The potential of TMA

[Flying Crane]

You don't have to see it as fruitful. I do. And that's why I do it and you don't. Just like anything in life.

That’s fine you can do what you want. But when you define what others do, those others include me. And I say I disagree with your premise.

 

[skribs]

That’s fine you can do what you want. But when you define what others do, those others include me. And I say I disagree with your premise.

That's ok. I also have a category for people who disagree with my premise

 

[Flying Crane]

That's ok. I also have a category for people who disagree with my premise

I’m not trying to just give you a hard time here. I’m trying to point out the dangers of trying to classify other people, about whom you may know little to nothing. That really is not helpful.

That is one issue that ultimately steered me away from studying cultural anthropology: the notion that I could be studying a group of people, writing up my conclusions, and there they are to just turn around and tell me I’m full of bs. It objectifies people in a way that is not helpful to the study and you end up getting it all wrong.

So I see you creating these definitions that directly disagree with how other people use the same terms, and then trying to fit what people do into your definitions, when you don’t really know what they are doing.

People are gonna call out bs.

 

[Hanzou]

Basketball players have a learning curve before playing Tight End in the NFL. Michael Jordan sucked at baseball. I should destroy a boxer at a kicking contest and they should destroy me in the ring. I've seen people go into TKD tournaments and get disqualified because their fighting style breaks the rules. It only makes sense that if you're going to learn a sport, you need to learn the rules and techniques of that sport.

A different argument entirely, because MMA doesn't significantly hinder the fighting ability of any martial art system the way boxing or competitive TKD's ruleset does. Essentially if you're learning how to beat people up with your hands and feet, you should be able to compete in a MMA contest.

In the case of Taekwondo, it's because Taekwondo is a game of who can kick the other person in the head. It's literally designed to be something hard to do, because it's more impressive when you do it. Taekwondo actively limits the effective martial techniques in it's sparring to make you use harder techniques.

Wrestling, boxing, judo, etc. are all easier techniques to effectively land, is why they're more common in MMA

That would be the sport side of TKD. The martial art side of TKD isn't like that, so a skilled TKD practicioner should be able to simply default back to the martial art side of TKD for MMA.

There's arts that are split between self defense and competition. Judo, BJJ, and Karate I'd classify this way. Boxing, Muay Thai, and Wrestling are more competition focused.

I don't watch too much MMA, but I haven't heard of people going into MMA with Krav Maga or Kajukenbo. My Dad's had conversations with professional MMA fighters about why Hapkido isn't in there, and it's because most of the techniques that Hapkido uses are banned in the cage.

And what techniques would those be?

 

[skribs]

I’m not trying to just give you a hard time here. I’m trying to point out the dangers of trying to classify other people, about whom you may know little to nothing. That really is not helpful.

That is one issue that ultimately steered me away from studying cultural anthropology: the notion that I could be studying a group of people, writing up my conclusions, and there they are to just turn around and tell me I’m full of bs. It objectifies people in a way that is not helpful to the study and you end up getting it all wrong.

So I see you creating these definitions that directly disagree with how other people use the same terms, and then trying to fit what people do into your definitions, when you don’t really know what they are doing.

People are gonna call out bs.

And I am just trying to give you a hard time here!

In all seriousness, I've admitted it's not a perfect model. It's just one way of looking at things. My discussion about teaching methods, i.e. proprioception vs. stamping out bad habits, is a different model. A different way of looking at them. There's plenty of more ways to categorize things. Striking vs. grappling, hard vs. soft, internal vs. external, circular vs. linear, Eastern vs. Western, MMA vs. TMA. You've also got "my way vs. the wrong way", "effective way vs. ineffective way", and lots of other opinionated ways of looking at things.

Those models don't always line up, and that's okay. They're not perfect. Just like how you have mammals, and then you have the platypus. It's just a way of looking at things.

Some arts are designed for immediate results. Some are designed for conceptual understanding. Some are designed to look good. Some are designed for competition in a physical game. Some are designed to exercise your body. Some are designed for immediate results with potential for deeper conceptual understanding down the line, with training methods that work your body. Some are designed to look good and require lots of physical conditioning to pull off. Some are designed as a competition for a physical game, but because of the practical nature of the techniques translates really well into immediate results. There's definitely overlap, it's definitely a spectrum, and not a 2-dimensional one at that.

But unless there's an art that doesn't have any of those goals or any of those design elements, or there's an egregious goal or philosophy I've missed, then I think I'm at least onto something.

 

[Xue Sheng]

The way I see it, there are 5 types of art. For the sake of this discussion, I'll define them:

• Martial Art - Art which is taught through first honing technique. The beginning stages will focus more on stances, drills, and forms more than actual fighting, with the goal to progress those techniques into concepts that can be used. Examples are most TMA.
• Martial Science - Art which is focused on self defense and combat. It could be a military science like Combatives or a self defense system like Krav Maga.
• Combat Sport - Art which is focused on competition, such as Olympic TKD, boxing, wrestling, MMA.
• Exercise - Art which focuses less on sparring and more on personal wellness, such as Cardio Kickboxing or how most people in the West use Tai Chi.
• Demonstration Art - Art which is designed to look good (such as Wushu or tricking)

out of curiosity, where in your 5 categories do all of these fall

Bafaquan, Baguazhang, Bajiquan, Bak Mei, Black Tiger Kung Fu, Chaquan, Changquan, Chuo Jiao, Choy Gar, Choy Li Fut, Dachengquan, Ditangquan, Lung Ying, Duan Quan, Emeiquan, Fanziquan, Five Ancestors, Five Animals, Fujian White Crane, Fu Jow Pai, Fut Gar, Gouquan, Hakka Kuen, Hong Cha, Hop Gar, Houquan, Drunken Monkey, Heihuquan, Huaquan, Hung Fut, Hung Gar, Jing Wu Men, Jing Quan Do, Jow-Ga, Kuntao, Lau Gar , Lai Tung Pai, Lama Pai, Leopard Kung Fu, Li Gar, Liuhebafa Chuan, Luohan Quan, Mei Hua Quan, Mian Quan, Mizongyi, Mok Gar, Nam Pai Chuan, Nan Quan, Ng Mui Pai, Northern Praying Mantis, Northern Shaolin, Pai Long, Paochui, Piguaquan, Praying Mantis, Shaolin Quan, Shequan, Shuaijiao, Southern Praying Mantis, Chow Gar, Taijiquan, Tantui, Tibetan White Crane, Tien Shan Pai, Tongbeiquan, White Crane, Wing Chun, Wudangquan, Xingyiquan, Yau Kung Mun, Yingzhaoquan, Yuejiaquan, Yiquan, Zi Ran Men, Taekwondo, Taekkyeon, Subak, Tang Soo Do/Soo Bahk Do, Hapkido arts, Gungdo

And all of these List of Japanese Martial arts

Understand, this is not a complete list

Now, I put Tai Chi into "exercise", but it sounds like your friend has taken it more as a Martial Art, with the intention of learning the connection between mind and body before applying the technique.

You do not know traditional Taijiquan. But that is not surprising, many who clam to do Taiji do not know tradiatial Taijiquan either

 

[skribs]

A different argument entirely, because MMA doesn't significantly hinder the fighting ability of any martial art system the way boxing or competitive TKD's ruleset does. Essentially if you're learning how to beat people up with your hands and feet, you should be able to compete in a MMA contest.

Basketball and soccer both use balls you're required to dribble. So anyone who can play basketball should be able to compete in soccer.

That would be the sport side of TKD. The martial art side of TKD isn't like that, so a skilled TKD practicioner should be able to simply default back to the martial art side of TKD for MMA.

Half of the techniques we use in the martial side of my TKD school would be a foul in MMA, such as downward elbows to the spine, sidekicks to the side of the knee, knife-hand strikes to the neck, knees and kicks to the groin.

Plus, if you want to spar those, you need a school that does non-Olympic sparring. You'll find some of that in ITF TKD, but still won't have to deal with kicks being grabbed (to my knowledge). It would be easier to train for that by going to a place where you can spar those rules...which is an MMA gym.

It's as much about knowing how to fight the other fighters, and having the experience sparring, as it is about the techniques themselves.

And what techniques would those be?

Small joint manipulations, to include the type of grip you use on most wrist locks. It doesn't help that wrists are taped and gloves are worn, which reinforces the wrist in ways it wouldn't be in a real situation.

 

[skribs]

out of curiosity, where in your 5 categories do all of these fall

Bafaquan, Baguazhang, Bajiquan, Bak Mei, Black Tiger Kung Fu, Chaquan, Changquan, Chuo Jiao, Choy Gar, Choy Li Fut, Dachengquan, Ditangquan, Lung Ying, Duan Quan, Emeiquan, Fanziquan, Five Ancestors, Five Animals, Fujian White Crane, Fu Jow Pai, Fut Gar, Gouquan, Hakka Kuen, Hong Cha, Hop Gar, Houquan, Drunken Monkey, Heihuquan, Huaquan, Hung Fut, Hung Gar, Jing Wu Men, Jing Quan Do, Jow-Ga, Kuntao, Lau Gar , Lai Tung Pai, Lama Pai, Leopard Kung Fu, Li Gar, Liuhebafa Chuan, Luohan Quan, Mei Hua Quan, Mian Quan, Mizongyi, Mok Gar, Nam Pai Chuan, Nan Quan, Ng Mui Pai, Northern Praying Mantis, Northern Shaolin, Pai Long, Paochui, Piguaquan, Praying Mantis, Shaolin Quan, Shequan, Shuaijiao, Southern Praying Mantis, Chow Gar, Taijiquan, Tantui, Tibetan White Crane, Tien Shan Pai, Tongbeiquan, White Crane, Wing Chun, Wudangquan, Xingyiquan, Yau Kung Mun, Yingzhaoquan, Yuejiaquan, Yiquan, Zi Ran Men, Taekwondo, Taekkyeon, Subak, Tang Soo Do/Soo Bahk Do, Hapkido arts, Gungdo

And all of these List of Japanese Martial arts

Understand, this is not a complete list




You do not know traditional Taijiquan. But that is not surprising, many who clam to do Taiji do not know tradiatial Taijiquan either

My understanding of traditional Tai Chi is that you do the movements slow to get them correct, and then build up the speed from there. That it is a slow-starting fighting art that eventually the practitioner will be powerful.

I also understand that for most older people, staying in the slow stage is a good way to get low-impact exercise that will help retain coordination and balance. My 90+ year old grandmother told me she took a few Tai Chi classes, and I don't expect her to be training for a fight! You'll notice I said "how Tai Chi is used in the West" (or something like that) to clarify that I am focusing on this application of the art.

As to all the other arts...like I said. These are archetypes, not categories. These are a multi-dimensional spectrum, not hard lines in the sand. It's merely a way of thinking about how arts are designed based on their training methods and their goals.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Basketball and soccer both use balls you're required to dribble. So anyone who can play basketball should be able to compete in soccer.
.

dribbling in Basketball is with hands...dribbling in soccer is with feet...different skill sets.

 

[Flying Crane]

And I am just trying to give you a hard time here!

In all seriousness, I've admitted it's not a perfect model. It's just one way of looking at things. My discussion about teaching methods, i.e. proprioception vs. stamping out bad habits, is a different model. A different way of looking at them. There's plenty of more ways to categorize things. Striking vs. grappling, hard vs. soft, internal vs. external, circular vs. linear, Eastern vs. Western, MMA vs. TMA. You've also got "my way vs. the wrong way", "effective way vs. ineffective way", and lots of other opinionated ways of looking at things.

Those models don't always line up, and that's okay. They're not perfect. Just like how you have mammals, and then you have the platypus. It's just a way of looking at things.

Some arts are designed for immediate results. Some are designed for conceptual understanding. Some are designed to look good. Some are designed for competition in a physical game. Some are designed to exercise your body. Some are designed for immediate results with potential for deeper conceptual understanding down the line, with training methods that work your body. Some are designed to look good and require lots of physical conditioning to pull off. Some are designed as a competition for a physical game, but because of the practical nature of the techniques translates really well into immediate results. There's definitely overlap, it's definitely a spectrum, and not a 2-dimensional one at that.

But unless there's an art that doesn't have any of those goals or any of those design elements, or there's an egregious goal or philosophy I've missed, then I think I'm at least onto something.

Regarding your comments on what purpose different arts are designed for, I feel that most, if not all of them, can fall into many categories there because it really comes down to what does the person wish to use it for. Underneath it all, any and every martial art/method was designed to develop effective combat skills. Whether those skills are put to use in competition, or purely self-defense, or in military deployments, or to defend the village from raiders, or for health or purely the joy of movement, is up to the person. It is not that the system itself was designed for this or that sub-purpose, at least not initially, until some people took their interpretation into a particular direction and built a following for it. But that too comes down to the person.

Incidentally, I agree with your notions of working to eliminate bad habits as they manifest, to keep a student working toward the best possible understanding of the techniques and principles and methods. I do not embrace “good enough, hopefully we will have time to clean it up later if we ever get around to it”.

 

[Xue Sheng]

My understanding of traditional Tai Chi is that you do the movements slow to get them correct, and then build up the speed from there. That it is a slow-starting fighting art that eventually the practitioner will be powerful.

I also understand that for most older people, staying in the slow stage is a good way to get low-impact exercise that will help retain coordination and balance. My 90+ year old grandmother told me she took a few Tai Chi classes, and I don't expect her to be training for a fight! You'll notice I said "how Tai Chi is used in the West" (or something like that) to clarify that I am focusing on this application of the art.

As to all the other arts...like I said. These are archetypes, not categories. These are a multi-dimensional spectrum, not hard lines in the sand. It's merely a way of thinking about how arts are designed based on their training methods and their goals.

If your archetypes work for you, that's fine, I don't agree with them, but I will not argue against them or for something else either

As for taijiquan, it depends on the style, some have advanced fast forms, all have qinna.strikes and kicks. But admittedly, it is not a fast process

 

[skribs]

Incidentally, I agree with your notions of working to eliminate bad habits as they manifest, to keep a student working toward the best possible understanding of the techniques and principles and methods. I do not embrace “good enough, hopefully we will have time to clean it up later if we ever get around to it”.

You know what, though? I've had several students that this would NOT work for. Kids, for example, need time to work through things because they're still learning basic coordination. Our basic form is incredibly simple (just an I-pattern with down blocks and punches) and it takes some of our 4-8 year old students 6 months or more just to learn the basic pattern. If they're struggling with that, it's going to be overwhelming to expect them to have everything else perfect, too.

Similarly, with adults, you've got some that are really uncoordinated. They've got a lot of habits to work on, and if they have trouble working on one or two of them, how can you expect them to work on all of them?

For myself, in Hapkido, that's been my journey. It's been real tough for me to connect footwork to handwork and I'll get scolded the same thing for months and when I finally get it, we move on to the next thing.

So, I definitely see how it can be overwhelming to try and correct everything at once for some people. I definitely see the other side of it, and it took me working as an instructor under my master for about 3 years before I saw evidence that the "good enough and clean it up later" model can work.

But it's still not how I'd prefer to teach.

 

[Flying Crane]

You know what, though? I've had several students that this would NOT work for. Kids, for example, need time to work through things because they're still learning basic coordination. Our basic form is incredibly simple (just an I-pattern with down blocks and punches) and it takes some of our 4-8 year old students 6 months or more just to learn the basic pattern. If they're struggling with that, it's going to be overwhelming to expect them to have everything else perfect, too.

