Which one do you think you are?

[Cavaliere di Fiore]

These are my personal definitions for the kinds of martial artists there are in the world. If you find yourself akin to one, go ahead and say so. If you have questions or comments on it please feel free to discuss them.



The Definition of a “Fighter”

            A fighter is not necessarily a man who fights, which is quite ironic in and of itself. A fighter can simply be a man who tries his best no matter what the odds to express the ideals which he has come to believe, or protect the life he has chosen to lead. The man could have never swung his fist or fired a gun or thrust with a sword ever before in his life, but if it meant the difference between his or his loved ones well being and death he would gladly accept the challenge and defend his or his families honor.

            I suppose a good way of saying it is “A fighter is a peace-loving man that does not baulk at the thought of violence in extreme circumstances in order to keep his peace.”

 

The Definition of a Warrior

            A warrior is a man who fights. A man in whos soul burns the will to conquer or be conquered. A warrior does not fight because it is right or wrong, because it is what needs to be done. No. A warrior fights because he can, and doesn’t stop until the fighting is done. He does not care for victory, or country, or chivalry, he cares for the blood in his mouth, the cries of death around him, and the racing of his heart as he takes anothers life.

 

The Definition of a Scholar

            A scholar is a man who can fight but decides not to. Whether it be because they think themselves superior; that they are above such monstrous activities, or inferior; that they do not measure up to the skill and passion of combat, scholars determine themselves to be apart. In my experience they are not. A man who fancies himself superior simply does not have the physical strength to partake in the activity, and is therefore resigned to using his mind to solve the problems of the body. A man who fancies himself inferior does not have the confidence or will to fight though he may possess the physical ability to.

            Scholars confound me somewhat, as by their very nature they are apart from the norm of humanity. It is in our blood to solve problems by physical means. It shows how brave we are, as well as how strong and skilled we are, and through these three things it gives a hint of how intelligent we are as well. Scholars use intelligence in order to make themselves seem more skilled than they are, and attempt to threaten those with strength with their intelligence to prove their bravery, while never actually using physical means to solve their problems. A very underhanded trick in my opinion.

 

The Definition of an Artist

            An artist is a man who fights for the sake of his humanity. He may not need to fight, but he does in order to express the basic things that all of us humans are made of. We are blood, we are muscle, we are quick thinking and ever learning., situations are ours to ponder and understand in a split secound. An artist is a man who looks at the Warrior and thinks “This is the pinnacle of human existence,” but understands that he cannot force himself to be one.

            When an artist looks at a man fighting, or is himself fighting, he tries to understand, to soak in all of the facts of the battle. The heat of the air, the sweat on his brow, the strength of his opponent, every limbs position, every weakness, every strength. But he never actually thinks of any of these things, they glide across his consciousness, as if looking at a sand storm from inside a glass bubble. But as a break in the storm forms, all things become clear in the artists mind, and he bursts forth from his imprisonment and strikes the perfect strike.

            The artist sees his art in all things, he feels it in the lifting of a box, the singing of a bird, the cry of a child. All things are his art, and the artist is a part of all things.

            But it is even more then that. A fight to an artist is the essence of understanding between two people. In the moment when he and his opponent are engaged, they understand one another perfectly, and in that understanding they feel a connection which from that moment forth is impossible to break.

            An artist treats every person he meets in a way that is compatible with their art.

            And finally, in the artists mind understanding comes from observation and experimentation, and he is not satisfied until the experimentation derives results that can be used to expand and improve his art.

[Sir Edward]

Using your list, I'd probably be somewhere between fighter and scholar, with some artist thrown in, except I don't agree with the definition of scholar. I don't see it as underhanded to use smarts, and I'm not sure why you're making it out to be nothing but arrogance. In fact, knowing when to fight, and when not to, is just as important as understanding the mechanics and tactics of a fight. Knowledge doesn't automatically equate to conceit.

[Sir James A]

By these definitions exactly as they are, definitely 'fighter', down to the letter.

However, under 'regular' definitions, I'd have to also claim scholar - not in the mental aspect of battle, but in that I'm much more interested in the historical, researching and re-living aspect.

