The Discussion Dojo

[Scaramouche]

Martial Arts is kind of a misnomer, really. None were actually developed for the primary function of killing another human being. Incapacitating, perhaps. But usually only in self defense. Even Ninjutsu is deeply steeped in defensive history.

That is part of the modern Western mythology surrounding martial arts. For some reason people feel the need to defend it by saying it isn't about hurting people, which leads to the notion that it's about self-defence. That's just wrong. Martial arts have been developed for many reasons. For killing, for sport, for self-defence against rapists, and for demonstrations.

[Bear]

On the point of katana's to start with, A katana, if used with sufficient force can easily cut a person clean in two. They used to test a newly forged katana by cutting a dead body in half. If it wasn't capable of this in one swipe, the sword was junked as useless. Under idea conditions, a Katana can cut into 2-3 inch steel armor plate. So while alot of modern fiction has greatly exadurated their power, a katana is still a very formidable weapon.

As for Martial Arts, while not all martial arts origionated in Asia, all were developed with the principle of being able to defend from and defeat an opponant as quickly an as effiediently as possible. Anyone who claims a fighting style of any kind was created simply to inflict harm has no clue what they're talking about. At the heart of every fighting style is defense and its principle. Sure alot of styles have no or very few blocking manouvers, but these work on the principle that a good offense is the best defense, and that being able to disable an opponant as quickly as possible is better then drawing out the fight with a long winded defense.

And i don't know what Shaolins you were watching but I've seen the demonstrationgs myself and I've seen tested before hand the very equipment they have used. These are very real and solid and are in no way the 'trick' items you are claiming have been used. A spear as flexible as you suggest would be clearly visible during a demonstraions, as would an iron bar 'welded' as you say wouldn't break as it does. Also, a brittle 'stunt' brick would create alot of dust, which these bricks when smashed do not.

[midgetshrimp]

Martial Arts is kind of a misnomer, really. None were actually developed for the primary function of killing another human being. Incapacitating, perhaps. But usually only in self defense. Even Ninjutsu is deeply steeped in defensive history.

That is part of the modern Western mythology surrounding martial arts. For some reason people feel the need to defend it by saying it isn't about hurting people, which leads to the notion that it's about self-defence. That's just wrong. Martial arts have been developed for many reasons. For killing, for sport, for self-defence against rapists, and for demonstrations.

I'm not defending the dangerous power of martial arts. The notion of that itself confuses me. I'm stating that origins of martial arts are defensive. I never even came close to saying it isn't about hurting people. In almost all martial arts you have very dangerous moves meant to incapacitate, and if done with ill intent can very well and easily kill another human being. But that strays from the point I was making. That the origins of martial arts are at their core defensive. On an individual level it becomes more blurry. My example of Ninjutsu was meant as this: Ninjutsu has a very bloody history and has been used to hone deadly skills to be put to deadly use. However, even this seemingly efficient art of killing is not an art of killing. Ninjutsu was developed to protect those who trained in its ways in a very violent and brutal society/era. The way of the ninja is not a violent one in the least. Only later was this form used to train assassins and such.

[Scaramouche]

On the point of katana's to start with, A katana, if used with sufficient force can easily cut a person clean in two. They used to test a newly forged katana by cutting a dead body in half. If it wasn't capable of this in one swipe, the sword was junked as useless.

Well, butchers cut meat and bone with cleavers every day. Not that difficult. The guillotine removed heads using only its own weight pulled by gravity.

Under idea conditions, a Katana can cut into 2-3 inch steel armor plate. So while alot of modern fiction has greatly exadurated their power, a katana is still a very formidable weapon.

The thing is, any hardened steel with a sharp edge will bite into softer metal. And it'll ruin the blade.

Of the 2,000 specimens he examined and repaired during the nine months of his tour in Northern China,
70 percent were those damaged as a result of mishandling. Naruse wrote of a major who inadvertently dropped his sword, scabbard and all, while on horseback. His horse stepped on it, creating a sword bent at
two places for him. What? A Japanese sword bent by a mere horse's hoof? Yes, and that particular sword
was one made by the swordsmith Kanehira, no less. (Most army blades were newly minted with a sizable
portion of them made, it was said, from scrapped automobile springs imported from the United States.
Many were also "real swords," some even made by fabled craftsmen like Kanehira.) Bending, indeed, was one great flaw of the Japanese sword, as latter-day samurai quickly found out. The sword in most cases bent at the first strike, effectively becoming a nonweapon, like a gun that has run out of bullets. But, whereas a spent gun could be kept for further use without difficulty, a bent sword couldn't. Another flaw lay in the hilt. The hilt (tsuka) of the Japanese sword is in effect a scabbard made for the part of the blade called "tang" (nakago). It is fastened to the tang with one or more removable rivets. The fact that the tang receives scant attention in forging, in stark contrast to the blade itself, doesn't help. And since the hilt is an attachment that plays a pivotal role in brandishing a weighty blade, it easily comes undone, even breaks. In this, the Japanese sword was decisively inferior to the Western saber or the Chinese "blue dragon sword." In both, the hilt is a solid extension of the blade. A fully 60 percent of the damages Naruse inspected occurred at the hilt. Some Japanese soldiers nonetheless believed in the invincibility of the Japanese sword, as actual samurai did not.

http://www.searchuu.com/s/153843-Cuttin ... wn-to-size

As for Martial Arts, while not all martial arts origionated in Asia, all were developed with the principle of being able to defend from and defeat an opponant as quickly an as effiediently as possible. Anyone who claims a fighting style of any kind was created simply to inflict harm has no clue what they're talking about.

