# Poll: Tradition or Evolution?



## kidswarrior (Mar 24, 2007)

Do you believe the Martial Arts should be all or mostly preserved intact, the way they were handed down by previous masters? 

100% Preserved? 

75/25 Preservation/Evolution?

Or, do you believe Martial Arts are a living tradition, and so should be constantly evolving? 

75/25 Evolution/Preservation?

100% Continuous Evolution?


----------



## kidswarrior (Mar 25, 2007)

I realized about 60 seconds too late that it might have been better to leave any numbers out of the choices. Oh well, maybe people could just choose the closest and explain in their posts. 

Thanks, all. -kidswarrior


----------



## terryl965 (Mar 25, 2007)

ALl arts need to volve at the same time they also eeds to hang on to tradition, so 50/50 split for me.


----------



## LawDog (Mar 25, 2007)

Times change and with it laws change, systems within regions change, cultures in regions change, religions within regions change. All of these factors within our modern civilized(?) society will alter the way in which we learn to protect our family, friends, society in general and ourselves.
*The laws set the strictest guidlines for self defense. You can no longer take a weapon away from an attacker and use it back against him. Your ability to carry weapons for defense has been seriously impacted.
*In the past many regional areas were known for certain types of fighting skills, like Boxing and Judo. Back then most of the fighters would train to go up against those types of fighters. In many of those same regional areas there now exist many of the newer fighting systems. Now the fighters have to change and adapt to what is now found within their region.
*Many cultures bring with them their own basic point of view for self defense. There are cultures that are known as blade cultures, gun cultures, stick cultures etc. In one area of Boston there is a culture that is well known for it's in close head butting techniques. So fighters around there must adjust.
*Religion. a few have a very passive non confrontation belief, some believe and "eye for an eye" an so on. This has to be considered as well.
My point, because of mass transportation, major culturial movements an so forth the Martial Arts cannot stand still, today it must constantly adapt and change to stay in step to what is happening within your regional area's. A hundred years ago things were different.
A good martial arts self defense system is regionally oriented not worldly
:asian:


----------



## stickarts (Mar 25, 2007)

My view is that we should respect, remember, and give credit to where the arts came from yet evolve as necessary.


----------



## LawDog (Mar 25, 2007)

Stickarts,
I agree with you.


----------



## Adept (Mar 25, 2007)

Preservation of tradition, for it's own sake, is always a waste of time IMO.


----------



## exile (Mar 25, 2007)

I'm inclined to go with... let's see, if I could quantify it, it would be something like 65% tradition, 35% evolution. But I feel I must clarify just what I mean by this, because at the same time I'm for 100% evolution, without contradiction. 

On the one hand, I don't think people should change something that they don't fully understand; particularly, they shouldn't `correct' something that would work just fine if only they grasped its application properly. The traditional MAs were the result of the fighting experience of real _fighters_&#8212;in karate, people like Matsumura, Itosu, Chotoku Kyan and Choki Motobu were incredible fighters, extremely dangerous, who did a _lot_ of fighting, though for different reasons, apparently. They and their Okinawan compatriots' criterion was ruthless practicality, and the karate that emerged from their collective experience was a mean, brutal and effective fighting system that had to be seriously disguised before it could be taught in schools. The core of that effective system is still there, in the kata, and it's been rediscovered in a major way during the past decade. But that rediscovery has required the efforts of a lot of very sharp, combat-savvy karateka going over the technical content of traditional kata with fresh eyes. The problem with karate over the past century or so hasn't been with the technical content, but with the way people `read' that content, regarding kata as a kind of dance or meditation or whatever, rather than the summary of fighting techniques that they were constructed to be. So my sense is, you want to hold onto the traditional content as long as it takes you to fully understand it; if you want to make changes to suit contemporary conditions, fine, but  you do yourself a serious disservice if you change something without first grasping what it really does and how. So this is the reason for the 65/35 split.

But on the other hand, it's also clear that the creators of `traditional karate' weren't themselves traditionalists in any significant sense. There's the famous story of how Matsumura, confronted by the fighting skills of a Chinese sailor in Okinawa who held his own against him&#8212;very unusual, apparently!&#8212;offered to help the sailor return to China in exchange for instruction in the latter's combat knowledge, resulting in the Chinto kata. Matsumura couldn't have cared less about where that knowledge came from; he saw that it worked and he wanted to master it himself, period. All of these guys were experimenting and innovating; they cared only about what worked. And one could argue that this is the right approach: keep playing with the system and seeing how it could improved; ironically, that innovative and experimental approach&#8212;Chinese  fighting skills mixed with Okinawan tuite methods and, as Iain Abernethy points out, a substratum of Minamoto samurai bujutsu thinking about the unity of combat motions regardless of the striking weapon&#8212;resulted in the `traditional' karate that some people believe should remain in frozen perfection till the end of time. But if the greatest empty-hand fighters of the past thought that utility was the main criterion and that we should always be ready to innovate when the results justify it&#8212;and backed up that view with their own track records in violent encounters&#8212;then we might do worse than follow suit, eh?

So I think an approach which is both tradition-weighted _and_ fundamentally innovative is the best one to follow. I know it sounds like I'm trying to have it both ways, but I hope what I've said makes it clear that I'm not...


----------



## LawDog (Mar 25, 2007)

Exile,
It took a few readings, I understand your mindset.


----------



## mrhnau (Mar 25, 2007)

I'll probably go with the 75/25. The human body is not evolving that much. We still have two legs, two arms and one head. I think most of the ways a person can strike or grapple have been discovered and played with. Even so, not every system has that broad of a spectrum. I think each system needs to be analyzed, and where there may be material lacking, those holes filled with material from other arts. Is it still called Karate if you incorperate Aikido concepts? Perhaps not, but I'd call it more effective. (not trying to bash karate  ) Is that considered evolving?

Now, if you are talking about MA -in general- evolving, I think thats a pretty slow process and is more 90/10ish...I think thats because the body in general can only be used in a limited number of ways. Sure, new katas will emerge, but more often than not, I see them as piecing together smaller pieces of already existing technique. That being said, Is the development of a new kata truly evolution? I guess it could be... I tend to think of it as an evolution of the teaching technique, rather than the art, but thats just me  (are the two hopelessly intertwined in most cases?) The truly novel would incorperate the 10% in this situation...


----------



## jdinca (Mar 25, 2007)

I went with 75/25. If the art is sound in it's basic concepts and application, then tweaking along the way to keep it current and relavant should do the trick. There is also something cool about learning a 1,000 year old chinese form. To me that's candy to reward me for all the hard work put in on the rest of the curriculum.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Mar 25, 2007)

exile said:


> But on the other hand, it's also clear that the creators of `traditional karate' weren't themselves traditionalists in any significant sense. There's the famous story of how Matsumura, confronted by the fighting skills of a Chinese sailor in Okinawa who held his own against himvery unusual, apparently!offered to help the sailor return to China in exchange for instruction in the latter's combat knowledge, resulting in the Chinto kata. Matsumura couldn't have cared less about where that knowledge came from; he saw that it worked and he wanted to master it himself, period. All of these guys were experimenting and innovating; they cared only about what worked. And one could argue that this is the right approach: keep playing with the system and seeing how it could improved; ironically, that innovative and experimental approachChinese fighting skills mixed with Okinawan tuite methods and, as Iain Abernethy points out, a substratum of Minamoto samurai bujutsu thinking about the unity of combat motions regardless of the striking weaponresulted in the `traditional' karate that some people believe should remain in frozen perfection till the end of time. But if the greatest empty-hand fighters of the past thought that utility was the main criterion and that we should always be ready to innovate when the results justify itand backed up that view with their own track records in violent encountersthen we might do worse than follow suit, eh?


 
This doesn't sound like evolution, more like addition. But I get were you're coming form and agree 100%. I don't think anyone could have put it better.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Mar 25, 2007)

> My view is that we should respect, remember, and give credit to where the arts came from yet evolve as necessary.
> __________________


 
Some arts are strictly hand or feet arts while others are almost strickly throws. I think in todays world a little of everything is needed in order to understand what the other guy may do


----------



## stickarts (Mar 25, 2007)

tshadowchaser said:


> Some arts are strictly hand or feet arts while others are almost strickly throws. I think in todays world a little of everything is needed in order to understand what the other guy may do


 
Yep. I agree. As time goes on I find myself tweaking my curriculum as I realize weaknesses in it.


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 25, 2007)

Adept said:


> Preservation of tradition, for it's own sake, is always a waste of time IMO.



That's not true.  History is important, and preserving it is not a waste.

Som martial arts have lost there "real world" applicability.  The old sword styles come to mind.  Sword fighting, obviously not a useful skill anymore.  But preserving the history and traditions is a worthy cause.

We still have people that can perform many "old" skills which have long since been replaced by more modern methods.  But the preservation of them is not a waste of time, it is a window into the past.  And history is not a waste of time.

That said, I practice MMA right now, and that gives 100% evolution.

Perhaps I am kind of black and white on the matter, but I think if you want to preserve something, preserve it.  If you want to evolve, evolve.  But the middle ground seems like a weak place.  Bound by tradition while trying to move forward.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Mar 25, 2007)

> Som martial arts have lost there "real world" applicability. The old sword styles come to mind. Sword fighting, obviously not a useful skill anymore. But preserving the history and traditions is a worthy cause.
> 
> We still have people that can perform many "old" skills which have long since been replaced by more modern methods. But the preservation of them is not a waste of time, it is a window into the past. And history is not a waste of time.


 
well said
without the past how do we know where to go in the future. Without knowing the past we will only have to rediscover what it once taught


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Mar 25, 2007)

It is funny as even though I practice several arts that fall into a traditional mind set I am all for *evolution*. (without the loss of moral guidance and mental training)  However having said that I do see where many things from the past that may be viewed as useless by some ie. sword, shield, etc. can readily fall into modern combat and have usefullness now.  Who is to say in the future that those skills might even be *more* useful.  We simply do not know at this point.  Keep training and progressing.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Mar 25, 2007)

you mention sword and shiel those can today be applied to trash can lid and stick so the old would help someone in todays world


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Mar 25, 2007)

tshadowchaser said:


> you mention sword and shiel those can today be applied to trash can lid and stick so the old would help someone in todays world


 
No doubt.  I am a firm believer in working with the sword! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Lot's of applications and believe it or not every now and then their is a nut using one somewhere.


----------



## exile (Mar 25, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> I think if you want to preserve something, preserve it.  If you want to evolve, evolve.  But the middle ground seems like a weak place.  Bound by tradition while trying to move forward.





Brian R. VanCise said:


> I do see where many things from the past that may be viewed as useless by some...Who is to say in the future that those skills might even be *more* useful.  We simply do not know at this point.



I think Brian's post speaks to Andrew's point, and it ties in with what I was trying to say earlier. It's not so much a matter of being _bound_ by the past as fully exploring the information contained in the modern legacy of many previous generations' worth of trial and error. Until you have good reason to think you really _have_ explored all those possibilities in detail, and no longer need to preserve the older or even ancient forms to obtain further knowledge, getting rid of the traditional form of the art seems very prematurethere may be plenty of use still left in it that you haven't yet obtained, as Brian suggests.

I guess the way I visualize it is this: you milk the traditional forms for all they're worth, and at the same time you try to apply the knowledge you obtain from them in modern circumstances, making adaptations as seems necessary. In a way, the opposition between preservation and evolution isn't the right way to think of it, perhaps. My idea is that you should both preserve the traditional form (as a precious repository of practical knowledge and applications) and evolve the practice of the art (as you test out that knowledge and extend your art to novel situations). They're really two different sides of the same coin.


----------



## kuntawguro (Mar 25, 2007)

If we tried to do battle in Afganistan the way we did battle in the Civil war- our troups would all be dead.  Change is what keeps us alive. Tho the strategies of the past are taught to make sure  the same mistakes are not repaeated. The same is true about the martial arts. We should acknowledge the histroy and the traditions , but we should live and train int he here and now.


----------



## exile (Mar 25, 2007)

kuntawguro said:


> If we tried to do battle in Afganistan the way we did battle in the Civil war- our troups would all be dead.  Change is what keeps us alive. Tho the strategies of the past are taught to make sure  the same mistakes are not repaeated. The same is true about the martial arts. We should acknowledge the histroy and the traditions , but we should live and train int he here and now.



I don't think it's quite as simple as that analogy assumes. The difference between the Civil War and Afghanistan is driven by technological advances that radically change the nature of fighting. One individual firing RPGs can deliver more firepower in a few minutes than a whole cavalry regiment with its artillery backup could do at Gettysburg throughout the whole battle. The nature of full-scale warfare has been transformed by mininaturization and advances in ordnance: much smaller mechanisms can deliver much larger TNT equivalents. But the technical content of traditional karate turns out to be aimed at defense against roundhouse punches to the head, head-butts, grabs, groin strikes... _exactly_ the untrained techniques the people like Geoff Thompson and Patrick McCarthy have identified as the `habitual acts of violence' which initiate the vast majority of _contemporary_ violent encounters. 

There's a nice summary in Bill Burgar's _Five Years, One Kata_, which devotes a whole chapter, with excellent graphics and photographs, to illustrating the most common or so half-dozen violent confrontational behaviors that bouncers, crowd-control experts and security people have observed. And what's interesting is that the single kata, Gojushiho, that Burgar studied and tested intensively for five years contains direct, effective responses (or pre-emptions) to every one of these half-dozen initial-attack moves. 

