Proficiency? Effort? Accomplishments? Spirit? What makes an MAist?

[Gwai Lo Dan]

My teacher has had both hips replaced over the years, and is currently holding off on getting one replaced again. He can't move like he used to, so I guess he's not a real martial artist.

If a famous painter got into a car accident and became a quadriplegic and couldn't move his body and hence coudn't paint, would he still be an artist or was he an artist? That's a philosophical question I think.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

If a famous painter got into a car accident and became a quadriplegic and couldn't move his body and hence coudn't paint, would he still be an artist or was he an artist? That's a philosophical question I think.

To me, either you can do it, or you can't do it. It's just as simple as that. If you used to be able to do it, but now you can't do it any more, your time is over.

In the river, the back wave will push the front wave. The front wave will always crash on the rock and disappear. That's just the nature of the real world.

 

[JR 137]

If a famous painter got into a car accident and became a quadriplegic and couldn't move his body and hence coudn't paint, would he still be an artist or was he an artist? That's a philosophical question I think.

Is his brain unaffected? If not, then yes, he's still an artist. Why? Because he can pass his vision on to his students and have them carry on his work. He could possibly put the brush in his mouth and still create.

My CI is far from a quadriplegic. He can't move like he used to, but he can still move well enough to be on the floor.

If he was a quadriplegic, he could still teach effectively. I don't think a teacher needs to be able to do anything physically. A teacher needs to pick apart his/her students' flaws, and give the student the appropriate feedback so the student can fix said flaws.

Philosophical question for you - is someone who teaches the martial arts a martial artist, even if he/she can no longer physically perform any of the skills? I'm not talking about someone who read some books and watched some videos without ever doing any of it him/herself, but someone who once was a physically competent martial artist.

 

[Steve]

Is his brain unaffected? If not, then yes, he's still an artist. Why? Because he can pass his vision on to his students and have them carry on his work. He could possibly put the brush in his mouth and still create.

My CI is far from a quadriplegic. He can't move like he used to, but he can still move well enough to be on the floor.

If he was a quadriplegic, he could still teach effectively. I don't think a teacher needs to be able to do anything physically. A teacher needs to pick apart his/her students' flaws, and give the student the appropriate feedback so the student can fix said flaws.

Philosophical question for you - is someone who teaches the martial arts a martial artist, even if he/she can no longer physically perform any of the skills? I'm not talking about someone who read some books and watched some videos without ever doing any of it him/herself, but someone who once was a physically competent martial artist.

What if his brain is affected?

 

[JP3]

To me, there are two ways to look at this. Every person who practices a martial art is a "martial artist". However, many of us also recognize a philosophical construct that is also called a "martial artist".

So, yes, everyone who practices or studies a martial art is a martial artist. But there is a higher level, a set of standards, that many (especially among the TMA) hold as an ideal for martial artists. I assume this latter is what you're talking about, so that's what I'll address.

Among the ideals I hold for a martial artist:

• Humility
• A "student" approach (always looking to learn)
• A desire to develop life skills, not just fighting skills
• Enhanced self-protection by consciously avoiding unnecessary physical conflict
• Courage (a vague term)
• Submission of ego to learning and self-improvement
• Some focus on physical fitness - not necessarily athleticism, and this can mean a lot of things as we age
• A desire to learn lessons from MA that go beyond fighting and direct self-defense
• Honesty
• Integrity with a set of personal values
• Being open to other perspectives

I'm sure I could come up with more. Some will disagree with some of these, and that's not just okay - it's a good thing.

To me, the above is an excellent start to list being a "Martial Artist" in the grand sense of the term, but it's also what is supposed to be what is pursued in trying to become a Good Person.

To me, becoming a Good Person is the "Goal." Being a "martial artist" is one of many paths to that goal, though there are many roads to Rome, or Mecca, or to my house for that matter.

At my house I have a huge TV to watch games, a backyard with outdoor kitchen and a refrigerated beer "kegerator" to provide libations during Houston's extremely hot and humid summers. All of those things make me a great host... IF I am a Good Person and want to share them.

