What makes a martial art "traditional"?

When I think of traditional martial arts I think of a style that has stayed true to it's roots. There are so many profound and secret meanings behind so many application it's insane. Only those who've truly dedicated themselves to knowing a traditional martial art would understand. Shiro Kuma, I can image you know what I'm talking about. In Aikido you learn the "feel" of a person. You just know exactly how he's going to fall or even react to your movement. Once he's "gotten" you know you have the control, like a vortex of water rushing where ever you will it to. You know what I'm talking about don't you? These are things that are just learned...no one teaches them to you.

The truth is it can't be taught. They're things that just have to become known though experience. When someone doesn't realize these things and have never trained enough to even imply their existence everything turns to chaos. The very fact many people think that black belt is to be some final award of excellency only strengthens this truth.

I find it remarkable when people ooh and awe at some lame punch or kick that was suppose to be something spectacular. I laugh on the inside and just raise an eyebrow on the out. The average person who doesn't know martial arts praises poor moves and bad posture that should deserve a lashing on the behind for such improper technique.

I'm getting off subject, but the point I'm trying to make is that in the eyes of the unlearned and unskilled, a punch is a punch and a kick is a kick. In truth, yes, however, in reality anything offensive is really defensive and anything defensive, offensive. Again, this is one of those things that just has to be realized through your own cognition. Someone can repeat it as much as they like, but it doesn't mean anything until you understand it.

Anyway, in my opinion what makes a martial art "traditional" is the depth of it's subconscious levels of technique, wisdom and philosophy. I believe anyone today could make a brand new system and style. So long as it is able to carry with it profound knowledge it could be considered traditional.

The key word is traditional. The root is tradition. Tradition is the handing down of statements, beliefs, customs, information, etc., from generation to generation, It is a long-established or inherited way of thinking or acting. It is a continuing pattern of culture beliefs or practices.

Of the things you listed as modern in fact are not martial arts/ They use martial arts techniques but do not teach the art itself. That is the biggest difference. It is a watered down(martial arts type applications for dummies). It does not make the user more proficient in a shorter period of time. It may give a person a false sense of hope. By no means does teach it students only the useful things and discard the things that are not useful. That is propaganda. Every empty hand technique taught in martial arts are useful. In the military due to time constraints there is not enough time to teach a complete system. Therefore only a small portion of techniques are taught that will give serviceman a fighting chance of survival. Then depending on there job or responsibility they may have to go through other specialized training. In martial arts class could do the same. We could teach a group of students a specific skill set and these student will look great doing that small set of skills, but they would not know the complete system. They would not have much of a foundation. I can teach this test group knife defense. They will be able to handle themselves relatively well in knife defense. But they will not know how to defend against a guy with a stick, pipe or bat. They would not know how to position themselves defend against attacked from different angles. They can't avoid a kick or counter it. They would have no idea on how to defend against 2 or more or the rules of engagements. In a traditional martial arts it is like building blocks. You begin laying the foundation. Then you build upon the foundation.

This is a good question.

I haven't much to add to Sensei Scandal and Tan's answer, except to say they are most correct. I have learned from Sensei Scandal in the past that "Classical" much more closely identifies what I consider to be Martial art than "traditional" does. In true martial art there is not a "blindly following" mindset at all. We were taught from early on to question everything and learn the "why" of it Sports do not qualify as martial arts in my opinion, so most of the modern things being taught here today are martial sports, rather than martial arts. They may have some "tradition" behind them, but they are no where close to classical arts.

Tan, like many of us here is experiencing the phenominon of many thumbs down for his veery correct and astute answer because many uninformed fan boys here disagree with this truth. Now we can watch as my collection of "thumbs-down" grows here nad now!

J

Well there is no definitive answer like you said its a grey area and its impossible for you to give a definition so no need to apologise!

Some martial arts became sports and sports are always evolving according to the rules and with advances in training supplementation etc but for the most part traditional martial arts are thought of by most people as at least 50 years or older Aikido being the youngest of the traditional arts!

Anything younger than Aikido isn't really considered traditional by most people!

Me, personally - I do not like the term "traditional".

I go by the dictionary definition of the word itself - basically something that is handed down.

There is no amount of time given as criteria for something to be considered such.

Now, let's say that someone in 1920 learned a Classical Art, but wasn't considered a torch bearer byt his teacher. He wasn't taught the deeper meanings of his art. Now this guy decided that he was going to make some changes in the kata. Not having known the deeper aspects of the art, he just makes changes to add his signature to what he learned. He had a few students who he taught his modifications to. They are awarded rank and teach students of their own. Now we're in 2010 and his students have "followed the traditions" of those before them.

They have been learning something they believe is "traditional", and they have... a "tradition" since 1920.

This is why I prefer the term - Classical Martial Arts.

It is like the Classics in Music, Art and Literature.

