"classic" martial art vs "modern" martial arts

[Stuarto101 2]

I may have “gone after” Mr Parker myself. No offense to you personally, but I am not a fan of the man and never have been.

Well, you may have, but it's better than going after him now that he's deceased. I never knew him personally but I know he made significant contributions to the arts, so he has my respect as a martial artist. Never having met him, I can't attest to his character.

 

[Stuarto101 2]

All I read was 'social media is a cesspool' and clicked agree.

We both agree!

 

[Wing Woo Gar82 5]

That still has an objective and an outcome.

I think there is a culture of martial arts that disguises those two concepts.

I think it’s more common than ever.

 

[isshinryuronin37 37]

Earlier, I said that a defining trait of traditional/classical styles is that they look back and prioritize fidelity over everything else.

It's possible that fidelity to a traditional style can include much of that "everything else." They are not mutually exclusive.

When I mentioned earlier that lineage can be irrelevant, I meant specifically in the context of instructional quality and what students actually learn. As you pointed out, there are schools whose demonstrations clearly show weaker training. Yet those same schools likely came from strong lineage at some point. It highlights how even a respected tradition can be disrupted if an instructor isn’t able to maintain the same level of quality.

Each generation of instructors in a lineage is like a link in a chain. A weak link can be detrimental to that style's succeeding generations. Even though a student down the line may have great ability and skill, he will be missing some things prior to the broken link. The transmission to him will be incomplete. If he is studious and dedicated to his art, he may have success in mending the chain to some degree.

I luckily grew up in the time when the senior instructors of various styles, if not friends, at least knew each other and there was incentive to maintain quality to uphold their reputation with their peers. My lineage has few links and each of those were strongly connected to our founding soke.

Traditional arts remain “traditional” because they seek to embody and transmit practices of the past — there are people who value that continuity, even if the criteria for modern functional testing differ.

While these criteria may have evolved over time as far as functional testing, there has been a trend for the past few decades to return to the historical ways (as sources of information have become available) to "rediscover" the functional art as it was pre-WWII and how it can be relevant in modern times. That DNA resides in the tradition waiting to be found.

 

[Steve]

It's possible that fidelity to a traditional style can include much of that "everything else." They are not mutually exclusive.

It's possible, but there has to be a path for folks to use the techniques. As I’ve said, in traditional teaching models, if there is conflict between fidelity and anything else, a traditional style will default to fidelity. In other words, doing it well may be important, but not as important as doing it the way your instructor says to do it.

Each generation of instructors in a lineage is like a link in a chain. A weak link can be detrimental to that style's succeeding generations. Even though a student down the line may have great ability and skill, he will be missing some things prior to the broken link. The transmission to him will be incomplete. If he is studious and dedicated to his art, he may have success in mending the chain to some degree.

Experience is what fills the gaps between knowing a technique and being able to use it. That’s why instructors who lacks real experience may not be as capable as they believe—and why they can’t substitute for the experience you need to develop your own skill.

A quick story to illustrate the point. If you’ve ever watched home‑improvement shows—This Old House with Bob Vila, for example—you know how simple they make everything look. A few decades ago, after watching one of those shows, I thought, “Tiling a backsplash looks easy. I'm going to take the plunge.” I did more research, bought what tools I could afford, bought (and read) a couple of books on tiling. And I did get it done… but only after running into problem after problem I never saw coming. The end result looked... fine, but it was a slog.

Since then, I’ve tiled multiple bathrooms, kitchens, and floors. I’m pretty good at it now—my work looks clean, and I know it’s done correctly. But even with all that experience, I’m still slower than a professional, and I’m sure there are tricks of the trade I haven’t learned.

Traditional martial artists are like me before that first project: they’ve learned techniques in a controlled environment but haven’t had to solve unpredictable, real‑world problems. The difference is that I could live with a mediocre backsplash for a few years. In a fight, the cost of overconfidence is much higher.

And it's a real dilemma. How does someone gain meaningful experience in a martial art when they rarely, if ever, get the chance to apply those skills under real pressure? Perhaps more importantly, how does this person ever teach someone else? Which leads to the next point.

I luckily grew up in the time when the senior instructors of various styles, if not friends, at least knew each other and there was incentive to maintain quality to uphold their reputation with their peers. My lineage has few links and each of those were strongly connected to our founding soke.

Back in high school, my friends and I used to dress up and perform The Rocky Horror Picture Show every Saturday at midnight at the Neptune Theater in Seattle. We all had our own VHS copies of the movie—copies of copies of copies—each one dubbed ten or twelve times. And every time someone made a new tape, the quality got a little worse. The picture fuzzed out, the audio warped, and the details blurred.

