The "Martial" In Martial Arts

[MJS]

I don't actually see it that way. The warrior seeks out battle, the person engaged in self-defense avoids it. The warrior intends to kill, the SD'er intends to defend themselves. The warrior intentionally uses the most lethal tools at their disposal, the SD'er is generally constrained from using deadly force except under certain conditions. The warrior uses weapons of mass destruction indiscriminately in a war zone and collateral damage is . The SD'er is constrained from engaging those who are not attacking them. The warrior acts as part of a team and obeys the orders of superiors, the SD'er is generally solo and not acting as part of a predetermined scheme to take land or other objectives.

About all the military person and the self-defense person have in common is that they use violence in self-defense and they are trained to do so. But their weapons, tactics, training, even the reasons they engage in violence are all very different.

Having served in the military and being a current humble karate-ka, I find the two very different and am glad of it in general.

Playing devils advocate for a moment. Is it possible for the warrior and the SD'er to be one in the same? With your version, the warrior is intentionally seeking out battle. Another way of looking at it, could be, being humble, but also not turning his back from a battle, should that battle come to him. I guess it would depend on the person....some people dont want to fight at all, and do everything in their power to avoid it, and even when faced with escalating circumstances, still refuse, while others still, if possible avoid it, but when that doesnt work, opt to fight. As an example...remember that youtube clip that was posted, where the karate guy was outside his house, with the punk yelling and screaming at him, getting in his face, pushing him, and then finally, after much abuse, the karate guy fought back.

As for the tools the warrior and SD'er use...both have tools that're lethal, but opt to adjust accordingly. I would hope that the SD'er would use lethal force, should he be faced with it.

Just wanted to toss another way of possibly looking at it, out there.

 

[David43515]

The problem isn't the Art, it's me. I'm not martial enough.

Beautifully put. Like Bill pointed out, the goals of a soldier in combat and the goals of a civillian in a SD situation are very different. But there are also big differences in the goals of martial artists. We may train in the same art, but train for very different reasons. Self defense? Good for you. Competition? Good for you too. Interest in the culture? Recreation? Something to do with your kids? Good for you too. Just want the workout (and feel that Jazzersize would bring your manhood into question)? Good for you, but lighten up on worrying what others think.

Because many of our goals aren`t martial in nature, much of our training has changed to reflect that. Traditionally young kids weren`t accepted at martially serious dojo.How many dojo today wouldn`t be able to keep the doors open w/o a kids` class. But do we really want our kids learning to tear ligaments and break bones? I`ve been doing this for a long time, and before I devloped the tolerance to let other people pursue thier own goals I spent alot of time arguing about what martial arts were supposed to be. I guess that with age comes patience and understanding.....either that or I finally got tired of arguing. Nowadays I don`t need to teach for a living, and I know plenty of people who are good at what they do. So if one of my students wants to focus on self defense or fitness I teach them. If they want to focus on sport fighting I reccomend friends who really teach that well. If they want to try creating thier own musical forms.....I briefly consider slapping them, :shooter: but I end up stearing them to someone who can help. Like someone said, martial arts is just a big umbrella term for what all of us call our little slice of the big pie.

 

[Chris Parker]

Er, quick point

Let me see if I have this straight...

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.

....

Not exactly.

Any art that ends in "jitsu" is not Japanese. Any art that ends in "jutsu" is another matter, however....

The distinction between "jutsu" and "do" traditions is rather artificial, and primarily Western, in Japan there is pretty much no distinction made at all. Budo = Bujutsu, really. A few older systems use the "do" suffix, such as Shinto Muso Ryu Jodo, a very "samurai" system founded by Muso Gonnosuke, a samurai trained in Katori Shinto Ryu amongst others. There is also recorded use of the term Judo from the mid 18th Century, about 150 years before Kano Jigoro developed his system. There are also modern systems such as Goshinjutsu (practical art of self defence), Taihojutsu (police arresting art), and more that use the "jutsu" suffix.

