jubaji

I think you put Judo in the wrong group there, Champ.

__________________
Optional signature you may use to appear at bottom of your posts.

Troll Virus

I can't say as I've come across that mentality a great deal, or to be honest, I'd naturally filter it out.
e.g. I remember talking to a guy after a class who told me he was entering a kickboxing tournament and was confident his Chun was going to assure him victory. He wasn't too chuffed when I told him he'd get creamed.
I usually switch off my ears when people start espousing delusions.
I prefer to focus on what arts 'are', rather than what they are 'not'.
That to me is what is good about the whole JKD thang.
Absorb what is useful etc etc.
Thing is, you'll not hear Inosanto slagging off arts of any description.
They are what they are.
If there is something useful in them, absorb it and move on.

Why do arts have to have a beginning and an end?
They come about through a natural process of evolution.
I spent a few years travelling the UK, training quite deliberately with the best people I could find in different TMA systems and asking those kinds of questions.
Some people do regard their TMA systems as bases to which they build.
Some people can actually demonstrate that reasonably convincingly, while I remain somewhat sceptical.
It's certainly true of many FMA systems, in that there is a systemised approach to footwork and weapon drills which translate to empty hands, but's really the old Nature vs Nurture question wrapped up in an awkward bundle.
How much of what comes out when push comes to shove is developed or natural.

I'd think you were taught the opposite?
Be formless etc.

Is there now a definitive answer to that question?
I haven't seen one, just a lot of theory.

How can you be sure you are innovating if you haven't examined all that exists already?

There are varying states of delusion in every aspect of life on this planet.
I did a survey within the membership of a TMA school once and the majority were there for fun and social reasons, not fighting!
However, I know a local Karate school and the guys most definitely CAN fight!
Now you can look back and say their style originates back to Okinawa and then into Southern Kung Fu styles. In actual fact many of these systems are less than 100 years old, their origins often within living memory.
You have to take a step back and look at the bigger picture to see the evolution, it's just not as black and white as a lot of people would have you believe.
In terms of 'group identity', well yeah you could class CMA systems in that way. There's the idea of 'family', with the father at the head and everyone else being brothers and sisters of that family.
That's something that doesn't exist to the same extent in any other TMA I can think of.

First of all, that's quite a complex subject in itself. I never, ever studied a form all the time thinking how much of a better fighter it would make me.
I did them, because somebody else knew something I didn't.
Therefor I wanted to know what they did.
I also did them because they are fun.
I like watching them because they are interesting and often beautiful, just as you appreciate athletes or ballerinas.
I respect the effort that goes into them and I know that anyone capable of devoting a high level of effort in one walk of life, inevitably can in another.
See, if I know what you know, but you don't know what I know, then I know more than you or vice versa.

I co taught a seminar a few of years back with, a DBMA instructor and a WMA instructor.
I'd been asked to show some odd things, so I showed a short section of a hand form without explaining what it was for.
Thing is, none of the students could tell me, but they'd been doing the exact same movement as an FMA stick strip.
You see, we were 'fascillitated' as students.
We were taught to 'learn', which means even things like forms have useful and interesting things in them if you know what to look for.
It was never handed out to you on a plate, you got a bit of a puzzle to work out on your own.
Babies and bathwater.

Bjjexpertise@be

I only watched two of the "Poison Hand Techniques" but from what I saw am I to assume that most people will tuck their arms in and shoulder charge you so that you can wrap an arm around their neck and claw their face?

__________________
Mike Brewer's 2008 Athleticon Challenge!!!
45563 Pushups Completed
45563 Situps Completed

Mike Brewer

TV,
Red Rum said:


That statement insinuates that the first art is one upon which other things will be built rather than functioning as the "whole" all by itself. That's what I was asking about. I know my own beliefs, and your seem to be similar in terms of what martial arts pursuit means. But I'm not looking for those opinions. I'm looking for the traditional point of view. I'm looking to expand what I know - to learn about things that are foreign or confusing. Your statements are great at serving to reinforce what I already believe, but that's not the point of the thread. Please understand, I'm not crapping on your ideas. They are completely rational, and they are largely the things I identify with already. But it seems as though you are trying to sharpshoot at this thread for things I'm asking about as if they are things I believe or am defending.

In that vein, if you can't add to this discussion along the lines of the questions being asked, please step back and allow those with the kinds of experiences I'm looking to try and better understand to give their input.

This isn't an argument, as you seem to be trying to make it by snipping out quotes and posting rebuttals to them. It's a discussion, which is why all those quotes you're snipping out are generally questions, or rationalizations for questions. Let's keep the thread working in that direction, okay?

SmallThought

G'day Mike & co. I've been following this thread with some interest and would just like to add my take to it.

In the traditional chinese art i practice, we were taught that what we were learn was "how to learn", not "how to fight". The learning to fight was a by product. At risk of repeating myself from another thread, in our system we assert that the principles are the basis of the tradition. The forms and drills are primarily tools with which to develop your understanding of the principle. They are also effective fighting tools applied with in the principles if (and only if) you understand how to interperet and apply them correctly.

Now, just because we say, "shortest distance between two points is a straight line", it doesn't mean you can only throw a straight punch or kick, as some would have you believe. This is difficult to explain with out sounding like i'm trying to deliver an online Wing Chun lesson, which is just rediculous, so to put it simply; sometimes the best way to exploit that straight line between two points is with what looks like, for all intents and purposes, like a hook. Does that mean you are not practicing Wing Chun because you have used this strike? Well, no; because you are within the constraints of the system, being it's principles. Even if you pick apart the empty hand forms, you will find ways to piece together very effective strikes not traditionally "taught" in Wing Chun.

Maybe that was clear as mud when trying to make my point. That being; most people have no concept of what a form or drill is teaching them. Unfortunately, that can be said even for a lot of instructors who teach something because that's what they were taught, even though they don't fully understand it. Focusing on strictly adhering to a set pattern of movements may seem like following formal tradition but this is the unfortunate reality of how traditions are watered down and made redundant. In our traditional art, as i'm sure is the same in many others, the true tradition is understanding what is hidden with in those patterns and how to break it down and rebuild it.... how to decypher it, if you will.

I guess i'm endorsing one of TrollVirus' points here. Assuming that each pattern or form is to be executed in combat as it is practiced is missing the traditional point. A lot of these old guys and gal's were totally paranoid about the "foe" learning their fighting techniques and there by making them in effective (or worse still, allowing them to be used for "evil purposes"... muah ha ha ha ha ha.......), so they encoded the essence of the art with in the set patterns. Not only the movements, but the principles.

Sure, i've seen some forms and thought "what's the point in that?" But it was designed to make me think exactly that. Some things are practiced backwards or in the wrong sequence. If i knew the secrets of it's code, it may well make perfect sense; although i'm sure there are systems that were never any good against anything but the completely untrained attacker. Hence the "my kung fu is better than yours" challenge tradition. Please note it's the superiority of the kung fu, not the fighter, in question; the fighter just being the embodiment of year of practice.

As Troll Virus pointed out, kung fu can be variously translated as "work applied", "hard work", "skill through effort" or "man who is fulfilled through hard work"; it doesn't mean fighting and is applied to any aspect of life where someone achieves high levels of skill through dedicated practice. Wu Shu Kung Fu is the full and correct term for "skill achieved through hard work in the war arts".

Most traditional arts take a very long time to understand and apply; this in itself makes them irrelevant to the person who wants to just learn to fight... and in most cases that's exactly hat the master who designed the training wanted. To understand the art you need to develop as a person and an intellect, not just as a "fighter". It's unfortunate that very few people actually want to do that, or are capable of it; and again that brings up another tradition that has been watered down and lost in the "become a better fighter NOW" mentality of the day... that of carefully selecting students and testing them over time before passing on the key to unlocking the code.

