Traditional v modern

[Bill Mattocks]

My 1st real post on MT (please be gentle), having studied MA since the early 80s, There has been a lot of trends come and go. I have trained in 2 traditional styles, and am currently studying a modern system. I know MA are adapting new styles, new technologies, better nutrition, but recently I have questioned, would I advise a younger me, to start my journey in MA by studying a traditional art or a modern art? .
In the system I currently train, we use techniques like breath work and body conditioning that have been around for centuries, and are, in my opinion vital, but why learn the meridians and meridian points when an anatomical or neurological strike (both from traditional arts) would be more efficient. I suppose what I am trying to say is why spend years learning how to win/survive/defend, when there could be a quicker more efficient way.
I do believe traditional MA are still effective, but why would you spend 20 years learning an art form (technique names in its native language, the appropriate way to tie your belt). I don't regret training in traditional arts, but would I really tell a younger me to take that path.
So are you a traditionalist or a modernist, or maybe you have a different view, I would love your opinion.

All of your questions presume that the goal is known and achievable by both traditional and modern methods. I would posit that this may not be the case, and that the answer to your questions is very much dependent upon the outcome one wishes to achieve.

If one presumes that the goal of martial arts training is to learn to defend oneself, many roads will get you there. Some may get you there faster than others, and again, depending upon the person, since no two of us are the same. I would be willing to believe that many 'modern' martial arts would get a typical person to the point where they could effectively defend themselves in a shorter period of time, very generally speaking.

However, martial arts training covers a lot of territory. Not just in the methods but in the goals.

I study what I consider to be a traditional martial art, Isshinryu, an Okinawan form of karate. We practice many things that others find useless, including things you have described. Wearing a gi, bowing, learning some few Japanese terms for exercises and general courtesy, and so on. We do practice breathing control and basic body conditioning (nothing severe or damaging).

However, my personal goal has little to do with 'self-defense'. I assure you that I am reasonably good at defending myself (not great, but adequate), but if that is why I trained, I would have stopped long ago. I am a believer in karatedo, and the 'do' (pronounced 'dough') means 'way' or 'way of life' in Japanese. This is my path, and I will continue to walk it until I die.

It informs every aspect of my life, and it serves me like a conscience serves some people, like a guiding light, like a higher power, like a path to enlightenment. It's not a religion, I do not worship, nor do I serve. I just walk the path and let myself be instructed as I walk.

I should add that not everyone who studies my art or even in my dojo has the same goal I have. Some may do it for health, some for self-defense, some even for camaraderie. There's no one reason why anyone does anything, right? We all have our reasons, and none is necessarily better than any other. This is just what is right for me. It fits me like a hand in a glove.

Now, can a modern scientific martial art give me that? I doubt it. But horses for courses; I have no doubt many adepts in various modern arts could pummel me until my head rattled like a maraca.

If I wanted to learn to fight in the shortest time possible, I'd take up boxing. Those guys can rumble. And there are plenty of types of martial arts that can produce similar results.

If I wanted to learn to use a sword, I'd take up one of the several sword art styles of martial arts. If I wanted to learn to grapple, then Judo or BJJ or wrestling.

But I do not want to learn anything like that. I want to learn how to live my life in accordance with time and change, according to the principles of right and wrong, good and evil. I find that in the moving meditation of the art I study. You may not see my progress in my kata or how I handle a weapon. My progress is for me and how I live my life.

Traditional martial arts *can* but do not necessarily offer that. Modern arts devoted to effective self-defense provide what they claim to provide.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Having teaching as a rank requirement - I don't support it, but I don't have to. It doesn't affect me.

You're right. You don't have to. It's not your school.

But is it made clear right from the start that you'll be restricted in your rank if you don't teach?

It's made clear from the start that you won't advance in rank unless you can meet ALL the requirements. Not just write a check. Or even pay cash. The rank requirements are laid out clearly in the textbook that all students receive.
[Edit - here is a quote from the text]
"Being a black belt means being a teacher, so all candidates are expected to demonstrate the ability to teach all forms and techniques required for this level."

As for schoolteachers... you're just flat out wrong. They can teach. They may not teach the way you want them to, and (as I said before) some are certainly better than others. But they can all teach. Pretty much everyone can. And certainly anyone who can reach the point of being considered a black belt candidate will.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think this is true for most arts. The only thing that varies is at what rank these things become factors.
For us, you won't get to 1st Dan without teaching. Our Chodanbo students (black belt candidates) spend a year or more learning to teach before they're promoted to 1st Dan. As a matter of fact, the tests for chodanbo and 1st Dan are the same. That transition from student to teacher is the primary purpose of that rank.
Skills are still tested beyond 1st, but 7th and above are definitely 'service to the art' ranks.

That description of Chodanbo to 1st Dan is pretty close to the NGAA's progression from brown (1st Kyu) to black (1st Dan). There is a bit of additional testing, but it's mostly testing the same material both times.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

How is the teaching assessed?

I firmly believe that not everyone can teach, and of those who can, they still can't teach everyone.

If someone is bad at teaching, can they still progress in other ways (having fulfilled a token few lessons of teaching)?

Within the NGAA, I've never seen anyone denied rank if they did their student teaching. They didn't have to be particularly good - just had to show they could manage. Frankly, I didn't like them being tied together - saw some good folks not get their BB because they didn't want to teach - so I separated rank from teaching certification.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

[Edit - here is a quote from the text]
"Being a black belt means being a teacher, so all candidates are expected to demonstrate the ability to teach all forms and techniques required for this level."

In our dojo, 3rd degree black belt or 'san dan' is a rank. However, 'sensei' is a title that comes with it. Sensei literally means teacher. If you're a sensei, you're a teacher. I suppose one could be a san dan and not a sensei, but in our dojo, that's never happened that I am aware of.

In truth, most of our students above brown belt assist with teaching others, which is not to say they lead the instruction, but they certainly give back where and as they can. Even blue or green belts might help the newest students in some ways. All black belts help other students. Sensei teach.

 

[Flying Crane]

It is not my intention to knock traditional MA, I myself trained in 2 traditional arts for just over 25 years, I achieved 3rd Dan in Bujinkan Ninjutsu, and 3rd Dan in traditional Hapkido. For neatly 3 years now I have been studying Systema, I loved training in my previous arts, but training in Systema which has no uniform or grading system (I fully understand achievements, goals, and traditional methods and philosophies), albeit Systema is a process and not a style in reality, I have just been thinking recently, that there is a lot unecessary time spent on unecessary processes.
I agree with the little details that count, but surely the detail should be in the techniques, and as for belts and grading, they are good for beginners as rewards and goals, but beyond 1st Dan surely your technique should determine your grade.

You need to find a method that works well for you and keeps your interest. Traditional, modern, it does not matter.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Think about it this way. You can buy bread. You can make bread with a machine. You can make bread from scratch. You can make bread according to traditional recipes. It's all bread. Which bread is best? It depends on what you wanted. If I just want to make a sandwich, store-bought bread works for me. If I want to learn a historical art and absorb some of the culture and tradition surrounding it, I might spend some time with monks who make it from scratch using methods hundreds if not thousands of years old. That's also bread. You might expect to get other benefits along the way with the slower method, but in the end, it's still bread.

 

[jobo]

It is not my intention to knock traditional MA, I myself trained in 2 traditional arts for just over 25 years, I achieved 3rd Dan in Bujinkan Ninjutsu, and 3rd Dan in traditional Hapkido. For neatly 3 years now I have been studying Systema, I loved training in my previous arts, but training in Systema which has no uniform or grading system (I fully understand achievements, goals, and traditional methods and philosophies), albeit Systema is a process and not a style in reality, I have just been thinking recently, that there is a lot unecessary time spent on unecessary processes.
I agree with the little details that count, but surely the detail should be in the techniques, and as for belts and grading, they are good for beginners as rewards and goals, but beyond 1st Dan surely your technique should determine your grade.

ninjutsu and systema ??

oh dear

 

[drop bear]

It is not really so much a traditional vs modern. But more you can go to full time gyms that do quality systems and are run by experts. That will give you access to competition Access to a larger community and recognized rank.

And so from a pure concept of how much that martial art will be worth to you after ten years. Then those systems are better.

 

[Dirty Dog]

ninjutsu and systema ??

oh dear

What's that supposed to mean?

