[lmm]

> I know martial artists who can break a dozen cinder bricks with an elbow; that's a serious pursuit. I'd say there is a serious difference between that and riding a toy stick.

What difference would that be? Real-world application? No-one hires martial artists for demolition work.

They're both recreational activities. Doing them well is difficult enough that your ability can be (and is) assessed competitively. Seems much the same to me (at least, if the competition results are consistent between judges).

[wemdyjreichert]

Self-defense. Know two other guys who have possibly had their lives (or at any rate, probably hospital visits) saved in street fights and muggings. There are also countless juniors who have been able to fend off bullies. It's also exercise, which has extensive and proven benefits. It also has huge benefits in terms of bone strength and density. So yes, I would say real-world application.

Is it recreational in some way? Sure. But again, it has real benefits, while I don't see any in riding a toy stick (aside from enjoyment gained).

[watwut]

Self-defense and breaking those bricks are completely unrelated.

Also, where the hell you live that there are so many muggins, street and bully fights? All the while countless bullies are easy to fend off by junior trainees while the trainees themselves don't become bullies or something?

Cause as someone who done martial arts, it takes more of pure aggression to win against bully (or successfully bully someone) or in street fight rather then technique on junior level. And also that people training martial arts are no less likely to bully others then general population.

Moreover, majority of what is done and taught in martial arts lessons is not for self defense. A lot of it would land you in jail (cause it is about literally killing people), a lot of it is pure sport with little street fight application and a lot of if king of like gymnastics with no fight application at all.

[wemdyjreichert]

They are part of the same thing.

There are not "so many" muggings/fights/etc., but I do know several people who have encountered them. That's not so many; don't you? With respect to bullies, there is tons of bullying in every school. Any one who tells you otherwise is lying to himself.

[lmm]

> Self-defense. Know two other guys who have possibly had their lives (or at any rate, probably hospital visits) saved in street fights and muggings. There are also countless juniors who have been able to fend off bullies.

Some martial arts have some application to self-defense, but I don't think that's the real distinction - people don't seem to treat e.g. Naginata as a less serious martial art even though you'd never use it in practice. And many non-martial-art sports (I mentioned cycling in a parallel thread) are treated with the same seriousness.

> It's also exercise, which has extensive and proven benefits. It also has huge benefits in terms of bone strength and density.

Aren't those equally true of this hobbyhorse-dressage?

[wemdyjreichert]

> Some martial arts have some application to self-defense, but I don't think that's the real distinction

Many of the martial artists whom I know began training for purposes of self-defense. Some began as adults, and some were placed in training by their parents after being bullied.

> cycling

That's totally out of the scope of this conversation; I made no claims as to the seriousness with which cycling ought to be treated. I think most sports are given too much credence.

>> It's also exercise

> Aren't those equally true of this hobbyhorse-dressage?

No, not from the gif of a "competition" at the top of the article. It does not appear to contain any serious exertion.

Most sports involve pushing yourself physically. This does not involve such exertion and improvement. If kids want to do it, that's fine (all though still weird as all getout). But I don't think them saying to not "say they are playing" because it "strips away what we've made" is really reasonable. Kids are playing dress-up; it's fine to remind them it's just dress-up. And it's ridiculous to compare it to real sports.

[lmm]

> Many of the martial artists whom I know began training for purposes of self-defense. Some began as adults, and some were placed in training by their parents after being bullied.

There's a difference between saying that something helps with with being bullied (many disciplines achieve that by offering a structured environment, a framework to develop experience, consciousness over one's body, controlled confrontation, and a controlled experience of pain; I personally found taking up fencing helped me a lot) and saying it's a practical self-defense technique.

> That's totally out of the scope of this conversation; I made no claims as to the seriousness with which cycling ought to be treated. I think most sports are given too much credence.

Very few people regard martial arts as "more serious" than other sports. You dodged my example of naginata; do you consider martial arts that can't be used for practical self defense to be "less serious"?

> Most sports involve pushing yourself physically. This does not involve such exertion and improvement.

I wouldn't be so sure - maintaining precise control over one's body can involve a lot of physical effort. Often making something look effortless is part of a sport's aesthetic, but actually involves a lot of hidden effort to achieve. Consider figure skating or gymnastics, or indeed "real" dressage.