Revisiting the definition of "TMA"

**Goju - Joe** · Posted On: 8/08/2007 9:03pm

Anachronistic is too vague and open to interpretation.

Learning to fire a match lock musket would be anachronistic Martial training.

Hitting a Makiwara board (which I don't do cause those things hurt) isn't IMO, because it will have the effect that it claims to have of toughening up your knuckles so to say its anachronistic or better than hitting a bag is purely subjective to the individual and not quantifiable like the match lock example.

**Fantasy Warrior** · Posted On: 8/08/2007 10:24pm

Trust the TMAists to try to prevent sensible categorisation of the sillier portion of martial arts :3some:

**AAAhmed46** · Posted On: 8/08/2007 11:38pm

Originally Posted by Matt W.

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.

I think your definition of TMA fits.

It does not have teh whole TMA IS BAD.

Just the practices.

Hell don't judo guys do forms and wear gis and bow too? WEll some of them atleast.

**Toj** · Posted On: 8/09/2007 6:42am

Interesting discussion...

It makes you think about what you've learned and break it down into pieces. While there are many 'traditional' aspects in the system 'Goju' I studied under (gi, bows, forms), there are also many more modern aspects... much more (FC sparring, sometimes with gear, sometimes without, incorporating of various ranges, from throws, locks, holds, grappling, etc.., and as much aliveness as possible).

Basically a foundation of 'tradition' (for whatever reason) with the *real* focus being a complete system or method of fighting.

Earlier someone hit it on the head... much of that traditional stuff, from gi's, belts, bowing, etc, has to do with marketing. It's not always marketing for more money (although many times it is), but marketing in general.

Also, I've learned that the kids like the traditional stuff, but of course they like the fun and games too.

**Cullion** · Posted On: 8/09/2007 6:58am

My definition of a good traditionalist: Somebody who likes fighting as much as anybody practicing a modern combat sport, who happens to have trained a lot in one of the older styles and still finds a lot of value in a lot of their old style training.

My definition of a bad traditionalist: Somebody who refuses to try out a new training method, or one from another style despite all evidence that it works quite well like there's some kind of dishonour in admitting that what you already did wasn't perfect.

**Toj** · Posted On: 8/09/2007 7:10am

Originally Posted by Cullion

My definition of a good traditionalist: Somebody who likes fighting as much as anybody practicing a modern combat sport, who happens to have trained a lot in one of the older styles and still finds a lot of value in a lot of their old style training.

My definition of a bad traditionalist: Somebody who refuses to try out a new training method, or one from another style despite all evidence that it works quite well like there's some kind of dishonour in admitting that what you already did wasn't perfect.

Woooo! I'm a good traditionalist!

*Does happy dance* :chewy:

I am not sure about the "a lot of value", but I do find value in some, and understand why we trained certain ways.

It's kinda like the military, where you have marching (drill). Is it something we need to do to make us better warriors? Nope, but it's at least an organized way to get from point A to point B.

Otherwise it's just a big cluster-f@*&

**sempaiman** · Posted On: 8/09/2007 9:07am

Traditional as of 1880? We really don't know much before that. Training earlier than that took place in back yards of Masters and very secretive. I don't believe they wore specific uniforms (Gi's). So "Tradition" is really relative to a time period.

**Teh El Macho** · Posted On: 8/09/2007 9:13am

How would FMA's stand in this? As I understand it, styles in FMAs are mainly the product of families, seeing a new style or styles with each passing generation. Each individual style, by itself, it's not old/ancient enough. Yet, each demonstrate a continuity that could be centuries long.

**daGorilla** · Posted On: 8/09/2007 9:42am

Originally Posted by Phrost

I think this thread has a lot of merit. Frankly, I don't see much difference between the defining,"Traditional" aspects of "Traditional Martial Arts", and what Civil War re-enactors do on their weekends. It's escapism and role playing, unless you're raised as a member of that particular culture.

I'd feel just as goofy walking around in hakama as I would wearing feathers and moccasins.

Although I spend all my training time in BJJ these days, I studied Koryu iaido for a short while (~18 months) in a very traditional kendo/iaido/kung-fu school (how's that for a mix of TMA?)

Just as an aside, I learned that there are actual training reasons for wearing a hakama that go beyond merely 'dressing the part'.

I'm not sure if they pre-date the hakama itself -- only that an understanding of those principles actually makes the hakama itself an essential training tool (for footwork and hip movement primarily) as much as a uniform.

Although iaido certainly does have its fair share of role-player types, I actually found alot of the training to have application outside strict kenjutsu -- and some of it complemented my Arnis training.

In particular, some of the footwork and hip movement relevant to wielding a katana effectively can apply to virtually any weapon offensively or defensively -- including sticks, rakes, pool cues, etc.

**Cullion** · Posted On: 8/09/2007 9:50am

Originally Posted by sempaiman

Traditional as of 1880? We really don't know much before that. Training earlier than that took place in back yards of Masters and very secretive. I don't believe they wore specific uniforms (Gi's). So "Tradition" is really relative to a time period.

There are training manuals and lineage records from TCMA and Koryu styles going back before 1880.