- Feb 23, 2014
- Reaction score
This might not be short…
Yeah, you're off base… most of our (physical) tactics are based around pre-emptive striking… so no, I'm not suggesting that if there's an offensive element it's not self defence… in fact, I can't see anything in my post that suggests that.
As far as what Bodhidarma supposedly taught, it was largely a series of exercises to improve the monks health so they could physically endure the meditation sessions. The idea of "to defend against bandits" was a much later addition to the story…
Well, yeah, it needs to be a lot more complex than that… and while martial arts can certainly help in many ways, that isn't the same thing as saying that they're designed for, or even optimised for such usage or application.
That was really entertaining. And that last word is your clue as to what you actually posted, for the record.
As to telling you that isn't martial arts, well, it was an exhibition… it was largely done for show rather than anything that practical… could you tell which were the practical aspects that might have some place, and which were more "crowd pleasers"? In terms of pure percentage, the majority was the latter… so sure, it could easily be classed as martial arts… but that in itself doesn't really mean anything… for one thing, none of it was self defence either… it was more theatrical combatives than anything else…
No, it's not.
First, they're not soldiers… they're a Canadian MMA group doing a demo for the soldiers. Next, that's not on the battlefield, it's in a military camp. Third, this in no way has anything to do with applications of sport (or martial arts) on the battlefield, so has no real relevance to anything you're saying.
That article specifically states that MMA is not really like actual combative usage, you realise… kinda going against your argument.
He used a choke. What's your point? There's no mention of anything other than Cale having been scooped by the US Military to help teach a combatives system… nothing about sports or anything else related. A choke does not equal sports, or MMA, or anything else.
Yeah… that article was rather flawed in a number of senses… it seems to have made the same assumption that MMA=particular techniques (such as arm bars and chokes), therefore when someone utilises such techniques, they're using MMA… uh, nope. It talks about changing and adapting away from a sporting context, which stops it being MMA really, for military usage, and mentions that some soldiers are taking part in sporting contests within the military… that's pretty standard fare, really, and has existed within military groups as long as there's been military groups. It doesn't mean that those sporting systems and approaches are then used in actual battle… although there can be some crossover, it's really not the same thing at all… and isn't part of their training for such usage, in any case. Most commonly, it's to promote aggressive behaviour, competitive ideals, promote fitness, and more. Not because the soldiers are then expected to actually use it… even though there is a chance they might.
Absolutely. Especially as most of what you posted either counters your position or has no connection or relevance.
As I said, sporting events from combative drills and training have existed as long as military units have… in fact, it could be said that all sports are really a derivation of military training in one way or another… promoting certain aspects that would be useful for a warrior or group of warriors. This isn't anything new, nor does it mean that sports are the same thing as found/used in actual combat.
Well, that's more a ceremony than a sport… and isn't really a "battlefield" method either… so, uh… and?
First things first. This might be hard for you to hear, but… Jujutsu is not a sport martial art. Some modern forms are, including BJJ, but to say that Jujutsu is a sport martial art is to show no understanding of Jujutsu. As far as "who knows where one starts and the other stops", well, anyone who actually knows what the particular systems parameters are.
I have no clue what the wiki page on Edith Garrud is about… as it doesn't really address anything that's being discussed.
Wow, that video was funny… no, Bartitsu isn't a "mixed martial art", anymore than countless other systems before it were. It certainly isn't/wasn't "MMA", and nor was what Bruce Lee was doing, for a large number of reasons.
But, I gotta ask, what does that have to do with anything in this thread? It's not really covering the idea of martial arts versus the concept of self defence… it has nothing to do with the "military arts/martial arts" idea… what are you trying to say?
No, it's not. It's a modern (early 20th Century) sport. The "battlefield" claims are frankly unsupportable myths, which run contrary to the demonstrable aspects of the art/system.
I almost don't know where to start with this one… but, really, no. Just… no. Self defence is about getting home safely… not about doing anything "to" anyone… although that could be part of it, it's not actually what it's about… it's not about gaining control either… although I could say that those definitions fit quite perfectly a number of martial arts themselves… and your definition of "traditional martial arts" can be seen as inaccurate as well… none of my systems (very traditional) even consider "sparring", for example…
And? I'm really struggling to see the relevance…
And how is dropping someone on their head (presumably on concrete outside) not a "murder death kill" approach?
Playing semantics much?