# What exactly defines a modern martial art vs traditional martial art?



## Ironbear24 (Apr 4, 2016)

In my opinion both of these terms are ridiculous and further divide a community that should have no division in it. However I would like to know because my arts, kenpo karate and Judo have been called both TMA and MMA's.


----------



## ShawnP (Apr 4, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> In my opinion both of these terms are ridiculous and further divide a community that should have no division in it. However I would like to know because my arts, kenpo karate and Judo have been called both TMA and MMA's.


I'm sure Chris Parker will be along soon, he has a lot of knowledge on this as i read from another thread, it will be an interesting read i'm sure.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Apr 4, 2016)

I will patiently wait for his response.


----------



## Steve (Apr 4, 2016)

I'd be a little careful with referring to Modern Martial Arts as MMAs.  MMA means something pretty specific to most people and using MMA in a different way is likely to cause confusion.

As for your question and your statement, I disagree that the terms are ridiculous.  I think, as with most labels, they are useful if they are being used in ways that are clear and well defined.

Personally, I think of TMA in two ways.  First, TMAs are often used to refer to a martial arts style that trace (or allege to trace) its origins and methods back a hundred or more years, and are Asian in origin.  While I think a strong case can be made that BJJ is a traditional martial art, it doesn't typically fall into that category as it is no really Japanese, even though it is derived from a Japanese style.

Second definition I like for TMA focuses on the "tradition" part of the acronym.  Essentially, if the number one priority of the art is to learn and subsequently transmit the techniques (and usually the training methods) in as consistent a manner as possible, you're in a traditional art.


----------



## geezer (Apr 4, 2016)

Mr. Parker will have a very well informed view from his perspective as a student of Koryu, but honestly as people use and abuse the terms "traditional" and "modern" they can pretty much mean whatever you want them to. In the traditional Japanese arts, a term like koryu has a very specific meaning. Regarding martial arts in general you will not find consensus.


----------



## Andrew Green (Apr 4, 2016)

Even with the term traditional you have two very different sorts of concepts.

Take something like a Koryu art, one that has a goal of preserving the style as it was.  Same teaching methods, same techniques, everything preserved as much as possible.  Now compare that to boxing, which is also about as traditional as you can get but in a completely different sense of the word.  Boxing's history can be traced back a very long ways and has been a part of western culture for a very, very long time.  Same for wrestling, it's been around since written history started.

Then what do we do with groups like HEMA? Which are recreations of historical arts but haven't really been passed down through a lineage in the same way eastern arts place value on.

I suppose if I was to try and draw a distinction between what is generally meant when people use those terms to create a distinction traditional arts are meant to keep something in tact that was systemized by someone else who is now long dead where as modern arts are more flexible and open to curriculum changes and drawing from multiple sources.  But even with that a lot of styles are a bit of both and it's a rather fuzzy line.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Apr 4, 2016)

Steve said:


> Second definition I like for TMA focuses on the "tradition" part of the acronym. Essentially, if the number one priority of the art is to learn and subsequently transmit the techniques (and usually the training methods) in as consistent a manner as possible, you're in a traditional art.



Doesn't everyone do this?  Learn a technique then aim to be consistent with it? We all do things as we are taught.



Steve said:


> While I think a strong case can be made that BJJ is a traditional martial art, it doesn't typically fall into that category as it is no really Japanese, even though it is derived from a Japanese style.



As far as it being Japanese or not would have nothing to do with it being traditional or modern. If you want to get far into it though I guess you can call it a Brazilian take on a Japanese art.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 4, 2016)

By using the artificial intelligence term, the

- traditional MA is a "forward search" that you start from the root and search to the leafs.
- modern MA is a "backward search" that you start from the leaf and search back to the root.

For example. most of the

- traditional MA starts from the basic stance, form/Kata, partner drills, and then get into spar/wrestle. It's more "principle/strategy base".
- modern MA starts from the partner drills, spar/wrestle. They may even skip the stance and form/Kata training. It's more "technique base".

We all know the "bi-directions search" that you start your search both from the root forward and leaf backward and meet in the middle of the tree is the fastest searching method. A mix of the traditional MA training method and the modern MA training method should be the best.

For example, when your instructor teaches you the horse stance, he may tell you to keep your feet parallel on the ground with shoulder width and ... You may then ask him why do you need to train this horse stance. At the same time, if your teacher also shows you how to execute a hip throw. He then tells you that a good hip throw will require a good horse stance. You will then have the motivation to train your horse stance because you know exactly what's your goal is.

Starting from the basic but also knowing what your goal is should be the best training method.


----------



## Steve (Apr 4, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> Doesn't everyone do this?  Learn a technique then aim to be consistent with it? We all do things as we are taught.


 Not necessarily.  And to be clear, it's really more about ranking priorities and making decisions.  If there is ever a conflict between efficacy and consistency, some styles will opt to be consistent and others will gladly abandon canon to modify their curriculum.  If doing it the way it's always been done is of paramount importance, that speaks to the nut of what tradition is, in my opinion.  





> As far as it being Japanese or not would have nothing to do with it being traditional or modern. If you want to get far into it though I guess you can call it a Brazilian take on a Japanese art.


Yeah, want to clarify.  Some people here may go out of their way to suggest that there is a single definition of "Traditional Martial Art" that is correct.  I think that's a lost cause and am really just speaking to how the term is generally used by people who are self identified as training in a TMA.  Most of the time, when someone uses the term, they have in mind a Japanese art, but sometimes other styles make their way into the conversation. 

But that said, I can completely understand how some Western styles can be considered TMA, in spite of little or no tie to Asia.  Western fencing, some wrestling styles like CaCC, boxing, BJJ... there are many that share some of the traits we typically think of.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Apr 4, 2016)

Steve said:


> Not necessarily. And to be clear, it's really more about ranking priorities and making decisions. If there is ever a conflict between efficacy and consistency, some styles will opt to be consistent and others will gladly abandon canon to modify their curriculum. If doing it the way it's always been done is of paramount importance, that speaks to the nut of what tradition is, in my opinion.



I respectfully ask that you consider thinking about this opinion. The reason why techniques have became traditional and passed down for so long is because they generally work. Think about it. Why would anyone pass down something if it sucked and continue to teach it if it does not work? 

Efficacy is always from my experiences the number 1 priority when it comes to the martial arts I have come across. Which has only been Ed Parker kenpo, Judo and very little Escrima.

The only thing I can think of that would be "innefective" is kata, but then again kata is not meant to be used in combat but is a tool for training.


----------



## Steve (Apr 4, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> I respectfully ask that you consider thinking about this opinion. The reason why techniques have became traditional and passed down for so long is because they generally work. Think about it. Why would anyone pass down something if it sucked and continue to teach it if it does not work?
> 
> Efficacy is always from my experiences the number 1 priority when it comes to the martial arts I have come across. Which has only been Ed Parker kenpo, Judo and very little Escrima.
> 
> The only thing I can think of that would be "innefective" is kata, but then again kata is not meant to be used in combat but is a tool for training.


The techniques may be effective, but the application may have significantly changed over time.  Kyudo is a very effective way to deliver an arrow to a target.  But how practical is that for self defense? 

As is often stated, people train for a lot of different reasons. 

Or what about even a simple punch, or making a fist, or even ground fighting?  We see this all the time around here with regards to grappling in general, and typically ground fighting in particular, where people within a style will consider it crucial that the answer be internal to their style and not taken from some external source.  For example, WC "anti-grappling" where it's very important to some WC stylists that the ground defense is a function of their style and not derived from some other place, such as wrestling, Judo or BJJ. 

Ultimately, this is like asking someone what their favorite movie is.  You're going to get a unique answer from everyone.  So, the real bottom line for me is define it however you'd like.  Just make sure other people understand what you're talking about when you use the term.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 4, 2016)

For Jow Ga.  Traditional Martial Arts means any martial arts that follows an established cultural tradition.  This means that the training, strategies, perspectives, etiquette, and concepts are traditional and have been handed down for generations. Many of the traditional martial arts focused on fighting, while some of today's modern martial arts may focus on performance for scoring points in a forms competition or scoring points in sparring competition.  

For many modern martial arts, there's not tons of cultural tradition that's part of the martial arts system.  This doesn't mean that there won't be.  It just means that at this point in time, there's less than 100 years of existence and no defined set of "rituals" and expectations have been established that helps define the culture of that fighting system.  For example,  one BJJ school may have a different culture from another BJJ school.  Eventually, that will change if it hasn't already begun to change.  It will get to a point where you can go to one BJJ school and then to another and expect to see the same culture and rituals that help define that fighting system.  I can go to a Jow Ga Kung Fu school and I can expect to see similar things such as a shrine to the founders and lineage, a deep respect for that shrine, a specific code of ethnics, and techniques that are done in a certain way as taught by the founder which is the root of the system. The sifu may add other components and train other systems, but the Jow Ga component will always remain as closely to what the original founders taught.


----------



## MAfreak (Apr 4, 2016)

i might forget something but spontaneuos i'd say there are just traditional martial arts. "modern" styles aren't martial arts but combat sports. even if they have the term "martial arts" in it.
so while for example karate mightn't be much older than vale tudo, its near to its ancestors traditions and focuses not just on the fighting aspect.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Apr 4, 2016)

Kyudo in self defense? I had no idea what that it is until I googled it. Archery in self-defense I would say is useless unless you are green arrow or hawk eye and happen to always carry a bow and arrows with you at all times. 

The techniques change with time because people have found ways to improve on them. For example the very simple most basic kenpo counters have changed many times through the styles life. Delayed sword is the first one students learn. It is a blocking a jab with an inward block that crosses your body, then a front kick to the groin followed by a chop to the clavicle.

It is already basic and it is puzzling to see how you can change something so simple, yet it has been several times. The side kick in kenpo has also been changed and I recently started doing the old version over the new one because the new one may be faster, but it really lacks power.

If you prefer the more "modern arts" over traditional that is ok. I am not asking you to change your mind or anything. I am just trying to make a point that ideally things change in more seemingly traditional arts often, which is why I even question what makes them traditional in the first place.

Someone said that modern and traditional have a fuzzy line between them and it feels like I am not able to find what distinguishes it.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Apr 4, 2016)

I think it is probably possible to construct a definition for "Traditional Martial Art" that would be logically self-consistent. Unfortunately, I don't think such a definition would match up with how the term is typically used by the martial arts community as a whole - including both self-professed practitioners of TMAs and non-TMAs.

Just as an example - TKD is commonly referred to as a TMA and BJJ is not - even though BJJ is older than TKD.

You could argue that perhaps "traditional" doesn't refer to the actual age of the art, but rather to the attitude regarding the transmission of the art in its original form. The problem there is that TKD has evolved significantly from its original form, just as BJJ has evolved from its own.

You could argue (as I've heard one or two people do) that TKD isn't _really_ a TMA, since it has a relatively recent origin and has evolved noticeably in the time since that origin. The problem is that once you start going down that path and examining actual history to evaluate who gets to call themselves TMA, you'll find that a high percentage of the arts called "traditional" aren't nearly as "traditional" as their practitioners would like to believe. You could probably get broad consensus that the legitimate koryu arts are pretty traditional, but beyond that most folks wouldn't make the cut.

Perhaps, you could argue "too bad." Only arts with a long, well-documented lineage and a successful commitment to preserving the technical details and cultural artifacts of that lineage with minimal change get to qualify as TMA. The problem is that now you are using the term in a way that contradicts the usage of 95% of the martial artists out there who use the term including those who identify as traditional martial artists. It's not like math or science where there exists an objectively correct answer which might contradict popular understanding. It's language. Usage defines meaning.

The upshot is that I don't personally regard "TMA" as being a particularly useful term. It doesn't bother me when other people use it, but I don't think it adds much useful information to the conversation.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 4, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> The only thing I can think of that would be "innefective" is kata, but then again kata is not meant to be used in combat but is a tool for training.



If trained properly, kata can be extremely effective.  Yes, it is a training tool, but as such, it can effectively train you to fight or succeed in self defense.

This makes a few assumptions, however.  It assumes the kata itself is well designed.  Not all are.  It assumes one's understanding of the kata is strong and appropriate.  That is not always the case.  It assumes the approach to training the kata is appropriate.  That also is not always the case.

So yeah, there is plenty of room for people to go wrong with it.


----------



## Kenpoguy123 (Apr 4, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> I respectfully ask that you consider thinking about this opinion. The reason why techniques have became traditional and passed down for so long is because they generally work. Think about it. Why would anyone pass down something if it sucked and continue to teach it if it does not work?
> 
> Efficacy is always from my experiences the number 1 priority when it comes to the martial arts I have come across. Which has only been Ed Parker kenpo, Judo and very little Escrima.
> 
> The only thing I can think of that would be "innefective" is kata, but then again kata is not meant to be used in combat but is a tool for training.



