Talk:Martial arts/Archive 1

message: I have moved a recent addition to the bottom of the page. Please, in the future, add new topics to the bottom. Otherwise the people who need to see them may ignore them. P0M 23:03, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Content Goes At the Bottom, please 

message: What about splitting this page:
one article "Martial Arts by Country"
one article "Martial Arts Weapons"
... and so on.
Ok, I know, I must be bold, so I'd better just do it - but I can still do it on Monday ;-)
-- zeno
I believe in sorting the different martial arts by countries, like you said. We could simply do like this:
* Russian martial arts
** Chinese martial arts
** Japanese martial arts
** Korean martial arts
** Filipino martial arts
etc...
I think this would make it easier to update and keep track of the list of martial arts styles. It would also make the Martial arts page and the list of styles much smaller and easier to read.
I'm coming up with some major updates to the Wushu and Kung Fu sections, and will probably direct readers to Chinese martial arts for further information about the many Chinese martial arts styles.
Please tell me if you have any other ideas or plans.
-- Wintran 01:25 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)
:Ok. Sounds good. Just go ahead. I am fine with every scheme, as long it is kind of consistent and easy to read.
:We just need to find people who are competent enough to write such articles ;-).
:--zeno 03:23 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)
I think the celebrity martial artists list needs to be split off. JJL 19:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It should be moved. JJL 02:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting page 

message: Should this be its own seperate page?  Musicians have a list page and it would be appropriate to move it out. Clausewitz01
:Agreed. It should be moved. JJL 02:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spliting page: Martial Artist Practicioners of Note 

message: Why the huge section on Bruce Lee?  Shouldn't that be put in a Bruce Lee or Jeetkunedo section?  The large amount of attention of Bruce Lee seems unnecessary here.
Edededed 03:35, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overemphasis on Bruce Lee 

message: The division of arts into internal and external, only holds true for Chinese arts. Soft does not equeal internal, hard does not equal external. IMHO this paragraph could simply be omitted. Habj 21:30, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact it doesn't even really work for Chinese martial arts; it's essentially a bogus distinction.  Unfortunately many many people believe in it, so it sort of has to be mentioned somehow (or else people will keep putting it in).  Andrew 22:30, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)
I now lots of neija practitioners who will not agree with you on that. It is certainly in wide use. Habj 06:33, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: I know lots of people who believe it too, and I sure don't try to convince them otherwise.  But it wouldn't hurt if the entry made it clear that this stuff is really hard to pin down.  Andrew 06:43, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
[P0M:] I agree that "internal" and "external" are hard to pin down, and also that there are good reasons for making the distinction. It seems to me that there is a continuum between the external (which is where people almost invariably start) and the internal because the naive fighter is very much object directed. For instance, seeing a reasonably competent karateka punch a circular hole through a page of a newspaper suspended from a clothesline, a person without much training may also succeed in punching through the paper -- but at the cost of directing whole-body momentum toward (and through) the paper, which in a real combat situation would amount to giving himself away to an opponent who was prepared to redirect his force. The beginner sees only the objective of striking some target and sees neither the ideal way to generate the striking force nor the potential way that the forces that are generated can be used to the advantage of the person who has been targeted. 
[P0M:] In learning to strike with power, a practitioner in an external style cannot help but make some improvement on internal components, but the focus of training has not centered on the whole-body dynamics yet. P0M 04:39, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internal/external arts are only Chinese 

message: This page really needs a history of the popularization of Asian martial arts.  As I understand it, it began with Judo, which was systematically created to be a sport that could be taught in schools.  Or perhaps it was karate that was first taught, in modified form, in schools.  In any case, many martial arts are now on the curricula of high schools (TKD in Korea, for example).  Also the story of belts being derived from Judo and the custom of wearing gi and training barefoot in many asian arts should get some mention. Unfortunately, I don't really know enough about this to write it.  Andrew 23:01, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)
:Martial art is a wide concept, and if we are to deal with the history of all the arts here the article would be huge. An idea could be to deal with the history of the Japanese arts, koryu, gendai, belts, teaching in high schools etc. under budo and history of Chinese styles under Chinese martial arts/Kung Fu/Wushu, whatever will be the main article. Habj 06:33, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think teaching in schools is a quite different thing in China and Japan, for instance. What could be of relevance maybe is more related to how MA spread in the West. Habj 07:39, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Japanese budo originally was military arts, karate being the exception here, while this is not true in the same way in China. I do think we must distinguish between the two, and not lump the origin on "Asian" MA together. OK for an overview, but probably you'll need to handle Japan, China, Korea separately - and focus on what is of relevance for MA in the West.Habj 07:45, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Asian martial arts popularization 

message: In the interest of tidying up, I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial Arts.  Please contribute (even if it's "this is trash, do that instead"). --Andrew 02:35, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)
----
I've done some tidying up. I think there should be a "martial arts for health" or "martial arts as exercise/fitness training" paragraph as well. More later...Fire Star 13:23, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martial Arts Project 

message: The link to "ROSS" is link to an advertisement page, completely irrelevant. It should probabbly be removed!
By all means remove such content. If it is advertising there is not reason to discuss chopping it out first. P0M 23:03, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of advertisement link 

message: Why does the "see also" section contain both List of martial arts and a list of martial arts (and generic categories, also represented in List of martial arts)?
I'm tempted to unilaterally move the lot to the list page. Andrew 06:51, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
:I also think this extra list of martial arts is redundant and unfair to those styles not listed here. Please feel free to merge the doublicated list to List of martial arts and remove it from this article. / Wintran 09:07, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of martial arts 

message: I've seen more and more use of the term "martialist", meaning "martial artist".  Perhaps it could be mentioned. --Sy 02:19, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it's a term popularized by Phil Elmore who's a minor personality in the Reality Based Self Defense "scene".  He operates a small forum for a handful of people who agree with him.  The notability of the term with regards to the Martial Arts, however, is highly dubious.  --Phrost 23:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martialist 

