OP
Elfan
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #21
??? I doubt you learned that in a physics class my friend.
http://www.theness.com/articles/quantumconfusion-cs0203.html
Yes that was off topic on my part.
??? I doubt you learned that in a physics class my friend.
http://www.theness.com/articles/quantumconfusion-cs0203.html
Yes that was off topic on my part.
OP
Mike Clarke
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #22
It's great watching threads take off like this.
I don't think science (as such) is killing the ' art ', but I think some people are using science to explain (read, sell) everything. The problem I have with that is the assumption that we (humans) know, or would even recognise, all that is out there in the cosmos.
I don't know how to explain to someone the concept of balance if they can't ride a bike. Or floating, if they can't swim. But I do know that once someone "understands" these things, no explinations are necessary. I view my karate like this. For some it may well be necessary to know the in's and out's of every last detail, but for me I only have to come to an understanding that I can make it work (or not, as the case may be) to accept it.
To Elfan,
Experience is built up over time and not by design as is experimentation. When you experiment it is in order to prove (disprove) an idea you already have. Experience is the result of things done already, things you may not have even thought of before you had the experience?
Experience gives you the answer before you know you've recieved it. It's only when you get the lesson (the kick in the head you didn't block?) that you understand.
As I said before. When it comes to reality (not sparring), you have no time to experiment.
Karate to me is an education, and you know what they say about education; "It's the stuff that's left over when you've forgotten everything you learnt."
I'm learning lots here though, and I thank you all for it.
Mike.
I don't think science (as such) is killing the ' art ', but I think some people are using science to explain (read, sell) everything. The problem I have with that is the assumption that we (humans) know, or would even recognise, all that is out there in the cosmos.
I don't know how to explain to someone the concept of balance if they can't ride a bike. Or floating, if they can't swim. But I do know that once someone "understands" these things, no explinations are necessary. I view my karate like this. For some it may well be necessary to know the in's and out's of every last detail, but for me I only have to come to an understanding that I can make it work (or not, as the case may be) to accept it.
To Elfan,
Experience is built up over time and not by design as is experimentation. When you experiment it is in order to prove (disprove) an idea you already have. Experience is the result of things done already, things you may not have even thought of before you had the experience?
Experience gives you the answer before you know you've recieved it. It's only when you get the lesson (the kick in the head you didn't block?) that you understand.
As I said before. When it comes to reality (not sparring), you have no time to experiment.
Karate to me is an education, and you know what they say about education; "It's the stuff that's left over when you've forgotten everything you learnt."
I'm learning lots here though, and I thank you all for it.
Mike.
OP
Elfan
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #23
On techne (that is a really great thing to bring in BTW, do you study etymology?)
A few translator notes from my copy of The Republic:
- "It may thus be said to cover and skilled activity with its rules of operation, the knowledge of which is acuired by training. But is is a very elusive word to translate varying between art, craft, profesional skill, and sceince acording to the emphasis of the context."
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke
Thanks.
Baoquan
Blue Belt
Thanks...i dont like to misquote, and i post from work, with no references
Off topic...studying etymology - kinda...i have a degree in communication, which covers language theory, construction of meaning etc etc.
Back on topic...
That is IMHO the salient point here. Cant possibly disagree. However, once someone rides a bike, introducing gearing will improve the bike riding experiece...but, granted, its not necessary. This is how i take on physical/scientific description of the arts...its definately not the core of my art, or learning experience, but it improves my understanding and ability.
Cheers
Bao
OP
sammy3170
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #25
We've had Patrick McCarthy at our school a number of times and you want scientific names for things well he'll tell you. He seems to describe most of what he's doing when demonstrating a technique this way.
Cheers
Sammy
I think knowing the science behind what you're doing can only make you a better martial artist...
if you drive a car, could it possibly make you a better driver if you know how an engine works? A car is a tool, just like your martial arts are a tool, and the more you know about them, the better.
For example, if my instructor does an block when I punch him, and my arm goes numb, if I didn't know better, I might think its just because he hits really hard, so I will probably not try to duplicate this when someone hits me, because he has a lot more strength than I do. However, having some knowledge of kinesiology, I know that he hit the radial nerve in my upper arm, and that it doesn't take a whole lot of strength to create the effect of numbing a limb. Therefore, I may work harder to target my strikes, rather than working on striking harder.
knowledge is NEVER a bad thing. The more you know, the better you can make informed decisions.
Personally, I think kinesiology is a must for any martial artist. When I injured myself, I was able to tell the doctor that the pain was specifically at the joint of the first carpal (the little bones in your wrist) and metacarpal (the long bones inside your hand that connect the wrist to the fingers). This told her exactly where the pain was, rather than saying "um...my hand hurts."
