Traditional v modern

[Gerry Seymour]

I have been thinking about the name of this topic and the many posts about trying to define the two "types" of MA. One consistent theme I hear when non-traditional people talk about traditional styles is the following of specific protocols, philosophies, and decorum. Often it is not acknowledged that many of the techniques used in modern MA originated from a traditional format and conversely there have been many refinements, and new techniques along the way.
One line of defining a traditional style is one that it follows ALL the practices from a historical perspective, regardless of whether there have been changes within the mechanics over time. Likewise, a modern style may be one that has over time, or from origination dropped the decorum and philosophy to streamline their practice.
Possibly a streamlining method could be to peel back a style to the original known name (in last 200 years?). Not an ancient name/style that is thousands of years old because, let's be honest, we know basically nothing about them with the exception of a few possibly books. So there would not be ITF, ATA, WTF, etc... Tae Kwon Do. There would just be TKD for example. TKD alone is a tough one because in its current format it is not that old.
Hopefully this is a start that can be considered, deconstructed and refined.

Even in that, you've combined several points. What if the practice methods haven't changed (same techniques, same training methods), but the philosophical approach has evolved or been lost entirely? Or vice-versa? What if it has all the ritual (bowing, uniforms, terms from origin language), but has evolved in every other way?

This is what I was getting at earlier with the inherent problems in creating a definition across all these areas. Pretty near every style will have some things on each side. I can't think of any style where everything they do is about fighting prowess - even MMA has things that are common and are more about sportsmanship (touching gloves to start the fight, for instance). We end up with a continuum, rather than opposing ideals.

 

[dvcochran]

Even in that, you've combined several points. What if the practice methods haven't changed (same techniques, same training methods), but the philosophical approach has evolved or been lost entirely? Or vice-versa? What if it has all the ritual (bowing, uniforms, terms from origin language), but has evolved in every other way?

This is what I was getting at earlier with the inherent problems in creating a definition across all these areas. Pretty near every style will have some things on each side. I can't think of any style where everything they do is about fighting prowess - even MMA has things that are common and are more about sportsmanship (touching gloves to start the fight, for instance). We end up with a continuum, rather than opposing ideals.

To your points, that is what I am calling the philosophical aspects of a style, the formalities etc...
Are you saying the argument is pointless and the divide, if any, is irrelevant? As someone who has studied under what I consider both, I feel a very big difference. That said, it is a personal opinion and how we would start measuring someone's experiences I have no idea.
I had the idea of taking some of the esoteric things that are always mentioned (like yours) and make them concrete lines to discuss the topic around. Impossible?

 

[Steve]

Function vs form.

I really think this is it. More specifically, the function drives the form .

Ultimately, if you are learning to do what you think you are learning, no problem . This isn't always the case, though, and that's where discussions like this are helpful .

 

[Gerry Seymour]

To your points, that is what I am calling the philosophical aspects of a style, the formalities etc...
Are you saying the argument is pointless and the divide, if any, is irrelevant? As someone who has studied under what I consider both, I feel a very big difference. That said, it is a personal opinion and how we would start measuring someone's experiences I have no idea.
I had the idea of taking some of the esoteric things that are always mentioned (like yours) and make them concrete lines to discuss the topic around. Impossible?

I don't think it's impossible or pointless, but I do think it's more difficult to find a common working definition when we include multiple areas that aren't binary. An example of the issue we (generically, not necessarily you and I) keep running into is right there with your definition of "philosophical". I can accept it as a working definition, but read it as an entirely different thing, though it seemed quite clear to me. When I think of philosophical aspects, they are things like the philosophy of peace Ueshiba taught in his later years, or even the fairly common philosophy of not starting fights, striving to be a better person, etc. - which need not be part of martial arts (from a physical skill perspective), but often are.

 

[dvcochran]

I don't think it's impossible or pointless, but I do think it's more difficult to find a common working definition when we include multiple areas that aren't binary. An example of the issue we (generically, not necessarily you and I) keep running into is right there with your definition of "philosophical". I can accept it as a working definition, but read it as an entirely different thing, though it seemed quite clear to me. When I think of philosophical aspects, they are things like the philosophy of peace Ueshiba taught in his later years, or even the fairly common philosophy of not starting fights, striving to be a better person, etc. - which need not be part of martial arts (from a physical skill perspective), but often are.

I have to agree. My experiences make me believe becoming a better person is vital when learning something as potentially violent as a MA. I can't in good confidence take the position that we are all good and that people are not greatly influenced by what they learn. Therefore learning only the violence can lead to the lack of understanding in how/when to use it. This is not limited to just MA either. I am certainly a nuture vs. nature guy.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Function vs form.

Function can be mapped into form.

