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.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.Apparently I touched a nerve. You okay, @Dirty Dog?
You seemed upset. Glad to hear you’re not. It’s okay to disagree.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.
Seemed upset? How so? All I did was click "Disagree"... Do people have to be upset to disagree with you?You seemed upset. Glad to hear you’re not. It’s okay to disagree.
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. ❄️Seemed upset? How so? All I did was click "Disagree"... Do people have to be upset to disagree with you?
Wrong again. I don't dislike you.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.
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. 😀Wrong again. I don't dislike you.
Traditional is about containing ritual basically. And that removes all the fluff about age and subjectivity.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.
Physics for Martial Arts playlist.Which method of scientific enquiry are we to use - can you please give some valid examples to add context to your statement?
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’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.
In a broad sense, this is true, but it's more nuanced than this.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.
couple of thoughts. First, I’d say there’s a distinction between process and ritual.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.
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?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.
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.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 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.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 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.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.
Everything within our experience operates within the laws of physics. This includes martial arts.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Not normally, but in the case of Jeet Kune Do that was part of the style's philosophy.When you describe something as traditional, do you mean that it is experimental?
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."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?