What exactly defines a modern martial art vs traditional martial art?

[Ironbear24]

In my opinion both of these terms are ridiculous and further divide a community that should have no division in it. However I would like to know because my arts, kenpo karate and Judo have been called both TMA and MMA's.

 

[ShawnP]

In my opinion both of these terms are ridiculous and further divide a community that should have no division in it. However I would like to know because my arts, kenpo karate and Judo have been called both TMA and MMA's.

I'm sure Chris Parker will be along soon, he has a lot of knowledge on this as i read from another thread, it will be an interesting read i'm sure.

 

[Ironbear24]

I will patiently wait for his response.

 

[Steve]

I'd be a little careful with referring to Modern Martial Arts as MMAs. MMA means something pretty specific to most people and using MMA in a different way is likely to cause confusion.

As for your question and your statement, I disagree that the terms are ridiculous. I think, as with most labels, they are useful if they are being used in ways that are clear and well defined.

Personally, I think of TMA in two ways. First, TMAs are often used to refer to a martial arts style that trace (or allege to trace) its origins and methods back a hundred or more years, and are Asian in origin. While I think a strong case can be made that BJJ is a traditional martial art, it doesn't typically fall into that category as it is no really Japanese, even though it is derived from a Japanese style.

Second definition I like for TMA focuses on the "tradition" part of the acronym. Essentially, if the number one priority of the art is to learn and subsequently transmit the techniques (and usually the training methods) in as consistent a manner as possible, you're in a traditional art.

 

[geezer]

Mr. Parker will have a very well informed view from his perspective as a student of Koryu, but honestly as people use and abuse the terms "traditional" and "modern" they can pretty much mean whatever you want them to. In the traditional Japanese arts, a term like koryu has a very specific meaning. Regarding martial arts in general you will not find consensus.

 

[Andrew Green]

Even with the term traditional you have two very different sorts of concepts.

Take something like a Koryu art, one that has a goal of preserving the style as it was. Same teaching methods, same techniques, everything preserved as much as possible. Now compare that to boxing, which is also about as traditional as you can get but in a completely different sense of the word. Boxing's history can be traced back a very long ways and has been a part of western culture for a very, very long time. Same for wrestling, it's been around since written history started.

Then what do we do with groups like HEMA? Which are recreations of historical arts but haven't really been passed down through a lineage in the same way eastern arts place value on.

I suppose if I was to try and draw a distinction between what is generally meant when people use those terms to create a distinction traditional arts are meant to keep something in tact that was systemized by someone else who is now long dead where as modern arts are more flexible and open to curriculum changes and drawing from multiple sources. But even with that a lot of styles are a bit of both and it's a rather fuzzy line.

 

[Ironbear24]

Second definition I like for TMA focuses on the "tradition" part of the acronym. Essentially, if the number one priority of the art is to learn and subsequently transmit the techniques (and usually the training methods) in as consistent a manner as possible, you're in a traditional art.

Doesn't everyone do this? Learn a technique then aim to be consistent with it? We all do things as we are taught.

While I think a strong case can be made that BJJ is a traditional martial art, it doesn't typically fall into that category as it is no really Japanese, even though it is derived from a Japanese style.

As far as it being Japanese or not would have nothing to do with it being traditional or modern. If you want to get far into it though I guess you can call it a Brazilian take on a Japanese art.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

By using the artificial intelligence term, the

- traditional MA is a "forward search" that you start from the root and search to the leafs.
- modern MA is a "backward search" that you start from the leaf and search back to the root.

For example. most of the

- traditional MA starts from the basic stance, form/Kata, partner drills, and then get into spar/wrestle. It's more "principle/strategy base".
- modern MA starts from the partner drills, spar/wrestle. They may even skip the stance and form/Kata training. It's more "technique base".

We all know the "bi-directions search" that you start your search both from the root forward and leaf backward and meet in the middle of the tree is the fastest searching method. A mix of the traditional MA training method and the modern MA training method should be the best.

