"classic" martial art vs "modern" martial arts

[Dirk WHKD Barmbek]

How would you define differences between "classic" and "modern" marital arts?

Thinking about it, everything starts modern in a way as a reaction of certain threats using available means to defend against them - the own body or maybe weapons or everyday tools that become weapons trained to use them in an efficient way.

Some things always remain important and have to be learned to fight successfully. Like moving the own body, making steps, keeping balance... Everything necessary to be able to strike before been hit. Keeping and taking care for the critical distance, overcome it in a way again to strike before been hit.

Is it the adopting to the kind of threat that is changing (like there are more knives in the streets or more willingness to use them nowadays then years ago) that turns something classic into modern?

What is it for you that makes the difference between "classic" and"modern" marital art? It's there a difference? Are they one again in the end? Do they just morph into each other and back again?

Would love to hear about your thoughts.
Thank you in advance!

 

[skribs113 134]

Are we being technical, or are we being functional?

Technically, Taekwondo is a relatively modern martial art, having originated in the 1960s. This puts it as a much more modern art than boxing, which has existed for thousands of years, or something like Pankration, which was the ancient Greek version of MMA.

However, when we tend to think of things as "classic" or "modern", we tend to think of them based on the style matching what we would typically see in martial arts in the movies from the Kung Fu era vs. what we typically see in UFC. The term that gets used more is "traditional" vs. "modern". The typical distinction is: is it a sport that effectively simulates a real fight, either through full-contact grappling or through the pursuit of knockouts, or is it not? Additionally, is the curriculum scripted through forms, one-steps, and other rote material, or are there a specific set of techniques and concepts that cover the core of the class.

Arts that are not built around competition fit into traditional. In my experience in Hapkido, there was no competition, very little in the way of actual sparring, and the curriculum was taught verbatim. As a white belt you learned sequences #1-#27, and to get your yellow belt you had to do these sequences. If the Master called "Do #4", you would have to instruct the uke on where to grab you so that you can execute technique #4.

Similarly, arts like Taekwondo or Karate do have competition, but those competitions are largely or completely focused on points. You often cannot hit the head, and in arts where you can, it's often limited by belt and/or contact level. For example, in World Taekwondo it's only legal to go for knockouts at black belt level in upper age brackets. Most "modern" arts have point systems, but those point systems are secondary to knockout, pin, or submission.

Arts that are built around competition tend to be considered "modern", because these types of arts allow for modernization of training techniques and fighting styles. I included two types of martial art in this group:

• Full-contact grappling arts, which generally means BJJ, wrestling, or Judo. While wrestling doesn't have submissions, it is very good at positional advantages and very good at going against a resisting, trained opponent.
• Knockout sports, in which you are headhunting your opponent to try and score a KO, such as boxing, kickboxing, or Muay Thai.
• Sports that include both, such as MMA.

I have a very long history in Taekwondo and a relatively long history with Hapkido. Recently my focus has been on BJJ. I've also dabbled with wrestling, Muay Thai, kickboxing, and MMA. Here's what I've found: it really doesn't matter, unless you have very specific goals. If you are expecting to be in fights (sanctioned or unsanctioned), it matters, and you need to tailor your training specific to those goals. If you want to punch and kick your way to fitness, challenge yourself physically and mentally, and make new friends in a new community, the specific style doesn't matter. Finding the right school, teachers, environment; that's what's important.

 

[Dirk WHKD Barmbek]

Are we being technical, or are we being functional?

Technically, Taekwondo is a relatively modern martial art, having originated in the 1960s. This puts it as a much more modern art than boxing, which has existed for thousands of years, or something like Pankration, which was the ancient Greek version of MMA.