You gave the contrast between the older and newer arts. In Okinawan it was the Grappling Art called "Ti". From ti, it became Toudi - Toudi Jutsu. Later on it was Karate Jutsu. Today we have Karate Do.

The Classical Arts are responsible for Victories in War, the Safety of Kingdoms and Royal Families, the Defense of Cities, Provinces and Countries.

They ARE what martial history is made of.

What is called traditional these days are watered down arts. They are not the Classics. The Classical Arts contain all the components that make them complete.

These are known as Jutsu.

Now, the watered down arts can be re-integrated with the sub-arts that were left out and can become as the Classical Arts, and many practitioners are doing that today.

Hopefully, the Classical Arts can regain the respect they lost from people classifying them with all the other garbage that is out there.

Edit:

"Mr. Tan" said what I said but used fewer words.

Edit:

I don't understand why "Tan" has 8 thumbs down. He is right. Most people will follow someone blindly because he has a famous name. I know peopkle who have "famous names", have 20, 30 + years of "experience" and still don't know anymore than - block/kick/punch. They have a huge following. This also is "tradition".

A traditional martial art is much like how you would a religion. It passes down traditions and rules and philosophies to newer generations and sometimes techniques are modified or changed much like a bible can adapted or changed. Tradition is what messes up martial arts. Real combat is not rehearsed, it is spontaneous, and you do not have any time to memorize or think. I hope I have cleared it up a bit.

Almost all arts taught today are less than 200 years old, and older styles have changed to where you are learning a version that is less than 200 years old.

True, there may be older styles taught publically, but they are hard to find, and VERY

selective in their teaching. You have to qualify to train like in the movies!

Martial arts is Kinetics- it is "moving the human body" for a specific purpose- people get too hung up on culture, history, mysticism, and deadly secrets. I am not saying "there are no secrets" but I am saying that if there are secrets I am not likely to find them, and neither are most people.

to me that's rather simple. traditional means having traditions behind it.

your example of aikido for example, aikido was derived from an older art aikijiujistu, and many of those traditions were passed on when it comes to training, thus it is considered a traditional martial art, and the same goes for judo, while judo is an older art, it gained many of it's traditions from jiujitsu.

krav maga, BJJ, systema (sp?) haven't yet established their own identities yet, with history and tradition. there was once an argument here a while back about the age of BJJ, just because the gracies were practicing judo in the early 1900's doesn't mean it was BJJ, while BJJ may have history, it has yet to gain it's own traditions, and it can't be called traditional because it left behind the jiujitsu traditions that judo carried on, BJJ along with other styles are still establishing their identities, and we're still discovering if what could possibly become traditions have 'staying power'

This is a great question!!

I have wondered this same thing from time to time. Outside of the obvious East Asian influence that will come about with this question, I would include arts like Pankration, Savate, Kalaripayattu, among others as traditional arts.

I personally think that the term traditional in this sense would lead to a STYLE of teaching and moral behavior by its practitioners. There is something that changes in a person as they progress through traditional martial arts training that other people who do not, really, rarely come in contact with.

I would agree with J on the 'staying true' to the roots, in philosophical ideas, and really digging to understand even every nuance.

While systems like MCMAP are definitely martial arts in every bit of the term (as they are taught to the military by the military for hand to hand combat situations) they are of recent advent, and do not openly display the 'textbook same' philosophical ideas as the other systems around, and they employ different teaching techniques than most 'traditional' systems do.

My art while stemming from the original three provinces martial practices in Okinawa, is quite new itself, and has undergone several name changes since its inception in the early mid-1900s. It is considered traditional, and there is heavy emphasis on tradition, throughout most of the system, but in actuality it's pretty darn new when compared to other arts like, Chen family Taiji for example. There is also a lot lost with old meanings of things more so than just in physical movements as in application.

Really, I think that the difference is not between traditional martial arts so much as it is with martial arts for self defense, and martial arts for sport. They are two very different things, employing sometimes radically different ethical and moral approaches (on the extreme end involving religion), and the technique study and employment are also very different. That is where I see a clear line that is able to be determined with the use of tradition...

EDIT - I just wanted to clarify that I don't have a problem with any combat sport. I just wouldn't consider it traditional.

EDIT - I'm sure I might catch a rash for this but weren't the 'traditional' martial arts just individual people's fighting systems before they began teaching them to others and others; before they began comparing their methods to other methods? Every martial art has to start somewhere, and every martial art has borrowed something from somebody else, and given something to somebody else. To deny that would be to keep your senses shut down to the world around you.

Again, I would say that in the philosophy lies the traditional martial art.

"Traditional" arts are really only about 150 years old. Prior to that, they were taught for combat or sport purposes.

What makes an art "traditional" is that it is not taught for only combat or sport purposes, but has a life lesson component behind them as well. I cannot tell you what that lesson is, it's something you have to learn on your own.

MMA is a sport. MCMAP and Krav Maga are combat systems. Maybe in some way they are more traditoinal than what we call traditional today.