Uechi-Ryu.com

Discussion Area
It is currently Fri Nov 21, 2014 8:34 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 5:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:01 am
Posts: 2714
From a Karateunderground.com discussion about bujitsu or budo (a warriors way of fighting or a warrior's art)

{NB: Boldface emphasis mine - DS}:

Quote:
As Harry implies, both terms are extremely fuzzy at their boundaries and what they can be considered to encompass. Mark G and I had a long thread on budo, and whether it was a valid term for any practice at all in modern times. Budo has included everything from new-age to neo-fascist philosophies (if I can dignify these terms by "philosophy"); bujutsu has included everything from a complete multi-weapon koryu curriculum through sport specific MMA concepts. Basically I think the difference you are reaching for is this: is your training evaluated by what you do with yourself or what you do to your opponent? If the prime measure is the opponent, then you are closer aligned with "jitsu"; if the prime measure is your own self, then you are closer aligned with "do."

An analogy can be made with Western vs. Japanese archery, I think. In Western archery, you fix the bow to compensate for whatever peculiarities you may have in your shooting style with the prime evaluation being hitting the center of the target. If you hit, all is fine - the Olympics are the best example of this product oriented approach. All of this kind of archery is focused on making a hole in the middle of a piece of paper any way you can. In kyudo, the focus is on doing the shooting according to a precisely defined and correct form with the prime criteria being adherence to the form, elegance, grace and dignity. If this is all correct, then the target will be hit. But one can hit the target without the requisite qualities in the shooting, and the judgment will always be "bad shot."

Going back to karate - Jussi seems to adopt the "any way you can clobber the guy is good karate" (correct me if I'm wrong, Jussi). And he states (and I think that historically it is true) that Okinawan karate is very pragmatic and will take a method from anywhere so that its prime goal (winning in SD) can be fulfilled, style irrelevant. Most Japanese karate however has a history that is influenced by the long Tokugawa period of peace, and martial training became a matter of elegance (witness iaido and kyudo). Only sport had altered this, and that only after the end of the Tokugawa. Kendo was the sport development, and karate followed that (in Japan). So it inherited the inclination to stylistic purity, adherence to form and drive to elegance.

Nowadays, we have a weird mishmash in the West. Some do sport, some do SD and some follow the Japanese model of doing the art for the art's sake, even if they call it simply staying in shape, and many do some unbalanced hybrid. So I would call the question ill-posed. Perhaps a better question might be "are you more interested in beating someone up or in doing a physical activity to the best of your ability?" Me? I'd answer the second, because karate is first a method for learning how to move my mind and body elegantly and secondly a way to safely explore medieval methods of mayhem. SD is a benefit, not a goal per se.
[/b]

_________________
Did you show compassion today?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:57 pm 
I think that there is a "Western approach" as in boxing, wrestling etc and what I would term a "Missunderstood Eastern aproach"..the western approach is very simple you get physically fit for the discipline you want, and use aggression ,anger whatever to get you to your goal......now IMHO a lot of what folks peddle as Eastern martial arts.is really Eastern arts such as Karate with a large infusion of the Western approach.....so you do karate but you use a boxers mindset...............and we see this more and more :cry:
Now IMHO the true Eastern approach is totally different because it is "Do" and "Jutsu" at the same time..I first came across this when looking at folks like Kuroda Tetsuzan and his performance of traditional Japanese Ryu-Ha, and his struggle to find "Softness".....this sent me on a similar journey....to truly find softness..and it is extremly difficult for a heavy handed male like myself, but it's a bit like a spiritual awakening because you only need a few successes to know that you are following the path you want...and that it will change you physically,mentally and spiritually 8)

so I would say that when people break these things down into Do and Jutsu.......yeah I guess that's true.....but when you train with folks that don't make that distinction you get into a strange, but not scary place.............my sifu looks like a laid back hippy..I'm bigger stronger and outweigh him..but I wouldn't like to fight him.....but then again I never would and nor would he :wink:


