# Traditional v modern



## Gweilo (Jan 12, 2019)

My 1st real post on MT (please be gentle), having studied MA since the early 80s,  There has been a lot of trends come and go. I have trained in 2 traditional styles, and am currently studying a modern system. I know MA are adapting new styles, new technologies, better nutrition, but recently I have questioned, would I advise a younger me, to start my journey in MA by studying a traditional art or a modern art? .
In the system I currently train, we use techniques like breath work and body conditioning that have been around for centuries, and are, in my opinion vital, but why learn the meridians and meridian points when an anatomical or neurological strike (both from traditional arts) would be more efficient. I suppose what I am trying to say is why spend years learning how to win/survive/defend, when there could be a quicker more efficient way.
I do believe traditional MA are still effective, but why would you spend 20 years learning an art form (technique names in its native language, the appropriate way to tie your belt). I don't regret training in traditional arts, but would I really tell a younger me to take that path.
So are you a traditionalist or a modernist, or maybe you have a different view,  I would love your opinion.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 12, 2019)

My personal opinion is mixed on this. Firstly, we can toss out anything that is outdated - meaning it's based on an incorrect understanding of physiology or whatnot - and replace it with what we know now. Unfortunately some folks insist upon repeating the exact knowledge they remember being taught, rather than seeking the best knowledge currently available. The one exception to this would be where the outdated approach is a useful shorthand concept that produces useful results, even if the original explanation was incorrect. For instance, I still refer to "ki" in my teaching, though I don't use the traiditional explanation, and instead explain it's just the use of intent, musculature (tension and relaxation), and structure.

Next, from a pure effectiveness/efficacy standpoint, we can quickly toss out or reduce the emphasis on anything that isn't reliably effective. This can range from pain pressure points (which I teach, but don't emphasize, as they aren't reliable), to most meridians (which I don't bother with at all, because they are at best unreliable), to grappling techniques that don't have good application.

Now for the sticky bit. We can (and I have done) choose to leave in any of the above for one of at least two reasons: it's fun stuff to practice and learn, or it gives a way to practice movement/principles that reinforce other work. 

So we should really evolve our arts and bring in new knowledge and understanding. To do that, we have to let go of some of the old misunderstandings and less useful knowledge (so we don't overburden students with too much to learn). A rib punch is effective in more cases than a direct nerve strike to the forearm, so I'll spend more of my time teaching and training that rib strike. There are techniques in my primary art that aren't ever going to have direct application. I've left them in because of the principles they force students to practice, but have taken out all attempt to make direct applications from them and given that time to more reliable techniques (some of which were not in the syllabus I learned). I teach strikes mostly from a boxing-inspired approach, but return to the traditional methods of teaching for students who struggle (as they seem to respond better to those drills) and sometimes just as exercise.


----------



## jobo (Jan 12, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> My 1st real post on MT (please be gentle), having studied MA since the early 80s,  There has been a lot of trends come and go. I have trained in 2 traditional styles, and am currently studying a modern system. I know MA are adapting new styles, new technologies, better nutrition, but recently I have questioned, would I advise a younger me, to start my journey in MA by studying a traditional art or a modern art? .
> In the system I currently train, we use techniques like breath work and body conditioning that have been around for centuries, and are, in my opinion vital, but why learn the meridians and meridian points when an anatomical or neurological strike (both from traditional arts) would be more efficient. I suppose what I am trying to say is why spend years learning how to win/survive/defend, when there could be a quicker more efficient way.
> I do believe traditional MA are still effective, but why would you spend 20 years learning an art form (technique names in its native language, the appropriate way to tie your belt). I don't regret training in traditional arts, but would I really tell a younger me to take that path.
> So are you a traditionalist or a modernist, or maybe you have a different view,  I would love your opinion.


It depends what you mean by the terms and what you want to get out if your art?  Boxing for instance is as old as any of the eastern arts, is that traditional ? Or do you just mean eastern and western ?

Do you do your art just to learn how to fight, or for health, fitness and mental well being and you learn how to defend yourself ?

A fair number if the modern fighting systems are based on quackery, or at least massive over estimate of the effectiveness of the techniques that teach, will they make you a better fighter than a traditional eartern art or a tradition western art, some what debatable !


----------



## Gweilo (Jan 12, 2019)

jobo said:


> It depends what you mean by the terms and what you want to get out if your art?  Boxing for instance is as old as any of the eastern arts, is that traditional ? Or do you just mean eastern and western ?
> 
> Do you do your art just to learn how to fight, or for health, fitness and mental well being and you learn how to defend yourself ?
> 
> A fair number if the modern fighting systems are based on quackery, or at least massive over estimate of the effectiveness of the techniques that teach, will they make you a better fighter than a traditional eartern art or a tradition western art, some what debatable !



It was not a question about what I get out of my current art, it was a thought about all MA, how does a traditional art evolve, to make its training more current without upsetting the governing federations/traditionalists or diluting the art form, why spend time learning defence against a sword, when it would be more apt to spend more time practicing knife defence for example.
And if advising yourself when you started which path to take, would you advise modern or traditional.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 12, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> It was not a question about what I get out of my current art, it was a thought about all MA, how does a traditional art evolve, to make its training more current without upsetting the governing federations/traditionalists or diluting the art form, why spend time learning defence against a sword, when it would be more apt to spend more time practicing knife defence for example.
> And if advising yourself when you started which path to take, would you advise modern or traditional.


I don't think it's a binary choice. I rather enjoy much of the traditional training found in JMA, and dislike other kinds of traditional JMA training. The same is true of more modern methods, and of other origins. If it produces the desired result, I don't care if it's modern or traditional. If I enjoy it, I don't care if it's modern or traditional.


----------



## jobo (Jan 12, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> It was not a question about what I get out of my current art, it was a thought about all MA, how does a traditional art evolve, to make its training more current without upsetting the governing federations/traditionalists or diluting the art form, why spend time learning defence against a sword, when it would be more apt to spend more time practicing knife defence for example.
> And if advising yourself when you started which path to take, would you advise modern or traditional.



it's very much a question of what people want get out if their art,  in fact that just about everything there is, if you don't want sword defence's don't do an art with sword defence's, though they have some cross over to base ball bat defence's so are far from useless. though if you can avoid being cut in half with a sword, you can probably avoid a knife

you'll need to spell out your point, first by defining modern and traditional, and then what parts of tradition training you feel to be inferior and if your taking a about ring rmfighting of self defence,

at the moment your just insinuating that there's a problem with traditional arts with out saying which arts or what the problem is,


my art is karate, I find it relivent to modern days and wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to someone for general street defence, but not if they wanted to be an MMA fightetor a boxer, then I'd tell them to do MMA or boxing


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 12, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> My 1st real post on MT (please be gentle)


Very wise lol.


Gweilo said:


> but why learn the meridians and meridian points when an anatomical or neurological strike (both from traditional arts) would be more efficient.


I think of this as enrichment education.  It may not help me win a fight but it may provide me with better insight on how my body works.  Stuff like this tends to be more of an introduction into the Traditional Medicine field.  
All martial artists learn 2 things (if you actually use it)

How to Destroy the body and the body of your opponent.
How to Heal the body and the body of your opponent.
We see these 2 things topics consistently play out in this forum.  People talking about injuries and how to heal the injuries.  And when the injury is beyond "chat advice" you'll hear many of those same people recommend a doctor.  So when you are learning about the meridians and meridian points think about that more as Knowledge Enrichment that may or may not become part of your future.



Gweilo said:


> but why would you spend 20 years learning an art form (technique names in its native language, the appropriate way to tie your belt)


Knowledge and Cultural Enrichment.  One of the downsides that I see in MMA Fighters is that they fall short on the Knowledge Side of things unless they have previously trained in a traditional martial art system.  Some of the things that we do like "How to tie a belt" have a secondary benefit.  For belt tying, it's learning how to pay attention to detail.  Tie a belt wrong and people will call you out on it.  This same ability to pay attention to detail is the same skill set that I use when I fight.  It's the slightest changes in details that makes it possible for me to exploit my opponent and defeat him/her.



Gweilo said:


> So are you a traditionalist or a modernist, or maybe you have a different view, I would love your opinion.


For me.  I would have told my younger self to train harder and to let my instructors know that I was having difficulty in paying the $200 a month membership fee and to ask them if I could help around the school to pay off the other half.  I didn't find out later on 30+ years later that my first school did things like that.  I would have also told my younger self to not doubt the techniques and that there are more than one way to apply the techniques. Most importantly I would have told my younger self VIDEO RECORD EVERYTHING YOU CAN ARE ALLOWED TO RECORD.  No matter how small and unimportant it seems.  Record it.

My older self has done some really awesome stuff with kung fu when the camera wasn't recording.  The first thing that went to my mind is.  Damn I should have been video recording this.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 12, 2019)

I train in a traditional method, and I’ve not learned to defend against a sword, I’ve not learned about meridians, and it took barely a few minutes to learn to tie a belt and wear a gi and how and when and to whom to bow.  So there isn’t any wasted time there.

Perhaps your perception of what is a traditional system differs from mine.

To me, it is simply a method that has been around for a fairly long time (the specific length of time is up to debate, to qualify as “traditional”), and over this time the method has proven itself to be an effective way to build useful skills.  

For me, training a traditional method has nothing to do with nostalgia for the past.  Instead, it has to do with practicing a method that has a long history of working well.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jan 12, 2019)

the first thing i would do, is realize that the question is framed from your own experience and bias.  why learn meridians (or anything for that matter)?  most of us didnt so the question is invalid.  learning what you did is your experience and your journey.   you chose it.  every individual will have their own journey to follow and own path.  Just because you didnt find certain aspects of your training valuable or interesting doesnt mean that bias will hold true for the next person.   you cant advise others to train in a traditional or modern.  that would be to assume everyone is the same, and their not.  advise to pick a good teacher that offers something they enjoy and gives them the benefits that they want.  as they mature their needs will change and so should their training.   you cant jump to the end of the journey just to "save time".   i would bet the younger you and the older you would not agree on much when it comes to what you want to get out of training,, so leave him alone and let him find his way.


----------



## Gweilo (Jan 12, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> I train in a traditional method, and I’ve not learned to defend against a sword, I’ve not learned about meridians, and it took barely a few minutes to learn to tie a belt and wear a gi and how and when and to whom to bow.  So there isn’t any wasted time there.
> 
> Perhaps your perception of what is a traditional system differs from mine.
> 
> ...



 It is not my intention to knock traditional MA, I myself trained in 2 traditional arts for just over 25 years, I achieved 3rd Dan in Bujinkan Ninjutsu, and 3rd Dan in traditional Hapkido. For neatly 3 years now I have been studying Systema, I loved training in my previous arts, but training in Systema which has no uniform or grading system (I fully understand achievements, goals, and traditional methods and philosophies), albeit Systema is a process and not a style in reality, I have just been thinking recently,  that there is a lot unecessary time spent on unecessary processes.
I agree with the little details that count, but surely the detail should be in the techniques, and as for belts and grading, they are good for beginners as rewards and goals, but beyond 1st Dan surely your technique should determine your grade.


----------



## pdg (Jan 12, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> but beyond 1st Dan surely your technique should determine your grade.



Well, that depends on what 1st Dan means to you (or more aptly, what it means to your organisation) and what each subsequent grade represents.

And what happens as you age? Should you be periodically demoted as your physical ability degrades?

And what's your benchmark? A 20 year old me should have had more capacity to develop technique compared to 40 year old me, so should 40 year old me never be allowed to advance?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 12, 2019)

pdg said:


> Well, that depends on what 1st Dan means to you (or more aptly, what it means to your organisation) and what each subsequent grade represents.
> 
> And what happens as you age? Should you be periodically demoted as your physical ability degrades?
> 
> And what's your benchmark? A 20 year old me should have had more capacity to develop technique compared to 40 year old me, so should 40 year old me never be allowed to advance?


I know of at least one association where it's literally impossible to progress beyond 1st dan without teaching on a regular basis for at least 3 years. In fact, it's pretty tough to get to 1st dan without teaching regularly for a year. Skill at technique is tested for 2nd dan, but you won't get to test if you haven't been actively teaching. Beyond 2nd dan, promotion is basically for producing instructors and furthering the art.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 12, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I know of at least one association where it's literally impossible to progress beyond 1st dan without teaching on a regular basis for at least 3 years. In fact, it's pretty tough to get to 1st dan without teaching regularly for a year. Skill at technique is tested for 2nd dan, but you won't get to test if you haven't been actively teaching. Beyond 2nd dan, promotion is basically for producing instructors and furthering the art.



I think this is true for most arts. The only thing that varies is at what rank these things become factors.
For us, you won't get to 1st Dan without teaching. Our Chodanbo students (black belt candidates) spend a year or more learning to teach before they're promoted to 1st Dan. As a matter of fact, the tests for chodanbo and 1st Dan are the same. That transition from student to teacher is the primary purpose of that rank.
Skills are still tested beyond 1st, but 7th and above are definitely 'service to the art' ranks.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 12, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> I agree with the little details that count, but surely the detail should be in the techniques


First you have to have "an eye for details"  Here's a good example.
Techniques can't help you do the following:

Tell if someone is fully committed to a punch
Tell if someone is shifting weight on their back foot or front foot
Tell if someone is preparing to kick or punch
Tell if your opponent has a good root / stance or if he's got light feet
Tell if your opponent has tell-tale signs (something that happens before he/she takes action)
Tell if your opponent is picking up your tell-tale signs and how you are giving away what you are about to do.
Tell if your opponent is off balance
Tell if your opponent is about to be gassed out or if he's faking being tired
Tell if your opponent is really hurt or if he's faking it.
Tell if you are off balance or if you actually have a steady stance.
Tell if a person is going to kick, punch, or shoot for the legs.
De-escalation is all about small details.
Help you identify when someone will be open to an attack.
Help you if the person in front of you is actually signaling someone behind you.
If a person may have a weapon or gun on them.
There are a lot of small details in fighting that will mess you up big time, if you don't recognize them.  So starting off with knowing if a belt is tied correctly is a good easy start to get people in the habit of paying more attention to the smaller things (details) that matter.  Eventually that detail becomes second nature and you'll know right away that something doesn't look right about how someone ties that belt.  I would be willing to bet that how someone ties their belt can give insight on who and what they train.

The small details in how someone stands can tell you if that person actually knows to fight or if he's totally clueless.  I don't know how many MMA vs Kung Master videos I've seen where I can tell who is going to win just by how the person stands.  It's like a collection of small details helping to draw a big picture.  Technique will only take you so far.


----------



## Buka (Jan 12, 2019)

If the older me told the younger me something, I wonder if the younger would have listened?

As to which is better between traditional or modern, the answer is yes.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 12, 2019)

Buka said:


> I wonder if the younger would have listened?


 Nope. But then the Older would have beaten it into the younger you. lol


----------



## pdg (Jan 12, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> I think this is true for most arts. The only thing that varies is at what rank these things become factors.
> For us, you won't get to 1st Dan without teaching. Our Chodanbo students (black belt candidates) spend a year or more learning to teach before they're promoted to 1st Dan. As a matter of fact, the tests for chodanbo and 1st Dan are the same. That transition from student to teacher is the primary purpose of that rank.
> Skills are still tested beyond 1st, but 7th and above are definitely 'service to the art' ranks.



How is the teaching assessed?

I firmly believe that not everyone can teach, and of those who can, they still can't teach everyone.

If someone is bad at teaching, can they still progress in other ways (having fulfilled a token few lessons of teaching)?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 12, 2019)

pdg said:


> How is the teaching assessed?



By observing their ability to pass on knowledge to students, of course.



> I firmly believe that not everyone can teach, and of those who can, they still can't teach everyone.



You're entitled to believe whatever you want. With whatever degree of firmness you want. Doesn't make it true.
Some people are better teachers than others, certainly. But I've never found anyone who couldn't teach.



> If someone is bad at teaching, can they still progress in other ways (having fulfilled a token few lessons of teaching)?



Sure, they can progress as individuals, they can learn more,  and they can grow as people. But since teaching is a rank requirement, those who don't teach won't be promoting.


----------



## pdg (Jan 12, 2019)

We must have different views of what constitutes teaching...

I've met schoolteachers who can't teach.


----------



## pdg (Jan 12, 2019)

Oh, and also.

Having teaching as a rank requirement - I don't support it, but I don't have to. It doesn't affect me.

But is it made clear right from the start that you'll be restricted in your rank if you don't teach?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 12, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> My 1st real post on MT (please be gentle), having studied MA since the early 80s,  There has been a lot of trends come and go. I have trained in 2 traditional styles, and am currently studying a modern system. I know MA are adapting new styles, new technologies, better nutrition, but recently I have questioned, would I advise a younger me, to start my journey in MA by studying a traditional art or a modern art? .
> In the system I currently train, we use techniques like breath work and body conditioning that have been around for centuries, and are, in my opinion vital, but why learn the meridians and meridian points when an anatomical or neurological strike (both from traditional arts) would be more efficient. I suppose what I am trying to say is why spend years learning how to win/survive/defend, when there could be a quicker more efficient way.
> I do believe traditional MA are still effective, but why would you spend 20 years learning an art form (technique names in its native language, the appropriate way to tie your belt). I don't regret training in traditional arts, but would I really tell a younger me to take that path.
> So are you a traditionalist or a modernist, or maybe you have a different view,  I would love your opinion.



All of your questions presume that the goal is known and achievable by both traditional and modern methods.  I would posit that this may not be the case, and that the answer to your questions is very much dependent upon the outcome one wishes to achieve.