message: I just noticed that someone had changed "armoured" to "armored."  The Wiki standard appears to be that any single article either follows English spelling conventions or follows American spelling conventions.  Australians are left out in the cold, I guess.  Anyway, the deal is supposedly that if an article starts out using English spellings then people who add to it should follow the English conventions. I have no idea how this article started, and whether it uses English conventions in other places where they would be expected, or whether the article originally used American rules and someone came on the scene later and added an English spelling.  P0M 22:01, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  spelling conventions 

message: Capoeira is a Brazilian Martial Art very much like Break Dancing and involves a lot of flashy gymnastic moves. The fighting is very low to the ground and consists of mainly kicks, (armarda, hubjaheia). It was developed when Martial Arts were banned, forcing the Brazilian slaves to disguise their training as dancing.
   Capoeira is sometimes very much like Break Dancing and it does have flashy moves. If you've ever seen a real fight using Capoeira (not a game) then you won't find any flashy or acrobatic moves. Acrobatics are only done in a roda to show off and to show people that you have some control over the game.
   There are two different styles, Angola and Regional. Angola has almost no acrobatic moves while Regional is full of them.
   Regional was developed well after the slaves were freed and when Capoeira was made legal. Not all martial arts were banned at the time, it was just African-Brazilian things (including Capoeira) that were banned. Angola WAS infact disguised as a dance though. Regional was not.
I feel that the sentence should be changed to reflect Capoeira's true nature. What do others think of this?
:As long as you Cite your sources, either here or in the article, changing it would be fine with me. People from a given school can often innocently write descriptive copy as if their school was the definitive version. They may not honestly know about other legitimate variations. What you propose sounds like a more balanced approach; list as many variations as can be documented and objectively describe (not saying one is better than another, for example) some of the differences. Fire Star 00:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Capoeira and it's description