Your comparison doesn't stick unless you can offer some good reason to believe that people in Okinawa initiated attacks at the turn of the previous century in radically different ways from the way they do today. The fact that this one kata contains effective counters to moves which _modern_-day experts identify as the main combat initiations strongly suggests that such a belief would be a major error. So the changes in the conditions of warfare over the past 150 years are probably irrelevant to the way in which civilian violence has proceeded during the same period. There probably _are_ some interesting differences in how unarmed street violence plays out... but there's no reason to believe that the content of traditional karate (or whatever) is even a little bit irrelevant to what happens on the street today...


----------



## Kacey (Mar 25, 2007)

exile said:


> I think Brian's post speaks to Andrew's point, and it ties in with what I was trying to say earlier. It's not so much a matter of being _bound_ by the past as fully exploring the information contained in the modern legacy of many previous generations' worth of trial and error. Until you have good reason to think you really _have_ explored all those possibilities in detail, and no longer need to preserve the older or even ancient forms to obtain further knowledge, getting rid of the traditional form of the art seems very prematurethere may be plenty of use still left in it that you haven't yet obtained, as Brian suggests.
> 
> I guess the way I visualize it is this: you milk the traditional forms for all they're worth, and at the same time you try to apply the knowledge you obtain from them in modern circumstances, making adaptations as seems necessary. In a way, the opposition between preservation and evolution isn't the right way to think of it, perhaps. My idea is that you should both preserve the traditional form (as a precious repository of practical knowledge and applications) and evolve the practice of the art (as you test out that knowledge and extend your art to novel situations). They're really two different sides of the same coin.



I agree.  "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it" ~ George Santayana.  Why reinvent something that already exists?  Many people do not understand the rationale that underlies the parts of their art that they discard - and thus end up reinventing something that was already there.  The only way to understand what is already there is to learn from what is, before adding what is missing.

All people bring something new to a martial art - their experiences, physical and mental capabilities, understanding, and so on all make their own interpretation and practice of their martial art an individual experience, and their own interpretation color how the art is passed on to the next generation of students.  That is why it is so important to understand the history and traditional performance of a martial art before adding, changing, or removing anything - like language, which vanishes if not spoken, changes with time and understanding, imports new ideas from immigrants, and drops outmoded concepts, martial arts are constantly evolving - but also like language, where learning about the history and roots can aid in understanding the changes in usage, it is, IMHO, necessary to learn about the history and roots of the MA(s) one practices, where it began and how it evolved, before making any changes.  Once that is understood, the _appropriate_ changes can be made, with less time spent covering old ground.


----------



## kuntawguro (Mar 25, 2007)

Strategies--- the way battle was done back then does not apply to todays wars. Tho the weapons have changed. Back in early  karate days guns were not used, there was a code of the warrior- the code now is do unto others before they do unto you. And rule? what rules?
 The basic man of war hasn't changed much structurally , but mentally and physically - yes. Without change we would be stuck repeating mistakes- formulas once developed for battle still apply, but in different FORMULA STRUCTURE.  Standing out in the open  waiting for your opponent to advance and face you is not a good idea when a sniper can pick you off easily at 100 yards. More stealth like strategies are now used. Being sneaky is a good trait not a bad one for the man of honor used to face his opponent.  This is a simple comparison and it is not complete, but it does apply.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 25, 2007)

Evolution can be a good thing, but it can also be a bad thing as well. 

And in some cases evolution of a given art is a good thing in others it is just a convenient way for a practitioner that is not really training or does not understand the training to claim mastery of something he/she made up in order to look good.

Many CMA styles were combined to develop Sanda and that is a good thing, Sanda is very effective

Xingyiquan was changed by Wang and evolved into Yiquan and this to is a good thing.

But if I decided to claim that Sanda, Xingyi and Taiji are old antiquated and need to evolve just because I cant make then work do to some lack of understanding or lack of training on my part and decide to evolve it into Taixinganda then it is a bad thing.


----------



## exile (Mar 25, 2007)

kuntawguro said:


> Strategies--- the way battle was done back then does not apply to todays wars. Tho the weapons have changed. Back in early  karate days guns were not used, there was a code of the warrior- the code now is do unto others before they do unto you. And rule? what rules?
> The basic man of war hasn't changed much structurally , but mentally and physically - yes. Without change we would be stuck repeating mistakes- formulas once developed for battle still apply, but in different FORMULA STRUCTURE.  Standing out in the open  waiting for your opponent to advance and face you is not a good idea when a sniper can pick you off easily at 100 yards. More stealth like strategies are now used. Being sneaky is a good trait not a bad one for the man of honor used to face his opponent.



I'm sorry, but I don't see how what you're saying here addresses _any_ of the points I raised above. TMAs are not intended for the battlefield (although they can be adapted, as Taekwondo was during the Korean War at the initiative of General Choi as an unarmed killing technique designed for a fully kitted-out ROK soldier who was out of ammo or had lost access to his weapon; and there is documentation that in this mid-20th c. warfare setting it was terrifically effective).  I'm not talking about war, therefore, and I'm pretty sure I made that clear. I was talking about the conditions for which TMAs were initially devised&#8212;self-protection for the individual in a civil society in which there were no police patrols, Crime Watch neighborhoods, security guards, laws on assault and battery, and so on. Where do the snipers you bring up come into this? And do you think that nasty, violent people in the back alleys of Shanghai, Shuri or Osaka were any less `sneaky' on a dark night in 1897 than they are in New York, Kansas City or Tacoma in 2007? 



> This is a simple comparison and it is not complete, but it does apply.



Sorry, I'm not following. _What_ comparison applies? Are you still comparing warfare combat to streetfighting? My argument was that the differences between 19th and 21st century warfare are different to a vastly greater degree than the differences between a street altercation in 19th c. Okinawa or wherever, on the one hand, and 21st century Anywhere, USA, so far as we can tell from the actual content of the TMAs I mentioned. I noted that the habitual acts of _civilian_ violence which have been repeatedly observed `in the field' by modern participant observers of street combat are exactly those which traditional Okininawan/Japanese (and Korean) karate forms contain very effective conters for. How does anything you're saying here speak to that point? Can you be a bit clearer?



			
				Kacey said:
			
		

> Why reinvent something that already exists? Many people do not understand the rationale that underlies the parts of their art that they discard - and thus end up reinventing something that was already there. The only way to understand what is already there is to learn from what is, before adding what is missing.
> 
> All people bring something new to a martial art - their experiences, physical and mental capabilities, understanding, and so on all make their own interpretation and practice of their martial art an individual experience, and their own interpretation color how the art is passed on to the next generation of students. That is why it is so important to understand the history and traditional performance of a martial art before adding, changing, or removing anything - like language, which vanishes if not spoken, changes with time and understanding, imports new ideas from immigrants, and drops outmoded concepts, martial arts are constantly evolving - but also like language, where learning about the history and roots can aid in understanding the changes in usage, it is, IMHO, necessary to learn about the history and roots of the MA(s) one practices, where it began and how it evolved, before making any changes. Once that is understood, the appropriate changes can be made, with less time spent covering old ground.



Exactly. Exactly, exactly, exactly....


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 25, 2007)

tshadowchaser said:


> you mention sword and shiel those can today be applied to trash can lid and stick so the old would help someone in todays world




A stick is a very different weapon then a sword, and while some crossover is present, they require different tactics, techniques and strategy.

If the reason for maintaining sword training is that it is trasferable to a stick, then why not train with sticks?  Why spend time learning iaido?  Sticks do not come in sheaths. Nor do they cut.  

The purpose of sword training is not transferablitiy to improvised weapons, that would be a poor means to get to that end, right up there with giving infantrymen muskets to train with, as the skills are transferable to Assault rifles.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Mar 25, 2007)

kuntawguro said:


> Strategies--- the way battle was done back then does not apply to todays wars. Tho the weapons have changed. Back in early karate days guns were not used, there was a code of the warrior- the code now is do unto others before they do unto you. And rule? what rules?
> The basic man of war hasn't changed much structurally , but mentally and physically - yes. Without change we would be stuck repeating mistakes- formulas once developed for battle still apply, but in different FORMULA STRUCTURE. Standing out in the open waiting for your opponent to advance and face you is not a good idea when a sniper can pick you off easily at 100 yards. More stealth like strategies are now used. Being sneaky is a good trait not a bad one for the man of honor used to face his opponent. This is a simple comparison and it is not complete, but it does apply.


 
You realise that in many ways, your wrong. Allow me to explain.
The way battle was fought "back then" does still apply. In the mid satges of WWI a British General reffernced a biblical battle for a stratigy. Modern generals study such battles as Carantan and The Buldge (WWII), several out of the Spanish-American, Mexican-American, the Civil War, and the Revolution. Names elude me, and I appoligise. Thermopolea (think the movie 300), Agicourt (100 years war), many of william wallaces battles out of his campaigns in the 1400's, and so on. 
Their have never been rules, and no real code. Guys wouldn't kill each other, not because of some code, but because it would make his family mad. And it's easier to let a guy live, then fight his whole family. Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by a rule and code?
During the invasion of Iraq in the First Persian Gulf an enitre battalion of combined infantry/artillery was told "stand their, and look like a target". Because of what you said about, standing their is no-no. A brigade of Imperial guards (Iraqs best and brightest) marched up, and next thing they new they were surronded. Standing their can be the right thing to do. Ohh, and that tactic was from the campaiqns of Hannibal. 
By the by, snipers as a distinct group have been around since *BEFORE *the American civil war. We're talking the campaigns of Julius Cesear. And they were used heavily by the Yankees in the Revolution, and both sides during the Civil War. The Brit's got the idea, and so did the Dutch settlers in South Africa. So, during the Dutch Cvil War the Bohrs (what the Dutch settlers called themselves) used sniper tactics. Based off that whole Yank line of "don't shot till you see the whites of their eyes".
And sneaky tactics have always been used. It's just a matter of whether or not it's fesiable. During the American Revolution a large number of British troops were simply obliterated by a small number of Americans who the tactics of the group now know as the Rangers. Snipe a few officers, and vanish into the woods. Pop up latter, and do it again. Evetually, the British lost so many troops, they stopped caring. Something a Russian Cossaks used against Naploen at about the same time. It's just a matter of what is best over all.
Though, you are right in some ways. The people you fight have better tactics and weapons, so you get a better weapon. But with martial arts, the analogy is not quite the same. Your opponent gets better techniques and new weapons, you just figure out how to take what you already know and apply it to the new situation. Something generals have been doing since before recorded time. You have your oppion, and I have mine. But if your going into an argument with evidence that is either wrong, or simply doesn't apply, expect to have someone take issue with it.


----------



## green meanie (Mar 25, 2007)

Great question, but a hard one isn't it?

I'm in an art that evolves. We have specific goals that we want to accomplish with our art, problems that we try to provide solutions for. That's never going to change and how hard we train every night working on those solutions is never going to change -that's where the tradition lies for us. But at the same time, we're not completely bound by specific techniques.

For example, I feel my students should have several defenses against a takedown. That's never going to change. But the defenses I teach has changed slightly over time. A couple new takedowns were learned that needed specific defenses in order to effectively deal with them. Other new defenses that I was previously unaware of were also picked up along the way. To not teach these techniques that I know in my heart to be a necessary part of their defense simply because they were not a part of the 'original' curriculum strikes me as a serious disservice to my students. :asian:


----------



## exile (Mar 25, 2007)

green meanie said:


> Great question, but a hard one isn't it?
> 
> I'm in an art that evolves. We have specific goals that we want to accomplish with our art, problems that we try to provide solutions for. That's never going to change and how hard we train every night working on those solutions is never going to change -that's where the tradition lies for us. But at the same time, we're not completely bound by specific techniques.
> 
> For example, I feel my students should have several defenses against a takedown. That's never going to change. But the defenses I teach has changed slightly over time. A couple new takedowns were learned that needed specific defenses in order to effectively deal with them. Other new defenses that I was previously unaware of were also picked up along the way. To not teach these techniques that I know in my heart to be a necessary part of their defense simply because they were not a part of the 'original' curriculum strikes me as a serious disservice to my students. :asian:



I'm quite certain, in line with green meanie's post, that there are excellent techniques that haven't yet been discovered yet, to handle specific kinds of attack (some of which _themselves_ haven't yet been discovered). More generally, there are new discoveries waiting to be made in every realm of knowledge. The old masters made really brilliant discoveries. Sir Isaac Newton was as good as it gets in physics and mathematics. But as we know, there's an awful lot of stuff he missed. Why should it be any different with Anko Itosu or Choi Yong Sul or Hwang Kee or anyone else. Being great doesn't mean being omniscient, eh? 

So new discoveries are always there to be made. Look, for just one example, at the `fence' strategy promoted by Geoff Thompson and others in the UK combat-MA community. Bill Burgar, in his study of the Gojushiho kata, updates some of the `decorative' movements in the traditional form of that kata to build the fence techniques directly into the kata applications. This is creative thinking in action. I'll bet Matsumura and Itsosu would have been among the first to get hold of the `fence' technical machinery and make it their own...

There's a lot of great stuff out there, waiting for us to stumble across it.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 25, 2007)

terryl965 said:


> ALl arts need to volve at the same time they also eeds to hang on to tradition, so 50/50 split for me.


I agree.