Kinesiology also teaches muscle movements, proper stretching, and how the muscles move. You'll learn about the difference between a sprain, a strain, and a hyperextension, and know what kind of injuries you can walk on, and what kind you need to immobilize. My martial arts are better because of what I've learned.
For example, did you know that the "hurdler's stretch" where you put one leg forward in front of you, and one leg bent at the knee to your side, with your foot next to your rear, is really, REALLY bad for your knees? nobody except hurdlers should do this stretch, EVER. The safe way to do this is to take the leg that is normally by your butt, and bend it inward instead of back, so your legs make a 4 shape. then bend forward and touch your toe as usual. I was shocked to see how many martial arts instructors used the harmful version of this stretch, and they all did it because they didn't know any better. An adjustment so simple could save some of their students a plethora of knee problems.
Just my $0.02
-Nightingale
if you drive a car, could it possibly make you a better driver if you know how an engine works? A car is a tool, just like your martial arts are a tool, and the more you know about them, the better.
For example, if my instructor does an block when I punch him, and my arm goes numb, if I didn't know better, I might think its just because he hits really hard, so I will probably not try to duplicate this when someone hits me, because he has a lot more strength than I do. However, having some knowledge of kinesiology, I know that he hit the radial nerve in my upper arm, and that it doesn't take a whole lot of strength to create the effect of numbing a limb. Therefore, I may work harder to target my strikes, rather than working on striking harder.
knowledge is NEVER a bad thing. The more you know, the better you can make informed decisions.
Personally, I think kinesiology is a must for any martial artist. When I injured myself, I was able to tell the doctor that the pain was specifically at the joint of the first carpal (the little bones in your wrist) and metacarpal (the long bones inside your hand that connect the wrist to the fingers). This told her exactly where the pain was, rather than saying "um...my hand hurts."
Kinesiology also teaches muscle movements, proper stretching, and how the muscles move. You'll learn about the difference between a sprain, a strain, and a hyperextension, and know what kind of injuries you can walk on, and what kind you need to immobilize. My martial arts are better because of what I've learned.
For example, did you know that the "hurdler's stretch" where you put one leg forward in front of you, and one leg bent at the knee to your side, with your foot next to your rear, is really, REALLY bad for your knees? nobody except hurdlers should do this stretch, EVER. The safe way to do this is to take the leg that is normally by your butt, and bend it inward instead of back, so your legs make a 4 shape. then bend forward and touch your toe as usual. I was shocked to see how many martial arts instructors used the harmful version of this stretch, and they all did it because they didn't know any better. An adjustment so simple could save some of their students a plethora of knee problems.
Just my $0.02
-Nightingale
Matt Stone
Master of Arts
I don't believe that anyone would decry the benefit of knowing the specific mechanics of what we do. Knowing the medical and physical science behind what we do lends credence to both the effectiveness of our technique as well as to our knowledge as instructors.
I think the point being debated is that the above mentioned credibility (e.g. an instructor being able to say "move your arm this way to punch," but to also be able to say "the adduction of the humerus caused by the contraction of the pectoralis major and minor and stablilized by the contraction of the anterior deltoid is what makes you punch") should be in addition to the instructor's already established credibility, and should not be taken in place of other qualifications...
Any idiot can pick up a copy of Gray's anatomy and learn how the body moves. Does this substitute for functioning, experienced understanding of the martial techniques in quesiton? Not hardly. I would rather have an experienced, knowledgeable teacher that can only communicate a technique via "monkey see, monkey do" than have some slouch with a mouthful of medical terms trying to tell me how to smack somebody...
I think that one of the issues Mike brought up is that there are folks out there that think such terminology can replace their inherent lack of other knowledge, and that the masses can be satisfactorily wowed by their command of medical terminology. It is easy enough to see in the trade rags with articles on "scientific streetfighting," and other such faddish trends.
Knowing the physics behind what we do, and the real names of body parts is only a component of what makes a superior teacher. The bulk of what makes a superior teacher is understanding the art of applying his knowledge. To paraphrase another saying, the parts can never replace the whole.
Mike, am I right here, or did I misunderstand you?
Gambarimasu.
:asian:
I think the point being debated is that the above mentioned credibility (e.g. an instructor being able to say "move your arm this way to punch," but to also be able to say "the adduction of the humerus caused by the contraction of the pectoralis major and minor and stablilized by the contraction of the anterior deltoid is what makes you punch") should be in addition to the instructor's already established credibility, and should not be taken in place of other qualifications...
