Akira Masuda × AI — An Interactive Thought Experiment〜Sparring of Thought, Part 2
Dialogue: Akira Masuda × AI
Edited and structured by AI
The Value of Combat Beyond Victory and Defeat and the North Star of Budo Competition
This article has been reconstructed into a readable form based on an actual dialogue between Akira Masuda and AI. Errors caused by voice input and repetitive expressions have been corrected only where the meaning remains unchanged.
Rather than extracting only the conclusions, this article preserves the process through which the thinking developed—through questions, responses, doubts, and revisions.
Can Combat Be Explained by Victory and Defeat Alone?
Akira Masuda
It seems to me that fighting is not simply a matter of knocking someone down or being knocked down, of winning or losing.
Certainly, many people believe that a fight must be won. No matter how impressively one fights, if one loses, they may consider the fight meaningless. Conversely, even if the fight appears awkward or unimpressive, people may say that it has meaning if one wins in the end.
But I do not think that is all there is.
How the fighters fought within that contest—the process itself—can have very deep meaning.
Suppose there is a fight that, to most people, looks awkward or even ugly. But is that fighter really fighting badly?
Perhaps the fighter is enduring the opponent’s attacks. Until the very end, he is searching for an opportunity to win. He is observing the opponent and keeping the possibility of victory alive. Then, finally, he turns the fight toward victory.
There is strategy in that. There are also tactics aimed at achieving victory in the end.
I find something admirable in that as well.
AI
That way of thinking leads to a distinction between the outcome of a fight and the value of the fight itself.
From the outside, a fighter may appear to be retreating. Yet that movement may be intended to recover his breathing. He may be reading changes in the opponent, or waiting for the moment when the opponent begins to tire.
In other words, outward appearance and the judgments taking place inside the fight do not always coincide.
Endure. Wait. Draw the opponent in. Make the attack miss. Then, when the opportunity comes, turn the situation around.
Unless we look at that entire process, we may not be able to judge the value of the fight.
Akira Masuda
Exactly.
But there is something else I am thinking about.
I do not want that excellence to be reduced simply to an evaluation of the individual, such as saying, “That fighter was admirable.”
Rather, I am interested in the excellence that exists in the contest itself—in the fight itself.
I believe that is where the meaning lies.
And I wonder whether that, too, may be an expression of Riho—the underlying principle or law—made manifest in the fight.
AI
I see.
That is different from a moral judgment such as saying that “there can be noble losers.”
The value of the fight does not belong to only one fighter.
One fighter attacks. The other receives the attack, avoids it, endures, draws the opponent in, waits, and then turns the situation around.
Within that interaction, judgment, patience, tactics, and control emerge.
In other words, the value appears in the fight itself, which is created through the relationship between the two fighters.
In your terminology, that would mean that Riho becomes manifest within the fight.
Akira Masuda
Yes.
The Riho I speak of is not something that exists only as an idea in the mind.
I believe it becomes manifest in actual combat.
What Is the Artistry of Boxing?
Akira Masuda
I have an intuition that something like this may be what boxing fans in the West perceive as the artistic or philosophical quality of boxing.
What do you think?
AI
I think that is possible.
But it may be useful here to distinguish between “beautiful movement” and “the beauty of a fight.”
Moving quickly, using brilliant combinations, or having beautiful form can certainly be forms of beauty.
But the values discussed in boxing are not limited to those things.
Making appropriate decisions while in danger. Not losing oneself when under pressure. Continuing to make choices while sensing changes in the opponent. And making a decisive choice at the necessary moment.
Beauty can also appear in the very structure of such a fight.
Within boxing culture, people have long discussed not only who won, but also how a fighter fought.
Technique, defense, distance, judgment, courage, and the process leading to a comeback can all become objects of evaluation.
However, one point requires caution.
Boxing culture as a whole is not governed by a single philosophy.
Some people place great value on sophisticated technique. Others place greater value on knockouts or fierce exchanges.
Perhaps precisely because of this, the question of what should be regarded as excellent boxing has continued for so long.
Akira Masuda
I see.
I think that is extremely important.
In other words, artistry should not be sought only in outwardly beautiful movement.
Rather, we need to look at what is actually happening within the process of the fight.
What did the fighter think? What did he endure? What decisions did he make? And what did he ultimately choose?
We need to look at all of those things.
AI
I agree.