Evolution and adaptation are necessary.  I personally think that the best vehicle for this is within a reasonably traditional system as the framework.  If you get too tied up in tradition -- you ignore the reality that a modern attacker isn't using a long sword or 6 foot staff; he's using a baseball bat, machete, or gun.  If you move too far from tradition, you lose the structure to hang your changes on.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 25, 2007)

kuntawguro said:


> Strategies--- the way battle was done back then does not apply to todays wars. Tho the weapons have changed. Back in early  karate days guns were not used, there was a code of the warrior- the code now is do unto others before they do unto you. And rule? what rules?
> The basic man of war hasn't changed much structurally , but mentally and physically - yes. Without change we would be stuck repeating mistakes- formulas once developed for battle still apply, but in different FORMULA STRUCTURE.  Standing out in the open  waiting for your opponent to advance and face you is not a good idea when a sniper can pick you off easily at 100 yards. More stealth like strategies are now used. Being sneaky is a good trait not a bad one for the man of honor used to face his opponent.  This is a simple comparison and it is not complete, but it does apply.



I think you (and many others) have romanticized historical combat.  I think that when it came down to war -- the truth has always been that it comes down to get the other guy before he gets you.  The methodology has changed, and the rigamoral justifying what people did has changed... but I doubt that any "peasants can't fight noblemen" survived in actual combat.  Neither the sword nor the bullet cares the social status or "warriorhood" of the person on either end of it...


----------



## exile (Mar 25, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> I doubt that any "peasants can't fight noblemen" survived in actual combat.  Neither the sword nor the bullet cares the social status or "warriorhood" of the person on either end of it...



Or the pike, eh? Even before firearms put paid to massed charges of heavily armored aristocrats on heavily armored warhorses, the use of pikesmen drawn from the peasantry, lightly armored but working together with those wicked long death-poles, pretty much put an end to the classic mediaeval mass attack by the previously invincible `swordproof' gentry. My understanding is, by the late 14th c., it was pretty much a given that an armored knight had zero chance against a line of pikesmen...


----------



## bluemtn (Mar 25, 2007)

Hmmm... Not sure where I lay there.  I'm all for keeping tradition, but at the same time-  I feel there should be expansion.  I'm not sure if 75% ev. and 25% trad. is really the numbers that I see where it should be.  More like 65/35?  Oh, I'll stop being so picky on numbers and go with 75/25.

I feel that you learn from history (tradition), but you also should be willing to learn new things.


----------



## Adept (Mar 25, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> That's not true.  History is important, and preserving it is not a waste.



But thats not a preservation of tradition, for it's own sake. That is preservation of history.

Preservation of tradition, simply for the sake of it, is when someone refuses to adapt or change to something simply because it isn't the way they already do it. It's the sort of thing that goes:

"Well, yes, I can see how that would be good, but I won't do it because my sensei never taught it to me, so it isn't traditional."



exile said:


> Or the pike, eh? Even before firearms put paid to massed charges of heavily armored aristocrats on heavily armored warhorses, the use of pikesmen drawn from the peasantry, lightly armored but working together with those wicked long death-poles, pretty much put an end to the classic mediaeval mass attack by the previously invincible `swordproof' gentry. My understanding is, by the late 14th c., it was pretty much a given that an armored knight had zero chance against a line of pikesmen...



Actually, while the pike was useful, the heavily armoured knight still ruled the battlefield.

It was eventually politics and economics that saw the knights rule end. Kings and Lords decided that paid soldiers were more reliable and preferable to lesser lords (knights) with feudal obligations, and as a result the knight was phased out of the military.

A charge from knights into a pike formation would be costly, but it would also succeed.

But to illustrate your point, we need look no forther than Agincourt, where thousands of french nobility were killed, not by the Longbow as is commonly supposed, but by having their heads smashed in by peasants with mallets after they had been taken captive. The English knights refused to do it, and Henry needed the men being used to guard the prisoners and couldn't risk the captured french knights being freed and arming themselves, so he ordered them slain. By the peasants.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 25, 2007)

Adept said:


> But thats not a preservation of tradition, for it's own sake. That is preservation of history.
> 
> Preservation of tradition, simply for the sake of it, is when someone refuses to adapt or change to something simply because it isn't the way they already do it. It's the sort of thing that goes:
> 
> "Well, yes, I can see how that would be good, but I won't do it because my sensei never taught it to me, so it isn't traditional."



I think the classic story about preserving tradition for traditions sake is the one about a form featuring a weird, disconnected backward hop at a certain point...  After some research, it turned out that the dojo where the teacher learned it wasn't long enough to do the form without the backward hop, and that's the sole reason for the hop...  But the hop was taught without understanding ever after...

To me, the traditional aspect and principles of my art give me a framework to adapt or mold to modern concerns.  Many issues about forming a stable platform for firing a gun are the same as forming a stable stance to throw a punch -- but I don't need a "gun form" to apply them.  Traditionally, under my teacher, we fight strong-side lead.  But at work -- I've got a gun on my right hip.  I'm not putting that closer to the bad guys than I have to!  That doesn't mean I can't use the same principles when it comes time to go hands-on, though.

Then there are other aspects of tradition, like bowing into class, or uniforms and how to handle your belt.  Those...  If you're going to train or teach XYZ Martial Art... You've got to use them.  They're part of what distinguishes a martial art from a simple collection of "how to beat someone up" moves.  I'm not saying you have to be a slave to them... but if you're doing a formal training session -- you have to keep the traditional trappings of it.


----------



## exile (Mar 25, 2007)

Adept said:


> But to illustrate your point, we need look no forther than Agincourt, where thousands of french nobility were killed, not by the Longbow as is commonly supposed, but by having their heads smashed in by peasants with mallets after they had been taken captive. The English knights refused to do it, and Henry needed the men being used to guard the prisoners and couldn't risk the captured french knights being freed and arming themselves, so he ordered them slain. By the peasants.



Yes, I'd heard something about that. The role of the Welsh longbowmen was apparently greatly exaggerated. Just another illustration of how legend becomes passed off as history. 

It's funny: my views of Henry V were formed early on after reading Shakespeare's play as a youngster, and then seeing it performed a number of times. In spite of what I know, I still have that heroic image of him somewhere in my head...


----------



## Steel Tiger (Mar 26, 2007)

exile said:


> Or the pike, eh? Even before firearms put paid to massed charges of heavily armored aristocrats on heavily armored warhorses, the use of pikesmen drawn from the peasantry, lightly armored but working together with those wicked long death-poles, pretty much put an end to the classic mediaeval mass attack by the previously invincible `swordproof' gentry. My understanding is, by the late 14th c., it was pretty much a given that an armored knight had zero chance against a line of pikesmen...


 
Now the pike is a very good example of martial evolution.

Let's go back is history a bit to Hellenistic Greece and a little thing that Philip of Macedon put into regular use - the Sarisa.  Essentially a pike.  And the Macedonian phalanx was a good example of a strong pike formation. Why then did it fall out of use?  Simple answer, the Romans.

Later, toward the end of the Roman period when mounted warriors were becoming both more effective and more prevalent there was little that could be done about them.

The mounted warrior developed through the Norman domination to the fearsome shock troop that was the Medieval knight.  To deal with this techniques were developed in two places, both involving a revival of the pike.

In Scotland, the schiltron was developed whereby pike-armed troops were supported by means of sword-armed men being interspersed among them.  In Switzerland, or perhaps Burgundy, a similar technique was used.  In both cases it was effective but could still be overcome by a concerted cavalry charge, though such would be damn costly.

Later still, with the development of effective portable firearms, the Swiss developed the pike formation further by interspersing arquebusiers among the pikes.  That pretty much saw the end of the knight on the battlefield.

Throughout its history the pike maintained certain elements to its use.  Massed and rigid formations, for example.  But over the centuries, as the battlefield changed, the way the pike was used, and supplemented, was modified to suit.


----------



## Adept (Mar 26, 2007)

Steel Tiger said:


> Throughout its history the pike maintained certain elements to its use.  Massed and rigid formations, for example.  But over the centuries, as the battlefield changed, the way the pike was used, and supplemented, was modified to suit.



Indeed, the pointy stick has always had a use in combat. Even today we still use bayonets.


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Mar 26, 2007)

The Bayonet is interesting because the weapon was very rarely actually used for direct combat, its main uses were prior to attack where all those wonderful sharp stabby bits were a wondefully off-putting thing for the enemy to have to charge at, and then stabbing the enemy in the back while they're fleeing.
Up close and personal troops were far more likely to strike with the butt of their gun like a club than stab with bayonet.


----------



## Shaderon (Mar 26, 2007)

Once more I get here too late and Exile has already said everything that was in my mind when I first read the question....  so yea.... what he said.....

Keeping tradition definitely has it's place, and a big one,  after all, we are learning from the experts here, the people that developed these systems did so because they were putting together things that were proved to work for them and their predessesors, so who are we to throw them out the window and claim we know better?    But saying that, all the time people are evolving, changing, getting more intelligent and finding new ways to do things... that defence that GrandMaster Whatsisface devised centuries ago was all well and good until Mister Oojamaphlip found that you could counter it by doing "this"  about 60 years ago and so someone had to come up with a way to counter "that" and so on and so on.... of course it's going to evolve.... things that don't evolve have more chance of becoming extinct, but we shouldn't loose what we have, that would be plain silly, especially if we don't understand it.   

The students when they are just beginning to understand their art, suddenly realise that the patterns/kata they are doing are drilling them for doing unconcious blocks or attacks, it'd be the same way, someone somewhere could one day realise that the thing they have learnt, although it seems useless would be a pretty fantastic defence against the thing that they encountered in a street fight yesterday.   

Does that make sense?  I've still not had my second cup of tea today


----------



## CuongNhuka (Mar 26, 2007)

What I find intresting as I read this, is only one person has really made any attempt at all to say 100% one or the other, yet there are still people saying 100% evolution in the poll.
What I also find intresting (this is my major gripe with MMA) is that how do you know it doesn't work? Everything exists for a reason. And yet there are people who still beleive that traditionalism is a complete waste of time...


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 26, 2007)

This is a hard choice, I kind of think in some ways several of the answers could be best.

I think the arts do need to continue to change, as a living art.  First off, they DO change simply in the act of being passed on from teacher to student.  Nobody is a carbon copy of their instructor.  Everyone has strengths and weaknesses, likes and dislikes, talents, and such and this will dictate how they practice and execute their art.  So on a personal level it changes, simply in the act of teaching it.

That being said, I think the student needs to strive to learn and understand, to the best extent possible, what is being passed down, in its original intent.  But this can be difficult to do as social circumstances have changed and some of what was developed generations ago is no longer relevant, even to the point of being non-understandable without also being a scholar of history.  Something might be embedded in an art, and it made sense 300 years ago because of social norms: types of clothing worn, weaponry carried, slick and muddy streets that were not paved over, etc.  But today these things have changed, so whatever was originally built into the art to deal with these issues is no longer relevant.

But not just anybody should be in a hurry to make changes.  Knowing when one is ready to do so is the difficult part.  On one hand, I think we each have an individual responsibility to ourselves to make sure what we are doing is as relevant and useful as possible.  So if something doesn't work for us, we need to change it, at least for ourselves. 

But on the other hand, the newbie beginner who simply doesn't have the experience to make these decisions, has no business trying to make these changes.  Knowing where the line lies, over which one must cross before being able to make a good judgement about this, is the tough part.

But I do not believe that everything needs to be kept status quo, simply because some famous guy in the past made it up.  Nobody is perfect, and what works well for one person may not work so well for another.  This can be a reason to change something, at least on a personal level.

Maybe the basic structure of an art should remain essentially unchanged as long as it remains relevant.  But the individual needs to eventually make his own changes to make it best for himself...

Something to keep in mind: once upon a time, all that we now consider "traditional" martial arts, was cutting-edge during its heyday, and was created by forward thinkers who weren't afraid to make changes that they felt were necessary, in order to make their method the best it could be.


----------



## Steel Tiger (Mar 26, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> This is a hard choice, I kind of think in some ways several of the answers could be best.
> 
> I think the arts do need to continue to change, as a living art. First off, they DO change simply in the act of being passed on from teacher to student. Nobody is a carbon copy of their instructor. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses, likes and dislikes, talents, and such and this will dictate how they practice and execute their art. So on a personal level it changes, simply in the act of teaching it.


 
Any art that is truly ossified will die out.  There appears to be a natural evolution in most arts, in that slight changes occur as the art moves from teacher to student.  For example, my teacher is about six inches shorter than I am but similar shape, my kicking is also better than his.  As a result the version of the art I teach focuses on my strengths but does not exclude what I have been taught.


----------



## IWishToLearn (Mar 26, 2007)

I'm of the opinion that as long as what you're doing is still valid for today's needs, you're fine. When it isn't, you evolve.



kidswarrior said:


> Do you believe the Martial Arts should be all or mostly preserved intact, the way they were handed down by previous masters?
> 
> 100% Preserved?
> 
> ...


----------



## exile (Mar 26, 2007)

IWishToLearn said:


> I'm of the opinion that as long as what you're doing is still valid for today's needs, you're fine. When it isn't, you evolve.



This gets in a nutshell the thrust of a lot of the preceding discussion. You conserve (to preserve information that you may derive new knowledge from)_and_ you innovate (to adapt that knowledge to present conditions or to incorporate genuinely new discoveries). Two horses pulling the same carriage...


