|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 12:28 pm
Mr. Cynical Mangafairy TaeKyon Mangafairy TaeKyon You have to actually be a fighter then in order to "combine both" aspects of martial arts. Most TMAists fail at that...where as a lot of MMA/Sport MAists often get their start in art emphasizing TMAs before moving on. TMA believe a lot on Ki/ Qui/ Chi (whatever you may call it) and the spritual side of things while also applying this into combat while Sport styles use more strength and tend not to focus at all on the spiritual side but more the fitness and strength aspect (which may be more practical for younger student, however older people lack strength). TMA's Taoist and Buddhist beliefs are not what is being called into question, (in fact, it's rarely called into question in these debates unless the TMA is so bullshido that they believe the riddiculous like throwing chi balls or whatnot) in most cases spiritualism isn't inherent in martial arts. You can be a taoist/buddhist and not be a martial artist. (or a sport fighter and not a tma-ist) You can also be a martial artist and not be a taoist/buddhist. The only reason they're even intermingled is because the culture and society in which most eastern martial arts draw their origins from is the same culture and society in which buddhist/taoist thought was prevalent in. It's not that martial artists incorporated taoism/buddhism but rather that buddhist/taoist incorporated martial arts. No, what I was referring to was the lack of realistic, alive, full contact sparring that TMAs don't utilize in their training. The reason TMAists often don't "combine" aspects of art from TMA and fighting aspects of competition and sparring is because they are so stubbornly self absorbed in the "ancestry" of their art that most schools/styles have lost sight of the training means to produce "good fighters." It could even be argued that many TMAs are purposely ignorant of modern training methods because they're so stubborn about preserving their dead art that they're scared to consider the possiblity that the majority of their art is outdated as a effective means of combat. (a conclusion that the MMA/sport school of martial arts was not afraid to face and evolve w/) You can be a sport fighter and still preserve the cultural/artistic traditions of a martial art (Muay Thai's pre fight rituals is a perfect example) but I'm not sure if a TMAs can ever produce contemporary fighters until TMAs are willing to adapt modern training methods such as full contact alive resistant training (but then at that point, would they still be considered "traditional"?) You just started me thinking about Chi balls now....that would be cool! Yea I can empathise with you, I agree with some of wha you say, however I also disagree....but this discussion is getting kinda old.... neutral Do you always disagree/agree with someone yet never give a reason why? Nope, just in convos I don't care about...even if i do you moan about it, why bother, this convo is dead anyways now. BTW, I'm not commenting back so I wouldn't bother if I were you.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 4:14 pm
MangaFairy Nope, just in convos I don't care about...even if i do you moan about it, why bother, this convo is dead anyways now. BTW, I'm not commenting back so I wouldn't bother if I were you. Meh, even if you did, when have you ever said anything worthwhile or been able to discuss logically? *shrugs*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 2:11 pm
"It's not that martial artists incorporated taoism/buddhism but rather that buddhist/taoist incorporated martial arts. "
Actually, that is not true. Cultivating energy (the right way) can increase the practitioners strength, stamina, endurance and so on. The warriors of old initially used these techniques (they were given to them by priests of ancient religions) to gain an advantage in the battlefield. Later on they became attracted to a more peaceful way of life, since war IS hell.
