I had a conversation recently that once again brought the question to my mind what is a traditional martial system. I was talking with someone and their view was that their system was a traditional system. Relatively speaking I would agree but… their system really is only 68 years old and based off other martial systems. So is it really that traditional? Sixty eight years is not that old! No even Brazilian Jiujitsu is derived from Judo which was derived from multiple Jujutsu systems. BJJ has been around in Brazil for quite a while sixty or so years and yet no one would call it a traditional martial system. You see in order to have a traditional system I personally believe that the system has been codified and that creativity is now limited! Meaning that the system’s foundation has been laid, the curriculum codified as “this is what it is” and then everyone practices the system in a precise way. Certainly systems like Judo, Aikido, Tae Kwon Do, Hapkido have moved in this direction. However each one of those systems came about in the early or middle nineteenth century. So they are really not that old and based on even older systems. No established curriculum that does not allow for large deviance seems to be the way one can conclude that a system is traditional. At least that is how I view it! That being said the creators of any traditional system stepped outside of the norm of their former styles and created! Creativity in my book is what we should all be striving for. In IRT I encourage everyone to create, innovate and move forward. That way they learn and can also help show more to all of us! Heck they may even if their skills warrant it found their own system or subsystem within or outside of Instinctive Response Training. One has already done so! So IRT is definitely not a traditional martial system and hopefully never will be! I want people who practice this in the future to take it farther! Even if they choose to move on! Push, grow, evolve do not stagnate! Live on the edge and see where it takes you!
See You On The Mats!
copyright Instinctive Response Training LLC 2009
Brian R. VanCise
Note: This Blog is opinion only and Instinctive Response Training LLC nor Brian R. VanCise is responsible for any third party actions taken.
Visit Us At:Instinctive Response Training
You’ve got a better and more open take on this than most seem too…Probably why I like your blog so much! 🙂
-Just wish that others made it ok for people to search, explore, and find out what is working -or maybe is just working better for them. Seems like an easy way for people to get offended a lot of the time…unfortunately.
No doubt about that Branden. No doubt! I think that exploration and creativity are really important. Not one single system out there did not have one or more really creative people who helped to develop it. Why should that end?
I am not sure I completely agree (or maybe I am missing the point – I am rather slow today 🙂 ) with what you are saying here. A traditional system to me is simply one that handed down by tradition and/or is pertaining to tradition. Codified to me would be to make a digest of; arrange in a systematic collection, reduce to a code. And in a martial arts context that would mean, in my opinion, dead. And I would think that any system, even IRT, would have a curriculum or a regular or a particular course of study no matter how lose or basic it might be, but not training IRT I could be wrong. Does IRT have a certain training curriculum that it follows to get a person from beginner to advanced? Or is it just show up and do what you want? From what I know of IRT and of what I know of you I doubt you let people just show up and do whatever they want. I fully believe you are highly skilled and a very good teacher so I am guessing there is a curriculum to follow. I trained Sanda and it is not considered traditional but it does have a curriculum which starts a beginner out with basically hitting trees and doing various one person drills and copious kicks and punches. These are the basics and they need to be taught and I have absolutely no doubt you require much the same of your students.
I have also trained Wing Chun, Xingyiquan Yang Taijiquan and Chen Taijiquan, actually I still train Yang Taijiquan and starting to train Xingyiquan again and seriously thinking of returning to Wing Chun but that is another story. All 3 styles have forms that you are required to know if you want to say you train them. All have basics they train as well, Xingyiquan is Santi Shi, Yang Taiji is the long form, Chen style is Chan Su Jin, Wing Chun is Sil Lum Tao but I would not say anyone of them is codified in the way that I believe you are talking about which is to imply there is no longer any room for change or growth nor is it allowed if you wish to stay within that system. All change, all realize that the world changes and no two practitioners train the forms exactly the same way and as time goes on they change a bit. My Sigung’s son added a fast Dao form to the system which is by movement and application Yang style, my Sigung added 2 fast forms to the system, 1 he said was entirely based on conversations he had with his sifu Yang Chengfu about the need for a fast form in the system and he called it the yang fast form and the other that he developed based on his background in Yang combined with his background in Wu/Hao style and he just called it the fast form. Go to Chen style and you find Chen Fa Ke adding 2 forms to the system because he felt it needed to be changed and they are still taught today. Go back further in Chen style and it has been speculated that the original Laojia Yilu was split in the Laojia Yilu and Laojia erlu. Go to Wing Chun and there are so many variations on the theme it is hard to keep up with all share the same forms for the most part but the training curriculum can vary greatly. Xingyiquan has stance training and 5 elements forms training and 12 or 10 animals training depending on style but they are not all the same from style to style nor are they always the same from teacher to teacher. I have trained with 2 different teachers in Hebei style and wuxingquan (5 elements fist) are considerably different and if you look at what Li Diyin teaches you find a different order in Wuxingquan from both I have learned.
