Absorb What is Useful

[Dirty Dog4]

Apparently I touched a nerve. You okay, @Dirty Dog?

Of course. I disagree with you, which is why I clicked "Disagree", but I also know it's pointless to spend the next 374 pages arguing with you. No nerves involved.

 

[Steve]

Of course. I disagree with you, which is why I clicked "Disagree", but I also know it's pointless to spend the next 374 pages arguing with you. No nerves involved.

You seemed upset. Glad to hear you’re not. It’s okay to disagree.

 

[Dirty Dog4]

You seemed upset. Glad to hear you’re not. It’s okay to disagree.

Seemed upset? How so? All I did was click "Disagree"... Do people have to be upset to disagree with you?

 

[Steve]

Seemed upset? How so? All I did was click "Disagree"... Do people have to be upset to disagree with you?

Okay. For someone who’s not upset, you seem determined to keep this little back and forth going. You can have it. Have a nice evening. Go play in the snow.

If you care to discuss the topic at hand, I’d love that. Happy to answer a question, if you have one that is on topic.

 

[Steve]

I’m curious. It seems I may have a controversial perspective on tradition.

Do folks here think things that are traditional are forward looking or backward looking? Not just martial arts. I mean anything.

When you describe something as traditional, do you mean that it is experimental?

What about the person to whom the quote in the OP is attributed. Wasn’t he a student of Bruce Lees? Was Bruce Lee a traditionalist?

Dirty dog likes to make things personal. I get it. He doesn’t like me very much and the feeling is mutual. Xue posted an interesting quote and Bill asked some thoughtful questions. I’m really more interested in that than whatever is going on now.

 

[Dirty Dog4]

I’m curious. It seems I may have a controversial perspective on tradition.

Do folks here think things that are traditional are forward looking or backward looking? Not just martial arts. I mean anything.

When you describe something as traditional, do you mean that it is experimental?

What about the person to whom the quote in the OP is attributed. Wasn’t he a student of Bruce Lees? Was Bruce Lee a traditionalist?

Dirty dog likes to make things personal. I get it. He doesn’t like me very much and the feeling is mutual. Xue posted an interesting quote and Bill asked some thoughtful questions. I’m really more interested in that than whatever is going on now.

Wrong again. I don't dislike you.

 

[Steve]

Wrong again. I don't dislike you.

Awesome. Let’s be friends. In the spirit of friendship, would you care to help me get this back on topic? I posted a few questions above.

 

[drop bear105]

I’m curious. It seems I may have a controversial perspective on tradition.

Do folks here think things that are traditional are forward looking or backward looking? Not just martial arts. I mean anything.

When you describe something as traditional, do you mean that it is experimental?

What about the person to whom the quote in the OP is attributed. Wasn’t he a student of Bruce Lees? Was Bruce Lee a traditionalist?

Dirty dog likes to make things personal. I get it. He doesn’t like me very much and the feeling is mutual. Xue posted an interesting quote and Bill asked some thoughtful questions. I’m really more interested in that than whatever is going on now.

Traditional is about containing ritual basically. And that removes all the fluff about age and subjectivity.

Of course scientific method is also ritual. It is set down in a prescribed manner to follow.

You just kind of not have to train stupid.

 

[Taiji Rebel]

"In the early 50's and 60's, most martial arts were prejudiced against other methods or were too proud to learn another style. It is a pity, because I feel you can learn from every contact you make. I believe you owe your allegiance to truth, knowledge and personal growth. Some people give their alliance to their style or to their instructor. I feel this is a noble gesture, as long as it doesn't restrict your quest for total knowledge. I believe you owe your allegiance to personal growth as well as to a particular style, system or person" - Dan Inosanto

 

[marvin83]

Which method of scientific enquiry are we to use - can you please give some valid examples to add context to your statement?

Physics for Martial Arts playlist.

 

[_Simon_104]

I’m curious. It seems I may have a controversial perspective on tradition.

Do folks here think things that are traditional are forward looking or backward looking? Not just martial arts. I mean anything.

When you describe something as traditional, do you mean that it is experimental?

What about the person to whom the quote in the OP is attributed. Wasn’t he a student of Bruce Lees? Was Bruce Lee a traditionalist?

Dirty dog likes to make things personal. I get it. He doesn’t like me very much and the feeling is mutual. Xue posted an interesting quote and Bill asked some thoughtful questions. I’m really more interested in that than whatever is going on now.