If one presumes that the goal of martial arts training is to learn to defend oneself, many roads will get you there.  Some may get you there faster than others, and again, depending upon the person, since no two of us are the same.  I would be willing to believe that many 'modern' martial arts would get a typical person to the point where they could effectively defend themselves in a shorter period of time, very generally speaking.

However, martial arts training covers a lot of territory.  Not just in the methods but in the goals.

I study what I consider to be a traditional martial art, Isshinryu, an Okinawan form of karate.  We practice many things that others find useless, including things you have described.  Wearing a gi, bowing, learning some few Japanese terms for exercises and general courtesy, and so on.  We do practice breathing control and basic body conditioning (nothing severe or damaging).

However, my personal goal has little to do with 'self-defense'.  I assure you that I am reasonably good at defending myself (not great, but adequate), but if that is why I trained, I would have stopped long ago.  I am a believer in karatedo, and the 'do' (pronounced 'dough') means 'way' or 'way of life' in Japanese.  This is my path, and I will continue to walk it until I die.

It informs every aspect of my life, and it serves me like a conscience serves some people, like a guiding light, like a higher power, like a path to enlightenment.  It's not a religion, I do not worship, nor do I serve.  I just walk the path and let myself be instructed as I walk.

I should add that not everyone who studies my art or even in my dojo has the same goal I have.  Some may do it for health, some for self-defense, some even for camaraderie.  There's no one reason why anyone does anything, right?  We all have our reasons, and none is necessarily better than any other.  This is just what is right for me.  It fits me like a hand in a glove.

Now, can a modern scientific martial art give me that?  I doubt it.  But horses for courses; I have no doubt many adepts in various modern arts could pummel me until my head rattled like a maraca.

If I wanted to learn to fight in the shortest time possible, I'd take up boxing.  Those guys can rumble.  And there are plenty of types of martial arts that can produce similar results.

If I wanted to learn to use a sword, I'd take up one of the several sword art styles of martial arts.  If I wanted to learn to grapple, then Judo or BJJ or wrestling.

But I do not want to learn anything like that.  I want to learn how to live my life in accordance with time and change, according to the principles of right and wrong, good and evil.  I find that in the moving meditation of the art I study.  You may not see my progress in my kata or how I handle a weapon.  My progress is for me and how I live my life.

Traditional martial arts *can* but do not necessarily offer that.  Modern arts devoted to effective self-defense provide what they claim to provide.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 12, 2019)

pdg said:


> Having teaching as a rank requirement - I don't support it, but I don't have to. It doesn't affect me.



You're right. You don't have to. It's not your school. 



> But is it made clear right from the start that you'll be restricted in your rank if you don't teach?



It's made clear from the start that you won't advance in rank unless you can meet ALL the requirements. Not just write a check. Or even pay cash. The rank requirements are laid out clearly in the textbook that all students receive.
[Edit - here is a quote from the text]
"Being a black belt means being a teacher, so all candidates are expected to demonstrate the ability to teach all forms and techniques required for this level."

As for schoolteachers... you're just flat out wrong. They can teach. They may not teach the way you want them to, and (as I said before) some are certainly better than others. But they can all teach. Pretty much everyone can. And certainly anyone who can reach the point of being considered a black belt candidate will.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 12, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> I think this is true for most arts. The only thing that varies is at what rank these things become factors.
> For us, you won't get to 1st Dan without teaching. Our Chodanbo students (black belt candidates) spend a year or more learning to teach before they're promoted to 1st Dan. As a matter of fact, the tests for chodanbo and 1st Dan are the same. That transition from student to teacher is the primary purpose of that rank.
> Skills are still tested beyond 1st, but 7th and above are definitely 'service to the art' ranks.


That description of Chodanbo to 1st Dan is pretty close to the NGAA's progression from brown (1st Kyu) to black (1st Dan). There is a bit of additional testing, but it's mostly testing the same material both times.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 12, 2019)

pdg said:


> How is the teaching assessed?
> 
> I firmly believe that not everyone can teach, and of those who can, they still can't teach everyone.
> 
> If someone is bad at teaching, can they still progress in other ways (having fulfilled a token few lessons of teaching)?


Within the NGAA, I've never seen anyone denied rank if they did their student teaching. They didn't have to be particularly good - just had to show they could manage. Frankly, I didn't like them being tied together - saw some good folks not get their BB because they didn't want to teach - so I separated rank from teaching certification.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 12, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> [Edit - here is a quote from the text]
> "Being a black belt means being a teacher, so all candidates are expected to demonstrate the ability to teach all forms and techniques required for this level."



In our dojo, 3rd degree black belt or 'san dan' is a rank.  However, 'sensei' is a title that comes with it.  Sensei literally means teacher.  If you're a sensei, you're a teacher.  I suppose one could be a san dan and not a sensei, but in our dojo, that's never happened that I am aware of.  

In truth, most of our students above brown belt assist with teaching others, which is not to say they lead the instruction, but they certainly give back where and as they can.  Even blue or green belts might help the newest students in some ways.  All black belts help other students.  Sensei teach.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 12, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> It is not my intention to knock traditional MA, I myself trained in 2 traditional arts for just over 25 years, I achieved 3rd Dan in Bujinkan Ninjutsu, and 3rd Dan in traditional Hapkido. For neatly 3 years now I have been studying Systema, I loved training in my previous arts, but training in Systema which has no uniform or grading system (I fully understand achievements, goals, and traditional methods and philosophies), albeit Systema is a process and not a style in reality, I have just been thinking recently,  that there is a lot unecessary time spent on unecessary processes.
> I agree with the little details that count, but surely the detail should be in the techniques, and as for belts and grading, they are good for beginners as rewards and goals, but beyond 1st Dan surely your technique should determine your grade.


You need to find a method that works well for you and keeps your interest.  Traditional, modern, it does not matter.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 12, 2019)

Think about it this way.  You can buy bread.  You can make bread with a machine.  You can make bread from scratch.  You can make bread according to traditional recipes.  It's all bread.  Which bread is best?  It depends on what you wanted.  If I just want to make a sandwich, store-bought bread works for me.  If I want to learn a historical art and absorb some of the culture and tradition surrounding it, I might spend some time with monks who make it from scratch using methods hundreds if not thousands of years old.  That's also bread.  You might expect to get other benefits along the way with the slower method, but in the end, it's still bread.


----------



## jobo (Jan 12, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> It is not my intention to knock traditional MA, I myself trained in 2 traditional arts for just over 25 years, I achieved 3rd Dan in Bujinkan Ninjutsu, and 3rd Dan in traditional Hapkido. For neatly 3 years now I have been studying Systema, I loved training in my previous arts, but training in Systema which has no uniform or grading system (I fully understand achievements, goals, and traditional methods and philosophies), albeit Systema is a process and not a style in reality, I have just been thinking recently,  that there is a lot unecessary time spent on unecessary processes.
> I agree with the little details that count, but surely the detail should be in the techniques, and as for belts and grading, they are good for beginners as rewards and goals, but beyond 1st Dan surely your technique should determine your grade.


ninjutsu and systema ??

oh dear


----------



## drop bear (Jan 12, 2019)

It is not really so much a traditional vs modern. But more you can go to full time gyms that do quality systems and are run by experts. That will give you access to competition Access to a larger community and recognized rank.

And so from a pure concept of how much that martial art will be worth to you after ten years. Then those systems are better.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 12, 2019)

jobo said:


> ninjutsu and systema ??
> 
> oh dear



What's that supposed to mean?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 12, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> It is not my intention to knock traditional MA, I myself trained in 2 traditional arts for just over 25 years, I achieved 3rd Dan in Bujinkan Ninjutsu, and 3rd Dan in traditional Hapkido. For neatly 3 years now I have been studying Systema, I loved training in my previous arts, but training in Systema which has no uniform or grading system (I fully understand achievements, goals, and traditional methods and philosophies), albeit Systema is a process and not a style in reality, I have just been thinking recently,  that there is a lot unecessary time spent on unecessary processes.
> I agree with the little details that count, but surely the detail should be in the techniques, and as for belts and grading, they are good for beginners as rewards and goals, but beyond 1st Dan surely your technique should determine your grade.



If your goal was to be able to impose your will physically on another human being. Then doing hard training in a practical system will shave of years of development time.

If your goal was to develop a mental clarity or some sort of warrior ethos or train massive discipline skills or adult well.

Then hard training in a practical system with competition at the end will shave off years of development.


----------



## jobo (Jan 12, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> What's that supposed to mean?


it means I'm not suprised he is complaining about outdated martial arts , if he has been practising being a ninja as for systema, that's just being a Russian ninja isn't it ?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 12, 2019)

jobo said:


> it means I'm not suprised he is complaining about outdated martial arts , if he has been practising being a ninja as for systema, that's just being a Russian ninja isn't it ?



Systema would be more like russian krav. But with more magic.


----------



## jobo (Jan 12, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Systema would be more like russian krav. But with more magic.


don't you practise blowing up fuel depots


----------



## drop bear (Jan 12, 2019)

jobo said:


> don't you practise blowing up fuel depots



When we are not shooting down planes.


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 12, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> I train in a traditional method, and I’ve not learned to defend against a sword, I’ve not learned about meridians, and it took barely a few minutes to learn to tie a belt and wear a gi and how and when and to whom to bow.  So there isn’t any wasted time there.
> 
> Perhaps your perception of what is a traditional system differs from mine.
> 
> ...



I agree. I get the impression the OP @Gweilo sees traditional as some kind of Nazi ritualistic BS. If that is their experience I put that wholly on the instructor(s) not the system. I have traditional experience in JMA, CMA, KMA, and Filipino MA ( if you can tall the last one traditional). The small amout of Shotokan experience I had might have had a SLIGHTLY greater level of pomp and circumstance but in no way did in get in the way of learning/training. My Kung Fu experience had it but it was very different. In Tae Kwon Do, we bow, stand at attention, address each other accordingly, etc... but I never feel that is out of the ordinary. If a belt is tied wrong I fix it but I don't call them out on it (unless it is a repeated offense by a kid).
I would tell the OP that maybe they need the mental discipline. It should never be that much of a hang up. 
So to answer the question, I am certain it is different for everyone. My younger self did not have a choice since there was only one MA school in my town. And, while we followed what I would call a military protocol, I never felt like it was restricting or in the way of learning, more so it help set the atmosphere. And I easily moved into the sport side of KMA so I may not even fully understand the question.


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 12, 2019)

pdg said:


> Well, that depends on what 1st Dan means to you (or more aptly, what it means to your organisation) and what each subsequent grade represents.
> 
> And what happens as you age? Should you be periodically demoted as your physical ability degrades?
> 
> And what's your benchmark? A 20 year old me should have had more capacity to develop technique compared to 40 year old me, so should 40 year old me never be allowed to advance?


I consider myself a high achiever in my 20's and without a doubt there are things I do better at 55 than I did at 25.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 12, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> I consider myself a high achiever in my 20's and without a doubt there are things I do better at 55 than I did at 25.



For one thing, pain is an old friend now. Giving and getting. And frankly, I have less time for nonsense, so I'll skip the foreplay and just wreck em up and go home.


----------



## pdg (Jan 12, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> I consider myself a high achiever in my 20's and without a doubt there are things I do better at 55 than I did at 25.



And there is much I do better at 40+ than I did at 20.

But, I would have been physically more able then compared to now.

Unless you were a slob in your 20s, the same is true for you.

So unless you're saying that you think you should get demoted as your technique fades with age, I don't understand the dislike rating


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 12, 2019)

pdg said:


> And there is much I do better at 40+ than I did at 20.
> 
> But, I would have been physically more able then compared to now.
> 
> ...


No, I do not think that at all. Your post was hard to understand.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 12, 2019)

pdg said:


> And there is much I do better at 40+ than I did at 20.
> 
> But, I would have been physically more able then compared to now.
> 
> ...



The same is true for many of us. 
At 20, I was stronger, more flexible, and had better endurance.
Whoopdee-do.
At near-60, I have a much better understanding of the underlying principles and how to apply them. And since I'm not competing, endurance isn't a factor. Nor is strength. It is a sad reality that I am forced to engage in physical conflicts with people 20-30 years younger than me on a regular basis, and I know without a shadow of a doubt that I'm better able to defend myself now than I was at 20.


----------



## pdg (Jan 12, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> No, I do not think that at all. Your post was hard to understand.



If read in the context of what it was replying to, I don't think it's very difficult at all.


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 12, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> All of your questions presume that the goal is known and achievable by both traditional and modern methods.  I would posit that this may not be the case, and that the answer to your questions is very much dependent upon the outcome one wishes to achieve.
> 
> If one presumes that the goal of martial arts training is to learn to defend oneself, many roads will get you there.  Some may get you there faster than others, and again, depending upon the person, since no two of us are the same.  I would be willing to believe that many 'modern' martial arts would get a typical person to the point where they could effectively defend themselves in a shorter period of time, very generally speaking.
> 
> ...



Very well said.


----------



## pdg (Jan 12, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> The same is true for many of us.
> At 20, I was stronger, more flexible, and had better endurance.
> Whoopdee-do.
> At near-60, I have a much better understanding of the underlying principles and how to apply them. And since I'm not competing, endurance isn't a factor. Nor is strength. It is a sad reality that I am forced to engage in physical conflicts with people 20-30 years younger than me on a regular basis, and I know without a shadow of a doubt that I'm better able to defend myself now than I was at 20.



And I'd warrant that 20 year old you had 'nicer' technique than you now, or at least would have been capable of it?

By that measure, the statement I was originally challenging (above 1st Dan, promotion should be based on technique) would mean that 20 year old you would deserve a higher grade and greater recognition than you now...


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 12, 2019)

jobo said:


> ninjutsu and systema ??
> 
> oh dear


You are doing a spell check? Now that is funny!!!


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 12, 2019)

pdg said:


> And I'd warrant that 20 year old you had 'nicer' technique than you now, or at least would have been capable of it?



Oh, for sure. Twenty year old me could put his foot out as high as his head and hold it there while pivoting. Or throw a side kick straight up in the air. Or do a full split while suspended between chairs.
But old me kicks more effectively. 



> By that measure, the statement I was originally challenging (above 1st Dan, promotion should be based on technique) would mean that 20 year old you would deserve a higher grade and greater recognition than you now...



I got that. I wasn't disagreeing with you.


----------



## Gweilo (Jan 13, 2019)

jobo said:


> don't you practise blowing up fuel depots


Pmsl and you say I'm confused, are they not both based on fliud movement? 
How long did you train in these arts?
And please don't forget the Hapkido


----------



## Gweilo (Jan 13, 2019)

pdg said:


> And I'd warrant that 20 year old you had 'nicer' technique than you now, or at least would have been capable of it?
> 
> By that measure, the statement I was originally challenging (above 1st Dan, promotion should be based on technique) would mean that 20 year old you would deserve a higher grade and greater recognition than you now...



I would have said the younger me was (quoting Gary busy in point break) young dumb and full of Cum, but knocking on 50, dropped the ego, everything is more fluent, more effecient.


----------



## Gweilo (Jan 13, 2019)

Good to see chat forums haven't changed, post a controversial topic, there are some good passionate posts here, and some obvious quality martial artist, and there are some self appointed grand masters of the ever burning eternal keyboard Love it


----------



## pdg (Jan 13, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> and there are some self appointed grand masters of the ever burning eternal keyboard



I'll have you know I earned my title of senior master, it was in no way self appointed


----------



## Gweilo (Jan 13, 2019)

pdg said:


> I'll have you know I earned my title of senior master, it was in no way self appointed


I did not mean their forum status lol


----------



## Gweilo (Jan 13, 2019)

Another point I would like to make, some posts mentioned the little details (and I agree to a point).
One of the main reasons forms, or katas, still exist, is that even though they are not used to defend against imminent threats, they are still effective ways of Self Defense, and can be applied in such situations.  In fact, they are so capable of producing harm on others, that most instructors ban explicit explanations of these techniques on their students in order to protect them while practicing.

Hard Sparring has changed its meaning just as well.  In the same manner a football player tackles another player to develop an effective way to stop an opponent, a Martial Artist spars others in order to prove his or her skills as effective ways of fighting.  However, the way sparring was practiced in the past led to multiple injuries and permanent damage on the participants.  Nowadays, professional gear is used to protect every vital part of the body.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 13, 2019)

A few thoughts on this, some in response to your post, and some are more properly responses to posts you're referring to (but I'm too lazy to go back and find @JowGaWolf's post).



Gweilo said:


> Another point I would like to make, some posts mentioned the little details (and I agree to a point).


On details: I agree with nearly everything JGW said about details, except for one thing. I have seen no evidence that something like paying attention to the details of belt-uniform tying is at all related to the detail observation for fighting. I'm more willing to accept it might be related to the detailed eye during learning, but I'm skeptical of even that, as that seems to be more dependent upon a combination of experience and personality. Some instructors use details in the dojo, attention to the uniform, etc. as training tools, but I think it's more likely to simply develop the basic life skill of dealing with detail (which some of us are not naturally good at).



> One of the main reasons forms, or katas, still exist, is that even though they are not used to defend against imminent threats, they are still effective ways of Self Defense, and can be applied in such situations.  In fact, they are so capable of producing harm on others, that most instructors ban explicit explanations of these techniques on their students in order to protect them while practicing.


I'm not a fan of any claim that a technique is too dangerous to train properly. If it is, then it shouldn't be in the syllabus (if you're not going to train it properly, don't train it). Unless it's a flying technique or something (like a flying kick), it can be trained slowly for precision and safety. If it can't be trained safely, it simply cannot be trained and isn't worth including.

