What is a real martial art? (was: How do you fight big guys)
Shinobi2
that was in 1982) and have studied two different styles, Kenpo Karate and Uechi
Ryu.
My question to the knowing martial experts who feel TKD is not a real
art<insert dripping sarcasm here> and as a discussion topic for newgroup as a
whole, is what is a real martial art and what do you think makes for a REAL
martial art.
I'll even get the ball rolling:
IMHO, a REAL martial art is one that teaches the student to defend themselves
or fight offensively using specialized techniques and knowledge that can do
anything from hurt
maim, or kill an opponant. Such techniques could be ground fighting, joint
locks, pressure points/nerve points, striking to specific body points (femoral
artery, groin, philtrum, side
of the knee, breaking the arm at the elbow, solar plexus etc.). This means any
taught hand to hand combat style is a martial art.
IMHO I think an ideal martial art is one that teaches all manner of physical
techniques- punching, kicking, grappling; mental discipline; and physical
conditioning: kotikite, iron palm, makiwara board use, etc.
I'd like to close by giving these so called martial experts something to think
about...
Back in the 80's there was an article in Inside Karate magazine, it was a
glossary of martial arts speak: The phrase "<insert name of style here> is the
best art" = I have only studied one style.
Kirk Lawson
> what is a real martial art and what do you think makes for a REAL martial art.
There is a VAST difference between what is a "real" martial art, and what is a
"good" martial art. A martial art, is a body/art form with martial applications.
TKD is, without a doubt, a "real" but that does not nesasarily mean that any
particular interpretation of it is a "good" martial art. As an example of what I'm
saying, let's apply the same terms to something else, say... guns. Let's look at
two different guns. First, the single shot "victory" guns air dropped into France
during WWII. These were cast steel, single shot-then reload, inaccurate,
non-durable guns. By nearly any measure, the were not "good" guns, yet, they
DEFINITELY fit the definition of a "gun." Next, let's look at the contemporary
1911A1 .45 auto pistol. These guns were multi-shot, hard hitting (for a pistol),
accurate, durable, easy to use, etc. By every measure, they were (are?) a superior
gun for the time. Both were "guns" but one of them was CLEARLY superior for the
purpose.
> I'll even get the ball rolling:
> IMHO, a REAL martial art is one that teaches the student to defend themselves
> or fight offensively using specialized techniques and knowledge that can do
> anything from hurt
> maim, or kill an opponant. Such techniques could be ground fighting, joint
> locks, pressure points/nerve points, striking to specific body points (femoral
> artery, groin, philtrum, side
> of the knee, breaking the arm at the elbow, solar plexus etc.). This means any
> taught hand to hand combat style is a martial art.
What about those that teach weapons. It's considered a maxim that two people with
equal training, one unarmed but trained in hand to hand and another armed with a
melee weapon and equally trained in that weapon, of the two, the weapon wielder
will "win." Clearly then, the weapon art is a "superior" art since it better
enables "the student to defend themselves or fight offensively using specialized
techniques and knowledge that can do anything from hurt maim, or kill an opponent",
right?
> IMHO I think an ideal martial art is one that teaches all manner of physical
> techniques- punching, kicking, grappling; mental discipline; and physical
> conditioning: kotikite, iron palm, makiwara board use, etc.
What about "Spiritual Development?"
Obviously, there's a LOT more to it. Suffice it to say that you can't just say,
"what is the best martial art?" The real question is more along the lines of "what
is the best martial art for given circumstances X?" In our weapons art example,
what if you are not able to access your weapon, for whatever reason? Well,
suddenly all those nifty Saber Fencing techniques that Badger taught you are, err,
less then beneficial. What if, for legal reasons, you are constrained from
seriously injuring your attacker (maybe your a bouncer)? Well, I guess you can't
use that "eye gouge." What if you're defending yourself in the middle of a field
of volcanic rock? Hmm.. your BJJ might not be quite as useful, eh? What if you're
in an altercation where both you and your adversary have your hands tied behind
your backs? Well, maybe that TKD would fit best there after all?
To get a useful answer, you must frame a useful question.
Peace favor your sword
--
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the
Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
-Mahatma Gandhi, "Gandhi, An Autobiography", M. K. Gandhi, page 446
Jon Justian
manner. Therefore if your sensei teaches you only how to strike or grapple
or defend yourself, and does not balance that with teaching you how to heal
and recover. Then they are not teaching you a martial art, they are teaching
you barbarism. This may not mean the art you study is not an art, simply
that you are not being taught the art. Likewise, if your sensei only teaches
you about the body without balancing it by teaching you the mind or spirit,
they are depriving you of the art and teaching you only calisthenics. To be
truly an art, it must be taught as a way of life and every aspect must be
balanced by its reciprocal. This is not to say one can not take the
barbarism they are being taught by a sensei and make it into an art. If you
are true to your art, and your sensei deprives you of the other half of your
training; seek it out for yourself. If your sensei condemns you for it, he
is not your sensei but an obstacle to your way. If your sensei shows concern
and wishes to help you understand better or foster your want to learn the
true art, then you have found a unique teacher and you should treasure that
relationship. In refernce to TKD, I have never tried it but have met many
practitioners. It seems it is rarely taught as an art. Those TKD practioners
I know that I consider good martial artists have become so outside of their
TKD dojo. I firmly believe one skilled in TKD could defend themselves
adequately, but what has their training taught them about their human
condition or reconciling the paradoxical nature of the world? If it has only
taught them how to fight, and not how to live, then I do not believe they
have learned an art. This opinion is based on my not only being a martial
artist, but a painter, composer, writer, and programmer. In essence all art
is the same, but expressed in a different medium. It is a way to interpret,
and project existence. In my opinion anyway, some or many will disagree; if
they didn't I would be wrong that is the art.
"Shinobi2" <shin...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010523152726...@ng-cq1.aol.com...
Carlucci
<snip question>
A "Real Martial Art" is hard to define. Everybody who practices anything
from beating the pulp out of somebody to simple stretching these days says
they take a martial art. The fact of the matter is that there is martial
arts, there's fighting systems, and then there's yoga/other.
Martial arts provides you with self defense, general conditioning, and a
better sense of self (some like to call this spiritual training, or
enlightenment; dress it up however you want). There's usually forms, self
defense drills, sparring, weapons perhaps, general techniques ranging from
striking to grappling to joint locks and everything else in between.
Generally, however, there's usually an emphasis on one single aspect, i.e
some are mostly striking, some are mostly grappling, etc. Sometimes there's
some deep philosophy, too, but that's gonna depend on the martial art you're
in. In the past 10 or 15 years, many martial arts have developed more
sports-oriented factions, this is NOT to say that the entire martial art has
become a sport (contrary to popular, ignorant belief).
ex: Karate, Tae Kwon Do, Wu Shu, Aikido, Tai Chi Chuan.
Fighting systems provide you with much better self defense alternatives. You
rarely see forms or a real focus on conditioning (sorta comes with the
territory, though), and they're usually a MUCH more balanced in the way of
the general techniques, often a preference towards grappling. Weapons are
sometimes taught, but they're more practical weapons, such as the knife or
the escrima sticks, that you might either be carrying or have easy access to
a decent version of. Sparring is generally of the no holds barred variety,
and competition/sports is usually characterized by nhb fights.
ex: Most forms of Jiu Jitsu, Krav Maga, FMA, to some extent Thai Boxing
(depends, though) & western boxing.
Everything else is just everything else. Relaxation and stress-relief are
the big thing here, very little in the way of self defense or anything
really "martial". Not too much conditioning, either, except in the way of
flexibility.
ex: Yoga, some new-age forms of Tai Chi.
Martial arts are called "arts" for two reasons.
1)Because "art" often is used contextually to mean "skill". This is
generally true of martial arts as described above. Martial Skills. Perhaps
not always "deadly" skill, but martial nonetheless.
2)Art also often implies some grace or creative expression. I refer you all
to visual arts, language arts, etc. In martial arts, this is most evident in
the practice of forms, and also in the philosophy of martial arts (becoming
a better person, achieving goals, overcoming fears/odds, etc.). This is
primarily where there is distinction between martial arts and fighting
systems. Everybody wants to say they're doing martial arts, but at some
point a line is drawn between doing martial arts and beating people up.
Otherwise every thug on the streets would be a venerable master of the
martial arts. Without some sort of creative expression or philosophy, you're
just practicing a fighting system, plain and simple.
So why are there so many haters out there? Well, I just don't know. Lots of
heat comes down on Tae Kwon Do because so many people see so many
practitioners that aren't good at it. This is unfortunate and I see them
just as much as you all do (more, in fact). Some people talk about how TKD
has lost in nhb, and I'm sure it has before. But how many of you really
think that the TKD guys that found themselves in nhb were the best TKD had
to offer? Or even among the above-average? Not many. If they were remotely
good at TKD, they'd have found themselves a future with a lot more to offer
in TKD competition than in nhb competition. Even at that, the VERY best
usually aren't even competing. So there's a lot of heat coming down on TKD
cause a lot of gimps (and because there's 40 or 50 million people world-wide
who take TKD, the gimps are in no short supply...) got beat in nhb. Fair
enough. But you don't talk junk about all Ferrari cars because you happened
to beat one bad driver in a drag race with your mustang, do you? Now imagine
that there's so many people out there with Ferrari's that everywhere you go
you see so many bad drivers that it's hard to find the good ones. (not that
TKD is the Ferrari of martial arts, nothing is. Ferrari is perfection,
whereas nothing in martial arts is ever perfect). That's how it is with TKD.
So many bad practitioners (because TKD dojhang is everywhere, and there's
far too many bad teachers who end up with even worse students...) are out
there now that it's very hard to find the really good ones.
I suppose I hit the high points of what I wanted to say. I'm not crisp right
now cause I have exams this week, so bear with me if I have to respond a few
times to fill in some things I missed.
Luc...@prodigy.net
If you want to be a winner, all you have to give is everything you've got.
Batman
<3B0C1698...@heapy.com>:
>Shinobi2 wrote:
>
>> what is a real martial art and what do you think makes for a REAL
>> martial art.
>
>There is a VAST difference between what is a "real" martial art, and what
>is a "good" martial art. A martial art, is a body/art form with martial
>applications. TKD is, without a doubt, a "real" but that does not
I disagree. TKD, as it is practiced by most people, is a sport. To me, in
order to be a martial art, you have to train for fighting. Remember that the
original question had to do with defending himself in a real fight. You might
say that styles like TKD are martial sports. I'm not really sure why 'art'
means fighting or combat, i suspect it has something to do with the
translations into the oriental languages.
An easy way to tell if a school teaches martial arts or martial sports is to
look around for a bunch of trophies. If they are displaying a ton of
trophies, odds are they are a sport style. Naturally, if they win a lot of
trophies, they must waste a lot of time (in my opinion, some people may call
it spending time) on sport fighting.
Of course, if there aren't a lot of trophies around, that just means that they
probably don't cncentrate on sport fighitng, and then you have to get into
whether they are a 'real' MA or a 'good' MA.
>nesasarily mean that any particular interpretation of it is a "good"
>martial art. As an example of what I'm saying, let's apply the same terms
>to something else, say... guns. Let's look at two different guns. First,
>the single shot "victory" guns air dropped into France during WWII. These
>were cast steel, single shot-then reload, inaccurate, non-durable guns.
>By nearly any measure, the were not "good" guns, yet, they DEFINITELY fit
>the definition of a "gun." Next, let's look at the contemporary 1911A1
>.45 auto pistol. These guns were multi-shot, hard hitting (for a pistol),
>accurate, durable, easy to use, etc. By every measure, they were (are?) a
>superior gun for the time. Both were "guns" but one of them was CLEARLY
>superior for the purpose.
In this analogy, the styles that concentrate on sport fighting and
competitions, would be a cap gun. Not able to fire, they just look kinda like
the real ones.
-jeff
MotzaMarketing
spiritual.
Unless you are going to defend yourself by thinking about it (or maybe
just talking them out of hitting you?) your art will contain the PHYSICAL.
In order to learn the physical, you will have to train and intrract well
with your teacher and your training partners, this will take self-discipline
and MENTAL effort.
But lastly, I hope your teacher will impart a sense of responsibility and
morality into what he/she is handing down to you. This is where I believe
the SPIRITUALITY comes in.
That is the difference between learning a Martial ART and, for example
only, learning to "kill or be killed" in a military commando course.
Anyone can "defend" themselves with a .45 or a baseball bat. (What about
an untrained man trying to defend his family from a burglar?) Some of us
seek more than that, but that doesn't make us holier than anyone else. we
all have different "paths". Different strokes for different folks, folks...
Regards,
DAVID HARVEY
PS: Oh yes. To answer the question, "How do you fight the big guys?" You
fight them with more skill or more justified rage. You might win, you might
die. Otherwise, if words won't cut it, you'll need that gun or a baseball
bat.
--
AIKIDO: Defensive Martial Art With Brutal Beginnings
http://www.motzamarketing.com/cgi-bin/track/tracker.cgi?amaa
"Carlucci" <Luc...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:9ehkhi$414k$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com...
> A "Real Martial Art" is hard to define. Everybody who practices anything
> from beating the pulp out of somebody to simple stretching these days says
> they take a martial art. --- the rest was cut for brevity ---
chy...@ludens.elte.hu
> I believe a martial art is a study that teaches one to live in a balanced
> manner.
Interesting. Why do you call it a _martial_ art, then? Does living
in a balanced manner involve a lot of time spent fighting?
> Therefore if your sensei teaches you only how to strike or grapple
> or defend yourself, and does not balance that with teaching you how to heal
> and recover. Then they are not teaching you a martial art, they are teaching
> you barbarism.
Eh? Martial artists fight. Doctors heal. The two are not incompatible,
but there is no connection.
> This may not mean the art you study is not an art, simply
> that you are not being taught the art. Likewise, if your sensei only teaches
> you about the body without balancing it by teaching you the mind or spirit,
> they are depriving you of the art and teaching you only calisthenics.
So obviously, boxing = callisthenics. Insightful, that.
> To be truly an art, it must be taught as a way of life and every
> aspect must be balanced by its reciprocal. This is not to say one can
> not take the barbarism they are being taught by a sensei and make it
> into an art. If you are true to your art, and your sensei deprives you
> of the other half of your training; seek it out for yourself. If your
> sensei condemns you for it, he is not your sensei but an obstacle to
> your way. If your sensei shows concern and wishes to help you understand
> better or foster your want to learn the true art, then you have found a
> unique teacher and you should treasure that relationship. In refernce to
> TKD, I have never tried it but have met many practitioners. It seems it
> is rarely taught as an art. Those TKD practioners I know that I consider
> good martial artists have become so outside of their TKD dojo. I firmly
> believe one skilled in TKD could defend themselves adequately,
Ehh... let's not go into that. Suffice it to say that I've studied
TKD for four years, and I don't.
> but what has their training taught them about their human condition or
> reconciling the paradoxical nature of the world? If it has only taught
> them how to fight, and not how to live, then I do not believe they have
> learned an art.
Why? If a painter learns how to paint, but not "how to live" (whatever
that's supposed to mean), do you not consider him an artist?
> This opinion is based on my not only being a martial artist, but a
> painter, composer, writer, and programmer. In essence all art is the
> same, but expressed in a different medium. It is a way to interpret,
> and project existence. In my opinion anyway, some or many will disagree;
> if they didn't I would be wrong that is the art.
You talk like someone who cannot fight. Can you?