I agree kind of but not on some points. Look at kenpo a lot of it does but be honest there's a lot total rubbish techniques that would never work . Gift in return, unfolding the dark, twirling sacrifice etc, but often you hear people say their kept in because it shows category completion which to me is stupid your training people to defend themselves who cares about all that just show me moves that will save my *** but that's a point for another time but those are still taught because Parker taught them


----------



## Steve (Apr 4, 2016)

Just want to make it clear that I don't have any opinion about kata one way or the other.  I don't do them, but believe that there's value to the people who do. 

Regarding culture, I think the culture of BJJ is as unique and well defined as any other style.   One school may be different from another, but that is true of any style.  But I wouldn't be reluctant to describe some attributes I think comprise a core personality and culture for BJJ as a style.  Similarly, I think other non-traditional styles also have well defined cultures.

Jow Ga, you also seem to be implying that traditional styles tend to focus more on fighting than non-traditional styles, which can focus on scoring points.  While this MAY be true, there are many TMAs which do not focus on fighting, or which relegate fighting much lower than other priorities.  Tai Chi, Kyudo, Kendo, Judo, Kyokushin Karate, San Shou, Muay Thai, Wushu. 

This isn't to say that fighting is unimportant within these styles, but there are many reasons people train, and fighting is not always even on the list.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Apr 4, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> By using the artificial intelligence term, the
> 
> - traditional MA is a "forward search" that you start from the root and search to the leafs.
> - modern MA is a "backward search" that you start from the leaf and search back to the root.
> ...



While I like this. I have to wonder how many no CS types will get this. And even this with a Comp Sci BS, did they have AI in undergrad ? I had it both in Undergrad and Master's level. Very enjoying.


----------



## Dinkydoo (Apr 4, 2016)

Rich Parsons said:


> While I like this. I have to wonder how many no CS types will get this. And even this with a Comp Sci BS, did they have AI in undergrad ? I had it both in Undergrad and Master's level. Very enjoying.


The last thing I expected to find on this thread was a metaphor for traditional vs modern martial arts involving tree traversal. I've been at work all day dammit, evenings are supposed to be for face-punchy things  

I like the idea though, but I'm not sure it exactly fits. I need to think about it for a while.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 4, 2016)

Today's traditional methods were cutting edge yesterday.  Their techniques and training methodologies were seen to work, so they were kept and passed to the next generations.  How many generations need to pass before it deserves the name "traditional"?  Well I don't really know.

Are those techniques and methods still relevant today?  Often yes and often no.  Can they be better than newer methods?  Yes.  Can they be worse than newer methods? Yes.

I think any traditional system can still be relevant today, but the people doing it need to be honest in their reflection as to whether the training methods still make sense.  Maybe the old methods do make sense, but some modern approaches might make more sense.  Or vice versa.  There might be no clear correct answer, it might vary for each person or each school.  

I think teaching a traditional system could be modernized and it would still be the same traditional system as long as the principles are kept in tact.  But at the same time, if the traditional methodologies are still viable, there may be no need to modernize it.

I really think there can be a lot of fluidity in the definitions, and in how they approach their training.  You could have a modern system using (at least some) traditional methods, or vice versa.

Honestly, I don't see a reason to get too hung up over it.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Apr 4, 2016)

Kenpoguy123 said:


> I agree kind of but not on some points. Look at kenpo a lot of it does but be honest there's a lot total rubbish techniques that would never work . Gift in return, unfolding the dark, twirling sacrifice etc, but often you hear people say their kept in because it shows category completion which to me is stupid your training people to defend themselves who cares about all that just show me moves that will save my *** but that's a point for another time but those are still taught because Parker taught them



I see nothing wrong with these techniques at all.


----------



## Kenpoguy123 (Apr 4, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> I see nothing wrong with these techniques at all.


There's loads wrong with those techniques. Gift in return seriously? Your going to take their hand and put it under their crotch and go round behind them. You try that on anyone your getting a knee in the face. Twirling sacrifice pick them up and slam them into a wall seriously? Look I love kenpo as much as anyone but there is a lot of useless techniques that simply would not work but they do teach principles which you can adapt to do your own thing which is what kenpo is about. Now I've trained with a number of high up instructors who say those techniques are bs. Graham Lelliot, lee wedlake they say those techniques are rubbish and I think 2 people who actually studied under Parker would know it. Look kenpo is a great art but it's not perfect and there are things that don't work it's simple as that I know it and I accept it and just keep training it. My former instructor who was a 7th dan said that pretty much all the knife and gun techniques are outdated and dangerous and would not help you. Again you can take elements from them but still realistically you need to keep an open mind on these things


----------



## Ironbear24 (Apr 4, 2016)

Gift in return you are supposed to squeeze the hand, that is enough pain as it is to bring someone to their knees. I know it is not perfect, but I can see them working. I myself would use gift in return because honestly if I already have the guys hand, which is what starts the technique, there are much better things I can do. 

Plus twirling sacrifice has a really great full Nelson break, you can't deny that. The lift them up and carry them around like an oversized baby is also awesome and that cannot be denied. I personally call this the bad parenting part of the the technique, carry your kid around and oops. Dropped them. 

I also don't see how you could be kneed in the face, because you are not directly in front of them when doing this. You are off sideways and they can try to knee or kick but your arm will be in the way of it. This video shows it off better.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Apr 4, 2016)

To reiterate. By awesome. I mean hilarious.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 4, 2016)

Kenpoguy123 said:


> There's loads wrong with those techniques. Gift in return seriously? Your going to take their hand and put it under their crotch and go round behind them. You try that on anyone your getting a knee in the face. Twirling sacrifice pick them up and slam them into a wall seriously? Look I love kenpo as much as anyone but there is a lot of useless techniques that simply would not work but they do teach principles which you can adapt to do your own thing which is what kenpo is about. Now I've trained with a number of high up instructors who say those techniques are bs. Graham Lelliot, lee wedlake they say those techniques are rubbish and I think 2 people who actually studied under Parker would know it. Look kenpo is a great art but it's not perfect and there are things that don't work it's simple as that I know it and I accept it and just keep training it. My former instructor who was a 7th dan said that pretty much all the knife and gun techniques are outdated and dangerous and would not help you. Again you can take elements from them but still realistically you need to keep an open mind on these things


As an ex-Tracy guy, I've felt the same way about a lot of it.  A lot of material must have looked good on paper in the design room, but just doesn't pass the BS sniffer in real life. And then there are forms built with that same material.  The bad stuff has a way of perpetuating itself.


----------



## Kenpoguy123 (Apr 4, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> Gift in return you are supposed to squeeze the hand, that is enough pain as it is to bring someone to their knees. I know it is not perfect, but I can see them working. I myself would use gift in return because honestly if I already have the guys hand, which is what starts the technique, there are much better things I can do.
> 
> Plus twirling sacrifice has a really great full Nelson break, you can't deny that. The lift them up and carry them around like an oversized baby is also awesome and that cannot be denied. I personally call this the bad parenting part of the the technique, carry your kid around and oops. Dropped them.
> 
> I also don't see how you could be kneed in the face, because you are not directly in front of them when doing this. You are off sideways and they can try to knee or kick but your arm will be in the way of it. This video shows it off better.


Yes but come on who's going to be able to squeeze your hand so hard you fall to your knees try that squeezing the hand to get them to fall you'll get a punch in the mouth.

I'm not dismissing kenpo I love it and there's loads of great techniques that are brilliant my favourites attacking mace, five swords, detour from doom and heavenly ascent but hey it's nice to see another kenpo person here to talk with  how long have you been training and what rank are you?


----------



## Kenpoguy123 (Apr 4, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> As an ex-Tracy guy, I've felt the same way about a lot of it.  A lot of material must have looked good on paper in the design room, but just doesn't pass the BS sniffer in real life. And then there are forms built with that same material.  The bad stuff has a way of perpetuating itself.


Yeah as I've said I love the art and it absolutely works but it is not perfect and if ed Parker hadn't died when he had I think it would be very different today what with mma being popular but it's a great art and I enjoy so who cares at the end of the day


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 4, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> Maybe the old methods do make sense, but some modern approaches might make more sense.


Among all the modern MA training, there still exist no equivalent replacement for some of the traditional MA training yet.

For example, in wrestling, if you can hold on your opponent's both arms, you can twist him down to the ground.






The following is a traditional MA training method that can help you to develop this kind of "both arms twisting power".






Also if you want to develop a strong "head lock",







this traditional MA pole hanging training is still the best.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 4, 2016)

Kenpoguy123 said:


> Yeah as I've said I love the art and it absolutely works but it is not perfect and if ed Parker hadn't died when he had I think it would be very different today what with mma being popular but it's a great art and I enjoy so who cares at the end of the day


I think somebody got too enthusiastic and kept on creating new SD techs, long after they should have stopped.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Apr 4, 2016)

Kenpoguy123 said:


> Yes but come on who's going to be able to squeeze your hand so hard you fall to your knees try that squeezing the hand to get them to fall you'll get a punch in the mouth.
> 
> I'm not dismissing kenpo I love it and there's loads of great techniques that are brilliant my favourites attacking mace, five swords, detour from doom and heavenly ascent but hey it's nice to see another kenpo person here to talk with  how long have you been training and what rank are you?



Do you doubt the power of chronic masturbation? But seriously it's not that hard, the hand is in general a very weak part of the body with many small bones that make it up. It does take a bit of strength regardless though. I have practiced on and off for 11 years and my current rank is white because I came back to it at a new dojo. My rank before was blue which is by no means a master.


----------



## Kenpoguy123 (Apr 4, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> I think somebody got too enthusiastic and kept on creating new SD techs, long after they should have stopped.


I simply think it was money orientated they need more techniques to keep people learning  new stuff to keep them coming to class. Not a criticism but that's what it is but the thing what doesn't work for one does for someone else


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 4, 2016)

Kenpoguy123 said:


> I simply think it was money orientated they need more techniques to keep people learning  new stuff to keep them coming to class. Not a criticism but that's what it is but the thing what doesn't work for one does for someone else


I think we are saying the same thing, two different ways. 

You are correct, what does not work for one may still work for others.  However, there are limits to that justification.  Some things are just extremely low probability.  As a teacher, how could one even keep the system "whole"?  If something does not work for you, but you keep it with the idea that it might be good for one of your students, you are incapable of successfully teaching it to your student.  If it does not work for you, how can you possibly pass it along to a student in a way that he can use it?


----------



## oaktree (Apr 4, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> In my opinion both of these terms are ridiculous and further divide a community that should have no division in it. However I would like to know because my arts, kenpo karate and Judo have been called both TMA and MMA's.


An art that is over 800 years isn't modern.
Now some people want to apply it to modern times so the approach and some variation May be altered and if altered is it still traditional is a good question. Some traditional arts do everything as it was done 800 years ago and refuse to alter it at all for modern times as they feel they shouldn't.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 4, 2016)

oaktree said:


> An art that is over 800 years isn't modern.
> Now some people want to apply it to modern times so the approach and some variation May be altered and if altered is it still traditional is a good question. Some traditional arts do everything as it was done 800 years ago and refuse to alter it at all for modern times as they feel they shouldn't.



How do you categorize Aikido, or Judo or Shuaijiao?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Apr 4, 2016)

oaktree said:


> An art that is over 800 years isn't modern.
> Now some people want to apply it to modern times so the approach and some variation May be altered and if altered is it still traditional is a good question. Some traditional arts do everything as it was done 800 years ago and refuse to alter it at all for modern times as they feel they shouldn't.


I'm not aware of _any_ existing art which is over 800 years old and still does everything as it was done 800 years ago. I'm aware of a few arts which are _claimed_ to fit into that category, but the actual history doesn't back up those claims.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 4, 2016)

oaktree said:


> Some traditional arts do everything as it was done 800 years ago and refuse to alter it at all for modern times as they feel they shouldn't.


Agree! Here is a good example. You may use this move to take your opponent down. But at the same time you may give your opponent a chance to choke you to death. It works in "sport" when ground game is not allowed. It's too dangerous to apply otherwise.

IMO, it makes no sense to train any MA skill that only work in "sport" but doesn't work in "combat".


----------



## drop bear (Apr 4, 2016)

Traditional martial arts has more of a focus on ritual.

There are grey areas of course


----------



## oaktree (Apr 4, 2016)

Xue Sheng said:


> How do you categorize Aikido, or Judo or Shuaijiao?


