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

[sensei8]

I'll play Devil's advocate here; if your practice has no fighting or defense in mind, then is it a martial art at all? I thought that combat effectiveness was what martial arts were for, by definition. I know of a so called Wado Ryu Karate master who doesn't believe in teaching the applications of kata at all. His students are taught the moves and that's it. I asked him about this and he said "Bunkai is for Gangsters." So what he teaches is not karate at all in my opinion. Many people train for stylized competition or braking things for the sake of it, but at the end of the day, if your art has no martial application; it isn't a martial art, it's a simple as that. My present training is in Aikido, the philosophy is not to interfere with your opponent and not to directly oppose their attack. But in free randori; the attacker can make any attack they want. You are trained to apply the principals of Aikido to defend against and neutralize the threat. We train to respond to any attack and most of the time, from multiple attackers. That's why it's a martial art, we don't take the form or type of attack for granted. If there is no application that can be applied in combat, then I'm sorry you are practicing stylized aerobics, nothing more.

I can appreciate that!!

If a style of the MA doesn't believe in sparring/kumite, a style that does believe in sparring/kumite, then I suppose that the title of this thread is quite appropriate.

Having never sparred/kumite, imho, translates into not knowing how to respond/react to any type of attack; that's just not conducive in knowing how to defend oneself in a fight. Blinking and ducking lead to being knocked out!!

Experience will always defeat inexperience, however, the craziest things can happen in a fight. Things of misfortune will eventually catch up, and when that happens, hopefully the outcome won't be a dire one.

[guird]

I'll play Devil's advocate here; if your practice has no fighting or defense in mind, then is it a martial art at all? I thought that combat effectiveness was what martial arts were for, by definition. I know of a so called Wado Ryu Karate master who doesn't believe in teaching the applications of kata at all. His students are taught the moves and that's it. I asked him about this and he said "Bunkai is for Gangsters." So what he teaches is not karate at all in my opinion. Many people train for stylized competition or braking things for the sake of it, but at the end of the day, if your art has no martial application; it isn't a martial art, it's a simple as that. My present training is in Aikido, the philosophy is not to interfere with your opponent and not to directly oppose their attack. But in free randori; the attacker can make any attack they want. You are trained to apply the principals of Aikido to defend against and neutralize the threat. We train to respond to any attack and most of the time, from multiple attackers. That's why it's a martial art, we don't take the form or type of attack for granted. If there is no application that can be applied in combat, then I'm sorry you are practicing stylized aerobics, nothing more.

and so this discussion loops back the what we mean by 'martial arts'. I use the broadest definition, including performance arts and noncombative health and spiritual practices with a basis in fighting arts, so by my definition that argument doesn't stand. by a different usage of the word 'martial arts', extending that definition to 'martial artist', that argument holds.

[ShoriKid]

A white belt can score on a black belt...big deal...worse things have been known to have happened. A martial artist can score on another martial artist...big deal...none is better than the other...stuff happens all of the time. I score on Greg, our Kancho,...he scores on me...so on and so forth...happens with us all of the time, and even though I've got 6 months seniority on Greg, it doesn't mean that I'm better MAist than him...things shouldn't happen, but things do happen.

As others have said, physical attributes play into any fight. If I'm faster, stronger, have a longer reach, etc. I have an easier time dealing with an opponent. I've faced guys at the dojo when I was exhausted, they had a good 6-8 inches of height, 50lbs of weight against me and I handled them well because of my advantage in skills. I've faced opponents I had strength and reach on and gotten hammered, because of their skill advantage. And, I've lost to people when I was having an off night. I've won because I was "on" and they were "off". While fighting skill is important, in my opinion, it needs to be measured over a range of time, opponents, skill levels, situations etc.

And I quote the above quote the above for two reasons. I put a black belt on his back, out cold, when I was a yellow belt with a round kick. Does that mean I was a better fighter? Or I just got lucky? I had that same black belt drill me into the wall multiple times in a row with no effective defense on my part. Does that mean he's a better fighter than me?

And secondly, Sensei8, I would love to see you and Greg go at it and train together. I've always enjoyed watching higher level martial artists train together and it seems to help me in my own training. And it would be a blast to see two top men go at it.

[KyungYet]

At first I was surprised that this post had gotten so many replies, but when I think about how frequently I (and therefore I imagine, all y'all) hear words like the ones that began this post, maybe I shouldn't be surprised that these thoughts are really at the heart of everything that makes us martial artists.

I will confess that I posted this with a strong opinion of my own: that being able to beat the pants off of someone else DOESN'T mean you're the best around (and nothing's gonna ever keep you down) (sorry, Karate Kid reference). I've seen too many thuggish martial artists who just have that aggressive drive that makes them really good fighters... but watching their technique, I would hardly qualify them as the best martial artists around. Unfortunately, there's a certain macho percentage of the karate population that only recognizes one's value if they can outpunch you. The end. And as someone who has been training and instructing for nearly 30 years now, I can tell you there's more to the martial arts than that.

But I HAVE been interested in the conversations that remind me that martial arts are, at their heart, martial, and that without the fighting component, we are more or less ballet (we are. I'm totally okay with that. Both are beautiful and require great discipline and strength).

I think it comes down to the fact that there are many pieces to the martial arts, such as:

Actual technique/skill

Physical Conditioning (speed/power/endurance)

Aggressiveness/Fearlessness

Mental toughness/focus

... And lots more. So when someone says, "if I can kick your bum, I'm a better martial artist than you are" it becomes clear to me that there are so many aspects to just that one facet - as always, it's just more complicated than that. Are you just stronger than I am? Are you faster? Are you more aggressive? Less fearful? Do you have better technique? Focus? Did I just have a mentally "off" day? And so on.

So I guess I'm just going to strive to improve myself in all things, because it can't hurt.

Kyung Yet

[AdamKralic]

My all time favorite quote on fighting...by anyone...at any time..."Everyone has a game plan...until they get punched in the mouth" - Mike Tyson.

[ihiUYUH]

yeah..you are.

[bushido_man96]

My all time favorite quote on fighting...by anyone...at any time..."Everyone has a game plan...until they get punched in the mouth" - Mike Tyson.

There is a lot to be said there. No truer words were spoken.