I think I understand it. If I do, we have a very similar idea. I interpret it as being able to use the best tool (martial art, weapon, whatever) for every situation without resorting to magic. The fighter would be to combatants what the wizard is to casters or the archivist to divine casters.
This. I approve. 
The problem is that the current fighter doesn't do that, and in fact is the very opposite of that idea. A fighter chooses a given style and overspecializes in it, never looking at an alternative. I've been able to build a fighter with a decent range of options (3-4), but it required dipping 5 different classes over 6 levels (Warblade, crusader, cloistered cleric, barbarian and psychic warrior (this one to regain feats)) and taking some liberties (Jotunbrud counting for Knockback, taking the thicket of blades stance at crusader lvl 1) because by itself the warrior could, at most, be competent in 2 options (Bullrushing + fear).
Instead, I'd rather go for the idea of a fighter which, knowing what he is going to fight against, prepares accordingly. Maybe he's going to fight a dragon, so he picks his bow, gets prepared to the idea of throwing himself onto the back of the dragon in mid-flight, and practices a couple of times, readying himself to jump at the first sight of a single flame. Maybe the next time he knows he's fighting a crowd of goblins. This time he chooses a huge hammer, readies a stance to keep his ground, and starts motivating himself for some quick battle shouts to scare the critters. And so on.
This is the only way I can find to make the fighter able to contribute to fights, keep being himself and not a barbarian/ranger/knight rip-off, avoiding being a generalist with a little bit of everything but nothing working and avoid being a barbarian/ranger/knight gestalt which pwnzorwtf the other classes.
Indeed. I think it was reading about Musashi first that really solidified it for me. His original principle was to hit some one fast and hard - so hard he killed better trained better armed samurai. Nitto ryu, philosophy, all that came later. Perfection is simple.
Then I read the Colours of Steel and the protagnist was talking about how to conserve energy in a fight, because swinging a sword many times was very tiring work 
I remember thinking, 'this is a Fighter. A professional killer that wipes out entire armies expediently, as long as they keep coming.'
Someone able to use whatever, be it a teapot or a sword or a river, to cause death.
You could call it martial arts, but I'm thinking its best expressed as a natural aptitude or something beaten into you. Thats the fluff anyway.
I also think that mechanically the Fighter class will benefit by being seperated from ranged melee and making a separate class called the Archer, badass red coat optional.
That's the second interpretation, then. I can't say I like it. I like the variety in martial arts precisely because there isn't an absolute. There is room for variety, because different tactics and techniques are strong against a certain set of other tactics.
I can understand the niche, though. Instead of focusing on the "flavor" differences between combat classes, and instead of trying to figure how to fit the warrior, you assume there is another, uncovered niche there: Not other class focuses solely on fighting. The barbarian also has the idea of wilderness in it, the paladin is also a talker. There isn't a "pure" warrior. So, if there is one, that class should be the absolutely best at it.
I'm sorry, but I don't like it. I like having different classes with different flavor, each one with his strong and weak points, better suited to one or other situation.
