Traditional vs Historical Martial Arts?

[geezer]

LOL. I remember when D Inosanto, let the 4 phase class have a bar room brawl. Prob 20-25 students, each on their own. The only rule was no hitting someone with their back towards you. Now that’s historical JKD. No teacher would do that today.

Really? A full on brawl, full power and intensity? No gloves, pads or protection? Did this actually happen? Is there any evidence? Why am I doubtful?

 

[Hyoho]

Any thoughts on what differences might exist between "Traditional Martial Arts" vs "Historical Martial Arts?"

I'm aware of the standard definitions, but I'm suggesting we reexamine the terms "Traditional" vs "Historical."

In other words, history may show something was done a certain way. But practicing martial arts for the sake of doing it historically correct, to preserve something outdated, was traditionally not how or why it was done.

So while you might be reenacting certain aspects or techniques of an art and practicing an "historical" imagine of the art, you have to understand that doing that was not "traditionally" why the art was being practiced, or their motivation for practicing. So in my view practicing an "historical" system is great, but there is nothing "traditional" about it.

Traditionally most of these systems were developed by innovative people, for serious use in modern combat or self-defense. To a person, they intentionally deviated from the existing system, to make improvements. To understand the motivations, mindset, and culture of a historical art, the most traditional thing we can do is become dedicated to improving, modernizing, and developing a system that works right now, preparing for real world threats. Traditionally that was the focus and culture.

To be clear I'm not hating on "historical" training, I just think it's lacking a real perspective regarding the true culture these arts originally had. Making the whole activity not so historically accurate as one might first imagine.

From a Japanese perspective, The arts have managed to survive two periods. The first with the advent of the Meiji era pushed traditional arts into an artistic, cultural mode. The second following WWll pushed arts to survive as described at that time as a "sport like educational pursuit". So the modern arts have become more sport like, even changing in my lifetime. Traditional tagged along with the new guidelines but are still of course a cultural pursuit, some with philosophical guidelines and rules of "no adaptation" that we can perhaps adhere to. But in all there is of course that grey area. Many making things up before they actually learned the fundamentals.

It's all enjoyable, good stuff. I do and teach both. One of them was my full time occupation. The main point is if you want to get good at either? You never mix them as sadly one bleeds in to the other.

 

[drop bear]

Traditional is about ritual and historical is a time period.

 

[Hyoho]

Traditional is about ritual and historical is a time period.

But tradition usually has a history.

 

[Jared Traveler]

I'm not familiar with the latter term. TMA, I understand.


OK.



I think you're making some assumptions here that may not be valid. First, you assume that the reason people practice TMA (myself included) do it to 'be historically correct' or 'to preserve something outdated'.

In my case, there is a video record of how the founder of my style taught it, as well as living students whom he taught directly. It's 'historically correct' because we have the evidence that how we learn is how it was taught.

I'm not at all sure in what way it is 'outdated'.



Again, I am not sure what you mean.



I disagree. While it is true that the founder of our style took two different systems and melded them while adding his own innovations (and he even continued to experiment and make changes during his lifetime), he did not expressly state that he wanted others to change what he taught.

As to his system working 'right now', it does. There are many who suggest that TMA is outdated and that the techniques taught 'do not work'. I humbly suggest that this is because they can't personally apply those techniques. People can play pianos, even if I cannot. My inability to play a piano doesn't make it outdated, incorrect, not up-to-date, or impractical.



I don't know what perspective you think we should have. I train what I am taught, which is as accurate to the founder as we can make it. I hope that what I teach is also accurate to the founder's teaching. I don't have any personal need to make my own changes, nor do I feel that what I teach and learn is inaccurate, outdated, or useless. Why would I want to?

Hey brother, it's difficult for me to approach such a complex subject without painting with a broad brush a little. I understand people practice for a wide variety of reasons. What I'm speaking to the most is becoming more self-aware of what is actually being practiced or emulated.

