Many times I have seen martial artists get belted by people with "street experience".
I'd agree with Matt here.
Many times, that's very relative isn't it?
Tell you what I've seen, Many times I've seen martial artists handle very violent altercations with a level of grace and finesse that allowed them to end it with a minimum of fuss or grief. I've also seen martial artists deal out some nasty destruction with extreme prejudice.
But to be honest, I've also seen what you mention...but less often. AND: again as my brother Matt mentioned, it's most often from someone whose art/practice centers around 'competitive' sport/fighting. Warriors don't do it for 'sport'. Then again, quite often the physical training/toughening that a sport fighter goes through is what saves their hide. (But seldom if EVER the technical ability they've gained...it's a different...........game)
Given this, martial arts is probably more of a sport and/or hobby these days.Martial arts is not a good way to learn to fight - learning to fight can only be done through no rules fighting.
You are making a
broad conclusion from a
limited number of personal experiences with a
limited number of subjects. I
doubt you are qualified to make this final conclusion.
You could say:
"Given this, the martial artists I've seen in fights were poorly trained."
or
"Given this, the martial artists that I've seen fight on the street were ill prepared for a real fight."
But you can't make a conclusion about "Martial Arts".
Does not compute.
What do you all think of this beleif?
immature conclusion.
Also, to rebut this beleif, does the military train in any particular martial arts?
I'm not sure you are 'rebut'ing anything. Why is this relevent? The military. I take it you imply the American Military?? Do they teach "any particular" martial arts?? NO. They don't have the time, and the need is Very limited. Rifle, pistol....etc. Those arts, those skill sets are more the need of the military. But: MANY MANY military personel take of martial arts and seek out these warrior ways, adding their lessons and abilities to their skill sets. I'm not as familiar with the hand to hand combat training in the military. Ask Matt Stone, I'm pretty sure he'd give you a much better answer on that.
This point about the military neither confirmed nor 'rebut'ed ((If you are using that word correctly)) anything you said one way or the other.
I beleive some martial arts are beneficial for fighting. They are better than nothing, but, how can I convince someone that martial arts are not all about fighting? They are about so much more (learning about culture, history, concepts, language, sometimes religous concepts, develop coordination, act as a great hobby, keep you mentally healthy etc)
Sure: a practice in the martial arts can be all of these things, or at least contribute to them a great deal. But you limit their scope by saying that their martial application is limited to only "some".
Again, I don't think you are qualified.
The contraints of certain arts develop bad habits in real fights (ie: no kicks below belt, no elbows, no eye gouging etc or whatever your respective art doe snot approve of).
Self imposed constraints in preparing for combat is a liability, I actually agree with you on this. Sometimes though it may be beneficial to focus and zero-in on a specific skill set without combining it (YET) with others. For instance, Aikido: very effective over the course of training...but limits it's striking a great deal. That's not to say that the individual Aikidoka won't later pick up this skill set and integrate the ability.... if they are smart, they will. But their particular emphasis in joint manipulation, leverage and balance stealing, grappling....etc. will be extraordinary down the road due to their focus.
Try to keep a more open mind and not ASSUME so much.
Your Brother
John
