I was trying to make a pun. I'm smart, but I'm also a smartass. I one of the jokers of the group of unlucky bastards I hang out with.StriderShinryu said:
problem with martial arts
- Thread starter vanthebaron
- Start date
Recommended Videos
bull karate was not designed to kill samurai, like i said before common story but not truevanthebaron said:
nope peasants couldn't afford martial arts, martial arts take time and money to learn even back then that peasants simply didn't have.
My point was that embarrasing others is a sure way to get yourself into trouble regardless of how much knowledge you have, martial or otherwise. Being a smartass and embarrasing others is pretty much a direct opposite to any sort of honour or respect, even self respect, so it's not hard to see why you're having such difficulty grasping where one would find the honour/respect in a traditional martial art.vanthebaron said:
"As important as the date of 1507 is in understanding the historical development of karate, the ban on the ownership of weapons is not a simple watershed. It is not true that prior to 1507 Okinawan warriors exclusively used weapons in combat and after they adopted unarmed systems of combat. The fighting arts that later developed into karate did not appear out of nowhere."brownie212 said:
-from http://www.martial-arts-insight.com/karate.html paragraph 5
[/quote]you have to be high man, I have this book can the encyclopedia. pesents are responcable for a good chunk of MA styles we have, including about 80%(guessed number)of stick fighting (using the stick of a rake to beat someone dead). Ankō Itosu was from a family of great standing and is the grandfather of all modern karate styles. He set up the Ten Precepts of karate. He taught the PEOPLE (peasants) his style.
yes because it wrong to correct people who are wrong.StriderShinryu said:
I don't know about where you are, but in my experience, martial arts taught in america tends to downplay how lethat what you are learning really is. They warn you what techniques can kill, but they don't really come out and tell you that martial arts is designed to kill the enemy, or at least hurt them so badly as to incapacitate.vanthebaron said:
I don't see whats wrong with telling a kid "hey be careful you can kill someone very easily with these moves" 100 times in one 45 minute class.spartan231490 said:
Not all martial arts are like that, in fact only the poor ones are. Real martial arts isn't about killing, you don't need any training to be able to kill someone. It's about learning to control your body and by extension learning to control the bodies of those who would try to attack you.
Martial arts isn't about fighting, it's about controlling a situation (this is why the art of war can be just as easily applied to bussiness as combat). The objective is to train to a point where you are able to protect not just yourself but the person who is attacking you as well.
A trained martial artist is less dangerous then someone who has no training, in fact the world is a safe place because they are in it.
Martial arts isn't about fighting, it's about controlling a situation (this is why the art of war can be just as easily applied to bussiness as combat). The objective is to train to a point where you are able to protect not just yourself but the person who is attacking you as well.
A trained martial artist is less dangerous then someone who has no training, in fact the world is a safe place because they are in it.
bullshit they are called "MARTIAL" arts.Ampersand said:
Martial (from Latin martialis "belonging to Mars"): Anything connected with war or combat
It depends on how it's presented. Will learning the art itself teach you respect, etc. No. However, learning a martial art does teach discipline. You have to practice and have extensive control over your body to master it. Whether or not that discipline carries over to other aspects of your life is up to you and your instructor.
I do, however, think that learning a marital art is a great opportunity to learn respect etc., but it requires the instructor to be on board.
I've studied three different Marital arts under three different instructors, and each had very different methods/philosophy.
My first was a children's class for Tae Kwon Do, so it was presented in a "made for kids" type way. The instructor made it very clear, however, that we were learning self defense. Get into a fight at school, don't bother coming back to class. No questions asked, no discussion. I wasn't able to stay in the class for long due to financial reasons, but I do feel that it facilitated respect due, in part, to the deference that was expected towards members of higher rank, who were, in turn, expected to mentor and encourage the lower ranking members.
I didn't get into another class until almost a decade later when I started studying Tang Soo Do. That class was a travesty. The instructor never participated in the class itself, expecting the senior students to run things, which meant that we were at the mercy of whichever one was present. Some were ok, but most were simply obnoxious twenty-somethings who wanted to show-off. The only respect that was expected was to higher ranks. Students could treat peers and lower ranks however they wanted. The class was, essentially, a way for the instructor to make money. Nothing more.
And then, about 2 years ago, I started studying Nihon Jujutsu. This was easily, the best class I've had. The art itself is the most destructive one I've learned. The philosophy is, if you put someone down with NJ, they should stay down. Virtually every technique was designed to break something, which means you need to be very careful when practicing. That's where the discipline comes into play. If you act like an ass and apply more force than you need to the rest of the class will start doing the same to you (we had a guy do this. He quit.).
It was also the most formalized class I had. We had very specific and very formal methods for beginning and ending the class. This aided the sense of gravity and respect the class projected. There was a great deal of respect between all members. It was not a simple art to learn so you honestly had to respect those higher than you, and they in turn, knew what you were struggling with, so they helped as much as they could.
