Martial Arts versus Fighting?

No, it is NOT fair to call MMA martial arts, because it is a sport, instead of a combat form for real life situations, which is what makes martial arts martial arts! TRUE martial arts focus on not only the technical aspects, i.e the actual fighting techniques, but also include philosophy as a regular part of the training. A TRUE MARTIAL ARTIST recognizes that his art is not solely for the purpose of fighting, but rather for LIVING!!! in other words, the concepts and techniques he learns in the dojo are applied to everyday life, for the purpose of bettering oneself, instead of, as in the case of MMA, for the purpose of dominating other people.

TRUE martial arts teach people how to live their life in accordance and in harmony with the universe, at peace with the world, while also teaching how to SURVIVE, and how to live their life outside the training hall. this is what, i believe, separates koryu (traditional schools of martial arts) from modern forms, that are more a sport than anything else.

As for what distinguishes a TRUE martial artist from a 'fighter', i believe that while 'fighters' in the general sense seek only fighting and gaining advantage over other people, ignoring the spiritual aspects of martial arts, and focusing only on the techniques themselves, whereas TRUE martial artists, however, study diligently to learn of their place in the world, so that they can live in peace, only calling upon those techniques of self-defense if absolutely needed, and striving to maintain unity between themselves, the world, and other humans. That is what distinguishes TRUE martial artists from, as you put it, 'fighters' who are interested only in fighting, and gaining power over other people.

Hope this helps!!

Martial Arts implies a high level of skill and some scientific frame work.

Fighting is just conflict without necessarily any art to it. I guess you could call an unskilled fight a brawl.

Martial implies a regimented art form used in combat.

When you get into the Sport aspect of Martial Arts verses the combat or self defense there are decided differences by the nature of the goals of each. In Sport competition the opponents are merely trying to over power you or submit you. In self defense the opponent could be trying to take your life. In sport there are certain rules of engagement in self defense it is the rule of survival

by definition "martial" arts are the arts involved with combat in any form, whether it be one on one, ten on ten, or a thousand on a thousand, so your definition could include a general who studies military strategies

a fighter, by definition is one who fights; that could be an mma fighter, or a boxer, or anyone else who is a participant in an event defined as a "fight"

there is also a "combat athlete", who participates in "combat sports", usually any "sport" with close associations to cobat/fighting (wrestling, karate, sumo, boxing, kickboxing, etc.) I consider what we call MMA to be a combat sport

originally, the idea of Mixed martial arts was to combine multiple arts, taking the most effective techniques of each, get rid of the rest and create a sort of super style

the thing is nhb/mma fights are, by their nature, athletic contests, and so, not surpisingly, the most effective techniques turned out to be those associated with "combat sport" styles (eg. wrestling, kickboxing) as opposed to what are traditionally considered "martial arts" (eg. karate, kung fu)

as a result, at least 90 percent of what you see in MMA fights these days is a combination of wrestling, bjj, muy thai and boxing, with some judo from time to time; any of these can be considered a "martial art" in that, by definition, it focuses on fighting, but it's not a coincidence that these are all disciplines with heavy competition elements to them

"sport" is defined by its rules, and the techniques are adjusted to the competition, so that any martial art defined by its "sport" version will eventually adapt itself to the sport, rather than the reality

mma skills teach you to handle one single opponant who is the same size as you, unarmed, coming at you from the front. In addition, you are wearing limited clothing, you have your trainers watching you telling you what to do, there's a time limit, a referee to make sure your opponent follows the rules, and you knew ahead of time you were going to be fighting (sometimes months ahead of time)

that's a pretty specific situation, and the more specific a situation is, the less one is able to generalize the effectiveness to other situations; change any of those variables and the fighter has to use a whole different aproach

if an mma fighter is used to being able to expose the back of his head to punches, or getting a 5 minute rest after being hit in the groin, he'll be in trouble if he's in a real "no holds barred fight"

so, the name "mixed martial arts" is a bit misleading; i think of it more as a combat sport, and though it has signicant applications in the practice of martial arts, it really addresses only one small part of the bigger picture

The ultimate goal of a martial artist is to be able to fight. For example, when my school went to fight at tournaments. There are guys that go into full contact, guys that go into form competition, guys that go into weapon competition, other into breaking competition. But at the end of the day, the contact fighters are the one most celebrated.

