The Martial Arts

Martial_Artist · Pre-Black Belt

Are all martial arts equal? Let me clarify. Do all martial arts prepare someone to fight? I have heard the argument before, not all martial arts are taught for combat. IF this is case then why carry the title, 'MARTIAL ARTS'? Calling a dog's tail a leg doesn't mean the dog has five legs.
Why not a more appropiate title, or category, like physical conditioning, or maybe self-discipline, or something else along the lines behind its purpose? Why call it a martial art when it's not?
Learning to punch and kick and 'kiai' without learning how to fight with them doesn't make it a martial art. Yoga, who considers Yoga a martial art? Tae Bo? Who considers TaeBo a martial art? Are they martial arts? NO. Yoga doesn't teach fighting techniques, so it is not a martial art. TaeBo does, yet it is not a martial art.
Again, why call something martial arts when it is not?
Truthfully, and I have heard agrument contrary, the martial arts are for combat. Ballet is not for construction work, yoga is not for fighting. If a martial art is not for combat then why call it a MARTIAL ART? Because it has the word ART attached to it? An art, Webster's Dictionary, Geddes & Grosset, 2002, defines an art as this: "...skill, acquired by study and practice; any craft and its principles..." That is in the first line of definition. When did the martial arts become diluted by the appendage of the art to its name? Martial, without any need to refer to a dictionary, refers to things of war. Martial Arts is the skill, study, and practice and things pertaining to war.

So not everyone takes a martial art for that reason. Not every martial art stresses that reason. Should they then continue to call themselves martial artists and martial arts? Why give themselves an inaccurate title? TaeBo practitioners do not call themselves martial artists. Why should people who take karate for the same reasons call themselves martial artists?

When we refer to martial arts. When we say the word martial art, we are referring to things of study pertaining to combat, war, fighting, violence. There is a philosophy behind it, making it far from senseless, but at its heart it is martial.
If you will enter a conversation about martial arts and then claim that not all martial arts are not about 'fighting' then you have entered the wrong discussion. We speak of martial arts. We speak of perfecting our skill in the arts of war. IF we do it for any other reason then we are not martial artists. We assume a different title. Taking a martial art doesn't make one a martial artist. Punching and kicking doesn't make something a martial art.

Yes, there is more behind the martial arts than just the fighting, but fighting is its core, its heart. To train in the martial arts and then not be martial artist defeats the purpose. If you are training in the martial arts for any other reason then your title is wrong.

Clarity in terminology helps reduce misunderstanding. When we misuse the word martial arts we open the door for argument based on a misunderstanding of meaning. The martial arts are for fighting. It is their sole purpose. If you take martial arts for any other reason then you are not a martial artist and the art, if it teaches martial arts for any other reason, is not a martial art. Teaching someone to punch and kick doesn't make them a martial artist and doesn't make the art a martial art.

One does not engage in crochet to learn how to sew sutchers.

Calling yourself a martial artist, means you are saying that you take the craft and principles of war and fighting and studying and practicing them, gaining skill in them. If not, then don't call yourself a martial artist.

We dilute the purity of the arts when we reduce their purpose to other intended goals. If you want physical conditioning you can get it better with an excellent running, strength training, and aerobic conditioning routine than you will learning katas. If you want self-discipline there is the military (I'll admit this is not a very viable means) or just plain controlling your emotions and desires. Everyone is born with a will.

If you want to learn to fight, to defend yourself and others. Then take a martial art and become a martial artist.

A martial artist is not a war-freak.

I know there will be many who will disagree with this thread. I am not oblivious to the fact. But do remember this:

Calling a dog's tail a leg doesn't mean the dog has five legs. -- Abraham Lincoln.

Martial Arts are one thing composed of hundreds of methods of thought. But all those methods of thought are central to the martial arts. The study practice and skill of things pertainng to fighting.

If it does something else, then call it something else. But remember when the martial arts are mentioned it is by their nature that they are to be understood.

[ This Message was edited by: Martial_Artist on 2002-06-07 12:31 ]

KickChick · Black Belt

True, the martial arts were created for combat. and there are many forms of combat. It may occur in war, law enforcement duties, or simply for personal self-defense. However, the martial arts have evolved from just being fighting methods into becoming a way of life for their practitioners. Most people go through their entire lives without having to defend themselves physically... so, if combat were the only reason for learning a martial art, the time and effort would be a waste for some.

A student who joins a martial arts school wants to become physically fit and be able to defend themselves but at the same time there is a desire for heightened enlightenment.

"We dilute the purity of the arts when we reduce their purpose to other intended goals. " .... I tend to agree with this as it applies to a style such as TKD .... it has developed into more of a "sport" than a martial art. Its intended purpose has changed and the beauty of the style is lost by this.

There are hundreds and hundreds of types of martial arts throughout the world. Some countries developed their own unique martial art while others adapted other martial arts to fit their own situations. All it takes to "found" a martial art is to give your way of fighting a new name and make yourself the "master." For this reason, new martial arts and "styles" of martial arts appear all the time. A style may refer to a specific martial art or a variation of an established martial art. Some martial arts have been in existence for centuries, some for decades, and others for weeks.

"Taking a martial art doesn't make one a martial artist. Punching and kicking doesn't make something a martial art. " ... might I ask you what we call ourselves then?

There are sport martial arts (such as TKD, Judo, tournament Karate), striking arts (such as (Taekwondo, Karate, and Boxing), grappling arts (such as Aikido, Jujutsu, and Wrestling), and weapon arts (such as Kyudo, Kendo, and Escrima). Different arts and styles of arts have different philosophies and goals...
learning to fight being one of them of course!

