So Korean Boxer Punched into a Coma

[Kuma-de]

I absolutely, positively believe that kata - particularly kata such as Sanchin - are not about techniques. In the words of Patrick McCarthy, I see them as a study of human movement. And I make it a point to take postures and movements and show many, many different applications of the same movement and posture. I can take a circle and show how you can use it as a block, a lock, a throw, and a strike.

Excellent post Bill. And the Martial arts student’s mettle is in sensing the tactical application of such component parts of human movement as the situation begins to unfold.

Tactical impairment is the biggest downfall of TMA practitioners.

Even the people who purport to study a ‘martial art’ for reasons other than self protection will always have that self preservation demon dwelling at the base of their psyche, and a difficulty to come to grips with it.

Bravo, Mr. Canna..back to Maslow's "Theory of Heirachy" where one has certain psychological needs; safety being one of many. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_h ... y_of_needs

+==++==++==

As far as henka, in the closing minutes of this clip of my friends Wade Chroninger getting womped upon by his Sensei on Oki., where in kata does one learn that the jodan uke has a principle to cut into the offender's arm.

This is a variation or henka of the technique taught during bunkai or other situations.
z


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXY4FgKlLok

[Van Canna]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_h ... y_of_needs

Thanks for the link, Jim

The basic safety need is at the very bottom of TMA study, much as it is denied at just about any level of achievement.

[Bill Glasheen]

Moderator's note:

The HTML engine gets all screwed up with an apostrophe in the address line. So I disabled the hyperlink capability in this post. Copy the url below, and paste it into the address line of your web browser. That'll get you to the Wikipedia page that Jim referenced above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_h ... y_of_needs

[Bill Glasheen]

What I'm finding fascinating in my later years of study is looking for natural flinch responses, and how they "look like" things we do in martial arts. I then try to start with a flinch-like martial motion, and connect it to an application sequence I like.

The classic example here is the circle and leaning elbow in Seisan. If you think of the first half of the circle as a duck with the left hand flying up, you can continue that compression/jodan motion with an extension of the legs, a completion of a circle, and a thrusting of the elbow. The way I figure it, you have just taken something pretty simple and increased the likelihood that you'll do it when your amygdale starts out way ahead of your cerebral cortex. As long as the hand of the amygdale fits into the glove of your training, I'm thinking you'll eventually be one of those rare people who does things in a self-defense situation that they'll admire after the fact.

I've actually had this happen in real life, so I figure I'm on to something here.

Too bad we don't have that army of slaves to experiment with in our torture chamber...

- Bill

P.S. Just kidding, folks. Sort of...

[fivedragons]

Bill, don't let it get you down. I'm sure it causes a lot more pain and aggravation to that buddhist nun with an unpronouncable name.

"##### this, I try to teach people how to become natural, and use their bodies according to the situation at hand, but all I get is fook yoo, bal lap tan saaaoouuu.."

Since when is uechi related to wang chung?

Uechi is a martial art, and wang chung is a new new wave singing duo from England.

The Chinese are very good at making poisonous toys, and dog food. They'll probably end up poisoning the whole world in between the odd slaying of a tibetan here and there.

The movement and applications of the human body in self defense don't adhere to language or borders.

[jorvik]

Quote
"It seems you and Ray like to compartmentalize styles and have very strict rules about what this and that technique is for and can do. "

Well for me that is very true .but that is something that I probably learned to do...I have done many different styles over the years.Some folks may think I'm a jack of all trades and master of none.but I have had high grades in some arts that I have done....I just love to learn and hate to teach. when I go to a Dojo I want to learn the style that they teach...............I'll give you an example of what I mean, and though this will sound ridiculous it is absolutely true .....I used to train in an Aikido club and we decided to train on Saturday and sunday as well.we already did Tuesday,Wednesday and Friday sessions...........on the weekend sessions a lot of guys started to turn up from the local Goju club..and basically the club used to practise punching and kicking.eventually there was less and less Aikido,,,,,,till one day it just became really a karate club....A couple of years later I met one of the guys from the club....he said that he had a black belt ...I said what in? he said Aikido......so you have a guy who thinks he's an Aikido blackbelt and he can't even do a breakfall let alone a throw

Now that's an extreme example.but it does show what happens when folks aren't consistant in what they do. If I go to a Shotokan club then that is what I want to do, and what I should be taught .


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I absolutely, positively believe that kata - particularly kata such as Sanchin - are not about techniques. In the words of Patrick McCarthy, I see them as a study of human movement. And I make it a point to take postures and movements and show many, many different applications of the same movement and posture. I can take a circle and show how you can use it as a block, a lock, a throw, and a strike.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well you see I don't believe that at all because if you do believe that then how do you then create something like Sanchin? or any kata for that matter?
kata was originally for technique.wing-chun kata are just a collection of techniques ........One technique is used to block to the inside the same technique is also used to block to the outside, but when you do that the techniques changes it's name and also it's structure......same as in Tai-chi, all the Tai-Chi styles use similar moves they are just re-arranged differently
they all do stuff like"Brush knee push", "play the guitar" etc..but the style changes it's name when the moves differ from the original style..so you get Chen style or Yang style or Wu style....now if you had a style that didn't have the techniques in nobody in Tai-Chi or in China would say it was a style

[JimHawkins]

I absolutely, positively believe that kata - particularly kata such as Sanchin - are not about techniques.

