The Martial Arts

[CTpizzaboy]

A martial artist should not called themselve a martail artist unless they know how to defend themselve. But the word martial art is a vague term. I don't call myself a martial artist. No one I know does, not even my sensei. I called myself a karateka, or say I practice judo. If someone brag that they were a martial artist, I'll ask them, "What style they studied?" If they say, Taebo, I would laugh. Or aerobic kickboxing. I would then laugh even harder. If they say, Taekwondo, I would be a little cautious. A serious practioner of taekwondo is still a legitament opponent. Never underestimate your opponent or they will blind-side you.

 

Who goes into an aerobic class or watch Taebo and hopes to be a good fighter. Nobody.

[Sinbad]

MA, not sure I fully understand you. Do you mean that if you can't fight or don't train to fight, then you are not a martial artist?

 

I agree the term martial arts should be applied to activities that have an underlying martial intent. However, effectiveness, while certainly one measure, is not the ONLY determinant of what is a martial art and what is not.

 

Where exactly do you draw the line as to which art is geared towards fighting? You have dismissed Tae Bo and aerobic kickboxing. How about Tai Chi or Aikido? How about olympic TKD? Full contact, but still a sport. What about judo? Great self defence but no strikes and also an olympic sport. What about Thai boxing? Very effective striking but no groundwork!

 

Also what kind of fighting are you referring to? In the schoolyard? UFC style? No holds barred street fighting? the kind of fighting that special forces would use when on a commando raid into enemy territory?

 

It is too easy and closeminded to say that martial arts are only about fighting. Because then you have to ask fighting who, when and how? Effectiveness is not the the be-all and end-all of martial arts.

 

 

[Martial_Artist]

If you can't fight or don't train to fight, then you are not a martial artist? If the definition of a martial artist is one who studies and practices the crafts and principles of things relating to war, i.e. fighting, then would a person be a martial artist if they didn't? The question is answerable in itself.

 

Effectiveness was not part of this discussion, but you are right. Whether or not an art is effective has no bearing on whether or not it is a martial art. However, whether or not that art teaches fighting with the intent of fighting determines whether or not that art is a martial art.

 

Tai Chi and Aikido. Tai Chi, Big Chi, or Tai Chi Ch'uan, ultimate fist. The names themselves indicate martial application. Ancient folklore held that one's chi was key to obtaining ultimate power. Tai Chi is a development art for harnessing that chi. The way it is taught in most places today has abandoned its original martial application. So modern Tai Chi, taught as another form of Yoga, should not be considered a martial art. Something more like enhanced physical conditioning.

 

Aikido teaches principles very useful in combat and it depends on the method of instruction. Yes it is the peaceful way, and it teaches the use of opponent's energy. If it is not about fighting why then are there opponents? It's not a sport. If it taught as anything else, then it shouldn't be considered a martial art, but assume a more appropiate title.

 

What kind of fighting am I referring to? I wasn't aware there was more than one kind of fighting. Does it matter? In the schoolyard, on the street, in the battlefield? The only exception I make in your examples in the UFC, that doesn't classify there are rules making it more like a sport and less like fighting.

 

Fighting is fighting. You should be training towards acheiving the ability to defend your life. What does it matter if it's at a schoolyard, in a back alley, or behind enemy lines? Your ability doesn't alter, your reactions do, but not your ability.

 

My friend, the martial arts are only about fighting. That's what the name implies, that's what the name means, that's what the martial arts are. It's too easy and closed minded to say something is what it isn't instead of facing the reality behind it and assigning it a more appropiate title. The sad thing is there are too many "martial artists" who know nothing of fighting. There are too many "martial arts" that don't teach the martial arts. There is a great misdeed happening. People are being deluded into believing they are martial artists when they don't have the first clue about fighting or defending themselves.

 

If a man took a course in gardening would you allow that person to parade around as a police officer? No, because he has no clue what law enforcement is. He is a gardener. If someone takes a "martial art" for personal enlightenment and doesn't learn to fight, should you allow that person to call himself a martial artist? No, why not? Because they're not a martial artist.

 

My whole point is the proper use of terminology. Too oftern we find ourselves in an arguement over use of terminology. If we speak of fighting and such we say the martial arts. Yet someone will say not all martial arts are for fighting. Then, I ask, why is it called a martial art. If someone wasn't familiar with the specifics of the art they would assume that art was about fighting.

 

Don't be deluded by the word ART appended to MARTIAL. That word does nothing to water down the meaning of the martial preceeding it. Just because it has the word ART attached to it does not mean it follows the same artistic spirit as painting or pottery. The word ART means skill; the study and practice of a craft and its principles. It, in itself, does not mean a fanciful approach to thinking or watered down method of instruction towards some aesthetic level of thought. Sure it can be used that way, but that's not the application behind MARTIAL ART.

