Absorb What is Useful

[Dirty Dog]

Curiosity (as suggested in the OP) and orthodoxy (I.e., tradition) are mutually exclusive.

I practice and teach TMA. And yet, I remain curious and encourage students to use what they're taught as a springboard to find what works best for them and to learn anything from anyone, anywhere, if it works for them.
So, no. They're not.

 

[JowGaWolf]

If I have any issue with “traditional” arts it’s that their proponents aren’t curious.

I feel the same way. People digest what they are given but only a few will dig deeper.

In TMA the teacher will teach students that this is a technique and application. Most students stop there.

A few will go beyond that and discover that this is the technique and its application.

The belief is that style provides the answers, and it’s just simply a matter of sticking with it long enough to learn them.

If a system has a striking and grappling component, then it's most likely that the system has the answers for much of what people do when fighting. For systems that are like that, the only thing that needs to be done is to train technique application against those outside of the system.

It's better to learn Jow Ga grappling when it's System A vs System B. Learning Jow Ga grappling in the context of System A vs System A is not going to produce the desired results. They only thing the student would be good at is grappling against Jow Ga. BJJ didn't become good because it Trained System A vs System A (Where A is the TMA system). It became good because it Trained System A vs System B.

My experience is that a student's TMA skills become 10 times better when they Train System A vs System B. If I want my Jow Ga to techniques to be good against Boxers then I must use my Jow Ga techniques against a Boxer. There is no other way for TMA to be good against another system, if that student does not understand their system in the context of what it faces.

How do I know what Jow Ga techniques to use against BJJ when I don't understand how BJJ will attack me?

On the other hand there are some systems that are so specialized that it no longer has the techniques that are required to effectively deal with System B's attacks. Example, Boxing vs Kick boxing.
At one time Boxing probably had what was needed to deal with kick boxing. But now? it doesn't understand how kickboxing would attack it and because of that, does not have a technique to deal with the kicks.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I practice and teach TMA. And yet, I remain curious and encourage students to use what they're taught as a springboard to find what works best for them and to learn anything from anyone, anywhere, if it works for them.
So, no. They're not.

You are one of the good teachers because you encourage students to be curios beyond what the default lesson.

 

[Dirty Dog]

You are one of the good teachers because you encourage students to be curios beyond what the default lesson.

My teachers pretty much all taught the same way.

 

[gyoja]

My teachers pretty much all taught the same way.

As did mine, and most TMA teachers that I studied with.

 

[Dirty Dog]

As did mine, and most TMA teachers that I studied with.

I can't recall any that didn't, honestly, but since I started when I was 7, in 1968 or '69, I don't know that I would recall the small details of every instructor I ever trained under. I've slept since then...

 

[gyoja]

I can't recall any that didn't, honestly, but since I started when I was 7, in 1968 or '69, I don't know that I would recall the small details of every instructor I ever trained under. I've slept since then...

Me too. I started late ‘78, but I ran across a couple of mediocre instructors while I was looking to expand my knowledge. I just pushed on and found another. By and large most were great instructors.

 

[drop bear]

Which method of scientific enquiry are we to use - can you please give some valid examples to add context to your statement?

This one.

 

[isshinryuronin]

If I have any issue with “traditional” arts it’s that their proponents aren’t curious. The belief is that style provides the answers, and it’s just simply a matter of sticking with it long enough to learn them.

It's just not that it's "sticking with it long enough to learn them," but to be curious about the traditional arts. So, I both agree and disagree with parts of the quote. By being curious and delving into the traditional art, experimenting, asking "why, what and how," it will be found that they do provide many answers within the scope of that art.

But first, one must have an understanding of the true nature of the art and develop the skills that allow that nature to be physically realized, so one does need to be "sticking with it long enough." Thus, curiosity and tradition are not mutually exclusive, but can symbiotically be the yin and yang of TMA study.

 

[JowGaWolf]

My teachers pretty much all taught the same way.

As did mine, and most TMA teachers that I studied with.

I remember that my teacher once got irritated with me because I asked about a technique application without taking the time to explore it myself to find the answer. He made me explore the technique and eventually. When I went back to him. I asked him "is this the correct application of this technique." From there he explained the correct application. It was more important to my teacher that I "dig" into the system than for him to just give an answer.

A person who only gets the answer to his question, will never learn the lessons that come with trail, error, failures, and successes. Those are equally as important as knowing the application if not more so. If a person doesn't understand where the technique does not apply or when it will fail, then they will not be able to be successful in applying the technique. Would it have been possible to build a plane without understanding, when it will fail?

 

[Buka]

I don’t recall having any two instructors that taught the same way. There must have been, but I don’t remember any.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I don’t recall having any two instructors that taught the same way. There must have been, but I don’t remember any.

I don't think anyone is saying they taught the same way, just that there are certain characteristics commonly shared by good instructors.

 

[Buka]

I don't think anyone is saying they taught the same way, just that there are certain characteristics commonly shared by good instructors.

You’re right. There sure are.

 

[Gyakuto]

But here is the conundrum. How does one know what is useful until one has learned it?

It’s one of those halfwitted aphorisms that actually makes no sense whatsoever, but which impresses some dimwits!🙄

 

[HighKick]

There is nothing “scientific” about that. What you describe is simply training in such a way to develop real skill. It is an attempt to add a level of realism to the training, so that the individual can develop their skill. There is no scientific method involved.

Who said there was?

 

[Steve]

I practice and teach TMA. And yet, I remain curious and encourage students to use what they're taught as a springboard to find what works best for them and to learn anything from anyone, anywhere, if it works for them.
So, no. They're not.

I don’t know how curious you are in general. But tradition is literally the antonym to experimentation and growth. So, yes. They are.

 

[Steve]

My teachers pretty much all taught the same way.

Case in point.

 

[Steve]

It's just not that it's "sticking with it long enough to learn them," but to be curious about the traditional arts. So, I both agree and disagree with parts of the quote. By being curious and delving into the traditional art, experimenting, asking "why, what and how," it will be found that they do provide many answers within the scope of that art.

But first, one must have an understanding of the true nature of the art and develop the skills that allow that nature to be physically realized, so one does need to be "sticking with it long enough." Thus, curiosity and tradition are not mutually exclusive, but can symbiotically be the yin and yang of TMA study.

Sure. One may be curious within the orthodoxy, but that is t what was brought up in the OP. In the context of keeping what works and discarding what doesn’t… orthodoxy is actively antithetical to that goal.

Sorry. I thought the context of the thread was still clear. I don’t mean to suggest that you aren’t learning within a traditional style. That is a different thread.

 

[Steve]

I don’t know how curious you are in general. But tradition is literally the antonym to experimentation and growth. So, yes. They are.

Apparently I touched a nerve. You okay, @Dirty Dog?

 

[Flying Crane]

Re-read your post # 12, and the post to which you were responding.