Fighting is simply conflict. The "art" in "martial art" implies that there is a science behind it, a study of the subject matter. MMA fighters study their craft as much as anyone. While MMA itself is arguably a competition rule set or a training philosophy as opposed to a "style" in the classical sense, those who study MMA are at their core martial artists, because they're studying the science (techniques, strategies) of one-on-one unarmed fighting.

MMA is not a martial art but rather a sport that is defined by set guidelines, weight classes and rules. Within an authentic martial arts school there are no set guidelines, weight classes or rules when it comes to learning self defense. MMA teaches people to fight for glory and money. Martial arts teaches people to better their lives and learn self defense...not to use it for such a manner that is dishonorable as MMA.

Judomofo hit the nail on the head. I can't put it any better then he just explained. Great post.

DAAAAANNNGGGGG "Mofo", when does that book come out in publication? Seriously though, what he said from his "soap box " was EXACTLY right!!!!!

This is kind of broad in reality.

If you mean the difference between someone who studies Martial Arts as a hobby or a Professional Fighter, then there is a good bit of difference.

People have subjective views on these tops, mainly because of their own bias or feelings about one side of the other. I've been on both and yet I just have my opinions.

Honestly I don't think no matter what level I get to (I currently hold 2 Blackbelts, Nidan and a Shodan) I don't think I can presume to say distinctly what Martial Arts are all about. Because for each person it is different, they encompass and have a different meaning to different people.

I will see that in the strictest sense. Kata, Techniques, Forms, are about fighting. That is the purposes of the techniques. They were honed or developed in battle and competetion.

I think that many instructors also wished to pass their own philosophies into their teachings. The importance of this to the core of an art is arguable and different for people, as it is for different instructors. Every is entitled to their ideas because in reality Martial Arts is different things to different people. I think the philosophies and culture were more about building practioners into good people. People who could balance the struggles and learn how to fight, prepare for battle, yet not get so overwhelmed with it. It gave them balance, in general it is good.

I don't think Martial Arts holds the entire meaning of it's existance to these philosophies, nor do I think it is a prerequisite that it has to be taught or stressed in the dojo. I disagree with parents taking their kids to Martial Arts to instill some sort of discipline or values in them, instead of taking it upon themselves to teach their kids these skills on their own.

I think of Martial Arts now a days as a hobby for most people. Regardless if they are trying to make it a "way of life", it is still a hobby. They aren't out there using it, honing it, or faced with the everyday battles that many of these arts were forged in.

People fail to realize Martial Arts comes from and is forged in, and created for violence. For battles. In China and Japan there were constant battles, constant competetions between schools. Local matches were held constantly as to who the best style was or who the best school was, it was a matter of pride to be victorious in competetion. It brought honor to your instructor and school. You put that in with teaching a person how to be an honorable person in victory and it brought even greater honor.

MMA is modern Martial Arts competetion. These people also "live the life and walk the path". They do it in the tradition of the old warriors. Of the Samurai who fought in countless competetions during peace time. Of the Lei Tai champions of villages who sought to prove themselves, their skill and honor their school. They do it in the very basis of Martial Arts of forging their skills in the fire of heated conflict.

What amazes me are the same people who preach about MMA being a sport, and not " a way of life" are the same people who preach about eye gouging, knee kicking and "no rules on the street". As if their sheer brutality in combat with techniques they have never done, but because they "follow the way of life" of what they think is Bushido, Zen, or what have you they think that they are somehow superior. That what they are doing has more relevance, and further more makes them a more balanced and less violent person.

To me it doesn't. Aside from not having the warrior spirit to actually test yourself, your sole means of self defense relies on completely brutalizing, mauling and permanently injuring any attacker.

