What Is a Traditional Art?

[Mark Lynn]

This is purely my own perspective on the matter, but for me TMA vs. MMA deals almost entirely on the its teaching philosophy. Physical skill sets evolve depending on society's needs. Obviously the "traditional" techniques of kenjustu are antiquated for most of society, since we are rarely going to encounter someone wielding a sword on the streets.

For me what separates MMA and TMA is the influence of Zen, Taoist, Confucian, and Buddhist teaching philosophies and life philosophies. This mixed with a quasi militaristic structure provide a path to personal enlightenment. This is not to say that one cannot achieve said enlightenment through MMA, but the paths are different one is a "traditional" path while the other is not.

I was always taught that my art is 70% mental and 30% physical, and the longer I practice, the longer I find this to be true. Otherwise, our seniors would have little place in the Dojang.

In my opinion the more modern approach is to incorporate the Zen, Taoist, Confucian, Buddist teaching philosophies and life philosophies into the martial arts. Originally the arts were developed to protect oneself, one's family, one's lord, one's tribe, one's country not to live a life with these philosophies. In feudal Japan as the wars died down somewhat these practices were brought into the martial arts to help round out the human being. Which is how arts changed from warrior arts to more of the "way" (do) of life arts.

And while in the states these teachings (Zen, Taoist etc. etc.) might not be as prevalent as elsewhere (speaking as being part of a martial system or teaching), the arts are now practiced more as a way of life (improving self confidence, character development, goal setting etc. etc.) instead of the defense of one's self, their family, their community etc. etc.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

If we can agree that the Bubishi was written in the 17th century A.D. Then the philosophical traditions were atleast around that far back. However, I agree with your statement of the "jutsu's" changing to "do's" after wars died down.

I think that many schools don't have a balance between the metaphysical philosophy and hard physical training, but my perception of traditional martial arts is an art that embodies that balance. Again, that is my personal definition of a TMA, and I know that people may disagree with that definition.

 

[chinto]

I am sorry to say that I feel tradition has been lost, and most martial arts taught today are just figments of imaginations of long ago. How many people today train to kill or maim. Our laws today won't allow this type of misuse, so a more watered down art is taught.
As far as traditional anything, if I invent it and make it the same way every time, it is my tradition, "that you seek out". If you in turn take my traditional anything "and change it for the better", this in fact is now your tradition. Now people have a choice, the way it was FIRST made, or the way it has been changed. Also, changed for the better is only the changers opinion and who ever else he can convince.
Just a side note, I'm traditionally in bed by 11pm. It is now 12 mid-night, is this better, I don't know, check me in the morning when I traditionally get up at 6am.

I train in a pair of styles that still teaches to maim and kill. I train today to maim and kill when necessary. So I think that your argument is invalid.

Traditional arts are arts that have been developed for survival, and refined for some time. Now there are Troop styles that are similar to most TMA's but are not TMA. Krav Maga, and Defendu are two examples of the troop styles I am referring to. they are derived from traditional martial arts, but are stripped down to a few techniques and designed to be taught rapidly to give a conscript soldier or police a fair chance to survive an encounter from another conscript soldier or semi trained criminal.
They were not designed or intended for the person who trained in them to go against a trained martial artist.

that said, a traditional martial art does include lethal techniques and crippling and maiming techniques. ( some instructors do not point them out in the kata's or forms... and some may even not teach the kata's or techniques that are that way ) But, the art / style does teach it as it was developed and refined to for defense of the practitioners life and his family and loved ones lives.

this definition leaves out things like Olympic TKD, and some of the other styles like that as they are not predicated on a fight for ones life.

 

[Wo Fat]

Interesting thoughts. Can you then define what you mean when you identify Gung Fu, Karate, and Korean arts? Are there non-traditional Gung Fu, Karate, and Korean arts?

Define Gung Fu, Karate & Korean arts? Hung Ga. Kyokushin. Hapkido. To name a few. To answer the other part of the question, I would say that each of the arts mentioned will have people who will express those arts in contemporary ways here and there. Not a wholesale change in the arts that renders them unrecognizable, but something to evolve and distinguish, etc. Some will say that ANY changes in an art makes it non-traditional. But I think there's some insecurity at work there. It's the 21st century; all of the arts had to evolve in some respect.

 

[MJS]

Nice replies everyone. Been busy with some RL things, and didn't mean to neglect this thread. So, to toss in another .02....

It would seem to me, that tradition is possible, but changes are allowed, so it would become simply a new tradition. For example...as The Boar man said in one of his posts, in response to something I said....

