Traditional Vs. Eclectric

[silverhand]

General curiousness...which do you prefer to learn about...a traditional Martial Arts system with thousands of years of history, or a system developed in the last 50 years from borrowing from many different arts and why?

Michael

[Lawrence]

Hi there,

Glad to see people think about such things.

For myself, I must admit, that both have had and do have their own personal feel. But with the way my mind is set at present, I prefer the koryu.

The reason for this is both simple and complex. I have studied both authentic shin budo (e.g. Aikido, Judo) and several different forms of modern jujutsu, but I tend to look upon these Arts as an introduction to the cultural research which is to be the practice of a life time.

The Martial Arts are not a competition thing for me, indeed, they stopped being a self defence thingy several years ago. To me, they are a spiritual (I hate using this term because so many people take it out of context) and character development.

They are the preservation of part of a nations history and tradition. To practice the koryu, is to (slowly) gain a deeper understanding of a nation.

Sorry, I will stop here, otherwise my reply will get massive....

I think you get the general idea anyhow.

Take care,

Lawrence.

[John Bennett]

There are no martial arts with thousands of years of history.

A martial art is only as old as the guy teaching it to you.

Teachers may advertise lineage, but in reality it means very little. Every instructor puts his spin on the techniques and strategies. Over time these slight alterations change things dramatically.

The whole "ancient techniques" thing is hog-wash. Breaking an arm is breaking an arm. A shot to the jaw is and always will be jacking some guy in the jaw for best effect.

Regarding strategy, unless you are only in MA for asthetic reasons, wouldn't you rather learn how to fight in TODAY's world rather than one which existed a hundred years ago?

Are you a soilder bound to some feudal lord? No? Are you a paid asassin? No? Are you a buddist monk with nothing but time on his hands? No? Then why try and learn to fight like one?

You are more than likely the citizen of a industrialized western nation with access to modern weapons, modern medical knowlege, and modern nutrition and fitness technology who is subject to the laws of your modern society.

Go find a self defense system with a proven track record of success (not anecdotal or legendary) in that environment and learn it.

It really is that simple.

But if you are the type of person who buys a car based on how it "looks" or how it makes you "feel" rather than its track record for durability, dependability, and value, maybe this doesn't apply to you.

[RobNyc]

I would say, whoever goes to study a Traditional system is because he/she is interested in those old styles and wants to learn what was used before. Although you can modify those traditional techniques to work for situation now, the modern styles have been created most likely for that reason. To meet the situation of nowadays.
The styles created during WWII is not much for situation nowadays, it's for peace time, to live in harmony, they are known as Budo arts, or Do = Way.

[Lawrence]

Hi there (again),

Now I am not trying to pick a fight here, so please, do not read this as such, I will try and be as PC as possible :)


John, do you practice a koryu Art? well, I am pretty sure you don't.

Have you ever? Again, I would guess not.

Now as a sweeping generalisation, I think what you said has the subtle hint of truth in it, but first, before comenting in the way you did you should really try to see and understand what the koryu are;


A martial art is only as old as the guy teaching it to you.

Oh and I am quite sure that any of the practicioners of Takenouchi ryu or Katori Shinto ryu would be quite upset to here that their densho and makimono are wrong. That their history and tradition are not as old as they have documanted.

These densho are followed, tought from and treasured. So yes, techniques change, but that is not what the koryu are about In fact, densho are still being editted, amended and added to as the ryuha is developed within the particular ryu.

To practice the koryu bujutsu is not to practice something for its practicality, it is something else. I mean, the koryu tend to be taught in a form which is much more like dance, or kata.

They do not say "he comes at you like this and you move here and do the other". Both partners know exactly what they should do, the method of the attack and the defence technique.

Yes, I agree, the koryu would hold very little bairing on the streets of todays society as goshin. But then, neither would the Gendai budo of today.

The koryu are not teaching you how to fight. They just give you a method of motion and a metal kamae to try and hold onto.

I am not going to continue, or I may end up having rant...

... people should understand what it is they are doing, and realise that regardless of when their style was born, the chances of any technique/ movement or what have you, ever actually working in a self defence situation is quite unlikly.

Anyway, take care

Lawrence.

P.S. There are a lot of fakes and phonies out there, who claim to teach this or that classical Martial Art. Be very careful not to be influenced by these men. They are basically raping a nation of their cultural practice and historical inherritance. These men are part of the reason why the koryu are not realy widley practiced outside of Japan, and as such, are slowly beginning to die.

[silverhand]

Go find a self defense system with a proven track record of success (not anecdotal or legendary) in that environment and learn it.

First off, I'd say half of these "proven self-defense" systems are fly-by-night knock-offs of someone else's hard work. These modern day self-defese systems are based on what? Well, from my experiance, and I am willing to admit if I am wrong, and I am not trying to flame or anything...these system's techniques are taken from traditional combative arts, arts that were proven in battle before post-industrialized society.

Also, in my experiance, there are no new techniques, or a superior way of doing things, only "updates" if you will, of age old techniques redesigned for our society and the new dangers we face.


The reason for this thread was out of my personal curiousity, I was just thinking about it.

I am a traditionalist, I want to train in arts that have been around for a while. Not for age-old techniques, but for the philosophical, cultural and spiritual aspects that can be gained.

I think that its more important to love what you do, let it become part of you and a part of who you are. If I gain skills, and self-defense techniques from this great, if I do not, I have gained more than most people will in a life time of street fighting.

Michael

[Sanjuro]

"I am a traditionalist, I want to train in arts that have been around for a while. "

Eh, in your profile it says you train TKD, which hasn't been around that long at all.

[RobNyc]

Originally posted by Sanjuro
"I am a traditionalist, I want to train in arts that have been around for a while. "

Eh, in your profile it says you train TKD, which hasn't been around that long at all.

All the martial arts in your profile aren't Traditional.
Those are Modern. Might have been around since the 1920's the latest. :rolleyes:

[Sanjuro]

I assume you're talking to Silverhand there?

[silverhand]

What I deem as a traditional art is one that can trace its origins back through history, and offers philosophical and spiritual teachings.

Eclectric arts I deem as combinations of different styles from different geographic areas that focus on purely physical self-defence.

I am not saying that some eclectric arts cant be classified as a traditional art by any means.. These are just my views and opinions.

Traditional arts to me would be TKD, Hapkido, TSD, Kuk Sool..ect because they are strictly Korean.

The same can be said for Iaido, Aikido, Kendo, Jui-Jutsu and a host of others because they oringinated in Japan

Same goes for any Chinese originated system.

JKD, modern self-defense systems, BBJ, I would view as eclectirc arts.

Hope this will clear up my meaning.... if it doesnt, well sorry..I am trying to voice my views as to clear the air as to what my definitions of each would be..sorry if I didnt get that across:) :)

Michael

P.S. I guess you could also turn this around on me and say that any art not Chinese would be considered eclectirc, but well, now i am just rambling..hehhe

[John Bennett]

TKD is basically modified Shotokan Karate (which is itself not native to Japan and merely a compilation or "rip-off" some would say of older Chinese systems). TKD wasn't even codified as a recognizably distinct system until just a few years ago in the '50's and 60's. So by your definition, it is non-traditional and eclectic.

Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu is older than TKD. It was condified as a recognizably distinct system in the 30's and 40's. However, many people even deny such, saying it is really not a distict system, but merely a subset of pre-WWII Judo.

By your definition, United States Jujitsu Federation style jujitsu an eclectic style because it draws techniques and strategies from a number of previously existing styles. However, I'll wager it's practitioners would vigorously assert it is a "traditional" style.

My jiu-jitsu is pure. I learned it under the direct observation of my master Carlos Machado, who learned it directly from his uncle Master Helio Gracie, who learned it directly from his father and the man who developed the system, Master Carlos Gracie, Sr., the source.

Does that mean my jiu-jitsu is more "traditional" or *better* than some guy who learned it from some 5th removed, unknown BJJ teacher in London, England? Not at all.

So you see, the whole issue of "lineage" and "we were first" is really much ado about nothing.


Your art is only as old as the guy standing there teaching it to you.

[williamson]

Your art is only as old as the guy standing there teaching it to you.

I guess I kinda believe this, and I kinda don't. Of course every teacher that strikes out on there own is going to do things somewhat different from their teacher. They had different experiences after all. It's all about evolution. All things must progress and adapt, or they simple die out.

[Sanjuro]

Nice post John, pretty much sums up my thoughts on the subject.

[RA Miller]

Michael-

I chose my martial art because it more accurately mimiced real violence than anything else I have yet found. In short, it was the most brutal thing I've ever seen.

I didn't know if it was traditional or home-brewed. It turned out to be koryu (and I never heard the word koryu til about six years later).

Tradition, provided it is real and goes back to the right place, has something going for it- experience.

In Japanese arts, dueling to the death has been illegal since the Meiji. Battlefield applications have been very rare since the Tokugawa. I find it comforting that the tactics I have been taught have been actually used to kill actual professional soldiers.

In my experience, the "modern arts" designed for the "modern streets" are slapped together mish mashes produced by people with no or extremely limited experience in real violence. Or worse, they take their competition experience and try to extrapolate that to "the streets". It becomes a compilation of fantasy.

