Yes Stevie, but can he fight?

[qi-tah]

By your own standards the stage you describe is a distant goal. To get there you have to become dangerous, go through the fire, and encompass the violent part of yourself. If you can't do that the final goal will remain forever beyond reach. The questions "Can you fight?" and "Can you teach me to fight?" are still legitimate. If the teacher can't answer those affirmatively he will not be able to take the student through the necessary intermediate stages.

So if the goal is to get beyond fighting, what are these necessary intermediate steps? I'm not sure that i feel strongly enough either way to make any definitive statements (in many things i agree with you here, knowing that my teacher can fight and can impart that knowledge is important to me), but i'd just like to try to relate this back to my own experience:

1) When i was 10 i wanted to join my local judo club. My mum veto'ed the idea, said it "wasn't ladylike". :shrug:

2) In high school i was bullied a lot (for being a muso, and gay, and weird) and thus found myself in ample situations where i had to defend myself. As a result my evasion and grappling skills seemed quite natural and comfortable quite early on.

3) In my mid twenties to early thirties i played rugby union as an outlet for my aggression - lots of rough behind the play stuff went down and i learnt quite a lot about (female -specific in particular!) dirty fighting... :erg:

4) Finally, at 30 i start my journey in the martial arts. And what do i start with? Capoeira, probably one of the least effective martial arts an inflexible gumby like me could take up! And go on do various CMA styles that require years and years of training to get to bare proficency. The interesting thing is, with all my years of being aggressive in one way or another, i wound up doing martial arts to improve my health. I'm always going to be interested in how the art works 'cause i that's how i am, but fighting? Play fighting and rough-housing is great, real fighting is NOT FUN!

If the aim is to defend myself, then yes i am confident i can do so, but 98% of why i can do so has nothing to do with fighting. And if i was called on to do so, i reckon i would revert to what i know best - evasion and dirty fighting, reagrdless of my martial arts history. Does this make everything i have learnt worthless? Do i have to go out and get into dinkum fights again just to know that fighting is to be avoided? I've seen students go out spoiling for a fight in order to "test their skills", and it always looks hell immature. And if not, then what construes a "realistic test"? Time in the ring? Sparring in training? So much of the sparring i get in class is nothing like fighting. But then so much of what i get in class is exactly what i need, and i find it nowhere else in my life.

Ack... long-winded and i'm not even sure what i'm saying. But i feel strongly about this for some obscure reason, so i'll post anyway. Apols if it's boring.

 

[Em MacIntosh]

I could teach someone else my techniques but I could not teach them to fight short of jumping them on the street with a belaclava, so they don't know it's me and force them to defend themselves. In order to teach someone how to fight, they must fight. Teach them to learn from their own body, a fighting mode, how to deal with the adrenaline dump, teach them to teach themselves. Condition proper instinctive response. I know it's a big concern for me whether my sensei can fight or not. He can, IMO. He can also help me learn. That's why he's my sensei.

 

[Adept]

if you can hit a guy mid sentence, you're halfway home.

And if he's looking the other way at the time, you're both home and hosed!

 

[Last Fearner]

Many others have covered this topic here very well so far, but I will throw in my perspective.

This does present a bit of a conundrum or paradox.

1. Is the "Martial Art" just about fighting, and success in battle (or street defense)? If it is, then why do we need all of the other attachments (eg: philosophy, uniforms, belts, forms, terminology, ethics, etc).

2. If we teach avoidance of conflict as a preferred choice, then future students would become void of any real-life combat experience, thus would they make good instructors and be able to teach new students how to fight effectively?

3. If an instructor is suggesting to their students that what they are learning will be effective in the street, how do we know this is true if that instructor has not used it successfully themselves.

As to issue 1, I think each of us have to decide what we believe the accurate definition, and purpose of the "Martial Art" is. I do hear some say, "why do we need Martial Art to learn philosophy, or manners, or ethical behavior? You can get that elsewhere. Well, the same is true about fighting. If your main concern and focus is winning a street fight, and survival against any and all attackers, then you don't need to even use the term "Martial Art." Just learn to fight from whatever source you can find. After all, you are not after anything other than survival, right?

In the U.S., we have a coin used for tossing (usually a quarter). On one side is the "heads" and the other side is the "tails." In my view, the Martial Art is something like this. "Heads" is what you know; what you think; what you understand; what is your philosophy. "Tails" is "can you protect your butt in a real situation?" You can focus on one or the other, but that would be out of balance with life, nature, and the universe. If you stand a coin on its edge, it is neither heads nor tails. Here, you must gain the insights, wisdom, and enlightenment to know which side of the coin to use at any given time.

As to issue 2 and 3, how can we teach non-violence, yet remain effective teachers? This might not be possible (paradox?). Consider this analogy. If someone long ago in history was an expert swordsman, and killed many opponents in combat. Then, they developed a system of teaching how to cut inanimate objects with a sharp sword, and how to spar with wooden swords and protective gear. Students will be able to effectively combine the two skills (technical knowledge of cutting correctly, and out maneuvering an opponent in combat), thus will have the ability to fight as well as their teacher without ever having been in combat themselves (agree or disagree?). If I am very skilled at cutting bamboo, and can beat any classmate with my boken or shinai, should I feel confident that if an opponent attacked me with a sword that I could kill them, or do I need to kill several myself to be certain?

