# What arts are incompatible with each other?



## skribs (Aug 12, 2018)

I'm curious if there are any arts that just don't work together.  Where training both arts will actually hinder your progress more than help it.

Now, I know if you train something like Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and Muay Thai, that what you'll get is different techniques for different situations (BJJ when you're on the ground, MT when you're standing up).  So even though they have different techniques, they can work well together.  

Similarly, I know people might have an issue training similar arts with slight differences between them, for example if you were to take Shotokan karate and Kukkiwon Taekwondo, you'll notice a big difference in the stances.  But, if you're capable of doing a back stance and front stance, and if you're capable of doing a front kick and a roundhouse kick, then you should be capable of doing a Shotokan-style stance and a Kukkiwon-style stance.

But are there any arts that are fundamentally so different from each other, that cover the same fight situations as each other, where training in both will make it harder to train in either of them?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 12, 2018)

The following MA systems are incompatible with each other.

1. long fist and WC - 180 degree shoulder punch vs. 90 degree shoulder punch.
2. Chinese wrestling and Bagua - move back leg first vs. move leading leg first,
3. Chinese wrestling and Taiji - create opportunity vs. wait for opportunity.

I have tried to integrate long fist and WC for the past many years. So far, I still don't have any luck.

Here is the long fist 180 degree shoulder punch. It can give you the maximum reach.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 12, 2018)

I always believed that TKD and WC, would be incompatible. Short range/long range thing. But, I have no real experience with either.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Aug 12, 2018)

i think this is the wrong question.  skills are skills and there is always a way to reconcile one set of skills with the other.  the issue as i see it is a conflict of philosophy and training principals.  these are much harder to combine.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Aug 12, 2018)

weapon arts with non weapon arts.    If you mix too early you could damage either practice.


----------



## now disabled (Aug 12, 2018)

Rat said:


> weapon arts with non weapon arts.    If you mix too early you could damage either practice.



Why do you say that ?


----------



## now disabled (Aug 12, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> conflict of philosophy and training principals. these are much harder to combine.




That is oh so true


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 12, 2018)

Rat said:


> weapon arts with non weapon arts.    If you mix too early you could damage either practice.


Have to disagree with you on this. If you (general YOU) can't associate each and every weapon technique with your open hand technique, there is something wrong with your training path.

In the 4 roads Miao Dao form, for each and every knife technique, you can find an equivalent open hand technique. People train open hand first before they train weapon. When they train open hand, the weapon principles have already been trained.

For example,

Open hand - your opponent punch at your face. You use comb the hair to deflect that punch, you then strike back with the same hand.






Weapon - You opponent sword chop at your head. You use a 45 degree upward block to deflect that sword. You than chop your sword back.






Open hand - block and strike with the same hand.






Weapon - your sword touch on your opponent's sword. You than slide in and stab.


----------



## Martial D (Aug 12, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The following MA systems are incompatible with each other.
> 
> 1. long fist and WC - 180 degree shoulder punch vs. 90 degree shoulder punch.
> 2. Chinese wrestling and Bagua - move back leg first vs. move leading leg first,
> ...



But you CAN use WC principles with long range  hand attacks. It's just a matter of combining the center of mass drive/low elbow power with hip rotation. Most WC doesn't seem to do it, but I do.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Aug 12, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When they train open hand, the weapon principles have already been trained.



To cover this and the sections bove it.

Depends.   FMA starts with weapons then does unarmed last and uses the weapons training as a basis for unarmed. then you have specfic styles for training particular weapons or sets which have carying amounts of unarmed training in them. (usually grappling heavy)

It just seems harmful to do a system of fighting that starts with fists alongside one which starts with weapons as they have different priorities and needs from you and will teach you different things etc.  Maybe after you have a base in either you can start in either.  

I can concede for something like long sword, wont be as harmful as if you did something like FMA and co trained a unarmed first style.      (given long sword is literally just about using that one weapon in combat rather than a full system like FMA)   So SOME might work, i just view most not working too well.

Also in your cited example it had both unarmed and weapons.  unarmed first with the intention of working up to weapons and looks like it included some unarmed moves which work the same or highly similar to weapons to aid in switching.


this is my view on the matter anyway.  You never know what works and doesn't until you try them together.


@now disabled

this particularly answers your question as well.


