Tradition v Progress

Being relatively new to the martial arts (I have been training for a mere 2 years and a month) I am intigued by the constant discussion between thoughs I will term the "traditionalists" and those I will term the "modernists". The crux of the debate is simple. Should a martial art follow the teaching of its founder to the letter and therefore preserve the art as it was originally taught (traditionalist view) or should it be looking to constantly adapt and evolve (modernist view)

I have my own opinions which, as you have probably guessed by now, I will be sharing with you all, but I am interested in what other people have to say first. Please respond to this as it is my first attempt at starting a thread! (Be gentle!)

 

I'LL TRY THAT AGAIN WITHOUT THE SILLY SPELLING MISTAKES! (DOH!)

Being relatively new to the martial arts (I have been training for a mere 2 years and a month) I am intrigued by the constant discussion between those I will term the "traditionalists" and those I will term the "modernists". The crux of the debate is simple - "Should a martial art follow the teaching of its founder to the letter and therefore preserve the art as it was originally taught (traditionalist view) or should it be looking to constantly adapt and evolve (modernist view)?"

I have my own opinions which, as you have probably guessed by now, I will be sharing with you all, but I am interested in what other people have to say first. Please respond to this as it is my first attempt at starting a thread! (Be gentle!)

 

Seems odd that those founders didn't stick to there teachers teachings. They adapted what they learnt, often from more than one source, and taught their interpretation.

Preserving is a fairly modern 'tradition'

I typically make a distinction between traditional approach and classical approach.

Tradition - Follow in the footsteps of the masters

Classical - Seek what they saught

The whole originally taught thing is not practical, things get lost, forgotten, changed, etc. If nothing new goes in and things are going out, you won't have much left after a few generations

 

I agree with that. Im in TKD. The founder of TKD was brought up in Shotokan among other styles. So we know how our style came about. The only thing i try to keep strictly TKD is our forms and our style of kicking. But i like to work and bring in other styles to fill in from what we are missing. (more hand work, join locks and so on) I think sticking to just the tradition of a style is ok, but expanding your mind into more than your style can be better.

Just my thoughts
-Chazz

 

"Tradition, thou art for suckling children; thou art the enlivening milk for babes; but no meat for men is in thee." -- Steven Crane

I think that tradition has its place. It's like walking down a well-trodden path to learn about the various flora and fauna of the region. It's a good way to get the lay of the land ... but this won't make you an "explorer" ... or even a "hiker" ... you're just a hobbyist.

Martial "arts" are, IMHO, are like all other "arts" (be it writing, sculpting, painting, etc.). The "art" should imply self-expression. If you never venture from that well-trodden path then you're not likely to reach a level development where self-expression is possible (though there are exceptions).

So, I think tradition is important. It's like our textbooks in school. They don't hold all the answers but they give us a foundation for understanding the principles so that we can find our own answers in new situations.

Now, to take a tangent from here: Is tradition "necessary"? I don't think so ... provided that the student is given some sort of foundtaion for understanding the underlying principles. Whether that foundation is "traditional" or "modern" is irrelevant so long as it fulfills the requirements of building that foundation.

I think the problem, though, arises when people get mired in tradition. They think the tradition is more important than the self-expression (for themselves and/or for their students).

Mike

 

Perhaps progress itself is a tradition.
The art of fighting without fighting,
The way of no way.

If we compare learning Classical MA to learning say Classical Piano, then we go thru the same system of learning the basics, training them and expanding their complexity. There is a clear difference between Classical Musicians and Pop Musicians. A lot of Classical Musicians can only interpret music that is written down for them. The Musician who learns and plays by ear can construct original pieces.

The MA should build on both concepts, the Tradition as a foundation or perspective, from which to experiment.

The musician who learns to play by himself is usually limited.
The musician who is taught by rote is usually limited.
Every so often an exceptional individual comes along.
We can all learn from each other!

 

Well 'traditionally' martial arts were developed in a need to improve fighting skills (theirs your progress). So is it not just a case of people forgeting where we all can from to start with?