No not controversial at all Steve. It's a very good point, and something to ponder, especially as we all may practice from a certain tradition.

I hear Russ Smith speak on this quite a bit (practioner and teacher of a few arts), and I like his take on it. Says that tradition is a launching point, and isn't about worshipping the ashes, but tending to the flame. Using tradition as your foundation and as a springboard to development, learning and evolution.

"Rather than understanding their relationship with a living tradition, many abandon tradition altogether...

Part of the reason for this over-correction is that so many see tradition as a limitation on what they are allowed to do, rather than a launching point for growth.

Tradition, for many, is interpreted in a way that is too stifling, inhibiting growth, learning, and free expression.

It doesn't have to be that way."

Log in or sign up to view

See posts, photos and more on Facebook.

www.facebook.com

And a bit longer vid on tradition:

Log in or sign up to view

See posts, photos and more on Facebook.

www.facebook.com

 

[Gerry Seymour11]

Sure. One may be curious within the orthodoxy, but that is t what was brought up in the OP. In the context of keeping what works and discarding what doesn’t… orthodoxy is actively antithetical to that goal.

In a broad sense, this is true, but it's more nuanced than this.

Firstly, this assumes folks' direct and primary interest is in simply learning fighting skills. I'll agree that's a part of it for most folks, but if they chose BJJ or Karate or Boxing or whatever, there's a reason. Part of that reason usually has to do with their interest in that specific style. That interest may be because they think it's "the best" (or at least "the best" at some context), but it's my experience that most folks are interested in it because of how they perceive folks in that style. When I started in MA, Karate was exotic, so studying "Karate" (which term, honestly, included all eastern MA, for the uneducated looking to start) felt cool. So a bunch of people got into it at least in part (meaning pretty much any MA that didn't wear street clothes or boxing shorts) because it felt cool.

Sometimes that perception was just the mystery of it. Something seemed different from what they could directly understand, so they wanted to find out about it - they wanted "in". Boxing doesn't have that sense of mystery - most of us can right away figure out how to punch, and have done so without any training (though likely not very well), but it's unlikely we palm-heeled, chopped, or threw a side kick out of instinct.

And once we found that thing that interested us, part of the interest was learning how to work within it. Like trying to figure out how to play pretty music only in minor keys. It can be done, but it's a bit harder than in a major key.

Now we get to the absorb/discard. I love to work within the bounds of NGA as I perceive those bounds. My perception is distinctly different from my instructors'. Much of what I trained and taught was very "traditional", in the sense that I kept much of it as close to what I was taught as possible. The challenge was to decide which uses of those things were least useful, and discard those - then to find things in other styles that mated with the core of the art (so fit the traditional approach) and absorb them.

I think strong instructors in traditional arts tend to do a lot of discard and absorb, but it's hard to see unless you're familiar with what they've seen. I'd look at TKD forms from several instructors and never see where one of them had discarded some things that had crept in and interfered with how the principles are best taught; or had found better explanations than they received, and absorbed those into their teachings.

But, yes, those of us looking to adhere - even somewhat - to tradition will definitely discard less and absorb less than someone who decides to abandon (not using that term derogatorily) the tradition and freely adopt whatever works best for them. And there are systems with less tradition in them (BJJ vs Judo, for instance), and those systems will more readily adapt and adopt, and will also be less recognizable over time.

I'll also point out that the absorb/discard process should be happening for every student within every system. There will be things that are effective for "people" that won't be particularly useful for a specific person. They will learn that, but discard it from their personal set of go-to techniques - the techniques they found useful and absorbed into that set.

 

[Steve]

Traditional is about containing ritual basically. And that removes all the fluff about age and subjectivity.

Of course scientific method is also ritual. It is set down in a prescribed manner to follow.

You just kind of not have to train stupid.

couple of thoughts. First, I’d say there’s a distinction between process and ritual.

And scientific method is intrinsically forward thinking. It encourages the experimentation mentioned in the OP.

 

[gyoja]

couple of thoughts. First, I’d say there’s a distinction between process and ritual.

And scientific method is intrinsically forward thinking. It encourages the experimentation mentioned in the OP.

If I am reading your responses correctly, your point is that although a TMA stylist may learn techniques outside of their system, they don’t modify their base system. You may see this as a limitation to the base system. Am I correct or am I way off base here?

 

[Steve]

In a broad sense, this is true, but it's more nuanced than this.

