I've gotten ahead of myself; I've spent lots of time talking about the "martial arts" without defining what I mean by that phrase. I'm not going to get really fancy here; this blog isn't an attempt to re-imagine the concept as a whole. Rather, I'm primarily interested in exploring modern practice, so I'm going to try to capture the gist of the term as it is commonly understood.
In an effort to suss out the boundaries of what it means to be a "martial art" I present to you five different practices: kung fu, boxing, tai chi, wrestling, and yoga. Which of these, if any, represent a genuine martial art? My gut reaction is as follows:
- Kung fu: Without a doubt.
- Boxing: Yes, though its not often cast in that light.
- Tai chi: Maybe, but it's definitely an edge case.
- Wrestling: Iffy... I lean towards "no".
- Yoga: Definitely not.
So let's start with the easy distinctions: Why is kung-fu a martial art while yoga isn't? The essence, the driving principle underlying the practice of kung fu, is preparation for individual combat. Most of its practices are designed to prepare the practitioner for or are inspired by individual combat. In yoga, on the other hand, you have to strain very hard to hear even the faintest echo of anything martial.
How about the others? Why is boxing a definite yes but the others are sketchy at best? Bluntly, boxing is about beating the tar out of your oponents. In some sense its even more of a martial art than kung fu since it doesn't indulge in aesthetic or meditative practices. But can't the same be said of wrestling? Yes... sort of. I think of wrestling (Olympic, not WWE) like I think of tournament sparring... its an elaborate game of tag. Its not really suited for anything other than the controlled environment of competition. Though it could easily become a martial art; maybe we'll run across something like that in our explorations.
And tai chi... what to make of that? I'm of the understanding that most people practice it for its health benefits. But that's not an immediate disqualifier... many people practice the martial arts principly as a form of exercise. It's also true that, when you get really good at tai chi, you can engage others in unarmed combat. But that's more of an atavism reflecting tai chi's historic roots than a benefit which most practitioners seek to accrue.
Looking at what I've written above, I'd say that focus and intention matters an awful lot in determining whether something is a martial art. Can the practice in question legitimately claim to help you hold your own in a fight? That, I think, is the fundamental distinction. A person who boxes, or who does kung fun, will have a good set of tools at their disposal and will have practiced how to use them. A wrestler, or someone who does tai chi, has an incomplete set of tools and probably doesn't know how to use them in the real world.
So then, I think that a good definition is as follows: A martial art has, as an important focus, the preparation of the practitioner for individual combat in an uncontrolled setting. This definition seems to capture the common understanding fairly well.
1 comment:
Got to disagree on wrestling...it started as combat training and grappling skills (or how to deal with them) are fundamental to any combat system.
That said, I think the distinction you might have been looking to is is whether it is a "sport" or "a combat art" ( I would add a third category of "traditional practice."
Martial/Combat art: the focus is purely on combat aspect and the physical and mental conditioning, and continuous improvement of physiological/biomechanical and tactical rational, individualized specific approaches and techniques. Krav Maga is a perfect example. There is no confusion about rules or ancient forms: it either works or it does not.
Sport: training that is designed in accordance with accepted rules> Boxing, Tae Kwan Do, Kendo, MMA, wrestling are perfect examples
Traditional Art: devotion to the forms, movement and philosophy and maintaining its continued practice and appreciation. Shaolin Kung Fu, Yoga, and some karate come to mind.
It should be FULLY understood that practitioners of any of the above, can be highly effective fighters, or that there are not many god reasons for studying them rather than a combat centric form. Much of the conditioning, athleticism, and techniques of Sport and Art are clearly useful in combat and physical and mental conditioning for life in general.
That said, those forms and even more importantly the training is not combat centric, which directly inhibit the individual practitioner from achieving their personal optimal performance in combat. Everyone should choose with a clear mind of what they seek.
Post a Comment