How do I know this? Well it is easy if you consider the similarities between religions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 5:12 pm
ArtHic "It's not that martial artists incorporated taoism/buddhism but rather that buddhist/taoist incorporated martial arts. " Actually, that is not true. Cultivating energy (the right way) can increase the practitioners strength, stamina, endurance and so on. The warriors of old initially used these techniques (they were given to them by priests of ancient religions) to gain an advantage in the battlefield. Later on they became attracted to a more peaceful way of life, since war IS hell. How do I know this? Well it is easy if you consider the similarities between religions. You've only reinforced my point. The "warriors of old" were believers of being able to "cultivate energy," they applied their religious beliefs to warfare. If a Christian were to apply Christian values to martial arts, that doesn't make the martial art inherently Christian, rather it means a Christian w/ Christian values and views practices the martial art and because of his Christian background applies his Christian values to the interpretation of the art.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 1:15 pm
TaeKyon ArtHic "It's not that martial artists incorporated taoism/buddhism but rather that buddhist/taoist incorporated martial arts. " Actually, that is not true. Cultivating energy (the right way) can increase the practitioners strength, stamina, endurance and so on. The warriors of old initially used these techniques (they were given to them by priests of ancient religions) to gain an advantage in the battlefield. Later on they became attracted to a more peaceful way of life, since war IS hell. How do I know this? Well it is easy if you consider the similarities between religions. You've only reinforced my point. The "warriors of old" were believers of being able to "cultivate energy," they applied their religious beliefs to warfare. If a Christian were to apply Christian values to martial arts, that doesn't make the martial art inherently Christian, rather it means a Christian w/ Christian values and views practices the martial art and because of his Christian background applies his Christian values to the interpretation of the art. I think it's a case of who came first: the chicken or the egg? Does it really matter? In reality all religions and filosophical movements try to understand the world around us both visible and invisible. Now it all comes down to what each practitioner is able to understand. And the problem of today is our lack of understanding the ways of the old. Why is that? Maybe we should start another thread for such a question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 2:05 am
ArtHic TaeKyon ArtHic "It's not that martial artists incorporated taoism/buddhism but rather that buddhist/taoist incorporated martial arts. " Actually, that is not true. Cultivating energy (the right way) can increase the practitioners strength, stamina, endurance and so on. The warriors of old initially used these techniques (they were given to them by priests of ancient religions) to gain an advantage in the battlefield. Later on they became attracted to a more peaceful way of life, since war IS hell. How do I know this? Well it is easy if you consider the similarities between religions. You've only reinforced my point. The "warriors of old" were believers of being able to "cultivate energy," they applied their religious beliefs to warfare. If a Christian were to apply Christian values to martial arts, that doesn't make the martial art inherently Christian, rather it means a Christian w/ Christian values and views practices the martial art and because of his Christian background applies his Christian values to the interpretation of the art. I think it's a case of who came first: the chicken or the egg? Does it really matter? In reality all religions and filosophical movements try to understand the world around us both visible and invisible. Now it all comes down to what each practitioner is able to understand. And the problem of today is our lack of understanding the ways of the old. Why is that? Maybe we should start another thread for such a question. My original phrase is somewhat misleading; it's not so much an issue of which came first but rather that they are separate entities and that philosophy isn't an inherent aspect as a lot of martial artists believe. In terms of Chinese history and thought, (which is generally considered the "origin" of most martial arts) philosophy was born mostly as a counter thought to warfare. The Warring States era was known for its "Hundred Schools of Thought" because of all the philosophies that came about in an attempt to understand and maintain some order throughout the centuries of warfare. It's important to make the distinction though that these schools of thought came from the socially elite scholarly intellectual caste (government officials and the Emperor's advisors) who generally looked down upon soldiers and generals, marking a sharp separation between combat and philosophy. Then there's also the history of the Shaolin monks, (also popularly contributed as the original creators of most martial arts) which is a perfect example of my earlier statement; Buddhist who interpreted fighting techniques