Training to take the hit

[MJS]

I think that is what judo, sambo and BJJ practitioners try to do both standing (when throwing) and on the ground. Yet, strength is still important and the ability to switch to a different throw or submission is an aquired skill - also, rarely are throws or submissions utterly effortless even though that is the ideal.

I agree that strength is an important factor. I just don't feel that it should be relied on 100% all the time. I've worked techniques with people who are just nautrally taller and stronger than me, so for me to try and out muscle them is pretty much a road to nowhere. Instead, I try to really work the finer points of the technique. If my technique is good, I just may have a better chance to getting it to work.

Sure. There is a whole theory of chained switches and most fighters don't try to muscle heavily through submissions. However, it always takes a little bit of strength to do anything, and more than a bit of skill to switch between techniques when one isn't working. It isn't something that you can just do... I don't think I've ever seen an armbar where the recipient isn't trying to flex his arm to escape or a choke where the recipient isn't trying to pull the arm away - there isn't zero resistance even if you are Rickson Gracie fighting a white belt. Rather, good practioners try to flow to where the resistance is least effective, or where their own strength is most leveraged - they don't assume they will meet zero resistance.

Good points again. Again, I'm certainly not disputing that strength isn't important, just that it shouldn't always be relied upon. I'm far from an expert grappler and I've had my fair share of people resist my armbar, leg lock, etc. but instead of always fighting with them, I'd move on to something else, attempt to distract them and then try for that lock again.

Thanks for a good discussion.:ultracool

Mike

 

[Kreth]

How do know a technique will work fi you do not apply it against a resisting opponent who is set on countering and defeatinh you as well?

Forcing a technique is wasted energy. If I'm trying to apply say, a musha dori elbow catch and my opponent straightens his arm, it would be silly to try and force my technique. Instead, I'd take advantage of the straightened arm to lock the elbow.

The simple solution is of course to adapt and over come but that does not limit adaptation to simply taking an easier route. I was taught there where 5 elemental approaches to combat and combative in ninjitsu. Does the very nature of say fire not dictate a constant and over powering force of agression against an opponent. While water would dictate a fluid pattern of agression and defense which flows around the path of least resistance. Both are full acceptible methods and outcomes and both can be applied and reapplied throughout the course of fight.

This is taken straight from one of Hayes' early books. Strange, I didn't realize you were a Bujinkan or Toshindo member. Oh wait, you spell it ninjitsu, so probably not...
Anyway, you misunderstand the theory. A "fire" type of response is not advocating meeting force with force, the idea is to apply your "agression" [sic] to an opponent's weak point(s).

 

[MJS]

A lot depends on what you're working on. It seems that many people today don't learn how to work with a partner. They either passively put an attack out to be blocked/trapped/whatevered, or they try to kill their partner! What they miss is the continuum; when you first learn a technique, your partner should be letting you do it without much resistance or adding any complications. As you develop the technique, the resistance and complications should increase. So should the risk; when I teach a brand new white belt a block, they aren't really in danger of being hit. But...when I work that same block with another black belt or with a more advanced student, there's a real possibility that they'll get hit.

I agree. When I would teach a new student or when I'm working a tech. myself, I always stress going slow at first, getting the fine points, etc., and then gradually having the person punch faster, add in some resistance, etc. Certainly gives a new feel to the technique.

The other part of "what are you working on" is that you want to try to work the technique you're practicing. If I'm working an upward/rising block, then that's what I want to use. If the technique is rising block followed by a straight punch to the face, that's what I should be doing. If I'm working on adapting the technique as I go (working the principle, not rote memory of moves, in other words), then I want to keep that principle when I adapt. So, if the principle is block/punch...that's what I should be doing, not block/trap/throw.

If I'm working a technique, that is my focus at the time. I do my best to stick with the movements and not steer from them. However, when the resistance is added in, someone punches a bit faster, etc., there are those times when you have to adapt to whats presented to you at that time.

Mike

 

[Dark]

Forcing a technique is wasted energy.

In most cases you are correct but there are exceptions to that rule or principle, more so in the case of striking where one must penetrate an opponnt's defenses.

This is taken straight from one of Hayes' early books. Strange, I didn't realize you were a Bujinkan or Toshindo member. Oh wait, you spell it ninjitsu, so probably not...
Anyway, you misunderstand the theory. A "fire" type of response is not advocating meeting force with force, the idea is to apply your "agression" [sic] to an opponent's weak point(s).

I am neither an Bujinkan, Genjinkan or Toshindo member, though I have a few friends who are and have trained with members of both Rick Tew and Robert Bussey's groups. Those same elemental concepts are common in other arts as well such as traditional judo's Itsutsu-no-kata, Shorin Ryu Kenpo and kenpo-jujitsu systems. Thats not even counting the chinese schools and styles that apply this principle.