"In regards to the bolded part of your quote.

I don't think so, if the intent or the concept was inherent in the art in the first place. Maybe the technique was always there in the first place but was never revealed to the person. Maybe the person was always shown that the technique of a downward block was against a front punch and the person sees the same movements as a wrist release. The return hand to the hip was shown to the person as a retraction and now the person shows it as a grab and pulling motion to the hip to his advanced students, did they really change anything?

Now take a person who changes the kata to be say Chungi modified (I actually saw this at a tournament) where they throw a jump spinning back kick as the last move of the kata to win tournaments. Now that is modifying or updating the kata, because the kata wasn't developed with winning tournaments in mind. It was designed to teach beginners basic techniques (and a jump spinning back kick isn't a basic technique)."

So if a kata was taught to 20 people, each learning the same way, one would assume those 20 would also teach the same way. Of course, we know that doesnt happen. Afterall, we're not robots, so perhaps as time goes on, 1, 2 or more of those 20, will make changes. Now, I'm not talking about the way something is interpreted, I'm talking about a change. As he said above, replacing a straight punch with a backfist in a kata, adding in a fancy jump or other acrobatic move....yet IMO, if something like that is done, its no longer traditional...its modern.

If an art, at its time of 'birth' didn't have gun disarm techinques, because at that time, the only weapons that were to be faced with punches, kicks, knives and clubs, if, as time goes on, newer generation students see the need for those techs, as guns are more available today, now I wouldn't call that part of the art traditional, I'd say its modern.

So, are there traditional arts in existance today?

 

[Chris Parker]

So, are there traditional arts in existance today?

Ahem, Mike?

Or did you have something else in mind....?

In answer to your question (what is a "traditional" art?), I wouldn't say that adaptation or addition necessarily removes it from being traditional. Certainly the added aspects probably wouldn't be considered "traditional", but that doesn't change the rest of it. The Koryu, for instance (about as "traditional" as you can get) are replete with examples of change, but the main thing is that the tradition is continued. In this regard, traditional refers to a continuation of the teachings. So provided the "heart" of the school remains, and is continued to be passed down, it's traditional.

 

[MJS]

Hey Chris,

Sure, I can accept that. This may be along the same lines of chats that you and I have had before (and correct me if I'm wrong ) regarding crosstraining. The mention of looking at something else, but still keeping your art what it is, comes to mind. Ex: if me, as a Kenpo guy, wants to take a peek at how a BJJ guy defends a takedown, fine, but dont change the Kenpo...keep it Kenpo. Did I say that right? LOL.

So yes, as time goes on, as I said, interpretations are bound to happen, but when a traditional kata is so grossly changed, that it looks like a gymnastics routine, that, IMHO, is no longer traditional...its modern. The art that adds in gun defense...they may be keeping the traditional roots, but the addition of the gun is a modern addition.

 

[Chris Parker]

Ha, you gotta remember, my friend, that to me, you're only talking about and mentioning modern systems there..... start talking in centuries rather than decades, and we can talk traditional.

That said, if there is a fundmental switch away from the established methodology, then that absolutely negates a "traditional" claim, as it becomes a new system at that point. Adaptation in and of itself though, not necessarily. After all, there may be a tradition of adaptation and improvement in the system itself.

 

[Flying Crane]

Keep in mind that those traditional arts were, at their inception, the modern, cutting edge combat theories. I'd say the very definition of traditional, the fact that we are trying to pidgeon-hole the concept, is a modern concept. It arises because our modern society allows for the practice of martial arts for many purposes. Not all martial artists are practicing for combat or self defense. The fact that martial arts today can be used as purely performance and entertainment, opens the door to this definition.

The system that I practice traces its origins back to the 14th century or so (at least in the oral legends of its beginnings). But the art did not spring forth fully formed as we know it today. Not even close. The fundamental methodology is what was in the beginning. It took generations for the physical manifestations (i.e. "curriculum") to develop into what it is today. But the curriculum reflects and reinforces the original methodology and was developed as a training tool to grasp that methodology. So even tho the curriculum is much younger than the system as a whole, it is a traditional system.

 

[Steve]

For me, it's pretty simple. When efficacy ceases to be the sole consideration in the techniques being taught, the style has become traditional. In other words, if you're being taught a technique in a particular way for any reason other than, "this is the most efficient, effective way to do this thing," other considerations have found their way into your style. These other considerations can include things like historical preservation, aesthetics, artistry, spiritual growth, respect for the founders or whatever else.

