A lot of debate in the world of Martial Arts derives from the semantics of certain terms and how they are used. One of the most commonly disputed terms in these debates is 'Martial Arts' itself. There are several reasons for this, including not least the preconceptions of those who do and those who do not participate in any practice that may be categorised as a genre of Martial Arts. It is therefore of little use to canvass the opinions of practitioners or non-practitioners of any given activity in this field, as it is a genre more prone than most to propagating fallacies. A more suitable method may be the application of logical process, though widespread consensus should be recognised. A typical attempt to define Martial Arts (Hereafter MA) cites a definition of the component words, 'Martial', and then 'Arts', compiling the two results. This both overlooks the distinct use of the two words together and also fails to identify where and why certain grey areas appear at the edges of the genre. This approach does, however, provide a serviceable starting point and will therefore be employed here to provide a broad guide to what types of practice may fall under the category of MA. From this starting point I intend to compare arts, activities and practices, largely in pairs, in order to clarify the borders that appear to separate MA from other activities and hence where the definition applies. In this consideration, any reference to a practice will be to that of the highest level, to avoid questions of authenticity or ability. Oxford Dictionaries Online defines ‘Martial’ as: “relating to fighting or war”; and ‘Art’ as: “the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power”. (http://oxforddictionaries.com/searc...&searchUri=All&q=martial&contentVersion=WORLD) (http://oxforddictionaries.com/searc...true&searchUri=All&q=art&contentVersion=WORLD) As a broad starting point then, it seems reasonable to consider Martial Arts to be ‘the application of human skill to fighting or war’. Let us consider two activities as a test case - Practising Shotokan Karate and Writing an Article. In the eyes of both those who perform either of these activities and in the eyes of the wider General Public, Shotokan Karate would be seen as a MA, while Writing an Article would not. At this most basic of divisions, our starting point definition seems sound enough, as Shotokan Karate can easily be identified as the application of human skill to fighting, whereas the act of Writing (ignoring the content) cannot. If this definition works, then does it need to be embellished or probed further? In short, yes. Not only are there activities that are more contentious for the MA label than Shotokan, but even part of our initial definition was bypassed in the first comparison. The word ‘Martial’ derives from Mars, the God of War and it is often supposed that a MA must be suited for War. However, Shotokan Karate, which initially met our requirement as a MA, has never been the primary weapon of any documented military force. Developed by Funakoshi long after the invention and global spread of firearms, there is no reason for ‘empty hand’ to be the primary weapon for any standing army. Conversely, there are practices within the military that do not purport to be, nor are recognised as, MA. Does this mean that Shotokan should not be considered a genuine MA, or does the definition need to be revised? If the definition were refined to ‘the human application of skill to war’, at the expense of Shotokan Karate, then some or all military practice would have to be defined as MA. MAs are often associated with, and promoted as, a form of discipline. If discipline in those preparing for war is considered, how well does this fit with the image of MA? All standing armies of nation states are well versed in polishing boots and parading in formation. Whilst this may sit well with the idea of discipline, it does not seem to fit the idea of ‘the application of human skill to fighting or war’ and certainly not to the extent that Shotokan Karate appears to be. If the assault course training of military personnel is compared with the fitness training of a Karateka, then the similar aims of improved overall physical ability suggest that neither should be considered a part of MA at the exclusion of the other. In which case, perhaps the necessary aspect of the military to examine is the primary function, that of combat. A lot of military personnel are employed to support the front line troops as necessary and would therefore be excluded from this consideration. Just examining those troops directly entering combat, the primary physical weapon for modern armies is the gun, either carried individually or in the form of artillery. In the perception of the wider general public, however, if asked whether Shotokan Karate or target shooting were a MA, the most likely response is Karate. The same result is to be expected if asked to choose between Shotokan and performing Military manoeuvres. However, if asked to consider an Army’s Close Quarter Combat programme and Shotokan Karate, with the possibility of one, both, or neither