PDA

View Full Version : Why would you train in only ONE Art?



MiguelPinzon
18th November 2005, 03:57
Hola,

I have a question. I have often wondered why people would train in only one martial art their whole lives. There are so many Arts and avenues to choose. What is it that makes that rare individual study, analyze, and dissect One art form their whole lives.

Where does this detication come from?

thank you

Miguel Pinzon

GTO
18th November 2005, 04:39
The only reason I'd only train in one system is availability, which is not a problem in the modern world. I can see why one would dedicate oneself primarily to one system, the benefits of crosstraining are too many to be ignored.

niten ninja
18th November 2005, 10:55
Depends why you do martial arts.

X_plosion
18th November 2005, 16:02
If you're talking about training under an instructor, then economics often plays a role in how many a martial artist can train under. Many times, there's just a limited amount of money available to pay for lessons.

Blackwood
18th November 2005, 16:06
The dedication comes from a desire to be a good martial artist. One can flit from style to style and school to school all of one's life and never acheive mastery of an art. I'm not looking for a fast set of martial skills. I'm not on an ego trip to see how many blackbelts I can collect.

I currently train in one art. I expect to train in that art for the rest of my life. I can see where some individuals have gotten to dedicating their lives to this art and it is where I want to go. There are depths to the art that I can't learn in a few years or even a decade. It will take me the rest of my life to get half as good as some of the people I train with. Why would I search for a new style?

That is not to say that I will not train in another art. I attend seminars and work out with some other styles. I do expect to take some more formal classes in other styles, but I will continue to train and teach in the primary one.

Andrew S
18th November 2005, 22:44
Why would one train in only one martial art?

Because the wife would kill me for doing any more!!

twayman
18th November 2005, 23:06
The dedication comes from a desire to be a good martial artist. One can flit from style to style and school to school all of one's life and never acheive mastery of an art. I'm not looking for a fast set of martial skills. I'm not on an ego trip to see how many blackbelts I can collect.

I currently train in one art. I expect to train in that art for the rest of my life. I can see where some individuals have gotten to dedicating their lives to this art and it is where I want to go. There are depths to the art that I can't learn in a few years or even a decade. It will take me the rest of my life to get half as good as some of the people I train with. Why would I search for a new style?

That is not to say that I will not train in another art. I attend seminars and work out with some other styles. I do expect to take some more formal classes in other styles, but I will continue to train and teach in the primary one.

Good post Mark, I fully agree here... I have seen a few individuals get the all mighty "black belt" and think they know it all and move on to train in another art. Not realizing they are just starting to understand their former art.

Five or Six black belts latter they only have a surface knowledge of many arts and try to claim mastery due to number of belts on their rack. Most do not know beyond the basics of bunkai and start to teach... Now they only pass on surface technique and bastardize the arts. … the next students know less and then you hear statements: blah blah blah don’t work… kata does not work and should not be studied…. Ect… Then they make up their own art and wind up in the bad budo section.

Not true to all but that’s my rant! :)


Why would one train in only one martial art?

Because the wife would kill me for doing any more!!

Or what Andrew posted.

Light Samurai
18th November 2005, 23:34
Well, for me, I'd train in only one art to learn what I should learn from it.

For me, it's finding a balanced art - Aikido is good for unarmed. What about weapons?

Don't get me wrong, Aikido does inddeed use Bokken, Tanto and Jo. But what about the Yari, and the Naginata?

For me, studying Aikido, and a Koryu is a good deal. If you have a Koryu, you might only need one art.

Peace.

Trevor Johnson
19th November 2005, 00:12
For me, it's primary vs secondary. I pick a primary that suits me, karate, in this case, and once I figure I'm good enough at it, I can add secondary forms that increase my breadth.

Multiple arts give you breadth, but depth is difficult to achieve that way. Staying in one art is necessary to give you the depth of knowledge and experience to integrate the fragments you may have from other styles.

BTW, if you're looking for something that's not a McDojo, and you train karate, the search is harder than you think...

MiguelPinzon
19th November 2005, 05:03
Great posts.....

I was just curious as to what makes a person stay with one art for say 30 years? Aren't they curious about other systems and what they can learn.

I mean what causes a person to preform the same Katas for years and years on end or go thru the same self defense techniques and drills over and over for such a long period of time.

Is the person who only studies and Art for 4 or 5 years before moving on simply impatient?
Is 25 years of training really 25 years of learning or just 5 years of learning repeated 5 times?

Thanks

Miguel Pinzon

John Lovato
19th November 2005, 16:52
Miguel,
The longer you train in an art the greater your depth of understanding. My understanding, what I thought I knew about it, has changed from two years, to five years, to ten years. As I evolve and change so does my technique. The problem with studying more than one art at a time is that often the basic skills, and principals of of one art contradict that of another. A student can really slow down his progress if in the begining he is trying to learn two different ways of moving at the same time.
Now, just because I have devoted myself to one art it does not mean I don't at times like to see what’s out there. I think it is a martial artist’s responsibility to see what other styles are doing and how they fight. But I do think it should be done only after you have a fair amount of time on the mat with your core art.
It’s easy to be led astray hopping between arts. The question is does one want to be a martial artist or a collector of techniques?

Trevor Johnson
19th November 2005, 17:30
Great posts.....

I was just curious as to what makes a person stay with one art for say 30 years? Aren't they curious about other systems and what they can learn.

I mean what causes a person to preform the same Katas for years and years on end or go thru the same self defense techniques and drills over and over for such a long period of time.

Is the person who only studies and Art for 4 or 5 years before moving on simply impatient?
Is 25 years of training really 25 years of learning or just 5 years of learning repeated 5 times?

Thanks

Miguel Pinzon

It depends on whom you train with. Someone who has real depth in the art that they teach will be able to teach that much material. Someone who doesn't know it deeply, well, they won't.

Blackwood
19th November 2005, 17:44
I think the answer is to look at the grandmasters that you have known. I mean true grandmasters. The guys that have trained for 30, 40 and 50 years, not some 25 year old eighth degree. When you meet a 73 year old man that can wipe the floor with you, you know why you study that art. I know that there are many that have not had that privilege. And some new art with the 'best of all the rest' isn't going to have one. You won't be able to truly see what that is like.

25 years in the same art is 25 years of learning, not doing the same 5 years over again 5 times. If it is, you are not emptying your cup.

MiguelPinzon
19th November 2005, 17:54
John Lovato,
You make a great point...but what about all those MMA guys that train a variety of disciplines at the same time? A boxer moves differently than a wrestler right? Yet they train a variety of "opposing" disciplines at the same time. Boxing, Wrestling, BJJ, Muay Thai.........

Blackwwod,

Good point about the emptying the cup. Thank you.

For me, I have found that after a few years in one style, I get bored. And want to learn something new, different, exciting......is that wrong? It it just immaturity on my part?

Thanks,

Miguel Pinzon

gendzwil
19th November 2005, 18:35
For me, I have found that after a few years in one style, I get bored. And want to learn something new, different, exciting......is that wrong? It it just immaturity on my part?
Depends on your personality and what you're looking for. If all you want to do is learn the mechanics of techniques, sure, move on. If you want to learn how to fight, stick with it. I can tell you that you're only gaining a surface knowledge after a few years. Regardless of belt colour, the label for such a person is "beginner".

jailess
20th November 2005, 00:01
You don't need to be immature; maybe you've just not found the martial art for you yet. Maybe when you find one that suits your body shape, personality and mindset to violence, you'll stick with it.

I don't know anything about training in MMA, or boxing or wrestling, but there don't seem to be a lot of 70-year-olds in any of those arts who could wipe the floor with someone in their 20's. In those arts where those masters do exist, it seems to suggest to me that there is a depth to them that goes a little deeper than pure strength and good technique. That's what I aspire towards. So that's why I do Shorinji Kempo.

If you want to learn to fight fast, and compete, then MMA's for you. But in-depth study of one/two arts for large periods of your life will, I think, benefit your mind much more than ten or so years collecting belts.

John Lovato
20th November 2005, 02:54
Miguel,
I guess it all boils down to what you decide you want to be, A martial artist or a fighter. Of course the two are not mutually exclusive, but I think there is a difference in mindset. A fighter tends to be concerned with only what works best to defeat the opponent, so he can pick and choose from different arts. Yes, there are allot of people learning multiple arts at the same time and they learn some good technique, but I still contend that they will never learn it in depth by dabbling. I know allot of guys who think if the get something to work, then that’s good enough.
A martial artist tends, in addition to being concerned with fighting, to care about the traditions and philosophy of his art. A martial artist who is learning a traditional martial art must adhere to the teachings and not make things up or add things. The art he has learned is not his, he is a caretaker of the art and it is responsablility to pass it on the way he was taught it.
Now that being said, I am not saying one way is better than the other, each person must find the art that is right for themselves. As far as being immature, I'd just say you haven't found an art with enough depth to keep you wanting more. They exist. When I found the right teacher I moved four hundred miles.

MarkF
20th November 2005, 16:36
Hola,

I have a question. I have often wondered why people would train in only one martial art their whole lives. There are so many Arts and avenues to choose. What is it that makes that rare individual study, analyze, and dissect One art form their whole lives.

Where does this detication come from?

thank you

Miguel Pinzon


I don't know, really. I used to think a year was a long time, but then I was ten years old. At twelve, I started training, and aside from very short drifts into other budo, forty-two years later, I am still unsure, but much of the reason comes from Jigoro Kano. At a demonstration during his visit to London and the Budokwai, Kano was speaking on the Ju no kata. He said, to paraphrase: "There are three parts to the Ju no Kata, and I have been doing it for forty years. I think I can do two of them now."

I don't know, but if forty years were not enough for him, then surely it isn't for me, either. After forty-two years, I still cannot do that kata perfectly, but I will be sure to let you know when I do.;)


Sometimes, a person just wants to get it right before moving on, though I know not a one who had when s/he moved on to something else.



Mark

MiguelPinzon
20th November 2005, 18:52
But what does depth in the Art really mean?
Just discovering another application to a move in Kata? I mean let's say that you are a Karateka, 20 years of studying striking doesn't make you competent on the ground. Or if you do Judo for 20 years, that doesn't make you comfortable against someone who is boxing you......

Do long periods of time just teach you more about how to fight someone that studies the same system as you?

For me, I want to be well rounded. I know that no one style has it all so I think ( currently anyways ) that I need to study enough Arts so that I have all the ranges of combat covered.....

Thoughts?

Miguel Pinzon

Green_Dreads
20th November 2005, 23:48
Actually, I can think of many reasons a person would train in a single martial art for their lives, all of which have already been said. It takes a lifetime to learn a style of budo, it costs a lot to train in many styles, and location is a key factor.

I train with the University of Luton kickboxing club, and train twice a week with the Kamo Aikido Club of Dinton, who have a foot in with the Aikikai (mostly Norse/Swedish brance, who provide us with regular visits from higher grades) and the Kai Shin Kai within the UK. I also take weekend courses from time to time with this club.

I don't know if I'll continue kickboxing (certainly competing) beyond university, but I will continue to train in Aikido for as long as I can. In nearly two years, I have learned most all the techniques the sensei has to show. Now, I have a lifetime to make them perfect.

powerof0ne
20th November 2005, 23:48
I myself have trained in a "few" arts but this usually had to do with the school I was at closing, the instructor(s) lying in one way or another, and availablity.
I can agree with crosstraining to a certain degree if one art has strengths where the other one has weaknesses but moving onto another art after obtaining a shodan and quitting that art is ridiculous to me. I've never understood why people quit soon after obtaining their shodan.

Axis of Weasel
21st November 2005, 04:15
you mean at the same time?

unless you're experienced with one, you'd just get the two styles confused during pactice wouldnt you?

MiguelPinzon
21st November 2005, 04:18
Well to answer that question, I'll share a little experience that swayed me.

I was a Karate man and had been studying for 5 years. A shodan with pretty good fighting applications....so I thought.
I had some friends that practiced MMA and BJJ. They asked me if I wanted to crosstrain and exchange techniques. So I said sure......

I went to their gym and we trained for about an hour....me showing them reverse punches. side kicks, and knees. They taught me the takedown, guard and armbar.

Well the time came and they asked me if I wanted to spar. These guys were my friends so I said sure.....not really sure what to expect but certain that my skills could adapt and handle whatever happened.

I paired up with a guy that I outweighted by 30 pounds.....no problem I thought. I figured that I would flash out a side kick then backfist reverse punch combo then back out.
Well.............

I did manage to get the sidekick almost extended...at least half way. He shot in, jammed my kicking leg and double legged me lifting me off the ground turning me in the air and dropping me on my elbow cracking 2 of my ribs.

I was done....just like that. All of 8 seconds.....that was all that it took to nullify 5 years of 4 to 5 days a week of training.

About a month and a half later after my ribs had healed I went back and tried again....they were easier on me this time. they didn't break anything but they dominated me on every level...taking me down at will and jamming/neutralizing all of my attacks.
That was it for me.
I quit Karate the next week and joined their gym......been there ever since.

I miss and love the tradition and heritage of Karate....the forms, discipline, and moral and ethical lessons that were taught.......where I am now is just like.....streetfight...all that matters is get the win. there is NO goal beyond that. It just seems so pointless sometimes.

But I can't ignore what happened to me and I feel like if I go back to my Karate, I am just accepting the fact that being one dimensional is OK. Everyone will laugh and think that I am not tough enough for the MMA/BJJ training. They will say that I am training a techniqually weaker style. And in my experience....they will be right.

This is what led me to ask why anyone would only study one style when it leaves you weak in other areas and that can be exploited....it was for me.

How can someone put blinders on and stay with one Art when they know that it isn't the whole package?


Totally confused,

Miguel Pinzon

GTO
21st November 2005, 06:39
Let's clear one thing up first...


Everyone will laugh and think that I am not tough enough for the MMA/BJJ training. They will say that I am training a techniqually weaker style.

If you care one whit about what other folks think, you need to reevaluate why you train. In this MA world, everyone sniggers at someone else. The BJJ guys snigger at the Karate guys for being ineffective fighters. The Karate guys snigger at the BJJ guys for being unrefined barbarians with no sense of propriety and tradition. The Koryu guys snigger at the Bujinkan for being unable to prove their lineage. The Aikido guys snigger at the Daito-ryu guys for practicing a system that did not have the benefit of O-sensei's divine refinement or whatnot. I'm sure you get the picture. If you're worried about someone laughing at you, you'll be in a perpetual state of anxiety...


How can someone put blinders on and stay with one Art when they know that it isn't the whole package?

I'll both agree and disagree with you.

I agree with you in the sense that ignoring the capacities of other systems is a dangerous move to make, presuming you have an interest in combat effectiveness. If you know Karate is weak in ground techniques, it's inadvisible to invite a BJJ guy to take you down (unless you feel like losing). A complete fighter (as distinct from a martial artist) can fight at all ranges, in all situations.

However, nothing bad (and a lot of good) comes from picking one system and sticking with it til the end, learning all its nuance, tradition, and approaches. Otherwise, you're a "collector," picking up something that you perceive as useful, adding that system as a notch on your belt, and then moving on. The reason martial art is codified is because it represents a flow of combative mindset from the initial "baby-steps" of the elementary movements all the way through the complex and deceptive techniques of an advanced practitioner.

My approach is to take all things from all systems, but don't cobble them together into a messy hodgepodge; view the strengths and weaknesses of your own system through the "lens" of others. That will enable you to perfect your own art.

Amir
21st November 2005, 09:47
Why would one train in only one martial art?

Because the wife would kill me for doing any more!!

:beer:

We can open a support group :rolleyes:

Personally I believe the best way is for one to select his main line and try and enrich himself with other arts/styles. The dedication to a main line should enable one to reach higher levels of understanding and getting closer to "master something". The enriching part should make sure one can view everything from multiple points of view, and does not limit himself to a narrow specific path without looking at the view.

Amir

jailess
21st November 2005, 11:34
Miguel,

Interesting story.

It sounds to me like Karate wasn't street effective enough for you, but BJJ's too 1-dimensional: just focused on the win. Have you considered leaving both for another style? What's available in your area?

Bear in mind that in MMA/boxing/Muay Thai you become proficient in a matter of months: it's all about ring fighting, and not about self-defense, though no doubt they are all useful for self-defense.

Martial arts take a long time to master. There's a muay thai club in my Uni and I'm sure after a year of MT you're as good at fighting as 3 years of Shorinji Kempo. But ten years on... I think it'll be a different story.

Why I don't do MMA/MT/Boxing is that the older practitioners of these MA don't seem to evolve in their art: they seem to stay at the same level, or decline slowly from their prime in their mid-twenties. If you find the right MA for you, and train in it for years at a time, you will continue to develop, and be better when you're 50 (barring injury) than you were at 20.

and, with any luck, you won't care what anyone thinks any more.

gendzwil
21st November 2005, 18:19
It really boils down to what each of us want from your martial arts training. Clearly you are concerned mostly with being combat effective in the mixed martial arts ring. Those who stick with one martial art for a long time are more concerned about michi, just traveling the road. Their goal is perfection within that art, and therefore improvement within themselves. From that point of view, getting whupped by a grappler is irrelevant. For that matter, they may as well study cha-do as karate-do, the attitude and goals are much the same. Of course, cha-do bores me to tears: I think if you're going to spend decades doing something, you ought to at least enjoy it.

Matt Wolfson
21st November 2005, 20:34
Hello,
I experienced almost the same thing about 10 years ago. Thought I could handle the ground game and came to have my butt handed to me. Which caused me great confusion and doubting the style I was studying. In hindsight this was a very good thing in that it forced me to recognize and admit the limitations of my style, or at least the way I practiced it. I had the same reaction as you. I started studying MMA as a result but found it lacking in all the things you have mentioned that are usually contained in a traditional system. I could not let go of the effectiveness of it though. So what I did was stay with my "main" system but cross trained in MMA. This over all has worked for me well. In that over the long haul I will stay with my traditional style but do branch off into other areas. I see these as a short term inquiry. And it does streghten my main area of study. It has only benifited me over the long run. and over time I have noticed counters to the ground game or at least gaurding against a take down in some of my kata's that I would never have scene before if I hadnt had the exposure to the ground game. In conclusion I dont think it is bad to take time off to study something else in depth. I have taken several years to study some other martial art. In the short term I guess you could say that I gave up my style. but I always come back to it and think that I always will. Each one of my excursions has given me a new perspective and has influenced how I train and think.
Matt Wolfson

Matt Wolfson
21st November 2005, 20:39
I would also hazzard a guess in that when you are able to effectively counter there game by becoming familiar with it, you will be able to bring to bare the skills you have developed up to this point in karate. I dont think your skills are worthless or ineffective, you just need to find a different way to apply them to the situation. Sorry for the double post.
Matt Wolfson

niten ninja
21st November 2005, 21:51
How do you cross train in MMA? I though MMA ment simply to do more than one style to cover more ground technique wise...

Ubermint
22nd November 2005, 00:00
I don't know anything about training in MMA, or boxing or wrestling,

Why yes, you don't.


but there don't seem to be a lot of 70-year-olds in any of those arts who could wipe the floor with someone in their 20's.

I refute Jailess thus:

From http://info.wsisiz.edu.pl/~sleeva/index.php?option=articles&task=viewarticle&artid=35&Itemid=3:


ATM: Did you ever find what you were looking for?

SENSEI: What brought everything together for me was the Brazilian Jujitsu of the Gracie family. A policeman who was one of my students told me about a new form of Jujitsu that focused on ground grappling, and my ears perked up. When I went to look at the art, Rorion Grace (who later became my teacher) introduced me to his father, Master Helio Gracie, who was then 75 years old. "Mits, this is my dad," Rorion said. "He says that he wants to wrestle you." Knowing that Helio only spoke Portuguese, I said to Rorion, "I'm stronger than he is, and I'm in great shape. Your father looks old to me." To my surprise, Rorion translated what I had said for his father - and then he translated the reply for me: "My dad says that now he really wants to wrestle you - and, if you go easy with him, he's going to hurt you." I thought, "Oh, my goodness!"

When we grappled, it was no contest. I attacked this man, who was 75 years old and weighed about 130 pounds, with everything I had, but there was nothing I could do to him! He would neutralize my attacks without breaking a sweat. He would hold me down, laugh, and talk to his son while I was struggling. If I did manage get out of a hold, he would put me in another. For 30 minutes, I was humiliated.



There's a muay thai club in my Uni and I'm sure after a year of MT you're as good at fighting as 3 years of Shorinji Kempo. But ten years on... I think it'll be a different story.

Wrong. Someone trained functionally gets better and better throughout those ten years. Someone trained nonfunctionally stays nonfunctional. If you wait to put on the gloves and go until you have years of training in dead patterns, it's as if you wasted those years.

MiguelPinzon
22nd November 2005, 01:16
Ubermint,

I recognize your words as the teachings of Matt Thornton & the SBG. His message of Aliveness is right on the money in my book and I have to agree with you about the functionality of things by my own experiences. Alive training is scary as hell sometimes but I will say this........it is real.

I want to thank everyone thus far for all answers that have been posted and I want to say to everyone that i really sincerely appreciate everyone trying to help me find the truth of all of this. Your words have been encouraging and enlightening to me.

So many good and valid points from different perspectives.

Matt Wolfson........we are kindred spirits my friend. You give good advice on this subject from personal experience. It is duely noted.......

It is difficult to devote a large chuck of training time to both TMA & MMA at the same time however............not sure how to balance that out........

I am still amazed how people that know they have a weakness in one area of fighting can simply ignore it and simply say that they choose to work on their Art. I mean if you are ever attacked and that weakness is exploited then you will be hurt badly or worse.....you certainly can't practice Art if you are dead.

For me, originally being a Karate-Ka, it would be terrifying to know that if I got into a fight of some kind and got put on the ground, I would have no clue nor hope of defending myself. It would be especially bad if I knew that I had this weakness and chose not to fix it. Then when the time arrived that I needed this knowlege my own shortsightedness caused me to think it unnecessary.....

That would be a nightmare.

Miguel Pinzon

GTO
22nd November 2005, 01:50
Wrong. Someone trained functionally gets better and better throughout those ten years. Someone trained nonfunctionally stays nonfunctional.

True. However, I sense an implication that MMA is "functional" and everything else is "not," which would, of course, be hogwash.

Further, if the functional training relies on things such as gross muscle mass, flexibility, etc., then these skills, no matter how well trained, will diminish with age. On the other hand, training based on deflection and redirection of force, leverage, etc., can continue to be honed well into one's dotage.

It is undeniable that some functional skills take longer to develop, but end up being more advantageous in the end. For example, judo throws are functional, but they take longer to be able to use in a fight than, say, a straight jab. However, with a judo throw you can moderate and control your level of force, set the opponent up for groundwork, strongly affect a much larger opponent, etc. Hence, the investment is greater, but so are the dividends.

Take hsing-i, for instance. Three months of hsing-i vs. three months of Thai boxing, and I'd probably put my money on the Thai boxer. However, thirty years of Thai boxing vs. thirty years of hsing-i... I'd probably bet with the hsing-i player.


If you wait to put on the gloves and go until you have years of training in dead patterns, it's as if you wasted those years.

This sounds like an attempt to diss kata training. That being the case, how come JMA and CMA rely so heavily thereupon, and have such an excellent historical reputation?

nate landry
22nd November 2005, 02:27
ideally i'd mainly train in one art for many years. i'd rather have a good handle on 1 or 2 arts and become very skilled at it than spread my trainin time here and there. unfortunatly i don't know what that art is and trying different things seems to be the only way to find out.

seems to me its like dating. some marry their first love, others date a number of people in hopes of finding the one. then uhhh some balance their time between a number of people? maybe a bad analogy but makes sense to me.

John Lovato
22nd November 2005, 02:30
I have allot of respect for BJJ and what they can accomplish, but I would hardly call it 'street fighting'. In a fight the last place you want to be is on the ground. To me the biggest flaws i see in going to the ground are if one has a knife or a couple of friends. I'm sorry but those two senarios invalidate the ground game. I have worked out with some very good ground guys, but only to see what they are trying to do. If i get taken to the ground I never try to fight there I imeadiatly work to get back to my feet. My Sensei allways used to say 'never box a boxer, never wrestle a wrestler'. The idea is to make your art work for you. If someone trains in a ground art constantly what chance do I have to beat him at his own game unless I train just as much?

Ubermint
22nd November 2005, 03:14
Ubermint,

I recognize your words as the teachings of Matt Thornton & the SBG. His message of Aliveness is right on the money in my book and I have to agree with you about the functionality of things by my own experiences. Alive training is scary as hell sometimes but I will say this........it is real.


Thornton deserves credit for articulating a lot of the things us MMA troglodytes couldn't quite seem to put into words.

Ubermint
22nd November 2005, 03:24
True. However, I sense an implication that MMA is "functional" and everything else is "not," which would, of course, be hogwash.

I'm not getting into that debate right now. Suffice to say, if your training is not "alive", it's not functional.



Further, if the functional training relies on things such as gross muscle mass, flexibility, etc., then these skills, no matter how well trained, will diminish with age. On the other hand, training based on deflection and redirection of force, leverage, etc., can continue to be honed well into one's dotage.

There isn't a technique in the world that doesn't use muscle to some extent or another. The art lies in using that muscle most efficiently.



It is undeniable that some functional skills take longer to develop, but end up being more advantageous in the end. For example, judo throws are functional, but they take longer to be able to use in a fight than, say, a straight jab. However, with a judo throw you can moderate and control your level of force, set the opponent up for groundwork, strongly affect a much larger opponent, etc. Hence, the investment is greater, but so are the dividends.

I would disagree with that. Simply reaps and takedowns can and are taught and sparred with from the first day at my school.



Take hsing-i, for instance. Three months of hsing-i vs. three months of Thai boxing, and I'd probably put my money on the Thai boxer. However, thirty years of Thai boxing vs. thirty years of hsing-i... I'd probably bet with the hsing-i player.

That's exactly what i'm disagreeing with. The majority of CMA schools simply don't teach in the same functional manner as a Muay Thai gym.
Thus, in all probability, the Thai boxer will have thirty years of functional experience behind him, while the CMA man will probably have thirty years of visualizing his roots, sticky hands, horse stance training, etc.
Maybe he will have found one of those schools where they put on the gloves and compete in san shou. But if not, he will have spent thirty years preparing to get knocked out.
In fact, let's take an example of this phenomenom. Royce Gracie in ufc 3 faces off against Ron Van Clief, grandmaster of Goju Ryu. Both have been studying most of their lives.
Royce by RNC within the first three minutes.



This sounds like an attempt to diss kata training. That being the case, how come JMA and CMA rely so heavily thereupon, and have such an excellent historical reputation?

I'm not even getting into this debate right now. Do kata if you want, it's just not a substitute for sparring.

Ubermint
22nd November 2005, 04:24
I have allot of respect for BJJ and what they can accomplish, but I would hardly call it 'street fighting'.

http://www.!!!!!!ido.net/modules.php?name=FAQ&myfaq=yes&id_cat=6

Read the FAQ first.

