Must everything be combat applicable??

[DeLamar.J]

Traditional martial arts were not so much about fighting as some of the other more modern styles are. Some people today are just looking for combat effectiveness only, not discipline, values, and a good attitude. Those are the things that traditional training gives you, people who just want to learn how to hurt people frown on the more traditional type of training because there are things done to build character and discipline, that are not combat applicable, so they feel those things are a waste of time. That was one of the methods instructors used to weed out the ones who would abuse there skill, because they wont make it through the discipline and character tests, therefor showing the possibllity that they might abuse there skill because of lack of patience to learn a kata, getting it just right, saying yes sir, bowing before stepping on the mat, all those little things. They will get flustered and all pissy, if they get bent out of shape during that, how will they react in a bad situation that tests there fuse when they are capable of severely hurting another person?? Just because something is not combat applicable does not make it useless, any comments?

[Drag'n]

I really agree with what you're saying.Although I would say that most traditional arts were originaly intended to be combat efective, but after many generations of peace the focus was shifted toward self development.
Unfortunately alot of people dont realise this and think they are practising realistic fighting techniques.
I think the rise of modern combat systems was inevitable and necessary due to the lack of realism in alot of the traditional arts.
Personally I try to keep a balance of both combat effectiveness and self development.I think those who practise MA simply for the purpose of learning how to fight are missing out on the true value of training.And instructors who teach dangerous combative techniques to their students without the essential character development of traditional Budo, should be prepared to take responsibility if one of their students was to use their skills in an irresponsible mannor.
At the same time I dont see the point in practising fighting techniques that aren't fighting effective.I'm thankfull for the rise of MMA, as I think it has exposed alot of the weaknesses in many MA's and brought back some much needed reality into the picture.
Unfortunately alot of dojos I've seen seem to go one way or the other.Either very traditional and lacking in effectiveness, or totally combat oriented with no spiritual depth.Its sad that many young people here in Japan are more attracted to the fighting sport dojos and forgeting the wisdom of Bushido.
One without the other is incomplete.
So I guess my answer to your question is yes and no.Fighting techniques need to be effective and practised how they are intended to be used.But not everything you do in your training has to be for the purpose of fighting.

[ppko]

Traditional martial arts were not so much about fighting as some of the other more modern styles are. Some people today are just looking for combat effectiveness only, not discipline, values, and a good attitude. Those are the things that traditional training gives you, people who just want to learn how to hurt people frown on the more traditional type of training because there are things done to build character and discipline, that are not combat applicable, so they feel those things are a waste of time. That was one of the methods instructors used to weed out the ones who would abuse there skill, because they wont make it through the discipline and character tests, therefor showing the possibllity that they might abuse there skill because of lack of patience to learn a kata, getting it just right, saying yes sir, bowing before stepping on the mat, all those little things. They will get flustered and all pissy, if they get bent out of shape during that, how will they react in a bad situation that tests there fuse when they are capable of severely hurting another person?? Just because something is not combat applicable does not make it useless, any comments?I would have to agree with you to a certain extent, I do believe hat traditional Martial Arts were mostly combat driven. Not only were the Martial Arts very disciplened every day life was disciplined in the East. They new that eventually they would get the meaning of kata in there training, and also they knew they were doing everything for a reason. I think that if we wish to get out of this "I want it now attitude" than we as parents need to start with our children, and make discipline a everyday part of life.

[Paul Genge]

I have to wonder if teaching martial arts to a person that wants better ways of hurting other people is the most healthy thing for them, without first helping them with their personality. The danger seems to be the spread of martial arts that advocate developing aggression to deal with conflict.

On the face of it this might seem a useful skill to develop. We see people on the TV and unfortunately on the street who use aggression quite effectively. People that do not rely on this skill rarely get into fights and therefore the opportunity to see role models in action is few and far between. This can leave us wrongly thinking that fighting like an animal and displaying open aggression is the only way.

What ever the style it needs to help the student address some very basic issues in their own psyci. Some styles will use exercise and repetitive kata to either weed out the less suitable students or to help them improve themselves. Others like the Russian System also use an oral tradition of well focused observations by the teacher to cause thought and reflection on our very makeup.

It is unfortunate that in todays climate if it does not look like cage rage or UFC most people do not think the martial art is effective. For a traditional style that has been used throughout it's history in combat to survive it has to have been effective for the people that developed it. Also the training drills it advocates must have some bearing on developing a person that can use those skills in life. We have to remember that life is more than a set of fights. This is even the case for the most proffessional of soldiers who have families to go home to.

Unfortunately during times of peace the skills taught in a style can become watered down or altered by new ideas that as yet are untested. The next question then is do you goto a style that have tried and tested drills to fill the gaps in your knowledge or do you start making up your own solutions and develop your own modern martial art?

If you decided that the modern martial art is what you want to practice remember that they often are not designed for real confrontations or they are untested by either the founder or the person taking the class. I went to one class where they taught several kata from a chinese boxing style. When I asked the instructor (who was also the founder of the style) what the movements were for he had to admit that he did not really know.

One of the Gracie brothers taught a course several years ago in the UK. When asked about fighting against multiple or armed opponents he had to admit that his style was developed for the octagon and not those sort of encounters. Not every instructor is so honest to their audience.

