# Can you be 'nonviolent' and still practice boxing?



## Freestyler777 (Aug 2, 2007)

My dream is to box, yet I consider myself a peace-loving man.  How many other people on this website have the same cognitive dissonance of rationalizing the practice of combat sports with the practice of esoteric philosophy/pacifism?


----------



## Kacey (Aug 2, 2007)

Okay... it's trite... it's hokey... nonetheless, it gets my point across.

From The Karate Kid:



> *Daniel*: Hey - you ever get into fights when you were a kid?
> *Miyagi*: Huh - plenty.
> *Daniel*: Yeah, but it wasn't like the problem I have, right?
> *Miyagi*: Why? Fighting fighting. Same same.
> ...



Learning to box - or any other martial art or fighting style - doesn't mean you _have_ to fight; it doesn't mean that violence is going to seek you out... it means that you have learned a discipline, spent time learning to control yourself and your actions - something that should help you avoid fights in the future.


----------



## CoryKS (Aug 2, 2007)

Freestyler777 said:


> My dream is to box, yet I consider myself a peace-loving man. How many other people on this website have the same cognitive dissonance of rationalizing the practice of combat sports with the practice of esoteric philosophy/pacifism?


 
Depend on what you consider 'peace-loving'.  Boxers have, by definition, communicated their willingness to hit and get hit, so you're not violating the rights of another person.  If you define 'non-violent' as unwillingness to inflict pain on another person even if they've agreed to it, then it's probably not the right field for you.


----------



## Freestyler777 (Aug 2, 2007)

i consider 'nonviolence' simply to mean, 'non-injuring' the 'innocent'.  Obviously two boxers in a match are cognizant of the perils, and are fighting without hatred towards each other. IMO


----------



## CoryKS (Aug 2, 2007)

Freestyler777 said:


> i consider 'nonviolence' simply to mean, 'non-injuring' the 'innocent'. Obviously two boxers in a match are cognizant of the perils, and are fighting without hatred towards each other. IMO


 
I agree.  Therefore, I don't see a conflict between pacifism and pugilism.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Aug 2, 2007)

Well put, Kacey.

The benefits of any martial training go well beyond violence.  Ask anybody on the board, I think you'll find very few have been in more than a couple fights since high school (if you don't count getting paid to fight as in cops and bouncers).  However, we all use our training _every single day_.

If you're concerned about the sparring and fighting actual bouts, I'd point out that neither of those are actually violent activities.  It's fighting, it's physical and sometimes it hurts.  There are even injuries.  But as both competitors are volunteers, there's no _violation_ and hence no _violence.  _Fighting without violence seems oxymoronic. In fact, it's not only perfectly reasonable, but also very fun.


----------



## karate-dragon (Aug 2, 2007)

To quote Gichin Funakoshi, their is no first strike in karate. Learning any martial art is all about preparing to defend yourself if you need to, to become confident so that you portray yourself to the world in a manner that does not allow you to be viewed as a victim, and to learn to be peaceful. Another great quote (360 degrees away) if from Patrick Swazey in Road House - when asked when do you fight back, he said you'll know when to. We must learn to be non-violent and practice that. But we must learn our history lessons too, and not be victims, as in the Holocaust. There is a time and a place to defend yourself and to not be a victim, and if you aren't prepared, you're doomed. There is a lot of controversy concerning  what the old masters meant by no first strike. By their actions, many of them clearly took someone out before that person moved. And in explanation, it became clear that they took a word or a look in someone's eyes to be the first move.


----------



## Freestyler777 (Aug 2, 2007)

i agree. the essence of violence is 'to violate'.  Two boxers sparring is not criminal vs victim, but 'athlete' vs 'athlete'. IMO


----------



## bydand (Aug 2, 2007)

Freestyler777 said:


> i agree. the essence of violence is 'to violate'.  Two boxers sparring is not criminal vs victim, but 'athlete' vs 'athlete'. IMO



Ah, there you go, answered your own question.  I train, and am also a non-violent person.  Even if it comes to thumping somebody, I still can consider myself non-violent because that is THE last resort and I would have tried other ways to avoid such an encounter.  Sure that may happen in the matter of seconds sometimes, but certain situations call for swift, decisive action and you know when that is if you have the discipline.


----------



## Catalyst (Aug 2, 2007)

bydand said:


> Even if it comes to thumping somebody, I still can consider myself non-violent because that is THE last resort and I would have tried other ways to avoid such an encounter.


 
That's a good way to put it.  
I think at that point you're not as much "fighting" as you are "defending" and I just think there's an intrinsic difference.


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 2, 2007)

I think you need to start by deciding what you mean by "nonviolence."  There are non-violent martial systems, where the emphasis is on personal development and emotional control with measured and restrained defensive responses that seek not to injure an adversary.  There are nonviolent people who feel that imposing their will upon another, or killing anything, even a bug, tarnishes their spirit irreparably; they'd rather be killed than harm anyone else.  And there are people who aren't violent -- unless they have to be in order to defend themselves or their loved ones.  They don't seek trouble -- but they'll oblige if trouble comes seeking them.

To me, martial arts or boxing training isn't violence, anymore than the javelin at a track meet, or target shooting is violence.  Even in sparring or competition, your opponent is there willingly, you've both agreed to be bound by rules, and your goal is not to harm each other.  (OK, the last is splitting hairs, but I think you understand my point.)  I know people who won't compete -- but will train and even spar in training.  They feel that competition crosses that line, and makes the emphasis wrong.


----------



## CoryKS (Aug 2, 2007)

"To me, boxing is like a ballet, except there's no music, no choreography, and the dancers hit each other."
- Jack Handy


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Aug 2, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> I think you need to start by deciding what you mean by "nonviolence." There are non-violent martial systems, where the emphasis is on personal development and emotional control with measured and restrained defensive responses that seek not to injure an adversary. There are nonviolent people who feel that imposing their will upon another, or killing anything, even a bug, tarnishes their spirit irreparably; they'd rather be killed than harm anyone else. And there are people who aren't violent -- unless they have to be in order to defend themselves or their loved ones. They don't seek trouble -- but they'll oblige if trouble comes seeking them.


 
Exactly.



> To me, martial arts or boxing training isn't violence, anymore than the javelin at a track meet, or target shooting is violence. Even in sparring or competition, your opponent is there willingly, you've both agreed to be bound by rules, and your goal is not to harm each other. (OK, the last is splitting hairs, but I think you understand my point.) I know people who won't compete -- but will train and even spar in training. They feel that competition crosses that line, and makes the emphasis wrong.


 
FWIW, I am such a one.


----------



## Jonathan (Aug 6, 2007)

I love when this question comes up.  Whenever I try to rationalize the dichotomy of a peaceful life versus that of a violent endeavor to myself... I think of the Shaolin monks.  I don't think you can get much more peaceful, but consider what they brought to the martial arts world.

You can be competitive and unyielding (and even aggressive) without being violent.  Being capable of causing harm and choosing not to do so (or, better yet, being of a character when such a thought never crosses your mind) is a level of discipline that I wish more people (myself included) could achieve.


----------



## Freestyler777 (Aug 15, 2007)

That is a pretty excellent post, Jonathan!


----------

