Traditional martial arts

[DAC..florida]

Traditional Martial Arts in my opinion are they original Known MA's
there are alot of people from styles I have never heard of on this forum claiming to be traditionalists.

My question's are :


1. are you a traditionalist? if so of what style?
2. What is your defination of a traditional style?

[MartialArtist]

I am a traditionalist.

Traditional - Old with a lot of history behind it... How you train really isn't the indicator on whether it's traditional... Boxing, TKD, jujitsu, muay thai, etc.

[MartialArtist]

Originally posted by DAC..florida
Traditional Martial Arts in my opinion are they original Known MA's
there are alot of people from styles I have never heard of on this forum claiming to be traditionalists.

My question's are :


1. are you a traditionalist? if so of what style?
2. What is your defination of a traditional style?
What do you mean original?

I consider judo to be traditional, and it comes from jujitsu, which from my knowledge, really wasn't an art in its beginning, merely a term?

[SteelShadow]

Im not a tradional stylist but I do hold alot of the tradional Values.

[DAC..florida]

Martialartist,

your right judo is an off shoot of ju jitsu that is now considered by many to be a traditional style of martial arts.

I guess the question that I'm asking is what makes a style a traditional style in my opinion there is only a few original styles and everything after that is an off shoot, no one has reinvented the wheel just added to it?

Steelshadow,
In my opinion traditional values are important and should be aplicated in all dojo's, but what "traditional values" are you speaking Chinease, Japanese, korean or middle eastern ect.
Do your "traditional values" fit your style, or are you studying a korean style with Japanese based values ect.
:asian:

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by DAC..florida
Martialartist,

your right judo is an off shoot of ju jitsu that is now considered by many to be a traditional style of martial arts.

I guess the question that I'm asking is what makes a style a traditional style in my opinion there is only a few original styles and everything after that is an off shoot, no one has reinvented the wheel just added to it?

Steelshadow,
In my opinion traditional values are important and should be aplicated in all dojo's, but what "traditional values" are you speaking Chinease, Japanese, korean or middle eastern ect.
Do your "traditional values" fit your style, or are you studying a korean style with Japanese based values ect.
:asian:

Technically by your analagy there no traditional styles because all styles today come from someone elses style. In your words off shoots.

And since there must be a standard definition of "traditional styles" that is being used by the traditional martial art world, it would be safe to say that you are wrong, "by their definition".:D

I may stand to be corrected but I don't think that there are any "original styles" in existance. Just using the name does not make it "original.":D

So my friend there really is no such thing as traditional styles, just traditional individual intangibles like morals, ethics, codes of honor, methods of practicing etc, but NOTHING traditional as a whole as far as "ORIGINALITY!" .:asian:

[DAC..florida]

Originally posted by akja
Technically by your analagy there no traditional styles because all styles today come from someone elses style. In your words off shoots.

And since there must be a standard definition of "traditional styles" that is being used by the traditional martial art world, it would be safe to say that you are wrong, "by their definition".:D

I may stand to be corrected but I don't think that there are any "original styles" in existance. Just using the name does not make it "original.":D

So my friend there really is no such thing as traditional styles, just traditional individual intangibles like morals, ethics, codes of honor, methods of practicing etc, but NOTHING traditional as a whole as far as "ORIGINALITY!" .:asian:

WOW,

I couldnt have said it better myself!

The question that I would like to know is why do people call themselfs traditionalists and what sets them aside from others?
:asian:

[SRyuFighter]

Originally posted by DAC..florida
WOW,

I couldnt have said it better myself!

The question that I would like to know is why do people call themselfs traditionalists and what sets them aside from others?
:asian:

I think that most traditionalists believe that they are traditional because of codes of conduct, ethics, and that they practice a martial art that has been around for a very long time. SUch as Karate.

[Zepp]

Originally posted by akja
Technically by your analagy there no traditional styles because all styles today come from someone elses style. In your words off shoots.

And since there must be a standard definition of "traditional styles" that is being used by the traditional martial art world, it would be safe to say that you are wrong, "by their definition".:D

I may stand to be corrected but I don't think that there are any "original styles" in existance. Just using the name does not make it "original.":D

So my friend there really is no such thing as traditional styles, just traditional individual intangibles like morals, ethics, codes of honor, methods of practicing etc, but NOTHING traditional as a whole as far as "ORIGINALITY!" .:asian:

For this reason, I try to avoid using the word "traditional" at all when describing a martial art.

[MartialArtist]

The only key difference between traditionalists and the rest is morals, ethics, honor, a set of strict rules and regulations, and the unity of body and mind. The body can't perform at its best without the mind. Mind control, meditation, etc.

Meditation works for some people, others claim it doesn't do anything... It's just sitting around, doing nothing. One thing is that they are probably doing it wrong. Like a religious prayer, there are certain ways to do it right. In Christianity, there is kinda a way for prayer and there are guidelines such as forgiving and asking for forgiveness, etc. Meditation is the same way, only that it isn't religious or spiritual like many people make it out to be. That's just my opinion.

For instance, wrestling and boxing back then wasn't something to be considered lightly. Same with Eastern MA. Honor, principles, etc. were all placed on the combative arts. Judo, although isn't something entirely new (I really don't consider anything to be revolutionary in terms of technique), did have its unique philosophy.

[RyuShiKan]

Modern:
After 1945, emphasis was placed on karate as a sport; hence, Modern karate was developed. This is seen in many eclectic styles that develop new techniques only for use in sport.

Traditional:
Traditional Karate developed after the Meiji Restoration of 1868. A shift from the warrior philosophy was dictated by the Japanese government; therefore, emphasis was placed upon the spiritual and physical development gained by practicing the way of karate rather than actual life and death applications.

Classical:
Classical Karate developed before 1868, and uses actual fighting philosophy developed by the warrior class. Classical Karate is real karate technique used to stop opponents in actual life and death situations, not the controlled conditions of tournament play.

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by Zepp
For this reason, I try to avoid using the word "traditional" at all when describing a martial art.

Smart guy!;)

[DAC..florida]

Originally posted by RyuShiKan
Modern:
After 1945, emphasis was placed on karate as a sport; hence, Modern karate was developed. This is seen in many eclectic styles that develop new techniques only for use in sport.

Traditional:
Traditional Karate developed after the Meiji Restoration of 1868. A shift from the warrior philosophy was dictated by the Japanese government; therefore, emphasis was placed upon the spiritual and physical development gained by practicing the way of karate rather than actual life and death applications.

Classical:
Classical Karate developed before 1868, and uses actual fighting philosophy developed by the warrior class. Classical Karate is real karate technique used to stop opponents in actual life and death situations, not the controlled conditions of tournament play.


Thank you thats the answer that I was looking for, I appreciate your input here. :asian:

[RyuShiKan]

That was actually taken from one of my seniors’ book on the art we practice.
It is what my teacher believes (as well as me) to be true,

[DAC..florida]

Originally posted by RyuShiKan
That was actually taken from one of my seniors’ book on the art we practice.
It is what my teacher believes (as well as me) to be true,


I agree with you 100% here and appreciate this info..:asian:

[MartialArtsGuy]

Some people catagorize certain styles as being traditional by what training methods are used to teach people within the style. I think the more sport focused MMA people tend to lean more in this direction. But there are others as well who feel this is one characteristic of a traditional martial art.

All martial arts have some things in common. One of those things is that we all move our bodies in an attempt to defend ourselves, or while learning how to in class. There are alot of styles, so i would guess that different styles reflect a different outlooks from a particular school of thought, rather than each style representing a new physical approach. We only have 2 arms 2 legs, 1 head no matter what style you come from. I know there are differences from person to person, and these differences should be considered while training, but when it comes down to it we are simmilar. I feel that style can reflect the technique one uses while executing a certain move.

Generally, I think people can have varying views on what a traditional style is.

