Assume all have similar motivations to fight, all are top fighters in their own skill. How would each define winning? How would you? Who wins the battle? I know I could have posted this in sports/martial arts, but I'm interested in philosphical answers. Thanks!
2006-07-04 19:23:24 · 12 answers · asked by astrocatastrophe 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Silly Question! Taking your assumptions as real.The skills as equal.{Assumptions are the mothers of all screwups}.Winning in a physical battle,is always defined as defeating your opponent. The winner in all of these battles, is the one Who has the most speed in striking!Although many people have similar body strength.all fighters or athletes have different speeds in running ,or striking.That is why Olympic records are kept.Speed ,U are born with. Bruce Lee was known for his speed.He who strikes or defends fastest will win.What is silly is that this is an Apples and Oranges Question!Physical versus Philisophical!??
2006-07-04 19:43:03 · answer #1 · answered by xkss3 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Aikido obviously wins. Those other two arts specifically leave out the advanced study of martial arts....the esoteric knowledge. While aikido delves deep into that. A karate master might be a powerful fighter and a judo master, even more so. But an aikido master is a warrior. The techniques of the other two might not even be able to harm the aikido master at all. And heaven help them if he is armed with a sword. That's the difference between a do and jutsu (aikido is a form of aikijutsu). A do is a sport and engages the physical only. A jutsu is a deadly art and develops the rest of the person, particularly the ki.
2006-07-04 19:33:10 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is a quote about swordsmanship but it can be taken for any form of martial arts (Judo, Aikido, Karate, Etc..) even ones that do not use weapons. This is a philophical thing and it is from the movie hero.
Here it is:
"It just dawned on me! This scroll of Broken Sword's isn't about sword technique but about swordsmanship's ultimate ideal. Swordsmanship's first achievement is the unity of man and sword. Once this unity is attained, even a blade of grass can be a weapon. The second achievement is when the sword exists in one's heart when absent from one's hand. One can strike an enemy at 100 paces, even with bare hands. Swordsmanship's ultimate achievement is the absence of the sword in both hand and heart. The swordsman is at peace with the rest of the world. He vows not to kill and to bring peace to mankind." - King of Qin
So basically a true master of any martial arts doesnt fight in the first place. The have no hatred in there hearts even for those that harm them or others. They use compassion instead of hate.
The best example of this is the buddhist quote:
"In this world hate has not yet dispelled hate,
only love dispells hate."
--Buddha
2006-07-04 20:04:53 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am a Karate Master. I was actually in this very situation just yesterday. I bested the Aikido master, and I knew I had because he looked bloodied and winded. It was when I heard a commanding voice telling me "Finish Him!!" and when I looked up and saw it written above me, in thin air, that I knew I had bested him!! You know what I did next? I reached into his chest and pulled out his still-beating heart to show him. He fell to the ground in a broken, vanquished mess.
2006-07-04 19:32:52 · answer #4 · answered by Mr. Anonymous 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A Stav master! Since none of them have probably ever heard of it! (really though, check it out! It's a runic martial art from Scandinavia. But if you find a person riding it off as a racist agenda either run screaming or kick their ***!!)
2006-07-05 10:57:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A true master of the martial arts, would never seek fights. Fire will never put out fire. The true winner wouldn't fight if it was in any way possible.
2006-07-06 04:41:29 · answer #6 · answered by logish 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Winning is defined as "neutralizing" your opponent.
Who wins?
The one who brought a gun.
Really, martial art are useless in this day and age.
2006-07-05 06:17:03 · answer #7 · answered by hq3 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Aikido, the other 2 use strength over technique, and there is always someone stronger then you.
2006-07-04 19:53:57 · answer #8 · answered by Founder 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it depends on how each art defines a master. some qualifications may be different.
2006-07-04 19:30:49 · answer #9 · answered by cdh_2010 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
aikido master....judo is more for felling opponents and karate is more for chopping down opponents...aikido is more of judo combined with karate and they are using your force to counter attack back...
2006-07-04 19:31:10 · answer #10 · answered by jims_bong 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