punisher73
Senior Master
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2004
- Messages
- 3,962
- Reaction score
- 1,067
First, I agree with what you said. Just adding a little bit more perspective.I think you’re making my points very well. Some folks are traditional. Some evolve. You can consider whether something is traditional or not at every level: individual, school, and system.
Boxing as a system has traditions, but is not traditional, because the focus is on the end result, not how you got there. My impression of TKD is that how you train is very important... doing things the way your teacher did them, and replicating as closely as possible the techniques and movements of your teacher. So, even though there is a combat sport element to some TKD, it remains traditional.
And both are martial arts. In my opinion.
What we call "traditional" didn't really exist until around the mid 1900's. Before then people were taught individually by the instructor and they were private classes (even with a group). The instructor would teach students different katas from what he knew based on their temperament, build etc. to suit the individual. Often times even modifying the kata between students to help them get the most benefit.
All this changed when karate became "public" and was taught to large groups and was based on the Japanese military style of learning. Lining up according to rank, doing things "by the number" and everyone doing it the same way so you could look at large groups.
THEN add into public classes became a way to make money and you needed YOUR way of doing things and needed to separate yourself from others. Now things became set in stone and unchanging and "not how we do things". So, what used to be more fluid and a "use what works" method became very systematic.