 

Just a quick tip you can edit your own message using the edit button at the bottom right of your message

 

Hummnn,

This is where the concept of SHU-HA-RI is worthwhile- first one has to find a good teacher and then-
Shu- learn from tradition and copy the teacher
Ha- adapt the tradition modifying techniques to suit your body
Ri- transcend the tradition by innovation, put something back

Ozebob

 

Bob's absolutely correct!

To put it a bit differently, how are you going to make "improvements" until you've learned what it is that I'm trying to teach? (Shu)

Then you've got to spend time fiddling and figuring it out for a while. (ha)

Then after you've done that, you can change it a little or radically, to suit your desires. (Ri)

Rob

 

"Hobbyist" ?
Boy, them's dangerous words!

:woo:

Interesting though, I've seen far more dilettante's in the American Eclectic schools in my area than in the "Traditional" schools. Their enrollments are far larger than the traditionalists.

Excellent analogy. So, to connect it to your first thought, only Jazz musicians or New Wave are the true "Working Men" of music. Classical Musicians, like Yo Yo Ma or Itzak Perlman are "hobbyists",by your definition, since they're not venturing from that well-trodden path of classical music (only playing what's written). Poor fellows, "they're not likely to reach a level of development, where self-expression is possible." I wonder if Messr's Perlman and Ma and any other member of a symphony orchestra are aware of their fate? :cry:

 

You've got a fallacy there, I'm surprised that it obviously escaped you.

Clearly you've met many people who could "play by ear" but, who couldn't "construct an original piece"? Or have you just not been around that long? I've encountered many.

On the other side, of the coin, have you ever heard of Henry Mancini or John Williams? These were all classically trained musicians. Mancini was a prolific composer (Theme from Peter Gunn, Theme from the Pink Panther). Surely, you've heard the theme from Star Wars? You did watch the Olympics without the volume turned down? Well, that's John Williams' baby.

In reality, the true innovators are relatively rare regardless of their backgrounds (Traditional/Classical vs. Eclectic/Modern).

You have a great point there in your first paragraph here, then you come darn close to invalidating it in your next paragraph. Good use of of what we used to call in my college English class of "weasel words" ("usually").

Seems that what you're trying to say, and quite nicely, I might add, is:

"The MA should build on both concepts, the Tradition as a foundation or perspective, from which to experiment. Every so often an exceptional individual comes along. We can all learn from each other!"

That's beautiful, and right! So, why not just say that. Why cloud it with a sweeping generalization that's inherently false, despite the use of "usually"?


Rob

 

These question mainly to Kosokun!

Why are there so many styles of Karate?
Why are there so many organisations within Tae Kwon Do?

It is very difficult to put down our thought on paper, as we cannot totally communicate on every level through that medium. I struggle with it, just the same as everyone else here does. It his far more constructive to say; 'what do you mean by that?' than to quote out of context with a flawed interpretation.

I use the Musician comparison because I am a classicaly trained pianist. I am also an original composer! My artistic side if you like.

I use the word usually as I can't speak for everbody. There are exceptions to every rule.

I use 'cloudy' metaphors because I am trying to promote discussion. I'm not trying to force my point of view on anyone.

If I quote you out of context here for example, your post could be deemed offensive!

As to how my phallus could escape me, you've completely lost me there.

In memory of a once fluid man........................:Angel:

 

Yes ... because, unfortunately, most people (at least in America ... I can't speak for other nationalities) tend to look for the easy road. They take "eclectic" to mean hodge-podge. An "eclectic" should be cohesive. Regardless of what it pulls from, the system should be put together in such a way that the elements blend and work with each other. Some "eclectic" systems aren't very good because the founder didn't tie the elements together very well. Other times a student isn't very good because he/she is too lazy to develop the ties between the elements.

To train in one thing and another and take something from each and teach them both is not cross training or making an eclectic system. It's like taking all the ingredients of a cake and dumping them in a bowl without regard for proper measurements and mixing order. You end up with a bowl of useless slop, not a bowl of cake batter.

