Bruce Lee

[ANIMEJUNKY]

So I recently bought all the movies of the great Lee digitally remastered and crap like that. Now heres my real question, I understand he died of a heart attack and have been doing some digging. Even doctors records say that, he, my idol*which got me in teakwondo and to my 3rd degree black belt-8 years* was to in shape. DO you think that is physically possible? He couldnt keep up with his own muscles, and such they started to eat away at his organs to sustain themselves. Is that even logical to be in that much shape? Also on a lighter note what do you think of Bruce Lee, and also where can I find a large poster of him for my room-links please-?

Edit- Also its going on 35 years since his death, rest in piece innovator, and mentor, especially me, a used to be fat person.

[CrossboneGundam]

Some people like to say he died of a drug overdose.

[Vaikyuko]

You can have a heart attack even if you're in great shape and there's no previous heart damage or any congenital heart defects. I don't think there was any conspiracy or so much as a cover-up, myself.

[VidelCoolGirl]

Wasn't it he was allergic to asprin or something? I thought he took some and died from an allergic reaction.

[Haruhi]

didnt his yellow jump suit get to tight and strangle him?

Just stop. You are not funny.

I heard he died of an allergic reaction, too.

Plus I heard that his low percent of body fat actually made things worse.

[VidelCoolGirl]

I heard he died of an allergic reaction, too.

Plus I heard that his low percent of body fat actually made things worse.

Yeah, from what I heard, I think that was it. It was an accedental death, which really sucks. He had so much more potential too.

[Animematt55]

alright sorry, didnt mean any harm

[Smith]

I read a book about Lee, and it seems no one knows for sure why or how he died. There are speculations such as he died in a street fight, etc. What seems the most logical(to me too at least) is that Lee died from a Hashish overdose. How do you overdose on Hash? By not having enough bodily fluids to fight the toxin in hash. Lee was known to eat hash on occasion. At the time of and year or two leading to his death, Lee was deathly thin, at about 115 pounds(or less). Lee said he did this to look more muscular onscreen. It's rather unfortunate this had to happen to him, because he could still be alive and kicking among us today. And I really really would have liked to see him complete his "Game of Death" movie the way he intended it. Many Asians believe Lee gambled by including "Death" in the title, as it is taboo in Asian culture to "flirt" with death.
I may not have been 100% accurate, but this is what I recall from reading up on Lee a few years ago.
I think I recall Lee having 1 or 2% body fat when 3% is the minimum(is that right?) for a male.

[Reidar]

The notion of the small amount of muscle mass he had somehow catabolising his internal organs are as ridiculous as any of the other hundreds of rumors and myths circulating about him. If that were true, Arnold Schwarzenegger would have become a black hole back in his day.

[Smith]

The notion of the small amount of muscle mass he had somehow catabolising his internal organs are as ridiculous as any of the other hundreds of rumors and myths circulating about him.

So what do you think did him in? I'll understand if you don't wish to speculate.

[Reidar]

He was an actor with badass movies who, quite unfortunately, generated a ravenous, irrational fan base around his image, with people claiming him to be the best martial artist of all time when he has a total of two documented fights (neither of which he won).

Bruce Lee is one of the greats to me. I have all of his movies, and have been reading about him for years. Bruce Lee is awesome; his myth and his fanboys are not. I like him for what he was: an actor and a martial arts enthusiast.

[Smith]

I enjoyed the book about Lee , "Artist Of Life" by John Little.
What would you say are the best books on Lee, Reidar?

[Reidar]

I haven't read that book, but John Little should be a reputable source. He produced the "A Warrior's Journey" documentary.

For people interested in Bruce Lee, I recommend Bruce Lee's own notes seen in The Tao of Jeet Kune Do. I don't call it his book because it's not his book. It's a collection of his personal notes. Linda Lee submitted them for publication after his death. Unbeknownst to most people, it's not even much of his own work; a lot of it is cited quotes from Sports Illustrated: Book of Fencing (1962 edition) and Boxing (1940) by Edwin L. Haislet, along with various other sources. I checked for myself, and many of the phrases are copied practically word for word. This is completely valid on his part, of course, because he never meant for it to be a book. However, it shows his philosophy better than any other reading.

