Quigga wrote:Making martial arts about fighting only is like saying you can only use a car on the racing track
Or that when claiming to be a good driver all around, the only way to prove that is to win many races instead of transporting people safely etc
Quigga wrote:Defending oneself, killing someone, beating someone are different things
Good post otherwise
Sea.Wolf.Forge wrote:Do any legitimate civilian martial arts claim to train people to kill? .
wayne hansen wrote:I worked with the great Jack Hassan who killed Archie Kemp in the boxing ring
I hung out with Phil Cuthbert who kicked a guy in the head and he died
I had a friend David White who died after a Kung Fu tournament
I played a game of Rugby Union against the navy where one of the navy guys died
So I’m pretty sure you can kill someone with martial arts
origami_itto wrote:Sea.Wolf.Forge wrote:Do any legitimate civilian martial arts claim to train people to kill? .
What is legitimate? How can an art make a claim?
I've learned in my studies that we are very fragile and the world is filled with hard surfaces.
wayne hansen wrote:I worked with the great Jack Hassan who killed Archie Kemp in the boxing ring
I hung out with Phil Cuthbert who kicked a guy in the head and he died
I had a friend David White who died after a Kung Fu tournament
I played a game of Rugby Union against the navy where one of the navy guys died
Sea.Wolf.Forge wrote:origami_itto wrote:Sea.Wolf.Forge wrote:Do any legitimate civilian martial arts claim to train people to kill? .
What is legitimate? How can an art make a claim?
I've learned in my studies that we are very fragile and the world is filled with hard surfaces.
Defining a legitimate civilian martial art as something people can learn publicly without stigma. Escrima/Kali are arguably a very lethal arts to learn, lots of weapons and implied lethal application of force, but they don't come out saying "we train people to kill" despite training an art that has heaps of potential for lethal force in it, arguably to a higher degree than any empty-handed art. More thinking about branding language than method, and erring on the side of "most sane people don't actively choose lethal force when it's not necessary."
origami_itto wrote:I feel like the more answers you give the more questions I have.
Are there arts that have a stigma associated with learning them due to their lethality?
It seems like what you're talking about is the reputation of a certain "style" as it exists within your own understanding of widespread public perception.
When it comes to lethal art, I mean Taijiquan is deadly. Step forward, parry, and punch, from the first section, if executed with sufficient force to the xiphoid process can kill someone. Any number of movements that end in a brow mopping can be fatal due to neck or skull fractures. When you have full control of someone's body and the freedom of movement to do whatever you like, it is not hard to seriously injure someone. Not saying you can always have that, but I had no trouble achieving that with anybody looking to cause trouble doing security work fifteen years ago and I've only gotten better since then. Most of the trouble you run into in the wild isn't from people who know a lot about how to be very effective at it.
It's not the art that kills, it's the heart that kills. The art just provides the knowledge and tools.
If I was worried about what people thought of what I studied then I probably wouldn't have chosen Taijiquan. When I tell people that I study it they say "oh like the old people in the park" and I say "yes".
It doesn't matter what they think, just like it doesn't matter what opinion the Rum Soaked Fistians have of my practice and talent. What matters is what I carry in my hands, head, and heart, due to this discipline and cultivation.
origami_itto wrote:I guess what I'm getting at is that Twitter
Taijiquan has exposed how fragile human beings can be and how much force can be generated.
Return to Xingyiquan - Baguazhang - Taijiquan
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests