Is it still a martial art if...

[Black Bear]

... you can't fight with it?

Say there's an art in which the last true master is dead, and people only know how to "dance" with it anymore. Or more to the point, say a given school that teaches a particular art doesn't teach how to fight effectively.

Are they teaching martial art? If so, why is it a martial art? If not, what is it?

Someone posted very wisely about martial art often having exhibition, competition, and combat dimensions. If whatever a school was doing--regardless of what they called it--did not have a combat dimension, is it a martial art? If so, why? If not, what is it?

 

[pknox]

Hmm. "Effectively" is kind of a loaded word. What you call effective, I might not, and vice versa. A lot of it kind of depends on the situation and how it presents itself.

There are various arts that are "martial" in context, but not primarily concerned with developing a means to defend oneself (at least not through the external techniques). Iaido would be one example. I do not expect to be carrying a katana or iaito when attacked, and even if so, I do not expect to be in seiza when it happens. This does not make Iaido, a non-"martial" art, though. "Martial" is defined as dealing with warfare - in studying the various Iaido movements, you are studying a set of techniques that were once used by warriors of the highest order. The same can be said of most koryu arts that are primarily focused on weapons.

That said, while the techniques you learn in Iaido and other ancient weapons arts may not be ones you'd necessarily use in a barfight, the sense of inner calm, grace under pressure, and ability to deal with high levels of intensity and adrenaline are absolute assets in that situation. Would that then make these arts ones that teach you how to fight effectively? I guess it depends what you mean; many of the same attributes listed above can be instilled in someone if they play football or hockey, plus they have the added advantage of being used to hitting people as well as being hit, which an Iaido practitioner doesn't experience. Does that mean football or hockey are martial arts?

I guess the real point here is that if we're wondering if something is to be defined as a martial art, "effective fighting" shouldn't be the only criteria. True, it may very well be one of them, but just not the only one. Hopefully, in a well-developed art, there is more than that; and in some arts, it is developed in ways other than the techniques themselves.

 

[Black Bear]

The cultural context argument, that I buy. Like the iaido thing. Because you're right, it's not combat effective because it does not fit our livestyle. But let's extend it to say, if it were hypothetically combat effective.

Originally posted by pknox Hmm. "Effectively" is kind of a loaded word. What you call effective, I might not, and vice versa. A lot of it kind of depends on the situation and how it presents itself.

It doesn't matter if I call it effective, or feel it's effective, or anything. Will it enhance the person's safety substantively.

That said, while the techniques you learn in Iaido and other ancient weapons arts may not be ones you'd necessarily use in a barfight, the sense of inner calm, grace under pressure, and ability to deal with high levels of intensity and adrenaline are absolute assets in that situation. Would that then make these arts ones that teach you how to fight effectively? I guess it depends what you mean; many of the same attributes listed above can be instilled in someone if they play football or hockey, plus they have the added advantage of being used to hitting people as well as being hit, which an Iaido practitioner doesn't experience. Does that mean football or hockey are martial arts?

Goodness no. I'm not saying that anything that could conceivably have an effect on your survivability would be considered a martial art. Like if it contributes to athletic fitness or, as you pointed out, one's "grace under pressure". I mean combative skill, even if (as in your iaido example) it's a combat skill that is not pertinent to the present cultural context and therefore not "self-defense" or "effective" the way people usually think of effective.

 

[Gotkenpo?]

it is an art, but it is not martial

 

[Black Bear]

Well I buy that. But let's name names here.

TKD is widely held to be the most abused, diluted art there is. It has a huge proportion of commercial schools that do not promote combative skill (even in an historical re-enactment sense), and many who don't even pretend to. It's marketed as just a hobby, an alternative to soccer with less contact. Something for the whole family to do and "develop confidence". (How well studios make good on such claims is a matter for another thread.)

And there is a minority of dojangs that constantly strive to develop combative skill in their students. They spar full-contact, they do bag work, they cross-train, they grapple, yadda yadda.

