Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
:uhohh: I have no idea waht you oare talking about :uhohh:
I just love the edit function :wink1:
Be or not to be....Martial artist or sport martial artist?
- Thread starter Pakua
- Start date
:uhohh: I have no idea waht you oare talking about :uhohh:
I just love the edit function :wink1:
Shifu Steve
Green Belt
I would have to agree with the posts stating that pure Martial Arts are really neither sports or self defense, although the aspects of sport and self defense can be found in any art. Why we practice our chosen style, system, whatever, is irrelevant. Everyone has their reasons (possibly fear but not in my experience) but those reasons are subjective and have nothing to do with the arts themselves. Personally, I began studying for the purpose of self defense but that is not the reason I continue to study. As we learn more and evolve as martial artists the depth and breadth of our chosen art becomes more apparent. Some choose to explore this further and subsequently find themselves on a never ending journey. Others stop short of that point and utilize the arts not so much as a path but as a tool. The reasons here may be ones that are limited by practicality or interest. Either way, once you choose to study for a reason that limits the art you cease to be purely studying a martial art and enter into some form of a grey area. I would describe it as utilizing the art for a specific purpose. I think the distinction here is, in my opinion, that the study of a martial art after time is a study of self mastery and an “outer expression of the inner self” to quote a great Grand Master of mine. If you choose to study an art in its entirety then I personally believe you could be great at sport or at self defense, provided your training regimen addresses those facets of the art. However, if you limit yourself to utilizing the art for a specific purpose, then I feel you miss the mark of being a “martial artist.” Nonetheless, it’s not for everyone and let’s not forget there may be great utility towards a single purpose such as training “just for...”
In my practice I have found and categorized techniques into systems that I feel are easy to learn and could be mastered in a short amount of time. I enjoy practicing them, having intense sparring sessions using them and teaching them. There are aspects to these techniques that lend credibility to their effectiveness in the ring or the street. I donÂ’t claim they are the be all and end all to street fighting or sport, but they have principles behind them that are geared that way. Nevertheless, these are solely examples that donÂ’t even scratch the surface of what I have set out to learn. The intricacies of breath, tension, concept, physics, relationships, etc (there are more examples then allowable characters) take many years to master. We also study Qigong. I donÂ’t know of any arts that donÂ’t include some form of it. Now I realize everyone has their opinion on it but if itÂ’s part of your chosen style and you donÂ’t study it then I donÂ’t know how you can say you are studying your art. You are studying aspects of your art. Again, there could be valid reasons for this. If you want to excel in cage fighting and want to do it before youÂ’re 40 you may not want to focus on Qigong. There may be other things that you can borrow from a few arts that would work for you in the ring more efficiently.
In my practice I have found and categorized techniques into systems that I feel are easy to learn and could be mastered in a short amount of time. I enjoy practicing them, having intense sparring sessions using them and teaching them. There are aspects to these techniques that lend credibility to their effectiveness in the ring or the street. I donÂ’t claim they are the be all and end all to street fighting or sport, but they have principles behind them that are geared that way. Nevertheless, these are solely examples that donÂ’t even scratch the surface of what I have set out to learn. The intricacies of breath, tension, concept, physics, relationships, etc (there are more examples then allowable characters) take many years to master. We also study Qigong. I donÂ’t know of any arts that donÂ’t include some form of it. Now I realize everyone has their opinion on it but if itÂ’s part of your chosen style and you donÂ’t study it then I donÂ’t know how you can say you are studying your art. You are studying aspects of your art. Again, there could be valid reasons for this. If you want to excel in cage fighting and want to do it before youÂ’re 40 you may not want to focus on Qigong. There may be other things that you can borrow from a few arts that would work for you in the ring more efficiently.
Nomad
Master Black Belt
I don't think great kata should be based on grace!!!! It should show the power and force of the battle one is training for,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Obviously, I'm not into the sport that uses kata or forms as a way to judge gymnastic ablity.
If it has no self defense aspects taught and trained then it is not karate for that is what Karate is.JMO
Not wanting to hijack the thread, but...
