Question: Why do you practice WMA (or any other)?

[Josh Simon]

In my experience, a lot of discussion about martial arts (both east and west) and between practicioners of different martial arts often gets muddled because the people discussing it have entirely different goals and "reasons for being". So many flame wars and misunderstandings about training arise from this, and can most often be avoided or settled by having each party first declare where it is coming from in the first place.

So why do you practice martial arts? (Eastern, Western, Both, or Other)

I have seen several major categories of reasons which you might or might not identify with some of them:

1) Fitness - "Pop on the tai bo videos and get your cardio up"

2) Competition/Sport - "Be the best you can be at kicking butt!!"

3) Tradition - "Preserve and pass down a tradition of our ancestors" (Or, in the case of ARMA, re-create one from old records.)

4) Character Development - "Somehow make yourself a better person by partaking of an art."

5) Others??

Personally, I'm here for fitness, tradition, and development. I LOVE to hit things, but generally not for points or trophies. I simply like to beat someone or get my head handed to me and then do it again 30 seconds later, for no apparent reason other than possible stress relief.

Organizations tend to take on the character of one of these aspects. McDojos tend to favor sport/competition, in my experience. ARMA favors tradition, in my opinion, yet nothing is ever black and white. There is a little bit of all of these in every organization too.

Thoughts?

[Jonathan Newhall]

I love it for the physicality (engineers don't get a lot of exercise), the history/tradition (it's from a period I love and a time and place not many people put much thought to, especially this subject!), competition of course plays a part (hey, being able to kick ass with a sword is cool to most anyone, right?), and I could use a bit more discipline, too.

So, really, all of those reasons, and perhaps even a few more I can't remember. It's a lesson in history, fitness, and competition combined with a great tradition and lineage behind it.

[Steven Ott]

I started wrestling in high school and that opened my love of combat arts. I was a big fan of Kung-fu theater and the ninja movies of the '80's. Than I saw the movie excalibur. Most of my friend were under the impression that ninjas and eastern arts were superior to the knights of old or boxers, wrestlers or whatever. It seemed that western society readily accepted the mythology of the east and abandoned it own martial heritage. So I have always had a desire to understand my own ancestors and defend their honer. And part of any culture is its martial heritage. I still love kung-fu and ninja movies and respect the eastern arts as well.
So I guess I really can't say why I love martial studies but the adreniline rush is pretty nice.

[Andrew Weems]

Certainly these elements are important secondary effects and motivations attached to the study of martial arts, but it seems that the primary goal and outcome of one's efforts should be defense. The relative likelihood of experiencing potentially lethal personal combat across regions and centuries does nothing to change the results of said combat, nor does it negate the reality of that combat. The presence of violence in our world begs consideration and warrants preparation. Ignoring the Art's applications is essentially ignoring the Art itself.

Master Vadi said it best: "...troubles are found without looking for them, happy is he who can put out another’s fire."

Andrew Weems
ARMA Austin

[Andrew Weems]

Man, that's a good quote... I think this calls for a new signature.

[Josh Simon]

Certainly these elements are important secondary effects and motivations attached to the study of martial arts, but it seems that the primary goal and outcome of one's efforts should be defense. The relative likelihood of experiencing potentially lethal personal combat across regions and centuries does nothing to change the results of said combat, nor does it negate the reality of that combat. The presence of violence in our world begs consideration and warrants preparation. Ignoring the Art's applications is essentially ignoring the Art itself.

Master Vadi said it best: "...troubles are found without looking for them, happy is he who can put out another’s fire."

Andrew Weems
ARMA Austin

Of course! How could I not have listed Defense? Duh. That's embarrasing.

I don't necessarily believe personally that doing a martial art should always or only be for defense, however. The other reasons I listed for doing it are all valid, IMHO. Different people get into this for different things.

Granted, I think defense is a good thing, quite useful, and I would add that to the list of my own reasons too. However, an 85 year old granny doing tai chi would not list that as a reason, as opposed to a study that talks about lower incidence in falls for elderly nursing home patients that take tai chi. (Something like 16% of all people that break their hip die within one year, and hip fractures usually come from falls, so reducing falls is important for saving lives too.)

Anyway, I digress...

[Jonathan Newhall]

Well, if it wasn't clear, my reasoning did include martial application, it's just that I don't expect to actually end up using it in its original application (legitimate defense of myself or others). If that has to happen, that's ok, because that's what studying historically is good for: it teaches you how it was really done, and how it was really done worked perfectly fine.

[Steven Ott]

Defense is good, but who carries a sword these days? I have always held the belief the best self defense art is track-and-field. I also have found you take more punishment learning to fight than the average citizen who keeps to himself. So if your objective is not to get beat up, training in combat is probably a bad idea
I think defense is at the heart of martial arts. Violence, anger and brute force take no skill. I believe the martial arts were developed to allow the thinking man the tools to defeat those things.

[Jonathan Newhall]

Aye, but Ott you must consider that perfect technique only goes so far towards countering somebody who is simply stronger than you are and really angry, stupid, or desperate. All things in moderation there.

[Josh Simon]

Aye, but Ott you must consider that perfect technique only goes so far towards countering somebody who is simply stronger than you are and really angry, stupid, or desperate. All things in moderation there.

True. I hear that. Some of the worst pummelings I have ever received were from noobies full of piss and vinegar without any basis in skill.

[Steven Ott]

True True
I do submission and sometimes you can hold the angry noobs down until they tire from all the energy they are putting into the fight. But every now and than you run into one that has some gas in the tank

[Tom Reynolds]

Steven Ott Wrote:

True True
I do submission and sometimes you can hold the angry noobs down until they tire from all the energy they are putting into the fight. But every now and than you run into one that has some gas in the tank


Tom Reynolds Wrote:

The key idea here being that even an "angry noob" can still beat the most experienced fighter under the right circumstances. Nobody is invincible. This always reminds me of what I have been told many times by rock climbers and motorcycle riders. Namely, that sooner or later ALL rock climbers fall, and ALL riders drop their bikes. No exceptions.

But if a "noob" has no skill, then why is the "peasant strike," or the "strike of wrath," considered one of the "meisterhau?" In other words, why is one of the things "noobs" are most characteristically expected to instinctively do considered one of the most basic skills?

Asking why we study martial arts seems to me very similar to asking what skills we hope to acquire from that study. So what are those skills? are the skills of a martial artist qualitatively different from those of a "noob," or are they the same skills applied or understood differently? Is a martial arts student defined by WHAT they do, or by HOW they do it?

Thoughts?

[RayMcCullough]

If you are not learning and practicing self defense, can it be a Real Martial Art? Even if you study and practice because "it is fun", would that not be unaviodable in a real Martial Art?

Does the way you train determine whether or not you train in a Martial Art or a Martial sport, or a fitness routine, or role play, or etc....?

Can you learn a Martial Art/self defense without practicing it? example: free-play/sparring

Is the Art a "collection of techniques", or the "application of the techniques useing the concepts, fundamentals, and principles of self defense"?


I study and practice RMA because I enjoy it, I like history, and I REALLY like the self defense that I believe is an unaviodable part of a Real Martial Art. I personally would not train in a "Martial Art" that does not practice like a Real Martial Art. That to me seems silly and pointless. That is like saying "I'm a swimmer and I am ready for the ocean when it comes because I have been doing it the way they use to do it back in the old days" but never having been in the pool or for some never even getting wet.

Ray

[Jonathan Newhall]

Steven Ott Wrote:

True True
I do submission and sometimes you can hold the angry noobs down until they tire from all the energy they are putting into the fight. But every now and than you run into one that has some gas in the tank


Tom Reynolds Wrote:

The key idea here being that even an "angry noob" can still beat the most experienced fighter under the right circumstances. Nobody is invincible. This always reminds me of what I have been told many times by rock climbers and motorcycle riders. Namely, that sooner or later ALL rock climbers fall, and ALL riders drop their bikes. No exceptions.

Very true. It's possible to just make a mistake, or the opponent could just get lucky when you take a strike, and it could be a double kill or he could even just come out on top by coincidence. Nobody is perfect.

But if a "noob" has no skill, then why is the "peasant strike," or the "strike of wrath," considered one of the "meisterhau?" In other words, why is one of the things "noobs" are most characteristically expected to instinctively do considered one of the most basic skills?

Well, I think it is a coincidence that biomechanically that strike is already nearly perfect. From the Zornhau-Ort, of course, you can improve the standard Zornhau cut into any number of different techniques and therein lies the mastery (or so I've heard).

Asking why we study martial arts seems to me very similar to asking what skills we hope to acquire from that study. So what are those skills? are the skills of a martial artist qualitatively different from those of a "noob," or are they the same skills applied or understood differently? Is a martial arts student defined by WHAT they do, or by HOW they do it?

Thoughts?

I think that the real difference between a trained martial artist and a "noob" to the craft is that the trained individual has a wider knowledge and experience, as well as more practice. The random guy could flail his way through on total luck, but the training teaches what is possible in every situation, and in addition what SHOULD be done in every situation, practiced to the point that the best move IS always done. That would be mastery of a martial art like this, at least to me, so I think it's very much about exploring possibilities, then mastering the possibilities.

As they say: "To the beginner there are many possibilities, to the master there are few." Practice and knowledge whittle down those possibilities into the few that are the best.

[Tom Reynolds]

Jonathan Newhall Wrote:

Well, I think it is a coincidence that biomechanically that strike is already nearly perfect. From the Zornhau-Ort, of course, you can improve the standard Zornhau cut into any number of different techniques and therein lies the mastery (or so I've heard).

Tom Reynolds Wrote:

Coincidence, perhaps, or perhaps intentional. Using the zorn as an example, I think it may be no coincidence that the source systems are structured so as to begin with a movement that is biomechanically natural, and effective, and build from there.

Jonathan Newhall Wrote:

I think that the real difference between a trained martial artist and a "noob" to the craft is that the trained individual has a wider knowledge and experience, as well as more practice. The random guy could flail his way through on total luck, but the training teaches what is possible in every situation, and in addition what SHOULD be done in every situation, practiced to the point that the best move IS always done. That would be mastery of a martial art like this, at least to me, so I think it's very much about exploring possibilities, then mastering the possibilities.

As they say: "To the beginner there are many possibilities, to the master there are few." Practice and knowledge whittle down those possibilities into the few that are the best.

Tom Reynolds Wrote:

Agreed, and well spoken. I agree that an experienced student will know more than a "noob", but I disagree with what was suggested earlier in this thread, that this means the "noob" will know nothing at all. That ALL a "noob" has is intensity.

We all were "noobs" once, some more recently than others, and so we all started from the same place. We had to find something familiar, that we understood, and "build outward" from there. It's like learning a foreign language, where the first thing you do is find a word you recognize, any word, and start expand your vocabulary by using it in sentences with other words you do not recognize.

In other words, this bears emphasis because it gives "noobs" a place to start. To suggest that beginners have nothing in common with more experienced students is to endanger that starting place.

By way of one more analogy, I have read about an ongoing debate in the philosophy of science over the nature of scientific reasoning. Is it simply refined, extended, systematically organized common sense, or is it something qualitatively different? This is a major problem because if it is the former, then theoretically anyone who wants to and is willing to put in the effort can learn it. But if it is the latter, then it may take some sort of special genius or talent, like a Mozart or an Einstein, that not all of us possess.

Martial arts are not for everybody, and this one is no exception. But people should have the opportunity to find that out for themselves, and not be scared away a priori.