[Sir Brian]

I actually do not agree with any of your prescribed definitions on several points, however since the definitions are limiting the perspective to quantify types of martial artists I’ll go along for the sake of the discussion.

In accordance with your definitions, I consider myself to have been all four types of martial artist in various periods of my lifetime. It has literally been decades since I possessed a ‘warrior’ mentality but I consider that category to be the basest of them all. I am most inclined to the ‘fighter’ and the least to the ‘artist’ as we are talking about martial arts (i.e. life and death combat) I see nothing about the potential of taking a life romantic in the least. If you meant your definitions to be applicable to training only then they are truly just academic after all.

Scholars have figured out the true battle begins and ends in the mind. Bravery, ferocity, strength, dexterity and stamina are all important attributes to enhance one’s skill no matter what the martial art and are typically enough to see one through, however they are all still calculable and therefore can be substantially suppressed or outright nullified by what you have labeled as ‘underhanded tricks’ and ultimately isn't it the true purpose of martial arts to preserve your life?

[Cavaliere di Fiore]

Sir Edward,
I do not mean a man who chooses not to fight sometimes, and other times deems it necessary, I mean specifically a man who decides that he will not fight, whether it be because of fear or superiority. I fancy myself a bit of a scholar when speaking of the actual definition of the word, but when it comes to these personal definitions I find men who hide behind books and never test their knowledge to be cowardly. They are men who would teach others that which they have never done, and never practiced. Things that they couldn't know, but expect others to understand through their explanation. In other words "Every man has a plan until they get punched in the face, then all thought goes out the window and pure training kicks in." These men do not train, they...suppose.

Mr. James,
Very good.

Sir Brian,
I would be more then happy to further clarify each of these in order to dissuade or solidify your beliefs if you have specific questions.

You and I obviously think differently, though, as I believe taking anothers life is the ultimate form of romance (in the classical term of the word of course). Two men meeting in mortal combat to decide an issue by the point of their swords, the speed of their daggers, and the force of their hands have already accepted the fact that they will kill the man with which they have this disagreement. There is nothing left in them but solid resolve. The two men come onto the field as equals with singular vision, and they both have nothing left to say. It is the epitome of black versus white, of the clash of ideas, it is man boiled down to his baser self. We are animals, but we fight as intelligent beings. I think that is quite romantic.

Also, as stated above, Scholars by my definition do not fight at all. They do not understand what they are studying, they are just studying. They have no practical experience, no resolve or drive to win, they just think they know, think they are right, think they are better swordsman because they have read a book.

And no, the true purpose of Martial Arts is to kill others, as given evidence by the name which I am sure you know derives from Mars the god of War in the Roman Pantheon, not the god of Defense which I am pretty sure there is none. I do not mean to sound combative when I say that by the way, I know the internet can make certain things seem more vehement than others.

[Thorsteinn]

Fighter. But you knew that.

You used to live with me after all. 

[Sir William]

Those who can, fight.  Those who cannot, teach.  I've seen great fighters who make poor coaches/trainers - because beside the natural talent, you also have to have the ability to connect with your pupil(s), otherwise they will fail, because you have failed to instruct them properly.  The opposite is also true, as well as some who fall in between...great fighters and great instructors.

Your definitions are too linear for me...to choose only one would be to deny all the rest which makes up a man, or more specifically, me.  I was a fighter in my youth, I'm more of a scholar now- but that does not mean I won't fight, or that fear would unman me...I tend to think before I speak and act rashly; it is the smarter way to live in my humble opinion.

Having said that, I see nothing wrong with how you choose to define yourself, but hopefully you'll not take offense when I say that a single one of those could not truly define me.  I am not one to subscribe to societal pressures that one must be clearly defined in such a way that ultimately cannot encompass the sum totality of who and what I am, and what my experiences leading up to this moment have had a hand in making me so.  Square peg, round hole sort of thing.