For example, when your instructor teaches you the horse stance, he may tell you to keep your feet parallel on the ground with shoulder width and ... You may then ask him why do you need to train this horse stance. At the same time, if your teacher also shows you how to execute a hip throw. He then tells you that a good hip throw will require a good horse stance. You will then have the motivation to train your horse stance because you know exactly what's your goal is.

Starting from the basic but also knowing what your goal is should be the best training method.

 

[Steve]

Doesn't everyone do this? Learn a technique then aim to be consistent with it? We all do things as we are taught.

Not necessarily. And to be clear, it's really more about ranking priorities and making decisions. If there is ever a conflict between efficacy and consistency, some styles will opt to be consistent and others will gladly abandon canon to modify their curriculum. If doing it the way it's always been done is of paramount importance, that speaks to the nut of what tradition is, in my opinion.

As far as it being Japanese or not would have nothing to do with it being traditional or modern. If you want to get far into it though I guess you can call it a Brazilian take on a Japanese art.

Yeah, want to clarify. Some people here may go out of their way to suggest that there is a single definition of "Traditional Martial Art" that is correct. I think that's a lost cause and am really just speaking to how the term is generally used by people who are self identified as training in a TMA. Most of the time, when someone uses the term, they have in mind a Japanese art, but sometimes other styles make their way into the conversation.

But that said, I can completely understand how some Western styles can be considered TMA, in spite of little or no tie to Asia. Western fencing, some wrestling styles like CaCC, boxing, BJJ... there are many that share some of the traits we typically think of.

 

[Ironbear24]

Not necessarily. And to be clear, it's really more about ranking priorities and making decisions. If there is ever a conflict between efficacy and consistency, some styles will opt to be consistent and others will gladly abandon canon to modify their curriculum. If doing it the way it's always been done is of paramount importance, that speaks to the nut of what tradition is, in my opinion.

I respectfully ask that you consider thinking about this opinion. The reason why techniques have became traditional and passed down for so long is because they generally work. Think about it. Why would anyone pass down something if it sucked and continue to teach it if it does not work?

Efficacy is always from my experiences the number 1 priority when it comes to the martial arts I have come across. Which has only been Ed Parker kenpo, Judo and very little Escrima.

The only thing I can think of that would be "innefective" is kata, but then again kata is not meant to be used in combat but is a tool for training.

 

[Steve]

I respectfully ask that you consider thinking about this opinion. The reason why techniques have became traditional and passed down for so long is because they generally work. Think about it. Why would anyone pass down something if it sucked and continue to teach it if it does not work?

Efficacy is always from my experiences the number 1 priority when it comes to the martial arts I have come across. Which has only been Ed Parker kenpo, Judo and very little Escrima.

The only thing I can think of that would be "innefective" is kata, but then again kata is not meant to be used in combat but is a tool for training.

The techniques may be effective, but the application may have significantly changed over time. Kyudo is a very effective way to deliver an arrow to a target. But how practical is that for self defense?

As is often stated, people train for a lot of different reasons.

Or what about even a simple punch, or making a fist, or even ground fighting? We see this all the time around here with regards to grappling in general, and typically ground fighting in particular, where people within a style will consider it crucial that the answer be internal to their style and not taken from some external source. For example, WC "anti-grappling" where it's very important to some WC stylists that the ground defense is a function of their style and not derived from some other place, such as wrestling, Judo or BJJ.

Ultimately, this is like asking someone what their favorite movie is. You're going to get a unique answer from everyone. So, the real bottom line for me is define it however you'd like. Just make sure other people understand what you're talking about when you use the term.

 

[JowGaWolf]

For Jow Ga. Traditional Martial Arts means any martial arts that follows an established cultural tradition. This means that the training, strategies, perspectives, etiquette, and concepts are traditional and have been handed down for generations. Many of the traditional martial arts focused on fighting, while some of today's modern martial arts may focus on performance for scoring points in a forms competition or scoring points in sparring competition.