Aikido is gendai modern compare to koryu daito ryu aikijujutsu, judo same compare to its koryu foundation, shuai jiao is said to be over a thousand years old. If an art is made in the 20th century I think it is modern. Doesn't mean it is not traditional. Tradition incorporates meaning passed down from one to another, I have a tradition with my dad even though it is modern.


----------



## oaktree (Apr 4, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I'm not aware of _any_ existing art which is over 800 years old and still does everything as it was done 800 years ago. I'm aware of a few arts which are _claimed_ to fit into that category, but the actual history doesn't back up those claims.


Katori shinto ryu kenjutsu is about 600. Chen Taijiquan about 500 years old and mostly these arts haven't change perhaps I should have said 500-600


----------



## drop bear (Apr 4, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> Gift in return you are supposed to squeeze the hand, that is enough pain as it is to bring someone to their knees. I know it is not perfect, but I can see them working. I myself would use gift in return because honestly if I already have the guys hand, which is what starts the technique, there are much better things I can do.
> 
> Plus twirling sacrifice has a really great full Nelson break, you can't deny that. The lift them up and carry them around like an oversized baby is also awesome and that cannot be denied. I personally call this the bad parenting part of the the technique, carry your kid around and oops. Dropped them.
> 
> I also don't see how you could be kneed in the face, because you are not directly in front of them when doing this. You are off sideways and they can try to knee or kick but your arm will be in the way of it. This video shows it off better.



Low percentage.

And i have trained that and even tried to pull it off in a fight.

The jjj version is the arm between legs comealong.  It is reliant on the guy you are doing it on being a chump.  You do it as a gag for someone you are fighting but are so much better than that you can muck around.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 4, 2016)

oaktree said:


> shuai jiao is said to be over a thousand years old.


Shuai Chiao can be traced back to the Chin Dynasty (246 BC ~ 207 BC) in China. That is over 2000 years old.


----------



## oaktree (Apr 4, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Shuai Chiao can be traced back to the Chin Dynasty (246 BC ~ 207 BC) in China. That is over 2000 years old.


That picture is the first bromance


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 4, 2016)

Steve said:


> Jow Ga, you also seem to be implying that traditional styles tend to focus more on fighting than non-traditional styles, which can focus on scoring points. While this MAY be true, there are many TMAs which do not focus on fighting, or which relegate fighting much lower than other priorities. Tai Chi, Kyudo, Kendo, Judo, Kyokushin Karate, San Shou, Muay Thai, Wushu


 I don't know about the other ones, but Tai Chi is brutal and if you find someone that studies the Martial Arts version, then you'll be surprised just how much fighting take priority vs non fighting.  In my book the martial art Tai Chi is martial as defined by webster dictionary that martial mean of, relating to, or suited for war or a warrior.  If the system is not suited for fighting then it's not a TMA for me.  The Tai Chi that many people practice where they say it's all about peace and finding one's higher self are not doing the same Tai Chi that a traditional martial artist with a lineage is doing.  For example

This Tai Chi 




Vs 

This Tai Chi





They both have the same name but only one is going to considered as a Traditional Martial art in my book. I know that  San Shou, Muay Thai, and Judo have a similar view point as I have with Tai Chi.  There's a sporting side and a martial side of these systems.   I wouldn't consider the sporting side as a TMA.   There are things you would do in a martial aspect that you wouldn't or shouldn't do in a sporting aspect.  The sporting aspect allows TMAs to practice their non-lethal skills.

Here is your traditional Muay Thai


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 4, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> Today's traditional methods were cutting edge yesterday.  Their techniques and training methodologies were seen to work, so they were kept and passed to the next generations.  How many generations need to pass before it deserves the name "traditional"?  Well I don't really know.
> 
> Are those techniques and methods still relevant today?  Often yes and often no.  Can they be better than newer methods?  Yes.  Can they be worse than newer methods? Yes.
> 
> ...


In my school we learn how to apply traditional applications to modern attacks and defenses. We are able to keep the technique that we are using but it has to be applied slightly different, which in my opinion is just the natural reality of fighting. It's understood that we can't fight everyone the same way or even with the same technique that may have worked on a different fighter.  Adjustments are always being made in fighting, either to adjust for height, size, weight, strength etc.  An upward block would still be useful but it may need to be applied differently to account for how people throw punches.  I'm comfortable with many traditional techniques mainly because they were born during a time where people fought wars with their hands and swords.  They had hundreds of years and many wars to perfect the technique.  The same can't be said today with hand to hand combat in a sporting ring.  I think some of the applications for traditional techniques are limited only because there was no way to really record the technique on video and keep it for safe keeping.  All TMAs (pre video) relied on the memory of the Sifu and their students.  I'm learning that the more that I fight with Jow Ga, the better I begin to understand all of the applications of that technique. There are some applications of a technique that I stumbled upon that my Sifu never taught me.  When I look at some of the TMA schools I begin to wonder how many of the teachers and instructors actually used the applications that they are teaching in a sparring or fighting situation.  Are some of the teachers just passing form and technique outside of the context of how to apply it in a fight?  if so then it's only logical that a TMA technique would seem useless against a modern fighting style only because the technique hasn't been explored beyond the form.

Personal just form how I train.  I think all TMA's should learn how to apply their traditional fighting techniques to modern fighting styles.  I don't want to apply my rising block as if I'm defending against a punching style that was used 200 years ago.  I want to apply my rising block in a manner that addresses today's common punching methods.  Same technique with a different way of applying it.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 4, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Traditional martial arts has more of a focus on ritual.
> 
> There are grey areas of course


Not in my experience.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 5, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> Not in my experience.



Fair enough.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 5, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> I wouldn't consider the sporting side as a TMA.   There are things you would do in a martial aspect that you wouldn't or shouldn't do in a sporting aspect.  The sporting aspect allows TMAs to practice their non-lethal skills.


Even in "sporting" side, there are a set of skills that you use in "friendly match" while there are a set of skills (called "black hand") that you use in "unfriendly challenge".


----------



## Evan Danger (Apr 5, 2016)

Hey I thought ya'll might enjoy this. it's a superhero parody we made in Shanghai, focusing on fight scenes that combine realistic MMA with traditional Kung-Fu.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 5, 2016)

I wanted to try to figure this out, so I punched my uke with a traditional martial arts punch.  He collapsed and fell to the floor.  When he got up, punched him with a modern martial arts punch.  He again collapsed to the floor.

I asked him, when he recovered, which hurt more.  He said they were both the same.  Looked the same, felt the same, same power, same pain.

Go figure.


----------



## Steve (Apr 5, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I wanted to try to figure this out, so I punched my uke with a traditional martial arts punch.  He collapsed and fell to the floor.  When he got up, punched him with a modern martial arts punch.  He again collapsed to the floor.
> 
> I asked him, when he recovered, which hurt more.  He said they were both the same.  Looked the same, felt the same, same power, same pain.
> 
> Go figure.


I like the post, but do you think they would really look the same?  I'm not so sure they would, based upon what I've seen around here.  I mean, everything from how a fist is made to whether you punch with a vertical or horizontal fist.  Some styles do that twisting thing I've heard about, and others don't.  Some punch with one part of the hand and others punch with another. And that's just thinking about the hand and the arm.  How the punch is delivered can really open up variations from one style or another, thinking in terms of how the rest of the body is engaged in the punch.

While interesting to consider, I don't think that the parable above would happen like this outside of cinema.  Granted, it would be a cool scene.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 5, 2016)

Steve said:


> I like the post, but do you think they would really look the same?  I'm not so sure they would, based upon what I've seen around here.  I mean, everything from how a fist is made to whether you punch with a vertical or horizontal fist.  Some styles do that twisting thing I've heard about, and others don't.  Some punch with one part of the hand and others punch with another. And that's just thinking about the hand and the arm.  How the punch is delivered can really open up variations from one style or another, thinking in terms of how the rest of the body is engaged in the punch.
> 
> While interesting to consider, I don't think that the parable above would happen like this outside of cinema.  Granted, it would be a cool scene.



My point was it was the same punch.  What I call it hardly matters; what matters is if it works or not.  Granted, it was a made-up response; I did not actually hit my uke full force to prove a point.

Remember the scene from Army of Darkness involving two Ash characters, a good one and a bad one?


----------



## Steve (Apr 5, 2016)

but it's not the same punch whether the result is the same or not.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 5, 2016)

Steve said:


> but it's not the same punch whether the result is the same or not.



If I do it, it is.  I only have one way to punch.  Maybe I call it TMA and someone else argues with me because Isshin Ryu is only 60 some odd years old.  I shrug and say whatever.  I punch, you get hit.  It hurts a lot.  What do you want to call it?  TMA?  Modern MA?  Who cares?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Apr 5, 2016)

oaktree said:


> Aikido is gendai modern compare to koryu daito ryu aikijujutsu



Interesting example. Although Takeda claimed a 900 year history for Daito Ryu, there is no evidence that it existed at all before he began teaching it in the late 19th century.



oaktree said:


> Katori shinto ryu kenjutsu is about 600. Chen Taijiquan about 500 years old and mostly these arts haven't change perhaps I should have said 500-600



Katori Shinto Ryu is one of the oldest martial arts in the world with a documentable continuous lineage. I think most folks would agree that it counts as traditional. However if we limit the use of "traditional" to arts in that sort of category, it's going to be a very short list.

I'm not knowledgeable enough on the history of Tai Chi to say anything definitive. I will note that Wikipedia says _"The origin and nature of what is now known as tai chi is not historically verifiable until around the 17th century."_ Chen family tradition may claim a 16th century origin, but CMAs are pretty notorious for origin myths that don't necessarily match up to the actual history. I've also think I've read people suggest that some of the modern Chen approach to push hands - as more of a stand up wrestling competitive format than a flowing training exercise  - isn't really traditional. (I've also seen people suggest the reverse.) I wonder if the historical documentation exists to confirm that one way or another.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> Shuai Chiao can be traced back to the Chin Dynasty (246 BC ~ 207 BC) in China. That is over 2000 years old.



Only in the same way that wrestling in the western world can be traced back millennia to ancient Greece. Wrestling has existed in just about every culture we know of - and since there are only so many ways for the human body to move we can find depictions of techniques which are more or less the same in different grappling arts separated by thousands of miles and thousands of years. That doesn't mean we can trace any sort of continuous tradition from the early Olympics in ancient Greece to modern Greco-Roman wrestling (actually developed in the 19th century) or from the "Jiao li" referenced in records from the Zhou dynasty to modern Shuai Jiao (which was named and had rules standardized in 1928).



JowGaWolf said:


> I know that San Shou, Muay Thai, and Judo have a similar view point as I have with Tai Chi. There's a sporting side and a martial side of these systems. I wouldn't consider the sporting side as a TMA.



I see your point, but it's worth noting that "sporting" forms of unarmed combat go back at least as far as "martial" forms, historically speaking.


----------



## oaktree (Apr 5, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Interesting example. Although Takeda claimed a 900 year history for Daito Ryu, there is no evidence that it existed at all before he began teaching it in the late 19th century.


Daito ryu is considered by most to be koryu as its structure resembles koryu vs aikido which does not represent a koryu oriented art. Now did Takeda make it up possible same could be said for Togakure in the ninja schools but that particular school differs from say Toshindo.
My point is modern arts are created in modern times and usually to deal with modern problems. An art that is from the 19th century or before is not modern. A tradition can be modern such as a gift every February 9th to your loved one. If your art is to deal with sword attacks or people wearing armor it is not modern, if it is to deal with jabs and punches its most likely modern.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Apr 5, 2016)

oaktree said:


> Daito ryu is considered by most to be koryu as its structure resembles koryu vs aikido which does not represent a koryu oriented art. Now did Takeda make it up possible same could be said for Togakure in the ninja schools but that particular school differs from say Toshindo.
> My point is modern arts are created in modern times and usually to deal with modern problems. An art that is from the 19th century or before is not modern. A tradition can be modern such as a gift every February 9th to your loved one. If your art is to deal with sword attacks or people wearing armor it is not modern, if it is to deal with jabs and punches its most likely modern.


So if I'm reading you correctly, you're not arguing for the typical "traditional martial art" vs "modern martial art" dichotomy, but rather for a distinction between modern and (historical? pre-modern?) arts, with the start of the 20th century being the cutoff point. "Traditional" would be an orthogonal concept which could apply or not apply to both modern and pre-modern arts. Is that the gist of it?

I don't have a real objection to that sort of classification, but it does leave the meaning of "traditional martial art" up in the air.

