Non-Competitive Traditional Martial Arts

pearsquasher

Seeing as a previous thread went the usual tired route of turning into a "sparring match" over what defines an MA, what "tradtional" means, check-out-this-sports-martial-art etc etc....lets keep this one simple :

If you feel you do whats commonly referred to as a Tradtional Martial Art with less emphasis, or indeed none, on the competiton and more on actual combat and/or spiritual refinement and/or self-development and/or all of the above, then you should post your experiences, thoughts here.

I'm talking Ju-jutsu, aikijutsu, kung fu, bang qua, taichi, aikido, trad. karate etc etc. Are there any Classic Japanes "Ryu" folks out there? Any with weapons? Have you travelled to learn from masters? How much does the history help/influence you? I just want to get an idea of whats happening in Ireland on this front although i suspect i'm on the wrong forum.

vasch_ro

but i'm not sure that the history does help you
could u provide an example of how it helps you please?

vasch_ro

and as i pointed out in your other thread
aikido and the japanese Karate styles are actually quite recent arrivals in Japan itself karate coming to japan in the early 1900's and aikido developed by "O"sensei slightly later than this.

There are stories about how "O" sensei the founder of aikido took on american special forces commando's who were trained in "Kill Skill" and defeated them all easily as an elderly man but thats all they are stories.............

again could u provide examples of what u mean

Kevin_rc_ie

pear,

could you tell me what "martial art" you "study" for how long? is it bujikan?

pearsquasher

Yep... karate and aikido are recent enough in their present form from what i've read but i've also read they they come from arts that aren't so recent and that some of these .. like Daito Ryu for Aikido, are till studied to some degree, even in the West and was wondering does anyone out there study them. (In case anyone jumps the gun, i'm not saying that Aikido is better or worse than the TMA it came from, it simply evolved along a different path in a different era)

Bujinkan's traditionalness... for it itself is a modern art born out of 9 TMA's, helps me appreciate why certain techniques are done.
Once i appreciate why they are done and realise the context from which they came - a bygone age from a totaly different culture, i can see how the principles behind a tradtional technique are perfectly applicable today in our culture.


Example: One of the well know schools in the Bujinkan we study is Tokagi Yoshin Ryu which evolved into a sort of bodyguard school in a certain more peacefull period in Japan. Some techniques are done seated and some against a chap wearing 1 or 2 swords. These things contain principles of distance and timing that can be extended to any one of numerous modern applications... standing at a bus-stop, sitting beside somebody, someone reaching for weapons etc. The context of traditional setting extends naturally into the "now" - human psychology ain't changed much. Obviously no-one carries swords in Western Europe but its interesting to do techniques with and against them to understand better distance and timing.... ideas that always apply, no matter what the era.

Thats one example i've seen. There are many more and lots yet to discover. It's this discovery that stimulates me to study a TMA... not winning competitions or even fighting. I sort of wondered was there anyone out there with the same inclination?

Where our culture in the past failed to carry the lessons learned in fighting into the future through lineages and family's, oriental culture had the inbuilt necessary tradtions of documentation and family loyality to successfully hold on to and transmit tried and tested martial arts. Its such a strong part of TMA's that it must inform the practicioner in their daily training.

FYI:
- Bujinkan proper member 2 years
- BBD 5 years
- Kung Fu 2 years

dudara

Obviously no-one carries swords in Western Europe but its interesting to do techniques with and against them to understand better distance and timing

I think most martial arts teach you defense. You can study a martial art and not go to competition if you want. It's your choice. But I think the reason most of us go to competition is to test what we learn. Some people only take up a martial art for the fighting aspect and they're entitled to do that if they want.

What I think I'm trying to say is that you make what you want out of your art.

Cake Fiend

This doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I study Shotokan karate for example. Shotokan competitions are what I'd call 'sport karate' or more like a game of high-speed tag than fighting. But when I train in the dojo, I train to maximize the effectiveness of a technique. So is shotokan sports MA? Is it 'traditional' karate? What about other martial arts that incorporate both hard-fightin' budo basics and safe sparring?


Note on the below: I haven't read through the previous thread because it turned into the usual 'my MA is better' BS, so if the next paragraph has already been discussed to death, please ignore:

[What the hell is 'traditional' anyway - surely a martial art that has evolved and improved over time is more effective that what was practiced two hundred years ago? I've watched videos of 'old-skool' karate and it was slow and crap. Modern karate is fast and dynamic. Is it less worthy because of this?]

columok

Note on the below: I haven't read through the previous thread because it turned into the usual 'my MA is better' BS, so if the next paragraph has already been discussed to death, please ignore:

Its a bit presumptuous to speculate on the course of the thread without having read it.

like Daito Ryu for Aikido, are till studied to some degree, even in the West

Real Daito Ryu is very rare and is often just Aikido with other bits tacked on! Also the doctrine in Daito Ryu is significantly different to Aikido. Aikido in a sense could be considered an evolution of Daito Ryu!

Where our culture in the past failed to carry the lessons learned in fighting into the future through lineages and family's, oriental culture had the inbuilt necessary tradtions of documentation and family loyality to successfully hold on to and transmit tried and tested martial arts.

Western martial arts tend to be quite effective and dont tend to mire themselves in tradition and they are certainly tried and tested!