The distinction primarily got legs in the West from Donn Draegers three book series "Classical Bujutsu", "Classical Budo", and "Modern Budo", where different systems would be presented in different volumes, and the imagines difference was read into the works. For the record, though, Draeger was trained in two very old systems, the Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu which teaches Kenjutsu, Kodachijutsu, Ryotojutsu, Bojutsu, Iaijutsu, Battojutsu, Naginatajutsu, Sojutsu, Ninjutsu, Shurikenjutsu and more, dating from about 1447, and the Shinto Muso Ryu which teaches Jodo, as well as other arts all classified as "jutsu" even though some are much more recent (such as Uchida Ryu Tanjojutsu). The Shinto Muso Ryu dates from the early-mid 17th Century, with it's Uchida Ryu component from the late 19th Century (post samurai, but still jutsu).

Gets confusing at times....

 

[Bruno@MT]

But do we really want our kids learning to tear ligaments and break bones?

I have 2 little daughters. The answer to that question is a solid YES.

They are now 2 and 5, and I've started to teach them how to do a solid face slap, how to give a decent soccer style kick, and a couple of things like that. I teach this in the form of a game where I wear my 12 oz gloves which I move towards them, and they kick / slap / hit it in the way they think is best.

I cannot be with them and protect them myself 24/7. So by the time they get to the dating age, I want them to have confidence in themselves and in their ability to inflict pain and escape. And I regularly repeat the following 2 rules:
1) Fighting is only for defense of yourself or someone else, against real aggression.
2) If you have to fight for reasons of defense, mommy and daddy will no be angry, no matter happens.

Some time ago my oldest daughter told me that a classmate of her had hurt my youngest daughter on the school playground. When I asked her what she did then, she told me she kicked that boy hard. I was really proud of her and rewarded her with a big chunk of chocolate.

 

[TigerLove]

In the past, martial arts served to defend yourself or any other persons you wished to defend. Or to defend your country on the batllefield. That was the purpose, to be a WARRIOR.

There you had dozens of highly trained martial artists - warriors ready to kill you.

That created a need to be as ahrd as possible.

Today that need is gone, for most of the people.

Offcourse martial is watered down, when people train for self cinfidence, fitness, self - defense, mainly for general good. There is not need to be dadly warrior today.

You have your life, and martial arts besides that.

People before had martial arts, and life besides that. Sometimes.

But there is still people that have need to be hard. It's security people, bodyguards, police, military, special military units..and so on. I believe they are train hard because they simply need so.

I believe we all train how much we need. And i don't think that contact in training can be called hard training. It's also watered down, just litlle bit less. But it's inaff for today needs, most of us anyway is never in situation to test our skills.

To train like in the past, it's probably inconceivable to most of the people.

 

[Big Don]

mar·tial

  [mahr-shuh

l]
–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.
That is how dictionary.com defines Martial. Is there Martial in my art? You betcha.
The discipline it takes to do it right, every time, that's martial. The rapid fire calling out of basics and/or techniques, in class, reminds me a lot of basic training.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hmm. I might try this again, as this gives basically everything I meant.... in a way.

In the past, martial arts served to defend yourself or any other persons you wished to defend. Or to defend your country on the batllefield. That was the purpose, to be a WARRIOR.

No, when it came to martial arts this was never the case. They were not intended to train soldiers on the battlefield, nor even really for self defence or so on, as that is not what they are designed for. It may be helpful to think of this in a modern military fashion, as it's not too dissimilar.

The regular soldiers (grunts etc) go through a bootcamp, or basic training, and that is based around what they need to defend themselves, those around them, their country, and so on, as well as take the offensive (which in a moral military setting is really a pre-emptive defence itself). This is similar to what the soldiers of ancient China, Japan, or really anywhere else got. Basic training in order to give them some kind of a chance in battle.

Officers, though, get a more specialised training, taking longer, and covering far more topics in greater depth and detail, including strategy and tactics, leadership, and more (depending on the commission). Not every soldier is even capable of being an officer, let alone gets provided with the opportunity. Martial arts are a form of this old "officer" training. They are a more indepth study of the strategies and tactics of a particular school/system, teaching through the medium of combative techniques, even if those techniques are removed from the reality of combat.

