R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Sigh.
1) Invulnerability. Beyond the fact that these claims about varying training tell any half-decent brown/black belt what they know already, there's the way that these ideas get piled higher and higher, with more and more obscure training methodologies added to more. What's the logical outcome? If enough is added, then all eventualities become completely--not even manageable, but masterable. Look, too, at the stle in which such claims are couched: it never seems to be just, hey, we do this cool thing...but always, we train in a way nobody else ever thought of, we are prepared and you ain't. There are rare exceptions--Ender and Tess, for example, who write that such training, "breaks up the monotony," or, "is fun."
2) Practicality. My point was that IF we're going to be realistic about threats, let's get realistic; not only are there no ninjas in the parking lot (thanx for a great line, Mr. Chapel), but a) threats that aren't ordinarily considered to be part of martial arts training are a lot more common--if I were gonna fool around, I'd have students take defensive driving classes, courses in diet and anger management, etc...and b) any rational martial artist learns to assess threat...in kenpo, it's part of, "acceptance," and "environmental awareness...," considerations that I guess just aren't very sexy.
3) And as for the kata not helping with fighting in the dark...why would they be LESS helpful than stooging around with the studio lights out? For one thing, I seriously doubt that anybody trains in a studio in which they CAN get things really dark...no windows?
4) It's funny. Why are topics like these more interesting than learning how to kick properly, how to block, decent manners, etc.? Why's it sexier to discuss knives, fighting, etc.?
5) And sorry. Differences of opinion and approach notwithstanding, it is NOT all good.
Anyway, thanks for reading today's rant.
1) Invulnerability. Beyond the fact that these claims about varying training tell any half-decent brown/black belt what they know already, there's the way that these ideas get piled higher and higher, with more and more obscure training methodologies added to more. What's the logical outcome? If enough is added, then all eventualities become completely--not even manageable, but masterable. Look, too, at the stle in which such claims are couched: it never seems to be just, hey, we do this cool thing...but always, we train in a way nobody else ever thought of, we are prepared and you ain't. There are rare exceptions--Ender and Tess, for example, who write that such training, "breaks up the monotony," or, "is fun."
2) Practicality. My point was that IF we're going to be realistic about threats, let's get realistic; not only are there no ninjas in the parking lot (thanx for a great line, Mr. Chapel), but a) threats that aren't ordinarily considered to be part of martial arts training are a lot more common--if I were gonna fool around, I'd have students take defensive driving classes, courses in diet and anger management, etc...and b) any rational martial artist learns to assess threat...in kenpo, it's part of, "acceptance," and "environmental awareness...," considerations that I guess just aren't very sexy.
3) And as for the kata not helping with fighting in the dark...why would they be LESS helpful than stooging around with the studio lights out? For one thing, I seriously doubt that anybody trains in a studio in which they CAN get things really dark...no windows?
4) It's funny. Why are topics like these more interesting than learning how to kick properly, how to block, decent manners, etc.? Why's it sexier to discuss knives, fighting, etc.?
5) And sorry. Differences of opinion and approach notwithstanding, it is NOT all good.
Anyway, thanks for reading today's rant.
