Isolationism versus Exploration in the MA

[Koshiki]

Let me clarify what I'm trying to get at.

In my primary school, we are always looking at other ways of doing things, experimenting, making slight alterations to techniques, stances, practice routines, class structures, training methodologies, even classical forms. We love seeing what other schools and styles do, and taking little bits of technique or concept here and there. My instructor, just over thirty years ago, organized a get-together of a variety of schools from around New England, there are Kali/Escrima guys, Various Karate guys, TKD guys, JKD guys, knife throwing guys, we've had boxers and MMA instructors, ground-fighters, whatever, and the premise is that we all teach each other and walk away with a little bit of something new to take home and train. I love it. The head instructor knows guys from all over, and we like the sort of network/community of various martial arts schools around.

However, this mindset, (not just that one event, obviously) has lead to our having a style that is, well, not really like anything else. I can't tell people I do TKD, exactly, although that's how it started. We do a lot a Karate material, but I can't say we do Karate, that's for sure. Some of our Material comes from the original instructor's Kung Fu background, but we are DEFINITELY not at all like Kung Fu of any sort... It's kind of fun, being different, and be able to make changes to, say, Pinan Godan and have a discussion with all the other Black Belts and instructors about which version should be adopted, and why, BUT the original style gets lost, eventually forgotten. New theories and understanding flow in, and old flow out.

----------------

Now, in the Shaolin Kempo school I just started visiting a few weeks back, the opposite is true. Leaving aside differences in the expectations/training emphasis from one school to the other, there is a huge difference. The instructor knows my original instructor, seems to hold him in high regard. He's very congratulatory about my technique, very friendly, great guy, and from what I've seen, a pretty good Martial Artist too, with over two decades of teaching experience. While he congratulates and very much approves of the quality and effectiveness of my outside technique, he and the other teachers and higher ranked students don't seem to have any curiosity about it, as far as exploring and learning. They know what the other schools in the area are, but they don't interact at all, they just train at the home school, doing what they do.

At my old school, whenever we get a new student with substantial martial arts background from elsewhere, the reaction is always, "ooh, how do YOU do ______? Show us, show us, show us!" Even new white belts with no background have occasionally asked questions or made suggestions which have been implemented throughout the system. At this new school, it's just, no, don't do it like that, do it like this. They do SKK, they study SKK, the forms are SKK, the techniques are SKK, and if it's not SKK, they don't do it. While I'm a fan of the experimental exuberance of my main study, there's something to be said for learning one thing and sticking to it. Over the years I've picked up let's see, at least six different ways to do roundhouse kicks. We train two one officially in my old system, and the teachers at my specific dojo have decided to only teach one, but other round kicks are welcomed and enjoyed as an independent thing, though not part of the official teaching.

This SKK school? One round kick. That's the way they do it. They don't mess around with other ways. The instructor's response on seeing my typical round kick was, "wow, nice power, you Tao guys all have that wicked nice snap. Don't do it that way, do it like this." It's not at all a dismissal of outside methods, he seems to recognize that there's a lot of cool stuff out there, but also that you can't do it all, and you might as well pick one thing and stick with it.

-----------------------------------

So what do you guys think? Do you prefer to adapt, experiment, and expand your style or cut stuff out as you see fit, or do you like to find a tradition that works and stick with it. I'm really torn, I love being adaptable, and I love the idea of perfecting one way of doing things, and remaining fixed to that one way. (I realize there's not exactly a ton of tradition in Villari's SKK, but, you know what I mean.)

 

[colemcm]

My personal preference is to study a single art and deeply ingrain its method into my body. This isn't because other arts have nothing to offer, it's because I prefer to establish a strong base in the style I practice. I'm always willing to study the methods of other arts, but it's more because I like to know what other arts practice. Some of what they do translates into the mechanics of my chosen art and I find the possibility of including it to be fascinating, bit other techniques don't quite work. Being aware of what practitioners of other styles can throw at you is being adaptable while staying true to the principles of your own art.

 

[K-man]

Let me clarify what I'm trying to get at.

In my primary school, we are always looking at other ways of doing things, experimenting, making slight alterations to techniques, stances, practice routines, class structures, training methodologies, even classical forms. We love seeing what other schools and styles do, and taking little bits of technique or concept here and there. My instructor, just over thirty years ago, organized a get-together of a variety of schools from around New England, there are Kali/Escrima guys, Various Karate guys, TKD guys, JKD guys, knife throwing guys, we've had boxers and MMA instructors, ground-fighters, whatever, and the premise is that we all teach each other and walk away with a little bit of something new to take home and train. I love it. The head instructor knows guys from all over, and we like the sort of network/community of various martial arts schools around.


So what do you guys think? Do you prefer to adapt, experiment, and expand your style or cut stuff out as you see fit, or do you like to find a tradition that works and stick with it. I'm really torn, I love being adaptable, and I love the idea of perfecting one way of doing things, and remaining fixed to that one way. (I realize there's not exactly a ton of tradition in Villari's SKK, but, you know what I mean.)

I find you can be totally adaptable without changing the basic structure. I'm talking from a background of aikido and. Goju karate. What I teach is primarily what I have been taught as far as the basics are concerned. Especially where the kata (forms) are concerned, I wouldn't dream of changing them. As far as I am concerned it is my obligation to pass them on as I have been taught them. How you apply your kata as you advance is up to you. You can, as we do, explore the kata endlessly obtaining different perspectives as your development progresses. You can add various elements to the basic training as long as those additions comply with the basic principles of the system you are studying. For example, we do a lot of sticky hand training more like Kung fu and lots of joint manipulations and take downs as usually seen in aikido. These fit squarely in the Go (hard) Ju (soft) training of Goju Ryu. If I started adding elements of TKD, itself a hybrid system, it would change my system completely as the principles are different. Certainly training with other people and learning different styles is to be encouraged, but sometimes they need to be kept separate. I recently taught a combined aikido/karate class. What I taught was almost exclusively aikido as that fitted into my Goju student's training perfectly, but if I had taught karate techniques to my aikido students it would have been counter productive to their training.

