Is tradition important?

[Chris Parker]

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...

I don't think it's Windows8... if you try to make a post, but it's all within a quote box (nothing external), then no "new" characters are listed in your reply, and the forum won't let you post what it considers a non-answer.

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.

It's not easy to expand, as it's very much particular to the Ryu you're discussing at the time... but to generalize (not an advised thing to do, for the record...), most systems tend to have multi-faceted approaches to their kata. While they (commonly) do follow correct and proper combative principles (there's no point having martial techniques that don't "work"), that's not necessarily the point of them. The main reason for the kata is to teach the lessons, the tactics, the strategies, the principles, the movement, the thought process, the mindset, the mentality, the attitude, the context, and the traits of the Ryu itself. To understand the kata is something that can't be done even by taking the kata individually... they need to be understood in the larger context of the Ryu itself. They often include lessons of distancing, angling, targeting etc, but that's not the entire, or even main point of them, other than within the context of the Ryu itself... but that being said, such things cannot be ignored at all, as they are integral to the lessons that are present.

To give some examples, Yagyu Shingan Ryu Katcchu Yawara (armoured grappling) kata are filled with contingencies (if this doesn't remove the grip, move onto this, then this, then this, until you manage to stun them enough to apply the finishing throw, and so on), as well as utilizing the basic kata to teach weapon usage, and more... the various components of the kata are also used in other training practices, such as Mifuri (a conditioning exercise this Ryu uses), taking each action separately. Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu is well known for having multiple applications hidden within their kata, with the basic aim being that a practitioner can just cut an opponent down with a single action, despite their kata being some of the longest around. Additionally, their non-sword kata are more about how to defeat the other weapons, rather than using them as a primary aim (although that is a part of it as well). Kashima Shinden Jikishinkage Ryu teach an old set of kata known as Hojo, a set of four kata, all made to represent a particular season. These kata are integral to the Ryu... but don't teach combative ideas or techniques at all, when all's said and done. Instead, the Hojo kata there are more about learning proper breathing, balance, footwork, control of the weapon, spiritual development and power, and so on. A number of other Ryu-ha teach kata that are more drills than anything else, or conditioning exercises, or sets of basics for manipulating the weapons... but then others don't have much at all in that regard.

There's obviously a lot more to this, but that should give you a bit of an insight. The point is that the kata, and what they teach, are entirely dependent on the Ryu they are found in.

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

Well, the first thing to understand is that Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu is a modern art which utilizes the kata (as teaching vehicles) from a range of Ryu that Hatsumi has inherited. These Ryu are dominantly unarmed, with a couple that contain weaponry methods as well (dominantly Kukishinden Ryu Happo Biken and Togakure Ryu Ninpo Taijutsu), with a complete number of kata in the hundreds. For an overview, see this thread: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...u-Budo-Taijutsu-amp-Related-arts-descriptions

The kata form found in the Bujinkan (if used... the Bujinkan's kinda funny in regards to it's approach to kata, leaving it up to the various instructors, with some giving it a large emphasis, and others not at all) is the Japanese form, with all kata being paired (or with more partners), with both a "performing" and "receiving" side. As with all such kata methods, both sides need to be learnt properly. I've already shown an example (last clip in post #85, showing Shinden Fudo Ryu Dakentaijutsu... hardly the best example, but there you go).

 

[Kframe]

I gotta split, but ill have a detailed response later..

 

[nocturnal_]

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?

If it's about non-martial-related tradition, I don't find this aspect important to me as an adult. I did find the non-martial aspects of Japanese martial arts important when I was doing Karate on my teenage years. There are self development & disciplinary parts in most Japanese martial arts that I think very important for kids and teenagers.

However as an adult, I don't find the non-martial tradition important, as I see martial arts from self defense perspective only. I don't enjoy wearing gi and belt. I don't enjoy bowing too much. I don't enjoy meditation. I don't think those aspects are important or relevant to self defense. I tend to stay away from schools/styles that are too heavy on traditions. I don't mind a little bit of tradition, but too much emphasis on tradition is a turn off for me. However, I do understand that many people enjoy being able to understand to spiritual and philosophical sides of martial arts.

