What Is a Traditional Art?

[MJS]

Many times, during discussion of various arts, we see the reference TMA or MMA. In your opinion, what defines a traditional art? Here is a definition of tradition.

For me, a tradition is something that happens at a certain time or something that is done at a certain time, with little if any change. Ex: Every Christmas a family gathers together at the same gathering spot, the same people are there, the same food is prepared, etc.

If we look at #2 in that link I posted, we see:

the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction

this reads to me, that nothing changes. Whatever is passed down, is passed from generation to generation, with no changes. This is 'the' way its done, this is 'the' way it has to be done.

Yet, we look at what could be considered a TMA, and we see people making changes. Does this mean that the TMA is no longer traditional, if a more modern concept/idea is added in?

Looking forward to your thoughts.

 

[Flying Crane]

Many times, during discussion of various arts, we see the reference TMA or MMA. In your opinion, what defines a traditional art? Here is a definition of tradition.

For me, a tradition is something that happens at a certain time or something that is done at a certain time, with little if any change. Ex: Every Christmas a family gathers together at the same gathering spot, the same people are there, the same food is prepared, etc.

If we look at #2 in that link I posted, we see:



this reads to me, that nothing changes. Whatever is passed down, is passed from generation to generation, with no changes. This is 'the' way its done, this is 'the' way it has to be done.

Yet, we look at what could be considered a TMA, and we see people making changes. Does this mean that the TMA is no longer traditional, if a more modern concept/idea is added in?

Looking forward to your thoughts.

I do not believe that it automatically means that nothing ever changes. That definition of Traditional, the passing of knowledge from one generation thru word of mouth and not written, is actually a good definition for folklore, which I believe the martial arts are in many ways. But everyone practicing the folkloric tradition is doing it according to their own strengths and understandings, and that is what they will pass along to their own students. If there is something in the knowledge that they do not understand, or is not one of their strengths, then this aspect may not be passed along in that particular lineage, from that particular instructor, tho other instructors of the same generation MAY pass along that information to their own students, if that information reflects THEIR strenghts and whatnot. Blacksmithing could be considered a folkloric tradition. Certain blacksmithing techniques may not be included in the repertoire of every blacksmith because they did not learn "everything" that there is to know about blacksmithing, while still having a "complete" knowledge of the skill and the ability to make anything necessary that can be done thru blacksmithing. Some smiths may have developed certain techniques of their own to do the same job that other smiths do thru other techniques. Those specific techniques get passed along thru their particular lineage, resulting in a functionally complete set of skills that they teach to their students, even tho they cannot possibly know and teach "everything" that there is to know about blacksmithing. Hope this all makes sense...

Often the curriculum of a martial art does get codified in some way, and there is a sense of the "complete" system, all of the formal curriculum. But what comprises that complete system may have developed over time, and different branches splitting away over time before certain aspects of the "complete" curriculum were developed or adopted. Those branches may in turn have developed their own additional material, or changed what they otherwise did, again according to the strengths and understandings of their own generations of teachers.

In the end, they are all traditional (folkloric) traditions, tho they may be separate branches and have distinction that set them apart. Likewise, they are all "complete" in their own way, but that definition of completeness may not be the same from one branch to another.

But nothing in this indicates that nothing changes. My own sifu is very traditional in his practice and his teaching. He is in his mid 70s, has practiced since he was 12 or 13, and is old-school Chinese in mindset. yet he changes things as he teaches them to us. Sometimes he pulls out a piece of a form and just says, "I don't like this, I think it's impractical, do it this way instead it makes more sense and is more useful." Other times he says, "well THIS is how it is traditionally done, but if you are lazy and don't want to develop your kicks properly [this part being said with HEAVY derision] then you can do it like THIS instead..." The older students who have been with him for many decades comment about how we do our forms, and sometimes they say, "OK, so Sifu changed this AGAIN, it's closer to how we used to do it way back when, but it got changed a few times now, but THIS is how he wants us to do it now..."

