How would you define differences between "classic" and "modern" marital arts?
Okay, this is what I came back for... there's a lot of things said over the course of this thread that, shall we say, bear clarification at the least...
We'll start here, at the beginning, and then, well, we'll see where we get. So, the difference between "classic" and "modern" martial arts? Presuming we mean "classical", the dominant difference is the age... however, it is also perhaps important to note that most of what we consider or refer to as "martial arts" these days, other than a variety of traditions from Japan, are almost entirely modern in that sense. In fact, Japanese martial arts are the only ones I can think of that define them in such ways. Of course, if we meant "traditional" and "modern", that's a different thing... and not really a separation, or distinction, more a couple of non-mutually exclusive categorisations... in other words, traditional arts can be modern or older, modern arts can be traditional, or non-traditional... what a modern art cannot be is a classical one, and vice versa.
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.
To be honest, this thinking is quite surface-level, and largely based in fantasy and misunderstanding... in terms of not only how martial arts develop, but what a martial art is in the first place. But, no, it may surprise you to learn, no martial art is developed as "a reaction to certain threats", or really even as a defensive method against such threats... that would be incredibly limiting, short-sighted, short-lived, and lacking in value.
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.
This makes the assumption that the primary reason for the martial art is "to fight"... which is not always an accurate assumption, and one that people tend to go to without first coming to any kind of understanding that "to fight" is not a singular type of thing, and combative context can, and does, vary to a huge degree.
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?
Again, "modern" refers to a timeline definition... as does "classical"... although, it must be said that "modern" can also refer to methodology, as opposed to "traditional" as a methodology... so it would be useful to keep the terminology consistent and accurate. Assuming we're talking about "modern" and "traditional" as methodologies, then, firstly, no, they cannot "morph" into each other... for that to happen, you have to literally create a new art. An art can, however, utilise both traditional and modern methodologies, which is where I feel a lot of confusion comes in. Additionally, due to the wide variety and range of arts that fall into both categories, blurring can easily occur.
Would love to hear about your thoughts.
Thank you in advance!
That's a start... we'll see if we can flesh it out a bit as we go.
Are we being technical, or are we being functional?
How are you defining these? A plain reading would be that "technical" is the mechanical methodologies, and "funcional" would be the application of said actions and mechanical methodologies... or are you meaning contextual application, which may be seen as being distinct from the seeming technical applications and training methods?
Technically, Taekwondo is a relatively modern martial art, having originated in the 1960s.
Hmm... this is a true statement if looking purely at age... which makes it a "technically true" statement, but makes me think your categories of "technical/functional" is more about perceived age than anything else... of course, I say "perceived" for a few reasons...
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.
Except that boxing, as we understand it today, has not "existed for thousands of years"... the modern form traces back to 1867 and the adoption of the Marquess of Queensbury ruleset... the first sanctioned bare-knuckle contest (the real fore-runner of modern boxing) was recorded as taking place in 1641, still far from "thousands of years", and even the "boxing" seen in the late 19th Century would be almost unrecognisable to todays boxing format (that really dates from early 20th Century onwards, with the 20's starting to take shape as we would expect, albeit with much lower guards common, and a few other stylistic differences. Pankration (Game of All Powers) was more a rough ruleset for a combination wrestling/striking contest in early records of the original Olympic games, and hasn't existed for some 2 millenia, so... not so much a thing either. It's also not clear as to any real consistency in training methodologies that would identify it as a "system"... but all modern forms were invented in the 1990's or later, so... not a case to be made there.
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.
Do we?
The term that gets used more is "traditional" vs. "modern".
Agreed. However...
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.
Yeah, so... not so much this at all. Let's break it down.
"A sport that effectively simulates a real fight". So, we've now ruled out... all of them. Cool. Look, no sport "effectively simulates a real fight". It can't. All it can do is present a limited facsimile of some aspects of combative engagement, albeit divorced from combative reality for reasons that are simply common sense (safety, primarily, but also in cases spectator engagement, judging or refereeing clarity and consistency, and so on).
"Either through full-contact grappling or through the pursuit of knockouts". So, is that the only competition method that counts? And is it the only form that makes something "modern"? "Traditional" arts don't do competitions, or use one that doesn't have "full contact grappling or the pursuit of a knockout"? So, is Judo a "modern" martial art, or a traditional one? It has competitive aspects that have "full contact grappling", but also has kata, judo-gi, and so on. How about TKD? Is it not a "modern" martial art, being developed in the 1950's and 60's? It has competition, but rarely "full contact", so... what is it?
"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" Er... you mean the specific set of techniques (forms, one-steps, and other rote material) that cover the core of the class, or...? Do you think that modern (sporting, using your definition above) arts don't use such teaching approaches? What do you think shadow boxing, bag work, rope drills, and combination work are in boxing?
Arts that are not built around competition fit into traditional.
Okay... how about systems such as Krav Maga? Modern RBSD approaches such as Richard Dmitri's Senshido? Deane Lawlers R-Sult system? How about modern knife systems, such as Michael Janich's MBC? Piper? Amok?
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.
Ah, so Hapkido was "traditional" because (among other things) there was no competition... except... here is a document from the World Hapkido Association with 24 pages of rules and regulations for the holding of tournaments (
https://www.worldhapkido.com/Tournament r&r05.pdf)... so, maybe just your Hapkido group, and others are modern? And, as far as learning the curriculum of the school in order to, well, progress through the curriculum in the school, that means... what? That there's a curriculum of the school to cover? (Oh, and if you had to tell your partner the attack, then perhaps your partner wasn't as far along as they should have been... but that's the Japanese side of my arts coming out).
I gotta say, though, of course it was verbatim, especially at that level... it's absolute beginner, and you're teaching the art. What did you expect them to do? Put everyone in a pit and see who walks out in the morning?
Similarly, arts like Taekwondo or Karate do have competition, but those competitions are largely or completely focused on points.
So is boxing. And Judo. And BJJ. And MMA today. Can you win other ways? Yep. But there are judges to make point-based decisions there as well... so you know.
You often cannot hit the head, and in arts where you can, it's often limited by belt and/or contact level.
Same in MMA in most cases (age, experience etc). Same with BJJ (certain techniques can't be used at lower ranks, as the control hasn't been learnt to do them safely). Boxing often starts with no head punching as well, and when introduced, with heavy safety equipment used. For the record, in Kendo, thrusts (which only score to the throat) aren't legal to be used by anyone below 3rd Dan.
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.
Again, this is no different to other ("modern") competitive systems and approaches...
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.
Judo? Kendo? These "allow for modernisation of training techniques and fighting styles? Fencing? Aikido is a modern (traditonal) martial art that is not based around competition... same with Krav Maga and others listed above.
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.
Leaving off that that's three categories, not two, all this is is competitive formats, not martial arts themselves. I mean, you're classing Judo as "modern", but not TKD (about 60-70 years younger), due to the distinction of how "real" you think the competitive format is? Is that what we're getting from you here?
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.
This, I 100% agree with and thoroughly endorse. Every system is highly contextual... and none of them are for "self defence" (a much large conversation), so the training being designed for the application is the real key, and is a big part of what separates one system from another. But the most important thing is that you enjoy it, and it fits what you need it to be.
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, Iâll 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).
I appreciate that you said "very loosely", but, eh, I'm more of a stickler...
Koryu (Classical Schools) are arts that have their foundation date pre the Meiji Restoration of 1868 (some use the Hattorei Edict of 1873, a few go further to designate "true Koryu" as only arts that predate the Tokugawa Jidai of 1600 onwards), and Gendai (Modern) arts were founded afterwards. Whilst it is true that the nomenclature of Koryu systems tended to feature "jutsu" as a suffix (such as Bujutsu - "martial arts"), and Gendari systems tend to have "do" as a suffix (as in Budo - "martial ways"), the actual distinction is not a practical one in the main, and has more to do with shifting culture than anything else. For example, the Daito Ryu comes from after the Meiji Restoration, and use the jutsu suffix... there are arts listing themselves as Koppojutsu (not Takamatsuden Koto Ryu, for the record) founded in the 1970's... also arts such as Hiko Ryu Taijutsu, founded in 1952... we also have listing of "Judo" in Jikishinkage Ryu documents from the 1740's... Musashi wrote about the "Way of the Sword" (Ken no Michi, another way of saying Do) in the mid 1600's... then we also have the sub-category of Shinbudo...
2) Spiritually, the classical schools emphasised combat readiness over âspiritual developmentâ unless that development refined combat readiness! Budo have the idea of character improvement being central to their performance.
Hmm... this, I disagree with. I know it's the common wisdom, however it just doesn't bear out when looking at the various examples around. Most koryu traditions would be based around some religious location (shrine, mountain, etc), and typically linked with a particular deity or another. The idea of spirituality being intrinsic to the art was always a common aspect, to the point that, in some schools I'm familiar with, you cannot progress to higher levels in the school without also being ordained as a priest in the form of Shinto the schools are linked to. The idea of a Hono Embu, or a more public one, was more about a votive offering to the kami (deities) than showing any other people what you were doing...
By contrast, many "modern" martial artists may take umbrage at the idea of "combative skills" or "readiness" not being central to their study... and, while lip service may be paid to "personal development", it rarely, in my experience, goes much beyond that, other than some typically vague statements about "character" in senior ranks (not that that stops some less-than-savoury individuals from gaining such ranks...).
3) Intentionally, classical arts were about killing oneâs enemy to protect oneâs liege lordâs vested interests and honour and oneâs own life.
Were they? Is Shindo Muso Ryu about "killing one's enemy"? If that occured, was it done to "protect one's liege lord" or similar? How about the schools of Hojojutsu, such as Ittatsu Ryu, where the idea is to bind up a captured enemy? No killing there... How about Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu? While the idea of killing the enemy is a part of it, the real core of the school treats that as almost a failure in the first place... you should be strong enough to prevent the physical conflict in the first place. Additionally, it famously never linked itself to any political faction such as a Daimyo or domain lord, so... how does that work out?