For many modern martial arts, there's not tons of cultural tradition that's part of the martial arts system. This doesn't mean that there won't be. It just means that at this point in time, there's less than 100 years of existence and no defined set of "rituals" and expectations have been established that helps define the culture of that fighting system. For example, one BJJ school may have a different culture from another BJJ school. Eventually, that will change if it hasn't already begun to change. It will get to a point where you can go to one BJJ school and then to another and expect to see the same culture and rituals that help define that fighting system. I can go to a Jow Ga Kung Fu school and I can expect to see similar things such as a shrine to the founders and lineage, a deep respect for that shrine, a specific code of ethnics, and techniques that are done in a certain way as taught by the founder which is the root of the system. The sifu may add other components and train other systems, but the Jow Ga component will always remain as closely to what the original founders taught.

 

[MAfreak]

i might forget something but spontaneuos i'd say there are just traditional martial arts. "modern" styles aren't martial arts but combat sports. even if they have the term "martial arts" in it.
so while for example karate mightn't be much older than vale tudo, its near to its ancestors traditions and focuses not just on the fighting aspect.

 

[Ironbear24]

Kyudo in self defense? I had no idea what that it is until I googled it. Archery in self-defense I would say is useless unless you are green arrow or hawk eye and happen to always carry a bow and arrows with you at all times.

The techniques change with time because people have found ways to improve on them. For example the very simple most basic kenpo counters have changed many times through the styles life. Delayed sword is the first one students learn. It is a blocking a jab with an inward block that crosses your body, then a front kick to the groin followed by a chop to the clavicle.

It is already basic and it is puzzling to see how you can change something so simple, yet it has been several times. The side kick in kenpo has also been changed and I recently started doing the old version over the new one because the new one may be faster, but it really lacks power.

If you prefer the more "modern arts" over traditional that is ok. I am not asking you to change your mind or anything. I am just trying to make a point that ideally things change in more seemingly traditional arts often, which is why I even question what makes them traditional in the first place.

Someone said that modern and traditional have a fuzzy line between them and it feels like I am not able to find what distinguishes it.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I think it is probably possible to construct a definition for "Traditional Martial Art" that would be logically self-consistent. Unfortunately, I don't think such a definition would match up with how the term is typically used by the martial arts community as a whole - including both self-professed practitioners of TMAs and non-TMAs.

Just as an example - TKD is commonly referred to as a TMA and BJJ is not - even though BJJ is older than TKD.

You could argue that perhaps "traditional" doesn't refer to the actual age of the art, but rather to the attitude regarding the transmission of the art in its original form. The problem there is that TKD has evolved significantly from its original form, just as BJJ has evolved from its own.

You could argue (as I've heard one or two people do) that TKD isn't really a TMA, since it has a relatively recent origin and has evolved noticeably in the time since that origin. The problem is that once you start going down that path and examining actual history to evaluate who gets to call themselves TMA, you'll find that a high percentage of the arts called "traditional" aren't nearly as "traditional" as their practitioners would like to believe. You could probably get broad consensus that the legitimate koryu arts are pretty traditional, but beyond that most folks wouldn't make the cut.

Perhaps, you could argue "too bad." Only arts with a long, well-documented lineage and a successful commitment to preserving the technical details and cultural artifacts of that lineage with minimal change get to qualify as TMA. The problem is that now you are using the term in a way that contradicts the usage of 95% of the martial artists out there who use the term including those who identify as traditional martial artists. It's not like math or science where there exists an objectively correct answer which might contradict popular understanding. It's language. Usage defines meaning.

The upshot is that I don't personally regard "TMA" as being a particularly useful term. It doesn't bother me when other people use it, but I don't think it adds much useful information to the conversation.

 

[Flying Crane]

The only thing I can think of that would be "innefective" is kata, but then again kata is not meant to be used in combat but is a tool for training.