GTO
22nd November 2005, 06:17
Suffice to say, if your training is not "alive", it's not functional.

I think we can agree on that, but we would probably differ on what constitutes "alive." I would include koryu kata in that definition; you probably wouldn't.


There isn't a technique in the world that doesn't use muscle to some extent or another. The art lies in using that muscle most efficiently.

True. However, some systems use muscle to a greater extent than others. For example, you don't see a whole lot of 90-year-old boxers that can knock their opponent out in one punch. On the other hand, there are quite a few 90-year-old aikido masters who can throw the average young upstart halfway across the dojo with seemingly little effort.


I would disagree with that. Simply reaps and takedowns can and are taught and sparred with from the first day at my school.

By throws I was thinking more along the lines of seoi-nage, kata guruma, etc.


That's exactly what i'm disagreeing with. The majority of CMA schools simply don't teach in the same functional manner as a Muay Thai gym.

I'll concede this. Most CMA folks don't teach realistic combat applications.


Thus, in all probability, the Thai boxer will have thirty years of functional experience behind him, while the CMA man will probably have thirty years of visualizing his roots, sticky hands, horse stance training, etc.

As well as, under your definition, "functional experience," if he's studying under a traditional teacher who teaches hsing-i as a fighting art rather than a meditative exercise.


Maybe he will have found one of those schools where they put on the gloves and compete in san shou. But if not, he will have spent thirty years preparing to get knocked out.

That being the case, what are your thoughts on aikido/judo randori, koryu shiai, etc.?


In fact, let's take an example of this phenomenom. Royce Gracie in ufc 3 faces off against Ron Van Clief, grandmaster of Goju Ryu. Both have been studying most of their lives.
Royce by RNC within the first three minutes.

There are a million possible counter-arguments to make to this, such as the UFC not being an accurate simulation of real-world combat, the fact that Mr. van Clief is 23 years older than Mr. Gracie, karate-do being often less combat effective than certain other modern systems, etc. Suffice to say, your argument is not persuasive.

John Lovato
22nd November 2005, 06:56
Mr. Ubermint,

Please post a link that works, so I can be enlightened.

Ubermint
22nd November 2005, 07:48
Which work?

Ubermint
22nd November 2005, 07:59
I think we can agree on that, but we would probably differ on what constitutes "alive." I would include koryu kata in that definition; you probably wouldn't.

Let's forget the term kata for the moment. What are you DOING in training?



True. However, some systems use muscle to a greater extent than others. For example, you don't see a whole lot of 90-year-old boxers that can knock their opponent out in one punch. On the other hand, there are quite a few 90-year-old aikido masters who can throw the average young upstart halfway across the dojo with seemingly little effort.

Who? When? Where? And most importantly, if they can do this, why are they not entering, say, judo comps? That's supposed to be the goal of a judo comp after all.

Frankly, I disbelieve you.



By throws I was thinking more along the lines of seoi-nage, kata guruma, etc.

That's also a bad example. Kata Gurama (or "fireman's carry" for us barbaric roundeyes) can and is trained in the exact same way. It's not the most basic takedown, but it's pretty common, and I don't see why a first week begginer shouldn't be able to apply it immediately against resistance.



I'll concede this. Most CMA folks don't teach realistic combat applications.


Wether they do or don't (showing forms as a dance or showing forms with amazing visualization of etheric vagabonds being easily bested) is irrelevant.

I'm not sure how much more clearly I can put this.

I.
Don't.
Care.
Wether.
You.
Visualize.

It doesn't matter, because visualizing something is just a word, an image, and not the actual reality of the thing itself.
It's really pretty simple. Do these guys put on the gloves and go?



As well as, under your definition, "functional experience," if he's studying under a traditional teacher who teaches hsing-i as a fighting art rather than a meditative exercise.

As above.



That being the case, what are your thoughts on aikido/judo randori, koryu shiai, etc.?

All except aikido randori are great ways to train. Some Aikido people have this weird definition of "randori" to mean "standing in the middle of a circle while my underweight students attempt to hit me with their most kiaitastic knifehands" rather than the more common, and less retarded definition of "two people trying to throw each other".



There are a million possible counter-arguments to make to this, such as the UFC not being an accurate simulation of real-world combat, the fact that Mr. van Clief is 23 years older than Mr. Gracie, karate-do being often less combat effective than certain other modern systems, etc. Suffice to say, your argument is not persuasive.

Whatever. When you're done trying to find that wise old master who will teach you to beat up those mean jocks in front of your girlfriend, give me a call.

For maximum effect, visualize that last statement with me in a dimly lit office, wearing a fedora and grey trenchcoat, smoking a stogy with a small but serviceable revolver concealed underneath.

GTO
22nd November 2005, 10:07
Let's forget the term kata for the moment. What are you DOING in training?

Presently? In crudest terms, grabbing a roughly three-foot stick and, following a set pattern of movements, attempting to hit another stick-wielding person on the head or the wrists. :P

That's basically it. You're taught how to stand, how to move, and from there it's all refining the distance, timing, and method of your swings, steps, etc.


Who? When? Where?

Mitsugi Saotome in D.C., Kazuo Chiba in San Diego, Shizuo Imaizumi in NYC... first three off the top of my head.


And most importantly, if they can do this, why are they not entering, say, judo comps? That's supposed to be the goal of a judo comp after all.

What do they have to gain by competing? They don't practice to win tournaments. And yes, I know that sounds trite to most MMA types, but honestly, what does a tournament gain you except an ego massage if you win and self-doubt if you lose?

This is not to be construed as criticism of crosstraining. However, crosstraining is done in a spirit of learning as opposed to getting a trophy; it's an important difference.


That's also a bad example. Kata Gurama (or "fireman's carry" for us barbaric roundeyes) can and is trained in the exact same way. It's not the most basic takedown, but it's pretty common, and I don't see why a first week begginer shouldn't be able to apply it immediately against resistance.

If all these judo throws are so elementary, one wonders why folks devote themselves to judo for decades in an attempt to acheive "mastery" of said techniques... sure, in a week of hard training you can learn to drop a guy on his head, but there's so much more to it than that.


It's really pretty simple. Do these guys put on the gloves and go?

If by that you ask whether they do full-contact sparring, that will vary by the hsing-i school. Such is rather rare in koryu, however. As I asked previously, how do you believe koryu jujutsu folks achieve skill in combat through their kata training?


Some Aikido people have this weird definition of "randori" to mean "standing in the middle of a circle while my underweight students attempt to hit me with their most kiaitastic knifehands"

Either you've watched shoddy aikido randori or you haven't watched enough.


Whatever. When you're done trying to find that wise old master who will teach you to beat up those mean jocks in front of your girlfriend, give me a call.

I've found him. I wouldn't wait with bated breath by that phone if I were you... though if you ever find yourself in my neighborhood, I'd be more than happy to oil my rusty groundwork.


For maximum effect, visualize that last statement with me in a dimly lit office, wearing a fedora and grey trenchcoat, smoking a stogy with a small but serviceable revolver concealed underneath.

Ah, the soul of a poet! Pity you're not a classicist. ;)

jailess
22nd November 2005, 11:35
This is all solid gold, guys, but I wonder if I could ask a few questions. Can either of you two give me definitions of:

"Alive"
"Functional"
"Non-functional"


That's supposed to be the goal of a judo comp after all.
Exactly. These guys are Aikidoka, and with a few exceptions Aikidoka are non-competitive. They don't want to win any competitions. Why would they?

I also have to agree with GTO's statement that UFC isn't a streetfight. and in a srteetfight it is likely that you are not facing a lone ranger: chances are they'll be out with friends, who may join in to 'defend' their friend. I read Bull shido.com's FAQ, and I understand why it says "If you're facing multiple opponents the best defence is to have a weapon", but I'm not willing to carry a weapon. In that case (one person against several opponents, no weapons) I would consider the best thing to be staying up rather than being kicked on the ground.

Andrew S
22nd November 2005, 11:45
Is it just me, or did Ubermint post 6 messages without signing his name?

Jock Armstrong
22nd November 2005, 12:36
Yep- smart boy the old ubermint- can't even append his name to his posts. Another " kata is krap" exponent. I'm also trying to get someone to explain "alive" training to me. Does he perhaps mean relevant to your goal? Perhaps all that training I did [including kata] which saved my butt all those years working in clubs and pubs wasn't really worth anything after all...... :rolleyes:

Matt Wolfson
22nd November 2005, 13:36
How do you cross train in MMA? I though MMA ment simply to do more than one style to cover more ground technique wise...

There are several ranges or modes of fighting.
Long distance=boxing/kickboxing/ alot of traditional karate styles.
Midrange = knees/elbows/headbutts/clinch (Mauy thai? or that an oversimplification?)
ground/throwing = judo/wrestling

I am over simplifying but it is to make a point.

Most arts focus on one aspect. Judo is throwing/ground work and no striking. Boxing/Kickboxing only long range techs, no throws/ ground work and no midrange techniques. Mauy Thai does include midrange techinques (Knees, elbows and clinchs) which as an aside is probably why it is considered so effective. To me MMA would be actively trying to do all three ranges at the same time. An example would be combining the throws ground work from judo/wrestling while allowing punching and kneeing etc. during sparring. Practicing each range on there own is one thing but when they are combined it is a different experience as Mr. Pinzon, myself and a lot of other people will attest to.
Matt Wolfson

Dark Kendoka
22nd November 2005, 13:41
The only sort of "alive" training that I know of is according to the video that was circulating the internet a while ago saying that alive training is fighting against a moving opponent as opposed to getting them into position.

I think that everyone here has already said why one would train in one art as opposed to many. But just like you don't understand why we would train in one art for 50 years, some of us don't understand why you would train in multiple arts for a short period of time.

Right now, I am taking Kendo (if my name hasn't been any indication) and I have always wanted to try Iaido. But right now, money, time and future in the art is not looking so hot right now. I go to Purdue University right now. I could make the hour drive to Indianapolis to take Iaido there, but with my classes, job and Kendo, it makes it hard to do that. I also plan on studying for my masters at Georgia Tech upon graduation (and maybe getting into the work force) and Georgia doesn't have any Iaido dojos that I know of save for an Aikido dojo somewhere that teaches it ONLY if you are an Aikidoka there and I am not too sure of their accreditation (if anyone knows of this, then let me know). Before you say that I am too lazy to go, I am planning on visiting the Iaido dojo sometime when freetime opens up to look at a class and see what it's really like.

As to why I would train in one (or two) arts as opposed to getting a shodan and moving on is because while it would be nice be able to fight, I don't have plans on attempting to get myself into that sort of situation. If it happens, then I will deal with it when the time comes. But my pride doesn't lie in knowing that I can beat the crap out of somebody. My pride lies in knowing that I can stick with one art and know the insides and out of it and continualy imporve. Besides, with Kendo, you can constantly improve up through your 70s since Kendo doesn't rely on physical strength to score. Once I walked into that Kendo dojo that fateful day in September 2003, I knew that the art was for me since I'm not a "combat" person.

Okay, I think that I have rambled enough. Now it is time for me to get off my lazy bum and get dressed so I can go to breakfast.

hectokan
22nd November 2005, 13:44
http://www.straightblastgym.com/street.htm

http://www.straightblastgym.com/aliveness101.html

These two articles might help.

GTO
22nd November 2005, 13:46
jailess, for your edification:

"Alive:" Training with combative mindset and intent, personalizing, innovating, and learning, rather than copying. Finding what works, why it works, and how it can make you a better martial artist.

Functional: In the sense of training, any training that will help keep you alive or give you victory in life-or-death combat, and does not tout self-detrimental/dangerous/inadvisable tactics, approaches, or stratagems as legitimate survival methods. In terms of fighting technique, one that is able to perform in all ranges of combat against all ranges of opponents using biomechanical efficiency to overcome the limitations of size and age.

Non-Functional: Whatever does not apply to the above definition.

I just banged these definitions out in five minutes, so they are subject to change if found to be inconsistent. At the present time, however, I think it's a pretty good reflection of what I mean when I use the above terms.

EDIT: Good article on aliveness, though I feel the author misunderstands the true hidden strengths of kata through ignorance. Kata is not just a technique you can apply in combat; it's mentally and physically conforming your body to a set of principles and approaches and making you see the world in a different way. The greatest martial artists of past ages all have one thing in common: They saw the world in ways incomprehensible to the average "fighter." Be it Musashi, O-sensei, Sun Lu Tang, or any other "invincible warrior," they all had achieved a different, higher mental and spiritual understanding of combat. Kata, I feel, aims for and contains particles of that understanding.

John Lovato
22nd November 2005, 15:05
Mr. Ubermint,
I read your FAQ and it did not change my opinion one bit. It seems like just a whole lot of childish justification, this is why my art is better than yours. The fact of the matter is I know a few people who have used their art against multiple opponents(one of them was a karate man) and at no point did they feel the need to roll around on the ground. In fact it would have been fatal. It is interesting how these sport guys think that they are the only ones doing real training. As if getting in a ring with rules is in anyway similar to what happens in real life. I will agree that freestyle does teach you certain aspects of conflict. But not everything.

Miguel,
I read your story. Did you ever think that maybe your martial art didn't fail you, maybe you just failed. Everytime you get beat by a guy doing a differerent martal art are you going to switch to that? Maybe instead when you are beat you need to go back to your training and figure out what went wrong and seek to improve yourself. That is depth.

niten ninja
22nd November 2005, 17:51
"Kata is not just a technique you can apply in combat; it's mentally and physically conforming your body to a set of principles and approaches and making you see the world in a different way."

