What exactly defines a modern martial art vs traditional martial art?

[drop bear]

Gift in return you are supposed to squeeze the hand, that is enough pain as it is to bring someone to their knees. I know it is not perfect, but I can see them working. I myself would use gift in return because honestly if I already have the guys hand, which is what starts the technique, there are much better things I can do.

Plus twirling sacrifice has a really great full Nelson break, you can't deny that. The lift them up and carry them around like an oversized baby is also awesome and that cannot be denied. I personally call this the bad parenting part of the the technique, carry your kid around and oops. Dropped them.

I also don't see how you could be kneed in the face, because you are not directly in front of them when doing this. You are off sideways and they can try to knee or kick but your arm will be in the way of it. This video shows it off better.

Low percentage.

And i have trained that and even tried to pull it off in a fight.

The jjj version is the arm between legs comealong. It is reliant on the guy you are doing it on being a chump. You do it as a gag for someone you are fighting but are so much better than that you can muck around.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

shuai jiao is said to be over a thousand years old.

Shuai Chiao can be traced back to the Chin Dynasty (246 BC ~ 207 BC) in China. That is over 2000 years old.

 

[oaktree]

Shuai Chiao can be traced back to the Chin Dynasty (246 BC ~ 207 BC) in China. That is over 2000 years old.

That picture is the first bromance

 

[JowGaWolf]

Jow Ga, you also seem to be implying that traditional styles tend to focus more on fighting than non-traditional styles, which can focus on scoring points. While this MAY be true, there are many TMAs which do not focus on fighting, or which relegate fighting much lower than other priorities. Tai Chi, Kyudo, Kendo, Judo, Kyokushin Karate, San Shou, Muay Thai, Wushu

I don't know about the other ones, but Tai Chi is brutal and if you find someone that studies the Martial Arts version, then you'll be surprised just how much fighting take priority vs non fighting. In my book the martial art Tai Chi is martial as defined by webster dictionary that martial mean of, relating to, or suited for war or a warrior. If the system is not suited for fighting then it's not a TMA for me. The Tai Chi that many people practice where they say it's all about peace and finding one's higher self are not doing the same Tai Chi that a traditional martial artist with a lineage is doing. For example

This Tai Chi

Vs

This Tai Chi

They both have the same name but only one is going to considered as a Traditional Martial art in my book. I know that San Shou, Muay Thai, and Judo have a similar view point as I have with Tai Chi. There's a sporting side and a martial side of these systems. I wouldn't consider the sporting side as a TMA. There are things you would do in a martial aspect that you wouldn't or shouldn't do in a sporting aspect. The sporting aspect allows TMAs to practice their non-lethal skills.

Here is your traditional Muay Thai

 

[JowGaWolf]

Today's traditional methods were cutting edge yesterday. Their techniques and training methodologies were seen to work, so they were kept and passed to the next generations. How many generations need to pass before it deserves the name "traditional"? Well I don't really know.

Are those techniques and methods still relevant today? Often yes and often no. Can they be better than newer methods? Yes. Can they be worse than newer methods? Yes.

I think any traditional system can still be relevant today, but the people doing it need to be honest in their reflection as to whether the training methods still make sense. Maybe the old methods do make sense, but some modern approaches might make more sense. Or vice versa. There might be no clear correct answer, it might vary for each person or each school.

I think teaching a traditional system could be modernized and it would still be the same traditional system as long as the principles are kept in tact. But at the same time, if the traditional methodologies are still viable, there may be no need to modernize it.

I really think there can be a lot of fluidity in the definitions, and in how they approach their training. You could have a modern system using (at least some) traditional methods, or vice versa.

Honestly, I don't see a reason to get too hung up over it.

In my school we learn how to apply traditional applications to modern attacks and defenses. We are able to keep the technique that we are using but it has to be applied slightly different, which in my opinion is just the natural reality of fighting. It's understood that we can't fight everyone the same way or even with the same technique that may have worked on a different fighter. Adjustments are always being made in fighting, either to adjust for height, size, weight, strength etc. An upward block would still be useful but it may need to be applied differently to account for how people throw punches. I'm comfortable with many traditional techniques mainly because they were born during a time where people fought wars with their hands and swords. They had hundreds of years and many wars to perfect the technique. The same can't be said today with hand to hand combat in a sporting ring. I think some of the applications for traditional techniques are limited only because there was no way to really record the technique on video and keep it for safe keeping. All TMAs (pre video) relied on the memory of the Sifu and their students. I'm learning that the more that I fight with Jow Ga, the better I begin to understand all of the applications of that technique. There are some applications of a technique that I stumbled upon that my Sifu never taught me. When I look at some of the TMA schools I begin to wonder how many of the teachers and instructors actually used the applications that they are teaching in a sparring or fighting situation. Are some of the teachers just passing form and technique outside of the context of how to apply it in a fight? if so then it's only logical that a TMA technique would seem useless against a modern fighting style only because the technique hasn't been explored beyond the form.

