Can Someone Be A Good Martial Artist Without Being A Good Fighter?

[MardiGras Bandit]

I started thinking about this because of Jet Li. I always considered him a good martial artist, but he admits to knowing very little about fighting. This raises the question; can someone be a good martial artist and not know how to fight?

I don't think they can. Martial arts are about fighting. Philosophy, meditation, and things of that nature are not combative. They have value in their own right, but I don't see them as part of martial arts (outside of confidence building and developing mindset). Values like humility or respect have nothing to do with the martial arts. They make someone a good person, but there are plenty of good people who can't fight and plenty of bad people who can. All that matters is skill. Character may make the man, but it is skill that makes the martial artist.

How many people agree with me? On the true martial artist thread the general opinion seemed more or less the opposite of my view. Am I right, or is there more to it then skill alone?

[Flying Crane]

You have some valid points that I can find some agreement with.

With regards to Jet Li: he studied modern wushu with the Beijing Wushu Team. While the Beijing team is the best in the world, Modern Wushu is recognized as a performance and competition art based in the traditional Chinese Fighting Arts, but no longer a fighting art itself. I recall reading that individuals like Jet Li and some others have been questioning Modern Wushu's deviation from the fighting aspects of the art. They felt that it is important to re-connect to the traditional roots of Modern Wushu so that the art is understood on this level, and can once again be a useful fighting art. If I remember correctly, some of these people are working to reclaim these skills that have been lost to Modern Wushu.

[rutherford]

My opinion is that skill can only take you so far. There will be a limit to your skill both as a theoretical that you will probably never attain as well as a current optimal, at which you most likely don't regularly perform.

Being a Martial Artist, or a Fighter, encompasses much more than just this simple level of skill and can help you perform past your skill level in times of trial.

Finally, I don't believe Jet Li, or at least your representation of his comments. As often as he trains and has to deal with partners performing outside of the expected, I have to believe that he knows a great deal about fighting. I'm sure that if attacked suddenly, he would respond appropriately.

But Fighting as a profession or as something he has experiential knowlege about? Well, there he might have a point, and also little desire to gain this knowledge.

[MardiGras Bandit]

Thats what made me start this. I have seen Jet Li (and Jackie Chan, ect.) do incredible things that require enormous athletic talent. But Jet Li considers himself a performer and Jackie Chan considers himself a stuntman. They admit what they do isn't fighting (to be fair, they are talking about their movies).

My point is that if martial arts skills can be based of things like that then olympic gymnasts can be considered good martial artists. You have to draw a line somewhere and say this is what martial arts is, this is what performance is. The skills required to do either well are impressive but they are two entirely seperate things.

[Flying Crane]

Thats what made me start this. I have seen Jet Li (and Jackie Chan, ect.) do incredible things that require enormous athletic talent. But Jet Li considers himself a performer and Jackie Chan considers himself a stuntman. They admit what they do isn't fighting (to be fair, they are talking about their movies).

My point is that if martial arts skills can be based of things like that then olympic gymnasts can be considered good martial artists. You have to draw a line somewhere and say this is what martial arts is, this is what performance is. The skills required to do either well are impressive but they are two entirely seperate things.

Again, I agree

I also believe that Jackie can fight. I've read interviews with him where he talks about it. He told stories about the street fights he would get into when he was a kid studying with the Beijing Opera.

Another example: Years ago he made a movie in which Benny Urquidez had a small part as a villian. Jackie commented that Benny was quite good, and he was not entirely sure he could have beat Benny if the two of them actually had a fight. I'd say that's indicative of a pretty high confidence level, if he thinks he could give Benny Urquidez a good run for the money.

[OnlyAnEgg]

Honestly? I believe one can be a good martial artist without being a good fighter. I don't think it's very frequent that this combination can occur; but, I think it's possible.

Martial art can and does include strategy and theory, as well as the practical application of fighting. I know of several people that have advanced their chosen skills to a high level without actually practicing them. My biology professor in college, for example, hated being a biologist; but, he has excelled as a teacher. I know several people with MDs that wouldn't go near a patient; but, are fine instructors.

The upshot, to me, is 'Martial' means 'Of, relating to, or suggestive of war. Relating to or connected with the armed forces or the profession of arms. Characteristic of or befitting a warrior. '

Fighting is, simply, the most pronounced and notable aspect.

[Danny T]

I started thinking about this because of Jet Li. I always considered him a good martial artist, but he admits to knowing very little about fighting. This raises the question; can someone be a good martial artist and not know how to fight?

I don't think they can. Martial arts are about fighting. Philosophy, meditation, and things of that nature are not combative. They have value in their own right, but I don't see them as part of martial arts (outside of confidence building and developing mindset). Values like humility or respect have nothing to do with the martial arts. They make someone a good person, but there are plenty of good people who can't fight and plenty of bad people who can. All that matters is skill. Character may make the man, but it is skill that makes the martial artist.

How many people agree with me? On the true martial artist thread the general opinion seemed more or less the opposite of my view. Am I right, or is there more to it then skill alone?

First you need to define "martial artist".

Martial is defined as; pertaining to, connected with, or suggestive of war or military operations. Warlike, characteristic of a warlike person.

Artist is defined as; one who is skilled in, or makes a profession of any of the fine arts. Any professional public performer, an actor, singer, etc. One who does anything particularly well, as with a feeling for form, effect, etc.

Using these definitions Martial Artist would be one who is skilled or makes a profession performing with good feel for form in warlike moves or suggestive war or military operations.

If one need only be good at performing warlike moves then one need not be a good fighter to be a good martial artist.

There are major distinctions between artist and fighter in my opinion.


Danny T

[Flying Crane]

I think it is easy to get wrapped up in definitions and semantics, but I think that diverts away from the original question.

The martial arts were originally developed for fighting and even killing. Some of them were used by the military on the battlefield, and needed to be effective in the extreme.

Others were used by citizens. They were developed during a period in human history when the average citizen had little chance of getting aid from police or other intervening authorities if attacked by bandits and ruffians. People were much more on their own, and had to take care of themselves, and had much less effective support networks to help if they were attacked. Being attacked may well have meant that they would be killed on the spot, or they would die later of their injuries. So the Arts were developed as a way to defend against these attacks, and they were meant to maime and kill. Period.

All the other stuff, the character building, fitness, meditation, focus, self-discipline, etc., is a side-benefit. And that is all it ever was until recently. It was never the main point of training until we entered an age in which the average citizens had much less liklihood to need to defend themselves. Our police force is much more effective, it is easier to get aid if accosted, our support networks are more extensive, our laws are stricter against fighting and violence in general. In our modern society, in general, the average person has a much much reduced chance of ever needing to use martial skills to defend their life. It is during this time that the focus of training changed to more greatly emphasize what were once only side-benefits.

