Martial: pertains to war; warlike
Art: that which requires skill through practice
(double entendre: Art is the application of human creativity and skill)
We in a dojang or dojo, or cage or ring, may be practicing something applied in war - but it would only apply to war a few hundred years ago. Otherwise, what we practice today does not equate to anything any society uses for modern warfare.
This business of MMA and TMA is moot: none of us practice true martial arts, unless we are in the military performing drills according to modern warfare techniques.
The rest of us practicing techniques that are applicable to pre-modern era warfare are doing only historical study of "martial arts".
That leaves the issue of "self-defense" undefined, since the techniques used for pre-modern warfare techniques are still generally applicable to modern-day self-defense needs. This is probably why when we say "martial art" we really mean "self-defense using pre-modern warefare techniques". Otherwise, self-defense should also include use of guns, body guards, and a healthy application of lifestyle changes. Few schools who regularly purport to teach pure self-defense will go into gun use or lifestyle changes, and instead only focus on the techniques at hand.
As to sports, I think combat sports are a subset of self-defense. The techniques used in sport can be used in self-defense (certainly not in warfare), but their objectives are completely different, and all tend to disregard the glaring problems of their techniques: boxers completely dismiss the use of kicking or grappling, taekwondo figters completely dismiss grappling, wrestlers completely dismiss the use of striking. All dismiss the use of weapons, multiple foes, multiple friends. And all generally train in one place: a nice, safe, soft mat without worries of a dirty mat with broken glass and debris.
No, styles (which we should include boxing, wrestling, modern taekwondo and karate, fencing, sumo, etc) are not martial arts. Their techniques and strategy do not apply to "martial", although their techniques clearly support both definitions of "art". These are combat sports: competitors (as they are called) compete using an agreed-upon rule set.
Other styles (classical karate, classical kung fu, aikido) are not truly martial arts, either, since their techniques are not a main part of modern warfare. We don't bring in ICBM's and 9" howitzers into class now, do we? They may have been applicable to pre-modern era warfare, making these styles more of a "classical martial art" than a "modern martial art" - but still not applicable to modern warfare. Because of their required practice, and because of the focus on presentation, one can't deny they are practicing an "art" by both definitions. Given this, those who engage in reenactments - renaissance, civil war, or revolutionary war, or what we see in Medieval Times, are also lumped into this category of "classical martial arts", since they, too, practiced what was used in warfare, and required dedication and practice - even if much of it was for show.
Other considerations, such as self-defense seminars, gun classes, limited introductory self-defense classes, etc are not martial arts at all, since none of it applies to war (then or now). And because there isn't time for real practice, it doesn't meet at least one definition of "art". As to being a product of "human creativity", one might argue that these considerations are an "art", but that is a stretch, I think. So no martial arts here at all, in my opinion.
Each person has their own views as to what is a martial art and what isn't. If you look at the etymology of the phrase "martial art" and then go watch how such is taught, you will see that few of us truly practice anything of martial value or content.
EDIT: Have you ever seen police academy training? SWAT team training? Military wargames? Now THAT is martial arts. These folks train in teams (multi-foe, multi-friends), tactics, weapons. They are concerned about law (legal use of techniques - note the NYC issue of legal and illegal chokeholds to take down a suspect, and The Hague Convention's use of nuclear, chemical, and biological weaponry). They practice, practice, practice. They even practice using other teams - US and Canada, for instance, regularly conduct joint operations, as has US and Russia on occasion.
Martial clearly applies to war, one need only look it up. That we "martial artists" label it "self-defense" is probably out of ignorance or historical context. What we are doing in most schools could hardly make a soldier or SWAT officer giggle at how ridiculously inefficient our training really is. But, we train for our most likely adversary: boxer's own adversary will only be found in a ring, so, that's all they train for. Can what they use in the ring also be used on the street? Yeah, sure. Probably not as efficiently, but it can get the job done - much like I can open a can of paint with a screwdriver, or hammer in a nail with a monkey wrench.
Soldiers and police often practice what we typically call "martial arts" - be it sport or self-defense variety. What we do does have relevance to a small subset of what they do and what their needs are. But the reality is, few of us "martial artists" are actually practicing a martial art.
As one man put it:
There are 3 types of people who learn martial arts:
Those who learn it to survive (police officers for example), those who learn it purely for the art since advanced martial arts' grace and effortlessness is very beautiful, and the third group will combine the both by combining the intensity and the beauty of the flow in combat. To win for them is not enough. Anybody can win but to win beautifully is the essence of a martial art. There must be an appreciation of elegance and a terror at the same time. Opposites of yin and yang and together they form a whole. Winning is done with style and beauty, otherwise it is just like an animal.
I think this defines it pretty well for me and would explain that being a martial artist is not in the style but in the practitioner and includes many other skills than just hitting hard. There is a how a fighter carries himself, his character, his strategy, his mind and spirit that set him apart from the rest.
Boxing for many is not considered a martial art but I would say that some boxers are martial artists others are not. This definition can also include weaponry. Some people just point and pull the trigger while others can do a beautiful job shooting. A sniper for example would be the martial artist of shooting.
Martial=war like=military way.
For example if there is an army imposed curfew this is called martial law.
A fighting art can only be called a true martial art if it has been endorsed as part of the training curriculum of a countrys armed forces.
Examples of true martial arts are krav maga (Isreali army) taekwondo (north and south Korean armies) and Jui Jitsu (japanese armed forces).
As pugilism (boxing) is known to be a part of the British armed forces training curriculum this is also classed as a martial art.
Styles not endorsed by the armed forces are merely known as fighting arts.
The dictionary definition is
Any of several arts of combat and self-defense. There are armed and unarmed varieties, most based on traditional fighting methods used in East Asia. In modern times, derivatives of armed martial arts.
Martial arts has no rules if it has rules or removes techniques due to rules its a martial sport.
Actually martial arts were not developed or created for war. The term martial arts was first used by a reporter when describing self defense that was being seen that came for the far east. Somehow the term became part of our vocabulary. Martial arts were created purely as a means of self defense. Often i was used by peasant or lower class in a class system as mean to defend themselves from those that would take advantage of them or cause them physical harm or would steal from them because they were in power. It was far life preservation. The foreign ruler (military and local officials would abuse the lower class. It could be drunken military that would beat them up, rape, kill of take their possessions. There was a need to protect themselves. The learned to defend themselves without weapons. Later they used farming instruments and other tools as weapons since weapons were prohibited. It could be an oar, staff for carry water, a tool for digging, a rice flail. The authorities didn't recognized those tools as weapons of defense so they learn to use them for self defense.
Modern technology has redefined what martial arts. But originally it was means for those to defend themselves and their property. It is a life preservation skill based upon the human anatomy.
Martial art = art of warfare
My personal definition is anything that gives me physical and tactical skills to engage another person in hand-to-hand combat. In that respect, something like boxing is a martial arts, as much as Modern Army Combatives.
There is no one universally accepted definition. It's like asking how do you define art of any kind? Or the definition of beauty. It's all in the eyes of the beholder.
I love that explaination fuzzy.
My thoughts are a bit broader because I think shooting and other weaponcraft like archery, swordsmanship and such should fall under martial arts as well.