being an MA, the likelihood is that more respondents would consider both (albeit with more perceiving Karate than CQC) to be a MA. The perception is that training to shoot at a distance is not a ‘Martial Art’ as such. Although the word Martial derives from Military use as in War, its attachment to the word Art has created a division. In order for a Military practice to be considered a MA, that element must meet the requirements of the definition in its own right, as being a military practice alone is not enough. At this stage it is therefore reasonable to remove ‘war’ from the initial broad definition, leaving MA as: ‘the application of human skill to fighting’. While this has simplified the definition, the suggestion that only certain types of fighting may be included demands further investigation. Although the term ‘war’ has been removed, if fighting is included then the activity of those employed to engage in combat must be considered. For the purpose of clarity, such activity will be referred to as ‘Soldiering’ in this article. As the perception of soldiering using long range weapons is not regarded by the general public as MA, then we will first examine the art of soldiering when close quarter fighting was the most common range. The Hoplites famously achieved success in battle using spears and circular shields, fighting in a Phalanx formation. While a practitioner of Fujian White Crane Kung Fu may also be trained to fight with a spear, there is a significant difference between them and the Hoplite. The perception of the Martial Artist is that they train to fight alone, rather than as part of a unit. Whilst the fallibility of perception in MA has been noted, it should be observed how large a proportion of the activity trained, instructed, advertised and more widely regarded to be MA, is done so as a form of physical self-defence. This is where MA and soldiering appear to diverge. If a skill is used primarily to be the aggressor, is it possible to be classed as MA? Fujian White Crane is promoted as a form of defence; an equally skilled spear-hunter, however, would likely not be considered either by himself or by others as a Martial Artist. If a Fujian White Crane practitioner used her training to defend herself from a wild animal, killing it in the process, this would not deter from the perception of this training as a MA. If anything, this would most likely be held as an example of the effectiveness of this practice as a MA. This perception is therefore self-reinforcing, that the self-defence aspect of MA needs to be recognised as an intrinsic element. If the aspect of self-defence is pursued (without yet amending the running definition), two key features may be found. Self-defence is trained primarily with only one intended defender, and already at close quarters. By training to fight in formation, the Hoplites would not be considered to be training in a MA. Equally, the target shooting of a modern soldier would not be considered a MA. Long range weapon training as a primary form of engagement, would similarly not be included. It is often said by those who train an activity described as MA that the best defence is not being there, and that second best is to run. Target archery is conducted from a distance where disengaging is easier than engaging and would therefore not be included. Activities such as Airsoft or Paintball may help train the attributes of Soldiering. However, due to the range and expectation of group participation, these would not be included as MA if self-defence is added to the definition. Close Quarter Combat, as taught to military personnel, is a means of fighting without the use of a primary weapon. As an application of human skill to fighting, which also meets the self-defence requirements, this activity would fit the definition and be classed as a MA. The definition therefore supports the consensus view that Shotokan Karate and Fujian White Crane Kung Fu are MAs, whereas the training of a Hoplite or an archer is not a MA. If the Japanese practice of Kendo is evaluated against the running definition, it is an application of human skill, it pertains to fighting, but does not hold much value in the sphere of practical self-defence. It should therefore not be classified as a MA. However, the view of practitioners and non-practitioners is that Kendo is a MA. How then can this discrepancy be reconciled? One possible way, is by rejecting the notion of self-defence, and replacing it with the two key features of self-defence identified above. By being practised for use by an individual and at close quarters, Kendo also exhibits both of these features. As this does not affect the categorisations previously made, the definition of a MA may be updated to: ‘the application of human skill to individual, close-quarter fighting’. Outside of military use, the only activities so far to meet the requirements of the definition of a MA have so far been those originating in the Far East. These examples were chosen partly to meet the public perception of MAs as an Asian phenomenon in order to more easily progress towards a definition. However, other activities