In other words would the original people practicing this art even fit in or identify with what is being taught, the mindset and the culture in a dojo or gym. If not, ultimately I question if it's either traditional or historic. Rather an imitation, interpretation, or historic reenactment, without the focus, mindset or mission.

 

[Jared Traveler]

I'm not familiar with the latter term. TMA, I understand.


OK.



I think you're making some assumptions here that may not be valid. First, you assume that the reason people practice TMA (myself included) do it to 'be historically correct' or 'to preserve something outdated'.

In my case, there is a video record of how the founder of my style taught it, as well as living students whom he taught directly. It's 'historically correct' because we have the evidence that how we learn is how it was taught.

I'm not at all sure in what way it is 'outdated'.



Again, I am not sure what you mean.



I disagree. While it is true that the founder of our style took two different systems and melded them while adding his own innovations (and he even continued to experiment and make changes during his lifetime), he did not expressly state that he wanted others to change what he taught.

As to his system working 'right now', it does. There are many who suggest that TMA is outdated and that the techniques taught 'do not work'. I humbly suggest that this is because they can't personally apply those techniques. People can play pianos, even if I cannot. My inability to play a piano doesn't make it outdated, incorrect, not up-to-date, or impractical.



I don't know what perspective you think we should have. I train what I am taught, which is as accurate to the founder as we can make it. I hope that what I teach is also accurate to the founder's teaching. I don't have any personal need to make my own changes, nor do I feel that what I teach and learn is inaccurate, outdated, or useless. Why would I want to?

Also, regarding effectiveness. Again, I had to paint with a broad brush a little to make some points. But to be clear I think a lot of things can be effective. A revolutionary war musket is extremely outdated, but I would definitely never want to be on the receiving end of that round. That would be a horrible experience that would likely end in my death or disfigurement. I think the same way about old school techniques and training methods. Definitely can be effective.

 

[drop bear]

But tradition usually has a history.

Yeah. You can have both.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Also, regarding effectiveness. Again, I had to paint with a broad brush a little to make some points. But to be clear I think a lot of things can be effective. A revolutionary war musket is extremely outdated, but I would definitely never want to be on the receiving end of that round. That would be a horrible experience that would likely end in my death or disfigurement. I think the same way about old school techniques and training methods. Definitely can be effective.

They still dig holes with shovels.

 

[Hyoho]

Also, regarding effectiveness. Again, I had to paint with a broad brush a little to make some points. But to be clear I think a lot of things can be effective. A revolutionary war musket is extremely outdated, but I would definitely never want to be on the receiving end of that round. That would be a horrible experience that would likely end in my death or disfigurement. I think the same way about old school techniques and training methods. Definitely can be effective.

They have used firearms in Japan since 1543. A certain sword master was quoted as feeling the futility of swords but said, "Put away your swords. Look after your family, neighbors and country men. But if someone tries to attacks you? Get out your swords and kill them"! Perhaps a quote be it historical, traditional, cultural whatever that a lot could try to follow this present day. The art I do is defensive. Even in other arts I move to allow people to win. That's how we teach. That is what my founder of my classical art taught. I see no need to change that whatsoever. I even use the application in modern arts as the epitome of waza is to deal with an opponent that has committed to an attack.

 

[Flying Crane]

In other words would the original people practicing this art even fit in or identify with what is being taught, the mindset and the culture in a dojo or gym. If not, ultimately I question if it's either traditional or historic. Rather an imitation, interpretation, or historic reenactment, without the focus, mindset or mission.

I think often it is traditional, but like most things, it changes from one generation to the next. Sometimes the changes are small and organic, other times they come about from a revelation or insight someone had that ended in a more serious re-working of the method or growth in the curriculum. So what is done and how it is practiced today may look a fair bit different from how it was done 300 years ago. But it is still that same art, still traditional, just the current version.

 

[Steve]

Also, regarding effectiveness. Again, I had to paint with a broad brush a little to make some points. But to be clear I think a lot of things can be effective. A revolutionary war musket is extremely outdated, but I would definitely never want to be on the receiving end of that round. That would be a horrible experience that would likely end in my death or disfigurement. I think the same way about old school techniques and training methods. Definitely can be effective.