You mention changing the stances. Years ago we were taught stances in basic form but we had no idea of how the stances were really used. If my teachers had changed those stances at that time, or not taught them at all, I would now be at a huge disadvantage.

If you are going to mix everything in together and change the forms, IMHO you may as well toss out the forms totally and just practise a 'freestyle' type of MA or straight MMA full stop.
:asian:

 

[Koshiki]

I find you can be totally adaptable without changing the basic structure. I'm talking from a background of aikido and. Goju karate. What I teach is primarily what I have been taught as far as the basics are concerned. Especially where the kata (forms) are concerned, I wouldn't dream of changing them. As far as I am concerned it is my obligation to pass them on as I have been taught them. How you apply your kata as you advance is up to you. You can, as we do, explore the kata endlessly obtaining different perspectives as your development progresses. You can add various elements to the basic training as long as those additions comply with the basic principles of the system you are studying. For example, we do a lot of sticky hand training more like Kung fu and lots of joint manipulations and take downs as usually seen in aikido. These fit squarely in the Go (hard) Ju (soft) training of Goju Ryu. If I started adding elements of TKD, itself a hybrid system, it would change my system completely as the principles are different. Certainly training with other people and learning different styles is to be encouraged, but sometimes they need to be kept separate. I recently taught a combined aikido/karate class. What I taught was almost exclusively aikido as that fitted into my Goju student's training perfectly, but if I had taught karate techniques to my aikido students it would have been counter productive to their training.

You mention changing the stances. Years ago we were taught stances in basic form but we had no idea of how the stances were really used. If my teachers had changed those stances at that time, or not taught them at all, I would now be at a huge disadvantage.

If you are going to mix everything in together and change the forms, IMHO you may as well toss out the forms totally and just practise a 'freestyle' type of MA or straight MMA full stop.
:asian:

I agree. Rereading my original post, I realize I made it sound like my original style is constantly changing dramatically. I was trying to paint a picture, but I guess I got carried away with description! For example, if an alteration is made to a form, (which is, especially with the core traditional forms, quite rare) it's usually something pretty tiny. I know some schools, especially some frequent tournament schools, will take, for example, Shushi no kan sho, and add spins and twirls and extra kicks, and pretty soon the form is almost an entirely new creation. I mean, more along the lines of discussion of whether a feet together stance is more appropriate in a certain instance, or a feet just barely separated stance. Usually, tradition wins out for traditions sake, and the form is unchanged, but every now and then, a change takes place.

I suppose what I was trying to ask about, was not whether or not you SHOULD change all the time, but whether or not you should CONSIDER change. We've had students return after ten year (give or take) hiatuses. Nearly everything is as it was when they left, but some things will have changed if the instructors recognize the need. For example, the majority of the changes occur in the 100 "self-defense" two person drills we practice. One pattern, meant to be drilled against a full-nelson, was for a while practiced with a very effective defense if the hold was hat worked if you were fast and aware; it required you to recognize the hold before completion. When it was pointed out that the effectiveness dropped severely if the hold was allowed to take place fully, endangering people's necks, the technique was slightly adapted to work at a slower reaction pace, relieving more of the neck pressure. (guess who got to be the dummy for testing alternatives to that one, ouch!)

I would advocate a balance. Too much change; how can you learn? No willingness to change; well sometimes you have to admit you were wrong, or that there's a better way. But what is the balance? Tricky question, especially on a general level.

(Also, we also do lots of sticky hand, joint manipulation, and take downs, always glad to hear of non-Chinese style schools practicing. Love that stuff! I prefer the control acquired from contact to the Russian roulette of a more TKD/Karate sparring distance, trying to avoid or deflect everything.)

 

[lklawson]

Let me clarify what I'm trying to get at.

In my primary school, we are always looking at other ways of doing things, experimenting, making slight alterations to techniques, stances, practice routines, class structures, training methodologies, even classical forms. We love seeing what other schools and styles do, and taking little bits of technique or concept here and there. My instructor, just over thirty years ago, organized a get-together of a variety of schools from around New England, there are Kali/Escrima guys, Various Karate guys, TKD guys, JKD guys, knife throwing guys, we've had boxers and MMA instructors, ground-fighters, whatever, and the premise is that we all teach each other and walk away with a little bit of something new to take home and train. I love it. The head instructor knows guys from all over, and we like the sort of network/community of various martial arts schools around.

Are you familiar at all with The Dog Brothers? They have a motto, "Smuggling technique across the borders of Style." (ims)

This SKK school? One round kick. That's the way they do it. They don't mess around with other ways. The instructor's response on seeing my typical round kick was, "wow, nice power, you Tao guys all have that wicked nice snap. Don't do it that way, do it like this." It's not at all a dismissal of outside methods, he seems to recognize that there's a lot of cool stuff out there, but also that you can't do it all, and you might as well pick one thing and stick with it.

For many martial artists the "art" is just as (or more) important than the effect. Doing it the same way maintains a connection to those who have gone before. Dali and Rembrant were both Master painters but painting in the style of one is not the style of the other and mixing the two styles would, to adherents of each, diminish the style.

Yes, there is a lot to be said of hunting through the various methods and amalgamating the best of each, but to style purists, that path eventually leads to just one more entrant on the ever growing list of MMA/RBSD/JKD type styles which, while perhaps effective, lack something which differentiates them and have little connection to past generations.

Being able to differentiate one style from another is an important aspect for these people and, in many ways, there is nothing wrong with that.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[colemcm]

I can't speak for everyone, but I think it goes beyond any romantic sense of upholding tradition for many people. There are simply some techniques that do not function with the mechanics of some arts. They can be incorporated, but not within the realm of the mechanics of the style. For some arts this is not important, but for others it is crucial.

 

[Koshiki]

Are you familiar at all with The Dog Brothers? They have a motto, "Smuggling technique across the borders of Style." (ims)

Ha. I like that.

For many martial artists the "art" is just as (or more) important than the effect. Doing it the same way maintains a connection to those who have gone before. Dali and Rembrant were both Master painters but painting in the style of one is not the style of the other and mixing the two styles would, to adherents of each, diminish the style.