message: it does not seem so, some things you are saying are outright absurd!
for example you are saying that in short range, sight becomes useless and people actually respond due to tactile stimuli, are you kidding? Consider Light Speed and Sound Speed. Sound is a mechanical wave, it is when air is the travelling medium the only thing that will generate any tactile stimuli, and it is WAY slower than light. Have you ever heard about Frames per second? The "refresh rate" of the human eye is higher that twenty FPS, and its far more sensible than the skin. This whole article is highly biased to the unrealistic! I would not only dispute the NPOV of this article but its factual accuracy also.
Ħ First, please sign your postings. You can do that, after your register, by just typing ~~~~.
Answer: nope, but i will try to reduce clashes in this article.
:Ħ It doesn't cost you anything to register and it doesn't reveal your identity to anybody. I did it because otherwise I'd end up fighting with myself sooner or later. ;-)
Ħ Second, unless you have actually tried something yourself enough to know what the practitioners are talking about. 
Answer: I agree, sometimes, other times i would ask the other person to deal with the burden of proof, especially when what it says strikes me as improbable (i do admit that some preconceptions made me mad while reading this article, but it seems either misleading or wrong to me).
: ĦYou will need to leave a blank line between the stuff you insert and my stuff. Otherwise you really make me feel like I am fighting with myself. Indentation is also the custom.
Ħ I haven't done very much wrestling, but I've had it demonstrated to me that the guys who have can tell a great deal more than I can about how our bodies are tangled together.
Answer: Sometimes, and other times the person is confussed, propioceptivity is not reliable. 
:Ħ The guys I end up wrestling with do not stay confused for long enough that it makes any difference to the outcome for me. :-(
Ħ Somebody's hand on the back of my shoulder give me the same information at the same time about how much pressure he is applying in what direction.
Answer: Couldn't agree more, but let me quote:
# Long-range unarmed fighting. In this situation, things happen relatively slowly (hundreds of milliseconds), giving participants time to react to visual stimuli. This allows powerful strikes as well as subtle feints to be performed.
# Short-range unarmed fighting. In this situation reaction time is such an important factor that visual stimuli are not very useful, and practitioners must learn to react to tactile stimuli. Strikes are still possible but reactions must become reflexes, making feints more difficult.
# Grappling. In this situation participants are holding each other too closely to permit effective striking. Leverage and physical strength become very important. If not forbidden by rules, biting, pinching and spitting can be very effective at this range.
Unless by short range you are meaning grappling (actual physical contact), something hard to beleive, read the quote with attention, you would be wrong. Tactile stimuli is useless until there is physical contact in fighting, you do not sense the air being pushed by the blow (that is how I interpret that sentence), if you sensed the air against the skin, it would have to be in a extremely calm room, waiting for the blow without moving and it would still be a slower stimuli, and much more diffuse. Reflexes are triggered by sight too. What is short range to you? if it is not grappling nor long range (full arm length to hit?, half arm length?)
:Ħ I'm not sure who "you" is.  It isn't me.  I don't think the 3 points above are particularly well formulated. Let's see whether we can figure out how to say them correctly
Ħ Any lags that occur involve the lag between his subconscious "decision" to move and his conscious awareness of that decision and then the additional lag that may occur before actual contact pressure is changed, and the analogous steps in my mental processing. But those lags would occur the same way if somebody illuminated my chest with a targeting laser and I happened to be looking down at the time the red spot appeared.
Answer: subconscious decission? it is not a decission, you could trace the depolarization wave over the neuron membranes, the sinaptyc jumps, the whole chain of neurons (wich is part of the network) from the eye to the arm, no tactile stimuli unless a hit triggered this nor decission of any kind.
:Ħ I'm not sure I follow your writing, but I'm guessing that we are saying almost exactly the same thing. I put scare quotes around "decision" because I didn't mean it is something that a figher puzzles out in words. Nevertheless, just as you outlined, some kind of processing takes place. My point was that the processing times are the same whether it's a sight, a sound, or a shove that the defender must react to. Those times are far longer than the lags between events as perceived by sound or by sight.  It's kind of like the guy who believes that he can grab an arrow out of the air but he can't grab a bullet out of the air.  If the shooter is ten feet away and using an 80 pound bow, it doesn't matter how many times slower the arrow is than the bullet. It's still going way faster than any human can react to. (Of course if the guy shoots an arrow from 100 yards away it may be so slow when it gets to the target that it doesn't need to be grabbed or deflected, whereas the rifle bullet will still be lethal.)
Ħ Sound waves don't make a "tactile" impression on you unless you're in church and the organ shakes the program in your hand.
Answer: Sound is a mechanical wave, read the Ear article, it should have diagrams by now. If you are talking about tactile stimuli you are taking about sound (yes, there is no soundless movement and before the blow strike it is the only thing you would have (you can sense mechanical waves on the skin, that is tact)). By now it seems to me that it was just that, confussion on my side, altough i beleive the article is misleading in that direction, if by short range it does not refer to actual contact, then you should explain what it does refer too, and what would the difference be with grappling if it does, aldo you should consider what i have just said about tactile stimuli, sound and reflexes, is common sense and basic biology.
:Ħ Tactile is only one kind of sense reaction to physical force. Vision depends on a physical interaction, energy delivered to the retina.  Hearing depends on a physical interaction, energy delivered to the eardrum.  "Tactile" comes from the Latin word "tangere," to touch.  It means awareness of something through the nerve endings in your fingers or other skin, awareness that you don't interpret as vision or sound but as touch.
Ħ The difference between the speed of sound and the speed of light is irrelevant unless it's a situation where you see the muzzle flash of a sniper before the sound of the shot (and the bullet) make it to your ear.  Even if you only hear the gun go off your reaction time won't get you out of its way in time.  
Answer: The difference does matter in a low density medium as air, because the shock wave of the blow won't go very far from the distance while the blow will be extremely slow compared to ligth bouncing on it, the difference does matter, you cannot count on tactile stimuli (unless we are talking of a starting situation of physical contact wich is never broken, because if it were and you could see the blow coming sigth would be muc faster than tactile stimuli).
Ħ If any martial artist sees and/or hears somebody swinging at him he doesn't wait until he gets a tactile stimulus to begin to react. The tactile stuff comes into play when you can't see what is going on either because its dark, its going on behind your back, somebody's put a hood over your head, the back of your head is in the guy's armpit and your nose is snuggling with his elbow joint...
Answer: no one would wait in that situation, i have yet to see someone dodging while blindfolded (really, it is far too easy to see through cloth) or by sound (without knowing the position of the attacker, that is, the dodger moving into the room while the attacker waits quietly without moving). By the way, i checked the speeds, sound travels a metre in a third of a millisecond, light does it in far less, it seems insignificant in that order of magnitude though. So maybe i was wrong about it and the difference in speeds does not matter, however, this mechanical wave is much more prone to be diturbed by wind or wathever. I hope this helps somehow to clarify the article, because i beleive by now that it is mostly a misinterpretation of a misleading and confusing part of the article and not a thing about factual accuracy.
:Ħ The main problem here seems to be your interpretation of the word "tactile."  
:Ħ The original article stuff talked about "long range", "short range", and grappling, and the sense modalities that the writer thought are appropriate to each range.
:Ħ I think I would put things in terms of "long range," "medium range," "short range," and "grappling." One of the things that the Dao De Jing and the Zhuang Zi (or Chuang Tzu if you prefer the antique Wade-Giles romanization) talk about, and also one of the things that Mas Ayoob talks about, is the ability to size up a mugger from a block away and take evasive action or do whatever you have to do to ensure your safety.  That's mostly sight, possibly sound (if he's shouting threats or calling his corner boys), and you may have minutes to think about whether this is normal boisterous behavior in this neighborhood or among members of this ethnic group, or does it look more sinister?  
:Ħ When you move closer you will at some point cross a line between where you can kick him and/or he can kick you. (Of course if either of you is armed, that line gets moved way back.)  At this point both vision and sound can be the tip-off. If the guy is coming up behind you, sound is more important than vision unless you walk around with a rear-view mirror stuck on your head or can see something in a shop window or something. At kicking distance you can have your opponents entire body in your peripheral vision, and you most likely will be able to see the back heel coming off the ground or whatever.  Then you hope for "go no sen" -- getting there first even though you started second.  Of course if you are really good you will see the attack forming in your opponent's eyes and get "sen no sen" -- getting going while he's still psyching himself up to attack.  (That's bad in court. As Mas Ayoob says, it's better to call out loudly, "Don't hit me!" and let witnesses see the guy throw the first couple of punches while you dance around like a drunken duck, but sometimes that wouldn't be safe. Did you figure the guy out before you crossed that line?)  That's what I would call "medium range." You can see everything, but you don't have the time to process information in words in your head. 
:Ħ At close range you can still see, but you're too close to see everything. (There may be brushing physical contact, e.g., opponent steps in to attack and puts his knee against the inside of my knee. I know what it's there for, but there is no point in my looking down to see whether it's only my imagination.) Suppose that somebody throws a left and a right at my head and my attention is drawn quite naturally to blocking the punches. But I can't actually see what he's doing with his feet, so its bap, bap, boom, and the "boom" is a kick. The sights and the sounds are both reaching me in such a short time that there is no perceptible gap between them.  (If you don't believe the scenario, I've got a video of a match where that's exactly what happens. I think the winner was "Cat" Yamaguchi. I think the other guy was a "mere" fourth degree black belt.) If you're up against somebody who is capable of marshalling this kind of attack, what will save you?  You've got to be able to read his entire body in real time and see the subtle shift of his upper body that occurs when he lifts his foot to kick, and you got to "just know" what that means and what you've got to do to avoid the kick. For me, once somebody got two quick-succession punches up for me to pick off I'd probably be done for. 
:Ħ At grappling range your field of vision is even more restricted. Sound is not likely to be helpful. It may be dark. You may be bleeding so much that you can't see. Awareness has got to be mostly via feel. But the range of attacks is greater than indicated in the paragraph quoted above.  One technique I was taught, for instance, is a punch to be delivered to the attacker's throat when he's got you in a bear hug. If your arms are not pinned, you've got elbow strikes and knee strikes not to mention using your forehead to crush the guy's nose. But the first order of business is to be aware of where your opponent is and what he's doing. That's where the sticky-hands training etc., etc. comes into play.
:ĦDoes the above treatment sound reasonable? P0M 03:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  is this an encyclopedia article? 

