no it didn'tLarenzoAOG said:
watched that and I 95% agree with them, martial arts is good for one thing, killingBadger Kyre said:
problem with martial arts
- Thread starter vanthebaron
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I have taught and studied martial arts for many years and i have found that both honour and respect cannot be taught only told as it was in your case, honour and respect must be found for yourself because you must first honour and respect yourself (Not be cocky, arrogant and "full of yourself" these are much different just as respect for someone and fury at someone are different).vanthebaron said:
And in response to your "its a method of killing people"....no the majority of martial arts have a spiritual side as well as a martial side, i should know i teach both. As well as that anybody has the potential to kill regardless of whether they have been taught the 'best' methods or not.
respect and honor are all and good but that won't stop a guy with a knife. that what your foot is for.DevilishGryphon said:
At no point did i say respect and honour would stop a guy with a knife, and yes that is what your foot is for (or hand, or gun, or crowbar etc). All i was trying to point out was that martial arts are not just about learning to kill people (dependant on your teacher i suppose) and that they lay the foundations for respect and honour and have a spiritual side as wellvanthebaron said:
Well I think the poster may have missed some of the point of the Japanese developed fighting arts and what they intend to teach.
Krav Maga and other Army basic training skills are developed to teach a recruit of unknown skill level a simple and quick way to engage in hand-to-hand lethal combat. It's designed to make turn raw ingredients into a killing machine as fast as possible. So it skips the philosophical stuff.
It doesn't pay any attention, however, to how that killing machine is supposed to actuall LIVE its life and conduct itself in the world. The western military generally does a prett piss-poor job of that.
The Japanese have a much longer history of armed conflict, and their society built up an entire caste structure that included portions of society whose entire existence was dedicated to combat (not just a 6-year service committment, but their entire lives from birth to death, even in old age). So their approach to teaching includes a lot of culture, rules, philosophy and spirituality along with the fighting bits to help craft a whole person, not just a weapon.
Krav Maga and other Army basic training skills are developed to teach a recruit of unknown skill level a simple and quick way to engage in hand-to-hand lethal combat. It's designed to make turn raw ingredients into a killing machine as fast as possible. So it skips the philosophical stuff.
It doesn't pay any attention, however, to how that killing machine is supposed to actuall LIVE its life and conduct itself in the world. The western military generally does a prett piss-poor job of that.
The Japanese have a much longer history of armed conflict, and their society built up an entire caste structure that included portions of society whose entire existence was dedicated to combat (not just a 6-year service committment, but their entire lives from birth to death, even in old age). So their approach to teaching includes a lot of culture, rules, philosophy and spirituality along with the fighting bits to help craft a whole person, not just a weapon.
their is no spiritual side, is a form of combat, the spiritual said it to dumb it down because without it, the arts just shout "I'M TEACHING YOU HOW TO KILL SOMEONE". Learning to kill is the primary focus of learning martial arts.DevilishGryphon said:
If you were taught that, then your teacher should not be teaching. But i get the feeling that this is something you came up with yourself so here is some advice, experience some other martial arts and get a minimum of 10 years experience in those various martial arts before you even begin tellng other people what the focus of every martial art is around the world. You said it yourself, you have 3 years experience with only one martial art. That does not give you right, nor authority to tell anybody what any martial art teaches, does or includes. So do not assume you can speak for any of them let alone all of them.vanthebaron said:
Spiritual side's aren't their purpose its to defend yourself and kill. That's a historically accurate statement. Martial arts are a key part of my script. I have talked to countless teachers and they all have said its meant to defend or kill on of the 2. BTW what is your style?DevilishGryphon said:
I know, my eye has been blacked a lot. I must be the Irish blood. I just have this way of showing everyone up, esp in "SCIENCE!!!" and history.Umwerfer said:
Defend OR Kill? So you've changed your mind about it being just for killing?vanthebaron said:
And I teach (and study) Judo, and i also study Kyudo and Karate (but i don't teach those two, i simply assist)
P.s. Excuse my ignorace, but what do you mean by it's part of your scrpt?
1) no I put defending under killings as "trying yo kill but failingDevilishGryphon said:
2) Judo is the unarmed combat form of the Samurai I know they have kill moves
3) I'm writing my own show, I'm hoping to get in animated by a Japanese company.