Any idiot can pick up a copy of Gray's anatomy and learn how the body moves. Does this substitute for functioning, experienced understanding of the martial techniques in quesiton? Not hardly. I would rather have an experienced, knowledgeable teacher that can only communicate a technique via "monkey see, monkey do" than have some slouch with a mouthful of medical terms trying to tell me how to smack somebody...
I think that one of the issues Mike brought up is that there are folks out there that think such terminology can replace their inherent lack of other knowledge, and that the masses can be satisfactorily wowed by their command of medical terminology. It is easy enough to see in the trade rags with articles on "scientific streetfighting," and other such faddish trends.
Knowing the physics behind what we do, and the real names of body parts is only a component of what makes a superior teacher. The bulk of what makes a superior teacher is understanding the art of applying his knowledge. To paraphrase another saying, the parts can never replace the whole.
Mike, am I right here, or did I misunderstand you?
Gambarimasu.
:asian:
kinesthetic knowledge should be used to SUPPLEMENT martial arts knowledge, not surplant it.
Matt Stone
Master of Arts
itty bitty living space...
Everything I said in a lot less words, but the crux of the problem nonetheless.
The problem is that many Uhmurikan martial artists are not all that concerned about their academic knowledge in the first place, and this keeps them from delving deeper into their understanding.
That doesn't mean, however, that they can't be incredible exponents of what they study - just that it is a level of understanding that supplements their ability as instructors.
Gambarimasu.
:asian:
Everything I said in a lot less words, but the crux of the problem nonetheless.
The problem is that many Uhmurikan martial artists are not all that concerned about their academic knowledge in the first place, and this keeps them from delving deeper into their understanding.
That doesn't mean, however, that they can't be incredible exponents of what they study - just that it is a level of understanding that supplements their ability as instructors.
Gambarimasu.
:asian:
OP
Mike Clarke
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #30
Hi Matt,
No you didn't misunderstand me, thanks for making some points better than I could.
I have no problem with people looking at science and the answers it gives to the questions they have, my 'core' questions are really about whether or not such information is necessary to 'understanding' your 'art', and whether or not science alone should be the benchmark by which 'old wisdom' is be judged?
I believe karatedo to be more than just kicking and punching, and I don't think this is something I'm projecting on to it myself as much of what I've learnt about myself and methods of combat, I had no real idea about before I 'discovered' things for myself through the training and instruction I've been lucky enought to have over the years.
Intresting to see how some folk view their marial art and their place in it, while others view their martial art, and it's place in them.
As for all' knowledge being good? and, the more we know the better? I'm not sold on this at all. One of the things I've learnt from my time training is that less is very often more. This goes to the physical and mental sides of karatedo. Just look at the mess people get themselves into trying to learn 30+ kata and the 6.000.000 bunkai that go with them in order to pass some grading test!!!!
Regards,
Mike.
No you didn't misunderstand me, thanks for making some points better than I could.
I have no problem with people looking at science and the answers it gives to the questions they have, my 'core' questions are really about whether or not such information is necessary to 'understanding' your 'art', and whether or not science alone should be the benchmark by which 'old wisdom' is be judged?
I believe karatedo to be more than just kicking and punching, and I don't think this is something I'm projecting on to it myself as much of what I've learnt about myself and methods of combat, I had no real idea about before I 'discovered' things for myself through the training and instruction I've been lucky enought to have over the years.
Intresting to see how some folk view their marial art and their place in it, while others view their martial art, and it's place in them.
As for all' knowledge being good? and, the more we know the better? I'm not sold on this at all. One of the things I've learnt from my time training is that less is very often more. This goes to the physical and mental sides of karatedo. Just look at the mess people get themselves into trying to learn 30+ kata and the 6.000.000 bunkai that go with them in order to pass some grading test!!!!
Regards,
Mike.
all knowledge is good...
especially the knowledge of when and how to learn what. you can't do trigonometry until you know addition.
especially the knowledge of when and how to learn what. you can't do trigonometry until you know addition.
OP
RyuShiKan
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #32
Anybody ever see the movie "Rainman"?
In the movie Dustin Hoffman's character could tell you all sorts of useless information like the square root of all the matches dropped on the floor, the statistics for airline crashes broken down by each airline, and so on..........and yet he could not hold a job or barely function in life.
Kind of the same thing with knowing all the anatomical correct names for body structures.
Unless you know how to deliver a technique under fairly realistic circumstances and the reactions they might cause you are just like "Rainman"........lots of knowledge with no practical use.
Miyamoto Musashi fought and killed over 60 people by the time he was 30 years old........I seriously doubt he could have told which artery he was cutting while killing his opponents. I would suspect he DID have a "rudimentary" knowledge of anatomy in order to better facilitate his technique.
