The field of Martial Arts crosses such a wide spectrum of society, and takes in people with such a variety of backgrounds and life experiences that finding mutual interests outside of martial arts would be almost impossible. Drawn together through this common passion, martial artists themselves then fall into the schism of traditionalism versus non-traditional.
   One of the most interesting things I have noticed about this particular discussion is that there are such good arguments on both sides of the fence that it is almost a matter of chance which determines what side any given student may end up on. What I mean is this: Students generally follow their teacher, and the way most students find their teacher is more a matter of chance than design. Location, advertising and marketing seem to matter more than credentials these days.
   When a student enters a particular Dojo, they will probably follow the Sensei down the path they are on. In particular, a student will believe the teacher as to whether they are learning a traditional or non-traditional style, and probably accept his opinion as fact. Often the teachers don't even know themselves, having gone through the same process with their own teachers years before. Regardless, students follow teachers through a slow session of integration into the schools mores and methods, and students who stay with the school and teacher will generally come to respect and appreciate that teachers martial arts ideology whether they call it "traditional' or 'modern', 'Shotokan' or' street defense'
   To take this discussion further in any meaningful way it is necessary that we give definitions to the terms we are using. Gage Canadian Dictionary describes Tradition as 1) The handing down of beliefs, customs, stories, etc., from one generation to another and Traditional as (adj.) Of Based on, or handed down by tradition.
In Martial Arts circles, tradition generally means wearing a white Gi, using Japanese sounding names, practicing Kata whose meanings may or may not be clear, and probably learning techniques at one time or another which are described as "too dangerous to practice". The study of history of another culture is often included, as is an overview of some aspect of that nations martial arts philosophy.
   Non-traditional or eclectic or modern forms of martial arts are much more difficult to describe succinctly, as they vary so greatly. Kickboxing, grappling, boxing, Jeet Kune Do, free style wrestling etc. etc. Can all fall under the heading of 'non-traditional martial arts'. The basic tenet of non-traditionalists seems to be "if it works for you, use it. If it doesn't then throw it out' This practical approach to technique appeals to many people who can easily see the direct use of what they are learning. The idea of learning how to say 'left' or 'right' in another language really doesn't seem to be relevant to developing self-defense skills for many people. They want to learn to take care of themselves in a fight not study foreign cultures.
   Many people are not interested in what they perceive to be a dogmatic approach to learning, and prefer to freely question everything. The idea of bowing, wearing unfamiliar clothing and referring to teachers by oriental titles can also be a turn-off for many. "Cardio-Kickboxing" and/or "Aerobic Karate" are becoming incredibly popular in many areas as the general population is discovering what a great workout punching and kicking to a fast beat may be. While maybe not strictly intended for combat a person who attends this type of training session is far more likely to be able to defend themselves than someone whose training session doesn't include punching and kicking.
As a matter of fact, I think I might rather have to scrap with some of the overweight and out of shape Black Belt wearers we see wandering around spouting about 'tradition and how we did it in the old days' than one of these active, in shape people who think nothing of a 45 minute aerobic Karate class where they punch and kick countless times. While they might be decried for lack of technique by many traditionalists, they can hit hard, fast often and for a long time. OUCH.
   The workouts are fast furious and intense. Set to high intensity music the players wear the most comfortable clothing they have, and work to exhaustion or the end of the time period, whichever comes first. This type of workout combining exercise with self-defense for a double benefit is even more appealing in today's time-crunched society. The idea of learning self-defense is as old as civilization, and has been present in all cultures. This is Self-defense as opposed to military tactics, by the way. Of course there have always been armies but it is only in civilized cities and nations that a need for Self-Defense and a desire to have such lessons exists. French Savate, British Boxing, Spanish Sword Play, Escrima, Kung-Fu, Capoeira are all examples of types of self-defense that have existed for centuries. In all of these activities the participants wore their native clothing, spoke their native language and lived their own culture.
   Were they traditional when they were developed? Is there value in maintaining contact with the roots of these activities? What about when the training was so extremely difficult that only those people willing to blindly dedicate themselves to one teacher, one type could ever hope to really become proficient? Proficient for what purpose? And at what cost to the individual's personal development?
   Exercises that were common years gone by such as the 'duck walk', bouncing or being forced while stretching, driving ones hands into pots of hot gravel, or banging ones head so it could be used as a weapon were parts of certain traditions, but were they traditions of value? Sensei Chuck Merriman once said to me that a tradition is what is handed down from one person to another. So if the first guy is an idiot then you end up with a tradition of idiocy. I guess he meant that just because something is called traditional doesn't mean its good, just old.
It is really only in the past twenty-five years that this discussion of traditional versus non traditional has come into being. With the advent of the leisure time now afforded by modern life people now have more time than ever for sport and related activities. The advent of mass communication has also played heavily in the development of this discussion.
