Is History and Tradition Important When Choosing a Martial Arts School?

Sensei Ryan Nicholls here, owner of, and head instructor at RKD Martial Arts, welcome to my Blog, Martial Arts Perth.

In this, our second topic, I wanted to look at whether or not history is an important factor to be considered when choosing a martial arts school.

History and lineage are often controversial subjects in the martial arts community. People sometimes make claims to have studied under this kung fu or karate Master, or claim historical links to this or that style, but how important is it? There are two main issues here so I will define them as such - history will refer to the style of martial art (what was studied eg. karate, ninjutsu, bjj) and lineage will refer to instructors within the arts (who you studied with). This article will look mainly at the history of a style.

The history of a style is often used to establish its authenticity, that it has some historical basis from which it is derived. Historical ties can sometimes claim to be hundreds of years old with links to some legendary master or event. This historical link is often used to convey credibility. Let's look at the history of a number of “traditional” martial arts styles.

• Judo was developed by Jigoro Kano and has its history in jujitsu. The style was developed under a unifying principle of “seiryoku zenyo” - “maximum efficiency with minimum effort”. It was developed in the late 1800s so is over a century old. 
• Karate was developed by more than one person though it was given its name by Gichin Funakoshi. It has its historical roots in Chinese kung fu combined with native Okinawan boxing (Okinawan te). It was developed in the late 1800s and early 1900s and became known as 'karate' ('empty hand') in the 1920s, so is just under a century old. 
• Brazilian Jiu Jitsu was developed by Helio Gracie in the 1920s from Kodokan Judo. Helio was unable to perform many of Judo's moves, so adapted and developed the BJJ focus on leverage and joint manipulation. 
• Aikido was developed by Morihei Ueshiba derived mostly from jujitsu, sword and spear fighting arts, in which Ueshiba was well versed. The central tenet of Aikido appears to be a commitment to a peaceful resolution of conflict whenever possible. Although developed earlier than this time, the art wasn't given the name Aikido until the 1940s so it is around 70 years old.
• Tae Kwon Do was founded in the 1950s by Choi Hong Hi (by unifying nine schools) under instruction from South Korean President Syngman Rhee to introduce the martial arts to the Korean army. While it is claimed that TKD has its origins in Hwarang-do, the ban on traditional Korean martial arts during the occupation of Korea by Japan (1910-1945) makes tracing this link difficult. It is suggested that many of the kwan (schools) that emerged after the occupation have influences from Japanese or Chinese styles, or were based entirely upon Karate. 
• Jeet Kune Do is a modern martial art founded by Bruce Lee in the 1960s. It has its style roots in Wing Chun, boxing and fencing, but Bruce Lee said “adopt all which is useful”, so it also contains grappling and wrestling techniques.  

Just from this list we can see that many of the styles that are steeped in 'tradition' are less than a century old. There are people still living and teaching who trained directly under the founder of these styles. When it comes to history, 100 years is a drop in the ocean so why do we put so much stock in a style's claims of historical ties? Let's go further back and look at some “older” styles:

• Any style of kung fu (Hung Gar, Wing Chun etc) – nearly all styles of kung fu claim to be rooted in the Shaolin monastery, which when destroyed, scattered kung fu Masters across China. From this one event, came the supposed foundation of many current kung fu styles. 
• Ninjutsu – the art of which Hatsumi Masaaki is the 34th Grand Master apparently has its origins in the 1500s. 
• Jujutsu – various styles which originated with Samurai in various periods. 

These styles have historical ties that are hundreds of years old. The problem with these claims is their verifiability. Many of these historical ties are oral history, which often can't be verified as fact. For instance, if you mention the “Ancient art of Ninjutsu” amongst historians in Japan, you will be laughed at. Does this make the techniques of ninjutsu any less useful? Given that the history of many traditional martial arts is relatively short, what importance should be placed on the historical underpinnings of a school?

While Jeet Kune Do isn't usually referred to as a traditional martial art, I have included it in the above list for a specific reason. Jeet Kune Do marked the first major style in recent history to come from the amalgamation and blending of a number of styles, and its founder, Bruce Lee, sparked the martial arts craze in the West. JKD is essentially the Father of most recent non-traditional martial arts schools, who have followed a similar philosophy of adopting what works. These days, the number of martial arts schools dedicated to a particular style seems to be in decline, with more and more schools opening up that offer a blended (mixed or freestyle) martial art. Given that the history of these styles usually originates with the owner or founder of the school, do people place a value on the traditional styles, or is what is being taught more important than the style being taught?

One of the criticisms of many traditional martial arts schools is the lack of 'aliveness' in their training. 'Aliveness' refers to the realism with which techniques within the martial arts are trained. For example, an opponent standing there allowing you to perform a technique on them lacks aliveness, while a sparring session with an opponent who fights back and resists techniques is closer to real life. The traditional martial arts often contain patterns or kata which are seen as being irrelevant if the techniques within them are never tested. This has resulted in some changes within the traditional martial arts – for example, kyokushin karate was established primarily with a focus on sparring or aliveness missing within other karate styles.

Now a martial art can't always be trained in an alive manner as it is impossible to learn a new technique with an opponent trying to hit you or resist and counter what you are doing. There must be some compliance in training or technique can never be refined before it is truly tested. At some point however, technique needs to tested in an alive manner. How will you know if a technique works for you if you've never had the opportunity to test it against an opponent who resists and fights back?

For potential students, when you are looking at a school, find out if they spar and the parameters of that sparring. Sparring needs to be relatively free for it be considered 'alive' – as soon as too many restrictions are placed on it it becomes fake. Now sparring shouldn't be confused with real life as your training partner isn't trying to hurt you. Obviously, some restrictions must be in place to prevent injury, but the restrictions need to enable as realistic a training environment as possible within the realms of safety. By the same token however, don't expect realism in a class of beginners – they have yet to learn anything to use in a realistic training situation! Some styles claim that they don't spar or train in a realistic manner because their techniques are just 'too deadly' – if you hear that excuse quietly chuckle to yourself then look for a different school!

Sparring and training in some schools use a graduated approach to increase the level of realism as students become better equipped to deal with it. In my school, RKD Martial Arts, for example, when students first start to spar they aren't allowed to kick at or below the knee (to prevent knee injuries) and should a throw or takedown occur it ends at this point. As students progress, the restrictions are removed so that all techniques are allowed and if a sparring round moves to the ground it continues on the ground. Weapons training is treated in much the same way, moving from drills to free weapon sparring as students increase in ability and experience. I find this approach works well for increasing the level of realism in training in line with my student's abilities, while still maintaining a safe training environment.

So given that 'aliveness' or realism is important, what does that mean for history and tradition in the martial arts? Very little - history and tradition in the martial arts are only important if they are important to you. If you have a reason for wanting to study a particular traditional style, or the history of that style interests you then you will find the history and tradition important. If you are getting into the martial arts for the spiritual and character building aspects, then the spiritual underpinnings of the style will be important to you. If however, you are getting into the martial arts to learn self defence, history and tradition mean very little when compared to the 'aliveness' of the training involved. Without a degree of aliveness, there is no 'martial' in the martial arts.

Thanks for reading – until next week make sure you subscribe to the blog, and if you have any subjects you would like to see covered, post them in the comments section below.