The death of "traditional martial arts".

[JusticeZero]

Well. You gave a very specific and arbitrary definition and minimum target for the aspect I train, and deny it if that standard is not met. It seems only fair to offer a similar standard to your training. By that standard, then, you do not train Budo at ali. What do you train, then?

[Kusotare]

I train and teach Wado-ryu Karate for 25+ years.

I also train (and lead a study group) in a 17th century Koryu Bujutsu (The stuff the samurai do):

Iaido

Jujutsu

Kenjutsu

I have also studied (and am graded in) Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu.

All of which have a hump loads of very, very good techniques.

But again, I wouldn't say that by learing this stuff you are learning self defence for todays world. That's something different.

K.

Edited April 12, 2013 by Kusotare

[Kusotare]

And as for what defines Budo...

Being able to do Junzuki properly.

Can I do that after 25 years? Well I'm getting there. But at least I know that.

Am I 100% percent sure that my ma will defend me and my family, no, but at least I realise that also.

Should I therefore give up and train another style that guarantees that - well - no such thing.

What are the "actual" chances of you being seriously attacked?

K.

[JusticeZero]

For me? Low. But they are much lower because of the situational awareness, negotiation, tactics, adrenaline and social management, and criminal psychology material I have studied and teach.

For my students? Well. My current star student is a college age woman, pretty, looks very caucasian and American, and plans to spend several months doing research in South American slums or something similar to it. I think she has a bit higher chances of needing to know this stuff than I do.

That said, she has a busy schedule, I don't own a red man suit, and I don't have the resources to be staging random paint-gun and chalk-knife armed ambush scenarios in the college quad, even if I thought the campus police wouldn't take offense. Therefore, i'm apparently not teaching any self defense.

[Kusotare]

JusticeZero,

It sounds like you are doing a great job.

You seem to think I am criticising you personally - I am not.

I'm simply asking folk to be a little more introspective here - when it comes to training "traditional" martial arts - and the significance/actuality of self defence.

K.

[JusticeZero]

Mostly I was concerned that your standard was absurdly high. I only know of one teacher who might meet your criteria of a "self defense" teacher; i'm told he teaches tai chi up in the rustbelt somewhere to police and security types.

[Kusotare]

What or where is the "rustbelt" lol.

K.

[Kusotare]

Rust Belt = the north east/northern parts of the US?

Due to the declining industry?

K.

[JusticeZero]

Or near it. I don't recall how the name came about.

[tallgeese]

There will always be a market for "traditional" arts. And let's face it, the term traditional is a bit of a moving target anyway. There will be people always who want to study a particular method of training made popular by a specific nation during one point if it's history and will want to abide by the training practices that the founders of it's systematization set forth. There's nothing wrong with that. Martial arts is a big umbrella and there's all sorts of legitimate reasons to study it.

That said, I'll just throw out my two cents. It's a touchy subject.

For me, I see most traditional arts slowly becoming a niche market for those individuals I cited above (who I respect for their choices btw). For people who want to look at sd in the arts, you're going to see more and more cross training and merging of arts to fill in and compliment holes in base systems. People who do this will then move on to teach those skills to other like minded individuals. People seeking self defense aspects will be drawn to these avenues of learning.

Mostly, what holds "traditional" arts back in the self defense realm has more to do with training modalities than technique (but not always). Current, study proven, learning theory tells us that there ARE better and worse ways for adults to learn. And yet many traditional arts continue to teach "self defense" movements thru kata and unrealistic one steps. This is less than optimal for a variety of reasons. People don't make the connection and move away to schools using methods more akin to what Justice is talking about.

I'm not bashing kata. I'm simply using it as the most common and "off the top of my head" example of using a 100 year old teaching tool to teach modern combatives.

On another note, MMA, being highly popular, will have an impact as well. At it's outset, which I was fortunate enough to be around for, most people came out of a specific "traditional" background and started learning other things to compete. As the rules became more standardized, there was less need to experiment. Largely it was found that MT, BJJ, and wrestling would provide the best avenue to win that specific contest. Now, students who are drawn to that sort of contest won't need to "discover" this. They'll just start in programs that already take this into account and bypass the start in traditional arts (speaking generally here of course),

It's not a "death" of trad arts, but more of a better understanding of what people are going into the arts for.