Martial Artist Vs Warrior

[Cruentus]

No offense to those who think that these topics are totally awesome-cool, but I always thought arguments/discussions such as these are pretty useless. The reason is because they are semantical by nature. So I both agree and disagree with everyone. :lol:

To the Army man, A Warrior is someone who is preparing for war, and intends to or has gone to battle while serving as a soldier. By this definition, a warrior could only be a soldier, and therefore no "Martial artist" or civilian who has never enlisted could be a "warrior."

And you know what, that isn't wrong; it is just the military person's (or at least most military people's) definition that dictates what a warrior is, and by definition no civi could ever fit the bill.

A citizen might have a different definition; maybe someone who goes to "battle" everyday at the office for their family is a "warrior" also by their definition. But then, could the unmarried man be a warrior? Many people who are civilian "martial artists" reduce the definition to simply meaning "a person with honor, courage, and integrity." This is such an oversimplification that many people who serve our country find it silly, or even insulting depending on who you talk too. Why does a person with only honor, courage, and integrity have to be a 'warrior'... why not just a really nice and honorable guy?

But regardless, which ever way one defines a "warrior" is what will matter here. So, it ends up being a semantics game that no one can ever "win" or be satisfied with, because not everyone agrees with the definition of what a "warrior" really is.

Lastly, by careful about assumptions one makes regarding the military. Blotan Hunka makes a great point regarding military ethics training. Sure, everyone "supports the troops" which is awesome, a huge improvement since Vietnam, but, most people have no idea the type of training a soldier goes through, that even the most basically trained men/women with the most basic MOS's have had to endure. Even just through basic training (not including AIT) they have had to endure a very disciplined environment with a high degree of ethics, mental, and physical training involved. Even the most basic soldier has recieved more physical, mental, and ethics training then most martial artists ever will. Most civilians, martial artists or not, would not be willing or able to endure a 9-week program of hell with drill sgt. breaking your down and building you up, with sacrifice and hardship, and where only physical, mental, and ethical fortitude will get you through. And that is just basic training; not AIT or active duty, or inactive drills, or war; all of which can be more challanging then "basics" for some. This isn't to dog on those who never enlisted, but it is the truth.

Now, that is not to say that there aren't individuals who haven't stepped up to the plate as civie's; because certianly many citizens have done some spectacular things. Most civilians are great contibuters, and are doing there part for society as well. Just, don't take for granted the capabilities, training, and willpower of an American Soldier, because they have gotten more "warrior" training then most of the rest of the world realizes.

But back to my original point; the discussion will end up boiling down to a semantics discussion, which probably won't be very productive or satisfying, I wouldn't think...

 

[Kacey]

But back to my original point; the discussion will end up boiling down to a semantics discussion, which probably won't be very productive or satisfying, I wouldn't think...

Then why join it? If you think the discussion is meaningless, and that most non-military personnel cannot understand what training military personnel have undergone, and therefore cannot understand the definition of warrior - which seems to be what your post boils down - then I fail to see why you posted at all... especially including a set of definitions which I found both interesting and likely to add to the discussion you seem to feel is so meaningless.

I, for one, find discussions of semantics quite interesting, as they help me to understand the POV of other people, thus helping me to understand people in general. Therefore, I must disagree that this thread, mostly likely, "probably won't be very productive or satisfying".

 

[exile]

I'm not sure where this thread is going, or can go, or wants to go, but I wanted to bring out one point here, which may speak to Cruentus' comments and Kacey's counterpoints to those comments. I really don't think anyone is wrong in this thread so far; people seem to be speaking to somewhat different issues and emphases. But there's something about the term `warrior' which seems to trigger people's intense reactions. The term has a mystique which `soldier' clearly doesn't have. And I think there's a good reason...

The fact is, for most of European (pre)history, there has been a particular class of people who were entitled to be fighters, and other people who couldn't be. One Indoeuropean folklorist and historian, Georges Dumezil, went so far as to argue—with a lot of evidence!—that the ancient Indoeuropean population from which we in the west are (mostly) descended had three great castes: priest-kings and their extended families (royalty), the warrior caste (lower nobility and high-ranking non-nobles) and peasant farmers/craftsment (the vast, vast majority). Only members of the warrior caste and above were allowed to own weapons, were trained to use them, and participated in the horrific battles which allowed the Indoeuropean juggernaut to—basically—snuff the preexisting peoples who occupied various parts of Europe, from the Picts in Scotland to the Etruscans in Italy. The Basques are vestigial survivors of that explosive assault that took the Indoeuropeans from somewhere in the Black Sea area five thousand or more years ago to every corner of Europe, as well as Persia and India. And the IE shock troops were the dedicated warrior caste, which was barred to the numerically much larger peasantry.

So, once upon a time being a warrior was something that you were born into, a privileged group of people. `Soldiers' per se, as paid professional fighters recruited from throughout society, didn't exists until the later middle ages, when legions of lightly armored pikesmen started making mincemeat out of the heavily armored knights and their horses and put paid once and for all to the massed cavalry charges that had decided battles up to the early 15th century... and of course, crossbows, firearms and ordnance, all administered by `common soldiers', were part of the picture and of, in the end, the whole feudal system. The social caste that Dumezil and others identified as the `warrior' class didn't fight for pay; they fought for spoil, for glory and for rewards in land from the priest/kingly ruling class in IE society and its Celtic, Germanic, Romance, Slavic and other descendents. I strongly suspect that part of the reason the term `warrior' has the resonance and the flavor it does is because in the old days, members of the warrior caste weren't commoners, but nobility, many cuts above the peasant scum. We no longer have that tripartite division, but the idea of a dedicated class of fighters belonging to the nobility is what gives the term `warrior' its special cachet, whereas the class associations of the term `soldier'—a paid professional at best, a conscript at worst—are very different, and suggest something much lower in the social hierarchy.

I have a feeling the historical associations belonging to these notions—warrior vs. soldier vs. etc.—are playing a part in this discussion...

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Really it does boil down to your point of view. I have met enlisted soldiers who were definately not warriors at all. I have also met some who I happen to be great friends with that are simply the best of the best when it comes to warriorship. I have also had the pleasure of meeting many fine LEO's who also are warriors in their own right. Sadly I have met at least one or two who I would never want covering my back. I know several civilians that exemplify a warrior and I would have no problem with them covering me in a dangerous situations as well and I have met more than a few that I want nothing to do with.

Rober L. Humphrey who was closely associated with Jack Hoban of the Bujinkan wrote a nice piece on what a warrior is in his opinoin :

http://www.winjutsu.com/warrior-creed.html

Basically everyone here is right and I have not seen a post that is really wrong. Warriorship and warriors are bred in battle (a violent encounter) and that could be construed to mean many different things.

Is a soldier that turns and runs during conflict a warrior?
Is a civilian mother who saves her children from a drunken attacker a warrior?
Is a grandmother who dies so that someone else could escape a warrior?
Is a soldier who dies valiantly protecting his/her country a warrior?
Is an employer who represents over a 1,000 people and sees that their needs are met on the battlefield of business a warrior?
Is a firefighter that goes into a burning building to rescue someone a warrior?
What about the medical emergency personel that go into a crack infested house to help someone out?
Or the correction officer that deals with criminals every day so that you or I do not have to?
What about the probation officer that goes into a criminals house everyday to check up on them with no backup and no recourse if a violent encounter ensues?
How about the special operations personel that goes behind lines to handle a situation that many would find repellent?
Or the security officer that makes sure that our nuclear plants are protected from terrorism?
What about somone that makes a differance and changes someones perspective so that they contribute postively to society?

All of these questions are something that you have to answer individually. Some may be yes and some may be no. That is for you to choose.

You see warriorship can mean many different things to many different people. It is similar to how people view hero's! One person's hero could be another persons goat so to speak.

 

[Cruentus]

I, for one, find discussions of semantics quite interesting, as they help me to understand the POV of other people, thus helping me to understand people in general. Therefore, I must disagree that this thread, mostly likely, "probably won't be very productive or satisfying".

