And as I wrote, your use of the term "functional" is artificially narrow and, at this point, deliberately ignores reality of the broad application of martial arts. I'll try one last time, though I am coming to believe that it is a futile effort and you will, once again, deliberately ignore the evidence in favor of advancing your own artificially excluding "definition." I know you like MMA. Let's call it circa UFC 3. In your standard definition it is "functional" and "effective." So a MMA player challenges an 18th Century Smallsword Maestro, a duelist, to a fight. Unsurprisingly, the Maestro jams three feet of steel into the bare-handed MMA player's face. This happened because the context was different. Despite the fact that Smallsword duels were often tightly controlled with rules and social conventions managing everything from time of day, to "Seconds," to number of "passes," and may have disallowed "pommelling" How many times do you see anyone in a modern 1st World Nation swaggering down the street with a Smallsword on his side? (I'm guessing "never.") Context. Time period, location, social requirements, legal requirements, etc., are all important. Today, studying Smallsword in the theory that it is an "effective" and "functional" self defense system is laughable. Yet it is still studied by many for sundry other, often esoteric, reasons. Nevertheless, Smallsword is still a "martial art" regardless of what you seem to claim. Again, no, I'm not buying what you are selling. Honestly, at this point I don't give a fat fiddler's foreskin what you claim you believe is ethical. It's pretty clear that you're engaged in the internet version of the Monkey Dance; vying for position in the pecking order. Feh.