I’m having a bit of a crisis lately in deciding what direction to take for the future. The traditional and mixed sides of me are at a bit of a war with each other.
On the one hand, I can really see the need to teach a standard set of material involving forms. I think there’s a real need for that, especially for beginners. We can’t just throw forms out because they teach many things, as I’ve argued many times on blog here. The traditional way seems built around those forms and strives to pass them on in ways that insures they will be preserved unchanged. For the traditionalist, change is not welcome when compared to preservation. The old ways are best. From that point of view, the individual MUST change in order to conform to the requirements of the style. There’s simply no other way. I feel strongly about this.
That way of training has a lot of validity.
And yet, the mixed way leads IMO to the best practical results. Traditionalists almost always fall back on that tradition because it’s usually what they have. I really hate to say it that way but I can’t think of better terminology right now. So much time and effort must be spent preserving things that little time is left over to make things work on a practical level. Mixed people tend to get out more and see what others are doing because they aren’t bound by the traditional view of “only our way is right.” As such, mixed people tend to interact martially more with others. I also feel strongly about this.
Mixed people tend to see the arts in terms of base-line skills that you can work against most everyone. Traditionalists tout higher teachings and secrets that students in the tradition must wait for.
On the one hand, I don’t like the stuffiness and closed-mindedness of many traditionalists. On the other hand, I dislike the mixed people scoffing at any and every tradition.
What’s that quote: “when you see a fork in the road, take it”? 
How to take this fork and keep the best of both paths?
32 responses so far ↓
1 taijiquestion // May 17, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Mixed can be seen as grabbing goodies here and there from multiple “bags of tricks” (if one can describe discrete styles in that offhand manner). Just because I don’t want to spend years learning Gracie style doesn’t mean I wouldn’t like to have a couple of killer leg-locks in my fighting vocabulary.
Traditional says take what’s been experimented & evolved with long ago, and accept that that work’s been done for you… go with the finished product if you are up to it, everything’s there for a reason. Don’t take our sports car and put a truck motor into it; or vice versa. This approach offers you a Jaguar XKE and says don’t wish for Dodge Viper.
Here’s the middle road IMO: “back-to-basics” is always a worthy approach. Or if the basics now seem too basic, seek out some basic basics in an art (or a couple of compatible arts) that are new and untried… and thus not basic.
In other words, grab for the goodies, but picking only among rock-bottom fundamentals… cornerstones rather than techniques. Keep the focus on training rather than on results.
This way it’s easier to set your own course, whether you’re working on your own or with partners or under a teacher. You’ve identified a very small, minimal number of abilities to focus on. Most likely they will have roots in traditional form and training.
Crap, I guess I’ll shut up now. Like many people I’m a gold mine of free advice. Anyway I like to think I’m pretty clear on what abilities I want to develop for myself. The list starts with “balance”. After that, I have to think a little about items 2, 3, and beyond. #2 would be “maintaining balance”, I suppose. So taiji sucks me in pretty easily. #3 is probably “don’t want to lose” so the ninja arts appeal strongly and lucky for me, seem to have compatibilty with taiji.
Good post, Dave, and good luck with the third fork!
2 gura // May 17, 2008 at 3:00 pm
I agree with the “third fork” that taijiquestion offers but in a different way.
The mixed MAs or “cherrypickers” as it were, if I may borrow from my basketball playing days, do pick and choose but I find they most often only pick and choose from another style that may be technically different but not necessarily different in terms of the energy. They are in essence picking the same things from different styles. I can’t explain it in any other way but that it “feels” the same. Even when I see hard stylists do taiji, few ever get the subtleness of the movement which even for a taiji practitioner takes years of practice and training. There is a lack of depth. And so they look like a hard stylist just faking on the surface tai ji movements. When we seek depth are we truly learning something “new”? not really, but we are seeing it in ways/directions/energies/styles that we didn’t see it before which make all the difference to that technique.