 

[drop bear]

It is not my intention to knock traditional MA, I myself trained in 2 traditional arts for just over 25 years, I achieved 3rd Dan in Bujinkan Ninjutsu, and 3rd Dan in traditional Hapkido. For neatly 3 years now I have been studying Systema, I loved training in my previous arts, but training in Systema which has no uniform or grading system (I fully understand achievements, goals, and traditional methods and philosophies), albeit Systema is a process and not a style in reality, I have just been thinking recently, that there is a lot unecessary time spent on unecessary processes.
I agree with the little details that count, but surely the detail should be in the techniques, and as for belts and grading, they are good for beginners as rewards and goals, but beyond 1st Dan surely your technique should determine your grade.

If your goal was to be able to impose your will physically on another human being. Then doing hard training in a practical system will shave of years of development time.

If your goal was to develop a mental clarity or some sort of warrior ethos or train massive discipline skills or adult well.

Then hard training in a practical system with competition at the end will shave off years of development.

 

[jobo]

What's that supposed to mean?

it means I'm not suprised he is complaining about outdated martial arts , if he has been practising being a ninja as for systema, that's just being a Russian ninja isn't it ?

 

[drop bear]

it means I'm not suprised he is complaining about outdated martial arts , if he has been practising being a ninja as for systema, that's just being a Russian ninja isn't it ?

Systema would be more like russian krav. But with more magic.

 

[jobo]

Systema would be more like russian krav. But with more magic.

don't you practise blowing up fuel depots

 

[drop bear]

don't you practise blowing up fuel depots

When we are not shooting down planes.

 

[dvcochran]

I train in a traditional method, and I’ve not learned to defend against a sword, I’ve not learned about meridians, and it took barely a few minutes to learn to tie a belt and wear a gi and how and when and to whom to bow. So there isn’t any wasted time there.

Perhaps your perception of what is a traditional system differs from mine.

To me, it is simply a method that has been around for a fairly long time (the specific length of time is up to debate, to qualify as “traditional”), and over this time the method has proven itself to be an effective way to build useful skills.

For me, training a traditional method has nothing to do with nostalgia for the past. Instead, it has to do with practicing a method that has a long history of working well.

I agree. I get the impression the OP @Gweilo sees traditional as some kind of Nazi ritualistic BS. If that is their experience I put that wholly on the instructor(s) not the system. I have traditional experience in JMA, CMA, KMA, and Filipino MA ( if you can tall the last one traditional). The small amout of Shotokan experience I had might have had a SLIGHTLY greater level of pomp and circumstance but in no way did in get in the way of learning/training. My Kung Fu experience had it but it was very different. In Tae Kwon Do, we bow, stand at attention, address each other accordingly, etc... but I never feel that is out of the ordinary. If a belt is tied wrong I fix it but I don't call them out on it (unless it is a repeated offense by a kid).
I would tell the OP that maybe they need the mental discipline. It should never be that much of a hang up.
So to answer the question, I am certain it is different for everyone. My younger self did not have a choice since there was only one MA school in my town. And, while we followed what I would call a military protocol, I never felt like it was restricting or in the way of learning, more so it help set the atmosphere. And I easily moved into the sport side of KMA so I may not even fully understand the question.

 

[dvcochran]

Well, that depends on what 1st Dan means to you (or more aptly, what it means to your organisation) and what each subsequent grade represents.

And what happens as you age? Should you be periodically demoted as your physical ability degrades?

And what's your benchmark? A 20 year old me should have had more capacity to develop technique compared to 40 year old me, so should 40 year old me never be allowed to advance?

I consider myself a high achiever in my 20's and without a doubt there are things I do better at 55 than I did at 25.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I consider myself a high achiever in my 20's and without a doubt there are things I do better at 55 than I did at 25.

For one thing, pain is an old friend now. Giving and getting. And frankly, I have less time for nonsense, so I'll skip the foreplay and just wreck em up and go home.

 

[pdg]

I consider myself a high achiever in my 20's and without a doubt there are things I do better at 55 than I did at 25.

And there is much I do better at 40+ than I did at 20.

But, I would have been physically more able then compared to now.

Unless you were a slob in your 20s, the same is true for you.

So unless you're saying that you think you should get demoted as your technique fades with age, I don't understand the dislike rating

 

[dvcochran]

And there is much I do better at 40+ than I did at 20.

But, I would have been physically more able then compared to now.

Unless you were a slob in your 20s, the same is true for you.

So unless you're saying that you think you should get demoted as your technique fades with age, I don't understand the dislike rating

No, I do not think that at all. Your post was hard to understand.