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Posts: 3519
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Quote:
As Harry implies, both terms are extremely fuzzy at their boundaries and what they can be considered to encompass. Mark G and I had a long thread on budo, and whether it was a valid term for any practice at all in modern times. Budo has included everything from new-age to neo-fascist philosophies (if I can dignify these terms by "philosophy"); bujutsu has included everything from a complete multi-weapon koryu curriculum through sport specific MMA concepts. Basically I think the difference you are reaching for is this: is your training evaluated by what you do with yourself or what you do to your opponent? If the prime measure is the opponent, then you are closer aligned with "jitsu"; if the prime measure is your own self, then you are closer aligned with "do."

An analogy can be made with Western vs. Japanese archery, I think. In Western archery, you fix the bow to compensate for whatever peculiarities you may have in your shooting style with the prime evaluation being hitting the center of the target. If you hit, all is fine - the Olympics are the best example of this product oriented approach. All of this kind of archery is focused on making a hole in the middle of a piece of paper any way you can. In kyudo, the focus is on doing the shooting according to a precisely defined and correct form with the prime criteria being adherence to the form, elegance, grace and dignity. If this is all correct, then the target will be hit. But one can hit the target without the requisite qualities in the shooting, and the judgment will always be "bad shot."

Going back to karate - Jussi seems to adopt the "any way you can clobber the guy is good karate" (correct me if I'm wrong, Jussi). And he states (and I think that historically it is true) that Okinawan karate is very pragmatic and will take a method from anywhere so that its prime goal (winning in SD) can be fulfilled, style irrelevant. Most Japanese karate however has a history that is influenced by the long Tokugawa period of peace, and martial training became a matter of elegance (witness iaido and kyudo). Only sport had altered this, and that only after the end of the Tokugawa. Kendo was the sport development, and karate followed that (in Japan). So it inherited the inclination to stylistic purity, adherence to form and drive to elegance.

Nowadays, we have a weird mishmash in the West. Some do sport, some do SD and some follow the Japanese model of doing the art for the art's sake, even if they call it simply staying in shape, and many do some unbalanced hybrid. So I would call the question ill-posed. Perhaps a better question might be "are you more interested in beating someone up or in doing a physical activity to the best of your ability?" Me? I'd answer the second, because karate is first a method for learning how to move my mind and body elegantly and secondly a way to safely explore medieval methods of mayhem. SD is a benefit, not a goal per se.


Here is my issue with it....then is it martial arts then? Or simply exercises based on marital arts?

Whoever is teaching should make what they teach clear to their students. They should not be focusing on the art without letting their students know that is the goal. It's wrong to delude them to be learning self defense.

Theres nothing wrong with that. My old literature professor did tai chi for the beauty and physical benefits of it rather then fighting. And good on him. But he was at least fairly honest, and his teacher was honest with him.


Why there is so much of an unbalanced mishmash is because martial arts teachers are not clear about what they want to teach their students.

If one wants BOTH, im curious how it would turn out. Usually the training methodology of such schools is rigorous and against resisting opponents; but have a structured class.

But it's possible that the better someone is at defeating an opponent the more 'elegant' and refined they become. Hence they may automatically draw their bow in the ideals of a Japanese archery class by simply practicing hitting the bulls eye. The dignity, grace, and good form may simply come from BECOMING that good. By focusing on the bulls eye which is secondary, their primary goal is accomplished.


I understand focusing on the goal of training can be bad, since if your drilling a specific skill set, to think about winning one simply has to go beyond the skill set and bring others in. But then...you are not developing a new skill set or refining what you want to refine. By focusing on the task at hand, your goal is better.


