I really don't understand what makes an art traditional. I know that topics been done to death, but i still don't see what the difference is. Is it kata? It feels like kata.
There are some things for which there is a very clear definition that everyone in the industry goes by, and some things which are subjective to the speaker or the audience. For example, "short" and "tall" aren't strictly defined, but "5-foot, 8-inches" is. On the other hand, if someone is 6-foot 8-inches tall, most folks would categorize that person as "tall". I've known a few guys that could unironically call that person "short", but they are an extreme outlier.
I think "traditional" is one of those things that is very subjective. I think kata is a big part of it, but I think the biggest piece is a curriculum built more on technical proficiency than technical superiority.
One example would be my Hapkido training. There were no katas (at least, as most people think of katas), but there was an overwhelming amount of hand grab defenses that you had to memorize for testing. For example:
- Cross grab defense: wrap their arm by their ear and use leverage to tip them over
- Straight grab defense: same as #1 with a different entry
- Cross grab defense: twist their arm and push down on their elbow to hyper-extend
- Straight grab defense: same as #3 with a different entry
- 2-on-1 grab defense: same as #3-4 with a different entry
- Cross grab defense: twist your arm and set up a V-lock
- 2-on-1 grab defense: same as #6 with a different entry
- Straight grab defense: twist their arm and set up a V-lock with a different hand position than #6-7
- Cross grab defense: trap their hand and set up a Z-lock
- Straight grab defense: another entry for the Z-lock
- Double cross grab: basically #9 again
- Double straight grab: basically #10 again
For white belt, there were 27 of these. On your testing day, the Master would say "Do #7" and you would have to tell the other person which type of grab to use, and then you would apply the technique. He would do them out of order. You couldn't just memorize the order, you had to be able to respond immediately with the technique he wanted.
The goal was not necessarily to be better than the person you're partnered with, but rather to be able to execute the technique on command.
Compare that with wrestling or BJJ, where the curriculum is much looser. My most recent experience is with BJJ. There is no rote curriculum. There is only "here's what we're working on this week." One day when we work on De La Riva guard, we'll do different techniques from that position than we will on a different day. And when we roll, the vast majority of what we do is NOT what we learned in drills, but responding to what our opponent is doing.
Not only is it more realistic, but it's also easier to update. If you see a new technique in De La Riva, you can immediately turn around and teach it in class. It's a lot harder to do things like that in a situation where the curriculum is already laid out. If you learn a new technique in Hapkido, where do you put it into that curriculum? Is it a new technique (meaning more to memorize)? Is it something you do once and then forget about? Does it replace older techniques?
However, the traditional method does have some advantages. Typically they will be safer to train (particularly with striking arts like Taekwondo and Karate typically allowing less head contact than something like Muay Thai or Boxing). It's also nice to know what you are supposed to work on. I've already had folks at my BJJ gym venting to me that they're not sure what the professor wants to see before giving them a stripe, and they're a little bit frustrated. In Hapkido, it was very simple. Do you know your #1-27? No? You only know #1-12? Well, that's why you're not testing yet.