The World's Oldest Martial Art in Korea
Choi, Hochan
Perhaps you're interested in the website about Korean martial art, TAE GYUN.
http://www.saetur.com/taegyun.htm
There is also PDF (Adobe Acrobat format) document about TAE GYUN.
http://www.saetur.com/pdf/english.pdf
Then, see you later.
Grappler240
G240
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
"You can carve it on a bowling pin and cram it,for all I care."
-Gichoke
Kirk Lawson
"Choi, Hochan" wrote:
>
> I'm a pre-instructor degree of HANPUL, the Korean martial art.
>
> Perhaps you're interested in the website about Korean martial art, TAE GYUN.
You bet I'm interested! I'm interested in proof that Tae Gyun (Tae
Kyon?) is the "worlds oldest martial art."
I thought it had something to do with rocks or sticks or sumpth'n.
:-)
Peace favor your sword (IH)
--
"In these modern times, many men are wounded for not having weapons or
knowledge of their use."
-Achille Marozzo, 1536
--
"...it's the nature of the media and the participants. A herd of martial
artists gets together and a fight breaks out; quelle surprise."
-Chas Speaking of rec.martial-arts
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Oliver Richman
"Grappler240" <grapp...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20030320122937...@mb-cu.aol.com...
> who gives a shit.
I do I do!
-frl
GreenDistantStar
"Oliver Richman" <fr...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:l2rea.4743$usW1...@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
story
"Grappler240" <grapp...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20030320122937...@mb-cu.aol.com...
>
> G240
>
Chas's claims re LEOs every time you open your yap
...........Tom...............
Grappler240
>Chas's claims re LEOs every time you open your yap
>...........Tom...............
>
hey..you're right....arguing over an internet newsgroup is a very good judge of
my character.
grow up, putz.
Andrew Maddox
: "Choi, Hochan" wrote:
:>
:> I'm a pre-instructor degree of HANPUL, the Korean martial art.
:>
:> Perhaps you're interested in the website about Korean martial art, TAE GYUN.
: You bet I'm interested! I'm interested in proof that Tae Gyun (Tae
: Kyon?) is the "worlds oldest martial art."
I'm confused. Is Mr. Choi a "pre-instructor" (?huh?) in HANPUL, or is it
TAE GYUN? And wouldn't he really have meant Tae Kyon?
Whatever.
This idea of being a "pre-instructor" is pretty good for marketing, though -
think about it! Any art you've ever even been to a seminar or a single
class in, you're now a "pre-instructor" in it! Oh, the self-aggrandizing
possibilities are nearly limitless!
--
Andrew "I will finish what I sta" Maddox,
found at: mad...@hawaiicity.com
story
"Grappler240" <grapp...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
> >What a demonstration of class. You put all you say into doubt and prove
> >Chas's claims re LEOs every time you open your yap
> >...........Tom...............
> >
>
> hey..you're right....arguing over an internet newsgroup is a very good
judge of
> my character.
>
>
You don't seem to have learned you are judged by your behaviour. Your
behaviour is less than exemplary. Since you make a big thing about being a
LEO what you do and say reflects greatly on your profession like it or not.
Following a spate of childish irresponible behaviour by a personal name
calling attack like you did here does nothing but confirm. & you expect to
generate respect for LEOS. All you've done so far is make me question
whether or not YOU should be allowed to wear a side arm. Something I
normally don't do with police officers. Hell I normally don't even notice
the firearm at a policeman's side. It's not relevant to me. In your case I
wonder.
.........................Tom........................
TBN
news:v7m37me...@corp.supernews.com...
What the hell IS a LEO. I'm guessing that it's not related to the fact that
I'm a sagitarius. ;-)
Choi, Hochan
'instructor class(course)'.
And HANPUL 'general self-defence class' is providing. It's not a marketing
or something.
Mr. Maddox, I guess you're a little bit twisted. The rest of you are all
your enemy?
If you're training a martial art, train your mind first, not your body.
"Andrew Maddox" <mad...@hawaiicity.com> wrote in message
news:b5f1gd$c11$2...@news1.radix.net...
Kirk Lawson
TBN wrote:
> What the hell IS a LEO. I'm guessing that it's not related to the fact that
> I'm a sagitarius. ;-)
LEO = Law Enforcement Officer (Cop, Police Man, etc.)
Kirk Lawson
"Choi, Hochan" wrote:
> If you're training a martial art, train your mind first, not your body.
