Well, I took karate for three years and nobody said anything about honer, I did it to train my body and mind. Seen as I'm a pacifist I don't use it for fighting, just keeping oneself fit. It seems to work.
problem with martial arts
- Thread starter vanthebaron
- Start date
Recommended Videos
all older forms of marshal arts started out much the same way Krav Maga did(The most effint way to kill/inflict pain). The cultures they come from however eventual go into a period of peace. So they had to occupy the warrior class someway.
The samurai for instance did not have the honor they portray today till the country had about 70-100 years of peace after "the age of the country at war". Honor/Respect/discipline in most martial arts(or military) serves as a light switch so you don't kill/maim randomly. You only do it to people you are told to. It was only instilled when the marshal art is not needed right now.
The samurai for instance did not have the honor they portray today till the country had about 70-100 years of peace after "the age of the country at war". Honor/Respect/discipline in most martial arts(or military) serves as a light switch so you don't kill/maim randomly. You only do it to people you are told to. It was only instilled when the marshal art is not needed right now.
Did Judo for 6 years, our teacher said that if he saw us using the stuff we learn in a school brawl, he'd personally kick us in the balls. He also said that if we didn't use it in a brawl, he'd still personally kick us in the balls. The point was, that you're supposed to defuse a situation before it gets to the point of a brawl. The use of martial arts is only justified if you have absolutely no alternative options. (like say, talking, handing over your money, or simply running)
First of all, you're right, most martial arts have one main goal, surviving a violent encounter.vanthebaron said:
But martial arts, are, afterall, arts. In Lee's book "Tao of JKD", he explains why art is so important for a human being, and why martial arts are so amazing as arts.
I practice Shaolin Lao Hu (a chinese martial arts) for some years now, and I learned much beyond how to defend myself or how to kill my opponent.
Some styles are more about the "martial" part, Krav Maga for example. (which I'm pretty familiar with, I know many people who practice KM and my father learned from Imi Lichtenfeld years ago in Netanya.)
And other styles are more about the "art" part, such as some kinds of Tai Chi and Ba Gua.
There are many different ways to learn/teach martial arts, and there are many different kinds of martial arts (and I don't mean 'karate vs judo' or some such). Martial arts that focus on honor, discipline, and respect are not *necessarily* martial arts that have a strong emphasis on kicking the shit out of the other guy, but they are not mutually exclusive.
Some martial arts, and martial artists, are focused on survival - how do I get out of this fight quickly? Some martial arts and artists are focused on combat victory - how do I break this guy in six different ways? Some martial arts and artists are focused on tournament victory - how do I score more points than he does? Some are focused on honor - how do I live in a balanced, respectful way? These questions and approaches are not mutually exclusive, but they don't always go hand in hand.
I've trained with instructors who focus very heavily on what you can do to get away quickest. "If an attacker throws a right hook from your left, here's a set of steps and principles that can get you in a good position to get away." I've trained with instructors (in the same art) who focused primarily on ways to end the fight by breaking your opponent. "Here's a quick way you can break a guy's arm, and here's a good response to this counter, that counter, or this other counter that'll let you break his other arm, his leg, or his nose and clavicle." It's not something art-specific, nor instructor-specific. It's event-specific. Some classes focus on A, others on B. Sometimes it varies by instructor, other times not.
A young art (like Krav Maga) is a lot less likely to have a long tradition of any particular sort that some instructors might expect respect for. An old art (like, say, kendo) is a lot more likely to have that kind of history; whether a given instructor expects respect for tradition or not depends on all sorts of things, including the instructor, the mood, and the general philosophy of the art as a whole. What things like "honor" and "respect" mean when used by a martial artist depends on a whole host of things, including the context they're used in by the art he or she is trained in.
If you're trained in a relatively young art that emphasizes honor and respect, but doesn't do a whole lot beyond say things like "you must be honorable", you're not going to be able to get a lot from in. If you're trained in an art with a long tradition, with a well-developed understanding of honorable behavior and martial respect, and you have an instructor (or instructors) that have a good handle on that understanding and use it as part of their instruction, you'll get a lot from it (provided you're willing to). In between, it depends on everything from your attitude to the mood of the instructor on a given day.
Not all arts are primarily about killing or violence, but they all, to one degree or another, deal with it. But, as pointed out above, a fight isn't just about who wins. I'd be very happy to never have to use any of my martial arts training in combat, but I use it plenty in other contexts, including the avoidance of combat. The greatest warrior is the one who could, but never has to, fight.
Some martial arts, and martial artists, are focused on survival - how do I get out of this fight quickly? Some martial arts and artists are focused on combat victory - how do I break this guy in six different ways? Some martial arts and artists are focused on tournament victory - how do I score more points than he does? Some are focused on honor - how do I live in a balanced, respectful way? These questions and approaches are not mutually exclusive, but they don't always go hand in hand.
I've trained with instructors who focus very heavily on what you can do to get away quickest. "If an attacker throws a right hook from your left, here's a set of steps and principles that can get you in a good position to get away." I've trained with instructors (in the same art) who focused primarily on ways to end the fight by breaking your opponent. "Here's a quick way you can break a guy's arm, and here's a good response to this counter, that counter, or this other counter that'll let you break his other arm, his leg, or his nose and clavicle." It's not something art-specific, nor instructor-specific. It's event-specific. Some classes focus on A, others on B. Sometimes it varies by instructor, other times not.
A young art (like Krav Maga) is a lot less likely to have a long tradition of any particular sort that some instructors might expect respect for. An old art (like, say, kendo) is a lot more likely to have that kind of history; whether a given instructor expects respect for tradition or not depends on all sorts of things, including the instructor, the mood, and the general philosophy of the art as a whole. What things like "honor" and "respect" mean when used by a martial artist depends on a whole host of things, including the context they're used in by the art he or she is trained in.
If you're trained in a relatively young art that emphasizes honor and respect, but doesn't do a whole lot beyond say things like "you must be honorable", you're not going to be able to get a lot from in. If you're trained in an art with a long tradition, with a well-developed understanding of honorable behavior and martial respect, and you have an instructor (or instructors) that have a good handle on that understanding and use it as part of their instruction, you'll get a lot from it (provided you're willing to). In between, it depends on everything from your attitude to the mood of the instructor on a given day.
Not all arts are primarily about killing or violence, but they all, to one degree or another, deal with it. But, as pointed out above, a fight isn't just about who wins. I'd be very happy to never have to use any of my martial arts training in combat, but I use it plenty in other contexts, including the avoidance of combat. The greatest warrior is the one who could, but never has to, fight.
Ok, did you ever think "why did this fight happen?" beyond the 10minute time frame of it's existence?vanthebaron said:
When people feel they've been disrespected they feel angry or ashamed. Let's say mr.alpha male shouts from across the room (infront of his friends) "nice hair, douchebag!", and you reply "eat it" and give him the finger.
You've just disrespected him. If he does nothing about it, he'll seem weak, letting a "lesser man" get away with something like that. If he confronts you, he better show everyone who's boss.
So a fight happens, and the asshole instigator (and his friends, just in-case you can actually fight back) beat the shit out of you, to "put you in your place".
Can you see how respect is there weather it's measured or not? If in the first instant, you were intimidating enough to snap him out of being an asshole to you, the fight wouldn't ever happen. Imagine maybe a different situation, where you are a rival alpha male, someone he would consider and equal and a rival.
You make a move he'll think twice about retaliating. And chances are that he'll only start something when he feels he's got the advantage, things like getting you caught "starting a fight" with him, when really it's him starting it, that sort of thing.
Everyone is different, but if you know your enemy well enough you can see these sort of scenarios.
I understand that teaching a kid "respect" as a martial arts trainer is a tough job tho, because at the end of the day kids just want to "learn to fight". Life is one big conflict though, and the idea of martial arts is to give you perspective and confidence to tackle problems in life. If someone is verbally being a douche, you can counter him without fear (which is real important when trying to command respect) because you feel confident in your physical position and your moral position.
"What the ancients called a clever fighter is one who not only wins, but excels at winning with ease, so his victories bring him neither reputation for wisdom nor credit for courage."
Your typical school bully has a huge advantage over the average mark, that is why he wins. He commands fear and a level of respect with his friends, but I bet most of the school know that he's a dick.
Why do you think it was 2-1? because he knows how much easier it is, because he needs someone else to tell the story to the others, loads of reasons.
Personally I feel respect is the most valued thing in the world. With another person's respect you form a strong bond. Be that as friends, allies, team-mates, partners, co-workers, or lovers.
Think of respect as "I know what you can do, and I do not take that lightly". In different context this becomes different things. I personally respect the power of a firearm, if I were ever in a situation where there was a gunman I would surrender without question, I would RESPECT the firearm. Doesn't mean I like it, it just means that I understand that the risk I would take fighting unarmed against an armed opponent is too great for me to try. However I would be ready for an opportunity to take control, and I would act quickly.
"A skilled fighter puts himself beyond the possibility of defeat, and waits for an opportunity to defeat the enemy."
