A what point is a practitioner of the martial arts a martial artist?

J,

If we ignore the argument of "classical" versus modern usage of budo for a moment, I believe you are asking when does a practitioner of a technique become a practitioner of "the way." The answer, to me, is quite clear. When a student understands the technique sufficiently to correct the technique of others or can identify new or different techniques or can discern new ways to use the underlying principles to develop their own technique then one is a practitioner of "the way."

One must be able to see not only the similarities in "the way" between Aikido, Judo and Jujutsu or even Karate but also the similarities to "the way" in everyday activities. To become a practitioner of "the way" one must be able to see "the way" in everything. Understanding the principles of "the way" in your martial art is the beginning of the path and is reasonably accomplished once you understand technique well enough to correct another's technique. This is, in my opinion, also the definition of shodan (first degree black belt).

In order to truly define "martial artist," we would need to define "martial art" and we seem to have many disagreements on the concept of "martial arts" on this forum. Personally, I view any fighting system or philosophy (applicable to combat) as a martial art. This would include both classical examples (Jujutsu) as well as modern examples (Keysi Fighting Method) from the aggressively brutal (Krav Maga) to the passive and defensive (Aikido) to the dancing fighting arts (Capoeira) as well as both Eastern (Taijiquan, Taekwondo) and Western (boxing, wrestling, fencing) styles.

In relation to budo I tend to look less at the actual translation and more at the historical reference to usage of the term. Additionally, "martial artist" is a modern western term rather than a historical term for practitioners of classical martial arts.

The modern usage of budo is typically viewed as "the way" one should develop oneself. Modern budo uses aspects of the lifestyle of the samurai of feudal Japan and translates them to self-development in modern life. Modern budo de-emphasizes practicality and effectiveness in favor of personal development from a fitness or spiritual perspective. The difference between gendai and koryu budo is an emphasis of the more "civilian" versus "military" aspects of combat and personal development, respectively.

This difference in both philosophy and application is exemplified in the transformation of jujutsu to judo. An argument could be made that this is simply the transition of terminology away from jutsu to do (technique to "the way") but there is too much historical evidence, in my opinion, suggesting that Jigoro Kano's evolution (for example) was a major reformation of jujutsu with focus on development of the body, mind and character of young men in addition to development of martial prowess.

Does this mean that Judo is a martial art and Jujutsu isn't? I believe most people agree that Judo and Jujutsu are both martial arts despite the (original, classical) definition of each. Judo was clearly developed as a way of personal development while Jujutsu is most often viewed as the unarmed fighting system of Feudal Japan. Similarly, if one views Karate as having hidden techniques that are more than the sum of the techniques then one must also view Capoeira with all the hidden techniques as also being a martial art. Additionally, if classical Jujutsu with an emphasis on fighting technique rather than personal development is a martial art then we must agree that Krav Maga is also a martial art.

holy **** when i say the qwuestion i wanted to give the whole speach you did about what an artist is and how the true original chinese versions of the charecters budo means to prevent two spears from clashing but you beat my face to the punch truely you have a strong base of knowledge!

i'm going to give my unpopular oppinion

everyone is as they are in some way a martial artist

bruce lee once said that the greatest propaganda of the phrase martial artist was that they were somthing that the others were not but this is in fact not true

he argued that veryone was a martial artist of different skill obviously a master better then the untrained but that martial arts in general belonged to everyone because anyone would use whatever skill they had given the correct circumstance

that is my technical ansewer

i am a little hypocritical because when i talk to a training partner or somthing i do wait a certain point before i feel i can call somone a martial artist but in my oppinion if someone shows the right heart and correct intention and isn't making their actions completly without thought, he who gives more thought to things dealing with morality and such i would call that person a true martial artist even if they only had one day of tae kwon do undetr their belt

just my two cents

This is a good thought provoking question.

If we use your definition then there could be no timetable as to when a person becomes a martial artist. But that person would have to posses great skill. That would place them higher than a true 2nd Dan would be my guess.

Edit:

Excellent answer Still Crazy.

Clowns: What does that make you? You have to look within yourself for that answer. As I see it with having personally have met you that you are unlike many of the "modern" day people that believe that they know it all and that everything else is useless. You are like many tma we continue to seek to increase in knowledge. You my friend are on the same path as any true martial artist. The intent of your training may be different than many of the tma. This may be because of the limits of not having or not finding this type of instruction where you are located. As a tma we realize the the techniques you are learning all come from tma. The difference are in the mental approach (the intent) The techniques can easily adapt from sport to self defense if a person can make the mental switch. If a man continues to search for knowledge he will find it. There is nothing wrong with what you are doing. You should be applauded. I believe many of the senior artist here would be honored to have you as a student.

This kind of question extends to other "arts" as well such as photography, music, visual arts and so on.

As someone that is called a martial artist by my peers I sometimes feel a bit overwhelmed by the title because I am just in it for the love of it. I don't make a living at it. I am not a great competitor either. There are others called martial artist that are less skilled than I am with less time doing it than I have so I think the term artiest has to do with what the person does and if the action or avocation qualifies itself as an art.

