Are Martial arts for puss.ies??

[SanSoo Student]

just testing out my avatar, and I took MA to learn how to fight in the beginning, but now I have changed..MA changes the person if you stick with it enough. It makes you realize that the main purpose is to learn how to defend yourself and those that are weaker. "Learn to fight to not fight"

[Leonidas]

Martial arts not for fighting?

Then what for?

[rogue]

Why selling memberships to the Black Belt Club of course!

[Xebsball]

Yeah Former, definately, i like lots of his stuff with Roy Z and Adrian Smith.

Chris, great post dude

[Choke]

it works when you train with the proper mindset-- that being the mindset of using it to fight.............Actually, the TKD and traditional Karate guys that I've talked to seem to know this, it's the traditional kung fu-ers that seem to be the most whacked.

What traditional Kung fu systems? Bak Mei for one is very much a "I'll kill you" system. YKM is even more aggressive with regards to intent to atack and do serious damage. One gets the feeling from the techs in these systems that they were designed to at the very least disable someone in short order.

On the other hand if someone comes after you with a gun.......shoot him.

"There are very few problems that can not be solved with high explosives."


Choke.

[MightyB]

Choke,

I'm not talking about the systems or the techniques that they teach, I'm talking about the mindset of the practitioners. Every martial art was designed for self preservation and they all incorporate lethal techniques. But, as a broad generalization, I find that TCM practitioners tend to deny ever even getting involved in the martial arts for the martial applications. It's always some cultural or spiritual BS.

Fighting effectively is more difficult than internal health development. One can focus on training for self defense and, as a byproduct, gain the attributes that everybody claims to be seeking (i.e. health, longevity, chi, etc.). One cannot focus on internal development and health and expect to be a good fighter as a byproduct (tae bo, tai-chi for health excluding martial application, etc.).

[Choke]

Yeah I get what your saying and it is a very good point.
But what I was saying and perhaps didn't express it very well is that some systems teach as part of the system a fighting, aggressive, attacking with intent type mideset. This might explain the effectiveness of those systems that you have listed as being such.

To be a good fighter you must train to fight - no denying the logic in that one.

[Merryprankster]

KC,

No. Me toooooo!

I wrestled because it looked like fun, and BJJ because it looked like fun, and box because it looks like fun.

Why do extra stuff that's not fun?

[Chang Style Novice]

Out of the goodness of your heart. I've been known to donate time and effort for the right cause, even if it's not a laugh a minute.

Okay, back to the topic.

[Merryprankster]

Ah yes, Chang, good point.

Checkmate, **** you! I'm taking my board and going home.

[Chang Style Novice]

See that Ralek? With absolutely no training on the ground, my taijiquan allowed me to tap out a BJJ purple with ease.

Go me! Go me! It's your birthday! In about 8.5 months!

[omegapoint]

First off this is a decent thread. Everyone is giving their opinions honestly and with civility. I agree with a few folks on here and I can see the others angles.

Intent like all things is relative. If you are talking about combat oriented things, like self-defense or MAs in general, then we all know what the original intent was. Things have a way of changing over time. You can call it the natural progression or regression of things, evolution and devolution respectively. Empty hand-to-hand fighting (or with a weapon), the first formalized methods of combat, were strictly for martial or war purposes. There are hieroglyphs in Egypt which depict soldiers going through various armed and unarmed forms, as well as 2 man drills. These were real warriors whose training methods depended on learning in a productive, non-injurious manner.

Later, due to man's insatiable thirst for blood, entertainment and distraction, life-or-death gladiatorial and other "environmentally controlled" fighting games were developed. The intent was still there, and many offshoots displayed this intent in their training methodology. Other subsets of the various combat traditions around the world found something lucrative and beneficial in making these contests much safer so that a good fighter could extend the generation of money. As time went on man saw a need through prudence and increased "sophistication", to adapt to profit. More rules and controls followed and the berserker-rage-fueled chaos of combat (gladiatorial or battlefield) was tempered significantly.

This is modern MAs for the most part. Of course there is skill and athleticism involved, and many modern "gladiators" are outstanding fighters. I don't ever want to fight anyone, let alone someone like Rickson Gracie or Frank Shamrock. The level of proficiency that the "pro" fighter attains is more than adequate for self-defense. Some modernists claim a MA "shouldn't take 10 years" to learn for proficiency to be attained. Yet the work involved in competitive training is extensive, and you will notice that many good sport fighters have been training for numerous years and often more intensively than traditionalists at that.

