Empty your Cup...

[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.

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.

But at that level, aren't they just sports? Targets to shoot at etc.

[Wa-No-Michi]

And BTW I am petrified of firearms and I don't think that makes me a bad person.

I am fairly new to this board, but I have had a little look around the weapon sections and TBH most of it is not my bag. But then again, I am not from the US and I guess the whole "right to bear arms" culture is a lot easier to understand in the US.

[joesteph]

But at that level, aren't they just sports? Targets to shoot at etc.

Definitely. And so the "martial" aspect was not a factor to her, making her comfortable and enjoying the sport.

And BTW I am petrified of firearms and I don't think that makes me a bad person.

Bad person!? Wa-No-Michi, I would never think such a thing! The point I was making was that what was once martial was sport and fun to her, but though I did target-shooting instead of hunting or being in battle, she remained uncomfortable with what to her was a "true" weapon. I was referring to her perspective.

When I did own firearms, I always had them put away. I live in the Northeast, and there are fewer people here who display their firearms collection than in, say, the South or Midwest.

[Kajukenbopr]

empty your cup:

funny that the jackie chan/jet li movie couldnt have explained it better!

"I want to learn "this" and "that" because I saw it! It would be awesome to be able to do "this"! What is the name of that move?? Will I be able to do this? "

Empty your cup: have no expectations, live for today, practice and stop wishing you could get better- start training and be content knowing you are never a "full master" but always a student in different stages of life.

[bushido_man96]

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.

I think this is a good summation of these styles. If you really dig into the systems, you can find bits and pieces of practicality that are usable for today. Or, say you have a broomstick to defend yourself with...it can be used in many ways that a sword can, when it comes to parrying attacks and counterstriking. The practical uses for today are much more limited, though.

It really isn't much different than the study of bo, kama, sai, etc.

[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.

I think this is a good summation of these styles. If you really dig into the systems, you can find bits and pieces of practicality that are usable for today. Or, say you have a broomstick to defend yourself with...it can be used in many ways that a sword can, when it comes to parrying attacks and counterstriking. The practical uses for today are much more limited, though.

It really isn't much different than the study of bo, kama, sai, etc.

With respect Bushido-man96 I think you are missing the point.

Arts like Tai-chi may have their origins in a martial or combative context, but the practice of them today has has little or nothing to do with combat. In fact its really the complete opposite.

As the previous posters said. A lot of people get great rewards in carrying forward these arts, and I think thats a key point.

Its what people get out of a system that makes it a martial art. Not necessarily the inherant ability to defend them selves as a result of practicing it.

In fact, I would almost go as far to say that it is wrong / irresponsible for some martial arts clubs / styles to brand them selves as being "good for self defence"in order to attract potential clients; particularly as a lot of the time, the people that this message appeals to are also slightly vulnerable.

To be quite honest if martial arts clubs came under the same consumer regulations as say domestic appliance manufacturers, most clubs / styles would be in breach of the trading standards laws IMO.

But, does that make them a waste of time?...no. Does it mean that you are never going to improve your ability to defend yourself?...no. Does it mean that they are not a valid martial art?...no.

But to say that the study of all martial arts should "automatically" lead to the ability to defend yourself is incorrect and unnecessary... IMO

[bushido_man96]

If a Martial Art isn't going to lend itself to combat effectiveness, then, in my opinion, it should not term itself a Martial Art. It is something else at that point.

I don't think I am missing the point, really. I just have a hard and fast rule as to what I feel the Martial Arts, all Martial Arts, should offer in order to fall under that umbrella term.

Doing something for healthful reasons is never a waste of time. But I do believe that each activity, be it Karate or calligraphy, should have its goal. One is to create beautiful handwriting. The other is to create self-defense skills.

There are still Tai Chi instructors out there that teach the combative applications of the style. So, it can be a good Martial Art. Otherwise, it is just exercise.

Its what people get out of a system that makes it a martial art. Not necessarily the inherant ability to defend them selves as a result of practicing it.

I don't agree. It is the Martial aspects of a system that make it a Martial Art. Otherwise, it is just art or exercise.

In fact, I would almost go as far to say that it is wrong / irresponsible for some martial arts clubs / styles to brand them selves as being "good for self defence"in order to attract potential clients; particularly as a lot of the time, the people that this message appeals to are also slightly vulnerable.

I agree here, if the instructor fails to address the self-defense aspects of the style. Yet, it is the fault of the instructor being misleading, and a Martial Art should be able to convey good self-defense, if the instructor is doing his job correctly.

[Wa-No-Michi]

For what it is worth Bushido-man I actually agree with you.

I am just playing devils advocate really.

The whole "Martial Art / Self Defence" thing has come to the surface with our club recently, as we are in the process of revamping our web site.

We are keen not to misinform potential new students, who turn up expecting to be immediately taught an all encompassing "self protection" system, so we have had to word this part of the web site quite carefully. Its all about managing expectations really.

When speaking to potential new students I try to explain that - yes, through the practice of karate you will improve your ability to defend your self extensively (as this is one of the primary reasons why we do it), but unlike purpose built SP programmes, we do not focus in teaching drills specific to this from day one.

Our karate (like most traditional schools) could be better reffered to as a codified system. We will teach beginners from the ground up with drills designed to engender good stances, posture, timing and movement etc. (you know the usual). Its all about giving the student the correct foundations on to which they can build. Depending on the ability of individual students this will take as long as it takes before moving on to the next stage. That said, there has to be a tangible improvement in students ability to defend them selves (at least a little better than before the started), fairly quickly.

This is different to the way a bespoke self defence / protection school may operate in which I am sure that the results would be more rapidly evident.

I am really chewing this over in my head at the moment (and Bushido-man96 thanks for the input (I didn't mean to sound negative BTW)), and I take your point about calligraphy etc, but there are martial arts (particularly in Japan) that do focus on the Zen and self improvement side of things as a priority but clearly have a martial core.

Thinking about it though, I suppose you could argue that esoteric arts like Kyudo do have a SD application - in at least that the practice of them would help sharpen / focus the mind (from within a martial context) and therefore improve someones ability to protect themselves.

[DWx]

Just adding my 2 cents after reading the above posts..

I agree with everyone who said that to be a Martial Art a style has to relate in some way to combat or aspects of combat.

However I try not to get too hung up on the idea that Martial Art necessarily equates self defense. Combat yes but not specifically SD. IMO a school does not have to teach SD or methods appropriate to modern combat to still be a Martial Arts school. If they are passing down and preserving these arts that were once used martially, then, in my opinion, they are still MA schools. As long as they don't claim to teach self defense when they really don't, I see nothing wrong with placing a school / style under the MA umbrella even if they aren't really that combat effective anymore.

[joesteph]

I agree with everyone who said that to be a Martial Art a style has to relate in some way to combat or aspects of combat.

Recognizing the ancestral root, whether in the 20th Century or a thousand years ago.

IMO a school does not have to teach SD or methods appropriate to modern combat to still be a Martial Arts school. If they are passing down and preserving these arts that were once used martially, then, in my opinion, they are still MA schools.

I think the key word DWx is using here is "art(s)"; these arts are martial in their origin, and those who truly understand the root, the origin, will recognize that martial aspect.

As long as they don't claim to teach self defense when they really don't, I see nothing wrong with placing a school / style under the MA umbrella even if they aren't really that combat effective anymore.

We don't burn the martial arts bridge behind us; what we do is recognize the change that has occurred over time regarding self-defense.

We can have both if we keep proper perspective.