What Is a Traditional Art?

[Daniel Sullivan]

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?

For the most part, I think that you are basically correct and that there has been relatively little evolution in the big picture of unarmed combat. Most style evolution is a result of encountering fighters who's style is radically different or who's body types are radically different (western Europeans are generally markedly taller and heavier than east Asians, for example), and training to either incorporate newer techniques or to account for new situations. But I see this as more of a stylistic and surface phenomenon than anything else, and at this point in time, evolution of styles is more the result of changes in competitive rules and the emergence of new competitive venues rather than being the result of meaningful changes in the nature of unarmed altercations.

At this point in time, I think that I am safe in saying that any meaningful evolution of combat between unarmed opponents is at a point of completion. Instruction of unarmed combat may evolve as people experiment with different teaching methods or to account for changes in self defense law, but in terms of evolving how to strike and grapple, there really isn't anything new under the sun.

Daniel

 

[geezer]

For the most part, I think that you are basically correct and that there has been relatively little evolution in the big picture of unarmed combat. Most style evolution is a result of encountering fighters who's style is radically different or who's body types are radically different (western Europeans are generally markedly taller and heavier than east Asians, for example), and training to either incorporate newer techniques or to account for new situations....

At this point in time, I think that I am safe in saying that any meaningful evolution of combat between unarmed opponents is at a point of completion. Instruction of unarmed combat may evolve as people experiment with different teaching methods or to account for changes in self defense law, but in terms of evolving how to strike and grapple, there really isn't anything new under the sun. --Daniel

Well put, Daniel. I would agree that the essence of hand to hand combat hasn't meaningfully changed in thousands of years. Still, I would not underestimate both the changing physical and social factors that influence the forms that combat can take. You mentioned body type. Ancient, tribal societies were often far more homogenous physically than modern urban societies in which people from all over the globe brush elbows every day. In today's world it is not at all unusual to have a 5'4", 125 lb. male in a confrontation with an opponent who is 6'4" and weighing 250 lb or more. We have size differences larger than that in my little training group! Such disparities would have been very uncommon in the isolated traditional cultures of the past.

Other, non physical differences include changes in customs. In my father's era, for example, men often settled their differences in what was termed a "fair fight" i.e. a fist-fight. Low blows and kicks were considered "dirty fighting", especially "kicking somebody when he was down". Similarly, in parts of southern China, some considered ground-fighting a lowly form of combat and accordingly focused only on their stand-up game. Clothing has changed too. Old style arts that are based on grabbing gis and belts don't work the same on someone wearing basketball trunks and a tank-top. Similarly, heavy winter clothes worn in cold climates alters the game. Then you have to consider common weapons. In some ancient societies, weapons were prohibited. Today, it depends on where you are. In the eskrima group I train with, the instructor and several students carry sharp knives and loaded pistols at all times... even under their sweats when training (where I live any adult can "carry" open or concealed, with no license or permit required).

Finally, with modern media, the internet, youtube and the like, people everywhere are aware of a multitude of different approaches to combat. In today's world, you can't easily make assumptions that someone is likely to attack you a certain way, as perhaps you could have in a more isolated "traditional" society. Accordingly, one well known British Wing Chun instructor spent many additional years of training to earn a black belt in BJJ and others have felt compelled to add on "anti-grappling" curriculums. So obviously, even "traditional" martial arts do have to adapt and evolve if they want to be truly effective systems of self defense.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

They also evolve to remain socially relevant. Much of what has driven the move to add grappling to many arts that have little or no grappling is the popularity of MMA.

Much of what keeps TKD popular in spite of the art not embracing grappling are the character building and after school activity aspects that are seen in many schools; while sport TKD is often looked down upon by those in other martial arts and by some MMA fans, and while it is certainly not socially relevant in the US, the character building and after school activity elements are socially relevant, and so parents with kids seek it out.