It's interesting how much Western boxing influenced Bruce Lee, as described in the book. He was a fan of Muhammad Ali.

Lee's passage for the ending of The Tao of Jeet Kune Do sums it up for me: "If people say Jeet Kune Do is different from 'this' or from 'that', then let the name of Jeet Kune Do be wiped out, for that is what it is, just a name."

I cannot call him a martial artist, only a martial arts enthusiast and actor. No doubt he took interest in them, and engaged in sparring activities and martial exercises, but he didn't actually do martial arts; he didn't use a systematic form of martial warfare for fighting. It'd be like calling somebody who only shoots hoops a basketball player.

[Smith]

Lee always thought Muhammad Ali would have made a exceptional martial artist, because of the speed he displayed with his punches. That is a rather interesting thought, a trash-talking martial artist.

[Reidar]

A boxer is as much a martial artist as any other stylist, but yeah, there are a lot of sporting aspects associated with what Ali did. It would have been interesting to have two huge icons like that do something together. The closest that ever came to fruition was the exhibition match between Muhammad Ali and the Japanese wrestler, Antonio Inoki, although that was pretty goofy.

[ablo]

he didn't use a systematic form of martial warfare for fighting. It'd be like calling somebody who only shoots hoops a basketball player.

Hmmm... I might disagree with you, if you could elaborate more on what you're saying.

[Reidar]

To be a martial artist, one must engage in martial feats. Bruce Lee trained, however inadequately he might have done so, but he didn't fight.

[ablo]

To be a martial artist, one must engage in martial feats. Bruce Lee trained, however inadequately he might have done so, but he didn't fight.

Again, you're being vague. "Martial feats"? Also, define "fight".

[Reidar]

Those terms are vague only because you choose to perceive them in some unintentioned light, when they all refer to specific concepts.

"Martial feats" means "fight", since "martial" means "war" and "feat" means to endeavor; suitably, it would entail engaging in an exertion of warfare.

A "fight" is a confrontation via distinctive combat.

[Kaosgirl]

Those terms are vague only because you choose to perceive them in some unintentioned light, when they all refer to specific concepts.

"Martial feats" means "fight", since "martial" means "war" and "feat" means to endeavor; suitably, it would entail engaging in an exertion of warfare.

A "fight" is a confrontation via distinctive combat.

Your definition essentially means that the Shaolin monks (commonly credited with creating kung-fu) are not martial artists either. Nor is any sifu, sensai, trainer or instructor who does not enter into competition.

You likely have a point in saying that Bruce Lee did not meet your definition of what a 'martial artist' is, but your definition seems somewhat suspect to begin with.

[ablo]

So you're not a martial artist unless you engage in actual warfare? By that definition there aren't too many martial artists.

Also, am I the only one that thinks that "martial feats" is vague? There are levels of feats. A "feat" for one person may not necessarily be a "feat" for another. This is a relative term, even within the context of martiality (if the word even exists). For example cutting a man's head off with a claymore during a battle would be a feat for a first time soldier, but may not be for a seasoned warrior.

You have a habit of using seemingly intentionally vague terms and comments with multiple interpretations to them, where if one person may think it means one thing, you actually mean something else, and then you pin it on them. Say exactly what you mean.

[Bernard_Monsha]

So you're not a martial artist unless you engage in actual warfare? By that definition there aren't too many martial artists.

Also, am I the only one that thinks that "martial feats" is vague? There are levels of feats. A "feat" for one person may not necessarily be a "feat" for another. This is a relative term, even within the context of martiality (if the word even exists). For example cutting a man's head off with a claymore during a battle would be a feat for a first time soldier, but may not be for a seasoned warrior.