Things definitely get changed, there is no doubt about that. But the spirit of the system stays the same. The curriculum is simply an expression of the spirit of the system, a vehicle meant to teach you how to use the method. The curriculum could even be considered disposable in the end, once you really understand the method that underlies it all. If the curriculum has taught you to do that, then it has served its purpose and is not necessary any more unless you intend to teach students of your own. Then you need to teach them the curriculum because they need that tool and aren't ready to be without it yet. And ultimately as you teach and become very experienced, you may end up making changes of your own, if you believe it will better serve the purpose.

People sometimes get hung up over the issue of, "is this the RIGHT way to do the form? Should THIS or THAT technique be removed or put in?" But the choreography is not as important as many people believe it is. Because as I stated above, what the real purpose of the curriculum is. It teaches the underlying method, the choreography of a form is simply an example to teach a skill to the body. It does have specific applications, but should not be viewed simply as a collection (or as THE collection) of techniques. If you see it that way, then you do not really understand what the form is for and what it is meant to teach you.

hope this puts some perspective on the topic.

 

[JohnEdward]

Traditional is all the things done prior to what is the new thing happening now. Despite the fact there is nothing new, it is that principles are just re-arranged, recycled, and revisited with a new label put on it- usually to get people's attention, branding, etc.

MAA will be traditional once someone successfully in a fight does something outside of what they are doing now and wins big. Very much like what happened to BJJ losing to MMA (royce gracie vs matt hughes)

When it comes to technology that is a whole other story when talking about tradition.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

I do not believe that it automatically means that nothing ever changes. That definition of Traditional, the passing of knowledge from one generation thru word of mouth and not written, is actually a good definition for folklore, which I believe the martial arts are in many ways. But everyone practicing the folkloric tradition is doing it according to their own strengths and understandings, and that is what they will pass along to their own students. If there is something in the knowledge that they do not understand, or is not one of their strengths, then this aspect may not be passed along in that particular lineage, from that particular instructor, tho other instructors of the same generation MAY pass along that information to their own students, if that information reflects THEIR strenghts and whatnot. Blacksmithing could be considered a folkloric tradition. Certain blacksmithing techniques may not be included in the repertoire of every blacksmith because they did not learn "everything" that there is to know about blacksmithing, while still having a "complete" knowledge of the skill and the ability to make anything necessary that can be done thru blacksmithing. Some smiths may have developed certain techniques of their own to do the same job that other smiths do thru other techniques. Those specific techniques get passed along thru their particular lineage, resulting in a functionally complete set of skills that they teach to their students, even tho they cannot possibly know and teach "everything" that there is to know about blacksmithing. Hope this all makes sense...

Often the curriculum of a martial art does get codified in some way, and there is a sense of the "complete" system, all of the formal curriculum. But what comprises that complete system may have developed over time, and different branches splitting away over time before certain aspects of the "complete" curriculum were developed or adopted. Those branches may in turn have developed their own additional material, or changed what they otherwise did, again according to the strengths and understandings of their own generations of teachers.

In the end, they are all traditional (folkloric) traditions, tho they may be separate branches and have distinction that set them apart. Likewise, they are all "complete" in their own way, but that definition of completeness may not be the same from one branch to another.

But nothing in this indicates that nothing changes. My own sifu is very traditional in his practice and his teaching. He is in his mid 70s, has practiced since he was 12 or 13, and is old-school Chinese in mindset. yet he changes things as he teaches them to us. Sometimes he pulls out a piece of a form and just says, "I don't like this, I think it's impractical, do it this way instead it makes more sense and is more useful." Other times he says, "well THIS is how it is traditionally done, but if you are lazy and don't want to develop your kicks properly [this part being said with HEAVY derision] then you can do it like THIS instead..." The older students who have been with him for many decades comment about how we do our forms, and sometimes they say, "OK, so Sifu changed this AGAIN, it's closer to how we used to do it way back when, but it got changed a few times now, but THIS is how he wants us to do it now..."

