Tradition vs all knowledge

[tshadowchaser]

When you teach do you teach only those techniques that you where taught he instructors within your system, or do you incorperate techniques that have come from other places? example: your system does not havean AXE kick in but you know how to do it, so do you teach it or you have gone to another school and learned a trapping tech. thet is not within the techs. you learned, again to you teach this? Or do you pass on the system a you learned it keeping it "pure"?
If everyone incorpoates every technique they see or learn will there be any differences in the verious arts in twenty years? Years ago you could go to a Karate tournament and tell what style a person studied and what tecniques he would use by the way they stood on the line. Now everyone uses every thing and very few seem to keep to their roots when sparring.
Willthe Filipino arts become the same way with everyone interchangeing techniques?
Shadow

 

[Cthulhu]

Here's what I would do: I would teach the stuff I had learned that is not within the system I teach, but I wouldn't require it during exams. To get a rank in the system I teach, students should only have to be tested on the same material I was tested on (barring ranking requirement changes from 'on high'). The stuff I've been fortunate enough to gather from other systems would just be extracurricular stuff that I think they should know, but not have to test.

Cthulhu

 

[Kirk]

Here's what I would do: I would teach the stuff I had learned that is not within the system I teach, but I wouldn't require it during exams.

That's how it is in my school. We're tested only on Parker
Kenpo, but learn TKD kicks, sticky hands, stick and knife, etc that
others have learned. My instructor will let anyone teach on what
I call "non kenpo" days (sat and sun).

 

[Yari]

Originally posted by Cthulhu
Here's what I would do: I would teach the stuff I had learned that is not within the system I teach, but I wouldn't require it during exams. To get a rank in the system I teach, students should only have to be tested on the same material I was tested on (barring ranking requirement changes from 'on high'). The stuff I've been fortunate enough to gather from other systems would just be extracurricular stuff that I think they should know, but not have to test.

Cthulhu

I agree... But we do something extra, and that's when you get to the black belt gradings. One of the things you have to go through is to show your experience. That could be to show 10 different defences against an oppenent using a stick og knife. Here you have a chance to show what you know that's outside of your curriculem. Yhey would test in this, but not have the same weight as the rest, and they also know that is not part of the "style".

/yari

 

[deadhand31]

My school does the same thing. Our testing is on TKD, but we're also taught various Hapkido and Hosinsul drills. Sometimes, just for fun after class, we'll all ground fight each other. It'd be great if that was done at testing. I'd love it.

 

[Chiduce]

My school is a little different. From the very beginning the students are asked if there would be a different strike, punch, elbow, chop, choke, throw etc, which could be applied to their techniques which they will test on. This helps them to see another side of their applications. Next, they are allowed to try out 2 variations to see if they would be workable for them individually! If they work, then they are allowed to include this workable motion in practice at home. Since this starts for the white belt to yellow belt testing and through out the ranks to shodan; they are tested 20% variation and 80% of the original techniques required for the belt ranking. By the time the new student gets to advanced orange belt they are choke-throwing, and using various upper body angling motions in striking, and elbowing. Since we are a counter-striking system; our methods are based on keeping the attacker to our outside of the circle and working one side of the body, to finish inside! Sincerely, In Humility; Chiduce!

 

[stone_dragone]

Since I am not part of a larger organization, I am free to set my curriculum. Admitedly, not all of the techniques and principles come from karate, but I teach them because they either convey a principle or produce a result that is consistent with my "strategic doctrine."

I won't teach a skill set that is contrary to my doctrine or that I am not well-versed in. I have to be able to understand, use, apply and convey it intelliently before I teach it...some skills I have picked up and am comfortable using, but need to study more before I put it into my curriculum.

But my general rule is: If it works and fits in the strategic doctrine, then I'll use it.

 

[Grenadier]

Nice to see this topic revived...

Here's my view on such things:

It's a good thing to learn from tradition. After all, the traditional techniques have withstood the test of time, and have still thrived in today's world. The old ways had to have been decent enough, else we would have abandoned them a long time ago.

At the same time, though, we must always be looking for ways to improve upon the traditional style, and if this means incorporating other techniques from different styles, then so be it, if it can make the system stronger.

If we didn't have people trying to improve upon a system, then we wouldn't have this abundance of excellent martial arts styles in which we train.

The "trick," is to find out what can be brought into the system, without disrupting it. This, of course, is easier said than done.

 

[green meanie]

I have the good fortune of running things however I choose and I have always went the 'all knowledge' route. I claim to teach 'Ju Jitsu' but when I run class and try to provide solutions to various martial problems I draw from everything I've ever learned and give them the best possible options regardless of what they are or where I learned them.

 

[Dark]

I don't see style as a limitation, it's how you train not what you train. So I teach most of what I know and make training/testing adjustments accordingly. I don't like the politics game so I avoid the drama of organizations and "wonna-be-traditionalists" who have no concept of "warrior philosophy" but wonna spout Bushido like they are in a 80s ninja movie...

 

[Robert Lee]

If you pass something down as a certion art You should give that method of training Any thing else you show teach or utilize is added gravy to the students training. Be sure to tell them its not part of that given art but is a very useful tool Plus it helps expose them to how it works and how they can defend aginst it. I remember the first time I was ever exposed to a reverse hook kick It landed right at its target my groin Well my art did not use it I had not defended aginst it it was new. I made sure I not only learned it I used it that was over 30 years ago. Its good to add some flaver to what you do Remember what is now known as traditional arts. The were alive and evolveing when there founders were alive They would notice something from another style or way and test it if it was found useful they would add that and perhaps delete something that there art lacked and this tool made better. after all its about M/A first then style or way But they all are realated one way or the other.

 

[trueaspirer]

Keeping a sense of tradition and a memory of where the art came from can be very important. However, you cannot allow it do dominate the martial art. The while idea of a martial art is that it grows and changes with time, for that is how we have the arts we have today. Also, evey person who studies ma incorporates a little bit of themselves into it, and adapts it to suit their needs, and this adaptation is passed on, and then changed further by those who study it. The past is important, but the world is a place of change, and that includes ma.