|
|
| Which is more present (the purpose) |
| Combat.... no duh... |
|
37% |
[ 6 ] |
| Religion, oneness with the universe that sort s**t.... |
|
12% |
[ 2 ] |
| Both are equal... |
|
50% |
[ 8 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2005 10:26 pm
Ok so in one of the other MA forums I go to There was a disscussion on the overall general purpose and origin of martial arts. IT went as follows: Quote: Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If all martial artists fought like that all the time there wouldn't be many martial artists left alive. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The thing is, martial arts we're meant for that purpose. 9/10 martial arts were created by warriors, or people forced to defend themselves from warriors. Kempo is essentially a killing art, as are most martial arts...but they've been so watered down over time now they're just sport... Quote: And SPanda, your wrong. The majority of martial arts were designed as almost a religious art. Such as Shaolin Kung Fu. Sure, it's one of the most impressive and deadly things to watch preformed. But the fact that there all a bunch of Holy Monks preaching a way of oneness with the life around them and using martial arts as a way of discipline. Or such other things as Judo. Judo in it's orginal form was completely focused on turning blows, defense and bending before a foe so that you could subdue him. Even such things as the martial arts practiced by Samurai warriors. Very structured, very rigid, it was all about discipline. Now yes, certain types did spring from a street-fighter/rebel-farmers type thing. But it all narrows down to whatever country your in as Martial Arts on a whole are far to broad to ever catagorize into a singular lump. And I'm not talking about just the Asian arts. Shoot, theres Grecian, Roman, European. Fighting styles are world-wide. Quote: Judo is a derivitave of Jiu-Jitsu, which was used by Samurai. Although the method is the different, the end result would still be the death, or complete disablement of your opponant...Judo in and of itself is one of the 1/10 arts...because it was started rather recently (1882). Judo was created by one Jigro Kano who found too many studants injured in normal Jiu-Jitsu practice...case in pointwww.judoinfo.com/kano6.htm Shaolin Kung Fu was originally a set of exercised used by the monks, but formed into a fighting style to defend themselves...I didn't say ALL martial arts were killing arts but most Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.rising-dragon.co.uk/articles/martial-arts/origins-of-shaolin-kung-fu.htm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BJJ was traditional Jiu-Jitsu brought to Brazil, and adapted to the street fighting/arena fighting styles of Brazil Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.kickboxing.com/knowledge/search/styles/brazilianjiujitsu.htm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Muay Thai was used in the 15th and 16th century by Thai warriors, and also to determine one's fate in court. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.kickboxing.com/knowledge/search/styles/muaythai.htm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm not saying every martial art is a killing art, most of the more modern one's arn't. But most traditional arts, regardless of origin country, were used militarily, to kill. Quote: If you take a look at every single MA ever created, you'll see that Spanda for the most part was right. The first Martial Arts we're the foundation for those that followed, but those that followed were without as much emphasis on what the 'monks' and 'holy men' we're putting into it. Yes the original styles we're alot of times a religious/spiritual focus, but there were more new styles created afterwords that simply took technique from them... So what do you think? We know some came from religious origins and some came from combat or military origins. But overall, which is more present among martial arts?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:09 am
Maybe they were intended not to become an art of killing, but during times of war, they will be used for that purpose. Maybe the style changes a bit because of that, more killing techniques.
In Ninpo Bujutsu, I can see that a lot of techniques can be used to kill, but it also depends on your intent. You can also just keep a person under control not by breaking the neck at the end of a technique, but just by slowly twisting it. It hurts like hell, but it's effective. The problem is "what if you're surrounded". Just knocking someone unconsius won't always do it. (Not saying that if I would be attacked I'll kill everybody in my way xd )
Also, we have a lot of kata, which is really the opposite of trying to kill...
