I've always thought it not to be a Martial Art but rather, a 'combat style'. What are your thoughts? I guess it really comes down to someone's definition of what a 'martial art' is but from what I've learned, MT isn't necessarily an actual Martial Art. Not to say it doesn't deserve the same credit most other Martial Arts get, as it's extremely demanding and an amazing style, but I'd like to see some more discussion on this.
Yes, but I'd still like to get some opinions from other practitioners. I think the reason I brought it up is because there's a 'club' at the local university and I saw that one of the guys said something along the lines of 'taking the martial art more seriously' so it, along with other things, made me question the legitimacy of the club. Just wondering what others think.
well start off by what you define as a martial art, and then why Muay thai doesn't fit those credentials.
I guess I personally define it has a style of fighting with more structure, some form of ranking system, and generally develops a students skills over a period of time. Just my opinion since most martial arts fit this criteria. Muay Thai obviously has no ranking system and although many gyms do have structure of some sort, the training itself is usually less vertical than other martial arts. And I don't consider any boxing/kickboxing to be martial arts, although some may have been derived from certain martial arts. And if this thread has been done, sorry. I don't feel like bumping a thread that's months old or even years.
then as fish as said this has been done thousands of times, and its generally accepted as a martial art. many martial arts have no ranking systems or forms too...
just semantics. most people on here seem to agree with the definition of a martial art being: Martial Art - Skill of War aka something that teaches you combative skills. Wrestling is the world's oldest marital art yet it has no belt colours. The rankings are based on who fights the best. When i say martial art most people think something eastern and pyjama based. Sumo is an eastern martial art with no belt colours (like wrestling) and the only rankings are based on your win/lose record (like wrestling)
And to add to that, before Kano, there weren't really any ranks. Just Student, Student Who's Been There For A While, Assistant Instructor, Instructor, Grand Master of The Style. Sometimes it was only two ranks in a dojo.
Erm...wrong. For one you have the rankings at the major Thai stadiums (Lumpinee and Rajadamnern). You have world rankings too (of various sorts). You also have national rankings (top ranked in the UK for example). You also have the "Ajarn" title for a Thai coach. The difference is that those ranks are determined by actual combative achievement rather than some arbitary completion of grading criteria. And in addition some Thai clubs give ranks and grades under the "Khan" system (admittedly nicked from Karate/judo). People get a bit blinkered that a martial art must have been used in "war" and so discount sports or civilian combat arts as not being martial arts. But even there Thai stands up because it was used by Thai soldiers for fighting.
http://www.masterkelbowko.com/ranking/rank.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_arts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muay_Thai
I would think that the difference between a martial art and learning to fight would be that you are judged in fighting by how well you can fight and how many people you can beat no matter what the actions taken are and no matter their background. and your level or mastery is judged on that level. In a many martial arts you can be a black belt, but never be in a fight if you learn the form correctly. Also on a private note, I agree with the term coined by kelly Mccann. martial arts are something you do with someone, combat is something you do to someone. But that is just me, However in that light, muay thai is a martial art. If you go in a muay thai ring and grab the guy and throw him to the ground and bite him, you arent going to win.
there are several ranks before "kru" (coach) then adjarn. muay thai is a martial art. martial = war art = style or system combat style? same banana.
To add to what everyone else has said... there will always be an unspoken ranking system at most Muay Thai gyms worth their salt. The trainers will know who ranks where... there are several different ways to measure this... technical proficiency, gameness and the ability to employ technique while under stress are the three ones that immediately spring to mind. At a lot of gyms Muay Thai has become a social hour instead of proper training for fighters. Meh... it happens... in many cases that's why at a certain point it's good to find a more serious gym or train one-on-one with a coach. The whole semantics of what is and isn't a martial art is rather pointless. The model your putting forth with all it's preconceived notions is rather ill informed to say the least.
so basically your under the common misconception that if your not wearing the 18th centuries Japanese equivalent of a track suit, bowing and calling the instructor a foreign title and receiving coloured belts in a ranking system its not a martial art ? martial art is a terribly undefined term, there is no standardization to what it means at all, but all combat sports are by there very nature martial arts.
Generally, there is no formal ranking system. Yes, I know some teachers use prajiouds as opposed to belts and all styles do have, as slipthejab said, informal ranking in some sense.
I'm simply saying that I didn't really consider it a martial art because of the structure itself, just as I don't see Western Boxing to really fall under what many would consider 'martial arts'. Like others said, it is just semantics but I'm trying to see different opinions. I know a lot of people who would say Krav Maga isn't a martial art but i'm sure many here would say differently. Just depends on how you define it.