But regardless, how can an individual have control over what they want regardless of the ability to win fights or do the art if the teacher is steering the class in a different direction? How do they advance to learn more of the art if they haven't met citeria for the teacher to pass them to learn more if they simply want to learn the art but not fight? In order to meet the criteria they must meet the requirements of the teacher.




jorvik wrote:
I think that there is a "Western approach" as in boxing, wrestling etc and what I would term a "Missunderstood Eastern aproach"..the western approach is very simple you get physically fit for the discipline you want, and use aggression ,anger whatever to get you to your goal......now IMHO a lot of what folks peddle as Eastern martial arts.is really Eastern arts such as Karate with a large infusion of the Western approach.....so you do karate but you use a boxers mindset...............and we see this more and more :cry:
Now IMHO the true Eastern approach is totally different because it is "Do" and "Jutsu" at the same time..I first came across this when looking at folks like Kuroda Tetsuzan and his performance of traditional Japanese Ryu-Ha, and his struggle to find "Softness".....this sent me on a similar journey....to truly find softness..and it is extremly difficult for a heavy handed male like myself, but it's a bit like a spiritual awakening because you only need a few successes to know that you are following the path you want...and that it will change you physically,mentally and spiritually 8)

so I would say that when people break these things down into Do and Jutsu.......yeah I guess that's true.....but when you train with folks that don't make that distinction you get into a strange, but not scary place.............my sifu looks like a laid back hippy..I'm bigger stronger and outweigh him..but I wouldn't like to fight him.....but then again I never would and nor would he :wink:

But even when so many schools advertise self defense?

You talk as if the western mindset is a bad thing? If the school advertises improved self defense or competitive fighting/dueling...is it bad to adopt the western approach? Everyone i have trained with seems to emphasize being relaxed, clear headed, and that one should try to use as much technique as possible when doing...anything. Be fluid when doing...anythingDeveloping physical strength isn't a bad thing. If a tai chi man with little muscle can knock down 300lb monsters, think of what that man would do if he added muscle power?

If the school they joined is karate for the defeat of an opponent, then a western mindset is also an eastern mindset.

The problem happens if the student is training for nothing but the form and the art but his teacher wants them to be very martial, or they are training for self defense, but have a sensei that does not care about that.

Now i agree it's possible to be an effective fighter and not have an aura of violence or have a hard personality.

Calen payne,when you read his website seems like a para-military man who loves western martial arts...and he is.
But if you meet him and talk to him. The first word that pops into ones head is HIPPY!
His fighting is 90% BJJ, boxing, wrestling. And he told me he credits his martial arts for his development of his
personality.
I myself have pissed off alot of people at dragon. They see me and think im some grungy skinny reak, and are surprised i can fight because my appearance doesn't match your stereotypical MMA guy.

THAT SAID:
I admit the types of people who tend to go into western martial arts tend to have a specific mindset, appearance, personality of aggression, it's how the arts are perceived and thus how such individuals were brought into it.

San shou practitioners, particularly the competitive ones are usually are the same 'type' of people boxers and wrestlers are. And san shou is both it's own sport as well as having practitioners with traditional martial arts backgrounds.

But to be relaxed and training to use little strength greatly helps them. Good chi kung and good health and longevity from Chinese exercises and kung-fu are good because longevity is good for martial arts, you can fight when your eighty you survive better. These exercises of longevity increase stamina and strength, making victory and competitive fighting better.

So.....does the goal drive the art?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWWYliy3PgQ

Though Mark Hatmaker, who is VERY western in his approach to the point of critiques slipped into his books on Eastern martial arts.

Hatmaker says using anger to motivate you is not good because focus is broken. Aggression on the other hand is totally controlled.

I have talked to individuals who have trained with Joseph Chen(you posted clips of him), and he has a 'switch' which apparently he can turn on at times. Very aggressive and apparently terrifying. Not an exact quote but "i felt like his eyes could burn a hole through me"

ive watched a friend do a pa kua class. The teacher is also very...hippy. But watch him push hands and he's throwing them around. Whats interesting is he teaches an aggressive mindset to his students. As well as being loose and fluid. The better they can push hands the more fluid and excellent their form becomes.
It isn't as high adrenaline as the western martial arts schools, and thus has a different environment and attracts different students less 'jock like'. But the GOAL is the same, and the concept of how good 'form' and the 'art' of it is has basis in the same criteria.

Once again? Does the goal create the art? Create the elegance?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 10:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 1684
Location: england
Form .

A couple of years ago,I visited a boxers gym ,[actually we are friends] ,who switched to mixed martial arts,I demonstrated [Ikyroko] method on the form of things ,he could not see the fight within these forms ,but with a bit a sparring some function emerged that gave fight credibility to the form .

_________________
max ainley


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 10:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 1684
Location: england
As we see here my friend could not see the fight in the form ,actually he said " The form/forms looked daft ,until you got on the receiving end ".

Then I said "The forms also have a spiritual form of training too ,that is much more difficult to apprehend ".

_________________
max ainley


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 10:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 1684
Location: england
The difficulty is in making the invisible aspect of the form visible .

_________________
max ainley


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 4:34 pm 
Quote
"Here is my issue with it....then is it martial arts then? Or simply exercises based on martial arts? "
It is martial arts, the problem is that some of the folks teaching Tai -chi for example do not have a clue what the fighting aspect of their art is. They like to think that they are doing it for health or spirituality etc, personnally I think that they are deluding themselves because all the folks who have gained in health and spirituality new the form as a fighting method, however, this didn't mean that they went around looking for trouble, although if you read widely about Tai Chi you will find that there were a few sociopaths who practiced it in the past, who would fight anybody at the drop of a hat. :lol:
Now some of the stuff that is practised both as a "Do" and a "jutsu" is quite dated and really couldn't be used today. I mentioned Kuroda Tetsuzan.who is a brilliant practitioner at swordfighting....however I don't think what he does could be applied to todays world, except as a "Do" although I think it would be very effective
Quote
" If a tai chi man with little muscle can knock down 300lb monsters, think of what that man would do if he added muscle power? "

The point is that he doesn't use muscle power, actually that is entirely the point. People get confused over this.
In some arts , especially Tai-Chi the object is to defeat a younger,stronger,faster opponent......Now what you are saying is wouldn't he be better to use Strength :lol: .No he wouldn't because then he wouldn't be doing Tai-Chi.........remember he wants to beat younger stronger faster opponents.......he can't do that by making himself younger,faster and stronger ( even if that is at all possible)...at some point he must move beyond that.that is why it takes people so long to learn stuff like Tai-Chi.and why you have these old guys who can still kick A$$



Quote
"
You talk as if the western mindset is a bad thing?"

Don't forget who you are talking to :roll: .remember I'm the guy who asks folks what they would do against Mike Tyson, and how they would fair against a good amateur boxer. so No it's not a bad thing ....but it comes from a culture that doesn't have do and jutsu..........actually the Chinese arts don't really have Do and Jutsu either.it's just that stuff like Tai-Chi does seem to encompasse both ideas

Quote
"The problem happens if the student is training for nothing but the form and the art but his teacher wants them to be very martial, or they are training for self defense, but have a sensei that does not care about that. "
Well in such cases it is up to the student to find the right teacher for himself
This is one of the reasons that I am very keen on the teacher teaching the art and not adding all sorts of other stuff to it.....I think you know about the guy that I trained with who used to teach kicking and punching and also aikido.one of his students who went to his class got promoted to blackbelt, but he only attended the striking classes.........I asked him what his blackbelt was in .....he said Aikido :lol: .but the guy couldn't throw anybody or even do ukemi..............I reckon you might find some Uechi were all they do is wrestle :lol: ..................so again that isn't the art that they are supposed to be learning and they should find somebody who is honest enough to teach what they say they are teaching
My sifu teaches Wing-Chun, Chi-kung and will soon be teaching Tai-Chi as well.but the arts are never mixed.and that is how it should be IMHO 8)