In case it matters, I had a handful of fights in my school life, everyone was started by another, after everyone I was punished, and I earned a reputation of having a very short and fierce temper. I was bullied alot, and I was weak but would never back down, so I would always lose but I would always fight. My mind was never defeated, I would never surrender, but I would never win either.
Now that I'm older I tend to tackle problems carefully.
yes I did think "oh shit this guy the punched my right square in the jaw and how his friend has me against the wall...shit he just blacked my eye, OK they are going down now."Cypher10110 said:
I'd have thought the 'philosophy' aspect is the reason for the 'art' part of the term. I don't know anything about Krav Maga, but from the descriptions I've read here it sounds like foreign for 'self defence class*', which isn't quite the same thing.
* not a literal translation, I assume. But I don't speak that brand of foreign, so who knows.
* not a literal translation, I assume. But I don't speak that brand of foreign, so who knows.
I really to have heavily disagree there. The degree to which Karate is taught to kill or self defense really depends on the style. You can't generalise a form of martial art like Karate or Kung Fu as you can Taekwondo or Krav Maga as the former have many sub styles.ravensheart18 said:
Once again you can't really generalise a style as broad as Karate. Even at that what Karate teaches you in syllabus is a base to use elsewhere. Anyone who just learns a style and expects the rigid syllabus to transfer over to a normal scenario is not going to fair well. Aisde from the Krav Maga is taught with sole reason of self defense/military usage so it is going to focus on more practial damaging moves and less on arty Kata, standard syllabus etc. Although yes While I admit it is older anything used in Karate can easily be relevant today as it was then just because it is old does not mean it useless eg. Sun Tzu's tactics.whiteblood said:
I find your argument more than a little flawed since Krav Maga started off as defence for Jews in the 1930-40s and became used be the IDF. It is also known for being extremely brutal and lethal thus why it is used by many Militaries around the world.vanthebaron said:
I have a black belt in taekwondo, and I am entiteled to giving you "it'll teach you respect"-bullshit and it is more than a method of killing things. If it were but a method of killing, then it is rather odd that martial artists tend to be surprisingly good at avoiding violence, dont'cha think? Maybe there was a reason you instructors didn't say it was for killing, like say, because it wasn't?vanthebaron said:
Aside the fact that Karate is not primarily even made to kill brutally and quickly while Krav Maga is makes a big difference. In Karate you are told what to do and if it will kill while killing is not the objective. In Krav Maga since it is used by militaries and has ecome designed and refined for militaries has the sole purpose of the kill. Karate can be used for both killing but also serves a role as self defense while Krav Maga does not. Even the watered down civilian version still contians over the top moves that will kill or can kill if done excessively which will land you in prision.vanthebaron said:
TKD is one of the styles I have studies from afar, those kicks are fucking powerful, and yes but that because they don't go looking for them, I get into a lot of fights because, I'm a smart ass and I make asses out of a lot of people in my class, so because I embarrassed them the jockstraps fight me.Umwerfer said:
For me, martial arts is about purpose and desire.
Do you want to learn how to kill people with your bare hands? Then you will.
Do you want to learn how to defend yourself from an attacker? Then you will.
The former will lead you to believe that martial arts is a tool meant for killing.
The latter will teach you to respect the power a human body is capable of wielding.
Personally, I treat it as a tool to help stay fit, to discipline myself and help become more aware of my surroundings. When practicing forms, I try to pay attention to every last detail of my body's position. How many degrees has my foot rotated, is my arm a centimeter too high, is my stance solid? Thus I learn to be aware of my body and what it tells me.
When practicing a single move over and over again, I must try to keep doing it correctly each time, even if it's the 50th kick I've thrown in the past 2 minute. Thus I learn how to stay strong and push on even if it hurts.
Finally, when practicing sparring, I throw all of those things together all at once, and try to figure out my opponent's plans and weaknesses while fighting.
And if all I wanted was to learn a way as to how to kill a man, I take a course in concealed carry handgun techniques.
Do you want to learn how to kill people with your bare hands? Then you will.
Do you want to learn how to defend yourself from an attacker? Then you will.
The former will lead you to believe that martial arts is a tool meant for killing.
The latter will teach you to respect the power a human body is capable of wielding.
Personally, I treat it as a tool to help stay fit, to discipline myself and help become more aware of my surroundings. When practicing forms, I try to pay attention to every last detail of my body's position. How many degrees has my foot rotated, is my arm a centimeter too high, is my stance solid? Thus I learn to be aware of my body and what it tells me.
When practicing a single move over and over again, I must try to keep doing it correctly each time, even if it's the 50th kick I've thrown in the past 2 minute. Thus I learn how to stay strong and push on even if it hurts.
