Subtracting old techniques from today training?

still learning

Senior Master
Joined
Nov 8, 2004
Messages
3,749
Reaction score
48
Hello, In our system, our training does change time to time by our Professor directions.

Some of our older techniques are no longer use or were modified for today's figthing.

When I first started after ever takedown we had to learn NINE strikes to the down person. Today it is just seven strikes. Some of the older Black belts still do nine.

Could you please share some of yours that are NO longer use for training?

The subtractions of techniques in your system?

Aloha, (one punch and one kick to attacker) equals = One (lawsuit/jailtime) if not justify. best to subtract the one punch and one kick? Subtractions can be GOOD!
 

Seabrook

Black Belt
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
621
Reaction score
3
Subtractions can be GOOD!

You are correct, but they are also the cause of many watered-down systems by instructors who didn't have the discipline, perseverance, or patience to learn their art correctly by a top notch instructor, so they deleted what they could not perform well and/or did not understand.
 

zDom

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 21, 2006
Messages
3,081
Reaction score
110
My opinion is, how do you know the technique you or your instructor delete from the curriculum isn't the one your student or student's student would have found to be the one that perfectly fits what they need or works well for them?

That is my objection to systems (I won't point fingers here) that strip down the list of techniques to a few that are "best."

Learn and pass on the ENTIRE curriculum.

Embrace, hone and use those that work best for you.

But don't assume what is best for YOU is best for someone else.
 

zDom

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 21, 2006
Messages
3,081
Reaction score
110
Aren't all these strikes just variations of eachother?

Not necessarily. Furthermore, not all techniques are strikes. Some sytems, for example, are eliminating blocks, kicks, throws and locks that were previously in their system.

How did you get the idea we were just talking about eliminating strikes?
 

searcher

Senior Master
Joined
Mar 15, 2005
Messages
3,317
Reaction score
59
Location
Kansas
We have actually reverted back to soem techniques that were one way then another and now are back to the original way. My example is this: the system had bone breaks that turned to joint locks and are now back to being breaks. Not that we have eliminated anything, but have altered and then went back to the way it was originally.

Now one technique that My Instructor tried to eliminate(but I have kept around) is the good ole axe kick. He is insistent that it is too dangerous and needs a level of control that many never have or will ever gain.
 

bluemtn

Senior Master
Joined
Jun 2, 2004
Messages
4,393
Reaction score
19
Location
W.Va.
My main instructor likes to do a lot of striking, but his instructor doesn't like to see as much as what my instructor does. So, in some of our drills, we do take downs and arm bars in addition. Personally, I like the take downs a great deal more!
 

MBuzzy

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
5,328
Reaction score
107
Location
West Melbourne, FL
There are constant rumors in my system of eliminating "Japanese influence", i.e. a number of our forms. My opinion, this would be a HUGE mistake. Unfortunately, my opinion doesn't matter much.

What really annoys me is when they eliminate or change things and say that it is to maintain traditions or that it is being done in keeping with the style. If that was true, it wouldn't change.

Now adapting with the times and incorporating newer and better things is GREAT. Nothing wrong with getting rid of the bad and adding in more good.....
 

Darth F.Takeda

Blue Belt
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
292
Reaction score
9
Location
Northern Virginia
I take great pains to learn tyechniques as my Sensei does them, for the purpose of learning the art as passed down, even if some of the techniques do not work as well for me, I still need to pass them along to others, who might find them a better suit to them.

I feel that you should learn the proper art you study, but also have addaptions that work for you. That addaption might not work for your students, teach them the proper technique and let them make their own addaptions/

I s tudy Comabt /Aiki Jujutsu and Pekiti Tarsia and Silat and strive to learn the 'proper" way, but I also strive to develope my personal art, the way I fight.

Kind of like learning Classical Guitar, but playing Rock and Jazz on stage.
 

Last Fearner

2nd Black Belt
Joined
Jan 21, 2006
Messages
712
Reaction score
17
In our system, our training does change time to time by our Professor directions.
Students will find this a common occurrence with virtually any school or organization. The key points here are: How much is it changing, why is it changing, is it really changing or just modifying for current application, and who is authorizing the changes.

As you said, SL, "by our Professor directions." If the top authority in your art/organization feels the change is needed, then there is less risk of changes coming too often, without merit, and by instructors who do not understand what damage they could be doing to the integrity of the art.

Some of our older techniques are no longer use or were modified for today's figthing.
I can agree with modifying techniques to current application (happens all the time, and generally reverts back and forth over time). As to the issue of "older techniques" no longer being used, I would be hard pressed to think of any specific one that could, or should be eliminated because it is "old" or "outdated."

A silly example might be if centuries ago, an instructor might have taught students that, during a street-fight, they can grab the attacker's pocket-watch, wrap the chain around their neck, and choke them out. The fact that I don't see many people wearing pocket-watches these days, might lead me to not teach that particular technique anymore (for the younger generation, "pocket-watches" are those flip open watches of yesteryear that were carried in a special vest pocket near a person's abdomen that was hooked to a decorative chain that looped to a button on the vest). I'm not suggesting that this was a legitimate technique (the chain probably wouldn't be strong enough), but the idea that an object vanishing from modern fashion might cause us to eliminate a technique is about the only thing that I could fathom being a reason.

