|
Post by jwbulldogs on Jun 22, 2012 2:24:34 GMT -5
Can a person be both a martial artist and also a fighter?
|
|
|
Post by youxia on Jun 22, 2012 5:06:53 GMT -5
I'd say to be a Martial artist, you need the aspects of a fighter. Not only fighting in a pysical aspect, but a fighter qualities, like perseverence and the drive to win. But also the qualities which contrast those would be present, such as calmness, honour, loyalty, ect. One possible definition of a Martial artist is simply a matured fighter. However I beleive to be a Martial artist you need the "warrior code". Surley to be a Martial artist, you'd need to be able to fight?
|
|
|
Post by the tank on Jun 22, 2012 8:52:34 GMT -5
Can a person be both a martial artist and also a fighter? Yes of course. By definition, to be a martial artist you just need to be a practitioner of a martial art, now I believe that a true martial artist lives by a certain code of conduct. A fighter simply fights whether for fun, or for a living; but part of the training is mostly martial arts.
|
|
|
Post by jwbulldogs on Jun 22, 2012 11:09:42 GMT -5
I'll reserve my response until after there are some more well thought out responses.
|
|
|
Post by Glutton4Punishment on Jun 22, 2012 14:03:39 GMT -5
This is a no wrong answer type of question, isn't it? Because the answers will no doubt vary greatly based on each individuals viewpoint. Each person has to decide for themselves what they think the defining characteristics of a "Martial Artist" are. To some, a defining characteristic could be pacifism. Maybe to one person, a practitioner of the Martial Arts may not be a true "Martial Artist" until they've become pacifistic and reached some "higher understanding" through training. If that is somebody's definition of a Martial Artist, then no, there's no way they can say that a "Fighter" can be also be a "Martial Artist".
But what is your definition of a Martial Artist? I personally think that every style is a Martial Art for a different reason. I don't draw lines in the sand between what is a Martial Art and what isn't based on competitive outlets and sporting events or RBSD styles. As far as I'm concerned, they all are martial arts no matter how restricted. A "Martial Artist" can be a professional Boxer that's turned the Sweet Science into an art form through countless hours of training and an unbelievable understanding of their skill set. In the case of a boxer, the "Art" of Boxing comes out in the ring. That's when all of a Boxers hard work in the gym gets to pay off, win or lose. Another part of that Art comes from the aftermath of the fight in how a fighter reacts to winning or losing and to their opponent. Like I've said in another thread, Boxing is perhaps the most expressive style on the planet. Or if not, it's at least very clearly expressive. You can see a man's heart in every punch he throws if you're looking for it. That, for me, is art.
But what about a Shaolin Monk? Their Art is a totally different animal. You won't see a Shaolin Monk displaying their skills in the ring. They are peaceful and they express their Art through their training rather than through what their training is for. To compare what they do to Boxing would be like comparing painting to sculpting. Both are Art, but both are different. A Shaolin Monk isn't training to express himself in the ring. Instead, he expresses himself every day in the hard work he puts into his training. The same could be said of a Boxer, but not for the same reason. Since to a Boxer the upcoming fight is the ultimate goal, but to a Monk the journey and the training itself is everything. The beauty of the Art of Shaolin Kung Fu doesn't lie in fighting, but in the dedication behind it. To fight in the ring would be to tarnish what Kung Fu is as a lifestyle and as a Martial Art.
So as I said, the answer depends on what one considers a Martial Art. If one draws lines in the sand and looks only at some Martial Artists as true Martial Artists, then perhaps the answer is no. Perhaps the answer to some is that only those who fight can be considered a true Martial Artist. To me, there are no lines in the sand. Only different forms of art. The answer is simply "YES!" Because to some Artists, the training is only setting up the canvas and each fight is a brush stroke.
|
|
|
Post by judomofo on Jun 22, 2012 14:32:19 GMT -5
I consider myself heavily both, only in the fact that my fighting is an extension of my Martial Arts training. When I fight in the ring it is simply to improve myself, my technique and my art in the best context I can.
But I think all that lies in distinction of definition. Many people have hard lined ideas of what they think consitutes the title of "Martial Artist", someone elitist ideals of that, that unless you also embrace he eastern philosophical aspect then you are not a true "Martial Artist", which is odd considering there are "Martial Arts" from around the world with no ties to philosophical idealogies.
I think it is murky water because the ideas are so abstract and really reliant on an individuals opinion. But if you look at it from a purely hoplological point of view.
Take away the entire idea that all Eastern Cultural ideaologies, and look at as a whole you see thousands of Martial Arts from all over the world that exist purely for practical combat purposes and not higher understanding of improvement of self. I think the argument tends to get caught in people only assuming "Martial Arts" are those based out of China, Japan, Okinawa, etc. Completely discounting those based out of Greece, Africa, Indonesia, the Fillipines, Thailand, New Zealand, Samoa, South American Arts, and European Martial Arts.
The art part gets too overly interpreted in my opinion.
I think in order to be a great fighter you have to be a good Martial Artist. But I know amazing Martial Artists and teachers who may not be the best fighters, but are amazing Martial Artists, especially encompassing the philosophies and cultures with some arts.
Just my two cents.
|
|
|
Post by youxia on Jun 22, 2012 15:02:11 GMT -5
They are peaceful...is the ultimate goal, but to a Monk the journey and the training itself is everything... To fight in the ring would be to tarnish what Kung Fu is as a lifestyle and as a Martial Art. Extremley well put. A Shaolin monk to me is the personifcation of my idea of a martial artist. Able to fight and resist pain to the extremes, yet a pacifist who will only fight for noble causes- e.g saving people and rebellion against Manchus. In my opinion those moral values combined with great skill and wisdom are what makes a martial artist. Moral values don't mean philosophical/religious beliefs however, just being a nice person, loyalty, courage, ect. Attachments:
|
|
talon
Yellow Belt
Posts: 65
|
Post by talon on Jun 23, 2012 23:22:50 GMT -5
Yes. Martial Arts to me is not just a sport but a lifestyle. I fight for sport & if I am given no other choice to defend myself or others {I only do the bare minimum to stop or get away from the situation}, I live by a lot of philosophies that extend from martial arts but are relevant to life. For example Bruce Lee's be like water :Adaptable , strong , healing etc & hold life to be precious. Plus many more..{ but I'm not writing a book here }.
|
|
|
Post by jwbulldogs on Jun 24, 2012 0:24:43 GMT -5
Some very good answers. I can agree with what has been said. But I also disagree with small portions of what was said. However, this is purely subjective.
Being a martial artist is not the same as being a fighter. You can be one without being the other. However a person can be both.
There are many people that are fighters. They have no formal training, but they can still fight and do it fairly well. They can stand in there and go toe to toe. They can take a punch and deliver one too.
Being a martial artist has very little to do with being a pacifist. Sure one can accept and try to live by the "do" aspect of some lifestyles of eastern philosophies, but it is not a requirement. Many say that is is a lifestyle, but if you ask them to explain it or why it is lifestyle or how is it a lifestyle they can't give you a straight answer that can be easily understood. Their response if the have one may sound like a riddle or a fortune cookie. Personally, I've grown tired of the response that martial arts is a codified system of combat or that it was meant for war. What does that mean really? Martial arts are not about building character either or other attribute either as it is often suggested. That is often a by-product of training. But you get build that same character by training for tennis, football, chess, etc. You might find that in your choice of religion. Who knows you might just be influence by your parental upbringing. But those are choices that you make for yourself. Martial arts just may the vehicle that you used. There were martial arts created for war, but they all weren't created for war. Many were developed out of a necessity to survive..ie self defense. Later nothing was being created but only altered for self gratification, entertainment or sport. There is nothing wrong with you choosing to be involved in any one arena of the culture or on being in each arena. This is your choice.
When you think of art you think of creativity. But you don't have to be creative to be a martial artist. That would require you to reinvent the wheel. The wheel has already been created. A martial artist has been formally trained. They have learned something about how the body works. They've learned methods of defense which some will incorrectly call offense. Instead of standing and just trading strikes they have learned and can also apply techniques to control their adversary. There are sports minded people that can do the same or like things. The difference being the sports minded person does if for competition. The intent is different. But you can learn your craft for self preservation and still enjoy competing. Like judomofo and I'm not quoting him he does it to make sure his skills are sharp. It give him confidence that he can apply his skill if he ever needs to in self defense. On the other hand you have those that competing is their life. Myself being a competitive person understands that. I didn't care what it was I had to compete. It could have been judo, karate, chess, checkers, video games, ping pong, etc. But my focus changed, but that hasn't stopped me from being competitive.
Back to the question. You can be both. You can be the artist that can use what they learn for self defense. You should be able to control a fight without using brute force. You can be the fighter that use brute force and nothing else. You can be the martial artist that still enjoys the engagement of fighting.
|
|