Modern Martial Arts vs. Traditional Martial Arts

[Eric Daniel]

I don't think one martial art is better than another one either. I have a question that I have had trouble with for a couple weeks since I posted this topic:

How is a modern martial art determind and a traditional martial art determind, and how are they different? Are they di Are the Modern martial arts any more effective or better than traditional arts? What is your opinion?

There are NO modern martial arts.

I have heard many times that modern martial arts are better than traditional martial arts for living in todays violent world. However, I disagree with this because ancient Martial arts like karate and jujutsu were made for combat on the battlefield.

What are your opinions??

Later, Eric

 

[Andrew Green]

First, any unarmed fighting system was NOT meant for the battlefield. They had weapons, and fought with those.

Traditional and modern lines are easily blurred. MMA gets called modern, but Pankration can be traced back to Ancient Greece... BJJ gets called modern, but it's been around longer then many Traditional ones.

Not to mention that some modern arts are more entrenched in traditions then most traditional ones...

My personal take is this:

Modern - Making stuff work for me

Traditional - Preserving the style and culture someone else laid out.

Both are good goals, just different. Both can teach you to fight, to differing levels. But there is more to martial arts to fighting and it should be a secondary concern to everything else you get out of training.

Classical music is good, modern rock and Jazz are good too. Three different things though, different people are drawn to each. Lots of skill involved in all 3, just different skills.

 

[FearlessFreep]

My opinion is that 'modern' and 'traditional' are just words that *really* don't mean much. I'm mean, you can lump things into categories for convenience when needed but there is no real dividing line between tham that is really meaningful

I mean, take Taekwondo as an example; is it 'modern' in the sense that it was developed in the 20th century? Or is it traditional because it's based on techniques and ideals going back far longer. Is it modern because the sparring/competition aspect is a very recent development? Or is traditional because it includes forms, etc..

As for effectiveness. I think the only thing that has really changed much in the last few hundred years or so are handguns. I mean, human joints and bones ad muscles haven't changed much, and people still react to fear, stress, threats, etc...about the same. Social situations have changed a bit and social interactions and legal responsibilities, but I think that's something that a person has to learn or be aware of outside of the technique of any given art.

 

[Bigshadow]

I will give this a go... The way I look at modern versus traditional martial arts is like this... Many traditional martial arts have had 100s of years of development AND use. The modern martial arts much less so, and they often times dispense with traditional customs and formalities and focus purely on the science and physics of a particular section of armed or unarmed combat. I believe they can be viewed as being in their infancy.

Of course the waters get murkier because even in traditional martial arts, depending on differing cultural customs, often times traditional formalities are dispensed with because they don't necessarily add any value to the training.

If your looking for an answer as to which is more effective, I think that in some cases it may be just as difficult to determine. However, I would imagine that the traditional martial arts would have had the time to mature whereas modern martial arts are still in their infancy and may have a lot of bugs to work out.

 

[Grenadier]

"Good" martial arts are "good" martial arts, regardless of whether they are traditional or modern.

Who is to say which one is better? I personally prefer a traditional school of martial arts, but I'll also readily admit that there are many excellent modern martial arts schools, and many terrible traditional schools. I would much rather train at a good modern martial arts school, than at a bad traditional martial arts school.

For a traditional school, if the teachings are good, if the style is practical, and if the students listen and train hard, then I honestly believe that someone coming out of such a school would be able to hold his own on the street quite nicely. Even though the techniques of traditional Karate, Jiu-Jitsu, etc., are old, that doesn't change the fact that the laws of physics are still in effect to this date. Knuckles from a well-executed punch smashing into soft tissue still results in the desired effect. Joint locks and choke holds still incapacitate the opponent, etc. Nothing is going to change that. The tried and true still applies even to this day and age.

Let me take a step backwards, and comment on today's "modern" martial arts. Would they work on the street? The way I see it, it's the same as the traditional school. If the style is practical, if the students listen and train hard, if the teachers are good, etc., then they'll do just fine when it comes to a street fight.

If a well-rounded Krav Maga practitioner and a well-rounded Karate practitioner of approximately equal size, strength, and both having good backgrounds etc., get into fights against enemies on the street, who's going to do better? The answer is: whoever trained harder, and had a better teacher.

