Martial Arts vs Fighting

[JusticeZero]

I've seen some very unrealistic, performance based JKD; i've seen some bone-jarring hard-core sweat bruises and blood Tai Chi. I'd be careful about making assumptions about the totality of an art based on what one or two people do.

[cathal]

So let's get back on topic, now that is cleared up. We shouldn't let such a fantastic discussion go on a tangent like this.

I was trained to understand that fighting was most assuredly an untrained, instinctual method. It was how we instinctively wanted to do when we felt endangered, were threatened, et al. So essentially everyone would know how to fight in this manner. I distinctly remember my father telling me that fighting was bad but that self defence wasn't. It was more disciplined and methodical. It was targeted and focused. Conversely I have come to understand that fighting is a matter of perspective. I no longer believe it to be what it was, to me, before.

Nowadays I feel that fighting is a generalized term for any kind of physical interaction where someone can or does get hurt. Even on the perspective for entertainment. The usual stereotype of a fight doesn't seem to generate the same feelings or images that it used to. When I heard of someone fighting I associated that person with bad behaviour. I associated a boxer as someone who boxed, not fought.

[bushido_man96]

Some arts claim to have transcended fighting - and perhaps their founders did - but that is an individual experience, and new students can not be taken directly there without going through the hard yards and realities themselves.

I think this is a very good point. Ueshiba comes to mind with his philosophies of Aikido.

I vaguely remember some (Greek?) myth of a battle field where the warriors fought to the death each day, to be reborn overnight. It is interesting to ask: if that were available, should martial artists want to partake (though perhaps not for all eternity)? I'd say yes - provided the experience didn't itself produce some psychological "scarring" (for self or others).

Norse, I believe. They dine in the halls of Valhalla, and then go out to fight and die in the fields of Asgard, and then, arise, and return to dine, and then do it all over again.

[Kuma]

Brave warriors who die in battle go to Valhalla, in preparation for Ragnarok, "final destiny of the gods", a huge battle in which the world is eventually submerged and the circle of life begins again.

(I've got some Norwegian in me, I love that kind of stuff)

[Throwdown0850]

some martial arts have been completely modified to the point that their technique is no longer used in fighting... Capoeira is a form of dance.

*cough*

...sorry, but you're talking bad about the stuff that I teach, so I need to go off a bit here.

A large portion of the sub-Saharan combat styles have a similar structure to Capoeira - the 'dance' like sparring structure is as standard as the use of kata and forms to catalog techniques in the arts native to sections of and near east Asia. Or for that matter, as standard as putting martial arts into sports contexts is in the West.

Also:

I think that when fighting becomes a martial art..

- the fighter has a lifestyle to go with the training

- the fighter has philosophical beliefs towards the strategy/tactics

- the fighter has spiritual beliefs with the way the fight is fought or ended

..The few of those conditions we fulfill actually puts the Capoeira i've experienced as MORE reality based, as according to thoughts of well-known 'real combat' gurus.

Lifestyle.. not particularly..

philosophical beliefs toward strategy/tactics - expect to be ambushed or stabbed in the back at any moment, lie to get away from a threat, fight dirty, assume that you are outgunned and going to be blamed for everything, be manipulative, and run away?.. which is also as close as i've seen to the spiritual beliefs about combat in general?

The aesthetic element I can't speak to, as it has thus far universally been my experience that EFFICIENT and EFFECTIVE movement is also PRETTY movement; show me an ugly movement and I will show you movement that attempts to violate numerous biomechanical and structural principles and leaks force like a colander. There might be some exceptions somewhere, but i can't say that i've seen them.

why go off?? he is sorta right.. --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capoeira

[JusticeZero]

why go off?? he is sorta right..

By the same reasoning that says that Judo is a purely philosophical exercise in trying to achieve non-violence with no practical combat application, yeah, he would be right. But since we're not generally in the habit of presenting one single dimension of an art by itself and then belittling it for being one-dimensional, I don't think that reasoning applies. Yes, there is a facet of Capoeira which is performance dance; I don't think that anyone would argue that that is not one of the uses of the art when focused in particular ways. There is also an aspect of Judo which is non-violence and pacifism through harmless sport. I think most people would agree that Judo can be very effective and pragmatic when it wants to be. We can be pragmatic too.

In any case, I am slightly offended that my years of experience and training in my art would be regarded so lightly as to be able to be trumped by a wikipedia link wielded by someone who does not appear to practice any martial art originating from the same continent. I haven't been allowed to cite wikipedia since the beginning of the decade; not reliable, accurate, or primary enough. Come stop by my academia for a class if you want to argue impracticality, instead of buying the first thing on a google search uncritically.

