Great Martial Arts Compilation

[Zenjael]

Too many to count. Good sir, that gave me a right guffaw. Thank you.

 

[Xue Sheng]

"To be is to do."-Descartes "To do is to be."-Nietsche "Scooby dooby do"-Sinatra "Yabba dabba do"-Flintstone.

I am what I am and that is all that I am - Popeye

 

[Carol]

"To be is to do."-Descartes "To do is to be."-Nietsche "Scooby dooby do"-Sinatra "Yabba dabba do"-Flintstone.

"Scooby dooby do" was Hanna-Barbera influenced by Sinatra. The Chairman Of The Board scatted "Dooby dooby do" when he sang Strangers In The Night


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[elder999]

"Scooby dooby do" was Hanna-Barbera influenced by Sinatra. The Chairman Of The Board scatted "Dooby dooby do" when he sang Strangers In The Night


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Only sorta......"To be is to do" is actually Socrates, not Descartes. "To do is to be" is actually Sartre, not Nietzche-which I spelled wrong....on purpose......and at the end of "Strangers in the Night," Frank, who wasn't at all happy with the song or his scat, mimicked himself with "Scoobly dooby doo..." though that can only be heard on some recordings and out takes......

 

[Aiki Lee]

Thank you Himura for your writing.I feel like I'm actually having a discussion now.

You are welcome.

I quote myself out of fear in the future being blamedfor taking credit for things I do not duly deserve, when in actuality thosethings originated with me. That wasn't my motive in this, I just hoped by beingcompletely honest and transparent it might help others feel comfortable to doso as well. Being earnest on the internet can be intimidating for some.

Ok. I don’t really think that’s necessary but, Iunderstand.

Thank you for quoting your teachers. What I say inmartial arts being composed of each style, but greater than any, is akin to, ifyou excuse me for waning philosophical, the same way what we consider realityto be 'real' when it is actually composed subjectively by each of ourindividual experiences. And illusions, as it is.

If we are going to discuss philosophy, I am of the mindthat there is 1 reality that is ultimately unknowable and our individualexperiences reflect a perception of reality which may or may not be accurate.

To only train in one style, thinking it is the only waytoward betterment, is limiting oneself. For example, when I ask another TKDpractitioner what style they use, 9/10 ill hear WTF or ITF TKd, when the answerI am looking for is whether they practice Chang Moo Kwan, Chung Do Kwan, MooDuk Kwan, etc.

To say that studying one style is limiting is like sayingthat studying only cardiology is limiting and doctors should study as much aspossible. The problem is that people can’t retain everything they try to learn,there is only so much we can recall and without specializations (or specificschools of thought) you lose something unique and valuable by trying togeneralize everything. You end up limiting unique experiences by trying toforce things into a group to which they do not belong.

But if what is considered 'Tae Kwon Do' is composed ofthese different styles, or kwans, and each of these kwans is a differentexpression of what we would call Tae Kwon Do in general, but none better thanthe other, each effective, than is it not a valid argument that the differencesbetween the arts is really something relative. I have practiced in a hall wherehundreds trained, and all of us were doing tang soo do, and Chung Do Kwan,respectively. Yet we all looked different.

OK, but ask a karateka how different his karate is fromanother karate system and while he will admit to similarities, he would suresay that there are important differences and the two systems should not bemixed.
To go even further, an art like TKD and say Muso JikidenEishin Ryu are so different it’s like comparing baseball to stamp collecting.

I feel each Martial Art is equal to the other, as martialarts is not about fighting, but rather balance in life, and thereby keepingbalance means knowing when to use your art.

Equal in what way? Is an apple equal to an orange? Today,many people practice different martial arts for similar reasons, but eachmartial art was developed for its own unique reason and some are better suitedthan others for one thing while others are better at something else.

 

[Mauthos]

Learning to understand a technique is like how you eat an elephant... bit by bit - A Fitzgerald.

Here's the pulse, alright, and here's your finger far from the pulse jammed straight up your ***. Say, would you like a chocolate covered pretzel? - Brodie (Jay & Silent Bob)

That's what the Internet is for. Slandering others anonymously. - Banky (Jay & Silent Bob) and sort of appropriate on an internet forum :uhyeah:

For other famous quotes just check out my signature.

 

[MJS]

I enjoy quotes, and since this is the largest forum for martial arts, it seems according that perhaps it contain this. I figure if everyone posts their favorite quote related to martial arts, and a favorite quote from a martial arts teacher of theirs, this will be something worth time and again. If possible, please give credit for who said it ^^. If you'd like to include your own, feel free, but give credit where due

I'll go first to kick it off.