I don't know what he would do if he ever had to use them......but as an example the Yi-quan that he does has a very strong Chimeister side to it.....and when he teaches this , most of the time you are standing in different stances.such as " Hugging a tree" .but that is entirely part of the art, in fact you are supposed to do that for a few years before you even try the fighting side :wink:


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 10:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Posts: 3519
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
jorvik wrote:
Quote
"Here is my issue with it....then is it martial arts then? Or simply exercises based on martial arts? "
It is martial arts, the problem is that some of the folks teaching Tai -chi for example do not have a clue what the fighting aspect of their art is. They like to think that they are doing it for health or spirituality etc, personnally I think that they are deluding themselves because all the folks who have gained in health and spirituality new the form as a fighting method, however, this didn't mean that they went around looking for trouble, although if you read widely about Tai Chi you will find that there were a few sociopaths who practiced it in the past, who would fight anybody at the drop of a hat. :lol:
Now some of the stuff that is practised both as a "Do" and a "jutsu" is quite dated and really couldn't be used today. I mentioned Kuroda Tetsuzan.who is a brilliant practitioner at swordfighting....however I don't think what he does could be applied to todays world, except as a "Do" although I think it would be very effective

I think your right about the whole Tetsuzan thing, though id point out that adapting kenjutsu to modern day street fighting isn't too hard. I myself want to learn kenjutsu mostly for LOL KEWL, though i think id learn to smash people with a wooden stick pretty good.

Quote:
The point is that he doesn't use muscle power, actually that is entirely the point. People get confused over this.
In some arts , especially Tai-Chi the object is to defeat a younger,stronger,faster opponent......Now what you are saying is wouldn't he be better to use Strength :lol: .No he wouldn't because then he wouldn't be doing Tai-Chi.........remember he wants to beat younger stronger faster opponents.......he can't do that by making himself younger,faster and stronger ( even if that is at all possible)...at some point he must move beyond that.that is why it takes people so long to learn stuff like Tai-Chi.and why you have these old guys who can still kick A$$

"Strong enough not to need skill, skilled enough not to need strength."

He obviously in his overall approach would not want to use strength, because that would be stupid; not because it's not tai chi because lets face it, i bet you tai chi practitioners exercised and made themselves strong. The key is not to make physical strength a part of technique perfection(i know thats a very general statement, but i hope it makes some sense) I may use 90% of my body mechanics and be very relaxed when drilling/sparring to generate hitting power. But when your dealing with the stress of street defense you may use 60% technique and not be as relaxed as you would be in class. THe other 40% may be attribute based.
BUUUTT if your 60% technique when drilling/sparring and may not be a relaxed as you could be, in a self defense situation or competition you may use 20% technique, be very stiff, and rely 80% on physical attributes.

Hence not using power/strength, physical attributes, or at least striving to minimize it as much as possible when training is very very practical for stress in street fighting/competition, or even performing live like a form or demo.
THen you physically work out, make yourself stronger for any time you make an error when actually fighting due to stress.


Quote:
Quote
"
You talk as if the western mindset is a bad thing?"

Don't forget who you are talking to :roll: .remember I'm the guy who asks folks what they would do against Mike Tyson, and how they would fair against a good amateur boxer. so No it's not a bad thing ....but it comes from a culture that doesn't have do and jutsu..........actually the Chinese arts don't really have Do and Jutsu either.it's just that stuff like Tai-Chi does seem to encompasse both ideas

Another important question is, when and WHY did concepts such as Do and jutsu develop instead of being merged? Tai chi is damn old, to see so many aspects of it isn't surprising considering how much time it had to evolve.