----------



## dvcochran (Aug 12, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Have to disagree with you on this. If you (general YOU) can't associate each and every weapon technique with your open hand technique, there is something wrong with your training path.
> 
> In the 4 roads Miao Dao form, for each and every knife technique, you can find an equivalent open hand technique. People train open hand first before they train weapon. When they train open hand, the weapon principles have already been trained.
> 
> ...



Your comments take me back to my Kali days. Very true.


----------



## Danny T (Aug 12, 2018)

skribs said:


> I'm curious if there are any arts that just don't work together.  Where training both arts will actually hinder your progress more than help it.
> 
> Now, I know if you train something like Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and Muay Thai, that what you'll get is different techniques for different situations (BJJ when you're on the ground, MT when you're standing up).  So even though they have different techniques, they can work well together.
> 
> ...


Incompatible??

Most humans are very capable of learning practicing and blending a multitude of martial arts.
Incompatible is being unable to be held or performed by a person. In learning some many well be more difficult to learn at the same time but I truly believe the average human can learn and train any combination of martial arts.
Just because it maybe more difficult doesn't mean it can't be done and therefore is incompatible.


----------



## dvcochran (Aug 12, 2018)

Danny T said:


> Ho
> 
> Incompatible??
> 
> ...



"Incompatible" - (of two things) so opposed in character as to be incapable of existing together. By the definition I agree with you. However, I imagine there are some styles (possibly Kung Fu) that after many years of training would be hard to convert to some of the shorter Okinawan or the ground and pound styles. Not impossible, but difficult for the average person. 
I only have a green sash but I find it very compatible with TKD. Kali is so different in the practice setting but I know it is compliments SD very, very well with my other two styles of experience. I would say it leads in SD from my experience.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 12, 2018)

My view is that any two systems can be combined, so long as you don't try to be a purist of either. If one teaches always lead with hip, and the other teaches always lead with foot, you just have to figure out what the advantages of each are, and develop your own approach to blending them. Maybe you find all the techniques work with the hip-first movement, so you just use that. Maybe you find that hip-first works best on front-hand techniques and all kicks, and everything else mostly works best (or at least not worse) with foot-first. Boxing teaches depend on the fists. BJJ almost never uses fists that I've seen. The two fit together quite nicely, once you stop trying to be a boxer while doing BJJ, a Jitser while boxing, or either in purity while moving back and forth between them.

Bear in mind, neither I nor anyone else, has experienced all available systems, so there may be an exception somewhere I can't conceive of.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 12, 2018)

Rat said:


> To cover this and the sections bove it.
> 
> Depends.   FMA starts with weapons then does unarmed last and uses the weapons training as a basis for unarmed. then you have specfic styles for training particular weapons or sets which have carying amounts of unarmed training in them. (usually grappling heavy)
> 
> ...


Different priorities aren't that hard to reconcile in your personal style. The issue only arises when you're trying to be a purist AND access both at once. Boxing has a priority on striking distance, defending strikes, and controlling with strikes - it's all about strikes, and only punches, really. Judo has a priority on grappling, defending grappling, etc. They are blended pretty easily in practice, so long as you don't try to use one to change the other (using boxing distance and timing to do Judo).


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 12, 2018)

Taiji:

If you don't move, I won't move.

Xing Yi:

I'll keep moving. Even if I may not find any opportunity to attack, as long as I keep moving, soon or later I'll find an opportunity to attack.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 12, 2018)

If the physical mechanics of how you practice otherwise similar techniques are inconsistent between two systems, then the training methodology is in conflict.  This can cause trouble in your progression because you keep switching your methodology in how you practice an otherwise similar technique.  The end result of each method of training may be an equally effective technique, but how you develop the technique needs to be done with consistency in the methodology. Otherwise you will not reach the goal of having an effective technique.

When I was practicing Tibetan White Crane and Tracy lineage Kenpo, I found the fundamentals to be in conflict with each other.  The way we practiced basic punches, for example, in kenpo, undermined the development of my punches in crane, and vice-versa.  The way we used our stances and the way we drilled the punches were inconsistent. I only practice crane now.  However, there are some limited items from kenpo that i still keep, because they are useful and do not conflict with the crane methodology.  I do not practice kenpo in any systematic way.

As I think about it, I was also practicing wing chun at the same time as well.  The mechanics there were also different and conflicted with the others, as far as I understood the wing chun method of training the techniques.  I no longer practice wing chun either.


