Is tradition important?

[Kframe]

K man I was able to spot some things. For some reason the first video did not have any sound. Not sure why..

I have much to ponder.. I truly wonder if im happy were I am. Maybe I can accept less grappling training, and take up a tma.. I hate not knowing..

 

[Cyriacus]

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

The thought sends shivers!

It can be. See my comment to kframe.

I replied to that seperately, slightly before i saw that there was another page of replies....

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 *)

If you have a closed mind, traditions are gonna bounce riiiight off anyway, to be fair.

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.

Well, i use the 'telephone a repairman' technique. This... um... I see your analogy, but i think if i delve further into it stuffs gonna get weird. Ill just continue.

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?

Most accountants these days just use calculators, but. They only need to understand the syntax of mathematics, they dont need to know anything more about it. They dont need to understand why addition became what it is, its obvious. Adding things is addition, and + represents addition. Why does + represent addition, and anything else about addition other than what it is and how its used, i dont need to know.

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

So, if you learn, say, three strikes, and nothing else. Youre shown how to do them and what they do, then youre set loose to practice with someone. Knowing more about it is going to change how you do it in some way? So long as its use isnt obfuscated, that shouldnt be a problem. Hence, my 'what are you trying to do?" question, and mentioning intent. If you want to put someone on the ground, you need a means to that end. So, you think of the ways you have faith in to go about doing that. You dont need any other information unless you want it, surely.

Tequila?

I can live with that :drinkbeer

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

Thats right - Theyre defined by their own identity. You make the distinguishment by not trusting them. But thats a whole other topic, ill try not to get derailed. Point is, if its tradition because tradition, its usually a problem. If its tradition because function, then i know all i need to know.

I did not see any *! Later.

"*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."

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.

And getting too far from reality comes from not being rigorously rooted in it by a person forcing the issue. Something ive sadly never seen an instructor do. Knowing the traditions can send you into the same reality shift. If you learn that something was used often by X for Y, you may think its better then your Z for doing Y. Then do X, because the traditions tell you its better. But if Y was a totally different method (like, grappling instead of striking) and you made a bad call because tradition tells you that X was used often and reliably, when it may not have been the best choice, youve been inhibited by tradition itself.

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.

Well... Not exactly what i was going for. Not many arts have attacks from behind in their traditions.
As for creating fighters, im not sure what gave you that idea. But if i did want to, itd be through incentive and provocation, Dau Tranh style if the situation permits.

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

Right - So if nothing in your tradition allows for attacking from behind, and you stick to those traditions instead of using the same things in different ways, you have been inhibited, and tradition has done it to you. Its like learning to spar, according to tradition, and having that as your only practice at application. If you then proceed to remain rooted in tradition, go figure as to what youve been lead to believe is the right course of action, even if its a round peg being melted over a square hole. So, if you decide to ignore those traditions, and do something of your own volition, but that something is exactly the same as what you learnt under those traditions but done in a different way...

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

Oh, i didnt mean to sound like i thought that was smart. But that is how id probably use the thing. At least i didnt go google sword grips and pretend like i knew anything at all about them.

Yes it J
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.

Wouldnt the range and body movement be a technique or methodology seperate to exactly what you do off of that, though? So, wouldnt they need to learn that before they can start doing things from that point?

Ah so we are getting down to semantics now.

Probably

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

Now, what if that change doesnt conflict with any of the traditions? If im not mistaken, the old Kata forms were changed based on who was learning them. At the time, when they were changed to suit a person or situation, were they traditional?

Im sure there are better, more recent examples, but thats all ive got at this moment.

 

[K-man]

K man I was able to spot some things. For some reason the first video did not have any sound. Not sure why..

That's because there is no sound. I wasn't at this particular seminar, but, at the time the video was taken, there was a storm raging and fans going. The fact is, when training with Taira you watch not listen. He doesn't speak a lot of English. Even so, we have no trouble in understanding what he is teaching. His demonstrations are comprehensive. :asian:

 

[arnisador]

Let's not lose sight of the fact that being involved in something with a long tradition can be just plain fun. This applies much more broadly than the martial arts.

