Steve James wrote:Is the only way to really go back, to go forward? Discuss.
It has always been a question of necessity. It's like asking why do armies develop new weapons and tactics. There no need at all for a "traditional" martial art to improve. And, an art's "golden age" is usually a pinnacle achieved in the past that contemporary practitioners strive to emulate. At the same time, they'll usually admit that achieving it is close to impossible, and improving upon it is impossible.
Who's going to say that they're better than Yang Lu Chan or Dong Hai Chuan? The same is true for Helio and Carlos Gracie, I'd imagine. Otoh, have their arts developed at all since they were practicing? Were they in the Golden Age, or are we in that age, or is it on the horizon? Otooh, do all martial arts decline after their golden ages?
So, maybe there's no such thing as a Golden Age, except in the imaginations of those who recall a past. When it comes to competitive sports, imo we can only talk about people we've watched compete. And, this is strictly generational: eg., was boxing's golden age in the 50s or 80s? Was Ray Leonard as good as Ray Robinson? Has boxing improved?
But, what about the fact that change is inevitable? There must be progress or decline.
Bob wrote:Unfortunately when you step off the "martial arts platform" and then step onto the "scholar/research platform", terminology and classification can have serious implications - that is why the context of the original 1 page posted is of importance so as to avoid confusion regarding what one is speaking of and what one's "scholarly" intent is.
I guess it boils down simply to: "What exactly are we trying to assert here based on the 1 page post?"
Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:Ahhh yes, the wonder and certainty of Post Modernism.
If there is any commonality among "postmodern (one word, by the way)" thinkers, it is that certainty should be challenged.I question the author's basic premise that all search for objective authenticity is fantasy.
Strawman. He is specifically talking about modern interpretations of martial arts, not that "all search[ing] for objective authenticity is fantasy. This is also not a postmodern idea, it's Hobsbawm 101: Invented tradition.History exists and we can all agree that it is useful.
Yes, including postmodernists. Although, historians disagree on what History is and what historical practice should look like.The concept of 'essence' is useful and valuable.
Sure, but it's not the same as essentialism.Here's a similar kind of analysis that stays true to the Post Modern Methodology. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Essentia ... a013929896
I can't tell if this is posted for critique or to be held up as some sort of standard. It's not very well witten and also seems to invert some basic understandings. Very confused. For example:
"...political correctness (which is currently organized around a critique of essentialism)."
WHAT? Identity politics are based precisely on essentialism.
Bob wrote:Unfortunately when you step off the "martial arts platform" and then step onto the "scholar/research platform", terminology and classification can have serious implications - that is why the context of the original 1 page posted is of importance so as to avoid confusion regarding what one is speaking of and what one's "scholarly" intent is.
I guess it boils down simply to: "What exactly are we trying to assert here based on the 1 page post?"
GrahamB wrote:Then I started to think how this applies to BJJ - there are definitely factions within jiujitsu that hark back to a 'golden age' of master carlos and master elio, but - specifically because of the sport side - BJJ generally is looking forward towards innovation. And it's the 'self defence' people that hark back to the golden age, not the 'sport' people.
Occasionally you hear cries to 'get back to the real jiujitsu', but the general momentum is forward towards something, not back to something.
Return to Xingyiquan - Baguazhang - Taijiquan
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests