The Martial Arts

[--]

In my opinion, the 'art' aspect of martial arts refers to applying what Musashi calls 'military science'. In other words, running at your opponent swing your fists like a thug is not a martial art. That is simply martial aggression. Detering your enemy with coutners, finding an opening, and striking a vital point would be considered a martial art, because you are applying techique to it. Although many martial arts systems, like Piguazhang and Pentjak Silat, are beautiful to watch, this artistic beauty is a by-product of their effectiveness. Also, intention matters above all. Okinawa-Te, an old form of Karate rarely practiced today, was a type of training method that conditioned a fighter to kill with one strike. And yet, if the practitioner is not willing to kill, should it come to blows, his training has been wasted. An inexperienced civilian fighting for his life would be able to kill the karateka, if the karateka were to hesitate. That's intention. It's not hard to kill; it's hard to control.

 

 

[Ti-Kwon-Leap]

MA, Although you managed to bob, duck and weave your way through the questions, when taken in it's entirety you managed to explain your stance quite well with the exception of your ambiguous training experience.

 

I suppose that to seem mysterious is one way to maintain the upper hand in most situations. You have nothing to fear from us if you were to share your philosophy about what it is you do rather than pontificate about what others don't.

 

If one was to put a sword in the hand of a T'ai Chi practitioner, what would become instantly apparent is that the form is filled with deadly strikes, parries etc. The fact that the annoying guy in the park is practicing for health or reasons of ego does not negate the fact that it IS a martial art, Although he could not remotely be considered a martial artist.

 

Some of your responses suggest that you did not read my post carefully, but I won't dwell on it.

 

Just know that I enjoy reading your thought provoking style regardless of our differences, which seem to be a matter of semantics.

 

_________________

 

"It is not enough to aim, you must hit."

 

-Italian Proverb

 

[ This Message was edited by: Ti-Kwon-Leap on 2002-06-18 15:05 ]

[Martial_Artist]

I see.

 

Well, I suppose I must concede that my thread, overall, is generally centralized to semantics. Mostly because almost all of what I am writing and trying to explain is based on what my personal view of the martial arts are. In my opinion the martial arts and artists are as I have defined them. This, however, doesn't mean they have to be accepted by everyone who reads them. I accept, and furthermore understand, this.

 

I shall address the last few posts.

 

First to Ti-Kwon-Leap,

 

I thought I answered the questions appropiately. Anonymity is a treasure.

 

I never said Tai Chi was not a martial art. What I said was dependent on the purpose and method of its instruction. And you are correct, he could not be remotely considered a martial artist. And if TaiChi was diluted to a health fad, then it would cease to be a martial art.

 

I read every post carefully.

 

-:

 

Please read all of posts in thread carefully. You missed somethings written there.

 

KickChick

 

Calling a dog's tail a leg doesn't mean the dog has five legs.

 

I suppose for an individual, believing yourself a martial artist would suffice for yourself. But if you believe you're the president, do you run the nation? See what I mean. Unmistakenably, it is important to believe and consider yourself a martial artist, but it does extend beyond that to what is done to further that belief. That's some of my angst, the 'modernization' of the martial arts. Not the development of technique to handle modern situations, the dilution of the arts to be softened to appeal to a larger audience.

 

Shotochem,

 

Thousands take formal martial arts and will never possess the ability to fight effectively.

 

Formal training should, if the student really dedicates himself, improve the skills necessary to fight. Wherein do we disagree?

 

Hypothetically, if you were a mean person prior to training, after years of discipline in your training you would no longer be. If I were your instructor and you were a mean an nasty person I probably would not take you as a student. If I did and after some training I saw no improvement or hope thereof I would not teach you further.

 

However, hypothetically (as you stated), there would be no change in that person. Intent, the purpose behind instruction of technique is to relay the intent of that technique. Meaning, when I teach a technique there is more to its instruction than mere application and usage, but why and for what reason, i.e. intent. Is this something to be used when angry or when calm?

 

The more vicious and larger person would only win over the under skilled and under experienced. Novices fear the large opponent.

