Ti-Kwon-Leap Posted June 12, 2002 Posted June 12, 2002 If someone took Tae-Bo or aerobic kickboxing with the intent of using it to inflict bodily damage, then actually used it to effectively beat people to death, What then? Wouldn't that fit your definition? Martial art encompasses much more than just how to destroy people, much like a real war has more than just footsoldiers. Are not the medics , intelligence, negotiators, etc. part of war? I think that you are trying to take a blanket term and chisel it to fit into your personal definition. You are not alone. I tend to do the same thing when a band like "Simply Red" is touted as "Rock music" _________________ "It is not enough to aim, you must hit." -Italian Proverb [ This Message was edited by: Ti-Kwon-Leap on 2002-06-12 16:32 ] Ti-Kwon-Leap"Annoying the ignorant since 1961"
-- Posted June 12, 2002 Posted June 12, 2002 Many martial arts instructors consider their methods combat effective, yet I've seen 3rd and 4th degree blackbelts decimated by boxers. It's sad, really. I don't think it's enough to simply teach kicking and punching and call it a martial art. You have to teach them the flow of the fight, and how to adapt to it. I suppose Tae Bo could be used to whup a**, but only against an inexperienced fighter. It makes me wanna cry just watching those guys... d-----
Ti-Kwon-Leap Posted June 14, 2002 Posted June 14, 2002 I was hoping to hear from Martial_artist... We seem to be officially digressing... Ti-Kwon-Leap"Annoying the ignorant since 1961"
shotochem Posted June 14, 2002 Posted June 14, 2002 MA, interesting post. I diaagree as to your statement that most MAs are ineffective. IMO I believe it is the person not the art. I have been able to defend myself long before I studied MAs I would consider myself much more capable now than before. What does it really matter? We are not in feudal Japan fighting hand to hand. I would find karate techniques to be effective Ive been on the giving and recieving end of them. I would personally not want to get hit by my own punch or by many of those I train with. If we apply our techniques with intent to harm then I would consider them effective. Im curious what art do you study and why would you bother if you feel this way? One must also rember we are the oddballs taking a martial art the average looney does not train at all. we tend to be in better shape and better conditioned. Most crazies would never expect MA techniques to be thrown at them has anyone had anyone kick them outside of the dojo.....???? Pain is only temporary, the memory of that pain lasts a lifetime.
Bon Posted June 15, 2002 Posted June 15, 2002 Most people will never need to defend themselves Are you kidding ? Why is there such a high number of rape victims ? It takes sacrifice to be the best.There are always two choices, two paths to take. One is easy. And its only reward is that it's easy.
Bon Posted June 15, 2002 Posted June 15, 2002 On 2002-06-12 16:27, Ti-Kwon-Leap wrote: If someone took Tae-Bo or aerobic kickboxing with the intent of using it to inflict bodily damage, then actually used it to effectively beat people to death, What then? yeah, key word IF. Anyone can do what if! Even so, get that person to fight someone who's been taking a martial art and can take a hit and hit back tenfold. It takes sacrifice to be the best.There are always two choices, two paths to take. One is easy. And its only reward is that it's easy.
Ti-Kwon-Leap Posted June 16, 2002 Posted June 16, 2002 Bon, you totally missed my point. I was addressing MA's assertion that to qualify as a "martial art", all that was needed was the process of readying oneself for war. My point was that if someone developed a system for using a golf club (for instance) to maim/kill then all of a sudden it qualifies as a "martial art". My point is that there is more to martial arts than martial intent. would you not agree? Also, someone said "Tai Chi practiced purely for its health benefits is not a martial art." That's like saying joining the millitary purely for the paycheck is not learning to kill. If the techniques are designed to be used in a martial manner, they are inherently martial. On the other hand a two year old who draws a picture of Osama getting shot is NOT martial art. ..Heh, sorry. _________________ "It is not enough to aim, you must hit." -Italian Proverb [ This Message was edited by: Ti-Kwon-Leap on 2002-06-16 03:24 ] Ti-Kwon-Leap"Annoying the ignorant since 1961"
Martial_Artist Posted June 17, 2002 Author Posted June 17, 2002 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 am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination.Imagination is more important than knowledge.Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world." Einstein
shotochem Posted June 17, 2002 Posted June 17, 2002 Hi MA, good to hear you again. One can never take a formal martial art and still possess the ability to fight. Would formal training not enhance the abilities one already has? Im having a hard time trying to figure out how I could possibly be less effective now than after training??? Hypothetically, if I were a big nasty agressive person before training would I not be the same only badder than before?? I believe it boils down to the intent of the person using the techniques. The more visious and larger person would most likely win. What would be the disadvantage? Pain is only temporary, the memory of that pain lasts a lifetime.
KickChick Posted June 17, 2002 Posted June 17, 2002 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 was merely curious and I am sure I'm not alone here in wondering.I don't believe it was asking too much from you .... I do believe we all do understand where you are coming from ... you have reiterated many of your points time and time again (I was waiting to hear the dog tail scenario again LOL) Many years ago calling yourself a martial artist was something that carried an air of import with it. .... I feel the same way about being a black belt ... (your thoughts on that?) Martial art is evolving,constantly changing to fit the needs of the society at the time. That has always been the purpose of martial art, to give the 'artists' the tools to survive within their society! If it hadn't adapted, it would have failed... we wouldn't even know of it today. Maybe with that adaptation the true essense of the martial artist has been clouded ... if you are a true martial artist in your own mind isn't that enough for you? _________________ KarateForums Sensei 1st dan Tae Kwon Do (ITF) Cardio/Fitness Kickboxing Instr. [ This Message was edited by: KickChick on 2002-06-17 13:06 ]
Recommended Posts