Is tradition important?

[Dirty Dog]

Something I've been thinking about a lot lately: is tradition important to martiala arts? I tend to be a traditionalist, but I'd like to hear other peoples views on this.

What do you think tradition provides to your art, and is it important?

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

What do you mean by tradition? learning the history of the MA, teaching the MA the way it was traditionally taught, either methodwise or technique wise? having a traditional attitude? Not deviating by traditional stances/techniques at all? Or something else entirely? Not meaning to attack your question, just would help my own answr, if I knew what you considered tradition with your question.

 

[arnisador]

I enjoy the tradition. In some cases it's informative--it helps me better understand the circumstances in which a technique arose, and hence to grasp it better--but mostly it just fits with the practice of martial-art-as-hobby for me. I like what I've learned about Japanese history and culture from karate, for example, but also like helping preserve a traditional art, as one might preserve a traditional form of dance, say.

Is it necessary? No, and in my opinion some tradition-emphasizing teachers should look to modern coaching methods in place of their traditional top-down. do-it-my-way style of teaching. I always like to learn the original way and the optimal way. The latter may well vary from student to student.

But yeah, the tradition, the legacy, the structure, the history, the culture, are all part of what keeps me in.

 

[Dirty Dog]

What do you mean by tradition? learning the history of the MA, teaching the MA the way it was traditionally taught, either methodwise or technique wise? having a traditional attitude? Not deviating by traditional stances/techniques at all? Or something else entirely? Not meaning to attack your question, just would help my own answr, if I knew what you considered tradition with your question.

Not linking YOUR answer to MY definition of traditional was kind of the point. That's why I asked what YOU think tradition brings to your art.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Not linking YOUR answer to MY definition of traditional was kind of the point. That's why I asked what YOU think tradition brings to your art.

Well, not knowing what tradition is for the question, makes it tough to near impossible to answer the question properly.
Based on the different definitions of tradition, however, i dont find history of the particular martial art to be important. Also, techniques themselves are important, so long as people can remember/figure out what the specific techniuqes are used for (if you forget what a kata teaches, its pointless. If someone rediscovers its meaning, or attributes a new meaning to it, it is once again important). The way of teaching the martial art is the most important, because even if the reasoning for it is forgotten, it teaches the proper attitude of the martial art, as well as respect for the art and teaching the art in the order in the way its supposed to. Outside of that, not sure what you would be considering tradition. Hope that answers your question, from my perspective.

 

[mook jong man]

I have learned to think that I am not better or wiser than those that came before me in my system.
What I've usually found is that there are very ,very good reasons why something is done in a particular way.
Anytime I ever get tempted to think I might modify something , I remember the couple of hundred years of accumulated wisdom that has been handed down to me.
Who the hell do I think I am to try and mess around with that?

 

[Cyriacus]

In my opinion, tradition on its own is totally irrelevant.

If something works better or easier for you, swell. However, theres usually a reason something became 'tradition' to begin with. Tradition for the sake of tradition is problematic, but something being traditional because it works is just that. Stuff that works. So, if somethings traditional because it works, thats probably a good thing. If somethings traditional because tradition, then you may need to think about it a little.

EDIT: Oh, right. What tradition brings. Well, i cant really answer that because i dont have much of a basis of comparison for whats traditional in what im learning and what isnt.

 

[Drasken]

I think tradition is very important. It is the core and heart of a style. The tradition and the philosophy that has been passed down make a particular art what it is. I'm sure if you have a technique that there are at least one or two arts out there that use the same one. Might even apply it in the same way. Techniques don't make the art by themselves.
Traditional teaching methods also exist for a reason. It is arrogant to ever think you can throw out years of development in methods and it still remain the same.

That being said, I think updating things to deal with more modern problems is needed. Especially in very old forms. However the basis in a traditional method is best for learning. Then learning to apply the concepts in new ways should be played with. I mean you don't build a house and THEN pour the foundation right? Building on to what already exists, while keeping the tradition alive let's a form grow and adapt.

