Recently, I was having a discussion with a cohort about what brings people joy or satisfaction. The subject started, because another cohort had purchased a new car, and it was not one, in our view, to be desirable. The subject of joy or satisfaction converged upon food, movies, clothing, just about anything. On a long commute from work, I would ruminate about the subject of joy or satisfaction, and the slogan which could be attached to it; “What Ever Floats Your Boat” I started to think about martial arts, per its many types and people whom study. I had long since realized that people study various arts for various reasons. And thus, the main reason is what brings them satisfaction. I would think; “Whatever Floats Their Boat” This subject of joy or satisfaction, in relation to the slogan, can also be thought of as a personal predilection. The slogan or metaphor, could be deciphered as; the “boat”, being the person or their predilection. And the “float”, being their choice, the support thereof, and stimulated satisfaction. In a sense, the latter being, the overall function or purpose. Using the word “boat”, as a actual object, and having an uncle in a boat building-manufacture business, I started to rationale, on his many designs, material, fabrication, etc., which are implied to the finished product. For example, a boat built for speed will have so many variable designs and build applications in comparison to one built for fishing or industrial uses. Although such application can be fused in order to make a versatile, multi-purpose one. This could almost be in analogy of cross training in martial arts. However, the limitation of a multi-purpose boat, or “one”, would not function as well as one per its singular purpose. In martial arts, the latter would only apply in a pre-determined competition and not a defensive application. Thus, in the analogy, that the boat, could be the martial art (style), hence a martial art could be a “vessel”. Nevertheless, before anything can be done, what should be addressed, at first hand, is to determine what would be the purpose of the boat, or its function. In another analogy, this is of making a decision or choice of which martial art someone may study (or boat one should be in need of). The conclusion of this personal predilection, metaphor, and slogan; “What Ever Floats Your Boat”, may have a protestation. If such analogy is to be applied to a joy or satisfaction one achieves via their choice(s), in which all of these should not be made in the deportment of immoral and/or illegal relevance. For example, if one desires high kicks and theatrics, likewise to a speed boat, and is looking to have the fastest boat they can possibly have, they will forgo the purpose (per better use) of having it to use in another manner. This is also in reciprocal to that of a fishing-industrial boat. Also, per a joy or satisfaction, if someone uses their boat in an illegal manner, such as poaching, or other criminal act, although joyful/satisfied they are, it is within a improper reason. Correspondingly, in extreme measure, what of someone had joy or satisfaction as a child molester, this is an unwarranted, illegal, and immoral suggestion to the metaphor/slogan. Therefore, “Whatever Floats The Boat”, has some stipulation. Upon writing and completing this composition, I had searched or found a few interesting and inspiring references; “Ambition without knowledge is like a boat on dry land”….. B.J. Penn: “Once understood the individual arts will cease to matter. It’s like a boat used to cross the river, once across it’s of no use.”…. Richard Bustillo “Other side of the river in martial arts”… Fariborz Azhakh:
I add a little more to the "whatever floats your boat", to get past the illegal and harmful stuff people may enjoy, and that is whatever floats your boat, that doesn't harm anyone else. There's nothing wrong with hurting yourself if that's what you wanna do but when you involve others then it becomes a bad thing to do (such as in smoking around nonsmokers, or robbing others to support a heroin addiction, or smearing someone else's name to get a promotion, etc) I didn't completely follow the whole post but it looks like a fair amount of thought and time went into it.
No. Not whatever floats your boat. I hesitate even to continue the metaphor, as you've become bizzarely focused on the analogy of a boat rather than the actual issues at hand. But the martial arts boat is not quite the honest little boat you imagine. Many, I would go so far as to say most of the training techniques being pushed do not do what they claim to. Also, some boats are unquestionably superior to others, regardless of their purpose. No sailor will disagree with this statement, and if you don't believe me, try taking a silhouette through a rough set of breakers, then try the same with a bargain-basement cornish yawl. Whether what you do is illegal and harms others is not the only limiting factor in your behaviour (and I take exception to the idea that obeying the law, in and of itself, is a good thing. The law is only noble and just in so far as it serves a noble and just purpose. If it does not, then disobeying it is the right thing to do.) You also need to consider whether what you are doing sucks.
I some what agree with knight errant here, not all MAs are equal in there comparitive goals. However, I don't think there is a true proving ground for that and well to be honest all MAs promise you things and don't deliever; even right down to lineage and tradition or "proven" effectiveness. Which kind of gives a focus to what Martialman is saying. Martials arts are a lot like churchs they promise you great things for good works but no wants to die to find if they deliever on their promises or not.
What crap. The proving ground for martial arts is sporting competition. And anyone who believes a word TMAs say about lineage, or even worse cares about it, should grow both up and a brain.
Now show a realistic sports competition..? There isn't one, when you talk about self-defense. Even the more extreme competitions like Vale Tudo and Art of War aren't the same as a defending yourself in real life... Also let me point out sporting competition ruined Karate & Judo; a) By limiting techniques & application... b) By claiming competition proves effectiveness and, c) By limiting training to focus winning competitions to attract more students...
No, they're better. Because they're usually fought between two trained, capable opponents, whereas streetfights are usually fought between two idiots who can't even go a round of hard sparring. This is a misrepresentation of karate & judo history. And competition DOES prove effectiveness.
Depends on your definition of a street fight. I don't consider social violence as a street fight & there certainly is a huge gap between the level of intent in social violence and criminal violence. More so, most cases of criminal violence deal specifically with formally and informally trained combatants who have a specific level intent higher the the level of intent of social violence. It proves effectiveness within context, a context limited to certain rules doesn't test all available or needed skillsets within another context. What about the karate techques such as throws, takedowns, groundfighting and stand up grappling that were barred from competition in later years & now are almost extinct within certain systems..? Sorry that just doesn't with me buts lets just say I agree to disagree with you there. Competition is pretty brawd terms for countries at war, the battle field is a competition of sorts. The problem is when you create rules to restrict the context of the competition; you impose limitations on methodology and training to meet that context (based on the limitations imposed) also limits the effective context in which the competition proves anything. While I think competition; in one form or another lets say sparring to more direct, is a requirement for training I don't assume it proves anything outside the context of event.
Your progress in the martial arts is dependent upon you realising that the above two statements are rubbish. People would have you believe that there's some magical attribute of the 'street fight' that make it different from a sporting competition. There isn't. The only difference is what happens to you if you lose. Other people would have you believe that the presence of rules in a sporting competition makes it somehow inferior to and magically different from any other form of competition. It does not. If you can't fight within the rules, you certainly can't fight without them. That wasn't due to sporting competition. That was due to its exact opposite- the kind of abstract, contextless theorising that has made wing chun such a cesspool and is threatening to drag karate in the same direction.
Well, in the idea, the boat is a focus, but I did mention that it shouldnt be upon a thing as to harm others or society. Of course if the boat is a martial art or martial artist, there are some well made boats as well as poorly made boats, the latter barely floating and/or sinking. :hat:
I'm not sure why you think using the metaphor of a boat is so important. I don't care about wether it harms others or society. I'm saying you need to consider whether your training sucks. Your personal satisfaction is not the only consideration. Martial arts must be rigorously pressure tested in competition or they are useless.
This /\ /\ OP, Your friend probably realizes his car isn't the best, but it does the job and it's his. Same goes for martial arts, some people are just looking for a good style at a good price, nothing fancy. Not everyone is looking to become a stuntman or grandmaster. You might study at the best, fanciest, most expensive MA school in town, but that doesn't mean you should belittle your friend for taking $20 lessons at the YMCA. However, if your friends car was a lemon, then there would be cause for concern.
I will disagree there and offer this as an example; The IRA under the command of Michael Collins stopped fighting by the "rules" of civilized warfare & started fighting like guerrillas. The IRA defeated the British without said "rules of civilized warfare." What you keep nit picking around is that I never said anything about magic attribute, I said is it within context. See the context of criminal violence and the context of social violence are two massively different things; the level of intent is lower. Now I do agree with you to regard, a person skilled in say wrestling is going to be a good wrestler even you apply striking to the context with wrestling, that true. However, when rules get thrown out the window it opens the door for allot more elements such as force multipliers. You can be just as good technique wise without rules as you with them, but the real world isn't about technques alone. Proof..? Any at all, please... Because its been noted by the first students of shotokan that when Japan recognized it as a sport they wanted it to focus on striking and not be another competition similar to judo. Hell look at GJJ, their is more focus on striking in GJJ then in some of the other BJJ styles why because they cater to competition rules specifically
It's difficult to negotiate proof when you seem to think that one people from one style consistently besting people from other styles in open competition proves nothing about said styles' effectiveness. To prove this to you, I would first need to educate you to a level where you would. That's exactly the problem- you think different contexts radically alter the physical facts of confrontation. They do not. If you equate technique with what most of the TMA world does, 'technique' is worse than useless. So you're absolutely correct. Now tell me, who do you think is more likely to possess aggression, tactical capacities, improvisational ability and courage: somebody who trains in an honest, sporting martial art, some tosspot who bleats about his 'art' being 'too deadly to spar'?, or a strutting moron who thinks he's tough but trains entirely in compliant drills?
No thats a cop out, you can't answer the question because the answer proves my point. Karate tournament rules don't allow grappling, so grappling is rarely taught by tournament based schools of karate. GJJ has more striking then some other BJJ schools, why cause those BJJ schools focus on winning what? BJJ tournaments. When you limit your focus you limit applications. There you go trying to limit the scope of the arguement, I said competition sports they have rules that limit what you can do. I'm not saying the too deadly to spar crap holds water, in fact I've already stated it doesn't. You're trying to fabricate my arguement into something its not. Competitive MA is a) nothing new and b) doesn't hold the "patient on sparring" most MA spar even those that don't formally compete. Your doing nothing but making a strawman arguement, you're ability to will a competition does reflect on skill but not on your ability to deal with real world situations.
No. Boxing does not have grappling either, and I invite you to go up to any boxer you know and tell him his competitions are ruining his martial art. The results should be interesting. Now why should competition ruin karate? Answer, it doesn't. Crappy rules drawn up by ivory-tower theorists have done that. No I am not. I am addressing the crux of your argument against sporting competition- viz. that it rests on the fallacy that competition does not improve your ability to deal with real world situations, and that you are separating real world situations and sporting competitions where there is no real basis for making this distinction.
Unfortunately when those "ivory-tower theorist" as you put it are deciding the rules for the competition and the people selling their art based on those competitions formatted by "ivory-tower theorist" it only progresses the problem. Like I said back in post #8 I boxer might be unbeatable at boxing but throw him in an MMA event he get choked out. The same is true of the many TMA fighters in the earily UFC events they trained to meet a specific sport standard and found they couldn't meet another sports standards its a bit like asking pro-baseball player to play quarter back for a football team. The rules of either sport is specifically different. Your use of brawd terms to avoid specifics & makestrawman arguements only proves my point, you're projecting abserd extremes to make a baseless arguement. As far as boxing goes, boxing is a specific sport where if it was taught as a self-defense form would extremely limited. The striking skill of a boxer may be enough to deal with situations as they arrise in certain conext but nothing in the sport of boxing prepares a boxer for being choked out, just as nothing in the sport of greco-roman wrestling prepares a wrestler for being punched in the face.
Only if the ivory-tower theorists keep their students away from open competitions. You are not only misspelling 'broad', you are also deliberately misrepresenting my argument and trying to distract me by inventing non-existent flaws in my reasoning. You are also committing fallacies yourself: claiming, on the one hand, that sporting competition proves nothing outside of the particular event, and on the other that open competition in a generalised environment with minimal restrictions such as MMA proves nothing. What, in your mind, would prove the effectiveness of a martial art? Remember here, as I anticipate you evading this question, that we are talking about specifically martial arts, not courses in how to avoid violence. We are discussing systems of training that deal with conflict once the worst has already happened are you in a fight. Would you rather trust something that is based on hearsay and macho nonsense about 'real street fights', or something that has been proved to consistently give athletes a high level of preparedness in a combat sport? Because that is the choice you are faced with. The ONLY proving ground for martial arts that means anything is sporting competition. And the ultimate form which this takes is the UFC. Anybody telling you anything else is deceiving both you and himself. Furthermore, it is a very useful proving ground and tells you everything you need to know about a martial art's combat efficiency. You have either deceived yourself or have been deceived into believing that TMA fighters met with disaster in early UFC events because they weren't used to the format. This is not the case.
Now on this we agree however, there were always plenty of open competitions but I never saw a boxer leave boxing to compete in wrestling, even though there have been open competitions which would allow them to do so. Why because boxing trains to the rules of boxing... When someone lets say the guys at the JKA set rules of karate tournaments all member schools have to abide by those rules. The Gracies altered the rules of judo and mixed them with wrestling rules to form the art & sport of BJJ but BJJ isn't winning any karate tournaments, why? Because they are different sports... Spelling doesn't take away from the fact you're using broad terms to keep your arguement mutable, again your making a broad scope here. What sports competition are we talking about? If it sport karate then it proves nothing out side of winning in sport karate torunaments. Are we talking about greco-roman wrestling were as it does nothing to prepare me for say a karate tournament? Are we talking about boxing or kendo..? Competition is a very broad term; so from here on out lets just say MMA since MMA is the broadest combat sport out there. Now MMA proves I can execute techniques and I don't fault that logic but it doesn't mean I can apply them under "combat conditions," because combat conditions is likewise a broad term & removed from the realities one can face in the real world. I don't fault the arguement that MMA proves technique but it doesn't prove anything about a vast area of over skillsets needed in the real world. No sport proves its effectiveness for combat and the only proof you can get is real world experience; which is when I attend tactic marksmanship schools I look for those with instructors with combat experience; the military has this thing called a DD214 & real "street fighters" has criminal records. Thats the joke, its like saying paintball prepares you for Iraq; because the "sport is the only safe proving ground." Oh and by the way what does anyone in the UFC know about combat effeciency; combat is when you you intend to kill the other guy and he's intending to kill you. No sport can prove that or ever will because no sport will ever simulate life & death situations effectively enough to count for combat & if there was one it would have the The Art of War FC where they have allot less rules then the MMA events. For that matter, no sport is like actual combat and it only covers a small amount of the things included in the difference. Because you win an MMA event it doesn't prove any effectiveness with dealing with someone with a knife. Why because the context of knife assaults runs outside the limited contextual scope of an MMA event. But as pointed out above, Art of War competitions are more realistic then unified rules MMA. So if competition proves effectiveness then it has to specific competition and since unified rules MMA (what we have here in the states) is so limited it must be Art of War FC thats the proving ground because its the most realistic, even though it isn't real combat. You seem to miss the one fact I'm trying to convey and so I'll say it very simplisticly for you; competition is a good tool for training but it doesn't prove anything about effectiveness. Sports are specific events which have rules and regulations & within those rules and regulations are characteristics of the sport, being good at said sport only proves how good you are at that sport.
No it isn't. That's what I'm trying to hammer into your thick head. It's like saying boxing prepares you for punching somebody without gloves, which it does. Wrong. In that case, why do you think sport came about in the first place? So that people could appear on television commercials? No. Sports were invented to prepare for real life. The 100m sprint, boxing and the javelin are all events originally designed to prepare for very real situations. Rubbish. Macho, chest-beating, unrealistic rubbish.
