My style doesn't have this

[Kung Fu Wang]

It's

- not important whether your style doesn't have this today.
- important whether your style have this after today.

If your style doesn't have something, you just add it into your style today. What I have is mine. What you have can be mine too.

What's your opinion on this?

 

[Flying Crane]

It's

- not important whether your style doesn't have this today.
- important whether your style have this after today.

If your style doesn't have something, you just add it into your style today. What I have is mine. What you have can be mine too.

What's your opinion on this?

I can agree, but it needs to be functional on the foundation of your system, otherwise it is a disjointed add-on. That can still have value, but it doesn’t work as well.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I think you meant this and didn't say it, but-add what's helpful. I'm not going to add something to my style if it's not effective, no matter how modern it is.

 

[Buka]

To me, it’s not a matter if my style has something or doesn’t have something.

If I’m shown a better way, technique, method, a better exercise, concept, approach, combination, stretch, method of recovery, a better way of helping people, of sparring, breaking, blocking, killing, whatever, that puppy is coming home with me.

I mean, how could you learn something that was more practical to what you’re trying to accomplish, which is teaching your students, and not teaching it to them because it wasn’t currently part of your particular style?

I wouldn’t be able to sleep at night.

I think we should all be “training thieves.”

 

[Deleted member 39746]

If you want to spend 20 years working to a postion of leadership you can add something that other styles all ready have that you want to do then fine. Or you can just switch and go do that other style that has the thing in it you really want to do.


Its like if i wanted to do a koryu that had jujutsu in it and jo work, and did one that had neither, for me to add it in i would effectively have to become the master of the style, split off from it or earn the right to teach it. (quite long pursuits) Or i could just do one with jo work and jujutsu in it.


These are modern problems anyway, a lot of styles were more inclusive than they were today, after erasing and loosing bits and consolidating teachings and working to become more mainstream or to be altered to be accepted into certain cultures etc.

Addendum: yes i know there is a movement to make them go back to the viewpoints they had in the olden days for many of these. Like briinging back grappling in karate and the like.

 

[JowGaWolf]

It's

- not important whether your style doesn't have this today.
- important whether your style have this after today.

If your style doesn't have something, you just add it into your style today. What I have is mine. What you have can be mine too.

What's your opinion on this?

First look deeper, then add if needed. Is your style truly lacking or was it that you weren't taught all that is there. If it's truly lacking then add. If you weren't taught all that was there, then learn.

 

[FinalStreet]

When learning, never stop questioning. Or else, lies will come.

 

[wab25]

A style is not really defined by what techniques are in its forms. A style is defined by its core principles, strategies, philosophies and tactics. The techniques are put into the forms, to teach those core principles, strategies, philosophies and tactics. If you understand those, you can use any technique you need to and still be doing your art, so long as you use the technique in a way supports those core ideas of your art. In this way, you can add any and all techniques you want and still be practicing your art. If you don't get the core ideas of your art down... you just have a random collection of techniques. Add in the core ideas, and that random collection of techniques, becomes a whole system where the techniques work together, not against each other.

 

[Flying Crane]

A style is not really defined by what techniques are in its forms. A style is defined by its core principles, strategies, philosophies and tactics. The techniques are put into the forms, to teach those core principles, strategies, philosophies and tactics. If you understand those, you can use any technique you need to and still be doing your art, so long as you use the technique in a way supports those core ideas of your art. In this way, you can add any and all techniques you want and still be practicing your art. If you don't get the core ideas of your art down... you just have a random collection of techniques. Add in the core ideas, and that random collection of techniques, becomes a whole system where the techniques work together, not against each other.

Amen.

The core principles and such are what make a system cohesive and not just a random collection. The principles give it consistency. Then you can do anything you want with it.

