4/23/2006 10:18pm, #11
4/24/2006 12:29am, #12Originally Posted by TehDeadlyDimMak
4/24/2006 5:42am, #13
I think it depends on what one means by "traditional." Unfortunately in the land of "ancient" and "traditional" = "better"--like "ancient medicine!--this is seen as an apology for crap. Someone attaches "traditional" to a practice, and it magically becomes good.
The problem is that "traditional" styles do not teach traditionally. I can only speak for what I know, but traditional Okinawan styles back in the day did primarily conditioning and kumite. Kata was a vehicle to explore techniques, but the bottom line was squaring off and seeing what works. All else was to prepare for that. I am sure some of the old guys look back with a bit of "idealism"--"we trained 47 hours a day, 100 degrees in the shade, water was not invented yet!"--but truth be written that was it. As one teacher puts it when describing what has happened to martial arts:
As beginner it is 'kata-kata-kata-kumite." As you improve, it becomes more "kata-kata-kumite-kumite" until you concentrate on kumite. Too many forgot this and stay in "kata-kata-kata."
If I knew about grappling then I would have told him the grappler will thank him later for "sekritly" standing on one foot!
According to one Grandpoohbah describing an Imperious Grand Poohbah of his style, IGP basically worked on kumite with students. Now, students want to dance kata.
Kata is easy. I am invincible in kata. That is not the point.
Unfortunately, the appeal to the "Real Traditional Martial Art" is used as an excuse of McDojos and Bullshidoists--"we are teh R34l TMA!!" It reads like an apology: "You just not practicing it right! If you did, it would work." You will find the same apology used by psychics and faith healers the world over.
4/24/2006 10:39am, #14
Boxing is pretty true to the Marquess of Queensberry rules from 1867. Where does that fall? Traditional? Authentic? AWESOME?You can't make people smarter. You can expose them to information, but your responsibility stops there.
4/24/2006 4:23pm, #15
Maybe if there are boxing groups that practice "no touch."
Grappling arts could do this, but it is more difficult because by definition grappling two people. Though never underestimate the ability of man to pussify and fradulent. ["Fradulent" is not a verb.--Ed.]
4/25/2006 5:24am, #16
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
- hfx ns ca na da
Complex games progress.
If you took a chess player from 100 years ago and timewarped him to the present to take on someone equal to him in talent and dedication, he would lose. The contemporary player would have the luxury of taking loads of concepts for granted that Ye Olde player had never been exposed to before.
No sane chess player would limit themselves to only studying matches older than 100 years. Why a martial artist would do the equivalent is beyond me.
4/25/2006 11:49pm, #17Originally Posted by porch
For instance, I couldn't decide that I could take a pawn and attack like a knight out of the blue. There are EXACT set rules for every single person who ever plays the game, or at least agreed rules that they share durning the game.
Same thing could be said of a Traditionalist that doesn't incorperate ground work. He couldn't use a leg besides kicking (and triping, sweeping, blocking, etc). A triangle choke would be ruled out, for example.
While those that would be considered authentic/modern would adopt, adapt or improve (if they could, lol) those techniques, IE break the "rules."
4/27/2006 2:31pm, #18
Originally Posted by sfe
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
- hfx ns ca na da
While the rules of chess have been the same for some time, the base of knowledge has been constantly expanding. Let's call the contemporary player "A" and our time-travelling player from the past "B". A could use an opening that B has never seen before. B might look at this and think that A is crazy, or stupid, or maybe that A is "up to something" but he is not quite sure what. To any other contemporary player, who has seen this opening and how it plays out over and over again, the implications are instantly clear and they can react accordingly. B is at a great disadvantage. Not only does B have to react, he has to figure out what he is reacting to. This is like someone trained only in a Traditional standup MA being confronted with a double leg takedown. As his opponent is coming in, he might be thinking "WTF is this guy doing? Is he serious?". Of course, he will find out what his opponent is doing by losing.
We can also look at baseball. For a long time there was no rule saying that you couldn't use a relief pitcher, but noone did, just because it hadn't been considered. Once one team did, and the advantages became clear, it became standard practice. Once "everybody" is doing something, the entire game has been elevated a notch. To ignore that and just keep playing the old way, for whatever reason, is foolish.
Anyhow, I'm just trying to come at it with a slightly different perspective and maybe establish something along the lines of a Universal Principle. I guess the "expanding base of knowledge" is the main point. This applies to noncompetitive endeavors, too: art, science, what have you. In any case, drawing upon the established base of knowledge doesn't require the practioner to be an innovator. Although being "up to speed" is, most times, a prerequisite for useful innovation.
Well, I'm off to my doctor. I'm feeling a bit down, so I'm going to get some of my Black Bile drained off.
4/27/2006 2:34pm, #19
The term "authentic" seems slightly worrying to me.
If it's not an "authentic" system, it implies that it's just crap someone made up.
I'm looking too deeply at this while simultaneously missing the point, aren't I?
4/27/2006 6:45pm, #20Originally Posted by porch
On the other hand, there are folks who simply prefer baseball the way it used to be played - who actually reject efficiency in favor of nostalgia, respect for the past or historical interest, or just because they find it more fun to dress up like baseball players from the turn of the last century and play according to old-time rules. Likewise, some people prefer to play tennis and other sports as they were practiced hundreds of years ago.
To me, that's a big part of the value of (some, not all) "traditional" martial arts styles as well. Classical kenjutsu, kyudo, etc. have basically no practical self defense value and slim chances of success in the octagon (though that might be educational). For all of that, they have a cultural and historical value that has nothing to do with the fact that they are out-moded as fighting styles.
Last edited by DdlR; 4/27/2006 7:19pm at .