Jay

Here lately I've caught myself using these two words interchangeably, but before, I noticed I had came up with my own way of using these two words, with very specific images of what each one conjures up in my mind. I was wondering what everyone else considers the difference.

Oxford describes the word "practice" as meaning:

To perform (an activity) or exercise (a skill) repeatedly or regularly in order to improve or maintain one’s proficiency.

The word training, by official definitions (oxford, merriam webster, etc.), implies focus on the practice of a specific skill or ability.

In the martial arts this can have different interpretations since "skill" and "ability" can range from small to large subjects, categorically. My question is, how do you choose to use these words, and what differences, if any, do you give them?

Because a lot of you seem to think so. For that reason I would like to see proof that every single school from around the world that teaches the exact same style all use the same order of colored belts.

Or, provide proof that schools associated with an organization wouldn't have the same order of colored belts.

I received quite the negative reaction when I said there are no universal orders to colored belts recently, and this wasn't the first. There have been many questions I've answered in the past 3 years or so on here where many have said the exact same only to get negative reactions for it.

I would like to see proof of the contrary, please.

People have different reasons for taking up martial arts. It's either for sport, self defense, hobby or exercise. When you wear a belt, regardless of it's rank or color, it's going to means something different to everybody. Training and practice also has separate meanings to each person. How are you suppose to test, rank and promote everyone together?

For each person, it's either for fun, to be taken seriously, or because it's "cool". Can one single school actually teach both and keep respect to it's roots?

Take these three people as example, a mom and her two sons:

The mother is in her late 30's, her eldest son in his late teens and her youngest is under 10. The two boys are interested in martial arts and she has an interest herself.

When the eldest son is at class he takes it all to heart, treats it as life or death and likes things competitive. The youngest is looking to emulate his favorite characters from tv shows, movies and games, howbeit he's attentive and dedicated in class. Their mom practices as well, enjoys it, but never takes it that extra mile into truly studying the style.

How do you test these three individuals into a rank, especially one as looked up to as a belt belt? If the mom isn't willing to be more serious, and the eldest is too serious, how are these two suppose to be in the same rank as each other? Do you tell them to toughen up or lighten up, respectively, so they fit into the black belt mold, or keep leading by example and hope they figure it out?

As for the youngest, if you tell him he can't be a black belt until he's a certain age, how do you keep his interest so he continues to learn? Can that happen without a ranking system, or while pausing so he grows up?

Not trying to throw a thousand questions into this one thought, but this has been a subject of interest for some time with not only me, but the Dojang I attend as well. Just back and forth "what if this" sort of thing, trying to figure if there's a better way. I'd love your guys' opinions on this.

The traditional/classical arts are built around developing a foundation that will support further development much later on, and is not meant as an immediate quick fix.

I've recently been doubting that people not willing to accept it as a way of life, not just as an activity or practice, will be able to stick with it long enough to learn anything past the basics. Issues of patience and expectations seem to stop people from seeing the big picture that the traditional/classical arts will paint.

If so, then should these people just avoid the traditional/classical arts? For people looking for a quick fix, will the traditional arts be worth their time?

What do you think? Is there any place for the way of life aspects outside of the traditional arts? Can people not wanting to be so personally deep into it stick with it long enough to learn anything really worthwhile?

My aim with this question is to dispel a few assumed concepts when it comes to a Shodan/Chodan rank. Just as some people, mostly those who are just uneducated with it, think a black belt is a master, there are some who hear that a black belt is the real beginning and are stuck wondering what the heck you're doing for those 5 or so years and why it takes that long.

So in your Dojo or Dojang, what is to be expected of a first degree black belt? How is it separated from the rest of the previous ranks up to this point?

Also, whether traditional or sport, how fair are the skills and technique learned at that point for self defense or competition, and to what degree? (i.e. giving a certain accurate display of knife or gun defense, or having competed, or won, so many times in tournaments)

Note: please know I'm only talking about your individual school and how it applies to the students, not the style itself.

I found this question on Yahoo Answers Japan (chiebukuro), and one of the posters gave an example based on what they thought the question meant.

For those who know Japanese, here's the question: http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_d...

I like mrjunkhonten's answer. It's worth a read.

Anyway, here's the video the contributor posted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx47cqymYgw

The title reads Super Karate Girl... though I beg to differ.

My question here is what purpose, if any, could a "Karate Dance" ever serve? There seemed to be very little for application in the video, but there is still some there howbeit on a minuscule scale.

Does this sort of thing hurt the appeal of Karate? Is there any purpose for it?

Short and simple and just as the header asks, in your opinion, what is the purpose of martial arts?

As I'm seeking your own personal opinion there's really no right or wrong answer (that is if you actually answer it), so I encourage everyone to not be quick with any negative ratings (i.e. thumbs down).

What is the purpose of martial arts?

As a traditional martial artist, and in my own opinion, a student should have a very good knowledge of technique and form long before attempting any sort of full-contact training. In schools such as Aikido, Hapkido and Judo, not complying with your partner is a good way to get your arm, leg or even neck broken, plus, you need a certain amount of training time to learn the proper ways to fall and role to avoid injury. "Full-contact" in such settings aren't very ideal for safety even when everyone involved knows what they're doing (or perhaps, especially if they know).

Whether that full-contact training be sparring, Kakie/Chi Sao, Ude Tanren, or realistic style drills, when do you believe a student is ready for such training?

There's a good deal of askers who inquire about styles or techniques they've seen in video games, tv shows or movies and there's several people here who answer with something completely unnecessary and those who courteously try to be informative. I want to know what everyone here thinks about such mediums.

Do you think they're good for arousing young people's interest in martial arts or do you think they're a disgrace that shouldn't exist?

Fantasy can invoke misconceptions defended as true reality (Bram Stoker vs the nuts who think vampires are real comes to mind). Are the misconceptions of the martial arts easily dispelled or are such shows and games contributing to a similar ongoing fictitious delusion?

So... in your opinion and view, are entertainment mediums such as video games, TV shows and movies helpful or hurtful to the real world of martial arts, or do not care one way or the other?

Note: By saying "TV shows" I'm primarily referring to anime and cartoons, but basically anything displayed on TV that's not a documentary such as the UFC or WWE is also included.

In the world today, where is the art, the "way of life", in the martial arts. It seems that people only look for martial arts either for self defense or for sport and competition. Times have changed, no denying this, but where is the underlined art?

I'm not talking about a spiritual or philosophical meaning, but the life change (a welcomed change) that comes with the knowledge of the martial arts.

Without schools that teach specifically for sport and without schools that teach specifically for self defense, without these, where do the martial arts stand today?

And, on a personal level, how do you discern your "art" within your art?

There continues to be arguments and constant debate over these two and I wonder how everyone feels about them being separated.

Both under the Sports>Martial Arts, but go one further and make a Martial Arts>Mixed, and Martial Arts>Traditional. Both area's questions would be seen under the Martial Arts tab but everyone can have their own respective corners.

Would everyone be more happy? Would you more happy? It would hopefully prevent such disrespectful questions that have been ignorantly asked recently. Do you suppose it would?

Many MMA practitioner here claim that TMA is out dated and no longer effective when the way I see it is that not only do MMA schools and gyms come from the teachings of TMA I also see no modifications to them and the used techniques are in countless numbers of TMAs.

I know there are several here that train in both an MMA gym and a traditional Kwoon, Dojang and/or Dojo. I look forward to your input as well.

To those who argue TMAs are "out dated": Without resorting to a youtube video or link of any kind, how is MMA better than TMA and what does MMA have that TMA doesn't?

Also, it's argued TMAs are not effective in real self defense. Without resorting to competition results (this style vs that style) or again a video link, what proof is there that MMA is better for real life or death situation?

*****NO YOUTUBE VIDEOS!*****

Only you're own logic, knowledge and experience.

In the book Outliers, written by Malcolm Gladwell, he repeatedly states that the key to success in any field is, to a large extent, a matter of practicing a specific task for a total of around 10,000 hours. I want to know what you think of this in terms of martial arts.

Put into perspective: 10,000 hours is the same as practicing for 4 hours everyday for not quite 7 years. Obviously not every would practice every single day, let alone 4 hours worth. If you consider practicing around 3 to 4 days a week for 4 hours, it comes to 9 years.

I keep reading comments about self defense being eye gouges and groin shots? Does anyone seriously believe the only difference between combat sports and self defense martial arts is "dirty fighting" or "dirty tricks"? Thousands of years of the study of war, killing, detaining and capturing, human anatomy and physiology, body mechanics, techniques and conditioning all of that for only eye plucking and groin kicking.... Why train in a martial art if when it comes to a real self defense situation you're going to abandon you're entire discipline and only go for the eyes and groin?

What do you think the self defense aspect of martial arts really is? Dirty fighting or the fruit of martial training?

All comments and opinions welcomed.

It seems that most all (though not everyone - just the biggest majority) who is into combat sports and "modern" martial arts think all the traditional martial arts are is nothing but dancing, shadow boxing and light to no contact sparring. This, of course, couldn't be further from the truth.

How many of you who are not a traditional martial artists have knowledge about the strength training and body conditioning performed by the traditional martial arts? What are your views on them and do you think they have any significance?

Those who are traditional martial artists: where do you think the fault lies in this not being very well known? Are the supplementary training (from the makiwara to forms such as Sanchin and Iron Thread) kept too "hidden" or at least closely guarded for the advanced practitioners? And is this good or bad?

This isn't as simple an answer as some might believe, or have you to believe. The very term 'artist' means "a person who is skilled at some activity".

The Japanese word for martial artist is Budoka (武道家). Budo (武道) meaning "martial way" (武 alone having strong connections towards meaning 'to stop violence') and ka (家) means (as a suffix) a professional or an expert. In Japanese, a Budoka is an expert in the way of stopping violence. [Insert Tao reference here]

So all in all, by definition this should eliminate any sort of beginner. Anyone new to the martial arts could never call themselves a martial artist. But when? At what point does one become what could be considered skilled or an expert? Does it simply mean being well versed, or just a step above the rest?

Between form (posture, gesture, gait, etc.), technique, principles and methodology, every style has their own unique way of fighting which only changes the way you train to bring out and perfect such things. With learning multiple martial arts, how easily can you separate each one from the other after training in more than one?

I've learned how to balance the various styles quite well, interchanging styles and techniques, too, but sometimes I've noticed myself leaning to one method over the other when they're virtually the same, but come from two different styles.

MMA is similar in these respects, but the TMAs differ greatly in terms of what to do with the applications. I'd also like to hear from MMA practitioners on this as well.

What are your views and opinions on multiple arts and on separating them. Should you still be able to, or should they blend? It's not good for beginners, but how good is it really for advanced practitioners?

I'm just looking for any thought and opinions on this. Anything anyone has to say is fine. I know it's sort of a broad question.

There' been some interesting question about Muay Thai lately and then just this morning I found this video by accident:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzQs4c_40ds

It got me thinking about Muay Thai the sport to Muay Thai the bone crushing, shattering and splinting application depicted by Tony Jaa in his movies like Ong-Bak 1, 2 and 3 (which I've yet to see the 3rd one, but it is part of his discography), and also Tom-Yum-Goong.

I love all his movies so far, but exactly how accurate are his applications of Muay Thai? And what about the more acrobatic looking kicks, like a standing back flip to strike the top of the head with the foot? Tony Jaa's been in the stunt business for some time so do you think any of that might have rubbed off on him just to make his movies look more interesting?

I'm often baffled at every ones attempt to make a fight sound more of big deal just because they use the word 'street'. Now maybe I'm the one confused, but is there honestly a difference to a fight: regardless of location vs. on the street?

So does anybody know where or how 'street fight' got coined?

Technical skill is a major part of the martial arts and even goes as far as having a great deal to do with even throwing a decent punch. My question is in regards to how physical strength correlates into more power in the punch or kick along with the best possible technique. Do you think having more muscle, or at least stronger muscle, would make that strike any more powerful?

Not long ago we had a bunch of questions about size and there were mixed opinions and views, some with more weight and person experience than others. But what if a strike was performed with textbook technique and form. Would that, combined with more physical strength or even just more muscle, be helpful or be a hindrance?

What are your thoughts and views and why do you believe so?

Note: I'm not referring to the grappling arts or their techniques, just striking arts. If you care to comment on grappling techniques your free to do so, but please know that isn't the center of the subject.