 

[DennisBreene]

I think tradition is very important. It is the core and heart of a style. The tradition and the philosophy that has been passed down make a particular art what it is. I'm sure if you have a technique that there are at least one or two arts out there that use the same one. Might even apply it in the same way. Techniques don't make the art by themselves.
Traditional teaching methods also exist for a reason. It is arrogant to ever think you can throw out years of development in methods and it still remain the same.

That being said, I think updating things to deal with more modern problems is needed. Especially in very old forms. However the basis in a traditional method is best for learning. Then learning to apply the concepts in new ways should be played with. I mean you don't build a house and THEN pour the foundation right? Building on to what already exists, while keeping the tradition alive let's a form grow and adapt.

I agree completely. I think that the ideal of any martial art is to eventually "make it your own". Part of the Art is in taking what you have learned from the traditional style and exploring what works best for you, given variations in size, age, flexibility and all those other factors we are familiar with. This is not turning away from tradition as much as an advanced form of honoring the tradition of your art. I also believe that this is one of the goals best left to the more advanced student or combined with the input of a very experienced teacher who can recognize and guide alterations in style and technique to make the student more effective while training.

 

[harlan]

Ditto.

I enjoy the tradition. In some cases it's informative--it helps me better understand the circumstances in which a technique arose, and hence to grasp it better--but mostly it just fits with the practice of martial-art-as-hobby for me. I like what I've learned about Japanese history and culture from karate, for example, but also like helping preserve a traditional art, as one might preserve a traditional form of dance, say.

Is it necessary? No, and in my opinion some tradition-emphasizing teachers should look to modern coaching methods in place of their traditional top-down. do-it-my-way style of teaching. I always like to learn the original way and the optimal way. The latter may well vary from student to student.

But yeah, the tradition, the legacy, the structure, the history, the culture, are all part of what keeps me in.

 

[martial sparrer]

one thing many traditional martial artists have taught me is that tradition creates the culture of the martial art......I can walk into a karate dojo and throw a roundhouse.....but I am not a karate guy....and I do not know karate at all.....I find traditional martial artists feisty when you comment on their particular art.....now I understand why and I think they SHOULD be very particular with what they do.....same thing for the traditions in Christianity and religions....if yu throw out the traditions it ceases to be!

 

[Kframe]

Kempodesciple touched on big issue for me with Traditional martial arts. That is Kata, more specifically the meaning and application of kata. One of the things, that was told to me when I visited the TKD dojang(havnt updated my TKD thread with this yet) was that many techniques are hidden in the Forms(kata). That the real art is, hidden and requires you to research and guess what all the different variations of things that was intended from one move. For example he showed me like 3 different moves all stemming from the low block. Even tho none of the moves even resembled the low block, yet it was somehow "hidden" in the forms.

In my mind that is the biggest drawback to learning a TMA, everything is so hidden, and so buried, so obscure and not obvious that many of its practitioners don't even agree on applications of specific movements.. It was ultimately what turned me off, after my intro practice at the TKD place. So much of the art is "hidden", I don't want to have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out weather or not a specific move means anything or is just there for fluff.

I think that it is this hiddenness that hinders the TMA more then anything. I don't understand why it cant be more open, with move A actually being move A, not also B,C,and D.

I wonder what tkd(or karate for that matter) would look like, if they abandoned all the kata, and only spent time working the basics, then practicing the actuall combat movements in the art, instead of wasting time on Forms. Instead of doing the dance and thinking your learning to fight, actually apply the moves it is supposedly teaching. Spending more time repping the actuall moves and not doing non productive things should be the priority in my mind.

I may change my mind the day that kata is finealy defined and each move actually represents a move, and not just a place holder for a multidude of different moves all supposedly stemming from one source(say a low block. I still don't know how a low block represents a shoulder throw....)

 

[chrispillertkd]

Something I've been thinking about a lot lately: is tradition important to martiala arts? I tend to be a traditionalist, but I'd like to hear other peoples views on this.

What do you think tradition provides to your art, and is it important?