Similarly, with adults, you've got some that are really uncoordinated. They've got a lot of habits to work on, and if they have trouble working on one or two of them, how can you expect them to work on all of them?

For myself, in Hapkido, that's been my journey. It's been real tough for me to connect footwork to handwork and I'll get scolded the same thing for months and when I finally get it, we move on to the next thing.

So, I definitely see how it can be overwhelming to try and correct everything at once for some people. I definitely see the other side of it, and it took me working as an instructor under my master for about 3 years before I saw evidence that the "good enough and clean it up later" model can work.

But it's still not how I'd prefer to teach.

Ah well, I suggest trying to fix every error at the same time does not work. It does need to be a bit at a time to get there. But don’t put it off “until later”. You keep chipping away at it.

 

[Hanzou]

Basketball and soccer both use balls you're required to dribble. So anyone who can play basketball should be able to compete in soccer.

Yes, and each has a completely different rule set and goal. If someone attacks you, Hung Gar shoukd have the exact same rule set and goal as Muay Thai.

Half of the techniques we use in the martial side of my TKD school would be a foul in MMA, such as downward elbows to the spine, sidekicks to the side of the knee, knife-hand strikes to the neck, knees and kicks to the groin.

And those same rules apply to everyone else as well. Are you trying to argue that TKD isnt effective unless you can use those attacks? Muay Thai doesn't seem hindered by those rules.

Small joint manipulations, to include the type of grip you use on most wrist locks. It doesn't help that wrists are taped and gloves are worn, which reinforces the wrist in ways it wouldn't be in a real situation.

Except people have been submitted via wrist locks in mma with mma gloves, and grabbing the glove is perfectly legal in mma competition, so Hapkido should have no issue in MMA.

 

[skribs]

Ah well, I suggest trying to fix every error at the same time does not work. It does need to be a bit at a time to get there. But don’t put it off “until later”. You keep chipping away at it.

So the question then is do you hold off on progressing them until they've completely mastered the techniques at their level? Or do you expect them to have a yellow belt understanding of the white belt techniques to advance to yellow belt?

Edit to add: There are some times you encourage students because they've made progress before you move on to the next thing. Depending on their age and confidence level.

 

[Flying Crane]

So the question then is do you hold off on progressing them until they've completely mastered the techniques at their level? Or do you expect them to have a yellow belt understanding of the white belt techniques to advance to yellow belt?

Edit to add: There are some times you encourage students because they've made progress before you move on to the next thing. Depending on their age and confidence level.

You need to do both, but just where the line lies can be tough to know. I think experience and knowing the student will tell you what is best.

I guess what I am getting at is something you said earlier about martial science, being rough and dirty and (my interpretation) good enough for now to get some results, maybe fix it later. In my experience it is rarely revisited in the way necessary to fix it. “Good enough” habits become the norm and that polishing just never happens. If it was polished more from the get-go and “good enough” habits were not accepted and not allowed to become the norm, then it would already be better. In hindsight I know that was an issue with some of my training. For example we would learn the choreography of the form so that we “have it” to work on. But there are errors in the quality and those errors get ignored/accepted for too long until it is harder to fix them if we ever got around to it. And in the meantime we have learned more material that is also “good enough for now”...

 

[skribs]

You need to do both, but just where the line lies can be tough to know. I think experience and knowing the student will tell you what is best.

I guess what I am getting at is something you said earlier about martial science, being rough and dirty and (my interpretation) good enough for now to get some results, maybe fix it later. In my experience it is rarely revisited in the way necessary to fix it. “Good enough” habits become the norm and that polishing just never happens. If it was polished more from the get-go and “good enough” habits were not accepted and not allowed to become the norm, then it would already be better. In hindsight I know that was an issue with some of my training. For example we would learn the choreography of the form so that we “have it” to work on. But there are errors in the quality and those errors get ignored/accepted for too long until it is harder to fix them if we ever got around to it. And in the meantime we have learned more material that is also “good enough for now”...

