PDA

View Full Version : What's your martial-to-art ratio?


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


Bill Danosky
03-08-2007, 09:16 PM
How much "martial" and how much "art" do you like in your Aikido practice? 60/40? 40/60?

I'm kinda 70/30 martial, but I'm wondering if I'm in the minority? I think practice should be tough and I don't mind the occasional bruise or mat burn. I like the exertion level to be 'brisk'.

I'm not looking for a Senshusei experience, but students who endure find an extra value in their training, IMHO.

Different Aikido styles, dojos and individual aikidoka seem to vary quite a bit on this. What's your ratio?

akiy
03-08-2007, 09:37 PM
Not that it's anything definitive, but here's the results of a poll I took a while back:

In your opinion, what ratio of "martial" and "art" is aikido? - 5/15/2004
http://www.aikiweb.com/polls/results.html?poll_id=219

-- Jun

Edward
03-08-2007, 09:45 PM
I think we should distinguish here between martial and hard training. I have noticed that students in art oriented dojos get more physically fit than in martial dojos due to the nature of training. Martial training tends to be more technical and static, while arty training gives a lot of aerobic exercice with all these large turning movements and resulting Ukemi.

MikeLogan
03-08-2007, 09:57 PM
I'm not sure what you could mean by the art part of the ratio. If one is 80::20 martial::art, then what is that 30% art comprised of? The way one bows, the overemphasized etiquette in front of strangers?

A martial art is: an art, that is martial. One noun, described by one adjective. Have I been missing something in all my time reading here? The origination of the term, I imagine, one of several categorizations that suffer much from loss in translation.

One might argue that my particularity in language may peg me more heavy on the art side, but, one might also argue that my particularity may translate (albeit to varying degrees, such as with folding my laundry) into each of my projections.

Are you asking whether someone likes it hard or soft? meaty, or fruity? 'effective' or 'therapeutic'? spartan, or abundant?

Anyhow, it's official, happy friday everyone, well, for everyone on the east coast, haha, non-EST suckers


editting to say that Edward has just illustrated my point.

Bill says he is more martial because he prefers a harder workout; Edward claims the distinction is that there is martial training, and then there is hard training.

michael.

Bill Danosky
03-08-2007, 10:20 PM
By "art" I mean when we, as Uke, cooperate with Shite so we can perceive the natural forces at work and celebrate the beauty of the traditions, etc. I do enjoy the formality of the dojo I am a member of.

By "martial" I mean when we practice effective, powerful self defense techniques that make me smile when I receive the ukemi.

MikeLogan
03-08-2007, 10:39 PM
See, I consider ukemi just another aspect of a martial sphere. Ukemi is making the best of a bad situation. An uke in Aikido training would not want to ultimately hurt nage.
As a skill set in it's own right, ukemi as I've been told is just trying to get out of something coming your way in a hurry, so you can have a chance to return the favor.
Can one begin to absorb kaeshi waza, and subsequently henka waza without being experienced in getting into the situation that would call for reversals to begin with?

The song that never ends regarding effectiveness and cooperative ukes has plenty of other threads giving it attention

Amir Krause
03-09-2007, 02:50 AM
By "art" I mean when we, as Uke, cooperate with Shite so we can perceive the natural forces at work and celebrate the beauty of the traditions, etc. I do enjoy the formality of the dojo I am a member of.

By "martial" I mean when we practice effective, powerful self defense techniques that make me smile when I receive the ukemi.

During my first few years of learning, I used to make similar distinctions. At that time, I noticed my Sensei had a tendency to change the ratio of "martial"/"art" over time, one half year the emphasis was on one aspect and the other was less emphasized, and the other the second (not that exact).

As I progressed in learning, I started to reveal the above distinction was totally wrong. The "art" part of the training, and being Uke in it, is possibly even more important to my learning "martially effective Aikido" then the "martial" part. Both are two sides of the same coin, and a good teacher has to find the correct balance for his students.
Looking from a methodical perspective. The "martial" part had mostly to do with learning to perform techniques correctly, overcoming resistance and (a very important aspect) not being afraid.
The "art" part had to do with using the whole body, and feeling the path of least resistance. A smoother movement, and better perceptions makes one look more of an artist, then a real fighter.