Personal just form how I train. I think all TMA's should learn how to apply their traditional fighting techniques to modern fighting styles. I don't want to apply my rising block as if I'm defending against a punching style that was used 200 years ago. I want to apply my rising block in a manner that addresses today's common punching methods. Same technique with a different way of applying it.

 

[Flying Crane]

Traditional martial arts has more of a focus on ritual.

There are grey areas of course

Not in my experience.

 

[drop bear]

Not in my experience.

Fair enough.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I wouldn't consider the sporting side as a TMA. There are things you would do in a martial aspect that you wouldn't or shouldn't do in a sporting aspect. The sporting aspect allows TMAs to practice their non-lethal skills.

Even in "sporting" side, there are a set of skills that you use in "friendly match" while there are a set of skills (called "black hand") that you use in "unfriendly challenge".

 

[Evan Danger]

Hey I thought ya'll might enjoy this. it's a superhero parody we made in Shanghai, focusing on fight scenes that combine realistic MMA with traditional Kung-Fu.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I wanted to try to figure this out, so I punched my uke with a traditional martial arts punch. He collapsed and fell to the floor. When he got up, punched him with a modern martial arts punch. He again collapsed to the floor.

I asked him, when he recovered, which hurt more. He said they were both the same. Looked the same, felt the same, same power, same pain.

Go figure.

 

[Steve]

I wanted to try to figure this out, so I punched my uke with a traditional martial arts punch. He collapsed and fell to the floor. When he got up, punched him with a modern martial arts punch. He again collapsed to the floor.

I asked him, when he recovered, which hurt more. He said they were both the same. Looked the same, felt the same, same power, same pain.

Go figure.

I like the post, but do you think they would really look the same? I'm not so sure they would, based upon what I've seen around here. I mean, everything from how a fist is made to whether you punch with a vertical or horizontal fist. Some styles do that twisting thing I've heard about, and others don't. Some punch with one part of the hand and others punch with another. And that's just thinking about the hand and the arm. How the punch is delivered can really open up variations from one style or another, thinking in terms of how the rest of the body is engaged in the punch.

While interesting to consider, I don't think that the parable above would happen like this outside of cinema. Granted, it would be a cool scene.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I like the post, but do you think they would really look the same? I'm not so sure they would, based upon what I've seen around here. I mean, everything from how a fist is made to whether you punch with a vertical or horizontal fist. Some styles do that twisting thing I've heard about, and others don't. Some punch with one part of the hand and others punch with another. And that's just thinking about the hand and the arm. How the punch is delivered can really open up variations from one style or another, thinking in terms of how the rest of the body is engaged in the punch.

While interesting to consider, I don't think that the parable above would happen like this outside of cinema. Granted, it would be a cool scene.

My point was it was the same punch. What I call it hardly matters; what matters is if it works or not. Granted, it was a made-up response; I did not actually hit my uke full force to prove a point.

Remember the scene from Army of Darkness involving two Ash characters, a good one and a bad one?

 

[Steve]

but it's not the same punch whether the result is the same or not.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

but it's not the same punch whether the result is the same or not.

If I do it, it is. I only have one way to punch. Maybe I call it TMA and someone else argues with me because Isshin Ryu is only 60 some odd years old. I shrug and say whatever. I punch, you get hit. It hurts a lot. What do you want to call it? TMA? Modern MA? Who cares?

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Aikido is gendai modern compare to koryu daito ryu aikijujutsu

Interesting example. Although Takeda claimed a 900 year history for Daito Ryu, there is no evidence that it existed at all before he began teaching it in the late 19th century.

Katori shinto ryu kenjutsu is about 600. Chen Taijiquan about 500 years old and mostly these arts haven't change perhaps I should have said 500-600

Katori Shinto Ryu is one of the oldest martial arts in the world with a documentable continuous lineage. I think most folks would agree that it counts as traditional. However if we limit the use of "traditional" to arts in that sort of category, it's going to be a very short list.

I'm not knowledgeable enough on the history of Tai Chi to say anything definitive. I will note that Wikipedia says "The origin and nature of what is now known as tai chi is not historically verifiable until around the 17th century." Chen family tradition may claim a 16th century origin, but CMAs are pretty notorious for origin myths that don't necessarily match up to the actual history. I've also think I've read people suggest that some of the modern Chen approach to push hands - as more of a stand up wrestling competitive format than a flowing training exercise - isn't really traditional. (I've also seen people suggest the reverse.) I wonder if the historical documentation exists to confirm that one way or another.