should also be assessed if this definition is to have any merit. The view of MA as an Asian pursuit has largely been influenced by the media, as exposure grew during the Twentieth Century, as well as for training methodology reasons. The importance of discipline and character-building in MA has already been noted. However, among those who practise in this field, there are two different approaches to achieving the more internal goals. The method employed by many Asian MAs, having grown in more Confucian, hierarchical cultures, is to train internal goals as an end in themselves. This includes one or more of the practice of kata or forms, meditation or breathing exercises, and a very clear teacher/student relationship. These are often referred to as Traditional Martial Arts (TMAs) and are typically how the wider public perceives MA training. The alternative approach is known as Modern Martial Arts (MMAs). Although the denotation suggests one is more recent, there is a great deal of overlap and the word ‘traditional’ really refers more to a ritualistic style rather than an ancient one. Much as ‘classical music’ is still being written today, long after the invention of jazz and popular styles, new MA styles are still being developed that maintain this ritualistic method. Conversely MMAs, some of which are also ancient, seek to promote internal goals by focusing only on the application of fighting skills. Within these activities, character is most usually built in a competitive sportive environment. How well then do these activities sit with the running definition of a MA? Greco-Roman Wrestling does not feature any of the more aesthetic elements, outside of fighting itself, that the TMAs exhibit. When tested against the definition, Greco-Roman is an application of human skill, is practised by individual competitors, is conducted at close quarters and pertains to fighting. What this activity may not display as prominently as Shotokan and Fujian White Crane do, is the component of the original definition of the word ‘Art’, “typically in a visual form...to be appreciated for their beauty.” Whilst this may affect the judgment of those who have little or no knowledge of the activity, it does not prevent Greco-Roman Wrestling from meeting the requirements of the definition and being classified as a MA. Although some may find the performances of some TMAs more appealing, this is a matter of personal taste and the question of ‘what is Art’, as opposed to MA, is far beyond the scope of this article. What is more likely to cause a semantic difficulty is that while Shotokan Karate exists as an overall set of practices, including Kata, self-defence and competition, Greco-Roman Wrestling is very much a sport. Sport MAs such as this exist in the shaded area of the Venn diagram that is both sports and MAs. In this shaded area we would find other individual close range combat sports, including Boxing, Muay Thai, Savate, Modern Fencing and Kendo. Due to the popular connection between MAs and self-defence, some arts are given a greater sense of credibility due to their effectiveness outside of the competitive arena or training room. However, unless the activity is being promoted as applicable self-defence, then it does not need to be. The full contact training of a Rugby player may be much better training for protection against an unarmed assault than Modern Fencing, but while they are both sports, only Fencing is also combative training. Away from the subject of sportive MAs, there are borders at the edge of MA with more esoteric practices. Bikram Yoga does offers self-development, but as it does not apply to fighting, is not in itself a MA. Yoshinkan Aikido is a MA, however the Ki Society, with Aikido roots, has internalised its focus to pull it out of the realm of MA. A similar situation is found with many schools of Tai Chi; those taught purely for health, with no application of fighting skill are not MA. This last example appears to fit both with the public perception of Tai Chi as something other than a MA, but with those practising combative applications to consider it a Martial Art. The final test of this definition then, is to consider the opposite angle, that of an untrained fighter, practising individual, close-quarter fighting. While this person may have talent, if she is not training, then it cannot truly be said to be the application of human skill, rather than a natural ability or aggression. This is the same type of strength seen in the rugby player, applied without the skillset and it is skill, not force, which lies at the heart of MA. As every instructor I have met has articulated: It is all about technique. It seems therefore that for an activity to be considered a Martial Art, it must be a systemised process, though the history of the system may vary. Whether a sport, or not; whether originating in the Far East, or not; and whether actively promoting self-development or allowing that to occur as a by-product of training, for an activity to be a Martial Art, it must meet the definition of ‘the application of human skill to individual, close-quarter fighting’.