Now, where a "modern" martial arts school might have an advantage, is teaching specific applications, such as defenses against knives, firearms (I know, I know, not much of a chance), etc., but such topics are routinely covered in seminars all over the world, and one need only look to see what they can find in their local area if their school does not normally cover such topics. If anything, I see many traditional instructors taking these seminars and passing on such knowledge.

 

[Andrew Green]

Exactly, both have good stuff and silly stuff being taught under there banner. The groupings are silly.

 

[Eric Daniel]

First, any unarmed fighting system was NOT meant for the battlefield. They had weapons, and fought with those.

Are you sure about this one? The Samurai's used weapons like swords but they also learned unarmed combat in case they lost there sword (which Ibelieve never happened.) The military today use or at least are taught empty hand techniques as well as weapons like knife, and gun because when you are on the battlefield what will you do if someone somehow disarms you (I know your probably saying it will never happen but what ever scenario you can think of can and will happen) what will you do if all you know is how to use a gun?

 

[Bigshadow]

Are you sure about this one? The Samurai's used weapons like swords but they also learned unarmed combat in case they lost there sword (which Ibelieve never happened.) The military today use or at least are taught empty hand techniques as well as weapons like knife, and gun because when you are on the battlefield what will you do if someone somehow disarms you (I know your probably saying it will never happen but what ever scenario you can think of can and will happen) what will you do if all you know is how to use a gun?

Ughhmmmm....

First, any unarmed fighting system was NOT meant for the battlefield. They had weapons, and fought with those.

unarmed explicitly means without arms (aka weapons).

 

[Andrew Green]

The military today use or at least are taught empty hand techniques

Only at a VERY basic level, it is near the bottom of training priorities.

Often seems more geared to making them agressive and "hard" then it is teaching battlefield skills too.

 

[Flying Crane]

keep in mind that what we tend to call "traditional" martial arts were actually "modern" once upon a time, when they were first developed. Modern and cutting-edge, actually.

Maybe it isn't the art itself that is modern or traditional, but rather the training methods. Things like kata practice would tend to be on the traditional side. I am not sure what exactly would be a "modern" approach to training, however. take for example Krav Maga as a young art. It focuses on a method of combat. Regardless of the approach to training, it still focuses on being an effective method of combat. This is also what the traditional arts did/do. ...ok, I'm going thru a change in my thought process here, as I type....

Maybe it is really a distiction between older and younger martial arts. Some have been around longer than others, but they all try to create a useful and effective method of combat/self-defense, regardless of methodology.

 

[Icewater]

IMHO... Martial Arts have evolved much over time. In speculation, what began as exercises for lazy monks has developed into a multitude of styles, philosophies, and techniques that now span the globe. I think you can draw a line for traditional arts and modern arts if you try, although there will be gray area. You may even go so far as to say that modern arts can be identified by their roots in a traditional art. i.e. - when I think of BJJ today, I think of the Gracies and their style of JJ. I would call that modern.

 

[MJS]

keep in mind that what we tend to call "traditional" martial arts were actually "modern" once upon a time, when they were first developed. Modern and cutting-edge, actually.

Maybe it isn't the art itself that is modern or traditional, but rather the training methods. Things like kata practice would tend to be on the traditional side. I am not sure what exactly would be a "modern" approach to training, however. take for example Krav Maga as a young art. It focuses on a method of combat. Regardless of the approach to training, it still focuses on being an effective method of combat. This is also what the traditional arts did/do. ...ok, I'm going thru a change in my thought process here, as I type....

Maybe it is really a distiction between older and younger martial arts. Some have been around longer than others, but they all try to create a useful and effective method of combat/self-defense, regardless of methodology.

Good points!! I would think that if we looked at any of the RBSD guys out there, we could call their approach modern. Looking at the way that they train, ie: no kata, adding in as much aliveness and realism as they can, scenario training, knowledge of the laws, etc. would all fall into that category. Basically, how they're applying things would IMO make it more modern.

Mike

 

[Flying Crane]

Good points!! I would think that if we looked at any of the RBSD guys out there, we could call their approach modern. Looking at the way that they train, ie: no kata, adding in as much aliveness and realism as they can, scenario training, knowledge of the laws, etc. would all fall into that category. Basically, how they're applying things would IMO make it more modern.

