Promotion stanrdards (Split from Is it disrespectful to ask [...])

[jobo]

Do you want to know the funny thing about all this? My stepfather has been doing Shotokan since the 1960s. He's met three "Japanese grandmasters" in his time, and each have contradictory advice about how to kick.

It seems that nobody knows the "correct" technique, which is one of the main reasons I've quit TMA and focused on more scientific approaches to fighting.

but scientifically, there are three correct ways to do any fighting techneque,
1) the way that generated most power
2) the one where you give up power for speed
3) the one where you give up both power and,speed to protect yourself, in case your power and or,speed didn't work

that true for mma or Mt or boxing as well as tma

 

[Gwai Lo Dan]

What if all 3 "Japanese grandmasters" were correct? Wouldn't that mean there's more than 1 way of kicking correctly?

If this issue in TMA bothers you so much, look at MMA. How many different ways of doing the "same" kick have been successful?

I train TMA (Seido Juku karate). Watch our class and you'll see almost as many variations on a roundhouse kick as you'll see students.

My personal viewpoint is that in choosing any technique, and the details of how to throw that technique, I need to consider 4 things:

Offence:
1) How likely am I to land it?
2) If it lands, what does it get me (points, damage, distraction for another technique, etc)?

Defence:
3) What am I exposing (or how am I exposed) when I throw the technique?
4) How much energy will the technique cost me?

On top of that, different people have different bodies, with different limb lengths and levels of flexibility.

So putting it all together, we could both love the roundhouse, yet choose very different ways to do it. If I saw you do a roundhouse very differently than me, I would ask "why" and maybe change the way I do it to, if your pros outweigh the cons (for me and my body).

 

[Gwai Lo Dan]

Edit: Double post.

 

[Gwai Lo Dan]

but scientifically, there are three correct ways to do any fighting techneque,
1) the way that generated most power
2) the one where you give up power for speed
3) the one where you give up both power and,speed to protect yourself, in case your power and or,speed didn't work

that true for mma or Mt or boxing as well as tma

That's 3 of my 4 things. The 4th for me is giving up speed and/or power in order to use less energy.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Do you want to know the funny thing about all this? My stepfather has been doing Shotokan since the 1960s. He's met three "Japanese grandmasters" in his time, and each have contradictory advice about how to kick.

It seems that nobody knows the "correct" technique, which is one of the main reasons I've quit TMA and focused on more scientific approaches to fighting.

You'll find differences of opinion there, too. Just look at sports that have had a long history of deep analysis (golf is a good example) - you'll find different approaches even there. Why? Because it turns out there's more than one right answer in most cases.

So I'm not surprised different instructors have different ways of teaching kicks. It's actually a good thing.

 

[JR 137]

My personal viewpoint is that in choosing any technique, and the details of how to throw that technique, I need to consider 4 things:

Offence:
1) How likely am I to land it?
2) If it lands, what does it get me (points, damage, distraction for another technique, etc)?

Defence:
3) What am I exposing (or how am I exposed) when I throw the technique?
4) How much energy will the technique cost me?

On top of that, different people have different bodies, with different limb lengths and levels of flexibility.

So putting it all together, we could both love the roundhouse, yet choose very different ways to do it. If I saw you do a roundhouse very differently than me, I would ask "why" and maybe change the way I do it to, if your pros outweigh the cons (for me and my body).

Exactly. If you really think about it, the only things every roundhouse kick should have are leg comes up from the side with knee bent, leg is swung toward the middle as the lower leg simultaneously straightens. The rest is up for debate - shin, instep, ball of the foot, hand positioning, target, snap out vs drive through, etc. All the debatable stuff is going to vary by who's throwing the kick, who they're throwing it against, and what the intended target is.

All IMO. There's probably some holes in my argument.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Exactly. If you really think about it, the only things every roundhouse kick should have are leg comes up from the side with knee bent, leg is swung toward the middle as the lower leg simultaneously straightens. The rest is up for debate - shin, instep, ball of the foot, hand positioning, target, snap out vs drive through, etc. All the debatable stuff is going to vary by who's throwing the kick, who they're throwing it against, and what the intended target is.

All IMO. There's probably some holes in my argument.

I can even add a variable. In NGA, the roundhouse kick is taught with some camouflage - it comes up like a straight kick (what we call "front kick"), and the knee carries the hip through to the roundhouse kicking position.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I can even add a variable. In NGA, the roundhouse kick is taught with some camouflage - it comes up like a straight kick (what we call "front kick"), and the knee carries the hip through to the roundhouse kicking position.

Like the 'question mark kick or something else?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Like the 'question mark kick or something else?

A similar concept, but not nearly that sneaky. You could do it pretty easily. Bring your knee up for a front kick, then, instead, turn your hip over and do a roundhouse kick. It's not very powerful - we don't depend on those kicks for finishes. I've been training a standard roundhouse and a Muay Thai-like round kick to supplement it.

 

[JR 137]

I can even add a variable. In NGA, the roundhouse kick is taught with some camouflage - it comes up like a straight kick (what we call "front kick"), and the knee carries the hip through to the roundhouse kicking position.

I've been hit with that one quite often. Good thing the ones in my dojo who are good at it are also great at controlling it.

 

[Steve]

You'll find differences of opinion there, too. Just look at sports that have had a long history of deep analysis (golf is a good example) - you'll find different approaches even there. Why? Because it turns out there's more than one right answer in most cases.

So I'm not surprised different instructors have different ways of teaching kicks. It's actually a good thing.

