Martial_Artist

Welcome, sorry for the late greeting.

Howdy.

Hi and welcome.

Hi.

What's the point in carrying it? The point: it is part of martial arts and shouldn't be considered otherwise, as all weapons are. If self-defense is your goal, why on earth lessen what you have available for defense? Pride will get one killed more times than not. It's not a pride issue, "I am not afraid to walk the streets because I am a big, bad martial artist. Hehehe" It's an issue of being prepared and not risking your life. Carrying a weapon doesn't replace martial arts nor back it up, it supplements it and is as much a part of it as learning to punch.

Excellent point Jack. Make sure that you eat healthily Hiya. Putting junk food in to fuel your exercise program won't give your body the necessary blocks to keep it running smoothly.

Cheating in fighting. Is there such a thing? What makes it cheating? What would constitute as a cheat move? ps. Those who know me, know I am referring to fighting, not tournament or the likes, but pure fighting. I've mentioned this before, but I would like to bring it out on its own so it can be more fully discussed. I feel that so many misunderstand the concepts and principles behind this method of thought that it deserves its own thread. It may be brief, I could be wrong, but I would to bring it up anyways. [ This Message was edited by: Martial_Artist on 2002-06-24 12:56 ]

Nice quote, :- )-: Thanks for sharing it. EGL, No me vale madre. Talk like a dignified person and maybe, just maybe, I'll recognize your existence and enter correspondence with you. You've done this before, under another thread. (Dirty Fighting). What are you trying to prove, and to whom? Do you feel threatened by my remarks? Does that "bother" you? Maybe you should reevaluate yourself and find out why my comments hit the right note with you. Because, when has angry talk ever solved anything. Why don't you care about my opinion? Why would you even make any comments if what I said doesn't mean a thing to you? You see, you've already revealed a weakness. You say you don't care, but already you have revealed that you do by leaving an emotionally charged post. You can't contradict yourself and expect to be believed. Name calling? Scumbag? What have I ever done to you? Who are you to call me a scumbag? Do you know me? Have we met? You don't know me. You know only what I want you to know about me. You don't know me or what I know. Be careful not to assume too much, you'll make a fool of yourself. I don't study JKD. I have been to Japan. I have been to Hong Kong, Korea, and the Philippines. I am still standing. In fact, I can stand quite well. You can't see it, but I'll stand to type this. There, impressed? It doesn't really matter to me. I'm not trying to prove anything to anybody nor am I trying to impress anyone. You know, how can you honestly expect anything you say to be listened to seriously when you don't approach anyone in an amiable manner? Cursing at me in spanish, although maybe not understood by all is understand by some and, is not a good way to earn respect. I think you have some issues you need to resolve. I wish I could help, but since I'm an a-hole and my opinion doesn't matter to you I won't be able to. I don't know you, so I can't make any judgments. If what I said riles you up, maybe there's some truth behind it. The guilty always take the truth to be hard. That's just life. I hope you progress further in your martial arts training. Someday you may develop mental discipline and self respect (so that regardless of what is said, it won't get you angry) Words are a terrible thing to fight over. They are nothing but air, to whom do they harm? Only those that let them. [ This Message was edited by: Martial_Artist on 2002-06-24 13:46 ]

NO. Thank-you.

Depends. Not all martial arts will teach effective methods of blocking, so maybe not all of the blocks you study could be used. However, a whole slew of blocks are effective and will be used in a fight. Practice hard. Patience. It WON'T happen in under a year. Don't expect to be proficient in the art until you've given yourself plenty of time. 5mos. is new, so don't feel frustrated. Time, patience, and hard practice. If you don't put the effort you won't get the reward. Like the old adage, "you reap what you sow."

