Traditional v modern

[Gerry Seymour]

Actually, that isn't true. Windows, despite what people think, is not an operating system. It is a mere shell over the operating system. Which is, still, MS-DOS.

Now with a Unix/Linux (not sure which) shell involved, too, apparently. Early Windows was definitely nothing more than a GUI running on MS-DOS.

 

[JowGaWolf]

When you train "groin kick, face punch" combo, do you train 1 way vs. the other way, or do you train both ways?

If I understand your question, then I train multiple ways. For me there is no "one size fits all" It's not enough for me to know just one way to punch a face. The way that I want to punch a face may not be available so I have to learn another way to punch a face. Knowing multiple ways to punch a face is better than waiting for the right time and distance to only do one type of punch to the face.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It's hard for people to see that a fighting system can be 2 different things at once. For most people it has to be either Traditional or Functional. It can't be both. By the nature of Function, anything that wants to remain functional has to change and always be modern. Improvements will need to be made even if the technique is old, the delivery of it will most certainly be made more efficient and effective.

I think it's even possible to be both at the same time, if you're not a purist for either. I preserve parts of NGA, because I like them (rather than for function). I change others, because they don't have the functionality I want for myself and my students. So I teach a modern version of a traditional art, I guess.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You either punch from your guard, or you punch from your waist. You can't do both. If you train both, when you have to use it, you may confuse yourself.

I've trained both. Still do sometimes. I've never had confusion over which to use.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I think it's even possible to be both at the same time, if you're not a purist for either. I preserve parts of NGA, because I like them (rather than for function). I change others, because they don't have the functionality I want for myself and my students. So I teach a modern version of a traditional art, I guess.

I know I do both. I train the traditional part as a base. It provides a good foundation for which to progress from. Everything is done exactly as I was taught. It helps train the movement that the body needs to make, in order to expand and improve on a technique.

If I try to create a new combo that wasn't taught to me. I will often start with the traditional way to see how everything connects. From there I have a better idea of which "modern" versions of that technique will work best together. I also still have the option to use a "traditional" technique on someone. No one ever said you can't tag someone with some old skool strikes lol. It's still an option.

 

[Flying Crane]

This is only a small number of people in comparison of those who only do it for exercise, fitness, or just the fun of learning a real martial arts form. One only needs to look at how a school advertises itself to know what type of students the schools has or is trying to attract.

The first thing I think of when someone says kung fu sparring is "basic kick boxing skills"
The first thing I expect to see when someone says kung fu sparring is "basic kick boxing skills"

Where's the Kung Fu? I don't see Hungar Techniques and I don't see Shaolin Kung Fu techniques. So when you say "effective" kung fu, then why isn't it here?

Where's the kung fu? I'm sure their forms have more techniques than what they are showing.

I don't know about other martial arts systems but Kung Fu didn't thrive because there are a bunch of kick butt kung fu fighters out there. People see this and want to learn a form

So I guess I’m confused. Are you saying that you train your system out of historical interest? Do you find your system to be lacking in relevance as a combative system? If so, that is unfortunate. Not all of us who train in a traditional method feel that way.

Regardless of whether or not some people today just want exercise, the traditional systems themselves would not have survived into the modern era if they were not fundamentally sound and effective as a combative method.

My system certainly is. If your system is not, that has nothing to do with me nor with most others.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So I guess I’m confused. Are you saying that you train your system out of historical interest? Do you find your system to be lacking in relevance as a combative system? If so, that is unfortunate. Not all of us who train in a traditional method feel that way.

Regardless of whether or not some people today just want exercise, the traditional systems themselves would not have survived into the modern era if they were not fundamentally sound and effective as a combative method.

My system certainly is. If your system is not, that has nothing to do with me nor with most others.

I think what JWG is getting at is more about intent. So, if you find nothing lacking in the system you train in, there might be no observable difference between a "traditional" and a "modern" approach, as he has defined it.

I'll go back to my own primary art as an example. NGA is quite functional, as a whole. But there are parts that are lacking (the ground work taught when I was training in the NGAA wasn't laughable, but wasn't very good). There are also some areas where the training isn't very efficient - techniques that I don't consider functional for actual use, but which are useful in studying some principles. Those could be taken out and replaced with more time spent on sparring. I prefer to keep them. I see the cost of keeping them as low, and there's benefit for folks (like me) who like to dig into the principles sometimes without direct application. I refer to these as "esoteric techniques".

I don't consider any of that an indictment of NGA or any other art. Personally, I like the ritual of the traditional ways and the intellectual exercise presented by the esoteric techniques. Neither of those things has much to do with combat ability, so if I were entirely focused on that function, I'd drop them out.

 

[Flying Crane]

I think what JWG is getting at is more about intent. So, if you find nothing lacking in the system you train in, there might be no observable difference between a "traditional" and a "modern" approach, as he has defined it.