You have a habit of using seemingly intentionally vague terms and comments with multiple interpretations to them, where if one person may think it means one thing, you actually mean something else, and then you pin it on them. Say exactly what you mean.


Martial implies useing it to military which of course means killing people. Shooting a gun is more of a martial discipline then wearing a robe and makeing repetative motions. The problem I see with most practitioners is they assume because they know X they can easily beat Johnny the Drunk at the bar. They get what I call Billy Badass syndrome. When affected with this they find out Johnny the drunk may be a full time brawler who will take down Mr. I have 5 black belts for repetative movements, poseing and board breaking in Useless Fu.

[Reidar]

Your definition essentially means that the Shaolin monks (commonly credited with creating kung-fu) are not martial artists either. Nor is any sifu, sensai, trainer or instructor who does not enter into competition.

If by "competiton", you mean an actual fight, then yes, they are not martial artists. The Shaolin creators that you make reference to were military personnel under General Yue Fei. They were martial artists because they used arts of war. As an aside, they happened to be monks. All legitimate trainers and instructors compete against people by fighting with students and colleagues.

You likely have a point in saying that Bruce Lee did not meet your definition of what a 'martial artist' is, but your definition seems somewhat suspect to begin with.

Martial = of war
Martial arts = the arts of war
Martial artist = practitioner of the arts of war

That is not open to interpretaton. Philosophy and culture =/= martial arts.

So you're not a martial artist unless you engage in actual warfare? By that definition there aren't too many martial artists.

There are many people who engage in warfare. Warfare = combat. Boxers, wrestlers, and many, many more are martial artists.

A "feat" is a specific term, applying to everybody. Your example of a seasoned warrior decapitating a foe would be a feat for him; whether or not it is a notable feat is what varies.

[ablo]

Bruce lee did spar though, so wouldn't he then be a martial artist?

[Reidar]

That's not fighting. It's practicing combat, not actual combat itself. That's why I said he's a martial arts enthusiast. Sparring is an exercise for martial arts, but not martial arts in itself.

[ablo]

Provide me with a situation then that would be actual combat as opposed to practicing combat.

[Reidar]

Bruce Lee's fight with Wong Jack was actual combat. They used martial arts with the intent of inflicting harm onto each other.

Of course, a fight does not make you a martial artist. Many people fight at some point or another. A practitioner of fighting is a martial artist ("practice" as in habitual performance, not the synonymous word of somebody training to develop, the latter of which Bruce Lee did do).

[Rain]

Do I think what is physically possible? I don't get your question.

http://www.allposters.com/ - Type Bruce Lee in the search bar.

[Spadesy]

He grew up on a poor man's diet, before he left to America (had to leave Hong Kong because he got in trouble with some local Triads). As a result, he didn't ever have very big muscles.

His appearance is on the count of a number of things...pre-genetic disposition, diet, constant cardio training...supposedly he was able to produce a lot of power for a little guy because he wasn't only into weight lifting, he was also into calisthenic and plyometric exercise.

According to the autopsy his death was because of an allergic reaction to a drug called Equasegic (sp?) that he was taking for some kind of ache.

Edit: But Reidar, wouldn't that make Bruce Lee a martial artist by your definition, even more so than a boxer/wrestler/karateka? All of them spar for practice, but few if any intend to kill their opponent or disable them...their intent is to either get a knockout, submission, or decision to be declared victorious.

There were accounts where Bruce got in actual scuffles with people in Hong Kong, and of course the Wong Jack match you mentioned.

Granted, he only had a year or so of Wing Chun under his belt...but I don't think it's fair to equate him like: Bruce is to kung fu movies like Stalone is to soldier movies. Bruce, to his credit, did push the study of martial arts a bit and took a serious interest in it throughout most of his life.

