the arsenal rather than simply bringing a handful of weapons and hoping they work for every situation. But, then again, this is just my opinion, right? And what are opinions? They don't mean much, right, compared to hard facts? You'd do yourself a favor to learn the lessons taught by the ancient rhetors of society. I'm amused. But then again, this is nothing new I haven't encountered before in the years of my sojourn as a martial artist. Kensai, you may continue down the path you've chosen and see where it leads you. Maybe, someday, something will happen to open your eyes. If not, oh well, doesn't affect me or my opinion, right? Hehe. Good luck.

The sidekick and roundhouse, as well as front kick, are the most important kicks you can ever master.

Personally, I don't think any one style, or art is complete in any way. It doesn't matter how many centuries you spend studying the boundaries of a single art, you'll only see as far as that art allows you. It works like this: If you study one martial art, then everything you know about the martial arts, about fighting philosophy, about combat theory, and the martial path of life is what that art teaches you. You know martial movement based solely on what patterns that art teaches you. You can not know more outside the boundaries of that art. It is the art you choose to study, and it has limitations. Every art/style has a limitation, a built in boundary. It only teaches the student what it knows, it can do no more. Now, let's say you study this art 'til the end of your days. Excellent you have learned every square millimeter of the boundaries of that art. You are that art, and that art is not complete. Why? Why isn't complete? Because it is one path of thinking, one single method of martial application, one man's approach to the martial way. This one art only teaches what its arsenal contains. That is why we have different styles, different approaches to the combat situation. Some lack in one area, others lack where some excel. Style, by the very meaning of the word, limits and confines a marital artist to its boundaries. To say, "I am a karateka, judoka, aikidoka, muay thai fighter, etc." is to say, "my martial soul is contained within these styles, in fact, my very martial essence is molded by these styles. I am the martial artist I am today because of these styles" No matter how long you follow the path of your one art, you'll be as much as that art allows you to be. Unless, you broaden your horizons and seek additional enlightenment elsewhere. To seek growth to your boundary. Better yet, to seek boundless martial application, to seek stylelessness. I don't think many people like this idea. To them style is everything, it is their id in the martial arts. It defines who they are, it gives them sense of being in the martial arts world. However, that doesn't matter if you are seeking complete martial arts development. For those who do not have a teacher who can teach them boundaryless martial arts, stylelessness martial application, and the very essence of the martial arts, it is in their best interests to train in as broad a spectrum as possible. Because if karate is all you do, karate is all you'll ever know. And if one day you are faced with something outside the boundary of your art you will not know what to do, and that may cost you your life. If you are seeking to become the complete martial artist, then seek to become boundaryless. Seek to learn as much as possible about humanity and combat. Never limit your mind or constrict it to a single path of thought. Narrowmindedness constricts the growth of the soul, and ultimately the martial artist.

I don't know about lowering morale, but hitting the first guy hard is a good idea. I've been unlucky enough to have been in a few of these situations and I didn't notice anyone's morale being lowered, but then again, things happen so fast who can notice? Anyways, it's excellent advice to hit the first guy HARD.

A young man searched long for a martial arts master. He found the master by a river one day meditating. The young man approached him and asked to be taught. The master asked, "How badly do you want to learn?" The student replied, "Oh, very much master, I want to learn very badly." The master answered, "I see." The master waded into the river and bade the young man to follow. Standing together waist deep in the water the master took the young man by his head and forced him under water. The young man struggled and fought hard to break the master's grip and stand up, but he couldn't. When the master was certain the young man had had enough he let him out of the water and stated, "When you want to learn as badly as you wanted to breathe; return."

I think you mean: Self Preservation.

Ask your instructor for the meanings. Each style has a different name for each movement, what one style considers a certain type of kick, another has a completely different terminology. For example: intercepting kick: A stop-hit performed with the foot. In another style the intercepting kick is a kick thrown faster than the opponents attack to intercept his movements and hit first. As I said: ask your instructor. It all depends on what you're studying...

I'm going to have to say that the style/art is more important than the fighter. You'll have to read my post under Comparative Style titled, ""Art vs Art?!?!?" for further explanation. In short, what is the fighter without his art? A fighter is nothing without his art. Think about it....

Fire Snake. Scorpio.

I don't understand. Oh well. If it doesn't have chimpanzees it isn't worth explaining. I prefer simplicity.