Mike

Yes, there are some methods that have been around for a long time, such as Kata practice, that can be seen as outdated. Some people feel these older methods are no longer cutting-edge, and there are better ways to do things, which leads to a "modern" approach to training. This could also include such things as modern strength training equipment, as opposed to using weighted clay jars and such for strength training, as is used in some of the Okinawan systems. These older methods can still give good results, but some people prefer an approach based on modern principles, including advances in physiology and technology, and social changes that have happened over the generations.

by the way, what is RBSD?

 

[MJS]

Yes, there are some methods that have been around for a long time, such as Kata practice, that can be seen as outdated. Some people feel these older methods are no longer cutting-edge, and there are better ways to do things, which leads to a "modern" approach to training. This could also include such things as modern strength training equipment, as opposed to using weighted clay jars and such for strength training, as is used in some of the Okinawan systems. These older methods can still give good results, but some people prefer an approach based on modern principles, including advances in physiology and technology, and social changes that have happened over the generations.

I agree.

by the way, what is RBSD?

Reality Based Self Defense. Marc "Animal" MacYoung, Peyton Quinn, Jim Wagner, and Tony Blauer are a few names. Do a search online, you'll find alot of interesting info.

Mike

 

[Shogun]

Are you sure about this one? The Samurai's used weapons like swords but they also learned unarmed combat in case they lost there sword (which Ibelieve never happened.)

Samurai did learn empty hand, but it was regarded as a "sub-art" much as weapon training is in most MA today. say for example, stick training in Gracie jiu jitsu

 

[Flying Crane]

Samurai did learn empty hand, but it was regarded as a "sub-art" much as weapon training is in most MA today. say for example, stick training in Gracie jiu jitsu

this is an interesting point, to realize how the emphasis on what is trained has changed. Used to be the focus was on the weaponry, as first line of combat. The hand-to-hand stuff was your last resort, so got less attention.

Nowadays, we focus more on empty hand, and the weapons practice is something of a sideline, just to keep the tradition alive. Yet another example of social changes that can change how the arts are practiced.

 

[arnisador]

I think of it more as modern training methods, which are good to consider, than modern martial arts per se.

Personally, I like tradition! But I also like to know what's effective and what isn't. A lot of traditional stuff is effective...if used in the right way, at the right time.

 

[ChineseKempoJerry]

Martial arts is about learning to fight. Fighting is as old as mankind. Fighting also has universal laws. Too much to talk about, but in a nutshell, you can only kick and punch so many ways. How you learn is the question. Would you rather learn it the way they taught it several hundred years ago or in a method that seems up to date?

No matter how you prefer to learn, it is fighting!

Best Regards,

Sifu Jerry

 

[bignick]

The military today use or at least are taught empty hand techniques

The newest U.S. Army Combatives Manual is almost straight BJJ. If you're in the military and you have use your hands to dispatch your enemies something has gone seriously, seriously, really serioiusly wrong. Furthermore, if you're gonna take your enemy to the ground and grapple them and try to restrain them in a battle situation, well let's just say that natural selection rears it's head now and again...

I think Andrew nailed it on the head, it's designed to bring out aggresive, competitive behavior. Grappling can do this quite nicely, and safely, in the right enviroment. No offense to the members of our Armed Forces, but I've worked with quite a few and their hand to hand skills are usually severly lacking. I know some that could absolutely destroy me, but I know a lot more that couldn't punch their way out of a wet paper bag. Of course, this will vary from branch to branch and your training and specialization, but the focus of warfare for the last few millenia has not been unarmed combat. As the distances, both physical and technological, between forces has grown the need for hand to hand training doesn't really exist that much anymore. This of course is different for law enforcement officers who are often frowned upon for shooting people, even when they do deserve it...most of their hand to hand skills are quite good from what I've seen...

 

[bignick]

Also, what about arts like Aikido, which has only been around for a few decades, or taekwondo, for that matter which has only existed under it's current moniker since the fifties. In chronological terms, these could both be considered modern...but depending on the instruction can feel very "traditional"...