Traditional v modern

[Steve]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Remember up there when I said links could not be to monetized YouTube videos? That wasn't a joke. Do not continue posting links to commercial sites or monetized YouTube videos.

Thank you.
Mark A Cochran
@Dirty Dog
MartialTalk Senior Moderator

no links to commercial sites? I'm pretty sure that precludes links to almost anything.

I just don't understand the no tension aspect.

Punches look like they are just arm punches with no snap or power.

Thats how a whip works, though. Not saying systema is legit or not . Just that the punching technique ive seen in systema vids looks like they are trying to emulate something like a whipping motion.

 

[Gweilo]

no links to commercial sites? I'm pretty sure that precludes links to almost anything

Thats how a whip works, though. Not saying systema is legit or not . Just that the punching technique ive seen in systema vids looks like they are trying to emulate something like a whipping motion.

It comes from Nagaika or Kossak whip

 

[Gweilo]

yes , thanks for posting, what he is showing us fast fluid movement which is a good thing, and I can see that whipping your relaxed arm at some one at speed can generated good energy, just from the acceleration and dead weight, I'm less convinced that this is more effective than powering a tense s/ rigid arm into your attacker and transferring body weight in to the punch. so it not with out merit if that's the situation you find your self in, just I'm not sure it would be my first choice

It takes a while to perfect, 3 years and I am not quite there, I train daily at home, and attend class 3 nights a week 8 hours and 2 hours Thursday daytime, and the tension thing, it took almost 2 years for it to make sense.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The Air Force loves checklists.

Checklists are excellent tools for experts doing complex repetitive tasks. Pilots and surgical crews both gain from their use.

 

[dvcochran]

For the record and Jobo, this is my distinction, there are very few TMA, most of the arts available are evolutions, adaptations, and modern versions of a military system created centuries ago.
For me a TMA would be an art that is identical to its creation, in training methods and phillosphies but would need to be at least 2 centuries old, to me any art that has been born from another art in traditions or philosophies, or techniques is NOT a TMA, I am using the definition from the English Oxford dictionaries version of traditional . So to be clear (Jobo), Aikido and Hapkido cannot be traditional because they were born from Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu so to me are modern arts, albeit the word traditional is some time used in front of an art to distinguish it from other styles, like in Hapkido, the word traditional is used to separate it from adaptations like combat Hapkido.

Using your definition, why don't you back into the answer and provide the rest of us your list of TMA? This should get to a conclusion much easier.

 

[pdg]

Checklists are excellent tools for experts doing complex repetitive tasks. Pilots and surgical crews both gain from their use.

The repetitive tasks don't have to be complex to benefit from a checklist...

 

[JowGaWolf]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Remember up there when I said links could not be to monetized YouTube videos? That wasn't a joke. Do not continue posting links to commercial sites or monetized YouTube videos.

Thank you.
Mark A Cochran
@Dirty Dog
MartialTalk Senior Moderator

first time seeing this. Didn't know. Sorry about that.

 

[JowGaWolf]

no links to commercial sites? I'm pretty sure that precludes links to almost anything.

Thats how a whip works, though. Not saying systema is legit or not . Just that the punching technique ive seen in systema vids looks like they are trying to emulate something like a whipping motion.

Anthony that gets a lot of hits will fall under that category.

 

[Steve]

The repetitive tasks don't have to be complex to benefit from a checklist...

Totally. I make buttermilk biscuits all the time. It is a simple recipe and I do it from memory often pre-coffee. Last weekend, I was rolling them out and the dough wasn't right. Realized I forgot the butter. A checklist/recipe would have helped.

 

[Gweilo]

Using your definition, why don't you back into the answer and provide the rest of us your list of TMA? This should get to a conclusion much easier.

From Japan such arts as Tegumi, Kebudo, or chinese arts like Shuai Jiao, or white crane, that's traditional.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The repetitive tasks don't have to be complex to benefit from a checklist...

In that context, complex just means having several steps, so there’s something to make a checklist of.