To Shotochem, I wasn't referring to my posts just my background. I already removed it from my last post, I don't like having it on display. If anyone didn't catch it they can PM me and I'll respond. I've never had a problem fighting a losing battle. About your post KickChick... I am a non-stylist. That is, I don't believe in any one style. My philosophy is more on everyone is created equal(with some exceptions) i.e. two arms and two legs, etc. Therefore, regardless of the style that person studies the movements that the human body can perform remain the same. For example a punch is a punch, there are different kinds of punches but it primarily remains a fist hurled at a target. Therefore, the martial artist must learn which movements are the most economical, effecient, and efficacious. Not necessarily limiting himself to a style. What bugs me the most is the softening of the martial arts for a larger audience and this is due in part to the media and to the drive to earn that buck in the dojo. I don't believe that martial arts should be softened to appeal to more students. In part, modernization of the martial arts has taken a horridly wrong turn. As you said, very well I might add, that most students don't want or have the time to put into learning the martial arts. I believe that a person who wants to learn will find a way to learn. We've all heard the old parable of the wise old man being approached by a young man asking to be taught martial arts. The old man asks, "Do you really want to learn?" The young replies, "Yes, I do." So they go to the riverbed and the old man repeats, "Do you really want to learn?" Again the young man answers yes. The old man invites the young man in to the river. There he begins the first lesson. He grabs the young man by his head and holds it under the water. The young man cannot breathe and is struggling for dear life. After a few moments when the young man is frantic the old man releases him. After catching his breath, the old man states, "When you want to learn as badly as you wanted to breathe just then, then come to me and I will teach you." The moral being it is the student's responsibility to put forth the effort to learn. However, most times it is not. The instructor does all he can to keep students, making the classes easier, rank advancement quicker, etc. The root of this of course being the martial arts have been turned into a business. Now, in theory, there is nothing wrong with this: charging to teach. But when you sacrifice the art for the buck, there I have a problem. Now, I believe that the martial arts are fully capable of handling modern defense situations, when viewed in the light of those situations. I mean, take the attack and view it as it is, an attack. Most traditional and modern martial arts teach from an ancient perspective and don't really apply their technique to many modern situations. Some do, but most don't. Sadly, many are taught a kata and it is never explained what that kata is for. Kata does not make one a good fighter, it helps in conditioning and such, but kata alone will not make one a good fighter. This isn't fully explained in most cases. Thus a student goes to class learns some kata after a few months is allowed to spar, taught more kata, given a rank advancement, and perhaps believes has been equipped to defend in any circumstance. ? ? You see, I see the martial arts as something beyond the constricts of the styles that use them. The martial arts is more than the art it lives within. So, traditional development isn't something I see as a problem. Human movement and reaction must adapt because weapons, environments, and circumstance have changed. The only constant is the human body and its vast capacity for movement. I wish I could speak more on TKD, but I can't, because I see it as something much broader than just in TKD. I see it in a grand plethora of martial arts. Most especially McDojos where you can get a BigBelt and side order of Nunchuks in under two years. ......... I believe that when an art is being instructed, if you choose to follow a particular style, then the instructor should do all he/she can to familiarize you with the realities of fighting. That style has little bearing on the outcome of a fight. That the ability to control the movements of the body under stress and move in an effective and efficient manner for that circumstance is paramount. That there are other styles and none of them should be underestimated because you don't know the person using that style. That fights are not pretty or fancy, but can be gruesome. I think a student should be fully informed as to what they are getting themselves into before they take their first class. We don't want to be building false senses of security that can cost lives, do we? A person may take a martial art, a McDojo martial art, and then feel confident only to learn that everything they were taught was useless, and end up in a hospital. Oops, I have babbled. I will add some coherency some other time. Now it's time to train.

