xmusashi17
(Member)
04/15/04 10:03 AM
Traditional VS Modern arts

I have always practiced traditional martial arts, (other than boxing, if you can even consider that a martial art). What are the advantages and disadvantages of a modern martial art? If you have practiced both, which do you prefer and why.

John_C
(Enthusiast)
04/15/04 10:13 AM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

Define Traditional.

Define Martial Art.


xmusashi17
(Member)
04/15/04 10:24 AM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

Martial art is directly translated into "The Art of war"

In traditional arts you do stuff like bow, opening and closing ceremonies and follow the respect from where the Martial art originated from.


John_C
(Enthusiast)
04/15/04 10:31 AM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

Your martial art defnition;

Does a "Martial Art" have to pertain to war?

In that case, unarmed arts are pretty much out, wouldn't you say?

Or do you mean pertaining to fighting?

A traditional art by your definition is one in which;

The terms used are those of the country of the art's origin, not where the art is taught.

The customs of greeting and saluting are those of the country of the art's origin.

Do I have that right?


xmusashi17
(Member)
04/15/04 10:56 AM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

Not Quite. The art of war, in the past did mean war as in a batle field. But today it usually means either a physical and mental war. A brawl between two or more people. Martial arts like Karate, Taekwon do, ect. Other then that ,you are right on the dot.

[This message has been edited by xmusashi17 (edited 04-15-2004).]


cxt
(Hardcase)
04/15/04 10:57 AM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

Xmusashi


So if I don't bow, or have an "opening or closeing ceremonies" or "respect" where the art came from I am not "traditional."

How about if I DON'T wear a crisp white gi when I train--does that make me not-traditional.

What if my boxing coach has a formal start and end of his class and expects us to show some respect to him and when he is around to HIS teacher?

Does that make my boxing class "traditinal."

Seriously NOT makeing fun of you--just trying to point out that your asking a REALLY complex question.

What makes an art "traditional?" or not?

Is it the external-like uniforms and bowing?

Is it internal-like a specific method of training?

Good question.


xmusashi17
(Member)
04/15/04 11:09 AM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

not to disrespect anybody but, only reply if you know what a traditional martial art and modern art is. Thank you.

xerxes
(Enthusiast)
04/15/04 11:38 AM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

The point you are missing is that not everyone uses the same definition for those terms that you do. Are you actually asking people to just disregard their own definitions in favor of your own definitions? Give us a reason to do so. First of all, give a coherent definition for those terms then tell us why your definitions are correct and others are wrong.

still wadowoman
(Improved beefier techno-prat)
04/15/04 11:52 AM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

Hi xmusashi17,and welcome to the forums [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif[/IMG]

The term traditional is rather tenuous, which is why I think both John and CXT were asking what you thought was traditional.

To clarify, my main art is "traditional" Wado Ryu. I love my art and am proud of it. However, as I am sure you know, Wado ryu is derived from Jujitsu and your art, Shotakan, which is therefore more "traditional"

However, some here practice Okinawan Tode which Shotokan derives from, so their art is more "traditional". And so on back through China, India et al.

Personally, I love my gi, the bowing, the history, the whole shebang, but none of that makes me a better fighter which was, after all, one of the main objectives of all the martial arts.

Boxing IS a traditional western martial art. your first post infers that you do not agree. If not, why not? Boxing has been around for at least 200 years. Shotokan, on the other hand, has only been around for 70 or 80 years. Is boxing more "traditional" than Shotokan?

Please do not think I am being pedantic or provocotive, I am merely trying to explain why people are asking what YOU define as traditional and what YOU define as a martial art.

I can guarentee that if you do clarify, we won't all agree, but it will be an interestig discussion [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/wink.gif[/IMG]
Sharon




[This message has been edited by still wadowoman (edited 04-15-2004).]


still wadowoman
(Improved beefier techno-prat)
04/15/04 11:55 AM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

Xerxes must have been posting at the same time. He beat me to it and said it a lot more succinctly [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/biggrin.gif[/IMG]
Sharon


Dog Of War
(Member)
04/15/04 01:08 PM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

XMushashi17,
As you can see the definition of the words martial art differs from person to person.I have personally adopted my own definition,and do not expect others to follow it.
Martial Art-The total use of the human body,and all of its available tools and attributes armed/unarmed in combat/fighting against another person/persons,with a set of special training methods directed towards physical(speed,strength,stamina etc.)mental(mindset,psychology,humility,discipline etc.)In my opinion Boxing is a martial art,but is more sport inclined like TKD.
I personally do not train in "modern martial arts,"or hybrid martial arts,or vale tudo.I take "traditional,"San Soo Kung Fu.I feel I have found a style that is complimentry to my mindstate.But to say that San Soo is traditional is a fallacy.It is not taught in the traditional Chinese matter.So it is better to say I take San Soo Kung Fu the way Jimmy H Woo taught Americans.Most Asian"traditional arts,"have lost alot of the tradition with their induction to western civilization.
The advantage with a modern martial art is it tends to be more flexible,with equal emphasis on striking,ground fighting,etc.making a more complete style.
The drawback I feel is whoever founds the style probally doesn't stay with any given style long enough to fully understand or learn alot of what the system is really about.
Talking about Traditional MA's I say that they throughout the years have stayed around because they have been used for years and years.Somewhere through the years they have been combat tested time and time again.I'm not saying that Ruas vale tudo isn't effective or other hybrids are not effective.
One thing that I hear alot of is Arts being or not being combat effective.I hear arts like Krav Maga,Brazilian Jujitsu,and San Soo Kung Fu being combat effective.I hear time and time again about these arts being constantly tested and proven in combat.The Gracies fighting time in and time out eliminating most of their competition with B.J.J.I hear of Krav Maga being used by Isreali military and how it was developed in times of war in the 20th century.I hear of how Jimmy H Woo,used his families art,San Soo Kung Fu,as a loanshark and thug in Los Angles's Chinatown and how S.C.A.R.S is an adaptation of San Soo.The fact of the matter is because a certain fighting technique/style is used effectivly by someone does not mean that you can use it effectivly.People differ from bodytype and attributes just like opponents do.So be careful of those that talk about a systems combat effectiveness.So it truly is the fighter and not the system.
-Greg Robertson,The Dog of War


cxt
(Hardcase)
04/15/04 02:20 PM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

Xmusashi17

Not meaning to disrespect you in ANY fashion.

But you have been asked several times by several people to present your views on how the terms "traditional" and "modern" should be used or applied.

Its pretty clear we do not have a consenses as to the definations of these terms.

For example many classical koryu ryu count any system that was established after about the 1800s (or so) to be Gendai or "new" or "modern" arts.

Perhaps you could help???


rookie
(Enthusiast)
04/15/04 04:11 PM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

To add to cxt's point, boxing has been around as long if not longer thn most "Traditional MAs"....why do you consider it modern?

cxt
(Hardcase)
04/15/04 04:23 PM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

And to add to rookies point.

"Modern" mixed martial arts competition is little different from either Greek-- pankarton (sp) competitions or "Old English" bareknuckle boxing (pre-Broughtens (sp) rules)

So I guess you could see it as a "re-invention" or a sort of revivial.


Raul Perez
(WMD)
04/15/04 04:30 PM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

You guys are getting deep with this aren't ya!?

[IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/biggrin.gif[/IMG]

Raul


cxt
(Hardcase)
04/15/04 05:27 PM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

Raul

I honestly think its a really good question that I don't have a good answer for.


kiwi
(Enthusiast)
04/15/04 08:05 PM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

We also are forgeting that vale Tudo, is possibly the founding father of all martial arts. Pancration (no eye gouging and biting are the only rules, exactly same as the first UFC)has been around since the ANcient GReeks. It is believed that ALexander the Great may have introduced Pancration to asia when he and his armies conquered persia and India. This is prbably where eastern martial arts came from.

Stampede
(Lord of the Kazoo)
04/15/04 08:18 PM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

Of course, pancration is the proginator of all asian martial arts!

Oh, and the Alexander influence on the asian fighting traditions is not very hotly debated, as their ain't a whole lot of proof regarding a systemized teaching methodology being transferred between the conquerer and the enemy.


Raul Perez
(WMD)
04/15/04 10:37 PM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cxt:

Raul

I honestly think its a really good question that I don't have a good answer for.

[/QUOTE]

oh I am not arguing that. Actually you guys have, in my opinion, defeated the term Traditional. Perhaps that term should be thrown out the door.

Kind regards,

Raul


Lokkan-Do
(Veteran)
04/16/04 12:23 AM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

My post is a little unorganised with alot of BS:


"So if I don't bow, or have an "opening or closeing ceremonies" or "respect" where the art came from I am not "traditional."

Don't you follow western traditions when you say hello, good bye, give high fives, touch fists, greet someone with "how are you", how's the weather, shake hands wear western clothes, speak english...You know being a traditional westerner. (I left out wearing Bermuda shorts, bikinis, eating ice cream and visiting Hawaii =))

???
When I came to Canada...I was puzzled and amused...I decided to ask my aunt one day..."Why does our neighbor keep asking me about the weather everyday he sees me?". He had been doing it for half a year now. (I thought he was just being strange).

I was later made to understand that that's a common line Canadians use to start a conversation.


----------------------
Does traditional mean "foreign" e.g. Karate and modern "local/native" e.g. Kickboxing?

I guess asking about the weather is a western tradition, because it is foreign to me.
http://www.blackbeltmag.com/archives/blackbelt/1992/mar92/tradvsfull/tradvsfull.html

[This message has been edited by Lokkan-Do (edited 04-16-2004).]


Yoseikan Student
(Veteran)
04/16/04 06:59 AM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

[QUOTE]Originally posted by kiwi:
It is believed that ALexander the Great may have introduced Pancration to asia when he and his armies conquered persia and India. This is prbably where eastern martial arts came from.[/QUOTE]

lol!

This idea defintely originated in the West.

What a load of BS.

[IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/wink.gif[/IMG]

Al.


UKfightfreak
(Professional Poster)
04/16/04 07:04 AM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

Boring,

Can't you just answer the guys questions straight.

Sorry xmusashi17 you ask a simple question and you have to give fine detail to give true understanding or some other BS. So to answer your question I will make an easy split:

in my opinion trad MA's = that you find down the local community centre such as Karate's, Judos, TKD's etc. And modern being Mixed Martial Arts, Kickboxing, boxing, freestyle Karate etc.

Modern Martial Arts tend to have a more specific direction e.g. you join the Combat Association or the Self Defence Federation in the UK and you are looking at real street defence (based on any art you do and applied). This is good for self defence/protection.