Well, that would be if the discussion included an honest persuit of knowledge. I am not saying that your not persuing knowledge honestly, but I am saying that the thread on this topic usually degrades to an argument over what a warrior "is" and "isn't," where some of the people who disagree walk away with a sour taste and time wasted.

This has happened many times before both here on MT and on other boards. I am explaining the reasons why this is the case.

Now as to the military perception of "warrior," I suggest you check this out: http://www.army.mil/warriorethos/

Pay attention in particular to the line on one of the links that states: "Unless you have been in the military, you will never know or completely understand this type of self-service and the willingness to give yourself to your country and your fellow service members."

The fact is, the military (army is what I am most familiar with) has a particular ethos and definition and idea of what a warrior is. This definition is limited only to those who have served.

Now some agree with this, and some don't, and some will vary in between. This includes soldiers and civilians.

And to complicate matters, our society has propigated the idea of being a "warrior" as an archtype that all people must aspire to be. This is because of all of the desirable charactaristics and need for "protectors" of society as a most basic and needed and respected role. People (particularly males) seem to feel like a "lesser" person if they can't somehow fullfill that archtype of warrior. This is particularly true in American culture.

Martial Arts schools and instructors have both capitalized and invested emotional energy into this archtype. Since not everyone can serve in the military, yet everyone wants to be a "warrior," the definition has been "dumbed down" so that every person could fit into the archtype.

The definition of "warrior" is very emotionally charged on both sides. Those who believe that only someone in the military, or in some sort of service where they would be put in harms way is a warrior have an emotional investment and often an identity that relies on that definition. Those who feel the need to be a "warrior" but who haven't served in the capacity of a protector have emotional investments and an identity that relies on an alternate definition. And I have only been talking about the difference between civies and those in uniform. I haven't even introduced the aspect of competition martial artists who don't serve, but who believe that they are warriors and who have their own definition (with all its emotional baggage to go with it) to back it up.

So, this discussion, which should be so simple, gets very complicated. With identities and emotional investments on the line, these discussions often turn into the equivalent of emotionally charged political or religious discussions, where nothing gets accomplished on either side.

That is all that I am saying. I am not actually stating my opinions as to what I think a "warrior" is.

I will stand corrected though. This COULD be a productive discussion, if everyone understands the point that I presented and proceeds with caution; approaching it as if it were a religious discussion.

But historical precidence has shown that this won't happen. But, I hope that it is different this time. It actually has been interesting so far, so we'll see where it goes...

 

[Brad Dunne]

Congradulations!........The subject of this thread has been totally devoid of any responses. How in the world it got wrapped around warriors and military is beyond me. So lets attempt to try to get back on track. The original intent was are MMA'tists and tournament participants just fighters or can they be considered martial artists? Nothing in that question suggests "warriors", "soldiers" or anything kindred. It's a simple question that dosen't need to be read into.

We now return you to the program in progress........

 

[Cruentus]

Congradulations!........The subject of this thread has been totally devoid of any responses. How in the world it got wrapped around warriors and military is beyond me. So lets attempt to try to get back on track. The original intent was are MMA'tists and tournament participants just fighters or can they be considered martial artists? Nothing in that question suggests "warriors", "soldiers" or anything kindred. It's a simple question that dosen't need to be read into.

We now return you to the program in progress........

That's actually pretty hilarious. Your first post didn't mention anything about "warriors" except for the title in the show you were watching. Rook went off on the word "warriors," and that is where the thread went.

lol.. we can almost split the thread from the 2nd post on for the "warrior" discussion... maybe ask a staff member about that.

That does prove my point, however, regarding the emotional charge and identity issues surrounding the term. The focus became on that simple word (which represents an important archtype in our society) rather then a discussion on your first post.

 

[Cruentus]

On to your first post;

You run into the same semantical issues that you run into with the "warrior" term. The only difference is that the term "martial artist" is less emotionally charged and identity dependent as "warrior," and therefore is easier to discuss.