Of course, by my definition very few arts make the cut for "traditional".

[John Bennett]

Originally posted by RA Miller
"I chose my martial art because it more accurately mimiced real violence than anything else I have yet found. In short, it was the most brutal thing I've ever seen."

What martial art would that be?

[The Illuminati]

If your definition of an eclectic art is one that is "strictly Korean" or "strictly Japanese", then you should probably take a look at any treatise on Eastern Asian history. The histories of China, Japan, and Korea are inextricably tangled with each other. Wars, trade, the spread of religion... The list goes on and on. And now, modern communications and transportation methods make it possible to spread ideas even faster. With this in mind, how could any art really tout itself as "strictly" attached to any nation? And what does this mean for the definition of what a "traditional" art is?

Just thought I'd raise a few points.

[silverhand]

You all make great points..I am not saying one is better than the other by any means...

I am just posting my views and opinions, which everyone will have differents ones, because we are all individual.

I am actually getting what I hoped out of this post:) And I thank you each for viewing your ideas.

[Lawrence]

Hi there,

I thought I might say a little something on the following...


... take a look at any treatise on Eastern Asian history. The histories of China, Japan, and Korea are inextricably tangled with each other.

Well, a lot of what you speak can be traced back further still, from Tibet a great deal of influence over weapon design and tacital use, and from India a large portion of what we would now name unarmed methods can be found. Again, Western influence from Spain and England are also there. Who knows, they probably picked up something or other from Holand as well!

But hey, you are bang on in my view.


...how could any art really tout itself as "strictly" attached to any nation? And what does this mean for the definition of what a "traditional" art is?

Well. This can be, particulary with regard to Japan. Due to the early isolation of the Nation, they battled between states (as such) in a strugle to bring the whole under one rule.

Now, development of fighting arts indeed took on a Japanese look, feel and ethos. Each ryu tought many weapons, tactics, phylosophies etc. and the techniques were designed by a bushi and against a bushi. You must remember that the bushi had manners, a method of good and honorable conduct, this even streched into the different types of battle and the nature of its course.

So if someone studies Toda-ha Buko ryu, then you can say YES, this is traditional and it is Japanese. The principles, methods taught, techniques used etc. are for use in the late 16th century Japan, still an isolated country, still engrosed in war and religious practice. All done within the guidelines of Japanese correct ways.

I hope this helps.

Probably doesn't though...

Take care,

Lawrence.

[Bad Karma]

I think the whole notion of traditional is conceptual to individiual ideals. I mean, what's traditional to you? Then, what part of that is martial art related? Tea Ceremony?! :)

Just a heads up, almost everything you do should reinforce the training of your mind, body, and soul. This is a very OLD training concept. Problem is many people can't understand or won't take the time to understand it. It's all relative and perhaps a M.A.T.T. is needed?

(M.A.T.T. = Modern Approach to Traditional Training)

I prefer "modern" but I understand those who refuse to learn from history are destined to repeat it. Do what?! ;)

Peace

[williamson]

I don't believe any of it is modern. War has been around for a long time. From the first cave man that picked up a stick and beat the next door cave man to death. A punch is still a punch, a kick is still a kick. It's not about the techniques anyways, they're irrelevant. The strategy in the Book of Five Rings or The Art of War still holds today, in martial realms, in buisness realms, in personal realms, etc.

[Zujitsuka]

Hey, do whatever makes YOU happy.

Traditional martial arts should be given a lot of credit and should be appreciated because they opened our minds to the possibilities. If you're really interested in anthropology, studying traditional martial arts is a good way to better understand that culture during a certain period in history (eg. feudal Japan).

I'm a little wary of the way some traditional martial arts are taught though because the underlying message is the cultural superiority of that nation or region.

Again, I have a lot of respect for tradional martial arts and the cultures that developed these systems. But I train to handle situations that I may I face in 21st century New York City streets - not along the countryside.

If your motivation for studying martial arts is for self defense, or sport/competition, go eclectic. The world is a rapidly changing place and it behooves one to stay on the cutting edge of information and martial know-how (i.e. experience).

I hear a lot of people mention studying martial arts as a vehicle to achieving spiritual enlightenment. If that is what works for them, great! But one may also read the works of philosophers, or go to a church, mosque, synagogue, or some other house of worship. Also, one can read self-improvement books.

One can become a better person by pushing themselves to their physical and mental limits through hard training. You'll become more confident, you'll feel better, and you'll look better too.

Hey, do whatever makes YOU happy.

[williamson]

How is traditional not as good for the street as an eclectic art? If something worked on the battlefield a couple hundred years ago, I think it'll work today.

Martial arts is not about the techniques. It's about strategy and methods. The techniques are just tools.

[Lawrence]

Hi there,


If something worked on the battlefield a couple hundred years ago, I think it'll work today.

I do not agree.

If you are thinking about unarmed defences, well these were rearly used on the battlefield, usually weapons or broken weapons would be prefered :)

Also, at the time and place where these techniques, methods and weapons were used, particular dress and conduct was held. So if a technique were ued on the battlefield, liklyhood is that all on the battlefield would at least have a spear, sword or bow and arrows to attack with and would be wearing (at the very least) arm guards, helmet, chest and body armour. They would also have a small arsenal of other weapons on their person, such as a short sword or dagger.

A lot of the 'unarmed' or jujutsu techniques would have been the practice and use of these miscellanious weapons.

Now don't get me wrong, these would be great in self defense, but I think that the law enforcement would be none too happy with you. :)

So to sumerise, a classical art would not be any good for self defense, they are classical methods of motion, for a particular nation to fight and development in a particular land and time.

Oh and one more thing...


Martial arts is not about the techniques. It's about strategy and methods. The techniques are just tools.

I completely agree. :D

It is the principles which are important, not the technique. The technique is a vehical for several principles to ride on, stick their heads out of the windows from and occassionally take the driving seat.

But to study a Classical Martial Art, is to embrace the Japanese culture. The actural physical practice is only a small piece of the pie upon reflection. The attention, loyalty and complete indulgence of your adopting family.

Unlike the modern Martial Arts club which you see in ever sports hall and community centre world wide; with doors swung wide inviting all to play!

Anyway, will do another post later, because I think we really should consider the difference between an eclectic martial art/way created by a Westerner, an eclectic martial art/way created by a Native, a traditional martial art/way and a classical martial art/way.

Will post more soon,

Take care,


Lawrence.

[Qasim]

Lawrence,

What do you study?

[RA Miller]

Good thoughts from everybody.

Lawrence, I do have to respectfully disagree with your statement that a battlefield art of yesteryear would not work today. Close quarters violence has changed very little- a baseball bat is no big improvement over an antelope bone and a knife still cuts whether it is made by a village blacksmith, sharpened against the floor of an inmate's cell or professionally tempered by ColdSteel.

And the best option is the weapon with the longest range, whether it is a howitzer, ballista, bow or rock.

The biggest difference in violence is the relative lack of it in modern times. As much as the media tries to portray these times as the most violent ever, violence touches very few lives.

Imagine growing up in the continual carnage and rapine of the Hundred years war. The deadliest riot in American history was a protest over drafting practice in the Civil War. Queen Ravanalova of Madagascar killing three million of her own subjects in her twelve year reign. The Albigensian crusade where more people were killed in a single day by the sword than America lost in the Vietnam war (and the original source of the concept, "Kill them all, God will sort them out.")

In a single ten year period, one third of the male French aristocracy lost their lives in duels ( a great impetus to legislation to illegalize the practice.) One third of the sons and inheritors ...

Musashi's forty duels would not have been worthy of comment in 18th century Europe. The nastiest serial killers of our day don't touch the body counts assembled by Elizabeth Bathory or Gilles de Ras.

The strategies that survived these times (and I agree wholeheartedly that it is the strategy that makes something effective) are, in my opinion, hugely different than things created by pulling together favorite techniques from various sources that have never been tested.

And leads to what I see as the ultimate absurdity of two oiled men wearing speedos in a ring being called "Reality Fighting".

Rory

John? You want me to post the name of the style again? We've both been posting her for a couple of years...

Oh, I get it. You like the way the profanity filter chews up the nam. Sosuishitsu-ryu.

[williamson]

Differences, differences, everybody looks at the differences, what about the similarities. There are only so many motions the human body can do. Flexion, extension, adduction, abduction, rotation, etc. The way of dealing with these motions is still the same as in feudal times. What's the difference between thrusting with a punch, kick, knife, ball bat, pool stick, beer bottle, six foot staff, tonfa, whatever. Nothing.

Yes, weapons are a big part of war. Nobody steps on to the battlefield emptyhanded (if they can help it). Therefore one ought to train with weapons. What's the difference between training with weapons, empty handed (percussion and grappling). Nothing.

[Victor]

To me it makes know difference, wether it 's Traditional or Eclectric. As long as the techniques work in a fight.

[Jeff Burger]

QUOTE
"To me it makes know difference, wether it 's Traditional or Eclectric. As long as the techniques work in a fight."

Im with you...Im not loyal to Japanese, Chinese, Thai, Phillipino...whatever. Im interested it what works.

Traditional has its advantages...its disadvantages are...
1 - they are going to be limited...though their style may include attacks and defenses from all sorts of angles and situatuions they are still within their style.

2 - Change...how much has their art been changed or lost since the time of their battle field days.


Id say eclectic arts...but....Id rather teach eclectic to someone with a good base in a traditional art and an open mind.

Jeff

[Sean Reilly]

My knowledge of MOST of these arts mentioned is either limited or at best basically nil.

But I must admit that reading and keeping up with this kind of forum for someone like myself (with my short but varied taste of the arts) is terrific.

All I can add is keep this sort of stuff happening on Budo Seek.

Cheers

Sean Reilly:D

[Carl Martin]

I'm going to have to agree that there are overall more similarities than differences between the arts. But I also have somewhat limited knowledge of all the arts out there. I'm just basing this on the clips I've seen on the net.

This point might be off topic so forgive me if it is. The way I see it anyone who studies any martial art is far and away more prepared to defend themselves than someone who doesn't. In fact, I'll take it another step. I feel anyone who has played sports like football (American or other), rugby, or wrestled in high-school (None of which I did.) is probably more capable of defending themselves than the average joe. If you have spent time doing athletics you have better balance and better coordination. You've probably been hit before and know how it feels and wouldn't be as shocked as those who never have.

I live in a pretty safe area so the place I'm most likely going to see trouble is at the local bar. Not that being prepared for the worst isn't something that I study for. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that even the sport Martial artist who takes most of the flack for studying an "unrealistic" art is probably capable of handling themself in most situations. So eclectic or traditional or sport to me doesn't matter. Just enjoy it.

That's my two cents. And I'll qualify all this with a big "I could be wrong!"

[Jeannette]

You must teach yourself to find the right art for you. Don't rely on other people to 'spoon feed' you.

What may be good for you, may be bad for someone else.

What is bad for you, may be the good for someone else.


A good martial art doesn't have a heart of a fighter, you need a righteous heart.



.......think I'll train now!

[redeye]

Has anyone heard of Budokan, i was wondering where this style would fit into this conversation as Budokan is niether an ancient art in its own right nor an old art that is changing little by little.

Budokan was developed by a malaysian man named choo choo soot, who was taught shotokan by a japanese soldier. Over the years he studied other forms such as tiaquando, some tia chi and gradualy incorperated aspects of the styles he had studied, and hence Budokan was born in 1967. Not an acient art but an art that incorperates ancient arts.

:)

[Kenji]

I prefer to practice traditional arts over eclectic. Learning a traditional art as a beginner is very important in my opinion in building neccesary basic abilities like, strong body mechanics.

But, eclectic arts are pointless. You should never practice something simply to practice it. Ex: " Hey, I know Shotokan Karate, why don't I just throw in some Judo to make me a more well rounded fighter." " If I learn Karate and Judo I'll be unstoppable." Or, "Wow muay thai sounds awsome I'll just add some of that to my jujitsu."

Eclectic martial arts may work in theory but, you may end up practicing techniques that don't fit your abilities or are simply not effective or needed. Thats why I never add any thing to my method of fighting unless it is useful, unless it fills a gap, or gives me a knew ability. I believe in "filtering techniques" when studing another traditional art to see if those techniques are truly useful to me before I incorporate it into my method of fighting. (I learned this concept from Jeet Kune Do).:cool:

Does anyone agree with me?:D

[Sean Reilly]

But, eclectic arts are pointless. You should never practice something simply to practice it. Ex: " Hey, I know Shotokan Karate, why don't I just throw in some Judo to make me a more well rounded fighter." " If I learn Karate and Judo I'll be unstoppable." Or, "Wow muay thai sounds awsome I'll just add some of that to my jujitsu."

I can't say I agree with you Kenji. For example all those arts you mentioned are greatly respected for their abilities. So why shouldn't some of them mix well and therefore make the person training in them that "Well rounded fighter".

As it has been posted in many threads on Budoseek; no one style is the best so what's wrong in training in many and taking what you need from each art. If it makes you a better MA'ist and it works for the individual it sounds great to me.

Respectfully

Sean

[Kenji]

What I meant Sean Reilly was that some people simply take techniques from those styles I listed at random, without seeing if they are truly compatable with the person's physical and mental attributes.

See, learning the arts that I listed to their fullest is great if you are a beginner. But once you have become efficient in your core art its best to branch out to others. By branching out I don't mean learning techniques you don't need. I believe in simplicity when it comes to fighting and training, not extreme simplicity, but more of simplicity at a median. If I were to just start learning all these techniques for no reason it would loose its simplicity. Its my personal opinion that people should only retain what is neccessary for their method to be effective. This will in turn make it easier for techniques to be selected without thinking during a fight, after months of hard training of course. I think it is rediculous when people say they have learned this or that grappling move in a day. But what they don't realise is that they haven't learned anything unless it is all like second nature. And the more simple, and compatible with your mental and physical attributes the techniques are the easier they become second nature and make you a more effective martial artist.

Well, at least its worked for me and many others I know.:)

[redeye]

i am no expert on the origin of karate and other martial arts, but i think i am right in saying that it is widely accepted that japanese martial arts ( karate) was developed after being exposed to chinese arts such as kung fu.

Does this not make all old japanese styles eclectic?

just a thought

[Jeff Burger]

Per forum rules please include real name.

QUOTE
"japanese martial arts ( karate) was developed after being exposed to chinese arts such as kung fu.

Does this not make all old Japanese styles eclectic?"

Good point Redeye (Im saying that cause I have mad it too).

Even the first art developed in Shaolin Temple was a combo from retired soldiers at the temple and what was brought from India and even Indian arts were influenced by the Greeks.

I cant think of any art that in its warring days didnt change...whether to deal with different weapons, or the enemies armor, numbers, terrain.
Its when they stopped being needed on the battlefield that alot of arts got all squared away and developed a... ok this is my style it does these things and not those things...kind of mentality.

I believe in respecting old masters and founders but that doesnt mean not looking at your needs and making changes.

I think a problem with that is the art amy take wrong tangent or lose stuff that may have purpose in the future.

Jeff

[redeye]

Jeff,what style do you practice?

[Jeff Burger]

The name of our school is Academy of Integrated Martial Arts.

I have done Karate (Kyokushin, Shukokai), Judo, Ju Jitsu, Sambo, various Kung Fu (Nam Kune Bak Toi, Mantis, Choy Lay Fut, Wing Chun, Tai Chi), Muay Thai, Kali, JKD

We have classes for Karate, Wushu and Tai Chi. We also have kick boxing and grappling which are functional specific and not style specific.

I can see value in both traditional and eclectic.

And you?


Jeff

[A.J. Bryant]

There has been some good dialogue here and I'm not sure I can add much more but I will say a few words to reinforce what others have said.

Basically, you have either koryû or gendai martial arts. Koryû is about historical preservation--period. It can't be separated from the cultural aspects. If either of these aspects are taken away, it's no longer koryû... Now, if someone has studied koryû and wants to change it or add to it, that's fine, but it's no longer koryû. This is starting to happen in arts like Iaidô and kenjutsu, which is fine if there's honesty there.

Gendai arts are freer and in my opinion, people can do whatever they want--as long as they are truthful with themselves and their students about what they do. It's when someone has studied a little of this and a little of that, then opens a dôjô and calls it XYZ-ryû aikijûjutsu (insert relevant art) and claims a history dating back to a famous ryûha.

There are several cases of this type of fraud here in the U.S., and the internet has exposed most of these unscrupulous people. There's a case of this right in my area where the lineage of this individual has changed over the past several years. They went from claiming decent from a classical koryû school to having created the style themselves... Uh, what?... Oh, and by the way, thanks for the $200 monthly tuition you’ve paid since the dôjô was opened, thinking you were studying a branch of XYZ-ryû aikijûjutsu!

Traditional Vs. Eclectic? It doesn't matter, as long as you are benefiting from training with a teacher who's honest about what they do.

Regards,

[Rich]

This is a great discussion! I've been surprised by the consensus of opinion that "the technique is not important...". This has really surprised me as I firmly believe that TECHNIQUE is crucial.

I studied Judo at school and University before joining a local club. I then started going to gradings. By beating your peers in shiai you got promoted. Fine, but what I noticed was that with no weight category for gradings some guys were winning by using strength alone. This was explained as, "Oh well, he's a heavyweight, you'll never face him in competition!". This to me was not Judo. I wanted to be able to use technique to overcome someone with superior size and strength, after all, isn't that realistic? I mean, a guy attacking you in the street can be any shape or size.

I decided that I needed to work on my technique - next stop Japan! I quit my job and enrolled at the Kodokan in the beginners course and so after 12 years of Judo I started again from scratch! My pride was put to one side and the work began. I can say that having studied Judo in England where the focus is on Sport Judo and winning in your weight this was totally different. Judo really is a Sport in England but in Japan, it's an Art where TECHNIQUE and FORM is the beginning, middle and end of it!

With good technique a smaller/lighter man can defeat a larger/heavier man even at the highest level. A good example was at the last All Japan Championships when Kosei Inoue, at around 100kg defeated all-comers including guys weighing 150/160kg. How? With TECHNIQUE!

Sorry for the length!

