Martial Arts: The Trouble with the Terminology

[bushido_man96]

This post was originally published as an article in a dedicated KarateForums.com Articles section, which is no longer online. After the section was closed, this article was most to the most appropriate forum in our community.

I love the martial arts. I love being a practitioner of the martial arts. I love learning new things about the martial arts. I even love writing about the martial arts. I also know that there are many more people like me out there. There are an especially great number of those like me here at KarateForums.com. One of the best things about KarateForums.com is that all of us martial artists get to engage in friendly banter based off of our individual feelings of the martial arts that we love so much. You could call it "verbal sparring."

A while back, we had the opportunity to "verbally spar" about an opinion that goes to the very core of the martial arts. That opinion was, in not so many words, "What exactly is the definition of a martial art?" Well, what I endeavor to do in this article is... well, I really don't know! However, what I can tell you is that my goal is... uh... um... OK, I don't really know that, either. I could tell you that I plan to answer the question of what the true definition of the martial arts is. However, that would be a fallacy, so that is not what my goal in this article is.

What I have done is collected a series of posts made by various posters here on KarateForums.com in an attempt to not really clarify anything, but to show what we all view as the criteria for something to be considered a martial art, as it relates to each of our own opinions. My true goals here are to bring some of those opinions together, compare and contrast them and to have a little bit of fun while doing it.

I want to provide a quick disclaimer. It is not my intention to prove any one of the posters quoted in this article right or wrong. Neither is it my intention to discredit any one's viewpoint. Rather, I plan to use some of the posters' ideas and viewpoints, along with some dictionary definitions, to really demonstrate how much autonomy exists in the martial arts world and why we enjoy these discussions so much.

The Definition of "Martial Art" (along with some other important words we need to discuss...)

Most of us who come to be posters on KarateForums.com are already martial artists and most of us have a definition of the term already in mind (as we will soon see). I am no exception to this rule and, as you might expect, I'll be sharing my definition a bit later. As I struggle to order things for this article at 2:45 AM, I think I will start with the definition of the base word: Martial.

Martial, as cited by Dictionary.com Unabridged, is defined as follows: "1. inclined or disposed to war; warlike; 2. of, suitable for, or associated with war or the armed forces; 3. characteristic of or befitting a warrior."

Well, I think we can go along with that. Basically, it's an adjective that attaches warlike qualities to something. baronbvp actually points this out to us in one of his posts, which we will get more into later. Seeing as most of our martial arts have to do with fighting, which is related to war, then I think we have a good start. Now we move to the second word: Art.

Art has quite a few descriptions, but I will focus on those pertinent to our discussion: "1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance; 7. the principles or methods governing any craft or branch of learning." (Dictionary.com Unabridged).

Well, that makes some sense as well. The study of martial arts is usually quite significant to most of us and could be considered a branch of learning. So, now, if we take the definition of each of these words and combine them, we should get a pretty comprehensive understanding of the term "martial art," right?

Well, in an attempt to disappoint most of us, here is the definition of martial arts from the same source: "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." (Dictionary.com Unabridged).

"Whoa, whoa, WHOA, bushido_man96! Back that truck up, buddy! That ain't my definition of "martial arts!"" I know, I know, don't beat up the messenger! It isn't my definition, either. However, this is where our discussion of differences really begins. Who says Webster is always right, eh?

In our dictionary-provided definition, the words or terms combat, self defense and sport are all mentioned. Many practitioners will feel that these three terms don't mingle in with the term "martial art," and that some even contradict it.

KarateForums.com Poster Contributions

The posts that I will be quoting can be found in the "About Wrestling" thread on KarateForums.com. It is not the goal of this article to discuss this thread, but feel free to reference it, if you like.

Rainbow_Warrior authored the above thread by venturing the following question:

But, where is the limit between martial art, defense technique, self defense and contact sport? Some people say that MA have their own philosophy and spiritual teaching... it's a very thin line.

It is obvious that Rainbow_Warrior, along with other posters, feels that there is a marked difference in the terms listed above in his question. What jumps out the most is the comparison of martial art to martial sport. I think this is a good question and in the spirit of KarateForums.com, we are all willing to offer our opinions on the subject.

