Definition of Martial Arts

[Erts]

A friend and I were recently having this discussion.

A note on our backrounds and experience:
He is a 3rd degree Tae-Kwon-Do blackbelt (and I mean real Tae-Kwon-Do, not just a belt factory.)
I took Tae-Kwon-Do for 3 or so years when I was young, wrestled a bit in high school, and have been doing Muay Thai for 2 years or so. I also just began Jujitsu a month or so ago, and plan on trying Sambo at some time.

Back to the question.

How do you define Martial Arts?

I took the stance that Boxing and Wrestling both count as Martial Arts; just because they do not have a Eastern backround doesn't mean that they aren't viable. Sure, there isn't much "art" in them, but the same thing is true for many popular martial arts styles. I can't think of many that are primarily art, though capoira would fall under it. (No disrespect to capoira users.)

Any thoughts on this discussion?

[Spiryt]

Kinda weird...

Boxing and wrestling are both martial arts - they are traditions of teching techniques that may be used in actual combat.

Very effective ones too, even when if they don't look "artful".

In fact in 90% of cases the less "artful" something looks, the more practical it may actually be.

The only distinctions I can think of is with stuff like Krav Maga - which is not an martial arts, but combat/martial system - dealing with actual situations and strategies of surviving/dealing with different situations rather than "pure" martial techniques.

But even here distinction can be little blurry AFAIK.

[Erts]

Boxing and wrestling are both martial arts - they are traditions of teching techniques that may be used in actual combat.

Very effective ones too, even when if they don't look "artful".

I agree.

One of his arguments was that they aren't effective in combat situations (I know, he does TKD, but the difference is that he dislikes sport TKD on principle.)
I encouraged him to fight a boxer or a wrestler.

[Don Julio Anejo]

He'd do pretty well against either. All he really needs to do is use kicks to keep his distance and don't let them close enough to punch him in the face/take him down.

PS: on topic wise, I agree with what you're saying.

[Erts]

He'd do pretty well against either. All he really needs to do is use kicks to keep his distance and don't let them close enough to punch him in the face/take him down.

PS: on topic wise, I agree with what you're saying.

Thats always nice to say

I'm not sure. Any high enough kick gives a wrestler ample oppurtunity to grab the leg, and boom, single leg take down right there.

Of course, it is the martial artist, not the martial art, which determines the outcome.

[Spiryt]

He'd do pretty well against either. All he really needs to do is use kicks to keep his distance and don't let them close enough to punch him in the face/take him down.

PS: on topic wise, I agree with what you're saying.

MMA history tells that he would probably would do awfully against wrestler, ending controlled and punched/whatever on the ground.

Although I'm not sure how much TWD focus on any wrestling techniques, but I suspect that not enough to avoid/stop takedown from competent wrestler. But that depends on person.

[Liffguard]

He'd do pretty well against either. All he really needs to do is use kicks to keep his distance and don't let them close enough to punch him in the face/take him down.

Easy to say, difficult to do. At the risk of turning this into a "my kung fu is stronger than yours" kind of thread, MMA has shown how difficult it is for a non-wrestler to stay on his feet if a wrestler is trying to put him on the ground.

[Altaria87]

Well, first, to answer the question, in my opinion a martial art is just any... well art that has vaguely military roots (hence 'martial'), eg Iado (sp?) being used by Samurai, Taekwondo being used by Korean soldiers for things like dismounting people from horses. And that generally teaches self-defence to use in a case where you are threatened.
Now, on the subject of Taekwondo, I'm unsure as to how your friend is opposed to 'sport Taekwondo', sure, the new rulings do encourage flashy kicks and stuff more, but that is purely to make it mor exciting to watch and bring more people into the art. So, basically, what would he define as 'non-sport Taekwondo', because in my experience, in my club, any fight training we do fits in neatly to go alongside the Poomsae and Self-Defence aspects of the class.

[dps]

Fencing/swordplay also counts as martial arts.

[Prime32]

I've heard that some people in Eastern countries think that "martial arts" is a single discipline taught throughout Europe. Thus you'll get, say, a swordsman in a fighting game who is listed with "Fighting style: Martial arts".



I have no sources for this, mind.

[Coidzor]

Italian Longsword is a martial art. The methods and techniques of the samurai in wielding a bow is a martial art, though I can't remember the name for it offhand.

If it's about fighting, it's martial. If there's any kind of structure at all, it's probably going to qualify on the art side as well.

One of his arguments was that they aren't effective in combat situations (I know, he does TKD, but the difference is that he dislikes sport TKD on principle.)
I encouraged him to fight a boxer or a wrestler.

Well, I think you can see why he thinks that. He's self-blinded. Like those kids who think that double-bladed swords are cool rather than stupid and impractical compared to a staff.