Proficiency can be attained through a more external route or one of an internal path or a combination of both. I choose moderation. This may be another aspect of Yin and Yang, Goho and Juho, or the External and Internal many masters spoke of. They are complimentary, not exclusive.

The old-school masters understood that in the future in order for their methods to be preserved, fast, efficient basics and gross-motor movements had to be taught. Knowing that things change awfully quick when someone begins to reinterpret it many systems created kata or forms to pass down techs, sometimes encoded through symbolic movements, other times quite apparent. 2-man drills, sparring and other training methodologies were stressed. Many very good MAs have no free-fighting or sparring. Still, styles like Shaolin are very efficient self-defense arts, and have been for hundreds of years. Yes you do need to spar, but beyond a certain proficiency level, the need becomes counterintuitive and counterproductive. You see the folly in training for structure. Fighting is unexpected and the opposite. Unless it is a controlled game you freely participate in.

There are other intangibles to take account of. Most athletes would probably be fairly proficient at any number of sports. Genetics, work ethic and having sufficient training time for these endeavors are very important. Another element is training in a certain way so that you understand the INTENT of the game. To say that this is not the case and it is what they are training in that makes them great, then I would say that you don't understand how proficiency works. The fact is that these guys concentrate a majority of their waking effort on one task, they work hard at it and become proficient players.

Someone made an observation about the fact that the striking arts all look like bad TKD when they are in the ring. The answer to this enigma lies in that statement. I said on the ORA forum, before reading his post, that the reason all striking arts look like a variation on boxing, or for our purposes kickboxing, was that many of the exponents of kickboxing were Okinawan or Korean trained Karateka who only studied their respective arts for 1-4 years.

Many never went back to study with their original teacher or a teacher from the same or similar system. They never tried to research their systems on their own. Instead they looked to that thing that brought them fame, glory and money- competition. The influence of boxing, and even wrestling and judo on these pioneers lends credence to the fact that the structure of striking arts would change to meet this modern criteria. In addition, 1-4 years of deep study into a traditional system is insufficient for advanced understanding and training of a MAs purpose and tactics. You must continue to train in an art for years and years in order to become effective in it. This holds true for all things.

There are very few MAs out there, traditional or otherwise, that understand the FIRST INTENT of their systems. Many arts come from a strictly martial or self-preservation background. Many have changed to fit a modern mold or to mask true meaning. If all arts are an amalgamation of combat strategy and tactics, how could one ever say that intent is not concretely defined? That is because you can rationalize anything and, for the most part, perception is singular. Some people's intent is to make money off their sacrifice or to gain acceptance, validity or recognition for their skills. The genesis of their art(s) probably had/has a deeper meaning than that. You must undertand this in order to see this. You may not have a NEED or WANT to see this, though. Times and perception of intent do change.

You can make anything relevant, especially if you get others to go along with it. Curling is a big sport in some countries, and soccer is the largest sport everywhere except the USA. Does that validate the "star" status or worth of its playes? It's all subjective.

So to finish a long-winded reply, I would summarize by saying maybe modern MAs, combat sports, MMAs or whatever new manifestation of the warrior tradition that you are talking about, were needed to preserve the "do" or philosophical intent of its progenitors. The Marquis de Queensbury understood this and boxing was fundamentally changed. Itosu and Funakoshi understood this, so Karate was adapted to modern convention. Jigoro Kano did the same with several schools of JJJ when he formalized Kodokan Judo, as did Helio with Kodokan Newaza and GJJ (devolution becoming evolution), and Bruce Lee with Wing Chun and its antecedent Jeet Kune DO. There will always be a need for these interpretations, if MAs is to thrive.

Without comparison there would be no need for ways. Everyone would do it one way, THE WAY. Since there is no specific panacea to the questuion of MAs each individual must use there own minds to judge what THEIR WAY is. Trusting your own analytical and decision making ability is crucial in order for something to be revealed to you.

In the end the intent of all MAs is self-preservation when it counts most. Trivializing this fact is something many battle-hardened "masters" addressed with swift condemnation. Don't take their word for it though. Some folks DO have to find out the hard WAY. Peace...