And yes, I know that's sort of trite, but it is still true.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Philosophical question for you - is someone who teaches the martial arts a martial artist, even if he/she can no longer physically perform any of the skills?

When you get old, your body movement will contain "old man flavor". IMO, you should not pass that "old man flavor" to the next generation.

 

[Buka]

When you get old, your body movement will contain "old man flavor". IMO, you should not pass that "old man flavor" to the next generation.

I agree. (Kind of) I've been teaching striking arts for a long time, but I've never taught someone to move like I move, I teach them to move like they move. So far, it's worked quite well.

 

[JR 137]

What if his brain is affected?

If he can no longer think like an artist nor actually physically produce the art, then no, he isn't an artist any more.

Let's say Pablo Picasso was in an accident and became quadriplegic as a result. His mental capacity for art is completely unaffected. He can't paint, yet he has a student/protege/etc. pick up a brush and paint exactly what he he is envisioning for him. He's still an artist. His mind is still creating the art, no different than if Shakespeare dictated a story to someone who transcribed it for him, line by line.

If Picasso's injury left him unable to paint AND mentally create art, then no, he'd no longer be an artist. Just like if Shakespeare could no longer physically write nor think up and dictate a story, play, poem, etc.

 

[JR 137]

I agree. (Kind of) I've been teaching striking arts for a long time, but I've never taught someone to move like I move, I teach them to move like they move. So far, it's worked quite well.

That's the difference between a person just teaching what they've learned and a true teacher. A true teacher teaches the students to ultimately think and act for themselves/on their own. A person who just teaches what they've been taught or learned has people replicate them mindlessly.

Don't get me wrong; the beginner student should replicate the teacher when appropriate. But the advanced student must be doing things the way that works best for them within the parameters of the art they're studying. And those parameters become less and less as the student advances, to basically no parameters at the end.

Excuse me for getting all philosophical at 6:45 am.

 

[Headhunter]

For me, proficiency is the key. I used to do weights everyday, but given my small build, I was not "a bodybuilder".

To me, a tkd blackbelt who is not proficient (e.g., an older person who has no power, flexibility, or punching coordination) is not a martial artist in spite of the black belt. I'm sure others would disagree.

You're right I do disagree. That's fhe stupidest thing I've ever heard. Just because you can't kick high doesn't mean you're useless you just change your style of fighting if high kicks are your main weapon you'd have to use punches more simple as that

 

[Gerry Seymour]

To me, the above is an excellent start to list being a "Martial Artist" in the grand sense of the term, but it's also what is supposed to be what is pursued in trying to become a Good Person.

To me, becoming a Good Person is the "Goal." Being a "martial artist" is one of many paths to that goal, though there are many roads to Rome, or Mecca, or to my house for that matter.

At my house I have a huge TV to watch games, a backyard with outdoor kitchen and a refrigerated beer "kegerator" to provide libations during Houston's extremely hot and humid summers. All of those things make me a great host... IF I am a Good Person and want to share them.

And yes, I know that's sort of trite, but it is still true.

This.

Because most people will only rarely need the self-defense skills I teach, and because those skills require maintenance over time so they need to keep attending classes - I expect them to expect more than just fighting and avoidance skills from their training. This is pretty common in MA schools, at least in TMA (as I define it), which is where I've spent most of my time. I've made it a stated goal for my program. People should learn more life skills. My aim is to help them become a better version of themselves: better decisions, more confidence, and all of the things I listed in my previous post.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

When you get old, your body movement will contain "old man flavor". IMO, you should not pass that "old man flavor" to the next generation.

Yes and no.

Much of the "old man flavor" (which I already start to have, because of my knees) is adaptations, and I teach my students the most effective movements, though some of those don't actually match my movements as well anymore.

