What is the true definition of traditional martial arts.

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Kung Fu Forum
1

I often hear people critisize traditional martial arts for being unrealistic or that they do not train hard enough. This often comes from the “MMA” group who believe that we as CMA’s prace around in pajamas and do flashy forms all day with no contact or sparring whatsoever. This may be the case in many so called traditional chinese arts, but how is this traditional. At what point in the history of CMA did forms overcome sparring and other hard training methods. I understand this is a dead horse that has been beat to death, but traditional chinese boxing is not about little to no physical training, regardless of being an internal or external style. I believe in the concept of forms being set patterns that improve footwork, motor skills, application and set ups, and are an essential part of the martial arts training regiment. I also belive that applying what you have learned in an alive manner is essential to a martial artist’s growth as well. I believe that some CMA schools as well as any other martial arts school can be critisized for their training methods, but what has aggravated me lately is the MMA crowd and their arrogance and ignorance toward traditional martial arts. A truly traditional martial arts trains in many of the same manners that MMA fighters train, excellent physical condtioning, hard contact sparring, throws and groundwork,
and most important, an open mind to learn new things and apply what works to your own fighting game. This is not me harping on MMA guys, I cross train myself and most people I know in MMA came from a traditional martial arts background. This is directed mostly toward the ignorant poser group who lash on an art they have never studied and no nothing about. The point of my rant is don’t knock what
you don’t know, there is always something out there to learn and improve yourself with. Thoughts and comments would be appreciated, especially on opinions of what you believe true TCMA is.

“Joey, you ever been in a Turkish Prison Camp?”

2

[Krull]

Here is the knowledge you seek:

[/Krull]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1556435576/qid=1144254180/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/002-2429786-6360826?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

3

tra·di·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-dshn)
n.
The passing down of elements of a culture from generation to generation, especially by oral communication.

A mode of thought or behavior followed by a people continuously from generation to generation; a custom or usage.

A set of such customs and usages viewed as a coherent body of precedents influencing the present: followed family tradition in dress and manners. See Synonyms at heritage.

A body of unwritten religious precepts.

A time-honored practice or set of such practices.

Law. Transfer of property to another.

Now, apply that to the term martial arts and that is your “true” definition. Pretty matter of fact and certainly no big cryptic mystery as much as some would blur that line.

4

There is no “true” definition. I think that what is traditional or commercial boils down to one’s own personal perception of what those things mean. Eample: If a school uses contracts and sales pitches it’s commercial, if it has a Buddhist altar or burns incense, it’s traditional (as an example of how someone might see it). Or, you wear sweats, it’s modern, you wear Chinese clothing, it’s traditional,…you get it?

With the “history” of TCMA being so poorly recorded (if at all) and embellished with legend and fantasy, it’s not a science as to what the past really was. So again, it comes down to how you feel about it and what you like.

"I often hear people critisize traditional martial arts for being unrealistic or that they do not train hard enough. "

I think this comes from the fact that not everything in TCMA is directly for fighting. There’s an entertainment/artistic aspect to some forms and movements. I think that even some instructors don’t get this and incorrectly try to teach movements that are for aesthetic value as self-defense movements. So obviously, outsiders will see these so called self-defense movements as impractical and many movements are.

“but what has aggravated me lately is the MMA crowd and their arrogance and ignorance toward traditional martial arts.”

There is as much ignorance and disagreement within the TCMA crowd as from the outside so I don’t really blame the MMA crowd for their views. You have the choice to study what you like so I wouldn’t go getting aggrivated too much. Personally I don’t obsess over traditional vs. modern. If you like it, do it.

5

different matrixes of compartmentralization do not remove the definition of something in the strictest sense.

it is what it is regardless of how you dress it up and serve it out.

you can call one thing something else in other words, but that changes nothing really.

6

OK, getting into my flame resistant suit :smiley:

What most people think of as “traditional” is what has been “sold” to westerners over the past 35 years or so…

In the places where Kung Fu originated and where most westerners got it from, forces suppressed and made politically correct CMA

Taiwan needed to win over foreign support, have it’s economic modernization and was controlled basicly as a police state for many years

HOng Kong was under British rule, and the British wanted to stop the mayhem in the street

Communist mainland is obvious

There are also plenty of “instructors” who simply wanted to make it a business, cater to an ignorant public, play to the lowest common denominator and make plenty of cash…

7

If I teach something to you using a certain method and you learn it well whole and in it’s parts and then transmit that method to someone else and on down the line adhering to the original method.