[Dr.Epic]

Pretty much any form of combat. If you need training in it I'd say it's an art.

[Exeson]

A martial art is just that. The study and application of any combat activity (The art part suggests emphasis on technique and theory rather than physical activity. Therefore a general who studies the tactics of a battlefield and deployment of troops is still practicing a martial art even if he is not fighting himself.)

Or that is how I think about it anyway.

[Coidzor]

A martial art is just that. The study and application of any combat activity (The art part suggests emphasis on technique and theory rather than physical activity. Therefore a general who studies the tactics of a battlefield and deployment of troops is still practicing a martial art even if he is not fighting himself.)

Or that is how I think about it anyway.

Ahh, minion-jutsu. Truly the greatest of all martial arts.

[Liffguard]

I think the definition has to be narrower than just any form of combat. Boxing? Sure. Fencing? Yep. Shooting? Ok. Driving a tank? Operating an artillery cell? Launching a cruise missile from 1000 miles away? You might say that these things are martial arts but then I think the definition becomes so broad as to be meaningless.

[Irenaeus]

I kind of liked the first line on the Wiki article about Martial Arts:

Martial arts or fighting arts are systems of codified practices and traditions of Combat.

"The codified practices and traditions of combat" part means that purely military or reality-based self defense systems can easily fall outside the definition, as they to a lesser degree has either a central philosophy or a focus of effectiveness within a certain ruleset.

Boxing and Wrestling are martial arts as they for example have a huge amount of named techniques that are drilled repeatedly, and most certainly are martial. Just because they lack a philosophical/religious side does not mean they fall outside of most definitions.

He'd do pretty well against either. All he really needs to do is use kicks to keep his distance and don't let them close enough to punch him in the face/take him down.

Assuming an equal level of athleticism, size and level of experience, no he probably wouldn't.

[Erts]

Now, on the subject of Taekwondo, I'm unsure as to how your friend is opposed to 'sport Taekwondo', sure, the new rulings do encourage flashy kicks and stuff more, but that is purely to make it mor exciting to watch and bring more people into the art. So, basically, what would he define as 'non-sport Taekwondo', because in my experience, in my club, any fight training we do fits in neatly to go alongside the Poomsae and Self-Defence aspects of the class.

To clarify, he appreciates sparring and competition for the purposes of teaching students, but he dislikes the point system at the Olympics for the flashy kicks and such.

Assuming an equal level of athleticism, size and level of experience, no he probably wouldn't.

He'd probably do average assuming that.

[katans]

Tough question... I'd define a martial art as an activity aiming at providing its practitioners with the physical and mental skill to survive a life-and-death combat situation with minimum damage. In this aspect, boxing and MMA are no martial arts because although they provide skill, their purpose is generally competition and not survival. Similarly, military or police training is not a martial art because the purpose is to defeat the enemy and not to survive with minimum damage (those are two very distinct things).

Notice that the definition is aimed at the activity in itself, not at the tradition or the name. You can practice grandma-style tai chi or martial tai chi, sports sambo or street fight sambo, dress-up ninjutsu or killer ninjutsu, arm-flapping kung fu or martial kung fu. The difference is in the point of the training, the assumptions, the objectives; not in the name. Of course, certain traditions/systems are better suited than others and claiming you're training for life-and-death situations doesn't mean you actually do, but nevertheless, it is HOW you train that determines if you're practicing martial sports, martial arts, health-supporting activities, or some weird kind of aerobic.

[Erts]

Tough question... I'd define a martial art as an activity aiming at providing its practitioners with the physical and mental skill to survive a life-and-death combat situation with minimum damage. In this aspect, boxing and MMA are no martial arts because although they provide skill, their purpose is generally competition and not survival. Similarly, military or police training is not a martial art because the purpose is to defeat the enemy and not to survive with minimum damage (those are two very distinct things).

In boxing, dodging is emphasized, as is fitness. In military martial arts, so much is about escaping.

And in many martial arts escaping isn't emphasized. TKD for example.

[katans]

So much for the effort I put into differentiating the NAME and the actual ACTIVITY. Did you actually read my second paragraph?

[Erts]

So much for the effort I put into differentiating the NAME and the actual ACTIVITY. Did you actually read my second paragraph?

Yes, I did, and I agree with you on what you mean about the activity. I just don't think you should exclude competitive martial arts from the definition.

[katans]

I don't. But in my opinion as long as you're training for competition you're practicing sports, not a martial art. If your training purpose is a friendly opposition against one opponent within a given set of rules and a referee, then you clearly aren't training for survival. Of course, your training my provide you with speed, strength, fitness and technique that would be useful in a life-and-death situation, but ultimately it's not a martial art. Not by my definition.

It may not be the best definition there is, but it works for me, and I feel it covers everything even remotely related to combat.

[Xuc Xac]

How do you define Martial Arts?

I took the stance that Boxing and Wrestling both count as Martial Arts; just because they do not have a Eastern backround doesn't mean that they aren't viable. Sure, there isn't much "art" in them, but the same thing is true for many popular martial arts styles. I can't think of many that are primarily art, though capoira would fall under it. (No disrespect to capoira users.)

Any thoughts on this discussion?

I define "martial arts" as "fighting techniques (on the scale of the individual)". Capoeira is a martial art: it's intentionally flashy so it looks like dancing, but it's actual fighting. Wushu is just the opposite: a performance art designed to look like fighting. Boxing and wrestling are definitely martial arts. They didn't call boxing "the sweet science" because it lacked technique. Professional wrestling would be like Wushu: it's a performance that looks like fighting but it's not real fighting.

A martial art is just that. The study and application of any combat activity (The art part suggests emphasis on technique and theory rather than physical activity. Therefore a general who studies the tactics of a battlefield and deployment of troops is still practicing a martial art even if he is not fighting himself.)

The "art" refers to technique as in the phrase "there's an art to it". It's not the same meaning as "painting and sculpture and stuff". I would say "martial arts" would be on the scale of the individual. Arts are techniques performed by one skilled person. Using small groups in fighting would be "tactics". On a large scale (using armies), it's "strategy". In an ideal army, the soldiers all know "martial arts", the squad leaders have good tactics, and the higher ranks have good strategy.

The only distinctions I can think of is with stuff like Krav Maga - which is not an martial arts, but combat/martial system - dealing with actual situations and strategies of surviving/dealing with different situations rather than "pure" martial techniques.

Many martial arts are "systems". It seems to be the latest "selling point" to call them "systems" in English to make them sound more special (because "art" is now more associated with painting and stuff), but fighting styles have been called "systems" in other languages for a long time. I know at least one kung fu style that has been called a "system" in Chinese for about 350 years now.

I encouraged him to fight a boxer or a wrestler.

He'd do pretty well against either. All he really needs to do is use kicks to keep his distance and don't let them close enough to punch him in the face/take him down.

Boxers can dodge and block too. And they spend all their training time on improving their punches and learning to dodge or block a hit. The TKD guy has to divide his time between kicking, punching, blocking and everything else. Boxers usually do a lot of damage when they go up against other martial artists just because the boxers' techniques are much more practiced.

[Erts]

Boxing and wrestling are definitely martial arts. They didn't call boxing "the sweet science" because it lacked technique. Professional wrestling would be like Wushu: it's a performance that looks like fighting but it's not real fighting.

I believe you know the difference, but just to clarify, I meant wrestling wrestling. Not professional wrestling, which is, as you said, theater made to look like a fighting.

[Tricksy Hobbits]

Doesn't the art part of the name come from when parts of Japan were occupied by china and the peasants had to disguise their fighting styles as dances?

[BisectedBrioche]

Doesn't the art part of the name come from when parts of Japan were occupied by china and the peasants had to disguise their fighting styles as dances?

No. It just means art in the sense of "the practise and improvement of". As mentioned above.

In fact, I think the phrase "Martial Art" is a construct of the English language.

EDIT: According to wikipedia it was coined in the 15th century and refered to European Martial Arts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_arts

[Xuc Xac]

In fact, I think the phrase "Martial Art" is a construct of the English language.

By way of Latin. "Martial arts" are the "crafts of Mars, the god of war". I think most Asian languages refer to them by words that are more closely analogous to "war skills" or "fighting techniques".

[xPANCAKEx]

using MMA as a basis for showing which martial art beats what is not a good idea. Most MMA organisations are governed by pretty strict rules that ban this that and the other for being "too dangerous" etc to the competitors. When you throw back in to the equations all those things that most MMA organisations ban, then it gets a lot more interesting

[LurkerInPlayground]

By way of Latin. "Martial arts" are the "crafts of Mars, the god of war". I think most Asian languages refer to them by words that are more closely analogous to "war skills" or "fighting techniques".

Or to put it shortly, few things that are around today really qualifies as a martial art. Particularly since most such "arts" are watered-down, poorly understood or bastardized versions of their antecedents. And in any case, they no longer have cultural relevance in training soldiers.

[Liffguard]

using MMA as a basis for showing which martial art beats what is not a good idea. Most MMA organisations are governed by pretty strict rules that ban this that and the other for being "too dangerous" etc to the competitors. When you throw back in to the equations all those things that most MMA organisations ban, then it gets a lot more interesting

Eh, it's not an absolutely accurate measure but it's pretty much the closest safe approximation that exists right now. Besides, a lot of the things that are banned in MMA are very difficult to train safely anyway and if you can't train something then it's difficult to rely on it in a combat situation.