Martial Science?

The word "Martial Science" is often banded about, but with the myriad of different styles cropping all the time, can we ever claim that there is a "Martial Science"? My conclusions at the moment is that Martial Arts are still, no matter how realistic in execution or logical in theory, arts. If they are a science, it is not an exact one.

I am sure I saw on discovery a programme on science of MA.

Had animated fighters showing projection, force, angle, result of damage like an x-ray etc.

Very scientific sounding/looking but....................

maybe im just too sceptical about such things.

After all discovery are showing ghost stories as 'true' stories............

regards,

Den.

Yep, that was "Human Weapon". It was the History Channel. An entertaining show that had a really good format. It did use science to explain how techniques worked in principle, but unfortunately was overly PC. It certainly didn't present an argument that martial arts were a science, although it was certainly better than "Fight Science".

Interesting... I never call myself a Martial Artist, and in all honesty I really dislike the term. This is because I'm into practicing for realism, and I don't see the "artistic" side of two people brutally kicking the crap out of each other.

I can't say that what I practice is truly scientific, but I try to be. I remember W.E. Fairbain referring to his material as "Scientific Self-defense". And it was widely regarded as being the first Martial Science.

At the end of the day, I guess It's not really a science per se, but I try to apply some of the scientific rules to adapt it for the most realistic, and rational responses needed. It also originates form a "real" need for it to work under the worst possible conditions. Unlike the Kung Fu forms I used to practice - which I guess you could call artistic..

That is my point. We can apply science and should use the scientific approach, but must remember the extreme variables involved.

Totally agree with you there Jamie.