Chyron
--
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his
heart he dreams himself your master." -- Commissioner Pravin Lal
Kirk Lawson
> I disagree. TKD, as it is practiced by most people, is a sport. To me, in
> order to be a martial art, you have to train for fighting. Remember that the
> original question had to do with defending himself in a real fight. You might
> say that styles like TKD are martial sports.
I'm not exactly disagreeing with you, but then again, I'm not exactly agreeing
with you. My key is "Martial Application." That is, if any particular technique
or set of techniques can actually be applied to a fight. How about the example of
modern Fencing? Modern Fencing, particularly foil fencing is whipping about a
light wisp of nothing (in comparison). Yet, it *does* have it's roots in classic
Cut and Thrust styles and, with perhaps some effort, the practitioner could
"backtrack" and find the real martial application in his sport moves.
I have in the past found it helpful to make a distinction between "Martial Art"
and "Martial Sport." I consider a Martial Sports kind of a subset of it's parent
Martial Art.
And even within those, you've still the "good" and the not.
> I'm not really sure why 'art'
> means fighting or combat, i suspect it has something to do with the
> translations into the oriental languages.
Sounds reasonable.
I know I've seen a discourse on this before, but I can't for the life of me recall
it's conclusions right now.
> In this analogy, the styles that concentrate on sport fighting and
> competitions, would be a cap gun. Not able to fire, they just look kinda like
> the real ones.
More like one of those super accurate, single-shot, .177 cal, CO2 pellet guns.
Andreas Mikkelborg
> In article <oLUO6.87$aG6....@news.shore.net>, "Jon Justian"
<jon...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > I believe a martial art is a study that teaches one to live in a
balanced
> > manner.
>
> Interesting. Why do you call it a _martial_ art, then? Does living
> in a balanced manner involve a lot of time spent fighting?
When kung-fu first was developed it wasn't developed to fight anyone they
saw.
It was developed because when the teacher saw that the monks where to weak
to do their practices he found some physical excercises for them to do.
And teaching them to fight helped them get rid og fear and get a healthier
body, so they had the strenght to keep upp with their buddhist practices.
>> Therefore if your sensei teaches you only how to strike or grapple
>> or defend yourself, and does not balance that with teaching you how to
heal
>> and recover. Then they are not teaching you a martial art, they are
teaching
>> you barbarism.
>
>Eh? Martial artists fight. Doctors heal. The two are not incompatible,
>but there is no connection.
A martial artist get hurt to, and there are certain ways of healing an
ordinary doctor can't do.
>> but what has their training taught them about their human condition or
>> reconciling the paradoxical nature of the world? If it has only taught
>> them how to fight, and not how to live, then I do not believe they have
>> learned an art.
>
>Why? If a painter learns how to paint, but not "how to live" (whatever
>that's supposed to mean), do you not consider him an artist?
Yes he would be an artist, but not a 'living artist'.
The same with martial arts...
Learning how to fight is one thing, but only covers the "martial"
>> This opinion is based on my not only being a martial artist, but a
>> painter, composer, writer, and programmer. In essence all art is the
>> same, but expressed in a different medium. It is a way to interpret,
>> and project existence. In my opinion anyway, some or many will disagree;
>> if they didn't I would be wrong that is the art.
>
>You talk like someone who cannot fight. Can you?
And let me guess....?? TKD? =)
--
---------------------------------------------
The great tragedies of history occur not when right confronts wrong,
but when two rights confront each other.
---------------------------------------------
ICQ/UIN: 8734893
MSN: buzz...@hotmail.com
email: and...@mikk.com
Ketho of Davenport
>When kung-fu first was developed it wasn't developed to fight anyone they
>saw.
>It was developed because when the teacher saw that the monks where to weak
>to do their practices he found some physical excercises for them to do.
>body, so they had the strength to keep up with their buddhist practices.
Perhaps. But these early monks were expected to be itinerant teachers of
buddhism and were expected to walk alone or in small groups thru a chaotic and
often crime-ridden countryside preaching. Physical self-defense was not a
non-issue for them. Regards.
Ketho
"To search for the old is to understand the new."
chy...@ludens.elte.hu
> <chy...@ludens.elte.hu> wrote in message news:I$FvW1gwOD$Q@ludens...
>> In article <oLUO6.87$aG6....@news.shore.net>, "Jon Justian"
> <jon...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> > I believe a martial art is a study that teaches one to live in a
> balanced
>> > manner.
>>
>> Interesting. Why do you call it a _martial_ art, then? Does living
>> in a balanced manner involve a lot of time spent fighting?
>
> When kung-fu first was developed it wasn't developed to fight anyone they
> saw.
> It was developed because when the teacher saw that the monks where to weak
> to do their practices he found some physical excercises for them to do.
> And teaching them to fight helped them get rid og fear and get a healthier
> body, so they had the strenght to keep upp with their buddhist practices.
Sounds like one of the many "urban legends" of Kung Fu. Do you have
proof, or can anyone else confirm or deny this?
>>> Therefore if your sensei teaches you only how to strike or grapple
>>> or defend yourself, and does not balance that with teaching you how to
> heal
>>> and recover. Then they are not teaching you a martial art, they are
> teaching
>>> you barbarism.
>>
>>Eh? Martial artists fight. Doctors heal. The two are not incompatible,
>>but there is no connection.
>
> A martial artist get hurt to, and there are certain ways of healing an
> ordinary doctor can't do.
I don't agree, but I'm probably a little too materialistic for my
own good.
>>> but what has their training taught them about their human condition or
>>> reconciling the paradoxical nature of the world? If it has only taught
>>> them how to fight, and not how to live, then I do not believe they have
>>> learned an art.
>>
>>Why? If a painter learns how to paint, but not "how to live" (whatever
>>that's supposed to mean), do you not consider him an artist?
>
> Yes he would be an artist, but not a 'living artist'.
> The same with martial arts...
> Learning how to fight is one thing, but only covers the "martial"
Well... yes. But "martial art", used in Jon's sense, would involve
"art in combat". If a poet produces a masterwork, he is an artist,
regardless of how he lives. See Francois Villon.
Similarly, if I do beautiful kata or rip my opponent into four parts
of equal mass while reciting Sun Tsu, that's art... regardless of how
I live.
>>> This opinion is based on my not only being a martial artist, but a
>>> painter, composer, writer, and programmer. In essence all art is the
>>> same, but expressed in a different medium. It is a way to interpret,
>>> and project existence. In my opinion anyway, some or many will disagree;
>>> if they didn't I would be wrong that is the art.
>>
>>You talk like someone who cannot fight. Can you?
>
> And let me guess....?? TKD? =)
I doubt it. He's more the Tai Chi-ish type. The sort who claims
wisdom without having worked for it. (I'm not implying that all
Tai Chi practicioners are of his sort, btw).
Put it this way: if Kirk or Chas started waxing poetic, I'd
listen and listen well, because both have proven their knowledge
of the _martial_ aspect. Jon has proven nothing.
Kirk Lawson
> Sounds like one of the many "urban legends" of Kung Fu. Do you have
> proof, or can anyone else confirm or deny this?
There is no proof or real evidence, yet the mythology of Shaolin Kung Fu says that when Bhodidarma came
to Shaolin temple from India, he found the monks weak and undisciplined. He then taught martial arts to
strengthen them for the rigors of religious deprivation and self denial.
Note, this is only part of the alleged history for *Shaolin* Kung Fu and it's derivatives and is not part
of the history of other Kung Fu styles.
> > A martial artist get hurt to, and there are certain ways of healing an
> > ordinary doctor can't do.
>
> I don't agree, but I'm probably a little too materialistic for my own good.
There are many things from easter medicine that are slowing being adopted into traditional western
medicine based on experimentation. Among these are *some* pressure points. Others are being rejected.
When looking at these things, I always try to remind myself that Aspirin was once the folk remedy "Willow
Bark Tea."
Some is simple bunk, others are not. It is up to us to figure out which is which.
> Well... yes. But "martial art", used in Jon's sense, would involve
> "art in combat". If a poet produces a masterwork, he is an artist,
> regardless of how he lives. See Francois Villon.
Mozart was a complete hedonist by all accounts.
> Similarly, if I do beautiful kata or rip my opponent into four parts
> of equal mass while reciting Sun Tsu, that's art... regardless of how
> I live.
Send us the video. We could make a killing on the market! ;-)
> Put it this way: if Kirk or Chas started waxing poetic, I'd
> listen and listen well,
---
The other eve I had a dream
That filled my heart with desire
'Twas a gentle mild sort so 'twould seem
Filled with the one I admire
And in this phantasmal visitation
She smiled and held my hand
And though my brow furrowed with vexation
She slipped away like running sand
Dreams, they say, foretell the future
And I pray to God above
This fragile flower He would nurture
And let her grow into my love
And for this pardon I beg and call
This hope my breast 'twould keep
Let reciprocation catch me 'ere I fall
Else, again, I wake crying in my sleep
---
How's that? ;-)
> because both have proven their knowledge
> of the _martial_ aspect. Jon has proven nothing.
Oh, *Martial*... nevermind... ;-)
chy...@ludens.elte.hu
> chy...@ludens.elte.hu wrote:
>
>> Sounds like one of the many "urban legends" of Kung Fu. Do you have
>> proof, or can anyone else confirm or deny this?
>
> There is no proof or real evidence, yet the mythology of Shaolin Kung Fu says that when Bhodidarma came
> to Shaolin temple from India, he found the monks weak and undisciplined. He then taught martial arts to
> strengthen them for the rigors of religious deprivation and self denial.
>
> Note, this is only part of the alleged history for *Shaolin* Kung Fu and it's derivatives and is not part
> of the history of other Kung Fu styles.
OK.
>> > A martial artist get hurt to, and there are certain ways of healing an
>> > ordinary doctor can't do.
>>
>> I don't agree, but I'm probably a little too materialistic for my own good.
>
> There are many things from easter medicine that are slowing being adopted into traditional western
> medicine based on experimentation. Among these are *some* pressure points. Others are being rejected.
>
> When looking at these things, I always try to remind myself that Aspirin was once the folk remedy "Willow
> Bark Tea."
Hm, true 'nuff. I guess I'm a bit defensive on this topic. I know
too many people who refused to go to a hospital because the
village herbalist had a better idea.
> Some is simple bunk, others are not. It is up to us to figure out
> which is which.
Yep. When it comes to approving new drugs and methods, Western
medicine can be painfully slow.
>> Well... yes. But "martial art", used in Jon's sense, would involve
>> "art in combat". If a poet produces a masterwork, he is an artist,
>> regardless of how he lives. See Francois Villon.
>
> Mozart was a complete hedonist by all accounts.
>
>> Similarly, if I do beautiful kata or rip my opponent into four parts
>> of equal mass while reciting Sun Tsu, that's art... regardless of how
>> I live.
>
> Send us the video. We could make a killing on the market! ;-)
Maybe we could get sponsors. Ripping a guy into four parts of
equal mass while screaming "Just do it!", and wearing Nike
gear would be just as cool, and would probably be worth a lot
more.
>> Put it this way: if Kirk or Chas started waxing poetic, I'd
>> listen and listen well,
>
> ---
> The other eve I had a dream
> That filled my heart with desire
> 'Twas a gentle mild sort so 'twould seem
> Filled with the one I admire
>
> And in this phantasmal visitation
> She smiled and held my hand
> And though my brow furrowed with vexation
> She slipped away like running sand
>
> Dreams, they say, foretell the future
> And I pray to God above
> This fragile flower He would nurture
> And let her grow into my love
>
> And for this pardon I beg and call
> This hope my breast 'twould keep
> Let reciprocation catch me 'ere I fall
> Else, again, I wake crying in my sleep
> ---
>
> How's that? ;-)
*sigh* The feeling described in the poem is a very familiar one.
Who's the poet?
>> because both have proven their knowledge
>> of the _martial_ aspect. Jon has proven nothing.
>
> Oh, *Martial*... nevermind... ;-)
*grin*
Jon Justian
<chy...@ludens.elte.hu> wrote in message news:I$FvW1gwOD$Q@ludens...
> In article <oLUO6.87$aG6....@news.shore.net>, "Jon Justian"
<jon...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > I believe a martial art is a study that teaches one to live in a
balanced
> > manner.
>
> Interesting. Why do you call it a _martial_ art, then? Does living
> in a balanced manner involve a lot of time spent fighting?
>
The 'martial' is simply the medium by which one pursues art. Art in my
opinion being the attempt to reconcile reality through personal expression,
projection, and experience.
> > Therefore if your sensei teaches you only how to strike or grapple
> > or defend yourself, and does not balance that with teaching you how to
heal
> > and recover. Then they are not teaching you a martial art, they are
teaching
> > you barbarism.
>
> Eh? Martial artists fight. Doctors heal. The two are not incompatible,
> but there is no connection.
>
Is it not true that in the 'old days' martial artists were often looked to
as 'doctors' or maybe more appropriately witch doctors of their society? In
fact most martial arts are firmly planted in the workings and mechanics of
human physiology and health. Interestingly enough, most martial artists tend
to favor professions that involve healing. I can't count the number of
massage and physical therapists I have met in my training. The chinese have
long linked healing with the martial tradition, ever since Da Mo. I may be
mistaken on this point however. Many classical chinese stylists learn qigong
and tui na as part of their martial education. If you teach someone how to
break a bone, teach them how to set a bone. If you teach someone how to
knock someone out, teach how to recesitate.
> > This may not mean the art you study is not an art, simply
> > that you are not being taught the art. Likewise, if your sensei only
teaches
> > you about the body without balancing it by teaching you the mind or
spirit,
> > they are depriving you of the art and teaching you only calisthenics.
>
> So obviously, boxing = callisthenics. Insightful, that.
>
I find your response somewhat ambiguous, so I'll assume you are not
disagreeing, or agreeing.
> > To be truly an art, it must be taught as a way of life and every
> > aspect must be balanced by its reciprocal. This is not to say one can
> > not take the barbarism they are being taught by a sensei and make it
> > into an art. If you are true to your art, and your sensei deprives you
> > of the other half of your training; seek it out for yourself. If your
> > sensei condemns you for it, he is not your sensei but an obstacle to
> > your way. If your sensei shows concern and wishes to help you understand
> > better or foster your want to learn the true art, then you have found a
> > unique teacher and you should treasure that relationship. In refernce to
> > TKD, I have never tried it but have met many practitioners. It seems it
> > is rarely taught as an art. Those TKD practioners I know that I consider
> > good martial artists have become so outside of their TKD dojo. I firmly
> > believe one skilled in TKD could defend themselves adequately,
>
> Ehh... let's not go into that. Suffice it to say that I've studied
> TKD for four years, and I don't.
>
Not sure which point this refers to. Defending one's self? True I never
tested any of the practitioners I studied with on their self defense
capabilities. I guess I was looking at it like, they know more about timing,
reaction, and strategy than the average, 'hey gimme your wallet' or 'I think
you were looking at my girl' guy.
> > but what has their training taught them about their human condition or
> > reconciling the paradoxical nature of the world? If it has only taught
> > them how to fight, and not how to live, then I do not believe they have
> > learned an art.
>
> Why? If a painter learns how to paint, but not "how to live" (whatever
> that's supposed to mean), do you not consider him an artist?
>
"how to live" I agree that is perhaps a gray phrase. As I think about it,
perhaps it should be. It is unique to each individual, their art helps them
not only to discover that 'how to live', but also how to balance it with the
wisdom of experience. It is a cat's 'how to live' to kill a bird, but after
a couple times climbing into a tree it cannot escape from, it balances its
nature with the wisdom of experience. That is the true form of 'how to
live', to me. I know and have learned about many painters. Their art
definately taught them how to live, those that made it a way of life. If it
hadn't, they would not have expressed what they did. There is a direct
correlation between what an artist creates and what they live. Some would
say that the creation of the art is merely a reaction to the life they live.
I disagree. An artist goes through many life changes and as their life
changes, so does their art. Eventually, however they reach a point where
they sort of hit an equalibrium. This, I believe, is the point where an
artist's art has taught them how to live. The pursuit of their art has
brought them someplace that they 'like' and they stay there. Their art
continues to evolve, as they continue to evolve. The way one artist 'lives'
may not be how another 'lives' but that does not indicate whether they have
learned how to do so or not. However, when one never truly pursues their
art, never makes it a part of them and makes themself a part of it, they can
still practice the technical aspects. I just wouldn't consider them an
artist. For instance a painter may gain great technical skill, but does that
make them an artist? Not in my opinion, they are just a painter. Living,
breathing, exploring, evolving, expressing painting, reconciling reality
through the wisdom and experience of painting, that makes someone an artist.
These individuals do not simply paint, they express and search for truths
through their medium. They explore their medium, learning how to make their
own paints and brushes, stretch their own canvases, adopt personal ideas
about symbolism and metaphor. They learn about other artists and how they
lived, adopting their own set of 'heroes' based on their art. I could go on
and on with this, but that would simply exhaust me and anyone else reading
this. Suffice to say, an artist doesn't make their art an aspect of their
life, they make their life the vehicle of their art. This is not to say one
cannot pursue more than one art, but merely there is a difference between
touching and feeling, if you catch my meaning.
> > This opinion is based on my not only being a martial artist, but a
> > painter, composer, writer, and programmer. In essence all art is the
> > same, but expressed in a different medium. It is a way to interpret,
> > and project existence. In my opinion anyway, some or many will disagree;
> > if they didn't I would be wrong that is the art.
>
> You talk like someone who cannot fight. Can you?
>
I guess that depends on how broad or narrow your perception of fighting is.
I am effective at compromise, and expression. Fighting is relative to a
situation and an enviroment. My art, martial in particular, has taught me
'how to live' in regards to aggressive and life threatening situations,
among others. How do I know it has taught me 'how to live' in these cases? I
am alive and so are all those who have ever attacked me. In each case a
compromise was reached, expression achieved, and martial principles were
applied to a martial situation.
Wow. Lengthy response. Sorry if it was too much.
Kirk Lawson
> OK.
Like I said, it's the mythology of Shaolin Kung Fu. Like Homer's Troy, it may even have a basis in fact.
> Hm, true 'nuff. I guess I'm a bit defensive on this topic. I know
> too many people who refused to go to a hospital because the
> village herbalist had a better idea.
Hard to talk people out of being stupid, particularly when being smart costs more money.
> Yep. When it comes to approving new drugs and methods, Western
> medicine can be painfully slow.
<snort> Europe is practically at Warp Speed compared to the U.S.'s FDA (Food and Drug Administration).
> Maybe we could get sponsors. Ripping a guy into four parts of
> equal mass while screaming "Just do it!", and wearing Nike
> gear would be just as cool, and would probably be worth a lot
> more.
Has potential. You wanna contact Nike or should I? ;-)
> *sigh* The feeling described in the poem is a very familiar one.
Hopefully, that's what makes it "good."
> Who's the poet?
Me, of course.
I'm a regular "Warrior Poet" as of old. I just hope I never have to write the equivalent of "Tichborn's
Elegy." :-)
Wrote this one before I met my wife.
Jon Justian
Soft styles, yes. Wisdom can be gained in more places than the dojo. I am
not arrogant enough to claim my expression and opinions are wisdom. Whether
I am 'wise' or not is not my concern, if you make it your concern that is
your business.
<chy...@ludens.elte.hu> wrote in message news:8vH5duKbRND+@ludens...
Kirk Lawson
> Is it not true that in the 'old days' martial artists were often looked to
> as 'doctors' or maybe more appropriately witch doctors of their society?
Not that I'm aware of.
> In
> fact most martial arts are firmly planted in the workings and mechanics of
> human physiology and health. Interestingly enough, most martial artists tend
> to favor professions that involve healing. I can't count the number of
> massage and physical therapists I have met in my training.
This has not been my experience. I know many martial artists, very few of them
are in the "healing profession." Here on RMA, as an example, I know of only ONE
poster out of the many who is a "healer" and that would be Dr. Shin (and he is
more into research).
chy...@ludens.elte.hu
> <chy...@ludens.elte.hu> wrote in message news:I$FvW1gwOD$Q@ludens...
>> In article <oLUO6.87$aG6....@news.shore.net>, "Jon Justian"
> <jon...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> > I believe a martial art is a study that teaches one to live in a
> balanced
>> > manner.
>>
>> Interesting. Why do you call it a _martial_ art, then? Does living
>> in a balanced manner involve a lot of time spent fighting?
>>
>
> The 'martial' is simply the medium by which one pursues art. Art in my
> opinion being the attempt to reconcile reality through personal expression,
> projection, and experience.
Well, I suppose there is no canonical definition of "art", nor would
we want one. You can certainly consider "art" to be whatever you
like. Be warned, however, that most of the MA world would disagree
with you vehemently.
>> > Therefore if your sensei teaches you only how to strike or grapple
>> > or defend yourself, and does not balance that with teaching you how to
> heal
>> > and recover. Then they are not teaching you a martial art, they are
> teaching
>> > you barbarism.
>>
>> Eh? Martial artists fight. Doctors heal. The two are not incompatible,
>> but there is no connection.
>>
>
> Is it not true that in the 'old days' martial artists were often looked to
> as 'doctors' or maybe more appropriately witch doctors of their society?
Um... I think that depends _very_ much on the martial art we're
talking about here.
> In fact most martial arts are firmly planted in the workings and
> mechanics of human physiology and health.
Yes, but _most_ martial arts are interested in the workings of the
human body because they want to cripple it as eficiently as possible.
> Interestingly enough, most martial artists tend to favor professions
> that involve healing.
This is not true. Well, maybe if you only consider Tai Chi a martial
art, or something, but it is certainly not true by any sane definition
of the term.
> I can't count the number of massage and physical therapists I have met
> in my training. The chinese have long linked healing with the martial
> tradition, ever since Da Mo. I may be mistaken on this point however.
There are other martial arts besides the Chinese ones, you know.
> Many classical chinese stylists learn qigong and tui na as part of
> their martial education. If you teach someone how to break a bone,
> teach them how to set a bone. If you teach someone how to
> knock someone out, teach how to recesitate.
This makes sense - to a point - but I didn't associate the word
"healing" with basic first aid.
>> > This may not mean the art you study is not an art, simply
>> > that you are not being taught the art. Likewise, if your sensei only
> teaches
>> > you about the body without balancing it by teaching you the mind or
> spirit,
>> > they are depriving you of the art and teaching you only calisthenics.
>>
>> So obviously, boxing = callisthenics. Insightful, that.
>>
> I find your response somewhat ambiguous, so I'll assume you are not
> disagreeing, or agreeing.
It was sarcasm, and I was disagreeing. Boxing is not callisthenics.
>> > To be truly an art, it must be taught as a way of life and every
>> > aspect must be balanced by its reciprocal. This is not to say one can
>> > not take the barbarism they are being taught by a sensei and make it
>> > into an art. If you are true to your art, and your sensei deprives you
>> > of the other half of your training; seek it out for yourself. If your
>> > sensei condemns you for it, he is not your sensei but an obstacle to
>> > your way. If your sensei shows concern and wishes to help you understand
>> > better or foster your want to learn the true art, then you have found a
>> > unique teacher and you should treasure that relationship. In refernce to
>> > TKD, I have never tried it but have met many practitioners. It seems it
>> > is rarely taught as an art. Those TKD practioners I know that I consider
>> > good martial artists have become so outside of their TKD dojo. I firmly
>> > believe one skilled in TKD could defend themselves adequately,
>>
>> Ehh... let's not go into that. Suffice it to say that I've studied
>> TKD for four years, and I don't.
>
> Not sure which point this refers to. Defending one's self? True I never
> tested any of the practitioners I studied with on their self defense
> capabilities. I guess I was looking at it like, they know more about timing,
> reaction, and strategy than the average, 'hey gimme your wallet' or 'I think
> you were looking at my girl' guy.
OK, like I said, let's not go into this. I'm bored to death of the
"effectiveness of TKD" threads :)
I think you have an unnecessarily idealised view towards art. Art is,
I think, both something simpler and something far more nebulous than
what you make it out to be. In another post, I mentioned my counter-
example: Francois Villon. He was a _very_ talented poet, and I doubt
you could find many educated people who don't consider him an "artist".
On the other hand, he was a criminal. Not a touching bohemian "starving
artist", but a hardcore criminal.
>> You talk like someone who cannot fight. Can you?
>
> I guess that depends on how broad or narrow your perception of fighting is.
Here I was using the primary definition, which is: "to attempt to
harm or gain power over an advesary by blows or with weapons".
> I am effective at compromise, and expression. Fighting is relative to a
> situation and an enviroment. My art, martial in particular, has taught me
> 'how to live' in regards to aggressive and life threatening situations,
> among others. How do I know it has taught me 'how to live' in these cases? I
> am alive and so are all those who have ever attacked me. In each case a
> compromise was reached, expression achieved, and martial principles were
> applied to a martial situation.
I hope you won't be offended, but I see one significant difference
between the way you talk and the way experienced "pacifist" martial
artists talk. Neither you nor they answer a question directly, but
where their evasive answers shed light on previously unconsidered
aspects of the matter, yours just seem to obfuscate things.
Now. These are the (generally accepted) meanings of some of the basic
terms we use here. It'll help if you use them the same way - if you
don't, please warn us beforehand.
Fight - Violent physical struggle
Martial art - any discipline that trains a person to fight (see above)
Nazi - anyone who disagrees with your point of view.
OK, the last definition was a joke, but the first two weren't.
> Wow. Lengthy response. Sorry if it was too much.
Not a problem.
Jon Justian
"Kirk Lawson" <NO_lklaw...@heapy.com> wrote in message
news:3B0D1BA3...@heapy.com...
> Jon Justian wrote:
>
> > Is it not true that in the 'old days' martial artists were often looked
to
> > as 'doctors' or maybe more appropriately witch doctors of their society?
>
> Not that I'm aware of.
>
No? Hmmm.
> > In
> > fact most martial arts are firmly planted in the workings and mechanics
of
> > human physiology and health. Interestingly enough, most martial artists
tend
> > to favor professions that involve healing. I can't count the number of
> > massage and physical therapists I have met in my training.
>
> This has not been my experience. I know many martial artists, very few of
them
> are in the "healing profession." Here on RMA, as an example, I know of
only ONE
> poster out of the many who is a "healer" and that would be Dr. Shin (and
he is
> more into research).
>
I'm surprised. Many of my fellow students have been either professional, or
student healers. Healer not necessarily meaning medicine. Mostly massage,
and physical therapy and sports medicine. Not to emntion those that pursued
it as a matter of personal interest, many with first aid training and
certification. A few even with a little training in chinese herbalism. True
these were all forms of healing with martial application, but that was my
point.
chy...@ludens.elte.hu
> chy...@ludens.elte.hu wrote:
>
>
> Me, of course.
Wow. That's some serious talent you got there.
> I'm a regular "Warrior Poet" as of old. I just hope I never have to write the equivalent of "Tichborn's
> Elegy." :-)
>
> Wrote this one before I met my wife.
Does she fit the poem?
Kirk Lawson
> I'm surprised. Many of my fellow students have been either professional, or
> student healers. Healer not necessarily meaning medicine. Mostly massage,
> and physical therapy and sports medicine. Not to emntion those that pursued
> it as a matter of personal interest, many with first aid training and
> certification. A few even with a little training in chinese herbalism. True
> these were all forms of healing with martial application, but that was my
> point.
Heck, *I* got a First Aid Merit Badge in 'Scouts. I know basic First Aid, CPR,
Mouth to Mouth, etc... I think your definition of "Healer" is a bit more
inclusive then mine is. I'm specifically talking about people for whom it is a
Profession or at the very least a "Major Hobby." An EMT, for instance, would
qualify. A guy with a Boy Scouts First Aid Merit Badge or a Black Belt who was
required to pass a First Aid/CPR course as part of his Shodan promotion would
NOT qualify.
Kirk Lawson
> Wow. That's some serious talent you got there.
Thank you. I've got a bud who's much better though. Been trying to talk him into taking a Martial Art. He
seems interested in Wing Chun.
:-)
> > Wrote this one before I met my wife.
>
> Does she fit the poem?
I've got other Poems for her. :-)
Always write original poetry for each new girl.
Kallini
<jon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
><chy...@ludens.elte.hu> wrote in message news:I$FvW1gwOD$Q@ludens...
>> In article <oLUO6.87$aG6....@news.shore.net>, "Jon Justian"
><jon...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> > I believe a martial art is a study that teaches one to live in a
>balanced
>> > manner.
>>
>> Interesting. Why do you call it a _martial_ art, then? Does living
>> in a balanced manner involve a lot of time spent fighting?
>>
>
>The 'martial' is simply the medium by which one pursues art. Art in my
>opinion being the attempt to reconcile reality through personal expression,
>projection, and experience.
mar·tial (märshl)
adj.
1.Of, relating to, or suggestive of war.
2.Relating to or connected with the armed forces or the profession of
arms.
3.Characteristic of or befitting a warrior.
art1 (ärt)
n.
1 Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work
of nature.
2 The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms,
movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of
beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or
plastic medium.
The study of these activities.
The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a
group.
3 High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of
beauty; aesthetic value.
4 A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.
5 A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.
6 A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a
set of activities: the art of building.
7 A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and
methods: the art of the lexicographer.
8 Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art
of the baker; the blacksmith's art.
9 Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties:
10 Artful contrivance; cunning.
11 Printing. Illustrative material
Just about any skill related to war qualifies as a martial art.
Combat photographers are martial artists too.
Really, outside of personal prejudices, there's no connection between
one's philosophy on living life and martial arts.
>> > Therefore if your sensei teaches you only how to strike or grapple
>> > or defend yourself, and does not balance that with teaching you how to
>heal
>> > and recover. Then they are not teaching you a martial art, they are
>teaching
>> > you barbarism.
>>
>> Eh? Martial artists fight. Doctors heal. The two are not incompatible,
>> but there is no connection.
>>
>
>Is it not true that in the 'old days' martial artists were often looked to
>as 'doctors' or maybe more appropriately witch doctors of their society?
No. Most martial artists were of a warrior class that just did the
fighting and landowning. Two well-known examples being samurai and
knights.
How many medieval knights do you know of who are also known as great
doctors?
Even back in tribal societies there was a division between
warriors/hunters and healers.
In some very specific instances, in certain countries, there was a
connection, but that wasn't exactly the rule.
>In
>fact most martial arts are firmly planted in the workings and mechanics of
>human physiology and health. Interestingly enough, most martial artists tend
>to favor professions that involve healing.
Whoah, where do these statistics come from?
Out of all the martial artists I've ever met, my father is the only
one connected to the medical industry, and he hasn't practiced since
the early 60's (one he graduated from medical school, he didn't have
the time to keep up his Judo/Jujutsu).
> I can't count the number of
>massage and physical therapists I have met in my training.
Just because you've met them, doesn't mean they're the majority,
unless you know most of the people on the planet. That's not any kind
of valid evidence.
>The chinese have
>long linked healing with the martial tradition, ever since Da Mo.
There may be a lot of people in China, but they still don't make up
the majority of the population, even if this statement is true among
all martial artists in all regions of China.
