When is it no longer a martial art?

[hoshin160022 1]

My definition.
MARTIAL ART:
A kinetic practice that the participant believes addresses group or individual conspecific violence, conflict or agonistic behaviors.

 

[Gyakuto114 123]

‘believes’ = feels <shudder>

 

[hoshin160022 1]

‘believes’ = feels <shudder>

I understand the hesitancy on that word "believes" but I think it is most accurate. We can apply it to actual war. Each side of a battle has its own tactics and a governing strategy that they BELIEVE will bring them victory. Victory still needs to be defined as it could be complete surrender of the other side or something small like defending a hill or castle long enough for reinforcements to arrive. Reduced down to interpersonal violence it would be no different. The complete surrender of your opponent or holding a person down or at bay until back up comes (for LEO) or someone else intervenes as in a bar fight. Strategy, tactics and training methods are, and can only be abstract concepts and principles until applied. Application will prove effectiveness. We know intuitively not all martial arts are created equal and will have a dissimilar effectiveness in any given application. While the practice or art will have variable effectiveness across a multitude of scenarios the bigger variable is the participant. The art or practice is the abstract, the participant brings the abstract to life. The definition of martial art is as I mentioned in my first post. The kinetic practice is only a tool. However, we cannot control or regulate how people use that tool. If I give someone a hammer and they have no use for it to build something there is nothing I can do if they only want it as a door stop.

 

[HighKick]

A thread in the TKD forum got a little off topic, but was still interesting, so I thought I would start/continue the conversation as it's own post.
When does a martial art stop being a martial art and become a performance art? I think this is an interesting point of conversation because even dance can have benefits to improving combat skills (improved flexibility, balance, strength, etc.) Breaking down the words "Martial Arts", the phrase seems to have been coined sometime in the 1500s and comes from the Latin words for Skill or Craft (ars) and war/combat (Martialis). Based on this, for something to be a martial art it needs to show a skill in combat.

Where I think things get interesting, is many historically famous military generals and martial artists practiced other art forms to hone their craft that seemingly have nothing to do with combat. Many swordman in Japan and China practiced calligraphy to harmonize the mind and body, there are records of Medieval knights practicing dance while wearing armor, games like chess and go were used to learn and understand strategy and reading your opponent. So what is and what isn't a martial art? Is it dependent on the method of training or is it more about the intent of the training? Can something like dance or art be considered a martial art if that is the intent behind the training? Thoughts?

I feel you own posts highlights the fact that the things we practice/do to learn a martial art will never Always be Martial in practice.
Your descriptions of knights practicing dance in full armor is a great example. Anything that makes a person better at their craft should be on the table. The knights showed great creativity in this respect. Remember, everyone's resources are different so, the "any port in a storm" analogy fits here when it comes to creative ways to train. To this end, it certainly isn't dependent on a method of training. But it is Very important to know and understand what the goal is (X kick/strike performed a certain way, etc...).
For me, it should never lose it's original intent of self defense. This is a very precarious slope these days. The reality is 60% - 70% of people who train at commercial schools are Casually training for purposes other than Martial self defense. Its the inverse of the knights dancing. The same drills/skills used to be a good, complete martial artist can be used to make a person more whole and physically fit, not to mention the improved mental benefits without said persons intent for training having much to do with anything 'martial'. There is a Lot of tangential stuff going on here.

 

[Gyakuto114 123]

I understand the hesitancy on that word "believes" but I think it is most accurate.

The problem with unsubstantiated beliefs is they can lead to delusional ideas; combat pastimes that are believed to be more effective than they are…they haven’t really been stress tested.

We know intuitively not all martial arts are created equal and will have a dissimilar effectiveness in any given application.

Again, ‘intuitively’ is a very misleading term. I intuitively know people are good. I intuitively know that Odin created the world etc When those ‘less equal’ arts were founded, I’m sure the originator ‘believed’ it was the best thing since…well, the last best thing. Using the attackers force against them, taking the best of many arts and discarding the rest, using softness to overcome force etc. The arts using those ideas had good reasons to think they were pushing forward the envelop of fighting effectiveness.

While the practice or art will have variable effectiveness across a multitude of scenarios the bigger variable is the participant

I don’t think anyone genuinely thinks their art will be effective across a multitude of scenarios. It’s likely very narrow regardless of the competence of the practitioner. Karate is good against karate and many unarmed fighting arts…MMA…not sure…boxing…hmmmm, but against somebody with a club or a knife or a sword or a gun or a nuclear fission bomb?

