Yeah, I use Linux as my primary OS at home with a small Windows partition for games. Living in Seattle and working in IT I don't have the option to ignore Windows, much as I might like to do so...I've been running Unix or Linux for long enough that I didn't know this.
It's still crap, though.
The logic is sound, if the premise is agreed upon. If we agree that an art is "traditional" if it is being practiced in order to preserve the art (aka "keep it alive"), then pugilism being practiced by even one person for the preservation of the art would make it traditional. Or are you suggesting that there is a minimum number? Or are you challenging the premise?
Are you absolutely sure about this? I remember Windows 3.1 and 3.11 (Windows for Workgroups) very well, and IIRC, you still had to boot to DOS (version 6.something, I think) and "execute" Windows. It was Windows 95 that was the game changer. Now I need to google it...
Oh yeah, Windows 95 was a game changer and DOS was no longer really an independent thing, though you could essentially still boot into DOS with effort it wasn't really intended to be run that way and I don't recall how full featured it was in that mode. Windows 95 booted in DOS and then loaded everything else on top and then sort of cut the DOS feet out from under itself. The two were so tightly integrated that you never saw DOS unless you went looking for it. So, yeah, you're right, even in Windows 95 it was less DOS and more Windows.Are you absolutely sure about this? I remember Windows 3.1 and 3.11 (Windows for Workgroups) very well, and IIRC, you still had to boot to DOS (version 6.something, I think) and "execute" Windows. It was Windows 95 that was the game changer. Now I need to google it...
I also remember two other significant changes with Windows 95. the first was Winsock, which allowed us to run a graphical browser on the WWW. The other was "plug and play." Prior to Windows 95, you had to install drivers and mess around with I/O ports and all kinds of crap, to install a printer, modem, or some other peripheral. Win95 changed that.
It's hard for people to see that a fighting system can be 2 different things at once. For most people it has to be either Traditional or Functional. It can't be both. By the nature of Function, anything that wants to remain functional has to change and always be modern. Improvements will need to be made even if the technique is old, the delivery of it will most certainly be made more efficient and effective.
You either punch from your guard, or you punch from your waist. You can't do both. If you train both, when you have to use it, you may confuse yourself.
If your traditional method is functional then it has already undergone some changes and will probably continue to do so, as long as users want to ensure that it's functional enough to meet the present day needs of fighting. If your traditional method is functional then by nature it will become the modern method, but it will lose much of it's tradition and desire to keep the "old way." The same person may choose to keep the "old ways" as a way to preserve the tradition. But he will certainly not use it to fight if it's not functional.
I can do both. I can punch from my guard, and from my waist, I can also punch from an extended arm. There's not confusion for me because each has their own time and place. I cannot biologically punch from my waist if my arm is already extended. I cannot biologically punch with an extended arm if my arms are in a guard. I have videos of me doing all 3 of these things and it's not confusing to me.
This is where all of those methods of power generation come into play.
I donāt see traditional methods in this way at all. Traditional methods have simply been around for a long time. They have been around for a long time because they have proven to be effective methods. They are still effective.
not necessarily. Most traditional styles today are relatively young.
this literally made me laugh. There are so many possible reasons something hangs around that have nothing to do with efficacy.
another laughable assertion grounded in absolutely nothing but wishful thinking and fairy dust.
i donāt not disagree with this.
Yes. This is the preservation of tradition. They aren't around for a long time because they are effective, they are around a long time because people preserve the tradition. It evolves because it's effective which is why boxing from the 1800's doesn't look like today's boxing. Box are called boxing but both aren't the same system. Today's boxing has things and does things that were done during the earlier days of boxing. Same sport but definitely not the same system. Same system would suggest that there have been no changes. It may have the same name but it's definitely not the same system of fighting.
ha ha ha. an so it begins. lol. But back on track. Jow Ga kung fu is considered a traditional martial arts but it hasn't been around in comparison to other systems. It's made of older systems but that's not why it's seen as traditional. Jow Ga schools do a lot of Traditional Chinese Culture stuff. From Shrines, honoring the dead, and tea ceremonies, most Jow Ga schools still do those things. A good example would be the lion dance. Our lion dance is heavy into numerology so the lion has to do certain actions a certain amount of times for good luck, blessing. Screw that up and you curse the people who you are doing the lion dance from lol. Stuff like this isn't what the student's actually believe, but it's tradition so we do it. It's always ceremony and never just a lion dance.i donāt not disagree with this.
When you train "groin kick, face punch" combo, do you train 1 way vs. the other way, or do you train both ways?
You are convoluting the reason the old systems still have practitioners. They continue to exist because they work. While there are some cases where the preservation of an old archaic method is done for historical purposes, those would be in the minority. The vast majority of traditional (old) methods that continue to exist do so because the people doing them continue to find them effective and useful and relevant.
By that definition, I definitely practiced a traditional art for about 12 years, and have spent the last 18 years practicing a (mostly) modern art - all in the same art.
This is only a small number of people in comparison of those who only do it for exercise, fitness, or just the fun of learning a real martial arts form. One only needs to look at how a school advertises itself to know what type of students the schools has or is trying to attract.
That's kind of the point JGW was making. If you just want to preserve the art at a fixed point, then "better" isn't a consideration. If you are looking for best function, then "how it has always been done" isn't much of a consideration. I think most of us are somewhere between those two.
