What exactly qualifies as a Traditional Martial Art?

[P Marsh]

I have thought that 'traditional' martial arts are named so because they appeal to their tradition, no matter how old, in order to claim legitimacy. 'Modern' MA claims its legitimacy through competition and trial and error; RBSD, for example, claims legitimacy usually by invoking imagery from action hero's, glorified 'rogues', and other cultural icons and concepts.

[SpinKiK]

I guess I should chime in here since I started all this. I agree with a lot of posts. I see a traditional martial arts defined as a martial art that is more than just the techniques encompassed within it. It tries to pass on the culture and beliefs of the period as well; the "traditions" so to speak.

What goes along with this is usually the belief that these traditions are infallible. Which usually has to do with them being taught as such. Isn't that one of the reasons why this website was created? To show the people that believe their art that is unstoppable because its been around for thousands of years and contains the secret knowledge of ancient ninja monks is actually BS?

Where i got into confusion is every martial art has customs and traditions that they try to preserve and pass on. A great example of this is muay thai. I'm sure you could become a great thai fighter without having kicked one banana tree, but I'm sure there's at least someone who trains their students like that. Same thing with the praying and the rituals they preform during an authenic muay thai fight.

I haven't taken many BJJ classes, but there's probably traditions and rituals in those classes as well. I feel we don't consider them traditions yet because they are still modern. That's why I asked if it is possible, years from now, to consider it a traditional martial art? That didn't make sense to me which is why I considered maybe my definition of what makes a martial art traditional was wrong, which is what led to me creating this thread.

Going through all the replies, I am a bit torn. half of me agrees with the posts stating it is just semantics and it doesn't really matter what we call them. The other half thinks that this term isn't just used on this board. It's used in the entire martial arts world, so we should have some handle on the qualifications a martial art needs to have to be labeled as a TMA.

[MrGalt]

I get why we need this kind of term. We need some way of separating the categories of martial arts that "work" from those that don't. The way I usually separate martial arts when trying to discuss them with people is similar to aliveness. I divide martial arts into empirically-based martial arts and what I call mostly for trolling purposes faith-based martial arts.

Using my own experience, the Isshinryu I got my first black belt in when I was in college is faith-based. I was TOLD that a lot of things about it worked. I was TOLD that in a "real fight" people could be caught in standing joint locks because they'd throw overextended lunge punches. I was TOLD that I could shatter a knee or gouge out a throat or eye easily. I had to accept these things on faith because either I couldn't try them out or I was told that it would be different from sparring when it was real, so don't worry about the fact that they didn't work in sparring.

The Seido I learned was empirically-based. Other than elbows to the head, I learned nothing from the style that I couldn't try for myself against a resisting opponent at speed in sparring, or receive from that same opponent. There's no faith necessary because I can test it all for myself.

Often but not always my faith/authority vs. empiricism test divides martial arts along the same lines most people here would divide TMA vs. whatever we're calling the other ones.

[Resonance10]

I get why we need this kind of term. We need some way of separating the categories of martial arts that "work" from those that don't. The way I usually separate martial arts when trying to discuss them with people is similar to aliveness. I divide martial arts into empirically-based martial arts and what I call mostly for trolling purposes faith-based martial arts.

This doesn't work. I agree that the separation is needed but equating traditional with faith based seems awkward. There are arts considered traditional which do work and arts which aren't considered traditional that don't work. Or 'traditional' arts that have 'aliveness' and 'non traditional' arts that don't have aliveness. Yes much of this comes down to how we define 'traditional' and alot of that is semantic or vulnerable to semantics.

Using my own experience, the Isshinryu I got my first black belt in when I was in college is faith-based. I was TOLD that a lot of things about it worked. I was TOLD that in a "real fight" people could be caught in standing joint locks because they'd throw overextended lunge punches. I was TOLD that I could shatter a knee or gouge out a throat or eye easily. I had to accept these things on faith because either I couldn't try them out or I was told that it would be different from sparring when it was real, so don't worry about the fact that they didn't work in sparring.

Unfortunate.

Often but not always my faith/authority vs. empiricism test divides martial arts along the same lines most people here would divide TMA vs. whatever we're calling the other ones.

I have to agree that alot of what you call 'faith based' do also fall under what most would call 'traditional' but not enough to throw all 'traditional' into the bin of faith.
Evaluating a style should be done based on the claims of the teachers imo. Eg: The 'form fairys' who imagine they are deadly vs those who do forms but also try their stuff out.The majority of Xingyi people don't mix it up, but there are schools out there that do.
Both could be called traditional..**** you could argue that the Xingyi school that mixes it up is the more traditional.

[MrGalt]

This doesn't work. I agree that the separation is needed but equating traditional with faith based seems awkward. There are arts considered traditional which do work and arts which aren't considered traditional that don't work. Or 'traditional' arts that have 'aliveness' and 'non traditional' arts that don't have aliveness. Yes much of this comes down to how we define 'traditional' and alot of that is semantic or vulnerable to semantics.




