The Meaning of Combat, Fighting, Martial Art, and Violence.

[shogeri]

Combat is an engagement or battle

It also implies to contend against, to fight or struggle.

The term "combat" typically refers to armed combat between soldiers during warfare. But also references the strategic action taking place between two opposing forces.

Whereas the more general term "fighting" can refer to any physical conflict, including boxing or wrestling matches, along with sport fighting or tournaments.

-----------------------

Martial implies being warlike, or having characteristics of military strategies or tactics.

Thus, we could say that traditionally the Martial Arts ARE combative.

Rather, any system that claims to be such, should have its roots in such or lead the student to that end, and not just be about fighting.

Fighting is nothing more than when two or more people are placed into a situation of physical, emotional or intellectual conflict.

Violence is a deliberate, unsanctioned action of that causes physical or emotional injury or death.

Just because someone is aggressive doesn't necessarily meant they are going to be violent.

An intelligent, assertive, proactive person can be just as violent as the next.

The Martial Arts are, or should be about doing those things that aid a person in self-preservation, or preserving the quality of life that they have come to know, and or expect to have.

The Martial Arts are not about violence. They are not exclusively about fighting. They are about learning and cultivating the strategies, tactics, skill, and fortitude in which to engage, if or when necessary, any and all opposing forces that seek to disrupt an individuals' (or groups') way of life.

There are two ways in which to approach what makes a system Martial or combative. A system can be Martial, but not be taught as Martial, or the system is inherently not Martial in the first place.

Thus we could say:

Any Martial Art system that no longer has within it, the philosophy of training a person to be 'martial', is not in all practicality, a true Martial Art system.

Any Martial Art system that is not implemented or practiced as being 'Martial', is again, not a true Martial Art.

Self-defense or preservation is a natural response to conflict or violence. Both violence and self-defense can be aggressive.

Self-preservation is also within the frameset of 'fight or flight'.

The premise or philosophy of self-preservation should be within, and or taught within a system of Martial Arts.

A system can be traditional, or not. It can be Martial or it can not. Most systems are.

Those that are not, usually state somewhere that they are sport or dance or competition oriented.

A Martial Art system can be based upon technique (kata, kumite, bunkai) or principle (footwork, handwork, bodywork, strategy, positioning, drills). It can also be a combination of both technique and principle.

Many instructors like to change the focus to be that of fighting principles rather than traditional technique or the instruction of such.

They like to call this combative or fighting arts.

However, this is just using a catch phrase to market themselves to a different audience. One that usually wants quicker results.

There is nothing wrong with this, unless they are implying that traditional Martial Art systems are not combative.

My last point, is that if an instructor does not teach the student the philosophy of what it means to be 'martial', then in all truth, they are not doing anyone justice by calling what they do, a Martial Art.

To be a Martial Artist is to live the Martial Way. Thus, one cannot just point a finger at a person, and say that they are not a Martial Artist, without first coming to know that person on a level that truly demonstrates who they are as in individual.

-----------------

My point to this post is to clarify some thoughts, and share some ideas about these topics, and to discuss them further with those who participate on this forum.

[Gen_Tora]

I completely agree with you...

Later,

Ron

[mourning_]

great post

[h2whoa]

great post

What he said!

[elbows_and_knees]

Whereas the more general term "fighting" can refer to any physical conflict, including boxing or wrestling matches, along with sport fighting or tournaments.

Let's not forget that boxing and wrestling were taught to the greek military. Let's also remember that during basic, many army soldiers are taught bjj. These systems are just as "martial" as any other, if not moreso.

Martial implies being warlike, or having characteristics of military strategies or tactics.

using this definition, the the arts we call martial really are not. On the battlefields now, they are using guns, not broadswords, katanas and naginata. They are bombing eachother, sniping, etc. hand to hand is to be avoided. Consequently, what we train today really is not martial at all, by your definition. It once was, but is no longer.

Thus, we could say that traditionally the Martial Arts ARE combative.

were. what constitues combative has changed over the years, as I stated above.

Rather, any system that claims to be such, should have its roots in such or lead the student to that end, and not just be about fighting.

all of the sport arts you mentioned do have those roots...

Fighting is nothing more than when two or more people are placed into a situation of physical, emotional or intellectual conflict.

actually, this is the dictionary definition:

"to contend in battle or physical combat; especially : to strive to overcome a person by blows or weapons "

Now, here are the definitions for martial:

1 : of, relating to, or suited for war or a warrior

2 : relating to an army or to military life

Given these two, our "martial" arts really aren't martial.

