Here's the thing, Chris. No matter how boldly you declare an opinion, you cannot make it fact. An opinion it remains.
You seem not to understand that your opinions are just that, and resort to condescension when anyone shares a dissenting opinion. It makes slogging through your posts difficult, which seems, IMO, to be on purpose. You like to camouflage your opinions as facts, but opinions they remain.
The fact is that everyone who self identifies as training in a tma had a valid opinion on the matter. So, whether you like it or not, acknowledge it or bit, their opinions are as legitimate as your own.
Being an arrogant prig doesn't make you any more or less correct than other peoples considered opinions in the matter.
For what it's worth, all of the above is my opinion only.
Leaving off the passive-aggressive tone there, Steve, no, I'm not dealing with opinion. In fact, I almost never do. I deal in what is, pure and simple… and this is a case in point. I comment that, when looking at what makes something a TMA, you need to look at actual TMA's, and actual TMA practitioners, rather than just people who (perhaps falsely) feel they are practicing a TMA, backed up with case-studies and evidence of how self-identification as something doesn't mean that that's actually what they are, and you come back by telling me that's just my opinion?
No, Steve. It's quite deliberately taking the idea of "opinion" out of it.
I personally don't believe you can put TMAs in one box.
It's a method of categorisation, so yeah, you can… of course, it's a very big box, with a very wide set of parameters… the issue happens when people start trying to think that all TMA's are the same… it's like saying that all Asian food is the same… which is simply not realistic either… but, by the same token, you can agree that Chinese, Indian, Japanese are all "Asian food"… but French, Italian, German, English food isn't.
All I was saying was that whatever criteria you chose to define TMA there will be something that few people would call TMA that would fit the same criteria.
And, again, I personally don't care what people think… I care about what is.
That's what I am saying. It all depends.
Okay.
In a nutshell, if the style is much the same now as it was when it was originally developed, then it is regarded as 'traditional'. Hence, Isshin Ryu applied to be accepted as a traditional Okinawan style and was accepted about two or three years ago making it the fourth style regarded as 'traditional' in Okinawa.
:asian:
Interesting. It certainly looks like they're looking at a range of criteria that goes a fair bit beyond "traditional martial art", of course…
So maybe keeping aspects of an art that are just for preservation of a linage? This does not mean that things are not added or adjusted for current times. Just has some traditional things maintained.
Honestly, I don't think that's really a good approach… keeping bits and pieces, and changing others, leads to confusion and a mess of a system… it becomes a mongrel, neither one thing nor another…
Like a fighting style or group of techniques used at a point in time when swords were commonly on your hip may not translate to today. But doesn't mean it has to be dropped and can keep it in the style until maybe once again it's needed after all the power goes off and ammo is no more. But is taught more ceremonial?
Ceremonial? Not at all. For the vague "zombie apocalypse"? Even less likely. To be clear, at least as far as Koryu is concerned, arts are kept alive because they still offer relevance to the modern practitioners… it just isn't necessarily in combative applications in their original context… but that's going to lead us somewhere that'll require a lot of typing…
In a basic leadership course, I train new supervisors in critical thinking and decision making. Essentially, we talk about giving some thought to the various factors that influence a decision: risk to the company, policies, safety, legality or precedent. There are dozens of factors that could influence a decision, but if you give some thought in advance to what factors are important to you, it can help you make a sound, wise decision in a moment of crisis. The point isn't that one thing is more or less important than another. The point really is that we all have priorities, but that we seldom think about them with intention. So, in a moment of crisis, we often struggle to reconcile conflicting priorities.
In the same way, we all have priorities and needs from our MA training. We all have a list of things we gain from training: health/fitness, self defense skills, confidence, 6 pack abs (well, some people do, I hear), tradition, esprit de corps. Who knows what else? We all have a list, and our lists are likely different. Which brings me back to what I said earlier. My opinion remains that if your primary goal (successful or not) is to pass on your "system" in the same manner as you learned it from your instructor, you are likely in a "TMA."
So… pretty much exactly what I said in my first post here, discussing priorities being the major distinction between TMA and non-TMA systems? Gotta ask, then… why the arguments?
And so, training like their instructor is more important than addressing obvious holes in their technique.
"Obvious holes"?!?!
Steve, no. Just… no.
If the sole purpose of the sport is to be a sport, then no it can't be a martial art.
Who said anything about a sole purpose? And are you really suggesting that wrestling couldn't be used for self defence, or similar? Can you see how you're over-simplifying to the point of inaccuracy here?
In a worst case scenario, you can choose not to fight in a ring. You may not be able to choose not to fight on the ground. That's a hole in the training. But you're right, if you're training for fun, there's nothing wrong with doing what you want. But that doesn't mean the hole is gone. It just means that you're choosing to ignore it, or in denial that it exists.
Actually, no, Steve, it means that perhaps a different tactical understanding and contextual understanding is in play. Not that there are "holes"…
Is training "fundamentally the same" as your instructor and his/her instructors the most (or perhaps one of the most) important priorities of your style? If yes, you're probably training in a style that self identifies as "Traditional." My opinion remains that this is the simplest and most accurate definition of a traditional martial art. Applying this test, below are how I'd categorize some styles.
Okay...
Non-traditional: BJJ, Boxing, MMA, TKD (depending on the school, can be either), Krav Maga, Arnis
Really? BJJ is trained differently now? How so? Are there new methods, sweeps, counters etc? Sure. It's a sporting art, and sporting arts are constantly an arms race… but it was the same back in the day… you might even say that BJJ has a tradition of evolving technique… but the actual training methodology, I'd suggest, is largely the same as it was when Helio started teaching… TKD can be a sporting oriented school, but you'll still see the traditional trappings there, so I'd argue that all TKD schools are (at heart) TMA… Arnis is still taught the same way it was years ago…
Traditional: TKD (depending on the school) most Karate styles (maybe all), Judo, Muay Thai, every style of CMA I can think of, Aikido]/QUOTE]
So… muay Thai is traditional? Why is it traditional, but a sporting TKD dojang isn't?
BJJ, for example, can be considered a traditional MA in some ways, but I don't think it meets the most important test, which is to answer the question above. BJJ continues to evolve and students are encouraged to explore new techniques and tactics. The upside down guard video is a good example of this, even if it's not the wisest tactic for self defense.
This doesn't address holes in training, which may exist. It doesn't address the origin of the style. It only answers the question, "Is this style traditional?" And BJJ is not.
Yes, it is.
Are you teaching your students a similar "perspective"?
You might want to get some kind of actual understanding of K-man's perspective before you decide that it's not correct… remember, fighting ain't fighting… MMA ain't everything… BJJ has it's problems and limitations… and a cage proves nothing other than a one-off occurrence in a cage.
