Maximum Fit Magazine

Martial arts, bit of a misnomer, then. It's not a misnomer so much as a word without a strict definition. Actually it is a two word term without a strict definition. I do well at math, not at arithmetic. If you're going to expand the word into silliness, then anything related to, either currently or historically, is a martial art.  Thus submariners and modern pentathletes are marital artists. I don't consider shooting a martial art, I consider it a skill related to warfare.  Same as artillery and flying fighter planes.  Or, for that matter, military hand-to-hand combat training or knife offense/defence techniques.  Also, many if not most recreational shooters are doing it in such a way that they are not practicing warfare, in particular they are not training specifically in order to prepare themselves to be shot at.  It is something that requires huge amounts of time and a tremendous amount of mental training and discipline as well as a reasonable amount of fitness to do well.  (Not to mention the financial expense!) I don't consider having sporting type rules to be required for something to be a martial art - many traditional arts do not engage in competitive combat.  Since the roots do lie in producing physical injury, some amount of stylisation is naturally going to arise, otherwise no one could practice it.  Highly stylised activities such as Daoist Tai Chi, where the physical injury bit has been completely divorced from everyday practice do not prevent it from being a martial art to me, because of it's relatively recent history as well as the philosophical similarities it shares with other more practically oriented martial arts. Combative Asian martial arts such as karate, kung fu or judo require huge amounts of time and tremendous amounts of mental training and discipline as well as a high level of fitness to do well. (Not to mention the financial expense!) That said, I know those with tighter definitions of the term than I don't consider boxing and western fencing or swordsmanship to be martial arts because there is not a specific philosophical component to them, they are just combat sports.  I think that's a bit extreme, but I can see the argument.  I consider them martial arts because of their stylisation, the codified rules of competition, the ritual, their origins and just because I do.  Activities such as fencing and boxing require huge amounts of time and tremendous amounts of mental training and discipline as well as a high level of fitness to do well. (Not to mention the financial expense!) I think that a strong argument can be made that some of the ultimate fighting, mixed martial arts sorts of things that have arisen recently are no longer martial arts, they are just combat sports, but it's not something that I care enough about either way.  I do know that such acclivities require huge amounts of time and tremendous amounts of mental training and discipline as well as a high level of fitness to do well. (Not to mention the financial expense!) It seems kind of weird to me to practice kicks to the kidneys, attacks on the eyes or joints and other blows that if completed would cause severe injury and ignore the original intent of that training but I know that most people in this country probably don't think much about that when sending little Johnny to karate practice. I think most lip-sticking soccer moms could never envision little Johnny crippling somebody with his hands and feet but that is what karate really is for, not some anti-gay alternative to ballet lessons. I don't agree with your last statement, but I lost interest in those sorts of martial art weenie kitchen table arguments about the same time I retired.  Oh, wait, that's one of the reasons I retired. Do you consider archery a martial art? In the same way I consider fencing one.   What about Yoga, ballet, gymnastics, javelin throwing, bowling or curling? Nope.  All that means is that I don't consider them martial arts.  It has nothing to do with the amount of difficulty required to master them. There's nothing special about the category of martial arts, it doesn't automatically indicate an activity that is mystic and difficult, requiring years of study under some cryptic guru.  It does not mean fastest highest toughest hardest, I don't know why some peeps think more of one activity than another because one's called a martial art versus a sport or an art or a skill. The hardest thing I've ever done was ballet. Physically and mentally.  Maybe if you were more ballerina-shaped

that is what karate really is for, not some anti-gay alternative to ballet lessons. Motto.

<snip thoughtful and detailed post That was well said, and I even agree with all of it. P

I've only fired a gun twice (and the second time was an accident) but from what I understand, the speed and power come with the weapon, so all that needs developing is aim and timing. The only difference between walking down a sidewalk and walking a cable suspended over Niagara falls is a pole. The devil is in the details. Developing speed and power with one's own body, on the other hand, takes long hours of focused training... So does shooting a firearm. Are you intentionally misunderstanding? No. Are you? We certainly aren't having a productive discussion are we? Tim Ok, I'll try reframing it. A gun is a machine, and as such comes with certain advantages. The explosive force generates power, and the barrel focuses it, generating speed. (I may not be phrasing this well, since I don't know much about gun innards.) So the power and speed are inherent. To elaborate on the inherent advantages given by machines: I could paint an image of something, or I could use a camera to take a photograph. The photo would be much quicker and, yes, easier, though obviously there are skills I would need to develop to take an excellent photo. Developing the painting skills would be more work, though. I could squash someone with a steamroller. First I would have to learn to drive the steamroller, of course. But even with that, it would be easier to squash someone truly flat with a steamroller than it would to do so with my hands and feel. I'm sure that it takes a lot of practice to be able to hit a moving target with a rifle. I would argue that even given that factor, it would be easier to do a given amount of damage to a moving target than it would to do a similar amount with hands and feet. And if you include automatic weapons, I would guess that it would not take that much practice to be able to hit a moving target by sweeping the general area with a spray of bullets. I've never fired an automatic weapon, though. Maybe they're really tricky. P

Martial means related to war. That's the dumbest thing you've said yet.  In the context of martial arts movie , it does not just mean related to war.   The Dirty Dozen was not a martial arts movie in the commonly understood sense. What definition of martial are you using? The one associated with the term martial arts .  We're not inventing this out of whole cloth, here.   Martial arts means something already, you can't go all Bonde and invent your own meanings for things and stay coherent very long.  George is right, look at what people actuall refer to as a martial arts movie , it ain't the Dirty Dozen.

the other hand, he's happy to use a nonstandard definition of 'arbitrary' when it suits him. He's a funny guy. Funny indeed.