Well, after getting back from a long class with a guest instructor, I came away with 2 main thoughts about martial arts in general:
1. Innovation vs. Traditionalism. When asked why you do one thing rather than another, is your honest answer "because that's the way it was taught to me"? Well, I can't really accep that answer. "I don't know, but it works." is fine for me though.
Every movement should have a purpose. If it does not, it is wasted energy. So we can start searching for those "hidden meanings" within katas... We'll leave this part for the second thought on martial arts.
Yes, we have always done a certain thing this way... we have for centuries. That doesn't mean there isn't something more effective. So, feel free to add and delete as you wish from your classes. But where do we draw the line and say "That isn't uechi"? I guess that's where different styles comes from... of course, we can always considers the teachings of our teachers to be guidelines rather than rules.
2. Back to 'deciphering' kata. Ever think of how the animal styles of kung-fu were made? They saw an animal and used their creativity to design a fighting system using maneuvers that captured the "essence" of a creature. So could our "deciphering" of a kata really be us using creativity to put those moves to situations we can imagine? Possibly adding a twist of the wrist to make it more "effective" in the situation we created.
Given all that, grasp what knowledge you can and create the rest.
Adam
The lowly white belt
Innovation vs. Traditionalism?
Moderator: Available
-
Ted Dinwiddie
- Posts: 537
- Joined: Thu Sep 16, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Charlottesville,VA,USA
Innovation vs. Traditionalism?
Traditionally, the Okinawan way was to innovate. What drove the innovation was the specific set of objectives or the given situation the individual was dealing with. If the technique worked, then it became part of that individuals repertoire and he taught it to his students in time. No Okinawan that I have read of taught rote imitation of what he had been taught in China. He interpreted it according to his own experience and situation. What they did do was learn somebody's system first, then extrapolate and develop from there.
"One must learn the rules so that he may break them properly" (or something like that).
ted
"One must learn the rules so that he may break them properly" (or something like that).
ted
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Innovation vs. Traditionalism?
Adam
This is a universal topic in martial arts that has been "out there" even more prominently with discussions about Uechi Kanbun, the teachings of Toyama sensei, talk about "the force continuum", the "chemical cocktail", traditional Chinese medicine vs. modern Western medicine, etc. Dealing with it takes a number of factors into consideration.
First of all, what is the meaning of traditionalism? I have a broader appreciation for that question, having been both student and faculty at the school that Thomas Jefferson built (University of Virginia). It seems that every year, someone will recommend a change to an existing system at UVa. Usually it's a concern about whether or not the honor system should have a single sanction (Single sanction means a conviction for lying, cheating, or stealing results in automatic and permanent expulsion from The University). The "traditionalists" will say something like 'Thomas Jefferson would roll in his grave if he knew that we were going to....'. People often forget that the honor system was created long after old TJ died, when there was an argument at The University that resulted in a student shooting a faculty member. At that time, TJ didn't care; he was pushing daisies near Monticello. Furthermore, people forget that Thomas Jefferson was a flaming radical in his time. Many folks argued for a monarchy in The New World, and there were Tories who even advocated permanent ties to the British monarchy. TJ and his friends, on the other hand, had studied the democracy of Greece and the writings of new-age radicals like Locke and Rousseau. They instigated a revolution from the British parent, and the creation of a modern, democratic republic that was a delicate balance between Federal rule and State's rights. That balance - by the way - created the odd voting debacle we saw in the last election (popular vote vs. Electoral College vote). Nevertheless, nothing quite like it had been tried.
So...when students argue about maintaining "tradition" at UVa, what are they trying to maintain? Are they attempting to freeze the thoughts in time of TJ and preserve them? Or are they trying to capture the thinking of Jefferson the revolutionary? After all, <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
So...what is it that we are trying to preserve with the teachings of Uechi Kanbun? Do people realize what an oddity that this Chinese system is on the Islands of Okinawa? Are we preserving the thoughts of Kanbun, or his thinking?
A second concept is the issue of context. As a historian, we need to appreciate the context of works to fully understand their value and worth. It makes no sense to be making drastic changes to "Uechi's style" if we want to learn and preserve his works. This is of course assuming that we have a way to preserve whatever "it" is. Given that karate is mostly an oral tradition and we see a number of permutations of the style evolving from the many direct students of Kanbun, one is led to the following questions:
1) How accurate is any one rendition of the style in terms of an authentic "Kanbun" way?