So I don't think it's the style itself that's meant for killing. It's more the people that practice the style. What do they intend to use their knowledge for?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 9:53 pm
That being said.... think about the person(s) who invented the style... what did they intend it for? Now think about all martial arts styles the same way..... which is more present?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 10:06 pm
i think its like yin and yang.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:21 am
LELIE Maybe they were intended not to become an art of killing, but during times of war, they will be used for that purpose. Maybe the style changes a bit because of that, more killing techniques. In Ninpo Bujutsu, I can see that a lot of techniques can be used to kill, but it also depends on your intent. You can also just keep a person under control not by breaking the neck at the end of a technique, but just by slowly twisting it. It hurts like hell, but it's effective. The problem is "what if you're surrounded". Just knocking someone unconsius won't always do it. (Not saying that if I would be attacked I'll kill everybody in my way xd ) Also, we have a lot of kata, which is really the opposite of trying to kill... So I don't think it's the style itself that's meant for killing. It's more the people that practice the style. What do they intend to use their knowledge for? Kata ("Quanfa" in Chinese) was created to allows practicioners to go through techniques without partners. Solitary practices for potentially lethal techniques. This is why I view the true role of Aikido as a martial philosophy. It's a way of looking at the physical aspect of martial arts as the final tool in an arsenal of psychological, social and tactical skills. As for the rest, martial arts start off as straight up physical skills (Pankration, Queensborough Boxing, Savate, Bata, many of the Clan-based Kung Fu systems, most Karate- despite the infusion of religious symbolism), but religion gets in somehow. I think it has a lot to do with teaching the self-awareness necessary to use the martial arts responsibly. Also, a lot of the observation that martial arts come directly from holy orders comes from a very limited view of martial arts, focusing on Asia. In both the Near and Far East, most of the martial arts were created by holy men (the Sikhs, Kalaripayat, Chung Chuan, Tai Chi), or was at least refined by holy men. If you go further west than that, most martial arts were written down by scholastic mercenaries and gentarmes who sought to spread the use of their styles. Martial arts crop up everywhere in the world, and for every reason. Wherever people fight, there will be those who seek to refine the art of fighting to get better at it. Like MIA-BO said, it's like Yin and Yang. There's a little of everything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 5:45 am
Martial arts are what you make of it.
You could take up boxing and make it spiritual.
You could do aikido just for the wristbreaking techniques.
Martial arts are nothing other than the whole of their practitioners.
Most arts were created for self defence.
Even the Shaolin only created it because they weren't allowed to wield weapons, whilst they still needed a form of defence.
Spirituality in martial arts is necessary to prevent criminal minds from using such powerful techniques.
Wether you focus on the combative part of martial arts or the spiritual, maybe even the mental or physical, even superficial... is entirely up to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 3:52 am
Kata were mostly used to learn about balance, meditation and also a nice flow to your techniques. (At least, in our system.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 3:55 am
Oh, and also... We don't use kata to learn deadly techniques. We use deadly techniques on our partner, but we also learn how you de them on your own. Not like a kata. It's always fun to watch sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:15 am
Alot of the martial arts were developed because they need to fight and win, but what you rarely learn is how brutal those martial arts were, if you practice any fighting based martial art thats in the olympics they have most likely been dulled down alot. Taekwondo((because thats the only martial art i practice at the moment)) used to eb alot mroe vicious in the fact that they would grab, and basically who ever was taught it was told to break and kill there enemys. it was quite harsh in the moves they were taught.... i kinda wish i knew more about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 6:11 am
Xanos~of~the~Gods Alot of the martial arts were developed because they need to fight and win, but what you rarely learn is how brutal those martial arts were, if you practice any fighting based martial art thats in the olympics they have most likely been dulled down alot. Taekwondo((because thats the only martial art i practice at the moment)) used to eb alot mroe vicious in the fact that they would grab, and basically who ever was taught it was told to break and kill there enemys. it was quite harsh in the moves they were taught.... i kinda wish i knew more about it. *cough* Actually... Taekwondo was developped in early 20th century for military purpose in Korea. It's not until it became what it is today that it was called taekwondo. Until then it was just effective fighting techniques based on some kung fu forms and karate. Hence the many kicks. Taekwondo can thus indeed trace it's roots back to Shaolin kung fu, but only some of them. XD It was at first supposed to be an easy to learn military fighting art. Since then, it has gone down the usual martial arts path. And all of you who believe it is a waste that martial arts go down this path, think of this: If you want to be lethal, buy a goddamn frigging gun. Takes years less of practice. We don't practice martial arts to be lethal. We practice them for what they are. Arts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 8:06 am