So I think the question is aimed at this change. Overall, practice of the MA in society has moved away from the development of true fighting skills (I know, there are of course exceptions, probably everyone here on Martial Talk would feel that they are an example of the exception and that is fine, but I think the generalization still holds true). Many people THINK they are developing fighting skills, but they really are not. At the least, these fighting skill remain untested because of our modern society and the reduced need to use them for real.

The question, as I understand it: Without the ability to fight, are we really Martial Artists, in the truest sense, or are we just Movement Artists, who may have some questionable fighting skills?

[beau_safken]

I good example of being a wonderful martial artist without fighting would be practitioners of Kyudo (Way of the Bow). Kyudo is completly out of touch with the reality of fighting in a modern sense, but it is still one of the most elegant and profusely wonderful arts in this world. It is literally poetry in motion. The masters of the art have great mastery over their whole bodies to get the perfect shot. The sound of the string at the release shows of the power in the body and the nature of the whole body. You aren't going to find people doing a driveby with a bow and arrow...but it is literally the most elegant thing I have ever seen. The sight of a man so focused and centered on his task...The perfect shot.

[terryl965]

Yes fighting is not always being the greatest Martial Artist, being humble loyal and courteous to me is more important than fighting.
Terry

[IcemanSK]

I would say that both attitude (the mental/spiritual side) & the physical side of MA are important in calling a Martial artist.

It does beg the question that's been asked, "Can someone be an MA-ist without being a fighter?" I think of my late kickboxing trainer. He had been a great fighter then was struck down with a brain tumor that ate away all of his physical ability. Yet he taught daily until a week before his death. Many other honored instructors continue to teach when their physical capacity to fight has long past them.

I also know of very good instructors that have never had the physical gifts that their students possess. And they turn out great fighters, too. They teach both aspects without having physical gifts.

I also know some folks that are terribly talented fighters & could care less about how they treat people or how they act in society. They have the gifts...but not the .....graces, I guess one could say.

I wouldn't dare say what percentage of each part one needs, but I will say both are important to be an MA-ist.

[Carol]

What is being a good fighter?

Is using one's skills to stop an altercation before it becomes violent being a good fighter?

[Jonathan Randall]

What is being a good fighter?

Is using one's skills to stop an altercation before it becomes violent being a good fighter?

Touche!

Yes, I do believe so, and no, you don't have to be a good fighter to be a great Martial Artist. Did greats such as Oyama, Presas, Kano, etc. stop being great martial artists on their deathbeads because the could no longer toss students around like confetti? I don't think so.

[MJS]

I started thinking about this because of Jet Li. I always considered him a good martial artist, but he admits to knowing very little about fighting. This raises the question; can someone be a good martial artist and not know how to fight?

I don't think they can. Martial arts are about fighting. Philosophy, meditation, and things of that nature are not combative. They have value in their own right, but I don't see them as part of martial arts (outside of confidence building and developing mindset). Values like humility or respect have nothing to do with the martial arts. They make someone a good person, but there are plenty of good people who can't fight and plenty of bad people who can. All that matters is skill. Character may make the man, but it is skill that makes the martial artist.

How many people agree with me? On the true martial artist thread the general opinion seemed more or less the opposite of my view. Am I right, or is there more to it then skill alone?

Good thread!

I'd have to say that its a fine line. You could have one person, who studies the arts for SD purposes. You'd think that if that was their goal, that they would want to be as well rounded as they could be, so if that was the case, I'd say that they should be a good fighter.

Then you have people who are in the arts for the other things that they have to offer, such as the spiritual side, a side activity, etc. They are training in a combat art, but that is not their sole focus.

And then there are people who are good in one area, but poor in another. For example, you could have someone who picks up material quick, is able to apply it, but can't teach it to someone else.

I would have to say that its going to depend on their goals.

Mike

[bushidomartialarts]

absolutely.

to me, martial arts is about personal evolution. we choose to evolve through the study of combat techniques, but anybody who sees the fighting as the real goal is missing some important points.

since it's really not about fighting, yes somebody can be a good martial artist without being a good fighter.

[still learning]

Hello, Another point of view...?

Good martials artist means he knows how to fight....but what is your thoughts of a good fighter? Age, injuries, will slow you down..yet these people are good martial artist. Ever heard of the " Peter Princple" the curve...in the beginning learning...than peak(at the top) as time goes on..you decline in life.

Everyone will go thru these stages in there life....a martial artist is the same...at one point..just learning ... then,your fighting skills are fast and strong...but age...takes alot away. But that person is still a Martial Artist, and may not be consider a good fighter(as strong and fast) as he was in the younger days.

A martial artist is measure in many ways...being a good fighter does not always mean a good martial artist.

Usually when we say a Good martial artist...means someone who is HUMBLE..A good person that trains hard, skillful, great technician,and is fast. (even for his age)....beating up a person..does not make you a martial artist.....

What is consider a "good fighter"? ..how do you measure that? ...Is it one who always wins? ...or sometimes? ...or just knows how?

Just my thoughts here ...........Aloha

[MartialIntent]

While I certainly respect the opinions given, I personally find some of the replies a little pretentious and bookish in suggesting fighting is *not* the keystone to the building of a good martial artist.

I find it hard to believe there are so many here who feel if they gave up fighting in their art, that they could still become great martial artists. If that were the case, why do we all practise fighting techniques at all? Why are we expending time and effort doing that? Do we train to fight purely for its own sake? I recall saying this somewhere else recently but surely when we dispense with the fighting we take the martial out of the art?

I truly fail to see how a anyone can develop good or great martial artistry without being a good fighter themselves. And no, I'm not specifically talking MA purely as in TMA. If we want to start dealing with the wider dictionary definitions then think of how few of the truly great military leaders from Temuchin to Ike have not had military fighting] experience themselves.

imHo, it comes down to this - fighting is nowadays seen as an unquestionably bad thing in society at large. And the fact that we engage in fighting as part of our interests and studies as martial artists gives momentum to the implication that we're nothing more than barbarians ourselves. Consequently, this has lead us to become increasingly apologetic over our love of MA and has gotten us forever stuck in these vicious circles of arguing amongst ourselves and eternally citing platitudes such as "we don't really need to fight" and "we can be great martial artists without fighting".

