Is tradition important?

[K-man]

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

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

 

[arnisador]

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

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

Are there other martial arts options near you?

 

[Kframe]

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

 

[MJS]

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

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

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

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

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

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

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

 

[clfsean]

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

That pretty much sums it up right there.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Is tradition important?

Taijiquan, Baguazhang, Xingyiquan, Wing Chun….yes

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

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

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

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

 

[Cyriacus]

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

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

 

[Xue Sheng]

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

Your talking a single application I'm talking complete systems

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

 

[GaryR]

Your talking a single application I'm talking complete systems

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

G

 

[Xue Sheng]

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

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

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

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

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

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

G

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

now your questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now since you have already stated that

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

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

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


:asian:

 

[arnisador]

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

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

 

[GaryR]

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

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

now your questions

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



G

 

[Sukerkin]

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

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

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

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

 

[Cyriacus]

Your talking a single application I'm talking complete systems

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

Are complete systems not comprised of many single applications?

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

 

[jks9199]

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

 

[Rich Parsons]

Your talking a single application I'm talking complete systems

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

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

The same but different it is.

 

[Cyriacus]

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

The same but different it is.

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

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

 

[arnisador]

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

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

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

 

[Rich Parsons]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So I still think context does matter.