That is tradition, plain and simple, whether you charge a fee or make someone wear a gi, or have them put on gloves or not etc etc.

the external look and feel of something is not all that makes it traditional it is the consistency in how it is passed from one to the next and how that method is adhered to that makes it traditional.

8

…which is pretty much the point I wanted to make. Everyone has their own opinion of how the world should spin, regardless if you are master, teacher or student.

That being said raises a question, however - aren’t we too far removed to really understand the true tradition of TMA? By that I mean, it has been literally thousands of years since the arts in general were conceived, and for different reasons. There are many similarities, but I just can’t grasp the mindset, the way of thinking that was prominent enough to warrant creating such a thing. Aren’t we just eating what we’re being fed? And who can know if it is actually truly traditional, aside from what we’re told?

Not wearing my flame-proof suit, so please don’t shoot me, just trying to gain more insight on this topic, as it is one close to my way of thinking.

9

There are virtually no intact systems from 1000 years ago.

Everything the coolective martial arts community does now is in the continuum of it all.

Most TCMA are less than 300 years old, never mind 1000!

The principles and methods however are a different story. Some are drawn from antiquity and some are relatively new.

The human form is unchanged despite it all and its about making better mousetraps now. How to utilize traditional methods to fit with the spirit of the times is the process that every teacher must go through.

and yes, in the beginning we are fed what we are thought capable of keeping down. Over time, w develop a sens of understanding and see teh value of a method or fail to see it and ergo do not use it. This is falling from tradition, but that in and of itself is not always a bad thing. especially when we are talking about change and growth.

10

Most everything being done today is 100 years old or LESS…

11

“The human form is unchanged despite it all and its about making better mousetraps now. How to utilize traditional methods to fit with the spirit of the times is the process that every teacher must go through.”

I’ll see that and raise you this - wouldn’t that mean that truly traditional was essentially phased out early on? Not that I disagree with that statement, obviously we understand that times always change and that we as humans must adapt to the most current standards, but all that can be left of it is the essence of the art and not the actual apps?

Please excuse me for being obtuse, but the more I think about this, the harder it is to wrap my brain around say, one move or step or application or even a form standing the test of time and staying pure as it was originally meant to be.

12

[

There is as much ignorance and disagreement within the TCMA crowd as from the outside so I don’t really blame the MMA crowd for their views. You have the choice to study what you like so I wouldn’t go getting aggrivated too much. Personally I don’t obsess over traditional vs. modern. If you like it, do it.[/QUOTE]

Good point Anthony. I believe things such as lineage squabbles, mysticism, and other romantisized idiocy in TCMA is ridiculous. The traditional aspect I was speaking of is in training methods. Basically, is what you learned effective. Does your training have a realitic approach. Do you punch and kick air all the time or do you work out on a heavy bag or with focus mitts. When doing two man drills, is one person compliant or do both train with resistance for a more alive style training. I believe that what many believe is traditional in training methods is not so much traditional as watered down. Perhaps I should clarify that. Realistic arts have evolved more into an MMA style format, which is good, because whatever does not evolve dies. However, ignorance will always be a part of everything which is why you will have some wannabe MMA player spouting crap that all TCMA are long haired passive hippies. Somewhat like how every cage fighter is as tough as Chuck Liddell.:rolleyes:

13

I think that traditional methods are seen as inneffective because they are not looked upon for the duration of the path.

By this I mean, in the beginning you learn structure. You learn how your body is and not how it is interacting with another. You learn shape, pattern, structure and principle.

Moving along, you start to learn how to take that information and adapt it to force feedback so you can further adjust the shape to teh unique qualities of you as an individual and guide the shape change with teh driving principles (i.e keep elbows down, cover up, stay tighet make a smaller target, make a larger shiled area atc)

From there, we learn to interact with each other. At first there is compliance so that the mechanics of a given attack or defense can be learned effectively and it ramps up from there from slow and metered sparring to a more free flow.

as teh person develops, the ‘style’ becomes ingrained through the slow and steady progress made in each step along the way. the methods in this format are often considered ‘traditional’.

