My point about going a mile distance

Our team fighters being soldiers are never impressed when someone calls a fight a 'war. As we lost two of them in Afghanistan one can see why.
 
Tez is another that knows the reality of War. I've been to too many services of friends that didn't come home from a real war.
 
Okay, drop bear. Let me annunciate this very bluntly. Like me as not being ex services, you are venturing into ground owned by them.
 
ok so everybody who uses the term martial arts is being disrespectful to soldiers. because we are not training for a war.

Most of us are doing arts derived from "war arts" but are decidedly antiquated by modern standards. I don't have a problem (I am a civilian) with calling what I do a "martial art." I do have a problem with people then thinking that makes them "warriors."
 
ok so everybody who uses the term martial arts is being disrespectful to soldiers. because we are not training for a war.

I object to that statement. I was trained in a art that came from worn torn territory and by people who used it in war so that I could perhaps survive in war or those that I trained. War is not just men in uniform on a piece of land far from home, war takes place in the streets of ,in school yards and back alleys. If you doubt this wear blue and walk through south central LA.
Deal with drug dealers, hit men from gangs, or someone invading your house and tell me your not at war at that moment.
AS Blindside said we learn an art that may be antiquated but we are martial artists in the fact that we are learning that art and possibly its philosophy in the hopes we do not need this knowledge or perhaps to keep ourselves alive in our chosen profession
 
Drop Bear

I have the highest regard for those that serve their country, both men ans women. I do not care if they sit behind a desk at a computer, or walk the halls of a hospital or trod the ground of some god forsaken backwater country because of what ever reason.
This forum is called Martialtalk it is about both ancient and modern methods of combat both with and without some sort of weapons and in some cases the sports that have derived from them.
If you do not consider what the people on this forum do to be a martial art why are you on this forum.
If you wanted a forum that deals with modern and ancient military tactics, weapons, and strategies then maybe you should have joined a Military forum.
I am posting this as someone that has been here from the beginning and I am posting this as a member of the forum not as a mentor.
sheldon
 
I object to that statement. I was trained in a art that came from worn torn territory and by people who used it in war so that I could perhaps survive in war or those that I trained. War is not just men in uniform on a piece of land far from home, war takes place in the streets of ,in school yards and back alleys. If you doubt this wear blue and walk through south central LA.
Deal with drug dealers, hit men from gangs, or someone invading your house and tell me your not at war at that moment.
AS Blindside said we learn an art that may be antiquated but we are martial artists in the fact that we are learning that art and possibly its philosophy in the hopes we do not need this knowledge or perhaps to keep ourselves alive in our chosen profession

ok. To recap.

ballen said this. In a troll attempt.

"Hmmmm I've trained for actual War in the Marine Corps and that's not war. That's a sport. Perhaps we shouldn't throw around serious terms to describe a game"

i am trying to explain why to take offence with the word war is as silly as to take offence with the word martial arts. The conversation was a silly point scoring exercise. And is why i did not respond to ballens last comment.

that quote could as easily be directed at you and your beliefs.
 
ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please keep the conversations polite, professional, and on-topic. If there is another user you simply cannot interact with in a civil manner, please use the IGNORE feature.

Mark A. Cochran
Dirty Dog
MT Senior Moderator
 
As far as the "sillier" bits… well, we'll see what you come up with to counter my arguments before you start with such comments, yeah?

Okay, let's see what we have here then…

ok outright wrong with the Lenny McLean video. Agree or dissagree with him he advocates strength in fights even if they are quick.

He advocated being strong for a bare-knuckle match… which is just another form of match fight. Nothing to do with self defence training (the 3 second fight idea)… which was what you were putting the clip up to counter. As a result, no, he's not saying anything that you think he is.

I can do a transcription of the video if you'd like… or you can quote where you think I'm "outright wrong" in pointing out what McLean actually said…

it is a metaphor. I believe relating to the idea that if you work harder you will get results quicker.

Actually, it's an analogy, not a metaphor… and we got what he meant, it was simply inaccurate, and completely flawed. Which is what we've said.

regarding the war idea. The guy who did the fight considered it a war. Experienced fighters who saw it considered it a war.

Really? They considered that a "war"? Personally, I don't. At all. Something like the final of the first season of TUF, between Forrest Griffin and Stefan Bonar, that was more what I'd consider a "war" (in this context)… I didn't see anything close to that there. And yes, I get that all we saw were highlights (biased, you say), but the fatigue wasn't there, the war-wounds weren't showing, it was a fairly long fight, but not a war…

and we can break an average person well inside the fifteen minute mark. In sparring. Going easy. It is a seriously long time to be fighting somone

Sure, it's a long time… for the record, I can "break" someone in seconds… I just do it in a different way… but none of that makes what was seen a "war"… just an overly long time to spend engaged with someone.

have you trained or fought mma to make an expert judgement on this?

MMA? Nope. BJJ, yep. Boxing, yep. Kickboxing, yep. Honestly, they bored me… but that's just my perspective, really. And I can certainly see both the appeal and benefits of those systems, so don't think I'm being dismissive of them here.

Of course, the real point here is that I'm not giving an "expert judgement" on the match… simply an observation from someone who's been around for a long while, and has watched UFC/MMA develop from before the first UFC event… I'm not overly interested in it, other than as a way of maintaining an awareness of what's going on, it must be said… but that doesn't mean I don't have some experience in what constitutes a "war" in this context… from my perspective, of course…

ok. You mentioned about being your own source. And then have tried to explain to me what happens in a street fight. I have been in a heap of street fights and would still only suggest what happens to me or what i have observed.

Yeah… you've missed most of what you've been told… including what it means to be your own source, and when that's applicable… but, for the record, I have never argued against your experience or experiences… I have questioned some of your conclusions, and your insight… but that's a different area entirely.

you cant be your own source here. You do not have the experience in practical violence.

It depends entirely as to what I'm being my own source for. Again, you've missed what that refers to… and are trying rather constantly to shoe-horn it in as a kind of dig in many posts here. I recommend you pull back on that… it doesn't do you any favours, and makes you look petty, among other things.

Of course, suggesting that I don't have experience in practical violence isn't the safest assumption you could make… but I rarely use that to back up my comments, you may note.

if Geoff Thompson does then he could be your external source.

No, Geoff Thompson could be a source for a range of things…. but not for my own experience. He could be an influence on my insight, or a source particularly for a range of ideas/concepts/training methods… or he could be support for other evidence… or anything in between. To be frank, you seem to have an issue understanding the nature of evidence, with your harping on the idea of "being your own source", as you have never understood it, and the idea of an appeal to authority, thinking it's a consistent logical fallacy, when that's actually not the case at all.

perhaps it is an accepted term for a hard ring fight. So i think a war is apt.

Oh, I got what you meant… and my comment was that, well, that didn't look that hard by my standards… I'm not saying it was easy, of course, just that it was fairly standard in terms of "hard"… so… not a "war".

they don't have a copyright on the word war. This is ridiculous.

No, they don't… but what they're saying is that their perspective on what constitutes a "war" seems to differ significantly to yours. Of course, when you're dealing with actually servicemen and women, who actively engage in the business of soldiering, the usage of certain terms will get a particular response…

ok so everybody who uses the term martial arts is being disrespectful to soldiers. because we are not training for a war.

Yeah… now you're just being petty again… and, honestly, the reducto ad absurdum approach isn't particularly helpful to your side. For the record, though, in a number of ways, I am training for a "war"… and I'm certainly not training for a sport… but it gets a little more complicated than that…

well i find the term martial art disrespectful to those who have served. Soldiers do a martial art civilians do not.

Again, reducto ad absurdum doesn't help you… but, for fun, let's clarify something here: Soldiers do not, and I'm going to repeat this for emphasis here… do not do "a martial art". What they do is kinda the other end of the scale to a martial art, in many ways… they do combative systems. The difference is fairly huge, so you know… martial arts really wouldn't suit a soldiers methods, timeline, purpose, or many other aspects of their reality.

yeah. Made my point. Thanks.

Then perhaps you can elucidate your point… as I don't see how what Ballen said made any point you have been putting across.
 
Lenny McClean self defence would have been to use a sawn off shotgun, he may have been known for being a bare knuckle fighter but he was also one of the worst criminals going, implicated in several violent murders who worked with the Krays he is a scumbag and really shouldn't be looked up to into anything.
 
Back
Top