Another problem is that the skills become outdated. An example of this would be learning to use a naginata against a swordsman in armour. If self defence is your goal you have to ask yourself will the core principles behind the kata teach you anything useful (eg. timing, distance ect.) If the answer is no and you do not expect to be attacked by an extra from the last samurai it is probably not the best use of your time.

Martial arts practice always effects the way you live your life. For anyone who has more than a passing contact with them they start to effect the very way you think. The problem is if your training concentrates on aggression (as most modern styles seem to) it will start to bleed into the rest of your life. Do you want to walk around waiting for some one to jump out from every corner or for you to become aggressive in any situation that has an element of confrontation?

Paul Genge
http://www.russianmartialart.org.uk

[bignick]

i would argue that traits like discipline are combat applicable...you're not going to break somebody's arm with you discipline...but learning how to continue on and react under pressure while keeping your cool are great advantages to have in a real situation...

they may not directly teach you how to protect yourself...but they're very important in my opinion

[RHD]

I would have to agree with you to a certain extent, I do believe hat traditional Martial Arts were mostly combat driven. Not only were the Martial Arts very disciplened every day life was disciplined in the East. They new that eventually they would get the meaning of kata in there training, and also they knew they were doing everything for a reason. I think that if we wish to get out of this "I want it now attitude" than we as parents need to start with our children, and make discipline a everyday part of life.


I think it's important to realize that new students walking into your school already have a sense of morality, some sort of philosophy, and are either capable of self discipline or not. They may emulate their instructors, but this may only be for the duration of the class. This is why I do not try to teach these things.

I have found that the overwhelming majority of individuals who've appraoched me for lessons are interested in what I tell them that I teach... Which is: self defense, fighting skill, and traditional training methods to obtain those. Anything else they get from training is a bonus, and not necessarily the focus of the training. Granted, I do not teach martial arts for a living, and I am able to screen my students fairly well. I also reserve the responsibilty to pull the plug on anyone's training if they are anything less than an attentive student with a good attitude. I can only imagine the hazards of teaching for a living and having to see every person who walked in the door as a potential $$.

Mike

[Tgace]

I would only say its bad IF it "trains in" techniques that will get you hurt on the street. You will do as you train so you should be careful what you program yourself to do.

[Touch Of Death]

I really agree with what you're saying.Although I would say that most traditional arts were originaly intended to be combat efective, but after many generations of peace the focus was shifted toward self development.
Unfortunately alot of people dont realise this and think they are practising realistic fighting techniques.
I think the rise of modern combat systems was inevitable and necessary due to the lack of realism in alot of the traditional arts.
Personally I try to keep a balance of both combat effectiveness and self development.I think those who practise MA simply for the purpose of learning how to fight are missing out on the true value of training.And instructors who teach dangerous combative techniques to their students without the essential character development of traditional Budo, should be prepared to take responsibility if one of their students was to use their skills in an irresponsible mannor.
At the same time I dont see the point in practising fighting techniques that aren't fighting effective.I'm thankfull for the rise of MMA, as I think it has exposed alot of the weaknesses in many MA's and brought back some much needed reality into the picture.
Unfortunately alot of dojos I've seen seem to go one way or the other.Either very traditional and lacking in effectiveness, or totally combat oriented with no spiritual depth.Its sad that many young people here in Japan are more attracted to the fighting sport dojos and forgeting the wisdom of Bushido.
One without the other is incomplete.
So I guess my answer to your question is yes and no.Fighting techniques need to be effective and practised how they are intended to be used.But not everything you do in your training has to be for the purpose of fighting.Without a practicle application, your money would be better spent at a finishing school.
Sean

[RRouuselot]

I would have to agree with you to a certain extent, 1)I do believe hat traditional Martial Arts were mostly combat driven. 2)Not only were the Martial Arts very disciplened every day life was disciplined in the East. 3)They new that eventually they would get the meaning of kata in there training, and also they knew they were doing everything for a reason. I think that if we wish to get out of this "I want it now attitude" than we as parents need to start with our children, and make discipline a everyday part of life.





1) WOW! Really??? Imagine that ....martial arts being combat driven.http://martialtalk.com/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif What made you think that??



2) Just curious what you are basing this idea on.



3) This is actually untrue. During times of civil strife and war it was thought that people were taught applications only and then during times of peace some people “codified” these applications to form kata so that they would be easy to remember and keep to pass down or teach. Many techniques that actually worked were developed only after surviving and studying events that happened in battle.

[ppko]

1) WOW! Really??? Imagine that ....martial arts being combat driven.http://martialtalk.com/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif What made you think that??



2) Just curious what you are basing this idea on.