I already had a healthy respect for authority, I believe in discipline, and many of the other things that are taught in martial arts.
However, I learned Aikido, it's a self defense martial art. It's not a combat art like Krav Maga or jujutsu or any number of other martial arts. I wouldn't say that it taught me anything I didn't already believe in, but it helped my discipline and helped me to keep calm. Just because an art is designed to kill doesn't mean that you can't have respect for people. In fact, I would imagine that you would develop more respect for life, since you know how to take it away. It's a fragile thing, and should be treasured, not needlessly thrown away.
Look at the warriors throughout history. Honor and pride were matters of great importance for them. They are also the ones that developed a lot of the martial arts we see today. Just because they did kill people on the battlefield doesn't mean that they didn't have respect for life. Part of being a samurai was also knowing how to write poetry, know the meanings of and being able to arrange flowers, prayers to whatever deity they chose as their patron god, and many other things.
Even in Aikido, there are moves that could kill people. I emphasize the "could" part. We can, we simply choose not to. Why kill someone when simply disabling them serves the same purpose? Judo might have kill moves, but how often do you see them used? I think you're mistaking the combat arts for the martial arts that focus on self defense. Judo isn't exactly an offensive art, neither is Aikdo, whereas many of the -jutsus are. Morihei Ueshiba, the founder of Aikido was a student of Daito-Ryu Jujutsu for a long time. He fought in the Ruso-Japanese War and was rewarded for his actions in battle. He taught Japanese spies and special forces martial arts he knew. After WWII though, he developed Aikido to be a self defense art because he believed that all life should be respected. It's also fairly easy to learn and doesn't require a lot of strength to use, since it uses the attacker's own force against them. Anyone can learn it, and I know it's served me well in the past.
However, I learned Aikido, it's a self defense martial art. It's not a combat art like Krav Maga or jujutsu or any number of other martial arts. I wouldn't say that it taught me anything I didn't already believe in, but it helped my discipline and helped me to keep calm. Just because an art is designed to kill doesn't mean that you can't have respect for people. In fact, I would imagine that you would develop more respect for life, since you know how to take it away. It's a fragile thing, and should be treasured, not needlessly thrown away.
Look at the warriors throughout history. Honor and pride were matters of great importance for them. They are also the ones that developed a lot of the martial arts we see today. Just because they did kill people on the battlefield doesn't mean that they didn't have respect for life. Part of being a samurai was also knowing how to write poetry, know the meanings of and being able to arrange flowers, prayers to whatever deity they chose as their patron god, and many other things.
Even in Aikido, there are moves that could kill people. I emphasize the "could" part. We can, we simply choose not to. Why kill someone when simply disabling them serves the same purpose? Judo might have kill moves, but how often do you see them used? I think you're mistaking the combat arts for the martial arts that focus on self defense. Judo isn't exactly an offensive art, neither is Aikdo, whereas many of the -jutsus are. Morihei Ueshiba, the founder of Aikido was a student of Daito-Ryu Jujutsu for a long time. He fought in the Ruso-Japanese War and was rewarded for his actions in battle. He taught Japanese spies and special forces martial arts he knew. After WWII though, he developed Aikido to be a self defense art because he believed that all life should be respected. It's also fairly easy to learn and doesn't require a lot of strength to use, since it uses the attacker's own force against them. Anyone can learn it, and I know it's served me well in the past.
|Respect - for others and myself - was what I personally got out of martial arts. Sure, I can probably fight a bit better now than I could before, but I'm still gonna lose to someone with some experience actually fighting, but that's not the only thing learning a martial art is about. I learned confidence, and that was more important to me than some theoretical self defence measures.
Oh course, my instructors made the point that some of the moves were especially dangerous - hell, some of them were dangerous just to try and practice, and there was always the ever present reminder that what we were doing was violent - no-one ever tried to pretend otherwise. The philosophy and discipline were what made the difference between 'learning to fight' and 'practising a martial art'.