“The true science of martial arts means practicing them in such a way that they will be useful at any time, and to teach them in such a way that they will be useful in all things.”
-Miyamoto Miyazashi

“If you punch your enemy and he isn't knocked out, you aren't punch hard enough.”
-Master Fazel Khan

“Every martial art is but a facet of the greater gem of what the arts represent. If you only look at it one way, how can you ever really claim to see its complete depth?”
-Myself

@Chris, you don't have to agree with my teacher's quote. But I do. If you punch someone and they don't go down when your life is in danger, you have not trained your punch well enough.

Well, Chris touched on the mis-spelling of the names, disagreed with some others. I'm only going to touch on 1 thing, and thats the quote by Master Khan, who I assume is your teacher. Since I've began my journey in Kyokushin, which is a hardcore art, and one that believes in the 1 shot, 1 kill mentality, I can see myself both agreeing and disagreeing with that line of thinking. Yes, I do agree that one should strike/block hard. The idea is to not only block, but try to cause damage to the other persons arm, leg, etc, in the process. However, one doesnt need to strike the eye, throat or groin too hard, in order to get some effective results.

However, keep in mind, that its not simply a matter of hitting the guy hard, but where you're hitting.

 

[MJS]

To only train in one style, thinking it is the only way toward betterment, is limiting oneself. For example, when I ask another TKD practitioner what style they use, 9/10 ill hear WTF or ITF TKd, when the answer I am looking for is whether they practice Chang Moo Kwan, Chung Do Kwan, Moo Duk Kwan, etc.

But if what is considered 'Tae Kwon Do' is composed of these different styles, or kwans, and each of these kwans is a different expression of what we would call Tae Kwon Do in general, but none better than the other, each effective, than is it not a valid argument that the differences between the arts is really something relative. I have practiced in a hall where hundreds trained, and all of us were doing tang soo do, and Chung Do Kwan, respectively. Yet we all looked different.

I feel each Martial Art is equal to the other, as martial arts is not about fighting, but rather balance in life, and thereby keeping balance means knowing when to use your art.

Keep in mind, that training a few months here, a few there, a year or so here, or there, doesnt equal a great fighter. I get the impression that is what you think...that if you dabble, that equals a great fighter.

 

[Chris Parker]

If people do not enjoy the thread, it is neither here nor there.

And ah, my quote is just a reiteration from the book of 5 rings. There is no single 'correct' style, and every style represents martial arts as a whole.

No, it's not a reiteration of the Gorin no Sho, if you think it is, you have deeply misread and misunderstood it. You're arguing with the wrong person on this.

As with anyone, we are all different in person than we come across online. And yes, scholasticism, as in of scholarly notation or worth in being recognized. And how I posted would be acceptable at most Universities. Certainly George Mason where I attend, which is why I included and put an emphasis on providing the source. All I did was cite where the quote came from, in the most simple way to cite someone. I didn't post my quote on top, I only supplied that section in this post out of the presumative thinking that others might do the same, yet guise it as someone else. I've seen it often enough on other boards, in other topics to take it into account.

You're kidding, yeah? Firstly, learn what words mean, because scholasticism absolutely does not mean "of scholarly notation or worth in being recognized"... Scholasticism is not the same as academic, or academically accurate. And "presumative" isn't even a word. What Universities accept made up words and misused terminology again? Not to mention the grammatically incorrect usage of other words ("yet guise it as someone else"...?).

And, yes, it was pompous, arrogant, and self-aggrandizing to quote yourself... even leaving off how bad your quote was. We weren't arguing that you were citing incorrectly, we were telling you that you were coming across as an arrogant blowhard.

Miyamoto Musashi went by many names. Including Miyazashi, Shinmen, and Bennosuke among many, many others. I just chose to have him quoted in an alternative form of his name. Just pointing that out to the person who pointed out I listed his name incorrectly.

He never went by "Miyazashi", and even more, never "Miyamoto Miyazashi". You're arguing with the wrong person here, son.

@Chris, you don't have to agree with my teacher's quote. But I do. If you punch someone and they don't go down when your life is in danger, you have not trained your punch well enough.

Your teacher's quote, if accurate and taken at face value the way you presented it, is deeply flawed and very much a beginners attitude. Just hitting harder isn't the answer, to think it is is to have no clue of what's really important.

