Lets look at the break down of styles most styles are great because they give an ethnic identifcation or national pride.
Most schools in most shopping centers across America preach about how great my style is. ( EGO)
I have started to just grasp hold of all the information that was handed to me as a young pup and now I see most of the Martial artists in this world practice thier arts and not truly study their arts.
The reason I am posting this is the other day I had another martial artist tell me that a certain skill is useless in a street fight. I raised my eyebrows in Disbelief and said you should find a place for this move like the garbage can.
We as martial artist show more intrest in our Arts and training concepts rather than studing a Style. Name calling is all we tend to do when we train a style and not a skill. Most of all my mother is my foremost teacher on name callling and she told me not to do that one when I was young.

Name calling is all we tend to do when we train a style and not a skill.

speak for yourself, bud.

Most schools in most shopping centers across America preach about how great my style is. ( EGO)

but dont make generalizations like that about the entire American MA community

most of the Martial artists in this world practice thier arts and not truly study their arts.

and dont think for a second that you can represent this entire planet with a simple blanket statement.

I always emphasize that one must truly study the martial arts, and I agree that there are too many who don't, unfortunately.

I don't believe that all styles are created equal. Some are better--for some people, for some circumstances, etc. While how you train makes a huge difference, some styles are superior, at least for certain body types and personalities and such--and some styles, in my opinion, do indeed suck. Most styles however are good for the right person and the right type of likely attack.

I guess I touched on an area that should have been mentioned awhile ago. This wasn't meant to be a blanket statement just sharing personal observations from many schools in the states and abroad that I have visited. Some schools train a concept like ie: Science
Other Schools train a motion like ie: Movement, no self expression
I would like to confirm thier are good instructors in America infact I think some of the best are state side. These instructors didn't become known because they are bland and repeating the same information but giving a diffrent perspective on martial arts and skills.

defenitely agree with you there. it seems like the mark of a great teacher is to pass down the exact knowledge of the originator, otherwise, we would never get the intended purpose as to why it was developed in the first place.
and the mark of a really great teacher is to pass that knowledge down verbatim, and at the same time adding new angles, methods and practice in order to avoid aging the system into antiquity.

.....that most styles suck. I think that a lot of martial arts are *stuck*.

There are a lot of traditional martial arts that are *so* rooted in tradition that they don't evolve, and don't question what they do. Most martial arts were developed eons ago, under very different circumstances, and were developed to work under the "current" conditions of the times.

However, now we are no longer in those times and situations, and some of the aspects of those arts may need to be adapted. In many cases, there is an overemphasis on tradition, and the art is presented as it always was. What may have worked 1000 years ago in ancient Japan may not work the same today.

Those that don't have enough vision to make the art applicable to the modern society could be doomed to make mistakes, both for themselves and their students (in an actual society).....

Not all arts are bad. Just the way they are applied can be bad. However, again.....part of that is the instructor's job, and part of it is the student's job--to find out what will and won't work, and to go *beyond* the tradition alone.

Peace--

tonbo, what was really developed one thousand years ago in ancient japan? zen maybe-nothing wrong with it's applications today. besides sword drawing and other weapons not being used anymore, what really has changed so much about the world today?
most martial arts systems have been changed with every generation to boot. what we call traditional arts are usually less than a couple centuries old.

i submit that the only true drastic difference is the attitude and lifestyle of the people. we cant spend as much time learning(practicing) that people did centuries ago. and most of us have less patience when it comes to attaining results.
but havent the arts always given us simple, easy to learn techniques as well as the more advanced?

nowadays we see new and improved stuff like DCM and MMA, even JKD, and we call that modern, some day it will be traditional, regardless of their philosophies of ever-adaptiveness.
and thats exactly how all martial arts came about, shaolin blossomed into family styles and animal styles, japan adapted from china, and other countries created systems that continued to evolve into newer systems.

and i guarantee that most of those guys(the style originators) stood up in front of the public (just like bruce lee and ed parker and so many others) and said "this style is effective for the modern world, better than the traditional".

sorry to run on there:soapbox:

i admit, that i may be missing something vital, but this is how i see it. old traditional systems are not antiquated. they are still very valid today. or maybe i am completely off base.

What's DCM?

You see some schools practicing horse stands while one hand is chamber at the sideand the other punches. But if you act this way out on the street, your asking for a butt whooping.
Bob :asian:

You see some schools practicing horse stands while one hand is chamber at the sideand the other punches. But if you act this way out on the street, your asking for a butt whooping

ive practiced horse riding stance at nearly every school ive attended, and i guarantee that you will never see me in a full horse on the street, come on now, be realistic. those stances are designed for one thing, practice.
if you want to know the specific reasons for learning horse stances and other "ineffective" practices i suggest that you start a new string. but i will also go out on a limb here and guess that 1000 years ago, people didnt actually fight on the street that way either.
instructors boast about their own techniques and dismiss centuries' old basic training techniques like horse stances, because it makes them sound better. not because they know better.
i would still love an answer to my previous question, what is so different about today's world (besides swords have been replaced with guns) that makes only the newest and greatest styles appropriate?

