The "Martial" In Martial Arts

[Bill Mattocks]

There is intent to consider, regardless of final outcome.

The soldier intends to seek out threats, and intends to end them by killing the enemy.

The person engaged in self-defense cannot, by definition, seek out threats, and when threatened, intends to end the threat. Killing may or may not be required to do so, but it is not the intent.

To me, self-defense is a way of life that encompasses far more than what I learn in the dojo, although that is a major component of it if worse comes to worst.

Not going in areas which I know are dangerous and where I have no business being is part of self-defense. Knowing escape routes and considering them is part. Having trained to get out of my house in a natural disaster. Keeping supplies on-hand for food, water, provisioning, first-aid. Having access to communications. Training in firearms and tactics involving firearms, such as room-clearing. Keeping my vehicles maintained. Having designated rally points for family members in case of emergencies. Practicing all of the above; this is all self-defense.

Not fighting when there is another alternative; also part of self-defense. Judging threat levels quickly and responding in the manner least likely to result in my injury or death, ego and self-esteem be damned. These skills are not primarily martial, but some of them I learned in the military.

My intent as a Marine was to seek out, close with, and destroy the enemy by all means available to me.

As a civilian, my intent is to defend my own life and that of my family, using all means available to me.

INCLUDING choosing not to engage a threat if I can run away from it, not willfully placing myself in danger if I can avoid it, and fighting skillfully when there are no other means to defend myself available. These are not the traits of a soldier, but they are the traits of a person who seeks to protect their life as a first priority over face, honor, or dislike of the situation they find themselves in.

 

[Cirdan]

Cirdan, while I agree with most of your comments, not every art deals with the snuffing out of human life, whether in the quickest method possible or some slower form. For example systems such as Aikido actually go against this idea, other systems such as BJJ may teach rather nasty locks/holds/chokes etc, but their extreme form is geared to breaking and knocking out, not killing or snuffing out lives. And at certain times arts such as the Tea Ceremony and Ikebana (flower arranging) along with poetry have been considered martial arts themselves....

You need to change very little in BJJ and Aikido to turn them into extremely functional tools for killing.. if a practicioner does not realize this I`d be very suprised. This mentality is dangerous even.

I can see polishing your boots being a "martial art" too. Again, playing word games is pretty useless.

 

[Chris Parker]

Yes, but in your own words there you need to change them. You stated, essentially as I read it at least, that all martial arts "at least in part focus on snuffing out human life as quickly and effortlessly as possible", and I came up with a few examples that don't. With a few changes any car can become a racer (albeit not necessarily a good one...), but you need to change what it is first.

Oh, and the reason things like Ikebana and poetry were considered martial arts is that they were part of a classical (high-ranking) warriors well-rounded education, and they taught such things as paring away what was unnecessary (poetry, particularly in Japanese Haiku, Bonsai etc), being completely focused on a single task for a long period at a time (Tea Ceremony) and more. So it really wasn't word games, these things were considered as much martial arts as the use of a sword or spear by a great many.

 

[Cirdan]

It is not so much changing anything as it is just using it to kill instead of the usual practice. If I had to defend myself against a mugger who I knew had twenty friends around the corner, I could very easily use BJJ to kill him quietly and not alert them. By using a knife for instance.

And as a former infantry sergeant I very much considers boot polisin` to be a martial art too. The reasons for this should be pretty obvious.

 

[Xue Sheng]

The word 'martial' means of or pertaining to war, and hence the domain of the military. The term 'martial arts' is a misnomer, because it is neither martial nor an art.

Rather than try to change what self-defense skills that have come to be known collectively as 'martial arts' is to resemble military prowess in battle, I would sooner see the term changed to something more resembling what it was always intended to be (outside of the military, of course). I have always liked the term 'karate-do' because it is a 'way' and not an art, and karate (various interpretations) is 'empty-hand'. Karate-do is the way of the empty hand.

However, since the term 'martial arts' is what is commonly used, I'm OK with it. It's like calling the USA's system of governance a 'Democracy' instead of a Representative Republic. It isn't a democracy, but eh, that's what we commonly call it, so I won't argue the point. People insist on calling chinos 'khakis' (khaki is a color, not a style) and Van Dyke facial hair styles a 'goatee,' which it isn't. Life goes on. But I love to argue about them anyway.