I see. Well, I suppose I must concede that my thread, overall, is generally centralized to semantics. Mostly because almost all of what I am writing and trying to explain is based on what my personal view of the martial arts are. In my opinion the martial arts and artists are as I have defined them. This, however, doesn't mean they have to be accepted by everyone who reads them. I accept, and furthermore understand, this. I shall address the last few posts. First to Ti-Kwon-Leap, I thought I answered the questions appropiately. Anonymity is a treasure. I never said Tai Chi was not a martial art. What I said was dependent on the purpose and method of its instruction. And you are correct, he could not be remotely considered a martial artist. And if TaiChi was diluted to a health fad, then it would cease to be a martial art. I read every post carefully. -: Please read all of posts in thread carefully. You missed somethings written there. KickChick Calling a dog's tail a leg doesn't mean the dog has five legs. I suppose for an individual, believing yourself a martial artist would suffice for yourself. But if you believe you're the president, do you run the nation? See what I mean. Unmistakenably, it is important to believe and consider yourself a martial artist, but it does extend beyond that to what is done to further that belief. That's some of my angst, the 'modernization' of the martial arts. Not the development of technique to handle modern situations, the dilution of the arts to be softened to appeal to a larger audience. Shotochem, Thousands take formal martial arts and will never possess the ability to fight effectively. Formal training should, if the student really dedicates himself, improve the skills necessary to fight. Wherein do we disagree? Hypothetically, if you were a mean person prior to training, after years of discipline in your training you would no longer be. If I were your instructor and you were a mean an nasty person I probably would not take you as a student. If I did and after some training I saw no improvement or hope thereof I would not teach you further. However, hypothetically (as you stated), there would be no change in that person. Intent, the purpose behind instruction of technique is to relay the intent of that technique. Meaning, when I teach a technique there is more to its instruction than mere application and usage, but why and for what reason, i.e. intent. Is this something to be used when angry or when calm? The more vicious and larger person would only win over the under skilled and under experienced. Novices fear the large opponent. The disadvantage to studying a formal martial art? Only the reason behind your studying and the art being studied. Everyone has a reason to train and none of those reasons are wrong. We can't judge another for their desires. (That statement is not 100% fullproof. But for the sake of arguement...) Sincerely, Martial_Artist. [ This Message was edited by: Martial_Artist on 2002-06-19 17:49 ]

Two men have tried to kill with a knife. Both times the knife was visible before hand. Both times I told them it was a bad idea and they should just turn around and walk away. Both times they lost. It is not a given that you'll never see the weapon even if their intent is murder. People who carry weapons, legal or illegally, call them what you want but when you're in a fight and they have a weapon and you don't and you're killed there is no referee to call 'foul'. Sure it's cowardly, sure it's cheap, but if it's your life your talking about why let something so insignifcant as pride be your downfall? Learn to fight with your hands. I don't see how one can expect to be truly proficient with a weapon if he cannot first fight without one. Carry a weapon if you think you may need it. There is nothing wrong with being prepared. Use it when necessary, don't if you don't have to. There are laws to worry about. Carry something that probably isn't considered a weapon, but can be used as one. A tire beater, utility knife, use your imagination. If you want go ahead and carry the traditional weapons. I know someone who carries a katana, .45cal, nunchaku, short stick, and combat knife everywhere in his car. A bit much maybe, but that's what he feels he needs. He's been pulled over by the police and they really didn't care after checking his record and speaking with him. It's a personal choice. Sometimes I do, most I don't. I leave them at home. If I need to there are plenty of weapons for me to grab along the sidewalk.