However, when we tend to think of things as "classic" or "modern", we tend to think of them based on the style matching what we would typically see in martial arts in the movies from the Kung Fu era vs. what we typically see in UFC. The term that gets used more is "traditional" vs. "modern". The typical distinction is: is it a sport that effectively simulates a real fight, either through full-contact grappling or through the pursuit of knockouts, or is it not? Additionally, is the curriculum scripted through forms, one-steps, and other rote material, or are there a specific set of techniques and concepts that cover the core of the class.

Arts that are not built around competition fit into traditional. In my experience in Hapkido, there was no competition, very little in the way of actual sparring, and the curriculum was taught verbatim. As a white belt you learned sequences #1-#27, and to get your yellow belt you had to do these sequences. If the Master called "Do #4", you would have to instruct the uke on where to grab you so that you can execute technique #4.

Similarly, arts like Taekwondo or Karate do have competition, but those competitions are largely or completely focused on points. You often cannot hit the head, and in arts where you can, it's often limited by belt and/or contact level. For example, in World Taekwondo it's only legal to go for knockouts at black belt level in upper age brackets. Most "modern" arts have point systems, but those point systems are secondary to knockout, pin, or submission.

Arts that are built around competition tend to be considered "modern", because these types of arts allow for modernization of training techniques and fighting styles. I included two types of martial art in this group:

• Full-contact grappling arts, which generally means BJJ, wrestling, or Judo. While wrestling doesn't have submissions, it is very good at positional advantages and very good at going against a resisting, trained opponent.
• Knockout sports, in which you are headhunting your opponent to try and score a KO, such as boxing, kickboxing, or Muay Thai.
• Sports that include both, such as MMA.

I have a very long history in Taekwondo and a relatively long history with Hapkido. Recently my focus has been on BJJ. I've also dabbled with wrestling, Muay Thai, kickboxing, and MMA. Here's what I've found: it really doesn't matter, unless you have very specific goals. If you are expecting to be in fights (sanctioned or unsanctioned), it matters, and you need to tailor your training specific to those goals. If you want to punch and kick your way to fitness, challenge yourself physically and mentally, and make new friends in a new community, the specific style doesn't matter. Finding the right school, teachers, environment; that's what's important.

Thank you a lot for your inspiring answer and the time you've given to me answering my question.


I totally agree with your words. For oneself it's important to know what is wanted. If I want to experience tournaments with competitions to win against someone else by points or knockout, I need to find a school that's tailors its training to bring success in this regard.

Visiting tournaments and joining competitions in point-fighting kickboxing parallel to the competitions in traditional forms/kata I got the feeling that we leave out a lot when we only train for winning against someone else.

The part you mention about physical and mental challenges in training might differ in traditional learning goals and the ones that are reduced to competition. Personal growing, becoming better compared to myself before instead of just comparing to the opponent in a fight is timeless and can be experienced at least better in practicing traditional forms, I'd assume.
Maybe we can take this as the traditional core of all kinds of martial arts? The personal development, the personal growing that helps living by understanding contexts in life.

 

[BrendanF2]

If I want to experience tournaments with competitions to win against someone else by points or knockout, I need to find a school that's tailors its training to bring success in this regard.

Of course. I think the 'sports/traditional' distinction is inaccurate. I'm a member of a 400 year old jujutsu ryuha, which was heavily involved with the creation of Judo, and whose members (including myself) largely train in Kodokan Judo in addition to the jujutsu.

Centuries ago (in Japan), if one was interested in competition, there was Sumo.. which most practiced for fun anyway. The simple distinction was that sports like Sumo (or wrestling etc) were fun, non-lethal ways of letting off steam. Real martial arts was training to seriously injure or kill others.

Typically overlooked these days is the fact that, any efforts to mitigate harm/damage to training partners in training dangerous martial arts requires modification of technique. In principle this seems obvious - this is more evident in weapon-based arts. The classical example is kendo - in traditional Japanese sword arts, attacks target weak points in yoroi (Japanese armour). Kendo has solely 'points' scored when striking the top of the armoured head, the top of the armoured wrist, the armoured torso, and so on. The kenjutsu I practice attacks the side of the neck, the armpit, the groin, the (unarmoured) underside of the wrist - the points where armour must by definition articulate, and is therefore weak.