message: The European history section seems to be a bit long and seems to have more headings than the other history sections and reads in part more as a history of martial art literature.  I've changed the first para and added a link to Pankration.  Given that I don't have many edits yet, I've not deleted the Middle ages section but I feel that it doesn't add much value.
MLA 10:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  European History 

message: Brazilian Jiu Jitsu refers to a type of Jiu Jitsu that comes from Brazil.
Gracie Jiu Jitsu should be referrd to as a style of BJJ, not another name for it, since there are now other BJJ schools coming out of Brazil.
Even if they do all share a common start point, I think it's misleading.
Bihal 03:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and thought that myself previously, I've edited it.  I've also edited Ronin-Do a little as it read like an advert though I'm not sure whether I should have deleted it instead McDojo? 195.92.40.49 12:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would recommend to edit individual schools out of the main article unless they were clearly internationally famous, like the Gracies. The martial arts articles in general are spam-magnets, which many see as vehicles for free advertising. If a school, even though it may not be big, has an interesting website that provides good, detailed information or history on their martial art style (not the usual self-promoting puffery), then it can be safely included in the external links section. Fire Star 15:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I Googled Ronin-Do and it's just a single school.  I've removed it from the list of martial arts.MLA 13:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Small Brazilian Jiu Jitsu issue

message: Muay Thai is not listed in the martial art styles. Besides that, Muay Thai actually has a lot of influence on Japanese "kickboxing". I thinky ou guys should put more details about Muay Thai. Muay Thai is not even mentioned in the Asian Martial Arts.
:What is Japanese "kick boxing?" Bihal 20:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there some kind of basis for the statement that most styles of kick boxing come from Muay Thai? Bihal 21:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, "kickboxing" was first used to describe Muay Thai in English. For a martial art in the West to be called "kickboxing" it should at least resemble Muay Thai. It may have other ingredients in this day of mixed martial arts, but it will cover the same ground as Muay Thai, for the most part. Fire Star 22:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, but you're talking about the name. I'm talking about the actual style.
From Kickboxing
"Kickboxing, as a deriviative of Muay Thai, Karate as well as other styles, was created to compete effectively against these martial arts. The initial development of the styles (as well as the name) was in Japan. However there were also similar influences taking hold in the United States, and martial artists from many disciplines toured both areas allowing the development of a common kickboxing standard."
I suggest we just remove the bit about it being the progenitor of most kick boxin. It sounds a little POV to me. Bihal 22:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Muay Thai]] 

message: I have been trying for months to make some corrections to this idiotic article but someone always changes it back. Just now I spent hours trying to add in a few things but you'll never see it because it's gone! What corrections have I made? I tried to fix some of the racial stereotypes which none of you would notice. Some styles are over-emphasised while others are unfairly neglected. Besides that, I can tell you that muay Thai is NOT based on kicking and praying mantis kungfu is NOT based on just strikes. I don't care who you are but if I can't make these changes, this site is leading a pointless existence.
:You had removed a lot of material without explanation, and replaced examples of well known styles from many countries with obscure styles from one or two places. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Also, as we say in the disclaimer that you see every time you edit here: If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. Fire Star 17:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, fine with me. I've already changed a few things he'd done. The guy seemed interested in pushing a POV that marginalised the most popular Japanese and Chinese styles in favour of some strange random theories. Fire Star 04:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop deleting  

message: This article is too wordy and meandering. I am not an expert on the subject so I don't wish to edit it; but those of you who are, please can you have a look at condensing some of the material and GETTING TO THE POINT a little quicker! 144.178.184.134 12:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is the way it is because many different stylists have had some input, and it reflects therefore their different philosophies, and also the more subtle influence of years of drive-by editors. At the beginning, we have to go into that the term itself means many different things to different people, not necessarily what the public would think about Chinese or Japanese martial arts, and what follows is basically a list of approaches to the concept. That has an effect on focus. Can it be improved? Absolutely. But we have to remember the effect of: if you don't want your writing to be edited and redistributed by others, please don't submit it. --Fire Star 15:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor Quality Article 

message: The Martial Arts as Self Defense section is hopelessly POV. I tried to edit out the POV and off topic comments, but there were so many of them it was hard to delete them without deleting much of the real content. Someone with a high level of knowledge on the subject (not me) needs to erase the current version and just start all over.--198.93.113.49 19:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: I´ve changed some of the definitions for these. I thought they were a very inaccurate. Jujutsu is much like Wushu, a broader term defining japanese unmarmed/"litle" armed martial arts. BJJ is based on Judo (Mitsuyo Maeda, who taugh the Gracie´s was a Kodokan Judoka). It was an early Judo that was taught to the Gracies, so it is much more like some ancient Jujutsu schools than sport judo today. And Judo DOES have striking, it is just not allowed in competition. Since my english is not that strong (I´m brazillian), could someone please copy-edit my posts and make changes if there is anything that is not elegant in english? Regards Loudenvier 20:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jujutsu, Judo and BJJ 

