What is a martial art?

[OneKickWonder]

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).

Very good points well made. Thanks.

[MatsuShinshii]

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!!

Did not know I was giving a dictionary definition. That was from a martial artist... Me.

[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!!

Did not know I was giving a dictionary definition. That was from a martial artist... Me.

No...I, me, myself was just making a general comment; I wasn't referring to you or anyone specifically.

[sensei8]

Far far away in a land beyond the clouds, our Soke was once asked this very burning question...

What is the Martial Arts?

His answer was...

"The Martial Arts is something that will get you killed if you don't know what you are doing!!"

Let that sink; he might have something there.

[OneKickWonder]

"The Martial Arts is something that will get you killed if you don't know what you are doing!!"

That's why most of us pay someone who does know what they're doing to share that knowledge with us.

It's just unfortunate that many prefer to withhold that knowledge, or disguise the fact that they know less than they'd like us to believe by being intentionally cryptic while pretending they're doing their students a favour by letting them work it out for themselves.

I think this is an issue with traditional martial arts in this day and age. The old cryptic sage approach probably worked well 100 years ago, when a master had one or two students, and there were very few teachers around. Nowadays we have a wealth of information readily available from many sources covering many styles. The MMA guys have capitalised on this and done exceptionally well in many aspects of combat and fitness and such. Armies the world over capitalise on it and train their soldiers in a very short time to be effective at real aspects of combat and restraint and crowd control etc. The more orthodox traditionalists still hang on to the cryptic old sage approach and it's great (I subscribe to it myself to some extent). That's great for spiritual development but for anyone wanting to learn the fighting arts it's a very outdated approach.

[Ondrej]

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.

martial arts refers to all of the various systems of training for combat that have been arranged or systematized

[MatsuShinshii]

"The Martial Arts is something that will get you killed if you don't know what you are doing!!"

That's why most of us pay someone who does know what they're doing to share that knowledge with us.

It's just unfortunate that many prefer to withhold that knowledge, or disguise the fact that they know less than they'd like us to believe by being intentionally cryptic while pretending they're doing their students a favour by letting them work it out for themselves.

I think this is an issue with traditional martial arts in this day and age. The old cryptic sage approach probably worked well 100 years ago, when a master had one or two students, and there were very few teachers around. Nowadays we have a wealth of information readily available from many sources covering many styles. The MMA guys have capitalised on this and done exceptionally well in many aspects of combat and fitness and such. Armies the world over capitalise on it and train their soldiers in a very short time to be effective at real aspects of combat and restraint and crowd control etc. The more orthodox traditionalists still hang on to the cryptic old sage approach and it's great (I subscribe to it myself to some extent). That's great for spiritual development but for anyone wanting to learn the fighting arts it's a very outdated approach.

To the bold; I disagree with your assessment of traditional. Traditional in my terminology vs. what most modern schools that consider themselves traditional is totally different.

Traditional or what I term as old school is not the western societies coinage of the word. There are no mystic sages holding back knowledge. To the contrary. Before the recent boom in "Bunkai" (wrong usage of the word by the way) our teachers were teaching Tichiki. They also did not hold back the "hidden or secret" dangerous techniques.

I think your confusing traditional with modern western instructors that do not know these techniques and thus tell their students that learning on your own is the way it's done. This teaching methodology is often confused with an old school teacher wanting their students to develop analytical thinking and development. Yes we do give our students leeway when it comes to self discovery but the foundation is already there and NOTHING is held back.

This is primarily the reasoning behind not taking on anyone under the age of 16. Of course that rule does take into consideration their maturity level so there are no guarantees of acceptance no matter the age. It really falls down to responsibility of the instructor to identify those that are mature enough to learn those "hidden or secret or deadly" techniques.

There is nothing secret nor hidden in the arts unless you don't know the techniques/applications in the first place. Then you say these catch phrases to cover your ignorance. However there are deadly techniques that are taught to mature responsible students.

There in lies the problem and the adage "hidden or secret" when it comes to teaching those not able to handle or responsible enough to be taught these techniques. Although you have to know them first. Teaching children how to crush the trachea or to strike certain Chibudi points (arteries, veins, nerves, tendons, ligaments, and vital organs), etc. is not what a responsible teacher does and thus, for these teachers, the term "hidden or secret" is used so as to hold off until the maturity level is reached.

Traditional? Depends on your definition.

[singularity6]

Perhaps I take things a bit literally, but here I go.

The very definition of "martial art" to me is "combat art," which encompasses 2 things - fighting, and a stylized structure.

I'm pretty sure we can all agree on the fighting part... It's the second where some discussion is usually had. Some folks might say that karate, tae kwon do, kung fu, etc are the true martial arts while boxing, jeet kun do and krav maga are not. To me, it's not the actual style one practices, but how one practices it.

Bruce Lee said it best: "Absorb what is useful. Reject what is useless. Add what is essentially your own." All artists start out by copying/learning from others. True artists take their knowledge and experience, then add their own personal touch.

[Spartacus Maximus]

There are three basic points that define a “martial art” versus just a collection of techniques.

The first is structure or codification. Techniques are identified and trained in an order. It also means that there is some kind of logical progression.

The second point that identifies a martial art is that its purpose or its roots are in fighting of some sort. This could be battle, personal defense or duelling.

The third point is history. An art must have a history, background and a lineage. It does not have to stretch back hundreds of years, but it must be identifiable.

[OneKickWonder]

There are three basic points that define a “martial art” versus just a collection of techniques.

The first is structure or codification. Techniques are identified and trained in an order. It also means that there is some kind of logical progression.

The second point that identifies a martial art is that its purpose or its roots are in fighting of some sort. This could be battle, personal defense or duelling.

The third point is history. An art must have a history, background and a lineage. It does not have to stretch back hundreds of years, but it must be identifiable.

If I start a club today, and call it One kick wonder ryu, and teach first a regular roundhouse kick off the back leg, then when my students get that, teach them to do it off the leading leg, then at brown belt give them jumping roundhouse then 360 jumping roundhouse etc. Would one kick wonder ryu be a martial art? It would have everything you say defines a martial art. It would have history. If I open the club today, it will have history by tomorrow. It will have a codified system. My students only get the different variants of the one kick as they advance through the grades. And it has lineage. I currently train in tang soo do but have in the past also trained in wado and king fu, all of which have the roundhouse kick in them.