for the use of exercise and that the only association between those martial techniques and the philosophy came about not because of the martial art itself but rather because of the martial artists being Buddhist. The overall point being that martial arts are first and foremost fighting. The spiritual aspect is not a necessity tho it is often associated it is much more reasonable to argue that any interacting influences is due to the fact that the teacher or the teacher's original teacher or somewhere down that lineage of instructors was an instructor who was buddhist/taoist/confucian. To assert that there be a spiritual component in order for a martial art to be considered a martial art is to ignore Eastern martial art styles that developed outside of the cultural influence of Eastern thought. (such as boxing and wrestling) Not to mention that one does not have to be a Buddhist/Taoist/Confucian or believe in those precepts in order to practice martial arts and still be considered a martial artist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 12:08 pm
TaeKyon ArtHic TaeKyon ArtHic "It's not that martial artists incorporated taoism/buddhism but rather that buddhist/taoist incorporated martial arts. " Actually, that is not true. Cultivating energy (the right way) can increase the practitioners strength, stamina, endurance and so on. The warriors of old initially used these techniques (they were given to them by priests of ancient religions) to gain an advantage in the battlefield. Later on they became attracted to a more peaceful way of life, since war IS hell. How do I know this? Well it is easy if you consider the similarities between religions. You've only reinforced my point. The "warriors of old" were believers of being able to "cultivate energy," they applied their religious beliefs to warfare. If a Christian were to apply Christian values to martial arts, that doesn't make the martial art inherently Christian, rather it means a Christian w/ Christian values and views practices the martial art and because of his Christian background applies his Christian values to the interpretation of the art. I think it's a case of who came first: the chicken or the egg? Does it really matter? In reality all religions and filosophical movements try to understand the world around us both visible and invisible. Now it all comes down to what each practitioner is able to understand. And the problem of today is our lack of understanding the ways of the old. Why is that? Maybe we should start another thread for such a question. My original phrase is somewhat misleading; it's not so much an issue of which came first but rather that they are separate entities and that philosophy isn't an inherent aspect as a lot of martial artists believe. In terms of Chinese history and thought, (which is generally considered the "origin" of most martial arts) philosophy was born mostly as a counter thought to warfare. The Warring States era was known for its "Hundred Schools of Thought" because of all the philosophies that came about in an attempt to understand and maintain some order throughout the centuries of warfare. It's important to make the distinction though that these schools of thought came from the socially elite scholarly intellectual caste (government officials and the Emperor's advisors) who generally looked down upon soldiers and generals, marking a sharp separation between combat and philosophy. Then there's also the history of the Shaolin monks, (also popularly contributed as the original creators of most martial arts) which is a perfect example of my earlier statement; Buddhist who interpreted fighting techniques for the use of exercise and that the only association between those martial techniques and the philosophy came about not because of the martial art itself but rather because of the martial artists being Buddhist. The overall point being that martial arts are first and foremost fighting. The spiritual aspect is not a necessity tho it is often associated it is much more reasonable to argue that any interacting influences is due to the fact that the teacher or the teacher's original teacher or somewhere down that lineage of instructors was an instructor who was buddhist/taoist/confucian. To assert that there be a spiritual component in order for a martial art to be considered a martial art is to ignore Eastern martial art styles that developed outside of the cultural influence of Eastern thought. (such as boxing and wrestling) Not to mention that one does not have to be a Buddhist/Taoist/Confucian or believe in those precepts in order to practice martial arts and still be considered a martial artist. I think that first we must examine the definition of filosophy. I find that most people regard philosophy either as just dialectics or a set of guidelines (rules if you'd like). Wikipedia offers a pretty good definition which I will not present here. Furthermore why do we call our disciplines "martial arts"? Why arts? Now most misinformed people do credit China as the birthplace of martial arts. That is their problem and, afterall, ignorance is bliss. Martial arts were practised by everybody on two legs since time began and the same applies to philosophy. We cannot get any truth out of China if we look at things superficialy. The chinese are themselves very secretive and