BTW - how would you classify something like Greco-Roman wrestling, which was developed in the 19th century? Modern or pre-modern? Traditional or not?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 5, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> That doesn't mean we can trace any sort of continuous tradition from the early.


The following picture shows a Shuai Chiao guy who has "Tang dynasty 唐朝(618—907)" hair style which was over 1400 years ago.






The same posture training (try to rotate your body to the maximum without falling) is used even today. Please notice that the requirement that from the head to the back foot should be lined up as a perfect straight line. This "tradition" has been passed down from more than 1400 years ago.








Tony Dismukes said:


> which was named and had rules standardized in 1928.


The "sport" Shuai Chiao rule sets had been defined long before 1928. That is, "you lose that round if any 2 points besides your feet touching the ground - such as 2 hands, 2 knees, 1 hand and 1 knee, or the whole body."


----------



## oaktree (Apr 5, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> So if I'm reading you correctly, you're not arguing for the typical "traditional martial art" vs "modern martial art" dichotomy, but rather for a distinction between modern and (historical? pre-modern?) arts, with the start of the 20th century being the cutoff point


It is a good question when is a cut off and should there be. I think the folks at koryu at a similar problem. Ed Parker kenpo is definitely a modern creation and it is designed to deal with modern problems and attacks.


Tony Dismukes said:


> Traditional" would be an orthogonal concept which could apply or not apply to both modern and pre-modern arts. Is that the gist of it?


Yes, traditional can be modern or antiquity but modern can't be old and old can't be modern.


Tony Dismukes said:


> I don't have a real objection to that sort of classification, but it does leave the meaning of "traditional martial art" up in the air.


Well I think traditional martial arts means an art passed down from one generation to another. 


Tony Dismukes said:


> how would you classify something like Greco-Roman wrestling, which was developed in the 19th century? Modern or pre-modern? Traditional or not?


I don't think it is a modern art.Can it be applied to modern times yes.


----------



## Buka (Apr 5, 2016)

If your style spars/rolls with each other -

If you can safely nail your opponent with a technique(s) that's not taught in your dojo, and that's okay with your teachers - it's not a Traditional Martial Art.

If, on the other hand, your teachers won't let you do that because it's not taught there, it's probably a Traditional Martial Art.

That's how I usually consider the question. If your style doesn't spar/roll - I dunno'.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 5, 2016)

Buka said:


> If your style *spars/rolls* with each other - ...


May be "spars/wrestles" is better term. After all, the "rolling" is only part of the "wrestling" if you consider

wrestling = stand up wrestling + ground wrestling (rolling).


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 5, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I wanted to try to figure this out, so I punched my uke with a traditional martial arts punch.  He collapsed and fell to the floor.  When he got up, punched him with a modern martial arts punch.  He again collapsed to the floor.
> 
> I asked him, when he recovered, which hurt more.  He said they were both the same.  Looked the same, felt the same, same power, same pain.
> 
> Go figure.


I had the same scenario but different result.  I had someone punch me in the stomach with force using what would be a regular and common punch that is taught.  After the first punch I had him hit me much softer with a traditional punch.  The traditional punch that I took to the stomach caused an injury that took a month to heal and the damage was done with arm motion than the first punches. The difference between the two punches is how the power was generated.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 5, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> So if I'm reading you correctly, you're not arguing for the typical "traditional martial art" vs "modern martial art" dichotomy, but rather for a distinction between modern and (historical? pre-modern?) arts, with the start of the 20th century being the cutoff point. "Traditional" would be an orthogonal concept which could apply or not apply to both modern and pre-modern arts. Is that the gist of it?
> 
> I don't have a real objection to that sort of classification, but it does leave the meaning of "traditional martial art" up in the air.
> 
> BTW - how would you classify something like Greco-Roman wrestling, which was developed in the 19th century? Modern or pre-modern? Traditional or not?



A tradition can be modern such as a gift every February.

And here we go back to the use of ritual.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 5, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If I do it, it is.  I only have one way to punch.  Maybe I call it TMA and someone else argues with me because Isshin Ryu is only 60 some odd years old.  I shrug and say whatever.  I punch, you get hit.  It hurts a lot.  What do you want to call it?  TMA?  Modern MA?  Who cares?


Bill the fist that you make in your system is a traditional fist which is more than 60 years old.  My guess would be because you make the fist with the thumb to the side, that your punching technique is also older than 60 years.  Jow Ga uses the same fist that you showed me.  Hung ga uses that same fist and Hung ga is older than Jow Ga.  While both punches may hurt, one may be causing more damage than the other.  The fist that you showed me actually aligns the bones in the hand differently than the more common fist that has the thumbed wrapped around the fingers.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 5, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Interesting example. Although Takeda claimed a 900 year history for Daito Ryu, there is no evidence that it existed at all before he began teaching it in the late 19th century.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree. But even those sporting had rules and developed in such a way where it's possible to do the sport multiple times without serious injury. Rules were also created to keep the "illegal techniques" from being used.  Those same sporting events were often training arenas for soldiers and warriors and rights of passage.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 5, 2016)

drop bear said:


> A tradition can be modern such as a gift every February.
> 
> And here we go back to the use of ritual.


Ritual seems to be a big characteristic of Traditional Martial arts. That expectation that something has to be done one way or it's not what is.   Would valentines day still be considered valentines day if it were held in August and punches were given instead of gifts?


----------



## Steve (Apr 5, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If I do it, it is.  I only have one way to punch.  Maybe I call it TMA and someone else argues with me because Isshin Ryu is only 60 some odd years old.  I shrug and say whatever.  I punch, you get hit.  It hurts a lot.  What do you want to call it?  TMA?  Modern MA?  Who cares?


You punch the way you were taught to punch.   And if you learn another way, you will have some choices.   If you only know one way punch, you may not care.  But you didn't say that.  Instead, you shared a parable in which you suggest that all punches are the same, provided the effect is the same.   That's just not correct.  

As for whether one should care or not, really up to the individual.   You ask who cares.   I think at least the op does.   Possibly a few others.   Some people see a clear delineation between combat sports and classical arts.   Some see a lot of value in differentiating between what they do and what others do.   

 If you don't care, more power to you.   But that's not the same as saying that no one should care.  As often as this topic comes up, clearly some people care.


----------



## Steve (Apr 5, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> I had the same scenario but different result.  I had someone punch me in the stomach with force using what would be a regular and common punch that is taught.  After the first punch I had him hit me much softer with a traditional punch.  The traditional punch that I took to the stomach caused an injury that took a month to heal and the damage was done with arm motion than the first punches. The difference between the two punches is how the power was generated.


so, traditional punch is more effective than a modern punch?   Is effectiveness then the measure of traditional?  What's the takeaway here?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 5, 2016)

To be honest, IMHO, this is just another useless set of containers that we will argue about that does little to further training or understanding of martial arts.....take it for what it is worth.... Xue is out..peace


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 5, 2016)

Steve said:


> so, traditional punch is more effective than a modern punch?


Most of the modern MA guys will still punch on the heavy bag through their old age.






Most of the TMA guys will only punch into the thin air through their old age. The following 2 clips show how Taiji guy and Baji guy punch. Please notice that both require about 1 second to "compress and release" before the power is generated.










If you put both of them in boxing ring and fight against boxer, since they won't have that 1 second power generation time, their punches will be just like the boxing punch. I believe the boxer's punch is more effective because they don't depend on that "extra power generation time".


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 5, 2016)

drop bear said:


> A tradition can be modern such as a gift every February.
> 
> And here we go back to the use of ritual.


Or simply a regular activity, like working on the heavy bag during every training session.  But people don't tend to think of that kind of thing as a ritual or as "traditional".  I think they tend to think more of things like special training uniforms and (possibly perceived as excessive) bowing, which things may still have relevance in the home culture in which the system was born.

I guess then anything can be traditional.  If I get up in the morning and run 10km every day, that can become a tradition, especially if my son starts to do it with me, and eventually his son with him.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 5, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Most of the TMA guys will only punch into the thin air through their old age.



You know this for a fact?


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 5, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The following 2 clips show how Taiji guy and Baji guy punch. Please notice that both require about 1 second to "compress and release" before the power is generated.
> 
> If you put both of them in boxing ring and fight against boxer, since they won't have that 1 second power generation time, their punches will be just like the boxing punch. I believe the boxer's punch is more effective because they don't depend on that "extra power generation time".



They "require" no such thing. Do you not understand the difference between a training methodology used to develop specific body mechanics and principles in technique, and how it may translate into a somewhat different morphology in actual application?


----------



## Buka (Apr 5, 2016)

We should be able to figure this distinction out, there's enough of us on here. Combined experience would be measured in centuries.

I train American Karate, a completely non traditional Martial Art.

Any other takers?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 5, 2016)

Buka said:


> We should be able to figure this distinction out, there's enough of us on here. Combined experience would be measured in centuries.
> 
> I train American Karate, a completely non traditional Martial Art.
> 
> Any other takers?



Isshin Ryu. For whatever it's worth, I consider it traditional martial arts.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Apr 5, 2016)

So what am I as an individual then? A traditional martial artist or a modern one? I am training kenpo along with Judo and some escrima. 

I ask this because I have been called just about everything aside from a few bad words left in the human vocabulary. (Just give it time though, it will happen)


----------



## Ironbear24 (Apr 5, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Low percentage.
> 
> And i have trained that and even tried to pull it off in a fight.
> 
> The jjj version is the arm between legs comealong.  It is reliant on the guy you are doing it on being a chump.  You do it as a gag for someone you are fighting but are so much better than that you can muck around.



You trained in kenpo? I myself have never done this technique outside of practicing. I said before to another user that if I have their hand that there are many other and in my opinion better things I can do to my opponent with control of their wrist. I can use many Judo techniques for example or I can simple hang on to it and make them unable to back away from my sidekick to the ribs. The biggest no no of the technique here is the last part I would say. I can see the first part working but why bother when there are safer things? Maybe this technique was designed to fight idiots idk, I didn't make it.

How many arts have you trianed in? As a fellow bear I am interested in your history in the arts.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 5, 2016)

Steve said:


> so, traditional punch is more effective than a modern punch?   Is effectiveness then the measure of traditional?  What's the takeaway here?


Depends on the type of punch and the context of that punch.  Is it with boxing gloves on or off.  Is it a jab? How far is the punch from the target?  When it comes to having a focus on effectiveness and efficiency, I think TMAs are super focused almost to a fault.   

I think my Hung ga punching techniques of creating a fist would be useless if I had to fight with boxing gloves on. Which in that case those traditional techniques (which weren't made to be used with gloves) would probably hurt me more than help me.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 5, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> *Do you not understand* the difference between a training methodology used to develop specific body mechanics and principles in technique, and how it may translate into a somewhat different morphology in actual application?


Yes! I'm a TMA guy, and I *do not understand* why there should be any difference between "training" and "application".

I have always believed in "Train as I fight". If I always punch from on guard position", that will be the way I train.







I will never train how to punch from my waist.


----------



## Buka (Apr 5, 2016)

To the Tae-Kwon-Do guys, is TKD a traditional Martial Art?

To the Kenpo guys, is Kenpo a traditional Martial Art?

To the Wing Chun guys, is Wing Chun a traditional Martial Art?

To the Kung Fu guys, is Kung Fu a traditional Martial Art?

To the Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu guys, is BJJ a traditional Martial Art?

To the Aikido guys, is Aikido a traditional Martial Art?

To the Judo guys, is Judo a traditional Martial Art?

To the Wrestlers, is Wrestling a traditional Martial Art?

To Capoeira practitioners, is Capoeira a traditional Martial Art?

To the Boxers, is Boxing a traditional Martial Art?

To the Uechi guys, Is Uechi-ryu a traditional Martial Art?

To the Tai-Chi guys, is Tai-Chi a traditional Martial Art?

To everyone on this forum, is YOUR art a traditional Martial Art?

Whatever you train, please chime in.  Help us out here. If you train more than one Art, great, but is each Art a traditional Martial Art or what? I mean, who would know more about *your* art than you?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 5, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Most of the TMA guys will only punch into the thin air through their old age.


fighting words lol


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 5, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Most of the TMA guys will only punch into the thin air through their old age.





Flying Crane said:


> You know this for a fact?


That's my experience from the people I know. I can also see that around the world. Just go to any park in China, you can draw your own conclusion.


----------



## Steve (Apr 5, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> Depends on the type of punch and the context of that punch.  Is it with boxing gloves on or off.  Is it a jab? How far is the punch from the target?  When it comes to having a focus on effectiveness and efficiency, I think TMAs are super focused almost to a fault.
> 
> I think my Hung ga punching techniques of creating a fist would be useless if I had to fight with boxing gloves on. Which in that case those traditional techniques (which weren't made to be used with gloves) would probably hurt me more than help me.


