What qualifies as tradition?

[stabpunch]

In many threads lately I see tradition vs reality based :matrix:

To me tradition means the way we've always done things. Can not then reality based be traditional?

Would you agree katas and the wooden dummy sequences of Wing Chun are traditional.

Would you say that drills are traditional? In which case if you create a new drill when does it become traditional?

In your opinion what qualifies as traditional martial arts? Does it have to be old to be traditional? Can something practiced three times a week for one month be considered a tradition in martial arts?

Your thoughts will be appreciated.

 

[w.kaer]

IMHO...
The difference really is in the approach, or means versus ends.

The traditional approach is centered around the assumption that if you walk the path correctly you will get where you want to go, even if you didn't know that is where you wanted to go. If you study and practice this "x" way, you will be able to do "y" when the time demands. Basically, if you use the correct means, the result will inevitably be good. Think kata, stances, postures, and Daniel-san painting the fence, sanding the floor, etc.

The reality-based approach is centered around the assumption that the end justifies the means. "Who cares how you are standing, as long as you just put the bad guy on his a**?"

As for drills, drills are for muscle memory sake. They have a solid place in both approaches, I would think. Whether a drill is "traditional" or "reality-based" would depend on context. If you are in San-chin dachi, its traditional. If you are in "getting funds from ATM dachi," its reality based.:asian:

 

[stabpunch]

An excellent post w.kaer

IMHO...
The difference really is in the approach, or means versus ends.

The traditional approach is centered around the assumption that if you walk the path correctly you will get where you want to go, even if you didn't know that is where you wanted to go. If you study and practice this "x" way, you will be able to do "y" when the time demands. Basically, if you use the correct means, the result will inevitably be good. Think kata, stances, postures, and Daniel-san painting the fence, sanding the floor, etc.

Could you say the individual, rather than the school or the martial art, would be traditional in this case? Assuming the path were the instructor or style. He who takes the responsibility on himself and walks the path correctly will arrive where he was heading regardless of which route he travels.

The reality-based approach is centered around the assumption that the end justifies the means. "Who cares how you are standing, as long as you just put the bad guy on his a**?"

This rings true for our art, however having said this the goal is not to smash some bad guy. Instead the focus is not to have our freedom comprimised by said bad guy. We feel that each body is different and 'technique A' may not work for 'person B'. Thus we show our students technique and expect them to adjust it to suit their physical abilities, rather than a mechanical kata or perfect science that is supposedly designed to conquer all.

As for drills, drills are for muscle memory sake. They have a solid place in both approaches, I would think. Whether a drill is "traditional" or "reality-based" would depend on context. If you are in San-chin dachi, its traditional. If you are in "getting funds from ATM dachi," its reality based.:asian:

I really like this ATM dachi, perhaps i'll call it ATM-DO as we are an external art. :ultracool

 

[stone_dragone]

Based on my observations of the usage of terms like "traditional" and "reality-based," it is almost always used to say that traditional = bad, lazy, stagnant or useless. Reality-based seems to equate to up to date, modern or usable.

Black belt magazine columnist Jim Wagner claims to have coined the phrase "reality based." A rabid attacker of the more "traditiional" forms of self defense and martial arts, he often provides some excellent insight regarding the training methods used to make learning more applicable for the post 9-11/21st century world.

We have to remember that all martial "traditions" began as reality based arts. They were proven to have worked when they were concieved. No activity that we call a "Martial Art" ever began as a way to become a better person, only a person who isn't dead. Combat arts evolved as society evolved. Human nature, on the other hand hasn't evolved much at all in the last millenium. The human body has only evolved slightly (generally taller, heavier and live longer). Arts such as ninjutsu/ninpo/budo taijutsu were effective and "reality based" as they were developed and continue to be so today.

Traditional arts such as karate, TKD and kung fu can all be as stagnant or progressive as the instructor teaching it. I firmly believe that you can use traditional training methods with a contemporary mind set that teaches reality based self defense without giving up your kata/forms/hyung. You just have to open to new lessons and possibilities. After all, if you aren't open for other possibilities, then you're open for attack from them.

My two bits.

 

[MJS]

Great thread topic!:ultracool

IMHO, I'd say that a tradition is something that does not change or there is very little change made. See this as a ref. point:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/tradition

For ref. here is a meaning of change:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/change

If we look at the RBMAs, we'll notice that they fall into this category. They are not bound by a set of rules, so to speak. Now, as Stone_Dragone stated, all TMAs can be and have been used effectively, but IMO, its all how one goes about teaching and viewing the ideas of that art. We can have a TMA but break away from the tradition and include aspects of RBMAs. Can we still do our kata? Sure. But I'd think that adding in scenario drills, making sure that there is always some resistance and aliveness, as well as cross referencing other arts, would be a good idea.

Just my thoughts.

Mike

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

It is really sometimes is hard because it is not all black and white. BJJ is fairly new and is constantly evolving and yet the Gracie's Helio, Rorion, Royce talk abou the tradition and learning the traditional fundamentals. So BJJ is traditional in many ways to them and yet it is more modern and could fall into that RBSD!

Budo Taijutsu I would say is traditional and yet I would also say that it is RBSD as well. Go figure.

Modern Arnis is now becoming traditional and yet it is a brutal self defense art and some are now using it in sporting competitions.

Here is an article that I wrote a long time ago titled : Reality in the Martial Sciences : http://www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com/article1.html

Note that there is nothing wrong with studying an art that is sprot based, reality based (self defense) or traditionally based. They all can be effective (brutally so) and they all can take you onto a broad study of martial science.

For me I simply love them ALL!

Brian R. VanCise
www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com

 

[w.kaer]

An excellent post w.kaer


Could you say the individual, rather than the school or the martial art, would be traditional in this case? Assuming the path were the instructor or style. He who takes the responsibility on himself and walks the path correctly will arrive where he was heading regardless of which route he travels.




This rings true for our art, however having said this the goal is not to smash some bad guy. Instead the focus is not to have our freedom comprimised by said bad guy. We feel that each body is different and 'technique A' may not work for 'person B'. Thus we show our students technique and expect them to adjust it to suit their physical abilities, rather than a mechanical kata or perfect science that is supposedly designed to conquer all.


I really like this ATM dachi, perhaps i'll call it ATM-DO as we are an external art. :ultracool

You could say the individual is traditional or reality-based, but I would not get wrapped around the axle about labeling the individual or the art or the instructor. I see them as approaches. They are tools that the crafty instructor has available to him/her to teach the art. Some things are better taught through one approach and other things are better taught through the other. Good RBMA applications are rooted in good TMA theory. Teaching and learning from both approaches is ideal. :asian:

 

[w.kaer]

Here is an article that I wrote a long time ago titled : Reality in the Martial Sciences : http://www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com/article1.html

Note that there is nothing wrong with studying an art that is sprot based, reality based (self defense) or traditionally based.

WOW! Just had a flashback from my sophmore year in college. I had a (very beloved) professor who used a book he wrote for a text. I can hear him now saying "In my book...," No B.S.ing in that class. Aahh the fond memories of youth. Thanks for the walk down memory lane.

:asian:

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

You could say the individual is traditional or reality-based, but I would not get wrapped around the axle about labeling the individual or the art or the instructor. I see them as approaches. They are tools that the crafty instructor has available to him/her to teach the art. Some things are better taught through one approach and other things are better taught through the other. Good RBMA applications are rooted in good TMA theory. Teaching and learning from both approaches is ideal. :asian:

Very nicely put!

Brian R. VanCise
www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

WOW! Just had a flashback from my sophmore year in college. I had a (very beloved) professor who used a book he wrote for a text. I can hear him now saying "In my book...," No B.S.ing in that class. Aahh the fond memories of youth. Thanks for the walk down memory lane.

:asian:

Always glad to help anyone walk down a memory lane!

Brian R. VanCise
www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com