I used the horse stance in self-defense once--the person was kicking at me and I was backing up, cautiously, with my side to him. It was a stable stance that exposed me to little danger as he was kicking toward my midsection which was deceptively far away and afforded me the ability to make strong blocks. I blocked three consecutive kicks from it before changing stances.

arnisador you are the voice of reason,

and i dont know why a threw DCM out there but i was just typin' away. it stands for dynamic combat method and its another one of those hybrid martial arts thats springing up all over. i think the instructor that created it was one richard ryan. dont know much about it, or him.



just found a link for you http://www.2reality.com/index.htm


now thats practical!

You see some schools practicing horse stands while one hand is chamber at the sideand the other punches. But if you act this way out on the street, your asking for a butt whooping.

And if you genuinely think, either as a student of a system or as an observer of a system, that that is how you are meant to apply the techniques you have learned, or, worse yet, if you are a teacher that teaches your students that that is how they are meant to apply the techniques you are presenting them, then you deserve the "butt whooping."

I think NBCDECON is on the right track with this... It is one thing to go to class a few times a week, mimicking the instructor's movements, and going home with a sense of having participated in some ancient method of ritual combat. It is another thing entirely, and what separates "real" martial arts lunatics from the rest of the herd, to spend the moments of your free time thinking about not only the "how" but the "why" and "when" of your training as well... Real examination and scrutinization of your style will confirm what Arnisador alluded to - some styles really ARE better than others, but not always for every person studying them. And some styles really DO suck. Sorry, but that's the universe for you.

Just my devalued 2 yen...

:samurai: :tank: :yinyang:

- some styles really ARE better than others, but not always for every person studying them. And some styles really DO suck.

yes, there is a speck of truth there, however i hold fast to the idea that some people are just better than others.
if you are speaking strictly from a combat perspective, yiliquan, than i believe that somebody who has never trained before but is the fastest, most explosive, most aggressive bloke on the block most likely will defeat your average hard working black belt bar none, why, because some people are better than others. some are natural fighters and some are natural lovers, everyone has their own individual talents as well as inherent flaws. i could never be a mathematician, or write a brilliant novel, doesnt matter how much i practice, but i can do other things very well.
do you see what im saying?
so i would have to innovate a l little on what you and arnisador are saying, some styles may facilitate faster learning of the methods they teach (wing chun is a perfect old school example), but that does not make them better in the end. if they were all just different old rusty blades in a toolshed, some may have more rust, and begin slightly more dull, than the other, but with time, anyone of those blades can become the most sharp, and the person that most attentively and carefully sharpens their own, will reap the greatest reward.
so i conclude that it's the person, not the artform that makes the difference. wait, i said that before!

Were you to have quoted more of my post (which is really unnecessary in any case, given that it is right there above yours :shrug:), you would notice that I already qualified what you said, though in a slightly different and perhaps less efficient manner, was that styles can and do suck, no matter how bad their adherents want to believe they don't.

:argue:

I never commented on individual fighters (at least not here in this thread). You can take a superior individual, train him in a ***** style, and he will still be a better fighter than a couch potato muffin boy in the greatest, deadliest art ever devised (that I am sure couch potato muffin boy would train in if it didn't interfere with his viewing the latest episode of Ultraman while eating Ho-Ho's and Twinkies). But, if all people really were created equal (in principle we are, but in reality we aren't - fact of life, bottom line; I wish I was created as equally as Shaq, or some other incredible athlete, but in reality I'm not), then you could debate style vs. style with some degree of legitimacy.

Anyway.

As for styles being better, maybe I should say "more complete" or "more fully thought out." Some styles train certain skill sets to an extreme, but ignore others. Some styles make use of antiquated techniques, weapons, costumes, etc., and ignore the modern innovations that have made such antiquated items obsolete. Some styles are nothing more than hype or fraud. I think BJJ is very effective, but I have yet to see a truly definitive answer to the multiple attacker scenario from a BJJist. I think that my own system is very effective, but I have found many things through training both with and under others that could use examination.

I think we both agree, we are just using too many words to explain it... Next time I will post with telepathic attachments, thus allowing for perfect and harmonious understanding... :lol:

I duno.. I think there are alot of problems in the MA world.. one is there is very little use for MA in most people's lives (who live in the US) frankly if you want to deffend yourself get a weapon and don't put yourself in danger.. if you don't want to deffend yourself and you are just looking for a sport of some kinf of athletic enjoyment than whatever.. as long as you don't seriously hur tyourself it doesn't matter what you practice..

now if you are in that minority group that trains for real deffence, I think you have to properly analyse the situation, you most certainly can not just do what your teacher does because your teacher probably doesn't have all the answers, and odds are his/her teacher didn't even have access to some of the informaation that we have today that concerns MA. There are very few arts that take a true scientific aproach to fighting.. there are alot that refference science to support their view.. but not many that truely look for the best way to solve a given problem given all available information. That I think is the problem, people go barking up the wrong tree and waste time doing something that is not the most efficient thing you can do.

In retrosepect I don't think I made myself clear... oh well.. maybe I'll try again latter

we may be getting away from a very important aspect of the discussion. martial arts are not just about fighting, people. what about fitness, health, spiritual power? everyone goes off on these discussions debating about who can beat up who. but its not about that.
a school that emphasizes one thing will invariably be taking away from the other. so if i spend 95% of my time practicing chi kung, than i will obviously not be learning everything there is to know about stick fighting, however, i will be in the best school in the world for chi development.

this is the last time ill ask it: what is so different about the world today?

sorry forgot about that question.. the world today? environmental change, diffrent weapons, difrrent clothing and footwear (depending on the martial arts origins). and attackers using diffrent fighting styles/tactics.

most fights come about in a city environment, cities today are alot diffrent than cities 200 years ago.

over I don't think there is much diffrent in any one catagory but over all there are changes, perhaps not enough to support an argument that simply because an art is old it's not effectiveanymore, however probably enough to show that some arts have become less usefull due to environmental change.

I think the biggest change is the availability of statistical and scientific information.. 200 years ago you couldn't get a report saying the most common forms of fights and the most common tactics. Another big change would be fighting style. most fighters you run into arent' going to fight in an "easternstyle" rather they are going to have some kinda of boxing/wrestling type of combination with maybe some low soccer kicks in there.. for various reasons it's kinda un common to find a TKD master that wants to mug you :-p.

social diffrences might be there also.. if someone wants to attack you with something like a knife, they are probably gona get realy close to you before letting you see it, and because of sociaty today if someone walks up to you with a smile on ther face you may not expect a fight so you may not back away.

Legal system is somewhat diffrent, as are security systems.. you can be caught on video beating someone up on the street than get thrown in jail.. You legaly aren't supposed to resond to a dangerious situation with any more than the force required to protect yourself/others, since this is subjective to a person/people that ween't preasant at the time of the fight there could be some serious reperations for say, breaking someone's arm that threw a punch at you.

Fighting could also be diffrent because of weapons, if you beat someone up there's nothing stoping them from going to get a gun than killing you.. just as an example (I don't know how common that kind of thing is) but there is always the danger that someone might draw a weapon like a knife in the course of a fist fight, and if you are in an environment that it's difficult to manuever in, like a bar for example than that could be realy bad (compared to on the street where you can always run away).

You are going to see a fundamental diffrence in any art where you don't wear everyday cloths to practicein.. for example when I go to my JKD class I wear swets, normaly I wear comewhat baggy pants but the swets offer much less resistance to movement than any other kind of clothing I would wear, so obviously in a fight outside of class I'm going to be slower due to the resistance of clothing.. this may not seem like much but it will deffenatly affect your ability to fight.. simularly if I were to practice without shoes on, my style of delivering kicks would change and if my opponant didn't have shoes on my awareness of some attacks would be lowered.

Over all I would say the changes that would alter fighting for self deffence the most are
1: your opponants fighting style.
2: your environment, how fights will start, how you can avoid them, legal reprocutions as well as weapons and weapons tactics.
3: the availability of scientific information, and the ability to analise many fighting styles/systems and compare them.

there is nothing that would specificly invalidate any particular fighting style, but anytime your environment changes your optimal fighting system/style will have to change.. I think today you have to do alot more with alot less.. somecases you have to be able to deffend against mulltipal attackers posably using weapons without the advantage of a weapon(dpending the circumstances) and you probably cant dedicate much time per-day to studying martial arts (relative to someone 200 years ago).

Originally posted by nbcdecon

Lets look at the break down of styles most styles are great because they give an ethnic identifcation or national pride.
Most schools in most shopping centers across America preach about how great my style is. ( EGO)
I have started to just grasp hold of all the information that was handed to me as a young pup and now I see most of the Martial artists in this world practice thier arts and not truly study their arts.
The reason I am posting this is the other day I had another martial artist tell me that a certain skill is useless in a street fight. I raised my eyebrows in Disbelief and said you should find a place for this move like the garbage can.
We as martial artist show more intrest in our Arts and training concepts rather than studing a Style. Name calling is all we tend to do when we train a style and not a skill. Most of all my mother is my foremost teacher on name callling and she told me not to do that one when I was young.


Most "styles" don't suck- it is the teaching of a particular system that may be bad... meaning the instructor. There has to be some logic based in a debate about movements otherwise it is time to go elsewhere. Can't say I totally disagree :idunno: Some people are bad some people are good- some are just pyscho.

Originally posted by nbcdecon


Most schools in most shopping centers across America preach about how great my style is. ( EGO)


Ego and economics. ;)

Originally posted by nbcdecon


The reason I am posting this is the other day I had another martial artist tell me that a certain skill is useless in a street fight. I raised my eyebrows in Disbelief and said you should find a place for this move like the garbage can.

Even a #2 pencil can be useful in a fight.
My reason for saying that is anything can be of use if you know what you are doing and have some imagination.
It's not the art but the person.

but at the same time the question arises "is it worth it to practice a particular skill" example: I don't cary #2 pencils with me and I'm genneraly not around them so why should I practice to fight with them?