Let me see if I have this straight

Sanda

The version taught to the military would then be a martial art and the version taught as sport would not be a martial art and the version taught to the police may or may not be a martial art.

Xingyiquan use to be taught to the Chinese military but it is no longer so it use to be a marital art but it no longer is

Bajiquan may or may not have been taught to the military but it is, or was used quite a lot by Government body guards in China and Taiwan so is it or is it not a martial art.

Japan

Just about any art that ends in jitsu was used in war by Samurai so they use to be martial arts but they no longer are and anything ending in ‘Do” is right out.

Now to the topic at hand; The "Martial" In Martial Arts

Martial

Martial
–adjective
1. Inclined or disposed to war; warlike: The ancient Romans were a martial people.
2. of, suitable for, or associated with war or the armed forces: martial music.
3. Characteristic of or befitting a warrior: a martial stride.

Martial
Adj.
1. of, relating to, or suggestive of war.
2. Relating to or connected with the armed forces or the profession of arms.
3. Characteristic of or befitting a warrior.

Martial arts
–noun
any of the traditional forms of Oriental self-defense or combat that utilize physical skill and coordination without weapons, as karate, aikido, judo, or kung fu, often practiced as sport.

Oh and while we are at it...Kung Fu is wrong... it is historically in Chinese the word Wushu is used to describe martial arts in China...or at least fighting styles in China...not Kung Fu. Kung Fu was an error on the part of whoever heard it and brought the word to the west. Kung fu means hard work.

As to my feeling of the word “martial” in martial art…. Who freakin cares, it’s a word don’t waste time arguing, discussing, getting on ones military high horse or any indignation on it. As one, who I generally do not see eye to eye with (but he was right) on MT once told me

shut up and train

Quit worrying about it

 

[Chris Parker]

It is not so much changing anything as it is just using it to kill instead of the usual practice. If I had to defend myself against a mugger who I knew had twenty friends around the corner, I could very easily use BJJ to kill him quietly and not alert them. By using a knife for instance.

And as a former infantry sergeant I very much considers boot polisin` to be a martial art too. The reasons for this should be pretty obvious.

Well, again yes, but is the knife really BJJ? I think we've stepped outside of what BJJ teaches you (it's philosophy, and in such it's inherrant expressions, none of which are about killing or using weaponry), and you've gone outside of BJJ there. Just because you may have trained BJJ doesn't mean that using a knife is BJJ.

Oh, and yeah, the benefits to the boot polishing are rather obvious. The question comes down to whether that would classify as an art itself though....

 

[Cirdan]

Well, again yes, but is the knife really BJJ? I think we've stepped outside of what BJJ teaches you (it's philosophy, and in such it's inherrant expressions, none of which are about killing or using weaponry), and you've gone outside of BJJ there. Just because you may have trained BJJ doesn't mean that using a knife is BJJ.

Oh, and yeah, the benefits to the boot polishing are rather obvious. The question comes down to whether that would classify as an art itself though....

Yep, you are right there. BAD KNIFE!

To me boot polisin`is an art. To you, maybe not. I don`t care, it is still boot polisin`

 

[Chris Parker]

And that is the beauty of art, it's personal expression. Cool.

 

[Cirdan]

And that is the beauty of art, it's personal expression. Cool.

No argument there.

 

[Tez3]

Yep, you are right there. BAD KNIFE!

To me boot polisin`is an art. To you, maybe not. I don`t care, it is still boot polisin`

it absolutely is and one I have never managed to be any good at! My other half however is an ace! He can take dull matt leather and turn it into a mirror! and yes he has fought for his life in wars.

 

[Cirdan]

it absolutely is and one I have never managed to be any good at! My other half however is an ace! He can take dull matt leather and turn it into a mirror! and yes he has fought for his life in wars.

I`m sure he gets the good sheen just because he stole your silk stockings

 

[Bruno@MT]

Also, I refuse to get into a lengthy discussions about what glorified words such as budo, martial art, warrior, solider etc "truly" mean as it is completely meaningless. Things are what they are no matter what you call them.

Absolutely not.

Killing can be murder, and murder can be killing.
Calling it one thing or the other makes a huge difference, and even though ending a life may be done in technically identical manners, one could be murder and one could be self defense.