One thing to consider is this. There are those who think and act in the moment, and those who plan for the future. For example, "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a life-time." If you are skilled with a sword, fighting and winning at the critical moment is all that is important - - for the present time. Most swordsman know enough to keep their sword clean so that it will last them a long time, hold up in battle, and be easier to draw from its scabbard.

Maintenance, and long term planning is important to Martial Art training - not just physical skill and ability, but sharpness of mind, awareness, being calm and cool, and a whole world of philosophy that helps mold, and forge a true master of the art. If you have a pond with fish in it, and you are hungry, you could eat all the fish you want, and be full every day. However, if you are not careful and you eat the last fish, you might die of starvation. People must learn to manage their resources, and be able to find other food to eat.

In my opinion, "Martial" is fighting - - it is what you do today to defend yourself. "Art" is what you do to refine your skills, improve yourself, prepare yourself, and preserve the knowledge for future generations. It means not burning your bridges, not placing an "x" on your back as a target, and not focusing on only one side of the balance of nature.

Many will acknowledge that their primary concern is protecting themselves, their spouses, and their loved ones at all costs. If the situation is there, and you must act, then yes - by all means, do what you must. However, what sense does it make if you place yourself in a potentially lethal situation just to gain experience in fighting, or to beat up a bully. Avoiding conflict can save your life and keep you alive to protect your wife and kids another day when it is absolutely unavoidable. If that day is today, then do what you must.

The Spiderman analogy is a good one, which is why I often intervene and act against a bully, thug, or thief. Because I can, and I would rather it be me that this person has to encounter than to avoid him and his next victim be a child, an elderly person, or any weaker innocent individual. However, I have trained to know when it is safe, and when I should avoid the dangerous scenarios. I can still scare the person off, get a good description and call the police, but I do myself and my family no good if I get killed when I can prevent it.

A man who cuts off his nose to spite his face is a fool.
A man who starts a blood-bath with a local gang knowing they will target him and his family is a fool.
A man who wins the battles while setting himself up to lose the war is a fool.

The Martial Art is about winning today, as well as tomorrow. It is about surviving this battle as well as the next, and subsequently winning the war. It is about contributing to your environment in a positive way knowing that what goes around comes around. It is about all the things the make success in life, and in combat more likely, which includes promoting peace, but being prepared to deal with violence; teaching and living with ethics, while accepting that it often takes the real threat of violence, and occasionally violent acts to reach the peace on the other side. Create discord in your life, and your life might end abruptly. Live violently, and violence will follow you wherever you go.

These are my opinions formed through experience. It is not my word that makes these things true (if, in fact, they are true) - - it is nature that makes it true.

What good is taking your opponent's pawn, if it means they capture your king.
What good is landing a punch if it means your opponent slices open your throat.
What good is winning this fight today, if it means you lose the fight tomorrow.
What good is being the "best fighter" if a hundred worst fighters gang up on you because of your attitude, arrogance, or unethical behavior.

Yes Stevie, but can he fight?
Yes, he can fight, but can he teach you to fight?
Yes, he can teach you to fight, but will he teach you when not to fight?

That is the mark of a true Master!

Know this:

Being a regular fighter, does not make you the best fighter.
Being a well-known fighter, does not make you the best fighter.
Winning countless battles in the street does not make you unbeatable.

The most dangerous fighter who should be the most feared and respected, is the one you would never suspect would ever win a fight.
The most deadly master and greatest warrior....... you have never even heard of.

CM D.J. Eisenhart

 

[kidswarrior]

A man who wins the battles while setting himself up to lose the war is a fool.

Live violently, and violence will follow you wherever you go.

Yes, he can teach you to fight, but will he teach you when not to fight?

I can't speak for others, but these quotes are a good summation first, of the teens I teach MA to, whose lives have been nothing but fighting--until I get them; and second, why I teach them MA. :ultracool

Winning countless battles in the street does not make you unbeatable.

This one I can vouch for personally. Thought I was pretty bad at one time. Then the little skinny guy on a horse-dose of drugs got hold of me. My arrogance and 'street record' was my downfall.

 

[kidswarrior]

The poster said that a soldier would have to be taught things suitable for what he was going to do if he were going to Iraq for example. Can I just point out that many soldiers who come back from Iraq and Afghanistan need to fight? Sounds odd I know but we put our returnees straight into an MMA comp, a couple won, a couple lost but all agreed they needed the 'stress release' of some violence. It was a carthatic action and I think that it's also one that many young males feel in need of.

Wow! That's brilliant, Tez. I know they have to come back with a lot of anger and pent up frustration. What a great, healthy release you're providing for these soldiers. Good on ya' and your studio. :asian:

We find that the MMA fighters are less aggressive in real life than most people and it will take a lot to goad one into a fight.

In my youth, when boxing was still respected and I tried my hand a little, this was true of boxers, too. The nicest people on the planet.