What the hell is 'traditional' anyway

Tradition implies lack of change, stagnation and therefore lack of evolution. Once the requisite pressures are in place then evolution should indeed improve a martial art. If the martial art becomes too geared towards unrealistic competition then the martial art becomes less effective eg. points kickboxing! Back in the day, in feudal japan, samurai trained to fight and had to use there training on a day to day basis. You can bet that they sparred and fought and tested and evolved their fighting systems as the alternative was to lose in battle and likely die.

The real lesson from history should be learn, adapt and evolve! If you learn a lesson from every mistake in combat (or otherwise) you should be back to the drawing board (gym, dojo, dojang) and figuring out a) what went wrong and b) how to make sure it doesnt happen again!

Samurai sparred, ninja sparred, shaolin monks sparred, thai warriors sparred, greeks sparred, romans sparred, barbarians sparred, celts sparred... Lessons from history eh???

pearsquasher

So is shotokan sports MA? Is it 'traditional' karate?

You tell me. :rolleyes: I don't know anything about it.

About that footage that you felt was slow/crap. Have you asked your instructor about the old style? Have you delved into the history/tradition of Shotokan with your instructor or books or anything? Perhaps you're not interested in that? Do you know people in the art who are or has everyone you train with just ignored this part of it or felt it was of no benefit?

I'm not saying anything against Shotokan at all here - as i don't know much about it outside of reading - just wondering do you take much stock in its traditions? I believe it's always been competitive but maybe the training style has changed since it hit the West or moved forward in time. Is there anything you do it in that seemed at first to be "esoteric" and "tradtional" but you relaised - "oh yeh... i see what that means now". Perhaps a kata, a straining drill, a skillset or a technique in itself?

It's good to start hearing from people about this.

dudara

Is there anything you do it in that seemed at first to be "esoteric" and "tradtional" but you relaised - "oh yeh... i see what that means now". Perhaps a kata, a straining drill, a skillset or a technique in itself?

In TKD, as in karate, as in other martial arts, everything has a purpose, and as you learn the pattern or kata, your instructor should be teaching you the purpose of the movement as well. This is the traditional aspect of the martial art. The patterns evolved as a means of practising strikes and defences without actually having to fight someone. If you don't know what each movement in a pattern does, how can you ever hope to execute effectively.

Every martial art has a traditional part, but they should also be developing and evolving as well.

Cake Fiend

I didn't read the previous thread thoroughly, but I had a scan through it when it was first up

I'm posting about Shotokan as it's my personal experience, but I tried to make my point in as general a way as I could. Of course, modern fighting systems/MAs have bases in traditional fighting methods somewhere along the line - you have to have something to begin from; what I don't personally understand is some martial artists' desire to learn exclusively the 'traditional' forms of [insert MA here] - at least from a fighting point of view. Naturally, it makes sense to hold on to tried-and-tested techniques, but I would imagine that modern forms of serious martial arts (not sport-ified MAs) should surely be more effective now, after decades/centuries of refinement and improvement, than they were a hundred or more years ago. For example, MA discussion boards all across the internet regularly play host to scientifically-based discussions of the most effective bone alignment in a punch, etc. This kind of thing would be hard to argue factually a couple of hundred years ago, without modern knowledge of biomechanics.

Now if someone has a purely sentimental or recreational interest in a 'traditional' form of an MA, I can understand that. It's the functionality of these traditions that I question. It's healthy to be skeptical!

Funnily enough, most martial artists, especially karateka, would probably tend to think of Shotokan as a sports-oriented MA; most likely because of our tournament sparring (and kata to some extent). This is unfortunate, as tournament sparring (which in many opinions is of questionable practical use) is only one small face of Shotokan - there are plenty of Shotokan karateka out there who are working more towards the functional (I'm hesitant to use the word 'traditional' here!) aspect of their art in basic training and kata. I'd tend to think of Shotokan as either martial or sports-oriented, depending on the individual's priorities (either fighting or winning competitions). It's a modern form of traditional karate...


As a side note, apparently, Funakoshi (the founder of the Shotokan style) was against sparring because he felt it would weaken the art - i.e. either attacks would have to be made weaker so that people wouldn't get seriously injured, or certain attacks (nerve strikes, joint breaks, etc) would need to be disallowed, leading to these techniques being laid by the wayside in favour of fancy tag games. I'd like to think of this as his way of trying to keep the emphasis on the martial aspect of karate, while still allowing it to evolve in the future.

pearsquasher

Sico... good to hear from someone who seems interested in the traditions of their art as well as being informed of ideas of functionality and practicality in what they do. I read a few articles on Shotokan and pretty much agreed with Funakoshi's 20 Precepts.

vasch_ro

wado ryu was developed from Shotokan karate , due to its shorter stances
and founders empahsis on sparrring it was seen as sports version of karate
and indeed in the early days of karate comps in the west its adherents
did well for this reason ............

Colm_OReilly

ideas of functionality and practicality

Functionality and practicality are not ideas, they're not etheral concepts to be debate on. They're objective and as such can be measured and falsified.

Peace Out,
Colm

Cake Fiend

Yep, I don't want to give the impression that I have no interest in where my art comes from (actually more so than most karateka I'd say), but I'm more concerned with where it is now and where it's going in the future