Looks like I shouldn't have disappeared for so long. Looks like a lot of posts have been placed. Lots of good questions. Where do I start? The comments about which style suits you, can you perform it, do you enjoy it, based on reasons outside of fighting are again statements I already addressed in my post prior to that one. For further clarification it should be noted that I said not everyone goes into the martial arts for the same reasons, that is a given, BUT if those reasons are not centralized into fighting then they shouldn't be called a martial artist or martial art. The word art in martial art does imply creativity and personal expression, in things pertaining to war. If you wanted creativity and personal expression in a more 'artistic' way, ballet is just as physically demanding, AND its core is 'artistic expression'. It isn't dependent on what my personal definition of fighting or combat is. A fight is a fight. Nothing I do or say changes that. You see, it is not which style is best, putting down one style over the other. It is determining which truly are martial arts and which pretend to be martial arts. Then, after that, it is which style of martial arts suits your needs and so on. The differences are not as small and as insignificant as the differences between flag and contact football. Most people will never have to defend themselves in a fight. Most homes never burn down. Most planes never crash. Most bad things rarely happen. Do we have insurance because we don't need it? Do we fly out of ignorance? Do we go outside oblivious to the dangers? Is our training in the martial arts useless because it will never be used? Is the money spent on home insurance against a fire wasted because our house never burns down? It is not FAIR to call someone's martial art a NON-martial art, as put, because its core isn't fighting. Life is not fair. Who said any of this had anything to do with fairness? When it comes to martial arts, effectiveness is much more than moot. It is the very key to survival. Learn an ineffective technique then try it out in a fight, get hurt, and you'll understand. If not, it may be hard to comprehend. Have someone attack you unprovoked and angry, try a useless attack, then you will understand. I have seen it often. If someone took Taebo or aerobic kickboxing with the intent to beat the pulp out of someone, I would say that they're crazy for choosing TaeBo. A martial art does not have to be traditional and come from Eastern roots to qualify solely as a martial art. In fact it doesn't even have to formally taught. For example, those who live and die on the street fight with a martial art. They live and die dependent on their knowledge and ability to fight. My definition of the martial arts is not so confined as many perceive it to be, just focused on a central principle. Yes, real war has much more than footsoldiers, but what is purpose behind every facet of those objects used in the war, the fighting of the war. Medics, intelligence, negotiators, etc. are all there to complete the war machine. I never said martial arts had anything less. In fact I said there is much to the martial arts. We learn to live within the martial arts. We learn personal expression through a combative means. Medics, we learn to nurse our wounds. Intelligence, we study the actions of others and the situations that govern their actions, negotiators, more often than not we talk our way out of a fight. All of these facets of war, or martial arts, complete the picture. Without them the picture is incomplete and unrecognizable. And all of these elements are central and focused on fighting. Without that key element the picture crumbles and loses foundation. I am not taking a blanket term and chiseling it to fit my definition. I did not just look up the words 'martial' and 'art' in a dictionary and decide then and there that was the true meaning. Nor have I chosen to study an art whose focus is combat and subsequently labelled every other art that does not meet my art as inferior. I am making these statements in defense of the martial arts as a whole. Through modernization and capitalization what the martial arts are has been removed, and altered, and promulgated into something else. The statement on it's not the art but the person. However correct, is not what I'm talking about. After it is determined what is or is not a martial art, we can move to the martial artists. Who is best? That depends mostly on the person, but also factored in is the martial art. Whether that art is plain common sense brawling or a traditionally instructed art doesn't matter. What does is the effectiveness of the movements. One can never take a formal martial art and still possess the ability to fight. Learned through experience the most effective movements remain and are used. One can take a martial art and then be taught the better movements as well. When the two meet it does boil down to the fighter, but then again, that's not what this thread is about. But thanks anyways. BTW, I have had someone try and kick me in a fight. I wasn't sure if he had any 'formal' training (his kick was horrible and cost him any future chance at procreation). Your point is quite valid. If I took a golf club, develop a method of using it in a fight and began to teach others how to use the golf club in a fight I would be teaching a martial art. Now, if I neglected to teach the principles behind war, when to fight, when not, the strategy and strategm, the philosophy behind fighting, the possiblity of death and the taking of a life, the paths available other than raising that golf club (i.e. just walking away or talking the fight down) then I would not be teaching a martial art. Again, I never said that that's all the martial arts were about, I only said that that is its core, its soul, its heart. But a body is more than a heart, more than its soul, it has arms and legs, lungs and a stomach, a brain, so many elements, but all central to the heart (whether the physical heart itself, or the life passion of the person, the body depends on the heart) The same with the martial arts. With all of its limbs and organs they all are still dependent on its heart, fighting. If that's not the heart, then try as the body may to be something it is not, it won't. TaiChi, when practiced and taught under the same light as yoga is no different and cannot be coherently compared to joining the military. If you join the military just for the pay check you will still learn how to kill. If you take TaiChi just for exercise you won't learn how to fight. The two examples are not compatible. If the techniques are designed to be used in martial manner of course they are inherently martial. However, if they are taught or practiced not in a martial manner then they use their martial application. They might as well as be creative dance, or expressive ballet. Shadows of the former self. A two year old drawing is not a martial art nor could it be. The example is useless. The process of readying oneself for war extends beyond learning the technique to kill, it is learning when to exercise that technique. This has already been touched in this post and in previous posts. You see, I am not saying that there is not more to martial arts than fighting. There is. You cannot be a complete fighter without them. But fighting is the core of a martial art, and if it is not, then that is not a martial art. How could it be? If martial arts are for fighting, if that is their heart and soul and body, how could anything else be considered a martial art? Why would we dilute the meaning? This is probably done for the prides and egos of those taking them. I won't say all, but for most it may be. Perhaps they would not want to be called an expressive dancer, when all they're learning is dance moves taught under the pretense of martial arts. Perhaps it sounds better to be called a martial artist, even when they're not. I don't know and I don't care. What I do care about is the meaning of the words martial arts and why that meaning has been twisted and contorted to fit and conform to so many people having nothing to do with the martial arts. Finally, my personal martial arts background is unimportant. Why should it be otherwise? I am not advertising the art I study. I am not comparing it to other arts. My thread isn't about "my art is better than your art and here's why". What difference would it make what style I studied? If I studied something similiar to your art would that change your view of my statements? Would my martial arts credentials make any difference? The things I have said are true, my personal background has no bearing. I am not founding my statements on me or my personal background. I let my statements stand on their own. However, if you want to know, it is sufficient for me to say that I have been trained in the fighting, the arts of war, of many different methods of thought for a great many years. I train for defense. I have had the misfortune of having to fight my way out confrontations I would rather have talked out of. When I speak of 'technique' I will always speak of efficiency and effectiveness, anything else could cost you your life. I have seen the dark side of life and teasure the light. The martial arts ARE solely for fighting, but they encompass much more. I did not post this thread to stand on my soapbox and preach what I do is better than this or that. I did get up to preach what is a martial art and what isn't. Why? Because too many people call themselves something they are not. They take the martial arts for reason alien to the martial arts, instructors teach something other than the martial arts. There is a tradition, a soul that slowly is dying out under the weight of earning a buck and claiming a title that shouldn't be theirs. Many years ago calling yourself a martial artist was something that carried an air of import with it. It wasn't something done out of pride or a feeling a superiority. It was done because you walked a different path, you chose the path of the warrior, seeing the light from the dark, but being able to fight that dark. Being a martial artist was something of an accomplishment. What does that title mean now? Not much. There are hundreds of "martial artists" that are not really martial artists. I wrote this and knew what the responses would be. Nothing has been said that I did not expect. I have done this before, with others, not on the internet, but have done it before. The music hasn't changed, the tune remains the same. I suggest that my posts be read completely and not merely breezed by. I am not writing out of spite or superiority which is why I don't need to say much about the art I live. Truth is truth and can stand on its own. I may, out of my own weaknesses, not be its best advocate, but that doesn't mean I won't stand to defend it.

