Question for Dan ranks or equivalent Re: what is
- Thread starter TSDTexan
- Start date
- Status
I seem to get a lot of flack for this but I keep to the "true" definition of martial art: "Art of Mars" with Mars being the God of War. Can you maim or kill with an arrow? Yeah, so that's why kyudo is a martial art. Can you maim or kill with taebo? It will help you get fit which will help in a fight but it is not outright teaching you an "art of war".
Cirdan
Senior Master
"Martial art" means different things to different people, like all words do. Some have an almost religious belief in their view of what a TRUE MA is and will defend this definition tooth and nail against heretics who dare voice other opinions 
Generally MAs include arts of armed and unarmed violence for different purposes purposes including combat, self defence, sport and performance. Maybe even fitness, recreation and entertainment.
Generally MAs include arts of armed and unarmed violence for different purposes purposes including combat, self defence, sport and performance. Maybe even fitness, recreation and entertainment.
I'll save myself some typing and just copy my definition from an earlier thread:
Martial Arts: For some reason many people like to bring up the derivation of "martial" as evidence that martial arts have something to do with the arts of war. Regardless of the etymology, the overwhelming majority of martial arts have nothing at all to do with war-fighting.
Given the diversity of the martial arts, the best definition I can muster is "a formalized system in a certain historical context for training certain skills, attributes, or techniques in some way related to or derived from methods of violence." This can cover a lot of ground, for example:
Chris Parker would probably insist that a martial art has a unifying set of principles that tie together its various techniques and training methods. I think it might be overstating the case to say that this is always true. I've seen plenty of martial arts where the principles don't really seem that unified.
I should note that I am a descriptivist rather than a prescriptivist when it comes to definitions. Someone with a more prescriptivist bent may support a definition which will exclude a significant number of people practicing what they consider to be a martial art.
Martial Arts: For some reason many people like to bring up the derivation of "martial" as evidence that martial arts have something to do with the arts of war. Regardless of the etymology, the overwhelming majority of martial arts have nothing at all to do with war-fighting.
Given the diversity of the martial arts, the best definition I can muster is "a formalized system in a certain historical context for training certain skills, attributes, or techniques in some way related to or derived from methods of violence." This can cover a lot of ground, for example:
- an acrobatic performance art with stylized movements derived from old fighting techniques
- an historical recreation of medieval swordfighting methods
- a system for cultivating certain spiritual or mental attributes through the practice of physical techniques
- a system for unarmed fighting in a civilian context
- and many, many more.
Chris Parker would probably insist that a martial art has a unifying set of principles that tie together its various techniques and training methods. I think it might be overstating the case to say that this is always true. I've seen plenty of martial arts where the principles don't really seem that unified.
I should note that I am a descriptivist rather than a prescriptivist when it comes to definitions. Someone with a more prescriptivist bent may support a definition which will exclude a significant number of people practicing what they consider to be a martial art.
OP
OP
TSDTexan
Master of Arts
So by your standard.... Lion dancing is an actual martial artform, because martial artists perform a skilled art that contains fighting techniques or movements derived from them?
And Taebo can also be a MA in your view?
(Worth noting, Billy Blanks says it is not a MA)
Last edited:
OP
OP
TSDTexan
Master of Arts
"Martial art" means different things to different people, like all words do. Some have an almost religious belief in their view of what a TRUE MA is and will defend this definition tooth and nail against heretics who dare voice other opinions
Generally MAs include arts of armed and unarmed violence for different purposes purposes including combat, self defence, sport and performance. Maybe even fitness, recreation and entertainment.
You speak in generalities. Can you be more specific?
Cirdan
Senior Master
Why? I don`t see the need to pin down the "distinguishing minimum difference" at all, why is this important? MA is just a general term, words are just wind anyway, it is what we do that is important.
Last edited:
To me spending time worrying what is a martial art and what isn't is a waste of training time. It's on par with the 'my art is better than your' or TMA is useless in MMA' topics for starting needless arguments.
Whether Taebo is a martial art or not doesn't really concern me at all, why should it and why should we define other peoples thoughts on what they do?
Whether Taebo is a martial art or not doesn't really concern me at all, why should it and why should we define other peoples thoughts on what they do?
OP
OP
TSDTexan
Master of Arts
What is the point of distinctions? What is the point of fences?what the point of creation? What is the point of contrasting distinction? What is the point of boiling down and creating a distillation?
If you capture the essential nature of a thing, it opens doors.
A superficial grasp of any subject has never led to great art.
I am a man who has been plauged with the question of "Why" since childhood. It is part of my nature. I am not satisfied with accepting that it just is, because it is assumed. My desire to ask and know beyond generalities is because it is important to me. Why is important... It may not be to others, and I get that, but I am a proccess driven artist.
Last edited:
I think you may prefer to find a philosophy site to a martial arts one if you want those questions answering.
