Constant experimentation vs. tradition

[tallgeese]

I was just reading thru a thread and what I though was an interesting question came to light. How much of what we all do is done that way simply because our instructors did it that way? How deep is the meaning behind just about anything we might be asked to do?

So my qustion to everyone is this: how much do you value constat questioning and experimentation in your training vs. doing things a certain way simply because that's how you were taught? Where do you fall along this spectrum?

I really do think this is a wide spectrum. I doubt very much that any of use are at the extreme end either way on this. It's probibly a matter of different shades towards each. We can't help but be influcned by the way we were taught, and in some cases, maybe you don't need to press forward with the evolution of what you're doing for one reason or another.

Not suprising to anyone around here I'd bet, is that I fall into the constant experimentation catagory. I think that the less we take for granted, the more efficient we can become at combat. This is how progress is made. You work movements, you deploy them against very "live" opponants and see how they do. Then you continue to go back to the drawing board as needed.

I'd like to see science applied more to things that have been either questioned or taken for granted for years (pressure points for instance). With the advent of RBSD networks, we're starting to see some research come out about different aspects of fighting and survial and I'm glad to see it, I hope it continues and we start to see statistical breakdowns of things that are working and arent' in real world situations.

We're starting to see some of this come back anctedotally from troops using different unarmed methods around the globe as well as LE officers using DT in the line of duty. Hopefully, we'll start to see some deliniated studies on this sort of thing.

I also think that the UFC has been very useful in the testing of movements over the last 15 years or so. Full contact competition with limited rules (not no rules, but more limited than lots of competitive venues) agaisnt fully resistive opponents has taught us alot about what works and what's suspect as well as training and teaching methodologies.

So that's the side of things I lean towards. Now, there are some things I still do because that's the way I grew up in the arts. For instacne, I run belt tests about the same way my insturctor did. BB tests are done in the same manner with the same sections and proficiencies (sometimes different movements to be sure, but the same principles). There are also the same quirky aspects to them that I inherated from him.

The one big thing I got from"because that's they way I was taught" mentality, was, ironically, the idea of contantly testing movements and new ideas for effectivenss.

So how does everyone else feel about this topic?

[BDPulver]

Thats a good question Tallgeese and at the moment I'm kinda stumped now. I know I am guilty of the thats how I was taught mentallity but also I was taught to try different things also.

[bushido_man96]

Unfortunately, I live in both worlds here. In the DT and Combat Hapkido sessions that I do, I like to experiment here and there, and test and try different things out.

In my TKD and Aikido classes, unfortunately, the classes are pretty well set. I despise the one-steps in TKD, and view them as pretty well useless after the first few belt levels, but mainly because we don't expand on them. As some might have seen from my rant on the cross-over side kick in the MA training thread, I have some issues with some instructor's ideals on technique. The Aikido class, which I do enjoy for a change, is just somewhat helter-skelter at times, and I think that the students in that class take a LOT of things for granted.

I would like for our TKD classes to be more experimental, but they are not. So, I do my thing on the side.

[Wa-No-Michi]

Haven't we been down this road before?

I suppose the ultimate crux of the matter comes down to whether kata based systems like karate, TKD, Iaido etc, bear fruit for you, as opossed to kumite based systems like wrestling, judo and mma etc.

[bushido_man96]

Couldn't kata-based systems bear more fruit if you did experiment with them, though? Take what guys like Iain Abernethy and Stuart Paul Anslow have done with their Karate and TKD systems, respectively. What they have done has helped to improve their systems, from what I can see.

[ShoriKid]

I think we all vary back and forth between those two points over time Tallgesse. At different points in time we are sliding up an down, from wrote following of tradition to tinkering with every single thing we're working on.

right now, we tend to start out with a traditional technique and then tinker with it until we find the variation that works for us. Sometimes that's very close to the original, traditional, technique. Other times it is very different. And sometimes, what we are teaching is something that we've already fiddled with. So, the white belts coming in now are getting the advantage of years of working on something and finding the small improvements. I wonder if they consider those things as traditional? I mean, it's how they were taught. And, while we try to explain why it is we do things the way we do, I don't know if it all makes sense to the first timer since they are seeing the end result and not the way things didn't work before.

[DWx]

I think it depends. Obviously experimentation is a good thing or else styles never grow or develop and we'd still all be doing things the way our instructor's instructor's instructor did them. A lot of the styles people practice today would never have come about if someone somewhere down the line hadn't decided to do things differently. You also have to think about context as well. An MA style that was evolved on the battlefield which takes into account armour and weapons etc. would have to be experiemented with and changed to make it applicable to the type of situation a MAist may find themselves in nowadays.

On a more individual level, I think a bit of experimentation is necessary because techniques generally aren't "one size fits all". You have to play around with them to get them to work for your body type and your own personal style. Sometimes the "traditional" approach to them isn't whats going to work for you.

On the other hand experimenting and changing things does have its downside. I think standardization was mentioned in another thread. You can't really have that if everyone is experimenting and changing things, either everyone has to implement it or you're going to lose the consistency between the group. And I think that in some cases you have to accept that there is a reason why you have been taught a particular way..

In my own training, the org I'm with does actually implement changes every now and then because someone has decided that things would work better another way. This even happens with movements being modified in the forms. I personally play around with stuff too but I have to admit not in a big way.

[joesteph]

Social change is usually the result of conflict within a society; experimentation within a martial art is likely the result of changes in society, therefore a questioning of what has been handed down, that it is deconstructed, then a decision is made for major or minor--or no--change.

Society may have a rule that had made perfect sense when it was implemented, but, as time has gone by, the rule has been scrutinized, people get into trouble breaking it, not out of disrespect but because of relevancy, and often the powers that be legitimize the change.

This can be applied to a martial art organization if we think of it as a society. It's a conflict perspective that results in positive change, a growth.

If a society refuses the change, it can mean social unrest. If an MA organization entrenches itself, it can mean breakaways.

[Ozpunker]

My vote goes to constant experimentation. My school's motto is 'School of constant improvement". The black belts have a meeting each year to discuss any changes they should make, we also have students and instructors from different MA backgrounds who all leave their mark what things are taught. Shihan is also very welcoming to new or different suggestions that may help us improve as a school.

[cross]

In my own training i think there is a balance of both. I doubt that there will be 2 many new discoveries in terms of techniques/tactics any time soon. By now we pretty much know what works and what doesnt. If you want to strike someone you cant go past the delivery systems of boxing and kickboxing, for grappling bjj and wrestling have been proven time and time again.

The areas we can improve and experiment on are functional ways to train these already proven skills. This is where my main experimentation occurs. Working out different ways to develop the skills.