...

Being able to differentiate one style from another is an important aspect for these people and, in many ways, there is nothing wrong with that.

There's something almost beautiful about that mindset. It's also kind of relaxing, to essentially let your mind sit back and just learn one kick. The Shihan at the SKK school likes to talk about practicing until you never, ever pay attention anymore, and your body just does the same move perfectly, because it's done it so many times. A far cry from the other side, of everytime you practice, nit-picking to make sure there is no better way. It seems that, it doesn't matter if there is a better way, one way is good enough. There will always be a better way, so just stick with the way you have.

I think for me, though, my personal "real" martial art will always be learning enough different ways to do the same thing, that they all eventually become the same thing applied differently. In other words, with enough round kicks, it's eventually not that you "perform" a round kick, but that your leg strikes from the side inward, in a way that functions. I suppose a way of putting it would be that you aim to eventually not have so much a set of techniques, but an understanding of how you can and cannot move effectively.

It's really odd, and thought provoking alternating between two such different mindsets. Especially since, in one we are encouraged to explore, and I often head classes, so no one is there to say "no," or "yes," whereas in the other I'm the newest white belt, so I have no control whatsoever. And, on an unrelated note, being a white belt is SO MUCH FUN!

 

[K-man]

I agree. Rereading my original post, I realize I made it sound like my original style is constantly changing dramatically. I was trying to paint a picture, but I guess I got carried away with description! For example, if an alteration is made to a form, (which is, especially with the core traditional forms, quite rare) it's usually something pretty tiny. I know some schools, especially some frequent tournament schools, will take, for example, Shushi no kan sho, and add spins and twirls and extra kicks, and pretty soon the form is almost an entirely new creation. I mean, more along the lines of discussion of whether a feet together stance is more appropriate in a certain instance, or a feet just barely separated stance. Usually, tradition wins out for traditions sake, and the form is unchanged, but every now and then, a change takes place.

I suppose what I was trying to ask about, was not whether or not you SHOULD change all the time, but whether or not you should CONSIDER change. We've had students return after ten year (give or take) hiatuses. Nearly everything is as it was when they left, but some things will have changed if the instructors recognize the need. For example, the majority of the changes occur in the 100 "self-defense" two person drills we practice. One pattern, meant to be drilled against a full-nelson, was for a while practiced with a very effective defense if the hold was hat worked if you were fast and aware; it required you to recognize the hold before completion. When it was pointed out that the effectiveness dropped severely if the hold was allowed to take place fully, endangering people's necks, the technique was slightly adapted to work at a slower reaction pace, relieving more of the neck pressure. (guess who got to be the dummy for testing alternatives to that one, ouch!)

I would advocate a balance. Too much change; how can you learn? No willingness to change; well sometimes you have to admit you were wrong, or that there's a better way. But what is the balance? Tricky question, especially on a general level.

(Also, we also do lots of sticky hand, joint manipulation, and take downs, always glad to hear of non-Chinese style schools practicing. Love that stuff! I prefer the control acquired from contact to the Russian roulette of a more TKD/Karate sparring distance, trying to avoid or deflect everything.)

OK, totally different scenario. We had all sorts of one step sparring drills, two step drills, unrealistic prearranged sparring, unrealistic bunkai etc when I was practising the sport based Japanese Goju karate. When I swapped to the Okinawan style of Goju I threw out all that now irrelevant stuff. If you look at change, it was probably two thirds of the curriculum. But, it did not change one bit the underlying core of Goju. So yes, by all means change the bits that have been added on when your increased understanding makes them irrelevant or redundant, but don't change the core of the style. While none of us fully understand what we have it is the well that we keep going back to. Try to keep the water pure.
:asian:

 

[Koshiki]

OK, totally different scenario. We had all sorts of one step sparring drills, two step drills, unrealistic prearranged sparring, unrealistic bunkai etc when I was practising the sport based Japanese Goju karate. When I swapped to the Okinawan style of Goju I threw out all that now irrelevant stuff. If you look at change, it was probably two thirds of the curriculum. But, it did not change one bit the underlying core of Goju. So yes, by all means change the bits that have been added on when your increased understanding makes them irrelevant or redundant, but don't change the core of the style. While none of us fully understand what we have it is the well that we keep going back to. Try to keep the water pure.
:asian:

Unfortunately, if you start out with pre-sport Taekwondo, I think you've already lost the pureness of the water. How far back do you have to go to know the water is pure? Where you yourself started? The style's founder? Founder's original style?

Just playing Devil's Advocate here!

 

[K-man]

Unfortunately, if you start out with pre-sport Taekwondo, I think you've already lost the pureness of the water. How far back do you have to go to know the water is pure? Where you yourself started? The style's founder? Founder's original style?

Just playing Devil's Advocate here!

TKD is a little difficult as it is primarily a modern MA and it has developed down the sport path. Even if you go back to the Kwans they are modern and based on different systems including Shotokan karate. But Shotokan is the Japanised version of Shorei Ryu and Shorin Ryu, also influenced by sport and competition.

Gichin Funakoshi had trained in both of the popular styles of Okinawan karate of the time: Shōrei-ryū and Shōrin-ryū. After years of study in both styles, Funakoshi created a simpler system that combined the ideals of the two. He never named this system, however, always referring to it simply as "karate." Funakoshi's karate reflects the changes made in the art by Ankō Itosu, including the Heian/Pinan kata series. Funakoshi changed the names of some of the kata in an effort to make the Okinawan kata names easier to pronounce in the Japanese Honshū dialect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shotokan

Not to take anything away from Funakoshi who was a great martial artist, the karate he taught was a sanitised version and at the risk of upsetting Shotokan practitioners, his karate is neither RBSD nor 'traditional'.

So, now we are back to Okinawa and even there you will not find the original systems unless you are prepared to dig deep. Most people are still training the basic karate as was taught post WWII. Here the water is pure but is also very deep. How deep are you prepared to dip?
:asian:

 

[Koshiki]

Here the water is pure but is also very deep. How deep are you prepared to dip?

