Rant kind of Tradition TKD TSD and so forth

[terryl965]

Let me simply start off by saying this is not a dig or a complaint but may sound like it, I love TKD and have for 29 years. I was just sitting here andwondering what make Korean arts tradition in the sense in the MA community. I mean I say I teach tradition but in reality Iteach what my GM tought which is different from other GM I have been blessed to train with. To me tradition means keeping it a pure as possible but have we or any KMA really done this, how do we know what is true and what is just what ourGM and Master have learned and added to the Art they teach.

For me I am adding things all the time so I can easily not be traditional anymore although we still bow and go they all the traditional aspect inside the dojaang. How does everyone else feel about this phase in the KMA's? I mean let not loose any sleep or get into a agrument but let see what other think about tradition.

 

[Red Menace]

I think the traditions of respect, like bowing, and the tenents of Tae Kwon Do as well as the cultural aspects of the art are essential. I'm pretty open when it comes to the actual forms and techniques being taught though. I think it is natural for all martial arts to evolve in today's world, where we are more exposed to other cultures and styles than we were in the past.

 

[Kacey]

My understanding of TMAs is that they refer more to the philosophy - as Red Menace said, the demonstrations of respect and the cultural aspects - than to the purity of the art. No matter how "pure" an art claims to be, every instructor will teach through the lens of his/her own experience, which will, inevitably, cause changes, some large, some small, some relevant, some irrelevant.

Actually, I see today's information technology as a way to, somewhat, at least, preserve the remaining "purity" of TMAs, as it is much more possible today to record an art as it is currently performed, and thus have a more objective record of what can and cannot be done, of what is considered "correct" technique than word of mouth, written directions, or diagrams could convey in the past.

That being said, arts continue to evolve and grow as more people learn them, interpret them, and yes, improve upon them - combining an in-depth knowledge of technique with a modern understanding of physiology, for example. Another reason why I believe the philosophy, and not the physical skills, define what TMAs are.

 

[exile]

OK, I'm kind of an outlier on this.

A lot of the 'traditional' aspects of the TMAs refer to specific elements of Asian culture that do not, in my view, transplant well to Western socitiety—simply because they do not fit into our own world view. They make sense in Asian cultures, but the basic premises of those cultures and our own are, in many cases, radically at odds with each other, and that's fine. There are many ways of being human. But trying to absorb whole someone else's point of view, attitudes and perspective is a mistake. Humans have shared innovations made in one place with others very far away, without having to share everything. Take what works, adapt it to your own needs and way of working, and leave behind the symbolic elements that are fine for the locale of origin, but have little to do with how you live your own life.

If you want to preserve the martial tradition of these Asian fighting systems, my suggestion is, emphasize their practical, functional aspect. Do you want to honor the tradition of Bushi Matsumura and Anko Itosu? Then train your karate, or TSD, or TKD as though your life might one day depend on it. Those guys were practical men of the world, security managers and diplomats in the service of the King of Okinawa, and they looked at the rough-and-ready world they lived in in a realistic, clear-eyed way. Train the MA you do for combat effectiveness, for simplicity and economy, for function and not form, and you'll be keeping the tradition of the modern karate masters and their ancient antecedents alive, I believe, in the best way there is.

 

[searcher]

With all the mis-information and such that is out there, you should take what you canand start a "new" tradition within your own group. With a verbal history it will always be hard to seperate fact and fiction.

Make you own traditions. They will be better than incorrect ones.

 

[rmclain]

Likely, you are passing along a tradition held by your Grandmaster and the culture they grew up in. But, Grandmasters are human and could change things to suit their tastes or a place they immigrated to. An immigrated Grandmaster is more likely to stick to the way they were taught, due to the culture they came from. In America, we are a melting pot, and not "slaves" to tradition. (This was not meant to sound disrespectful). So, you will probably see more American Grandmasters changing the way things are taught.

In my system (Chayon-Ryu), my Grandmaster (Kim Soo) created a new way to teach the matial arts he learned from his instructors. The training he did at the Changmoo-kwan/Kangduk-won was very severe and many people were injured, few trained very long due to severity, and 2 of GM Kim Soo's friends died from injury in the dojang. Even when GM Kim Soo came to America in 1968, he had health problems from training. His early students remember he was often leaning against something for support from his chronic back pains.