nationalistic. All their wushu movies point to that. Every Jet Li film that I've seen, though beautiful to the eyes, always carried the seed of propaganda (with the award going to "Hero" ; the Emperor -President- escapes death because of the protagonist's inner revelation that this is the will of heaven). What I'm getting to is that communism cut that country's relation to the past and what we openly see today of their martial arts is choreography. The socially elite looked down upon everyone not matching to their standards, just like today. They looked down upon both warriors, scholars, and warrior-scholars. The overall point of martial arts is conflict and surviving it. The crime of our times is the seperation of the spirit from our physical bodies. Both are components of our being. If one gets "sick" so does the other. Boxing and wrestling are not martial arts but fighting sports. For example: Alexander the great hated both of them but he was the best warrior of his people. When asked about it he stated that athletes (in boxing and wrestling - both Olympic events) made lousy soldiers. The benefit of sport is the strengthening of the body, nothing more. The ancient Greeks aspired to achieve much more and that is why along with sports they practiced combat techniques (both alone and in platoons) and philosophy - the arts. Socrates is remembered as a philosopher but he was also a great warrior, veteran of many battles, who also served as the Athenian Warlord (general in command).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 6:10 pm
Quote: I think that first we must examine the definition of filosophy. I find that most people regard philosophy either as just dialectics or a set of guidelines (rules if you'd like). Wikipedia offers a pretty good definition which I will not present here. Don't ever use wikipedia unless you're 100% sure it's correct. And besides, even if everybody DOES regard that as the definition of Phil., it doesn't mean it is. Philosophy is defined as the love for wisdom and truth, not "it's what I live my life by". Quote: Furthermore why do we call our disciplines "martial arts"? Why arts? Because it's a skill that you develop from trade (your instructor). After we learn those skills, polishing them to be surgical in precision becomes the next goal. It does NOT mean creative expression. You don't dance or paint an opponent to death. Quote: Now most misinformed people do credit China as the birthplace of martial arts. That is their problem and, afterall, ignorance is bliss. Martial arts were practised by everybody on two legs since time began and the same applies to philosophy. We cannot get any truth out of China if we look at things superficialy. The chinese are themselves very secretive and nationalistic. All their wushu movies point to that. Every Jet Li film that I've seen, though beautiful to the eyes, always carried the seed of propaganda (with the award going to "Hero" ; the Emperor -President- escapes death because of the protagonist's inner revelation that this is the will of heaven). What I'm getting to is that communism cut that country's relation to the past and what we openly see today of their martial arts is choreography. It doesn't help that half of it's Martial knowledge went down the tube when the Monestary's library caught fire. But yes, the government is one giant a*****e that wants to s**t over everyone. BUT you're wrong about us not seeing good ol fashioned Kung Fu asskickery. It's out there, and it's called San Shou. Quote: The socially elite looked down upon everyone not matching to their standards, just like today. They looked down upon both warriors, scholars, and warrior-scholars. The overall point of martial arts is conflict and surviving it. No. It's not. It's hurting things. Survival is a benefit of being good at MA. Does anyone else here know that Arte de Martial was first used in the west? Why bring this up? Because if everyone here really wants to descriminate what is and is not a MA, you should go with the definition that was first coined. Quote: The crime of our times is the seperation of the spirit from our physical bodies. Both are components of our being. If one gets "sick" so does the other. First you have to provide irrefuteble evidence to why "spirit" is needed, if existant. Quote: Boxing and wrestling are not martial arts but fighting sports. Wrong. Quote: For example: Alexander the great hated both of them but he was the best warrior of his people. When asked about it he stated that athletes (in boxing and wrestling - both Olympic events) made lousy soldiers. Source plz. Because if that is what he said, Alexander is full of s**t. Quote: The benefit of sport is the strengthening of the body, nothing more. The ancient Greeks aspired to achieve much more and that is why along with sports they practiced combat techniques (both alone and in platoons) and philosophy - the arts. Socrates is remembered as a philosopher but he was also a great warrior, veteran of many battles, who also served as the Athenian Warlord (general in command). Yes, but they didn't study them TOGETHER. They studied them seperately. It's like saying "Well, you need to study art in order to be complete in Geometry, because you draw circles and other shapes".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 9:05 pm
Arthic makes me laugh.
