Empty your Cup...

[tallgeese]

I fall along bushido man's lines here. Martial arts should be about fighting, pure and simple. Lot's of divergance has occured of late, say the post 60's era in all likelyhood, that had diluted it's original intent quite a bit. I think that Tai Chi may have once been a martial art, it probibliy isn't these days. I don't know enough about it's history to say for sure.

I'm not saying that the arts should be taught excactly the way they were back in the day. Training methods advance, social contexts change, we understand learning better now and the science of performance on all level is astronomically higher than it was just a few decades ago. All of this means that there will envatibaly be changes in the way martail arts are taught. There had better be if we want to turn out the best product possible. Now days, I think that we can really learn from MMA experiance and sould be trying to train for sd with similar methodoligies. Not movements, with the overall training patterns. But that's just me.

The big point of the above that we don't need to remain static in how we train for fighting, but that we have to be training for fighting to be doing martial arts. It's that root that gives the name meaning.

[joesteph]

I think that Tai Chi may have once been a martial art, it probibliy isn't these days.

Martial art moves permeate the Taiji forms, tallgeese, but the questions are: does the instructor teach these moves as fighting moves to the student; does the instructor even know the fighting applications within the forms?

Perhaps another question would be if students, particularly American students, of Taiji would attend a Taiji school if the "martial" in the art were emphasized? Don't most take Taiji because they're interested in "meditation in motion"? One of my fellow teachers was born in China, and he said it is true that it's practiced by great numbers of people right there in the parks, but he added that it appears to be for health, not fighting. For me, the combat applications came out when doing a two-man form; for my father, Taiji was part of his therapy after a mini-stroke.

[W]e don't need to remain static in how we train for fighting, but . . . we have to be training for fighting to be doing martial arts. It's that root that gives the name meaning.

Interesting point.

[bushido_man96]

I think that Tai Chi may have once been a martial art, it probibliy isn't these days.

Martial art moves permeate the Taiji forms, tallgeese, but the questions are: does the instructor teach these moves as fighting moves to the student; does the instructor even know the fighting applications within the forms?

Perhaps another question would be if students, particularly American students, of Taiji would attend a Taiji school if the "martial" in the art were emphasized? Don't most take Taiji because they're interested in "meditation in motion"?

My question here is, why can't one get both? As an instructor, they take what I teach, and do what they will with it. But, it is my responsibility to make sure that I provide them with the necessary self-defense aspects that it can provide.

[bushido_man96]

If you take the older folk that practice their Tai Chi in the park, its a bit like Yoga to them with the health benefits that it brings. Of course it has Martial origins and I know that there are versions of Tai Chi are more combat focused.

I feel that if you look at Tai Chi in this sense, as the form of "moving meditiation" done in the park for health and exercise benefits, then you really aren't looking at much more than cardio-kickboxing. You might be doing Martial Arts moves, but you aren't learning a Martial Art. You are taking Martial Arts movements and doing them simply for exercise.

Just out of interest Bushido-man, do you consider Tai Chi to be a Martial Art?

Absolutely. As long as it is trained that way. But like I mentioned previously, you can't get caught in the cardio-kickboxing trap.

[joesteph]

I feel that if you look at Tai Chi in this sense, as the form of "moving meditiation" done in the park for health and exercise benefits, then you really aren't looking at much more than cardio-kickboxing. You might be doing Martial Arts moves, but you aren't learning a Martial Art. You are taking Martial Arts movements and doing them simply for exercise.

Good point made here, Bushido Man. Very good analogy with kickboxing.

[Wa-No-Michi]

Actually Bushido-man I agree with you.

The club where I train is a traditional Wado club, but we never loose sight of the fact that our training should be approached from a "live" martial context. In other words making it real.

One of my old senseis used to say that the difference between a kata performed as a dance and one performed as a martial artist was "intent".

But I would just like to throw another thing into the pot about where the line between self defence and martial art can become smudged.

As I mentioned in a previous post I am a bit of a "nipponophile", and I like to read books on art arts like Kyudo (archery), and Iaido (sword drawing).

Both obviously have martial origins, but from a self defence point of view they are seemingly useless. (Unless of course you carry round your bows, arrows and shinkens at all times).

What do you guys think?

[tallgeese]

Certainly, when put into historical context they would be martial arts. They were training to use the preeminate weapons of their day.

Now days, yes, they remain martial arts due to their intent. Now, are they practical any longer- not really. As we were talking about elswhere on the boards; things evolve, even in the fight game. We've simply moved past an era when these are primary sd arts.

Now, does that make their study irrelivate? No. I don't think it does. Even I think it's important for people who are interested to carry on these things. I'm sure they can be quite fulfilling.

It's the design of the art that makes it "martial". It's the current state of where the sd needs are that make it practical.

[Wa-No-Michi]

Certainly, when put into historical context they would be martial arts. They were training to use the preeminate weapons of their day.

Now days, yes, they remain martial arts due to their intent. Now, are they practical any longer- not really. As we were talking about elswhere on the boards; things evolve, even in the fight game. We've simply moved past an era when these are primary sd arts.

Now, does that make their study irrelivate? No. I don't think it does. Even I think it's important for people who are interested to carry on these things. I'm sure they can be quite fulfilling.

It's the design of the art that makes it "martial". It's the current state of where the sd needs are that make it practical.

But you would agree that they are still valid martial arts though?

Edited October 3, 2008 by Wa-No-Michi

[Wa-No-Michi]

It's the design of the art that makes it "martial". It's the current state of where the sd needs are that make it practical.

I couldn't agree more. That is very well put.

[joesteph]

It's the design of the art that makes it "martial". It's the current state of where the sd needs are that make it practical.

A past girlfriend loved archery, which she was introduced to and practiced in college, and we know that the origins of archery were for hunting and warfare. She never used (and I don't remember if she ever mentioned seeing) the large arrowheads that are still used for bowhunting, just the target arrows/arrowheads. I met her after she graduated from college, and though she no longer did the bow and arrow, she was open to fencing. She and I took fencing lessons together, and the sword was certrainly developed as a fighting tool, but the swords we used were of course designed with tips that wouldn't puncture.

However, she was afraid of firearms (I used to target shoot), seeing them associated only with violence. The war/violence concept of arrows and swords were "lost in time" for her; they were sports, fun, but not martial at all in her mind. I never debated the point with her; she was comfortable with this thought and I saw no reason to make her uncomfortable.