So, after rambling on about my take on "tradition" in martial arts, i'll attempt to briefly adress your original question about the "legitemacy" of the dude on youtube and Trad Martial Arts. I guess he does seem a little "hokey" with that video, but he lives in modern society where he has to make a living and the only thing he is qualified in is martial arts. I found the same problem after training as a full time student for over three years... i was only qualified to teach or be a bouncer; i did both, but had ethical issues with each and that's another discussion altogether.

The guy in the video certainly looks well practiced with the use of his body to trap limbs, reletively fluid movement etc.; even though the moves may seem unrealistic under pressure, with obvious counters. Is realism the key to legitimacy??? If so, no matter how many systems or practical experience you have under your black belt, you will not beat someone with a black belt in the art of the shot gun!!! Would someone offering to teach you how to conceal and correctly wield a sawn-off 12 guage pump action with a pistol grip be considered legitimate??? Imagine classes full of terminator look alikes firing low charge sand bag "shot guns" at each other during "sparring" sessions!??! I have know Special Ops coppers who have trained that way with rubber bullets in their Glocks! To have a debate about what is and is not "legitimate" in a martial art, we must first define what is meant by "legitimate" in the current social climate as related to the martial arts.

Here ends my Sunday morning martial arts ramble; time to go fishing.

Cheers all, have fun.

__________________
Each "whole" is made up of many smaller parts with out each of which it is incomplete: so, to understand a greater concept, one must first focus on a Small Thought!

Shil Lim Tao: Way of the Small Thought

Get back to basics, buddy!!!

Mike Brewer

This one sentence explains more than every other post in this thread. Thank you for the most enlightening post thus far on this topic, SmallThought. In this sense, I can see a great deal of value in the traditional arts, and I can better understand why they choose some of the methods they do.

With regards to the rest of your post, I think the advancement of "technology" has allowed people to go ahead and achieve the "right now" part of learning to fight. If fighting effectiveness is all someone is concerned about, there are genuinely quicker ways to get there than learning to learn and accepting that the ability to fight will come as a distant byproduct. To that end, it makes sense that the people who just want to be able to fight would gravitate toward the quicker (though less "deep") arts and methods, even at the expense of some of the traditional benefits you're talking about. In all honesty, that's why I chose the methods I chose. I couldn't have cared less about any of the other nonsense (that's what I called the rest of it). I just wanted to be able to kick the shit out of people. That's what my martial arts meant to me in the beginning, and the thing that taught me how to learn was a combination of experimentation and a willingness to sacrifice my own safety and well-being in trade. It may not have been the best way for everyone, but I think it led roughly to the same place. Still, the way you explained it, I think I have a better grasp on why some people might choose another way to get there.

In a lot of ways, this discussion runs parallel to another one I recently had about women. I don't understand women. Never have. Don't really want to. But I do respect them. In fact, I adore them. I put them on a very high pedestal for the power they have over most of us guys, and I've always thought that considering them equals was a little insulting to them. The way I figure it, women are the far more capable sex, and they've been controlling us for epochs. I don't open doors for them or stand up when they come in the room because of some outdated, chauvanistic sense of superiority. I do it because I hold women in such high esteem. I don't need to understand them. I just appreciate them and accept that they are way beyond my ability to comprehend. In many ways, I feel the same way about traditional martial arts. The power they have over the people who do them is awesome. It's every bit as real as the power most religions have over their followers. You don't see the loyalty and devotion in us radical modernists as you do the traditional guys. We'll drop a system in a heartbeat if we get our ass kicked by another one (you know what I mean, jubaji), and we'll turn our backs on drills we've done for decades if it looks like there's something better out there. Not the traditionalists! They'll keep right on going with 500 year-old kata using boat oars and shit, just because there are values and ideas in doing such things that they feel are worthwhile. I can't say as I understand that, but I appreciate it. I've never really had a mind for traditional arts, and I guess I'm not sure if that's because I lack the patience or just the cultural identity. I've always been pretty "American" in my approach. I teach in English (I'd rather call it a foot sweep than a Sapu Dalem, and I'd rather say 1,2,3 than ichi, ni, san) and I'm a fan of innovation and improvement. That's why it's so intriguing to me when I hear a traditional instructor say something like "Don't innovate. This is about preservation, not innovation!"

