You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
I think the answer to that would most likely be yes
Its one of the most popular arts, the west like it a lot, uses supple and firm techniques to restrain an opponent without causing them ridiculous amounts of pain unless neccesary.
used by military and police alike, if I had to fight someone from a style, I would not want to fight a judoka.
i knew a daughter of a judo master and she use to always get mad at me whenever i called judo a martial art. she said that that is not it's use. there is nothing martial about it (i still disagree.... ) her point was that it is about diverting a persons energy and defending oneself not attacking or using violence. thus i too agree that it would be good for selfdefence
But this is the mass conception, which has been proven to be far from the truth time and time again. I think that there is a definate difference between controlled fighting in a martial artist and the violent attacks of a cornered dog.
I hear what you are saying. It is highly debatable as to whether or not practicing to punch or kick someone, break their wrist and the like is inherently violent. Some might say that they don't practise it to injure people. That still doesn't take away from the martial nature of the art they are practising. Spiritual, mental and physical well being are secondary benefits of martial arts. The primary benefits are learning to hurt or control people. I don't like the way people think that martial arts are only for violence and the like but it is impossible to deny the nature of the arts we practise. There are only so many things a side kick can be used for.
Though I agree with what you are saying about the essence of fighting, I do not think that the term 'violence' is adequately defined as 'anything that causes pain.' Just like someone who has a gun in their hand is not necessarily dangerous(but the potential to become dangerous is there). It all has to do with control as opposed to wanton destruction. Logic vs emotion as the Greeks might put it.
Whilst merely holding a gun isn't a violent action, pumping off rounds down a shooting range at a human shaped target could definatly be considered violent. To go with the analogy, just knowing a martial art isn't violent but the practice and application of the martial art could surely be considered so.
I agree with the spirit of what you are saying though. I just feel these days people put so much emphisis on the 'art' aspect that they forget about the 'martial' side. I mean, if people think they're art is totally non violent is it a martial art or a performing art? If one is really performing just movements with no martial intentions at all is it kung fu or contemporary dance. If this girl is non martial is she doing judo or is she just hugging some guy ina gi.. Just my thoughts... Sorry. Good discussion though, thanks.
Whilst merely holding a gun isn't a violent action, pumping off rounds down a shooting range at a human shaped target could definatly be considered violent. To go with the analogy, just knowing a martial art isn't violent but the practice and application of the martial art could surely be considered so.
Can i add its not the weapon whats dangerous or violent but the wielder. A weapon on its own cannot harm anyone.
I'm sorry. This is uncharacteristic of me, not having any clue about where a definition could be. I think there is a difference between violence and martial arts, even though what you said is true. I think it has more to do with connotations of the word than the dictionary definition of the word itself. A violent action, to me, is one that is a bit more raw and undefined. It seems to get to its goal by chance instead of by purpose. Martial arts however, even in the form of fighting, is direct and refined.
But then what about MMA? That looks violent, but is martial arts based for all the same reasons as above.
I may be starting Judo soon! Jitsu mate is back from uni and since there are no Jitsu Foundation clubs near where we live, he wants to take up Judo, and asked me if I want to come along.
I'm really looking forward to it! I've always wanted to learn a throwing martial art (erm, Judo has throws right, it's not just wrestling is it?).
__________________
Ah, Steven Seagull, I bet nobody's thought of that before.
I'm sorry. This is uncharacteristic of me, not having any clue about where a definition could be. I think there is a difference between violence and martial arts, even though what you said is true. I think it has more to do with connotations of the word than the dictionary definition of the word itself. A violent action, to me, is one that is a bit more raw and undefined. It seems to get to its goal by chance instead of by purpose. Martial arts however, even in the form of fighting, is direct and refined.
But then what about MMA? That looks violent, but is martial arts based for all the same reasons as above.
Don't worry, its a messed up and blurry line. Now that you have made me think about it.. I guess I would say for myself, Martial arts is controlled violence. Whereas the gang beating or the cornered dog would be uncontrolled. I mean, Whilst it is hard to say that MA is non violent, it is awful to put as in the same catagory as a murderer or angry drunk. Slapping a hysterical(like dangerous hysterical)woman to calm her down is different to wife beating although they are both violent actions the first one certainly isn't bad... There is definatly a difference. Probably like you have been saying the difference doesn't lie with the what we have been talking about, the words. I guess it is much deeper and that is why we are all having trouble with it.
Edit:
Now I have thought about it more, I guess the problen lies with trying to find a line between violence and martial arts when it is impossible to seperate them. I guess you have to look further down the line and differentiate between different types of violence instead.
Don't worry, its a messed up and blurry line. Now that you have made me think about it.. I guess I would say for myself, Martial arts is controlled violence. Whereas the gang beating or the cornered dog would be uncontrolled. I mean, Whilst it is hard to say that MA is non violent, it is awful to put as in the same catagory as a murderer or angry drunk. Slapping a hysterical(like dangerous hysterical)woman to calm her down is different to wife beating although they are both violent actions the first one certainly isn't bad... There is definatly a difference. Probably like you have been saying the difference doesn't lie with the what we have been talking about, the words. I guess it is much deeper and that is why we are all having trouble with it.
Edit:
Now I have thought about it more, I guess the problen lies with trying to find a line between violence and martial arts when it is impossible to seperate them. I guess you have to look further down the line and differentiate between different types of violence instead.
It might be in the same vane as classifying what is a martial art or not. Also what is a sport or not.
Judo for self defence
Linear Mode