I would not balk at taking a life if circumstances were such that it was vitally necessary...but there is nothing at all romantic about it.  Of course, never having taken a life, I can't say for sure, but the subsequent loosening of bowels, bladder and blood doesn't make for an inviting bouquet.  Not to mention, I find the idea morally abhorrent.  True, that's more of a societal construct and personal view, but most, if not all of us here are in some way ruled by such things.  There is a reason for that as well...some of us might take a liking to it, and there's really no place for men like that, other than in specialized military or clandestine service and even then, the system of rules, checks and balances are such that if you have a proclivity for bloodshed, they'll find a use for you, until you are no longer useful, and then that's that- but what kind of life is that to lead?  We're all academics as we study the sword, its history, the art forms associated with it- but not a one of us has engaged in a duel to the death...at least, I have not and I'm reasonably sure my other brethren also have not.  Are your views about it being romantic stemming from a personal experience?

[Sir Brian]

Sir Brian,
I would be more then happy to further clarify each of these in order to dissuade or solidify your beliefs if you have specific questions.

You and I obviously think differently, though, as I believe taking anothers life is the ultimate form of romance (in the classical term of the word of course). Two men meeting in mortal combat to decide an issue by the point of their swords, the speed of their daggers, and the force of their hands have already accepted the fact that they will kill the man with which they have this disagreement. There is nothing left in them but solid resolve. The two men come onto the field as equals with singular vision, and they both have nothing left to say. It is the epitome of black versus white, of the clash of ideas, it is man boiled down to his baser self. We are animals, but we fight as intelligent beings. I think that is quite romantic.

Really? – So how many lives have you actually taken? How many eyes have you looked into and watched as the light of their life became extinguished from your hand and the stench of their released bowels and bladder assault your senses since we all must suffer that same undignified end of being smothered in our own sh** and piss as we die? – To the best of my knowledge I have not taken a life for which I thank God and pray I never have to even though I am capable and willing if it ever becomes necessary. – That’s about as romantic as a fucking heart attack.

Also, as stated above, Scholars by my definition do not fight at all. They do not understand what they are studying, they are just studying. They have no practical experience, no resolve or drive to win, they just think they know, think they are right, think they are better swordsman because they have read a book.

And no, the true purpose of Martial Arts is to kill others, as given evidence by the name which I am sure you know derives from Mars the god of War in the Roman Pantheon, not the god of Defense which I am pretty sure there is none. I do not mean to sound combative when I say that by the way, I know the internet can make certain things seem more vehement than others.

Mere semantics there since typically by the very nature of war one must kill their enemy in order to preserve your own life. – i.e. Kill or be killed.

However you are correct in that we most definitely think differently. Any training in any martial art is just that: TRAINING. It isn’t real. It is all make believe. You can train so hard and often that when an actual need calls for your chosen art to be utilized, your training (instincts and muscle memory) will serve you well. Other than that you will not tap into the level of endorphins and adrenaline as a genuine life and death fight releases into your bloodstream does. No MMA, boxing, or Karate match, nor any WMA duel or SCA combat, nope nothing will be real enough to convince your body to react in a primordial fight/flight mode. Ergo it is all make believe and as such not to be taken too seriously or overly sensationalized.

[Sir William]

Sir Brian, you mention professional combat athletics and that is well done- though fighters in those sports train to win, there are traditions set in place to take one from 'fight mode' to 'calm' - almost ceremonial in aspect.  Take boxing, for instance- I speak on this one because I boxed as a youth and took instruction at my father's knee since I could walk as it runs in the family.  Prefight weigh-ins, taping of the wrists and hands, lacing on the gloves, putting on the robe, last-minute warmups and glovework- these are all things designed to aid in the mental preparatory aspect of fighting.  You've noted that once they get in the ring, their handlers are very close, and when they strip off the robe, that is step one.  Then they meet in the middle to get their last minute instructions (which they'd already received from the ref in the dressing room prior to entering the venue, so it is just a reiteration) where they touch gloves and its back to the corners.  From that point on, the first rule is to always defend yourself, you're in a fight!  At the end of a fight, the robe (or in MMA, a t-shirt, some form of clothing) goes back on, signifying the end of the match, before they leave the ring.  These traditions are in place for to take the fighter from one mode to another...it has a psychological effect and that is the primary reason for it.  So that these combatants do not leave the arena only to still be in fight mode, and potentially wreak havoc on an unsuspecting populace.  Even so, they're not killers...but they do need to be 'handled' as it were to avoid any unfortunate events.  Those who cannot or will not comply with said traditions normally don't last long or do very well as they lack the requisite discipline to advance.

