Author: Bret Gordon
So lately I've been getting myself in trouble, for the purpose of research, on several martial arts forums. The most recent occasion was when someone posted a video of XMA-style bo twirling, showing off their dexterity and ability. I remarked that it was "exceptional for what it is, but it's not martial arts." Don't get me wrong. It takes a tremendous amount of skill, talent, practice, dedication and commitment to able to perform what was being displayed, and there is a place for it.
To me, though, in order for something to be classified as a martial art, it should be martial in nature. This means that it should have at the very least combative application, if not actively training for combative scenarios. When training for survival and combat, efficiency of motion is paramount and simplicity is key. There is no combative application for flips, cartwheels, rolling the weapon around your neck, etc. Now, those that defend the validity of such training say that it falls into the "art" portion of martial arts. However, I'd like to demonstrate how even that is a misinterpretation of what it means to be a martial art.
To me, though, in order for something to be classified as a martial art, it should be martial in nature. This means that it should have at the very least combative application, if not actively training for combative scenarios. When training for survival and combat, efficiency of motion is paramount and simplicity is key. There is no combative application for flips, cartwheels, rolling the weapon around your neck, etc. Now, those that defend the validity of such training say that it falls into the "art" portion of martial arts. However, I'd like to demonstrate how even that is a misinterpretation of what it means to be a martial art.