I'll go back to my own primary art as an example. NGA is quite functional, as a whole. But there are parts that are lacking (the ground work taught when I was training in the NGAA wasn't laughable, but wasn't very good). There are also some areas where the training isn't very efficient - techniques that I don't consider functional for actual use, but which are useful in studying some principles. Those could be taken out and replaced with more time spent on sparring. I prefer to keep them. I see the cost of keeping them as low, and there's benefit for folks (like me) who like to dig into the principles sometimes without direct application. I refer to these as "esoteric techniques".

I don't consider any of that an indictment of NGA or any other art. Personally, I like the ritual of the traditional ways and the intellectual exercise presented by the esoteric techniques. Neither of those things has much to do with combat ability, so if I were entirely focused on that function, I'd drop them out.

Why does anyone get to define what is traditional or modern, for anyone but themselves?

Apparently my definition is different from his. The old stuff has survived because it still works. That is my experience.

As I acknowledged, change does happen, that is part of being human. Nothing done today is identical to how it (or it’s ancestor) was done 400 years ago. Change is a reality of life. But it is still a traditional system if it has been handed down through the generations. Those that continue to have viability have survived. I very much doubt that any but a very small percentage of folks practicing a traditional system are doing so with the intent of preserving something from the past, with the knowledge that it no longer has relevance in the modern world. Some archaic weapons systems may fit that description, but not much else.

 

[Steve]

I would say kyudo is a traditional art.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Why does anyone get to define what is traditional or modern, for anyone but themselves?

Apparently my definition is different from his. The old stuff has survived because it still works. That is my experience.

As I acknowledged, change does happen, that is part of being human. Nothing done today is identical to how it (or it’s ancestor) was done 400 years ago. Change is a reality of life. But it is still a traditional system if it has been handed down through the generations. Those that continue to have viability have survived. I very much doubt that any but a very small percentage of folks practicing a traditional system are doing so with the intent of preserving something from the past, with the knowledge that it no longer has relevance in the modern world. Some archaic weapons systems may fit that description, but not much else.

I don't think he's trying to push a definition on anyone. @Steve suggested (a useful suggestion) that we ought to find a working definition. JGW's definition isn't mine, but I'm discussing around that definition. I call what I do "traditional" without hesitation, but by his definition, it's more modern. Doesn't matter - it's an interesting discussion using either set of definitions.

So, if his definition of "traditional" doesn't fit what you do, then neither do his comments about a traditional art. If the word bothers you, just replace it with a word that better fits his definition, in your head. He's not impugning your art or anyone else's.

 

[Flying Crane]

I don't think he's trying to push a definition on anyone. @Steve suggested (a useful suggestion) that we ought to find a working definition. JGW's definition isn't mine, but I'm discussing around that definition. I call what I do "traditional" without hesitation, but by his definition, it's more modern. Doesn't matter - it's an interesting discussion using either set of definitions.

So, if his definition of "traditional" doesn't fit what you do, then neither do his comments about a traditional art. If the word bothers you, just replace it with a word that better fits his definition, in your head. He's not impugning your art or anyone else's.

Ok so I reject his definition of traditional, but I also reject his assertion that (as far as I understand his message to be) that anyone practicing an old system is doing so with the goal to preserve the system as it existed in the past, in spite of the possibility/probability that it is no longer relevant and does not work very well.

If that is part of his message, I completely disagree with that notion.

If I misunderstand him, I welcome some clarification.

 

[Martial D]

Now with a Unix/Linux (not sure which) shell involved, too, apparently. Early Windows was definitely nothing more than a GUI running on MS-DOS.

Sort of. The kernal in Windows 7 onward is definitely heavily influenced by Linux, it's still basically the same registry from Windows NT.

What @Dirty Dog was saying about windows being an overlay for DOS was true though, up until windows 95 released in 1994.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Are the following combo traditional or modern?

- right jab, left cross, right hook, left hook.
- left foot sweep, right roundhouse kick, right side kick.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Are the following combo traditional or modern?

- right jab, left cross, right hook, left hook.
- left foot sweep, right roundhouse kick, right side kick.

Yes.

 

[Steve]

Are the following combo traditional or modern?

- right jab, left cross, right hook, left hook.
- left foot sweep, right roundhouse kick, right side kick.

Are You wearing a skirt or pajamas when you do them? Do you yell a particular word? Do you bow before or after? Do you chamber the jab high agaonst the ribs or down on your hip, or not at all, because that's the way you do it? Do you believe that the sweep and roundhouse combo is refined through kata?

Most importantly, do you say things like, "it wouldn't exist if it didn't still work," or, "we don't learn to fight. We learn to not fight." Anything along these lines is an indication that martial skill isn't the highest priority now, and maybe never was.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Ok so I reject his definition of traditional, but I also reject his assertion that (as far as I understand his message to be) that anyone practicing an old system is doing so with the goal to preserve the system as it existed in the past, in spite of the possibility/probability that it is no longer relevant and does not work very well.