Ultimately, to each of you who holds views to the contrary, I'd ask of you, would you *really* be happy developing the non-martial aspects of your art to the exclusion of the "supposedly" unimportant fighting aspect? Would you believe of yourselves that without training to be good fighters that you can still become truly the best martial artists you can be? And if that's genuinely the case would you be prepared to walk that walk and waive your fighting training altogether?

Respects!

[Kacey]

I read this thread when it was first posted, and waited to read some other responses before I posted myself because this is a perpetual argument. I have my own opinion, but before I post it, I have a few questions:

- what is a martial art?
- what is a martial artist?
- what is a 'good fighter'?
- how do you compare a 'good fighter' from one art with a 'good fighter' from another?
- what is 'self defense'?
- how does self defense relate to fighting?
- is someone who was a 'good fighter' but no longer is, due to age, illness, or injury, still a martial artist?

[TigerWoman]

- what is a martial art?
It is the way you live your life-- training in skills, techniques of the art and holding to the values of life that makes it possible to use those skills if necessary against danger or war.


- what is a martial artist?
One who keeps to the way to the best of their ability. And that includes the ability to know when to walk away and not fight or to inflict force or injury as required.


- what is a 'good fighter'?
One who can apply his/her knowledge/ability to either defend or attack.


- how do you compare a 'good fighter' from one art with a 'good fighter' from another?
Each art has their strengths and weaknesses. If a TKDoin can apply his/her art before a grappler can make a fight go to the ground, he/she would be a good fighter.


- what is 'self defense'?
Using whatever means quickly to walk away. This is not a fight for fighting's sake to pound someone or to demonstrate technique or which "way" is better.


- how does self defense relate to fighting?
See above answer.


- is someone who was a 'good fighter' but no longer is, due to age, illness, or injury, still a martial artist?
Someone who was a good fighter but is hindered by age, illness, or injury goes back to the first question. He/she is still studying or retains at least some of the skills, can still apply what is left. Even if all that is left in old age is being able to teach.

You would never know when you get that poke in the eye. What is that saying, youth & skill vs age & treachery. Who would be the better fighter? Or is it better not to be just a fighter but keep to the "way"? I would rather be known as a good martial artist by my description than just a fighter.TW

[MardiGras Bandit]

Wow, good answer TigerWoman! I think you spelled it out perfectly. I give a little more leeway to someone who I was a good martial artist but had to stop because of age or injury then to someone I don't consider a good MA in the first place. Like you said, even these people can be great teachers.



I good example of being a wonderful martial artist without fighting would be practitioners of Kyudo (Way of the Bow)...

While something like this is impressive, I don't think it counts as a martial art. If anything, I'd group it with hunting skills. My dad is a good hunter, and though that requires its own important abilities I don't consider him a martial artist because of it.

Yes fighting is not always being the greatest Martial Artist, being humble loyal and courteous to me is more important than fighting.
Terry


Is using one's skills to stop an altercation before it becomes violent being a good fighter?
I can't agree. Outstanding character traits make someone a good person, but they have no relation to martial skills. Similarly, using non combat means to avoid a fight has nothing to do with martial arts, it is conflict resolution. Both these things might be important overall, but that doesn't make them important to martial art skills.

I see martial arts as a set of techiniques and concepts designed to protect oneself and to defeat ones opponents in a fight.

[Robert Lee]

There is a saying fighters fight teachers teach. You will find in the M/A many a instructor is not that great at fighting. Sure the can hold there own BUt they can better instruct another person To become a better M/A It would be great if every M/A was truely a great or good fighter. But they all can not be that I have saw instructors that looked somewhat poorly in there demonstration of and performance. But when you look at there students and see some kind of quality to there training You relize That there instructor can better relay what he has learned as a teacher then what he can do as a performer of his or her style. And many times some of the best fighters Do not have the right method to give instruction. A person to be both has to asorb what they train and make it there own To be able to fight better then be able to relay what they understand in passing it down. Which becomes the right mind set to instruct it. Or should I say help guide another person to find there own use of the chosen M/A Either way there will allways be both and they will be Martial Artists.

[beau_safken]

While something like this is impressive, I don't think it counts as a martial art. If anything, I'd group it with hunting skills. My dad is a good hunter, and though that requires its own important abilities I don't consider him a martial artist because of it.


Then by that logic, anyone that practices with traditional farming instruments like Nunchuku's, kama's and sai are just playing history rather than being a practioner of martial arts. As they have no application to normal impliments of war as it is being fought today, its just playing with farm tools. So if anything, I'd group these people with Farming skills. They might have a good practical knowledge of hucking rice but not martial arts.

Just because its not 100% practical in a martial sense, doesn't make it any less a martial art. I see where you are going with the idea, but I think I already started a thread on that idea and there was a good discussion about it.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32340

[Flying Crane]

While I certainly respect the opinions given, I personally find some of the replies a little pretentious and bookish in suggesting fighting is *not* the keystone to the building of a good martial artist.

I find it hard to believe there are so many here who feel if they gave up fighting in their art, that they could still become great martial artists. If that were the case, why do we all practise fighting techniques at all? Why are we expending time and effort doing that? Do we train to fight purely for its own sake? I recall saying this somewhere else recently but surely when we dispense with the fighting we take the martial out of the art?

I truly fail to see how a anyone can develop good or great martial artistry without being a good fighter themselves. And no, I'm not specifically talking MA purely as in TMA. If we want to start dealing with the wider dictionary definitions then think of how few of the truly great military leaders from Temuchin to Ike have not had military fighting] experience themselves.

imHo, it comes down to this - fighting is nowadays seen as an unquestionably bad thing in society at large. And the fact that we engage in fighting as part of our interests and studies as martial artists gives momentum to the implication that we're nothing more than barbarians ourselves. Consequently, this has lead us to become increasingly apologetic over our love of MA and has gotten us forever stuck in these vicious circles of arguing amongst ourselves and eternally citing platitudes such as "we don't really need to fight" and "we can be great martial artists without fighting".

Ultimately, to each of you who holds views to the contrary, I'd ask of you, would you *really* be happy developing the non-martial aspects of your art to the exclusion of the "supposedly" unimportant fighting aspect? Would you believe of yourselves that without training to be good fighters that you can still become truly the best martial artists you can be? And if that's genuinely the case would you be prepared to walk that walk and waive your fighting training altogether?

Respects!

Good post. I find a lot here that I can agree with.

[Gemini]

Yes.

[Adept]

Is using one's skills to stop an altercation before it becomes violent being a good fighter?

No, thats just being smart.

Personally, in the way I define it, it is not possible to be a good martial artist without being competent in a real life physical altercation.