Quote:
Well in such cases it is up to the student to find the right teacher for himself
This is one of the reasons that I am very keen on the teacher teaching the art and not adding all sorts of other stuff to it.....I think you know about the guy that I trained with who used to teach kicking and punching and also aikido.one of his students who went to his class got promoted to blackbelt, but he only attended the striking classes.........I asked him what his blackbelt was in .....he said Aikido :lol: .but the guy couldn't throw anybody or even do ukemi..............I reckon you might find some Uechi were all they do is wrestle :lol: ..................so again that isn't the art that they are supposed to be learning and they should find somebody who is honest enough to teach what they say they are teaching
My sifu teaches Wing-Chun, Chi-kung and will soon be teaching Tai-Chi as well.but the arts are never mixed.and that is how it should be IMHO 8)

But then...what are HIS goals? What is he trying to teach? Self defence or health AND self defence AND artistic development? If thats the case then i can see why he would separate it if he runs his school particularly for those reasons. BUt if he has a school built exclusively for fighting, why not?

Though on a personal level, mixing them should be no problem since you can pick and choose what works for your own fighting style.
Quote:
I don't know what he would do if he ever had to use them......but as an example the Yi-quan that he does has a very strong Chimeister side to it.....and when he teaches this , most of the time you are standing in different stances.such as " Hugging a tree" .but that is entirely part of the art, in fact you are supposed to do that for a few years before you even try the fighting side :wink:


Tree hugging is good for you, and for martial arts, though thats just my opinion(im talking ki-kung, not literal tree hugging) ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 9:40 pm
Posts: 3700
Quote:
Basically I think the difference you are reaching for is this: is your training evaluated by what you do with yourself or what you do to your opponent? If the prime measure is the opponent, then you are closer aligned with "jitsu"; if the prime measure is your own self, then you are closer aligned with "do."


I think separating the two ideas is artificial if you are doing a martial art. Any kind of martial art. There's a lot of things that would be classified as "do" for someone who is say a sniper, but the final result is very "jutsu". I believe you will almost always have a lot of the "do" aspect in any jutsu and it's hard to jutsu without a good dose of "do", but you can practice only the "do" aspect without any jutsu at all.

_________________
I was dreaming of the past...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:29 pm 
Quote
"Another important question is, when and WHY did concepts such as Do and jutsu develop instead of being merged? Tai chi is damn old, to see so many aspects of it isn't surprising considering how much time it had to evolve. "I think the concept is a fairly old one, Japanese and Chinese martial arts incorpoated some aspects of Buddhism into their practice.so there has always been the idea of doing Martial arts as a way to develop oneself spiritually, plus of course to a samurai it was their job,their way of life and meditation and the like helped them to remain calm in battle.
However the term really seemed to take off
with sports.I think the first use of it was Judo, then Kendo, aikido,karate-do etc,etc.......and interestingly these "sports" are very different from the original jutsus.especially with Kendo.in Ken-jutsu there are a lot of swinging upward strikes to the arteries etc....so what the Japanese did was basically what Westerners had done years before. i.e. turned their martial arts into sports.
Quote
"I think separating the two ideas is artificial if you are doing a martial art. Any kind of martial art. There's a lot of things that would be classified as "do" for someone who is say a sniper, but the final result is very "jutsu". I believe you will almost always have a lot of the "do" aspect in any jutsu and it's hard to jutsu without a good dose of "do", but you can practice only the "do" aspect without any jutsu at all.
Well if you read the Tao te ching.there is talk of a butcher and how he uses " the way" when he cuts meat..so it's not all for new age hippy vegetarians :lol:
We are really looking back on an alien culture. The East today isn't like it was even 50 years ago, so I guess it is kind of hard to understand what they wanted or meant


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:18 pm
Posts: 1166
Location: Wells Beach , Me.

"I think separating the two ideas is artificial if you are doing a martial art. Any kind of martial art. There's a lot of things that would be classified as "do" for someone who is say a sniper, but the final result is very "jutsu". I believe you will almost always have a lot of the "do" aspect in any jutsu and it's hard to jutsu without a good dose of "do", but you can practice only the "do" aspect without any jutsu at all."


