Sorry about the multiple posts, fellas. At the time of those postings, it didn't appear that my posts were going through. If a moderator would like to delete posts #50 and #51, that'd be great as post #49 is sufficient. Again, sorry about all that.
^ What he said. In my case, # 51 and #59 are basically the same post (the commonly-used technique mentioned is different, but the intended point is the same), and both are there for the same reason as has been cited by other posters.
Mod: if you can, please delete one, the other, or both. Thanks.
This site has pretty much got it right already IMO, there is the CMA forum the JMA and KMA etc and that kinda works for me. People within their respective arts can get in each others faces about 'lineage' and all that as they wish. The important distinctions round here is how you train in your art considering the claims you make for it. Maybe the forum headings could change to something like Omega suggested with one for 'Classical Fighting Arts' or maybe 'Culturally Based Martial Arts' or something..instead of TMA?
That's totally irrelevant. The "traditional" label is based solely on the misperceptions of the people who practice the art, not the reality of how young the art actually is.Quote:
Explain for me how a Japanese MA which was created AFTER the end of the warring classes were outlawed by their own Government and, within a long term period of peace; can those systems be considered "traditional" when they are very much "modern" in terms of age.
Fucktards still talking about this?