The partner drill without partner is solo drill. If you link solo drill, you will get form.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I have to agree. My experiences make me believe becoming a better person is vital when learning something as potentially violent as a MA. I can't in good confidence take the position that we are all good and that people are not greatly influenced by what they learn. Therefore learning only the violence can lead to the lack of understanding in how/when to use it. This is not limited to just MA either. I am certainly a nuture vs. nature guy.

I tend to think that's true, though there's an argument to be made that modeling is more important than an overt philosophy. So an MMA coach who never talks about that stuff but is just a good model of self-control, disciplined work, and emotional intelligence - that person will probably do as good a job of turning out "good" people as I will.

 

[JowGaWolf]

If, when this conflict arises, the art and its students preserve the way they are taught, it is a traditional art. If, when this conflict arises, the art and its students change the curriculum, it is not traditional.

I can see this as well too, "The tradition of things."

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I can see this as well too, "The tradition of things."

I forgot to reply to this earlier. @Steve, I like that view. It's not a definition I use, but I quite like it. Give me some time, and it might end up being my preferred definition.

 

[Deleted member 40306]

First you have to have "an eye for details" Here's a good example.
Techniques can't help you do the following:

• Tell if someone is fully committed to a punch
• Tell if someone is shifting weight on their back foot or front foot
• Tell if someone is preparing to kick or punch
• Tell if your opponent has a good root / stance or if he's got light feet
• Tell if your opponent has tell-tale signs (something that happens before he/she takes action)
• Tell if your opponent is picking up your tell-tale signs and how you are giving away what you are about to do.
• Tell if your opponent is off balance
• Tell if your opponent is about to be gassed out or if he's faking being tired
• Tell if your opponent is really hurt or if he's faking it.
• Tell if you are off balance or if you actually have a steady stance.
• Tell if a person is going to kick, punch, or shoot for the legs.
• De-escalation is all about small details.
• Help you identify when someone will be open to an attack.
• Help you if the person in front of you is actually signaling someone behind you.
• If a person may have a weapon or gun on them.

There are a lot of small details in fighting that will mess you up big time, if you don't recognize them. So starting off with knowing if a belt is tied correctly is a good easy start to get people in the habit of paying more attention to the smaller things (details) that matter. Eventually that detail becomes second nature and you'll know right away that something doesn't look right about how someone ties that belt. I would be willing to bet that how someone ties their belt can give insight on who and what they train.

The small details in how someone stands can tell you if that person actually knows to fight or if he's totally clueless. I don't know how many MMA vs Kung Master videos I've seen where I can tell who is going to win just by how the person stands. It's like a collection of small details helping to draw a big picture. Technique will only take you so far.

This is great... I'm gonna borrow these fine bullet points for my bestseller

• Tell if someone is fully committed to a punch
• Tell if someone is shifting weight on their back foot or front foot
• Tell if someone is preparing to kick or punch
• Tell if your opponent has a good root / stance or if he's got light feet
• Tell if your opponent has tell-tale signs (something that happens before he/she takes action)
• Tell if your opponent is picking up your tell-tale signs and how you are giving away what you are about to do.
• Tell if your opponent is off balance
• Tell if your opponent is about to be gassed out or if he's faking being tired
• Tell if your opponent is really hurt or if he's faking it.
• Tell if you are off balance or if you actually have a steady stance.
• Tell if a person is going to kick, punch, or shoot for the legs.
• De-escalation is all about small details.
• Help you identify when someone will be open to an attack.
• Help you if the person in front of you is actually signaling someone behind you.
• If a person may have a weapon or gun on them.

 

[StellarAevum]

"I take kung fu because it has better self-defense application than [insert other martial arts]" That's what this statement remind me of.


Nope that's what you assume about my statement. Training for form is not the same as Training for function. If you aren't training for Function then you are only training to preserve the form (aka preserve the traditions of that martial art)

No I was simply pointing out that boxing was historically an adaptation of puglism to be used with gloves instead of without.

The fact of the matter is that since boxing is more common than puglism, that bare-knuckle boxers who adapt boxing are of course going to be more common.

I am just saying that if you look at the historical context, one was designed for bare-knuckle fighting and one was designed for gloved fighting.

 

[StellarAevum]

He did cover the intent in that post, with the "you...do it to keep an older style of boxing alive". If you have a different intent, that wouldn't fall under his definition.

For example, if your boxing is looks like what he used (below) and you, as well as other practitioners, do it more to keep an older style of boxing alive so that it's not forgotten, then boxing this style of boxing would qualify as traditional boxing.

The logic chain here, unless I'm misreading it, is:

A (You are using Pugilism) + B (You and others use Pugilism do it to keep it alive) = C (Pugilism is a traditional martial art)

The problem here is that he is not saying that makes it a traditional martial art for that person or group of practioners but overall.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The logic chain here, unless I'm misreading it, is:

A (You are using Pugilism) + B (You and others use Pugilism do it to keep it alive) = C (Pugilism is a traditional martial art)

The problem here is that he is not saying that makes it a traditional martial art for that person or group of practioners but overall.