[Kaosgirl]

Martial = of war
Martial arts = the arts of war
Martial artist = practitioner of the arts of war


Practitioner: one who practices. I notice, though, that you arbitrarily narrowed the definition of practice. Which is likely the source of your skewed definition for martial artist.


There are many people who engage in warfare. Warfare = combat. Boxers, wrestlers, and many, many more are martial artists.


Warfare includes combat, but not all combat is warfare.
A boxer is a fighter, he engages in combat; but he does not (necessarily) engage in warfare.

[Spadesy]

People from all around have been trying to find a universal but well made definition of martial arts. But really, that depends on what the individual seeks...if he is a serious guy that thinks the purpose of martial arts is to practice the most efficient way of destroying the human body (a pretty good definition), then he will not associate the term "martial arts" with culture foundation and philosophy much. On the other hand, people find different reasons to take martial arts because something about what they are learning appeals to them.

It's just a term, two words, no need to play dictionary games.

[Reidar]

Edit: But Reidar, wouldn't that make Bruce Lee a martial artist by your definition, even more so than a boxer/wrestler/karateka? All of them spar for practice, but few if any intend to kill their opponent or disable them...their intent is to either get a knockout, submission, or decision to be declared victorious.

Those would be disabling the opponent, would it not?

It's still combat, just with intentions of incapacitating, not killing. Sparring is with intention to learn; fighting is with intention to perform. The ultimate goals differ, and because of that, so do the methods.

There were accounts where Bruce got in actual scuffles with people in Hong Kong, and of course the Wong Jack match you mentioned.

The only incident that we can be sure of is the Wong Jack match. I remember a few years ago believing in another recorded fight he had with a chef of a restaurant, but I can't find any documentation on that now. If that's out there, then that makes two.

That's not to say that were never any others at any point in his life, but it does mean that we cannot use anything as evidence other than that which we know about.

Granted, he only had a year or so of Wing Chun under his belt...but I don't think it's fair to equate him like: Bruce is to kung fu movies like Stalone is to soldier movies. Bruce, to his credit, did push the study of martial arts a bit and took a serious interest in it throughout most of his life.

Indeed he did. When I called him a martial arts enthusiast, it was completely to his credit. He was a cultural icon that had an indisputable impact on the martial arts world. I can't think of any idea or thought he presented that was new or unique (the concept behind Jeet Kune Do, and all of his philosophical sayings, have been in use for decades prior to him being born), but he deserves credit for bringing them into the mainstream.

[Reidar]

Practitioner: one who practices. I notice, though, that you arbitrarily narrowed the definition of practice.

I didn't provide a definition for practice.

Which is likely the source of your skewed definition for martial artist.

A martial artist as being one who practices martial methods is skewed? By all means, provide a more apt definition. The fact that you haven't yet does little for establishing the legitimacy of you actually having one.

Warfare includes combat, but not all combat is warfare.
A boxer is a fighter, he engages in combat; but he does not (necessarily) engage in warfare.

Yes, he does.

Taken from Webster:

Warfare
2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism.

You accuse me of narrowing definitions, when you use a erroneous, preconceived notion of warfare being exclusively attributed to militaristic consequence, and I provided nothing of the sort, and when the only example of the item you had to work with wasn't even fallaciously used in phrasing?

[Smith]

"The Art of fighting without fighting". I was reminded of this just now. I think it displays an aspect of Lee's philosohopy well, he liked to combat people with his mind.

[Kaosgirl]

I didn't provide a definition for practice.


Actually, you did:

"practice" as in habitual performance, not the synonymous word of somebody training to develop, the latter of which Bruce Lee did do

You admit that Bruce Lee *did* practice martial arts, but you ruled out the meaning of 'practice' that you granted he did engage in as being applicable.


A martial artist as being one who practices martial methods is skewed? By all means, provide a more apt definition. The fact that you haven't yet does little for establishing the legitimacy of you actually having one.


I'm questioning your definition, not promoting my own. But shall I draw conclusions from your transparent attempt to transfer the onus on to me?

