Should the arts evolve?

[sensei8]

How many practitioners of a traditional martial art, understand the art well enough to contemplate modifying it?

A few things here.

1. There are arts out there that wouldn't be deemed "traditional," but are instead rooted in the type of techniques and training tactics used by LEOs and armed forces. There needn't be any kind of traditional background to begin with.

2. I don't think I need to totally come to a complete understanding of my TKD training or my Hapkido training to realize if it is going to suit my needs in combat. Lets take same very basic points of emphasis from my TKD class. a) no shoes allowed in class b) bowing c) 90% of the class is done in a solo manner, i.e., basics with no partner, forms with no partner. Then we get into the problem with sparring and one-steps: one attack, and then a pre-planned defense for one-steps, and sparring is rules based, semi-contact, no kicks below the belt, no hand techniques to the head.

So, in my years of TKD training, I can see holes that aren't helping me become a better fighter when it comes to self-defense. Which will benefit me more at this point in my training, continuing to refine my stepping punch in a front stance, or working some jabs and crosses with a moving partner holding pads, who also throws out a punch I have to defend? Or, a pre-planned one-step defense against a stepping punch thrown from a "bad guy" standing in a front stance and down block, rather than a scenario based "one-step" in which the "bad guy" is talking crap, getting animated, and then attacks or is deterred by some verbal judo?

So, as you can see, it isn't too difficult to find issues in traditional styles. These are just examples from my TKD training, and will not be conducive to all traditional styles. All I'm saying is that if you analyze what you are doing, you can take a good honest look and see what and where a shift in training will be beneficial to students.

Solid post!! The practitioner MUST evolve because without the practitioner evolving, the art's stagnate. We do the art, but the art doesn't do us because the art is nothing more than a vehicle, and in that, we're the transmission of said art!!

A few things here...

bushido_man96, you're right in that any defense training doesn't need to be traditional in its background. I would just like to point out that many of the great Karate / traditional MAs of the past (in 1800's through early modern era) were LEOs (Osensei Nagamine being one of them). They used their traditional Karate / MA techniques and applied them in practical, situational ways.

To address it in a different way, learning self-defense / defense techniques is akin to learning how to use different tools, yes? We often say that the hand-to-hand techniques in MA are just tools, just like any other weapon. Well, knives and clubs are considered some of the oldest / traditional tools / weapons of humankind, and we still use them to this day. LEOs have tactical batons; what are tactical batons other than modern clubs? Aside from differences in the physical manufacture, what has really changed in their applied use? How about knives / tactical knives?

Same with the human body and learning to use it as a weapon / tool. A fist is a fist, elbow an elbow, knee a knee, and so on. Whether the development of these tools is based upon "traditional" arts (like sensei8 said: simply vehicles to communicate said tool development) or modern tactics, what matters is how these tools are applied....

I think you were hitting on this somewhat in the last paragraph of your post (which was good and meaty ).

...which segues into addressing your other points (about your TKD / traditional MA experience), as well as the MA evolution discussion in general.

As sensei8 mentioned, the practitioner is the one who evolves and that the MA art is the transmission / communication of said art / evolution. However, I would extrapolate this beyond a bit...(uh-oh here I go again lol...)

IMHO, in order for a practitioner / MA art to have growth, adaptation, evolution, etc, a practitioner / MA art must have competent teachers / instructors to impart the MA art. A competent MA instructor will know the practical use of any technique taught to students. This means bunkai/oyo must be taught / learned; and, not just any bunkai/oyo, but those that have real, practical street applications. This also means kihon, one/multi-step, kumite, etc must have real, practical street applications.

Essentially, real, practical street applications = modern situational applications.

On one hand, this doesn't automatically mean that traditional bunkai/oyo don't have real, practical street applications. Back to what I said above, a fist is a fist, an elbow an elbow; they can only move / function in so many ways. If, after maneuvering / positioning / defending correctly, I use a gyaku zuki on an assailant in front of me, and at the same time, use my chambering arm as a hiji ate (elbow smash / strike) to his buddy on my flank, that traditional use is still applicable.