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Mar 27, 2007)

exile said:


> This gets in a nutshell the thrust of a lot of the preceding discussion. You conserve (to preserve information that you may derive new knowledge from)_and_ you innovate (to adapt that knowledge to present conditions or to incorporate genuinely new discoveries). Two horses pulling the same carriage...


 
Basically you keep cross-referencing the two, seeing how the information you already have(tradition) relates to the new information you are getting(evolution).
In cases where tradition is lacking information that corresponds to the new data coming in, you look among for other sources of data that relate to the subject.
So basically- Do we have something that covers this situation? If yes, test it. If not, look for more data.

The biggest problem is ensuring that you don't try to to warp the new data to fit the old frame-work. 
Instead the old frame-work should adapt to fit the new data.


----------



## Shaderon (Mar 27, 2007)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> Basically you keep cross-referencing the two, seeing how the information you already have(tradition) relates to the new information you are getting(evolution).
> In cases where tradition is lacking information that corresponds to the new data coming in, you look among for other sources of data that relate to the subject.
> So basically- Do we have something that covers this situation? If yes, test it. If not, look for more data.
> 
> ...


 

I was with you completely up until the last paragraph, can you explain your thinking more?   Because I can see that two ways.


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Mar 27, 2007)

Shaderon said:


> I was with you completely up until the last paragraph, can you explain your thinking more? Because I can see that two ways.


 
What I mean by the last paragraph is that you can't corrupt the new data to make it fit neater.
A good example of this is inserting things like guns or knives into unarmed training. We've all seen it, where the attacker makes the big huge lunging knife strike the freezes frame while he is daintily blocked and struck several times.
Whats happened here is that the new data is completely corrupted, and bears no resemblance to its original format- ie the realities of modern day knife attacks.
So its a case of making the system work WITH the new data, not just twisting the data so that the system doesn't need to change.


----------



## Blindside (Mar 27, 2007)

Steel Tiger said:


> Any art that is truly ossified will die out. There appears to be a natural evolution in most arts, in that slight changes occur as the art moves from teacher to student.


 
Or be preserved as a "fossil" of a previous time, valued for its historical value than its current martial worth.


----------



## Shaderon (Mar 27, 2007)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> What I mean by the last paragraph is that you can't corrupt the new data to make it fit neater.
> A good example of this is inserting things like guns or knives into unarmed training. We've all seen it, where the attacker makes the big huge lunging knife strike the freezes frame while he is daintily blocked and struck several times.
> Whats happened here is that the new data is completely corrupted, and bears no resemblance to its original format- ie the realities of modern day knife attacks.
> So its a case of making the system work WITH the new data, not just twisting the data so that the system doesn't need to change.


 

Ok I understand now, I was thinking you might be saying you have to change the way the old martial art works to fit new techniques... but I see you mean mould the old ways to fit new problems.  Yes I can see this and agree.


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Mar 27, 2007)

Shaderon said:


> Ok I understand now, I was thinking you might be saying you have to change the way the old martial art works to fit new techniques... but I see you mean mould the old ways to fit new problems. Yes I can see this and agree.


 
Personally I think just randomly slapping techniques onto an art is one of the worst ways of "improving" an art there is, and is often very detrimental because of the false sense of security it gives.
It also misses the point completely about how combat works I fear.
The key element of all combat is positioning, the abilty to put yourself in the position to best achieve your objective.

Its like chess, knowing how to play the game isn't just about the final move, its about knowing how to get to that position in the first place.
Arts where techniques are just tacked on to them are like people studying Chess who only ever learn about check-mate.
Its trying to play the game without knowing how it works.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 27, 2007)

90% 10%


----------



## kidswarrior (Mar 28, 2007)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> Personally I think just randomly slapping techniques onto an art is one of the worst ways of "improving" an art there is, and is often very detrimental because of the false sense of security it gives.
> 
> Its like chess, knowing how to play the game isn't just about the final move, its about knowing how to get to that position in the first place.
> Arts where techniques are just tacked on to them are like people studying Chess who only ever learn about check-mate.
> Its trying to play the game without knowing how it works.



Like reacting without thought, instead of acting in line with our overall goals. Or as _The Way of Kata_ stresses, tacking on techniques randomly is missing the need for a well developed strategy before trying to make tactical adjustments. The strategy is preplanned, and guides all later decisions. Tactics are the spur of the moment ways we accomplishment the strategic goals. Too many people--and whole MA schools--jump around from tactic to tactic without a clear overall set of combat beliefs. So without a clear strategy, how will we know if new tactics fit our system or not, are helpful or harmful to our abilities to realistically combat an aggressor?


----------



## exile (Mar 28, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> Like reacting without thought, instead of acting in line with our overall goals. Or as _The Way of Kata_ stresses, tacking on techniques randomly is missing the need for a well developed strategy before trying to make tactical adjustments. The strategy is preplanned, and guides all later decisions. Tactics are the spur of the moment ways we accomplishment the strategic goals. Too many people--and whole MA schools--jump around from tactic to tactic without a clear overall set of combat beliefs. So without a clear strategy, how will we know if our tactics fit our system or not, are helpful or harmful to our abilities to realistically combat an aggressor?



Exactly right, kdswrrrthe problem of combining different `styles' (I wish there were a better name but can't think of one) is really the problem of reconciling often very different strategic approaches. Even amongst striking styles, say, there are significant differences. The foundational principles of unarmed combat using strikes as the primary weapon are the same throughout, but Wing Chun seems to apply them in quite a different way than Karate or TKD do...

The point of the old fable about the hedgehog and the fox, as I recall, is that the hedgehog usually does better with the one trick s/he knows than the fox does with a dozen or more, and the resulting confusion about which one to use when the crunch comes...


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 28, 2007)

Not sure if this has been addressed or not in this post but what I feel is more important here is not so much the evolution of the martial art as the evolution of the martial artist.

If it has been addressed my apologies


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Mar 28, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> Like reacting without thought, instead of acting in line with our overall goals. Or as _The Way of Kata_ stresses, tacking on techniques randomly is missing the need for a well developed strategy before trying to make tactical adjustments. The strategy is preplanned, and guides all later decisions. Tactics are the spur of the moment ways we accomplishment the strategic goals. Too many people--and whole MA schools--jump around from tactic to tactic without a clear overall set of combat beliefs. So without a clear strategy, how will we know if new tactics fit our system or not, are helpful or harmful to our abilities to realistically combat an aggressor?


 
True. Before any basic tactics can be developed, an overall strategy must be formed. The way I see it, there are four primary strategies, relating to the four main areas in which unarmed combat can be a factor.

Competition- Putting yourself in position to either submit or knock out your opponent.
Self-defence- Putting yourself in a position to escape from danger.
Security - Putting yourself in a position to restrain an individual
Military- Putting yourself in a position to make use of a superior weapon.

Within each of these strategic objectives, there are numerous tactics that can be used to achieve them. So when developing or adding any tactics its important to analyse two main factors:
Does this help or hinder my strategic objective?
Do I have a back up plan?

To my mind its important not only to develop tactics for achieving your objective, but to also develops ones which deal with what happens when things go wrong.
Take ground-fighting in self-defence. Many people correctly state that you do not want to go to ground in a self defence situation (I refuse to use the phrase street fight).
However the fact that you do not want it to happen does not remove the possibilty of it happening, so its important to also develop tactics for preventing it or dealing with it when it does.


----------



## kidswarrior (Mar 28, 2007)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> True. Before any basic tactics can be developed, an overall strategy must be formed. The way I see it, there are four primary strategies, relating to the four main areas in which unarmed combat can be a factor.
> 
> Competition- Putting yourself in position to either submit or knock out your opponent.
> Self-defence- Putting yourself in a position to escape from danger.
> ...


 
Agreed. :ultracool


----------



## kidswarrior (Mar 28, 2007)

exile said:


> Exactly right, kdswrrrthe problem of combining different `styles' (I wish there were a better name but can't think of one) is really the problem of reconciling often very different strategic approaches. Even amongst striking styles, say, there are significant differences. The foundational principles of unarmed combat using strikes as the primary weapon are the same throughout, but Wing Chun seems to apply them in quite a different way than Karate or TKD do...
> 
> The point of the old fable about the hedgehog and the fox, as I recall, is that the hedgehog usually does better with the one trick s/he knows than the fox does with a dozen or more, and the resulting confusion about which one to use when the crunch comes...


 
Good point, and analogy.



> Originally Posted by *Shotgun Buddha*
> 
> 
> _True. Before any basic tactics can be developed, an overall strategy must be formed...._
> ...


 

_OK, so going back to the original question of which should have more weight in practicing a martial art, tradition or evolution, and using our strategic/tactical understanding. Do I want to stick with tradition as the basis for a strategy, or go with experience and practicality in building a strategy. Or, neither, or both?_


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Mar 28, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> _OK, so going back to the original question of which should have more weight in practicing a martial art, tradition or evolution, and using our strategic/tactical understanding. Do I want to stick with tradition as the basis for a strategy, or go with experience and practicality in building a strategy. Or, neither, or both?_


 
Thats entirely dependant on testing. First off, test how the traditional strategy handles the new situation. And I mean proper, extensive testing

Does it handle it well?
Does it need some improvement?
Or are you doomed?
If it handles it well, obviously we do not have a problem.
If it handles it alright, but with some flaws, study up on the subject, and do some tweaking to suit it.
If you are doomed, its time to start looking for other methods of dealing with it.
In that case the obvious choice is to examine the methods used by people who deal with that situation regularly and effectively. Then examine how you can incoporate those methods with your own, and fit them into the strategic plan.

So basically, it depends entirely on the style and the problem.


----------



## gblnking (Mar 28, 2007)

Tradition vs. evolution? Simple. If your selling your school (and stlyle) as self defense then you have to evolve. If Great Grandmaster Fu Man Chew's school of Drunken Alligator has as it's tradition perfected the art of the leaping side kick but down the street Sluggo's school of *** kickery has learned (see evolved) how to step out of the way and counter with a whirling hair pull then Sluggo's students are better prepared for actual self defense. Keep some of the traditions, they make it interesting rather than just "kick, punch, repeat" all day but If you want to train good fighters/self defenders you must evolve to meet the changing world.


----------



## exile (Mar 28, 2007)

gblnking said:


> Tradition vs. evolution? Simple. If your selling your school (and stlyle) as self defense then you have to evolve. If Great Grandmaster Fu Man Chew's school of Drunken Alligator has as it's tradition perfected the art of the leaping side kick but down the street Sluggo's school of *** kickery has learned (see evolved) how to step out of the way and counter with a whirling hair pull then Sluggo's students are better prepared for actual self defense. Keep some of the traditions, they make it interesting rather than just "kick, punch, repeat" all day but If you want to train good fighters/self defenders you must evolve to meet the changing world.



Here's the thing, though. Conditions do change, I believe, but I suspect more in the nature of fighting environments, weapons and other aspects of the setting. But do you actually think that Sluggo's students know anything about streetfighting that wasn't known to the street thugs in Yokahama eighty years ago (or to the robbers, bandits and other lowlife that Matsumura, in his capacity as the King of Okinawa's chief `sheriff', as well as chief bodyguard, had to face and beat into submission a hundred years ago and more)? This is something that you have to bear in mindthe habitual acts of violence that initiate physical attacks in modern setting, the ones studies e.g. the karateka and `pavement arena' experts of the British Combat Association and other experts like Patrick McCarthy, are _exactly_ the ones that realistic bunkai for karate kata turn out to provide severely effective responses to. 

This seems like pretty good evidence that in terms of street violence `technique', there's not much new under the sun. Rummage around in the archives to find that `Police Shotokan' video, watch it a few times, and ask yourself just how much you would want to be a street thug, regardless of what you thought you knew, who had _that_ kind of violence directed at him. And then ask yourself how many dojos _train_ that way...

There's bound to be some technical movement forward and updating. But I think that what really has to evolve is _training methodology_, in the direction of ever more realistic methods that still keep you out of hospital.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Mar 28, 2007)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> Take ground-fighting in self-defence. Many people correctly state that you do not want to go to ground in a self defence situation (I refuse to use the phrase street fight).
> However the fact that you do not want it to happen does not remove the possibilty of it happening, so its important to also develop tactics for preventing it or dealing with it when it does.


 
I agree with you up to this point. Here, I'm about 75/25. There are situations were grappling would be not only warrented, but the best plan of attack. If your drunk uncle Bob is giving you grief, and swings, an arm bar is probably better then breaking his nose. Many arm locks can be modified into a knife disarm. If you're sitting/laying down you might not have much of a choice. 
But that goes agian to evolution. I don't know of many styles that teach fighting from a sitting position, or when you are on the ground and your opponent is not. But you can easily take what you have and alter it so it works. My arm lock to disarm is anouther good example. I could take most Aikido locks and make them into a disarm with pretty much no thought. Not the intended prupose, but it works within the way it's done.


----------



## exile (Mar 28, 2007)

BTW, in my post above, I was definitely not saying that MA technique doesn't have to evolve. It certainly _will_ do so, as I've suggested earlier, as new discoveries are made about what works well and what works _better_; green meanie's earlier post is very much to the point here. All I wanted to emphasize is that I don't think the main stress pushing that evolution will come from novel ways of attacking, cooked up in the creative imaginations of street thugs. What drives MA evolution, I believe, is new knowledge based on critical thinking about how to combine safety, efficiency (in the sense of getting the greatest effect with the least expenditure of motion/energy) and realism. There are great ideas out there about this trio of desiderata that no one's thought of yet, you can bank on it. But what I _don't_ think is the case is the possibility of Sluggo and his `students' figuring out new ways to begin an aggressive, untrained violent encounter with you (apart from novel weapons, and that's a whole different discussion...)