Not sure where you got all this.  You said something about common punching vs traditional punching.    Softer, traditional punching causes injury while normal, common punching doesn't, or something along those lines.   You had some kind of punch and some kind of context in mind.   So, rather than asking a bunch of questions, could you please just explain what you meant?


----------



## Steve (Apr 5, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> fighting words lol


Lol.  Was that intentionally ironic?  If so, bravo.  Very witty.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 5, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Yes! I'm a TMA guy, and I *do not understand* why there should be any difference between "training" and "application".
> 
> I have always believed in "Train as I fight". If I always punch from on guard position", that will be the way I train.
> 
> ...


I don't punch from my waist either.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 5, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> That's my experience from the people I know. I can also see that around the world. Just go to any park in China, you can draw your own conclusion.


I have.  My experience tells me different.  Depends on the individual.  I would never make a claim across the board.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 5, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> Or simply a regular activity, like working on the heavy bag during every training session.  But people don't tend to think of that kind of thing as a ritual or as "traditional".  I think they tend to think more of things like special training uniforms and (possibly perceived as excessive) bowing, which things may still have relevance in the home culture in which the system was born.
> 
> I guess then anything can be traditional.  If I get up in the morning and run 10km every day, that can become a tradition, especially if my son starts to do it with me, and eventually his son with him.



I did mention grey are the first time.

  I think the ritual is what separates sumo from wrestling.

You look at tma and you associate belts,uniform,kata and linage. 

The focus is on the ritual nature of those martial arts. Your run could become traditional depending on how much focus you place on the ritual of doing it.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 6, 2016)

drop bear said:


> I did mention grey are the first time.
> 
> I think the ritual is what separates sumo from wrestling.
> 
> ...


I always just looked at it as training.  And training means lots of repetition of techniques and drills that give results.  So we just keep doing them.

I've gotten away from systems that use a specific uniform and belts.  I find them to be a distraction and not terribly comfortable.  But my experience with the traditional martial arts, in the context of the best instructor that I have had, the ritual was minimal.  We just kept training. Do it again.  Do it again.  Do it again...


----------



## drop bear (Apr 6, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> You trained in kenpo? I myself have never done this technique outside of practicing. I said before to another user that if I have their hand that there are many other and in my opinion better things I can do to my opponent with control of their wrist. I can use many Judo techniques for example or I can simple hang on to it and make them unable to back away from my sidekick to the ribs. The biggest no no of the technique here is the last part I would say. I can see the first part working but why bother when there are safer things? Maybe this technique was designed to fight idiots idk, I didn't make it.
> 
> How many arts have you trianed in? As a fellow bear I am interested in your history in the arts.



I have done a few martial arts here and there. Never done kempo. It is not very successful in Australia.

The jjj version is a come along. Where you get the arm between the legs and then walk the guy around. It is just too easy to walk out of if you have any sort of good structure.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 6, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> I always just looked at it as training.  And training means lots of repetition of techniques and drills that give results.  So we just keep doing them.
> 
> I've gotten away from systems that use a specific uniform and belts.  I find them to be a distraction and not terribly comfortable.  But my experience with the traditional martial arts, in the context of the best instructor that I have had, the ritual was minimal.  We just kept training. Do it again.  Do it again.  Do it again...



We move into form follows function here.  And whether we are repeating what works or trying to make work what has been repeated.

I have had this discussion with people before who believe that because it is in the kata the technique works. Therefore if there is no evidence of the practitioner being able to make it work.  Then the practitioner must learn to understand the kata better. 

The focus is the ritual not the application.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Apr 6, 2016)

so what about sumo? That is a purely sport/ritual art and has practically no fighting application.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Apr 6, 2016)




----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 6, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Yes! I'm a TMA guy, and I *do not understand* why there should be any difference between "training" and "application".
> 
> I have always believed in "Train as I fight". If I always punch from on guard position", that will be the way I train.
> 
> ...



We train that way for a specific purpose. That is not how we fight. Don't criticize what you clearly do not understand.


----------



## Zeny (Apr 6, 2016)

Of course there is a difference between training and application. For example in taijiquan we do the form but when we fight we don't move exactly like in the form.


----------



## oaktree (Apr 6, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> so what about sumo? That is a purely sport/ritual art and has practically no fighting application.


In daito ryu aikijujutsu it is said some of the moves come from sumo and if so it has some nasty applications


----------



## oaktree (Apr 6, 2016)

Buka said:


> To the Tae-Kwon-Do guys, is TKD a traditional Martial Art?
> 
> To the Kenpo guys, is Kenpo a traditional Martial Art?
> 
> ...


All you have listed are traditional because they follow a lineage of some sort and have been passed down from one person to another. Now some of them are modern and some of them are not modern.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 6, 2016)

Steve said:


> Not sure where you got all this.  You said something about common punching vs traditional punching.    Softer, traditional punching causes injury while normal, common punching doesn't, or something along those lines.   You had some kind of punch and some kind of context in mind.   So, rather than asking a bunch of questions, could you please just explain what you meant?


 No problem.  I'll first show some boxing jabs and I'll compare it to what I train in.

This first video is the common jab. We can see most people and some professional fighters throw a jab in this. You may also see this technique in some TMAs but it's not a TMA Jab. If you look at kata or kung fu froms, you'll notice this type of jab does not exist.










I would consider these modern jabbing styles.  These jabs are done without concern that someone will grab, strike, or attack the joints of the striking hand. It's also is thrown without the concern that someone will sweep the leg.  In one of the videos the guy says that the punch starts from the shoulder and to be honest the majority of the people out there throw it that way. In many TMA systems (and some boxing systems that have adopted the same concept.) students are taught that the punch starts from the root. It is also mentioned that the jab is turned over to protect the head.  In TMA a we are taught to move the jab out of our way and then strike.  Which leads to this video

Here we have modern boxing using the same concepts as some Kung Fu TMAs to deliver the jab. The launch forward motion when jabbing is a concept that predates boxing.





You'll hear him answer the question "What's the difference?" and he'll say "you're putting more power into it."  you'll hear him talk about stepping in. (It's really not a step it's a launch. There's a big difference.)

The reason why this last video has a more effective jab than the first 2 videos is because you aren't just using your arms and waist to generate the power.  With this method are adding the power of your leg pushing off + plus the mass of the body to add to the power of the punch.  I can literally stand in front of a person with my arm extended and deliver a strong strike without cocking my arm back or twisting my waist. An example of this would be Bruce Lee's one inch punch.  A person cannot inflict the same damage with jab techniques that were shown in the first 2 videos.

Now back to your original question.

"_so, traditional punch is more effective than a modern punch? Is effectiveness then the measure of traditional? What's the takeaway here?_"   In this specific case of a jab then yes, as you see the person in the 3rd video where a boxer uses a TMA technique to deliver the jab.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 6, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> I don't punch from my waist either.


Same here.  I don't punch from the waist.  I punch from my root.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 6, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> Same here.  I don't punch from the waist.  I punch from my root.



Nobody does, as far as I know.  It's a common insult used against people who practice martial arts that train beginners to park their fists on their hips and fire from there.  As far as I have ever experienced, most karate-type arts teach this.  People who never advance beyond beginner status seem to believe that's how we fight; probably because they didn't bother to stick around long enough to learn how foolish this statement is.  People who actually do know we don't fight like this still use it because they enjoy being insulting and rude.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 6, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I will never train how to punch from my waist.


 In that picture you show.  The person at the bottom is actually punching from the root and not the waist.    If you are doing that technique from the waist then you are missing the power that can be generated from the root.  When you do forms you'll gradually feel the connection and learn how to generate power from the root.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 6, 2016)

Buka said:


> To the Tae-Kwon-Do guys, is TKD a traditional Martial Art?
> 
> To the Kenpo guys, is Kenpo a traditional Martial Art?
> 
> ...


Jow Ga Kung Fu, Choy Ga Kung Fu, Hung Ga Kung Fu, and Northern Shaolin are traditional martial arts.


----------



## Steve (Apr 6, 2016)

Okay.  So trying to relate what you're saying to the topic of the thread, Jowgawolf.  Are you suggesting that "traditional" vs "modern" punching is whether it is from the root or from the shoulder?  So, if a style teaches that punches should generate from the root (could you say core?), then that is a traditional style? 

What if I could find a video from a boxing coach that talks about punching power being generated from the legs or from the feet?  Wouldn't that be traditional by your definition?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 6, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> so what about sumo? That is a purely sport/ritual art and has practically no fighting application.


Are you kidding me.. Of course it has some practical fighting applications





Ok.  may not.

But seriously it's a traditional sport and not considered as a traditional martial art.  Unfortunately many in western societies tend to think that anything that comes out of Japan or China is a martial art. It's gotten better over the years but I still have neighbors who literally think kung fu and karate are the same thing.  To be honest I think they refer to any sport where there is kicking and punching to be karate.


----------



## Steve (Apr 6, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> Are you kidding me.. Of course it has some practical fighting applications
> 
> 
> 
> ...


While it may not be kicking and punching, what would preclude it from being a martial art?  I am realizing that you and I have a very different definition of the term "martial art."  I would categorize any codified, identifiable system that has or has ever had martial application as a martial art.  If it has a name, and can be distinguished from other styles that also have names, it's a martial art.  Tai chi, TKD, Sumo, Kyudo, western fencing, wrestling, krav maga, boxing... you name it.  They're all martial arts.  It's like saying "car" or "dog". 

Within the category of things that are martial arts, there are some that are combat sports, and others that are not.  Some are self defense oriented, others are more spiritual and others are more historical.  Most blend several of these and aren't clearly one or another. 

So, yeah, I would agree with your neighbors to an extent.  Not all martial arts are combat sports, but most (if not all) combat sports are martial arts.  Even MMA is becoming codified with its own schools and such.  Over the last 10 years, I'd say that MMA has become a distinct style in its own right and would personally have no problem identifying it as a distinct martial arts style.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 6, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Most of the modern MA guys will still punch on the heavy bag through their old age.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You see the funny thing there, Chan Xiaowang openly admitted he never had a real fight in his life and was wondering if what he did ever got in a fight, if it would actually work. Also take into account that in Chen Xiaowang's day of training Chen they did have matches, that he does not consider fights. Well one day in Northern Europe, much to Chen Xiaowang's surprise, some one in the seminar decided to jump on him, he reacted and the person left in an ambulance, he felt horrible about it, but he at least knew his stuff worked.

As for the Wu vs. White crane clip, I am so tired of this thing being brought out as proof of anything. The problem you have is that there are people still alive that were there. My "Taiji" sifu was one of those people and I will. once again, repeat this...... That fight was billed much like an Ali Fraser fight, everyone was really excited, tickets were sold, many showed up. However no one, in the marital arts community at the time, could understand why the old Wu fought, they all thought the younger Wu should be fighting. But the fight happened and even the Marital artist there thought it was pathetic, My shigung and my shifu among them,. Many people in the audience were upset as well and many wanted their money back...

Can we please stop parading that pathetic show out as proof of anything now....

As for old TMA guys punching the air, obviously you have no idea about how one of my XIngyi sifu's train or how his "Old Chinese guy" sifu trained until the day he died. Also you obviously have no idea how my last Bagua shifu trained and you do not know how my Taiji sifu trained, you obviously do not know how I train and you also have no idea how my Sanda sifu trains either (but you are right he does not hit a heavy bag, he hits trees)... for that matter you don't even know how my first sifu trained or how he trained his students, and he was mostly modern Wushu and competition forms.... if you are saying things like _"Most of the TMA guys will only punch into the thin air through their old age."_ and before you ask... no, I will not supply you with videos from YouTube on any of this... You seem to be rather accomplished at finding those yourself.

Also you should know, or I would at least think you should know, many of this "Old TMA guys" are not big on being filmed, especially in applications. And that many today that sell videos, put little differences in these videos so that if they run into someone claiming to have been trained my them that they can tell by looking if it was in person, or by video.

Do not judge all "TMA guys" by a couple videos on Youtube


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 6, 2016)

Steve said:


> So, if a style teaches that punches should generate from the root (could you say core?), then that is a traditional style?


 One technique doesn't define the style.  I just showed a boxing video where a traditional jab was used in a modern fighting system.  Some people would say that the jab is a modern jab, and my question to them would be how can that jab be considered a modern jab when it existed before the sport of modern boxing?

If you are trying to determine the difference between Modern Martial Arts vs Traditional Martial arts then you'll have to look at multiple characteristics. There won't be one characteristic that defines a modern martial art vs a traditional martial art.