I can say with a 100% certainity due to the constant testing and honing of my technique, that I can incapicitate a would be attacker without causing him permanent harm.

I feel that my philosophy in this regard is much more harmonious then "avoid fight at all cost, but if must fight, then fight to kill". I would rather know how to deal with a person without killing them.

I think of fighters as having more self discipline than the hobbyist who has to recite lines from Hakagure. They have to eat a strict diet, they have to maintain a discipline to not injure their opponents and training partners in high intensity sparring sessions, they have to calm themselves and their minds in the heat of battle, they have to listen and respect their instructors, they have to trust those around them, their training partners, their instructors. They maintain a rigorous exercise and training regime and spend 3 times the amount of time working on techniques in an alive environment then you 1 and half hour per session, two to three time a week practitioner.

Fighters live a rigorous "way of life". They life the life of warriors, much like our soldiers. They find balance in many ways and life a far more disciplined and structured life then most people are willing to put up with.

Is there a distinction between a fighter and a Martial Artist?

I guess it depends, I think there are different types of Martial Artists, obviously those who compete and fight are certainly by any stretch of the imagination no less of Martial Artists, but in fact are truer to the actual roots of Martial Arts.

Those who do Martial Arts as a hobby and find the philosophies and morals it can teach as a guiding principle are certainly great people. Their practice of the Martial Arts and their journey towards bettering themselves in Martial Arts certainly makes them Martial Artist. They seek self enlightement and balance in the philosophies and cultures of the people who originated your Asianatic and Japanese Martial Arts. There is nothing wrong with that, that is their path.

I think it is wrong for either side, that of the warrior, or that of the philosopher to judge the other. Because Martial Arts's meaning and what it's purpose is, is different to each person.

I think any teacher wants his students to be good people as well as good Martial Artists.

The same as any MMA coach wants the same for his guys. Plenty of people are kicked out of gyms, and fight promotions for dishonorable behavior.

Too many people judge MMA from 1 highly edited TV show, that places young men in an impossible to deal with and high stress situation, then maroons them with no contact from the outside world, adds alcohol to the mix, and then edits it for the most sensational moments.

I promise you, you put any 16 Martial Artist in a house, with no contact from the outside world, a competetion up for stakes in which they will have to compete against each others, then leave alcohol and tape over 6 weeks. There is going to be an hours worth of questionable behavior at least that can be captured from that. Probably more than that anytime you have that many people with different cultures, ideaologies, a competetion, and completely cut them off... trust me, anyone who has been to bootcamp can tell you how there is always some bad apples that crack.

In the same vein I don't judge other arts or people by what I read online, where the worst representatives on any side are going to lay in wait to spring up run their mouth and give their side a bad name.

I think it is completely fair to call MMA Martial Arts. It is Martial Arts to the very core, to the foundations of the arts that were formed after testing what worked in battle.

If you saw the rules and philosophies of most MMA gyms, it reads pretty much like any TMA school. The same principles are reinforced, humility (having to learn from a teacher, accept him, trust him, view him as giving you a gift), respect, (For your instructor, for your training partner who makes you the fighter you are) discipline (pushing yourself to your limits mentally, physically, emotionally, morals and values (these are taught and encouraged, not by mantras but by the severe penalities for a fighter to fight outside of the dojo, by fair behavior from the coaches, and most of morals and values are left to be created and defined on your own. Otherwise they are just talking points.

Professional fighters avoid fights on the street, they have no ego, no pride in having to prove themselves to someone on the street. They prefer to not risk hurting themselves or someone else over something silly.

I think Pro MMA fighters have the same values, morals, respect for each other and opponents, discipline, honor, and brotherhood as any traditional artist.

I think for every bad seed MMA fighter out there, there are just as many if not more cocky, brash, smack talking elitist Traditional Martial Artist who do their style a disservice.

It's all relatively, I have done both and know great and amazing people on both sides of the fence, also have meant douchebags, glory seekers, and generally overly prideful fakes out there on both sides of the fence as well.

Just my thought.