Yes Stevie, but can he fight?

tellner

Senior Master
Joined
Nov 18, 2005
Messages
4,379
Reaction score
240
Location
Orygun
I'm really of two minds about the whole "true martial mastery is about not fighting". On one hand it's a good ideal, especially to teach to children. With any luck they'll get through the hormone-storm of adolescence without hurting people and become law-abiding ethical adults. On the other, it's simply not true. Martial arts really are about struggle, conflict and fighting. Yes, the inner jihad is more important than the outer jihad, but when you come right down to it they are and always have been about developing skills that you can use to fight in one arena or another. It might be an Octagon. It might be the stealing cattle from the folks down the road. It might be on the fencing strip, the battlefield, the barroom or against criminals who want to do crime on you. It comes down to prevailing by the standards one sets in the arena one finds oneself in. Most people who get into the martial arts come there with an expectation that they will come out the other end being able to fight.

That's where the title of this thread comes from. When my Silat teacher was a kid his uncle who taught him Minangkabau Harimau lived a fair distance away. He was at an age where it just wasn't fitting to be learning from his grandmother. So he went out looking for Silat. Every time he came back saying a potential guru did this or that or had such and such a title and lineage his grandmother only had one question for him. "Yes Stevie, but can he fight?" If he couldn't answer with an unequivocal "Yes" she wasn't interested. If he could there were other questions. Finally he found a really good one who could fight and teach and was a good man. The rest, as they say, is history.

Most people start martial arts thinking they will be better fighters whether the fight is on the street or on the tournament floor. And to a large degree we let them down. There are plenty of coaches; let's be honest, most of what gurus, senseis, sifus and the rest do is simple coaching. Some of them can teach you to function and prevail under pressure. Many simply can not. Maybe they could, but they have self doubts. Or their aim may be something else entirely like financial gain or creating a community with themselves as the focus of attention. They may have higher goals like cultural conservation or personal development. In any case there are a lot of avenues for separating the student from his or her money, time and some fraction of autonomy in ways which do not advance his or her goals.

There's a classic bait-and-switch that goes on in a lot of martial marketing. You hold out the promise that the students will be able to protect themselves. Then you say that it's wrong to fight and the real skill lies in avoiding conflict. But you should continue to spend hours and gold because of the teacher's ineffable wisdom and because you have a chance to gain status within the group.

Another common ploy is "Well, that's just fighting. What we're interested in is the Art." And the Art, so the students are told, is in the deeper meaning and beauty of the choreography and the chance to give submission signals to people with higher status who stand in the front of the class (they call that humility and respect). The whole deception, and in all honesty it's as much self deception on the part of those in charge, is in what they mean by "Art". The older meaning from which we get the word martial arts is great skill and depth of accomplishment that transcends simple mastery of the external form. That's why alchemy was called "The Great Art". It isn't that the smell of charcoal, sulfur and nitric acid was particularly esthetic. It's that the accomplishment of the stages of the Great Work implied a mastery over the fundamental workings of the universe and realms above and below.

At some point a person in these practices may get good enough that his or her skill becomes Art. And from the point of aesthetics there is great beauty in any skill done well, efficient movement and all the attributes of casual competence. Those are mere side effects.

Others will say that they are teaching philosophy and spiritual development. The process of developing mastery certainly yields important personal benefits. And martial arts can be an excellent vehicle for it. But if that is what you are interested in there are other avenues. There are rabbis, bonzes, shamans, shaykhs, priests and others who specialize in that sort of training. Almost all martial arts teachers are really specialized athletic coaches with exotic-looking workout gear.

A lot of people who start up in martial arts of one sort or another really don't want to learn to fight. They aren't particularly comfortable with the idea. And let's face it, people who are trying to hurt you is a pretty scary thing. Some recognize this and go to the dojo to overcome that fear or function in spite of it. Many show up in order to insulate themselves from it. If violence and fear can be put away in a safe ritualized part of their lives they don't have to deal with them at less pleasant levels. The notion that the higher levels of martial arts are peaceful and shun violence appeals. The students can feel superior in their elevated understanding and good about themselves.

