Martial Arts in the Playground

[Renegade Paladin]

I practice Western martial arts, both armed and unarmed. Heavy rapier is my specialty, but I've also learned the basics of quarterstaff, longsword (bastard sword if you're playing D&D; the game has weapon terms slightly messed up), and Renaissance-era German wrestling. For self-defense, these have the advantage of not having been actively stripped of their most effective components over decades of being hyped as an exercise and discipline method, but at least the armed ones have the drawback of it being socially unacceptable to cart around a sword.

[Janus]

Originally Posted by Renegade Paladin

I practice Western martial arts, both armed and unarmed. Heavy rapier is my specialty, but I've also learned the basics of quarterstaff, longsword (bastard sword if you're playing D&D; the game has weapon terms slightly messed up), and Renaissance-era German wrestling. For self-defense, these have the advantage of not having been actively stripped of their most effective components over decades of being hyped as an exercise and discipline method, but at least the armed ones have the drawback of it being socially unacceptable to cart around a sword.

You doing this on your own, or did you join a group like ARMA?

[SiuiS]

Originally Posted by Saskia

what the hell? I can't say I know why you're being a ****, but

I am*Curious why using the word 'bullcrap' makes me a four-asterisk, but what can reasonably be seen as you ignoring a forest for the trees, twice, is perfectly fine? I'm not trying to be a whatever that word was. I am being brusque. Partly because, again, you're ignoring several posts of context. It's akin to picking a sentence and ignoring the paragraph. Everything I've said makes sense in light of everything else I've said. If you cut it off from the supply line and try to hold it up as a lone, sturdy argument, yes it will look dumb.

It doesn't have to be organized or systematized by those two definitions of "art", and

This is what I meant about picking the definition apart. All of those apply. I'm specifically trying not to be technical, because it can only exclude rather than include.

Declarative statements are not arguments, nor are they sets of rules. Just because X or Y is a martial art does not 1) explain your definition of martial art, or 2) explain why it falls under that heading.

I expect you, based on prior examples, to be smart enough to look up what seifukujujutsu is, and understand my point from there (or at least argue more cogently). If I had to resupply a fact every post, we wouldn't get anywhere.

Seifukujutsu is a thing which is a martial art. The explanation of what it is will also explain why it can easily be considered a martial art. Looking at similar, "non-martial" systems can lead you to understand why they can or cannot be considered a martial art.

And be reasonable, if I can't trust you to take a definition, why wouldn't I expect a word trap? I'm not going to bother explaining in greater and greater refinement as you ask more and more probing questions to disprove my stance, when readily available information can do a much better job than I of saying the same thing. It puts me on the pure defensive, which makes it look like your side has more legitimacy. So I will also focus on debunking the (in my opinion) flawed basis of your arguments, which would seemingly serve to point out why I needn't defend myself from those arguments.

Okay, but why are you saying incorrect things like "[a] skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties" requires organization or systemization, and why are you being a **** about it?

Part one, because that isn't the sum total of what an art is. And a martial art is more than the mere sum total of martial and art, there is interplay. Your adding [a] changes the definition. Skill is not a skill; one is a quantified, the other is a discrete technique. So I am saying skill arising from
Use of intuitive faculties (ie proficiency) applies, where a skill arising... (ie a single technique) does not.

Almost didn't catch that. That may be where the root of disagreement comes from, actually. I would, in other circumstances, view a subtle change of definition such as this in a malicious light. I believe you just read it differently, however?

Part two, already answered, or at least intimated.

This is irrelevant. I didn't say that military organizations don't teach martial arts, nor did I so much as give it a shy smile from across the library.

Actually, you did, sort of, in your assumption that martial artists make a martial art.

even people trained to administer a good beat down when it becomes necessary, from self defense instructors to Marine corps, don't seem to consider proper use and care of handguns or rifles part of "martial arts" even though they're certainly important martial discipline.

You'll note my original response to this was that, yes, not only do many layfolk consider soldiers martial artists, but many soldiers consider themselves martial artists, or at the very least acknowledge that they are learning martial arts.

I didn't.

Yes, you did. See?

Yeah. That's exactly what I did. I applied the words "martial" and "art" independently, just like Frozen Feet was suggesting

Or is applying the words independent of each other somehow now not applying them separately? I may have misunderstood, but is out you misspoke.

If "the point" was the West Indies then you could call yourself Magellan for this gem. It was a tangent illustrative of why I don't think it applies. It was not a stand-alone argument. It was a derived argument from the fact that most people don't consider the skills of hunting as "martial arts" even though they apply by his definition (again, "ANYTHING done by soldiers in a fight").

Well, we could be facetious and say soldiers don't hunt during a fight. That's overly coy, though, and I'm sure the se of hunting to mean search and acquire has made it into the dictionary.

So I will say that I have already answered this. And in the spirit of clarity I'll answer again;
Hunting with a gun is an activity which can be comprised of martial skills, but is not a martial art by the definitions listed because it is not a war-time or martial effort, most people have no mindfulness of it as a system or as a skill arising from the intuitive use of faculties. But gun use is and can be a martial art. This does not make the use of a martial art for something else (in this instance, the use of gun skill to bring down food as opposed to martial-ing) transfer its martial art-ness to that 'something else'¹. Just as a groin kick is part of an art but not an art itself (unless you enjoy the aesthetics, I suppose), so too does hunting include martial arts while not itself being a martial art.

A hunter wouldn't consider hirself a martial artist because they aren't martial-ing with their art.

Better, but still vague. I guess I can take this as your written refusal to answer whether hunting falls under your definition of a martial art.

I didn't want to repeat the entire thing again, as most of what I said prior to that point answers your question. I feel it's dissengenuous to ignore all of my stated point up until then simply because it was not all said specifically to answer a question.

I feel this is a good point to edit in that martial art and combat system were synonymous enough that I find ye distinction between them meaningless. It breaks the flow of conversation but I should give you my weak points as well as my strong, yes? All the facts, and such.

I swear it's like you think I'm trying to catch you in some stupid verbal trap rather than just get a straight answer.

That was my assumption, yes.

So, it's stupid to ask if making lasagna could be a martial art, but food preparation could be a martial art? Logic much?

Your ad hominims are cute but wearying. Please stop.

Now, reread that. I said making lasagna doesn't make you a martial artist because being a chef does not make you a martial artist, it makes you a chef.

Making lasagna is simply cooking. If you meet the qualifications, it can be gōngfu, but gōngfu is not martial arts. If you are making lasagna as part of cooking for a martial effort, then it's user the martial arts umbrella. These are two different things, akin to questions of justification.

Possibly pointless example

Spoiler

people are often asked things like this;

"Is killing someone bad?"
> yes.
"What if they deserve it, theyre like child molesting rapist serial murderers?"
> that would be okay.
"But isn't it bad because killing is bad?"
> uh....

This is sophistry. Killing is bad. Killing someone who deserves it is not merely killing, it is killing someone who deserves it, a separate thing to be weighed on its own merits.

"Is cooking a martial art?"
> no.
"What if you're feeing an army following an intuitive and systematized set of practices?"

Does not somehow disprove the first answer. Cooking is presented as a non contextual – meaning lacking all context, including that necessary to make it a martial art – action taken. Given context, it is no lingerie merely cooking, so ye first answer must be discounted.

This sort of verbal trap is what I believe you have tried to do, whether knowingly or not. Not as an accusation, mind.

Again, you refuse to offer what you consider "martial context" and only further obfuscate the issue by saying self defense isn't necessarily martial art, but making lasagna might be even though you said that was a dumb question? Dude seriously? Are you even reading your own **** here?

That is actually not what I said.
I believe the definition of martial upon which we all mostly agree for purposes of this discussion already handles the "supply proper context" issue, so saying I have failed to supply you what you already have is Pointlessly antagonistic, and without purpose.

Self defense is defending yourself. This could be fainting, pissing yourself, attacking your aggressor, fleeing. Note that success rate has nothing to do with the definition, by the by. Now, pissing yourself is not a martial art. Running is not a martial art. Attacking your aggressor is not necesarily a martial art, although the specifics of how you attack your aggressor come in to play. So it is easy to see that defending yourself, sans context, is not a martial art.

Self defense is not always martial arts.
Martial arts can still be self defense.

I believe I have already covered the misconception of the lasagna, and so can discount that part of this paragraph? As an honest question, not snark.

Okay, so you've just redefined "system" to mean "anything that can be reasonably defended".

I have not, nor was it my intention to do so. How do you get that from what I said? I can't see it, so I can't meaningfully answer this.

But beating your chest and grunting is, was, and has been used as an intimidation tactic, because animalistic noises disturb people and displays of instinctive behaviors suggestive of violence can make people unwilling to take chances. I don't see how a nut kick and chest pounding are functionally different, except that one is definitely not systematized according to you.

You misunderstand. Those are not martial arts. Neither is systematized. They can be included in an art (which I've said twice before) but are not martial arts unto themselves.

If you watch King of the Hill, screaming "THAT'S MY PURSE" kicking someone in the groin, and running is an art, possibly a martial art. But again, we are adding both context and systemization in our clarification.

So congratulations, we're back to square one with definitions so broad they might as well not exist.

Your asserting this does not make it true.

This should not be this difficult and there's no excuse for being mean about it. You're testy because you read too much into what I said and started making baseless assumptions, and now you're trying to tell me that your assumptions are actually my motivations, and obfuscating your own points and flatly contradicting yourself (again, asking if lasagna making could be a martial art is stupid, but food preparation could be a martial art).

I can only surmise that by cherry picking a definition such as to render it meaningless, that you intended to do so, yes. That's how most human interaction works. What you do, and how it perceived. As I am fond of pointing out, one of the definitions of temperature is entropy within a system and how it is affected by additional energy input; adhering to this definition to make people who talk about degrees seem wrong is just being rude on my part, however, and doesn't actually disprove or prove anything about temperature.

I trust we have Sussed out how non-contradictory those contradictions are now, yes?

Originally Posted by noparlpf

Teebagging is a martial art. It's a highly structured practice used almost exclusively by (imaginary digital) warriors.

Hm. Pretty difficult to argue, except I find video games aren't quite martial. Separation by degrees – a war game is not a war, just as a chef is not a plumber.

[noparlpf]

Originally Posted by SiuiS

Hm. Pretty difficult to argue, except I find video games aren't quite martial. Separation by degrees – a war game is not a war, just as a chef is not a plumber.

Some LARPers practice it IRL.

[Brother Oni]

Originally Posted by SiuiS

So it works like the Japanese Tokui Waza then? Neat.

As I understand the term, they have the same end result (something you're very good at), but different meanings. Kung fu in this context can be essentially translated as 'skill', or more accurately 'skill obtained through hard effort and constant practice'.
Tokui Waza seems to be 'best' or 'favourite' martial technique.

I'll double check with my wife to see if she's familiar with the term.

[SiuiS]

Originally Posted by noparlpf

Some LARPers practice it IRL.

LARPing is also not war, and not even really practice until you ye into the upper echelons. Maybe not even then, but the understanding of positioning, physics and such makes me hesitant to say a champion with a stick couldn't put the hurt on someone.

And if someone tried to teabag me at a meet, I would make them a eunuch. With my teeth if they're lucky.

Originally Posted by Brother Oni

As I understand the term, they have the same end result (something you're very good at), but different meanings. Kung fu in this context can be essentially translated as 'skill', or more accurately 'skill obtained through hard effort and constant practice'.
Tokui Waza seems to be 'best' or 'favourite' martial technique.

I'll double check with my wife to see if she's familiar with the term.

hmm. Waza is used casually (by sword students at least) to mean skill or technique, in the same way an artist has a particular style, students of the same tradition practice the same Waza. Tokui Waza being a skill one is especially good at (I will admit I came across the term first in a card game, as something you declare for a benefit in a monocolor - or single style - deck). Kung fu is a skill you are especially good, or a leat practiced, at.

I couldn't tell you if this was anything more than poor English grasping and the ineffable though.

[Morph Bark]

Originally Posted by SiuiS

And if someone tried to teabag me at a meet, I would make them a eunuch. With my teeth if they're lucky.