There are techniques that cannot be safely used in free sparring if you want to avoid injury. I'm thinking here of finger/hand locks, many wrist locks, etc. But those can still be practiced by a combination of slower practice, faster practice without full resistance (not trying to stop the technique once started), and full resistance without attempting to complete the technique (releasing a lock before a critical point or taking a grip that simulates the movement for the break, but isn't capable of locking the joint).



> Hard Sparring has changed its meaning just as well.  In the same manner a football player tackles another player to develop an effective way to stop an opponent, a Martial Artist spars others in order to prove his or her skills as effective ways of fighting.  However, the way sparring was practiced in the past led to multiple injuries and permanent damage on the participants.  Nowadays, professional gear is used to protect every vital part of the body.


In most cases, changes to rules have provided the protection. Gear cannot protect against most injuries that could happen without rules. There's even some evidence that adding padding to hands and heads increases the power people punch to the head with (and the frequency of those hits), increasing the chance of head injury.


----------



## jobo (Jan 13, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> Pmsl and you say I'm confused, are they not both based on fliud movement?
> How long did you train in these arts?
> And please don't forget the Hapkido


I didn't say you were confused ! and I'm  only teasing,

but your drawing wide ranging comparisons between trad and mod arts based on your experience of two arts that are far from typical or either class

,training to be a feudal warrior is always going to be a bit out dated,

systema is not an art that uses modern fitness processes and it involves grown men dressing up in camaflarge pants ,and pretending they are Russian warriors

but like all martial arts I respect both of them, it's just they are not the basis for a discussion on more main stream arts


----------



## Gweilo (Jan 13, 2019)

To be honest with you, I don't understand those who wear military clothing in training either, but we do not blow up fuel stations or rescue farm animals from slaughter houses, that would be the so say Spetznaz military styles, although I will admit Vladimir Vasiliev and Mikhail Ryabko the founders of the Systema I practice have worn military pants, but this is probably because they were formerly Russian military and intelligence officers.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 13, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> To be honest with you, I don't understand those who wear military clothing in training either, but we do not blow up fuel stations or rescue farm animals from slaughter houses, that would be the so say Spetznaz military styles, although I will admit Vladimir Vasiliev and Mikhail Ryabko the founders of the Systema I practice have worn military pants, but this is probably because they were formerly Russian military and intelligence officers.


In my mind, those wearing military clothing aren't any weirder than those of us who wear gi/dogi/dobok. Hell, I wear a hakama (basically a skirt) most of the time when I'm teaching/training. That's certainly odder than a pair of fatigue pants.


----------



## jobo (Jan 13, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> In my mind, those wearing military clothing aren't any weirder than those of us who wear gi/dogi/dobok. Hell, I wear a hakama (basically a skirt) most of the time when I'm teaching/training. That's certainly odder than a pair of fatigue pants.


people like dressing up, even people who are anti uniform , tend to wear a uniform of some sort, hence the army fatigues

but middle aged men dressing up as warrior s is odd, and I say that as a middled man who does just that


----------



## jobo (Jan 13, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> To be honest with you, I don't understand those who wear military clothing in training either, but we do not blow up fuel stations or rescue farm animals from slaughter houses, that would be the so say Spetznaz military styles, although I will admit Vladimir Vasiliev and Mikhail Ryabko the founders of the Systema I practice have worn military pants, but this is probably because they were formerly Russian military and intelligence officers.


so back to your original, point, if we accept being a ninja is possibly outdated, sword art and tieing your horse up to make a quick escape.

what modern benefits does systema give you over say karate ?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 13, 2019)

jobo said:


> people like dressing up, even people who are anti uniform , tend to wear a uniform of some sort, hence the army fatigues
> 
> but middle aged men dressing up as warrior s is odd, and I say that as a middled man who does just that


I think most of us in MA for any length of time aren’t quite right, anyway.


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 13, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> Another point I would like to make, some posts mentioned the little details (and I agree to a point).
> One of the main reasons forms, or katas, still exist, is that even though they are not used to defend against imminent threats, they are still effective ways of Self Defense, and can be applied in such situations.  In fact, they are so capable of producing harm on others, that most instructors ban explicit explanations of these techniques on their students in order to protect them while practicing.
> 
> Hard Sparring has changed its meaning just as well.  In the same manner a football player tackles another player to develop an effective way to stop an opponent, a Martial Artist spars others in order to prove his or her skills as effective ways of fighting.  However, the way sparring was practiced in the past led to multiple injuries and permanent damage on the participants.  Nowadays, professional gear is used to protect every vital part of the body.



I could not hit agree after the line about "hidden techniques". There are advanced techniques that are taught at advanced ranks, but most any technique can be at least mildly dangerous if done carelessly. The more technical the move, the greater risk of injury to the giver or the receiver. Ideas like this that still try to hold MA in a mystic realm just need to die. Do I believe there are skills that are extraordinary and seldom mastered? Yes. Partly because they are not understood therefore not taught or practiced, partly because they take a very long time to perfect. Only the opportunist still try to hold these moves under the "ancient Chinese secret" banner. 
What cannot be denied is that over time man has learned, analyzed, broken down, challenged, refined, and yes improved MA. The way of the world, finding the shortest distance a point has gave rise to styles like MMA that is an amalgam of most all MA. Stripping down systems and only using the fighting elements. Great for its intended purpose and not much else. I believe as we continue to analyze and realize all the benefits of most TMA, an even greater understanding of their original intended purposes will be realized and practiced. IMHO.


----------



## Gweilo (Jan 13, 2019)

jobo said:


> so back to your original, point, if we accept being a ninja is possibly outdated, sword art and tieing your horse up to make a quick escape.
> 
> what modern benefits does systema give you over say karate ?


The benefits of systema for me are freedom, it is difficult to explain in a short post, no fixed positions, katas etc, we work on old principles in a modern way, the most difficult to grasp is the no tension, to strike without tension.
We have 2 types of class, combat and health. The student is also encouraged to use Systema principles and movement in everyday life, so in essence the practioner is training all day every day. Like I said many people who do not train in Systema, find it difficult to understand and watching youtube videos does not help them


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 13, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> I could not hit agree after the line about "hidden techniques". There are advanced techniques that are taught at advanced ranks, but most any technique can be at least mildly dangerous if done carelessly. The more technical the move, the greater risk of injury to the giver or the receiver. Ideas like this that still try to hold MA in a mystic realm just need to die. Do I believe there are skills that are extraordinary and seldom mastered? Yes. Partly because they are not understood therefore not taught or practiced, partly because they take a very long time to perfect. Only the opportunist still try to hold these moves under the "ancient Chinese secret" banner.
> What cannot be denied is that over time man has learned, analyzed, broken down, challenged, refined, and yes improved MA. The way of the world, finding the shortest distance a point has gave rise to styles like MMA that is an amalgam of most all MA. Stripping down systems and only using the fighting elements. Great for its intended purpose and not much else. I believe as we continue to analyze and realize all the benefits of most TMA, an even greater understanding of their original intended purposes will be realized and practiced. IMHO.



I agree. At least in my dojo, there are no secret scrolls. No hidden techniques. Just advanced application which becomes clearer after years of practice. Does the instructor know techniques in the kata which they do not share with all students at every level? Certainly. One first learns to do basic arithmetic before quantum mechanics. And most never get to the quantum mechanics part, which is fine.

I suspect that much of the hocus pocus stuff comes about from generations of teachers who never got more than the surface level stuff and therefore cannot pass on what they themselves do not know. And even this is fine, not all teachers of mathematics know all there is to know, they don't need to in order to pass on the basics.

What typically happens to me is that after years of doing the same kata, I notice sensei doing something that I do not, having missed it before. I ask and get an explanation and demonstration. Why is it not explicitly taught to all? Because it doesn't matter to most levels. When you understand enough to see it, you're ready to learn it. No secrets, but you can't read the pages of the next chapter until you finish the chapter you're currently reading. Skip ahead and things start to not make sense.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 13, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> The benefits of systema for me are freedom, it is difficult to explain in a short post, no fixed positions, katas etc, we work on old principles in a modern way, the most difficult to grasp is the no tension, to strike without tension.
> We have 2 types of class, combat and health. The student is also encouraged to use Systema principles and movement in everyday life, so in essence the practioner is training all day every day. Like I said many people who do not train in Systema, find it difficult to understand and watching youtube videos does not help them



Isshinryu emphasizes normal stances, relaxed postures, and chinkuchi, the tightness of the muscles upon impact. There's nothing new here, many styles know these principles.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 13, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> But those can still be practiced by a combination of slower practice, faster practice without full resistance (not trying to stop the technique once started)


Techniques like that are dangerous are often dangerous because the more effort a person puts in resisting it the easier the joints breaks. In some cases pulling an arm back or twisting it aids in the destruction of a joint.  Unfortunately pulling an arm back or twisting it is a natural human reaction.



gpseymour said:


> I have seen no evidence that something like paying attention to the details of belt-uniform tying is at all related to the detail observation for fighting.


We would have to actually look at military training in order to determine this.  No one pays more attention to detail than they do.





Maybe someone with military knowledge can add some historical insight?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 13, 2019)

> GPSEYMOUR SAID: ↑
> I have seen no evidence that something like paying attention to the details of belt-uniform tying is at all related to the detail observation for fighting.
> 
> We would have to actually look at military training in order to determine this.  No one pays more attention to detail than they do.
> ...



There are many reasons for extreme attention to detail in the military.  Even the word, 'uniform' can also be defined as 'all the same'.  The same means exactly that, to a very high degree.  Another reason is tradition.  Another is that public appearance often adds to the appeal of a given military service in the eyes of prospective recruits.  There is something about a US Marine Dress Blue uniform that draws positive comments and admiration.  However, even that uniform can be worn in a slovenly fashion, and when this happens, we Marines feel it reflects badly on all of us.  We call it 'Esprit de Corps'.

Does it make a person a better fighter if they do not pay attention to the details of tying an obi (belt)?  

Maybe. 

For one thing, and improperly-tied obi can fall off, and depending on when it does that, the results may be less than ideal.

For another, like the military, a dojo filled with students who are all dressed in the same uniform, looking sharp and moving in unison presents a positive appearance to visitors.  Let's face it, we have to add new members too.

For another, learning to spot differences and notice small details can also sharpen one's skills for noticing other things, such as openings in a defense during sparring.

Frankly, I would not get too upset if people wanted to insist that uniforms and correct knots in obis or whatever are not important to training.  Fine, fine, whatever.  It's not something care that much about for other people.  Do as you wish in your own dojo.  Let us do as we wish in ours.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 13, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> There are many reasons for extreme attention to detail in the military.  Even the word, 'uniform' can also be defined as 'all the same'.  The same means exactly that, to a very high degree.  Another reason is tradition.  Another is that public appearance often adds to the appeal of a given military service in the eyes of prospective recruits.  There is something about a US Marine Dress Blue uniform that draws positive comments and admiration.  However, even that uniform can be worn in a slovenly fashion, and when this happens, we Marines feel it reflects badly on all of us.  We call it 'Esprit de Corps'.
> 
> Does it make a person a better fighter if they do not pay attention to the details of tying an obi (belt)?
> 
> ...


Thank you for sharing the military experience.  Much appreciated.  As to the dojo, I can only speak for the school I taught in. We didn't have belts most of the awareness to the detail awareness I did was in making students aware of bad stances that put their knees at risk for joint damage.  I was also super aware to the details of students approach to an attack.  I hope I have some videos like that of me teaching.  I probably went overboard with it, but it was something that really stood out to me. For me the smaller things stood out to me more than the bigger errors.  I guess I looked at the bigger errors as something I could "let pass" for a while as I chipped away at it.  The smaller ones for me were like. "Stop right now fix it."


----------



## Gweilo (Jan 13, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Isshinryu emphasizes normal stances, relaxed postures, and chinkuchi, the tightness of the muscles upon impact. There's nothing new here, many styles know these principles.


I am not familiar with this style of Karate, are there relaxed stances for certain techniques or a constant throughout the art as it is in Systema.
For example in Systema a press up is done on the fist, the downward smooth constant movement last 15 seconds as does the up movement, this is done whilst breathing in (yes 30 seconds breathing in), this is done with no tension and at any time you can pause and open the fist to form an L shape, the press up in the repeated but with an out breath


----------



## drop bear (Jan 13, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> Techniques like that are dangerous are often dangerous because the more effort a person puts in resisting it the easier the joints breaks. In some cases pulling an arm back or twisting it aids in the destruction of a joint.  Unfortunately pulling an arm back or twisting it is a natural human reaction.
> 
> We would have to actually look at military training in order to determine this.  No one pays more attention to detail than they do.
> 
> ...



The thing is there is an expectation of behavior regardless of the club that is supposed to be more important than the self. 

That could be uniform and ritual. That could be making weight. 

And you need that sense of composure to fight properly.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 13, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> I am not familiar with this style of Karate, are there relaxed stances for certain techniques or a constant throughout the art as it is in Systema.
> For example in Systema a press up is done on the fist, the downward smooth constant movement last 15 seconds as does the up movement, this is done whilst breathing in (yes 30 seconds breathing in), this is done with no tension and at any time you can pause and open the fist to form an L shape, the press up in the repeated but with an out breath



All stances are higher and more relaxed than most other forms of karate. Fist remains relaxed until impact. Google chinkuchi.


----------



## Gweilo (Jan 14, 2019)

Thank you Bill Mattocks for your information,  I googled Chinkuchi, and had a excellent read, it is similar to a degree, but in Systema we strive to be tension free and relaxed at all times, in training in striking and in receiving.


----------



## jobo (Jan 14, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> Thank you Bill Mattocks for your information,  I googled Chinkuchi, and had a excellent read, it is similar to a degree, but in Systema we strive to be tension free and relaxed at all times, in training in striking and in receiving.


but relaxation, / yeiding, absorbing/ redirecting force is common in many martial arts, it's not a modern thing. I'd go as far as to say that relaxation to the max permittable  is the key to any athletic movement or excessive tension is the killer, . it burns a massive amount of energy and really hampers power generation and speed.

but, then to get the most benefit out if certain exercises, it's helpful to hold as many muscles as possible in tension, to build their stengh. a relaxed push up for instance, is good for doing lots of push ups, a rigid push up, with ever muscle held in tension is better for building strength in as many muscles as possible, eveno to the point of tryingof force your hands together through the earth


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 14, 2019)

jobo said:


> but relaxation, / yeiding, absorbing/ redirecting force is common in many martial arts, it's not a modern thing. I'd go as far as to say that relaxation to the max permittable  is the key to any athletic movement or excessive tension is the killer, . it burns a massive amount of energy and really hampers power generation and speed.
> 
> but, then to get the most benefit out if certain exercises, it's helpful to hold as many muscles as possible in tension, to build their stengh. a relaxed push up for instance, is good for doing lots of push ups, a rigid push up, with ever muscle held in tension is better for building strength in as many muscles as possible, eveno to the point of tryingof force your hands together through the earth


 I like this version of Jobo.  Why so serious today?


----------



## Steve (Jan 14, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> We would have to actually look at military training in order to determine this.  No one pays more attention to detail than they do.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


When I was in basic training, we ironed our underwear into perfect, 6 inch wide folds, and all that stuff.  The prevailing wisdom of the time was, if you can't be trusted to fold something correctly, how could they trust you with a missile or to work on an F-16.

I do not know for sure, but have been told that the process is a bit different now since the Desert Storm era when I was an Airman, with less emphasis on arbitrary details, and more on critical thinking, performance under pressure, and team building.


----------



## Gweilo (Jan 14, 2019)

jobo said:


> but relaxation, / yeiding, absorbing/ redirecting force is common in many martial arts, it's not a modern thing.


This I agree with


jobo said:


> a relaxed push up for instance, is good for doing lots of push ups, a rigid push up, with ever muscle held in tension is better for building strength i


This not so much, yes for the muscle building but not for strength, like I said in an earlier post, unless you train in Systema it is difficult to understand.


Steve said:


> I do not know for sure, but have been told that the process is a bit different now since the Desert Storm era when I was an Airman, with less emphasis on arbitrary details, and more on critical thinking, performance under pressure, and team building.



Would this be the case to create uniformity, I am not an expert on US military, but after the initial recruitment process, I wonder if it is the same for special forces training?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 15, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> This not so much, yes for the muscle building but not for strength, like I said in an earlier post, unless you train in Systema it is difficult to understand.



Ok. Can you test that these Systema guys are empirically stronger than anyone else?

I mean it should be easy. Just see how much weight they can lift. Or push or hit or something. 

Because I have always only ever seen these techniques on people. Which could be faked.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 15, 2019)

Not sure if legit. But interesting.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 15, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Not sure if legit. But interesting.


If it is, then it's good to see him get back up after that big lose he took.  Can't knock him for that.

The only thing I don't like, and I know this is a personal bias for me.  "Do what you train"

Don't train kickboxing and throw away Tai Chi.  

Train Tai Chi against kickboxing and learn to be better at Tai Chi.  
If you are doing kickboxing then you aren't doing Tai Chi.  I'm looking at his footwork and where he is placing his feet.  Look at 0:10 it appears he is in good position to take the root of his sparring partner by sweeping that front leg but he can't because his weight is on the front leg. A TMA approach would have given him the opportunity to do so (those who sweep understand).  It also appears that he's practicing stepping on people's feet.  I'm not a big fan of it because it doesn't give a big reward unless you are pressing and trying to keep your opponent from escaping.  If you get it wrong, then you could lose your root. You can see this happen in the video at 0:13 and again at 0:14.  