 

[Chris Parker]

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.

Ha, I said I disagreed with almost everyone, Rich... I'll leave it to each as to whether or not it applies to them!

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

Cool. Let's see if we can build on that perception, then.

The term "kata" (which has become almost standard, regardless of the origin of the art, same with "bunkai", although that's not really often correctly applied either) means "form", or "shape", and refers to something that retains the same form each time, to a greater or lesser degree. This is to differentiate it from free-form training, where "what happens" changes each time. As a result, any form of training where the same sequence, or actions are repeated, can be considered "kata". Although, even that's not strictly correct.

In Japanese arts, the vast majority of kata training is done in pairs, with one partner "performing" the technique, and the other "receiving" it (which is what the terms "tori" and "uke" mean, respectively). I don't say "defender" and "attacker", as, in a number of cases, particularly in weaponry systems, the "performer" is the aggressor... making the "receiver" really more of a "victim"! Interestingly, in these cases, the receiver is often the instructor, or the senior, as they are the one truly in control (of timing, distancing, pace etc), as well as being able to handle the unexpected, or mistakes, a lot easier.

Here are some examples of Japanese kata training:

Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu, a weapons based system dating from the mid-15th Century.

Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu, a sword art from the mid 17th Century, founded by the great Musashi Miyamoto.

Takagi Ryu Jujutsu, a primarily unarmed system dating from the mid-17th Century.

Kime no Kata, from Kodokan Judo.

Bujinkan kata training (here, Shinden Fudo Ryu kata are being studied).

There are some arts that utilize solo training methods, but that is dominantly due to safety concerns, such as archery or sword drawing with a live blade (that's as much to keep the weapon safe as the practitioners, ha!).

The idea of kata being a long, solo string of (commonly) unarmed movements is from the Japanese occupation of Okinawa, as well as the importation of karate into Japan, and the adoption/usage of the term for their training method (which, really, is an imported training method from Chinese arts, not Japanese ones).

So why is there so much "hidden" in the kata? Well, the first thing you need to look at is what the aim of kata training is. As I said earlier, any training that has the same sequence, or actions repeated could be considered "kata" of a form... but I also said that wasn't strictly true either. What I meant by that is that kata training has a specific goal in mind... it not only has a "shape", it gives "shape" to the practitioners approach. It shapes and creates a particular method of addressing an encounter. What I mean by that is that kata are really not about learning "techniques", as in the mechanics. They are about learning how to apply the mechanics (on a number of levels). They are about learning an application of strategy, and application of tactics, through the mechanics. There are other drills to learn the mechanics... and they really are drills, not kata. They are about learning the mechanics. They might be called kihon (in Japanese), but they are just drills. They are the "how to throw a punch, how to execute this throw, how to block, how to avoid with footwork etc". You need to learn those before you learn the kata.

And, when it comes to the aims of kata training, it really needs to be understood what martial arts training is for... and, probably more importantly, what it's not for. I might be bursting a few bubbles here, but martial arts are not designed for self defence. They aren't. And they never were. They weren't even designed for soldiers on an ancient battlefield as some seem to think. They were more about an education for the military leadership.... more akin to officer training than basic training. And, as such, a lot of time could be devoted to the study. After all, there wasn't an immediate need for skills to be relied upon to save a life on the battlefield. If there was, the martial arts would be considerably less complex, they would be just "this move does this", and you could get the whole of a system in a few weekends. So you should really think of such things as military secrets, or military intelligence (not too far off, historically speaking), which lead in a number of cases to a habit of hiding the real actions of your art, often by displaying them in plain sight (look to the kata from Katori Shinto Ryu above... there's a hell of a lot hidden in plain sight there!), in order to avoid having your own tactics and strategies, the applications of your art, learnt and used against you.

