What is your definition of an "MA technique?"

[sensei8]

Oh you're all going to hate me for my answer. Sorry, in advance for it, but it is what it is.

Question(s): ...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?

My answer: Anything and everything! Labels have/can/do ruin what one is truly seeking/searching for.

[KarateEd]

Bruce Lee spoke of "labeling" in the same way as you sensei8, except he was speaking of labeling an entire fighting system, not just techniques.

[bushido_man96]

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?

Here, I don't think that it matters if someone has never learned to throw a punch in there life; if they are punching in self-defense/fighting, then it is a Martial Arts technique, in my mind.

When I see an approach like this, then I think of a situation that might sound funny, but comes to a point:

Guy 1..."..boy, I think he knocked you out, man. You ok?"

Guy 2..."Yeah, I'm fine. But he's not a Martial Artist, so at least I didn't get knocked out be a Martial Arts technique."

Seen in a context like this, I just don't think that there are combative techniques that aren't MA techniques.

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 think that this sums it up pretty well.

[sensei8]

Bruce Lee spoke of "labeling" in the same way as you sensei8, except he was speaking of labeling an entire fighting system, not just techniques.

Yes Bruce was and I am too, as well as technique(s). Technique(s) are what "entire fighting systems" are composed of; I'm looking beyond and pinpointing technique(s). Is this wrong? Not in my opinion.

[Bushido-Ruach]

In my mind, the martial arts are defined as systems of training one for combat situations, whether armed or unarmed. The key point here, however, is in PRACTICING. Therefore, to me, a MA technique is a technique that is practiced until it becomes second nature and can be applied skillfully.

 

That being said, I don't think that a street fighter utilizes MA techniques if he doesn't practice what he's using on the street. What he does is natural reaction, not practiced responses.

 

Cheers

[bushido_man96]

So, if I practice the "haymaker," and spend hours mastering it, then will it "become" an MA technique? If so, then why wouldn't it be ok for the "street fighter" to call it an MA technique?

[Bushido-Ruach]

So, if I practice the "haymaker," and spend hours mastering it, then will it "become" an MA technique? If so, then why wouldn't it be ok for the "street fighter" to call it an MA technique?

In my mind, if a street fighter practiced utilizing the hay maker as a part of a practiced system of responses to attacks, whether that system of responses were his own or from a traditional style of MA, then I would say yes....but to just walk up and hit someone with a haymaker, or be involved in a fight and throw out a haymaker.....I guess it depends upon your definition of a street fighter.

If we are just talking about joe blow on the street who just happens to get jumped and whips out a haymaker in self defense...but he doesn't make a practice of fighting...then I would say no. If a street fighter is one who regularly practices going out and starting fights just to see how good he is or to practice fighting...then the answer is yes.

[FitOrDie]

I think the very premise is faulty, as others have said. To answer the question, any form of engaging violence can be considered martial arts. (That means any offensive or defensive technique outside of running away.) Some techniques will be more technical than others.

However, trying to "label" these things is trying to make catergories out of far too infinite a spectrum of human movement and interaction, with the standards and rules of said categorization varying from individual to individual. This is why I dislike the term martial arts, and prefer the word "fighting."