3) This is actually untrue. During times of civil strife and war it was thought that people were taught applications only and then during times of peace some people “codified” these applications to form kata so that they would be easy to remember and keep to pass down or teach. Many techniques that actually worked were developed only after surviving and studying events that happened in battle. Just from what I have heard or read
Thank you for correcting me as I do not know everything only what I have heard or read

[8253]

When training one must learn discipline in order to properly learn how to be combat effective. For instance when bowing in or out of the place of learning, even if you dont want to, you are learning discipline every time that it is done. The same goes for calling the instructor sir or maam. These may not seem like major things, but things like these also apply to a combat situation. When these small things become habit, then the discipline will be secton nature. In a combat situation, if you are injured during a fight, it is this type of discipline that will help you to survive the physical altercation. If an un-disciplined person in a fight is injured they will lay down or make about a half an attempt to escape. However a disciplined person will either fight through an injury or escape. I am not saying Traditional is better than modern, traditional is my preference however. In any sense, they are both combat effective. It just depends on the person learning it. Nothing will ever suit two people anyways.

[Marginal]

Traditional martial arts were not so much about fighting as some of the other more modern styles are. Some people today are just looking for combat effectiveness only, not discipline, values, and a good attitude. Those are the things that traditional training gives you, people who just want to learn how to hurt people frown on the more traditional type of training because there are things done to build character and discipline, that are not combat applicable, so they feel those things are a waste of time.

The Jouranl of Asian Martial Arts has an article on this topic in the most recent issue.

[ppko]

I think it's important to realize that new students walking into your school already have a sense of morality, some sort of philosophy, and are either capable of self discipline or not. They may emulate their instructors, but this may only be for the duration of the class. This is why I do not try to teach these things.

I have found that the overwhelming majority of individuals who've appraoched me for lessons are interested in what I tell them that I teach... Which is: self defense, fighting skill, and traditional training methods to obtain those. Anything else they get from training is a bonus, and not necessarily the focus of the training. Granted, I do not teach martial arts for a living, and I am able to screen my students fairly well. I also reserve the responsibilty to pull the plug on anyone's training if they are anything less than an attentive student with a good attitude. I can only imagine the hazards of teaching for a living and having to see every person who walked in the door as a potential $$.

MikeVery good post

[Andrew Green]

No, of course everything doesn't have to be applicable to fighting.

BUT, the problem is that many people that are teaching things that are not at all applicable, and could in fact get you hurt, are selling it as, and convincing there students that it is this ultimate self-defence system too deadly for competition...

And just too add something, modern systems can build character too ;) (And too be honest, they can do it better IMO)

Everyone has different interests and different goals, not everyone is looking for the same things. The problems start when people market what they do as something it isn't.

Not just practiaclliity, but the character building as well. I'm sure everyone else here has come across schools that push the "character development" card real hard in there marketing. Then you see them at competitions and fall witness to sportsmanship displays that would make pro-wrestlers blush...

[Mark Weiser]

Speaking from experience from both Military and Civilian LEO and 23 years of being in the MA's

Most Martial Arts teaches the basics that one needs to make the mind and body ready for Combat. However most fights last about 10 - 15 seconds in a very violent confrontation. This is the great problem in MA. Most do not train you to become aggressive and mame and kill in these types of confrontations.

That is problem that many had with the Marine Corps Hand to Hand Course that I attended. Those with Martial Arts Training always reverted back to Kata Movments while the Instructors kicked their little behinds. The Instructors explained the KISS principle in Hand to Hand. Fast and Simple Strikes to vital areas are more effective than any Katas you may have learned. Combat Mindset is not taught in Martial Art Schools. They then went over the most common Strikes and Takedowns to use in Combat. Very Enlightening.

Martial Arts as taught today is not combat related in most cases.

[Andrew Green]

But there is also a big difference between battlefield hand to hand and self-defence.

Sometimes you really don't want to hurt, let alone cripple or kill the other guy. Another thing many SD instructors forget.

[KenpoNoChikara]

I really agree with what you're saying.Although I would say that most traditional arts were originaly intended to be combat efective, but after many generations of peace the focus was shifted toward self development.
Unfortunately alot of people dont realise this and think they are practising realistic fighting techniques.
I think the rise of modern combat systems was inevitable and necessary due to the lack of realism in alot of the traditional arts.
Personally I try to keep a balance of both combat effectiveness and self development.I think those who practise MA simply for the purpose of learning how to fight are missing out on the true value of training.And instructors who teach dangerous combative techniques to their students without the essential character development of traditional Budo, should be prepared to take responsibility if one of their students was to use their skills in an irresponsible mannor.
At the same time I dont see the point in practising fighting techniques that aren't fighting effective.I'm thankfull for the rise of MMA, as I think it has exposed alot of the weaknesses in many MA's and brought back some much needed reality into the picture.
Unfortunately alot of dojos I've seen seem to go one way or the other.Either very traditional and lacking in effectiveness, or totally combat oriented with no spiritual depth.Its sad that many young people here in Japan are more attracted to the fighting sport dojos and forgeting the wisdom of Bushido.
One without the other is incomplete.
So I guess my answer to your question is yes and no.Fighting techniques need to be effective and practised how they are intended to be used.But not everything you do in your training has to be for the purpose of fighting.
Coulden't agree more

[ppko]

No, of course everything doesn't have to be applicable to fighting.

BUT, the problem is that many people that are teaching things that are not at all applicable, and could in fact get you hurt, are selling it as, and convincing there students that it is this ultimate self-defence system too deadly for competition...

And just too add something, modern systems can build character too ;) (And too be honest, they can do it better IMO)

Everyone has different interests and different goals, not everyone is looking for the same things. The problems start when people market what they do as something it isn't.