[MJS]

While something like this is impressive, I don't think it counts as a martial art. If anything, I'd group it with hunting skills. My dad is a good hunter, and though that requires its own important abilities I don't consider him a martial artist because of it.

IMO, I'd say that this (the art of Kyudo) would fall into the tradition aspect of the art. Its really no different than training with a sai, kama or bo. Walking around with these items would indeed land us in jail, however, they do have their traditional roots as well as being used as defensive and offense tools in the past.



I can't agree. Outstanding character traits make someone a good person, but they have no relation to martial skills. Similarly, using non combat means to avoid a fight has nothing to do with martial arts, it is conflict resolution. Both these things might be important overall, but that doesn't make them important to martial art skills.

I disagree. A true Martial Artist is IMO, one that would be a humble person, one that possesses fighting skill, but does not necessarily walk around looking to fight. Having self control, self discipline, etc. are all traits of a MAist.

Mike

[elder999]

First off, I’m not so sure-not having read what Jet Li actually said-of what he meant. Given his Buddhist faith, it might be informed by some sort of Buddhist/pacifist sensibility. It’s hard for me to believe that he really thinks he “knows nothing about fighting,” though it’s entirely possible he’s never been in a fight.

In answer to your question, though-and there have been lots of good answers here, as well as some interesting questions raised, I’d like to point out that we’re human beings, and, as human beings, , who instinctively “know something” about fighting-though we may never rely upon that ability, or even fail to at times. I don’t particularly care for fists as weapons, but I do teach their use-in part because they are useful at times, but mostly because we’ve been making them since we were born.

Fighting, for the record, is easy-though being a good fighter might be an altogether different story, and have many different meanings-fighting is easy-and, to my view, having to resort to fighting is failure of a sort, with the exception of sporting contests and sparring-which are not [B]fighting at all, and I think that’s what Jet Li meant.

I’ve been training since 1971, when I was 11 years old-over the years, I’ve picked up a variety of Japanese martial phrases: Ikken hisatsu, or “one punch/one kill” and satsujinken/katsujinken, “the sword that gives life/the sword that takes it away.,” but the one that really stuck with me(though I may have screwed up my pronunciation along the way), since first hearing it from Oyama Shigeru, 30 years ago:

arasoi no bugo riso (sp?):”Not to fight is the reason for martial arts.”

Short answer: yes, a person can be a good martial artist and not know the first thing about fighting, or having ever fought.

[RoninPimp]

Can Someone Be A Good Martial Artist Without Being A Good Fighter?

-Absolutely not.

[Lisa]

Can Someone Be A Good Martial Artist Without Being A Good Fighter?

-Absolutely not.

Please elaborate on your post. This is, after all, a discussion forum and I am interested in hearing why you think so.

[Bob Hubbard]

My opinion?
Yes, you can be a good martial artist without being a good fighter.

There is more to martial arts than just fighting. There is strategy, tactics, problem resolution, fitness, etc. I may not be able to fight, but, if I can talk my way out of a situation, based on my training, I'd say I was.

A guy with a gun can win a fight....doesn't make him a martial artist.

I think it's the whole package, not just smooth talking, fancy moves, and a good track record in the cage or street.

[Jenna]

Some fantastic ideas already!


arasoi no bugo riso (sp?):”Not to fight is the reason for martial arts.”

This statement is bang on the money in this discussion, BUT... it begs the question, what does the good or great martial artist who cannot fight then do when the fight seeks him or her out? By taking a beating or fighting badly do they remain as great martial artists or are they in the brutal aftermath nothing more than poor martial artists for not recognising the potential need to be able to fight?

They haven't planned ahead. They have had no failsafe strategy for such a situation. And look, if they haven't gone and gotten themselves put in a hospital bed.

Fighting is a necessity in any great martial artist if for no other reason than NOT including it in one's strategy reveals a lack of preparedness for potential defensive situations.

Fighting and martial art have always been equated in my head. And I'd be surprised if you guys truly felt otherwise. Why are we so keen on separating them out?

Yr most obdt hmble svt,
Jenna

[Bob Hubbard]

IMO, a true martial artist sees combat as a last resort. Prepares for it yes, but, it's only done when all other options fail.

[Carol]

No, thats just being smart.

Personally, in the way I define it, it is not possible to be a good martial artist without being competent in a real life physical altercation.

So does a good martial artist always go for a physical confrontation?

Physical and mental skills are not seperable. A person that KNOWS that they can use their physical skills to a given level of effectiveness has a very different mental game than a person that knows they don't have much for a physical game.

Outside of mental skills, character building is not something that I would personally poo-poo. Our arts have largely Asian origins. All this stuff about being a good person...within Asian social bounds (especially in the day), being a good person and being respectful was not optional.

The values of the arts play critical roles. They show the artist that perhaps did not use their fists to get their way, or never flexed their beer muscles, that being a fighter doesn't make you a bad person. When indeed, MA means that good people may sometimes have to fight.

The second role is what happens to the mind when these values are taught. The mind learns discipline. It learns to do what is right over what is easy. Maybe that means going to training instead of being a couch potato. Maybe it means fighting through the extra pain instead of bunking off the next test. Maybe it means being situationally aware instead of blissfully igornant. And maybe it means choosing to fight a threat instsead of hoping a threat will go away.

In every person, Martial Artist or not, the body is more fragile than the mind. The body has more limitations, gets hurt, easier, ages faster, loses its effectiveness quicker. Should we use physical prowess as the primary means of gauging martial artists, then perhaps the only martial artists worth talking about are in their early 20s in peak physical condition.

Is that the case?

[Gemini]

Frankly I'm lost on the "Good Fighter" part. There's no such thing as a fighter that can't be beaten. There's no such thing as a martial artist who doesn't age and lose physical ability. Do they then become "bad" martial artists? Please. Who's standard then will we use? Define "Good". Simply put, you can't. It's a relative term. One man's ceiling...ya know?

[RoninPimp]

Please elaborate on your post. This is, after all, a discussion forum and I am interested in hearing why you think so.
-Martial arts are about fighting imo, therefore its impossible to be good at one and not the other. Just my opinion, and not one I'm willing to argue too much. Its one of those things that quickly become sematical and more about how individuals define words than hard evidence.

[Jenna]

IMO, a true martial artist sees combat as a last resort. Prepares for it yes, but, it's only done when all other options fail.
Absolutely correct. But can we claim to be good martial artists if we are powerless to act if a combat situation comes a knocking?

Personally I'd think possibly not, just because we have got such a fatal omission in our set of martial skills. This turns us into instant carrion for the predators. Without some combat skills, aren't we just strategists, theorists, thinkers? Aren't we just half the battle (odd pun intended)?

