"Modern Martial Art?

The word "modern" generally means "from the current era".

The boundaries of its denotation are not exact, and it can actually have a range of other meanings.

The person to ask would be the person whom you heard saying it. What matters is what THEY meant by it.

It may refer to martial arts of recent origin, martial arts as practiced in the present, or martial arts that are mindfully continuing to adapt and evolve as opposed to trying to reproduce things as they were done in the past. For instance, a newly-invented martial art that uses gi uniforms, uses military-style methods such as line drills, has a lot of pre-modern Asian etiquette such as bowing, and so forth might be regarded as neo-traditionalist and not "modern". By contrast, people practicing an older art but adapting it to use modern neuroscientifically-sound training methods might describe their art as "modernized".

The catchment of "modern" may include anything from the 20th century (some use "modern" to refer to a period of time between the first world war and whatever they term "postmodern"), or it may refer to what's VERY new, such as the past 20, 30 years.

Another respondent pointed out that arts like muay Thai and BJJ pre-date ones like Shotokan. Good for him. I always find it amusing if I have to point that out. However, I've never heard anyone refer to, say, BJJ as modern without granting that Shotokan was as well, except those people whom I already knew were idiots.

If Shotokan was created around 1936, and Kajukenbo was created around 1947, I would have to say that Kajukenbo is more modern than Shotokan by 10 years, and any martial created after 1947 would be more modern than both Kajukenbo and Shotokan. I am not sure if these comparisons have any meaning.

Both Kajukenbo and Shotokan have techniques in it that are ancient and traditional. I don't know enough about Shotokan to compare the two, so I won't even try.

In a recorded interview, our founder Sijo Adriano Emperado claims that he didn't create anything new, he just combined existing techniques together. In the interview, he demonstrated what we would call Basic #1, which is a defense against a right punch. In essence, Basic #1, is a head evasion to the left from Western boxing, a left hand parry from Escrima, and a right hand inward block to the opponent's inner bicep, possibly from Okinawan Kenpo Karate, but the angle of the inward block is changed a bit to resemble the Escrima technique known as the "gunting" which is a hammerfist to the opponent's arm, and a right leg front kick to the stomach, probably from Okinawan Kenpo Karate.

In Emperado Method Branch, the arm maneuvers would be done first, the front kick a split split second later. In Chaun Fa Branch, all movements are done simultaneously. Sijo Emperado claims that before he created Kajukenbo, no one else combined those moves from different styles before, but the moves themselves are not new.

Maybe Sijo Emperado created a training method that is unique and different, but I would not say that it is modern, since very few other arts adopted Kajukenbo training methods.

Modern is just another term to create a separation (or what some people feel they need) in martial arts. It seems kids today are defined by the fact that they do a "modern" fighting art, or self defense system. And they are loving every minute of their "revolutionary systems." There are many self defense systems that boast they are "up to date" with their self defense techniques. Little do they realize, there are only so many ways to attack someone, unless we are now half octopus, I see no need to try to re-invent the wheel.

I'm not that knowledgeable in Shotokan, so I'll leave that for someone else.

Here is an example. Guided Chaos, is the "Modern" Tai Chi. However they took some elements of push hands, turned it into a slap fight, and neglected all the internal power generation found in original Tai Chi. They completely stripped the art, and now make many believe it is better.

I am now weary of any art, practitioner, teacher, or mixed martial artist that calls themselves "modern." Because in my opinion, it is nothing more than a sad attempt at originality. They don't realize the old masters, did it all. Heard it all. And tried it all.

Now does that mean we still cant grow and learn and make our arts our own? Absolutely not. However the attitude today is "discard" "do away with" "revolutionize" and they all fail. Because the arts they try to make better, they are actually hurting. For the simple fact they don't understand enough of it, and dismiss it.

EDIT: Of course I speak from viewing the term "modern" as it is commonly used as marketing. I have no problem with an art that isn't centuries and centuries old like Aikdo or Judo of course.

There is no such thing. MMA is considered to be modern while is more than 3 thousand years old. Is almost exactly the same as Pankration. The ancient one.....

Many style of Karate are not even 100 years old.....Krav Maga is in the same age as some of them which is consider modern. The division between, modern-traditional, arts-sport, e.t.c e.t.c is just another typical attitude of the complex issues culture among practitioners of all ages and all styles who are failing to recognize that martial arts is something nice and beautiful and they thing of it more as a way of domination on others, or measuring who has the biggest martial arts something, or a sense of superiority among others, younger, more inexperienced e.t.c....

They don't realize that if someone wants to hurt them they will not come with an MMA move or a karate chop but most probably with something much more serious such as a bomb under their cars or something.

Live well and live the issues behind.