 

[chinto]

OK I have been skimming this thread and reading some of the posts more carefully. I wish to disagree with Chris Parker in that the primary intent of Okinawan Karate was to teach military leadership. yes some of that is a side benefit but, the primary reason that the art was developed, like most of the Chinese martial arts, was and is self defense, civilian and military.
Yes tradition is important. for instance, striking to the base of the neck where the clavicle and neck come togetherin the FMA's and other arts. With a blade this has the effect of almost insuring a fatality! With a bludgeon may kill, but will almost certainly disable the attacker, so you may dispatch the attacker! that is why it and the attack to the subclavian artery, jugular and Carotid arterys are taught also in Kobujitsu and in some empty hand attacks on Okinawa! the Traditional intent was to KILL! this is because of where and when and under what circumstances the arts in question developed!

the same is true of why some kicks are not in most kata in Okinawan Karate at all. Because of what they faced, who they faced, and the ramifications of a loss in a fight. On Okinawa traditionally the winner of fights that were real were decided by who was dead, and who was alive! If you fought a Satsuma Samurai and lost, your family were most likely going to be all killed, Also perhaps much of the village for resisting! If he survived he would be back with friends for revenge.. same outcome as if you lost.

most of the Korean arts today, ( all the ones I know of off hand ) are newer and do not have the emphasis on fatality for the attacker. I personally believe that is because the need was not as great in the time they were codified as systems.

Some Chinese systems are very very lethal, and some less emphasis on lethality. Part of this is the influnce of Buddhism , and Chinese culture and traditions. but Jujutsu and Judo and Aikido all have the ability to kill at least at the dan levels if the practitioner wishes.

so the primary reason that much effort and time went into developing the martial arts was SURVIVAL! the fact that Strategy and Tactics that work in the system could be applied to handling troops is a bonus, but not the primary concern when the systems were developed!

Once again the Traditions and History show you what the reason was for the system and how things are intended to be applied. the older systems of Samurai Jujitsu could kill but also could put an attacker on the ground where you might negate his armor with a choke or a smaller blade. again battlefield survival. Aikido was developed from Jujitsu in the 1920's mainly. it does not have the emphasis on lethal techniques as it was not needed as much at that time.

History and tradition tell you a lot about what your art was designed for and how it applies to the world .

 

[Dirty Dog]

Yes tradition is important. for instance, striking to the base of the neck where the clavicle and neck come together. with a blade this has the effect of almost insuring a fatality! and with a bludgeon may kill but will almost certainly disable so you may dispatch the attacker! that is why it and the attack to the subclavian artery are taught also in Kobujitsu and in some empty hand attacks on Okinawa! the Traditional intent was to KILL! this is because of where and when and under what circumstances the arts in question developed!

The "base of the neck" (i.e. C7/T1) and the clavicles aren't really anywhere near each other. The clavicles are between the acromion and the sternum, not the neck (or at least, not what most people would consider the neck...).
Striking the "base of the neck" would result in impact to the rear of the body, or laterally to the trapezius muscle.

 

[Chris Parker]

If it's about non-martial-related tradition, I don't find this aspect important to me as an adult. I did find the non-martial aspects of Japanese martial arts important when I was doing Karate on my teenage years. There are self development & disciplinary parts in most Japanese martial arts that I think very important for kids and teenagers.

However as an adult, I don't find the non-martial tradition important, as I see martial arts from self defense perspective only. I don't enjoy wearing gi and belt. I don't enjoy bowing too much. I don't enjoy meditation. I don't think those aspects are important or relevant to self defense. I tend to stay away from schools/styles that are too heavy on traditions. I don't mind a little bit of tradition, but too much emphasis on tradition is a turn off for me. However, I do understand that many people enjoy being able to understand to spiritual and philosophical sides of martial arts.

And what would you consider are the "non-martial-related traditions"? I'm not sure I've ever come across any....