[Kenji]

I have learned that technique is important but should not be thought of as a thing in itself. This is so the technique can "flow" or be chosen freely by the mind without concious thought to be used in a fight.

[Rich]

I agree. You should not be having to make a conscious decision but rather react in an instinctual way to a given threat.

To achieve this level much practice is required which is where the traditional use of uchi-komi and randori comes in. Whatever your art, I belive emphasis on technique is imperative. This emphasis is perhaps greater in the traditional martial arts, although I may be wrong on that.

It is this adherance to technique and form that attracts me to traditional Martial Arts.

Just my opinion!

[Lawrence]

Hi there,

I don't think anybody on the board would consider training in technique essential to Martial Arts.

I commend you on your commitment and dedication to better yourself by your brace step to the Kodokan and doing the correct thing and taking the role of complete novice. A good display of etiquete and discipline in my view.

Personally, I would say that trainning in budo is based in technique, develops over years through technique but does not end with technique. At the heart of all technique is principle, through developing technique you begin to see the principle, once you have learned and apply the principle, the technique is simply a shape produced between uke and tori.

What is technique? A hypothetical question, not really one to answer.

If all a budoka looks at is technique, they have stopped learning, they are only going through the motions and producing shapes to names. The feeling and development of good timeing, are these techniques? Well, I guess yes, but they are not techniques that are taught as is osotogari, but rather tehniques that are entangled in the web of the named technique.

I might be wrong, but it is just a thought.

Take care,

Lawrence Fisher.

[Rich]

Lawrence, you make a good point. Perhaps what I mean is that through studying the techniques we learn to aply the principles and that therefore the learning of techniques is crucial in order to come to an understanding of the core pronciples.

In my case, I was not aware of the importance of kuzushi and the underlying principle of giving way. I have only come to appreciate the absolute necessity of kuzushi through the in depth study of techniques.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that techniques and principles are bound together and you cannot study one without the other.

Richard.

[Kenji]

They are both like two wheels on a cart.

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by Rich
This is a great discussion! I've been surprised by the consensus of opinion that "the technique is not important...". This has really surprised me as I firmly believe that TECHNIQUE is crucial.

I studied Judo at school and University before joining a local club. I then started going to gradings. By beating your peers in shiai you got promoted. Fine, but what I noticed was that with no weight category for gradings some guys were winning by using strength alone. This was explained as, "Oh well, he's a heavyweight, you'll never face him in competition!". This to me was not Judo. I wanted to be able to use technique to overcome someone with superior size and strength, after all, isn't that realistic? I mean, a guy attacking you in the street can be any shape or size.


Not all judo clubs are like that outside of Japan. The thing about judo is that promotions are based on a point system - I think that various clubs are allowed to place more weight on certain aspects of Judo - the one you mentioned placed weight on competition. When you win, you get points - you get mote points if you beat someone of higher rank. You get points for attending class, service, refereeing and other things also. When you have met the requirement, your coach can test you if he chooses to.

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by Rich
I agree. You should not be having to make a conscious decision but rather react in an instinctual way to a given threat.

To achieve this level much practice is required which is where the traditional use of uchi-komi and randori comes in. Whatever your art, I belive emphasis on technique is imperative. This emphasis is perhaps greater in the traditional martial arts, although I may be wrong on that.

It is this adherance to technique and form that attracts me to traditional Martial Arts.

Just my opinion!

"eclectic arts" like bjj and muay thai place plenty of emphasis on developing technique. the way they go about it is different from traditional styles, but the emphasis is definitely there. And with all of the subtlety involved in bjj, I'd differ with your statement that traditional styles place more emphasis on it.

[mma_monk]

It is very reasonable to want any given technique to be a part of your mental and muscular memory. That being said, a student should try to achieve proper technique throughout his/her training as to assure that his/her "natural reaction" is the properly executed technique for the situation. This can only be done by the proper repetitive training of said technique. Whatever style or system one chooses, each has techniques designed to answer a certain situation or variable there of, and for your body and mind to call upon the proper response to a stimuli, that response must have been programmed within you correctly. In my humble opinion this is vital. Thanks

[Rich]

SevenStar, (sorry, can't find your name!)


The thing about judo is that promotions are based on a point system - I think that various clubs are allowed to place more weight on certain aspects of Judo - the one you mentioned placed weight on competition. When you win, you get points - you get mote points if you beat someone of higher rank. You get points for attending class, service, refereeing and other things also. When you have met the requirement, your coach can test you if he chooses to.

Are you saying that your CLub Coach grades you? It sounds like you are which I find very surprising. You get points for attending class?! That is a novel concept but how exactly does attendance relate to skill/technique acquisition and improvement? Not everyone learns at the same speed and points for attendance seems to be based on the premise that they do.

Also, what exactly is "service"? Once you get into the realms of unspecified "contributions" it opens the door to charges of bribery and corruption, something I'm sure we all want to avoid.

Perhaps I have misundertood you.

Richard.

[Rich]

Tremaine,

Sorry for not noticing your name was on the bottom of your posts. I'll make sure I use it in future replies.

Regards,

Richard.

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by Rich
SevenStar, (sorry, can't find your name!)



Are you saying that your CLub Coach grades you? It sounds like you are which I find very surprising. You get points for attending class?! That is a novel concept but how exactly does attendance relate to skill/technique acquisition and improvement? Not everyone learns at the same speed and points for attendance seems to be based on the premise that they do.

Also, what exactly is "service"? Once you get into the realms of unspecified "contributions" it opens the door to charges of bribery and corruption, something I'm sure we all want to avoid.

Perhaps I have misundertood you.

Richard.

yes, he grades you. He's a three time national champ. That's besides the point though - Black belts are allowed to grade - to an extent. When you are testing for brown or black, you have to grade in front of the state board.

Yes, you get points for attending class. You can't possibly learn if you don't go to class, right? so quite naturally, you get credit for going. The rate at which you learn and how many points you have doesn't matter, as they are fairly non related. You don't test just because you have enough points - you test when he thinks you're ready. you can't test at all unless you have the minimum required points. Once that is met, when you test is up to the coach. He's not gonna just grade you because he can.

Service is judo related service - judging, reffing, etc. working tournaments in general. Not doing things around the dojo.

[John Bunting]

I'm sort of coming in at the end of this, so I may have missed something along the way (there is a lot to read!!). My apologies if I'm covering old ground.

Surely modern styles are self defence systems rather than martial arts in the usual sense? The term martial art tends to imply something beyond the physical techniques of the art. Usually a martial art has some kind of attendant philosophy, values its history, customs and ettiquette and relates directly to styles as used in combat many years ago.

In my experience, modern styles are only concerned with what would work in a self defence situation. It seems most of these eclectic sytems leave out traditional training methods ,such as kata, in favour of sparring, and care little for any kind of philosophy. They aren't limited by tradition and take techniques from any art they choose.

Now, to say one of those is better than the other is clearly not possible. You aren't comparing like for like. It would like asking whether apples are a better fruit than oranges. Both are equally as good, and in the end it is simply a matter of taste. :D

I have to say I do find the idea that there are no traditional styles, with each style being only as old as the practitioner, somewhat bizarre. That would pre suppose that unless something is exactly like what went before it can't be traditional. In which case there would be no tradition anywhere in the world, in any thing. Doesn't tradition mean the passing on of practises (techniques?) from generation to generation?

Yours in Budo
John

[Rich]

Tremaine,

Thanks for elaborating. This format for grading is different to what I'm used to.

I assume you're in the US. Do you think it matters that there are significant differences in grading from country to country?

Also, how much do you think Judo as practiced in your Dojo in the US has evolved from traditional Kodokan Judo in Japan?

Richard.

[Grant]

Hey guys,

Just wanted to see what you consider a "traditional" art and an "eclectic" art. See, I study hapkido which is relatively new but in which they hold korean tradition etc in quite high regard. I would consider it to be a traditional art. My though on the matter is that an eclectic art is any which strips away the cultural roots of an art and simply teaches it as self defense - no spirirtual root, no traditions etc. Is that a fair assumption?

Respectfully,

Grant Orchard

[Lawrence]

Traditional, but not Classical.

Sorry, quite busy.......

Take care,

Lawrence Fisher.

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by Grant
Hey guys,

Just wanted to see what you consider a "traditional" art and an "eclectic" art. See, I study hapkido which is relatively new but in which they hold korean tradition etc in quite high regard. I would consider it to be a traditional art. My though on the matter is that an eclectic art is any which strips away the cultural roots of an art and simply teaches it as self defense - no spirirtual root, no traditions etc. Is that a fair assumption?

Respectfully,

Grant Orchard

almost. muay thai teaches all of those things - in some schools, anyway. the reference to eclectic styles generally refers to sprot fighting styles - bjj, muay thai, etc.

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by Rich
Tremaine,

Thanks for elaborating. This format for grading is different to what I'm used to.

I assume you're in the US. Do you think it matters that there are significant differences in grading from country to country?

Also, how much do you think Judo as practiced in your Dojo in the US has evolved from traditional Kodokan Judo in Japan?

Richard.

I don't think the grading difference matters that much as you must still demonstrate the necessary skill before you are promoted. If you just automatically received it due to your point level, then yes, I'd see a big problem there.

Judo in the US tends to assimilate things moreso than the Japanese Judo does - wrestling takedowns, sambo, etc. Also, there are alot of sambo, bjj guys and wrestlers competing in judo now, so they bring their own experiwnces with them.

[Rich]

Tremaine,


Judo in the US tends to assimilate things moreso than the Japanese Judo does - wrestling takedowns, sambo, etc. Also, there are alot of sambo, bjj guys and wrestlers competing in judo now, so they bring their own experiwnces with them

It sounds like Judo in the US is more eclectic than traditional. With people from Sambo, BJJ and wrestling "bringing their own experiences with them" and adding their knowledge to the mix. Is that a fair conclusion?

Richard

[SevenStar]

I would agree with that in general, but that is a broad generalization. There are some very traditional schools here.

[FistofLegend]

Sorry guys, I didn't take time to read all the posts in here being that I don't have much time to spare, but here is what I would like to say on the matter. I'll ask this question? What does it matter??? As for me, I love to learn about the history of various martial arts, so I would probally chose traditional because it would have more, but every martial art has it's history. As for which I would perfer training in. It really doesn't matter, because they both have much to offer. It depends on which is right for the individual person. It depends on what a person can get from it, etc. Age don't matter at all in my book. It's rather or not the martial art is right for the person, is it effective, is it worth it, and so on.

[Jeff Burger]

Welcome to Budoseek Fist of Legend

Thats one of my favorite movies.

Jeff

[Lawrence]

Hi there,

FistofLegend I like your attitude, you have a good idea of the future development of the martial arts by the sound of it. Understanding and researching the history and tradition is (in my view) as important as the physical stuff! development of the individual is what it is all about in the 21st Century in my view.

Take care,

Lawrence Fisher.

[Jeannette]

BRAVO!!! And cheers to that! That is what I always tell people, what the heck does it matter? We can all be training, rather than spending hours discussing it,
or watch Fist Of Legends.......One of my favorite movies next to Escape from NY!

Think I'll get off my asssssk and go train!

[Doni Pulley]

Originally posted by Sanjuro
"I am a traditionalist, I want to train in arts that have been around for a while. "

Eh, in your profile it says you train TKD, which hasn't been around that long at all.

What is that about 50 years?
The blink of an eye.
Compared to many other arts with considerably longer lineages.

[4orce]

I wouldn't use the term traditional or eclectic...just stay away from "Watered Down" arts.

www.4orce.net -=- 4orce, Administrator

[bloodymonkey117]

people have very short attention spans nowadays. I trust someone with nothing to do for days on end would be more likely to tihnk things through to the next step. Why do else do you tihnk that TMA are so adaptable? :bandit:

[DungeonWorks]

I think they both have good merit. I see the traditional arts as more of a lifestyle with the added perks like exercise, discipline, respect, and an over all lifestyle. TMA's CAN be any or all of those things and more to a person. Will they make the skinny geek a UFC Champion??? Likely not. Will they make him a a bit more proud of himself and toughen him up? Will they help him gain self respect as well as offer an outlet for stress and pent up frustrations? Will they offer him a much better way of self defense??? YES to all those questions. As with Kata, TMA's are more than just movements.

Now, when I am mentioning Eclectic styles, I am reffering to Mixed Martial Arts or Jeet Kune Do/RBSD. In this you get incredible fitness (if you train often) as well as street viable self defense. Does it cover ALL ASPECTS??? No it does not, and neither does TMA's. I think that the MMA's are just a natural proggression as evidenced throughout ALL MA's throughout history. ALL styles are eclectic at some point in time....each and every one of them that are practiced today, be it a MMA or a TMA, has been changed and/or borrowed from other fighting systems and cultures. Bottom line is that BOTH SETS of MA's have something great to offer the right practitioner, with only one variable....the practioner's goals and needs. Not everyone is gonna need what the TMA's have to offer and not every practioner is gonna want what the MMA/JKD has to give....hope that came out right! :laugh:

There is a GREAT article in Black Belt this month on this very subject. I will try to look it up again.

Later,
Gary

[swdw]

I train in a traditional style- mentioned as no good for todays situations in an earlier post. The style is one of the branches of Okinawan Goju.

My expereince has been that eclectic styles were usually started by someone who was in too much of a hurry to stick around and learn in a systematic structured manner. I have a copy of an old article called "Reinventing the wheel" which points out some eye opening facts. I'll mail a copy to anyone interested.

Although I train in an "outdated" style, I have been welcome with open arms by the local Marine recruiters and reservists to do an occasional seminar. The chief Marine Corps martial arts instructor in the Colorado Reserve/Recruiting District gave the ok for me to do so because he felt I taught "the real thing".

I have students and friends who took eclectic martial arts bash the training until I show them things in the basics and kata that they had no idea existed. These are principles I teach at white and yellow belt that they didn't know after several years of training.

Every one of my Sensei's students that's had to defend themselves on the street has done so successfully- some were only 6th or 7th kyu at the time.

There are many things ridiculed in the traditional arts because of a lack of knowledge or understanding. It invariably seems that part of the reason for this is traditional instructors trying to make many of the principles one of the "secrets" they only pass on to a select few. Doing so limits the effectiveness of a traditional art on the street. This is a reacurring theme that I've seen among frinds that are traditional martial artists that is very saddening.

In addition, the watering down of traditional arts because of sport competition is creating a legitimate gripe about the applicability of a traditional art on the street. Distance for tournament fighting and street fighting are not the same. Another problem-the overcommitment of a technique in point sparring can leave a practitioner wide open to a number of counter techniques when used on the street. Eliminating takedowns, sweeps, grabs and joint locks in tornaments causes a person to be ill prepared for the street. Fighting with full protective gear often leads to throwing many ineffective techniques.

Personally, I'll put my money on an experienced street fighter/gang member over a tournament sparring champ everytime.

Well, there's my 2 cents :wave:

[bloodymonkey117]

what if you had two guys, one of them was a sparring champion, and the other one didn't compete; then who would you place your money on? competition is VERY important in my opinion, because it allows people to use their technique in an environment where somebody else isn't going to let them at all, and there's something at stake. it's wrong to gear all training to the rules of competition, but competition in and of itself is healthy, and useful! :bandit:

[swdw]

what if you had two guys, one of them was a sparring champion, and the other one didn't compete; then who would you place your money on? competition is VERY important in my opinion, because it allows people to use their technique in an environment where somebody else isn't going to let them at all, and there's something at stake. it's wrong to gear all training to the rules of competition, but competition in and of itself is healthy, and useful! :bandit:

Ahh to be young and 19 again. :)

You don't have to compete in a tournament to experience the very environment you are talking about. If the instructor does not create a training environment that is realistic for his students, then he is doing them a disservice.

As a lesson for the young, in the 1970's Takayuki Mikami Sensei (Shotokan)would challenge the sparring grand champion at an open tournament to an exhibition bout. He always won and he DID NOT COMPETE. These were top tournament fighters of the time. IN 1974 he fought Skipper Mullins after he won the United States Championship and beat him.

We had a gentlemen and a friend of his come to my Sensei's school that unbeknown to us was a regional champion in sparring at open tournaments. I found this out from his friend while he was on the floor sparring one of the other students. He was manhandled by a brown belt. We don't spar tournament style and he was not used to the techniques we used.

I'm all for kata competition, but tournament sparring needs to be treated for what it really is- a game.

I agree that competition can be useful, but it has gone beyond that point. Only a very small number compete for the experience rahter than for the trophy.

[JessePasley]

Hmm, I'm having a hard time trying to get at the terms 'eclectic' vs 'traditional'. Eclectic means the mixing of various styles or methods (and generally unspecific in aim), so how exactly are arts like muay thai or bjj considered elcletic at all?

On the other hand, many certifiably traditional martial arts are wholly eclectic. Pretty much any style of traditional CMA has strikes, throws, joint locks, etc. Throw in some weapons and a few Five Fingers of Death (*joke*) and you might have a mess of techniques to deal with.

If it's modern vs 'old' styles that this debate is really about, well, the techniques are pretty much the same, just the training methods have changed for the better. I'll take a modern art while keeping an eye to tradition.

[jakmak52]

TKD is basically modified Shotokan Karate (which is itself not native to Japan and merely a compilation or "rip-off" some would say of older Chinese systems). TKD wasn't even codified as a recognizably distinct system until just a few years ago in the '50's and 60's. So by your definition, it is non-traditional and eclectic.

Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu is older than TKD. It was condified as a recognizably distinct system in the 30's and 40's. However, many people even deny such, saying it is really not a distict system, but merely a subset of pre-WWII Judo.

By your definition, United States Jujitsu Federation style jujitsu an eclectic style because it draws techniques and strategies from a number of previously existing styles. However, I'll wager it's practitioners would vigorously assert it is a "traditional" style.

My jiu-jitsu is pure. I learned it under the direct observation of my master Carlos Machado, who learned it directly from his uncle Master Helio Gracie, who learned it directly from his father and the man who developed the system, Master Carlos Gracie, Sr., the source.

Does that mean my jiu-jitsu is more "traditional" or *better* than some guy who learned it from some 5th removed, unknown BJJ teacher in London, England? Not at all.

So you see, the whole issue of "lineage" and "we were first" is really much ado about nothing.


Your art is only as old as the guy standing there teaching it to you.

Some theories are more highly glossed than others and arguments about the origins of open hand and foot fighting will continue. There are theories that the art originated in Okinawa, in Japan, and in Korea. The Chinese theory, however, is most readily accepted since China was the cradle of Oriental culture; but this does not necessarily mean the martial arts as well had their beginning there. Again, the Koreans also have their theories with documents and wall drawings substantiating their claim. Perhaps the best answer is that open hand and foot fighting did not originate in any one country, but instead it was a natural development which occurred in different places as it was needed for defense, the method of development differing according to time and place.

John, here's another school of thought: This process of development can be broadly outlined as follows: Japanese karate called kongsudo or tangsudo was introduced to Korea just after liberation from Japan by Koreans who had learned karate in Japan. Upon returning, these Koreans opened karate gymnasiums promoting what they were teaching as karate, much like the process followed by the early Judo instructors. Well after these schools became established, the need to "Koreanize" was felt. The process of Koreanization consisted of three main aspects. The first was the selection of a new, non-Japanese name. The second was the creation of a system of techniques and training which was distinctly different from that of karate, and the third was the attempt to establish t'aegwondo's existence and development within tile historical flow of Korean civilization. The development of a new system of techniques and training was under-taken by moving away from karate's nature as a martial art of self-defense through the development of t'aegwondo as a sport? This has been called the "competitionalization" or sportization of t'aegwondo.

[jakmak52]

"I am a traditionalist, I want to train in arts that have been around for a while. "

Eh, in your profile it says you train TKD, which hasn't been around that long at all.

In the history of Koryo, Taekwondo which was then termed "Subak" was practiced not only as a skill to improve health and as a sport activity but it was also encouraged as a martial art of considerably high value. Subak is believed to have gained its highest popularity during the reign of King Uijong, between 1,147 and 1,170 A.D. This period roughly corresponds to the era that includes part of the Chinese Song and Ming dynasties, during which the Chinese "Kungfu" became widely popular. This is worth noticing as it further shows that Taekwondo is not only of a pure Korean origin but it has achieved independent development throughout the long history of Korea. I'd say 900 years is a substantial time :wink2:

[jakmak52]

My "base" or "core" training lies with ITF TKD (Chang Hon) style/discipline, but we were also taught Shotokan, JKD, and shootfighting as well to "round out" our training, I think the term "it's all good" comes into play here. Am I a traditionalist/classical martial artist? That's a good question. I like to think I am with the benefits of the wide range of other styles that we all enjoy. My last 2 katas I needed to learn to earn my black belt were Kwan Gye - 19th Emperor of the Koguryo Dynasty (TKD based) and Bat Sai Dai (Major) - Breaking through the Fortress (Shotokan based) so, go figure :D It's ALL good :bandit: And go fly a kite :rolleyes:

[jakmak52]

John, do you practice a koryu Art? well, I am pretty sure you don't.

Have you ever? Again, I would guess not.

Now as a sweeping generalisation, I think what you said has the subtle hint of truth in it, but first, before comenting in the way you did you should really try to see and understand what the koryu are;



Oh and I am quite sure that any of the practicioners of Takenouchi ryu or Katori Shinto ryu would be quite upset to here that their densho and makimono are wrong. That their history and tradition are not as old as they have documanted.

These densho are followed, tought from and treasured. So yes, techniques change, but that is not what the koryu are about In fact, densho are still being editted, amended and added to as the ryuha is developed within the particular ryu.

To practice the koryu bujutsu is not to practice something for its practicality, it is something else. I mean, the koryu tend to be taught in a form which is much more like dance, or kata.

They do not say "he comes at you like this and you move here and do the other". Both partners know exactly what they should do, the method of the attack and the defence technique.

Yes, I agree, the koryu would hold very little bairing on the streets of todays society as goshin. But then, neither would the Gendai budo of today.

The koryu are not teaching you how to fight. They just give you a method of motion and a metal kamae to try and hold onto.

I am not going to continue, or I may end up having rant...

... people should understand what it is they are doing, and realise that regardless of when their style was born, the chances of any technique/ movement or what have you, ever actually working in a self defence situation is quite unlikly.

Anyway, take care

Lawrence.

P.S. There are a lot of fakes and phonies out there, who claim to teach this or that classical Martial Art. Be very careful not to be influenced by these men. They are basically raping a nation of their cultural practice and historical inherritance. These men are part of the reason why the koryu are not realy widley practiced outside of Japan, and as such, are slowly beginning to die.

I don't appreciate the way you challenge Mr. Bennett and his opinions, I DO train and compete in a koryu Art, and I don't doubt for a moment I was trained by "fakes/phonies" and resent your statements concerning the lineage and practicality of certain martial arts. Sounds more like contempt prior to investigation :D Have a nice day ;)

[swdw]

Hmm, I'm having a hard time trying to get at the terms 'eclectic' vs 'traditional'. Eclectic means the mixing of various styles or methods (and generally unspecific in aim), so how exactly are arts like muay thai or bjj considered elcletic at all?

For my post, let me explain what I consider an eclectic art. Keep in mind this is only my view and others define it differently. Fot the purpose of my discussion earlier I consider an eclectic martial art one that has roots that can be traditional or otherwise but eschews kata as useless and considers traditional basics practice an achronistic way to teach basics. Often such schools focus solely on fighting and sparring competition. I hope I've given enough of an explanation here to clarify my views.

[jakmak52]

For my post, let me explain what I consider an eclectic art. Keep in mind this is only my view and others define it differently. Fot the purpose of my discussion earlier I consider an eclectic martial art one that has roots that can be traditional or otherwise but eschews kata as useless and considers traditional basics practice an achronistic way to teach basics. Often such schools focus solely on fighting and sparring competition. I hope I've given enough of an explanation here to clarify my views.

Sam,
I don't believe Muay Tai or BJJ has kata? Do they? I understand your point of view, what I have a hard time with the roots being traditional yet have no forms/kata, of course other than the traditional MA's that had no kata to begin with. I'm pretty sure the Karate and TKD stylists originated with katas as being a (comprehensive) part of the training, but not sure on other disciplines. :confused:

[DungeonWorks]

Wow guys, why don't we just start from the time the first caveman struck another caveman with a fist or open hand???? :rolleyes: THAT would have to be the only TRUE traditional martial art then???? All the rest had added things like kicking, biting, headbutt....ect.

I use the term traditional martial art as an MA that has been done the same way for many years (like at least 50+), USUALLY has kata, and has some semblance of respect and order. I also enjoy them for what they have to offer...such as form and structure, respect, and the historical features as well as the culture all together. Much of what I have learned is based off of Shotokan, Ishinryu, Chinese Kempo, Aikido, Judo....and is eclectic as it was developed in the 1950's. It is called Koeikan Karate. I also had Tae Kwon Do of the ITF style. I consider both traditional.

Eclectic styles in this thread, I would just call them "Modern Eclectic" styles. JKD, Shoot Fighting, Wrestling, Vale Tudo and many others are more suited for todays streets and bar rooms IN MY OPINION. I am sure that the Traditional styles can be in situations today, but were much more effective in there hey days. Why? Because they were NEW and most of all, a practitioner back then fought in a way that was NOT THE NORM of what others were used to seeing.....not too unlike what happened to the "traditional" guys in the early days of the UFC tourneys. It was not that the ground new styles were better, they were just accomplishing there ends with means long neglected by the stand up styles.

Just my two cents, so don't hurt me! :laugh:

[jakmak52]

Wow guys, why don't we just start from the time the first caveman struck another caveman with a fist or open hand???? :rolleyes: THAT would have to be the only TRUE traditional martial art then???? All the rest had added things like kicking, biting, headbutt....ect.

I use the term traditional martial art as an MA that has been done the same way for many years (like at least 50+), USUALLY has kata, and has some semblance of respect and order. I also enjoy them for what they have to offer...such as form and structure, respect, and the historical features as well as the culture all together. Much of what I have learned is based off of Shotokan, Ishinryu, Chinese Kempo, Aikido, Judo....and is eclectic as it was developed in the 1950's. It is called Koeikan Karate. I also had Tae Kwon Do of the ITF style. I consider both traditional.

Eclectic styles in this thread, I would just call them "Modern Eclectic" styles. JKD, Shoot Fighting, Wrestling, Vale Tudo and many others are more suited for todays streets and bar rooms IN MY OPINION. I am sure that the Traditional styles can be in situations today, but were much more effective in there hey days. Why? Because they were NEW and most of all, a practitioner back then fought in a way that was NOT THE NORM of what others were used to seeing.....not too unlike what happened to the "traditional" guys in the early days of the UFC tourneys. It was not that the ground new styles were better, they were just accomplishing there ends with means long neglected by the stand up styles.

Just my two cents, so don't hurt me! :laugh:

Thanks Gary, I enjoy your posts :D

[Qasim]

I would say, whoever goes to study a Traditional system is because he/she is interested in those old styles and wants to learn what was used before. Although you can modify those traditional techniques to work for situation now, the modern styles have been created most likely for that reason. To meet the situation of nowadays.
The styles created during WWII is not much for situation nowadays, it's for peace time, to live in harmony, they are known as Budo arts, or Do = Way.