Let me take for example two different training styles.

First style:

Lesson 1: You learn your basic front stance, back stance, and horse stance. You drill blocks in front and back stance, punches in front and back stance, and punches in horse stance.
Lesson 2: You do forms that combine these drills together that start to get more and more complex, drilling punches and blocks in combination with footwork and transitions between stances.
Lesson 3: You learn to apply these in more fluid motion in a sparring stance. The stance change from front stance to back stance teaches you how to drop your hip and put your body weight into a punch.
Lesson 4: Drilling what you learned in Lesson 3 on a live partner with increasing speed.
Lesson 5: Break out of the block-and-strike concept and add in alternative methods for dealing with the attack.

The style grounds you in principles that start off as abstract and maybe even a little incorrect, with the goal of teaching specific movements that will later make sense.

Second style:

Lesson 1: This is your enemy. Palm strike them in the face.
Lesson 2: This is your enemy. Palm strike them repeatedly in the face.
Lesson 3: This is your enemy. Palm strike them in the face, and then when they get their guard up, knee them in the crotch.
Lesson 4: This is your enemy. Palm strike them in the face, and then when they get their guard up, fake a knee to the crotch and then palm strike them in the face again.
Lesson 5: This is your enemy. His hands are up and you cannot palm strike him in the face. Pull his hands down. Then palm strike him in the face.
Lesson 6: This is your enemy. His hands are up and you cannot palm strike him in the face. You also cannot pull his hands down. Knee him in the crotch.

So maybe the lessons in the "first style" will take longer to get from Lesson 1 to Lesson 2. And maybe the drills go by quicker in the "second style". But where the first style is going to be much more technical in the mind-body connection before proceeding to applications and concepts, the second style is going to forego that in favor of skipping right to application.

But this is where I get the concept of "good enough" for style 2:

In the first style, your stances must be precise because the stances are a lesson. In the second style, your stances can be more organic, because the lesson is in the application. So as long as your feet are in relatively the right spot, you're fine, because that's not the goal of the first lesson. The goal is to give you a firm application to grasp onto, whereas in the first style the goal is to give you a firm foundation to build on.

The other aspect is that in the first style, you start off by doing technical drills and exercises and move on to the practical application several lessons in. Where in the second style, the very first thing you're doing is a practical drill, and then failure drills of that practical drill.

It's not that the second style is bad. It's that after one lesson the guy in the second style needs to defend himself, he's got a few tools to use. The first guy, the tools haven't been made yet. Later on, the two will converge, although the two may see fights differently.

 

[Flying Crane]

Let me take for example two different training styles.

First style:

Lesson 1: You learn your basic front stance, back stance, and horse stance. You drill blocks in front and back stance, punches in front and back stance, and punches in horse stance.
Lesson 2: You do forms that combine these drills together that start to get more and more complex, drilling punches and blocks in combination with footwork and transitions between stances.
Lesson 3: You learn to apply these in more fluid motion in a sparring stance. The stance change from front stance to back stance teaches you how to drop your hip and put your body weight into a punch.
Lesson 4: Drilling what you learned in Lesson 3 on a live partner with increasing speed.
Lesson 5: Break out of the block-and-strike concept and add in alternative methods for dealing with the attack.

The style grounds you in principles that start off as abstract and maybe even a little incorrect, with the goal of teaching specific movements that will later make sense.

Second style:

Lesson 1: This is your enemy. Palm strike them in the face.
Lesson 2: This is your enemy. Palm strike them repeatedly in the face.
Lesson 3: This is your enemy. Palm strike them in the face, and then when they get their guard up, knee them in the crotch.
Lesson 4: This is your enemy. Palm strike them in the face, and then when they get their guard up, fake a knee to the crotch and then palm strike them in the face again.
Lesson 5: This is your enemy. His hands are up and you cannot palm strike him in the face. Pull his hands down. Then palm strike him in the face.
Lesson 6: This is your enemy. His hands are up and you cannot palm strike him in the face. You also cannot pull his hands down. Knee him in the crotch.

So maybe the lessons in the "first style" will take longer to get from Lesson 1 to Lesson 2. And maybe the drills go by quicker in the "second style". But where the first style is going to be much more technical in the mind-body connection before proceeding to applications and concepts, the second style is going to forego that in favor of skipping right to application.

But this is where I get the concept of "good enough" for style 2:

In the first style, your stances must be precise because the stances are a lesson. In the second style, your stances can be more organic, because the lesson is in the application. So as long as your feet are in relatively the right spot, you're fine, because that's not the goal of the first lesson. The goal is to give you a firm application to grasp onto, whereas in the first style the goal is to give you a firm foundation to build on.

The other aspect is that in the first style, you start off by doing technical drills and exercises and move on to the practical application several lessons in. Where in the second style, the very first thing you're doing is a practical drill, and then failure drills of that practical drill.

It's not that the second style is bad. It's that after one lesson the guy in the second style needs to defend himself, he's got a few tools to use. The first guy, the tools haven't been made yet. Later on, the two will converge, although the two may see fights differently.

I understand what you are getting at. In my opinion, the first method will take someone farther, even if slower in the early phase. This is better and I support this approach.

In the second method, it is too easy for bad technical habits to creep in that never get fixed, because really, I do not believe that people ever go back and fix them. Good enough really does become good enough. I think people who train in this way (in an “either/or” universe) never even realize how much they do not know. They get results that they are satisfied with, and that is fine. But they never realize how much better it could be. They do not understand what ought to be going on under the hood, that they are missing out on. Athleticism and strength and aggression mixed with rudimentary technique can be effective. But it is still missing a lot. And they are convinced that they are the best, because they got results early on.

There is a third way though, based mostly in method one but with method two carefully mixed in and kept under control.

 

[skribs]

I understand what you are getting at. In my opinion, the first method will take someone farther, even if slower in the early phase. This is better and I support this approach.

In the second method, it is too easy for bad technical habits to creep in that never get fixed, because really, I do not believe that people ever go back and fix them. Good enough really does become good enough. I think people who train in this way (in an “either/or” universe) never even realize how much they do not know. They get results that they are satisfied with, and that is fine. But they never realize how much better it could be. They do not understand what ought to be going on under the hood, that they are missing out on. Athleticism and strength and aggression mixed with rudimentary technique can be effective. But it is still missing a lot. And they are convinced that they are the best, because they got results early on.

There is a third way though, based mostly in method one but with method two carefully mixed in and kept under control.

Regarding the third way, remember I keep saying these are archetypes, not examples.

The advantage of the 2nd method is that until you get to the point where the first method takes off, the 2nd method is better. What if I am walking home after my 3rd class and someone stumbles out of a bar and picks a fight with me? If he's an experienced fighter you'll lose either way, but in the 2nd method at least you have some tools designed to work well already.

And in those types of arts, those tools are quite often something easy to do under stress and safer to use for a beginner.

 

[Flying Crane]

Regarding the third way, remember I keep saying these are archetypes, not examples.

The advantage of the 2nd method is that until you get to the point where the first method takes off, the 2nd method is better. What if I am walking home after my 3rd class and someone stumbles out of a bar and picks a fight with me? If he's an experienced fighter you'll lose either way, but in the 2nd method at least you have some tools designed to work well already.

And in those types of arts, those tools are quite often something easy to do under stress and safer to use for a beginner.

Personally I recognize that learning to do this stuff properly and with real skill takes time. I am not concerned with someone needing to defend himself after his third lesson. It isn’t my responsibility to give him those skills so quickly and I do not feel it is realistic anyways. In method two, that student won’t be much ahead after three lessons. This idea that something is taught on the first or second or third session and it can be used effectively immediately, I personally don’t buy it. That student still doesn’t really know what he is doing.

Teach them to do it right. That takes time. There is no getting around it. If they need faster defense then they need to buy a gun and learn to use it and practice with that as well.