If you go back far enough, I'm willing to bet most martial arts were something along the line of one or two VERY basic, unsophisticated strikes, little removed from intuitive brawling, and MAYBE something like a rough headlock, or a brute force type throw. Obviously, this goes back before record, but I don't believe for a second that older is equivalent with deeper, and certainly not with more effective.

Was the Model-A deeper and more effective than the Prius is? Did the Wright brothers know more than Boeing? Was Plato's "Republic" superior to modern governmental theory? (If you say yes, you're siding with a system that advocated the abolition of family, of knowledge of your parents, and of systematized, government organized reproduction by lottery, with partners whose identities should remain unknown!) Would you like that systemic infection treated with heavy duty modern anti-biotics and surgery, or would you prefer an amputation performed by a doctor who doesn't wash his hands, and uses a leather bit instead of anesthesia? J.S. Bach may have been a phenomenal harpsichordist, but Liszt left him in the dust, Rachmaninov made Liszt's work look like archaic child's play, and virtuoso pianist have only continued to reach new heights of performance. not to mention that as each new artist arrived on the scene, the keyboard technology which was available to them became more and more refined, more technically efficient and versatile, more expressive, more accurate, not to mention clearer and more vibrant in tone.

My point being, older and purer, does not necessarily equate to better, or even deeper.

We, as people, like to differentiate between width and breadth, but really, the terms are subjective and interchangeable. A pool shark has a very deep, intuitive knowledge of the dynamics of hard balls on a felt surface, but no real breadth to his physics knowledge. A Classical Physicist likely has less depth of knowledge of hard balls on felt, but a much deeper knowledge of the actual physics of materials in space, in general. He has a deeper knowledge of physics, though the pool player might say the physicist has breadth of knowledge, not depth and understanding. The pool shark has a deeper knowledge of pool-ball intuitive physics, but to the physicist, he has a broad but shallow understanding of how and why the balls move as they do. One human's breadth, is another human's depth.

If your depth is the depth of tradition, than older is better. If your depth is the depth of testing and adaptability, than old is shallow.

The Old Okinawan martial artists could not possibly be as familiar with the bone structure of the hand, or of the blood flow through the temples, or of the physiology of musculature, as any of us today can have with a couple hours of casual Googling. Early Shaolin martial artists lived in a very isolated time. They could not have known of the power that modern boxers would derive from a cross, of the Korean studies of kicking mechanics to come, of what tricks knife fighters would develop in the Philippine Islands, or even of what was happening 200 miles away at the same time.

Martial Arts, of any sort, did not spring into existence, pure, perfect and unsoiled. They developed, each practitioner, each generation adding a bit here, forgetting a bit there, discontinuing a bit that began to seem impractical, trying out something that that saw another do and liking it and learning it... Eventually, we get what we today consider the old, pure, traditional arts, really just an arbitrary snapshot of a moment out of the long history of change, change that has not stopped.

Until very recently, tradition was best, because there was limited knowledge available to any one group. Your best bet was to take the body of knowledge that was passed down in it's entirety and learn it. Now, there is far too much knowledge at everyone's finger tips, none of us can learn even a fraction of what we are exposed to, and the question becomes, not how can I learn what little is available, but how can I choose what to learn.

Escrima can out-knife Shotokan guys, but the don't have a stable power stance like the shotokan guys do. Taichi Chuan guys can take either of them and mess with their balance at will. Win chun guys will drive into a taichi guy with too many loose punches that don't give the commitment the taichi guy needs. A TKD guys kicks far outstrip a Win Chun-er, But I'd bet the TKD guy can't chi-sau to save his life. So martial artists of all stripes take a bit from here, see a bit there that works better and swap it out, ditch something when they realize it's outmoded, and so on.

It's the same pattern that has occurred from antiquity, but amplified.

I would argue that there is as much depth in an embracing struggle for progress, as there is in a tradition-based struggle for purity.

Envision a Cartesian grid, with the x-axis labeled "depth", and the y-axis labeled "breadth." Flip it 90 degrees, and x becomes breadth, and y depth.

 

[Mark Lynn]

I think a big difference between "traditional" and modern arts is the way and the intent with they are practiced.

Pre WWII actually probably pre karate going to Japan, a student studied a kata for years over and over and over again, so they had a depth to their understanding of the kata. I've read interviews of past masters talking about doing Nahanchi/Tekki/Chulgi shodan 300 times a day for years. I would venture to say if they were learning applications (bunkai) along with their practice then they had a deep level of knowledge or understanding of the kata to go along with their physical performance of the kata. Back then they also would have been practicing the kata with self defense in mind.

However now a days there is more of a disconnect between kata, applications of it's moves, and the real in depth study of the kata that comes from it being your main focus. Now it is practiced for sport, or for rank progress, or physical agility (skill) etc. etc. but self defense? If you are studying a kata for sport competition than it gets altered to fit the needs of sport; high kicks, adding in splits and back flips, along with many hours practicing your mean look in the mirror (to show everyone how serious you are). If you are into sparring with the emphasis on kicking than you try and adapt the kata to fit your sparring needs such as the TKD forms Chug Mu, Hwa Rang etc. etc.

If you want to preserve heritage than you can collect the kata (such as what Funakoshi did bringing different kata from different systems into a new style/system (Shotokan) to preserve them, or create new kata to differentiate you new art to the parent art such as in ITF TKD.

I believe what determines more if something is better or not is not how old/new it is but what is the intent behind the practice (and how it is practiced) of the technique/kata/style of martial arts.

Zack you wrote
"but I don't believe for a second that older is equivalent with deeper, and certainly not with more effective." In regards to technology I get and agree with your point here. Who would want to go back to a 386 chip for their computer, or a shoulder supported VHS camera? However in regards to self defense I disagree.

Take a good look at Nahanchi Shodan and compare it to say Chug Mu (ITF TKD form); now Nahanchi is older and Otsuka (founder of Wado ryu) stated it is very deep kata and it would take a life time to master it, (referring to the combative applications found within it,) but it is very simple compared to Chug Mu. I believe that Nahanchi has more to offer than Chug Mu in terms of material for self defense, but Chug Mu has a much wider series of techniques, with a elevated jump kick, side kick turn kick combinations, a jump up and 360 deg. turn, a spear hand, groin grab (or throw) etc. etc.