Finally, when practicing sparring, I throw all of those things together all at once, and try to figure out my opponent's plans and weaknesses while fighting.
And if all I wanted was to learn a way as to how to kill a man, I take a course in concealed carry handgun techniques.
Eastern Martial Arts were usually designed to teach discipline or to acheive a higher state of conscience through physical meditation.
Pretty much all martial arts styles are designed to kill, all of the "respect, self disapline, confidence" stuff goes with it, but derives from making you into a weapon of violence and death. People respect you because you can kill them, and you respect those who teach you because they are teaching you to kill. Self disapline comes from sticking to the training, since it requires constant practice.vanthebaron said:
Honor is kind of a joke, and an example of the winners writing the history books. Most Martial Arts came from rebellious peasants striving to overthrow the ruling classes. In Japan this was paticularly pronounced with things like Karate coming into existance largely as a method of fighting dirty against armed opponents who followed a code of honor. Such systems of fighting being insturmental in people successfully wielding farm tools and the like to bring an end to the Samurai Aristocracy which was to an extent limited by their following of Bushido in how they were going to respond in actual battle.
I can understand how concepts like Honor and dignity became associated with the Samurai, along with respecting authority to the point of killing yourself in the case of a irreconcilable disagreement with your superiors, when it comes to Martial Artists in general I hardly think that is the case.
It might have something to do with the Shao-Lin who were pretty much cloistered. Their actual fame mostly came from the fact where at one point they chose to get involved in politics and fight on defense of the goverment of the time, a hundred of them defeating an army of like a thousand (10 to 1 odds) largely because the enemy wasn't expecting what they ran into. This lead to the same guys they were defending exterminating them (according to the stories) for fear that so many unregulated warriors could present a threat to them just as easily, and they were of course ready for what they were going to run into.
TV Shows like "Kung-Fu" aside, I never got the impression from anything I read that the Shao-Lin were paticularly honorable, especially in battle, either. Cloistered yes, scholors also apparently, but even so like most Martial Arts the basis for their fighting generally came down to how to prey on the expectations of the guys they were fighting at the time. A soldier seeing a guy carrying a weapon like a Kama or Kusari Gama back then viewed it as a farm tool, not something that a person trained with as a weapon. Almost every martial arts weapon out there started as something innocent that a peasant or monk could have handy without garnering suspician.
As far as non-lethal martial arts go... well I'd go so far as to say that there are a few of them that are not designed to kill. The term "Martial Art" being broadened to any type of combat disapline as opposed to just those from Asia. American/European Boxing and even Muay Thai are designed for sports competitions even though they can be used lethally for self defense. Judo as far as I remember reading was also developed as a sport, even if it can also be used to do some serious damage. The differance being that with Karate or Kung-Fu when taught properly the end result is to put the other guy down, and not acting lethally is typically a matter of holding back. With Boxing or even Muay Thai, putting the other guy down by a knockout is a clear win and something to strive for, but as often or not your fighting for points/judgement. Wrestling is also another good example of a martial art designed primarily for competition.
Krav Maga seems to get a lot more hype nowadays than I think it deserves. It's big claim to fame is that it's a Jewish Martial Art. I can't remember the name of the guy who invented it (I used to know) but basically it's a hybrid style where the punches were taken from boxing, the kicks from kung-fu, and defensive techniques and holds from Judo. I'm sure it's grown since then to incorperate other techniques. The biggest criticism I've always heard of it is that it probably shouldn't be considered a martial art unto itself because there isn't much in it that is unique unto the "style" and it's apparently not the first style to incorperate a lot of those elements. I've heard it discussed in comparison to say the "battle" Bruce Lee fought to have his Jeet Kun Do acknowleged as it's own form, Krav Maga in comparison has never seen that kind of acknowlegement.
Don't get me wrong though Krav Maga is a perfectly effective close combat training regimin. It's what the Isrealis use for their special forces and intelligence agents. Honestly though I don't think it's any more impressive than what other countries who seriously train their people for close combat use. I kind of tend to think it belongs to the same mash up as Navy SEAL and Delta Force combat styles, and the so called Russian Martial art of "Sambo" which is similar to Krav Maga in trying to make claims to being a martial art form in of itself.
Ironically I believe the only real Western "Combat" Martial Art that has been defended as a form is "Savate".
Of course I am no expert, this is just what I've heard/read over the years and my opinion. I've hung out with a lot of people who take this stuff very seriously.
I will go on to say that I'm a firm believer than when it comes to fighting style doesn't mean much. In the end it all comes down to the person using it. Fighting "Forms" are just training programs that provide tools, in the end how effective any of them are comes down to how well they are used and the talent of the guy fighting.