The definition of a traditional martial art

I’m glad we got some clarity on this, thanks. I saw it going in a different direction, and I am glad that I was wrong about it.

 

He was a long time contributor to MAP that runs simulation days that simulate self defence scenarios.
Pressure testing without competition or the classroom is entirely possible

 

@Flying Crane - this forum's MMA guys are generally quite relaxed and not overzealous. We all train for different reasons, I personally just like learning new skills and perfecting them.
We even have a yearly meet up with everyone doing a session on their own style and traditional styles are generally well attended by the MMA inclined folks here

I would agree with David that the ubiquity of MMA has lead to many people being comfortable and confident with trying to fight like they're in the cage (even if they never walked into an MMA gym).

@Tom bayley - ah so you weren't the CMA guy that floored me in high wycombe! MAP has been a great place to meet diverse practitioners!

 

Interesting approach. That’s quite a setup in terms of equipment and such.

 

That’s good to know, and I don’t mean to categorically lump all MMA people into one bucket. I know there are good people and jerks in any group. It seems that sometimes some of the most vocal on the forms can be the jerks and sometimes they systematically derail every forum discussion that they get involved in. Unfortunately the squeaky wheel gets the most notice.

 

For TMA (at least for CMA) has a set of principles. Those principles then map into techniques.

For example,

- Zimen has 18 methods (disability, push, aid, seize, pull, pinch, force, suck, ...).
- Praying mantis has 8 hard and 12 soft.
- Taiji has 13 postures.
- XingYi has 5 elements and 12 animals.
- SC has butterfly hand and 4 sides - 2 doors.
- ...

 

He runs simulation regularly, it's probably not feasible for everyone to run themselves but it's worth trying to go to one of his sim days (or his affiliates) to get some proof of your on skills and training style rather than trust alone.

I think JWT would argue that this set up is traditional in that the founders of his style were always looking to innovate so he is carrying that tradition forward.
But I'm putting words in his mouth! Hahahaha

 

John Titchen is a good example of a traditional martial artist using modern understanding and research within a traditional framework. Creating kata based on habitual acts of violence etc..

Iain Abernethy is another interesting example.

 

My teacher was all for introducing modern training techniques. Modern body Armor allows you to practice many different situations and to pressure test application in a way that would be too risky to practice without the equipment. It is just a pity that it costs so much.

 

just found a nice video on one persons definition of a traditional art.

 

It is my understanding that Ian Abernethy does not create New kata - in stead he looks at existing kata and deconstructs them showing how they contain applications aimed at countering what you might call habitual acts of violence.

 

That's my understanding as well. He serves as an interesting counterpoint to JWT in that respect.

 

Just wanted to point out that I really liked this post and it sums up what my traditional style has been trying to do the last 3-4 years.

While we obviously still train and drill our regular material, they’ve started to work in aspects of MMA to prepare you for the regular joe who’s watched too much ufc or taken a few classes at an mma gym. While thankfully I have not had to use this, it is nice to see the sentiment is being echoed here as well.

 

I think that was me... !

Seems like a very long time ago now in our current pandemic predicament,
maybe we'll (map)meet again in 2021 !

 

Pretty true of Japanese or Korean TMAs, but none of the places I studied traditional CMAs (Yang taiji or wing chun) ever used a uniform beyond a school tee-shirt. Some didn't even have school tee-shirts.

 

I very often hear people say TMA means "not full contact." There are two challenges with this particular definition:

(1) Kyokushin karate is most certainly traditional karate but also must certainly full-contact even without counting the Kyokushin karateka who also compete in kickboxing;

(2) Olympic taekwondo is often classified as traditional (despite its post-WWII history), and is full-contact as well. People often argue that it doesn't count because of the restrictive target areas, but you can win by knockout and there's no penalty for excessive force, so it's certainly full-contact by definition.

 

When I trained in Choy Li Fut back in the early 2000’s we never had a uniform. Eventually had t-shirts after a while. Truth be told, I think it cost my old Sifu his business as many parents of kids who came in thought it was strange. Many places around me now offer a free uniform when you sign up. Marketing ‍♂️.

 

I'm going to throw out an alternative definition. It may not be the most common usage--but the more I try to define common usage, the more I think it's arbitrary and circular.

In fencing (my first combat sport), there are two very different ways of approaching it, even without HEMA. There's sport fencing and classical fencing. Both use the same basic weapons, both can even compete in the same tournaments. But there's a fundamental difference in training methodology and philosophy.

In sport fencing, the sport competition is the end goal. Techniques that don't help you win in the sport competition are discarded. Techniques that work in sport competition are trained, even if they wouldn't have worked with historical blades (such as the flick). Traditional terminology is used only to the extent that it's useful (such as using French terms for the various attacks and parries, so that international competitors are all using the same terms for the same techniques).

In classical fencing, tournaments still exist, and are a way to pressure-test yourself, but preservation of tradition through athletics and competition are the main goal. There's a lot more emphasis on the history of the sport, and particular posture and principles and techniques being taught in the same way they were taught historically. Modern adaptations of sport, such as the pistol-grip, or pommeling with a french-grip, or the flick, are all looked down on compared to fencing the same way the masters did it a hundred years ago.

Classical fencers look down at sport fencers for "playing tag" and "only caring about points"; sport fencers tend to make fun of the goatees and pony-tails that are so common among classical fencers

In my experience, Shotokan is like classical fencing, and Olympic TKD is like sport fencing, even though most people call them both "TMAs". Likewise, Kyokushin would be classical whereas boxing would be sport, even though they're both high-intensity and punishing. Contemporary wushu would be sport and traditional taiji would be classical, even though they're both forms-based arts.

 

Yup Mitlov has the measure of it. Though to be fair we never really had such a divergence in the UK like the US. We never did have a Nick Evangelista character like you guys did who hammered home the supposed superiority of classical, though we had a lot of sports fencers who adhered to classical techniques even when they cost them competitions. That weird grey area cost British fencing lost decades the sport. I think most of the classical guys here have moved over to smallsword in HEMA which I have a great deal of respect for. Incidentally Italian Sport Fencing masters never lost their classical techniques. It's part and parcel of their coaching pedagogy that they have to do Historical training to become a Maestro. Most of them just go through the motions so that can get the certification and then discard the techniques. But 20 years ago when I asked a sport fencing coach there about disarms in old style fencing they were "Oh yeah sure my master taught me them years past" and proceeded to show me about 7 of them (one which I would bet hard cash you have certainly done even accidentally against and opponent with a french grip). I was the first person that ever bothered asking about them in ten years apparently. Disarming of course has no benefit in the sport ruleset.

 

I guess Choy Lay Fut wouldn't be "traditional" by their standards,even tho' it originated in the 1800s.

I have always found any claim for the commonly known systems of Japanese Karate as "traditional" somewhat humorous as these systems did not reach their (sorta) final evolution until the 1950s.That's only 20 years before I began training and yet at that time I had to hear people speak of their "traditional" and "classical" systems. What a laugh.
Not dissimilar to the Korean system you mention below.

That's an odd definition for TKD-things in TKD have changed just since the 1960s,such as when the old (Shotokan) forms were discarded.