In regards for SD it needs to be simple not complex.

 

[Mark Lynn]

Unfortunately, if you start out with pre-sport Taekwondo, I think you've already lost the pureness of the water. How far back do you have to go to know the water is pure? Where you yourself started? The style's founder? Founder's original style?

Just playing Devil's Advocate here!

Zack

Frankly if you start with TKD at all you have lost in a sense the pureness since it is based on Japanese karate both of which that have now grown into sports.

When the masters of the kwans all studied Japanese karate the water was already tainted and un pure (in a sense), because they had started to move away from bunkai being taught from a more SD mindset to a longer stance and sparring mindset. In fact I believe if you look at the all of the older manuals of TKD the applications of techniques appear to be very similar to the applications found in the karate manuals about the same time i.e. from sparring type distances.

 

[K-man]

If you go back far enough, I'm willing to bet most martial arts were something along the line of one or two VERY basic, unsophisticated strikes, little removed from intuitive brawling, and MAYBE something like a rough headlock, or a brute force type throw. Obviously, this goes back before record, but I don't believe for a second that older is equivalent with deeper, and certainly not with more effective.

You have to go back thousands of years to reach that point and I'm not advocating that. If you go back 100 years and dip below the surface it is very complex. The simple form developed when karate was taken into the schools.

Was the Model-A deeper and more effective than the Prius is? Did the Wright brothers know more than Boeing? Was Plato's "Republic" superior to modern governmental theory? (If you say yes, you're siding with a system that advocated the abolition of family, of knowledge of your parents, and of systematized, government organized reproduction by lottery, with partners whose identities should remain unknown!) Would you like that systemic infection treated with heavy duty modern anti-biotics and surgery, or would you prefer an amputation performed by a doctor who doesn't wash his hands, and uses a leather bit instead of anesthesia? J.S. Bach may have been a phenomenal harpsichordist, but Liszt left him in the dust, Rachmaninov made Liszt's work look like archaic child's play, and virtuoso pianist have only continued to reach new heights of performance. not to mention that as each new artist arrived on the scene, the keyboard technology which was available to them became more and more refined, more technically efficient and versatile, more expressive, more accurate, not to mention clearer and more vibrant in tone.

My point being, older and purer, does not necessarily equate to better, or even deeper.

Quite true is these situations but not a valid comparison when it comes to martial arts.

We, as people, like to differentiate between width and breadth, but really, the terms are subjective and interchangeable. A pool shark has a very deep, intuitive knowledge of the dynamics of hard balls on a felt surface, but no real breadth to his physics knowledge. A Classical Physicist likely has less depth of knowledge of hard balls on felt, but a much deeper knowledge of the actual physics of materials in space, in general. He has a deeper knowledge of physics, though the pool player might say the physicist has breadth of knowledge, not depth and understanding. The pool shark has a deeper knowledge of pool-ball intuitive physics, but to the physicist, he has a broad but shallow understanding of how and why the balls move as they do. One human's breadth, is another human's depth.

If your depth is the depth of tradition, than older is better. If your depth is the depth of testing and adaptability, than old is shallow.

Once again perfectly valid reasoning for your example, but nothing to do with the case in point.

The Old Okinawan martial artists could not possibly be as familiar with the bone structure of the hand, or of the blood flow through the temples, or of the physiology of musculature, as any of us today can have with a couple hours of casual Googling. Early Shaolin martial artists lived in a very isolated time. They could not have known of the power that modern boxers would derive from a cross, of the Korean studies of kicking mechanics to come, of what tricks knife fighters would develop in the Philippine Islands, or even of what was happening 200 miles away at the same time.

Here is where I believe you are wrong. Chinese medicine goes back thousands of years and the techniques of the CMA were tested on prisoners. The Chinese had very good knowledge of anatomy and the way in which striking one part of the body affects another. They studied vital points and chi flow for generations, something that is missing from most Western forms of martial arts. This is the source of the Okinawan systems.

Martial Arts, of any sort, did not spring into existence, pure, perfect and unsoiled. They developed, each practitioner, each generation adding a bit here, forgetting a bit there, discontinuing a bit that began to seem impractical, trying out something that that saw another do and liking it and learning it... Eventually, we get what we today consider the old, pure, traditional arts, really just an arbitrary snapshot of a moment out of the long history of change, change that has not stopped.

Once again, I would have to disagree. Certainly martial arts developed over the years but over hundreds of years. Rather than a lot of people adding bits, each family handed down their own family fighting system, preserved as kata. Ineffectual systems may have died out because in the cruel light of the time, they failed. But between 100 and 150 years ago a number of those systems were introduced to Okinawa by masters like Bushi Matsumura and Higaonna. Here it was blended with the native Okinawan system and became what we call Karate. It was probably at its peak about 100 years ago, only taught to a few people. When it was taken into the schools, many changes occurred and all of the lethal techniques were removed from the karate that was openly taught. What we have in most places today is absolutely nothing like traditional. It wasn't the impractical things that were taken out, it was the core of the art that the masters did not want shown to the world.

Until very recently, tradition was best, because there was limited knowledge available to any one group. Your best bet was to take the body of knowledge that was passed down in it's entirety and learn it. Now, there is far too much knowledge at everyone's finger tips, none of us can learn even a fraction of what we are exposed to, and the question becomes, not how can I learn what little is available, but how can I choose what to learn.

And again, within karate and anything flowing from karate, only a small fraction was passed down as kata, strikes, kicks and 'blocks'. Hands were closed into fists, a close combat style of martial art became a sport based style so all the locks, holds, throws etc were in most cases ignored. Applications of kata were passed off as really basic actions and post war Westerners were more than happy to take on everything at face value. They believed that in the limited time they spent in Okinawa and Japan, post war, that they had mastered what the masters took decades to learn.

