Thread: The Lost Art of Combat

There is definitely an art to fighting, and you right, most of the time it doesn't exist. The thing is, anyone can fight, and even if you do it poorly you can do a lot of damage. Now I don't like violence at all but theres nothing wrong with it if you do it for fun. Of course some things can be harmful such as high level boxing, but video games cause no damage at all.

The problem are the weapons people have now. If someone tries to beat you up with a baseball bat you may have half a chance to defend yourself if your trained in fighting but if someone pulls out a gun your pretty much screwed. Unless you have a gun but now we are killing each other and no one wants that. That brings up the other problem, if you want fighting which is truely an art form theres a high chance of someone dieing.

the english have the bowfinger gesture specifically for the french and yet are good buddies with us americans.

I love this! The origin of this gesture has always made me smile. I think it's GREAT to see that such a mediaeval gesture has survived...

I'm not saying bring back natural selection based on the ability to fight, mind you, I'm just saying that no one gives a damn about it anymore and I think our inherent human rage is popping up in places it doesn't belong (a wide range of places, everything from violence, crime, road rage, suicide, self mutilation, depression, narcicism and egotism all could be partially attributed to a lack of constructive outlets for aggression).

AMEN. This never really quite hit me before, but you could be pretty damn on the button on this. Perhaps these sort of negative, violent modern social phenomena are due to mankind not working out his propensity for violence in a more recreational, contained and safe manner... I really think you have an extremely good point here.

Now, while I don't neccessarily agree with the rest of what you said, partic. about the law repressing violence, and imprisoning offenders, etc, I think you've made a very valid point. Like as not, mankind is an animal (albeit a more intelligent one with a more fully developed brain) and, as such, is agressive and potentially violent. And I also agree that (and I THINK this is what you were saying, correct me if wrong) that people in general need to find some productive, recreational outlet for their violence...[/quote]

Personally, while mankind may be classified as a mammal according to scientific definitions, I can not classify us as animals. Animals may have a small sense of right and wrong, but not to the extent as humans do. Animals may be social, but we thrive on our interactions with ohter people to some degree or another. Animals participate in physical combat, but only for dominance and for food.

As humans, we are also born with something that animals do not understand: honor. It is a difficult word to explain, but rather it's meaning is learned through our personal experiences. As far as combat goes, it is founded upon honor, defending and displaying it.

As far as video games are concerned, while it may be a way to relieve agression, it also has its negative side. First off, there is no true interaction between people. We as humans need it to survive, to live contentedly, and while one may develop a friendship with someone online, it can't replace a face-to-face relationship. This next generation - and even our own - is also losing the ability to communicate with real people. It's easier and (sometimes) safer to speak to someone you can't see, but you can't replace a face with a monitor. Also, often the stress involved in playing these games can lead to accelerated agression in people who don't already know how to handle it. I know some of you have seen the video of the "most impatient kid in the world." Remember what he did with the keyboard?

Back on topic. I've been involved with Judo for a short time, about 7 months or so. One of it's principles is consideration for the welfare of your opponent and mutual benefit. I love it because while it may be used to prove your strength, you are not trying to actually injure your opponent even if it is within your power to do so.

I also agree that you can find out a lot about a person when you're competing against them. Just this weekend I faced two girls in a tournament and I could have told the brown belt from the yellow without seeing their belts.. The first, was very technical and didn't try to muscle me around, while the second was quick but was unable to do the throws as accurately as the first. The first was confident, the second, determined.

I'm kind of rambling. I believe that physical combat still has a role in our lives, but not always the one it is portrayed as today. It is a defense of life, property, and honor, and a tool for the preservation of those three on behalf of all.

Okay, so everyone knows, I'm not spoiling for an argument, but since this IS the off-topic section, and this IS (roughly) philosophy... what the heck.

Originally posted by Amethyst Star
Personally, while mankind may be classified as a mammal according to scientific definitions, I can not classify us as animals. Animals may have a small sense of right and wrong, but not to the extent as humans do.