 

[jobo]

A style is not really defined by what techniques are in its forms. A style is defined by its core principles, strategies, philosophies and tactics. The techniques are put into the forms, to teach those core principles, strategies, philosophies and tactics. If you understand those, you can use any technique you need to and still be doing your art, so long as you use the technique in a way supports those core ideas of your art. In this way, you can add any and all techniques you want and still be practicing your art. If you don't get the core ideas of your art down... you just have a random collection of techniques. Add in the core ideas, and that random collection of techniques, becomes a whole system where the techniques work together, not against each other.

i think a random collection of techniques may indeed be a bit random, but a collection of techniques properly executed are more than sufficient for you needs

i think looking for philosophies, is just the human condition of trying to find meaning in events that dont have any particular insight

ive asked people before, what exactly the core principals of their art are and it seems if they exist they have significant difficulty articulating them

 

[wab25]

i think looking for philosophies, is just the human condition of trying to find meaning in events that dont have any particular insight

Philosophy for BJJ might be "take them to the ground and submit them." Karate might be "One strike, one KO... or as much damage as possible." Both may study and use take downs, both may study and use punches. But, the philosophies are different. They way they want to fight and the way they want to end the fight are different. Thus, they will use the same tools differently. Thats all I meant. I didn't mean looking for hidden meanings or explaining life or the after life.

 

[jobo]

Philosophy for BJJ might be "take them to the ground and submit them." Karate might be "One strike, one KO... or as much damage as possible." Both may study and use take downs, both may study and use punches. But, the philosophies are different. They way they want to fight and the way they want to end the fight are different. Thus, they will use the same tools differently. Thats all I meant. I didn't mean looking for hidden meanings or explaining life or the after life.

thats a tactic, or an objective.whats the Philosophy ?,

Philosophy has to be more that drag them to the floor or punch them to be worthy of the term Philosophy, other wise its just people putting deep meaning into things where non exists

 

[isshinryuronin]

First look deeper, then add if needed. Is your style truly lacking or was it that you weren't taught all that is there. If it's truly lacking then add. If you weren't taught all that was there, then learn.

"Look deeper" Those words are the key. Forms have function, if we look deep enough, and know what to look for. By doing this, we will most likely find what we thought was missing was not missing at all. What was missing was just our understanding. Most TMA practitioners used to think kata was just posture, step-block-kick-punch. Then, some began the study of the old masters and their students as text and old films became available, backtracking, and questioning - Whoa! That missing stuff was there all along.

Men are linear thinkers and communicators, not prone to overanalyzing or looking between the lines for nuances. Women, on the other hand, are typically more circular thinkers and communicators, less apt to just make direct statements. (No, I have not changed to a different thread. Bear with me a moment...)

I will hear a couple's conversation about the weather and figure, its about the weather. Not so with my wife. For her, that conversation was not just about weather, but a discourse on relationships. "What do you think she meant by that?" my wife will ask. "Did you notice how he raised his eyebrows while talking about the high pressure zone moving in? And why did she turn away a little when they got to relative humidity?" Honestly, I would not have noticed ANY of those things. After all, it was just about the weather, right? Simple block-punch-kick. Women! Always trying to make more of something than it is.

"But, what is meant by posing with the hands held so - is it just a pose? And why turn after that block - did a third attacker magically appear? And why raise your hands in front of your face when stepping in - is the sun too bright? And why drop the stance into a squat - is it to appear shorter?" Now, a guy would probably take these moves at face value. My wife would be reading between the lines, analyzing what was not said.

"Maybe," she would ask, "that pose is really an arm break. Maybe that turn is really grabbing the guy and spinning him around. Maybe he bent his knees more to get better balance for a takedown?" Women! Always trying to make more of something than it is.

 

[jobo]

"Look deeper" Those words are the key. Forms have function, if we look deep enough, and know what to look for. By doing this, we will most likely find what we thought was missing was not missing at all. What was missing was just our understanding. Most TMA practitioners used to think kata was just posture, step-block-kick-punch. Then, some began the study of the old masters and their students as text and old films became available, backtracking, and questioning - Whoa! That missing stuff was there all along.

Men are linear thinkers and communicators, not prone to overanalyzing or looking between the lines for nuances. Women, on the other hand, are typically more circular thinkers and communicators, less apt to just make direct statements. (No, I have not changed to a different thread. Bear with me a moment...)