I've always heard that, after the kata is learned to a certian degree, it is supposed to be expanded upon, so that it becomes essentialy sparring.

MiguelPinzon
22nd November 2005, 21:22
Miguel,
I read your story. Did you ever think that maybe your martial art didn't fail you, maybe you just failed. Everytime you get beat by a guy doing a differerent martal art are you going to switch to that? Maybe instead when you are beat you need to go back to your training and figure out what went wrong and seek to improve yourself. That is depth.

John Lovato,

You may be right about me failing......but I kinda doubt it. My Karate didn't teach me to sprawl, crossface or pull guard.
I think that it was more of a case that I brought a knife to a gun fight. My Art hadn't prepared me for all possible attacks. This is why I said that most Arts teach how to defend against themselves.

I was tactically beaten. Better weapons for that enviroment were used against me and those attacks were not addressed in my Karate. So I went out and upgraded my arsenal..........
I wish that I could say it was different John, but that is what happened and that is the path that I chose to correct my defeciencies.....

Miguel Pinzon

niten ninja
22nd November 2005, 21:38
You have a point about art teaching to defeat themselves.

Richard Elias
22nd November 2005, 21:39
"I've always heard that, after the kata is learned to a certian degree, it is supposed to be expanded upon, so that it becomes essentialy sparring."

Not quite. But types of sparing can be included in kata training at more advanced levels.


http://www.aikidojournal.com/article.php?articleID=222

Ubermint
22nd November 2005, 22:15
Presently? In crudest terms, grabbing a roughly three-foot stick and, following a set pattern of movements, attempting to hit another stick-wielding person on the head or the wrists. :P

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. That's the first step. Now what happens when you remove the cooperation and start trying to hit each other for real? (Hint: www.dogbrothers.com).



That's basically it. You're taught how to stand, how to move, and from there it's all refining the distance, timing, and method of your swings, steps, etc.


Ok. Those are things everyone wants to improve. What I want to ask is when do you stop cooperating with each other?


Mitsugi Saotome in D.C., Kazuo Chiba in San Diego, Shizuo Imaizumi in NYC... first three off the top of my head.


Now who were these brash young men? I don't want anecdotes.



What do they have to gain by competing? They don't practice to win tournaments. And yes, I know that sounds trite to most MMA types, but honestly, what does a tournament gain you except an ego massage if you win and self-doubt if you lose?

A: You have clearly never competed. And frankly, i'm sick of being told that, by putting myself at risk of being thrown and tapped out in front of my friends and instructors, that all i'm doing is ego based.
In fact, sportfighting has to be the most humbling thing i've ever done.

B: They could show the superiority of redirection of force or whathaveyou. They could show exactly what you describe, all these pretty, floating throws, unbendable arms, harmonious ki, and all of that.



This is not to be construed as criticism of crosstraining. However, crosstraining is done in a spirit of learning as opposed to getting a trophy; it's an important difference.

God forbid I should want a trophy.


If all these judo throws are so elementary, one wonders why folks devote themselves to judo for decades in an attempt to acheive "mastery" of said techniques... sure, in a week of hard training you can learn to drop a guy on his head, but there's so much more to it than that.

The "mastery" is about applying it on ever more skilled, aggresive and conditioned partners and opponents.
I know almost all the same techniques that Rickson Gracie knows. What makes him a "master" is that he competes with them at a world class level.



If by that you ask whether they do full-contact sparring, that will vary by the hsing-i school. Such is rather rare in koryu, however. As I asked previously, how do you believe koryu jujutsu folks achieve skill in combat through their kata training?

Let's drop Kata. No more discussion of kata. It's too vague. Write out exactly what exercize you're doing.



Either you've watched shoddy aikido randori or you haven't watched enough.


Do enlighten me then.



I've found him. I wouldn't wait with bated breath by that phone if I were you... though if you ever find yourself in my neighborhood, I'd be more than happy to oil my rusty groundwork.


I'll check you and your master's oil any time (DA DOOM TSCH!).



Ah, the soul of a poet! Pity you're not a classicist. ;)

I am, eternally, too old for this !!!!.

Ubermint
22nd November 2005, 22:17
Mr. Ubermint,
I read your FAQ and it did not change my opinion one bit. It seems like just a whole lot of childish justification, this is why my art is better than yours. The fact of the matter is I know a few people who have used their art against multiple opponents(one of them was a karate man) and at no point did they feel the need to roll around on the ground. In fact it would have been fatal. It is interesting how these sport guys think that they are the only ones doing real training. As if getting in a ring with rules is in anyway similar to what happens in real life. I will agree that freestyle does teach you certain aspects of conflict. But not everything.

So...you dont' have a reply to anything contained inside then?


Miguel,
I read your story. Did you ever think that maybe your martial art didn't fail you, maybe you just failed. Everytime you get beat by a guy doing a differerent martal art are you going to switch to that? Maybe instead when you are beat you need to go back to your training and figure out what went wrong and seek to improve yourself. That is depth.

It's always the victim's fault, huh?

Ubermint
22nd November 2005, 22:42
This is all solid gold, guys, but I wonder if I could ask a few questions. Can either of you two give me definitions of:

"Alive"

Certainly.
Alive training is first and fundamentally about two people trying to achieve a common goal. There is resistance (the other person does not cooperate with you but rather attempts to use his own technique on you), motion and positioning (with real, non-contrived footwork, or in the case of the ground, positioning) and intensity.
A "dead" drill is practicing a defense against wrist grab or "headlock" which ends in a very pretty twirling wrist lock or "redirection". An alive drill is two people trying to get superior grips and clinching positions (neck clinch, underhooks, taking the back) on each other, with no predetermined winner or loser.


"Functional"

What works in an alive setting. What can be seen and measured by anyone.


"Non-functional"

Everything else in martial arts that purports to help you in fighting.


Exactly. These guys are Aikidoka, and with a few exceptions Aikidoka are non-competitive. They don't want to win any competitions. Why would they?

Tomiki.


I also have to agree with GTO's statement that UFC isn't a streetfight. and in a srteetfight it is likely that you are not facing a lone ranger: chances are they'll be out with friends, who may join in to 'defend' their friend. I read Bull shido.com's FAQ, and I understand why it says "If you're facing multiple opponents the best defence is to have a weapon", but I'm not willing to carry a weapon. In that case (one person against several opponents, no weapons) I would consider the best thing to be staying up rather than being kicked on the ground.

Then I guess the only alternative is to accept not only your own vulnerability, but that of your teachers, and, indeed, everyone else.

Andrew S
22nd November 2005, 22:57
I know almost all the same techniques that Rickson Gracie knows. What makes him a "master" is that he competes with them at a world class level.

And, how does he do this? Why can he do it and you can't?

MikeWilliams
22nd November 2005, 23:02
How did the question of what makes one choose a (lifelong) MA turn into the old Aliveness vs. Kata / MMA vs. Trad. debate? Aren't we all a bit tired of this now? Honestly, train however you like, just as long as you enjoy it.

So, to answer the original question: I don't crosstrain much anymore. I don't have the time, and I've picked up too many injuries. Especially my right ACL-less knee which has taken all the fun out of stand-up fighting.

So here I am, a short six years into my MA career, and pretty much a pure BJJ guy. I'll do a bit of other stuff occasionally just to keep my hand in, but I just don't get that many opportunities.

As is often the case, Mark Feigenbaum's post at the beginning of this thread really rang true for me. I train because I just do.

When I first came to BJJ, I thought it would be one-dimensional, and that I'd get bored as soon as I had the basics down. But the longer I train, the more depth and complexity I see.

Do I care that my MMA friends think wearing a gi is for girls, or that my trad. MA friends think I'm some kind of uncouth psychotic thug, or that my non-MA friends suspect me of having homosexual tendencies?

Do I care whether I am learning how to be a death-dealing badass on da streets? Or whether I am the 21st century re-incarnation of Musashi/Bruce Lee/Bhodisattva? Or whether I am edging closer to enlightenment through dilligent practice?

I'll leave you to answer those questions for me.

----
A few thoughts about competition: Far from leading to vulgar, short term gratification as some posters have implied, competition (whether in tournaments or just sparring) provides powerful motivation to keep going. It provides a focus for training, builds bonds between team mates and training partners, and develops technique and focuses the mind like nothing else. It also provides a great way to give something back: when you are not competing yourself, you have the satisfaction of helping your team mates or students prepare, and sharing their joy or frustration.

There is a very good reason why Jigoro Kano insisted shiai be an essential part of training.

kimiwane
22nd November 2005, 23:24
...I guess the only alternative is to accept not only your own vulnerability, but that of your teachers, and, indeed, everyone else.

Yes, Ubermint. The vulnerability of ALL of us.
But don't let your inner conviction that traditional training is no good blind you to the very powerful people it has produced.

To get some better perspectives on you, would you please tell us where you're located?
What school of art are you studying?
Do you have any background in a traditional martial art of any kind?
What is your profession in life--how do you pay your rent and feed yourself?

Most budoka are not professional fighters, never intended to be and never will be. I only knew of one full-time professional martial arts teacher when I was in Japan and he was the head of the organization. But he was also a bone doctor and had really supported his family with the healing business. It was all he could do to keep the dojo going with his martial arts teaching. So MOST martial artists MUST do something other than martial arts for a living.

The others in that dojo?
A city manager.
A railroad worker.
A farmer.
A prison guard.
A laborer.
Teachers.
Doctors.
Company men.
Etc.

While your way of training would not do much to enhance most of these people's livelihoods (injuries, time off work, etc.), budo provided them a way to continue to train and enhance their lives with physical activity and the metaphor of war as a standard for what is important in life.

Myself, I work in cancer research. Do you think I would do the world more service by becoming a ring fighter? And if I'm not going to be a ring fighter, but a husband and father whose main role is taking care of his family, should I train like a ring fighter?

Budo is to strengthen productive people to make them more secure and more productive and enable them to lead others to beneficial lives through the principles of budo.

And here's the 90 year old master you were looking for:

http://www.seifukai.net/honbu1.html



Front row center, Kyoichi Murai, 10th dan aikido.

Jason H.P. Yoo
23rd November 2005, 01:08
I'll bring this back to the original question, but it's pretty much been answered already by the earlier posters.

I'll ask a counter-question, though--who were you asking about? Someone who does what we call martial arts for a living will have different preferences for training than an amateur, who in turn will have different preferences than someone for whom what we call martial arts is of direct but ancillary use.

I will assume that you are talking about a non-professional, ordinary civilian who does martial arts.

A civilian amateur martial artist can only allocate a limited quantity of resources (training time, money, travel time, etc.) to training in whatever it is he/she trains. That quantity may very well be low enough that only the practice of only one art, if even that, is feasible. See Andrew S's response on the first page for a more tongue-in-cheek rendition.

Also, given the time and training required for an amateur possessed of ordinary talent to polish even one level of one martial art, one very well might want to study only one art for quite a while. (I vouch for this personally.)

kimiwane
23rd November 2005, 03:59
I'll ask a counter-question, though--who were you asking about? Someone who does what we call martial arts for a living will have different preferences for training than an amateur, who in turn will have different preferences than someone for whom what we call martial arts is of direct but ancillary use.

If you are talking about my post, I was replying to Ubermint, with whom I have corresponded elsewhere on this subject. The total waste of training in anything but cage combat kinds of endeavors.

I've been through much of the spectrum of martial arts involvement, minus a lot of competition. But I lived in Japan. So I've seen pretty much the range of levels.

I was also fortunate to train in a style crafted by a master of many styles, so I'm foreign to the idea of training in only one art. Sensei's art was an umbrella comprising aikido, judo, karate, kenjutsu, jujutsu and iaijutsu. The problem became how to remain active in all these areas and still get anywhere in life.

Best wishes.

Andrew S
23rd November 2005, 04:18
The problem became how to remain active in all these areas and still get anywhere in life.
Which is not far from my first responce to this thread!!

There is nothing wrong with practicing more than one martial art (I actually train in Aikido and Karate, and hope to sneak some Kendo in through my job), but, as has been mentioned before, you need to ask yourself how much depth you want.

Are 5 shodans worth 1 godan?

Ubermint
23rd November 2005, 05:17
And, how does he do this? Why can he do it and you can't?

Because there aren't words to express how much better his delivery systems are than mine.
Through countless hours on the mat, he's developed much better physical ability than me.
Which is what this is about.

There are only so many ways to lock a limb or choke somebody.

The rest is all mat time.

Ubermint
23rd November 2005, 05:21
Yes, Ubermint. The vulnerability of ALL of us.
But don't let your inner conviction that traditional training is no good blind you to the very powerful people it has produced.

To get some better perspectives on you, would you please tell us where you're located?

Austin, Tejas.


What school of art are you studying?

Take a wild guess.



Do you have any background in a traditional martial art of any kind?

Yes.


What is your profession in life--how do you pay your rent and feed yourself?

Ah clean out public lavot'rys!


And here's the 90 year old master you were looking for:

http://www.seifukai.net/honbu1.html



Front row center, Kyoichi Murai, 10th dan aikido.

And...?

kimiwane
23rd November 2005, 05:45
And...?

Oh...nothing.

Best wishes.

Andrew S
23rd November 2005, 06:47
Through countless hours on the mat, he's developed much better physical ability than me.
Which is what this is about

Which is basically saying it IS worth studying one art?

niten ninja
23rd November 2005, 07:49
When did kata become none resistant?

"Now what happens when you remove the cooperation and start trying to hit each other for real?"

Now you're assuming people don't already. And that they do co-operate.