Out of necessity for himself and his students he seriously studied the way the techniques were taught. He found it came down to fundamental principles, such as proper breathing, rhythm, balance of movements, etc. - natural body motion used in everyday non-martial arts activities to teach martial arts, regardless of style since most technique come from the fundamental principles. From this, his health problems cleared and many older students train with him. Most of the students are adults, some have been with him for 40 years in America.

This teaching method (Chayon-Ryu) "Natural Way" is used to preserve, with permission of his instructors, the arts he learned over the years from them. This is the tradition that he has created.

The classroom structure from the Changmoo-kwan/Kangduk-won is carried on: (Before class) - arrive early, clean the dojang, mediation, classtime.
Philosophy from Kangduk-won is carried on in lectures during breaks.

Preserving the lineage using a modern teaching method for longevity is the new tradition here.

I hope this adds a perspective for this discussion.

R. McLain

Let me simply start off by saying this is not a dig or a complaint but may sound like it, I love TKD and have for 29 years. I was just sitting here andwondering what make Korean arts tradition in the sense in the MA community. I mean I say I teach tradition but in reality Iteach what my GM tought which is different from other GM I have been blessed to train with. To me tradition means keeping it a pure as possible but have we or any KMA really done this, how do we know what is true and what is just what ourGM and Master have learned and added to the Art they teach.

For me I am adding things all the time so I can easily not be traditional anymore although we still bow and go they all the traditional aspect inside the dojaang. How does everyone else feel about this phase in the KMA's? I mean let not loose any sleep or get into a agrument but let see what other think about tradition.

 

[jks9199]

Let me simply start off by saying this is not a dig or a complaint but may sound like it, I love TKD and have for 29 years. I was just sitting here andwondering what make Korean arts tradition in the sense in the MA community. I mean I say I teach tradition but in reality Iteach what my GM tought which is different from other GM I have been blessed to train with. To me tradition means keeping it a pure as possible but have we or any KMA really done this, how do we know what is true and what is just what ourGM and Master have learned and added to the Art they teach.

For me I am adding things all the time so I can easily not be traditional anymore although we still bow and go they all the traditional aspect inside the dojaang. How does everyone else feel about this phase in the KMA's? I mean let not loose any sleep or get into a agrument but let see what other think about tradition.

I think there's two sides to tradition.

On one hand, "traditional" implies a formal class structure, a common core of techniques, and teaching method. The exact methods can vary by style; a "traditional" silat class isn't going to look the same as a "traditional" TKD class.

But "traditional" also can mean passing on the style and techniques and practices as they were taught to you by your teachers. (You have to trust that they passed them on the same way to you.)

Neither has to mean rigid, lock-stepped, and unchanging instruction.

From what I've come to know of you and how you teach, Terry, you're traditional. You're trying to pass on the heart of the style and system as you received it, in the best way you can. When you find a better approach or a beneficial addition, you add it in a way that fits the principles and approaches as you received them.

 

[harold]

The basics, the tenets, all good things and worth trying to teach especially to the generation coming up now. From there, as Bruce Lee said, take what works for you and discard what does not work.For example, I am an American and speak English so I personally do not see the need to use Korean commands and terminology. That is my 2 cents worth.

 

[chrispillertkd]

Let me simply start off by saying this is not a dig or a complaint but may sound like it, I love TKD and have for 29 years. I was just sitting here andwondering what make Korean arts tradition in the sense in the MA community. I mean I say I teach tradition but in reality Iteach what my GM tought which is different from other GM I have been blessed to train with. To me tradition means keeping it a pure as possible but have we or any KMA really done this, how do we know what is true and what is just what ourGM and Master have learned and added to the Art they teach.

Tradition is an English word coming from the Latin root "traditio" which means "to pass on." In other words, tradition is simply something that is passed on form one person to another. In this sense the actual time involved or generational steps is irrelevant. By teaching what your Grand Master taught you, you are certainly handing on the tradition that was entrusted to you.

As for KMA in general keeping true to their traditions, that will depend on the art, I think. Most modern KMA got their start by "Koreanizing" various Japanese or Chinese arts due to the restrictions on martial practice by the occupying Japanese as well as the general Neo-Confucian attitude that martial arts were not particularly desireable. It seems to me that by Koreanizing Shotokan (for example) Gen. Choi and the other Kwan founders were changing the traditions they had studied to some extent and handing on the new traditions to their students. Depending on the style you're talking about these "new traditions" would be more or less faithful to their parent tradition. Please note, this does not in any way mean they are better or worse than their parent style. It is simply a matter of whether or not they stuck with the style's underlying principles or developed into something new.

