# Is tradition important?



## Dirty Dog (Mar 30, 2013)

Something I've been thinking about a lot lately: is tradition important to martiala arts? I tend to be a traditionalist, but I'd like to hear other peoples views on this.

What do you think tradition provides to your art, and is it important?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Mar 30, 2013)

What do you mean by tradition? learning the history of the MA, teaching the MA the way it was traditionally taught, either methodwise or technique wise? having a traditional attitude? Not deviating by traditional stances/techniques at all? Or something else entirely? Not meaning to attack your question, just would help my own answr, if I knew what you considered tradition with your question.


----------



## arnisador (Mar 30, 2013)

I _enjoy _the tradition. In some cases it's informative--it helps me better understand the circumstances in which a technique arose, and hence to grasp it better--but mostly it just fits with the practice of martial-art-as-hobby for me. I like what I've learned about Japanese history and culture from karate, for example, but also like helping preserve a traditional art, as one might preserve a traditional form of dance, say.

Is it necessary? No, and in my opinion some tradition-emphasizing teachers should look to modern coaching methods in place of their traditional top-down. do-it-my-way style of teaching. I always like to learn the original way _and _the optimal way. The latter may well vary from student to student.

But yeah, the tradition, the legacy, the structure, the history, the culture, are all part of what keeps me in.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 30, 2013)

kempodisciple said:


> What do you mean by tradition? learning the history of the MA, teaching the MA the way it was traditionally taught, either methodwise or technique wise? having a traditional attitude? Not deviating by traditional stances/techniques at all? Or something else entirely? Not meaning to attack your question, just would help my own answr, if I knew what you considered tradition with your question.



Not linking YOUR answer to MY definition of traditional was kind of the point. That's why I asked what YOU think tradition brings to your art.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Mar 30, 2013)

Dirty Dog said:


> Not linking YOUR answer to MY definition of traditional was kind of the point. That's why I asked what YOU think tradition brings to your art.


Well, not knowing what tradition is for the question, makes it tough to near impossible to answer the question properly.
Based on the different definitions of tradition, however, i dont find history of the particular martial art to be important. Also, techniques themselves are important, so long as people can remember/figure out what the specific techniuqes are used for (if you forget what a kata teaches, its pointless. If someone rediscovers its meaning, or attributes a new meaning to it, it is once again important). The way of teaching the martial art is the most important, because even if the reasoning for it is forgotten, it teaches the proper attitude of the martial art, as well as respect for the art and teaching the art in the order in the way its supposed to. Outside of that, not sure what you would be considering tradition. Hope that answers your question, from my perspective.


----------



## mook jong man (Mar 30, 2013)

I have learned to think that I am not better or wiser  than those that came before me in my system.
What I've usually found is that there are very ,very good reasons  why something is done in a particular way.
Anytime I ever get tempted to think I might modify something , I remember the couple of hundred years of accumulated wisdom that has been handed down to me.
Who the hell do I think I am to try and mess around with that?


----------



## Cyriacus (Mar 31, 2013)

In my opinion, tradition on its own is totally irrelevant.

If something works better or easier for you, swell. However, theres usually a reason something became 'tradition' to begin with. Tradition for the sake of tradition is problematic, but something being traditional because it works is just that. Stuff that works. So, if somethings traditional because it works, thats probably a good thing. If somethings traditional because tradition, then you may need to think about it a little.

EDIT: Oh, right. What tradition brings. Well, i cant really answer that because i dont have much of a basis of comparison for whats traditional in what im learning and what isnt.


----------



## Drasken (Mar 31, 2013)

I think tradition is very important. It is the core and heart of a style. The tradition and the philosophy that has been passed down make a particular art what it is. I'm sure if you have a technique that there are at least one or two arts out there that use the same one. Might even apply it in the same way. Techniques don't make the art by themselves.
Traditional teaching methods also exist for a reason. It is arrogant to ever think you can throw out years of development in methods and it still remain the same.

That being said, I think updating things to deal with more modern problems is needed. Especially in very old forms. However the basis in a traditional method is best for learning. Then learning to apply the concepts in new ways should be played with. I mean you don't build a house and THEN pour the foundation right? Building on to what already exists, while keeping the tradition alive let's a form grow and adapt.


----------



## DennisBreene (Mar 31, 2013)

Drasken said:


> I think tradition is very important. It is the core and heart of a style. The tradition and the philosophy that has been passed down make a particular art what it is. I'm sure if you have a technique that there are at least one or two arts out there that use the same one. Might even apply it in the same way. Techniques don't make the art by themselves.
> Traditional teaching methods also exist for a reason. It is arrogant to ever think you can throw out years of development in methods and it still remain the same.
> 
> That being said, I think updating things to deal with more modern problems is needed. Especially in very old forms. However the basis in a traditional method is best for learning. Then learning to apply the concepts in new ways should be played with. I mean you don't build a house and THEN pour the foundation right? Building on to what already exists, while keeping the tradition alive let's a form grow and adapt.


I agree completely. I think that the ideal of any martial art is to eventually "make it your own".  Part of the Art is in taking what you have learned from the traditional style and exploring what works best for you, given variations in size, age, flexibility and all those other factors we are familiar with.  This is not turning away from tradition as much as an advanced form of honoring the tradition of your art.  I also believe that this is one of the goals best left to the more advanced student or combined with the input of a very experienced teacher who can recognize and guide alterations in style and technique to make the student more effective while training.


----------



## harlan (Mar 31, 2013)

Ditto. 



arnisador said:


> I _enjoy _the tradition. In some cases it's informative--it helps me better understand the circumstances in which a technique arose, and hence to grasp it better--but mostly it just fits with the practice of martial-art-as-hobby for me. I like what I've learned about Japanese history and culture from karate, for example, but also like helping preserve a traditional art, as one might preserve a traditional form of dance, say.
> 
> Is it necessary? No, and in my opinion some tradition-emphasizing teachers should look to modern coaching methods in place of their traditional top-down. do-it-my-way style of teaching. I always like to learn the original way _and _the optimal way. The latter may well vary from student to student.
> 
> But yeah, the tradition, the legacy, the structure, the history, the culture, are all part of what keeps me in.


----------



## martial sparrer (Mar 31, 2013)

one thing many traditional martial artists have taught me is that tradition creates the culture of the martial art......I can walk into a karate dojo and throw a roundhouse.....but I am not a karate guy....and I do not know karate at all.....I find traditional martial artists feisty when you comment on their particular art.....now I understand why and I think they SHOULD be very particular with what they do.....same thing for the traditions in Christianity and religions....if yu throw out the traditions it ceases to be!


----------



## Kframe (Mar 31, 2013)

Kempodesciple touched on big issue for me with Traditional martial arts. That is Kata, more specifically the meaning and application of kata.  One of the things, that was told to me when I visited the TKD dojang(havnt updated my TKD thread with this yet)  was that many techniques are hidden in the Forms(kata).  That the real art is, hidden and requires you to research and guess what all the different variations of things that was intended from one move. For example he showed me like 3 different moves all stemming from the low block. Even tho none of the moves even resembled the low block, yet it was somehow "hidden" in the forms. 

In my mind that is the biggest drawback to learning a TMA, everything is so hidden, and so buried, so obscure and not obvious that many of its practitioners don't even agree on applications of specific movements.. It was ultimately what turned me off, after my intro practice at the TKD place. So much of the art is "hidden", I don't want to have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out weather or not a specific move means anything or is just there for fluff. 

I think that it is this hiddenness that hinders the TMA more then anything.  I don't understand why it cant be more open, with move A actually being move A, not also B,C,and D.   

I wonder what tkd(or karate for that matter) would look like, if they abandoned all the kata, and only spent time working the basics, then practicing the actuall combat movements in the art, instead of wasting time on Forms.  Instead of doing the dance and thinking your learning to fight, actually apply the moves it is supposedly teaching. Spending more time repping the actuall moves and not doing non productive things should be the priority in my mind.   

I may change my mind the day that kata is finealy defined and each move actually represents a move, and not just a place holder for a multidude of different moves all supposedly stemming from one source(say  a low block. I still don't know how a low block represents a shoulder throw....)


----------



## chrispillertkd (Mar 31, 2013)

Dirty Dog said:


> Something I've been thinking about a lot lately: is tradition important to martiala arts? I tend to be a traditionalist, but I'd like to hear other peoples views on this.
> 
> What do you think tradition provides to your art, and is it important?



You really do need a definition of "tradition" in order to answer these questions. Most people I know, especially martial artists, tend to equate tradition with something that is _old_. This is, strictly speaking incorrect. Tradition comes from the Latin word "tradition" which means "to hand on." In other words, a tradition is anything that has been passed from one person to another. It can come directly from your instructor to you and be a tradition, or it can come from the founder of your style down through the centuries and be a tradition. Some traditions are quite old, others are more contemporary (such as the development of the belt system). G.K. Chesterton once described tradition (in a somewhat different context) as "the democracy of the dead." It is, in effect, a way to not put yourself ahead of others simply because you happen to still be walking around. It is an exercise in humility (which is why, incidentally, you get a lot of people dismissing it as "out dated"). Tradition is itself very important to martial arts because we are supposed to be, among other things, developing humility and respect for other people. I am not saying traditions in martial arts should be irreformable but people should at least endeavor to understand them before simply getting rid of them. Pax, Chris P.S. I have no idea what the problem is with the formatting in this post.


----------



## K-man (Mar 31, 2013)

Kframe said:


> I may change my mind the day that kata is finealy defined and each move actually represents a move, and not just a place holder for a multidude of different moves all supposedly stemming from one source(say  a low block. I still don't know how a low block represents a shoulder throw....)


Until you understand there are no blocks you will not understand the applications. Simple really!


----------



## K-man (Mar 31, 2013)

For me, tradition in the martial arts is multi faceted.  There is the tradition of Asia. This includes the formality and the respect. Do you need it? No, but it does create an atmosphere. There is the tradition of the dress. Is that required? No, you need look no further than KM or Systema to see traditional dress is not essential. What about the style itself? Well how old is the style? How long does it take to establish tradition? Karate is only a hundred years old, Aikido eighty, TKD sixty. 

What is traditional, especially in Japan, is the method of teaching.  Shu-Ha-Ri is the traditional means of the transference of knowledge. If this concept is not understood, then a martial artist particularly in a Japanese martial art will never progress. This is the principle reason why in many schools karate is only practised at a beginner level right through the highest grades. The same applies to Aikido, Tai Chi, TKD etc. So here we have the situation where the lack of tradition inhibits understanding and progression.

What does that mean? I suppose it depends on what you want to achieve. Tradition will allow you to extract the most out of a 'traditional' art but it is not essential to the practise of a martial art.   :asian:


----------



## Kframe (Mar 31, 2013)

K-man said:


> Until you understand there are no blocks you will not understand the applications. Simple really!


  Nor did rthis answer my question as to how in the heck a "low block" can possibly represent a shoulder throw. The movements of the two maneuvers do not match up in the least... 

Kman I was using the term that the instructor told me during the class. He used the term low block, I didn't just make it up.  I want you to explain how one can get a shoulder throw from a low block. For that is exactly what that instructor told me the low block represented in that form. He also said it could be a bunch of other different moves, all represented by the low block. Tell me, how can a low block represent a move, if the movements in the low block, look nothing like the movements they supposedly represent.  A low block in no way looks like the shoulder throw he told me it was.. It does not move in the same way a shoulder throw moves in. 

Secondly, if there are no blocks, then stop using the term block. That statement pisses me off to no end. I keep hearing, there is no block, yet those same people keep using the same terminology. I can accept that those movement are layered in there application. That at the basic level it is indeed a defensive movement.(I prefere the term deflection, its more appropriate)  As experience expands, your usage of the basic deflection can also be coupled with more complicated moves. Such as traps and throws and locks.....  I may do a more modern martial art, but we have some deflections that come straight out of my instructors previous TMA. At the basic level they are just basic moves to prevent attacks from hurting you. As you gain experience they become more.  We call them blocks because that is what the kids in the class know them as.. 

Lastly the TKD place I was at, stated that all the "blocks" he teaches are In fact limb destruction techniques. I get that, sure they will probably hurt the limb you deflect with it. That does not change the fact that properly using the deflection will redirect the attack  in a less threatening manner. All the limb destruction in the world does no good if the original attack still hits you in the face.  Thusly these "blocks" are more properly termed striking deflections.  Boxing as art has hard blocks,  I consider the movements in TMA to be more along the lines of striking deflections. They do both, strike the incoming attacking limb and deflect it away using less force then the attacking limb is generating.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 31, 2013)

*Kframe*, I am sure you must have been asked this already so forgive me for asking it again but how long have you been studying martial arts?


----------



## Kframe (Mar 31, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> *Kframe*, I am sure you must have been asked this already so forgive me for asking it again but how long have you been studying martial arts?


 Has no bearing on this conversation, but Im coming up on 2 years... 

Secondly K man, your statement only reinforces what im talking about. More secrecy more hiddenness more obscuraty. One should not have to reach instructor level to fineally understand what the hell is being taught them.  How can one move, represent a multitude of other moves, if said move does in no way  act or infact move in the same or similar manner to the sapposed hidden moves. That has never been explained.  That lack of openness, why must it be hidden. Its almost like its made up on the fly.  WHy cant move A actually represent MOVE A.


----------



## DennisBreene (Mar 31, 2013)

Kframe said:


> Has no bearing on this conversation, but Im coming up on 2 years... Secondly K man, your statement only reinforces what im talking about. More secrecy more hiddenness more obscuraty. One should not have to reach instructor level to fineally understand what the hell is being taught them.  How can one move, represent a multitude of other moves, if said move does in no way  act or infact move in the same or similar manner to the sapposed hidden moves. That has never been explained.  That lack of openness, why must it be hidden. Its almost like its made up on the fly.  WHy cant move A actually represent MOVE A.


When I have discussed Bunkai with other form practitioners, I don't recall anyone stating that a proposed alternative meaning to a move is an absolute. I believe the purpose of bunkai analysis is to expand the practitioners awareness of how movement can be used.  So, a form can simply be as basically represented, or as you analyze the movements, you begin to see how other types of attacks and counters can be applied.  I think reducing analysis of a forms possible meanings to dogma would be a mistake.  In some cases blocks are blocks and strikes are strikes. In other cases, blocks combined with turns and counters could also be interpreted as throws, locks, etc.  The benefit in this approach is awareness of one's own movement and how that may flow.  Form can be a wonderful art and when done with dedication, I think it aids in learning how to stand, move, maintain balance and even expand situational awareness through concentration.  It's not magic and it's not the only tool in the tool box.   As to secret moves and the intentional obfuscation of the "true" meaning of a form; I suspect that this has more to do with legend than with history.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 31, 2013)

Well, *Kframe*, I have to say it very much does have a bearing on the conversation, for the sort of questions I see you asking are the ones that all of us have asked. We all thought we knew better than those that teach us or than the tradition embodies at one point.

It's not that styles are 'secret' as such, it is just that there are layers of subtlety to things that you gradually unpeel as you get better and more experienced.  That is especially true in the art that I study because it is what is termed a _koryu_ art - we are talking centuries of refinement and tradition and the honest truth is that the things you used to think had no purpose when you were only _shodan_ become clearer to you as the years pass.  

I am _sandan_ now (and should really be going for _yondan_ (but the regulations prevent it because my sensei is only _Rokudan Renshi_)) and there are motions in the forms that I could not see the use of when I first learned them years ago but now I realise what they are for.  But there was no point my sensei trying to explain all the uses for that motion to me back then because I would not have been able to use some of the applications and it would just have confused my learning how to execute it correctly the 'simple' way for the most direct use.  And being confused with a three foot razor in your hand in a room full of other people is not a good thing :lol:.

I don't have a high opinion of TKD, I make no bones about it.  Having a kata for every conceivable circumstance is 'doing it wrong' as far as I am concerned.  But it is what it is and it will be an easier journey for your training if you let things come to you rather than trying to force them out into the open, so to speak.  Understanding emerges over time in a continuous chain of 'light bulb' moments rather than one grand revelation.  Questions are always good, wanting to know the "Why" as well as the "How", as you move along the path of your training.  But it is important to realise that at certain points along the way your questions that used to be burning issues for you fall by the wayside as you realise you were asking about something that was only relevant to you 'back then'.

That's what a tradition is all about.  It allows you to accept that those that teach you know what they are doing because they were taught by those that knew what they were doing and so on.  I tell you truthfully from my own experience that whenever you are convinced that there is something 'wrong' or 'stupid' in your style it is always yourself that has not yet understood rather than the tradition being at fault.


----------



## Kframe (Mar 31, 2013)

That does not answere how in hell a low block can represent a shoulder throw!!  The shoulder is up high, the block goes low. if anything it represents a different throw, or toss. The movements, no matter how you turn, or face, do not in any way resemble that of a shoulder throw....


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 31, 2013)

Honestly, just wait and don't worry about it.  If you find you can't wait then go and do something else.


----------



## K-man (Mar 31, 2013)

Kframe said:


> Nor did rthis answer my question as to how in the heck a "low block" can possibly represent a shoulder throw. The movements of the two maneuvers do not match up in the least...
> 
> Not knowing what throw you are describing it is hard to comment but to me there are at least four throws, or takedowns that spring to mind, one of which may be called a shoulder throw.  In a kata it depends on context.
> 
> ...


*"We call them blocks because that is what the kids in the class know them as.. "     *And that says it all.  

I don't teach blocks to anyone. I refer to the body's instictive protective response as a block, but as it is instictive I don't have to teach it. If you read my posts you will find I sometimes refer to 'schoolboy' karate. It is a problem endemic to karate and that translates into TKD from its Shotokan origins.  It does not apply to other Japanese arts like ninjutsu, jujitsu or even aikido, and it doesn't occur in kung fu or more specifically WC.

The problem arises when you take an empty hand system designed to kill or at least badly injure your assailant, and teach it to children to make them fit and strong. That is 'schoolboy' martial art and that is what was taught to the Western world after the war. Fortunately, now a lot of people have, or are developing, a deeper understanding, but there are still plenty of 'dinosaurs' in our MA schools.

The word is 'uke' which means receive, not block. If I use the term 'block' when referring to uke, I use parentheses. So let's look at the lower 'block'. We normally refer to it as gedan barai, not gedan uke. Used against a kick for example it is a sweep, not a block, therefore 'barai'. Not that I would ever use it against a kick as there are many better ways of dealing with a kick. Receiving a lower level strike, say to the lower abdomen, gedan uke, to me, would be deflecting the strike by pushing across with the lower arm and striking the ear and pulling the head down with the 'blocking' hand. Another technique might be to redirect the attacker by pulling the upper arm down and across. If I choose to use it as a strike to the attacking arm, I could, but that leaves both my hands down and no protection against the other hand.  If you think that 'Gedan Uke' is a 'lower block' can you please explain to me the reason for the sweep across the upper chest before the downward motion.  :asian:


----------



## Kframe (Mar 31, 2013)

Ok, k man thank you, you made sense... by shoulder throw I mean this.. 



