Iām sure you believe all that to be true, and that what you do is totally different. I would guess your kata is like 110% MA related. Of course, youāre creating the evaluation using your own kata as the de facto standard, so how could it not?
If it's 10% martial, 90% art, that still falls under martial art. It's just that most MA are closer to 90% martial, 10% art.
This is not logical at all. Why wouldn't it fall under the category that's the 90%? Leroy Neiman is a painter famous for his sport scenes. He did a painting of Ali the boxer. Is Neiman a martial artist because 10% of his work is related to MA?
I appreciate and agree with your sentiment, and superficially, this provides some room to discuss how much "martial" is enough for something to be considered a "martial art." What is and is not MA is a very subjective, moot point. That's really the entire crux of it.
How martial is your kata?
Good question. I'd like to say 100%.
.) Most traditional kata were designed by those whose vocation/survival was dependent on fighting ability and, for some strange reason, they left these kinds of moves out.
Oof... 85%...Good question. I'd like to say 100%.
1. Every stance is capable of supporting an effect attack, counterattack or defense.
2. Every move has effective combat applications and effect.
3. Every position facilitates an effective offensive or defensive technique.
4. If a weapons kata, the weapon is never out of my immediate control.
These are the ideals my kata and I strive for. Every instance that is counter to these ideals takes it further from MA. They are not subjective (for the most part). The value of each can be tested and demonstrated. The next time you're in a fight, try doing a flip and end up in the splits with your back to your assailant and let me know how that works for you
The reality is, IMO, 80-85%. There is likely some degradation in the kata over the past century or two that renders some moves not as effective as originally designed or now not fully understood.
But the intent of the kata was/is effective self-defense. Once that is lost in favor of entertainment it is no longer martial, only martial-like. Even in class drills, if you're not doing the technique with the above ideals in mind with intent, visualizing an opponent, your practice is less martial and more exercise.
You could call doing push-ups a martial art since they resemble (10% worth) a double punch-like movement. It depends on how absurd and loose your idea of martial arts is. What's your view of what something must be to be considered MA as opposed to exercise or performance art?
I did not. I said, "YOU could" (because they look a little like double punches) since you seem to have a very broad view of what MA is. While they are used by martial artists, by themselves they are 0% martial. I was basically offering you a gift by allowing 10% to accommodate your viewpoint a bit. I see my kindness has gone unrewarded
. I watched the video 3 times, carefully viewing the techniques, and saying that just 10% of the moves are martial in nature is based on many years of bo practice (I've spent 3 hrs. this week on it for example) extensive karate experience and a large amount of common sense. Surely you don't think most of the moves in that XMA forms have any effective combat application. As I said, MANY, even most, of the moves in it I saw in the Olympic rhythmic dance event. My professional opinion is that 90% of those moves are worthless for combat, noting several examples. I also noted you've offered nothing to back up your position.
This explains a lot, even though my post #67 lists a number of qualifiers (points 1-4 and elsewhere) to help define it in terms of MA. You seem to be the one making general statements without any support/examples to back them up. I even asked for your view on what make MA unique from entertainment or exercise but you offered no response.
This would be like equating Olympic wrestling or BJJ with TV wrestling. You can think I'm closed minded, but I do know that the "Dancing with the Stars" TV competition is a far cry from a karate tournament.
Yeah. Youāre really good at seeing whatās different. You just donāt see the stuff thatās the same.Yes, there is a spectrum and gray area on how much "martial" one needs to call something an MA. Clearly, I view XMA often on the other side of the dividing point. However, I made it pretty clear what I base my thinking on.
I did not. I said, "YOU could" (because they look a little like double punches) since you seem to have a very broad view of what MA is. While they are used by martial artists, by themselves they are 0% martial. I was basically offering you a gift by allowing 10% to accommodate your viewpoint a bit. I see my kindness has gone unrewarded
I watched the video 3 times, carefully viewing the techniques, and saying that just 10% of the moves are martial in nature is based on many years of bo practice (I've spent 3 hrs. this week on it for example) extensive karate experience and a large amount of common sense. Surely you don't think most of the moves in that XMA forms have any effective combat application. As I said, MANY, even most, of the moves in it I saw in the Olympic rhythmic dance event. My professional opinion is that 90% of those moves are worthless for combat, noting several examples. I also noted you've offered nothing to back up your position.
This explains a lot, even though my post #67 lists a number of qualifiers (points 1-4 and elsewhere) to help define it in terms of MA. You seem to be the one making general statements without any support/examples to back them up. I even asked for your view on what make MA unique from entertainment or exercise but you offered no response.
This would be like equating Olympic wrestling or BJJ with TV wrestling. You can think I'm closed minded, but I do know that the "Dancing with the Stars" TV competition is a far cry from a karate tournament.
THANK YOU. Very well said mate
I think people define martial arts in different ways.
)Well, "don't know" and "cannot possibly understand" are very different things. Otherwise we would still live in caverns.
I think you just need to stop getting so upset at strangers on the internet at the end of the day itās really not that big a deal people can say what they want. It only matters if you let it matter which it seems you are so you are just giving them more power than they need to have
Not limited to the "skill" part, though, as one can have a martial frame of mind as well, which leads to the "intent" part. A baseball player has skill in swinging a bat. If his intent is to hit a ball, there is no "martial." If he uses it to hit a person (hopefully in self-defense) it now becomes martial in intent and application.
You have hit many of the bases of what "art" is. But I think you are leaving out a major part - technique. IMO, art is infusing one's skillful technique with these qualities you listed. The technique is the vehicle thru which these qualities are expressed. Whether brushstrokes, usage of light and color, picking guitar strings, or spinning a long stick, one's technique must blend with the creative/spiritual side. Together they create "art."
Have you trained XMA?
Interesting idea on top of the other idea that the naysayers can't produce their own work.Have you trained XMA?