But, when practicing Randori, or having a friendly spar with other M.A. students. I swiftly learned that once one has the will, and the technique mechanics are beyond some rudimentary level, the "art" part of things is often as important for the effectiveness, and practicing it improves my level much more.

Effectiveness is the correct balance of strong and bending, perceptive/attentive and determined. Knowing when to press your positional advantage and when to give in to pressure and create a better opportunity.

In my mind, ideal Aikido looks effortless and pseudo non-resistance, with a non-cooperating attacker who tries everything in his power against you. Creating harmony from chaos. Today, I can sometimes achieve this in Randori with beginner students who mistake Randori to be a fighting exercise. In some more rare occasions, it happens during Randori of us “more advanced students” finding a perfect opportunity to catch one another in a smooth counter\trap.

Amir

DonMagee
03-09-2007, 05:39 AM
I just refuse to believe art means what most martial artists think it means. I simply think it means craft, like in the art of war. Its not that there is war, and then flowery movements. Its about the craft of waging war.I think the whole art thing was really created by people who wanted to get more students with less physical contact. See 720 degree triple jump side kicks are about the art, what you guys do is just fighting ;-)

So I guess I'm 100% martial 0% art.

crbateman
03-09-2007, 06:49 AM
I'm not sure that it can be explained with math. Is an artist who also has a gun any less of an artist?

Roman Kremianski
03-09-2007, 07:27 AM
Does anyone have a step-by-step analysis on how exactly they arrive at what is martial and what is art? You could spend hours arguing how just doing tenkan in a circle on your own is as martial as it gets...

gdandscompserv
03-09-2007, 07:53 AM
Depends on tori, uke, the situation, the age of your partner, the needs of the students, my perceived needs. So many answers to that question. I prefer to see myself as an artist but I'm sure that is dillusional at best. In my mind, being martial implies an active engagement in some type of warfare. The training styles for active combat and for the dissemination of the various martial arts are different I think. What Kevin is doing I think leans toward the martial side. What most traditional dojos (flame retardent on) do leans toward the art side.
As far as specifics in the way I present techniques; I like to be able to demonstrate them in different ways. Budo can manifest itself through people in marvelous ways. As much as I enjoy technique with a highly (flame retardent on) resistive uke, I equally enjoy technique with a fully cooperative uke. I get great satisfaction out of both.
ARGH!
I am unable to answer your question.
Ark????
All Knowing Ark?????
As the Ark of the Aikido Covenant, I call upon you to answer this question.
A Fan.
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b379/deserthippie/peace.gif

Paul Sanderson-Cimino
03-09-2007, 08:24 AM
I believe this arises from a misunderstanding of "art". In an attempt to translate words like "jutsu", English uses the word "art", which literally refers to any skill or ability:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/art

For example, an "artifact". In modern colloquial usage, it almost always refers to fine art, or the production of ornamental things for display, but the most literal and "core" meaning is more like "proficiency".

That said, I think it's a reasonable question...just wanted to emphasize that it's not what the people who started saying "martial art" had in mind.

Roman Kremianski
03-09-2007, 08:39 AM
So Aikido is not actually like painting a picture? :(

I was gonna mention that same thing...people refer to "art" like an aesthetic thing that is pleasing to look at, when really it's just a so-so translation of jutsu or do, which probably mean a whole bunch of other things.

Sorry, just the babblings of a graphic designer. :o

jonreading
03-09-2007, 10:50 AM
My teachings place a consistent emphasis on the training of effective fighting technique. As long as I teach a martial art, I have a responsibility to my students to prepare them to use physical aikido effectiviely. I may choose to select individual classes or students to challenge with advanced concepts or principles that incorporate the budo of aikido. Internalizing budo is not something that I feel is my place to teach, but rather the student's place to learn through training.

To use a favorite analogy of mine, "Picaso did not learn to become an artist. Picaso learned to paint, he became an artist by painting."

Kevin Leavitt
03-09-2007, 11:44 AM
Interesting topic.