Traditional martial arts can develop in a similar way. Techniques get passed down from teacher to student in successive generations, and without grounding in real experience (both instructor and student), the details can drift—not out of neglect, but simply through the natural process of transmission.

When someone in the lineage brings in fresh, practical experience, it can be like going back to a cleaner source. It also, inevitably, creates a lot of tension within the traditional organization and often will result in a schism of some sort.

While these criteria may have evolved over time as far as functional testing, there has been a trend for the past few decades to return to the historical ways (as sources of information have become available) to "rediscover" the functional art as it was pre-WWII and how it can be relevant in modern times. That DNA resides in the tradition waiting to be found.

I'd love to hear more about how they're functionally testing the styles now. That sounds interesting. I will admit that I'm skeptical, but genuinely curious.

 

[isshinryuronin37 37]

You've brought up some good realistic points.

doing it well may be important, but not as important as doing it the way your instructor says to do it.

As an instructor, I agree . "Well" is often defined by the instructor but the validity depends entirely on his skill and knowledge. Kind of a crap shoot for the student. I've been lucky.

Traditional martial arts can develop in a similar way. Techniques get passed down from teacher to student in successive generations, and without grounding in real experience (both instructor and student), the details can drift—not out of neglect, but simply through the natural process of transmission.

This is a reality. It's important to maintain ties with the history/tradition with an educated eye to reign in this drift as much as possible. The intent needs to be kept in mind. This is separate from the point below.

I'd love to hear more about how they're functionally testing the styles now.

Common attacks (McCarthy's HAPV, habitual acts of personal violence) such as punches and grabs, have not changed much over time and so most old karate techniques are still applicable. Modern attackers do have increased awareness of MA due to media exposure, but without dedicated training will not be able to put it to practical use under stress.

Some aspects of function have changed over time and so the testing metrics have as well. Some TMA such as kenjutsu cannot be completely functionally tested as death would be the result. Arts of "do" are judged on prescribed adherence to particular form/technique/spirit. In sport, it's tested by points.

As far as self-defense oriented TMA goes, working with a resisting partner is the closest one can come during practice. Full execution is often not possible, techniques having to be stopped/softened prior to contact in order to keep the target in continued working condition. Sport competition can offer some functional testing as well, but even in full contact this is only partial due to required rules.

I have never trained to be a professional fighter or even serious sport competitor (though I've done my share of it). I enjoy my karate as a physical pastime and based on my experience in functionality have a realistic view of my fighting potential - I'm fairly confident that I'm one dangerous septegenarian.

 

[Wing Woo Gar82 5]

It’s very easy to generalize “traditional” and whatever that means to an individual. What is “modern” vs modernized? Many students of “traditional” arts have done quite well in combat sport, if that is the measure we choose. The bottom line is combat sport got the vast majority of their tech from traditional arts. Those arts were taught and developed before combat sports in their current iteration. The developers of those arts and techniques learned by transmission in their respective lineages. This incontrovertible fact legitimizes traditional arts by this measure of useful or usable in combat sport. Combat sport was not born of the void, it exists because of traditional transmission, not despite it. Discounting this fact is both disingenuous and misleading. Let’s be honest, combat sport has found new techniques and improved on old ones for their applications. There would be nothing to improve upon or foundation from which to innovate without traditional methods being transmitted in traditional ways for so many successive generations. Nothing wrong with learning the old way or the new way depending on what your desires and goals are. Both should be respected for what they offer. Some folks want a new Ferrari, others prefer a classic antique Ferrari, both can be super cool and get you somewhere. They are both still Ferraris. You wouldn’t have the cool new ones without the classic old ones.

 

[Kung Fu Wang147 178]

Those arts were taught and developed before combat sports in their current iteration.

Agree!

One day I thought I invented "rhino guard"

until I saw this video.

 

[drop bear146 22]

Each generation of instructors in a lineage is like a link in a chain. A weak link can be detrimental to that style's succeeding generations. Even though a student down the line may have great ability and skill, he will be missing some things prior to the broken link. The transmission to him will be incomplete. If he is studious and dedicated to his art, he may have success in mending the chain to some degree.

I luckily grew up in the time when the senior instructors of various styles, if not friends, at least knew each other and there was incentive to maintain quality to uphold their reputation with their peers. My lineage has few links and each of those were strongly connected to our founding soke.

If we are talking pure functionality. The chain itself is the weakness. And we see the same issue with modern systems.

(Looking at you industry trainers)

Basically if you are developing a system from the top down. (Instructor to student) you kind of get what only one person can do.

If you develop a system from the bottom up. (Student to instructor.) You get what 50 dudes in that class can do.

And this is if everyone is 100% able to perform what the instructor performs. And they can't.

Now of course that makes training completely unmanageable if everyone is trying to take the class.

Exept when we go back to pressure testing. And give everyone a chance to experiment.

Nobody any good is the result of one guy anymore.

 

[Wing Woo Gar82 5]

If we are talking pure functionality. The cgain itself is the weakness. And we see the same issue with modern systems.

(Looking at you industry trainers)

Basically if you are developing a system from the top down. (Instructor to student) you kind of get what only one person can do.

If you develop a system from the bottom up. (Student to instructor.) You get what 50 dudes in that class can do.

Now of course that makes training completely unmanageable if everyone is trying to take the class.

Exept when we go back to pressure testing. And give everyone a chance to experiment.

Except some systems that aren’t combat sport also use this model and always have. Pressure testing isn’t unique to combat sport. There aren’t two different systems, there are literally hundreds. So we can’t define through generalizations like traditional vs modern as a result. We can pick out individual systems and critique them by any number of rubrics. The problem there is that such critique runs dangerously close to fraud busting in some cases. If we talk about one system vs another, I would think that is very useful to the individual practitioners actually doing the testing based on my own experiences. I found strengths and weaknesses in my own game and also in the other systems tested against me. I’m always willing to include useful info. My instructors were quite willing to discuss and integrate value into the system. When it comes to doing it their way, again, you learn the rules to break them. Not much point in innovation without foundation. I’m of two minds in this discussion, but I think it’s valid and valuable to talk about it in terms that allow for the new without discarding the old.

 

[Steve]

It’s very easy to generalize “traditional” and whatever that means to an individual. What is “modern” vs modernized? Many students of “traditional” arts have done quite well in combat sport, if that is the measure we choose. The bottom line is combat sport got the vast majority of their tech from traditional arts. Those arts were taught and developed before combat sports in their current iteration. The developers of those arts and techniques learned by transmission in their respective lineages. This incontrovertible fact legitimizes traditional arts by this measure of useful or usable in combat sport. Combat sport was not born of the void, it exists because of traditional transmission, not despite it. Discounting this fact is both disingenuous and misleading. Let’s be honest, combat sport has found new techniques and improved on old ones for their applications. There would be nothing to improve upon or foundation from which to innovate without traditional methods being transmitted in traditional ways for so many successive generations.

If you like what you're doing, then by all means, go for it.

Nothing wrong with learning the old way or the new way depending on what your desires and goals are. Both should be respected for what they offer.

Hear, hear.

Some folks want a new Ferrari, others prefer a classic antique Ferrari, both can be super cool and get you somewhere. They are both still Ferraris. You wouldn’t have the cool new ones without the classic old ones.

To stretch the analogy a bit, I don’t think this is really about old cars versus new cars. In this case, all the cars are old.

It’s more like the difference between a car that’s regularly driven and one that sits in the garage. Or maybe it's more like the gap between owning a Ferrari, and having access to a track where you can learn to drive it the way it was designed to be driven.

Not everyone who owns a fast car has the opportunity—or the environment—to explore even a fraction of its capabilities. No one argues they shouldn’t own it if they want to, but they also overestimate their own skill level at their peril.

But even that comparison doesn’t quite capture it.

 

[isshinryuronin37 37]

Basically if you are developing a system from the top down. (Instructor to student) you kind of get what only one person can do.

A combat designed TMA such as karate was not developed by one guy, but rather by many masters coming from different streams/skillsets, pressure tested, refined and modified over the course of a few hundred years. (Granted, some of the modifications after 1900 did not improve the combat applications of the art, reflecting other goals than self-defense.) It is an accumulation of much seasoned knowledge and experience. I don't think anyone here will dispute that a kick to the nuts, elbow to the head or arm break are effective in combat (more on this will follow).

If you develop a system from the bottom up. (Student to instructor.) You get what 50 dudes in that class can do.

Talking about a developing system (say, less than 80 years old) is much different and here we find some agreement. Input, experimentation and testing are needed each step of the way whether it's beginning from scratch to figure out what works or cherry-picking from other already-established systems to figure out how best to combine them. BTW, this last point will end up not being system specific but rather based on the individual's nature.

Speaking of (but not limited to) Okinawan karate as a general fighting system, it is rather fully developed in its core fundamentals, construct and purpose - there are few effective strikes, grabs or kicks that remain to be invented, the lexicon of techniques already being very extensive (overly so, IMO). I see that it's not the system that needs more developing and testing, but the individual - his physical ability, mental bearing and tactical acumen in employing what the established traditional art provides.

 

[drop bear146 22]

A combat designed TMA such as karate was not developed by one guy, but rather by many masters coming from different streams/skillsets, pressure tested, refined and modified over the course of a few hundred years. (Granted, some of the modifications after 1900 did not improve the combat applications of the art, reflecting other goals than self-defense.) It is an accumulation of much seasoned knowledge and experience. I don't think anyone here will dispute that a kick to the nuts, elbow to the head or arm break are effective in combat (more on this will follow).

So why did that change?

 

[Same Trick93 44]

Are ppl saying that practitioners of classic/traditional MA’s, say Japanese Koryu that practice with razor sharp swords should actually free spirited try to cut each other down as pressure testing, if they don’t do that it ain’t MA ?

 

[isshinryuronin37 37]

So why did that change?

Not sure what you're referring to as two things were mentioned so I'll give the quick answers to both:

The 1800's development - The art had been refined to effectively address the civilian self-defense needs of the time though some minor refinement continued.

Post 1900 modifications - Karate became a public institution in schools and competition so some types of techniques were toned down in many schools in the interest of safety. Japan changed the art from combat "jutsu" to "do" stressing more personal development like exercise and self-discipline, partially to help prepare the young for upcoming war with China and WWII.

Edit: Additionally, the art's commercialization in the 1950's onward encouraged making it easier for the general masses and casual practitioner.

 

[Kung Fu Wang147 178]

So why did that change?

The reason of changing can be as simple as trying to cover more combat issues.

Combat Shuai Chiao (created 45 years ago) is a good example of modern MA. It adds kick/punch back into throwing. The only difference between CSC rules and Sanda rules is "no 3 seconds clinching time limitation".

The interest thing is after the change has done, it's hard to go back. Students are no longer be interested in throwing only art.

Tradition SC:

Modern CSC:

 

[drop bear146 22]

Not sure what you're referring to as two things were mentioned so I'll give the quick answers to both:

The 1800's development - The art had been refined to effectively address the civilian self-defense needs of the time though some minor refinement continued.

Post 1900 modifications - Karate became a public institution in schools and competition so some types of techniques were toned down in many schools in the interest of safety. Japan changed the art from combat "jutsu" to "do" stressing more personal development like exercise and self-discipline, partially to help prepare the young for upcoming war with China and WWII.

Edit: Additionally, the art's commercialization in the 1950's onward encouraged making it easier for the general masses and casual practitioner.

If they went from a collaborative experiment system to a fixed system.

Then traditionally they should go back to an experimental one.

 

[Steve]

Are ppl saying that practitioners of classic/traditional MA’s, say Japanese Koryu that practice with razor sharp swords should actually free spirited try to cut each other down as pressure testing, if they don’t do that it ain’t MA ?

I haven’t seen anyone say this. As you say, this would be very impractical. And without this, it’s reasonable that koryū sword training doesn’t build the kind of adaptable, timing‑driven sword skill people sometimes attribute to it. Given how impossible it is to recreate the original combat context, it makes more sense to view koryū as a cultural preservation practice rather than a functional fighting system. If practitioners are focused on maintaining the tradition rather than cultivating battlefield‑ready skills, that’s completely valid — preserving the culture has real value even if the combative side can’t be fully expressed anymore.

 

[Kung Fu Wang147 178]

If practitioners are focused on maintaining the tradition rather than cultivating battlefield‑ready skills, that’s completely valid — preserving the culture has real value even if the combative side can’t be fully expressed anymore.

This is a good question.

During the ancient Chinese time, people took striking away from the Chinese wrestling sport and made it into a safe wrestling sport. Today, we put striking back into Chinese wrestling.

Are we truly changing the traditional Chinese wrestling? Or are we just bringing the Chinese wrestling back to what it was before?

 

[Same Trick93 44]

I haven’t seen anyone say this. As you say, this would be very impractical. And without this, it’s reasonable that koryū sword training doesn’t build the kind of adaptable, timing‑driven sword skill people sometimes attribute to it. Given how impossible it is to recreate the original combat context, it makes more sense to view koryū as a cultural preservation practice rather than a functional fighting system. If practitioners are focused on maintaining the tradition rather than cultivating battlefield‑ready skills, that’s completely valid — preserving the culture has real value even if the combative side can’t be fully expressed anymore.

Yes of course, no one expects to get into actual fight with sharp Japanese swords or swords in general, but we’re not lost to what a sword is.

Although it was a sharp japanese sword that got me into the martial arts I never really practiced/studied the Japanese sword(just some bokken(wooden stick shaped as a Japanese sword) within aikido), but I do think I clearly can see when watching paired kata of Japanese koryu sword methods there’s an intense focus on getting and harness the importance of timing and positioning, that’s perhaps because I have to some degree engaged myself to the sport side within the karate practice I used to be into, and I do get the impression that quite a few doing koryu actually have kendo and judo experience and out of that see the martial reality within those traditional Japanese martial arts ?

Actually I would think even if one do not have a previous (sport)martial arts background one would quite easily over any reason of preserving a cultural tradition actually see the martial seriousness within those koryu martial arts .