Anyway, thank you for a very lucid, on target post. It really was educational.

SmallThought

Very glad you could take something from that last post, Mike, although i left one aspect only partially explained. With regard to the "learning to fight being a by product"; in a way, it was accurate for me to make this statement, but it can also be misleading.

The techniques and drills we practice are certainly fighting based, although designed for the initiate to understand the dynamics of a situation: such as the effects of force and momentum. What happens to that bit if i push on this bit in this way? Is it different if i push on the same bit in another manner? Modern science calls this physics and bio-mechanics. Learning to understand these things and how to assess them (the learning how to learn) enables an individual to observe what is and isn't effective out of any system, there by being able to absorb and utilise what is useful from each (mixed with what we Aussies call "a little bit of mongrel" is the learning how to fight). As i was taught, this is the essence with which the Wing Chun was embued by it's founders. It is the heart and soul of it's tradition.

I totally agree with you that many modern fighting systems attempt to achieve the same ends, but with out the annoying "traditions" that scare off the "thoughtless youth" and the "would be thug" who just wants to improve his bar fighting or mugging technique. Don't get me wrong; there are those sort of people through out all martial arts, just as there are decent humble folk as well.

To my mind, any martial art; be it traditional or modern; must result in the dedicated practitioner being able to acquit his/her self well in a combat scenario, ie: to survive it with out sustaining a disabling injury. To me, that's what makes an art legitimate. That's not to say that the guy who practices No Kan Doo one hour a week for 8 years should be able to fight off three muggers in a dark alley, as he obviously isn't the dedicated practitioner. This is one aspect i think traditional arts teach above any other, the value of perserverance and dedication.

I'm a traditionalist in many aspects, as i'm one of those guys who says stuff like, "they just can't make them the same anymore". So when choosing a martial art, i went with a "traditional" one. However, i love the innovations that do actually make something stronger, more enduring or more efficient; so i found an art that encompassed these values as well; for me it was Wing Chun, and i have not been disappointed as i feel it has fulfilled my requirements admirably.

Unfortunately, in our society, innovations are usually designed to make something cheaper to manufacture and more disposable to ensure future profits. I think this attitude is also pervasive across the martial arts. Too many people are looking for ways to make a system look more attractive than others; with a view to profit rather than offering any true benefit to the student. Advertising a "martial art" and teaching students "fifteen forms from the secret scrolls of Monkey Mountain" with out teaching them to understand how to fight is definitely not legitimate. By the same token, advertising a "martial art" and teaching the student to beat the hell out of people with out emphasising the real life risk of fighting and incorporating conflict resolution and environmental defense aspects ("watch for the opening" should also translate as "find you escape ASAP"), or in fact the value of perservering until you actually understand how it is supposed to work under what cercumstances is also doing the student a HUGE disservice.

Hopefully that makes some sense. It's a long weekend, maybe i should go fishing again; only caught two brown trout on the fly yesterday!

Have fun all.

__________________
Each "whole" is made up of many smaller parts with out each of which it is incomplete: so, to understand a greater concept, one must first focus on a Small Thought!

Shil Lim Tao: Way of the Small Thought

Get back to basics, buddy!!!

Mike Brewer

Well, I disagree on this point. Most true innovations (things like the telephone, railroads, oil drilling, electricity production, light bulbs, cars, etc) were massively expensive and difficult to produce. They answered old questions in new ways, and were radical departures from the accepted norms. To me, there's a difference between innovation and improving an existing idea. An improvement on a concept might have been doing a kata with empty-hand techniques even though it was devised using weapons. Innovation was someone discovering that you could train a martial artist for speed by getting him to run track. That's where it ties into the thread, I think. In my martial upbringing, I was always taught to look out for and use as many "new techniologies" as I could find. In many ways, that included little tweaks to existing methods and in other instances it meant a radical departure from the norm. My martial arts instructor decided, for example, that a requirement for instructorship in his school would be to show proficiency at rifle, pistol, and handgun safety, marksmanship, and tactics. That was a serious departure from what you find at most martial arts schools even today, and it was seriously different from the norm in the ewarly 90's. Likewise when a boxing coach told me to play more basketball to work on moving my feet. You aren't likely to find that kind of "outsiude the box" thinking in many (all?) traditional martial arts because by definition, they are more concerned with the traditions than the modern improvements.