I never said technique.. I said tool.

In the words of Patrick McCarthy, I see them as a study of human movement.

They are a study of a particular system's movement..

There is clear intent of purpose for any given system.. The problem is this intent is lost--hence we have the "it's anything I say it is.." mantra.. I mean if the original purpose is little known then all you have left is "whatever"..

And I make it a point to take postures and movements and show many, many different applications of the same movement and posture.

Hick's Law..

I would take a particular tool and say it clears the outside middle gate and hits.. The focus is on position and energy..

While you would have how many other cool interpretations........? See this is where the reality sets in for those paying close attention.

I can take a circle and show how you can use it as a block, a lock, a throw, and a strike.

And I would take the specific circle and show the actual reason it's in the system, to let force go and return to the target..Simple....KISS..

Moreover these tools and tactics can't be learned from a form, only seeded... If a close range art then close range work is needed to flesh that out.

[JimHawkins]

Since when is uechi related to wang chung?

IMO it is very closely related as are a handful of systems that came from the same place.. They share similar tools and tactics.. Only logical IMO but for some logic is hard to grasp or threatening because of a lack of understanding.

The Chinese are very good at making poisonous toys, and dog food. They'll probably end up poisoning the whole world in between the odd slaying of a tibetan here and there.

So instead of addressing the points made you think tossing insults at the Chinese race is appropriate... Arguably the place where most of Uechi came from..

Allrighty then--we each do the best with what we have to work with..

The movement and applications of the human body in self defense don't adhere to language or borders.

No but styles adhere to the styles tools and tactics.. That's what a style or system is.. Again when folks don't understand what the style is then they make up something to fit it--then arguably you have a new style--one that could be anything, or everything as the case may be.. Whatever makes it easier for folks to feel good I guess..

[JimHawkins]

"It seems you and Ray like to compartmentalize styles and have very strict rules about what this and that technique is for and can do. "

True to the extent that each style is each style..

You want to make everything your Uechi or just Uechi.. We know--it's a recurring theme..

What you should be doing is making everything Bill's karate or Bill's method, not Uechi.

I know Raffi (and others) constantly tell you no that's FMA not Uechi.. But you insist.. Okay--there's no making you accept reality, I can accept that..

But the reality remains..

Western Boxing is not Uechi..

Uechi is not Tae Kwon Do..

Kali is not Brazilian Jujitsu..

Aikido is not Greco Roman Wrestling..

Sure we can find similarities in anything but it makes much more sense to try to understand the idea behind each one of these arts than trying to say all these things are something they very simply--are not..

[Bill Glasheen]

In the words of Patrick McCarthy, I see them as a study of human movement.

They are a study of a particular system's movement..

There is clear intent of purpose for any given system..

And who gets to decide what that "clear intent" is, Jim? Is it the person who doesn't study my style but says I'm doing it wrong? Says I'm doing an inferior version of his clear intent of purpose? Dare I call it "defective Your Ryu?"

The problem is this intent is lost--hence we have the "it's anything I say it is.." mantra.. I mean if the original purpose is little known then all you have left is "whatever"..

Have you lost the intent, Jim?

Self-defense is the intent of my system. I've seen it manifested pretty successfully in the following situations:

• those Uechika who have survived attacks
• those who choose to fight sport in the ring
• those who enforce the law, train LEOs, or design and sell equipment for LEOs
• those who are serving their country in war or teaching those (in Quantico) who will serve their country.

I'm not so sure about the dojo laboratory as a true measure of a system's effectiveness and relevance. The problem with the laboratory is that we can create irrelevant conditions and optimize for those conditions. Then when the survival stress response kicks in, what once seemed so right or so important may not any more.

If any system isn't constantly reassessing itself against these cold standards, then I'm not particularly interested in "the original purpose."

If making it relevant in the above situations is "anything I say it is", then I'll gladly wear that sign on my back. But look a little closer and you may find I'm not trying to copy someone else's original purpose. I'm seeking a common purpose.

I just happen to have some really good reference books to work with.

Hick's Law..

I would take a particular tool and say it clears the outside middle gate and hits.. The focus is on position and energy..

While you would have how many other cool interpretations........?

You are very confused about Hick's law, Jim.

I'll try to explain again. It's RISC.

When trying to build the fastest microprocessors, engineers tried all kinds of different designs. What they found worked fastest was processors which used the most parsimonious set of machine language instructions. Rather than design a specific set of instructions to do myriad tasks, they found that the processor worked much faster if you created very short pathways to do a few basic instructions, and then used that simpler set to do all the things you want to do.