I don't really see the distinction. I trained for many years in what I considered to be a very traditional ASU dojo...I would say that it is a DO for sure.

I train soldiers over here in Germany for the express purpose of learning to fight correctly and instill the warrior spirit in them.

Training methodologies differ a little, some of the things we focus on differ a little, we don't bow, wear hakama, or even gi s most of the time.

However, the fundamentals are still pretty much the same I have found.

I think it is possible for two students to go to the exact same class and have entirely two different experiences. One might say it is a DO and art. Another might say it is SU.

I used to think there was a big distinction in how you should train SU and DO. How I learned to do Kotegaeshi in Aikijitsu was much difference in how I learned it in Aikido, so I thought the distinction to be important.

What I have found though is that what I learned in both places needed to be taught to understand the range of the dynamic. At least in my aikido dojo, I thought it was taught more correctly as we studied the complete range of motion associated with kotegaeshi. if you understand the range, you are free to stop it anywhere along that path that makes sense in reality.

(I did study some pretty poor aikijitsu mind you!).

So, I think studied correctly that there really is no distinction to be made, or at least should not be made! If there is a distinction to be made, then it is made not be the art being practiced, but by the person that percieves it.

Insane Duane
03-09-2007, 01:58 PM
What I interpreted from the question was effective self defense training vs the "dance". So I would say for me 95% martial, 5% art.

At the dodjo I am in, we don't dance, we are there to learn to defend ourselves. I believe Craig Dunn on Steven Seagal's Path Beyond Thought said Make your Aikido practical, then play with it, not the other way around. I agree with that statement. That is why I chose the dojo I am at.

As far as the role of the Uke (at my dojo), they are expected to give a realistic attack (i.e. will actually hit the nage and will retract their fist, not leave it extended so the nage can have an easy target) and expose any weaknesses/flaws in the nage's technique (once they know what they are doing) and, of course, survive the technique.

I do not think there is anything wrong with the dance style aikido as long as the students are aware of that fact. I cringe when I visit another dojo that claims to teach an effective self defense yet only practice at turtle speed and do techniques that leave themselves vulnerable to attack.

Paul Sanderson-Cimino
03-09-2007, 02:00 PM
To use a favorite analogy of mine, "Picaso did not learn to become an artist. Picaso learned to paint, he became an artist by painting."

I like that quote, Jon!

SeiserL
03-09-2007, 02:11 PM
Martial: 100%
Art: 0% (you have obviously never seen me train)

Martial: 100%
Do/way: 100%
They are the same to me.

statisticool
03-09-2007, 03:39 PM
5% worried about being attacked by baddies

95% health

Bill Danosky
03-09-2007, 09:00 PM
Thanks, Kevin. A couple of the comments were good, but I thought this was the best thing that was said: "Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack." MG George S. Patton.

:p Oh, what a giveaway- I must be missing sparring again! :rolleyes:

p00kiethebear
03-10-2007, 09:31 AM
Why can't it just be it be 100% martial as well as 100% art. I'm sorry but I really see no distinction between the two and I see no reason why you would want to waste time trying to.

Martial Art.
Perhaps a better word should have been invented to illustrate the two being one in the same.... Say, Mart? The first four letters are from martial and the last three letters are art? Overlaps? No? You're not seeing it?

You can't have the word MARTIAL with out the word ART!

mARTial.

Okay I'm going back to bed.

dps
03-10-2007, 11:24 AM
I simply think it means craft, like in the art of war. Its not that there is war, and then flowery movements. Its about the craft of waging war.

I agree with Don, and would add that an artist is someone who takes a craft and uses their own imagination and taste to create their own style of practicing the craft.

David

Bill Danosky
03-10-2007, 07:17 PM
Why can't it just be it be 100% martial as well as 100% art.

'Cause that's TWO hundred percent, Nathan.

Kevin Leavitt
03-11-2007, 04:15 AM
doesn't aligning KI work this way though Bill?

I mean if you are going 100% and uke is going at 100%...and you blend and use uke's KI against him...doesn't it become aligned and additive to yours..so it would be equal to like...150%?

