Is BJJ a TMA?

[skribs]

I think TMA is just an unhelpful label due to a lack of a concrete definition. Different people just have a "checklist" on what a TMA "might" have.

Here is a label that I invented that is what I think people wanted to have but didn't think of it: Skilled Trades Martial Arts (STMA).

The definition would be something like: A martial art that is taught under an apprenticeship model.

This is so much more useful because:

1. It categorizes martial arts based on a learning paradigm instead of a "style".
2. I don't recall ever seeing McDojos/Bullshidos operating under an apprenticeship model because that is bad business.
3. You can distinguish BJJ, Sanda, Muay Thai, etc... away from STMA, which TMA has failed to do, and I can tell a lot of people wanted to make that distinction but failed to do it cleanly.
   • Because if I ask: "Is Muay Thai a TMA? It's an Asian Martial Art after all. It has rituals." and of course, people will be like: "No! It... can't be! Muay Thai is effective; it can't be a TMA... even though it fits my definition of TMA. Damn it!"
4. Most shitty "TMA" schools just so happens to not be a STMA.

So, if we take the lineage of BJJ and trace it back to the founder of Judo, we might say that Jigoro Kano learned a STMA if he was an "apprentice" in arts like Kito-Ryu. Didn't he receive a Menkyo Kaiden, which is a license that means complete transmission?

Many old-school Japanese martial arts (Ko-ryu) would be STMA because they may have Uchi-deshi (“Inside student”).

Chinese martial arts were "traditionally" the same way, where they also have the concept of an "inside student". Deshi is the same character as Tudi or Dizi in Chinese. Although people often use the word "disciple", I think the word "apprentice" is easier for the average person to understand.

In Chinese culture, Baishi is the process to become an "apprentice" in Chinese martial arts, as well as many other disciplines such as Traditional Chinese Medicine, certain musical instruments, tea ceremony, blacksmithing, etc...

This is why the idea of "secrets" is associated with some "TMA" because skilled trades have "trade secrets". That is true for lots of skilled trades, not just STMA.

Even in Thailand, where there's Muay Thai, it's possible (I need to be fact-checked here) that Muay Boran had an apprenticeship model? I am unsure, but their equivalent of "Baishi" seems to be called Wai khru?

Many martial arts schools today are taught to large groups instead of small, private discipleship settings. This shift parallels how education evolved, from individual tutoring (apprenticeship model) to public schools and universities (institutional model).

Example: In the past, scholars studied under a personal master (example: Plato studying under Socrates), but today, universities mass-educate thousands using structured courses. Similarly, martial arts went from closed-door discipleship to mass instruction at schools and sports clubs.

I think my invented label, STMA, is what people wished they could use but didn't think of it.

The "Tradition" in many stereotypical "TMA" is basically about apprenticeship. This tradition predates the martial arts themselves and is not unique to martial arts. Even in Medieval Europe, they had guild systems where you went through the stages of apprenticeship, then you became a journeyman, and then you could become a "master" if you made a masterpiece.

So, under my clean-cut definition, BJJ wouldn't be a "STMA" because you don't normally learn BJJ by becoming someone's apprentice.

I disagree. You can teach any martial art with either method. You can have BJJ taught in the apprenticeship style or the university style.

My TKD training is university style, but my TKD leadership training was apprenticeship style, from the same school/Master.

 

[Teapot]

I disagree. You can teach any martial art with either method. You can have BJJ taught in the apprenticeship style or the university style.

My TKD training is university style, but my TKD leadership training was apprenticeship style, from the same school/Master.

I don't think that's a legitimate disagreement because you quoted me saying:

1. It categorizes martial arts based on a learning paradigm instead of a "style".

So you could teach BJJ as an apprenticeship paradigm.

But is that the norm?

 

[skribs]

I don't think that's a legitimate disagreement because you quoted me saying:



So you could teach BJJ as an apprenticeship paradigm.

But is that the norm?

I don't think apprentice style is the norm for any martial art these days.

It's like trying to catalog different varieties of apples by whether or not they're a fruit.

 

[Teapot]

I don't think apprentice style is the norm for any martial art these days.

It's like trying to catalog different varieties of apples by whether or not they're a fruit.

Sure, but if we want to talk about "tradition", that was the tradition for many martial arts. BJJ doesn't really have that tradition.

Someone who practices BJJ probably won't understand or relate to this concept, but someone who practices Koryu probably would - even in today's time. You couldn't think of any martial art where that's the norm, but isn't that not the norm for koryu? Think how often Aikido gets talked about... and think how little Daito-Ryu Aiki-Jujutsu gets talked about. Think how much smaller the community of Daito-Ryu (where Aikido came from) is compared to Aikido.

You're right that it's not the norm for many martial arts, but... You know what else is the norm? Commercialized, low-quality martial arts schools that people call "Traditional" martial arts.

You can say that this paradigm of apprenticeship isn't popular nowadays; they're very rare. But you are not able to argue that this wasn't how many (not all) "traditional" martial arts were taught.

The apprenticeship paradigm is not compatible with making a lot of money. It's not scalable.

