If you are only looking at utility, is it utility for...

Competition?

Self Defense?

If either or both of the above are the only goal, is what you are doing a Martial Art, or would it be better classified as a Martial Sport, or Martial Science?

Well, first of all, I would have no problem calling what I do a "martial sport." I fail to see the negative connotations that the word sport has for so many here, and personally I find sport far more enjoyable and meaningful than learning to "defend oneself," or adopting a "way of life." Sport can have incredible depth: geniuses like Michael Jordan, Roger Federer and, dare I say, Anderson Silva show the enormous value of sport in our society. You need only ask football fans in England to know the significance sporting moments have in their lives.

However, I think there is a greater problem with you argument Earl. It leads to a complete deadlock in the debate. Quite frankly, by accusing those who practice purely for self defense as not really practicing a true martial art, you are refusing to sit down at the table with them, let alone play the game.(it's an old Bertrand Russel analogy about Сhess I believe)

People practice martial arts for many reasons, not always ones we agree with, and not always ones that we would personally associate with martial arts. For example, I have never understood the desire to adopt martial arts as a way of life, or as a way of more deeply understanding Eastern thought. However people do indeed practice MAs for precisely those reasons, and it is foolish of us to deny to them that they are practicing martial arts. After all, no matter what definition of martial arts we come up with, there would probably only be a minority of martial artists who accepted that definition.

Rather, it is better to look at the practice of martial arts as an way of achieving one's goals, whatever they may be. If a person's goal is to defend themselves, then it stands to reason that they should practice those elements of martial arts that will most help them achieve that goal. If a person's goal is personal fulfillment through the perfection of a set of movements, then patterns training is fine. And if a person's goal is to become better at sparring, then they should be able to train without patterns, without the stigma of being mere "sports" martial artists.

Very nice Supremor and I agree totally; as would others.

I knew I voted for Supremor to be our moderator for a reason. Well said Sup...here, here

You see it as the problem, I see it as the solution. Before an intelligent conversation can take place, people need to agree on how the terms are defined. Do I understand your all inclusive position? Absoutely. Do I agree with it? No.
Hence the article on this topic I had published in TKD Times.
http://www.geocities.com/ustfregion5/What.html

I do not consider Tae Bo or Cardio Kickboxing a MArtial Art. Martial exercise perhaps. It frosts me when I hear "XXX does Kickboxing." and then I find out it's only the cardio type.
Had a conversation with an Israeli about 25 years ago and asked about his experience with the Martial Art of Krav Maga. (This was before the current mass marketed system was in place. It was only taught in the Military. ) His answer was telling. He saud "Art, what art? There is nothing artistic about kneeing someone in the groin."

Similarly at Peyton Quinn's RMCAT, one of the first things they will tell you is that it's not a Martial Art.

So, we will agree to disagree. Before the question of patterns can be addressed as to whether they should be scrapped for TKD we need to define what is TKD, or what is a martial art.

I completely understand where you're coming from Earl. I too have problems accepting Tae Bo as a martial art. But the problem is that it becomes a slippery slope, where some people exclude themselves from the rest of the martial arts community. One of the greatest problems with Taekwon-do, as any browse of the history or this forum will indicate, is political factionalism.

The inability to accept others as really practicing taekwon-do is a large reason for such factionalism, because if you have a more narrow definition of a martial art than others, then you cannot accept what they are doing. It also leads to an inability to adapt to innovations in science and experience, because that new knowledge may not fit within one's fixed definition of a martial art.

What about people that join Taekwondo for their exercise? This is their mindset so they are not thinking self defense, they are not thinking they are fighting imaginary people while doing patterns (only going through the motions), they simple are doing Taekwondo for health and fitness. So are these people that even though in a martial "art", are they martial artists? Are they training really anything different then Tae Bo?

Well exactly Dereck. The trouble is that a martial arts instructor would find it very difficult to only allow students to train who had the same idea of what the wanted to get out of training. I would say a great deal of people who take MAs, do so for purely fitness reasons.

Exactly, Dereck. And the reverse is true, too. I have trained a nominally "sportive" art (BJJ), with the intention of adding those skills to my self-defense repetoire, with little interest in competition. Where do I fall on the continuum?

No disrespect intended, but because one can publish an article in the TKD Times doesn't mean it is correct; that is the opinion of the writer only. If I were to get an article published in MMA Magazine and then link it here would he make the argument change? No it wouldn't. So that there is an article in the TKD Times, a magazine solely for promoting TKD, I don't really hold that in too high of regard especially with all that TKD is today.