JoshuaKenzo Xanos~of~the~Gods Alot of the martial arts were developed because they need to fight and win, but what you rarely learn is how brutal those martial arts were, if you practice any fighting based martial art thats in the olympics they have most likely been dulled down alot. Taekwondo((because thats the only martial art i practice at the moment)) used to eb alot mroe vicious in the fact that they would grab, and basically who ever was taught it was told to break and kill there enemys. it was quite harsh in the moves they were taught.... i kinda wish i knew more about it. *cough* Actually... Taekwondo was developped in early 20th century for military purpose in Korea. It's not until it became what it is today that it was called taekwondo. Until then it was just effective fighting techniques based on some kung fu forms and karate. Hence the many kicks. Taekwondo can thus indeed trace it's roots back to Shaolin kung fu, but only some of them. XD It was at first supposed to be an easy to learn military fighting art. Since then, it has gone down the usual martial arts path. And all of you who believe it is a waste that martial arts go down this path, think of this: If you want to be lethal, buy a goddamn frigging gun. Takes years less of practice. We don't practice martial arts to be lethal. We practice them for what they are. Arts. Yes taekwon do was developed early this century but it was called taekwondo pretty much from the beginning, before that it was just coming together and mainly resembled karate. Yes it was first for military purposes hence as Xanos said the early forms were very brutal and mostly about completely destroying your oppenent as quickly as you can. Very little of it is based on kungfu, the only basis it has is the very vague Indian-Bodiharma route of any southeast asian martial art. Its mainly based on karate and ancient korean foot fighting arts such as taekyon. People practise martial arts for many different reasons. That last statement is a sweeping generalisation. Some people practise them purely for the asthetic/art side, some for fitness and others in order to learn how to hurt/kill people (sad but true). If guns are the be all and end all of lethality why do all the crack anti-terrorism units in the world train in various forms of martial art? Its because, guns are not infallible. They jam, they brake, they run out of ammo, in the hands of nonexperts they can be woefully inaccurate and at close distances pretty damn ineffective. At distances of under 6-7' give me a knife anyday
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 8:19 am
True, true.
But all those forces don't train martial arts for being lethal.
It's the last line of defence, really.
I'm saying if you want to kill somebody, why be an idiot and try and do it with bare hands?
Martial arts have the benefit of being very enhancing to both physical and mental aspects of a person.
That would be the only other reason such forces would practice martial arts.
I personally love martial arts, as I think is quite clear.
But outside of movies and manga, if the best swordfighter in the world comes after you, just buy a big ******** gun and shoot the b*****d.
Hand to hand can be very well used in conflict situations where delinquents are un- or little armed.
I doubt the US government would send Shaolin monks to fight in Iraq, though. ^^
You catch my grip, right?
Even Masaaki Hatsumi gladly admits that he is no match for a gun.
It is on the brim of ridicule to waste your master's time to become a wannabe Goku. >_<
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 8:57 am
JoshuaKenzo True, true. But all those forces don't train martial arts for being lethal. It's the last line of defence, really. I'm saying if you want to kill somebody, why be an idiot and try and do it with bare hands? Martial arts have the benefit of being very enhancing to both physical and mental aspects of a person. That would be the only other reason such forces would practice martial arts. I personally love martial arts, as I think is quite clear. But outside of movies and manga, if the best swordfighter in the world comes after you, just buy a big ******** gun and shoot the b*****d. Hand to hand can be very well used in conflict situations where delinquents are un- or little armed. I doubt the US government would send Shaolin monks to fight in Iraq, though. ^^ You catch my grip, right? Even Masaaki Hatsumi gladly admits that he is no match for a gun. It is on the brim of ridicule to waste your master's time to become a wannabe Goku. >_< Absolutely. In most situations guns own a**, but the point I'm making is it depends on range, type of gun and the skill of the gun opperator. Honestly with a pistol most people couldn't hit a barn door if they close enough to touch it
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 12:56 pm
It's said that Karate was developed to defend against the invading samurai of Japan. Well, Karate was developed from different styles. Most of the arts today have roots in other arts. So where's it start?
WAY back in the day, and by way I mean B.C., people fought, for sport, survival, whatever. Fighters eventually got good. Older fighters had to teach the newbies. The fighters figured out what worked, what didn't. Technique was developed. Techniques was refined. Technique was passed on.
If you're a fighter, you're fighting for a reason. Those reasons come from or lead to something: philosophy, religion, the glory of sport, the desparation to survive, the attainment of perfection of skill. All of these are worthy.
Where are you going? Where do you come from? Martial arts are what we are using for our individual journeys. This is the tie that binds us, us, the Crew, martial artists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 3:07 am
XD
When you consider some people couldn't flip a pancake if their lives depended on it...
I'd still say guns own martial artist a**. XD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