It also comes down to esoteric knowledge. Now, again, that term is rather misunderstood... "esoteric" really just means that there are pre-requisites. In other words, it's something you get after you've already done certain preparation work. Now, that might be proving that you're not about to "steal" the methods and take them back to a rival... or it might be demonstrating that you have the maturity and skills to learn the next step. In other cases, it's just a matter of having the experience to understand what you're being told. This thread has been quite a case in point... you simply don't have the background or experience to understand the answers you've been given, so you don't understand them. You don't the preparation work done, and haven't covered the pre-requisites. That's not a problem, but it is something to be aware of.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

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

It could, though not all traditional systems obfuscate the technique and teach it indirectly.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Daniel you said this. The layered teaching, where the solo form serves as the technical foundation for learning other techniques is common.

K-Man already answered you on most of this, so I will say only that until you train in a system that utilizes kata in this fashion (Kukki taekwondo does not, by the way), you will not fully understand it.

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.

Isn't that true of everything? If you take lessons from anyone, you should do your homework, watch a few classes, poke around online to see if the instructor is known to others who have actually trained with him or her, and get an idea as to what their general repuation is. If you cannot find any information on them at all, watch classes and go with your gut.

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

As you now know, solo kata are not the only kata. Different arts have different teaching pedagogy.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

And, when it comes to the aims of kata training, it really needs to be understood what martial arts training is for... and, probably more importantly, what it's not for. I might be bursting a few bubbles here, but martial arts are not designed for self defence. They aren't. And they never were. They weren't even designed for soldiers on an ancient battlefield as some seem to think. They were more about an education for the military leadership.... more akin to officer training than basic training. And, as such, a lot of time could be devoted to the study. After all, there wasn't an immediate need for skills to be relied upon to save a life on the battlefield. If there was, the martial arts would be considerably less complex, they would be just "this move does this", and you could get the whole of a system in a few weekends. So you should really think of such things as military secrets, or military intelligence (not too far off, historically speaking), which lead in a number of cases to a habit of hiding the real actions of your art, often by displaying them in plain sight (look to the kata from Katori Shinto Ryu above... there's a hell of a lot hidden in plain sight there!), in order to avoid having your own tactics and strategies, the applications of your art, learnt and used against you.

I like this explanation, and everything you've posted (barring the bolded text) is basically what was explained to me by my own instructors. I'm curious though, if there are any sources out there expounding on this idea. It makes complete sense that many TMA's were designed with this in mind, which is why something like Karate looks vastly different from something like Krav Maga. The original audience is different (military officer vs. enlisted man respectively).

 

[Chris Parker]

Well, part of it is having an honest look at what exactly is being taught... swords, for instance, were common to use as teaching tools in many old Japanese arts, yet the likelihood of actually being close enough to actually use one on a battlefield was minimalist (to say the least). From there, look to who was learning the arts "back in the day"... it was most commonly the ruling classes, which, in most old Asian cultures, was a warrior one. In fact, the idea of established schools (pre-cursors to dojo) in Japan were really locations of overall education, including military lessons. You also need to look at whether or not the methods (and length of time) used would be applicable to someone who might be facing a deadly attack/combat environment tomorrow, or next week, as opposed to someone who wouldn't be, but would be in command of a force later.

I really do need to emphasize, however, that modern arts are a different ballgame altogether, and do not share such a pedigree of development. They have a much wider range of pedigrees themselves, ranging from competitive superiority, to spiritual development, to personal expression, to pretty much anything else.

 

[Cyriacus]

It could, though not all traditional systems obfuscate the technique and teach it indirectly.

Aha - Thats good.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

I can appreciate that. Even though my art is "modern," its roots go back through Shotokan and Shudokan, and thus further yet back to Shorin-ryu, which leads me to Matsumura Sokon and the Royal Guard of the Ryukyu Kingdom. While the transmission of the arts in this lineage may have changed somewhat, the tradition of the Kata has not changed as much. Therefore, I would think I can still glean some insight from this type of perspective.

 

[Chris Parker]

Eh, you're still kids.... babes just out of their swaddling clutch.... modern little whippersnappers.... ha!

 

[Cirdan]

It could, though not all traditional systems obfuscate the technique and teach it indirectly.

There is no secret ingredient.

