Originally posted by KennethKu
1. B/c we know more about how the human body functions and how it responds to training and conditioning now, then people hundreds of years ago did. So we are able to train and condition with great effect and less injury.
Well, yes and no. There are a lot of things we
do understand better now thanks to the advent of science and medical progress, but there are many things, training related things, that are just as valid now as they were when they were first done decades, centuries and longer ago.
2. Just blindly following what was done traditionally is the greatest hindrance to innovation and improvement. There is nothing wrong to use the protocol as guidelines. But only as guidelines. Your objective is to understand why things are done in such and such way and for what purpose. Then you see if there are better ways of accomplish that purpose, given the new body of knowledge we have today. I realize this may sound arrogant unless you are a grandmaster of the art. Life is short, I got to go my own way, not dwell on becoming a gramdmaster, and hope for the best.
Dead on the money, and as a steadfast traditionalist I wouldn't disagree with you for a minute. I think there is a misunderstanding due to the vast majority of schools being quack factories that traditional equals stupid. Doing what works is what allowed fighters once upon a time to survive to be able to pass on what they knew. What they knew then got passed on again (because it worked and had real life application), and again, and again. Eventually, because it had been around for so long, it was considered "traditional." Just because a person finds valid method, theory and application in something that has been done for a long time, doesn't mean they are hindered mentally by their attachment to those techniques. They know what works, and they keep it.
3. I am a firm believer in modern scientific approach to martial art conditioning and training, vs traditionalism. There are scientific ways to train and condition your muscles and reflexes. Bruce Lee was the one to pioneer this. But of course, times and things have both moved on since his death. We have a new set of training methodology today.
Up to this point, I am 100% with you. While reliance on "science" as a validation for anti-traditionalism is common, "science" is a buzzword in MA today that often has little to do with what is being taught or trained. "Science" is used as the measuring stick to qualify everything, and if there is a lack of "science" then whatever is being examined is tossed out the window. The problem is, however, that there are a lot of folks that fail to admit that the way many traditional styles evolved was through the scientific method - try it, see if it works, evaluate how it worked, try it again to see if the results can be replicated. If that ain't science, I don't know what is...
There are folks that use "science" as an excuse to throw out all that has gone before in favor of the flavor of the month technique. Those folks are deluded, and will simply continue to search and search, jumping from trend to trend without ever really understanding what is going on... As a firm traditionalist I continually examine and review what I know to see what works for
me, since there are some techniques I am simply not built for, and some I can no longer apply due to age and injury. But I don't discard techniques and theories because they are old, nor do I absorb teachings based on their age - if it is crap, it is crap. If it is old crap, then it is old crap. In the end, crap is still crap, new or old.
4. Regarding ancient weapons training, when was the last time some one used that in a real life situation? Do you think such skills would be any match against a good shooter (gun)? Knife and stick figthing skills are valuable. Exotic ancient weapon fighting skills? Performance art. Nothing wrong with learning them. It all depends on your goals. My purpose and goal is to prevail in combat.Hence I value efficiency and effectiveness. Others may simply enjoy learning and practicing the art for itself and find great rewards in exploring and understanding such lost art of the past. And I have nothing by respect for such devotion.
Training in archaic weaponry does more than train you to use or defend against those weapons. Staff and spear have modern applications (brooms, rakes, hoes, etc.), and unarmed techniques are enhanced by their practice (i.e. joint locks, trapping, sensitivity, timing, distance, etc., are all enhanced by training with archaic weapons due to the nature of their use). Defenses against knife, club, machete, sword all stem from very similar roots. Baseball bats, lead pipes, chainsaws, crowbars all can be defended against through using similar techniques. Likewise, your garage becomes your arsenal when the universality of some weapons training becomes apparent. When does it become apparent? After you have done it! If you haven't spent time handling a sword or a stick, you don't realize that whipsticks, collabsable batons, rattan sticks, crowbars, rulers, rolled newspapers, school room pointers and other similar items can all be used in virtually the identical manner. It isn't performance art, but rather an archetypical training method that "trickles down" through other skills.
5. I have a hard time accepting the blindfaith that the founders of the arts have perfected everything and have everything covered. Far from that, I would think that they made as much mistakes as we do today. I did post graduate reseach work at one of the most advanced research centers in the States. What I saw was that Experts make mistakes just like everybody else. And they make tons of mistakes. The saving grace is they put in a lot of checkpoints in their work, to catch mistakes, to review and analyze and to improve on their mistakes. Martial art is scientific physical training and conditioning. Nothing else. People may want to assign moral code of behavior to the martial way of life. Fine by me. I am all for chivalry and galantry and honor. There is nothing holy or sacred or mystical about the traditional ways of martial arts. It is physical and mental training and conditioning.
Nor should you accept that someone a hundred years ago had perfected anything, no more so than someone today is necessarily better trained, informed or knowledgeable than someone a hundred years ago based solely on the progression of time. Just like you said, even experts make mistakes (my favorite saying in Japanese is "even monkeys fall from trees"). Rather, through individual training and experimentation, based on the tenets, theories and training methods handed down from prior generations that found such things effective, you should come to your own conclusions. Just like those checkpoints you talk about.
Sounds weird coming from a traditionalist? Sure. But there are some truths in the universe, and in the end if our eyes are open we will see them for what they are. Nothing holy, just effective and consistently true. And without the morality and codes of behavior (many of which were added in recent decades to teach to schoolkids, but that is another thread entirely), MAists are hard to differentiate from well-trained thugs...
Forms are useless without proper orientation and application training. Modern weapons are useless without proper orientation and application training. Basically everything we do, if we are doing it "for real" and not just to prance about interestingly in fancy PJs, boils down to proper orientation and application.
The metaphysical benefits of martial arts come not from hours of meditation while facing a wall, but from facing an opponent that is trying to rip your spleen out. Without the proper orientation and application training, all you develop is a neat way to do aerobics and shadow boxing, regardless of what art you study (modern or traditional).
End Rant (for now).
Gambarimasu.
:asian:
Eventhough a gun is the least preferred solution, it is unfortunately the most effective solution under the most desperate circumstances. But which is a better choice? To crack someone's head open with a crowbar or to shoot him? sad choice. But that is the reality when it comes to real application of weapons. Which brings another interesting question. I don't know how many people can really bring themselves to drawing blood with an edged weapon. People are all gungho about it when practicing. But when the chips are down, it would be a really sad time to find out if you have it in you to draw blood. I know people would say if threatened they could do it. May be they could , may be they couldn't. They wouldn't know until then. It would be a sad time to find out the truth when you are at the end of the rope. 
