What makes something a martial art?

Mark Hamill

Every so often an argument arises concerning what actually makes something a martial art (see this thread for a recent example).
They essentially boil down to:
"X isnt a real martial art, you wont learn to do Y"
"You dont need to learn Y for it to be a martial art, martial arts are more than just Y".

My question is what is the fundamental thing that a martial art should have in order to call itself a martial art? Is it:
Real life application?
Efficiency, (within its own ruleset)?
An origin in real world combat (whether or not it trains that way)?
A combination of the above? or
Something else?

(I was thinking of putting a poll, but as you can see from above, I cant think of many examples to put in it, maybe a mod can add one, if a few good choices occur to him)

Charlie3dan

We've had these threads and they go nowhere. I don't think any of us really want to put strict definitions on martial arts and I think it can be different things to different people.

But I'm sure we'll all feel free to defend what it means to ourselves.

deegs

A defination of martial is "of or relating to the armed forces"
A defination of art is "a superior skill that you can learn by study and practice and observation"

Basically its a skill derived from military practice that is difficult to attain.

Its quite simple to understand what a martial art is.

What people get confused about is the applications of it, that's a whole other beast.

Nothingcompares

Personally speaking, I don't think there is a real problem with defining what is martial arts, I think we all have an intrinsic knowledge of what one is without being particularly successful at defining it (kinda like species ).

The problem is with comparing martial arts. If I say Judo is a much better martial art than Aikido because it's more functional people may agree Judo is more functional but Aikido is still more martial arts like because of the nonsense.

I'll define nonsense as traditional, ritualistic, nonfunctional elements of martial arts
- bowing, shaking hands, saying prayers, meditation, ki, notions of spiritual grandeur, military discipline, blind obedience, honour systems, belt systems etc. etc.

judo has bowing, grading and depending on where you could little bits of the above but aikido has much more. Except, it's not negated or balanced out by functional.

Anything that has previously been called a martial art I call martial arts. Any self-defence systems or closed-combat-systems or krav magas or systems I also call martial arts.

So anything that puts people together with the idea of performing moves which can be considered self-defensive in function, whether you're wearing shorts, a gi/kimono or army jackets.

Like, Pro Wrestling I'd consider to be a martial art. It's ultimately people in strange uniforms choregraphing throws and jumps and other stunts, very much like aikido. Also Tai-chi but not yoga .

Mark Hamill

Charlie3dan wrote: »

We've had these threads and they go nowhere. I don't think any of us really want to put strict definitions on martial arts and I think it can be different things to different people.

I agree that martial arts can ultimately be different things to different people, but shouldn't there be some aspect of each and every activity that claims to be a martial art that actually connects them as martial arts?
Being Irish can mean different things to different people, but it still eventually boils down to be born in Ireland.

deegs wrote:

A defination of martial is "of or relating to the armed forces"
A defination of art is "a superior skill that you can learn by study and practice and observation"

Basically its a skill derived from military practice that is difficult to attain.

Its quite simple to understand what a martial art is.

What people get confused about is the applications of it, that's a whole other beast.

Does that make chess a martial art? Its derived from military practices and is hard to become skillful at it.

deegs

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Does that make chess a martial art? Its derived from military practices and is hard to become skillful at it.

If it was derived from a military practice then I would say yes (was it?). Its a form of strategy and only through practice, learning and observation can you get really good at it.
I dont think tho it was. I think the game of chess was applied to teach strategy, so I could be wrong so i'd say it is not.

That said even tho what I say is correct, in western society we have associated martial art with fighting, so the majority of people may disagree.

Black Swan

MA is.

SorGan

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

MA is.

..White p.j.'s:D

Mark Hamill

deegs wrote: »

If it was derived from a military practice then I would say yes (was it?). Its a form of strategy and only through practice, learning and observation can you get really good at it.
I dont think tho it was. I think the game of chess was applied to teach strategy, so I could be wrong so i'd say it is not.

That said even tho what I say is correct, in western society we have associated martial art with fighting, so the majority of people may disagree.

As far as I know it originated as a strategy game based off warfare from a generals point of view (ie controlling various types of soldier units). While nowadays the strategy you learn from it is not quite military in nature (more a logic and forward planning exercise i would think), its still based in martial arts.

People have said on various threads that martial arts are more than just fighting, some have even said that martial arts dont necessarily need fighting at all, that to concentrate purely on fighting makes it a sport. So does that mean I could open a chess club and call it a martial arts club? It teaches you warfare tactics, something which many martial arts claim. It may not be very applicible in a violent situation, but then again there are many martial arts which arent either (dim mak anyone?:)).

According to wikipedia a martial art is:

systems of codified practices and traditions of training for combat. While they may be studied for various reasons, martial arts share a single objective: to defeat one or more people physically and to defend oneself or others from physical threat.

Dictionary.com says a martial art is:

any of the traditional forms of Oriental self-defense or combat that utilize physical skill and coordination without weapons, as karate, aikido, judo, or kung fu, often practiced as sport.

Which of these definitions is more accurate in peoples eyes. If there is no definitive definition, no single aspect a martial art has to actually have to be called a martial art, then the term becomes meaningless, as anyone can say anything is a martial art.

deegs

Again I'd say that martial arts and the application of martial arts are two seperate things.

And yes I would agree your chess example could be considered a martial art, and frankly the level of committment to be the best at chess has to equal that of any other martial art! (Menatally at least, tho some chess players would be fitter than some "martial artists" )

zappazappa

This from Wikipedia.....

Martial arts are systems of codified practices and traditions of training for combat. While they may be studied for various reasons, martial arts share a single objective: to defeat one or more people physically and to defend oneself or others from physical threat. In addition, some martial arts are linked to spiritual or religious beliefs/philosophies such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Daoism, Confucianism or Shinto while others have their own spiritual or non-spiritual code of honour. Many arts are also practised competitively most commonly as combat sports, but may also be in the form of dance.

The word 'martial' derives from the name of Mars, the Roman god of war. The term 'martial arts' literally means arts of war. This term comes from 15th century Europeans who were referring to their own fighting arts that are today known as historical European martial arts. A practitioner of martial arts is referred to as a martial artist.

In popular culture, the term "Martial Arts" often specifically refers to the combat systems that originated in Asian cultures, especially East Asian martial arts. However, the term actually refers to any sort of codified combat systems, regardless of origin.

zap

Nothingcompares

i don't think anyone would have thought to have just checked wikipedia. Thread closed. Question answered.

cowzerp

Nothingcompares wrote: »

Like, Pro Wrestling I'd consider to be a martial art. It's ultimately people in strange uniforms choregraphing throws and jumps and other stunts, very much like aikido. Also Tai-chi but not yoga .

I genuinely dont know if this is a pi55 take?

bodybuilders who act and do stunts is nothing to do with martial anything!

maybe art would be a fair thing to call it, so maybe call it stunt art or better still fake wrestling, or just stick to pro wrestling.

Mark Hamill

Nothingcompares wrote: »

i don't think anyone would have thought to have just checked wikipedia. Thread closed. Question answered.

Ok so we should take the wikipedia definition as the actual definition of what makes a martial art (ie the "systems of codified practices and traditions of training for combat. While they may be studied for various reasons, martial arts share a single objective: to defeat one or more people physically and to defend oneself or others from physical threat." bit)?
I can agree with that, but then should we consider effectiveness in our definition? And how should we measure effectiveness?
Lets say, for example, someone made a video game that claimed to teach you martial arts. Something on the wii, for instance, that used the nunchuck controllers or the balance board to teach the moves. Could something like this claim to be a martial art, if it claimed to teach a system of combat, regardless of whether or not it is actually effect?
(Should I be trademarking the phrases "WiiJitsu" or "Wiikido" or "WiiKwanDo" before someone else comes out with this idea:D)

zappazappa

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Lets say, for example, someone made a video game that claimed to teach you martial arts. Something on the wii, for instance, that used the nunchuck controllers or the balance board to teach the moves. Could something like this claim to be a martial art, if it claimed to teach a system of combat, regardless of whether or not it is actually effect?

Are you trying to say that the actual game itself is the martial art? There are countless DVDs available by bona fide teachers that give you an insight into and allow you (as a student) to reference the moves of whatever art you are studying, however, no one would consider the DVD itself to represent 'the art', similarly, a Wii game that 'teaches' you moves would only be equivalent to the DVD in its effectivenes. No game, dvd, movie or electronic media representation of a 'physical' martial art could be seen as a martial art of itself.

zap

Mark Hamill

zappazappa wrote: »

Are you trying to say that the actual game itself is the martial art? There are countless DVDs available by bona fide teachers that give you an insight into and allow you (as a student) to reference the moves of whatever art you are studying, however, no one would consider the DVD itself to represent 'the art', similarly, a Wii game that 'teaches' you moves would only be equivalent to the DVD in its effectivenes. No game, dvd, movie or electronic media representation of a 'physical' martial art could be seen as a martial art of itself.

zap

Well, yes actually, I am saying the game is the martial art:
Lets say, hypothetically, that a game comes out called "Wiikido®", and it claims to be able to teach you a brand new martial art, never seen before, using the Wii peripherals (nunchuks, balance board, something new, whatever). I'm using this example because I think every one will agree that you cannot learn an effective martial through a game like that (or will they?). Since it claims to be able to teach a system of combat and has a method for doing it, should it still be able to call itself a martial art, as according to the wikipedia definition it is?

What I'm boiling down to is: is a martial art just any method that claims it teaches you how to do combat, regardless of whether or not it is effective? Some people claim that a martial art can be all katas and striking the air because thats what make it an "art", but if it doesn't contain any real sparring, then where does the "martial" aspect come in? If its all about the art, and the actual physical movements you do don't really bear any physical relation or resemblance to a real combat situation, then that surely makes it a performing art, rather than a martial art? If you don't do any real testing of the effectiveness of what you do, then its only make-believe whether or not it works.

zappazappa

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Well, yes actually, I am saying the game is the martial art:
Lets say, hypothetically, that a game comes out called "Wiikido®", and it claims to be able to teach you a brand new martial art, never seen before, using the Wii peripherals (nunchuks, balance board, something new, whatever). I'm using this example because I think every one will agree that you cannot learn an effective martial through a game like that (or will they?). Since it claims to be able to teach a system of combat and has a method for doing it, should it still be able to call itself a martial art, as according to the wikipedia definition it is?