This is why the smart ones only do it to unconscious opponents. Or with their pants on.


Anyway, I've never heard of this "Tokui Waza" term. What does it entail?

[SiuiS]

Originally Posted by Morph Bark

This is why the smart ones only do it to unconscious opponents. Or with their pants on.

I would like to think anything short of ballistic denim would reasonably fold or rend at the appropriate time. But who knows? Finger strength has always been a self-supposed weak point of mine.

Anyway, I've never heard of this "Tokui Waza" term. What does it entail?

Difficult to find. This is the best I've found;

Tokui waza means roughly favorite or special technique

It looks like I made the same mistake as I've caught others doing, narrowing in on the specific meaning of the individual words without so much acknowledgement of the use and combined meanings.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Originally Posted by noparlpf

Teebagging is a martial art. It's a highly structured practice used almost exclusively by (imaginary digital) warriors.

Teabagging is a marital art that found its way onto the digital battlefield (it's rather sternly frowned upon on the real battlefield for a plethora of reasons)

does anyone arguing definitions care that "martial art" has its own entry in the dictionary, seperate from both martial and art? It's a bit of a narrow definition (it specifies oriental origin, which doesn't necessarily hold in most martial arts communities), but it's still a definition for the phrase, independent of its component parts.

[karak]

I instruct Kenpo currently as well as a couple self defense courses. I would say of all those I have studied Kenpo is probably my favorite as well, followed by loose jeet kune do. Boxing is also great for cardio and I enjoy the limitations that requires(no kicks and such)

[SiuiS]

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera

does anyone arguing definitions care that "martial art" has its own entry in the dictionary, seperate from both martial and art? It's a bit of a narrow definition (it specifies oriental origin, which doesn't necessarily hold in most martial arts communities), but it's still a definition for the phrase, independent of its component parts.

The definition is colloquial at best, incomplete at worst. If we acknowledge it as strictly colloquial, then it's useless for non-colloquial application, and if we acknowledge it as incomplete then we are back where we started.

Originally Posted by karak

I instruct Kenpo currently as well as a couple self defense courses. I would say of all those I have studied Kenpo is probably my favorite as well, followed by loose jeet kune do. Boxing is also great for cardio and I enjoy the limitations that requires(no kicks and such)

Good stuff. For cardio, I've heard you should begin exercises with your mouth piece in. Any thoughts?

[dehro]

the very fact that there are and have been hunderds of different martial arts and styles should suggest that there isn't one single and agreed upon definition of martial arts... so why bother trying to find one?

[Morph Bark]

Clearly the solution is to learn all of them, then go to the people who create the Oxford Dictionary of English, give them a performance of all it and ask what they call that!

[SiuiS]

Originally Posted by dehro

the very fact that there are and have been hunderds of different martial arts and styles should suggest that there isn't one single and agreed upon definition of martial arts... so why bother trying to find one?

Because whether or not every world culture has developed a martial art has no Beaton on the definition. There being hundreds of arts doesn't mean there isn't an agreed upon definition at all. That we are disagreeing is entirely coincidental.

Originally Posted by Morph Bark

Clearly the solution is to learn all of them, then go to the people who create the Oxford Dictionary of English, give them a performance of all it and ask what they call that!

"Painful", I would imagine?

[dehro]

Originally Posted by SiuiS

Because whether or not every world culture has developed a martial art has no Beaton on the definition. There being hundreds of arts doesn't mean there isn't an agreed upon definition at all. That we are disagreeing is entirely coincidental.

I disagree

wax on..
The way I see it, most variations of martial arts were borne out of people thinking "he's doing it wrong".. and that, in turn, is a thought that starts by the consideration that whatever it is that "he's doing wrong" doesn't include this or that, or should include this or that
.. and the "this or that" may be anything from singing the national anthem to bowing to the flag, from bowing to your opponent to taking a deck-chair to his face or praying the spirits for protection, from playing a berimbau to learning physiotherapy and anatomy or meditation techniques... in other words, radical rethinking of purpose, form, style, phylosophy etc etc.. and these can be grouped under an identical definition of martial arts only if you go as broad as "pretty much everything which can potentially put you in hospital"..which is very zen, maybe, but also rather silly.

.. wax off

[Morph Bark]

Originally Posted by SiuiS

"Painful", I would imagine?

Martial art: a system of techniques and practices used primarily in fight-like situations to inflict pain on others or prevent pain on oneself (and by extension, the ones one might be protecting) through application of specific kinds of body movements. Some systems may include additional practices to support this, or include a moral philosophy.


Good enough?

[Worira]

Should be damage rather than pain, but otherwise looks good.

[noparlpf]

Originally Posted by Worira

Should be damage rather than pain, but otherwise looks good.

The psychological effect of pain on a human is remarkable. I'm pretty sure I've heard of martial arts that attempt to subdue via pain rather than actual damage.

[Worira]

Sure, and they're notoriously unreliable. Pain cannot guarantee compliance or victory in a fight without the ability to physically disable an attacker, whether by structural damage or control of their range of motion.

[rakkoon]

Yeah, relying on pain can be very frustrating when sparring with some opponents. My weirdest comment just before trying my techniques was from an American marine who said "Go on, you can hurt me, my father used to beat me".
Feels very strange practising on someone like that.

Now his friend had a very dark coloured skin and was raised in Japan.
He kept using Japanese swear words, which is also unexpected coming from someone with that skin colour.

Sorry, wandered from the subject for a moment

[Morph Bark]

That reminds me that it would be very handy to recognize which techniques inflict pain, but don't necessarily inflict a lot of damage. This would not only help in picking what techniques to use against others (whether in lethal situations or ones you just want to dismantle, such as with simple bullies), but also help you recognize when you're stuck in a hold that just inflicts pain and not damage. If you've had training to ignore pain, or at least are capable of ignoring it for just a moment, you could catch an opponent really off guard with that, I imagine.

[noparlpf]

Yeah, could help. I have a fairly high pain tolerance (I later found out that surgery for ingrown toenails supposedly requires proper tools, local anaesthesia, and an MD, none of which I used) as long as I'm expecting the pain.

[Morph Bark]

My tolerance for pain is so low that if I had gotten into fights as a kid more often then no doubt the most exercises muscles in my body would've been the respiratory muscles.

Must be good for something though. Loud noises scare off at least half the predators.

[Frozen_Feet]

Originally Posted by Worira

Sure, and they're notoriously unreliable. Pain cannot guarantee compliance or victory in a fight without the ability to physically disable an attacker, whether by structural damage or control of their range of motion.

So true. They usually fail when the target is inebriated, and then we get these damn mutants with over-flexible joints or dull pain receptors. It's funny trying to practice pressure point techniques when you suddenly get a partner who doesn't have those points.

That said, I've found pressing your opponent's eyes or nose tends to work nearly always. It's also non-damaging - people instinctively pull their head back.

Note: pressing, not punching or stabbing. To keep the technique undamaging, the key is to press slowly - feels nasty, is 100% safe.

[bindin garoth]

............

I somehow missed this thread until just now!

I've trained mainly in Kenpo, although it's been a while since I practiced. I'm hoping to get back into it once things settle for me.

Pressing on the eye and nose sound like they would work well, although I prefer going for the throat (being a point of center balance, they're force to go wherever you guide them). Note, the point wouldn't be to hit them there, just to simply grab/push against it.

Especially effective when you plant your knee inside their knee, although you'd be turning it into a hip throw then most likely...

[SiuiS]

Originally Posted by dehro

I disagree

wax on..
The way I see it, most variations of martial arts were borne out of people thinking "he's doing it wrong".. and that, in turn, is a thought that starts by the consideration that whatever it is that "he's doing wrong" doesn't include this or that, or should include this or that
.. and the "this or that" may be anything from singing the national anthem to bowing to the flag, from bowing to your opponent to taking a deck-chair to his face or praying the spirits for protection, from playing a berimbau to learning physiotherapy and anatomy or meditation techniques... in other words, radical rethinking of purpose, form, style, phylosophy etc etc.. and these can be grouped under an identical definition of martial arts only if you go as broad as "pretty much everything which can potentially put you in hospital"..which is very zen, maybe, but also rather silly.

.. wax off

See, that all makes some sense, hueristically, as to why there are so many martial arts.

But that has absolutely nothing to do with the definition of what a martial art is.

Originally Posted by Worira

Sure, and they're notoriously unreliable. Pain cannot guarantee compliance or victory in a fight without the ability to physically disable an attacker, whether by structural damage or control of their range of motion.

Aye, structural trauma is the way to go. Well, "way to go", as then you're responsible for causing structural trauma.

Originally Posted by Frozen_Feet

So true. They usually fail when the target is inebriated, and then we get these damn mutants with over-flexible joints or dull pain receptors. It's funny trying to practice pressure point techniques when you suddenly get a partner who doesn't have those points.

That said, I've found pressing your opponent's eyes or nose tends to work nearly always. It's also non-damaging - people instinctively pull their head back.

Note: pressing, not punching or stabbing. To keep the technique undamaging, the key is to press slowly - feels nasty, is 100% safe.

Bridge of the nose causes eyes to water, and between the bottom of the nose and top lip is a clustery spot that causes similar reaction. Plus covering the nose makes nose breathers panic XD

Eyes? Eyes are nasty.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Originally Posted by Morph Bark

That reminds me that it would be very handy to recognize which techniques inflict pain, but don't necessarily inflict a lot of damage. This would not only help in picking what techniques to use against others (whether in lethal situations or ones you just want to dismantle, such as with simple bullies), but also help you recognize when you're stuck in a hold that just inflicts pain and not damage. If you've had training to ignore pain, or at least are capable of ignoring it for just a moment, you could catch an opponent really off guard with that, I imagine.

Determining which techinques cause pain VS which cause structural damage requires at least a modicum of knowledge of human anatomy. Even with very minimal combat training a doctor could do horrible, horrible things to you with relatively little effort, if he can keep his wits about him well enough to employ his anatomic knowledge. This goes triple for neurologists, and any kind of physical therapist.

There are any number of books on the subject of anatomy as it relates to combat that you could pick up. They're interesting reads, besides, if you have any curiosity about the human body.

As a general rule of thumb though, small-joint locks are what you want for maximum pain and minimal damage, right up until you actually cause tearing and/or dislocation.

[SiuiS]

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera

Determining which techinques cause pain VS which cause structural damage requires at least a modicum of knowledge of human anatomy. Even with very minimal combat training a doctor could do horrible, horrible things to you with relatively little effort, if he can keep his wits about him well enough to employ his anatomic knowledge. This goes triple for neurologists, and any kind of physical therapist.

There are any number of books on the subject of anatomy as it relates to combat that you could pick up. They're interesting reads, besides, if you have any curiosity about the human body.

As a general rule of thumb though, small-joint locks are what you want for maximum pain and minimal damage, right up until you actually cause tearing and/or dislocation.

Right up to is right. I've got a trick right thumb from an over zealous game of thumb war in high school.


... Sweet Celestia I'm a physical mess

[Traab]

I have always been a defensive fighter. I prefer, when I get into a fight, to let my opponent make the first move, then use it to beat them. For example, deflecting a punch so he is open to a counter, catching a kick so I can put him off balance or twist an ankle, that sort of thing. Because of that, I have always thought that if I were to pick up a style, it would be aikido, since from what I have learned, it is mainly about using your opponents moves against him and things of that nature. Is there another style out there that better fits my personal fighting style I should keep my eyes peeled for?

[Wyntonian]

Originally Posted by Traab

I have always been a defensive fighter. I prefer, when I get into a fight, to let my opponent make the first move, then use it to beat them. For example, deflecting a punch so he is open to a counter, catching a kick so I can put him off balance or twist an ankle, that sort of thing. Because of that, I have always thought that if I were to pick up a style, it would be aikido, since from what I have learned, it is mainly about using your opponents moves against him and things of that nature. Is there another style out there that better fits my personal fighting style I should keep my eyes peeled for?

I do aikido, and I fight pretty similarly. It's a huge help, and I'd recommend it.

That said, I'm not entirely above headbutting someone in the nose if it'll stop a fight quicker.