Martial arts discussion thread

[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.

[5FDP]

To be honest, I don't think there would be any way to simplify the question "are you competent", "can you defend yourself", or "are you a good fighter" because they're all subjective questions anyway with no real way to gauge the accuracy of the response.

Obviously in western cultures there are grading systems but as you said, you may have an incompetent teacher and by no fault of your own, may be an incompetent fighter (yes, I used the word fighter only for lack of a better word ) however do not know any better.

I completely agree with your statement to "not consider styles as the penultimate factor that defines fighters", as this means nothing and only highlights further that assuming someone is a good defender / fighter / competent is impossible and potentially a dangerous assumption at that.

[SamLoi888]

Language warning on this and even though the main purpose of the article is humour it does make some very relevant points about modern day martial arts.

McDojo

[GoktimusPrime]

Sadly the majority of martial arts schools I encounter are McDojos. Finding a good authentic non commercialised martial arts school is becoming increasingly hard.

Having said that, I guess McDojos are kinda like knock offs. Just as people say that so long as KO sellers openly let people know that what they're selling are KOs then there's no harm or foul because then consumers can make an informed choice. It's more of the sellers who don't admit it, or even claim that their KOs are legit that infuriate collectors more because they're actively deceiving collectors.

Likewise I personally get miffed when I see really McDojos who use the words "Self Defence" in their marketing. I understand that different people do martial arts for different reasons, and not everyone is necessarily interested in doing them for learning how to fight or for self defence. Some people just like to do it for the sport, or for fitness... or just as a fun hobby. Whether they can actually defend themselves in a real fight or not isn't terribly important to them. It's not my thing (cos personally if I wanted to play a sport but had no interest in fighting, then I'd play football or tennis etc.) -- but hey, everyone has different opinions.

I've come across ONE martial arts school that didn't use the words "self defence" in their marketing, and when I spoke to the instructor, he admitted that what they were doing was just a sport and advised that I look elsewhere if I wanted to actually learn fighting. And I can respect that -- they're open and honest about where they're coming from and what they're doing. This school happened to be teaching Olympic Judo and they were teaching people aspiring to win competitions (possibly even compete in the Olympics); they didn't really care about practical fighting.

So my objection with most McDojos -- aside from the commercialisation -- is the dishonesty. It must be awful to attend one of these schools, pay loads of money for membership, lessons, uniforms, gradings, belts etc., then one day if you actually get into a real fight (or even a friendly spar with someone from another style/school), realise that everything you've been learning for months/years (and PAID for it with your money) has been a complete WOFTAM in terms of learning practical self defence (being being led to believe that you were learning just that).

There was one time I met a dude who recently returned from overseas after winning a trophy from coming first place in an international tournament. He was boasting and bragging about how great he was and how easily he beat his opponents. So I invited him to a friendly spar at a mutual friend's garage. He threw out a few kicks which I easily blocked, then in my opening move I just grabbed his throat and put him onto the floor where I then placed my knee onto his upper chest (across the pectoral muscle). He was so inept at trying to counter my grapple that he reverted to scratching my hand with his nails (umm... okay). Because it was just a friendly match I only squeezed his throat hard enough to restrict his breathing but not actually choke him (so it would've felt more like an asthma attack - he could still breathe, but it was shallow and uncomfortable). And the entire fight only lasted about 3 seconds tops.

But yeah... it was a bit of a rude reality slap... I could tell he was heartbroken after being defeated so easily (and anyone who's met me knows that I am NOT the most athletic person in the world - so if I can beat you then you know you're in trouble! )