If trained properly, kata can be extremely effective. Yes, it is a training tool, but as such, it can effectively train you to fight or succeed in self defense.

This makes a few assumptions, however. It assumes the kata itself is well designed. Not all are. It assumes one's understanding of the kata is strong and appropriate. That is not always the case. It assumes the approach to training the kata is appropriate. That also is not always the case.

So yeah, there is plenty of room for people to go wrong with it.

 

[Kenpoguy123]

I respectfully ask that you consider thinking about this opinion. The reason why techniques have became traditional and passed down for so long is because they generally work. Think about it. Why would anyone pass down something if it sucked and continue to teach it if it does not work?

Efficacy is always from my experiences the number 1 priority when it comes to the martial arts I have come across. Which has only been Ed Parker kenpo, Judo and very little Escrima.

The only thing I can think of that would be "innefective" is kata, but then again kata is not meant to be used in combat but is a tool for training.

I agree kind of but not on some points. Look at kenpo a lot of it does but be honest there's a lot total rubbish techniques that would never work . Gift in return, unfolding the dark, twirling sacrifice etc, but often you hear people say their kept in because it shows category completion which to me is stupid your training people to defend themselves who cares about all that just show me moves that will save my *** but that's a point for another time but those are still taught because Parker taught them

 

[Steve]

Just want to make it clear that I don't have any opinion about kata one way or the other. I don't do them, but believe that there's value to the people who do.

Regarding culture, I think the culture of BJJ is as unique and well defined as any other style. One school may be different from another, but that is true of any style. But I wouldn't be reluctant to describe some attributes I think comprise a core personality and culture for BJJ as a style. Similarly, I think other non-traditional styles also have well defined cultures.

Jow Ga, you also seem to be implying that traditional styles tend to focus more on fighting than non-traditional styles, which can focus on scoring points. While this MAY be true, there are many TMAs which do not focus on fighting, or which relegate fighting much lower than other priorities. Tai Chi, Kyudo, Kendo, Judo, Kyokushin Karate, San Shou, Muay Thai, Wushu.

This isn't to say that fighting is unimportant within these styles, but there are many reasons people train, and fighting is not always even on the list.

 

[Rich Parsons]

By using the artificial intelligence term, the

- traditional MA is a "forward search" that you start from the root and search to the leafs.
- modern MA is a "backward search" that you start from the leaf and search back to the root.

For example. most of the

- traditional MA starts from the basic stance, form/Kata, partner drills, and then get into spar/wrestle. It's more "principle/strategy base".
- modern MA starts from the partner drills, spar/wrestle. They may even skip the stance and form/Kata training. It's more "technique base".

We all know the "bi-directions search" that you start your search both from the root forward and leaf backward and meet in the middle of the tree is the fastest searching method. A mix of the traditional MA training method and the modern MA training method should be the best.

For example, when your instructor teaches you the horse stance, he may tell you to keep your feet parallel on the ground with shoulder width and ... You may then ask him why do you need to train this horse stance. At the same time, if your teacher also shows you how to execute a hip throw. He then tells you that a good hip throw will require a good horse stance. You will then have the motivation to train your horse stance because you know exactly what's your goal is.

Starting from the basic but also knowing what your goal is should be the best training method.

While I like this. I have to wonder how many no CS types will get this. And even this with a Comp Sci BS, did they have AI in undergrad ? I had it both in Undergrad and Master's level. Very enjoying.

 

[Dinkydoo]

While I like this. I have to wonder how many no CS types will get this. And even this with a Comp Sci BS, did they have AI in undergrad ? I had it both in Undergrad and Master's level. Very enjoying.

The last thing I expected to find on this thread was a metaphor for traditional vs modern martial arts involving tree traversal. I've been at work all day dammit, evenings are supposed to be for face-punchy things

I like the idea though, but I'm not sure it exactly fits. I need to think about it for a while.