Just as within the traditional Asian martial arts, the emerging Western martial arts community today is often debating the meaning of “Martial Art” as opposed to "martial sport”.

Just as within the traditional Asian martial arts, the emerging Western martial arts community today is often debating the meaning of “Martial Art” as opposed to "martial sport”. The issue is clearest with regard to Medieval and Renaissance combative systems –without question the main focus of historical European martial arts. On the one hand, as these weapons and skills were originally intended for battlefield, judicial combats, and earnest self-defence, they are clearly fighting arts. Yet, in their study and practice today these concerns are far from their purpose. The distinction then between art and sport can be a blurry one; especially since historically, ritualistic combat sports and non-lethal mock-combat competitions were long a part of European martial culture. The general difference between the two today however can be distinguished by examining them with regard to a few specific concerns.

Fencing…was the Art of the Sword, or as Medieval and Renaissance schools more appropriately considered it, the art of using weapons, particularly swords. But, over time the sword lost its value as a weapon of war and as older hand-weapons and arms faded before the challenge of ballistics, fencing was narrowed. With only a few exceptions among the military, mainly cavalry, swords became almost the sole proclivity of the aristocracy and fencing became synonymous with preparation for the gentlemanly duel of single sword alone. The older elements of battlefield combat and sudden street-fighting faded from concern, replaced exclusively by that of private affair of honor. Eventually, fencing became sport and pastime, a refined, athletic game of set rules and etiquette. Finally, over time myths arose that fencing had somehow reached its zenith only after it stopped using real weapons in real fighting.

In contrast, the study of historical methods of European fencing is now becoming increasingly popular. A variety of earlier combative systems are being reconstructed and interpreted along historical lines from historical sources. The question therefore arises as to whether these practices represent the earnest skills of a martial art, or constitute those of a stylized combat sport? For that matter, how do you objectively determine if what you are studying, or what you are being taught, is a legitimate historical fighting skill, or merely re-packaged modern or classical fencing or even theatrical fighting? Is your craft display oriented or results oriented? Is it about effectively ending fights quickly or artificially prolonging them for entertainment value? How can these issues be evaluated? The answer depends upon the approach, the attitude, and the intention of your study and the tools it employs in its method.

Here then are some ways to consider if your own form of fencing practice is a martial art or a combat sport:

1. Is it practiced as a method of self-defense?

What this means is, is your system of fighting focused on scoring and winning competitions or on staying alive? Does it understand the distinction? Does it teach you to do whatever works or what the rules of a game allow? Are you rehearsing moves as lethal killing actions applicable in real fighting, or as only those movements allowed under pretend tournaments? Do you ever stop to recognize and comprehend the difference? Do you train in your fencing art as "preparation" for combat –even though you know it will never occur –or just play it as a game?

2. Is it a tool of learning or an end in itself?

Does your fencing concern itself with how to win a bout by scoring, or with the effects of what the weapon would actually do? Do you conduct mock fighting to get good at mock fighting, or do you conduct mock fighting to get good at the core elements of the craft itself? Does your fencing even consist of anything other than a mock fighting game?

4. Does it rely for its basis on historically accurate replica weapons?

What this means is, are your swords reproductions of real historical tools with the equivalent dimensions, weight, length, and balance of actual blades? Or are they modern simulators with features that authentic pieces do not have (e.g., extreme flexibility, light-weight, rubber points, padding, special handles, modern materials, etc.). Real weapons handle one way and special training weapons another. The more realistic your weapon, the more realistic your technique and your understanding of fundamental principles and concepts. Each digression from this causes a degree of misinterpretation of the methods developed by and for real weapons in real combat. Do you ever work with real weapons or just simulators? Unless you also train strenuously with real weapons how else can you be cognizant of the differences imposed by using approximations?

5. Does it include the widest range of techniques possible?

Are you able to practice and execute actions and moves that would have been reasonably used in historical combat in a manner by which people really fought, or are you limited and restricted to a belief as to what is sporting, chivalric, or gentlemanly fair? Does your concern for safety in mock fighting mean that more lethal and dangerous techniques are never explored or learned at any time under any conditions of training? Are you learning to prevent disarms, seizures and takedowns performed against you, or even to safely fall and roll?

6. Does it let you use both arms naturally?

Are you able to utilize your second-hand in defense, for parrying, grasping, trapping, and disarming? Does your fencing prepare you for countering an opponent trained to use both his hands in grabbing or seizing your arm, clothing, hilt, or weapon? Or following styles of court fencing and later smallsword duelling, are you forced by convention and tradition to pretend you and your opponent only have one arm?

7. Does it make multiple opponents a consideration?

Personal combat was not only about one-on-one duels. The dynamic of one fighting against many is very different than one against another solo. Does your fencing ever incorporate practice at facing more than one antagonist or combating groups of attackers from any direction? Or is it instead always just about dueling a single opponent with a single weapon?

8. Does it only take place in standardized clothing?

Historically, combat could occur at any time at any place, not just when two parties formally agreed to it. Are the effects of wearing historical garments such as leathers, thick wool, baggy pants and shirts, heavy boots, or maile armor taken into consideration? Or is all your fencing conducted in the same uniform with participants imagined to only be identically clad duelists exclusively in shirtsleeves or bare chests?

9. Does practice occur on diverse terrain?

Historically, combat could occur under any conditions and on any type of flooring or ground. Do you always fence on the same general type of surface, or do you make an effort to experience the effects of moving on broken earth, gravel, mud, sand, high grass, knee-deep water, rocky footing, etc.?

10. Does it consider secondary or companion weapons?

Historically, fencing was about the use of all hand weapons, not just swords, and not just the single sword among certain gentleman or the aristocracy (at least, not until the late 17th century). Swordsmanship at one time would not be considered complete without skill in effectively facing shields, pole-arms, and daggers. Is your fencing solely that of the single sword, or does it take into account the possibility of successfully encountering diverse and dissimilar weapons with your sword?

Keywords : traditional asian martial arts, western martial arts, community, martial art, fencing, martial sport, combat sport, european battlefield, Medieval and Renaissance, The ARMA, John Clements

Average user rating

   (0 vote)