In Korea, of course, Taekwondo has a great deal of social relevance: it is the nations national sport, and many aspects of taekwondo contain Korean cultural elements that are unimportant in western culture.

Much of the appeal of many Koryu arts is, in my opinion, similar to the appeal that archery and black powder weapons in the US (we have a hunting season for both); both are part of western cultural heritage. We fought our revolution with black powder weapons, and we all love Robin Hood. Groups such as the SCA touch on western cultural heritage in the same way.

As for modern arts, meaningful evolution of them is mainly with regards to unarmed defense against weapons that may not have existed or were uncommon at the time of the art's genesis, or which were simply not included at the time of the art's creation for one reason or another. Unarmed vs. unarmed art evolution seems to be more in the vein of the blending of different arts, much of which, as I said above, is driven by popularity and sport.

Daniel

 

[Cyriacus]

They also evolve to remain socially relevant. Much of what has driven the move to add grappling to many arts that have little or no grappling is the popularity of MMA.

Much of what keeps TKD popular in spite of the art not embracing grappling are the character building and after school activity aspects that are seen in many schools; while sport TKD is often looked down upon by those in other martial arts and by some MMA fans, and while it is certainly not socially relevant in the US, the character building and after school activity elements are socially relevant, and so parents with kids seek it out.

In Korea, of course, Taekwondo has a great deal of social relevance: it is the nations national sport, and many aspects of taekwondo contain Korean cultural elements that are unimportant in western culture.

Much of the appeal of many Koryu arts is, in my opinion, similar to the appeal that archery and black powder weapons in the US (we have a hunting season for both); both are part of western cultural heritage. We fought our revolution with black powder weapons, and we all love Robin Hood. Groups such as the SCA touch on western cultural heritage in the same way.

As for modern arts, meaningful evolution of them is mainly with regards to unarmed defense against weapons that may not have existed or were uncommon at the time of the art's genesis, or which were simply not included at the time of the art's creation for one reason or another. Unarmed vs. unarmed art evolution seems to be more in the vein of the blending of different arts, much of which, as I said above, is driven by popularity and sport.

Daniel

Theres quite a few Takedowns, Grappling, Jointlocks, Throws, Clinches, and Submissions, overall serving Grappling and Ground Fighting in Taekwon-Do; Especially Close Distance Takedowns.
Im pretty sure Tae Kwon Do has them, as well.

However, if you meant in terms of Competitions, and Sparring, and going all MMA and insisting on Wrestling at some point or another during the match, then yes.
Tis all aspects. One might, for example, say that teaching Grappling on its own would be inferior to teaching Grappling with Striking. Let alone Ground Work and Blocking.

Now, just to clarify, i am not disagreeing with you. In fact, i agree. I am rather expanding on what you are saying, so as to ensure full retrospect of the Topic.
For example, since there is less regulation in how an engagement would take place today, people tend to essentially slam into each other. If theyre still standing after a few seconds, itll likely become a close distance match, based on either grappling, or a weird kind of Dirty Boxing, only without the Rules.

Moving on.
Even in Sport TKD, im seeing more and more Clinch-Ups. And although theyre swiftly broken up, it makes it clear that with regulations to allow what would essentially be Infighting, the Sport could evolve. On the other hand, the Sport is fine the way it is, in terms of Sport.
Another way of putting it, is the Two different views of Hapkido. One which has Contact Sparring, and the other which is focused on Self Defence Drills with resisting opponents; Some of which allow you to add in your own slight flavor. Which is highly comparable to Ju Jutsu.
The other way of looking at it, is that both Hapkido and Ju Jutsu operate on very similar concepts. And both work swell. And their emphasis is Close Distance Grappling (Maybe Grappling isnt the right word, but im drawing a blank for a better one).
They also teach Striking, however. And Blocking.

To make the same comparison, most forms of Karate, Kajukenbo, Kickboxing, TKD, and othersuch; Teach Grappling. But it is not the Emphasis; The Emphasis being Striking and Stand Up, which naturally includes Takedowns.


