There is excellent documentation to the contrary, LF.
Your examples are not to the "contrary" of what I said, but fit into the description that I have clearly denoted removes these individuals from being
true and complete Martial Artists.
Choki Motobu was probably the greatest of the expatriate Okinawan karateka who brought the very hard linear Shuri style to Japan; he was considered the best technician of his generation and was a feared fighter.
Then he was a great "
technician" and a "
feared fighter" but this does not qualify a person as being a Martial Artist by definition of those whom I believe truly
are Martial Artist, and understand what it means to be one. I am not implying that you are not a Marital Artist, my friend, just that we disagree on terminology, and the source that I use are people whom I regard as being very legitimate.
We know from the work of Mark Bishop that, as he puts it, Motobu `entered Anko Itosu's dojo but was soon expelled because of his attitude of always wanting to prove himself.'
Prime example of a characteristic and conduct
unbecoming of a Martial Artist.
Bruce Clayton provides the revealing detail that `each time Itosu taught him a new technique, Motobu would rush down to Naha's red-light district and try it out on someone... when Itosu found out about these experiments, he publically humiliated Motobu by expelling him from the class.'
As a Martial Artist, and a serious instructor,
I would have expelled him as well, and further stated openly that he was no longer conducting himself as a Martial Artist should, thus he is
not a Martial Artist but a skilled technician who likes to fight. Who was the
student in this particular case, and who was the
teacher? The student misbehaves, and the teacher expels him. They don't get to continue to claim the honorable status of a Martial Artist simply because they
were once a student of the Martial Art under a true Martial Art Master who knows better - regardless of the former student's technical skills.
He forfeits the right to be called a Martial Artist by the very behavior that got him expelled.
There is not a single great karate master of the era, however—Egami, Mibuni, Toyama—who did not regard Motobu as a martial artist of the highest caliber.
"Knowledge without justice ought to be called cunning rather than wisdom." ~ Plato
I don't really care what those other people regarded him as. How long were these other people training? What makes them and their assessment so much more valid than a Martial Art Master of today. People tend to hold these historical names in such high regard when they were no different than many of us instructors, and often much younger, with less time in the Martial Art, and even less of an understanding of true Martial Art philosophy.
This is why the true Masters of their time expelled people. If I were there then, I would do the same thing. I have known many characters who "train in the Martial Art" today, and might be good fighters, but they break the law, or they abuse their spouses, or they get into fights at the drop of a hat. Other so-called Martial Artist, who are their peers and juniors, are in awe of them and their skills. They regard these modern "bad boys" as "Martial Artists" today. Yet, I deny that, and state as a matter of fact that their
actions, and behavior disqualify them for that title.
For them, the preservers of Matsumura's and Itosu's creation, a martial artist was one who practiced the martial arts to a high degree of proficiency, and by that standard, Motobu was in a class by himself.
Then he was in a "class by himself" - - a class of Non-Martial Artist who were skilled fighters.
And there are far worse stories about Chotoku Kyan,
Then Chotoku Kyan was
far worse, and does not deserve to be labeled as anything other than a combatant or skilled fighter.
Kyan provoked many fights, and using his apparently unparalleled agility and evasive skills along with the pitiless version of Shuri-te he developed, killed a number of attackers, including several whom he himself provoked to attack.
This simply proves my point.
"The measure of a man is what he does with power." ~ Plato
I don't care who the person is, or what their historical reputation, or who places them on a pedestal. If they
provoke fights, and
kill their victims, they are
bullies,
thugs, and
murderers - - but absolutely
not Martial Artist. Sorry if you and others disagree, but there is no room for leeway on this issue in my training and teaching.
It should be noted that in spite of this extreme aggressiveness and almost gratuitous love of violence, there is not a single accomplished student of Okinawan karate who regards Kyan as anything but a supremely accomplished martial artist.
Then those "accomplished students" were
wrong, and blinded by the technical skills that impressed them so. "Humanitarianism" is defined as "
the belief that the sole moral obligation of humankind is the improvement of human welfare." (Heritage Dictionary, 2000) A man who
disregards the
welfare of his neighbors,
cheats people, and
steps on others to get to the top himself can not
truly claim to be a "Humanitarian." A person who
seeks violence,
provokes fights, and beats on people or
kills them unnecessarily is
not, by any stretch of the imagination, a
true Martial Artist!
Titian and Leonardo were to Italian Renaissance painting; who would dare assert that neither of the latter were true masters of their art simply because they were hardly saints in their personal lives?
Apples to oranges! They were masters of their "art." They were
not Martial Artists. Being a painter is a unique "art" and "talent" which does not include any training or teachings pertaining to moral conduct, legal behavior, nor the restraint of one's learned power to destroy another human being. Martial Artists
do have that responsibility, and those lessons
are part of the Martial Art education when it is taught correctly.
For that matter, Wagner was a vicious anti-Semite who cruelly abused the women he was was involved with;
Then he was
not a Martial Artist. True Martial Artists
do not abuse women.
Herbert Von Karajan was actually a Nazi party member. We may loathe both of them as ethical monsters—I certainly do—but exactly how much credibility would it have to say that neither of them were `true musical artists' simply because their political morality was loathsome?
Would you contend that a person, who most people consider to be "ethical monsters," and "loathsome" individuals should be regarded as "Martial Artists?"
Again - - apples to oranges! They were perhaps talented musicians,
not humanitarians, and
not Martial Artists. I can rightly, and justly say, by the evidence of their own actions, they were definitely not humanitarians. This does not detract from their talent as musicians. I can also say, with abosolute certainty that they, or anyone who conducts themselves in a similar fashion, would not be Martial Artists - - except by those who wish to twist and pervert the term Martial Artist to mean anything they want it to as long as the person can fight. If you take that stance, then we simply disagree, because I believe with all my heart and soul that this is wrong!
And if you grant that point, then where is it written that to be a martial artist—as opposed to a literary, musical or photographic artist—you have to be a moral paragon?
Not a "paragon" of flawless perfection, but certainly a
model of excellence; one who obeys laws, respects life, and the rights of others, and sets a good example for children to follow.
"Knowledge becomes evil if the aim be not virtuous." ~ Plato
It is written in many books, by experts and Grandmasters of ancient and modern times, that this coduct is not acceptable behavior among Martial Artists. Not that others do not write books which claim otherwise, but their claims are based in denial of what they were once taught (or should have been taught) as students, lest they be ejected from their school by a genuine Master.
If you impose that requirement, you are using the word `artist' in a private sense,
"Private sense?" It is used in a
specific sense. One unique to the "Martial Art. This is an "English" word which is used to give some meaning to the original concept of "Do." It does not mean the same as an "art" of talent in a particular field, or a skill to paint, or play music or the like. "Do" is understood by asians, and specifically by true Martial Artists as meaning "a way of life," and "a path of righteous behavior and moral conduct." It does not mean the "art of fighting skillfully," but rather the "art of living life the way a warrior who values life, and adheres to rules of moral conduct lives." This is the true "art form" - - not an art of "fighting," or "killing" or "violence." Where is it written, in any credible text, that the "Martial Art" is the "way of choosing violence over peace;" the "art of provoking fights and killing innocent victims just to test and hone our skills?"
What this does is, in effect, say that you personally do not use the term `martial artist' to mean `one highly proficient in the application of systematic combat arts', but rather `one highly proficient in the application of combat arts who does not deliberately seek out combat',
EXACTLY! Now you have it, my friend!
"I exhort you also to take part in the great combat, which is the combat of life, and greater than every other earthly conflict." ~ Plato
which would be equivalent to my saying that von Karajan is not a musical artist because when I use the term `artist', what I mean is what other people mean by `artists' except with the additional condition that the person involved was not a Nazi.
Again,
Apples to oranges. The term "artist" when applied to painting and music is not a replacement for the term "Do" as in Budo, Bushido, Judo, Aikido, Hapkido, Hwarang-Do, Taekwondo. These were and are the Martial Art - - the "Do." None of them, in their philosophy or traditional curriculum, advocated seeking violence, hurting people unnecessarily, or killing without regard. If necessary, I can dig through all of my Martial Art texts, written by many famous authors and founders, and I will quote passages that denounce this kind of conduct, and specifically states that this kind of behavior is not that of a Martial Artist.
Well, no one can stop either of us from using the terms exactly the way we want to—we have the example of Humpty Dumpty, of whom Lewis Carroll reports that
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
And if Lewis Carroll had coined the term "Do" or "Budo," or "Bushido" or "Taekwondo," etc, then perhaps I would accept his definition of what he meant by the term. But he did not. Those who call these misguided individuals "great masters" did not create the term "Do" nor its translation to the English "art" which should hold the same meaning of the original context in the Martial Art, not in musical art. They were students who did not understand the meaning of the term anymore than many students today.
I do not mean to offend anyone (although I am sure there will be those who are offended), and I realize that my assertions are strong and unyielding, but this is the way I was taught, this is the way I read every interpretation by the true Great Masters, and this is the way I have come to understand the
truth about the Martial Art. Anyone can be a student of the Martial Art. A teacher may choose to accept them, or reject them. However, if their conduct is unbecoming of a Martial Artist, then they shall remain a "student" until they learn the proper attitude. No matter how good their skills become, they are not a Martial Artist until their attitude changes.
You have probably heard of "conduct unbecoming an officer." A person can be a skilled soldier, but they are not an "officer" unless they meet certain requirements. An officer who acts in a manner which is not consistent with the rules of conduct set forth by senior officers, then they lose the title of "officer." Such rules of behavior exist for Martial Artists. I suggest students seek them out, study them, and act accordingly!
"The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance." ~
Aristotle
To be is to do.
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." ~
Aristotle
Having good fighting skills does not make you a Martial Artist. Good fighting skills are a by-product of good Martial Art training. It is what you do with those skills that makes you a Martial Artist.
Live your life as a Martial Artist, or you are not one.
CM D.J. Eisenhart