The only exception to my "Do what you train" mindset is when what you train isn't made for fighting.  If he was doing the "fitness Tai Chi" then yeah, congrats on doing something made for fighting, kickboxing.  If he was training (I hate term) "combat Tai Chi" or "Applicable Tai Chi"  then he should be working those techniques and not abandoning them.  Either way it's good to seem him take a loss like this.  Something I used to say as a kid when I "beat the socks" off of my friend in a game.  "Let defeat make you better, not bitter."

This is said to be the same person.  










If this is him then it looks like he's enjoying sparring and probably wished he did it a lot sooner.  Sparring is an excellent workout.  99% of the people I've trained, who have done sparring, enjoy it.  It looks like he has some decent people working with him.


----------



## jobo (Jan 15, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Not sure if legit. But interesting.


he looks bigger and more powerful, which then begs n the question if if he was just physically overwhelmed in his previous matchup and hitting the weights has evened things up a bit, he definitely doesn't look a push over


----------



## jobo (Jan 15, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> This I agree with
> 
> This not so much, yes for the muscle building but not for strength, like I said in an earlier post, unless you train in Systema it is difficult to understand.
> 
> ...


well yes it is difficult to understand as you won't tell us, it's several days since you said modern, in this case systema is much better than TMA and you still haven't spelled out why you think that is so.

that's not the prevailing view on how to get stronger, when you start making up your own science, is when it seems your envoking magic, which is what some tmas get accused of


----------



## Gweilo (Jan 15, 2019)

More powerful than other MA, that would be an arrogant claim, we just use a different way to strike, no tension, at all, never tension, always relaxed and with correct breathing, let me tell you, there is a gentleman who lives in Wiltshire u.k, (Matt Hill) he holds a 5th Dan in Aikido, he spent two years as a live in student/servant with Saito Sensei, he is one of a few westerners to teach Aikido to Japanese in Japan, he was also a Captain in the Para's, He eat slept and tom titted Aikido, not a silly man, somewhere around 2000 he met Vladamir Vasilev (co founder of Systema), he now is a top instructor in Systema and has his own school, ask yourself why would he change arts?; I am not claiming Systema is the best MA, but it ain't mickey mouse either, and we don't blow up fuel depots lol


----------



## Gweilo (Jan 15, 2019)

jobo said:


> well yes it is difficult to understand as you won't tell us, it's several days since you said modern, in this case systema is much better than TMA and you still haven't spelled out why you think that is so.
> 
> that's not the prevailing view on how to get stronger, when you start making up your own science, is when it seems your envoking magic, which is what some tmas get accused
> of


If you go back to my first post, I never claimed Systema was better, I asked for people's views on Traditional v Modern. I claimed I had been thinking recently


----------



## jobo (Jan 15, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> More powerful than other MA, that would be an arrogant claim, we just use a different way to strike, no tension, at all, never tension, always relaxed and with correct breathing, let me tell you, there is a gentleman who lives in Wiltshire u.k, (Matt Hill) he holds a 5th Dan in Aikido, he spent two years as a live in student/servant with Saito Sensei, he is one of a few westerners to teach Aikido to Japanese in Japan, he was also a Captain in the Para's, He eat slept and tom titted Aikido, not a silly man, somewhere around 2000 he met Vladamir Vasilev (co founder of Systema), he now is a top instructor in Systema and has his own school, ask yourself why would he change arts?; I am not claiming Systema is the best MA, but it ain't mickey mouse either, and we don't blow up fuel depots lol


no you said systema was better than tmas, and you also said relaxed exercise made you stronger than tensing muscles, 

someone giving up aikido to study systema ?? of all the arts that get accused of claiming magic, aikido is near the top,


----------



## jobo (Jan 15, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> If you go back to my first post, I never claimed Systema was better, I asked for people's views on Traditional v Modern. I claimed I had been thinking recently


do you or don't you think systema better equips you for self defence than tmas, ? that was clearly the subtext if your post, if you changed your mind, fair enough


----------



## Gweilo (Jan 15, 2019)

Tell me the number of the post I made the claim of Systema is better than TMA, and yes I believe Systema better equips me for self defense than the 2 other arts I have trained in.


----------



## Gweilo (Jan 15, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Ok. Can you test that these Systema guys are empirically stronger than anyone else?
> 
> I mean it should be easy. Just see how much weight they can lift. Or push or hit or something.
> 
> Because I have always only ever seen these techniques on people. Which could be faked.



Try youtube search for DK Yoo


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 15, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> If it is, then it's good to see him get back up after that big lose he took.  Can't knock him for that.
> 
> The only thing I don't like, and I know this is a personal bias for me.  "Do what you train"
> 
> ...



I did not see any Kung Fu until the very end. The never ending set of haymakers at the beginning was, I don't know what. 
The series of backfist near the middle of the match would have had an effect bare knuckle but I doubt the match would have went that lone had that been the case.


----------



## Gweilo (Jan 15, 2019)

jobo said:


> you also said relaxed exercise made you stronger than tensing muscles


I Believe this to be true, but it is the way we train, try the following,  it takes time to perfect, do 1 push up (5 SECOND DOWN THEN 5 SECOND UP) try to be as relaxed as possible but the 1st rep you must breath in so the breath last for the whole push up, then 1 rep holding a full breath, 1 rep on an exhale, 1 rep on an empty hold, keep relaxed, then 2 push ups with the breath lasting for the 2 push ups, repeat with the full hold, exhale, empty hold, see if you can get up to 5 push ups, relaxed means no tension in the shoulders, bicep, neck etc, give it a go. In class we do this, then with sit ups, a leg raise (feet over the head and to the floor) then squats, then chin ups, have a go.


----------



## jobo (Jan 15, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> I Believe this to be true, but it is the way we train, try the following,  it takes time to perfect, do 1 push up (5 SECOND DOWN THEN 5 SECOND UP) try to be as relaxed as possible but the 1st rep you must breath in so the breath last for the whole push up, then 1 rep holding a full breath, 1 rep on an exhale, 1 rep on an empty hold, keep relaxed, then 2 push ups with the breath lasting for the 2 push ups, repeat with the full hold, exhale, empty hold, see if you can get up to 5 push ups, relaxed means no tension in the shoulders, bicep, neck etc, give it a go. In class we do that this makes you stron this, then with sit ups, a leg raise (feet over the head and to the floor) then squats, then chin ups, have a go.


yes I know you believe it, the question was really why do you believe it, ? is this based on some research, some properly conducted experiment or just that they told you so and you accepted with out question, that this makes you stronger than say a strength training program?


----------



## Steve (Jan 15, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> Would this be the case to create uniformity, I am not an expert on US military, but after the initial recruitment process, I wonder if it is the same for special forces training?


I guess we will never know.


----------



## Steve (Jan 15, 2019)

Have we agreed on what we all mean by traditional and modern?


----------



## jobo (Jan 15, 2019)

Steve said:


> Have we agreed on what we all mean by traditional and modern?


no the question was ducked


----------



## Gweilo (Jan 15, 2019)

jobo said:


> yes I know you believe it, the question was really why do you believe it, ? is this based on some research, some properly conducted experiment or just that they told you so and you accepted with out question, that this makes you stronger than say a strength training program?


I have only trained in Systema for 3 years, I am stronger than when I was 30, I am fitter, I can move better than when I was 30, I do not have scientific research,  I will ask to see if any is available,  but I fear it will still not satisfy you.


----------



## jobo (Jan 15, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> I have only trained in Systema for 3 years, I am stronger than when I was 30, I am fitter, I can move better than when I was 30, I do not have scientific research,  I will ask to see if any is available,  but I fear it will still not satisfy you.


well exercise any exercise will likely improve your strength to some degree in some muscles, but to suggest that systema exercises will make you stronger that a strength building program that maximises contraction in as many muscles as possible is a different matter.

then of course it depends how you are measuring strength, I'd like to see you push a car uphill with out tensing an awful lot of muscles in the process, muscles that would be to weak for the job, if you hadn't been tensing them otherwise, in preparation, or even just tell me that you have doubled your dead lift weight, with out tensing your muscles doing dead lifts


----------



## jobo (Jan 15, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> I did not see any Kung Fu until the very end. The never ending set of haymakers at the beginning was, I don't know what.
> The series of backfist near the middle of the match would have had an effect bare knuckle but I doubt the match would have went that lone had that been the case.


 that's not surprising as he is a tai chi master


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 15, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> Try youtube search for DK Yoo


Watch DK YOO spar and you'll see very little of what he showcases as his skill sets.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 15, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> I did not see any Kung Fu until the very end. The never ending set of haymakers at the beginning was, I don't know what.
> The series of backfist near the middle of the match would have had an effect bare knuckle but I doubt the match would have went that lone had that been the case.


There was no kung fu from what I could tell.  He still had beginner skill level performance. In my opinion too soon to be in front of the camera.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 15, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> If it is, then it's good to see him get back up after that big lose he took.  Can't knock him for that.
> 
> The only thing I don't like, and I know this is a personal bias for me.  "Do what you train"
> 
> ...



It would be an interesting journey for him.


----------



## Gweilo (Jan 15, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> Watch DK YOO spar and you'll see very little of what he showcases as his skill sets.


There are some on youtube where he slows the process down, if you cannot find them by searching his name, check out systemas the channel of all systema .


----------



## Gweilo (Jan 15, 2019)

jobo said:


> well exercise any exercise will likely improve your strength to some degree in some muscles, but to suggest that systema exercises will make you stronger that a strength building program that maximises contraction in as many muscles as possible is a different matter.
> 
> then of course it depends how you are measuring strength, I'd like to see you push a car uphill with out tensing an awful lot of muscles in the process, muscles that would be to weak for the job, if you hadn't been tensing them otherwise, in preparation, or even just tell me that you have doubled your dead lift weight, with out tensing your muscles doing dead lifts



Like I said if you do not train in Systema it is very difficult to understand, let's just disagree shall we


----------



## jobo (Jan 15, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> Like I said if you do not train in Systema it is very difficult to understand, let's just disagree shall we


I though you wanted to discuss the relative merits of systema v tmas ?


----------



## Steve (Jan 15, 2019)

Systema is tough to discuss because there are so many systema guys looking really suspicious.  Do you think you could show us what you would consider solid systema?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 15, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> There are some on youtube where he slows the process down, if you cannot find them by searching his name, check out systemas the channel of all systema .


How much slower do you want him to go.  He still does not do in sparring what he showcases to the public is seminars.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 15, 2019)

Bill Mattocks said:


> For another, learning to spot differences and notice small details can also sharpen one's skills for noticing other things, such as openings in a defense during sparring.


From what I understand of how the brain processes information, there's likely little overlap in processes between paying attention to a uniform, and spotting a pattern in movement/stillness that presents an opening in a fight.

I think there are benefits to learning to pay attention to details, and they vary by context. In the military, knowing everyone is meticulous about things like caring for weapons and completing common preparations makes it safer to assume work has been done properly - which saves time (and probably lives) when things get hot.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 15, 2019)

Steve said:


> Have we agreed on what we all mean by traditional and modern?


No. As always, that turns out to be a vague distinction, and I suspect most of us are using at least slightly different definitions.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 15, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> How much slower do you want him to go.  He still does not do in sparring what he showcases to the public is seminars.
> 
> 
> This stuff
> ...




Yeah. Constantly sparring at a pace and level above the guys you are sparring is a duche move.


----------



## Gweilo (Jan 16, 2019)

jobo said:


> I though you wanted to discuss the relative merits of systema v tmas ?



Again your words not mine, I am willing to discuss the merits of Systema, but should we not do that in the appropriate forum section?


----------



## Gweilo (Jan 16, 2019)

Steve said:


> Systema is tough to discuss because there are so many systema guys looking really suspicious.  Do you think you could show us what you would consider solid systema?



If you tell me how to paste a link in I will put on some clips of our training sessions,  to see it in the real is difficult, there are no competions, and as some of you have commented it can look fake, but as I mentioned earlier watching the videos usually does not help.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 16, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> If you tell me how to paste a link in I will put on some clips of our training sessions,  to see it in the real is difficult, there are no competions, and as some of you have commented it can look fake, but as I mentioned earlier watching the videos usually does not help.



Videos need to be hosted someplace. YouTube is the most common. Copy the link, click on the "Media" button at the top of the post (the one that looks like old fashioned film) and paste in the link.
The links cannot be to a commercial site or monetized YouTube video.


----------



## Gweilo (Jan 16, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> No. As always, that turns out to be a vague distinction, and I suspect most of us are using at least slightly different definitions.



For the record and Jobo, this is my distinction,  there are very few TMA, most of the arts available are evolutions,  adaptations,  and modern versions of a military system created centuries ago.
For me a TMA would be an art that is identical to its creation, in training methods and phillosphies but would need to be at least 2 centuries old, to me any art that has been born from another art in traditions or philosophies,  or techniques is NOT a TMA, I am using the definition from the English Oxford dictionaries version of traditional . So to be clear (Jobo), Aikido and Hapkido cannot be traditional because they were born from Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu so to me are modern arts, albeit the word traditional is some time used in front of an art to distinguish it from other styles, like in Hapkido, the word traditional is used to separate it from adaptations like combat Hapkido.


----------



## Gweilo (Jan 16, 2019)

I put this video up first, it is a training class, it deals with the Systema principles of movement.


----------



## Gweilo (Jan 16, 2019)

Here is another training video, the principles of movement watch it all before commenting


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 16, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Yeah. Constantly sparring at a pace and level above the guys you are sparring is a duche move.


Especially if that person is supposed to be teaching the student how to use the techniques.


Gweilo said:


> I put this video up first, it is a training class, it deals with the Systema principles of movement.


New Title:  MOVE INTO A KO.  How to guarantee you'll be knocked out.
If someone punches you in the back of your head or in your blind spot, then your reaction is not yours to control. This is especially true if you are hit while completely relaxed.  We have seen this over and over again with the Knock Out Game in the U.S. where people are KOed with one punch because they never saw it coming.  I understand the concept of hitting while relaxed and this isn't it.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 16, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> Here is another training video, the principles of movement watch it all before commenting


The self defense child in me is screaming at this video.  Principles of movement become invalid if you are stabbed to death.  In one part of the video the guy stabs him in the spine in the other the guy stabs him in the inner thigh.

The only way you can fight "relaxed" like that video, is if you redirect your opponent's strike 100% of the time.  If you get the redirect wrong then your attacker is going plow right through your relaxed guard. 

I would take Systema from someone who speaks like this.  All of what he is talking can be found in other martial arts systems. What he says is not the same as what those guys were doing in your other videos.


----------



## Gweilo (Jan 16, 2019)

And your opinion on this one, excuse the music


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 16, 2019)

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Remember up there when I said links could not be to monetized YouTube videos? That wasn't a joke. Do not continue posting links to commercial sites or monetized YouTube videos.

Thank you.
Mark A Cochran
@Dirty Dog 
MartialTalk Senior Moderator


----------



## CB Jones (Jan 16, 2019)

I just don't understand the no tension aspect.

Punches look like they are just arm punches with no snap or power.


----------



## Gweilo (Jan 16, 2019)

There Is more to It , but by having no tension you make the strike heavy, combined with speed, and how deep you strike, similar to  the old fashion weapon the flail (handle with a chain and a spike ball), also similar to a spinning back fist, but the closed fist is heavy and not tense. I cannot put anymore videos as they are monetized, but google ballistic punching.


----------



## jobo (Jan 16, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> I put this video up first, it is a training class, it deals with the Systema principles of movement.


yes , thanks for posting, what he is showing us fast fluid movement which is a good thing, and I can see that whipping your relaxed arm at some one at speed can generated good energy, just from the acceleration and dead weight, I'm less convinced that this is more effective than powering a tense s/ rigid arm into your attacker and transferring body weight in to the punch. so it not with out merit if that's the situation you find your self in, just I'm not sure it would be my first choice


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 16, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> I just don't understand the no tension aspect.
> 
> Punches look like they are just arm punches with no snap or power.


I think they have to be. Without dynamic tension, they can’t link to the body.


----------



## Steve (Jan 16, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> From what I understand of how the brain processes information, there's likely little overlap in processes between paying attention to a uniform, and spotting a pattern in movement/stillness that presents an opening in a fight.
> 
> I think there are benefits to learning to pay attention to details, and they vary by context. In the military, knowing everyone is meticulous about things like caring for weapons and completing common preparations makes it safer to assume work has been done properly - which saves time (and probably lives) when things get hot.


The Air Force loves checklists.


Gweilo said:


> If you tell me how to paste a link in I will put on some clips of our training sessions,  to see it in the real is difficult, there are no competions, and as some of you have commented it can look fake, but as I mentioned earlier watching the videos usually does not help.


Click on the video button in the posting window, and paste the url in between.  It's pretty straightforward.


----------



## Steve (Jan 16, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> ATTENTION ALL USERS:
> 
> Remember up there when I said links could not be to monetized YouTube videos? That wasn't a joke. Do not continue posting links to commercial sites or monetized YouTube videos.
> 
> ...


no links to commercial sites?  I'm pretty sure that precludes links to almost anything.  


CB Jones said:


> I just don't understand the no tension aspect.
> 
> Punches look like they are just arm punches with no snap or power.


Thats how a whip works, though.   Not saying systema is legit or not . Just that the punching technique ive seen in systema vids looks like they are trying to emulate something like a whipping motion.