So, on one end of the spectrum is Krav Maga. From what I know, Krav Maga techniques are driven completely by the answer to one simple question: Does it work? I would not consider Krav Maga to be traditional because, as long as it is technically driven by efficacy, it will be very different in 20 years as the needs for defense evolve.

On the other end, you have styles like fencing, kendo or iaido, where even the weapons are unlikely to be practical in self defense. Not that the techniques don't work, but more that we just don't duel each other with swords very often these days. So, the study has largely become less about martial efficacy and more about other things... cultural preservation, fitness, spiritual growth, etc. It's likely that kendo, iaido and fencing will be largely unchanged in 20 years. While there might be small changes in technique, they will be minor.

As another example, I'd consider BJJ to be traditional. MMA less so.

 

[Mark Lynn]

MJS

I believe if you look at the Okinawan katas of various styles and compare it to the Japanese katas of various styles you will see variations of the same katas performed a multitude of ways, and generally I believe practitioners would say these are traditional martial arts. Some teachers changed the kata per the student, so their students could have learned from the same instructor at various times in his life and the kata changes with the instructor's age. Both students believing that they learned the proper and traditional way.

That being said I don't think that changing a straight punch to a back fist invalidates a kata or makes it modern, or turning the spear hand vertical instead of horizontal etc. etc. This is different than adding a higher level kick in a kata that never had a kick in it (in the first place) just to win a competition. However I had a potential student come to class the other day and it turned out she did the same forms as I teach so I asked her to show me one. It was very different that how I learned the kata nor how I had seen it represented on all DVDs, books, VTs etc. etc. So I looked the school up on the internet and there I saw where they teach the same katas as I, but they also teach modified forms too (if I remember right), to better teach self defense (applications of movement), or maybe it was core principles. Here they were very up front with modifying the forms. This to me is a modern art, even though they have stuck with the feel of a traditional martial art (at least it didn't resemble XMA ) they have still modified the katas to where they don't even resemble the original forms.

I tend to agree with Chris in that when you look at the arts that are centuries old not just generations then you really see traditional martial arts. However you have change there as well. Look at the Jo. You have Aiki Jo, the Jo method as practiced by the Shindo Muso Ryu (?) etc. etc. each of these have gone through change and adapted, but I would think both would part of a TMA type system.

Great discussion
Mark

 

[Flying Crane]

Interesting thoughts. Can you then define what you mean when you identify Gung Fu, Karate, and Korean arts? Are there non-traditional Gung Fu, Karate, and Korean arts?

Modern Wushu would be a prime example of a non-traditional kung fu method. It was never meant to be used for self defense. It was developed by the Chinese Communist government in the 1950s as a cultural art and an athletic and competition and performance method. While it is based on the older traditional Chinese methods, actual combat application is all but ignored in Modern Wushu to the point where critical technical changes have been made for asthetic purposes, even tho it specifically makes the result LESS useful in combat.

I would suggest that XMA is a non-traditional form of karate and Korean arts. It combines these methods with gymnastics and is, from what I can tell, meant for performance and competition and not for combat. I see it as the Japanese/Korean method based counterpart to Modern Wushu.

The fact that these methods have been deliberately removed from the combat arena, and have been deliberately changed to capitalize on performance and competition, even to the blatant detriment of the combat usefulness, is what makes me say that they are non-traditional versions of their original arts.

 

[MJS]

Ha, you gotta remember, my friend, that to me, you're only talking about and mentioning modern systems there..... start talking in centuries rather than decades, and we can talk traditional.

That said, if there is a fundmental switch away from the established methodology, then that absolutely negates a "traditional" claim, as it becomes a new system at that point. Adaptation in and of itself though, not necessarily. After all, there may be a tradition of adaptation and improvement in the system itself.

LOL, well, I was using that as an example. Looks like it wasnt a good one though. LOL. But if I'm reading this right, and again, correct me if I'm wrong, if we still use my analogy above, which IMO, should still be able to work with an art that was created long long ago, that if a change was put in, as long as it maintained the principles, concepts, ideas, etc of the art, then it still maintains tradition. But, if one of those arts, created long long ago, started doing Krav Maga gun disarms, then it'll be considered more modern?