I have seen it misspelt too many times to let it go unnoticed. The star of the old kung-fu television show's name is spelt: David Carradine. Not Karridean, or any other deriviation. Another fact, could be useless, could be useful. You decide.

Karate, from those I have fought to what I have seen in demonstration, picture, film, and personal experience, is not a combat orientated/effective martial art. The moves within karate are slow and inefficient. From one movement to the next takes too many other movements to achieve the desired result. Very little about the art is direct. From blocking, switching form, then attacking, to the level of openness maintained in stances and attacks. So, from my experience, competition or street, karate is next to useless. Then again, you have to take into account what I view as useful. Now, don't put words into my mouth. Just because the art they practice is useless doesn't mean the students are useless. It also doesn't all of them can't fight. Again, don't misconstrue my words. Re-read what I have written. I never said that if a martial art does not equal combat effectiveness then the martial art is not a martial art. I said exactly the contrary. You know what, you haven't fully read my posts. Because if you have you have completely missed some large chunks of text. Many people get into the martial arts for different reasons. If you had read my original post and subsequent posts that is the core of my thread. Those that do not take martial arts for martial arts, should not be called martial artists. Arts that do not teach fighting as its core principle should not be called martial arts. You've managed to miss the entire point of my thread. I did mention there are more to the martial arts, but its core is and always will be fighting. To stress anything else, to study without design to fight, does not one qualify one as a marital artist or a martial art. I agree with your conclusion about certain instructors. Again, to avoid further misunderstanding be sure to read completely all of my posts in this thread.

This is to all the newbies. I am really horrible about keeping up with this section of the web page and have missed out on properly welcoming new people to the boards. So to all the new people now, there are quite a few, I extend a warm welcome. Be forewarned, though, my bark is as bad as my bite and most of what I say is very controversial, but then again it's all about communal learning. Martial_Artist

Welcome, enjoy your stay.

Welcome

When I made my comment on whether or not an art is effective has no bearing on whether or not it is a martial art this is what I had in mind: There are martial arts that are ineffective. Certain 'styles' as it is do better than others, i.e. teach better techniques for combat. For example, it has been my experience that karate is next to useless. But something like kenpo a little better. Because karate, IMHO, is next to useless doesn't make it any less a martial art so long as it is taught with fighting in mind. It's not karate's fault it is next to useless. (I know I just infuriated a million people, but please bear with the example) It can try to teach people to fight with the intent of learning how to fight, but not be a very effective means to reach the desired goal. So, whether or not the art is effective really has no bearing on whether or not it is a martial art, so long as it teaches fighting as its core. See above example. Now, on to the next statement. Effectiveness is the be-all and end-all of martial arts. If it your purpose to train to fight then it is in your best interest to seek out the best method of instruction. [/i] Not everyone who will teach you to fight will teach you to fight effectively.[/i] It's a fact of humanity. If you train to fight ineffectively it might cost you your life. So effectiveness for the martial artist is beyond crucial and vital, it is core at its existence. Sadly, not every martial art, even though it may make claims to teach how to fight, is effective. So it lies with the fighter to seek out the most effective. So you see, the two statements don't contradict each other. They were just written under two principles. Now, you have moved on to something different: the BENEFITS of martial arts. The benefits are near innumerable. The ABILITY to fight being one of them. But remember the PURPOSE of fighting being its core. We have benefits that arise from the martial arts in the hundreds. Better physique, muscle control, coordination, reflex time, judgement under extreme conditions, the list is endless. You have listed some good benefits. A fight is a fight, however, factors within the fight determine your action in that fight. Obviously if it is your drunken relative you probably won't kill them, then again, you might if you didn't like the christmas gift they gave you last holiday. When referring to those factors, i.e. situations or as you refer to them, 'fights' it is important to remember: A martial artist is not a robot, not a programmed machine void of conscious thought. It is the mind, the consciousness of the martial artist that makes him whole. It is his mind that governs his actions in all situations. It is not his technique or style or programming that is master, but the soul of the martial artist. Thus, how you would deal with your drunken relative may be completely different from a mugger. But it is still a fight, the martial artist determining what course is followed. A martial artist's ineffectiveness does not mean they are not a martial artist. One can be training to fight, with intent of combat, but lack skill, experience, or training to combat effectively. This makes one no less a martial artist. It is the purpose behind their training that makes one a martial artist. I hope I have clarified myself better.

You're not reading all I write. Read through to the end. I'm not contradicting you, just giving a different light to view within. Try my example and see the results. You might like it. A nuclear weapon is still ineffective and inefficient when fighting a small terrorist group. But has nothing to do with a punch defense.

Old thread, but oh well. 6 years old.

Old thread, but oh well. 6 years old.

It depends on so many factors, but boils down to one thing: DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO SAVE YOUR LIFE. If you have to give the guy your money, etc., do it. If you have to run; do it. And if you have to fight; do it. Just do whatever is necessary to stay alive.

Congrats Jack.