Not just practiaclliity, but the character building as well. I'm sure everyone else here has come across schools that push the "character development" card real hard in there marketing. Then you see them at competitions and fall witness to sportsmanship displays that would make pro-wrestlers blush...A very good post, but let me say a few things. IMO you do not have to compete to have a practical system, but you do have to have a training regimen that is realistic.:)

[loki09789]

But there is also a big difference between battlefield hand to hand and self-defence.

Sometimes you really don't want to hurt, let alone cripple or kill the other guy. Another thing many SD instructors forget.

Not necessarily a 'big difference' in what you do so much as how far you go and what 'rules' you are expected to know and be able to stay within.

Same motions, different "intent"

That is why I don't really agree that 'not everything' has to have a 'combat' application.

Whether it is the focus you develop during a very ritualistic, uniformed 'traditional' program or a more relaxed "self Defense" program, the point is that you are replicating, developing and enhancing the skills and abilities (though not necessarily a totally comprehensive list) that should increase your ability to cope with life and death stress.

"Grace under fire" is the saying that explains what any martial arts training should ultimately enstill. The ability to keep your head screwed on straight while those about you might be losing yours.

Preparing you for 'stress management' to an intense level of preparation more so than just combat. That's why martial arts programs as part of sport summer camp or pre-season 'boot camp's' seem to be so popular IMO.

[OC Kid]

I didnt read what everyone wrote so I dont know if this was mentioned or not but. Martial Art means War art or Art of War. Bushido means way of the warrior.

[DeLamar.J]

But there is also a big difference between battlefield hand to hand and self-defence.

Sometimes you really don't want to hurt, let alone cripple or kill the other guy. Another thing many SD instructors forget.
And, that type of fighting will get you put right in jail, even if you had no other choice. And if you really had no other choice, you will spend time in jail until your trail or someone bails you out. Most courts love to give martial artists the shaft when they f someone up.

[Mark Weiser]

That is why the School if they do teach combat arts need to know the laws of the state in which the school is located and teach accordingly. Here in Kansas there are statues that govern Self Defense issues and Good Samartian Statues. In my School I teach the actual State Statues and give my students a copy of the neccessary codes.

[MJS]

That is why the School if they do teach combat arts need to know the laws of the state in which the school is located and teach accordingly. Here in Kansas there are statues that govern Self Defense issues and Good Samartian Statues. In my School I teach the actual State Statues and give my students a copy of the neccessary codes.

I agree. Unfortunately, I don't think that that's part of the instruction at many schools. However, it would be wise to teach it, due to the sue happy world that we live in today. I could just see it now. A student a "Joes Karate School" defends himself in a situation and the bad guy or thats guys family not only sues the student, but the inst. at the school as well, for damages done to the poor, innocent bad guy.

Mike

[RRouuselot]

That is why the School if they do teach combat arts need to know the laws of the state in which the school is located and teach accordingly. Here in Kansas there are statues that govern Self Defense issues and Good Samartian Statues. In my School I teach the actual State Statues and give my students a copy of the neccessary codes.

Actually I am from Kansas.....could you let me know where I can get a copy of those laws?

[RRouuselot]

I didnt read what everyone wrote so I dont know if this was mentioned or not but. Martial Art means War art or Art of War. Bushido means way of the warrior.Not to be rude but if you are going to comment on these boards you may want to do everyone a favor and have the courtesy to read what they have written on the thread before you reply……in doing so you may come to the painfully obvious conclusion that most of the folks that have replied before you most likely already know what you are posting.

Also if you look in the dictionary you will see martial= military and not necessarily “war”. You also mentioned Bushido…….could you tell us you thoughts on Inazo Nitobe’s book on Bushido?

Here is an interesting link to it http://www.sacred-texts.com/shi/bsd/

[tsunami]

Originally Posted by DeLamar.J
Traditional martial arts were not so much about fighting as some of the other more modern styles are. Some people today are just looking for combat effectiveness only, not discipline, values, and a good attitude. Those are the things that traditional training gives you, people who just want to learn how to hurt people frown on the more traditional type of training because there are things done to build character and discipline, that are not combat applicable, so they feel those things are a waste of time.

I would recommend reading some history books. I belive that combat arts were always for just that. The kinder form of the arts came after hostilities cooled off. (Atleat in japan) The arts were then turned into martal ways (do) as in Karate-do, Akido, Judo. The aim of these arts were all the high and lofty goals. In fudal times, killer skills were king along with skills such as river fording, horse riding and even swimming among many others. Now that is what I call mixed martial arts.
Respectfully, George.


A man is like steel. If he looses his temper, he looses his worth.

[Marginal]

Anyone ever get the sense that the self-development angle and the ohter aspects that come parceled with a lot of MA's past the fighting techniques were designed as a survival tool/marketing hook? Cant' say you're training up a bunch of invincible thugs, but if you're "cultivating a true warrior" the fact you're teaching someone to squish someone else's nose flat with some technique or another becomes socially acceptable in circles it otherwise would not.

