Martial arts discussion thread

[kup]

Offtopic: Why do you have two Bludgeons?

[Autocon]

which martial arts dont u do because its crap? lol karate, tai kuondow....?

[GoktimusPrime]

We try not to encourage any form of style discrimination by labelling any particular style as "crap."

The individual matters more than the style. Learning a 'good' style doesn't mean you can fight, and conversely not learning a martial art doesn't mean you can't. Arguably one of the greatest fighters of the late 20th Century was Mohammed Ali - who didn't learn any traditional martial art, but a fighting sport (modern boxing). Yet if we took Ali in his prime and put him up against say Bruce Lee in his prime, I'd put my money on Ali.

A more important question over "what style do you do?" is "Can you fight?"

Now having said all that, I'm speaking from a combat/self defence martial arts perspective. People do martial arts for different reasons - not everyone learns it for fighting. There are some people who learn it as:
+ a sport, e.g.: Olympic Wrestling/Judo/Fencing/Taekwondo etc.
+ a performance art, e.g.: Capoeira, Modern Wushu, Pencak Silat etc.
+ for holistic health, e.g.: non-combative styles of Tai Chi

None of those reasons are "wrong" or "crap." The best style is the style that works for you.

[5FDP]

The term 'martial arts' speaks for itself - it is a form of art. The term 'self defence' is also self explanatory.

I don't think that it's either necessary or practical for someone to self-profess that they can fight. It should be "can you defend yourself".

In my experience, the first person that says they can fight is usually the first to hit the pavement.

[GoktimusPrime]

The term 'martial arts' speaks for itself - it is a form of art. The term 'self defence' is also self explanatory.

I don't think that it's either necessary or practical for someone to self-profess that they can fight. It should be "can you defend yourself".

In my experience, the first person that says they can fight is usually the first to hit the pavement.

Erm, I think this is a matter of semantics going by one's definition of "fight." From a traditional combat POV martial arts isn't about winning. It's not about defeating an opponent or even smacking their heads in. It's about survival. From a personal perspective, being a good fighter isn't about hurting or killing lots of people - it's about coming home in one piece.

And this is where combative martial arts differ so much from other forms of martial arts like sports martial arts. Because the core definition of "fighting" is entirely different (i.e.: survival), it is substantially different from martial arts used in competitions where the definition has changed to victory (i.e.: winning points, matches, tournaments etc.).

Hence why if someone tells me they want to learn martial arts for self defence, I recommend that they consider studying a traditional style rather than a competitive sport style. In traditional martial arts the only competition you have is with yourself in an effort to achieve continual self improvement.

From a self defence perspective, if someone gets into a fight the question is not, "Did you win?" but rather, "Did you survive?" Well... if the person has _lived_ to tell you that they've been in a fight, then the answer is obvious.

So yeah, when I say "fight" I don't mean fighting in terms of winning and losing - but just in terms of surviving. If a person swings a hit at you and you manage to block or dodge that hit, then quickly turn and run away - then "Great Success!" =D

[5FDP]

So yeah, when I say "fight" I don't mean fighting in terms of winning and losing - but just in terms of surviving. If a person swings a hit at you and you manage to block or dodge that hit, then quickly turn and run away - then "Great Success!" =D

Agreed, however while we're on the subject of semantics, I would suggest that in order to survive you have to be able to defend yourself first which brings me back to my point

BTW - I am referring to the traditional styles rather than any competitive sport style.

[GoktimusPrime]

Perhaps we can simplify the question into "Are you competent?"

Cos ultimately competence is more important than stylistic differences. Now that's not to say that it's wrong to ask about styles or to discuss them... but simply not consider styles as the penultimate factor that defines fighters.

Another factor to consider is finding a good teacher. I've seen lots of students who study traditional martial arts styles, but are not competent fighters because of the teacher. For example, I've come across a lot of schools that are really good at teaching forms, moves etc., but hopeless at teaching application. So their students become really good at performing the movements and are probably brilliant at passing grading exams... but are incompetent fighters.