KJ wrote:
You are once again correct. I and no doubt many others do not have the compulsion to fight in the sense that you seem to apply the term.
**It’s not about “a compulsion to fight” but the recognition that if you are training to develop greater fighting skill then fighting is something you must do.
Nor flippant about the risks, ethics, and cost/benefits impacting the fuller context of life. I am indeed satisfied to “compromise” through a considered and synergistic amalgamation of “lesser” training methods and other life experiences.
**That’s fine, people practice MAs for various reasons: health, fitness, cultural preservation, etc. Some people enjoy folk dancing. But one needs to appreciate that it only develops marginal fighting skills and only gives one a marginal understanding of fighting application (because if you can’t do it, you don’t understand it).
My aim is not to “prove” something, rather to improve as much as possible without what I consider unreasonable risks, or undue sacrifices in overall quality of life or personal values.
**I hear the phrase “I don’t have to prove anything” and quite frankly I think that’s absolutely incorrect – you always have something to prove. For example, if a person makes public statements, the weight we give those opinions depend on that person’s credibility (do they know what they are talking about?). If someone teaches, they owe it to their students to prove they know and can do what they are talking about. On a personal level, a person that is interested in growth needs to know their weaknesses, if their training is effective, etc. Proof is what permits us to determine what is true. If someone is not interested in proof, they are not interested in truth. Lineage, certification, association, time-in-the-art, etc. doesn’t say anything about a person’s fighting skill, i.e., their ability to apply their WCK. There is only one way to know that.
As as been discussed so many times, there is no method which can offer conclusive “proof” of one’s ultimate superiority in any and all situations; not even “fighting” can offer ultimate “proof,” but at best an increasing sense of probabilities. I am therefore further satisfied that the feedback I continuously seek and receive on my evolving but endless stream of shortcomings, is sufficient for continued improvement. I’m not in a hurry, only persistent.
**This is a cop out. Of course there is no ultimate test for all possible fighting situations, that’s true of anything. But that doesn’t mean we can’t examine training methods and determine their general effectiveness. If we can’t do that, then it is open season for anything – someone could propose any “method” and rely on your argument that since there is no “ultimate test for all possible fighting situations” their method is just as good as anythig else. Skill in any physical activity can be demonstrated by how well one can perform that activity.
If this type of approach somehow puts into question my or other’s seriousness or intelligence as martial artists, so be it.
**Firstly, I don’t see why pointing out that a certain training method isn’t productive has become questioning a person’s intelligence. Secondly, I don’t see why those persons claiming to be training to become better fighters would not be interested in a critical discussion of training methods. Thirdly, I don’t see why folks who think their training methods are productive would be reluctant to put it to the test (to find out for themselves if their assessment is accurate) or provide some evidence to support their claim.
I don’t have as much compulsion or need of definitive and unequivocal proof as some like yourself, and am apparently more comfortable with reasonable degrees of uncertainty. Well considered and plausible evidence is sufficient for me to extrapolate what to work on next in the endless cycles of continuous improvement.
**People can believe almost anything, and lots of theory and practice seem reasonable and effective outside of a fighting environment but will fail miserably in a fighting environment (particularly as the skill level of the opposition increases). This can only be appreciated through experience. Here’s a simple example – the wing chun groundfighting folks: if they think what they are developing is good groundfighting skills, why not roll with some skilled groundfighters and see? They can extrapolate and theorize all they want but since they lack an understanding of what really goes on when groundfighting, they are just theorizing in the dark. Rolling with skilled groundfighters will provide them with some experience that they can use as a framework for theorizing and a means to test their conclusions. And, if they do have good skills what would they lose by rolling (they can only gain greater experience)*? My view is that in the overwhelming majority of the time when someone won’t prove something it is because they can’t prove it.
Additionally, there are more than enough other benefits of practice to balance and compensate for a slower rate of development as well. Contrary to what some may say, it’s not a matter of taking things less seriously, it’s just taking them differently.
**The path to developing significant fighting skills is not a situation where many different paths lead to the same place – they don’t. Of course, you can believe they do but it is an easy matter to test, isn’t it?
Just a healthily different perspective on things.
**I don’t know how “healthy” that perspective will be should one be called on to actually use fighting skills. 
Regards,
Terence
For me, the only “competition” and true benchmark is with myself. When it comes to how I stack up against others, what will be will be. I have sufficient “attitude,” LOL; it just happens to be a learning and continuous improvement attitude more than a competitive one. But this is what 