Do we get to say that TKD is a martial art if 10% of the studios train combat skills? 30%? 5%? 1%? I feel like Abraham when he haggled with God to spare the city of Sodom from destruction. "Will you spare the art for 1%?"

OR, do we just say that the TKDers that do train combat are doing a martial art, and the rest are just doing... I don't know, pick a word, "dance fu"? How would you feel going as a guest to a studio of another art, (or another school that does your art, but noncombatively), training there for the night, and then remarking to your host, "oh, well that was fun. But I thought you did martial arts here. You don't really do martial arts."

 

[Tapps]

Tai Chi jumps to mind.

There are combat moves there ... very effective ones.
But I don't know any school that teaches it combatively.

 

[Bod]

There are schools that teach Tai Chi combatively.

However you do not need to learn 'combative' Tai Chi to be able to apply it with combat effectiveness. One of the high graded Judo guys at our club showed me some Tai Chi applications (throws in this case). They were obvious to him as a superb grappler, even though they were probably lost on the Health Tai Chi teacher who taught him them.

That is one advantage of 'empty' forms training. An astute student can turn it into martial arts even if the teacher can't.

 

[Makalakumu]

I tend to think of martial arts sitting on a spectrum with art at one end and martial at the other. Martial defined is fighting and combat. Art defined is creative expression, morality, and confidence.

A style that strictly prepares one for fighting or combat would sit on the martial end. Examples of these are boxing, wrestling, and many many MMA styles. On the other end, much of the internal arts, Wushu, and Tai Chi would sit. I wouldn't knock TKD down. Especially the Moo Duk Kwan players. They know their stuff.

 

[7starmantis]

I think the problem is people trying to apply differing meanings to the phrase "martial arts". To one, "martial arts" is full contact fighting, to another it is slow graceful forms. Its a case of logistics. If the system teaches you to defend yourself against an opponant, wouldn't it by definition be "martial arts"?

7sm

 

[tshadowchaser]

Someone posted very wisely about martial art often having exhibition, competition, and combat dimensions. If whatever a school was doing--regardless of what they called it--did not have a combat dimension, is it a martial art? If so, why? If not, what is it?

A combat demension makes it a martial art. If there is no relation to combate in anything done , and/or nothing within the art can be used or was used in combat I can not belive it is a martial art

 

[Black Bear]

Logistics? Don’t you mean semantics?

I disagree with upnorthkyosa’s continuum with martial on the one end and art on the other. Art is not held in tension with martial, rather martial describes the nature of the art being done. In The Art Spirit: "Art when really understood is the province of every human being. It is simply a question of doing things, anything, well. It is not an outside, extra thing.” Art is simply “to do things well”. It is graceful execution. Martial art is gracefully executing a guy.

 

[Quick Sand]

I'm yet to find any TKD school, or anyt other school that calls itself a martial art, that doesn't teach you to punch, kick, etc. How can it not have a combat dimension?

 

[Black Bear]

I've rarely seen a kitchen that does not contain eggs, flour, sugar, water, an oven, and a picture of a cake. How then can any kitchen not have a cake?

Does the studio teach locked-out punches? Are they practiced mostly in isolation, in line-drills or one-step sparring? Do they pull the second hand to their hip? Do they ridiculously claim that this generates more power, even though hips and shoulders are locked? If the answer to ANY of these questions is yes, then I don't see where you get the idea that there's a combat dimension, just because there are "punches".

If they do not teach you to punch in a way that is genuinely combat-effective, they teach punching of a kind, but not combat.

 

[Black Bear]

By the way, please do not take anything I say here to be a wholesale denigration of TKD. When I say that it is "diluted" it implies that it was originally a more pure and potent form. When I say it is "abused" I am not someone who blames abuse on the victim. What I am saying I think most people will agree with: due to the commercial popularity of TKD, there are today far more schools of TKD than there are good schools of TKD. Nuff said.

I never said that TKD was "a bad art" or "not combatively effective", because this would be an inappropriate remark in a forum such as this.

 

[Cruentus]

If it applies or derrived from real fighting in some broad way shape or form, then it is a martial art.

