What makes an art Traditional?
- Thread starter Rich Parsons
- Start date
I would have to say that arts which stick to specific set of rules and principles are traditional. This would definitely include the likes of EPAK as there is a specific way things are done and that doesn't change you are taught the system bit by bit and in a certain order. Granted you can make up techniques but they would have to apply the stringent principles of motion to be considered American Kenpo. I couldn't add a haymaker to a technique and call it American Kenpo. I wouldn't put BJJ in this catagory as its application is similar to boxing. You learn certain techniques etc but it is all in the rolling on the mat that you truly excel and learn through self discovery. Things can be added to the system if they are better than what is there. Eddie Bravo for example has a bunch of techniques he has invented but they still fall under the bjj banner. This is the the same with the reality based arts. If a better technique is discovered well it's added and the old one discarded hence the system would never be called traditional. I believe there is benefit to both ways of thinking. Traditional arts allow you to become very good at whatever they teach as that is all you will be learning and it will never change so you have years to practice it. With other more progressive arts if a better technique comes along you have to relearn it and practice more inorder to be able to add it to your repertoire.
Just my thoughts
Cheers
Sam:asian:
Just my thoughts
Cheers
Sam:asian:
Roots and foundation. Everything has a beginning, and there in is the essence. Spirit, Core, Heart, Real Meaning, Soul, Quintessence, Fundamental Nature. All else comes from this.
chrispillertkd
Senior Master
Well, "tradition" and "traditional" are words that are rooted in the Latin "traditio," which means "to hand on." Merriam-Webster defines tradition as meaning "an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior" (this is its primary definition, but all other definitions include this idea of something being handed on in continuity). So it would seem that any style which is handed on from teacher to student as an established manner of doing things would be traditional.
In other words, if you are teaching a student an art and he is practicing this art in the manner in which it is being taught that's a traditional system. I see no reason for the undue emphasis people place on length of time when discussing "traditional" styles or arts. Some traditions are old, some are newer, but they all have to start somewhere.
It really does seem to me that recently "tradition" or "traditional" has become something of a deroggatory term used by people who are interested in what's "new." Who wants to be stuck in the neo-lithic age, after all? Previously, people used to make a big deal about tracing their art back extended periods of time (the old Kukkiwon/WTF "Taekwondo is 2,000 years old" mantra, for example). Both sides miss the point if they want to use the term "traditional" with any sort of accuracy.
Pax,
Chris
Based on that definition, then pretty much all arts are "traditional" in that aomeone more experienced teaches, coaches, or trains those with less experience. I could make up my own art, the minute I start training others in that art...I'm a traditionalist!
Perhaps that's half the problem, we don't jhave a good definition of whart we're talking aboyut...but everyone seems to know it. karate, TKD, Aikido, Kung fu, tai chi, etc are generally seen as traditional arts. MMA, Boxing, BJJ, RBSD, Krav Maga, Wrestling, Muay Thai are generally seen more in the non-traditional light...evne though the distinctions are not at all clear...and all those arts are ones that are taught and Passed on from teacher to student.
Using a sport vs non-sporting distinction doesn't help either.
effetcive vs non-effective? that's a can of worms...and much of what makes a given art effective is based on the individual who terains in and applies the art.
Modern/living vs. Antique/prservationist. There may be some limited utility in this distinction. Some arts are living, active arts. They are practiced to meet the needs of modern issues. be they for self- defense, health, etc. Other arts are more akin to museum pieces...they were effective arts but are generally no longer pradtical for day to day modern use...the practice of such arts serves the individual but htese tend not to "evolve" as much becuase the goal is to preserve what was done in the past so it is not lost. I'm thinking of many weapons based arts (iado, various kobudo, fencing, etc). but other hand to hand arts meet this criteria i feel.
i think the difference here becomes does the art evolve to meet modern realities or does it resist change to preserve the past? Neither way of doing things is wrong...unless the individual training in one art is looking to do the opposite.
Peace,
Erik
Perhaps that's half the problem, we don't jhave a good definition of whart we're talking aboyut...but everyone seems to know it. karate, TKD, Aikido, Kung fu, tai chi, etc are generally seen as traditional arts. MMA, Boxing, BJJ, RBSD, Krav Maga, Wrestling, Muay Thai are generally seen more in the non-traditional light...evne though the distinctions are not at all clear...and all those arts are ones that are taught and Passed on from teacher to student.
Using a sport vs non-sporting distinction doesn't help either.
effetcive vs non-effective? that's a can of worms...and much of what makes a given art effective is based on the individual who terains in and applies the art.
Modern/living vs. Antique/prservationist. There may be some limited utility in this distinction. Some arts are living, active arts. They are practiced to meet the needs of modern issues. be they for self- defense, health, etc. Other arts are more akin to museum pieces...they were effective arts but are generally no longer pradtical for day to day modern use...the practice of such arts serves the individual but htese tend not to "evolve" as much becuase the goal is to preserve what was done in the past so it is not lost. I'm thinking of many weapons based arts (iado, various kobudo, fencing, etc). but other hand to hand arts meet this criteria i feel.
i think the difference here becomes does the art evolve to meet modern realities or does it resist change to preserve the past? Neither way of doing things is wrong...unless the individual training in one art is looking to do the opposite.
Peace,
Erik
To me, an art is traditional if it includes the philosophy, etiquette, and traditions of the country that spawned it.
Therefore, traditional Taekwondo is that way because the philosophy, etiquette, and culture of Korea-principles that go back some 2000 years, even if not all the techniques do.
Sport Taekwondo, Combat Hapkido, and various other non-traditional styles (I wouldn't call them arts) are thusly because they don't incorporate philosophy, etiquette, or customs passed down from generations by a mother country.
Therefore, traditional Taekwondo is that way because the philosophy, etiquette, and culture of Korea-principles that go back some 2000 years, even if not all the techniques do.
Sport Taekwondo, Combat Hapkido, and various other non-traditional styles (I wouldn't call them arts) are thusly because they don't incorporate philosophy, etiquette, or customs passed down from generations by a mother country.
