Read this and give your input when you have time =)

[spinninggumby]

http://www.ma-wired.com/flashme.html

 

Hey guys, lemme know what you think of the above article. Nothing new but, just wanted to know where a lot of people stand on this topic :smile:

 

 

[YODA]

That is one stupid article.

 

He makes some good points later on but the whole thing falls flat on it's face with that opening section.

 

 

[Bon]

He doesn't really make any clear points, or back them up with anything.

 

He says most of the things we learn in martial arts are useless. Why though ?! For someone with 30 years of training, that's a very shallow article. Perhaps he hasn't been able to defend himself on the streets.. I would put that down to poor self-control on his part and/or poor training methods.

 

I could argue the things we learn in martial are are helpful. That's about the extent of his argument.

 

 

[Phantasmatic]

I agree with both of you on this one. That first paragraph really doesn't make any sense because IMHO I could easily take out a police officer. Many street thugs take them out. There is one small point he is missing...THE HAVE FREAKIN GUNS!!! But I think I could take out a cop that doesn't have a gun, it all depends though. i really don't like saying that I could, though.

 

And Bon makes a good point, he really doesn't back his theories up well. He needs to go back to English 1.

 

There was one thing I was thinking about while reading the article. It seems like he was just aiming it toward the "traditional" martial arts. And at my dojo, we don't go around saying that those techniques are useless, even though they might be.

 

 

[spinninggumby]

I don't think he meant to say that most things you learn in martial arts are useless. He meant to say that self-defense and practical street fighting is a very small part (or at least fairly partial) of studying martial arts. You don't need many years of training to become really efficient at practical fighting. Intensive summer-long special forces classes and training in the military is often quite sufficient and dare I say it perhaps more effective than 5-10 years of studying in many different types of martial arts.

 

I agree with him in the fact that if your only motive is self-defense, long-term study in any martial art need not be planned. Save your money if all you want to do is beat someone to the ground and head to your nearest drill sergeant.

 

[ This Message was edited by: spinninggumby on 2002-05-09 21:48 ]

[tessone]

I'm not sure I agree. At the least, it depends on what you mean by self-defense. If you want to be able to save your skin in the event of a confrontation, such training might be useful. If you want to develop significant control and the ability and knowledge to use exactly as much force as is necessary, I'd say martial arts is a good way to go, depending, of course, on the art.

 

 

[Taikudo-ka]

Hmmm, well if his whole point is that its "art" therefore doesn't have to be practical, I think he's basing his argument on complete mistranslation of terms, and misuse of the term "art" in English.

 

Art doesn't refer to just pretty pictures like Van Gogh, which he seems to think. It can also mean skill, ability, effectiveness, even cunning tricks and subterfuge, actually short for the English "artifice", which has nothing to do with visual art.

 

This is the meaning used to translate the word -jutsu, which has an almost identical meaning, as in Bujutsu - Martial Arts... It could easily be martial skill, martial cunning, martial techniques/tricks/strategems. Not martial dance/painting/music...

 

Budo, well that's different, shouldn't really be called "arts" but we use the term for both in English. The "do" reflects the "long path" he talks about, but not in the way he seems to think.

 

Always remember, plenty of martial artists HAVE beaten street thugs in the past... it's not a one way street, you can find stories of everything from how Joe Bloggs scared off a mugger with a head kick, to how a famous master like Mas Oyama beat off a gang of toughs...

[Bon]

On 2002-05-09 23:58, Taikudo-ka wrote:

 

Hmmm, well if his whole point is that its "art" therefore doesn't have to be practical, I think he's basing his argument on complete mistranslation of terms, and misuse of the term "art" in English.

 

Yeh, but,

 

It's MARTIAL art, not a mere art..

 

 

[spinninggumby]

I think the important thing to remember here is that martial art involves both practicality and aspects which involve perhaps more physical skill and discipline and self-control over simply yielding practical results. Also, I agree that the part about knowing how much force to apply and how to sense and avoid confrontations is very important (not just knowing how to save your own skin, like someone said). It's important not to neglect certain parts and see that they are all part of martial arts. At the very least, if you choose to ignore a certain area, accept the fact that others prefer it or embrace it and keep away from putting others down because they like or appreciate something you don't.

 

 

 

[ckdstudent]

How'd'you get techniques better suited to times gone by? People haven't started to fight differently have they? Maybe they started to fight at two paces distance instead of three, There's hardly a book of rules to fighting that you have to follow which is updated and changed every few years, if something is applicable now (with the exception of things like gun defences) then it was certainly applicable years ago.