  This is one variant of how we practice it.  Maybe in this case the "low block" is a groin shot?   

 Thank you for the info on uke, tho I already knew it and had been reading a lot on Dan djurivics blog on the subject.   

With regards to gedan uke, we actually do some thing similar. if a mid level kick is coming, we move with the kick or up the circle past the apex. It looses a lot of power with that maneuver. Then we do a pivot and I scoop the kick with the "low block" while grabbing and pulling for a throw with the upper hand.. The most important part of our kick defenses is the movement part.   We don't stand and take it, we move and negate it..   Tho I do check low level kicks on occasion with my shins.  

One move I shamelessly stole from karate/tkd is the soto uke, or inner body block in tkd. I have added it to my defensive drills, its a great move with lots of applications. 

I don't know if your reference to what we teach to the kids is a slam on my coach, but lets face the facts. My new gym is new, and right now kids are paying the bills for the coach. I get TONS of one on one time in the adult class's.


----------



## The Last Legionary (Mar 31, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> *Kframe*, I am sure you must have been asked this already so forgive me for asking it again but how long have you been studying martial arts?



Never mind that. How old is he?


----------



## The Last Legionary (Mar 31, 2013)

Kframe said:


> In my mind that is the biggest drawback to learning a TMA, *everything is so hidden*, and so buried, so obscure and not obvious that many of its practitioners don't even agree on applications of specific movements.. It was ultimately what turned me off, after my intro practice at the TKD place. So much of the art is "hidden", I don't want to have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out weather or not a specific move means anything or is just there for fluff.





Sukerkin said:


> *Kframe*, I am sure you must have been asked this already so forgive me for asking it again but how long have you been studying martial arts?





Kframe said:


> Has no bearing on this conversation, but Im coming up on 2 years...



2 years in and it's not clear yet. Wow.  I feel incredibly stupid, what with 20+ years studying and still finding new things in the kata's.
Seriously kid, if you want simple and nothing hidden, with easy plain jane meaning, this might not be the stuff for you. Take up dance class or accounting. I've talked to people with 50+ years in who are still finding new insights in techs that  were old when they were in diapers. Ok, some of them are again in diapers, you might not want to roll with them, but still, they keep looking.  A block is a strike, a strike is a block. There are no strikes, there are no blocks. 



> I think that it is this hiddenness that hinders the TMA more then anything. I don't understand why it cant be more open, with move A actually being move A, not also B,C,and D.



That's a dance. 
I strike at your head. 
If you block then I counter with this strike.
If you dodge then I counter with this other strike.
If you counter my strike with one of your own I ....

and so on.

You want a simple abc123. For newbs, that is what it is.  But once past that, then it gets interesting and you write the script.
But at a mere 2 years in, bluntly put, you don't know enough to know what you don't know or what you don't know.

The one truth I've learned is a simple one. In martial arts, there are no secrets, no hidden meaning. Just the ability to see things clearly. It's all there, it's all in plain sight. But like anything else, it takes time, experience and understanding to see things for what they are. Kinda like how when you're 10 you might think this text was "blue", but when you see things like an artist you'll know the pantone code by heart.


----------



## K-man (Mar 31, 2013)

Kframe said:


> Ok, k man thank you, you made sense... by shoulder throw I mean this..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The shoulder throw here is not normally a move I would do. The guys that grab me do so in a way I couldn't move forward. Therefore I classify it as a low percenter.  As to it being an application of lower 'block', my imagination is good but not that good! 

I'm not having a go at your instructor. You put enough in your post to suggest that he understands far more than the average instructor.  As for kids? If you are running a commercial operation you need kids. I am lucky. I don't teach for money, I teach for pleasure. I handed my kids off to another school about 5 or 6 years ago. Now I will only accept a student under 18 in special circumstances. But my point is this ... if I know a 'block' is not a block, why do I need to tell kids it is a block?  :asian:


----------



## arnisador (Mar 31, 2013)

The Last Legionary said:


> Seriously kid, if you want simple and nothing hidden, with easy plain jane meaning, this might not be the stuff for you. Take up dance class or accounting.



It's not that simple. In boxing or BJJ or JKD, there are many techniques that are _subtle_, whose nuances will take years to fully appreciate; in many traditional Oriental martial arts, however, there are techniques that are _hidden_. That's different. Although I appreciate the puzzle aspect--the intellectual and creative challenge--of finding new interpretations of old techniques, the success of people who study straight-forward arts like Muay Thai, Sombo, MMA, etc., make it far from clear that there being a cornucopia of potential applications deeply buried within each move of a kata will make you a better fighter. That is to say, if you want simple and nothing hidden, with easy  plain Jane meaning, TMAs might not be the stuff for you. Take up WMAs like fencing or savate--where the ability to apply the techniques may require years of practice, but the meaning and use of them are not purposefully hidden from you. Your implication that if you don't like the notion of hidden techniques then you must either develop patience--that may never be rewarded; I think some of these arts with hidden techniques are worthless--then you should move on to "dance class or accounting" is at best a false dichotomy. You could spend 20 years looking for hidden techniques that are not there. In fact, in the case of George Dillman, who has championed hidden techniques in the Okinawan kata (and whose kata interpretation principles have really opened my mind), it led him from the good (finding hidden or alternative interpretations) to the absurd (no-touch knock-outs). I could list arts that claim this sort of hidden depth where I feel that there's no "there" there.

Never forget that boxing does very, very well with only five punches. No, it's not that simple, but it's also not very complex. I've heard Dan Inosanto speak about the martial arts. True to his high school P.E. teacher background, he makes analogies between the martial arts and football, not between the martial arts and Dante's _Inferno_. I've many times heard Maung Gyi speak about the advantages of a simple system that is more like a dump truck than a Porsche (his words). Over the years I've come to appreciate the non-nonsense, no-secrets approach of the FMAs, while still appreciating the very different appraoch taken in iaido--where I truly was not ready to understand the strategy behind the techniques at first and had to be brought slowly to the deeper truths.

If someone doesn't want to wait for the hidden techniques, send them to MMA. If you feel your hidden techniques are the deadliest secrets known to man, prove it in an MMA match. Otherwise, both approaches are OK.


----------



## Kframe (Mar 31, 2013)

Tll I am not a kid, please don't disrespect me, im 31 and have 2 young kids of my own... 2 years in a mma  style is different then 2  years into a TMA style.. 

 You seam to be under the impression im currently studying a traditioinal art, im not. Im doing a more modern art, MMA if you will. My instructor has a long history of doing various traditional arts as well, as BJJ and Kickboxing, so we have some movements and concepts from his traditional side thrown in as well.     I started in boxing, and went to kickboxing and BJJ.  You must understand that when I went and took that TKD intro class, all the hidden and subtle meanings behind every single move, that is not clear till you are a 5th dan  was a little disconcerting to me.  

I have a need to know not only what im doing but why. In my mind, it needs to make sense.  I have no intent of taking up GD dance class, and how dare you suggest it. Why saddle those poor sods with my uncoordinated ****.  I don't like dancing any ways, punching people in the head is more fun. 

With all of your attitude and bluster, you have yet to tell me why it is so important that stuff remains hidden in the kata.   Do you consider it some right of passage that your  students must somehow puzzle there way through the meaning of a kata or there not deemed worthy in your eyes?  IF there are steps not shown in the kata, yet some how are hidden in the meaning, then why the hell arnt those steps in the kata? How hard would it be to include all the hidden steps.  

Having hidden steps and meanings can lead to problems of interpretation. One movement series may mean one thing to one instructor and something totally different to the next one, both of whom can be in the same organization or heck even the same school.  It leads to no set standard, no one uniformity between practitioners of the art from one school to the next.


----------



## K-man (Mar 31, 2013)

Kframe said:


> With all of your attitude and bluster, you have yet to tell me why it is so important that stuff remains hidden in the kata.   Do you consider it some right of passage that your  students must somehow puzzle there way through the meaning of a kata or there not deemed worthy in your eyes?  IF there are steps not shown in the kata, yet some how are hidden in the meaning, then why the hell arnt those steps in the kata? How hard would it be to include all the hidden steps.
> 
> Having hidden steps and meanings can lead to problems of interpretation. One movement series may mean one thing to one instructor and something totally different to the next one, both of whom can be in the same organization or heck even the same school.  It leads to no set standard, no one uniformity between practitioners of the art from one school to the next.


There were a number of reasons for important techniques to be concealed. In China, where the kata originated, they were often the difference between life and death. The less than successful systems tended to die out with their owner, sometimes prematurely, while others were passed down, father to son. By concealing the true meaning, the forms could be openly practised without divulging their real intentions.  

Why it remains hidden is because *we* were never shown the real meaning.  If any of the Japanese ever knew, and some obviously did, they never passed the knowledge on to Westerners. So it's not a right of passage but more a sign of maturity when you begin to explore and understand the kata.  I couldn't and probably wouldn't teach what I know although I do try to help my students understand parts that they may have difficulty understanding. That is not because am trying to keep it to myself, but that it is what the kata means to me and what works for me. I suggest there are a number of good references available on kata and reading these will help anyone in there studies. In particular I suggest Iain Abernethy's books or videos and another by Wilder and Kane.

Your last para is 100% correct. There is no single explanation.  I bought a set of DVDs on interpreting kata in the context of Kyusho. One kata, one organisation, three practitioners and three totally different explanations in three separate DVDs. That is the beauty of kata. Everyone learns the kata, then you make it work for you. The problem in interpretation of kata is maturity, not that different people see different things. There can be a standard for the kata but there can never be a standard for the bunkai.    :asian:


----------



## Cyriacus (Apr 1, 2013)

Kframe said:


> That does not answere how in hell a low block can represent a shoulder throw!!  The shoulder is up high, the block goes low. if anything it represents a different throw, or toss. The movements, no matter how you turn, or face, do not in any way resemble that of a shoulder throw....



Actually, it does. Youre looking at the block, not the motion of the block. Youre seeing the end result, and not how you get to it.


----------



## Kframe (Apr 1, 2013)

Cyriacus, can you provide more depth and detail?   I have been going over the movements and I still find them dissimilar.  The only way is see a low block working is if im grabbing his crotch, instead of using both arms to grab his arm and shoulder as I was taught a shoulder throw.


----------



## Cyriacus (Apr 1, 2013)

Kframe said:


> Cyriacus, can you provide more depth and detail?   I have been going over the movements and I still find them dissimilar.  The only way is see a low block working is if im grabbing his crotch, instead of using both arms to grab his arm and shoulder as I was taught a shoulder throw.


Well, to begin with, it depends on the exact techique. So lets go with this:

https://sites.google.com/site/fantastrid/AraeMakki.PNG
1; The right hand is holding the arm or elbow, the left is holding the bicep. At this point, its already pulled over his shoulder. Raising your hands to this position does that. Just throw in a 180 turn and youre golden.
2; Pull the arm over your body and down, whilst pulling the upper arm down towards your hip. Since you lean forward for a throw like this, its a bit different to the formal movement.


----------



## Danny T (Apr 1, 2013)

A few points to ponder.

Kata is movement. Movement to position. Position to movement to position. 

It is dancing. 

The technique is application of movement to position. 

Something I do with my students is count the positions and use the word 'and' during the movement. "aaannnd 1, aaannnd 2, aaannnd 3. The action happens during the 'aaannnd' (the movement) the number is the end not the actual technique. What happens during the movement is what is important. F - D - A  Forms, Drills, Application.  Kata is Form; Form is Form not application; Drills work timing, range, and develop attributes; Application is applying the movements in a manner that allows you to survive the encounter. That is all. 

Application will change with your understanding and is based upon the spatial relationship with the opponent. 

What is hidden is your interpretation or expression of the movement.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 1, 2013)

Dirty Dog said:


> Something I've been thinking about a lot lately: is tradition important to martiala arts? I tend to be a traditionalist, but I'd like to hear other peoples views on this.
> 
> What do you think tradition provides to your art, and is it important?


I day and night must scramble for a living, feed the wife and children, say my daily prayers and I have the right as master of the house to have the final word at home.  Now that's traditon.

Really, every art has traditions.  Boxers traditionally wear gloves, boxing shorts, perform certain actions prior to and following a fight, and box within a square boundary.  Fencers traditionally wear white long-Johns, knickers, salute prior to a match, and fence in a straight line on a piste.  Karateka tradtionally wear white pajamas and use colored belts to denote one's training progress.  Taekwondoits don't wear gloves but instead wear hogo and headgear.

However, boxers could box in white pajamas, use belts to denote their training progress.  Karateka could fight in a stright line on a piste, and fencers could fence in a square boundary area rather than in a straight line on a piste.  Taekwondoists could dispense with the hogu and headgear and instead wear boxing gloves and foot pads with as much padding.

All of these things are "traditional" and usually have their origin in something that was relevant at the time.  Fencing on a piste made it easier to judge fencing exhibitions, but with electric scoring, that could be changed.  Karateka and taekwondoists wear belts to denote their training and wear white, pajama like garments.  But they could just as easily wear a long sleeve/long pant track suit and either display no rank or receive a patch or stripe to be sewn or ironed onto the suit.

Traditions are fine so long as they don't define or take away from what you do, or used to undermine what someone else does.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Apr 1, 2013)

Kframe said:


> That does not answere how in hell a low block can represent a shoulder throw!! The shoulder is up high, the block goes low. if anything it represents a different throw, or toss. The movements, no matter how you turn, or face, do not in any way resemble that of a shoulder throw....



Do you "cock" you hand or arm before your block? Usually to the opposite side of your body to get body dynamics and hip action. Yes? 

If you do no put someone behind you and hand onto them and do the motion. Could that not be a throw? 

As to waiting, sometimes you have to learn something first to understand it. Yes obtuse I am. 


Please explain to me why is 1 + 1 = 2? I will accept three of the majors proofs. (* Also please do not google or just link a page to answer *). 

We learn that 1 + 1 = 2. Later after we know it and have accepted then one may have enough mathematics to ask why? and also to learn why? 


Yes, I just related Martial Arts to Mathematics. Get over it. Any other subject with a similar situation could have been used, I just like this one as EVERYONE know that 1 + 1 = 2. But very few people know why.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Apr 1, 2013)

Dirty Dog said:


> Something I've been thinking about a lot lately: is tradition important to martiala arts? I tend to be a traditionalist, but I'd like to hear other peoples views on this.
> 
> What do you think tradition provides to your art, and is it important?




Why does a person train? 

Are they training for pure self defense? If so then they might not care where the techinques came from, just how they work. 

Are they training for fun or weight loss or because their parents put them into it to learn respect or self control or what have you?  The last is important to have tradition asn it builds a structure. Structure builds disipline and displine can build respect and or self respect in the right environments. 


That being said, I think a class needs to be formal at least in the minimal stance that it has an opening, a leader (Temperary Leaders during the class is good as well) and a closing. This structure lets people take it seriously . If it just is an open lets get together type training then Discourse/conversation will occur and this leads to no one taking it seriously. 




As to secret techniques, I do not keep things secret, but I also do not teach certain things right away. Knife fighting is something I teach to those I know, not just the average person off the street. 


One of the easiest ways to teach nothing is to try and teach everything. So If I teach you everything about a single move and mak sure it is perfect before I even discuss another technique, then one might never get to a second techinque. Most will get frustrated after they are confused on why it has to be a certain way as they do not understand yet. Such as when I am teaching sensitivity and ask them to listen to their body or their weapons and to feel the movement of their opponent through them. Try this with someone just off the street and they will be totally confused. But one can put them into the proper place with a good technique so that when they are ready they can begin to learn.


----------



## aaradia (Apr 1, 2013)

Kframe, 

      Have you gone to your Instructor, told them you don't understand this move, and asked them for clarification? Whenever I am not getting something taught to me, I ask, ask again. If I am still not getting it, I ask different instructors hoping their slightly different take will get through etc. I apologize for being slow on the uptake, then ask again - however many times I have to until I get it! (Ok, it usually doesn't take that many times to ask to figure it out, but you get the idea.)

        Seriously, the teacherss are there to help you understand.  Let them know you are stuck. If they are good teachers (and I am assuming they are) , they will continue to try different ways to explain it to you until they help you understand.


----------



## GaryR (Apr 1, 2013)

Tradition is the living faith of the dead, traditionalism is the dead  faith of the living."
  &#8213;     Jaroslav Jan Pelikan,     _ The Vindication of Tradition: The 1983 Jefferson Lecture in the Humanities _




mook jong man said:


> I have learned to think that I am not better or wiser  than those that came before me in my system.
> What I've usually found is that there are very ,very good reasons  why something is done in a particular way.
> Anytime I ever get tempted to think I might modify something , I remember the couple of hundred years of accumulated wisdom that has been handed down to me.
> Who the hell do I think I am to try and mess around with that?



One definition of tradition is that it is an inherited pattern of thought or  action. We do what we do because its always been done that way.  To many cultures in many eras slavery was tradition.  The red coats thought it tradition to line up and have a stand off to fight wars.  There are countless "traditions" that have been tossed away, and rightly so. 

Think about where the above logic takes us.  One guy say a thousand years ago created a system, afterwards everyone says the same as above "I am not better or wiser  than those that came before me in my system", thus the same emulation gets passed on and on done in that  "particular way" and unchanged.  In fact, some would say the information gets lost as the years go by, and as people try to cling to it a De-evolution happens, the followers are more concerned about discovering what was "traditional", and not what might be most effective or evolutionary. Just because a guy lived 2000 years ago does not make him magically more qualified creatively.

Does the foregoing mean we should toss aside the knowledge handed down--no.  But it should not be given ultimate deference, and assume things cannot be added or subtracted.  You don't want to be that bad new manager who walks into an office and changes everything without first learning how it works or doesn't work to begin with.  

KFRAME:

Sometimes it's best to think of forms like a bible verse.  They are often vague and befuddled, and if you ask 10 clerics you will get 10 different answers.  To feel like an authority they will twist the movement enough to make it into a throw, X, or Y application, even though they are in fact dissimilar to the forms movement.  Trying to cram in the physics and biomechanics of a throw into a low block is doing you a disservice.  All to often teachers will break down forms into applications that are so far afield the movement, they shouldn't bother with the correlation-it does more harm than good.    

That said, there are basic concepts and principles of movement that can yield multiple applications. If you can learn one concept/principle of movement and use it to manifest 100 techniques then great. Sometimes one has to be taught 100 techniques in order to figure out the concept, but I would say if that is so your teacher is inadequate.    

There are layers of skill to many movements and applications that you will in fact not see (or feel) until much later.  But that doesn't mean you are off base in this instance.    

best,

G


----------



## Kframe (Apr 1, 2013)

aaradia said:


> Kframe,
> 
> Have you gone to your Instructor, told them you don't understand this move, and asked them for clarification? Whenever I am not getting something taught to me, I ask, ask again. If I am still not getting it, I ask different instructors hoping their slightly different take will get through etc. I apologize for being slow on the uptake, then ask again - however many times I have to until I get it! (Ok, it usually doesn't take that many times to ask to figure it out, but you get the idea.)
> 
> Seriously, the teacherss are there to help you understand.  Let them know you are stuck. If they are good teachers (and I am assuming they are) , they will continue to try different ways to explain it to you until they help you understand.



