Taekwondo: is it a sport or a martial art? ( again)

[Daniel Sullivan]

I appreciate the clarification Daniel.

You're welcome.

 

[chrispillertkd]

I used to fence too. Still do on occasion. While I'm not saying that it is a martial art, why do you say that it isn't?

If you've done fencing and martial arts the differences should be obvious.

I gave an answer to that in an earlier post. You felt it was too broad. You must therefore have something else in mind. So what is a martial art by your estimation?

I didn't see your post on this subject. Can you cut-and-paste it or just link to the post in question? I reread pages 5, 6, and 7 of this thread but didn't see what you're referring to.

See my previous answer on page 5.

I must have missed that, too. The only thing I saw from you on page 5 that would seem to relate to the topic of "Is there something about an activity that must be present for it to be considered a martial art?" would have been something you wrote about iaido. Did you mean that to be a generalized statement about what needs to be present in the training of any martial art? It seemed style specific.

Pax,

Chris

 

[puunui]

If you only go to the batting cages and practice hitting, are are practicing an element of baseball, but you are not playing baseball.

Yes you are. James' example of a designated hitter, are you saying he isn't a baseball player? In order to be a baseball player, do you have to play all of the positions as well as be a manager? Pitching is an element of baseball, but if you only do that, does that mean you are not a baseball player?

 

[ralphmcpherson]

Yes you are. James' example of a designated hitter, are you saying he isn't a baseball player? In order to be a baseball player, do you have to play all of the positions as well as be a manager? Pitching is an element of baseball, but if you only do that, does that mean you are not a baseball player?[/QUOTE
the difference there is that the baseballer has probably participted in all facets of the game during his development and had then recognised batting as his strength and has persued that aspect of the game. I doubt he started playing baseball in under 6's and never had a go at pitching, fielding etc. Peeople these days can join a "sport tkd" club like the one up the road from me and only ever try the sport side of tkd, and never at any point train tkd for self defence purposes. A young kid can not roll up to the local cricket club and say "Im a batter only, I wont bowl or field", whereas a child has plenty of access to sport-only tkd clubs.

 

[ralphmcpherson]

I thought I would just share an interesting phone call I just made which is relevent to this thread. I just phoned the "sport tkd" school up the road from me and enquired about joining (making out I have no previous tkd experience). I started by asking exactly what they meant by "sport" tkd and he responded, "here we focus soley on the competition of sport of tkd", I asked how that would differ from a "normal" tkd club and he responded (and I quote) , "we dont focus on any applications of tkd as a martial art or tkd as a form of self defence". Now as far as Im concerned, they are only teaching a small part of the tkd curriculum, and there is a strong argument that what they teach is not a martial art based on what he told me.

 

[Cyriacus]

The biggest problem with these types of debates is trying to prove one thing to be right, which requires everyone else to be wrong. Lets look at Taekwondo, for fun. Taekwondo is a name. What you learn, could be a sport, it could be self defence, i could be Muay Thai*. The name just conveys an idea of the means to whatever end that outlet or organisation is working toward. The System is exactly that. The system. Debating how the System should, is, or could be used isnt very productive. But I have no interest in Sport, and You literally could not pay Me to go and learn from a competitively themed or focused or anything'd TKD Outlet. Some people want that, other people dont know what They want or dont care, or they have preferences, and so on. Its having the choice to get what You want. Itd be unfortunate if I couldnt learn TKD because I liked what was being taught, and the foundations it was drawing from, but lost all interest at how it was being applied, even if it was just a focus. For example, I dont like kicking very much.

*Hey - If You didnt know any better, and They taught all Thai Kicks instead of the round kicks found under the KKW, how would You know any better? And even if You found out, given the blank slate Youd have to be, would You care?

 

[ralphmcpherson]

A subject such as this has no right or wrong opinions. Its all subjective, and is basically just a matter of personal opinion. You could debate this topic forever and people would still be in disagreement. Thats why its such a great topic.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I thought I would just share an interesting phone call I just made which is relevent to this thread. I just phoned the "sport tkd" school up the road from me and enquired about joining (making out I have no previous tkd experience). I started by asking exactly what they meant by "sport" tkd and he responded, "here we focus soley on the competition of sport of tkd", I asked how that would differ from a "normal" tkd club and he responded (and I quote) , "we dont focus on any applications of tkd as a martial art or tkd as a form of self defence". Now as far as Im concerned, they are only teaching a small part of the tkd curriculum, and there is a strong argument that what they teach is not a martial art based on what he told me.

Good post. I can respect and appreciate the honesty of this instructor by clearly explaining the difference between a 'sport' club vs. a Dojang that teaches SD to a prospective student. It is the schools that teach one way, but make the claim they teach both or cover the other when in fact they don't that give the art as a whole a very bad name. If you take TKD (or any art) as a sport, then be content that it is a sport for you. If you take it as a hobby, then be content that it is a hobby for you. If you take it for SD, then be content that it is SD to you. Sport TKD is TKD and SD TKD is TKD but they differ considerably in methodology and an instructor needs to clearly explain what facet of the art they teach.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Speaking as someone who used to fence, they are absolutely correct. It isn't a martial art.



What is a martial art?

?

Pax,

Chris

Seems I saw an article on this 10 years ago
https://1c47d0f0-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites...mHLAg6JYflZC6KucYt1T9GlqrYzd6P&attredirects=0

 

[Earl Weiss]

Yes you are. James' example of a designated hitter, are you saying he isn't a baseball player? In order to be a baseball player, do you have to play all of the positions as well as be a manager? Pitching is an element of baseball, but if you only do that, does that mean you are not a baseball player?

Last time I checked Pitchers had to catch and throw as well. At some level they also batted. So, no, there is no position that only pitches, never catches a balll, never batted, never had to do a throw other than pitch.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

If you've done fencing and martial arts the differences should be obvious.

I already know my opinion and why I hold it, and have stated that I am not interested in making a case one way or the other. I asked you to explain the reasons behind yours, as you cited it specifically as 'not.'

I didn't see your post on this subject. Can you cut-and-paste it or just link to the post in question? I reread pages 5, 6, and 7 of this thread but didn't see what you're referring to.

It is one that you responded to earlier, but I have quoted it below.

I must have missed that, too. The only thing I saw from you on page 5 that would seem to relate to the topic of "Is there something about an activity that must be present for it to be considered a martial art?" would have been something you wrote about iaido. Did you mean that to be a generalized statement about what needs to be present in the training of any martial art? It seemed style specific.

Same post as mentioned above. The pertinant pert of the post in question is here:

The modern usage of the word martial art broadens the definition from war sciences to essentially any fighting system, be it competitive or no, thus my original answer to the OP was "yes."

To clarify:

What makes judo a martial art and wrestling not? What makes kendo a martial art and fencing not? What makes escrima a martial art and fencing not (escrima, which is the Spanish word for fencing). What makes kyokushin a martial art and boxing not?

It certainly isn't the comprehensiveness or SD applicaiton of one art versus another; judo is no more comprehensive (lacking striking) or applicable in self defense than wrestling is and kendo is not only not comprehensive as a sword art, but has no direct unarmed self defense application at all, though some of it's principles are applicable in self defense (though again, the same could be said of three weapon fencing).

What makes haidong gumdo a martial art? It has no historical basis, uses a sword that is not Korean in origin and likely not even commonly used by those Koreans who did wield swords (mostly officers, and the preferred weapon was not a katana, but something closer to a kodachi), and many of techniques that it utilizes are inappropriate in both practical sword work and in swordwork with the weapon of choice (a katana renamed). Do belts make it an MA? Is it Asian-ness? I am perfectly accepting of it as a martial art, but it is no more "martial" than three weapon fencing (which I do not consider to be martial).

Which brings me to the question that I posed to Twin Fist: if by his definition, competition = sport and self defense = martial art, then what does one do with arts that are not specifically self defense arts such as kendo or iaido, neither of which are for self defense?

I don't really care and I'm not interested in making a case for fencing, wrestling, or boxing being a martial art, but the status as 'martial art' or 'sport' is to a great extent arbitrary; to some extent, people view an Asian form of anything as 'martial art' simply out of ignorance. Mainly, the status seems to be determined by how it was initially introduced; if it is called a sport at the time of its introduction, then it is considered a sport. If it was called a martial art at the time of its introduction, then it is a martial art.

And since there is no established international body that classifies what is and is not a martial art, much of what makes one a martial art and another sport is subjective. My opinions on the subject in general is are simply opinions. You may agree with some or all or disagree with some or all. Both of which are perfectly fine. Aside from an enjoyable conversation, I have no dog in this race.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I thought I would just share an interesting phone call I just made which is relevent to this thread. I just phoned the "sport tkd" school up the road from me and enquired about joining (making out I have no previous tkd experience). I started by asking exactly what they meant by "sport" tkd and he responded, "here we focus soley on the competition of sport of tkd", I asked how that would differ from a "normal" tkd club and he responded (and I quote) , "we dont focus on any applications of tkd as a martial art or tkd as a form of self defence". Now as far as Im concerned, they are only teaching a small part of the tkd curriculum, and there is a strong argument that what they teach is not a martial art based on what he told me.

I find the bolded part the most interesting. I notice that he differentiates between MA and SD, while some equate MA with SD.

 

[dancingalone]

I find the bolded part the most interesting. I notice that he differentiates between MA and SD, while some equate MA with SD.