message: Do you guys really think it is worth to keep such nonsense info in an article about Martial Arts?
Quoting the article:
Martial Arts have also found their way into Western Sports not commonly associated with martial arts. The most famous of these is the Fighting in ice hockey, or "Hockey Fight," which is similar to boxing. The process starts when two hockey players take off their protective gloves and helmets, grab each other and throw punches with their dominant hand. While these actions are not considered true martial arts, they are complex and unique fighting style that has been studied as an art form.
This brawling that happens now and then in Ice Hockey has nothing to do with martial arts. Perhaps it´s only my opinion... that´s why I´m posting this in the talk page and not removing it from the article right away. My vote is to remove, does anyone disagree? Loudenvier 02:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, get rid of it. Bihal 03:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur, fighting and martial arts are not the same thing. MLA 07:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ice Hockey stuff.. 

message: Just noted the self-defense situation because of the last edit.  That last edit needs editing itself but the entire section is POV, not sourced and not wiki-linked.  I'm tempted to scrap it all but I thought I'd post here to see if anyone thought they could turn it into a more appropriate section. MLA 19:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Took the entire section out, was pretty much entirely original supposition without any supporting facts. MLA 12:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that the Self Defense section was very poorly written, and subject to personal bias, I think it is necessary to have something about Self Defense. Let´s try to add something important on the subject, since many martial arts have specific trainnings on Self Defense (Judo, BJJ, Krav Maga, etc.) Loudenvier 12:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I went ahead and did my job: I´ve borrowed some text from the Self-defense article, and added some text relating self-defense and martial arts. Perhaps now the Self-defense section has some meaning in the context of the Martial Art article. By the way, I can think of many different ways to "uplift" this section: list some martial arts with specific self-defense techniques; history of self-defense in martial arts; relevance of self-defense nowadays (firearms, gangs, etc.) Loudenvier 13:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-Defense 

message: Comments are welcome at Category talk:Martial arts practitioners. Shawnc 05:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Martial arts practitioners categorization

message: The section was a collection of advertisements that are not really related to the overall topic of martial arts. I kept only the rec.martial-arts FAQ. If anyone feels that certain links should be included please comment here. Shawnc 16:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no comment on what links should not have been removed, just to say that its quite a bold edit.  I am on more than one page trimming links so happy to see some cuts so long as its appropriate. MLA 17:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Very few people (relatively speaking) get to see this page,which is a pity as on the whole it is very informative. The main problem is that most people look for "martial arts" and not "martial art" on google, and consequently this page does not come up among the highest rankings. I assume that boosting traffic is desirable. Perhaps this was suggested before, but could I suggest renaming the entry "martial art" to "martial arts" and then subsuming the material under the category "martial arts" within it? I know that there is a lexical argument for calling this section "martial art," but there are excellent arguments for calling it "martial arts," including the virtual absence of the term "martial art" in common usage and many dictionaries. Another major reason is the pragmatic one mentioned above. Don't we want more people reading this stuff?
Kim
:Greetings. There is a redirect from martial arts to this article, as you can see if you click on the martial arts link. There are presumable several other such terms that link here. We are in the process of trying to unify our various martial art related articles, a huge job though, perhaps you would be interested creating a user account and helping with that? Kung fu, Wushu, etc., some here want to merge all those articles, as you've mentioned. Regards, --Fire Star 19:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming "martial art" main entry to "martial arts" and subsuming "martial arts" category within it 

message: Some unregistered editor has replaced a reference to ninjutsu with kombato], The addition of "kombato" may be questionable. There is a stub for this syncretic school, but there is no reason I can see why the editor should have removed ninjutsu.  I'm not sure what should be done, and as soon as somebody else makes an edit the notice of a change having occurred at this point will disappear, so I'm making a note of the change here. P0M 14:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  may need action 

message: I've just proofed the article (05/02/06 at 0050 hours GMT - my session expired, so it's not under my username), fixing basic punctuation mistakes and such. There are a couple of points I think need raising:
:1. The article is starting to become long. I propose a couple of solutions to this:
::* Moving the 'notable styles of martial arts' list to a seperate page. This would allow greater explanation of why they are notable, perhaps. I was wary of doing it myself, as I don't know the usefulness of such a list outside of this page. I was also tempted to chop it down a bit, but I would likely be accused of bias (despite the fact that my main style would be removed).
::* The 'Martial arts in Asia' section now seems long enough to warrant its own article; the 'Martial arts in x' at least does. Inversely, more info is needed for the 'Martial arts in North America' section.
:2. I think that more pictures are required. Thus far, it has two from sport martial arts, and I personally believe that a broader representation of the martial arts is necessary. I'm not saying that sport martial arts are 'dull' or 'not martial arts', or any such opinion. I merely believe that with something so varied as the martial arts, there is easily enough material for more illustrations to add to the article.
Also, I believe someone needs to go through the article, editing it properly to help it 'flow' better. As it stands, I can see numerous different writing styles, from cumbersome to brief, and it just seems too disparate to me.
-- Sasuke Sarutobi 02:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit points 

message: I find it odd (and highly inaccurate) that there are seperate categories for "Strkiking" and "Kicking" in the article as kicking is a form of striking.  Following the current format, it should be "Punching" and "Kicking".  However, to be even more accurate, it should be recategorized as "Striking (punching/kicking/etc)", "Grappling (locks/throws/wrestling/etc)", and "Weapons (sticks/blades/firearms?)".
That would make much more sense and be easier to understand to the average person reading the article. --Phrost 19:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The striking/grappling/weapon art division lines are much cleaner than the line between arts focusing on punches and the ones focusing on kicks (boxing and TKD notwithstanding). --Ashenai 19:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Categorization of Fighting Ranges