> I may be
>mistaken on this point however. Many classical chinese stylists learn qigong
>and tui na as part of their martial education. If you teach someone how to
>break a bone, teach them how to set a bone. If you teach someone how to
>knock someone out, teach how to recesitate.
I don't have time for paramedic training in between my drawing,
working part time, and taking martial arts lessons.
And what if an artist is very skilled, but a jerk?
I've met 'em. They're still artists.
Kallini
Jon Justian
<chy...@ludens.elte.hu> wrote in message news:IY8ft4Wp$lC+@ludens...
> In article <XE8P6.139$aG6....@news.shore.net>, "Jon Justian"
<jon...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > <chy...@ludens.elte.hu> wrote in message news:I$FvW1gwOD$Q@ludens...
> >> In article <oLUO6.87$aG6....@news.shore.net>, "Jon Justian"
> > <jon...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >> > I believe a martial art is a study that teaches one to live in a
> > balanced
> >> > manner.
> >>
> >> Interesting. Why do you call it a _martial_ art, then? Does living
> >> in a balanced manner involve a lot of time spent fighting?
> >>
> >
> > The 'martial' is simply the medium by which one pursues art. Art in my
> > opinion being the attempt to reconcile reality through personal
expression,
> > projection, and experience.
>
> Well, I suppose there is no canonical definition of "art", nor would
> we want one. You can certainly consider "art" to be whatever you
> like. Be warned, however, that most of the MA world would disagree
> with you vehemently.
>
I would expect that. If people agreed with me, I'd be a little worried.
Sometimes the best way to learn is to an idiot.
> >> > Therefore if your sensei teaches you only how to strike or grapple
> >> > or defend yourself, and does not balance that with teaching you how
to
> > heal
> >> > and recover. Then they are not teaching you a martial art, they are
> > teaching
> >> > you barbarism.
> >>
> >> Eh? Martial artists fight. Doctors heal. The two are not incompatible,
> >> but there is no connection.
> >>
> >
> > Is it not true that in the 'old days' martial artists were often looked
to
> > as 'doctors' or maybe more appropriately witch doctors of their society?
>
> Um... I think that depends _very_ much on the martial art we're
> talking about here.
>
That's a good point.
> > In fact most martial arts are firmly planted in the workings and
> > mechanics of human physiology and health.
>
> Yes, but _most_ martial arts are interested in the workings of the
> human body because they want to cripple it as eficiently as possible.
>
I agree, but what happens when you are the one that was crippled
efficiently?
> > Interestingly enough, most martial artists tend to favor professions
> > that involve healing.
>
> This is not true. Well, maybe if you only consider Tai Chi a martial
> art, or something, but it is certainly not true by any sane definition
> of the term.
>
Agreed.
> > I can't count the number of massage and physical therapists I have met
> > in my training. The chinese have long linked healing with the martial
> > tradition, ever since Da Mo. I may be mistaken on this point however.
>
> There are other martial arts besides the Chinese ones, you know.
>
Yep. I know.
> > Many classical chinese stylists learn qigong and tui na as part of
> > their martial education. If you teach someone how to break a bone,
> > teach them how to set a bone. If you teach someone how to
> > knock someone out, teach how to recesitate.
>
> This makes sense - to a point - but I didn't associate the word
> "healing" with basic first aid.
>
Its basic to us.
> >> > This may not mean the art you study is not an art, simply
> >> > that you are not being taught the art. Likewise, if your sensei only
> > teaches
> >> > you about the body without balancing it by teaching you the mind or
> > spirit,
> >> > they are depriving you of the art and teaching you only calisthenics.
> >>
> >> So obviously, boxing = callisthenics. Insightful, that.
> >>
> > I find your response somewhat ambiguous, so I'll assume you are not
> > disagreeing, or agreeing.
>
> It was sarcasm, and I was disagreeing. Boxing is not callisthenics.
>
Boxing is not callisthenics, but is it a martial art?
Fair enough. I understand your first point now.
It only seems complex to because I had to explain it. An atom is pretty
simple until you have to explain it. I may have an idealised viewpoint, but
why is that a problem?
Interesting about Mr. Villon. I have some questions. Can you either answer
them or direct me where I can find my own answers. What kind of crimes? Did
he ever 'reform' in his lifetime? Did he consider poetry to be his reason
for getting up in the morning, or was he a criminal who wrote poems? These
make a difference in whether I would classify him as an artist. Let educated
people think what they want, educated people once though blood was still in
the body.
> >> You talk like someone who cannot fight. Can you?
> >
> > I guess that depends on how broad or narrow your perception of fighting
is.
>
> Here I was using the primary definition, which is: "to attempt to
> harm or gain power over an advesary by blows or with weapons".
>
Then no, I neither attempt to harm or gain power over an adversary.
Regretfully in the past I have. I have successfully defended myself against
violent agression, and to extend the idea, defended myself against just
plain dangerous moments in time. I was also adept at 'sport' fighting,
though never competed. I don't believe in martial arts for competition, not
saying its wrong, just saying I don't believe in it. When I sparred it was
to train skills that are developed while sparring. I leave competition to
people who like glory.
> > I am effective at compromise, and expression. Fighting is relative to a
> > situation and an enviroment. My art, martial in particular, has taught
me
> > 'how to live' in regards to aggressive and life threatening situations,
> > among others. How do I know it has taught me 'how to live' in these
cases? I
> > am alive and so are all those who have ever attacked me. In each case a
> > compromise was reached, expression achieved, and martial principles were
> > applied to a martial situation.
>
> I hope you won't be offended, but I see one significant difference
> between the way you talk and the way experienced "pacifist" martial
> artists talk. Neither you nor they answer a question directly, but
> where their evasive answers shed light on previously unconsidered
> aspects of the matter, yours just seem to obfuscate things.
>
I am not offended. I am also not a pacifist. If my answers are indirect, I
apologize. In this form of communication it is difficult sometimes to know
what meaning people attach to abstract concepts. As for obfuscation, I have
no excuse, I guess I'm obfuscating.
> Now. These are the (generally accepted) meanings of some of the basic
> terms we use here. It'll help if you use them the same way - if you
> don't, please warn us beforehand.
>
> Fight - Violent physical struggle
> Martial art - any discipline that trains a person to fight (see above)
> Nazi - anyone who disagrees with your point of view.
>
> OK, the last definition was a joke, but the first two weren't.
>
Glad about the last one. You didn't strike me as a Nazi. I know you are
gonna hate me for asking this, but according to your definitions, doesn't A
martial art mean 'any discipline that trains a person to engage in the act
of violent physical struggle' ?
Jon Justian
"Kirk Lawson" <NO_lklaw...@heapy.com> wrote in message
news:3B0D225F...@heapy.com...
Chas
> Jon Justian wrote:
> > Is it not true that in the 'old days' martial artists were often looked to
> > as 'doctors' or maybe more appropriately witch doctors of their society?
> Not that I'm aware of.
It's actually quite common for martial artists to also be 'bone-setters'
(as with Hatsumi), healing masseurs (as with Palumbo)- lots of 'Chinese
Medicine' guys, shamanist/animist healers- it's a very compatible
profession.
> This has not been my experience. I know many martial artists, very few of them
> are in the "healing profession." Here on RMA, as an example, I know of only ONE
> poster out of the many who is a "healer" and that would be Dr. Shin (and he is
> more into research).
There have also been nurses, herbalists, qigong type healers, masseurs and
so on. I think it is a perfect adjunct to serious martial art. Anatomy is
the proper study for a martial artist, and healing is just the other side
of destruction.
--
Chas
"There is no bad weather, only bad clothing"
http://members.nbci.com/kilap/Keepsafe.htm (Keepsafe & Pocket Pal)
http://www.kuntaosilat.com/ (Kuntao Silat Association, International)
http://members.nbci.com/kilap/cuecase.htm (Fine Cases and Accessories)
http://members.nbci.com/kilap/cane.html (Combat Cane for Cripples)
Jon Justian
point out examples.
I don't know about mideival knights but samurai were a bit more from what I
remember than simple warriors and land owners. many were skilled visual
artists and musicians, trained in heraldry and etiquette, and many I have
heard were excellent caligraphers and tea masters. True there were those
that were just killers, and looked for any excuse to battle.
I liked to correlation to a combat photographer.
I was in err to use the phrasing I chose for my statement about healing as a
profession.
As for what makes an artist, I only stated what I think makes an artists, as
I was asked. Whether people agree or not is up to them. I don't expect
agreement, but I don't expect someone to tell me my opinon is wrong because
it goes against the grain of the majority.
"Kallini" <ch...@kallini.com> wrote in message
news:u59qgt4d3q8pu8ric...@4ax.com...
Kirk Lawson
> It's actually quite common for martial artists to also be 'bone-setters'
> (as with Hatsumi), healing masseurs (as with Palumbo)- lots of 'Chinese
> Medicine' guys, shamanist/animist healers- it's a very compatible
> profession.
It is "compatible" I just don't think it's especially common (at least not from my
experience).
> There have also been nurses, herbalists, qigong type healers, masseurs and
> so on. I think it is a perfect adjunct to serious martial art. Anatomy is
> the proper study for a martial artist, and healing is just the other side
> of destruction.
Sure, but it's not all that common. Of all the Martial Artists I've met, I'd say that
less then 1 in 20 were either professional or semi-professional "healers" of any
sort. Even factoring out TKD (the most "common" MA), I can't honestly say that there
have been a significant number.
At best, it seems to be an subject of moderate interest to most.
chy...@ludens.elte.hu
> <chy...@ludens.elte.hu> wrote in message news:IY8ft4Wp$lC+@ludens...
>> In article <XE8P6.139$aG6....@news.shore.net>, "Jon Justian"
> <jon...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> > <chy...@ludens.elte.hu> wrote in message news:I$FvW1gwOD$Q@ludens...
>> >> In article <oLUO6.87$aG6....@news.shore.net>, "Jon Justian"
>> > <jon...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> Well, I suppose there is no canonical definition of "art", nor would
>> we want one. You can certainly consider "art" to be whatever you
>> like. Be warned, however, that most of the MA world would disagree
>> with you vehemently.
>
> I would expect that. If people agreed with me, I'd be a little worried.
> Sometimes the best way to learn is to an idiot.
*grin*
>> > In fact most martial arts are firmly planted in the workings and
>> > mechanics of human physiology and health.
>>
>> Yes, but _most_ martial arts are interested in the workings of the
>> human body because they want to cripple it as eficiently as possible.
>
> I agree, but what happens when you are the one that was crippled
> efficiently?
Personally? I crawl to a hospital post-haste.
I doubt that it's possible to "heal thyself". If it's anything more
serious than a sprain, I'd like an _uninjured_ medical specialist
looking at it, regardless of how well I know medicine or "healing".
>> > I find your response somewhat ambiguous, so I'll assume you are not
>> > disagreeing, or agreeing.
>>
>> It was sarcasm, and I was disagreeing. Boxing is not callisthenics.
>
> Boxing is not callisthenics, but is it a martial art?
In my opinion, it is. Do you now see how far apart we are, regarding
our views on martial arts?
>> I think you have an unnecessarily idealised view towards art. Art is,
>> I think, both something simpler and something far more nebulous than
>> what you make it out to be. In another post, I mentioned my counter-
>> example: Francois Villon. He was a _very_ talented poet, and I doubt
>> you could find many educated people who don't consider him an "artist".
>> On the other hand, he was a criminal. Not a touching bohemian "starving
>> artist", but a hardcore criminal.
>
> It only seems complex to because I had to explain it. An atom is pretty
> simple until you have to explain it. I may have an idealised viewpoint, but
> why is that a problem?
>
> Interesting about Mr. Villon. I have some questions. Can you either answer
> them or direct me where I can find my own answers.
I'll do both. Here's a pretty good, concise biography:
http://www.britannica.com/seo/f/franois-villon
> What kind of crimes?
Lots of manslaughter and robbery, mostly.
> Did he ever 'reform' in his lifetime?
Not that we know of... he spent his last years in banishment, we
don't know where or how.
> Did he consider poetry to be his reason for getting up in the
> morning, or was he a criminal who wrote poems?
I don't know. Based on his poems, I'd say poetry was definitely
an integral part of his life, though.
> These make a difference in whether I would classify him as an
> artist. Let educated people think what they want, educated people
> once though blood was still in the body.
OK.
>> Here I was using the primary definition, which is: "to attempt to
>> harm or gain power over an advesary by blows or with weapons".
>
> Then no, I neither attempt to harm or gain power over an adversary.
> Regretfully in the past I have. I have successfully defended myself against
> violent agression, and to extend the idea, defended myself against just
> plain dangerous moments in time. I was also adept at 'sport' fighting,
> though never competed. I don't believe in martial arts for competition, not
> saying its wrong, just saying I don't believe in it. When I sparred it was
> to train skills that are developed while sparring. I leave competition to
> people who like glory.
Fair enough.
>> I hope you won't be offended, but I see one significant difference
>> between the way you talk and the way experienced "pacifist" martial
>> artists talk. Neither you nor they answer a question directly, but
>> where their evasive answers shed light on previously unconsidered
>> aspects of the matter, yours just seem to obfuscate things.
>
> I am not offended. I am also not a pacifist. If my answers are indirect, I
> apologize. In this form of communication it is difficult sometimes to know
> what meaning people attach to abstract concepts. As for obfuscation, I have
> no excuse, I guess I'm obfuscating.
>
>> Now. These are the (generally accepted) meanings of some of the basic
>> terms we use here. It'll help if you use them the same way - if you
>> don't, please warn us beforehand.
>>
>> Fight - Violent physical struggle
>> Martial art - any discipline that trains a person to fight (see above)
>> Nazi - anyone who disagrees with your point of view.
>>
>> OK, the last definition was a joke, but the first two weren't.
>>
>
> Glad about the last one. You didn't strike me as a Nazi. I know you are
> gonna hate me for asking this, but according to your definitions, doesn't A
> martial art mean 'any discipline that trains a person to engage in the act
> of violent physical struggle' ?
Actually, according to my definition, yes. And that is why I consider
boxing, wrestling, etc. martial arts, in no way inferior to Eastern
arts.
OK, I think I sorta owe you an apology now. The past few days, I've
been a bit too irritable. Exam time's starting, and I've caught a
cold, so I'm not exactly at my peak.
So, apologies. Some of the things I said to (and about) you are not
things I would've said in my saner moments. Mea culpa.
Kallini
<jon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Very good point about knights. I was kinda wondering if anyone was going to
>point out examples.
>I don't know about mideival knights but samurai were a bit more from what I
>remember than simple warriors and land owners. many were skilled visual
>artists and musicians, trained in heraldry and etiquette, and many I have
>heard were excellent caligraphers and tea masters. True there were those
>that were just killers, and looked for any excuse to battle.
True, there were samurai who studied other arts as well (as there were
European knights who did too- everyone needs a hobby!), but I was
specifically referring to working double duty as healers as well.
While I'm sure some existed, it wasn't very common at all.
>I liked to correlation to a combat photographer.
Heh, thanks. Best example I could think of off the top of my head
going by the strict definition of "martial art".
>I was in err to use the phrasing I chose for my statement about healing as a
>profession.
No problem.
>As for what makes an artist, I only stated what I think makes an artists, as
>I was asked. Whether people agree or not is up to them. I don't expect
>agreement, but I don't expect someone to tell me my opinon is wrong because
>it goes against the grain of the majority.
Well, the problem is, making such claims makes it look as if you're
telling people that if they don't subscribe to your philosophy,
they're not "real" artists. That's what rubs people the wrong way.
That's why people find the need to refute statements like that.