    I believe that there is more information on various martial arts available today in the local video store than was known to the worlds greatest masters of thirty years ago. (The tape 'Nude Tai Chi' comes instantly to mind do they carry it at your video store??) Open tournaments also radically changed the Karate scene. Prior to their popularity, it was not uncommon to have people disqualified for changing one move of a Kata. That's right a judge would say that this move or that was 'wrong' according to their school. This is so far away from what happens at today's open tournaments that the very idea seems foreign. (Although 'Closed' tournaments still do require strict performance of a schools technique) But look at the level of techniques being performed today!! It has only been in the forum of open competition that the necessary discussions have taken place to allow for this level of development.
   When I was a child learning martial arts in London, Ontario, techniques like the straight up side kick, jumpwheel kick round-kick combinations were barely dreamt of and maybe performed by only the most highly trained masters. Today 6 year old children walk into the dojo able to do moves they have learned from Power Rangers or another TV show that would have stunned audiences of years gone by. Kids at tournaments routinely do moves with the Bo that could have won them first place at most tournaments 20 years ago. Open sharing of techniques between teachers concerned with developing the best students they can rather than paying homage to some artificially set standard of tradition has led to this.
   With all this information available now it is only natural that the discussions of techniques, relative effectiveness and utility are more prevalent than ever. I believe that we will develop the best martial artists we can when we ignore stale-dated exercises which are only done because "that's the way we do them". Question everything, look deep for answers which may not be apparent, accept nothing at face value, but experiment with it all. Research, study and practice and soon enough you will come right back to the beginning, back to the roots of traditionalism. Did I say that the eclectic study of martial arts would lead you back to Traditionalism? Of course it will.
The traditions of martial arts weren't made up by a bunch of people looking to protect their positions in Martial Arts clubs or trying to win trophies. They grew because they were effective methods of training, teaching and retaining information for future generations.
   If it didn't work, it didn't get saved because often the misled practitioner died in combat. Each and every technique in the schools of TRUE TRADITIONAL martial arts have been time tested and found to be effective in combat or in developing combat skills.
   I have visited schools of martial arts considered to be the most orthodox in the world today. In the TRULY traditional school they don't hide behind titles or fancy outfits. They train hard. They learn the syllabus of the school, work on it until they know each move as well as they know how to breathe, Not every move in a traditional school is meant for combat effectiveness. Some of the moves are meant to develop skills useful in combat, such as speed strength, stamina, etc. A student in the school of a true master of traditional martial arts will learn the entire system, then once they have demonstrated their ability in the set curriculum, they will adapt the style to themselves. This is where the student now 'retains what works and disregards the rest'.
Notice that FIRST they learned how to do all the moves, THEN they decided which worked for them and which didn't.
I have seen so many people teach just the techniques they feel comfortable with, those few that they can personally do proficiently, because THEY DIDN'T BOTHER TO LEARN THE OTHERS PROPERLY. It was 'too hard' for them, so they just skipped over those moves.
   I know of at least one professional Martial Arts Salesman (I hesitate to use the word Sensei) who never developed his flexibility, so today he doesn't teach the Roundhouse Kick. He cloaks himself in the mantle of "Traditionalism" but just plain ignores this technique because he has a hard time with it. The students who go to that school don't get exposed to it, so they don't develop the ability either.
   That's not 'Traditional' or Non-Traditional' its just plain lazy. I have noticed this trait so many times in my career... when people don't want to be students, they want to teach, and they want to teach now. The level of education they may have received in the subject they want to teach doesn't seem to matter as much as whether or not they can convince people to listen to them.
   They 'skip over' the hard parts, never bothering with learning a system from start to finish' jumping from teacher to teacher depending on how the wind blows and who is giving out the highest ranks today.
It doesn't matter if the teacher claims to be from some Oriental sounding school or the "Dojo of What's Happening Now", the true test is in the spirit of the practitioner, not the name they use.
   Chojun Miyagi, founder of Goju-Ryu synthesized his style from a variety of sources; Gichin Funakoshi saw Karate through its introduction to the Japanese and the huge integration of Japanese concepts into this Okinawan Art; Mabuni Kenwa was so taken by his various studies that he named his style Shito Ryu in honour of two of them. These people and many others are today considered to be traditional, but in their days they were the innovators, the eclectics.
They worked themselves and their students hard, they tested themselves and their techniques in combat, they adapted to meet the situations they faced. They spent their time on technique, not history lessons, learning vital striking points and difficult methods, not a foreign language.I suspect they would have laughed at the idea of performing some ineffective technique because "it was traditional". True Tradition is working hard, perfecting skills, showing respect and courtesy to those around us, acting in a manner that demonstrates respect for elders, compassion for those less experienced, and gratitude to our ancestors and the powers that be which allow us the lifestyles we enjoy.
   If you are training hard, paying attention to detail, really trying to understand the meanings of the moves you do, and their relative value in today's society; if you are willing to change to meet new circumstances by standing on the shoulders of those who have gone before instead of trying to re-invent the wheel; if you don't hide behind a facade of a fancy uniform, title or the name of a long-passed person, then you are a traditionalist who would be welcomed into the ranks of the masters who have gone before us, no matter what you call your art.

- Kyoshi Ken Tallack