FWIW I did not give a definition. What I said was: Originally Posted by Earl Weiss View Post "Arguably" is the proper qualifier since you would first have to agree on what is or what is not a "Martial Art" . "
when I refer to Judo I am referring to Kano's Kodokan Judo. There are many references to this but Kano said: "The purpose of judo training is for sport, mental discipline, competition and self defense. Therefor my point about it being more of a martial sport. It's where the founder placed the emphasis and why various Ju Jitsu techniques are illegal in competition Judo. If you quarrel with the term Martial Sport, your quarrel is not with me.
Well, that is certainly one definiton you have as much right to a definitions as anyone. Now you would need to define "Physical Combat" does thumb wrestling count?
You sound like you are so focused on one part of your quote that you aren't even paying attention to the whole of it. (The part I bolded.)
Why can't a martial art also be a sport for testing capabilities? To limit it to self defense only takes us down the path of too deadly to spar and only for the streetz
IMO A martial art can certainly have a sport / competition aspect to it. The above discussion has gotten somewhat off track apparently by some taking offense when I called some disciplines that have competition as their primary focus "More of" (Note the qualifier and lack of speaking in absolutes) a Martial Sport. My point at post 14 is born out and Hannibal used the qualifier "Arguably for Fencing: >>>Originally Posted by Hannibal View Post One of four at the moment - arguably five if you include fencing EW "Arguably" is the proper qualifier since you would first have to agree on what is or what is not a "Martial Art" . <<< Now and what point along the continuum does the amount of focus change the discipline from a sport, exercise, science to a " Martial Art" ? The lines of distinction are not clear and there is no consensus definition. "Opinions Vary" - Dalton
Originally Posted by Earl Weiss View Post Therefor my point about it being more of a martial sport. It's where the founder placed the emphasis and why various Ju Jitsu techniques are illegal in competition Judo. If you quarrel with the term Martial Sport, your quarrel is not with me. You are viewing my post in terms of absolutes. Note the qualifier's "More Of" and "Emphasis"
I will let you in on a better secret: Everything matters. This is particularly true in a Buyer beware environment when mmany buyers aren't sophisticated enough to judge the relative quality of the product or service. Consumers are impressed by people dancing in their pajama and sign up. They are impressed when the kids get BBs and break BS boards. Often MA consumers fall into one of 2 categories; 1. Those who rarely venture outside their own MA universe and in some cases have instructors who forbid it, and rarely ask questions about what they are learning; and 2. Those who seek input from various sources attending seminars, classes and perhaps even competitions outside the universe of the main school. It is far diffwerent to have 20 years of experience vs. the same experience repeated for 20 years.
No it really doesn't. It only matters is what is being sold is different than what is being delivered Fun Fitness Friends Fighting Tradition LARPING Nice Outfits and a Samurai Fetish Naruto Competition Something to put on the resume There are as many reasons to do a martial art as there are martial arts. My reasons are pretty simple, and my taught classes reflect my reasons. If someone wants something I cannot offer I refer them elsewhere If someone is teaching a traditional system and claiming it is self defense are they stretching things? Yes - they most certainly are not. Bits of them have utility, but so does every single system out there...yet few are willing to be upfront about that and hide "self-defense" amongst a laundry list of other magical benefits that are entirely arbitrary "Do you enjoy what you do?" is the foremost question...everything else is secondary
I get confused with the whole "self-defence" sell. Firstly I wouldn't join any art for self-defence purposes as i believe everyone has an in-built defence mechanism anyway be it fight or flight. I think a better term is self-preservation to be honest. Anyway here comes my confusion. With my limited skill set I am quite able to defend myself against an aggressor using my, hands, legs, head, teeth and whatever else will get me an advantage. So in that respect aren't all arts teaching a form of self-defence? I am taught to use my legs and hands in a more co-ordinated fashion than simply flailing them about. I am open to the fact that I may be missing something. I love my TKD but in my dojang self-defence has never really been mentioned. We are pretty much told "talk your way out of it if you can" if you can't then side piercing kick lol - that most definitely will work. Reason I study TKD Fitness Flashy Kicks Fun Reasons I don’t do TKD Self Defence Baza
Earl, you wrote about people missing the points of your posts and you seem to have missed mine! "It doesn't matter" referred to (as Hannibal saw and pointed out) reasons for selecting a club/gym/do-jang based on its content - not quality assurance of the content being delivered. Does the quality of content matter? Of course it does. Does it matter if that content is called "taekwondo" but resembles nothing like what General Choi created? Of course not. Different content does not equal bad content. Let's face it Earl, most of the political crap that pollutes this martial art is because of self-appointed quality assurance auditors badmouthing other instructors because they don't like what they see. More often than not it boils down to "traditional" instructors being unhappy with having fewer students than "sport" instructors, despite the former sticking rigidly to Choi's teachings. That rigidity, that unwavering adherence to tradition, blinds them to the fact that Choi's material might possibly be flawed or just not what the student is looking for. I have lost count the number of times I heard instructors saying, "We only do 'real' taekwondo here," which is delivered with a heavy dose of like-it-or-leave-it sentimentality. Of course, it's absolutely the instructor's right to teach what he or she wants. But the instructor better not complain when the student (and many more after them) chooses the rival "sport" do-jang across the road. You see, it's the student - not the instructor - who chooses how they see the world. They choose what they want to eat, how they want to travel, who they want to hang out with. They're going to do what is most convenient for their goals - and if their goal is to spar all day long without throwing a single punch, and still call it taekwondo, then that is what they are going to do. Now, they might very well be "dancing in pyjamas" (aren't you the one who advocates patterns?) or child black belts breaking soft wooden boards, and you might really not like it or agree with the fact they call what they do "taekwondo." But here's the most important part. It doesn't matter. I'm going to paraphrase Stephen Fry here, but it's common to hear people these days say "That isn't real [insert martial art here]", as if that gives them the right to judge other people. It's just an opinion, a phrase that has no reason to be respected as authority.