Musashi must have been a bujinkan ninjitsu/ninjutsu practicer because he based his Go Rin no sho on the concept of five elements. Ed Parker and William Chow must likewise be Bujinkan members ?

The concept of Chinese alchemy is hardly a basis from which any one group or style can claim ownership, except maybe the Taoist who invented it. Fire, in kenpo, judo and in the system of ninjitsu I was taught is a direct linear movement focused on attacking, begining at the weaknesses in an opponent's defenses (as you have said), but the same principle also states that two forces of equal "power" will be mutually destructive and futile in attempt. However, if one side is say more accustom to physical punishment then there is a chance that the stronger individual will survive, though not go uninjured. This same philosophical principle is called Ai Uchi (Mutual Kill/Strike) in aikido, kendo and kenjitsu.

Now if you have something of value to add, besides the political knit-picking and pointless sarcasim, please do.

 

[Kreth]

I am neither an Bujinkan, Genjinkan or Toshindo member, though I have a few friends who are and have trained with members of both Rick Tew and Robert Bussey's groups. Those same elemental concepts are common in other arts as well such as traditional judo's Itsutsu-no-kata, Shorin Ryu Kenpo and kenpo-jujitsu systems. Thats not even counting the chinese schools and styles that apply this principle.

Your phrasing comes straight from one of Hayes' books, Ninjutsu: The Art of the Invisible Warrior, I believe.

Now if you have something of value to add, besides the political knit-picking and pointless sarcasim, please do.

If you have something to add, besides paraphrased quotes from books and other websites, please do so. Otherwise, you insult those that actually speak from experience, and not simply parrot quotes from others' books.

 

[Dark]

Your phrasing comes straight from one of Hayes' books, Ninjutsu: The Art of the Invisible Warrior, I believe.

You are either mistaken or perhaps the concept sounds similar. I don't own any of hayes' books so I'll have to check the local book store and get back to you on that...

If you have something to add, besides paraphrased quotes from books and other websites, please do so. Otherwise, you insult those that actually speak from experience, and not simply parrot quotes from others' books.

Which sites are paraphrasing? Which books? Look just because you obviously can not project a line of logic thought into the subject matter at hand does not give you the right to make accusations and insults. I take your comments as evidence toward your lack of a better conclusion then to argue.

 

[Bigshadow]

I take your comments as evidence toward your lack of a better conclusion then to argue.

Don't be so hasty to pass judgement, I am sure one could easily take your argumentativeness as evidence of your lack of understanding.

 

[Dark]

Don't be so hasty to pass judgement, I am sure one could easily take your argumentativeness as evidence of your lack of understanding.

Then why do you not elaberate on the questions posessed to you? I understand there are different method of approach and I have clearly stated my own views on the matter. All I have asked as a more indepth understanding of your own. Something which has benn given as excuses to the same principles addressed by others as well.

So then are we to discuss the underlining principle and the near limitless interetations are we to make adolesent claims to who own the knowledge and concepts we were in thought discussing?

 

[Kreth]

Which sites are paraphrasing? Which books? Look just because you obviously can not project a line of logic thought into the subject matter at hand does not give you the right to make accusations and insults. I take your comments as evidence toward your lack of a better conclusion then to argue.

Do we really want to play this game? You seem to enjoy pontificating, and I'm sure it would spoil the atmosphere for people if someone pointed out that you're a 20-something self-styled ninjitsu [sic] master and Ashida Kim cronie, who has reinvented himself as a Bad-*** Streetfighter™, and who's been caught lying in the past about his training and military background.
But that's just my opinion...

 

[BlackCatBonz]

forcing a technique IS wasted energy.

if you want to learn how to take a hit, have someone hit you. Is it unpleasant?
hell yeah........but you eventually get to a point that a punch on the beak won't even make your eyes water.

 

[stabpunch]

sorry i thought he asked about striking not grappling?

 

[MJS]

Hmmm... I am not sure exactly how to reply to this, but to say, large amounts of contact sparring is NOT the only way to learn to take the hit. Randori in Ninjutsu can certainly yield some interesting and bell ringing contact if someone is caught unaware. I have had my share of "contact". I have taken an elbow, knee, or fist in the grill on a number of occasions.

Agreed! I've been in a number of technique lines, and I can certainly attest to the fact that there was quite a bit of contact.

Mike

 

[tempus]

In Nihon Goshin Aikido we do add some strikes and kicks to enhance the technique or if the tehcnique goes wrong. With that said of have caught quite a few strikes when either I messed up my blend or the person I was attacking pulled their punch to late.