You could simply say "you have no idea" rather than "anyone", since that is the obvious meaning. However, that would be silly, since: 1) I'm actually an ex-military guy with both military and civilian martial arts training; 2) as always, I bring the facts.

Shooting is a martial art. Using a rifle to kill people. And it's intended specifically to harm people. Sometimes it's to kill outright; sometimes it's to wound; but it's always to cause harm. Target shooting is the sports version, the non-lethal way to train for something which is intended to cause harm.

As I said earlier, martial arts are for different purposes. Some are for causing harm. Some are for defence, for example for women to defend against rapists. Some are for fitness and sport. Some are simply cool performance arts.

At the heart of every fighting style is defense and its principle.

No. http://mgray.hopto.org/ArmyPubs/Publica ... FP-001.pdf

Some are for protection against nasty people. Some are just for neutralising a target by the most swift and silent method.

And i don't know what Shaolins you were watching but I've seen the demonstrationgs myself and I've seen tested before hand the very equipment they have used. These are very real and solid and are in no way the 'trick' items you are claiming have been used. A spear as flexible as you suggest would be clearly visible during a demonstraions, as would an iron bar 'welded' as you say wouldn't break as it does. Also, a brittle 'stunt' brick would create alot of dust, which these bricks when smashed do not.

The sound of the metal bar is easily discernible.

The bendy spear is very visible.

Sugar-glass movie prop bottles don't create a lot of dust. They just break into lots of pieces. Regular windows don't make lots of dust either when they break. Nor do polystyrene foam blocks.

You've been had by cheap tricks.

[stephaielikes]

Also, having to do with bodyguards and going to war and such... of course they don't. It's melee combat. War isn't so much about melee combat anymore. I can shoot you. Your hands and weapons do nothing. All martial arts are outdated in that respect. Modern warfare is not a hand to hand affair, barring extenuating circumstances, of course. It's rare when gun doesn't get the job done.

I know a few marines who do a lot of hand-to-hand combat, and even hand-to-gun combat... they occasionally tour airshows or military shows, and the displays they do are very impressive (not least because they really do batter each other!). I think while field warfare (where we both know where the other team is, and both know they're armed) is often based on projectiles, a lot more hand-to-hand happens during patrols and scouting then you'd expect. I know a very charming if completely insane ginger scottish marine who'd take great delight in 'disarming' people at regular intervals- and he was incredibly adept at sneaking up on you. It was probably a great combination in an excercise or in the field, but it drove me absolutely mental in a civvy situation.
If you ever get a chance to see the Royal Marines display team, do- they put on a good show!

Edit: Mm shooting... I'm a pretty good riflewoman, even if it took three months of reading with an eye-patch to correct my dominant left eye enough to shoot an L98 properly!

[Scaramouche]

I'm not defending the dangerous power of martial arts. The notion of that itself confuses me. I'm stating that origins of martial arts are defensive.

It's simply not true. From chucking spears at people, to archery, to catapults, to mounted charges with lances, to sniping with rifles, they've been about defeating opponents. Well, you could include defensive strategies like building town walls as the earliest martial arts perhaps, in which case you could indeed say some earliest martial arts were about defence. But weapons are not shields, and punches are not blocks. A striking fist or foot is an attack. A sword attacks. An arrow attacks. A shield blocks. Armour blocks. Walls defend. Catapults attack. Get the idea? From the earliest known forms of war, some has been about attack, some has been about defence. But anything involving striking a target has been an attack.

That the origins of martial arts are at their core defensive.

No. That's a myth perpetuated by those who, as I said, feel that martial arts need defending. As you are doing.

[Scaramouche]

Also, having to do with bodyguards and going to war and such... of course they don't. It's melee combat. War isn't so much about melee combat anymore. I can shoot you. Your hands and weapons do nothing. All martial arts are outdated in that respect. Modern warfare is not a hand to hand affair, barring extenuating circumstances, of course. It's rare when gun doesn't get the job done.

I know a few marines who do a lot of hand-to-hand combat, and even hand-to-gun combat... they occasionally tour airshows or military shows, and the displays they do are very impressive (not least because they really do batter each other!). I think while field warfare (where we both know where the other team is, and both know they're armed) is not based on projectiles, a lot more hand-to-hand happens during patrols and scouting then you'd expect. If you ever get a chance to see the Royal Marines display team, do- they put on a good show!

Edit: Mm shooting... I'm a pretty good riflewoman, even if it took three months of reading with an eye-patch to correct my dominant left eye enough to shoot an L98 properly!