[Throwdown0850]

why go off?? he is sorta right..

By the same reasoning that says that Judo is a purely philosophical exercise in trying to achieve non-violence with no practical combat application, yeah, he would be right. But since we're not generally in the habit of presenting one single dimension of an art by itself and then belittling it for being one-dimensional, I don't think that reasoning applies. Yes, there is a facet of Capoeira which is performance dance; I don't think that anyone would argue that that is not one of the uses of the art when focused in particular ways. There is also an aspect of Judo which is non-violence and pacifism through harmless sport. I think most people would agree that Judo can be very effective and pragmatic when it wants to be. We can be pragmatic too.

In any case, I am slightly offended that my years of experience and training in my art would be regarded so lightly as to be able to be trumped by a wikipedia link wielded by someone who does not appear to practice any martial art originating from the same continent. I haven't been allowed to cite wikipedia since the beginning of the decade; not reliable, accurate, or primary enough. Come stop by my academia for a class if you want to argue impracticality, instead of buying the first thing on a google search uncritically.

firstly, I never said it was impractical? your also comparing judo to capoeira? why?? because wiki says that it has a "dance like" aspect to it?? as if I "said" it wasn't applicable? I looked it up on wiki because I was curious and wanted to learn a little about capoeira. that is all. not to "school" you or anything? and low and behold it says that there is "dance-like" movements in capoeria and you go on the defensive??

IMHO, I think that capoeria has more of a dance like aspect to it rather than a self defense application, but that is just my opinion. people can say that Judo isnt applicable or has some less-applicable aspects to it. and that is fine. that is their opinion and I respect that. I dont ask them to come by my studio?? no need to go on the defensive.

[JusticeZero]

I am on the defensive because the statement to which I was responding to was..

some martial arts have been completely modified to the point that their technique is no longer used in fighting, like Wushu or Capoeira. Wushu is a performance oriented sport like gymnastics and Capoeira is a form of dance.

Yes, it has a movement style that looks dance-like, and has dance aspects. It was the part where it was stated that that meant that the technique had ceased to be combat-applicable that I take issue with. The argument was stated with a structure of "Capoeira has dance-like aspects to it.... THEREFORE Capoeira is not a fighting art.." The first step I don't argue with; the second one I do.

IMHO, I think that capoeria has more of a dance like aspect to it rather than a self defense application, but that is just my opinion.

Right; I train it, I teach it, and I would say that I am one of the more reality-based instructors who posts here. I review legal issues about force, criminal psych, structure of common crimes and attacks, anatomy. We cover various real world applications of techniques, and I make sure their tolerances are loose enough to work under adverse conditions. We train in street clothes, and on varied terrain. How often do you drill your attacks and breakfalls on rough tarmac, loose gravel or ice? We do.... and so I get a bit irked when people automatically dismiss what I teach as impractical because of a justifiable and explainable similarity to certain kinds of dance.

I compared Capoeira to Judo because your sidebar states that you train in a Judo style; you should therefore be familiar enough with it to acknowledge that A: Judo has an aspect to it that is non-combative/non-destructively sportive in nature and B: that one aspect isn't the whole picture by any stretch of the imagination.

Apologies for the derail, since the original topic is a good one.

[sensei8]

I'd say that, Capoeira while it doesn't look like it's a martial art, I'd say that it is! The Drunken style of Kung-fu might not appear to be a martial arts at first, but, it reveals its effectiveness in ways that are solid.

It's a martial art!

Edited September 30, 2009 by sensei8

[Kuma]

Just read something last night that I thought was pretty relevant to this. I am a huge fan of Dave Lowry, and recently got my hands on "The Karate Way: Discovering the Spirit of Practice". For those of you who don't know who he is, he's been studying MA since 1968 in a variety of styles, from traditional Japanese swordsmanship to karate to judo to aikido. Fantastic writer IMO.

One of the chapters, entitled "What's in a Name?", brings up some interesting points. According to Lowry, a "true" martial art is one that was used specifically in warfare alone. He provides examples of other "martial" arts that are not specifically fighting but are related to warfare, including battlefield signaling, horsemanship, and building fortifications. He then states everything else is merely a civilian combat art, including karate. This means most of what we train in nowadays, according to him, is not technically a "martial" art. There are new martial arts that have been created since those feudal times (i.e. jukendo, the art of fighting with a bayoneted rifle) but for the most part unless it can trace a direct and legitimate line to warfare (probably through koryu means) it's not a martial art.

He then ends by essentially saying don't get hung up on definitions, it just takes away from training time.