Not getting into fights is a good thing, no doubt about it. Whenever you throw down there's a chance you will be hurt or killed. The common advice here "Only fight when you absolutely have to" is excellent and very true. But even if you aren't interested in trouble trouble may very well be interested in you. If the time comes and you can't do unto others what they are trying to do unto you your time and money have been wasted, and you've probably been sold a bill of goods.

"Should I?" is a good question. But too often an obsessive concern with that and repeated rejections of violence by those who purport to teach the combative arts eclipses the elephant in the martial living room. "Can I?" and "How do I know I can?"

This is at the heart of at least one discussion going on elsewhere about whether having killed someone should be in one's bio. Of course it shouldn't. For a number of legal reasons if nothing else. It's also a very personal matter, not something to be shouted from the rooftops to passing strangers. And I'm really sure I wouldn't want to know the kind of person who proclaims it for one and all to hear. My response would probably be "That's nice. Now keep the hands where I can see them and get the hell out of the way between me and the door."

But buried in there are legitimate questions. "What do you know and how do you know it?" "Why should I listen to you?" "Can you actually fight or is it just acrobatics in the dojo done in funny clothes? If you can't why should I waste my time with you?"

I've heard students ask teachers the classic question "Have you ever used it?" And I've heard a lot of teachers say "Every day. I've learned to avoid trouble and be more at peace with myself." That's wonderful, but it's not answering the real question. Even worse, it's weaseling out by distracting the student from what he or she really wants to know which is for some indication that the product works as advertised. Can you fight? Can you teach me to fight? Can you prepare me to deal with what I'll have to deal with with a minimum of damage to myself? Will I be able to make The Decision if I ever have to (G-d forbid)? And is this the best way to get what I'm looking for?

At the highest levels the people who are really good at this often but not always become more peaceful. They don't have much to prove. They've gotten what they're looking for. They realize what my first Silat teacher says "Your butt is a finite resource." But that is a result. To get there you have to go through the fire, and there aren't any shortcuts. Part of it is the confidence that you can do what you need to. And that's where many teachers are feeding their students a line. They are selling false confidence and the illusions of skill and moral superiority while shortchanging their pupils in the real thing.

That's yet another reason why I love LFI-1. You get a hell of an education in how to shoot. You get an even better one in when to shoot and when not to shoot. You learn to avoid bad situations, but ultimately you learn that there are times when the right thing to do is drop the hammer. You have to do it with a clear conscience and no hesitation when it is the right thing to do.
 
Hello, Every person will gain their own experiences from there martial art training. There is NO perfect teacher nor systems. Each will teach what they have learn to believe is the right way.

Man still have a violent side to all of us,(FIGHT or FLEE) response.

Most martials arts teach you to be able to fight back (this builds confidents and skills). Most Teachers also believe...martial arts is NOT for getting into fights...but to learn awareness and to avoid the conflicts around us everyday.

We are a violent species...many will take lives of others for NO reasons...

Your background and the people around you will shape your opinions. Just as my background shape my mind....WHO is right? ....depends on your past role models/the people who influence you, that affective your life.

How you were taught to believe... and how other person in another part of the world....will have difference of opinions. (most of us agree on one moon and one sun).....everything else could be different.

We do not have to be a Bruce Lee type of person to fight back...anyone can fight back....some may never fight at all....

What is the purpose of the martial arts...for each person...it may differ here? .....BUT man is a violent species....just look around...there is always fighing going around someplace in this world of ours.

Martial arts (Most)...preach to be peacefull ....if not...we going break your face! ....OOPS...I mean make you simile.......Aloha
 
Excellent posts. Different arts have very different focuses. For years I trained kenpo, then i moved to an area where i continue with my kenpo. I also accepted a job as an LEO. I shopped around looking for a new school for a while. I had to decide what my focus should be. In my case, i decided to go to school with more of a mma focus. Classes are taught weekly in Muay Thai, Ju jitsu, no gi submission grappling, takedowns, etc. Its all working, fighting, conditioning, at the expense of kata and all of the other tma trappings. It was not an easy choice, I've had a lot of interest lately in tai chi chuan or one of the other internal arts. But for now, I felt as though
i would be better off opting on the side of fighting on the level offered in the mma side of things.
 
