What does "traditional" mean to you?

[Kacey]

I was reading another thread, and this part of one post by shesulsa really caught my attention - largely because I completely agree with it:

What I will say, without ego and with honesty, is that I see a lot of people these days who feel that their dollar entitles them to certain knowledge at a certain level when they want it, how they want it. And do you want to know what I think about that? It's bull ****. I'm not required to show ANYbody ANYthing just because they have the money. If I think they demonstrate to me good character, trustworthiness, many of the tenets that I think are important consistently over a fair amount of time such that they may learn deadly techniques, then I'll proceed as I think best. To show anyone with a buck and the willingness to learn how to fight, maim and kill is flat out irresponsible in my opinion. And to me, that's what traditional martial arts are all about.

What does "traditional" mean to you, in the context of the above statement? As far as I'm concerned, dues pay for the facility and the materials - like a Visa ad:

cost of training (dues - covers facility, insurance, etc.): $40/month
uniform: $50
sparring gear: $75
having a qualified instructor who trains for the love of the art: priceless

Are there people I won't teach? Yes - for a variety of reasons.

There are people who are physically unready - or unable - to learn certain techniques. I have a student with cerebral palsy and a developmental delay who has severe balance problems - he's never going to kick above a certain level, but he does the best he can with what he's got. He will never learn jump kicks - it's just not possible for him. I - and my students - spend a lot of time modifying things for him so he can continue to improve, but he cannot do jump kicks - so rather than teach him to jump, I concentrate on other things.

More problematic for many people are those who are unready - or unable - to be trusted with certain techniques. This discussion has come up before, but from other angles. There are people I will not teach - for example, I knew a man who wanted to date me, who I was not interested in - so in an effort to convince me otherwise, he joined me class. After a time, his behavior - finding me whenever possible and joining in whatever I was doing - turned into stalking; before it hit that point, however, I refused to let him remain in my class. He had anger management problems and was obsessive about things once he decided to do them - I did not trust him with techniques that could hurt people; sadly, he proved my distrust - his stalking reached a point where it fit the legal definition, and my association with him ended after the judge upheld the restraining order I filed.

Now, the above does not happen very often - in 15 years of instructing, he's the only person I have flat out refused to instruct - but there are those people who should not be taught certain things, no matter how much money they pay... and there are instructors who will teach them anyway, or even attract them as a preferred type of student, like the Kobra Kai in The Karate Kid. But martial arts are traditionally for defense, not offense, and I reserve the right to refuse instruction - or to withhold pieces of instruction - from people who I believe will not use what I teach them properly.

 

[Blindside]

But martial arts are traditionally for defense, not offense, and I reserve the right to refuse instruction - or to withhold pieces of instruction - from people who I believe will not use what I teach them properly.

Martial arts are TRADITIONALLY for defense? There's that word again, who's tradition? It surely isn't in the Pekiti Tirsia Kali that I study, there is only offense. It isn't any of the military based arts or various tribal warfare arts, people involved in warfare know the value of a good offense. It isn't the tradition of the samurai whose tradition was to put the other guy in the ground or die trying. It makes sense that a monk taught art would be defensive in nature, but when I think of the word "martial" I think soldier or warrior not monk. I don't think "traditional" martial arts means diddly until you describe whose tradition you are talking about.

Lamont

 

[newGuy12]

I would have a tendency to agree with Lamont.

And, to be quite honest, I have met in person true Master instructors (from Korea), who were born in Korea. Some of them are dead now.

And, to be quite honest, if you were confronted by someone who was yelling, blocking your path, say, and you DIDN'T "give them this" <newGuy makes a fist to show> it would be seen as cowardice.

I am under the impression that a lot of this line of thinking is an "Americanization" of what we see as Martial Arts. I've been told by Old Men that they trained in the Mountains (not here in the States), a long time ago. The teachers were mean. Period. People got hurt (not pain only, but injury) in training. And nobody cared.

Now, that was a rough time in Korean history. I was told that General Choi HAD to do what he did, because things were getting too far out of hand.

