Same here.
Absorb What is Useful
- Thread starter Xue Sheng
- Start date
Taiji Rebel
2nd Black Belt
A lot of martial arts teachers are part-timers, not full-time professionals. It is clear that somebody who leads a few classes a week alongside their full-time job will not have the time, or inclination to experiment and adapt the practices taught to them by their instructors. The founder's were often playing with and testing different methods to techniques and evolving them as they continued their explorations. Each of the founders were obviously seeking their own truth by experiencing different styles and approaches to the arts. To become the founder of an art one must be taking a different approach than others, don't you think?
I don’t think teaching a MA exactly as it was handed down is a bad thing. In fact, I had to swear an oath to do so. This doesn’t mean that I didn’t experiment with other systems and feel comfortable teaching some of these techniques to my advanced students that are interested. The MA was passed to them exactly as it was passed to me. They can now grow from there.
Yes. But I have no desire to become a founder. If I did, I would found my own art, not change the art I am learning.
From time to time, we hear from people who do just that. They study this, they study that, they decide they have a better idea and introduce their own art. It doesn't offend me, but it's not for me.
That's horrible. Now that's historical teaching. Like when I was a kid and my family went to hist[rical Virginia and dressed and talked as people did Hundreds of years ago. They were trying to create an environment that makes visitors feel like they stepped back in time.
For the person you speak of. It would be like a basketball team that never improves how it's players shoot the ball. Never moving from the under throw and the two hand shot. Martial artists that do things like that will never contribute to the advancement, evolution, or longevity of the system. I would question their focus as well. My first thoughts is that they don't seek function from their martial are.
If a wheel serves a function for us then we will always try to develop that wheel so that we improve its function. If a person doesn't seek function the a stone wheel with Cracks would be acceptable as they have no desire to use it anyway.
If they seek function then they would naturally strive for improving function of existing techniques.
Taiji Rebel
2nd Black Belt
This type of quote seems to encourage cross-training conversations. Of course there are folk out there who love investigating various forms of fighting arts, but you also have those who stick with one art for their entire lives. There is no right or wrong, we are attracted to the martial arts for many different reasons; all of which are 100% valid.
The Dan Inosanto article which opens this thread does point its readers toward the benefits of training in different arts in order to absorb what is useful. However, I've often thought it is entirely possible to apply this quote to a single martial art form. How many of us truly use every technique we have ever learnt in our system? Out of all the strikes, kicks, blocks, locks and throws we all have our preferences. There are some techniques we learn in order to pass a grading and never use again. We absorb what is useful to us as individuals and discard techniques which are not to our liking.
If you have fought in competitions then you will know from experience which methods and skills work best for you, if not then take the time to watch some fights and see how many techniques each fighter uses from their own style - it will be a limited amount and those used will be the ones best fitting to the individuals in question.
Just another thought or two to share on an interesting, yet sometimes controversial topic.
The Dan Inosanto article which opens this thread does point its readers toward the benefits of training in different arts in order to absorb what is useful. However, I've often thought it is entirely possible to apply this quote to a single martial art form. How many of us truly use every technique we have ever learnt in our system? Out of all the strikes, kicks, blocks, locks and throws we all have our preferences. There are some techniques we learn in order to pass a grading and never use again. We absorb what is useful to us as individuals and discard techniques which are not to our liking.
If you have fought in competitions then you will know from experience which methods and skills work best for you, if not then take the time to watch some fights and see how many techniques each fighter uses from their own style - it will be a limited amount and those used will be the ones best fitting to the individuals in question.
Just another thought or two to share on an interesting, yet sometimes controversial topic.
Not sure what you mean here. Are you saying thst they aren't traditional changes? Or that you didn't make changes to traditions?
Fungus
Black Belt
That would be similar to in science when people sometimes say "Einstein was wrong" etc. Thus you indirectly think of yourself as better.
But I see it differently. I think there is no need to disrepect masters or great minds by saying they were wrong etc. Instead of thinking that I am not authorized to "question" the heritage of other great minds before me, I rather see it as a responsibility as a serious student, to manage the legacy we are given, and carry and develop it into the future. I like to think that it is was the masters would have hoped for. To get followers that can continute their work, question and develop, into the future, but in the same spirit.
