(as im knackered, im just gonna take out blocks of text to reply too)
if im correct, you agree with not being able to learn (for example) eishin ryu iaido, from a eishin ryu iaido book. but you still think that its possible to learn something close to iaido (in terms of 'usability') by simply learning some skills found in books.all thats happening is people are confusing (some on purpose some not) with regards to swords specifically, the desire to cut things, the abilty to cut things, and the abilty to cut things with specific technique correctly, ability at a certain specific technique with a sword within an established sword art with be virtually impossible (i agree with wraith) to attain or progress in if you dont get instructed by a master IN THAT SYSTEM.....
(i'll put all my answers in italic, so its easier to reference)
the whole reason book teching doesnt work is because of the lack of feedback, and the media being woefully small in the terms of information it can carry....
if you were to try and learn something, looking like iaido, and being usable (from a book, etc). then you'd still have ONLY the finite information carried in books, and if you were to do something wrong... which every beginer on earth does... then you'd not know, as theres no feedback, and keep working those bad movements into your muscles.
if your learning a non-martial art, self defence set of movements... what point is there to working bad techniques into your muscles?
how is using inferior technique 'self defence'?
you also need to remember that martial arts... and the effective techniques contained within them, were refined over hundreds of years... they werent just picked up overnight... theres a reason their so specific, and take proper training to do correctly.
why is having a specific type of technique better?
because the specific techniques of martial arts have been refined through wars, personal experences, changes in socity, and the fact that if they failed, they died. its a tried, and tested form of self defence.
there is, of course exception to this, where the martial arts have been reduced to sports, and the effectiveness swapped for useless point scoring exercises.... but thats a different convo.
so from a purely self defence point of view... having the best technique possible is a good thing. and not training properly for it is just stupid.
so if your saying its possible to train a self defence, rather than a martial art through books. your wrong.
still no feedback.
still to small a media to work with.
failing on the basis that its not, technicly, a martial art, but its just as effective.
if i understand correctly, your saying that you agree with your training having no 'martial art' merit. and your trying to imply that millitary art, and self defence arts have the same merit as martial arts.i understand wraiths points about training i have trained long and hard to have developed the limited skill i have over thousands of hours calling it a martial art, is according to wraith incorrect and i actually agree with him on that point, my point however is that self defense and military training are NOT MARTIAL ARTS either, using his definitions and therefore huge portions of the worlds population are labouring under a false pretense.
thats correct... self defence is not a martial art.
and millitary training isnt 'martial art' (assuming were only talking about combat based in hand-to-hand, not rifles, and guided missles)
self defence, by definition, is the most effective set of techniques you can use, in todays socity. if your learning how to defend yourself then you still need to LEARN it... in the same way as martial arts, as it happens. by going to instructors.
martial arts ARE self defence, by their very nature. in fact, the only things seperating them are the traditions.
the techniques used in all self defence systems, are martial art techniques. (again, this is subject to the watering down of certain martial arts... again, a different convo).
why do they use martial arts techniques? because, like ive said, their the ones that have been tried and tested.
martial arts cant be learnt from a book.
self defence cant be learnt from a book.
they are the same thing (or at least SHOULD be, by definition)
as for millitary arts (assuming were still talking hand-to-hand) they have a VERY low footing in terms of technical knowlage.
millitary 'jap-slapping' is a low-tech form of self defence. its quick, its nasty, and it has no real level of skill attached to it.... which is fine for what it is, and as a self defence, it works for the millitary..... problem is... its crap in terms of knowlage, and coverage.
no millitary jap-slapping will ever stand up to a real martial art.
so why is this low tech, useless art tought... if its so lacking?
its tought because the soldier MIGHT, in some way, have to use it.....truth is, they probally never will.... the reason being, that a millitary issue rifle will kill at quite a few hundred meters
not much hand-to-hand combat in the age of rifles, helicopters, and intercontinental ballistic missiles
why spend 2 weeks teaching it?
because they have too... a soldier MIGHT need to use those skills... but its very doubtfull.
if it was importent, or conclusive in any way, they would spend a LOT more than 2 weeks teaching it!
the issue of martial artist, and 'just someone who partakes in a martial arts' is a completely different subject and has nothing to do with how much they train, or at what level they train at.it might be better wraith tobe honest if you just say that anyone that is not a regonised master/teacher of an art and who does not pratice or teach for 8 hours a day is not a martial artist merely someone who practices martial arts.
it also relient on the martial art itself.
but either way, it has nothing to do with learning from a book.
assuming still that were talking REAL martial artsor like in the military someone who has been given a "toolbox" of skills, are you saying that soldiers are not martial artists ?
soldiers (in hand-to-hand combat terms) are not martial artists... their toolbox is very limited. and their skill level in any sort of 'self defence' system, will fall woefully under a simulary trained martial artist.
(before i reply, im assuming that the normal millitary stint is subject to a minimum of 3 years.. but i may be wrong)does the army in fact not teach there toolbox in a two week course ?
yes they do teach their toolbox in 2 weeks... and like ive said before... its lacking.
in a minimum time of service they will only learn the 2 week course.... you think that will stand up to much against the same amount of time in a martial art?
is a juggler of the same skill as a martial artist, in a fight? no. but that is not to say that there is less skill in juggling knives, etc.is someone who juggles razor sharp knives and chainsaws any less "skilled" than someone that can swing a sword in a very specific way my point is that "skill" and "training" are not universal concepts they are relative to the specific activity in question.
there are 2 different skills is action. 1 good for fighting, 1 good for juggling knives, and chainsaws.
using that as a basis for my next comment. (VERY generalised)
"trained martial artists are good for fighting, book trained martial artists are NOT good for fighting, but ARE good at reading. and absorbing the finite knowlage in media."
like you implied... 2 different skill sets!