 

[Chris Parker]

LOL, well, I was using that as an example. Looks like it wasnt a good one though. LOL. But if I'm reading this right, and again, correct me if I'm wrong, if we still use my analogy above, which IMO, should still be able to work with an art that was created long long ago, that if a change was put in, as long as it maintained the principles, concepts, ideas, etc of the art, then it still maintains tradition. But, if one of those arts, created long long ago, started doing Krav Maga gun disarms, then it'll be considered more modern?

Hmm, where to start with this? To begin with, it's pretty much against the fundamental concepts of the older (Koryu) systems to do such a thing, so such a situation would be rare, to say the least (the only group I can think of that does such things are the Bujinkan and related groups, really), and as such just a hypothetical situation. And in being an almost purely hypothetical event, that pretty much invalidates a discussion of whether it is traditional or modern (but, for the record, the Bujinkan, in this way, gets classed as a "modern" system, although the technical make-up comes from old, traditional systems).

Most groups that do deal with such things are modern systems through and through, although they do on occasion dress themselves up in "traditional" trappings, but they're definitively modern. These include modern Western versions of Jujutsu systems, as well as systems such as Krav Maga (which was developed for very specific reasons).

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Many times, during discussion of various arts, we see the reference TMA or MMA. In your opinion, what defines a traditional art? Here is a definition of tradition.

For me, a tradition is something that happens at a certain time or something that is done at a certain time, with little if any change. Ex: Every Christmas a family gathers together at the same gathering spot, the same people are there, the same food is prepared, etc.

If we look at #2 in that link I posted, we see:



this reads to me, that nothing changes. Whatever is passed down, is passed from generation to generation, with no changes. This is 'the' way its done, this is 'the' way it has to be done.

Yet, we look at what could be considered a TMA, and we see people making changes. Does this mean that the TMA is no longer traditional, if a more modern concept/idea is added in?

Looking forward to your thoughts.

I think that when the term 'traditional' is used, it generally means a combination of orthodox and normative.

For example, it is orthodoxy to carry the katana through the obi with the blade edge upwards in the saya. It is orthodox to carry a cavalry saber hung from the belt with the blade edge downward. You could hang a katana from your belt with the edge down or stick a cavalry saber through an obi blade up, put together a practical and functional sword system and then open your school. Anyone who knows what they are looking at seeing what you are doing will say 'that's wrong.' For various reasons, it is an unorthodox way to carry either sword.

Likewise, certain postures and techniques, and/or the practice of certain techniques, are orthodox in kenjutsu or in western sword work. For example, I could wield my katana like a Scottish back sword. Would it work? Maybe. Would it be traditional? No. I'm either using the wrong technique for the tool or the wrong tool for the job.

On the other hand, if you went to a taekwondo school and everyone was wearing black slacks and white polo shirts, you would say, 'that is not traditional' even though their form and technique may be excellent and correct. That is because it is normative to wear a white dobok and a colored belt in taekwondo.

Traditional also refers to cultural elements that are preserved in some arts, such as the wearing of traditional Japanese clothing in some Koryu arts, or many elements of dojo etiquette.

From what I can tell, traditional has become synonymous in conversation with practicing any established specific that isn't MMA.

Daniel

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Ha, you gotta remember, my friend, that to me, you're only talking about and mentioning modern systems there..... start talking in centuries rather than decades, and we can talk traditional.

Actually, you are talking about a difference between modern and either ancient or archaic systems, or some other term that indicates age (prewar, pre-Meiji, or even pre-modern).

There are things that are traditional in taekwondo even though the art is less than a century old. Same for hapkido. There are things that are traditional in judo even though the art is less than two centuries old. There are things that are traditional in kendo even though it has been called kendo for less than a century.

With centuries old arts, you are adding the element of historical preservation. Traditional generally means maintaining traditions within an art or organization. Thus, an art may retain traditional elements even as it grows and evolves.

Historical preservation, or simply preservation, means that an art really cannot grow or evolve, as doing so will alter what it is. Cultural elements, period specific techniques, style of dress, etc. are all retained, as the purpose is to both preserve and pass on the ryu.

Simply being traditional does not carry such a responsibility. Thus the art can remain true to the spirit of what the founder intended, and certain practices may be retained in order to maintain a connection with the time period in which the art was founded, but the art may adapt to address changes in the sorts of things that its practitioners are likely to face, or to adapt the art to new environments.

Daniel

 

[MJS]

Actually, you are talking about a difference between modern and either ancient or archaic systems, or some other term that indicates age (prewar, pre-Meiji, or even pre-modern).

There are things that are traditional in taekwondo even though the art is less than a century old. Same for hapkido. There are things that are traditional in judo even though the art is less than two centuries old. There are things that are traditional in kendo even though it has been called kendo for less than a century.

With centuries old arts, you are adding the element of historical preservation. Traditional generally means maintaining traditions within an art or organization. Thus, an art may retain traditional elements even as it grows and evolves.

Historical preservation, or simply preservation, means that an art really cannot grow or evolve, as doing so will alter what it is. Cultural elements, period specific techniques, style of dress, etc. are all retained, as the purpose is to both preserve and pass on the ryu.

Simply being traditional does not carry such a responsibility. Thus the art can remain true to the spirit of what the founder intended, and certain practices may be retained in order to maintain a connection with the time period in which the art was founded, but the art may adapt to address changes in the sorts of things that its practitioners are likely to face, or to adapt the art to new environments.

Daniel

Yes Dan, you hit the nail on the head. This was what I was trying to say.

 

[MJS]

Hmm, where to start with this? To begin with, it's pretty much against the fundamental concepts of the older (Koryu) systems to do such a thing, so such a situation would be rare, to say the least (the only group I can think of that does such things are the Bujinkan and related groups, really), and as such just a hypothetical situation. And in being an almost purely hypothetical event, that pretty much invalidates a discussion of whether it is traditional or modern (but, for the record, the Bujinkan, in this way, gets classed as a "modern" system, although the technical make-up comes from old, traditional systems).

Most groups that do deal with such things are modern systems through and through, although they do on occasion dress themselves up in "traditional" trappings, but they're definitively modern. These include modern Western versions of Jujutsu systems, as well as systems such as Krav Maga (which was developed for very specific reasons).

So, this reads to me, that if its against the fundamental concepts, then it goes back to what I said earlier....that tradition means nothing is changed. Adding anything turns it into something modern.

 

[chinto]

Define Gung Fu, Karate & Korean arts? Hung Ga. Kyokushin. Hapkido. To name a few. To answer the other part of the question, I would say that each of the arts mentioned will have people who will express those arts in contemporary ways here and there. Not a wholesale change in the arts that renders them unrecognizable, but something to evolve and distinguish, etc. Some will say that ANY changes in an art makes it non-traditional. But I think there's some insecurity at work there. It's the 21st century; all of the arts had to evolve in some respect.

and why would you say they " had to 'evolve' in the 21'st century"? Please elucidate!
I was not aware that we have changed internal anatomy, or grown an extra limb, or lost one. I was not aware that no one could came into physical combat range ever now...

so Please explain to me how a fight today is any different then say one in ohh 1910 AD, or say 800 AD, or 15,000 BC?? when its for keeps is that fight any different? is the man any different?

 

[chinto]

For me, it's pretty simple. When efficacy ceases to be the sole consideration in the techniques being taught, the style has become traditional. In other words, if you're being taught a technique in a particular way for any reason other than, "this is the most efficient, effective way to do this thing," other considerations have found their way into your style. These other considerations can include things like historical preservation, aesthetics, artistry, spiritual growth, respect for the founders or whatever else.

So, on one end of the spectrum is Krav Maga. From what I know, Krav Maga techniques are driven completely by the answer to one simple question: Does it work? I would not consider Krav Maga to be traditional because, as long as it is technically driven by efficacy, it will be very different in 20 years as the needs for defense evolve.

On the other end, you have styles like fencing, kendo or iaido, where even the weapons are unlikely to be practical in self defense. Not that the techniques don't work, but more that we just don't duel each other with swords very often these days. So, the study has largely become less about martial efficacy and more about other things... cultural preservation, fitness, spiritual growth, etc. It's likely that kendo, iaido and fencing will be largely unchanged in 20 years. While there might be small changes in technique, they will be minor.

As another example, I'd consider BJJ to be traditional. MMA less so.

Krav is a troop style, it is systematized from several traditional MA and some combative sports, namely judo and boxing. It was developed to be taught quickly and allow the conscript soldier to deal with other conscripts on the battlefield and latter give the avaridge cop who took it a little chance in a surprise hand to hand situation with out having to train for years. It was never designed to face a fully trained martial artist, and is limited in technique by the need to be able to teach it in a relatively short time to many.

as to needs changing in a fight... in real fights out side the ring, there is really not any change now or in the last ohh 10,000 years. we have the same anatomy, same number of limbs, and same kind or problem in a fight. STAY ALIVE. Unarmed has not changed. Now fire arms and steel and bronze and things have changed armed combat.. but a fight unarmed has not changed.