It's all a matter of the right tool for the job. Something that is perfect for police work may be lousy in the boxing ring. Something that shines for unarmed civilian self defense could fall down badly on a battlefield. What I'm trying to get at is that if the teacher isn't teaching for the arena the student is interested in it's a waste of time for both of them. What one often sees is the teacher attempting to convince the student to solve a different problem than the one he was concerned with. Sometimes it's an honest evaluation of the situation. Other times it's dishonest and manipulative at some level.
 
A lot of the contention comes from the differences in situations and the degree of readiness that is appropriate a la Col. Cooper's (ztl) Color Code. I like to think of it in terms of driving. If you're in a crowded residential neighborhood with windy streets. you should be going between about fifteen and twenty five miles an hour. That will get you killed on a Montana highway. If you're driving autobahn speeds on Lombard Street in San Francisco you're a hazard to everyone around you.

If your student is a sixteen year old guy, young, dumb, full of, well you can fill in the blank, who asks "Can you teach me to kick serious butt?" it's appropriate to slow him down to the posted limit for normal civilian life. Give him lots of exercises and do your best to make sure he's not going to go out and do anything more than normally stupid. He's already got a lead foot. He needs to find the brake pedal.

If you've got hot MMA prospects they need to be aggressive and confident enough to win in the ring. They have to turn it on when the bell rings and in control enough to keep their skills against a canny opponent. They need to remember to stop when the referee says so. They need both feet :)

If you've got a sane law-abiding adult who already has reasonably integrated values and is interested in learning serious self defense you need to teach what's appropriate there and give the training that will let him or her access aggression and become comfortable enough with fear and stress so as not to go to pieces in life-threatening situations and be familiar enough with The Decision so that they can act ethically and forcefully without hesitation or dithering when it is necessary. It's generally going to take some nudging to get them out of second gear and up to highway speeds.

For the abused woman whose restraining order has been violated half a dozen times this year with increasing violence each time and is nearing the final child custody hearing what's appropriate is "I'm not going to teach you to fist fight. I'm not going to teach you how to restrain someone without hurting him. I'm going to teach you to shoot and how to use this knife. Keep them with you every single minute until this is resolved. We can worry about the other stuff later." When you're in a drag race you have to hit it the instant the light turns green and not before.

For the soldier who's got orders for Baghdad three months from now it's time to pull out the stops. Give him the short course in how to kill with whatever weapons he's likely to have on him and the most brutal quick-to-learn empty hand skills you have. If he ever has to use them instead of using his issue-weapon something very bad has happened. But bad things do happen.
 
I wanted to give you some reputation points, but they tell me I have to share the love first!

Excellent posts.
 
Great thread topic!!!:ultracool

People join the arts for a number of reasons. Many times I've heard people say that they're not interested in fighting. When I hear that, I assume that their reasons for training are for exercise, something fun to do, etc. Then I hear the other group that is looking to learn to fight and be able to defend themselves. Those people obviously fall into their own group. I have wondered though, if someone was just interested in losing weight, why not just join a gym?

IMO, the arts are about learning to fight and defend yourself. Likewise, I see nothing wrong with being able to talk your way out, but as you said in your opening post, you should be able to fight, plain and simple.

If the new student walks in and asks the instructor if he can fight and they reply as you said below, sure, I can see how that is avoiding the main question. Then again, the instructor can have an entire wall dedicated to ribbons, medals and trophies, but does that really mean he can fight? Just because he is a good ring fighter, does not mean he is a good street fighter. This is why I feel that its the person, not necessarily the art. I can go train under Tyson or Holyfield, 2 great boxers, but does that mean I'm going to be able to move like them? Can I punch like them? I can go learn GJJ, but does that mean, I'm going to be able to submit anyone and everyone in a submission match?
 
A lot of the contention comes from the differences in situations and the degree of readiness that is appropriate a la Col. Cooper's (ztl) Color Code. I like to think of it in terms of driving. If you're in a crowded residential neighborhood with windy streets. you should be going between about fifteen and twenty five miles an hour. That will get you killed on a Montana highway. If you're driving autobahn speeds on Lombard Street in San Francisco you're a hazard to everyone around you.