 

[StellarAevum]

My 1st real post on MT (please be gentle), having studied MA since the early 80s, There has been a lot of trends come and go. I have trained in 2 traditional styles, and am currently studying a modern system. I know MA are adapting new styles, new technologies, better nutrition, but recently I have questioned, would I advise a younger me, to start my journey in MA by studying a traditional art or a modern art? .
In the system I currently train, we use techniques like breath work and body conditioning that have been around for centuries, and are, in my opinion vital, but why learn the meridians and meridian points when an anatomical or neurological strike (both from traditional arts) would be more efficient. I suppose what I am trying to say is why spend years learning how to win/survive/defend, when there could be a quicker more efficient way.
I do believe traditional MA are still effective, but why would you spend 20 years learning an art form (technique names in its native language, the appropriate way to tie your belt). I don't regret training in traditional arts, but would I really tell a younger me to take that path.
So are you a traditionalist or a modernist, or maybe you have a different view, I would love your opinion.

I believe that the distinction between traditional and modern martial arts is a false dichotomy used as a vast oversimplification personally.

 

[Steve]

I believe that the distinction between traditional and modern martial arts is a false dichotomy used as a vast oversimplification personally.

Are you saying it is not a meaningful distinction, that there is no distinction at all or something else? If thos is oversimplified, what is the more complex version?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I believe that the distinction between traditional and modern martial arts is a false dichotomy used as a vast oversimplification personally.

Agree! What we may call

- traditional, it was called modern 1000 years ago.
- modern, it will be called traditional 1000 years from today.

The Chinese wrestling has over 3000 years ancient history. From Chinese wrestling point of view, any other MA systems will be considered as modern.

In the river, the back wave pushes the front wave. The front wave then crash on the rock. That's how history goes.

 

[MetalBoar]

I believe that the distinction between traditional and modern martial arts is a false dichotomy used as a vast oversimplification personally.

Are you saying it is not a meaningful distinction, that there is no distinction at all or something else? If thos is oversimplified, what is the more complex version?

I won't speak for @StellarAevum but I agree that it's an imprecise and confused distinction. TMA and modern are used as short hands for various conceptual, training and application differences between arts that most people seem to use without defining because they think everyone agrees, but that isn't really true. A lot of people seem to mean competition based arts vs. arts that don't compete. But if you say Aikido is traditional but Judo isn't then it's a poor definition. Or Kyokushin, it trains with kata and other methods that are frequently seen as "traditional" and has it's roots in older arts, but it was founded post WWII and frequently has a competitive focus. TKD is similar in this regard. Both seem to sometimes get labeled "traiditonal" and sometimes not depending on the discussion. Then there are the modern self defense arts like Krav Maga, which seem to get thrown in with TMA's for some of these discussions (because they don't compete?) but many of them do not have kata nor use other training methods usually associated TMA's and have been founded in the 20th or 21st century. For that matter, where do you put Muay Thai, western boxing, wrestling, or sport fencing? Kendo? etc.

 

[dvcochran]

I believe that the distinction between traditional and modern martial arts is a false dichotomy used as a vast oversimplification personally.

If by oversimplification you mean the differences are considerable I agree.

 

[Steve]

I won't speak for @StellarAevum but I agree that it's an imprecise and confused distinction. TMA and modern are used as short hands for various conceptual, training and application differences between arts that most people seem to use without defining because they think everyone agrees, but that isn't really true. A lot of people seem to mean competition based arts vs. arts that don't compete. But if you say Aikido is traditional but Judo isn't then it's a poor definition. Or Kyokushin, it trains with kata and other methods that are frequently seen as "traditional" and has it's roots in older arts, but it was founded post WWII and frequently has a competitive focus. TKD is similar in this regard. Both seem to sometimes get labeled "traiditonal" and sometimes not depending on the discussion. Then there are the modern self defense arts like Krav Maga, which seem to get thrown in with TMA's for some of these discussions (because they don't compete?) but many of them do not have kata nor use other training methods usually associated TMA's and have been founded in the 20th or 21st century. For that matter, where do you put Muay Thai, western boxing, wrestling, or sport fencing? Kendo? etc.

I think you’ve summarized the issue pretty well.

I’ve been around here a while, and seen this movie before. We get a few different kinds of posts. Many presume a shared understanding of the terms and post accordingly.

Some, like yours and the one you reference basically just point out the issue. It’s like pointing at the dog vomit on the carpet. “The problem is that we have dog vomit. Look, there it is. Gross. It’s dog vomit. Yuck. On the carpet.”

I’m really hoping we get to the point where we can agree on some definitions, whether they are perfect or not, and then have a discussion about the same thing. I’ve offered definitions in the past, as have others (you can find them if you search for them) and the thread generally devolves into people picking apart the proposed definition rather than using it as a platform for conversation. That would be folks complaining about how someone cleans up the dog vomit. “Yuck... he’s using cold water and rubbing. You should dab and blot. Dab and blot. You’re not doing it right.”

