Sorry, another no-touch video

Bill's forum was the first! All subjects are welcome. Participation by all encouraged.

Moderator: Available

Post Reply
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

There are lots of posts and lots of links. I can't possibly get through all these this evening after having battled a work laptop with a B/G card that was getting into a losing battle with an N1 network. < Sigh... >

So much of these discussions are arguments about semantics. And any time it gets to "this is better than that", well I think we'd all best run for the hills. Not much light is being shed.

What's important in my book is to get intent and context to match. I don't want to be doing street fighting in a college wrestling match, and I don't want to be doing college wrestling in a boxing ring, and I don't want to be doing boxing head shots sans equipment on the street, and I don't want to be doing grueling BJJ ground work in a 3-on-1 gang attack.
Stryke wrote:
so which do you do ? , or do you do both ?

and if so is the difference confusing and known to your students ?
What I personally do is my thing. But since you asked...

First, I tell my students that each of the many aspects of their training are like blind men touching the elephant. Any one tool (sport sparring, kata, conditioning, scenario training, slo-mo free-for-alls, studying martial literature, etc.) is like a single blind man touching the elephant, and trying to draw a conclusion. Without a supporting cast of other tools (other blind men) touching other aspects of "the elephant", we'll never be able to make out what "it" is.

But if we do enough different things, the collection of activities can begin to help us construct something useful.

And... There is absolutely nothing wrong with someone dwelling on a few things in the whole martial universe (sport sparring, kata, breaking things, scenario training, weight lifting) and enjoying just that. It's worth mentioning that doing kata and a little bit of bunkai may not get you far, but you can pass that on for generations. If someone several generations down figures out the Rosetta Stone and does all the supplemental training, then the ideas embodied in them will come to life.

And I don't believe people were any less mean hundreds of years ago, or empty-hand fighters were any less deadly. The only thing that's changed is an ability to share information faster and the ability to kill people efficiently from a distance with tools.

When I teach people sparring for a black belt test, I call that a sport (or close to it) with well-defined rules. It's a dual. Not many self defense situations look like it. Very few threatening situations in my experience involved just a single person. But... It's a start. And it's fun. And it gives us something to judge a person's ability to go from the fixed to the freeform.

I don't knock boxing. I did some in my day. One of my fellow Uechika when I was a younger lad was a champion intramural boxer. Muhammed Ali is a man I admire beyond words.

But it's boxing - no more and no less.

When I'm teaching kata, there are times (not always) when I show applications that my students absolutely understand they'll never use in a dojo sparring match. the Uechi kata are full of such things. These are the kinds of things that Rich and his Quantico buddies teach the young Marine recruits before they go off to wherever and get their lives put on the line. That ain't black belt test sparring. My students understand that difference. They know they'll never get to "play" in that world unless they want to sign up and wear some kind of uniform.

Call "it" what you want. Call what you hate (for whatever reason) something else, and have fun shooting it down. But whatever you do, I think the most important thing is to understand the intent, the context, and the limits. And by all means enjoy yourself on the path.

- Bill
Willy

Post by Willy »

:?
jorvik

Post by jorvik »

Well let's not forget what brought us to this point :D ......some soft arse getting dumped on by a young kickboxer :lol: ...I actually felt sorry for him :cry: .....but there is a lesson there for all of us. We may do Karate for sport, for art, for physical fitness.but at the end of the day we must be very clear on WHY.we do it..and not pretend we are some super tough guy when we are not. i do martial arts for a variety of reasons.I do love fitness, and I love to spar as well...but I know in my own mind the nature of real violence and the forms it can take....that's why I don't like the drug store Indian Uechikas or the kata jockeys......you can be serviceable in boxing very quickly, but you have to exercise.....there are a lot of lardbellies out there who don't want to do that, they just want to play around......I know you are not one of those Bill :wink: but I think that is the point Laird is making...you don't see many fat boxers, and even when they are they are still fit
AAAhmed46
Posts: 3493
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Post by AAAhmed46 »

User avatar
Van Canna
Posts: 57244
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Post by Van Canna »

And he didn't even cut or break his knuckles. :lol:

And he didn't wait to block anything. :D
Van
User avatar
mhosea
Posts: 1141
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:52 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Post by mhosea »

AAAhmed46 wrote:http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc ... 60&q=Boxer


This is why boxing is awsome.
It's not bad, but why is that an awesome demonstration of boxing? The punks weren't coordinated, the punk on the right never attacked and never seemed interested in attacking. All but one of the boxer's blows were delivered from too far away at nearly full extension, which is why his opponents were able to just get up and straighten their clothes afterwards looking themselves as if nothing had happened. One of them checks his lip. IMO, they were overwhelmed by the decisive response and relentless combinations of the boxer, and nothing else. I guess you could argue that boxing teaches this flurrying, but it also teaches you not to hit your opponent when he is down, which is probably why the boxer didn't here, either. I guess what I'm saying is that what is good about the clip isn't intrinsically boxing. Any striking style employed with this kind of decisiveness could have achieved the same or better. Now, if he'd actually knocked one of them out, or even slightly impaired their ability to fight, like this guy,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EqrKy1d0sM