----------



## Gweilo (Jan 16, 2019)

Steve said:


> no links to commercial sites?  I'm pretty sure that precludes links to almost anything
> 
> Thats how a whip works, though.   Not saying systema is legit or not . Just that the punching technique ive seen in systema vids looks like they are trying to emulate something like a whipping motion.


It comes from Nagaika or Kossak whip


----------



## Gweilo (Jan 16, 2019)

jobo said:


> yes , thanks for posting, what he is showing us fast fluid movement which is a good thing, and I can see that whipping your relaxed arm at some one at speed can generated good energy, just from the acceleration and dead weight, I'm less convinced that this is more effective than powering a tense s/ rigid arm into your attacker and transferring body weight in to the punch. so it not with out merit if that's the situation you find your self in, just I'm not sure it would be my first choice


It takes a while to perfect, 3 years and I am not quite there, I train daily at home, and attend class 3 nights a week 8 hours and 2 hours Thursday daytime, and the tension thing, it took almost 2 years for it to make sense.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 16, 2019)

Steve said:


> The Air Force loves checklists.



Checklists are excellent tools for experts doing complex repetitive tasks. Pilots and surgical crews both gain from their use.


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 16, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> For the record and Jobo, this is my distinction,  there are very few TMA, most of the arts available are evolutions,  adaptations,  and modern versions of a military system created centuries ago.
> For me a TMA would be an art that is identical to its creation, in training methods and phillosphies but would need to be at least 2 centuries old, to me any art that has been born from another art in traditions or philosophies,  or techniques is NOT a TMA, I am using the definition from the English Oxford dictionaries version of traditional . So to be clear (Jobo), Aikido and Hapkido cannot be traditional because they were born from Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu so to me are modern arts, albeit the word traditional is some time used in front of an art to distinguish it from other styles, like in Hapkido, the word traditional is used to separate it from adaptations like combat Hapkido.


Using your definition, why don't you back into the answer and provide the rest of us your list of TMA? This should get to a conclusion much easier.


----------



## pdg (Jan 16, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Checklists are excellent tools for experts doing complex repetitive tasks. Pilots and surgical crews both gain from their use.



The repetitive tasks don't have to be complex to benefit from a checklist...


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 16, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> ATTENTION ALL USERS:
> 
> Remember up there when I said links could not be to monetized YouTube videos? That wasn't a joke. Do not continue posting links to commercial sites or monetized YouTube videos.
> 
> ...


 first time seeing this. Didn't know. Sorry about that.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 16, 2019)

Steve said:


> no links to commercial sites?  I'm pretty sure that precludes links to almost anything.
> 
> Thats how a whip works, though.   Not saying systema is legit or not . Just that the punching technique ive seen in systema vids looks like they are trying to emulate something like a whipping motion.


Anthony that gets a lot of hits will fall under that category.


----------



## Steve (Jan 16, 2019)

pdg said:


> The repetitive tasks don't have to be complex to benefit from a checklist...


Totally.  I make buttermilk biscuits all the time.  It is a simple recipe and I do it from memory often pre-coffee.  Last weekend, I was rolling them out and the dough wasn't right.  Realized I forgot the butter.   A checklist/recipe would have helped.


----------



## Gweilo (Jan 16, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> Using your definition, why don't you back into the answer and provide the rest of us your list of TMA? This should get to a conclusion much easier.


From Japan such arts as Tegumi, Kebudo,  or chinese arts like Shuai Jiao, or white crane,  that's traditional.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 16, 2019)

pdg said:


> The repetitive tasks don't have to be complex to benefit from a checklist...


In that context, complex just means having several steps, so there’s something to make a checklist of.


----------



## StellarAevum (Jan 22, 2019)

Gweilo said:


> My 1st real post on MT (please be gentle), having studied MA since the early 80s,  There has been a lot of trends come and go. I have trained in 2 traditional styles, and am currently studying a modern system. I know MA are adapting new styles, new technologies, better nutrition, but recently I have questioned, would I advise a younger me, to start my journey in MA by studying a traditional art or a modern art? .
> In the system I currently train, we use techniques like breath work and body conditioning that have been around for centuries, and are, in my opinion vital, but why learn the meridians and meridian points when an anatomical or neurological strike (both from traditional arts) would be more efficient. I suppose what I am trying to say is why spend years learning how to win/survive/defend, when there could be a quicker more efficient way.
> I do believe traditional MA are still effective, but why would you spend 20 years learning an art form (technique names in its native language, the appropriate way to tie your belt). I don't regret training in traditional arts, but would I really tell a younger me to take that path.
> So are you a traditionalist or a modernist, or maybe you have a different view,  I would love your opinion.



I believe that the distinction between traditional and modern martial arts is a false dichotomy used as a vast oversimplification personally.


----------



## Steve (Jan 22, 2019)

StellarAevum said:


> I believe that the distinction between traditional and modern martial arts is a false dichotomy used as a vast oversimplification personally.


Are you saying it is not a meaningful distinction, that there is no distinction at all or something else?  If thos is oversimplified, what is the more complex version?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 22, 2019)

StellarAevum said:


> I believe that the distinction between traditional and modern martial arts is a false dichotomy used as a vast oversimplification personally.


Agree! What we may call

- traditional, it was called modern 1000 years ago.
- modern, it will be called traditional 1000 years from today.

The Chinese wrestling has over 3000 years ancient history. From Chinese wrestling point of view, any other MA systems will be considered as modern.

In the river, the back wave pushes the front wave. The front wave then crash on the rock. That's how history goes.


----------



## MetalBoar (Jan 22, 2019)

StellarAevum said:


> I believe that the distinction between traditional and modern martial arts is a false dichotomy used as a vast oversimplification personally.





Steve said:


> Are you saying it is not a meaningful distinction, that there is no distinction at all or something else? If thos is oversimplified, what is the more complex version?



I won't speak for @StellarAevum but I agree that it's an imprecise and confused distinction. TMA and modern are used as short hands for various conceptual, training and application differences between arts that most people seem to use without defining because they think everyone agrees, but that isn't really true. A lot of people seem to mean competition based arts vs. arts that don't compete. But if you say Aikido is traditional but Judo isn't then it's a poor definition. Or Kyokushin, it trains with kata and other methods that are frequently seen as  "traditional" and has it's roots in older arts, but it was founded post WWII and frequently has a competitive focus. TKD is similar in this regard. Both seem to sometimes get labeled "traiditonal" and sometimes not depending on the discussion. Then there are the modern self defense arts like Krav Maga, which seem to get thrown in with TMA's for some of these discussions (because they don't compete?) but many of them do not have kata nor use other training methods usually associated TMA's and have been founded in the 20th or 21st century. For that matter, where do you put Muay Thai, western boxing, wrestling, or sport fencing? Kendo? etc.


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 22, 2019)

StellarAevum said:


> I believe that the distinction between traditional and modern martial arts is a false dichotomy used as a vast oversimplification personally.


If by oversimplification you mean the differences are considerable I agree.


----------



## Steve (Jan 22, 2019)

MetalBoar said:


> I won't speak for @StellarAevum but I agree that it's an imprecise and confused distinction. TMA and modern are used as short hands for various conceptual, training and application differences between arts that most people seem to use without defining because they think everyone agrees, but that isn't really true. A lot of people seem to mean competition based arts vs. arts that don't compete. But if you say Aikido is traditional but Judo isn't then it's a poor definition. Or Kyokushin, it trains with kata and other methods that are frequently seen as  "traditional" and has it's roots in older arts, but it was founded post WWII and frequently has a competitive focus. TKD is similar in this regard. Both seem to sometimes get labeled "traiditonal" and sometimes not depending on the discussion. Then there are the modern self defense arts like Krav Maga, which seem to get thrown in with TMA's for some of these discussions (because they don't compete?) but many of them do not have kata nor use other training methods usually associated TMA's and have been founded in the 20th or 21st century. For that matter, where do you put Muay Thai, western boxing, wrestling, or sport fencing? Kendo? etc.


I think you’ve summarized the issue pretty well.  

I’ve been around here a while, and seen this movie before.  We get a few different kinds of posts.  Many presume a shared understanding of the terms and post accordingly.  

Some, like yours and the one you reference basically just point out the issue.  It’s like pointing at the dog vomit on the carpet.  “The problem is that we have dog vomit.  Look, there it is.  Gross.  It’s dog vomit.  Yuck.  On the carpet.”  

I’m really hoping we get to the point where we can agree on some definitions, whether they are perfect or not, and then have a discussion about the same thing.   I’ve offered definitions in the past, as have others (you can find them if you search for them) and the thread generally devolves into people picking apart the proposed definition rather than using it as a platform for conversation.   That would be folks complaining about how someone cleans up the dog vomit.  “Yuck... he’s using cold water and rubbing.   You should dab and blot.  Dab and blot. You’re not doing it right.”  

So, We have some new blood in the discussion.  We have an opportunity.   Rather than fall into the traps above, I’m way more interested in your definitions of the terms and what you think about them.  So, what do you think?   If the dichotomy is oversimplified, then let’s get more complex.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 22, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> If by oversimplification you mean the differences are considerable I agree.


They can be. Depends how you define the terms.


----------



## StellarAevum (Jan 22, 2019)

Steve said:


> Are you saying it is not a meaningful distinction, that there is no distinction at all or something else?  If thos is oversimplified, what is the more complex version?



I do not think that it serves to tell us anything and they are commonly applied inconsistently. Some like to make blanket statements about "traditional martial arts" being impractical, but use Boxing, Wrestling, and Muy Thai themselves. Or someone may call Taekwondo a traditional martial art when it is around 50 years old and call Baritsu a modern martial art despite it being over 100. 



MetalBoar said:


> I won't speak for @StellarAevum but I agree that it's an imprecise and confused distinction. TMA and modern are used as short hands for various conceptual, training and application differences between arts that most people seem to use without defining because they think everyone agrees, but that isn't really true. A lot of people seem to mean competition based arts vs. arts that don't compete. But if you say Aikido is traditional but Judo isn't then it's a poor definition. Or Kyokushin, it trains with kata and other methods that are frequently seen as  "traditional" and has it's roots in older arts, but it was founded post WWII and frequently has a competitive focus. TKD is similar in this regard. Both seem to sometimes get labeled "traiditonal" and sometimes not depending on the discussion. Then there are the modern self defense arts like Krav Maga, which seem to get thrown in with TMA's for some of these discussions (because they don't compete?) but many of them do not have kata nor use other training methods usually associated TMA's and have been founded in the 20th or 21st century. For that matter, where do you put Muay Thai, western boxing, wrestling, or sport fencing? Kendo? etc.



Exactly, it often seems to stem from people assuming that more sparring-oriented martial arts are more "modern" than non-sparring oriented martial arts. Additionally, where does one place something like HEMA (historical european martial arts) that is a reconstructed martial art rooted in traditional fighting manuals. 



dvcochran said:


> If by oversimplification you mean the differences are considerable I agree.



I mean that you cannot make generalizations about the differences between "traditional" and "modern" martial arts without being logically fallacious.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 22, 2019)

Steve said:


> I think you’ve summarized the issue pretty well.
> 
> I’ve been around here a while, and seen this movie before.  We get a few different kinds of posts.  Many presume a shared understanding of the terms and post accordingly.
> 
> ...


I think perhaps the issue is that different people jump in with what they have been using as their definition. Sometimes to be argumentative, sometimes to clarify what they're talking about, and sometimes just to suggest a different definition for the discussion.

Heck, I don't really agree with myself about the distinction. Sometimes I'm talking about older vs. newer (even that is rather vague). Sometimes I'm talking about systems that try to remain static - keeping to the way the system was at some arbitrary point in time. Most often, I'm talking about systems that use traditional training methods that have been around for long periods of time and have become codified in the system, versus those that seem to use whatever works at the time. That last is often (by me) conflated with traditional rituals (uniforms, bowing, remnants of the language from the country of origin, etc.) - probably because I most often see them overlap.

If I can't agree with me, how am I ever going to manage to agree with you?

In all seriousness, I think part of the problem is it's a conceptual term, rather than a concrete one. And those of us who are more conceptual are comfortable with vague definition, which doesn't work well in discussion with those who are less conceptual (and "conceptual" is not a value judgment in either direction).


----------



## StellarAevum (Jan 22, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I think perhaps the issue is that different people jump in with what they have been using as their definition. Sometimes to be argumentative, sometimes to clarify what they're talking about, and sometimes just to suggest a different definition for the discussion.
> 
> Heck, I don't really agree with myself about the distinction. Sometimes I'm talking about older vs. newer (even that is rather vague). Sometimes I'm talking about systems that try to remain static - keeping to the way the system was at some arbitrary point in time. Most often, I'm talking about systems that use traditional training methods that have been around for long periods of time and have become codified in the system, versus those that seem to use whatever works at the time. That last is often (by me) conflated with traditional rituals (uniforms, bowing, remnants of the language from the country of origin, etc.) - probably because I most often see them overlap.
> 
> ...



Personally, and this may be me being a stereotypical nit-picky student of philosophy, I would rather we try to discuss these different concepts separately then conflate them with each other.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 22, 2019)

I've always looked at traditional martial arts as something that was mostly done as tradition  vs the original purpose that it was intended for.

Modern martial arts is just the opposite of that.  It's not based on Tradition or the desire to remember or preserve old ways of doing things.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 22, 2019)

StellarAevum said:


> Personally, and this may be me being a stereotypical nit-picky student of philosophy, I would rather we try to discuss these different concepts separately then conflate them with each other.


I agree. That's my issue with this discussion. If we start with a vague term, what one person replies isn't necessarily related to the intended question.

We'd get further if we started these not with a generic term subject to individual definition, but with a working definition - which is where I think Steve is coming from.


----------



## StellarAevum (Jan 22, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> I've always looked at traditional martial arts as something that was mostly done as tradition  vs the original purpose that it was intended for.
> 
> Modern martial arts is just the opposite of that.  It's not based on Tradition or the desire to remember or preserve old ways of doing things.



Hm, even these seem a little hard to hammer down. 

Like is boxing a traditional or modern martial art under this distinction?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 22, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> I've always looked at traditional martial arts as something that was mostly done as tradition  vs the original purpose that it was intended for.
> 
> Modern martial arts is just the opposite of that.  It's not based on Tradition or the desire to remember or preserve old ways of doing things.


This is a good example. In some ways this is very close to my most common usage. But in other ways, it's not at all the same. If you and I started discussing traditional vs. modern without defining the distinction, we might agree or argue for some time before we figured out we weren't really talking about quite the same thing.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 22, 2019)

StellarAevum said:


> Like is boxing a traditional or modern martial art under this distinction?


Depends on what form of boxing you are using.  

For example, if your boxing is looks like what he used (below) and you, as well as other practitioners, do it more to keep an older style of boxing alive so that it's not forgotten, then boxing this style of boxing would qualify as traditional boxing.  The goal isn't to actually learn how to fight with it but to remember the ways.  It's no different that sword forms where the same martial artists who do the sword forms do not know how to fight with the sword.  The term traditional reflects the majority use for the system.

People who use traditional martial arts rarely think of their skill sets as old or as something that should only be used used to preserve the history culture of a fighting system.  If you actually use the system for it's intended purpose then, it's about as modern as anything else.  A fighting system can be traditional and modern at the same time.  How long has bread making been around?  Both modern and traditional ways to make bread.  It's the same way with martial arts.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 22, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> This is a good example. In some ways this is very close to my most common usage. But in other ways, it's not at all the same. If you and I started discussing traditional vs. modern without defining the distinction, we might agree or argue for some time before we figured out we weren't really talking about quite the same thing.


I think the problem is often because people assume that a fighting system has to be one or the other.  Aikido can be both traditional and modern. It does not have to be one or the other.  If you think of traditional Aikido then you are looking at elements that may not be found modern Aikido..  My Jow Ga training lacks many of the traditional elements found in Jow Ga Schools.  No Shrine, No lion dance, even when I thought the sparring classes, I didn't do a lot of the traditional things that are done during the regular class.


----------



## Steve (Jan 22, 2019)

StellarAevum said:


> Personally, and this may be me being a stereotypical nit-picky student of philosophy, I would rather we try to discuss these different concepts separately then conflate them with each other.


Maybe it’s just me, but I’m waiting for you to stop talking about what you’d prefer to do, and just do it.  Pick a concept and start the conversation.   Either one.  I am sincerely interested.


----------



## Steve (Jan 22, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I agree. That's my issue with this discussion. If we start with a vague term, what one person replies isn't necessarily related to the intended question.
> 
> We'd get further if we started these not with a generic term subject to individual definition, but with a working definition - which is where I think Steve is coming from.


Killing me, Gerry.  


JowGaWolf said:


> I've always looked at traditional martial arts as something that was mostly done as tradition  vs the original purpose that it was intended for.
> 
> Modern martial arts is just the opposite of that.  It's not based on Tradition or the desire to remember or preserve old ways of doing things.


As good a definition as I’ve heard.   If I could suggest a slightly different way of saying it, the difference is when there is a conflict between doing it the way you are taught or doing it in a way that might be more effective.  If, when this conflict arises, the art and its students preserve the way they are taught, it is a traditional art.  If, when this conflict arises, the art and its students change the curriculum, it is not traditional.

But I’m good with competitive or not, or even Asian or western, or sticking with what you say above.

If we can agree on some terms, we have a good start.


----------



## Steve (Jan 22, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> In all seriousness, I think part of the problem is it's a conceptual term, rather than a concrete one. And those of us who are more conceptual are comfortable with vague definition, which doesn't work well in discussion with those who are less conceptual (and "conceptual" is not a value judgment in either direction).