If your student is a sixteen year old guy, young, dumb, full of, well you can fill in the blank, who asks "Can you teach me to kick serious butt?" it's appropriate to slow him down to the posted limit for normal civilian life. Give him lots of exercises and do your best to make sure he's not going to go out and do anything more than normally stupid. He's already got a lead foot. He needs to find the brake pedal.

If you've got hot MMA prospects they need to be aggressive and confident enough to win in the ring. They have to turn it on when the bell rings and in control enough to keep their skills against a canny opponent. They need to remember to stop when the referee says so. They need both feet :)

If you've got a sane law-abiding adult who already has reasonably integrated values and is interested in learning serious self defense you need to teach what's appropriate there and give the training that will let him or her access aggression and become comfortable enough with fear and stress so as not to go to pieces in life-threatening situations and be familiar enough with The Decision so that they can act ethically and forcefully without hesitation or dithering when it is necessary. It's generally going to take some nudging to get them out of second gear and up to highway speeds.

For the abused woman whose restraining order has been violated half a dozen times this year with increasing violence each time and is nearing the final child custody hearing what's appropriate is "I'm not going to teach you to fist fight. I'm not going to teach you how to restrain someone without hurting him. I'm going to teach you to shoot and how to use this knife. Keep them with you every single minute until this is resolved. We can worry about the other stuff later." When you're in a drag race you have to hit it the instant the light turns green and not before.

For the soldier who's got orders for Baghdad three months from now it's time to pull out the stops. Give him the short course in how to kill with whatever weapons he's likely to have on him and the most brutal quick-to-learn empty hand skills you have. If he ever has to use them instead of using his issue-weapon something very bad has happened. But bad things do happen.

I would have been happier to have seen you just cut to the chase and post this first. :) . Isn't this what teaching is, really--the art of seeing where each individual is, and then teaching them? Don't get me wrong, the earlier posts made good points, but were a little circuitous in getting to this one, which it seems to me is the point, after all.
 
I wanted to give you some reputation points, but they tell me I have to share the love first!

I've been getting the same message for a couple of days, now (on other posters, too). Mods, is it us, or the system?
 
Short of going out to the local bar and picking a fight, the best we can do is train hard, train often and train realistically, and hope that if that day ever comes, we'll be the ones walking away. There is no sure shot solution.
 
I've been getting the same message for a couple of days, now (on other posters, too). Mods, is it us, or the system?

No sir, its not you. :) Its a feature of the system to help prevent abuse. I believe you have to spread it out to 10 others before being able to rep the original person again.

I hope that made sense. :)
 
I so agree with Tellner on this. We are in the training halls to learn to fight, if people are there for the fitness, why not do Yoga or "club combat" (fitness training based on martial arts moves). There is a woman one rank above me who trains with my beginners class, she hates punches towards her face in sparring, laughs at me when I get enthusiastic about learning something that could be used agressively, tells me off for touching her with my sparring gloves (light contact) and is generally very wet about training. I tried to explain my motavation to train was in defending myself, as was most people's... she just can't seem to fathom it, she says she's there to learn and enjoy the technical aspect but said last week she wouldn't know what to do if someone attacked her on the street. I was dumbstruck as we were learning full power elbow slams into the solar plexus at the time.

Some people I really don't understand, you put the answers in front of them and they still don't see them.
 
No sir, its not you. :) Its a feature of the system to help prevent abuse. I believe you have to spread it out to 10 others before being able to rep the original person again.

I hope that made sense. :)

OK, thanks MJS! Still learning the ropes here, but love MT.
 
A very good topic indeed. I have and will always be understanding that it is essentially "Can this save my bacon in crunch time. Is it practical?" If the answer is yes then cool.

I think that if you stay away from "Areas of opportunity or likely hood of conflict." Then this will take away a lot of possibility. However, last week some fool tried to beat me down in the front yard.

Different drill have different emphasis application, but all things are usable during a beat down contest.

The whole point of "Make fighting the last option is a maturity and understanding builder."

Just an opinion.

Tellner, I would have given you rep but it says I must spread the love first. I liked the topic and how indepth you were. Great post.
 