I don't get it. Are you saying that one needed to learn how to fight during World War II but one doesn't need to fight now? :eek:

[bloodymonkey117]

I think RobNyc is refering to the changes that happened amongst japanese martial arts from the jitsu to the do. I don't tihnk he's right, but i think that's what he's talking about. I personally think whatever happens to work for you is the best. You know it's funny though, because it seems that traditional just means from the East, and eclectic, or modern just means from the West... Unless you're refering to jeet kune do which is for some reason treated differently... If you really think about it, boxing and Muay Thai have been around for a REALLY long time. Al ot of the old Muay Thai diagrams deeply resemble shouthern chinese stuff. And as far as mixed martial arts are concerned, that's not a new concept either. look at karate, choy le fut, hungar, eagle claw, monkey, tae kwon do, etc. For the most part, all styles are just other styles rearranged and mixed. Ain't nothing new under the sun, which is why i don't think there should be sucha distinction between traditional and modern or eclectic. :bandit:

[GodofGamblers]

I have a totally different opinion from the ones above, which some may find interesting. I find that in Asia we concentrate too much on technique. Asians, esp. Chinese, are crazy about techniques, secret moves, esoteric forms, etc, but in fact, conditioning is the most important in any real combat.

I lived in Eastern Europe for two years: one year in Poland and one year in the Ukraine and I boxed with the locals. What a humbling experience. The Eastern European sports model is focused on conditioning, not on technique. And they are so right.

For the first few rounds you make them look stupid, dancing around and using elaborate techniques on them while they just come at you 100% with effective, yet VERY simple techniques. By the time you reach the 5th or 6th rounds, you are throwing few kicks, breathing thru your mouth, while they are coming at you still at 100% energy. It was clear in my mind who the better fighter was in the end.

So I would choose conditioning over technique any day. Get two or three techniques you know well and forget the rest. And then ... conditioning, conditioning conditioning.

But that's just my point of view.

I would prefer a rolled up magazine and a two or three good techniques to all the katas and jurus in the world.

[bloodymonkey117]

If you've ever been to a shaolin temple, white crane temple, san shou school, hard-core traditional kung fu school, Mount Wudang, or hell even a couplea the schools i've been in you'd realize that conditioning isn't a "Western" idea. Muay Thai is Eastern, and yet it's usually fairly immune to treatment as such because of it's marked similarities to boxing. I've seen Karate practitioners who can quite literally fold steel skillets. I've met TKD guys that can punch through coconuts. There's Shaolin monks that do 2 fingered handstand pushups with one hand. On the other hand, you've got a lot of guys that get caught up in a useless amount of technique and expect it to save them. but that's an Eastern tendency mistake. And usually, a guy that teaches like that really hasn't mastered his techniques. A western tendency mistake is to do just the opposite. Many of them focus almost exclusively on conditioning and ignore the technical aspects of fighting, prefering the weight-room to the ring. They might show you the two tricks that took them much farther then they should have, and you may get stronger because of the conditioning, but it's big and useless if you don't know how to use it. Of course, when Western guys get balance between conditioning and technique, you get Muhammad Ali, Quincy Clark, Royce Gracie, etc. But the same can be said for eastern guys (Bruce Lee, Benny "The Jet" Urquiedez, "Superfoot" Bill Wallace, Wong Shun Leung, etc.). Ain't nobody better then anyone else. The only thing different is how we do what we do.

"Many rivers to one ocean" :bandit:

[lightninrod]

I get a big kick out of all the "modern/eclectic" practitioners who insist that the "traditional stuff" doesn't work because modern needs are somehow "different". What a load of crap. If some particular art or another was good enough to keep somebody alive through a melee of thousands and thousands of people trying to kill each other with all sorts of bladed and blunt weapons, then it is by far good enough for any modern "street fight". The problem is that there are alot of people who call their arts "traditional" when they have, in fact, been watered down for sport or self-developmental purposes. To throw all the traditional combat arts under the same blanket and declare them outdated and ineffective/irrelevant is fallacy. After all, dodging bokken, bo, or hanbo while simultaneously delivering an unarmed counterattack is a HELL of alot harder than dealing with punches and take-downs. The kind of sensitivity to distance, timing, and positioning that this kind of training develops is indispensable in a real self-defence situation. A bokken, bo, or hanbo swinging at you on a regular basis makes most "modern" methods of attack seem really slow. (Try it. You'll see.) Besides, what's so "modern" about punches or takedowns anyway? Not a d*mn thing. Duh. :rolleyes:

Justin Mears

[bloodymonkey117]

very true. And while i've never personally been attacked by simultaneous swords and felt the need to make an unarmed counter-attack instead of running, I'd imagine it would require incredible amounts of skill, strength, and speed. Personally, i love the old stuff. But i'm going to say that you can get the same skill, speed, power, whatever from whatever art you decide to take if you train it right. Traditional or Modern/Eclectic, we're talkin' the same thing in a different package. Actually, i think that this topic is doomed to flame 'cause seriously, if your answer isn't "Because i enjoy this method of doing things" it's against something else or coming from a space that what better, as opposed to what you do is better for you. I don't understand the point of definites or names all that well, so my opinion might not make sense... But i don't know, someone asks me which i like better, i'd say traditional. and if they asked why, i'd say because i like it.

[GodofGamblers]

Bloodmonkey, i didn't express myself clearly: i don't mean strength training by conditioning, i was referring specifically to cardio.

there is too much time wasted, in my mind, mastering obscure moves of white cranes and the like when jogging or rather wind sprints should be the priority.

i believe the mix should be 80/20 cardio/technique in the beginning and then 90/10 once the technique is mastered.

[bloodymonkey117]

Best cardio i ever got was continual sparring.

[lightninrod]

very true. And while i've never personally been attacked by simultaneous swords and felt the need to make an unarmed counter-attack instead of running, I'd imagine it would require incredible amounts of skill, strength, and speed.

More skill than anything else really. Speed is relevant, and emphasis on strength just slows you down. You really don't have to be all that fast if your timing is perfect. Timing is why many senior practitioners can make mince-meat of the younger, faster guys and not seem to put much effort into it. There are practice drills for this if you're interested. My friends and I used to practice this stuff alot, and it made a huge difference no matter what art any of us personally preferred. None of us were experts, but we found that a little skill of this sort goes a loooong way.



Personally, i love the old stuff. But i'm going to say that you can get the same skill, speed, power, whatever from whatever art you decide to take if you train it right.
AMEN! Say it again, brother!!!



Traditional or Modern/Eclectic, we're talkin' the same thing in a different package. Actually, i think that this topic is doomed to flame 'cause seriously, if your answer isn't "Because i enjoy this method of doing things" it's against something else or coming from a space that what better, as opposed to what you do is better for you. I don't understand the point of definites or names all that well, so my opinion might not make sense... But i don't know, someone asks me which i like better, i'd say traditional. and if they asked why, i'd say because i like it.
I'm with you on this one, too. I like traditional methods because they work for me. More than once I've saved myself from personal harm with the ol' tried and true, and I didn't need any "modern" MMA training to make things work. But if someone else prefers to use "modern" MMA, I can't knock them because that's what works for them. I do what I do because it fits me best. So does everyone else.

[DungeonWorks]

Almost all of my training is from a traditional background...Tae Kwon Do and Koeikan Karate Do. I am presently studying at a Jeet Kune Do school, a local Straightblast Gym affiliated school, and I can honestly tell you that BOTH will give you something to take home. The JKD seems to fill the gaps I had in my TMA training....such as groundfighting and the clinch. I have only been at it for a little over a month with the JKD, and have a TON more to learn, but still....I can see beneficial REAL FIGHTING applications in the drills and techniques (I have only done some basic positioning drills and some basic blocking technique as of yet....still have more to learn before I can get into submissions and such) I have seen thus far. I like the informal and loose feel of the class as well. I have NEVER seen any of the attitudes often mentioned about when talking of the MMA schools either. Everyone is respectfull and it seems ego's are non-existent.....much like my old dojo, just without bowing and a different approach to the same end: Learning to fight effectively.

[Abbax8]

SevenStar, (sorry, can't find your name!)



Are you saying that your CLub Coach grades you? It sounds like you are which I find very surprising. You get points for attending class?! That is a novel concept but how exactly does attendance relate to skill/technique acquisition and improvement? Not everyone learns at the same speed and points for attendance seems to be based on the premise that they do.

Also, what exactly is "service"? Once you get into the realms of unspecified "contributions" it opens the door to charges of bribery and corruption, something I'm sure we all want to avoid.

Perhaps I have misundertood you.

Richard.

