What does 'traditional' actually mean?

I didn't explain that very well. Since the originators were innovators and pioneers can we be considered traditionalists by copying what they did, or by being innovative ourselves? That is, should we be seeking what they sought, or just do what they did?

Every serious practitioner individualy evolves (should evolve) in the art of karate (Shu Ha Ri).

Thus tradition is change. You honor your roots but someday you teach your own karate.

In my mind such labels like traditional hardly fit to something like karate, because of that evolution.

Here are two articles, that explain traditional karate very well :
http://www.karatebyjesse.com/?p=147
http://www.karatebyjesse.com/?p=793

So to my mind in the beginning you do what they did. After understanding the basics you should start seeking what they sought.

Regards Holger

To me it simply means you acknowledge that what you do comes from a tradition, it doesn't mean you don't have your own take.

Just means you are building on the work of the people before you in that tradition, that being the case...in my opinion there is a wide range of valid expression of what is "traditional".

It is true that the originators of Karate were building on the past, but they acknowledged that as well. Especially regarding the preservation of people's "bags of tricks" in kata, and the original naming of Karate.

For me it really is as simple as a nod to past masters, and the understanding that we intend to follow in their footsteps, it doesn't need to be more complicated than that.

Not being a smart ass but heres a reasonabile broad definition -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition

My personal take is to be tradiional (eg in Karate) you need to belong to a tradition, and to pass that tradition on - otherwise your something else (as an example an innovator- ie of another potential tradition).

Of course to really get 'it' we would need to define 'karate', and theres a whole load of awnsers to that one, but I think the ultimate test of are we 'traditional karateka' is are we part of a tradition as defined by that word.

There seems to be alot of innovators in this modern world! Some outstanding, some outright deluded - many somewhere in between!

This is goiing to be interesting.........................

shoshinkanuk wrote:

There seems to be alot of innovators in this modern world! Some outstanding, some outright deluded - many somewhere in between!

I wonder if that's what the good people of Okinawa were saying a couple of hundred years ago?

If the original masters were innovators, wouldn't it be following in their tradition to be innovators ourselves? There seems to be a schism between the followers of Bruce Lee's teachings, specifically his thoughts on taking what is useful to us and leaving the rest. One school of thought embraces this philosophy and makes their JKD their own and the other takes if to mean that they should do exactly what he did, thereby missing his point entirely.

I don't want to come across as being anti-traditional. I fully understand the need for strong roots and solid foundations. What's the point in having those foundations if we're not going to build on them?

The trouble with “Traditional” is that is means different things to different people.

The guys in the white suits who do 3K karate (kata, kihon and kumite; where all three and unrelated to each other and actual conflict) say that what they do is “traditional karate”.

The guys who look to the older, more holistic and pragmatic form of karate believe that they are the followers of the “true tradition”.

The guys who draw on their “roots” to produce change and growth, point out that there has always been a tradition of change, evolution and innovation and hence what the do is the real “traditional karate”.

Others mistakenly believe the art has been unchanged for of hundreds of years and hence any change in training methods or techniques is “not traditional”.

To me, I see the pre-1940s version of karate to be the source of my tradition and I am prepared to avoid all dogma and make things more efficient and effective when presented with more efficient and effective alternatives; which I see as adhering to the traditional process. So I’m definitely “traditional” … just like everyone else who feels they are “traditional” whereas the others claming to be aren’t really!

What is “traditional” can lead to fascinating discussion and it is always very revealing about all the various approaches operating under the label of “karate”. The bottom line though is that when fist hits face – to paraphrase Ed Parker – how “traditional” it is has absolutely no bearing on how effective it is. Being focussed on “functionality” and not letting “tradition” take presence over effect leads to more effective martial artists … and the focus on effect as the only worthwhile measure was certainly the first measure and hence you can make a strong case to say, as the longest established measure, it is the most traditional.

All the best,

Iain

Lee Richardson wrote:

shoshinkanuk wrote:

There seems to be alot of innovators in this modern world! Some outstanding, some outright deluded - many somewhere in between!

I wonder if that's what the good people of Okinawa were saying a couple of hundred years ago?

If the original masters were innovators, wouldn't it be following in their tradition to be innovators ourselves? There seems to be a schism between the followers of Bruce Lee's teachings, specifically his thoughts on taking what is useful to us and leaving the rest. One school of thought embraces this philosophy and makes their JKD their own and the other takes if to mean that they should do exactly what he did, thereby missing his point entirely.

I don't want to come across as being anti-traditional. I fully understand the need for strong roots and solid foundations. What's the point in having those foundations if we're not going to build on them?

Hi Lee,

There are of course many awnsers depending on ones perspective - but is what Bruce Lee did so bad, does it need improving?  What if someone is given an outstanding traditon that suits their needs, does this make it bad or limited?

Im all for some innovation, I just don't see much need with whats avalaibile, to me it isn't that complex and theres very little 'new' in martial arts.

Im fortunate our Ryu isn't the typical 'traditional karate' so theres room for personality and expression within the art.

Ultimatly it's principle based once the form is learn't and digested.

Hi all,

We're told that it was considered normal practice for the old masters to practice one, maybe two kata, they knew form and genuine function. Functionality was the absolute aim.

Motubu wrote'' The Naihanchi, Passai,Chinto and Rohai styles are not left in China today and only remain in Okinawa as active martial arts''.

My own karate is based entirely around Naihanchi, everything is aimed at pragmatic functionality and if you consider Motobu's words that would suggest I am traditional in the extreme , I don't specifically subscribe to a style, I practice karate plain and simple but if I was pressed then it would be called '' Naihanchi Jissen Jutsu'' , or something to that effect.

This, however would not be a club or association, just my personal system, building on the knowledge of those who have gone before, would this mean that I am indeed not traditional because I look to carve my own path and have no specific style lineage that I can refer to

If the founders lived in rough times they'd have wanted their skills to work.

So to my mind if it's not effective it's not traditional, no matter what badge you've got on your gi.

Gary

it all depends on the traditon you claim IMO.

eg 3K Japanese karate - JKA traditon is cool, wado Ryu, Shito Ryu all works - bit of karate, ground fighting, xma with escrima thrown in claiming to be JKA traditon is not cool.

People claiming 'Okinawan traditon' with little/no Okinawan Ryu training or lineage, not cool IMO. (you can replace Okinawan with any other nationality/location of course in this respect).

Being traditional doesnt limit anything, as previously said Motobu was traditional in his karate, but an innovator of his time - IMO that is ShuHaRi in action, but ask most of the Senior Okinawan Masters what they thought of Motobu and they would likeley say he's a thug (in his younger years) and not really skilled.

Very few of the Masters of this era were actually 'function' over form IMO, as Karate 'do' was being promoted for other reasons apart from functionality, and also the 'Budo' aspect of personal journey and growth, the formation of character was absolutly significant to most of the masters at the time- schools karate was in full swing as were many other more significant world events.

Weapons were readily avalaible anyhow, personally I feel karate before the Meiji Restoration really, truly was a small, private, family thing for the majority of Okinawans - with the exception of people like the tax collectors, law enforcement and palace guard/bodyguards etc etc.

My personal take on tradition would be to seek what the past masters sought.  Which, in the case of Karate,  would be combat efficiency.

The level and accessibility of information, and the diversity of training methods available to us now is much greater than it would have been for the past masters.  If we were to not take advantage of this, in my opinion, we would not be following in the footsteps of the old masters.  Just because they did things one way does not mean there is not a better way.  All it means is that they did not know of a better way of training, and had to make the most of what they did have.  We must now do the same.