Yr most obdt hmble svt,
Jenna

[Lisa]

Frankly I'm lost on the "Good Fighter" part. There's no such thing as a fighter that can't be beaten. There's no such thing as a martial artist who doesn't age and lose physical ability. Do they ten become "bad" martial artists? Please. Who's standard then will we use? Define "Good". Simply put, you can't. It's a reletive term. One man's ceiling...ya know?

See, I so agree with your statment.

I did MMA/grappling for a few years, love every minute of it. I won some and lost some. Tapped some out and was tapped out by a few too. But because I don't consider myself a "good fighter" does that not make me a good martial artist if I truly go out and try my best and do my best?

[Kacey]

As I said when I posted questions earlier, I have my own opinion, which I had not yet posted. Yes, I think that you can be a good martial artist without being a good fighter, and without being in a fight. One of the best skills I have learned is how to avoid needing to fight/defend myself in the first place. The confidence one gains as a martial artist is often enough to cause attackers to choose another target - muggers and rapists look for easy targets, especially when attacking women - targets who will not fight back or draw attention to the confrontation. The classic example of this is, of course, from The Karate Kid:

Daniel (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001494/): Hey - you ever get into fights when you were a kid?
Miyagi (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001552/): Huh - plenty.
Daniel (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001494/): Yeah, but it wasn't like the problem I have, right?
Miyagi (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001552/): Why? Fighting fighting. Same same.
Daniel (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001494/): Yeah, but you knew karate.
Miyagi (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001552/): Someone always know more.
Daniel (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001494/): You mean there were times when you were scared to fight?
Miyagi (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001552/): Always scare. Miyagi hate fighting.
Daniel (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001494/): Yeah, but you like karate.
Miyagi (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001552/): So?
Daniel (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001494/): So, karate's fighting. You train to fight.
Miyagi (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001552/): That what you think?
Daniel (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001494/): [pondering] No.
Miyagi (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001552/): Then why train?
Daniel (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001494/): [thinks] So I won't have to fight.
Miyagi (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001552/): [laughs] Miyagi have hope for you.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087538/quotes

I dislike sparring - less than when I started, when it scared the living daylights out of me - but it is still my least favorite part of being a martial artist; I much prefer patterns and step sparring. Do I teach my students to spar? You betcha... but I am also clearly aware of the difference between sparring and fighting.

No matter how all-out a sparring match is, there are always rules that do not exist on the street - and being a good sparrer does not always equate to being a good fighter. The only way to truly find out if you are a good fighter is to get into a life-or-death fight - something I have spent my MA career avoiding. I am reasonably competent at sparring, but I am also fully aware that there is always someone stronger, faster, taller, better trained, more desparate, etc. who could attack me. In 19 years as a martial artist, I have never been involved in a fight outside the ring, and I intend to do my best to maintain that record for the rest of my life.

[Jenna]

See, I so agree with your statment.

I did MMA/grappling for a few years, love every minute of it. I won some and lost some. Tapped some out and was tapped out by a few too. But because I don't consider myself a "good fighter" does that not make me a good martial artist if I truly go out and try my best and do my best?
To Gemini and Lisa,
I think those are two extremely relevant points - these terms are all relative. They're relative to you and no-one else. If I really didn't believe I was a good fighter by my own standards then I could never convince myself that I was a good martial artist.

But that sounds way too negative for me though, I would much prefer to say that you both ARE good martial artists and it's therefore a given that you are also good fighters. "Good" must only be by your own standards. Because as Gemini quite correctly states, we win some, we lose some - that is part of combat. That doesn't preclude the idea that we're still good fighters. No-one, but no-one is unbeatable.

I think a lot is lost in this discussion to the terminology and that's unfortunate. I think in combat, whether you might in reality win or lose is not for the purposes of this question important - all that is important is that you have to have a heart to fight - that's what a fighter is to me. From reading your posts, that is not in question and thus, you are good martial artists QED :)

Yr most obdt hmble svt,
Jenna

[Andrew Green]

-Martial arts are about fighting imo, therefore its impossible to be good at one and not the other. Just my opinion, and not one I'm willing to argue too much. Its one of those things that quickly become sematical and more about how individuals define words than hard evidence.

Not always. The way you approach it is, the way I approach it is. But that way is not for everyone. The XMA guys are incredible at what they do. I sure can't do it, probably never would be able to. And they are martial artists, and very good ones. Same as a lot of Wushu people, very good at what they do, and what they do is Martial arts.

Doesn't neccessarily mean they can fight though, and that is ok, unless they start claiming a 720 spin kick is practical self-defence, or would take out a boxer before he knew what hit him.

Martial Arts IMO, can be about anything, as long as there is honesty to yourself about what it is you are doing.

[bluemtn]

There are good fighters out there- boxers, wrestlers, regular martial artists, etc. Even average joe on the street can be a good fighter. Martial arts, on the other hand, isn't all about fighting. You learn to defend yourself (basically escapes and such), then you have sparring- which isn't always seen as "streetwise" for certain circles. It depends on how well you carry yourself, how you handle each situation and get out of it that makes a good martial artist. It all comes down to you as a person. So yes, I think you can be a good martial artist and not a good fighter.

[MardiGras Bandit]

My general principle is this: Avoiding fighting has nothing to do with martial arts, nor does philosophy or anything else that has no actual value in a fight. These are somthing entirely different, although they are quite often taught along with martial arts. I define martial arts as the system, not the associated philosophies. Most people don't want to fight and most people haven't been in one. This fact doesn't make them good martial artists. The only thing that makes someone a good martial artist and a good fighter are skills that can be applied in a fight to protect oneself and defeat ones opponents.

Take this example: There are two martial artists. The first is humble, doesn't pick fights, and is reasonably skilled. The second is arrogant, mean, and fights whenever he can. He is also far more skilled then the first guy. Who is the better martial artist?

I say the second. He might be much worse of a person, but martial arts isn't about personality, it's about fighting. He is the better fighter, and that makes him the better the martial artist.

There are people who can do incredible feats of athleticism who are often considered martial artists. The guys who do Wu Shu can do incredible things, things I can't come close to doing. But Wu Shu is no more a martial art then theatrical sword fighting (before everyone jumps on my back, I'm talking about the non-combat performance part of the art). Jet Li (I'll try to find his quote, I think it was from a DVD interview) is one of these people; he is commonly considered a great martial artist, but he admits he can't fight. They may be great athletes, but if theatrics is all they do then they are not good martial artists.