Ubermint
23rd November 2005, 08:07
I don't know how much clearer to put this.

I don't want to talk about what is or isn't kata. It's too nebulous a term. Let's just drop the term from the discussion.

niten ninja
23rd November 2005, 08:32
Then I don't want to talk about sparring it's too nebulous a term... Let me get this straight, you're on a japanese MA board... so you want to exclude one of the most important components of most JMA?

jailess
23rd November 2005, 12:37
Oh, give the guy a break, he's just stating his opinion! I'm happy to hear it: I've not had much contact with MMA in Glasgow, though there are a few fighters from round here.

Because there aren't words to express how much better his delivery systems are than mine. Through countless hours on the mat, he's developed much better physical ability than me.
Which is what this is about.

There are only so many ways to lock a limb or choke somebody.
Agreed. There are only so many ways to apply a technique, which is why I think at a high enough level the throwin arts - Judo, Jujutsu, Aikido, Shorinji Kempo Juho - look similar if performed by a master. The principles of human body mechanics are the same in anyone, with certain variations. That's what I think you're talking about with Delivery Systems (correct me if I'm wrong). Thanks for the definitions, also.

Despite not working against resistance, I think practicing moves 'passively' can still have benefit, and has less of a risk of injuring your opponent. Perhaps (probably) Alive training would quickly get you ready for combat, but I'm not so concerned with quick combat-effectiveness.

Most especially, I'm going to be a doctor next year, so one of the main reasons I started doing MA was to be able to restrain someone without injuring them (I'd only have to stitch them up later on, more work for me). Shorinji Kempo will, hopefully, allow me to do that.

So Ubermint, do you do MMA competitions a lot? is it big in Texas? How's the fight structured? (rounds/minutes, rules, etc.).

Adam McCarthy
23rd November 2005, 12:49
I have two questions, one general, one specific:

1) "Aliveness" in general, as a concept seems like a no-brainer and I would have to admit from my experience seems to be one thing that is missing in most all TMAs. Granted there is some degree of this in free-sparring, but as someone else mentioned it loses something since you are sparring with people who all work with the same tools (rather than going to open, cross-style sparring groups).

The question I have here is what exactly keeps a TMA from putting the aliveness back into the training curriculum? Even from an MMA purist (if ever there could be an oxymoron) perspective, there has to be some merit in the elements of long and medium range fighting in most TMAs that they can acknowledge...so is the missing, functional ingredient training with the concept of aliveness?

2) This question is directly for Ubermint. You mention you live in Austin, I was curious as to where you train (I live in San Antonio). If for any reason you prefer not to list this publicly, I would appreciate it if you could PM me the answer.

MikeWilliams
23rd November 2005, 13:40
The question I have here is what exactly keeps a TMA from putting the aliveness back into the training curriculum?

Tradition. And a lack of openness towards new ideas.

I think this is a particular problem with the far-eastern 'confuscian' teaching model. 'Aliveness' requires a degree of self-awareness and critique that is often discouraged in trad. eastern MA classes.

This is another reason why competition is valuable, in that it forces people to think outside the box to work out the best way of achieving their immediate aims. Judo is a great example of this - look how the Soviets influenced the type of throws and grips used back in the 70s. Or kyokushin Karate - I can't imagine any modern KK competitor not using a Thai-style low roundhouse (as opposed to the traditional, chambered, variety).

Schools that are isolated from competition will evolve at a much slower pace. But then, that preservation of tradition might be exactly what you prefer.

After all, take several established koryu jujutsu ryu, get them training with 'aliveness' and within a few years you would end up with judo. :)

hectokan
23rd November 2005, 16:23
Mr.Williams,

That's two post on this thread now that you have nailed the correct right on the head.

kokumo
23rd November 2005, 16:28
After all, take several established koryu jujutsu ryu, get them training with 'aliveness' and within a few years you would end up with judo. :)

The wee bit of koryu jujutsu I've seen at first-hand was quite alive, and the practitioners weren't averse to playing in something more like a judo or wrestling format.

Part of what gives judo randori its characteristic qualities is the elimination of many of the older jujutsu techniques which could effectively end a career if applied in competition, as well as the elimination of any consideration of bladed weapons.

My primary art is aikido. Since I teach in a university setting, I always have a couple of guys who have high school or collegiate wrestling experience, or a background in judo or bjj, or some combination of all of the above. From time to time, we play, and everybody learns quite a bit.

One of the things I've consistently found is that, while judo and wrestling do offer opportunities to work at a higher degree of intensity, if I've got a tanto inside my keikogi, judo players and wrestlers who can mop the mat with me in bare matwork get stabbed almost everytime.

It's pretty hard to maintain "aliveness" after you've taken a blade in the kidneys, which is only to say that every approach has its limitations.

niten ninja
23rd November 2005, 16:29
"I would have to admit from my experience seems to be one thing that is missing in most all TMAs."

What does TMA actually mean? Most people seem to use it to mean, "things I don't like".

"Granted there is some degree of this in free-sparring, but as someone else mentioned it loses something since you are sparring with people who all work with the same tools"

"After all, take several established koryu jujutsu ryu, get them training with 'aliveness' and within a few years you would end up with judo."

Not really. lots of jujutsu stuff isn't in judo.

"This is another reason why competition is valuable"

That's a problem I can see, koryu seem to have done that alot once, but now they've stopped.

"Schools that are isolated from competition will evolve at a much slower pace. But then, that preservation of tradition might be exactly what you prefer."

I doubt that, if I remember correctly a few koryu had quite an aggressive policy towards other koryu. Perhaps the more modern MMA stuff is slightly closer to the attitude of how koryu originally were.

Matt Wolfson
23rd November 2005, 18:25
Tradition. And a lack of openness towards new ideas.

I think this is a particular problem with the far-eastern 'confuscian' teaching model. 'Aliveness' requires a degree of self-awareness and critique that is often discouraged in trad. eastern MA classes.

This is another reason why competition is valuable, in that it forces people to think outside the box to work out the best way of achieving their immediate aims. Judo is a great example of this - look how the Soviets influenced the type of throws and grips used back in the 70s. Or kyokushin Karate - I can't imagine any modern KK competitor not using a Thai-style low roundhouse (as opposed to the traditional, chambered, variety).

Schools that are isolated from competition will evolve at a much slower pace. But then, that preservation of tradition might be exactly what you prefer.

After all, take several established koryu jujutsu ryu, get them training with 'aliveness' and within a few years you would end up with judo. :)

I agree but would also like to point out that most people are afraid of physical confrontation, even in a structured environment like the dojo. It is a much smaller subset of students that would be willing to put the type of "aliveness" into training. I find this sad but definitely apart of the martial arts reality I know of. Most teachers must in some form cater to the masses in order to survive. So sparring and resistive drills are the first to go when faced with trying to retain students. Or at least watered down to the point of uselessness other than falsely imparting a sense of skill and ability and inflating the ego. I am only speaking from my experience.
Matt

Adam McCarthy
23rd November 2005, 18:48
What does TMA actually mean? Most people seem to use it to mean, "things I don't like".


niten - I referred to TMA meaning strictly "traditional martial art" in the sense of an established style of fighting (and more specifically Okinawan-derived karate),

As for "things I don't like", far from it (I am Goju guy)...if I could find a reputable Kyokushin place to train within any semblance of reasonable driving distance I would most certainly train in that style at least to see if it was better suited to my preferences (which I believe it probably is).

(On a side note, if anyone knows of/can suggest a quality Kyokushin school anywhere in Texas I would appreciate a PM with information)

It seems from the responses thus far that the only thing keeping the aliveness concept out of (to be more specific) traditional karate styles is the instructors or habit alone.

I personally do not believe that traditional karate styles are as useless as some of the more polarized MMA fighters seem to suggest, but I do think that a pattern of style over practical implementation does provide a serious obstacle, and I definitely think that adding training to both fill out the gaps of a TMA and refine or modify the elements that work is a good idea if your goal in practicing a martial art is to maintain a readiness and capability in fighting.

John Lovato
23rd November 2005, 19:45
It's funny how martial arts have made it through hundreds of years being 'dead'. It's lucky for the rest of us these MMA guys have come along to show the world how to fight. Seriously people have been using these 'dead' arts for hundreds of years to fight, maim, and kill their enemies. And now a bunch of MMA guys, in what I think is wonderful marketing, have lableled their arts 'alive' and the best way to learn to fight. Fred said it all, bring a knife into play and see how alive these guys training is. This whole debate is just crazy. No one system has an answer for everthing!

Ubermint
23rd November 2005, 19:57
One of the things I've consistently found is that, while judo and wrestling do offer opportunities to work at a higher degree of intensity, if I've got a tanto inside my keikogi, judo players and wrestlers who can mop the mat with me in bare matwork get stabbed almost everytime.


Wait...so it's 100% ok for you to, in the middle of an unarmed sparring session, pull out a knife?
What kind of ridiculous double standard is that? It'd be like Eddie Bravo coming into your dojo, bowing respectfully, then cracking you over the head with his glass E.T. bong.

Ubermint
23rd November 2005, 20:06
The question I have here is what exactly keeps a TMA from putting the aliveness back into the training curriculum?

1: Genuine ignorance.
2: Fear of change. The introduction of aliveness would mean certain techniques would have to be altered or discarded, and the longer your art has been without aliveness, the more change will have to happen. Kicks will be lower, hands will have to be held up, people will kick with the shin rather than the ball of the foot, and clinch will happen.
3: Fear of being shown up. Instructors who have spent years training in a particular way will feel a need to protect that and not want to take the neccesary humiliation of getting hit, thrown, etc., especially by those lower ranked than them.


2) This question is directly for Ubermint. You mention you live in Austin, I was curious as to where you train (I live in San Antonio). If for any reason you prefer not to list this publicly, I would appreciate it if you could PM me the answer.

Relson Gracie Jiujitsu Austin.

You may try Sun Dragon Kyokushin...if you don't mind having your lunch eaten by women.

Ubermint
23rd November 2005, 20:22
Agreed. There are only so many ways to apply a technique, which is why I think at a high enough level the throwin arts - Judo, Jujutsu, Aikido, Shorinji Kempo Juho - look similar if performed by a master. The principles of human body mechanics are the same in anyone, with certain variations. That's what I think you're talking about with Delivery Systems (correct me if I'm wrong). Thanks for the definitions, also.

Well, the similiarities thing was kindof incidental, but yes. That's why there is a right way and wrong way to do certain things. Every art that grapples in an alive manner, for instance, will have a very similiar looking hip throw. It's pretty much universal.
But what I mean by delivery system is the physical ability to do something. For instance, the delivery system of boxing, especially the jab, can be used to deliver any number of strikes with the hand, from punches, to palm strikes, even street lethal eye boinks. The physical ability to hit a moving target developed in boxing is what allows you to do this.
The clinch delivery system developed in judo, muay thai or wrestling can be used to restrain drunk uncle ted or deliver knees to the face, to set someone down gently on the mat or drop them on their heads. The only way to develop this delivery system, however, is to wrestle from clinch.



Despite not working against resistance, I think practicing moves 'passively' can still have benefit, and has less of a risk of injuring your opponent. Perhaps (probably) Alive training would quickly get you ready for combat, but I'm not so concerned with quick combat-effectiveness.

That's not neccesarily true. Unless your partner is too egotistical to know when to ease up in sparring (to let you down on your back instead of dropping you on your head, for instance), there's no reason why there should be more injuries in an alive setting.
Except to one's ego.



Most especially, I'm going to be a doctor next year, so one of the main reasons I started doing MA was to be able to restrain someone without injuring them (I'd only have to stitch them up later on, more work for me). Shorinji Kempo will, hopefully, allow me to do that.

I would definetely reccomend some crosstraining in a grappling centered art, for the reasons above.


So Ubermint, do you do MMA competitions a lot? is it big in Texas? How's the fight structured? (rounds/minutes, rules, etc.).

Not counting sport jiujitsu (w/ strikes, and we were going pretty hard until the ref told us to ease up) and dojo arashi, i've only done jiujitsu/grappling competitions. We have a lot of trouble with the boxing commision and thus it is very hard to fight here. Closed fist competition was just legalized.
The rounds vary with the fighter's caliber. The majority of competitions are palm strike only right now, but closed fist with mma gloves is starting to supplant that.

kokumo
23rd November 2005, 20:31
Wait...so it's 100% ok for you to, in the middle of an unarmed sparring session, pull out a knife?
What kind of ridiculous double standard is that? It'd be like Eddie Bravo coming into your dojo, bowing respectfully, then cracking you over the head with his glass E.T. bong.

1. It's a wooden knife, no injuries in 15 years.

2. Who ever said that the point of jujutsu was to deal with an unarmed opponent under sport based rules of engagement?

Fred Little

jailess
23rd November 2005, 20:42
I would definetely reccomend some crosstraining in a grappling centered art, for the reasons above.

The Shorinji Kempo Juho sullabus works up from simple wrist grabs through immobilisations of the hand through to (I'm told, not that high up yet) defences against grappling. I think I'll do okay, unless a drunken Gracie brother walks into the ER drunk. Besides, I haven't got the time to crosstrain. I shouldn't even be on here talking to you lot!

kimiwane
23rd November 2005, 20:44
Fred said it all, bring a knife into play and see how alive these guys training is. This whole debate is just crazy. No one system has an answer for everthing!

A lot of systems have theoretical answers to knife defense, but not many have real answers for a sword attack. Sensei always liked to get out the padded shinai. You get a real perspective on your technique when you realize that your whole body would have been cut in half.

But some people don't learn from that.