----------



## funnytiger (Mar 29, 2007)

I couldn't really figure out how to choose.

When I think tradition when it comes to MA I think of the peripherals that surround the techniques and applications. So in my case, I think of lion dancing, Bai Si, etc. That is what I think of when I think tradition. I think that the techniques and applications themselves should constantly be evolving, but should always hold the integrity of the original.

Not sure if that made sense...

- ft


----------



## kidswarrior (Mar 29, 2007)

funnytiger said:


> I couldn't really figure out how to choose.
> 
> *I think that the techniques and applications themselves should constantly be evolving, but should always hold the integrity of the original.*
> 
> ...



This makes a ton of sense to me. :ultracool


----------



## funnytiger (Mar 30, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> This makes a ton of sense to me. :ultracool


 
Yaaaaaay! {Imaging me throwing my arms in the air and waving them around like a Muppet.}


----------



## Laurentkd (Mar 30, 2007)

funnytiger said:


> I couldn't really figure out how to choose.
> 
> When I think tradition when it comes to MA I think of the peripherals that surround the techniques and applications. So in my case, I think of lion dancing, Bai Si, etc. That is what I think of when I think tradition. I think that the techniques and applications themselves should constantly be evolving, but should always hold the integrity of the original.
> 
> ...


 
I think you make perfect sense!!


----------



## exile (Mar 30, 2007)

I've been thinking about KidsWarrior's original question... am not really satisfied with anything I've had to say about it so far. It seems to me that it's really a different question than what I was considering earlier in the thread, and it occurred to me that there's a very important difference between the very general notion `change' and the more specific concept of `evolution'... when I say `you' here, remember I mean `anyone' (saves a lot of typing  )

The notion of `evolution' is, ultimately, always based on the biological model that it came from. And in biology, evolution is driven by _necessity_. Crudely put, you have what it takes and you live, you don't have what it takes and you die. Fashion, or styles in art and literature and music, aren't evolutionary in this sense. Just one of a huge number of examples: Fritz Kreisler, a violin supervirtuoso in the early 20th century, composed a number of pieces in various 18th century styles that were acclaimed as great music: styles had changed, but 20th century genius expressing itself in 18th century idiom is completely convincing, apparently. The essence of evolution is different in a very important way: it implies that the change involved isn't a matter of taste, or whim (as vs: skirt heights go up, go down; ties get thicker, thinner, thicker, ad nauseum&#8212;that sort of thing). Evolution is the response of some living system to necessity&#8212;pitiless unforgiving reality. So in a sense, as soon as you bring in evolution, the answer has to be, `of course, evolution, because whatever is necessary will, by definition, have to occur.'

So then the question is, what would cause _necessary_ change in MA systems that themselves arose in response to the necessities of their own time?

One possibility is that the kind of violent personal conflict that modern MAists have to face is fundamentally different from those of, say, late 19th c. Okinawa. The evidence here is bleak for anyone who wants to claim that Sluggo the thug and his knuckle-dragging buddies know anything more than their Asian counterparts 150 years ago in Okinawa, Japan, Seoul or Shanghai did. I've ranted about this stuff in different threads, but the fact is: what Patrick McCarthy calls the `habitual acts of violence'&#8212;the moves that initiate a violent conflict&#8212;appear to be unchanged since Matusumura shaped the basis of modern karate and its offspring. Virtually every tech recoverable by intelligent bunkai from karate/TSD/TKD forms (think late 19th c., early 20th c.) matches up with the most commont attacking moves observed by contemporary violence experts (think late 20th, early 21st c.). I can document these statements if anyone is interested. If this story is on the right track, the 19th c. karateka saw pretty much everything that there was to see in the way of assault initiation. Anything you're going to be hit with in a 21st c. bar, Anko Itosu already knew about in the 1890s. Work out the bunkai to the kata and you've got the key to the kingdom in your hands, right there.

So where does the notion of evolution come from so far as the MAs are concerned? One part of the answer is I think that while there are no new attacking strategies that you have to worry about&#8212;anything you're going to be facing: would-be sucker punches, head-butts, upper-body grabs combined with punches to the head, groin strike, you name it&#8212;there are new ways to respond based on the difference between 19th c. Asian norms of courtesy and `face' that are very different in N. America and elsewhere in the West. In particular:

(i) you can feign deference, while keeping your arms in a position which blocks almost any strike thrown by the attacker while positioning yourself to move to all-out attack as soon as the opportunity presents itself(the Fence tactic; see Bill Burgar's work on moderning the form of kata to incorporate this tactic in a way completely harmonious with classical karate strategy);

(ii) unlike our legally unarmed Okinawan MA ancestor, you can carry throwing weapons such as stars which will make a _hell_ of an impression on a would-be attacker who doesn't know what you're capable of, as a preliminary to your take-no-prisoners empty-hand techs (knifehand to throat, claw-hand to eyes, elbow-strikes all over the head and face);

(iii) you can absorb the various techs of the classical era&#8212;this takes a lot of work, but masters like Iain Abernethy, Patrick McCarthy, Bill Burgar, Kris Kane, Lawrence Wilder or our own Robert Rivers, Jay Penfil (and many others on MT) have provided us with terrific analyses and video resources for this aspect of our MA education&#8212;and you can then try to visualize the utilization of these techs in specialized scenarios: an elevator, for example, or a subway (all those hanging straps to grab suddenly, pull yourself up with and deliver a fracturing kick to an assailant's jaw... etc.) In other words, adapt the techs to contemporary _physical environments_...

To do this well, you really have to understand the intentions and limits of the classical strategy/tactics mixes in the traditional form of the MA you study. A lot of stuff that's relevant and valuable is still in there, waiting to be discovered. But if you don't understand what that front stance really _is_ (not a stance you assume, but rather, code for driving your bodyweight into a lock on the attacker's joint), and so on, you won't be able to adapt your practice in a logical way to whatever is genuinly new in CQ combat in the early 21st c....

I'm just trying to think this whole question through, y'understand, eh?


----------



## Adept (Mar 31, 2007)

exile said:


> So then the question is, what would cause _necessary_ change in MA systems that themselves arose in response to the necessities of their own time?



I think the issue is that many martial arts schools removed themselves from those evolutionary pressures. Their students were no longer *fighters*, but suburban housewives and stockbrokers whose reasons for training were not the same as the people who trained hundreds of years ago. But given the lack of 'survive or die' pressures present in modern society, these schools were allowed to continue, and even prosper as their advertising campaigns and softer work ethic took hold, while the more 'hardcore' martial arts schools faded into the background.

Now, we haven't yet encountered a situation where those schools that do not teach effective fighting techniques and strategies are forced to evolve or die, but we can certainly see why, if their students wanted to remain as effective as possible, they would need to change their systems. Need to evolve, if you will.


----------



## exile (Mar 31, 2007)

Adept said:


> I think the issue is that many martial arts schools removed themselves from those evolutionary pressures. Their students were no longer *fighters*, but suburban housewives and stockbrokers whose reasons for training were not the same as the people who trained hundreds of years ago.



I've been thinking along the same lines for a while now. 



Adept said:


> But given the lack of 'survive or die' pressures present in modern society, these schools were allowed to continue, and even prosper as their advertising campaigns and softer work ethic took hold, while the more 'hardcore' martial arts schools faded into the background.
> 
> Now, we haven't yet encountered a situation where those schools that do not teach effective fighting techniques and strategies are forced to evolve or die, but we can certainly see why, if their students wanted to remain as effective as possible, they would need to change their systems. Need to evolve, if you will.



Yes, they would need to start training differently. And that training itself could well result in important technical innovations. It would definitely `clean out' some of the largely decorative or cosmetic effects of tourament sparring-based practice.

That raises an interesting point: we _have_ seen evidence of evolution in the MAs when these are televised for competition. The very specialized environment of televised spectator sports has _independently_ driven both TKD and karate to develop elaborate, flashy high kicks which reward acrobatics more than damage potential, and what's interesting is that comments by karateka about the distorting effect of ring competition on karate's technique set sound word-for-word like what people say about TKD, even though karateka aren't (so far as I know, anyway) consciously borrowing TKD high-kick/low hand practice. It's just something which evolved under conditions of necessityin this case, the necessity imposed by maximizing entertainment value. It may not represent _progress_, but it's certainly an instance of _evolution_...


----------



## kidswarrior (Mar 31, 2007)

exile said:


> I've been thinking along the same lines for a while now.
> 
> Yes, they would need to start training differently. And that training itself could well result in important technical innovations. It would definitely `clean out' some of the largely decorative or cosmetic effects of tourament sparring-based practice.



Interesting, Exile, that you use the word 'innovation', which I almost chose over 'evolution' when framing the question. Finally chose not to, because the former seems to involve a pinch of choice in the matter, while the latter seems to be driven pretty exclusively by necessity. I believe you made this point rather clearly in a previous post.



> That raises an interesting point: we _have_ seen evidence of evolution in the MAs when these are televised for competition. The very specialized environment of televised spectator sports has _independently_ driven both TKD and karate to develop elaborate, flashy high kicks which reward acrobatics more than damage potential
> 
> It's just something which evolved under conditions of necessityin this case, the necessity imposed by maximizing entertainment value. It may not represent _progress_, but it's certainly an instance of _evolution_...


And here you point out one of my presuppostions in the orignal question. I intended the evolution under consideration to be the need for having the best fighting arts possible. But as you illustrate, the *Big Bucks* could also assert pressure, which could lead to 'evolution', if also perhaps degradation of an art's fighting effectiveness. We also see this, BTW, in China's declaration of Wushu as the official version of Chinese MA to be presented to the world. Talk about flashy....


----------



## exile (Mar 31, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> I intended the evolution under consideration to be the need for having the best fighting arts possible. But as you illustrate, the *Big Bucks* could also assert pressure, which could lead to 'evolution', if also perhaps degradation of an art's fighting effectiveness. We also see this, BTW, in China's declaration of Wushu as the official version of Chinese MA to be presented to the world. Talk about flashy....



Yes, this is a very flagrant example... and one which Flying Crane raised some months ago; I don't remember the thread name, but he pointed out that there is a _lot_ of pressure in China to mold traditional CMAs in the direction of, well, the entertainment industry. What the Chinese seem to have concluded is that if you take a `working' MA with rolled-up sleeves and adapt it to ring conditions, you get a glitzified version of the MA as a martial sport which is, however, still constrained by some simulation of a combat situation, however artificial. The next step to ramping up the flash-quotient is apparently to remove that constraint entirely and replace the martial _combat_ sport with a martial _acrobatic_ sport. And they've basically done this in one go, bypassing the televised CMA point-sparring stage and going directly to the acrobatic stage.

And again we have an independent parallel case, showing convergent evolution: the emergence of XMA as the hottest new marketing trick in the sportotainment world. If you look at what, e.g., Mullins' Sideswipe demo team does, it's basically a bunch of complex cheerleading routines built on MA movements, with out and out acrobatics. The style is much more karate-like than wushu-like, not surprising given Mullins' background, but it's really a kind of linear-art Wushu. Once again, the evolutionary pressure supplied by the lure of the long green is hard to defy...


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 2, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> Big Bucks could also assert pressure, which could lead to 'evolution', if also perhaps degradation of an art's fighting effectiveness. We also see this, BTW, in China's declaration of Wushu as the official version of Chinese MA to be presented to the world. Talk about flashy....



Although exile gave you good examples, you do not have to go all the way to China for Wushu or look to XMA to find de-evolution of an art.

Just look at the majority of the Taiji schools in the US, particularly the Yang style schools. Many who train taiji today in the US do not even know it IS a martial art. I wrote post months ago on the death of Taiji and it is mostly due to the mighty dollar. More people will take Taiji if it is a slow moving exercise for heath than if you say it is a martial art.

Many traditional styles have caved to the pressure of money. How many Traditional CMA schools in the US require stance training these days? How many actually train as hard as they use to? 

And now then you get the  MMA vs. TMA arguments that is both valid and baseless. Valid from the stand point of the LACK of training in many TMA schools today and baseless because if TMA is trained the way it should be, or use to be, it is incredibly effective.

Things, in my opinion, today are devolving more than evolving and this is due to the pressure of the mighty dollar.


----------



## exile (Apr 2, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> Although exile gave you good examples, you do not have to go all the way to China for Wushu or look to XMA to find de-evolution of an art.
> 
> Just look at the majority of the Taiji schools in the US, particularly the Yang style schools. Many who train taiji today in the US do not even know it IS a martial art. I wrote post months ago on the death of Taiji and it is mostly due to the mighty dollar. More people will take Taiji if it is a slow moving exercise for heath than if you say it is a martial art.
> 
> ...



Right, right and right again, XS (very sharp observation about the MMA/TMA kind of arguments)though fortunately, there are movements in at least certain TMAs in the other direction: the karate-based MAs are moving forward, IMO, with the bunkai-jutsu/realistic training movement in the UK and a few other places leading the charge for Japanese styles and TKD (the Okinawan styles have, I'm pretty sure, maintained their combat orientation and realistic bunkai/oyo components much better than the Japanese and Korean variants over the past thirty years). But this is still a minority movement; right now, sport karate and XMA are way in the lead.