I will hear a couple's conversation about the weather and figure, its about the weather. Not so with my wife. For her, that conversation was not just about weather, but a discourse on relationships. "What do you think she meant by that?" my wife will ask. "Did you notice how he raised his eyebrows while talking about the high pressure zone moving in? And why did she turn away a little when they got to relative humidity?" Honestly, I would not have noticed ANY of those things. After all, it was just about the weather, right? Simple block-punch-kick. Women! Always trying to make more of something than it is.

"But, what is meant by posing with the hands held so - is it just a pose? And why turn after that block - did a third attacker magically appear? And why raise your hands in front of your face when stepping in - is the sun too bright? And why drop the stance into a squat - is it to appear shorter?" Now, a guy would probably take these moves at face value. My wife would be reading between the lines, analyzing what was not said.

"Maybe," she would ask, "that pose is really an arm break. Maybe that turn is really grabbing the guy and spinning him around. Maybe he bent his knees more to get better balance for a takedown?" Women! Always trying to make more of something than it is.

and have you asked your wife to anylise a kata, ?
what if she said,that just looks like a silly dance ?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Will you ignore

- roundhouse kick, and
- hook punch,

if both are not used in your MA system?

 

[Headhunter]

Will you ignore

- roundhouse kick, and
- hook punch,

if both are not used in your MA system?

Yes I would....As a boxer a roundhouse kick would be 0 use to me

As a judo fighter a hook punch (and a roundhouse kick) would be no use to me

as a taekwondo fighter a double leg takedown and an arm bar would be no use to me

 

[isshinryuronin]

and have you asked your wife to anylise a kata, ?
what if she said,that just looks like a silly dance ?

Did you miss the entire point of my little story???? The whole premise WAS looking at a kata using a female kind of perceptive analysis and NOT taking things at face value.

 

[jobo]

Did you miss the entire point of my little story???? The whole premise WAS looking at a kata using a female kind of perceptive analysis and NOT taking things at face value.

yes i got that, hence my question of if you'd got your wife , who i assume quite conservatively in the modern world to be female to analyse the kata for you ?
and what if anything she saw that you had missed ?

and thats ignoring your sexist view than only females can read subtext in conversations, so the whole premise is flawed

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

in TKD you might not have an escape from a grab on your test but you might still learn it in class.

That's my point. Your TKD opponent may not allow to grab you. But what if your opponent is not a TKD guy? You don't have choice what kind of opponent that you have to deal with in the street.

You train MA to solve problem. Most of the time the problem come from outside of your MA school.

A: I'm a boxer. You are not suppose to kick me.
B: We are not in boxing ring. I'm not a boxer.

 

[isshinryuronin]

yes i got that, hence my question of if you'd got your wife , who i assume quite conservatively in the modern world to be female to analyse the kata for you ?
and what if anything she saw that you had missed ?

and thats ignoring your sexist view than only females can read subtext in conversations, so the whole premise is flawed

Again, you entirely missed my premise. The flaw lays elsewhere. Are you just being purposely provocative or obtuse? Perhaps metaphor and satire are not your strongpoints. My post had NOTHING to do with male/female. That was just a humorous (obviously not for you) way to bring up the fact that by looking between the lines/techniques and not taking the obvious moves of kata at face value, and by looking deeper as JowGaoWolf suggested, a lot more meaning for the kata can be found.

Going back to the title subject of this thread, by looking deeper into one's style, one may find the style does indeed have what you thought was missing (throws, breaks, locks. takedowns...) That was my premise. All of these are present in most Okinawan kata, though by just watching them they are not readily recognized.

As for individual techniques, my style, for example, does not have spinning back kicks in our basic curriculum or kata. Now, I can't add it to our style as I am not a 9th or 10th degree master, but that does not mean I can't do it, or teach it. I don't know of any style that prohibits particular (non-lethal) techniques. If I like it, and it fits well with other techniques in the style, why not?