2) Did Kanbun have any "one" way, or did he modify the style according to his stage in life, his mood, his evolving thinking, or the student he taught?
Additionally on the issue of history and context, it makes sense to understand "old" ways of thinking if those ways created the justification for doing things a certain way. Even if we don't believe in chi, those that choreographed certain kata believed in meridians, 5-element theory, etc. If we follow the traditional Chinese medicine thinking, we might understand why a kata suggests attacking the body in certain places and with a certain sequence. Newer ways of thinking can then be used to further evaluate the effectiveness of the specific application suggested in a kata.
Another issue is the element of understanding. Sometimes we preserve something because we are being good historians. Other times we preserve and study something because we presume we don't know everything and we give the author of an idea credit for possibly having a deeper understanding that we can't appreciate at the time of exposure. So we do a number of things exactly as we are taught until we can separate the superficial from the significant.
And finally there is the element of effectiveness. Yes, we assume that someone who studied fighting at the time of The Boxer Rebellion had exposure to some no-nonsense open-hand methods. We can assume that those who fought because society wasn't going to protect their interests had plenty at stake when they fought and thus had a good story to tell. But we as a race never stop accumulating ideas and knowledge. If a particular way of breathing or standing doesn't work as well as another way, it makes sense to experiment. And the whole process of experimentation brings one into the very realm that the best fighters are in when they reach their peak. In the end we practice an artform, and not a rigid set of rules. Art must evolve to fit the person and the context. And the fighting must work for the time. After all, the empty-handed fighters had their problems in The Boxer Rebellion, didn't they?
- Bill
[This message has been edited by Bill Glasheen (edited February 05, 2001).]
This is a universal topic in martial arts that has been "out there" even more prominently with discussions about Uechi Kanbun, the teachings of Toyama sensei, talk about "the force continuum", the "chemical cocktail", traditional Chinese medicine vs. modern Western medicine, etc. Dealing with it takes a number of factors into consideration.
First of all, what is the meaning of traditionalism? I have a broader appreciation for that question, having been both student and faculty at the school that Thomas Jefferson built (University of Virginia). It seems that every year, someone will recommend a change to an existing system at UVa. Usually it's a concern about whether or not the honor system should have a single sanction (Single sanction means a conviction for lying, cheating, or stealing results in automatic and permanent expulsion from The University). The "traditionalists" will say something like 'Thomas Jefferson would roll in his grave if he knew that we were going to....'. People often forget that the honor system was created long after old TJ died, when there was an argument at The University that resulted in a student shooting a faculty member. At that time, TJ didn't care; he was pushing daisies near Monticello. Furthermore, people forget that Thomas Jefferson was a flaming radical in his time. Many folks argued for a monarchy in The New World, and there were Tories who even advocated permanent ties to the British monarchy. TJ and his friends, on the other hand, had studied the democracy of Greece and the writings of new-age radicals like Locke and Rousseau. They instigated a revolution from the British parent, and the creation of a modern, democratic republic that was a delicate balance between Federal rule and State's rights. That balance - by the way - created the odd voting debacle we saw in the last election (popular vote vs. Electoral College vote). Nevertheless, nothing quite like it had been tried.
So...when students argue about maintaining "tradition" at UVa, what are they trying to maintain? Are they attempting to freeze the thoughts in time of TJ and preserve them? Or are they trying to capture the thinking of Jefferson the revolutionary? After all, <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
- In a letter from Jefferson to MadisonA little rebellion now and then is a good thing
So...what is it that we are trying to preserve with the teachings of Uechi Kanbun? Do people realize what an oddity that this Chinese system is on the Islands of Okinawa? Are we preserving the thoughts of Kanbun, or his thinking?
A second concept is the issue of context. As a historian, we need to appreciate the context of works to fully understand their value and worth. It makes no sense to be making drastic changes to "Uechi's style" if we want to learn and preserve his works. This is of course assuming that we have a way to preserve whatever "it" is. Given that karate is mostly an oral tradition and we see a number of permutations of the style evolving from the many direct students of Kanbun, one is led to the following questions:
1) How accurate is any one rendition of the style in terms of an authentic "Kanbun" way?
