Fighting Styles or Martial Brands? (from Kung Fu Tea)
- Thread starter Xue Sheng
- Start date
I was reading this post just the other day. Interesting way of looking at things.
I think most of the arts we study today have evolved over time. I would tend to think that there may be very few that are as they where 100 years ago.
colemcm
Orange Belt
I agree. Personally, I don't see how they couldn't have. Every generation introduces or emphasizes certain developments, whether they be technical or technological. If arts don't keep pace with the context of the age they exist in, they run the risk of being becoming irrelevant.
P.S. The Farseer trilogy was great.
OP
OP
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
The article does not seem to be talking about an "evolution" based on need or a lack of a need but more based on sales. Basically it is suggesting that many changed in the early 20th century were based on economics, which to some extent it was, however ultimately it is a bit more complicated than that.
i can't see the priciple of muay thai having changed that much - even through time - evolution happens to everything, people get faster, lighter, stronger, mentally more capable and preparation for a session is more focused and involves a fair amount of sport science to get the best out of people --- but the essence is still there, the moves are still the same, they've just been refined to make the most of each move --- more power less effort 
i can't see the priciple of muay thai having changed that much - even through time - evolution happens to everything, people get faster, lighter, stronger, mentally more capable and preparation for a session is more focused and involves a fair amount of sport science to get the best out of people --- but the essence is still there, the moves are still the same, they've just been refined to make the most of each move --- more power less effort
Actually, Muay Thai has evolved significantly over the last 100-150 years or so. Check out videos of Muay Boran for a better look at what the art used to be like.
colemcm
Orange Belt
Yeah, I kind of went off on a tangent there.
I think you're right that it is more complicated than that, but the author's perspective is also one that largely gets ignored by many martial artists. I think this is especially true in the West, where there's always been a high degree of romanticism involved in how they're viewed. Which isn't to say that the martial arts aren't romanticized in the East, because they absolutely are. Given the period of time that we've been exposed to eastern martial arts, shouldn't we be moving past some of these notions though? How many times have you had the conversation where someone asserts that there were no martial arts in China until Bodhidharma brought them to the Shaolin temple from India? I'm guessing too many times, because that's where I'm at and you've been at this longer than I have. I'm fairly tired of mythology being presented as history.
Like all history, there are a number of ways we can look at it. The author's conclusion may not completely hit the mark, but the method gives us a much broader perspective of how the martial arts developed in China and the factors involved in that process; it utilizes a better historiography, if you will. Frequently, the methodology is more important than the conclusion.
I've contemplated this myself.
Japanese Martial Arts are a good example. What, after all, is more traditional? A modern Shotokan school with a dozen kata, belts, ranks, and competitions, or the would be "Mr. Miyagi" type teaching a few students privately in his back yard with no regard for such formalities?
Japanese and Okinawan Martial arts once resembled CMA in that regard, but you'd be very hard pressed to find anyone teaching that way in Japan these days. Such teachers would be regarded as "illegitimate" and "unprofessional." Belonging to an organization, having set curriculums, ranks, uniforms, competitions, and the works is expected. Unfortunately, these things kind of kill the arts in my opinion; they cut down on diversity, and perpetuate a single method and culture which, ironically, tends to stray from its original form in trying to codify itself.
I think CMA is in danger of going the same way with time. Surely, it's already been going that way. And perhaps I'm guilty of this very thing -- because to me, when I think of my own art, for example, I think of the Yip Man lineage, and seek out instructors of that system, without much considering lineages such as Yiu Choi, Jiu Wan, Yuen Kay Shan, etc.
hoshin1600
Senior Master
the problem i see here is that we tend to over simplifiy a very complex process of evolution. the same thing happens when we think of other examples of evolution. people think we all came from Africa and the neaderthol just disapeared from the planet. things are not so simple. if you ask most people about MMA they would tell you the Gracie family started the UFC and MMA was born. there is some validity there, that did happen but it neglects the fact that many people like myself were cross training in mulitiple styles long before the UFC thus creating the exact same result. there are many stories (DNA branches of evolution) but usually only one gets all the attention and credit. that one line becomes the dominant narative and the rest just kind of get grouped in together by society at large and by the other counter propents as a means of survival.