My summation being;
MMA as a Fighting Form is different to Cross Training. But its a matter of what you want to learn, and how you want to learn it.
Karate and Kung Fu used to be pretty much what came to mind when you mentioned Martial Arts.
Before that, Boxing.
Now, its a collective of numerous Martial Arts, rather than just one. Which can be depicted, by MMA.

Having said all that, and tiring my fingers out; I think more styles should teach No-Holds-Barred Contact Sparring, just for the experience.
It certainly wouldnt Harm Tradition.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Theres quite a few Takedowns, Grappling, Jointlocks, Throws, Clinches, and Submissions, overall serving Grappling and Ground Fighting in Taekwon-Do; Especially Close Distance Takedowns.
Im pretty sure Tae Kwon Do has them, as well.

Zero groundfighting in taekwondo. ITF taekwondo has some standing grapples culled from hapkido, but Kukki taekwondo/WTF taekwondo, which is definitely the largest, has zero of either. Any TKD school teaching it has culled it from somewhere else. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion, but it is not part of the art.

Daniel

 

[Steve]

Just want to resurrect this thread. It's a great discussion, and has cropped up again in the pillars of self defense thread.

As I said over there, I think that ultimately, there is no wrong answer here, but it helps to understand where people are coming from. Earlier in this thread, I suggested that what makes a style traditional, in my opinion, is the transmission of techniques for reasons other than "because it is the best, easiest, most efficient way to do this thing."

There are a lot of different variables that go into the various martial arts styles around. They can be distinguished by country or region of origin, weapons or not, striking or grappling or both, etc. But none of these things make a style traditional or non-traditional. It's the answer to the question, "why?"

If a student asks this question, and even a factor of the answer is, "Because that's the way we do it in insert style here," then you are in a traditional style.

 

[ShotoNoob]

If a student asks this question, and even a factor of the answer is, "Because that's the way we do it in insert style here," then you are in a traditional style.

|
What defines TMA to me is first that the WHY is superior to HOW. HOW is the conduit for WHY. So though I practice a HOW style of Shoshana-derived karate, to me WHY is always supreme & defining to the HOW I do what I do.
|
The particular dojo I'm currently @ would define themselves exactly as you've stated. So there is a philosophical difference & conflict between me and the organization as a whole.

 

[Dirty Dog]

A "Traditional Martial Art" is like porn.
It cannot really be defined.
Although there are things that are clearly porn, or clearly not porn, the area of "depends on who you ask" is enormous.


Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Really.

 

[Hanzou]

As I stated in the other thread; A traditional martial art is an art whose focus is to preserve its curriculum, and to not change or evolve with the times around it. For example, you go to a Choy Li Fut school, as a boxer. The CLF guys aren't going to incorporate boxing into their style, no matter how much they get eaten alive by the boxer. Meanwhile, if you go to a MMA, or more modern striking school, they'd rapidly incorporate the boxers moves into the system, since it was proven to be a equal if not superior method.

Additionally, traditional martial arts also tend to take a more holistic approach, usually containing striking, grappling, and weapons training. More modern styles rather focus on one of those aspects for whatever reason.

 

[Dirty Dog]

As I stated in the other thread; A traditional martial art is an art whose focus is to preserve its curriculum, and to not change or evolve with the times around it. For example, you go to a Choy Li Fut school, as a boxer. The CLF guys aren't going to incorporate boxing into their style, no matter how much they get eaten alive by the boxer. Meanwhile, if you go to a MMA, or more modern striking school, they'd rapidly incorporate the boxers moves into the system, since it was proven to be a equal if not superior method.

Additionally, traditional martial arts also tend to take a more holistic approach, usually containing striking, grappling, and weapons training. More modern styles rather focus on one of those aspects for whatever reason.