Golf doesn't quite work. The differences arwnt right/wrong. If it works it works. The differences are more preference but yhe proof is in the puddinh, as it were.

 

[drop bear]

I was instructing some lower belts on the turning kick, and I asked them to try dropping their arm on the kicking side.

Someone said the obvious, "well what do I say to the instructor who says to keep your hands up"?

My answer was "Say you are making a conscious decision in a particular scenario to get more power at the cost of being more exposed."

But I do like the Simpsons. "No matter how you do it, you are doing it wrong."

You kick with your head off line to accommodate the lack of protective hand.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Golf doesn't quite work. The differences arwnt right/wrong. If it works it works. The differences are more preference but yhe proof is in the puddinh, as it were.

Same thing with kicks. If it works, it works.

 

[Steve]

Same thing with kicks. If it works, it works.

That isnt always true. in fact, id say this is the exception and notnthe rule. in most martial arts styles, how the kick is exdcuted is arguably more importsnt than whether it works. if you deviate from the technique, you are very quickly doing something other than that martial art, and are admonished foR it.

FWIW, this is just fine, as loms its recognized and acknowledged.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That isnt always true. in fact, id say this is the exception and notnthe rule. in most martial arts styles, how the kick is exdcuted is arguably more importsnt than whether it works. if you deviate from the technique, you are very quickly doing something other than that martial art, and are admonished foR it.

FWIW, this is just fine, as loms its recognized and acknowledged.

There's some truth in that. Some instructors are very picky that strikes be done a specific way. I'm not one of them. If a student comes in with a round kick that works, I don't want them to lose it. I do eventually want them to learn the way I teach it, but only so they can explore and see what works for them. If they get their teaching certificate and want to teach the method they brought in, that's groovy - so long as it works, and they can teach it in a way that makes it useful. I'm even okay with a student teaching other students an approach they learned elsewhere. I have a student who has been with me 2 years. He heads back to Germany probably late next year. Before he goes, I'll probably ask him to share a few useful bits from his Shotokan training - whatever he thinks will most benefit other students.

 

[Steve]

There's some truth in that. Some instructors are very picky that strikes be done a specific way. I'm not one of them. If a student comes in with a round kick that works, I don't want them to lose it. I do eventually want them to learn the way I teach it, but only so they can explore and see what works for them. If they get their teaching certificate and want to teach the method they brought in, that's groovy - so long as it works, and they can teach it in a way that makes it useful. I'm even okay with a student teaching other students an approach they learned elsewhere. I have a student who has been with me 2 years. He heads back to Germany probably late next year. Before he goes, I'll probably ask him to share a few useful bits from his Shotokan training - whatever he thinks will most benefit other students.

Spend some time in the wing chun section, the ninja section, the karate section or the kung fu section. Power generation isn't enough. How you generate power is not just relevant. Its the entire point. Whether is works or not is a happy by product of doing it right. And if it doesnt work, there must be some nuance you dobr fully understand.

Its aphilosophy that is completely reverse from most other things we learn.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Spend some time in the wing chun section, the ninja section, the karate section or the kung fu section. Power generation isn't enough. How you generate power is not just relevant. Its the entire point. Whether is works or not is a happy by product of doing it right. And if it doesnt work, there must be some nuance you dobr fully understand.

Its aphilosophy that is completely reverse from most other things we learn.

For me, if it doesn't somehow conflict with the strategy/tactics I'm teaching, I'm okay with it (an example would be the angle-cutting of Shotokan - it doesn't work for getting access to most of our grappling, and doesn't really set up much in the way of controlling their structure). I will say that in many cases (definitely not all), if a student can't get a technique to work, it really is a problem of understanding. Some techniques aren't as straightforward as a single-leg takedown. I wouldn't put most of them in the "pocket technique" category, though.

 

[drop bear]

For me, if it doesn't somehow conflict with the strategy/tactics I'm teaching, I'm okay with it (an example would be the angle-cutting of Shotokan - it doesn't work for getting access to most of our grappling, and doesn't really set up much in the way of controlling their structure). I will say that in many cases (definitely not all), if a student can't get a technique to work, it really is a problem of understanding. Some techniques aren't as straightforward as a single-leg takedown. I wouldn't put most of them in the "pocket technique" category, though.

Yeah but if you don't train functionality as a priority. Understanding is a big ask.

Like that confused look you get from guys when they go from pads to sparring. They thought they understood the technique. Then found out they really didn't.

 

[JR 137]

Yeah but if you don't train functionality as a priority. Understanding is a big ask.

Like that confused look you get from guys when they go from pads to sparring. They thought they understood the technique. Then found out they really didn't.

And they find out that pads and punching bags don't move out of the way and try to hit you back.

Reminded me of when I used to hit the bag at my local YMCA. Every so often someone would say "you're a great fighter" or "you should compete in kickboxing." Seriously, I heard that once or twice a week. I'd always smile and reply "I wouldn't look nearly as good if that bag actually ducked and hit me back." They'd usually nod in agreement.

 

[Axiom]

That isnt always true. in fact, id say this is the exception and notnthe rule. in most martial arts styles, how the kick is exdcuted is arguably more importsnt than whether it works. if you deviate from the technique, you are very quickly doing something other than that martial art, and are admonished foR it.

FWIW, this is just fine, as loms its recognized and acknowledged.

It drives me insane when instructors emphazise non cruical elements to techniques, as if your own personal preference is wrong. For instance how to chamber rear leg sidekicks is one. There are at least 4 different ways and they are equally functional.