I don't think that's what he intended, at all. If I practice NGA with the intent to preserve the art as it was when it came to the US (rather than for practical reasons), then I'm practicing a Traditional art by his definition. If you practice NGA (same art) for practical purposes (could be competition, could be self-defense) and make adjustments for those practical purposes, you would be practicing a Modern art, by his definition. So, I'd be practicing "traditional" NGA, and you'd be practicing "modern" NGA.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I don't think that's what he intended, at all. If I practice NGA with the intent to preserve the art as it was when it came to the US (rather than for practical reasons), then I'm practicing a Traditional art by his definition. If you practice NGA (same art) for practical purposes (could be competition, could be self-defense) and make adjustments for those practical purposes, you would be practicing a Modern art, by his definition. So, I'd be practicing "traditional" NGA, and you'd be practicing "modern" NGA.

By that definition, I (and I suspect many others) practice both. I practice and teach exactly (in so far as I am capable) as I was taught. I also tweak things (and encourage students to tweak things) to make the system work as well as possible for each individual.
It's two, TWO arts in ONE!

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I practice NGA with the intent to preserve the art as it was ...

If you can prove that the modern method is better than the traditional method, it makes no sense to keep training the traditional method.

This is the traditional hip throw training.

- You use hip to "bounce" your opponent's body up.
- It requires body spinning. If your opponent spins with you, he can drag you down with him.
- There is no set up.

This is the modern hip throw training.

- You use low horse stance to high horse stance to "lift" your opponent's body up.
- You enter through an angle. It does not require body spinning.
- You set it up with a low roundhouse kick.

 

[Dirty Dog]

If you can prove that the modern method is better than the traditional method, it makes no sense to keep training the traditional method.

I double dog dare you to say that to people practicing Koryu arts...

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I double dog dare you to say that to people practicing Koryu arts...

Back in the 80th, IBM had a research group that study the GUI desktop. After 3 months of research, IBM came out a conclusion, "The GUI desktop is cute, but it doesn't fit for the IBM conservative image". Who would know that WINDOW has replaced DOS completely today.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Back in the 80th, IBM had a research group that study the GUI desktop. After 3 months of research, IBM came out a conclusion, "The GUI desktop is cute, but it doesn't fit for the IBM conservative image". Who would know that WINDOW has replaced DOS completely today.

Actually, that isn't true. Windows, despite what people think, is not an operating system. It is a mere shell over the operating system. Which is, still, MS-DOS.

 

[MetalBoar]

Actually, that isn't true. Windows, despite what people think, is not an operating system. It is a mere shell over the operating system. Which is, still, MS-DOS.

This is not true any more and was complicated even as far back as 1993. In '93 MS released the Windows NT 3.1 product line as an enterprise OS and it was not built on top of DOS, though you could access a command shell that allowed you to use DOS commands. So, 2 product lines, 1 built on top of DOS; Windows 3.x and 95/97/ME and the other based on Windows NT; Windows Server and Workstation NT 3.x, NT 4, Windows Server and Workstation 2000, Windows Server 2003, 2008, 2012 and 2016, Windows XP, Vista, 7, and 10.

This is complicated further by the fact that NT and Windows 2000 did not have consumer versions. Windows 2000 Workstation was intended to be both a consumer and business OS, but the hardware vendors didn't think the consumer market was ready for it and pushed MS into producing Windows ME, which was not originally in the plan. So with Windows XP MS split the lines into more obviously client and server OS's built on the same core technology and started offering different flavors of the client OS targeted at different use cases. On the client side XP had Home, Professional and eventually Media Center versions and the server side there was Server 2003 in various configurations. This has continued to this day with some variation.

 

[Dirty Dog]

This is not true any more and was complicated even as far back as 1993. In '93 MS released the Windows NT 3.1 product line as an enterprise OS and it was not built on top of DOS, though you could access a command shell that allowed you to use DOS commands. So, 2 product lines, 1 built on top of DOS; Windows 3.x and 95/97/ME and the other based on Windows NT; Windows Server and Workstation NT 3.x, NT 4, Windows Server and Workstation 2000, Windows Server 2003, 2008, 2012 and 2016, Windows XP, Vista, 7, and 10.

This is complicated further by the fact that NT and Windows 2000 did not have consumer versions. Windows 2000 Workstation was intended to be both a consumer and business OS, but the hardware vendors didn't think the consumer market was ready for it and pushed MS into producing Windows ME, which was not originally in the plan. So with Windows XP MS split the lines into more obviously client and server OS's built on the same core technology and started offering different flavors of the client OS targeted at different use cases. On the client side XP had Home, Professional and eventually Media Center versions and the server side there was Server 2003 in various configurations. This has continued to this day with some variation.

I've been running Unix or Linux for long enough that I didn't know this.
It's still crap, though.