----------



## now disabled (Aug 12, 2018)

Rat said:


> To cover this and the sections bove it.
> 
> Depends.   FMA starts with weapons then does unarmed last and uses the weapons training as a basis for unarmed. then you have specfic styles for training particular weapons or sets which have carying amounts of unarmed training in them. (usually grappling heavy)
> 
> ...




not really ...

I do not want to sound the kill joy, however I do think that maybe you conclusions are more based on theory than practice, Could it also be that in some of the things you are reading or seeing full all encompassing systems are no longer taught? It does not mean that they never were it merely means that now they are not,

You mention swords well swordsmen were taught empty hand skills too and also other weapons which do operate differently but they required such skill sets again don't be fooled that just because these days the whole gambit is not taught that it once was not. 

You can blend most things and the human brain is capable of doing so, could it also be that I and others have said to you in other posts and threads to get one art before you start mixing and matching? That was not saying they cannot work that was us saying (me anyway ) train instead of jumping from one thing to another so rapidly and study before you start picking things apart.

Lad your keen for sure and obviously have a craving to enter the MA world and you do certainly make me think on what you say about this and that and this is just my opinion only, your confusing yourself only as you don't train


----------



## zzj (Aug 12, 2018)

Well, the style of tai chi I'm currently training seems to be incompatible with all other mainstream martial arts, since it emphasizes the total abandonment of muscular force or training as shown in the video below.






Yeah, I know it looks fake as heck....


----------



## now disabled (Aug 12, 2018)

zzj said:


> Well, the style of tai chi I'm currently training seems to be incompatible with all other mainstream martial arts, since it emphasizes the total abandonment of muscular force or training as shown in the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Nope it makes sense to me


----------



## now disabled (Aug 13, 2018)

zzj said:


> Well, the style of tai chi I'm currently training seems to be incompatible with all other mainstream martial arts, since it emphasizes the total abandonment of muscular force or training as shown in the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I get exactly what he is doing and trying to convey ...different terminology but I really do get what he is trying to convey and it is not incompatible at all ...it just takes more time to learn and teach yourself to do that as it easier to oppose force with force and for example if you are pushed you want to oppose that push with force where as absorbing that and redirecting that is a skill that is well worth learning as in so doing you are using what he is giving to you there by creating an opening ... I would call that Aiki lol and what the vid showed is just a drill but it is not incompatible at all not to me anyway


----------



## skribs (Aug 13, 2018)

zzj said:


> Well, the style of tai chi I'm currently training seems to be incompatible with all other mainstream martial arts, since it emphasizes the total abandonment of muscular force or training as shown in the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I get the general principle, but the video does look fake.  I can't see any reason why the attacker is jumping back when his push fails.  I also don't really see how this would work against something like a sweep.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 13, 2018)

Here is a good example that Taiji and wrestling are incompatible with each other.

In wrestling, when

- you drag your opponent's arm, you want to move behind his body.
- your opponent drags your arm, you want to step in outside of his leading leg.
- your opponent pushes you, you want to pull him with you.
- you are close to your opponent, you want to establish a leg connection.
- ...

None of the above are shown in this clip.


----------



## zzj (Aug 13, 2018)

skribs said:


> I get the general principle, but the video does look fake.  I can't see any reason why the attacker is jumping back when his push fails.  I also don't really see how this would work against something like a sweep.



No reason for anyone who hasn't had actual experience with this type of skill it to accept that it is real, I can only say that from my own standpoint of having been in a similar position, the student/uke/test dummy is not jumping back or falling on his own volition. Neither is he actively resisting the techniques applied to him, it's a demonstration after all.


----------



## now disabled (Aug 13, 2018)

skribs said:


> I get the general principle, but the video does look fake.  I can't see any reason why the attacker is jumping back when his push fails.  I also don't really see how this would work against something like a sweep.




Unless I am wrong that was merely an exercise to provide a connection and give the students a "feel" 

Dealing with leg sweeps are a different ball game lol and I dunno how Tai chi deals with same


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 13, 2018)

now disabled said:


> Dealing with leg sweeps are a different ball game lol and I dunno how Tai chi deals with same


A Taiji "lotus kick" (outside crescent kick) will do.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 13, 2018)

skribs said:


> I get the general principle, but the video does look fake.  I can't see any reason why the attacker is jumping back when his push fails.  I also don't really see how this would work against something like a sweep.