There really is no correlation between art and philosophy, since one
can be skilled in either without caring about the other. But, if
they're connected in your life, that's fine.
Kallini
Kirk Lawson
> Very good point about knights. I was kinda wondering if anyone was going to
> point out examples.
> I don't know about mideival knights
Depends on the time period. Early knights were warriors, through and through.
By the High Middle Ages, knights were schooled in etiquette (for the time),
manners, literacy (often including poetry and music), heraldry (especially
important), chivalry, and all manner of other "civilized" pursuits.
They were still warriors though. Often the battlefield equivalent of Tanks. It
should also be noted that all of their nifty "culture" did NOT apply to lower
castes such as peasants and serfs.
Check out the book "The History of the Knight." I forget the author, but if you
want, I can check the author and ISBN and get back to you on it.
Chas
> Chas wrote:
> > There have also been nurses, herbalists, qigong type healers, masseurs and
> > so on. I think it is a perfect adjunct to serious martial art. Anatomy is
> > the proper study for a martial artist, and healing is just the other side
> > of destruction.
> Sure, but it's not all that common. Of all the Martial Artists I've met, I'd say that
> less then 1 in 20 were either professional or semi-professional "healers" of any
> sort. Even factoring out TKD (the most "common" MA), I can't honestly say that there
> have been a significant number.
It may be a difference in our exposure to 'professional' martial artists,
or our definition of 'common', or our definition of 'healer/healing arts'.
What profession *is* most common amongst your martial arts confrere- and I
am assuming that we're not speaking of dilettantes/hobbyists, but of people
who make martial arts a 'lifestyle'?
In my experience, the incidence of 'healers' (from MD's to Chiropractors to
Shiatsuka-) has been pretty significant- not overwhelming, but significant.
By the way, it doesn't include me. As a fine artist, I approach my martial
endeavor more as reductive sculpture in a resistant medium <g>
Russ Rader
> Chas wrote:
>
> > It's actually quite common for martial artists to also be 'bone-setters'
> > (as with Hatsumi), healing masseurs (as with Palumbo)- lots of 'Chinese
> > Medicine' guys, shamanist/animist healers- it's a very compatible
> > profession.
>
> It is "compatible" I just don't think it's especially common (at least not from my
> experience).
One of my teacher's students is working as a massage therapist, or some
such thing. People who are interested in the qi aspects of martial arts
often seem to practice "energy manipulation", massage, physical therapy,
etc. I don't think that it is so uncommon.
I personally think that a chiropractor/silat player would be a wicked
combination.
"Here, asshole, have a spinal adjustment on the house!"
*wrench* *snap* *crackle *pop*
;-)
Russ
Jon Justian
<chy...@ludens.elte.hu> wrote in message news:rmXrhwUU57as@ludens...
Yes.
> >> I think you have an unnecessarily idealised view towards art. Art is,
> >> I think, both something simpler and something far more nebulous than
> >> what you make it out to be. In another post, I mentioned my counter-
> >> example: Francois Villon. He was a _very_ talented poet, and I doubt
> >> you could find many educated people who don't consider him an "artist".
> >> On the other hand, he was a criminal. Not a touching bohemian "starving
> >> artist", but a hardcore criminal.
> >
> > It only seems complex to because I had to explain it. An atom is pretty
> > simple until you have to explain it. I may have an idealised viewpoint,
but
> > why is that a problem?
> >
> > Interesting about Mr. Villon. I have some questions. Can you either
answer
> > them or direct me where I can find my own answers.
>
> I'll do both. Here's a pretty good, concise biography:
> http://www.britannica.com/seo/f/franois-villon
>
Thank you kindly.
> > What kind of crimes?
>
> Lots of manslaughter and robbery, mostly.
>
> > Did he ever 'reform' in his lifetime?
>
> Not that we know of... he spent his last years in banishment, we
> don't know where or how.
>
> > Did he consider poetry to be his reason for getting up in the
> > morning, or was he a criminal who wrote poems?
>
> I don't know. Based on his poems, I'd say poetry was definitely
> an integral part of his life, though.
>
I find that intriguing.
> > These make a difference in whether I would classify him as an
> > artist. Let educated people think what they want, educated people
> > once though blood was still in the body.
>
> OK.
>
sarcasm?
I don't consider them inferior. I'm not sure whether you consider Parker
Kempo or brazilian ju jutsu a western or eastern art, but by no means are
those systems inferior in their practical applications.
On the question of boxing though, I'd be interested to hear whether a
boxer's punching style would be safe for them if they weren't taped up and
wearing gloves. Just curious.
> OK, I think I sorta owe you an apology now. The past few days, I've
> been a bit too irritable. Exam time's starting, and I've caught a
> cold, so I'm not exactly at my peak.
>
> So, apologies. Some of the things I said to (and about) you are not
> things I would've said in my saner moments. Mea culpa.
>
Appreciated, and respected. You did me no harm or insult. You, Mr. Lawson,
and Mr. Kalini made me re-evaluate some of my ideas. Thanks kindly for that.
I like hearing what people have to say, and hearing how they say it. I don't
know what Mea culpa means though.
Good luck on exams.
Chas
> I personally think that a chiropractor/silat player would be a wicked
> combination.
We had quite a famous one (locally) in the practice group for quite a
while. He came out of the hard styles and got his arm broken by not
yielding to the technique. It cost him some hundreds of thousands of
dollars to resume his medical practice and I think that kind of put him
off. I really felt bad for him-
Kirk Lawson
> It may be a difference in our exposure to 'professional' martial artists,
> or our definition of 'common', or our definition of 'healer/healing arts'.
Hmmm... Could be.
> What profession *is* most common amongst your martial arts confrere-
I can't say I've particularly noticed any one profession more represented in martial arts
then another, with, perhaps the profession of "Professional Martial Arts Instructor." Seems
like there's usually at least one per school. ;-)
> and I
> am assuming that we're not speaking of dilettantes/hobbyists, but of people
> who make martial arts a 'lifestyle'?
> In my experience, the incidence of 'healers' (from MD's to Chiropractors to
> Shiatsuka-) has been pretty significant- not overwhelming, but significant.
I guess it's just different exposure because I can't really say that "healers" have been
significantly represented (say more then 1 out of 20). <shrug>
> By the way, it doesn't include me. As a fine artist, I approach my martial
> endeavor more as reductive sculpture in a resistant medium <g>
Interesting. I don't really "relate" my martial arts to any other portion of my life (for
instance, it's not an expression of my religion nor is my religion an expression of my MA).
Martial Arts are more like a "component" of me. I've got a hand, a nose, a foot, I'm a IT
professional, a sometimes poet, a Christian, a Martial Artist, a father, a husband... They
all IMPACT each other and some have a greater importance, but few of them are particularly
defining to the other parts.
chy...@ludens.elte.hu
> <chy...@ludens.elte.hu> wrote in message news:rmXrhwUU57as@ludens...
>> In article <TS9P6.157$aG6....@news.shore.net>, "Jon Justian"
> <jon...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> > <chy...@ludens.elte.hu> wrote in message news:IY8ft4Wp$lC+@ludens...
>> >> In article <XE8P6.139$aG6....@news.shore.net>, "Jon Justian"
>> > <jon...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> > Did he consider poetry to be his reason for getting up in the
>> > morning, or was he a criminal who wrote poems?
>>
>> I don't know. Based on his poems, I'd say poetry was definitely
>> an integral part of his life, though.
>
> I find that intriguing.
Many people do. Villon is definitely an anomaly in this respect.
>> > These make a difference in whether I would classify him as an
>> > artist. Let educated people think what they want, educated people
>> > once though blood was still in the body.
>>
>> OK.
>
> sarcasm?
Nope. My sarcasm is usually a bit less subtle than that :) Anyway,
I know that some people have trouble detecting sarasm, so when I
"strike out" with a person, I don't usually use sarcasm on them again.
This was serious, OK meant that I understood your sentiment.
>> Actually, according to my definition, yes. And that is why I consider
>> boxing, wrestling, etc. martial arts, in no way inferior to Eastern
>> arts.
>
> I don't consider them inferior. I'm not sure whether you consider Parker
> Kempo or brazilian ju jutsu a western or eastern art, but by no means are
> those systems inferior in their practical applications.
>
> On the question of boxing though, I'd be interested to hear whether a
> boxer's punching style would be safe for them if they weren't taped up and
> wearing gloves. Just curious.
I'm no boxer, so I really can't say. Whether or not their punching
style is influenced by the presence of gloves, however, boxing
stances and guards are in many ways very well thought-out.
>> OK, I think I sorta owe you an apology now. The past few days, I've
>> been a bit too irritable. Exam time's starting, and I've caught a
>> cold, so I'm not exactly at my peak.
>>
>> So, apologies. Some of the things I said to (and about) you are not
>> things I would've said in my saner moments. Mea culpa.
>
> Appreciated, and respected. You did me no harm or insult. You, Mr. Lawson,
> and Mr. Kalini made me re-evaluate some of my ideas. Thanks kindly for that.
> I like hearing what people have to say, and hearing how they say it. I don't
> know what Mea culpa means though.
Approximately "my bad". :)
> Good luck on exams.
Thanks.
Ketho of Davenport
>On the question of boxing though, I'd be interested to hear whether a
>boxer's punching style would be safe for them if they weren't taped up and
>wearing gloves. Just curious.
If by "style" you mean techniques and habits, I would think the answer has been
demonstrativley no. With the high percentage of headshots, boxers sans gloves
and tape routinely break their hands.
This goes back thousands of years to the ancient Olympics even. When boxers
fought wrestlers in the pankration combined competition, the boxers were not
allowed to wrap their hands and customarily broke them on the wrestlers heads.
Bare knuckle fighters on the otherhand, usually throw far fewer punches and
choose their targets more judicously. Also, bare knuckle fighters ofetn use a
more whip-like style when punching than people trained as gloved boxers. The
latter being more used to getting more of their body behind their punches to
force thru a bulkier gloved defense. { Hey, this was fun. Does anyone care to
know my waist size now? ;) }
Ketho
"To search for the old is to understand the new."
Jon Justian
the other areas you mentioned?
"Kirk Lawson" <NO_lklaw...@heapy.com> wrote in message
news:3B0D4C27...@heapy.com...
Ketho of Davenport
Oh, and there is also the matter of keeeping your hand closed well enough
bare-handed to form a good fist. If you train a lot with taped hands with or
without gloves, you can get sloppy about hand closure and pay the price of
broken small bones. Not that that ever happened to me, or if it did that I
would ever admit to it here...
Kirk Lawson
> Really? I find that interesting. None of those things affect or influence
> the other areas you mentioned?
Of course they do. As I said, "they all IMPACT each other." The difference is
that some people see all their other rolls as filtered through one. For
instance, one person may persue his martial arts as a FATHER. Another may
pursue his obligations of fatherhood as a MARTIAL ARTIST.
Me, on the other hand... When I'm in my role as a father, I'm a father with
martial arts experience, who's a Christian, who's an IT professional, who's...
It *all* impacts it, some more then others, but none of them are truely DEFINING
to it. Conversely, Chas is an ARTIST. He views himself and defines himself
first as an ARTIST. He aproaches LIFE and all of his roles in it as an ARTIST.
That's how he's put together. I don't work that way.
Make more sense now?
Jon Justian
Carlucci
> it as a matter of personal interest, many with first aid training and
> certification. A few even with a little training in chinese herbalism.
I train with plenty of people that know about some herbalism! Maybe not
Chinese, but it's definitely some herb... Jamaican, usually; sometimes
homegrown. It definitely has some healing properties... This one guy was a
regular Walgreen's on some days; a traveling pharmacy, as it were.
As an aside, when I had surgery on my foot, I found out that the
"medication", if you will, that my friends are in to is actually more
expensive than what the hospital used on me... Should that disturb me?
Luc...@prodigy.net
If you want to be a winner, all you have to give is everything you've got.
MattBarnz
>I'm surprised. Many of my fellow students have been either professional,
>or
>student healers. Healer not necessarily meaning medicine. Mostly massage,
>and physical therapy and sports medicine. Not to emntion those that pursued
>it as a matter of personal interest, many with first aid training and
>certification. A few even with a little training in chinese herbalism. True
>these were all forms of healing with martial application, but that was my
>point.
Actually, it's funny but at our school the largest group among the adults is
those in teaching professions, and then the next group would be in the
'healing' professions. This is a general statement that includes chiropractors,
massage therapists, nurses, etc. Some folks (like me) straddle the health /
teaching line.
Matt Barnes
Chris Hansen
says that when Bhodidarma came
>to Shaolin temple from India, he found the monks weak and undisciplined.
He then taught martial arts to
>strengthen them for the rigors of religious deprivation and self denial.
>
I'd like to point out that these martial arts techniques had already been
developed as a way of fighting and later taught to the monks as a form of
exercise. Martial arts practice is a great way to get in shape but they were
still developed to kick people's asses.
Chris Hansen
>TKD is, without a doubt, a "real" but that does not nesasarily mean that
any
>particular interpretation of it is a "good" martial art'
What do people have against TKD? Sure, the emphasis is on sport these days
but traditional TKD has a lot of material that could be useful for self
defense. I don't practice TKD but it seems to me that your teacher and how
you train is more important than whether it's TKD or something else.
chy...@ludens.elte.hu
>>TKD is, without a doubt, a "real" but that does not nesasarily mean that
> any
>>particular interpretation of it is a "good" martial art'
>
> What do people have against TKD?
1) The fact that we don't believe it is as effective as other arts.
2) That TKD has a far larger ratio of "McDojangs" than other arts.
> Sure, the emphasis is on sport these days but traditional TKD has
> a lot of material that could be useful for self defense.
"A lot" is a vague term. I believe it has less useful material than
almost any other martial art, AND it teaches some tehniques that are
actually counterproductive, and dangerous to try in a real fight.
> I don't practice TKD but it seems to me that your teacher and how
> you train is more important than whether it's TKD or something else.
Both are important. The point is that I believe a person who trains
in TKD for X years will lose to a person training in almost any
other martial art for X years, assuming that both people are in
the same physical shape, train equally hard, and both have good
teachers.
Even if we accept your point, it doesn't mean much. I happen to
think that both the teacher and the art is important. Thus, I
am against bad teachers, and I am against bad arts (of which I
consider TKD to be one).
Kirk Lawson
> What do people have against TKD? Sure, the emphasis is on sport these days
> but traditional TKD has a lot of material that could be useful for self
> defense. I don't practice TKD but it seems to me that your teacher and how
> you train is more important than whether it's TKD or something else.
Ah! I've been waiting for this question. Actually, I've answered it a couple
of times, but here goes.
When attempting to compare one art with others in any meaningful way, I find
it best to work along the lines of Philosophy, Strategy, and Techniques.
As far as TKD goes, we'll try to work first with the general PERCEPTIONS among
other martial artists.
Let's start with the easiest first: Techniques.
Loosely speaking, Techniques are the conglomeration of punches, kicks,
grapples, joint-locks, Weapons subsets, nerve strikes, blocking, slipping,
redirecting, etc. that comprise an art. Basically, the actual nuts and bolts
of an attack or a defense (both "hard" and "soft" see RMA FAQ). As a general
rule, most arts are drawn from the same pool of techniques but typically
include the most basic set of techniques from most or all of these "areas."
That being said, we can exit "general rules" and get into more specifics in
which we can say that a particular art may include more sets or variations of
one class of techniques than others and may exclude other sets or variations.
Generally speaking, the perception among non-TKD practitioners is that TKD
focuses far too much on kicks with very little emphasis on punching,
particularly as influenced by Competition style TKD, seldom any joint-locks
and almost never any grappling. This means that (according to perception),
TKD is vastly myopic in it's Technique selection. TKD *does* have a seeming
endless variation of kicks but, selected instructors excepted, often little
else.