Aaradia, this was only a intro class, I was trying to be respectful and listen to him. As to asking question I learned something at the previous mma school I attended. That I ask to many questions, and over complicate things. So I am endeavoring to ask my instructors at my new mma gym and at any places I visit, as few a questions as possible.  

So apparently kata is excruciatingly complicated...  I don't know, its tobad people who created the arts had not heard of the K.I.S.S principal...  

I guess I just don't have enough time in a TMA to understand it.   Problem is, I don't have the time to dedicate to actually training one.. I would find important skills getting no attention. Maybe when I hit 40 and ill have the time to actually do it...


----------



## K-man (Apr 1, 2013)

Kframe said:


> Cyriacus, can you provide more depth and detail?   I have been going over the movements and I still find them dissimilar.  The only way is see a low block working is if im grabbing his crotch, instead of using both arms to grab his arm and shoulder as I was taught a shoulder throw.


For what it's worth, I can't see that particular shoulder throw either for the following reason. For me, for the technique to fit the kata, and therefore the bunkai, the beginning of the application and the end of the application should be substantially the same as the kata. The movement to get from the first position to the second position should also match the kata and the same goes for your position relative to the starting position of your partner. (I'm not sure if this is what *Danny T *was talking about.) At any time you should be able to 'freeze' the technique, allow your partner to step away and your position should be the position you would find yourself in, in the kata. To see that in its simplest form your low sweep against a kick would fit those requirements. In the shoulder throw described, the hands start in the wrong position and the posture is quite different. However, having said that, that is my opinion which in bunkai is no more valid than anyone else's opinion. If it works for you, fine. If it doesn't work, keep looking.   :asian:


----------



## arnisador (Apr 1, 2013)

Kframe said:


> So apparently kata is excruciatingly complicated...  I don't know, its tobad people who created the arts had not heard of the K.I.S.S principal...



Kata can be an excellent way to teach and transmit material. It seems to be right for some systems/people and not for others. I'll tell you this: When you've been doing the martial arts for 35 years like me, that depth is part of what keeps you interested and involved. I see more old kung fu players than old boxers. There are a lot of reasons for that, but novel interesting material is part of it. It may not be for you--at least, not now--but don't knock it either, I'd say.

Are there other martial arts options near you?


----------



## Kframe (Apr 1, 2013)

The only ones worth the time, as in, actually taught by quality instructors is, a Hapkido school and a Bujinkan budo Taijitsu school.   I actually took the hapkido introclass, and oddly they don't do kata at all...  I found that to be odd, as I thought all TMA did kata.  Strangely there practice looks a lot like the practice im currently doing, minus the white PJ's and belts...


----------



## MJS (Apr 2, 2013)

Dirty Dog said:


> Something I've been thinking about a lot lately: is tradition important to martiala arts? I tend to be a traditionalist, but I'd like to hear other peoples views on this.
> 
> What do you think tradition provides to your art, and is it important?



I'd say it's important.  IMO, if you're going to train, especially in a traditional art, then yes, you should know the history, how it was created, by whom, as well as being willing to adhere to the traditions of the school.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 2, 2013)

Kframe said:


> The only ones worth the time, as in, actually taught by quality instructors is, a Hapkido school and a Bujinkan budo Taijitsu school.   I actually took the hapkido introclass, and oddly they don't do kata at all...  I found that to be odd, as I thought all TMA did kata.  Strangely there practice looks a lot like the practice im currently doing, minus the white PJ's and belts...


Traditionally, hapkido has no hyeong, at least not in the formalized sense and certainly not in the solo form sense as is seen in taekwondo (there are exceptions, though I do not know where such schools cull their forms.  *Han*kido uses forms based on Hangul, but though derived from hapkido, hankido is technically a separate art).  We utilize partnered drills that I suppose could be called hyeong (kata), but they generally aren't called that.    

Though it has become vogue to wear the diamond pattern dobok, traditionally, hapkdoists wear judogis and use belts.


----------



## clfsean (Apr 2, 2013)

MJS said:


> I'd say it's important.  IMO, if you're going to train, especially in a traditional art, then yes, you should know the history, how it was created, by whom, as well as being willing to adhere to the traditions of the school.



That pretty much sums it up right there.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 2, 2013)

Is tradition important?

Taijiquan, Baguazhang, Xingyiquan, Wing Chun.yes

Sanda, Military Xingyiquan, Jun Fan, Jeet Kune Do. Yes and no

Take the tradition out of traditional martial arts and you change them, they become something else.

More Modern Martial arts like Sanda or Jun Fan or Jeet Kune Do are not so much concerned about tradition, at least not openly. And they may not be concerned about the traditions of the arts they came from. However the longer they are around the more traditions they build.

The Military Version of Xingyiquan appears to be concerned about tradition to a point but not all that come from its traditional base. But then not all of those traditions suite the needs of a military and they may even get in the way so they are discarded. You still have Xingyiquan but it becomes its own style of Xingyiquan. Much like Shanxi, Henan and Hebei are different styles. They all have shared traditions, just not all of them and not always the same emphasis on the ones they share.


----------



## Cyriacus (Apr 2, 2013)

Xue Sheng said:


> Take the tradition out of traditional martial arts and you change them, they become something else.



What if you couldnt care less about the tradition, dont learn the traditions at all, _but dont change anything in the system_? Its not much different to learning, say, a double leg takedown, then doing it from behind as an attack. If you learnt double leg takedowns from a traditional school that cares about traditions, which dont include using it that way, are you still doing a double leg takedown, or does it become a nameless entity which youve never done before in your life simply because the traditionalism is different?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 2, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> What if you couldnt care less about the tradition, dont learn the traditions at all, _but dont change anything in the system_? Its not much different to learning, say, a double leg takedown, then doing it from behind as an attack. If you learnt double leg takedowns from a traditional school that cares about traditions, which dont include using it that way, are you still doing a double leg takedown, or does it become a nameless entity which youve never done before in your life simply because the traditionalism is different?




Your talking a single application I'm talking complete systems

I can hit you with a palm strike form Sanda, I can hit you with a palm strike form Taiji or I can hit you with a palm strike from Xingyiquan. They are all palm strikes, they all work but they are not the same based on the traditions associated with the training of those styles.


----------



## GaryR (Apr 2, 2013)

Xue Sheng said:


> Your talking a single application I'm talking complete systems
> 
> I can hit you with a palm strike form Sanda, I can hit you with a palm strike form Taiji or I can hit you with a palm strike from Xingyiquan. They are all palm strikes, they all work but they are not the same based on the traditions associated with the training of those styles.



Cyracius has a really good point.  Forgive me, but I don't quite see what you are getting at by saying "they are not the same *based on* the traditions associated" [my emphasis]?  If those 3 palm strikes are indistinguishable from one another, and the only thing that differs is what tradition they are "based on", I think that only proves the point Cyracius made, and that tradition is not specifically relevant.  

But I am guessing that you are not implying these strikes will be in fact identical?  The question then is to ask how exactly they differ?  How and why are the body mechanics different?  Part of the answer will of course necessitate one say--well X system taught it that way, and Y system taught it the other way.  That is a big No S*#t.  But then you have to ask how did the "traditional approach" in one vs. the other shape the method?  What are the positive and negative distinguishing characteristics?  Objectively, what part of that development process do you consider "traditional", and how does that matter? 

 If the same palm strike result can be had by different training methods outside of the parameters of what you may consider traditional, and with less fluff, then all the better.  Better yet, assuming all three palm strikes are in fact different, is one better?  Or all they all different tools one can use?  If the latter, using a "traditional" approach "based on" that one art could leave you trapped in that box, truly adhering to the "living faith of the dead" to your own detriment.  

But you make the valid point it's not just about one isolated technique, but a whole system.  I think it just instructive to use the palm strike as an example.  So, because you say Taijiquan must be trained specifically by adhering to tradition, I think that's a good system to discuss.  Because there are several families, styles, and countless variations on Taijiquan, it will be necessary to generalize a bit, but lets give it a go.  Before I tell you why on general principle I completely disagree with you, and why I am certainly correct.  Here are some questions for you that will clarify any further discussion:

1) What aspects of TJQ, and that training method do you consider fall under the definition of "traditional"?
2) What skills do you think can only be developed via this specific "traditional" method(s)?
3) Why do you think it necessary to use the traditional training method et al?
4) How do you think your TJQ traditional approach differs from other TJQ traditions, what is the impact of that difference?

I find that one mans tradition can sometimes be another mans deviation.   

G


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 2, 2013)

GaryR said:


> Cyracius has a really good point. Forgive me, but I don't quite see what you are getting at by saying "they are not the same *based on* the traditions associated" [my emphasis]? If those 3 palm strikes are indistinguishable from one another, and the only thing that differs is what tradition they are "based on", I think that only proves the point Cyracius made, and that tradition is not specifically relevant.
> 
> But I am guessing that you are not implying these strikes will be in fact identical? The question then is to ask how exactly they differ? How and why are the body mechanics different? Part of the answer will of course necessitate one say--well X system taught it that way, and Y system taught it the other way. That is a big No S*#t. But then you have to ask how did the "traditional approach" in one vs. the other shape the method? What are the positive and negative distinguishing characteristics? Objectively, what part of that development process do you consider "traditional", and how does that matter?
> 
> ...



I never said they were indistinguishable, that was added you... They may be to the opponent but they are not to the practitioner

now your questions



> 1) What aspects of TJQ, and that training method do you consider fall under the definition of "traditional"?



You never trained taijiquan have you? And if you did it was not with a good teacher. Suffice to say I am not going to type a novel so believe what you will



> 2) What skills do you think can only be developed via this specific "traditional" method(s)?



I never said anything about this, if you think I did you did not understand my post. And again you are talking specific applications and skill and I am talking entire styles



> 3) Why do you think it necessary to use the traditional training method et al?



I never said it was so I cannot answer this question. You dont want to dont



> 4) How do you think your TJQ traditional approach differs from other TJQ traditions, what is the impact of that difference?



My taijiquan approach...what a strange thing to ask.... and nothing about Sanda or Xingyiquan...interesting....best answer here....See my answer to your first question.

Now since you have already stated that 



> Before I tell you why on general principle I completely disagree with you, and why I am certainly correct. Here are some questions for you that will clarify any further discussion:



Since you completely disagree with me and you are already certain you are correct I see no possible way to have a discussion at all since you already know all there is to know and you are already certain that you are correct.

But sticking with tradition let me say your cup is full so I see no reason to discuss further


:asian:


----------



## arnisador (Apr 2, 2013)

Kframe said:


> The only ones worth the time, as in, actually taught by quality instructors is, a Hapkido school and a Bujinkan budo Taijitsu school.   I actually took the hapkido introclass, and oddly they don't do kata at all...  I found that to be odd, as I thought all TMA did kata



It varies quite a lot. Not all TMAs do kata (and bear in mind that there are also two-person forms in some arts).


----------



## GaryR (Apr 2, 2013)

Xue Sheng said:


> I never said they were indistinguishable, that was added you... They may be to the opponent but they are not to the practitioner




That is why I said I "don't quite see" what you were saying.





Xue Sheng said:


> now your questions
> 
> _"1) What aspects of TJQ, and that training method do you consider fall under the definition of "traditional"?"                      _
> 
> You never trained taijiquan have you? And if you did it was not with a good teacher. Suffice to say I am not going to type a novel so believe what you will




Yes, for over 20 years actually.  I am an instructor in Taijiquan, I also have training in Xingyi, Bagua, and even a little Liu he ba fa.  I have had very good teachers, thank you.  I would be happy to put my material and skill against you, your teacher, or any lineage holder for that matter.  But that is of no consequence to my questions and this discussion at the moment.  I don't see how your comment in any way shape or form has any relationship to my question? 

Knowing what exactly you deem "traditional" about your training method/art, and what you deem non-traditional is really the only way to begin a real discussion on the matter.


_"*2) What skills do you think can only be developed via this specific "traditional" method(s)*?"_


			
				Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> I never said anything about this, if you think I did you did not understand my post. And again you are talking specific applications and skill and I am talking entire styles




I didn't say you said anything about this, it is just a logical discussion point for a decent and productive conversation. 

No, I am not talking about specific applications here.  "Skills" is a general term that can encompass basically everything an art yields combatively, among other things. Simply ignoring the question and saying you are talking an "entire styles" is an ignorant equivocation. A style is made up of the development of several areas of skill sets; bodymechanics, movements, two person methods,  applications, etc.





Xue Sheng said:


> _"3) Why do you think it necessary to use the traditional training method et al? "                     _
> 
> I never said it was so I cannot answer this question. You dont want to dont




You did say this was so, let me quote you...

"Is tradition important?
Taijiquan, Baguazhang, Xingyiquan, Wing Chun.yes"

I don't mind some traditional training methods, some are wonderful, but you are contradicting yourself here, failing to back up such contradiction, and avoiding my questions nonetheless.  




Xue Sheng said:


> _"4) How do you think your TJQ traditional approach differs from other TJQ traditions, what is the impact of that difference?"                      _
> 
> My taijiquan approach...what a strange thing to ask.... and nothing about Sanda or Xingyiquan...interesting....best answer here....See my answer to your first question.




It's not strange at all.  It was the first style you mentioned, and for simplicity sake, i think it's better to discuss one at a time, otherwise, we would certainly be well on the way to a novel!

You did not answer my first question, and again your assumption I have no training in TJQ, or have had bad teachers is a personal attack and has no relation to my very legitimate discussion points, and is in no way an answer.  




Xue Sheng said:


> Since you completely disagree with me and you are already certain you are correct I see no possible way to have a discussion at all since you already know all there is to know and you are already certain that you are correct.
> 
> But sticking with tradition let me say your cup is full so I see no reason to discuss further



I said "on general principle I completely disagree with you", as quoted above you mentioned TJQ as a system in which tradition was paramount.  My questions were meant to lead to a discussion of what you define as tradition, and the specifics of why you think that is true.  Without answering my questions, you really have no idea how I disagree with you or why. 

Nobody's cup is ever full, not even yours.  As an aside--I find that statement ironic from people who are so traditional it becomes like a religion in which they assume they are already holding the only bible! (this may not be you).  :rtfm:

There are many reasons to discuss, you could perhaps discover you are wrong about something?  Others will certainly also learn from the exchange regardless.  Importantly, if you are going to make statements like you did regarding the Neijia arts, you should at least back it up with specifics, or did you only care to back up/discuss your statements if nobody disagreed with you?? You could start by answering my very pointed and relevant questions....

It seems from your wording that English may be your second language?  If so, please read a bit more carefully, and please take your time to respond.  



G


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 2, 2013)

I have a sword you know, you empty-hand wushu-wannabes! :demonic face:.

Or, alternatively, please don't let the heat of your enthusiasm spill over into hostile wrangling with each other .  

No one *ever* wins fights on the internet, so it's best for all to be as civil as you can, even when angry, so that the discussion moves forward rather than the Staff having to deal with a slew of RTM's because of intemperate wording.

Because I have contributed to this thread I won't make that an 'official' nudge but it is good advice at the end of the day.


----------



## Cyriacus (Apr 2, 2013)

Xue Sheng said:


> Your talking a single application I'm talking complete systems
> 
> I can hit you with a palm strike form Sanda, I can hit you with a palm strike form Taiji or I can hit you with a palm strike from Xingyiquan. They are all palm strikes, they all work but they are not the same based on the traditions associated with the training of those styles.



Are complete systems not comprised of many single applications?

Ok, ill be less vague.
If you do something you learnt in a system, exactly the same movement, but used in a different way, does it not have the same identity etc etc.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 2, 2013)

Folks,
I see some wise advice in several of these posts.  Let's not let that wise advice and learned opinion turn into hostility, OK?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Apr 2, 2013)

Xue Sheng said:


> Your talking a single application I'm talking complete systems
> 
> I can hit you with a palm strike form Sanda, I can hit you with a palm strike form Taiji or I can hit you with a palm strike from Xingyiquan. They are all palm strikes, they all work but they are not the same based on the traditions associated with the training of those styles.



Xue, I agree with this, as I think I understand. The strike is still there, and just looking at the strike it is just a palm strike. Yet, looking at the system and the strike as a part of a greater whole, it now becomes a point of balance, or a point of transition, or something else. And why it is done a certain way will have the unique history of the system as well. 

The same but different it is.


----------



## Cyriacus (Apr 2, 2013)

Rich Parsons said:


> Xue, I agree with this, as I think I understand. The strike is still there, and just looking at the strike it is just a palm strike. Yet, looking at the system and the strike as a part of a greater whole, it now becomes a point of balance, or a point of transition, or something else. And why it is done a certain way will have the unique history of the system as well.
> 
> The same but different it is.



And does knowing that history have ANY benefit whatsoever towards your ability to execute the technique? And what about techniques which are done in isolation in order to achieve a better position?

What if you couldnt care less about the tradition, dont learn the traditions at all, *but dont change anything in the system?*


----------



## arnisador (Apr 2, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> And does knowing that history have ANY benefit whatsoever towards your ability to execute the technique? And what about techniques which are done in isolation in order to achieve a better position?
> 
> What if you couldnt care less about the tradition, dont learn the traditions at all, *but dont change anything in the system?*



In Filipino arnis there are some traditional target areas built into the techniques, like the shoulder or base of the neck. Strikes to the side of the knee are emphasized over strikes to the front of the knee. Why there? It's where the Spanish had joints in their armor.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Apr 2, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> And does knowing that history have ANY benefit whatsoever towards your ability to execute the technique? And what about techniques which are done in isolation in order to achieve a better position?
> 
> What if you couldnt care less about the tradition, dont learn the traditions at all, *but dont change anything in the system?*




If the system is also a dance it is hard to learn it in stand alone. 

If the system is about hurting and healing, then it might matter. 


I train in systems that are traditional in the sense of I choose to keep the methods of teaching a tradition, but both systems are new within the second half of the last century. I feel that the tradition is not about centuries of history and philosophy. Both systems have a forehand strike. Both systems even call it a number one strike. Yet one system is designed for impact optimization. The other is for impact and blade. The weight of the first is a required part of the tradition and technique. The weight placement in the second could match the first but it could be different. So both systems have a forehand strike to the opponent yet location of the strike and body technique is different or could be different. 

So let me make you next point, What if they are the same, same weight and same weapon and same body location? 

I ask then how did you get the person to move that way? Which teaching method did you use? System A or B or some new way? 

And you will say does it matter? For the person looking for self defense only, or looking for how to fight, then I say yes it still matters. The way it is taught does matter. The approach the mindset the idea presented with the technique does matter. 

So let us say we break it down to the same body position, the same strike, the same everything and the same teaching/instruction method. Does it matter? No not to the person who see it this way. It does not matter. It is just a technique. I see your point. 