message: I'm not saying this article shouldn't include a section on war dance,
but I think that war dance should be an article unto itself. In short,
I object to the redirection from "war dance" to "martial arts".
B1986 04:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why was War Dance redirected here? It doesn't make sense to me either. Was there an article on "War Dance" before? P0M 06:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  War Dance 

message: More thought can be applied to the question of why we call this subject
"Martial Arts. Is it from the Japanese jutsu/do split? And what
does this mean to a martial artist?
:I think it came from the term jitsu. In japanese Jitsu means an art,
and occupation. Jiu-Jitsu (ju-jutsu doesn´t matter) is the art of
overcoming an enemy with litle force (this is a metaphor, of course,
because Ju means soft or something like that). There is the jitsu of
the tea for example. The art of serving tea. The jitsu of forging
weapons. The japanese used to collective call their arts (fighting
inclued) as jitsu. Miyamoto Musashi always said a samurai must
learn every jitsu (art) to really become great, that´s why he is a
painter, sculpter, carpenter, etc. When translating this to other
languages, I think art to be the most appropriate term for the fighting
"arts" Loudenvier 16:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Term "Art" 

message: There are plenty of documents which show the progression of martial arts from Ancient Egypt through India to China and of course we all know they went from there to Japan. The availability of source material is not at issue. The only question is whether or no such an article is to be created in History of Martial Arts or on this page. Also what about something on Martial Arts in Militaries? It is my understanding that at least a few of the East Asian nations have adapted traditional martial arts for military style close combat. The use and prevalence of martial arts in the militaries around the world is assumed without question. These are my suggestions for either stand-alone articles or sections within this article. A penny for your thoughts. 64.31.188.26 17:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Martial Arts 

message: I changed the last sentence of the first paragraph because it was relatively useless. What martial art does not bring better health? But some forms of Tai Chi are also combat effective, granting that they are much rarer, so I changed the emphasis of the sentence to "some forms of arts" instead of "some arts"
Liastnir 19:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ta' Chi change 

message: (Please note: This was originally added to the section preceeding it. I took the liberty of removing it and putting it in its own heading as I think it should be --- Liastnir)
I don't want to edit (change or add) anything on the original work, which I thought was very well written.  BUT...I must mention that U.S. Servicemen didn't have time to practice any martial arts being taught locally during the Korean War.  They did partake of other available recreational activities, which I don't have to mention.
OK, perhaps there may have been a few that had the opportunity to train with a Korean Instructor but nothing in the records indicate that they did anything with the knowledge afterward.  
The name "Tae Kwon Do" was first used in 1964, when it was changed from the Korean Tae Soo Do Association. The latter association was created the year before.  
Hwang Kee introduced the U.S. Army to Tang Soo Do Moo Duk Kwan in 1957.  The martial arts being taught at that time were: Yudo (Judo), Kong Soo Do (Karate do), Tang Soo Do (China Hand Way). There were a number of different schools (styles) of the last two but I've said too much already.
SooUpJa@adelphia.net
:If you are in a trench freezing your toes off while burning your fingers on the hot barrel of a machine gun you probably don't have time forr sex or martial arts practice. But how do you know how the average UN soldier spent his time when he was not in direct combat?
:Call girls are call girls, but I doubt that many were available by whistling from a trench in sub-zero weather. On the other hand, one can practice martial arts in one's head whenever it is not essential to have your attention fully directed to the environment.  And, when I was in Taiwan in the 60s I was taught a breathing technique as part of the first lessons in crane style that turned out to be a good way to restore body core temperature quickly and with relatively little expenditure of energy. It has turned out to be very useful for overnight stays in snow caves, when dumped from a sailboat in the cold waters of a large Nebraska lake in late spring, and many less dramatic situations when other people were made sinking a little to close to hypothermia.  When you practice that technique to warm up your body core you are also practicing the martial arts technique--and there is bio-feedback involved because the better you do the technique the better you warm up.  
:You don't need a dojo and a teacher with a blackbelt to learn martial arts. You profit from having somebody who can teach you something, and generally you need a few square feet to move around in.  I asked Mr. Dahlke how he developed his excellent side-thrust kicks and he told me that every time in the army when he had to stand in line waiting for a bus or something he just did side kicks.  
:Korean people make generous friends, so I doubt that someone who sincerely wanted to learn could have been unable to make progress in whatever  "off" time he had in Korea. P0M 18:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: Martial Art History and Korea/Tae Kwon Do 

message: The pic at the top of the page looks like one guy trying to grab another guys balls.  It really needs to be changed.  I suggest a Kung Fu pic simply because it is among the oldest martial arts.  I do not take Kung Fu, and I'm trying not to be biased.  If someone else has a different suggestion and a reason for it, please speak up. 142.161.182.141 05:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pic 

message: I forgot to log in when I created this new history sub-section.
The idea here is to identify existing and emerging systems in the continuing real life history of martial arts.  Combatives is easy to acknowlage, having significat relation to traditional martial arts, but I'm worried some might have trouble with bayonet jousting and especialy point shooting.  If you look at either, though, the training and application is almost identical to any system.
I definatly think this could be expanded.  Or perhaps thrown under the umbrela of Modern Martial Arts, including the sporting side under a seperate sub-header.
What do you think?
Lucas.yamanishi 23:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martial Arts On The Modern Battlefield 

message: Why is it called Martial arts? Does it have anthing to do with marrige? The Republican 01:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The great god Mars will strike those who ridicule him with his mighty mace and hammer. ;-)  (I hear he wasn't good in bed.)   P0M 02:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone want to volunteer to ask Aphrodite (or was it Venus)? --Fire Star 火星 02:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: I dont know much about it, but i would think there would be more on the military forms of martial arts and c.q.c. Such as Scars and tft. Anyone out there knowledgable on the subject?--Aequias 04:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  S.C.A.R.S. And Target Focus Training 