Right and wrong are, very likely, NOT natural properties of human beings, and are instead, a product of culture, upbringing, etc. ALSO, Amethyst Star, this point you make seems founded in the preconception that there IS such a thing as objective right and wrong. As somewhat of a moral subjectivist, I would disagree with that proposition.

Animals may be social, but we thrive on our interactions with ohter people to some degree or another.[/b]

So do animals. My cat Taz, for example, gets lonely whenever I'm away at uni. When I come home, even if his bowl is full, he comes up and wants a cuddle and a big fuss made of him. Now, like as not, that IS thriving on social interaction with other (people/creatures)

Human interaction may be more advanced, complex, and "deeper", SURE. But in essence, it's the exact same desire for social interaction, the exact same thriving, as can be found in SOME animals (more specifically mammals). In this respect, I think that the fact that the human brain is more advanced than that of other mammals, has led humans to believe that somehow they are intrinsically "above" other animals, with respect to emotion, social interaction... I believe this to be wrong, and founded in a deep-founded desire to somehow differentiate ourselves from animals.

Animals participate in physical combat, but only for dominance and for food. [/b]

So? What reasons do HUMANS participate in physical conflict? Not food, so much. But dominance? Definately. I would say that dominance, whether financial, social, culktural, etc, is the ONLY real cause of human conflict. If this is true, then we are no different for animals, except our concept of "dominance" may be more advanced and multi-fasceted; that is to say, we are animals, albeit complex ones.

As humans, we are also born with something that animals do not understand: honor. It is a difficult word to explain, but rather it's meaning is learned through our personal experiences. As far as combat goes, it is founded upon honor, defending and displaying it.[/b]

I wholly disagree on this point. Humans are most definately NOT born with "honor", nor do I feel that honor (like morality) is something objective and independant of human culture. Honor is a result of social and cultural conditioning of humans. And Combat is not founded upon honor. Even if it WERE, honor can be seen to be just another facet of the idea of "dominance" you brought up earlier, a sort of cultural/egotistic/'moral' dominance.

As far as video games are concerned, while it may be a way to relieve agression, it also has its negative side. First off, there is no true interaction between people. We as humans need it to survive, to live contentedly, and while one may develop a friendship with someone online, it can't replace a face-to-face relationship. This next generation - and even our own - is also losing the ability to communicate with real people. It's easier and (sometimes) safer to speak to someone you can't see, but you can't replace a face with a monitor. Also, often the stress involved in playing these games can lead to accelerated agression in people who don't already know how to handle it. I know some of you have seen the video of the "most impatient kid in the world." Remember what he did with the keyboard?[/b]

TOTALLY agree with you here. Video games, especially the violent crimes, do not help relieve aggression, rather, they only help to promote it. A definate negative force...
Though, on the other hand, some video games can be beneficial in some respects... personally, I like to play historical strategy games... though don't have any time during semester. Games that involve thinking, I like... but first-person shooters, guns blazing, wading through screen after screen of carnage? no thanks...

I've been involved with Judo for a short time, about 7 months or so. One of it's principles is consideration for the welfare of your opponent and mutual benefit. I love it because while it may be used to prove your strength, you are not trying to actually injure your opponent even if it is within your power to do so.[/b]

Personally, I'd LOVE to get into judo, or another martial art. Unfortunately, however, I just don't have the time, between university, reading, writingshort stories, and my social life... I do go to the gym, which is great for a bit of stress relief and disposing of accumulated agression (not that I have much... I'm a fairly placid guy). But yeah... would love to do martial arts, but don't have the time. Perhaps when I graduate. I did fence for a fair bit, though, and have retained some of my skills. That was okay, but perhaps not as physical and "hands-on" as I'd have liked.

But yeah... I love a good-natured argument/discussion... so that's my side, anyway...

This indeed is true. Combat, any form of it, is completely natural and human in my eyes. I believe martial arts to be one of the most physically and mentally involving activities that I could not be without. Fighting is not just showing blind physical agression (although it can result to this) but can be a true art. Someone I fight against is not an enemy if it is a consentual battle. It is a challenge, just like any competition.