The mantra for great kata is: Power, grace, technique, control
(in relative order of importance). If power isn't there, you have a dance, not a kata. If grace isn't there, the kata looks blocky and slow (grace here means things like balance, smooth transitions, no wasted movements, etc), technique is somewhat self-explanatory, and control helps iron out and prevent the bobbles, rising up, etc.
Sorry, just used the grace as an attribute of good kata; it wasn't meant to imply it was the only important thing!
kungfu penguin
Green Belt
what i hated about tournaments that i have seen silly nonsense techniques that score but would get you killed in the street the super gymnast/martial artist again probably not realistic also the politics i fought a guy from studio A all the judges were from studio A not one of my points were acknowledged and he beat the stuffing out of me drawing blood and dislocating and arm not one excessive contact also the crying dragons who would take a light hit or no hit and sell it like he was kicked from chuck norris he could bring tears in a heartbeat anyway a bunch of us from other schools got together and said if he is going to cry then give him a reason to cry so we hit him hard finally he asked why we did that i told him if im going to be disqualified i was going to hit hard enough to deserve it instead of feather touching a guy and get DQd for acting ability he wised up after that
tellner
Senior Master
Don't worry about what other people think you should want.
Don't give a flying fark about what "Tradition" or "The Art(tm)" demands.
Figure out what you want out of the time, effort and money you're putting into this hobby.
That should tell you what you're "supposed" to to be and how you should go about accomplishing it.
And recognize that your goals will change over time. This is only natural.
Don't give a flying fark about what "Tradition" or "The Art(tm)" demands.
Figure out what you want out of the time, effort and money you're putting into this hobby.
That should tell you what you're "supposed" to to be and how you should go about accomplishing it.
And recognize that your goals will change over time. This is only natural.
In boxing, a sport, if you cannot even out punch a boxer when there is rules. What makes you think you can out punch a boxer without rules in the street?
You can find spirituality in anything you do, even sport such as football, basketball, swimming. I don't think you understand what is art. Art is in the doing. Basketball can be an art too, throwing the ball perfectly into the net. That is art.
Competition keeps the martial art honest. Without it, any unrealistic technique would become part of the curriculum.
ralphmcpherson
Senior Master
You probably wouldnt out-box him. You may kick him in the testicles, break his knee with a kick, put his arm in a joint lock , use pressure points , poke his eyes out etc etc. Im still yet to see multiple attackers , weapons , unseen attacks etc in sport fighting. Both fighters know the rules (and there are lots of them) , they know when the fight starts , they even wear clothing designed to fight in. Bottom line , it is a sport , it is nothing like a street fight and not everyone wants to learn a sport.
Tanaka
Purple Belt
When I first read this post; I was ready to disagree.
Then when I got towards the end of it... I started to agree.
sgtmac_46
Senior Master
Only in martial arts do we criticize people for actually training AND doing, and laud people merely for training to do and never doing.
sgtmac_46
Senior Master
Originally those martial skills that we call an 'art' were designed for one thing, and it wasn't spiritual development or self-defense.........in their original, purest form they were designed for war............injuring and/or killing another human being on some field of combat.
Later came the 'self defense' application, and the 'spiritual' and 'physical' development application, and the 'sport' application.
And the reality is that the 'spiritual' and 'self defense' application aren't any purer or more basic an application, than the 'sport' application. They are all secondary applications of the primary original skills at arms.
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
This I subtly disagree with...
The original skills for combative success were certainly designed with only that one thing in mind, however I think it is inaccurate to describe such teachings as martial arts, in the same way that I don't think modern military training is a martial art. It is a military, or martial teaching and education, but it is not an art.
If we go back in time, there is a theory that only the wealthy could actually afford to train in martial arts, as they were the only ones with enough cash to lure the secrets out of the warriors, and the only ones with enough time to actually devote to the study. To simply have combat effectiveness as an aim does not require (or demand) an art side of things (that type of depth of knowledge is actually counter-productive if you are going to battle next week). Instead, the arts are designed to teach more than just how to kill/injure other human beings.