I see what you're getting at, however, for a game such as that to exist, someone, with some knowledge of fighting methods, will have in the background thought out, planned and practiced the skills in 'physical reality' before commiting them to CGI.
But, I do agree that it is not possible to effectively learn any fighting technique by watching a DVD or a CGI game. It can only be used as a reference, a bit like a dictionary, for the 'shape' of the technique. No media, interactive or otherwise can substitute for a real teacher and a class environment.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What I'm boiling down to is: is a martial art just any method that claims it teaches you how to do combat, regardless of whether or not it is effective? Some people claim that a martial art can be all katas and striking the air because thats what make it an "art", but if it doesn't contain any real sparring, then where does the "martial" aspect come in? If its all about the art, and the actual physical movements you do don't really bear any physical relation or resemblance to a real combat situation, then that surely makes it a performing art, rather than a martial art? If you don't do any real testing of the effectiveness of what you do, then its only make-believe whether or not it works.

I think it is more a matter of the definitions of the words used. 'Martial' is a Western concept, not oriental. It stems from (as Wikipedia states) 'Mars' god of war. Also, in the West, fighting skills were, and still are, referred to as arts ('the art of boxing', 'the art of swordmanship', 'the art of archery'), Traditionally, the term art was used to refer to any skill or mastery. It is only in modern times that the word 'martial' has been applied to fighting systems that originate in the Orient, where they use the term 'Wushu'.
The term wushu consists of two characters 武 (wǔ), meaning, military, and 術 (shù), which translates into discipline, skill or method. Together these form "wǔshù" meaning 'Art of fighting' but is more commonly translated as the Western "martial art".

As regards effectiveness I can only say that a martial art is only as good as the person applying that art. A practitioner, in order to become an effective fighter, MUST put in the hours/days/months and years of hard practice in order to become an effective fighting force. NOTHING else will do this for you. No matter how good you think you are, there is always someone else out there who has done that extra bit of work and just might have the edge on you. I say this with conviction because I have been training now in 'martial arts' for 42 years, and continue to do so.

zap

Mark Hamill

zappazappa wrote: »

I think it is more a matter of the definitions of the words used. 'Martial' is a Western concept, not oriental.

But "wu" is an oriental concept, and it means military, a very close synonym of which is martial.

zappazappa wrote: »

It stems from (as Wikipedia states) 'Mars' god of war. Also, in the West, fighting skills were, and still are, referred to as arts ('the art of boxing', 'the art of swordmanship', 'the art of archery'), Traditionally, the term art was used to refer to any skill or mastery. It is only in modern times that the word 'martial' has been applied to fighting systems that originate in the Orient, where they use the term 'Wushu'.
The term wushu consists of two characters 武 (wǔ), meaning, military, and 術 (shù), which translates into discipline, skill or method. Together these form "wǔshù" meaning 'Art of fighting' but is more commonly translated as the Western "martial art".

I'm not actually sure what your point is here, if wushu means "military skill" and "martial art" comes from the Mars, the Roman god of War and art meaqning a mastery, or skill, then doesn't that mean the western and oriental definitions are the same?
It also doesn't seem to contradict what I said originally, if something claims to be a martial art, ie a fighting skill, but doesn't actually translate to being skilled in fighting, then surely its not a martial art.

zappazappa wrote: »

As regards effectiveness I can only say that a martial art is only as good as the person applying that art. A practitioner, in order to become an effective fighter, MUST put in the hours/days/months and years of hard practice in order to become an effective fighting force. NOTHING else will do this for you. No matter how good you think you are, there is always someone else out there who has done that extra bit of work and just might have the edge on you. I say this with conviction because I have been training now in 'martial arts' for 42 years, and continue to do so.

zap

I agree, but only to a point. A lot of what makes someone a good martial artist does come from the person themselves, but there are some martial arts (or, at least, some training methodologies) that are better than others. Lewis Hamilton may be one of the best race car drivers in the world, but put him in Fiat Panda and me in a formula one racecar and I'd say I would win a race.

yomchi

Good point regarding the person having a natural fighting ability, this is a mental condition not everyone develops to the full potential, due to many reason including their up bringing and everyone and everything within that and of course genetic predisposition in terms of athletic ability.

Lewis Hamilton may be one of the best race car drivers in the world, but put him in Fiat Panda and me in a formula one racecar and I'd say I would win a race.

Personally, I'd say you'd probably kill yourself

Mark Hamill

Jon wrote: »

Personally, I'd say you'd probably kill yourself

Didn't I say it would be a race to see who could kill themselves the quickest?:D

Clive

Of course you can learn a martial art from a computer game.

Just remember to Expect No Mercy...