I have noticed in recent years the tendency to over emphasize the "Gray's Anatomy" and "color by numbers kyusho" teaching style explanation. This way of explaining/teaching things does two things. One it makes the person sound like an extremely knowledgeable instructor. Two it makes up for the knowledge that instructor usually doesn't have in "real life" application. I have also noticed the ones that tend to use this kind of "instruction" are usually pretty cluless.
To give an example:
I have had several student/instructors of the Dillman, Moneymaker, Clark lineage come to my dojo and spout off their "Gray's Anatomy" and "color by numbers kyusho" explanations.........when I have asked to see their ideas put to use what followed was a poor excuse for technique that didn't work.
Better time would be spent finding out the ways the body parts move and especiallly don't move, the weak points of the body and how to get them into the most painful position possible in a practical manner using the hands on approach.
Forget the "University Professor" approach.
the way is in training.....
Miyamoto Musashi
(Note: I have trained in TCM in China for 3 years, 4 years in Japan and am a Nationally Licensed practitioner here in Japan)
In the movie Dustin Hoffman's character could tell you all sorts of useless information like the square root of all the matches dropped on the floor, the statistics for airline crashes broken down by each airline, and so on..........and yet he could not hold a job or barely function in life.
Kind of the same thing with knowing all the anatomical correct names for body structures.
Unless you know how to deliver a technique under fairly realistic circumstances and the reactions they might cause you are just like "Rainman"........lots of knowledge with no practical use.
Miyamoto Musashi fought and killed over 60 people by the time he was 30 years old........I seriously doubt he could have told which artery he was cutting while killing his opponents. I would suspect he DID have a "rudimentary" knowledge of anatomy in order to better facilitate his technique.
I have noticed in recent years the tendency to over emphasize the "Gray's Anatomy" and "color by numbers kyusho" teaching style explanation. This way of explaining/teaching things does two things. One it makes the person sound like an extremely knowledgeable instructor. Two it makes up for the knowledge that instructor usually doesn't have in "real life" application. I have also noticed the ones that tend to use this kind of "instruction" are usually pretty cluless.
To give an example:
I have had several student/instructors of the Dillman, Moneymaker, Clark lineage come to my dojo and spout off their "Gray's Anatomy" and "color by numbers kyusho" explanations.........when I have asked to see their ideas put to use what followed was a poor excuse for technique that didn't work.
Better time would be spent finding out the ways the body parts move and especiallly don't move, the weak points of the body and how to get them into the most painful position possible in a practical manner using the hands on approach.
Forget the "University Professor" approach.
the way is in training.....
Miyamoto Musashi
(Note: I have trained in TCM in China for 3 years, 4 years in Japan and am a Nationally Licensed practitioner here in Japan)
OP
RyuShiKan
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #33
You also can't learn to walk until you can stand. But some folks think they can skip the whole process and go from crawling to flying without ever putting the time and energy (i.e. sweat) into the basics of standing, walking, and then running first.
Learning how to throw your first punch and then running over to "Gray's Anatomy" to find out which muscles were used and where is the best place to hit is about the same thing.
Sometimes the mythology can help. If the move you're doing is called "Dragon whips its tail" then all the science in the world may be inferior to imagining a dragon whipping its tail as far as helping you get the "feel" that the technique is intended to have. This is an issue of historical knowledge, in a way--what the technique was meant to be like originally, as opposed to an analysis of how it actually functions.
I'm in favor of the scientific approach, but I also think one can over-think it.
I'm in favor of the scientific approach, but I also think one can over-think it.
OP
chufeng
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #35
Mike...
Excellent point...less is more.
...and I agree with you and RyuShiKan and Matt and several others on this topic...
But, we go from a simple punch (because we don't know any better) to learning the many methods of punching and the mechanics involved (through hard training) back to a punch is just a punch...full circle...some of that was understanding on the intellectual level...MOST of it is based on training the body to move a certain way (hours of repetition)...
It is in that in between level that people get stuck intellectualizing...they don't do the work...so, they just don't get it.
:aisan:
chufeng
Matt Stone
Master of Arts
This is an important point, I feel. Many of the poetic names in CMA are there to describe what a movement looks like, but others are there to help you understand what you are supposed to feel like. If we reduced it down to "medial adduction of the femur to strike with the distal head of the first metatarsal" it wouldn't be quite the same, would it?
Again, this is the central point of what Mike was trying to say earlier... "Over thinking" and using the pseudo-scientific explanations to supplant rather than supplement a teacher's knowledge is the issue, not the other way around.
Gambarimasu.
:asian:
