Tradition vs New Age Combat

[bodhisattva]

[QUOTE=martialartist88]

He won't say "Sensei doesn't teach us that, he says that will get us killed on the street. I believe Sensei more than I believe my bloody nose" A traditional martial artist generally WILL say that - and he'll go back to his Kata claiming that if he does them for a few more years he'll REALLY turn the tables on me.QUOTE]

Traditional or Modern, it makes no difference in the way people fight. The way you fight is acquired from real fighting experience. You stated that traditional martial artists will bound themselves with what they are taught. Would that mean your saying that boxers will ONLY punch in real life situation since they are never taught to kick? hmm.. that questions me. Fighting is fighting. What you are taught, is what you are taught. You can be taught the best fighting technique in the world, but it all come down to experience. Oh yeah, you also mentioned about Katas. Katas arn't taught as a way of fighting you dimbo, they are forms to guide you, and make you aware of the motions of the action. But if katas were a way of fighting, I guess fighting against your own shadow can also kick some ass.. or even better, showing your opponent your cool footwork, that may impress them and scare them off.

-JON

Dimbo?

Look, bud, you aren't even disagreeing with me, so why are you resorting to calling me a "dimbo" - whatever the hell that is.

Do you often make long posts agreeing with people, calling them names the whole time?

Maybe in your school kata aren't taught to teach people to fight, but in every tae kwon do and karate and kung fu class I EVER TOOK they were taught for that reason, just like these people keep saying.

Everything you said AGREES with me, do you get this? You are ARGUING *MY* point for me. And you are doing it as if you are arguing against me.

Do you even realize this?

Jesus.

[Danny T]

Tradition vs New Age

Gentlemen, you make some very good arguments however, I feel some are simply beating a dead horse. Without having an agreed upon definition for “Modern, New Age, and Tradition” you will continue to argue many of your points to no avail.

Modern is defined by Webster’s as, “Pertaining to the present or recent period, not ancient. With this in mind, what is recent? If not ancient, what is ancient?

Ancient, “Existing or occurring in times long gone by, especially before the fall of the Roman Empire of the West, in the year 476. Belonging to or having existed from a remote antiquity; of great age. (Most all of what is today considered martial art is after that time.)

Recent: pertaining to not long past. (This can only be considered based upon one’s perspective. What is not long past to a 20 year old is not the same as a 60 year old.)

Tradition: “The transmission of knowledge, opinions, doctrines, customs, practices from generation to generation, originally by word of mouth or shown by example. (hmm, seems most all so called martial arts are tradional, even today’s boxing and grappling.)

New Age: I can only assume to be of just recent. Maybe the last 100 years?

So if we are discussing Tradition vs. New Age Combat we should be discussing combat taught by word of mouth and example vs. combat taught within the past 100 years. What I wonder is what is different in how that is done? The combat I learned using “Modern” techniques not only in my martial arts classes but also in my military combat classes were taught by books as well as by word of mouth and example. So was I taught traditional, modern, or new age combat?
What I was not taught was “art” I was taught combat and this is where the problems lie for many of us. Today martial art has many different definitions. It is an art form, it is a fighting form as well as a combat form (there is a difference), it is a sport form, it is a philosophy form, it is a religious form as well as many other forms. If we do not accept that many are in the martial arts for all these varies reasons we will never agree to what is martial art and therefore what is the most practical method of training. If I am training for sport and only sport the methods needed are adjusted to meet the need for that environment. If I am training for art only (showmanship) ie: Kata or Breaking then the train method will be adjusted once again. If I train only for combat (to take the lives of as many combatants as I can without losing my own then the training will be based upon that. If my training is for religious enlightenment then the training methods for most all certainty will be different.

One of the major problems with all of this occurs when practitioners as well as instructor’s, trainer’s, guide’s, master’s or whatever attempt to make their training all inclusive without making the necessary changes to accommodate the different needs. Fighting imaginary opponents in the air (kata), doing choreographed moves with a willing partner (demos) as an art form will never prepare you for the physical and psychological aspects of taking another’s life. Fighting in a sport environment will help however it is far removed from true combat where the combants are engaged for the sole purpose of taking the others life. Then there is the Self-Defense aspect which many schools supposedly instruct in. Unfortunely most only state they teach self-defense when what they are teaching is fighting skills. Fighting can be a form of self-defense but is only the last resort. Most do not teach defusion or de-escalation. They do not teach body language skills or environmental awareness. If your training doesn’t address these and many others such as criminal and civil repercussions then you are not training in Self-defense.

So what does all this mean?
In my view what is important is to understand what you are training for. To research, question, and verify the answers given through real time experimentation by yourself not by someone else’s account and make any adjustments needed as they are needed. If your instructor doesn’t allow questions then I would certainly question his or hers validity. On the same note if they have all the answers I would again question their validity. Don’t simply accept what someone states as the truth. Do your research for yourself and use the methods proven to advance what you are training for.

Danny T

[HtTKar]

Good post Danny T.

[CKD]

Traditional and new age are very broad categories. For example many people consider the "reality self defense arts" to be modern but are most of them any good? Not really and yet most consider bjj to be a modern martial art and it is very effective. Judo could be considered traditional but it is very widely known as an effective art. Also if traditional means that it does not change than how many arts would be traditional? Nearly every style has changed somewhat.

[Cobra_nVidia]

[QUOTE=bodhisattva]

Maybe in your school kata aren't taught to teach people to fight, but in every tae kwon do and karate and kung fu class I EVER TOOK they were taught for that reason, just like these people keep saying.

I don't recall, as you have implied, saying Kata "teaches you to fight"

Karate Kata are, essentially dances. In fact, if you took Karate under a good "traditional" Okinawan intructor, they would explain this.

I said Kata enhance breathing, balance, and speed. You haven't argued against them. Instead, you confuse EFFICIENT and USEFUL. Karate Kata, or most Kata, are not efficient. You can do what you learn in a Kata more efficiently. So, of course, those interested only in fighting don't need it. But they do teach breathing, balance, and speed. That's what I use Kata for. Most people that win championships don't know anything about breathing, balance, and speed. They just whip out flashy techniques.

Do Kata teach fighting? No, they do not teach techniques. It was originally up to the owner of the Kata to teach the applications. These applications were based on fighting. But, now, people try to play it the other way around. They look at a Kata and say, "how would I apply this to a real situation?"

That's not what Kata were for. You don't come up with your own strategies from someone elses movements. You don't develop your own techniques, unless, of course, you have actually fought in life or death confrontations - a lot of them - in which case you should use your experiences to enhance your "style".

I have seen people justify Japanese style punching over my Okinawan style. Yet they don't actually compare the two. They don't even think to hit a pad and ask the holder which punch hurts more. Nor do they practice it in a sparring match and see how all the movments, all of the sudden, have basic, effective meanings. The Okinawan Karate (Sui-tee) punch was based on the fighting experience of Sokon Matsumura, and Chikudan Pechin Sakugawa (if he did exist), but it was also based on boxing, which is at least as greece. The way you punch Okinawan style is simply a more powerful method than the original bare-knuckle striking.

Perhaps I have screwed up again. Maybe there are too many words or paragraphs for you to read through. I don't care. I'm still gonna respond to your stupidity.