[Kacey]

I ran across this in the novel I'm reading, and I thought I would quote it here, as it seems relevant to my opinion on this issue:

"Art of warrior is to know when to fight," she said quietly. "And whom... are you a warrior, or just a fighter?" Dark Nadir, Lisanne Norman

In my opinion, a good martial artist is a warrior - not a fighter - under the distinction made in this quote. Should a martial artist know how to fight? If it is appropriate to the art he or she practices, then yes. Does a person need to be a good fighter to be a martial artist? Not in my opinion.

[MardiGras Bandit]

How can a person be a warrior if they can't fight? I can know when a fight would be approporiate, but if I lack the skills to act on that knowledge then I'm not a good martial artist.

I'm not saying these things are not important, just that they are not important to martial arts. Having good common sense or street smarts might keep someone safe, but it doesn't make them a martial artist. Likewise, a person could be a good martial artist, but lack the common sense to keep themselves out of trouble. The two skills are independent of the other.

[elder999]

A martial art might be, as some have defined it here, any skill that gives you an advantage in a martial (i.e. conflict) situation.

That might include conflict resolution skills, general fitness and health, and, yes, although some don't like to admit it - firearms skills definitely come under the strict definition of "martial" "arts".

The martial artists of old - from Japan and China to Europe and ancient Greece, emphasized this in their training. The Western notion of the Renaissance Man is similar to the personal philosophy of the samurai - true warriors were supposed to be as knowledgeable about horses, siege warfare, politics, theology, poetry and calligraphy as they were with a sword. I’d find the Musashi quote from Go Rin No Sho, but it doesn’t seem worth it here:some on one side are going to believe what they want, and others what they know to be true….

To me, though, if you only study the physical drills of the martial arts, you will never be anything more than a good fighter. If you practice /study the code of the warrior and all aspects (moral, spiritual and ethical) of martial discipline, you will be a martial artist.

I think it comes down to this: one term is very open to interpretation (martial artist) while the other (fighter) is relatively cut and dry. if you say that someone is a good fighter, there is generally going to be a pretty clear measuring stick for that statement (once you've established a venue, that is). a good point fighter has presumably won a lot of matches. a good NHB or full-contact fighter has won a lot of bouts. a good streetfighter has persevered in a lot of altercations. etc.

A good martial artist. Though……the standards for that will vary because the definition will vary.For some people, it encompasses more spiritual, more, or artisitic elements. for others, the definition is essentially identical to 'good fighter.'

I suppose that for one, it's highly dependent on your values- for the other, your values aren't really the issue.

[Edmund BlackAdder]

To answer the original question, yes. Being a good fighter is not a requirement for being a "Good" martial artist.

Being a good fighter means you are a good fighter.
Period.
It doesn't make you a martial artist, a warrior, or a soldier.

There are many levels of "martial arts". Some focus on sports, some on street, some on combat, some on the 'deeper' with power to heal as well as harm.

But it is more than just beating people up.

MartialArtist:
Person who studies the Martial Arts

Warrior:
A warrior is a person habitually engaged in combat. In tribal societies, warriors often form a caste or class of their own. In feudalism, the vassals essentially form a military or warrior class, even if in actual warfare, peasants may be called to fight as well. In some societies, warfare may be so central that the entire people (or, more often, the male population) may be considered warriors, for example the Maori or Germanic tribes.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrior

Fighter:
someone who fights (or is fighting)


Martial Arts:
Martial arts, also known as fighting systems, are bodies of codified practices or traditions of training for unarmed and armed combat, usually without the use of guns and other modern weapons. People study martial arts for various reasons including fitness, self-cultivation (meditation), mental/character development, and self-defense.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_artist

Martial:
military or warlike, as in: During the emergency, the town came under martial law.
www.business-words.com/dictionary/M.html

Artist:
Artist is a subjective term which describes a person creative in, innovative in, or adept at, their endeavors.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist

[Grenadier]

There are plenty of ways someone can be a good martial artist without being a good fighter. The martial arts isn't solely about one's physical combat abilities. There are so many facets within the martial arts, and physical combat abilities comprise but one such facet.

Just as an example, some people are excellent teachers, and are able to convey the knowledge of the martial arts to others. Many of these folks aren't going to be classified as being good fighters for one reason or another. Perhaps they've experienced some terrible injury, or other ailment. Maybe they've been hit by some sort of sickness, such as cancer.

Even though such individuals might not be able to withstand a physical fight anymore, does not change the fact that they are still excellent martial artists. If anything, they do more for the martial arts by helping create more martial artists, whereas someone who has excellent combat abilities isn't necessarily going to be helping others.

[elder999]

Just as an example, some people are excellent teachers, and are able to convey the knowledge of the martial arts to others. Many of these folks aren't going to be classified as being good fighters for one reason or another. Perhaps they've experienced some terrible injury, or other ailment. Maybe they've been hit by some sort of sickness, such as cancer.

Even though such individuals might not be able to withstand a physical fight anymore, does not change the fact that they are still excellent martial artists. If anything, they do more for the martial arts by helping create more martial artists, whereas someone who has excellent combat abilities isn't necessarily going to be helping others.

Which brings up a really good, and last point. I'm a pretty good fighter, at least I used to be-unlike Kacey and some others, I've always enjoyed sparring, from the very start-and, while I've tried to avoid violent encounters, circumstances haven't always allowed me to, but I've managed to stay alive and relatively unijured-the only measure of success when one fails by resorting to, well, the last and only resort: violence. I also did..... okay in various tournaments,Golden Glove boxing, judo shiai and the like, once upon a time....but I'm 46, now-while I'm still a young man, I'm approaching the day when I won't be, and can already feel a difference after rolling around with guys half my age, and less....when I'm 67 or 70,or 75, should I live so long and no longer much of a "fighter" at all (though, maybe still able to put up a fight) will I still be a good martial artist, if I ever have been?

Funakoshi was 96 when he died, and Ueshiba was 83. Were they good martial artists? Were they still (if they ever were) good "fighters?"

[Hand Sword]

A simple answer to the question.....Yes!

[MJS]

My general principle is this: Avoiding fighting has nothing to do with martial arts, nor does philosophy or anything else that has no actual value in a fight. These are somthing entirely different, although they are quite often taught along with martial arts. I define martial arts as the system, not the associated philosophies. Most people don't want to fight and most people haven't been in one. This fact doesn't make them good martial artists. The only thing that makes someone a good martial artist and a good fighter are skills that can be applied in a fight to protect oneself and defeat ones opponents.