Oh course, my instructors made the point that some of the moves were especially dangerous - hell, some of them were dangerous just to try and practice, and there was always the ever present reminder that what we were doing was violent - no-one ever tried to pretend otherwise. The philosophy and discipline were what made the difference between 'learning to fight' and 'practising a martial art'.
That's just my point, in my experience they don't. They'll say, for example, that dropping onto your knee on someones solar plexus could shatter the zyphoid process and kill, so don't do this unless you're in real danger. And then they move on. to me, they don't emphasize how dangerouse it is often enough. Just one little mention when u learn a dangerous technique, then you move on.vanthebaron said:
Which is the wrong way to teach. That was my experience as well. I personally blame the overprotective bigots that don't what their kids to know about death.spartan231490 said:
Mate,
I'm moved to post on this, firstly in warning. You're coming across as violence obsessed, and it doesn't do you much credit. I'm sure you're not, but that's how it's coming across. You sound like you've had a tough time of it, and now you're looking to vent.
Here's my twenty pence worth:
Killing with your bare hands is really hard, regardless of what you learn. At their root, most Martial arts were designed for this purpose. Taekwondo is taken from the style of fighting the Koreans used in their various wars of liberation/self destruction.
The point about them now being 'solely about killing' is a bit irrelevant. If you want to kill, go and get a knife, or a bow, or a gun. All of these devices were devised to kill without needing massive amounts of special training. Yes, you can train as a marksman, but you can also learn to shoot someone in a few hours. If you want to learn to kill, join the Army. They'll teach you how to, and teach you it's not actually that difficult with the right tools.
The physical and mental conditioning of most martial arts - I speak from experience about several - is two fold. Firstly, the physical conditioning is so if you have to fight, you can. However, that discipline and spirituality which you seem to have such little time is equally important. Without that, you easily find a situation where you would start a fight, just to show what you can do. That's a power trip, showing off, and it's the easiest way to be. What the discipline should teach you, like any warrior, is when and when not to fight.
Ironically enough, the more you learn, the less you will fight, because you don't feel the need to anymore. That's why you learn it, so, when the shit hits the fan, you can keep your head, assess the situation, and react accordingly. That will probably be non violence. It'll stop you just going nuts and smashing in someones larynx by accident.
That's what they are really about, today: self control and control of a situation. Not killing, because we as humans have invented many hundreds of easier ways to do that. Martial Arts were superseded many, many years ago in that regard. And if you were have to kill with your bare hands, I pity you for what that would do to you.
The art stays the same, the purpose changes.
I'm moved to post on this, firstly in warning. You're coming across as violence obsessed, and it doesn't do you much credit. I'm sure you're not, but that's how it's coming across. You sound like you've had a tough time of it, and now you're looking to vent.
Here's my twenty pence worth:
Killing with your bare hands is really hard, regardless of what you learn. At their root, most Martial arts were designed for this purpose. Taekwondo is taken from the style of fighting the Koreans used in their various wars of liberation/self destruction.
The point about them now being 'solely about killing' is a bit irrelevant. If you want to kill, go and get a knife, or a bow, or a gun. All of these devices were devised to kill without needing massive amounts of special training. Yes, you can train as a marksman, but you can also learn to shoot someone in a few hours. If you want to learn to kill, join the Army. They'll teach you how to, and teach you it's not actually that difficult with the right tools.
The physical and mental conditioning of most martial arts - I speak from experience about several - is two fold. Firstly, the physical conditioning is so if you have to fight, you can. However, that discipline and spirituality which you seem to have such little time is equally important. Without that, you easily find a situation where you would start a fight, just to show what you can do. That's a power trip, showing off, and it's the easiest way to be. What the discipline should teach you, like any warrior, is when and when not to fight.
Ironically enough, the more you learn, the less you will fight, because you don't feel the need to anymore. That's why you learn it, so, when the shit hits the fan, you can keep your head, assess the situation, and react accordingly. That will probably be non violence. It'll stop you just going nuts and smashing in someones larynx by accident.
That's what they are really about, today: self control and control of a situation. Not killing, because we as humans have invented many hundreds of easier ways to do that. Martial Arts were superseded many, many years ago in that regard. And if you were have to kill with your bare hands, I pity you for what that would do to you.
The art stays the same, the purpose changes.