The point being - in order to 'spar' with swords, one must wear armour, and strike armoured areas - in principle the opposite of what we train to do in koryu kenjutsu.

In Judo, we practice the kuzushi/throws and submissions/pins/breaks of koryu jujutsu, without ever training the more dangerous techniques still handed down in 'classical' jujutsu. My teacher points out that the training methods 'oppose' each other - in order to train dangerous techniques, we train cooperatively/safely, but having 'sanitised' the technical curricula, Judo allows us to train competitively/dangerously.

In the end though, as you wrote it is all one.

 

[Gyakuto114 123]

I can only talk about Japanese martial arts. There are facets that are historical, spiritual and intentional and they are on a long continuum rather than defined by discrete definitions. For convenience, I’ll very loosely try to make the transitions appear discrete.

1) Historically any martial art founded after around 1850 is modern (Budo) anything before is classical (Bujutsu).

2) Spiritually, the classical schools emphasised combat readiness over ‘spiritual development’ unless that development refined combat readiness! Budo have the idea of character improvement being central to their performance.

3) Intentionally, classical arts were about killing one’s enemy to protect one’s liege lord’s vested interests and honour and one’s own life. Modern arts emphasis health, spiritual development/morality, aesthetics, sport, social cohesion etc

I once saw an NHK programme about this very topic and they had a set of very clear cut criteria. In order they were-

Budo emphasises morals —> discipline -> aesthetic form

Bujutsu emphasises combat readiness -> discipline -> morals

I’d go a bit further and say the classical arts tend to be static, fixed, unchanging because the thought is that their techniques were forged in the fires of actual lethal combat by the warrior elite, steeped in martial practise. Those techniques that didn’t save the life of the executant disappeared in a Darwinian fashion, those that did were passed down within the school. The attitude is who we, latter day exponents, ordinary people who’ve never experience war or lethal combat, to modify the ideas of those that did?

Budo is freer to adapt it’s ideas to modern environmental factors, to evolve and be better adapted to the modern world whether that is sport, urban self defense in modern attire and footwear and on nice flat surfaces or pure aesthetics thus producing many, diverse modern arts.

 

[Dirk WHKD Barmbek]

Of course. I think the 'sports/traditional' distinction is inaccurate. I'm a member of a 400 year old jujutsu ryuha, which was heavily involved with the creation of Judo, and whose members (including myself) largely train in Kodokan Judo in addition to the jujutsu.

Centuries ago (in Japan), if one was interested in competition, there was Sumo.. which most practiced for fun anyway. The simple distinction was that sports like Sumo (or wrestling etc) were fun, non-lethal ways of letting off steam. Real martial arts was training to seriously injure or kill others.

Typically overlooked these days is the fact that, any efforts to mitigate harm/damage to training partners in training dangerous martial arts requires modification of technique. In principle this seems obvious - this is more evident in weapon-based arts. The classical example is kendo - in traditional Japanese sword arts, attacks target weak points in yoroi (Japanese armour). Kendo has solely 'points' scored when striking the top of the armoured head, the top of the armoured wrist, the armoured torso, and so on. The kenjutsu I practice attacks the side of the neck, the armpit, the groin, the (unarmoured) underside of the wrist - the points where armour must by definition articulate, and is therefore weak.

The point being - in order to 'spar' with swords, one must wear armour, and strike armoured areas - in principle the opposite of what we train to do in koryu kenjutsu.

In Judo, we practice the kuzushi/throws and submissions/pins/breaks of koryu jujutsu, without ever training the more dangerous techniques still handed down in 'classical' jujutsu. My teacher points out that the training methods 'oppose' each other - in order to train dangerous techniques, we train cooperatively/safely, but having 'sanitised' the technical curricula, Judo allows us to train competitively/dangerously.

