Since always really...it has as much antiquity as many and has etiquette, syllabus and standards A better question may be why do you think is isnt?
Everyone has a different definition of what constitutes a traditional art. It is a meaningless term. For some people any art that has a strong sporting aspect is excluded. Some people only call arts where you train in a gi (or with a system of promotion based on belts or sashes) traditional. Often any art of European origin is excluded (boxing and wrestling). Effectiveness generally counts against an art when deciding if it is traditional. Some people look at cultural trappings. Basically no one knows what they are talking about when they refer to traditional arts. The length of time an art has been around is only ever treated as a very minor factor. Aikido is generally thought of as traditional, boxing very rarely is. Kushti and sumo are generally considered traditional arts, even though they have significant sport components. Savate isn't, but kyokushin is. Taekwondo falls into a grey area. When you say: I find it quite interesting. You are saying the criteria to be considered a traditional art is age, etiquette, a syllabus, and standards. Most arts meet this criteria, although BJJ as a relatively recent offshoot from judo which itself was an offshoot of jujutsu may have less claim to antiquity than some. Every art has etiquette, boxing as much as aikido. The etiquette may differ, but it is there. Almost by definition a martial art is a collection of techniques, so a syllabus is a given. And I really don't know what you mean by standards. If you are referring to a ranking system, then 99% of arts follow some sort of ranking system, even the sports-focused arts. Sure, wrestling and boxing don't, but savate, judo, taekwondo etc. all meet that definition. The idea of traditional arts vs modern/sport etc. is a false concept with no real meaning.
You don't need to convince me of that - i was merely pointing out that the usual "hallmarks" of a "TMA" are present in BJJ so there is no reason to say it is unusual that is is seen by some as one Of course the fact it is pressure tested and actually works may discount it.....:evil:
Fair enough. BJJ is trained in pyjamas and has a belt system, so it definitely has the trappings. I think the most accurate definition of a TMA is: any art that looks (at least to an untrained eye) like an art you are likely to find in the "martial arts" section of a video store.
I think many top BJJ players would argue that the gi is kept not as tradition but as a training tool as it provides greater resistance through friction and more grips. the belt is really the only thing done in tradition
Even the belt system isn't actually "that" traditional. So far as I know it was first introduced in Judo.
Traditional doesn't mean it has to be hundreds of years old when it comes to martial arts. I believe it more has to do with the idea of passing on something from one generation to the next unchanged. I think what you are pointing out is that many things believed to have been passed down from generation to generation unchanged have actually changed, such as the colored belt system. The colored belt system was not tradition before Judo (as an example), but became a tradition afterwards.
Karate is considered to be a "traditional martial art" just as much as Aikido. In Okinawan Goju-ryu karate that I trained in, there was a strict idea that specific components were not to ever change (such as kata and associated lessons around these forms and techniques) from generation to generation. I know for a fact that some of these things still ended up changing a little in the ten years I was in it (most all of them to water down the techniques for the general public). I didn't mind the watering down because the older stuff I learned was still available at black belt levels. Anyway, I really didn't understand what rules governed what changes could be made and why except that if they came down from high up, it was acceptable. Now these days, having many more years seeing the politics of martial arts, I look more at the intent of passing down techniques/forms from one generation to the next unchanged. I go back to some things my first karate instructor, Chinen Sensei, told me when I got to talk to him nearly twenty years after I had last seen him. In essence, the visible part of a martial should not change. Let's for the sake of the discussion say that the visible part is the traditional part of a martial art. At white belt, the traditional part is 90% of your training time. By black belt, the traditional part is 10% of your training time, the other 90% is in stuff that can change and adapt, etc. So for Aikido, how many Aikidoka at black belt levels are spending 90% of their training time in supplemental training (things that change and adapt with the times)? I tell you that those that have reached black belt levels who do practice those parts of Aikido without change 10% of the time and adapt with the times 90% of the time, often get ridiculed for not practicing Aikido... when in fact, they are doing exactly how my first karate instructor says they should be practicing the martial art.
while i generally agree with your post, be careful here; what the internet giveth, the internet taketh away. if you don't believe me, just look at all the nutters out there that can find internet "proof" for the following: vaccines cause autism there is no evidence for the theory of evolution global warming is not real the usa government caused 9/11 i'm just listing the most egregious examples. there will always be people that are going to propagate the myth one should do a d34dly art versus just judo.
Exactly my views on the matter. I can say the same thing in another language: Generally speaking, from white belt to black belt, you should spend most of your time learning the traditional part with emphasis on the form and building up the muscle memory. After that, you take what you learn and begin to do the practical application. Speed and power come naturally with this method. One very important thing is visualisation of what is going on. One example; in my previous aikido lesson, I learned a move in which someone punches you, you take a sidestep to the right while using your right hand to deflect the punch. Then you replace your right hand for the left hand and place the right hand on the shin of the opponent. Then you move your whole body forward and cause your opponent to fall. I did this time and again. In randori, I quickly found out this didn't work unless I had a very patient Uke. So, I took the principle but applied it differently as I side stepped to the right I deflected the punch with my left hand and my right hand went straight to the shin. As son as it connected, I would step forward causing Uke to fall. I did this a couple of times. So, you see, I spent most of my time practising the technique to understand where it comes from and understand the movement, and then applied a working version if you will. This is the essence of any martial art for me as well. See what you are learning and apply what works.
I am glad to say that my Dojo Essex Aikido Dojo (Shoshinkan) is bucking the trend, we have a really healthy membership with over 50 registered members and regular classes with 30 + on the Tatami. In these days of social media clubs have a medium for free advertising. I agree that Aikido is not well known but then that's down to the Aikido community. We are an non profit club, but regardless if you are a professional or a part time instructor unless people know a club exists nobody will turn up to train. We get out club out into the local community, This summer we several displays at a local tractor manufacturer. Some clips of the display for those who are interested [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdQ7ZUH8A08"]Dai San Suwari Waza & Variations - YouTube[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu2dt4XSsjg"]Greg & Shaun Kumi Tachi - YouTube[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDOYgxi5D9E"]CNH Youth Aikido Display - YouTube[/ame]
really? who cares how high it is up Google analytics? I wonder if we'd had Google Analytics when the karate Kid came out - would that have been a measure of success and effectiveness of karate? ridiculous topic.
Actually I think it's pretty good for a topic. The internet is so integrated into people's lives that to dismiss data it can generate is a little daft. Certainly not a ridiculous topic at all. For a lot of people now the internet is their first port of call for information and their first exposure to some topics, a decline in searches for Aikido may well point to a change in attitudes.
well Dean fair enough. personally I think it simply reflects the enormous growth in MMA and Jujitsu. kids who maybe 15 years ago may have searched for karate, judo, tae kwon do and a few who may have searched for Aikido, are now looking up clips of Anderson Silva or other MMA heroes. I agree that many people interested in a martial art will use the internet for research purposes and good for them. Aikido doesn't really sell well to big audiences - no competition, no mass sponsorship, no tournaments, no TV deals. there was a rise in interest in Aikido purely because of the success of Seagal's movies. if Google data was available then I bet it would have suggested Aikido was the biggest growing art in the world at the time. anyway it doesn't really matter.
Your basing this on Google checks? I've seen a pretty significant decrease of popularity in several traditional Martial Arts systems, but that's actually quite normal. The rise and popularity of Mixed Martial Arts has led in many cases alot of Traditional Martial Arts systems to see declines in their numbers. I think you also have to look at what is Aikido doing to increase their numbers? Karate has done quite alot to increase their memberships. So has Tae Kwon Do, Judo, Jujitsu (Japanese and Brazilian), and so forth.