But some of my "old knees flavor" has also produced useful changes. And those should be passed along. In most schools where an older instructor teaches, he/she probably also has some instructors or advanced students who are younger. The older instructor should be using them to demonstrate techniques a portion of the time, to point out what the goal actually looks like.

All that said, Buka is right: we should be teaching them to move in a way that matches them, rather than a single "right" way. Short people will often have longer stances in NGA (they need proportionally bigger steps to cover distance and shift their partner's weight), and also often have taller stances (less knee bend is needed). Put those together, and they should actually be moving differently from tall people. In my program, I count as "tall people", though I'm average height for a man. My wife is 10" shorter than me. If she moves like me at any point in my training, she's probably doing it wrong.

 

[Gwai Lo Dan]

You're right I do disagree. That's fhe stupidest thing I've ever heard. Just because you can't kick high doesn't mean you're useless you just change your style of fighting if high kicks are your main weapon you'd have to use punches more simple as that

You are making up things that I said, which I didn't say. I never said you had to kick high. I said proficiency. I even specifically listed "punching ability" as a "proficiency" item. My point of "proficiency" is ability to do SOMETHING effectively. If you think effort, attendance and attitude make a person a martial artist, good for you. It's not my opinion, and you are equally entitled to your opinion.

 

[Gwai Lo Dan]

Philosophical question for you - is someone who teaches the martial arts a martial artist, even if he/she can no longer physically perform any of the skills? I'm not talking about someone who read some books and watched some videos without ever doing any of it him/herself, but someone who once was a physically competent martial artist.

For me, yes. Although if he no longer teaches or practices, I would no longer consider him a martial artist but "formerly" a martial artist.

 

[Gwai Lo Dan]

I was looking for a local boxing event under Boxing Ontario, and came across "How to Become a Boxer". Italics are mine.

The local association calls a person simply training an "athlete" until he/she starts training for competition. Only once the person is proficient AND looking to compete, is the person a "boxer". So although some people think my point of view is "stupid" , I still think it is quite reasonable to have proficiency as the key.

How to Become a Boxer | Boxing Ontario

""In order to become an amateur boxer, athletes first have to become members of one of our affiliated boxing clubs. See below on how to contact a club. The athlete trains for approximately 6 – 12 months at the club learning the fundamentals of boxing; stance, defense, ring craft, offense, combinations, rules, and shadow boxing (non-contact boxing). When the athlete, and/or coach and parent decide the athlete is ready to spar, the coach then must register the athlete as a competitor with Boxing Ontario (to register see below). Once this is completed the coach can arrange sparring sessions for the boxer, which are contact boxing trainings that are not scored. The purpose is to hone the boxer’s skills and knowledge before stepping into the ring for an actual bout."

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Just because you can't kick high doesn't mean you're useless you just change your style of fighting if high kicks are your main weapon you'd have to use punches more simple as that

If you are too old and no longer be able to do a floor split, how can you ask your student to train that in your class? As a teacher, you should not ask your students to do something that you can't do yourself.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

For me, yes. Although if he no longer teaches or practices, I would no longer consider him a martial artist but "formerly" a martial artist.

Old CMA saying said, "If you don't spar/wrestle for 3 days, your hands and legs are no longer yours."

 

[CB Jones]

As a teacher, you should not ask your students to do something that you can't do yourself.

That is absolutely absurd notion.

There are many great teacher/instructors/coaches that no longer can.

Just look at gymnastics/baseball/football/basketball/boxing as an example.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

That is absolutely absurd notion.

There are many great teacher/instructors/coaches that no longer can.

Just look at gymnastics/baseball/football/basketball/boxing as an example.

Let's take "pole dancing" as an example. My daughter Natasha Wang is

- 2013 California pole dancing champion.
- 2014 US pole dancing champion.
- 2015 international pole dancing champion.

She is teaching workshop all over the world today. One day if she will no longer be able to do what she is doing today, she will stop teaching and retire. IMO, you just can't teach students if you can't do yourself.

 

[CB Jones]

So according to you, Bela Karolyi should never have taught gymnastics?