Consider an analogy for the self-defense arts....

[Freestyler777]

I haven't written on this website for a while, so brace yourself.

Most assailants and street thugs punch when they fight, and if they try to attack you, they will try to punch you.

Kickboxing (used as a generic term for punching and kicking) is called 'fighting fire with fire'. Standing toe to toe with a thug and out-punching him is risky.

Throwing (like judo or sambo) is called 'harmonizing' or fighting fire with water. Judo is nonviolence in action, because instead of matching strength for strength with the thug, you grab him so he can't hit you and throw him to the ground.

Please do not let this become a style vs style thread. What I am trying to point out is the philosophical concept of violence and nonviolence.

 

[Kacey]

I understand the philosophical point you're trying to make... but I'm not sure that I see the difference between hard and soft styles as violence vs. non-violence. I mean, if you are are attacked and hit your attacker directly, that is violent; if you are attacked and you redirect your attacker so s/he hits the ground, you are applying the violence less directly, but nonetheless, I see violence, in terms of deliberately causing - or setting up the conditions which cause - bodily harm to another person, in both situations.

 

[Freestyler777]

well maybe the terms violence and nonviolence aren't defined well. 'real' nonviolence is not fighting in the first place. But the philosophical distinction i was making was trying to make is, kickboxing is matching your strength against his (the thug) strength. That doesn't seem like martial arts at all, more like streetfighting. Throwing is perhaps not 'nonviolence' but passive restraint of an aggressive assailant.

there is nothing soft about judo and sambo, and there is definitely a philosophical aspect to kickboxing and muay thai, what I am saying is, both have validity as self defense approaches, and there is something for every kind of individual in the martial arts.

i define violence not as 'causing harm' but as 'aggression and bad intent'. To me, the belief precedes the action. You can do harm in other situations and it may not be considered 'violent', like through negligence or betrayal. I hope we are on the same page now.

 

[exile]

That doesn't seem like martial arts at all, more like streetfighting.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what's at issue here. Some of the very greatest martial artists were and are streetfighters. Check out the biographies of Chotoku Kyan and Choki Motobu for the (not very edifying) details. And Peter Consterdine, an England International in Karate, in which he holds and eighth dan, earned his living for many years as a bouncer/doorman/security executive at a number of very tough clubs in the UK, as did Geoff Thompson and Ian Mulholland—highly ranked karetkas, dojo owners and instructors, the lot of them—whose streetfighting skills combined their analytic abilities and physical gifts to disable violent, aggressive attackers in record time, with superior applications of blunt-force, traumatic violence in many cases. All that the 'art' in 'martial art' means is what the 'art(s)' in 'domestic arts' or similar locutions mean: skills, based on systematic methods. There's no more antithesis between martial arts and streetfighting than there is between, say, the art of fencing and dueling to the death. Where does this notion of 'virtuous nonviolent counteraction to an attacker's iccky insistence on violence' come in??

Let's take the swordsmen, dueling to the death at dawn. Are we going to say that naked-point fencing for blood isn't an art? Watch a great exponent of that kind of deadly serious fencing style at work and try to tell me it isn't. For that matter, what of kenjutsu? The Samurai who took blades to each other and could eviscerate an inferior opponent in the blink of an eye weren't martial artists?? But they were fighting to kill every time they drew their katanas. And note that in both cases, the combatants are doing the same thing to each other—sword violence against sword violence—only, one of them will do it better and the other will pay a very heavy price for not being as good at the same thing that the victor is better at. Do we say, well, it's not an 'art' because the duellists, or the budoka, are doing the same thing instead of one 'neutralizing' the other with minimal violence? Musashi Miyamoto wasn't a martial artist?

I guess I'm just not seeing it...

When violence finds you, you use the means to hand to protect yourself from it. A martial art is a combat system which offers you tools to do that, including a well-developed strategic approach (depending on the art) and a set of tactical means to implement that strategy. As far as I can see, anything more than this is a romantic projection, often associated with serious mystification of the MAs (attributing to them spiritual or moral or some other kind of virtue that have nothing at all to do with their content). Notice that I'm not saying there is no ethical dimension to the MAs. But it's the same ethical dimension that governs all other kinds of behavior as well; it's not inherent in the art in some way. The point of these arts was and is self-defense. If structured application of violence in an intelligent and effective way enables you to defend yourself, then why on earth would we want to say, well, that's streetfighting, not martial art??

 

[JadecloudAlchemist]

The idea behind violence is to cause injury.

The idea of causing injury to someone trying to hurt you is self defense.