Too much ego invested in your point, or your concept of what differentiates a 'real martial artist' from 'one who practices the martial arts but does not fight,' perhaps?

If I were promoting my own, I'd say it uses the same words but does not apply the same "practice is only practice if I say it is" criteria to the meaning of the definition.


Warfare
2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism.


From dictionary.com
warfare
1. the process of military struggle between two nations or groups of nations; war.
2. armed conflict between two massed enemies, armies, or the like.
3. conflict, esp. when vicious and unrelenting, between competitors, political rivals, etc.


You accuse me of narrowing definitions,


Perhaps I should ammend that to "playing loose with definitions, alternately narrowing and broadening them as required to force your point."


when you use a erroneous, preconceived notion of warfare being exclusively attributed to militaristic consequence,


Feh. When you make accusations, do so accurately. My erroneous notion was the idea that 'especially vicious and unrelenting' implied that not all conflict could be accurately depicted as warfare. And therefore, a boxer *may* engage in conflict/combat/fighting that could be described as warfare but does not *necessarily* do so.

'Exclusively attributed to militaristic consequence' had no part in it.

[ablo]

Perhaps I should ammend that to "playing loose with definitions, alternately narrowing and broadening them as required to force your point."


Agreed.


The only incident that we can be sure of is the Wong Jack match. I remember a few years ago believing in another recorded fight he had with a chef of a restaurant, but I can't find any documentation on that now. If that's out there, then that makes two.


I think there's a 1 minute video (black and white) of Bruce fighting on A Hong Kong rooftop in a Beimo match. I don't know if that's the one youre talking about but I'll see if I can find it later.

[Reidar]

Actually, you did:

That wasn't a definition. Those were discerning aspects used to clarify which of the two homonyms I was referring to, in order to avoid confusion. If I wanted to post a definition, I would quote Webster's.

You admit that Bruce Lee *did* practice martial arts, but you ruled out the meaning of 'practice' that you granted he did engage in as being applicable.

Immediately after bringing to attention the aforementioned clarification, you confuse the two words. Bruce Lee practiced martial arts, as in trained under them. He did not practice martial arts, as in fight habitually. Those are two different definitions, and I made very clear when I was talking about one or the other.

I'm questioning your definition, not promoting my own.

A responsible debater would question my definition by providing the alleged correction in the form of their own example.

Too much ego invested in your point, or your concept of what differentiates a 'real martial artist' from 'one who practices the martial arts but does not fight,' perhaps?

There is no personal allusion anywhere in the definition I provided.

Even if there was, in a hypothetical scenario, what exactly does ego have to do with being correct? If that is your case against me, then you've wasted your time. Are you trying to argue that I'm factually wrong, or that I'm hurting your feelings because you think I'm egotistical?

Give a legitimate reason why you think that definition is fallacious.

If I were promoting my own, I'd say it uses the same words but does not apply the same "practice is only practice if I say it is" criteria to the meaning of the definition.

I did not ask what you would define. I asked what is your definition. Once again, what is your definition of a martial artist?

From dictionary.com
warfare
1. the process of military struggle between two nations or groups of nations; war.
2. armed conflict between two massed enemies, armies, or the like.
3. conflict, esp. when vicious and unrelenting, between competitors, political rivals, etc.

Correct. Note the seperation between "competitors" and "political rivals".

I'm perplexed as to why you posted this, however. The fact that political and militaristic aspects are components of other definitions doesn't somehow negate mine; it only means that there are plural meanings to the word.

If you were trying to invalidate the Webster definition with this, and argue the validity of each respective source, keep in mind that dictionary.com defines a martial art as "Oriental self-defense..." and "without weapons".

Feh. When you make accusations, do so accurately. My erroneous notion was the idea that 'especially vicious and unrelenting' implied that not all conflict could be accurately depicted as warfare. And therefore, a boxer *may* engage in conflict/combat/fighting that could be described as warfare but does not *necessarily* do so.

