does fencing count as a martial art

[ysc87]

uh, no man-- "martial art" literally means "art of fighting/war"

that dictionary meaning is just what we generally refer to as martial arts.

as for

"More of a sport art really, but were a real blade used it could be very effective. I would say if TKD or Judo can be called martial arts then so could fencing."

have you ever fought against a person trained in tkd or judo? didn't think so. tkd is not an assortment of aerial kicks (as a matter of fact, it's closer to that karate you seem to enjoy so much), and judo is pretty darn effective. i'm quite tired of hearing the same thing over and over again. (curse this forum and its anti-cussing )

the fencing part: fencing as it stands now stands is a sport, but many of the concepts used is similar to boxing, and if you had a rapier or sabre, you'd be able to kill somebody pretty easily, so you can consider it a martial art, as long as you take 'martial art' literally, as i do.

[ShotokanKid]

"More of a sport art really, but were a real blade used it could be very effective. I would say if TKD or Judo can be called martial arts then so could fencing."

Yes, because TKD is Korean, which is Asian and Judo is Japanese which is Asian. Fencing is not Asian unless it is Kendo, which is Japanese fencing.

have you ever fought against a person trained in tkd or judo? didn't think so.

Yes, I have.

the fencing part: fencing as it stands now stands is a sport, but many of the concepts used is similar to boxing, and if you had a rapier or sabre, you'd be able to kill somebody pretty easily, so you can consider it a martial art, as long as you take 'martial art' literally, as i do.

Then by this definition, using guns is a martial art.

[sdargie]

Yes they are, as long as you treat it like an art form and not a toy.

If it's ok to launch a projectile with a string and call it a martial art (archery/kyudo) why isn't it ok to launch a projectile with a small explosive (guns)?

Think of bullets as shuriken with a kick.

[White Warlock]

Originally, martial arts referred to Asian fighting systems. But this classification is old and has since been revised... except in the dictionaries you rummaged through.

Indeed, i'm somewhat disappointed that Princeton University still uses "oriental" to refer to Asian. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v283/White_Warlock/fighting02.gif

Mirriam-Webster, 2005 -

• Function: noun
   
  : any of several arts of combat and self-defense (as karate and judo) that are widely practiced as sport.

Brittanica Online, 2005-

• any of various fighting sports or skills, mainly of East Asian origin, such as kung fu, judo, karate, and kendo.

The catch here is, the use of the title, "martial art" is for that of laymen. It is a catch-all phrase presented as a means to bring about a certain 'thought' in the mind of a recipient or reader. It is not a steadfast rule of order, but a generalization.

We who actually practice the arts, can define it any way we dang well feel like.

[IRKguy]

When I said fencing was irrelevant, I meant it was obsolete. I didn't mean that the fact that the rapier has been superceded by the firearm as a slam. I think everyone in this forum has experience fighting with obsolete weapons. That seems to be one of the basic criteria for a martial art.

When a weapon becomes obsolete but the study of it is retained for its own sake, not its effectiveness' sake, the style can be systematized and made into art forms. While a weapons is still in general use, there tends to be a lot of use, but little systemization, formalization, or meditation.

A relevant or modern martial art would teach pretty much what the soldiers learn. However, that is not an art; it's occupational training. An even more relevant martial art would be a school of diplomacy or a school of key-turning and button-pushing so that we can learn how to launch nuclear missiles while simultaneously achieving enlightenment. However, these are not arts.

It doesn't make too much sense to say that wrestling in a gi is a martial art and wrestling in tights is not. As for the issue of why shooting is not a martial art while archery is, it's the lack of formalization that precludes an artistic nature.

[sdargie]

When I said fencing was irrelevant, I meant it was obsolete...I think everyone in this forum has experience fighting with obsolete weapons. That seems to be one of the basic criteria for a martial art.

Nothing that helps you learn how to live better is obsolete. Period.

I've been certified in running both archery and gun ranges for overnight camps and if anything I saw many more rules for gun safety than I saw for archery.

And what about those gun nuts at the shooting range everyday that apply the rules of the range to how they live? What about those that deeply respect the power of a gun and strive to become as responsible with a gun as they are drivin a car? What makes them inferior to the punk black belt that takes cheap shots at lower belts? (That has been described numerous times on this board so it's not completely hypothetical.)

It doesn't make too much sense to say that wrestling in a gi is a martial art and wrestling in tights is not.

So enlightenment is based on wardrobe, huh?

How many threads are there on this forum bashing McDojos?

I would suggest that there are high school wrestling coaches that are creating better fighters/citizens than some senseis/sifu/sabumnim/etc.

[White Warlock]

When I said fencing was irrelevant, I meant it was obsolete. I didn't mean that the fact that the rapier has been superceded by the firearm as a slam. I think everyone in this forum has experience fighting with obsolete weapons. That seems to be one of the basic criteria for a martial art.

I disagree. While they may not be used for large-scale warfare anymore, they are not obsolete. Each weapon provides training in a 'basic' concept. These concepts translate to household and street items, such as kitchen knives, broom sticks, ropes, chains, car antennas, hubcaps, trash can lids, 2x4's, golf clubs, keys, t-shirts, towels (insert shower-scene), etc.

