Defining a martial arts style/system.

[Navarre]

I'd be surprised if this hasn't been brought up before but I'm too lazy to research thousands of posts.

What is it that truly defines one martial arts style or system from another?

At first thought, a few characteristics come to mind:

Country of Origin:
It is generally easy to trace an art back to a given country. Karate is Japanese, Kung-Fu is Chinese, Tae Kwon Do is Korean, etc. Yet we are also aware of the influences so many arts of a given country have had from other countries. There are certainly some countries that have a martial art associated solely with them but I wonder how many were developed in complete isolation of anyplace else.

Traceable Lineage:
Similar to Country of Origin but referring to a direct line of "descendents" of the art in question. For those who study Jeet Kun Do or Kempo, this may be possible. For many other arts it is difficult or impossible.

Physical Technique:
To create a huge oversimplification, one might say that Tae Kwon Do relies on strength of the body and versatile kicks or that Aikido works on using the body's inertia drawn out into a wide circle before reversing back into a small circle to do damage. But we know that no art is quite that simple. Ultimately, all utilize body mechanics, the way the body responds under various physical conditions, to be effective. This would even apply in a broad sense to knife or other weapon arts because certainly the body responds in a certain way if a tendon is severed.

Philosophy:
Some arts are considered "hard" styles like Tae Kwon Do while others are soft like Aikido. Yet, at their heart, almost all martial arts are focused not solely on physical skill. They instead create an entire lifestyle to develop the mind, body, and spirit into a harmonious and enlightened whole.

Okay, I admit I'm one of those humanistic, free-love, world peace, we're-all-connected-in-spirit types. But I wonder sometimes if we become so distracted by the definition of our particular art that we isolate ourselves from other arts.

Various arts may have been developed in a certain country or by various individuals but they all had to work on the same principles. Human beings have certain emotional and spiritual similarities regardless of region. Most certainly, our physical bodies operate under the same principles of body mechanics.

The main advantage of having "distinctive" arts is that students of those arts feel a kinship to others of their system. Yet, for me, this creates some of the isolationism I referred to in the same way that white people should feel more kinship for other white people than with black people. (If I should have used a more "pc" term, sorry. That would only contradict my point. I'm not really white and black people aren't really black.)

Do those arts that remain firm on using only the techniques passed down through their given lineage do themselves an injustice? Is there any advantage in focusing on the same mental approach to combat through many generations instead of exploring all avenues?

Therefore, my question remains as to what truly defines a given art. Perhaps more to the point, Is there ultimately any reason to do so?

 

[Shizen Shigoku]

An art is defined by the artist.

 

[Navarre]

A broad answer but correct. I don't disagree with that.

I was really just hoping to get various opinions on the matter. At least you answered though. Thanks, Shizen.

 

[Grenadier]

Each martial arts style has its own unique features that makes it what it is. The style's practitioners, in turn, reflect further on what the style is all about.

Just as a few examples:

Kyokushin Karate is known for its full contact shots, and that people who stick with the system are going to be known for being tough folks, indeed. At the same time, the founder of Kyokushin always emphasized the principles of honor and dignity amongst the practitioners of the style. People who don't behave in an honorable and dignified manner often times find themselves kicked out of the dojos.

Even if I don't agree with Kyokushin's methods, I still have the utomst of respect for the late Mas Oyama and in general, the people that his system puts out.


On the flip side of the coin, I've also seen martial arts styles (that I will not name for the same of avoiding specific mudslinging) that teach fundamentally poor techniques, and that they try to cover up such poor teachings with various parlor tricks. They'll try to make their art look astounding by showing their people taking punches to the neck, kicks to the groin, etc. It's not surprising that the people that they tend to attract, end up being little more than uniformed thugs with terrible discipline.

 

[arnisador]

An art is defined by the artist.

So two shotokan karateka practice different arts because they're different artists?

 

[Flying Crane]

This is an interesting thread. I have a couple observations to add to the mix.

Many arts developed in a certain region, by people who were living and interacting within that region. This means they were affected by the local terrain and social rules and norms. So an art develops in a specific way in response to these influences.

However, there has been much borrowing from one art to the next. I think this is especially true with the Chinese arts. As one person encountered another who had formidable skill, they would try to learn from each other, or from the encounter. Technique changed. Sometimes it was more deliberate, when one person adopted a form or kata from a different art, and made it their own. Gradually, a new art developed that might have little similarity to the original art. The name of the art may or may not have changed, or there may never have been a name.

