TaeKwonDo

vedran wrote:Well, how well you can defend yourself with a particular martial art depends entirely on the person who is using it. There are only so many ways you can attack and I'm sure every 'style' has a counter for each of those attacks. It all depends on the person.

Claiming that a common thug who's been in 6+ street fights is a martial artist is completely ridiculous. I'm not even gonna go there.
Anyway, I see that you're dead set on your opinions so I'm not gonna try and make you change your mind. It would be a futile attempt. I said what I wanted to say.

Answer my question. Someone who is able to beat 90% of the population in a fight to defend himself, would you consider that person a warrior? If so, then he is someone who is capable in the martial arts. I just think some of the more traditional asiatic practitioners need to justify their training somehow and they do it by separating themselves from other warriors when in reality anyone who has ever bled or bled someone else and knows how to do it well is a martial artist in his own right.

According to your logic, where is the line drawn? Boxing? Kick boxing? Thai boxing? What about that kid in that poor neighborhood who cant train formally but spends his days punching things and getting in fights to learn how to fight better?

Champion wrote:Answer my question. Someone who is able to beat 90% of the population in a fight to defend himself, would you consider that person a warrior? If so, then he is someone who is capable in the martial arts. I just think some of the more traditional asiatic practitioners need to justify their training somehow and they do it by separating themselves from other warriors when in reality anyone who has ever bled or bled someone else and knows how to do it well is a martial artist in his own right.

According to your logic, where is the line drawn? Boxing? Kick boxing? Thai boxing? What about that kid in that poor neighborhood who cant train formally but spends his days punching things and getting in fights to learn how to fight better?

Let me 'fix' some of your sentences so you get a better idea of what my problem with your logic is.

Someone who is able to beat 90% of the population in a fight to defend himself, would you consider that person a warrior? If so, then he is someone who is capable in fighting.

...anyone who has ever bled or bled someone else and knows how to do it well is a fighter in his own right.

The key word in martial art is Art

I have a friend who's really good at drawing stuff, painting and what not. Far better then 90%, maybe even more, people from my town and possibly some of the surrounding areas as well. Does that make him an Artist, a real painter? Could he sell any of his work for decent money? Could he make a living from it? Would the other established painters acknowledge his work or would they find a 100 flaws just by glancing at one of his pictures? I think he's an awesome painter but hey, what do I know about painting.

In the same way, a thug who is stronger than the majority of the common folk and who's experience boils down to a half a dozen street fights would probably be decimated by anyone who actually trained and who knows what he/she is doing. Bob Sapp is a perfect example of this. A 'thug' who came to fight people who've actually had some training.

vedran wrote:

Champion wrote:Answer my question. Someone who is able to beat 90% of the population in a fight to defend himself, would you consider that person a warrior? If so, then he is someone who is capable in the martial arts. I just think some of the more traditional asiatic practitioners need to justify their training somehow and they do it by separating themselves from other warriors when in reality anyone who has ever bled or bled someone else and knows how to do it well is a martial artist in his own right.

According to your logic, where is the line drawn? Boxing? Kick boxing? Thai boxing? What about that kid in that poor neighborhood who cant train formally but spends his days punching things and getting in fights to learn how to fight better?

Let me 'fix' some of your sentences so you get a better idea of what my problem with your logic is.

Someone who is able to beat 90% of the population in a fight to defend himself, would you consider that person a warrior? If so, then he is someone who is capable in fighting.

...anyone who has ever bled or bled someone else and knows how to do it well is a fighter in his own right.

The key word in martial art is Art

I have a friend who's really good at drawing stuff, painting and what not. Far better then 90%, maybe even more, people from my town and possibly some of the surrounding areas as well. Does that make him an Artist, a real painter? Could he sell any of his work for decent money? Could he make a living from it? Would the other established painters acknowledge his work or would they find a 100 flaws just by glancing at one of his pictures? I think he's an awesome painter but hey, what do I know about painting.

In the same way, a thug who is stronger than the majority of the common folk and who's experience boils down to a half a dozen street fights would probably be decimated by anyone who actually trained and who knows what he/she is doing. Bob Sapp is a perfect example of this. A 'thug' who came to fight people who've actually had some training.