Examples of this are rather common, but to give an idea (other than the Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu I gave earlier), we'll look to the Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu, and a few others. The Katori Shinto Ryu is possibly the most respected martial art in Japan, teaching a very large curriculum, focused on the use of sword over everything else. However the sword was never a major battlefield weapon, so focusing on it's use, even in Japan's bloodiest periods of history, was not entirely realistic. It also contains a number of precepts that go against it being anything less than a school of strategy, such as sections of it's curriculum teaching things like proper strategies for castle design and protection, and teaching that no member may engage in fights without first gaining full mastery of the system.

In terms of full mastery, the Araki Ryu, a classical system well known for it's pressure testing and evolving of it's technical curriculum (rather than being stuck in dogmatic repetition of techniques) would grant Menkyo Kaiden (full mastery) licencing in an average of 15 to 20 years.... although during wartime it granted Menkyo Kaiden in times of 5 and 7 years in a couple of cases. Now, if this was really for the soldiers to protect their country, isn't even 5 years far too long to dedicate to training a simple soldier?

Other systems such as Asayama Ichiden Ryu teach almost their entire range of kata against simple grabs to your wrist, sleeve, lapel, collar, or some combination. Hardly the type of attack commonly found on a battlefield, however highly effective at teaching the principles and concepts of the art. Aikido's primary attacking method is an open-handed downward strike to the head, modelled on a sword cut... again, far from realistic, but great for teaching Aikido's lessons.

There you had dozens of highly trained martial artists - warriors ready to kill you.

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this.... dozens? Where? In what context? If you're talking about on the battlefield, that would be hundreds through to thousands, but they would hardly be what I would call highly trained martial artists, they would often simply be soldiers, same as in a modern army. The highly trained martial artists would be acting as the Generals and Officers behind the front lines, probably not being immediately involved in the physical battle itself, same as todays armies.

This doesn't mean that the opposing soldiers weren't warriors, nor that they weren't ready to kill you, just that they were as much a martial artist as someone who has gone through todays basic training is.

That created a need to be as hard as possible.

No, it creates a need to have soldiers. And those soldiers needed to be trained quickly and efficiently, which means that the training was very basic and serious. Same as today.

Today that need is gone, for most of the people.

Well, I would say that that need wasn't really there for most of the people anyway. I'll deal with the "commoners martial arts" in a moment.

Offcourse martial is watered down, when people train for self confidence, fitness, self - defense, mainly for general good. There is not need to be deadly warrior today.

This whole idea of the old days being "the real training", and those guys training for real, while we today don't, to me, is incredibly romantised. It just doesn't add up in reality. Remember that martial arts were by no means learnt by most people, they were only really available for certain sections who could afford both the time and money it took to study them, and for those who had a need (in Japanese terms, samurai, Daimyo etc - but how much was studied depended on the rank and role of such a person. A samurai may be a high-ranking general, or a common sandal-bearer, and the sandal bearer may train little more than the basic training of the common soldier).

You have your life, and martial arts besides that.

People before had martial arts, and life besides that. Sometimes.

Not really. Again sticking to the Japanese thing, a samurai would have martial arts as only one aspect of their life (it may be more for an individual such as Yagyu Munenori, sword teacher to the Shogun, and other professional martial art instructors), but for the most part martial arts were only one part. A samurai, depending on the time in history, was a tax-collector, beaurocrat, public servant, farmer, teacher, accountant, family man, and much more. And then, when the days work was done, he may train in his martial arts. For a fairly accurate representation of this, check out the film "Twilight Samurai", in which our protagonaist is a low-ranking samurai who hasn't really practiced his martial arts for years.

But there is still people that have need to be hard. It's security people, bodyguards, police, military, special military units..and so on. I believe they are train hard because they simply need so.