For me I am adding things all the time so I can easily not be traditional anymore although we still bow and go they all the traditional aspect inside the dojaang. How does everyone else feel about this phase in the KMA's? I mean let not loose any sleep or get into a agrument but let see what other think about tradition.

It depends on what you mean by "adding things." Are you adding techniques? Training methods? Adding or changing your style's philosophical teachings? In my view any or all of these things can be changed or at least the emphasis changed by a practitioner after they have spent a considerable time mastering the style they have been taught in the first place. A friend of mine who has trained in both Taekwon-Do and Hapkido have talked about this topic quite a bit and his take on things (which I like quite a bit) goes something like this:

There are three phases of one's martial arts training. The first phase (what he terms Mu Sul) consists of trying to emulate what the instructor is teaching to the best on your ability. This gives you a good understanding of the style you're studying and a firm technical base to work from. This phase usually lasts to 3rd or 4th dan.

The second phase he terms Mu Yea where the student takes what he has learned and attempts to interpret it in their own individual way while - and I cannot stress this enough - still remaining faithful to the principles of their style. If, for some reason, a student has made it to 4th dan or so without getting a good grounding in the principles of their style then you're going to get techniques developing that might look like your style but, upon closer reflection, is not an organic offshoot because in some way or other actually contradicts the style's underlying principles. This Mu Yea phase lasts form 4th dan to 7th dan or so.

The last phase my friend calls Mu Do and it is the phase of training in which the student has achieved mastery of the art he studies. The art can flow out of him with little or no conscious effort and body, mind and spirt act in complete unison and harmony when performing techniques which themselves are beautiful to behold while still being performed effectively and with startling power (something akin to the Japanese idea of Shibumi, in my opinion). This phase takes place at 7th dan and higher.

The grade levels are guidelines, of course, and may vary to some extent form person to person. There will be over lap and "flashes" of higher levels coming through early and sporadically, as well as "back sliding" to lower levels at times but, as you can see, for there to be legitimate development of the tradition (as oppose to a violation of the tradition by going against the style's underlying principles) one must first dedicate themselves to mastering what they are being taught. You can develop tradition while being faithful to it (and, I would argue specifically by being faithful to it) or you can develop something else that, while it may be effective, is not in harmony with the tradition you're studying. If this is done at some point in time you're going to come up with your own style.

Hope this post wasn't too rambling for you.

Pax,

Chris

 

[astrobiologist]

As I train and grow in the martial arts, I'm learning and adapting my fighting style and my martial philosophy; tweaking it, if you will. I no longer kick and punch the way I was taught in the first school I trained at, because I've learned better ways to kick and punch. I've included principles and techniques from other martial styles in my training and teaching. Though I train in a so-called 'traditional' martial art, what I train is really not too traditional. Indeed, many of the styles we train in are really just revised adaptations of other fighting forms that can be, in one manner or another, traced back into the beginnings of human civilization. But yet none of us can say we train in the traditional fighting arts of early human civilization. Things change; we learn more, we adapt, our cultures diverse, our methods of fighting change, our reasons for fighting may change as well.

When we use the term traditional martial art, I think of a martial style where one can trace the history and philosophy of their art through the changes it has incurred. That to me shows that the traditions, the history, are an aspect, if not a major component, of the art. Someone who takes a kickboxing class at the local gym or who trains in MMA but does not know much of the history of martial arts or where their techniques came from, to me, is not in a traditional martial art. Whereas someone who is training in kenpo, or TSD, or capoeira will likely know at least some of the history of their art and may follow guidelines to class structure; making it a traditional martial art.

The word 'tradition' really does just mean an idea, method, practice, or custom that is passed from one generation to another. So a traditional martial art would have to be one in which the techniques and customs (signs of respect, class etiquette, insignia, codes of conduct, class structure, rank, etc.) are passed along while the style itself is changing from school to school and individual to individual. These traditions themselves may change over time, but it's the people who continue to record and remember the history of those traditions that, to me, makes a martial art traditional.

