Quote:
George S. Ledyard wrote:
First of all, I question the assumption that the only measure for a martial art is fighting effectiveness. Who would maintain that Kendo and Judo aren't martial arts? Who would maintain that either is an "effective" fighting style? Are Iaido and Kyudo not considered martial arts? They are done solo and have no emphasis whatever on winning over anyone other than oneself. Are they not worthy practices for their own sake without considerations of whether they would defeat another art?
|
Honestly, I didn't read the whole thing, I skimmed. But this bothers me.
Judo not fighting effective? Seriously? A good judoka or wrestler is a man I wouldn't want to meet in a back alley. That said, my aikido instructor doesn't think anything with a sport element is a martial art. That means (at least this is the vibe I get from him) that muay thai, boxing, bjj, judo, etc are not martial arts.
The question of if a art is worthy of practice to me isn't the issue. You can practice for sport, for history, for live action role playing, for self defense, etc. The big difference is in what you think you are getting and what you are getting. Do Iadio students claim to have a street lethal style that will stop all attackers? Or do they claim that MMA fighters are brutes with no skill that their instructor could easily overtake?
I wrote a really long post, but then decided not to go off on a torrent of speech. I think it's great that people train in any sport, martial art, etc. I take issue with people making open claims that are easily testable, but coming up with excuses when put to task. I think this is what puts off the competitive artists from the non-competitive, claim making with excuses as to why they can't show you in person.
In the end to me, it's just good old fashioned cognitive dissonance.