[Cavaliere di Fiore]

No they aren't, Sir William. I suppose that leaves me with nothing but an idealistic understanding of it, and I am guessing that in many instances romance was only that, idealistic. Fair argument indeed. I just believe that if circumstances permitting the taking of a life would occur one such as we would not only perform the action as necessary but also feel at the very least justified that we did so, and at the most powerful and glad that we could preform the duty instead of another in order to preserve whatever ideals we or our community believe.

It seems to me that the taking of a life, when justified, should be exalted since the only reason to do so would be to maintain and fight for an ideal, and ideals are generally worth dying for. I think the point I am trying to make is that if one was to take another life in defense of an ideal then you should not grieve for the taking of that life, because the fact of the matter is you live for those ideals, and if you feel bad for defending them then why do you live for them in the first place?

Every man and women dies. It is not your choice if they decide to harm others, or create a dark shadow over peoples lives. It is your choice to believe contrary, and to further decide that one deserves to die now instead of later because of their beliefs. So I believe you should take ownership for that action if ever it is presented to you instead of balking at the thought before and after.

If you were to meet Charles Manson and given the go ahead to shove a sword through his heart, would you give any thought to the fact that you just took a mans life, or for that matter that he soiled himself after doing so? If you would then I find that odd. I would happily kill such a horrid human being, and whistle my way out of the door. What about a man who harmed your child? Or a group of men that have tortured and harassed innocent people? I believe (as is previously mention I do not know for certain) that I would never shed a tear or feel a pang of regret for killing men or women like that. I think it poetic that such a being might one day be put to death after such horrid atrocities that they have committed.

Killing is a means to an end, not the end itself. We are all human beings that have the ability to consider the meaning of every action that we do. If I were to judge killing on the action itself then of course it would be despicable. Snuffing out the life of another is a horrid thing, because as you said, hygienically it is disgusting. But it is only emotionally disgusting if that life was worth living, only if they haven't already shown that the actions they would preform while alive were despicable and abhorrent. We kill dogs that kill innocent children. Why should I feel any more pity for killing a man that does the same thing, that has (and can comprehend) an entire society telling him that it is wrong?

[Lord Dane]

A fighter can always find quarrels that lead to conflict if there is good cause.
A warrior will always find battles without cause even when there is no war.
A scholar will always seek a diplomatic or academic method to resolution to avoid violent outcome.
An artist will just make it all look good with grace & style in order to impress his/her peers or others.

I'd have to say I'm another category unmentioned, "human". Fallible, imperfect, mortal.  Always seeking to improve myself in life through rational thinking, an empathetic heart, and moral behavior based on Christian ideals that result in the best course(s) of action in any situation life presents.  Knowing where you are weak makes you stronger.
 

[Sir Brian]

Well stated Lord_Dane!

[Sir William]

Cavaliere, if you recall, I did say

I would not balk at taking a life if circumstances were such that it was vitally necessary...but there is nothing at all romantic about it.

- and I meant every word.  You raise examples such that I would feel honor bound to meet by any means necessary...any person who egregiously harmed my family, my loved ones, deserves a retributive punishment that you usually only read about, but never actually heard of.  The end would result in death, but the manner of that journey would be something people would talk about for centuries after you and I are gone.

But I will say this- belief being what it is, I caution anyone who has such a zealous outlook on killing those who need it; for my part, I do not think I could ever be an executioner...it is not for me to take lives by mine own hand, state-sanctioned or no.   It has to be personal, very personal...killing someone just because I think they need it is not reason enough.