The Martial Arts are, or should be about doing those things that aid a person in self-preservation, or preserving the quality of life that they have come to know, and or expect to have.

learning thai boxing, wrestling, etc. does equip you to do these things.

The Martial Arts are not about violence. They are not exclusively about fighting. They are about learning and cultivating the strategies, tactics, skill, and fortitude in which to engage, if or when necessary, any and all opposing forces that seek to disrupt an individuals' (or groups') way of life.

On the same token, you will not be successful in the ring without these things.

Any Martial Art system that no longer has within it, the philosophy of training a person to be 'martial', is not in all practicality, a true Martial Art system.

which, as I stated above, means none of the arts we train are martial...

The premise or philosophy of self-preservation should be within, and or taught within a system of Martial Arts.

the definition of warfare does not indicate self preservation, nor does the term martial. they indicate war. The notion to keep yourself alive is instinctive - as you said, fight or flight. you either stay alive by running or by fighting.

Those that are not, usually state somewhere that they are sport or dance or competition oriented.

no. boxing, muay thai, wrestling, bjj, judo - they don't have sport anywhere in them, nor do the names imply them. They are called sport because they have a competitive venue for them and they are largely trained for such. Also, these styles tend to ignore the philosophical in favor of the actual; that is what defines them as sport. It's theory vs application, no different than the real world. a person with a two year degree and hands on experience is more likely to get a job than the person with the four year degree and no experience. Why? Even though the four year guy has more knowledge, it's theoretical - he has not applied it in the real world.

traditional guys train for possibility. sport guys train for inevitability. the trad guy trains for the day that MIGHT come where he MIGHT get attacked. Many people never see this day. The sport guy trains for his next competition, which he will definitely have.

A Martial Art system can be based upon technique (kata, kumite, bunkai) or principle (footwork, handwork, bodywork, strategy, positioning, drills). It can also be a combination of both technique and principle.

how is this different from a sport style?

[Gen_Tora]

Knees,

I have a question... Bare in mind this is my personal thoughts...

It's theory vs application, no different than the real world. a person with a two year degree and hands on experience is more likely to get a job than the person with the four year degree and no experience. Why? Even though the four year guy has more knowledge, it's theoretical - he has not applied it in the real world.

All MAs are theory, I haven't done a tournament in 6 years & even then I was much liked when I was. See the thoery of neo-traditional* Martial Arts is applying form, technique & prinicple to real world skills. The thoery of sport arts is applying the ring to the street, a big gap. Traditional MA have a similar disadvange to most sport systems.

When I was 15 to 17 I was homeless, living in a shelter. I had no way of legally making money at 15 so I started "pit fighting" on weekends, a serious ethical mistake on my part. I found a couple of guys who where from the same MA school I was attending. Here is where theory meets reality.

Survival be it physical, emotional or economical changes the way you think. You take hits you normally wouldn't to reach an end, result. The problem with sports is that they train you for controlled reactions within the land of fair play. The problems with traditional MA is that allot of conditioning used in the origional days are not politically correct to day. Or simply that a harder path has been made easier for the economical survive of the school or sensei.

It's all theory, unless you wonna practice with a real gun, knife & facing a wached out crack head or a slobering super drunk. The worst guy of the bunch is dude looking to feed his kids but can't, he'll just stab you in the kidneys & steal your wallet.

Those are things that none of us can train for. So why should we bother training, at all?

Later,

Ron

* FYI: Neo-traditional is a term for school who teach traditional MAs but not by taditional means. Example would be shotokan, where O'Soke Funakoshi said 15 kata were enough for a life time. Yet modern (traditional) shotokan today is taught with near 60+ kata until shodan alone. This isn't to say it's right or wrong, just a big leap from the origional intent of the founder.

[TAZ]

Great stuff guys!

[shogeri]

Obviously, one cannot practice Martial Arts without fighting, either in preparation for the inevitable or the most likely never going to occur incident.

As I mentioned, fighting is an integrating piece of the Martial Art puzzle.

Martial Art is the root. It contains within it, the philosophy of pugilism. Of which, when we expand our understanding of it, it then included conflict resolution.

BJJ to me, is more of a method of fighting, than it is a system of Martial Arts. It is the marriage of judo (a method of sport fighting), with advanced wrestling (roman-greco) entry (shoot) techniques.

Can it be made 'Martial'...yes.

On the same note, I can make a pair of salad tongs Martial as well.

Which means that many things, with a little effort, or modification can be used in a manner suited to the Martial Arts.