Richard, what has been described here is how the United States Judo Association has setup their point structure. Examples of how points are earned are as follows: class attendence 0.1 pt.
Enter a local shiai 1.0 pt.
Wins in shiai- varies, juniors get 1 pt. per win. Seniors get pts. depending on their and their opponents rank, from 0 to 2 pts. I think.
Service to judo- determined by coach. Service to judo can be participating in a demonstration or other club activity.
Working as timekeeper or scorekeeper at shiai earns you points, refereeing also earns points. Attending clinics, being certified to teach kata, coach classes, etc. (you must attend clinics to receive this certification) earns points.
Sponsoring a shiai or clinic.
Working as the head instructor or assistant instructor at the club.
Winning a shiai- points vary from 1 to 10, depends on the size of the shiai, a local tournament or the World Championships.

As you can see there are many legitimate ways a student can earn points towards promotion. The goal of the system is to keep all judoka active in judo and reward their efforts.

Peace

Dennis

[Iron Dove]

traditional for artistic purposes, eclectic for combative purposes

[Grei]

The age-old question...

Well... not really.

But anyways... traditional... modern... as has been said before, there's not necessarily a whole lot of difference. Doesn't really matter HOW you kick a guys but as long as you can get it done... but I guess that's the big issue eh? Which works better. But as everyone is different, you can't really solve that. We all have our individual strengths and weaknesses, and it's probably impossible to find to people who are equally proficient in their respective styles.

What seems silly to me are 'traditional' tournament style fights where you are limited to the one style, especially if you have trained in multiple. If you've been trained how to do something that the situation calls for, why shun it just because it doesn't 'traditionally' fit with the rest of your style?

[arod]

I voted traditional. It suits my personality type. I like the tradition and historical aspect. It adds interest and meaning to my training.

[TonyU]

I voted traditional. It suits my personality type. I like the tradition and historical aspect. It adds interest and meaning to my training.
Same here. Well said.

[Margaret Lo]

traditional for artistic purposes, eclectic for combative purposes

This completely the wrong way to define the question. In fact this whole thread is really confusing due to everybody comparing apples and oranges and looking at things in such a piecemeal way. We need to look at the big picture.

I think what is happening in the eclectic arts effort is actually an attempt to return to the richness of traditional arts (strikes, takedowns, grappling and weapons in one stop). This richness has been taken out in the transition of koryu arts to sport: TKD lost its fist techniques, Japanese karate lost kata applications, Judo became mostly interested in the big takedown and not in groundwork, leaving it to BJJ to concentrate on judo ground technqiue to fill in the gap.

Meanwhile, weapons are forgotten by most in their training assumptions. But in fact, weapons have to be accounted for in any "real" situation. As GOG says in favor of boxing: "So I would choose conditioning over technique any day. Get two or three techniques you know well and forget the rest. And then ... conditioning, conditioning conditioning" But conditioning won't win over a knife.

So the ideal eclectic system in the minds of those who wish for "street effective" would have strikes, unbalancing, groundwork, and weapons - in other words a koryu art! I think the only thing the traditional arts may lack is more frequent "realistic" training with surprise techniques. I think that exists but I am not knowledgeable enough to know the specifics.


M

[Kevin]

Margaret, an interesting question to pose here might be if his speed might give him more of an upper hand than a fancy knife disarm, and if, once in position, more force might be a greater advantage than an advanced technique.

I am inclined to think not, and say that it seems that a correctly applied manuever would be more effective, and once in position, a better lock would be better than more power. However, that is more my underinformed opinion than a written-in-stone fact.

Traditional arts with their considerable depth tend to drift into specialized varietions. Teachers often find techniques that work particularly well for them, and emphasize the teaching of those to their students, rather than the "whole system."

It then falls to mma, "eclectic" systems, and individual practitioners to find the greater depth and breath of the system.

[Margaret Lo]

Traditional arts with their considerable depth tend to drift into specialized varietions. Teachers often find techniques that work particularly well for them, and emphasize the teaching of those to their students, rather than the "whole system."

It then falls to mma, "eclectic" systems, and individual practitioners to find the greater depth and breath of the system.

Well here is another area of confusion. TKD, Japanese Karate, Judo, BJJ are not really traditional martial arts. They are creations of the late 19th and early to mid-20th century and were created as mass physical education. Deadly techniques were deliberately removed and specialization occurred for better sport. But since these styles arose from martial concepts of older arts, one writer (can't remember who!) calls them "traditionalistic" rather than true old arts. In contrast, however, some okinawan karate may still be fairly called traditional since they take weapons, and all fighting ranges into account.

Many teachers emphasize particular techniques and not "the whole system" because they never learned it. Japanese karate stylists usually have no weapons background, and their ground technique exists only if they had Judo in high school or college.

The frustration caused by this narrowing of knowledge spawned the eclectic arts craze. By and large I think its a good thing. But it doesn't invalidate the true old arts, nor does it invalidate the traditionalistic arts which usually give very firm foundations for acquisition of new skills.

It seems to me that the eclectic styles, after all the talk about how new and better they are, are in fact, just recreating the wheel. Plus, behind all the promotional talk is the simple fact that they're trying to make $$, and that's ok since we all have to make a living. But talk doesn't make a style completely new, by and large they're just repackaged old techniques so that people will BUY. BJJ is newaza in judo and jujutsu. Add strikes to BJJ oops Judo still has strikes. Krav maga looks a lot like karate simplified and rushed into an 8 week course for Israeli army draftees.

In contrast, one 400 year old art of my recent acquaintance starts with sword training, has bo (6 ft) chobo (walking stick length), unarmed grappling, counters against strikes, ground techniques, chokes etc... That sounds like a full meal. As eclectic as the eclectics.

M

[Kevin]

Largely true.

Pretty much most of what is in "modern-form" Japanese JJ, BJJ, and Judo already existed in the older Japanese JJ - but great teachers specialized sufficiently to create an "spinoff" art.

But by the same token, from all I've heard going into a BJJ school and going to a traditionally styled JJ school in, say, Japan, will expose differences in training, form, and proceedure.

The teachers not learning is exactly where I was going with the specialization of teachers - they will teach others who become teachers, but largely teachers adept at doing as the specialist did, rather than effective proponents of the "whole art."

[TonyU]

Mmmm, interesting.
Kinda goes with my belief that alot of the gendai arts have become "compartmentalized" throughout the years.

[Margaret Lo]

Largely true.

Pretty much most of what is in "modern-form" Japanese JJ, BJJ, and Judo already existed in the older Japanese JJ - but great teachers specialized sufficiently to create an "spinoff" art.

But by the same token, from all I've heard going into a BJJ school and going to a traditionally styled JJ school in, say, Japan, will expose differences in training, form, and proceedure.

The teachers not learning is exactly where I was going with the specialization of teachers - they will teach others who become teachers, but largely teachers adept at doing as the specialist did, rather than effective proponents of the "whole art."

Here is a comparison of Japanese JJ with BJJ. This was very educational since they contrasted the different principles underlying the choice of one technique vs. another.

http://www.grapplearts.com/Submission-Grappling-vs-ju-jutsu.htm

So which is better? Seems to me that the circumstances for each style are so different that you are best off understanding and learning both vs. one or the other. Is it archaic that the Japanese style presumed multiple opponents and the need to get up quickly? or is it realistic even today?

M

[Kevin]

I assume the answer will depend on the person. Whether to learn from both arts or concentrate on one will likely also be a matter of personal preference.

[TroyRoget]

From what I've seen, the main things that styles focus on are standing (strikes, standing joint locks, clinching), ground fighting (pins, submissions, strikes from the ground), and transitions in between (throws, takedowns, ukemi). Most styles I've seen focus on one of those three areas. So I agree that they are becoming compartmentalized.

[photon]

gotta roll with the times. i ain't living in the past...

[Yang Wei Xin]

Never studied an ecletric art, is it shocking?

What about traditional eclectic arts like praying mantis, its 350 years old and is composed of 18 different styles.

Or choy lay fut.

or Hung Gar.

Or Goju Ryu.

The best systems tend to absorb what they see as good.

[Enyu]

I usually prefer traditional arts, but I judge more by the teacher and the school. Although traditional is just my personal taste, I would much rather go to a good eclectic instructor than to a bad traditional one and vice-versa.

[wildwills]

I chose eclectic simply because eclectic arts tend to "go with the flow" a bit and offer a more diverse skill set.

Not to say traditional is bad, not at all. What I always get a kick out of is how Okinawan and Japanese style practitioners view eclectic arts as "watered down". Only time can tell. All Okinawan styles for example have a basis on Chinese Chuan Fa (Chinese boxing) from China's Fukien province. You can also read Chuan Fa as Kempo/Kenpo. These Okinawan masters did not take the exact curriculum and techniques from Chinese masters back to Okinawa. They added or changed them with techniques and ideas native to Okinawan.

So one could even argue that all Okinawan styles are also eclectic in a sense, since they do not mirror the exact CMA they are based off of.


Just food for thought. :rolleyes:

[James O'Neill]

...I think Hapkido is about the most eclectic "traditional" Art there is. So both :D

[Qasim]

....So which is better? Seems to me that the circumstances for each style are so different that you are best off understanding and learning both vs. one or the other. Is it archaic that the Japanese style presumed multiple opponents and the need to get up quickly? or is it realistic even today?

M

Let me answer by asking, "How many times have you heard in the news or in conversations of people being beaten by more than one assailant? Addtionally, how many times have you heard of someone in a bar fight not having friends there to help?"

Jujutsu covers single and multiple attackers.