. The art or practice is the abstract, the participant brings the abstract to life. The definition of martial art is as I mentioned in my first post. The kinetic practice is only a tool. However, we cannot control or regulate how people use that tool.

Isn’t the systematising of the teaching of an art an attempt to regulate its application? You’re attempting to make all your students as competent as possible.

The fact is, with all the many variables, we cannot know the absolute effectiveness of an art, maybe it’s relative effectiveness ; Kenjutsu is more useful in an altercation than say, Judo, gun shooting is more effective than Böhk. In the absence of that objective measure what we do is a performance art at best.

 

[windwalker099114 144]

A week or so ago I met a park worker while practicing, as sometimes happens. In conversation I mentioned the practice was called Taiji, but I explained that when I work with people I don’t present it as a martial art or as self-defense.

Instead, I describe it as a physical practice of a cultural concept called Taiji—something that can serve different purposes depending on one’s focus and need. For many, it remains simply a movement practice. When I work with people, I try to meet them according to their focus, needs, and abilities, allowing the practice to develop in a way that is meaningful and appropriate for them.

What I try to convey is what I think of as empirically based Taiji, reflecting the way my teacher taught. Having been in the military and trained in arts that deliberately cultivate a fighting mindset and physical method for combat,

I found the Taiji I experienced in Beijing quite different.

Much of the training first developed the skill sets through solo practice that allow the art to function, later tested through interaction with others in traditional methods such as push hands.

When asked what to do in different situations, my teacher’s consistent answer was simple: “Try it.”

In that approach, answers were not settled by theory, labels, or claims, but by what could be directly verified through practice and interaction.

Seen this way, a practice may carry the name of a martial art long after it has lost real martial usefulness, while something not labeled as such may still cultivate qualities that are genuinely effective in a martial sense.

 

[Flying Crane]

A week or so ago I met a park worker while practicing, as sometimes happens. In conversation I mentioned the practice was called Taiji, but I explained that when I work with people I don’t present it as a martial art or as self-defense.

Instead, I describe it as a physical practice of a cultural concept called Taiji—something that can serve different purposes depending on one’s focus and need. For many, it remains simply a movement practice. When I work with people, I try to meet them according to their focus, needs, and abilities, allowing the practice to develop in a way that is meaningful and appropriate for them.

What I try to convey is what I think of as empirically based Taiji, reflecting the way my teacher taught. Having been in the military and trained in arts that deliberately cultivate a fighting mindset and physical method for combat,

I found the Taiji I experienced in Beijing quite different.

Much of the training first developed the skill sets through solo practice that allow the art to function, later tested through interaction with others in traditional methods such as push hands.

When asked what to do in different situations, my teacher’s consistent answer was simple: “Try it.”

In that approach, answers were not settled by theory, labels, or claims, but by what could be directly verified through practice and interaction.

Seen this way, a practice may carry the name of a martial art long after it has lost real martial usefulness, while something not labeled as such may still cultivate qualities that are genuinely effective in a martial sense.

Interesting. When I teach, I describe it as physical education, showing how the martial methodology of Tibetan Crane can teach one to move in a unified way to become powerful. This can be efficient and I suggest that in a self-defense situation, it offers options that could be effective. But I don’t claim to be a teacher of self defense. I only teach the martial methods of Tibetan Crane.

I feel a very similar description could be had for aikido.

 

[windwalker099114 144]

When I teach, I describe it as physical education, showing how the martial methodology of Tibetan Crane can teach one to move in a unified way to become powerful.

The mindset cultivated within Tibetan Crane’s four main principles at the time:


Chan (commitment / ruthlessness)
Sim (evasion / movement)
Chuen (piercing / accuracy)
Jeet (intercepting / stopping)


Strongly shaped the training mindset....

Small story…

A young guy come into the gym asking whether meditation was taught there.
Mike, the main instructor, looked at him and smiled while the rest of us watched, trying not to laugh.

He said, “If you want to learn meditation, go to a church or a temple. We teach fighting here.”

The young man looked startled and left, after he was gone everyone had a small laugh..


Tibetan Crane my first CMA style, the teachers I had were deeply focused on fighting—particularly within the full-contact venues common in the 1970s.