The bad part about always thinking of things as sport, is that at some point, a person will have to retire.

The philosophy of sport fighting (or single person sporting events) is that there is always someone better (younger, faster, stronger, etc), and at some point you might meet that person. You will age, and your skill, strength, and mindset will not be what it needs to be.

Thus, more often than not, we find that sport champions tend to retire out of either knowing the possibility of being beaten, or by the simply fact that they do not have what it takes to maintain their current position.

Martial Artists do not retire.

no. boxing, muay thai, wrestling, bjj, judo - they don't have sport anywhere in them, nor do the names imply them. They are called sport because they have a competitive venue for them and they are largely trained for such.

I believe you are saying the same thing as I. It is understood that these methods (systems) of training are sport oriented based upon the venue by which they are exposed. Their names may not say sport, but the philosophy behind their training does.

You basically finished my sentence (or line of thoguht) for me.

I think of Muay Thai as not being a sport. It is more a way of life, a means of survival, and of preservation. It is the 'street' version of kickboxing and western boxing. It is a method of fighting as well. MT kind of exists by in a class by itself.

If I am at war with someone I am attempting to protect something I cherish.

War translates to conflict. Whether its internal or external. The Martial Arts are included in this way of looking at things.

The Martial Arts include a wide range of worldviews and or philosophies.

We cannot narrow the term down by using webster definitions here and there. This doesn't do anyone justice. It is better to expand on our understanding of the Martial Arts, and not allow them to be limited in any way.

Just learning wrestling alone, doesn't teach someone how to fight.

Just learning kata or techniques, doesn't' teach someone how to fight.

Learning how to fight, takes a lifetime commitment.

Unless you are fighting an unknown, within a given sport system you can study your opponent or competitor, and learn what it might take to defeat them.

You cannot do this in a real life situation.

Again, I agree with the statement that the Martial Arts are theoretically based, but done so, with thousands of years of actual experience behind them.

The Sporting Arts have their place in society, as do the Martial Arts. In some places they overlap.

Later!

[ovine king]

and I'll point out that a lot of what is taught under the umbrella (western) term of martial arts, was created and refined by civilians and were never taught to armies as their main form of fighting method.

i.e they are not martial in the dictionary sense.

In the case of the chinese name for these arts, being traditionally wushu, the wu is only loosely translated as being "war". Even then, the mean, not the translation, is closer to plain old "fighting".

[elbows_and_knees]

The bad part about always thinking of things as sport, is that at some point, a person will have to retire.

The philosophy of sport fighting (or single person sporting events) is that there is always someone better (younger, faster, stronger, etc), and at some point you might meet that person. You will age, and your skill, strength, and mindset will not be what it needs to be.

Thus, more often than not, we find that sport champions tend to retire out of either knowing the possibility of being beaten, or by the simply fact that they do not have what it takes to maintain their current position.

Martial Artists do not retire.

they only retire from competition. One of my judo coaches is 79 and he still trains hard. He did not retire, he merely stopped competing. The philosophy of street fighting is the same. There is always someone better than you and eventually you may meet him. Not only that, but there may be someone less skilled than you, but whom wields a weapon and you might meet him.

I think of Muay Thai as not being a sport. It is more a way of life, a means of survival, and of preservation. It is the 'street' version of kickboxing and western boxing. It is a method of fighting as well. MT kind of exists by in a class by itself.

and yet it is the national sport of thailand.

We cannot narrow the term down by using webster definitions here and there. This doesn't do anyone justice. It is better to expand on our understanding of the Martial Arts, and not allow them to be limited in any way.

by using the dictionary definition you see where these components actually fit. Of course, you can make up classes for them to fit in, but what good is that?

Just learning wrestling alone, doesn't teach someone how to fight.

I work with three bouncers who trained wrestling only that will tell you otherwise.

Just learning kata or techniques, doesn't' teach someone how to fight.

this, I agree with. there is no live application there.

Learning how to fight, takes a lifetime commitment.

no, it doesn't.

Unless you are fighting an unknown, within a given sport system you can study your opponent or competitor, and learn what it might take to defeat them.

depends on the venue and promoter. Some will not give out info about their fighters.

Again, I agree with the statement that the Martial Arts are theoretically based, but done so, with thousands of years of actual experience behind them.

much of which is now invalidated. studying the ancient battlefield techniques of china and japan does little to help with battlefield tactics of today. Not only that, but the experiece of them is different. The arts we train and how we train them are not the same as they were back then.

The Sporting Arts have their place in society, as do the Martial Arts. In some places they overlap.

agreed.