question about origins of Tae Kwon Do

[Haruhiko]

No Universally accepted definition of "Martial Art' for common current usage .

As far as a universal definition, I don't think there will ever be one.

Definition of MARTIAL ART

any of several arts of combat and self-defense (such as karate and judo) that are widely practiced as sport… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Martial art | Definition, History, Types, & Facts | Britannica

Martial art, any of various fighting sports or skills, mainly of East Asian origin, such as kung fu, judo, karate, and kendo. The primary unifying aspect of the East Asian martial arts, which sets them apart from other martial arts, is the influence of Daoism and Zen Buddhism.

www.britannica.com

martial art

1. a traditional Japanese, Chinese, or Korean form of fighting or defending…

dictionary.cambridge.org

Interesting in that they define it rather differently.

I think it's contextual. There's nothing artistic about UFC fights in my opinion, for example. And I'm sure someone would be of the same opinion of there being nothing martial to be found in iaido.

It was when I started training for the Commonwealth Games in TKD that I lost sight of any art within the system. It became a sport.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Interesting in that they define it rather differently.
became a sport.

Exactly, - Some years ago I had an article published addressing the issue. Some activities might be better categorized as "Martial Sport", "Martial Science" , "Martial Exercise" etc. Combine those with some philosophy and aesthetic components and then you have "Martial Art" which encompasses all those elements. I had no hope of generating a consensus on how to define the term - only to start a discussion.

 

[Earl Weiss]

We are very careful to set a realistic tone (don't bring a knife to a gunfight)

 

[isshinryuronin]

Interesting in that they define it rather differently.

It seems to me those definitions are rather similar, referring to Oriental methods of self-defense. I think this is the most common interpretation of the combined term, "martial arts." Even though in the technical lexicon sense, any war/combat activity done with finesse could fit the term, the combination of the two words has come to be widely accepted as meaning the Eastern fighting disciplines. They do seem to be related, a distinct family, different from fighting disciplines of Western origins in several respects and so can be lumped together under the umbrella term "martial arts." As long as most of us agree to this particular label for this group of fighting disciplines all is good.

What about other martial disciplines, can we lump them into some category having their own label? terms have yet come to be generally accepted by common and conventional use. Perhaps "combat sports" can be applied to wrestling, boxing, BJJ, maybe Muy Thai, etc. The main unifier here is their competitive application, it being the format these activities are normally engaged in.

Sumo is a competitive sport, but since it's deeply steeped in Japanese tradition and has a strongly defined culture imbedded in it, IMO it could still be called a "martial art," but I'll agree there could be some discussion about it.

Then we have Krav Maga, Systema and other military related martial disciplines. "Combat arts" has been used to identify this group, although the "art" aspects are much abbreviated in these bare bones fighting styles. But I'm good with it if others agree so we have a common idea of what we're talking about.

HEMA seems to be an accepted term already for a Western group of traditional combat related activities.

Definitions and labels are fluid as the activities themselves evolve and change in nature, as do our perceptions of them - it comes down to widely accepted conventional use. XMA has evolved into a competitive sport with minimal "martial" purpose, entertainment being a major goal. There are other examples as well that can blur our labels' lines.

The bottom line is that no matter what the activity is called, the activity remains itself. The main advantages to an agreed upon label are that it can help show some sort of relationship among various activities and is a convenient way to help us better understand each other when discussing this general topic.

 

[Haruhiko]

Perhaps "combat sports" can be applied to wrestling, boxing, BJJ, maybe Muy Thai, etc.

Good point, though Muay Thai does have some Theravada Buddhist connection (probably by virtue of the fact that it's not inherently Buddhist, but through Thai fighters who introduced Buddhist sentiments into it - but I don't know much about its history to be fair).

Sumo is a competitive sport, but since it's deeply steeped in Japanese tradition and has a strongly defined culture imbedded in it, IMO it could still be called a "martial art," but I'll agree there could be some discussion about it.

Sumo is an interesting one. It's as much a Shintoist ritual as it is a sport from what I've seen.

HEMA seems to be an accepted term already for a Western group of traditional combat related activities.

HEMA practitioners often call themselves martial artists which frustrates me as I don't see much art in it aside from attempted recreations from treatises. That's my pet peeve. I'm not bashing them either, I just see HEMA as a community with a lot of infighting stemming from different interpretations of the treatises, and the point scoring aspect. To be fair, the same could be said for a lot of other schools outside of Europe as well. I tend to judge HEMA too harshly...

The main advantages to an agreed upon label are that it can help show some sort of relationship among various activities and is a convenient way to help us better understand each other when discussing this general topic.

I suppose that's why we have koryū to distinguish systems by date and function, like gendai budo as well.

When is an art not an art then? When is a martial art not martial?

 

[Earl Weiss]

It seems to me those definitions are rather similar, referring to Oriental methods of self-defense. ...................................., the combination of the two words has come to be widely accepted as meaning the Eastern fighting disciplines. .

The bottom line is that no matter what the activity is called, the activity remains itself. The main advantages to an agreed upon label are that it can help show some sort of relationship among various activities and is a convenient way to help us better understand each other when discussing this general topic.

These definitions would eliminate Pankration - although arguably the modern version is some recreation and not necessarily the original, as well as Savate, Sambo and even Krav Maga which was created for the Israeli Military but now changed for the mass market.

 

[isshinryuronin]

These definitions would eliminate Pankration

Wikipedia calls it a "combat sport" but I'm not sure how common its revival after 2000 years is. My listing was of course not all-encompassing in any event.

as well as Savate, Sambo

I thought about these and others too:

terms have yet come to be generally accepted by common and conventional use.
There are other examples as well that can blur our labels' lines.

Sometimes things fall into natural groupings, other times are more arbitrary just for the sake of convenience.

Krav Maga which was created for the Israeli Military but now changed for the mass market.

Yes, labels can be slippery as noted below.

Definitions and labels are fluid as the activities themselves evolve and change in nature

As in all things, labels have limitations and may not do justice to something's unique qualities.

The bottom line is that no matter what the activity is called, the activity remains itself. The main advantages to an agreed upon label are that it can help show some sort of relationship among various activities and is a convenient way to help us better understand each other when discussing this general topic.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Wikipedia calls it a "combat sport" but I'm not sure how common its revival after 2000 years is. My listing was of course not all-encompassing in any event.

My point was not whether it was all encompassing but seemed to only include "Oriental" systems.

 

[isshinryuronin]

My point was not whether it was all encompassing but seemed to only include "Oriental" systems.

As written in the first paragraph of my post #64 (a number of things are addressed there) "MA" seems to be largely attributed to the Oriental systems as they share not only a common geography, but also a number of principles and methods, as well as "philosophical" outlook. As in zoological taxonomy, they can thus be grouped together as a "family" or more generally as a "class" of fighting arts IMO, much like canines and felines can be.

Nothing is written in stone and there are no rules, just what we can agree on as far as terminology is concerned. It just seems to me that equating aikido and boxing with the same term "MA" is a bit over-encompassing as they have little in common (like things listed in the above paragraph), and some differentiation of labels seems convenient.
\
Even if we can't agree on various categories, the arts still exist independently, and their value is not affected. Discussion of this topic is comparatively a recent thing and opinions on it are still forming. Perhaps in a few more decades such things will sort themselves out thru popular usage.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Perhaps in a few more decades such things will sort themselves out thru popular usage.

I wish I shared your optimism.