8/08/2007 4:58pm, #21
I've always defined TMA as a style that had on or more of these traits: bowing, belts, forms (forms as forms not as drills etc), uniforms. I realized everyone likes to use their own definition of TMA the argue around it. (ie. Boxing is older than x, does that mean boxing sucks)
I thought the best way might be to use competitive and non-competitive styles, then rate the competitive styles on the realism to actual combat. non contact point sparring -> MMA. Of course there are numerous exceptions on the competitive styles etc so I stopped caring.
8/08/2007 4:59pm, #22
Originally Posted by Cullion
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Porcupine/Hollywood, FL & Parmistan via Elbonia
- creonte on hiatus
And if the relation or derivation has a documented history (written records) or can be strongly suggested by a preponderance of evidence (history, culture, oral tradition), then it would make the claim even stronger and more legitimate.Read this for flexibility and injury prevention, this, this and this for supplementation, this on grip conditioning, and this on staph. New: On strenght standards, relationships and structural balance. Shoulder problems? Read this.
My crapuous vlog and my blog of training, stuff and crap. NEW: Me, Mrs. Macho and our newborn baby.
New To Weight Training? Get the StrongLifts 5x5 program and Rippetoe's "Starting Strength, 2nd Ed". Wanna build muscle/gain weight? Check this article. My review on Tactical Nutrition here.
t-nation - Dissecting the deadlift. Anatomy and Muscle Balancing Videos.
The street argument is retarded. BJJ is so much overkill for the street that its ridiculous. Unless you're the idiot that picks a fight with the high school wrestling team, barring knife or gun play, the opponent shouldn't make it past double leg + ground and pound - Osiris
8/08/2007 5:19pm, #23
So, Matt are you for advocating the responsibility of the individual practioner to recognize their own form or application of the art as anachronistic as opposed to an entire school or system?
By example, could one could train in a style generally considered traditional, at a school generally considered traditional and apply it in a manner which is, by term, anachronistic. However another student, same school same teacher, could apply in something modern. Would this be possible using your model?
8/08/2007 5:30pm, #24
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Lincolnshire, England
- No gym currently.
Defining Traditional Martial Arts as something with belts and bowing etc throws up all kinds of misfits: BJJ isn't accepted as traditional, Judo (the style that invented belt progression) isn't ye olde traditional art. Aikido, possibly the the art that most people think of being traditional with a very large 'T' is regarded as a new art.
So, do we look at purpose? The traditional purpose of a martial art (armed or unarmed) is to fight... usually for survival. Japanese koryu arts and other ancient disciplines (no, Comba tai or whatever isn't 6000 years old) from all over the world can claim to be traditional arts.
Does that disregard sport arts? I'd agree wrestling is an art with tradition, and in some cases, martial intent and purpose as above. The same with boxing.
Modern army combatives, krav maga, systema and a host of newer arts scream "non-traditional"... but the purpose is the same, basically, as some obscure koryu that was learned by de-horsed samurai in those misty lands that we read about when Phrost is taking the piss out of aikido/ninjitsu during an intro to a Sux month.
Traditional seems to defy classification. Age of the art doesn't work entirely. Purpose seems to include all martial arts (except TKD :-P) by their very nature.
Even modern sport arts echo wrestling and boxing, two convincingly "traditional" martial arts. Or not.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the definition of TMA depends where you're standing.
We're not all standing in the same place.
I'd love to see the criteria that comes out where something is unequivocally TMA or Sport, or whatever category that gets decided on.
Although, Cullion's posting on the thread... it may take some time to agree:icon_clow
8/08/2007 5:44pm, #25
I still like Anachronistic (TMA) v. Modern. With anachronistic and modern referring to the practices of the art and not the age of the art. Is your art primarily about wearing medieval Asian clothing and using ancient training equipment and theories? Then you're an anachronistic TMA. Is your art primarily using modern training equipent and modern athletic training methods? Then your art is modern.
Using that definition we get BJJ and Judo as modern arts, despite the gi. Aikido is a TMA despite it's young age. Krav is modern. Wrestling and boxing are modern. Etc.
I think it fits.
8/08/2007 5:54pm, #26
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Lincolnshire, England
- No gym currently.
So, we're defining by training methods rather than purpose, age etc?
I'm sure there'll still be anomalies... fencing, for instance... using modern methods and equipment (electronic hit scoring) for a primarily sport art, which has its roots in medieval self-defence/duelling.
Last edited by sochin101; 8/08/2007 6:07pm at .
8/08/2007 6:11pm, #27
Excellent thread Matt.
Aside from the obvious problems with defining the "TMA" tag, there was one event that got me all rankled up about the name. That was the Osiris/JFS video where JFS starts whining something along the lines of "...every time one of us *traditional* guys... bla bla". It got me thinking that there are some people I would like to *vote out* because I don't really like having them in the traditional club with me. The so-called TMA guys who make the most noise mostly seem to be the ones who are the biggest jackasses. (Cullion, please note I said "mostly".)
The school I attend is pretty traditional in a lot of senses. On the other hand, my sifu has shown that he is willing to adapt training methods to modern times. And when I see old photos of his father, uncle, grandfather, etc. I don't see any silk pyjamas, just Chinese guys working out in a t-shirt or something. (For demonstrations they would wear something fancier.)
A lot of what is most commonly considered traditional is really more marketing props. The kung-fu uniform with the sash, or the Aikido hakama. (Actually, my brother trained in Tokyo in Yoshinkan Aikido -- one of the older styles -- I don't recall any of his photos where they had magic pants.)
I'm not sure you can come up with a good, solid definition for traditional vs. non-traditional. At least, not one that you can get people to follow. I think it is best to refer back to the bullshido mission. The real problems are the scam-artists, misguided beliefs and fraudulent practices, not to mention the jackasses, traditional and otherwise.Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices.
8/08/2007 6:24pm, #28
I've being trying to promote the term "Q-TMA" instead of TMA for a few years. It means quasi-traditional martial arts and denotes styles that identify themselves, rightly or wrongly, as being traditional, traditionalist or classical. As such it would include 'modern' styles of kung fu and karate that still have their lineage to 'traditional' karate as a big part of their identity.
Another factor is that "TMA" normally relates to Eastern Martial Arts. Traditional Western arts would more commonly be called just "WMA"(?).
Q-TMA it is then.
PS. "quasi" in Q-TMA is also a snipe at the fact that most styles who consider themselves traditrional, aren't.You are a total Douchbag. Train more, post nevermore.
FickleFingerOfFate -08-21-2007 08:59 AM
just die already.Plasma - 08-20-2007 11:45 PM
Best MA website ever!!!!!: http://www.dogjudo.co.uk/
8/08/2007 8:39pm, #29Originally Posted by Osiris
8/08/2007 8:58pm, #30
Good discussion. I would like to clarify that anachronistic does not have to mean "bad." Kyokushin has some anachronistic training methods but is still very effective.