My original comment about the tradition punch was only about the difference between  the technique of Traditional Martial Art Punch and a Modern Punch and not about Traditional Martial Art systems and Modern Martial Arts Systems.   It was in reference to Post #50  In my experience, the modern jab hurt, but the Traditional punch actually tore muscle in my abdomen and required less power than you would think.  If you asked me if I would take a jab to the stomach from a modern punch vs a jab to the stomach from a traditional punch.  I'm going to take modern punch because at least I know it's not going to take me 1 month to heal from that due to my stomach muscles being ripped.

I'm not sure if you saw the video of me getting hit with the traditional punch but you can see the hesitation in my body language about getting hit with it.  After experiencing it first hand that hesitation has been multiplied. What I learned is that many of the traditional punching techniques don't have the same brute force impact that you see in a lot of boxing. Many of the traditional punching methods tend to have what I can only describe as a "biting pain" or a internal pain that hurts more on the inside than the outside.  In traditional martial arts the punch isn't just about hitting hard.  Often times people will learn how to hit hard by not trying to hit hard.  In some of the modern fighting system, trainers will always encourage the person to hit hard.  In my school, we develop punching power by trying to deliver the most effective punch using the least amount of energy.  If I can do a damaging punch by barely hitting you then that power is only going to multiply when I actually hit harder.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 6, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> In that picture you show.  The person at the bottom is actually punching from the root and not the waist.    If you are doing that technique from the waist then you are missing the power that can be generated from the root.  When you do forms you'll gradually feel the connection and learn how to generate power from the root.



In my art, once we learn how to generate power, it is no longer necessary to park the hands at the hip; it's the way we generate power that matters, not the position of the hands.  But it's far easier to understand where the power comes from for a beginner by putting the fists on the obi.  I'm pretty sure we're talking about the same thing.

When I adopt a boxer's stance and throw a boxing-type punch, I still generate power the same way.  Not too many differences between my jab and a boxer's jab as far as I can tell, except that in general, I don't lift the rear heel.  Not a huge difference to see them; and it looks like power generation is similar, but perhaps it is not exactly the same, I don't know, never having trained in boxing.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Apr 6, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> I would say is useless unless you are green arrow or hawk eye and happen to always carry a bow and arrows with you at all times.


Green Arrow versus Hawkeye, now there's a thought.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 6, 2016)

Steve said:


> While it may not be kicking and punching, what would preclude it from being a martial art?


From what I read when looking up historical information about Sumo Wrestling, it has always been sport. It was originally part of a religious ritual which developed into a sport.  It was never a fighting technique design to use in war or training for war by soldiers / warriors.  



Steve said:


> I am realizing that you and I have a very different definition of the term "martial art."


I have no problem with this. I'm just sharing my perspective and not trying to change minds.  So I don't mind hearing your perspective as well.  The way people understand terms differently, in this case "martial art" will affect their perceptions of it.  The Sun Rises every day but not everyone gets the same Sun Rise even though it's the same Sun.  



Steve said:


> Over the last 10 years, I'd say that MMA has become a distinct style in its own right and would personally have no problem identifying it as a distinct martial arts style.


  I don't know how MMA would be defined, since any mixture of any combination of martial art systems.  Maybe MMA would be Martial Arts but not a Martial Art System.

I come form a system that mixes 3 different martial art systems.  If some one who studied those same 3 systems combined them, would it be Jow Ga even though they didn't study Jow Ga? Or were there certain parts from the 3 systems that were specifically put together for a reason and that's what makes it Jow Ga?  I have no idea.  I couldn't deny MMA a "Martial Art" status but I would find it difficult to define it as a Martial Art System.  MMA is just too broad.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Apr 6, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I wanted to try to figure this out, so I punched my uke with a traditional martial arts punch.  He collapsed and fell to the floor.  When he got up, punched him with a modern martial arts punch.  He again collapsed to the floor.
> 
> I asked him, when he recovered, which hurt more.  He said they were both the same.  Looked the same, felt the same, same power, same pain.
> 
> Go figure.


Wouldn't he have been weakened slightly after the first punch making the second punch have more effect?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 6, 2016)

RTKDCMB said:


> Wouldn't he have been weakened slightly after the first punch making the second punch have more effect?



Sigh.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Apr 6, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Most of the modern MA guys will still punch on the heavy bag through their old age.
> 
> Most of the TMA guys will only punch into the thin air through their old age.


Most out of which guys?


----------



## RTKDCMB (Apr 6, 2016)

Buka said:


> To the Tae-Kwon-Do guys, is TKD a traditional Martial Art?
> 
> To the Kenpo guys, is Kenpo a traditional Martial Art?
> 
> ...


Depends on how they are trained.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Apr 6, 2016)

Xue Sheng said:


> Do not judge all "TMA guys" by a couple videos on Youtube


Gee when has that ever happened?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 6, 2016)

Buka said:


> To the Tae-Kwon-Do guys, is TKD a traditional Martial Art?
> 
> To the Kenpo guys, is Kenpo a traditional Martial Art?
> 
> ...



Well since you asked
Taijiquan > Traditional
Xingyiquan > Traditional
Wing Chun > Traditional
Baguazhang > Traditional
Sanda > Modern
JKD > Modern

But here is the thing, so much of the "Modern" arts are in or go nicely into the Traditional arts and vice versa. I learned a lot about Xingyiquan in application from JKD. And I found so much of Wing Chun, in JKD. And I found a lot of Sanda's approach was very taiji as it applies to energy and where the force comes from.

This is why I do not really feel that these categories are all that necessary or helpful. They create prejudice and barriers to learning and training IMHO


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 6, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Not too many differences between my jab and a boxer's jab as far as I can tell, except that in general, I don't lift the rear heel.


 The heel on the ground makes all the difference. When we do squats with free weights we push with the heel on the ground.  We don't get on our toes to push the weight. The best example would probably be the Clean and Jerk (watch it in slow motion so you can see the feet) where you would push from the heel.





By not lifting the heel you are able to push more force and weight forward in a short burst than you could if you were on your toes. This is one of the rare cases where people can test this out for themselves.  Get into your boxers stance and shuffle forward by keeping that heel on ground when you launch forward.  Now do the same thing, but this time get lift the rear heel while you are in the boxers stance and try to shuffle forward while the heel is still up.  

Now try the exact same movements with a reverse punch.  You should be able to feel the difference in the two movements.  One method should also feel safe in terms of having to deal with someone who may try to kick or sweep you.  If you like I can get a video of this and then you can give it a try.


----------



## paitingman (Apr 6, 2016)

I think the main difference between modern/traditional; practical/impractical; better/worse; martial arts or artists is the adaptation to MODERN ATHLETICISM. 
Traditional methods of training and traditional techniques were probably never intended to deal with the type of fitness we are capable of today. Just by progress in society, nutrition, and exercise science, athletes of today are at a level higher than ever. 

Technique trumps strength imo. but only within a certain ratio. My technique will allow for someones strength not to matter. But today people are capable of becoming so athletic that it does matter. The potential gap can be farther than ever before.

When I see guys saying this and that won't work in the ring. I believe it's due to that fighter's/school's traditions and training did not prepare them to face a MODERN, PROFESSIONAL ATHLETE. Not that there techniques are too traditional or are crap. 

Modern martial arts is through the perspective of Modern athletics.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 6, 2016)

paitingman said:


> I think the main difference between modern/traditional; practical/impractical; better/worse; martial arts or artists is the adaptation to MODERN ATHLETICISM.
> Traditional methods of training and traditional techniques were probably never intended to deal with the type of fitness we are capable of today. Just by progress in society, nutrition, and exercise science, athletes of today are at a level higher than ever.
> 
> Technique trumps strength imo. but only within a certain ratio. My technique will allow for someones strength not to matter. But today people are capable of becoming so athletic that it does matter. The potential gap can be farther than ever before.
> ...


I think you've hit upon something here.  It's a notion that's been rattling around in my brain too, but I wasn't sure how to express it.

While good technique always matters, a modern athlete can rely on that athleticism to override the possibility of having poor or inefficient technique, and still get good effects.  A big, strong, athletic fellow can steamroll over less athletic folks, even if his technique isn't as good.

My gut tells me that in the older traditional methods, greater pains are taken to get that technique as correct and as perfect as possible, to an extreme that may seem unnecessarily excessive to some folks.  While modern methods also make a premium of good technique, it just seems to me that it isn't taken to the same degree.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 6, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> The heel on the ground makes all the difference. When we do squats with free weights we push with the heel on the ground.  We don't get on our toes to push the weight. The best example would probably be the Clean and Jerk (watch it in slow motion so you can see the feet) where you would push from the heel.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ok Ironbear what is it that you don't like.  Pushing more weight with your heels planted? Or did you try the example and didn't like? Or me saying that I would et a video showing what I'm talking about?


----------



## Ironbear24 (Apr 6, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> Ok Ironbear what is it that you don't like.  Pushing more weight with your heels planted? Or did you try the example and didn't like? Or me saying that I would et a video showing what I'm talking about?



I wasn't aware I hit dislike. I agree with you and I do the same thing when I punch. I am on my phone so maybe I accidentally hit dislike instead of agree.


----------



## paitingman (Apr 6, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> I think you've hit upon something here.  It's a notion that's been rattling around in my brain too, but I wasn't sure how to express it.
> 
> While good technique always matters, a modern athlete can rely on that athleticism to override the possibility of having poor or inefficient technique, and still get good effects.  A big, strong, athletic fellow can steamroll over less athletic folks, even if his technique isn't as good.
> 
> My gut tells me that in the older traditional methods, greater pains are taken to get that technique as correct and as perfect as possible, to an extreme that may seem unnecessarily excessive to some folks.  While modern methods also make a premium of good technique, it just seems to me that it isn't taken to the same degree.



You hit something I hadn't considered. Perhaps (some) traditional arts have the continuous aim of developing technique almost to a point where there are no other factors. The pursuit of perfect technique.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 6, 2016)

paitingman said:


> You hit something I hadn't considered. Perhaps (some) traditional arts have the continuous aim of developing technique almost to a point where there are no other factors. The pursuit of perfect technique.



Saw to old guys in Tiantan park in Beijing doing Changquan and I dabbled in Changquan back then myself. One I tagged as the teacher and he appeared to be in his 80s and the other I tagged as the student, who appeared to be in his late 60s to 70s. The student did a move that involved jumping in the air, doing a 360 degree turn (on a vertical access) and landing in a horse stance with arms straight, and angled down with fists to the side. It was the best I had ever seen, it was amazing. Then the teacher walked over and whispered something to him. The student did it again...and it was better.... it was better than anything I had ever done in Changquan, and at that time I was over 20 years younger than the student. And this was real Changquan, not the modern Wushu version.

So yeah, I think it has more to do with a pursuit of perfection.


----------



## geezer (Apr 6, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> The heel on the ground makes all the difference. When we do squats with free weights we push with the heel on the ground.  We don't get on our toes to push the weight. The best example would probably be the Clean and Jerk (watch it in slow motion so you can see the feet) where you would push from the heel.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Jow Ga I was going to disagree ...but then I realized that I wasn't sure if I understood you correctly. Are you saying that you can generate more punching power across the board, that is even using _boxing style_ jabs and crosses by keeping your heel down? ...or are you specifically addressing a TMA "reverse" punch?

Regarding reverse punches, you may have a point. Not so with a boxer's "straight" or "cross". And as far as your weight lifting "clean and jerk" example goes, I'd counter with a sprinter's start. You can't propel yourself forward as efficiently if you are flat footed.

My experience with this comes from Latosa Escrima and DTE MMA/Eskrima which have a heavy boxing influence and generate very powerful punches using a raised rear heel.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 6, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> In that picture you show.  The person at the bottom is actually punching from the root and not the waist.    If you are doing that technique from the waist then you are missing the power that can be generated from the root.  When you do forms you'll gradually feel the connection and learn how to generate power from the root.


There is no argument there that all power generated from

- bottom and up,
- back to front.

I was talking about the hand starting position when punch. When you use your hands to guard your head and when you punch at your opponent, if you have to move your hand to your waist and then punch out, that extra moving path doesn't make sense to me. If 80% of the time that you will punch out from your head guard position, you should train the same way as you will fight.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 6, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> There is no argument there that all power generated from
> 
> - bottom and up,
> - back to front.
> ...


Yeah, I was clear on that.  But we don't do it.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 6, 2016)

I found this video and thought it would be interesting since Mayweather shows and talks about some similar things that are found in TMA.  Let me know what you think of his upper body movement and the things he said.  You may see some flicker of TMA concepts.