SmallThought

I would agree with your point that most "traditional" martial arts are too caught up in what they perceive to be tradition to incorporate newer methods of training to enhance the art. Using modern analogues to train, in my opinion, doesn't detract from a tradition, it can enhance it. Training tradition or using modern methods do not need to be mutually exclusive, in fact, each can benefit the other; although that opinion may not be shared by other traditionalists.

By definition, innovation is the process of changing the established way of doing things. To invent is to creat or make up for the first time something previouly unknown. All of your examples where inventions in the 19th century and we are now in the 21st. Sorry if that seems semantic and i don't mean to be contrary, but modern innovation is actually all about cutting cost and maximising profit. Look at computers, a more modern invention; innovation occures so frequently in IT that buying a machine that is truely up to date is practically impossible. By the time you get it home and plug it in, it has been superceded by something twice as powerful that costs the same (or less) to build; that saving in cost wont stop "them" from charging you twice as much for it!!!

My argument is that there is no true invention in martial arts. The examples you gave of your instructors are great innovations and modernisations, but we all (or most) have two arms, two legs, a torso linking them and a head that hopefully contains some modicum of a brain. Over the ages, every way to use those basic tools has been covered and all that is left to us is the sorting of the good from the bad; and finding better ways to train them effectively. Training with knives and guns is an innovation, but it's just a modernisation of training with swords and bows, as it is training with the current weapons of the day.

Even using that same gun/bow analogy: guns just replaced the role of bows because the were cheaper and easier to use in warfare & hunting. Sure, the gun itself cost more, but a little bit of lead and some powder was a lot cheaper and easier to shoot than a hand crafted wooden arrow with an iron head.

Anyway, i'm getting off topic. I do agree, modern fighting styles do, by definition, embrace innovation far more than any traditional system. Although, many traditional training techniques were very innovative in their day. Perhaps traditionalists who refuse to look at other training methods are causing the founders of their system to turn in their graves!??!

Imagine the old masters shouting from the beyond, "you idiots: i did that 300 years ago, can't you see there are better ways to work on speed now!!!" or, "my god, just use the shot gun!!!" Either way, i'm sure their shouts would fall on deaf ears, as you say traditional arts can attract many of the fanciful and fanatical to their ranks. I once met a chinese dude who told me Wing Chun was useless and that he could poke holes in my lungs using only the chi extending from his finger tips. I highly doubted his claim, but didn't ask him to prove it in case he meant that he could stick his fingers through my rib cage! Either way, i was happy to let him live in his delusion or take his secret to the grave! LOL!

__________________
Each "whole" is made up of many smaller parts with out each of which it is incomplete: so, to understand a greater concept, one must first focus on a Small Thought!

Shil Lim Tao: Way of the Small Thought

Get back to basics, buddy!!!

Mike Brewer

I believe I understand where you're coming from on the topic itself, and as I said, it was informative.

However....

Since the topic seems to have run its course, I'll take up this debate.

I still think you're wrong. There are plenty of research projects, from alternative energy projects to medical treatments to methods of mining in outer space that are being undertaken at monstrous cost, that would require major shifts in daily habits and lifestyles, and that by their very design might redefine several aspects of human existence. I think it's pretty jaded to say that ALL innovation is about profit. You're saying that there's nothing going on in the world of invention that's intended to be new, different, or better for any reason other than profits and production? Moreover, are you saying that nothing being invented or redefined by anyone anywhere is being done for reasons of humanitarianism, conservation, or even innovation for innovation's sake?