Now, in newer lines of thinking, there is a prevalance of the idea that you can’t swim if you don’t go in the water. I generally agree with this, but I also think walking before running is a good idea. And so, you will see more injuries the more aggressive the training wants to take it to the level of ‘reality’.

In the long run, I feel the traditional methods are a safer path to travel and you will eventually get to the realism, it just takes longer, but the quality is higher. It is when someone who has taken the slow path dives in that we see pretty amazing skills displayed. there are a great deal of very successful mma fighters who do indeed have some time on the traditional path.

also, some people have innate qualities and abilities and take less time to fully understand what it is they are doing. this is true one both ways.

100 years from now, the best practices of mma training will be considerd traditional because they have kept and nurtured those parts that are useful and show results and have sliced away those parts that are ineffective.

14

In the long run, I feel the traditional methods are a safer path to travel and you will eventually get to the realism, it just takes longer, but the quality is higher. It is when someone who has taken the slow path dives in that we see pretty amazing skills displayed.

I fundamentally disagree with the assumption behind this comment, and the comment itself in its entirety.

The underlying idea is that somehow MMA is the “fast” method while “traditional methods” are “slower,” and that that slower training produces “higher quality” results in the end.

This is dead wrong. I’d have to say it’s definitely one of the “excuses” of “traditional” arts and an almost unique hubris as well. If in your face aggressive assholish tough guyness is the trademark of MMA snobbery, then the “oh, you MMA guys will never develop our eventual skill level,” is the snobbery of “traditional” arts.

There is NOTHING fast about getting good at MMA. There is drilling, and then drilling, and then drilling, and then drilling.

And then, when you’re tired of drilling, there is more drilling. The subtleties of a movement are perhaps not obvious, but they are there. One of the most basic moves in BJJ, for example, is the triangle. Roy Harris broke this day one move down into SEVENTEEN different aspects that make up the perfect triangle. Any mistake in them enables an escape or prevents it from working.

It takes a lot of time to get good at this stuff. The path is NOT fast - I’ve been a purple belt for about 4 or 5 years now, and the guys who know me on this board will tell you I’m no slouch about my training.

On the other hand, there are guys like Mike Fowler, who got a legit black belt in around 3.5-4 years of training. He also put in about triple the mat time on a daily basis than me because that’s what he chose to do.

You can’t tell me with a straight face that a person who dedicated themselves in a similar way in a “traditional” art would experience a similar level of success. TMA mythology ABOUNDS with such stories.

And both sportive combat and TMA abound with stories of the old, creaky guy you just couldn’t lay a finger on and could kick your ass without thinking about it.

Sounds to me like there’s nothing to the “slow” and “fast,” and nothing to “higher quality” from one method or the other.

Quality, rather, is just about your personal choices over time.

Now, if you mean that a lot of sportive combat guys are broken at 70 and a lot of TMA guys aren’t, then I can only say this: Introduce the same level and frequency of full contact competition into “traditional” arts, and watch the injuries and ****ed up old guys who were badasses in their prime roll in.

15

In Case of Chinese Martial Arts…

We have to bear in mind that history is written from the perspective of the story tellers. It is often baised at best. In the case of Chinese martial arts, you have at least 2 types of records - written and oral. Please remember that Chinese as a culture goes back a few thousand years into Shamanistic culture where story telling is a big and vital part.

In the dynastic time, there are official records of all things concerning the government. But they are written from the perspective of the ruling government. For example, there are military records from Ming dynasty (1386-1644 CE) that are semi-public published. One of which is by General Qi Jiguang who wrote in details in training army and marines to fight the Japanese pirates invasion. It is of note that fire arms (muskets) and canons are already in regular use arround 1550s in the Ming military. Both army and marines used guns (canons/Fo Lang Ji, and muskets). This is the reason why General Qi commented in the hand to hand combat section (Quan Jing) that empty hand fight training is not really that much of a use in battle (contemperary at the time) but it is definitely a great way to keep up the physical training of the troops. This has a lot to do with the use of fire arms on the battle field where Japanese pirates used guns also.