I'm too old to be a "killer", and honestly, I don't aspire to being a deadly marital artist, or a cage fighter. That is out of the question for me. I do enjoy the practice, and I wish to learn techniques that are "real" (effective) though.

To me, the word Traditional means:

1) You execute a bow when you come into the dojang or dojo.

2) You conduct the class in the native language of the art (Korean, Japanese, etc) and the flags are shown.

3) The uniforms are plain white, or black.

At least, in my mind, if I don't see those things, I think I'm in a "modernized" school, some school that deviates from the traditional ways.

If someone wishes to kill someone, no real skill is necessary. There's a baseball bat named Louisville Slugger. It will do the trick, LOL!




Regards,

Robert Witten

 

[Kacey]

Martial arts are TRADITIONALLY for defense? There's that word again, who's tradition? It surely isn't in the Pekiti Tirsia Kali that I study, there is only offense. It isn't any of the military based arts or various tribal warfare arts, people involved in warfare know the value of a good offense. It isn't the tradition of the samurai whose tradition was to put the other guy in the ground or die trying. It makes sense that a monk taught art would be defensive in nature, but when I think of the word "martial" I think soldier or warrior not monk. I don't think "traditional" martial arts means diddly until you describe whose tradition you are talking about.

Lamont

Define "defense" as well... in my book, the best defense is a good offense. Nonetheless, in many martial traditions that I am aware of - and I freely admit that I am not familiar with Pekiti Tirsia Kali - the purpose of learning martial arts is not to go out and commit mayhem, but to protect self, family, and country, which, to me, is defense, rather than offense. Certainly, there comes a point where offensive action is necessary to defend one's self, family, and country - but that is different from using one's skills to commit crimes, to bully others, etc., which is, to me, not "defense", nor is it a "traditional" use of most martial arts.

Having said the above, my use of "traditional" was based on shesulsa's statement, and my understanding of it in the context I have just given - and now I return to my original question as I intended it: are there people whom you would refuse to teach? Why or why not? Is this decision based on your personal beliefs, rules for appropriate use given to you by your instructor/art, or a combination of both?

 

[Sukerkin]

'Tradition' is a slippery word that can mean widely differing things to different people but I really think that what Kacey addresses in her post is the basic morality that all sensei's should have when they agree to train someone:

To show anyone with a buck and the willingness to learn how to fight, maim and kill is flat out irresponsible in my opinion.

Are there people that you should not teach, no matter how much money they wave in your face? I am asolutely in agreement with this.

Now obviously, my background in the martial arts is a little mixed (Lau Gar and Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu) but both routes I've travelled have always stressed that altho' you are learning how best to apply offensive techniques you use them in a circumstance that everyone would agree is defensive i.e. you defend yourself from attack rather than go out searching for people to assault.

 

[tellner]

Whose tradition? And how long does something have to marinate before it becomes traditional?

The tradition of Capoeira is sneakiness, dishonesty, treachery and doing what you have to to stay alive in a brutal world when you're poor and Black. It was illegal for a long time, the province of thieves, slaves, rebels and the oppressed.

Tae Kwon Do is less than sixty years old but has a number of customs which are considered "traditional".

Military combatives are as old as armies. And they all seem to have certain things in common. But if you ask "What are the traditions?" a DI will look at you like you've been out in the sun too long without a hat.

The Jewish tradition states "If a man is going to kill you, rise up and kill him first."

What happens when a tradition (whatever that is) is transplanted out of its cultural context? How much meaning can it retain in isolation?

As to martial arts being for defense, I have to respectfully disagree. The systems which you practice may well be. But that's not the way the bloody-minded Samurai of old or anyone else's soldiers live. Attack was at least as important as defense.

When my teacher's teacher's uncle started beating too many people up and stealing their women a Committee of his Neighbors and Fellow Citizens poisoned him. That was well within the tradition of the culture in question.

One of the greatest martial artists I've ever met has a wonderful saying "Blocking only delays defeat."

Offense is part of the world.