I mean you couldn't take all his KI...if you did...well he'd be dead as KI is also equal to life force energy. ya have to leave him SOMETHING!

So...there is the ART. knowing just how much to take from uke without killing him.

:)

I love with math and statistics meet with martial arts...sooo, soo, much potential!

have a nice day all!

Bill Danosky
03-11-2007, 08:32 AM
Sort of, "I'll get you, and your little Ki, too"?

Kevin Leavitt
03-11-2007, 09:04 AM
I kinda pictured the "Ask A Ninja guy" saying what I said. :)

"I look forward to taking your KI and killing you soon!"

Amir Krause
03-11-2007, 10:44 AM
I just refuse to believe art means what most martial artists think it means. I simply think it means craft, like in the art of war. Its not that there is war, and then flowery movements. Its about the craft of waging war.I think the whole art thing was really created by people who wanted to get more students with less physical contact. See 720 degree triple jump side kicks are about the art, what you guys do is just fighting ;-)

So I guess I'm 100% martial 0% art.

For me an artist in the senses we talk about is someone who is beyond being a craftsman. Martial Arts are called Arts since one has the ability of self-expression aspiring to perfection.
this phenomena of combining craft and art is not unique to the martial arts, you can also find it in many other crafts/arts such as architecture or blacksmith etc...

When one aspires to be an artist, he aspires to go beyond the level of merely performing in a perfunctory and correct way and being more, not less.

Amir

Kevin Leavitt
03-11-2007, 01:45 PM
Sun Tzu also had the Art of War. We have the Art of Negoitiation the art of business, the art of....

Amir is correct...we take things beyond the mere nuts and bolts an put theory into action...that is what makes somethign an art.

p00kiethebear
03-11-2007, 07:52 PM
'Cause that's TWO hundred percent, Nathan.

I can't tell if you're being serious or just taking a shot at my own difficulty in expressing my opinion.

I'm trying to say that there is no distinction between the martial and art aspects of what we do. It's just 100% aikido.

Bill Danosky
03-16-2007, 09:34 PM
Ha ha. I promise I was neither being serious, or taking a shot.

The point of the thread was that some Aikido styles, dojos, senseis and aikidoka are more martial than others. For the purposes of this discussion, let's define a "martial" inclination as occasionally training in techniques for use during an actual threat.

Whether the ratio is x:100 or x:200 is immaterial. What's your's?

Kevin Leavitt
03-17-2007, 02:40 AM
more martial than others. A tricky question for sure. I am reading Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, which as been a great book to get me thinking a little differently lately.

Anyway, the author ask about Quality in the book. That is....how do you define it? How do you know when to say, "now THAT is good quality!"

Quality is a realitive term based on perception and comparision against some criteria that may or may not be firmly estalished.

As it applies to Martial arts I think it gets even stickier as it is an ART, and as such, ART is judged in the eye of the beholder, or sometimes by society at large. (There are alot of things that we are TOLD that is good art, but we ourselves cannot see it, or do not believe so).

Anyway, much of my discussion/debate with a few on aikiweb has centered around Martial Effectiveness, and what IS martial effectiveness. Why are we concerned with it in Aikido. Why does this seem to be one of the MAJOR debates and most talked about areaa surrounding aikido.

Of lately I have grown to appreciate this quote from George Patton,
"We don't need the best plan, only one that works." He refers to the fact that his staff officers would spend an inordinate amount of time trying to come up with the BEST plan, which takes much time, and time is a realitive concept which is valuable in war.

I think this applies to martial effectiveness. When we become concerned with this (being MORE Martial), we don't need to have the best or most effective strategy....but simply one that works!

So, then we get into situatiions we might be involved in, or risk we want to mitigate. If we look seriously at them, I find, at least, that empty handed martial arts are really not the most effective way, or at least not the easiest way (first choice), way to mitigate that risk.

We only need a strategy that works!

So, when we start talking MORE martial or martially effective...it begs the question in my mind....why would we waste an inordinate amount of time with things like Aikido, BJJ...or anything else???

Sure, there are particular scenarios we can practice in which things we learn in aikido and BJJ that lend to effectiveness, but I think the actual curriculum to be very, very narrow with this mindset.

Some of you (myself included), are thinking about right now....."No, you are missing the point!" we need the breadth and depth of our studies so we can have flexibility to respond appropriately and adapt to situations! Training for effectiveness hurts you because the criteria is to narrow given the parameters you may encounter in real life.

So, we are back again to a principle based study!

I think there is a mix somewhere between a principle based practices and practicing for non-compliance and effectiveness.

I think that much of what we percieve as effective or quality may or may not be the same, and we may not be looking at it correctly. I think the best way to fix this is to work with others that do not share your paradigm or training base and work through your differences together.

I think this is a challenging topic to discuss, as no two people can ever agree on effectiveness, what MORE Martial might be, or how you define quality.

I think the study of Budo to be very important to understanding human nature and it helps us understand our interactions with the world and can assist us with resolving conflict, first within ourselves, and secondly with in the world.

I think the discussions we have here in an attempt to seek a better understanding of what being martial means, and effectiveness, and quality to be very important...even though, we may never fully understand it!

guest94283
03-17-2007, 04:45 AM
I practice 100% Aikido.

I kinda get what you are getting at and I am probably swaying to your definition of 'art'. I like the martial part aswell though.....

I guess my original statement holds strong in the sense that I practice Aikido, I don't think about how much 'art' or 'martial' I am putting into it.

Cady Goldfield
03-17-2007, 11:25 AM
I kinda pictured the "Ask A Ninja guy" saying what I said. :)
"I look forward to taking your KI and killing you soon!"

"Ninjas are SWEET." ;)

I see the "martial" as part of the "art." If you're going to practice a craft whose original intent was to subdue, control and, if necessary, maim or kill an opponent (whether on the street or battlefield, or in a royal court), then that intent and mindsest must be incorporated into training as part of the skill set.

Sort of like "method acting," if anyone is familiar with the school of drama started by actor Lee Strasburg (who believed that actors should immerse themselves completely in the characters they are playing, thus creating a believable, “real” being – The Truth).

We live in the 21st century, in which feudal combat is obsolete. Although there may be "street" applications to what we do, most MA practitioners pursue their MA for other purposes. But, we do want to remain authentic and not practice an "empty shell" art that might look impressive to outsiders, but which has no real power or actual real-life functionality.

So, if we're gonna do this, we may as well do it Authentically. ;) Train to do what the art was created to do. If you study a combat art, it means doing it with the "intent," but without actually killing anyone. If you study Aikido, then it means doing it for the purpose Ueshiba prescribed for it, with as accurate interpretation of that as you can extract from the existing teachings and sources.

My 2 cents' worth.

Neil Mick
03-17-2007, 12:30 PM
How much "martial" and how much "art" do you like in your Aikido practice? 60/40? 40/60?

What's your ratio?

Impossible for me to set a ratio.

When I am practicing, all the things I'm thinking about (tenkan here, step there, etc), could be considered "martial."

The "art" comes in unexpectedly, like a thief. Something unexpected happens, or I blend in a completely different way. A part of it also depends upon the connectedness to uke. I think of this "art" as only occurring in spontaneous moments when things "click:" i.e., what O Sensei labelled "takemusu aiki."

(please, tho: don't take this as some sort of boast that I've executed "perfect" aikido. I have a long way to go...)

But, I do belong to a dojo that stresses "art" a lot...and "martial," a little less. How that applies, I dunno. http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/alles_moegliche/mixed-smiley-003.gif

Bill Danosky
03-18-2007, 11:29 PM
The "art" comes in unexpectedly, like a thief. ... I think of this "art" as only occurring in spontaneous moments

That is one of the coolest things that has been said so far. A friend of mine who golfs says you really show up for those one or two perfect shots you make a day.

As I'm observing people's answers I noticed a couple of people seemed to reveal that they are unwittingly 100% art.

