The True Martial Artist

[elbows_and_knees]

I feel that a great warrior is only defined by what he does in his time. I guess what I am saying is that a warrior has to test himself in the heat of battle for life and death. Musashi had this chance. Napolean had this chance. Washington had this chance. They were all great warriors, but they are defined by the times in which they lived, because of the wars. If the wars would not have happened, then what would things have been like? I guess what I am saying is that you can say you are a warrior, but not many will know if you don't have an opportunity to prove it.

Maybe this is a little bit of an off-topic rant. Sorry if it sounds that way. It kind of stemmed from the dictionary definition post. But it does relate to the martial artists definition.

it's on topic and a good post - Now, based on what you said, why do we know these people? Do we know of napoleon because he was an upstanding citizen? hell no. We know of him because of what he accomplished in battle.

[elbows_and_knees]

I really don't think so. In reality, the guys competing in MMA are living more along the lines of the warrior than the "martial artists" of today who train for self defense and nothing more. we train hard. We test our skills in combat (as close to real as allowed). There is a camaraderie among many competitors.... The romanticized life of the warrior is now carried out through sport fighters.

"martial artists" train for a possibility. Sport fighters train for an inevitability.

Your kidding me right? You think because two guys step into a cage to beat the snot out of each other makes them warriors? The only cause their fighting for is themselves. Like I said before, there's nothing wrong with what their doing, its great entertainment, and its how they feed themselves and their families. But they certainly are not putting their lives on the line for people they've never met, a certain way of life, or some higher meaning of life they live by. Not warriors. Professional athletes, maybe even gladiators, but NOT warriors.

Am I kidding? No. It's not about a sportive venue - it's about the spirit of what they are doing. they are fighting. Are they warriors? No. And I didn't say they were. I said they are living more along the lines of a warrior than your "martial artists". A warrior is someone who has been in a war. Few of us on this board are truly warriors. However, we, training MARTIAL arts are training for combat. Sport fighters realize this. they train their skill and test it. Many "martial artists" do nothing more than spar in class or enter point style competitions. Yet, because they learn about philosophy and spirituality, that makes them more MARTIAL?? Not at all.

Out of curiosity though, who here puts their life on the line on a regular basis for people they've never met, a way of life, etc.? I do. But I've never been in a war. I still wouldn't consider myself a warrior.

[elbows_and_knees]

Here's a quote from musashi:

"The Way of the warrior does not include other Ways, such as Confucianism, Buddhism, certain traditions, artistic accomplishments [,] [-and] or dancing. But even though these are not part of the Way, if you know the Way broadly you will see it in everything. Men must polish their particular Way."

[elbows_and_knees]

Ok let me put this in better context for you......

I'm a U. S. Marine. I've been to Iraq on three seperate tours. I don't know if I fit the definition of warrior or not, make your own decision on that, but I've spent the better part of my life (the last 15 of 34 years) training for combat, and the better part of the last 4 in the sand.

Let's say I'm driving through Fallujah or Ramadi (doesn't really matter which their both crawling with enemy fighters), and I start taking fire in a crowded market place. Do I tell my machine gunner to start lighting up everything moving because I'm taking a few rounds of small arms fire, or do I tell him to hold his fire until he has a clearly defined enemy target that doesn't pose the risk of killing several innocent civilians? Mind you, I've already decided that a single contact firing a few small arms rounds at my unit doesn't pose an immediate threat to my people (because if the threat was more significant, the answer would be much different). The answer to that question is quite simple, at least to me it is. That's the maturity to use the power in your hands properly in extreme situations. Its also the difference between a warrior and a clown with some skills.

A warrior has to the compasion for humanity to make a moral decision, before he/she cuts lose with everything they have. A murderer may have the same physical skill as a warrior, but lacks the moral courage to use those skills properly.

that has nothing to do with being a warrior. that is simple rationalization. You assessed that the threat did not justify extreme means. Any average joe can do that, and it doesn't require special training to do. In addition, you're human. regardless of training, most humans have no desire to kill another human, even in extreme circumstances, despite what they may tell you. that's not the morality of a warrior, that is simply being human.

[elbows_and_knees]

royce gracie was arrogant going into that hughes fight, but in my opinion he's one of the greatest martial artists on the planet.

Huh?? I have trained with Royce Gracey. He is one of the nicest people you'll ever meet. As for Tito, he's a pig. Might be a good fighter, but in my view, he's not a Martial Artist.

I've met royce too. Even got pics of him choking me. Tito is another very good guy. He just doesn't show it on camera. He actually gives A LOT of money yearly to various children's charities, among other things.

[Rick_72]

that has nothing to do with being a warrior. that is simple rationalization. You assessed that the threat did not justify extreme means. Any average joe can do that, and it doesn't require special training to do. In addition, you're human. regardless of training, most humans have no desire to kill another human, even in extreme circumstances, despite what they may tell you. that's not the morality of a warrior, that is simply being human.

The part about me being a U. S. Marine, with three Iraq tours was true. The senario was hypothetical. On my three tours to Iraq I only received direct fire on the first tour, which was during the invasion and the months that followed. The second two I only received indirect fire, the infantry units that I was assigned to (I do close air support) wouldn't let my element out of their sight. Hence the reason I don't consider myself anywhere near a warrior like the men I was assigned to support.