Over time they modified parts of the art, such as incorporating boxing-style hands for close-range work. As a young teenager, I didn’t like that direction, though I couldn’t explain why. Looking back, I see that my later training led me to value the underlying method and body organization more than outward adaptation to competitive trends.


Those early encounters with practitioners of other systems became part of a longer effort to understand what truly makes an art function in practice—shaping my appreciation for how internal method, rather than outward change alone, creates unified and effective movement.

 

[Gyakuto114 123]

Interesting. When I teach, I describe it as physical education, showing how the martial methodology of Tibetan Crane can teach one to move in a unified way to become powerful. This can be efficient and I suggest that in a self-defense situation, it offers options that could be effective. But I don’t claim to be a teacher of self defense. I only teach the martial methods of Tibetan Crane.

I feel a very similar description could be had for aikido.

Could this not apply to say, Rugby? The physical toughening, the ability to crash into an opponent at high speed, pull then to the ground and with bone crushing force and ability to take huge impacts. I’d rather take on and Aikidoka than a rugby player! How about ice/field hockey techniques?

The point I’m trying making is that virtually any physical activity might be used as means to injured, maim and kill a wouldbe attacker but that doesn’t make them a ‘martial art’.

 

[hoshin160022 1]

Isn’t the systematising of the teaching of an art an attempt to regulate its application? You’re attempting to make all your students as competent as possible.

No. Systematising is done to improve the longevity of knowledge. The human brain works well with catagorical thinking. Any knowledge that is not put into a logical system will often be forgotten over time and generation to generation.
But I think you missed my point on the term regulate. By this I mean the reasons people practice an MA. Some people will join for self defense others weight loss and others just for the social aspect. Each individual joins and trains for their own particular reason.
The most popular MA will have the widest appeal. Any MA will be subject to a cost- benefit analysis. For me personally, full contact MMA may be more effective then karate in the ring but I am not willing to pay the associated costs.

 

[Flying Crane]

Could this not apply to say, Rugby? The physical toughening, the ability to crash into an opponent at high speed, pull then to the ground and with bone crushing force and ability to take huge impacts. I’d rather take on and Aikidoka than a rugby player! How about ice/field hockey techniques?

The point I’m trying making is that virtually any physical activity might be used as means to injured, maim and kill a wouldbe attacker but that doesn’t make them a ‘martial art’.

Of course. Why not?

People find something that they find interesting, and that is what they do. If it is kung fu or aikido or rugby, if that is what you are interested in, then do it. If you find it can have martial/defensive applications, great.

As an aside, a comment was made earlier (not even sure if it was in this thread) that each martial art, when it was created, at least the founder believed it was the next best thing since the last best thing and was therefore believed to be an improvement on what came before. I don’t know if that is the way to see things. Maybe it was simply a method that someone figured out, that worked well for him. It might work well for others, it might not. It gets taught, and for some people it proves to work well, it is a method that is a “good fit” for them, taking into account their mental and emotional status as well as they physical abilities and gifts. But for others, it is simply a poor fit, they don’t connect well with the methodology, and they would be better off finding something else to do. It isn’t a straight line improvement on what came before. It is simply something different that works better for some people.

Maybe that’s a better way to see it.

One thing that I tell a new student is that they need to find a method that they feel a connection with, that makes sense to them, that they find interesting and are likely to continue with. What fits that bill for them might be something very different than what fits the bill for the next guy. Some methods seem to have a wider appeal than others. That could be in part due to marketing and wide availability of some methods compared to others. In the case of Tibetan crane, I openly address the issue that our methods seem odd compared to others, and may not look like what people expect a martial method to look like. For some people, that is a turn-off and they ought to find something else. No problems there. I encourage them to find what is right for them.

I do assure them that there are good reasons that we do what we do, and if they stick with it, I believe they will come to understand those reasons. They may still decide it isn’t the right thing for them, and that is ok. But that is why I give a new student several free sessions so they can experience the method and have some information with which to decided if they think they want to pursue this, before I collect any fees. Because I understand that people need to find what is right for them, and there may be some trial and error in that process.

Ive never had more that about 4-5 students at any time. I actually feel that is closer to how it ought to be. I would like a few more, but I don’t want crowds of students.

 

[Gyakuto114 123]

Of course. Why not?

…Rugby-Do? I’m gonna be rich, I tell ya!