I'd define most martial arts as modern. Most have been around long after the Industrial Revolution and were influenced by 19th- and 20th-Century culture, modern karate being among that group. It's one of the reasons I put the word "traditional" in quotation marks- how "traditional" can you be if your system is less than 100 years old, and has adopted trappings from Judo (also pretty young) such as the gi and belt-ranking systems? Most Japanese systems today came about after the beginning of the Meiji restoration; most Korean systems were heavily influenced by said Japanese systems; most Chinese systems can only legitimately be traced back to after the fall of the Ming dynasty. There are exceptions, of course- the Japanese Koryu systems, European knightly martial arts- but most martial arts as they exist today are less than 300 years old, most much younger than that. "Traditional" really seems to mean carrying the cultural trappings of the time and place in which an art was developed as opposed to how old it is. After all, Queensberry-era boxing is older than every single major karate system, but no one would describe it as "traditional".

Personally, I don't think I've ever used the expression "modern martial art" to distinguish a particular class of martial arts from another, but to use it to describe the martial arts "scene" in the current era. Karate, Judo, Taekwondo, wrestling, boxing, Sambo, Capoeira, etc. have all undergone changes to techniques, training methods, status, ranking systems, and so on over the years to get to where they are today, and those are just the ones I know about. No matter how one tries to preserve the old ways, how a martial art is taught, presented, and so on inevitably changes. Unless you're speaking Okinawan, training in the middle of the night, and making your students do a single kata to exhaustion, you're not training the way Funakoshi was trained. In fact, there's no practical reason to do all of that, except perhaps to give the occasional poser a reason to think they're hardcore or something.

I alluded to this in an earlier post by Man of Faith. I don't think there is a such thing as modern martial art. There is nothing new or modern contained in the things call modern. It is just another way to market and separate a group in an attempt to say this is better than something done previously. But they haven't reinvented the wheel.

Shotokan can can be call any or all of the above. It is all semantics.

Edit:

I equate the term modern martial art to RBSD.

I like pugspaw explanation. However, this would be hard to explain in my opinion. I base this on the premise that you have to clearly define modern martial arts. What many call a modern martial art are not considered to by many as a martial art. Examples: Kickboxing, muay thai, bjj krav maga are some that many would call a modern martial art. On the other hand many traditionalist would not dare call most or any of those listed as a martial art. I know some would argue why I listed muay thai as not being traditional. But those that have been taught muay boran would often argue that muay thai is anything but traditional. In a tradition art like shorin ryu, goju ryu, tkd you will find a rich tradition of concept, philosophy, and techniques that were handed down for generations. The techniques were taught from kata. The kata were passes down from generation to generation. The kata existed before the style were considered a style. The kata is not be be altered. Changing the kata would be in fact changing the art. Like pugspaw said these arts are complete systems within themselves if they are taught by someone with the knowledge that is willing to share the knowledge. Those of the modern era believe incorrectly that something is missing from the traditional art or that it is incomplete and some has to added to it to make it effective or useful. If there is any weakness it only lies in one of 2 places in my opinion. It lies in the skill of the artist themselves or in the instructor inability to teach the art as it was meant to be taught. I also like the quote that pugpaw used but I would add something to it. Don't fear the man that has don 10,000 technique, but fear the man that has done one technique 10,000 time. I would just add fear the man that has done 1 technique 10,000 times correctly.

It has been stated that anything developed after the formulation of the Dai Nippon Butokukai (1908-1950) is a modern martial arts and modified to be taught to the masses. Shotokan is a modern art, Judo is a modern art and Tae Kwon Do is definitely a modern art. Classical Budo Arts are rare and most of the people teaching them are full of crap because the documentation of history does not exist for those arts. One of the best people to talk to about this Patrick McCarthy Hanshi as he is one of the world's foremost historians on martial arts history.

If it pertains to that which is the most recent then Aikido would have to be somewhere near the top as would Taido Shinwa and Taido karate and Jeet Kune Do (more a philosophy than an actual "style") and now one would have to add the sports style that is developing of MMA... Undoubtedly, there must be other modern twist on that which is more traditional and has survived through the ages...

Modern may refer to practicing more common applications as opposed to learning how to defend ones self from someone using a katana, a bo or a jo, as an example.

If it refers to time then things like Tai Chi, Qi Gong and the like would be out of the picture regardless of ther effectiveness...

This one forgot to add judo, developed by Kana-son, which is fairly recent.

The most modern martial art appears to be drone warfare.

be well

A term for ignorant separatists who try to classify for sport and/or the delusion of being "better" for self defense.

The human body still has the same two arms, two legs, one head and a trunk layout as it was thousands of years ago, so classical martial arts are still as modern as the day they were founded because they work.

There really is no "classical" or "modern". All that exists is martial arts that work. The invading force is the sports crap that insists they've reinvented the wheel. It's a delusion of grandeur, and only supports itself by exploiting only the bad schools that are out there.