Escrima can out-knife Shotokan guys, but the don't have a stable power stance like the shotokan guys do. Taichi Chuan guys can take either of them and mess with their balance at will. Win chun guys will drive into a taichi guy with too many loose punches that don't give the commitment the taichi guy needs. A TKD guys kicks far outstrip a Win Chun-er, But I'd bet the TKD guy can't chi-sau to save his life. So martial artists of all stripes take a bit from here, see a bit there that works better and swap it out, ditch something when they realize it's outmoded, and so on.

Escrma is a different martial art completely. You can't compare it to Shotokan. But it is interesting that you talk about the Shotokan stance as 'stable'. If you used that type of stance against Escrima you would be cut to ribbons. Ask yourself, in the pub which of the Shotokan stances would you regard as practical? If you say 'none' you would be right because in a SD environment how they are mostly taught is totally wrong. If you said 'all of them', I would question your knowledge, but you would be right.

It's the same pattern that has occurred from antiquity, but amplified.

I would argue that there is as much depth in an embracing struggle for progress, as there is in a tradition-based struggle for purity.

Until you understand totally what is contained in the original system, I wouldn't see the need to change or add anything. Having studied this stuff for decades I believe I have a fair understanding, but I still don't know what I don't know and I know there are a number of people in Okinawa that do know but are not going to share their complete knowledge anytime soon, and if the have shared knowledge with Westerners it would be on the basis that it was not passed on. That implies a very close relationship and a huge amount of trust. Despite that, bits and pieces emerge from time to time that give the opportunity to put bits back into the system.

Envision a Cartesian grid, with the x-axis labeled "depth", and the y-axis labeled "breadth." Flip it 90 degrees, and x becomes breadth, and y depth.

There is so much here that I'll have to take it in one big block.
:asian:

 

[Chris Parker]

If you go back far enough, I'm willing to bet most martial arts were something along the line of one or two VERY basic, unsophisticated strikes, little removed from intuitive brawling, and MAYBE something like a rough headlock, or a brute force type throw. Obviously, this goes back before record, but I don't believe for a second that older is equivalent with deeper, and certainly not with more effective.

Without getting into the rest of it, I thought I'd just address this part, because it's actually backwards (in many traditional arts). There's a great deal of evidence to suggest that the way it went was that an experienced warrior would come to some insight or understanding of the nature of combat, and they would express that in a small group of key, fundamental techniques... however, these techniques were often very refined in strategy/tactics, mechanics, timing, or some other such aspect. And, as new students coming to that warrior to learn from their insight wouldn't have the experience to understand these advanced techniques, a series of more basic methods would need to be created... techniques that showed, or taught, the fundamental principles found in the advanced methods, but in a way that was more accessible, or less refined. In traditional Japanese arts, these advanced techniques are often referred to as the "Okuden" (the inner secrets) of the art... and the rest of the syllabus were, in many cases, simply preparatory for the student to be able to understand and employ the Okuden material. Very little "basic" about it.

With regards to the idea put forth of "most martial arts were something along the line of one or two VERY basic, unsophisticated... etc", uh, no. That's not really a martial art, that's a couple of basic techniques. And the distinction is a big one.

 

[punisher73]

Without getting into the rest of it, I thought I'd just address this part, because it's actually backwards (in many traditional arts). There's a great deal of evidence to suggest that the way it went was that an experienced warrior would come to some insight or understanding of the nature of combat, and they would express that in a small group of key, fundamental techniques... however, these techniques were often very refined in strategy/tactics, mechanics, timing, or some other such aspect. And, as new students coming to that warrior to learn from their insight wouldn't have the experience to understand these advanced techniques, a series of more basic methods would need to be created... techniques that showed, or taught, the fundamental principles found in the advanced methods, but in a way that was more accessible, or less refined. In traditional Japanese arts, these advanced techniques are often referred to as the "Okuden" (the inner secrets) of the art... and the rest of the syllabus were, in many cases, simply preparatory for the student to be able to understand and employ the Okuden material. Very little "basic" about it.

With regards to the idea put forth of "most martial arts were something along the line of one or two VERY basic, unsophisticated... etc", uh, no. That's not really a martial art, that's a couple of basic techniques. And the distinction is a big one.

Very well put.

I would also add that in Okinawan karate, the motions originally did not have names to them. You were taught a motion that was a mnuemonic device that had multiple applications and concepts. It wasn't until later when karate was shown in books that they needed to put a name with the motion and called it "chudan uke" for example, which then became "middle block". Then any application shown started to inherently with a middle block. It hasn't been to long that westerners are starting to realize that "uke" means "to receive" and that started to open up the application ideas. Then we learned that the motion itself is what was important and had no actual meaning as a preset idea and that opened up even more ideas. For example, start your right hand at your left hip with the palm up and then bring that hand out as if you were doing a middle block. It can be a strike/block to the attacker's arm in one application. Now, change your targeting and it becomes a strike to the side of your opponent's neck. Now, have your attacker grab your right wrist and do the same motion and counter grab and starts the beginning of aikido's ikkyu. All with the same motion. This is why okinawan karate was so deep. The master's had at least 3 levels of application, the obvious striking methods, then it went into the locks/throws etc. then finally it went into the lethal applications of those locks/throws/strikes.

There are some that argue by crosstraining that they can get to the deeper levels faster because they see other applications with similiar movements. For example, I remember one instructor saying that if you want to understand your katas applications look at American kenpo's self-defense techniques and you will see many of the same movements in them. I like to think of this idea as "cross-referencing" because you are still sticking to your primary art and art learning a new way of moving or doing things, you are using the other arts on a mental level. The problem with learning an entirely new art to try and add to your base art is, that many times they don't mix well. They have different mechanics, different strategies and tactics, etc. etc. Without a very good foundation, this is just going to mess up a newer student.

 

[K-man]

Very well put.