Nah. Train the body first. If you wanted to train the mind first you
shoulda taken Philosophy in college.
Martial Arts are *MARTIAL*.
Choi, Hochan
news:3E7B3C3D...@heapy.com_SPAMSUX...
> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
>
> "Choi, Hochan" wrote:
>
> > If you're training a martial art, train your mind first, not your body.
>
> Nah. Train the body first. If you wanted to train the mind first you
> shoulda taken Philosophy in college.
>
> Martial Arts are *MARTIAL*.
I don't think so, Mr. Kirk. Martial Arts is origin from the Western? No.
The Western had no concept that translated it. So they had translated it
according to what it is just looking, appearances, *MARTIAL ARTS*.
But '?' (Chinese letter, pronunciated 'mu') is not just the skills killing
or strking opponents. It's real meaning is other, something different. 'The
skills killing or striking opponents' side was stood out because they must
defend their family, country in the ancient war times. And the real meaning
was slowly forgotten.
In addition, I think Philosophy is not good for mind training. It just train
your brain, the way of thinking.
I don't wanna fight with you. I just wanna exchange opinions about martial
arts of the present and the next generation.
Thanks.
Chas
> ......arguing over an internet newsgroup is a very good judge of
> my character.
Actually, it is.
--
Chas Clements
casemaker 303-364-0403 (Denver area)
Kirk Lawson
"Choi, Hochan" wrote:
> > Martial Arts are *MARTIAL*.
>
> I don't think so, Mr. Kirk.
Then you are mistaken.
> Martial Arts is origin from the Western? No.
To be as polite as possible, you sir, are either woefully ignorant of
the history of Western Martial Arts, or sadly misinformed. The west has
a tradition of Martial Arts extending back to the inception of Western
Civilization. There are Western Martial Arts manuals dating back many
centuries and records indicating such going back pretty much as early as
records were kept.
Did you think that we just shot spitballs at each other until China,
Japan, and Korea showed us that we could use weapons or fists? Did you
think that our historic warriors never considered their deaths, the
deaths they might inflict, or the implication of those? Did you suppose
that historic Western Masters did not take precautions to prevent their
skills from being transmitted to those who they felt would misuse those
skills?
No. The West has a long tradition of Martial Arts, both armed and
unarmed. Western Martial Arts (WMA) practitioners considered the
consequences of their professions; they knew they might be killed.
There were "Warrior-Monk" societies such as the Knight Templar. Certain
WMA Masters, in their writings, admonished their students to not teach
combat skills to civilians since they believed the skills would be
misused.
No sir. We know what "Martial Arts" means.
> The Western had no concept that translated it. So they had translated it
> according to what it is just looking, appearances, *MARTIAL ARTS*.
Sorry. Just not true.
> In addition, I think Philosophy is not good for mind training. It just train
> your brain, the way of thinking.
Then try Zen Meditation, Logic Theory, Theology, Tantric Sex, or
whatever floats your boat. Training the Mind is not inextricably linked
to Martial Arts.
> I don't wanna fight with you.
Hmmm... I didn't think we *were* fighting.
> I just wanna exchange opinions about martial
> arts of the present and the next generation.
That's what we're doing.
AFurman
that you said that I strongly disagree with.
> > > If you're training a martial art, train your mind first, not your
body.
That's plain silly - If you want to train your mind, practicing a martial
art is a very silly thing to do. That would be like driving a car to train
alertness - meaning it may help, but there's much more direct and easy ways
to achieve your goals. While it's true that a number of asian martial arts
have traditionally included some "training of the mind", but this is not,
and has never been their primary goal. It's more of a side effect. It is a
side effect that was capitalized on by Martial Arts instructors in the West
mostly, to attract more students and make money. The thing is that martial
arts in our society tend to attract people that are unsure of themselves,
and are searching for answers and self-confidence. They easily fall into the
esoteric traps and, ultimately, pay up.
> I don't think so, Mr. Kirk. Martial Arts is origin from the Western? No.
> The Western had no concept that translated it. So they had translated it
This is FALSE. The concept of Martial Arts is not Asian. It is universal.
Every culture, be it Western, African, Asian, Middle Eastern, or whatever,
has and practices martial arts. It's human nature.
> But '?' (Chinese letter, pronunciated 'mu') is not just the skills
killing
> or strking opponents. It's real meaning is other, something different.