You really do need a definition of "tradition" in order to answer these questions. Most people I know, especially martial artists, tend to equate tradition with something that is old. This is, strictly speaking incorrect. Tradition comes from the Latin word "tradition" which means "to hand on." In other words, a tradition is anything that has been passed from one person to another. It can come directly from your instructor to you and be a tradition, or it can come from the founder of your style down through the centuries and be a tradition. Some traditions are quite old, others are more contemporary (such as the development of the belt system). G.K. Chesterton once described tradition (in a somewhat different context) as "the democracy of the dead." It is, in effect, a way to not put yourself ahead of others simply because you happen to still be walking around. It is an exercise in humility (which is why, incidentally, you get a lot of people dismissing it as "out dated"). Tradition is itself very important to martial arts because we are supposed to be, among other things, developing humility and respect for other people. I am not saying traditions in martial arts should be irreformable but people should at least endeavor to understand them before simply getting rid of them. Pax, Chris P.S. I have no idea what the problem is with the formatting in this post.

 

[K-man]

I may change my mind the day that kata is finealy defined and each move actually represents a move, and not just a place holder for a multidude of different moves all supposedly stemming from one source(say a low block. I still don't know how a low block represents a shoulder throw....)

Until you understand there are no blocks you will not understand the applications. Simple really!

 

[K-man]

For me, tradition in the martial arts is multi faceted. There is the tradition of Asia. This includes the formality and the respect. Do you need it? No, but it does create an atmosphere. There is the tradition of the dress. Is that required? No, you need look no further than KM or Systema to see traditional dress is not essential. What about the style itself? Well how old is the style? How long does it take to establish tradition? Karate is only a hundred years old, Aikido eighty, TKD sixty.

What is traditional, especially in Japan, is the method of teaching. Shu-Ha-Ri is the traditional means of the transference of knowledge. If this concept is not understood, then a martial artist particularly in a Japanese martial art will never progress. This is the principle reason why in many schools karate is only practised at a beginner level right through the highest grades. The same applies to Aikido, Tai Chi, TKD etc. So here we have the situation where the lack of tradition inhibits understanding and progression.

What does that mean? I suppose it depends on what you want to achieve. Tradition will allow you to extract the most out of a 'traditional' art but it is not essential to the practise of a martial art. :asian:

 

[Kframe]

Until you understand there are no blocks you will not understand the applications. Simple really!

Nor did rthis answer my question as to how in the heck a "low block" can possibly represent a shoulder throw. The movements of the two maneuvers do not match up in the least...

Kman I was using the term that the instructor told me during the class. He used the term low block, I didn't just make it up. I want you to explain how one can get a shoulder throw from a low block. For that is exactly what that instructor told me the low block represented in that form. He also said it could be a bunch of other different moves, all represented by the low block. Tell me, how can a low block represent a move, if the movements in the low block, look nothing like the movements they supposedly represent. A low block in no way looks like the shoulder throw he told me it was.. It does not move in the same way a shoulder throw moves in.

Secondly, if there are no blocks, then stop using the term block. That statement pisses me off to no end. I keep hearing, there is no block, yet those same people keep using the same terminology. I can accept that those movement are layered in there application. That at the basic level it is indeed a defensive movement.(I prefere the term deflection, its more appropriate) As experience expands, your usage of the basic deflection can also be coupled with more complicated moves. Such as traps and throws and locks..... I may do a more modern martial art, but we have some deflections that come straight out of my instructors previous TMA. At the basic level they are just basic moves to prevent attacks from hurting you. As you gain experience they become more. We call them blocks because that is what the kids in the class know them as..

Lastly the TKD place I was at, stated that all the "blocks" he teaches are In fact limb destruction techniques. I get that, sure they will probably hurt the limb you deflect with it. That does not change the fact that properly using the deflection will redirect the attack in a less threatening manner. All the limb destruction in the world does no good if the original attack still hits you in the face. Thusly these "blocks" are more properly termed striking deflections. Boxing as art has hard blocks, I consider the movements in TMA to be more along the lines of striking deflections. They do both, strike the incoming attacking limb and deflect it away using less force then the attacking limb is generating.

