Martial Arts vs Fighting

[tallgeese]

I have to respectfully disagree with Mr. Lowery on this one a bit and I too like his work by and large.

No doubt that ma's were originally developed largely for use on the battlefield. However, warfare is but one aspect of human on human conflict. I'd say the definition needs to expand to include any art that endeavors to achieve the goal of the destruction or domination of another human being in a fight. This must originally be geared toward real encounters, but might have sport applications that revolve around safer training practices.

Part of this is the change in warfare to the higher scales of technology. You could argue that today, ma's revolve around combat shooting at a base level all the way up to deployment of ICBMs. These would be the types of different "arts" seen in development for warfare alone these days.

However, I think that if you open the interpretation of the name up to include any sort of combat you really capture what the idea is behind the ma's. In this regard, may modern construct ma's might have more in common with the idea that many traditional arts given more current training methods. Seeing how several modern arts were developed with efficient hand to hand combat in mind without the loss of information in the older arts and out dated teaching and training methods.

Just my thoughts, I don't have the pedigree of Lowery to back it up but it makes more intrinsic sense to me.

[Kuma]

Shooting can definitely be considered an art. It takes a high degree of skill to shoot well.

ICBMs are what detract from what can be considered a physical skill though and I think that's what makes the difference. You can design a machine that can shoot an arrow perfectly onto the bullseye every time but that's not art. Art is a human being doing that each and every time.

Much like the modern soldier has his "martial arts" (camouflage, shooting, demolitions, driving a tank, and patrol tactics) so did the samurai, and many are those we would not in fact consider "martial arts" (horsemanship, swimming, signaling, and info gathering). I think that's the main distinction he's trying to make, that the skills have to be strategies and tactics used on a battlefield, not in a dojo, street, or octagon.

Still, like he said, don't get caught up in definitions.

[tallgeese]

I get where you're coming from. And I do think that going too far in the discussion is probably pointless. I just don't see a distinction between having to kill a guy on a battlefield when forced to be unarmed and doing the same if confronted with a deadly force threat in the street. The ends are the same. Just me though.

[Kuma]

How often do you have to kill someone on the street versus kill someone on a battlefield, though? For the most part, a trained fighter in a street fight (we'll assume naturally the defender, but it's not always that way) is just trying to incapacitate his opponent somehow so he can make his escape. There is a difference between someone training that way and someone who's training to just kill his enemy.

[bushido_man96]

Just because the goals of the combat change, doesn't mean that it isn't any less martial. In many ways, being an LEO is being put behind the 8-ball, more so that being in the military. There is considerably more use-of-force that comes into play, and when an officer has to go to lethal force, then they have to get through those steps, first.

In the military, the soldiers basically get to engage the enemy, with extreme prejiduce. Law enforcement don't get to open up with that option. But I don't think it makes it any less martial.

I think that street fights can go the same way, too. You never can tell if you're getting the guy that just wants to beat the crap out of you, or the guy that is wanting to kill you. So, you still have to go through that use-of-force ladder.

[tallgeese]

I still have to disagree. The setting doesn't matter. If you've come to hand to hand in a military setting, of course you're in a deadly force situation. There's every liklyhood that it could go that way on the street as well.

Frequency doesn't define the potential final outcome. That's defined all by itself.

[bushido_man96]

I still have to disagree. The setting doesn't matter. If you've come to hand to hand in a military setting, of course you're in a deadly force situation. There's every liklyhood that it could go that way on the street as well.

Frequency doesn't define the potential final outcome. That's defined all by itself.

I was trying to agree with you here....did it come across differently?

[tallgeese]

No, sorry. I was actually responding to Kuma. I hadn't seen that you got a post in there between. Sorry.

[bushido_man96]

Oh, ok. Its cool. I was just confused...

[ironsifu]

hi i dont have much time to read all of the posts, but from the little bit i read, i have 2 sayings that i think would be good for this conversation.

1. a beginner is not dangerous at all in combat (to the opponent). the advanced student is very dangerous in combat, but the expert is both the least dangerous and the most dangerous at the same time. (this both are old filipino sayings about weapons fighters)

2. the man with the sharpest blades sheds the least blood.

they are both talking about men who train fighting so much and become so good at it, they can kill anyone very easily. but they dont. when your skill is so high, above everyone else's skill that no one can even come close to matching your skill, you have less reason to fight. when i tell this to my students, i use the example of a child, about 8 years old, who comes to you (a grown man) who wants to fight. of course, you can beat an 8 year old kid. but the question is, would you?

we strive as martial artists to have the level of strength, skill and lethalness (is that a word?) that any man on the street is as dangerous to you as the 8 year old boy.

someone made the comment that a martial arts transcends fighting. this is what that means, at least in my art.