Material arts and tricking

[Tez3]

Except for the self defence bit. That just made no sense. I mean what does kata produce that is specifically applicable to self defence?

Ah well we could tell you but then we'd have to kill you. Why do you expect kata to 'produce' anything, it's not a chicken laying eggs. You don't do kata so don't worry about it, but you can't criticise something you know nothing about, it's just hot air if you try. I would be like me criticising Aussie Rules, I've seen it on television but don't know the rules, players, teams etc so of course I don't say anything, you should consider doing the same about kata.

 

[drop bear]

Ah well we could tell you but then we'd have to kill you. Why do you expect kata to 'produce' anything, it's not a chicken laying eggs. You don't do kata so don't worry about it, but you can't criticise something you know nothing about, it's just hot air if you try. I would be like me criticising Aussie Rules, I've seen it on television but don't know the rules, players, teams etc so of course I don't say anything, you should consider doing the same about kata.

Because the idea that nobody understands the true mystery of a thing unless they have been initiated is a line of bull generally.

Aussie rules is the best art for self defence. Have you done it? Then you can't argue.

Oh you have done it? Well you need to have done it for ten years to fully understand its depth.

Oh. You did it for ten years? Well you have to be Australian. So you would not understand.

It is a con. And it is one used pretty widely in martial arts.

So when someone make a statement like kata is specifically for self defence. There has to be some actual reason why. Or the people making that statement really don't understand kata.

 

[drop bear]

You want this to be an argument - I started by saying the distinction was useful but not terribly important. Not sure why you've decided to make it a major deal - you're back in one of your mood swings where you have a need to "beat" me in some discussion.

Nothing romantic about the distinction, nor the stark line you claim I've drawn. I've actually said more than once that it's a grey distinction. It's a bit like drawing a distinction between gymnastics and dance, in some cases.

And you're still stuck on a single item. Ignoring, again, that I never said every part of a kata is movement used in fighting. Keep up, would you?

As I said you don't have the tools to separate your perception from reality. You can't show kata used effectively in fights. I can show tricking. Your argument that kata is closer to fighting than tricking becomes undefendable.

And yet like a true believer you fall back on this idea the the more evidence I supply. The more logical links I make to support my case the more wrong I become because I am disagreeing with you?

Have you supplied evidence? Have you supported your statements? Have you really looked at both and independently thought about it without 20 years of baggage whispering in your ear?

Now the issue and the base of all my mean arguing is this.

Your distinction is what puts cardio and conditioning on a secondary level of importance to technique. Rather than integrating them as martial arts.

This is what produces this notion that some people are fit, strong and athletic and some are not.

Of course this happens in your environment because there is nothing done in your training to change that.

If I did jujitsu that never trained any grappling. There would be some guys who can grapple and some that couldn't. As if by magic the individual would have more effect than the art.

But it would just be silly.

Now if I train for self defence. I would want to train the skills that work for self defence.

Strength is a skill.

Sheesh.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

As I said you don't have the tools to separate your perception from reality. You can't show kata used effectively in fights. I can show tricking. Your argument that kata is closer to fighting than tricking becomes undefendable.

And yet like a true believer you fall back on this idea the the more evidence I supply. The more logical links I make to support my case the more wrong I become because I am disagreeing with you?

Have you supplied evidence? Have you supported your statements? Have you really looked at both and independently thought about it without 20 years of baggage whispering in your ear?

Now the issue and the base of all my mean arguing is this.

Your distinction is what puts cardio and conditioning on a secondary level of importance to technique. Rather than integrating them as martial arts.

This is what produces this notion that some people are fit, strong and athletic and some are not.

Of course this happens in your environment because there is nothing done in your training to change that.

If I did jujitsu that never trained any grappling. There would be some guys who can grapple and some that couldn't. As if by magic the individual would have more effect than the art.

But it would just be silly.

Now if I train for self defence. I would want to train the skills that work for self defence.

Strength is a skill.

Sheesh.

You really do want this to be a big thing. All I said was that kata includes movement that is used in fighting. A pretty simple statement based upon my own observation. You’ve tried to take shots at that statement by referring to things in kata you don’t think are related to fighting. Okay, there are things like that. Hell, I purposely put some things like that in kata I designed - those movements have a purpose that’s less direct. Bot sure what you’ve gotten in a wad over.

This all started with a distinction that doesn’t really matter. You seem to think it’s VERY IMPORTANT. It isn’t. It’s a useful distinction for discussion, but doesn’t really make a tinker’s dam worth of difference in practice.

Let. It. Go.

 

[drop bear]

You really do want this to be a big thing. All I said was that kata includes movement that is used in fighting. A pretty simple statement based upon my own observation. You’ve tried to take shots at that statement by referring to things in kata you don’t think are related to fighting. Okay, there are things like that. Hell, I purposely put some things like that in kata I designed - those movements have a purpose that’s less direct. Bot sure what you’ve gotten in a wad over.

This all started with a distinction that doesn’t really matter. You seem to think it’s VERY IMPORTANT. It isn’t. It’s a useful distinction for discussion, but doesn’t really make a tinker’s dam worth of difference in practice.

Let. It. Go.

The issue is that you are exhibiting a whole bunch of flat earth theories about martial arts

And what you call little distinctions turn in to big ones when every time I try to explain a concept I then also have to upset you by suggesting the earth is round.

A lot of these concepts just don't work with a flat earth premis.

Strength and conditioning as a separate entity sounds good if you don't want to spend time working out but also still want to call yourself a martial artist OK at this point not a big deal.

But then you have to ajust your reasoning to fit some guy who has worked out. Because you can't just get cleaned up by a guy because you spent 20 years focusing on the wrong thing. So we have to invent a whole batch of theories that don't work. Like it is the individual not the style. That a pro fighter has more time to train. That there is a specific kind of person born with the mental tools to fight, That there is some other cause other than what is inefficient training.

(And I have been there myself and had to work through that)

But the issue is the more you disconnect yourself from these basic ideas the harder it is to be able to see what is and what isn't.

And this is ultimately when guys like Steve say you don't get it. It is because you have all these basic disconnects that you work from.

Like making the distinction between fitness and martial arts.

Now if I don't make the distinction I can look at tricking, look at kata and weigh up the pros and cons towards what activity would enhance my training more.

My suggestion is pretty simple. Everything in kata is contained in tricking. But tricking requires me to be more athletic.

So bang for buck tricking wins out. Unless there is some actual factor about kata I a missing.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The issue is that you are exhibiting a whole bunch of flat earth theories about martial arts

This is a conclusion you draw from me saying the hazy grey line I use for distinguishing what is within the term "martial art" doesn't include what you want in there? You're taking this WAAAAAAAY too seriously.

 

[FriedRice]

Before I got into martial arts, I thought the cool flashy stuff (trick stuff) was incredible and where it was at. As I got into martial arts, I learned that most of the cool flashy stuff only actually works in movies. Lately I have been rethinking a bit.

The guy in the video will crack the hell out of someone's head with that staff. That is legit skills that he's displaying as well as high levels of athleticism. Swinging a stick around is not the same as most of the flowery forms being drawn with short limbs.

 

[drop bear]

The guy in the video will crack the hell out of someone's head with that staff. That is legit skills that he's displaying as well as high levels of athleticism. Swinging a stick around is not the same as most of the flowery forms being drawn with short limbs.

Yeah. Has ties to that thread on the old tai chi guy and his ability to utilize athleticism.