To use your apple analogy, an apple 100 years ago, although smaller, was much more nutritious than apples nowadays.

 

[skribs]

Sure, but if we want to talk about "tradition", that was the tradition for many martial arts. BJJ doesn't really have that tradition.

Someone who practices BJJ probably won't understand or relate to this concept, but someone who practices Koryu probably would - even in today's time. You couldn't think of any martial art where that's the norm, but isn't that not the norm for koryu? Think how often Aikido gets talked about... and think how little Daito-Ryu Aiki-Jujutsu gets talked about. Think how much smaller the community of Daito-Ryu (where Aikido came from) is compared to Aikido.

You're right that it's not the norm for many martial arts, but... You know what else is the norm? Commercialized, low-quality martial arts schools that people call "Traditional" martial arts.

You can say that this paradigm of apprenticeship isn't popular nowadays; they're very rare. But you are not able to argue that this wasn't how many (not all) "traditional" martial arts were taught.

The apprenticeship paradigm is not compatible with making a lot of money. It's not scalable.

To use your apple analogy, an apple 100 years ago, although smaller, was much more nutritious than apples nowadays.

There are no common martial arts where apprentice style is the norm, because in order to fit your definition of a STMA, it would have to be non-marketable. So you've created a marketing term for a market that by definition can't exist. Because if there were a market for it, the training would change into the university-style you're discussing.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Sure, but if we want to talk about "tradition", that was the tradition for many martial arts. BJJ doesn't really have that tradition.

The days of uchi deshi (master>select private student) being the main way of teaching ended in the 1920's. But it still exists when a senior black belt (often retired) finds someone he finds worthy of spending his time on, usually at no cost. Also, while teaching classes of dojo students, a master would have a couple of house students to privately teach. Both can coincide with the same teacher.

Think how much smaller the community of Daito-Ryu (where Aikido came from) is compared to Aikido.

I think this comes down to marketing. Aiki-ju-jutsu is presented more of a combat art with strikes still present. Aikdo is presented as a way of peace and harmony, generally with larger flowing movements, and had a larger audience that found this more appealing to them, along with demos of people being swung around and sent flying into the air with little or no effort.

Commercialized, low-quality martial arts schools that people call "Traditional" martial arts.

There can be no argument that the commercialization of TMA had an effect on the traditions. But that does not imply low-quality, though that is often the case. A knowledgeable instructor that appreciates TMA can find an effective balance.

The apprenticeship paradigm is not compatible with making a lot of money. It's not scalable.

This is very true. A master does not take on a deshi for profit.

The definition would be something like: A martial art that is taught under an apprenticeship model.

Two things wrong with this definition: Firstly, a TMA can be taught in a class setting as it has for the past 100 years. Secondly, this definition leaves out any consideration of tradition., which of course is fundamental for a TMA.

 

[Teapot]

There are no common martial arts where apprentice style is the norm, because in order to fit your definition of a STMA, it would have to be non-marketable. So you've created a marketing term for a market that by definition can't exist. Because if there were a market for it, the training would change into the university-style you're discussing.

Who said my goal was to market it?

There are martial arts that are family arts, passed down from father to son. You think they cared about markets?

I just created a label, but I didn't say I want this label to entice people around the world to learn it.

 

[skribs]

Who said my goal was to market it?

There are martial arts that are family arts, passed down from father to son. You think they cared about markets?

I just created a label, but I didn't say I want this label to entice people around the world to learn it.

I don't know of any martial arts that were only passed down from father to son, and that doesn't even fit your older definition of it being a master and apprentice. You don't have enough reality for me to argue with, so I'm just going to leave this part of the conversation now.

 

[Teapot]

I don't know of any martial arts that were only passed down from father to son, and that doesn't even fit your older definition of it being a master and apprentice. You don't have enough reality for me to argue with, so I'm just going to leave this part of the conversation now.

Well... that sounds like a you problem.

Take Taijiquan for example. That is a family art.

As for the definition, this requires Chinese context where fu in Shifu means "father". To Baishi under someone it is akin to being the adopted son under that person.


But apparently Taijiquan isn't a family art because you didn't know this.

 

[Teapot]

Two things wrong with this definition: Firstly, a TMA can be taught in a class setting as it has for the past 100 years. Secondly, this definition leaves out any consideration of tradition., which of course is fundamental for a TMA.

Is the idea that apprentices learning in a class setting not a thing?

As for tradition... that's a strange thing to say. Apprentices do not learn the tradition from their master's craft?

 

[windwalker099]

Well... that sounds like a you problem.

Take Taijiquan for example. That is a family art.

As for the definition, this requires Chinese context where fu in Shifu means "father". To Baishi under someone it is akin to being the adopted son under that person.


But apparently Taijiquan isn't a family art because you didn't know this.

It does seem strange that some people might not understand the foundations of CMA traditions and history.
Interesting, considering the topic. .

abridged version of one such account:


"Yangjia Michuan Taijiquan should have been transmitted and taught to Yang
Chengfu. But when Chengfu was young (twenties?) he felt that his father's
training was too difficult. He left the family compound and tried to get into another
school. Everyone laughed at him, saying: your father and grandfather are so
famous and you want to come to our school?