But in my opinion, it doesn't really matter. If we go by your definition where concealment of skills is a foundation, then a competitor (or anyone who "displays" his art publically) couldn't be a "martial artist." But, someone else will have a different definition for "martial artist," and therefore will disgree with the idea.

And so on, and so on.

 

[matt.m]

Being in the military does not make you a warrior by default. The thing is this: A member of admin who never spent a moment in the field or on manuevers cant shoot his way out of a paper bag. Much less know or have the fortitude to make a life/death decision when it matters.

I see it as everyone has a role.....you have your warrior and your warrior support in the military. Jeff, Wade, Hardheadjarhead....do you agree?

As a martial artist vs. warrior thought process I see it like this. There are different roles that everyone fills within and dojang and organization. I would say mine is one of recruiter and spirit. I am not the warrior, hand me the sword give me a few minutes and all will be settled or desecrated kind of person.

I more fill the role of "Hey, you should come to class. Try and set a goal....I will help you with your kicking etc." kind of guy. In todays day and age in America people don't run around fighting for their life in general so to compare a martial artist to a warrior in today's standard to me just seems a little silly.

Oh and to go along with something that Jeff said a few posts before..."We live in a free society, so you are not betraying your country by not serving."

To me being a true martial artist is to be a good and decent human being, be true to yourself and others. I have already done the warrior stuff....I am done with that. However, I don't know too many people personally that wouldn't consider me a martial artist.

 

[Rook]

Congradulations!........The subject of this thread has been totally devoid of any responses. How in the world it got wrapped around warriors and military is beyond me. So lets attempt to try to get back on track. The original intent was are MMA'tists and tournament participants just fighters or can they be considered martial artists? Nothing in that question suggests "warriors", "soldiers" or anything kindred. It's a simple question that dosen't need to be read into.

We now return you to the program in progress........

I'm not sure what you are asking. Martial artists, warriors, soldiers, gladiators, athletes, fighters etc are all different, and a person could be any one of them without being any of the others.

 

[Blindside]

Congradulations!........The subject of this thread has been totally devoid of any responses. How in the world it got wrapped around warriors and military is beyond me. So lets attempt to try to get back on track. The original intent was are MMA'tists and tournament participants just fighters or can they be considered martial artists? Nothing in that question suggests "warriors", "soldiers" or anything kindred. It's a simple question that dosen't need to be read into.

We now return you to the program in progress........

As Cruentas pointed out, your definition of "martial artist" is highly subjective and because of that definiton you seem to be answering your own question. It is sort of like saying "the definition of a plane is a vehicle with wings and jet engines," is a propeller driven flying craft a plane?

Incidentally, what do we call the people who don't do mixed martial arts or tournaments but have web pages? According to your definition they can't be "martial artists" since they have "displayed their knowledge" and aren't "blending in." Just curious.

Lamont

 

[Cirdan]

The military I served in rarely if ever used the term warrior, perhaps because the way it is used today smells too much of disneyland. However we have another word which roughly translates as "man of war" and includes every member of the military who passed the physical tests and has basic combat training (4-6 weeks). I stick to this definition. No need to get romantic about the horrible business of war.

Anyone will tell you they are martial artists today because they got a yellow belt in TKD or Karate five years ago or do thirty minutes of Tae Bo every third week. Perhaps they are right. I certainly do not control when they become artists at anything.

 

[Hand Sword]

I dunno, but, for me, The term warrior would not be used for the military, in general, maybe a few exceptions. For them, the term I would use is soldier. It seems people like to criss cross the terms. However, IMHO a warrior and a soldier are two different things. A Samurai vs. a grunt. Very different to me.

 

[Brad Dunne]

As Cruentas pointed out, your definition of "martial artist" is highly subjective...................

I agree, but as I stated in the opening post, that statement was copied from another thread and was only being used as a starting point, it is not "my" defination, but I can relate to the term as it was written.