'The
> skills killing or striking opponents' side was stood out because they must
This is once again not true. While Chinese martial arts do, traditionaly
come with a bit of the esoteric thrown in, they do, and always have
concentrated percisely on "striking and killing opponents". That is why they
are called martial arts. The fact that the martial arts were traditionaly
practiced by priests and monks, which also did a number of other things as a
part of their routine does not change anything. They simply practiced a lot
of other things IN ADDITION to martial arts.
> defend their family, country in the ancient war times. And the real
meaning
> was slowly forgotten.
Not true. The real meaning can not be forgotten - because it is there for
all to see. Any meaning that can be forgotten in the first place is
inaccurate or obsolete - It is not and can not be real. While searching for
the ancient true meaning of martial arts may attract some weak teenagers
running away from reality (and yes, I was one of those sometime ago), it is
flagrantly silly to anyone with a little bit of sense in them.
> In addition, I think Philosophy is not good for mind training. It just
train
> your brain, the way of thinking.
That's beyond the scope of this discussion.
> I don't wanna fight with you. I just wanna exchange opinions about martial
> arts of the present and the next generation.
I think what you really need to do, is spend a little time cleaning up and
organizing your thoughts and definitions. It will make it much easier for
others to understand what you want to say.
Alex
@hotmail.com.invalid Eric D. Berge
<newsgroup@hochan(NOSPAM).net> wrote:
>I don't wanna fight with you. I just wanna exchange opinions about martial
>arts of the present and the next generation.
OK.
My opinion is that Tae Kyon is probably not the World's Oldest Martial
Art (how is that defined, anyway - oldest in a continuous lineage of
known teachers?).
YoJimbo
eric_...@hotmail.com.invalid says...
Yeah, but Eric, what about needing to knock other Cro-Magnon dudes
off horses with flying side kicks?
Work with me here.
JS
@hotmail.com.invalid Eric D. Berge
wrote:
Nah, this guy isn't a troll or a kook, he's just new in these parts
and a little naive about how things are done here - he won't deserve a
really sound thrashing until he starts to get huffy and tell us about
how we aren't True Martial Artistes.
Although he seems to be headed there quickly with Kirk.
Check out the site he posted; it's pretty, er, special - lots of
material there for, um, informed and witty commentary. I love the
"Skills" page; check out the "Pum Bal Gee" animation, for instance.
Robert Low
YoJimbo <Seagul...@LowBudget.com> wrote:
>Yeah, but Eric, what about needing to knock other Cro-Magnon dudes
>off horses with flying side kicks?
It seems pretty obvious that the flying side-kick must
predate the development of the stirrup, so we can get
a lower bound on the age from that.
--
Rob. http://www.mis.coventry.ac.uk/~mtx014/
Rue The Day
"Because of this, over 70,000 years of Korean history has been
diminished to that of several thousands of years."
"Korean history is the history between God and humans."
"The reason why all the people in ancient times called Korean people
God"
"Before the establishment of Japan, it was the same country as Korea
and it also had TAE GYUN."
"The history of China was not much different from that of Japan. The
first people who first established a country in the area that is now
China are considered to be Korean people."
"TAE GYUN was the most developed martial art in humanity."
So I guess that the secret of tae gyun is to throw so much nonsense at
your opponent that he succumbs to a fit of uncontrollable laughter and
then attack him while he's vulnerable?
Dan Bummer
> YoJimbo <Seagul...@LowBudget.com> wrote:
> >Yeah, but Eric, what about needing to knock other Cro-Magnon dudes
> >off horses with flying side kicks?
>
> It seems pretty obvious that the flying side-kick must
> predate the development of the stirrup, so we can get
> a lower bound on the age from that.
Flying sidekicks against men on horses. Otherwise, highly impractical
though awesome-looking.
Dan Bummer
> >
>
> What the hell IS a LEO. I'm guessing that it's not related to the fact that
> I'm a sagitarius. ;-)
Speaking of LEOs the gunslinging kind,
Two detectives were recently found dead, obviously shot fatally. Live by
the gun, you are apt to die by the gun. Their survivors, though, will
make out like bandits. The price of blood is high.
BillMahoney68
>
>The reason that I mentioned 'pre-instructor' is I am training in the HANPUL
>'instructor class(course)'.
>And HANPUL 'general self-defence class' is providing. It's not a marketing
>or something.
I neverv authorised this course.
Gichoke
SOLE heir to the Hanpul style
Posthumandude
SOLE heir to the Hanpul style >>
Gi you are a delusional fool without honor.
The worlds oldest martial art is not HANPUL. It's FINGAPUL.
Choi, Hochan
I have a question. If you are just training Marial Arts for body, then why
*Martial Arts*?
There's a lot of sports, fitness, and others.
Martial Arts for self-defence is useless in front of guns. And even though
we use Martial Arts owing to circumstances beyond control, it can be
punished by law. In our times, law can be better solution.
So, the reson we're training Martial Arts is that there's something
different with other sports, fitness or something.
Thanks.
"Kirk Lawson" <NO_lklaw...@heapy.com_SPAMSUX> wrote in message
news:3E7B5125...@heapy.com_SPAMSUX...
Ancalagon139
>The Western had no concept that translated it. So they had translated it
>according to what it is just looking, appearances, *MARTIAL ARTS*.
>
> But '?' (Chinese letter, pronunciated 'mu') is not just the skills killing
>or strking opponents. It's real meaning is other, something different. 'The
>skills killing or striking opponents' side was stood out because they must
>defend their family, country in the ancient war times. And the real meaning
>was slowly forgotten.
You are partially correct in your thinking of the old meaning as forgotten, but
not in the way you may imagine. Philosophy and "the way" part of martial arts
was for the most part developed later in history, during times and later when
modern military tactics and weapons dominated actual combat. Hence the japanese
replacement of "jitsu" with "do." While philosophy, sociology, and spirituality
have always been apart of martial arts (eastern and western), the belief that
such concepts were perhaps more important than the physical nature of martial
arts is a relatively new idea. Most people now look at tai chi chuan and other
internal styles and wonder how anyone could claim them useful in combat, but
whether they are or not that is how they were intended (tai chi chuan is
usually translated as "grand ultimate fist"). Examine the histoy and origin of
matial arts, and you will find that most were born out of a need for protection
or military application, and only later were recreated as encompassing a way of
life. Karate was born mostly out of a need for non-traditional weaponry and
empty handed combat. Da Mo's teachings at the shaolin temple originated from
his knowledge of an indian martial art. Although Da mo's early techniques were
used at first for health, they very quickly became a way for the monks to
protect themselves or others. Jujitsu, kenjitsu, and ninjitsu, the parent
styles of judo, aikido, ninpo, and kendo, were born out of techniques used by
the warrior class and warrior peasant class of Japan. Korean martial arts, from
earlier styles such as kwon bup to later ones like tae kwon do or even kumdo
were for the most part made up of techniques borrowed from japanese and chinese
styles, as were Thai styles like kari krabong or muay thai (this is not to say
that either of these countries did not contribute greatly to their styles or
martial arts in general). Like other martial arts, the early styles of thailand
and korea were reserved for those in need of combat techniques, and were
adapted later for use as sport or more philosophical study. Basically, martial
arts grew out of a need of "martial technique" (translated into wu su in
chinese).
-Ancalagon
Dave Dembinski
> I'm a pre-instructor degree of HANPUL, the Korean martial art.
>
> Perhaps you're interested in the website about Korean martial art, TAE GYUN.
>
>
> There is also PDF (Adobe Acrobat format) document about TAE GYUN.
>
> http://www.saetur.com/pdf/english.pdf
>
> Then, see you later.
http://www.saetur.com/e_songdukgee/e_songdukgee_1.htm
Well, this fellow might be in the running for world's oldest martial
artist in Korea. I suppose that's something.
_dave
Jacob Andersen
> I really thanks for your opinion, Mr. Kirk.
I'm not Kirk, but what the hey. (and don't top post it's annoying)
> I have a question. If you are just training Marial Arts for body, then why
> *Martial Arts*?
> There's a lot of sports, fitness, and others.
Yet few of them will enable you to kick ass like the martial arts.
> Martial Arts for self-defence is useless in front of guns.
Gun training is a martial art - All skills of "war" are martial arts.
Fencing, shooting, boxing all of it.
> And even though
> we use Martial Arts owing to circumstances beyond control, it can be
> punished by law. In our times, law can be better solution.
The law is pretty bad for self defence, mainly because it's enforcers
tend to not be present when you need self defence. That said, if you
want someone to agree with you you should talk to Hal.
> So, the reson we're training Martial Arts is that there's something
> different with other sports, fitness or something.
Yes, the difference is in the "martial" part of the name. It's a fairly
useful clue, and a very obvious one, one would think.