If a bolt is used to hold a seat in a car and that same bolt is used in the other seat but the a different location say rear bolt location versus front, and as you can see the bolts are all the same. Yet, what forces will be applied to each bolt in a different direction. The technique is the bolt. the force applied to the bolt are the system. Yes the Bolt is reused, and it accomplishes very similar or even the same tasks depending upon how you define the situation, but I contest that they will be under different stress loads and have different failure modes. 

Yes, I know you will most likely say, OK take the front left of the driver's seat and the front left of the passenger seat and would they not be under the same or similar stresses or forces or loads? And yes I will assume the seats are the same and the same person is sitting in both seats during the discussion. Yes they should have the same failure modes and similar stresses. Yet I have to point back to how the same bolt is used differently and it is just a bolt which is technique for this discussion. 

So I still think context does matter.


----------



## Cyriacus (Apr 2, 2013)

First, id like to say that im just discussing this point. Im trying to sound passive, but its hard to counter points without sounding slightly argumentive. Thats how i read my own replies, anyway. Youll have to forgive that.



arnisador said:


> In Filipino arnis there are some traditional target areas built into the techniques, like the shoulder or base of the neck. Strikes to the side of the knee are emphasized over strikes to the front of the knee. Why there? It's where the Spanish had joints in their armor.



And that changes the fact that youre learning a knee strike to the side of the knee how? And if i did the exact same technique to the back of the knee, is it now a different technique?



Rich Parsons said:


> If the system is also a dance it is hard to learn it in stand alone.
> If the system is about hurting and healing, then it might matter.



So, if i taught you how to apply a splint, youd need to know the history behind splints? That would make you better at applying them? Knowing what a splint does is probably better.



> I train in systems that are traditional in the sense of I choose to keep the methods of teaching a tradition, but both systems are new within the second half of the last century. I feel that the tradition is not about centuries of history and philosophy. Both systems have a forehand strike. Both systems even call it a number one strike. Yet one system is designed for impact optimization. The other is for impact and blade. The weight of the first is a required part of the tradition and technique. The weight placement in the second could match the first but it could be different. So both systems have a forehand strike to the opponent yet location of the strike and body technique is different or could be different.



And do you really need to know why? If someone learnt your system, will knowing that about a different system benefit them in any way?



> So let me make you next point, What if they are the same, same weight and same weapon and same body location?
> I ask then how did you get the person to move that way? Which teaching method did you use? System A or B or some new way?



Depends. Usually you do it by teaching them what to do and how to do it. Sometimes those things work in more ways than what is found in tradition. In boxing, any given punch (notice how theres no isolation?) can be aimed at the neck some way or another, but you dont learn punches to the neck in boxing. Does that mean that if you dont stick to tradition, and you do EXACTLY THE SAME THING in a different way, or as a blow to the head from behind instead of from in front, are you no longer using Boxing Punches? Even though absolutely nothing about them has changed other than what you do with the things?

I made reference to double leg takedowns, now ill reference BJJ. This is purely speculative, its just the best example i have off the top of my head.
Double leg takedown from behind > Rear naked choke. Is that a thing thats taught anywhere? Because im pretty sure itd work fine. But if it isnt a part of a traditional system, but the techniques and methods being used ARE, again, do those two methodologies become different, even though theyre exactly the same? All thats changed is that youve not applied it the traditional way.



> And you will say does it matter? For the person looking for self defense only, or looking for how to fight, then I say yes it still matters. The way it is taught does matter. The approach the mindset the idea presented with the technique does matter.



Of course - But thats training methods. Not traditions.



> So let us say we break it down to the same body position, the same strike, the same everything and the same teaching/instruction method. Does it matter? No not to the person who see it this way. It does not matter. It is just a technique. I see your point.



Its not just a technique though.  A means to an end. What do you use a double leg takedown for? To get someone on the ground. Why do you get someone on the ground? Dominant position. Why do you... Just follow that chain of thinking, and apply it to anything.
And that has everything to do with intent. Then its just a methodology. I could use a less technical example, and say run up behind them, grab their shoulders, and just drag them down that way. Its the same thing. If i do that, then, for example, assume a BJJ type position of control, am i still doing BJJ just because i got to the desired result a different way? On a technical and traditional level, im not doing BJJ at all. Im using it, on a more direct level, to get to my desired end result.



> If a bolt is used to hold a seat in a car and that same bolt is used in the other seat but the a different location say rear bolt location versus front, and as you can see the bolts are all the same. Yet, what forces will be applied to each bolt in a different direction. The technique is the bolt. the force applied to the bolt are the system. Yes the Bolt is reused, and it accomplishes very similar or even the same tasks depending upon how you define the situation, but I contest that they will be under different stress loads and have different failure modes.



That has more to do with what youre doing. A way of doing things is something you can be taught, but learning why you do them that way, and how you learn them can be as simple as 'youre learning functional stuff' and 'being taught effectively'. Tradition doesnt need to be a factor at all.



> Yes, I know you will most likely say, OK take the front left of the driver's seat and the front left of the passenger seat and would they not be under the same or similar stresses or forces or loads? And yes I will assume the seats are the same and the same person is sitting in both seats during the discussion. Yes they should have the same failure modes and similar stresses. Yet I have to point back to how the same bolt is used differently and it is just a bolt which is technique for this discussion.



Thats... kinda my point.



> So I still think context does matter.



Context in what way? To me, the only context i want or need is how im going to do whatever it is im trying to do. Tradition is not necessary in order to meet that end, good teaching and/or good powers of deduction to work it out for myself are.

Lets take principle based systems (i hope im naming that right) - Do you need to know the history behind those principles in order for them to be applicable, or do you just need a format in which to practice their application, and some guy correcting things that do more harm than good (to you)?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Apr 3, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> First, id like to say that im just discussing this point. Im trying to sound passive, but its hard to counter points without sounding slightly argumentive. Thats how i read my own replies, anyway. Youll have to forgive that.



I did not think you were arguing with me other than in debate mode, where you present your argument and I present mine and we address points as we go. So forgive me for not forgiving you 





Cyriacus said:


> And that changes the fact that youre learning a knee strike to the side of the knee how? And if i did the exact same technique to the back of the knee, is it now a different technique?


Yes and no. I say no from the point of learning and from the point of fighting of surviving. I say yes as the back of the knee doe not offer the same possibilities for breaks as the side or the front. 




Cyriacus said:


> So, if i taught you how to apply a splint, youd need to know the history behind splints? That would make you better at applying them? Knowing what a splint does is probably better.



To the average person I see your point. But to me it does matter. If I understand that twigs and vines were used first and then later larger branches to better immobilize the bone or joint. And then to understand that using tooth picks for my thigh is bad but using a Popsicle stick for my finger might be better. Also using one point versus two versus three points of restraint and how much tension is required for motion and or best healing. It makes a difference to me. I have a better understanding of the system. (* Note I am a system engineer and we are mostly found, not made, but some can be trained and all can be made better with training *)  




Cyriacus said:


> And do you really need to know why? If someone learnt your system, will knowing that about a different system benefit them in any way?



I still say yes. If they know where it came from they can understand what it was designed for, and decide if they need to modify it to address a modern weapon or situation. 

1 + 1 = 2  and we can agree to that given the Arabic numbering system using base 10. So why is 1 + 1 = 2? One can memorize this and move on. But are you going to memorize all possible additions? Or are you going to accept it up front, and then later need to or want to learn why it is that 1 + 1 = 2. To get to certain levels of mathematics and problem solving one needs to understand this. 

I apply the method to martial arts as well. Yes at the beginning learn it as is. Many people will be happy just having the basic , but for me I see where knowing more can open doors of understanding that could also open more doors of applications and further understanding. 

No, I do not advocate secrets nor do I think holding people back is the correct way. If they are ready and asking the question answer it for them. Sometimes they need to learn more first before you can answer them and have it make sense. 



Cyriacus said:


> Depends. Usually you do it by teaching them what to do and how to do it. Sometimes those things work in more ways than what is found in tradition. In boxing, any given punch (notice how theres no isolation?) can be aimed at the neck some way or another, but you dont learn punches to the neck in boxing. Does that mean that if you dont stick to tradition, and you do EXACTLY THE SAME THING in a different way, or as a blow to the head from behind instead of from in front, are you no longer using Boxing Punches? Even though absolutely nothing about them has changed other than what you do with the things?



I agree this is found in the FMA's, where they apply strike and it goes anywhere to the opponent as the strike is an angle for you what the target is front of you will depend upon both body positions. 



Cyriacus said:


> I made reference to double leg takedowns, now ill reference BJJ. This is purely speculative, its just the best example i have off the top of my head.
> Double leg takedown from behind > Rear naked choke. Is that a thing thats taught anywhere? Because im pretty sure itd work fine. But if it isnt a part of a traditional system, but the techniques and methods being used ARE, again, do those two methodologies become different, even though theyre exactly the same? All thats changed is that youve not applied it the traditional way.



Thinking outside the box is good. But to understand the box in the first place understanding where the technique comes from is good from my point of view. 



Cyriacus said:


> Of course - But thats training methods. Not traditions.



Are not methods also traditions? Of course this could break down to semantics and who is buying the next round of beers. 




Cyriacus said:


> Its not just a technique though.  A means to an end. What do you use a double leg takedown for? To get someone on the ground. Why do you get someone on the ground? Dominant position. Why do you... Just follow that chain of thinking, and apply it to anything.
> And that has everything to do with intent. Then its just a methodology. I could use a less technical example, and say run up behind them, grab their shoulders, and just drag them down that way. Its the same thing. If i do that, then, for example, assume a BJJ type position of control, am i still doing BJJ just because i got to the desired result a different way? On a technical and traditional level, im not doing BJJ at all. Im using it, on a more direct level, to get to my desired end result.



I understand your point of view, but the problem is that if you only look at the concepts, then you get people who honestly believe teaching people to run around in circles yelling in a high pitch is the best defense. 

Yes I want a dominate position. If I apply your logic , I back up and get a gun, or a vehicles and run you down or better yet a sniper rifle or some delayed action poison and take you out. But this assumes I know about the issue up front and have a chance prepare. If I do not have a chance to prepare then yes I want to be as prepared as possible and be in as best a position as possible. Yet at one time being on the ground was considered bad and others being on their back even worse. Yet in MMA and sport fighting (which can be brutal) there are those who are experts on their back that can put a hurt on. So tradition of an art will dictate what is the dominant position. 



Cyriacus said:


> That has more to do with what youre doing. A way of doing things is something you can be taught, but learning why you do them that way, and how you learn them can be as simple as 'youre learning functional stuff' and 'being taught effectively'. Tradition doesnt need to be a factor at all.



How do you hand on to a "Sword"? Two handed? If you use the Japanese method they have very specific ways of accomplishing this for very specific techniques. Yet from the FMA's they have some tip heavy swords, and one might have been taught to hang onto that type of sword differently as it might be more weighted like an axe. So understanding why you have your hand positions in a certain way is important. It also allows you to understand that the position will dictate your options for other techniques in the future. 




Cyriacus said:


> Thats... kinda my point.



Sorry, Not trying to take your side, just pointing out that I see both sides. 




Cyriacus said:


> Context in what way? To me, the only context i want or need is how im going to do whatever it is im trying to do. Tradition is not necessary in order to meet that end, good teaching and/or good powers of deduction to work it out for myself are.



Are you defensive? Are you backing up and looking to create space? Are you moving in and trying to create space or control the opponent? This would determine the off hand position for a technique. From the broad strokes it is just the umbrella or roof block, but hand position and foot position will dictate you counter options. So from a single technique point of view they are the same, but thinking about what is possible two or three or moves later and try to get your opponent to move in a certain manner so you can set them up or control them for a strike does dictate the context. Or at least it does from my experience. (* It would not be the first time I was wrong or following a line of thought that no one else was. *)



Cyriacus said:


> Lets take principle based systems (i hope im naming that right) - Do you need to know the history behind those principles in order for them to be applicable, or do you just need a format in which to practice their application, and some guy correcting things that do more harm than good (to you)?



Yes and no. As above there is the possibility of someone taking the principal thinking that understanding it from a 50000 foot level gives a good understanding, when they have no application understanding. I mean yes I need to defend myself. So I will defend myself when I need too. I understand this. But they never practice anything. Especially anything on a resisting opponent and or targeting a moving object, they just say they understand the principal and concept and so they are good. But if they understand that the principal was for direct conflict and need to use more than the principal and practice the principal. This leads to how one does things, which could be traditional.


----------



## Cyriacus (Apr 3, 2013)

Rich Parsons said:


> I did not think you were arguing with me other than in debate mode, where you present your argument and I present mine and we address points as we go. So forgive me for not forgiving you



Good, because this conversation is fantastic, and i didnt want to be putting the wrong idea across 



> Yes and no. I say no from the point of learning and from the point of fighting of surviving. I say yes as the back of the knee doe not offer the same possibilities for breaks as the side or the front.



Breaking, no. Unbalancing, yes. The purpose is different, the motion is the same. So now, tradition would be the reason you do one rather than the other. Application would be just using a means to get to an end, yes?



> To the average person I see your point. But to me it does matter. If I understand that twigs and vines were used first and then later larger branches to better immobilize the bone or joint. And then to understand that using tooth picks for my thigh is bad but using a Popsicle stick for my finger might be better. Also using one point versus two versus three points of restraint and how much tension is required for motion and or best healing. It makes a difference to me. I have a better understanding of the system. (* Note I am a system engineer and we are mostly found, not made, but some can be trained and all can be made better with training *)



And if someone just said "You need something thats the right length, and reasonably solid" that wouldnt be sufficient?



> I still say yes. If they know where it came from they can understand what it was designed for, and decide if they need to modify it to address a modern weapon or situation.



Why not just make something build to address a modern weapon or situation, based on the usages of the things they have? Do you need to know where it came from to do that? I can work this in with my analogy of attacking from behind. Its still the same takedown or strike, youre just using it differently in a different situation. You dont need to know anything about the means to that end other than what its doing.



> 1 + 1 = 2  and we can agree to that given the Arabic numbering system using base 10. So why is 1 + 1 = 2? One can memorize this and move on. But are you going to memorize all possible additions? Or are you going to accept it up front, and then later need to or want to learn why it is that 1 + 1 = 2. To get to certain levels of mathematics and problem solving one needs to understand this.
> 
> I apply the method to martial arts as well. Yes at the beginning learn it as is. Many people will be happy just having the basic , but for me I see where knowing more can open doors of understanding that could also open more doors of applications and further understanding.
> 
> No, I do not advocate secrets nor do I think holding people back is the correct way. If they are ready and asking the question answer it for them. Sometimes they need to learn more first before you can answer them and have it make sense.



So, with that in mind, its a matter of curiosity and further investigation, rather than necessity and application?



> I agree this is found in the FMA's, where they apply strike and it goes anywhere to the opponent as the strike is an angle for you what the target is front of you will depend upon both body positions.
> 
> 
> 
> Thinking outside the box is good. But to understand the box in the first place understanding where the technique comes from is good from my point of view.



So, youll prove to be incapable of taking someones legs out and ramming your shoulder into their buttocks if you dont know where the technique came from?



> Are not methods also traditions? Of course this could break down to semantics and who is buying the next round of beers.



Interesting. I had to spend a few minutes thinking about how to reply there. But i must insist on whiskey - I dont have any beers handy im afraid.

A method can be carried on through tradition, yes, but how do you distinguish between tradition because tradition, and tradition as a result of reliability and functionality, and tradition which doesnt serve any purpose other than to lend more information about a subject matter?



> I understand your point of view, but the problem is that if you only look at the concepts, then you get people who honestly believe teaching people to run around in circles yelling in a high pitch is the best defense.



Well, i was thinking offense in my example, but ok  And ive never heard of such a concept, but would i be correct in saying that your point there is that concepts without grounding and backing can lack function? Because if so, now we're getting somewhere! Ill get back to that in a sec. And ill start the part where i get back to that with a *!



> Yes I want a dominate position. If I apply your logic , I back up and get a gun, or a vehicles and run you down or better yet a sniper rifle or some delayed action poison and take you out.* But this assumes I know about the issue up front and have a chance prepare*. If I do not have a chance to prepare then yes I want to be as prepared as possible and be in as best a position as possible. Yet at one time being on the ground was considered bad and others being on their back even worse*. Yet in MMA and sport fighting (which can be brutal) there are those who are experts on their back that can put a hurt on. So tradition of an art will dictate what is the dominant position. *



To the second bold part, thats why my examples have happened from behind. Im not sure there are many things an expert can do on his face. The tradition of the art tells him what to do, and that might be dangerous if the answer was something much simpler.

To the first: Not necessarily. If i want to put you in a submissive position, that could mean anything, based on your intent. Lets just say mugging. If i want to put you down, incapacitate you, and steal your wallet, assuming im unarmed, that would basically mean just going straight for the fastest possible means of getting that desired effect. One way of doing that would be getting you on the ground and kicking you in the groin, tossing your legs away, and employing manual strangulation. So, by using a traditional movement in a not traditional way, what i am doing is no longer traditional.
*This also carries on from what i just said. Tradition can be restrictive, if you dont deviate from its echelons when deviating from it is going to herald a path of least resistance. Sticking rigidly to tradition would mean walking in front of them before you do it, so that youre doing it in a traditional way. Of course, if the tradition lets you do your stuff however you please, i dont take any issue to that. But when tradition serves to limit your options, how can that be a good thing? With your example of palm strikes, in your system, they are used to meet an end result. Now, what if you used the exact same identical strike for a different purpose? Is it now a different strike? Its not a change youve learnt somewhere. Youve just taken it, and used it for something different to what you were shown to use it for in the gym. To provide a different example, if you take X system which teaches pre-emptive striking, then you use something in X-system as a means of assault, according to the traditions of X system, you are no longer doing X-system, even though you are doing exactly what it taught you to do. Just not the way or why tradition dictated.



> How do you hand on to a "Sword"? Two handed? If you use the Japanese method they have very specific ways of accomplishing this for very specific techniques. Yet from the FMA's they have some tip heavy swords, and one might have been taught to hang onto that type of sword differently as it might be more weighted like an axe. So understanding why you have your hand positions in a certain way is important. It also allows you to understand that the position will dictate your options for other techniques in the future.



Grab the sword with both hands and swing the bally thing down a skull as hard and fast as i can. Then just swing the thing if that misses somehow. But if i learnt a sword system, that answer would probably change.



> Sorry, Not trying to take your side, just pointing out that I see both sides.



I know - But it is similar.



> Are you defensive? Are you backing up and looking to create space? Are you moving in and trying to create space or control the opponent? This would determine the off hand position for a technique. From the broad strokes it is just the umbrella or roof block, but hand position and foot position will dictate you counter options. So from a single technique point of view they are the same, but thinking about what is possible two or three or moves later and try to get your opponent to move in a certain manner so you can set them up or control them for a strike does dictate the context. Or at least it does from my experience. (* It would not be the first time I was wrong or following a line of thought that no one else was. *)



And that has to do with what youre learning.
Theres a chance we're defining tradition differently, but im not sure. This is a good chance to find out. X, Y, and Z. X is a grappling system, Y is a close range system, and Z is a medium range system. The range of those systems can be explained by tradition. The range of those traditions is defined by simply being taught to work at those ranges. To me, tradition is the codification of that. As opposed to simply defining the identity of the system. So, to me, tradition is saying that Z us a medium range system because...; And non-tradition is saying Z is a medium range system. Heres some medium range stuff you can do, and heres a format to learn it by.