I agree. If I had the opportunity, I'd love to feel what he's doing. It might be that the hop is like an Aikido breakfall - it's bigger than the "necessary" result, because it avoids stumbling or some such. Or it might be fake - he's tricked himself into thinking that hop is necessary. Feeling the input would make it clear.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 13, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Here is a good example that Taiji and wrestling are incompatible with each other.
> 
> In wrestling, when
> 
> ...


This is where I see the blend: do all that, but be able to work with that total abandonment of force, as well, which adds another set of tools to the toolbox. So, he goes to arm drag, and suddenly has nothing to work with, then you switch back to wrestling while he's recovering.


----------



## PiedmontChun (Aug 13, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Different priorities aren't that hard to reconcile in your personal style. The issue only arises when you're trying to be a purist AND access both at once.



This is excellent point. Even if you treat two systems you train as two distinct systems in practice, there is going to be some bleeding of one into the other that requires some compromise somewhere. I have often thought WC, being a mainly close quarters striking system, would pair well with BJJ for grappling. There is very little overlap, so in theory, you aren't mixing them at all - just transitioning from one "system" to another in the moment when the fighting range / situation changes. Having said that, I realize that WC emphasizes a very vertical and narrow stance, which is literally the opposite of how a BJJ grappler moves while on their feet. Some of that is the sport influence - a low stance with weight back and head forward doesn't make sense when there is a danger of striking, but makes perfect sense if someone is trying to control you by grabbing you lapel or with some type of under hook / over hook / clinch grip. If you only train one, then that's what you get accustomed to. If you train both - there is some cognitive dissonance created, and you have to discern which way to move at what time.


----------



## now disabled (Aug 13, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> This is where I see the blend: do all that, but be able to work with that total abandonment of force, as well, which adds another set of tools to the toolbox. So, he goes to arm drag, and suddenly has nothing to work with, then you switch back to wrestling while he's recovering.




Spot on it is another tool in the box you have at your disposal ...like covering all the bases so to speak (ok no one can ever do that but it like that)


----------



## now disabled (Aug 13, 2018)

Bit of the thread but lol

On the subject of fake ...I just watched a long interview with Isoyama Hiroshi and I won't post it (it is long lol) however in one bit he touched on Ueshiba and what people thought when he did his demos and how people thought it was fake, it was interesting how he explained it, Maybe some will doubt him but in his time he was very well known for his extremely powerful Aikido and his views on how Aikido is taught these days (ie the uke actually being to compliant) was well if anyone interested it on you tube lol


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 13, 2018)

now disabled said:


> Bit of the thread but lol
> 
> On the subject of fake ...I just watched a long interview with Isoyama Hiroshi and I won't post it (it is long lol) however in one bit he touched on Ueshiba and what people thought when he did his demos and how people thought it was fake, it was interesting how he explained it, Maybe some will doubt him but in his time he was very well known for his extremely powerful Aikido and his views on how Aikido is taught these days (ie the uke actually being to compliant) was well if anyone interested it on you tube lol


It's easiest to just link to (or post) the videos here when you reference them, so others can see what you're talking about.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 13, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> My view is that any two systems can be combined, so long as you don't try to be a purist of either.


One day the Devil was out walking with a friend. As they walked they saw a man stumble across a piece of truth on the side of the road. Seeing this, the Devil smiled.

"Are you not upset?", his friend asked, "That man has just discovered a bit of truth."

"No worries," replied the Devil. "I shall let him make it a belief."

Combining "incompatible" styles is only a problem when you treat each technique, stance, exercise, or tactic in a given style as an unalterable one true way. Once you understand the elements and principles that make each technique work, then you can apply them as appropriate in a given context.

Practitioners of different martial arts don't have different laws of physics or biology. They're just engineering different solutions to a given situation based on different tradeoffs.

The analogy is sometimes made that you can't build a good car by combining the engine from a compact hybrid with the transmission of a race car and the body of a monster truck. That's the sort of combining you do without understanding. On the other hand, an automotive engineer will study the design of a compact hybrid, a pickup truck, an eighteen-wheeler, an SUV, a race car, and more, improving his or her understanding and ability to create an appropriate design for an appropriate context.

Studying different martial arts is the same thing. Don't think "here is the correct way to stand/move/generate power/execute a technique/etc. Instead, learn the principles and tradeoffs behind each idea and thereby gain the ability to move appropriately in different situations.


