A true warrior

[Daniel Sullivan]

I preface my post by saying that I see your post as a fine ideal of what a warrior should be, and in no way to I mean to belittle it, so if I come across that way, I apologize in advance.

To be a true warrior you have to be a member (past or present) of the military or law enforcement; sorry firefighters, you are brave but you don't have the duty of charging into a gun fight as brave as you are for what you do.

Being a member of law enforcement makes you a peace keeper, not a warrior. The potential for exchange of gunfire does not change this. Unless you are a part of a society wherein law enforcement and the military are one in the same (or a part of occupational forces that assume the duties of law enforcement), law enforcement is generally not the duty of warriors or their modern analogues.

In addition to this you have to have impeccable moral character, an understanding of duty/honor, high integrity, the ability to make hard (just) decisions and the desire to be the best you can be in all aspects of life .

All worthy things. While they are not technical qualifications for being an actual warrior, they certainly would make one a much better warrior. Certainly, the above represents a noble ideal.

(not one of those who are wearing a uniform for the pay & benefits).

One of the strongest motivations historically for war has been one group's desire to possess that which another group has, be it land, resources, wealth, or stature. Historically, warriors' motivations were seldom so pure.

One of the reasons that flowery warrior codes were invented was to motivate warriors to behave during peace time and to keep them in line during war. Historically, warriors would happilly fight their wars with each other within a region, with the populace suffering the results thereof. Wealth and personal gain has always been a strong motivating factor for warriors. The idea of joining the military for pay and benefits is neither good nor bad in and of itself, and the idea certainly is right in line with what classically motivates warriors.

Daniel

 

[Nomad]

Then you are not, nor will you ever be a "warrior".

Not to be flip or even disagreeing with your post, but the whole debate over if someone who hasn't put their lives on the line for something still deserves the title is more about ego and self-esteem (I want to be a "warrior" too...) than it is about accuracy of the claim IMO. I can go to Space Camp, become a pilot and buy myself a space suit but unless Im launched into space I wont ever be able to claim I'm an Astronaut.

Nowhere in my post did I state that I was a warrior. I merely talked about definitions of service and people attempting to possess some of the attributes frequently associated with the term; certainly a worthwhile pursuit, in my opinion.

I would argue that there are many military personnel who also wouldn't qualify for the title of warrior, particularly if we're talking about the noble ideal of the warrior as so many have mentioned in their posts.

While some certainly live up to this ideal, most probably wouldn't qualify on this basis, in spite of their service to their country and willingness to lay their lives on the line.

 

[Nomad]

Skill at waging war is what makes a warrior. Most cultures differentiated between warriors and foot soldiers.

Warriors were traditionally officers. Foot soldiers were either enlisted or conscripted. In most cultures, warriors were also a social class. The US doesn't have a warrior class. Modern militaries operate on a different model than societies that had a warrior class. The only reason that the definition has broadened is because in modern western society, there really is no warrior social class.

Never having actually served in the military in any capacity, I am not a warrior in any capacity.

Daniel

I do think that having a professional military (as opposed to hastily trained conscripts, for example), could satisfy the definition of a warrior class. We're not talking about people that spend most of their time and energy doing other things (farming, banking, etc) and fight when they must, but a paid and professional standing army. While not based on blood inheritance (although there are certainly multi-generational military families), this is definitely the closest we have to a warrior class in modern times.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I do think that having a professional military (as opposed to hastily trained conscripts, for example), could satisfy the definition of a warrior class. We're not talking about people that spend most of their time and energy doing other things (farming, banking, etc) and fight when they must, but a paid and professional standing army. While not based on blood inheritance (although there are certainly multi-generational military families), this is definitely the closest we have to a warrior class in modern times.

I would agree with that.

Daniel

 

[StudentCarl]

There are warriors today. Look at the career members of our special operations forces and the high end of our rapid-deployment combat forces. I don't mean the fit, aggressive youngsters who serve a tour or two, but the NCOs and officers who make a career of operating and training in and for the ongoing situations and under-the-radar problems that don't make the news, or they are there and gone before it is news because they are the point of the spear.

 

[ronagle]

In your opinion what is the criteria for todays world that makes a true warrior? We all know what was 100's of years ago but what would you believe in today world could be seen as a true warrior? Qualities that make them into one.

Why is this in the TKD subject umbrella? Real warrior, enlists and goes off to defend his country, puts on a badge to keep the peace, fights fires, saves lives, that kinda thing.

People who train in white jammys and break defenceless boards in between bouts of point dancing are not true warriors.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Why is this in the TKD subject umbrella? Real warrior, enlists and goes off to defend his country, puts on a badge to keep the peace, fights fires, saves lives, that kinda thing.

People who train in white jammys and break defenceless boards in between bouts of point dancing are not true warriors.

Or they may do both? Nothing precludes man in first paragraph from participating in the what you describe in the second paragraph.

He posted it here because he's a taekwondo instructor and most of his posts end up in the taekwondo section.

As for what a "real warrior" does, he engages in war, be it to defend his country or to attack another's. Keeping the peace, fighting fires, and saving lives are peripherals, particularly the saving lives part. Part of being a warrior is that your primary skill is figuring out and executing ways of overcoming the enemy, which generally involves far more taking of lives than saving.

People frequenty use the term warrior now as somewhat of an adjective to describe someone who is dedicated to and 'fights' for a specific purpose or cause, with all sorts of lofty ideals attached to the word.

The fact is that this is a very modern conceit and common in martial arts.

As for the white pjs, I think you might mean white long johns. The gi and its derivatives are essentially an evolution of the underwear worn beneath the kimono and hakama.

Western fighting sports typically feature garments that are an extension of western undergarments as well, as that is what people used to train in prior to the invention of dedicated fitness apparel.

Those who train in vee-neck doboks are fortunate; their uniform is more of a track suit and is modeled after the hanbok.

The garments that are worn for training and the training methods (breaking of defenseless boards) are unrelated to one's status as a warrior. The man in the first paragraph spends a portion of his training using a mechanized apparatus to propel a led ball into a defenseless target and another portion wrestling with and trying to pin other such men, probably while wearing much less than his full uniform and associated gear.

Daniel

 

[StudentCarl]

Why is this in the TKD subject umbrella? Real warrior, enlists and goes off to defend his country, puts on a badge to keep the peace, fights fires, saves lives, that kinda thing.

People who train in white jammys and break defenceless boards in between bouts of point dancing are not true warriors.

You're coming into this without context. It has spun off from conversations about the actions and views of the 'pioneers' of taekwondo and discussions of applications of taekwondo in the real world.

I'm not sure the point of your comment about jammys and boards--but nobody in this thread claimed to be a warrior. I've banged my head on plenty of wood in my life and had boards hit back painfully when I don't hit them hard enough--they're not defenseless. The jammys weren't my idea; that came from Jigoro Kano. Point dancing? Broken bones and concussions do make being a taekwondo player more adventurous than being a "playa" at the bar (unless you count AIDS).

So do you have something positive to contribute to this discussion?

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

You're coming into this without context. It has spun off from conversations about the actions and views of the 'pioneers' of taekwondo and discussions of applications of taekwondo in the real world.

I'm not sure the point of your comment about jammys and boards--but nobody in this thread claimed to be a warrior. I've banged my head on plenty of wood in my life and had boards hit back painfully when I don't hit them hard enough--they're not defenseless. The jammys weren't my idea; that came from Jigoro Kano. Point dancing? Broken bones and concussions do make being a taekwondo player more adventurous than being a "playa" at the bar (unless you count AIDS).

So do you have something positive to contribute to this discussion?

Nah. He's just trolling.

Daniel

 

[ronagle]

As for what a "real warrior" does, he engages in war, be it to defend his country or to attack another's. Keeping the peace, fighting fires, and saving lives are peripherals, particularly the saving lives part. Part of being a warrior is that your primary skill is figuring out and executing ways of overcoming the enemy, which generally involves far more taking of lives than saving.

People frequenty use the term warrior now as somewhat of an adjective to describe someone who is dedicated to and 'fights' for a specific purpose or cause, with all sorts of lofty ideals attached to the word.

The fact is that this is a very modern conceit and common in martial arts.

Nope, you got it wrong. Sure there are guys who do "True Warrior" stuff like I already mentioned and also do martial arts, but it's stuff that they do in that job that is the difference. Otherwise it's just a guy playing krotty 3 times a week or an MMA tough guy doing the same thing.

 

[ronagle]

You're coming into this without context. It has spun off from conversations about the actions and views of the 'pioneers' of taekwondo and discussions of applications of taekwondo in the real world.

I'm not sure the point of your comment about jammys and boards--but nobody in this thread claimed to be a warrior. I've banged my head on plenty of wood in my life and had boards hit back painfully when I don't hit them hard enough--they're not defenseless. The jammys weren't my idea; that came from Jigoro Kano. Point dancing? Broken bones and concussions do make being a taekwondo player more adventurous than being a "playa" at the bar (unless you count AIDS).

So do you have something positive to contribute to this discussion?

No, He used the term True Warrior, A TKD "Player" is exactly that, just like a judo guy, krotty guy, MMA guy, as opposed to the guys who may do that On the side, but actually go out in their daily lives and do something that makes them that term; cop, soldier, fireman, etc.