 

The disadvantage to studying a formal martial art? Only the reason behind your studying and the art being studied. Everyone has a reason to train and none of those reasons are wrong. We can't judge another for their desires. (That statement is not 100% fullproof. But for the sake of arguement...)

 

Sincerely,

 

Martial_Artist.

 

[ This Message was edited by: Martial_Artist on 2002-06-19 17:49 ]

[KickChick]

That's some of my angst, the 'modernization' of the martial arts. Not the development of technique to handle modern situations, the dilution of the arts to be softened to appeal to a larger audience.

Martial_Artist, this caught my senses as this is primarily what is happening to the style of TKD ... you have the Modern vs. Traditional.

 

(I am not talking Sport vs Traditional)

 

Let me play devil's advocate to argue this....

 

(remember I'm "traditional") Although most traditional TKD principles and techniques are still effective, many traditional techniques and training methods are not effective in today's society. TKD must keep changing to meet the changing technological and social environments of the times.

 

Self-defense techniques have changed dramatically in recent years due to the prevalence of drugs, both licit and illicit. Traditional restraint techniques may be useless against assailants who are under the influence of drugs. These assailants do not react to pain since they are numbed to it. To stop this type of assailant, one must incapacitate them. An arm lock may convince a normal person to stop attacking, but it may not stop a person under the influence of drugs. A drug influenced assailant's arm must be broken so it is useless as a weapon.

 

Many technically perfect techniques are also powerful and effective. However, in today's society, time is at a premium. We want to be able to protect ourselves, but we do not have the time it takes to learn to hundreds of techniques or to perform a technically perfect technique. Especially when, due to individual body structure, even more time must be spent in the quest for perfection. Now, due to changes in our society, TKD students learn relatively few techniques.

 

Traditional TKD seeks perfection of numerous techniques. However, perfection is not required in techniques that are seldom or never used. Modern TKD students should be taught every conceivable technique, whether from TKD or another martial art, so they are familiar with them. They may then choose the ones that work for them. Perfection is sought for basic, regularly used skills, but for more obscure techniques, only a working knowledge is required. Modern TKD should attempt to develop each person's natural fighting skills, which sometimes do not conform to the way traditional techniques are performed.

 

Your thoughts on the direction of a traditional martial art evolving with the modern times?

 

Oh and about editing your post ---? I believe you have only 30 min. to delete.... then you need to ask one of the staff members to delete since they hold the power to do that!

 

 

[shotochem]

Why would you erase what you have written?

 

We enjoy an interesting point of view and welcome your posts. We all cant agree but we can learn how we think and understand each other.

 

 

[KickChick]

Absolutely! I agree

 

Somehow I think it's a losing battle (the direction martial arts is taking nowadays) you are fighting MA ... but keep on fighting (somehow I know you and others will!)

 

_________________

 

KarateForums Sensei

 

1st dan Tae Kwon Do (ITF)

 

Cardio/Fitness Kickboxing Instr.

 

[ This Message was edited by: KickChick on 2002-06-20 07:51 ]

[Bon]

I know myself and a lot of the people from my dojo agree whole heartedly with Martial_Artist.

 

 

[Martial_Artist]

To Shotochem, I wasn't referring to my posts just my background. I already removed it from my last post, I don't like having it on display. If anyone didn't catch it they can PM me and I'll respond.

 

I've never had a problem fighting a losing battle.

 

About your post KickChick...

 

I am a non-stylist. That is, I don't believe in any one style. My philosophy is more on everyone is created equal(with some exceptions) i.e. two arms and two legs, etc. Therefore, regardless of the style that person studies the movements that the human body can perform remain the same. For example a punch is a punch, there are different kinds of punches but it primarily remains a fist hurled at a target. Therefore, the martial artist must learn which movements are the most economical, effecient, and efficacious. Not necessarily limiting himself to a style.

 

What bugs me the most is the softening of the martial arts for a larger audience and this is due in part to the media and to the drive to earn that buck in the dojo. I don't believe that martial arts should be softened to appeal to more students.

