Storm wrote:let's take chemistry/alchemy vs martial arts.
Food for thought: what happened to alchemy when it stopped being a secret mystical tradition and became a science?
It went from being a tradition passed down through cryptic philosophical methods often followed because of the reputation of those who said it was so... and then it transmuted itself into science. Parallels can be drawn on the impact video has had to traditions and how things can be handed down now.
Storm wrote:In martial arts this only partially applies.
You would be right to assume not many people rest their lives on spear or sabre skills anymore. But the problem is assuming what came before is accurate and gospel. Here's some thoughts on the subject:
1. Martial arts is really a personal journey
What one martial great says to others might work for them but does one size fit all? Do we all have the same body types? Temperament? Reaction skills? etc. Nope - each is different and this should effect how each person learns and applies what they learn. Imagine a Mike Tyson specialising in just a jab and cross to keep distance - his coach saw the potential of his stature/strength and honed his skills towards it. Result - the writings or views of the past need to be adapted to the individual.
2. Is what is being shown really correct?
Many great martial artists where not great authors - they were usually honed professionals. Many had ghost writers. How much did they capture along the way? How much did they lose? Did they just try to promote themselves and kept the good stuff hidden?
3. The medium of a book and oratory traditions
The greatest contribution to modern martial arts isn't the adoption of any new techniques but access to video of them. Both books & traditions are very likely to lose a lot of the essence of the training and practice. Especially if the tradition is not passed on well with the same rigorous experience that formed it in the first place. Plus how about language and interpretation problems?
4. Are you following a myth or ideal vs. reality?
Ever read something someone wrote and thought it was fascinating and sounds amazing only to find out they are really just puffing themselves up? How often do we think this happened? Even today in the day of video we have many self proclaimed masters who on the surface sound amazing until they are seen in action to get their arses handed to them. Just because someone says they are good or wrote about it does not mean they were. We can't be really sure how good someone was 100+ years ago.
5. Time
Someone who trains for 8 hours a day vs. someone who trains for 1 hour a day. Should they both follow the same training method?
I don't believe it makes sense yet following the original texts without context might mean making a big mistake.
To come back to the topic - XYLH has gone through changes over the years. Some are good and others bad (I saw some people doing XYLH in a big group slowly and without any effort at all ... cringe).
At the fundamentals there are basics. These are most likely the true original parts of the style. As things progress to advance stages it can be said that each person makes it their own and has a bias to certain areas. I can try to teach someone what I learnt but in the end they will interpret it in their own way to adapt to their preferences.