Uechi-Ryu.com

Discussion Area
It is currently Sat Oct 25, 2014 7:04 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 10:42 pm
Posts: 623
Location: Virginia
From another thread on open vs closed fists:
JimHawkins wrote:
AAAhmed46 wrote:
You can do regular conditioning while making movement the main focus of your training. The conditioning helps alot, especially if your partners know how to punch.

AAAhmed46 wrote:
ive seen far more respect for kyokushin and any sort full contact karate school/style by the MMA/Muay thai/Boxing. Infact, the best of the best all use lots of movement.

If you say so.. I am not sure what you mean by 'lots of movement' I am an advocate of *conservation of movement* but that's me.. In any case it's off topic as far as I can see here...


I'd like to hear people's thoughts on whether training and sparring/combat in general should incorporate lots of movement and being quick on your feet or conservation of movement?

Obviously, this depends on the circumstances, but in a training scenario where you have more control of the situation....which do you focus upon and why?

pros/cons?

_________________
Live True, Laugh often
Shana


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 9:40 pm
Posts: 3700
First...
Combat, or fighting, is purposeful violent conflict intended to establish dominance over the opposition.

Sparring is a form of training common to many martial arts. Although the precise form varies, it is essentially relatively 'free-form' fighting, with enough rules, customs, or agreements to make injuries unlikely.

Both should have enough movement, but not much more or less. How much movement also depends on environment and what you are trying to accomplish.

_________________
I was dreaming of the past...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:21 am
Posts: 2407
Location: NYC
Shana Moore wrote:
I'd like to hear people's thoughts on whether training and sparring/combat in general should incorporate lots of movement and being quick on your feet or conservation of movement?

Obviously, this depends on the circumstances, but in a training scenario where you have more control of the situation....which do you focus upon and why?

pros/cons?


If a train is coming you need more movement than if a bullet is coming..

Seems obvious, but many will use the same amount of motion, in similar cases during training to avoid either kinds of energy..

There is simply the motion needed to maximize effectiveness and efficiency--any more is a waste of time and energy.. Loosing time can result in failure, as can running out of energy..

But there are all kinds of motion. You have body motion, moving the whole body some distance... You have the use of the tools and changes from one tool or action to another. Efficiency is especially critical when changing from one tool or action to another. The real truth is that if you can double your efficiency you can double your speed..

Physical speed is only one attribute.. If you cut the motion in half the time to execute happens in half the time or is twice as fast.. In these cases how fast (physical speed) you do it becomes much less critical to success.. This can be applied to anything that moves or changes its shape. On the macro side you have whole body motion.. On the micro side you have very small changes in path or size of circles that a tool makes..

If you have a circle that is 15 inches in diameter vs a circle that is 3 inches in diameter how much faster is that smaller circle? Quite a bit. In fact, it's much faster than can physical speed make in terms of its superiority.. IOW doubling physical speed for example doesn't really happen let alone tripling it or better.. You will never get twice as fast as you are now... However, you can get twice (or more ) times as efficient in terms of use of motion. So what if it could mean that you could become effectively 2 or 3 times faster or more? This is a great opportunity to realize the hidden power of the softer side of the art..

There are infinite applications for this kind of speed multiplication--take a look at anything that uses motion or effects change in position, angle, shape.. How can that action become much more efficient and therefore significantly increase its effective speed?

Less is way more here..

Feel free to address specific problems or examples for refinement.

_________________
Shaolin
M Y V T K F
"Receive what comes, stay with what goes, upon loss of contact attack the line" – The Kuen Kuit


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 3:00 pm 
It's a hard problem to address, because folks have their own ideas which are sometimes very wrong. I like boxing and it has influenced me.....but it is a misconception to think that a streetfight will resemble a boxing match........although in my city slang for a streetfight is a " Boxing match" :lol: .......the value in boxing is in it's training, it's emphasis on contact, fitness and it's relative ease in learning..though for a streetfight the filipino version of boxing is a lot more real........... :)

Chinese styles like Tai-Chi and Wing-Chun are very tactile.their practitioners learn to " Feel" what somebody is going to do..also in some Mantis you get similar stuff..............when I did karate I was really surprised that in other clubs they didn't get taught how to "set someone up"
Whereas my teacher always taught that 8) ........if you look at some of the great kickboxers like Bill Wallace you get some idea of how to fight effectively..........what he did was only use three kicks, but the set up and trajectory was the same for all three...and like a heat seeking missile they could switch course in a nano second, these coupled with feints and fakes made him a superb practitioner......and that is really what a lot of the Chinese styles try to emulate, but they teach it as a system...and as Bill has said many times the Chinese will happily change bits in a form to suit themselves.....you only have to look at Wing-Chun to see that :wink:
but they will have an underlying core to draw from


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 5:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Posts: 3519
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
JimHawkins wrote:
Shana Moore wrote:
I'd like to hear people's thoughts on whether training and sparring/combat in general should incorporate lots of movement and being quick on your feet or conservation of movement?

Obviously, this depends on the circumstances, but in a training scenario where you have more control of the situation....which do you focus upon and why?

pros/cons?


If a train is coming you need more movement than if a bullet is coming..

Seems obvious, but many will use the same amount of motion, in similar cases during training to avoid either kinds of energy..

There is simply the motion needed to maximize effectiveness and efficiency--any more is a waste of time and energy.. Loosing time can result in failure, as can running out of energy..

But there are all kinds of motion. You have body motion, moving the whole body some distance... You have the use of the tools and changes from one tool or action to another. Efficiency is especially critical when changing from one tool or action to another. The real truth is that if you can double your efficiency you can double your speed..

Physical speed is only one attribute.. If you cut the motion in half the time to execute happens in half the time or is twice as fast.. In these cases how fast (physical speed) you do it becomes much less critical to success.. This can be applied to anything that moves or changes its shape. On the macro side you have whole body motion.. On the micro side you have very small changes in path or size of circles that a tool makes..

If you have a circle that is 15 inches in diameter vs a circle that is 3 inches in diameter how much faster is that smaller circle? Quite a bit. In fact, it's much faster than can physical speed make in terms of its superiority.. IOW doubling physical speed for example doesn't really happen let alone tripling it or better.. You will never get twice as fast as you are now... However, you can get twice (or more ) times as efficient in terms of use of motion. So what if it could mean that you could become effectively 2 or 3 times faster or more? This is a great opportunity to realize the hidden power of the softer side of the art..

There are infinite applications for this kind of speed multiplication--take a look at anything that uses motion or effects change in position, angle, shape.. How can that action become much more efficient and therefore significantly increase its effective speed?

Less is way more here..

Feel free to address specific problems or examples for refinement.


Excess anything tends to be wasteful.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 6:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 473
Location: worcester, ma
one facet of combat i incorporate in what i do is emotional content.
while this could be its own topic it does tie in with the amount of space one uses in the field of play, meaning how much ground do you cover or claim as your own.

opinions vary but i feel a system should take into account the emotions of the combatant. most dont. maybe in part to the teacher. most of the time i only hear teachers saying and thinking "aggessive mind set". well that is not reality. in real combat, surprise is king. when we are surprised we hardly have time to get ourselves in a aggressive mind set. other times we can be just down right scared out of our wits. but we still have to defend.

i have seen many womens self defense programs with this small but vital mistake. they say get mad, say no, scream it , no no no. get angry let it out.
they are making an assumption that because you trained you will be able to dig deep in your soul and find that agression to fight back.
IT PROBABLY AINT GONNA HAPPEN!!
maybe it will ....but then again what if it doesnt?
if it dosen't their entire system is going to fail.

so if you do feel angry or agressive , you can look at the field of play and try to dominate. think of the ground like a chess table and dominate the middle sqaures. you dont have to move much. claim the center, own it , this is your space. you will force the other person to move around you. you will be set and ready. this is the tiger in our uechi system.

on the other hand if your gut is telling you to RUN!! or your scared $#!^ le$$ any forward agressive movment will be in conflict with what your body is telling you and the action will be half hearted and counter productive.
in this case move more. use movment for avoidance. strike when you can but look for the escape, dont get traped in a corner. distance is time and you need time to find your advantage.
this is the crane in our uechi system.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 7:19 pm 
Quote
"one facet of combat i incorporate in what i do is emotional content.
while this could be its own topic it does tie in with the amount of space one uses in the field of play, meaning how much ground do you cover or claim as your own. "


