DBMA Martial Arts Forum > Martial Arts Topics
"Kali" player on trial for killing bouncer
SB_Mig:
Again:
I don't believe this (quote) to be about retribution but indeed about proportional response, couched in hyperbole.
Heading for the East Coast. Will be in touch once I am internetable again.
Miguel
Crafty_Dog:
Again:
Most people are unaware of the full context of the quote and will take it as it appears.
Looking forward to hearing from you when you reconnect.
Ted T.:
I'm curious about this:
--- Quote ---...trained in a vicious Filipino martial art in which even beginners learn lethal knife thrusts.
Detectives plan to interview a Manhattan martial arts expert who trained Umali how to kill with a single knife wound, sources said.
I reiterate that this was a horrible event, but now I am starting to wonder:
What can we do to change perceptions about the arts we study?
--- End quote ---
Doesn't all knife training include killing techniques? Doesn't every teacher of knife skills mention vulnerable spots on the body, whether to warn that if cut they will cause death or, if the need is to cause a death, how to do it?
Isn't the nature of fighting (not sparring, not even with 'realistic contact') with a stick or knife in combat, 'viscious'?
The only perception that has to change is the perception that only viscious people (ie, psychopathic killers) train in stick and knife styles.
I think that we must accept a high responsibility for being players, practioners and teachers of what is inescapably a deadly art. Being casual with the outcome of the use of your skills or casual about the responsibility involved in choosing carefully who you chose to teach, will cause the backlash we fear, not by trying to pretty it all up as an innocent game of tag.
Crafty_Dog:
Woof Ted:
I just skimmed your site-- very interesting. Delighted to have you with us.
You raise a very good question and I'm hoping people will take a stab at it :roll:
This catches me with only a few minutes to write, so please forgive my brevity:
Although diminished, the depth of secrecy in the FMA, especially with regard to knife, remains greatly underappreciated. Many systems that seem to be teaching knife are often only teaching disarms against angles of attack. I have heard it said that the art is being taught "culturally". Targeting is discussed only in simple, obvious ways and "sparring" is, as you say "prettied up as an innocent game of tag".
There is another side to the art however. It is incredible violent and efficient and the nature of this training is quite different.
Crafty Dog
SB_Mig:
Back here in Connecticut. Jetlagged but the foliage makes up for it...
Doesn't all knife training include killing techniques? Doesn't every teacher of knife skills mention vulnerable spots on the body, whether to warn that if cut they will cause death or, if the need is to cause a death, how to do it?
Yes and yes. I am not arguing that the techniques are not taught. I am concerned that the automatic picture that most people get when they hear martial artists is "vicious killers". And it shows in the newspapers' use of lethal knife thrusts and killing with a single wound. Every form of martial arts contains both the physical and spiritual side. The spiritual being the side rarely, if ever, mentioned.
Isn't the nature of fighting (not sparring, not even with 'realistic contact') with a stick or knife in combat, 'viscious'?
Yup. But again, the approach to teaching these methods (depending on the ystem) is not always kill, kill, kill. IMHO the best instructors teach proportional response and lead by example regardless of the viciousness of the style. My exposure to some of the more violent systems has always been in an environment where the gravity of using said style was implicit and the teaching is neither taken nor given lightly.
Most highly talented instructors I have had the benefit of meeting are humble, quiet individuals who also happen to know alot of ways to do damage if necessary. I have also met plenty who are complete...uh...not so nice guys. And their styles of teaching reflect in their students.
The only perception that has to change is the perception that only viscious people (ie, psychopathic killers) train in stick and knife styles.
Hmmm...I'll use the NRA's in regards to this. While guns are dangerous and many people perceive gun owners/users as the bad guys, the NRA goes out of its way to promote gun safety and responsible ownership.
The perception of martial art/artists/fighters/warriors is a subject that I have always been interested in. While warriors have been respected throughout the ages, their attitude and approach often dictated the response they received upon arriving in town. Gentle samurai who writes poetry and can cut you in half if needed or bad gunslinger who'll shoot you for lookin' at him wrong. Is there a difference in perception? And if so, what is it and why?
I think that we must accept a high responsibility for being players, practioners and teachers of what is inescapably a deadly art.
Damn skippy.
Being casual with the outcome of the use of your skills or casual about the responsibility involved in choosing carefully who you chose to teach, will cause the backlash we fear, not by trying to pretty it all up as an innocent game of tag.
And you are right in saying that a casual approach is a dangerous approach. In no way do I believe that we should pretty up the arts we study. But our respectful approach to the arts is what is often left out of the paper and that I take issue with.
I think this last point brings us back to a question of Tiny's: "As a teacher is it not one's responsibility to choose students who honor the power of technique(s)?"
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version