You have obviously taken what I said too literally. Things (conceptual as well as practical) from martial training can be used in everyday life and things from everyday life can be used in martial training. Sorry to be rude/blunt but the statement you made shows a lack of in depth martial knowledge.
Why don't you contemplate what I originally wrote a bit more.

For those of you who think the horse stance is useless...

STOP DOING IT...

Clearly your teachers were just pulling your collective legs.

There is NO value in it, so stop already.


I just had surgery on my right leg...specifically, a high tibial osteotomy...as soon as I can put weight on the darned thing, the first thing I'm going to do is Horse Riding Stance...because I just don't want to break with the tradition of putting myself and my students through so much useless training.

As far as useless on the streeets...I guess you just aren't looking deep enough.

:asian:

chufeng

Originally posted by chufeng


As far as useless on the streeets...I guess you just aren't looking deep enough.

:asian:

chufeng

So true......so true..........

Please, keep the discussion polite and respectful.

-Arnisador
-MT Mod-

well as far as martial training goes... I'm a relative newbie. So naturaly I lack depth of knowledge :-p.

I think I understood what you were saying, my point wasn't specific to a #2 pencil I just used it as an example because you did. My point is there are aspects of martial training that sometimes can't or won't be applied because of the aspects of an individuals life. as you said "It's not the art but the person.". And when an incompatability arises the individual has to adapt. That means altering their interpretation of the art or altering that aspect of themselves that is incompatable.

My point is there are aspects of martial training that sometimes can't or won't be applied because of the aspects of an individuals life.

I would agree with that insofar as it applies to those with situations that impact on their training that are beyond their control, such as handicaps, missing limbs, etc.

And when an incompatability arises the individual has to adapt.

See comment above for when I would agree with that comment. Beyond those situations, I would disagree. There are no reasons, beyond personal preference, where an art is "incompatible" with a person. Short, fat people can kick high just like tall, skinny people. Just not as high up (they are short after all, and lack the reach). However, a tall, skinny person may feel uncomfortable with that approach, and their preference may be for a grappling art instead. Whatever.

That means altering their interpretation of the art or altering that aspect of themselves that is incompatable.

Not necessarily altering the interpretation. Since there was the example of the horse riding stances and their applicability to real fighting, let's go with that for illustration. While it is unlikely that a person would get into a low, hips-level-with-knees horse stance in a "real" fight, it is still a valuable training tool. The legs and hips are strengthened, movement while in an ungainly position is developed making normal movement easier and more controlled, and "root" is developed. While the horse stance itself may seem out of place (though personally I don't think so), the benefits from its practice are not.

Returning to the #2 pencil - I think what RSK is trying to get across is the fact that martial principles go beyond mere technique or tools. The principle of movement applies to regular walking just as much as it does in moving from one classical stance to another. The principles of weapons use are to be applied to empty hand combat. The principles of empty hand combat can be applied to daily interaction with regular people that aren't engaging you in physical combat. The pencil was just an exaggeration of a common, non-martial object finding martial expression through the medium of the MAist's innovation.

The things that people think are best left in the dustbin are, all too often, the things they know the least about. With more practice, I have found at least a dozen things (and I am still working on more) that I had previously thought silly or wasteful to be filled with insight and application. I found that by continuing to practice them until I understood...

Gambatte!

:samurai:

when I said "My point is there are aspects of martial training that sometimes can't or won't be applied because of the aspects of an individuals life. " I was refering to people who aren't choosing the martial art over over aspects of dlife (including personal habit) what I meant is if someone doesn't want to use a technique than they shouldn't practice it (unless they plan to use it latter in life). I'm not talking about the posability of a technique being usefull, I'm talking about people who see MA as a hobby not training a technique or weapon to the point of being combat worthy. I'm not saying that some martial arts techniques should be dropped from the practice of that MA at the whim of the practitioner, I'm saying if you aren't going to use it than you shouldn't train it for use. when I say "altering their interpretation " I don't mean there's no point in a shorter stockyer person kicking high, I mean if you are un willing or unable to implament a technique that was designed to be implamented in a fight than you have to look at the art through diffrent eyes. If you are learning to fight from a horce stance, and I mean fight not just practice to fight, than you decide that if you get in a figh you will not drop down into a horce stance and you will fight in some other manner, you do have to adapt and re-interpret what you are doing. That doesn't mean stop practicing from a horce stance, but at the same time if there was another way of practicing that would give you all the same benafits of practicing in a horce stance it would be just as worthy.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you are saying that the practice of certain aspects of MA give more benafit than the direct product of such movements(there is more to it than what meats the eye).

If that's the case what I'm trying to say is "is it worth it to practice a particular skill". It has nothing to do with indirect benafit but is the total benafit worth it.

I sometimes compare this sort of thing to a boxer doing a pushup--a boxer doesn't use a literal pushup motion in the ring, palm open and wrist bent backwards, but there is some pugilistic value to doing pushups nonetheless.