----------



## now disabled (Aug 13, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> It's easiest to just link to (or post) the videos here when you reference them, so others can see what you're talking about.



it over an hour and a half long lol


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 13, 2018)

now disabled said:


> it over an hour and a half long lol


That's fine. Folks don't have to watch the whole thing (or any of it, for that matter), and embedding the code doesn't take any significant space on the forum server.


----------



## skribs (Aug 13, 2018)

now disabled said:


> it over an hour and a half long lol



So also post "watch at this time for the answer."


----------



## skribs (Aug 13, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I agree. If I had the opportunity, I'd love to feel what he's doing. It might be that the hop is like an Aikido breakfall - it's bigger than the "necessary" result, because it avoids stumbling or some such. Or it might be fake - he's tricked himself into thinking that hop is necessary. Feeling the input would make it clear.





now disabled said:


> Bit of the thread but lol
> 
> On the subject of fake ...I just watched a long interview with Isoyama Hiroshi and I won't post it (it is long lol) however in one bit he touched on Ueshiba and what people thought when he did his demos and how people thought it was fake, it was interesting how he explained it, Maybe some will doubt him but in his time he was very well known for his extremely powerful Aikido and his views on how Aikido is taught these days (ie the uke actually being to compliant) was well if anyone interested it on you tube lol



I mean, don't get me wrong.  I know some things can look fake.  Half of what we learn in hapkido looks fake to those who've never felt it.  In fact, when we first started our demonstration team at my dojang, I had to tell them NOT to use half of the hapkido stuff we do, because it looks fake unless you've felt it.  

However, when looking at the video, I cannot see anything that would make the person hop back.  I see that his push fails to gain traction, which should result in either him losing balance forward, or if he's got a solid stance then he should just be standing there.  The only reason I would see to jump back is in the event that the power is reversed (which it didn't seem was the nature of the drill) or if there is some sort of pain compliance (i.e. a bend of the fingers) which I don't see happening.

All I see is that the attacker fails to get a grip on the defender, and then after failing to push him jumps away, seemingly of his own volition.

Now, it's possible that I could experience it and come up with a different understanding.  But as it is, I see no reason why that is the reaction for failure.


----------



## now disabled (Aug 13, 2018)

they are not demos just the interview


----------



## VPT (Aug 13, 2018)

Adam Mizner has crushingly bad reputation among the "martially oriented" Taiji community.

That having been said, I personally believe he _has_ certain level of _some kind _of skill. I have analysed some of his demonstrations in great length and can distinguish where there is pure suggestion and and over-acting going on with the demonstration partner and when there's not. In most cases there are lots of the former, occasionally also the latter.

However, I believe firmly that Adam Mizner is not a martial artist of any kind and that he does not teach any kind of martial arts. His teaching methodology is utterly unable to produce skilled athletes either in competitive or civilian protection contexts. Neither have his skills - or any of his students' skills - put to test against non-compliant, unpredictable and violent adversaries as far as I am aware of. Learning martial arts is about learning martial skills in martially appropriate context and everything about the circle ('cult' according to the bad tongues) of Adam Mizner suggests that this is not the case with his Taiji.

I don't think Mizner is a "fraud", "charlatan" or anything else he is called around. I think he has interesting skills, but he just doesn't teach martial arts.


----------



## TSDTexan (Aug 13, 2018)

Tony Dismukes said:


> One day the Devil was out walking with a friend. As they walked they saw a man stumble across a piece of truth on the side of the road. Seeing this, the Devil smiled.
> 
> "Are you not upset?", his friend asked, "That man has just discovered a bit of truth."
> 
> ...



Excellent analogy.


----------



## zzj (Aug 13, 2018)

skribs said:


> I mean, don't get me wrong.  I know some things can look fake.  Half of what we learn in hapkido looks fake to those who've never felt it.  In fact, when we first started our demonstration team at my dojang, I had to tell them NOT to use half of the hapkido stuff we do, because it looks fake unless you've felt it.
> 
> However, when looking at the video, I cannot see anything that would make the person hop back.  I see that his push fails to gain traction, which should result in either him losing balance forward, or if he's got a solid stance then he should just be standing there.  The only reason I would see to jump back is in the event that the power is reversed (which it didn't seem was the nature of the drill) or if there is some sort of pain compliance (i.e. a bend of the fingers) which I don't see happening.
> 
> ...