I think there's a danger in doing 100% one style (or 'art') in a self defense situation. One might find they are thinking about IT, instead of mushin.

barry.clemons
03-18-2007, 11:57 PM
For me an artist in the senses we talk about is someone who is beyond being a craftsman. Martial Arts are called Arts since one has the ability of self-expression aspiring to perfection.
this phenomena of combining craft and art is not unique to the martial arts, you can also find it in many other crafts/arts such as architecture or blacksmith etc...

When one aspires to be an artist, he aspires to go beyond the level of merely performing in a perfunctory and correct way and being more, not less.

Amir

I completely agree with Don and Amir.

To me, there is learning your craft and then making the craft your own; exploring beyond your textbook lessons and creating a new way of looking at what you do. Somewhat similar to your average college graduate, and a PhD.

DonMagee
03-19-2007, 05:48 AM
For me an artist in the senses we talk about is someone who is beyond being a craftsman. Martial Arts are called Arts since one has the ability of self-expression aspiring to perfection.
this phenomena of combining craft and art is not unique to the martial arts, you can also find it in many other crafts/arts such as architecture or blacksmith etc...

When one aspires to be an artist, he aspires to go beyond the level of merely performing in a perfunctory and correct way and being more, not less.

Amir

Almost every person who trains in martial arts seems calls themselves an artist. This is not true in pottery, guitar playing, poetry, painting, writing, etc. Only martial arts. Perhaps you are not an artist until extreme high level of skill?

Amir Krause
03-19-2007, 08:27 AM
Almost every person who trains in martial arts seems calls themselves an artist. This is not true in pottery, guitar playing, poetry, painting, writing, etc. Only martial arts. Perhaps you are not an artist until extreme high level of skill?

Most people I know here would say they practice some M.A.
Only very few would consider themselves to be martial artists, of those, most are very vain or simply ignorent of this distinction.

On the other hand, I do know a few people which are considered to be martial artists by others. Of these few, most would not consider themselves as artists or would say they still ave a lot to learn and improve.

Amir
Amir

DonMagee
03-19-2007, 09:07 AM
Most people I know here would say they practice some M.A.
Only very few would consider themselves to be martial artists, of those, most are very vain or simply ignorent of this distinction.

On the other hand, I do know a few people which are considered to be martial artists by others. Of these few, most would not consider themselves as artists or would say they still ave a lot to learn and improve.

Amir
Amir

I guess my point was not clear. When I learned to play guitar, I took lessons, I did not take guitar artist lessons. Simply I learned to play guitar. After a few years I had skill and I made a band, My skill surpassed that of my lessons I created new original material and developed without aid of a teacher. I focused into jazz and learned even more about music. I met many different people with different ideas and takes on what music was. I jammed with them and learned their styles. I found things I liked and things I did not like.

The same was true with computer programming. I wanted to learn a skill. I bought books and read them, applied what I learned to test applications. I started with VB, moved to C, then C++, finally to perl and php where most of my career work is done today. I've read a lot of code and seen some ugly stuff and some creative work that I would indeed call art.

The martial arts it seems is different. People do not want to learn a craft and then become artists, they want to become artists. They say things like "What you are doing is taking the art out of martial arts" when you suggest more sparing and less kata. They watch MMA matches and say "There is no art in that!". What they lack is what every other craft seems to have. An appreciation for skill that is not similar to their own. I have never said to a heavy metal guitar player that playing power cords and shreading distorted solo's is not art. However, I have been told by MANY martial artists that judo and bjj are sports and NOT arts. There is simply almost no appreciation for other martial arts inside the martial arts. It seems there are just too few people who can appreciate the art found in skillful MMA fights and a wonderful kata demonstration at the same time. The martial arts are very unique in this respect.

I guess what i'm saying is that deep down inside people training in martial arts what to become martial artists. They seem to expect that they will become great by association, and assume what they are doing will indeed become art. Where as a guitar player usually starts as a kid trying to pick up a chick.

barry.clemons
03-19-2007, 02:19 PM
I guess my point was not clear. When I learned to play guitar, I took lessons, I did not take guitar artist lessons. Simply I learned to play guitar. After a few years I had skill and I made a band, My skill surpassed that of my lessons I created new original material and developed without aid of a teacher. I focused into jazz and learned even more about music. I met many different people with different ideas and takes on what music was. I jammed with them and learned their styles. I found things I liked and things I did not like.