Exactly. That was erroneous. You narrowly defined what warfare is attributed to. All combat is warfare.

'Exclusively attributed to militaristic consequence' had no part in it.

Is that why you posted a dictionary.com definition consisting largely of militaristic and political countenance?

If it indeed had no part in it, as you claim, then doing so was utterly needless, and served to do nothing but convolute your point.

[Kaosgirl]

That wasn't a definition. Those were discerning aspects used to clarify which of the two homonyms I was referring to, in order to avoid confusion.

Immediately after bringing to attention the aforementioned clarification, you confuse the two words. Bruce Lee practiced martial arts, as in trained under them.


So again, we have the "Martial artist is someone who practices the martial arts" not applying to someone who, ya know, practices martial arts... because Reidar insists that one particular meaning of 'practice' does not apply. But all meanings of warfare *do* apply to interpreting the 'martial' aspect.

This is conflict Reidar; your view against mine. Are we engaged in warfare?


A responsible debater would question my definition by providing the alleged correction in the form of their own example.


IOW, you can't defend your definition except by pointing out that I didn't put my own up for critique. Even though it's not my definition that is up for debate, but yours.


Even if there was, in a hypothetical scenario, what exactly does ego have to do with being correct?


Nothing, when you are correct; quite a bit when you're not, as ego is the main factor that gets in the way of realizing when you're not. If you have invested your ego into this point, then I would be wasting my time discussing with you. If I fail, I fail; but If I prove you to be clearly incorrect, you wouldn't see it anyway.

OTOH, this is a public forum... whether I succeed or fail in my attempt to make you reconsider your concept of who gets to be called a 'martial artist' is rather trivial in comparison to how the Viewers in General percieve the points being made.


Give a legitimate reason why you think that definition is fallacious.


The definition is fine, it's your interpretation of it that is fallacious; you've ruled out those who practice the martial arts because they don't... 'practice' the martial arts. And possibly included me as a martial artist, for reasons I'll get into below.


I did not ask what you would define. I asked what is your definition. Once again, what is your definition of a martial artist?

Interesting. What would my definition be, if not 'what I would define' something as?


I'm perplexed as to why you posted this, however.


To show you where my error actually was; in interpreting 'especially vicious and unrelenting' to imply that it is not accurate to describe conflict which is neither vicious nor unrelenting as 'warfare'.

For example: this, right here, is conflict. Is it also warfare?

If so, does that make me a martial artist for engaging in this style of 'warfare' habitually?
By your apparent interpretations, it would.


If you were trying to invalidate the Webster definition with this, and argue the validity of each respective source, keep in mind that dictionary.com defines a martial art as "Oriental self-defense..." and "without weapons".


Which, oddly, is what most do mean when they speak of martial arts.

Also oddly, 'self defense' does not equate to fighting; a man who avoids a battle has defended himself as well as the man who wins a battle, and arguably has done so better than the man who wins the battle but is injured in the process.


Exactly. That was erroneous.


But not the error you accused me of.


You narrowly defined what warfare is attributed to. All combat is warfare.


All conflict (which includes, but is not limited to, combat) can be called warfare, and be technically correct.
Is it accurate to do so? Is the dictionary, perhaps, wrong or misleading?

Or are we attempting martial feats right now?

[Reidar]

So again, we have the "Martial artist is someone who practices the martial arts" not applying to someone who, ya know, practices martial arts... because Reidar insists that one particular meaning of 'practice' does not apply. But all meanings of warfare *do* apply to interpreting the 'martial' aspect.

This is a strawman. All meanings of warfare do not apply to a "martial" concept, only the intended contexts pertaining to the creation of the term.

However, that would still be an imprecise notion, even they were applicable in every situation. The term "practice" is obsequious to the subjection of homonym usage, while "warfare" is not.