For example: my eldest daughter and her boyfriend were rough housing in the living room of her apartment; a handyman in the employ of her mother witnessed this and told her mother that he thought the boy beats her.  Her mother drove 2.5 hours to her house, took out a stick and chased the boy around the house with it and then commenced to berate our daughter in the middle of the street, in front of the house, with all the neighbors in attendance, about how stupid she was, how she could look forward to regular beatings because that's the type of guy he was, etc, etc ad nauseum.  She leaves.  Then, she has her current husband, the stepfather, call the kid up and threaten him with serious bodily harm, going so far as to say he'll send a couple of his 'boys' to tune him up; then she calls our daughter back and tells her that her boyfriend has three days to vacate the premises, or else.

Now, my exwife believed that our daughter was being beaten, despite no evidence of such beating (if you knew my daughter, you would know it to be preposterous...her bf is a small guy, she can pick him up and toss him across the room, literally), no history of violence, no complaint of any kind from my daughter or their neighbors- but because she believed it had occurred, she feels justified in her actions.  Do you?  I certainly do not.

But situations like this can escalate out of control because one or another believes something to have occurred that simply did not happen.  Which is why I cannot countenance taking a life based on belief alone, I need more, I need evidence!  Belief alone can cause much in the way of horror; we need only look at Wounded Knee, the Holocaust, 9/11 to know that.

The 'holy warriors' of al-Qaeda and others of their ilk 'believe' we are spawned of the Devil and that they will be welcomed into the afterlife with x amount of virgins to await their pleasure simply by killing as many of us as possible.  They believe this wholeheartedly...does that make them right?  Do you justify their actions as right because they believe that we and all we stand for are wrong?  I should hope not.

Barring the defense of hearth, home and family, who are you to judge who should live and who should die simply based on what you believe?  You, a fallible, imperfect, mortal human being, to borrow Lord Dane's phrase...are you truly certain that you have the right to sit in judgment of anyone purely based on your own beliefs?  Just a question, not a prelude to an argument.

[Lord Dane]

I felt I was born into the wrong time period but....being that I shall never see the medieval era....I live my life with some ideal notion of what a knight is in modern day.  I think I can best speak on this topic as I am law enforcement in real life. I am trained to protect, to serve, and (when reasonable & appropriate) take life when harm is brought to myself or others, which I can do & know I would (with later regret).  My ability to make those conscious choices is what makes me able to do my job because I know I would react & not hesitate where others fail to.  But it is my nature to do so, not just my job.  I deal with some of worst situations that no others are forced to & have not only have a sworn obligation to act, I have it in myself to do something based on my training, knowledge, and experience. 

Killing is not "human", it is just something humans do to each other (regardless of reason or justification). Taking a life is not always an easy choice for most.  For everyday people, it's just a matter of circumstance & most of the time, they are unprepared for it & will not always get to choose the circumstances.  They present themselves to you & you hope you can seek or use a lesser option when the situation exists.  Doesn't always happen that way.  So you act based upon what you know & when it presents itself, you'll react or not.   

[Lord Dane]

Those who can, fight.  Those who cannot, teach.  I've seen great fighters who make poor coaches/trainers - because beside the natural talent, you also have to have the ability to connect with your pupil(s), otherwise they will fail, because you have failed to instruct them properly.  The opposite is also true, as well as some who fall in between...great fighters and great instructors.

Your definitions are too linear for me...to choose only one would be to deny all the rest which makes up a man, or more specifically, me.  I was a fighter in my youth, I'm more of a scholar now- but that does not mean I won't fight, or that fear would unman me...I tend to think before I speak and act rashly; it is the smarter way to live in my humble opinion.

Having said that, I see nothing wrong with how you choose to define yourself, but hopefully you'll not take offense when I say that a single one of those could not truly define me.  I am not one to subscribe to societal pressures that one must be clearly defined in such a way that ultimately cannot encompass the sum totality of who and what I am, and what my experiences leading up to this moment have had a hand in making me so.  Square peg, round hole sort of thing.

Those that recognize they are lacking in one or both areas, improve themselves to be stronger in areas they are weak knowing already what they excel in.  In doing so, they not only prove they can follow, they exemplify they can "lead" and make others see where they can self-improve.  Self-improvement makes you both a student and teacher.