The argument posed by many is that the martial arts, as a whole, are obsolete, but this is a gross misconception. While guns have their uses, they are a mechanical extremity that holds many limitations, not the least of which is... you can't take them 'anywhere,' especially nowadays. One of the scenes where many fights occur is at dance bars or at the parking lot of dance bars, usually while you're heading back to your car. Since many of these bars nowadays prevent people from entering with any metal objects larger than their keys, your crutch will need to stay in the car. This also means, you'll be unarmed as you walk back to your car. And, there are many other type-scenes where a gun just isn't going to be feasible to carry.

Yet, we go beyond that. Even if you were to carry a gun, most victim-crimes are sudden. Predators generally wait for easy prey, so things like muggings usually happen without warning and while you are 'unprepared.' In such a case, being able to pull out your gun from your concealed holster, grip it properly, unsafety it, aim at center-mass, and shoot... whilst in the middle of an assault, is not very likely to be effective. More likely, you'll be waking up in the hospital... or not at all. Especially if the mugger succeeds in wrestling that lethal weapon out of your hand (because you opted to rely on the power of a gun, rather than the power of yourself, and thus never took sufficient training in the 'so-called obsolete' martial arts).

Also, the gun only provides you with two options. One is to threaten, the other is to apply lethal force. The former could get you as much as 3 years in jail (assault with a deadly weapon AND use of a firearm to commit a crime, making it harder to plea bargain), while the latter could get you life in prison.

When a weapon becomes obsolete but the study of it is retained for its own sake, not its effectiveness' sake, the style can be systematized and made into art forms. While a weapons is still in general use, there tends to be a lot of use, but little systemization, formalization, or meditation.

Interesting supposition, but i disagree.

Systemization and formalization actually occurred with most, if not all, of the martial arts due to the need to train large units, armies if you will. It is still the practice of the U.S. Army, and other military organizations, to train recruits in unarmed combat, stick fighting, and the use of the bayonet. More advanced training is available, for those who specialize.

As to the meditation, that is 'religion-based.' You'll find that many systems do not apply meditation to their art, including many modern ones. Indeed, fencing does not include meditation.

A relevant or modern martial art would teach pretty much what the soldiers learn. However, that is not an art; it's occupational training. An even more relevant martial art would be a school of diplomacy or a school of key-turning and button-pushing so that we can learn how to launch nuclear missiles while simultaneously achieving enlightenment. However, these are not arts.

Actually, it is an art. It is as much an art as biology is a science. In fact, soldiers train in fields of psychology and sociology, yet both of those are 'arts.'

I believe you are mispresenting what an art is, confusing it with that of sculpting, photography, finger painting, or charcoal drawing and assuming it needs to produce some form of 'aesthetically appealing end-product.'

It doesn't make too much sense to say that wrestling in a gi is a martial art and wrestling in tights is not.

No, it doesn't, and now i'm not sure if we agree on some point or not.

As for the issue of why shooting is not a martial art while archery is, it's the lack of formalization that precludes an artistic nature.

But, shooting... is an art.

[UseoForce]

All good points, White warlock.

[Sauzin]

have you ever fought against a person trained in tkd or judo? didn't think so. tkd is not an assortment of aerial kicks (as a matter of fact, it's closer to that karate you seem to enjoy so much), and judo is pretty darn effective. i'm quite tired of hearing the same thing over and over again. (curse this forum and its anti-cussing )

Yes I have worked with and sparred with TKD guys. The guys I worked with were good people. Great attitudes. They were very fast, good kickers, and they even knew some self defence. I've also trained with 2 different Judo practitioners. I was even more impressed with what they were doing. Very effective given the rules they were using and even without I'm sure they could make it work against most.

Look I'm not bashing any martial arts here, I'm actually trying to offer a more open and accepting perspective on the term Martial Art. People can put the art into any work or sport. Arguing what is and is not an art is pointless. Anything having to do with weapons or fighting can be tied to martial. So let's give people some artistic leeway.

[IRKguy]

I think we are disagreeing on two points: what it is to be obsolete and what it is to be an artist.

People are saying that the old weapons are not obsolete because they still work. This is why I study a traditional martial art, because it still works. Still, it is not what I would use under ideal conditions.

When I am at work, we try to use the best computers we can. When the computers fail, we regress to what is on hand and what used to work. If the computers are all down, we can still use the calculators. If those go down, there might be someone in the building who still knows how a slide rule works. If that breaks, we all still know how to count on our fingers. That doesn't mean that finger-counting is still state of the art.

In theory, you can use a stick as one would use a rapier. I think most people would say their styles incorporate improvised weapons and that their weapons techniques translate to empty-handed strikes, but this is, again, jumping to finger-counting when the server goes down.

Our modern armies carry bayonettes. The purpose of a bayonette is to turn a 20th century assault weapon into a poorly-designed spear with an awkward club on the other end. Spears and clubs are obsolete, but we use them when we need them, the same way we use our teeth to open things when we can't find scissors.

The artistic part of the martial art is a bit more difficult to explain, and it has more to do with the practitioner than the style. It is something so internal that only the fencer and his instructor can tell him whether or not he is a martial artist. It's all that hippie bewitched mystic Schmidt that makes no sense from the outside. There are lots of painters and sculptors who are not artists. There are boxers and wrestlers who are. I wish I could find someone who taught shooting as a martial art. Most instructors teach it as a knack to be acquired.