[loki09789]

Anyone ever get the sense that the self-development angle and the ohter aspects that come parceled with a lot of MA's past the fighting techniques were designed as a survival tool/marketing hook? Cant' say you're training up a bunch of invincible thugs, but if you're "cultivating a true warrior" the fact you're teaching someone to squish someone else's nose flat with some technique or another becomes socially acceptable in circles it otherwise would not.Salesmanship and basically a more brutal and antiquated version of the values training, moral fiber toughening that organizations with a 'niche' or 'theme' will use to promote, educate and enhance all the time.

Camping and woodscraft for Boy/girl scout organizations are ways of developing character, cooperation, leadership.....

"Explorer" or "Junior police cadet" or what ever programs all link a philosophical value to the training in the hopes that they are enstilling values along with the skills.

Most of the "DO" or philosophical developments in martial arts practices are because IMO:

1. They were the preservation of the 'way of the warrior' (plug in the appropriate cultural context) once that particular 'way' had either become outdated or unnecessary because of peace.

In some cases, the motive might simply have been the ancient equivalent of the "wanna be ranches" that former soldiers, cowboys, experts in any field (that has a mystic/heroic status around it) to earn a living based on your skills and experience when they no longer are useful (personally - retirement or culturally - peace/social change) in their original context. The Buffalo Bill Wild West Show comes to mind. The "Ranger/survival school" type places, the "Dude Ranch/Cowboy U" resorts.... all fun and entertaining and educational. BUT they are being run by people with 'former' status who have found a way to earn a living off of those skills once they are too old, injured or what ever to keep doing it OR the skills/status are no longer the 'cutting edge' approach and they have been phased out because of progress or change.

2. ALL of the other activities that were part of a soldier/fighter/warriors daily routine that would have encouraged those 'character traits/values' were not practical and had to be embodied or symbolized in the rituals of 'martial arts practice.'

I mean realistically, the idea that 'martial arts is superior to modern soldier training' is bunk. I am pretty sure that if M16's and Artillery was available (and was in some fashion in feudal Japan during certain periods) that they would have found a way to assymilate those tools into their warrior tradition.

Native American warriors used Henry repeaters and other technologically superior weapons (relative to the Cav issue rifle) to defeat Custer without any hesitation.

Anachronisms and 'tradition' becomes more important when you are trying to preserve something more than you are trying to apply something.

I can teach my son the same values and responsibility of a martial arts class just by taking him out and teaching him to shoot, hunt, fish and play hockey....wait I do that. If it wasn't so much like joining a 'gun cult' I would even join the NRA.

When Rick gets to High School he wants to join the shooting team and you can damn sure bet that the coach in a public school that is dealing with firearms is teaching values, responsibility and measuring temperment and maturity every second (post Columbine paranoia). If that stuff isn't being emphasized, I will complain and get Rick out of that program.

The 'package' may change but the 'package' is just the expression of the philosophy, IT isn't as important as the IDEA that drives the structure if the point is 'character/value' training. Please don't read this as "Paul thinks trad arts aren't practical or real world.' I am talking about what the driving goal, the primary purpose of the program is not the quality, or lack, of the art form.

Some folks just decide that they want to focus on application training/self defense. That doesn't mean training without values or moral decision making, it just means that the primary goal is application... the other stuff all serves the purpose of making that primary goal possible to attain.

[OC Kid]

Not to be rude but if you are going to comment on these boards you may want to do everyone a favor and have the courtesy to read what they have written on the thread before you reply……in doing so you may come to the painfully obvious conclusion that most of the folks that have replied before you most likely already know what you are posting.

Also if you look in the dictionary you will see martial= military and not necessarily “war”. You also mentioned Bushido…….could you tell us you thoughts on Inazo Nitobe’s book on Bushido?

Here is an interesting link to it http://www.sacred-texts.com/shi/bsd/

So Oh master thank you from coming down from the mountain and enlightening me. So "martial" has nothing to do with war. So the greek God of war ,Mars from whom we get the word martial has nothing with war. So the work "Bushi" doesnt mean "warrior" and "do" doent mean way. So the combination "Bushi-do" doesnt mean warrior way or way of the warrior.

please enlighten me oh master. I guess my 20 plus years of training were for naught. Now that your here I can get trained in a real art. Where do I begin. tell where the waterfall is I can meditate day and night and bask in your knowledge....

heres a link grasshopper
http://mcel.pacificu.edu/as/students/bushido/bindex.html

ill find more if you like

someone kick your dog this morning or something

[BlackCatBonz]

#1. i think its funny when people suggest that all of the etiquette "stuff" that goes along with the traditional martial arts is not combat applicable......i think there is something to be said for discipline...heck even lil organizations like the army and marines and navy have it.
as for pure self defense.......ask yourself what that means to you.
does it mean you will do whatever it takes to make it out of a situation alive? it does for me.....laws be damned. that doesnt mean im running around fighting with everyone that looks at me sideways......but, if i have to defend my family, i will go to any lengths neccasary for their protection.
in short, as far as my martial training is concerned, its all combat applicable

shawn

[RRouuselot]

Martial:

adj 1: (of persons) befitting a warrior; "a military bearing" [syn: soldierly (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=soldierly), soldierlike (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=soldierlike), warriorlike (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=warriorlike)] 2: suggesting war or military life [syn: warlike (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=warlike)] 3: of or relating to the armed forces; "martial law" [syn: martial(a) (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=martial%28a%29)]



I would be more than happy to enlighten you.....…..



