A question for all that do a Martial Art

[chinto]

to me a martial artist is some one who is trained in unarmed, and some in armed combat with non fire arms. there is a further qualifier in that it must be applicable in combat where the looser is dead.
this does not mean that such a practitioner will win every time, but that he system was designed for combat and not sport.
such systems might be modified for sport, but the initial teaching must be directed toward survival of an encounter with some one who is interested in your death, or grievous injury to you and or your family or friends.

 

[Blindside]

to me a martial artist is some one who is trained in unarmed, and some in armed combat with non fire arms.

Why the distinction of no firearms? The Japanese made no such distinction about incorporating the matchlock into their manual of arms. Do a search for "hojutsu."

 

[Langenschwert]

Why the distinction of no firearms? The Japanese made no such distinction about incorporating the matchlock into their manual of arms. Do a search for "hojutsu."

Indeed. Check out Todd Jarett. A modern Martial Artist if there ever was one:

A true Martial Art is really hard to define. Certainly using a fighter jet in combat is a martial art, just a very modern one.

Honestly, I don't think the question is really valid. It just lets people say "you're not doing a real martial art because of XYZ". And what's the value of that? It just gives someone the opportunity to be a jerk. I defy anyone to say that Todd Jarett isn't a martial artist of the highest calibre (no pun intended). It's just that different arts have different goals. Some are pragmatic, some are about self-development, some are sporting. Some have aspects of all three. Certainly studying Kendo isn't going to make one into a good swordsman when it comes to an "all in" fight with sharps, where there's likely to be grappling, throws, pommel strikes and draw cuts. But it isn't supposed to... it's supposed to make good Kendoka. Does that mean it's not a true MA? German longsword isn't going to help me on the modern battlefield. Does that mean it's not a ture MA? The question is ultimately pointless, IMO.

The fact is, with some experience, we all know BS when we see it. Call the BS out for what it is and be done with it. Anything else comes down to unprofitable hairsplitting.

Best regards,

-Mark

 

[Xue Sheng]

Indeed. Check out Todd Jarett. A modern Martial Artist if there ever was one:

A true Martial Art is really hard to define. Certainly using a fighter jet in combat is a martial art, just a very modern one.

Honestly, I don't think the question is really valid. It just lets people say "you're not doing a real martial art because of XYZ". And what's the value of that? It just gives someone the opportunity to be a jerk. I defy anyone to say that Todd Jarett isn't a martial artist of the highest calibre (no pun intended). It's just that different arts have different goals. Some are pragmatic, some are about self-development, some are sporting. Some have aspects of all three. Certainly studying Kendo isn't going to make one into a good swordsman when it comes to an "all in" fight with sharps, where there's likely to be grappling, throws, pommel strikes and draw cuts. But it isn't supposed to... it's supposed to make good Kendoka. Does that mean it's not a true MA? German longsword isn't going to help me on the modern battlefield. Does that mean it's not a ture MA? The question is ultimately pointless, IMO.

The fact is, with some experience, we all know BS when we see it. Call the BS out for what it is and be done with it. Anything else comes down to unprofitable hairsplitting.

Best regards,

-Mark

:asian:

 

[exile]

Tae Kwon Do may be one of the few exceptions, as its precursors developed philosophy based on Buddhist principles that were specifically designed to teach students how to be better people.

And your source for this bit of folklore is...?

The only time Buddhism was a major force in Korea was during the Koryeo era, and there are no records of any martial art in Korea that go back that far. None. What 'precursors' are you talking about here? If you're going to make statements that imply you have access to a source of historical evidence completely unknown to historians of Korean culture, including the MAs, you better be able to name that source. Repeatedly you've been asked to provide documentation for these kinds of assertions, and so far as I can see, you have yet to do so.

By this point, you should understand, people are aware of the lack of historical basis for comments about TKD's 'precursors' or the relevance of Buddhism to anything to do with TKD. All that happens when you retail these sorts of dojang clichés is undermine your own credibility. And, speaking of undermining your credibility, the fact is that, while you may not have noticed it, you've just put yourself in the position of suggesting that Chotoku Kyan, Choki Motobu, and Gichin Funakoshi (who, it must always be remembered, was an enthusiastic supporter of Japanese imperialism, wrote (Tote Jutsu, p. 291) before WWII that 'War is a method which God gave humans to organize the world, (291)' and sold karate instruction to the Japanese authorities largely on the grounds that it would help improve discipline, esprit de corps and physical condition in future conscripts into a Japanese army that carried out atrocities in Asia almost incomprehensibly cruel, and on a vast scale) were not true martial artists: none of them, so far as I can see, attempted to be 'better people' through their martial art.

What is aesthetically beautiful about a man being gutted by a sword?

What is aesthetically pleasing about pummelling a person until they are unable to continue?

THAT is what you are studying, remember that. We may dress up in our costumes, admire the pure white of our gis, the smooth lines of a bohi, the swish of a hakama, the apparently effortless motions of a perfectly timed throw, but if something is done for purely aesthetic reasons, the art has lost its purpose. It becomes a hobby with the combat effectiveness of discus, potentially useful, but sort of silly.

If that is what a martial art is, you can have it, I'll proudly keep studying a mere "fighting art."

Lamont

Well said, Lamont. I just have to shake my head at the degree to which people insist on inserting their private construals of 'martial art' into the notion of definition, as vs. trying to identify the common basis for the use of the term by speakers of English. Most people, I think, identify aspects of an art, skill, craft, or whatever on the basis of properties of the activity involved, not the moral properties of the practitioners of that art. If I show you a video of two people fighting and one guy demolishing the other using recognizably TKD or Long Fist or Silat techniques, and then ask you whether the guy who won the fight was practicing a martial art, would any sane person seriously expect you to answer, 'Um... sorry, I can't tell you till I know more about whether he's trying to be a good person or not'? :lol: And by the same token, if we agree that you judge whether the guy is practicing a martial art on the basis of what you see him doing, and if you see him practicing something which, based on its characteristics, does indeed appear to be a martial art, then just as a folklorist is one who studies folklore, or a guitarist is one who plays the guitar, or a theoretical physicist is one who does theoretical physics, the guy is a martial artist because he is someone who practices something which is a martial art. What else needs to be explained or accounted for?

 

[Bodhisattva]

What is a true Martial Art nowadays? This question was ask of me just moments ago and after thinking about it I had no right answer for this gentleman. So my question is a complex one, what is a true Martial Art today?
How do we know it is a true Art or not?
How do you know who is real and who is not?


Looking forward to some replys because I had none for him.

MMA baby...

 

[terryl965]

MMA baby...

Only if she is cute and sweet and can kick the living **** out of me. Then I want to play.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Only if she is cute and sweet and can kick the living **** out of me. Then I want to play.

here you go terry

 

[YoungMan]

And your source for this bit of folklore is...?

The only time Buddhism was a major force in Korea was during the Koryeo era, and there are no records of any martial art in Korea that go back that far. None. What 'precursors' are you talking about here? If you're going to make statements that imply you have access to a source of historical evidence completely unknown to historians of Korean culture, including the MAs, you better be able to name that source. Repeatedly you've been asked to provide documentation for these kinds of assertions, and so far as I can see, you have yet to do so.

By this point, you should understand, people are aware of the lack of historical basis for comments about TKD's 'precursors' or the relevance of Buddhism to anything to do with TKD. All that happens when you retail these sorts of dojang clichés is undermine your own credibility. And, speaking of undermining your credibility, the fact is that, while you may not have noticed it, you've just put yourself in the positon of suggesting that Chotoku Kyan, Choki Motobu, and Gichin Funakoshi (who, it must always be remembered, was an enthusiastic supporter of Japanese imperialism, wrote (Tote Jutsu, p. 291) before WWII that 'War is a method which God gave humans to organize the world, (291)' and sold karate instruction to the Japanese authorities largely on the grounds that it would help improve discipline, esprit de corps and physical condition in future conscripts into a Japanese army that carried out atrocities in Asia almost incomprehensibly cruel, and on a vast scale) were not true martial artists: none of them, so far as I can see, attempted to be 'better people' through their martial art.



Well said, Lamont. I just have to shake my head at the degree to which people insist on inserting their private construals of 'martial art' into the notion of definition, as vs. trying to identify the common basis for the use of the term by speakers of English. Most people, I think, identify aspects of an art, skill, craft, or whatever on the basis of properties of the activity involved, not the moral properties of the practitioners of that art. If I show you a video of two people fighting and one guy demolishing the other using recognizably TKD or Long Fist or Silat techniques, and then ask you whether the guy who won the fight was practicing a martial art, would any sane person seriously expect you to answer, 'Um... sorry, I can't tell you till I know more about whether he's trying to be a good person or not'? :lol: And by the same token, if we agree that you judge whether the guy is practicing a martial art on the basis of what you see him doing, and if you see him practicing something which, based on its characteristics, does indeed appear to be a martial art, then just as a folklorist is one who studies folklore, or a guitarist is one who plays the guitar, or a theoretical physicist is one who does theoretical physics, the guy is a martial artist because he is someone who practices something which is a martial art. What else needs to be explained or accounted for?

Know what exile? I'm going to stop listening to you because it's pretty obvious you're too cynical for your own good. And for someone who claims to have a Taekwondo background, you sure love quoting Japanese karate figures.
It is well known that the monk Won Hyo (Won Kwang?) developed the 5 Point Code for the Hwa Rang as a source of moral conduct for their lives. Or perhaps you're too stubborn to believe that as well. Perhaps if Gichin Funakoshi or Ian Abernathy said it you'd believe me.

