Here is a curious discussion of this topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_art...
In short, though, martial applies to war. And by extension, to warriors - or professional fighters. Yet, you don't see "martial artists" plying their trade in the deserts of Afghanistan, nor did you see them on the beaches of Normandy. And of all things recorded by the Europeans (who, according to the article, coined the phrase "martial arts" in the 1550's), nothing about which we see today was recorded.
So if it is true that the phrase "martial arts" was coined in 1550 Europe, it certainly didn't look like anything we do today.
I wonder, then, what a boxer does that applies to war? Or an MMA fighter? Or a Taekwondo fighter?
Just because a few techniques here and there are borrowed and collected and formed into a sport, does not mean that the sport should be called "martial arts" any more than the 50 yard dash should be called "martial arts", or equestrian sports, since it can be reasoned that soldiers also learned to run and ride horses.
It seems to me that chess draws close parallels to war as does actual fighting techniques: the soldiers did the fighting, and the generals did the thinking.
If you consider boxing (or any of it's sports ilk) as "martial arts", you can hardly call it a complete system. All are devoid of strategy that benefits the whole, and focus only on the individual.
No: to me, boxing and any sport related to fighting or flash (including taekwondo, contemporary karate, muay thai, wrestling, capoeira, etc) is not a martial art. One might argue that at one point in a given style's history, it was complete enough to be "martial arts", but as practiced today? No way.
And, as others have pointed out in other questions on this topic, just because a soldier practices something doesn't make what they're doing "martial arts". They practice marching drills, but that doesn't make marching drills martial arts. They practice bugling, but that doesn't make bugling a martial art. Confidence courses, calesthenics, and even firing M16's in a range are all not martial arts unto themselves. However, collecting ALL of these facets and wrapping it up into a package, THEN you might have martial arts.
EDIT: Some people draw the line as to what is and what isn't martial arts around the concept of rules. I don't think rules make the difference. There are strict rules in the military, there's even the Hague Convention banning certain battlefield tactics (treatment of enemy combatants vs soldiers, use of chemicals and biological warfare, anti-personnel landmines, cluster bombing, etc). It isn't the rules, I think. It's the whole package. The more complete the package is, the more useful it is in warfare, and thus, the more likely it should be called "martial arts". But taking a tiny part of that picture (like only the hand-to-hand part) and calling it "martial arts" is absurd to me.
EDIT: If rules detract from the whole package, then yes, the rules play a significant role in the style's "non-martial-arts-ness". If your style does not include multiple opponents, multiple friends, weapons, and law, then your style isn't complete. If there are techniques that you could use to win a match, but are not allowed to use then, your style isn't complete. A wrestler banned from using small-finger joint locks is a small detail being banned; a wrestler forbidden from striking at all is a big deal. So wrestling isn't a martial art. Boxing doesn't allow grappling, is constrained by boundaries and time, and so, is quite incomplete for martial purposes: this makes it not a martial art.
On the other hand, just because something isn't martial arts doesn't mean it can't be used for self-defense. Boxers, mma fighters, taekwondo fighters - there are stories after stories of fighters here using their skills to successfully ward off an attacker. But there are similar stories of hockey players and linebackers doing the same thing.
I'll accept boxing to be considered a martial sport also, but as far as labeling a boxing gym (or school) as Karate, that is just plain wrong. I can't even decide which reasons to put down here for you. Karate is from Japan, boxing is not, Karate is completely accepted as a martial art, boxing is designed for the ring.
AND even if you could call it Karate for some reason, I can't imagine any established boxing gyms WANTING to be called a Karate gym it's just weird.
Yes, Boxing itself is. Rules, or no rules it does not matter it is a fighting art. All fighting arts have rules in competition. Just because there are rules when competing for some sort of title or prize does not make it less of a martial art.
There is no school In this country where students train and spar with absolutely no rules.
I'd say that it is. It gives you skills you can use to defend yourself in unarmed combat against another human being. That's good enough for me.
Saying that "MMA does not require a lot of technique" is a sign of someone who doesn't understand MMA. You want your technique to be as good as possible, because in a fight, when you get tired, when you have adrenaline coursing through your veins, when you've gotten punched in the head and body, your technique is naturally going to atrophy. So you want to be a "10" under optimum conditions, so that in less-than-optimum conditions, your technique doesn't degrade too much.
Firstly, the bloke who told you that MMA does not require a lot of technique is full of sh*t. There is a lot of technique in MMA, especially the grappling aspect.
Secondly, Kokoro has it right. Boxing is more of a martial sport now. The clinch used to be a huge part of boxing, and throws were pretty common. However, through the introduction of rules, those dangerous techniques were taken away.
That doesn't take away anything, from it's value, however; it can be and has been used for self defense. I myself prefer martial sports to martial arts, plainly because I enjoy the competitiveness involved.
no its a martial sport, martial arts have no rules martial sports do.
boxing keeps removing techniques due to rules, there use to be a lot more grappling in boxing, at one point there were kicks. since it removes techniques because of rules its a martial sport
Course it's a martial art. Karate is a very specific martial art, though, involving strikes, kicks, holds and blocks, and boxing is another which focuses mostly on strikes. Unless it's kickboxing, I guess. Which is why boxing schools are called boxing schools, karate dojos are karate dojos, and tai kwon do schools are tai kwon do schools.
I realize a lot of you will disagree, I don't mind, just support your answer. Anyways, I go to a performing arts high school, I have a martial arts class. I was asking why a lot of martial arts schools are labeled as "Karate," and why don't they label a boxing school as "Karate."
He told me that boxing isn't really a martial art and is just a sport. Plus, I have asked him about MMA though, he said before that MMA does not require a lot of technique.
