The "Martial" In Martial Arts
- Thread starter MJS
- Start date
SahBumNimRush
Master of Arts
The superficial meaning yes, but if realistic combat skills are all we are really discussing, than nearly all martial arts, with the exception of things like XMA and McDojo's would accept the martial aspect. Even a mediocre school provides atleast some aspect of fighting techniques that work in a real time situation.
To quote MJS in the OP, "As I've said in other threads that I've started here, I think that in many cases, people are afraid to use their training, for fear of the end results, in addition to others putting talking or the 'verbal Judo' as their one and only goal... .Personally, I'd rather have the hard workouts and contact. IMO, if you can't handle the dojo setting, then you probably won't be able to handle the real world setting, should you need to defend yourself."
Effective combat techniques without the proper mentality (confidence to use them, and reactive instinct) is only a piece of "martial" IMO. Militaries train beyond effective combat techniques; they harden the body, sharpen the mind, discipline the spirit. All of this I see in good martial arts schools. This is what separates a good school, IMHO, from a mediocre martial arts school, a McDojo, and sports such as XMA.
Hard training, is essential; it pushes the limits of the physical body, tests the discipline of the mind and spirit. What I saw in most martial arts schools back in the 80's (the 60's and 70's were before my time, but from what I hear from my instructors those decades were vastly different from what I even experienced in the 80's) was hard training. What I see in many of the schools in my area are going with the times, everyone tests, everyone participates, no one is truly pushed, disciplined, or sharpened.
This brings up an interesting point though, even in today's military there has been talk of restructuring the physical demands of training (aka watering it down) because today's youth are too soft. It is the training that I strive to provide in my school that will separate today's students from their peers.
BTW, I totally agree with your interpretation of the word art as it applies to martial arts!
Bruno@MT
Senior Master
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2009
- Messages
- 3,399
- Reaction score
- 74
No, but YOU certainly will suddenly care a lot about the meaning of 'martial' in YOUR art; Whether your 'martial' art is no-contact fitness workout, or something that prepares you for actual combat.
Are you directing that at me? I will give you the benefit of the doubt and will assume you mean YOU and YOUR as a generic.
Then everyone needs to quit nit picking on the word itself and start talking about the training that would be needed. I agree that the no contact fitness workout is not a realistic form of personal protection.
Also, who ever originally posted on FB "What happened to the Martial part in all the so-called martial arts today?" probably means more than just the physical training aspect. There is a whole mental aspect that some like to call the warrior spirit that has gone missing in many of the schools out there.
Bruno@MT
Senior Master
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2009
- Messages
- 3,399
- Reaction score
- 74
Sorry, yes. This was mean in general and not towards you specifically. I wanted to emphasize that the importance of the correctness of the 'martial' moniker can increase rapidly if one was to find himself in a situation where the difference between 'combat' vs 'leisure' can cost you gravely.
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
Hi Zoran,
The term "martial" here can mean many things, each applicable or not to various arts, as indicated. The only reason it's become "complicated" as you say is that this concept is so far reaching. The only way for it to be seem as "simple" as you appear to want it to be is to only focus on a singular aspect of that concept.
For example:
"Martial" refering to combat effectiveness. Well, frankly, and I know that many, invested in their systems, will disagree with me here, but I think that actually rules out most things taught as "martial arts", as the focus is on other concerns. They can also contain effective actions and strategies, but it's not the primary focus. That includes pretty much every Eastern system (yes, including my own), as they are taught using forms of attack that are out of place, and techniques that are less-than-ideal (whether due to overkill, overly fine-motor, striking weapons that rely on a great deal of conditioning, weapons that are not legal, and so on). As a disclaimer here, a good instructor should be able to adapt the principles of any art to make it "street effective", for want of a better term, but that's not the way the art typically works.
Next is "martial" in the context of structure. This is found in pretty much all martial arts, with the structure of a military-style heirarchy, ranks, and so forth.
You also have "martial" in regards to the way the training is conducted, which can occur in schools dependant on the way the instructor decides to teach, as has been mentioned earlier.
So to simplify this all out, the above can all be used to denote "martial" in your study of martial arts, and may or may not be present. But one thing that has been highlighted to me in this thread is that "martial" has so many connotations that I don't think we can really say whether or not "martial" is present without first defining what we mean by "martial" in each context. For yourself, it seems to be combat techniques and methods of training. Cool. But that's only one version.
The term "martial" here can mean many things, each applicable or not to various arts, as indicated. The only reason it's become "complicated" as you say is that this concept is so far reaching. The only way for it to be seem as "simple" as you appear to want it to be is to only focus on a singular aspect of that concept.
For example:
"Martial" refering to combat effectiveness. Well, frankly, and I know that many, invested in their systems, will disagree with me here, but I think that actually rules out most things taught as "martial arts", as the focus is on other concerns. They can also contain effective actions and strategies, but it's not the primary focus. That includes pretty much every Eastern system (yes, including my own), as they are taught using forms of attack that are out of place, and techniques that are less-than-ideal (whether due to overkill, overly fine-motor, striking weapons that rely on a great deal of conditioning, weapons that are not legal, and so on). As a disclaimer here, a good instructor should be able to adapt the principles of any art to make it "street effective", for want of a better term, but that's not the way the art typically works.
Next is "martial" in the context of structure. This is found in pretty much all martial arts, with the structure of a military-style heirarchy, ranks, and so forth.
You also have "martial" in regards to the way the training is conducted, which can occur in schools dependant on the way the instructor decides to teach, as has been mentioned earlier.
So to simplify this all out, the above can all be used to denote "martial" in your study of martial arts, and may or may not be present. But one thing that has been highlighted to me in this thread is that "martial" has so many connotations that I don't think we can really say whether or not "martial" is present without first defining what we mean by "martial" in each context. For yourself, it seems to be combat techniques and methods of training. Cool. But that's only one version.
Yes, martial arts has been loosely used to describe a variety of styles that can be from realistic self defense to combat sports to dancing using acrobatics.
The original poster is not really looking for a definition. The person is probably wondering, what ever happened to the way of the warrior? How effective a system is in a realistic self defense situation is always debatable. Even so, there is a warrior spirit cultivated by those that practice the kind of arts focused on combat. Be it traditional or modern.