However, for the traditionalists, how far do we take “tradition”? When does it begin, what is this tradition and that is not tradition? Does the oldest thing win? I find traditionalists very arbitrary in what they deem tradition. And to retain tradition, can the next generation really do what the previous generation can do? Are there not subtle and even not so subtle differences in the technique and style based on what each new generation lays importance to? So even as traditionalists say that this is unchanged for X number of years, it truly has changed, in the same way English or any other language has changed.
So where is the universal language? I often think of learning martial arts as I learn languages. How fluent do I want to be? How does my base language block or enhance my ability to take on new languages? It’s one thing for me to take a couple of semesters of French to get by as I travel in Paris. And I find that my native English gives me some building blocks to learn French, but will I get the subtle nature of French humor. How do I get beyond the words and simple phrasing to really start to think in French? How long will it take for me to be able to switch easily into the different languages I know with ease and grace? What will it take for me to be able to do so?
I can see the importance of tradition in order to help tap into the “new” discoveries, but tradition is not the “whole” thing in the same way for all the ancient fossils we have of dinosaurs we can still only guess at what they might have looked like and sounded like and we will never really know. I think traditionalists lack the understanding of why this tradition is relevant now and they understand less of why it was important then. It’s like holding history in a sieve, each step forward, a little bit more is lost through no fault of our own. And no matter how much we try to “record” it visually, we cannot yet capture the feeling.
Because of these “holes” it is important to look at other styles for clues to the gaps. The difficulty in this, is letting go of your previous thing. It is so hard for me to really let go of English even as I become more and more versed in other languages. English is where I return to when I am doubtful. So going back to the language analogy, are we really speaking French or are we speaking English with French words? This becomes most visible when going from English to a non-Romance language where the thought processes to create it are completely different.
I believe there is a medium in which one truly can become fluent enough to really mix languages. I knew a friend who spoke English, Chinese, and Spanish, and when she spoke with her father and sister, they mixed all three. When I asked her how she chose what words, she said it was instinctive and more often than not, she chose what would make the most efficient sentence. For a native english speaker, I found how they spoke enchantingly beautiful and could not fathom how their minds worked to create that beauty. But I do realize now that, I did envy her and in learning languages, that was the end goal for me. Not to simply learn enough to get by, not necessarily learn a language so I can read the deep linguistic versions, but to be able to go in and out and merge them with such fluidity.
This is what I think is the true third fork. Not the bag of tricks of mixers and not the traditionalists with their texts plus addendum. This is where I think the passageways of knowledge lie to really bridge between worlds so one becomes both nothing and everything.
3 meow // May 17, 2008 at 3:26 pm
my 2 cents
to answer your question, one needs to be open minded and use good judgement.
i think in order to get the best of both paths, one must look to the outcome / goal of both, and the efficiency of the methods at achieving it, to decide what is best.
Traditional ways, other ways, theyre the same thing, merely a method. Traditional methods may be superior in developing certain attributes than another method e.g. imo some traditional methods are outdated, and seeing as we have access to new information that previous generations didnt, why not improve the arts for the better? (of course by standing on the shoulders of giants) (for example, in tai chi, when we emit force we use the coordination of the muscles & frame to generate force (im not going to go into mind use, u guys babble on enough on it as it is :P), resistance training increase muscle strength / force output, so it stands to reason to use it)
of course im only a student and im still learning, and i think the founders would have made a comprehensive system to develop those attributes, but at the same time, if it doesnt make sense / seems useless ill ditch it (and if later on i realise im wrong, ill bring it back) (with a bit of thought (and possible discussion with your teacher (although self reliance is always best), youll come to the conclusion you think is best (based on reason i hope :P).
4 wayne hansen // May 17, 2008 at 3:47 pm
look to someone like dan innosanto.
he took on the bruce lee path full tilt.
look who he learns off today.
not those who have daddled in this and that but people who have learnt the traditional way.
if we dont have the traditional path where will the next generation get the parts to build their hot rods.
spend 6 years with a good teacher,do all he says
then go out and fill your shopping trolly with whatever trinkets you desire.
with good basics you will find it easy to pick up whatever you want at a single glance andf have a place to put it within your traditional arsnel.
the only ones who become restricted by tradition are those who dont understand it.