People find something that they find interesting, and that is what they do. If it is kung fu or aikido or rugby, if that is what you are interested in, then do it. If you find it can have martial/defensive applications, great.

That’s hardly the direction of the thread, but OK…

As an aside, a comment was made earlier (not even sure if it was in this thread)

Dude is was 5 posts earlier…stop drinking so early in the day!

that each martial art, when it was created, at least the founder believed it was the next best thing since the last best thing and was therefore believed to be an improvement on what came before. I don’t know if that is the way to see things. Maybe it was simply a method that someone figured out, that worked well for him. It might work well for others, it might not. It gets taught, and for some people it proves to work well, it is a method that is a “good fit” for them, taking into account their mental and emotional status as well as they physical abilities and gifts. But for others, it is simply a poor fit, they don’t connect well with the methodology, and they would be better off finding something else to do. It isn’t a straight line improvement on what came before. It is simply something different that works better for some people.

Yes, I concede that’s a very good point, well made. I think there are some combat recreations that probably only really worked for the founder and maybe their immediate students.

One thing that I tell a new student is that they need to find a method that they feel a connection with, that makes sense to them, that they find interesting and are likely to continue with.

Isn’t that really difficult to pinpoint? For example , I found Iaido really unnatural when I first started. The unwieldy, heavy sword, the uncontrollable clothing and trying to move around with some gracefulness on the floor. But I persisted in spite of not really enjoying it. Wado Ryu Karate did feel natural to me and I was young and enthusiastic.

What fits that bill for them might be something very different than what fits the bill for the next guy. Some methods seem to have a wider appeal than others. That could be in part due to marketing and wide availability of some methods compared to others. In the case of Tibetan crane, I openly address the issue that our methods seem odd compared to others, and may not look like what people expect a martial method to look like. For some people, that is a turn-off and they ought to find something else. No problems there. I encourage them to find what is right for them.

But to get back to the point, are these performance pastimes or are they martial arts? (I’ve got the right thread, haven’t I? Yes…yes I have)

I do assure them that there are good reasons that we do what we do, and if they stick with it, I believe they will come to understand those reasons. They may still decide it isn’t the right thing for them, and that is ok. But that is why I give a new student several free sessions so they can experience the method and have some information with which to decided if they think they want to pursue this, before I collect any fees. Because I understand that people need to find what is right for them, and there may be some trial and error in that process.

Ive never had more that about 4-5 students at any time. I actually feel that is closer to how it ought to be. I would like a few more, but I don’t want crowds of students.

 

[isshinryuronin4 3]

I found Iaido really unnatural when I first started.

My experience was the opposite. I did get into it with a strong karate background and a strong mental image of iaido/kenjutsu, so the physical part of it was not a problem. Spiritually, I embraced swinging a lethal blade with intent - it felt really good, a unique mental state.

 

[Flying Crane]

That’s hardly the direction of the thread, but OK…

Well, these threads often drift in ways that feel connected but arent always obvious. It was really just a response to your comment.

Dude is was 5 posts earlier…stop drinking so early in the day!

True. In my defense, I had read that post earlier in the day and hadn’t planned on responding to it. I came back later to respond to a later post and added this bit as an afterthought and since I was in the middle of writing my thoughts I decided to be lazy and not go back to check if it was part of this thread. Sometimes that is the best I can do. I never drink before 9:30 am on Saturday.

Yes, I concede that’s a very good point, well made. I think there are some combat recreations that probably only really worked for the founder and maybe their immediate students.

I appreciate that.

Isn’t that really difficult to pinpoint? For example , I found Iaido really unnatural when I first started. The unwieldy, heavy sword, the uncontrollable clothing and trying to move around with some gracefulness on the floor. But I persisted in spite of not really enjoying it. Wado Ryu Karate did feel natural to me and I was young and enthusiastic.

I guess not everything has clean and easy answers. For some reason you stuck with it. The only person you need to answer to on the why of that is yourself.

But to get back to the point, are these performance pastimes or are they martial arts? (I’ve got the right thread, haven’t I? Yes…yes I have)

I guess my comments here, particularly those on Tibetan crane is simply an acknowledgement that some people might look at what I do, compare it with something more widely visible like boxing or mma and conclude that what I do has become “no longer a martial art” because of the stylistic idiosyncrasies that the method contains, the purpose of which often escapes the casual observer who knows nothing about the style. This does come down to one person’s opinion vs. another’s. My opinion is that most definitely it IS a viable martial art. The only real question is whether I train in a way that gives me viable combative skills, whether I teach my students in a way that enables them to develop viable combative skills, and whether they then take that training and continue to pursue it in a way that they build viable combative skills. That is a different discussion.

I train and teach in a way consistent with the traditions of the method, but I also adapt it to my own ideas. I do not present myself as an expert in self defense. I only present myself as a person knowledgeable in Tibetan crane. That is what I teach. Self-defense includes a lot of soft skills and such that I have some intuitive understanding of, but can’t teach in a way that is greater than lip-service. So I don’t try. I simply teach the physical method and I try to help people see the self-defense potential within the method. But in the end, each person needs to decide for themselves what they want to do with it. I try to give them the skills so they can then do that. And I am far from perfect, but I enjoy what I do.

 

[Gyakuto114 123]

My experience was the opposite. I did get into it with a strong karate background and a strong mental image of iaido/kenjutsu, so the physical part of it was not a problem. Spiritually, I embraced swinging a lethal blade with intent - it felt really good, a unique mental state.

Me too! Kendo shodan, karate sandan!

 

[HighKick]

I don’t think anyone genuinely thinks their art will be effective across a multitude of scenarios. It’s likely very narrow regardless of the competence of the practitioner. Karate is good against karate and many unarmed fighting arts…MMA…not sure…boxing…hmmmm, but against somebody with a club or a knife or a sword or a gun or a nuclear fission bomb?

I emphatically believe my MA's training is 'effective across a multitude of scenarios. It has helped me reached the pinnacle in competition, protected me in more encounters than I can remember including knife attacks and a few drawn handgun situations (I was a LEO). There is a mental component to good training that I feel you do not understand.
And No, that is not BS.
If I am missing your point, please clarify.

 

[drop bear114 53]

I don’t think anyone genuinely thinks their art will be effective across a multitude of scenarios. It’s likely very narrow regardless of the competence of the practitioner. Karate is good against karate and many unarmed fighting arts…MMA…not sure…boxing…hmmmm, but against somebody with a club or a knife or a sword or a gun or a nuclear fission bomb?

There is actual evidence for MMA. (Sort of)

So if we suggest that MMA incorporates the ideas of a lot of combat sports in a more flexible rule set.

Then we look at real world scenarios of combat sports being used.

Then we can get an idea of how adaptive it is as a martial art.

So for example. This is shivworks which is essentially a weapon system. Exept it uses wrestling as its core concepts.

The gracie Safewrap system. That uses BJJ.

 

[J. Pickard]

When they are actually practiced and used in warfare—in the literal sense of the art of war—they are truly martial.

Once they are no longer developed or applied for that purpose, as is the case with most activities now called “martial arts,” the term becomes more symbolic than literal.

What remains are physical and cultural practices shaped by earlier histories and contexts, rather than methods actively refined for war

Would you consider airsoft/paintball, skeet shooting, or even hunting a martial art?

Dang, tough question. I also started to say intent, but after thinking about it... I think you can practice a martial art without the intent of ever using it to hurt someone (health etc) but still be practicing a martial art nonetheless. Then I thought when what you practice no longer contains all the nuts and bolts needed to actually use it to hurt people. But maybe that's not right- cardio kickboxing doesn't teach you to fight and the intent is exercise not hurting people, but it's not performance art. Maybe if what you practice doesn't have all the nuts and bolts and no intent to hurt people and your primary concern is artistic??
Arg. My brain hurts

yeah, I don't think this is a black white kind of thing. Like, Tony Dismukes said, it's kind of fuzzy. Which is exactly why I find it to be an interesting question.

 

[J. Pickard]

when the emphasis is not directly combat related, the art is no longer martial.

What defines "directly related"? being able to push/pull with a lot of force is directly related to combat, so would pushups and pullups be a martial art? You can't argue that if you take 2 people of equal experience and skill level but one has a higher level of overall athleticism and made them fight that the more athletic one wouldn't win the majority of the time. So, if running, weight training, calisthenics, etc. directly relate to being able to fight better then by your definition, wouldn't something like CrossFit be a martial art?

 

[J. Pickard]

My next thought is, does it really matter?

Probably not. I just find topics like this interesting to discuss because opinions tend to be so varied and definitions fuzzy.