Originally posted by chufeng

For those of you who think the horse stance is useless...

STOP DOING IT...

Clearly your teachers were just pulling your collective legs.

There is NO value in it, so stop already.


I just had surgery on my right leg...specifically, a high tibial osteotomy...as soon as I can put weight on the darned thing, the first thing I'm going to do is Horse Riding Stance...because I just don't want to break with the tradition of putting myself and my students through so much useless training.

As far as useless on the streeets...I guess you just aren't looking deep enough.

:asian:

chufeng
May I respectfully suggest that you check out Infinit Insights Vol 2 by Ed Parker. I think you will find that the Horse Stance is far from useless.:asian:

Originally posted by sweeper

but at the same time the question arises "is it worth it to practice a particular skill" example: I don't cary #2 pencils with me and I'm genneraly not around them so why should I practice to fight with them?

Absolutely everything can be used as a weapon. I've been taught that even though you haven't "practiced with number two pencils" per se, you still know how to stab, yes?

Take your average dinner table... you've got hot food on plates, wine in glasses, a wine bottle, silverware, and a tablecloth. should you end up in trouble in a restaurant, you can throw the food in someone's face, splash wine in their eyes, break the wine glass and bottle and have edged weapons, and the uses of the silverware is kinda obvious. Even the tablecloth can be a weapon. Throw it over someone's head. If he can't see you, he'll have a hard time fighting you.

Stuff like this got drilled into me when I was a little kid. I learned that you have to:

1. be aware of your surroundings, people, places, things
2. know how to use your surroundings to your advantage.

Frankly, if I'm in a fight and I've got a pencil in my hand, I'm sure as heck not gonna throw it off to one side because I haven't practiced using it. You practice (or at least, you probably should be practicing) eye pokes and throat jabs. It isn't a big alteration to do that with the point of a pencil rather than the point of your finger.

May I respectfully suggest that you check out Infinit Insights Vol 2 by Ed Parker. I think you will find that the Horse Stance is far from useless.
[B][COLOR=blue]

Seig,

You clearly missed my point.
Of course there is value in the Horse-riding stance, both in training the legs and in actual combat...

My point was that the student with limited experience should NOT throw the baby out with the bath water simply because he doesn't see the benefit of a particular stance/movement, etc.

One would probably not assume a horse-riding stance to deliver punches straight on at an attacker...but, from a close quarters distance and at an angle there are many applications...hence my comment about Not looking deeply enough.

Sorry for the confusion.

:asian:
chufeng

and hopefully it won't suck.

Actually it is a Martial Art/franchising idea

The Name of my club will be "Bruce Paco's Karate and Taco's"

It will be a fast-food franchise/Karate Dojo. Kinda like a Taco Bell with a Karate Theme.

We can have creative names for food items such as: Tae Kwon hard Taco's; brazillian borrito-jitsu; Ciniman twist-kicks....the possibilities are endless!

We can run specials too...

I can hear it now:

"Can I have a #2 please"
"A number 2; two hard taco's, a medium drink, and 1 free submission technique. Would you like to supersize that to a large drink and complementary groin kick?
"No."
"Thank you, please pull around."

Come on now....50 some odd years ago someone had the grande idea to franchise burgers and fries, and call it "McDonalds"

It's the 21st century, we've got to be innovative.

So....who's with me!!??

Come-on people, work with me....

:p

What comes with the blackbelt pack?

Wouldn't that be McBlackbelt?

nightingale I think you missed the point of what I was saying, I'm not saying that it would be pointless for me to know how to use a weapon I'm saying it would be pointless to train it specificly, I mean you probably wouldn't dedicate much time to practice throwing food or table cloths, it's just not woth the time. that doesn't mena you cna't do it..

For example I practice kali virtualy any of the hand movements can be done with a weapon, if I were to have a #2 pencil I would probably treat it kind of like a knife, but I wouldn't nessisaraly take a #2 pencil to class to train it..

it comes down to a matter of efficiencie.

What I said was " I don't cary #2 pencils with me and I'm genneraly not around them so why should I practice to fight with them?". I didn't say I will never ever use one, just that I'm genneraly not near them, and if one was available and it was the best choice it's pritty obvious it would be advantagious to use it. My point wasn't that because I don't cary a pencil it isn't a weapon but rather because they aren't redaly available I won't train it specificly because my time will be better spent training something else.

I think it is very common these days to try to second guess one's art and to think at a certain time that we understand enough about it to pick and choose what parts we train or don't train...

I think it is also very common, especially in what seems to be an era of martial arts innovation what with the rush of newly founded "new and improved" styles popping up every day, for people to think they know better than all the instructors that have come before, as well as the decades to centuries of experience and experimentation that went before us...

Folks love to quote Brucie Boy with his whole "take what is useful" nonsense, but what they seemingly fail to realize is that he did absolutely nothing that had not been done by someone else, somewhere else, somewhen else... He just got his opinions published while others didn't...

Now, I'm not saying that every art is a perfect vehicle in and of itself, and simply studying your one single art in more depth will suffice to teach you all there is to know about armed and unarmed combat. If for no other reason, that simply fails the logic test (if there were multiple arts that all taught 100% of everything there is to know about fighting, they wouldn't be separate arts now, would they?).

But.

There are those folks out there that reach a certain level of competence in their chosen styles, and they begin examining what they are practicing and training with a very critical eye. The problem, though, is that critical eye lacks the perspective of history.

It was commented on elsewhere that nothing has really changed all that much from several hundred years ago. "It is more violent now, so things are worse today than in the past!" Not really. There are more people today than 500 years ago, so our crime statistics look pretty imposing due to the ratio of crime to population, but we also have better law enforcement than 500 years ago, so in comparison today is actually a bit safer. "There were roving groups of bandits and thieves in the past, and so many people had weapons that the past must be worse!" Not really. There are roving bandits now, we just call them by different names (what are gangbangers, after all, other than bandits and hoodlums?), and lots of people are armed these days (and the gangs are packing automatic weapons, and are often better armed than the police), probably just as many if not more than in the past (think of all the thugs walking the streets packing Saturday Night Specials, the folks armed with knives of all sorts - I carry at least three at any time...). So in comparison today is actually a bit more dangerous...

So who are we to necessarily say what is to be deleted from our training and what is to be added?

It has been my meager experience that when you think you have it, you really don't. The person that thinks they are a saint is often furthest from the truth. The person that thinks they know all there is to know needs to do a little more reading. Likewise, in martial arts, the person that begins thinking they can determine what is appropriate or inappropriate might just need a little more training...

We need to practice with everything we can get our hands on, in as many ways as possible, in as many settings as we can think of. Sure, it is time consuming. Sure, if we are working toward another goal then perhaps training in something that doesn't necessarily follow that direction may seem to be taking away from the pursuit of that goal. But in my humble opinion, everything we do is heading toward the same goal, and to limit that pursuit by chasing only one set of skills, or one technique or form to master, cheapens the development of the whole.

We can argue at great length the value of certain aspects of all our respective arts when placed in certain situations. BJJ is great for one on one, but less useful for multiple attackers. Bagua is great with multiple attackers, but circle walking doesn't necessarily have a direct impact on ground fighting. But would that therefore mean since the Bagua man sees ground fighting as extraneous to his pursuit of ultimate Bagua ability, he should never consider training in such grappling situations? Hardly, and I doubt anyone here would argue that point...

Train everything as often as you can, in as many ways as you can imagine. Only then will your training really develop. I hacked on Brucie Boy earlier, but I will admit that one thing he did do for martial arts was to emphasize the definite need for an innovative approach to comprehensive and holistic training.

So, would you like fries with that? :D

originaly all I meant to say was if for whatever reason you don't think you are going to use it, there isn't much point in training it...

I don't mean if you aren't good enough at it so you won't use it you should stop training in it, but there are some things people just won't use, doesn't matter why, but if it isn't going o be used than why train it?

I'm not saying someone should second guess their instructor or create a new style..

To quote something I read in Go Rin No Sho: To know one thing well is to know ten thousand..... I am not sure if Musashi was the first to say it but it is still true today.

Interesting post Yiliquan1. I know that my experience with Uechi-Ryu was to think "cool but worthless in a fight" for the year + I was studying it, but now, years later, I more and more see the wisdom built into it. It can take quite a while to see the logic behind the techniques! Filipino systems tend to teach principles first, and so you can more easily judge the system--other systems have you eke out the principles through years of practice and so when you get them you really "get" them, because you sweated for it.

People "dis" arts much too easily nowadays. I do believe that some styles simply suck, but many are great for the right person and the right type of threat.

Originally posted by arnisador

Filipino systems tend to teach principles first, and so you can more easily judge the system--other systems have you eke out the principles through years of practice and so when you get them you really "get" them, because you sweated for it.

People "dis" arts much too easily nowadays. I do believe that some styles simply suck, but many are great for the right person and the right type of threat.


Nicely put!

/Yari

I totally agree with tonbo,about time someone feels same way I do.I had a post before about it and it started a war,i'm glad someone feels same about traditional arts.

It is very true that traditional arts are stuck in their old ways and need to move on.I agree 100% that what worked then won't work now.


Traditional arts need to develop.

Originally posted by asoka


It is very true that traditional arts are stuck in their old ways and need to move on.I agree 100% that what worked then won't work now.


Traditional arts need to develop.

Can you elaborate on how they are stuck and how they need to move on/develop?

Originally posted by RyuShiKan



Can you elaborate on how they are stuck and how they need to move on/develop?

I want to hear that too.

I would also like to heard what is a modern art, that doesn't base itself on already done MA?

/Yari

Originally posted by sweeper

originaly all I meant to say was if for whatever reason you don't think you are going to use it, there isn't much point in training it...

I don't mean if you aren't good enough at it so you won't use it you should stop training in it, but there are some things people just won't use, doesn't matter why, but if it isn't going o be used than why train it?


why train it?

because human beings are not psychic and we never know what we're going to need, and that one move that you never thought you're going to use just may save your life. It did mine.