If that is part of his message, I completely disagree with that notion.

If I misunderstand him, I welcome some clarification.

I don't think that second part was part of his assertion. I think he was saying if you practice an old style for the purpose of preservation, that makes it (by his definition) "traditional", regardless of whether it's functional or not.

But maybe I misread it.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

If you have a student who comes to you and want to learn how to fight. Without teaching him any forms, you teach him

- jab, cross, hook, uppercut, ...
- foot sweep, roundhouse kick, side kick, back kick, ...
- finger lock, wrist lock, elbow lock, shoulder lock, ...
- hip throw, foot sweep, single leg, double leg, ...
- full mount, side mount, neck choke, arm bar, leg bar, ...

Are you teaching him the traditional way, or are you teaching him the modern way?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If you have a student who comes to you and want to learn how to fight. Without teaching him any forms, you teach him

- jab, cross, hook, uppercut, ...
- foot sweep, roundhouse kick, side kick, back kick, ...
- finger lock, wrist lock, elbow lock, shoulder lock, ...
- hip throw, foot sweep, single leg, double leg, ...
- full mount, side mount, neck choke, arm bar, leg bar, ...

Are you teaching him the traditional way, or are you teaching him the modern way?

That depends (see what I did there?). Are you teaching him the way you were taught? If so, you're getting toward my definition of traditional, though you're not necessarily there yet. If we use JGW's definition, if you're doing it with a focus on function, then you're teaching him "modern".

Though I think when we go from "modern/traditional art" to "modern/traditional way", we might have a different set of definitions to deal with. I can teach punches the traditional way, or the modern way. I tend to do both...with an approach that matches JGW's "modern" definition.

 

[Flying Crane]

I don't think that second part was part of his assertion. I think he was saying if you practice an old style for the purpose of preservation, that makes it (by his definition) "traditional", regardless of whether it's functional or not.

But maybe I misread it.

Ok, that I can agree with.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Are you saying that you train your system out of historical interest?

I train my system from a historical interest and a function interest. I do both. Here's an example. I like the history of a fighting systems, how it started, why, and what were the things that help distinguish it. I also like the forms that are passed own from teacher to student. To me that's cool. Practicing and training "the old way"

But I also train for function which in my case I have a lot training exercises that I've made on my own because of the benefit I get from it, in terms keeping the system functional.
For example. There is a video of me sweeping and you can hear my sifu say "we have to revisit the sweep because he was taught that the sweep had to always be low. ." My sweeps vary in height and I was successful with landing back sweeps without getting low as originally taught in Jow Ga Kung fu. No one in Jow Ga kung fun does the sweeps like I do. It's not taught. I don't care where you go, it's not taught. And if they do teach it then they probably got it from me by watching my videos. Traditionally Jow Ga back sweep is like this.

My sweeps allow me to keep more of my mobility. In addition to mobility. It allows me to do on various surfaces without putting strain on the spin. Notice he is doing the sweep on loose gravel. He wouldn't be able to do the same thing on concrete if his shoes have good grip. It would cause too much friction when he spins. My sweeps can be done on concrete regardless of how much grip my shoes have. My sweeps use a different body mechanic. When I teach students, I teach them the traditional sweep. When I teach them application I will teach them the functional sweep, which can be done on multiple types of surfaces. I would consider my sweeps modern as it doesn't show up in traditional Jow Ga kung fu.

Do you find your system to be lacking in relevance as a combative system?

No I don't find it lacking because I can use both traditional techniques and modern techniques that evolved from Jow Ga techniques. It would be lacking in relevance as a combative system if I could not evolve the techniques as needed.

I think what JWG is getting at is more about intent. So, if you find nothing lacking in the system you train in, there might be no observable difference between a "traditional" and a "modern" approach, as he has defined it.

Traditional and Modern fighting systems have nothing to do with if a system lacks something. Traditional music is not suppose to sound like modern music. To do so will no longer make it traditional. To me traditional is about keeping the old ways. Functional is about evolution. Here's an example. The first people to make Kung Fu systems did not practice the same forms that we do now. Why? Because the system evolved and sifu, fighters, and soldiers added to it. Jow Ga Kung Fu is a perfect example. Jow Ga Kung Fu was created in 1891 and it's made of 3 different martial arts systems that are blended together. This is not keeping tradition. This is evolution. This occurred because of the evolution of function.

The more you fight with a fighting system the better you get. The better you get, the more you'll begin to evolve, vs trying to keep things the same. What you are doing with NGA is a perfect example of how the focus of function helps a system to evolve. Your efforts of NGA is evolving the system, but you also like the traditional stuff. People won't understand me as long as they make Traditional vs Modern an "Either, Or" choice. The third option is Both.