Next there is the aspect of Strategy:
Perhaps the most difficult of the three to determine in specifics about any
given art, Strategy describes the overall concept of how the set of techniques
of an art are applied to combat or physical confrontations. Basically, the
Strategy of an art prepares the practitioner to respond in certain ways with a
given set of techniques to various attacks. It is concerned with elements of
how Techniques are constructed or applied, particularly in reference to Linear
versus Circular. One of the most famous and easily understood Martial Arts
Strategies comes from Brazilian JuJitsu. Basically stated, BJJ's Strategy
says: "All, or most, fights are comprised of only two combatants, and end up
with both combatants 'wresting' on the ground rather than standing, thus, to
be most effective, the greatest emphasis in training should be on
'groundwork'." Other arts have Strategies that are based on or include
"angles of attack", etc. Some arts have the simplest of all Strategies, which
is 'the best defense is a good offense', or stated another way, 'do as much
damage as possible and keep doing damage until the opponent is no longer a
threat'.
The general perception of TKD is that, it again focuses to exclusion upon
kicking skills. The old saying goes, "If all you have is a hammer, every
problem looks like a nail." Most TKD detractors believe that TKD's Strategy
is fixated on a false assumption that TKD's range of kicks will be sufficient
for most self defense or combat situations at the expense of other, perhaps
more viable solutions that are completely left out of the TKD
Techniques.Further, it is the perception that TKD focuses on *high* kicks
nearly to the exclusion of low kicks. That is, TKD teaches a strategy that
launches kicks at the opponent *above* the level of the waist. The feeling of
many is that this leaves the TKD exponent in a position of weak balance that
can easily be taken advantage of by even unskilled opponents.
As a subset of Strategy, let's briefly examine Training. This describes the
methods and exercises used in learning and practicing the art in question.
Training can differ radically from one instructor to the next within a single
Martial Art, to say nothing of from one Martial Art to another. Thus, it is
not really possible to classify training for a specific art in anything other
than broad generalization. Training can, and frequently does, include
exercises where a given Technique is broken down into small, easily digested,
bits which, once understood are then moved into one, flowing movement, The
Technique. In the Martial Arts world, there are currently two hotly debated
Training tools, Sparing and Forms.
Sparing, sometimes called Randori (and it's close relative, Competition, or
Kumite) is where the Martial Artist faces one or more training partners where
each engage in varying degrees of free form attacks and defenses. It is widely
held that, in order to learn to use Techniques and Strategy "on the fly" or
under stress, one must put them to the test in the most realistic practice
engagements possible. Since it is undesirable to seriously injure your
Sparring partner (who would you have to spar with if you put all your training
partners in the hospital?), there is nearly always some level of holding back
and/or protective equipment worn during Sparring.
It has been noted that in TKD, most sparring has a predilection (again) to
high-kicks. This predilection towards high kicks becomes difficult and even
dangerous to perform on some surfaces such as gravel or may be inappropriate
for varying reasons, yet, because of his training, it is believed that the TKD
practitioner would choose a high-kick by rote when a low kick would better
suffice.
Though few people doubt TKD's wide range of kicking Techniques have some
applications, most observe that they aren't exactly BatMan's Utility Belt and
aren't appropriate for every situation. Many believe TKD's kicking (as taught
and practiced) isn't even appropriate for MOST situations.
At this point, most TKD practitioners entering into debates with TKD
detractors say something like, "Well, that's not the way we train at MY
school!" or "We 'crosstrain' at my school!" Well, that may be true, however,
the VAST majority of TKD schools and practitioners that most of us have come
into contact with don't.
We will skip Philosophy since it is difficult to identify any particular
philosophy associated specifically with TKD other then "Be a better person."
Finally, outside of the discussion of Philosophy, Strategy, and Techniques, we
should discuss the "McDojang" (McDojo) phenomenon within TKD.
A McDojo/McDojang/McKwoon (whatever) is basically a school that will give out
ranks simply to paying customers, no or little actual skill is required. It's
purely and *solely* a money making venture. These schools are typically
marked by certain characteristics. Among these are an extremely fast
promotion rate to "Black Belt" often within two years (it should be noted that
most other arts typically require 5-7 years to "Black Belt"), numerous
(seemingly endless) Gup ranks (sub-black belt ranks - Kyu in Jap.) including
variations within a rank (It's not uncommon to hear of "Second Grade 'Decided'
Yellow Belt" in TKD and such like), lots of testing and associated /
non-associated fees, long and expensive contracts (often "guaranteeing" Black
Belt within a given period of time). In other words, it's basically a school
scamming it's students for money and making them believe it's teaching them
how to effectively fight, yet, there is little legal recourse if this is
true. There is no (nor should there be) government regulation or standards
regarding teaching people how to "fight" yet it rankles many martial artists
who feel that these unsuspecting students are being "taught" by a scam artist
and really aren't learning anything even remotely effective (this launches
into the age-old RMA debate on "what is effective").
How does this apply to TKD? Well, perhaps it's just that TKD is more popular
or there are more TKD schools on the average then any other style, but it
seems that there is a HUGE number of TKD McDojangs turning out Black Belts who
couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag and who are defeated by 13
year old girls (literally! as per a recent thread).
So, put all this together and I'm sure you can see why TKD takes so much
bashing.
Ketho of Davenport
Woah! Nice post, Kirk. Did you write all this before the baby arrived or are
you on crystal meth these days? I hope you have that archieved, it was a
fantasic summation.
Les Griswold
> Chris Hansen wrote:
>
>> What do people have against TKD? Sure, the emphasis is on sport these days
>> but traditional TKD has a lot of material that could be useful for self
>> defense. I don't practice TKD but it seems to me that your teacher and how
>> you train is more important than whether it's TKD or something else.
(snip)
> At this point, most TKD practitioners entering into debates with TKD
> detractors say something like, "Well, that's not the way we train at MY
> school!" or "We 'crosstrain' at my school!" Well, that may be true, however,
> the VAST majority of TKD schools and practitioners that most of us have come
> into contact with don't.
There's the rub: the majority (I would even dare to say the VAST
majority) of TKD bashers have NO experience with the art. A few
anti-TKD people actually have "come into contact" with TKD, but it
seems most of the TKD-bashers heard some guy once sayin' trash about
TKD, or saw the Olympics, or some other second- or third-hand knowledge.
Les!
Kirk Lawson
> Kirk wrote a masterpiece:
>
> >Chris Hansen wrote:
> >
> >> What do people have against TKD? Sure, the emphasis is on sport these days
> >> but traditional TKD has a lot of material that could be useful for self
> >> defense. I don't practice TKD but it seems to me that your teacher and how
> >> you train is more important than whether it's TKD or something else.
> >
> >Ah! I've been waiting for this question. Actually, I've answered it a
> >couple of times, but here goes.
[snip]
> Woah! Nice post, Kirk. Did you write all this before the baby arrived or are
> you on crystal meth these days? I hope you have that archieved, it was a
> fantasic summation.
hehehe...
First off, no Crystal Meth, though I do avail myself of both Caffeine (natural in
tea) and Ephedra (natural in Ma Hung). The Ephedra can really light you up (and
has some potential health hazards if abused) so you have to be careful with it.
As to the source. It's a refinement of some earlier posts of mine on the
subject. Not a completely new work, just a re-edit of some old stuff.
And, yes, I kept a copy of the latest re-edit. :-)
Kirk Lawson
> > At this point, most TKD practitioners entering into debates with TKD
> > detractors say something like, "Well, that's not the way we train at MY
> > school!" or "We 'crosstrain' at my school!" Well, that may be true, however,
> > the VAST majority of TKD schools and practitioners that most of us have come
> > into contact with don't.
>
> There's the rub: the majority (I would even dare to say the VAST
> majority) of TKD bashers have NO experience with the art. A few
> anti-TKD people actually have "come into contact" with TKD, but it
> seems most of the TKD-bashers heard some guy once sayin' trash about
> TKD, or saw the Olympics, or some other second- or third-hand knowledge.
Bull.
The martial arts in the U.S. are DOMINATED by TKD. There's a TKD Dojang in every
community. Small towns that have NO OTHER martial arts school have a TKD Dojang.
TKD players are EVERYWHERE. You can't turn and spit in the martial arts community
without hitting one.
Martial artists make friends of other artists, frequently even TKD stylists, they
talk, they get together and spar, swap techniques and notes.
I've seldom met a TKD detractor who has NOT sparred against various TKD students.
Many times, TKD detractors actually have come FROM a TKD background.
I'm sorry, but your argument just doesn't hold water.
If you had argued that "Most" TKD is some sport oriented, watered down variant, or
a McDojang, but there are SOME few RARE Dojangs out there teaching "the real stuff"
then I wouldn't have a serious complaint with your argument. But this "Most TKD
detractors are that way 'cause they haven't experienced any TKD" is just pure
rubbish.
Jon Justian
does your sensei teach you about rooting, center, and the breaking of
balance? I'm sure personal balance is of the uttmost importance to someone
that throws alot of kicks, but I'm curious where the balance comes from and
what is done with that balance.
"Les Griswold" <eg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:9elqcp$50q$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
Les Griswold
Oh, yes, and comments like, "TKD practitioners better have good legs, in
view of all the RUNNING AWAY that they're gonna be doing" are just so
un-rubbishy, right?
Les!
Kirk Lawson
> Oh, yes, and comments like, "TKD practitioners better have good legs, in
> view of all the RUNNING AWAY that they're gonna be doing" are just so
> un-rubbishy, right?
That was Trav. Ask him if he's sparred any TKD players. Hmmm?
Based on my personal experience working with TKD players, I'd say that 90% of the time,
he's right. Really. Maybe more. The VAST majority of TKD players I've worked with have
been "flashy kicksters." The ones who seem to know something better are the MINORITY.
I'm not saying there aren't some out there, but it's been my experience that there is
SOMETHING different about the training regiment of the ones who are good. Cross training
in their school, different philosophy, whatever.
Blame it on what you want, but thems the facts.
Chris Hansen
>2) That TKD has a far larger ratio of "McDojangs" than other arts
That sounds more like a problem with the schools and not the art itself. It
might be worth the effort to find a real school.
>> Sure, the emphasis is on sport these days but traditional TKD has
>> a lot of material that could be useful for self defense.
>
>"A lot" is a vague term. I believe it has less useful material than
>almost any other martial art,
It seems to have the basics: knees, elbows, eye pokes, different kinds of
punching and striking, kicking below the waist, etc. If your concern is self
defense you should train for it. If you train for sport you should recognize
it as sport and not self defense.
hal
wrote:
Yep, exactly. The typical prejudice, ignorance, and "put the other
guy down to make me feel bigger" syndrome.
Hal
hal
<NO_lklaw...@heapy.com> wrote:
>Les Griswold wrote:
>
>> > At this point, most TKD practitioners entering into debates with TKD
>> > detractors say something like, "Well, that's not the way we train at MY
>> > school!" or "We 'crosstrain' at my school!" Well, that may be true, however,
>> > the VAST majority of TKD schools and practitioners that most of us have come
>> > into contact with don't.
>>
>> There's the rub: the majority (I would even dare to say the VAST
>> majority) of TKD bashers have NO experience with the art. A few
>> anti-TKD people actually have "come into contact" with TKD, but it
>> seems most of the TKD-bashers heard some guy once sayin' trash about
>> TKD, or saw the Olympics, or some other second- or third-hand knowledge.
>
>Bull.
Oh, come on Kirk, that is not like you. It is true. It is prejudice.
So maybe they knew, or even sparred a TKD guy or two and he wasn't any
good, then what? Assume that nobody that studies TKD can be any good
and that the art is crap? Shoot their mouth off so they can put down
all the TKD people so they can feel like a big man? Tell all their
friends, then their friends assume that is true and tell their
friends. That IS what is happening, and I know that you know it.
Just like white trash and blacks in the southern US a few decades
ago. Some white trash bonehead, sick and tired of being stupid and
shit on, sees a black guy that is not very bright. "Black guys are
all stupid" he concludes. Tell my friends. They tell their friends.
White people who never even met a black person just KNOWS all
"niggers are stupid". We know now that that is prejudice, brought on
by ignorance and the human propensity for wanting to put others down.
Its the same thing in MA. We see "martial arts trash" that must put
down other martial artists so that they do not have to cope with their
own fear. Sure, we may know bad TKD people, there may be lots of
them, but only because there is a higher population from which to draw
our sample. The percentages are the same. If Upside Down Flying
Fornicating Monkey Kung Fu was the leading art in the world, then we
would see more bad artists from that style, so the ignorant among us
would conclude that it is no good either.
Hal
chy...@ludens.elte.hu
>>2) That TKD has a far larger ratio of "McDojangs" than other arts
>
> That sounds more like a problem with the schools and not the art itself. It
> might be worth the effort to find a real school.
Well, the rest of my post, as well as Kirk's post, had quite
a few reasons why the art itself was bad.
>>> Sure, the emphasis is on sport these days but traditional TKD has
>>> a lot of material that could be useful for self defense.
>>
>>"A lot" is a vague term. I believe it has less useful material than
>>almost any other martial art,
>
> It seems to have the basics: knees, elbows, eye pokes, different kinds of
> punching and striking, kicking below the waist, etc. If your concern is self
> defense you should train for it.
Agreed. Wouldn't it be easier to find a MA that's more effective,
though, rather than pick out the little that's good from TKD?
I'm not saying everything in TKD is completely worthless. I'm
saying that too much of it is. What's the point of figuring out
what's usable in TKD and what's not? Just go find a good MA.
Jon Justian
Fu, and find its commercialization and satire in this country offensive.
What is along tradition of excellence and superiority in the martial arts
has been reduced to nothing more than a sarcastic retort in a newsgroup
post. Hey... is that a legal horny teenage slut, gotta go guys... time to
train.
<hal> wrote in message news:3b0e88d0....@news.blackfoot.net...
hal
<jon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I'm curious, this is aimed mainly at the TKD practitioners out there. What
>does your sensei teach you about rooting, center, and the breaking of
>balance? I'm sure personal balance is of the uttmost importance to someone
>that throws alot of kicks, but I'm curious where the balance comes from and
>what is done with that balance.
We are taught stance and balance is critical, of course. Many who do
not understand and love to slam the traditional arts, love to point
the finger at the "impractical" horse, front, and low back stance. No
experienced capable fighter would try to conduct a street fight in a
horse stance, but it is critical to teach a student the concept of
strong stances and center of gravity. The concept of center and
rooting is taught at about the intermediate student level at a good
TKD dojang. The concept builds on the strong stances taught from day
one. At the beginning sparring level, however, we are taught that
root and a strong low center are critical at the appropriate instant
when executing a technique, but the rest of the time we are upright,
moving, light on our feet, never static. Maintaining your center,
balance, and breaking someone elses balance is mostly applied in a
grappling/throwing style, and is not as strongly emphasized in most
TKD dojangs, however is stressed as an important defensive positioning
if an opponent tries to get in close and overcome your balance.
Hal
chy...@ludens.elte.hu
> On Fri, 25 May 2001 11:14:43 -0400, Kirk Lawson
> <NO_lklaw...@heapy.com> wrote:
>
>>Les Griswold wrote:
>>
>>> > At this point, most TKD practitioners entering into debates with TKD
>>> > detractors say something like, "Well, that's not the way we train at MY
>>> > school!" or "We 'crosstrain' at my school!" Well, that may be true, however,
>>> > the VAST majority of TKD schools and practitioners that most of us have come
>>> > into contact with don't.
