What is a martial art?

[OneKickWonder]

Kind of a philosophical question I guess. I doubt there's a right or wrong answer. This is just pure interest.

But I was wondering, what is a martial art, and when is it not one.

First up, the term in its strictest sense, martial, as in pertaining to Mars, god of war. Art, as in skill set. Ergo, martial art is war skill.

So what makes a martial art, and when is it not one?

Taking karate as an example, we call it a martial art. But it has never been one. Gichin Funakoshi named his style karate, and then pushed it as civilian self defence, physical exercise and spiritual development. He tried to get the Japanese navy to adopt it but not with the intention of getting off the ship to fight hand to hand with their enemies, but rather as a means of keeping fit.

So is the most popular martial art in the world a martial art?

It is derived from earlier Okinawan arts, but these were mostly sports. Again not war fighting.

But here's the thing. These combat sports and acrobatic displays were based on actual combat skills from real soldiers and general thugs. So in that sense it very much is martial art or war skill.

Then I got to thinking, in another thread someone asks if archery is a martial art. Of course it is. Or is it? It is beyond shadow of doubt that 8th certainly was. There's a wealth of historical evidence depicting war with archers. But would it be a war skill now? Are there any people left in the world that would still go into battle with a bow? So it could be said that archery used to be a martial art, but is it still?

Sorry for my lengthy musings, and I really don't want to offend. I'm not suggesting that anybodys art is in some way not worthy. I'm just thinking purely in the meaning and philosophy of the terminology. And after this little mental/philosophical jolly, as far as I'm concerned karate is still a martial art.

[MatsuShinshii]

Kind of a philosophical question I guess. I doubt there's a right or wrong answer. This is just pure interest.

But I was wondering, what is a martial art, and when is it not one.

First up, the term in its strictest sense, martial, as in pertaining to Mars, god of war. Art, as in skill set. Ergo, martial art is war skill.

So what makes a martial art, and when is it not one?

A martial art is any systematic method of teaching combative skills.

Taking karate as an example, we call it a martial art. But it has never been one. Gichin Funakoshi named his style karate, and then pushed it as civilian self defence, physical exercise and spiritual development. He tried to get the Japanese navy to adopt it but not with the intention of getting off the ship to fight hand to hand with their enemies, but rather as a means of keeping fit.

I must correct you on your statement. The art of Ti (Ti'gwa) and Tegumi (Muto) that eventually became known as Tudi (Tode) after the okinawans incorporated Quan Fa, that eventually became known as Karate after being introduced to Japan was a purely combative art to begin with. The issue was the Japanese wanted it for the physical aspects and did not want any of the Chines aspects of the art so they discarded many elements of the art that made it a combative method.

After noticing the physiques of the Okinawans the Japanese wanted to adopt this training method to strengthen their soldiers. They reduced the art from a complete combat system to a striking only system, removing the other elements and created a training method to achieve the goal of physical fitness over the old methods of combat training.

And you are correct that Funakoshi altered the art to suite the needs of his students. However if you look at his earlier books you will notice elements of the original art he was taught (Tudi) before the eventual complete take over and alteration of the art to become Karate.

So is the most popular martial art in the world a martial art?

This is a tough one for me to tackle. If I think in terms of what arts are now called Karate the answer would be yes and no. Yes as far as the arts that altered their original training methods and joined the Dai Nippon Butokukai thus altering their arts to fit a systematic training curriculum based on physical fitness. If we are talking about those arts that did not join the DNB and maintained the methods of training and the passing down of the original methods then I'd say no. And before anyone states that they have changed over the last 150 + years, I would say that what I mean is staying strict to the ideals that the art is meant to defend and fight rather than the ideals that it's a sport or a way to stay in shape. That is not to say that each progressive instructor did not put their own stamp on the art thus slightly altering it.

It is derived from earlier Okinawan arts, but these were mostly sports. Again not war fighting.

Ok here is where we really differ. You couldn't be further from the truth. The fighting styles that "Karate" was derived from where never sports.