risingdragon, actually I wasn't defending your position... Actually, I wasn't referring to KickChick's post under that thread, I was referring to my own. Near the bottom. Quite so, each martial art does has a decisive point in which boy passes to man. But from the very begining each is a martial artist. You misread my statement, it was the intent behind the training, the studying. Not the intent to train or to study. Two distinct concepts. Someone who wants to be a martial artist must train to be a martial artist. If I begin my training in a martial art, starting as lowly white belt and I am training for all the right reasons then I am a martial artist. If I want to be a martial artist and do nothing to acheive that goal, then I am not a martial artist. I don't think my definition lacked anything. It was clear in its original delivery. The great zen monks were just that, great zen monks. Being a martial artist is as much the physical as the mental. It is in possessing a philosophy about the combative methods of personal expression. We seek for enlightenment through the punch, the kick, the martial application of the philosophy we endear. To be a martial artist, you must be able to fight as well as reason. Otherwise you are nothing more than a philosopher. You cannot be a martial artist without the martial. You see, it has been my experience that not all blackbelts must be given respect. The wearing of the belt means nothing to me and demands no such respect. I give respect to those worthy of it, not based on the color of the belt wrapped around their hip. Regardless of the dojo they come from. I hold no preconceptions about that person and afford him no other respect than the courtesy I would expect in return. Even white belts are expected to follow the same ideals as black belts. Those ideals might not be as conditioned and as reflexive as someone who has lived for longer, but they are still expected to act no different. True, blackbelts act differently than whitebelts, but this has more to do with maturity in their art than it does with their ideals. You know, our concepts of what define what a blackbelt should be are not different. I completely agree that a person who wears the blackbelt should be everything you said he should be. Our difference lies in that I do not define a martial artist by the belt or rank held he holds. I do believe that blackbelts should be great martial artists. However, the lowly white belt, or red belt, or novice who studies the martial arts with real intent is a martial artist and will forever be so long as he holds true to his goal. This is a martial artist. An artist of the combative ways. A philosopher of war. A man who seeks enlightenment or improvement through combat. That is why there is the punch, the kick, the movement that kills and the movement that restrains. To take the fight out of the martial artist is to remove the martial and create a philosopher equal with Plato and Socrates. The path for this begins with novice and never ends. Once you place your foot on that path, and continue onward, you are always a martial artist. You are not martial artist just when you reach the end, because there is no end. My sarcasm is a result of reciprocation. I give what is given. I won't force my belief on you, but I will defend mine. I do this with the hopes of helping my fellow martial artists further their martial development.

I see. How does the kick hit the stomach and the kidney? Are these two different kicks or one single motion? Does the three ring circus have anything to do with Barnum & Bailey? Do you jump through rings while riding a tiger? Are chimpanzees involved? Need more clarity. Doumou arigatou gozaimashita.

Return of the Dragon, Bruce Lee. Kiss of the Dragon, Jet Li (although unrealistic, did contain many things very realistic and much creative on the choreagraphy) Jackie Chan's Who am I, Operation Condor: The Armor of God. (Both of these movies contain some scenes not very realistic, but for the most part many of the scenes hold true) Just about all movie fight scenes are unrealistic, the Chinese being as much a culprit as the Westerners. BUT, the chinese being a bit more creative in their choregraphy. They are, after all just movies and designed for entertainment. For Wesley Snipes, his moves in the movies can almost literally be numbered on one hand. As a numbered point for realism, when Westerners have a multiple opponent scene they seem to magically fight one opponent at a time. The other enemies lingering in the back. Now, while some chinese movies do this same thing, most show multiple enemies attacking simultaneously, especially Jackie Chan. He translates the realistic into something surreal, but still holding true to some aspects of fighting. Most westerners simply do not.

http://www.karateforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3081 http://www.karateforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3168 Are you telling me I'm not a martial artist? I must not be a martial artist, my martial art has no black belt. I must change my nick to something else, I guess I'm not a martial artist afterall. Having a blackbelt does not make you a martial artist.(see first link above) Having a blackbelt means you have memorized a series of techniques and patterns for your particular style. I have no blackbelt. Yet, I am a martial artist in the purest sense. You cannot limit what a martial artist is by defining it to a style's ranking system. Not all styles are equal. The blackbelt, is not a defining quality of a martial artist. There are countless "blackbelts" who are furthest from a martial artist. I am afraid, you are wrong. You have been mislead, or misinformed. Whether or not I possess a blackbelt doesn't decide whether or not I am a martial artist. The lowly white belt, although lacking in skill and knowledge, is no less a martial artist than the blackbelt. What defines a martial artist is the purpose and reasoning behind the study of the student. (see second link above) A white belt who enters the study of martial arts is a martial artist. He may be a novice martial artist, but nonetheless is a martial artist. Rank and knowledge have no bearing on whether you are a martial artist or not. You are a martial artist in your intent behind studying the martial arts. A blackbelt does nothing more than signify your rank and level of knowledge for your style. Having a blackbelt, even from a dojo is not a guarantee that you are a martial artist, or that you can even fight. A person wearing blackbelt is not automatically a martial artist nor a good fighter. Certainly, the white belt has not earned the respect of others yet, but what does this have to do with being a martial artist? The white belt can still be a martial artist, even in his lowly novice state. His heart can be a martial artist, his intent can be a martial artist, even if his skill isn't yet high, he is still a martial artist. Respect is not blatantly given to those of a colored belt. Whether or not you get respect as a blackbelt is wholly dependent on whether or not you earn that respect from others. If you have a blackbelt and I meet you, you will only get as much respect as you earn from me at that moment. Your blackbelt means nothing to me. Who you are beneath that blackbelt does. I have no blackbelt. I AM a martial artist. You cannot tell me I am not, based solely on that I do not have a "blackbelt". The ideals of blackbelt are the ideals that every student follows. Ideals are not handed out by rank, they are embraced by intent and heart. A blackbelt is a good thing, but only if you've put the heart into it it deserves. Attaining a blackbelt is good goal to attain, but it is NOT the defining parameter of a martial artist. I suggest you read the thread ,"The Martial Arts"under Combative Martial Arts. Of course, all my statements only apply to genuine martial artists... Perhaps this will help clear things up.