Show Posts
51
Martial Arts Topics / Re: The Tradition and Culture Thread
« on: August 13, 2006, 02:18:39 PM »
Hello nasigoreng
I am not a traditional martial artist, i have been studing Historic European martail art's for a few year's now http://www.thearma.org/, and in those year's i have had to learn a little bit of art history, language, culture, medieval/rennisance law, fashion, religion, a whole bunch of thing's i never would have thought of as being related to martial art's.
The tehcnique's and philosophy of most martial art's though at some point had something to do with all of these thing's, for instance pensak silate how hard/easy would it be to do some of the kick's in say a boot that was worn over the knee, the fasion of the day when it was at it's height may have contributed to some of the technique's, they may not work in the fasion of today because clothing has changed, although they may be very effective in the studio/dojo/sallet, so I do not think teaching tradition is bad it just need's to be put in context.
For example we see the keylock in Historic Euro. manual's alot and we see it in modern MMA competiton the diffrence in the two is that in the Historic manual's they instruct to break the arm with it, in modern MMA they are doing it in a slightly diffrent manner in order to submit there opponent.
Me personaly i like knowing how technique's came about and what they were/are used for and why, so studing culture/history is for me fascinating and can add to what i know.
As far as something not being useful ie 12 jurus of silate, more then likely there was a reason for 1-5 even if they do not have martial application they may teach certain movement's or lead to a combination of movement's, so in my mind i would want to know why do they do the first 5 how do they apply to 6-12.
From what i see most martial art's change and adapt over time to the norm's of a society and the change's in culture, when this happen's it will influence how they are taught and viewed the technique's that are added/dropped and change how they are taught and the philosophy behind the whole art itself.
I think most of the time people could benefit from the scholarly pursuit as well as the physical art, because i doubt anything being taught is useless most just do not know what the use is or where it came from and why it does not work in the modern context.
Just my 2 cent's worth.
Jeff
Ps
In some respect's this is why Most European martial art's fell by the way side, gun's were much easier to teach than a sword or a bow and westerner's are alway's quick to adapt the best/easiest weapon's, and discard that which is viewed as useless.
I am not a traditional martial artist, i have been studing Historic European martail art's for a few year's now http://www.thearma.org/, and in those year's i have had to learn a little bit of art history, language, culture, medieval/rennisance law, fashion, religion, a whole bunch of thing's i never would have thought of as being related to martial art's.
The tehcnique's and philosophy of most martial art's though at some point had something to do with all of these thing's, for instance pensak silate how hard/easy would it be to do some of the kick's in say a boot that was worn over the knee, the fasion of the day when it was at it's height may have contributed to some of the technique's, they may not work in the fasion of today because clothing has changed, although they may be very effective in the studio/dojo/sallet, so I do not think teaching tradition is bad it just need's to be put in context.
For example we see the keylock in Historic Euro. manual's alot and we see it in modern MMA competiton the diffrence in the two is that in the Historic manual's they instruct to break the arm with it, in modern MMA they are doing it in a slightly diffrent manner in order to submit there opponent.
Me personaly i like knowing how technique's came about and what they were/are used for and why, so studing culture/history is for me fascinating and can add to what i know.
As far as something not being useful ie 12 jurus of silate, more then likely there was a reason for 1-5 even if they do not have martial application they may teach certain movement's or lead to a combination of movement's, so in my mind i would want to know why do they do the first 5 how do they apply to 6-12.
From what i see most martial art's change and adapt over time to the norm's of a society and the change's in culture, when this happen's it will influence how they are taught and viewed the technique's that are added/dropped and change how they are taught and the philosophy behind the whole art itself.
I think most of the time people could benefit from the scholarly pursuit as well as the physical art, because i doubt anything being taught is useless most just do not know what the use is or where it came from and why it does not work in the modern context.
Just my 2 cent's worth.
Jeff
Ps
Quote
"Absorb what is useful, disregard that which is useless"
"Smuggling concepts across the boundaries of style."
In some respect's this is why Most European martial art's fell by the way side, gun's were much easier to teach than a sword or a bow and westerner's are alway's quick to adapt the best/easiest weapon's, and discard that which is viewed as useless.