5 Eric C // May 17, 2008 at 7:34 pm
I asked my first teacher about this, and his response was full of wisdom, so let me paraphrase -
“Eric, it is okay to dabble a little bit, but if you are sincere about your pursuit for any one art, you will find that there is just so much to learn that you do not have time for another. The key is to think critically, strive for depth, and pursue the essence of your art. We are training mind and body both, and that training takes time. When your have truly understood and mastered one art in your mind and your body , then we can talk about this again”
I took his words to heart.
6 BL // May 17, 2008 at 10:13 pm
have you mastered the arts that you feel you you currently know?
7 Steve // May 17, 2008 at 10:40 pm
I believe that the problem with purely traditional kung fu is sometimes the instructors.
I spent over 7 years in a traditional style and I still practice it. I love the style but the principles of the style were never honed to a fine edge.
Forms are the alphabet of martial arts if one does not practice the applications of the forms then all you have is an alphabet not a fluent speaker.
I believe in instruction in a traditional system that teaches the basics and forms first and then drills those applications from the forms the to the point where the dedicated student has no other choice but to be a high lever fighter.
8 neijia // May 17, 2008 at 10:45 pm
>the mixed way leads IMO to the best practical results.
Bruce Lee already figured it out for us. Absorb essence. If we reject the scoffing, the difference of opinion here really just seems to come down to: How much traditional is good/appropriate/desired? If there is an 80/20 rule where 80% of the bang comes from 20% of the material (the basics), how much do you need to know you got basic mastery of that 20%? When does more of one thing hit diminishing marginal returns? Now in his 70’s, Inosanto is a Machado BJJ black belt. Does one really have to go that far? It seems cool if one can but isn’t it icing on the cake at that point?
9 Joseph T. Oliva Arriola // May 18, 2008 at 12:39 am
The mathematician Godel’s theory: Some problems cannot be solved.
Yesterday, I was teaching one of my private students. He is, was, and will be a mathematician who trained at Caltech and worked at Lawrence Livermore Lab. He has been teaching Tai Chi Chuan for the last twenty years. He is a shared student of the “incredible Wilson Ng” and myself.
As always, our practices are filled with “tradition, an analysis of tradition, the structure of theory and concept, and going beyond”. Lately, I have been teaching him how to use the 3 sectional staff “practically for fighting” using baqua footwork and tai chi chuan senstitivity.
At the end of practice I showed him a “math” book I had been reading. It is supposedly a book for “lay people” that uses math to explain the world, its origins and functions. Of course, given “the math” it is a book far beyond my level of “math” expertise. After gazing through it, Geoff stated, the true understanding of the concepts are far beyond the grasp of most “math” adepts.
I felt better about my deficiencies. Yet, strikingly I felt I was “seeing” in the math concepts everything I had, am learning, and will learn about martial arts.
Tradition is for ever encapsulated in plexiglass. Yet, it too changes over the years. Everything that is mass reverts to energy. It may take 10 million years but, it was revert. Interestlingy, most of the “tradition” that most of the people are talking about is less than 150 years old. The words tai chi and ba qua are much older, but, their moniker to the styles of tai chi chuan and ba qua are not more than 175 years old.
Sadly, MMA has become globalized in a short 15 years. It was be “traditional”. Is it tried and true? Yes, for those whose capacity is limited. In a real fight all MMA guys would lose to my “hidden knife”. Their utility is limited to the ring of the octogon. Their utility does not extend to even to the “street” much less to the “battles of life”.
As such, it is not tradition I look for. It is utility. As such, I respect tradition in hopes that I might find utility. (Remember, even if the style had deadly fighters and techniques…if the student lacks capacity and capability the style is useless)
Perhaps, Godel is correct…some things simply can’t be answered.
After we finished our lessons, Geoff talked about his classmate who had learned the same tai chi he had learned. He said “Ken teaches his tai chi in exactly the same way he learned it from Wilson. He never diverts. He fails to be “dynamic”.
I replied “Then he is stuck. He will never understand the “infinite uses”. What’s worse…is that he never learned it correctly in the first place.
