You can have any definition that you want for Traditional vs Modern. To me it doesn't matter. The only thing that I care about is that people don't misunderstand my perspective of it. If my definition makes you think that I believe that Jow Ga is lacking, then I will correct that misunderstanding.Why does anyone get to define what is traditional or modern, for anyone but themselves?
Apparently my definition is different from his. The old stuff has survived because it still works. That is my experience.
What are you reading? Where did I say any of that. Show me where I talked about something "no longer relevant." or that "anyone practicing an old system is doing so with the goal to preserve the system as it existed." You do know that I practice an old system and fight with it too. So what sense would it make for me to say that? The assumptions you are making right now is a direct result of your own bias. I have no idea how you can even come close to assuming that's what I've been typing about, unless you are just skimming through what I'm typing.I also reject his assertion that (as far as I understand his message to be) that anyone practicing an old system is doing so with the goal to preserve the system as it existed in the past, in spite of the possibility/probability that it is no longer relevant and does not work very well.
You didn't misread it. That's exactly what I'm saying. I'm not sure why he's totally missing what I'm saying. It has nothing to do about what's lacking or what's more efficient. That's not the goal of maintaining the old ways.I don't think that second part was part of his assertion. I think he was saying if you practice an old style for the purpose of preservation, that makes it (by his definition) "traditional", regardless of whether it's functional or not.
But maybe I misread it