Given my definition, no, I guess the art doesn't have to be effective to be called that.

PAUL

 

[CloudChaser]

to me, a martial art includes any style offering techniques that can potentially be applied towards self-defense...if someone can't fight with it, then perhaps, that person is just poorly trained...

 

[pknox]

Originally posted by Black Bear
Do they pull the second hand to their hip? Do they ridiculously claim that this generates more power, even though hips and shoulders are locked?

If they do not teach you to punch in a way that is genuinely combat-effective, they teach punching of a kind, but not combat.

Uh, be careful. I wouldn't generalize all "traditional" styles as being not combat effective, and especially not simply because of the way they are teaching punching. Realize that there may be more going on than is at forst apparent. I haven't studied TKD, so I cannot speak for them, but I have studied some Japanese Karate, of the traditional variety, which contains this technique. I can tell you that if you have some grappling skill (and if you are learning a complete style of karate for a decent amount of time, you do, as sweeps, takedowns, and body drops are definitely grappling), the "chambered" punch can actually be pretty darn effective, but not necessarily because it "generates more power", and also not necessarily as a punch, except with an untrained individual. If you look at one hand in isolation, true, not much is going on. But look at the bigger picture -- i.e. 2 hands working in concert. If you look at it that way, the first "punch" is actually a grab (to the shoulder, collar, or even neck), and is designed to pull the person closer to you and off balance when it is retracted. You can then fire in with the second punch, or simply pivot while throwing the second punch and execute a takedown behind you that is rather similar to some Aikido techniques. In the takedown, the second "punch" is actually a continuing of the off-balancing, and a further push for the takedown (insurance, if you will).

In my experience, both "traditional" attacks, and ones from styles that, at least, externally, appear to be more "combat effective", both have merit. The difference is that you have to dig a little deeper to find the application with traditional arts, and it is made more apparent from the get-go in so called "reality" fighting styles. Two paths, same mountain.

 

[Black Bear]

pknox, you are right and you are wrong.

First, you are right that the pulling motion going along with a punch has a function. But do they train this? Do they spend more time doing it on one another with resistance, or miming it in the air? Do they practice it with timing and aliveness? Or if it is indeed so deadly that it cannot be practiced, *snort* do they at least tie a shirt around a heavy bag or makiwara and practice it in a way that involves some proper kinesthetic and tactile sense? Or do they in fact TELL their students, as many teachers will, that the pull-back is to generate more power?

And you are wrong: Nothing that I ever said implied that "traditional" arts are categorically, or even generally, ineffective for combat. I don't know where you get that idea but it wasn't from me. You must have subconsciously slipped it in. Is that how you secretly feel?

Finally, the "two paths one mountain" analogy. This is often used to argue for cultural relativism, and that one approach is just as good as another. But perhaps it tells more than is intended by some of the people who use it: Suppose one path is windy and indirect, the path itself is so overgrown and indistinct that it is easy to become lost and go down a side-path to another destination. Then another path has a clear line of sight to the destination. It has accurate milestones. Though it is no less arduous, the path is clear, and straight up: ie. every mile that you go along this path, you are higher up than you were before.

Are these two paths equal?

Just another digression from this thread--but hey you started it.

Also, note that I am asking a question to you people about how the term ought to be used in an honest manner. Note that nothing I have said on this thread expresses an opinion about what should be the right answer. It is an honest question, not a trap. I'm just throwing around ifs and buts, and showing the limitations or inconsistencies which I think I see in others' responses.

I will explain later why I do not say how the term "martial art" ought to apply, and I think it is a good reason indeed.

 

[7starmantis]

Originally posted by Black Bear
Logistics? Don’t you mean semantics?

Semantics it is, but I was refering to the managing of details as in logistics.

So what is your definition of a martial art? How would one "canonize" a certain system as meeting said erquirements of a martial art?

7sm

 

[Quick Sand]

I think they're practicing a martial art, it's just a poorly taught martial art if things are. . . . well. . . . taught poorly.