The question you seem to be just a few inches away from is "Whom do you teach and why?" That's an absolutely legitimate one within any tradition. There are some people whom you just can't trust. There are others who will do things for the wrong reasons and cause trouble you don't want to be responsible for. That's a common concern all over the world and always has been.

A well developed ethical sense can include the idea of attack if the ends are correct and the means don't violate the local traditions of proper conduct. Shooting someone in the back of the head is generally considered poor form Shooting someone in the back of the head because it's the only way to stop him from raping a little child to death is at least excusable.

 

[Danny T]

First off I feel, culturally, we have change what is martial art and with that have also changed martial art tradition.

I have an Unabridged Dictionary from 1934 and the definition for Martial Art in 1934:

1. The human skill and industry as applied to adapting and modifying natural as well as un-natural objects to man&#8217;s requirements for war.

2. The human effort, skill, practice, applied to war.

3. Set of principles, rules, precepts, gained by experience, which instruct a systematic method for carrying out war operations requiring skill and practice.

4. Application of skill, dexterity, knowledge, cunning, artifice, skillful contrivance to deceive an enemy in war.

There is a great amount of martial art training today which cannot fit into to these definitions and many which do but are not considered traditional.

A &#8220;tradition is a practice, custom, or story that is passed down from generation to generation, originally without the need for a writing system. I.e.: stories or dances.

Tradition is a knowledge system; a means of transferring knowledge.
We often presumed traditions to be ancient, unalterable, and deeply important, though they sometimes are much less so than is presumed. Many traditions were deliberately invented for one reason or another, often to highlight or enhance the importance of certain institutions. Traditions are also changed to suit the needs of the present culture or society, and these changes can become accepted as a part of &#8220;ancient&#8221; tradition.

Traditional: based upon or arising from, tradition: hence, adhering to tradition

Therefore in our context of the martial arts you only pass on knowledge to those persons of good character, trustworthiness, and other important tenets, consistently over time before you pass on knowledge of deadly techniques.

Ok, I read this as water down the knowledge until you are comfortable with one&#8217;s character and don&#8217;t care if they have money and are willing to spend it with you. I can agree with this to a point of ethics and morality. However, how would this be any more traditional than learning from someone whose moral ethics aren&#8217;t the same as yours? If passed on in the same manner as passed on to them would it not still be traditional?

If tradition is a means of passing on knowledge then any means having been done previously would be tradition. Whether good or bad and whether I agree with it or not if done in the same manner it would be traditional.

Not looking for an argument just thoughts running through my simple mind.

 

[MBuzzy]

Getting into what defines a traditional art vs a "non-traditional" art can get pretty deep and very philosophical. I don't believe that it is simply a flag or speaking the right language (no offense intended, Newguy) although those are some basic indicators in some cases. I have heard some say that there are only a handful of traditional arts remaining (normally whoever says that includes their art in that list). To me, I think that a traditional art basically has to do with respect. Not necessarily to one another, although that is definately important and is a cornerstone of MOST MAs. But more along the lines of respect to the style itself.

TO ME, traditional arts are those that make a sincere attempt to stay true to their history and original intentions. For some styles, that means staying the same....for some styles, that means changing. It is a very abstract concept and VERY hard to define for me.

In terms of who to instruct....I completely agree. People should not be taught just because they have money. There is definately more to it than that. I feel that it is primarily up to the instructor, although some styles do set a basic set of standards. It is the responsibility of EVERY instructor to determine if a student is mature enough to be instructed. It is their responsibility to teach only the things that a student is ready for as well.

That is definately a key point in the definition of traditional. I feel that a traditional style is not JUST fighting. Traditional styles, to me, have a philosophical basis as well. Styles whose only purpose is to fight, maim, hurt, etc are not traditional. Traditional styles tend to teach the techniques, but also the judgement, the maturity, and the wisdom to use them only when necessary. Non-traditional styles, while no less important or viable, are only concerned with the applications and fighting side of things.