I go along with the guy that Ralph talked to. I visualize martial art, self-defense, and martial sport as a Venn diagram. Any or all of the three can intersect each other but they can also sit alone in their own corner too.

Like kyudo (Japanese archery). It's a martial art, perhaps a martial sport, but probably not self-defense IMO. Judo and taekwondo = all three in my book. Krav Maga = self-defense only.

 

[chrispillertkd]

The modern usage of the word martial art broadens the definition from war sciences to essentially any fighting system, be it competitive or no, thus my original answer to the OP was "yes."

I'd be interested in what your defintion of a "fighting system is." What are the inherent components that make up such systems? At first glance I am inclined to disagree with your assertion that the "modern usage" of the term martial art is so broad. But that does depend on the definition of "fighting system" you're using.

Which brings me to the question that I posed to Twin Fist: if by his definition, competition = sport and self defense = martial art, then what does one do with arts that are not specifically self defense arts such as kendo or iaido, neither of which are for self defense?

It depends on what you mean by "self-defense." As people have already pointed out, styles such as various Japanese koryo were never intended to be "self-defense" oriented but are certainly martial arts. If the style you study is only interested in self-defense you're not doing a martial art anymore than someone whose style is geared only towards sports competition.

I don't really care and I'm not interested in making a case for fencing, wrestling, or boxing being a martial art, but the status as 'martial art' or 'sport' is to a great extent arbitrary; to some extent, people view an Asian form of anything as 'martial art' simply out of ignorance. Mainly, the status seems to be determined by how it was initially introduced; if it is called a sport at the time of its introduction, then it is considered a sport. If it was called a martial art at the time of its introduction, then it is a martial art.

Can't say I agree.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I'd be interested in what your defintion of a "fighting system is." What are the inherent components that make up such systems? At first glance I am inclined to disagree with your assertion that the "modern usage" of the term martial art is so broad. But that does depend on the definition of "fighting system" you're using.

Any 'system' wherein a fighting methodology has been systematized.

It depends on what you mean by "self-defense." As people have already pointed out, styles such as various Japanese koryo were never intended to be "self-defense" oriented but are certainly martial arts. If the style you study is only interested in self-defense you're not doing a martial art anymore than someone whose style is geared only towards sports competition.

Specifically, it depends on what Twin Fist meant by self defense, as it was his post on which I asked for clarification.

Can't say I agree.

If you don't agree, then you shouldn't.

 

[chrispillertkd]

Any 'system' wherein a fighting methodology has been systematized.

If that is the case then I'd say your statement is inaccurate. Modern usage of the term "martial art" isn't used broadly enough to apply to "any fighting methodology [that] has been systematized."

You could say that some people use the term that way (but when they do it empties the term of all meaning), but you can't say without major qualification that it is the "modern usage" of the term.

Specifically, it depends on what Twin Fist meant by self defense, as it was his post on which I asked for clarification.

His "sport: for competition, martial art: for self defense"? I wouldn't subscribe to that view, either. As I said, if you're doing a "martial art" that is only interested in self-defense you're not doing a martial art any more than someone who is only training to compete in a sporting event. Both views are nearly equally wrong, IMO. YMMV, of course.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Kong Soo Do]

His "sport: for competition, martial art: for self defense"? I wouldn't subscribe to that view, either. As I said, if you're doing a "martial art" that is only interested in self-defense you're not doing a martial art any more than someone who is only training to compete in a sporting event. Both views are nearly equally wrong, IMO. YMMV, of course.

I dunno Chris, I can't quite subscribe to what you're saying here. A lot would depend upon the art in question. Judo was designed to be a sport, but many would think of it as a martial art. Krav Maga was designed as a SD system, but it is also thought of as a martial art. Then you have venues such as Karate & TKD which have both but separate methodologies of training.

Martial art serves better as an umbrella term. Underneath one could perhaps go a step further into terms (as an example) of martial sport and martial discipline to better differentiate.

 

[chrispillertkd]

Look again at what I wrote.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

If that is the case then I'd say your statement is inaccurate. Modern usage of the term "martial art" isn't used broadly enough to apply to "any fighting methodology [that] has been systematized."

You could say that some people use the term that way (but when they do it empties the term of all meaning), but you can't say without major qualification that it is the "modern usage" of the term.

Agree to disagree.

His "sport: for competition, martial art: for self defense"? I wouldn't subscribe to that view, either.

RE Twin Fist's definition, I hope he will respond to my question.

As I said, if you're doing a "martial art" that is only interested in self-defense you're not doing a martial art any more than someone who is only training to compete in a sporting event. Both views are nearly equally wrong, IMO. YMMV, of course.

Agree to disagee.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Look again at what I wrote.

Pax,

Chris

Sorry Chris, I think I misunderstood your early post.