The same was true with computer programming. I wanted to learn a skill. I bought books and read them, applied what I learned to test applications. I started with VB, moved to C, then C++, finally to perl and php where most of my career work is done today. I've read a lot of code and seen some ugly stuff and some creative work that I would indeed call art.

The martial arts it seems is different. People do not want to learn a craft and then become artists, they want to become artists. They say things like "What you are doing is taking the art out of martial arts" when you suggest more sparing and less kata. They watch MMA matches and say "There is no art in that!". What they lack is what every other craft seems to have. An appreciation for skill that is not similar to their own. I have never said to a heavy metal guitar player that playing power cords and shreading distorted solo's is not art. However, I have been told by MANY martial artists that judo and bjj are sports and NOT arts. There is simply almost no appreciation for other martial arts inside the martial arts. It seems there are just too few people who can appreciate the art found in skillful MMA fights and a wonderful kata demonstration at the same time. The martial arts are very unique in this respect.

I guess what i'm saying is that deep down inside people training in martial arts what to become martial artists. They seem to expect that they will become great by association, and assume what they are doing will indeed become art. Where as a guitar player usually starts as a kid trying to pick up a chick.

Well said, Don. Although, I think you're generalizing a little.

A basketball, football, and baseball player are all athletes (martial artist), and they perfect their craft and become the best athletes they can be. Crossing them creates something new, wouldn't you agree? TKD practitioners who compete, let's say, in the Olympics. Mike Tyson. Barry Bonds. They perfect their craft and become profesisonals/authorities in it. A Mixed Martial Artist is not a boxer, or a grappler; they're creating something new. A MMA who trains to be a MMA is perfecting their craft. if we take the semantics out of it, doesn't it boil down to what you frequently say? "why do you train?"

Cady Goldfield
03-19-2007, 05:17 PM
You have to learn the science (the technical aspect) of a discipline before you can transcend it into art. Don's guitar example is a good one.

Amir Krause
03-20-2007, 02:41 AM
The martial arts it seems is different. People do not want to learn a craft and then become artists, they want to become artists. They say things like "What you are doing is taking the art out of martial arts" when you suggest more sparing and less kata. They watch MMA matches and say "There is no art in that!". What they lack is what every other craft seems to have. An appreciation for skill that is not similar to their own. I have never said to a heavy metal guitar player that playing power cords and shreading distorted solo's is not art. However, I have been told by MANY martial artists that judo and bjj are sports and NOT arts. There is simply almost no appreciation for other martial arts inside the martial arts. It seems there are just too few people who can appreciate the art found in skillful MMA fights and a wonderful kata demonstration at the same time. The martial arts are very unique in this respect.


You have never met a heavy metal player who tried to tell you how your music should sound?
I have heard many people say that some type of music or paintings are not "real" art in their minds. I see the same people in Martial Arts, it is not a single art, but seperate ones, differnt people join it for different reasons and have different goals on joining. Yet anyonw feels free to burge in and indicate his way is the only right one, be it MMA or "intenral skills" or "traditional" or "practical", whoever told you the other person is interested in the same goals as you, he may have 30 heavily armed body guards tkaing care of his security, and let him practice for his peace of mind and harmony with the world...

Personally, if you take Judo and BJJ or boxing as examples. Then I saw (mostly while seeing Judo in the olimpics by the way, I never bothered to watch competitions for long)some owesome martial art demonstarations of them, and lots and lots of medicure skill involved with lots of power. Interestingly enough, the things I would have associated with the artists of these styles are applications of the same principles I find in Aikido too.


I guess what i'm saying is that deep down inside people training in martial arts what to become martial artists. They seem to expect that they will become great by association, and assume what they are doing will indeed become art. Where as a guitar player usually starts as a kid trying to pick up a chick.

I suppose you do know that major painters of the past did have similar situations of many others joining their "yard" to become famous by association, this is siple human nature and I have seen it occur in many other things besides the M.A. world.