 

In part, modernization of the martial arts has taken a horridly wrong turn. As you said, very well I might add, that most students don't want or have the time to put into learning the martial arts. I believe that a person who wants to learn will find a way to learn. We've all heard the old parable of the wise old man being approached by a young man asking to be taught martial arts. The old man asks, "Do you really want to learn?" The young replies, "Yes, I do." So they go to the riverbed and the old man repeats, "Do you really want to learn?" Again the young man answers yes. The old man invites the young man in to the river. There he begins the first lesson. He grabs the young man by his head and holds it under the water. The young man cannot breathe and is struggling for dear life. After a few moments when the young man is frantic the old man releases him. After catching his breath, the old man states, "When you want to learn as badly as you wanted to breathe just then, then come to me and I will teach you."

 

The moral being it is the student's responsibility to put forth the effort to learn. However, most times it is not. The instructor does all he can to keep students, making the classes easier, rank advancement quicker, etc. The root of this of course being the martial arts have been turned into a business. Now, in theory, there is nothing wrong with this: charging to teach. But when you sacrifice the art for the buck, there I have a problem.

 

Now, I believe that the martial arts are fully capable of handling modern defense situations, when viewed in the light of those situations. I mean, take the attack and view it as it is, an attack. Most traditional and modern martial arts teach from an ancient perspective and don't really apply their technique to many modern situations. Some do, but most don't. Sadly, many are taught a kata and it is never explained what that kata is for. Kata does not make one a good fighter, it helps in conditioning and such, but kata alone will not make one a good fighter. This isn't fully explained in most cases. Thus a student goes to class learns some kata after a few months is allowed to spar, taught more kata, given a rank advancement, and perhaps believes has been equipped to defend in any circumstance. ? ?

 

You see, I see the martial arts as something beyond the constricts of the styles that use them. The martial arts is more than the art it lives within. So, traditional development isn't something I see as a problem. Human movement and reaction must adapt because weapons, environments, and circumstance have changed. The only constant is the human body and its vast capacity for movement.

 

I wish I could speak more on TKD, but I can't, because I see it as something much broader than just in TKD. I see it in a grand plethora of martial arts. Most especially McDojos where you can get a BigBelt and side order of Nunchuks in under two years.

 

.........

 

I believe that when an art is being instructed, if you choose to follow a particular style, then the instructor should do all he/she can to familiarize you with the realities of fighting. That style has little bearing on the outcome of a fight. That the ability to control the movements of the body under stress and move in an effective and efficient manner for that circumstance is paramount. That there are other styles and none of them should be underestimated because you don't know the person using that style. That fights are not pretty or fancy, but can be gruesome. I think a student should be fully informed as to what they are getting themselves into before they take their first class. We don't want to be building false senses of security that can cost lives, do we? A person may take a martial art, a McDojo martial art, and then feel confident only to learn that everything they were taught was useless, and end up in a hospital.

 

Oops, I have babbled. I will add some coherency some other time. Now it's time to train.

[--]

Amen to that.

 

 

[KickChick]

Bravo Martial_Artist!

. Most traditional and modern martial arts teach from an ancient perspective and don't really apply their technique to many modern situations. Some do, but most don't. Sadly, many are taught a kata and it is never explained what that kata is for. Kata does not make one a good fighter, it helps in conditioning and such, but kata alone will not make one a good fighter. This isn't fully explained in most cases. Thus a student goes to class learns some kata after a few months is allowed to spar, taught more kata, given a rank advancement, and perhaps believes has been equipped to defend in any circumstance.

 

Being given a false sense of having the ability to defend yourself (from just being taught kata as you say) is entirely wrong for any martial arts institution. But also if one feels an added self confidence attained from their well-rounded course of study then courage comes from their skills, knowledge, and confidence gained through this training. (although they may not be a "fighting warrior").

 

Of course, as you say people begin their studies for reasons such as physical fitness or discipline, but one of main reasons they should begin the study of martial arts is for combat/fighting/self defense (a fear of crime), primarily a fear of crimes that may be committed against themselves or their families. This fear of crime may come from many different sources.

 

I have enjoyed your posts and your insights very much.

 

Now I feel very small and insignificant in your shadow.

 

_________________

 

KarateForums Sensei

 

1st dan Tae Kwon Do (ITF)

 

Cardio/Fitness Kickboxing Instr.

 

[ This Message was edited by: KickChick on 2002-06-21 09:58 ]