 

[Bret Hinds]

Tradition in our school, means the basics punchs,kicks,blocks etc. The pooms our grandmaster taught us. The one steps -self defense and other basics skills. The aims to achive and the other oral traditions past down in our school. Not changeing to the latest fad, no dis to the MMA fans. For what is old is new again. All the best in the arts

 

[seasoned]

We all know what traditional means. We have a lot of stimuli to pick from. A traditional catholic wedding is in a church with a priest and a white wedding gown, not. Every denomination has their own traditions, maybe. Customary, conventional, usual, established, fixed, time-honored, habitual, are all words that translate to “traditional“. The thing is traditional, is fast becoming old-fashion. Now where MA are concerned, traditionally it was designed for one purpose, self protection. It wasn’t about tournaments, fighting for titles, name recognition, belt rank, making money, impressing someone, showing off. With all this going on in today’s dojo, is it any wonder people are and saying, what does traditional mean. Lets cut back to those days of traditional karate, and see what, from this day and age, stands, and what falls. But I digress, because without change, how will things ever get "sarcasm" better.

 

[miguksaram]

Terry, you bring up a good topic and possibly a touchy one. What is tradition? Well I have my ancestrial background from English, Irish & German (Euroslut to be exact). There are others here who also have similar ethnic backgrounds. Now we may all celebrate Christmas, but do we celebrate it all the same way? Why not, we all have the same roots, shouldn't we all have the same traidition of celebration?

There is no such thing as "keeping it pure" if so then you should be studying Shotokan as taught by Gichin Funakoshi. After all that is what the majority of the founders studied prior to the formation of TKD. You will teach your students how you were taught and they will do the same, but will they teach how you taught them only or will they teach how you taught, mixed with what another teacher taught, mixed with their own outlook?

Since society has evolved so has the martial arts. To train exactly like Itosu & Matsumura did may be cool and traditional, but most likely a waste of time. Their society that they trained to defend against is much different than today's, so why train that same way. I hope my students will keep some of my teachings alive, but I also hope they will develope their own methods as well to keep the art alive. If not, it will become stagnant and eventually just die out.

 

[exile]

To train exactly like Itosu & Matsumura did may be cool and traditional, but most likely a waste of time. Their society that they trained to defend against is much different than today's, so why train that same way.

Well, first and foremost, the nature of the existential moment: you looking across an inhospitable bit of ground at someone who you suspect—very likely with justification—means to do you serious, possibly lethal bodily harm. It's true, the world has changed a lot. But that particular situation is probably just as sickening-scary as it ever was. It was for that that the TMAs were created—civilian self-defense in a rough world. The changes in the world don't mean that such scenarios have gone away. They may not happen often, but in the few times they do in your life, you had better know exactly what you're doing. Really, I think, that's the long and short of what Matsumura and Itosu wanted their students to know.

 

[Makalakumu]

The answer to your questions lies with the proliferation of organizations in various KMA's in this country. Tradition is subjective, plain and simple.

"There are no governors anywhere. You are all free."

 

[miguksaram]

Well, first and foremost, the nature of the existential moment: you looking across an inhospitable bit of ground at someone who you suspect—very likely with justification—means to do you serious, possibly lethal bodily harm. It's true, the world has changed a lot. But that particular situation is probably just as sickening-scary as it ever was. It was for that that the TMAs were created—civilian self-defense in a rough world. The changes in the world don't mean that such scenarios have gone away. They may not happen often, but in the few times they do in your life, you had better know exactly what you're doing. Really, I think, that's the long and short of what Matsumura and Itosu wanted their students to know.

If you are talking about the mindset of the warrior then I agree that it hasn't changed. The need for self protection has not changed, but society's rules of engagement have changed greatly from their days. Plus training methods have evolved from their days as well. What may have been acceptable back then, could be damaging now. Again, training like them, while cool and fun and "traditional" is not as practical as it could be.

 

[exile]

If you are talking about the mindset of the warrior then I agree that it hasn't changed. The need for self protection has not changed, but society's rules of engagement have changed greatly from their days. Plus training methods have evolved from their days as well. What may have been acceptable back then, could be damaging now. Again, training like them, while cool and fun and "traditional" is not as practical as it could be.

I agree with this, and I think contemporary non-compliant training methods, born in many cases out of the very workaday combat experience of guys like Peyton Quinn, Geoff Thompson, Peter Consterdine and others who have refined their TMA techical skills in the forge of bar bouncing, door security and crowd control, are the way to go here. Not much fun, for most folk, but the only way of preparing yourself realistically for real down-and-dirty street violence that you can't get away from any other way. It really was the warrior mindset that I had in mind—mastering your fear and bringing your skills into focus in the face of serious danger. Training for the worst case, in short.

