What is

YODA · Black Belt

let's look at this term - "Combative" and try to understand what is and isn't.

Here's my view - I look forward to disecting it and in turn examining your own...

For a martial artist to be considered "Combative" I take that to mean "Ready for Combat" - Real combat - a fight, not a bout but a fight. You will notice I said "artist" rather than "art".

These are the elements that I feel are necessary to be "Combative"...

- Functionality at all ranges. The ability to fight standing, clinching (close quarter) and on the ground. Comments like "I would never end up on the ground" or "I can take anyone down to the ground" are mutually stupid.

- The ability to use & defend from weapons. Weapons that are actually used today, not antique agricultural tools.

- Realistic training methods including training & sparring against uncooperative, resisting
opponents. Not just fellow "stylists" either but with as many different sizes, shapes & methods as you can find.

I don't expect everyone to agree. There would be no need for this forum if we all agreed. If all my comments do is force you to question your own beliefs - even if the result is that your own belief is reinforced, then I have achieved my goal

_________________
YODA
KarateForums Sempai
2nd Degree Black Belt : Doce Pares Eskrima www.docepares.co.uk
Qualified Instructor : JKD Concepts www.jkdc.co.uk
Qualified Fitness Instructor (Weights, CV, Circuit, Kinesiology)

[ This Message was edited by: YODA on 2002-03-19 08:41 ]

spinninggumby · Purple Belt

To me combative in its purest definition just means anything (technique, stance, movement, form, whatever) that takes on the nature of combat or fighting or conflict.

That sounds kind of like an easy-way-out answer but I dunno. To me any movement, no matter how impractical, if it can used to physically induce harm or neutralize a physically threatening situation could be considered 'combative'.

But I also think that even though a certain style can have 'combative' movements, that doesn't mean that it necessarily is a 'combative' art because the art was not meant for use in combat.

But I would think that most martial arts are combative styles, since most of the intention behind all these styles is self-defense and not to win money and trophies and fame and/or for health or recreation or personal enjoyment/achievement(excluding sport tkd, boxing, and modern wushu and some other obscure systems). Funny though, all these benefits can easily come along just the same with all the other systems that are not designed solely for entertainment or recreation and for practical application.

[ This Message was edited by: spinninggumby on 2002-03-19 15:08 ]

YODA · Black Belt

"because the art was not meant for use in combat. "

I find that a realy bizare notion. That a martial art is not meant for use in combat. I accept that there are people who do not train for combat - but the art not designed for combat? Wow!

_________________
YODA
2nd Degree Black Belt : Doce Pares Eskrima www.docepares.co.uk
Qualified Instructor : JKD Concepts www.jkdc.co.uk
Qualified Fitness Instructor (Weights, CV, Circuit, Kinesiology)

spinninggumby · Purple Belt

Modern wushu is not designed for combat at all. In fact, all the practitioners do is train in forms. The individual only practices individual techniques or fundamental movements so that he/she may incorporate it smoothly into each pattern. The result is beautiful and impressive and requires a lot of strenuous work and training. But it is not meant for combat. There is virtually no partner training or training for any type of confrontational situation involving you and someone else (sport-oriented or practical-oriented) in any modern wushu training practice that I know of.

YODA · Black Belt

In that case SG it is not IMHO a martial art. It may well be "art" but martial it is not. It is about as martial as olympic gymnastics. That's fine until you get WuShu instructors advertising their art as the ultimate self defense art (as our local Wu Shu guy does).

_________________
YODA
2nd Degree Black Belt : Doce Pares Eskrima www.docepares.co.uk
Qualified Instructor : JKD Concepts www.jkdc.co.uk
Qualified Fitness Instructor (Weights, CV, Circuit, Kinesiology)

spinninggumby · Purple Belt

Good point Yoda. I can understand where you are coming from. But then in terms of your definition of martial art being anything that is meant for combat, then all 'martial arts' should also be 'combative'.

YODA · Black Belt

Of course they should

_________________
YODA
2nd Degree Black Belt : Doce Pares Eskrima www.docepares.co.uk
Qualified Instructor : JKD Concepts www.jkdc.co.uk
Qualified Fitness Instructor (Weights, CV, Circuit, Kinesiology)

Bon · Black Belt

I don't train in something unless I feel it will help me in combat.

My goal when training is to learn how to fight. Sport orientated MAs I don't train in. I don't really see any benefit in training in weapons I can't use on the street, although it would probably help me with weapons I can use on the street.

Yeah, it's not a 'martial art' unless it's likened to combat, otherwise it's just an art, which is what the WWF wrestling is - not that I see any beauty in it.

_________________
It takes sacrifice to be the best.

There are always two choices, two paths to take. One is easy. And its only reward is that it's easy.

spinninggumby · Purple Belt

So Yoda would you say that the term 'combative martial art' is redundant?

I only mention this b/c these posts are in the 'combative martial arts' section, hehehe.

YODA · Black Belt

The term SHOULD be redundant. Unfortunately it is not so.

_________________
YODA
2nd Degree Black Belt : Doce Pares Eskrima www.docepares.co.uk
Qualified Instructor : JKD Concepts www.jkdc.co.uk
Qualified Fitness Instructor (Weights, CV, Circuit, Kinesiology)

	KarateForums.com Forum Index -> General Martial Arts Discussion	All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2