Traditional v modern

[StellarAevum]

I think perhaps the issue is that different people jump in with what they have been using as their definition. Sometimes to be argumentative, sometimes to clarify what they're talking about, and sometimes just to suggest a different definition for the discussion.

Heck, I don't really agree with myself about the distinction. Sometimes I'm talking about older vs. newer (even that is rather vague). Sometimes I'm talking about systems that try to remain static - keeping to the way the system was at some arbitrary point in time. Most often, I'm talking about systems that use traditional training methods that have been around for long periods of time and have become codified in the system, versus those that seem to use whatever works at the time. That last is often (by me) conflated with traditional rituals (uniforms, bowing, remnants of the language from the country of origin, etc.) - probably because I most often see them overlap.

If I can't agree with me, how am I ever going to manage to agree with you?

In all seriousness, I think part of the problem is it's a conceptual term, rather than a concrete one. And those of us who are more conceptual are comfortable with vague definition, which doesn't work well in discussion with those who are less conceptual (and "conceptual" is not a value judgment in either direction).

Personally, and this may be me being a stereotypical nit-picky student of philosophy, I would rather we try to discuss these different concepts separately then conflate them with each other.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I've always looked at traditional martial arts as something that was mostly done as tradition vs the original purpose that it was intended for.

Modern martial arts is just the opposite of that. It's not based on Tradition or the desire to remember or preserve old ways of doing things.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Personally, and this may be me being a stereotypical nit-picky student of philosophy, I would rather we try to discuss these different concepts separately then conflate them with each other.

I agree. That's my issue with this discussion. If we start with a vague term, what one person replies isn't necessarily related to the intended question.

We'd get further if we started these not with a generic term subject to individual definition, but with a working definition - which is where I think Steve is coming from.

 

[StellarAevum]

I've always looked at traditional martial arts as something that was mostly done as tradition vs the original purpose that it was intended for.

Modern martial arts is just the opposite of that. It's not based on Tradition or the desire to remember or preserve old ways of doing things.

Hm, even these seem a little hard to hammer down.

Like is boxing a traditional or modern martial art under this distinction?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I've always looked at traditional martial arts as something that was mostly done as tradition vs the original purpose that it was intended for.

Modern martial arts is just the opposite of that. It's not based on Tradition or the desire to remember or preserve old ways of doing things.

This is a good example. In some ways this is very close to my most common usage. But in other ways, it's not at all the same. If you and I started discussing traditional vs. modern without defining the distinction, we might agree or argue for some time before we figured out we weren't really talking about quite the same thing.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Like is boxing a traditional or modern martial art under this distinction?

Depends on what form of boxing you are using.

For example, if your boxing is looks like what he used (below) and you, as well as other practitioners, do it more to keep an older style of boxing alive so that it's not forgotten, then boxing this style of boxing would qualify as traditional boxing. The goal isn't to actually learn how to fight with it but to remember the ways. It's no different that sword forms where the same martial artists who do the sword forms do not know how to fight with the sword. The term traditional reflects the majority use for the system.

People who use traditional martial arts rarely think of their skill sets as old or as something that should only be used used to preserve the history culture of a fighting system. If you actually use the system for it's intended purpose then, it's about as modern as anything else. A fighting system can be traditional and modern at the same time. How long has bread making been around? Both modern and traditional ways to make bread. It's the same way with martial arts.

 

[JowGaWolf]

This is a good example. In some ways this is very close to my most common usage. But in other ways, it's not at all the same. If you and I started discussing traditional vs. modern without defining the distinction, we might agree or argue for some time before we figured out we weren't really talking about quite the same thing.

I think the problem is often because people assume that a fighting system has to be one or the other. Aikido can be both traditional and modern. It does not have to be one or the other. If you think of traditional Aikido then you are looking at elements that may not be found modern Aikido.. My Jow Ga training lacks many of the traditional elements found in Jow Ga Schools. No Shrine, No lion dance, even when I thought the sparring classes, I didn't do a lot of the traditional things that are done during the regular class.

 

[Steve]

Personally, and this may be me being a stereotypical nit-picky student of philosophy, I would rather we try to discuss these different concepts separately then conflate them with each other.

Maybe it’s just me, but I’m waiting for you to stop talking about what you’d prefer to do, and just do it. Pick a concept and start the conversation. Either one. I am sincerely interested.

 

[Steve]

I agree. That's my issue with this discussion. If we start with a vague term, what one person replies isn't necessarily related to the intended question.

We'd get further if we started these not with a generic term subject to individual definition, but with a working definition - which is where I think Steve is coming from.

Killing me, Gerry.

I've always looked at traditional martial arts as something that was mostly done as tradition vs the original purpose that it was intended for.

Modern martial arts is just the opposite of that. It's not based on Tradition or the desire to remember or preserve old ways of doing things.