I would have been more impressed with the style of striking that he had employed.
Mike
MikeK
Posts: 3664
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 9:40 pm

Post by MikeK »

I agree with Mike on that video.
I was dreaming of the past...
jorvik

Post by jorvik »

Who is to say that guy was a boxer?..The thing that makes it good is his readiness to get stuck into his opponents. I would say that he wasn't a boxer per se, maybe someone who had done a little. One thing that a lot of karate men get really very badly wrong is distance, and punching through a target...I believe very strongly in bag and pad work, as well as being very enjoyable to do it teaches the correcte ranges..I may get one of those poor Bob thingies :D..in the club that I am in now they do use a lot of padwork ...........which is great :wink:
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

Willy wrote:
:?
No dissing intended, Laird. I'm just thinking out loud. If you were in the room, you would be able to smell the smoke. :lol:

These discussions are fun, and we shouldn't feel constrained to let our opinions get out. There's a lot of learning that happens in the give-and-take. The few who have seen me post since I first started this forum know that the banter most definitely has re-shaped my view of the universe.

- Bill
Stryke

Post by Stryke »

Call "it" what you want. Call what you hate (for whatever reason) something else, and have fun shooting it down. But whatever you do, I think the most important thing is to understand the intent, the context, and the limits. And by all means enjoy yourself on the path.
I`m not out to criticise what you do Bill , just interested in what you do .

Interesting you do both to teach it but there very different .

I`m always about congruency .
AAAhmed46
Posts: 3493
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Post by AAAhmed46 »

mhosea wrote:
AAAhmed46 wrote:http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc ... 60&q=Boxer


This is why boxing is awsome.
It's not bad, but why is that an awesome demonstration of boxing? The punks weren't coordinated, the punk on the right never attacked and never seemed interested in attacking. All but one of the boxer's blows were delivered from too far away at nearly full extension, which is why his opponents were able to just get up and straighten their clothes afterwards looking themselves as if nothing had happened. One of them checks his lip. IMO, they were overwhelmed by the decisive response and relentless combinations of the boxer, and nothing else. I guess you could argue that boxing teaches this flurrying, but it also teaches you not to hit your opponent when he is down, which is probably why the boxer didn't here, either. I guess what I'm saying is that what is good about the clip isn't intrinsically boxing. Any striking style employed with this kind of decisiveness could have achieved the same or better. Now, if he'd actually knocked one of them out, or even slightly impaired their ability to fight, like this guy,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EqrKy1d0sM

I would have been more impressed with the style of striking that he had employed.
Maybe. But the guy was very comfortable fighting, the punches flowed freely, and he moved well.

How many average karate fighters would be so relaxed and decisive?

The video you posted had a karate champion, someone we KNOW is good, not an average karate fighter.



But that video was cool too, shows that karate is good if trained properly.
The K.O. was so effortless.
User avatar
Van Canna
Posts: 57244
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Post by Van Canna »

That goes a forearm strike :wink:
Van
fivedragons
Posts: 1573
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 7:05 am

Post by fivedragons »

Uhhh.....karate wins again :lol:
fivedragons
Posts: 1573
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 7:05 am

Post by fivedragons »

Forearm conditioning, leg conditioning, "Iron shirt" conditioning, structure, momentum, body weight, overwhelming aggression, fully committed follow through. Breaking sh#t.

'Tis the very definition of tiger boxing, which is a large part of what Uechi is. :lol:

There are many forms of kung fu which do not incorporate the tiger, and they are not any less for it, but it is important to realize that just just because you learn some kung fu that doesn't have the tiger, it doesn't mean that kung fu doesn't have the tiger. 8)

The tiger is kung fu!!!!!!!!!!!!

:lol: :lol: :lol:
fivedragons
Posts: 1573
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 7:05 am

Post by fivedragons »

I swear to god, if anyone ever comes to me asking "where do I find the real kung fu?"

I will tell them to learn Uechi, and I don't even know uechi. :lol:

All I know is sanchin and kanshiwa, and there is no way that anyone who doesn't have there head up there ass, will argue with the fact that uechi sanchin is the most kung fu kata that ever existed. :lol:

Uechi is so kung fu that it is totally absurd to think of all the uechi-ka trying to find their Chinese roots by looking at all these obscure systems with colorful names.

The real kung fu was smuggled out of China to Okinawa by Kanbun. 8O
Last edited by fivedragons on Sat Dec 16, 2006 7:53 am, edited 2 times in total.
Post Reply

Return to “Bill Glasheen's Dojo Roundtable”