2) Did Kanbun have any "one" way, or did he modify the style according to his stage in life, his mood, his evolving thinking, or the student he taught?
Additionally on the issue of history and context, it makes sense to understand "old" ways of thinking if those ways created the justification for doing things a certain way. Even if we don't believe in chi, those that choreographed certain kata believed in meridians, 5-element theory, etc. If we follow the traditional Chinese medicine thinking, we might understand why a kata suggests attacking the body in certain places and with a certain sequence. Newer ways of thinking can then be used to further evaluate the effectiveness of the specific application suggested in a kata.
Another issue is the element of understanding. Sometimes we preserve something because we are being good historians. Other times we preserve and study something because we presume we don't know everything and we give the author of an idea credit for possibly having a deeper understanding that we can't appreciate at the time of exposure. So we do a number of things exactly as we are taught until we can separate the superficial from the significant.
And finally there is the element of effectiveness. Yes, we assume that someone who studied fighting at the time of The Boxer Rebellion had exposure to some no-nonsense open-hand methods. We can assume that those who fought because society wasn't going to protect their interests had plenty at stake when they fought and thus had a good story to tell. But we as a race never stop accumulating ideas and knowledge. If a particular way of breathing or standing doesn't work as well as another way, it makes sense to experiment. And the whole process of experimentation brings one into the very realm that the best fighters are in when they reach their peak. In the end we practice an artform, and not a rigid set of rules. Art must evolve to fit the person and the context. And the fighting must work for the time. After all, the empty-handed fighters had their problems in The Boxer Rebellion, didn't they?
- Bill
[This message has been edited by Bill Glasheen (edited February 05, 2001).]
-
Gabriel Suarez
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2001 6:01 am
- Location: Ventura, CA, USA
- Contact:
Innovation vs. Traditionalism?
TRADITION VS. INNOVATION
There are two forces that at always at odds in any scientific field: Tradition and Innovation. Tradition typifies "the way we've always done it - or the way 'our master did it'". Innovation sometimes, but not always, indicates a better way.
Sometimes the differences between the two extremes is slight, but at other times it is very drastic indeed. There are those who like to live in tradition and make the preservation of it their objective. There is nothing wrong with that.
Take for example, the student who trains in traditional Japanese swordsmanship or classic European fencing. The art of the sword, whether eastern or western, is a beautiful art that is a window to our past warrior heritage. But as good as a swordsman will become via his training, he will always be an anachronism in the age of the gun.
The development of firearms were an innovation that the swordsman resisted bitterly, until it shadowed his once "cutting edge" art on the battlefield. These may be two examples of extremes in the battle between tradition and innovation - the typical gallant swordsman vs. the typical high-speed/low drag modern day operator.
Today the two sides are not as obvious and are more difficult to distinguish, although their unending struggle remains. One poignant example is the agency that refuses to change its SOP to a proven and better way of solving tactical problems. "We've never done it that way" exclaim their chiefs and captains, or the so often heard, "We didn't invent it so its crap".
Eventually someone will die due to the organizational arrogance. Then the reexamination will begin anew, and heads will roll over the another operator's grave.
What about the modern combative arts? By that term, I mean systems that teach "americanized" versions of the various systems. There are more institutions teaching defensive, tactical, combative stuff.
Tactical shooting, or the knife, or even unarmed combatives are no different than any other science. New developments are made every year. One for example, is the integration of combatives (tactical fisticuffs?) into the overall program of firearms. Modern martial artists are doing the same thing and discovering the gun for the first time since the Meiji Restoration of 1868!
Another innovation is the integration of physiological concepts that affect performance such as Hick's Law and Boyd's Cycle into the overall "doctrine" of a modern day "Ryu" or "salle d'Armes".
Newer and better weapons are also developed and tested every day as well, as well as methods of deploying them. We are entering a modern Age of the Warrior. A 21st century martial artist may very well be an expert with the gun as well as the art of grappling, or the blade, or the fist.
The school that ignores, or is intentionally ignorant of such developments is a living anachronism. Again, if the intent is solely to preserve "the way it was", then there is nothing wrong with that, but there should be a solid realization of that. The school that asks its students (clients) to use possibly outdated and anachronistic tools or methods is as out of date as the master swordsman with his prized katana, if they profess that they have modern world applications.
