Journey to a new style...

[Gyakuto]

But not so many the flow of the essay is interrupted. Use large denominations.

Iron them flat and scent them…you need all the help you can get.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Great stuff! Editing down is usually straightforward: remove superfluous words such adjectives, tautologies and the really obscene swear words.

I find that using grammarly gets rid of a large wordcount whenever I have too much. Focuses on all the extra stuff and awkward phrasing, which is normally longer than using correct grammar.

 

[Gyakuto]

Here’s one of mine that I wrote for a competition. I don’t even believe the premise, but for the purposes of the prize money (£50)

Are Budo and Sports Complimentary? | Tozando

weblog.tozando.com

 

[isshinryuronin]

Here’s one of mine that I wrote for a competition. I don’t even believe the premise, but for the purposes of the prize money (£50)

Are Budo and Sports Complimentary? | Tozando

weblog.tozando.com

For the most part, I don't believe the premise either. The article seems to deal with the different "goals" of budo vs sport being compatible. Only one sentence is devoted to the differences in execution, and this is described as a qualified "moot" point dependent on not affecting the core of the art.

The point is that this difference in goals will invariably affect the execution (and thus the effectiveness in the original martial intent) and find its way into the "grass root training." When a school's overriding focus is sport, this will be the natural result. After all, one trains in something the way one plans to use it.

Take iai as an example. Partner training with live blades can be a little dangerous, so wooden bokken were used. Later, the sport of kendo evolved with bokken being replaced with slats of split bamboo. While this sport develops a number of valuable skills, the method of execution greatly changed. The very essence of iai, cutting, is largely replaced with touching. Kendo is a different animal, an entirely different (though related) art from kenjustsu or iai.

In fact, your own sentence I quoted, proves this point. You wrote with winning the prize in mind (much like the goal in sport) and this compromised your execution of the essay to be something you don't even support. So, the goal of writing for "sport" is not complimentary to the goal (of most essays) of sincerely expressing your true thoughts, "budo".

IMO, it's fine to engage in sport MA or insincere commercial "sport" writing, as long as one realizes the difference between these and the ideal intent. So, this is not a criticism of the article, just a contribution to the "moot" point it brought up.

 

[Gyakuto]

Thank you for the unsolicited critique

 

[drop bear]

For the most part, I don't believe the premise either. The article seems to deal with the different "goals" of budo vs sport being compatible. Only one sentence is devoted to the differences in execution, and this is described as a qualified "moot" point dependent on not affecting the core of the art.

The point is that this difference in goals will invariably affect the execution (and thus the effectiveness in the original martial intent) and find its way into the "grass root training." When a school's overriding focus is sport, this will be the natural result. After all, one trains in something the way one plans to use it.

Take iai as an example. Partner training with live blades can be a little dangerous, so wooden bokken were used. Later, the sport of kendo evolved with bokken being replaced with slats of split bamboo. While this sport develops a number of valuable skills, the method of execution greatly changed. The very essence of iai, cutting, is largely replaced with touching. Kendo is a different animal, an entirely different (though related) art from kenjustsu or iai.

In fact, your own sentence I quoted, proves this point. You wrote with winning the prize in mind (much like the goal in sport) and this compromised your execution of the essay to be something you don't even support. So, the goal of writing for "sport" is not complimentary to the goal (of most essays) of sincerely expressing your true thoughts, "budo".

IMO, it's fine to engage in sport MA or insincere commercial "sport" writing, as long as one realizes the difference between these and the ideal intent. So, this is not a criticism of the article, just a contribution to the "moot" point it brought up.

Not really.

It is dishonest to argue that sport doesn't train fighting because it is not fighting. If what you are training is not fighting also.

So yeah. If say a swordsman who has killed 50 people goes on about realism. Then yeah. Good point. But otherwise no.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Thank you for the unsolicited critique

Wasn't a critique at all - nothing wrong with the article. I even agreed with your not buying the premise.

this is not a criticism of the article, just a contribution to the "moot" point it brought up.

I tried to avoid your getting any negative vibes from my post. Was not my intention. Just using it to expand on a related idea.

(drop bear's quote is in post below. it somehow sneaked into this one.)

 

[isshinryuronin]

Not really.
It is dishonest to argue that sport doesn't train fighting because it is not fighting.

I don't think I made that argument at all.

develops a number of valuable skills, the method of execution greatly changed.

Regarding sport version of TMA - both these phrases are generally true. And IMO, sport fighting is fighting, but usually modified as it has been repurposed to some degree, including conforming to a rule set. I don't think anyone would deny this.

 

[Fungus]

For the most part, I don't believe the premise either. The article seems to deal with the different "goals" of budo vs sport being compatible. Only one sentence is devoted to the differences in execution, and this is described as a qualified "moot" point dependent on not affecting the core of the art.

The point is that this difference in goals will invariably affect the execution (and thus the effectiveness in the original martial intent) and find its way into the "grass root training." When a school's overriding focus is sport, this will be the natural result. After all, one trains in something the way one plans to use it.

I spontanously draw the parallell between MA and sports, and science vs engineering. They are also related, yet have different goals and have differences in methodology or execution. The "tools" used in sports, originate from and was developed by MA. Just like in engineering.

MA has a supposedly deeper purpose, like science or philosophy where one loves to understand and grasp the world, just for the intellectual satisfaction and enlightment. The intellectual satisfaction of discovery has it's own value that stands above the superficial utility or what you kan make money from.

There is also a huge different in methdology in the sense that a good engineer is not necessarily a good scientist - or for that matter vice versa! Creativity in engineering is restriced to using a set of proven tools, to solve a specific problem. Anyone who has some relation to the field can understand that that is VERY different from the creativity required to advance or evolve science itself, that requires a kind of actual novelty and sometimes changes in paradigms, that the engineer never deals with, and geetting good at this, requires I think different "training" than that of an engineer. Although one can argue that many of the parts are the same. A strike is a strike, but the motivation, origin and purpose may make all the difference.