I never thought I'd use any of those false handshake techniques (when someone pretends to shake your hand and then tries to pull you into a punch or uses a handshake to otherwise control you). I always thought "who the heck is gonna grab a girl that way? someone might attack a guy like that, but that doesn't really fit..." I thought it was one of the strangest attacks on the planet. However, I'm damn glad I trained with that technique, because when my attacker grabbed me, it was a textbook false handshake grab, and I walked away because I knew what to do, and I knew what do do because I'd trained something I'd never thought I was going to use.

Techniques and weapons and stuff give you ideas, and the more ideas you have in a situation, the better off you are, because the most effective idea for your situation may just be the one you decided wasn't worth learning.

Originally posted by RyuShiKan



Can you elaborate on how they are stuck and how they need to move on/develop?

By my comment I meant,traditional arts that practice katas need to wake up and get rid of these forms,get down to what really works now instead of what worked back then.Punching and kicking in air does ****.The stances are also useless.In a real situation you won't have time to go into a stance and if you block or kick the way you do katas you'll lose.

You're as good as you've been taught and practice in class.Chances are in a real situation you'll react exactly how you've been trained and if you react the way most traditional arts teach,you're simply going to get your ass kicked.

That's why I don't do traditional arts any more,instead I do street defense which is taught in Pankration.

Originally posted by asoka



By my comment I meant,traditional arts that practice katas need to wake up and get rid of these forms,get down to what really works now instead of what worked back then.Punching and kicking in air does ****.The stances are also useless.In a real situation you won't have time to go into a stance and if you block or kick the way you do katas you'll lose.

You're as good as you've been taught and practice in class.Chances are in a real situation you'll react exactly how you've been trained and if you react the way most traditional arts teach,you're simply going to get your ass kicked.

That's why I don't do traditional arts any more,instead I do street defense which is taught in Pankration.


We're having a discussion in another forum (I don't know how to link), about kata's. And as you already know. I don't agree.

I have friends that only have praticed point karate, which has nothing do to with selfdefense classes at all, just competition by point = semi contact, and he was attacked by 3 attackers. He ask what should he do? Just use his elbows? Which he did, and finished the 3 off in a second. The only thing this guy ever practiced was kata and point karate,and was one of norways best karate people.

But like I said in the other forum. I don't think that kata can stand for itself, but it works and is usefull.

/Yari

Originally posted by asoka



By my comment I meant,traditional arts that practice katas need to wake up and get rid of these forms,get down to what really works now instead of what worked back then.Punching and kicking in air does ****.The stances are also useless.In a real situation you won't have time to go into a stance and if you block or kick the way you do katas you'll lose.

So then by that reasoning shadow boxing is useless and from my understanding the stances used in forms are for exercise not for real combat.

Originally posted by asoka

I totally agree with tonbo,about time someone feels same way I do.I had a post before about it and it started a war,i'm glad someone feels same about traditional arts.

It is very true that traditional arts are stuck in their old ways and need to move on.I agree 100% that what worked then won't work now.

Traditional arts need to develop.

I don't understand you. What is it that you're looking for?
Is it validation from traditional martial artists that YOUR style
is the only one that people should study?

Maybe it's that you want to start crap?

Why go to a site populated mostly by YOUR definition
of "traditional" martial artists and post here? I seriously doubt
you're looking for some kind of interesting conversation or
debate. If you wanna sell your pankration doo-doo, go to the
fargin UFC and kick some tail. That'd be more of a marketing
tool than coming on this board and trying to push your b.s.
to the members here. As soon as this thread is wasted away
into page 2, or 3 ... we have to hear your crap again. What's
the next thread's subject gonna be? "Pankration Is The Only
Style Worth Studying" ? I find you insulting, and lacking in
any GOOD debate skills. All you can do is repeatedly come in
here and talk about how god awful katas or forms are. Shut
up already. The next thread you should post in here is that you're
fighting in the UFC. If it's not, then how about coming in here
with some tolerance, instead of insults?

Originally posted by asoka



By my comment I meant,traditional arts that practice katas need to wake up and get rid of these forms,get down to what really works now instead of what worked back then.Punching and kicking in air does ****.The stances are also useless.In a real situation you won't have time to go into a stance and if you block or kick the way you do katas you'll lose.



By the above statement I can see the level and type of karate that you have been exposed to.
Your opinion is based on a lack of knowledge of the fundamentals of kata training and stances.



Originally posted by asoka

You're as good as you've been taught and practice in class.

And your own karate teacher is to blame for your lack of in depth knowledge on that subject............not the art.



Mr. Kirk (or is it Cpt. Kirk?) ;)

Let's give Asoka a chance to enlighten us with his great knowledge of Karate. Since he has "been there and done that" he no doubt has sucked the very marrow out of the bones of karate and digested all it has to offer, and he knows that Karate kata and stances suck so bad maybe he can tell us what their original intention was for.