All said, this thread has left me in a quandry. According to “pure math” some people explore its lofty heights will no thought of its application. I have in the last several years been “stubborn” and stuck in my ways about “the utility” of everything we study. I have much to think about as I reframe my techniques and beliefs “given the new information”
Sincerely
Joseph T. Oliva Arriola
10 Morgan Buchanan // May 18, 2008 at 8:53 am
why no be a traditionalist who has a functional art?
sometimes you have to harmonize the two opposites by finding the middle path.
cheers
morgan
11 Morgan Buchanan // May 18, 2008 at 8:56 am
for “no” read “not” in last post.
cheers
morgan
12 Rick Matz // May 18, 2008 at 9:18 am
It really depends on what you’re training for.
13 Scott // May 18, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Hi Dave,
I think you are using the wrong word here and that is creating confusion. The definition you give of “traditional” is actually the definition of “conservative.”
I suggest you re-frame your thinking.
Classical knowledge is accumulated information about a particular subject which is too large to be invented in a single generation, but which can be passed on in some discrete period of time, say 10 or 15 years.
Classical knowledge does not conflict with innovation, it supports it. I creates roots which nourish innovation.
The word tradition is deeply mis-leading when applied to martial arts because the last 100 years has resulted in a massive discarding of training which is now considered too religious, too mean, to weird, too showy, and yes, not marketable as self-defense or one-on-on ring fighting.
Steep yourself in classical knowledge and hold innovation up as a source of joy and self-expression.
14 Scott // May 18, 2008 at 1:11 pm
This is a good beer, sorry about the typos.
15 Traditional and mixed in debate // May 18, 2008 at 2:48 pm
[…] Comments Scott on What am I? traditional vs. mixedScott on What am I? traditional vs. mixedTom on Protected blogs and open discussionRick Matz on What […]
16 meow // May 18, 2008 at 3:02 pm
oh joseph, dont bring the student in
its a combo of both, but the guy fighting with a knife has an edge over the guy fighting with a spoon, strategy (although im sure you know this)
neijia, if you only practice basics, thats all youre getting, basic body methods, basic timing etc, there are more subtle levels of skill, that 20% is what makes you better than every other guy.
steve, youre on to it, but if all you do is practice youre only good at moving, there wont be understand of strategy (i look at mma fighters, essntially all they do is practice applications, they might be strong / able to move, have good timing etc, but theres no strategy (blind spots / hidden, deeper understanding of openings etc)
scott, agree with the classical knowledge, but not everything being passed on is good
17 neijia // May 19, 2008 at 12:19 am
> neijia, if you only practice basics, thats all youre getting…
meow, I agree with you, but look at mma as an example. the top wrestlers, judoka, and submissions grappling champions still have holes in their “game” when going to a freer format. getting beyond their 100% mastery in their main art is not what they need.
for me, it’s not really so much about that as it is about limited time and talent, though… it’s not that i won’t try to go past 20%. I definitely will.
18 Jay Gischer // May 19, 2008 at 12:30 am
Scott I liked your concept of “classsical knowledge”. I offer an analogy. When we learned to add a column of numbers, we learned to do it in a very specific way.
Yet now, I don’t quite follow that way. I don’t add the digits in a column in order, I look for pairs or triples that add to 10 and then add what’s left. So should grade school teachers teach that method? I don’t think so. Add them in order, practice it a lot. Then you can do the other stuff.
19 wayne hansen // May 19, 2008 at 6:12 am
> neijia, if you only practice basics, thats all youre getting…
this is why martial arts are developed into complete systems.
take yang style tai chi.
1 standing exercises
2 walking exercises
3 form
4 pushing-fixed-moving-walking4 hands-talu
5 san shou 88
6 san da-freestyle application
the above 6 stages belong to the element of earth
the element of wood is the pole and has the same 6 stages.
practicing wood totally changes the element of earth.you no longer do your solo form the same.
the same goes for the next 3 elements
fire the spear
metal the knife
water the sword,each having 6 stages each time changing how you do your solo form.
this is why i disagree with jumping from solo form to sword ,it is like going from pre school to phd with nothing inbetween.
i can still remember the day my sword taught me how to push in a totally different manner.
when you know how the sword is meant to be done,you have a tricky skillfull pushing partner at your service.
basics aint basics unless your mind is basic.