Does not matter how you defend yourself as long as it works.

 

[Wild Bill]

In the law enforcement and security community we say use of force. It is all about intent.

 

[Kacey]

well maybe the terms violence and nonviolence aren't defined well. 'real' nonviolence is not fighting in the first place. But the philosophical distinction i was making was trying to make is, kickboxing is matching your strength against his (the thug) strength. That doesn't seem like martial arts at all, more like streetfighting. Throwing is perhaps not 'nonviolence' but passive restraint of an aggressive assailant.

How is a throw a restraint? I've learned throws, and I've learned restraints... and they're different.

throw (verb):

1 a: to propel through the air by a forward motion of the hand and arm <throw a baseball> b: to propel through the air in any manner <a rifle that can throw a bullet a mile> c: pitch 6b <threw a no-hitter>
2 a: to cause to fall <threw his opponent> b: to cause to fall off : unseat <the horse threw its rider> c: to get the better of : overcome <the problem didn't throw her>
3 a: to fling (oneself) precipitately <threw herself down on the sofa> b: to drive or impel violently : dash <the ship was thrown on a reef>
4 a (1): to put in a particular position or condition <threw her arms around him> <thrown into chaos> <threw him into prison> (2): to put on or off hastily or carelessly <threw on a coat> b: to bring to bear : exert <threw all his efforts into the boy's defense> <throw their weight behind the proposal> c: build, construct <threw a pontoon bridge over the river>
5: to form or shape on a potter's wheel
6: to deliver (a blow) in or as if in boxing

with specific attention to 1b, 4a, and 6, as well as

throw (noun) (same link as above; choose noun form):

1 a: an act of throwing, hurling, or flinging b (1): an act of throwing dice (2): the number thrown with a cast of dice c: a method of throwing an opponent in wrestling or judo

with specific attention 1c. For both forms of throw, remaining definitions were not presented as they were not relevant to the discussion.

restraint:

1 a: an act of restraining : the state of being restrained b (1): a means of restraining : a restraining force or influence (2): a device that restricts movement <a restraint for children riding in cars>2: a control over the expression of one's emotions or thoughts

where "restrain" is defined as

1 a: to prevent from doing, exhibiting, or expressing something <restrained the child from jumping> b: to limit, restrict, or keep under control <try to restrain your anger>2: to moderate or limit the force, effect, development, or full exercise of <restrain trade>3: to deprive of liberty; especially : to place under arrest or restraint

there is nothing soft about judo and sambo, and there is definitely a philosophical aspect to kickboxing and muay thai, what I am saying is, both have validity as self defense approaches, and there is something for every kind of individual in the martial arts.

Perhaps I should define my terms. A hard martial art, in this context, would be a martial art in which the primary response is to use one's own force against another - that is, by striking with a body part; a soft martial art, in this context, would be a martial art in which the primary response is to another's force against the other - that is, by redirecting in some fashion, such as by using a throw. No implication as to the relative efficacy of any style was intended; it was purely shorthand from descriptions given to me by others.

i define violence not as 'causing harm' but as 'aggression and bad intent'. To me, the belief precedes the action. You can do harm in other situations and it may not be considered 'violent', like through negligence or betrayal. I hope we are on the same page now.

The idea behind violence is to cause injury.

The idea of causing injury to someone trying to hurt you is self defense.

Does not matter how you defend yourself as long as it works.

I'm going to build on JadeCloudAlchemist's answer here

You said "i define violence not as 'causing harm' but as 'aggression and bad intent'. " I fail to see how redirecting someone into a solid object is a) restraint, or b) more "violent" (no matter how you define violent) than counter-attacking. I could somewhat see saying that redirection is less directly confrontational than counter-attacking - but even so, I see both reactions as falling into JCA's definition of self-defense.

 

[zDom]

Hmm. That's funny.

Personally, if I wanted to hurt (as in "injure") an attacker a little I would strike them. If I wanted to hurt them a LOT, I'd throw them

On the other hand, a joint lock and/or choke has the potential to cause a LOT of pain (the former), unconciousness (the latter) with no injury whatsoever.

On the OTHER other hand, a joint lock can also cause significant injury and a choke can cause them to never, ever wake up.

Seriously though, we always get a laugh out of judo being called "the gentle way" when more training injuries come from randori then punch/kick sparring.

