| “ | If someone wants to learn forms and old weapons that aren't really practical these days and culture, language, whatnot and is openly and unapologetically not really interested in sparring, fighting, competition, 'applications' and whatnot (all of which is perfectly legitimate), is it still a martial art? | ” |
|
No.
| “ | yes even a text that applies martial concepts is still a martial art | ” |
|
How does a text actually apply something of martial status? Maybe we are talking about throwing a book at someone...? Even then it would be a person applying the text martially, not the text itself actually applying anything. Texts are simply texts... they present ideas and/or concepts and are then interpreted by people who apply those ideas and/or concepts.
| “ | There is another side of this coin, someone who has developed but now has an interest in passing that to others. Thier goal may be in the outcome of others and that can be wide or narrow either way still ligit. | ” |
|
Absolutely.
| “ | I would say it depends on what the individual expects out of their training. If training with weapons that aren't useful today is their thing.... then that's cool. Like stated before, as long as they see it they 'see' it for what it's worth, and not twist their image. Would it be martial still.... yes. | ” |
|
I tend to disagree. "Martial" can only be demonstrated through application. One can have all the intent they want but if they aren't applying the intent "martially" then it is simply theoretical philosophical musings.
Again, to use the analogy I used in the previous thread...
If a guy lies on his kitchen table and performs the breast stroke, the butterfly stroke, the side stroke, etc... but never gets in the water, is it
aquatic? No, because there is no water involved.
Of course, the attributes he is gaining from this can be applied attributably, and to a lesser degree, technically when and IF he ever decides to get in the water. But until he gets in the water it isn't aquatic at all.
Basically, his friends don't all gather around and watch him flailing about on his kitchen table and proclaim, "WOW! He is a great swimmer with great aquatic skills". The same is true with people gathering around a forms tournament and watching people dance and proclaiming, "WOW!! He is a great fighter with great martial skills". Well...... I know that does happen but that is the great misconception that is the point of the thread.
Only in the field of martial arts do people do something entirely removed form the end goal and are declared competent in the end goal.
| “ | So, is it defined by intention or by potential? | ” |
|
Neither. It is defined by application.
Any number of things can be used
potentially within a martial context. Many things can also be done with repetition with the
intention of being able to use them within a martial context... If you aren't taking that intent and potential to the level of application then it falls short.
| “ | Well, if someone is taking batting practice, is that a martial art? | ” |
|
No. Could the attributable and technical skills learned in batting practice be applied martially? Of course.
On that same note, playing video games develops great hand/eye coordination and that can be beneficial in a martial context. Almost everything we do has potential to be
martial. Therefore if we define it by potential and intent then life itself is a martial art.
| “ | I wouldn't call it a martial art, but there would be potential from the movements used in batting practice to transfer over to a martial art. | ” |
|
Exactly.
| “ | Ok, but what if the guy was taking swings in the yard thinking about how he could crush someone's skull with the bat? Now you have intention. | ” |
|
So now we have the swinging of a bat that contains potential and intent.
Of course it could even be applied.
So where do we draw the line?
Someone driving a car can have potential. If they are driving down the road with the intent of running people over then we have intent....
| “ | I will say that if this person is out there swinging bats, 'taking' peoples head off and the like.... this will not transfer over to sword skills. The methods used are different for both. | ” |
|
I disagree. It will translate.
The methods for European fencing are entirely different from Japanese swordsmanship. Yet they are both applicable with intention and potential and both have been proven effective. Although they are both different they are still both viable methods of developing sword skills.
BUT....
Then we have to take into account the training against a live partner. Is the partner empty handed? Is the partner also armed with a bat (sword)?
| “ | intent has always been one of the key words and is at the core of all martial arts including aquiring ability or delivery of an outcome. | ” |
|
From what I have seen on this site I feel that too much importance is put on the concept of intent. It would seem that the popular paradigm is that if someone has the correct intent that they will be able to apply. I disagree with that. You can have all the intent in the world but if the means to the end do not coincide with the end itself then all the intent in the world will fall short.
| “ | there are countless stories of persons that are non-violent and have not fought finding they are in a situation and something takes over and they produce. Human nature is always a factor in everything humans do. | ” |
|
Exactly... just as there is an overwhelming lopsided ratio of stories of people who thought they were prepared for conflict and fell short... usually because the means did not fit the end.
Sammy-girl... post #20. Kudos.
| “ | Sometimes this is because the method doesn't meet the requirements of the goal. | ” |
|
This was my point with the forms vs. aliveness.
When people train forms with the intent of regurgitating the form then they lose sight of the art and the application. The focus shifts to be upon the form competition and the fact that there is a form competition contributes to removing that focus even more-so. The problem lies when these people think that what they are doing is leading to the goal of being a fighter or at the least developing some competent applicable skill in a self defense situation.
| “ | True, but -- the goals should be in line with the projected end result. | ” |
|
Always.
| “ | What? you can't have more than one goal?? | ” |
|
Definitely.
The conception is that intent and potential lead to martial applicability.
Anything we do can have intent and potential but there is a separation of applicability. First there are attributable skills. These things are strength, speed, flexibility, etc. These can be developed by doing a multitude of different things and they all have martial potential. They are the basis of what forms the "what" in applicability. Then there is the technical side, the technical skills. This is the "when" and "why" of applicability. It's what dictates how you use the attributable skills and when and how to do it.
Swinging a bat gives you attributable skills and a modicum of technical skill. Only when the adversary (partner) is introduced do we really get into the technical aspect of when and why. And even then the intangibles are not introduced. It's the last level... the fear, the adrenaline, the anxiety... when these things are introduced can you put the attributable with the technical and make the applicable?
I could think of a million better things to do in Japan for a month besides jumping off of picnic tables. - x893