So if Tae Kwan Do qualifies as an art and you practice Tae Kwan Do than you are an artist. If Tae Kwan Do is a Martial Art than You are by that connection a Martial Arts practitioner and by extension an artist. So being an artist is no big deal. Being a great or expert artist is a big deal. Like you show in your example Budoka could be a big deal.

I guess we have to go along being unsure and questioning of anyone who titles themselves "Martial Artist" without qualifications.

Well, There are two parts to your question. What makes one a martial artist and what makes one skilled or an expert.

But hey, use the search function :D

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApLEi...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Atl5_...

I already beat ya to it lol

OK, seriously now. I feel your question takes away from us that have not and probably will never take Japaneses or Okinawan arts. I don't have the means to learn from a legit or good instructor in what are called around here "Classical arts". They seem to come and go. None wanting to stay in a place where the wind blows 60 mph and people call it breezy or where people are more prone to fight for fun in almost any parking lot then they are to just shoot hoops. This is a rough place and the legit people have pretty much stopped coming here. The last one that stayed for a while was the one who worked my MMA coach through Goju Ryu, then moved back where he came from - he spent around 14 years here.

So then what does this make me and those like me? The ones who train in what they can, while they can and as hard as they can. Because we don't have "budo" does this make us deficient? Are we "unworthy"

Skilled or expert?

This is always a touchy subject. Someone like Sensei Scandal is an expert (though if he answers he is going to deny it lol). That man has got some serious knowledge, and despite some of our disputes he is someone I look up to in terms of martial arts. That dedication and knowledge is unbelievable to me. Please note that there are others on here that are just as knowledgeable but SS with his "mean" answers from time to time make him more relatable to me.

Skilled, that is a little more straight-up to me. You can see skill, you can gauge it. I once put in an answer that sometimes I look up kata and poomse on youtube. Sometimes these vids are horrific!! The only thing I think when I watch them is that these people need to know what it's like to get punched in the face. On the on the other hand, I get to see a rare few good ones. My thoughts are more along the lines "I hope I never piss that person off in a dark alley".

I believe we have some people on here that may be the most book smart martial artist but there skills may not match their answers. We have know way of knowing that if we have never trained with them. Some things show through though ;)

I believe that you become a Martial Artist when you can fully embrace the Way and the Technique,

By understanding, embracing and actualizing the Technique you have the physical aspects of the art form, the fitness aspects and the defense aspects in your practice.

By understanding, embracing, and actualizing the Way, whenever you are given the opportunity to use the techniques in true practical application, you do so with wisdom to ensure the outcome is always to the best scenario for those involved.

The fight of no fight, the way of no way, the best block - no be there if you will.

Exercising wisdom in life is using knowledge for good. When that becomes the focus of your training, you are a Martial Artist.

Fascinating.

I'm going to argue intent. Keeping in mind the ideogrammatic interpretation of Budo and Budoka, then when someone trains with that intent and first puts it into practice, successfully or not, they are becoming budoka, and are on their first steps to understanding the way. Attainment is dependent upon their choice to continue to pursue that path.

Now... That being said, does it matter if you attend a McDojo? Does it matter if you compete or not if you possess fudoshin?

The martial artist is on a different level than most people. In my estimation, there comes a point for the true martial artist where he must decide: Do I wish to be elevated among the normal, or do I wish to be normal among the elevated? It's making the right choice at this juncture that makes them a martial artist.

Once they seek out new experiences, knowledge, and training without guidance. I would call a practitioner a martial artist once they've internalized the style and aquire the self-motivation to continue developing their skills without external guidance or pressures to make them do so.

Displaying the traits of self-discipline, self-motivation, and self-directed activity in the martial arts are what I believe make a person a martial artist.

For example, some one who takes art classes in school is not necessarily an artist. However, some one who chooses to create art in their free-time rather than do other activities is an artist. This doesn't make them a "good" artist, however that's irrelevant because it's the activity that defines the artist not the quality of their media and productions.

I think it's more of the study. What defines skilled? My teacher is very skilled and among the best martial artists in the world, but he stresses that one can always learn and there is no top. So I would say someone that studies a martial art with true commitment to learning, it's the mindset.

My personal gauge has always been, if a practitioner has mastered the basics of his art, internalized it and is able to consistently apply them in different situations and makes it look easy even though it takes years to reach that point, then he has become a martial artist.

The term "art" is a double entendre. One meaning has it that it is a product of human creation. The other meaning has it that one is skilled - the implication that one is "well skilled".

But the definition, "skilled" really does not qualify "well", "poor", "novice", or "master". Once you do qualify it as well, poor, novice, and/or master - then "artist" as it applies to a particular person is subjective.

I prefer that anyone - of any skill - who practices martial arts is a martial artist. Ah... but then we come to the issue of sport vs combat, and each may have their own, sometimes overlapping, terminologies - like player, competitor, fighter, student, soldier...

For me, it's anyone who practices a martial art.