This is my philosophy in teaching kata, Jim. My kata are my reference books for movement. The tasks I must perform with this reduced set of movements and postures vary from controlling a drunk I happen to know (without touching him) to fighting multiple opponents on the battlefield either empty-handed or with weapons. I don't want to learn 10 different systems to do 10 different things. I don't want my Uechi Seisan and my Hamahiga no tonfa to feel like two different forms. I want to find one really good simple system of postures and movements that I can live my life by. And that life varies from impressing my clients at public speaking events to living a healthful life to swinging the bat in a batting cage to engaging with my fellow professionals with respect to their "schit hits the fan" applications of self-defense. And I don't want 10 different systems to do that. I want 10 different ways to test my simple set of movements and postures.

And I don't particularly care what you or Ray want to call it. That monkey isn't on MY back.

That which we call a rose,
By any other word would smell as sweet

I'll let the George Mattsons of the world keep me reigned in on what that set of instructions are. Once defined, I'll run with them in whatever directions I choose. I'll likely make just as many mistakes on my future jouney as I have in the past, but at least I'm on MY journey and am finding relevance with it.

- Bill

P.S. Credit given where credit is due. 'Nuff said...

[Bill Glasheen]

The reduced instruction set computer (RISC, pronounced like "risk") is a CPU design philosophy that favors an instruction set reduced both in size and complexity of addressing modes, in order to enable easier implementation, greater instruction level parallelism, and more efficient compilers. As of 2007, common RISC microprocessors families include the DEC Alpha, ARC, ARM, AVR, MIPS, PA-RISC, Power Architecture (including PowerPC), and SPARC.

The idea was originally inspired by the discovery that many of the features that were included in traditional CPU designs to facilitate coding were being ignored by the programs that were running on them. Also these more complex features took several processor cycles to be performed. Additionally, the performance gap between the processor and main memory was increasing. This led to a number of techniques to streamline processing within the CPU, while at the same time attempting to reduce the total number of memory accesses.

- Wikipedia

[MikeK]

CISC and RISC processors

Examples of CISC processors are the System/360 (excluding the 'scientific' Model 44), VAX, PDP-11, Motorola 68000 family, and Intel x86 architecture based processors.

The terms RISC and CISC have become less meaningful with the continued evolution of both CISC and RISC designs and implementations. The first highly pipelined "CISC" implementations, such as 486s from Intel, AMD, Cyrix, and IBM, certainly supported every instruction that their predecessors did, but achieved high efficiency only on a fairly simple x86 subset (resembling a RISC instruction set, but without the load-store limitations of RISC). Modern x86 processors also decode and split more complex instructions into a series of smaller internal "micro-operations" which can thereby be executed in a pipelined (parallel) fashion, thus achieving high performance on a much larger subset of instructions.

Wikipedia

EE Times
(12/01/1998 11:40 AM EST)

In his speech, Ditzel told some 300 conference attendees that RISC may be reaching the end of its "learning curve" after 20 years of use. He noted that RISC, which originally began as a rebellion against complexity, has itself become bogged down by massive instruction sets and large die sizes.

"It was really fun in the early days; almost every computer company had a RISC chip," he said. "You did it because you could and you needed only a small design team."

Nowadays, that's no longer the case, Ditzel argued. "Today [in RISC] we have large design teams and long design cycles," he said. "The performance story is also much less clear now. The die sizes are no longer small. It just don't seem to make as much sense."

The result is the current crop of complex RISC chips. "Superscalar and out-of-order execution are the biggest problem areas that have impeded performance [leaps]," Ditzel said. "The MIPS R10,000 and HP PA-8000 seem much more complex to me than today's standard CISC architecture, which is the Pentium II. So where is the advantage of RISC, if the chips aren't as simple anymore?"

David Ditzel, the chief architect of Sun’s SPARC family and CEO of Transmeta.

People are wetware.

[jorvik]

Quote
"Self-defense is the intent of my system. I've seen it manifested pretty successfully in the following situations:

those Uechika who have survived attacks


those who choose to fight sport in the ring


those who enforce the law, train LEOs, or design and sell equipment for LEOs


those who are serving their country in war or teaching those (in Quantico) who will serve their country. "

Very emotive Bill .but we are interested not in what they did, but HOW they did it!! did the techniques just suddenly spring into their minds from doing Sanchin

Quote
"My kata are my reference books for movement."
...so is walking

You know Bill for an Engineer you are wonderfully vague ....my Dad was an engineer, and he is one of the most precise people I know. I don't think he would choose Uechi as a style after what you've just said.......and you know I do like the look of the Uechi kata and Master Toyama .but you aren't selling it very well

[Van Canna]

Let’s cut the bull…smile.

To wit_

Defending against a simple unarmed attack such as a punch was not emphasized as it was not seen as that great of a threat. If faced with an attacker who was going to punch, the Samurai (to use Japanese) would simply hack his head off with a sword.

And

his eyes told of the steel in his will and the beast in his soul.

>>> Uechi is a formidable martial art if the practitioner chooses to practice it as a formidable art.

The kata…the movement…the concepts…in it...were fashioned from powerful and cunning beasts.

As such, when performing these moves [embedding] your job is to get in touch with the ‘beast in you’ or nothing will work in a brutal attack.

As the beast_ you must have claws as well…the continuum…

If not…well…there is always ‘Martial masturbation’…must feel good because there are so many practicing it…smile.

[Bill Glasheen]

Can you say mindset?



Sobering, Van.

- Bill