Unfortunate.



I have to agree that alot of what you call 'faith based' do also fall under what most would call 'traditional' but not enough to throw all 'traditional' into the bin of faith.
Evaluating a style should be done based on the claims of the teachers imo. Eg: The 'form fairys' who imagine they are deadly vs those who do forms but also try their stuff out.The majority of Xingyi people don't mix it up, but there are schools out there that do.
Both could be called traditional..**** you could argue that the Xingyi school that mixes it up is the more traditional.

I don't do well with multi-quote, but a common thread running through your response with which I absolutely agree is that talking about a whole martial art is not universally valid. There are exceptions all over the place. Hell, I've seen tai chi practiced with aliveness in competition. I have family and friends who ask me what they should study and I always tell them that it's necessary to check out the individual school in question. It MIGHT be that the taekwondo school in their particular town is better than the sambo school. Neither can be accepted or rejected based on the word written on the window.

But I think you can agree that we can often make quick judgments with a reasonable degree of accuracy on this basis. Knowing nothing else about them, it's not unreasonable to say that if you want to learn to fight, you're PROBABLY going to be better off at the judo/boxing/kyokushin gym than you are at the wushu/wado-ryu/aikido school. There are PROBABLY no "form fairies" at the gjj school but there very well might be at the ATA taekwondo school.

[Resonance10]

I don't do well with multi-quote, but a common thread running through your response with which I absolutely agree is that talking about a whole martial art is not universally valid. There are exceptions all over the place. Hell, I've seen tai chi practiced with aliveness in competition. I have family and friends who ask me what they should study and I always tell them that it's necessary to check out the individual school in question. It MIGHT be that the taekwondo school in their particular town is better than the sambo school. Neither can be accepted or rejected based on the word written on the window.

But I think you can agree that we can often make quick judgments with a reasonable degree of accuracy on this basis. Knowing nothing else about them, it's not unreasonable to say that if you want to learn to fight, you're PROBABLY going to be better off at the judo/boxing/kyokushin gym than you are at the wushu/wado-ryu/aikido school. There are PROBABLY no "form fairies" at the gjj school but there very well might be at the ATA taekwondo school.

I suck at multi quote as well, I go the long way round it and copy paste etc..which is why it takes me ages to reply and by then I've missed a load of posts...

Yeah I think thats right, and couldn't agree more with the bold in your post.
Its a tough and probably fruitless task defining 'traditional', its not an objective thing as a whole.
Example: Karate: In the popular mind it would be considered a TMA, in relation to a Koryu art it isn't, yet it has definate traditions so in that sense it is..ad nauseum...

I think a part of your first post hinted at this: 'Traditional' arts have features which are part of the art that may have no utility beyond the culture it was born in..a sense of the historical. Some arts retain methods and such just because thats how they have always done it.

Edit: When I say Karate I mean Japanese Karate.

[W. Rabbit]

Good thing Errant didn't post anything on this fucktard thread.

What he posted was more insightful than the thousand words posted before it or after.

He made a simple point: this whole conversation is pointless. Go train.

[ermghoti]

Antonym?

What word would be the direct opposite of "traditional," in the context of describing a martial art?

As Rock Ape observed, if TMA's were truly traditional, they'd have continued adapting their methods based on their experiences with full contact or even lethal fighting. Most of the TMA's are evolving, just not necessarily in the direction of a more effective fighting system. If the term now means "spiritually imbued, non or limited contact training style," (which I'm not even particularly sure is accurate) then what is the opposite? Not necessarily, Sport, Street, or maybe even Alive. What's left? If you reject a Traditional training philosophy, what do you embrace (besides sweaty men in pajamas or shorts)?

[W. Rabbit]

what is the opposite?

That is only a problem if you make it a problem by caring about opposites and other dualities.

[Resonance10]

What word would be the direct opposite of "traditional," in the context of describing a martial art?

That could be useful, except we can't come up with consensus on what traditional in MA means, so the opposite is hard to say. Although perhaps reverse engineering will help..or at least let us spew more on the subject.

As Rock Ape observed, if TMA's were truly traditional, they'd have continued adapting their methods based on their experiences with full contact or even lethal fighting.Most of the TMA's are evolving, just not necessarily in the direction of a more effective fighting system.

Thats just the problem isn't it. Some have evolved based on fighting, some haven't. Doesn't help us determine which are traditional unless we demand it as a criteria...we can't very well call Yagyu Shinkage-ryu non trad because they don't use guns now and won't use a lightsabre in the future.
I can't escape the feeling that the usefullness or not of an art is unhelpfull in determining its being trad or not.

For me it's a moveable designation more dependant on its cultural historic context than anything else.
In some cultures/arts evolving with the times will be part of tradition and in others not so much or not at all.

The other thing is that these arts are not monolithic, there are progressives in alot of styles that consider themselves traditional, some of whom claim to be more trad because they hit people like in the old days.