Again, this is the same as the way it used to be as well. And it can hardly be said that a two-day security training course is the same as training in a martial art. The two are distinctly different. And similar to our Araki Ryu example above, if you are getting a job as a security guard or bouncer, are you going to wait 5 or 10 years to be properly trained before you start? Are the empoyers going to wait a decade for you to be trained?

This is not martial arts.

I believe we all train how much we need. And i don't think that contact in training can be called hard training. It's also watered down, just litlle bit less. But it's inaff for today needs, most of us anyway is never in situation to test our skills.

There appears to be this concept that training in martial arts in the old days was far more dangerous, and people got injured/maimed/killed as it was so serious. The fact is that there have been systems taking measures for safe training methods for centuries. The Yagyu Shinkage Ryu and Kashima Shinryu, each hundreds of years old, both developed Fukuro Shinai (leather covered bamboo sword), with the Shinkage Ryu also having large soft gauntlets covering their forearms to protect them. This may have been considered "watering down" back in the day as well, though....

As I have said, though, there really isn't any watering down, just adaptation of training methods to the needs of the current students/society.

To train like in the past, it's probably inconceivable to most of the people.

Mainly because people don't understand what the training was like in the past, or what it was for. Honestly, they're probably not too far off training like in the past right now, they just don't understand how to reconcile it with their romanticised imaginings.

As the precept of this thread has been "martial", and what that exactly means (for the record, martial meaning pertaining to the waging of war, or military methods still works quite well, even though the techniques are not necessarily realistic for combat either in it's day or now as it pertains to teaching military strategies, not combat effective techniques - that seems to have been missed in all of the definitions we have gone through so far....), I have been looking at arts during wartime in Japan dominantly. But there is another major grouping of martial arts, commoners systems, which in Japan really started to come out during the Edo period, as it was a time of enforced peace, and the samurai were looking for ways to make an income. Teaching their martial understandings was one such method.

Commoners martial arts, though, were often a bit more basic, and therefore a bit more practical as combative, or self-defence systems, however they were still rather involved areas of study, taking years to learn. For the same reasons as the older systems, this limited their applicability as purely self defence systems. They just take too long to learn, and are too complicated. So they began turning into more philosophical systems, such as Iaido and Kendo (although a sport, there is a very deep philosophy underneath the art), and we end with what we have today. Like the older systems they are martial in that they teach strategy and tactics that can be applied in a martial sense, rather than combat effectiveness, which martial arts are simply not geared up for.

Okay, that should be controversial enough for now.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

It seems that the only "martial" aspect being discussed here is the killing aspect. IMO, it is deeper than that. My Kwan Jang Nim, like many TSDer's of the time, taught TSD to Korean and American forces during Vietnam. He was also a member of the Black Tigers, and definitely used his TSD in the military sense.

HOWEVER, what continues to be seen everyday in our dojang, is not the principle of "killing." The entire way our school system is organized is martial! Rank, chain of command, ettiquette, "attentions", "salutes" (bows), honor, respect, responsibilities with specific ranks, etc.. . IMHO, it is this, and only this, that truly separates us from combat skills, self-defense, sport, etc.. .

I understand that the origin of most martial arts had little or nothing to do with a military. But at some point in history, my martial art specifically, was encorporated into the ROK army, and the tradition that was passed down to me still embodies much of the organization of the military. At my rank (5th dan), my Kwan Jang Nim compares me to a field general, and with that comes specific responsibilities.

We also have to keep in mind, that over the course of history, martial arts have had many periods of watering down, and many periods of sharpening up. During prolonged times of peace, hard training geared toward defending one's family in times of violence were put on the back burner, and the "art" and "philosophy" were more emphasized. In times of unrest and violence, the training changed to suit the demands of society.

 

[Langenschwert]

No, when it came to martial arts this was never the case. They were not intended to train soldiers on the battlefield, nor even really for self defence or so on, as that is not what they are designed for. It may be helpful to think of this in a modern military fashion, as it's not too dissimilar.

