Dan Harden wrote:
It's worth noting that not all "Hanmi" is the same anyway. So pointing out -a- particular hanmi is more exact. That said, beyond its use to make your "martial art" more uniform,(and lets face it, we all have to do that to one degree or another in our arts) I can make a case for it being practically useless to even being detrimental to stability in actual combative movement.
So if you use hanmi at your dojo, it's a "martial art." In quotes.
Tradition, to make a definition for the sake of being clear here, is what your teachers teach you.
Easy, boy. Given that Dan goes on to acknowledge that we all have to bring some uniformity to our arts, I don't think those quotes are intended to be derogatory.
More interesting is the point Dan raises, which is what exactly do we mean by hanmi? There's a very powerful, basic stance that shows up in Kashima Shin Ryu which could be called hanmi, though it's not the heel-in-line-with-front-foot hanmi that aikidoka love. There's also a very exaggerated feet-in-line-but-turned-out version that never made sense to me until some students of Shirata Sensei showed me what's really going on with it.
As for tradition, what your teacher teaches is what they teach. Tradition is the whole background behind them, which they can pass on or not depending on ability and inclination. The two aren't the same.