Proper cross training means learning *why* the different recipes work and learning to modify the measurements and mixing procedure to end up with an "eclectic" cake that actually tastes good but is different from the original recipes you took elements from.

Not at all. Self expression need not be improvisation. Self expression can be found within the tradition (or, classical music to stick with the analogy).

Look at the difference between a high school pianist playing Beethoven's 5th and Liberace playing it. They're playing the same notes ... but what they do with them is world's apart because the (average) high school pianist is playing by rote and hasn't found his/her personal expression within it.

Yup ... your last sentence very eloquently sums up my meandering post

Mike

 

Interesting comments..

I have often seen the old cliche on various MA sites where the instructor says they have taken the best from different arts to create a new and better art for all.

They often say they have taken from various styles withing an art or different elements from various arts to create a more balanced art.

To me it simply means they did not stay in their original art long enough to learn what it contained, or they chose a poor teacher in the first place.

Am I wrong?

Regards,
Ozebob

 

Ooh, really good questions!

Well, from a historical context within karate, a lot came from the teaching methodology in karate. The entire notion of codifying stances, ect. is a relatively new development in karate. It came about some time after the advent of karate instruction to large groups, and the adoption of the concept of "Do" by karate instr's. Prior to this, from all accounts, karate instruction occurred in the form of private or semi private lessons. The emphasis in training appeared to be "battlefield utility" (what I call "Jutsu") as opposed to the emphasis becoming that of polishing one's character. So, prior to the codifying of stances, techniques and methodologies into "styles", you had people learning to protect themselves agianst various common acts of violence. So, if you or I were in the same class, observing our teacher, we might come up with slightly different ideas of what he was doing, because we each bring different backgrounds to the table. Hopefully, these differing ideas would be effective, in application, and would suit each of our differing temperments and body types. If, later on, we take on students ourselves, we get a sort of "technique teleponeitis" occuring where the the methodologies and techniques start to diverge from what our teacher was doing. Since we're now seniors, we become the heads of our new traditions. So, you and I have, in this illustration become style heads. If we now codify our methods, we indeed give birth to new, although perhaps similar, styles.

If we look at Wado Ryu, for example and compare it with Shotokai or JKA Shotokan, we can get an idea of what I'm trying to get across. Ohtsuka, was a student of Funakoshi, as was Egami, Gima, et al, yet their styles are different.

Does that make any sense?

Money springs to mind. If you think about it, the whole karate organization thing is much like a pyramid scheme.

A pun!! I love it! LOL!
Good one!

Rob

Ps. at least for me, you've done marvelously at spurring discussion! Thanks!

 

We have all seen the 'old cliche' you mention here Bob, so I would say you are not wrong!

There is a common problem with crosstrainers 'dissing' the core trad guys, and saying yeah I tried that for two whole months, and it don't work. I have to say that I hear more Trad guys dissing freestylers, than I do the reverse.

Personally I agree that a trad system is important as a foundation for any MA practice, but I can't enforce that ideal on anyone! Should anyone?

Andy

 

Mike,

Excellent post.

This has been my observation as well.

Ooh, that's good. Can I steal.....er.... borrow that?

Exactly right!

I couldn't agree with you more. Boy, you put that well!
It stirs my dander when people equate "traditional" with "Stagnate" or Antiquated, outmoded and stifiling. You expressed it wonderfully! There is opportunity for self-expression in not only classical music, but traditional martial arts as well.

Yes, and not only that, but look at the difference between say Itzak Perlman and Yehudi Menuhin playing the same arrangement of the same piece. They ain't the same. Each expresses themselves within the music, uniquely, despite playing the same notes.



Again, wonderful analogies. Good post.

Rob

 

Andy,

What do you mean by enforce that ideal on someone? In a free society, where people are free to leave and go elsewhere, how can we enforce or impose anything on them? I don't think I'm understanding you here. (My fault, sorry)

Rob

 

Enforce by persuasion on forums such as these. Debate is trying to convert others to your point of view, In this context I mean lead the less informed to agree with my views by persuasion.

No blame is being apportioned, so no apology is necessary.

In a Nutshell; I have one view, but please put forward your own.

Andy