Can you be 'nonviolent' and still practice boxing?

Freestyler777

Blue Belt
Joined
Mar 12, 2007
Messages
261
Reaction score
5
Location
Long Island, New York
My dream is to box, yet I consider myself a peace-loving man. How many other people on this website have the same cognitive dissonance of rationalizing the practice of combat sports with the practice of esoteric philosophy/pacifism?
 

Kacey

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
16,462
Reaction score
227
Location
Denver, CO
Okay... it's trite... it's hokey... nonetheless, it gets my point across.

From The Karate Kid:

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

Learning to box - or any other martial art or fighting style - doesn't mean you have to fight; it doesn't mean that violence is going to seek you out... it means that you have learned a discipline, spent time learning to control yourself and your actions - something that should help you avoid fights in the future.
 

CoryKS

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
4,403
Reaction score
183
Location
Olathe, KS
My dream is to box, yet I consider myself a peace-loving man. How many other people on this website have the same cognitive dissonance of rationalizing the practice of combat sports with the practice of esoteric philosophy/pacifism?

Depend on what you consider 'peace-loving'. Boxers have, by definition, communicated their willingness to hit and get hit, so you're not violating the rights of another person. If you define 'non-violent' as unwillingness to inflict pain on another person even if they've agreed to it, then it's probably not the right field for you.
 
OP
Freestyler777

Freestyler777

Blue Belt
Joined
Mar 12, 2007
Messages
261
Reaction score
5
Location
Long Island, New York
i consider 'nonviolence' simply to mean, 'non-injuring' the 'innocent'. Obviously two boxers in a match are cognizant of the perils, and are fighting without hatred towards each other. IMO
 

CoryKS

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
4,403
Reaction score
183
Location
Olathe, KS
i consider 'nonviolence' simply to mean, 'non-injuring' the 'innocent'. Obviously two boxers in a match are cognizant of the perils, and are fighting without hatred towards each other. IMO

I agree. Therefore, I don't see a conflict between pacifism and pugilism.
 

bushidomartialarts

Senior Master
Joined
Mar 5, 2006
Messages
2,668
Reaction score
47
Location
Hillsboro, Oregon
Well put, Kacey.

The benefits of any martial training go well beyond violence. Ask anybody on the board, I think you'll find very few have been in more than a couple fights since high school (if you don't count getting paid to fight as in cops and bouncers). However, we all use our training every single day.

If you're concerned about the sparring and fighting actual bouts, I'd point out that neither of those are actually violent activities. It's fighting, it's physical and sometimes it hurts. There are even injuries. But as both competitors are volunteers, there's no violation and hence no violence. Fighting without violence seems oxymoronic. In fact, it's not only perfectly reasonable, but also very fun.
 

karate-dragon

Orange Belt
Joined
Mar 15, 2007
Messages
83
Reaction score
3
To quote Gichin Funakoshi, their is no first strike in karate. Learning any martial art is all about preparing to defend yourself if you need to, to become confident so that you portray yourself to the world in a manner that does not allow you to be viewed as a victim, and to learn to be peaceful. Another great quote (360 degrees away) if from Patrick Swazey in Road House - when asked when do you fight back, he said you'll know when to. We must learn to be non-violent and practice that. But we must learn our history lessons too, and not be victims, as in the Holocaust. There is a time and a place to defend yourself and to not be a victim, and if you aren't prepared, you're doomed. There is a lot of controversy concerning what the old masters meant by no first strike. By their actions, many of them clearly took someone out before that person moved. And in explanation, it became clear that they took a word or a look in someone's eyes to be the first move.
 
OP
Freestyler777

Freestyler777

Blue Belt
Joined
Mar 12, 2007
Messages
261
Reaction score
5
Location
Long Island, New York
i agree. the essence of violence is 'to violate'. Two boxers sparring is not criminal vs victim, but 'athlete' vs 'athlete'. IMO
 

bydand

Senior Master
Joined
Feb 6, 2006
Messages
3,723
Reaction score
32
Location
West Michigan
i agree. the essence of violence is 'to violate'. Two boxers sparring is not criminal vs victim, but 'athlete' vs 'athlete'. IMO

Ah, there you go, answered your own question. I train, and am also a non-violent person. Even if it comes to thumping somebody, I still can consider myself non-violent because that is THE last resort and I would have tried other ways to avoid such an encounter. Sure that may happen in the matter of seconds sometimes, but certain situations call for swift, decisive action and you know when that is if you have the discipline.
 

Catalyst

Blue Belt
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
241
Reaction score
13
Location
New York
Even if it comes to thumping somebody, I still can consider myself non-violent because that is THE last resort and I would have tried other ways to avoid such an encounter.

That's a good way to put it.
I think at that point you're not as much "fighting" as you are "defending" and I just think there's an intrinsic difference.
 

jks9199

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
23,473
Reaction score
3,795
Location
Northern VA
I think you need to start by deciding what you mean by "nonviolence." There are non-violent martial systems, where the emphasis is on personal development and emotional control with measured and restrained defensive responses that seek not to injure an adversary. There are nonviolent people who feel that imposing their will upon another, or killing anything, even a bug, tarnishes their spirit irreparably; they'd rather be killed than harm anyone else. And there are people who aren't violent -- unless they have to be in order to defend themselves or their loved ones. They don't seek trouble -- but they'll oblige if trouble comes seeking them.

To me, martial arts or boxing training isn't violence, anymore than the javelin at a track meet, or target shooting is violence. Even in sparring or competition, your opponent is there willingly, you've both agreed to be bound by rules, and your goal is not to harm each other. (OK, the last is splitting hairs, but I think you understand my point.) I know people who won't compete -- but will train and even spar in training. They feel that competition crosses that line, and makes the emphasis wrong.
 

CoryKS

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
4,403
Reaction score
183
Location
Olathe, KS
"To me, boxing is like a ballet, except there's no music, no choreography, and the dancers hit each other."
- Jack Handy
 

Andy Moynihan

Senior Master
MT Mentor
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
176
Location
People's Banana Republic of Massachusettstan, Disu
I think you need to start by deciding what you mean by "nonviolence." There are non-violent martial systems, where the emphasis is on personal development and emotional control with measured and restrained defensive responses that seek not to injure an adversary. There are nonviolent people who feel that imposing their will upon another, or killing anything, even a bug, tarnishes their spirit irreparably; they'd rather be killed than harm anyone else. And there are people who aren't violent -- unless they have to be in order to defend themselves or their loved ones. They don't seek trouble -- but they'll oblige if trouble comes seeking them.

Exactly.

To me, martial arts or boxing training isn't violence, anymore than the javelin at a track meet, or target shooting is violence. Even in sparring or competition, your opponent is there willingly, you've both agreed to be bound by rules, and your goal is not to harm each other. (OK, the last is splitting hairs, but I think you understand my point.) I know people who won't compete -- but will train and even spar in training. They feel that competition crosses that line, and makes the emphasis wrong.

FWIW, I am such a one.
 

Jonathan

Blue Belt
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
249
Reaction score
0
Location
VA, USA
I love when this question comes up. Whenever I try to rationalize the dichotomy of a peaceful life versus that of a violent endeavor to myself... I think of the Shaolin monks. I don't think you can get much more peaceful, but consider what they brought to the martial arts world.

You can be competitive and unyielding (and even aggressive) without being violent. Being capable of causing harm and choosing not to do so (or, better yet, being of a character when such a thought never crosses your mind) is a level of discipline that I wish more people (myself included) could achieve.
 

Latest Discussions

Top