We would also I think hope that our kids don't just follow us, but LEARN from us, keep the best lesson but if possible make something either BETTER than we did, that I think would be the ultimate way to honour the legacy we are given.
isshinryuronin
Senior Master
So, you don't think you're on a level with "Bushi" Matsumura, security agent for the king of Okinawa, who engaged in mortal combat with pirates? Or Motubu who vanquished his opponents in dozens of street fights? Or even Shimabuku who studied with the masters of Shorinryu, Gojuryu and Tomari-te and had some street creds of his own? Gee, Bill, maybe you're a little low on self-esteem
.I think there are few things left to invent in MA. Most of the evolution is just recombining or reprioritizing things from other styles or arts. But much educated and experienced knowledge is required to do this effectively. Some changes are done to facilitate sport aspects or make it easier for most people to learn giving the art a new purpose. Is this new "art" now "non-traditional?" You can take any style and add some moves from another art. Is this a new non-traditional style, or just the same style with some extra stuff thrown in, like adding croutons to a salad?
There are those that say, "that move makes no sense" in fighting and change it. Many times they just don't understand the move, not having been taught what the move is really for. Their change may allow them to do the thing they have in mind but negate the three things the master had in mind.
Non-traditional styles are based on changing or combining traditional styles. Those traditional styles were at one point considered non-traditional and were themselves based on older traditional styles. Perhaps when people say a particular currently "traditional" style is not effective it's because it was once a "non-traditional" style that changed something in the traditional style/s it was based on, and during that change something in that original style was changed or lost.
I think that if we dig far enough into a style's history and the intent of the masters who were a part of its evolution, the answers to many of its perceived shortcomings will be found, whether it be grappling or short-range striking, or flow, etc. Maybe we don't need a new style, just rediscover the old. It seems touting to be "non-traditional" has become a tradition.
PS: Note that I used the words, "Many, most, maybe, some, etc." as I'm not for a draconian ban on change as TMA is a product of evolution. Just that we remain humble in the company of Masters and be careful what we discard or add without the necessary wisdom.
Last edited:
I have no problem with that, but call it something different. It's not the art it was anymore. Anyone who joins thinking that's what they are getting is being cheated.
In my brief time, I have run into many advanced black belts who changed certain movements in kata and even basic exercises because they felt they had a better way.So, you don't think you're on a level with "Bushi" Matsumura, security agent for the king of Okinawa, who engaged in mortal combat with pirates? Or Motubu who vanquished his opponents in dozens of street fights? Or even Shimabuku who studied with the masters of Shorinryu, Gojuryu and Tomari-te and had some street creds of his own? Gee, Bill, maybe you're a little low on self-esteem
I think there are few things left to invent in MA. Most of the evolution is just recombining or reprioritizing things from other styles or arts. But much educated and experienced knowledge is required to do this effectively. Some changes are done to facilitate sport aspects or make it easier for most people to learn giving the art a new purpose. Is this new "art" now "non-traditional?" You can take any style and add some moves from another art. Is this a new non-traditional style, or just the same style with some extra stuff thrown in, like adding croutons to a salad?
There are those that say, "that move makes no sense" in fighting and change it. Many times they just don't understand the move, not having been taught what the move is really for. Their change may allow them to do the thing they have in mind but negate the three things the master had in mind.
Non-traditional styles are based on changing or combining traditional styles. Those traditional styles were at one point considered non-traditional and were themselves based on older traditional styles. Perhaps when people say a particular currently "traditional" style is not effective it's because it was once a "non-traditional" style that changed something in the traditional style/s it was based on, and during that change something in that original style was changed or lost.
I think that if we dig far enough into a style's history and the intent of the masters who were a part of its evolution, the answers to many of its perceived shortcomings will be found, whether it be grappling or short-range striking, or flow, etc. Maybe we don't need a new style, just rediscover the old. It seems touting to be "non-traditional" has become a tradition.
PS: Note that I used the words, "Many, most, maybe, some, etc." as I'm not for a draconian ban on change as TMA is a product of evolution. Just that we remain humble in the company of Masters and be careful what we discard or add without the necessary wisdom.
However, when doing seminars with those same people, where we explored bunkai for the original movements, I discovered that they didn't even know the bunkai of the moves they chose to change. Reinforcing what you said, they changed the art, closing off what was clearly part of the art, because they did not understand or had not been taught it.