Typing on a phone, so hopefully this makes sense.

I don’t think effectiviness or practicality are all that relevant in this thread. In fact, where they are prioritized in a system, they compete with priorities like historical accuracy or tradition.

Said a different way, when there is conflict between remaining traditional or remaining practical, something has to give.

So like the musket, there are more effective firearms today. More accurate, faster to load. If killing a dude is your priority, a musket is a poor choice.

Basically, a musket functions as designed. Okay. But is it really effective? Maybe against folks who are armed with bows and arrows.

And that’s okay… because those guys have decided that the tradition and history are more important than practicality and efficacy.

 

[Steve]

To add to one more quick point, this doesn’t mean traditional and practical are incompatible traits. Just that if push comes to shove and the style is becoming obsolete, a traditional style will stick with tradition at the expense of relevance.

 

[Hyoho]

I think often it is traditional, but like most things, it changes from one generation to the next. Sometimes the changes are small and organic, other times they come about from a revelation or insight someone had that ended in a more serious re-working of the method or growth in the curriculum. So what is done and how it is practiced today may look a fair bit different from how it was done 300 years ago. But it is still that same art, still traditional, just the current version.

There is grey area open to interpretation. If you have actual written teachings handed down through the years it helps a lot.

Also good teachers come in waves. And someone that is good at it is not necessarily an able teacher.

 

[Flying Crane]

There is grey area open to interpretation. If you have actual written teachings handed down through the years it helps a lot.

Also good teachers come in waves. And someone that is good at it is not necessarily an able teacher.

It does help to have written teachings passed down if you are concerned with keeping true to how it was done at a certain era in history. That point in history may or may not represent the pinnacle of effectiveness for that particular method.

 

[lklawson]

It does help to have written teachings passed down if you are concerned with keeping true to how it was done at a certain era in history.

It 100% helps. But sometimes even having written stuff with illustrations isn't enough. The HEMA community still has arguments over the "correct" interpretation of I.33, George Silver's "Paradoxes of Defence," or what the "Turkish Disarm" really is.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Hyoho]

It does help to have written teachings passed down if you are concerned with keeping true to how it was done at a certain era in history. That point in history may or may not represent the pinnacle of effectiveness for that particular method.

I guess so. Fortunately my founders life was quite specific. A well know dueler in Japanese history to a man of peace. Also following him there have been a few very intellectual headmasters that worked on his writings and philosophy. Add to that the practical aspect and we have a well authenticated system.

Sadly there seems to be quite a few that are only interested in the practice rather than the true spirit behind it. For sure to a shocking extent lots of people looking for self aggrandizement.

 

[Jared Traveler]

To add to one more quick point, this doesn’t mean traditional and practical are incompatible traits. Just that if push comes to shove and the style is becoming obsolete, a traditional style will stick with tradition at the expense of relevance.

Great point!

 

[drop bear]

Typing on a phone, so hopefully this makes sense.

I don’t think effectiviness or practicality are all that relevant in this thread. In fact, where they are prioritized in a system, they compete with priorities like historical accuracy or tradition.

Said a different way, when there is conflict between remaining traditional or remaining practical, something has to give.

So like the musket, there are more effective firearms today. More accurate, faster to load. If killing a dude is your priority, a musket is a poor choice.

Basically, a musket functions as designed. Okay. But is it really effective? Maybe against folks who are armed with bows and arrows.

And that’s okay… because those guys have decided that the tradition and history are more important than practicality and efficacy.

Capoeira for example. Where they try to find practicality within an impractical situation.

And traditional because of ritual.

 

[punisher73]

I see. And this is why it's kind of a silly question to begin with. No definition of "Historic" is going to satisfy everyone. It's simply far too subjective.

I agree.

Historic Martial Art=Old and frozen in time.

 

[geezer]

Historic Martial Art=Old and frozen in time.

Great ....and I guess that makes me an Historic Martial Artist!