Now, in this discussion we are talking about semantics, and the outcome is not important. But in other scenarios, statements like 'it is what it is' are gross over simplifications in cases where the interpretation of definitions and facts make the difference between self defense and man slaughter.

 

[Cirdan]

Absolutely not.

Killing can be murder, and murder can be killing.
Calling it one thing or the other makes a huge difference, and even though ending a life may be done in technically identical manners, one could be murder and one could be self defense.

Now, in this discussion we are talking about semantics, and the outcome is not important. But in other scenarios, statements like 'it is what it is' are gross over simplifications in cases where the interpretation of definitions and facts make the difference between self defense and man slaughter.

Words are simplifications, not the other way around.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Words are simplifications, not the other way around.

Words are simplifications of concepts. The concepts are important, not the word. However, in trying to define something, we are bound by words. Words are all we have. Words make the letter of the law. As such, words are extremely important. The discussion about which words are the best to describe something can have far reaching consequences.

 

[Langenschwert]

Well, I think my art is martial enough. It was the art of the knightly classes of Europe (and those that wished to emulate them). It was used by military personnel, both on the battlefield and in private affairs of honour. They were the elite soldiers of their day, who (like the Spartans) started their training at about the age of 7. By the time these kids were 18 they were knighted, and better martial artisits than probably anybody on MT ever will be.

However I simply don't have the time or resources to study the whole panoply of the Art to their level. To do so, I would have to be able to fight armed and unarmed, armoured and unarmoured, mounted and on foot. I would have to know how to grapple with the best of them, how to ride horses so it was as natural as walking, and wield the lance, spear, sword (longsword, arming sword, and zweihander), mace, halberd, pollaxe, messer, dagger, flail, and staff. I'd also have to study the various types of armour so as to best defeat it, and to know the weaknesses of my own harness.

The problem isn't the Art, it's me. I'm not martial enough. I don't own a suit of armour, nor a horse. Though one day I will. I haven't trained to fight since childhood. So I train what I can. For me, this means largely unarmoured techniques, both armed and unarmed. So I train grappling, longsword, messer, dagger and staff. Basically knightly unarmoured duelling. That's about all I have time for, and most of my time is spent on longsword and grappling, since they are the foundation for everything else anyway.

And let's not forget the study of Chivalric virtues, the philosophical side of the art.

Best regards,

-Mark

 

[Cirdan]

Words are simplifications of concepts. The concepts are important, not the word. However, in trying to define something, we are bound by words. Words are all we have. Words make the letter of the law. As such, words are extremely important. The discussion about which words are the best to describe something can have far reaching consequences.

If words is all you have then you only have simplifications which in turn makes you a simpelton.

 

[Shifu Steve]

I agree that there are aspects of both 'art' and 'science' involved, so I would not stand up and shout that MA is not an art if pressed. The aspects of self-defense that are basic to the martial arts are, to me, more of a science. Like the boiling temperature of water, it conforms to rules. Pressure points are pressure points; joints are joints; leverage is leverage; force is force. However, there is a world of difference between how the water is boiled; from the short-order cook to the famous chef; and I would agree that MA is 'art-like' in that sense.

Bill I'm going to agree with the latter of your two statements concerning the "art" portion of the term and focus on the last part of this statement:

"However, there is a world of difference between how the water is boiled; from the short-order cook to the famous chef; and I would agree that MA is 'art-like' in that sense."

From the artistic perspective the devil is in the details so to speak. Although there are numerous factors in play in any given technique (e.g. the angle of attack/defense, speed, tension, positioning etc.) the application of those factors in a given instance is purely a subjective experience. You and I, hypothetically, in the same situation will most likely execute two very different responses. Extrapolate that out to a sequence of situations where we both experience the same thing and those differences may be even further pronounced. The result may be the same in every situation (for arguments sake let's say we kill our opponent). However the way we arrived at the result is what distinguishes us. We both had multiple options for dealing with the same thing but because of our given interpretations and training we dealt with it in different ways.

In a less dramatic example let's say we both learned the same kata. Our respective interpretations of that kata and the techniques we derive from it again will have inherent differences. It's in this way that I think the art comes from the human interaction and interpretation of a given style. The art also lies in the fact that we both have similar options when it comes to using the scientific principles behind any technique, but apply them in our own way that expresses our given methods of execution.

Concerning the point of the thread and the "martial" side...I suppose it really depends. If you apply the term martial to mean war, then no, most martial arts styles that are studied in the civilian sector are not appropriate for combat. For the most part they are overly intricate. There is no utility in a soldier spending years mastering a style. Aspects of a given art may be useful but that's different. From what I understand (Bill I'm sure you can elaborate further) MCMAP takes some basic useful tools from a variety of styles and applies them in a system that's easily learned and battlefield ready. MCMAP is not so much martial art as it is a system of combative techniques, boiled down and prized for the wide variety of situations they can be applied to.

However if you interpret martial to simply be combative (and I’m not sure if you can) then maybe the definition works with what we refer to as martial arts. No matter how you interpret it, all martial arts have combative elements to them. Whether those elements are used to foster a superior person and will, or a good fighter (again...vague), they nonetheless are combative. In that sense, I don’t think the arts are watered down in all cases because the intention behind the training has a combative spirit behind it.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

From what I understand (Bill I'm sure you can elaborate further) MCMAP takes some basic useful tools from a variety of styles and applies them in a system that's easily learned and battlefield ready. MCMAP is not so much martial art as it is a system of combative techniques, boiled down and prized for the wide variety of situations they can be applied to.

There was no MCMAP when I was on active duty, it came along later. However, we did receive training in hand-to-hand combat, of course; and what I have read of MCMAP training, there is a lot that is similar.

http://parrisisland.yuku.com/topic/1826

The training in hand-to-hand combat I received was designed for one purpose; to be lethal. When set upon by a foe and one's rifle was inop, one buttstroked. If one found oneself without a rifle, one picked up an entrenching tool and decapitated. This was not intended to defend oneself except by-the-way. It may have been defensive in nature, but it was intended to further the mission, which was always to locate, close with, and destroy the enemy.

What was never taught was that an effective self-defense technique is to simply run away. In the military, that is cowardice in the face of the enemy and you can get shot for it. In civilian life, if one can, one probably should; for the goal is self-preservation. The military makes it clear that self-preservation is nice, but not essential and certainly not a priority. A person's value is that of an asset, not a 'self' worthy of preservation at all costs.

The goal of violence in self-defense is to stop the threat. The goal of violence in war is to kill the enemy. I see these as very different goals, and although the tools used may be similar, they are wielded in very different ways, with very different mindsets.

As a Marine, I might apply a choke hold. And then what? Why, finish killing him, of course. As a civilian, a choke hold is held until resistance ceases, and then I stop applying it. It *might* result in a dead bad guy in either instance, but my intend in both cases is entirely different.

 

[Shifu Steve]

The goal of violence in self-defense is to stop the threat. The goal of violence in war is to kill the enemy. I see these as very different goals, and although the tools used may be similar, they are wielded in very different ways, with very different mindsets.

It makes sense. Techniques designed to kill and kill only need not be overly intricate (e.g. knock them down, bash in head.)

 

[MJS]

No one on MT is doing anything close to Martial. The Martial Arts were created to protect ones farm land or family from war warriors. Then those same warriors started to use the Martial Arts as well on the battle field. They were hardened and use their arts to kill or they were killed.

We today don't have the same motivation so we won't train to the same standards. Most won't ever use what they train so hard in so most won't even know if what they are learning will even work.

It is all watered down. No one here is getting wacked or whipped for doing a bad stance. No one here is challenging anyone for top position in the school. It really does not matter if your school is making money or not. Back then many became crippled practicing their Martial Art, and a few even died.

We all need to be able to work and do other things that get us through life so no one is doing any old time Martial Arts anymore. There is no need.

I agree to a point. For example...many Kajukenbo schools, back in the day, from what I hear, were VERY hardcore. Today, that hardcore mentality is still there, although toned down a bit. However, the sparring and the contact is still hard, much harder than many schools around today.

Its one thing to tone it down a bit for safety, but when its toned to the point that no contact is allowed at all...well, thats sad IMO. I do agree with your last part...I have to work to make a living, and cant afford to be out of work due to a MA related injury, although thats happened to me. I injured my knee, but fortunately was still able to work. Again, I still feel that while we may not be training to protect our land, we are training to protect ourselves and loved ones. Just within the past month, there were 2 attacks on women in the supermarket parking lot, just down the street from my condo. Guy stole their purse. We shouldn't be walking around thinking that we'll never have to defend ourselves..thats foolish IMO.