Do you think that what is practiced today in most of martial arts schools, is that relevant with the original ways, and if not,?

I actually did both. Some of the original ways were quite good and beneficial for a person developing their skills and ability to a higher level. Kicking with the ball of your foot for instance and being able to curl your toes up far enough to do that when using your round house kick is a good example of what I am saying. Practicing that is not done near as much today because so many struggle with being able to do it and instead using your instep all the time is what you often find students limited to now. Makiwara training is another example of an old training approach that is very useful and beneficial. You don't see it used or incorporated today at many schools though and they instead only use heavy bags. I know some purists though who think heavy bag training is bad and so they won't use one for training. I use both and the trick with the heavy bag is knowing what you are doing and what you are practicing and also what denotes good technique martial arts wise. Using both in my training is why my punches are harder and many, and even some purists have commented on the power in my punches though.

There have been many advances in approaches to training and also more is known about the human body and how it works and performs. Some of them are quite good for a person to follow and incorporate into their training regiment. However that does not mean that some of the centuries old or what are sometimes also called hard core training approaches don't still have merit and therefore should be discarded. Many schools and instructors have though to appeal to a wider segment of students and making learning martial arts easier and less painful in some ways. That does not always produce a better student though.

The past does not exists and the world that was is not what exists today. To study a martial art isolated from and with no consideration of the real world is self-delusion.

Furthermore, what makes you think the original way was perfect or even that good? Because the movies depict it as such? The development of a martial art is a work in progress. Each generation of accomplished masters add to the art and improve upon it. It was never perfected because there is no such thing as perfection. A martial art that has ceased to innovate is a dead art that is relevant only as a curiosity and footnote in history.

i actually did both... some of the original ways were quite good and beneficial for a person developing their skills and ability to a higher level... kicking with the ball of your foot for instance and being able to curl your toes up far enough to do that when using your round house kick is a good example of what i am saying... practicing that is not done near as much today 'cause so numerous struggle with being able to do it and instead using your instep all the time is what you often find students limited to now... makiwara training is another example of an old training approach that is very useful and beneficial... you don't see it used or incorporated today at numerous schools though and they instead only use heavy bags... i know some purists though who think heavy bag training is bad and so they will definitely not use one for training... i use both and the trick with the heavy bag is knowing what you are doing and what you are practicing and also what denotes good technique martial arts wise... using both in my training is why my punches are harder and numerous, and even some purists have commented on the power in my punches though...

there have been numerous advances in approaches to training and also more is known about the human body and how it works and performs... some of them are quite good for a person to follow and incorporate into their training regiment... however that does not mean that some of the centuries old or what are sometimes also called hard core training approaches don't still have merit and therefore should be discarded... numerous schools and instructors have though to appeal to a wider segment of students and making learning martial arts easier and less painful in some ways... that does not always produce a better student though...

I have two answers to that I think, though I haven't done any traditional art for years now so I don't know how much my opinion really matters.

Fist is, how do you know what is relevant? Are you actually good enough in your practice in your art to be able to know for definite that the technique is useful and this technique is no longer useful? The original master of the art had to have included the technique for a reason, so are you more knowledgeable and skilled to know for a fact that the original master of the art made a mistake?

For example, I thought in my younger days that TKD/karate blocks are completely silly and useless. I thought boxing blocks, which at the time I thought was limited to peek-a-boo type guard and the hook block(hand to temple to form triangular shield around the face), was much better. Later when I started to study more into knives and weapons did I realize that boxing blocks would leave me bleeding out and that TKD/karate blocks are much more efficient.

Secondly, why are you studying martial arts? We tell ourselves that we study for self defense because we feel that everything that we do much have a practical reason and application. But in reality I think most people actually train because we have some kind of heros(ancient martial artist or a fictional character) that we look up to that had some martial arts background. We want to be like them and have the exact skill sets that they have. For this purpose it's not just important to be able to defend oneself, but to be able to defend oneself using a very specific art. These are the people that will want to learn everything as it was and to apply everything as they heard or seen it. And usually this reason ties up with the first reason. These masters they look up to were so great and who are we to go around and change things? For this the traditional methods are all relevant.

I don't know what you mean by relevant. I will say that what we do is not exactly the same. We might not condition he body the same. I'm certain that some things taught then aren't being taught today.

I can't speak for all schools, but in my school I believe what we teach is in line with what was taught originally. The purpose of our training is life preservation. I believe that was the original purpose.

There are many things that were lost or not passed down regularly because the focus of the training over time had changed. Many began to train for sport and lost the real focus of training. Some things not passed down was done because some believed it was no longer necessary or needed or not profitable. Some things technology improved. We don't use tatami today. Today we have mats that make falling safer.

Most people see martial arts as a hobby or sport these days and open schools to make money. You won't see many people who truly want to learn the art and travel to another country to meet a true master. So called martial artists these days are athletes from Olympics or MMA who pass on their diluted knowledge to future students.

Martial arts schools are a business. They don't train for the spiritual strength and they're around to make money.

I saw a 12 year old with a black belt, for example. There's no way anyone should be getting a blackbelt in anything after only 6 years of training. No way.

The original way for karate means you practiced in their underwear. Their was sparring but there was no safety equipment when you got hit you really got hit. Forms were your style which is why you only practiced a few of them you drilled into the applications much deeper then you do today At least tin Okinawan, in Japan application was not as important, The Japanese wanted karate as more of a striking art and not a grappling art.

It also means you were more dedicated to your practice and in many sessions you might only practice one technique. And that you dedicated your life to training. I had an old school Japanese iaijitsu instructor. My first week of class was on kneeing and how to raise up and down, class was two hours long 4 nights a week. The second thing I learn was drawing the sword only half way out and then back to kneeling position. That was week two.

I guarantee if you went back to the old school methods most people would quit inside of a day. They are looking for a hobby not a life long endeavor.

most people see martial arts as a hobby or sport these days and open schools to make money......... you shall definitely not see numerous people who truly want to learn the art and travel to another country to meet a true master......... so called martial artists these days are athletes from olympics or mma who pass on their diluted knowledge to future students.........

most people see martial arts as a hobby or sport these days and open schools to make money... you will definitely not see numerous people who truly want to learn the art and travel to another country to meet a true master... so called martial artists these days are athletes from olympics or mma who pass on their diluted knowledge to future students...