quick little example....i went into a gym to see if they might want to hire me to teach a kickboxing class. i was asked if i had my aerobics certification by a young women who looked in her 20's. i tried to explain i have been teaching the same kickboxing program longer than she has exsisted on the planet and longer than any tae-bo, ka-robics, aerobic certification organization. "doesnt matter you need an aerobic certification" but i dont teach aerobics, i teach kickboxing, with heavy bags and hand pads medicine balls and such..."you need an aerobic certification"...
so in order to compete you assimilate into the current status quo or you fall by the wayside and be forgotten.
blindsage
Master of Arts
i can't see the priciple of muay thai having changed that much - even through time - evolution happens to everything, people get faster, lighter, stronger, mentally more capable and preparation for a session is more focused and involves a fair amount of sport science to get the best out of people --- but the essence is still there, the moves are still the same, they've just been refined to make the most of each move --- more power less effort
Krabi Krabong? Anyone? Bueller?
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
I've contemplated this myself.
Japanese Martial Arts are a good example. What, after all, is more traditional? A modern Shotokan school with a dozen kata, belts, ranks, and competitions, or the would be "Mr. Miyagi" type teaching a few students privately in his back yard with no regard for such formalities?
Japanese martial arts…?
Yeah… that's not really a description of Japanese martial arts… particularly not the "traditional" ones… just sayin'...
Right. I realize that Koryu and the like do not fit my description, and that Karate is an Okinawan example. I suppose my example kind of breaks down outside of Okinawan Karate, but even Japanese arts have largely been supplanted in popularity by modern sport variations such as Judo and Kendo, have they not?
At least, I assume that's what you were getting at. Admittedly, I'm not very knowledgeable of Japanese or Okinawan martial arts.
Last edited:
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
Partly… but not entirely.
The point was more that what you were describing as the way Japanese martial arts "were" (similar to CMA) is really not correct in any way. Codification, set curriculums, ranks, organisation, established schools etc are the way Japanese arts have been since the 14th Century at least. I don't quite know what you mean by Judo and Kendo "supplanting" Japanese martial arts… they are Japanese martial arts… just modern ones. And they also fit with the older systems in the areas you're mentioning.
the point i was making with reference to muay thai is that mauy thai boran is the original form and that muay thai the competition side of it is the evolution and the one that everyone thinks is muay thai therefore amudt mauy boran gets sidelined in favour of the new system of muay thai with it's point scoring techniques.
i prefer mauy boran to the "new" muay thai purely cos to me it's more interesting and there is more that is "legal" -- like for instance the backfist - this is allowed in muay thai boran but outlawed in competition muay thai.
just my thoughts.
i prefer mauy boran to the "new" muay thai purely cos to me it's more interesting and there is more that is "legal" -- like for instance the backfist - this is allowed in muay thai boran but outlawed in competition muay thai.
just my thoughts.
Well, I have never trained in a Koryu art, but I have heard some people describe their experience. It doesn't seem as regimented in the sense that there is more personalized instruction, and students sometimes learn material in different orders, or are shown different ways and variations on a particular technique. As far as rank, I was only aware of students being awarded a certificate if/when they were allowed to teach. That, among other things, seems in contrast with more modern Japanese Martial Arts. But, that is only my perspective.
But, to be honest, I wasn't thinking all that much about the words I used. I was mainly thinking of Okinawan Karate, and then just lumped it in with Japanese Martial Arts
One thing I am curious about, and would like to ask you, is about the nature of the Koryu arts we have today. As I understand it, they focus on preserving the art -- one that, you might say, has been "dead" for a number of centuries -- by which I mean it is not applied, and it does not change. One of the biggest contrasts I see with CMA is that CMA, on the other hand, tends to change a lot with each generation, and leads to a wide diversity of styles. So I wonder, at what point were what we today term Koryu living arts? I am aware that many lineages descended from others, so there was surely the same kind of innovation and liveliness about Japanese Martial Arts at one point in time; albiet probably still more conservative in line with Japanese culture.
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
Okay… the first thing to realise is that Koryu is a way of categorising a particular grouping of martial arts (well, not just martial arts… but that's getting a bit complicated…
based on the age and cultural histories… in other words, a Koryu art is a Japanese art… not a Chinese one, not a Korean one, not a Filipino one, not a Western one… and traces its' founding to prior to the Meiji Restoration (1868)… although that is also slightly up for contention… What you might note there is that there is no other defined criteria (there are certain hallmarks and traits that are found, but nothing set in stone, so to speak) for what is or is not a Koryu art. There is no single form… no one teaching pedagogy… no single approach to ranking, or lack of ranking… no single requirements or authority to teach that is applied across all Koryu… to hear a few people describe their Koryu experience is just that… a few people's Koryu experience. So, while I wouldn't necessarily disagree with the impressions of the people you've spoken to (or, a little more realistically, your impression of what they told you), I would caution against taking such descriptions as definitive or equally applicable across the board.
For example, while it is very common for Koryu to be taught in small groups, and therefore to offer much more personal and direct instruction, which can lead to a fair amount of personalisation of the way the material is presented, it will still follow largely the same procedure for everyone. Sure, you might learn the kata of the Shoden section in a slightly different order to another student, but that could be due to your personal understanding or affinity for certain aspects… but you still won't move onto the Chuden section until you've gotten a real hold on the Shoden. As far as being less regimented… well… that'll depend on a range of factors… it can be both less regimented and more so at the same time, really. Rank is also very much up to the individual school… the most common is the use of Menkyo (licences), indicating to what level your education in the art has progressed… but some arts don't use them much, or use a highly abbreviated version… or use a more modern dan-I ranking system… or use both… the Menkyo ranking can include a ranking for teaching… or it might be a separate licence entirely… it might be only able to be attained at a certain point, possibly even not until you've attained the highest "regular" rank, Menkyo Kaiden (in most cases… not all…
, or it might be something you can get almost straight away, depending on circumstances and location… or you might have to attain a mid-level licence first… or anything else.When you mention that these approaches seem to contrast with modern Japanese arts, not really… I can see how you can get that impression, but really, it's largely superficial. The application of ranking is different, but serves the same purpose in many ways… the pedagogy of teaching, when it comes down to it, is also largely the same, just on different scales… they really do match pretty well.
But, to be honest, I wasn't thinking all that much about the words I used. I was mainly thinking of Okinawan Karate, and then just lumped it in with Japanese Martial Arts
Ah. I think about the words I use a fair bit…
Okay, the next part I'm going to break up… there's a lot to cover...
Okay. The first thing I'll say is to reiterate that you really can't generalise Koryu as if they're all the same, or even the same "type" of system…
Well… yes… but then again… no…
Overall, yeah, it's a characteristic of the approach of Koryu… but it's not really the only focus… and is really more a part of the current mentality of most of them. It's a lot of shades of grey, really.
Uh… no. That is one thing I'd never say… mainly as it's completely not true or correct.
Who says?
What I'm saying is that those ideas are not actually supported by the ryu-ha themselves, or their practitioners… on either count.
From a Koryu perspective, that would be the same as founding a new martial art each generation… which happened in some systems… but isn't really the same thing as a continuous lineage. That said, if the CMA change with each generation, how are they considered "traditional" arts? Or arts from history? And, if they're not, then why the culturally defined movements that don't necessarily fit the cultures they've been imported into (both in terms of society/geography, and time period)?
At all points. They've never stopped being "living arts".
The thing you need to understand about the various ryu-ha is that they are founded (and propagated) for a range of reasons… in some cases, it's a matter of innovation of combative methodologies… in others, it's to form a repository of military knowledge… so you need to look at each system in turn in order to get to any beginning answer to this question… honestly, it's a big one, and a fair bit off-topic for this thread. Feel free to start a thread in the Koryu section, and I'll see about fleshing these responses out.
Thanks Chris. Very insightful. I think I'll take you up on that Koryu thread.
I would like to touch on one point though, as it's related to the topic:
CMA are a bit of a strange animal in this case, and it's one of the reasons why lineage is such a big deal. CMA do not usually change drastically enough with each generation to warrant being called a different martial art. Usually the changes are subtle, and sometimes they are less so, but the art does remain recognizable and maintains the same core principles and techniques. Wing Chun, for example, has a long history of innovation. Leung Jan is said to have removed the side-on stances, and placed a greater emphasis on facing, which is where we get our inherent "squareness." Chan Wah Shun made notable changes as well, reversing and rearranging the wooden dummy form so that it followed a more logical order. Yip Man simplified many aspects of the forms, and gave some of the techniques more descriptive names. Wong Shun Leung competed in challenge matches, and further refined his forms, in addition to influencing the forms of others; the reason that we have gan-sau in our first form, for example, is the result of one of WSL's early beimo experiences. There is a theme of constant tweaking and refinement in TCMA. Other teachers, such as Tsui Sheung Tin, Lok Yiu, Yip Chun, and Yip Ching, all made minor changes to their forms as well. Their forms are very much still recognizable, but you can see where and how their approach differs.
I wouldn't say that it's completely foreign to Japanese Martial Arts, though. Having recently started Aikido, I came across Nishio Shouji. His Aikido is very innovative, and a good example of the kind of thing you see in CMA.
I would like to touch on one point though, as it's related to the topic:
CMA are a bit of a strange animal in this case, and it's one of the reasons why lineage is such a big deal. CMA do not usually change drastically enough with each generation to warrant being called a different martial art. Usually the changes are subtle, and sometimes they are less so, but the art does remain recognizable and maintains the same core principles and techniques. Wing Chun, for example, has a long history of innovation. Leung Jan is said to have removed the side-on stances, and placed a greater emphasis on facing, which is where we get our inherent "squareness." Chan Wah Shun made notable changes as well, reversing and rearranging the wooden dummy form so that it followed a more logical order. Yip Man simplified many aspects of the forms, and gave some of the techniques more descriptive names. Wong Shun Leung competed in challenge matches, and further refined his forms, in addition to influencing the forms of others; the reason that we have gan-sau in our first form, for example, is the result of one of WSL's early beimo experiences. There is a theme of constant tweaking and refinement in TCMA. Other teachers, such as Tsui Sheung Tin, Lok Yiu, Yip Chun, and Yip Ching, all made minor changes to their forms as well. Their forms are very much still recognizable, but you can see where and how their approach differs.
I wouldn't say that it's completely foreign to Japanese Martial Arts, though. Having recently started Aikido, I came across Nishio Shouji. His Aikido is very innovative, and a good example of the kind of thing you see in CMA.
OP
OP
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
Please forgive me, I had ey surgery this morning and basically I am doing this wth one eye and I am on a Mac so proper quotes is not easy so I am not using it
Quote from Argus
Quote from Chris
Don't claim to know the first thing to Koryu but I do know about CMA and there are multiple style that do not change much from Generation to generation and for many of those that do the underlying principles remain the which is why you have various style of taijiquan, xingyiquan, baguazhang, wing chun, changquan, etc. and it is now to much of a pain to keep typing so that is all for now
Quote from Argus
Quote from Chris
Don't claim to know the first thing to Koryu but I do know about CMA and there are multiple style that do not change much from Generation to generation and for many of those that do the underlying principles remain the which is why you have various style of taijiquan, xingyiquan, baguazhang, wing chun, changquan, etc. and it is now to much of a pain to keep typing so that is all for now
Similar threads
