Steve,

I can't make sense out of the simplest statements of yours. In one sentence
you stated that there is no competition involved in martial arts since
competition would render it artless and therefore a sport; now you
contradict yourself and state that martials arts are not arts but a "method
of combat" and a science. Ballistics is based on the science of physics and
the technology of projectiles in four dimensional space- you know rocket
science. You mean martial arts are not arts but similar to "rocket science"
- or ballistics? I think your built in "Nope" generator is getting in the way.
jmf 


At 02:58 PM 12/14/1998 -0800, you wrote:
>John,
>
>My comments are below.
>
>Steve
>
>
>---John Michael <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> I am not sure what you mean by "sport". Are you implying that sport
>is not
>> in any way artistic? I thought that a martial art was both.
>
>Nope this is incorrect.  Traditionally martial arts (or more
>appropriately the martial techniques or martial sciences) were
>designed to facilitate the learning of combat methods.  There were no
>rules.
>
> For instance bow
>> hunting - is it only a sport or is it an art. In Zen and the Art Of 
>Archery
>> for instance written in 1949, the bow and the archer fuse as though
>they
>> were one unit. This makes it possible to accurately fire a bow. I
>fail to
>
>Not all martial arts rest completely on Zen as their philosophical
>base.  However, the basic idea is correct here.  Note though that
>kyudo as practiced today is much more different than kyujutsu as
>practiced back a few hundered years.  While kyujutsu would at the
>higher levels of practice cultivate similar self improvement as kyudo
>its primary purpose was for war.
>
>> fully comprehend the logical progression "competition in the martial
>arts
>> destroys the art and turns it into a sport." What are you saying
>that two
>> people sparring in karate should cooperate rather than compete so
>they do
>> not destroy the art. What about fencing? What is your definintion of
>art. 
>
>No, they cooperate so as to turn the combative art (or science) into a
>sport.  They cooperate by agreeing (prior to the competition) not to
>kick each other in the groin, not to punch the face, not to destroy
>the other persons knee, all of which would be perfectly legitimate
>targets in a non-sport art.  This agreement radically changes the art
>(into a sport) and the practitioners of this new modern art can do
>things which would be stupid in a non-sport setting such as expose
>their groin or face.  Most modern martial arts of today (e.g. karate,
>judo, kendo, etc.) have taken battle field arts and tried to turn them
>into playground arts.  
>
>Watch a kendo match sometime, it will be very revealing.  In kendo,
>you cannot score a point by hitting the other persons shoulder with
>your bamboo sword (shinai), so in competition it is not uncommon to
>see a participant move his head to the side and take a whack on his
>(armored) shoulder and in return score a point of his own.  With real
>swords such a tactic would result in death and for the swordsman that
>would like to live past the encounter it is not a viable technique. 
>The development of the point system in kendo is also illustrative of
>the problem.  Currently one needs 5 points to win.  Originally it was
>one, but the various event organizers found that spectators were
>easily bored, so they increased it to 3.  However, that was not enough
>so they increased it again to 5.  That is you could get "killed or
>maimed" 4 times in a row, but still go on to win the match.
>
>
>I have watched tae kwan do participants dance around leaving their
>faces wide open for attack because one could not score a point by
>hitting your opponent in the face.  In actual application out of the
>competition such tactics are beyond stupid.
>
>In
>> order to understand what you are saying you need to define art,
>since what
>> you are saying is not based on a common understanding of art versus
>sport
>
>For those who practice traditional martial arts the meanings are
>perfectly clear.  Also to someone who practices aikido the meaning
>would (or should) be clear.  There is no competition in aikido, there
>is no competition in other more tradtional arts such as Kashima Shinryu.
>
>> that the two are contradictories. While I agree that sport and art
>have
>> separate meanings, they are not mutually exclusive in the sense you
>use the
>> terms.
>
>In this case they are.  Take for example Kashima Shinryu.  None of the
>various techniques can be practiced "competitively" in a safe manner. 
>To do so would risk serious injury possibly even death.  Similarly for
>aikido since many of the pins and throws can be very dangerous if done
>vigorously.
>
>Also, the self improvement aspects of kendo, karate, and judo have
>been lost in many cases.  One western reporters description of kendo
>was that the participants whack away at each other with bamboo sticks
>then the winner is determined by whichever participant rips off the
>headgear of the other first.  I have seen judo classes that look more
>like a wrestling/aerobics class as opposed to a judo class. 
>Everything is compete, win, beat the other guy, get a new belt color. 
>Very little consideration is given to improving the individual.
>
>Steve
>_________________________________________________________
>DO YOU YAHOO!?
>Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%