Sorry, but I believe you're either unrealistically cynical or just uninformed. I live in Washington D.C. and each year here, they have a massive display on the National Mall where inventors get together and try to come up with new and different ways to bring basic human needs to areas suffering from excessive poverty. They do this by innovating - by changing and modifying existing technologies - for use by underdeveloped countries. No profit or even production there. In fact, it's an endeavor undertaken at pretty high cost by the participants themselves, with little to no hope for recouping their expenses.

SmallThought

Fair enough, Mike. I take your point.

In fact, i do admit to being rather cynical when it comes to the motivations and machinations of today's world. I concede that their are projects out there, by people trying to do some sort of good, that are costing buckets of cash which current investors may have little short term hope of recouping.

However, i still believe that totally humanitarian/environmentally motivated, no return funding is extremely rare. With out a personal slight, just as i concede i am overly cynical, I think it a little naive to believe that this cash is being tossed about with out a view to profit when environmental necessity brings these technologies into the mainstream.

Anyhoo... I was just trying to illustrate the mainstream attitudes of a society where everything is a salable comodity subject to cost and profit analysis. Including the "business" of martial arts. Perhaps i over generalised and didn't qualify that there are exceptions, but i still believe these exceptions prove the rule.

Never the less, it has been a good discussion. Thanks for bringing it up.

Have fun.

__________________
Each "whole" is made up of many smaller parts with out each of which it is incomplete: so, to understand a greater concept, one must first focus on a Small Thought!

Shil Lim Tao: Way of the Small Thought

Get back to basics, buddy!!!

Mike Brewer

I agree that a lot of what's done is done for business and profit, but are business and profits not humanitarian? Aren't those things the institutions that allow economies to grow stronger and people to live better? Aren't countries with strong thriving economies better off than countries with poor, weak economies? Not many people are immigrating en masse to places like Ethiopia, Mexico, etc. right? In a sense, that's because their "profits and production" are not good enough to adequately supply a decent standard of living. So they head out for places like Autralia and the US, where people have big businesses and stronger stock markets and steady paychecks.

I didn't mean to insult with my post, and I don't mean to offend now. It's just that I believe it's a dangerous thing to label something like business "bad" even by insinuation. Think about it this way. Even with corrupt, evil people at the helm - even with the most reprehensible cheats and liars running certain businesses - they still manage to provide thousands of workers with food, rent, and clothes for their children. The ones run by good guys are even better at it, with CEOs who donate millions each year to humanitarian funds and charities that would otherwise be a lot worse off. In a sense, the expansion of profits has allowed a single man like Bill Gates to donate more to various charities than tens of thousands of purely civic minded citizens with humanitarian interests have done on their own. As of last year, Gates has given over 28.8 BILLION dollars to philanthropic causes. That's equal to many nations' entire GDP. It would not have been possible without things that made more profits or sped up production. These charities have been mostly organizations dedicated to education and global health, and there's no way they'd have generated that kind of cash flow without Microsoft being such a profitable cost-analysis run business. And that's hardly an exception. Almost every major corporation has charitable causes they give to, and the dollar amounts are staggering. But even if it were an exception to the rule, $28.8 Billion is a heavy exception.

My point is that while you may be right, the whole cost analysis process is nothing more than a useful tool that a lot of martial artists could (should?) use in their own training. Different goals, different costs, and different "profits," maybe, but looked at through the lens of "What am I putting into this vs what am I getting out of it?" some martial artists might find their training benefitted greatly. Some might even find that they've been overly paranoid their entire lives, and they can now kick back a little and just do it because it's fun. An example:

According to the only statistics I could find on the subject, an average of one in four people will have to deal with some type of assault in their lifetime. The legal definition of assault is to be touched by another person without permission. Not attacked, mind you - touched. One in seven will ever deal with a violent assault - battery - in their lifetime. In 90% of those cases, injuries ranged from negligible to minor. No hospitalization or medical care needed. In other words, roughly 0.014% of the population got hurt bad enough to go see a doctor. Now, in an average mugging, the net loss for the victims was roughly $50 or less. The average person spends anywhere from $1200 - $2000 a year for martial arts classes, gear, and seminar fees. Cost Analysis: They're Insane. They're spending 40 times more per year than they might ever lose IF they happen to be in the miniscule percentage of people who ever has to worry about a situation like a mugging coming up in the first place. Vegas dreams about odds like those. Given that people really have far less "need" for self-defense and martial arts than they're led to believe, it might just be that it's okay to do it because you like it. Given that idea, it might just be okay if the system you choose isn't the most lethal brand of killing available, because you're far more likely never to need it than to need it.

Now I know there are people out there who'll talk about the people they know who've been mugged or whatnot. I never said it doesn't happen. Hell, I've been in lots of fights before. All I'm saying is that - statistically speaking - most martial artists can afford to loosen up and relax a bit. That's one time a cost analysis bites the industry in the ass, eh?

Red Rum

Man I go away for the weekend and the busy bees have been to work!

Jubajii - hope you'll forgive me about the Judo comment. I believe that Judo gives very good fundamentals (balance, strong core etc) which is why I mentioned it alongside karate and wing chun. A lot of Judo is laughed at which is a shame because it is a good art and has things you can take away from it

Mike - the trouble with traditional arts is that there is no room to expand
If you are trying to keep an art traditional, you will not add techniques that would make it better, for worry that it will 'water it down'
Therefore it becomes too stale.

It is the same as doing a chemical experiment with the same ingredients. Sure you will improve your lab technique and get a lot of good results. But if you add new ideas and new chemicals, you will get more results and discover new things

It is definately not a good idea for a beginner to mix a martial art with several others at the same time as it gets very confusing. They should be studied piece by piece until one art is understood. Then you can expand upon what you have learnt

Certainly in wing chun, you reach a stage where you are reinforcing techniques you have already learnt rather than learning new techniques
It needs room to grow. And many arts like BJJ fit every well with WC

Mike Brewer

No, I agree. Traditional arts seem to have little practical purpose. That doesn't, however, mean they have no value. The relics I see in museums are generally inferior in performance to modern-day developments, but that doesn't mean I'm ready to throw away everything in the Smithsonian or the Louvre. Preservation, I think, has its place.

I look at it almost like I look at the Boy Scouts. Bear with me, it'll make sense in a minute.

The Boy Scouts, no matter how much it adapts to modern times, still seeks to preserve a set of traditional ideals. Those ideals are the core of being a Boy Scout, and if you handed them to an average teenager today, they might think the list looked a little McGoo. It's easy to look at those things and see Wally and Beaver Cleaver, but the fact is, I think those values are what make a society strong. Get caught up in the rush to innovate, and you lose old principles like that to whatever the current fad might be.

In that sense, I think it takes a balance. In order to be able to fight well, there's no way I'm going to rely on traditional arts. To me, it's the equivalent of using a flintlock rifle in modern war. You're not going to catch me rejecting tanks and bombs and machine guns in modern warfare, and you're not going to convince me that modern methods aren't superior for plain out-and-out fighting. But I can see the value in traditional arts when it comes to other things. I might really enjoy shooting a flintlock rifle (I really do) when my life's not on the line. I might feel a sense of connection with my ancestors if I go hunting with one. That cultural identity might be important to me for a lot of reasons. Likewise, there might be something in a traditional art that really calls to me. Identifying with that in the same context that people did hundreds of years ago might be a great thing for me in terms of values, philosophy, or whatever.

In a nutshell, I think it's important to have both around - so long as you understand for yourself what purpose they serve. I mean, the Yankee Clipper was a fine aircraft in its day, but if I want to fly across the Atlantic now, just go ahead and give me a modern plane. Doesn't mean, though, that I'd turn down a fun ride in an old Boeing 314!

jubaji

No need to apologize to me, I'm not a judoka. But I haven't heard anyone "laughing" at judo in the manner that some do Karate or Kungfu and the like.

__________________
Optional signature you may use to appear at bottom of your posts.