Comments on: “There’s Something Ugly that Lies Beneath”

By: M.Ken

M.Ken — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 06:36:42 +0000

"'We assessed each other's energy, and determined which of us would overcome the other," one Master said simply. "He won."

similar situation was in "Hero" with Jet Li.

By: aika

aika — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 01:19:35 +0000

I really love martial arts, and yes I'm willing to get hurt in a fight just to feel the Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} essence of fighting using the art of fighting and it's all right if I won't win at least I enjoy the fight. I love this site I got some more details, thanks...

By: Kobajack

Kobajack — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 12:21:02 +0000

A few things:
On Marine vs. Protective Woman: If picking based on who would be an easier challenge, I would definitely pick the woman. But your idea is still a nice novel fantasy (and who's saying the woman won't suddenly pick up a knife? so in that case I'm not saying she wouldn't be a challenge) but let's not pretend she'll suddenly become superhuman, no matter how cornered she is.
On MMA:
I can see where Ken is coming from. The difference is that most people who watch the sport are casual fans who thirst for blood and thirst for the knockout.
People as a collective mass are more like animals than humans and unfortunately these people who are more prominently viewed watching the sport are seen as "fans" of the sport and seem to represent the sport to the uninitiated. But they're not fans of the sport they're fans of the brutality.
The minority, the true fans, the hardcore fans who "get" the sport are the ones who watch it for the love and understanding of competition, of skill, of match-ups, of fighting, and respect that the fighters have the balls to showcase their skills, win or lose, who don't do it just to inflict pain on someone but love competing and love fighting and love the sport.
They understand that fighting is not about brutality and is an art form in it self and is pure. The idea of match-ups, of one man against another, each having differing attributes unique to himself is totally fascinating, and this fascination, I think, has intrigued me since as early as I can remember.
But the problem with combat sports is that they attract too many meatheads. It annoys me. They're the same fools who compare MMA to WWE. And people make the mistake of thinking the masses' perception of it is the most popular and therefore the closest, most incisive opinion of it. It seems to me that the more popular a thing becomes and the more mainstream it gets, the more polluted and tainted it becomes; it becomes diluted with the poison of the masses.
Regarding martial arts as a whole, I think everyone, deep down, at one point at least, would like to be considered tough, tough enough to handle himself, and some of these martial artists who aren't fighters who despite being "masters" of their respective discipline couldn't fight their way out of a school-yard brawl. They take the high road and hide behind a veil of mysticism by saying, "A true martial artist would not lower himself by fighting in such a thing as MMA." But really, a true master who doesn't fight, who is a disciple of self-mastery will not care that he can't fight or whether he can, he will be beyond entertaining the thought, because he doesn't learn the art to be a fighter, he learns it to master himself, not others.
Finally, to puredoxyk, I must say that I really like your site and your views and philosophy (well, I haven't read much but I like your style) and even if I ever disagree with you, it doesn't mean I don't respect your opinion. You're insightful.
Kobajack

By: Sabbath

Sabbath — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 23:50:27 +0000

Martial arts=fighting arts. In Western thinking we like to divide fields and disciplines, and I think it would be more fair to keep the term "martial arts" to fighting disciplines, and paths to enlightenment as something specifically spiritual or religious. I think trying to port an Eastern view of mediation disciplines into Western understanding will only confuse people. I think the term "martial arts" should exclude any practices which do not relate to fighting.
I think any strategies used to avoid or diffuse a fight which has not actually occurred should not fall under the term "martial arts". That would better be called "deterrence". There is a very distinct line dividing the skills and strategies used by deterrence and fighting that I think that a semantic division is warranted. Someone avoiding a fight, and someone engaging in a fight, are doing two very different things.
I know you want to lump spiritual enlightenment, deterrence, and fighting all under one great banner, because that is what is done in the East. In the East, you would have one master teach all these different things. But if you are speaking to a Western audience who learned in a university setting (classes divided by field), you'll probably go further if you use a language that is more specific.
For example, someone unable to fight would benefit from a self-defense strategy of deterrence: how to stay safe and avoid conflict. This is taught in elementary schools. I would not call this martial arts. But MMA was spawned by the U.S. military while looking for the superior fighting discipline. Deterrence has no place in MMA. MMA is exactly martial arts.

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 04:40:36 +0000

What's "on the line" in the ring IS your ego. Stepping into the ring says that you are willing to risk losing to see if what you think you know is real (if what you think you know is how to fight).
It is a useful experiment for almost any martial artist that aspires to have a useful defense to go up against an opponent in a reasonable no-holds-barred situation just to see where their limits are. Sometimes they aren't where you expect them to be…

By: puredoxyk

puredoxyk — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 00:00:58 +0000

Hi Matt — Thanks for the further info on Ueishiba! I wonder, though…for the life of me I can’t see what’s “on the line” in a ring, besides ego…but then again, I’ve always been the “least competitive” person anybody knows, so maybe I’m just fundamentally not wired to get it. ;)

Thanks!

By: puredoxyk

puredoxyk — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 23:52:00 +0000

Thanks for the response, Sifu! That’s very close to the story I remember; maybe it is the one I heard, but regardless, thank you so much for leaving it here! I sense the issue of violence and its relationship to martial arts may never be fully laid to rest, but as long as there are people holding up the “martial arts=fighting” sign like the MMA is, then there’ll always be a place for people like me, who think the two are actually pretty mutually exclusive. ;)

I love your site and again, thanks for dropping by!

By: puredoxyk

puredoxyk — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 23:49:19 +0000

Good for you, Leonardo! One thing that’s always helped me: Be very clear with yourself what you want to get out of studying a martial art, and you’ll naturally gravitate towards the styles that suit you.

By: puredoxyk

puredoxyk — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 22:44:19 +0000

Aw, Nick, do I really scan as someone who hasn’t been hit? Hmm, I sense a YouTube opportunity…Where’s Tyler Durden when you need him?? (I will say that I’ve never been hit in any setting that had anything to do with martial arts.)

I agree; if you want to learn to fight, learn to fight! (In which case, I agree with several bloggers I’ve read, that martial arts may not be your best bet anyway…almost everyone I know who could “take anybody” learned how by being a bar-bouncer: i.e. by fighting. Fighting is fighting, and has very little in common with practicing forms!) And I would think that masters of the internal arts would probably be the first to tell you that: Yes, *mastering* those arts (which you’re right, takes decades for most people) may make you nigh invincible at all, but it’s because you’ll have mastered not-fighting, which is quite useless in a ring!

(FWIW, by far not all forms described as “kungfu” are internal — the practice has a long history, and it branched away from the temples at several points to become various fighting-based traditions. Muy thai is definitely all about fighting, though, so I would expect it to do “well” up against people who studied kungfu, since even if that form of kungfu was about fighting–and it would really have to be; nobody in the tradition I practice would have been allowed to take part in that tournament–it’s valud in fighting would probably be “tainted” by the non-fighting elements that inform all kungfu on a level. Yet another reason to stay away from kungfu, and possibly all kungfu-based forms (which is a darn lot of them), if fighting is your interest.)

MMA is about fighting, and I have no issue with that. I do have issues with it, and other things, perpetuating the idea that *martial arts* is about fighting. Almost all martial arts with Asian origins come from kungfu at its root, and at its root kungfu is simply (if one can say “simply”) a movement-based form of meditation. The goal of it the same as the goal of all meditation: To gain insight, awareness, and eventually enlightenment.

It’s not that I have a problem with people fighting: I think it can be warranted, and I even think it can be fun and/or character-building, in the right circumstances. But when people claim that martial arts is about fighting, or that a martial art that “beats” another art in a tournament ring is a “better” art, well, to me it’s rather like someone judging your church based on how it ranks against other celebrity mansions.

“Missing the point” is one way to say it, but it just doesn’t seem to cover exactly how horrendous I find that kind of conclusion, you know? So I write long posts about it. Que sera. ;)

By: Nick

Nick — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 11:08:07 +0000

I think if you don't have self defence pretensions, then Chi Gung, Tai Chi, etc, is the direction to head in. BUT, if you want to be able to defend yourself, then the 'internal' arts are just going to give you false confidence.
There was a martial arts tourney in the 70's, where several Muay Thai (From Thailand) practitioners came over to China/ Hong Kong (somewhere like that) and each had fights with Kung Fu masters. There was about 5 minutes of action in 7 fights. The Muay Thai guys won every match, severely hurting the 'masters'.
To be in with a CHANCE of being able to fight with internal energy against a strong/ motivated attacker, you would have to A) Start fairly young, B) Be naturally talented at it, C) Have spent several hours per day, every day, for at least 10 years training.
FWIW- I know lots of MMA fighters, who are almost all very nice people. When I do martial arts, I get hurt sometimes. I shrug it off. You have to be like that. In time, getting hurt doesn't actually seem to hurt as much. Sometimes in a real fight, the first you know about it is AFTER you've been hit. It's good to be ABLE to fight then. People who aren't used to being hit will always fold.
Lastly, many internal practitioners will advocate training like a real fighter, at least for a period, so that they develop the necessary hardness. It's an experience very different than you'd think.