Firstly, this assumes folks' direct and primary interest is in simply learning fighting skills. I'll agree that's a part of it for most folks, but if they chose BJJ or Karate or Boxing or whatever, there's a reason. Part of that reason usually has to do with their interest in that specific style. That interest may be because they think it's "the best" (or at least "the best" at some context), but it's my experience that most folks are interested in it because of how they perceive folks in that style. When I started in MA, Karate was exotic, so studying "Karate" (which term, honestly, included all eastern MA, for the uneducated looking to start) felt cool. So a bunch of people got into it at least in part (meaning pretty much any MA that didn't wear street clothes or boxing shorts) because it felt cool.

Sometimes that perception was just the mystery of it. Something seemed different from what they could directly understand, so they wanted to find out about it - they wanted "in". Boxing doesn't have that sense of mystery - most of us can right away figure out how to punch, and have done so without any training (though likely not very well), but it's unlikely we palm-heeled, chopped, or threw a side kick out of instinct.

And once we found that thing that interested us, part of the interest was learning how to work within it. Like trying to figure out how to play pretty music only in minor keys. It can be done, but it's a bit harder than in a major key.

Now we get to the absorb/discard. I love to work within the bounds of NGA as I perceive those bounds. My perception is distinctly different from my instructors'. Much of what I trained and taught was very "traditional", in the sense that I kept much of it as close to what I was taught as possible. The challenge was to decide which uses of those things were least useful, and discard those - then to find things in other styles that mated with the core of the art (so fit the traditional approach) and absorb them.

I think strong instructors in traditional arts tend to do a lot of discard and absorb, but it's hard to see unless you're familiar with what they've seen. I'd look at TKD forms from several instructors and never see where one of them had discarded some things that had crept in and interfered with how the principles are best taught; or had found better explanations than they received, and absorbed those into their teachings.

But, yes, those of us looking to adhere - even somewhat - to tradition will definitely discard less and absorb less than someone who decides to abandon (not using that term derogatorily) the tradition and freely adopt whatever works best for them. And there are systems with less tradition in them (BJJ vs Judo, for instance), and those systems will more readily adapt and adopt, and will also be less recognizable over time.

I'll also point out that the absorb/discard process should be happening for every student within every system. There will be things that are effective for "people" that won't be particularly useful for a specific person. They will learn that, but discard it from their personal set of go-to techniques - the techniques they found useful and absorbed into that set.

I agree. What I would add (and my only real point here) is what you said in your penultimate paragraph. I’m glad you are saying it. Perhaps some folks will appreciate it more from you than from me.

 

[Steve]

If I am reading your responses correctly, your point is that although a TMA stylist may learn techniques outside of their system, they don’t modify their base system. You may see this as a limitation to the base system. Am I correct or am I way off base here?

I don’t think it’s a weakness. In sales terms, there are features and benefits. I’d call it a feature. Whether it benefits someone is subjective. Some folks appreciate tradition.

But if you are a guy, like how Bruce Lee is described, who craves experimentation, and you are locked into a traditional system, there is conflict.

 

[gyoja]

I don’t think it’s a weakness. In sales terms, there are features and benefits. I’d call it a feature. Whether it benefits someone is subjective. Some folks appreciate tradition.

But if you are a guy, like how Bruce Lee is described, who craves experimentation, and you are locked into a traditional system, there is conflict.

I see your point. I have learned a lot from other systems and have incorporated those techniques into my own TMA. With that said, I teach the TMA exactly like it was passed down to me. As was done with me, when I promote a student to Cho Dan, I encourage them to explore other systems.

 

[Flying Crane]

Physics for Martial Arts playlist.

Everything within our experience operates within the laws of physics. This includes martial arts.

However, what this fellow described in the video is nothing more than introductory physics, even using the typical impact descriptions of “which would generate more force, a car moving at 5 mph vs. a heavier truck moving at 5 mph” that you would find in an introductory physics course. He didn’t make any real connection to the martial arts with this introductory physics. He tried. It was extremely non-specific, which gives nothing that is actually useful. Is an understanding of physics useful, and worthwhile in its own right? Absolutely. But trying to marry the equations to martial methods is something that I believe is a largely fruitless and pointless exercise.

It is no mystery, nor is it the exclusive realm of the physicist that if you punch a target that is moving toward you, you will land the strike with more force than if the target is stationary or moving away from you (assuming all other factors are equal). Trying to point to Newton’s laws to describe such an interaction in the chaos of combat is rather meaningless.

