Hey Jim, good to see you back…hope you have been well.
This is a good discussion.
Jim asks
So what's the art in question that isn't a 'direct' fighting art?
The question is a good one.
Lets look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_arts
The bottom line is that if you are going to call an art ‘Martial’ then it is a fighting art…and developed with fighting as and end use.
Now we can define ‘fighting’ in many ways…semantics again…
Martial arts are systems of codified practices and traditions of training for combat. While they may be studied for various reasons, martial arts share a single objective: to physically defeat other persons and to defend oneself or others from physical threat.
It seems clear to me from that description that ‘self defense’ is inherent in ‘Martial’ ….
The term martial arts refers to the art of warfare (from Mars, the god of war). It comes from a 15th-century European term for fighting arts now known as historical European martial arts. A practitioner of martial arts is referred to as a martial artist.
Are martial arts useful for reasons other than fighting or self defense?
In addition, some martial arts are linked to beliefs such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Daoism, Confucianism or Shinto while others follow a particular code of honor. Many arts are also practised competitively, most commonly as combat sports, but may also take the form of dance.
So we have an answer here. These arts are made up of a number of components.
Some practitioners chose to follow the path of some of the components as opposed to others, for their own reasons.
But
While each style has unique facets that make it different from other martial arts, a common characteristic is the systemization of fighting techniques. Methods of training vary and may include sparring (simulated combat) or formal sets or routines of techniques known as forms or kata. Forms are especially common in the Asian and Asian-derived martial arts.[1]
So it is clear to me that_ ‘They’ are all ‘combative’ arts as Jim points out.
Combative defines ‘disposed to fight’ ….no getting around it.
Steve also makes good points when he states
my aikido teacher is a good example. he taught shi shin toitsu aikido founded by Koichi Tohei.
now many will teach Aiki as a form of fighting but my teacher didnt. he would constantly remind us that the training is for "life" and KI develpoment ,if you want self defense go buy a gun.
many practice Tai Chi for its health benifits. some do it as a fighting art but again as example my aunt teaches Tai chi in a holistic health center she owns and has no expectations about self defense.
many Tai kwon do schools focus only on the olympics. there focus is on trophys not street fighting.
Some practitioners will drop the ‘fighting’ component, yes…but if we ask them ‘can you defend yourself with what you practice, assuming you had to’
What will their answer be?
And if we ask them to explain and define ‘self defense’ …what answer would they give?
And if we ask them where they learned their definitions of self defense, the meaning of street defense, what would their answer be?
And if we ask them, who happen to own a dojo, what would they tell a prospective student who wants to join their school to learn self defense…say a battered woman who needs to learn to protect herself, what would they tell them?
Good discussion.
