Main > The Round Table

"What it means to be a Martial Artist" a post by Kevin Murakoshi.

(1/4) > >>

Thorsteinn:
I just had to cross post this. It was on the forum for the HEMA Alliance, and it just spoke to me. It spoke right to the core of what it means to be a martial artist, and what it means to be Knightly in that intent and dedication.

Thank you Kevin. You truly made my day better, and me a better person.

---------
Re: The Bastard Sword by Sir Marc de Arundel.

Post by Kevin Murakoshi on Wed Mar 02, 2011 3:30 pm

The question about whether SCA heavy combat is a martial art is far from a settled question even in SCA circles. There was a really good thread on the armor archive debating exactly this point. (See http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=115112)

To be clear, I do not participate in SCA heavy combat, I do SCA rapier and cut and thrust combat which is a different game.

I think that it's problematic when we start deciding things are "martial arts", and "not martial arts." Too often these discussions end up as "What I do is more badass than what you do, so we're a martial art and you're just posers". This is doubly problematic when you use the lowest expression of that activity as your basis for comparison. There are plenty of guys in the SCA who fight in wars, and maybe go to practice once a month. They're not really any good, but they have fun and it's a way for them to unwind with their friends. They are clearly not people who participate in a martial art. On the flip side, there are plenty of guys in the HEMA/WMA world who can't fight, haven't read the books, and are horribly out of shape. I don't think I'd call them martial artists either.

The argument that to be a martial art you must come from a martial heritage is clearly false. There are plenty of Martial arts that were invented in the modern age out of some amalgamation of EMA/traditional martial arts, and "stuff that works". This doesn't make them any less "martial arts."

Further, the idea that a martial art must be a "REAL KILLING ART" is clearly false. Aikido is clearly considered a martial art, yet has non-violence as one of it's basic tenants.

The idea that there exists a distinction between "martial sports" and "martial arts" is problematic since there are so many "martial arts" that hold large sporting contests. Examples include Judo, TKD, Karate, Savate/Lacanne, Thai Kickboxing and Gouren. These arts are usually classified as martial arts, yet their expression is almost exclusively sporting.

To take a non-sca example. I am a classical fencer. Most would claim that classical fencing is a martial art, while sport fencing is a sport. I train as a classical fencer, yet I compete in modern epee. Does that make me not a martial artist? If trained the same way, but didn't call myself a classical fencer would I be any less of a martial artist?

To bring this back to the topic at hand, I think that what defines us as martial artists is not the art we study, but the way in which we study it. If I approach what I do as a martial art, with the proper martial intent, then I am a martial artist. It is therefore, how and why we train that defines our martial art, and is the key difference. There are those in the SCA who treat what they do as a fight with sharps. Sure the rules change things a bit, but that is how they train. They train multiple days per week, and approach it as a martial art. These people are martial artists, and by extension what they do is a Martial Art.

In the end, I don't think we can paint the SCA with such a big brush. There are martial artists there, and there are sport fighters. This is the same with HEMA, we have martial artists, and we also have our share of sport fighters. The moment we start arguing that the SCA is not a martial art because it's actually a sport. We open up to the argument that the big HEMA tournaments are also a sport and the guys to fight in them have suddenly become "not martial artists".

It's also fair to say that you don't like the SCA, that the fake titles, medievalesque garb, and strange rules are stupid. That's fair. That what SCA heavy does isn't HEMA is also fair, it's clearly not. It might be HEMA inspired, but it's not HEMA. I think that when we get into "not a martial art territory, we run into problems."

I also have little doubt that the highest level SCA fighters, Kendoka, or olympic epeeists could school our collective asses even when using our weapons and rules (where SCA and Kendoka would use longsword, and epeeists rapier). I know a guy who's vying for a place on the UK Olympic epee team, and he totally schooled me with a rapier. Now guys like Axel and Jake, who are at the top of their game might make it competitive, but for the rest of us, not so much.

On a personal note, as a WMA guy and Classical Fencer, I used to mock modern fencers and anyone who hadn't seen the HEMA light. I laughed at SCA Armored combat as "slugs hitting each other". As I've grown, I've come to realize that it's not about WHAT they're doing, but HOW they approach what they're doing. I've seen too many "classical fencers" who use “it's classical fencing” to justify bad technique, or western martial artists who look scarcely better than the local boffer group. At the same time, I've met SCA hybrid fencers whose dedication to the perfection of their style is inspiring, and SCA heavy fighters who approach their fighting seeking that conquering of the self that characterizes so many of the Japanese martial arts.

So perhaps rather than talking about this on the internet, just train more.

Sir Edward:

Nicely said, I couldn't agree more.

Sir Rodney:

--- Quote ---So perhaps rather than talking about this on the internet, just train more.
--- End quote ---

Excellent summary.

Sir Edward:
I've avoided getting to these arguments on the forums, despite many opportunities. :) I've seen it come up on myArmoury most recently, I think. And I felt both sides of the arguments had brought up some excellent points. But in the end, it comes down to splitting hairs, and matters of semantics. There's enough ambiguity in traditional sports and arts (as he pointed out) to make definitions imprecise.

So I approach this similarly to how I approach most things now-- a fairly inclusive outlook. I try not to judge or dismiss various groups just due to their differences. I mean, think about how many useless arguments can be made in other related areas... For instance, who are "real" revivalists? SCA? Renfaires? Living history? Who are "real" knights? SCA knights? Our order? The Knights of Columbus? It's like having D&D players and LARPers arguing over which one is "real" role-playing.

When you start getting into arguments that can boil down to "they do things differently, so it's less valid", then you need to re-evaluate your system of measure.

Having said that, I think it's still important to understand the differences between the different groups and their approaches, so that you can make an informed choice about what to participate in. Personally I wanted to learn about actual martial use of the weapons in historical times, with less emphasis on competition and roleplaying, so HEMA was the better choice for me than any sort of LARP group, or the SCA. But I like the SCA for other aspects of it. It's a personal choice based on my own interests and goals. But I don't look down on SCAdians as a result.

Does that make sense?

Thorsteinn:
Yes.

And I must say that the reception I got here has been absolutely great. :D
The HEMA Alliance forum... not so much. :( (how they can see the Path with their noses up in the air like that is beyond me)

Look to my next original post for a metaphor (analogy?) of what I see. I hope its good, but I may need to tweak it.

Being Knightly is something you do alltimes, not sometimes.

-Ivan

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page