When selecting a teacher or a school, the student must determine what his motivation is. If the intent is ART, then there are many artists that will teach you "how it was", and this is a worthy pursuit as long as you don't try to figure out a way to apply the Art of The Naginata to 21st century streetfighting.
If your intent is not art, but rather simple combative efficiency, then look for a school whose teacher has actual experience in today's world, and perhaps avoid those that do not have this. Understand also that there are many Traditional Schools whose teachers are very good at applying old ideas to the modern world. Don't avoid them simply because they don't train in tennis shoes and jeans. You can still be a deadly efficient dude while wearing a hakama!
Schools such as this are not stuck on the dogma of what once was, but rather they look at the way things are…today, as well as what could be tomorrow.
From my own perspective, I've studied both. I hope this helps.
Gabe Suarez
Suarez International, Inc.
Weapons - Tactics - Unarmed Combatives http://www.gabesuarez.com
There are two forces that at always at odds in any scientific field: Tradition and Innovation. Tradition typifies "the way we've always done it - or the way 'our master did it'". Innovation sometimes, but not always, indicates a better way.
Sometimes the differences between the two extremes is slight, but at other times it is very drastic indeed. There are those who like to live in tradition and make the preservation of it their objective. There is nothing wrong with that.
Take for example, the student who trains in traditional Japanese swordsmanship or classic European fencing. The art of the sword, whether eastern or western, is a beautiful art that is a window to our past warrior heritage. But as good as a swordsman will become via his training, he will always be an anachronism in the age of the gun.
The development of firearms were an innovation that the swordsman resisted bitterly, until it shadowed his once "cutting edge" art on the battlefield. These may be two examples of extremes in the battle between tradition and innovation - the typical gallant swordsman vs. the typical high-speed/low drag modern day operator.
Today the two sides are not as obvious and are more difficult to distinguish, although their unending struggle remains. One poignant example is the agency that refuses to change its SOP to a proven and better way of solving tactical problems. "We've never done it that way" exclaim their chiefs and captains, or the so often heard, "We didn't invent it so its crap".
Eventually someone will die due to the organizational arrogance. Then the reexamination will begin anew, and heads will roll over the another operator's grave.
What about the modern combative arts? By that term, I mean systems that teach "americanized" versions of the various systems. There are more institutions teaching defensive, tactical, combative stuff.
Tactical shooting, or the knife, or even unarmed combatives are no different than any other science. New developments are made every year. One for example, is the integration of combatives (tactical fisticuffs?) into the overall program of firearms. Modern martial artists are doing the same thing and discovering the gun for the first time since the Meiji Restoration of 1868!
Another innovation is the integration of physiological concepts that affect performance such as Hick's Law and Boyd's Cycle into the overall "doctrine" of a modern day "Ryu" or "salle d'Armes".
Newer and better weapons are also developed and tested every day as well, as well as methods of deploying them. We are entering a modern Age of the Warrior. A 21st century martial artist may very well be an expert with the gun as well as the art of grappling, or the blade, or the fist.
The school that ignores, or is intentionally ignorant of such developments is a living anachronism. Again, if the intent is solely to preserve "the way it was", then there is nothing wrong with that, but there should be a solid realization of that. The school that asks its students (clients) to use possibly outdated and anachronistic tools or methods is as out of date as the master swordsman with his prized katana, if they profess that they have modern world applications.
When selecting a teacher or a school, the student must determine what his motivation is. If the intent is ART, then there are many artists that will teach you "how it was", and this is a worthy pursuit as long as you don't try to figure out a way to apply the Art of The Naginata to 21st century streetfighting.
If your intent is not art, but rather simple combative efficiency, then look for a school whose teacher has actual experience in today's world, and perhaps avoid those that do not have this. Understand also that there are many Traditional Schools whose teachers are very good at applying old ideas to the modern world. Don't avoid them simply because they don't train in tennis shoes and jeans. You can still be a deadly efficient dude while wearing a hakama!
Schools such as this are not stuck on the dogma of what once was, but rather they look at the way things are…today, as well as what could be tomorrow.
From my own perspective, I've studied both. I hope this helps.
Gabe Suarez
Suarez International, Inc.
Weapons - Tactics - Unarmed Combatives http://www.gabesuarez.com
