In my opinion, a true martial artist is someone who studies a fighting art, continues to learn continues to adapt understand their weaknesses and limitations, their strengths, know's how to fight when the situation calls for it. Continues to strive to better themselves with more knowledge in a pursuit of becoming the best they can possibly be.
Martial arts were not invented at the shoulin temple, or any other one place in particular they evolved around the world as people came into conflict with one anouther. I'm not up on my chinese history (although it is on my to-do list) but I'm relitivly sure if monks were learning t fight it was in order to beat the stuffing out of anyone who attempted to mess with their temple. (in a enlightened and reflective manner of coarse) Other way around really they started violent and over time the focus shifted to be more focused on personal development as most people no longer have much need for hand to hand combat as a means of solving problems. Well, good luck with that.
Throwing punches and kicks doesn't make you a martial artist. Combat may have existed longer than martial arts, but that's just what it was combat. Martial arts are form, technique, and philosophy. Martial arts without these are just violence. When Bodhidharma arrived at the Shoalin Temple he saw that the monks there were in weak physical shape so he meditated for 9 year to find an answer to the problem. After nine years he wrote two books. This then combined with with the movements of animals became kung fu. Over time the systems changed in grew as thieves and other criminals on the run hid at the temple and trained and adapted new styles of martial arts. Many of the new styles were more powerful than the others. Some styles were more deadly than others now because they were adapted and changed by the thieves and criminals who hid at the temple.
Judging from this and other posts I would say that you appear to have fallen victim to the popular illusion of what martial arts are. And as has been stated previously martial arts did not start with Shaolin and indeed do not share one singular genesis point asian or otherwise.
We can look at MA from this angle. If we want to get into - "philosophy", we can learn western civilization and eastern culture. - "art", we can learn ballet and ballroom dancing. - "health", we can run and swim. - "spiritual development", we can go to church or buddism temple. The MA will add no additional value in those areas. So what make MA unique that none of those activities can provide?
I'm going to give you a piece of advice. And it's going to sound condescending. For that, I apologize in advance. But that's just the way it goes sometimes: If you're going to communicate with martial artists with years and years of experience, you can be fairly well assured that they've heard the same stories you have. And that, if they're saying something different, it's likely because they have enough experience and insight to look past this sort of sensationalized, back-cover summary. It's rarely going to be because they simply haven't heard them before. The Bodhidharma origin story is great stuff. Very dramatic. But it doesn't hold up to any sort of serious critical thinking. The organized transmission of fighting skills is obviously much older than that. And philosophies aren't the product of martial arts. They're siblings. Martial arts and philosophies both develop in a cultural context so that the two become associated. One informs the other, certainly. But it's wrong to suggest that one is a feature of the other. There's a basic truth that groups of people compete for resources. Land, gold, water, whatever. And to be competitive, they need to know how to wage war. But psychologically, they also need to know how to process the experience of killing, dying, suffering, acting, succeeding, failing, etc. Philosophies and religions offer a framework for doing that, so it makes sense that the 1) means to fight and the 2) means to process the consequences of fighting would become joined. But be careful not to oversimplify that relationship. Stuart
There is more proof to this 'popular illusion' than to your theory. When was martial arts ever suppose to encompass more than those activities? The only difference is that it brings all of the concepts into one form. But if you want to go farther into it. What is art?
lol... seriously. You don't sound like you follow history very much. You have wholeheartedly adopted the peach fuzz version of history. Martial arts were in existence long before the Shaolin temple. I'm guessing history isn't your strong point. There were plenty of wars, millions of fights/battles/skirmishes and all the other mayhem... long before a bunch of unruly monks got a hold of whatever it is Bodhidharma may have showed them. Seriously... I wouldn't pull your leg... you can go look it up... it's all in the history books for you. But only you can decide to educate yourself. But to be honest.... all this silly psuedo spiritual tripe and wholistic flim flam will only hold you back. Lay off the anime... lay off the naruto and put down the manga... and educate yourself. Coming in here and trotting out there old chesnuts is just begging to be flame roasted.
by 'popular illusion' I'm refering to statements like the one below. answer... always. Martial arts are about fighting. The process of fighting and of training for fighting can act as a catalyst for other things but the core focus is effective violence - not the grandiose fantasies perpetuated by delusional sinophiles. I'd love to see proof of the Shaolin temple as being the source for all martial arts by the way.
Fighting or martial arts? Fighting is just throwing random punches and kick in order to hurt my opponent. Martial arts is combining form and technique to take down an opponent throwing rocks and spears at people doesn't make you a martial artist. I am saying Martial arts as we know it today started at the Shoalin temple. Brawling is just that brawling. You dont need to be a martial artist to throw punches and kicks or even to wrestle your opponent to the ground(which most people, most people I know anyway, do not consider wrestling a martial art).
Not all Martial Arts originated at Shoalin temples and you don't even need to know any history to understand that. We have martial arts that originated throughout the world. From Asia: Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Philippines, Japan, India, etc. To Western Martial Arts: Fencing, Wrestling, etc. Yes, a brawler doesn't have the fine points of a "martial artist" but that doesn't mean he's not effective in a fight. Who told you wrestling isn't a martial art? I LOLed so hard at such an absurd statement.
Would one of you who are telling me that I am wrong please point me in the direction in which I could learn the truth. Telling me I am wrong is one thing, but telling me I am wrong because it is this way, without showing me the proof is just as wrong. As for wrestling, I was just stating how most people I know, and lots of people in the world do not consider it a martial arts. I don't like it personally, but I don't really like boxing and I consider it a martial art. Also, the Asian martial arts from what I've read and have been told, all have their root in kung fu.
its probably worth doing your own research as you never know what else you might find out. just hitting google and typing in greek martial arts bought up this as the first hit... http://www.fightingarts.com/reading/article.php?id=164 not read it myself but at a glance it seems like a place to start.
Ok then post it up prove us wrong and I shall heartily congratulate you on your knowledge of MA history. That is a very complicated debate that has little to nothing to do with this one, but if you want to start digging into it I recommend "Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art, The Analytic Tradition" Edited by Peter Lamarque and Haugom Olsen as well as "Art Emotion and Ethics" by Berys Gaut.
A true Martial Artsist is someone who spends his life exploring all that their is out there in the martial world, not someone who spends their time exploring martial arts info on the computer..... AH
Here is one place to get some history about CMA. Please notice that the "Shaolin Temple" played no part of this history. http://www.combatshuaichiao.com/history.html
Thanks. I had no idea about European MA other Fencing and Wrestling. For what ever reason a lot of people I have talked to do not consider wrestling as a MA. And to spidersfrommars: "http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/history_of_the_martial_arts/98612" But their was something I WAS WRONG about. I've been saying the history of martial arts period started at the Shoalin Temple. Which is WRONG. The history of Eastern/Asian MA started at the Shoalin Temple. It these were the arts that were meant to assist monks in gaining enlightenment. The whole time I've been ignoring European MA. So I will say it again, I was wrong.
I do, but I personally do not like them. Not to say they aren't very effective or anything, but I just prefer staying on my feet in a fight. I did do BJJ for a couple of months those, I was told I had a lot of potential once I got the technique down, but It just wasn't for me. My best friend took me to see a TKD school not far from where we live, at the time I hated TKD I wasn't much of a kicking person. But being there and seeing the master teach his students ans seeing how much punching they were going, I feel in love. And now I'm a TKD student. And to YouKnowWho, that list is wrong because Shaolin Kung Fu predates the Yuan Dynasty in which the mongols were apart of.