I have found that being comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty is a strong predictor of success as a leader.   Not the only one, but one of only a few.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 22, 2019)

When does traditional stop being traditional and becomes modern?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 22, 2019)

At what point did traditional stop being traditional and forever broke the chains of the past?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 22, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> I've always looked at traditional martial arts as something that was mostly done as tradition  vs the original purpose that it was intended for.
> 
> Modern martial arts is just the opposite of that.  It's not based on Tradition or the desire to remember or preserve old ways of doing things.



Function vs form.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 22, 2019)

Steve said:


> Killing me, Gerry.
> 
> As good a definition as I’ve heard.   If I could suggest a slightly different way of saying it, the difference is when there is a conflict between doing it the way you are taught or doing it in a way that might be more effective.  If, when this conflict arises, the art and its students preserve the way they are taught, it is a traditional art.  If, when this conflict arises, the art and its students change the curriculum, it is not traditional.
> 
> ...




And the mindset difference of an art that advances by the actions of the creators. And one that advances by the actions of the students.


----------



## StellarAevum (Jan 23, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> Depends on what form of boxing you are using.
> 
> For example, *if your boxing is looks like what he used (below) and you, as well as other practitioners, do it more to keep an older style of boxing alive so that it's not forgotten,* then boxing this style of boxing would qualify as traditional boxing.  The goal isn't to actually learn how to fight with it but to remember the ways.  It's no different that sword forms where the same martial artists who do the sword forms do not know how to fight with the sword.  The term traditional reflects the majority use for the system.
> 
> People who use traditional martial arts rarely think of their skill sets as old or as something that should only be used used to preserve the history culture of a fighting system.  If you actually use the system for it's intended purpose then, it's about as modern as anything else.  A fighting system can be traditional and modern at the same time.  How long has bread making been around?  Both modern and traditional ways to make bread.  It's the same way with martial arts.



This is a unfounded assumption and often wrong. Many people train in classical puglism because it has better self-defense application than gloved boxing. 

Your definition seems to assume that all practioner of a martial art are doing so for the same reasons.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 23, 2019)

StellarAevum said:


> This is a unfounded assumption and often wrong. Many people train in classical puglism because it has better self-defense application than gloved boxing.
> 
> Your definition seems to assume that all practioner of a martial art are doing so for the same reasons.



When pugilists start winning bare knuckle boxing matches. I will start paying attention to them.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 23, 2019)

StellarAevum said:


> his is a unfounded assumption and often wrong. Many people train in classical puglism because it has better self-defense application than gloved boxing.


"I take kung fu because it has better self-defense application  than [insert other martial arts]"  That's what this statement remind me of.



StellarAevum said:


> Your definition seems to assume that all practioner of a martial art are doing so for the same reasons.


Nope that's what you assume about my statement.  Training for form is not the same as Training for function.  If you aren't training for Function then you are only training to preserve the form (aka preserve the traditions of that martial art)


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 23, 2019)

drop bear said:


> And the mindset difference of an art that advances by the actions of the creators. And one that advances by the actions of the students.


I like that distinction. I don't know that it matches the words traditional and modern, but I like that as a distinction for this type of discussion.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 23, 2019)

StellarAevum said:


> This is a unfounded assumption and often wrong. Many people train in classical puglism because it has better self-defense application than gloved boxing.
> 
> Your definition seems to assume that all practioner of a martial art are doing so for the same reasons.


He did cover the intent in that post, with the "you...do it to keep an older style of boxing alive". If you have a different intent, that wouldn't fall under his definition.


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 23, 2019)

I have been thinking about the name of this topic and the many posts about trying to define the two "types" of MA. One consistent theme I hear when non-traditional people talk about traditional styles is the following of specific protocols, philosophies, and decorum. Often it is not acknowledged that many of the techniques used in modern MA originated from a traditional format and conversely there have been many refinements, and new techniques along the way. 
One line of defining a traditional style is one that it follows ALL the practices from a historical perspective, regardless of whether there have been changes within the mechanics over time. Likewise, a modern style may be one that has over time, or from origination dropped the decorum and philosophy to streamline their practice.
Possibly a streamlining method could be to peel back a style to the original known name (in last 200 years?). Not an ancient name/style that is thousands of years old because, let's be honest, we know basically nothing about them with the exception of a few possibly books. So there would not be ITF, ATA, WTF, etc... Tae Kwon Do. There would just be TKD for example. TKD alone is a tough one because in its current format it is not that old.  
Hopefully this is a start that can be considered, deconstructed and refined.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 23, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> I have been thinking about the name of this topic and the many posts about trying to define the two "types" of MA. One consistent theme I hear when non-traditional people talk about traditional styles is the following of specific protocols, philosophies, and decorum. Often it is not acknowledged that many of the techniques used in modern MA originated from a traditional format and conversely there have been many refinements, and new techniques along the way.
> One line of defining a traditional style is one that it follows ALL the practices from a historical perspective, regardless of whether there have been changes within the mechanics over time. Likewise, a modern style may be one that has over time, or from origination dropped the decorum and philosophy to streamline their practice.
> Possibly a streamlining method could be to peel back a style to the original known name (in last 200 years?). Not an ancient name/style that is thousands of years old because, let's be honest, we know basically nothing about them with the exception of a few possibly books. So there would not be ITF, ATA, WTF, etc... Tae Kwon Do. There would just be TKD for example. TKD alone is a tough one because in its current format it is not that old.
> Hopefully this is a start that can be considered, deconstructed and refined.


Even in that, you've combined several points. What if the practice methods haven't changed (same techniques, same training methods), but the philosophical approach has evolved or been lost entirely? Or vice-versa? What if it has all the ritual (bowing, uniforms, terms from origin language), but has evolved in every other way?

This is what I was getting at earlier with the inherent problems in creating a definition across all these areas. Pretty near every style will have some things on each side. I can't think of any style where everything they do is about fighting prowess - even MMA has things that are common and are more about sportsmanship (touching gloves to start the fight, for instance). We end up with a continuum, rather than opposing ideals.


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 23, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Even in that, you've combined several points. What if the practice methods haven't changed (same techniques, same training methods), but the philosophical approach has evolved or been lost entirely? Or vice-versa? What if it has all the ritual (bowing, uniforms, terms from origin language), but has evolved in every other way?
> 
> This is what I was getting at earlier with the inherent problems in creating a definition across all these areas. Pretty near every style will have some things on each side. I can't think of any style where everything they do is about fighting prowess - even MMA has things that are common and are more about sportsmanship (touching gloves to start the fight, for instance). We end up with a continuum, rather than opposing ideals.


To your points, that is what I am calling the philosophical aspects of a style, the formalities etc...
Are you saying the argument is pointless and the divide, if any, is irrelevant? As someone who has studied under what I consider both, I feel a very big difference. That said, it is a personal opinion and how we would start measuring someone's experiences I have no idea. 
I had the idea of taking some of the esoteric things that are always mentioned (like yours) and make them concrete lines to discuss the topic around. Impossible?


----------



## Steve (Jan 23, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Function vs form.


I really think this is it.   More specifically, the function drives the form . 

Ultimately, if you are learning to do what you think you are learning, no problem .  This isn't always the case, though, and that's where discussions like this are helpful .


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 23, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> To your points, that is what I am calling the philosophical aspects of a style, the formalities etc...
> Are you saying the argument is pointless and the divide, if any, is irrelevant? As someone who has studied under what I consider both, I feel a very big difference. That said, it is a personal opinion and how we would start measuring someone's experiences I have no idea.
> I had the idea of taking some of the esoteric things that are always mentioned (like yours) and make them concrete lines to discuss the topic around. Impossible?


I don't think it's impossible or pointless, but I do think it's more difficult to find a common working definition when we include multiple areas that aren't binary. An example of the issue we (generically, not necessarily you and I) keep running into is right there with your definition of "philosophical". I can accept it as a working definition, but read it as an entirely different thing, though it seemed quite clear to me. When I think of philosophical aspects, they are things like the philosophy of peace Ueshiba taught in his later years, or even the fairly common philosophy of not starting fights, striving to be a better person, etc. - which need not be part of martial arts (from a physical skill perspective), but often are.


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 23, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I don't think it's impossible or pointless, but I do think it's more difficult to find a common working definition when we include multiple areas that aren't binary. An example of the issue we (generically, not necessarily you and I) keep running into is right there with your definition of "philosophical". I can accept it as a working definition, but read it as an entirely different thing, though it seemed quite clear to me. When I think of philosophical aspects, they are things like the philosophy of peace Ueshiba taught in his later years, or even the fairly common philosophy of not starting fights, striving to be a better person, etc. - which need not be part of martial arts (from a physical skill perspective), but often are.


I have to agree. My experiences make me believe becoming a better person is vital when learning something as potentially violent as a MA. I can't in good confidence take the position that we are all good and that people are not greatly influenced by what they learn. Therefore learning only the violence can lead to the lack of understanding in how/when to use it. This is not limited to just MA either. I am certainly a nuture vs. nature guy.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 23, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Function vs form.


Function can be mapped into form.

The partner drill without partner is solo drill. If you link solo drill, you will get form.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 23, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> I have to agree. My experiences make me believe becoming a better person is vital when learning something as potentially violent as a MA. I can't in good confidence take the position that we are all good and that people are not greatly influenced by what they learn. Therefore learning only the violence can lead to the lack of understanding in how/when to use it. This is not limited to just MA either. I am certainly a nuture vs. nature guy.


I tend to think that's true, though there's an argument to be made that modeling is more important than an overt philosophy. So an MMA coach who never talks about that stuff but is just a good model of self-control, disciplined work, and emotional intelligence - that person will probably do as good a job of turning out "good" people as I will.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 23, 2019)

Steve said:


> If, when this conflict arises, the art and its students preserve the way they are taught, it is a traditional art. If, when this conflict arises, the art and its students change the curriculum, it is not traditional.


I can see this as well too,  "The tradition of things."


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 23, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> I can see this as well too,  "The tradition of things."


I forgot to reply to this earlier. @Steve, I like that view. It's not a definition I use, but I quite like it. Give me some time, and it might end up being my preferred definition.


----------



## Deleted member 40306 (Jan 24, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> First you have to have "an eye for details"  Here's a good example.
> Techniques can't help you do the following:
> 
> Tell if someone is fully committed to a punch
> ...



This is great... I'm gonna borrow these fine bullet points for my bestseller 

Tell if someone is fully committed to a punch
Tell if someone is shifting weight on their back foot or front foot
Tell if someone is preparing to kick or punch
Tell if your opponent has a good root / stance or if he's got light feet
Tell if your opponent has tell-tale signs (something that happens before he/she takes action)
Tell if your opponent is picking up your tell-tale signs and how you are giving away what you are about to do.
Tell if your opponent is off balance
Tell if your opponent is about to be gassed out or if he's faking being tired
Tell if your opponent is really hurt or if he's faking it.
Tell if you are off balance or if you actually have a steady stance.
Tell if a person is going to kick, punch, or shoot for the legs.
De-escalation is all about small details.
Help you identify when someone will be open to an attack.
Help you if the person in front of you is actually signaling someone behind you.
If a person may have a weapon or gun on them.


----------



## StellarAevum (Jan 24, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> "I take kung fu because it has better self-defense application  than [insert other martial arts]"  That's what this statement remind me of.
> 
> 
> Nope that's what you assume about my statement.  Training for form is not the same as Training for function.  If you aren't training for Function then you are only training to preserve the form (aka preserve the traditions of that martial art)



No I was simply pointing out that boxing was historically an adaptation of puglism to be used with gloves instead of without. 

The fact of the matter is that since boxing is more common than puglism, that bare-knuckle boxers who adapt boxing are of course going to be more common. 

I am just saying that if you look at the historical context, one was designed for bare-knuckle fighting and one was designed for gloved fighting.


----------



## StellarAevum (Jan 24, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> He did cover the intent in that post, with the "you...do it to keep an older style of boxing alive". If you have a different intent, that wouldn't fall under his definition.





JowGaWolf said:


> For example, if your boxing is looks like what he used (below) and you, as well as other practitioners, do it more to keep an older style of boxing alive so that it's not forgotten, then boxing this style of boxing would qualify as traditional boxing.



The logic chain here, unless I'm misreading it, is:

A (You are using Pugilism) + B (You and others use Pugilism do it to keep it alive) = C (Pugilism is a traditional martial art) 

The problem here is that he is not saying that makes it a traditional martial art for that person or group of practioners but overall.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 24, 2019)

StellarAevum said:


> The logic chain here, unless I'm misreading it, is:
> 
> A (You are using Pugilism) + B (You and others use Pugilism do it to keep it alive) = C (Pugilism is a traditional martial art)
> 
> The problem here is that he is not saying that makes it a traditional martial art for that person or group of practioners but overall.


I don't think that's what he intended, at all. If I practice NGA with the intent to preserve the art as it was when it came to the US (rather than for practical reasons), then I'm practicing a Traditional art by his definition. If you practice NGA (same art) for practical purposes (could be competition, could be self-defense) and make adjustments for those practical purposes, you would be practicing a Modern art, by his definition. So, I'd be practicing "traditional" NGA, and you'd be practicing "modern" NGA.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 24, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I don't think that's what he intended, at all. If I practice NGA with the intent to preserve the art as it was when it came to the US (rather than for practical reasons), then I'm practicing a Traditional art by his definition. If you practice NGA (same art) for practical purposes (could be competition, could be self-defense) and make adjustments for those practical purposes, you would be practicing a Modern art, by his definition. So, I'd be practicing "traditional" NGA, and you'd be practicing "modern" NGA.



By that definition, I (and I suspect many others) practice both. I practice and teach exactly (in so far as I am capable) as I was taught. I also tweak things (and encourage students to tweak things) to make the system work as well as possible for each individual.
It's two, TWO arts in ONE!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 24, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I practice NGA with the intent to preserve the art as it was ...


If you can prove that the modern method is better than the traditional method, it makes no sense to keep training the traditional method.

This is the traditional hip throw training.

- You use hip to "bounce" your opponent's body up.
- It requires body spinning. If your opponent spins with you, he can drag you down with him.
- There is no set up.






This is the modern hip throw training.

- You use low horse stance to high horse stance to "lift" your opponent's body up.
- You enter through an angle. It does not require body spinning.
- You set it up with a low roundhouse kick.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 24, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you can prove that the modern method is better than the traditional method, it makes no sense to keep training the traditional method.



I double dog dare you to say that to people practicing Koryu arts...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 24, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> I double dog dare you to say that to people practicing Koryu arts...


Back in the 80th, IBM had a research group that study the GUI desktop. After 3 months of research, IBM came out a conclusion, "The GUI desktop is cute, but it doesn't fit for the IBM conservative image". Who would know that WINDOW has replaced DOS completely today.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 24, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Back in the 80th, IBM had a research group that study the GUI desktop. After 3 months of research, IBM came out a conclusion, "The GUI desktop is cute, but it doesn't fit for the IBM conservative image". Who would know that WINDOW has replaced DOS completely today.



Actually, that isn't true. Windows, despite what people think, is *not* an operating system. It is a mere shell over the operating system. Which is, still, MS-DOS.


----------



## MetalBoar (Jan 24, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> Actually, that isn't true. Windows, despite what people think, is *not* an operating system. It is a mere shell over the operating system. Which is, still, MS-DOS.


This is not true any more and was complicated even as far back as 1993. In '93 MS released the Windows NT 3.1 product line as an enterprise OS and it was not built on top of DOS, though you could access a command shell that allowed you to use DOS commands. So, 2 product lines, 1 built on top of DOS; Windows 3.x and 95/97/ME and the other based on Windows NT; Windows Server and Workstation NT 3.x, NT 4, Windows Server and Workstation 2000, Windows Server 2003, 2008, 2012 and 2016, Windows XP, Vista, 7, and 10.

This is complicated further by the fact that NT and Windows 2000 did not have consumer versions. Windows 2000 Workstation was intended to be both a consumer and business OS, but the hardware vendors didn't think the consumer market was ready for it and pushed MS into producing Windows ME, which was not originally in the plan. So with Windows XP MS split the lines into more obviously client and server OS's built on the same core technology and started offering different flavors of the client OS targeted at different use cases. On the client side XP had Home, Professional and eventually Media Center versions and the server side there was Server 2003 in various configurations. This has continued to this day with some variation.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 24, 2019)

MetalBoar said:


> This is not true any more and was complicated even as far back as 1993. In '93 MS released the Windows NT 3.1 product line as an enterprise OS and it was not built on top of DOS, though you could access a command shell that allowed you to use DOS commands. So, 2 product lines, 1 built on top of DOS; Windows 3.x and 95/97/ME and the other based on Windows NT; Windows Server and Workstation NT 3.x, NT 4, Windows Server and Workstation 2000, Windows Server 2003, 2008, 2012 and 2016, Windows XP, Vista, 7, and 10.
> 
> This is complicated further by the fact that NT and Windows 2000 did not have consumer versions. Windows 2000 Workstation was intended to be both a consumer and business OS, but the hardware vendors didn't think the consumer market was ready for it and pushed MS into producing Windows ME, which was not originally in the plan. So with Windows XP MS split the lines into more obviously client and server OS's built on the same core technology and started offering different flavors of the client OS targeted at different use cases. On the client side XP had Home, Professional and eventually Media Center versions and the server side there was Server 2003 in various configurations. This has continued to this day with some variation.



I've been running Unix or Linux for long enough that I didn't know this. 
It's still crap, though.


----------



## MetalBoar (Jan 24, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> I've been running Unix or Linux for long enough that I didn't know this.
> It's still crap, though.


Yeah, I use Linux as my primary OS at home with a small Windows partition for games. Living in Seattle and working in IT I don't have the option to ignore Windows, much as I might like to do so...


----------



## Steve (Jan 24, 2019)

StellarAevum said:


> The logic chain here, unless I'm misreading it, is:
> 
> A (You are using Pugilism) + B (You and others use Pugilism do it to keep it alive) = C (Pugilism is a traditional martial art)
> 
> The problem here is that he is not saying that makes it a traditional martial art for that person or group of practioners but overall.


The logic is sound, if the premise is agreed upon.  If we agree that an art is "traditional" if it is being practiced in order to preserve the art (aka "keep it alive"), then pugilism being practiced by even one person for the preservation of the art would make it traditional.  Or are you suggesting that there is a minimum number?  Or are you challenging the premise?


----------



## Steve (Jan 24, 2019)

MetalBoar said:


> This is not true any more and was complicated even as far back as 1993. In '93 MS released the Windows NT 3.1 product line as an enterprise OS and it was not built on top of DOS, though you could access a command shell that allowed you to use DOS commands. So, 2 product lines, 1 built on top of DOS; Windows 3.x and 95/97/ME and the other based on Windows NT; Windows Server and Workstation NT 3.x, NT 4, Windows Server and Workstation 2000, Windows Server 2003, 2008, 2012 and 2016, Windows XP, Vista, 7, and 10.
> 
> This is complicated further by the fact that NT and Windows 2000 did not have consumer versions. Windows 2000 Workstation was intended to be both a consumer and business OS, but the hardware vendors didn't think the consumer market was ready for it and pushed MS into producing Windows ME, which was not originally in the plan. So with Windows XP MS split the lines into more obviously client and server OS's built on the same core technology and started offering different flavors of the client OS targeted at different use cases. On the client side XP had Home, Professional and eventually Media Center versions and the server side there was Server 2003 in various configurations. This has continued to this day with some variation.


Are you absolutely sure about this?  I remember Windows 3.1 and 3.11 (Windows for Workgroups) very well, and IIRC, you still had to boot to DOS (version 6.something, I think) and "execute" Windows.  It was Windows 95 that was the game changer.  Now I need to google it...  

I also remember two other significant changes with Windows 95.  the first was Winsock, which allowed us to run a graphical browser on the WWW.  The other was "plug and play."  Prior to Windows 95, you had to install drivers and mess around with I/O ports and all kinds of crap, to install a printer, modem, or some other peripheral.  Win95 changed that.


----------



## MetalBoar (Jan 24, 2019)

Steve said:


> Are you absolutely sure about this?  I remember Windows 3.1 and 3.11 (Windows for Workgroups) very well, and IIRC, you still had to boot to DOS (version 6.something, I think) and "execute" Windows.  It was Windows 95 that was the game changer.  Now I need to google it...
> 
> I also remember two other significant changes with Windows 95.  the first was Winsock, which allowed us to run a graphical browser on the WWW.  The other was "plug and play."  Prior to Windows 95, you had to install drivers and mess around with I/O ports and all kinds of crap, to install a printer, modem, or some other peripheral.  Win95 changed that.


Oh yeah, Windows 95 was a game changer and DOS was no longer really an independent thing, though you could essentially still boot into DOS with effort it wasn't really intended to be run that way and I don't recall how full featured it was in that mode. Windows 95 booted in DOS and then loaded everything else on top and then sort of cut the DOS feet out from under itself. The two were so tightly integrated that you never saw DOS unless you went looking for it. So, yeah, you're right, even in Windows 95 it was less DOS and more Windows.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 24, 2019)

StellarAevum said:


> The logic chain here, unless I'm misreading it, is:
> 
> A (You are using Pugilism) + B (You and others use Pugilism do it to keep it alive) = C (Pugilism is a traditional martial art)







  This is correct but you are making it an Either, Or choice and you are only getting half of what I'm saying.
*TRUE*:  A (You are using Pugilism) + B (You and others use Pugilism do it to keep it alive) = C (Pugilism is a traditional martial art)  
*ALSO TRUE*: A (You are using Pugilism) + B (You and others use Pugilism do actually fight with) = C (Pugilism is a modern art)

If you don't care if your Pugilism is functional then you will be happy with just learning the old ways
If you care if your Pugilism is functional then your Pugilism will evolve simply because it has to address the current hand to hand combat skills of the day.  You won't be able to afford to "keep it old" or "Keep it in the context of a different time period."   

It's no different than a traditional wheel vs a modern wheel. 
This is a traditional wheel.  If you don't care about a lot of the modern things that today's wheels must deal with then.  Learning how to make this type of wheel is fine.  You are preserving a tradition





The wheels on your car are not traditional wheels.  The designers of those wheels will always be forced to move away to tradition as they seek to make wheels highly functional.





The wheel is both Traditional and Modern.  



Fighting systems are the same way.  Exactly like the Wheel.  If you care about keeping your system functional then it's going to evolve to meet the needs of the present day.
Fighting systems can also be traditional at the same time and is often referred to as traditional when the system no longer seeks to meet the needs of the present day fighting.  In this case people just do it to keep alive the "old ways"  they are sort of like the keepers of history.  If you need a blue print then they got it.  For people like that the need to be functional is not important.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 24, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> By that definition, I (and I suspect many others) practice both. I practice and teach exactly (in so far as I am capable) as I was taught. I also tweak things (and encourage students to tweak things) to make the system work as well as possible for each individual.
> It's two, TWO arts in ONE!


It's hard for people to see that  a fighting system can be 2 different things at once.   For most people it has to be either Traditional or Functional. It can't be both.  By the nature of Function,  anything that wants to remain functional has to change and always be modern.  Improvements will need to be made even if the technique is old, the delivery of it will most certainly be made more efficient and effective.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 24, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> It's hard for people to see that  a fighting system can be 2 different things at once.


You either punch from your guard, or you punch from your waist. You can't do both. If you train both, when you have to use it, you may confuse yourself.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 24, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you can prove that the modern method is better than the traditional method, it makes no sense to keep training the traditional method.


If your traditional method is functional then it has already undergone some changes and will probably continue to do so, as long as users want to ensure that it's functional enough to meet the present day needs of fighting.  If your traditional method is functional then by nature it will become the modern method, but it will lose much of it's tradition and desire to keep the "old way."   The same person may choose to keep the "old ways" as a way to preserve the tradition.  But he will certainly not use it to fight if it's not functional.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 24, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You either punch from your guard, or you punch from your waist. You can't do both. If you train both, when you have to use it, you may confuse yourself.


I can do both.  I can punch from my guard, and from my waist, I can also punch from an extended arm.  There's not confusion for me because each has their own time and place.  I cannot biologically punch from my waist if my arm is already extended.  I cannot biologically punch with an extended arm if my arms are in a guard.   I have videos of me doing all 3 of these things and it's not confusing to me.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 24, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You either punch from your guard, or you punch from your waist. You can't do both. If you train both, when you have to use it, you may confuse yourself.



I can punch from either, and from lots of other places, without any confusion whatsoever.
Because there's more than one way to throw a punch.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 24, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> I can punch from either, and from lots of other places, without any confusion whatsoever.
> Because there's more than one way to throw a punch.


This is where all of those methods of power generation come into play.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 24, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> Fighting systems can also be traditional at the same time and is often referred to as traditional when the system no longer seeks to meet the needs of the present day fighting.  In this case people just do it to keep alive the "old ways"  they are sort of like the keepers of history.  If you need a blue print then they got it.  For people like that the need to be functional is not important.


I don’t see traditional methods in this way at all.  Traditional methods have simply been around for a long time.  They have been around for a long time because they have proven to be effective methods.  They are still effective.

Everybody, in every generation, makes some modification to the method.  This is part of what it means to be human.  So a method today is not exactly the same as it was 400 years ago.  But that does not automatically mean that it is no longer the same system.


----------



## Steve (Jan 24, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> I don’t see traditional methods in this way at all.  Traditional methods have simply been around for a long time.


not necessarily.  Most traditional styles today are relatively young.   





> They have been around for a long time because they have proven to be effective methods.


this literally made me laugh.  There are so many possible reasons something hangs around that have nothing to do with efficacy.  





> They are still effective.


another laughable assertion grounded in absolutely nothing but wishful thinking and fairy dust.  





> Everybody, in every generation, makes some modification to the method.  This is part of what it means to be human.  So a method today is not exactly the same as it was 400 years ago.  But that does not automatically mean that it is no longer the same system.


i don’t not disagree with this.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 24, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> Traditional methods have simply been around for a long time.


Yes. This is the preservation of tradition. They aren't around for a long time because they are effective, they are around a long time because people preserve the tradition.  It evolves because it's effective which is why boxing from the 1800's doesn't look like today's boxing.  Box are called boxing but both aren't the same system.  Today's boxing has things and does things that were done during the earlier days of boxing.   Same sport but definitely not the same system.  Same system would suggest that there have been no changes.    It may have the same name but it's definitely not the same system of fighting.

Example: Both are called lion dances.  There are things that are done in Modern Lion Dance that were never done in Traditional Lion Dance.  Traditional lion dance has a lot of ritual and superstition attached to it.  Modern lion dance does not.

Traditional Lion Dance





Modern Lion Dance





Traditional Lion Dance has a lot more kung fu movement than modern lion dance.






Think of it like this.  You and your family share same last name and your kids (if you have any) share your blood and your wife's blood.  Now expand this blood line out to the uncles, cousins, grandparents who may share the same last name.  This is the "Same Name"   Now think of each family group "This is the system"  Each Family group has their ow approach to doing things. While they have the same name they do not use the same approach to doing things.

Wing Chun is a good example of this.   So while the name is Wing Chun.  The systems can very from one  "family group" to another.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 24, 2019)

Steve said:


> i don’t not disagree with this.


ha ha ha. an so it begins. lol.   But back on track.  Jow Ga kung fu is considered a traditional martial arts but it hasn't been around in comparison to other systems.  It's made of older systems but that's not why it's seen as traditional.  Jow Ga schools do a lot of Traditional Chinese Culture stuff.  From Shrines, honoring the dead, and tea ceremonies, most Jow Ga schools still do those things. A good example would be the lion dance.  Our lion dance is heavy into numerology so the lion has to do certain actions a certain amount of times for good luck, blessing.  Screw that up and you curse the people who you are doing the lion dance from lol.  Stuff like this isn't what the student's actually believe, but it's tradition so we do it.  It's always  ceremony and never just a lion dance.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 24, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> I can do both.


When you train "groin kick, face punch" combo, do you train 1 way vs. the other way, or do you train both ways?

As far as I know, this "kick, jab, hook, hook" combo doesn't exist in any traditional MA form. You may call this modern training instead of traditional training.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 24, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> Yes. This is the preservation of tradition. They aren't around for a long time because they are effective, they are around a long time because people preserve the tradition.  It evolves because it's effective which is why boxing from the 1800's doesn't look like today's boxing.  Box are called boxing but both aren't the same system.  Today's boxing has things and does things that were done during the earlier days of boxing.   Same sport but definitely not the same system.  Same system would suggest that there have been no changes.    It may have the same name but it's definitely not the same system of fighting.
> 
> Example: Both are called lion dances.  There are things that are done in Modern Lion Dance that were never done in Traditional Lion Dance.  Traditional lion dance has a lot of ritual and superstition attached to it.  Modern lion dance does not.
> 
> ...


You are convoluting the reason the old systems still have practitioners.  They continue to exist because they work.  While there are some cases where the preservation of an old archaic method is done for historical purposes, those would be in the minority.  The vast majority of traditional (old) methods that continue to exist do so because the people doing them continue to find them effective and useful and relevant.

The fact that there is always change as I mentioned, is a different issue.  The real issue, the real reason traditional methods continue to exist is that they are still relevant.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 24, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> By that definition, I (and I suspect many others) practice both. I practice and teach exactly (in so far as I am capable) as I was taught. I also tweak things (and encourage students to tweak things) to make the system work as well as possible for each individual.
> It's two, TWO arts in ONE!


By that definition, I definitely practiced a traditional art for about 12 years, and have spent the last 18 years practicing a (mostly) modern art - all in the same art.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 24, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> The vast majority of traditional (old) methods that continue to exist do so because the people doing them continue to find them effective and useful and relevant.


This is only a small number of people in comparison of those who only do it for exercise, fitness, or just the fun of learning a real martial arts form.  One only needs to look at how a school advertises itself to know what type of students the schools has or is trying to attract.

The first thing I think of when someone says kung fu sparring is "basic kick boxing skills"
The first thing I expect to see when someone says kung fu sparring is "basic kick boxing skills"

Where's the Kung Fu?  I don't see Hungar Techniques and I don't see Shaolin Kung Fu techniques. So when you say "effective" kung fu, then why isn't it here?






Where's the kung fu? I'm sure their forms have more techniques than what they are showing.





I don't know about other martial arts systems but Kung Fu didn't thrive because there are a bunch of kick butt kung fu fighters out there.  People see this and want to learn a form


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 24, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you can prove that the modern method is better than the traditional method, it makes no sense to keep training the traditional method.
> 
> This is the traditional hip throw training.
> 
> ...


That's kind of the point JGW was making. If you just want to preserve the art at a fixed point, then "better" isn't a consideration. If you are looking for best function, then "how it has always been done" isn't much of a consideration. I think most of us are somewhere between those two.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 24, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> Actually, that isn't true. Windows, despite what people think, is *not* an operating system. It is a mere shell over the operating system. Which is, still, MS-DOS.


Now with a Unix/Linux (not sure which) shell involved, too, apparently. Early Windows was definitely nothing more than a GUI running on MS-DOS.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 24, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When you train "groin kick, face punch" combo, do you train 1 way vs. the other way, or do you train both ways?


If I understand your question, then I train multiple ways.  For me there is no "one size fits all" It's not enough for me to know just one way to punch a face.  The way that I want to punch a face may not be available so I have to learn another way to punch a face.  Knowing multiple ways to punch a face is better than waiting for the right time and distance to only do one type of punch to the face.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 24, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> It's hard for people to see that  a fighting system can be 2 different things at once.   For most people it has to be either Traditional or Functional. It can't be both.  By the nature of Function,  anything that wants to remain functional has to change and always be modern.  Improvements will need to be made even if the technique is old, the delivery of it will most certainly be made more efficient and effective.


I think it's even possible to be both at the same time, if you're not a purist for either. I preserve parts of NGA, because I like them (rather than for function). I change others, because they don't have the functionality I want for myself and my students. So I teach a modern version of a traditional art, I guess.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 24, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You either punch from your guard, or you punch from your waist. You can't do both. If you train both, when you have to use it, you may confuse yourself.


I've trained both. Still do sometimes. I've never had confusion over which to use.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 24, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I think it's even possible to be both at the same time, if you're not a purist for either. I preserve parts of NGA, because I like them (rather than for function). I change others, because they don't have the functionality I want for myself and my students. So I teach a modern version of a traditional art, I guess.


  I know I do both.  I train the traditional part as a base.  It provides a good foundation for which to progress from. Everything is done exactly as I was taught. It helps train the movement that the body needs to make, in order to expand and improve on a technique.

If I try to create a new combo that wasn't taught to me.  I will often start with the traditional way to see how everything connects.  From there I have a better idea of which "modern" versions of that technique will work best together.  I also still have the option to use a "traditional" technique on someone.  No one ever said you can't tag someone with some old skool strikes lol. It's still an option.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 25, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> This is only a small number of people in comparison of those who only do it for exercise, fitness, or just the fun of learning a real martial arts form.  One only needs to look at how a school advertises itself to know what type of students the schools has or is trying to attract.
> 
> The first thing I think of when someone says kung fu sparring is "basic kick boxing skills"
> The first thing I expect to see when someone says kung fu sparring is "basic kick boxing skills"
> ...


So I guess I’m confused.  Are you saying that you train your system out of historical interest?  Do you find your system to be lacking in relevance as a combative system?  If so, that is unfortunate.  Not all of us who train in a traditional method feel that way.

Regardless of whether or not some people today just want exercise, the traditional systems themselves would not have survived into the modern era if they were not fundamentally sound and effective as a combative method.

My system certainly is.  If your system is not, that has nothing to do with me nor with most others.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 25, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> So I guess I’m confused.  Are you saying that you train your system out of historical interest?  Do you find your system to be lacking in relevance as a combative system?  If so, that is unfortunate.  Not all of us who train in a traditional method feel that way.
> 
> Regardless of whether or not some people today just want exercise, the traditional systems themselves would not have survived into the modern era if they were not fundamentally sound and effective as a combative method.
> 
> My system certainly is.  If your system is not, that has nothing to do with me nor with most others.


I think what JWG is getting at is more about intent. So, if you find nothing lacking in the system you train in, there might be no observable difference between a "traditional" and a "modern" approach, as he has defined it.

I'll go back to my own primary art as an example. NGA is quite functional, as a whole. But there are parts that are lacking (the ground work taught when I was training in the NGAA wasn't laughable, but wasn't very good). There are also some areas where the training isn't very efficient - techniques that I don't consider functional for actual use, but which are useful in studying some principles. Those could be taken out and replaced with more time spent on sparring. I prefer to keep them. I see the cost of keeping them as low, and there's benefit for folks (like me) who like to dig into the principles sometimes without direct application. I refer to these as "esoteric techniques".