So, We have some new blood in the discussion. We have an opportunity. Rather than fall into the traps above, I’m way more interested in your definitions of the terms and what you think about them. So, what do you think? If the dichotomy is oversimplified, then let’s get more complex.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If by oversimplification you mean the differences are considerable I agree.

They can be. Depends how you define the terms.

 

[StellarAevum]

Are you saying it is not a meaningful distinction, that there is no distinction at all or something else? If thos is oversimplified, what is the more complex version?

I do not think that it serves to tell us anything and they are commonly applied inconsistently. Some like to make blanket statements about "traditional martial arts" being impractical, but use Boxing, Wrestling, and Muy Thai themselves. Or someone may call Taekwondo a traditional martial art when it is around 50 years old and call Baritsu a modern martial art despite it being over 100.

I won't speak for @StellarAevum but I agree that it's an imprecise and confused distinction. TMA and modern are used as short hands for various conceptual, training and application differences between arts that most people seem to use without defining because they think everyone agrees, but that isn't really true. A lot of people seem to mean competition based arts vs. arts that don't compete. But if you say Aikido is traditional but Judo isn't then it's a poor definition. Or Kyokushin, it trains with kata and other methods that are frequently seen as "traditional" and has it's roots in older arts, but it was founded post WWII and frequently has a competitive focus. TKD is similar in this regard. Both seem to sometimes get labeled "traiditonal" and sometimes not depending on the discussion. Then there are the modern self defense arts like Krav Maga, which seem to get thrown in with TMA's for some of these discussions (because they don't compete?) but many of them do not have kata nor use other training methods usually associated TMA's and have been founded in the 20th or 21st century. For that matter, where do you put Muay Thai, western boxing, wrestling, or sport fencing? Kendo? etc.

Exactly, it often seems to stem from people assuming that more sparring-oriented martial arts are more "modern" than non-sparring oriented martial arts. Additionally, where does one place something like HEMA (historical european martial arts) that is a reconstructed martial art rooted in traditional fighting manuals.

If by oversimplification you mean the differences are considerable I agree.

I mean that you cannot make generalizations about the differences between "traditional" and "modern" martial arts without being logically fallacious.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think you’ve summarized the issue pretty well.

I’ve been around here a while, and seen this movie before. We get a few different kinds of posts. Many presume a shared understanding of the terms and post accordingly.

Some, like yours and the one you reference basically just point out the issue. It’s like pointing at the dog vomit on the carpet. “The problem is that we have dog vomit. Look, there it is. Gross. It’s dog vomit. Yuck. On the carpet.”

I’m really hoping we get to the point where we can agree on some definitions, whether they are perfect or not, and then have a discussion about the same thing. I’ve offered definitions in the past, as have others (you can find them if you search for them) and the thread generally devolves into people picking apart the proposed definition rather than using it as a platform for conversation. That would be folks complaining about how someone cleans up the dog vomit. “Yuck... he’s using cold water and rubbing. You should dab and blot. Dab and blot. You’re not doing it right.”

So, We have some new blood in the discussion. We have an opportunity. Rather than fall into the traps above, I’m way more interested in your definitions of the terms and what you think about them. So, what do you think? If the dichotomy is oversimplified, then let’s get more complex.

I think perhaps the issue is that different people jump in with what they have been using as their definition. Sometimes to be argumentative, sometimes to clarify what they're talking about, and sometimes just to suggest a different definition for the discussion.

Heck, I don't really agree with myself about the distinction. Sometimes I'm talking about older vs. newer (even that is rather vague). Sometimes I'm talking about systems that try to remain static - keeping to the way the system was at some arbitrary point in time. Most often, I'm talking about systems that use traditional training methods that have been around for long periods of time and have become codified in the system, versus those that seem to use whatever works at the time. That last is often (by me) conflated with traditional rituals (uniforms, bowing, remnants of the language from the country of origin, etc.) - probably because I most often see them overlap.

If I can't agree with me, how am I ever going to manage to agree with you?

In all seriousness, I think part of the problem is it's a conceptual term, rather than a concrete one. And those of us who are more conceptual are comfortable with vague definition, which doesn't work well in discussion with those who are less conceptual (and "conceptual" is not a value judgment in either direction).