In martial arts, Is the truth in the tradition or in the revolutionary and innovative ideas?

Question

Some believe the truth is in the ancient tradition(I'm refering to the techniques effectiveness). And the people who intend to impose innovative and revolutionary ideas are wrong.

What do you believe and why?

Answer 1

They reason why martial arts exist today is because of innovative people in history who had their weapons taken from them.  So it is a combination of tradition with innovation.

Answer 2

People should not inventing new techniques until they have mastered at least a system of fighting.

In the old days, masters of any particular systems, will start to create, experiment with new techniques to add to their system. Sometimes, they modify the old techniques to suit themselves.

Keep on copying the same techniques from 500 years ago is not a good idea, because the technique you are learning now may not be the same as the original one.

At the end of the day, it does not matter the technique is new or old, what matter is will the technique works. Has it been tested on the battle field or the rings. Any techniques failed to give result should be throw out. ( it is also possible, that the technique is not working because you are not doing it correctly.)

Answer 3

With the exception of guns, nothing new has been developed in the 600-700 years, nevermind 1912.  Boxing and wrestling come from Ancient Greece.  Asian martial arts trace their origins back to India.  Everybody had swords, spears, and axes.  There is NOTHING new.

Answer 4

Let's see now.   What revolutionary and innovative ideas in the martial arts are you talking about?

The Asian martial arts are a little over 2,000 years old, they have all been tested under personal combat and warfare.

In those 2,000+ years every conceivable personal fighting method and technique has been invented, applied under actual combat situations, modified, further developed, and perfected or dismissed.

In the last 100 years the Asians have modified their martial arts to accomodate firearms; and have retained  realistic fighting techniques (koryu) Aiki-jitsu, Ken-jitsu, Ju-jitsu, Karate-jitsu and modified them into softer fighting techniques (gendai)  Aiki-do, Ken-do, Ju-do, and Karate-do.

In the 1950s mixed martial arts: MMA, where developed  in the United States by: 1. Bruce Tegner JUKADO; 2. Bob Dickey KETSUGO; 3. Bruce Lee JEET KUNE DO; 4. Antonio Pereira MIYAMA RYU JIU-JITSU; and dozens of other eclectic mixed martial arts which combined two or more traditional Asian styles.

In the 1950s Tae Kwon Do was invented by a Korean General for modern military usage while wearing boots, helmet, back-pack and holding a rifle.

In 1968 Aaron Banks held his mix martial arts tournaments in Madison Square Garden to prove which is the most effective martial art (Judo vs. Karate, etc.).  By 1973 it was accepted that it was the practitioner and not the style that made the difference.

In the 1990s Mixed Martial Arts were 'rediscovered' and MMA prize-fighting for money began to be practiced.

In 1996 the Gendai art of Kodokan Judo was modified in attempt to sportify a martial art.  Japan threatened to walk-away from the Olympics over these modifications (blue gi; four minute matches, 26 second osae komi, 'koka' Judo, and the sudden death 'Golden Score').

So exactly 'what' revolutionary and innovative ideas in the martial arts are you talking about?  Everything has already been invented and modified in the martial arts by 1912.

Answer 5

I believe that having both is great, while coming up with new idea and techniques for martial arts is good, you can't make new techniques without using some part of the old ones. The traditional arts have been forced to prove themselves on battlefields and in war, meaning that if they were useless or impractical they wouldn't still be here. The newer ones are effective as many of them have also been used on battlefields such as krav maga and other military arts, but neither is better, those who say that mixed martial arts are better than kung fu, karate, etc. are somewhat confused. Both are good but neither can ever be better.

Answer 6

I believe the truth is in the SOURCE of the art.

This is because one instructor can have five students and teach each individual the same art adjusted to their body type.

The result is 5 martial artists that have their own version of the same art.

I have imposed ideas but I DID NOT change what I was taught. I revolutionized and created my own method of teaching.

I have a method of conveying my art in its original form that makes it easier and faster to learn it.

In the case of Okinawan martial arts, you have techniques used by the bodyguards of the Royal Families.

What makes you think they would not be effective???

So you can add creativity without losing the effectiveness.

Answer 7

I believe in the more modern philosophy that tradition is stifling, and that the newer concept of "mixed martial arts" is the more effective form of combat.  This pre-supposes that the idea of martial arts is combat / self defense of course, and I suppose that is the core of your question - "what is the real purpose of martial arts?"  Different people advocate studying martial arts for things like Discipline, Self-Confidence, Enlightenment, Self-defense, or Health - all of which are valid.

For my part, I study martial arts for the purpose of being prepared physically to encounter any assault, and mentally being prepared to deal with any escalated or potentially threatening situation.  The idea for me is that I don't have to pause and think "what if the guy coming at me is a wrestler / is stronger / knows how to punch / etc."  I study concepts of many martial arts (BJJ, Muay Thai, Boxing, Kali/Silat, and formerly TKD, Hapkido, and Aikido.)    

My self confidence is bolstered by my physical training in multiple arts.  Knowing that I can deal effectively with any physical situation allows my mind to relax, and I can more effectively de-escalate a situation so that it does NOT become physical combat.

There are those who take the approach that complete and absolute knowledge of ONE form of combat is enough.  They seek that enlightenment through tradition and ceremony.  That may be valid for them, but  I respectfully disagree with that approach.  I'm sure we've all seen a competent wrestler nullified by a better Muay Thai fighter, or a great kickboxer helpless against a Jiu Jutsu practicioner.  The fact is that every martial art has certain practical combat weaknesses that can be capitalized on in a real-life situation.

The cage fighting phenomenon is a shadow of what's out in the world, but the concepts apply nonetheless.  Knowledge is power - the more you know, the more you can apply to a situation, the more effective you will be in more situations.  

When you put Martial Arts in the crucible and burn away all the ceremony, it's about combat isn't it?  And knowing that your body is ready for combat allows your mind to freely engage in an encounter before the first punch is thrown.  THAT is what Martial Arts is to me.

Answer 8

You must learn the basic knowledge and proven ways of martial arts (tradition)., then set out on your own journey to find out what is true for your own circumstances (innovation)