What I can tell you from my limited experience (6 months) on the receiving end of fire, and from the much more interesting stories from some real live hero's is.....it takes a whole lot more than an "average joe" to make a decision of whether to return fire (strike back) when faced with a potentially life threatening situation. You'd be very surprised how quickly humanity evaporates, and the desire to kill another human being sets in when you perceive your life is in danger 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for months on end, and you've seen some of your closest friends blown to pieces by people that you no longer view as human beings. Often the only thing you have to rely on is the training you've received, and that training includes honor and morality.

Since we seem to be on two completely different sheets of music, answer me this. For a skilled fighter, not in a ring or battlefield, but on the street, the martial artist that your describing to me, after he's gained the advantage over the person he's fighting, what makes him stop beating the guy until he's dead?

[bushido_man96]

I feel the arguements of chivalry and things like it are very ambiguous. Everyone has a different definition of honor and chivalry.

Let's look at it this way. Let's say that I come home from work, to find my whole family has been murdered. I know, its extreme, but hear me out. Now, lets say I find the culprit in my backyard, knocked out cold because he tripped on something, and slammed his head on the sidewalk.

Now, he, starts to come around, and is trying to run away. I have two choices: detain and capture so I can watch the courts deal with him (oh, yea....he would live in county lockup for another 2 years before going to trial), or, I can..........well, lets just say, that, um..........well, you all can put two and two together, I think.

We know that the honarable thing to do is let justice run its course. But personally, knowing that my family is lying dead in my house, I am not going to be in favor of option 1.

Now, what kind of person does this make me? A warrior? A martial artist? Homicidal? Vengeful? A poor example? I don't know. What do you think, and what would you do?

[Rick_72]

I feel the arguements of chivalry and things like it are very ambiguous. Everyone has a different definition of honor and chivalry.

Let's look at it this way. Let's say that I come home from work, to find my whole family has been murdered. I know, its extreme, but hear me out. Now, lets say I find the culprit in my backyard, knocked out cold because he tripped on something, and slammed his head on the sidewalk.

Now, he, starts to come around, and is trying to run away. I have two choices: detain and capture so I can watch the courts deal with him (oh, yea....he would live in county lockup for another 2 years before going to trial), or, I can..........well, lets just say, that, um..........well, you all can put two and two together, I think.

We know that the honarable thing to do is let justice run its course. But personally, knowing that my family is lying dead in my house, I am not going to be in favor of option 1.

Now, what kind of person does this make me? A warrior? A martial artist? Homicidal? Vengeful? A poor example? I don't know. What do you think, and what would you do?

That's a very good question. I can't answer it, I don't have the experience, thank God.

I guess the most important part of your question would be, what is truly the honorable thing to do in that situation. Some people would say that the honorable action in that isn't to let the courts take that over, that it may be poetic justice that he's laying in your back yard. On the other hand, how do you know its the guy? Could be him and his buddy broke into your house and his buddy went nuts and killed everyone, when he tried to stop him he got knocked out cold by his crazy buddy. Could be he's a guy down the street, that you've never met, that was out walking his dog and tried to stop it, getting himself knocked out by the bad guys instead of killed because they were in a hurry.

This is one of those instances that has too many variables to answer. A choice that I hope I never have to make.

[jaymac]

It really seems this post has gone pretty far from "what makes a person a true martial artist." Taking a Martial Art for most people in the U.S. does not make them a warrior. It is not the same at all as training in the services and doing time in another country fighting a war. Martial Arts at one time was used to train individuals to be warriors, now it is something wonderful being shared and passed down by individuals who have trained most of their lives to keep Martial Arts going - no matter what style of MA it is. Who cares what MA is the best or who is the best. The only important thing is that you are doing it, giving it 100%, and never thinking that you have mastered the Art, because that is when you will no longer learn. I train because I love it. It may save my life one day. Is my style the best - who cares. Am I the best - pretty sure no. But I am good at what I do and it has made me a better individual in all areas of my life.

[elbows_and_knees]

The part about me being a U. S. Marine, with three Iraq tours was true. The senario was hypothetical.

yeah, I figured, because in another post, you said you were a marine, but not a soldier.

What I can tell you from my limited experience (6 months) on the receiving end of fire, and from the much more interesting stories from some real live hero's is.....it takes a whole lot more than an "average joe" to make a decision of whether to return fire (strike back) when faced with a potentially life threatening situation. You'd be very surprised how quickly humanity evaporates, and the desire to kill another human being sets in when you perceive your life is in danger 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for months on end, and you've seen some of your closest friends blown to pieces by people that you no longer view as human beings. Often the only thing you have to rely on is the training you've received, and that training includes honor and morality.

I don't disagree with the training part. If you've read any of my posts at all here, I'm always talking about how things are never as easy as people here make them out to be when you are in the middle of an altercation, with rushing adrenaline and resisting opponents. Experience keeps you calm under pressure. We're definitely on the same page here. working as a bouncer, I've seen friends get KOed, stabbed and swung at with bottles. That's definitely not on the same scale as what you've seen, but it illicits a similar response, I'm guessing.

Since we seem to be on two completely different sheets of music, answer me this. For a skilled fighter, not in a ring or battlefield, but on the street, the martial artist that your describing to me, after he's gained the advantage over the person he's fighting, what makes him stop beating the guy until he's dead?

humanity. Not training. It's human nature to not want to kill. By our nature, we are violent, but we are not murderers. Matter of factly, I just read something about a study which states that "it is being proven that only 15 to 20 percent of soldiers actively engaged the enemy, showing an ingrained reluctance to kill fellow humans. Many purposely fired high, many more not at all." The book is called "On Killing" Like I said, not to kill is human nature.