This topic stems from the following quote by Ozpunker in this thread:

…sometimes I dislike it because it's too unrealistic and people often have fouls against them for punching to the head (It's such a natural reaction) but in some ways, I think it forces people to use MA techniques more.

This got me to thinking, and I was curious if everyone had their own definition as to what constitutes a "Martial Arts technique" proper? Is there a way you define a technique in this way?

As for me, I don't feel that there is a requirement to make a technique an "MA technique." A technique may not be the cleanest, or the fanciest technique, but I don't think that takes away from the fact that it is an MA technique.

Often times, we don't have an actual definition, or, as in the dictionary, there are several "definitions" presented for a single word.

Yet we seem to recognize it when we see it or experience it.

Confining to unarmed combat, a short, simple definition might be:

A martial arts technique refers to a movement or series of movements that are fight (martial)-oriented and have a fight (martial)-associated objective.

Wow thats a great question .

I would say that a MA technique could be defined as any technique that can be used in a defensive situation when protecting self or others.

Very good question! I was going to say it is absolutely any type of defense or attack (punches, kicks, locks, throws, disarming techniques etc). But if a regular guy from the street was to get into a fight and used punches and kicks I don't think that he is using 'martial arts techniques', even though technically speaking they may be very close to the kinds of things we practice. I guess this means that it's the difference between a traditional or sporting style of fighting compared to a natural instinctual perhaps brawling style.

If a regular guy from the street was to get into a fight and used punches and kicks I don't think that he is using 'martial arts techniques', even though technically speaking they may be very close to the kinds of things we practice.

Ozpunker brings up an interesting viewpoint. When he says "practice," it obviously refers to training. When a martial arts technique is to be identified, is it automatically to be associated with a trained fighter, no matter what level (belt as usual measurement) s/he is at, to "legitimize" it as a martial arts technique?

I agree, good question.

I think that it's anything used in the course of defense. I don't think if matters who uses it or what their background is, if you put a fist on some one it's an ma technique.

Past that, we're talking about a level of proficiencey and practice. It's simply a matter of degrees between untrained and highly proficient in it's execution.

I always defined a technique in martial arts as an offensive or defensive maneuver used to counteract an attack and cause damage to an opponent.

I was going to say any movement that is either offensive or defensive and is meant to be used against an opponent. However reading Ozpunker's post, I don't know whether I'd consider an attack (or defense) from a regular guy as MA

Any movement used to defeat an opponent. It is usually rehearsed in some manner, but that is not a necessity.

A movement or serious of movements learned and when used properly can defend against an attack.