This art is rapidly being ignored and shoved aside, if not persecuted. People see a friendly fight as violent or uncouth. This could not be further from the truth.

I'm glad to see mostly positive responses to this topic, and the critical responses lend themselves to debate which is just as good

The Blue Meanie is right when he said that honor is based on morality. Without honor, any fight would quickly degenerate into mindless killing. Honor is our desire to benefit mutually from the battle along with our opponent. Even though a fatal blow is a basic move in any lethal fighting form, our respect for human life, our honor, our morality, keeps both parties of the fight alive and in many cases unharmed. And so, you could say that fighting someone is a very lofty display of trust and compassion. You're showing your opponent that you trust him not to snuff out the delicate flame of human life by extending him the same courtesy. Lovers often fight, even though the word 'fight' is used differently here.

Now, while I don't neccessarily agree with the rest of what you said, partic. about the law repressing violence, and imprisoning offenders, etc, I think you've made a very valid point. Like as not, mankind is an animal (albeit a more intelligent one with a more fully developed brain) and, as such, is agressive and potentially violent. And I also agree that (and I THINK this is what you were saying, correct me if wrong) that people in general need to find some productive, recreational outlet for their violence...[/b]

Yep, that is basically what I'm saying. Violence stretches far back in human history, and yet in modern society it is too much repressed. Think about it: how many outlets does one have for violence these days? Well, you could join the army, join the police force, violent crime is always an option.. I mean apart from karate, which is not taken advantage of by enough people, there is no constructive outlet for violence. Being violent is a surefire way to wind up in jail.

Interesting points all round, and I agree totally with most of it, and I might just add my little bit:

Looking at street crime (i.e muggings and similar type crime), I wonder how many would still take place if the criminal knew that the victim was capable of fully defending themselves against the attacker? I have a relative over in the states and at some point the subject of carrying guns in the USA came up. It was interesting to hear his response that as far as he knew, random crime such as street robbery was relatively low where he lived, and this was put down to the fact that in a survey something like 60% of people reguarly carried a firearm. This meant that the would be thief knew there was a good chance that their intended victim could well pull a firearm on them and thus thwarting the crime. So, it stands to reason that if more people practiced martial arts, street crime would go down, right? Obviously getting to a point where everyone packs a handgun would be a little extreme, but you can see what I'm getting at.

Also, I think there needs to be a distinction between fighting as in two trained men engaging in single combat (i.e sports, duel or similar) and louts facing off in a bar, or jumping someone in the street. I'd say the second is actually 'fighting' as the intent IS to hurt/injure/disable/kill your opponent whilst in the first instance, the goal is simple a test to overcome the opponent. Another big distinction is that of strategy, in a duel or the like, both the participants are skilled and use various tactics and techniques, honed over time, to overcome the opponents weaknesses and avoid his strengths. If someone kicks off in a bar, it is much different - remove the threat as quickly as possible, also, there are no rules - in this situation people will use anything and everything at hand to their advantage, be it a pint glass, chair or even keys, the idea being to do as much actual damage as possible in the shortest amount of time. Quite what the organised form would be called I don't know, but I definately think there should be a distinction.

As for video games, sure, mindless shooters probably arn't that healthy if played a lot, but shooters such as Ghost Recon or Rainbow 6 for instance, are different in my opinion. In the mindless kill-kill-kill variety, there is usually just a vague story to give an excuse to go on this rampage with weapons of ever increasing damage, and ever decreasing finesse. In the genre often refered to as tactical-fps (SWAT, Ghost Recon, Rainbow 6, The Regiment etc) the reason the violence depicted is undertaken is often in the cause of the greater good, be it rescuing hostages, apprehending criminals, or as in the Ghost Recon series, preventing the escalation of a conflict or ensuring freedom for others. My point is, the reason you are undertaking the violence is clear, rather than just random killing. Also in these games, tactics and teamwork play much more of a role, and the weapons don't increase on a scale of destruction as you progress, meaning that players have to think more about how they go about things. The emphasis is also much less on the actual shooting, but also on movement and maintaining surprise.

