If I can kick your rear, I'm a better martial artist.

[KyungYet]

"All that matters is whether or not what you do is effective in a street fight," is the nice version.

"I can probably kick your rear, so your rank doesn't matter," is the less nice version.

Agree or disagree? The true measure of a martial artist is whether or not they can beat you in a fight? The. End.

I have my own opinions, but I'd like yours.

KY

[Lupin1]

My instructor had some severe complications due to cancer a few years ago and now can barely stand up. He still comes to class and trains religiously-- he just modifies everything and takes it very slow or else he'll fall over. A 5-year-old could probably kick his rear just by knocking him over, but I would never, ever in a million years think I'm a better martial artist than him.

[KyungYet]

A 5-year-old could probably kick his rear just by knocking him over, but I would never, ever in a million years think I'm a better martial artist than him.

I wish this forum had a "like" button like Facebook.

[CDraper]

I disagree. I've not been in MA long but it seems one dimensional to judge someone on one aspect.

[Archimoto]

My instructor had some severe complications due to cancer a few years ago and now can barely stand up. He still comes to class and trains religiously-- he just modifies everything and takes it very slow or else he'll fall over. A 5-year-old could probably kick his rear just by knocking him over, but I would never, ever in a million years think I'm a better martial artist than him.

Speaks to the notion that fighting is only one of many aspects of being a martial artist.

[AdamKralic]

If the reason that you do martial arts is to be great at fighting...then yes that does make the difference. Not everyone does martial arts for the beauty of it.

Everyone has different goals. Nobody should put down another's goals. This of course includes the bully that walks around talking of who he can beat...but also includes the person that does it for different reasons as well.

To a fighter...again...that is what they care about. You holding a horse stance for 20 minutes will not impress him even a tiny little bit. You putting a sidekick to someone's chin will. TomAtoes...tomAHtoes.

[guird]

I was going to say that since the thing that the defining feature of a martial artist (that which distinguishes a martial artist from a non martial artist) is their training for combat, their ability in combat is a measure of how good a martial artist they are. Then I read what lupin1 said, and realised that he's right.

I think having a lot of knowledge and understanding of how to fight, even if you can't do it yourself, also contributes.

I then remembered that I know people who don't really train for combat (but rather more in the performance direction) that I would still consider good martial artists.

I guess then that what I consider a measure of a martial artist is: skill and/or understanding in a field that falls under the broad definition of martial arts.

[Wastelander]

Being able to beat someone in a fight is being a better fighter than they are but, as has been mentioned a few times in this thread, there is more to martial arts than fighting. Someone might have greater knowledge of fighting than you, even if they can't apply it for one reason or another. Someone might have more efficient body mechanics due to their study of motion. Etc.

There are also vastly different TYPES of "fighting" that a martial artist may be good at. For example; a champion karate fighter could lose to a champion Brazilian jiu-jitsu competitor, and that wouldn't necessarily make the BJJ competitor a better martial artist. The same would be true in reverse. In addition, someone might be very good at self defense--dealing with aggressive, but untrained, attackers--but get beat in combat sport competition regularly.

[ps1]

This is similar to your other post.

This has some truth to it. But not complete truth. Being able to win doesn't always mean you have more skill. I'm willing to bet you can fight a 75 yr old 10th dan and win. But that 10th dan should be able to give you TONs of advise that will make you even better.

Moreover, I've lost in competitions to people who turn around and ask me for private lessons. They win on points, which has nothing to do with fighting. They want to know why they couldn't submit me with "x" or why they couldn't sweep me with "Y".

My point is that knowledge AND technique come together to form Skill and produce results. At lower ranks, especially, aggression can overcome a lack of knowledge and skill.

So it just depends on the situation. Now, let's say two 3rd dans are comparing themselves against one another. They fight (not spar) several times and one wins with each time using just a single technique. All that may be happening here is that the one who is losing has a weakness that happens to be exposed by the other. If fixed, the match may be perfectly even, or change entirely.

In the same situation, let's say one of them wins consistently using a multitude of different set-ups and techniques. This would be more indicative of a higher degree of skill than the other.

My point is that "winning" can't be the only method of deciding skill. It's how and why you won that's important as well. If you're just using your ONE technique that is your best...I'm not impressed. If you're able to win in multiple ways with multiple options...I'll concede you're better.

Again, this assumes most things are fairly even.

[jaypo]

I look at it this way- I'm 6', 185 lbs and very strong for my size. One of my friends is 6'2 and about 230 lbs and stronger than me. We are about the same skill level. Yet, I'm pretty sure he'd blast me 7/10 times. The reason? He's bigger, stronger, and faster than I am even though we have the same level of skill at our art. I don't consider him a better fighter or a better martial artist because we have the same level of skill and knowledge. He just has better physical attributes. (In other words, I'd fare as well against competition from people my size as he would against people his size). For example- I don't think Sugar Ray Leonard would be able to beat Mike Tyson, but I think Sugar was a hell of a lot better boxer than Iron Mike. Mike just hit like a freight train!

I also agree with the statements about the other reasons to be a martial artist.