To "practice" a martial art in training is a concept entirely disparate from the "practice" of a martial art in performing it habitually; the two words have no ties with one another, save for spelling. Note that the former is a verb, while the latter is a noun. Consequently, there will be respectively but separately appopriate contexts to use each in, as they are different parts of speech.

"Warfare", as pertaining to militaristic characterization, is not as disunited a term. It is always a noun, no matter what aspects attach to it.

This is conflict Reidar; your view against mine. Are we engaged in warfare?

We are, however less of an extent it may be.

IOW, you can't defend your definition except by pointing out that I didn't put my own up for critique. Even though it's not my definition that is up for debate, but yours.

Providing your own definition would be the utmost efficient method of demonstrating the propriety that you feel is lacking.

Nothing, when you are correct; quite a bit when you're not, as ego is the main factor that gets in the way of realizing when you're not. If you have invested your ego into this point, then I would be wasting my time discussing with you. If I fail, I fail; but If I prove you to be clearly incorrect, you wouldn't see it anyway.

The problem with this is that you made the issue of ego to be the centrum of your response when I asked for you to explicate what you think is wrong with my definition. So long as that remains your primary issue, the definition is not contradicted.

OTOH, this is a public forum... whether I succeed or fail in my attempt to make you reconsider your concept of who gets to be called a 'martial artist' is rather trivial in comparison to how the Viewers in General percieve the points being made.

The viewer will, and should, perceive however they see the points made. I believe you meant "what" instead of "how".

The definition is fine, it's your interpretation of it that is fallacious; you've ruled out those who practice the martial arts because they don't... 'practice' the martial arts. And possibly included me as a martial artist, for reasons I'll get into below.

That is correct, however contemptible you attempt to make it look by failing to differentiate between those two as homonyms in the given context for outside viewers reading. "Practice", the noun, is a different word from "practice", the verb.

Interesting. What would my definition be, if not 'what I would define' something as?

Your definition would be stating the meaning of the word. Instead, you explained the process of removing what you feel is needless in order to modify interpretation of my definition.

To show you where my error actually was; in interpreting 'especially vicious and unrelenting' to imply that it is not accurate to describe conflict which is neither vicious nor unrelenting as 'warfare'.

For example: this, right here, is conflict. Is it also warfare?

It is.

If so, does that make me a martial artist for engaging in this style of 'warfare' habitually?
By your apparent interpretations, it would.

It does not. You're attempting to escape correct context of word usage by claiming that.

Which, oddly, is what most do mean when they speak of martial arts.

Not people who speak of Brazilian Jiu-jitsu, Capoeira, Sambo, Savate, Western Boxing, European-adopted Muay Thai, Greco-Roman wrestling, Krav Maga, or any other non-Oriental martial art, along with Kendo, Escrima, Bata, or any other weapon-based martial art.

Also oddly, 'self defense' does not equate to fighting; a man who avoids a battle has defended himself as well as the man who wins a battle, and arguably has done so better than the man who wins the battle but is injured in the process.

That's avoiding, not defending. An example of the distinction between the two would be describing how one avoids harm by defending. It would be negligent to simply say he/she avoided if they had actually met the opposition directly, since "avoid" has evasive properties attributed with it. Respectively, "defense" is largely an active term, and is certainly one in the context of this discussion.

But not the error you accused me of.

It was; you established my case of narrow denotation with an obstructed example of a boxer's relation (or lack thereof, as you claim) to warfare.

All conflict (which includes, but is not limited to, combat) can be called warfare, and be technically correct.

That is correct.

Is it accurate to do so? Is the dictionary, perhaps, wrong or misleading?

It depends on the context. No dictionary contradicts that, although, on another note, I do have an issue with dictionary.com limiting the definition of "martial art" to Oriental relation. The Merriam-Webster site defines it more aptly.

Or are we attempting martial feats right now?

We are not.

Martial art = warfare
Warfare =/= martial art

They aren't interchangeable perceptions. All martial arts are of warfare, but not all examples of warfare are martial arts.