Can you fight? Can you teach me to fight?..................This is honestly 2 seperate and distinct venues.

Not every instructor has been or even will be in a real fight. Now can they really teach someone to fight? They can only offer you the skills that can aid you in a fight, nothing more. You have to be willing to fight and not everybody has that mindset.
 
I'm really of two minds about the whole "true martial mastery is about not fighting". On one hand it's a good ideal, especially to teach to children. With any luck they'll get through the hormone-storm of adolescence without hurting people and become law-abiding ethical adults. On the other, it's simply not true. Martial arts really are about struggle, conflict and fighting.

So the dilemma as I now understand it and Tellner so adeptly points up is, are martial arts about fighting, or peace? If the first, are we merely promoting violence? If the latter, are they really martial at all?

The plumbline for all my posts is my own experience, since I feel I have no authority outside of that to speak from. So here's my experience as a MA instructor: I deal with three ages/types of kids.

1. Older teens who're on court probation, usually for violence.
2. Elementary kids with the same M.O. as #1 (hard to believe, I know).
3. Younger elementary kids at a private school who are the polar opposite of the first two, and have probably never been around violence in any form.

I mention this only to point out how diverse are the needs, goals, and direction we may wish for different students.

So, here is the creed which I've put together to try to encompass the needs of all three:

Fighting is the worst possible option
But when there is no other option
Losing is not an option.

For groups #1-2, the first line is the focus (and as matt.m just said, over time it 'takes' for many of them). For Group #3, The third line is my goal. If I can keep a young boy from feeling he has no option but to let the bullies push him around (and this will influence the direction of his life, so that I may see him in a few years as part of the #1 group); if I can keep a young girl from just acquiescing to a would-be abductor, and to kick, scream, maybe finger slash for just a few seconds, and so draw the attention of someone and escape; if these become reality for a few, then all the work will have been worth it.

So is martial arts about fighting, or peace? Yes.
 
i'm of one mind on the question.

my sensei (who, incidentally, was a dangerous and accomplished fighter) used to say "karate isn't the gift. karate is the wrapper."

ultimately, martial arts training isn't just not about fighting, it's about avoiding conflict entirely.

now, the irony is that one of the first steps towards that goal is to become solidly and confidently capable of fighting. since this is true, combat skill is essential.

but we should never lose sight of the fact that the real goal is to avoid conflict through awareness, good sense, self-presentation and good treatment of our fellow people.
 
i'm of one mind on the question.

my sensei (who, incidentally, was a dangerous and accomplished fighter) used to say "karate isn't the gift. karate is the wrapper."

ultimately, martial arts training isn't just not about fighting, it's about avoiding conflict entirely.

now, the irony is that one of the first steps towards that goal is to become solidly and confidently capable of fighting. since this is true, combat skill is essential.

but we should never lose sight of the fact that the real goal is to avoid conflict through awareness, good sense, self-presentation and good treatment of our fellow people.

Very nice--and short! :ultracool
 
i'm of one mind on the question.

my sensei (who, incidentally, was a dangerous and accomplished fighter) used to say "karate isn't the gift. karate is the wrapper."

ultimately, martial arts training isn't just not about fighting, it's about avoiding conflict entirely.

now, the irony is that one of the first steps towards that goal is to become solidly and confidently capable of fighting. since this is true, combat skill is essential.

but we should never lose sight of the fact that the real goal is to avoid conflict through awareness, good sense, self-presentation and good treatment of our fellow people.

I really hate to say this, and please excuse me if it comes across rudely. I don't mean it to. But these are serious matters where nothing less than complete honesty will do.

Your values are perfectly laudable. You seem to have a consistent set of ethics and goals which you are doing your best to fulfill. More power to you. If I understand you correctly you have decided to adopt your teachers' perspective or found a teacher whose views matched yours. Everyone here has done the same thing or decided that whatever he or she is getting from the training outweighs any philosophical friction.

But they are yours. They are personal. There is nothing universal about them nor are they loftier or more worthy than many others. And there are situations and contexts in which they would be utterly inappropriate.

Martial arts is a technology. It is a technology for applying force in support of goals. And it's been that way ever since we climbed down out of the trees. Any technology can be used to different ends according to the will of the practitioner.