How is that not positive, and how hard is it to get my point? It doesn't seem like it should be.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

As for what a "real warrior" does, he engages in war, be it to defend his country or to attack another's. Keeping the peace, fighting fires, and saving lives are peripherals, particularly the saving lives part. Part of being a warrior is that your primary skill is figuring out and executing ways of overcoming the enemy, which generally involves far more taking of lives than saving.

People frequenty use the term warrior now as somewhat of an adjective to describe someone who is dedicated to and 'fights' for a specific purpose or cause, with all sorts of lofty ideals attached to the word.

The fact is that this is a very modern conceit and common in martial arts.

Nope, you got it wrong. Sure there are guys who do "True Warrior" stuff like I already mentioned and also do martial arts, but it's stuff that they do in that job that is the difference. Otherwise it's just a guy playing krotty 3 times a week or an MMA tough guy doing the same thing.

What specifically do you think that I have 'wrong'? What part of my post do you disagree with? And why not spell karate correctly and avoid the pejorative?

Daniel

 

[ronagle]

Nah. He's just trolling.

Daniel

No, not really. You either dont get my point or seem troubled by it. This thread seems like it should go under the study not just TKD, which is basically an olympic sport.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

No, not really. You either dont get my point or seem troubled by it. This thread seems like it should go under the study not just TKD, which is basically an olympic sport.

I got your point after you made it intelligently with Carl, and for the most part agree (I generally do not consider cops and firemen, by profession to be 'warriors'; simply noble professions, and taekwondo is more than just an olympic sport).

Your first post simply came off as rudeness for the sake of rudeness and the discription of defenseless boards is silly; nobody (hopefully) thinks that breaking boards equals fighting ability.

The point of breaking is to test the correctness of a technique, give the student a degree of confidence in their ability, demonstrate a level of conditioning, and as a crowd pleaser at demos. Whether or not breaking is of actual value in the first three scenarios is another story. As a crowd pleaser, it works like a champ.

Daniel

 

[pavlaras]

tocrush the enemy

 

[Archangel M]

A definition is what the majority accepts it to be. If we buy into the football player/MMA fighter/cancer survivor "as warrior" definition, that changes the honorific we tend to bestow on people who sacrifice their lives in service to their community/country like soldiers, LEO's, firefighters (which I have no problem including personally). However I also agree that not every soldier/cop/etc deserves the title either. My definition has to include a skill at arms/trade...a willingness to "jump into the fire" and a lifestyle revolving around professionalism. But at the core of it there has to be SERVICE and SACRIFICE.

 

[puunui]

The point of breaking is to test the correctness of a technique, give the student a degree of confidence in their ability, demonstrate a level of conditioning, and as a crowd pleaser at demos. Whether or not breaking is of actual value in the first three scenarios is another story. As a crowd pleaser, it works like a champ.

Actually the point of breaking has changed over the years. The main purpose of breaking was to test the quality of one's makiwara (kwon go in Korean) training. But today, hardly anyone does that anymore, so it has evolved into something else.

On the importance of makiwara training, GM LEE Won Kuk said that without makiwara training, there is no karate.

 

[puunui]

A definition is what the majority accepts it to be. If we buy into the football player/MMA fighter/cancer survivor "as warrior" definition, that changes the honorific we tend to bestow on people who sacrifice their lives in service to their community/country like soldiers, LEO's, firefighters (which I have no problem including personally). However I also agree that not every soldier/cop/etc deserves the title either. My definition has to include a skill at arms/trade...a willingness to "jump into the fire" and a lifestyle revolving around professionalism. But at the core of it there has to be SERVICE and SACRIFICE.

In dictionary.com there is a definition of the word warrior which seems to include people such as football players, and the like.

 

[Devlin76]

I like the Warrior Creed some of the Bujinkan people talk about.

[FONT=verdana,Arial]Wherever I go,
everyone is a little bit safer because I am there. [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,Arial]Wherever I am,
anyone in need has a friend. [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,Arial] Whenever I return home,
everyone is happy I am there.[/FONT]​

http://www.winjutsu.com/warrior-creed.html

 

[Steve]

To be a true warrior you have to be a member (past or present) of the military or law enforcement; sorry firefighters, you are brave but you don't have the duty of charging into a gun fight as brave as you are for what you do. You can be the bravest, toughest, strongest, most skilled person there is but until you represent something else (Town, City, County, State, Country) something greater than yourself you are not a warrior; give of yourself to/for the public good(?).

In addition to this you have to have impeccable moral character, an understanding and sense of duty/honor, high integrity, the ability to make hard (just) decisions and the desire to be the best you can be in all aspects of life (not one of those pogues who are wearing a uniform for the pay & benefits).

There is more too it but this is the gist as I see it (again, my .02 only).

So, then would you say that not all soldiers are warriors?