Traditional vs Historical Martial Arts?

[Jared Traveler]

Any thoughts on what differences might exist between "Traditional Martial Arts" vs "Historical Martial Arts?"

I'm aware of the standard definitions, but I'm suggesting we reexamine the terms "Traditional" vs "Historical."

In other words, history may show something was done a certain way. But practicing martial arts for the sake of doing it historically correct, to preserve something outdated, was traditionally not how or why it was done.

So while you might be reenacting certain aspects or techniques of an art and practicing an "historical" imagine of the art, you have to understand that doing that was not "traditionally" why the art was being practiced, or their motivation for practicing. So in my view practicing an "historical" system is great, but there is nothing "traditional" about it.

Traditionally most of these systems were developed by innovative people, for serious use in modern combat or self-defense. To a person, they intentionally deviated from the existing system, to make improvements. To understand the motivations, mindset, and culture of a historical art, the most traditional thing we can do is become dedicated to improving, modernizing, and developing a system that works right now, preparing for real world threats. Traditionally that was the focus and culture.

To be clear I'm not hating on "historical" training, I just think it's lacking a real perspective regarding the true culture these arts originally had. Making the whole activity not so historically accurate as one might first imagine.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I think a major difference i the training that was done historically, is no longer done in the Traditional Martial art today, and in se cases that makes the traditional art less effective than it was historically. In other cases it may make things more efficient and in others it very likely make training safer

 

[Jared Traveler]

I think a major difference i the training that was done historically, is no longer done in the Traditional Martial art today, and in se cases that makes the traditional art less effective than it was historically. In other cases it may make things more efficient and in others it very likely make training safer

I don't disagree. I do think factors like this make is so that practicing something from the past is extremely difficult to do either actually historically or traditionally. At least from an authentic standpoint.

 

[Steve]

Traditional = prioritizes faithful and accurate transmission of the style from teacher to student.

Historical = obsolete or anachronistic skills

Also, historical implies some kind of legitimate historical lineage. Traditional arts don’t require this and May be complete fantasy.

I would say all historical arts are traditional but not all traditional arts are historical.

 

[Jared Traveler]

Traditional = prioritizes faithful and accurate transmission of the style from teacher to student.

Historical = obsolete or anachronistic skills

Also, historical implies some kind of legitimate historical lineage. Traditional arts don’t require this and May be complete fantasy.

I would say all historical arts are traditional but not all traditional arts are historical.

Interesting.... I do question if Historical would imply a legit lineage. Are you saying that so that accuracy is established? I would think if I joined a civil war reenactment, I would be practicing historical battlefield combat.

You thoughts?

 

[lklawson]

Traditional = prioritizes faithful and accurate transmission of the style from teacher to student.

Historical = obsolete or anachronistic skills

Also, historical implies some kind of legitimate historical lineage. Traditional arts don’t require this and May be complete fantasy.

I would say all historical arts are traditional but not all traditional arts are historical.

There aren't any hard, fast lines. "Historic" might not be particularly "obsolete" or "anachronistic." Boxing? Defendu?

 

[skribs]

I think 90% of the time, these words have a general meaning that everyone understands, and a specific meaning that each individual understands.

For example, we all know what a "fruit" is. However, we may have specific differences in what we consider a fruit. Is a tomato a fruit? Are berries fruits, or their own separate thing? Is "fruit" specific enough to even discuss, or do you need to go to the next level (i.e. citrus)?

Even then, it's hard to define. There are many traits I attribute to a traditional martial art, which arts that I would not categorize as traditional have. It's more a snap judgment than a well-defined category. Things such as:

• Use of kata and/or pre-defined drills
• Focus on self-defense or practical use over competition
• Importance of lineage or adherence to a curriculum authority
• Use of belts to promote progress
• Old

With this said, I usually include Taekwondo as an example, but many schools focus on point competitions over self-defense, and Taekwondo itself is only around 60 years old. I don't include Judo, even though it is much older than TKD, and also has belts and a big emphasis on the techniques of the organization. I don't include Krav Maga (although I see it more as a younger brother to TMAs), because it's not "Old", probably because I know more of the history behind Taekwondo and its evolution from Karate.

Historical martial arts, to me, requires just one category: it's old. However, to again use snap judgment, I would also personally say it's something that isn't really used anymore. For example, boxing is still used, but HEMA is more of a revival. Older styles of boxing are historical, but newer styles are not.

It's all subjective, even to myself. There are no set rules for what one is or isn't, and perception matters more than anything else.

 

[lklawson]

For example, we all know what a "fruit" is. However, we may have specific differences in what we consider a fruit. Is a tomato a fruit?

Fruit Salad:

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Any thoughts on what differences might exist between "Traditional Martial Arts" vs "Historical Martial Arts?"

I'm not familiar with the latter term. TMA, I understand.

I'm aware of the standard definitions, but I'm suggesting we reexamine the terms "Traditional" vs "Historical."

OK.

In other words, history may show something was done a certain way. But practicing martial arts for the sake of doing it historically correct, to preserve something outdated, was traditionally not how or why it was done.

I think you're making some assumptions here that may not be valid. First, you assume that the reason people practice TMA (myself included) do it to 'be historically correct' or 'to preserve something outdated'.

In my case, there is a video record of how the founder of my style taught it, as well as living students whom he taught directly. It's 'historically correct' because we have the evidence that how we learn is how it was taught.

I'm not at all sure in what way it is 'outdated'.

So while you might be reenacting certain aspects or techniques of an art and practicing an "historical" imagine of the art, you have to understand that doing that was not "traditionally" why the art was being practiced, or their motivation for practicing. So in my view practicing an "historical" system is great, but there is nothing "traditional" about it.

Again, I am not sure what you mean.

Traditionally most of these systems were developed by innovative people, for serious use in modern combat or self-defense. To a person, they intentionally deviated from the existing system, to make improvements. To understand the motivations, mindset, and culture of a historical art, the most traditional thing we can do is become dedicated to improving, modernizing, and developing a system that works right now, preparing for real world threats. Traditionally that was the focus and culture.

I disagree. While it is true that the founder of our style took two different systems and melded them while adding his own innovations (and he even continued to experiment and make changes during his lifetime), he did not expressly state that he wanted others to change what he taught.

As to his system working 'right now', it does. There are many who suggest that TMA is outdated and that the techniques taught 'do not work'. I humbly suggest that this is because they can't personally apply those techniques. People can play pianos, even if I cannot. My inability to play a piano doesn't make it outdated, incorrect, not up-to-date, or impractical.

To be clear I'm not hating on "historical" training, I just think it's lacking a real perspective regarding the true culture these arts originally had. Making the whole activity not so historically accurate as one might first imagine.

I don't know what perspective you think we should have. I train what I am taught, which is as accurate to the founder as we can make it. I hope that what I teach is also accurate to the founder's teaching. I don't have any personal need to make my own changes, nor do I feel that what I teach and learn is inaccurate, outdated, or useless. Why would I want to?

 

[lklawson]

To be clear I'm not hating on "historical" training, I just think it's lacking a real perspective regarding the true culture these arts originally had. Making the whole activity not so historically accurate as one might first imagine.

Step 1: Invent a new term
Step 2: Apply a meaning to this new term without input from the community at large and which many in the community would disagree
Step 3: Use that disputed meaning to imply a negative thing about things which people other than you participate in
Step 4: Claim you're not "hating."
Step 5: ???
Step 6: PROFIT!

 

[Steve]

Interesting.... I do question if Historical would imply a legit lineage. Are you saying that so that accuracy is established? I would think if I joined a civil war reenactment, I would be practicing historical battlefield combat.

You thoughts?

I have in mind things like Japanese archery which I would categorize as historical vs modern archery which continues to evolve as a sport

 

[Steve]

There aren't any hard, fast lines. "Historic" might not be particularly "obsolete" or "anachronistic." Boxing? Defendu?

I wouldn’t consider boxing to be historic and I think it’s arguably not even traditional. Old doesn’t necessarily mean historic. At least, in this context. In my opinion.

 

[isshinryuronin]

I'm aware of the standard definitions, but I'm suggesting we reexamine the terms "Traditional" vs "Historical."

In other words, history may show something was done a certain way. But practicing martial arts for the sake of doing it historically correct, to preserve something outdated, was traditionally not how or why it was done.

This is a controversial subject in TMA that can be explored in many directions. I think we can agree that "historical" refers to how it was done in the past. But we must note that the past encompasses several periods of time, and the way some things were done over time evolved and changed. So, there is no single historical TMA method, although many ideas, principles and techniques did NOT change over time and have travelled thru time more or less intact. And as lklawson pointed out, being old does not infer being "outdated." (Does this apply to me at 71? I think not; at least I hope so.)

Tradition, the "T" in TMA, is the generational passing down of culture. This is important to keep each generation from having to start over at point "A". Tradition allows a body of knowledge to be preserved. Now, the question becomes, do we practice this knowledge intact and as is, or do we modify it to our current taste and needs?

Shotokan karate, for example, is considered a traditional art but is far removed from the historical art as practiced in 1900 Okinawa. This is because the culture changed: Introduction to the masses, commercialization and sport gave karate different goals. The intent of TMA changed. This is largely true for all styles to some extent. While karate underwent some change in the 1800's, its intent did not - it was for self-defense, period. Back then, there was no great divide between the historical and traditional.

Today, we have a choice. We can practice "modern traditional" for all the varied benefits it provides beyond self-defense or we can go back to an earlier "historical traditional" where the focus was almost purely civil combat. We can also choose to add to the historical karate to update to modern self-defense needs, or we can blend all/some the above one way or another.

 

[lklawson]

I wouldn’t consider boxing to be historic and I think it’s arguably not even traditional. Old doesn’t necessarily mean historic. At least, in this context. In my opinion.

I have copies boxing treatises dating back to the 1700's. That's pretty darn "historic."

 

[Steve]

I have copies boxing treatises dating back to the 1700's. That's pretty darn "historic."

Sure. If you simply use age as the metric, any style older than… some measure… can be called a “historical martial art”. Not how I’d do it though.

I’d say styles that could be referred to as “frozen in time” are historical. Kyudo, for example. Maybe Sumo.

Boxing continues to evolve so the treatise from the 1700s isn’t exactly like modern boxing.

 

[lklawson]

Sure. If you simply use age as the metric, any style older than… some measure… can be called a “historical martial art”. Not how I’d do it though.

I’d say styles that could be referred to as “frozen in time” are historical. Kyudo, for example. Maybe Sumo.

Boxing continues to evolve so the treatise from the 1700s isn’t exactly like modern boxing.

I see. And this is why it's kind of a silly question to begin with. No definition of "Historic" is going to satisfy everyone. It's simply far too subjective.

 

[Steve]

I see. And this is why it's kind of a silly question to begin with. No definition of "Historic" is going to satisfy everyone. It's simply far too subjective.

Okay. Thanks for sharing your opinion. See ya.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Tradition, the "T" in TMA, is the generational passing down of culture.

This is my understanding of TMA. The culture of martial arts. Historical fighting would bust a person up just as easy as modern fighting. there's nothing about a gladiator that makes me think that I'm going to dominate his historical fighting system with modern day fighting.

 

[Holmejr]

LOL. I remember when D Inosanto, let the 4 phase class have a bar room brawl. Prob 20-25 students, each on their own. The only rule was no hitting someone with their back towards you. Now that’s historical JKD. No teacher would do that today.

 

[geezer]

Hmmmm....In the absence of clear and precise definition of terms think we are bound to argue, probably unnecessarily. Which is fine by me. I enjoy a lively discussion as much as the next fella. Still, I feel like I ought to lay out how I use the terms before entering the fray:

Let me start with a loose working definition of traditional that I use in teaching my high school art classes:

Traditional: A long established and widely accepted way of doing things within a particular group, culture, or sub-culture ....or put simply, "the way things have always been done".

Based on this, I would further define Traditional Martial Arts or TMA as follows:

Martial Arts systems or disciplines that have been around a good while, say at least 60-70 years or more and are passed down and performed largely as they have always been practiced since their or founding (by a person or persons) or their emergence (as a distinct discipline) without significant change since.

They typically have a set curriculum and tend to be taught in an authoritarian manor with emphasis on doing things the original and "correct" way, rather than adapting and innovating based on perceived functionality.

Historical: To me, this implies an attempt to use scholarly research to accurately understand things that took place in the past, but may not have any equivalency in the present. Therefore...

Historical Martial Arts: Old or even ancient fighting arts that are researched, recreated, and practiced as nearly as possible in the same manner in which they were most likely practiced in earlier times, that is in their original historical context.

Clearly the first group (TMA) would include many established Asian martial arts ranging from the super-rigid and traditional such as Japanese koryu and very old Chinese systems, to other more recent creations (such as TKD and Kempo) that are fairly young arts and which have evolved significantly just over the last several decades ...but are still taught as "traditional", authoritarian systems.

The second group (historical arts) would include things like HEMA, historical boxing, and any other old or extinct systems that are now being researched and revived (such as Bartitsu, etc.).

Modern, Adaptive Fighting Systems: For me the final category would have to be modern, sport and/or self-defense systems that prize functionality over tradition and are constantly being tested, modified and adapted. MMA would be just one example. Or Muay Thai, kick-boxing, BJJ, wrestling.... The list is long.

If any of you actually had the patience to wade through this wordy mess, I'd appreciate your thoughts!