message: Comments and corrections are welcome on the breaking page. Tony The Tiger 17:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Breaking (martial arts)|breaking]]

message: Do you guys think this would be good for the encyclopedia? It was in the article months ago. I'm not sure why it was removed, I missed the discussion. Maybe it just needs some modifications, or it could go in a different article, but it's certainly interesting.
While the techniques, origins and historys of the numerous martial arts vary, there are many core qualities that are customarily assosciated with martial artists. These core qualities include, but are not limited to, Courtesy, Integrity, Perseverance, Self Control, Respect, Indomitable Spirit, Honor, Discipline, and Humility. Compared to other fighters, such as boxers or wrestlers, a large portion of a martial artist's training is not physical. A major contribution to the lifestyle of a martial artist is deep concentration, mental focus and great knowledge.
Core Qualities
"Civilize the mind but make savage the body" -Chairman Mao
In spite of the many different kinds of martial arts in existance, almost all martial artists must possess similar core qualities. Simply memorizing techniques and practicing different moves and styles will not adequately classify one as a good practitioner of martial arts. It is in this belief that one must refine and mold their mind and spirit to be a true martial artist.
While many people believe that most martial artists look to fight, the exact opposite is true. Every martial art enforces these core qualities to avoid such confrontations. The point of martial arts training is to forge from the body a weapon of great power. The belief is that as this weapon gains power, the martial artist will gain more respect for it, thus limiting its use.
Courtesy-
All martial artists must be courteous to not just his fellow practitioners but to all people and living things. A practitioner who is rude, selfish and inconsiderate is often times scoffed by other martial artists. Taking the time out to teach another student or practitioner a new skill they are struggling with is also part of the courtesy a martial artist must display.
Integrity-
Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code is invaluable to a martial artist. Without integrity, it is easier to lose sight of the respect for the art that is being trained. Without respect and integrity, the martial art loses its meaning.
Perseverance-
"1-2 out of every 100 students reach Black Belt and of those only 1 out of every 1,000 achieves his 2nd Dan." -Masutatsu Oyama in reference to Karate
Martial arts training is difficult, especially when learning new material. In all disciplines, without perseverance, it is impossible to progress. Many early practitioners drop out of their programs because of the perception that the art is too hard. In many martial arts, many practitioners will gain their first degree black belt then drop out of their program. A true martial artist's goal is to persevere and perfect their techniques throughout their lifetime.
Self Control-
Self control to a martial artist is twofold. One must have a strong physical control over their own body. This physical self control is invaluable when practicing techniques that allow the martial artist to perform tasks including standard hand strikes, standard take downs, board breaking and even acrobatic back flips and jump kicks.
Also, a martial artist must have a strong mental self control. In practical danger situations, a martial artist strives to keep their mind clear and calm. In situations, such as a confrontation or fight, a martial artist trains to be calm and ready to apply the physical skills they have learned. Through repitition and practice, this becomes possible. For this reason, martial artists will find themselves more able to spare their opponent's life after a brutal fight due to the fact that their psychological state of mind was less altered than that of a person who had no physical or mental martial arts training.
Respect-
Respect of all things living, dead and inanimate is a key aspect to all martial arts. In the Ninjitsu branch of martial arts, a practitioner believes "everything around you is a weapon, including the room itself." In this particular case, all things deserve respect, as they might provide you with the best method to defeat your enemy. More generally, in all branches of martial arts there is a strong demand for respect of not only the others that you train with but also of oneself. As training progresses, ones own body becomes a fatal weapon which must be respected as such. Also, one must regard and respect all other bodies with the same regard.
Indomitable Spirit-
"Forget about winning and losing; forget about pride and pain. Let your opponent graze your skin and you smash into his flesh; let him smash into your flesh and you fracture his bones; let him fracture your bones and you take his life. Do not be concerned with escaping safely - lay your life before him." -Bruce Lee
A spirit that is incapable of being overcome, subdued, or vanquished is strongly linked to many other core qualities of a martial artist. Strongly linked to perseverance, it is necessary to have an indomitable spirit not only while fighting but also while training. One training in a martial art must have such a spirit to overcome the many failures and hardships that come along with the learning process. Martial artists must believe in themselves that with every defeat, a greater victory should arise from it. According to martial arts schools, a true martial artist will have a spirit that refuses to be conquered.
Honor-
The Japanese, Chinese and Korean cultures all place a deep importance on the notion of honor and of one being honorable. This importance is reflected in martial arts and is taught to be a key component of being a successful martial artist.
Humility-
Humility and the act of being humble is most often overlooked by many martial artists. With great skill in their respective art, many practitioners will become cocky and arrogant as their skill increases. However, in order to keep improving, martial arts trainers often stress the importance of being humble. When one is humble, it is believed, that their mind is kept open, thus allowing them to continue growing and learning. Once the student loses their humility, they lose their open mind, causing a great stunt in the growth of their skill.
Meditation-
While often ignored by most Western schools, meditative practices are vital to many martial arts. Having a mind trained in clarity and meditation is crucial to understanding the full potential of any martial art. Most often misjudged is the massive mental acuity of many martial artists. Classical martial arts schools will teach that meditation helps to build and train this acuity and train the mind to remain calm in a panic situation.
SkeenaR 04:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would this be good? 