If you join an MMA club to cage fight - you will become a good match fighter,

If you join a freestyle karate club you will become good at tag.

Trad arts are well organised and tend to have more of a history, with exceptions they tend to be semi-contact.

I have trained in both - I have a 1st Dan in Shotokan Karate and havn't trained in it in years. Why? well I think the training methods are dated, it is semi-contact (I want full) and has no ground fighting.

Also trained (for only a few months) in Aikido, there was a lot of arrogant people there and to be honest they were all bark and no bite. Tried a bit of TKD and apart from a few others the only trad art I have great respect for is Judo - it's full contact and it's great.

Modern stuff boxing and kickboxing and freestyle karate.

Freestyle karate was a 'bag 'O shite' although quality in freestyle exponents varies greatly - E.g. I'm sure I would be saying something different if I had trained with the Winspers.

Kickboxing I love, I'm in a freestyle org. and you can do light continuous to full contact to Thai. Again I'm with a good org. there are some bad ones.

Boxing - I rate highly, if someone were to say to me 'I want to learn how to defend myself' And I was not in the position to recommend a specific club - I would say go and do Judo and Boxing.

I someone says I want to look like Neo out of the Matrix I would send them to Wu shu or TKD.

It's just what you want really, but there are sweeping and very generalised statements and I will not respond to any posts that pull apart what I have just said stating 'Well actually TKD is only 50 years old' and 'Kickboxing was made by Karate practitioners' etc.


John_C
(Enthusiast)
04/16/04 07:04 AM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yoseikan Student:
lol!

This idea defintely originated in the West.

What a load of BS.
[/QUOTE]

The whole "travelling arts" theory always struck me as a bit sus, tbh. (Whether it's India to China, or China to Japan, or Greece to Asia).

It's as though people in the recipient countries were sat around going
"Hmm, I really hate Geoff, but I can't do anything about it."
MA Chap: "Look, I know how to hit people"
"Wow, result!"

The idea that cultures didn't have systemised ways of training soldiers and sportsmen prior to the advent of conquerors/monks/whatever doesn't really fit with human nature, does it?


cxt
(Hardcase)
04/16/04 07:40 AM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

UKFightFreak

Ah, dude the point is is NOT a "simple question."

Example--you said "Trad arts are well organized and tend to have more history with the exception the trad tend to be semi-contact."

Yeah, I'll mention the whole "semi-contact" thing to the Kyoshinkai (sp) guys I know they will be heart-broken to find that.

They are NOT "traditional" dispite the organization, history, strong traditions, white gi, becuase they are NOT semi contact.

Funny, most of them I know are pretty proud of their strong tradition AND that they fight pretty much full contact.

As several folks have pointed out some "modern arts" are really very old--as rookie mentioned boxing is well over 100 years old.

It has a rich history, boxing organizations tend to be "well organized."

So it fits the criteria for "traditional--so its "tradiional."

Whoa!!! Boxing is pretty much full contact--that means its "modern"

But it fits the other criteria, but it has aspects of the other!!!!

AAAAAGGGGHHH!!!!


rookie
(Enthusiast)
04/16/04 08:46 AM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

The terms mixed MA and the description "modern" has always struck me as merely a sales ploy used to get westerners who want the newest and best interested in the arts. BJJ is older that Kyokushin yet BJJ is considered modern and Kyokushin traditional.??? While this might bore you UKFF, it is a legitimate question and concern. What is boring to me is the constant "WHAT IS THE BEST MA" and "MMA is better than TMAs" threads. It is important that we really understand what BS that is.


btw...xmusashi I am not implying anything about your question in particular! I just think the distinction between the two is to gray to answer properly.
[This message has been edited by rookie (edited 04-16-2004).]

[This message has been edited by rookie (edited 04-16-2004).]


John_C
(Enthusiast)
04/16/04 09:29 AM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rookie:
What is boring to me is the constant "WHAT IS THE BEST MA" and "MMA is better than TMAs" threads. [/QUOTE]

Are you kidding me?

I LIVE for that stuff.

Popcorn sales round here have shot through the roof.


rookie
(Enthusiast)
04/16/04 09:35 AM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

JOhn,
I will assume sarcasm [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/wink.gif[/IMG]. In case you were serious, I will give you some fun.....Karate is the strongest art, my karate is the strongest karate...all else is garbage!!! Discuss amongst yourselves.


Dog Of War
(Member)
04/16/04 09:37 AM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rookie:
The terms mixed MA and the description "modern" has always struck me as merely a sales ploy used to get westerners who want the newest and best interested in the arts. BJJ is older that Kyokushin yet BJJ is considered modern and Kyokushin traditional.???
btw...xmusashi I am not implying anything about your question in particular! I just think the distinction between the two is to gray to answer properly.
There is a lot of gray matter there.BJJ is older than Kyokushin(if that is the art Mas Oyama created,Japanese arts aren't my fancy)
Just from observing I've come to the conclusion that the reason BJJ is not considered traditional and Kyokushin is,is because of the modifications made.Whichever Gracie started learning in 1914(Carlos?Helio?)He modified the system taught to him by adding from his own experience.If you take a traditional martial art you are always encouraged to improvise,not try to improve as you see fit.Any time you go outside the traditional systems ideology then it can not be called the same system.I think this theory is more evident in Kung Fu.Mas Oyama created(?) Kyokushin,as the systems founder he can lay out his own principles.I think that is where the traditional(Kyokushin) vs modern(BJJ) comes play.
-The Dog of War


Dog Of War
(Member)
04/16/04 09:38 AM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dog Of War:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by rookie:
The terms mixed MA and the description "modern" has always struck me as merely a sales ploy used to get westerners who want the newest and best interested in the arts. BJJ is older that Kyokushin yet BJJ is considered modern and Kyokushin traditional.???
btw...xmusashi I am not implying anything about your question in particular! I just think the distinction between the two is to gray to answer properly.