And San Shou sucks s**t.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:31 am
Quote: Don't ever use wikipedia unless you're 100% sure it's correct. And besides, even if everybody DOES regard that as the definition of Phil., it doesn't mean it is. Philosophy is defined as the love for wisdom and truth, not "it's what I live my life by". That's what I am trying to say. And Wikipedia's definition is pretty much on the money. Quote: Because it's a skill that you develop from trade (your instructor). After we learn those skills, polishing them to be surgical in precision becomes the next goal. It does NOT mean creative expression. You don't dance or paint an opponent to death. It ALSO means creative expression. Or else we fall victim to the dojo syndrome and become useless in real life, where everything goes. Quote: It doesn't help that half of it's Martial knowledge went down the tube when the Monestary's library caught fire. But yes, the government is one giant a*****e that wants to s**t over everyone. BUT you're wrong about us not seeing good ol fashioned Kung Fu asskickery. It's out there, and it's called San Shou. I agree with most of what you are saying, I just have not seen any good san shou in my area. Quote: No. It's not. It's hurting things. Survival is a benefit of being good at MA. Does anyone else here know that Arte de Martial was first used in the west? Why bring this up? Because if everyone here really wants to descriminate what is and is not a MA, you should go with the definition that was first coined Hurting? Going to war is above hurting. It's about acomplishing your goals. Hurting others may (or it may not) be a part of the process. Quote: First you have to provide irrefuteble evidence to why "spirit" is needed, if existant. I have to provide nothing. Either you look for it yourself or you turn a blind eye. Your choice. Quote: Boxing and wrestling are not martial arts but fighting sports. - "Wrong." No I am not. Quote: Source plz. Because if that is what he said, Alexander is full of s**t. Alexander proved that he was right by conquering most of the known world in his day. But I should have quoted my sources. Quote: Yes, but they didn't study them TOGETHER. They studied them seperately. It's like saying "Well, you need to study art in order to be complete in Geometry, because you draw circles and other shapes". Now I have to ask for you to quote your references. How do you know the ways of their education? The ideal man in Greece should excell at everything. By today's standards it sounds exagerated, I know, but that was the (perceived) norm then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:34 am
I've got a million of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 8:55 pm
Quote: It ALSO means creative expression. Or else we fall victim to the dojo syndrome and become useless in real life, where everything goes. Oh jesus christ man. Not that "oh well the rules mean nothing on the street" crap. Your definition of art in this case is taken very liberally. You learn from someone else, you practice it until you're realllllly good. It's not that hard. Yes, someone else might see the skill needed and call it art as in "pretty picture" art, but it doesn't mean it is. Quote: I agree with most of what you are saying, I just have not seen any good san shou in my area. Ahh. Quote: Hurting? Going to war is above hurting. It's about acomplishing your goals. Hurting others may (or it may not) be a part of the process. Yes, but punching someone in the face is not above hurting someone. There is nothing spiritual about this stuff inheritantly no matter what anyone wants to think. Quote: I have to provide nothing. Either you look for it yourself or you turn a blind eye. Your choice. I'm not looking as you claimed it first. YOU convince me. I'm not going out of my way to prove you're right. Yes you are. Is it a sport? Yes. But it's also a Martial Art. The only people who think they're not have that misconception that it has to include some bad philosophy. Quote: Alexander proved that he was right by conquering most of the known world in his day. But I should have quoted my sources. Yes you should've. And again, just because he conquered a s**t ton doesn't mean he was right about that. I mean, why would that make any sense at all? You have a perfectly conditioned fighter, tough as nails, calm under stress and willing to fight. Then on the other hand, you have the non-athlete, the unconditioned, soft, scared shitless guy. See how this doesn't add up? Quote: Now I have to ask for you to quote your references. How do you know the ways of their education? The ideal man in Greece should excell at everything. By today's standards it sounds exagerated, I know, but that was the (perceived) norm then. You do know that I meant that they were seperate subjects rather then they went out of their way to study them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:02 pm
You can't acknowledge boxing/wrestling/fencing as martial arts because they're "fighting sports" and lack an essence of "spirit." But by your definition you don't consider Judo/MMA/Capoiera/kickboxing/WTF TKD/BJJ as martial arts then? What more is a sport than a socially acceptable means of warfare? (Lacrosse is a good example of this, where literally warring native american tribes would settle disputes through the game) If the overall point of a martial art is "conflict" and "surviving it" according to you, how are "sport" martial arts not fulfilling these purposes. Is a competitive fight against a direct opponent not a "conflict" and is winning and beating your opponent not "surviving" and overcoming that conflict? You speak of this crime of the separation of "spirit" and physical body (which is debatable to begin w/ since you've still yet to provide a counter argument to the historical separation between scholars and soldiers and thus the argument that spirit/philosophy and body/warfare were ever intertwined) as if it's the fault of sport martial arts solely. Yet is performing static dead forms really an evocation of the mentality of soldiers and warring generals? Is performing a predetermined set of strikes against air really a practical means of understanding the purpose and application of punches and kicks? Frankly to claim that the benefit of sports is strengthening of the body only is gross ignorance, there is a mentality (a "fighting spirit") gained when competing directly against an opponent of equal or greater skill that one cannot gain from static forms alone, (this is one of the reasons why the US Army teaches BJJ in their unarmed combat training) to deny this calls into question ignorance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 8:33 am
TaeKyon You can't acknowledge boxing/wrestling/fencing as martial arts because they're "fighting sports" and lack an essence of "spirit." But by your definition you don't consider Judo/MMA/Capoiera/kickboxing/WTF TKD/BJJ as martial arts then? What more is a sport than a socially acceptable means of warfare? (Lacrosse is a good example of this, where literally warring native american tribes would settle disputes through the game) If the overall point of a martial art is "conflict" and "surviving it" according to you, how are "sport" martial arts not fulfilling these purposes. Is a competitive fight against a direct opponent not a "conflict" and is winning and beating your opponent not "surviving" and overcoming that conflict? You speak of this crime of the separation of "spirit" and physical body (which is debatable to begin w/ since you've still yet to provide a counter argument to the historical separation between scholars and soldiers and thus the argument that spirit/philosophy and body/warfare were ever intertwined) as if it's the fault of sport martial arts solely. Yet is performing static dead forms really an evocation of the mentality of soldiers and warring generals? Is performing a predetermined set of strikes against air really a practical means of understanding the purpose and application of punches and kicks? Frankly to claim that the benefit of sports is strengthening of the body only is gross ignorance, there is a mentality (a "fighting spirit") gained when competing directly against an opponent of equal or greater skill that one cannot gain from static forms alone, (this is one of the reasons why the US Army teaches BJJ in their unarmed combat training) to deny this calls into question ignorance. What style do you practice?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 8:46 am
ArtHic TaeKyon You can't acknowledge boxing/wrestling/fencing as martial arts because they're "fighting sports" and lack an essence of "spirit." But by your definition you don't consider Judo/MMA/Capoiera/kickboxing/WTF TKD/BJJ as martial arts then? What more is a sport than a socially acceptable means of warfare? (Lacrosse is a good example of this, where literally warring native american tribes would settle disputes through the game) If the overall point of a martial art is "conflict" and "surviving it" according to you, how are "sport" martial arts not fulfilling these purposes. Is a competitive fight against a direct opponent not a "conflict" and is winning and beating your opponent not "surviving" and overcoming that conflict? You speak of this crime of the separation of "spirit" and physical body (which is debatable to begin w/ since you've still yet to provide a counter argument to the historical separation between scholars and soldiers and thus the argument that spirit/philosophy and body/warfare were ever intertwined) as if it's the fault of sport martial arts solely. Yet is performing static dead forms really an evocation of the mentality of soldiers and warring generals? Is performing a predetermined set of strikes against air really a practical means of understanding the purpose and application of punches and kicks? Frankly to claim that the benefit of sports is strengthening of the body only is gross ignorance, there is a mentality (a "fighting spirit") gained when competing directly against an opponent of equal or greater skill that one cannot gain from static forms alone, (this is one of the reasons why the US Army teaches BJJ in their unarmed combat training) to deny this calls into question ignorance. What style do you practice? Both of us have a base of WTF TKD. (If I remember correctly of course, considering he's also into Muay Thai, and more than likely a few others).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
