The Meaning of Combat, Fighting, Martial Art, and Violence.

[elbows_and_knees]

Actually allot of those style you mention are still muay thai. I find your logic on this like saying "Because thier are different stystems of Karate before the modernized "karate-do grouping" that they are not truly karate. As for Muay thai not being lethal at close range, I've trained with a few guys when I was stationed over seas who could prove you wrong.

An elbow to the temple or neck can be just a deadly as a knife hand strike, especially if you don't know how to absorb the impact. It doesn't take some secret knowledge or special skill to make an MA lethal only intent.

I've been training muay thai for years - I know it's lethal at close range, that's not in question. However, that is NOT why it was created.Your statement was incorrect. They actually stripped a lot of the "more lethal" and less useful techniques out of muay thai, similar to what kano did to judo. As for the other comment, here's the problem with what you are saying. karate has been called karate ever since the name changed from 'te'. consequently, any style created afterward is naturally called karate. Those oler muay styles were NOT called muay thai. muay thai had not been created yet, see? You technically can't say that karate is the same as 'te' - it is a descendent of te. muay thai is a descendent of muay chaiya, muay lon lon, etc. there was no muay thai back then.

[elbows_and_knees]

These are still some great thoughts, keep posting!

In Goju Ryu, we trained in elbows and knees and joint locks, strike downs, takedowns, and spinning backkicks and so on. Though we didn't do the high roundhouse with the shin, we still did them to the back of the knees.

In Taijiquan we lead, follow, stick to, listen, and then break through the center, using principles found in jujutsu, aikido, wing chun, hao chuan, and so on.

there is a good reason for that - it's all the same. The major issue is that traditional styles go into (possibly?) too much theory about the principles behind movements. sport styles do not, however, they use them. A judoka has no clue what peng energy is. your average xingyi stylist can tell you all about it. BUT, when you watch the judoka do certain throws, like tai otoshi, what do you see? peng. A BJJ guy has no clue what listening energy is, but he uses it all the time. Borrowing energy is used in thai boxing. It's there, but is not defined as it is in other styles. chinese fighting follows ti, da, shuai and na. - punch, kick, lock and throw. Goju does the same thing, so does thai boxing.

It is whether it can be made to be in the shortest amount of time, with the least amount of effort.

The easier this process is, the closer it was to being Martial or combative in the first place.

dunno if I agree with that one. Most chinese style were DESIGNED to take a long time to learn. An exception is shuai chiao. Even in the old days where styles only had one or two forms, the process of learning was slow. This is where the sportive styles excel. They are designed to turn out an effective fighter relatively quickly.

To me fighters ~ fight, whereas Martial Artists are prepared for(or are supposed to be), and wage ~ war.

I disagree with this also. This was true in the old days, but is not now. In order for this to be true, MA would have mandatory firearms training, formations training, explosives training, surveilence, etc. The battlefield of today is nothing at all like it was back then.

[Hapkido D]

In my opinion, martial arts is the ability to be combative combined with the mental restraint to know when to fight. It is combative by design, but is also a way of life.

[blackbeltb584]

oh man, that post made my day.

KAtie

[Gen_Tora]

elbows,

I got to roll with an Assie guy who spent 18 years in Thai land. He trained in military muay thai & some other forms. Allot of the Muay arts where & unfortuately are labeled "muay thai," in a generic sense. The same way okinawan-te or even older Karate (meaning Chinese Hand) is generically labeled karate (meaning empty hand).

We're just splitting hairs needlessly on this, simantics are pointless. But, on the subject of muay arts (muay thai for generic purposes) have you ever seen the case study/book published in the late 1950s by Seiko Fujita? He was the last ninja to be employed by the Japanese governement & during WWII he lead a 4 year guerrilla campaign through Burma into China.

He stole a great deal of scrolls & artifacts related to martial arts. There is a side note on the English Translation to his book about how muay thai (as a generic term for all the muay arts) had tremendous potental as an atemi style. He also remarked on how the older forms relied on pressure point strikes, that used the major force drawn from elbow & knee strikes. He make reference to how the pressure points of older "muay thai" (again used genericly) was comparable to chinese, korean & japanese pressure point arts. Infact the origional scrolls of the shaolin temple where stole by the japanese governement & given to Fujita to be researched. An interesting factor about his "research" was that his method was to test various pressure points & methods on human subjects usually POWs.

His work is both monsterous & insightful. It is very hard to get copies of his work & even when reprints where released in 40 plus countries. Even the US government had copies of his work. There is special notes on the Japanese spy companies & imperial guard training methods. He also added excerts from at the time modern medical journals. He point fact to allot of Martial Arts myths, including dim mak. His work is somewhat disturbing as a chapter includes the most effective striking points on the human body from the collected research. Its pretty scary.

All that aside, as for what makes sport arts seem more effective then traditional. I think it has more to do with 2 major factors. 1) sports arts put a very realistic focus physical fittness 2) sport martial arts tend to adampt or train more realistically then so called traditional martial arts.

[shogeri]

there is a good reason for that - it's all the same. The major issue is that traditional styles go into (possibly?) too much theory about the principles behind movements. sport styles do not, however, they use them.

I realize that many systems, or methods of fighting employ the same basic principles or concepts. It's just the instructors interpretation, and or their own use of terminology that makes things different.

When I speak of Martial Arts, I do mean to include those weapons appropriate for the time, and place in which they need to be used.

The Martial Arts are allowed to evolve. They need to evolve.

Art is the interchange between expression to interpretation. At least, as a writer, I see things that way.

I enjoy using the term 'Art' because I am able to express my skills and my training, philosophy, and my ability, while other's are able to interpret such based upon those same charactertistics.

I believe that we should 'turn out' people who can fight, and do so in a manner befitting all involved.

However, if this makes me a non-traditional, then so be it.

Now if the system is internal, then certainly it will take time to bring out those internal skills or abilities. My Taijiquan practice is not about developing internal power in the shortest amount of time. However, the Hao Chuan, or Chinese Boxing concepts, as used in Taijiquan, can be implemented in a manner similar to that of the external arts.

So far as the external arts are concerned, we can indeed formulate training methods to go along with the traditional ones that will enable us to give people what they either desire or need in terms of fighting skills.

The skill training used in sport does in fact excel in comparison to the traditional arts.

But the good part is that it doesn't have to be that way.

Sport combat is Martial Art. It is its own branch. With its own ways of doing things, for it's own reasons. You can cultivate a person in sport, just as you would in the traditional Martial Arts.

Now the term Martial Art, for today's use is still directly tied to pugilism. However, realize that we are straying away from the use of traditional weaponry, and we are straying away from teaching large scale warfare. We are however, training for personal war or personal/physical conflict.

As modern Martial Artists, we are the social class of warriors. There are also traditional warriors we send out to fight on our behalf, and those we call soldiers. They are trained in the classical methods of warfare.

We on the other hand, have our own.

Perhaps because there is no urgent need to pass on the skill of fighting or combat, is one reason that it takes so long in traditional Martial Arts to actually build or receive the necessary knowledge in which to formulate your own abilities or skillset.

Personally, as a child, I desired to learn how to be combative, and do so quickly, since I was always on the receiving end of abuse.

Elbow & Knees, your definition of a fighter, and mine may be slightly different. Rather I think we are using it differently.

I classify a fighter, as one with no formal training whatsoever. Thus, when I say fighter, I mean street fighter. This classification in no way, should imply that I am taking away from whatever skillset or abilities that they may have.

When I speak of sport combat competitors, or combative fighters, I will usually direct the reader or listener toward such by using those words.

These types of fighters are trained fighters. Such as Muay Thai fighters, boxers, wrestlers, and so on.

So if there is any miscommunication on my behalf, that's my bad, as I am still working on this particular skill. That is yet another reason I started this thread. There were many.

I implement knees, and elbows into my system, as well as western boxing principles. So in some ways, you could say I implement my own form of Muay Thai. I also have my own way of Jujutsu, Kungu Fu, and Karate.

To me they are all the same, just different ways of getting there. When done properly that is...

It is semantics that sometimes get's in the way of people's perceptions, and or capacity to understand what is or isn't being said. I believe that many of us are continuing to say many of the the same conecepts, just in our own way.

Those are my thoughts for the moment!

Take care!

[jjb]

combat in training for martial arts is vital so that u get a feel for what it is like to be in a real fight on the street or in the ring. do you think that all martial arts should incorparate some form of sparring into training?

[elbows_and_knees]

elbows,

I got to roll with an Assie guy who spent 18 years in Thai land. He trained in military muay thai & some other forms. Allot of the Muay arts where & unfortuately are labeled "muay thai," in a generic sense. The same way okinawan-te or even older Karate (meaning Chinese Hand) is generically labeled karate (meaning empty hand).

We're just splitting hairs needlessly on this, simantics are pointless. But, on the subject of muay arts (muay thai for generic purposes) have you ever seen the case study/book published in the late 1950s by Seiko Fujita? He was the last ninja to be employed by the Japanese governement & during WWII he lead a 4 year guerrilla campaign through Burma into China.

He stole a great deal of scrolls & artifacts related to martial arts. There is a side note on the English Translation to his book about how muay thai (as a generic term for all the muay arts) had tremendous potental as an atemi style. He also remarked on how the older forms relied on pressure point strikes, that used the major force drawn from elbow & knee strikes. He make reference to how the pressure points of older "muay thai" (again used genericly) was comparable to chinese, korean & japanese pressure point arts. Infact the origional scrolls of the shaolin temple where stole by the japanese governement & given to Fujita to be researched. An interesting factor about his "research" was that his method was to test various pressure points & methods on human subjects usually POWs.

His work is both monsterous & insightful. It is very hard to get copies of his work & even when reprints where released in 40 plus countries. Even the US government had copies of his work. There is special notes on the Japanese spy companies & imperial guard training methods. He also added excerts from at the time modern medical journals. He point fact to allot of Martial Arts myths, including dim mak. His work is somewhat disturbing as a chapter includes the most effective striking points on the human body from the collected research. Its pretty scary.

All that aside, as for what makes sport arts seem more effective then traditional. I think it has more to do with 2 major factors. 1) sports arts put a very realistic focus physical fittness 2) sport martial arts tend to adampt or train more realistically then so called traditional martial arts.

whoa... I'd like to read that. Have you seen it?

[Gen_Tora]

I own 2 copies, one translated into english & a photo copy of his origional japanese text. Cost me $380 for both, but well worth it to have actual effects of dim mak, kusho, & such on actual people. Kinda scary in a way as well, sadly most of Fujitas ninjitsu system which was addapted to modern warfare & function died with him & his top students, only bits & pieces exist today & mostly in books.

[elbows_and_knees]

did his top students have no students of their own?