And the instructor was Awesome. He would greet new students by jumping on the mat, pointing to himself and saying "Sensei" jumping off again and saying "Dan". The point was that on the mat, you had to treat him as the Sensei at all times, but off the mat, he was just a normal guy.
Sadly, the dojo had to close due to lack of funds. The lease they had expired and the landlord wanted to triple their rent.
The short version, is that the art itself does not teach respect, etc. As the OP said, it's just a way to hurt people. The way it's presented, however, can teach respect, etc. if you get a good instructor.
I do, however, think that learning a marital art is a great opportunity to learn respect etc., but it requires the instructor to be on board.
I've studied three different Marital arts under three different instructors, and each had very different methods/philosophy.
My first was a children's class for Tae Kwon Do, so it was presented in a "made for kids" type way. The instructor made it very clear, however, that we were learning self defense. Get into a fight at school, don't bother coming back to class. No questions asked, no discussion. I wasn't able to stay in the class for long due to financial reasons, but I do feel that it facilitated respect due, in part, to the deference that was expected towards members of higher rank, who were, in turn, expected to mentor and encourage the lower ranking members.
I didn't get into another class until almost a decade later when I started studying Tang Soo Do. That class was a travesty. The instructor never participated in the class itself, expecting the senior students to run things, which meant that we were at the mercy of whichever one was present. Some were ok, but most were simply obnoxious twenty-somethings who wanted to show-off. The only respect that was expected was to higher ranks. Students could treat peers and lower ranks however they wanted. The class was, essentially, a way for the instructor to make money. Nothing more.
And then, about 2 years ago, I started studying Nihon Jujutsu. This was easily, the best class I've had. The art itself is the most destructive one I've learned. The philosophy is, if you put someone down with NJ, they should stay down. Virtually every technique was designed to break something, which means you need to be very careful when practicing. That's where the discipline comes into play. If you act like an ass and apply more force than you need to the rest of the class will start doing the same to you (we had a guy do this. He quit.).
It was also the most formalized class I had. We had very specific and very formal methods for beginning and ending the class. This aided the sense of gravity and respect the class projected. There was a great deal of respect between all members. It was not a simple art to learn so you honestly had to respect those higher than you, and they in turn, knew what you were struggling with, so they helped as much as they could.
And the instructor was Awesome. He would greet new students by jumping on the mat, pointing to himself and saying "Sensei" jumping off again and saying "Dan". The point was that on the mat, you had to treat him as the Sensei at all times, but off the mat, he was just a normal guy.
Sadly, the dojo had to close due to lack of funds. The lease they had expired and the landlord wanted to triple their rent.
The short version, is that the art itself does not teach respect, etc. As the OP said, it's just a way to hurt people. The way it's presented, however, can teach respect, etc. if you get a good instructor.
I made it up. Sounded legit though right? I know very little about martial arts but I thought I'd try to say something smart and see how people reacted to it.vanthebaron said:
The REAL short version is really simple - special forces develop their own FIGHTING styles -such as Krav Maga - but hardly limited to - because the traditional martial arts, as most people are taught them, are nearly worthless in fighting.
Ask an MP, or a Guardian Angel, or a prison guard.
Or hell, ask ME. In years of street brawls, and 12 years of prison, i never saw a traditional "martial artist" ( or most boxers ) get anything but beat the fucking SHIT out of by people who could actually FIGHT.
I got out and 'cause I'm pretty scrappy ( Badger is my prison nickname ), thought I was reday for semi-pro's, adn leanred the hard way I wasn't. But a friend and I had the same experience - and he was head of security at a local "punk" club; and used to be from Israel - and he can't place in tourney's 'cause very little of what he does in a real fight can he do in a match.
WHich was a good part of what a guy you may have heard of called Bruce Lee was saying.
Maybe you've heard of him?
Better yet, if you can handle the truth, these two guys make a pretty damn good point - and they also show fighting styles, made for hurting people, as opposed to what most civilians get taught.
Damn well done. http://www.viddler.com/explore/rim/videos/1/
Ask an MP, or a Guardian Angel, or a prison guard.
Or hell, ask ME. In years of street brawls, and 12 years of prison, i never saw a traditional "martial artist" ( or most boxers ) get anything but beat the fucking SHIT out of by people who could actually FIGHT.
I got out and 'cause I'm pretty scrappy ( Badger is my prison nickname ), thought I was reday for semi-pro's, adn leanred the hard way I wasn't. But a friend and I had the same experience - and he was head of security at a local "punk" club; and used to be from Israel - and he can't place in tourney's 'cause very little of what he does in a real fight can he do in a match.
WHich was a good part of what a guy you may have heard of called Bruce Lee was saying.
Maybe you've heard of him?
Better yet, if you can handle the truth, these two guys make a pretty damn good point - and they also show fighting styles, made for hurting people, as opposed to what most civilians get taught.