 

Also, effectiveness is the be-all and end-all of martial arts. If you are a martial artist then you train to fight. If you're training to fight ineffectively it may cost you your life. In fighting it is all about what is most effective at any given moment. And if it's about fighting, then it's the martial arts.

 

It doesn't matter fighting who, when, and how. It's all still fighting.

[Singularity]

Ah, Martial Artist, I love these posts. You remind me of who I am currently studying from. I am not picking any sides here. I'm just saying I enjoy your thoughts Martial Artist.

 

Dave

[Sinbad]

Martial_Artist, I think there are two separate issues that we are discussing here. First of all, I agree with you that a martial art has to have martial application or martial intent. Tai Chi practised purely for its health benefits is not a martial art.

 

However, you seem to contradict yourself on the issue of effectiveness. First you say: 'Whether or not an art is effective has no bearing on whether or not it is a martial art. However, whether or not that art teaches fighting with the intent of fighting determines whether or not that art is a martial art.'

 

Then you say later on: 'Also, effectiveness is the be-all and end-all of martial arts. If you are a martial artist then you train to fight. If you're training to fight ineffectively it may cost you your life.'

 

So which is it? My point is that the benefit of martial arts is more than JUST the ability to fight (although that is important too). Perhaps the ability to master oneself, to truly know your own potential and limits, even if you are not a very good fighter, is a major benefit of dedicated martial arts training in itself.

 

Incidentally, there are lots of different 'fights'. Would you treat your drunken relative who gets aggressive at a party in the same way as a mugger with a crowbar? How about someone in the pub who swears at you and pushes you on the chest, does he deserve to be dispatched swiftly with a knife in the throat or perhaps simply restrained with a wrist lock until he shows himself to be more of a danger?

 

I'm sure many competent martial artists could defend themselves against a casual one on one street encounter. However, the same person probably wouldn't last long if jumped by 20 gang members. Does his/her ineffectiveness in the second situation mean he/she is no longer a martial artist?

 

The traditional BUDO arts have always been about more than just fighting. That is why they are called 'the way'.

 

 

[ckdstudent]

Given my relatives I'd probably hurt them more than a mugger in the street.

 

 

[Martial_Artist]

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.

[CTpizzaboy]

Hold on a minute. Karate is not effective? In what context? In competition or on the street?

 

So from your experience, you have take karate? I'm just impling from your statement: "it has been my experience that karate is next to useless" so I could be wrong.

 

Karate is useless equals all of karate practioners are useless, therefore they can not fight. Not correct.

 

If martial art does not equal combat effectiveness then martial art is not martial art. Not true. Many people get into the martial art for many different reasons: improve health, self-descipline, social interactions, and many more reasons. The martial art instructor must cators to all these people, otherwise is more like going to boot-camp every night. But if all you want to do is to learn how to fight, then find a martial art that only stress that area. Obviously, taekwondo would not be a good choice, but hapkido is. With all great instructors, they bring out the best in their students no matter the style. If all you want to do is learn to fight and sparr, they will teach you how. You might have to stay late after class but they will teach you.

 

Some school do mislead students and politics are invovle an they learn sh*t. Sure they can punch and kick, but what good is it for them if they can not apply it. Those instructors should not label themselves as martial artist.

 

 

[Martial_Artist]

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.

[KickChick]

It is also useful to remember that very few of these martial arts are just one way or another and do not solely concentrate on fighting/combat ... they are all mixtures of certain elements in various degrees.

 

"Sport" vs "Fighting Art" vs. "Exercise" vs. "Philosophy" ... these are usually NON-useful comparisons because people tend to be

 

very strongly opinionated on this matter. Most people want to think their art is an ancient "fighting art" and can be applied on the street. Some styles truly are all four, and to some degree all styles contain all four elements.

 

I don't think it is fair to call someone's style non-martial because it doesn't totally stress your idea of combat or fighting purpose.

 

The martial arts that have changed and continue to change with the times. The term 'art' in martial art implies creativity and individual expression.

 

All practitioners think their style is the best, some like to put down other styles. Some people like to play flag football, while others think it is whimpy and that the only real football is full-contact football. Some people like to play football, others like to play baseball or basketball. All the games are team sports that use a ball. Due to physical size, strength, age, etc. differences, people are more suited to certain martial art styles. Most people will never need to defend themselves, the question as to which is more effective is moot. The key factors are—does the style suit you, can you perform it, and do enjoy it.

 

So Martial_Artist .... why don't you tell us what doesn't belong in the martial arts "category" of yours (besides TaeBo and Cardio Kickboxing, which are fairly obvious to all of us "martial artists")

 

...and maybe you can share you're martial art experience with us. What are your martial art credentials if I may ask?

 

_________________

 

KarateForums Sensei

 

1st dan Tae Kwon Do (ITF)

 

Cardio/Fitness Kickboxing Instr.

 

[ This Message was edited by: KickChick on 2002-06-12 15:06 ]