When I first started after ever takedown we had to learn NINE strikes to the down person. Today it is just seven strikes. Some of the older Black belts still do nine.
Could you be more specific here, please? What is the list of "NINE" and what were the two "strikes" that were eliminated? Were they completely taken out of all of the color belt training, or are they still taught in different variations (not just by the older Black Belts, but still in use some other way)?.

You are correct, but they are also the cause of many watered-down systems by instructors who didn't have the discipline, perseverance, or patience to learn their art correctly by a top notch instructor, so they deleted what they could not perform well and/or did not understand.
Absolutely, 100% correct! I couldn't agree more with this assessment.

My opinion is, how do you know the technique you or your instructor delete from the curriculum isn't the one your student or student's student would have found to be the one that perfectly fits what they need or works well for them?
Again, same as above. I absolutely agree!

Learn and pass on the ENTIRE curriculum.

Embrace, hone and use those that work best for you.

But don't assume what is best for YOU is best for someone else.
Three very important points often missed by novice students, and inexperienced instructors. Very well said zDom!

We have actually reverted back to soem techniques that were one way then another and now are back to the original way. My example is this: the system had bone breaks that turned to joint locks and are now back to being breaks. Not that we have eliminated anything, but have altered and then went back to the way it was originally.
This is an excellent point, and probably more common than actually "eliminating" anything. This is an example of the basic fundamentals, and technique remaining, but the degree of application is modified. Personally, I think it is best when modifying to continue to teach both methods, simply place more of an emphasis on the one that the Master feels is more useful at that time.

Now one technique that My Instructor tried to eliminate(but I have kept around) is the good ole axe kick. He is insistent that it is too dangerous and needs a level of control that many never have or will ever gain.
Here is a prime example, and one I am familiar with. When I was a young Black Belt (in the late '70s), nobody that I knew was using axe kicks in tournaments (we learned it, and kept if for possible street use in specific cases). Fighters had learned how to defeat this kick, avoid it and counter to the extent that if you threw it, you rarely scored, and almost always got hit. After some time away from tournaments, I re-emerged into the WTF, and Olympic competition in the mid-'80s. I was shocked to see how many competitors were using the Axe kick (Naryeo Chagi), and making it work. I suspect it will phase in and out, but should never be abandoned (IMO).

I take great pains to learn tyechniques as my Sensei does them, for the purpose of learning the art as passed down, even if some of the techniques do not work as well for me, I still need to pass them along to others, who might find them a better suit to them.

I feel that you should learn the proper art you study, but also have addaptions that work for you. That addaption might not work for your students, teach them the proper technique and let them make their own addaptions/

I ... strive to learn the 'proper" way, but I also strive to develope my personal art, the way I fight.
Beautifully said, and 100% right on! The adaptations are for the individual to enhance their personal fighting "style" and street application. Changing the core art over these whims and individual preferences, then calling it a new or different "style" of Martial Art is just wrong in my opinion.

Eliminating techniques because a particular generation does not see the use of it anymore is what passes less and less on to the next generation. Then, if it is learned later on that these techniques are of use once again, future generation will have to "re-invent the wheel." Then, teachers will be learning these things new through "trial and error" instead of having it passed on by senior Grandmasters who already know the skill.

I can't think of any techniques that have been eliminated in MY teaching. However, I believe that combat application of Korean Martial Art from centuries ago included grappling and throws. Many of today's "watered-down" schools of "Tae Kwon Do" don't include these techniques, and many Black Belts don't know how to do a proper foot sweep, leg reap, or execute a proper flip. I have seen them try, and do something similar, but not correct form. If striking is the preference, then emphasize that, but don't eliminate grappling, choking, joint locks and throws (or strip your curriculum down to a few favorites), simply because it is rare that you would use them. It is those rare circumstances that could save your life.
 

gnrail

Yellow Belt
Joined
Jul 28, 2007
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
A lot of good things here.

I thought I would add a couple of comments.

"Things that do not evolve eventually die out"

Not much more to say about this.

"How are we sure what is the right curriculum for any art"

Most of what we have now has been passed down from master to student for hundreds, tens, years or days depending on the art (we locally have one school that the master made his art from combining aspects of other arts that he liked) It does not matter how many times you are shown a technique you will still interpret it your own way. No two people learn exactly the same way and no two people teach the same way either. So there will be drift from the original.

As well when an instructor or a grandmaster or an entire federation decides to make a change they could just as easily be moving back towards the originators first concepts as away from it.

My particular art while based on Japanese Go ju ryu Karate it has had many other influences in the last 30 years and we now have 2 Kata's that are not practiced by other branches and there are some of their katas we do not practice.


And on the other hand it really drives me crazy when I finally grasp a technique and then someone wants to change it. I hurts my brain to try and relearn things these days.

:uhyeah::uhyeah:
 

Touch Of Death

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
May 6, 2003
Messages
11,610
Reaction score
848
Location
Spokane Valley WA
Not necessarily. Furthermore, not all techniques are strikes. Some sytems, for example, are eliminating blocks, kicks, throws and locks that were previously in their system.

quote]Still, they are variations of what they do study.
Sean
 

Latest Discussions

Top