OK I have been skimming this thread and reading some of the posts more carefully. I wish to disagree with Chris Parker in that the primary intent of Okinawan Karate was to teach military leadership. yes some of that is a side benefit but, the primary reason that the art was developed, like most of the Chinese martial arts, was and is self defense, civilian and military.
Yes tradition is important. for instance, striking to the base of the neck where the clavicle and neck come togetherin the FMA's and other arts. With a blade this has the effect of almost insuring a fatality! With a bludgeon may kill, but will almost certainly disable the attacker, so you may dispatch the attacker! that is why it and the attack to the subclavian artery, jugular and Carotid arterys are taught also in Kobujitsu and in some empty hand attacks on Okinawa! the Traditional intent was to KILL! this is because of where and when and under what circumstances the arts in question developed!

the same is true of why some kicks are not in most kata in Okinawan Karate at all. Because of what they faced, who they faced, and the ramifications of a loss in a fight. On Okinawa traditionally the winner of fights that were real were decided by who was dead, and who was alive! If you fought a Satsuma Samurai and lost, your family were most likely going to be all killed, Also perhaps much of the village for resisting! If he survived he would be back with friends for revenge.. same outcome as if you lost.

most of the Korean arts today, ( all the ones I know of off hand ) are newer and do not have the emphasis on fatality for the attacker. I personally believe that is because the need was not as great in the time they were codified as systems.

Some Chinese systems are very very lethal, and some less emphasis on lethality. Part of this is the influnce of Buddhism , and Chinese culture and traditions. but Jujutsu and Judo and Aikido all have the ability to kill at least at the dan levels if the practitioner wishes.

so the primary reason that much effort and time went into developing the martial arts was SURVIVAL! the fact that Strategy and Tactics that work in the system could be applied to handling troops is a bonus, but not the primary concern when the systems were developed!

Once again the Traditions and History show you what the reason was for the system and how things are intended to be applied. the older systems of Samurai Jujitsu could kill but also could put an attacker on the ground where you might negate his armor with a choke or a smaller blade. again battlefield survival. Aikido was developed from Jujitsu in the 1920's mainly. it does not have the emphasis on lethal techniques as it was not needed as much at that time.

History and tradition tell you a lot about what your art was designed for and how it applies to the world .

Hmm. Well, in your skimming, you missed the clarification that I was primarily referring to the Japanese and, to a lesser degree, Chinese arts when the comment was made. Other than that, your history needs work... there's quite a bit wrong here, as well as a fair number of false connotations and connections being made.

 

[nocturnal_]

And what would you consider are the "non-martial-related traditions"? I'm not sure I've ever come across any....

Wearing gi, belts, meditation, discipline, character building, foreign language, bowing. These are non-martial related.

 

[TKDTony2179]

I have been wondering the same thing or at least if what is tradition have vanish and we just call it tradition when it really isn't. As time goes by it seems like more and more traditional arts have a sport version of its self and that is a good thing and a bad thing. More people become active in art that is more safer but at the same time the true elements of the art seems to vanish. Like leg kicks and sweeps vanish from TKD to be safer. How can an art say it is tradition when tradition things aren't taught or use.

 

[Chris Parker]

Yeah, I can see the problem. You aren't aware of how these aspects fit in, nor with the detail that much of your listed aspects aren't actually even traditions. To take them one by one...

Wearing gi, belts, meditation, discipline, character building, foreign language, bowing.

Wearing Gi: Well, while a certain uniform might be traditional, the idea of wearing a uniform isn't really traditional in and of itself. Additionally, it isn't worn for the sake of a tradition, but rather for a range of practical reasons, such as protecting your regular clothes during practice, providing sturdy material for certain grips and holds, and an indication of membership in a group. The same reasons as a modern military uniform, really...

Belts: Again, hardly a tradition. The idea of coloured belts to denote rank is rather recent, and is adopted for, again, practical reasons... the initial usage was for Kano Jigoro to be able to tell the relative experience and skill level of a student he hadn't met when he was going from school to school. In other words, it's specific to the martial skill of the art in question, and not in any way something done "for traditions sake".

Meditation: Again, nothing to do with tradition, this is a tool used in a range of arts for multiple purposes, most commonly as a way of maintaining a focus to your mind, as well as controlling emotional response... which is essential in a combative sense. In Japanese arts, it's referred to as Mushin (we'll cover the language mistake in a moment), in modern RBSD training, it's dealt with by adrenalized training, rather than meditation, but the reason and purpose is the same. Very much martial.

Discipline: You're kidding, right? Firstly, you think "discipline" is a tradition?!? It's a trait, not a tradition. But possibly more importantly, you don't think discipline has any martial connection?!? You don't think there's a correlation between them? You don't think an MMA athlete is disciplined, in diet, training etc? Or anyone else related to martial arts? I really don't know where to go from here...

Character Building: Well, I suppose this is the natural next step... Yes, character development is very much related to martial development... just look at leadership skills developed with rank, either in martial arts, or in the military. Same thing. Oh, and again, this is a trait, not a tradition.

Foreign Language: And, again, not a tradition. It's a cultural aspect. But really, if it's a Japanese art (for example), why wouldn't you expect the terminology to at least reflect that? And, when it comes to practicality, a common lexicon (whether foreign or not) makes for ease of communication, which streamlines teaching and training, leading to faster development of, wait for it, martial skills!

Bowing: Again, this is a cultural trait, but at least we're dealing with something closer to a tradition here... but the thing is, it's very much do to with martial realities. The simple bow on entering a dojo is showing awareness of the change in your environment, bowing to other students or the instructor is showing an acknowledgement and awareness of the potential danger they represent, and so on. When dealing with the very old (traditional) arts, there are quite a range of very martial related lessons, even in the bowing methods taught, often to do with awareness, understanding proper social contexts (and how to act appropriately), and so on.

These are non-martial related.

Actually, yes, they are.

 

[harlan]

Not to be a pain, but to my way of thinking, this is nit-picking. Along a continuum, and considering one's understanding, those 'elements of training' may or may not be 'martial' (-ly related).

 

[Zenjael]

Every new martial art, if it works is authentic. Every style has its own tradition- the set of expected norms that make that style that style.

I can give something of an example- when I switched from Chang Moo Kwan, to Chung Do Kwan, I noticed they did their roundhouse kicks differently. I asked why we could not do it the way I was taught, and the answer was simple enough; it's not Chung Do Kwan style Tae Kwon Do.

So since then I hold tradition to be defined contextually on the art in question.

But tradition can also mean the spirit of things to uphold. Wing Chun is an old art, named after the person who first truly completed and utilized it. A person was born, what they did in fighting is now practiced by many. And is influential enough to directly affect other martial art styles. In the 50s Bruce Lee and Jhoon Rhee trained together, and Tae Kwon Do in the United States has never been the same, certainly out where I live in D.C. where that happened.

Tradition means a lot of things, but I think it doesn't really matter. Enjoy what you learn, and develop the art to your own. Who knows, any one of us on these boards may take the art we learned to a point others seek to learn what we do, not the art we were trained in.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Tradition is defined as

1.The transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation, or the fact of being passed on in this way.
2.A long-established custom or belief that has been passed on in this way.

 

[Chris Parker]

Not to be a pain, but to my way of thinking, this is nit-picking. Along a continuum, and considering one's understanding, those 'elements of training' may or may not be 'martial' (-ly related).

In a way, yeah. But again, pretty much nothing nocturnal listed were actually even traditions, let alone whether or not they were "martially-related". And, for someone who claims Judo (along with Wing Chun) in his training, where the idea of grip wars, based on the uniform being worn, if he can't see the martial reasoning for the outfit (and everything else he listed), then I have very little hope.

Every new martial art, if it works is authentic. Every style has its own tradition- the set of expected norms that make that style that style.

I can give something of an example- when I switched from Chang Moo Kwan, to Chung Do Kwan, I noticed they did their roundhouse kicks differently. I asked why we could not do it the way I was taught, and the answer was simple enough; it's not Chung Do Kwan style Tae Kwon Do.

So since then I hold tradition to be defined contextually on the art in question.

But tradition can also mean the spirit of things to uphold. Wing Chun is an old art, named after the person who first truly completed and utilized it. A person was born, what they did in fighting is now practiced by many. And is influential enough to directly affect other martial art styles. In the 50s Bruce Lee and Jhoon Rhee trained together, and Tae Kwon Do in the United States has never been the same, certainly out where I live in D.C. where that happened.