Most of us here have a very deep insight and knowledge of the martial arts we train and study in, why would we want to infer that others styles are martial arts by classifying them? Let and let live is a very good maxi to live by, arguing over what is or isn't a martial art achieves nothing but certain ill will. I have a superficial grasp of Taebo, this neither diminishes me nor does it make my style any less effective or enjoyable to train. To spend my time pondering on whether it is a martial art or not would be a waste of time especially as has been pointed out it's originator says it's not, that's good enough for me.
OP
OP
TSDTexan
Master of Arts
Your point? Why then, are you talking here... Its wasting training time?
[I already trained today, for three hours, what's you point for me personally?]
Oh wait... This isn't a place of training, but a library of discourse. A place of conversation. Did you forget that?
Also, if trying to have a conversation about what is the essential that separates martial art from martial arobic exercise doesn't concern you... Why mention it at all?
Your words add no clarity, but serve to muddy the water, while some here, are trying to observe a rare fish.
This isn't about style vs style but seeking an answer...to the question what is a style to begin with?
It is helpful sometimes to compare a thing to another to help better understand a thing. And by doing such...Sometimes it helps further, to define something by what it is not.
Last edited:
OP
OP
TSDTexan
Master of Arts
If you dont want to waste time talking about xyz... Why are you on xyz thread, saying off topic stuff on xyz thread?
Doing such is illogical.
Were we admonished yesterday about this? By a Moderator no less.
Isn't it against TOS?
Please if you have something on topic to add, please do so.
I would like you to. Your comments concerning effectiveness of asking questions, deserves a thread of its own.
Last edited:
OP
OP
TSDTexan
Master of Arts
"Raises an eyebrow"
I already informed you, previously, that if you pushed me hard enough I would ignore you.
Congratulations.
You made on to my ignore list. You have the distinction of being my first and only.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
I think that there are many, many ways in which martial arts are all distinct, but I can think of two simple tests to determine whether something is a martial art or not.
first, is the martial art should have a clear and recognizable identity. Kyudo is something very specific. Karate is distinct from kung fu. Shotokan is distinct from Goju Ryu. BJJ isn't really "Basically Just Judo." While similar, they are both distinct and instantly recognizable. As a grappler, I can tell a judoka from a jiu-jitiero just by the gi they wear, even before they engage in combat or competition.
Five years ago, I would have said that MMA isn't a martial art. Now? I think it is. There are MMA schools, and for the most part, MMA has a lexicon of techniques that are consistent from school to school. While there is still variation and some room to play with the formula for success in MMA competition, my opinion is that MMA brings to mind a clear and recognizable product, greater than the sum of its parts. In other words, BJJ, wrestling, boxing, Muay Thai or any other component art are distinct, but when you bring them all together, you get something recognizable as MMA that is more than an amalgam of the various styles.
Second, there should be a clear and direct connection to combat. While this connection may be antiquated, such as in the case of fencing, kendo or kyudo, it should be direct. Is fencing practical? Not in today's society. But a sword to the heart is still deadly, as is an arrow from a Japanese bow. in contrast, I would suggest that Tae Bo doesn't meet this criterion because it is not directly connected to combat. Rather, it is directly connected to cardio exercise using movements borrowed from martial arts.
first, is the martial art should have a clear and recognizable identity. Kyudo is something very specific. Karate is distinct from kung fu. Shotokan is distinct from Goju Ryu. BJJ isn't really "Basically Just Judo." While similar, they are both distinct and instantly recognizable. As a grappler, I can tell a judoka from a jiu-jitiero just by the gi they wear, even before they engage in combat or competition.
Five years ago, I would have said that MMA isn't a martial art. Now? I think it is. There are MMA schools, and for the most part, MMA has a lexicon of techniques that are consistent from school to school. While there is still variation and some room to play with the formula for success in MMA competition, my opinion is that MMA brings to mind a clear and recognizable product, greater than the sum of its parts. In other words, BJJ, wrestling, boxing, Muay Thai or any other component art are distinct, but when you bring them all together, you get something recognizable as MMA that is more than an amalgam of the various styles.
Second, there should be a clear and direct connection to combat. While this connection may be antiquated, such as in the case of fencing, kendo or kyudo, it should be direct. Is fencing practical? Not in today's society. But a sword to the heart is still deadly, as is an arrow from a Japanese bow. in contrast, I would suggest that Tae Bo doesn't meet this criterion because it is not directly connected to combat. Rather, it is directly connected to cardio exercise using movements borrowed from martial arts.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
As you saying they are not?
Steve
Mostly Harmless
I don't know what lion dancing is, but I'd say tae bo is not a martial art. Looks like fun though.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
Im just trying to figure out what his idea of a MArtial Art is. He asked the question, got an answer then told the guy he was wrong yet he hasnt given his thoughts yet.
So if Tae Bo isnt a martial art then why not?
- Status