Modern arts emphasis health, spiritual development/morality, aesthetics, sport, social cohesion etc
They can, or they can't. It really depends on the art itself. Health? Talk to anyone who's done Judo for years about how their body is holding up.. Spiritual development and morality? Again, lip service, with more actual attention paid to it in classical systems that are rooted in spiritual teachings in the main. Aesthetics? This one is more likely, but, again, depends entirely on the teacher and art... sport? Not all modern arts have that... Aikido, as an immediate example (save for Tomiki/Shudokan, of course)... Social cohesion? One of the most consistent values in koryu is the health and well-being of the group (the ryu), how you fit into the group itself... while modern arts can essentially become social clubs, koryu are about the social cohesion found in the school itself.
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 â> discipline -> aesthetic form
Bujutsu emphasises combat readiness -> discipline -> morals
Yeah... what we have to remember is that the NHK show (Sports Japan) with Alex Bennett was a simple paraphrasing of the broad strokes that Donn Draeger had put together to introduce the concepts in the 60's and 70's... it was neither exhaustive, nor necessarily accurate when looking at examples in reality. It was designed for a largely lay-person audience to give them a simple grasp on the ideas, and introduce the concept of classical arts... it was not meant to be the reality of the situation. One would hope that, here, we are a bit more than a lay-person...
Iâd 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 didnât 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 whoâve never experience war or lethal combat, to modify the ideas of those that did?
Frankly, none of that is correct. Koryu are not static, fixed, or unchanging in the first place (the number of changes I've seen in just one of my koryu over the past decade and a half puts rest to that idea), so, just, no. Second, the belief isn't so much that the techniques were "forged in the fires of actual combat", because, frankly, that's not how the techniques work. Instead, the techniques (and other teachings) are seen as distillations of the core ideas and principles of the school, and to alter them drastically without having a full working understanding of what they are teaching, how they are doing it, and why, is to essentially corrupt the school and move it away from being what you're meant to be trying to preserve. But we do modify them. We do that all the time. I was teaching a number of modifications that can work with some Muso Shinden Ryu Chuden kata this morning, in fact. I also spoke about changes to how we do some of the techniques (kihon and kata) for Shindo Muso Ryu that are different to how they were done even in the 60's and 70's, as well as why they changed. If you're studying a koryu, and the teacher says that they're unchanging, the teacher doesn't know the art.
Budo is freer to adapt itâs 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.
Is it? Often see Kendo in jeans and motorcycle boots, do you? Aikido randori turns into a boxing match? Judo incorporates TKD style kicking? A martial art, whether modern or classical, traditional or non-traditional, is still defined by itself... you keep changing that, and you end up with nothing.
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.
I gotta ask, do you ever stop to think about what you put down here? Absolutely nothing of that is anything close to reality, and is simply your thoroughly ignorant take on things you refuse to learn about coming through again.
Classical martial arts (koryu) have ritual. As do modern arts. Belts are a trait of modern arts, being originated in Judo (often thought of as the first true modern martial art); classical arts don't have them. Bowing is a cultural aspect, and is found in many Asian cultures, so if we're looking at an Asian art, specifically Chinese or Japanese, of course it'll have bowing... so does muay Thai. The BJJ class before me ends each class with a bow. I have no idea what you think you're talking about. Kata is a training methodology, and is a pattern-based system allowing for consistent repetition and refinement, and, again, is the most common and consistent training method that exists... why you think you only have it in classical arts is completely beyond me. Some sort of ceremony? Like the belt gauntlet I see when BJJ students get new belts? Like the hand-slap/fist bump before a roll? Every group (culture) will have it's own ceremonies and rituals, whether you recognise them or not (often you don't the more familiar you are with them, and the more they are a part of your regular culture).
Modern martial arts have all of that. Classical arts don't (belts) in many cases.
Wrestling and boxing are 50,000 years old? Human civilisation is only thought to be 10,000 years old, with the Sumerian culture being dated to around 8,000 BC (while Australian Aboriginal culture often states some 65,000 years of continuous culture, the idea of an established civilisation (such as the aforementioned Sumerian) was not found there. The earliest indicators of ritual activity goes back some 12,000 years... when it comes to any form of ritualised combative methodologies, though, most true depictions that may be some kind of system are 5,000 years old at best. Modern forms of them, however, are, you guessed it, modern. The modern form of boxing, as said, come from the Marquess of Queensbury ruleset of 1867, with a number of changes to stances etc continuing to post-WWII. Wrestling, as we have it today, developed from various European folk styles in the late 1800's, with what we call Greco-Roman being introduced as a rule-set in the Olympics in 1896, and a new rule-set (Free-style) in 1904. Karate, on the other hand, is not considered a "classical" art, with the modern form often tracing back to the late 1800's in Okinawa, and Japanese forms from the 1930's.
To be continued...
). When he âturned it onâ, I consistently felt a primal fear for my life and really needed to get away from him; I was scared! I think itâs due to our evolutionary ability to recognise âmicro cuesâ in others body language, almost imperceptible facial expressions etc summating to warn us of impending danger and to react accordingly. Others will claim some supernatural 