Tradition means a lot of things, but I think it doesn't really matter. Enjoy what you learn, and develop the art to your own. Who knows, any one of us on these boards may take the art we learned to a point others seek to learn what we do, not the art we were trained in.

And, again, this is completely ignorant of what a tradition is, and the reasons for differences between different arts. The reasons for a difference in the kicking methods is not due to "traditions", it's due to the differences in the philosophies of the systems. And your history is woefully lacking. As far as what tradition means, read Xue's post.

 

[Zenjael]

Chris, you completely contradict yourself there.

If the kicking philosophies differ because of philosophies, and these philosophies grounded on the teachings proceeding it, than the tradition of a system or style is dictating the philosophy.

Get over yourself on calling others ignorant of what tradition means. It's a term barely, and completely applicable to martial arts because it means so much to so many in so many different definitions. What you find traditional in MA is not what I do. Proof in point there.

You do ninjutsu, an art that can be arguably traced way back, or was invented like yoga in the early 20th century. You can provide counter point. I don't care either way, I think it a legitimate art now. But myth means that maybe what we consider 'tradition' either questionable, or irrelevant to what martial arts have become today.

Thanks for making the discussion of martial arts personal, again.

 

[Chris Parker]

Son, you really have no idea at all. You have missed what traditional means, you have missed what the philosophy of a martial art is, and you have missed just how different they are from each other. What you refer to as traditions aren't. Just saying "well, that's what I refer to them as" doesn't change that. And what I train in has no bearing on that whatsoever, kid.

 

[Xue Sheng]

One more time...more directed at Zenjeal....

Tradition is defined as

1.The transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation, or the fact of being passed on in this way.
2.A long-established custom or belief that has been passed on in this way.​

 

[K-man]

De

You do ninjutsu, an art that can be arguably traced way back, or was invented like yoga in the early 20th century. You can provide counter point. I don't care either way, I think it a legitimate art now. But myth means that maybe what we consider 'tradition' either questionable, or irrelevant to what martial arts have become today.

OK Alex. You have my full attention. What evidence do you have for the highlighted part of your post? I was under the impression that both went back hundreds of years. :asian:

 

[Cyriacus]

Thanks for making the discussion of martial arts personal, again.

Discussions between people usually are personal, as opposed to discussions with automatons.

 

[Xue Sheng]

De
OK Alex. You have my full attention. What evidence do you have for the highlighted part of your post? I was under the impression that both went back hundreds of years. :asian:

Try thousands

> 3rd millennium BCE Several seals discovered at Indus Valley Civilization depict figures in positions resembling a common yoga or meditation pose,

> 500 - 200 BCE Yoga appears in Texts; Upanishads, Bhaganad Gita and the Mahabharata

> The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali 350 - 450 CE

>Hatha Yoga 900CE

Basically Alex is way off there (or making this up as he goes along to support an unsupportable "opinion") Yoga was not invented in the 20th century it is possible it had been around a long time by the 1st century

 

[chrispillertkd]

Try thousands

> 3rd millennium BCE Several seals discovered at Indus Valley Civilization depict figures in positions resembling a common yoga or meditation pose,

> 500 - 200 BCE Yoga appears in Texts; Upanishads, Bhaganad Gita and the Mahabharata

> The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali 350 - 450 CE

>Hatha Yoga 900CE

Basically Alex is way off there (or making this up as he goes along to support an unsupportable "opinion") Yoga was not invented in the 20th century it is possible it had been around a long time by the 1st century

Well, there's more than a bit of controversy surrounding the origin of yoga, as I'm sure you know. The modern stuff can really make you bendy but does it go back as far as the dates you cite? Most likely not. Meera Nanda, for example, points out that there is very little, if any, connection between the yoga that is practiced today and that which is described in the Bhagavad Gita and Upanishads. (And that leaves out the question of how much weight does "evidence" of yoga-like postures on seals carry; not much, IMHO. Correlation isn't causation, after all.)

Anyway, Nanda has an interesting article which you can read here: http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/living/not-as-old-as-you-think

Pax,

Chris