The difference certainly isn't "enlightenment" or some such crap.
/Jacob
Kirk Lawson
"Choi, Hochan" wrote:
>
> I really thanks for your opinion, Mr. Kirk.
Quite welcome, Sir.
> I have a question. If you are just training Marial Arts for body, then why
> *Martial Arts*?
> There's a lot of sports, fitness, and others.
The "Martial" component, of course.
> Martial Arts for self-defence is useless in front of guns.
Not entirely and not exclusively. I am a great proponent of weapons,
it's true, but unarmed combat also has a place in traning. However, I
feel I must correct a misconception. Guns *are* part of Martial Arts.
Just as are knives, swords, staffs, and all *other* manner of weapons.
> And even though
> we use Martial Arts owing to circumstances beyond control,
That's a good start, yeah.
> it can be punished by law.
Only if used inappropriately. The same as with a weapon.
> In our times, law can be better solution.
Doesn't do much good to arrest the guy *after* he kills you.
> So, the reson we're training Martial Arts is that there's something
> different with other sports, fitness or something.
Yeah. The "Martial" part.
TBN
news:f5da2227.03032...@posting.google.com...
What? LEOs don't "live by the gun". They live to enforce the law, protect
the citizens, maybe even give your car a jumpstart if you stranded on the
side of the road, but I've never met a LEO (and I know a few) that "lived by
the gun". They holster such a weapon so that they are less likely to be
out-weaponed by a criminal. Although I'm generally a proponent for the
right to bear arms, even if I lived in a country where citizens couldn't own
such weapons, I'd want my LEOs to have them.
Kirk Lawson
Jacob Andersen wrote:
> > So, the reson we're training Martial Arts is that there's something
> > different with other sports, fitness or something.
>
> Yes, the difference is in the "martial" part of the name. It's a fairly
> useful clue, and a very obvious one, one would think.
>
> The difference certainly isn't "enlightenment" or some such crap.
Right on the money with every point.
Ahktragal
> "Kirk Lawson" <NO_lklaw...@heapy.com_SPAMSUX> wrote in message
> news:3E7B3C3D...@heapy.com_SPAMSUX...
> > **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
> >
> > "Choi, Hochan" wrote:
> >
> > > If you're training a martial art, train your mind first, not your body.
> >
> > Nah. Train the body first. If you wanted to train the mind first you
> > shoulda taken Philosophy in college.
> >
> > Martial Arts are *MARTIAL*.
>
> I don't think so, Mr. Kirk. Martial Arts is origin from the Western? No.
> The Western had no concept that translated it. So they had translated it
> according to what it is just looking, appearances, *MARTIAL ARTS*.
The underlying purpose of the martial arts is combat; hence the use of the
term "martial" in naming them. Even the sport systems are attempting to
simulate combat on some level. The term "martial art" is quite appropriate.
> But '?' (Chinese letter, pronunciated 'mu') is not just the skills killing
> or strking opponents. It's real meaning is other, something different. 'The
> skills killing or striking opponents' side was stood out because they must
> defend their family, country in the ancient war times. And the real meaning
> was slowly forgotten.
The real meaning was defending ones family and country. The other meanings
are things that have been added over time.
> In addition, I think Philosophy is not good for mind training. It just train
> your brain, the way of thinking.
Your brain is your mind.
Ahktragal
You've obviously never seen Remo Williams.
Choi, Hochan
"Kirk Lawson" wrote in message
> > Martial Arts for self-defence is useless in front of guns.
>
> Not entirely and not exclusively. I am a great proponent of weapons,
> it's true, but unarmed combat also has a place in traning. However, I
> feel I must correct a misconception. Guns *are* part of Martial Arts.
> Just as are knives, swords, staffs, and all *other* manner of weapons.
I can't agree with that guns are part of Martial Arts. In that case,
*Martial Arts* is performed by guns (of speed, power, accuracy, etc.), not
by *me* . So then tanks, fighting planes, and all other weapons also have to
be Martial Arts.
> Doesn't do much good to arrest the guy *after* he kills you.
Yeah, I surely admit the function of Martial Arts as self-defence. But I
mentioned it as the function of solution for troubles, struggles between
individuals or groups.
Thanks.
Kirk Lawson
"Choi, Hochan" wrote:
> > > Martial Arts for self-defence is useless in front of guns.