I will interject here what I think the martial arts are defined as. I think that the martial arts encompass pretty much any fighting or combat system, including, but not limited to, Taekwondo, Karate, Judo, boxing, wrestling, mixed martial arts, medieval swordsmanship, the military armed forces, etc. My list would go on and on. I feel this way because each system had, at one point, been used in martial ways (or still is), relating to combat, etc. Even though some have evolved from their original forms, they all still relate to fighting or combat in one form or another.

As I have mentioned, though, not everyone will have the same feelings on the definition of the martial arts. Some feel that martial arts and martial sports are separate. Webster's New World Dictionary defines sport as such: "1. any recreational activity; specifically, a game, competition, etc. requiring bodily exertion" (pp. 623). ps1 offers this quote on the separation of art and sport:

I believe wrestling, boxing, Thai boxing, MMA, XMA, olympic TKD and any other system being trained soley for sport are combative or martial sports.

As I wrote above, A martial art should have the sole purpose of teaching it's proponent the self defense techniques and stratigies necessary for that person's tasks of every day living.

Earlier in the discussion, ps1 added the following:

I guess the point of all this is that, yes, you make a good point that wrestling has a strong combative history. However, that does not make it a martial art any more than wheels on a wagon make it a car. It's a combative/martial sport. It can be used for self defense, but that is no longer it's primary mode.

ps1 makes some very good and very valid points. ps1, and others, feel that arts and sports are separate entities. However, you can see a little bit of overlap between the terms he mentions. Practicing a sport like wrestling may lend itself to some self defense, however, that is not it's primary goal. My response to ps1's comment above was this:

I feel that wrestling is a martial art, along with boxing and Thai boxing. I don't think that just because the competitive aspect of these activities is at the forefront to the public demeans their value as fighting styles. They all have something to offer and no style is complete.

I feel that the sporting aspect does not detract from the martial arts aspect; i.e., learning to defend one-self. Although I feel this way, I think that ps1 argues his points very well and I appreciate his viewpoints. I know that many other martial artists reading this article will agree with ps1 as well. Under ps1's definition, wrestling, boxing and MMA would come under the martial sport category, whereas I would not differentiate them. Also, according to ps1's statements, the primary goal of a martial art would be teaching self defense. I think that many would agree with ps1 here as well.

Our confusion can be amplified by the sheer amount of martial arts competitions that take place. Many who practice the martial arts for self defense may choose to enter the occasional tournament. However, if one begins to compete on a national level, are they making the jump to martial sport? Can you be one and still do the other? Or, does it make you both?

Rainbow_Warrior also brings up another point of confusion in the dictionary definition of martial arts:

I think that people associate MA with Asia... so generally speaking the MA are Eastern things for the average person.

Along with our previous definition, Webster's New World Dictionary defines the martial arts as: "systems of self-defense originating in East Asia, such as karate and kung fu, also engaged in for sport" (pp. 397). With two sources providing almost equivalent information, it appears that this assumption is widespread.

So now, are we to be led to believe that the martial arts only came from the East? What about the Greeks and Romans? Did they not have martial arts? Medieval European warriors were not martial artists? Nor the Vikings? I feel that this is one of the most misleading parts of our dictionary definitions of the term martial arts.

Alrighty then. Is everyone confused yet? Good deal! Then I am accomplishing my goal! In my continuing quest to further confuse and enlighten everyone, I turn to a post from baronbvp:

This is a good discussion. I think it comes down to your definition of martial art versus martial sport and martial artist versus martial athlete.

If we agree that "martial" is an adjective that means "warlike" or "suitable for or derived from war," then the issue is art versus sport. Art is defined by Webster as "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance."

Tai Chi is a martial art because of its spiritual aspect and long-ago combat derivation, but I doubt many would use it in a fight. The spiritual aspect of many martial arts is being minimized nowadays due to the ever-increasing search for combat-effective fighting styles and techniques. I would say that wrestling is more of a martial art now than when I did it 25 years ago. It is very effective in a fight. Anyone who takes it to its ultimate aesthetic expression, and beyond ordinary significance to them, is expressing it as a martial art. Same for boxing, Muay Thai or even archery or fencing IMO.