As sad as it sounds you CAN'Do' without 'jitsu' ; we see these folks at camps and seminars usually complaining about the amount of contact this, or don't grab so hard that , we don't do THAT at my dojo ect... :roll:

Don't misunderstand my post ..whatever reason you choose to experience 'the art' is shurely better than NOT training. We always welcome new 'partners' for a little "dosey-Do" :D :lol:

_________________
FEARS Ltd
"Art meets Reality"
www.fearsltd.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:21 pm 
I don't think that really comes under "Do" or "Jutsu".I've trained with Ju "Do" guys who were as hard as nails..and same with aikido......but you get allsorts in MA circles :roll:


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:01 am
Posts: 2714
Part of this discussion, for me, has to do with training kata. If you know the function of the kata then you'll correct the form differently than if you're unaware of the function.

Same thing for yakosuko kumite, pre-arranged bunkai, or any other prescribed drill; if you're unaware of the original underlying principal or goal of the training device, then you might make corrections or changes to make it better suit your understanding or your own training goals.

The admonishment "don't change the kata" only works if you understand the jitsu behind the do of an empty-handed form. If the function is unknown then change is inevitable.

You see the same thing in linguistics. In France there is L'Academie Francaise which, for many years, tried to prescribe how the French language should be used and written based on the original intent. There are some who think this preservation effort to be ideal and others who consider it absolutely irrelevant and...umm...academic...for lack of a better work. :)

Lots of people who speak and write French aren't aware or don't care about the guidelines of L'Academie because they make their French work for them just fine on a daily basis.

Descriptive linguistics just tries to keep up with how people are actually using a language and notes when conventions are evolving or if a new use of the language is developing apart from convention. Descriptive linguistics embraces the fact that a living language will evolve.

So to turn this back on martial arts - "fighting systems" are out there in the world and they will evolve. Krav Maga began as a system for training Isralie foot soldiers and now, for some, it is a great way to stay in shape.

Uechi-ryu began as one guy who wanted to learn Chinese boxing and is now....well, it is now a number of things isn't it?

What is the measure of effective training in the martial arts? It should be dependent on the practitioner's goals. If the goal of a practitioner is to know and teach brutally effective combatives, then the measure should be the same. If the goal of a practitioner is self-defense or self-preservation in the form of a long and fruitful life, then the measure should be the same.

I think one of the things we struggle with in defining our training is to reconcile the two approaches I just grossly outlined into a single activity or idea.

_________________
Did you show compassion today?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 10:18 pm 
Quote
"So to turn this back on martial arts - "fighting systems" are out there in the world and they will evolve. Krav Maga began as a system for training Isralie foot soldiers and now, for some, it is a great way to stay in shape. "Fighting systems will evolve along guidelines........personnally I never rated krav maga.some israeli guy did martial arts for 30 years then came up with this 8O .sorry been there , done that, and really,really don't rate it.......................many oriental martial arts have been in development for maybe hundreds of years......people have come back again and again to core beliefs and attributes and reinforced or rejected them

Quote
"Part of this discussion, for me, has to do with training kata. If you know the function of the kata then you'll correct the form differently than if you're unaware of the function."For me also, but only recently and only recently with such clarity ,and I am nowhere near the understanding that I want.but I see the form feeding into my sticking hands-sensitivity training and then back out again.it is getting to be somewhere near what I hoped it would be,.that form and fighting would meld and when I did form I would be training fighting and when I was fighting I would be doing my form......and so I could add other things into each that I could never do seperatly....so that fighting could be a form of meditation almost :lol: .......and I know this is perhaps unrealistic, but as I never seem to fight I suppose my delusions are permissible :wink:


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 1684
Location: england
A few goals .

Animalistic motions .

A way of life .

Animal like motions stand more chance of working in a real fight ,and those type of motions are more attainable if I train regular on those forms .

I had this conversation 30 years ago with a martial artist who thought he was using his kata moves ,when he was dancing around like a boxer in kumite .
I told him he was not practicing the kata enough ,and his prior boxing training was showing up because it was ,or had been practiced more .

_________________
max ainley


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 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