If your definition of tradition is just directly conveying useful information without the need for that information to be explained (though it can be and often is), thats not what i call tradition since information changes. Tradition tends to be codified. I just call that... well, whatever the system or method is youre learning.

With my previous example, if the answer to whether using a double leg takedown from behind being tradition is no, and it is no longer BJJ as a result, i disagree. If the answer is no it isnt traditional, but its still BJJ, then i do agree. And you learn that movement through teaching methods that arent the same wherever you go.



> Yes and no. As above there is the possibility of someone taking the principal thinking that understanding it from a 50000 foot level gives a good understanding, when they have no application understanding. I mean yes I need to defend myself. So I will defend myself when I need too. I understand this. But they never practice anything. Especially anything on a resisting opponent and or targeting a moving object, they just say they understand the principal and concept and so they are good. But if they understand that the principal was for direct conflict and need to use more than the principal and practice the principal. This leads to how one does things, which could be traditional.



It could also just be the format of practice and the quality of the teacher, couldnt it? And teachers dont always use the same methods they were taught with, and sometimes thats an improvement.


----------



## Chris Parker (Apr 3, 2013)

Dirty Dog said:


> Something I've been thinking about a lot lately: is tradition important to martiala arts? I tend to be a traditionalist, but I'd like to hear other peoples views on this.
> 
> What do you think tradition provides to your art, and is it important?



This has been an interesting thread... honestly, I'd disagree with almost everyone! Mainly as I think the real core and reality of both the concepts of what a martial art is and what a tradition is have been missed by the majority (yeah, I'm trying to make friends...). There have been some I've agreed with, but not many. But hey, that's the way of the world, neh? So what's my take?

Well, the part I'm going to focus on is what tradition is.... and start by asking why everyone seems to think that tradition = old? All martial arts have traditions.... whether it's as simple as the pre-fight talk for an MMA bout, or how a training session begins or ends, through to more elaborate training methods or etiquette. There is no such thing as a martial art without traditions... as traditions are simply actions or behaviours that are repeated on a regular basis, commonly passed on by previous followers (whether the instructor/coach, or going back generations or centuries in a country of origin). Anything done at every class or training session can be thought of as a "tradition" of sorts... then you get traditions being approaches... you could say that Jeet Kune Do has a tradition of exploring different approaches, or that MMA has a tradition of testing techniques in the ring, and so on. So anyone who thinks that they are "removing" traditions might be removing more cultural aspects, or culturally-relevant ones, but they can't remove all of them, or else there's no art left. Is tradition important? It's integral! It's what separates each art from each other. Tradition provides the context, the development, the future direction, the current approach, the evolution, the history, and the reasons for everything the art does. It doesn't matter if the art is old or new, if the traditions are old or new, they are still there, and just as integral.

I mean, the approach of an art is dictated by it's traditions... the Brazilians have a tradition of ground fighting, so we have BJJ... if you remove that tradition, and start doing BJJ all stand up, using a pistol and knife, how is that still BJJ?

I think there's a lot of confusion over history versus tradition... while linked (traditions being aspects of the art that have been historically a part of it's methods), they really aren't the same thing.

That said, there's one post I want to address specifically:



Kframe said:


> The only ones worth the time, as in, actually taught by quality instructors is, a Hapkido school and a Bujinkan budo Taijitsu school.   I actually took the hapkido introclass, and oddly they don't do kata at all...  I found that to be odd, as I thought all TMA did kata.  Strangely there practice looks a lot like the practice im currently doing, minus the white PJ's and belts...



Firstly, what makes you think every art would use kata? Kata being a Japanese word, why should Korean or Chinese arts use them? But, more importantly, what do you think a kata is? Because, I gotta tell you, the arts found in Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu are almost exclusively kata-based. So, no, really. Oh, and there's a lot more misunderstanding in all your posts here, but the others have dealt with it well enough.


----------



## Kframe (Apr 3, 2013)

Rich parsons, I don't think you quite hit cyriacus point tho. He specifically said, Forget the tradition, but keep the teaching and method the same.. If you forget the tradition, the folk lore and all the associated baggage that goes with it, yet keep the training methodology the same,  nothing changes for the martial artist. He still will learn the method in the prescribed manner, but with out wasting time and resources on learning folk lore..  like cyriacus said, CHANGE NOTHING except ditch the tradition, keep everything else the same...


----------



## Chris Parker (Apr 3, 2013)

The teaching and the method ARE the damn traditions, though...


----------



## Kframe (Apr 3, 2013)

Thank you for singling me out for a attack Chris parker. Why you must be condescending, instead of talking like a nice normal person respectfully is frustrating..   You single me out, yet add nothing to the conversation. Nothing that either helps clue me in, or move the subject forward.. 

What do I think kata is? I don't have a friggin clue, hence my posts on the subject.. From my martial arts perspective, it makes no sense, and apparently has lots of secret hidden meanings, were nothing is what it seams and apparently requires instructor level skill to even begin to understand it..  I used the word Kata in reference to the Korean MA, Sorry, I don't know what they call  it, so I used kata in its place...Why you singled that part out is ridiculous..

I was having trouble with the reason why a "lowblock" translated into a throw... Well having been walked through it, here and on TFAF  I understand kata a  heck of a lot more.  I realize some moves are not beginning points but end points, and that sometimes moves are just place holders for other moves.  Thanks to cyriacus I learned how a infact a low block can be throw. I Actually went to my combative instructor after class and we both went through the movements. In fact It can work like Cy said..  Tho I expect you to be condescending and knit pick my post to death.. You remind me of my abusive father, nothing I say or do is ever good enough. Its sad, because with your wealth of skill and knowledge I was hoping to atleast have a amicable internet relationship with you, so that I can better my self in some way, yet I see that it will likely not happen.. 

As I said before, I don't know enough about it, I just don't have the time or money to study multiple arts. So im focusing on the one school that will give me the most bang for my buck.  Later in the future, when I have more time and resources ill take up a TMA, but not till I meet my other martial goals that I have set for my self.  

As to tradition, I think it can lead to stagnation in some arts. Granted there are some arts that exist now so that they can keep there art alive, and that's all well and good.  Having said that, look at the JKD forum. They already are trying to establish tradition were there should be none.(according to Lee's own words) Discard what is useless, only keep what works. The style with no style.. Yet they are trying to traditionalize it, and pigeon hole it into a defined style..  Its times like that, were tradition is a hindrance not a help.


----------



## Chris Parker (Apr 3, 2013)

That wasn't an attack, son. I was genuinely asking what you think kata is... do you think it's only the long string of solo actions seen in karate schools? That's not even what I'd class as "real" kata, more a co-opted training method utilizing a word from a different (albeit closely related) culture.


----------



## Cyriacus (Apr 3, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> The teaching and the method ARE the damn traditions, though...



As i think i brought up briefly, this may be an issue of how we define tradition. To me, tradition is codified reasons and limitations. If you define tradition as being methods and teaching, rather than methods and teaching as methods and teaching, i dont take issue to that.

"With my previous example, if the answer to whether using a double leg takedown from behind being tradition is no, and it is no longer BJJ as a result, i disagree. If the answer is no it isnt traditional, but its still BJJ, then i do agree. And you learn that movement through teaching methods that arent the same wherever you go."


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Apr 3, 2013)

This has been an interesting thread of discussion.  I've stayed silent for a while, but I figured I might as well throw in my 0.02.  I will first define what "tradition" means to me.  Tradition is derived from the Latin word_, tradere_ or _traderer_ literally meaning to transmit, to hand over, to give for safekeeping.

I have to agree with Chris Parker on this one.  EVERY PART of your art that is passed down from one teacher to another IS TRADITION by definition.  It is the transmission of knowledge from one to another with the intent of it being passed on.  This includes skills, methodology, and yes, even cultural etiquettes and histories.

If you take out any of these aspects does that make what you do "non-traditional?"  That depends on who you ask.  In my art, MDK TKD, floor exercises (warm up exercises), hyung (forms/kata), Il su shik daeryun (one step sparring, self defense exercises), jae yu daeryun (free sparring), kyuk pa (breaking) are what make up the traditional class.  If I were to go to a MDK TKD school that did not ever practice any of these, I wouldn't consider it a traditional MDK school.  As long as these aspects are maintained, we are given freedom to add in other training, that students/instructors have gained from training in other martial arts. Providing we give credit to the source. 

The Korean and Confucian cultural etiquettes that are transmitted through MDK TKD are another aspect that make it recognizably MDK TKD.  Does it change the "effectiveness" of the skills?  IMO, no, not really.  However, it does affect the way in which the art is transmitted.  Aspects of Zen teaching, the Japanese concept of Shuhari, the "self-discovery" vs hand held leading to it.  

The Moo Duk Kwan literally translates to the School of Martial Virtue.  

[FONT=&amp]*Moo:*  In Korean it is pronounced, "moo", and in Chinese it is pronounced "wu".  Moo  can be translated as: martial, military, or chivalry.  It is  interesting to note that this is the same symbol you see in the word *wu*shu, which is the generic Chinese term for martial arts. [/FONT]

*[FONT=&amp]Duk:[/FONT]*[FONT=&amp]  This word means: benevolence, *virtue*,  goodness, and commanding respect. The western translation, however,  does not exactly coincide with the eastern meaning of the word virtue.   Our western understanding of the definition of &#8220;virtue&#8221; refers to trait  or quality deemed to be morally excellent and thus is valued as a  foundation of principle and good moral being.  However, Duk is a Daoist concept, referring to virtue or ability for one to realize his/her own potential.  Duk,  or De in Chinese, is a subtle concept that is difficult to grasp in  western society.  The Chinese text, Doadejing, explains that De (Duk) is the sum of all power that is inherent in each individual that can be realized through the way (Dao / Do).  Duk  can also be described as the active, living, or cultivation of &#8220;the  way&#8221; (Do).  Master Mike Haught compares this concept to a &#8220;virtuoso,&#8221; a  virtuoso does not play a violin from reading music, but rather plays  through from his soul/heart.  He realizes his innate potential, this is  the concept of Duk.[/FONT]

  [FONT=&amp]*Moo Duk*  (Wude in Chinese) is a term used in Buddhist teachings that deals with  two aspects; &#8220;morality of deed&#8221; and &#8220;morality of mind.&#8221;  Morality of  deed concerns social relations, and morality of mind is meant to  cultivate the inner harmony between the emontional mind and the wisdom  mind.  The ultimate goal is to reach &#8220;no extremity,&#8221; where both wisdom  and emotions are in harmony with each other.  This concept is closely  related to the Daoist concept of wu wei (action through inaction).  [/FONT]

*[FONT=&amp]Kwan:[/FONT]*[FONT=&amp]  This is &#8220;kwan&#8221; in Korean and &#8220;kan&#8221; in Japanese.  It translates as large building or library.[/FONT]

If I discard that philosophical aspect of my art, then it is not the holistic art.  It is this aspect of transmission of the art that provides cultivation of the Duk (De).  

History, while being helpful, is not something that I require my students to know much about.  I leave it up to the individual to explore the history of our art and martial arts in general to the depth that suits them.  That said, I see a lot of benefit in studying history.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 3, 2013)

Kframe said:


> As to tradition, I think it can lead to stagnation in some arts.


I suppose that it can lead to stagnation in anything, be it a martial art or anything else.  Traditions lead to stagnation when the reason for maintaining them shifts from "We are doing it this way because it enhances the class" to "we are doing it this way because this is how it has always been done" and nobody really seems to know why.  



Kframe said:


> Granted there are some arts that exist now so that they can keep there art alive, and that's all well and good.


Do you mean to say that some arts exist simply because people are keeping it going?  Isn't that true of pretty much every martial art?  If nobody keeps it going, it dies out.  I would argue that JKD only exists because people who learned it keep it alive.  There are not that many arts that are self sustaining.  Taekwondo and Judo are self sustaining arts.  They have large, multinational organizations with satelite national organizations, inclusion in the Olympic games and a plethora of schools across multiple nations.  They have a gargantuan number of practitioners and instructors and are well known outside of the martial arts community, and are thus better able to attract new students.  Those are not the only two, but you get the idea.  

Most martial arts, even some with an international organization, are really not self sustaining.  It wouldn't take all that much for haidong gumdo to die off.  Inspite of it having an international federation (possibly two or three), a lot of its success is linked to the art being marketed to taekwondo schools that want to offer something more.  Nobody needs to practice a sword art.  Without dedicated practitioners to keep HDGD alive, it would not exist.

I would argue that JKD is in the same boat.  Nobody _needs _to train in a martial art, even an unarmed one.  And with the plethora of very well known unarmed arts out there, nobody _needs_ JKD.  But there are some excellent JKD instructors with dedicated students who work hard to keep JKD going because they see in it something that appeals to them.



Kframe said:


> Having said that, look at the JKD forum. They already are trying to establish tradition were there should be none.(according to Lee's own words) Discard what is useless, only keep what works. The style with no style.. Yet they are trying to traditionalize it, and pigeon hole it into a defined style..  Its times like that, were tradition is a hindrance not a help.


Well, it is a defined style.  Lee assembled it and drew from a good number of sources.  Saying that it *is a style *_with_ no style is still saying that it is a style.  It may be a style that encourages its practitioners to embrace and adopt technical elements from other sources that appeal to them, and perhaps part of the 'style' is that it is designed to accept techniques from other styles.  

I don't practice JKD, but I *do* know that I cannot just pick and choose the techniques that work for me from the arts that I practice, discard the rest, and announce that I'm a JKD instructor without first learning the art.  So there must be something that defines it.  If the only defining factor is a lineage that traces to Bruce Lee, then that is a tradition in and of itself.

Also, saying that Lee said, "discard what is useless keep only what works" is not an argument against tradition.  In fact, you could argue that that is a tradition in and of itself.  As Chris said, the teaching _is_ the tradition.

The fact is that if you do something, anything, long enough, you will have traditions.  Some are etiquette, some are technical, some are things that simply develop on their own and are kept because they are appealing.  If an art has a tradition that you (the general you, not you personally) do not understand or find unecessary, you should first learn the origins of the tradition and why it was put into place in the first place.  

Also, it takes a very long time of practicing an art to get to a point where you can keep and discard things.  It is much like music: you need to learn the rules before you can break the rules.  If you don't learn the rules first, you won't know what to keep and what to discard, though a bigger problem is that you'll _*think*_ you know what to keep and what to discard.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Apr 3, 2013)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Also, it takes a very long time of practicing an art to get to a point where you can keep and discard things.  It is much like music: you need to learn the rules before you can break the rules.  If you don't learn the rules first, you won't know what to keep and what to discard, though a bigger problem is that you'll _*think*_ you know what to keep and what to discard.



Shu Ha *RI*; this is the last level of learning.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 3, 2013)

Kframe said:


> What do I think kata is? I don't have a friggin clue, hence my posts on the subject.. From my martial arts perspective, it makes no sense, and apparently has lots of secret hidden meanings, were nothing is what it seams and apparently requires instructor level skill to even begin to understand it..


I'm not talking down to you, but if you don't have a clue as to what kata is, then it wouldn't make any sense to you.  From what I have gathered from your posts, however, your martial arts perspective is one with a comparatively short timespan, and is mostly in boxing or MMA (I may be inaccurate here, but that is what I have gathered), which utilize different training methods.  The layered teaching, where the solo form serves as the technical foundation for learning other techniques is common to many east Asian arts, though that method is not universal.  It is neither better nor worse than other teaching methodologies; it is simply different.  It is very appealing to some people, not so much to others. 

Another element of kata is that it generally reflects the training philosophy of the art, and the kata of a system tend to build progressively as you move from one to the next, teaching you different elements of the art as you go.  So kata is more than just a nice way to transmit techniques.

Like anything else, a different methodology could be used, but since people tend to teach an art in the way that they were taught themselves, and given that kata as a teaching methodology was developed because it works, I would be hesitant to replace it with a different method prior to having a very deep level of knowledge in the art, regardless what art it may be.  In order to replace the kata, you must know what each kata is meant to teach, the restructure it into a meaningful way to transmit that knowledge.

Again, one must fully understand the existing rules before one can bend, break or change them.



Kframe said:


> I used the word Kata in reference to the Korean MA, Sorry, I don't know what they call  it, so I used kata in its place...


The Korean rendering of 'kata' is hyeong (or hyung, or hyong, depending on Romanization).  Not all KMA that have forms call them hyeong.  The Kukkiwon calls their forms pumsae, in Chang Hon taekwondo, they're called tul.

Also, not all KMA have forms at all (traditionally, hapkido has none), and in martial arts in general, not all 'forms' are performed solo.  In kendo, there are nine kata: the Nippon Kendo Kata.  There are also nine_ bokuto ni yoru kendo kihon-waza keiko-ho_.  All kendo kata are performed with two people; the uchidachi (receiver) and the kakarite (striker).  The kata are fairly short, centered around an attack, a means of frustrating that attack, and counter attacking.  

Any exercise that is done a specific way could be called a kata as well.  If you do formalized two man drills in MMA, you could call them kata.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Apr 3, 2013)

Kframe said:


> Rich parsons, I don't think you quite hit cyriacus point tho. He specifically said, Forget the tradition, but keep the teaching and method the same.. If you forget the tradition, the folk lore and all the associated baggage that goes with it, yet keep the training methodology the same, nothing changes for the martial artist. He still will learn the method in the prescribed manner, but with out wasting time and resources on learning folk lore.. like cyriacus said, CHANGE NOTHING except ditch the tradition, keep everything else the same...



As Chris stated some would consider the methodolgy of teaching the tradition. But if you can find a tradition that you are will to accept the methodology and drop all the trappings of religion and spiritual aspects then I can see your point, but please read what I write below as well. 

I asked someone why they they did a certain block in a form/kata. They did not know and they were the teacher (middle rank black belt). So they asked up the line to someone who
did know the culture and the tradition and had listened and made it part of their training even though they were not of the original culture of the art in question. Their response, was the block was actually a pin of a leg of someone riding a horse. 

So, here they are dropping certain parts of the tradition, and keeping others and trying to keep the techniques and not knowing why or what the technique was really for. There was an application, but when I demoed the opponent they soon realized that it would not really work and that is when they asked. 

So if you want to the one to practice a technique that has no modern value, because you do not understand the why and the reason it was important then go ahead. Jsut understand the risks and realize them.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Apr 3, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> This has been an interesting thread... honestly, I'd disagree with almost everyone! Mainly as I think the real core and reality of both the concepts of what a martial art is and what a tradition is have been missed by the majority (yeah, I'm trying to make friends...). There have been some I've agreed with, but not many. But hey, that's the way of the world, neh? So what's my take?
> ...    .