Yes it does make him an artist. Whatever, enjoy your narrow view point? I made mine, enjoy yours. Don't see anything else really needing to be discussed on the issue.

i think you are distorting the meaning of the word Art in the expression Martial Art. It is a common event, of misusage of word, an embelzement of the expression. The use of the word Art in this expression is 'wrong' in a way, because it doesnt pertain to calling the fighting method an 'Art' per se. At least, the intention of whoever named them martial arts was not to call these fighting styles an art, but more of a craft. In other words, Martial Crafts sounded boring, Martial Arts sounds much better.

Dray The Fingerless wrote:i think you are distorting the meaning of the word Art in the expression Martial Art. It is a common event, of misusage of word, an embelzement of the expression. The use of the word Art in this expression is 'wrong' in a way, because it doesnt pertain to calling the fighting method an 'Art' per se. At least, the intention of whoever named them martial arts was not to call these fighting styles an art, but more of a craft. In other words, Martial Crafts sounded boring, Martial Arts sounds much better.

Precisely.

Here's a direct quote from wikipedia:

Martial arts are considered as both an art and a science.

Here's a direct quote from me: Anything non objective written on Wikipedia, such as your quote, is subjective, and has no place in an encyclopedia.

Here's a direct quote from me: Anything you say on this forum shouldn't be taken as an indisputable truth. If you claim something, back it up.

Wikipedia isn't the first place I heard martial arts being discussed as an Art form. In fact you and Champ are the first people that I have heard denying that martial arts is an Art form.

And I just love how people use wikipedia when it suits them but when it goes against their opinions they claim it's not objective and what not. I have an open mind and I'm willing to accept your claims if you present one decent argument. So far you haven't.

well i am infact a martial artist and honestly i believe that in some aspects it can be seen as and art but the more publicized form of martial arts is not what i would consider art

fighting is NOT and art in my opinion it is just something that you are either very good at or not

however i dont know if any of you guys have seen a kata/form being done but the skill, flexibility, grace, and power displayed is actualy very artistic and it is also the way in which we teach ourselves through muscle memory how to do everything from punching and kicking to grapples and even the ways to fall down and avoid serious injury

so basicaly what i am saying is that i agree with both of you, because martial arts i see as both and art in some ways but also not an art in other ways

however as i said i am a martial artist so i am very biased in my opinion and i admit that so take what i said or leave it, it is up to you guys as the readers

ty for your time

I would like you to tell me where i deny Martial Arts are a form of art. I simply said their designation doesnt make them an art. I do agree martial arts, fighting, can be artistic. But not because its a martial art per se. The codification of certain martial arts make them lean towards an aestethically good looking fighting style. I simply disagree with the designation of Martial Art directly making it an art, wich is wrong, the same way saying your a painter doesnt make you an artist, just capable of it. ANOTHER THING, very important, is that Art is a highly subjective thing. Possibly one of the most subjective themes in human culture. I, for example, do not consider the Mona Lisa a great work of art. I can hardly call it art, even thou i cant deny some to it, but i attribute its iconization to mass media following. I dont like when someone says something is art, because most of time they try to make it absolute, wich is impossible, because art is a personal subjective thing, not an absolute objective truth.

Finally, you will never see me directly taking a full wikipedia article as true. I spot major flaws in articles ALL the time, one of them being that quote you took, because it is a highly subjective quote, with absolutely no references, clearly a stylization of the person who edited the page, and let it slip. Most of the article is pretty straight and clear, but i spot some things that shouldnt belong in it. Its common in Wikipedia for this to happen, but its beneficial most of the time, as the information you need from the page is rarely misinformed. Subjective parts, such as that quote, do no harm for informational value. It states a definition for a martial art, wich is a definition i can accept, since it doesnt rely on things like Art or what kind of fighting, merely the things that joint martial arts together.

Here is a cute parallel comparison between what is happening: As an appreciater of music, i feel sorrow when i look at today's music and have to call it music, but it is music, as much as i want to deny it so. Comparing it to original music, from the 18th and 19th century, where the great composers lived, it feels like a betrayal to see Britney Spears overshadow them, or Lil Wayne, or Tokyo Hotel. They have less effort, no soul, almost no commitment or meaning behind their works, not to mention the lack of original compositions, but what they produce is music in the end. The same can be said about martial arts. Back then, martial arts were sth of higher degree, nowadays, with cultural mixes and productivity preocupations, street fighting and fighting mixtures, wich offer what a martial art essentially is, lack the discipline and added benefits of the old arts. They are of less visual and educational quality, but produce and are effective and within the definition of martial arts.

O.o my two cents. I would rather use a knife to stop a fight then cut someone with it.

Judo, no matter what most people say, is really the most deadly form of combat, forget the thing I saw that in.

Dray the reason I stopped bothering is because...

... Is because you had no arguments.

P.S: Mona Lisa is a masterpiece because of her hands. The hands on Mona Lisa are the most realistic hands painted. Don't know if anyone to this day did or could do better. So yea, that's why that picture is what it is.

they can do better. Much better since Mona Lisa's hands are drawn in one of the easiest angles ever. Drawing the other side of her hands would be much harder, wich people nowadays can do. There are chairs in university for students to draw realistically objects. Drawing hands well isnt a reason enough for it to be called the greatest painting in the world, wich it is constantly called.

Also, i gave you my arguments.

vedran wrote:... Is because you had no arguments.

P.S: Mona Lisa is a masterpiece because of her hands. The hands on Mona Lisa are the most realistic hands painted. Don't know if anyone to this day did or could do better. So yea, that's why that picture is what it is.

You better tread a little easier there... you are flame baiting.

My argument was more valid than yours, with dictionary sources and common sense to back it up yet I had no argument? Yours is filled with some old asian guys mumbo jumbo. I stopped responding because you apparantly do not even respect the dictionary so whats the point.

shouldnt this be in the Rancor Pit?

Its not even a debate. Its just a bunch of people trying to drive some common sense into someone.

I would still love to know at what point does my kicks and punches and other bodily movements equate to martial arts in vedrans mind. Is it when some Master teaches me the same things I already know? Is it when my "education" is foromally on paper? So if I dont go to college yet read a ton of academic books I am still uneducated? I would like to know who draws the line when it comes to fighting and this supposed "Art". Who makes the definitions of what style meets the requirements and what does not? You can see, as you ask more and more questions, the whole thing seems less like a debate.

ok then... back to my trollin of forums pz

I just wanted to point out the difference between street fighting and martial arts. The two are not the same. Martial arts are a way of life. Street fighting is beating up a person. One is an art form and the other is in most cases two or more drunk people beating each other up.

Anyway, I'm out of this thread. As for the flame bait, I could say the same thing about your post. Leaving it hanging in the air like that so it could be interpreted any way you want. I interpreted it like ...because.. he's to thick headed/stupid/moronic to argue with. So i responded in equal measure. If I got it wrong, my apologize. I certainly don't want to start a flame war. I considered this a heated debate, no hard feelings.

it seems you ignored my arguments too. said something you cant counter?

dray your baiting him into argueing with you more, from his response i think that he is trying to cover up any hard feelings and he is just trying to move on with his life

so please let him

I honer peoples opinion, considering im not a fighter. The only things ik are from sparring with a few of my friends who do ninjutsu. Its fun, and i lose generally every time. But hey, ill spar em for the couch on a trip

Ved looks at the street brawl in a different way than you champ, im pretty sure your two definitions are different, its like seeing two squirrels, you see a red one, hes sees a black one, your screaming ITS RED, he screams ITS BLACK! (grossly exaggerated) but thats what i think is going on.

Life what is this thing Life...

Where do i get mine? sounds fun...

no, from my perspective, i told him a giant argument against considering a martial arts performance an art by default, he ignored it and just called out on mona lisa, and i countered that argument too, and he got silent, and just responded to champ and sounded like i was ignored. i dont mind if he wants to stop speaking or arguing, but dont go all 'GG i win' if you dont even finish it. but its alright, he wanted to point out the difference like he said, he showed us what he wanted to say, we simply counter argued with it.