PDA

View Full Version : Korindo Aikido can be a devastating art if you are willing,



HinodeBuddha
16th August 2002, 02:04
This from another thread. This is not intended to belittle anyone, but please, can someone explain why martial artists repeatedly say "Such and such art can be a lethal or deadly art."

There are a multitude of martial arts these days. There isn't a one that isn't lethal or deadly.

I just don't understand. Enlighten me please.

Amir
18th August 2002, 17:23
Well
you wrote:
"please, can someone explain why martial artists repeatedly say "Such and such art can be a lethal or deadly art."

There are a multitude of martial arts these days. There isn't a one that isn't lethal or deadly.
"

and if you would have looked at the original message from which you quoted you, or gave a link to it, giving the context, the sentence in context is:
"
Korindo Aikido can be a devastating art if you are willing, normally the student finds himself falling very swiftly towards the mat, while being in a lock ( I assume most if not all M.A. are suitable for such a solution, the thing I find great is the ability to do so and yet remain a notch before the actual damage begins). "

As you can read, I didn't claim Korinso Aikido to be unique in that feature. On the contrary I stated from the start most if not all other art's are equivalent.
Thus, If you wouldn't mind explaining, why choose this quote.

Or perhaps we should discuss why M.A. are quoting out of context

:mad:

Amir

HinodeBuddha
19th August 2002, 01:05
Humph.....Perhaps I didn't clearly explain what it was I was meaning by what I wrote and asked.

I didn't feel it necessary to provide a link to or provide all the context to the original passage. This is why I first stated in my post that this was not intended to belittle anyone.

I just want to understand why MA feel the necessity to say that their art is devastating or lethal or whatever. I guess I feel that you are providing information that is not necessary. That sentence could have been easily omitted without taking away from the message you were trying to convey.

Obviously you know it can be devastating. Being classified as a martial art means to me and I would assume to everyone else that truly practices a martial art would know this too. When someone tells me their art can be devastating, I think duh, it's a martial art.

It just isn't something that needs to be said. That is my question. If it is not necessary, WHY to people constantly feel the need to do so.

My intention, again, isn't to belittle, embarrass or otherwise offend anyone. If I have I sincerely apologize.

But tell me if you don't mind, why did you choose to use that verbiage?

Amir
19th August 2002, 13:26
First I must say I have seen some places where they teach M.A. and particularly Aikido in a way that would find it difficult to be either deadly or lethal or even harmful.


As for this expression, I don't know why, but it seemed to me in place when I wrote the message. Often I don't even mention my M.A. but in this case it seemed in context to me. Perhaps it's my lack of knowledge in English (it isn't my native language and one of my reason to write in this forum is to allow the way I am expressing myself in English to improve).

Amir

N8y5000
21st August 2002, 08:25
Originally posted by Amir
I didn't claim Korinso Aikido to be unique in that feature. On the contrary I stated from the start most if not all other art's are equivalent.
Amir

Definition of "Martial"
Pronunciation Key (märshl)
adj.
Of, relating to, or suggestive of war.
Relating to or connected with the armed forces or the profession of arms.
Characteristic of or befitting a warrior.

If a MA cannot be deadly or harmful, by definition, it isn't a "martial" art.
(The above is on a side note)

I think that what he was saying is that teaching a student a lesson on effectiveness of a specific technique is a good thing. I could be wrong. Please correct me if I am.:)

Budoist
21st August 2002, 22:38
Found and read the original thread, and have to admit that I didn't see anything wrong with it. While it is true that martial arts have th capacity to do varying levels of damage, some martial arts are not promoted for that. Aikido, for example, is largely considered a "gentle" art with a focus on doing little damage to your opponent.

What I got from the statement within the original context was a reminder that while Aikido can be gentle, it also has a harsher component to it that can be used to show a "problem" student how to respond to endlessly theoretical variations from the intended lesson. ;)