Shuai Chiao can be traced back to the Chin Dynasty (246 BC ~ 207 BC) in China. That is over 2000 years old.

Only in the same way that wrestling in the western world can be traced back millennia to ancient Greece. Wrestling has existed in just about every culture we know of - and since there are only so many ways for the human body to move we can find depictions of techniques which are more or less the same in different grappling arts separated by thousands of miles and thousands of years. That doesn't mean we can trace any sort of continuous tradition from the early Olympics in ancient Greece to modern Greco-Roman wrestling (actually developed in the 19th century) or from the "Jiao li" referenced in records from the Zhou dynasty to modern Shuai Jiao (which was named and had rules standardized in 1928).

I know that San Shou, Muay Thai, and Judo have a similar view point as I have with Tai Chi. There's a sporting side and a martial side of these systems. I wouldn't consider the sporting side as a TMA.

I see your point, but it's worth noting that "sporting" forms of unarmed combat go back at least as far as "martial" forms, historically speaking.

 

[oaktree]

Interesting example. Although Takeda claimed a 900 year history for Daito Ryu, there is no evidence that it existed at all before he began teaching it in the late 19th century.

Daito ryu is considered by most to be koryu as its structure resembles koryu vs aikido which does not represent a koryu oriented art. Now did Takeda make it up possible same could be said for Togakure in the ninja schools but that particular school differs from say Toshindo.
My point is modern arts are created in modern times and usually to deal with modern problems. An art that is from the 19th century or before is not modern. A tradition can be modern such as a gift every February 9th to your loved one. If your art is to deal with sword attacks or people wearing armor it is not modern, if it is to deal with jabs and punches its most likely modern.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Daito ryu is considered by most to be koryu as its structure resembles koryu vs aikido which does not represent a koryu oriented art. Now did Takeda make it up possible same could be said for Togakure in the ninja schools but that particular school differs from say Toshindo.
My point is modern arts are created in modern times and usually to deal with modern problems. An art that is from the 19th century or before is not modern. A tradition can be modern such as a gift every February 9th to your loved one. If your art is to deal with sword attacks or people wearing armor it is not modern, if it is to deal with jabs and punches its most likely modern.

So if I'm reading you correctly, you're not arguing for the typical "traditional martial art" vs "modern martial art" dichotomy, but rather for a distinction between modern and (historical? pre-modern?) arts, with the start of the 20th century being the cutoff point. "Traditional" would be an orthogonal concept which could apply or not apply to both modern and pre-modern arts. Is that the gist of it?

I don't have a real objection to that sort of classification, but it does leave the meaning of "traditional martial art" up in the air.

BTW - how would you classify something like Greco-Roman wrestling, which was developed in the 19th century? Modern or pre-modern? Traditional or not?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

That doesn't mean we can trace any sort of continuous tradition from the early.

The following picture shows a Shuai Chiao guy who has "Tang dynasty 唐朝(618—907)" hair style which was over 1400 years ago.

The same posture training (try to rotate your body to the maximum without falling) is used even today. Please notice that the requirement that from the head to the back foot should be lined up as a perfect straight line. This "tradition" has been passed down from more than 1400 years ago.

which was named and had rules standardized in 1928.

The "sport" Shuai Chiao rule sets had been defined long before 1928. That is, "you lose that round if any 2 points besides your feet touching the ground - such as 2 hands, 2 knees, 1 hand and 1 knee, or the whole body."

 

[oaktree]

So if I'm reading you correctly, you're not arguing for the typical "traditional martial art" vs "modern martial art" dichotomy, but rather for a distinction between modern and (historical? pre-modern?) arts, with the start of the 20th century being the cutoff point

It is a good question when is a cut off and should there be. I think the folks at koryu at a similar problem. Ed Parker kenpo is definitely a modern creation and it is designed to deal with modern problems and attacks.

Traditional" would be an orthogonal concept which could apply or not apply to both modern and pre-modern arts. Is that the gist of it?

Yes, traditional can be modern or antiquity but modern can't be old and old can't be modern.

I don't have a real objection to that sort of classification, but it does leave the meaning of "traditional martial art" up in the air.

Well I think traditional martial arts means an art passed down from one generation to another.

how would you classify something like Greco-Roman wrestling, which was developed in the 19th century? Modern or pre-modern? Traditional or not?

I don't think it is a modern art.Can it be applied to modern times yes.

 

[Buka]

If your style spars/rolls with each other -

If you can safely nail your opponent with a technique(s) that's not taught in your dojo, and that's okay with your teachers - it's not a Traditional Martial Art.

If, on the other hand, your teachers won't let you do that because it's not taught there, it's probably a Traditional Martial Art.

That's how I usually consider the question. If your style doesn't spar/roll - I dunno'.