Cruentus
Grandmaster
Here are my definitions:
Combat: Active fighting where lives hang in the balance.
Warrior: Someone who is actively preparing to and willing to engage in combat ( or war, be it the homeland or enemy territory) to protect others. This person must also live by the army values (Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, Personal Service) and the Warrior Ethos (1. Always place the mission 1st 2. Never Accept Defeat 3. Never Quit 4. Never leave a fallen comrade). This could be a soldier, a police man, or a citizen who is willing to put their life on the line and fight if necessary.
Being a soldier does not automatically make you a warrior. Some soldiers aren't willing to actually fight, or consistantly don't live by the values. But I would say that they certianly get more training, preparation, and chances to prove "warriorship" in this regard then anyone else.
I don't think that a "salesman" or a "teacher" who "battles" every day at work is a "warrior." Not unless that "salesman" or "teacher" is actively training for combat, and willing to take up arms and do what it takes to defend their society. For most civilians, though, this willingness will never be tested; thus their warriorship never proven. This is fine, and it is up to the individual to be comfortable with their preparation in this regard, and not to be discouraged or looking for a chance to "prove" anything.
The military basically approaches the definition of warrior from the standpoint that you have to be a soldier to be a warrior. Not all soldiers agree with this, but many do. I don't agree with it, but I at least respect that many military men have a different outlook and definition then I do, and I am not upset with those who don't agree with my definition.
Fight: A conflict or contest between two people, usually physical in nature.
Fighter: A person who willingly engages in conflicts or contests; usually physical in nature.
Combatant: Someone who willingly engages in combat (see definition of combat above).
Combatives: The study and methodology of fighting in combat.
Martial Arts: The artistic expression of combat or fighting.
Martial Artist: Someone who practices or trains in the artistic expression of combat or fighting methods.
So, the person who wears the Karate Gi, has a class structure rooted in a tradition, does Kata, etc., is doing the artistic expression of combat/fighting systems. The reasons for this may be for personal development and tradition preservation rather then development of combat skills. Martial Arts schools may have their own set of standards and ethos to follow.
So "martial arts" can range from Karate to Tai Chi to Boxing to Jujitsu. If the reason for the training program and for training is for artistic expression and personal development (which can be done in conjunction with developing fighting/combat skills), then it is a 'martial art.'
'Martial Artist' is a very broad term to me. It encompasses everything from Hard hitting disciplines like MMA to kids TKD or Tai Chi. I don't romanticize this term like many people do, because I know that what it means to be a "martial artist" will vary on per school and per person.
Athlete: A person who is trained in physical skills to perform exercises or sporting activities.
Sport: An athletic contest involving physical skill where one competes with another or others to achieve a goal as defined by the rules.
Sport Fighting: Where one engages in a fight as defined by rules in competition with another to achieve a goal (knockout, submission, points, etc.).
Overlap: That is the way I define these terms. I think that there is overlap between them. You could be a sport fighter, and a martial artist, for example. You could be a warrior, a sport fighter, and a martial artist. You could be a sport fighter without being a martial artist (although I think that would be hard to do). You could be a warrior without being a martial artist. You could be a fighter without being a warrior or martial artist or sport fighter (like a bully who picks fights on the street).
So, it all depends on the individual as to where they fit in to these definitions, and as to how they define things. I think that my definitions are good ones, but are by no means the authority. Opinions will vary. How does one see oneself, and does one see oneself in an honest way fitting with reality? I think that is the most important here...
![Smile :) :)]()
Combat: Active fighting where lives hang in the balance.
Warrior: Someone who is actively preparing to and willing to engage in combat ( or war, be it the homeland or enemy territory) to protect others. This person must also live by the army values (Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, Personal Service) and the Warrior Ethos (1. Always place the mission 1st 2. Never Accept Defeat 3. Never Quit 4. Never leave a fallen comrade). This could be a soldier, a police man, or a citizen who is willing to put their life on the line and fight if necessary.
Being a soldier does not automatically make you a warrior. Some soldiers aren't willing to actually fight, or consistantly don't live by the values. But I would say that they certianly get more training, preparation, and chances to prove "warriorship" in this regard then anyone else.
I don't think that a "salesman" or a "teacher" who "battles" every day at work is a "warrior." Not unless that "salesman" or "teacher" is actively training for combat, and willing to take up arms and do what it takes to defend their society. For most civilians, though, this willingness will never be tested; thus their warriorship never proven. This is fine, and it is up to the individual to be comfortable with their preparation in this regard, and not to be discouraged or looking for a chance to "prove" anything.
The military basically approaches the definition of warrior from the standpoint that you have to be a soldier to be a warrior. Not all soldiers agree with this, but many do. I don't agree with it, but I at least respect that many military men have a different outlook and definition then I do, and I am not upset with those who don't agree with my definition.
Fight: A conflict or contest between two people, usually physical in nature.
Fighter: A person who willingly engages in conflicts or contests; usually physical in nature.
Combatant: Someone who willingly engages in combat (see definition of combat above).
Combatives: The study and methodology of fighting in combat.
Martial Arts: The artistic expression of combat or fighting.
Martial Artist: Someone who practices or trains in the artistic expression of combat or fighting methods.
So, the person who wears the Karate Gi, has a class structure rooted in a tradition, does Kata, etc., is doing the artistic expression of combat/fighting systems. The reasons for this may be for personal development and tradition preservation rather then development of combat skills. Martial Arts schools may have their own set of standards and ethos to follow.
So "martial arts" can range from Karate to Tai Chi to Boxing to Jujitsu. If the reason for the training program and for training is for artistic expression and personal development (which can be done in conjunction with developing fighting/combat skills), then it is a 'martial art.'
'Martial Artist' is a very broad term to me. It encompasses everything from Hard hitting disciplines like MMA to kids TKD or Tai Chi. I don't romanticize this term like many people do, because I know that what it means to be a "martial artist" will vary on per school and per person.
Athlete: A person who is trained in physical skills to perform exercises or sporting activities.
Sport: An athletic contest involving physical skill where one competes with another or others to achieve a goal as defined by the rules.
Sport Fighting: Where one engages in a fight as defined by rules in competition with another to achieve a goal (knockout, submission, points, etc.).
Overlap: That is the way I define these terms. I think that there is overlap between them. You could be a sport fighter, and a martial artist, for example. You could be a warrior, a sport fighter, and a martial artist. You could be a sport fighter without being a martial artist (although I think that would be hard to do). You could be a warrior without being a martial artist. You could be a fighter without being a warrior or martial artist or sport fighter (like a bully who picks fights on the street).
So, it all depends on the individual as to where they fit in to these definitions, and as to how they define things. I think that my definitions are good ones, but are by no means the authority. Opinions will vary. How does one see oneself, and does one see oneself in an honest way fitting with reality? I think that is the most important here...