What !!!!?!!!! Chris does not agree with me nor really cares if we are friends ?!? I think my baby boy feelings are hurt. I might have to go home now.  

On A serious note, Chris and I agree on somethings, we disagree on others, and care not at all about others still, and I can still respect him and his opinions. Why? Because he presents himself well, and he makes his statements and he has either data or points that are made. 

The same arguement could be made in this thread about *Cyriacus* as both of us are just presenting points or examples or asking questions. Of course him not being a good mirco brew guy, might be the final straw as I am not a whiskey guy and can only counter with Tequila as a drink I could have while he has his whiskey.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Apr 3, 2013)

Completely off topic from the OP, but to respond to Rich Parsons, that is precisely the reason I continue to log in, read and participate in the threads of discussions on MT.  The majority of all who participate are professional and courteous, as well as having a wealth of experience and knowledge!


----------



## Rich Parsons (Apr 3, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> Good, because this conversation is fantastic, and i didnt want to be putting the wrong idea across


 
Shhh, Ideas are for people with open minds, and exchanging them is dangerous. Someone might learn something, and it might be me. 




Cyriacus said:


> Breaking, no. Unbalancing, yes. The purpose is different, the motion is the same. So now, tradition would be the reason you do one rather than the other. Application would be just using a means to get to an end, yes?


 
It can be. See my comment to kframe. 



Cyriacus said:


> And if someone just said "You need something thats the right length, and reasonably solid" that wouldnt be sufficient?


 
No it would not. A bolt or screw can be dropped into place and handle stress loads from different angles per its design. It will fail depending upon how you use it. If you have a bolt designed hard on one side and soft on the other it will only take stress the soft side and the hard side will cause it to break. But if you apply it differently maybe the hard side could take more stress or force slowly over time as the soft side could help it absorb. Tradition might give you some insight to this, but without it one only has what one sees, and if one has a closed mind or preconceived perceptions it might cloud the sight. (* Boy, do I sound like I am full of something here. I may have to stop this *)




Cyriacus said:


> Why not just make something build to address a modern weapon or situation, based on the usages of the things they have? Do you need to know where it came from to do that? I can work this in with my analogy of attacking from behind. Its still the same takedown or strike, youre just using it differently in a different situation. You dont need to know anything about the means to that end other than what its doing.


 
I understand your point and I will even provide another example. 
Any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic. 

How does your computer work? How does your screen display? How does your phone work? How does you TV or remote to TV work? 

No one really cares they just know how to use them. So when it breaks or malfunctions they swear at the engineers and designers and throw it away. They have no clue on how the item works, but they know how to use it and they use it daily or hourly or multiple times a minute and just enjoy it. 

So based upon this, why cannot one person, just use a technique no matter where it came from. They can. Note: I have never said one could not accomplish or use said technique, I just tried to imply that not everything is complete. 






Cyriacus said:


> So, with that in mind, its a matter of curiosity and further investigation, rather than necessity and application?


 

One might say that.  But would you want someone who only has memorized 1 + 1 = 2 to do your taxes or would you want someone who understands addition to do your taxes? 




Cyriacus said:


> So, youll prove to be incapable of taking someones legs out and ramming your shoulder into their buttocks if you dont know where the technique came from?


 
No, but I will understand better how much time to practice on the technique knowing why it was used in the first place. 





Cyriacus said:


> Interesting. I had to spend a few minutes thinking about how to reply there. But i must insist on whiskey - I dont have any beers handy im afraid.


 
Tequila? 




Cyriacus said:


> A method can be carried on through tradition, yes, but how do you distinguish between tradition because tradition, and tradition as a result of reliability and functionality, and tradition which doesnt serve any purpose other than to lend more information about a subject matter?


 

That would be a very long book I think on how many systems have covered this and how one might approach it, themselves. 




Cyriacus said:


> Well, i was thinking offense in my example, but ok  And ive never heard of such a concept, but would i be correct in saying that your point there is that concepts without grounding and backing can lack function? Because if so, now we're getting somewhere! Ill get back to that in a sec. And ill start the part where i get back to that with a *!


 
I did not see any *! Later. 

Yes, I have seen gone too far. How do you stop that? I am not sure. I will have to think on it more. I also think even the best people with the best methodologies and techniques who only fight/spar/work out with each other of the same training will also get too far from reality as reality will shift over time. 





Cyriacus said:


> To the second bold part, thats why my examples have happened from behind. Im not sure there are many things an expert can do on his face. The tradition of the art tells him what to do, and that might be dangerous if the answer was something much simpler.


 
Ok, I grant you that assassinations are difficult to stop, in particular from behind. I could not stop the take down or the firearm, or the knife kidney strikes.  

I wonder if you are trying to find a methodology of creating fighters, or, those who do not give up or those who will continue to fight until they cannot anymore. 




Cyriacus said:


> To the first: Not necessarily. If i want to put you in a submissive position, that could mean anything, based on your intent. Lets just say mugging. If i want to put you down, incapacitate you, and steal your wallet, assuming im unarmed, that would basically mean just going straight for the fastest possible means of getting that desired effect. One way of doing that would be getting you on the ground and kicking you in the groin, tossing your legs away, and employing manual strangulation. So, by using a traditional movement in a not traditional way, what i am doing is no longer traditional.
> *This also carries on from what i just said. Tradition can be restrictive, if you dont deviate from its echelons when deviating from it is going to herald a path of least resistance. Sticking rigidly to tradition would mean walking in front of them before you do it, so that youre doing it in a traditional way. Of course, if the tradition lets you do your stuff however you please, i dont take any issue to that. But when tradition serves to limit your options, how can that be a good thing? With your example of palm strikes, in your system, they are used to meet an end result. Now, what if you used the exact same identical strike for a different purpose? Is it now a different strike? Its not a change youve learnt somewhere. Youve just taken it, and used it for something different to what you were shown to use it for in the gym. To provide a different example, if you take X system which teaches pre-emptive striking, then you use something in X-system as a means of assault, according to the traditions of X system, you are no longer doing X-system, even though you are doing exactly what it taught you to do. Just not the way or why tradition dictated.


 
Restrictions are bad. They are different then tradition in my mind. 





Cyriacus said:


> Grab the sword with both hands and swing the bally thing down a skull as hard and fast as i can. Then just swing the thing if that misses somehow. But if i learnt a sword system, that answer would probably change.


 
And from experience, I have seen people disarm themselves from improper grips.   






Cyriacus said:


> I know - But it is similar.


 
Yes it J




Cyriacus said:


> And that has to do with what youre learning.
> Theres a chance we're defining tradition differently, but im not sure. This is a good chance to find out. X, Y, and Z. X is a grappling system, Y is a close range system, and Z is a medium range system. The range of those systems can be explained by tradition. The range of those traditions is defined by simply being taught to work at those ranges. To me, tradition is the codification of that. As opposed to simply defining the identity of the system. So, to me, tradition is saying that Z us a medium range system because...; And non-tradition is saying Z is a medium range system. Heres some medium range stuff you can do, and heres a format to learn it by.


 
I see your point and will confuse it with the following: 

Many will state:

Long (kicking to two handed weapon range)
Medium (Punching or weapon range)
Short (Standing grappling/Clinch  Trapping  Elbows and knees  Knife range)
Ground

One of the systems I train, is closer in stance and position with a stick / weapon where most people would say it is the short range. But we are leaning and moving to get proper strikes with weapon tip. So yes the tradition he is dictated by a range and there is a reason and methodology for why.  I have tried to teach these are seminars and the range is almost never correct as people are not learning the system but the technique. I also make sure they understand this when I teach in that format, that they are not really learning the system, but small pieces of the system as techniques. And to most that is sufficient. 

So they get the technique but miss the body position portion of the technique. 




Cyriacus said:


> If your definition of tradition is just directly conveying useful information without the need for that information to be explained (though it can be and often is), thats not what i call tradition since information changes. Tradition tends to be codified. I just call that... well, whatever the system or method is youre learning.


 
Ah so we are getting down to semantics now.  



Cyriacus said:


> With my previous example, if the answer to whether using a double leg takedown from behind being tradition is no, and it is no longer BJJ as a result, i disagree. If the answer is no it isnt traditional, but its still BJJ, then i do agree. And you learn that movement through teaching methods that arent the same wherever you go.


 






Cyriacus said:


> It could also just be the format of practice and the quality of the teacher, couldnt it? And teachers dont always use the same methods they were taught with, and sometimes thats an improvement.


 
Yes a teacher can make a change and not realize it and it can be for good or bad.


----------



## Kframe (Apr 3, 2013)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I'm not talking down to you, but if you don't have a clue as to what kata is, then it wouldn't make any sense to you.  From what I have gathered from your posts, however, your martial arts perspective is one with a comparatively short timespan, and is mostly in boxing or MMA (I may be inaccurate here, but that is what I have gathered), which utilize different training methods.  The layered teaching, where the solo form serves as the technical foundation for learning other techniques is common to many east Asian arts, though that method is not universal.  It is neither better nor worse than other teaching methodologies; it is simply different.  It is very appealing to some people, not so much to others.
> 
> Another element of kata is that it generally reflects the training philosophy of the art, and the kata of a system tend to build progressively as you move from one to the next, teaching you different elements of the art as you go.  So kata is more than just a nice way to transmit techniques.
> 
> ...



 Daniel you said this.  The layered teaching, where the solo form serves as the technical foundation for learning other techniques is common.  My question how can that be true, if moves have no fixed point of reference? If a move, that you practice in line drills  and two man drills is called Block A, and then it shows up in kata 7, yet somehow its not block A but Throw 15, how can it form a technical foundation? If nothing is true to its nature in kata, how can it serve its intended purpose? Unless kata is sapposed to be paired up with application of kata drills. IF that's the case then maybe its the application drills that fill in the gaps.. If application drills are vital, then why do so many of the ones I have seen, seemingly look nothing like the kata they are supposedly applying?

 I don't know if im communicating what im trying to say. 

Im not asking to change kata, im asking if techniques are not fixed, how can you learn? 

Secondly, It requires me to have trust in instructor that he actually know wtf he is doing.. If he has no good idea of application that will build a weak foundation. 

Lets take the first Form I saw my father do, and apparently shared by the Shorin ryu place I attended for a few months..  It was kata number 1..  Just a bunch of repeated low blocks into  steping punches.  So what would the application drills for that kata look like? Are those simple low blocks and step punches actually much more then just blocks and punches?  IS there a time in kata when a block is actually a block and how can you tell when its not a block at all but something totally unrelated? 

I had spent much time thinking about this today, and thought I had it figured out..  It occurred to me that Kata is the outline and Application is the details. However after reading the posts, I feel I was  on the wrong thinking track. 

Chris parker, That type of kata your referreing to with the karate kata, is the only type of kata I have ever seen..


----------



## K-man (Apr 3, 2013)

Kframe said:


> Daniel you said this.  The layered teaching, where the solo form serves as the technical foundation for learning other techniques is common.  My question how can that be true, if moves have no fixed point of reference?
> 
> The moves do have a point of reference wrt the position of your opponent. You are starting the kata with your attacker in front. If you turn 90 degrees to your right you have either stepped yourself OR rotated your attacker. To find the reference just look at the previous technique.
> 
> ...


This is a simple bunkai that Masaji Taira Sensei teaches. Although normally we train it right through, in this clip Taira is explaining the principles, so it is not continuous. The kata is the second clip. See if you can recognise the application.






Now the kata ..


----------



## Cyriacus (Apr 3, 2013)

Rich Parsons said:


> As Chris stated some would consider the methodolgy of teaching the tradition. But if you can find a tradition that you are will to accept the methodology and drop all the trappings of religion and spiritual aspects then I can see your point, but please read what I write below as well.
> 
> I asked someone why they they did a certain block in a form/kata. They did not know and they were the teacher (middle rank black belt). So they asked up the line to someone who
> did know the culture and the tradition and had listened and made it part of their training even though they were not of the original culture of the art in question. Their response, was the block was actually a pin of a leg of someone riding a horse.
> ...



Dropping tradition could also mean just teaching that technique directly, rather than obfuscating it.



Rich Parsons said:


> The same arguement could be made in this thread about *Cyriacus* as both of us are just presenting points or examples or asking questions. Of course him not being a good mirco brew guy, might be the final straw as I am not a whiskey guy and can only counter with Tequila as a drink I could have while he has his whiskey.



You. Monster.


----------



## Kframe (Apr 3, 2013)

K man I was able to  spot some things.  For some reason the first video did not have any sound. Not sure why..  

I have much to ponder.. I truly wonder if im happy were I am. Maybe I can accept less grappling training, and take up a tma.. I hate not knowing..


----------



## Cyriacus (Apr 3, 2013)

Rich Parsons said:


> Shhh, Ideas are for people with open minds, and exchanging them is dangerous. Someone might learn something, and it might be me.


 
The thought sends shivers!



> It can be. See my comment to kframe.



I replied to that seperately, slightly before i saw that there was another page of replies....



> No it would not. A bolt or screw can be dropped into place and handle stress loads from different angles per its design. It will fail depending upon how you use it. If you have a bolt designed hard on one side and soft on the other it will only take stress the soft side and the hard side will cause it to break. But if you apply it differently maybe the hard side could take more stress or force slowly over time as the soft side could help it absorb. Tradition might give you some insight to this, but without it one only has what one sees, and if one has a closed mind or preconceived perceptions it might cloud the sight. (* Boy, do I sound like I am full of something here. I may have to stop this *)



If you have a closed mind, traditions are gonna bounce riiiight off anyway, to be fair.



> I understand your point and I will even provide another example.
> Any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic.
> 
> How does your computer work? How does your screen display? How does your phone work? How does you TV or remote to TV work?
> ...



Well, i use the 'telephone a repairman' technique. This... um... I see your analogy, but i think if i delve further into it stuffs gonna get weird. Ill just continue.




> One might say that.  But would you want someone who only has memorized 1 + 1 = 2 to do your taxes or would you want someone who understands addition to do your taxes?



Most accountants these days just use calculators, but. They only need to understand the syntax of mathematics, they dont need to know anything more about it. They dont need to understand why addition became what it is, its obvious. Adding things is addition, and + represents addition. Why does + represent addition, and anything else about addition other than what it is and how its used, i dont need to know.



> No, but I will understand better how much time to practice on the technique knowing why it was used in the first place.



So, if you learn, say, three strikes, and nothing else. Youre shown how to do them and what they do, then youre set loose to practice with someone. Knowing more about it is going to change how you do it in some way? So long as its use isnt obfuscated, that shouldnt be a problem. Hence, my 'what are you trying to do?" question, and mentioning intent. If you want to put someone on the ground, you need a means to that end. So, you think of the ways you have faith in to go about doing that. You dont need any other information unless you want it, surely.



> Tequila?



I can live with that :drinkbeer 



> That would be a very long book I think on how many systems have covered this and how one might approach it, themselves.



Thats right - Theyre defined by their own identity. You make the distinguishment by not trusting them. But thats a whole other topic, ill try not to get derailed. Point is, if its tradition because tradition, its usually a problem. If its tradition because function, then i know all i need to know.



> I did not see any *! Later.



"*This also carries on from what i just said. Tradition can be restrictive, if you dont deviate from its echelons when deviating from it is going to herald a path of least resistance. Sticking rigidly to tradition would mean walking in front of them before you do it, so that youre doing it in a traditional way. Of course, if the tradition lets you do your stuff however you please, i dont take any issue to that. But when tradition serves to limit your options, how can that be a good thing? With your example of palm strikes, in your system, they are used to meet an end result. Now, what if you used the exact same identical strike for a different purpose? Is it now a different strike? Its not a change youve learnt somewhere. Youve just taken it, and used it for something different to what you were shown to use it for in the gym. To provide a different example, if you take X system which teaches pre-emptive striking, then you use something in X-system as a means of assault, according to the traditions of X system, you are no longer doing X-system, even though you are doing exactly what it taught you to do. Just not the way or why tradition dictated."



> Yes, I have seen gone too far. How do you stop that? I am not sure. I will have to think on it more. I also think even the best people with the best methodologies and techniques who only fight/spar/work out with each other of the same training will also get too far from reality as reality will shift over time.



And getting too far from reality comes from not being rigorously rooted in it by a person forcing the issue. Something ive sadly never seen an instructor do. Knowing the traditions can send you into the same reality shift. If you learn that something was used often by X for Y, you may think its better then your Z for doing Y. Then do X, because the traditions tell you its better. But if Y was a totally different method (like, grappling instead of striking) and you made a bad call because tradition tells you that X was used often and reliably, when it may not have been the best choice, youve been inhibited by tradition itself.



> Ok, I grant you that assassinations are difficult to stop, in particular from behind. I could not stop the take down or the firearm, or the knife kidney strikes.
> 
> I wonder if you are trying to find a methodology of creating fighters, or, those who do not give up or those who will continue to fight until they cannot anymore.



Well... Not exactly what i was going for. Not many arts have attacks from behind in their traditions. 
As for creating fighters, im not sure what gave you that idea. But if i did want to, itd be through incentive and provocation, Dau Tranh style if the situation permits.



> Restrictions are bad. They are different then tradition in my mind.



Right - So if nothing in your tradition allows for attacking from behind, and you stick to those traditions instead of using the same things in different ways, you have been inhibited, and tradition has done it to you. Its like learning to spar, according to tradition, and having that as your only practice at application. If you then proceed to remain rooted in tradition, go figure as to what youve been lead to believe is the right course of action, even if its a round peg being melted over a square hole. So, if you decide to ignore those traditions, and do something of your own volition, but that something is exactly the same as what you learnt under those traditions but done in a different way...



> And from experience, I have seen people disarm themselves from improper grips.



Oh, i didnt mean to sound like i thought that was smart. But that is how id probably use the thing. At least i didnt go google sword grips and pretend like i knew anything at all about them.



> Yes it J
> I see your point and will confuse it with the following:
> 
> Many will state:
> ...



Wouldnt the range and body movement be a technique or methodology seperate to exactly what you do off of that, though? So, wouldnt they need to learn that before they can start doing things from that point?



> Ah so we are getting down to semantics now.



Probably 



> Yes a teacher can make a change and not realize it and it can be for good or bad.



Now, what if that change doesnt conflict with any of the traditions? If im not mistaken, the old Kata forms were changed based on who was learning them. At the time, when they were changed to suit a person or situation, were they traditional?

Im sure there are better, more recent examples, but thats all ive got at this moment.


----------



## K-man (Apr 3, 2013)

Kframe said:


> K man I was able to  spot some things.  For some reason the first video did not have any sound. Not sure why..


That's because there is no sound.   I wasn't at this particular seminar, but, at the time the video was taken, there was a storm raging and fans going. The fact is, when training with Taira you watch not listen. He doesn't speak a lot of English.  Even so, we have no trouble in understanding what he is teaching. His demonstrations are comprehensive. :asian:


----------



## arnisador (Apr 4, 2013)

Let's not lose sight of the fact that being involved in something with a long tradition can be just plain fun. This applies much more broadly than the martial arts.