It was as if Chengfu wanted to forget what family he came from, but nobody
would allow him to forget. So he went back to his family and started again.
Because this happened, his father felt differently about him.

Jianhou wondered how his son could have left in the first place. Something in Jianhou's heart had
changed.

Yangjia Michuan Taijiquan was not something that was taught to many
students. It was taught to just one person -only to one who would keep it and
pass it on."

 

[Badhabits]

Wasn't it common in Okinawa for a family's martial art to only be taught to the oldest son?

 

[Haruhiko]

If being adapted from a prior art is the sole criterium, yeah. But then NO art could be called TMA as most all are adaptations. Using just this a basis is disingenuous. I think a better way to judge is to look at the many cultural, historical, philosophical, and evolutionary factors that the art has be subjected to. If it has, say, 4 or 5 out of 6, it would be reasonable to call it a Traditional Martial Art.

Some have mentioned that adding moves from another art during its evolution is a sign of BJJ (or other) being a TMA but that's just one data point. Japanese uses an outlined circle as a period, rather than a solid dot. That bit of Japanese does NOT change the essence of the English in my sentence. If I write a sentence in English but use such a circle for my period, that doesn't mean English is a blend of Japanese and Indo-European. My point here is just looking at one data point when making comparisons or judging most anything is faulty - the big picture must be taken into account. So, I agree with Haruhiko's main sentiment but discount the "twist."

There are some (actually many) koryūha that emphasise no adaption. If there is adaptation, the sōke would (at their discretion) allow a -ha or -den of the mainline ryū (like Noda-ha Niten Ichi-ryū) to persist. This is of course koryū specific, and thankfully the definition of a koryū is pretty cut and dry... but koryū aren't "TMA", they're koryū.

So if Judo isn't koryū or a TMA what is it? In Japan it's commonly referred to as a gendai budō. There's no equivalent in English that's commonly used, but it essentially means "modern warrior art/way" (emphasis on "way"). Then there's kobudō ("old warrior art/way") which some koryū fall into and some don't. The "ko" is there, meaning old, but there's the term "ryū" which seldom comes up in modern arts. It means "school", or more precisely, "school [of the family]", with a sōke (lit. "head of the family") as the authority and leader of the art.

The term TMA itself implies that there is a Tradition of practicing and teaching that method. For how many years or decades or generations it needs to be practiced and taught in order to be “long enough” to qualify as a Tradition is open to debate.

So when it comes to BJJ maybe it is a TMA for Brazil, on the condition that it is one of the oldest traditional (Japanese) martial arts still being practised in Brazil in an unbroken tradition headed by the Gracies.

Simply, to me, when it comes to Japanese martial arts there are:

1. Koryū (pre-Meiji restoration)
2. Kobudō (usually considered old, but not so old that they meet the criteria of the above, as well as some others)
2. Gendaibudō (karatedo, judo, iaido, kendo...)

This is helpful for Japanese martial arts practitioners. That's why BJJ is tricky. It's an off-shoot and simplification of the 3rd, but as it's B(JJ), necessarily old for the Brazilians.

@isshinryuronin brought up the point of the sensei -> deshi dynamic being something occuring during the 1920's. Could you elaborate on that?

 

[Haruhiko]

Wasn't it common in Okinawa for a family's martial art to only be taught to the oldest son?

Otobe-ryū (an offshoot of Shorin-ryū, as the first master was not the eldest) and Matsumura-den Shorin-ryū itself did this if I recall (I don't know the historicity of it though). Keep in mind many koryū outside of Okinawa had successors inherit the family name of their master as well, as a means of respect and lineal consistency.

Katori Shinto-ryū did this at least once because of a lack of male heir successors to the Iisaza clan, as did Yagyu Shinkage-ryū, with many adopting the "Yagyu" name.

 

[isshinryuronin]

the point of the sensei -> deshi dynamic being something occuring during the 1920's. Could you elaborate on that?

A very interesting relationship. "Deshi" can be described an apprentice or protégé, but it involved more than the private teaching of technique to a handpicked student. It was really a fulltime mentorship, encompassing lessons of life as well as the art with the deshi dedicated to the master and his ways (almost like an informal adoption?). (This relationship was also found in other arts besides TMA.)

Karate was a secretive art for the most part, taught to one person at a time, or perhaps a small select group. There were no karate dojo, lessons usually taught in the master's backyard. As Okinawan karate became more popular in the 1920's and 1930's, teaching was done in the public schools and dojo were opened to accommodate group classes to the public.

But the deshi tradition continued, the master choosing a top student he thought worthy of investing his time and effort in passing down his knowledge, some of which was not shared with the school/dojo students at large. This student got in depth training at the master's home as an "uchi" deshi (uchi = home).

I think as time went on, the uchi deshi's role probably became less "subservient" (not the best word but at the moment I can't think of a better one) as society changed, but loyalty to the master still remained and was/is somewhat more than a teacher-student relationship, still existing, even in America.