I would also add that in Okinawan karate, the motions originally did not have names to them. You were taught a motion that was a mnuemonic device that had multiple applications and concepts. It wasn't until later when karate was shown in books that they needed to put a name with the motion and called it "chudan uke" for example, which then became "middle block". Then any application shown started to inherently with a middle block. It hasn't been to long that westerners are starting to realize that "uke" means "to receive" and that started to open up the application ideas. Then we learned that the motion itself is what was important and had no actual meaning as a preset idea and that opened up even more ideas. For example, start your right hand at your left hip with the palm up and then bring that hand out as if you were doing a middle block. It can be a strike/block to the attacker's arm in one application. Now, change your targeting and it becomes a strike to the side of your opponent's neck. Now, have your attacker grab your right wrist and do the same motion and counter grab and starts the beginning of aikido's ikkyu. All with the same motion. This is why okinawan karate was so deep. The master's had at least 3 levels of application, the obvious striking methods, then it went into the locks/throws etc. then finally it went into the lethal applications of those locks/throws/strikes.

There are some that argue by crosstraining that they can get to the deeper levels faster because they see other applications with similiar movements. For example, I remember one instructor saying that if you want to understand your katas applications look at American kenpo's self-defense techniques and you will see many of the same movements in them. I like to think of this idea as "cross-referencing" because you are still sticking to your primary art and art learning a new way of moving or doing things, you are using the other arts on a mental level. The problem with learning an entirely new art to try and add to your base art is, that many times they don't mix well. They have different mechanics, different strategies and tactics, etc. etc. Without a very good foundation, this is just going to mess up a newer student.

Great post!

What you are saying is 100% correct but if I had waited for my original instructor to teach me other than 'blocks' I would have wasted 30 years instead of just 20. :wah:

Once I realised there was a great deal more to karate than I had been shown I had to explore it for myself, as none of our highly ranked instructors had the slightest idea there was far more to the art. The vehicle I chose, almost by accident, was aikido. It fits in perfectly with the principles of Goju and gives many explanations for the moves in the kata.

Would that mess up a new student? Possibly, but it's a risk I would encourage if you haven't a really good instructor.
:asian:

 

[lklawson]

Without getting into the rest of it, I thought I'd just address this part, because it's actually backwards (in many traditional arts). There's a great deal of evidence to suggest that the way it went was that an experienced warrior would come to some insight or understanding of the nature of combat, and they would express that in a small group of key, fundamental techniques... however, these techniques were often very refined in strategy/tactics, mechanics, timing, or some other such aspect. And, as new students coming to that warrior to learn from their insight wouldn't have the experience to understand these advanced techniques, a series of more basic methods would need to be created... techniques that showed, or taught, the fundamental principles found in the advanced methods, but in a way that was more accessible, or less refined. In traditional Japanese arts, these advanced techniques are often referred to as the "Okuden" (the inner secrets) of the art... and the rest of the syllabus were, in many cases, simply preparatory for the student to be able to understand and employ the Okuden material. Very little "basic" about it.

With regards to the idea put forth of "most martial arts were something along the line of one or two VERY basic, unsophisticated... etc", uh, no. That's not really a martial art, that's a couple of basic techniques. And the distinction is a big one.

There's also a great deal of evidence to support that an experienced martial artist was just passing on to students what worked and doesn't get you killed. There's also a lot of evidence that an experienced martial artist was looking to his career and retirement. Heck, apparently many "village styles" of Silat are represented by a single "kata" which apparently a traveling master would give to the village in exchange for some service such as room & board for a few seasons.

There is no "one path" by which a Martial Art was begun. However, I think we can all agree that at some point it was reduced to a guy or group who were essentially untrained and just trying to survive this fight. From there it grew. The question then becomes, at what point does a collection of knowledge about fighting become a "martial art?" Lot of ink spilled over that one.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Koshiki]

I think a big difference between "traditional" and modern arts is the way and the intent with they are practiced.

I would tentatively offer that that is more of a difference between sport and SD and combat and performance martial arts, rather than traditional (handed down), and modern martial arts. "Traditional" is a fairly nebulous word anyway, so many of us use it in very different ways...

...practicing your mean look in the mirror (to show everyone how serious you are)...

That gets me every time. But then, if I went to a tournament, I'd probably come in last place, so what do I know...

Take a good look at Nahanchi Shodan and compare it to say Chug Mu (ITF TKD form); now Nahanchi is older and Otsuka (founder of Wado ryu) stated it is very deep kata and it would take a life time to master it, (referring to the combative applications found within it,) but it is very simple compared to Chug Mu. I believe that Nahanchi has more to offer than Chug Mu in terms of material for self defense, but Chug Mu has a much wider series of techniques, with a elevated jump kick, side kick turn kick combinations, a jump up and 360 deg. turn, a spear hand, groin grab (or throw) etc. etc.

I'm, not at all familiar with Chug Mu, but I understand the difference you are driving at. I would agree entirely with you. Certainly, most tournament oriented forms seem to be nothing more than sequences of flashy strikes. Little to delve into, there.

What I'm getting at is that yes, Naihanchi may offer more than Chug Mu, but that not continuing to explore what it could offer is stagnation, not tradition. If you take a set of Bunkai for a particular motion in the form and claim that as the traditional, thus "pure" bunkai, you are not necessarily achieving depth, but rather complacency. Some students of the martial arts would take this mindset to the extreme, of "I can make up EVERYTHING and it will be progress," which leads to XMA and it's predecessors and imitators. Impressive, yes, but not my cup of tea.

I think part of the reason a form like Naihanchi Shoddan, or Bassai can be so "deep" is because many of the movements seem so obscure that they FORCE the practitioner to really delve into them and experiment. Rather than some thrown together set of round kicks to the head, performed while hopping in a circle, not much room for interpretation, there...

In regards for SD it needs to be simple not complex.

I sincerely doubt that anyone would disagree with that statement!

Without getting into the rest of it, I thought I'd just address this part, because it's actually backwards (in many traditional arts). There's a great deal of evidence to suggest that the way it went was that an experienced warrior would come to some insight or understanding of the nature of combat, and they would express that in a small group of key, fundamental techniques...

Ok, so if our inspired and experienced warrior developed his own understanding, which he began to teach as a small set of fundamentals, what had he been doing BEFORE that? Were he and all of his compatriots flailing wildly, or did they practice and drill and utilize certain techniques and theories? Certainly, any maintained fighting force, or even somewhat organized citizen militia must have had SOME sort of occasional drilling regimen, yes? Likely comprised of a small group of key, fundamental techniques?