You seem to often have a difficult time differentiating between your opinion and fact.
While there are certainly traditional arts that focus on unchanging continuation of every slightest detail (the Koryu arts...), this is not necessarily true of all traditional arts.

 

[Hanzou]

You seem to often have a difficult time differentiating between your opinion and fact.
While there are certainly traditional arts that focus on unchanging continuation of every slightest detail (the Koryu arts...), this is not necessarily true of all traditional arts.

Which TMA wouldn't fall under that definition?

 

[Drose427]

Which TMA wouldn't fall under that definition?

Most TMA's XD

Very few, (if any) look the same way they did at the time of inception

 

[Dirty Dog]

Which TMA wouldn't fall under that definition?

Lots, in my opinion. But I don't confuse my opinions with fact.

 

[Hanzou]

Most TMA's XD

Very few, (if any) look the same way they did at the time of inception

Well you think modern MAs like Judo is a TMA so what would you know?

 

[Drose427]

Well you think modern MAs like Judo is a TMA so what would you know?

Yup an MA thats been around since the 1800s is modern and therefore not a TMA XD

The only way you could really claim it isnt a TMA is by saying itsnot because its post Meiji restoration, which makes the majority of Ma's NOT TMA's XD

But again,

Even in the arts pre- meiji restoration, i.e kung fu, silat styles, etc, dont look exactly the same XD

Its pretty common for association heads to changed things based on their interpretations and opinions,

But hey, with your "expertise" on Shotokan and TMAS, I'm sure you knew that.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

what defines a traditional art?

For traditional Chinese MA, All TCMA systems will have a set of principles to support the whole system. For example, the

- praying mantis system has 8 hard and 12 soft.
- Zimen system has 16 principles.
- Shuai Chiao system has 13 Taibao and 24 Shi.
- Taiji system has 12 principles.
- ...

I don't think MMA uses this approach.

 

[Hanzou]

Yup an MA thats been around since the 1800s is modern and therefore not a TMA XD

The only way you could really claim it isnt a TMA is by saying itsnot because its post Meiji restoration, which makes the majority of Ma's NOT TMA's XD

But again,

Even in the arts pre- meiji restoration, i.e kung fu, silat styles, etc, dont look exactly the same XD

Its pretty common for association heads to changed things based on their interpretations and opinions,

But hey, with your "expertise" on Shotokan and TMAS, I'm sure you knew that.

You do know that even the Japanese consider Judo a modern MA right? Hence why Judo is listed as a Gendai Budo, or "New Budo" instead of Koryu/Kobudo "ancient martial art".

 

[Drose427]

You do know that even the Japanese consider Judo a modern MA right? Hence why Judo is listed as a Gendai Budo, or "New Budo" instead of Koryu/Kobudo "ancient martial art".

Nope.

I brought up the meiji restoration (which is the timeline they use) for no reason.

My point, was that Many "Modern" Arts, are TMAS.

 

[Hanzou]

Nope.

I brought up the meiji restoration (which is the timeline they use) for no reason.

My point, was that Many "Modern" Arts, are TMAS.

And what exactly makes Judo traditional exactly?

 

[zzj]

I see such distinctions as relative ultimately. The more we delve into the definitions and criteria, the more the distinctions fall apart; perhaps it is enough to recognize that this kind of categorization is useful and meaningful only in the context that they are mentioned.

The MA I am learning would be considered traditional all everyone, however, I found out the following after looking into its actual history...

1) It is less than 400 years old, as compared to other popular beliefs about its origin being 800 years or older..

2) It was very much a hybrid of different systems, techniques and philosophies of its time... no such thing as a 'pure' untainted system.

3) The curriculum that I am learning now was largely modified in the early 1800's (streamlining and codification), and also of the 1950's (change in the articulation in forms, due to a period of testing in challenges/interactions and in combat against bandits)...

4) Changes are continuously being made by individual teachers today...

As such, I do not see my MA being a TMA outside of its identity and core principles, a tenuous thread leading back into its past.