What is your belief morally in what a combat system should teach?

Question

(Look at Tito Ortiz or Tank Abbott and ask yourself what they were taught as they are professional mixed martial artists before you anwser?)

Answer 1

Bushido.

Lets break that down.... Bushido - way of the warrior. do meaning way, bushi meaning warrior.

Bushi - shi meaning practitioner of, bu meaning to arrest conflict.

It boils down to 'bu'.... or 'budo' meaning 'way of arresting conflict' Ideally, the purpose of the samurai was not to wage war but to keep the peace.

This might mean, depending on the situation to kill. It also, depending on the situation might mean to control.

Either way, its an arrest of conflict - a resolution of conflict. To me, if you want ad morality into the picture, then arresting or resolving conflict must include protecting with a minimum of damage - its not about doing harm, its about ending the conflict - be it verbal, physical, what have you.

If its (metaphorically) all about being "your the best around, nothings gonna ever beat you down" ie - the cobra kai from karate kid, morality isn't part of the program if you view the resolution of conflict as a beat down, ok fine. If you view the resolution of conflict as controlling the situation without breaking bones and applying the minimum violence to archive said control, ok fine.

Its one thing to knock someone out with a punch (conflict arrested). Its something else to kick their head in until they are brain damaged after the fact (being needlessly violent - conflict is already over).

That isn't to say throwing a punch is right or wrong - the application is ultimately what counts when it comes to morality. To use skill to beat people is amoral. To use skill to defend people is not only moral but instinctual.

Answer 2

A combat system is placing into the hands of its students the power of life/death/maiming/crippling/injuring of other people, so there is a moral obligation -if not a legal one- to assess the character of the student before the instructor teaches him such, and to instruct his students when such techniques are justifiable.

In times past, instructors would test students to see if they were persistent, talk to their friends/family or require a note of introduction from someone who knew the student, and could vouch for their character, before taking him on. Of course, in modern times, this is no longer feasible, so a teacher should be looking at whether the student has a temper, and is give to lashing out (verbally, or physically) at other (more junior) students when angry, or if accidental contact occurs during class, see whether a student becomes a bully to those who he is better than, check report cards to see if the student is doing well in school, his first priority, or not, and whether the teachers who see him dailily have criticisms about his character.

No instructor should be cavalier about putting potentially deadly techniques in the hands of people, whose subsequent actions will unnecessarily harm the community, and bring ill-repute to the student, his martial arts teacher, and perhaps, to their martial art.

Answer 3

I am a firm believer in combat systems that work. If a martial art teaches ONLY forms it is useless on the street. If a system practices with little or no contact I believe it is only aerobic exercise. I think a system should be reality based and teach practical and applicable techniques. If a system / teacher says that the techniques are too deadly to be practiced on another person (with very few exceptions), I believe that they are full of it.
Those are just my thoughts.

Answer 4

1- Situational awareness
The most important aspect of martial arts training is keeping the students alive--this means being aware of potential hazards, escape routes, etc.
2- Use of contemporary weapons
People aren't at the top of the food chain because we're strong or fast; it's because we use tools. Plus, you'll never learn effective defense against weapon unless you know how to use it yourself.
3- Ethics.

Answer 5

the first rule should be that once you decide (or HAVE to) attack, that you should keep advancing and continue to overload your opponent/enemy with blows until they (or you) drop. the person advancing has the advantage, the person on the backfoot has no advantage. they are too busy thinking about getting away from you to effectively turn it into a winning streak.

the longer a fight goes, the more mistakes you will make as you fatigue.

your comments suggest that it is sport combat, so I will leave out throat/knee attacks...

Answer 6

I believe I have a 'moral' obligation to go home everyday, and stay alive to take care of my family. Whatever combat system I'm training in, it better work when it counts.

Answer 7

it should teach you how to fight period.

If you are training for a competition, it should teach you how to abide by the rules set for that competition as well but no more.

I don't learn to play an instrument and expect them to teach me how to be a mechanic.

I don't go to a dance class and learn to do trapeeze acts.

I don't expect my ping pong instructor to teach me to be a better person.

I do expect someone's family and parents/guardians to have taught them respect and to be a good person.

EDIT: did I totally misread your question like an a sshole or was that what you asked?

Answer 8

buy a machine gun and go frickin postal on a supermarket