Martial would seem to be an adjective and war seems to be a noun.



war = n.



A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
The period of such conflict.





Here is what I wrote…..



Also if you look in the dictionary you will see martial= military and not necessarily “war”. You also mentioned Bushido…….could you tell us you thoughts on Inazo Nitobe’s book on Bushido?



---------------------------------------------------------



Here is what you assumed I meant…….



So Oh master thank you from coming down from the mountain and enlightening me. So 1)"martial" has nothing to do with war. So the greek God of war ,Mars from whom we get the word martial has nothing with war. 2)So the work "Bushi" doesnt mean "warrior" and "do" doent mean way. So the combination "Bushi-do" doesnt mean warrior way or way of the warrior.





3)please enlighten me oh master. 4)I guess my 20 plus years of training were for naught. Now that your here I can get trained in a real art. Where do I begin. 5)tell where the waterfall is I can meditate day and night and bask in your knowledge....



--------------------------------------------------







1) I never said it "had nothing to do with war".....



2) I think you mean "word" and not "work"....right??? Either way I asked for an opinion on a book and not a definition.



3) Gladly

4) I guess so.

5) Sure, go to any public MEN's room......someone will eventually come along and deliver the waterfall you seek.:roflmao:

Like I said before....you may want to actually read a post/thread before responding to it.

The “pearls of wisdom” you have tried imparting to us in your first post, although inaccurate by your definition, are tertiary and quite common knowledge to most of the folks here and seem redundant at best.




Now if you would care to discuss the meaning of those words in Japanese I would be more than happy to "enlighten" you again...........

[RRouuselot]

heres a link grasshopper
http://mcel.pacificu.edu/as/students/bushido/bindex.html

I see that link is sponsored by Mastushita/Panasonic.......I actually used to teach at their "think tank" called Matsushita Seikei Juku several years ago.
Ever heard of it?????


Here i s a link:

http://www.mskj.or.jp/english/message_02.html

http://www.mskj.or.jp/english/images/spacer.gifhttp://www.mskj.or.jp/english/images/spacer.gifThe Matsushita Institute of Government and Management (Sei-Kei Juku) was established in 1979 by Konosuke Matsushita, the founder of Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. for the purpose of developing and promoting leadership for the coming 21st century. Discouraged and constrained by conventional models and means of political reform, Mr. Matsushita conceived the MIGM to combat the vanity and mediocrity of 20th century leadership through a long-term strategy, which entailed an avant-garde approach to education, designed to foster a more profound change for Japan and her relationship to the world. The graduate level study is a three-year graduate-level program, bridging academic enrichment with practical work experiences. The Sei-Kei Juku creates a unique learning universe by granting its students autonomy and authority in developing the thematic fortes of their curriculum. The exploration of issues and challenges is a holistic pursuit, inclusive of diversified physical and field experiences. The essence of MIGM is a Jeffersonian extension of citizenship education, preparing a new breed of leaders for public service.

[OC Kid]

Wow Oh one with the mountain who resides under the golden waterfall...Your link had nothing to do with the definition of Bushido as given by the link I posted.
To answer your questions. No I havent read the book. However I have heard of Matsushita/Panasonic.
Martial:

"adj 1: (of persons) befitting a warrior; "a military bearing" [syn: soldierly (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=soldierly), soldierlike (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=soldierlike), warriorlike (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=warriorlike)] 2: suggesting war or military life [syn: warlike (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=warlike)] 3: of or relating to the armed forces; "martial law" [syn: martial(a) (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=martial%28a%29)] "
Hmm sounds like what I was talking about????

[RRouuselot]

Wow Oh one with the mountain who resides under the golden waterfall...1)Your link had nothing to do with the definition of Bushido as given by the link I posted.
To answer your questions. No I havent read the book. However I have heard of Matsushita/Panasonic.
Martial:

"adj 1: (of persons) befitting a warrior; "a military bearing" [syn: soldierly (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=soldierly), soldierlike (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=soldierlike), warriorlike (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=warriorlike)] 2: suggesting war or military life [syn: warlike (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=warlike)] 3: of or relating to the armed forces; "martial law" [syn: martial(a) (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=martial%28a%29)] "
2) Hmm sounds like what I was talking about???? 1) Duuuuuh.....I never said it did. It was a link to the book I mentioned. However, in that book is a long description of the term "Bushido"......you may want to read the book. Then read some of what people have commented about the book.
The other link for matsushita was for the people that sponsored the online university you supplied. Never said that was a link for the definition of Bushido either.
Shall we discuss the meaning of "Bushido" as it is defined in the Japanese Language? I mean after all that is where the word comes from.....I would be more than happy to.......just let me know when you feel up to it.

2) No, Actually it sounds like what I was talking about.........oh wait a minute.....I posted that.......