Things definitely get changed, there is no doubt about that. But the spirit of the system stays the same. The curriculum is simply an expression of the spirit of the system, a vehicle meant to teach you how to use the method. The curriculum could even be considered disposable in the end, once you really understand the method that underlies it all. If the curriculum has taught you to do that, then it has served its purpose and is not necessary any more unless you intend to teach students of your own. Then you need to teach them the curriculum because they need that tool and aren't ready to be without it yet. And ultimately as you teach and become very experienced, you may end up making changes of your own, if you believe it will better serve the purpose.

People sometimes get hung up over the issue of, "is this the RIGHT way to do the form? Should THIS or THAT technique be removed or put in?" But the choreography is not as important as many people believe it is. Because as I stated above, what the real purpose of the curriculum is. It teaches the underlying method, the choreography of a form is simply an example to teach a skill to the body. It does have specific applications, but should not be viewed simply as a collection (or as THE collection) of techniques. If you see it that way, then you do not really understand what the form is for and what it is meant to teach you.

hope this puts some perspective on the topic.

Spot on, IMHO. I can totally relate to the "changes" made to forms from our Kwan Jang Nim, although we always state them as "corrections" out of respect (even if something has been corrected in 3 or 4 different ways over the decades and sometimes "corrected back to the way it was a couple of "corrections" before.. .)

I really like the comparison of TMA to Foklore tradition, great post!

 

[Buka]

I love traditional Martial Arts. I love non traditional Martial Arts. Martial arts are just plain fun.

 

[seasoned]

I am sorry to say that I feel tradition has been lost, and most martial arts taught today are just figments of imaginations of long ago. How many people today train to kill or maim. Our laws today won't allow this type of misuse, so a more watered down art is taught.
As far as traditional anything, if I invent it and make it the same way every time, it is my tradition, "that you seek out". If you in turn take my traditional anything "and change it for the better", this in fact is now your tradition. Now people have a choice, the way it was FIRST made, or the way it has been changed. Also, changed for the better is only the changers opinion and who ever else he can convince.
Just a side note, I'm traditionally in bed by 11pm. It is now 12 mid-night, is this better, I don't know, check me in the morning when I traditionally get up at 6am.

 

[Jenna]

I am interested to know where is the demarcation between traditional and non-traditional?

Is it a geographical distinction? East vs west?
Is it the age of the art? Measured in centuries rather than decades or years?
Is it the dress of the practitioners? Clothes that one would or would not wear outside the training hall?
Is it the language used in its teaching? Native tongue vs foreign language?

And can we then narrow it down such that we define traditional MA as necessarily satisfying a number of criteria? Must be older than X, must have originated in the Y region, must dress in A & B garments, must abide by practice C & D ?? Anything else we class as modern??

To me it is a strange concept, traditional and non-traditional. There are only certain ways to strike, grapple or throw and to say that this punch is traditional yet that one is not does not make much sense. Why then must we say this art is traditional or that is not? Is it something we can be snobbish about to make us feel our art is in some way better because it is traditional or modern?

I do not understand it. I drive an old car because I like to drive an old car. It suits me. I can drive it fast on the motorway. It is not suitable however for driving off road. I do not therefore drive off road in it. Were I ever to find myself off road in my old car I would be stuck. Still, I like my old car because it suits me.

 

[Wo Fat]

I wouldn't agree that Traditional Martial Arts are those that have been passed down from generation to generation without change. There is small scale evolution in *almost* every art. Did techniques change/evolve/modify in gung fu styles between 1900 and 2000? Sure. But we still regard the various gung fu styles as traditional. How about traditional karate-do? Did techniques evolve? Sure. But we still recognize the tradition within the Japanese arts. Same with most of the traditional Korean arts.

 

[oftheherd1]

I wouldn't agree that Traditional Martial Arts are those that have been passed down from generation to generation without change. There is small scale evolution in *almost* every art. Did techniques change/evolve/modify in gung fu styles between 1900 and 2000? Sure. But we still regard the various gung fu styles as traditional. How about traditional karate-do? Did techniques evolve? Sure. But we still recognize the tradition within the Japanese arts. Same with most of the traditional Korean arts.

Interesting thoughts. Can you then define what you mean when you identify Gung Fu, Karate, and Korean arts? Are there non-traditional Gung Fu, Karate, and Korean arts?

 

[oftheherd1]

I am sorry to say that I feel tradition has been lost, and most martial arts taught today are just figments of imaginations of long ago. How many people today train to kill or maim. Our laws today won't allow this type of misuse, so a more watered down art is taught.
...

I'm not sure that is a definition of traditional, nor that any MA is disqualified along those lines. If you have no punches, kicks, or strikes that can kill, I would be quite surprised. I understand that practitioners may be taught to refrain from using some things in competition. But surely you are still taught throat strikes, head kicks, eye gouges, and many other things that will main or kill. I certainly have been taught those things in Hapkido. As far as I know, other MA do as well.

Those things were taught in "olden" days, and still are. In those same olden days, they didn't kill every practice partner. If that had been the norm, there wouldn't have been many people to pass down "traditions," however we decide to define them.

 

[Gemini]

The definition would not only include the basic physical movements, but also the philosophy behind the art at its inception. While these definitions may vary from art to art, I'll keep my response focused towards Taekwondo (even more specifically WTF style) since that's where I see this issue is raised most often and frankly, the difference most amplified.

Most forums, including this one, refer to "traditional" Taekwondo as that which is based on a training philosophy focusing on self defense, while more often than not "contemporary" or "modern" or just simply "Taekwondo" is based around the increasingly popular sport aspect of the art. What I have learned over the years is that because the sport aspect of the art is becoming so competitive and specialized, much of the training has evolved specifically towards that goal. In the case of Taekwondo, it's becoming surprisingly different. To stay competitive at escalating levels, many of the self defense basic movements and techniques have to be altered and in some cases even sacrificed altogether to achieve higher levels of competition. This doesn't make it any less effective as much as it's just different. In my circle, I'm known as a "traditionalist" because my training is focused primarily on self defense. For us, sparring is a useful training tool that's a means to an end; not an end in and of itself. Most modern schools consider me a dinosaur. Not just because I'm older than dirt, but because my training philosophy is archaic to them. To each his own. I'll go to my grave as a Taekwondo "traditionalist".

 

[seasoned]

I'm not sure that is a definition of traditional, nor that any MA is disqualified along those lines. If you have no punches, kicks, or strikes that can kill, I would be quite surprised. I understand that practitioners may be taught to refrain from using some things in competition.

I too believe that the same techniques are being taught today, as yesteryear, but the rub is in HOW they are taught, and under what conditions. I have a feeling we are not going to agree here and that is ok. I feel that the training atmosphere of today, with air conditioning, and ice cold drinking fountains, and the attitude of fair play, can dilute the mind set of the practitioner, to a certain extent.

But surely you are still taught throat strikes, head kicks, eye gouges, and many other things that will main or kill. I certainly have been taught those things in Hapkido. As far as I know, other MA do as well.

Referenced above.

As to your last statement, you would need to go back to point of origin and train outside of the monthly dues.

 

[Stealthy]

I take the stance that Traditional Martial Arts are those which have been passed down without change...Naturally some change is inevitable but with the advent of video should also be a thing of the past.

Any deliberate changes or error corrections I view as deviation from the traditional and void the tradition.

I see Traditional Martial Arts/Artists as being essential since they provide what for all intensive purposes can be described as a control group of untainted subjects.

As modernization occurs within Martial Arts there is always room for mistakes to be made and without having those clear representations of systems that actually worked there is the risk that Martial Artists can overlook some of the more complex strategies and tactics through simple ignorance.

While at one time I was staunch supporter of modernization I am now of the opinion that in many arenas modernization has gone too far at the expense of discipline and many advanced strategies and tactics.

A good example is the proliferation of the "variations ideal" and the widespread assumption that due to the seemingly infinite number of possible combinations available in combat the best defense should not be restricted to a set style but rather be fluid and spontaneous. On paper this sounds great but in practice there is no such thing as spontaneous reactions there is merely the reproduction of that which has been trained in. Now the ability to react on the fly to subtle variations of attacks is essential but it is a "last line of defense" for when everything else has failed. However we find so many martial arts which inundate their practitioners with countless potential defenses for common attacks that the "last line of defense" actually becomes their "only line of defense". Especially damaging in self-defense since street brawls do not afford the aggressor time to "work you out" so a single solid response drilled countless times would prove to be much more valuble than multiple conflicting triggered reactions to a common attack.


This is why "good" teachers often seem slow to incorporate potentially beneficial changes. A "good" teacher realizes that any change may bring with it consequences not yet understood. In Australia we have Cane Toads as a permanent reminder of that.

 

[Cyriacus]

To me, a Traditional Martial Art is a Martial Art based on a Traditional Idealogy, the Specifics of which are irrelevant.

Kajukenbo, for example, is not a Traditional Martial Art due to the fact that it is a Hybrid Martial Art, based on the Concepts of Boxing, Kenpo, JuJutsu, Judo, Tang Soo Do, and one other one.
However, it is still a great Martial Art, in my opinion, and has many Traditional Values.

Now for the tricky part. I dont not consider Kajukenbo to be a Traditional Art because its a Hybrid, but rather due to the variance in where those Hybrids come from.
It draws the Culture of so many Traditions together, that it cannot be considered Traditional to any one Tradition. Perhaps at some stage, a MA can be based partly on Kajukenbo, and can be considered Traditional afterwards as a result (Kajukenbo + Muay Thai for example, even though id never like to see the blend made for various reasons, could be categorised as Traditional to Thailand, since Kajukenbo is not Traditional to anywere, but Muay Thai is).

Its values, however, are quite Traditional in nature.

I can make the same comparison with; Boxing and Pugilism, since much of what was in Puglilism, such as Clinching, Throws (I think), and Elbows are no longer in Modern Boxing. However, Boxing is based largely on Pugilism. Pugilism is a Traditional English Style, and id perhaps call it a Martial Art, in the same way that Styles of Kung Fu which almost exclusively use the upper body can be a Martial Art.
Modern Boxing can perhaps be called Traditional, due to its roots and morals. Those being England, and fighting with a Preset of Rules, such as, but not limited to, Striking a Downed Opponent.

Taekwon-Do (Or Tae Kwon Do, or Taekwondo, what have you ) i wont even go into, due to the variation between the views of Organisations and Individuals, and thats not what were discussing.

Karate i would consider to be Traditional, in almost all forms, since it is based on the same Idealogies and Concepts almost entirely throughout.
Im sure there are exceptions.


Enough of that. In Summary, I believe that a MA is Traditional if it is based on Ideas, Concepts, and Emphases originally intended for the Art, and that its Roots should also need to be within the Country the MA Originates. Spirituality in all its forms, is optional to being Traditional.

And as a retrospective statement, i read a comment in here about Lethality, to which i say; Really? Im still seing alot of Lethal techniques, in just about every Martial Art i watch. ITF TKD, KKW TKD, Kenpo, Kyokushin, Kajukendo, BJJ, Hapkido, JuJutsu, and plenty more, all seem to incorporate pretty Lethal techniques. Of course theyre discouraged, but theyre taught.

That is all.

 

[punisher73]

Basic definition, is it's age. Everything that is considered a "TMA" now was considered new and eclectic at one point. So the real question is how old does an art have to be before it's peers consider it "traditional"?

 

[Mark Lynn]

I believe from the link given above in the first post that definition #1 applies more to the TMA.

" 1a : an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom)"

Many systems have someone who "inherit" the core teachings of the art to be passed on to others, such as a family member or a senior trusted student. The traditional MA has an established pattern of thought (why the founder established the arts teaching methodology), it has patterned actions and behaviors that conform the student to the art, not the other way around. I believe that more modern arts stress the students growth and fitting the art to them (as a person) as opposed to the student conforming or molding themselves to the art.

