The mixing of arts is how karate was created. All sorts of arts were drawn together to formulate what would become known as karate. These arts were personalized to fit how a particular person would fight.
Why Traditional Karate Is Not Effective for Self-Defense
- Thread starter Ceicei
- Start date
The mixing of arts is how karate was created. All sorts of arts were drawn together to formulate what would become known as karate. These arts were personalized to fit how a particular person would fight.
Quite possibly, but given some of the posts, I'm willing to make it.
No, that is what Bluming & those like him feel "traditional karate" is.
Everyone & their mother stake the claim that they are "traditional karate". They all make the claim that they have "the real".
Such a distinction is thus, worthless.
They are just another facet, another flavor, another moment. They do not define karate anymore than Bluming does.
Looking at all the styles, there is no such thing as "traditional karate". It does not exist. It never has.
When something is removed from the challenges of aliveness & combative application, then the factors that cause evolutionary development no longer apply. The art stagnates & "tradition" begins.
TimoS
Master of Arts
So? The point at least I'm trying to make is that not all "traditional" styles fall into that category. Some, though probably not even most of that call themselves traditional train the way some schools do: the kata applications are an integral part of the system and although basic bunkai can look a bit ritualized, they are just a tool and like every tool, you have to learn to use them
They styles you call "traditional" aren't. The term "traditional" is useless because it cannot be defined in the context of karate.
TimoS
Master of Arts
That is your opinion, one that I don't agree with, but it is pointless to argue about that
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
Is this your definition, or Bluming's definition of traditional karate?
keep in mind, not all schools train alike, even within the same style. Granted, I would agree that a lot of schools train in an unrealistic way and what skills may be obtained thru their methods would be questionable. But not all schools train the same way, so a more realistic and accurate observation would be case-by-case. To lump all karate together is simply inaccurate and misleading. To then judge all karate as essentially worthless is simply not true and it smells of an agenda that someone might be trying to push. That's my objection to what was said in the original article, including the quote by Mr. Bluming. It lumps all karate together and suggests it is all worthless. And that is blatant ********. And to me, that makes me question the credibility of people like the author of the article, and Mr. Blumberg, altho I'll grant that Mr. Blumberg may have been quoted out of context, or may have been quoted in this article without his knowledge or permission, or desire.
I'm not dismissing him entirely out of hand, but I don't feel any need to suddenly take his word as final authority just because someone quoted him in a dubious article, or just because someone else on an internet forum says I should take his word as truth.
So here's a question for you: if you believe karate as a whole is essentially worthless (please correct me if I've misunderstood your position), then please tell me what you would recommend in its place. If you've got an agenda to push here, put it on the table.
Actually, it's not an opinion.
It's a conclusion, based upon an argument outlined by Socratic logic.
Everyone's welcome to have opinions on anything what-so-ever.
The point of having a discussion is not opinion, but rather, a sharing of logical arguments in order to validate or invalidate conclusions.
Perhaps you could share your definition of "tradition" in the context of Karate with us.
I don't use "traditional" as a descriptor for karate, since almost everyone uses it in a different manner, either applying it to their karate as some sort of validation, or in Bluming's manner, as a dismissal. Further, no working definition can be agreed upon for the term, making it pretty much useless.
There are schools that train in such a manner that label themselves "traditional". Thus, when karateka like Bluming dismiss "traditional" karate or "traditional" methods because of a lack of combative applicability, then they are within context correct in their conclusions. The semantic validity of that context is a separate matter.
This simply proves my point, that utilizing "traditional" as a disntinction in these discussions is absolutely fruitless, and only serves to assuage the ego of practitioners.
Neither the author, nor Bluming are lumping all karate together. Remember, Bluming is a 10th dan in Kyokushin & has a long history of karate practice. You must put his words within that context when he & the author (who I believe is connected to Bluming), critiques "traditional" karate. In the video, Bluming has very positive things to say about the practice of karate & its effect on his life. He was not dismissing karate all together.
The issue is not about taking him as a final authority.
Rather, when someone writing an article quotes some one or attributes a point of view to that person, they are doing so in a certain context. Lack of familiarity with that context is not an excuse to dismiss the views out of hand, as we saw earlier with posts such as "Jon Bluming? Who's he? Why should I listen to him?"