----------



## Chris Parker (Apr 4, 2013)

Rich Parsons said:


> What !!!!?!!!! Chris does not agree with me nor really cares if we are friends ?!? I think my baby boy feelings are hurt. I might have to go home now.
> 
> On A serious note, Chris and I agree on somethings, we disagree on others, and care not at all about others still, and I can still respect him and his opinions. Why? Because he presents himself well, and he makes his statements and he has either data or points that are made.
> 
> The same arguement could be made in this thread about *Cyriacus* as both of us are just presenting points or examples or asking questions. Of course him not being a good mirco brew guy, might be the final straw as I am not a whiskey guy and can only counter with Tequila as a drink I could have while he has his whiskey.



Ha, I said I disagreed with *almost* everyone, Rich... I'll leave it to each as to whether or not it applies to them! 



Kframe said:


> Chris parker, That type of kata your referreing to with the karate kata, is the only type of kata I have ever seen..



Cool. Let's see if we can build on that perception, then.

The term "kata" (which has become almost standard, regardless of the origin of the art, same with "bunkai", although that's not really often correctly applied either) means "form", or "shape", and refers to something that retains the same form each time, to a greater or lesser degree. This is to differentiate it from free-form training, where "what happens" changes each time. As a result, any form of training where the same sequence, or actions are repeated, can be considered "kata". Although, even that's not strictly correct.

In Japanese arts, the vast majority of kata training is done in pairs, with one partner "performing" the technique, and the other "receiving" it (which is what the terms "tori" and "uke" mean, respectively). I don't say "defender" and "attacker", as, in a number of cases, particularly in weaponry systems, the "performer" is the aggressor... making the "receiver" really more of a "victim"! Interestingly, in these cases, the receiver is often the instructor, or the senior, as they are the one truly in control (of timing, distancing, pace etc), as well as being able to handle the unexpected, or mistakes, a lot easier.

Here are some examples of Japanese kata training:





 Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu, a weapons based system dating from the mid-15th Century.





 Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu, a sword art from the mid 17th Century, founded by the great Musashi Miyamoto.





 Takagi Ryu Jujutsu, a primarily unarmed system dating from the mid-17th Century.





 Kime no Kata, from Kodokan Judo.





 Bujinkan kata training (here, Shinden Fudo Ryu kata are being studied).

There are some arts that utilize solo training methods, but that is dominantly due to safety concerns, such as archery or sword drawing with a live blade (that's as much to keep the weapon safe as the practitioners, ha!).

The idea of kata being a long, solo string of (commonly) unarmed movements is from the Japanese occupation of Okinawa, as well as the importation of karate into Japan, and the adoption/usage of the term for their training method (which, really, is an imported training method from Chinese arts, not Japanese ones).

So why is there so much "hidden" in the kata? Well, the first thing you need to look at is what the aim of kata training is. As I said earlier, any training that has the same sequence, or actions repeated could be considered "kata" of a form... but I also said that wasn't strictly true either. What I meant by that is that kata training has a specific goal in mind... it not only has a "shape", it gives "shape" to the practitioners approach. It shapes and creates a particular method of addressing an encounter. What I mean by that is that kata are really not about learning "techniques", as in the mechanics. They are about learning how to apply the mechanics (on a number of levels). They are about learning an application of strategy, and application of tactics, through the mechanics. There are other drills to learn the mechanics... and they really are drills, not kata. They are about learning the mechanics. They might be called kihon (in Japanese), but they are just drills. They are the "how to throw a punch, how to execute this throw, how to block, how to avoid with footwork etc". You need to learn those before you learn the kata.

And, when it comes to the aims of kata training, it really needs to be understood what martial arts training is for... and, probably more importantly, what it's not for. I might be bursting a few bubbles here, but martial arts are not designed for self defence. They aren't. And they never were. They weren't even designed for soldiers on an ancient battlefield as some seem to think. They were more about an education for the military leadership.... more akin to officer training than basic training. And, as such, a lot of time could be devoted to the study. After all, there wasn't an immediate need for skills to be relied upon to save a life on the battlefield. If there was, the martial arts would be considerably less complex, they would be just "this move does this", and you could get the whole of a system in a few weekends. So you should really think of such things as military secrets, or military intelligence (not too far off, historically speaking), which lead in a number of cases to a habit of hiding the real actions of your art, often by displaying them in plain sight (look to the kata from Katori Shinto Ryu above... there's a hell of a lot hidden in plain sight there!), in order to avoid having your own tactics and strategies, the applications of your art, learnt and used against you. 

It also comes down to esoteric knowledge. Now, again, that term is rather misunderstood... "esoteric" really just means that there are pre-requisites. In other words, it's something you get after you've already done certain preparation work. Now, that might be proving that you're not about to "steal" the methods and take them back to a rival... or it might be demonstrating that you have the maturity and skills to learn the next step. In other cases, it's just a matter of having the experience to understand what you're being told. This thread has been quite a case in point... you simply don't have the background or experience to understand the answers you've been given, so you don't understand them. You don't the preparation work done, and haven't covered the pre-requisites. That's not a problem, but it is something to be aware of.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 4, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> Dropping tradition could also mean just teaching that technique directly, rather than obfuscating it.


It could, though not all traditional systems obfuscate the technique and teach it indirectly.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 4, 2013)

Kframe said:


> Daniel you said this.  The layered teaching, where the solo form serves as the technical foundation for learning other techniques is common.


K-Man already answered you on most of this, so I will say only that until you train in a system that utilizes kata in this fashion (Kukki taekwondo does not, by the way), you will not fully understand it.  



Kframe said:


> Secondly, It requires me to have trust in instructor that he actually know wtf he is doing.. If he has no good idea of application that will build a weak foundation.


Isn't that true of everything?  If you take lessons from anyone, you should do your homework, watch a few classes, poke around online to see if the instructor is known to others who have_ actually trained _with him or her, and get an idea as to what their general repuation is.  If you cannot find any information on them at all, watch classes and go with your gut.  



Kframe said:


> Chris parker, That type of kata your referreing to with the karate kata, is the only type of kata I have ever seen..


As you now know, solo kata are not the only kata.  Different arts have different teaching pedagogy.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Apr 4, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> And, when it comes to the aims of kata training, it really needs to be understood what martial arts training is for... and, probably more importantly, what it's not for. I might be bursting a few bubbles here, but martial arts are not designed for self defence. They aren't. And they never were. They weren't even designed for soldiers on an ancient battlefield as some seem to think. *They were more about an education for the military leadership*.... more akin to officer training than basic training. And, as such, a lot of time could be devoted to the study. After all, there wasn't an immediate need for skills to be relied upon to save a life on the battlefield. If there was, the martial arts would be considerably less complex, they would be just "this move does this", and you could get the whole of a system in a few weekends. So you should really think of such things as military secrets, or military intelligence (not too far off, historically speaking), which lead in a number of cases to a habit of hiding the real actions of your art, often by displaying them in plain sight (look to the kata from Katori Shinto Ryu above... there's a hell of a lot hidden in plain sight there!), in order to avoid having your own tactics and strategies, the applications of your art, learnt and used against you.



I like this explanation, and everything you've posted (barring the bolded text) is basically what was explained to me by my own instructors.  I'm curious though, if there are any sources out there expounding on this idea.  It makes complete sense that many TMA's were designed with this in mind, which is why something like Karate looks vastly different from something like Krav Maga.  The original audience is different (military officer vs. enlisted man respectively).


----------



## Chris Parker (Apr 4, 2013)

Well, part of it is having an honest look at what exactly is being taught... swords, for instance, were common to use as teaching tools in many old Japanese arts, yet the likelihood of actually being close enough to actually use one on a battlefield was minimalist (to say the least). From there, look to who was learning the arts "back in the day"... it was most commonly the ruling classes, which, in most old Asian cultures, was a warrior one. In fact, the idea of established schools (pre-cursors to dojo) in Japan were really locations of overall education, including military lessons. You also need to look at whether or not the methods (and length of time) used would be applicable to someone who might be facing a deadly attack/combat environment tomorrow, or next week, as opposed to someone who wouldn't be, but would be in command of a force later.

I really do need to emphasize, however, that modern arts are a different ballgame altogether, and do not share such a pedigree of development. They have a much wider range of pedigrees themselves, ranging from competitive superiority, to spiritual development, to personal expression, to pretty much anything else.


----------



## Cyriacus (Apr 4, 2013)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> It could, though not all traditional systems obfuscate the technique and teach it indirectly.


Aha - Thats good.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Apr 4, 2013)

I can appreciate that.  Even though my art is "modern," its roots go back through Shotokan and Shudokan, and thus further yet back to Shorin-ryu, which leads me to Matsumura Sokon and the Royal Guard of the Ryukyu Kingdom.  While the transmission of the arts in this lineage may have changed somewhat, the tradition of the Kata has not changed as much.  Therefore, I would think I can still glean some insight from this type of perspective.


----------



## Chris Parker (Apr 4, 2013)

Eh, you're still kids.... babes just out of their swaddling clutch.... modern little whippersnappers.... ha!


----------



## Cirdan (Apr 4, 2013)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> It could, though not all traditional systems obfuscate the technique and teach it indirectly.




There is no secret ingredient.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 4, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> And, when it comes to the aims of kata training, it really needs to be understood what martial arts training is for... and, probably more importantly, what it's not for. I might be bursting a few bubbles here, but martial arts are not designed for self defence. They aren't. And they never were. They weren't even designed for soldiers on an ancient battlefield as some seem to think. They were more about an education for the military leadership.... more akin to officer training than basic training.



This is an interesting viewpoint, but you have stated it very broadly. I can think of many martial arts that description doesn't fit--the FMAs that I study, for instance.


----------



## Chris Parker (Apr 5, 2013)

I was thinking really about the Japanese arts (as well as the Chinese to a fair degree, particularly older systems) when I was talking about the aim being to teach the military leadership, sorry for any confusion.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 5, 2013)

I know what you mean--in some ways what fencing was to the upper crust that formed the officer corps long after swordwork per se was still significantly relevant.


----------



## Kframe (Apr 6, 2013)

Chris parker, thank you for the informative post sir.    This has truly been a learning thread for me. I learned a lot about kata, and also that I don't know much about it or TMA for that matter due to not having much time in one.   The idea of a 2 person kata is intriguing. I wonder how it relates to the solo form kata that karate does.  As in are the pairs actually practicing moves they would use in a real battle, or is there not so obvious teachings in them.  

Not all progress is for the better. Sometimes new things are not better then the old ways.  I think perspective is the hardest part of martial arts.. The newb that only sees individual moves, to the veteran that see's the pattern as  whole..  How is usually the first question asked by perspective students of martial arts, when the most important question is why. As I have learned, you may not have the required experience to understand the answer to why.


----------



## Chris Parker (Apr 6, 2013)

Kframe said:


> Chris parker, thank you for the informative post sir.    This has truly been a learning thread for me.



Not a problem, glad you got something out of it.



Kframe said:


> I learned a lot about kata, and also that I don't know much about it or TMA for that matter due to not having much time in one.



Yeah... and the important thing to keep in mind is that that's not really a problem, unless you don't realize it. Hopefully you understand why you have been getting some of the responses you have.



Kframe said:


> The idea of a 2 person kata is intriguing. I wonder how it relates to the solo form kata that karate does.  As in are the pairs actually practicing moves they would use in a real battle, or is there not so obvious teachings in them.


 
Right. 

There is no relationship to the solo form as found in karate. None. That's part of what I meant when I said that I (personally, and slightly tongue in cheek) don't consider such methods actually kata... meaning that I take the term to refer to a Japanese training method, and the Okinawan form, based on Chinese methods, is just not the same thing at all. But that said, the paired kata also aren't practicing "moves they would use in a real battle" either, they are engaging in lessons which are taught through the medium of combative techniques, not learning combative techniques themselves (in the main... it gets more blurred than that, but that's the important part). As a result, yeah, there can be things that are "not so obvious" in the kata... ranging from hidden applications of the techniques, to deeper lessons within the kata, to training methods that don't immediately have a combat application, and so on. 



Kframe said:


> Not all progress is for the better. Sometimes new things are not better then the old ways.  I think perspective is the hardest part of martial arts.. The newb that only sees individual moves, to the veteran that see's the pattern as  whole..  How is usually the first question asked by perspective students of martial arts, when the most important question is why. As I have learned, you may not have the required experience to understand the answer to why.



Yep, that's about it.


----------



## seasoned (Apr 6, 2013)

When ever I see the word traditional where food is concerned I figure I'm in for a meal from days of old. A meal that depicts a certain food group in it's origanal form, you know, "the way mother use to make". 
"Is it important", to some, yes, to others, well, they call it evolving, perhaps into something "better". 

My take is, if I want pizza, once in a while, the good old fashion kind, you know, without broccili, whole wheat crust, and what ever else they can throw on it, to make it something unrecognizable.

Martial arts, make mine, traditional all the way....................................


----------



## Kframe (Apr 6, 2013)

Don't know whats going on with Win 8 and this forum, but every time I try to reply it says I need to at least 1 character even tho I had a decent sized  response... 

Chris parker,  Can you expand a  little on what you mean by, they teach lessons in a combative setting? From what I am understanding of your post, some of the kata are directly applicable, some are not obviously so, and some are lessons on matters such as distance, range, timing, ect.   LOL apparently I was under the mistaken impression that 2 person kata's were a more direct way to practice techniques. 

Off topic, what kind of Kata does Bujinkan  Budo Taijitsu do?


----------



## Chris Parker (Apr 6, 2013)

Kframe said:


> Don't know whats going on with Win 8 and this forum, but every time I try to reply it says I need to at least 1 character even tho I had a decent sized  response...



I don't think it's Windows8... if you try to make a post, but it's all within a quote box (nothing external), then no "new" characters are listed in your reply, and the forum won't let you post what it considers a non-answer. 



Kframe said:


> Chris parker,  Can you expand a  little on what you mean by, they teach lessons in a combative setting? From what I am understanding of your post, some of the kata are directly applicable, some are not obviously so, and some are lessons on matters such as distance, range, timing, ect.   LOL apparently I was under the mistaken impression that 2 person kata's were a more direct way to practice techniques.



It's not easy to expand, as it's very much particular to the Ryu you're discussing at the time... but to generalize (not an advised thing to do, for the record...), most systems tend to have multi-faceted approaches to their kata. While they (commonly) do follow correct and proper combative principles (there's no point having martial techniques that don't "work"), that's not necessarily the point of them. The main reason for the kata is to teach the lessons, the tactics, the strategies, the principles, the movement, the thought process, the mindset, the mentality, the attitude, the context, and the traits of the Ryu itself. To understand the kata is something that can't be done even by taking the kata individually... they need to be understood in the larger context of the Ryu itself. They often include lessons of distancing, angling, targeting etc, but that's not the entire, or even main point of them, other than within the context of the Ryu itself... but that being said, such things cannot be ignored at all, as they are integral to the lessons that are present.

To give some examples, Yagyu Shingan Ryu Katcchu Yawara (armoured grappling) kata are filled with contingencies (if this doesn't remove the grip, move onto this, then this, then this, until you manage to stun them enough to apply the finishing throw, and so on), as well as utilizing the basic kata to teach weapon usage, and more... the various components of the kata are also used in other training practices, such as Mifuri (a conditioning exercise this Ryu uses), taking each action separately. Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu is well known for having multiple applications hidden within their kata, with the basic aim being that a practitioner can just cut an opponent down with a single action, despite their kata being some of the longest around. Additionally, their non-sword kata are more about how to defeat the other weapons, rather than using them as a primary aim (although that is a part of it as well). Kashima Shinden Jikishinkage Ryu teach an old set of kata known as Hojo, a set of four kata, all made to represent a particular season. These kata are integral to the Ryu... but don't teach combative ideas or techniques at all, when all's said and done. Instead, the Hojo kata there are more about learning proper breathing, balance, footwork, control of the weapon, spiritual development and power, and so on. A number of other Ryu-ha teach kata that are more drills than anything else, or conditioning exercises, or sets of basics for manipulating the weapons... but then others don't have much at all in that regard. 

There's obviously a lot more to this, but that should give you a bit of an insight. The point is that the kata, and what they teach, are entirely dependent on the Ryu they are found in.



Kframe said:


> Off topic, what kind of Kata does Bujinkan  Budo Taijitsu do?



Well, the first thing to understand is that Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu is a modern art which utilizes the kata (as teaching vehicles) from a range of Ryu that Hatsumi has inherited. These Ryu are dominantly unarmed, with a couple that contain weaponry methods as well (dominantly Kukishinden Ryu Happo Biken and Togakure Ryu Ninpo Taijutsu), with a complete number of kata in the hundreds. For an overview, see this thread: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...u-Budo-Taijutsu-amp-Related-arts-descriptions

The kata form found in the Bujinkan (if used... the Bujinkan's kinda funny in regards to it's approach to kata, leaving it up to the various instructors, with some giving it a large emphasis, and others not at all) is the Japanese form, with all kata being paired (or with more partners), with both a "performing" and "receiving" side. As with all such kata methods, both sides need to be learnt properly. I've already shown an example (last clip in post #85, showing Shinden Fudo Ryu Dakentaijutsu... hardly the best example, but there you go).


----------



## Kframe (Apr 6, 2013)

I gotta split, but ill have a detailed response later..


----------



## nocturnal_ (May 18, 2013)

Dirty Dog said:


> Something I've been thinking about a lot lately: is tradition important to martiala arts? I tend to be a traditionalist, but I'd like to hear other peoples views on this.
> 
> What do you think tradition provides to your art, and is it important?



If it's about non-martial-related tradition, I don't find this aspect important to me as an adult. I did find the non-martial aspects of Japanese martial arts important when I was doing Karate on my teenage years. There are self development & disciplinary parts in most Japanese martial arts that I think very important for kids and teenagers. 

However as an adult, I don't find the non-martial tradition important, as I see martial arts from self defense perspective only. I don't enjoy wearing gi and belt. I don't enjoy bowing too much. I don't enjoy meditation. I don't think those aspects are important or relevant to self defense. I tend to stay away from schools/styles that are too heavy on traditions. I don't mind a little bit of tradition, but too much emphasis on tradition is a turn off for me. However, I do understand that many people enjoy being able to understand to spiritual and philosophical sides of martial arts.


----------



## chinto (May 18, 2013)

OK I have been skimming this thread and reading some of the posts more carefully.  I wish to disagree with Chris Parker in that the primary intent of Okinawan Karate was to teach military leadership.  yes some of that is a side benefit but, the primary reason that the art was developed, like most of the Chinese martial arts, was and is self defense, civilian and military.  
Yes tradition is important. for instance, striking to the base of the neck where the clavicle and neck come togetherin the FMA's and other arts. With a blade this has the effect of almost insuring a fatality!  With a bludgeon may kill, but will almost certainly disable the attacker, so you may dispatch the attacker! that is why it and the attack to the subclavian artery, jugular and Carotid arterys are taught also in Kobujitsu and in some empty hand attacks on Okinawa! the Traditional intent was to KILL! this is because of where and when and under what circumstances the arts in question developed!

the same is true of why some kicks are not in most kata in Okinawan Karate at all. Because of what they faced, who they faced, and the ramifications of a loss in a fight.  On Okinawa traditionally the winner of fights that were real were decided by who was dead, and who was alive!  If you fought a Satsuma Samurai and lost, your family were most likely going to be all killed, Also perhaps much of the village for resisting!  If he survived he would be back with friends for revenge.. same outcome as if you lost.  

most of the Korean arts today, ( all the ones I know of off hand ) are newer and do not have the emphasis on fatality for the attacker. I personally believe that is because the need was not as great in the time they were codified as systems.  

Some Chinese systems are very very lethal, and some less emphasis on lethality. Part of this is the influnce of Buddhism , and Chinese culture and traditions. but Jujutsu and Judo and Aikido all have the ability to kill at least at the dan levels if the practitioner wishes.  

so the primary reason that much effort and time went into developing the martial arts was SURVIVAL!  the fact that Strategy and Tactics that work in the system could be applied to handling troops is a bonus, but not the primary concern when the systems were developed!

Once again the Traditions and History show you what the reason was for the system and how things are intended to be applied.  the older systems of Samurai Jujitsu could kill but also could put an attacker on the ground where you might negate his armor with a choke or a smaller blade. again battlefield survival.  Aikido was developed from Jujitsu in the 1920's mainly. it does not have the emphasis on lethal techniques as it was not needed as much at that time.

History and tradition tell you a lot about what your art was designed for and how it applies to the world .


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 18, 2013)

chinto said:


> Yes tradition is important. for instance, striking to the base of the neck where the clavicle and neck come together. with a blade this has the effect of almost insuring a fatality! and with a bludgeon may kill but will almost certainly disable so you may dispatch the attacker! that is why it and the attack to the subclavian artery are taught also in Kobujitsu and in some empty hand attacks on Okinawa! the Traditional intent was to KILL! this is because of where and when and under what circumstances the arts in question developed!



The "base of the neck" (i.e. C7/T1) and the clavicles aren't really anywhere near each other. The clavicles are between the acromion and the sternum, not the neck (or at least, not what most people would consider the neck...).
Striking the "base of the neck" would result in impact to the rear of the body, or laterally to the trapezius muscle.


----------



## Chris Parker (May 19, 2013)

nocturnal_ said:


> If it's about non-martial-related tradition, I don't find this aspect important to me as an adult. I did find the non-martial aspects of Japanese martial arts important when I was doing Karate on my teenage years. There are self development & disciplinary parts in most Japanese martial arts that I think very important for kids and teenagers.
> 
> However as an adult, I don't find the non-martial tradition important, as I see martial arts from self defense perspective only. I don't enjoy wearing gi and belt. I don't enjoy bowing too much. I don't enjoy meditation. I don't think those aspects are important or relevant to self defense. I tend to stay away from schools/styles that are too heavy on traditions. I don't mind a little bit of tradition, but too much emphasis on tradition is a turn off for me. However, I do understand that many people enjoy being able to understand to spiritual and philosophical sides of martial arts.



And what would you consider are the "non-martial-related traditions"? I'm not sure I've ever come across any....



chinto said:


> OK I have been skimming this thread and reading some of the posts more carefully.  I wish to disagree with Chris Parker in that the primary intent of Okinawan Karate was to teach military leadership.  yes some of that is a side benefit but, the primary reason that the art was developed, like most of the Chinese martial arts, was and is self defense, civilian and military.
> Yes tradition is important. for instance, striking to the base of the neck where the clavicle and neck come togetherin the FMA's and other arts. With a blade this has the effect of almost insuring a fatality!  With a bludgeon may kill, but will almost certainly disable the attacker, so you may dispatch the attacker! that is why it and the attack to the subclavian artery, jugular and Carotid arterys are taught also in Kobujitsu and in some empty hand attacks on Okinawa! the Traditional intent was to KILL! this is because of where and when and under what circumstances the arts in question developed!
> 
> the same is true of why some kicks are not in most kata in Okinawan Karate at all. Because of what they faced, who they faced, and the ramifications of a loss in a fight.  On Okinawa traditionally the winner of fights that were real were decided by who was dead, and who was alive!  If you fought a Satsuma Samurai and lost, your family were most likely going to be all killed, Also perhaps much of the village for resisting!  If he survived he would be back with friends for revenge.. same outcome as if you lost.
> ...



Hmm. Well, in your skimming, you missed the clarification that I was primarily referring to the Japanese and, to a lesser degree, Chinese arts when the comment was made. Other than that, your history needs work... there's quite a bit wrong here, as well as a fair number of false connotations and connections being made.


----------



## nocturnal_ (May 20, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> And what would you consider are the "non-martial-related traditions"? I'm not sure I've ever come across any....



Wearing gi, belts, meditation, discipline, character building, foreign language, bowing. These are non-martial related.


----------



## TKDTony2179 (May 20, 2013)

I have been wondering the same thing or at least if what is tradition have vanish and we just call it tradition when it really isn't. As time goes by it seems like more and more traditional arts have a sport version of its self and that is a good thing and a bad thing. More people become active in art that is more safer but at the same time the true elements of the art seems to vanish. Like leg kicks and sweeps vanish from TKD to be safer. How can an art say it is tradition when tradition things aren't taught or use.


----------



## Chris Parker (May 20, 2013)

Yeah, I can see the problem. You aren't aware of how these aspects fit in, nor with the detail that much of your listed aspects aren't actually even traditions. To take them one by one...



nocturnal_ said:


> Wearing gi, belts, meditation, discipline, character building, foreign language, bowing.



Wearing Gi: Well, while a certain uniform might be traditional, the idea of wearing a uniform isn't really traditional in and of itself. Additionally, it isn't worn for the sake of a tradition, but rather for a range of practical reasons, such as protecting your regular clothes during practice, providing sturdy material for certain grips and holds, and an indication of membership in a group. The same reasons as a modern military uniform, really... 

Belts: Again, hardly a tradition. The idea of coloured belts to denote rank is rather recent, and is adopted for, again, practical reasons... the initial usage was for Kano Jigoro to be able to tell the relative experience and skill level of a student he hadn't met when he was going from school to school. In other words, it's specific to the martial skill of the art in question, and not in any way something done "for traditions sake".

Meditation: Again, nothing to do with tradition, this is a tool used in a range of arts for multiple purposes, most commonly as a way of maintaining a focus to your mind, as well as controlling emotional response... which is essential in a combative sense. In Japanese arts, it's referred to as Mushin (we'll cover the language mistake in a moment), in modern RBSD training, it's dealt with by adrenalized training, rather than meditation, but the reason and purpose is the same. Very much martial.

Discipline: You're kidding, right? Firstly, you think "discipline" is a tradition?!? It's a trait, not a tradition. But possibly more importantly, you don't think discipline has any martial connection?!? You don't think there's a correlation between them? You don't think an MMA athlete is disciplined, in diet, training etc? Or anyone else related to martial arts? I really don't know where to go from here... 

Character Building: Well, I suppose this is the natural next step... Yes, character development is very much related to martial development... just look at leadership skills developed with rank, either in martial arts, or in the military. Same thing. Oh, and again, this is a trait, not a tradition.

Foreign Language: And, again, not a tradition. It's a cultural aspect. But really, if it's a Japanese art (for example), why wouldn't you expect the terminology to at least reflect that? And, when it comes to practicality, a common lexicon (whether foreign or not) makes for ease of communication, which streamlines teaching and training, leading to faster development of, wait for it, martial skills!

Bowing: Again, this is a cultural trait, but at least we're dealing with something closer to a tradition here... but the thing is, it's very much do to with martial realities. The simple bow on entering a dojo is showing awareness of the change in your environment, bowing to other students or the instructor is showing an acknowledgement and awareness of the potential danger they represent, and so on. When dealing with the very old (traditional) arts, there are quite a range of very martial related lessons, even in the bowing methods taught, often to do with awareness, understanding proper social contexts (and how to act appropriately), and so on.



nocturnal_ said:


> These are non-martial related.



Actually, yes, they are.


----------



## harlan (May 20, 2013)

Not to be a pain, but to my way of thinking, this is nit-picking.  Along a continuum, and considering one's understanding, those 'elements of training' may or may not be 'martial' (-ly related).


----------



## Zenjael (May 20, 2013)

Every new martial art, if it works is authentic. Every style has its own tradition- the set of expected norms that make that style that style.

I can give something of an example- when I switched from Chang Moo Kwan, to Chung Do Kwan, I noticed they did their roundhouse kicks differently. I asked why we could not do it the way I was taught, and the answer was simple enough; it's not Chung Do Kwan style Tae Kwon Do. 

So since then I hold tradition to be defined contextually on the art in question.

But tradition can also mean the spirit of things to uphold. Wing Chun is an old art, named after the person who first truly completed and utilized it. A person was born, what they did in fighting is now practiced by many. And is influential enough to directly affect other martial art styles. In the 50s Bruce Lee and Jhoon Rhee trained together, and Tae Kwon Do in the United States has never been the same, certainly out where I live in D.C. where that happened.

Tradition means a lot of things, but I think it doesn't really matter. Enjoy what you learn, and develop the art to your own. Who knows, any one of us on these boards may take the art we learned to a point others seek to learn what we do, not the art we were trained in.


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 20, 2013)

Tradition is defined as

1.The transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation, or the fact of being passed on in this way.
2.A long-established custom or belief that has been passed on in this way.


----------



## Chris Parker (May 21, 2013)

harlan said:


> Not to be a pain, but to my way of thinking, this is nit-picking.  Along a continuum, and considering one's understanding, those 'elements of training' may or may not be 'martial' (-ly related).



In a way, yeah. But again, pretty much nothing nocturnal listed were actually even traditions, let alone whether or not they were "martially-related". And, for someone who claims Judo (along with Wing Chun) in his training, where the idea of grip wars, based on the uniform being worn, if he can't see the martial reasoning for the outfit (and everything else he listed), then I have very little hope.



Zenjael said:


> Every new martial art, if it works is authentic. Every style has its own tradition- the set of expected norms that make that style that style.
> 
> I can give something of an example- when I switched from Chang Moo Kwan, to Chung Do Kwan, I noticed they did their roundhouse kicks differently. I asked why we could not do it the way I was taught, and the answer was simple enough; it's not Chung Do Kwan style Tae Kwon Do.
> 
> ...



And, again, this is completely ignorant of what a tradition is, and the reasons for differences between different arts. The reasons for a difference in the kicking methods is not due to "traditions", it's due to the differences in the philosophies of the systems. And your history is woefully lacking. As far as what tradition means, read Xue's post.


----------



## Zenjael (May 21, 2013)

Chris, you completely contradict yourself there.

If the kicking philosophies differ because of philosophies, and these philosophies grounded on the teachings proceeding it, than the tradition of a system or style is dictating the philosophy.

Get over yourself on calling others ignorant of what tradition means. It's a term barely, and completely applicable to martial arts because it means so much to so many in so many different definitions. What you find traditional in MA is not what I do. Proof in point there.

You do ninjutsu, an art that can be arguably traced way back, or was invented like yoga in the early 20th century. You can provide counter point. I don't care either way, I think it a legitimate art now. But myth means that maybe what we consider 'tradition' either questionable, or irrelevant to what martial arts have become today.

Thanks for making the discussion of martial arts personal, again.


----------



## Chris Parker (May 21, 2013)

Son, you really have no idea at all. You have missed what traditional means, you have missed what the philosophy of a martial art is, and you have missed just how different they are from each other. What you refer to as traditions aren't. Just saying "well, that's what I refer to them as" doesn't change that. And what I train in has no bearing on that whatsoever, kid.


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 21, 2013)

One more time...more directed at Zenjeal....

Tradition is defined as

1.The transmission of customs or beliefs *from generation to generation*, or the fact of being passed on in this way.
2.A *long-established custom or belief *that has been passed on in this way.​


----------



## K-man (May 21, 2013)

De





Zenjael said:


> You do ninjutsu, an art that can be arguably traced way back, *or was invented like yoga in the early 20th century.* You can provide counter point. I don't care either way, I think it a legitimate art now. But myth means that maybe what we consider 'tradition' either questionable, or irrelevant to what martial arts have become today.


OK Alex. You have my full attention. What evidence do you have for the highlighted part of your post? I was under the impression that both went back hundreds of years. :asian:


----------



## Cyriacus (May 21, 2013)

Zenjael said:


> Thanks for making the discussion of martial arts personal, again.



Discussions between people usually are personal, as opposed to discussions with automatons.


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 21, 2013)

K-man said:


> De
> OK Alex. You have my full attention. What evidence do you have for the highlighted part of your post? I was under the impression that both went back hundreds of years. :asian:


Try thousands

> 3rd millennium BCE Several seals discovered at Indus Valley Civilization depict figures in positions resembling a common yoga or meditation pose,

> 500 - 200 BCE Yoga appears in Texts; Upanishads, Bhaganad Gita and the Mahabharata

> The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali 350 - 450 CE

>Hatha Yoga 900CE

Basically Alex is way off there (or making this up as he goes along to support an unsupportable "opinion") Yoga was not invented in the 20th century it is possible it had been around a long time by the 1st century


----------



## chrispillertkd (May 21, 2013)

Xue Sheng said:


> Try thousands
> 
> > 3rd millennium BCE Several seals discovered at Indus Valley Civilization depict figures in positions resembling a common yoga or meditation pose,
> 
> ...



Well, there's more than a bit of controversy surrounding the origin of yoga, as I'm sure you know. The modern stuff can really make you bendy but does it go back as far as the dates you cite? Most likely not. Meera Nanda, for example, points out that there is very little, if any, connection between the yoga that is practiced today and that which is described in the Bhagavad Gita and Upanishads. (And that leaves out the question of how much weight does "evidence" of yoga-like postures on seals carry; not much, IMHO. Correlation isn't causation, after all.)

Anyway, Nanda has an interesting article which you can read here: http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/living/not-as-old-as-you-think 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## pgsmith (May 21, 2013)

I love how questions such as this one come up periodically, and it *always* devolves into people arguing minutia. 

  Is tradition important? Of course it is ... to those martial arts that consider tradition important. 

  Since I just love analogies, it is very much like going to a forum devoted to the summer olympics, and asking if knowing how to swim is important. Well of course it is ... if you are doing one of the sports that requires swimming.


----------



## nocturnal_ (May 23, 2013)

Chris Parker said:


> Yeah, I can see the problem. You aren't aware of how these aspects fit in, nor with the detail that much of your listed aspects aren't actually even traditions.



 Seems like we have different perceptions of what would qualify to be called a 'tradition'. To me, when something has been passed on for 3 generations, it's enough to qualify it as a 'tradition'. But that's just matters of perception/opinion. 



Chris Parker said:


> Wearing Gi: Well, while a certain uniform might be traditional, the idea of wearing a uniform isn't really traditional in and of itself. Additionally, it isn't worn for the sake of a tradition, but rather for a range of practical reasons, such as protecting your regular clothes during practice, providing sturdy material for certain grips and holds, and an indication of membership in a group. The same reasons as a modern military uniform, really...
> 
> Belts: Again, hardly a tradition. The idea of coloured belts to denote rank is rather recent, and is adopted for, again, practical reasons... the initial usage was for Kano Jigoro to be able to tell the relative experience and skill level of a student he hadn't met when he was going from school to school. In other words, it's specific to the martial skill of the art in question, and not in any way something done "for traditions sake".



Gi and obi don't really matter outside dojo. From a self defense perspective, people need to train when they're wearing their normal daily clothes because they won't wear gi outside dojo, where they might experience some assaults that they have to defend themselves from. They can't say "_Wait! Not Now! Let me wear my gi that's comfortable for fighting before we start._" That's why in my opinion, wearing gi and obi is not martial related, but I understand your point of view. 

I won't address the rest as I think they can either be categorized as martial related or non-martial related depending on the point of view. My point of view, they aren't (and I've given some examples with the first two above), but I can accept that from your point of view, they are. It's just the matter of perceptions.


----------



## Zenjael (May 24, 2013)

I like what my girlfriend does. She respects the idea of tradition, rather than trying to blanket conform to it.

She wears her first gi, and the white belt issued with it. I used to ask her when she was going to go to a school to test for black, and she answered me that she'd be a black belt when her uniform become black.

At our club we train both in gi and regular attire.


----------



## Chris Parker (May 24, 2013)

How the hell is that anything to do with respecting tradition?!?! It's fantasy-driven garbage, frankly, and gets the myth wrong in the first place. Desperate fail. Again.


----------



## Aiki Lee (May 24, 2013)

Zenjael said:


> She wears her first gi, and the white belt issued with it. I used to ask herwhen she was going to go to a school to test for black, and she answered methat she'd be a black belt when her uniform become black.


 
Are you suggesting that she will never wash her keikogi?


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 24, 2013)

pgsmith said:


> I love how questions such as this one come up periodically, and it *always* devolves into people arguing minutia.



Agreed and Iam sorry for the part I played in it



pgsmith said:


> Is tradition important? Of course it is ... to those martial arts that consider tradition important.



Agreed



pgsmith said:


> Since I just love analogies, it is very much like going to a forum devoted to the summer olympics, and asking if knowing how to swim is important. Well of course it is ... if you are doing one of the sports that requires swimming.



Nice analogy


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 24, 2013)

Zenjael said:


> I like what my girlfriend does. She respects the idea of tradition, rather than trying to blanket conform to it.
> 
> She wears her first gi, and the white belt issued with it. I used to ask her when she was going to go to a school to test for black, and she answered me that she'd be a black belt when her uniform become black.
> 
> At our club we train both in gi and regular attire.



That's not tradition, it's fantasy. Your inability to distinguish between the two is well known to people who have read your drivel in the past.


----------



## Manseau (May 28, 2013)

Dirty Dog, what an interesting thread you have started! [I am mounting my soap box] Tradition! Traditional American values, traditional family values, traditional religious values, traditional martial arts,they all speak to the same thing. One contributor used a good analogy of the foundation of a building; others addressed some of the trappings (window and floor coverings if you want to look at it that way) like uniforms. But I think tradition is what reminds us that we are part of something larger than ourselves, it reminds us that we are on the road many have traveled before us and they have made contributions, sacrifices, that make it easier for us to embrace and become part of what they have built. We have the ability to make it better thanks to their foundation. What is tradition? It is about time invested, it is about respect, it is living history, it is always changing, always growing but never forgetting those special ones who worked a little harder and gave more of themselves to move their passion forward for our ultimate benefit.  Forget tradition?  We are seeing the deterioration of that around us in our day to day lives. Is tradition important? I suggest that those who dont study history are doomed to repeat it. Is that important in martial arts? I cant tell you, that is for you to decide in your heart, not just in this question but all that touch on tradition.[I am now dismounting my soap box] Thank you again for the post. Regards, David


----------