Hi Chris,

I would like to dispute this point from my own perspective. Remember that the term "Martial Arts" is a European term, and there even the most sophisticated systems were very much for front-line warriors, not only generals and officers. Europe fielded armies of thousands of knights and men-at-arms. That's armies composed of men who have been training full-time from the age of 7 untill 18... an effective Ph.d. in combat. Knights often fought dismounted to fight alongside conscripts to stiffen their resolve and to foster solidarity among the army. There is nothing more front line than that.

Note the prologue of Liechtenauer's verses (empahsis mine):

"Young Knight learn to love God and revere women so that your honour grows. Practice knighthood and learn the Art that dignifies you, and brings you honour in wars. Wrestle well and wield lance, spear, sword, and dagger manfully, whose use in others’ hands is wasted."

The intent was clearly for the knight to use his martial arts, honed over a lifetime of training, in warfare. While it was noted that combative training could be used to improve character (see George Silver for that), the actual practical application was of prime importance.

What each of us considers a martial art is coloured by the cultural context of the art one studies. Whereas some cultures reserved MA for the ultra elite, some established schools were indeed used to train soldiers for warfare, and many cultures used extensive (a decade plus) training to prepare a young man for front-line duty on the battlefield.

Best regards,

-Mark

 

[Chris Parker]

Hi Mark,

This is more what I was refering to as more of the "Officer" style training (albeit rather more long-term), rather than simple training for the soldiers (in your terms there, the conscripts). As a result, I'd still see this as part of the "elite". Even within the Japanese form of this higher ranking samurai may involve themselves in battles, although the majority of the fighting force would be the lower ranked ones (military-trained, not martial arts-trained).

As I understand it the young knights would be apprenticed to an experienced one as a squire, with their training being part of their everyday duties. The richer knights could afford to spend more time training, get better equipment, better armour, better horses and better weaponry. This is allowed by being higher socially placed, or more elite. But with such long training, in so many different disciplines, I don't see that as being primarily concerned with combative expertise. It simply doesn't need to be that intensive, the conscripts get basic training and face the same enemies, usually with less protection and lower quality weaponry. So I look to even things like this for what else they teach, and that is, to me at least, the essence of the martial arts. Yes, they can be used in combat, but I still feel that that is not their main reason.

 

[teekin]

I must say that I have enjoyed this thread Hugely!!!! You all stayed so polite and adult to eachother while exploring the facets of " Martial". Kudos to you bunch! :cheers: I applaude you all.

Lori

 

[MJS]

Playing devils advocate for a moment. Is it possible for the warrior and the SD'er to be one in the same? With your version, the warrior is intentionally seeking out battle. Another way of looking at it, could be, being humble, but also not turning his back from a battle, should that battle come to him. I guess it would depend on the person....some people dont want to fight at all, and do everything in their power to avoid it, and even when faced with escalating circumstances, still refuse, while others still, if possible avoid it, but when that doesnt work, opt to fight. As an example...remember that youtube clip that was posted, where the karate guy was outside his house, with the punk yelling and screaming at him, getting in his face, pushing him, and then finally, after much abuse, the karate guy fought back.

As for the tools the warrior and SD'er use...both have tools that're lethal, but opt to adjust accordingly. I would hope that the SD'er would use lethal force, should he be faced with it.

Just wanted to toss another way of possibly looking at it, out there.

Gee, I thought I'd get a bite or 2 on this post. This was in response to a post that Bill had made. Just wanted to bump it back up, so we could continue this thread.

 

[MJS]

It seems that the only "martial" aspect being discussed here is the killing aspect. IMO, it is deeper than that. My Kwan Jang Nim, like many TSDer's of the time, taught TSD to Korean and American forces during Vietnam. He was also a member of the Black Tigers, and definitely used his TSD in the military sense.

HOWEVER, what continues to be seen everyday in our dojang, is not the principle of "killing." The entire way our school system is organized is martial! Rank, chain of command, ettiquette, "attentions", "salutes" (bows), honor, respect, responsibilities with specific ranks, etc.. . IMHO, it is this, and only this, that truly separates us from combat skills, self-defense, sport, etc.. .