>>>
>>> There's the rub: the majority (I would even dare to say the VAST
>>> majority) of TKD bashers have NO experience with the art. A few
>>> anti-TKD people actually have "come into contact" with TKD, but it
>>> seems most of the TKD-bashers heard some guy once sayin' trash about
>>> TKD, or saw the Olympics, or some other second- or third-hand knowledge.
>>
>>Bull.
>
> Oh, come on Kirk, that is not like you. It is true. It is prejudice.
> So maybe they knew, or even sparred a TKD guy or two and he wasn't any
> good, then what?
I trained TKD for four years. I agree with most of the posters here
about TKD, and I feel that (mostly) their reasons are valid.
> Assume that nobody that studies TKD can be any good
> and that the art is crap? Shoot their mouth off so they can put down
> all the TKD people so they can feel like a big man? Tell all their
> friends, then their friends assume that is true and tell their
> friends. That IS what is happening, and I know that you know it.
No, he does not know it, because it is not true. And you might want
to try reversing your words about prejudice, and see how they apply
to you. You might be surprised.
> Just like white trash and blacks in the southern US a few decades
> ago. Some white trash bonehead, sick and tired of being stupid and
> shit on, sees a black guy that is not very bright. "Black guys are
> all stupid" he concludes. Tell my friends. They tell their friends.
> White people who never even met a black person just KNOWS all
> "niggers are stupid". We know now that that is prejudice, brought on
> by ignorance and the human propensity for wanting to put others down.
> Its the same thing in MA.
No it is not. It is not even close. And equating the TKD debate with
racism is a very low tactic.
> We see "martial arts trash" that must put down other martial artists
> so that they do not have to cope with their own fear.
Certainly, these people exist. Are you stating that all TKD detractors
are "martial arts trash"?
What was that you said about prejudice again?
> Sure, we may know bad TKD people, there may be lots of
> them, but only because there is a higher population from which to draw
> our sample. The percentages are the same.
This is, quite simply, untrue. And you will not find anyone unbiased
and knowledgeable about the martial arts to support your statement.
> If Upside Down Flying Fornicating Monkey Kung Fu was the leading
> art in the world, then we would see more bad artists from that
> style, so the ignorant among us would conclude that it is no good
> either.
True, but irrelevant.
chy...@ludens.elte.hu
> I happen to be a practioner of Upside Down Flying Fornicating Monkey Kung
> Fu, and find its commercialization and satire in this country offensive.
> What is along tradition of excellence and superiority in the martial arts
> has been reduced to nothing more than a sarcastic retort in a newsgroup
> post. Hey... is that a legal horny teenage slut, gotta go guys... time to
> train.
Whoa. Can you teach me? I'll do anything.
Kirk Lawson
> Oh, come on Kirk, that is not like you. It is true. It is prejudice.
No, it's based on experience.
> So maybe they knew, or even sparred a TKD guy or two and he wasn't any
> good, then what? Assume that nobody that studies TKD can be any good
> and that the art is crap?
What happens when 99% of the people have EXACTLY the same experience? Assume that
they've ALL sparred the same incompetent TKD guy? He must get around. No, the only
reasonable supposition is that there is a disproportionately LARGE percentage of TKD
players who are no good. The argument is then only about WHY they're no good.
> Sure, we may know bad TKD people, there may be lots of
> them, but only because there is a higher population from which to draw
> our sample. The percentages are the same.
No. The PERCENTAGES are not the same. I'd say that something like 90%+ of TKD players
I've come across are no good. The percentage of worthless practicioners from other arts
is FAR lower. Heck, even a 50% would be lower.
> If Upside Down Flying
> Fornicating Monkey Kung Fu was the leading art in the world, then we
> would see more bad artists from that style,
That may be true. I've often speculated about this. During the Kung Fu Kraze of the
'70s, there were McKwoons popping up all over the flipp'n place. Have to ask someone
who wasn't a youngster then what the percentage of crappy Kung Fools the was then.
Before that it was Karate's McDojo's. I guess we'll have to ask Chas or one of the
other geezers if the percentages are similar.
> so the ignorant among us would conclude that it is no good either.
That may be true.
Again, I will state, for the record, that the greatest number of TKD players are lacking
in comparison with most other martial arts. I suspect that this is for the reasons that
I've outlined at the start of this sub-thread. Note, that this *does* allow for the
potential "good" TKD player who has other skills the the "flashy kickster doodz" that
swarm in TKD. I have met a (very) few. Further note, that this does not mean that TKD
is totally worthless. I have always maintained, and continue to maintain, that even
BAD, limited, or sports dedicated martial training is FAR better the NO martial
training.
See ya next Tuesday (look Mem. weekend ya know). :-)
Jon Justian
initial kick that breaks the agressor's balance, then uses that of balanced
position to land the rest of the kicks. Any truth to that in TKD?
<hal> wrote in message news:3b0e8be1....@news.blackfoot.net...
Jon Justian
<hal> wrote in message news:3b0e8be1....@news.blackfoot.net...
hal
<jon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I happen to be a practioner of Upside Down Flying Fornicating Monkey Kung
>Fu, and find its commercialization and satire in this country offensive.
>What is along tradition of excellence and superiority in the martial arts
>has been reduced to nothing more than a sarcastic retort in a newsgroup
>post. Hey... is that a legal horny teenage slut, gotta go guys... time to
>train.
>
>
LOL !!!! Thanks, I needed that.
Hal
hal
>Bull.
>>
>> Oh, come on Kirk, that is not like you. It is true. It is prejudice.
>> So maybe they knew, or even sparred a TKD guy or two and he wasn't any
>> good, then what?
>
>I trained TKD for four years. I agree with most of the posters here
>about TKD, and I feel that (mostly) their reasons are valid.
I am sorry you were not able to find a good dojang, or able to pursue
your training until you developed a mastery. Your loss.
>
>> Assume that nobody that studies TKD can be any good
>> and that the art is crap? Shoot their mouth off so they can put down
>> all the TKD people so they can feel like a big man? Tell all their
>> friends, then their friends assume that is true and tell their
>> friends. That IS what is happening, and I know that you know it.
>
>No, he does not know it, because it is not true. And you might want
>to try reversing your words about prejudice, and see how they apply
>to you. You might be surprised.
I am not sure I get your point. A black man who speaks out against
racial discrimination is not assumed prejudiced simply because he
speaks out against prejudice. A TKD practioner who speaks out
against ignorance and prejudice against their chosen style is not
prejudiced against other styles. I criticized no ones style. Only
those who criticize mine.
>
>> Just like white trash and blacks in the southern US a few decades
>> ago. Some white trash bonehead, sick and tired of being stupid and
>> shit on, sees a black guy that is not very bright. "Black guys are
>> all stupid" he concludes. Tell my friends. They tell their friends.
>> White people who never even met a black person just KNOWS all
>> "niggers are stupid". We know now that that is prejudice, brought on
>> by ignorance and the human propensity for wanting to put others down.
>> Its the same thing in MA.
>
>No it is not. It is not even close. And equating the TKD debate with
>racism is a very low tactic.
You missed my point. Racism is an example of prejudice. Do I need to
define the term for you? Hit too close to home did I?
>
>
>
>> We see "martial arts trash" that must put down other martial artists
>> so that they do not have to cope with their own fear.
>
>Certainly, these people exist. Are you stating that all TKD detractors
>are "martial arts trash"?
I did not say that. Please do not put words in my mouth trying to
defend your failing argument.
>What was that you said about prejudice again?
What was it you said about prejudice, except that you apparently don't
understand what it means.
>
>> Sure, we may know bad TKD people, there may be lots of
>> them, but only because there is a higher population from which to draw
>> our sample. The percentages are the same.
>
>This is, quite simply, untrue. And you will not find anyone unbiased
>and knowledgeable about the martial arts to support your statement.
Know anything about statistical analysis? What is our sample group we
are talking about here? What is the population we are attempting to
categorize based on that sample? Is our sample an accurate
representation of our population? Do you have any idea what I am
talking about?
>
>> If Upside Down Flying Fornicating Monkey Kung Fu was the leading
>> art in the world, then we would see more bad artists from that
>> style, so the ignorant among us would conclude that it is no good
>> either.
>
>True, but irrelevant.
Why irrelevent? The names have only been changed to make a point.
Sorry you missed it.
Hal
coldblood
useing my jj rank, and still win loads of medals, that says to me that tkd
training in general sucks.
andrew
"Kirk Lawson" <NO_lklaw...@heapy.com> wrote in message
news:3B0E66C9...@heapy.com...
chy...@ludens.elte.hu
> On 25 May 2001 19:59:19 +0200, chy...@ludens.elte.hu wrote:
>>Bull.
>>>
>>> Oh, come on Kirk, that is not like you. It is true. It is prejudice.
>>> So maybe they knew, or even sparred a TKD guy or two and he wasn't any
>>> good, then what?
>>
>>I trained TKD for four years. I agree with most of the posters here
>>about TKD, and I feel that (mostly) their reasons are valid.
>
> I am sorry you were not able to find a good dojang, or able to pursue
> your training until you developed a mastery. Your loss.
I was also curious as to whether it was just me. So I did some
reseach, asked around. Guess what? I've not found anyone who's
managed to find a good dojang. Granted, I probably know less
TKD-ers than Kirk.
>>> Assume that nobody that studies TKD can be any good
>>> and that the art is crap? Shoot their mouth off so they can put down
>>> all the TKD people so they can feel like a big man? Tell all their
>>> friends, then their friends assume that is true and tell their
>>> friends. That IS what is happening, and I know that you know it.
>>
>>No, he does not know it, because it is not true. And you might want
>>to try reversing your words about prejudice, and see how they apply
>>to you. You might be surprised.
>
> I am not sure I get your point. A black man who speaks out against
> racial discrimination is not assumed prejudiced simply because he
> speaks out against prejudice. A TKD practioner who speaks out
> against ignorance and prejudice against their chosen style is not
> prejudiced against other styles. I criticized no ones style. Only
> those who criticize mine.
Ah, but you seem unable to grasp that perhaps the points we made
are valid. There are certainly people who are prejudiced against
TKD. There are people prejudiced against _anything_. Still, just
because there is prejudice against something doesn't mean that
the thing in question is automatically above criticism.
>>> Just like white trash and blacks in the southern US a few decades
>>> ago. Some white trash bonehead, sick and tired of being stupid and
>>> shit on, sees a black guy that is not very bright. "Black guys are
>>> all stupid" he concludes. Tell my friends. They tell their friends.
>>> White people who never even met a black person just KNOWS all
>>> "niggers are stupid". We know now that that is prejudice, brought on
>>> by ignorance and the human propensity for wanting to put others down.
>>> Its the same thing in MA.
>>
>>No it is not. It is not even close. And equating the TKD debate with
>>racism is a very low tactic.
>
> You missed my point. Racism is an example of prejudice. Do I need to
> define the term for you? Hit too close to home did I?
I'm not sure what that last ad hominem was suggesting, so I'll
ignore it, lest you accuse me of putting words in your mouth
again.
Racism is certainly an example of prejudice. But you didn't bring
it up as an example. You brought it up as a parallel
("white trash" -> "martial arts trash").
If I said you were just like Stalin, would you or would you not
take exception? After all, Stalin was human, and so are you.
>>> We see "martial arts trash" that must put down other martial artists
>>> so that they do not have to cope with their own fear.
>>
>>Certainly, these people exist. Are you stating that all TKD detractors
>>are "martial arts trash"?
>
> I did not say that. Please do not put words in my mouth trying to
> defend your failing argument.
I felt that you implied it. I didn't put words in your mouth, I
asked a question. To which you said: no. Good, please give me an
example of a TKD detractor who isn't "martial arts trash" in
your opinion.
>>What was that you said about prejudice again?
>
> What was it you said about prejudice, except that you apparently don't
> understand what it means.
I understand what "prejudice" means. On the other hand, I don't
have a clue what the above _sentence_ is supposed to mean. Please
explain.
>>> Sure, we may know bad TKD people, there may be lots of
>>> them, but only because there is a higher population from which to draw
>>> our sample. The percentages are the same.
>>
>>This is, quite simply, untrue. And you will not find anyone unbiased
>>and knowledgeable about the martial arts to support your statement.
>
> Know anything about statistical analysis?
Yes.
> What is our sample group we are talking about here?
You know what? I don't think we have one. Since I doubt there is
a single TKD'er that we both personally know.
> What is the population we are attempting to categorize based on
> that sample?
You've lost me. Did I somehow miss a post where there was a list
of TKD'ers and their skill levels listed?
The population we're talking about is the entire group of TKD
practitioners. What you consider your sample group, I've no
idea.
> Is our sample an accurate representation of our population? Do
> you have any idea what I am talking about?
No, not really. But let's move back to where you said "the
percentages are the same". Since you are obviously well versed in
statistical analysis, you will no doubt be able to give some sort
of proof. Well?
>>> If Upside Down Flying Fornicating Monkey Kung Fu was the leading
>>> art in the world, then we would see more bad artists from that
>>> style, so the ignorant among us would conclude that it is no good
>>> either.
>>
>>True, but irrelevant.
>
> Why irrelevent?
Just because something has a lot of immature and ignorant detractors,
it doesn't mean that thing is good.
> The names have only been changed to make a point.
> Sorry you missed it.
I don't believe I have, actually.
Les Griswold
"coldblood" (dool...@hotmail.com) writes:
> i'd have to go with kirk. if i as a ju jutsu stylist can enter tkd tourneys,
> useing my jj rank, and still win loads of medals, that says to me that tkd
> training in general sucks.
I think that _you_, in general, suck.
Les!
GOU RONIN®
scribbled with their crayola:
While it is indeed true that Coldblood sucks, it definatly
isn't in the area of physical use of his martial art.
The guy is big, and strong and very well versed in what he
does. This isn't a brag for him. I had him stay at my place last
summer. While I think that I might do well against him in some areas I
have no problem believing that if he entered a TKD tourney he would do
well.
He still sucks though.
GOU RONIN® - The Unforgiven...
ICQ# - 49024165
AOL IM - GouRonin
mIRC - #americankenpo - On Dal.net
http://members.tripod.com/~kenpo_ronin/houseofronin.html
Carlucci
> I'm curious, this is aimed mainly at the TKD practitioners out there. What
> does your sensei teach you about rooting, center, and the breaking of
> balance? I'm sure personal balance is of the uttmost importance to someone
> that throws alot of kicks, but I'm curious where the balance comes from
and
> what is done with that balance.
I've tried to stay out of this thread as long as possible, but here's an
intelligent question that calls for an answer!
There is a LOT of balance concerned when you're throwing multiple kicks,
especially when you're switching legs a lot. It's a little bit different for
specific kicks, but the general idea is to keep your centre of gravity low.
That's why you see a lot of shorter guys keep their legs farther apart in
what appears to be a back stance. I'm not tall (only 5'7''), so I can't say
how it goes with tall guys. But in the case of short guys, they keep the
centre of gravity low, and generally in the same place.
There is somewhat of a theory on this, and I'll try to explain it in words
(it's MUCH easier to show!). When you kick, you want to extend the kick out
away from the body, and keep the body itself in pretty much the same place.
The leg should go out, the hips should rotate, but the upper body especially
shouldn't move that much. You keep the centre of gravity around the hip
area, and you RARELY change the vertical position of your hips. You try to
keep your legs the same distance apart at all times, and you sort of allow
yourself to rock back into kicks. If you could place a sphere inside the
pelvis, then that sphere should not move up or down, it should only rotate.
This of course assumes that you're doing something very simple like a
roundhouse kick, or a combination of roundhouse kicks with alternating legs.
You can see this idea a lot in properly executed forms. There should be
little up/down movement. You achieve a LOT better balance this way. It may
not seem like it by just reading this, but damnit if I could SHOW you, it
would make sense.
If you see somebody throw their upper body or their head down a lot when
they kick, then they're not kicking right. The upper body should stay in the
same position (it can rotate and all that, but as far as up/down and
left/right movement, you really wanna keep it in the same place). You lean
back or forward a little bit to compensate for balance, but anything more
than 5-10* angle is far too much. Unless you're going all out for show to do
a vertical sidekick, but that has zero practical application (even though
it's technically correct if you get your hips into it properly), so we'll
leave that sort of thing out for now. Front leg sidekick, for instance, is
one where the upper body should lean forward a little bit. You can lean
back, also, but forward will work with this kick as well. Roundhouse kick,
however, will not work with forward leaning to compensate for balance, only
slight backwards leaning. You also have to rotate the supporting foot to get
the hip into the kick. At the same time you rotate the supporting foot, you
should throw the arm on your kicking side down and away from the direciton
of the kick. This acts as a counterbalance to give you a little more
momentum (I think that's the right term for this situation.. oh well, I'm
done with physics for the year; school is out, I got an A in physics, I'm
happy! But, I digress...), and when combined with the rotation of the
supporting leg (which should be very fast and with a lot of "snap" to it, so
to speak) increases power tremendously, as well as speed. There is also a
counterbalance that some people use for a spinning hook kick which involves
some sort of upper body rotation, but I only know a VERY superficial ammount
of info on this, so I won't go into it.
The shame of it all is that this sorta thing isn't taught very much. There
is a LOT of work done on improving kicks so that they can be faster and more
powerful. Most of it is centered on Olympic style sparring, though, because
for many countries, there is a future in the TKD that they don't have in oth
er sports, so they are more than willing to have people spend the time into
looking into how kicks can be improved (sorta like what they do at the US
Olympic Centre with swimmers and stuff on their computers, but a LOT less
high-tech in these other countries! Same attitude, though. Scientific
approach to sports) But the ideas can be carried over into self defense. If
you've got a kick that's both faster and more powerful, it is better for
self defense. Fast/powerful kick A is better than slow/powerful kick B or
fast/weak kick C any day, even if it isn't as suited for the situation as
fast/powerful punch D.
An interesting note concerning Olympic style kicking is the fact that,
through years of development, there's actually been self-defense applicable
results coming from it! If you watch the modern Olympic roundhouse kick, you
notice that it comes off the floor almost straight up, with the knee bent,
and then the lower leg snaps out to kick. This is an advancement over the
straight-legged kicks of yesteryear, and also over the kicks that uesd to
come in a lot more from the side (as far as Olympic style is concerned).
Inadvertantly, an interesting alternative to kicking was built into the
technique. Because the kick comes straight off the floor with the knee bent,
it is perfect for delivering a powerful knee strike. So what you have is a
SINGLE chamber for two techniques, one long range and one short range. Let's
say you plan on kicking somebody, so you start in on the kick. BUT, they
start to move in and they get inside your kicking range. Before, there was
cause for concern! But now, there really isn't, BECAUSE you are already in a
position to deliver a knee strike as opposed to a kick! Before, you would
have had to drop the leg and THEN deliver the knee. Now, you can simply
forget about kicking, and drive forward using the hips to deliver the knee.
It's not PERFECT, and this sort of knee won't have the same power as a knee
strike that was supposed to be a knee strike from the beginning, but it
beats the hell out of getting your kick jammed, or having to re-set your
defense all over again.
The balance is very important for kicking. It might seem as though any fool
could throw his leg at something, and that's basicly true. BUT, there is a
science behind throwing your leg at something that seperates the people who
know what they're doing from the fools. A fool pays no attention to his
distance, his balance, which leg he's kicking with, which kicks to throw,
etc. Somebody who knows what they're doing can look at a situation and will
know from the get-go what kick will work there, pretty much without having
to think. Somebody who knows what they're doing also knows which kicks NOT
to throw (i.e. something fancy or something stupid when in self defense
situation). They know which way to move to position themselves, they know
how to recover if their kick is jammed, and they know what to do if their
kick is caught. They also know what to do if their kick misses, and they
know which kicks are going to miss least and which will miss most in a given
situation. As a lot of people say, if your only tool is a hammer, every
problem will start to look like a nail. I say that's fine, so long as you
know your hammer inside and out, and which nails need to be hit which way
and which ones you shouldn't fuck with.
Kicking isn't the only thing in the world, don't get me wrong. But I love to
do it and it's a big part of what I do. I'll tell you straight up, though;
I'm not stupid enough to think that my punching game can be neglected, or
that my semi-grappling (mostly joint locks, a few throws, one or two very
basic leg locks) game can be pushed aside. It's all important shit. But at
the end of the day, I like to kick things, it's just my personal preference.
So I'll be damned if I'm not gonna try to know every little detail about
every kick that I can find out. I think everybody owes it to themselves to
learn at least that much about what they like to do. But I'd be doing a
disservice to myself if I didn't openly admit that I know good and well that
my grappling game needs a lot of work. My punching game has come a long way,
recently, though. When I broke my foot not too long ago, it's all I could
do! So I did a lot of punching (plus the crutches REALLY strengthened my
arms!) on the bags and stuff, and I'm much better for it. It's still not
quite there yet, though. But in all things, you need balance. You need
balance in your martial arts just like you need balance in your body when
you kick. You can't lean too much to one side, else you'll fall over.
Likewise, if you refuse to flex a little and bend some here or there, a
slight tap will knock you right over.
So in summary, when you kick, there is so much more to it than most people
ever bother to even think about. There's timing, distance, balance,
mechanics, specific targets for specific kicks, specific situations when you
don't use specific kicks, counterbalancing, lots of rotation of the
supporting foot, lots to do with the shoulders, the hips, the knees,
everything. A lotta people let sub-standard kicking go by, but I say if you
got weapons with as much power and range as the legs, you damn sure better
learn how to use them! And that's what I'm all about, is learning how to use
them better.
Luc...@Prodigy.net
If you want to be a winner, all you have to give is everything you've got.
Carlucci
> I had read once that a common technique of combo kickers was to use one
> initial kick that breaks the agressor's balance, then uses that of
balanced
> position to land the rest of the kicks. Any truth to that in TKD?
>
Some truth, yes. There are some specific kicks which are designed to do
that, and some specific combinations that are popularly practiced.
It's getting late for me, so I'll try to keep examples limited.
There's a kick called a hurricane kick that we use in TKD sometimes. It's
pretty flashy, and aerial and all things that people consider useless. But
it actually is a damn slick idea.
Basicly you throw a VERY simple, very low kick (either roundhouse or front
kick, or maybe a front-leg sidekick). It should land just around the hip
level. This is to knock the person off balance and cause them to drop their
gaurd. Before that kicking foot hits the ground, though, the kicker jumps
off of the other foot and does a spinning kick (either back kick or hook
kick; I prefer back kick when I actually plan on getting something done, and
hook kick for looking nice!) that follows the direction of the first kick.
For instace, if you throw a left leg roundhouse kick, then the right leg
will come off the ground and you will spin clockwise to deliver the back
kick. The back kick should hit in the upper chest area, to further knock the
person off balance. From there, it is a matter of rushing in (you land
pretty quick and usually not that pretty) to close the distance and pounding
on your opponent with punches or kicks (whatever is called for at the
time!). The first kick breaks the stance up because it hits the hip area,
which is the core of a lot of stances. The first kick also drops the gaurd
away from the head and chest (if you had chosen to do a hook kick, you would
have aimed for the head for a knock-out kick; and believe me, you can knock
somebody out like this). The second kick is a power kick. If you hit with a
back kick to the chest or neck, you should hit VERY hard. You will easily
knock the wind out of somebody, and it'll phase them. The hook kick towards
the head is a knock-out kick, but it requires a lot of skill in kicking and
is very hard to do right. The second kick, if it doesn't have the necessary
force to take the fight out of your opponent, also is nice because it knocks
them pretty severely off balance, allowing for you to rush in, as I said
before, and finish him off. The crux of the kick is in the fact that,
because you have to use the momentum of the first kick to launch the second
one effectively, it happens too fast for the opponent to react to both kicks
(unless he knows for sure what's going down beforehand!). By the time the
first kick has taken effect, the second kick is already half-way there. The
opponent is still feeling the effects of the first kick as the second one is
hitting them. It's somewhat risky, but because of the way the body is
positioned during the kick, it generally gives you space enough to recover
if the opponent just moves out of the way(cause they usually have to move a
decent ammount of space to get out of the way!). And if you miss the first
kick, you can abort the second and still be in half-decent position to do
something with yourself!
There's lots of little things like that in TKD. Most aren't as flashy,
though. There's some basic combinations designed to draw the defense away
from a target so that a follow up kick can get there, and there is other
kicks that are simply to knock off balance your opponent (one is called the
push kick; I won't go into the mechanics right now, though).
Like I said in another post, ther'es a lot to it that most people don't ever
bother to see. It can be confusing at first, but once you start to learn how
the kicks flow into each other, and how the body works, you can learn to use
that to your advantage to set up attacks to the defenses and balance of your
opponent.
hal
<jon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I had read once that a common technique of combo kickers was to use one
>initial kick that breaks the agressor's balance, then uses that of balanced
>position to land the rest of the kicks. Any truth to that in TKD?
Absolutely. A most effective technique. Wait for an attack. Block
and counterattack with a kick to get the opponent moving back. As
they move backwards their balance is off and their center is higher as
they try to get away. Blast them with one final power kick when the
opening presents itself, and it's goodnight.
Hal
hal
<jon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>How many years is intermediate?
Depends upon the individual, of course, but with lots of hard work
around 2 years.
Hal
ref
Chris Hansen <chris_...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>What do people have against TKD? Sure, the emphasis is on sport these days
>but traditional TKD has a lot of material that could be useful for self
>defense. I don't practice TKD but it seems to me that your teacher and how
>you train is more important than whether it's TKD or something else.
That's pretty much true. The "effectiveness" of a given martial
art is found 90% in the artist, and 10% in the art itself. Many
would have you think it was the other way around. It's like a gun:
some guns are more effective than others, but it all comes down
to whether or not the shooter can hit his target. If I can
consistently shoot you right smack between the eyes, it doesn't
matter if I'm using a .44 Magnum or a .22.
TKD's reputation has been horribly corrupted since the old
"blood and guts" days of the Allen Steen/J. Pat Burleson
schools. Nowadays, most TKD is showcase "sport karate,"
with such nonsense as 8 year old girls with "4th degree
black belts" giving demonstrations at the mall. Hey! 10%
discount if you sign up today! And don't forget to ask about
our guaranteed black belt program! Just dial 364-KICK!!!
It's sad.
Ron M.
coldblood
andrew
"Les Griswold" <eg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:9emnhr$hn1$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
coldblood
andrew
"GOU RONIN®" <kenpo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:efttgt4e4pea38eta...@4ax.com...
GOU RONIN®
<dool...@hotmail.com> scribbled with their crayola:
>aw yer just saying that :)
No. You really suck.
:)
coldblood
andrew
"GOU RONIN®" <kenpo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4gj4ht06bf674erc6...@4ax.com...
GOU RONIN®
<dool...@hotmail.com> scribbled with their crayola:
>> On Sun, 27 May 2001 02:56:28 -0600, "coldblood"
>> <dool...@hotmail.com> scribbled with their crayola:
>>>> >aw yer just saying that :)
>"GOU RONIN®" <kenpo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> No. You really suck.
>> :)
>you do realise i am goin to be seeing you this summer.... :)
Why else would I say it ya dickhead?
:)
See ya soon boo boo.
Batman
@news.shore.net>:
>How many years is intermediate?
>
Its not really measured in years. Once they are about $15,000 into it, they
are considered intermediate, or maybe beginning-intermediate.
-jeff
Batman
>Oh, come on Kirk, that is not like you. It is true. It is prejudice.
>So maybe they knew, or even sparred a TKD guy or two and he wasn't any
>good, then what?
Here's where it all falls apart. TKD players are good at sparring. I don't
think anyone denies that. What they are not good at is defending themselves
against real attacks. And thats not so bad either really, except that the TKD
teachers tell thier students that fighting is just like sparring, so if you
get good at sparring, you will be able to defend yourself.
>Assume that nobody that studies TKD can be any good
>and that the art is crap? Shoot their mouth off so they can put down
>all the TKD people so they can feel like a big man? Tell all their
>friends, then their friends assume that is true and tell their
>friends. That IS what is happening, and I know that you know it.
No, what is happening is that we are bothered by the number of dishonest
instructors who teach taekwoncrap and tell their students they can defend
themselves on the streets with it.
>Just like white trash and blacks in the southern US a few decades
>ago. Some white trash bonehead, sick and tired of being stupid and
>shit on, sees a black guy that is not very bright. "Black guys are
>all stupid" he concludes. Tell my friends. They tell their friends.
>White people who never even met a black person just KNOWS all
>"niggers are stupid".
A few decades ago? You've got quite a rummy sense of history. BTW, thats
'niggers is stupid' (note the proper conjugation of the verb to be) and the
attitude has been around for a few hundred years at least. It started right
about the time that the brits found out that none of the tribes in africa took
afternoon tea.
>Its the same thing in MA. We see "martial arts trash" that must put
>down other martial artists so that they do not have to cope with their
>own fear. Sure, we may know bad TKD people, there may be lots of
>them, but only because there is a higher population from which to draw
>our sample. The percentages are the same. If Upside Down Flying
>Fornicating Monkey Kung Fu was the leading art in the world, then we
>would see more bad artists from that style, so the ignorant among us
>would conclude that it is no good either.
>
>Hal
>
Upside down Flying Fornicating Monkey kung Fu (UDFFMKF) would never be as
popular as TKD. TKD is a mass marketed martial sport. UDFFMKF is an ancient
martial art geared towards combat and interested in preserving the art and
tapping the martial artist in each student. TKD is only interested in
preserving thier student base and tapping the students pocketbook. The reason
they have all the followers that they have is because they don't push students
learn the way the folks in UDFFMKF do.
When you start trying to make people actually learn, if they are not
dedicated, they just leave. Then they wind up in a sport like TKD. TKD
probably gets a disproportionate amount of undedicated students because they
cater to these types. If TKD stayed true to the art, made people hit the
proper stances, denounced the flashy techniques when they first appeared
rather than changing the rules to protect the people who are leaving
themselves open doing them, and didn't have the rainbow of belt colors and
millions of meaningless trophies handed out each week in tournaments to make
the followers feel like they were accomplishing something .... the dedicated
students would be the only ones left, and then TKD would probably be a fine
martial art.
I'm not saying its impossible for a dedicated student to become a decent
martial artist doing TKD, only that it is much more difficult than in other
styles that do not compromise in order to keep students. The reason people
bash TKD is because they sold themselves out for the allmighty buck. They let
students get away with having horrible basics if they can spar, hell, they
even promote them while they are worthless fighters, just so long as the check
clears. So don't come crying to me about how we aren't being fair to TKD. We
are being perfectly fair, TKD earned every bit of contempt they have in the
martial arts community. The test of any art is how good all of thier black
belts are (not the top 10% or top 50%, but every single one). Any teacher
that is more concerned with karate than with money will flat out refuse to
promote a person to shodan who will be an embarrasment to the art. Sadly, in
TKD, there aren't many teachers who will refuse to promote a student with good
credit.
-jeff