What I'm wondering aboutthis is something you, Flying Crane and other CMA practitioners would knowis if there's a comparable movement within the Chinese arts of the same sort, the recovery of effective combat techniques and the realistic training of those techniques. I have no idea at all of how things are in the traditional Chinese combat arts... do you have any information about anything along these lines, guys?


----------



## HKphooey (Apr 2, 2007)

Tradition is what keeps us from walking into a bar and picking a fight and using the evolution.


----------



## TraditionalTKD (Apr 2, 2007)

I think you need to have the core (basic techniques, etiquette) that don't change. Those should be based on solid principles-biomechanics, history, physics, philosophy. Any thing else is open to debate, interpretation, and evolution. 
For example, in Kukkiwon TKD, the basics and etiquette don't change. You can go around the world and basics and etiquette are the same. Now how a form is executed, free fighting, self defense. even logic behind techniques will change according to preferences and mindset of the instructor. If the changes are beneficial, TKD will grow and evolve. If the changes are detrimental, that Instructor's organization and students will perish.


----------



## Shaderon (Apr 3, 2007)

TraditionalTKD said:


> I think you need to have the core (basic techniques, etiquette) that don't change. Those should be based on solid principles-biomechanics, history, physics, philosophy. Any thing else is open to debate, interpretation, and evolution.
> For example, in Kukkiwon TKD, the basics and etiquette don't change. You can go around the world and basics and etiquette are the same. Now how a form is executed, free fighting, self defense. even logic behind techniques will change according to preferences and mindset of the instructor. If the changes are beneficial, TKD will grow and evolve. If the changes are detrimental, that Instructor's organization and students will perish.


 

I don't think they will neccessarily perish if the changes are detrimental, unless they get real combat testing, you can pass unsound knowledge on for centuries before anyone realises it's unsound.  I think that's one reason for keeping traditional training as well as evolving, to preserve the things that do work as well as trying out new things.


----------



## TraditionalTKD (Apr 3, 2007)

I tend to agree. However, I also don't believe you can or should pass knowledge simply because "That's how we've always done it." One nice thing about, say, Kukkiwon TKD-it's willingness to grow, evolve, and change things as concepts become outdated. Not just do things because that's the way it's always been done. There should be a reason for doing anything, and a good Instructor should know what that reason is. If there is not a good reason for doing something, don't do it. That's one of the reasons why the TKD we practice is different than it was 50 years ago. Our knowlege of the body changes and we incorporate that into practice.
Again, keep the core foundation of any art, but anything else is open to discussion.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 3, 2007)

exile said:


> Right, right and right


 
Hey... isn't that a left?




exile said:


> What I'm wondering aboutthis is something you, Flying Crane and other CMA practitioners would knowis if there's a comparable movement within the Chinese arts of the same sort, the recovery of effective combat techniques and the realistic training of those techniques. I have no idea at all of how things are in the traditional Chinese combat arts... do you have any information about anything along these lines, guys?


 
I dont know how others in CMA feel but I would say more no than yes to be completely honest.

Yes there are some that are looking to traditional CMA and training traditionally and it is hard training and to become effective in some (many) of the CMA styles it takes a long time and a lot of training and there are a lot of people that simply do not want to take the time. 

However there are also some that think they are returning to tradition when in reality they are combining arts for example like Taiji and Karate and calling it taiji or combat taiji or martial taiji and although it is effective, it is not taiji.

And then you still have this massive influx of people coming in that really dont want the martial arts they just want pretty movements and bragging rights. This is also why there are very few Xingyi practitioners by comparison, the form is not pretty and the training hurts.

And what is even making it worse are that there are some rather big names in CMA that are feeding into this problem and just making it worse. And of course then there is the Chinese government that is not helping things either. Pushing Wushu and Wushu rankings every chance they get

It appears that the only way you can pretty much guarantee that you will be getting a fighting CMA these days is Sanshou and the majority of that is sport and none of it is considered traditional. 

However if you find a CMA practitioner that has trained hard at his or her given style, whether they have done traditional style training (meaning things like stance training) or not you are still getting effective CMA people.


----------



## funnytiger (Apr 3, 2007)

HKphooey said:


> Tradition is what keeps us from walking into a bar and picking a fight and using the evolution.


 
LOL! Right on!!


----------



## kidswarrior (Apr 4, 2007)

Thanks to everyone who has participated in the survey or posted so far. :asian:

I really do believe I learn the most when posing questions, and certainly have learned quite a bit from this one. Hope someone else may have also benefitted.

~kidswarrior


----------



## exile (Apr 4, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> Hey... isn't that a left?



Nice one, XS! 





Xue Sheng said:


> I don&#8217;t know how others in CMA feel but I would say more no than yes to be completely honest.
> 
> Yes there are some that are looking to traditional CMA and training traditionally and it is hard training and to become effective in some (many) of the CMA styles it takes a long time and a lot of training and there are a lot of people that simply do not want to take the time.
> 
> ...



This is very interesting, and in a way, I'm not surprised to learn that the CMAs, with their genuinely ancient history and (to me, anyway) incredibly complex lineage relationships and subtle parallels and differences, have a somewhat different line of development from the Okinawan/Japanese/Korean variants of karate. It will be very, very interesting to see how all this plays out over the next generation. 



kidswarrior said:


> Thanks to everyone who has participated in the survey or posted so far. :asian:



Thank _you_ for getting one of the all-time great threads on MT going, kidswarrior. It's a topic with great depth to it. 



kidswarrior said:


> I really do believe I learn the most when posing questions, and certainly have learned quite a bit from this one. Hope someone else may have also benefitted.
> 
> ~kidswarrior



No question about that one!


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 5, 2007)

exile said:


> This is very interesting, and in a way, I'm not surprised to learn that the CMAs, with their genuinely ancient history and (to me, anyway) incredibly complex lineage relationships and subtle parallels and differences, have a somewhat different line of development from the Okinawan/Japanese/Korean variants of karate. It will be very, very interesting to see how all this plays out over the next generation.


 
Another thing, I neglected to mention is that there are some rather talented Martial artist coming out of China as well as big family named, martial artist coming out of China to the USA that are catering to Americans. They want to make a buck and they know if they tell them to go stand in &#8220;ma bu&#8221; for a hour or &#8220;santi shi&#8221; for 20 minutes or stand there hit a tree (actually this is an example I am not trying to be funny here) they will not come back and pay them money, so they lighten things up. 

I had a chance to talk with one of these people and because my wife is Chinese, I trained Xingyi before and my Taiji line comes from Tung (any or all of the above, I am not exactly sure) he did tell me that most CMA people in and out of China do not take Westerners seriously as Martial Artist, at least not at first. If one proves to them they are serious then things are different and this CMA person would teach depth to those that he felt were serious and he would even arrange to help them to come to China a train if they wanted to. He would not discourage the non-serious nor would he encourage them or help as much either. But it has been his experience that the vast majority wants to collect forms and not learn depth and if you teach them depth they leave. This attitude, although I do agree with it, is not helping the situation. 

Bottom-line; Why waste time teaching someone something they do not want to learn or will not train once learned. But this does in effect help the de-evolution along if you teach them CMA light.


----------



## cswinsf23 (Apr 5, 2007)

Without reading too many of the responses, the first initial thought is that tradition is positively necessary.  Without tradition, would be bow to show respect?  Without tradition would we wear shoes inside the school? And so on.

However, I believe evolution is key to being stonger physically.  But is physical strength the most important?  What happened to being well-rounded with physical strength, spiritual one-ness and being mentally invincible?  The last two is what I see lacking in many schools today.  Students are great and strong but their spirit is weak and they give up too easily or get upset without reason.

I'm torn between the two sides, because I trained in traditional arts for almost a decade then transitioned to olympic style sparring and workouts.

Most recently Dr. Min of UC Berkeley said something that has been on my mind since I read his article in the paper (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic.../23/DDGT8OOETA44.DTL&hw=dr+min&sn=001&sc=1000http://www.ucmap.org) - "I teach my students what they WANT to learn"

And so, I have started to ask my students before classes, what would you like to learn today?


----------



## exile (Apr 5, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> But it has been his experience that the vast majority wants to collect forms and not learn depth and if you teach them depth they leave. This attitude, although I do agree with it, is not helping the situation.
> 
> Bottom-line; Why waste time teaching someone something they do not want to learn or will not train once learned. But this does in effect help the de-evolution along if you teach them CMA light.



This has come up before, and is central to the whole current state of the MAs. When the evolutionary pressure comes from survivability under street conditions, you are going to get MAs of a very different character than when the pressure comes from the drive to make a buck (_lots_ of bucks if you do it right) in the sportotainment world or the analogue of `Stars on Ice'  professional spectacles made up of glitzy slick tricks. Modern Western society doesn't have the major dangers and grave threats that the Asian town street held a century agoI believe it was Bushi Matsumura, the father of linear karate, whose father was beaten to death by drunks in a mid-19th Shuri alley, and there seem to have been others amongst the great pioneer karateka who had been witnesses to or victims of this kind of violence. Law enforcement being pretty thin on the ground back then and there, you pretty much had to be respnsible for your own survival. 

These days, with courts, LEOs, security guards, restraining orders and a huge judicial system, the normals of culture have changes so profoundly from the preceding picture that it's virtually impossible for us to recover the mind-set of the MA pioneers. You had to make many of your own clothes, grow much of your own food, and provide the major part of your own justice and security back then. CMA (or JMA/KMA/FMA/...) lite fits a significantly different set of prorities. These days, people are much more worried about gum disease than violent attack (at least to the extent that they're motivated to take action to prevent one or the other). That's the main reason I think why the MAs are able to shift their focus to generating $$ from media exposure...


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 5, 2007)

exile said:


> What I'm wondering aboutthis is something you, Flying Crane and other CMA practitioners would knowis if there's a comparable movement within the Chinese arts of the same sort, the recovery of effective combat techniques and the realistic training of those techniques. I have no idea at all of how things are in the traditional Chinese combat arts... do you have any information about anything along these lines, guys?


 

Wow, I've been away from this thread for quite a while, I should be checking back more often.  I'll have to go back and read thru it all and see just where we are now.

As to this point, yes, even in the Modern Wushu crowd there is a movement to reclaim the effective use of the art as a combat method.  My sifu mentioned that there are some prominent wushu people, I believe Jet Li being among them, who feel that the combat usefulness of the art should not be completely lost, and they are working to reclaim that aspect of the art.  I don't know precisely what they are doing about it, but it is something I recall my sifu mentioned.

I personally believe, however, that the proliferation of the BUSINESS of martial arts, as well as it's ENTERTAINMENT and SPECTACLE aspects will continue to ensure a proliferation of flashy, amazing, entertaining, and worthless Chinese martial arts.  But if you search hard enough, you will find that the good traditional ones are still out there, just in smaller numbers and with a lower profile.  At least if I have anything to say about it...


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 5, 2007)

exile said:


> This has come up before, and is central to the whole current state of the MAs. When the evolutionary pressure comes from survivability under street conditions, you are going to get MAs of a very different character than when the pressure comes from the drive to make a buck (_lots_ of bucks if you do it right) in the sportotainment world or the analogue of `Stars on Ice' professional spectacles made up of glitzy slick tricks. Modern Western society doesn't have the major dangers and grave threats that the Asian town street held a century agoI believe it was Bushi Matsumura, the father of linear karate, whose father was beaten to death by drunks in a mid-19th Shuri alley, and there seem to have been others amongst the great pioneer karateka who had been witnesses to or victims of this kind of violence. Law enforcement being pretty thin on the ground back then and there, you pretty much had to be respnsible for your own survival.
> 
> These days, with courts, LEOs, security guards, restraining orders and a huge judicial system, the normals of culture have changes so profoundly from the preceding picture that it's virtually impossible for us to recover the mind-set of the MA pioneers. You had to make many of your own clothes, grow much of your own food, and provide the major part of your own justice and security back then. CMA (or JMA/KMA/FMA/...) lite fits a significantly different set of prorities. These days, people are much more worried about gum disease than violent attack (at least to the extent that they're motivated to take action to prevent one or the other). That's the main reason I think why the MAs are able to shift their focus to generating $$ from media exposure...


 

Absolutey positively the truth.  As long as we in the West live in a fluffy, coddled society where we are essentially taken care of, our martial arts will always be inferior.  There is no real reason for them to be any more than that.  Our lives are never really put on the line, so we never need to rise to that challenge.

If we go thru a period where our societal and governmental establishments crumble and our judicial and law enforcement networks become ineffective, then we will see a rise in the quality of our arts, as some will figure out that they need to be better than that.  If we are put into real danger and manage to survive it, we will learn and take steps to correct our inadequacies.


----------



## exile (Apr 5, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> Wow, I've been away from this thread for quite a while, I should be checking back more often.  I'll have to go back and read thru it all and see just where we are now.
> 
> As to this point, yes, even in the Modern Wushu crowd there is a movement to reclaim the effective use of the art as a combat method.  My sifu mentioned that there are some prominent wushu people, I believe Jet Li being among them, who feel that the combat usefulness of the art should not be completely lost, and they are working to reclaim that aspect of the art.  I don't know precisely what they are doing about it, but it is something I recall my sifu mentioned.



My sense is, these things start informally, in a kind of disorganized way, with people muttering to each other about not getting any respect and why is that, and, well, it's because we're not perceived as street-effective, and maybe that's the sign of a real problem... and then a few of the mutterers start trying to rethink their training and the way they use the techs from their art and the principles that those techs implement, and get together in each other's schools and garages and whatnot, and voila, a movement is born. That seems to be the way it happened in the karate-based arts. So it's likely that something similar is happening in the CMA world. If the pattern has anything in common with the O/J/KMA development, it's likely that the movement back to indigenous technical basics and fighting application will happen somewhere other than the country of origin&#8212;in Karate/TKD, it's been UK people primarily who've led the charge. It wouldn't surpise me at all if the CMA `combat revival' gets going in North America first.




Flying Crane said:


> I personally believe, however, that the proliferation of the BUSINESS of martial arts, as well as it's ENTERTAINMENT and SPECTACLE aspects will continue to ensure a proliferation of flashy, amazing, entertaining, and worthless Chinese martial arts.  But if you search hard enough, you will find that the good traditional ones are still out there, just in smaller numbers and with a lower profile.



I think you're right about that, that the traditional CMA combat arts will always be numerically overshadowed by the glitz bandwagon. But you folks who are serious about the combat content of the CMAs will probably increase in numbers as well, and so we'll have two separate tracks, just as there are signs of developing in TKD and other karate-based arts:  an international sports entertainment version and a combat version honed and resharpened to be effective under realistic attack/defense situations. 



Flying Crane said:


> At least if I have anything to say about it...








 That's all it takes, or at least, that's most of what it takes: the determination to pursue and continue the art with both eyes on its original grim purposes. It comes down to _will_ in the end, as with so many things...


----------



## Adept (Apr 5, 2007)

cswinsf23 said:


> Without tradition, would be bow to show respect?



Is there a good reason to do so, apart from the fact we've always done so?



cswinsf23 said:


> Without tradition would we wear shoes inside the school?



So long as it doesn't ruin the floor, why not?


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 5, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> But it has been his experience that the vast majority wants to collect forms and not learn depth and if you teach them depth they leave. This attitude, although I do agree with it, is not helping the situation.


 
OK, OK, I will be the first to step up and admit that I am guilty of this to some degree.  I collect forms.  I like to feel that I am trying to gain something in my skill and understanding from learning them, but I like them and I have learned quite a few.

I guess I am trying to learn as much as I can, with the thought that later I can spend the appropriate time in dissection. Probably not the best way to prioritize, but there it is.

Now then, there are the people who collect the forms, but can't even remember one from the other.  They keep learning new ones, but don't practice the old ones, and can't remember them a week later.  Those are the people who can't stay focused and really don't learn anything.  

With my own, I do practice them ALL on a regular basis, so I think I'm on a good track in that respect.  Over time, they all improve and my understanding of them improves, even if it is slower than if I focused on just two or three.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 5, 2007)

exile said:


> This has come up before, and is central to the whole current state of the MAs. When the evolutionary pressure comes from survivability under street conditions, you are going to get MAs of a very different character than when the pressure comes from the drive to make a buck (_lots_ of bucks if you do it right) in the sportotainment world or the analogue of `Stars on Ice' professional spectacles made up of glitzy slick tricks. Modern Western society doesn't have the major dangers and grave threats that the Asian town street held a century agoI believe it was Bushi Matsumura, the father of linear karate, whose father was beaten to death by drunks in a mid-19th Shuri alley, and there seem to have been others amongst the great pioneer karateka who had been witnesses to or victims of this kind of violence. Law enforcement being pretty thin on the ground back then and there, you pretty much had to be respnsible for your own survival.
> 
> These days, with courts, LEOs, security guards, restraining orders and a huge judicial system, the normals of culture have changes so profoundly from the preceding picture that it's virtually impossible for us to recover the mind-set of the MA pioneers. You had to make many of your own clothes, grow much of your own food, and provide the major part of your own justice and security back then. CMA (or JMA/KMA/FMA/...) lite fits a significantly different set of prorities. These days, people are much more worried about gum disease than violent attack (at least to the extent that they're motivated to take action to prevent one or the other). That's the main reason I think why the MAs are able to shift their focus to generating $$ from media exposure...


 
And I see I am again expecting people to read my mind and use the meanings I have for phrases in my insane little noggin.

Let me explain more thoroughly.

Nothing to do with effectiveness in combat or expecting someone to be able to go out and beat people up. These guys are very aware it is the 21st century and rather happy about it too. Heck they dont want to walk out their door and get challenged regularly either.

It is more to do with seriousness in training, not just coming in taking a class or two and running off and proclaiming mastery because you had a class with a specific master from China. Or as they see (or at least the guy I talked to sees) a lot of people showing up to the seminar/workshop/class that have not trained much if at all for the last several months. 

And then there are those they see that are serious that will train without being watched that are going to work on the forms and the concepts and try and gain a deeper understanding. Or just simply are trying hard to learn, or have natural talent, these are the people they take seriously.

For example Taiji, someone goes to a taiji class/seminar/workshop of any given taiji family member or master.

If you know nothing, say so for crying out loud dont come into a class held by a Taiji family member and try and bluff them. They WILL know you are not truthful. 

And if you do train with them listen to what they say, this is not a social event. If they say stand in ma bu do not decide this is the perfect time to take a break, go for coffee or the bathroom (unless of course it is necessary at that time).

After you have trained with them do not go off and start teaching unless they say so. 

If you train with them when they return do not expect them to go over the same thing again in depth, if you didnt train it after the last seminar that is your problem. 

These are the types of things I am talking about as forms collectors. They have no more interaction with taiji or CMA than a coin collector has with the coins he/she collects, nothing wrong with coin collecting but it is simply not the way to think about CMA.

This is what is very much helping the de-evolution. There are a lot of people out there that feel just because they trained with Master X or went to a Seminar with Sifu Y from China that they now know what they are doing and then they go off and teach BAD CMA.

But the ones that try and work and listen are the ones they take seriously and those are the ones to later train with. But there are fewer of them than the others I have been talking about.

It is the people that are out there learning martial arts and not training them or learning them properly that turn around and then teach what they know that are causing the problem and watering down CMA and thereby causing this de-evolution that I am talking about. They teach 2 friends and they teach 2 friends and they teach 2 friends and so on. If you are 1 person training as best as you can and likely doing a very good job at it and then you go out and teach the correct form and I am willing to bet that your class is smaller than the guy down the street teaching CMA light. face it his stuff is easier and taking form your response, the likelihood of EVER having to use what you learn is low therefore if you learn good CMA or bad CMA it matters little in defense. However you do end up with a lot of people latter touting the ineffectiveness of a given art and again they are both right and wrong. What they see done by a specific person that was trained poorly is ineffective but the same style done by someone trained correctly is effective so again it is the martial artist not the art. 

I believe I said this to a Wing Chun guy on MT once when I was returning to Wing Chun (my brief reintroduction that is) if I were to go out and get in a fight with someone and try using just Wing Chun I would likely get my butt kicked. and the person that kicked my butt would go off and tell everyone how ineffective Wing Chun was. However if that same person then walked into my old Wing Chun school and challenged my ex-Sifu he would likely get his head taken off and after he got out of the hospital go tell everyone how effective Wing Chun is. But then Wing Chun is a bad example for de-evolution since usually the training is hard and the forms are not pretty and it sometimes hurts so CMA light people tend to not go to that type of CMA. Same goes for Xingyi, Xingyi classes tend to be small, the training is hard and hurts a lot.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 5, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> OK, OK, I will be the first to step up and admit that I am guilty of this to some degree. I collect forms. I like to feel that I am trying to gain something in my skill and understanding from learning them, but I like them and I have learned quite a few.
> 
> I guess I am trying to learn as much as I can, with the thought that later I can spend the appropriate time in dissection. Probably not the best way to prioritize, but there it is.
> 
> ...


 
This is why I need to myself over and over again, type exactly what you mean and do not expect others to understand your own little demented thought processes. But sometimes I just don&#8217;t listen to me... Sorry about that.

When I say collect forms I am not referring to training multiple forms or studying with multiple teachers or any such thing (if I were I would be talking about me as well). If you are trying to get different perspectives to your training by learning multiple forms that in my opinion is great and not what I am talking about and certainly not what the guy I referred to was talking about. 

If you are training forms and working at forms and trying to feel where the energy is going to and coming from, rooting and trying to get your forms correct you are not what &#8220;I call&#8221; a forms collector. That is a CMA person or a martial artist. 

If however you are training form after form after form and telling everyone about how many forms you do and all the forms you are doing are not right and basically suck then you are what I would call a forms collector. 

So if I were to make a guess here Crane, based on what I have read in your posts, and I read a lot of them. You are by no means a forms collector by my strange little definition. 

Sorry about that.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 5, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> ...So if I were to make a guess here Crane, based on what I have read in your posts, and I read a lot of them. You are by no means a forms collector by my strange little definition.
> 
> Sorry about that.


 
Hey, no worries, and I certainly didn't take it personally.

I really agree with what you are saying, esp. with the clarification you gave in the prior post.  I see that kind of think way too often, and it is just lously CMA.

Often, Chinese martial arts simply have a lot of forms in them, so we end up learning a lot.  It fills out the complete system and, as long as you keep practicing them and working on them and doing your best to understand them, then you are on the road to progress.  But if you just learn them quickly and then do them once a month with half-assed intention, just enough so you don't completely forget the lame bit that you have, then you are a forms collector and you haven't learned anything.

I do love forms, I think this is where the essence of a particular system comes out, what makes the system Mantis or Crane, or Hung Gar, or Tiger, or whatever.  It is seen in the forms and is what makes a systesm unique, and I love 'em.  Good stuff, if done with good intent and dedication.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 5, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> Hey, no worries, and I certainly didn't take it personally.
> 
> I really agree with what you are saying, esp. with the clarification you gave in the prior post. I see that kind of think way too often, and it is just lously CMA.
> 
> ...


 
I think we are on the same page here.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 5, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> I think we are on the same page here.


 
never doubted it.  :asian:


----------



## CuongNhuka (Apr 5, 2007)

Adept said:


> Is there a good reason to do so, apart from the fact we've always done so?
> So long as it doesn't ruin the floor, why not?


There is a good reason to bow. With a little thought it could be made into a painful wrist lock/wristlock and sweep. Depending on how one bows. It has the same idea (also) as tapping gloves in boxing, and the hug that comes after. It's to show respect to your opponent. The bow during training is to show respect to the founder of the art and the one teaching you. Bowing is just Asia's way of shaking hands.

As for the shoes, yes. There are two reasons. One, it shows good hygene. Two, there is always a chance you will be caught without shoes on. The way one moves there feet in traditional arts (and maybe MMA, I couldn't say) conditions the soles of your feet. Most Chinese Arts, and many old school Korean and South-East Asian arts will use shoes in training. And if nothing else you don't were shoes in MMA training either. In fact the main reason one would were shoes in Wrestling matches is because the mats like to grab feet. That's a good way to twist your ankle.


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Apr 6, 2007)

I always figure the reason we trained bare foot is because shoes make it damn difficult to learn the footwork to begin with, so you go without them to learn the technique.


----------



## exile (Apr 6, 2007)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> I always figure the reason we trained bare foot is because shoes make it damn difficult to learn the footwork to begin with, so you go without them to learn the technique.



I think it's good to train both with and without shoes, to train your pivoting/balance abilities so that you can do it both ways. If push ever comes to shove in a real situation, you're unlikely to be barefoot (unless a beach volleyball game goes very badly sideways, of course :wink1

I also think it's useful to train on a variety of surfaces. A gym or dojang floor is probably not where your next unsought violent encounter is going to take place. I've found it very useful to train kicks for balance, for example, on the slightly sloping, somewhat cracked asphalt of my driveway, just for that reason. I actually think that part of `reality-based' training isn't just training `alive' against oppos simulating seriously dangerous untrained attackers, but also training in inconvenient places. Training barefoot on a good surface is very useful to develop a kind of holistic sense of what movements should feel like when performed correctly, but once you get that kinaesthetic `click', it's probably useful to start stressing it a bit by trying to recreate it in (much) less-than-favorable environments...


----------



## cswinsf23 (Apr 6, 2007)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> I always figure the reason we trained bare foot is because shoes make it damn difficult to learn the footwork to begin with, so you go without them to learn the technique.


 
Its a show of respect.  I'm going to take a shot in the dark here and assume you are not asian.  Ask your instructor why you don't where shoes in the dojang or your school.

99% of asian households don't where shoes in the house; your school should be just as sacred.


----------



## Adept (Apr 7, 2007)

cswinsf23 said:


> Its a show of respect.  I'm going to take a shot in the dark here and assume you are not asian.  Ask your instructor why you don't where shoes in the dojang or your school.
> 
> 99% of asian households don't where shoes in the house; your school should be just as sacred.



That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Sure, it works for asians where wearing shoes indoors is not the norm, but here in the west?

Personally, the only reasons I can see (pragmatically speaking) for not wearing shoes during training is that 1) a tennis shoe hurts more when it hits you in the face and that 2) it makes the floors harder to keep clean.

In an attempt to 'evolve' I think most training should be done in shoes. You are more likely to be wearing shoes when you have to use your skills, and  wearing shoes can significantly alter how a technique should be executed.


----------



## kidswarrior (Apr 7, 2007)

Adept said:


> In an attempt to 'evolve' I think most training should be done in shoes. You are more likely to be wearing shoes when you have to use your skills, and  wearing shoes can significantly alter how a technique should be executed.



I only train in shoes, for these very reasons (well, OK, my feet are pretty broken down, too). Went to a convention last summer where I was seemingly the only one there wearing training shoes, albeit 'indoor' shoes that I change into after arriving at the center/studio. But out of respect, I restricted myself from participating on the mats. I would've rather just rolled up the mats and used the wooden floor. And lest somone think I'm a radical who wants to throw out the baby with the bathwater, I wear a Gi, a belt, bow in and out--but train in shoes. So I guess now you know, my view on the poll is tradition, yes, but got to keep evolving, too, IMHO. :asian:


----------



## kidswarrior (Apr 7, 2007)

cswinsf23 said:


> 99% of asian households don't where shoes in the house; your school should be just as sacred.



This makes me wonder why Asians make and wear kung fu 'slippers'?


----------



## MJS (Apr 7, 2007)

Great thread! I wish I had joined in sooner.   I voted 75/25.  I think that its important to keep the art 'pure' to an extent, but its also important to allow for change. Change is often frowned upon, and why I don't know.  Everything changes.  Its a part of life.


----------



## TraditionalTKD (Apr 9, 2007)

Using shoes as an example, I actually prefer to not wear shoes for three reasons:
1. Traditionally, Tae Kwon Do students didn't wear then during practice.
2. Going barefoot strengthens the feet and enables your feet to withstand the forces associated with training.
3. Not wearing shoes allows students to see how their feet should be positioned for various techniques. You can't always tell by proprioreception.
Now having said that, I see no problem with practicing in shoes sometimes to simulate real world technique. Wearing shoes forces your body to adapt to executing stepping and kicking in ways different from being barefoot. Shoes get heavy after awhile too.


----------



## kidswarrior (Apr 9, 2007)

TraditionalTKD said:


> Going barefoot strengthens the feet and enables your feet to withstand the forces associated with training.


 
Not if you have feet like mine. When I was 19--or 29, or even 39, maybe I'd agree with you. But after a lifetime of use/abuse including several (5) fractures, my arches and toes do better with support. I never go completely barefoot, even in the house. And training barefoot would only break my feet down further. 

Now you may say, Yeah, but you're not a good example because you're old. But remember I teach teens all day every day, and _many_ of them have more health problems than I do. So, IMHO maybe we want to be careful about over-generalizing here.


----------



## Adept (Apr 9, 2007)

TraditionalTKD said:


> Using shoes as an example, I actually prefer to not wear shoes for three reasons:
> 1. Traditionally, Tae Kwon Do students didn't wear then during practice.



Given that this is a thread about the relationship between evolution and tradition, this is a point that I think we should analyse further.

Why didn't TKD students wear shoes?



> 2. Going barefoot strengthens the feet and enables your feet to withstand the forces associated with training.



Depends. It doesn't *strengthen* the foot per-se. The muscles in your feet and lower leg do not become stronger in the absence of shoes. It will, however, make the bottoms of your feet tougher and more calloused, which makes them more tear resistant. Of course, this only comes in to play if you are training in bare feet, so while wearing shoes makes your feet softer, it no longer matters because you are now wearing shoes.

Having said that, not wearing shoes will often exacerbate pre-existing foot conditions like fallen arches.



> 3. Not wearing shoes allows students to see how their feet should be positioned for various techniques. You can't always tell by proprioreception.



This is certainly a valid point!


----------



## Kacey (Apr 9, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> Not if you have feet like mine. When I was 19--or 29, or even 39, maybe I'd agree with you. But after a lifetime of use/abuse including several (5) fractures, my arches and toes do better with support. I never go completely barefoot, even in the house. And training barefoot would only break my feet down further.
> 
> Now you may say, Yeah, but you're not a good example because you're old. But remember I teach teens all day every day, and _many_ of them have more health problems than I do. So, IMHO maybe we want to be careful about over-generalizing here.



There are exceptions to everything - which is a point that needs to be considered, when determining how much you change your MA to meet the needs of yourself and your students.  For example, I have a student who severely sprained her ankle, to the extent that she was in a plastic formed brace, the kind that looks like an open-toed boot - she wore a shoe on the other foot, because the "boot" was so high.  After she got out of the boot, she wore shoes for several weeks because the smaller brace (also plastic) needed to be in a shoe.  On the other hand, I had a student with completely flat feet - after about a year, he finally had a visible arch in each foot, and could wear shoes with arch supports comfortably, which he couldn't do when he started - tricky, for a teenage boy who likes sports, and can't comfortably wear sneakers of any variety.  It can go both ways - the key is to be aware of the students' needs, and adjust accordingly.


----------



## kidswarrior (Apr 9, 2007)

Kacey said:


> There are exceptions to everything - which is a point that needs to be considered, when determining how much you change your MA to meet the needs of yourself and your students. For example, I have a student who severely sprained her ankle, to the extent that she was in a plastic formed brace, the kind that looks like an open-toed boot - she wore a shoe on the other foot, because the "boot" was so high. After she got out of the boot, she wore shoes for several weeks because the smaller brace (also plastic) needed to be in a shoe. On the other hand, I had a student with completely flat feet - after about a year, he finally had a visible arch in each foot, and could wear shoes with arch supports comfortably, which he couldn't do when he started - tricky, for a teenage boy who likes sports, and can't comfortably wear sneakers of any variety. It can go both ways - the key is to be aware of the students' needs, and adjust accordingly.


 
Good points, Kacey. I don't quite understand the situation with the boy (did he not wear shoes for the year, or wear them and from that develop arches?). But I get the point. I knew a teen who had to have custom arch supports built--at that time, about $200. Doing MA barefoot would have been impossible for him.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Apr 11, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> Not if you have feet like mine. When I was 19--or 29, or even 39, maybe I'd agree with you. But after a lifetime of use/abuse including several (5) fractures, my arches and toes do better with support. I never go completely barefoot, even in the house. And training barefoot would only break my feet down further.
> 
> Now you may say, Yeah, but you're not a good example because you're old. But remember I teach teens all day every day, and _many_ of them have more health problems than I do. So, IMHO maybe we want to be careful about over-generalizing here.


 
This is true. I think one should train mostly bare foot (atleast to get used to how to do the movements), but one should get used to doing them on various surfaces bare foot, wearing shoes, flip flops, and so. But if you have any condition that makes it so wearing shoes is a good idea, the rules should be bent to allow. Like with you.
It's intresting how we've funneled this whole conversation into one example of the evolution/tradition argument.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Apr 11, 2007)

Well this conversation comes up pretty regularly and is always a good one.  For myself I like training in shoes, boots, cowboy boots, barefoot, socks, slippers, etc.  I enjoy training in bare feet because it keeps my feet calloused and ready to go if I am in a personal protection situation and caught bare foot.  Now do not laugh because this could happen at the beach but probably and most likely would happen if someone broke into my house and I did not have shoes on or was waking up in the middle of the night to deal with some predator that invaded my house.  I explained this once to a good friend of mine who really only trains in shoes and even wrote about it in one of his books and he turned to me and said you know you are absolutely right.  However, training in shoes and being able to do your martial skills in shoes is absolutely critical in that you are almost going to be wearing shoes when out and about and in those potentially danger zones of walking to and from your car, at a bar, restaurant or other place.  So to neglect training in shoes is also to neglect an aspect that could also get you into trouble as martial techniques do work differently and *feel* differently in shoes.  Just a couple of rambling's from me on this matter.*






   Great thread! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


*


----------



## exile (Apr 11, 2007)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Well this conversation comes up pretty regularly and is always a good one.  For myself I like training in shoes, boots, cowboy boots, barefoot, socks, slippers, etc.  I enjoy training in bare feet because it keeps my feet calloused and ready to go if I am in a personal protection situation and caught bare foot.  Now do not laugh because this could happen at the beach but probably and most likely would happen if someone broke into my house and I did not have shoes on or was waking up in the middle of the night to deal with some predator that invaded my house.  I explained this once to a good friend of mine who really only trains in shoes and even wrote about it in one of his books and he turned to me and said you know you are absolutely right.  However, training in shoes and being able to do your martial skills in shoes is absolutely critical in that you are almost going to be wearing shoes when out and about and in those potentially danger zones of walking to and from your car, at a bar, restaurant or other place.  So to neglect training in shoes is also to neglect an aspect that could also get you into trouble as martial techniques do work differently and *feel* differently in shoes.  Just a couple of rambling's from me on this matter.*
> 
> 
> 
> *



Absolutely right about the variety of footwear, Brian. And a complementary training consideration is variety of floor surfaces. The better your school flooring surface, in a sense, the less realistically you're training for real fights and the more you better get out there on uneven concrete, slick cheap linoleum, or slippery thin carpeting. You aren't going to get into many all-out CQ encounters on perfect sprung flooring, after all... that's one reason why garage/driveway/basement training is a very useful addition to dojo/dojang practice (at least if your garage/driveway/basement is anything like mine :lol



> _Great thread!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A fervent amen to that!


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Apr 11, 2007)

exile said:


> Absolutely right about the variety of footwear, Brian. And a complementary training consideration is variety of floor surfaces. The better your school flooring surface, in a sense, the less realistically you're training for real fights and the more you better get out there on uneven concrete, slick cheap linoleum, or slippery thin carpeting. You aren't going to get into many all-out CQ encounters on perfect sprung flooring, after all... that's one reason why garage/driveway/basement training is a very useful addition to dojo/dojang practice (at least if your garage/driveway/basement is anything like mine :lol
> 
> 
> 
> A fervent amen to that!


 
Training surface has to be varied as well.  Not to mention clothes or lack thereof. :erg:  Available tools and thing's that could be used to defend yourself.  Multiple factors come into play so realistic personal protection skills need to have variety in there training.


----------



## Bigshadow (Apr 24, 2007)

I think this poll is problematic.  I had to go with 100% evolution, but I don't if one can put a percentage on any of it.  I think there are core fundamental principles that make things work.  It is what works off the principles that is evolving.  Kind of like gravity (as universal principles) and how things have evolved on this planet.

Like many have said, there is henka (variations) and there is doing it wrong.    Knowing the difference is important.


----------



## kidswarrior (Apr 24, 2007)

Bigshadow said:


> I think this poll is problematic.  I had to go with 100% evolution, but I don't if one can put a percentage on any of it.  I think there are core fundamental principles that make things work.  It is what works off the principles that is evolving.  Kind of like gravity (as universal principles) and how things have evolved on this planet.
> 
> Like many have said, there is henka (variations) and there is doing it wrong.    Knowing the difference is important.



*Bigshadow*, I actually agree with you in that life cannot be reduced to a cut-and-dried, all-or-nothing set of multiple choice answers and percentages. But for the sake of stimulating discussion, sometimes it's fun to use opposing categories. Kind of like being forced to move so many squares in a board game. Life's not a board game, but playing one can sometimes spark an _*Aha!*_ moment--and maybe be fun, too. 

So to everyone who's participated in this thread (so far), a big Thanks!


----------



## exile (Apr 24, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> *Bigshadow*, I actually agree with you in that life cannot be reduced to a cut-and-dried, all-or-nothing set of multiple choice answers and percentages. But for the sake of stimulating discussion, sometimes it's fun to use opposing categories. Kind of like being forced to move so many squares in a board game. Life's not a board game, but playing one can sometimes spark an _*Aha!*_ moment--and maybe be fun, too.
> 
> So to everyone who's participated in this thread (so far), a big Thanks!



Actually, so far as I can see, kidswarrior and Bigshadow are in serious agreement herein one of the early posts, KW said something very similar to what Dave what saying in his post about the difficulty of quantifying in this way. And actually, most of the discussion in this threadone of the most thought-provoking I've seen on MTseems to me to be independent of the poll framework, focusing more on the qualitative issues involved than on the blunt-force trauma of percentage figures.


----------



## kidswarrior (Jul 31, 2007)

Just an FYI for anyone interested. The Sept/Oct '07 _*Kung Fu-Tai Chi*_ magazine has an article on the topic of this poll and thread: "Innovating Traditional Martial Arts: Ren Guangyi's 5 Step Roadmap." I won't risk infringing on copyrighted material by giving the steps, but it's fascinating to see how this Chen Tai Chi master has reconciled the dichotomy of this discussion in his practice and teaching.


----------



## exile (Jul 31, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> Just an FYI for anyone interested. The Sept/Oct '07 _*Kung Fu-Tai Chi*_ magazine has an article on the topic of this poll and thread: "Innovating Traditional Martial Arts: Ren Guangyi's 5 Step Roadmap." I won't risk infringing on copyrighted material by giving the steps, but it's fascinating to see how this Chen Tai Chi master has reconciled the dichotomy of this discussion in his practice and teaching.



I'd love to see this article... it may not be easy for me, though; that mag isn't sold in too many venues around here, I suspect. Thanks v. much for the pointer, KW!


----------



## kidswarrior (Aug 1, 2007)

exile said:


> I'd love to see this article... it may not be easy for me, though; that mag isn't sold in too many venues around here, I suspect. Thanks v. much for the pointer, KW!


My pleasure.  If you're willing to wait, it may show up on the website in a month or so: www.KungFuMagazine.com


----------



## CuongNhuka (Aug 1, 2007)

Looks intresting. I'll have to check the article out. If nothing else, Chen guys scare me a little (I've heard storys about some of the stuff they can do).


----------