Take this example: There are two martial artists. The first is humble, doesn't pick fights, and is reasonably skilled. The second is arrogant, mean, and fights whenever he can. He is also far more skilled then the first guy. Who is the better martial artist?

I say the second. He might be much worse of a person, but martial arts isn't about personality, it's about fighting. He is the better fighter, and that makes him the better the martial artist.

If this is your view of the arts, you're certainly entitled to your thoughts. However, it may be good to take a look at other viewpoints. You may be surprised at what you see. Then again, if someone refuses to open their eyes to what else is around there, the experience will always be limited.

I've had more than my share of times when things could have turned ugly. Fortunately, the majority of them were solved with words. Personally, I dont go looking for fights, I stay out of problem areas, and I stay aware of my surroundings. I'm always trying to think ahead, trying to think if throwing down is really going to be worth it.

Lets see...throwing down, getting arrested, getting injured, having to take time off to go to court, lose a day or more of pay from work, and most important, having a record of causing disturbances, breach of peace, etc...or............Verbally defusing the situation, and walking away. If he wants to call me a wimp for not fighting, thats fine, as I've been called worse.

I'm not saying its not important to have fighting skill, but being humble is also a part of it.

Mike

[kempocomtai]

To have the skill and not know how to use it is one thing but not knowing how to fight is another that like saying u learn the moves but dont know how to use what u got. Thats hopeless

[Adept]

then perhaps the only martial artists worth talking about are in their early 20s in peak physical condition.

Is that the case?

Not in those words, but yes. The best martial artists are young, strong men in peak physical condition with an excellent training ethic and syllabus.


Funakoshi was 96 when he died, and Ueshiba was 83. Were they good martial artists?

Earlier in their lives, they certainly were. Later in their lives, they became great martial arts instructors but were no longer as competent as they used to be.

I'm a big fan of compartmentalisation. To me, martial arts is simply fighting. Fighting in the ring, in the dojo, in a bar or on the street, or even on a battlefield. It's all just martial arts. I seperate the mental benefits of martial arts, and the non-physical aspets, because they are not strictly tied to martial arts. Chopping wood for an hour or two a day, or learning to play a musical instrument will yeld the same mental benefits of martial arts training. Perserverance, discipline, and so on. Does that make all trombone players martial artists? Of course not.

A good fighter is a good martial artist. A good teacher is just a good teacher, unless he is also a good fighter and then he can be a good martial artist as well. All teachers have something to offer, and many have significant impact on the lives of many young people. But that doesn't make every teacher in every high school a martial artist, nor does it make the martial arts instructor who cannot fight a martial artist. Or to be more accurate, being a good martial arts instructor does not automatically make one a good martial artist.

At least, not the way I define it.

[Drac]

Yes!!! Me !!! I do not, have not, will not consider myself a good fighter..I am an excellent self defense instructor...

[DeLamar.J]

If you can't fight, than you are not practicing martial arts. I dont understand how this can even be debated. The word martial does have a meaning, maybe some people should look it up.
If you can't fight, your art is not martial. Or maybe it is, but you just suck.

[charyuop]

Martial comes from the old Roman God of War Mars from there Martial Art, Art of the War...but that is not the point.
I am sure that there are in military life Generals around the world that wouldn't last few minutes against Privates because of age and physical conditions. Does that mean a General is a novice or not mastering the Art of War?
A person can master perfectly a Martial Art, but never develop that quickness of reflex that will make of him a good fighter. Does that mean he is a novice or doesn't know Martial Arts?

In my opinion (and here I go against almost everybody hee hee), Martial Art and fighting are two completely two things, almost the opposite. Martial Art as the word Art implies, it is a knowledge, a something that you learn and master for your own purposes. Fight is an action done towards another person, something lead by your personality rather than your knowledge. To be a good fighter you don't necessarily need to know Martial Arts because if fighting is in your character your aggressive personality will provide you the tools to fight (of course to be the top you need training, but that is not the point). On the other hand a Martial Artist has the knowledge closed in him/herself and it is that knowledge (as also in being able to practice the Martial Arts...form, kana and mentality) that makes of him/her a Martial Artist.

[Adept]

Martial Art and fighting are two completely two things, almost the opposite.

This is where I think the crux of the argument lies. As far as I'm concerned, 'martial artist' is synonymous with 'fighter'. So to me, the question reads:

"Can someone be a good fighter without being a good fighter?"

To which the answer is obviously no.


Martial Art as the word Art implies, it is a knowledge, a something that you learn and master for your own purposes.

I would say that any given martial art is a method for fighting in a particular way.


To be a good fighter you don't necessarily need to know Martial Arts because if fighting is in your character your aggressive personality will provide you the tools to fight.

Those tools are aspects of the martial arts.


On the other hand a Martial Artist has the knowledge closed in him/herself and it is that knowledge (as also in being able to practice the Martial Arts...form, kana and mentality) that makes of him/her a Martial Artist.

I'm not sure I folllow this part.

[Kacey]

Let me ask a question that will, I think, demonstrate my point of view.

My instructor's instructor, who is an 8th degree black belt who has been actively involved in martial arts for 40 years, is no longer as physically capable as he was because of age, and also because of injuries incurred during his service in the military which left him with bad knees. His knowledge and understanding of TKD is broader and deeper than any other person with whom I have had prolonged, in-depth contact. While he is no longer a tournament fighter, I have no doubts about his ability to defend himself, should the need arise. Is he a martial artist? In my mind, there is no doubt that he is - because, like the general compared earlier to the private, his understanding and experience more than makes up for the lessened physical abilities caused by age and injury.

[DeLamar.J]

Martial comes from the old Roman God of War Mars from there Martial Art, Art of the War...but that is not the point.
I am sure that there are in military life Generals around the world that wouldn't last few minutes against Privates because of age and physical conditions. Does that mean a General is a novice or not mastering the Art of War?
A person can master perfectly a Martial Art, but never develop that quickness of reflex that will make of him a good fighter. Does that mean he is a novice or doesn't know Martial Arts?

In my opinion (and here I go against almost everybody hee hee), Martial Art and fighting are two completely two things, almost the opposite. Martial Art as the word Art implies, it is a knowledge, a something that you learn and master for your own purposes. Fight is an action done towards another person, something lead by your personality rather than your knowledge. To be a good fighter you don't necessarily need to know Martial Arts because if fighting is in your character your aggressive personality will provide you the tools to fight (of course to be the top you need training, but that is not the point). On the other hand a Martial Artist has the knowledge closed in him/herself and it is that knowledge (as also in being able to practice the Martial Arts...form, kana and mentality) that makes of him/her a Martial Artist.
I think an old man who has proven himself in his younger days is a very obvious exeption. I dont think anyone would ever argue this. However, when you have someone whos physical condition and age is not a factor to be be considered, if they can't fight, then their art is not martial.

