you'd be right, if
You'd be right, if:
A) all martial arts were good for you
B) martial arts were an art in the sense Painting is, rather than in the sense Chemistry is..
Martial art is not an art like dance. That is a whole different thing. It is an art in the same sense as chemistry, meaning: it should get a result. How you get that result is where the expression comes in. But it is not Dance.
Dance is all about personal expression and there is no dancing "wrong". Fighting is about surviving. You can't just choose any way to move you like. You have to move efficiently and effectively to fight.
If you want to screw around point fighting and doing Tae Kwon Do kata, cool! I dig you!
But, All you're doing is dancing. May as well throw on some BeeGees while you're at it.
If someone asks me "What's the best martial art?" I do not assume the communication they desire is "Which one will help me keep the weight off?"
If they wanted that info, they'd have asked for an aerobics instructor. MARTIAL art IS 'martial'.. or, a way of fighting. It is a science of defense.
And therefore, the art that works best within the physics of defense is going to the best.
It is not a matter of opinion. If a guy can't fight, his method sucks ass. His training method CAN'T BE working if he can't fight.
(shrug)
This is really pretty simple to understand.
Were the tough guys in your high school days Martial Artists, or did they just generally fight alot? Fighting, with few rules/limitations is what makes one a good fighter. A fight has no rules. So if you are point fighting with limited contact and limited zstriking area and limited strikes with limited techniques...then you are just plain limited.
So, 90 percent of the fighting schools in america suck. Most of them teach "martial dance".
And there is nothing wrong with that, so long as the students know and understand they are merely dancing.
Last edited by quietanswer; 12-09-2002 at 01:25 PM.
|