Is tradition important?

[Cyriacus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course - But thats training methods. Not traditions.

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

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

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

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

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

Thats... kinda my point.

So I still think context does matter.

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

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

 

[Rich Parsons]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course - But thats training methods. Not traditions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thats... kinda my point.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Cyriacus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I know - But it is similar.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Chris Parker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Kframe]

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

 

[Chris Parker]

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

 

[Kframe]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Chris Parker]

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

 

[Cyriacus]

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

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

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

 

[SahBumNimRush]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[FONT=&amp]Kwan:[/FONT][FONT=&amp] This is “kwan” in Korean and “kan” in Japanese. It translates as large building or library.[/FONT]

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

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

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[SahBumNimRush]

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

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

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Rich Parsons]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Rich Parsons]

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

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

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

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

 

[SahBumNimRush]

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

 

[Rich Parsons]

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

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

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

It can be. See my comment to kframe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tequila?

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

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

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

I did not see any *! Later.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I know - But it is similar.

Yes it J

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

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

Many will state:

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

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

So they get the “technique” but miss the body position portion of the technique.

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

Ah so we are getting down to semantics now.

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

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

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

 

[Kframe]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[K-man]

Daniel you said this. The layered teaching, where the solo form serves as the technical foundation for learning other techniques is common. My question how can that be true, if moves have no fixed point of reference?

The moves do have a point of reference wrt the position of your opponent. You are starting the kata with your attacker in front. If you turn 90 degrees to your right you have either stepped yourself OR rotated your attacker. To find the reference just look at the previous technique.

If a move, that you practice in line drills and two man drills is called Block A, and then it shows up in kata 7, yet somehow its not block A but Throw 15, how can it form a technical foundation?

Two man drills are two man drills. Often they may be in a kata but more often they are just a made up training drill that look like they may be from kata.

If nothing is true to its nature in kata, how can it serve its intended purpose? Unless kata is sapposed to be paired up with application of kata drills. IF that's the case then maybe its the application drills that fill in the gaps. If application drills are vital, then why do so many of the ones I have seen, seemingly look nothing like the kata they are supposedly applying?

As others have pointed out, understanding comes with experience.

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

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

The kata is fixed. It is the 'Shu' form of the traditional teaching method. The applications move into the next stage ('Ha'). Normally, in this stage the techniques should still be recognisable. When you are at the 'Ri' stage of training things really start to get interesting. But you will only learn those things in a traditional school with traditional teaching method.

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

Not strictly true. I have never had an instructor teach me this stuff. I have had to research it and follow up myself. The fact that I teach it is a tribute to the many people world wide I have picked up information from.

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

OK, now you have a different animal. What you are describing is one of the Pinan kata developed by Anko Itosu as teaching kata. Although you might find simple applications within, they are not the same as the fighting systems of the more advanced kata. Within a teaching kata it is possible you might have a 'block', but I certainly wouldn't be teaching it as such. This thread is not the one to discuss 'blocks' within kata. Just suffice to say, in a fighting system you cannot have a block because that means you have to know, in advance, when your attacker is going to throw a particular strike. It just is illogical.

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

No. I think you are on the right track. Just don't try to get everything at once. This is a long journey. The early guys spent years learning just one kata. If you can learn to perform the moves of a kata in an hour or less, why do you think it took them so long? They weren't slow and they weren't stupid!

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

If you look at Baghua kata it can be very short. In fact sometimes it is basically just one short ballistic move.

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

Now the kata ..

 

[Cyriacus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

You. Monster.