On a separate note: Just to kind of highlight the importance of technique regardless of Traditional or Modern.:  I don't know how accurate those machines are, but it does appear that technique doubled his punching power


----------



## Ironbear24 (Apr 6, 2016)

I'm sorry but Floyd mayweather is a jerk and I will do nothing to promote his character by watching videos of him. Same feelings I have for a lot of the gracies, not all of them but many.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 6, 2016)

geezer said:


> You can't propel yourself forward as efficiently if you are flat footed.


Agree with you 100% there. If your body is not moving forward, your back foot can be flat. If you are moving forward, your back foot are sliding along the ground. IMO, during the

- beginner training stage, your back foot should stay flat on the ground and your body is not moving forward.
- advance training stage, your back foot should slid along the ground and your body is moving forward.

Of course you generate your power from your back foot, but as soon as your body is moving forward, that back foot connection to the ground is no longer important any more.

Here is an example.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 6, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> There is no argument there that all power generated from
> 
> - bottom and up,
> - back to front.
> ...


oh ok.. yeah I don't normally throw punches from there. Mainly because of the fighting system I study. 

I do however teach to throw punches that way as a way to help students learn to connect their power.  The goal is to learn how to, I guess "spin" or throw punches from the twisting of the waist.  The closer the fist are to the center of twist from the body the easier and more powerful the jab will be.  To me it feels like the arm is being thrown by the waist.  The same technique can be done with hands up in a guard position but it's a little more difficult to connect the energy from the wait to the arms.  Having the fist low is just easier to get the concept and it gives them something for them to build from. Trying to teach the same concept from the top just confuses students.

But on the flip side of my statement there are a couple of techniques that I have that throws the punch from the waist.  It's not done as illustrated in the picture you have but if it lands it's going cause some damage. I'll put it this way.  The technique works so well for me that it's my "fail safe" punch.  If everything else fails then I know that punch won't.  Boxers often throw hooks to the body from a similar position where the fist is chambered  on the hip.





I guess it just depends on the style of martial arts that one does that determines how often it's used.  For example. I don't remember seeing it in any Tai Chi forms that I've seen.  It's definitely not an the one tai chi form I know.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 6, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> I'm sorry but Floyd mayweather is a jerk and I will do nothing to promote his character by watching videos of him. Same feelings I have for a lot of the gracies, not all of them but many.


I don't like him either, but he's the only one that showed the technique.  Not all martial art masters were nice people, some were really big jerks, but none of that had an effect on the technique that they taught. Don't kill your learning just because you don't like someone.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 6, 2016)

paitingman said:


> You hit something I hadn't considered. Perhaps (some) traditional arts have the continuous aim of developing technique almost to a point where there are no other factors. The pursuit of perfect technique.


I don't want to suggest or encourage the pursuit of perfect technique to the point that it becomes a disconnected abstraction.  There still needs to be a connection to reality and use.  But, I do feel there is an expectation that one works toward a higher degree of what good technique means.

I saw a clip of a boxer a while ago.  Someone had posted it as an example of driving the punching power from the legs.  After reviewing the video, I felt his connection with his legs was not remarkable.  It was there, but not outstanding, not compared to the aims and goals of the system that I study.

The boxer was still effective, tho.  His technique worked well enough in the context of what he does, and mixed with his fitness and athleticism it gave him some genuine capabilities.  But still, compared to what I am used to, I didn't find his technique remarkable.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 6, 2016)

geezer said:


> Jow Ga I was going to disagree ...but then I realized that I wasn't sure if I understood you correctly. Are you saying that you can generate more punching power across the board, that is even using _boxing style_ jabs and crosses by keeping your heel down? ...or are you specifically addressing a TMA "reverse" punch?
> 
> Regarding reverse punches, you may have a point. Not so with a boxer's "straight" or "cross". And as far as your weight lifting "clean and jerk" example goes, I'd counter with a sprinter's start. You can't propel yourself forward as efficiently if you are flat footed.
> 
> My experience with this comes from Latosa Escrima and DTE MMA/Eskrima which have a heavy boxing influence and generate very powerful punches using a raised rear heel.


 The power generation from pushing flat foot is different and it's something you have to see.  That's why I stated I would get a video of this to help make it easier to understand what I'm trying to say and highlight.  The specific punches that I was referring to was the reverse punch because that's the one where that pivot on the ball of the foot occurs. You can use the method for a straight jab, but I'm not sure about a cross because a cross is like a jab that comes from the outside-in.  I can use forward and diagonal movement using the same concept to throw a hook.

As for the sprinter's start, that forward motion is not the same motion as what I'm talking about when moving forward flat footed. I ran the 110 hurdles and track sprints competitively in my younger days, so I know exactly where you headed.  It's the same thing with moving laterally in basketball where flat foot isn't efficient.  But if I'm launching my mass into my punch then pushing with that flat foot works better than pushing off the toes like a sprinter or the balls of the feet like a basketball player.

I know it sounds inefficient but in class we scoot around surprisingly quick.  We don't move around like that Bajin Fajin video that Kung Fu Wang posted. If Jow Ga foot work was a bird then this would be us because footwork practice for us is just like this lol.  just not as cool looking.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Apr 6, 2016)

In a reverse punch you still raise your heel off the ground.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 6, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> In a reverse punch you still raise your heel off the ground.


You see that in Kenpo.  Not so much in a lot of other systems.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Apr 6, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> You see that in Kenpo.  Not so much in a lot of other systems.



Really? I suppose I haven't noticed. Why do people not raise their heel in a reverse punch? Wouldn't that make it more difficult to distribute the weight you get from pushing off the floor?


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 6, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> Really? I suppose I haven't noticed. Why do people not raise their heel in a reverse punch? Wouldn't that make it more difficult to distribute the weight you get from pushing off the floor?


It's more stable and drives the power better, if you have you body-connection done correctly.  It's less mobile, but everything is a compromise.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Apr 6, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> It's more stable and drives the power better, if you have you body-connection done correctly.  It's less mobile, but everything is a compromise.



I been thinking about uploading another bagwork video because I have improved exceptionally since my last one. I wish it had my foot placement in it though. I am able to generate a lot of power with raising the heel and wanted to compare it to if I had not.

But I guess that would produce inconclusive evidence since I am so accostumed to raising the heel. So naturally inmay be better at punching that way than any other way.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 6, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> I found this video and thought it would be interesting since Mayweather shows and talks about some similar things that are found in TMA.  Let me know what you think of his upper body movement and the things he said.  You may see some flicker of TMA concepts.
> 
> 
> On a separate note: Just to kind of highlight the importance of technique regardless of Traditional or Modern.:  I don't know how accurate those machines are, but it does appear that technique doubled his punching power



I think you will find all martial arts are technique driven. 

Definitely not a tma/whatever separation.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 6, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> so what about sumo? That is a purely sport/ritual art and has practically no fighting application.



Sumo and wrestling. One would be considered traditional one would not. 

I think it is the ritual that makes the difference.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 6, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Sumo and wrestling. One would be considered traditional one would not.
> 
> I think it is the ritual that makes the difference.


But what ritual?  The handshake before a wrestling match is a ritual.  Does that make it traditional?


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 6, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> I been thinking about uploading another bagwork video because I have improved exceptionally since my last one. I wish it had my foot placement in it though. I am able to generate a lot of power with raising the heel and wanted to compare it to if I had not.
> 
> But I guess that would produce inconclusive evidence since I am so accostumed to raising the heel. So naturally inmay be better at punching that way than any other way.


It is also really easy to get the full-body connection wrong.  Everybody believes they are doing it.  From what I've seen, most people get it wrong.  There are very slight disconnections that undermine the whole thing and it just becomes an arm punch.  But everyone believes they delivered with the whole body.  It's a simple thing really, but very easy to get it wrong.

So those issues could undermine your attempts, and you may not even be aware of it.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 6, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> It's more stable and drives the power better, if you have you body-connection done correctly.  It's less mobile, but everything is a compromise.





drop bear said:


> I think you will find all martial arts are technique driven.
> 
> Definitely not a tma/whatever separation.


I agree with that.  it's definitely not a TMA thing only.  I would expect a TMA school to go over board with the perfection of the technique before many of the modern martial art schools.  I would expect a modern MA art school to not care about technique sooner than a TMA.  For example, the Wing Chun group on this site will have battles over technique.  In Jow Ga we don't have battles like that but we can Identify schools and lineages by looking at techniques.  And while we may have opinions on correct techniques in our system, we won't get into a battle about it.  For example, Maryland Jow Ga school steps the lead leg out when doing the reverse punch.  The Virginia school will step the rear leg out when doing the reverse punch.  In one of our forms, the Virginia school uses a grab where we use a hook.  These differences may cause a little friction that last only 20 seconds.

I don't think I've ever seen the technique wars as bad as what I saw from the Wing Chun practitioners here.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 6, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> I am able to generate a lot of power with raising the heel and wanted to compare it to if I had not.


It depends on when your fist hits an object, whether you want to transfer the "counter force" through your back foot and back into the ground or not. In the superman punch example, the whole counter force has to be taken by your own body. IMO, it's similar to "front kick" and "jumping front kick".


----------



## drop bear (Apr 6, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> I agree with that.  it's definitely not a TMA thing only.  I would expect a TMA school to go over board with the perfection of the technique before many of the modern martial art schools.  I would expect a modern MA art school to not care about technique sooner than a TMA.  For example, the Wing Chun group on this site will have battles over technique.  In Jow Ga we don't have battles like that but we can Identify schools and lineages by looking at techniques.  And while we may have opinions on correct techniques in our system, we won't get into a battle about it.  For example, Maryland Jow Ga school steps the lead leg out when doing the reverse punch.  The Virginia school will step the rear leg out when doing the reverse punch.  In one of our forms, the Virginia school uses a grab where we use a hook.  These differences may cause a little friction that last only 20 seconds.
> 
> I don't think I've ever seen the technique wars as bad as what I saw from the Wing Chun practitioners here.



See i would have still said that was ritual.

Especially if it is one specific method that everybody adheres to.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 6, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> It is also really easy to get the full-body connection wrong.  Everybody believes they are doing it.  From what I've seen, most people get it wrong.  There are very slight disconnections that undermine the whole thing and it just becomes an arm punch.  But everyone believes they delivered with the whole body.  It's a simple thing really, but very easy to get it wrong.
> 
> So those issues could undermine your attempts, and you may not even be aware of it.


The nice thing about the TMA is the TMA has a "guideline" that if in your training, you always coordinate your

- hand with your foot,
- elbow with your knee,
- shoulder with your hip,

it will be very difficult to develop a bad habit that you only punch from your arm only. Not sure whether the modern MA use this "guideline" or not.

I like to

- stand in front of my heavy bag,
- freeze my arm and shoulder,
- just punch on my heavy bag from my back leg pushing down to the ground along with hip and body rotation.

This way, my arm is not doing the punch but my body is.


----------



## paitingman (Apr 6, 2016)

drop bear said:


> I think you will find all martial arts are technique driven.
> 
> Definitely not a tma/whatever separation.



I would agree. 

My proposal is that a big part of the progress or modernization in martial arts is the increase in athletic abilities and knowledge today. 

All martial arts aim to develop techniques. 
but techniques X, Y, and Z are really only high percentage against someone maybe weaker, slower, or not fully resisting. should we keep trying to do them the same way? for traditions sake maybe. 
To me modernizing is tweaking, improving, or leaving things behind in light of what fighters and athletes can do today.


----------



## Jenna (Apr 7, 2016)

@Ironbear24, @Buka, @Steve, @Bill Mattocks, @Flying Crane, @Tony Dismukes, @JowGaWolf.. hey all.. some very concise and clear points in all of this.. can I take what I reckon from what you are saying and try to join some of it up or find what is common to all?? thoughts appreciated..

Like maybe could we consider an art is traditional if it focus more on the traditional WAY and pay less attention to our 21st century modern CONTEXT, executing techniques in something of a vacuum of the time period from which it originated? So then a modern MA, could that be one which is practiced specifically to be deployed in 21st century context maybe? Like we may deploy our art differently now than would our predecessors 100 years ago, let alone 500 years ago right?  

So then could we define an art as TMA or modern MA by the reality for which it trains its adherents? Like I mean if its techniques can be applied effectively in 21st century then can we say is a modern MA irrespective of its traditional lineage perhaps?  Conversely, if its techniques rely upon attacks or defence that are atypical of 21st century then can we say it veer closer in categorisation to TMA?