Damn well done. http://www.viddler.com/explore/rim/videos/1/
Yes they are both for killing. The difference is one teaches you more than that, one of them teaches you strength tempered with restraint. People who do eastern martial arts learn things besides violence. And also, you shouldn't use any of them for killing. There are way more non-lethal methods in most martial arts than there are lethal moves. If someone who does martial arts is violent, it is not the fault of the martial art. Just as if someone is killed with a gun, it is not the gun's fault. You are ultimately responsible as the practitioner to practice restraint and discipline, just as it is your master's responsibility to teach you these things.
In short, martial arts were initially designed for defense, and then were turned into tools for killing, now they should be used only for defense and to better oneself. As a long-time practitioner of more than three martial art styles, I find it offensive that people see martial arts as just tools for violence.
In short, martial arts were initially designed for defense, and then were turned into tools for killing, now they should be used only for defense and to better oneself. As a long-time practitioner of more than three martial art styles, I find it offensive that people see martial arts as just tools for violence.
Well if I may put it a little cruder, it's all about choice.
A martial art can be compared to a knife, which by itself does not have intent, the user however does, he may butter his bread with it or kill people.
In a similar way a martial art can be used strictly as means to kill your opponent, but in the same way it can be used to teach about balance, power, flow, respect,...
A martial art can be compared to a knife, which by itself does not have intent, the user however does, he may butter his bread with it or kill people.
In a similar way a martial art can be used strictly as means to kill your opponent, but in the same way it can be used to teach about balance, power, flow, respect,...
Quite relatedly, the US Army found that giving guns to people who weren't particularly violent produced a lot of wasted ammunition, and people 'pretending ' to fight. This was learned in WW2 in a study published later as 'men under fire'; it led to a complete restructure of how training for riflemen in the USMC was done.Phase_9 said:
This is related to one of the strongest arguments against gun ownership for home defense - the vast majority end up with having their guns taken away from them.
This is also related to why most "martial artists" get the fuck beat out of them by peopel who are genuinely prepared for real, actual violence.
so... if you can handle the truth, these two guys make a pretty damn good point - and they also show fighting styles, made for hurting people, as opposed to what most civilians get taught.
Damn well done. http://www.viddler.com/explore/rim/videos/1/
no it didn'tLarenzoAOG said:
watched that and I 95% agree with them, martial arts is good for one thing, killingBadger Kyre said:
I have taught and studied martial arts for many years and i have found that both honour and respect cannot be taught only told as it was in your case, honour and respect must be found for yourself because you must first honour and respect yourself (Not be cocky, arrogant and "full of yourself" these are much different just as respect for someone and fury at someone are different).vanthebaron said:
And in response to your "its a method of killing people"....no the majority of martial arts have a spiritual side as well as a martial side, i should know i teach both. As well as that anybody has the potential to kill regardless of whether they have been taught the 'best' methods or not.
respect and honor are all and good but that won't stop a guy with a knife. that what your foot is for.DevilishGryphon said:
At no point did i say respect and honour would stop a guy with a knife, and yes that is what your foot is for (or hand, or gun, or crowbar etc). All i was trying to point out was that martial arts are not just about learning to kill people (dependant on your teacher i suppose) and that they lay the foundations for respect and honour and have a spiritual side as wellvanthebaron said:
Well I think the poster may have missed some of the point of the Japanese developed fighting arts and what they intend to teach.
Krav Maga and other Army basic training skills are developed to teach a recruit of unknown skill level a simple and quick way to engage in hand-to-hand lethal combat. It's designed to make turn raw ingredients into a killing machine as fast as possible. So it skips the philosophical stuff.
It doesn't pay any attention, however, to how that killing machine is supposed to actuall LIVE its life and conduct itself in the world. The western military generally does a prett piss-poor job of that.
The Japanese have a much longer history of armed conflict, and their society built up an entire caste structure that included portions of society whose entire existence was dedicated to combat (not just a 6-year service committment, but their entire lives from birth to death, even in old age). So their approach to teaching includes a lot of culture, rules, philosophy and spirituality along with the fighting bits to help craft a whole person, not just a weapon.
Krav Maga and other Army basic training skills are developed to teach a recruit of unknown skill level a simple and quick way to engage in hand-to-hand lethal combat. It's designed to make turn raw ingredients into a killing machine as fast as possible. So it skips the philosophical stuff.
It doesn't pay any attention, however, to how that killing machine is supposed to actuall LIVE its life and conduct itself in the world. The western military generally does a prett piss-poor job of that.
The Japanese have a much longer history of armed conflict, and their society built up an entire caste structure that included portions of society whose entire existence was dedicated to combat (not just a 6-year service committment, but their entire lives from birth to death, even in old age). So their approach to teaching includes a lot of culture, rules, philosophy and spirituality along with the fighting bits to help craft a whole person, not just a weapon.