For instance many of the Japanese sword systems I believe are what I would call TMA, these arts have no real basis for self defense needs for today and yet they are still practiced today. Some systems have been established for many generations without real change or modernization. They have set customs and practices that really don't reflect today's world. The practitioner doesn't say these techniques don't work in today's world so I'll change it up, instead he conforms to the study of the sword to change himself. I think this is true for most arts that have no real basis (need) in today's life, but which were one time possibly vital to a person defensive system. The study of the Japanese Long bow comes to mind, or the naginata, the Okinawan boat oar, etc. etc. Actually I think the whole study of Okinawan weapons, Gung Fu weapons, Japanese weapons etc. etc. would possibly fall into this category.

However Karate, TKD, Gung Fu, etc. etc. while we might call them traditional, as they are practiced today are largely modernized. Most styles like these have adapted to the changes in society, be they cultural behaviors, business practices, etc. etc. Take the recent innovations of sparring gear and semi contact point fighting in tournaments, or the inclusion of TKD in the Olympics, the emphasis on children and women being brought into the martial art classes, musical forms, XMA etc. etc. Look at what padded weapons brings to weapon sparring, or even protective gear (body armor) on stick sparring in escrima (or the FMAs).

Even "traditional" karate styles are modernized versions of martial arts when they were created. Shotokan was Okinawan Ti and it was modified to fit the Japanese, but prior to that was modified to be taught in the Okinawan school systems. Wado ryu was Japanese jujitsu blended with Shotokan influenced karate, Aikido was modified Aikijutsu, Judo was modified jujitsu and so on. The Korean MAs are the same, bastardized (or modernized) Japanese karate. Take any of the main styles of "traditional"karate and the all were modified versions of what a couple of instructors taught in Okinawa at the turn of the century.

So is modernization good or bad, well that depends, and that could be another thread.

 

[Mark Lynn]

this reads to me, that nothing changes. Whatever is passed down, is passed from generation to generation, with no changes. This is 'the' way its done, this is 'the' way it has to be done.

Yet, we look at what could be considered a TMA, and we see people making changes. Does this mean that the TMA is no longer traditional, if a more modern concept/idea is added in?

Looking forward to your thoughts.

In regards to the bolded part of your quote.

I don't think so, if the intent or the concept was inherent in the art in the first place. Maybe the technique was always there in the first place but was never revealed to the person. Maybe the person was always shown that the technique of a downward block was against a front punch and the person sees the same movements as a wrist release. The return hand to the hip was shown to the person as a retraction and now the person shows it as a grab and pulling motion to the hip to his advanced students, did they really change anything?

Now take a person who changes the kata to be say Chungi modified (I actually saw this at a tournament) where they throw a jump spinning back kick as the last move of the kata to win tournaments. Now that is modifying or updating the kata, because the kata wasn't developed with winning tournaments in mind. It was designed to teach beginners basic techniques (and a jump spinning back kick isn't a basic technique).

 

[seasoned]

Very nice comment. "Always there, just revealed". When I first learned basic blocks My feeling was "they don't work". But, after many years of training, the techniques that came of those basic blocks were endless.

 

[Cyriacus]

Very nice comment. "Always there, just revealed". When I first learned basic blocks My feeling was "they don't work". But, after many years of training, the techniques that came of those basic blocks were endless.

Yes. Simply. Yes.
I used to think the Basic Blocks took too much effort, compart to just pushing something out of the way. Which also works. But the sheer number of ways you can follow on justifies it.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

This is purely my own perspective on the matter, but for me TMA vs. MMA deals almost entirely on the its teaching philosophy. Physical skill sets evolve depending on society's needs. Obviously the "traditional" techniques of kenjustu are antiquated for most of society, since we are rarely going to encounter someone wielding a sword on the streets.

For me what separates MMA and TMA is the influence of Zen, Taoist, Confucian, and Buddhist teaching philosophies and life philosophies. This mixed with a quasi militaristic structure provide a path to personal enlightenment. This is not to say that one cannot achieve said enlightenment through MMA, but the paths are different one is a "traditional" path while the other is not.

I was always taught that my art is 70% mental and 30% physical, and the longer I practice, the longer I find this to be true. Otherwise, our seniors would have little place in the Dojang.