Good article! But a few critiques: (1) Distancing Shotokan from military training was an odd choice, as it's heavily used by the Japanese military: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_zmL6BRCOA"]YouTube- Japan Military Shotokan Karate[/ame] . No, it's not the "primary weapon" of the military, but no unarmed art has been since cavemen first tied sharp rocks to long sticks. (2) "MMA" stands for "mixed martial arts," not "modern martial arts." It's defining characteristic is not modern-ness (many would agree that Pankration in the ancient Greek Olympics was MMA) but full-contact competition incorporating a mix of both striking and grappling. (3) Removing "war" from the meaning of martial arts and leaving ONLY civilian self-defense arts removes the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program (MCMAP) and many traditional Japanese and European sword arts from the definition of "martial arts." I can't agree with that. (4) Placing a "close-quarter" requirement in eliminates Kyudo, zen archery, from being a "martial art," even though it's almost universally referred to as a martial art. Kuk Sool Won also includes archery, if I recall correctly.
Thanks. My choice of Shotokan was twofold - one, as mentioned later in the article, that I wanted arts that are widely regarded as MAs to start with. Secondly, for the translation as 'empty hand'. Exactly as you say, no unarmed system is the primary weapon, so I wanted a definition that did not rely on 'military use', hence my use of the term 'soldiering'. Nice footage of Shotokan though - I was aware that there was some use, but not extensive. I did worry about this as I wrote (I'm new to this game). You can tell from what I wrote that I'm aware that MMAs are at least as old as TMAs, but did not want to draw in the Mixed Martial Art connotations - I have seen MMA referred to as 'Modern', though this may have been in error - I wanted to summse the non-ritualistic arts, wrestling, Krav Maga etc. Apologies if it was not clear. Not at all - you see in the article that I amend the definition to not only self-defence, but using those 2 features - individual not group, and close-quarters not long range. European sword arts fit, as does MCMAP - I even refer to Close Quarter army combatives in there somewhere. As for the Kuk Sool Won element, I wanted to elaborate on this, but was trying to limit myself to 2,500 (went just over). My understanding as I came out of this process - and I did change my mind quite a lot from my starting point as I investigated - is that a Martial Art may include long range, but this should not be the focus. So if throwing stars or blowpipes, or in this case bow and arrow, are part of the arsenal, that does not detract from the overall system being a Martial Art. However, if a specialist focused only on the long range aspect, as with health only Tai Chi, this would deviate from the world of MA. I am not familiar with zen archery. From the name I suspect tha if that is the whole styles, then it will not fit my definition and we may simply disagree. I will look into it though as I love learning about new arts. (thank you bank holiday monday!) And thank you very much for the feedback. Cheers Van Zandt - means a lot coming from Robo-Wallace!! MN
A very detailed and insightful post. I tend to think of MA much simply: as an activity. An activity where the goal is to: be able to subdue/dispatch my opponent with minimal (or no) injuries to myself. Pedantries aside, this definition is the mindset I bring with me when I approach a training session. How can I execute my technique, as technique's are simply efficient movements honed to apply maximal force with minimal effort, such that I accomplish my goal of subdueing/dispatching my opponent? Anyway, those are my two cents. I tend to favour a Spartan/minimalist approach to MA. All other considerations, like Mind (if the mind even exists) and Body are secondary.
But at least with battlefield styles as opposed to dueling styles, European swords arts were historically taught with group, not just individual, combat in mind. For example, under your definition, this would be "martial arts"... [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9xZ3XnWKpg"]YouTube- SCA 2008 Darach Armored Finals Sven vs Rhys[/ame] ...but this would not be: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kre4HwdD4tk"]YouTube- SCA Potrero War 2008[/ame] Since these are two different sort of events of the same training regiment (SCA heavy fighting), your distinction doesn't make sense to me. And MCMAP, which you agree is a martial art, also involves a lot of group-versus-group fighting: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAGdtn1eSKk"]YouTube- Human Weapon MCMAP - Final Battle[/ame] (start at 1:33). I've also seen a video of a ten-versus-ten (or so) MCMAP group combat, but now I can't find it. Regardless,so the individual-versus-group distinction in your definition of martial arts, just like the melee-versus-ranged distinction, doesn't make sense to me.
