On these forums I see people who question EFFECTIVENESS and they challenge this effectiveness through their training experiences.
Neil sees: “Somehow I am increasingly sensing a sort of "if it feels good, do it" type of training methodology among posters.”
I have yet to read or even feel it has been implied “if it feels good, do it.”
There IS a sense of body knowledge that comes with deeper training and the complete lack of body mechanics will never become a deep training no matter how long you do it. This may be interpreted incorrectly in that manner (my take of course.)
Striking is a great example of something you can test with conditioned people. If you hit in one manner and it is far more effective then why would you hit different? Unless you find some application flaw.
I use striking as an example because the original way I was taught to hit in Uechi is drastically less effective than what I do now. For a striking art this struck me as rather important.
In addition the posters who question often back that up with either current experts or old writings of the masters or try to explain what they have experienced.
Interesting the different takes.
For example, the seeking of effectiveness I see in the postings is also interpreted by Neil as: “impatience with the study of the techniques in favour of what seems to be "faster" results.”
Perhaps there is impatience out there I have only seen it in a couple of white belts.
I see the challenging of rather new drills and the principles they teach that some believe fly in the face of both modern and ancient combative masters. (Others disagree.)
I believe if a person puts the time on the floor and take the time to explore body mechanics and read on combative strategy then, if there are questions about their training, they will come to them, but they have to have an inquiring mind.
I would be hard pressed to put a time limit because every person is different. Some see things sooner than others.
All in the eye of the beholder I guess.