 

[Ninjamom]

Sometimes violence can be a very good thing.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Violence &#8211;
1. Swift and intense force
2. Rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment.
3. An unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws:
4. A violent act or proceeding.
5. Rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language:
6. Damage through distortion or unwarranted alteration

In a fight there is no time to discern between street fight and martial arts nor should that be a thought at the time. Violence and non-violence of any martial act is a nice debate that is best left here on MT not something you should think about should you be unlucky enough to have to use what you are training be it Aikido, Judo, Karate, Muay Thai, Sanshou, Long Fist or any other MA.

To apply what you learn in any MA in a real life situation such as a fight is a violent act and it is best to accept that and get on with it.

Sanda is simply a quick way to learn how to hurt someone real bad - my Sifu

We train Tuishou like Taiji we hit trees like other styles do (see hung gar) we think about force from the dantian and Tuishou and thinking about the dantian are certainly not violent things but if you use Sanda it is to be taken VERY seriously and you are applying what you have learned from these non-violent and violent things you have trained and all this non-violent training can lead to some rather violent acts and if attack that is what is necessary&#8230; that is all.

 

[thardey]

Hmm, to try and take this in a philosophical direction . . . Maybe

In general conflict (not necessarily physical, but also political, and intellectual), you also have these two basic options, which, at the root, are the same, just applied in different ways. Napoleon understood these very well.

First, you have the "power" method on controlling people - this is typically a threat, or actual action, of escalating the stakes, in hopes that either the other will submit, or be overpowered. In poker, this would be "raising." It could be a bluff, or it could not. The basic method of thought is "is it worth it to you to find out?"

Napoleon used this tactic as a full-frontal attack, called an "Attrition Attack" (strength-on-strength.) This method is usually used when one has the advantage, or the perceived advantage. Both sides slug it out until one side submits. (surrender or retreat.)

Next, you have a "manipulation" method. This is useful for when you want to achieve a certain, specific, goal, and aren't as concerned about dominating another. It is still a question of power, but that power is applied in different ways. In business, or politics, it could be in the form of "deals" that are made: "I won't stand in your way for what you want, and you won't stand in my way for what I want." You aren't facing down the opponent, but are side-stepping the largest area of conflict, to achieve your own goals. Napoleon used this as a "Maneuvering Attack." He avoided the main force, and flanked his opponents. Or, in MA terms, you allow the attack to come, then side-step and throw, lock, or otherwise manipulate your opponent into a weaker position. (Unconscious is good.)

But at the root of it, both systems are the same. I believe that no one truly holds "power" over another. Personal power is "sold" to others to get what you want. Someone may "sell" 40 hours or so of their personal time, and submit to a boss, in order to get money. Someone may also choose to submit to a loss of money, in order to maintain health. (I.E. strong-arm robbery.) That's why the "do it or die" option is actually an option, although a lousy one.

In the first system, the exchange of power leaves one side at a loss. "Give up, and you won't lose what you already have." At least at first. It's an obvious threat, and so it is very efficient, but it doesn't make us feel as warm and gooey. Plus, it makes the looser feel terrible, actually, it makes them feel like a looser.

In the second system, the exchange of power is a lot more subtle, and is hidden behind a promise of mutual benefit (and sometimes it does work that way) but the intent is still to put yourself in a position of power over the other. However, in this system, it looks more peaceful, and almost as though everybody is working as a team. In the heart of it, though, it's still a conflict, and one side will end up a position of dominance. Perhaps, though, there will be less loss sustained by both sides, and so this type of conflict is easier on our consciouses. Done right, the looser will feel proud of himself, and not realize he has lost, until it's too late. This is common in chess: I may offer you my bishop for capture, but I will take your rook.

In MA terms, this could be comparable to avoiding and redirecting.

But don't be misled: Both are a form of conflict, and both are aimed at dominance. One dominates by the promise of loss, and the other by a false promise of gain. Dominance itself is neither good nor evil, but what is done once the dominance is achieved. The method of obtaining that dominance is neither good nor evil, but what is the intent behind the need for dominance.

 

[Xue Sheng]

redirecting.

This made me think

Taijiquan... but if I redirect someone into a wall I would not call that non-violent

 

[exile]

This made me think

Taijiquan... but if I redirect someone into a wall I would not call that non-violent

Dead right.

Swinging someone into a wall at n miles per hour is exactly as violent as swinging a wall into them at n miles per hour. Throwing someone down so that they hit the ground at n mph is exactly as violent as throwing the ground up at them so that it hits them at n mph. The same kinetic energy is absorbed by the same body parts in the same rather brief period of time. That's all that counts, so far as both intent and lasting effects are concerned&#8212;in particular, the difference in practicality within each of these pairs of alternatives is irrelevant.