I don't consider any of that an indictment of NGA or any other art. Personally, I like the ritual of the traditional ways and the intellectual exercise presented by the esoteric techniques. Neither of those things has much to do with combat ability, so if I were entirely focused on that function, I'd drop them out.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 25, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I think what JWG is getting at is more about intent. So, if you find nothing lacking in the system you train in, there might be no observable difference between a "traditional" and a "modern" approach, as he has defined it.
> 
> I'll go back to my own primary art as an example. NGA is quite functional, as a whole. But there are parts that are lacking (the ground work taught when I was training in the NGAA wasn't laughable, but wasn't very good). There are also some areas where the training isn't very efficient - techniques that I don't consider functional for actual use, but which are useful in studying some principles. Those could be taken out and replaced with more time spent on sparring. I prefer to keep them. I see the cost of keeping them as low, and there's benefit for folks (like me) who like to dig into the principles sometimes without direct application. I refer to these as "esoteric techniques".
> 
> I don't consider any of that an indictment of NGA or any other art. Personally, I like the ritual of the traditional ways and the intellectual exercise presented by the esoteric techniques. Neither of those things has much to do with combat ability, so if I were entirely focused on that function, I'd drop them out.


Why does anyone get to define what is traditional or modern, for anyone but themselves?  

Apparently my definition is different from his.  The old stuff has survived because it still works.  That is my experience.

As I acknowledged, change does happen,  that is part of being human.  Nothing done today is identical to how it (or it’s ancestor) was done 400 years ago.  Change is a reality of life.  But it is still a traditional system if it has been handed down through the generations. Those that continue to have viability have survived.  I very much doubt that any but a very small percentage of folks practicing a traditional system are doing so with the intent of preserving something from the past, with the knowledge that it no longer has relevance in the modern world.  Some archaic weapons systems may fit that description, but not much else.


----------



## Steve (Jan 25, 2019)

I would say kyudo is a traditional art.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 25, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> Why does anyone get to define what is traditional or modern, for anyone but themselves?
> 
> Apparently my definition is different from his.  The old stuff has survived because it still works.  That is my experience.
> 
> As I acknowledged, change does happen,  that is part of being human.  Nothing done today is identical to how it (or it’s ancestor) was done 400 years ago.  Change is a reality of life.  But it is still a traditional system if it has been handed down through the generations. Those that continue to have viability have survived.  I very much doubt that any but a very small percentage of folks practicing a traditional system are doing so with the intent of preserving something from the past, with the knowledge that it no longer has relevance in the modern world.  Some archaic weapons systems may fit that description, but not much else.


I don't think he's trying to push a definition on anyone. @Steve suggested (a useful suggestion) that we ought to find a working definition. JGW's definition isn't mine, but I'm discussing around that definition. I call what I do "traditional" without hesitation, but by his definition, it's more modern. Doesn't matter - it's an interesting discussion using either set of definitions.

So, if his definition of "traditional" doesn't fit what you do, then neither do his comments about a traditional art. If the word bothers you, just replace it with a word that better fits his definition, in your head. He's not impugning your art or anyone else's.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 25, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I don't think he's trying to push a definition on anyone. @Steve suggested (a useful suggestion) that we ought to find a working definition. JGW's definition isn't mine, but I'm discussing around that definition. I call what I do "traditional" without hesitation, but by his definition, it's more modern. Doesn't matter - it's an interesting discussion using either set of definitions.
> 
> So, if his definition of "traditional" doesn't fit what you do, then neither do his comments about a traditional art. If the word bothers you, just replace it with a word that better fits his definition, in your head. He's not impugning your art or anyone else's.


Ok so I reject his definition of traditional, but I also reject his assertion that (as far as I understand his message to be) that anyone practicing an old system is doing so with the goal to preserve the system as it existed in the past, in spite of the possibility/probability that it is no longer relevant and does not work very well.  

If that is part of his message, I completely disagree with that notion.  

If I misunderstand him, I welcome some clarification.


----------



## Martial D (Jan 25, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Now with a Unix/Linux (not sure which) shell involved, too, apparently. Early Windows was definitely nothing more than a GUI running on MS-DOS.


Sort of. The kernal in Windows 7 onward is definitely heavily influenced by Linux, it's still basically the same registry from Windows NT.

What @Dirty Dog  was saying about windows being an overlay for DOS was true though, up until windows 95 released in 1994.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 25, 2019)

Are the following combo traditional or modern?

- right jab, left cross, right hook, left hook.
- left foot sweep, right roundhouse kick, right side kick.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 25, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Are the following combo traditional or modern?
> 
> - right jab, left cross, right hook, left hook.
> - left foot sweep, right roundhouse kick, right side kick.



Yes.


----------



## Steve (Jan 25, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Are the following combo traditional or modern?
> 
> - right jab, left cross, right hook, left hook.
> - left foot sweep, right roundhouse kick, right side kick.


Are You wearing a skirt or pajamas when you do them?  Do you yell a particular word?  Do you bow before or after?  Do you chamber the jab high agaonst the ribs or down on your hip, or not at all, because that's the way you do it?  Do you believe that the sweep and roundhouse combo is refined through kata?  

Most importantly, do you say things like, "it wouldn't exist if it didn't still work," or, "we don't learn to fight.  We learn to not fight."   Anything along these lines is an indication that martial skill isn't the highest priority now, and maybe never was.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 25, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> Ok so I reject his definition of traditional, but I also reject his assertion that (as far as I understand his message to be) that anyone practicing an old system is doing so with the goal to preserve the system as it existed in the past, in spite of the possibility/probability that it is no longer relevant and does not work very well.
> 
> If that is part of his message, I completely disagree with that notion.
> 
> If I misunderstand him, I welcome some clarification.


I don't think that second part was part of his assertion. I think he was saying if you practice an old style *for the purpose of preservation*, that makes it (by his definition) "traditional", regardless of whether it's functional or not.

But maybe I misread it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 25, 2019)

If you have a student who comes to you and want to learn how to fight. Without teaching him any forms, you teach him 

- jab, cross, hook, uppercut, ...
- foot sweep, roundhouse kick, side kick, back kick, ...
- finger lock, wrist lock, elbow lock, shoulder lock, ...
- hip throw, foot sweep, single leg, double leg, ...
- full mount, side mount, neck choke, arm bar, leg bar, ...

Are you teaching him the traditional way, or are you teaching him the modern way?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 25, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you have a student who comes to you and want to learn how to fight. Without teaching him any forms, you teach him
> 
> - jab, cross, hook, uppercut, ...
> - foot sweep, roundhouse kick, side kick, back kick, ...
> ...


That depends (see what I did there?). Are you teaching him the way you were taught? If so, you're getting toward my definition of traditional, though you're not necessarily there yet. If we use JGW's definition, if you're doing it with a focus on function, then you're teaching him "modern".

Though I think when we go from "modern/traditional art" to "modern/traditional way", we might have a different set of definitions to deal with. I can teach punches the traditional way, or the modern way. I tend to do both...with an approach that matches JGW's "modern" definition.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 25, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I don't think that second part was part of his assertion. I think he was saying if you practice an old style *for the purpose of preservation*, that makes it (by his definition) "traditional", regardless of whether it's functional or not.
> 
> But maybe I misread it.


Ok, that I can agree with.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 25, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> Are you saying that you train your system out of historical interest?


I train my system from a historical interest and a function interest.  I do both.  Here's an example.  I like the history of a fighting systems, how it started, why, and what were the things that help distinguish it.  I also like the forms that are passed own from teacher to student.  To me that's cool.  Practicing and training "the old way"

But I also train for function which in my case I have a lot training exercises that I've made on my own because of the benefit I get from it, in terms keeping the system functional.
For example.  There is a video of me sweeping and you can hear my sifu say "we have to revisit the sweep because he was taught that the sweep had to always be low. ."  My sweeps vary in height and I was successful with landing back sweeps without getting low as originally taught in Jow Ga Kung fu.  No one in Jow Ga kung fun does the sweeps like I do. It's not taught.  I don't care where you go, it's not taught.  And if they do teach it then they probably got it from me by watching my videos.  Traditionally Jow Ga back sweep is like this.





My sweeps allow me to keep more of my mobility. In addition to mobility.  It allows me to do on various surfaces without putting strain on the spin.  Notice he is doing the sweep on loose gravel.  He wouldn't be able to do the same thing on concrete if his shoes have good grip.  It would cause too much friction when he spins.  My sweeps can be done on concrete regardless of how much grip my shoes have.  My sweeps use a different body mechanic.  When I teach students, I teach them the traditional sweep.  When I teach them application I will teach them the functional sweep, which can be done on multiple types of surfaces.  I would consider my sweeps modern as it doesn't show up in traditional Jow Ga kung fu.



Flying Crane said:


> Do you find your system to be lacking in relevance as a combative system?


 No I don't find it lacking because I can use both traditional techniques and modern techniques that evolved from Jow Ga techniques.  It would be lacking in relevance as a combative system if I could not evolve the techniques as needed.



gpseymour said:


> I think what JWG is getting at is more about intent. So, if you find nothing lacking in the system you train in, there might be no observable difference between a "traditional" and a "modern" approach, as he has defined it.


Traditional and Modern fighting systems have nothing to do with if a system lacks something.  Traditional music is not suppose to sound like modern music.  To do so will no longer make it traditional.  To me traditional is about keeping the old ways.  Functional is about evolution. Here's an example.  The first people to make Kung Fu systems did not practice the same forms that we do now.  Why?  Because the system evolved and sifu, fighters, and soldiers added to it.  Jow Ga Kung Fu is a perfect example.  Jow Ga Kung Fu was created in 1891 and it's made of 3 different martial arts systems that are blended together.  This is not keeping tradition. This is evolution.  This occurred because of the evolution of function. 

The more you fight with a fighting system the better you get.  The better you get, the more you'll begin to evolve, vs trying to keep things the same.  What you are doing with NGA is a perfect example of how the focus of function helps a system to evolve. Your efforts of NGA is evolving the system, but you also like the traditional stuff.  People won't understand me as long as they make Traditional vs Modern an "Either, Or" choice.  The third option is Both.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 25, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> Why does anyone get to define what is traditional or modern, for anyone but themselves?
> 
> Apparently my definition is different from his. The old stuff has survived because it still works. That is my experience.


You can have any definition that you want for Traditional vs Modern.  To me it doesn't matter.  The only thing that I care about is that people don't misunderstand my perspective of it.  If my definition makes you think that I believe that Jow Ga is lacking, then I will correct that misunderstanding.  



Flying Crane said:


> I also reject his assertion that (as far as I understand his message to be) that anyone practicing an old system is doing so with the goal to preserve the system as it existed in the past, in spite of the possibility/probability that it is no longer relevant and does not work very well.


What are you reading?  Where did I say any of that. Show me where I talked about something "no longer relevant."   or that "anyone practicing an old system is doing so with the goal to preserve the system as it existed."  You do know that I practice an old system and fight with it too.  So what sense would it make for me to say that?  The assumptions you are making right now is a direct result of your own bias. I have no idea how you can even come close to assuming that's what I've been typing about, unless you are just skimming through what I'm typing.



gpseymour said:


> I don't think that second part was part of his assertion. I think he was saying if you practice an old style *for the purpose of preservation*, that makes it (by his definition) "traditional", regardless of whether it's functional or not.
> 
> But maybe I misread it


 You didn't misread it.  That's exactly what I'm saying.  I'm not sure why he's totally missing what I'm saying.   It has nothing to do about what's lacking or what's more efficient.  That's not the goal of maintaining the old ways.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 26, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> You can have any definition that you want for Traditional vs Modern.  To me it doesn't matter.  The only thing that I care about is that people don't misunderstand my perspective of it.  If my definition makes you think that I believe that Jow Ga is lacking, then I will correct that misunderstanding.
> 
> 
> What are you reading?  Where did I say any of that. Show me where I talked about something "no longer relevant."   or that "anyone practicing an old system is doing so with the goal to preserve the system as it existed."  You do know that I practice an old system and fight with it too.  So what sense would it make for me to say that?  The assumptions you are making right now is a direct result of your own bias. I have no idea how you can even come close to assuming that's what I've been typing about, unless you are just skimming through what I'm typing.
> ...


Thank you for the clarification.  It sounds like I did misunderstand what you were saying.  And I was having trouble making that sync with what I’ve seen you post in the past.  Something seemed genuinely “off” and I couldn’t make sense of it.  

I think we are very much on the same page, actually.  As Ive said, to me what makes it traditional is largely its age, having been passed from generation to generation.  It’s age will mean that there are holdovers from an older era, but at the same time that should not be all that it is about.  What is key to it’s being passed down is that it works, and still works in the modern age.  If it did not work then it would have stopped being passed down.  

But at the same time it does get changed by every generation.  Some of it is just human idiosyncracies but it can also be due to better insights into training and application methods and incorporating material and approaches from other methods.  So as you say, it is both traditional and modern at the same time and I agree with that.

I would say that your example of the foot sweep is a good one.  Personally, I would never say that doing the sweep higher makes it foreign to the system.  In my opinion, you learn the sweep a certain way but then have freedom to apply it in any way appropriate and necessary.  So if it is formally taught as a low movement but you apply it as a higher movement, in my opinion that is still the same technique and falls within your freedom of application to fit the circumstances.  To say that nobody in Jow Ga does it that way strikes me as odd, to be honest.  But at the same time it can be a point of evolution if it catches on.

At any rate, thanks for the clarification, I do appreciate it.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 26, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> If you don't care if your Pugilism is functional then you will be happy with just learning the old ways
> If you care if your Pugilism is functional then your Pugilism will evolve simply because it has to address the current hand to hand combat skills of the day.  You won't be able to afford to "keep it old" or "Keep it in the context of a different time period."
> 
> Fighting systems are the same way.  Exactly like the Wheel.  If you care about keeping your system functional then it's going to evolve to meet the needs of the present day.
> Fighting systems can also be traditional at the same time and is *often referred to as traditional when the system no longer seeks to meet the needs of the present day fighting.  In this case people just do it to keep alive the "old ways"  they are sort of like the keepers of history.  If you need a blue print then they got it.  For people like that the need to be functional is not important.*


Just for the info, these are the passages, especially the bolded portion, that got me confused about what your message was.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 27, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> To say that nobody in Jow Ga does it that way strikes me as odd, to be honest.


That's where the tradition kicks in with Jow Ga.
The guy in the blue is a Jow Ga practioner.  at 0:59 he does the low sweep which is taught in the Jow ga schools.






This would be similar to the back sweeps taught in Jow Ga.  It has to be low.  





I haven't seen a Jow Ga practitioner do a back sweep while in a higher stance, which is weird because the front sweep has different ranges but they don't apply that same concept of range to the back sweep.  For Jow Ga the back sweep is always low.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 27, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> Just for the info, these are the passages, especially the bolded portion, that got me confused about what your message was.


It happens.  One day I'm just going to do audio responses for topics like this.


----------



## Steve (Jan 27, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> Thank you for the clarification.  It sounds like I did misunderstand what you were saying.  And I was having trouble making that sync with what I’ve seen you post in the past.  Something seemed genuinely “off” and I couldn’t make sense of it.
> 
> I think we are very much on the same page, actually.  As Ive said, to me what makes it traditional is largely its age, having been passed from generation to generation.  It’s age will mean that there are holdovers from an older era, but at the same time that should not be all that it is about.  What is key to it’s being passed down is that it works, and still works in the modern age.  If it did not work then it would have stopped being passed down.
> 
> ...


@JowGaWolf i commend you for pulling @Flying Crane out of his stubborn cycle of prejudgment.  Chalk this up to welcome things I never thought I’d see.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 27, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> This would be similar to the back sweeps taught in Jow Ga.  It has to be low.


I like the "backward foot sweep". I always told my TKD friends that CMA has spin hook kick. We just don't kick that high.

The forward/backward sweep is one of the basic training drills in the long fist system. It does not exist in the Chinese wrestling for the following reasons.

- It's much easier to use 2 points contact foot sweep than just 1 point contact foot sweep.
- If your opponent turns his shin bone into your sweep, he can stop your sweep very easy.
- Your opponent can use jumping crescent kick to counter you. When he does that, his body weight will give you trouble.

I recorded the following 8mm film from my student's form competition during a 1974 Dallas Karate tournament (to memorize Bruce Lee's 1 years death). I just can't believe it has been almost 45 years ago. In this clip, you can see the double jumping crescent kicks is used to counter the forward foot sweep.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 27, 2019)

Steve said:


> @JowGaWolf i commend you for pulling @Flying Crane out of his stubborn cycle of prejudgment.  Chalk this up to welcome things I never thought I’d see.


For me I just don't want people to misunderstand me or my perspective.  I don't mind if people disagree with my perspective, just as long as what they are disagreeing with is actually my perspective.

I'm actually happy that Flying Crane made the effort to understand and to point out what he was confused about so I could explain myself better.  Gpseymour "The Professional Explainer of things" was a big help too.  It's really easy for bias to slip in when it comes to martial arts.  I'm guilty of that as well from time to time. I'm hoping the audio can help clear it up.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 27, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> "The Professional Explainer of things"


I might add that to my signature. It's a pretty apt description of my communication style.


----------



## Steve (Jan 27, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> For me I just don't want people to misunderstand me or my perspective.  I don't mind if people disagree with my perspective, just as long as what they are disagreeing with is actually my perspective.
> 
> I'm actually happy that Flying Crane made the effort to understand and to point out what he was confused about so I could explain myself better.  Gpseymour "The Professional Explainer of things" was a big help too.  It's really easy for bias to slip in when it comes to martial arts.  I'm guilty of that as well from time to time. I'm hoping the audio can help clear it up.


Me too.  The effort to understand was specifically what I was referring to.    Well done.


----------