 

[terryl965]

here you go terry

Yes something like that

 

[newGuy12]

here you go terry

Ha! That is that woman who looks like an anime character! Yes, she is nice looking and can also do the MMA!

 

[Langenschwert]

If all you are concerned about is technique to hurt or kill, then you may be a fighting style but you are not a martial art.

This is what I'm getting at. You're using a self-referential definition of what MA are, designed to fit your own preconceptions. If my definition of Martial Art is "a fighting system designed for use on the battlefield" (given what "martial" actually means), then neither you or I do a martial art by modern standards. See how useful that is? Not very, hey? We might as well drag the Flying Spaghetti Monster into this while we're at it.

Also, the phrase "Martial Art" was used (poetically) to refer to rapier fencing in the prologue to the English rapier manual entitled Pallas Armata in (I think) 1670. That's long before it was ever applied to a non-European fighting art. Now if you've ever seen rapier fencing, it's not suited to the battlefield (so is it "martial?"), nor it is particularly "philosophical" outside of the Spanish "Destreza" tradition. It is, in fact a system for civillian self-defence and duelling. However, it's a Martial Art by definition, since the very phrase "Martial Art" was initially used to refer to it rather than TKD by a few hundred years.

Now, I'm not saying that TKD isn't a Martial Art because it's not European and doesn't use rapiers. But if I want to look at the textual resources, I can certainly come to that conclusion through the same spurious reasoning that others use to define MA as being X and not Y.

Basically, saying that an MA has to have a philosophy is just ethnocentrism of a sort. Why put blinders on and exclude rather than include? Of what benefit is that to you or anyone else who studies the Art? It's right up (or down, rather) there with saying "my art kicks your art's butt". We all know how productive that is. What you appear to be doing is saying "What I do is a Martial Art. What you do is not". Yet again, that gets us nowhere, is not particularly gracious, and isn't even correct from historical textual evidence.

Best regards,

-Mark

 

[chinto]

Why the distinction of no firearms? The Japanese made no such distinction about incorporating the matchlock into their manual of arms. Do a search for "hojutsu."

because that is the usual definition. I am trained with fire arms, and have been since i was 5year old. could I use a rifle or pistol or shotgun in combat.. absolutely... but most martial arts systems do not teach fire arms. Do I know how to use a bayonet, actually i do, but again it is not part of most martial arts systems. I did not learn my skills with the rifle or the pistol or the shotgun in the dojo. I did not learn the bayonet there either, but are they effective? sure.

 

[Blindside]

because that is the usual definition. I am trained with fire arms, and have been since i was 5year old. could I use a rifle or pistol or shotgun in combat.. absolutely... but most martial arts systems do not teach fire arms. Do I know how to use a bayonet, actually i do, but again it is not part of most martial arts systems. I did not learn my skills with the rifle or the pistol or the shotgun in the dojo. I did not learn the bayonet there either, but are they effective? sure.

Fair enough, but is the "usual definition" really decided by what is commercially available from guys who train in pajamas? I don't consider combat oriented firearms training to be any less of a martial art than any karate/kenpo/tkd/whatever school is available. The bayonet is a great example, definately a "martial" art, it really serves little purpose in a civilian setting doesn't it? And again the Japanese thought it worthy of being trained and named as a martial art, as jukenjutsu.

As another example, Pekiti Tirsia Kali has a subsystem focused on close quarters drawing and shooting of handguns, again, just because "most" don't do it, doesn't mean it isn't out there and being taught.

Lamont

 

[ggg214]

martial art could not leave the technique of fighting and killing. but it's not just limited in this. and even the fighting skills have levels. some one use strength to kick opponent's ***, some one use opponent's strength to kill themselves, and there are still some one using unbeileverable energy to control others.
how to define a true martial art, shows your level on martial art. i am still the basic in basic.

 

[7starmarc]

"Martial arts" no longer are restricted to the practical application of techniques in combat. Look at modern Wushu competitions, look at many forms competitions in the US, where people make ridiculous circles of round kicks and other acrobatic stunts. These hold little in the way of practical application, and yet are fairly well accepted in the mainstream as Martial Arts.

I would propose a definition consisting of a few elements:
A discipline involving a systematic approach of developing skills and abilities related to the application and/or demonstration of combat related techniques.

 

[Guardian]

What is a true Martial Art nowadays? This question was ask of me just moments ago and after thinking about it I had no right answer for this gentleman. So my question is a complex one, what is a true Martial Art today?
How do we know it is a true Art or not?
How do you know who is real and who is not?


Looking forward to some replys because I had none for him.

A true Martial Art is the one that you are training in!

The answer for how do we know it is a true Art or not is within you and no one else. Do you feel it is a true Martial Art, then it is.

Always a tough one. Documentation and references are the source of such information when needed for that question and faith in your own good judgment.