I understand that the origin of most martial arts had little or nothing to do with a military. But at some point in history, my martial art specifically, was encorporated into the ROK army, and the tradition that was passed down to me still embodies much of the organization of the military. At my rank (5th dan), my Kwan Jang Nim compares me to a field general, and with that comes specific responsibilities.

We also have to keep in mind, that over the course of history, martial arts have had many periods of watering down, and many periods of sharpening up. During prolonged times of peace, hard training geared toward defending one's family in times of violence were put on the back burner, and the "art" and "philosophy" were more emphasized. In times of unrest and violence, the training changed to suit the demands of society.

IMO, the martial side doesn't have to always be about killing. Some may have said that thats all that it means, but I feel its about the fighting side. I certainly dont think that we should kill someone, in every fight that we get in to.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

IMO, the martial side doesn't have to always be about killing. Some may have said that thats all that it means, but I feel its about the fighting side. I certainly dont think that we should kill someone, in every fight that we get in to.

I hear ya, just using the term "killing" from some previous posts. I agree, especially in today's civilian society, rarely should any fight end in death. Certainly the fighting side is the essence of anything martial. I was suggesting a broader sense of the definition relating to military life and organization.

 

[KenpoVzla]

From my experience, it's totally missing in some schools.

How does no-contact adult sparring in a tournament competition sound? Yes, it's true and it's out there nowadays. Not my cup of tea, but some may enjoy it.

I would say that this video sums up the situation:

It's related to the Karate audience, but I think it applies to other MAs.

 

[David43515]

I have 2 little daughters. The answer to that question is a solid YES.

They are now 2 and 5, and I've started to teach them how to do a solid face slap, how to give a decent soccer style kick, and a couple of things like that. I teach this in the form of a game where I wear my 12 oz gloves which I move towards them, and they kick / slap / hit it in the way they think is best.

I cannot be with them and protect them myself 24/7. So by the time they get to the dating age, I want them to have confidence in themselves and in their ability to inflict pain and escape. And I regularly repeat the following 2 rules:
1) Fighting is only for defense of yourself or someone else, against real aggression.
2) If you have to fight for reasons of defense, mommy and daddy will no be angry, no matter happens.

Some time ago my oldest daughter told me that a classmate of her had hurt my youngest daughter on the school playground. When I asked her what she did then, she told me she kicked that boy hard. I was really proud of her and rewarded her with a big chunk of chocolate.

You sound like the dad I always wanted to be. Here`s to hoping they never need it, and to hoping it`s there if they ever do.

 

[Balrog]

They would be lucky to get basic instruction ("You hold the blunt end, and just keep jabbing the pointy bit at the other buggers until there's no more of 'em. Or they jab you good and proper, of course.... try not to let 'em do that....")

Heh. Sounds like a bit of Terry Pratchett-do there....

 

[Zoran]

Boy, you guys really know how to complicate a subject.

The martial side of things are just focused on realistic forms of combat. Be it historical or modern, war or self defense.

Too many are put off by the word "art". Art here does not mean as in painting or drawing. Art here means skill you can learn by study, practice and observation.

 

[Balrog]

Boy, you guys really know how to complicate a subject.

The martial side of things are just focused on realistic forms of combat. Be it historical or modern, war or self defense.

Too many are put off by the word "art". Art here does not mean as in painting or drawing. Art here means skill you can learn by study, practice and observation.

Look at the derivation of the term.

'Martial' comes from the Latin Mars, the name of the Roman god of war, and translates to warlike or anything having to do with combat. Art is something taken to a higher level. Therefore, the term "martial art" means fighting taken to a higher level.

 

[Zoran]

Look at the derivation of the term.

'Martial' comes from the Latin Mars, the name of the Roman god of war, and translates to warlike or anything having to do with combat. Art is something taken to a higher level. Therefore, the term "martial art" means fighting taken to a higher level.

Again, over complicating things. Roots of the words does not translate into a definition. Etymology is an interesting subject, but has nothing to do with the topic.

Nor will a mugger give a rats *** if you know the definition and the Latin origins of Martial Arts.