Helloooo,
Didn't mean to kill the thread with my ignorance----hello.
The point I am trying to make is that I don't understand the divisions in the martial arts (karate, JJ, Kung-Fu, etc.) I suspect that there is one original master-system that encompasses (Sp?)all of these arts.
From what I have read, real Jiu-Jitsu contains karate-striking, Judo throwing, ukemi and choking, weapons, internal development, tai sabaki---everything found in all the other systems.
Perhaps I am really wondering why we have all the divisions in our arts when our goals are the same.
Mal
good technique or not?
Moderator: Available
-
Malcolm Wagner
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 6:01 am
- Location: Maurepas, La., USA
good technique or not?
Wagner-sama,
You have asked a good question and perhaps there is more than one answer.
Good technique - in the dojo - is predicated on the tenets of the school and art one is studying. Back in the early and mid 60's, the TKD stylists kept losing in US tournaments because the rules stated that the technique must be thrown so that there would be enough extension left to actually hit an opponent - and they had been trained otherwise.
Back then, the heel of the base foot during a kick was required to be firmly planted on the floor or no point would be allowed. TKD had problems with that early on as well.
Good technique in tournament or dojo is one thing.
Good technique in the street is another.
Perhaps it might be summed up as a matter of criteria:
Did it damage or take control of your opponent?
Did it unduly expose you to further damage?
Did you unintentionally lose your balance, leaving yourself few options for response, even if the technique worked (and your opponent was able to continue the fight)?
Did the technique do what you intended it to do?
Could you do it again in practice? (which goes to it being something that you can replicate and practice and is not a fluke)
Did it avoidably leave an opening for your opponent to exploit to your regret.
Did YOU take any damage from DOING the technique? (if you dislocate your shoulder doing the technique, my guess would be that this is not a good technique to use!)?
This might help.
As to the different Arts - perhaps they are responses to the different cultural approaches to fighting? In Japan, the shield was not a present defensive arm. Wasn't used hardly at all. Thus, techniques to defeat a man with one were not developed to any great extent.
American Boxing and fisticuffs were an art unknown to the Native Americans, who relied on wrestling exclusively until the coming of the invaders from Europe. Hitting someone with a closed fist was a completely new concept, especially to many of the Plains Nations from what history tells us.
Static stances went out sometime in the early 1900's for American boxing and that trend has moved over into many of the other traditional MA as well.
Frankly, it may be due to a teacher's skills and talents more than anything that different Arts developed as separate schools of application.
Comments welcome, of course.
Respectfully,
Lee Darrow, C.Ht.
You have asked a good question and perhaps there is more than one answer.
Good technique - in the dojo - is predicated on the tenets of the school and art one is studying. Back in the early and mid 60's, the TKD stylists kept losing in US tournaments because the rules stated that the technique must be thrown so that there would be enough extension left to actually hit an opponent - and they had been trained otherwise.
Back then, the heel of the base foot during a kick was required to be firmly planted on the floor or no point would be allowed. TKD had problems with that early on as well.
Good technique in tournament or dojo is one thing.
Good technique in the street is another.
Perhaps it might be summed up as a matter of criteria:
Did it damage or take control of your opponent?
Did it unduly expose you to further damage?
Did you unintentionally lose your balance, leaving yourself few options for response, even if the technique worked (and your opponent was able to continue the fight)?
Did the technique do what you intended it to do?
Could you do it again in practice? (which goes to it being something that you can replicate and practice and is not a fluke)
Did it avoidably leave an opening for your opponent to exploit to your regret.
Did YOU take any damage from DOING the technique? (if you dislocate your shoulder doing the technique, my guess would be that this is not a good technique to use!)?
This might help.
As to the different Arts - perhaps they are responses to the different cultural approaches to fighting? In Japan, the shield was not a present defensive arm. Wasn't used hardly at all. Thus, techniques to defeat a man with one were not developed to any great extent.
American Boxing and fisticuffs were an art unknown to the Native Americans, who relied on wrestling exclusively until the coming of the invaders from Europe. Hitting someone with a closed fist was a completely new concept, especially to many of the Plains Nations from what history tells us.
Static stances went out sometime in the early 1900's for American boxing and that trend has moved over into many of the other traditional MA as well.
Frankly, it may be due to a teacher's skills and talents more than anything that different Arts developed as separate schools of application.
Comments welcome, of course.
Respectfully,
Lee Darrow, C.Ht.