@Buka was asking about individuals.. So like I practice Aikido.  I think it have a TMA mindset.. what is that? well you know it have an formal dojo etiquette, moreover though it rely upon certain technical dependencies both in attack and defence that do not always equate to what I have encountered in my reality so I have made alterations.. Philosophically I practice pure Aikido it is the traditional way of peace and -was a person so inclined to suit their mood- could be traceable to Buddha or antecedent vedic texts.. there is no more TMA than those whose philosophy spring from prehistory.. whatever. Many other arts could also be traceable were it to suit the person doing the tracing..  Technically however, I practice a bastardised version of an 100yr old art designed for a time that is now historical.  While some things cannot change, many no longer can be applied the same way 1930 and 2016 with same result.. Still, the TMA philosophy will always apply and centres the practitioner not the technique.  The manner in which techniques are deployed to be successful C21st are therefore in some cases dissimilar to how they were originated 100 yr ago. So what is Aikido defined as? it have a TMA mindset and "way" of things and pure Aikikai authorised technique is encroaching on 100yr old.. To me that is traditional.  However, I cannot help think what I my self practice is then a modern MA. Would any one else view the practice of their art in that way?? so like the definition TMA or modern MA then follows from how you as an individual practice your art rather than the definition of the art being imposed upon you externally?? is that more clear or more messy?? pffft.. It is some shades of gray right??

Also am I right in thinking that TMA is often perceived by the layman as some how "superior" having a long established lineage? And likewise modern MA is seen as more "effective" through its streamlining efficiencies that eschew the paraphernalia of traditional technique or "WAY" so it just gets the job done better??  Are those perceptions plausible?? And if so then do those layman perceptions out there in the world maybe hamper attempts at clarifiying the definition of TMA or modern MA? Hmm.. Any mileage in these points here maybe?? What you reckon?? I am grateful Jx


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 7, 2016)

paitingman said:


> I would agree.
> 
> My proposal is that a big part of the progress or modernization in martial arts is the increase in athletic abilities and knowledge today.
> 
> ...


what I'm learning is that the advanced kung fu techniques are high percentage techniques we used correctly and at the right time.  before I used to try and pick the technique that I want to use. Now it seems like my opponent is the one that picks the technique for me by attacking in a certain manner.  if my opponent doesn't attack in a way that allows me to use the technique that I want to use then I should just use the technique that fits.  

I think our assumption of one technique being of a lower percentage is a reflection of our limited knowledge and under standing of when we can and should use the technique. If the technique is truly useful according to the system then we just have to train hard and actually try to understand multiple applications for a technique.  we may have to get hit in the face a couple of times but eventually we'll get to they point where we truly under stand the technique
For one of my advanced techniques I learned that it works better after a parry, but in school we don't train it that way and our sifu never told us any other application of the technique.  in school is taught as a punch but in application it works as a block and punch at the same time.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 7, 2016)

Jenna said:


> @Ironbear24, @Buka, @Steve, @Bill Mattocks, @Flying Crane, @Tony Dismukes, @JowGaWolf.. hey all.. some very concise and clear points in all of this.. can I take what I reckon from what you are saying and try to join some of it up or find what is common to all?? thoughts appreciated..
> 
> Like maybe could we consider an art is traditional if it focus more on the traditional WAY and pay less attention to our 21st century modern CONTEXT, executing techniques in something of a vacuum of the time period from which it originated? So then a modern MA, could that be one which is practiced specifically to be deployed in 21st century context maybe? Like we may deploy our art differently now than would our predecessors 100 years ago, let alone 500 years ago right?
> 
> ...


One technique can have multiple applications.  Techniques, at least in kung fu,have never been of such where it could only be deployed in one way against one tips of attack or defense. The same technique that I use to block a kick can be used to strike the knee of the kicking leg, or strike the knee of the person in a fighting stance.the same technique can be used to block a low punch or to strike the ribs. Maybe the method of teaching had more influence of something being traditional.  modern martial arts seem to advance students faster that in a TMA. TMAs seem to drill until there is understanding of a technique that goes beyond what a teacher shows.  A teacher may show only one application then watch to see if you truly understand by Whitby to see if you can figure a second application on your own.


----------



## Hyoho (Apr 7, 2016)

I cannot speak for arts other than Japanese but having taught/practiced both Budo and Kobudo in Japan for most of my life I would define traditional arts as not having a Dan-i belt system. Sadly even in the West some associations find themselves having to do gradings to keep the membership happy. 

I would not stress lineage in TMA too much but do consider obligation to ones teacher to be of the greatest importance. This is what makes lineage what it is, rather than go off and do your own thing purporting to have created a 'new lineage'.


----------



## Steve (Apr 7, 2016)

Hyoho said:


> *I would not stress lineage in TMA too much but do consider obligation to ones teacher to be of the greatest importance. This is what makes lineage what it is, rather than go off and do your own thing purporting to have created a 'new lineage'*.


This is a very timely statement.  In BJJ right now (and I suspect BJJ is not unique) a lot of people are trying to make a living.  You can make a modest living teaching BJJ, but in order to compete with larger organizations, such as Gracie Barra, you need to either align with another affiliation or really develop your own brand.


----------



## Hyoho (Apr 7, 2016)

Yet another difference would be that fact that the only people that made a living from TMA were after Meiji Era when the started to use the word Soke (headmaster). Nowadays if anything you are putting a lot of your own money in to keep things alive as they are not association run schools. On the contrary the association needs the schools to exist.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Apr 8, 2016)

Jenna said:


> @Ironbear24, @Buka, @Steve, @Bill Mattocks, @Flying Crane, @Tony Dismukes, @JowGaWolf.. hey all.. some very concise and clear points in all of this.. can I take what I reckon from what you are saying and try to join some of it up or find what is common to all?? thoughts appreciated..
> 
> Like maybe could we consider an art is traditional if it focus more on the traditional WAY and pay less attention to our 21st century modern CONTEXT, executing techniques in something of a vacuum of the time period from which it originated? So then a modern MA, could that be one which is practiced specifically to be deployed in 21st century context maybe? Like we may deploy our art differently now than would our predecessors 100 years ago, let alone 500 years ago right?
> 
> ...



I guess the easiest way for me to comment on this is to explain what I have been accostumed too. My only martial arts experience has been mainly in two dojos, both kenpo mixed Judo dojos.

Walking into my first dojo felt kind of like walking into a sporting event. With medals and trophy's everywhere of the sifus accomplisments there was also lots of belts posted up of those who earned that rank.

There was also lots of gym equipment such as weights and a dressing room. It had wall to wall mirrors too. The place didn't really feel like a traditional dojo as I would picture it. Not until we began training anyway, every session began with us bowing upon setting foot on the mat and saluting once for each Dan ranking member who was present.

A palm over a fist was the salute. The sifu said it stood for kenpo protecting friends and family. Upon each rank up, we had to recite the kenpo creed.

"I come to you with only karate, empty hands. I have no weapon but should I be forced to defend myself, my family, friends or country. 

Then here are my weapons. Karate, my empty hands."

The sifu would then kick the promoting student in the stomach where two people would then catch him or her so they would not fall over. The student is supposed to kiai to harden the muscles in the stomach to absorb the kick. 

The kick still hurt but it hurt much less if I had not done this. There were many rituals and traditions and overall philosophy of what we did and why we did it. Are these all elements of TMA? Are they present in the more styles that are deemed "modern martial arts?" I do not know because kenpo and Judo and now escrima are all that I have known when it comes to training in.

Now my current dojo which is also Kenpo with Judo and now some Escrima. Feels like I time travel when I set foot in the dojo. We still bow and salute as we did in the first one I trained in, only now the building looks like something out of the final scene of enter the dragon.

The atmosphere screams MORTAL KOMBAT!!!!!. Every time I set foot inside. I honestly think it is a little cheesy but at the same time I think it is hardcore. I guess the culture is a major factor here is what I am trying to say. But I can't say I agree with their being these terms such as TMA and MMA because I am sure there are many kenpo dojos who do none of these traditions. As such would they be a TMA or not?

And would these dojos I mentioned above be considered TMA because of the fact they have these traditions and rituals?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 8, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> The sifu would then kick the promoting student in the stomach where two people would then catch him or her so they would not fall over.


 Perfect timing.  This is funny to me, because yesterday. I was demonstrating, to a new student, the concept of why it's important to condition the stomach. Instead of me kicking him I told him to heel kick me in the stomach. He did and I used my stomach to make him fall backwards about 3 feet (would have been more if the other instructor wasn't behind him to catch him).  I don't know if it's a ritual but for the TMA schools that I know of, all of them find importance of making sure students feel the end result of a kung fu technique done properly.  This isn't a toughing type condition. It's one that is done to help understand the technique.  Do Modern martial art schools do something similar?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 8, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> And would these dojos I mentioned above be considered TMA because of the fact they have these traditions and rituals?


Are these traditions and rituals done as part of the martial art system throughout all schools or are they only done in your school?


----------



## elder999 (Apr 8, 2016)

I drive a car. I ride a motorcycle.

I also ride a horse. Great to have a couple along on an elk hunt.....though I could use a four-wheeler.
-meh-


----------



## Ironbear24 (Apr 8, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> Are these traditions and rituals done as part of the martial art system throughout all schools or are they only done in your school?



I assume they are done in kenpo dojos because I have been to two, they both do them. I can't speak for all of them though.



JowGaWolf said:


> Perfect timing.  This is funny to me, because yesterday. I was demonstrating, to a new student, the concept of why it's important to condition the stomach. Instead of me kicking him I told him to heel kick me in the stomach. He did and I used my stomach to make him fall backwards about 3 feet (would have been more if the other instructor wasn't behind him to catch him).  I don't know if it's a ritual but for the TMA schools that I know of, all of them find importance of making sure students feel the end result of a kung fu technique done properly.  This isn't a toughing type condition. It's one that is done to help understand the technique.  Do Modern martial art schools do something similar?



Whoa that's hardcore. And as far the modern arts question I do not know.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 8, 2016)

elder999 said:


> I drive a car. I ride a motorcycle.
> 
> I also ride a horse. Great to have a couple along on an elk hunt.....though I could use a four-wheeler.
> -meh-



Yeah, but it that a Modern or Archaic type horse


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 8, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> Whoa that's hardcore. And as far the modern arts question I do not know.


 I don't know if it was hardcore but it definitely makes it easier to understand techniques and why we do things the way we do.  By him kicking me in the stomach he was able to understand 2 things right away. 
1. I wasn't concerned about the possible pain that would come from the kick.
2. He got to experience first hand of how that conditioning allowed me to use a technique to throw him back 3 feet.  

The biggest advantage is that 1 and 2 validate the technique.  #1 is the confidence and trust that I personally put in my conditioning and in the technique.  #2 is the validation that the technique works and that we aren't just making kung fu stuff up.  You hear many times in Martial Talk that "Techniques need to be tested."  In Jow Ga Schools,  it's more important that techniques are experienced by students.  This means there's no need to test a technique.  If you were in a Jow Ga school and asked how a technique works, the Sifu or instructor will ask you to come to the front of the class.  He will tell you to punch, kick, or to place your hand on him(grab, push, etc) and as soon as you do he will use the technique on you.  It may hurt but you'll definitely have a better understanding of the technique, how it works, where exactly it's damaging, if the technique is throwing you off balance, did it pull you forward.  There will be no doubt in your mind if it actually works or not.  The other thing you will learn is that often times the harder you try to punch or kick the Sifu or instructor, the more pain you'll feel. The increase in pain isn't because he's using more force, it's because he's turning your force against you.

Many of the modern schools that I know of are against this type of teaching.  They probably would consider it abuse.  In cases of abuse the Sifu or instructor doesn't care about how much pain you may feel.  I kicked our new student in the stomach yesterday just to give him a taste of our conditioning.  The first thing I did was start off with a super light kick and told him to let me know if I should kick harder or lighter.  He set his own level of what he wanted to feel.


----------



## Balrog (Apr 13, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> In my opinion both of these terms are ridiculous and further divide a community that should have no division in it. However I would like to know because my arts, kenpo karate and Judo have been called both TMA and MMA's.


My $0.02 worth, and I may be completely off base with this...

In my opinion, a traditional m.a. is concerned with the development of the student as a complete human being.  There is strong emphasis on life skills and the avoidance of conflict whenever possible.  In a "modern" m.a., it's all about whipping the other guy's *** into next week.


----------



## Michael Shayne (Apr 26, 2016)

Simply individual viewpoints


----------



## Jaeimseu (Apr 27, 2016)

I would consider Taekwondo to be a modern martial art with traditional elements. 

The traditional elements might include the uniform/belt, poomse, and rituals associated with the conducting of training. 

Yet we are modern, too, in age and in the fact that we are willing to adapt and develop new techniques or strategies. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