Some people make martial arts a lifestyle and spiritual practice. Their are many different ways to accomplish this and many different spiritual goals to which this can be applied. A La Veyite Satanist will have a much different take on this than a pacifistic Quaker who does Hombu Aikido. A blue-turban Sikh who has joined that culture's society of itinerant warriors will be different still. And so on. Their spiritual goals are theirs. They will use the technology in very different ways. I happen to be part of a religious community that uses martial arts as a mental and physical discipline. But more to the point it is a means by which good people can defend themselves against evil people.

Some people are looking to compete in a pleasurable or lucrative sport. Their ultimate goal is not universal peace or avoiding conflict. They wish to use this technology to have fun and make a paycheck knocking the bejesus out of each other in a controlled manner. The other aspects are not interesting to them. They are, quite frankly, useless impediments to their ultimate goal for the martial arts.

The trouble kid who goes to the dojo to better himself has a different set of goals. He wants a source of legitimate pride, self-respect and the ability to sublimate or direct his impulses in constructive ways. He may be looking to manage his inner rage. With luck and work and the grace of G-d he'll find a way to do these and either leave martial arts behind or change his practice to a hobby, a means of doing good for others or recreation.

And then we get to the point where I can't dance around it and have to be a tad harsh. There are times when non-violence, mercy, compassion and avoiding conflict are inappropriate. Worse, they are are an total abdication of morality and utterly depraved.

The soldier has to stay alive when others are trying to kill her. Later, she has to reintegrate with society and live a healthy life. When she is in combat he has to be able to act with detachment and do terrible, unnatural things without hesitation or remorse. She also has to be willing to sacrifice her own life without question for his comrades or to complete the mission. Her immediate goal is to hurt or kill people as directed by his superiors and to do it as efficiently as possible. Later there will be other personal needs. And martial arts practice might or might not be a good vehicle for returning to the normal world. Practicing martial arts with an eye towards compassion, mercy and avoiding conflict will get her and the people who depend on her killed if they slow her down for that critical fraction of a second.

The Code of Bushido had that in spades, with hot chocolate and a cherry on top. The disciplines of the old samurai caste allowed them to be among the coldest blooded stone-killers the world has ever seen. Their highest goal was to die in service of their lord without complaint, without hesitation. They practiced detachment and learned calm so that they could cut other people down without remorse and remain sane. Their Way was self-renunciation and pitiless killing. Later, during the centuries of (brutally enforced) peace under the Shogunate the old disciplines were turned to other ends. There was no real need for warriors, but the caste remained. What was left of their way of life was turned to self-improvement. The point is that that is a later evolution to fit different goals in different days. It had nothing to do with Bushido for huge swaths of Japanese history.

I have a wife whom I love dearly and more deeply than I thought possible. Her life is more precious to me than my own, and I would die in a heartbeat to protect her, like any good husband. Ultimately, my martial arts are to protect her, myself, any children with which G-d blesses us and others under my protection. The slightest hesitation, the smallest hint of mercy is immoral and worthy of damnation if I place the life and health of an evil-doer above any of them. This is a lesson that any coyote protecting its mate or beetle defending its brood understands. It is the most fundamental and inarguable moral position. Other things like physical fitness or philosophical insights are side-effects.

That goes double for any children we have. A parent who would put his or her child at even the slightest risk of death in order to give the criminal a break could learn morality from things that live at the bottom of ponds. The goal there is what Justice Frankfurter called the most fundamental of human rights.

We've taught women who were in danger from stalkers and murderous ex-boyfriends and husbands. We've also extracted a few from bad situations. Our goal in teaching them could not have any aim other than keeping them alive. Our methods in defending them during the period in which they were under our care could not, must not by our religion and personal ethics, hold back to defend them from the people who wanted to hurt them. If we had g-dlike skill it might be appropriate to use less force since we would have the luxury of doing so without endangering the innocent. But we didn't, don't and never will.

Some of these students went on to do martial arts for other reasons. More power to them. For most their ultimate goal was a certain degree of control over their immediate environment. And that's just as legitimate and more real to them than notions of infinite mercy and universal brotherhood.

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.
 
Back
Top