In a post shortly after that one, he states:

... I try to find the art in my sports and the sport in my arts.

What baronbvp has done here is that he has taken the sporting aspect to the point of being expressed as an art. This brings out how much each person's expression and interpretation lends to their own definition of the martial arts. I like baronbvp's points as well. In the last part of his above quote, he shows that even though art and sport may be considered separate, he attempts to find each in the other. baronbvp also sheds some light on the sporting aspect of the martial arts definition by stating the following:

I think MMA has led to the category of martial athlete, where the physical training regimen puts the importance of conditioning equal to or even ahead of that of technique. Boxers have long trained harder than most. I would advocate that boxers, Muay Thai practitioners and MMA guys are martial athletes as well as martial artists. Same for wrestlers and anyone else who trains hard physically.

Here, baronbvp brings the definitions of martial sport and martial athlete to the forefront as well. Even though baronbvp has listed several different definitions, he demonstrates that he feels that all of them can fall under his term of martial arts. Even though we witness some togetherness here, we can also still see some separations as well. For example, a martial artist would not have to train like a martial athlete to still participate in a martial sport.

I will now make a brief jump to a different thread called "Good Idea".

Here, I bring up a quote from marie curie about how, to her, the various definitions demonstrate a sort of evolution of methods:

I personally had 4 years experience in Karate and had a hard time when I did TKD (for a semester at school) because when people kick me and don't pull it back, I catch. When I make a front stance, I want the target that is me to be small, so I turn my body and that's just not what you do there. So, since it was geared toward the "sport", it wasn't as applicable in my more towards the "art" branch of MA or my now, more towards the "self-defense" branch of MA.

In marie curie's description of her experiences, she demonstrates that she sees obvious differences in some of the ways that some styles do things and that they won't always fall under the same category, as far as art, sport and self defense are concerned. I think that this is a very interesting viewpoint on how different martial arts methodologies are perceived.

Conclusion?

After the extensive evaluation of various definitions of the martial arts based on the opinions of various posters on KarateForums.com, along with dictionary evaluations, I think I have come to the conclusion that the martial arts are defined as different things by different martial artists. The beauty of the entire discussion here is that none of us are really wrong. Have I cleared anything up by writing this article? No, not really. Have I succeeded in further confusing the hell out of everyone? Probably. I think that many of the martial artists out there would disagree with the dictionary definitions of the martial arts. However, as you can tell from the quotes in this article, coming up with a suitable definition for the term (that we can all agree on) may be downright impossible.

In order to maintain the integrity of this article (which is, of course, confusion), I leave you with the following summation by baronbvp:

Martial arts that are martial sports, practiced by martial artists who are martial athletes.

Is he right? According to himself, he is. Is he wrong? According to others, he would be. However, his statement does leave us where we started; with a topic worthy of discussion.

Thanks

I would like to drop a few words of thanks. This article would not have been possible without the posters quoted herein: Rainbow_Warrior, ps1, baronbvp and marie curie. Thanks to you all for supplying great input on the subject matter discussed here.

I would also like to thank Patrick and all of those responsible for the formation of KarateForums.com, for providing such a great community in which we can share our views in a constructive manner. I would also like to thank all of the other KarateForums.com members out there posting about the martial arts everyday. If it weren't for the quality discussions that go on everyday at KarateForums.com, I would truly have nothing to write about.

Works Cited

Webster's New World Dictionary, Fourth Edition.

[Patrick]

Thank you for the submission.

[ninjanurse]

I like it. Thanks for putting it together!

[marie curie]

Yeh, it's really interesting to see all of this together!

Also, I feel all special!

Thanks, bushido_man96

[bushido_man96]

Thanks for taking the time read. If it weren't for all of the great discussions and people here at KF, I would not have been able to put this article together.

[baronbvp]

Bushido Man, I just read this. What, like a year late?

GREAT job. I am humbled to be included, my friend.

Peace to all.

[bushido_man96]

I'm glad you enjoyed it, Baron. Better late than never, right?