In the end though, as you wrote it is all one.

Thank you, an interesting inside view to jujutsu ryuha and judo!
And very interesting the different dealing with lethal techniques in different styles.

 

[drop bear114 53]

Classic martial arts have ritual. Belts, bowing, kata some sort of ceremony.

Modern martial arts do not.

So say wrestling or boxing that are like 50, 000 years old. Are Modern and karate that is 100 years old is classic.

 

[Gyakuto114 123]

Classic martial arts have ritual. Belts, bowing, kata some sort of ceremony.

Modern martial arts do not.

So say wrestling or boxing that are like 50, 000 years old. Are Modern and karate that is 100 years old is classic.

Trash talking each other at the preflight press conference and post-fight interview saying, “…he was a better fighter on the day and I wasn’t ready…”, facing off, nose to nose with that silly stern look on their faces is a solemn, much respected ritual/ceremony

 

[Dirk WHKD Barmbek]

I can only talk about Japanese martial arts. There are facets that are historical, spiritual and intentional and they are on a long continuum rather than defined by discrete definitions. For convenience, I’ll very loosely try to make the transitions appear discrete.

1) Historically any martial art founded after around 1850 is modern (Budo) anything before is classical (Bujutsu).

2) Spiritually, the classical schools emphasised combat readiness over ‘spiritual development’ unless that development refined combat readiness! Budo have the idea of character improvement being central to their performance.

3) Intentionally, classical arts were about killing one’s enemy to protect one’s liege lord’s vested interests and honour and one’s own life. Modern arts emphasis health, spiritual development/morality, aesthetics, sport, social cohesion etc

I once saw an NHK programme about this very topic and they had a set of very clear cut criteria. In order they were-

Budo emphasises morals —> discipline -> aesthetic form

Bujutsu emphasises combat readiness -> discipline -> morals

I’d go a bit further and say the classical arts tend to be static, fixed, unchanging because the thought is that their techniques were forged in the fires of actual lethal combat by the warrior elite, steeped in martial practise. Those techniques that didn’t save the life of the executant disappeared in a Darwinian fashion, those that did were passed down within the school. The attitude is who we, latter day exponents, ordinary people who’ve never experience war or lethal combat, to modify the ideas of those that did?

Budo is freer to adapt it’s ideas to modern environmental factors, to evolve and be better adapted to the modern world whether that is sport, urban self defense in modern attire and footwear and on nice flat surfaces or pure aesthetics thus producing many, diverse modern arts.

Thank you for sharing this!
It's interesting to think from this angle that marital arts were invented because of the need to survive. Therefore the power and the control of the mind is very necessary to fight successfully as the possibility to get killed needs to be handled in perfect mind control.
While nowadays the so called modern styles claim to be superior to traditional ones it is very interesting to think about all this being conscious of the original background.

 

[Gyakuto114 123]

Thank you for sharing this!
It's interesting to think from this angle that marital arts were invented because of the need to survive. Therefore the power and the control of the mind is very necessary to fight successfully as the possibility to get killed needs to be handled in perfect mind control.

Yes, I think we forget the martial arts were simply a tool to kill an enemy with minimal danger to the user. For a civilised human, killing another person is psychologically difficult, (there’s lots of research literature about the modern military using ‘dehumanizing’ training methods to overcome this reluctance to kill fellow human beings) . Think how much harder that must be if you’re required to kill for a cause or an ideology imposed externally (“you must kill and/or die for you leige lord and his values without question or hesitation”). So there was much indoctrination of samurai using the teachings of Confucianism regarding filial responsibilities and, by extension, to one’s leige lord, to achieve this unquestioning sacrifice. The physical and psychological training of the samurai would’ve been important in this mindset, too. It’s quite chilling really!

While nowadays the so called modern styles claim to be superior to traditional ones it is very interesting to think about all this being conscious of the original background.