 

[Sukerkin]

Kframe, I am sure you must have been asked this already so forgive me for asking it again but how long have you been studying martial arts?

 

[Kframe]

Kframe, I am sure you must have been asked this already so forgive me for asking it again but how long have you been studying martial arts?

Has no bearing on this conversation, but Im coming up on 2 years...

Secondly K man, your statement only reinforces what im talking about. More secrecy more hiddenness more obscuraty. One should not have to reach instructor level to fineally understand what the hell is being taught them. How can one move, represent a multitude of other moves, if said move does in no way act or infact move in the same or similar manner to the sapposed hidden moves. That has never been explained. That lack of openness, why must it be hidden. Its almost like its made up on the fly. WHy cant move A actually represent MOVE A.

 

[DennisBreene]

Has no bearing on this conversation, but Im coming up on 2 years... Secondly K man, your statement only reinforces what im talking about. More secrecy more hiddenness more obscuraty. One should not have to reach instructor level to fineally understand what the hell is being taught them. How can one move, represent a multitude of other moves, if said move does in no way act or infact move in the same or similar manner to the sapposed hidden moves. That has never been explained. That lack of openness, why must it be hidden. Its almost like its made up on the fly. WHy cant move A actually represent MOVE A.

When I have discussed Bunkai with other form practitioners, I don't recall anyone stating that a proposed alternative meaning to a move is an absolute. I believe the purpose of bunkai analysis is to expand the practitioners awareness of how movement can be used. So, a form can simply be as basically represented, or as you analyze the movements, you begin to see how other types of attacks and counters can be applied. I think reducing analysis of a forms possible meanings to dogma would be a mistake. In some cases blocks are blocks and strikes are strikes. In other cases, blocks combined with turns and counters could also be interpreted as throws, locks, etc. The benefit in this approach is awareness of one's own movement and how that may flow. Form can be a wonderful art and when done with dedication, I think it aids in learning how to stand, move, maintain balance and even expand situational awareness through concentration. It's not magic and it's not the only tool in the tool box. As to secret moves and the intentional obfuscation of the "true" meaning of a form; I suspect that this has more to do with legend than with history.

 

[Sukerkin]

Well, Kframe, I have to say it very much does have a bearing on the conversation, for the sort of questions I see you asking are the ones that all of us have asked. We all thought we knew better than those that teach us or than the tradition embodies at one point.

It's not that styles are 'secret' as such, it is just that there are layers of subtlety to things that you gradually unpeel as you get better and more experienced. That is especially true in the art that I study because it is what is termed a koryu art - we are talking centuries of refinement and tradition and the honest truth is that the things you used to think had no purpose when you were only shodan become clearer to you as the years pass.

I am sandan now (and should really be going for yondan (but the regulations prevent it because my sensei is only Rokudan Renshi)) and there are motions in the forms that I could not see the use of when I first learned them years ago but now I realise what they are for. But there was no point my sensei trying to explain all the uses for that motion to me back then because I would not have been able to use some of the applications and it would just have confused my learning how to execute it correctly the 'simple' way for the most direct use. And being confused with a three foot razor in your hand in a room full of other people is not a good thing :lol:.

I don't have a high opinion of TKD, I make no bones about it. Having a kata for every conceivable circumstance is 'doing it wrong' as far as I am concerned. But it is what it is and it will be an easier journey for your training if you let things come to you rather than trying to force them out into the open, so to speak. Understanding emerges over time in a continuous chain of 'light bulb' moments rather than one grand revelation. Questions are always good, wanting to know the "Why" as well as the "How", as you move along the path of your training. But it is important to realise that at certain points along the way your questions that used to be burning issues for you fall by the wayside as you realise you were asking about something that was only relevant to you 'back then'.

That's what a tradition is all about. It allows you to accept that those that teach you know what they are doing because they were taught by those that knew what they were doing and so on. I tell you truthfully from my own experience that whenever you are convinced that there is something 'wrong' or 'stupid' in your style it is always yourself that has not yet understood rather than the tradition being at fault.