What's your martial-to-art ratio?

I kinda pictured the "Ask A Ninja guy" saying what I said.

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

Don Magee wrote: 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

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.

Bill Danosky wrote: '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.

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?

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!

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.

Kevin Leavitt wrote: 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.

Bill Danosky wrote: 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.

Neil Mick wrote: 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.

Amir Krause wrote: 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.

Amir Krause wrote: 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?

Don Magee wrote: 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

Amir Krause wrote: 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.

Don Magee wrote: 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?"

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.

Don Magee wrote: 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.

Don Magee wrote: 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.