To hopefully redefine the intent of my original post and my appologies for the title in using the term "warrior", as to that lent itself to the discourse that followed. But, if reading the entire post, one should have understood the seperation of terms and what was originally asked for. The term MMA's is being flung about s the new buzz pharse, but are these guys actually martial artists in the given context of what most folks think a MA'ist is supposed to be. Example; watching UFC the other night, both combatants were introduced and neither one had any martial arts background as we wish or have come to accept as martial arts. They were both presented as boxers and wrestlers, no mention of judo, jujitsu, karate, TKD, etc, but they are being labeled as MMA'ists. Lets not get into the semantics tirade that boxing and wrestling can be labeled martial arts, for at best, they are only segments of such and are regulated in a sports mindset. We all understand that they can be used to defend one's self, but I can do the same thing with a baseball bat and baseball is not a martial art. I am attempting to find or at least what the majority of folks honestly feel/think martial arts and artists really are. I personally subscribe to the defination that was given in the original presentation, but that is only my opinion.

So to recap............Is a martial artist one who holds skills in confidence or is the in your face, I like to fight and don't care who knows it, equally defined as a martial artist? Does one have to have a background in what we have come to accept as a "Martial Art" or can anyone or anything be labeled with that title?

 

[Tez3]

Firstly, why do you define MMA as being solely UFC? It is far more than one promotion. As I've said before on another thread, over here the vast majority of MMA fighters are martial artists. Most of us are skilled in at least one of the traditional martial arts if not more. what's more a lot of us still practice our TMAs. If this thread is a veiled attacked on MMA I think it will be a waste of time my continuing to contribute to it.

 

[SFC JeffJ]

I really don't think that Mr. Dunne is bashing MMA. It seems to me he's trying to define what a Martial Artist is.

 

[Tez3]

Quote. The term MMA's is being flung about s the new buzz pharse, but are these guys actually martial artists in the given context of what most folks think a MA'ist is supposed to be. Example; watching UFC the other night, both combatants were introduced and neither one had any martial arts background as we wish or have come to accept as martial arts. They were both presented as boxers and wrestlers, no mention of judo, jujitsu, karate, TKD, etc, but they are being labeled as MMA'ists. Unquote

This is a generalisation made on the back of one fight. as I've said the vast majority of MMA fighters I know are martial artists in the traditonal sense with traditional backgrounds enough to satisfy most people. why bring up MMA? The thread is about warriors, is it being accepted then than to be a warrior one must do a traditional martial art?

 

[Odin]

I personally consider myself a fighter or an athelete not really a MMA'er or a Martial Artist....its all apples and oranges to me though.

Thaiboxer is another name im happy with.
I am what i am!

 

[MJS]

Jumping in late, but in any case, I'll toss in my .02. Now that we know the intention of the OP and how he wanted to gear this thread, lets try to get it back on track folks.

A def. of the word warrior:

NOUN:

1. One who is engaged in or experienced in battle.
2. One who is engaged aggressively or energetically in an activity, cause, or conflict: [SIZE=+0]neighborhood warriors fighting against developers.[/SIZE]

A def. of the word martial artist.

These are just a few example as a reference. When the word soldier or warrior us heard, I tend to think that most people would associate that with the military. However, some could take the would warrior and compare it to a MAist. In a tournament or fight one could say the fighters are showing the heart of a warrior. If we look at this and scroll down to UFC 4, the title states, "Revenge of The Warriors."

For myself I usually put people into the Martial Artist category. Even if we look at what MMA means: Mixed Martial Arts, a fighter in that sense, can still be put into the same MAist category. Sure, they can also be called fighters or athletes.

Mike

 

[jks9199]

Are mixed martial artists or tournament competitors "really" martial artists? Yes. They could also be called "martial athletes." Anybody who participates in training that's derived from combative activities, including Western martial arts like boxing, wrestling, and fencing, is a "martial artist."

In fact, many boxers, wrestlers, and mixed martial arts competitors train harder and more consistently than a lot of "snobbier" martial artists that look down their nose at them as doing something other than "real" martial arts.

There are lots of people I think of as "martial hobbyists." They "do" martial arts on Tuesday & Thursday evenings; it's not something that is really part of their life so much as an activity. Martial arts is just in vogue, or they'd be bowling, playing volleyball, kickball, or something else.