On the other hand, it's the situational application that must change. As in, some techniques may be considered obsolete (IMHO) because their situational / historic use no longer has any bearing in modern society. For instance, let's look at the flying side kick. We've heard of the legend about it being "originally used" to dismount horse riders; I'm not sure I buy into it (my physics / engineering mind tells me not to), but for sake of discussion, let's say it's true. In this case, what modern street application is there for a traditional tool that was supposedly used to dismount horse riders? Not much. We don't use traditional pole arms anymore, either (imagine LEOs showing up to a SWAT situation with pikes or halberds...weird...).

Still, that's not to say that a technique with an obsolete bunkai/oyo shouldn't be learned or has no use. One, learning something like a flying side kick (the argument for / against its practical use aside) can help a practitioner develop better balance, targeting, body center control, etc. Two, they're fun. Never discount that. Just remember what the move is for, what it's application is. If a competent instructor tells his / her students that "we only learn this move for training purposes" or "for fun", then students know up front it may or may not have a modern use. Three, learning obsolete techniques/bunkai/oyo for preservation of the art is OK, too. As long as the students know up front that a given technique is only for the art, and doesn't have a known modern use, then they should be OK with it. Learning stuff to preserve an art is what is useless to LEOs / military because they're not training to paint portraits or stills on canvas.

So, it's all dependent upon a competent instructor teaching practitioners / students techniques supported by proper bunkai/oyo, in turn supported by proper situational training (kumite, partner drills, bag work, etc...), which in turn gives a practitioner what's necessary to grow, adapt, evolve...

*takes a breath*

Solid post!!

[CredoTe]

I must evolve first!! Other wise, there is no art; it's a sentence without an exclamaton point.

Imho

True... I see your point. A practitioner must evolve him/herself in order to accept the teachings of a competent instructor...

(Thanks for the SP! kudos...)

[RW]

Yes they should evolve, and in my opinion, it's about time for many of them.

I can talk about my own experience here, with Shotokan, but I guess it also applies to other styles.

Why do we, for example, pull our hand all the way to the ear, only to bring the forearm back down to the front of our face when doing a ude uke? (

). It makes no sense. Why would one waste previous time, bringing the forearm all the way to the ear, while there is a punch travelling straight to my face?

This is only an example, there are so many other examples. Why do we chamber punches? Have you ever seen a mawashi tsuki (

) used in a real fight?

The main answers to this kind of questions has always been something along the lines of "well, we don't fight like that" (well, why to train it that way then?) or "it's just for perfecting technique" (how is it good for technique, if it's not what you're supposed to do in a fight?).

I'm not saying "get rid of ude uke, chambered punches, mawashi tsukis... (and by the way, stuff like the zenkutsu dachi position, etc)". All I am saying is, I see room for change, room for evolution.

How to modernize the martial art and still keep it (in the case of my example), karate? Well that's a good question, one I am not sure I can answer.

But keep in mind, Muay Thai wasn't always boxing punches with thai kicks, and with a training more akin boxing than to traditional arts. At some point, it was Muay Boran, and it had curbesome punches, and even "katas" of its own (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=357hGHv6sJ8). It has definitely evolved... this is different from the muay thai you see at the MMA gym isn't it?

[CredoTe]

Why do we, for example, pull our hand all the way to the ear, only to bring the forearm back down to the front of our face when doing a ude uke? (

). It makes no sense. Why would one waste previous time, bringing the forearm all the way to the ear, while there is a punch travelling straight to my face?

In Matsubayashi-Ryu (Shorin-Ryu), our chudan uke's are executed a little differently. Our kosa's cross our bodies differently; instead of the uke hand being back under our armpit, both arms essentially make an "X" in front of chest and diaphragm with the blocking hand being on the outside of the "X". The inside hand of the "X", in advanced / black belt / street defense applications, would actually be an open-handed check (barai). This open-handed check is actually what's redirecting an opponent's strike. Thus, the chudan uke is actually a counter strike, executed in a diagonally straight line (used in conjunction with gamaku), to the opponent's striking arm, or to face, or to ribs, or wherever. These are basics of Iri Kumi (in-fighting) from the Te (Ti)... Te (Ti) that is missing from Karate / MA...

Like I mentioned in a previous post on this thread, competent instructors with knowledge of what makes fighting sense is essential for students to understand real, life and death applications. Also, as for why we chamber, again, read previous posts to get an idea of what a chamber is used for.