> >
> > Not entirely and not exclusively. I am a great proponent of weapons,
> > it's true, but unarmed combat also has a place in traning. However, I
> > feel I must correct a misconception. Guns *are* part of Martial Arts.
> > Just as are knives, swords, staffs, and all *other* manner of weapons.
>
> I can't agree with that guns are part of Martial Arts. In that case,
> *Martial Arts* is performed by guns (of speed, power, accuracy, etc.), not
> by *me* . So then tanks, fighting planes, and all other weapons also have to
> be Martial Arts.
Only in as far as Tanks and Planes are weapons of personal combat. Guns
clearly are. The others usually are not.
Simply put, a personal firearm (rifle & handgun) are designed for use by
one person, are portable by one person, and for use against one (or very
few) person at a time. Firearms are Martial Arts weapons in the same
manner that the Kyudo bow is. Just one has some advantages over the
other.
Choi, Hochan
"Kirk Lawson" wrote in message>
>
> > > > Martial Arts for self-defence is useless in front of guns.
> > >
> > > Not entirely and not exclusively. I am a great proponent of weapons,
> > > it's true, but unarmed combat also has a place in traning. However, I
> > > feel I must correct a misconception. Guns *are* part of Martial Arts.
> > > Just as are knives, swords, staffs, and all *other* manner of weapons.
> >
> > I can't agree with that guns are part of Martial Arts. In that case,
> > *Martial Arts* is performed by guns (of speed, power, accuracy, etc.),
not
> > by *me* . So then tanks, fighting planes, and all other weapons also
have to
> > be Martial Arts.
>
> Only in as far as Tanks and Planes are weapons of personal combat. Guns
> clearly are. The others usually are not.
>
> Simply put, a personal firearm (rifle & handgun) are designed for use by
> one person, are portable by one person, and for use against one (or very
> few) person at a time. Firearms are Martial Arts weapons in the same
> manner that the Kyudo bow is. Just one has some advantages over the
> other.
I think that your definition of Martial Arts is far from our common sence
about Martial Arts.
Let's remind that the falls of Knights of Middle Ages in West and Samurais
in Japan are caused by guns.
Sciences had been invoved in it, the core of Martial Arts had become dim, I
think.
Kirk Lawson
"Choi, Hochan" wrote:
>
> I think that your definition of Martial Arts is far from our common sence
> about Martial Arts.
Not particularly. It's the norm 'round here and it's been the
considered opinion of every instructor that I've ever studied under as
well.
> Let's remind that the falls of Knights of Middle Ages in West and Samurais
> in Japan are caused by guns.
No. The fall of these two (similar) warrior class was caused as much by
social changes as technological.
> Sciences had been invoved in it, the core of Martial Arts had become dim, I
> think.
We seem to have reached an impasse concerning what constitutes a martial
art.
In order to facilitate further discussion, please define your
understanding of "Martial Art." Please include what weapons (both
personal and group) are viable "Martial Arts" weapons and why they fall
into that category as well as why other weapons may or may not be
excluded.
Jacob Andersen
> I appreciate your opinions.
>
> "Kirk Lawson" wrote in message
>
> > > Martial Arts for self-defence is useless in front of guns.
> >
> > Not entirely and not exclusively. I am a great proponent of weapons,
> > it's true, but unarmed combat also has a place in traning. However, I
> > feel I must correct a misconception. Guns *are* part of Martial Arts.
> > Just as are knives, swords, staffs, and all *other* manner of weapons.
>
> I can't agree with that guns are part of Martial Arts. In that case,
> *Martial Arts* is performed by guns (of speed, power, accuracy, etc.), not
> by *me* . So then tanks, fighting planes, and all other weapons also have to
> be Martial Arts.
It really isn't up to you to decide. You are right that "guns" aren't a
martial art, but shooting certainly is. And you'd be right about flying
a fighter plane etc. too (that is, you'd be wrong, because it's all
martial arts.) And there were martial arts in the west thousands of
years ago, it's not a new term to describe some asian phenomenon, it
just happened that asians had martial arts as well.
> > Doesn't do much good to arrest the guy *after* he kills you.
>
> Yeah, I surely admit the function of Martial Arts as self-defence. But I
> mentioned it as the function of solution for troubles, struggles between
> individuals or groups.
I agree with this.
/Jacob
Jacob Andersen
Martial arts are the skills of war nothing more. Would you argue that
sword fighting is not a martial art? Because that's just older science
at work, than what created guns.
/Jacob