Here goes the novel and the history lesson... The Okinawan's had an indigenous striking art called Ti (Ti'gwa, Di) that was more or less a what most would call dirty boxing. Along came the Siamese Empire that started to trade goods with the Okinawan's (I can provide documentation in another post if you wish) and one of the things that was introduced was an art called Muay Boran. This was not a sport but a tested in combat martial art. This incorporated the other weapons of the body and a new methodology of utilizing then. The Okinawan's incorporated this into their strike art. Along with the empty hand arts the Siamese also introduced them to their weapons arts from which many of the so called farm implements were incorporated into their art (that's right, incorporated, not taught separately as it is in most arts today).

Along with Ti the Okinawan's also had another art form that was included into their method of striking. This art is called Tegumi (we call it Muto) for which I assume you are referring to as a sport. Yes this art form LATER became Okinawan Sumo but it did not start out as a sport but rather as a combat method of throwing an opponent to the ground, thus putting them in a vulnerable position on the battle field.

Later the Chinese started trading with the Okinawan's and introduced their fighting systems (empty hand and weapons systems). These arts (Five Ancestors, Five Animals, Lohan Quan, Gou Quan, Bai He Quan, Tiger Boxing, Lion Boxing, Dragon Boxing, Dishu Quan, Chin Na, Jiao Li, etc., etc. were not invented for sport but as a combat method.

All (and more, possible influence from Vietnam to name one) of these arts were created for one reason... combat. The guards and warriors of Okinawa, not the peasants, created the original arts of Ti and Tegumi and infused the other arts into one art that came to be known as Tudi (Tode) and later was categorized based on where it came from (Shuri, Tomari or Naha).

The fact of the matter... the Okinawan's were sponges and absorbed the combat fighting methods of others to create a very effective and polished combat art. Not a sport. Your history is a bit too far along. Dig deeper and further back beyond Itosu and Funakoshi. There in lies the truth and the history of the art.

The art was degraded primarily because Itosu wanted it to be taught to everyone (prior to Itosu the art was only taught to the warrior class and the royal class). His student Gichin Funakoshi later degraded it more to make it fit the Japanese ideals. The original combat system of Ti, Tegumi, Muay Boran and Quan Fa was stripped down to the basic elements of strike, punch, kick, block. And in case you were wondering, this is were the concept of "block" came to be. I'll save the details for another post.

Having said this, it was not a sport and never was developed as a sport. This came later with the creation of Karate under the Japanese direction.

However even though the majority of the arts under the name Karate are more sport based than combat based, it doesn't change the fact that it's a striking art and the main intention is to defend and if needed to maim or even kill the opponent. If thats not Martial I'm not sure what is.

But here's the thing. These combat sports and acrobatic displays were based on actual combat skills from real soldiers and general thugs. So in that sense it very much is martial art or war skill.

Agreed however acrobatic displays are a modern thing and not representative of what was taught pre-modernization of the art.

Sorry for my lengthy musings, and I really don't want to offend. I'm not suggesting that anybodys art is in some way not worthy. I'm just thinking purely in the meaning and philosophy of the terminology. And after this little mental/philosophical jolly, as far as I'm concerned karate is still a martial art.

Here is the thing, if you train in an art that teaches combative methods that can be used to defend, harm, maim or kill then you are practicing a martial art.

I agree that the way most arts are taught today are for reasons of sports, fitness and stress management. However if a priest goes to the rifle range and shoots a rifle does that mean that the rifle is no longer a weapon of war? No. It just means that it's practitioner has changed the intent via the reasons for participating in the weapon/art.

Just because 80% of modern day schools put a heavy emphasis on sports and fitness does not mean that the art doesn't still contain the original concepts and intents of it's founder. It really depends on your intent as a student of the art. If you are practicing the art to get fit then yes you could call it a fitness art. However if you practice the art with the intent on learning the methods that the founders passed down then you are studying a martial art. Semantics really, and it can be viewed as to the way it is perceived and practiced by the individual practitioner.

Just my 2 cents. For whatever that's worth.

Oh and I chose not to comment on the bow as a martial art because I had already put forth my thoughts in that post.

[bushido_man96]

MatsuShinshii, that is a very solid post. Great points all around, and I think you nailed the point. Could we split even more hairs on this topic? For sure. But, I think you've nailed it down very well.

[sensei8]

MatsuShinshii, that is a very solid post. Great points all around, and I think you nailed the point. Could we split even more hairs on this topic? For sure. But, I think you've nailed it down very well.

I agree most wholeheartedly with Brian!!

Now, there's the dictionary definition, then there's the MAist definition; oftentimes, they're both worlds apart!!

[bushido_man96]

MatsuShinshii, that is a very solid post. Great points all around, and I think you nailed the point. Could we split even more hairs on this topic? For sure. But, I think you've nailed it down very well.

I agree most wholeheartedly with Brian!!

Now, there's the dictionary definition, then there's the MAist definition; oftentimes, they're both worlds apart!!

Yes, I agree with that. I'm not a fan of the dictionary definition of what a Martial Art is. It obviously wasn't written by a Martial Artist.

[sensei8]

What is the MA, is like akin to what the air we breath is made of. There are many acceptable as well as many assumption answers to that very implied question.

Things like the MA, are very personal, therefore very sacred and guarded; to the breast of ones comfort, yet, without any self ambiguity whatsoever.

Many concentrate on the word "Martial", while others concentrate on the word "Art", and even then so, others concentrate on the words "Martial Arts"!! Not ever reaching a satisfactory acceptance from the masses.

Is that fair?? I just don't know!!

The summation of 'why' is to the summation of 'because' as to What is the Martial Arts!! As to...“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”

Of the three groups above, none is correct, and therefore, none is incorrect, whatsoever!! Their answers are their answers. And, until we, as MAists, can respectfully separate the forest from the trees, we'll continue to agree to disagree with this pointed question far beyond our existence.

[Higher Self]

MatsuShinshii, that was a great analogy about the priest going to the rifle range.

[Shizentai]

MatsuShinshii, that is a very solid post. Great points all around, and I think you nailed the point. Could we split even more hairs on this topic? For sure. But, I think you've nailed it down very well.

I agree most wholeheartedly with Brian!!

Now, there's the dictionary definition, then there's the MAist definition; oftentimes, they're both worlds apart!!

Yes, I agree with that. I'm not a fan of the dictionary definition of what a Martial Art is. It obviously wasn't written by a Martial Artist.

Agreed. Let us also not forget that the term "martial art" is a relatively modern and entirely western term, having been used by English speakers mostly after 1961 to describe the "exotic" and increasingly popular eastern fighting arts that already had more accurate unifying descriptors that make reference to ultimate point of training them (do, jutsu, etc.). In effect, 'martial art' is only used as a unified term for all fighting styles right now because it has social inertia. What gets called a marital art in English therefore isn't inherently meaningful because this is an after-the-fact descriptor of a culturally diverse and differt-goal set of fighting practices.

To the OP: There is karatedo, there is karatejutsu. Learn the difference, and it will lead you to the answers I think you are seeking.

[OneKickWonder]

MatsuShinshii, that is a very solid post. Great points all around, and I think you nailed the point. Could we split even more hairs on this topic? For sure. But, I think you've nailed it down very well.

I agree most wholeheartedly with Brian!!

Now, there's the dictionary definition, then there's the MAist definition; oftentimes, they're both worlds apart!!

Yes, I agree with that. I'm not a fan of the dictionary definition of what a Martial Art is. It obviously wasn't written by a Martial Artist.

Agreed. Let us also not forget that the term "martial art" is a relatively modern and entirely western term, having been used by English speakers mostly after 1961 to describe the "exotic" and increasingly popular eastern fighting arts that already had more accurate unifying descriptors that make reference to ultimate point of training them (do, jutsu, etc.). In effect, 'martial art' is only used as a unified term for all fighting styles right now because it has social inertia. What gets called a marital art in English therefore isn't inherently meaningful because this is an after-the-fact descriptor of a culturally diverse and differt-goal set of fighting practices.

To the OP: There is karatedo, there is karatejutsu. Learn the difference, and it will lead you to the answers I think you are seeking.

Hmm. The skeptic in me can't help but remember that the term karate do was coined by Gichin Funakoshi. Karate jutsu came later and was created by those that wanted to strip away what was seen by some as superfluous philosophy to focus exclusively on the violence aspect.

That same skeptic in me can't help but wonder how the term martial art could be an entirely western term that appeared in the 1960s, when it appears in the first chapter of a book written in the 1930s by a Japanese man of okinawan descent, again, none less than Gichin Funakoshi.

References: Kara-te-do kyohan by Gichin Funakoshi.

It is of course possible that the book is not really by Gichin Funakoshi, so I will of course consider points of views that conflict with it. But wouldn't that be a massive fraud if someone had gone to such lengths as to impersonate him, even to the extent of including a preface claiming to be written by his son, and copies of letters of correspondence claiming to be referencing Funakoshi's drive to bring karate to the masses.

[Shizentai]

Hmm. The skeptic in me can't help but remember that the term karate do was coined by Gichin Funakoshi. Karate jutsu came later and was created by those that wanted to strip away what was seen by some as superfluous philosophy to focus exclusively on the violence aspect.

While it's true that they were only applied to karate when karate came to the mainland, both jutsu and do predate Funakoshi's life. Either way, I'm not sure I see why this matters to my case, I only argue that conceptually the terms are worth thinking about in comparison to "martial art," which I will explain, is a newer term still, at least in how we use it today.

That same skeptic in me can't help but wonder how the term martial art could be an entirely western term that appeared in the 1960s, when it appears in the first chapter of a book written in the 1930s by a Japanese man of okinawan descent, again, none less than Gichin Funakoshi.

References: Kara-te-do kyohan by Gichin Funakoshi.

Skeptics welcome. I'll elaborate. Funakoshi never wrote the words "martial art" in his book because he never wrote a book in English. I assume you are reading the Kodansha English translation of Karate-do Kyohan (though correct me if I'm wrong). Let's see if I can find the date of the English translation in the front cover. Ah! "1973" Yep, it was right in the middle of the rapid rise in popularity of the term "martial art."

So why did the translator write "martial art" if Funakoshi never wrote "martial art" ? Well, it is hard to directly translate many abstract concepts between English and Japanese due to the extreme differences in language nuances between these highly distant language families. Translators often make the necessary decision to favor more commonly-used terms over more literal translations. Translations, just like original texts therefore vary with the times. This is how we end up with what we have here: a 1070's English translation of a 1930's original text book. This is nothing new. Take, for instance, Beowulf: banhus (lit. bone house) -> "body"

-but I digress-

The problem with assuming direct translation of the term "martial art" to how it was originally written by, say Gichin Funakoshi, is that off the top of my head I can think of at least three terms that get commonly translated as "martial art" when converted from Japanese to English (and yes, he was writing in Japanese for a Japanese audience when he composed that book, so it's a fair assumption). I'll list them here, though this is not an extensive list: 1. budo, 2. kobudo, 3. kakutogi

(I'd write them in Japanese so you could see kanji, but board rules, I'm not allowed)

Do these things mean the same thing? Absolutely not, but they all get called "martial art" in English for lack of a better familiar option. My whole reason for bringing this up is not to start some sort of one-ups-man-ship with "what term is older" so much as to point out some ways in which our thinking can be changed without us even knowing it. The words we use are powerful, and thinking in depth about them is important, but it's also important to remember where these terms come from, and where they don't come from, before burning them as holy incense for too long.

By the way, if you'd ever like to look up frequency of published term use over time, google has a free tool for that, at least since 1800:

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=martial+art&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cmartial%20art%3B%2Cc0

***edit***

Fyi, I just looked up the Japanese version of Karatedo kyohan as well, using my university library server, and Funakoshi discusses all three of these concepts I mentioned at different times in his book (budo, kakutogi, and kobudo).