There is a lot of gray matter there.BJJ is older than Kyokushin(if that is the art Mas Oyama created,Japanese arts aren't my fancy)
Just from observing I've come to the conclusion that the reason BJJ is not considered traditional and Kyokushin is,is because of the modifications made.Whichever Gracie started learning in 1914(Carlos?Helio?)He modified the system taught to him by adding from his own experience.If you take a traditional martial art you are always encouraged to improvise,not try to improve as you see fit.Any time you go outside the traditional systems ideology then it can not be called the same system.I think this theory is more evident in Kung Fu.Mas Oyama created(?) Kyokushin,as the systems founder he can lay out his own principles.I think that is where the traditional(Kyokushin) vs modern(BJJ) comes play.
-The Dog of War
[/QUOTE]


rookie
(Enthusiast)
04/16/04 09:52 AM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

Dog,
I am not sure I agree with your point in the specific example you are using (i.e. Kyokushin vs BJJ), but in general I see where you are going. If we use that logic however, wouldn't the "modern" arts of boxing and wrestling be traditional arts? They have a pretty rigid set of rules and traditions that you are discouraged from venturing from. They are older than most TMA (certainly older than Japanese Karate and TKD)?


UKfightfreak
(Professional Poster)
04/16/04 12:16 PM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

Boring!!!!!

Animals fight - we have just organised ways of fighting into what are now know as Martial Arts.

Trad Martial arts are what they are,

Modern are what they are,

Unfortunatly you can't put some easily into either category but in the end the guy who started this thread wanted to know opinions on Trad and Modern not arguements on what is Trad and modern.

Go through the posts we all know that Boxing is older than Karate, English Ju-jitsu is older than Karate, BJJ is just old judo, Boxing is older than Aikido, just about everything is older than TKD with the exceptions of Kickboxing, JKD and a few others. But I would still class Greco Roman Wrestling as Modern - and duh - older than all of them. We all know wing chun don't have uniforms we all know that Knock down karate guys wear gi's and we all know.

I'm feel sorry for everyone who can't grasp basic concepts of Trad and modern.


cxt
(Hardcase)
04/16/04 01:25 PM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

Ukfightfreak


Seems that would be you.

Unless you feel you can come up with a workable term--you have had plenty of time to do so.


Yoseikan Student
(Veteran)
04/16/04 01:33 PM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

UKFF

The way you class it, makes it seem so:

Traditional (with the exclusion of Judo) = crap.

Modern: Not crap.

Its as silly the 'terminology' itself, probably invented by some cross training BJJ animal day guy, to bash those artists Bruce was bashing 30 years ago.

This is so old

Lets move on.

Oh, and BJJ being old style judo. Well Dave Turton might reckon so, but I'm sure the Gracie family would have something to say about that!

[IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/wink.gif[/IMG]

Al


rookie
(Enthusiast)
04/16/04 02:28 PM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

UKFF,
Crazy idea here. If you find a thread boring...don't post on it or don't read it.


cxt
(Hardcase)
04/16/04 02:36 PM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

UK


As several people have mentioned.

Before you can answer the question, you kinda have to know what exactly is being asked--if you can't say with any degree of accuracy "This is traditional and THATS modern."

How can you answer the question??

This is exactly why I find the topic interesting--having a hard time coming up with a clearcut answer.

Kinda hoped some discussion/argument, pick your term, might help a bit.


Dog Of War
(Member)
04/16/04 02:51 PM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yoseikan Student:
UKFF
Traditional (with the exclusion of Judo) = crap.
Modern: Not crap.
That is a bold statement to say traditional MA's are crap.I'm going to be Tom Brokaw here and give you a news flash:JUDO SUCKS
-The Dog of War


John_C
(Enthusiast)
04/16/04 02:53 PM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

Meh.

He got my back up with that comment about boxing.

So maybe I was a little more toey than I might have been.

I think the best I can say is that *I* know what I'd call a traditional art; based on a combination of the degree and type of ritual involved, training methods etc I think my take would agree with most people's at the extremes, and differ where the degree of "tradition" and modernity become more equal.


John_C
(Enthusiast)
04/16/04 02:57 PM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dog Of War:
JUDO SUCKS
[/QUOTE]

Whilst we're raising the level of debate here, no it doesn't.

Techniques overwhelmingly trained against resisting opponents, great workout, good fun.


nekogami13 V2.0
(Pimp slaps you)
04/16/04 04:20 PM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

Yoseikan,
Bjj is pre WWII judo, modified by the Gracies. That comes from info on THEIR (Gracies) own website.

Just to throw gas on the fire-Judo, boxing and Muay Thai are not martial arts-they are martial sports. Judo,boxing, muay thai have all been modified for sporting competition. They no longer contain all the original elements of their base arts.

The only traditional martial art, unmodified for hundreds of years,practiced in whole since ancient times is Nordic Herring Slapping.

Thus I have spoken, thus it is so. Debate over.


Dr. Krunk-n-stein
(Member)
04/16/04 04:52 PM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

Why don't you presumptuous types email Caique or Gracie Torrance and ask if they feel that BJJ/GJJ is traditional or modern? Since it is modified Kodokan JJ/Judo newaza, some might try and call it modern. In that case all karate that is non-Okinawan is modern and the original stuff is traditional. Variations on a theme or altered ryu or styles don't denote modern. At 6th Dan or higher the sensei's sensibilites, experiences, mental attitude and body-type comes into play.

Each sensei will teach the basic principles in the way they understand it to be, regardless of lineage. The principles will be similar amongst the members of the same ryuha, but an instructor's individuality does begin to manifest when they teach. As a result the way Helio teaches is and was different than his brother's. Helio tailor made his JJ for smaller cats. So since GJJ from Helio vs. GJJ/BJJ from Carl is more inclined for the non-big guy types, is it modern and non-traditional? Hell naw'!

BTW, I've asked Ryron Gracie, Rorion's son, if he felt his style was traditional or modern. After thinking about it he said coming from a strong family tradition with formalized techs that have suffered little variation throughout its lifespan, he tended to identify their GJJ as a traditional thing. So everyone needs to quit speaking for the Gracie's and let them say it themselves. When they came out with that whole, "our art is a new and improved version of groundfighting" crap, and modern in that respect, they were trying to distance themselves from everyone's impression of what Gi-wearing MAs were. I don't blame them. I feel the same way about most "traditional" arts.

They wanted people to know that what they did/do is unique and not some BS strip-mall karate taught for the sake of making money. Well, let me change that, they wanted to make lots of money and get the word out there about their father's style of JJ, while he was still alive. That was what the UFC was for- it was sponsored, thought of and financed by Rorion Gracie. It was their way to introduce their art to the world. The opponents were handpicked and they stepped into a padded trap. Not to say that it isn't an effective way to fight, it is for sure, just that it was a bit contrived (the UFC).

Boxing is a traditional American martial sport. Wrestling is probably the oldest martial art, now a martial sport. Muay Thai is a traditional MA/sport. So is Judo and Shuai Chiao. I like boxing, it's principles are very similar to old school Okinawan karate's, at least the way the bare-knucklers use to do it. I know Shorin Ryu cats who fight in a myriad of comps from point to knockdown karate. Most of them were accomplished boxers and judo-ka who SWITCHED FOR LIFE to a "traditional" MA. The same for Goju Ryu and Uechi Ryu-ka. Some of them at least. All that tourney stuff is good for something, but it is not real fighting. Never was, and never will be. If you go into a fight with a ring attitude you will get demolished.

Everyone has their way. I know what works for me. I've done every kind of comp except "NHB", whatever that is suppose to mean. I don't want to sound arrogant or like a pompous a$$, but I have to tell you like I KNOW it. In the street I've fought NHB, ask my opponents. They understood a little better what real fighting was after their Wrestler arse or Thai Boxing arse was spatula'd off the black-top. You can't breakfall on concrete, trust me, but you can fracture your neck, skull, or ribs. Bone-on-cartilage hurts like hell and that little broken nose from a padded hand feels like your face exploded when a good swift jab contacts your shnozzer. You'd have to feel it to believe it.

Who were those guys in the first UFCs? Other than Frye, Severn and Shamrock, only Royce was anybody with any real skill beyond the intermediate level. And don't mention Gordeau or whatever that flabby, skinny kickboxing Dutch guy's name was. Please. Yeah, Royce did a real traditional art, in his environ and had the element of surprise on his side. I love the Gracies, but there is no way that I would teach every sap-sucker my family's tradition. I won't train everyone I know in what I know. I won't divulge all the "secrets", 'cause once you do your greatest weapon, surprise, is out the door.

I like tradition and things that take some effort and intelligence to ingrain. You can't become a real specialized physician in less than 7 years after undergrad.. You can go to chiroquactic school or homeopathy school or whatever but you don't get to call yourself a card-carrying physician if you don't go through the rigors and "tradition" required of every physician in the modern world. You can be a PA, NP, Nurse Midwife or Clinical Nursing Specialist, but you ain't the real deal with 100% of the title, knowledge, responsibilty and know-how till you've done it right, all-the-way and go to Med School.

There are no quick-fixes for anything, fighting included. All the boxing, Judo, BJJ, kickboxing or wrestling in the world will not make you Roy Jones Jr., Kimura, a Gracie, Joe Lewis or Mark Coleman. Those guys are world class, rare and dedicated like a traditionalist. Decades of their life were consumed by ONE thing. Most of you cats have a job at Wal-Mart or something. Then you go do kickboxing or BJJ for 2hours a day, twice a week. Get real. KNOW and respect yourself, and know there are no shortcuts in life no matter what Tae-Bo or Krav Maga types profess!

Yeah, tradition can be a very good thing, when your butt is on the line and it REALLY counts. Axe me and I'll tell you so, hahaha!

[This message has been edited by Dr. Krunk-n-stein (edited 04-16-2004).]


immrtldragon
(Veteran)
04/16/04 05:40 PM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dog Of War:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yoseikan Student:
I'm going to be Tom Brokaw here and give you a news flash:JUDO SUCKS
-The Dog of War
[/QUOTE]

How do you figure that?


Kagayaku Ryu
(Member)
04/16/04 06:03 PM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

I had always been of the opinion (based on what my school teaches) that the difference beween modern and traditional martial arts was the focus.

Modern martial arts tends to have one or several major areas of focus: tournaments, self defense and fitness. Most of their other focal areas can be loosely fit into one of these categories.

Traditional martial arts tend to focus more on internal/spiritual/lifestyle aspects. These styles/schools are not geared so much toward being able to get points in a tournament or being able to stop a mugger after studying for six weeks (or even six months or six years.)

I will see if I can classify a few styles into the two catgories (bear in mind that these will be sorted according to my experience with practitioners of the respective arts. I'm not saying that certain styles can't fit into both categories)

Modern:
Krav Maga - emphasis on being able to kill just about anyone
boxing - focuses a lot on matches and the ring, or else being able to cover your butt on the streets.
Tae Kwon Do - very big into tournaments. Kinda flashy. Not a lot of depth to the training: it's about looking good.
most 'jitsu' schools which emphasize the techniques over the lifestyle that the martial arts used to be associated with.

Traditional:
many karate schools that aren't just trying to get people in and make money. They have a family feel and in most cases have a higher degree of formality (i.e. bowing, meditation, respect, etc.)
Aikido - as in ai ki DO; teaches a lifestyle along with the martial art.
Most other 'do's. Again, these are following in the earlier vein of using the physical trainingto refine the body, mind and spirit, rather than just training you to be able to kick butt and take names.

Sorry for the long post, let me know what if you agree.


Stampede
(Lord of the Kazoo)
04/16/04 07:48 PM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

I disagree. But, I am a desenter, and thus am prone to desention.

I prefer Okinawan Karate. I abhore the cultural trappings often associated with it. I am about as Okinawan as Coca-Cola. I am as Japanese as the Taco Bell dog I've got sitting on my desk. I think it's ludicrous for me to wrap myself up in two other cultures to practice the martial art of one of them when I am a member of neither. I'm half Cajun, half Scotch Irish. It'd be frigging rude to take on another culture as my own.

I love the Okinawan culture. It's super-interesting. The language, too, is extremely cool to study. However, it has little to do with my being able to apply the techniques of the set (kata, whatever) Naifanchi against the drunk-ass linebacker who's upset because he ran out of anti-psychotics.

If I were to spell out what I study, it'd be Isshinryu Karate, spelled with the character "tou" in place of "kara" . . . the old character thingie.

I abhore formality. It is conducive to the growth of ego, and I abhore ego. But, I digress.

Traditional is whatever the fug you got taught getting taught to the next group of peeps. If you diverge from that teaching in either methodology or curriculum, then it ain't traditional. And by the grace of God, I certainly hope you diverge. Static ain't a state which nature looks highly upon.

[This message has been edited by Stampede (edited 04-16-2004).]


nekogami13 V2.0
(Pimp slaps you)
04/16/04 07:53 PM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

I also disagree. I am sorry, but the "jitsu" came long before the "do".

Martial ways developed after martial application.


MuayThai
(Professional Poster)
04/16/04 08:41 PM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

I suppose, lets say stoopidly, that traditional martial arts are the tradition of the country the fighting system comes from... its traditional to learn whatever it is taught (and originates) from being in that country. A traditional art is tradition, like its traditional for scotts to clean their house on new years eve and stand outside with a bit of coal its also traditional for some chinese to learn some kind of Kung Fu, its part of a tradition, culture, so when you learn a "traditional martial art" you are in fact taking the culture and tradition that would come with being in the country it comes from... its a tradition to learn a martial art!

martial art is for war and was created to injure or kill, it wasnt created to say hello, kiss the neighbours or for fitness. We have just taken what other countries have to offer and used what we see as good in our own way, times are changing so maybe the word martial should be scrapped from martial art, its like calling me an assassin when I actually just shoot paintballs.


UKfightfreak
(Professional Poster)
04/17/04 06:00 AM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yoseikan Student:
UKFF

The way you class it, makes it seem so:

Traditional (with the exclusion of Judo) = crap.

Modern: Not crap.

Its as silly the 'terminology' itself, probably invented by some cross training BJJ animal day guy, to bash those artists Bruce was bashing 30 years ago.

This is so old

Lets move on.

Oh, and BJJ being old style judo. Well Dave Turton might reckon so, but I'm sure the Gracie family would have something to say about that!

[IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/wink.gif[/IMG]

Al
[/QUOTE]

I don't think my post came accross too clearly, I mean that for what I want tradtional arts don't deliver - I'm not saying they are not good, or anything about street fighting, self-defence, match fight whatever, I just like to train in a certain way - I gave my opinion as was originally posted.

And IMHO I hold Dave Turton in much higher regard than the Gracies - and I have a LOT of respect for the Gracies!!

As for the definitions - people get far too bogged down with it, it's mainly a few traditionalists trying to make out that their art is modern as they feel they are lacking something after putting years and years of training in (cognitive dissonance for all you psychologists out there ;-) ).

And you are right YS, definitions are a crap concept but for the sake of training methods and what Martial Artists want out of training it's much easier to dump into trads and modern. It makes it easier to buy the magazines!