Specialty arts are arts that teach only a sport/competition "version" of a martial art, such a Olympic style TKD, Judo, and Boxing, or teach a specific weapon, such as Kyudo, Kenjutsu, or Escrima, or teach a form of exercise or meditation, such as Yoga, Tai Chi Ch'uan and yes, even Tae Bo or Cardio Kickboxing. Remember that these arts are taught for a specific purpose and may not be applicable to actual "fighting" situations.

Martial_Artist · Pre-Black Belt

No, see, you didn't understand the post. I never said that they were anything but a way of life for their practitioners. IF combat was the sole purpose behind one's study of the martial arts is self-defense and they never have to use those skills do you consider that a waste of their time? When did preparation become a waste of time?

The comment on hundreds of different types of martial arts...the point?

[/quote] "Taking a martial art doesn't make one a martial artist. Punching and kicking doesn't make something a martial art. " ... might I ask you what we call ourselves then? [/quote]

If you take aerobic kick boxing, or TaeBo, would you call yourself a martial artist? No, you wouldn't, because they're not martial arts. They teach punching and kicking as central to what they do, but they're not martial arts. And they know they're not martial arts. At least, after teaching someone how to punch and kick, they don't parade around like a martial art. Not all martial arts should carry the title martial arts. Thus, taking a martial art, that is not a martial art(see definintion in my first post) , does not make one a martial artist.

You may ask what we call ourselves. IF you take a martial art, a true martial art, then you are and may be called a martial artist. If not, if what you take is not 'martial art' or your reasons behind taking the martial art are not the martial art, then you have no right to call yourself a martial artist.

Someone doesn't call himself a fighter-pilot because he can play an arcade game well. Or one doesn't call themself a policman after watching L.A. Confidential, or any other police movie ever made.

A sport martial art is just that a sport martial art. Those that participate are athletes, not truly martial artists.

[/b] There are martial arts that lack the ability to enable their practitioners skill in combat. These are not, in essence, in truth, martial arts. They should, but don't, carry a different title.[/b]

Again, you comment on multiple styles, or types or martial arts is irrelevant. If these "arts" are taught for a specific purpose not aplicable to actual "fighting" situations then they shouldn't dilute the minds of their practioners or confuse the minds of anyone by calling themselves something they are not.

Calling a dog's tail a leg doesn't mean the dog has five legs.

Calling something a martial art, when it doesn't focus on the martial, doesn't make it a martial art.

Whether the art is centuries or weeks old if it is a martial art then you should be able to take and learn to fight. If not, then no matter how hard you try it is not a martial art. Versions of a martial art don't deviate from the core of the martial arts. Every style is a combat style. Not everything claiming to be a martial art is.

If you take a 'martial art' and it teaches you physical conditioning and nothing more, great; but it's not a martial art.

In closing, I never said the martial arts lacked life-endearing principles, a philosophy of existence. It is this principle that drives the martial arts. Perfection of self, through combative means. The concept and understanding of martial things is necessary to attain the enlightenment sought by so many "martial artists". When the philosophies of zen, et. al, were created life was a martial life. Nothing similiar to the cushioned life we live now. To use the martial arts and claim enlightenment without walking the path is blasphemy. Pure and simple, a deception to self and others. The martial arts are a way of life, but not a class at the Y you take to build self-confidence or lose weight.

[ This Message was edited by: Martial_Artist on 2002-06-08 12:13 ]

ckdstudent · Green Belt

Tell you what, go up to a world champion sport martial artist and tell them that they're not a martial artist and aren't doing a martial art. I'll agree with whoever's still standing at the end.

_________________
---------
Pil Sung
Jimmy B

Taikudo-ka · Green Belt

I hear ya MA...

It makes more sense when you know that the symbol for warrior is composed of two characters, which mean "Stop" and "Fight". i.e. the warrior is one who is capable of stopping a fight.

As you say, "art" refers to skills and techniques - artifice, not aesthetic art. It is actually a misuse of English to assume it means the same thing as "visual art", painting, dance, music, etc. There are similarities, but also differences in the words, even though they are pronounced the same. Actually one could refer to "visual arts" to mean skills and techniques related visual design - thus "arts" degrees. Or refer to "visual art" to mean an object of art, a noun, as in "I collect paintings and other art", which really refers to art-works.

So the best concept I see of "martial arts" - bujutsu - is "skills and techniqes for stopping a fight". This should satisfy both those who say martial arts are not about fighting, and those who say they are indeed for use in combat... because both are applicable.

"Style" simply refers to the way in which you go about stopping the fight. Every martial art should lead to the same place - no more fight, preferably with you unharmed, but the way they get there is different.

G95champ · Black Belt

Ken Shamrock said, "the figher makes the art the art don't make the fighter."

So I guess the question is if we have twins and one does style X and one does style Y which one is the better fighter. Again it comes down to the one who can take the punch better and hit faster and harder.

Styler is nothing more than a name on the school you train at.

_________________
(General George S. Patton Jr.) "It's the unconquerable soul of man, and not the nature of the weapon he uses, that ensures victory."

psychospaz · Yellow Belt

Bon · Black Belt

Bon · Black Belt

I think anyone who has read some of my posts here would know I agree completely with Martial Artist's post.. I only take martial arts to learn how to fight

_________________
It takes sacrifice to be the best.

There are always two choices, two paths to take. One is easy. And its only reward is that it's easy.

psychospaz · Yellow Belt

recreation too, i would hazard a guess...

	KarateForums.com Forum Index -> General Martial Arts Discussion	All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Page 1 of 7