 

[arnisador]

And, when it comes to the aims of kata training, it really needs to be understood what martial arts training is for... and, probably more importantly, what it's not for. I might be bursting a few bubbles here, but martial arts are not designed for self defence. They aren't. And they never were. They weren't even designed for soldiers on an ancient battlefield as some seem to think. They were more about an education for the military leadership.... more akin to officer training than basic training.

This is an interesting viewpoint, but you have stated it very broadly. I can think of many martial arts that description doesn't fit--the FMAs that I study, for instance.

 

[Chris Parker]

I was thinking really about the Japanese arts (as well as the Chinese to a fair degree, particularly older systems) when I was talking about the aim being to teach the military leadership, sorry for any confusion.

 

[arnisador]

I know what you mean--in some ways what fencing was to the upper crust that formed the officer corps long after swordwork per se was still significantly relevant.

 

[Kframe]

Chris parker, thank you for the informative post sir. This has truly been a learning thread for me. I learned a lot about kata, and also that I don't know much about it or TMA for that matter due to not having much time in one. The idea of a 2 person kata is intriguing. I wonder how it relates to the solo form kata that karate does. As in are the pairs actually practicing moves they would use in a real battle, or is there not so obvious teachings in them.

Not all progress is for the better. Sometimes new things are not better then the old ways. I think perspective is the hardest part of martial arts.. The newb that only sees individual moves, to the veteran that see's the pattern as whole.. How is usually the first question asked by perspective students of martial arts, when the most important question is why. As I have learned, you may not have the required experience to understand the answer to why.

 

[Chris Parker]

Chris parker, thank you for the informative post sir. This has truly been a learning thread for me.

Not a problem, glad you got something out of it.

I learned a lot about kata, and also that I don't know much about it or TMA for that matter due to not having much time in one.

Yeah... and the important thing to keep in mind is that that's not really a problem, unless you don't realize it. Hopefully you understand why you have been getting some of the responses you have.

The idea of a 2 person kata is intriguing. I wonder how it relates to the solo form kata that karate does. As in are the pairs actually practicing moves they would use in a real battle, or is there not so obvious teachings in them.

Right.

There is no relationship to the solo form as found in karate. None. That's part of what I meant when I said that I (personally, and slightly tongue in cheek) don't consider such methods actually kata... meaning that I take the term to refer to a Japanese training method, and the Okinawan form, based on Chinese methods, is just not the same thing at all. But that said, the paired kata also aren't practicing "moves they would use in a real battle" either, they are engaging in lessons which are taught through the medium of combative techniques, not learning combative techniques themselves (in the main... it gets more blurred than that, but that's the important part). As a result, yeah, there can be things that are "not so obvious" in the kata... ranging from hidden applications of the techniques, to deeper lessons within the kata, to training methods that don't immediately have a combat application, and so on.

Not all progress is for the better. Sometimes new things are not better then the old ways. I think perspective is the hardest part of martial arts.. The newb that only sees individual moves, to the veteran that see's the pattern as whole.. How is usually the first question asked by perspective students of martial arts, when the most important question is why. As I have learned, you may not have the required experience to understand the answer to why.

Yep, that's about it.

 

[seasoned]

When ever I see the word traditional where food is concerned I figure I'm in for a meal from days of old. A meal that depicts a certain food group in it's origanal form, you know, "the way mother use to make".
"Is it important", to some, yes, to others, well, they call it evolving, perhaps into something "better".

My take is, if I want pizza, once in a while, the good old fashion kind, you know, without broccili, whole wheat crust, and what ever else they can throw on it, to make it something unrecognizable.

Martial arts, make mine, traditional all the way....................................

 

[Kframe]

Don't know whats going on with Win 8 and this forum, but every time I try to reply it says I need to at least 1 character even tho I had a decent sized response...

Chris parker, Can you expand a little on what you mean by, they teach lessons in a combative setting? From what I am understanding of your post, some of the kata are directly applicable, some are not obviously so, and some are lessons on matters such as distance, range, timing, ect. LOL apparently I was under the mistaken impression that 2 person kata's were a more direct way to practice techniques.

Off topic, what kind of Kata does Bujinkan Budo Taijitsu do?