The Martialist thanks its paid sponsors, whose products you need!
Home
Intro
Current Issue
Mailing List
Store
Strength
Subscriber Content
ARCHIVES
REVIEWS
Martialism
Pacifism
Q & A
Cunning-Hammery
Advertise With Us
Submit An Article
Staff
Discussion Forum
Links

"Stay 'unreasonable.'  If you don't like the solutions [available to you], come up with your own." 
Dan Webre

The Martialist does not constitute legal advice.  It is for ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY.

Copyright © 2003-2004 Phil Elmore, all rights reserved.

Sportfighting is the Problem

By Phil Elmore



Martialist Publisher Phil Elmore

Well, it wouldn't really be fair to say that sportfighting is the problem.  More accurately, sportfighting is part of the problem and contributes to it.  By "the problem," I mean that of the countless training opportunities and curricula available, too many consider themselves the answer to the question, "How do I prepare myself for success in self-defense?"  Too many of these self-proclaimed solutions are incomplete, misguided, or nearly-there.  Among these is sportfighting.  Sportfighting fails to prepare its adherents for self-defense for three reasons:  failure of mindset, failure of strategy, and failure of tactics.

Mindset

Tom Sotis once said, "It isn't a fight until you want to stop, and have to continue." The term "fight" denotes, simply, conflict:  to struggle or compete.  It has any number of connotations depending on context.  The Martialist, however, is devoted to self-defense, rendering irrelevant any sporting or abstract meanings of "fight."  When we speak of fighting, therefore, we are speaking of nonconsensual physical combat in which one or more of the participants seeks to inflict deliberate grievous harm or death.  The initiator of a fight seeks some objective (murder, injury, material gain, rape, etc.), while the other participant(s) seek to deny the initiator this goal (through self-defense).

Sport "fighting," then, is not truly fighting at all in a self-defense context...

Sportfighting is the Answer

By Matt Wallis



Martialist Contributor Matt Wallis

I began my love affair with the martial arts in the early 1980s. My friends and I would eagerly await our weekly dose of Kung Fu cinema every Saturday afternoon. We marveled at the apparent grace and deadliness of Bruce Lee, Chuck Norris, and the 5 Deadly Venoms. We loved the exotic sounding Kung Fu styles, like the Tiger Claw, the Eagle Claw and… well face it, there were lots of Claws. We especially loved the kicks, the higher the better.

So, when the desire to emulate our favorite action stars rose to a fever pitch, it was time to find a martial arts school and begin our own journey into the deadly arts. We believed they were deadly, of course, and we wanted to be deadly too. We wanted to be able to fight. We wanted to be tough. We wanted to be able to defend ourselves from any attacker. And in the 80s self-defense meant traditional Asian martial arts, the older the better. That’s why Taekwondo was 2000 years old, of course. It had to be ancient to be perceived as effective.

What no one seemed to want, however, was sport. Boxing was a sport, so it was not martial arts. That meant that, for the most part, no one who was into martial arts wanted to box. By definition, a sport was not deadly. A sport was not for self-defense. Even Judo, though mysterious and Asian, was in the end just a sport. What we did, however was “for real.” What we did in our Kung Fu or Karate classes was for self-defense...

Read the full article>> Read the full article>>