Asoka,

Since you seem to have such a broad and sweeping knowledge of the purpose kata and stances can you give us poor "backwardass traditionalists" some inkling of what they were/are for and why they don't work?

When confronted with a person that proclaims the utter uselessness of forms, I am instantly provided with a solution to their ignorance -

Practice their forms MORE. :erg:

Please, keep the discussion polite and respectful.

-Arnisador
-MT Mod-

So now I'm jumpin' in!!!

:armed: :duel:

:D

Ahhh yes. The ground fighters. One of the Martial Arts Schools that I am affiliated with has a pretty competitive group of submission wrestlers. I like training with them, and doing different types of no-holds-barred stuff with them, but these competition based styles are not an end-all.

A huge mistake that I see competition based martial artist (especially "no-holds-barred" fighters) is that many of them tend to think that their way is the only way, which just isn't so. There isn't anything to substitute for real combat or real fighting. No type of competition or Kata can fully prepare someone for a life and death situation.

A "no-holds-barred" fight is really ground wrestling with strikes. The rules prevent it from being a real fight in the same manner that the rules for kickboxing prevent a kickboxing match from becoming a wrestling match.

I'm not saying that grappling has no value, it's just that many grapplers think that "no-holds-barred" competitions are the same as a street scenario, or at least not that much different, anyhow. It is a sobering experience for them when they are caught in a street confrontation and it doesn't go down like they'd expect.

The point is, the best thing we can do for ourselves as people who study martial arts is to stay humble, and to not have false-confidance. Some people like to compete, some drill, some do Kata, some do all three. It doesn't matter. Do what you like; just be aware of the applications and adjustments that you'll make in real combat. An old Tai Chi man can beat a young grappler in combat. Why? Anything can happend, that's why!

So, Asoka, don't knock the Kata people. I'm not much of a Kata guy either, but if that's the way they express themselves then great. Combative application, awareness, and instinct is what will allow one to survive the fight, not just octagon cage fighting.

:soapbox:

nightingale I think that's a diffrent situation, there are some attacks that have very little use in combat and the indirect benafits they give you by practice are less than optimal for the amount of time spent practicing.. for example, tricks/acrobatics, from a martial perspective practicing these kinds of things will probably increase your speed your strength and your balance/agility, however other excersisez will give you the same benafit, so unless you like doing them why should you practice them (in place of something else).

What I'm saying is you have a finite amount of time to train, you have to optimise that time. if you know one technique will be usefull and you think one will not and it's a choice between the two, I think it's obvious which one should be dropped.

Originally posted by asoka



By my comment I meant,traditional arts that practice katas need to wake up and get rid of these forms,get down to what really works now instead of what worked back then.Punching and kicking in air does ****.The stances are also useless.In a real situation you won't have time to go into a stance and if you block or kick the way you do katas you'll lose.


My comment I make for all who claim katas/forms/sets suck: You've either never trained them, or never traied them correctly.

Cthulhu

Originally posted by tonbo

.....that most styles suck. I think that a lot of martial arts are *stuck*.

There are a lot of traditional martial arts that are *so* rooted in tradition that they don't evolve, and don't question what they do. Most martial arts were developed eons ago, under very different circumstances, and were developed to work under the "current" conditions of the times.

However, now we are no longer in those times and situations, and some of the aspects of those arts may need to be adapted. In many cases, there is an overemphasis on tradition, and the art is presented as it always was. What may have worked 1000 years ago in ancient Japan may not work the same today.

Those that don't have enough vision to make the art applicable to the modern society could be doomed to make mistakes, both for themselves and their students (in an actual society).....

Not all arts are bad. Just the way they are applied can be bad. However, again.....part of that is the instructor's job, and part of it is the student's job--to find out what will and won't work, and to go *beyond* the tradition alone.

Peace--

Oh my friend, you are so right. I'm with you on that.

-Bushido

This article (http://judo1.net/ju01004.htm) discusses the Shu Ha Ri "Imitate, Diverge, Separate" tradition of Japanese systems.

You should email that to some people in that forum ;)

-Bushido

Originally posted by arnisador

This article (http://judo1.net/ju01004.htm) discusses the Shu Ha Ri The concept of Shu Ha and Ri is very interesting and goes back to China, not surprisingly.

However, I think most modern martial arts people have taken the idea out of context and feel they can accomplish this in a few years. Which might account for so many young "Soke" and "Grandmasters".


"Imitate, Diverge, Separate"

Are not very in depth definitions of Shu Ha Ri and I think are easily misunderstood.

Alex Kask wrote an excellent definition in his study book; Japanese for the Martial Artist by Tuttle Books.

The term Shu Ha Ri describes 3 levels of development in the martial arts.
During the 1st stage, Shu, the student emulates his master unquestioningly. At the 2nd level, Ha, the student begins to develop his own style.
At the 3rd and final level, Ri, the student has mastered the basic techniques and understands the core principles of the tradition as well as developing a personalized interpretation of it. At the last stage the individual no longer requires instruction.


tradition of Japanese systems.