I think this tendency to borrow and trade was stronger in the past. People in the past had a greater need to use their art to actually save their lives. We today seldom experience this. Because of this situation, they were more focused on making sure they had the best techniques they could learn or create. Today, we get bound up in a tradition, or a system, and are often reluctant to change. It is still common today for teachers of the Chinese arts to know and teach several arts, or at least components of several arts. The trading and exchange does continue today, tho we may not recognize it, or we may want to categorize or pigeonhole the components, instead of embracing them as part of a more thorough whole.

As an example, in his book Karate-do, my way of life, Funakoshi sensei describes his training with his teachers. One thing that his teachers do is tell him to study with other teachers, because they have good things for him to learn. So he does. What became Shotokan started in an environment of sharing, borrowing, and experimentation.

I guess what I am trying to show is that our sense of "system" is perhaps a newer phenomenon that didn't exist in the past, or at least was much more fluid.

Some good points were made prior, especially the one about every artist practices a different art. I think this is true, but they practice, or at least studied, the same system. Each person needs to make the system their own. Everyone does everything differently. This is because everyone is different physically, mentally, emotionally, etc. I would say that the number of systems are fewer, but the number of arts equal the number of martial artists.

 

[Eldritch Knight]

I would say that the number of systems are fewer, but the number of arts equal the number of martial artists.

I'm a bit skeptical about this. If I understand you correctly, that's like saying that there are as many styles of painting as there are painters, because each painter paints just a little bit differently than the next one. You make some good points, but here's my take on it. If we consider a group of impressionist painters, each will paint pictures using methods that suit them best. Some might focus on landscapes, others might do still-lifes or portraits. Does this change in focus make them all practice a different art? Not at all. Now, if one of these people is a genius like Vincent van Gogh who doesn't just mold the art to suit him, but challenges its very foundations until it can be clearly defined from his contemporaries, then that can be called a new style.

 

[arnisador]

I would say that the number of systems are fewer, but the number of arts equal the number of martial artists.

Well, this essentially eliminates the value of the word "art" to such a discussion, doesn't it?

I think a martial art is a named and codified style. Yes, everyone has their own spin on it--more so in some arts than others (e.g., Tai Chi prizes uniformity more than boxing does).

 

[Flying Crane]

I'm a bit skeptical about this. If I understand you correctly, that's like saying that there are as many styles of painting as there are painters, because each painter paints just a little bit differently than the next one. You make some good points, but here's my take on it. If we consider a group of impressionist painters, each will paint pictures using methods that suit them best. Some might focus on landscapes, others might do still-lifes or portraits. Does this change in focus make them all practice a different art? Not at all. Now, if one of these people is a genius like Vincent van Gogh who doesn't just mold the art to suit him, but challenges its very foundations until it can be clearly defined from his contemporaries, then that can be called a new style.

Well, the system is what is codified. so Shotokan would be Impressionist painting. The art is personal, and that is what makes it unique to the individual. Many people practice the same system, but their interpretation is the art. I understand what you are getting at, this is just sort of my way of looking at it.

 

[The Kai]

Each martial arts style has its own unique features that makes it what it is. The style's practitioners, in turn, reflect further on what the style is all about.

Just as a few examples:

Kyokushin Karate is known for its full contact shots, and that people who stick with the system are going to be known for being tough folks, indeed. At the same time, the founder of Kyokushin always emphasized the principles of honor and dignity amongst the practitioners of the style. People who don't behave in an honorable and dignified manner often times find themselves kicked out of the dojos.

Even if I don't agree with Kyokushin's methods, I still have the utomst of respect for the late Mas Oyama and in general, the people that his system puts out.


On the flip side of the coin, I've also seen martial arts styles (that I will not name for the same of avoiding specific mudslinging) that teach fundamentally poor techniques, and that they try to cover up such poor teachings with various parlor tricks. They'll try to make their art look astounding by showing their people taking punches to the neck, kicks to the groin, etc. It's not surprising that the people that they tend to attract, end up being little more than uniformed thugs with terrible discipline.

I think this is a great way to define a system. So would Shotokan fit into the same catagorization.

 

[Shizen Shigoku]

I hate having to explain myself - makes my first post so much less poetic . . .

There is a difference between "art" and "style" and there is a difference between "practicing art" and "doing art."

arnisador: "So two shotokan karateka practice different arts because they're different artists?"

Yes. They are practicing the same style, but if they are to actually perform artistically, their movements will be a reflection of their own personality and develop spontaneously. If they are still copying and repeating rote forms, then they are still merely practicing art of a certain style.

Eldritch Knight: "I'm a bit skeptical about this. If I understand you correctly, that's like saying that there are as many styles of painting as there are painters, ..."

No, he said there are as many "arts" as there are artists. There are numerous "styles" indeed which are defined by particular philosophies, technical nuances, etc. but true art is a personal thing.

"If we consider a group of impressionist painters, each will paint pictures using methods that suit them best. Some might focus on landscapes, others might do still-lifes or portraits. Does this change in focus make them all practice a different art?"

Yes it does. They are all practicing art of an impressionistic style, but the art they produce is their own.

The original post asked what defined a particular style and that question was answered in the same post - making it rhetorical. Then a new question was asked: "...my question remains as to what truly defines a given art."

Hence my answer: "The artist."

As for: "Is there ultimately any reason to do so?"

Meh. If you feel like it and you like that sort of thing, go ahead.

arnisador (quoting Flying Crane): 'I would say that the number of systems are fewer, but the number of arts equal the number of martial artists.'

"Well, this essentially eliminates the value of the word "art" to such a discussion, doesn't it?"

How so?

"I think a martial art is a named and codified style."

So "art" = "style" ?

So if I were to copy someone else's hair style, that would make me an artist?

 

[arnisador]

I think that looking at how the term "martial art(s)" is used--in the phone book, for example, or in forum headings here ("Japanese Martial Arts--General")--and how terms like "fine arts" are used, it's clear that standard English usage is that a martial art is a school of thought on how to fight, with its own techniques, terminology, training methods, philosophy, history, etc. If the number of arts is equal the number of martial artists, then this one-to-one correspondence means it's senseless to discuss a martial art--we may just as well discuss "how Joe likes to fight" instead. The term 'art' no longer distinguishes between a single individual and a way of approaching the problem of fighting.

A style, to my mind, is a more specific form of the art. This is how these terms are usually used, in my experience; What martial art do you study? Kung Fu. Oh, what style? Southern Preying Mantis. Of course a style is also an art.

The painting, poetry, and similar metaphors help only up to a point. In painting one often wants to see things differently. But many martial arts styles are very specific about conforming to how things must be done--elbow one fist from the body, or fingertips at eye level in this guard, etc. If you do iaido, while you'll have your own expression of the art, it'll be within much more narrow constraints than if you do boxing.

 

[Brother John]

Okay, I admit I'm one of those humanistic, free-love, world peace, we're-all-connected-in-spirit types. But I wonder sometimes if we become so distracted by the definition of our particular art that we isolate ourselves from other arts.

Do those arts that remain firm on using only the techniques passed down through their given lineage do themselves an injustice? Is there any advantage in focusing on the same mental approach to combat through many generations instead of exploring all avenues?

Navarre-
I think this is an excellent thing to think about.

What is gained by staying "Isolated"?
Maybe focus. Like steam, ones energies and study time can be thrown willy nilly out toward several different aims........or ONE. That would be more like harnessing that steam in a system of pipes and a drive-shaft to move a locomotive. Steam released into the air or into a loose system....does very little.
BUT: I think that once one has gained a solid foundation in one system or way of doing things....they should attempt to round out their skill sets!

If a person studies TKD, after Black Belt perhaps they should study Judo or something like that. After gaining a Black Belt in Aikido perhaps the student could include training in Kuk Sool Won or something. Do something to expand what your 'steam' can accomplish. I'm by NO means saying to "Replace" the original art you studied....but to broaden your horizon and gain those elements of combat that your previous 'isolation' (if you want to call it that) kept you from.

Just something to think about.

Your Brother
John

 

[Brother John]

An art is defined by the artist.

I agree.

System
Style
Art

Related terms, but Not the same thing.

Your Brother
John

 

[Robert Lee]

Style would be the training Aspects that are found withing that given M/A . That method is its way of delivery. Now many arts use the same borrowed applications. Then each person in a given art. Does it there way useing wqhat they use or it can not be effective. thats not taught thats just done by each and every person. A styles gives out the same training tools then the students find there way. Far as linage Thats good and bad. Good you can trace back to the founder bad that you do not see that it is not meant to be traced back its meant to give you something that becomes yours alone. Teaching linage gives root doing gives freedom

 

[stone_dragone]

While spending a sleepless night thinking about this a few years ago, I came to the following categorizing conclusion:

Art: Physical expression of an idea, concept, or emotion; tangible or intangible; purposely created by a thinking and feeling sentient being.

Types of Art: Literature, music, "physical art" (dance, martial art), etc


Martial Arts: Physical expression of a specific philosophy or set of philosophies using combat-type movements and scenarios (either real or imagined).

- Differs from a Combat system or a Martial Sport; Each generally lacks a "higher" philosophy around which it bases it's operation.

- Are generally categorized by similar domninant combative methods and tactical doctrine (I.E. - throws vs kicks vs joint locks)

- can be further categorized by region of origin (I.E. - Korea, Japan/Okinawa, China, Indonesia, Nevada, etc)

Types of Martial Arts: Karate, Taekwondo, Judo, Arnis, Boxing (if taught with an underlying "higher" philosophy), Kung Fu


Martial Art System: a general method of achieving a more specific philosophical goal relative to the teachings of a particular individual or group of individuals; an overall "how and why" within a specific martial art; has distinct exercises and forms, if applicable, that distinguish it from other systems of the same art

Types of Martial Art Systems: Goju Ryu, Shorin Ryu, WTF TKD, Praying Mantis, American Kenpo


Martial Art Style: specific method of teaching a martial art system within the confines and philosophy of said larger System (see above); usually focused upon the teaching methods of a specific instructor (past or present); often uses similar but separate methods to teach the same material

Types of Martial Art Styles: Japanese Goju Ryu, Southern Tiger, Ed Parker’s American Kenpo


MartialArtSchools: refers to the specific methods and practices of a particular instructor and their students and not the physical location

Types of MartialArtSchools: AC Wiley’s Nahate Goju Ryu, Jimmy Cole’s Songham TKD, Royce Gracie’s BJJ


Often an individual teacher will have a method different enough from others within the same style that the SCHOOL will develop, over time, into a new style (over time is the key phrase there). That style will grow and change into a separate system as more students learn from this instructor or his students. If it is individual enough to stand on its own, the system could eventually turn itself into a separate art.

For example (simplified): Higaonna learned martial arts from Ryu Ryuko and other teachers, he taught the art Nahate (later Karate) to Miyagi; Miyagi taught karate at the school level, it was different enough to warrant being named a different style (Goju Ryu); The style gained a following and split into Okinawan and Japanese Goju Ryu (Two styles of the now System); Each split into different styles of Japanese and Okinawan Goju Ryu based on the different instructors methods and now there are Okinawan, Japanese and American SYSTEMS of Goju Ryu, each with their own styles and those having their own separate schools.

My thoughts…

 

[Cirdan]

I always tought of a system as being defined by it`s principles and, to varying degrees, traditions.

 

[stone_dragone]

I forgot to add this...

In today's workd of mass communications and high-speed information flow, things that were once specific items have become generic, and this causes confusion in the description of martial arts to the uninitiated.

Kleenex brand Facial tissue is now the generic name..."Hand me a klenex, please."

"Booze" which was the name of the glass maker that used to provide bottles to distilleries with his name on them is now the generic word for drinking grade alcohol.

Depending on the geographic location, any martial art with kicking and punching is karate/TKD, any japanese wrestling is judo/jujutsu and anything with a sword is "Highlander" stuff.

my two cents, a few minutes late...

 

[w.kaer]

Well, the system is what is codified. so Shotokan would be Impressionist painting. The art is personal, and that is what makes it unique to the individual. Many people practice the same system, but their interpretation is the art. I understand what you are getting at, this is just sort of my way of looking at it.

I don't know if I completely agree with this statement. The artist does not define what is "art." In the same way "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," art would be defined by those who observe it.

As an MA practitioner I should not define what I do as "art" as to rationalize my way of doing a front kick or chamber my punches. My sensei should not and would not allow me to get off that easy. The art of what we do ought to be defined by those who observe us with the appreciting eye. If we allow the artist to define the art, then I could name myself the grand master of walt-kwan-do. Any statement of the kind would lack all credibility.

 

[stone_dragone]

Good point.

And you're absolutely right...your sensei would not let you rationalize a poor kick (fortunately, your kicks are solid!)