There are researches going on about the rise of merchant class during Ming dynasty and the need for martial arts tradesmen (ie teachers, armed escorts and body guards). Of course there’s the bandits and secret societies sides of the story. These “trades” didn’t generally get to come into contact with fire arms. So they do things a bit differently than that of the military obviously.

Martial arts permeates Chinese culture both in the upper classes and the grass root level. Written recordes comes from upper classes and oral history comes from the grass root level. In modern times, you will see a mixture of both since a lot more educated folks all over the world are taking up CMA unlike any other period of time in China.

Traditional CMA especially Kung Fu can be clearly defined. There is a sort of a formulation templet or an alpha formular available. But you will have people calling it non sense as it has to do with the mystical side of the practice. So… what’s the point to waste everyone’s time on arguing about that?

Mantis108

16

merry, can you honestly say you have good experience with both paths?

Before you toss out phrases such as ‘dead wrong’ and so on, that is.

Because my experience is different, and some of what you say is supporting exactly what I said.

argument for the sake of argument isn’t an eye opener.

17

"Basically, is what you learned effective. "

This may be a bigger question than you realise. When you say effective I assume your’e talking about “street fighting effective.” Or, will your training make you proficient in defending yourself in an attack. I think it’s important, when comparing styles or methods such as TCMA or MMA or anything else, to realise that there can be different goals associated with each method. For instance, if I chose to study Tae Kwon Do for the purpose of winning an olympic medal, it would be pointless for some MMA guy to tell me that my training is no good for the street, wouldn’t it? Or, if I’m studying Kung-Fu for the purpose of personal health and fitness, I may not want to roll around on the floor and try to choke some guy out. It would have nothing to do with my personal goal in studying Kung Fu. You have to know what your goals are and pick the method that will help you achieve them. Once you’ve done that, the “other guy” can’t say anything because what you do is effective for you (your goals).

I think that the MMA guys your’e talking about who are quick to trash TCMA don’t realise this or just assume that all methods are for the same purpose…they are not.

"Does your training have a realitic approach. Do you punch and kick air all the time or do you work out on a heavy bag or with focus mitts. When doing two man drills, is one person compliant or do both train with resistance for a more alive style training. "

Just as most TCMA schools do, I started out at a certain level of light or no contact (to attain proper technique and control) and progressed to the most realistic level that is practical within a controlled training environment (school or with partners). I would reccomend that nobody should feel too confident in their ability to defend themselves in a street fight. In today’s world there are simply too many variables (knives, boxcutters, guns, disease,…you name it) to be fully prepared to handle any situation safely. No matter how trained you are you’ve got to do your best to avoid the point of actual contact with someone.

18

traditional often means stagnation.

19

Sometimes this is true, but it also depends on your outlook. Kung Fu translates roughly as a skill or trait, so why not use whatever skills you can learn to make your art effective. Now to some this may seem non traditional, but the true form of what CMA is about is using one’s body to hurt, maim, kill another human being. I’m not saying this is why we are training, to kill people, but the ability is there and to me this is more traditional. Obviously this is all subjective but there have been some interesting discussions on this board so far, particulary from Anthony and Merryprankster.

20

there are 3 levels.

  1. how much is “original”. each generation of practitioners will include their own experiences and interpretations and add on or “modify”. there will be time to diverse and also time to integrate several branches and become one again.

a. Tai Ji, Chen Chang Xing Lao Jia-> Yang style-> Wu style etc
b. it is said there were only 3 big palms and later people added 5 more to make 8 big palms in Ba Gua.
Cheng Ting Hua included a lot of Shuai Jiao. Zhang Zhao Dong->Jiao Rong Qiaon included Xing Yi. Liu De Kuan had linear walking Ba Gua etc.

c. Ba Ji evolved into small frame and big frame and merged again.

  1. training method or Gong Fa. with modern medicine and technology, some training methods or props may be “upgraded”?

  2. effectiveness.

If one only trains very well with one skill, one may be an expert on that skill.

Each person has different physical attributes, so what is most effective for you may not be for others.

Liu Feng Cun practiced singl palm change very well.

Guo Yun Shen half step Beng Quan was famous, etc.

:smiley: