Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Traditional Martial arts for self-defense?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Traditional Martial arts for self-defense?

    I think TMA can be good for self-defense, but it is not allways taught to emphasize fighting or self-defense.

    1. If its moves can be done against a resisting, dynamic opponent. For example, the volunteer doesn't allways have to give his arm, lock his elbow while punching or attack like a 2-move robot.

    2. If its moves can be executed while moving freely without assuming stances that are not mobile. For example, you don't have to assume a deep horse stance or any stance called hungry tiger catches a bunny etc.

    3. It gets the student familiar with being hit or grappled.
    4. It emphasizes basic conditioning.
    5. It teaches how to deal with several opponents and how to escape.
    6. It deals with striking and grappling ranges.

    Some TMAs that I think fit in this category:

    Silat, Wing Tsun, Kenpo, Karate (Kyokushin, Shorin, Isshin), Judo, Hapkido, Muay Thai and Japanese Jujitsu.

    Keep in mind, you are not going to be defending yourself against Chuck Liddell or Randy Couture on the streets.

  • #2
    if you change a traditional art then it is not a traditional art

    Comment


    • #3
      Judo and Muay Thai aren't really TMA's they are martial sports. But I think they are great for self-defense because they get you accustomed to real fighting. Sure there are some rules for safety, but for the most part they are great for self-defense. And Judo isn't really that old at all.

      Comment


      • #4
        Tom I'd add FMA's in there too, though I suppose they aren't considered "traditional" really. But many have only recent emerged from the battlefield, and hence, haven't undergone enough change to really be considered "modern".

        In response to Platinum Angel, well, a number of the arts that Tom mentioned haven't necessarily been changed while addressing the points Tom brought up.

        Of course I do have something of a problem with the notion of traditional. Our notion of traditional ma's is actually backwards. What we often think of as traditional ma's are really highly derived, modern arts. For instance, if we take something like Shotokan Karate, the epitome of "traditional' martial arts, you actually have an art that is only about 100 years old, and has been domesticated and stripped of its combat roots. Likewise, TKD, is a modern art, with very derived and peculiar training methodologies for a "combat" art. For what traditional training methods might look like, things like Silat (while having been modernized in some ways by the de Thouars), Kali, Bando are probably representative. These arts were used by people to fight on a regular basis, in life and death battles, up until the last couple of decades (maybe even up to the present day). People who have to fight to live don't waste time with ineffective training methods--they can't afford to or they will be dead. So in that sense Tom I think you are right on in picking those particular traditional arts.

        Comment


        • #5
          I agree with Tom.

          Traditional MA can teach you some good self defense. The systems as a whole do not focus on SD, and anyone claiming that they do should be viewed with heavy skepticism (IMO)

          If you're primary and sole objective in MA is 'self defense' then you'd probably want to go with a more 'non traditional' approach.

          A lot of schools in the valley claim to teach self defense. The major problem I see is that everyone has their own definition of what 'self defense' actually represents.

          The laws from state to state are very vague no one I've talked to can give me a working definition. If/When I run my own school I will teach (and only claim to teach) Jujutsu.

          Sorry to co-opt the thread into my own ramblings....

          Spanky

          Comment


          • #6
            Spanky where do we, by now, put Kenpo Karate, trad or modern?
            Let's take Parker Kenpo since their founder is dead and I think development will halt because of that ( was PKK changed the last 10 years of Parkers life?)

            Ashihara, Enshin and Kokushin karate are fighting based but then again not modern not traditional

            Modern arts like MT give you fighting experience but the trad arts at least spend some tim on SD including the so called dirty tactics


            So one hast the body the other the mind to do porper SD
            if only traditional arts could go full contact

            Comment


            • #7
              BJJ is a traditional art. They have so much in common with karate and Judo including wearing a gi and having lineage that means something. I don't think changing a traditional art makes it any less traditional. Shimabuku took what he felt was good about Shorin, added some Goju and what he learned about combat from Motobu, and moving what he felt were the most effective basic techniques from beginner kata into the upper and lower body excercises. With all that I still think Isshinryu falls into the traditional category. Every art has been changed within the last 100 years so if change makes something modern then traditional arts are all dead.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by brokenelbow
                BJJ is a traditional art. They have so much in common with karate and Judo including wearing a gi and having lineage that means something. I don't think changing a traditional art makes it any less traditional. Shimabuku took what he felt was good about Shorin, added some Goju and what he learned about combat from Motobu, and moving what he felt were the most effective basic techniques from beginner kata into the upper and lower body excercises. With all that I still think Isshinryu falls into the traditional category. Every art has been changed within the last 100 years so if change makes something modern then traditional arts are all dead.
                Every traditional arrt once was modern, Simabuku changing tradition, also started his own school/style so he didn't change tradition, he stepped away from it

                Appart from Judo which is both Art name as Stylename, most japanese arts have different schools, whos techniques might differ greatly, but are the same art because they use the same weapon
                Tradition is that you do not change anything unless you are the founder or direct family of the founder if he is dead
                The latter isn't done either, out of respect

                Karate in itself isn't traditional nor is it modern, specific styles are
                Changing your Kagizuki into aboxingstyle hook, aand incorporating the groundfight doesn't mean you have to drop the name Karate, it is still emptyhanded

                If you stop doing what is traditional to your people, you can't be called tradtitional can you even though you are still one of your people

                Comment


                • #9
                  Then instead of traditional would the term classical be better?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I think that the definition of what constitutes traditional / classical is thoroughly blurd.

                    Many here would say that Aikido is classical or traditional - but it is not in my opinion it is a modern art, based on a classical system, Much like Judo, BJJ, MT, etc etc.

                    cheers
                    chris

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      so toudiyama if you incorperate bjj and judo into shotokan karate are you telling me that it can still be traditional karate. i think there is a fine line where at one side is taking the essence of an traditional art and the other is just simply adding techs. the only arts i think that can be changed so dramatically are ones like JKD where the idea was originaly supposed the change and adapt with the times.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        you incorperate bjj and judo into shotokan karate are you telling me that it can still be traditional karate. i think there is a fine line where at one side is taking the essence of an traditional art and the other is just simply adding techs.
                        Considering that Funokoshi taught Kano one of Judos fundamental throws it sure would still be traditional karate, maybe even more traditional than it is now. Adding ideas, concepts and techniques like those found in BJJ is really nothing new to karate. The main thing would be how it was integrated into the style, not that it was integrated.

                        the only arts i think that can be changed so dramatically are ones like JKD where the idea was originaly supposed the change and adapt with the times.
                        That also describes most other styles. Shotokan was changed from it's Shorin roots to reflect the Japan of it's times. Most every style of traditional art was developed as a reaction to some other art that itself was a reaction to something. I'm LOL at the JKD remark as there are many in the JKD world that are as traditional if not more traditional and orthodox in what they do than alot of so called traditional stylists.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          yes I think you can still call it karate, karate already had standup grabling ( that where you make a joke and grab him ;-) )
                          anbd takedowns, adding some groundwork doesn't alter it too much
                          With Karate you shouldn't forget that what we see as karate is the wtered down version of it
                          If you take Koryu Uchinadi (Old school Okinawan Martial Art)
                          then you will see that Karate probably was just as alround as many JJ styles, early Judo didn't have groundfighting either but the name wasn't changed when it was incorporated
                          Wado even has Idori Waza= kneeled fighting sequences but those probably came from the Shindo Yoshin Ryu JJ

                          But as I have stated earlier, Karate isn't 1 style, so why wouldn't I add anything, change the stylename and still call it Karate, BJJ probably has focussed more on striking since the start of UFC than in all the years before, but according to Royce, it doesn't have those, still it is called BJJ or GJJ

                          BTW it can be karate/ not traditional because you should change the Traditional stylename

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            so toudiyama if you incorperate bjj and judo into shotokan karate are you telling me that it can still be traditional karate.
                            Is Isshinryu Karate a more traditional form of karate? I studied it for a little bit about 8 years ago, and it was the first time I was introduced to throws and armbars. I didn't do it for very long, but now that I think back on it, there was some Judo involved.

                            I checked out the instructors website recently and he now has 1 class a week dedicated to grappling.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              tradition

                              1 : an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom)
                              2 : the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction
                              3 : cultural continuity in social attitudes, customs, and institutions
                              4 : characteristic manner, method, or style



                              Considering that Funokoshi taught Kano one of Judos fundamental throws it sure would still be traditional karate, maybe even more traditional than it is now. Adding ideas, concepts and techniques like those found in BJJ is really nothing new to karate. The main thing would be how it was integrated into the style, not that it was integrated.
                              yes it would still be karate in that case. adding ideas, concepts and tech from other arts would be leaning away from the original establishment. your right it wouldn't be new to karate. would you consider karate taught at a mcdojo karate? i wouldn't because it has crossed that thin line in which it has strayed off in the wrong direction. and how it was integrated into an art or pattern of thought is how the art became. now if you adopt another pattern of thought away from the original it does not become traditional anymore.

                              That also describes most other styles. Shotokan was changed from it's Shorin roots to reflect the Japan of it's times. Most every style of traditional art was developed as a reaction to some other art that itself was a reaction to something. I'm LOL at the JKD remark as there are many in the JKD world that are as traditional if not more traditional and orthodox in what they do than alot of so called traditional stylists.
                              yes lot of arts were developed as a reaction to some other art or event in history. but after that do you think they called it the same thing or they strayed off into other braches or new arts by themselves. and even if they called it the same thing they were wrong for doing so. the great thing about JKD, is first it is not an art its a philosophy and second is it is truly up to the individual to make his or her on road or follow dfferent roads. you are esentially water in JKD. so please don't LOL

                              i think i have addressed you as well toudiyama if not then inform me

                              same to you poop

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X