Or do you want to continually risk yourself by having to hit them again and again to nullify the situation, if that is the only choice available. That was Master Khan's point. If when you use your technique, and they aren't defeated, you have not trained it well enough for the situation you are attempting to apply it to.

No, if you use your technique and it doesn't work, you should try a different approach. Pig-headed stubbornness, and the idea that "just hit them harder" is the hallmark of a very ill-educated teacher.

I quote myself out of fear in the future being blamed for taking credit for things I do not duly deserve, when in actuality those things originated with me. That wasn't my motive in this, I just hoped by being completely honest and transparent it might help others feel comfortable to do so as well. Being earnest on the internet can be intimidating for some.

Oh, don't worry about that... it's pretty easy to tell what you should get the blame for....

Thank you for quoting your teachers. What I say in martial arts being composed of each style, but greater than any, is akin to, if you excuse me for waning philosophical, the same way what we consider reality to be 'real' when it is actually composed subjectively by each of our individual experiences. And illusions, as it is.

Huh? Did you want to try that again? Maybe with some syntax? Or, I don't know, a point?

To only train in one style, thinking it is the only way toward betterment, is limiting oneself. For example, when I ask another TKD practitioner what style they use, 9/10 ill hear WTF or ITF TKd, when the answer I am looking for is whether they practice Chang Moo Kwan, Chung Do Kwan, Moo Duk Kwan, etc.

But if what is considered 'Tae Kwon Do' is composed of these different styles, or kwans, and each of these kwans is a different expression of what we would call Tae Kwon Do in general, but none better than the other, each effective, than is it not a valid argument that the differences between the arts is really something relative. I have practiced in a hall where hundreds trained, and all of us were doing tang soo do, and Chung Do Kwan, respectively. Yet we all looked different.

I feel each Martial Art is equal to the other, as martial arts is not about fighting, but rather balance in life, and thereby keeping balance means knowing when to use your art.

Huh? There's just so much wrong here I hardly know where to start....

As for citing his name as Miyazashi,

And we're back to this....

Are you serious here? A you-tube clip showing a girl teaching drawing "inspired by" the concepts of the Gorin no Sho??? And giving a different (yet still inaccurate) version of Musashi's name (they put it as "Miyazaki" being the alternate to "Miyamoto", rather than""Miyazashi" being the alternate to "Musashi", as you did)?

Seriously, this is just embarrassing as any form of evidence, as there is no connection to Musashi, history, or anything else, and therefore offers no support. You might as well have shown a clip saying that Abraham Lincoln's middle name was Nancy because someone put up a clip of people playing tennis in Gettysburg which claimed it. I'm more inclined to believe the girl mis-spoke due to ignorance, as everything else she said about Musashi was wrong... the explanation of the five rings has nothing to do with the Gorin no Sho at all.

And wikipedia also cites his name as such. I could dig deeper, but it is probably the case that musashi and miyazaki are poor translations in both cases of his name from Japanese to English. We do mangle their language badly- they say tsoo-na-me, while we tend to say soo-na-mee.

No, Wiki does not list "Miyazaki" or "Miyazashi" as alternate names for Musashi. The names listed are Musashi Miyamoto (his "common" name, or the best known), Miyamoto Bennosuke (a name he used in childhood), Niten Doraku (a Buddhist name he took in later life), Shinmen Takezo (his "real" name), and Shinmen Musashi no Kami Fujiwara no Genshin (his full title that he uses in his introduction to the Gorin no Sho). There is no chance of "Miyazaki" being a "poor translation" of Musashi either... as the name "Musashi" comes from where he was the governor.

As to your take on mispronunciations, no. Just no. You're really dealing with the wrong person here.

If it helps, miyazaki is moreso a title than a name, and the author of the book of 5 rings had many titles. From what I can glean online, it means 'to mind the gap' reading his writings, the name is quite fitting I'd say.

No, Miyazaki is not a title. It's a surname, as well as the name of a city and prefecture in Kyushu. Musashi didn't really have many titles, when it comes down to it either. He just went by a few names over his life... which isn't that uncommon, particularly in the warrior class of Japan. And I have no idea where your translation comes from.... it doesn't fit anything I know of...

This was adhoc research done through google. If you really want I can check out the archives at mason through our online system. I'm just feeling lazy since I just finished 3 finals this week and waited tables from 6 am to now on mothers day.

Do better research, this is terrible.

 

[Steve]

I'd like to think that there's some martial wisdom in the following quotes:

I eat cannibals. It's incredible. You bring out the animal in me. I eat cannibals. - Total Coelo

So tell me what you want, what you really, really want. I wanna, (ha) I wanna, (ha) I wanna, (ha) I wanna, (ha)
I wanna really, really really wanna zigazig ah. - The Spice Girls

 

[Tames D]

Bang, Zoom, straight to the moon - Sensei Ralph Kramden

 

[Xue Sheng]

If I dood it, I get a whippin'. I dood it - Bugs Bunny

 

[dancingalone]

To only train in one style, thinking it is the only way toward betterment, is limiting oneself. For example, when I ask another TKD practitioner what style they use, 9/10 ill hear WTF or ITF TKd, when the answer I am looking for is whether they practice Chang Moo Kwan, Chung Do Kwan, Moo Duk Kwan, etc.

But if what is considered 'Tae Kwon Do' is composed of these different styles, or kwans, and each of these kwans is a different expression of what we would call Tae Kwon Do in general, but none better than the other, each effective, than is it not a valid argument that the differences between the arts is really something relative. I have practiced in a hall where hundreds trained, and all of us were doing tang soo do, and Chung Do Kwan, respectively. Yet we all looked different.

I'd certainly be interested if you can articulate any real technical differences between Chung Do Kwan, Moo Duk Kwan, Ji Do Kwan, Kang Duk Kwan, etc. Do tell. The current high rankers in TKD will tell you that any differences if they ever truly existed beyond a few forms here and there have been extinguished during the unification process of TKD.

 

[frank raud]

What I say in martial arts being composed of each style, but greater than any, is akin to, if you excuse me for waning philosophical, the same way what we consider reality to be 'real' when it is actually composed subjectively by each of our individual experiences.

Verb
[TABLE="class: ts"]
[TR]
[TD]

1. (esp. of a condition or feeling) Decrease in vigor, power, or extent; become weaker: "confidence waned".

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Loved this little gem. By the way, if you truly believe the quote about if you didn't knock someone out with your first punch, how come you started a thread complaining about a student who hits too hard? Wax on or wax off?

 

[Chris Parker]

Ha, yeah, I saw that one too... but as the entire sentence didn't seem to have any structure, or real subject (at least, nothing discernible...!), I left the incorrect word alone. For all I knew, he meant "becoming less philosophical"... ha!

 

[Cyriacus]

Verb
[TABLE="class: ts"]
[TR]
[TD]

1. (esp. of a condition or feeling) Decrease in vigor, power, or extent; become weaker: "confidence waned".

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Loved this little gem. By the way, if you truly believe the quote about if you didn't knock someone out with your first punch, how come you started a thread complaining about a student who hits too hard? Wax on or wax off?

Haha! You bally champion

 

[geezer]

“The true science of martial arts means practicing them in such a way that they will be useful at any time, and to teach them in such a way that they will be useful in all things.”
-Miyamoto Miyazashi

Miyazashi?

 

[Steve]

 

[Chris Parker]

Miyazashi?

Ha, a bit late to the party, ain't cha? Posts 8, 14, and 29.... with Alex's bizarre excuses in between...!

 

[Zero]

@Chris, you don't have to agree with my teacher's quote. But I do. If you punch someone and they don't go down when your life is in danger, you have not trained your punch well enough.

Or do you want to continually risk yourself by having to hit them again and again to nullify the situation, if that is the only choice available. That was Master Khan's point. If when you use your technique, and they aren't defeated, you have not trained it well enough for the situation you are attempting to apply it to.

Others have said it already, but that quote does not seem to come from the "Master" of much at all. Even the hardest sport punchers (boxing/K1) have struck an opponent to find that opponent, for whatever reason did not go down. Likewise, in "street"/SD situations individuals under the influence of drugs/PCP may also not go down on the first strike. If you depend on a first strike mentality and are not prepared to engage in follow ups or evolve to the situation you have already invited defeat to join you in the ring and doom to walk at your side on the street (wow, how's that for a quote - can I self-quote on this one please?).

The reality is: (i) if you win your tournament (by using however many techniques) = you have won; (ii) if you survive an SD altercation (by whatever means) = you have survived (read "won"). The first strike philosophy is peppered throughout karate but is not necessarily as you or your "master" have (mis)interpreted it. As an aside, I do not see many kyokoshin tournaments won with just "one strike" out of the blocks.