 

[terryl965]

Yes those guys have done a great job as for as exploring what is there and making fit into there style of fighting but what about the traditional aspect do you see it in there everyday movements?

 

[exile]

Yes those guys have done a great job as for as exploring what is there and making fit into there style of fighting but what about the traditional aspect do you see it in there everyday movements?

It's always a matter of what you think the core of the traditional aspect is—and that's in a sense really what I think your OP is about, Terry—but I do think that what these guys are doing reflects a true traditional view of the MAs. This is my thinking:

TKD and TSD derive almost entirely from a Japanese adaptation of what was itself a fusion, in 19th century Okinawa, between two 'folk' combat traditions, imported styles, probably family styles, of Chinese boxing, on the one hand and native Okinawan tuite methods (themselves probably rooted in family tradition and experimentation; we've actually had one or two very interesting posts about this side of the Okinawan arts, some time back). No seriously well-documented source I've ever come across takes these 'grassroots' combat systems to have had any purpose but personal self defense. There were people who were recognized as good fighters and skilled practitioners of these arts, in Okinawa; sometimes, if you were lucky, you could get the chance to train with one or two of these masters. We don't really know exactly what the training that guys like Matsumura and Azato themselves underwent when they were learning their skills, but very likely tough physical conditioning was part of it, mastery of a few forms, and a good deal of individual experimentation (as a way of extracting the combat value of those forms) were at the heart of it. You worked on stuff, showed up, your instructor probably posed some problem for you (what are you going to do when I attack you like this?) and so on. For some of the early karateka, Motobu and Chotoku Kyan in particular, pressure-testing was crucial enough to them that they actually went looking for fights in the seedier parts of town (this is said to have gotten Motobu bounced from Itosu's classes).

Now if you look at the people I mentioned, I think there's an excellent case to be made that their practices represent the key traditional aspect of the MAs that I've just been talking about, maybe better than any others. Like Matsumura and many of the other early masters, they've seen plenty of real combat. They don't just learn forms, or perform them; they study them and try to extract from them their combat content. Geoff Thompson's The Pavement Arena, has a section on kata where he says,

... for the karateka wishing to pursue knowledge of self-defense, kata are a treasure trove of hidden techniques that can be adapted directly to a street situation.... while kata themselves may not be directly relevant to the street, indirectly they certainly are...

To the practitioner who wishes to use kata as a means of developing their mental powers, I advise that they learn the correct bunkai of each technique within their chosen kata. Visualizing kata entails using the techniques on imaginary opponents. If you do not know what the moves mean or represent this becomes an impossible task.

(pp. 62–63). And Thompson, echoing Abernethy, provides some nice, robust, practical applications of familiar kata movements. Like the BCA types, he's a high-ranking karateka—Consterdine, who was a bouncer and club security guy in Manchester for nearly a decade, is an eighth dan and was Team England international competitor—but grounded in street reality. The important point is that, as he says, 'My own kata search brought me much enlightenment as it showed me that karate lacks very little if viewed from the correct perspective.

That kind of perspective, the one he's talking about, is, I'd argue, the core of the original TMA tradition that we're all looking for. Small-scale instruction; patient and independent thinking, by both instructors and students, about the techniques and their application: realistic fighting scenarios... to my way of thinking, this is far more traditional than the dojo etiquette and other invented traditions shaped by Japanese militarist culture in the 1920s, of the sort discussed in Stephen Vlastos' excellent study The Mirror of Modernity: Invented Traditions of Modern Japan (1998: University of California Press). A lot of those invented traditions have been taken over whole into a North American culture to which they have no organic connection (I'm not talking about fundamental values such as respect for one's teachers or courtesy towards one's fellow students, but the rituals and forms which are supposedly part and parcel with these attitudes... but that's a separate thread topic, probably). My own take is that in mining the kata for fighting techniques and possibilities which they then apply to their own combat experience, and teach to their more advanced students, the chaps I mentioned are much closer to the founders of the modern karate-based arts than much of the intervening development, guided as it was by Funakoshi's mass instruction methods, and the compliant sparring-based training which came to dominate karate after him.

And I think that what I'm saying about karate here applies to all the karate-based arts, including (and, from where we're standing, most importantly) TKD and TSD.