Traditional vs Authentic MAs, what's the difference?

**Steve** · Posted On: 4/22/2006 11:41pm

This thought is spawned from Darren san's thread:

http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=32975

I would wager this:

Traditional MAs hold true to the original teachings of the founder of the style.

Authentic MAs hold true to the original intent of the founder.

Traditionalist's, IMO, are stuck in the past. While those who are Authentic keep there style growing, as the founder of their system would have done (if they we're still alive. IE. adopt, adapt or improve).

comments?

**meng_mao** · Posted On: 4/23/2006 1:27am

What kind of good MA founder couldn't have his intent and teachings agree?

**DAYoung** · Posted On: 4/23/2006 1:47am

As all martial arts have some tradition (some history they embody), I reckon you can speak of healthy and sick traditions. Sick traditions are stuck in the past or obsessed with their own present (i.e. reinventing the wheel), while healthy traditions take up the best from the past and rework it in a practical engagement with the present.

**Steve** · Posted On: 4/23/2006 1:56am

Originally Posted by DAYoung

As all martial arts have some tradition (some history they embody), I reckon you can speak of healthy and sick traditions. Sick traditions are stuck in the past or obsessed with their own present (i.e. reinventing the wheel), while healthy traditions take up the best from the past and rework it with a practical engagement with the present.

Exactly.

sorry, low blow with the red. ;-)

**DAYoung** · Posted On: 4/23/2006 2:02am

Fixed!

**Steve** · Posted On: 4/23/2006 2:07am

Originally Posted by meng_mao

What kind of good MA founder couldn't have his intent and teachings agree?

Anyone can "follow" a teaching of someone.

One of my favorite stories from my old school is my boss telling me that I need to be able to convince students that even banging their head on a wall is "training." I didn't question him and my students didn't grow (no worries, didn't have my students hit their head on a wall).

And note; I'm speaking specifically about deceased founders.

**Steve** · Posted On: 4/23/2006 2:11am

Originally Posted by DAYoung

Fixed!

LOL!! at least I was close!

**Gumby** · Posted On: 4/23/2006 3:02am

Originally Posted by sfe

This thought is spawned from Darren san's thread:

http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=32975

I would wager this:

Traditional MAs hold true to the original teachings of the founder of the style.

Authentic MAs hold true to the original intent of the founder.

Traditionalist's, IMO, are stuck in the past. While those who are Authentic keep there style growing, as the founder of their system would have done (if they we're still alive. IE. adopt, adapt or improve).

comments?

I guess I would somewhat agree with this, but the problem that most traditional martial artists have is that they dont understand that one particular style is going to be effective at all aspects of a fight. Its funny to hear people say "oh my style teaches everything" because there arent many styles that do, and the ones that do teach all phases of a fight usually suck, mainly because theres so much information that needs to be absorbed when talking about so many phases of a fight, so the teacher is rarely good at any of the 3. An example would be japanese ju jitsu.

Take something like boxing for example- in the old days of boxing in the US, that was how two guys fought each other- it was a custom that would eventually become popular and catch on. The same goes with the traditional karate styles in Japan.

Now take something like wrestling, which has a completely different approach to fighting, and suddenly you find a new approach to the fighting game, which may have been neglected by your style. An interesting read is Renzo Gracies "Mastering Ju Jitsu." In one of the chapters, it talks of how Maeda had started doing challenge matches in the US, and he had to adapt his game to the two most common types of fighters he saw in the US- boxers, who had exceptional hand skills and strikes that were completely different than that of the traditional karatekas in Japan, and wrestlers who fought without the gi and with a different style of takedowns than that of Judo players.

We've already had all the challenge matches and we now know what works. Modern Martial artists have taken note of such things and have adapted their training to make them better fighters. The traditionalists on the other hand insist on fighting with farm weapons and dressing up as ninjas on days other than halloween.

**Steve** · Posted On: 4/23/2006 6:07pm

I agree. This stuck out to me:

Originally Posted by Gumby

We've already had all the challenge matches and we now know what works. Modern Martial artists have taken note of such things and have adapted their training to make them better fighters. The traditionalists on the other hand insist on fighting with farm weapons and dressing up as ninjas on days other than halloween.

So would that mean that if we we're interested in a "fair" fight between two individuals that we would have to pair them up in a Modern vs Modern and Traditionalist vs Traditionalist fashion?

I guess my question comes down to: do Traditionalists only fight like they train? Would incorperating ground work and what ever else may not have been included in the founder's original technique set then make them no longer Traditional?

I try to do my best to keep my kata, kihon waza, etc. as close to what O'sensei did, obviously for all the same reasons that the Traditionalists do. BUT, when it comes to mixing it up I try to fill as many gaps that I can (add groundwork, boxing drills, etc.) and I definately don't try to move around from one fixed stance to the next. This is what I believe O'sensei would have wanted and intended, to keep the art growing.

It's a shame that when the UFC came out more Traditional schools didn't sit up and take notice that there is more to fighting than block punch kick.