 

[thardey]

This made me think

Taijiquan... but if I redirect someone into a wall I would not call that non-violent

I originally had written "avoiding and escaping" but I changed it to "redirecting" because I had exactly that same thought in mind.

Actually, I was thinking along the lines of "redirecting" someone into traffic.

But you could be redirecting them into a nice, soft, fluffy mat. . . . nah!

 

[Xue Sheng]

But you could be redirecting them into a nice, soft, fluffy mat. . . . nah!

Well... you... could....NAH you're right

 

[morph4me]

The "soft" arts are soft in application, not in effect.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I haven't written on this website for a while, so brace yourself.

Most assailants and street thugs punch when they fight, and if they try to attack you, they will try to punch you.

Kickboxing (used as a generic term for punching and kicking) is called 'fighting fire with fire'. Standing toe to toe with a thug and out-punching him is risky.

Throwing (like judo or sambo) is called 'harmonizing' or fighting fire with water. Judo is nonviolence in action, because instead of matching strength for strength with the thug, you grab him so he can't hit you and throw him to the ground.

Please do not let this become a style vs style thread. What I am trying to point out is the philosophical concept of violence and nonviolence.

I you or anyone who has been thrown by Judo player doing there best to plant you 6 feet under then I have to ask how is this any less violent?

If you land and hit your head, the eggshell law comes into effect. The head has taken an impact greater than that of an egg shell to break and now you could be liable for the violence done to him.

If there is a situation, I cannot say I will always hit or lock or throw. But, the issue of trying to understand the level of violence is something I have already done before the contact. Either I am totally surprised which means all out get it over with and move on, or I am in lots of trouble and I need to hurt one as soon as possible to try to explain to the others what they will be facing and also to bring the odds closer to even. Or in some cases one can just ready the opponent and one can pass his punch and check him so he cannot counter strike immediately. This makes many people wake up and realize that they could be in for a world of hurt.

So if you go against their force or with their force, it is still violence in the end. If it is not violence then you have predetermined the level of contact. This can be done with punched to the body or checks and passes or a simple lock / throw to control the person to the ground with limited risk of impact.

 

[hkfuie]

I haven't written on this website for a while, so brace yourself.

Most assailants and street thugs punch when they fight, and if they try to attack you, they will try to punch you.

Kickboxing (used as a generic term for punching and kicking) is called 'fighting fire with fire'. Standing toe to toe with a thug and out-punching him is risky.

Throwing (like judo or sambo) is called 'harmonizing' or fighting fire with water. Judo is nonviolence in action, because instead of matching strength for strength with the thug, you grab him so he can't hit you and throw him to the ground.

Please do not let this become a style vs style thread. What I am trying to point out is the philosophical concept of violence and nonviolence.

I think the term "fighting fire with fire" is right. In the kicking/striking/hard arts, you and your opponents are both using strikes on each other. In this case it will come down to who can hit the best target(s) first with the most power.

I think the throwing type arts are turning the fight on it's head (ha,ha!) and using a completely different type of defense from the original attack (punch). Seems like a great advantage. When I am in the middle of being thrown, since I am not quite so accustomed to being thrown, my brain is busy saying, "Oh carp! Which way is up, which way is down and where is the ground??? Ummmph! There it is!" LOL

 

[GBlues]

I studied Aikido for about 6 months, and I'm no expert, but it is not the same thing. One of the instructors put it this way, " If a man throws a punch at me and I throw him on his head. When the cops come I'm going to tell them that he simply fell down." My question then was, "Well, but your the one that threw him down." And his response was this, " No, I'm not. HE is. The moment that he attacked me, he chose to fall down. I didn't do anything more than get out of the way." Now this is contradictory to a point. But the reality is that had said attacker not attacked, he would not have struck the ground. That is not violence. That is cause and affect.

One of the founding philosophies of Aikido is that when a man tries to do harm with striking another man he is in essence going against the will of the universe. Therefore, to protect yourself you may not strike back, but to redirect that energy, and place it someplace else is entirely within the laws of the universe. SO violence.....matter of opinion. Point of view, thing. But to redirect aggressive energy into a wall, or car, or even the ground is not violence, it is merely turning the energy back on itself, and it's user to cause harm, or punishment to the one weilding such agressive and destructive energy.

 

[hkfuie]

One of the founding philosophies of Aikido is that when a man tries to do harm with striking another man he is in essence going against the will of the universe.

Great post, GBlues.

I agree with the above quote. Gives me something more to think about...