Light Samurai
23rd November 2005, 20:56
This whole debate is just crazy. No one system has an answer for everthing!
For ME, Aikido does.

How do you avoid fights?

By not fighting in the first place.

Someone comes at you with a dagger, Tenan anyway from them, and face them. Le tthem TRY to hit you. If your good enough, you can dodge, until you hit a corner. Then pull out the technques.

Fighting in a fight should be the last resort.

Peace.

Light Samurai
23rd November 2005, 21:00
A lot of systems have theoretical answers to knife defense, but not many have real answers for a sword attack. Sensei always liked to get out the padded shinai. You get a real perspective on your technique when you realize that your whole body would have been cut in half.

But some people don't learn from that.
Again, Aikido has defense for that.

But it is UP to the practioner.

AIKIDO HAS ONE FLAW.

It takes alot of time to get good at it, and isn't as "aggresive" and "strong" as some other systems.

Peace.

MarkF
23rd November 2005, 22:07
Originally posted by Kokumo
One of the things I've consistently found is that, while judo and wrestling do offer opportunities to work at a higher degree of intensity, if I've got a tanto inside my keikogi, judo players and wrestlers who can mop the mat with me in bare matwork get stabbed almost everytime.


I recall the surprise that must have registered on my face the first time I sparred against strikers, and the blood and fat lip that followed. I expect that is about the same response when one realizes that could have happened to one with a knife.

What happens when a trained knife wielder against another equally trained in using a knife oppose each other? Well, put a lot of chalk on each one and generally they both come out well-marked even when trained not to get stabbed.

Knife fights are fairly common, but sword fights not often anymore, though they certainly happen. And, if you want to stretch it, my Thompson Repeater lands, cuts, and kills much more efficiently than the three ways of fighting discussed thus far. If this really is an excercise in pragmatism, then we are all dead, zombies aside.


Mark

niten ninja
23rd November 2005, 22:21
Well to be honest, a style may not have a weakness, but you almost certainly do.

Ubermint
24th November 2005, 03:23
1. It's a wooden knife, no injuries in 15 years.

2. Who ever said that the point of jujutsu was to deal with an unarmed opponent under sport based rules of engagement?

Fred Little

Well presumably you are sparring unarmed. As such, what you do is basically the equivalent of entering an MMA match and having a paintball sniper hit your opponent before the bell sounds, then dancing around with no pants yelling HAHA KORYU WINS AGAIN TAKE THAT SPORTFIGHTER.

Anyway, how come you're the only person who ever has a knife? Why don't they get the little wooden thingy?

kokumo
24th November 2005, 04:21
Well presumably you are sparring unarmed. As such, what you do is basically the equivalent of entering an MMA match and having a paintball sniper hit your opponent before the bell sounds, then dancing around with no pants yelling HAHA KORYU WINS AGAIN TAKE THAT SPORTFIGHTER.

Anyway, how come you're the only person who ever has a knife? Why don't they get the little wooden thingy?

why assume that i'm the only one who ever gets the knife?

fred little

niten ninja
24th November 2005, 07:53
only sport fighters fight fairly, real TMA people cheat...

gr455h0pp3r
24th November 2005, 13:40
depends, perhaps using rules is cheating and visaversa legit?

jailess
24th November 2005, 13:41
Anyway, how come you're the only person who ever has a knife? Why don't they get the little wooden thingy?
They do, they just get the pointy bit first.

One good thing Aikido has going for it is that they train extensively in knife defences - at least they do in Glasgow. In SK we do it rarely, but rest assured we usually get hit when we do.

Ubermint, I think you're missing the point Fred's trying to make: namely, that sparring with Tanto is a simulation of unarmed defence against a knife attack. Striking or Grappling, whatever your style, knife defences are not easy. I think he's just trying to point out that every MA style has weaknesses, and no matter how good you are a weapon can always do you some damage.

niten ninja
24th November 2005, 16:08
"depends, perhaps using rules is cheating and visaversa legit?"

It was just a joke.

MiguelPinzon
24th November 2005, 16:24
The topic sure has changed since I first started this post.

My own view is that I respect TMA.......there was a time that I didn't, but I do now.

TMA are not all about fighting. They teach courtesy, respect, discipline, right thoughts and actions.....they have many good qualities other than their usefulness in fighting.....

However,

If you say that your TMA helps with fighting or self defense in any way then I feel that you need to train in an alive manner with your techniques. In other words against a full resistant opponent in order to see what works and what is "Art".

There is a reason that the combat sports are so effective and you all must know that if any of you face a practitioner of these sports, let's say a boxer, wrestler, samboist, judoka, BJJ'er then you would have one Hell of a fight on your hands.

I would much rather fight someone who has 20 years TMA experience than someone who has even 5 years training in the combat sports.

This isn't meant as any disrespect towards anyone so please don't take that the wrong way. I have trained/sparred with both creatures and the Combat sport guy is a nightmare. You almost have to kill them to get them to give up.

Just my opinion,

Miguel Pinzon.

Shizen
24th November 2005, 16:35
All you TMA'ists are a bunch of suckers. Just the other day I was at a park and I saw some 80-something y.o. practicing Tai Chi - ya' know slow, stylized, no 'aliveness.'

I asked him why he practices Tai Chi and he said, "Eh, it gets me out of the house and makes my arthritis feel a little better."

So I punched him in the face and he couldn't do a thing about it! So I laughed and said, "Should've trained at the Straight Blast Gym, sucker!"

At which point, his wife who was sitting on a bench nearby pulled out her .357 and shot me in the !!!. Then she laughed and said, "Ha, now we both have broken hips, but at least you're 'alive'!"

[/sarcasm]


Just felt like being silly.

To be serious (AND ON-TOPIC):

I like training in multiple styles because . . . well I just like to train a lot. Still I'm more of a primary + supplementation sort. The primary is all I need but I just like training a lot.


Happy Thanksgiving all!


gambatte!

niten ninja
24th November 2005, 16:48
"TMA are not all about fighting. They teach courtesy, respect, discipline, right thoughts and actions.....they have many good qualities other than their usefulness in fighting....."

All of them not one exception. Because you've fought someone from every one of those styles.

"If you say that your TMA helps with fighting or self defense in any way then I feel that you need to train in an alive manner with your techniques. In other words against a full resistant opponent in order to see what works and what is "Art"."

You respect them but then make blanket statements like that... well done.

"This isn't meant as any disrespect towards anyone so please don't take that the wrong way. I have trained/sparred with both creatures and the Combat sport guy is a nightmare. You almost have to kill them to get them to give up."

But they're not all the same, you have just said a huge number of arts you've probably never even heard of, are no use in fighting on the evidence of figthing someone in an unrelated art.

MiguelPinzon
24th November 2005, 17:29
I guess that you can always pick apart my posts and say that I am an idiot. I won't argue with you...

But my truth is spoken thru experience and I have found that truth by being pounded on and submited on the mat......

If that is silly to you, so be it.

Happy Thanksgiving all,

Miguel

niten ninja
24th November 2005, 17:36
"If that is silly to you, so be it."

I don't think it's silly, it's just taring everyone with the same brush.

MiguelPinzon
24th November 2005, 18:36
Ninja,

Fair enough then.

As much as we all bicker amongst ourselves, we are all STILL brothers in the Arts....no matter what Art we study.

Miguel Pinzon

jest
25th November 2005, 11:15
For ME, Aikido does.

How do you avoid fights?

By not fighting in the first place.

Someone comes at you with a dagger, Tenan anyway from them, and face them. Le tthem TRY to hit you. If your good enough, you can dodge, until you hit a corner. Then pull out the technques.

Fighting in a fight should be the last resort.

Peace.

You do, of course, realise that if someone really wants to stab you, he'll most likely wait until the very last moment before drawing his blade and shanking you repeatedly or slicing you to ribbons?

jailess
25th November 2005, 13:45
The topic sure has changed since I first started this post.
You're right: here's the answer to your original question that I have:

I only train in Shorinji Kempo because I'm not interested in competition or beating grapplers; I'm just interested in self-defence and avoiding fights. I'm also interested in making myself a better person, more focused, capable to do my job, and help other people. I want to be more flexible, a bit fitter, get a littler beergut, and help other people do the same (apart from the beergut thing).

Shorinji Kempo helps me do all of these. So for the moment I'm not going anywhere else.

I suppose you train in one martial art if all your needs are satisfied by that art. If it's not you find one that does, or train in 2 or more that covers your desires. All mine are met by one, yours by two. Ubermint by a Mix. :p

There you go, all the answers in one post. I'm sure no one else will disagree with me at all... :look:

cxt
28th November 2005, 17:38
Shinzen

:) :) :)

Still laughing at your "suckers" post above!!!!!

Very very funny.

Chris Thomas

Óscar Recio
29th November 2005, 12:11
Miguel pinzón said

I would much rather fight someone who has 20 years TMA experience than someone who has even 5 years training in the combat sports.

I won´t. Both are dangerous. Well...maybe with rules you are right..the thing is, from my experience, some practitioners of TMA will tear my ribcage to pieces with a knife or beat me up with a zillion of strikes...generalizing that way is too dangerous. Many TMA were designed just for killing...if the person that teaches the Art can´t keep the Arts effective is another subject to talk about. A whole different subject to talk about and, maybe, will be focussing a bit the whole debate.

BTW...i respect totally a person who is devoted to a combat sport, as well as i respect a person who is an athlete, because both train for an specific subject that requires sacrifice, training, specific mindset...the same as TMA. But WE missed the whole point, IMHO, of this thread. Here we´ve got mixed efectiveness with "train in one art". If you need to train in more than one art to make you feel "a better fighter"...go on!!! perfect but,as John Lovato said, "then something in your art doesn´t work" or maybe you are not making your art work for some situations. No Art is perfect, not all the techniques work on everybody and maybe the same technique will work with a guy and won´t work with another.

jailess said:
only train in Shorinji Kempo because I'm not interested in competition or beating grapplers; I'm just interested in self-defence and avoiding fights. I'm also interested in making myself a better person, more focused, capable to do my job, and help other people. I want to be more flexible, a bit fitter, get a littler beergut, and help other people do the same (apart from the beergut thing).

And that´s it...if we are starting again with the "street fighter" thing...well...i would rather go for a cup of tea or some pop-corn and enjoy the show, again!

Jock Armstrong
29th November 2005, 13:26
Oscar, you are a breath of fresh air. Long time no hear - how have you been?

Óscar Recio
29th November 2005, 14:38
Jock,
Well...in fact i was here all the time, yuk yuk yuk :rolleyes: :rolleyes: just reading what´s going on..you know...i´ve been pretty busy with my first son!!! he was born a year ago, plus moving from my hometown and organizing my new life...well...busy as usual. And also trying to organize our 5th ThSYR seminar so...

I found this thread really interesting in the beginning but...i´ve thougt to just add my 2 cents about it.

Óscar Recio

cxt
29th November 2005, 22:14
I am also reminded of Ellis Amdurs book "Dueling with O'Sensei" where he makes the observation that--and please forgive MY paraphrase:

"If your not willing to give your art everything you've got--then the fault is not with the art now is it?"

He had much more to say on that point--but I don't the text handy and I have already mangled the quote enough.

(its accurate as to tone, content and meaning, just not exact)


Chris Thomas

Ubermint
29th November 2005, 23:23
Many TMA were designed just for killing...

Let's put this one to rest. Unless your art consists of flying sideways in slow motion with a determined look on your face as you unleash the spray from twin uzis, shooting imperialists with poison darts from the shadows of the jungle canopy, or something similiar, whatever martial art you or someone else takes is not "designed for killing".



if the person that teaches the Art can´t keep the Arts effective is another subject to talk about. A whole different subject to talk about and, maybe, will be focussing a bit the whole debate.

I disagree. I don't think there is some platonic ideal of a martial art just kindof floating around out there that you can live up to or let down. I don't think the art exists outside of the people using it.



And that´s it...if we are starting again with the "street fighter" thing...well...i would rather go for a cup of tea or some pop-corn and enjoy the show, again!

No! No more streetfighting!

Óscar Recio
29th November 2005, 23:39
Let's put this one to rest. Unless your art consists of flying sideways in slow motion with a determined look on your face as you unleash the spray from twin uzis, shooting imperialists with poison darts from the shadows of the jungle canopy, or something similiar, whatever martial art you or someone else takes is not "designed for killing".

So....i was talking about TMA...if you are not agreeing with it just tell every historician here in the forum about why a martial art is called MARTIAL and why they were created. Many of what people call TMA were battlefield disciplines...in their ORIGINS the main goal was to keep yourself alive...that´s the whole point of my stament. No more no less. Of course if we are talking about Matrix and guns...well...better got a bullet proof jacket and a lot of luck. I´m not talking about Martial Arts right now...i was talking about TMA.


I disagree. I don't think there is some platonic ideal of a martial art just kindof floating around out there that you can live up to or let down. I don't think the art exists outside of the people using it.

Again. There´s in fact an ideal: the Art surviving generations and keep the Art alive, understanding alive as the concept of efectiveness and evoluton without discarding the core principles. Just an adaptation of the strategies to the times.

respectfully,

Óscar Recio

niten ninja
30th November 2005, 07:25
"Let's put this one to rest. Unless your art consists of flying sideways in slow motion with a determined look on your face as you unleash the spray from twin uzis, shooting imperialists with poison darts from the shadows of the jungle canopy, or something similiar, whatever martial art you or someone else takes is not "designed for killing". "

If there's some logic to this statement then I'd like to know what it is.