And if we view it that way, it connects directly to the expression that emerged in our previous dialogue: “the ideal of boxing.”
Rather than defining one ideal form of boxing, we continue to ask what should be called excellent boxing.
That cultural question itself may be what the phrase “the ideal of boxing” points toward.
Then What Should Budo Competition Evaluate?
Akira Masuda
Thinking along these lines inevitably brings me back to the idea of budo competition that I have been considering.
If I incorporate competition into Budo, I do not simply want to create a set of competition rules.
I want to establish a new set of values and a philosophy for what I call budo competition.
However, when I look at current Budo and combat sports, I do not clearly see those values or that philosophy.
Perhaps that is why I want to understand the deeper layers of boxing culture.
AI
Then there is a question that stands above the question of rules.
What should budo competition regard as valuable?
For example, suppose knocking an opponent down receives a high evaluation.
Why should knocking someone down have value?
Suppose inflicting greater damage receives a high evaluation.
Why should damage be the highest value?
Suppose moving forward receives a high evaluation.
Is moving forward, in itself, truly valuable?
Competition rules can say, “If you do this, you receive this many points.”
But rules alone cannot answer the question, “Why should this action be worth those points?”
Before the rules, there must be a philosophy of competition.
Akira Masuda
Yes.
That is what I want to think about.
The rules must not come first.
We must first determine what we regard as valuable.
AI
Then the order would be to ask first:
What constitutes an excellent fight?
What constitutes a beautiful fight?
What kind of action should be regarded as valuable from the standpoint of Budo?
Only after considering those questions would we design rules and scoring systems that allow those principles to be evaluated within competition.
Akira Masuda
Yes.
Seen that way, competition rules are not the goal.
They are a means of realizing the philosophy that stands above them.
The “North Star” of Budo Competition
Akira Masuda
At this point, I think the idea of the North Star may be useful.
The North Star is not a destination that we are supposed to reach.
It shows us the direction in which we should proceed.
Perhaps budo competition also needs such a North Star.
AI
If we think of it that way, victory itself is not the North Star.
A knockout is not the North Star. Damage alone cannot be the North Star either.
Nor can any single technique be the North Star.
Above all of these is another question:
“What does this form of competition seek to pursue as excellence?”
If that question is what guides budo competition, then it can serve as its North Star.
Akira Masuda
Exactly.
And I suspect that boxing culture also contains something of this kind.
That is why we arrived at the expression, not “ideal boxing,” but “the ideal of boxing.”
However, I do not want this point to be misunderstood.
I am not trying to bring boxing directly into Budo.
I do not want to imitate boxing.
I want to learn from it.
AI
In other words, you are not trying to transplant boxing’s answers directly into Budo.
Rather, you want to examine how, throughout its long competitive culture, people have considered the question of what should count as excellent boxing.
From that, you want to learn how a competitive culture itself develops.
Then budo competition can pursue its own ideal.
Akira Masuda
Exactly.
Considering the Criteria for Evaluation
Akira Masuda
Then what should actually be evaluated in budo competition?
I believe there are several important elements.
First, there is accuracy.
Then there is technical quality.
However, I do not think “technical quality” alone is sufficient. I would prefer to describe it as the martial quality of technique.
What do you think?
AI
I think that is more appropriate.
It is not simply a matter of being technically skillful.
Posture, the body axis, body mechanics, distance, and timing all matter.
We must also ask whether the movement actually functions as a martial technique within a real exchange.
All of these can be included in what we call the martial quality of technique.
Akira Masuda
There is also control.
But I also think initiative is important.
Do you think initiative can be included within control?
AI
I think it would be better to separate them.
If we use the word “control” to mean how well one can control one’s own technique and power, then it is different from initiative.
For example, not using more power than necessary, controlling a technique appropriately, and controlling one’s body and physical contact are forms of self-control.
Initiative, however, emerges through the relationship with the opponent.
Who is creating the distance?
Who is determining the tempo?
Who is causing the opponent to choose certain actions?
In other words, the question is: Who is driving the development of the bout?
Akira Masuda
I see.
Then rather than including initiative within control, it would be better to treat them separately.
AI
I think so.
A fighter may control his own techniques very well while not controlling the direction of the bout.
Conversely, a fighter may be driving the bout while showing relatively poor technical control.
Therefore, treating them as separate observational categories makes the concepts clearer.
Akira Masuda
Then, at this stage, we have:
Accuracy.
The martial quality of technique.
Control.
Tactical quality.
And initiative.
AI
Yes.
However, I think we should be careful not to turn these immediately into scoring categories.
For example, what exactly is accuracy?
Is a punch accurate simply because it touches the opponent?
Does martial technical quality mean merely that the form looks beautiful?
Does control mean hitting weakly?
Does tactical quality simply mean having a plan?
Does the fighter who moves forward automatically possess the initiative?
Each of these concepts requires further definition.
Simply placing five terms side by side does not yet create a philosophy of competition.
Akira Masuda
Exactly.
It means that this is what we now need to think about.
Does Competition Cause Budo to Lose Its Martial Character?
Akira Masuda
There are also people within Budo who believe that introducing competition causes Budo to lose its essential character.
But I do not necessarily agree.
AI
I think it depends on how the competition is designed.
If competition is constructed as something separate from Budo, then the martial character of Budo may indeed become weaker.
But the opposite is also possible.
Competition can make the values that Budo considers important visible.
What is evaluated affects how competitors behave.
When their behavior changes, methods of instruction also change.
When instruction changes, the culture surrounding the competition changes as well.
Viewed this way, scoring criteria are not simply a method for assigning points.
They are also a mechanism that teaches participants what the competition considers good.
Competition therefore has an educational function as well.
Akira Masuda
I see.
Then we do not necessarily need to regard competition as something that destroys the principles of Budo.
Depending on how it is designed, competition may actually clarify those principles.
That is why philosophy must come before rules.
But What Does It Mean to “Win” in the First Place?
Akira Masuda
Having come this far, I think we need to consider more deeply what the ideal of budo competition should be.
But before that, there is another question we need to examine.
What does it actually mean to win?
We casually speak of winning and losing.
But on what basis do we say that someone has won?
Who determines those criteria?
There is also the question of time.
Even if someone is considered the winner at one particular moment, does that determine the meaning of the fight as a whole?
This question concerns me greatly.
AI
That question follows naturally from everything we have discussed.
Until now, we have been saying that victory or defeat and the value of a fight are not the same thing.
If so, then we must also examine the very concept of victory and defeat that underlies the discussion.
In competition, the rules can define the conditions for winning and losing.
But that means only that someone has won within those rules.
How far can that victory then be extended?
Is it an evaluation made at the end of the contest?
Is it an evaluation of the way one fought?
Or should these be treated as different matters from the beginning?
There are still important questions to clarify.
Akira Masuda
Yes.
I have long had doubts about the Japanese word shōbu, the idea of a contest defined by winning and losing.
By what criterion do we say that someone has won or lost?
If such a criterion does not exist, can shōbu truly exist in the first place?
I would like to examine this again as a separate interactive thought experiment.
AI
I think that would be appropriate.
In this dialogue, we began with “the ideal of boxing” and moved through the value of combat, Riho, artistry, and the philosophy of budo competition.
Finally, the very concepts of “victory and defeat” and “shōbu,” which had been underlying the entire discussion, themselves became questions.
Rather than arriving at a single answer, we have clarified the next problem that needs to be examined.
Akira Masuda
Exactly.
I do not think there is much meaning in this interactive thought experiment if we record only the conclusions.
What question did we begin with? What did you answer? What did I then think in response?
And how did another question emerge from that exchange?
I believe there is value in recording the process of thought itself.
Questions That Emerged from This Dialogue
This installment of Sparring of Thought began with the question: Can combat be explained by victory and defeat alone?
From there emerged the hypothesis that the value of combat may not belong solely to either fighter, but may appear within the fight itself, created through the relationship between the two.
The discussion also suggested that Riho does not merely exist as an abstract principle. It may become manifest within combat through judgment, endurance, response, transition, and control.
The dialogue then moved to the question of artistry in boxing and, from there, to the philosophy of budo competition.
This led to another unresolved question: before determining the conditions of victory, does budo competition need a North Star that asks what it should pursue as excellence? 思考の組手 第2回 勝敗だけでは説明できない「戦いの価値…
That North Star has not yet been defined.
During the discussion, several perspectives emerged: accuracy, the martial quality of technique, control, tactical quality, and initiative.
However, these do not yet constitute a completed system of evaluation.
Finally, an even more fundamental question appeared:
What is shōbu?
That question will be carried forward into the next Sparring of Thought.