We may say that yes, they likely had such a fighting style, suited to their arms and armour and tactics. Where then, did this style come from? Was it a previous experienced warrior with a certain insight into combat? Perhaps, but then the cycle loops again.

The point is, at SOME point in time, the system and it's roots were simple and likely very shallow. As they grew, each contributor, or as you say, experienced, insightful warrior, furthered or changed the knowledge base.

With regards to the idea put forth of "most martial arts were something along the line of one or two VERY basic, unsophisticated... etc", uh, no. That's not really a martial art, that's a couple of basic techniques. And the distinction is a big one.

With all respect due, the distinction cannot possibly be a big one. If we have a high school shoving match level of sophistication at one end of the spectrum, and (insert your favoured pure traditional martial arts icon here) at the other, there is a continual gradient or spectrum between, encompassing less refined martial arts, sport martial arts, martial arts derived exercise, and finally a couple basic techniques.

So, if a "couple basic techniques" is not a martial art, and (four favorite martial art) is, where is the line drawn? It's like the heap of sand analogy. As you take it away, grain by grain, when does it cease to be a heap? As you add a technique here, and an understanding there, and an application or theory here, when do you arrive at the level of martial art? Do we reach a certain point, firmly in the realm of "a couple techniques" and then, adding a new wrist throw, suddenly breach the huge gap, and arrive on the other side with the big distinction that separates the realms?

I have never heard of anything in Human existence which sprung full-formed into being, without building gradually on past understandings. Every 10 years, or 50, or even every century does not bring huge leaps forward, but I think the comparison to technology is valid, and that to say, "they knew as much then as we will ever know in the future," is to decide to let the martial arts first stagnate, then atrophy. In any teaching of tradition, a few salient points will unavoidably be lost, a few understandings and applications forgotten or misunderstood. If it is not permitted to change and create, how can the future be anything BUT less than the past?

K-Man, on the subject of Chi flow, strikes to one area affecting specific organs in another, the relative worth of Traditional Medicines versus Modern Medicines, and whether first millennium Buddhist Monks knew as much about functional anatomy and physiology as current day anatomists, or even their contemporary Chinese anatomists, I will have to pass, for the purposes of this thread!

You seem to dismiss a great deal of what I have to say on the basis of the current state of Karate. Which is fine, we can certainly argue that Karate is less effectively taught and trained than it was 100-150 years ago in Okinawa. That, however, is a very minuscule and limited segment of, not only the range of martial arts, but also the progress of martial arts. You say that Karate reached a peak. How then, did it get there, if not by adding what seemed good, and removing what failed to work?

IF we re-direct the conversation to specifically Okinawan Karate, and specifically the past 15 years, than there could very well be a pattern of decline. If we look at the original topic, martial arts, I think we realize that what we are looking at is an anomaly. We all agree, I think, that martial arts grew and progressed around the world. SOme of us think they reached a peak and are in decline, and can only be maintained; some of us think they can continue to grow.

You're right. Escrima and Shotokan are completely different. You can't really compare them. I didn't, I contrasted them, to illustrate that they ARE so very different. My point in bringing up Escrima vs Shotokan vs Taichi Chuan vs Win Chun vs TKD is that they ALL bring something different to the table. Whether or not you like it, whether you find it applicable is up to you, but each does something better than another, each does many things worse. To say, "I do Shotokan, I will not borrow theory from Escrima," is to risk *becoming* that Shotokan practitioner who thinks stances are not a momentary source of power, but that he can sit motionless in a stance and not be, as you say, cut to ribbons. But if he deigns to learn from Escrima, perhaps his art will adapt in a way which makes it stronger.

The desire to take a system which openly has "pieces missing" which are either lost or withheld indefinitely, to me, seems less like a study in what works, and more like a study in history. Both are incredibly valid, neither better than the other. Again, the danger which *I* see in this mindset is that, by refusing to incorporate from outside or innovate from within, you have to trust that your generation will someday achieve, maintain, and pass on perfectly the complete body of knowledge. If you only manage to successfully transmit 97% of it, the next generation is that much poorer. It is unlikely that THEY will be any better at informing the next generation, and then the body of knowledge is only, say, 95% of the original. 100 years later, perhaps 20% is missing, unless innovation is encouraged.

Also, I have an innate discomfort with the idea that there are a few people who hold the secrets of an art, but are unwilling to disclose them, and that until they do, we can't have a full understanding. And Also another Also, that is again Okinawan Karate specific. There's always the chance, too, that should the secretive Okinawan Masters for some reason choose to disclose *their* understanding of Karate, we might find it functionally inferior to what hundreds of thousands have had to figure out for themselves in their absence and silence.

I seem to have forced myself into the role of advocating change at the expense of tradition, which is not really my stance. I only take it because the popular viewpoint seems to be the inverse, which is ALSO not my stance.

 

[colemcm]

The problem with that approach is that until you really know the art, you're only guessing as to which components are missing.

When I was teaching Tai Chi, I had students who would come in from various arts and want to cherry-pick techniques to supplement their arts. Quite simply, this does not work. At least not in any way that even closely incorporates the principles of Tai Chi. No matter how many times I tried to explain to them that Tai Chi is not the form, but is instead something you learn through practicing the form and engaging in partner practice, it just didn't sink in. In the end, many of them left without even a basic understanding of what Tai Chi actually is. It's the principles of Tai Chi that make it work, not the techniques. In truth, you can incorporate many (but not all) kinds of techniques into Tai Chi by modifying them to work within its principles, but first you have to know them.

The ironic thing is that many of these people felt that my Sifu or I had withheld things from them. Never once have we done that. They were simply too full of their own ideas to be open to what it was that we were teaching them.

I suspect that the real reason that many of these arts have degraded is that there were too many people who were not truly qualified to teach who ended up in teaching positions. Tai Chi seems to have been especially susceptible to this. It went from being a highly regarded martial art to something that old people do in the park; a type of moving meditation or yoga.