[Adept]

Let me ask a question that will, I think, demonstrate my point of view.

My instructor's instructor, who is an 8th degree black belt who has been actively involved in martial arts for 40 years, is no longer as physically capable as he was because of age, and also because of injuries incurred during his service in the military which left him with bad knees... Is he a martial artist?

Yes.

But he's likely not as good today as he was twenty or thirty years ago. He's probably an excellent instructor, but thats a seperate thing, as far as I'm concerned.

[DeLamar.J]

Let me ask a question that will, I think, demonstrate my point of view.

My instructor's instructor, who is an 8th degree black belt who has been actively involved in martial arts for 40 years, is no longer as physically capable as he was because of age, and also because of injuries incurred during his service in the military which left him with bad knees. His knowledge and understanding of TKD is broader and deeper than any other person with whom I have had prolonged, in-depth contact. While he is no longer a tournament fighter, I have no doubts about his ability to defend himself, should the need arise. Is he a martial artist? In my mind, there is no doubt that he is - because, like the general compared earlier to the private, his understanding and experience more than makes up for the lessened physical abilities caused by age and injury.Like I said before, I see this as a obvious exeption. What I have a problem with are people who dont have an age or physical issue, teach martial arts, and cant fight. There art is not martial if they cant fight, and I dont feel they should call it martial arts.
If an old man has proven his art in his day, then his art is martial. Some of the old masters are the best teachers you could ever have, and thats because they could fight very well at one time.

[Andrew Green]

I'd say they are no longer a great martial artists, at least if fighting was the goal of there art. They might be a great teacher, but no longer a great martial artist. In the same way Joe Fraizer is no longer a great boxer, lots of knowledge yes, still a great boxer - no. Same with any other sport or physical activity. Is Bobby Hull still a great hockey player? No, but he was 30 years ago.

On the other hand I'd say someone like Jackie Chan or Jet Li are great martial artists, even though they never fought, and never claimed to be fighters. What they did was still martial arts, just performance baised, and they where great at it.

There are different aspects to martial arts, fighting is only one path. Performance is another, preserving history another, some are even in it for spiritual reasons. So to each his own.

[Fu_Bag]

I wonder if people are separating the holistic "Martial Artist" into two separate pieces for the sake of arguement? As a whole, to me at least, a Martial Artist is someone who has the ability to deal with all aspects of war. That includes the intelligence gathering, the negotiations to prevent war, the development of methods for the neutralization of the opposing force, dealing with wounded, supplying troops, dealing with prisoners, managing morale, negotiating cessation of hostilities, negotiating peace, rebuilding of the arena of operations, and working to establish a lasting peace.

If I wanted to find a real martial artist, I'd seek out those retired, injured, battle seasoned generals a lot quicker than I'd seek out someone who really just loves to fight for the sake of fighting. The generals could help me to develop the mindset of a warrior. That mindset will lead to the development of the fighting style of a warrior. The fighter can only make a fighter out of me.

Personally, I am able to respect fighters for their fighting ability but I have much more respect for the generals and the warriors that they train. :)

With much appreciation and respect for the true warriors out there,

Fu Bag :D

[Kacey]

Andrew Green and Fu_Bag have stated much more clearly than I did the concept I was trying to get. Martial arts teach fighting, yes - but a martial artist is more than just a fighter. The broader base of knowledge, experience, and skill that helps a true martial artist know when, and how, to fight - or not fight - are, in my opinion, a much bigger part of being a martial artist than proficiency with fighting techniques alone.

[Fu_Bag]

Andrew Green and Fu_Bag have stated much more clearly than I did the concept I was trying to get. Martial arts teach fighting, yes - but a martial artist is more than just a fighter. The broader base of knowledge, experience, and skill that helps a true martial artist know when, and how, to fight - or not fight - are, in my opinion, a much bigger part of being a martial artist than proficiency with fighting techniques alone.


Amen to THAT!!!!



p.s. Thanks, Kacey :D

[charyuop]

In the last few messages I have read something a little different from the original question which finds me agreeing with that.
Now if as someone said we start saying to be a Martial Artist you have to be able to fight is one thing. Yes to be a Martial Artist you have to be able to put into practice your knowledge and thus fight.
But the question was another. The original question was to be a Martial Artist you need to be a GOOD fighter? Well in that case no.
To be able to fight means to be able to use the knowledge. If someone punches me I have the knowledge on hot to stop the punch thus stopping it is putting into practice my knowledge. In that case yes, you need to be a fighter (even tho fighter is not really the word I would use).
But being a good fighter is something beyond being a good Martial Artist (I don't want to repeat my previous answer, so I cut it here).

[Anti-Theory]

But consider what actualy makes one a "Good Fighter" are you a good fighter because somebody told you that you were? Are you a good fighter if you can beat anybody in a fight? I like to think that becoming strong requires personal reflection, you strenghten your weaknesses and you have the courage to stand up to danger and tough and gritty situations.

Martial Arts is exactly that - an art. You could be the best Martial Artist in the known universe, master every form, every stance, every secret and deadly technique and still throw a punch that wouldn't budge a feather. Mastering the art is one thing, but mastering the "good fighting" aspect is something MA can't teach you. it just takes the collective will to become stronger and braver.

So the two are not necessarily unrelated, but neither are they seperate.

[Drac]

Andrew Green and Fu_Bag have stated much more clearly than I did the concept I was trying to get. Martial arts teach fighting, yes - but a martial artist is more than just a fighter. The broader base of knowledge, experience, and skill that helps a true martial artist know when, and how, to fight - or not fight - are, in my opinion, a much bigger part of being a martial artist than proficiency with fighting techniques alone.

Yes...Good post

[w.kaer]

I started thinking about this because of Jet Li. I always considered him a good martial artist, but he admits to knowing very little about fighting. This raises the question; can someone be a good martial artist and not know how to fight?



I hope you can be a good martial artist without being a good fighter because I suck at fighting. I lack the experience in fighting. Sparring during class is my only exposure to the application of what we train. Of course, at my level, I wouldn't say I was a good martial artist either. I would like to think though as I do get better and I get to the point where I may be viewed as "good" that I don't gain much more experience in fighting. My life doesn't lend itself to the situations that bring about the frequent fighting. Will it hinder my development as a martial artist? I would like to think not, but I can appreciate the point of the "martial" in martial arts. I guess that is why we train.

--Walt