So yeah, just my thoughts

Originally posted by Dangeruss
The Blue Meanie is right when he said that honor is based on morality.

Uhhh... okay that's NOT what I meant.

I meant that honor, like morality, is just social conditioning and has no intrinsic or objective source or definition.

Okay, I'm liking this debate. I have plenty to say, but I don't know where to start.

My experience in companionable physical confrontation is limited to faux swordplay with friends in the backyard, or grappling with some budies on a liquor night. I thuroughly enjoy both, but I'll admit that I wish such interaction was more commonplace. It's hard to find anyone who wants to play with practice swords, and actually try to develop some skill. The problem is that such skills are considered obsolete. Better technology is our way of increasing our ability to win a fight, and at this point, that means a firearm. What has been lost is the ability to use combat as a means of communication, rather than a means to an end.

Our evolved state has granted us the ability for extreme subtlety in our interactions. Having a conversation with someone is a fight just as surely as trading blows is; speaking is just considered to be the more "civilized" medium of interaction. The only thing you stand to gain or loose is pride. Only when conversation fails to be sufficient to get your point accross do we generaly resort to a phyisical exchange. So how do we deal with our primal desire to bash something? Games. This can be martial arts, football, boxing, or even playing a video game. You enter into an exchange with a set of rules to test your abilities against the opponent. As with conversation, the only real dangers, barring an accident or malice, are to your ego. This is acceptable to society, so it is allowed, even encouraged. We have over the years abandoned our process of survival to our governments.

I believe that people should learn to better take care of themselves instead of relying on police and small claims courts. I believe people should play more, and bitch less. I believe people should once again learn honor as a source of right and wrong intead of turning to the law for clarification. I think that if we were allowed to have our small fights, than the big ones would be far fewer, and farther between. And they would be limited to important issues, like freedom and liberty, not conformity and capital gain. This entire conversation is laden with symptoms of over-centralized government. Yeah, I may be generalizing to make wood for a soap box, but I like the idea of human interaction, and I think it's being lost. Don't agree? Let's take it outside.

O-Nieronaut reminds me of Tyler Durden. Well said.

Okay, I agree with pretty much everything you said, up until here:

Originally posted by O-Nieronaut
I believe that people should learn to better take care of themselves instead of relying on police and small claims courts. I believe people should play more, and bitch less.

Police and small claims courts are there for a reason. Try as they might, some people may not be ABLE to take care of themselves: they may be in a bad social situation, or they simply may not have the resources. Battered women, thefts, murders, etc. Ther is, and always will be, a need for police, and people will always need to rely on them. As for small claims: how exactly do you suggest people "take care of themselves" instead of using small claims? What the hell is a consumer supposed to do if a manufacturere/retailer refuses to uphold it's guarantees? Or a private dispute between two parties, over, say, ownership of a television? Should both parties just duke it out, or should one steal from the other...?

No, I'm sorry. Look, everything you've said up to this last paragraph I agree with whole-heartedly, but here, you're just getting a tad ridiculous. Like as not, society has evolved, and we NEED structures such as the police and small claims: without them, our society cannot function. Now yess, we ALSO need to get people to get out their more primitive, carnal instincts (be it violence or sex drive) in a harmless, productive manner, but these things should NOT be used as a substitute for the established mechanisms which hold society together. Otherwise, we'd have people fighting in the streets, and stealing from each other.

I believe people should once again learn honor as a source of right and wrong intead of turning to the law for clarification[/b]

Honor and "right and wrong" are both entirely subjective, a product of social conditionaing. As such, they are not objective and relying on them for ANYTHING is gonna cause a shitload of problems. The law, while by no means perfect, is far better suited to this purpose due to it being more, though admittedly not perfectly, objective. (As a sidenote, this is one of the failings of the American legal system: morality should NOT be so closely intwined with the law as it seems to be in American jurisprudence... Natural Law has a lot to answer for.)