message: you can't use religious textbooks to prove that a current martial arts exist ie. ancient indian martial arts.  the religious textbooks that are being referred to only tell stories.  ie.  this and that god-king learned "wrestling" or "archery" and fought this and that other god-king. NO existing indian martial arts are mentioned in these religious texts either in name or given in a  description.  YOu can't infer that if the religious texts spoke of "wrestling" that the wrestling was pelwani unless there is evidence.  If that were true, then Gilgamesh is the oldest martial arts book in the world because it talked about how gilgamesh fought with this and that person and wrestled.    In regards to greco-roman wrestling or some forms of chinese wrestling, there were textbooks, drawings, and illustrations that show how they wrestled and how to fight an opponent and there was a name attached to the martial arts that is still in use today, hence you can state that the martial arts existed back to that earlier time period.  Kennethtennyson 04:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: you can't use religious textbooks

message: This article has some statistics on injury rates associated with the practice of martial arts. Anyone wants to add this to the article? Shawnc 01:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Injury  

message: This isn't a pejorative section title, as Wikipedia shouldn't actually say that Sarah Michelle Gellar, for example, is remotely notable as a martial artist. She is a famous actress who happens to take MA classes. Does she teach them? Does she fight leitai? Has she ever won a shootfighting match? For us to say she is a martial artist in addition to her acting career makes Wikipedia her unpaid press agents. There is a slippery slope involved in calling everyone who ever took a self-defense class a noted martial artist. Some (very few) of the people on the list have a reputation for ability, or have won a few tournaments, but a lot of them are actors or children of actors most notable for their substance abuse problems. The entire thing is flawed, IMO. --Fire Star 火星 03:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celebrities claiming to be martial artists 

message: Should this section contain only styles with an existing article? Should we keep things like "Nonviolent Self-Defense" and "Combat Martial Arts"? Shawnc 15:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Peter Rehse has done a great job revising the List of martial arts article and weeding out the many dead links there. Now would be a fitting time, I believe, to remove this list of notable styles of martial arts from this page. In its place, I suggest we include a small paragraph explaining that literally hundreds of types of martial arts have evolved over time, and encompass all types of sport, faith, and actual martial elements, as well as a wikilink to the list of martial arts page. As it stands now, the list on this page is incomplete and, because it does not list all the arts found on the list of martial arts page, arguably biased. This would also shorten this already lengthy article, and remove redundant links (so many types of MA are linked already in the article)! Since the MA are a rather touchy topic, and this article has seen its fair share of debate, I didn't want to make this edit without consulting the community. Your thoughts, please. -- Xiliquiern 03:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Does anyone else have an opinion on this they wish to express? If not, I will go forward with this edit. --Xiliquiern 04:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I have pressed on with my edit, per 1 vote of confidence and silence otherwise. -- Xiliquiern 15:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable styles of martial arts 

message: In the section titled "Martial Arts in the Americas", a lone sentence pops up out of no where with no relevance to the rest of the paragraph:
" Over 1.5 million Americans practice martial arts as of 2003. " Colonel Marksman 02:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See if it can't be incorporated more fluidly into that specific section. -- Xiliquiern 02:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep, Change, or Go?

message: I find these descriptions to be uncommon and stilted. Martial artists talk about striking vs. grappling, not percussion vs. projection. The language is artificial and forced. JJL 04:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Total agreement. The repetition may mean rephrasing prior sections to have synonyms, but headings should use conventional terminology. --Scb steve 04:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: And just because the majority of americans say "where you at" instead of "where are you" doens't make it any more correct. This might sound artificial to those who have not grown up around the science of martial arts vs. other things. The trick to preserving an undeluted definition is to not give into the urge to stray from the truth with what's "popular". DruidArena 05:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If percussion and projected are such "undeluted", truthful definitions, then you should have no problem providing a source that supports their use in an encyclopedic article. You would be hard-pressed to find conventional usage beyond that of "Striking", "Grappling/Clinching", and "Groundfighting" to describe the most common ranges of combat. The only time there would be a legitimate deviance is if a term from another language was used to describe the range. For example, instead of groundfighting, a judoka would call it "ne-waza" (or ground technique). --Scb steve 06:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Off hand without going into tombs and trying to find someone with a scanner, here’s a start:
  Percussion: definition 1.1 / 2.2
  Projection: definition 1.7 / v3.2 / 6.11
*Percussion is defined the way it is due to the fact that at the scientific level, linear combat causes injury due to the vibration caused by the impact of one object onto another the same way injury is avoided in break falls by projecting the vibration in an outward direction instead of absorbing them. It is the same reason that coiled or whip energy used as percussion is more damaging than straight energy.
*Projection is used since the concept of all forms of throwing whether joint lock, unbalancing, or body, project an object in a mathematical direction usually resembling some sort or arc, sine, or cosine. Also, there is a distinct difference between the distances of projection vs. grappling as grappling is kumitsuki waza. Not to mention there is 4 distances of combat, not 3. (Must include weapon distance as separate from percussion distance)
…Unless you’d rather me use atemi and nage? 
However, I will concede the use of striking and throwing in the face of popularity, since the impression I've been given is that is what rules here.
You know, this is really my first trip to wikipedia and I can already sense that there is a lot of negative vibes running around here, especially in the martial art area. Why is it do you think that everyone feels the need to hold on to what they're told is correct to such a degree that people will sit on here at all hours of the night like little internet warriors obsessing over correcting each other and playing the one-up game? The pursuit of knowledge I thought was supposed to be an open-minded positive adventure, but instead I'm finding dark corners everywhere with demons much like that told of in The Phantom Tollbooth. I don't think that attacking one another verbally and trying to belittle one's knowledge will win us many friends in the end. DruidArena 13:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, it may help to look at it more like a boisterous academic debate rather than to assume a quality of "negativity" in other editors. There is a pollicy of WP:Assume good faith that familiarity with will help you navigate the shoals of our discussions. People have strong opinions, but a well presented rigorous argument is a well presented argument and my experience here is that people can be convinced to another perspective (or at least convinced to include one in an article) by such an argument. There are other policies that will help formulate an argument that you should read, especially WP:REF and WP:OR. --Fire Star 火星 16:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Percussion vs. Striking