I do feel there are a few other characteristics that make up a "traditional" style. Some have been mentioned, but i dont care to speculate on the rest. Besides, I found that a mix of a few different systems is what works best for me, with my base being in self defense oriented kickboxing. My 2 cents.
:D

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by Ben22
Some people catagorize certain styles as being traditional by what training methods are used to teach people within the style. I think the more sport focused MMA people tend to lean more in this direction. But there are others as well who feel this is one characteristic of a traditional martial art.

All martial arts have some things in common. One of those things is that we all move our bodies in an attempt to defend ourselves, or while learning how to in class. There are alot of styles, so i would guess that different styles reflect a different outlooks from a particular school of thought, rather than each style representing a new physical approach. We only have 2 arms 2 legs, 1 head no matter what style you come from. I know there are differences from person to person, and these differences should be considered while training, but when it comes down to it we are simmilar. I feel that style can reflect the technique one uses while executing a certain move.

Generally, I think people can have varying views on what a traditional style is.

I do feel there are a few other characteristics that make up a "traditional" style. Some have been mentioned, but i dont care to speculate on the rest. Besides, I found that a mix of a few different systems is what works best for me, with my base being in self defense oriented kickboxing. My 2 cents.
:D

I read through most of that think that was something that could of come out of my mouth!;)

What people seem to tell me ( if were to be the one that said that) is "it's nothing new, no need for it!"

In other words go to the same schools as everyone else, no need for anymore. I am not everyone else and I understand the differant outlooks from differant schools of thought, I am one of them!D

[DAC..florida]

This thread is turning out better than what I even imagined I can now at the word traditionalist under a whole new light.

great info.. keep it coming:asian:

[A.R.K.]

It would be very interesting to know what the original art/style/system was, who 'founded' it and the extent to which it was originally used. I've heard different theories, and have my own.

:asian:

[D.Cobb]

Originally posted by RyuShiKan
Traditional:
Traditional Karate developed after the Meiji Restoration of 1868. A shift from the warrior philosophy was dictated by the Japanese government; therefore, emphasis was placed upon the spiritual and physical development gained by practicing the way of karate rather than actual life and death applications.

Classical:
Classical Karate developed before 1868, and uses actual fighting philosophy developed by the warrior class. Classical Karate is real karate technique used to stop opponents in actual life and death situations, not the controlled conditions of tournament play.

Just wondering, would this, then define the difference between KARATE-DO and KARATE-JUTSU ?

This is kind of how I understand the different terms.
--Dave

:asian:

[MartialArtist]

It's possible to trace lineages in systems, but not in the martial arts.

Wrestling has been around forever, same with boxing. Boxing was found pretty much everywhere, from China to Greece. It is said that most Eastern MAs came from yoga and the Shaolin temple from an Indian monk, but seriously, I doubt the Shaolin were responsible for everything. Reason? There was always a need for combat or militant reasons, and the monk from India went to the temple, when? Of course, the Shaolin monks did influence a lot of what we see today, but they are not the sole contributor. If you think of it this way, every nation and/or region influenced surrounding nations/regions. For instance, the Chinese influenced the Koreans, and the Koreans influenced the Chinese. The Koreans and the Chinese influenced the Japanese, and the Japanese in turn influenced both of them. Like an endless circle.

[James Kovacich]

Most of the lineages can be traced back pretty far, but not the styles because they've changed all through time and none of them are the original arts.

For example Jujutsu can be traced back (before it was actually Jujutsu) to Teijin Fujiwara around 850 A.D. and Karate (before it was actually Karate) can be traced back to Shinjo Choken in the 1600's.

Its a gray area as far a lot of history is dispuatable but I think that many do agree with this and that there are others too, but these I was able to come up with dates for. :asian:

[RyuShiKan]

Originally posted by D.Cobb
Just wondering, would this, then define the difference between KARATE-DO and KARATE-JUTSU ?

This is kind of how I understand the different terms.
--Dave

:asian:


Yes, it does kind of describe the differences.