I think that if we were allowed to have our small fights, than the big ones would be far fewer, and farther between.[/b]

Agreed, for the most part.

And they would be limited to important issues, like freedom and liberty, not conformity and capital gain. This entire conversation is laden with symptoms of over-centralized government. [/b]

Disagree with most of this, but unfortunately, don't have the time to go into it. Suffice it to say, I think "over-centralised" government is not the problem. The problem is that governments tend to seek power in areas they should just stay the f$%& out of.

Yeah, I may be generalizing to make wood for a soap box, but I like the idea of human interaction, and I think it's being lost.[/b]

Yeah, you've got ya little soap box, but don't we all? For the most part, other than what you've said in the last paragraph, I agree. Human interaction is pretty undervalused in today's society.

It's interesting to see where this debate is going. My stance is that fighting as a harmless sport is good, and that violence in all its forms is bad. War, mugging, domestic abuse, rape, etc: bad. Two blokes beating the shit out of each other to get some aggression out: good.

It's self-evident that the human race has evolved to the point where individual strength and violence are no longer necessary. This is great, fantastic. However, just because it's no longer necessary doesn't mean it ceases to exist. The average person today (in areas where firearms are illegal or unpopular) is easy prey for the monsters among us. Strength may be unnecessary but given how quickly things can fall apart, it might one day be necessary.

I'm not saying to hell with courts and police, because obviously they're still necessary. What I'm saying is that those of us who are capable of martial aptitude shouldn't ignore their strengths. What if you saw someone being mugged? I don't think I could forgive myself easily for not being in shape or not being well-versed in combat when the opportunity to help someone arose. If 1 person in 10 were physically deadly without the need for firearms, any crowded street would be a safe place. Think about that for a minute; what if we were all like batman?

I agree with Blue Meanie's thoughts on the subjectivity of morality. Go ahead and try to think of an absolute right and absolute wrong, I can almost guarentee that at one point in history, in one society or another, your wrongs are right and your rights are wrong. We can't rely on morality or honor because they're irrelevant. I know for a fact that morality varies from person to person, and so the idea of finding common ground with everyone is laughable. The only chance of eliminating violence is to truly understand everyone and respect their differences, which we all know is not the current state of affairs.

Over-centralized government may be a problem in some cases, but not really in the case of violence. The tiny, localized governments of israel and pakistan are no strangers to violence. Domestic violence, as in two countrymen, a victim and a criminal, is a strange phenomenon. Not as strange as violence itself, of course. I think this kind of violence would be the type to be lessened by a more constructive outlet for aggression. International violence comes from nationalism and a tendency for the hopelessly violent to get funnelled into the military (or into the presidency LOL).

So what else are we debating exactly? How about outlets for aggression? Well, I can name a few players of contact sports who can't seem to save their violence for the game, so maybe sports aren't exactly the best outlet. From personal experience, the only thing that satisfies is the real thing, hand-to-hand combat. I don't want to jump on someone for possession of a stupid ball, I want to kick some ass!

So if the need for violence in a more unfiltered form is still there, why is it so hard to find? I mean fighting is illegal, karate is great but unpopular, and stories of kids beating each other up in any organized fashion is local news material, aimed right for the hearts of overprotective parents. I can't believe stuff like that makes the news btw.. Anyway I stand by my claim that there's no good way to satisfy the killer instinct without putting yourself in a lot of unnecessary risk.

Anyway what about the connection between two duelists? This isn't a case of language failing as someone mentioned, it's an attempt to transcend language; to communicate things that we don't have words for. It's a veritable art form, just like music and painting can express the unspeakable, so can a spirited duel. Has anyone played KOTOR2? The Echani handmaiden has some interesting things to say about fighting. Her race holds dueling as a sacred rite, a communion of two people equatable with marriage. They spar on a daily basis, but when they go to war they bring guns just like everyone else. See the distinction between fighting as an art and fighting as a means to kill your opponent? They're very different.