Aside from this exercise being largely pointless, in my opinion, my cynical side suspects it is more about trying to claim a higher level of sophistication in one’s methods. “look at us! We aren’t just brutish brawlers (like the rest of you Neanderthals)! We are HIGHLY EDUCATED SCIENTISTS!! See??!! I am using NEWTON’S LAWS OF PHYSICS!!”

This is pointless and can very quickly become downright nonsense, and I hate to say it but it seems like the kenpo lineages (which the fellow in the video is part of) tend to go down this kind of path more than others Ive seen.

 

[Fungus96]

If I have any issue with “traditional” arts it’s that their proponents aren’t curious. The belief is that style provides the answers, and it’s just simply a matter of sticking with it long enough to learn them.

Haha! This reminds me of what I used to accuse "engineering" students for, when taking physics classes. There was engineering students, and there was science students. We both learned the same topics, but with somewhat different purposes.

Engineering students just wanted to learn and master methods, they were not really curious about learning how methods was constructed and why. They didn't ask as many "why" questions as the science students, who wanted to understnad the methods constructing principes, for the purpose of improving them.

I have a feeling the same might apply to MA students. I think there are those as you describe, but there are also those that seek understanding beyond - sometimes for mental satisfaction, or for learning the principles, and use them to form their own understanding.

Everything within our experience operates within the laws of physics. This includes martial arts.

However, what this fellow described in the video is nothing more than introductory physics, even using the typical impact descriptions of “which would generate more force, a car moving at 5 mph vs. a heavier truck moving at 5 mph” that you would find in an introductory physics course. He didn’t make any real connection to the martial arts with this introductory physics. He tried. It was extremely non-specific, which gives nothing that is actually useful. Is an understanding of physics useful, and worthwhile in its own right? Absolutely. But trying to marry the equations to martial methods is something that I believe is a largely fruitless and pointless exercise.

This comparasion suits me fine. I am someone who seeks constructing principle behind physical law, just as I do in martial arts. I do kyokushin but it's still up to me what I do with it. Just as I learned MORE from understanding how the thinking process of legendary physicists than from text books, I try to extract more than the superficial also when talking to our master instructors. It's not what they do that is important for me, but why.

We know the saying that on top of the MA moutain, it's the same think, wether you walked the path of kung fu, or karate... same with phycist of you consider the concept of unification of all fundamental interactions at the big bang. This is an open question in physics, and maybe also in MA? Has anyone ever reache the top of hte MA mountain in one life time? Or does is it the responsibilit of the followes to continue the journey?

I'm a physicist myself with a focus on foundations of physical law, and the interest in the constructing principles and logic of MA is a perfect match for me, from a philosophical perspective.

I am not here to learn techniques, or methods, I am here to learn a way of thinking; applies both to science and MA in the exact same way for me. (this is of ours alot deeper than newtons mechanics, which is justu as superficial as is the foot angles of the perfect stance)

 

[marvin83]

I’m curious. It seems I may have a controversial perspective on tradition.

Do folks here think things that are traditional are forward looking or backward looking? Not just martial arts. I mean anything.

Backward looking by definition: following or belonging to the customs or ways of behaving that have continued in a group of people or society for a long time without changing.

When you describe something as traditional, do you mean that it is experimental?

Not normally, but in the case of Jeet Kune Do that was part of the style's philosophy.

What about the person to whom the quote in the OP is attributed. Wasn’t he a student of Bruce Lees? Was Bruce Lee a traditionalist?

Yes, Inosanto was his student. No, Bruce was against the "classical mess" as he wrote in his article "Liberate Yourself From Classical Karate by Bruce Lee."

I believe modern MMA follows JKD's philosophy. Because, Its purpose is to make use of any technique or strategy in order to defeat an opponent quickly and efficiently in a fight. Also while analyzing fights, MMA views skills, tactics and strategies without limiting them to styles. If I wanted to learn JKD, I would want the instructor to know and teach me essential fighting skills without having to take additional classes in other styles.

Greenville Academy of Martial Arts
Sep 10, 2020

Oh yeah, we went there. Mr. Inosanto starts with the flawed assumption that, just because we might not be able to hit as hard as Bruce Lee, means that we can't (and shouldn't) do Jeet Kune Do the way that Bruce Lee did, and therefore, we need to study different martial arts systems and find our own path. Mr. Inosanto is wrong on this one and in this video Sifu Jason Korol will tell you why this is so and what you should do about it.