Traditional systems change because they realize the world around them changes and they need to approach things differently in order to survive as a system. Different things appear that need to be dealt with that the f9ounder never could have dreamed of so it gets changed as time goes on. It gets changed as time goes on simply as it passed from teacher to student who later becomes a teacher and passes it along to his/her students.
I personally feel a system is traditional because of its history and its approach to the basics of that system, beyond those things, especially in Chinese martial arts can vary greatly
I have a little different take on traditional vs. non-traditional vs. eclectic.
Let’s start with the biggest category: eclectic. Eclectic arts, to me, are simply arts that combine several others. JKD is probably the most known: depending on the teacher, there just aren’t a lot of rules for what JKD looks like. It’s all about what works for the student. Whether an eclectic art actually counts as a martial art is subjective — but when there is some sort of cohesive structure to it, I’ll call it an art. Whether it moves beyond the individual is a different question.
I look at traditional/non-traditional by training methodologies. Uniforms, structured classes, a somewhat standardized syllabus across schools, and the like are hallmarks of traditional training. So is doing things “because it’s how we do it” even if it doesn’t make sense. The biggest example is a story I’ve heard: At one point in a kata, there was a sequence of stepping back. As students looked at, there was just no sensible explanation; the move didn’t really make sense with any application they were given. But that’s how it got taught; when asked, “I don’t know, that’s how I was taught.” The teacher gets a chance to ask his teacher… same answer. And so on through a couple links of teachers, until they finally got a chance to ask the guy who taught it originally. “Oh, that jump? That’s how we did at the home dojo when I was learning. The room wasn’t big enough, so we had to move back a couple steps to have room to finish.” Tradition passed this move on without any explanation or meaning…
Non-traditional training isn’t bound to doing things the “the way we’ve always done it.” Non-traditional typically eschews uniforms, forms, syllabi… everything that makes traditional “traditional.” (What’s funny is that some of the most ardently non-traditional stuff I’ve seen have been least tolerant of questioning…)
So, you can have an art that is eclectic/traditional (which is where I’d put IRT, Brian, from what I know of it, and the Bujinkan), eclectic/nontraditional (maybe JKD), non-eclectic/traditional (classical karate and I’d include Bando here, in subcategory of synthesised or aggregate arts, and you could also put the Bujinkan here), non-eclectic/non-traditional (MMA, as well as all the anything goes, usually garbage and seldom successfully passed on). And, of course, the reality is that this is a spectrum, not a rigid structure.
First off let me say that I see nothing wrong with labeling a system as traditional, non-traditional, eclectic, etc. Where I take or make objection to is when a practitioner from a system claims tradition when their tradition is well relatively short! Many systems that I know are not traditional. Based on being very young in my world view. Jim you are right I would classify IRT somewhere in that eclectic/traditional by utiizing your frame work. Still I do not see IRT bound in that manner! Creativity is the thing I was trying to pass along. Irregardless of what you study. Whether it is Bando, Wing Chun, Sanda, etc. Do not be bound tight, wound tight or forced into a box. (not that any of those systems do so) Instead learn your system’s fundamentals and then take it where you may. Tim is right I have a fundamental method by which I bring practitioner’s to certain points. We have a manual which is more like a guideline with no end points. So a practioner and all practioner’s will learn the same things but as they move along each one will learn possibly different things based on their unique movement. The system fundamental’s are laid out but…. I am creative and not afraid to add to them! Thereby if someone trained with me five or six years ago and left they may have the core fundamentals from that period but…. they may be missing one or two more unique things that newer practitioner’s may have experienced! So in the end I think you, Tim and I probably all agree but have a different way or method to explain it. What my post was mostly about was a practitioner who had locked himself in a box that this was the way it is because my sensei said so and I want to preserve this martial system exactly this way in the tradition of my art. An art or system mind you that is realtively young as the world turns! His Sensei and the founder of his system placed him in that box. They created their training in a way that put him in there. Even though the founder was uniquely creative. He has put himself in a no learning pattern for roughtly ten years or so. That does not mean he is not good just locked in a box and unable to see outside of it!
Great posts from both of you and lot’s of food for thought!
😉
Absolutely, Brian.
Blind obedience to tradition is stupid. Just ’cause we’ve done it this way for years doesn’t mean there’s not a better way or different way. Look at it, know YOUR principles and rules (if you say safety is primary, then you have to make safety primary — not take a nifty new knife tech that involves putting your body in the path of blade, for example), and apply them.
I was certified as a DT Instructor in a krav maga based approach. I’ve taken things from that training, and FOR MY OWN USE (if I’m teaching officially, I have to teach their way) I have modified them to fit within the Bando principles. Frequently, this meant minor shifts or changes — and are things that are part of what differentiate martial arts from DT programs.
Absolutely Jim!