[Drag'n]

The fighting abilities I've gained from my training are valuable.If I ever have to defend myself on the street I'm more than confident in my abilities.
But the self dicipline and sense of integrity I've gained from studdying Budo is invaluable.
I may never have to use my fighting skills to survive, but they are there if I ever need them.
My commitment to "the way" however , serves me every day in every aspect of my life.I would not be where I am today had I never been a martial artist.
To me, being a martial artist is a constant strive for self perfection.Not just in physical techniques. A true warrior lives with courtesy , self discipline, respect and integrity. Without these qualities he is nothing but a thug, and a danger to himself and others.THAT is why most traditional martial arts have a stong ethical and moral foundation. If you think it is some kind of marketing plee then I pity you.
Many students may already have a sense of morality, but do they listen to it?
To live as a true martial artist requires great discipline.There are so many opportunities to take the easy way out, both in training and in everyday life.
The social institutions in place to teach moral ethics have largely failed.
I beleive training in true Budo is the most efective method of body mind spirit and moral development ever devised. Fighting techniques are just the tip of the iceburg.
Quote:
"Everything you do in daily life is a facet of the training towards fulfilment in the Way- the Karate Way.
Subjecting oneself to the demands of training is more aimed at victory over the self and the forging of an unshakable spirit than at developing mere phisical strength."

Mas Oyama - founder of Kyokushin Karate.

[RHD]

My commitment to "the way" however , serves me every day in every aspect of my life.I would not be where I am today had I never been a martial artist.
To me, being a martial artist is a constant strive for self perfection.Not just in physical techniques. A true warrior lives with courtesy , self discipline, respect and integrity.


But cannot a person have these qualities and not be a warrior? What separates the warrior from another person are their fighting skills. How you choose to put those skills to work is up to you. It's funny how romanticized martial arts have become. Samurais drank, gambled, and hung out in brothels. European Knights were often as much bandits and ruffians as they were noble warriors. Yet, both of these groups have been romanticized by movies and books to be the pinacle of chivalry and living by a code of ethics.

Mike

[Tgace]

I wouldnt say "What separates the warrior from another person are their fighting skills." I would say what separates a warrior from another person is the fact that he fights. Who is more the "warrior", a master martial artist who hasnt seen a fight outside the dojo, or some 19 yo private in Iraq who only has had basic training but is risking his life in firefights weekly? Its less about "skill" as it is about service and commitment.

[RHD]

I wouldnt say "What separates the warrior from another person are their fighting skills." I would say what separates a warrior from another person is the fact that he fights. Who is more the "warrior", a master martial artist who hasnt seen a fight outside the dojo, or some 19 yo private in Iraq who only has had basic training but is risking his life in firefights weekly? Its less about "skill" as it is about service and commitment.

Damn good point! But of course we wouldn't want anyone's fantasy about being warrior to be shattered, would we?

Mike

[Tgace]

Damn good point! But of course we wouldn't want anyone's fantasy about being warrior to be shattered, would we?

Mike
Roll your 20 sided die to hit....the fight is on! ;)

[Bob Hubbard]

I wouldnt say "What separates the warrior from another person are their fighting skills." I would say what separates a warrior from another person is the fact that he fights. Who is more the "warrior", a master martial artist who hasnt seen a fight outside the dojo, or some 19 yo private in Iraq who only has had basic training but is risking his life in firefights weekly? Its less about "skill" as it is about service and commitment.
I have a friend on his way to Iraq right now. One of the reasons why he joined was that his goal is to be a martial arts instructor as a career. He asked me, "How can I teach if I don't actually know if it works?"

Martial Defined
Martial \Mar"tial\, a. [F., fr. L. martialis of or belonging to
Mars, the god of war. Cf. March the month.]
1. Of, pertaining to, or suited for, war; military; as,
martial music; a martial appearance. ``Martial equipage.''
--Milton.

2. Practiced in, or inclined to, war; warlike; brave.

But peaceful kings, o'er martial people set, Each
other's poise and counterbalance are. --Dryden.

3. Belonging to war, or to an army and navy; -- opposed to
civil; as, martial law; a court-martial.

4. Pertaining to, or resembling, the god, or the planet,
Mars. --Sir T. Browne.

5. (Old Chem. & Old Med.) Pertaining to, or containing, iron;
chalybeate; as, martial preparations. [Archaic]

====

So a "Martial Art" would be an art done in a military way.

Def: martial art n : any of several arts of weaponless or weapon based self-defense;


So, yes it must be combat / self defense oriented.


There is also
Martial Sport, which is stuff like sport karate and other tournaments styles;
Martial Science, which is the scientific study of that which is martial;

For example, Tai Chi which in the US is mostly little more than stretching has it's roots in a highly effective combat system that traces its roots back centuries. Even in the watered down version we see seniors moving to in parks there is a trace of the original. Having taken some Tai Chi, and then watched an experienced practitioner demonstrate applications, I could see it.

Martial arts may teach poise, balance, self discipline, and a higher awareness but that is all a positive 'extra' over its main mission - teaching one how to defend and attack. Higher levels of study may explore the personal realizations more, and help you gain a 'bigger view of the big picture', but most arts simply don't get 'that sophisticated.

[loki09789]

I have a friend on his way to Iraq right now. One of the reasons why he joined was that his goal is to be a martial arts instructor as a career. He asked me, "How can I teach if I don't actually know if it works?"

.
Obviously having served I have a healthy respect for the commitment aspect of your friends choice to serve.