As good a definition as I’ve heard. If I could suggest a slightly different way of saying it, the difference is when there is a conflict between doing it the way you are taught or doing it in a way that might be more effective. If, when this conflict arises, the art and its students preserve the way they are taught, it is a traditional art. If, when this conflict arises, the art and its students change the curriculum, it is not traditional.

But I’m good with competitive or not, or even Asian or western, or sticking with what you say above.

If we can agree on some terms, we have a good start.

 

[Steve]

In all seriousness, I think part of the problem is it's a conceptual term, rather than a concrete one. And those of us who are more conceptual are comfortable with vague definition, which doesn't work well in discussion with those who are less conceptual (and "conceptual" is not a value judgment in either direction).

I have found that being comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty is a strong predictor of success as a leader. Not the only one, but one of only a few.

 

[JowGaWolf]

When does traditional stop being traditional and becomes modern?

 

[JowGaWolf]

At what point did traditional stop being traditional and forever broke the chains of the past?

 

[drop bear]

I've always looked at traditional martial arts as something that was mostly done as tradition vs the original purpose that it was intended for.

Modern martial arts is just the opposite of that. It's not based on Tradition or the desire to remember or preserve old ways of doing things.

Function vs form.

 

[drop bear]

Killing me, Gerry.

As good a definition as I’ve heard. If I could suggest a slightly different way of saying it, the difference is when there is a conflict between doing it the way you are taught or doing it in a way that might be more effective. If, when this conflict arises, the art and its students preserve the way they are taught, it is a traditional art. If, when this conflict arises, the art and its students change the curriculum, it is not traditional.

But I’m good with competitive or not, or even Asian or western, or sticking with what you say above.

If we can agree on some terms, we have a good start.

And the mindset difference of an art that advances by the actions of the creators. And one that advances by the actions of the students.

 

[StellarAevum]

Depends on what form of boxing you are using.

For example, if your boxing is looks like what he used (below) and you, as well as other practitioners, do it more to keep an older style of boxing alive so that it's not forgotten, then boxing this style of boxing would qualify as traditional boxing. The goal isn't to actually learn how to fight with it but to remember the ways. It's no different that sword forms where the same martial artists who do the sword forms do not know how to fight with the sword. The term traditional reflects the majority use for the system.

People who use traditional martial arts rarely think of their skill sets as old or as something that should only be used used to preserve the history culture of a fighting system. If you actually use the system for it's intended purpose then, it's about as modern as anything else. A fighting system can be traditional and modern at the same time. How long has bread making been around? Both modern and traditional ways to make bread. It's the same way with martial arts.

This is a unfounded assumption and often wrong. Many people train in classical puglism because it has better self-defense application than gloved boxing.

Your definition seems to assume that all practioner of a martial art are doing so for the same reasons.

 

[drop bear]

This is a unfounded assumption and often wrong. Many people train in classical puglism because it has better self-defense application than gloved boxing.

Your definition seems to assume that all practioner of a martial art are doing so for the same reasons.

When pugilists start winning bare knuckle boxing matches. I will start paying attention to them.

 

[JowGaWolf]

his is a unfounded assumption and often wrong. Many people train in classical puglism because it has better self-defense application than gloved boxing.

"I take kung fu because it has better self-defense application than [insert other martial arts]" That's what this statement remind me of.

Your definition seems to assume that all practioner of a martial art are doing so for the same reasons.

Nope that's what you assume about my statement. Training for form is not the same as Training for function. If you aren't training for Function then you are only training to preserve the form (aka preserve the traditions of that martial art)

 

[Gerry Seymour]

And the mindset difference of an art that advances by the actions of the creators. And one that advances by the actions of the students.

I like that distinction. I don't know that it matches the words traditional and modern, but I like that as a distinction for this type of discussion.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This is a unfounded assumption and often wrong. Many people train in classical puglism because it has better self-defense application than gloved boxing.

Your definition seems to assume that all practioner of a martial art are doing so for the same reasons.

He did cover the intent in that post, with the "you...do it to keep an older style of boxing alive". If you have a different intent, that wouldn't fall under his definition.

 

[dvcochran]

I have been thinking about the name of this topic and the many posts about trying to define the two "types" of MA. One consistent theme I hear when non-traditional people talk about traditional styles is the following of specific protocols, philosophies, and decorum. Often it is not acknowledged that many of the techniques used in modern MA originated from a traditional format and conversely there have been many refinements, and new techniques along the way.
One line of defining a traditional style is one that it follows ALL the practices from a historical perspective, regardless of whether there have been changes within the mechanics over time. Likewise, a modern style may be one that has over time, or from origination dropped the decorum and philosophy to streamline their practice.
Possibly a streamlining method could be to peel back a style to the original known name (in last 200 years?). Not an ancient name/style that is thousands of years old because, let's be honest, we know basically nothing about them with the exception of a few possibly books. So there would not be ITF, ATA, WTF, etc... Tae Kwon Do. There would just be TKD for example. TKD alone is a tough one because in its current format it is not that old.
Hopefully this is a start that can be considered, deconstructed and refined.