Fighter vs. Martial Artist

[SmallThought]

Cheers, Micheal. I wasn't actually having a go specifically at anyones replies or opinions, just suggesting that the thread had again wandered off the point.

I tend to agree that the guys you mention, who get in the ring all the time, are fighters. They are willing and able to have people do them damage and visa versa. What i was trying to imply is that they are not 'warriors'. Some may be 'martial artists', others may not.

The term 'warrior' today, seems to be used to sensationalise a ring fighter or other contact sports person, or to romanticise dedicated martial artists &/or the popular US image of the hard arse nice guy who lives by some bizaar "moral code" that dictates he can open a can of whoop arse on anyone he deems to be doing wrong. Bit too Charles Bronson/Clint Eastwood for my liking. Not a warrior but a vigilante (or dangerously unstable psychopath).

To me, a warrior is strictly reserved for the person willing to lay their life on the line in armed combat to protect their own liberties or those of others. Even that sounds too romantic to me. Perhaps what i should say is, "someone stupid enough to kill or be killed to serve the wishes of some 'higher power'." But that would be insulting to too many good people who have seen active combat, so i wont put it that way.

Anyhoo... as i say, just my take.
Ciao.

[Tant01]

Originally Posted by Michael Wright

....So yes, in order to solidify my point of view, I classed fighters as those people who actively compete in a combat sport or a competitive martial art. I know some people have said on the thread that this isn’t fighting - its playing. I understand what you mean because its a sport, with rules and its not life or death. But thats a very easy thing to say when you are stood on the sidelines. Get in the ring at any kind of level in Thai or Boxing, come out and tell me you didn’t just have a fight. The Amateur Boxers at my gym are in the ring fighting every other weekend, thats what I class as a fighter. The Pros at the gym spend 6 days a week from 5AM to 6PM training for their next fight, which they are relying on to pay their bills – I class them as fighters. Guys who live and train in Thailand and can often fight twice in a night just to feed their families, again definitely fighters. I could go on and on but yes, for me, to be classed as a fighter you fight, you compete, you step into the arena and go up against another person to beat them.

Of course, I know lots of people in martial arts say that they fight all the time, but not in the ring, on the street. In my experience, the vast majority of those people are full of shit. They know that you can’t disprove them and you only have their word. Thats why I personally respect ring fighters – its there for all to see. There are no myths, no lies, no hocus pocus. Its honest and its true, thats why I class it as fighting.

Feel free to call it what you like. I see it as sports. I see it from the (Judo) player's perspective. Fighting is illegal. Sports are sanctioned. Brutal and violent as they may be.

Just never considered myself a "fighter"...

[Hot_Wings]

Fighter or Martial Artist?

The question that you asked is flawed because Martial Arts and fighting is the study of one and the same topic, Armed and/or Unarmed Combat.

So, in order to better understand the real nature of your question let me clarify some of your statements.

I was having a discussion with someone this past weekend who basically says that he doesn't really care to learn about the history and/or philosophy of martial arts.

Do you consider yourself a martial artist or a fighter?
Is there a difference or is it just semantics?

Functionally, on a basic level, there is no difference. But, from your other statements, you have noticed fundamental differences between people that you have classified as “Martial Artists” and “Fighters”. Getting more to the point, you have broadened your classifications of “Fighters” to also possibly include “Thugs”.

I believe that the real nature of your question is about motive and intent, not training. Combat techniques follow only two paths, offense and defense. The techniques of combat themselves are not what differentiates your classification of a Martial Artist from your classification of a Fighter or a Thug. The real difference is an individual’s actions, motivations, and intent.

Does one wish to defend, or attack? This is true in all matters of war and crime. For as Christ says in the Bible, “You will know them by their deeds”, stated another way, “It is what people do, that defines them.”

A fighter, in your classification, is only different from a martial artist in that he is choosing to perform offensive action against another for a specified reward in a controlled legal environment with specific rules of engagement. The key words here defining a martial artist from a fighter are offensive action. The words here that also define a Fighter from a Thug are “Legal and Rules of Engagement.”

A Kung Fu practitioner who attacks and violates people on the street is a Thug and not a Martial Artist or a Fighter. A Jujitsu practitioner who disregards the rules of engagement in a ring sport is also a Thug and not a Fighter or a Martial Artist. Mike Tyson would best describe this person.

As you can see, most people are, in fact, Thugs, not Fighters or Martial Artists. Morality, Decency, and Peace were automatically included by default into your classification of a Martial Artist. You did this without even realizing it. This is why you failed to grasp the true differences between your definitions.

You should now be able to classify yourself and your friend. Your friend is offensively minded and therefore is either a Fighter or a Thug at heart. Does he respect the rule of Law and fight according to established rules, or does your friend disregard the rule of law. If he disregards the rule of law, then your teacher should not continue to teach him martial arts, for he is only creating another Thug for the rest of us to deal with.

[Michael Wright]

Hmmm, thats all starting to sound a little judgemental for me. If we're talking about morals, decency and J.C. - time for me to step aside.

[bodhisattva]

Originally Posted by Mike Brewer

They also march in unison, learn facing movements, and learn drill and ceremony. What the hell could that possibly have to do with "real combat?" I mean, if a fighting force known for its no-nonsense killer instinct and effective ability to kill people and break things spend so much time on drill and ceremony - marching, facing, and weapons maneuvers that have little if anything to do with the way we move or fight on the real battlefields - there has to be a reason, right?

Hmmmm.

Could it be that all those patterns do something to instill teamwork, discipline, focus, attention to detail, precision in this awesome fighting force? Those things couldn't be useful.

Could they?

Yes. Very useful to the ultra-wealthy and ultra-powerful.

[bodhisattva]

Originally Posted by Tant01

You are entitled to YOUR OPINION but I see it like this>

Warriors (lets just say US Marines) shoot paper targets before they are sent into battle.

You see any value in shooting paper targets?

Kata is like a paper target... It can demonstrate the skill of the shooter.

It provides a level of confidence in the shooters ability to hit a target.

The shooter gets to familiarize him/her self with the weapon(s), calibrating for range and wind, reciol, reloading, follow up...

Kata is like that. And FUN!

I see loads of value in shooting paper targets. Even still paper targets that aren't moving.

I don't see how kata demonstrates anything but the ability to stand in too-wide stances, use techniques like "blocks" that really don't much belong in fights, throw punches from the hip, and block the groin with the lead forearm (**..vomiting violently at the mere thought of it..**)

The movement is absolutely unlike that used in fighting. The stances are exactly unlike those used in fighting. There is no head movment practiced. Etc. etc.

I don't see what kata have to do with fighting at all. I don't see what attribute they are training that couldn't be better trained elsewhere - if any are being trained at all

The problem is, Kata has no target.


But, remember, you said "Kata are FUN!!!"

And I have no problem with you doing them. I want people to do anything they find fun, so long as it doesn't violate the rights of another.

And Kata don't violate anyone.

But I'll always maintain that I can't see what they could possibly do for fighting as they are totally performed totally differently from fighting. Teh stances, footwork, punches, defenses, etc. are all different from what really seems to work when two people fight it out.

Shooting paper targets is very very much like the technique you will use while huntin or while in a fire fight. There are several elements removed, so that you can focus on other elements. But there is still a target, a gun, a challenge.

Kata has no target. Kata has no real challenge. And it doesn't resemble fighting at all?

[Tant01]

Originally Posted by bodhisattva

I see loads of value in shooting paper targets. ...I don't see how kata demonstrates anything ...

I don't see what kata have to do with fighting at all.

I don't see what attribute they are training ...

... I have no problem with you doing them. I want people to do anything they find fun, so long as it doesn't violate the rights of another.

And Kata don't violate anyone.

But I'll always maintain that I can't see what they could possibly do for fighting ...

Kata has no target. Kata has no real challenge. And it doesn't resemble fighting at all?

Are you blind Man?

Even someone without sight can learn from (Judo) Kata.

Here ya go> http://www.judoinfo.com/usaba.htm

Good morning Bodhi...

[DickHardman]

Originally Posted by Tant01

Are you blind Man?

Even someone without sight can learn from (Judo) Kata.

Here ya go> http://www.judoinfo.com/usaba.htm

Good morning Bodhi...

thanks for the link, i never actually thought about how much a martial art could help a blind person. judo/jiu jitsu would be great for those who suffer blindnes.

"While taking part in sports or competitions is a highly recommended pastime for everyone, such activities assume particular importance in the case of persons afflicted by physical or sensory handicaps.

Far and above the inherent objectives of all physical and sporting activities, it represents for them, a means of escape from a sometimes sedentary existence and from the isolation often imposed by a disability. For blind persons and those with low vision, Judo can be instrumental in (re)attaining independence of movement and in developing physical capacities which permit better adaptation to everyday life.

Judo can contribute to these objectives in three sectors: motor, psychological and social.

The motor sector

Blindness can cause certain motor problems such as difficulty in attitude integration and body-awareness (since sight is an important factor here); balance problems; problems with motor co-ordination; posture problems; and orientation difficulties.

Apart from the numerous motor and physical qualities which Judo helps to develop in people with normal health, it is perhaps, useful to mention the manner in which these are indispensable for blind people.

Falling: It is essential for a blind person to learn to fall in a suitable manner, since uncertainty of movement, due to blindness, often leads to painful falls. By learning secure positions, blind people can avoid accidents in everyday life.

Balance: This is a fundamental element of Judo and an indispensable factor for the blind. It helps to encourage the visually impaired person's integration in space.

Exercise: Just like sighted people, a blind child must learn to develop his or her physical capacities. He/she will then be able to know and control the body better. Improved control over the motor forces, such as strength, speed and agility, will provide a weapon to combat the consequences of blindness which can otherwise include a sedentary existence.

Kinesthetic sensations: It can be said without exaggeration that blindness does not constitute a serious problem for a Judoka. In practice, seeing persons do not look at their opponents during combat; they try to distribute their strength and adapt their behavior. A blind person is, therefore, not impaired in the discovery of these physical sensations or in their refinement. It is the perception of the strength and behavior of the opponent which induces the choice of the appropriate reaction. Sight does not play a preponderant part in this process.


The psychological sector

It is sometimes necessary to reduce the impact of a visual impairment in order to obtain:

Autonomy: Judo teaches blind people to take the initiative without risk. Blind people learn to manage without the special assistance of other people. This encourages self-assurance in everyday life allowing them to take calculated risks. Blind people quickly learn to find their bearing (space, time) in judo training and to move around with self-assurance.

Motivation: Judo is attractive because it permits blind people to measure themselves on an equal basis with seeing people. Blind athletes can participate officially in the competitions organized by the International Blind Sports Association and its member countries, as well as all tournaments for the sighted. They can attain the same ranks and titles as seeing people. All these factors contribute to self-assurance in their physical capacity, which forms a counter-balance for their visual impairment.


The social sector

The battle against isolation: A disability of any description often entails isolation and a sedentary existence. Membership in a sports organization provides the opportunity to get out of special schools, to meet other people and measure against them on an equal basis.

Respect for rules and for other people: Blind people are often suspicious of their environment and even avoid contact which could he a source of insecurity. This is why motivating, physical activity can reduce the obstacles, facilitate contact with other people and promote integration with the world of the seeing.

Sportsmanship: As with sighted students, blind individuals learn through their participation in sports all the values of good sportsmanship. Judo in particular has a character building component that stresses the development of a strong ethical code. "

[Earl Weiss]

The topic has been interesting in that it highlighted avery important concept. The concept is that before theree can be an intelligent debate, parties to the debate must agree on how terms are defined. This has revealed two deeper issues, that being the agreed definition of "Fighter" and "Martial Artist".

While there has been some attempt to agree on definitions it is a basic concept that you cannot use a term to define a term. Therefore you cannot say a "Martial Artist" is one involved in the "Martial Arts" because you then need to define What is a "Martial Art" While the dictionary definition of the seperate words hs been provided I submit that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, and the dictionary definition of the parts falls short of a proper job.

I had an article published addressing just this issue... "What is a martial Art".

[Earl Weiss]

See http://www.geocities.com/ustfregion5/What.html

Feel free to expand on any thoughts contained therein.

[Tant01]

Originally Posted by Earl Weiss

See http://www.geocities.com/ustfregion5/What.html

Feel free to expand on any thoughts contained therein.

Interesting and thanks for sharing!

I tend to agree that words often involve debate over meaning.

I would offer that we could substitute the word "Martial" with the word "Fight".

Fight sport, fight science, fight(ing) art, etc.

As the article only suggests there is an element of spirituality to the journey.

Martial implies some connection to the Roman god of war (and agriculture).

Using THAT word for Eastern fighting arts only clouds the issue that there is deep seated religious implications as well.

Whatever "master" we serve, eh?

Fudal lords, ancestors or pagan deities?