Um, nope. Not anything like anything I've ever said. Not once, in the many thousands of posts I've made on this forum. Never. Uh-uh. Nope.Yes, you are unsure. It's a constant you display, like that other poster with all the headaches.
Don't want to miss, "all over the place." I said: difference in method, you reply: Sports players train in MMA.
The bill you try to pin on me, pins right to yourself.
Some. Not much. Mostly, he's just evading any reasonable questions by throwing back insults, less-reasonable versions of the same questions, and garbled responses.
Less of Kempo, some of boxing. You'll note I've not made any statements about how they combine. There's a reason for that.
I've yet to find two arts I don't consider combinable in a useful way. But others disagree with that - I suspect it depends how the individual looks at their training. I'm pretty conceptual, which seems to make it simple to combine mechanics from different styles. I find, for instance, no conflict between my primary art's punch (roughly the same as what's taught in Shotokan Karatedo) and a boxing punch. I blend the two together without effort. I also blend in techniques from other arts without an issue.
The website isn't much help - Nihon Goshin Aikido isn't well-known, so doesn't usually provide much insight. NGA is a relatively new (1940's), moderately traditional art. The base comes from Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu (arguably, from the Jujutsu, not the Aikijujutsu). The strikes ostensibly come from Shotokan (though I suspect some strong Goju-ryu influence). There's also influence from Judo, and likely some form Shioda's Yoshinkan Aikido.
"Lesser" by what measure, though?
Combining styles is nothing new. Most folks involved in MMA don't have any illusion that it is. Most that I know who are in MMA (either competing or training with competitors, or just training at a gym that fits the model) recognize the base arts as what they train. Most folks who train TMA don't cross-train, but that's mostly because most of them aren't committing a lot of time. I'm an outlier, and I'm still essentially a "hobbyist". It's something I do on the side. So, when many folks talk about what "TMA" is, they refer to the most common type of student - which is a semi-committed hobbyist.
So, where are the limits in boxing that don't exist in Karate?Now that's a question worth exploring.
Well, the other guy, as you called him, is a legit in my book karate black-belt. And what's more he trains both boxing and karate. And what's more he's winning @ tournaments. IMO, all that makes for a decent starting point.
The bolded statement you made of course is true. Because nothing is absolute. No one can reach perfection. No method is unlimited practically speaking.
Where the Black-belt gets it and you don't, is how we view the problem statement. You find exceptions, where we find liberation. The Black-Belt and I differ because he cross-trained boxing, he made the judgment that doing so would be of profit to him. He went on to apply boxing technique, and so on @ formal karate tournaments and he said it helped him win. He was winning tournaments. Boxing in my book is a waste of time.
Where the Black-belt and me are the same. We are looking at ideals. Ideals based on principles, martial principles. And our study we came out that the principles (not techniques per se) of traditional karate provide no limit to accomplishment relatively speaking, compared to the principles of the "sweet science."
He felt boxing allowed for faster, more practical progress in fighting skill. Traditional karate takes longer, more effort over time and so over the same initial time frame of boxing, karate skills would be lower, less. As time wears on, however, traditional karate crosses and eclipses the training & skill that boxing can provide. This is because of the inherently different nature of the two training regimens.
JKA KIHON TECHNIQUES