You've misunderstood my position, the author's position, and Bluming's position.
The only agenda I have to push is to question the logic behind those who dismiss things out of hand, or seek to solidify their arguments based on fallacious logic.
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
I believe I've understood their positions quite clearly.
Go back and read the exerpts I've taken from the original article. He doesn't specifiy karate within any particular context. He just says "karate", and he even lumps other "traditional Asian martial arts" under the same umbrella and categorizes them all as of little worth.
Looks to me like the author (and Mr. Bluming if he supports this author's position) are pushing "reality-based martial arts" as the agenda they want to sell. It's a sales job, and little else.
as WR Mann has done.
You took the excerpts out of context. The article's title places it in context. An understanding of Bluming & the author put them in context.
You're more than welcome to tell Bluming that he doesn't do karate, just because he does he doesn't fit your definition of "tradition".
This, again, is why "traditional" is a completely useless descriptor.
The word tradition comes from the Latin traditionem, acc. of traditio which means "handing over, passing on", and is used in a number of ways in the English language:
Tradition manifest through the kata, of which are handed down, intact. When the kata are changed, added to, or done differently, then their initial form, then traditional is out the window. Left intact, and handed down, and practiced in their original form with the same intent, would render them a tradition, and as such, a tradition over generations continually, would be the act of following tradition. In doing this tradition now a days, it would be coined traditional. A Dojo who's base of teaching revolves around kata that are intact from their initial conception, would in fact, could in fact, be called traditional.
Tradition manifest through the kata, of which are handed down, intact. When the kata are changed, added to, or done differently, then their initial form, then traditional is out the window. Left intact, and handed down, and practiced in their original form with the same intent, would render them a tradition, and as such, a tradition over generations continually, would be the act of following tradition. In doing this tradition now a days, it would be coined traditional. A Dojo who's base of teaching revolves around kata that are intact from their initial conception, would in fact, could in fact, be called traditional.
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
It really has nothing to do with the definition of traditional.
Regardless of the use of the term in the title of the document, it is very clear from the context that the author considers karate as a whole, and other Asian martial arts in general (with various exceptions such as Muay Thai) to be of little value. No reasonable person could read the article and not perceive that message.
I honestly don't care what Mr. Bluming does or does not do, nor do I care about his ranking. He didn't write the article, tho he was quoted in it.
Mr. Mann is a fool and has the agenda of pushing "reality-based" martial arts. He makes it clear in the article that that is what people ought to do instead.
As I stated earlier: it's a sales pitch and little else.
Then by your own definition, there is no traditional karate.
Every karate school claims to perform their kata in the traditional manner. Yet very few know the combative applications to this kata. If this is the case, they are not traditional, since they have lost the original intent of their kata.
Every karate school claims to be a traditional school because they have the traditional kata. Yet each school performs it completely differently. A different performance would seem to reflect a diverging application to the kata's motions, yet if the variation is not applicable through combat, then it is not traditional.
Further, the farther back we go, we find that kata were often tailored to each individual student to meet their training needs. Thus, the only traditional would seem to be the change of karate, its ability to adapt & grow.
Thus, the stagnancy you advocate of kata performance, as if they were a dance, is not traditional karate, but rather a symptom of the ossification of training methods, the development of slavish worship of a "master", rather than an ownership & continued development of the art.
Considering Mann's experience in Kyokushin, I doubt he'd see it that way.
Unless you can create a reasoned counter-argument, which almost no one in this thread has, you can't call him a fool.
Not to get off tract, but I see this same type of thinking, this splitting of hairs on word meaning, at the threshold of change. This new way of thinking is revolutionizing life as we know it, by throwing out the old, and reinventing it as new. This new thinking is manifesting in all facets of life.
Hardly. This is simply the result of understanding logic. The first rule of discussion is that terms must be defined. If no definition of "traditional" proves logically consistent enough for use in rational discussion, then the term is useless. Adhering to it only prevents discussion & learning.
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
go back and read the original article. it's all over the place in there. Not too difficult to find.
Ha, now THAT'S funny! :rofl:
Agreed.
I did. And in context, many of the areas where he critiques "traditional karate" he is absolutely correct on.
Perhaps you'd like to make a reasoned counter-argument now?
