Sport or Martial Art?

In that I think you have the answer, categorization has to be personal, not at art level.

e.g boxing could be considered sport or martial art, 1 person may train because they want to be champ and that's all there is too it, they are training a sport... Another person trains the same way as the first, but their intention is to improve their ability to defend themselves, that is martial - same training equals different outcomes based on purpose, and that can only ever be personal

 

I think the only difference between martial art and sport is what's trained out of the art for competitive purposes and whether everything else is excluded just to focus on the competitive aspect.

Normally when people bring up this sort of subject it's MMA vs whatever traditional art, but people tend to exclude the point that MMA is made up of several traditional arts in the first place. It just takes what is good about specific arts and strips away what it doesn't need. It doesn't make it any less viable however. Actually in this sense it is like alot of other martial arts. Somewhere along the line they all have taken something from another but evolved and adapted to a way that suits the style.

In general it's a bit silly to say a style is not a martial art just because there is a competitive aspect to it. The competition, in general, is just another aspect of the training and self betterment (I'm not sure if that's even a word but just roll with it).

 

ahhahahaha... only on the internet do you get people flailing around with such semantics and taking it sooooooooooo seriously. You lot are like a bunch of bloody bean counters with neat little labels and nifty little drawers that black and white things fit neatly in. Try that face to face and you're either getting taken down and smashed in the gob or laughed at like a tool. So much for your semantic heavy theories.

Seriously... so much hullabaloo about nada.

 

Again the point I was arguing!

And without meaningless semantics every forum would curl up and die!! :evil:

 

Sure. I don't practice boxing because I have any intent on competing. I practice boxing because I believe it's important to my ability to hit someone, whatever the circumstance. Once again, I'll trot out Yoda's quote: If you can't hit my head with a boxing glove, what makes you think you can hit my eye with your fingers?

 

i would like to practice boxing cos it looks fun.
a lot of us just find MA/Sport/whatever to be fun and enjoyable.
same with aikido or koryuu.

 

I think that more arguments have been started, and time wasted, over semantics than anything else on-line. Trying to pigeon-hole things into an exact definition is a waste of time and effort in my opinion. It depends too much on the context. I'll give you an example ... my primary art is Japanese sword. The school was formed in 1693, and is still taught the same way its been handed down since then. I enjoy going to competitions every year where you do forms for judges and cut targets in predetermined patterns. That's all that I will ever actually be using my sword skills for as we don't use them in our society today. Since all I'll be using it for is competition, and my own edification, does that make it a sport, or a martial art?

 

Let's be fair though - since we are communicating by means of words on screen, it's pretty much inevitable that semantics will enter the picture every now and again.

There is, of course, such a thing as "too much of a good thing."

 

Exactly

 

I determine this by assessing the intended outcome for myself versus my opponent.

As long as I---or the rules--- are concerned for the well-being of the other person its a sport. In the absence of that concern its a Military Science (practical behavior) or Martial Art (personal growth). In traditional Korean sword, most people go for KUMDO which is essentially Koreanized KENDO. There are rules and points and trophies and safety is paramont. In Korean GUEM BEOP we cut targets instead of cutting Human Beings and pursue perfection in execution with our partner rather than mayhem. As in your case P, I don't see a time any time soon where I will be using my sword in a social context. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

There isn't. Skill is an art all in itself. Whether it's jumping over a hurdle or throwing a roundhouse kick both still are an art in and of themselves. People who cling too much to the stereotype of what they are doing tend to lose focus over what really matters. I'm just as much of a fan of a good koryu weapons demo as I am of watching someone with a nice rear straight score a knockout in the ring.

 

It's hard to win when you're sucking for air and your opponent(s) are still fresh and eager to thump you.

"Fatigue makes cowards of us all." - Vince Lombardi

Claiming physical preparedness is not a factor in a real fight is a warning sign that you don't really understand what real fighting is all about.

I'd be more worried about the tough ones with training.

 

When you throw another Judoka who is well versed in ukemi and knows how to land they're bound to be fairly safe. When you throw an untrained opponent onto a hard street chances are they aren't popping back up too quick. There's no bigger fist to hit someone with than the Earth itself.

 

Who, exactly? I'd be amazed to find you come up with someone who can even begin to run with anyone at the top of any combative skillset with no training. I'm expecting someone with a shady history full of embellishment like Miyamoto Musashi here.

The aim is to control your opponent. It's focused on a particular skillset is all. Just like boxing or any other specialized combat sport. Noone is saying judo alone will make you a rounded fighter but I don't think it needs to in order to be martial or to be relevant outside of a sporting context.

 

martial: of, relating to, or suited for war or combat.

art definition: The expression or application of human creative skill.

martial arts =techniques of skill for warfare or combat.

baseball is not martial. carjacking is not martial. ihop is not martial.
I don't see where any confusion comes from over what is and ins't.

boxing and wrestling have been used for warfare since the beginning of time. so yes they are the most martial of martial arts.

often the most simple solution is the best.

 

And the thing that most people don't realize is that Musashi grew up a samurai, which means he began training in the warrior arts around age 5 or 6.

 

If you translate the norwegian term for martial art, it's actually Martial sport. So in norway, it's the opposite problem, every martial venture is defined as a sport.

In the perfect world, all languages would have two terms, martial arts and martial sports

Then one could start discussing what martial ventures are sports and what are arts

 

As PASmith said in the first response, I think "martial art" should be an inclusive and not exclusive term. If it's martial in origin and it is a skill that can be learned and performed, then it's a martial art. Whether or not it is a sport and whether or not it is practically martial now, in my opinion, have nothing to do with it.

That means that iaido, which is neither a competitive sport nor practically martial, is a martial art; that fencing, which is a competitive sport but is not practically martial, is a martial art; that krav maga, which is not a competitive sport but seems to be practically martial, is a martial art; and that BJJ, which is a competitive sport and seems to be practically martial, is a martial art.

They're all martial arts. It's the only thing that makes sense, I think. Otherwise our definition of martial art ends up depending on arbitrary distinctions which are not always clearly defined.

 

Just saw this now and I think this is the right answer. What your training is to you is all about your intentions. If you always try to see your partner as an opponent with serious intentions of causing you harm and/or death and maintain that attitude in your training then any pursuit geared towards that cause can be considered martial.