20 meow // May 19, 2008 at 7:41 am
and then you hit the 20% he was talking about
21 neijia // May 19, 2008 at 9:32 am
That 20%’ll be a good baseline!
I agree with everything Steve said. As a practical matter, I have found no san da in the traditional I like. That is where mixed comes in (also helps with “know others”).
my mind is basic. i prefer “reductionist”. if i master a few energies in mixed testing (different sparring formats), that’s not bad. bu cuo.
22 meow // May 19, 2008 at 7:52 pm
biomechs are kool, im trying to master strategy at the mo myself
23 wayne hansen // May 20, 2008 at 6:04 am
biomechanics are strategy.
24 Chad // May 22, 2008 at 7:40 am
Cheng Ting Hua: Traditional or mixed?
Yin Fu: same question.
Infact, can anyone name a progenitor (who can be varified as existing) of any martial art that didn’t mix stuff up or cross train?
Mixed IS traditional.
25 wayne hansen // May 22, 2008 at 9:01 am
its not with mixing styles that the problems come its mixing fundamental principles.
would you train a jockey like a powerlifter.
i only object to stealing from other arts when you make your own art weaker by training in a manner that makes you less effective.
26 neijia // May 22, 2008 at 11:07 am
>Mixed IS traditional.
A true taiji answer. There is a little yin in the yang. A little yang in the yin. You can’t have one without the other. One flows into the other, and vice versa. There is no longer wuji. It split into taiji. Then there is bagua. Then the 10,000 things. A lot of varied expressions from 100 commenters. At times, I am standing on the yang and can’t see the yin. Someone like Chad comes along and describes the whole taijitu succinctly. Nice.
Wayne - gotcha (but yet I don’t. Not really. Not yet.).
27 meow // May 23, 2008 at 7:55 pm
by biomechs i mean efficient / powerful movement, its not worth anything if you cant get it in / control your opponent, or time it right, these things arent biomechanics
28 meow // May 23, 2008 at 7:57 pm
should all styles have them? yes, do all styles have them? no, do all styles which have them train them? no, is there methods other arts use which my current style does not, although they are just as effective?.
29 wayne hansen // May 24, 2008 at 4:52 am
meow
any real system of kung fu has correct biomechanics.
any stratergy starts with biomechanics,you wouldnt go to war with the bolt missing from your rifle,this would be bad stratergy.
i have trained alongside people who dont get it for no matter what reason.
i have seen people who degrade a real teacher whilst training with a bum.
this is how it always was and how it will always be.
30 Chad // May 24, 2008 at 5:04 am
“Styles” do not have Biomechanics. Only biological systems have them. Therefore, it is the practitioner, not the style, that is at fault with bad biomechanics.
One can train exercises that promote good or bad biomechanics, but that requires specific information about each.
31 wayne hansen // May 24, 2008 at 9:14 am
as a linage that is passed from one biological agent(person) to the next bad biomechanics can be built into any system,and these days it is built into many.
32 meow // May 24, 2008 at 4:46 pm
i totally agree wayne, but biomechanics are core training, and while important, i see people talking about them solely while neglecting strategy, kool to see someone who gets it tho (im thinking biomechs are basic, strategy is the guts of m.a. (dont get me wrong, i know theyre both important, and you should be learning them both from day one, but for combat, i dunno, strategy / timing etc are the most important (you can have so so biomechs, but if you have awesome timing, defense etc, youll totally carve up)
chad, what youre saying would be ideal, sadly people can be ignorant, thats why i say there isnt an internal or external system, just good and bad m.a. (or rather, movement & strategy), some styles may be missing knowledge, but that doesnt mean that if you know how to move, that they cant be corrected, the same goes for strategy, why do they have to limit themselves to one! way (im not saying learn a million techniques, but if you know base strategy, essentially your style is every style, the only difference is how its expressed.)
so for sake of the thread, i say learn traditional, but understand the base tenets all m.a. must have / use, then you understand that there isnt really a difference (or if there are, theyre prefferences)
Leave a Comment