I think that it is it's own topic :) ...but how much space you control will depend on how aggressive you are, or rather by controling space you can appear more aggressive :D .............I can appear very aggressive ( although I really am not)......by certain actions and movements that I do, If I want to teach people to fight.then part of that would be to teach them how to do this..........now some styles like Wing-Chun operate in a range which IMHO makes them appear very aggressive.......but you can look at this aspect seperate from Style..........and think of it more in terms of the components that make up a fight....there is a lot of talking and threatening and the like, and this is an area that no martial art really covers.....this is where you need to think out of the box.and where you realise that you must taylor your martial arts for yourself :wink:


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Totally OT but...
PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 10:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:21 am
Posts: 2407
Location: NYC
I dunno..

First off I'm not interested in controlling a lot of space--mainly the space between my weapon and my target......

Secondly, I think aggressiveness is the easier way to go... Meaning it's much easier to get angry and aggressive rather than the Chan Buddhist approach, which holds that no emotion is far superior to using anger to get results, which can push you in the direction of inflexibility, being ridged and hurried......

Oh and who is in a fight? It's not a fight (a contest) or duel where you want to control the Ring it's war were you want to take the enemy out ASAP, not a minor distinction IMO... The idea is to get in there and kill them, or take them out however one does that.. That means there is no time for game playing, bravado, testing, making funny faces, posing, playing with space, or many other things associated with sport, etc.............

_________________
Shaolin
M Y V T K F
"Receive what comes, stay with what goes, upon loss of contact attack the line" – The Kuen Kuit


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 3:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 473
Location: worcester, ma
Oh and who is in a fight? It's not a fight (a contest) or duel where you want to control the Ring it's war were you want to take the enemy out ASAP, not a minor distinction IMO... The idea is to get in there and kill them, or take them out however one does that.. That means there is no time for game playing, bravado, testing, making funny faces, posing, playing with space, or many other things associated with sport, etc.......
_______________________________________________________________________

yes Jim there is no place for bravado...

I will be polite and bow out...
however if you were a women with your face mashed to the floor of your car, half upside down while some guy who out weighs you by 100 pounds and is trying to rape you, im sure you could as you say "get in there and kill them" because being agressive is so easy.

you see the last i checked real fighting was about surviving not beating up the other person.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 4:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:21 am
Posts: 2407
Location: NYC
hoshin wrote:
I will be polite and bow out...

Because?

hoshin wrote:
however if you were a women with your face mashed to the floor of your car, half upside down while some guy who out weighs you by 100 pounds and is trying to rape you, im sure you could as you say "get in there and kill them" because being agressive is so easy.

Hmmm, superior tone followed by a straw man and some hyperbole--nice..! :roll:

For many folks becoming aggressive is part of everyday life... In the big city folks are competing for space and time and jobs and on and on... Fact is just driving around the city we can see plenty of examples of aggressiveness.. So no sorry I don't see getting angry and aggressive when one is faced with a threat as quite the canyon leaper that you apparently do for most folks, especially as compared with other methods.. .

Doesn't mean some folks may have trouble getting angry or aggressive, they may not know how to direct that physically, I can't say...

There's another scenario to consider, subject whacked over the head with lead pipe, smashing said head... Not much our hero can do from that position either.. And like your example has not a thing to do with space, time, economy of motion and leaves little room for aggressive mind setting.. Nevertheless a woman in your scenario may or may not be best served by becoming aggressive..

hoshin wrote:
you see the last i checked real fighting was about surviving not beating up the other person.

So in combat our goal is to survive without hurting the other person? Cool, sounds like Aiki but then aggression would be a no no...

_________________
Shaolin
M Y V T K F
"Receive what comes, stay with what goes, upon loss of contact attack the line" – The Kuen Kuit


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 6:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Posts: 3519
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
While i do dueling and 'personal protection' a two very different things, i do believe that good footwork and controlling the distance is always a good skill to have(certainly it isn't as important in a street fight then a duel) but their still fundamentals. Closing the distance for instance, head movement and evasion all are skills that are linked to distanceing and footwork, even with blitz's.

Someone is attacking you, and there is space, you can close and attack right away, or to disengage and escape. Even palming strikes requires some sort of ability to control the distance. The better your footwork is the more 'fast' you may seem, the faster you close the distance, the better your footwork is, the easier it is getting the superior angle.

Once again, im not talking about a duel, which is a chessmatch, im talking personal protection. Im not talking about being defensive or running away, im talking about attacking(closing the distance, getting the superior angle, all are offensive)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 7:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 10:42 pm
Posts: 623
Location: Virginia
Thank you all for some good points and discussion!

Thanks Mike for the early definitions, and it makes sense that goals and environment will affect the amount of movement.

I find it interesting that several of you define combat as "intent to establish dominance". It's an interesting perspective that I'm not sure I agree with...more consideration required on that.

As I see it (thinking out loud here and probably vastly oversimplifying), in serious combat, not sparring or general training, you are seeking to:
a)discourage your opponent from attacking you further (so intimidation or simply being too much trouble/too costly to bother with)
b)injure your opponent enough that you can get yourself out of that situation
c)completely defeat your opponent so they won't ever hurt you or another again

I can see the first two as possibly a state of temporary dominance, but I don't really look at it that way. I see it more as a means to an end. Dominance just puts it into too much a "pissing contest" and makes it far more personal than it is. Making it personal equates to raw and fragile emotions to me, and would detract from my focus and ability to fight...I don't know if this is a female viewpoint or simply mine. I only see dominance taking part in that last one...but again, perhaps it is simply how I'm viewing dominance? I'm equating emotions with dominance, and calculation with distance. IOW, dominance rooted more in fear, and calculation rooted more in focus/determination (more like a chess match). I'd be interested in other's thoughts on this.

_________________
Live True, Laugh often
Shana


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 8:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 10:42 pm
Posts: 623
Location: Virginia
Jim,
Very interesting thoughts on efficiency. So, the trick is finding the balance between efficiency and effectiveness?

What I mean is your example of making your wauke smaller works to a point, as long as you effectively block or hit whatever you are seeking to block/hit/etc. I guess that's obvious, eh? :oops:

But in order to make these things truly effective, you have to train over and over, correct? I know from practice, testing, and reading (only limited experience) that stress can make your movements naturally smaller, so you want to train to instinctive reactions in this concept, correct?

Again, maybe i'm just stating the obvious, but I want to make sure I'm on the right track.

_________________
Live True, Laugh often
Shana


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 8:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 10:42 pm
Posts: 623
Location: Virginia
Steve,
I don't want to get too far off topic on the emotional content thread (although my last post will probably drift there as well...sigh), but I like your tie in to tiger and crane. It's an interesting viewpoint and consideration.

I think Adam hits a point where you and Jim might agree instead of disagree...(which we simply will not encourage further, mk? 8) )

Adam, if I'm misreading your point, please correct me, but I'm seeing your point as:
whether you are being agressive or timid, whether your goal is kick a$$ or simply get the heck outta dodge, whether it's your surrounding space or the space between you and your weapon...it all comes down to making your attack effective. It's about quickly closing the distance, getting the superior angle...controlling the line from the start and taking the offensive tact.

It's all about controlling and efficiency...at least, that seems to be the point where the three of you coincide, unless I'm misreading all of you horribly wrong...if so, please correct and redirect...

as I am enjoying this discussion and finding interesting things to consider!

_________________
Live True, Laugh often
Shana


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 9:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:21 am
Posts: 2407
Location: NYC
Shana Moore wrote:
I find it interesting that several of you define combat as "intent to establish dominance".

Well you have different kinds of dominance.. There's positional dominance of different flavors.. There's strategic dominance; mental or emotional dominance... We want to have positional dominance one way or the other but there are different situations and methods..

Shana Moore wrote:
a)discourage your opponent from attacking you further (so intimidation or simply being too much trouble/too costly to bother with)

Well this would be pre-engagement right?

Shana Moore wrote:
b)injure your opponent enough that you can get yourself out of that situation


c)completely defeat your opponent so they won't ever hurt you or another again

Almost the same thing... Most of the time around here folks talk in terms of taking out the threat.. Legally, once you eliminate the threat, however you do that, you have to stop.. The 'so they won't ever do that again' sounds like a Charles Bronson movie.. :lol:

_________________
Shaolin
M Y V T K F
"Receive what comes, stay with what goes, upon loss of contact attack the line" – The Kuen Kuit


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group