Jock Armstrong
30th November 2005, 12:18
Devon, you've gone from making a point to talking shite and have just shown how little you really know about the topic. if you want to do BJJ and think it is the be all and end all that's fine. Just can the argument there and now because thats really what you are saying. If you think you know what real combat is because you've rolled around on the mats [under controlled conditions] then I pity you and I truly hope you never discover what its like like to fight someone, who really wants to kill you, alone in a back alley somewhere. Its a helluva way to discover the difference.

PS I do understand the firearm thing and it bears no resemblance to the "Matrix" , my friend. Bullets do not go where you want them to, they go where they are aimed........... I think I've had enough of this pointless argument.

back to the original thread- people trained in one style usually because thats what was to be had in the area. Some people did crosstrain. Japanese warriors would take sabbaticals and wander the countryside, stopping to learn or challenge as they felt. Okinawan karateka would give students letters of introduction and send them off to other teachers. Nowadays some folks are happy just to do one thing, others are more curious about what's over the fence. Its every individuals' choice.

Óscar Recio
30th November 2005, 14:29
Sorry if my words were disrespectful to you as a soldier...i never wrote it this way, my dad served in the Army for 25 years so...sorry again.

Respectfully,

Óscar Recio

Jock Armstrong
1st December 2005, 07:40
No need for you to apologise Oscar- my comments were for Devon. You have not said anything to be taken offence at.

Ubermint
1st December 2005, 10:15
Devon, you've gone from making a point to talking shite and have just shown how little you really know about the topic. if you want to do BJJ and think it is the be all and end all that's fine. Just can the argument there and now because thats really what you are saying. If you think you know what real combat is because you've rolled around on the mats [under controlled conditions] then I pity you and I truly hope you never discover what its like like to fight someone, who really wants to kill you, alone in a back alley somewhere. Its a helluva way to discover the difference.

And here it is, folks. You know, Major Armstrong, I believe thanks to this post I am close to establishing a timetable that can predict, with considerable accuracy, how long from the point I begin questioning somebody's training methods to the point at which they get all "you are only doing GAY sport ROLLING which will fail you when you have to use your beejayjays (LOL) out on THE BATTLEFIELD where there are ARMIES OF BLOODTHIRSTY ORC MAGES and UNDEAD DRAGONS and it could happen on the streets of ANYTOWN USA MAYNG, i'm not kidding, these Vatos will CUTCHU LIKE A STEAK LOL THEY WILL PLAY HOSPITAL BY WHICH I MEAN SEND YOU TO THE HOSPITAL (IF U R LUCKY)."

It's a pretty small period of time.

jailess
1st December 2005, 10:26
Let's put this one to rest. Unless your art consists of flying sideways in slow motion with a determined look on your face as you unleash the spray from twin uzis, shooting imperialists with poison darts from the shadows of the jungle canopy, or something similiar, whatever martial art you or someone else takes is not "designed for killing".

On the contrary: up until the 19th century the japanese martial arts (including Jujutsu, which however you look at it, is historically what BJJ is descended from) were practiced and used exclusively by the Japanese military. Commoners were forbidden from learning or practicing them. The concept of a martial art as a self-defence method only really gained weight after people started to teach them to anyone. So up until recently the only function of a MA in Japan was active combat. Your above statements refer to modern combat/glamourised ninjas, and don't counter Oscar's original arguement.


I don't think there is some platonic ideal of a martial art just kindof floating around out there that you can live up to or let down. I don't think the art exists outside of the people using it.

I partly agree with this, in that MA lives in the bodies of the practitioners. But there is definitely a way to do move X and many more ways of screwing it up. This, in my mind, means that there must be an ideal way of performing move X. That may not be the same from one master to the next, but they'll be in the same ballpark.

niten ninja
1st December 2005, 10:56
Oh god, the MMA persecution complex comes out.

Jock Armstrong
1st December 2005, 12:42
Devon, your last post qualifies you as a having a room temperature IQ. You have a real persecution complex- just how old are you? I have crosstrained in BJJ and hope to do some more. I would seem to have more of a grasp of its utility than you seem too. I try not to hold conversations with the immature or stupid as its a waste of time. After all, you have achieved nothing by besting a fool.

Be well.

Jock Armstrong
1st December 2005, 12:46
BTW I was a corporal, albeit doing a sergeant's job. I worked for a living.

GTO
1st December 2005, 15:22
[geek mode]

And here it is, folks. You know, Major Armstrong

Uh oh, run for the hills. The guy watches Fullmetal Alchemist! ;)

For the record, I, too, have trained BJJ. In fact, I started with BJJ before moving on to TMA, and still find time to practice it from time to time. They both have their pluses and minuses. Like Jock Armstrong said earlier...


if you want to do BJJ and think it is the be all and end all that's fine. Just can the argument there and now because thats really what you are saying.

QFT.

Óscar Recio
1st December 2005, 16:38
HE don´t want to listen. HE feel he got THE truth, it´s fine for me. He got his own reality i´ve got mine..but, sicerely, when talking with an army officer i won´t be argueing about WHAT works and what not except if i´m a soldier, LEO, tactical Squat, police officer and so on.

But...you know some people are not humble enough to just listen and talk, they prefer to shout and discredit without offering serious and mature facts, even more when other people are just trying to exchange views quietly. Maybe sometimes with a lot of passion but with something called good manners, education and respect.

Sincerely,

Óscar Recio

twayman
1st December 2005, 16:57
While we are kind of on this subject.

Question: Would training in BJJ help better define or assimilate the grappling aspect of TMA? (ie... naihanchi kata has a lot of grappling within but, hard to find at first) Do you all think having some of the BJJ principles would help in using TMA grappling?

I hope I'm wording this right.

niten ninja
1st December 2005, 17:26
Do you mean their training methodology? I think that would be very useful.

MikeWilliams
1st December 2005, 17:42
Question: Would training in BJJ help better define or assimilate the grappling aspect of TMA? (ie... naihanchi kata has a lot of grappling within but, hard to find at first) Do you all think having some of the BJJ principles would help in using TMA grappling?

(Hehehe, another can of worms opens...)

In a word - yes it would. As would judo, or sambo, or wrestling.

Although if your main emphasis is striking, you might be better off going to a dedicated MMA place - so you can focus on the "sprawl & brawl" approach (avoiding takedowns, defending submissions and escaping to your feet when on the ground)

But... you can NOT learn grappling by yourself. Forget solo kata/forms. Seriously. Paired drills have some use, but unless you train against resistance you will be totally lost the first time you come across someone who has.

Edited to say: just get yourself down to your local Judo or BJJ place and give it a go. It will be fun, and should be an eye-opener.

twayman
1st December 2005, 17:43
Do you mean their training methodology? I think that would be very useful.
Yeah, kind of... I guess would it help "bring out" and make kata grappling technique more useable?

twayman
1st December 2005, 17:46
(Hehehe, another can of worms opens...)


Thanks Mike... I tryed to word it so not to start another argument.


But... you can NOT learn grappling by yourself. Forget solo kata/forms. Seriously. Paired drills have some use, but unless you train against resistance you will be totally lost the first time you come across someone who has.

As in sparring?

MikeWilliams
1st December 2005, 17:59
Yes, as in sparring.

Plus, a specialist grappling art will already know what works and what doesn't - so even doing co-operative drills in BJJ or Judo would be more productive than trying to interpret kata bunkai in a karate class.

All in my opinion, of course. But I am right! :)

Óscar Recio
1st December 2005, 18:35
I agree with your coments Mike, 100%.

Óscar Recio

BTW...why we just start a new topic about "How you will improve your.....?striking, grappling, kicking, drinking...just because this topic is far away from his original concept, right?

twayman
1st December 2005, 18:57
BTW...why we just start a new topic about "How you will improve your.....?striking, grappling, kicking, drinking...just because this topic is far away from his original concept, right?

I don't think it's to far off topic... [TOPIC]Why would you train in only one art? [ANSWER]To develope your grappling skills (ie BJJ to help in usability of kata technique).

Either way still might be a good side thread...

Ubermint
2nd December 2005, 03:15
On the contrary: up until the 19th century the japanese martial arts (including Jujutsu, which however you look at it, is historically what BJJ is descended from) were practiced and used exclusively by the Japanese military. Commoners were forbidden from learning or practicing them. The concept of a martial art as a self-defence method only really gained weight after people started to teach them to anyone. So up until recently the only function of a MA in Japan was active combat. Your above statements refer to modern combat/glamourised ninjas, and don't counter Oscar's original arguement.


I think maybe you failed to see the hyperbole.

Anyway, unless what you do is a historical form of kenjutsu (or other weapon art) that can trace it's active use to specific soldiers during the warring states period, what anybody does is not "designed for killing".

Furthermore, being "designed for" something does not mean it is useful in doing what it was "designed for". I could make a martial art "Designed for" causing people's body parts to explode. That doesn't mean I could do it.

In fact, stating something is "designed for killing" is an almost entirely untestable fallacy. It's not really disprovable, therefore it's not really provable in the first place.



I partly agree with this, in that MA lives in the bodies of the practitioners. But there is definitely a way to do move X and many more ways of screwing it up. This, in my mind, means that there must be an ideal way of performing move X. That may not be the same from one master to the next, but they'll be in the same ballpark.

Sure, I believe there's a right and wrong way to do a technique. And the right way is the way that works with resistance. There is a right and wrong way to do an armbar (heels to your butt, hips tight to the shoulder) and there are many wrong ways to do it.

John Lovato
2nd December 2005, 15:00
Mint,
I thought I was done with this thread, but I can't let your last post stand. Do you really believe what you are saying? Wow that last post was a good demonstration of your ignorance. In fact most if not all koryu were designed specifically to kill or with weapons in mind. Most jujutsu systems evolved from weapons based system. Just because you practice them with wooden weapons and don't actually kill your training partner does not make them invalid. That’s like saying a cop or a soldier who train by shooting paper targets will never be able to use their weapon in real life because their training isn’t 'alive'. That is just flawed thinking, my friend.

Bustillo, A.
2nd December 2005, 15:33
[QUOTE=John Lovat That’s like saying a cop or a soldier who train by shooting paper targets will never be able to use their weapon in real life because their training isn’t 'alive'. That is just flawed thinking, my friend.[/QUOTE]

They don't shoot at targets only. Their "aliveness" training is done in practicums, they are put in "realistic" unpredictable scenarios to gauge how they react and perform. They learn from recent shootouts and fire-fights and the training formats are constantly revised and improved.

Today's cops and soldiers don't "play" pretend modern samurai ; it's unlikely the hakama wearers will ever use the katana in a real confrontation. Thus, it's highly doubtful they'll ever have a true test to gauge skill "and guts."

yoj
2nd December 2005, 15:37
Q: Why would you train in only ONE Art?

A: I'm too busy on E-budo and the net to invest in any more mat time.


:p

niten ninja
2nd December 2005, 16:01
"it's unlikely the hakama wearers will ever use the katana in a real confrontation. Thus, it's highly doubtful they'll ever have a true test to gauge skill "and guts."

People have said that already, it still doesn't take away from the fact they were designed for killing.

kokumo
2nd December 2005, 17:17
it's unlikely the hakama wearers will ever use the katana in a real confrontation. Thus, it's highly doubtful they'll ever have a true test to gauge skill "and guts."

This particular hakama wearer used a bokken to repel a two man mugging attempt in 1987, well before I'd even found my way to koryu training, or had advanced far enough in my aikido training to have to buy a hakama.

Sure, I had my Boy Scout tote and chip certificate, knew how to handle a hatchet, a single bit axe, or a splitting maul, and had ten year's experience as a cook, but I didn't know a lot about sword beyond what I had gathered from solo and paired suburi practice, a cursory glance at a book on iaido by Michael Finn, and five or ten minutes of instruction that a very gracious Nishio Sensei gave me between classes at a seminar in Santa Cruz, well before I had so much as taken a kyu grading exam.

Hypotheticals and broad generalizations aside, simple awareness and tsuka-ate saved my !!!. Nobody died or was injured. Ring-style mma would probably have gotten some or all of us seriously injured.

Every tool has value, but immediately knowing which tool is the right one for the job is required to maximize that value.

Best,

Fred Little

Óscar Recio
2nd December 2005, 17:28
Amen.!!!!

BTW...there´s some people who are just waiting for a chance to raise their arguments even when they are not focussed in the thread, myself too, and argue about the words used in people replies.


If another "why you study kenjutsu if you won´t be ever walk on the street with a sword?" thread is coming...bffffffffff...is just sad. Seriously, is what Kenjutsu teaches that you´ll be using on the street, the body dynamics, the mindset against armed people, how you evalute things...there´s TMA who got in their training practising with live baldes, ask to some members of this forum about it and how they were "wounded", and about how serious their trainig is. It´s a really serious and dangerous training and teaches you a lot about adrenaline and response. The same principles are used in empty hand combat because they are weapon based in TMA.

Lets get clear about it: THE DOJO IS A LABORATORY, i hope that everybody agree. In your training you should be encountering, in a progressive approach, more and more adrenaline stress ´til reach the higher and closer level of reality. That´s it...if your training got this, ok...if not..ok...not everybody trains for the same purpose, some trains for social interaction, some for competition, for sport, for love of the MA...

Of course TMA doesn´t fit some people needings, mindset, priorities and wishes. MMA don´t do it too, nor some kinds of Gendai Budo or combat sports.

And, IMHO, if a Martial Art don´t actually uses the MARTIAL concept as "conflict" is just some other thing. Martial means to deal with a conflict, physically, mentally and with a focussed mindset on what to do to just finish it.

