It can't be just about fighting and self defence

[Andrew Green]

A martial art is any system used for the delivery of physical force. Definitions of war and battlefield theaters don't enter into it. At their core, all martial systems are systems of self-defense, at the individual, group, and national level.

Losing sight of this truth is the very reason so many "martial" arts today are nothing more than athletic exercises.

No, this is your opinion, and one which many people don't agree with.

And are you now saying that systems with a true martial heritage, like Kyudo are not martial arts because they are not self-defence arts?

 

[Cirdan]

A martial art is any system used for the delivery of physical force. (..) At their core, all martial systems are systems of self-defense, at the individual, group, and national level.

So any delivery of force is in fact self defence?

 

[MardiGras Bandit]

Yes, it can be just about fighting and self defense. Martial arts are about fighting first and foremost, anything else people get out of them is a secondary result, and not inherently part of the system.

Martial arts are often pakaged and sold along with a philosophy. This is fine, but it is also seperate from the martial arts aspect. This question got brought up on a similar thread; can a person be a good martial artist without being a good fighter? I don't think they can be. Yes, it's just my opinion, but I think it's the most accurate and reasonable opinion to hold.

 

[Cruentus]

I don't know if it useful to split hairs with the definition of "martial art."

Although the word "martial" is an old one, words are context specific. So, for example, the words "pole" and "dancer" take on a whole different meaning when put together in a specific context. The words "Martial" and "art" also takes on an entirely different meaning when put together in a specific context. The words "martial arts" was put together only about 25 years (or so) ago, and the meaning of these words will depend on the context. In other words, the definition of "martial arts" is not set in stone.

It could mean anything from WWII combatives to BJJ to Karate to Tai Chi at the YMCA depending on who you talk too. One would guess that a "martial art" would have to have some root in combat, but that doesn't mean that all "martial arts" are going to be combat relevent by todays standards.

That's why I don't call what I do "martial arts," nor do I call myself a "martial artist." I also refuse to uselessly argue over what being a "martial artist" means. People just can't agree on wtf the words "martial arts" mean to begin with to have any common ground to logically discuss what it means to be a "martial artist", or whether or not a specific school is really teaching a "martial art," and so forth. Yet, the public has their stereotypes. I say to someone in the general public that I am a "martial artist," and they usually think that I am running around in a karate Gi or something equivalent...not a true representation of what I do.

Well, anyways, I think it is useless to argue over the definition of "martial arts" because ultimately it will be left up to us individually to further define what we do, as the term just isn't specific enough.

Paul

 

[Eternal Beginner]

I don't know if it useful to split hairs with the definition of "martial art."

Although the word "martial" is an old one, words are context specific. So, for example, the words "pole" and "dancer" take on a whole different meaning when put together in a specific context. The words "Martial" and "art" also takes on an entirely different meaning when put together in a specific context.

Paul

Brilliant!

Clever and effective way of bringing home the concept of context.

 

[Cruentus]

Brilliant!

Clever and effective way of bringing home the concept of context.

Thank you sir.

The concept of things being "context specific" is an important one as far as a lot of things go.

I heard the term a long time ago, as dispite my sometimes horrible spelling I am an English major, and it applies to language and linguistics.

However, I started using the term heavily more recently when I got it from my dog training, and viewed the importance of training things like obediance, tracking, and protection in many different settings because dogs are VERY context specific - how they perform in a familiar field vs. how they perform in an unfamiliar setting can be a night and day difference. A well trained dog can sometimes look like he hasn't been trained at all if he is put in an unfamilar setting; especially with lots of distractions, and especially if these distractions enduce a fear response from the dog.

Think about this concept of "context specific" learning and performance as it applies to fighting and self-defense. When one understands this, it is very easy to see why a well trained blackbelt can turn into an arm flailing clutz when attacked on the street. Or, how a well trained competitive MMAer does a beautiful double leg take down on the street but loses the fight because he busts his knee on the concrete in the process, and the guy who was taken down holds him on the ground while friends jump in kick the crap out of the MMAer from the top. These are all real scenario's that I have personally seen and heard from primary sources.

A fight is also context specific. This is why it is important that for combat or self-defense training, our training mirrors what will happened in reality. And, it is important that we understand the limitations of our training as well. Because in order to perform well under specific conditions, I need to train with those conditions in mind. The context in which we perform our fighting skills can be more important sometimes then the skills themselves.

Just something to think about...

Paul Janulis