I have seen a lot of 'surface' karate, even at my low level. Karate that is simply what it appears to be, no more and no less, and no curiousity about what movements they don't understand might be used for.
There are those who think deeply about the bunkai, who inspect and break down and test theories to see what might work, then train to perfect those applications. You might say that they 'discard what is not useful', but it's an entirely different thing in that they are not discarding any of the movements, simply their own theories about what a particular movement might be used for which turned out to not be the case. These are the technicians I admire the most. They change nothing; they strive to understand what was there all along.
Some are happy with omote bunkai. It is what it is. A block is a block, a punch is a punch. And that's fine. Those things actually work. But that doesn't confer an understanding to the level that one can simply change it to better suit themselves. They are throwing away the oyo bunkai which they have never even explored. It's like rewriting a book based on Cliff's Notes, having never read the novel themselves.
OP
OP
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
I'm not an advanced black belt, but I've changed 2 taijiquan forms I learned one because I have an extensive Traditional Yang style background and the postures of the Beijing 24 form were just screaming to be more traditional and a few transitions needed to be added, still thinking of adding something to make if smoother, at least to me. Another, short Sun style form, because the transition into the posture made no sense, therefore the posture made no sense, to me based on my XIngyiquan background. And the kick in it seemed to be more for flash than function, so that was eliminated all together and a couple more traditional Sun Style kicks were added later. Also completely changed a 13 postures form, but that is currently a work on progress. I think it is to be expected as someone trains, and due to body type differences, to add, change and remove things based on experience
isshinryuronin
Senior Master
This is fine for that individual. In actual application form moves are expected to be slightly modified to fit the situation, the individual's body and ability and even preference. But when taught to others it should be passed on in its original form as taught by that style's current master. If you pass on your personal changes and your student does the same, and then his student, the integrity, meaning and effectiveness of the form will soon be broken.
Taiji Rebel
2nd Black Belt
Traditional arts often require us to follow the form exactly. This is definitely how the Japanese martial artists I've met think and approach life. If the founders of those styles were still alive and practising their art, do you think they would have modified their approach after all these years - or do you believe they would still be executing the techniques in the exact same manner as they did in the 1900s?
OP
OP
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
Define original.
My Yang style lineage comes from Tung Ying Chieh. My Shifu was his student, also my shifu was good friends with and taught with Tung Ying Chieh's oldest son Tung Hu Ling, in Thailand, Tung Ying Chieh was a student of Yang Chengfu. Tung Ying Chieh's long form was not exactly like Yang Chengfu's long form, and Tung Ying Cheih developed a couple forms of his own. Tung Hu Ling's long form did not look like his fathers, but Tung Hu Ling did tell my Shifu that his form looked more like Tung Ying Chieh's
Even Yang Chengfu changed what his family did to a different form and go back further, Yang Luchan changed Chen style to get Yang style. And don't get me started on what Sun Lutang took, put together and changed.
Tung Hu Ling designed his own forms, some on the fly to make people go away and leave him alone. Talking with my Shifu (now in his 90s) about the differences in the forms, he said no two people are alike and no two people have the same bodies, therefore there will be differences.
isshinryuronin
Senior Master
I did:
All current forms have been modified, but they have been changed by masters who knew the previous form intimately and based the changes on their extensive overall TMA knowledge and experience. You don't bring your Ferrari to be tuned up by the neighborhood mechanic.
Last edited:
isshinryuronin
Senior Master
Yes. Forms are a flexible template, a main road with various turnoffs that allow for detours to handle various obstacles. If you change the main road, chances are those detours will be lost and your drive will be less efficient or even make reaching your destination impossible.
The founders were masters. See my previous post above.
Taiji Rebel
2nd Black Belt
Master is a strange term and one often used in martial arts. A lot of martial arts devotees hold their founders in high regard. One only need look at Morihei Ueshiba to see how far this admiration can drift into myth-making. In some texts and tales we are led to believe the founder of Aikido was able to dodge bullets and defeat attackers without touching them. In some clubs I have heard absolute nonsense repeated by students who hold their masters up as superheroes. Those who follow traditional styles (or choose to stick with a single system) often refuse to believe in change. One disadvantage of only training in a single style is you are likely be caught in an echo chamber - in many ways it is similar to attending church or following a specific religion.
Branching out and studying other styles is one thing. Changing the style that you were taught is another.
Similar threads