Devon, some people trains in tanto jutsu...do you think that their training is not worthy or useful? how many people do you know that carries a knife everyday? i´ve met 10-12 in the US and i´m 100% sure that they´ll be using it if it will be necessary. Tanto jutsu techniques are taught today to LEO, tactic squats and soldiers, who they really use this skills in their missions to survive. Weapon retention principles, as the ones used by the Samurai to prevent a disarming of their weapons (tanto, katana) have been of incredibly efectiveness to those professionals. Even more, some of the TMA principles and mindset are still studied by those dedicates their lives to duties that have a really high chance of life and death. Of course those professional got a cross training between different disciplines but, as i mentioned, everything got a relevant role when you are foucussed in what you need and why you need it. And, for your information, if you are training in some Koryu who got Kenjutsu in his curriculum, well yo should be having some chance to discover that those skills were used in duels and other combat situations.


Furthermore, being "designed for" something does not mean it is useful in doing what it was "designed for". I could make a martial art "Designed for" causing people's body parts to explode. That doesn't mean I could do it.

I agree partially, some of the techniques used in the past , like the kneeling (suwari waza) techniques are useless in this modern enviroment. Some people used partially some principles to use the same "stuff" to elaborate some techniques of reaction when you are sitting having your lunch, funny, isn´t it?.BTW: With a statement like this"I could make a martial art "Designed for" causing people's body parts to explode. That doesn't mean I could do it." is totally childish. I understand your example but it´s simply out of place.

So...why would you train in one art?. I think that a few of us don´t have enough time to do everything we want to. Personally i think that if every week i´d be training in 2-3 things i won´t be achieving a real proficiency in anyone. I studied nearly 3 different MA ´til i found waht i really want to dedicate my life. I haven´t been "jumping" to one to another during my years of training, in fact, was a natural evolution from what i´ve been studying, thinking about MA, praticising and discovering through the time i´ve been dedicating.

I would love to train Tai Chi, Capoeira, western fencing, modern ju jutsu and run a marathon...right now i´m happy enough with my running sessions of 30-45 minutes 3 days a week, meet my brother and practise some tai chi when it´s possible, visit a few friends at my old Capoeira gym maybe 2-3 times a year and do some ne waza from time to time with good friends from the old days. I need some time to learn roller-skating ´cos i promised my wife to learn, and i promised to myself the same 4 years ago. But right now i´m fully satisified with the Art i´m trying to learn and improve. I think that only one life won´t be enough, my future is really clear. If nothing bad happens i´ll be dedicating the rest of my life to this Art and i´ll be happy with it.


Most respectfully,

Óscar Recio

Hissho
4th December 2005, 02:06
Just because you practice them with wooden weapons and don't actually kill your training partner does not make them invalid. That’s like saying a cop or a soldier who train by shooting paper targets will never be able to use their weapon in real life because their training isn’t 'alive'. That is just flawed thinking, my friend.

Actually, John, its not. It's quite on the right track.

It is being demonstrated quite effectively that training with force on force drills and scenarios, in an "alive" manner that includes training projectiles and protective equipment, is a far better way to train those cops and soldiers for real world engagements.

Drawing a weapon and shooting at paper targets on the "square range" is the most basic level training. It is analogous to batto, say, drawing and cutting a static target. But in order to make a far better "gunfighter" under actual use of force conditions, the shooter needs to "spar" against people with opposing wills who fight back, don't cooperate, and cause uncertainty. And who cause pain with the marking projectiles they are using. It is as close as you can get with certain safety parameters in mind.

IMHO, it is the exact same with close combat methods - the same philosophy applies.

Just because you practice with weapons doesn't mean that you are doing so in a manner that best transfers to practical application. Just because an art was originally intended for combat does not mean that it is still an effective combat art. Its how it is trained now, not that it has a centuries old pedigree.

luisito
4th December 2005, 02:32
I am currently a Bujinkan Taijutsu practitioner. Prior to this, I trained in Aikido, Karate, Judo, and Kung-Fu (for about a minute). I have to state that I am dedicated to this art only because of my exposure to the other arts. It's like finding your true soul mate. You have no concrete reasons for understanding why he or she is your soul mate. IT JUST IS. I hope this helped. Thanks for the opportunity for me to respond.

Óscar Recio
4th December 2005, 10:11
Yes you are right, the whole thing is, IMHO, about how this thread changed right now to "why you would train only in one art?" to TMA and it´s relevance in modern times for efective self-defense.


Drawing a weapon and shooting at paper targets on the "square range" is the most basic level training. It is analogous to batto, say, drawing and cutting a static target. But in order to make a far better "gunfighter" under actual use of force conditions, the shooter needs to "spar" against people with opposing wills who fight back, don't cooperate, and cause uncertainty. And who cause pain with the marking projectiles they are using. It is as close as you can get with certain safety parameters in mind

So...quoting myself:


In your training you should be encountering, in a progressive approach, more and more adrenaline stress ´til reach the higher and closer level of reality.

So we agree about first doing basic drills and then, progressively, adding more and more ingredients of "realistic" combat situations. First learning the basics of the movement and mechanics of the "thing to learn" (shooting, climbing, drawing, flower arrangement...) and then making the basics skills evolve to adapt, first to your body structure, then to your own idea of what are you looking for and then, final step, confronting a stressfull situation from the very basic stress to the higher stress( first sparring with a friend att the dojo or ring, climbing indoor at a local competition, doing your ikebana at a local flower arrangement championship. The the same thing againt the "TIME" factor, so you need to do it in less time but with the same level of proficiency and the, just to get over the middle steps, agains the higher stressful situation (climbing outdoors in deat valley at midday with strong wind, world kick boxing competition, shooting your weapon in a "90%" real situation at a SWAT training camp with poeple shooting at you as Kit described, doing your Ikebana at the Tokyo Flower arrangement championships....) Generally speaking and not specifically about LEO, cops and soldiers, just to have a general view, ok?.


Just because you practice with weapons doesn't mean that you are doing so in a manner that best transfers to practical application. Just because an art was originally intended for combat does not mean that it is still an effective combat art. Its how it is trained now, not that it has a centuries old pedigree.

I agree, again, with your words. Of course right now the use of firearms and this similar projectile weapons changed the whole thing about combat. Maybe we could be focussing in how trhe close quearter strategies of combat and hand-to hand disciplines evolved. And i agree 200% about
Its how it is trained now, not that it has a centuries old pedigree but with a few comments.

Evolution and adptation is the only way to make something relevant and succesfully afeective and aplicable. However the way it is transmitted from generaton to generation is what makes a difference, the way the knowledge is transmitted and the responsability of making it relevant to it´s practitioners is important too. I agree that some TMA are just practised for the love of tradition and personal purposes, although another are practised with deep seriosuness and intention to make it relevant. But some people are still thinking that wearing hakama and traditional "stuff" makes the whole Art a pantomime uncapable of be efective in the modern day. I´m a faithfull believer of the statement that is not about "what you train in but how you train in", some we practise an Art that requires a specific mindset and must follow a certain steps and "path", some others do something different.

If i´m training for be a better Soldier, bodyguard or similar maybe i won´t be going to study Koryu at 100%, or perhaps i could do it, i would rather be going to find some specific SWAt training and find some Gendai discipline to "fill the holes". But, again, if a TMA is not taught to keep it relevant...is not about the Art itself, IMHO, is about how the Art was passed from generation to generation. Some TMA are, actually, just like (paraphrasing Takamura´s sensei words) "pretty dances".

Last words, Adrenaline is a whole different universe. Te street is another whole universe. Is how you train to adapt yourself to this universe that makes the Art worthy, how you rae taught to have this "shock" covered, is about the Art having the devices (drills and exercises) to deal with adrenaline and how affects to the body and mind. Some TMA still practise drills and have exrcises (even formalized exercises) that are able to make the adrenaline run throught your body. A lot of MA, TMA and Gendai Budo have this drills...some don´t.

Kit, my most sincere "thank you" for your comments. You´ve been always a serious contribution to this forum and i really enjoyed reading your coments as a veteran in the MA world.

Respectfully,

Óscar Recio

Hissho
4th December 2005, 15:01
Thanks for the kind words, Oscar, but I should point out I have very few "martial arts" credentials to speak of. I pursue them from a much more utilitarian point of view, which is looking for relevant and efficient training versus a tradition to pass on.

But we are pretty much in agreement. I should say that I am not speaking generally of TMA but rather different training methodologies. Some TMA can and do have an "alive" training paradigm. Others borrow from more modern methods with the eye toward adapting them to their traditional or "combat" elements. You are only limited by the quality of your teacher and your training partners in that case. Transmission really only matters if the training is sound. There are arts today that were at one time strong proponents of "alive" training and had a competitive tradition (albeit when competition was a bit more rough) both weapons and grappling based, that no longer contain that training. In such cases the transmission has been altered to the detriment of the tradition.

I personally don't care if a training system is traditional or modern, I care if it is practical and effective. If they are not training in a substantially "alive" manner, they are not training effectively.

Óscar Recio
4th December 2005, 16:02
There are arts today that were at one time strong proponents of "alive" training and had a competitive tradition (albeit when competition was a bit more rough) both weapons and grappling based, that no longer contain that training. In such cases the transmission has been altered to the detriment of the tradition

I agree totally with your opinion.


If they are not training in a substantially "alive" manner, they are not training effectively.

Amen.

Respectfully,

Óscar Recio

Bustillo, A.
5th December 2005, 13:56
it still doesn't take away from the fact they were designed for killing.

---------------------------------
Lovato wrote.

Just because you practice them with wooden weapons and don't actually kill your training partner does not make them invalid. That’s like saying a cop or a soldier who train by shooting paper targets will never be able to use their weapon in real life because their training isn’t 'alive'. That is just flawed thinking, my friend.
----------------------------------------------

A. B. writes
"Design" and "apply" are two different things. When we come down to it, if you haven't personally done it you just don't know. Then again, we can't expect for today's swordsmen to go out slicing and dicing.

Nevertheless, the point I was trying to make is that Lovato's analogy is off. In many ways, the "aliveness" training of cops and the military is far superior and more realistic compared to what the hakama folks do in the dojo mowadays.

John Lovato
5th December 2005, 16:44
Perhaps I should have been clearer with my simple analogy. I was not speaking of the modern high-tech training that is going on. Basically what I was trying to say is that we have fought and won a couple world wars and the training was very simple, early police training was very simple. And yet these guys prevailed, of course the training has improved. That was not my point, I was trying to respond to these guys who say that you have to compete for your training to be real. Nothing more. I actually don't really disagree with what Kit had to say. I have seen plenty of TMA that was just horrible and has just become the soulless repetition of kata. In our dojo we do train with real swords and if you don’t get out of the way, guess what, you get cut. So I have cut someone with a live sword, I do know how it feels. And I didn't really feel bad about it, he was supposed to get out of the way. He didn't. My teacher always used to say that in training if there wasn't a real danger of getting hit or cut that you were just playing.
So again, I had no intention of turning this into a referendum on the way cops are trained. It was a simple analogy, perhaps too simple. Sorry if it was misunderstood. So I'm just about done with thread. I learned from it.
Miquel and Mint, good luck with your training, I think you guys are right where you want to be. And that is a good thing.
Kit and Oscar, as always good to hear from you guys. Oscar I know we haven't met, but we know allot of the same people. If either of you guys are ever in sunny southern CA., drop in and we can play.

cxt
5th December 2005, 21:04
I think folks use the term "alive" incorrectly and more to the point with less than effective accuracy.

Consider this, how "alive" can your training really be if you generally only roll with the usual folks in the gym?
How long does it take to know that "Jake has a weak side?" or that "Bill has a wicked ankle lock--so don't let him use it."
That's not really "alive."

That's "alive" in only one sense of the word.

Plus they use "alive" without regard to the individual--as if training a slacker in an "alive" fashion automatically makes them an elite fighter.
See, a slacker is a slacker no matter what methodology they use.

Plus it also ignores the importance of having a qualified, skilled teacher that has the abilty to impart his skill to others.

You can train "alive" with an idiot all day and it buys you little.

I mean is it honestly "alive" when Matt Hughs (or any fighter) spends hours watching tapes of his upcoming oppt, spends months training to fight a specifc guy, in a very specific fashion, using specific techniques, and trains to counter the specific techniques and style of his next specific oppt?

I think that calling that "alive" really strechs the defination of the term.

Look, I cross train myself--so I am NOT bagging on the concept.

Just suggesting that all to often folks toss around words that don't actually mean what they assume them to mean.

And all to often folks get bogged down in debating methodolgy and ignoreing the quality of the teacher and the very real differences in people's motivation, discipline, drive, teachability, dediction etc.

Its my personal outlook that tough guys are tough guys--no matter where or how they train.

It always comes down to the person.


Chris Thomas

Óscar Recio
6th December 2005, 15:53
I´ll be really happy to, someday, fly to CA and meet you in person. Think about coming to Mallorca at anytime, if Toby never told you about our beautiful island better to do it ASAP...LOL

Óscar

Katsu!
7th December 2005, 05:59
The dedication comes from a desire to be a good martial artist. One can flit from style to style and school to school all of one's life and never acheive mastery of an art. I'm not looking for a fast set of martial skills. I'm not on an ego trip to see how many blackbelts I can collect.

I currently train in one art. I expect to train in that art for the rest of my life. I can see where some individuals have gotten to dedicating their lives to this art and it is where I want to go. There are depths to the art that I can't learn in a few years or even a decade. It will take me the rest of my life to get half as good as some of the people I train with. Why would I search for a new style?

That is not to say that I will not train in another art. I attend seminars and work out with some other styles. I do expect to take some more formal classes in other styles, but I will continue to train and teach in the primary one.


Couldn't have put it better myself.

M.Miletic