It really is like Darwinian evolution which states the survival of the best adapted (and not the fittest that is often cited). The Orca is a perfectly adapted alpha predator of the oceans. Put a Orca in a tropical rainforest and it wouldn’t last long against other animals and the environment! ‘Modern styles’ would be useless in feudal conflicts because they didn’t develop and evolve in those environments. Feudal martial arts would be useless in, say modern warfare or even competition; they didn’t develop in those circumstances.

 

[Kung Fu Wang114 145]

How would you define differences between "classic" and "modern" marital arts?

TMA - You develop foundation first. You learn combat application later. The problem of this approach is, you may have excellent foundation. But your combat ability can be weak. You have built a house with solid foundation, but you can't finish your roof.

Modern MA - You develop foundation and learn combat application at the same time. The problem of this approach is, you may become a good fighter, but your foundation is not solid.

Which approach is better? I have always told my students that while they are still young, they should try to accumulate as much combat experience as they can. One day when they get old, they can come back to me. I can then teach them as many forms as they may like to learn.

I prefer the modern MA approach myself. If you miss that window to accumulate combat experience when you are still young, you may lose that opportunity for the rest of your life. Your youth will not wait for you to spend 20 years to build your solid foundation. If you try to stay in your elementary school until you can make all A grade, you may never have chance to go to your high school.

 

[BrendanF2]

Classic martial arts have ritual. Belts, bowing, kata some sort of ceremony.

Modern martial arts do not.

So say wrestling or boxing that are like 50, 000 years old. Are Modern and karate that is 100 years old is classic.

That is absolutely not what those words mean.

Interestingly, I was watching a DEVGRU operator teach CQB/shooting technique. It was literally ALL kata. It amazes me how drastically misapplied that word is by 'modern/mma' fanboys. They don't seem to realise that virtually all of their learning is done through kata..

 

[drop bear114 53]

Trash talking each other at the preflight press conference and post-fight interview saying, “…he was a better fighter on the day and I wasn’t ready…”, facing off, nose to nose with that silly stern look on their faces is a solemn, much respected ritual/ceremony

Good point.

 

[drop bear114 53]

That is absolutely not what those words mean.

Interestingly, I was watching a DEVGRU operator teach CQB/shooting technique. It was literally ALL kata. It amazes me how drastically misapplied that word is by 'modern/mma' fanboys. They don't seem to realise that virtually all of their learning is done through kata..

Dead drills are as bad for guns as it is for fighting.

Just guns do so much heavy lifting. It is less noticeable.

 

[BrendanF2]

Dead drills are as bad for guns as it is for fighting.

Just guns do so much heavy lifting. It is less noticeable.

Ah yes.. that's the problem. The tier one operator doesn't know how to combat shoot.

 

[Badhabits]

Easy way to think about- If it has classical or traditional in the name, it's an Asian art.

 

[gspell68]

I pretty much consider anything that came after UFC 1 near the end of 1993 as a modern martial art.

There is almost no “traditional” martial arts training such as Shotokan, or any Japanese/Okinawan style, or even TKD in my city of 200K people.
Most are MMA of some sort or a McDojo franchise.
There was a Tang Soo Do place that looked legit, but COVID wiped it out.

 

[drop bear114 53]

Ah yes.. that's the problem. The tier one operator doesn't know how to combat shoot.

Have you seen him combat shoot?

 

[millieIZ0]

I kinda see it as old systems vs new priorities. Classics feel more tradition-heavy, modern stuff is more like “does this work right now?” Neither is wrong, just different goals. And yeah, they blur a lot more than people admit.

 

[Kung Fu Wang114 145]

TMA - Solo training and combat training may be different. You learn solo form from your teacher.
Modern MA - You train exactly the way as you will fight. You create your own solo form.

The modern MA tries to kill 2 birds with 1 stone which is a good idea IMO.

Example of TMA training - training != fighting.

Example of modern MA training - training = fighting.