In the end as long as it does what you want it to do I don't think it matters.


UKfightfreak
(Professional Poster)
04/17/04 06:03 AM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rookie:
UKFF,
Crazy idea here. If you find a thread boring...don't post on it or don't read it.
[/QUOTE]

Only just read this,

..and you are right!!!


Yoseikan Student
(Veteran)
04/17/04 07:35 AM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

[QUOTE]Originally posted by nekogami13 V2.0:
Yoseikan,
Bjj is pre WWII judo, modified by the Gracies. That comes from info on THEIR (Gracies) own website.
[/QUOTE]

emphasis added,

lol!

[IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/wink.gif[/IMG]

al


xmusashi17
(Member)
04/20/04 10:32 AM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

I personally prefer traditional martial arts becasue of everything you gain. You gain a sort of mental peace and harmony. Yet you can be agressive at the moment that is necessary. Thanks for all of your posts.

VJ
(Member)
04/20/04 02:44 PM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kagayaku Ryu:
I had always been of the opinion (based on what my school teaches) that the difference beween modern and traditional martial arts was the focus.
[/QUOTE]

Modern martial(combat)arts tends to have one major area of focus: self defense.

Traditional martial arts tend to focus on internal/spiritual/lifestyle/fitness aspects. These styles/schools emphasize some version of one or more of these aspects. Requires years of discipline and not certain to work even after much study because not much emphasis is placed on actual street survival. Great for developing character, health and spiritual harmony.

The modern martial arts usually (Combato for example) focuses on self defense not sport. These arts focus both the mind and body on street/combat survival. Heavy emphasis is placed on the psychology of the attacker and the victime both mentally, spiritually and legally. Not good for people who wish to improve their overall health and spiritual harmony and character. Good for people who don't have the time to study long before an art actually can be used for survival.

If one wants to be able to survive an actual street fight with little time then a modern martial(combat) art is the way. However I think the best option would be to find a combo of the two because without the benefits of the traditional arts a person just becomes a possible loose cannon to society. Personally I prefer traditional arts for the overall benefits of health, spiritual harmony and fun.


cxt
(Hardcase)
04/20/04 03:03 PM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

VJ


Can't get behind that.

Many "modern" martial arts seem more interested in "no to light contact" tournament sparring. Flashy acrobatic "tournament" form etc.

Of course so do many claimed "traditional" arts.

You also said.

"If one wants to be able to survive an actually street fight then modern martial arts is the way."

1-You have not presented any evidence of people useing "modern" arts to survive a "streetfight."

2-When you do I am pretty sure that I can find an equal number of folks that train in traditional systems that have succesfully used their arts "for real."

This sterotypeing gets us no-where.

In addition you said:

"Without the benefits of trad arts a perosn just becomes a possible loose cannon to society."

This is just more sterotypeing.

Mnay people claim some sort of "Character improvement" thu martial arts training.

Not sure I buy that--and even if I did--not sure I could claim it was due to "trad training."

I mean why exactly does KUGB Shotokan lead to "character developemnt" but Krav Magna does not??

The uniform? The bowing? what??


joesixpack
(Professional Poster)
04/20/04 06:50 PM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

My style does encourage character development. How? No chanting, religious rites, but through a hard grading system. No better way to learn humility and compassion. The prepatory training in itself forces you to push yourself.

At least I think I have become a better person. Any martial art or endeavour can do this. I beleive I have learned or gained humiltity, compassion, sincerity, integrity and honesty.


Lokkan-Do
(Veteran)
04/20/04 07:11 PM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

Depends on what you are looking for:

Example
Health: Tai Chi, Qi Gong, Kung Fu (some health)
Total Self-Defense: JKD
Cultural, Social, some self-defense: Karate, Judo, Kung Fu
Sport, Cultural, Social: Tae Kwando, Judo


Dr. Krunk-n-stein
(Member)
04/20/04 08:38 PM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lokkan-Do:
Depends on what you are looking for:

Example
Health: Tai Chi, Qi Gong, Kung Fu (some health)
Total Self-Defense: JKD
Cultural, Social, some self-defense: Karate, Judo, Kung Fu
Sport, Cultural, Social: Tae Kwando, Judo
[/QUOTE]

I'm assuming you're a JKD practitioner. Is JKD as effective a SD art as Judo or Okinawan karate? If so, then where's the proof? Karate is usually sport oriented too. Plus, the terms Karate and Kung Fu are too broad.

Tai Chi taught right is a great SD art. It's just finding a Sifu that knows how to teach it that's hard.

You must be a young and new martial artist.


Lokkan-Do
(Veteran)
04/20/04 10:15 PM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

Dr. Krunk-n-stein thanks for correcting me...I wouldn't want to spread any misconception. I consider Karate, Judo etc to be Self-defense arts too...I didn't realise how biased it sounded until you pointed it out.

Actually, I post this under the wrong topic.

It's easy to assume someone who is annoying is a JKD practioner eh! LMAO (Kiddin)


Warm regards, Lok

[This message has been edited by Lokkan-Do (edited 04-20-2004).]


Lokkan-Do
(Veteran)
04/20/04 10:23 PM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

I will be training at a Kung Fu school soon...(belonging to the International Kungfu Association)

These guys train 100% alive (the only forms they do are for internal martial arts). Heavy bag training, freestyle Kung Fu (like kickboxing, wrestling, grappling.

Does this mean they are modern? Or are they still traditional? Almost all of the sifus and students speak Chinese, bow, say Ni howa!!!...


VJ
(Member)
04/21/04 10:11 AM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cxt:


VJ

Can't get behind that.

[/QUOTE]

Not a problem cxt. I stand on my points and don't care to argue over such. As you stated I can go out and find points and you'll find points and we'd be going back and forth for what? Not worth it we both have our opinions on this matter.

However I will say that in studying and watching both traditional and modern the mindset of the people attending seems different.

In the modern arts it seemed like most were concerned about violence. Some were victims and others were worried about being a victim. Not too much emphasis was placed on spiritual development but on mental toughness and legality in regards to defending oneself.

The traditional teachers that I've met in my travels to Japan(Judo, Goju-Ryu Karate), Korea(Tae Kwon Do, Hap Ki Do) and the Philippines(Escrima) know their arts can kill but seem to place more emphasis on developing a more tranquil mind and perfect form. The atmosphere was more relaxed and no one seemed as worried about violence as much as form perfection.


Dog Of War
(Member)
04/21/04 11:49 AM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lokkan-Do:
I will be training at a Kung Fu school soon...(belonging to the International Kungfu Association)

These guys train 100% alive (the only forms they do are for internal martial arts). Heavy bag training, freestyle Kung Fu (like kickboxing, wrestling, grappling.

Does this mean they are modern? Or are they still traditional? Almost all of the sifus and students speak Chinese, bow, say Ni howa!!!...
[/QUOTE]
Hello to you to Lokkan-Do.I have a question,which International Kung Fu Association?
-The Dog of War


ken harding
(Enthusiast)
04/21/04 11:59 AM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

Trad v modern always gets any Martial Artists going doesn't it?

i'm with Wado woman to an extent (fellow Wado ka you see) but I don't equate "more traditional" with age of the art.

As for which is best BJJ v boxing v Shotokan v wado v whatever....you just can't say. In it's own arena BJJ is very efficient, go down to ground in a street fight and your opponents mates will likely kick the cr*p out of you. Then again that might not happen in a one to one.

i prefer the traditional Wado approach , the style suits my body mechanics. i've a cousin who does Shotkan, my wife practices Goju Ryu . we all at times train together and visit other dojos where they will let us.

It's a "traditional approach ' in my view. Funakoshi studied under several teachers as did Ohtsuka. As did Gracie the founder and pretty much all the founders of styles. What they seem to have done is started with one "style" practised it hard (hours a days for years) and then experimented with other teachers to test it it, unlock the puzzling bits of that that base art if you will.

Few of us reach that level as we don't commit the time. NO martial art is easy to learn, no system of fighting works without training longer and harder than most people today would ever consider.

Having sadi that to define traditional as simply doing the bows, a few japanese words here and there and a bit of Mokuso over simplifies things too much.

And for which approach is best....each to its own. The differance between the possible and impossible after all lies only in one's will. (para phrase of Hironori ohtsuka)


Bossman
(Veteran)
04/21/04 01:40 PM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

What a mixture! [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif[/IMG]

When I go to Hong Kong and train with Ma Lee Yang (head of Yang Family Tai Chi) we wear shorts, T shirts and plimsolls. We shake hands , don't bow and she teaches us in her flat without any ceremony the art that has been passed down through her family for generations.

Is that traditional?


Lokkan-Do
(Veteran)
04/21/04 07:59 PM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

Hello to you to Lokkan-Do.I have a question,which International Kung Fu Association?
-The Dog of War[/QUOTE]


I'll find out the next time I go...which won't be soon. I think that's all it says on the sign.


READ:
http://www.shuri-ryu.org/shuri-ryu/trias.htm

He ditched boxing for a traditional martial art.

[This message has been edited by Lokkan-Do (edited 04-21-2004).]


ken harding
(Enthusiast)
04/22/04 09:29 AM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

Will try to type accurately in my next post :-)

Stampede
(Lord of the Kazoo)
04/22/04 10:19 AM
Re: Traditional VS Modern arts

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bossman:
What a mixture! [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif[/IMG]

When I go to Hong Kong and train with Ma Lee Yang (head of Yang Family Tai Chi) we wear shorts, T shirts and plimsolls. We shake hands , don't bow and she teaches us in her flat without any ceremony the art that has been passed down through her family for generations.

Is that traditional?
[/QUOTE]

Dang skippy.

That's the way more arts should be taught.



Contact Us FightingArts Forums

Powered by UBB.threads™ 6.5.5



Untitled Document
Martial Arts Supplies
Xvest
Xvest with 40lbs. of weights
$198.95
And see the rest of our Weight Vests






Action Ads
1.5 Million Plus Page Views
Monthly
Only $89
Details

Self Defense
Offering stun guns, pepper spray, tasers and other self defense products not available in stores.

Pepper Spray
Online distributor of self defense supplies like videos, stun guns, Tasers and more.

Pepper Spray
Up To 50% Off Stun Guns, Tasers, Pepper Spray, Martial Arts Weapons, Spy & Surveillance Gear, & More

Spy Cameras
Surveillance, Hidden Cameras, Nanny Cams, Digital Recorders, Spy Equipment, Pocket DVR's and more