Both the UK's Royal Marines and the USA's marines tend to do a lot of unarmed combat training, and their training is very serious. They don't mess around with it. No cartwheels or flips. They train to **** you up.

[stephaielikes]

Also, having to do with bodyguards and going to war and such... of course they don't. It's melee combat. War isn't so much about melee combat anymore. I can shoot you. Your hands and weapons do nothing. All martial arts are outdated in that respect. Modern warfare is not a hand to hand affair, barring extenuating circumstances, of course. It's rare when gun doesn't get the job done.

I know a few marines who do a lot of hand-to-hand combat, and even hand-to-gun combat... they occasionally tour airshows or military shows, and the displays they do are very impressive (not least because they really do batter each other!). I think while field warfare (where we both know where the other team is, and both know they're armed) is not based on projectiles, a lot more hand-to-hand happens during patrols and scouting then you'd expect. If you ever get a chance to see the Royal Marines display team, do- they put on a good show!

Edit: Mm shooting... I'm a pretty good riflewoman, even if it took three months of reading with an eye-patch to correct my dominant left eye enough to shoot an L98 properly!

Both the UK's Royal Marines and the USA's marines tend to do a lot of unarmed combat training, and their training is very serious. They don't mess around with it. No cartwheels or flips. They train to **** you up.

I know; the reason it's such a good show that they do is it's evidently not exagerrated, and it's not made to look cool; it can make you feel a little uncomfortable to see what they do, but it certainly leaves an impression.

[Scaramouche]

A USMC dude I knew years ago told me another guy in his class had both his legs broken in the unarmed combat class. He said another guy swept the dude's legs too hard and from the wrong angle. The broken legs guy had to sit out and resume training with the next batch of recruits. Not sure if it's true, but it wouldn't surprise me. I've worked with the USMC, and while I wasn't impressed with their intelligence or organisation, they were without doubt very tough guys.

[stephaielikes]

Which service were you in, if you don't mind me asking?

[Scaramouche]

Navy.

[thaldin]

*pokes his head in and looks for a seat*

I too am one of many of us that train, however my art of choice is Aikido. I'm on break at the moment as I just moved 25 miles away from my dojo and still trying to figure out how to carpool to work with my girlfriend and make late night Tues/Thurs classes hehe but I've been at it for the better part of 2+ years now.

[Scaramouche]

Regarding swords: http://adamcwebber.livejournal.com/97343.html
Regarding martial arts in general: http://adamcwebber.livejournal.com/97766.html

I'll leave it at that, and not bother ruining threads here with huge posts repeating the same things. I'll just update those blogs now and then when myths rear their heads and I feel like clarifying things.

[SaBomJon]

Interesting...I'll have to remark on these observations when I get more sleep. Good to see the discussion have been going on, and I apologize for not checking in.

[Tenjen]

iam gonna throw in a random post here.

Stephires [no not stephaielikes for those arent indoctrinted] dad was involved in training security forces [mostly the private hired kind]. And despite they fact they were estranged, he put her through a lot of training [not by him though, i assume from people he knew].

Many people still somehow focus on raw power and brute force. Ofcourse, these people are morons.

Now i'am not an expert or well versed, so forgive my lack of expressive ability here. PLus steph did explain this all to me in words i'd understand. So you're all getting simplified, 2nd hand stuff from bad memory.

Steph, as i have mentioned was 4 foot 8 with an athletic build.

Size ofcourse doesnt matter. Just means you compensate your style. She could flip me, or even bodily throw me, across a room or over her head.

Strength comes into play, but ofcourse its the discipline and focus that you use that strength with. Not to mention SKILL.

Most of what steph told me about was stuff like targeting weak point on the body that are vulnerable no matter how strong the opponent is [joints, ligaments, nerves, blood vessels]. Or turning offensive and defensive moves used against you to your advantage. Various ways to bend the body in ways it just isnt meant to bend. As well as various locks [including full body locks which were actually a lot of nude fun >:3].

Out of the stuff she explained [we didnt really talk much about her martial arts training, despite the fact she often used disabling moves against me for fun and my wonder at how the hell a chop to my thighs or waist managed to make my knees buckle], i found one part very interesting. I cant remember it exactly, but i do elements of it. Her telling me that when an opponent is engaging you, he or she is ofcourse using the muscles throughout their body. Now say you manage to strike a person in the abdomen, plenty of muscles, if they're competent theyre gonna tighten their muscles and absorb the force using the tightened muscles as a shield.

Now thing is, when a body is in use, you have the mucles throughout the body flexing/unflexing, thightening/untightening. So by learning and knowing [as usual knowing your biology provides the foundation and experience teaches the actual application] which parts of the body are doing this as per which movements, you know when the muscles are vunerable. Not only to strike but say to grab and crush [fuck that hurt a lot]. Your hand doesnt need to be a fist to hurt someone. Our hands, or rather figners, are highly dextrous and thus can nicely sink into some yielding flesh like a nice handful of bicep.

She also said something about this depending on the opponent and style, something about some holding the body loose and some holding the body tight but iam now exploring even more vague areas of my memory [all this was already blurry enough].