As another note, I'm a firm believer that martial arts schools are businesses providing servies and I have stated so before. Not to be misunderstood.....That does not mean that I think that the students are entitled to be taught everything on their terms. Only that they are paying for quality instruction and if they feel that their instruction is not quality or they are being passed over or that they are being given a disservice by the instructor (by being ignored, not corrected, not taught, or just not learning), then I believe that those people have every right to respectfully take their business elsewhere.

I've talked about the student needing to have the maturity and willingness to learn and the instructor the responsibility to choose their students wisely, but there is another element. The instructor must use their judgement, but they ALSO have a responsibility to provide QUALITY instruction to the best of their ability. In short, money does not entitle ANYONE to any knowledge at any level, but if they posess the maturity to learn and are paying for that service, they are entitled to quality instruction of the things that they are ready for.

Personally I've never had to deal with it, as all of my instructors have been phenomenal.

 

[newGuy12]

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I am confused. I see posts saying that an instructor should not teach certain motions to certain students (or not take them as students at all) based on the idea that they might go about and hurt or kill someone with those techniques.

Now, I wish to pose a question, respectfully:

Do you really think that if someone wished to go about and hurt other people, perhaps kill an enemy that he or she would go to a dojang, every day, practice hard, for YEARS, and then attack their enemy? Or, would that person simply go buy a gun (or a baseball bat for that matter), and then be done with it?

You see, how many "gangsters" (fill in whatever definition of that term you feel inclined to use) in the United States, say, go practice with a Martial Arts teacher RELIGIOUSLY in order to gain the skillset to impose their will on other innocent people? Do they not just start waving guns around or busting out windows and such with bats?

To my mind, it seems VERY INEFFICIENT for someone to take the time and resources to learn the martial arts just to be a bully.

Now, it could be that this happens all the time and I'm just not privy to it.




Respectfully,

Robert

 

[MBuzzy]

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I am confused. I see posts saying that an instructor should not teach certain motions to certain students (or not take them as students at all) based on the idea that they might go about and hurt or kill someone with those techniques.

Now, I wish to pose a question, respectfully:

Do you really think that if someone wished to go about and hurt other people, perhaps kill an enemy that he or she would go to a dojang, every day, practice hard, for YEARS, and then attack their enemy? Or, would that person simply go buy a gun (or a baseball bat for that matter), and then be done with it?

You see, how many "gangsters" (fill in whatever definition of that term you feel inclined to use) in the United States, say, go practice with a Martial Arts teacher RELIGIOUSLY in order to gain the skillset to impose their will on other innocent people? Do they not just start waving guns around or busting out windows and such with bats?

To my mind, it seems VERY INEFFICIENT for someone to take the time and resources to learn the martial arts just to be a bully.

Now, it could be that this happens all the time and I'm just not privy to it.




Respectfully,

Robert

That's a great point, although I don't believe there are many who come into a Dojang for the "crime of passion" kind of hurting someone. I mean, someone wouldn't decide that they need to hurt someone and go to a Dojang, you're right, they'd go get a gun.

We're talking about people who don't have the maturity to know when to use the stuff. There are definately people who train that just have horrible tempers. There are definately people who are just there to learn to be a better bully. The danger isn't in teaching criminals, because they'd just get guns. The danger is in teaching people who are only there to learn to harm people - in general. With no respect to control.

For instructors it is about using judgement about what to teach to who. We teach kids techniques, but don't necessarily give them all of the applications - they're not mature enough and don't have the judgement of their own. I've never or heard of an instructor who would stand in front of a class of 6 year olds and say "Ok, now this is where you break their neck, throw them to the ground and punch them in the throat for the kill."

 

[Kacey]

Do you really think that if someone wished to go about and hurt other people, perhaps kill an enemy that he or she would go to a dojang, every day, practice hard, for YEARS, and then attack their enemy? Or, would that person simply go buy a gun (or a baseball bat for that matter), and then be done with it?

It's a valid point... but you're also assuming that the only reason an instructor would not teach a student is because the student is more likely than most to misuse what is taught - and based on the conversation to this point, that's a reasonable assumption. However, here's a totally different scenario:

An instructor I know had a very motivated, dedicated student. She came to class every time, practiced at home, read everything she could find, did everything he told her to do... she was a model student. Still, there came a point when he decided he could not keep her as a student. Why? She had a genetic disorder - osteogenesis imperfecta, type 1, also known as brittle bones syndrome - and every night after class, and every night she practiced on her own, no matter how carefully, no matter how correctly, she ended up in a bathtub full of ice water, tending to the fractures learning and practicing TKD (or any other activity) caused in her brittle bones. There came a point where the instructor could not stand to see the pain he was causing her - even though that pain was being caused in teaching her what she wanted to know, was eager to learn and do - and he was no longer able to teach her. He kept her after class and explained his concerns, asked if there was any way to avoid the problem (there wasn't) and told her that watching her suffer was more than he could take. He offered to teach her theory, history, discuss techniques from a theoretical perspective - anything but allow her to continue to hurt herself in her passion - but she declined, preferring to not participate at all rather than participate only mentally.

This type of situation is quite rare - and even harder to deal with than the person who, like Ed Gruberman, walks in and wants to know when he will learn "all those nifty moves so I can start trashing bozos!" There are potential students who walk in, and make it clear from day one that their only interest is in learning to beat the crap out of people - that's a difficult decision, but it's something an instructor can think about ahead of time. Situations like the one above - those are hard, and very individual. I respect and agree with the decision that instructor made - and I hope like hell I never have to make it myself.

To those who have answered my original question - are there students you wouldn't teach - thank you. To all of you - whether you've answered or not - what would you do with a situation like the above, where a potentially ideal student has a situation outside their personal control that makes it physically dangerous for them to practice - but they are strongly motivated to learn and practice anyway? How does this compare to your opinion about students who, in your opinion, would be highly likely misuse what you teach?

 

[jks9199]

You see, how many "gangsters" (fill in whatever definition of that term you feel inclined to use) in the United States, say, go practice with a Martial Arts teacher RELIGIOUSLY in order to gain the skillset to impose their will on other innocent people? Do they not just start waving guns around or busting out windows and such with bats?

You really don't want to know...

It's a simple fact. Criminals are NOT stupid. Nor are they lazy. I recently read the "rules" for a branch of the Aryan Brotherhood in a prison; suffice to say that they are more disciplined than most of us. They are required to exercise, to practice with each other, and do more. Members of various outlaw motorcycle clubs have earned black belts, or have extensive military training. Then there's the whole issue of gangsters joining the military solely to obtain combat training and experience. Some get washed out before being deployed -- many don't. (Google "hunter glass" and you'll find his articles about gangs in the military. It's a huge problem.) MS-13 was started by former Salvadoran guerrilla fighters in Los Angeles. Others share various experience and training with each other...

To my mind, it seems VERY INEFFICIENT for someone to take the time and resources to learn the martial arts just to be a bully.

Now, it could be that this happens all the time and I'm just not privy to it.

Any more, with MMA gyms that have little structure or group discipline, and the huge catalog of books... it's no hard. And bullies do learn martial arts; some direct their bullying within the class, and some don't. Some teachers exercise control over who they teach, assessing their character before accepting them. Many don't. And that's before you even begin to consider that there are a huge number of martial arts day-care programs, and very few of them do more than make sure the checks don't bounce.

 

[jks9199]

To those who have answered my original question - are there students you wouldn't teach - thank you. To all of you - whether you've answered or not - what would you do with a situation like the above, where a potentially ideal student has a situation outside their personal control that makes it physically dangerous for them to practice - but they are strongly motivated to learn and practice anyway? How does this compare to your opinion about students who, in your opinion, would be highly likely misuse what you teach?

Let me address three things here...

First: What is a "traditional" school? I'm going to suggest that a traditional school is one that maintains aspects of the culture that originated the martial art, teaching it in the same style with little or no modification from the way it was taught one or more generations ago. BJJ is, by my lights, a traditional martial art, as is Isshin ryu karate, aikido, bagua, TKD and many, many others. Some adhere more to the traditions than others, but common hallmarks are uniforms, disciplined classes or individual training, and a clear instructor relationship, more than a "coaching" relationship.

Nontraditional approaches include MMA, many JKD instructors, many newly created martial arts, and more. I'm going to add boxing and wrestling mainly because of the style of coaching versus instruction, and the lack of formality in training.

Second:
Are there students I'd refuse to teach? Yes. Some for moral or character or immaturity based reasons, some for mere attitude, and some "just because."

Third:
How would I handle a student with their heart in the right place, but a body that can't handle training? I'd try to steer them to something that they can do if I can't answer their needs with reasonable modification. I won't be responsible for someone doing serious harm to themselves merely because they want to train; it's a fact of life that we can't always do what we wish to. I'd like to try parachuting... but I already broke my back once. I'm not pushing my luck... and I'm too big for a tandem jump.

 

[MBuzzy]

To those who have answered my original question - are there students you wouldn't teach - thank you. To all of you - whether you've answered or not - what would you do with a situation like the above, where a potentially ideal student has a situation outside their personal control that makes it physically dangerous for them to practice - but they are strongly motivated to learn and practice anyway? How does this compare to your opinion about students who, in your opinion, would be highly likely misuse what you teach?

To me - largely different situations....same outcome. In both situations, it is the instructor's responsibility to determine if the person can train. Honestly, if I ever open a school, with the way things are now, I will probably require waivers from doctors before people start training. I would have to say that for conditions like that, there would come a point when they will have to stop.

I think of it from this angle....if I teach someone a move, then they run off and kill someone with it, I'm sure that the investigation would come back to me. If someone drops dead of a heart attack or has a major fracture in my school, it will also come back to me. Because I instructed that person, I allowed them to train. In this day and age, you can have them sign mountains of waivers, hold harmless agreements, and other paperwork, and with the right lawyer, none of that matters.

I've got a friend with OI...so that example hits home. She is the most determined and motivated person in the world - you have to be when you have a condition like that. She's had 48 major bone breaks (not counting fingers and toes, that number is way too high to count), but she knows her limitations too. If someone like that walks into your school and you say that you can't train them - I guarantee, they will understand.

I hate to be cold in looking at it from a liability standpoint, but when you own a school, its something you really have to think about. From an emotional standpoint....I'm on board with that too, I couldn't handle seeing someone in that much pain, no matter how much they wanted to do it. I couldn't forgive myself if they got seriously injured in my class. The same as if someone I taught killed someone in anger with the techniques I had shown them.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I was reading another thread, and this part of one post by shesulsa really caught my attention - largely because I completely agree with it:



What does "traditional" mean to you, in the context of the above statement? As far as I'm concerned, dues pay for the facility and the materials - like a Visa ad:

cost of training (dues - covers facility, insurance, etc.): $40/month
uniform: $50
sparring gear: $75
having a qualified instructor who trains for the love of the art: priceless

Are there people I won't teach? Yes - for a variety of reasons.

There are people who are physically unready - or unable - to learn certain techniques. I have a student with cerebral palsy and a developmental delay who has severe balance problems - he's never going to kick above a certain level, but he does the best he can with what he's got. He will never learn jump kicks - it's just not possible for him. I - and my students - spend a lot of time modifying things for him so he can continue to improve, but he cannot do jump kicks - so rather than teach him to jump, I concentrate on other things.

More problematic for many people are those who are unready - or unable - to be trusted with certain techniques. This discussion has come up before, but from other angles. There are people I will not teach - for example, I knew a man who wanted to date me, who I was not interested in - so in an effort to convince me otherwise, he joined me class. After a time, his behavior - finding me whenever possible and joining in whatever I was doing - turned into stalking; before it hit that point, however, I refused to let him remain in my class. He had anger management problems and was obsessive about things once he decided to do them - I did not trust him with techniques that could hurt people; sadly, he proved my distrust - his stalking reached a point where it fit the legal definition, and my association with him ended after the judge upheld the restraining order I filed.

Now, the above does not happen very often - in 15 years of instructing, he's the only person I have flat out refused to instruct - but there are those people who should not be taught certain things, no matter how much money they pay... and there are instructors who will teach them anyway, or even attract them as a preferred type of student, like the Kobra Kai in The Karate Kid. But martial arts are traditionally for defense, not offense, and I reserve the right to refuse instruction - or to withhold pieces of instruction - from people who I believe will not use what I teach them properly.

Our Club has had to ask people to leave and not come back.

Over the 20+ years I have been there it is still only a few.

As to the quoted material that lead to this thread, I happen to agree. While talking to an old High school buddy, and talking about businesses and starting new ones, I stated to one of his employees at the University, "Stay it is ok. Even if you plan to open up a martial arts studio as well. I bet our customers are not the same. I mean it is not like one just teaches a 6 year old to knife fight."

My point is that it is responsible of the instructor to limit the student in what is shown for their best development.

I know some think this is about holding people back.

I know that some think it is about having a secret to be able to beat your students later with.

Personally I hope all the students are better than me.

Yet, if a student was coming into the class to learn and I just used them as a target for my practice, what could they learn? Not much other than I am a jerk and that they are not learning to fight or defend themsleves.

Another way of over loading a student is to give them too much at once.


But, as with many Americans, we want it now and we want it all. We want it to be given to us, and made easy and we deserve it. I say ******** to that. Nothing gained without some effort does not have value.


As to Traditional, I think Traditional Systems have a form of philosphy or morals or ethics, other than train hard. In most aspects of MMA, the agenda is SPORT FIGHTING. It is not about confidence or defense from a knife or the street attacker. Now of course, the techniques can be used against such, if one practices for such, but most in the MMA field do not.

Cross training to get a different feel of teaching or to see how others move is good. It can also be done in a traditional sense.

My opinions on this. So take that and the cash in your pocket and maybe get a candy bar.

 

[ciscodog]

My Sensei decides in the first month or so wether he will accept the student. I mean lets be honest, you need to be a huge knob to have someone say" *I wont accept you as a student. If its a Dojo you as a student want to be training at, then the student should show they want to be there. Sensei Schroeder is a smart man and has explained the touchy subject of turning down students with this memeorable quote...."Once I teach you I cant unteach you". This also puts the responsiblity on the students shoulders to use what is being taught properly. For the most part if the instructors and high rank find that someone has a few screws loose, they usually arent around for long.

On another note, the greatest compliment you can give your Sensei and instuctors is to be waiting outside the Dojo with your gear when they pull up to open the doors for the evenings training.

 

[Darth F.Takeda]

Loaded question and kind of a 2 parter.

Traditional means different things to different people.

To many these days, it means the art is worthless in todays enviroment and when they are reffereing to the McDojangs, or slap happy fake Gung Fu death touch masters that infest America, they are right.

To me a Traditional art has firm roots in the combative past and many of the techniques taught can trace back to those times. It means a technique is first taught the codified way before individual modifications are made. It means there are rules of decorum in the Dojo and a clear higherarchy is in place.

But the school should not be a slave to tradition and should make sure that their art is still relevent in modern times.

Part of doing that is not loseing the Traditional techniques.

Case in point- Much of Jujutsu was developed to fight people wearing armour and it also was developed as weapons retention in non battlefeild conditions. It's why there is not alot of strikes in JJ and there is alot of training with someone grabbing your wrist.

Well modern militaries and police are moving into useing more and more body armour, making joint destructions, neck breaks and throws that result in head and neck trauma more applicable.

And what helped you keep possesion of your sword 300 years ago can help you keep your knife or gun today. People grab wrist when your trying to deploy a weapon or stick a knife or a bullet into them. It's good to make that a greivious, painfull and potentially final error on their part.

 

[tellner]

Whatever traditional means or doesn't mean in the context of martial arts I have one firm rule. If it doesn't serve the goals of those who are training it should be deep-sixed. Something done "just because we do it" is a waste. That which works, not that which our romantic notions say worked long ago in a galaxy far far away, is what needs to be preserved.

Sometimes things are useful in ways which students don't understand or appreciate. That's well and good.

Often times stuff is kept because of badly remembered fairy tales, stuff taken totally out of cultural context and layers of accretion as people repeat the stories to each other and add to them. That sort of thing cries out for a house-cleaning.

Take bowing. It's a custom in some East Asian cultures. Formal bow before and after class, informal bow when entering or leaving the training area, at the beginning and end of matches and when ending beginning or ending training with a fellow student. Cool. It's polite in the original cultural context and marks transistions well enough.

Then people come up with a sillygism (like a syllogism, but silly :

"Bowing is traditional. More bowing will be more traditional. Tradition is good. The more bowing we do the better." Pretty soon they're bowing to their belts, bowing every time someone falls down and gets up, bowing before and after every instrucitonal unit, bowing before and after straightening their uniforms, bowing to training diagrams, showing rank by the particular physical motions they do in ever-increasingly complex bows, bowing when someone gets a point in sparring, bowing every time someone else enters of leaves the training area. It's not doing diddly to make the students better students. All it does is waste time while making the class look like a bunch of "drinking bird" toys.

Or you have an Aikido class with a lot of Jewish students to whom the deep bow and idolatry is repugnant. The school has a Shinto shrine towards which the students and teacher kow tow. You can force them to do something to which they have serious objections. For the observant "serious objections" means "I would quite literally rather die than do that." Or you can modify the tradition to get the same effect of a formal gesture that begins and ends class without performing those particular physical motions and put the shrine into a closet.

And sometimes tradition is wrong. 200 proof raw gum racism is incredibly traditional in China and Japan. So are lousy attitudes towards women. Ignoring those traditions without even a show of respect for them is perfectly reasonable.

Does it serve a useful goal?
Yes? Keep it unless something better comes along.
No? toss it without regrets.

 

[Darth F.Takeda]

We bow in to class and out of class to the shoemen, a picture of Takeda Sogaku, founder of Daito Ryu and Kodo Horikawa, founder of the Kodo Kai and to Sensei. We also bow to him when he makes a technical correction, and it's out of tradition and respect. Jujutsu is an "Art of war" bowing is much like saluting in the Military, it's a sign of respect.

It does not interfere with training for combat, if anything it's a que to shelf your daily crap and focus in on training. You might be the head of a multi million dollar company, be a big player and the center of your universe, but in the Dojo, you are a student.

It's not needed, but I see no reason to do away with it because it is a tradition and goes back to the roots of our arts.

I am well aware of the differences between us and the Japanese, we dont go out of our way to use Japanese terminology (In fact I know less Japanese terms for techniques than any Nidan you'll meet) and we dont bow to each other and any rank seinor (Like I had to in TKD, that got old.) and we sure as Hell dont bow to their flag.

When I train Pekiti Tarsia and Silat with Dave Wink's crew, they dont do anything like that, and that's cool too.

I do think some traditional decorum is a good thing, but I can see (and have seen) it go over into absurdity.

 

[Darth F.Takeda]

That and I am not going to let Politics get a big hold in training.
Things about the Japanese I dont like, things they did to people in WW2 are repulsive, too bad we only had 2 A-bombs, they deserved a few more. Some things about the Phillipines I dont agree with and their are things about Indoneasia I dont care for.

All the above though have some fine fighting arts so that is what I want to learn from them.

I hate Communisim and Commies,Nazisim and Nazis but I read Mao, Marx and Hitler and Speer because there are lessons to be learned from them.

I make my living with a tool that is widely regarded as Russian, the methods are from there, and many of the principles used are from Soviet studies on physical training, all were done with an eye towards killing and inslaving us, but it's good knowledge about physical training, itr works, so I use it.

Baby and the bath water.

If there is something usefull to me I dont care where it came from.