OT--Martial Arts

[fearn]

Originally Posted by Andrew

That's like saying the only "real" auto racing is F1.

I would agree only if you define "true" martial arts as those techniques actually employed to kill, maim and injure the opponents. However, in a civilized society, we cannot kill, maim or injure our training partners and opponents. The only way to effectively practice these things is to stop short of the ultimate intended result...

Not really. The SEALs (to pick one) routinely practice non-lethally. The problem I DO point to is that we assume that "martial" arts are now primarily about sports or self-defense in situations where guns are not involved. That's a very biased point of view. Should we perhaps blame judo and karate practitioners for promulgating it?

Certainly our society has martial arts and sciences at every scale, from sports to back alleys to nuclear war. Being an American, I just think it's hypocritical to ignore the modern military (the biggest the world has ever seen) in a discussion of martial arts, and to focus on any particular sport as the "best martial art." This isn't criticizing MMA--even the military uses it for non-lethal combatives. Rather, it's pointing out an enormous blind spot in any definition of "martial" that doesn't include the military.

[Lew]

Gentlemen

I really do not see the connection here between MMA, Navy Seals AK-47s and collecting antique weapons?

[Battara]

As a martial artist I am a real cut up?

Uh.......Filipino martial arts also use bladed weaponry?

[Rick]

Originally Posted by Lew

Gentlemen

I really do not see the connection here between MMA, Navy Seals AK-47s and collecting antique weapons?

I agree with Lew .
Also I believe the discussion was originally oriented to Civilian/Competitive MMA; not Military; so let's stay on that level if we continue at all .

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by fearn

Not really. The SEALs (to pick one) routinely practice non-lethally. The problem I DO point to is that we assume that "martial" arts are now primarily about sports or self-defense in situations where guns are not involved. That's a very biased point of view. Should we perhaps blame judo and karate practitioners for promulgating it?

Certainly our society has martial arts and sciences at every scale, from sports to back alleys to nuclear war. Being an American, I just think it's hypocritical to ignore the modern military (the biggest the world has ever seen) in a discussion of martial arts, and to focus on any particular sport as the "best martial art." This isn't criticizing MMA--even the military uses it for non-lethal combatives. Rather, it's pointing out an enormous blind spot in any definition of "martial" that doesn't include the military.

Ah. Now I understand your point. It's a matter of degrees, I suppose. (No pun intended).

In deference to my fellow staff members and the subject matter of this forum, however, I'm going to close this thread.

I'm happy to continue the discussion via email or PM.