As an example, in class last week I taught a range of topics (as our structure always does), including the traditional art techniques, weapon techniques (often traditional, but this time around it's a modern, and therefore less martial-art, and more DefTac program), and a modern self defence section (not martial arts). The weaponry section (this month) is a program for defending against a blunt weapon with a short bladed weapon (knife versus club/iron bar/baseball bat), the art side is dealing with joint locks (and their application in the traditional techniques), and the modern is RBSD-style applications, this month it's pre-emptive striking. That's a very simple exercise, where you are approached, you get distance, they continue in, and you strike, then escape. If all you were after was self defence, that's pretty much all you'd get.
But the art side is still there as well. The lock this week was Hon Gyaku (a wrist lock, similar to Aikido's Ikkyo), and we looked at a few applications, including a technique called Renyo. This technique has an attack sequence of a right punch, then a right kick, then a right grab, and finally a resistance to the applied lock. It's actions include evasive movements, a striking block, a counter-kick, a softening strike, an Ura Gyaku (inside wrist twist), and then finally as the opponent attempts to resist the Ura Gyaku, you apply the Hon Gyaku (other versions apply a different lock, but this is the one we were looking at...) As you can see, it's a slightly involved sequence, and is against attacks not common today, with responces not necessarily practical against the types of attacks you do come up against. Even back in it's day, such a sequence would be highly unlikely, so why is it taught like that?
Well, the technique has quite a number of lessons, including dealing with all the common standing unarmed ranges, teaching the student to alter the distance as required each time, as well as teaching a range of tactical and strategic aspects. But it is not what I would refer to as "combat effective". The lessons involved are, but the technique itself is not. And that is the common idea to all martial arts, the idea is transmitting knowledge, insight, values, strategies, tactics, not combat effective techniques.
If you watch Kurosawa's The Seven Samurai, the villagers there learnt combat techniques, not martial arts. They were given long bamboo poles, sharpened at one end like a spear, and tuaght basically how to hold it and thrust. And that is how you approach training for a war. Martial arts come afterwards, and are really seperate.
The original skills for combative success were certainly designed with only that one thing in mind, however I think it is inaccurate to describe such teachings as martial arts, in the same way that I don't think modern military training is a martial art. It is a military, or martial teaching and education, but it is not an art.
If we go back in time, there is a theory that only the wealthy could actually afford to train in martial arts, as they were the only ones with enough cash to lure the secrets out of the warriors, and the only ones with enough time to actually devote to the study. To simply have combat effectiveness as an aim does not require (or demand) an art side of things (that type of depth of knowledge is actually counter-productive if you are going to battle next week). Instead, the arts are designed to teach more than just how to kill/injure other human beings.
As an example, in class last week I taught a range of topics (as our structure always does), including the traditional art techniques, weapon techniques (often traditional, but this time around it's a modern, and therefore less martial-art, and more DefTac program), and a modern self defence section (not martial arts). The weaponry section (this month) is a program for defending against a blunt weapon with a short bladed weapon (knife versus club/iron bar/baseball bat), the art side is dealing with joint locks (and their application in the traditional techniques), and the modern is RBSD-style applications, this month it's pre-emptive striking. That's a very simple exercise, where you are approached, you get distance, they continue in, and you strike, then escape. If all you were after was self defence, that's pretty much all you'd get.
But the art side is still there as well. The lock this week was Hon Gyaku (a wrist lock, similar to Aikido's Ikkyo), and we looked at a few applications, including a technique called Renyo. This technique has an attack sequence of a right punch, then a right kick, then a right grab, and finally a resistance to the applied lock. It's actions include evasive movements, a striking block, a counter-kick, a softening strike, an Ura Gyaku (inside wrist twist), and then finally as the opponent attempts to resist the Ura Gyaku, you apply the Hon Gyaku (other versions apply a different lock, but this is the one we were looking at...) As you can see, it's a slightly involved sequence, and is against attacks not common today, with responces not necessarily practical against the types of attacks you do come up against. Even back in it's day, such a sequence would be highly unlikely, so why is it taught like that?
Well, the technique has quite a number of lessons, including dealing with all the common standing unarmed ranges, teaching the student to alter the distance as required each time, as well as teaching a range of tactical and strategic aspects. But it is not what I would refer to as "combat effective". The lessons involved are, but the technique itself is not. And that is the common idea to all martial arts, the idea is transmitting knowledge, insight, values, strategies, tactics, not combat effective techniques.
If you watch Kurosawa's The Seven Samurai, the villagers there learnt combat techniques, not martial arts. They were given long bamboo poles, sharpened at one end like a spear, and tuaght basically how to hold it and thrust. And that is how you approach training for a war. Martial arts come afterwards, and are really seperate.
sgtmac_46
Senior Master
You didn't really disagree. You agreed that in it's original the 'art' was martial skills.
Sport is art.
What much of this whole argument comes down to is semantics........and the root of that semantical argument is predicated on an desire to separate this from that, to somehow set what one is doing, as being inherently different and superior to what someone else is doing.
'I proclaim that what we are doing is art.......i'll now arbitarily define art to support my argument that what we are doing is art, and what you are doing is some lessor thing'.
What I don't understand is where this need to create distinctions really comes from. Is it a form of snobbery? Some misplaced energy to 'purify'? I don't get it.
If what one is doing is technically incorrect, in a mechanical efficiency sense, I can understand creating distinctions. But what we are creating distinctions on are goals........i.e. 'Training for sport is a perversion of the art, but training for some abstract love of the art is pure'..........where does that come from?
The reality is that it's ALL art..........so long as we are honest with ourselves about what we are doing I don't see the problem with having different goals and agendas.
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
Well, those skills are used as the vehicle to get across what is a martial art, however I don't think those skills make a martial art at all. A martial art is a seperate thing and is not concerned with combat effectiveness, although the skills taught in them often are combat effective, having come from lessons learnt is such violent situations.
I suppose to me it's like saying that flour equals a cake. Flour is often a main ingredient, but it is not a cake. Military or martial skills (combative effectiveness) are not a martial art any more than a cake is flour. Saying that a martial art was originally designed for only one thing (killing/injuring other people) to my mind denies what makes them martial arts, rather than just military training. As I said, it is a subtle disagreement...
I suppose the disagreement is that when it's only concerned with combat effectiveness, it's not a martial art. And when it's a martial art, it's gone beyond being concerned only with combat effectiveness (if it still is at all). Does that make more sense?
I suppose to me it's like saying that flour equals a cake. Flour is often a main ingredient, but it is not a cake. Military or martial skills (combative effectiveness) are not a martial art any more than a cake is flour. Saying that a martial art was originally designed for only one thing (killing/injuring other people) to my mind denies what makes them martial arts, rather than just military training. As I said, it is a subtle disagreement...
I suppose the disagreement is that when it's only concerned with combat effectiveness, it's not a martial art. And when it's a martial art, it's gone beyond being concerned only with combat effectiveness (if it still is at all). Does that make more sense?
sgtmac_46
Senior Master
As I said, semantics and self-serving definitions.
The root of 'martial arts' is martial........so if we're talking purity, the martial is what makes it unique, not the 'art'. The art came after.
Therefore, what one does with those 'martial skills' whether it be sports OR dancing around in a pretty uniform is 'equally' art.
That's the point.
Again, we only have these weird discussions about martial arts...........one would hardly argue that what Michael Jordan did with a basketball wasn't 'art' because it was a sport.
So what is real interesting to examine are the motives people have for making the arguments that they do on the matter...........is it necessary for some folks to affirm the 'specialness' of what they do by attacking what others do as 'less special'?
The ONLY reason that subject would have merit is if what we are discussing is pure martial skill, i.e. which is practically most effective and efficient...........but when the subject becomes what is 'art' such distinctions become rather silly.
