What I'm after here is discussion of the bodily factors involved in martial arts and such, to get some ideas for something I'm writing. A bit of background. In the navy we learnt to fight and kill. We learnt to hurt people, make them stop talking, damage them, kill them, et cetera. Our unarmed combat was about doing real damage. Then I got out of the navy, and later went to look at some civilian martial arts schools. What I saw was a sport, in every case, in every school. Martial means combat, fighting. These people were playing sports. Not a single thing I saw would work in a real fight against, for example, a military chap. They didn't train with the purpose of hurting and killing, only to follow forms and pass grading exams. So far I have not seen any civilian "martial" art which comes close to actually being martial. That is my background behind all this. It seems to me that there is a difference betweem a big burly lad punching you and a small wiry lad punching you. Let's use two examples, a heavyweight weighin 100kg and a lightweight weighing 60kg. Say they each manage to put thirty per cent of their mass into the blow, as an example. If the small lad hits at 10m/s and the big lad hits at only 8m/s, the big lad is still imparting more kinetic energy. So obviously strength is a matter of muscle mass and size (considering they had near equal physical training). Now, what I am interested in is: 1) Can anyone give me details of muscle density differences between genders? 2) Can anyone give me details of action and reaction speed differences between genders? Any other factors of bodily motion and make-up (meaning the make-up of the human body, tissue density and such) I need to consider?
I to was trained in the forces, and when i left i joined the civilian martial art forms,and you are wrong in saying that none of the forms that are taught to the civilians are deadly as the ones that i got taught by my civilian teacher where very close to the forms that i already knew, it does not matter what size you are if you do the moves right then down goes the enemy, the oly differenc between the forces martial art is you are trained to kill, the civilian teaching is to protect yourself, you have to know where to draw the line from eather, dont kill if you dont have to.
I seem to remember that males have an average of 20% more muscle density. Here: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/coachsci/vol25/table.htm http://home.hia.no/~stephens/gender.htm A set of links - http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/ed_fn635/female/refgender.htm http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=2733081&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b Hope that helps a bit. Funny, when I was taking martial arts classes I somtimes wondered how well I would do in a real fight against some of my partners. I don't know about training to pass exams....moving up in class was never really my goal. But I did not train to learn how to kill either.
I know a chap, a little slavic Macedonian, who has been into various Asian styles of martial arts for about 15 years. He was in a half-contact tournament and easily beat a little Chinese chap from the Shaolin academy in China (as in the academy). Now this chap is quite good with forms and flips and all. No doubt he could whip most untrained civilians. But in practice, he can't touch me; or if he does, I barely feel it. He can not match my size and strength, nor my ability, even though he has been training a lot longer than me.
Good point. It would seem that size does matter. Then again, the only real fight I have been in was with a man quite a bit stronger than I was and with better training. I won. However, I think that my ability to stay rational had more to do with it than my training. That is one thing the civilian martial arts help teach.... *Sigh* If only they helped with discipline. I should be studying. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I guess another thing is that the individual involved does matter. I know that even among my fellows in the navy, there was a HUGE difference in who could do what. Many of them I'm sure would be dead meat against that civilian chap I mentioned. This is what I'm trying to figure out: the key elements of the matter.
It is not to learn to fight or kill,it is not to pass a class and to grade or wear a different colour belt, the main thing is to understand the culture and the art, i study the arts and i also study the culture,it is to bring both mind and body together,once you have done that you still have not finished you have to bring your spirit together with your mind and boby, chi kung is a form of martial art, so is the art of learning there ways eating there way living there way in some ways, i have a japanese garden complete with japanese bonsai trees, orniments water falls into a pond full of koi carp my garden is my own kind of temple, in summer i practice my martial art there.
Studying culture and art through one small aspect of what that culture has produced (a fighting or sport style) is not martial arts. Martial means combat/fighting. If you are not studying combat/fighting, then you are not studying a martial art. There is a big difference between actual martial arts and gymnastic sports forms such as that used by Jet Li and the Beijing opera.
Adam it seem that you can not grasp the concept of martial art it seems that you are trapped inside the navy all you want to do is kill, leave the navy behind and learn, to live, you dont have to turn an art into a killing tool, it already is, you have not opened your mind to it yet be maybe in ten more years then you might start to look at the art in the way it is ment to be looked at, if you do martial art right then you have the choice you can kill, or not, example if you hit a man in the nose you smash it, if you hit it upwards hard enough you will send the bone into the brain, if that is not killing someone then tell me what is.
I grasp the concept. The word "martial" means fighting/combat. That's what the word means. My own preferences don't change that. And no, I do not like violence. If a sport is not about fighting/combat, then it is not a martial art, by definition. Shooting with a rifle is a martial art. Learning to shoot missiles at other ships is a martial art. Perfecting your backflip style is a sport. My own ideas about combat and violence and such are irrelevent to the fact that "martial" means fighting/combat.
any prick can fire a rifle, any prick can push a button to shoot a missile or drop a bomb, but to see two people fight in the ancient style of martial art is breath taking, the speed the perfection the order, can be fantastic, it is two people hand to hand with no weapons, perfection in it's own right.
Yes, anyone can use a gun. But that doesn't make it any less a martial art. If it is a method of fighting and killing, it is a martial art by definition. Speed and precision do not make something any less a sport. You have seen Formula One car racing? Amazing speed and precision, no weapons. And it is a sport.
Hmm, I'd say that the individual is paramount, the factors being 1: Size, somtimes simply being larger is enough to win a fight 2: Strength, of course 3: Mentality, the ability to stay calm and controlled As for the purpose of martial art, it is to learn how to fight, and by extension, to kill. If perfecting ones style serves that purpose, it is part of the martial arts....if not, it is more like gymnastics. It goes back to my musings on who I could beat in a fight. Many of my classmates, who were better than me on the mat, would have probably lost in a fight with me. And there were several people who I was better than on the mat, who would have beat me in a fight simply based on size and strength. And of course, a true fight involves weapons. I wonder how many blackbelts know how to fire a gun without being hurt by the slide? I've known a couple who I am fairly sure could not. Edit to respond to Blastoff: No not exactly. It takes training to be, say, a sniper. And even using a handgun takes more than the ability to 'point and shoot'. And, not any prick can fly a B-52. That takes training. Guns look easy to use. But it takes a bit of skill to aim, to steel yourself against the kick, and to avoid being cut by the retraction of the slide. (And then, there is disposing of the bodies. That takes skill as well. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!)
It could be true that bigger the size, the more impact of your punch, but it could be a disadvantage too. I have watched ancient Chinese martial arts on TV, smaller the size also mean more flexible, and obviously, the more flexible you are, the quicker for you reactions to an action. size does matter, but the technique matter the almost. There are many different branches in Chinese martial arts, and each shows some difference and some is designed specially to use against a certain technique. I heard that many is lost through time, but many is still there for people to learn. Chi Kung is the bases for all ancient martial arts in China. Nowaday, people learnt martial arts without learning Chi Kung, so the full potential of martial arts cannot be clearly seen. So if you want to be the master, do learn it, and please do note, it's not the size but the technique.
Hevene/ i have studied the art of chi kung, and the art of martial art and i know my potential, my master was called ho wan, he was black belt 4 dan, a master of many forms of the arts, he was only four foot two, but i have seen him throw six footers around like soft balls, he taught me the arts and i now teach my children, and my wife has just started to learn from me, they will be as good as myself.
I train @ Taekwon-Do (ITF). Till the red belt (just before the black)it really is a sport, but then it gets more interesting. It was developed especially for Korean military. So it has many deadly punches, kicks and grabs. But they are fully taught only after you receive the black belt, because you need to control yourself (humans are very fragile and some hits in some special places take no really big strenght to kill someone. By physics if you increase mass 3times (by a non-changing speed) your power of hit increases 3times. But if you increase speed 3 times (by a non-changing mass) your power increases 9 times. P=SMVV (P-power, S-distance, M-mass, V-speed). Yes, I don't have a really good chance against a 2m bully who has the same training as I have had, but if tht bully lives on beer and chips- I can beat him (I'm fast and hit hardPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! )
Not quite. In my years I have seen those, who through lack of co-ordination or ability could literally fall over theirselves in the process of trying to load a gun, much less use it. I have seen those who could not hit the side of a house. I have been around guns since I was little. I used to pratice shooting pinecones out of pine trees. Always had extra ammo at the firing range. I would use my extra rounds to help those next to me hit theirs. With pistols, when we went to sight in, I would be shoot the stakes that held up the targets, cutting the target down. They thought I was just wasn't good with a pistol, eh eh. Never told them different. I know no martial art forms, other than those that were taught for military. Not something you want to use on the block unless you are in life threatening situtation. I do not encourage to use of force. To many people die as it is from stupid stuff. If you are good at what you do, no matter what it is, to the observer it looks easy. That can be anything from computers to horse riding to fighting. Usually that takes training and use to gain that ability to make it look easy. I understand what Adam is getting at. He is looking at it in the sense of his defination of what Martial Arts are. I wish you good luck Adam, not everything is so clear cut in its defination.
Thanks, but it's not really a matter of how I define these things. It's just the English language. martial at Wordsmyth.com martial at Dictionary.com ----------------------- From http://www.m-w.com
So several millions or billions agree with your defination. That does not change that is indeed your defination.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