I do disagree with the "how do I know if it will work logic" though because in actuallity (because the "it" that he/she will be applying will NOT be the same "it" that they will use in a martial arts career or self defense situation)

the more important question that will be answered is "how do I know if I will make it work?"

or

"How do I deal with myself when I am faced with my own inadequacies under stress?"

I really hope that everything goes well and that you get a chance to talk out the war stories after the fact in any case.

[Tgace]

I have a friend on his way to Iraq right now. One of the reasons why he joined was that his goal is to be a martial arts instructor as a career. He asked me, "How can I teach if I don't actually know if it works?"
I can empathize with that point. Part of the reason for my stint in green too.

Ultimately he probably got more experience shooting, driving, working radios, figuring out which MRE's taste best and doing KP duty than he did/will seeing if his MA skills work in the combat zone. 99% of the whole military/LEO "thing" is just putting your #$% out there. The rest is the skills, toys and "adventure"....

[Tgace]

Not fair Paul, you beat me too it. Just in a different way.

[loki09789]

I can empathize with that point. Part of the reason for my stint in green too.

Ultimately he probably got more experience shooting, driving, working radios, figuring out which MRE's taste best and doing KP duty than he did/will seeing if his MA skills work in the combat zone. 99% of the whole military/LEO "thing" is just putting your #$% out there. The rest is the skills, toys and "adventure"....This from the guy who got to ride helicopters and play PlaySTation more than any ten of us because he was with the PSD team and was the PSO (read stood next to the 1 Star General and ate, rode and traveled as comfortably as that guy got too).... I don't sound bitter about that do I :)....

Seriously though, even among 'those who were/are there' there are 'warriors' and there are 'guys/girls who are doing their time.' Committment, dedication, professionalism,... even in the service there are those who take them seriously and those who are just marking time. A cook could be a more 'warrior-like' soldier/sailor/Marine than an infantryman who doesn't have the same drive for personal excellence or dedication to duty.

In the end though the willingness to apply what you know for the service of others is a huge part of 'being a warrior.' Training in a vacuum of hobby and enthusiast interest is fine for individual development, but doesn't make you a 'warrior' IMO.

[Tgace]

This from the guy who got to ride helicopters and play PlaySTation more than any ten of us because he was with the PSD team and was the PSO (read stood next to the 1 Star General and ate, rode and traveled as comfortably as that guy got too).... I don't sound bitter about that do I :)....
What can I say, some are high speed, elite, warrior-class bodyguards. Others can ony drive around in HMMWV's.... ;)


Seriously though, even among 'those who were/are there' there are 'warriors' and there are 'guys/girls who are doing their time.' Committment, dedication, professionalism,... even in the service there are those who take them seriously and those who are just marking time. A cook could be a more 'warrior-like' soldier/sailor/Marine than an infantryman who doesn't have the same drive for personal excellence or dedication to duty.
Very good point. 50% "being there" 50% "work ethic".....

[loki09789]

What can I say, some are high speed, elite, warrior-class bodyguards. Others can ony drive around in HMMWV's.... ;)



Don't even go there, you're just taller than me and they saw your raised hand when they asked for volunteers in formation... my hand didn't clear Tweety's shoulder...

Why does it have to be "High Speed" what is that a "Tall joke" are you poking a LITTLE fun at the short guy... I get it now. "Low Profile" isn't good for Body Guard, but I did have a lot more leg room on those horrible cots...:).

Don't worry, I will only see this as a SMALL offense at my expense....:)

[Tgace]

Sorry for that LITTLE bit of thread drift there folks.

[loki09789]

Sorry for that LITTLE bit of thread drift there folks.
It was only a SHORT tangent....

Tom will be good a STRETCHING it back to the topic...

[loki09789]

Tom, check your PM's

Seriously now. I'll get back on the topic. Feeling a little 'caffinated' at the moment.

[RRouuselot]

The fighting abilities I've gained from my training are valuable.If I ever have to defend myself on the street I'm more than confident in my abilities.
But the self dicipline and sense of integrity I've gained from studdying Budo is invaluable.
I may never have to use my fighting skills to survive, but they are there if I ever need them.
My commitment to "the way" however , serves me every day in every aspect of my life.I would not be where I am today had I never been a martial artist.
To me, being a martial artist is a constant strive for self perfection.Not just in physical techniques. A true warrior lives with courtesy , self discipline, respect and integrity. Without these qualities he is nothing but a thug, and a danger to himself and others.THAT is why most traditional martial arts have a stong ethical and moral foundation. If you think it is some kind of marketing plee then I pity you.
Many students may already have a sense of morality, but do they listen to it?
To live as a true martial artist requires great discipline.There are so many opportunities to take the easy way out, both in training and in everyday life.
The social institutions in place to teach moral ethics have largely failed.
I beleive training in true Budo is the most efective method of body mind spirit and moral development ever devised. Fighting techniques are just the tip of the iceburg.
Quote:
"Everything you do in daily life is a facet of the training towards fulfilment in the Way- the Karate Way.
Subjecting oneself to the demands of training is more aimed at victory over the self and the forging of an unshakable spirit than at developing mere phisical strength."

Mas Oyama - founder of Kyokushin Karate.

Excellent post.:cheers: