OT--Martial Arts

[fearn]

I agree that there's no best martial art. Moreover, in the purest sense, mixed martial arts as currently practiced are a sport, and are only very partial martial arts. It's too bad we can't call it modern pankration, because that's what it is.

These days, the best martial art (and it is truly mixed) is probably practiced by SEAL Team 6 and their special forces brethren around the world. They use it for killing people on the battlefield, and that's what truly martial arts are for. I point to the SEALs only because they seem to be pretty effective at what they do, though they're enormously expensive on a per-warrior basis.

One could equally argue for that various guerrilla groups around the world (especially those currently using AK-47s and IEDs, as in Afghanistan) as the most effective martial arts, in a cost-efficiency sense. After all, they've cost the US multiple trillion dollars, and they still go on fighting.

Best,

F

[spiral]

Originally Posted by fearn

One could equally argue for that various guerrilla groups around the world (especially those currently using AK-47s and IEDs, as in Afghanistan) as the most effective martial arts, in a cost-efficiency sense. After all, they've cost the US multiple trillion dollars, and they still go on fighting.
F

As Kipling said in one verse of Arithmetic on the Frontier..

A scrimmage in a Border Station-
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail.
The Crammer's boast, the Squadron's pride,
Shot like a rabbit in a ride

Spiral

[Norman McCormick]

Hi,
Being a walking stick user these days the W.E. Fairbairn school of 'dirty tricks' is perfectly adequate for my purposes but having seen the attached I may switch allegiances.
Regards,
Norman.

[kronckew]

talk softly and carry a big stick. - teddy roosevelt

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you Andrew.

Alan.

[Spunjer]

Nice to meet a fellow bjj practioner

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by Spunjer

Nice to meet a fellow bjj practioner

I don't really claim to be a BJJ practitioner, Ron. I roll about 2x/month with a couple Gracie purple belts--hardly high level instruction, and my jits is rudimentary, for sure.

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by fearn

I agree that there's no best martial art. Moreover, in the purest sense, mixed martial arts as currently practiced are a sport, and are only very partial martial arts. It's too bad we can't call it modern pankration, because that's what it is.

These days, the best martial art (and it is truly mixed) is probably practiced by SEAL Team 6 and their special forces brethren around the world. They use it for killing people on the battlefield, and that's what truly martial arts are for. I point to the SEALs only because they seem to be pretty effective at what they do, though they're enormously expensive on a per-warrior basis.

One could equally argue for that various guerrilla groups around the world (especially those currently using AK-47s and IEDs, as in Afghanistan) as the most effective martial arts, in a cost-efficiency sense. After all, they've cost the US multiple trillion dollars, and they still go on fighting.

Best,

F

That's like saying the only "real" auto racing is F1.

I would agree only if you define "true" martial arts as those techniques actually employed to kill, maim and injure the opponents. However, in a civilized society, we cannot kill, maim or injure our training partners and opponents. The only way to effectively practice these things is to stop short of the ultimate intended result...

[fearn]

Originally Posted by Andrew

That's like saying the only "real" auto racing is F1.

I would agree only if you define "true" martial arts as those techniques actually employed to kill, maim and injure the opponents. However, in a civilized society, we cannot kill, maim or injure our training partners and opponents. The only way to effectively practice these things is to stop short of the ultimate intended result...

Not really. The SEALs (to pick one) routinely practice non-lethally. The problem I DO point to is that we assume that "martial" arts are now primarily about sports or self-defense in situations where guns are not involved. That's a very biased point of view. Should we perhaps blame judo and karate practitioners for promulgating it?

Certainly our society has martial arts and sciences at every scale, from sports to back alleys to nuclear war. Being an American, I just think it's hypocritical to ignore the modern military (the biggest the world has ever seen) in a discussion of martial arts, and to focus on any particular sport as the "best martial art." This isn't criticizing MMA--even the military uses it for non-lethal combatives. Rather, it's pointing out an enormous blind spot in any definition of "martial" that doesn't include the military.

[Lew]

Gentlemen

I really do not see the connection here between MMA, Navy Seals AK-47s and collecting antique weapons?

[Battara]

As a martial artist I am a real cut up?

Uh.......Filipino martial arts also use bladed weaponry?

[Rick]

Originally Posted by Lew

Gentlemen

I really do not see the connection here between MMA, Navy Seals AK-47s and collecting antique weapons?

I agree with Lew .
Also I believe the discussion was originally oriented to Civilian/Competitive MMA; not Military; so let's stay on that level if we continue at all .

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by fearn

Not really. The SEALs (to pick one) routinely practice non-lethally. The problem I DO point to is that we assume that "martial" arts are now primarily about sports or self-defense in situations where guns are not involved. That's a very biased point of view. Should we perhaps blame judo and karate practitioners for promulgating it?

Certainly our society has martial arts and sciences at every scale, from sports to back alleys to nuclear war. Being an American, I just think it's hypocritical to ignore the modern military (the biggest the world has ever seen) in a discussion of martial arts, and to focus on any particular sport as the "best martial art." This isn't criticizing MMA--even the military uses it for non-lethal combatives. Rather, it's pointing out an enormous blind spot in any definition of "martial" that doesn't include the military.

Ah. Now I understand your point. It's a matter of degrees, I suppose. (No pun intended).

In deference to my fellow staff members and the subject matter of this forum, however, I'm going to close this thread.

I'm happy to continue the discussion via email or PM.