The reason he jumps is because there is simultaneous redirection which is subtly visible and a push that is practically invisible. Note that the direction of his ‘jumps’ are all slightly off his line.

Being able to manipulate your opponent with little to no outward movement is the hallmark of this branch of Cheng Man Ching tai chi. This is not because it looks impressive for demos (in fact looking fake is detrimental in the long run rather than  merely impressive) but because you would have absolutely no visual or tactile cue of any incoming attack.

Again I wouldn’t expect anyone who had not felt this first hand to believe any of it. I have not met Mizner myself so I have no vested interest in promoting him; however I have experienced similar skills from others.

This is getting somewhat off-topic, so I hope my reply gives at least some sort of closure to this tangent.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 13, 2018)

zzj said:


> The reason he jumps is because there is simultaneous redirection which is subtly visible and a push that is practically invisible. Note that the direction of his ‘jumps’ are all slightly off his line.


This is why wrestling and Taiji don't go together.

- In wrestling, you want to pull your opponent under your knee.
- In Taiji you want to push your opponent away.

I have never seen any wrestler who tries to push his opponent away. Old saying said, "You want to keep your friend close but your enemy closer."

- Strikers punch.
- Wrestlers pull.
- Taiji guys push.

I wish one day all Taiji guys will say, "I punch and I don't push."


----------



## dvcochran (Aug 13, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> My view is that any two systems can be combined, so long as you don't try to be a purist of either. If one teaches always lead with hip, and the other teaches always lead with foot, you just have to figure out what the advantages of each are, and develop your own approach to blending them. Maybe you find all the techniques work with the hip-first movement, so you just use that. Maybe you find that hip-first works best on front-hand techniques and all kicks, and everything else mostly works best (or at least not worse) with foot-first. Boxing teaches depend on the fists. BJJ almost never uses fists that I've seen. The two fit together quite nicely, once you stop trying to be a boxer while doing BJJ, a Jitser while boxing, or either in purity while moving back and forth between them.
> 
> Bear in mind, neither I nor anyone else, has experienced all available systems, so there may be an exception somewhere I can't conceive of.


Well said.


----------



## skribs (Aug 13, 2018)

zzj said:


> The reason he jumps is because there is simultaneous redirection which is subtly visible and a push that is practically invisible. Note that the direction of his ‘jumps’ are all slightly off his line.
> 
> Being able to manipulate your opponent with little to no outward movement is the hallmark of this branch of Cheng Man Ching tai chi. This is not because it looks impressive for demos (in fact looking fake is detrimental in the long run rather than  merely impressive) but because you would have absolutely no visual or tactile cue of any incoming attack.
> 
> ...



Remember, I said I do have hapkido in my background.  Not a lot, mind you.  But enough to notice a lot of the stuff that looks fake, but is real.

So I'm looking at 1:17 in slow motion.  The only contact I see is forearm-to-forearm push.  There appears to be a lot of room for the "bad guy's" arm to give (meaning no push), and the position of the "bad guy" appears to be one that should have a firmer base, because he is facing into it with a front stance, while the "good guy" is twisting outside his centerline.  
The next one is at 1:26.  This one I see the hand get pushed back slightly, but not enough to cause pain.  Not even close in my bad wrist.  It's as if as soon as there's resistance, he jumps away.  In fact, I'm watching him push off with his left arm, and use the energy from his hand being pushed back, to push off and jump.
1:37 the "bad guy" is trying to push him by jumping, and instead pushes himself back.  That's a poor attack on his part.  (Sort of like how most arts do a punch defense against a haymaker instead of against someone using a complicated boxing combination).
1:40 it's hard to see this one because the hands go behind, but it looks like the same as #2.  As soon as the attacker feels any resistance he jumps away.
1:43 there's a couple here where I'm not really sure what's going on.  The "bad guy" touches his arm while his arm is moving, and then falls.  In one of them I kind of see a slight push back on the hand, but it's like as soon as the hand gets slightly displaced, his knees buckle and he collapses forward.  I'm reminded of a scene I'll link here below, because usually when your hand is pushed that way (and further) you fall back on your tush instead of jumping and tucking your knees in.
Overall, as I'm watching this, I can't help but think:

Why are they pushing the arm the whole time?  What if they push the body?  If you're pushing into the centerline there is no rolling out of it.
Why are they not trying to grab?  All I see is pushing the arms around.  I don't see any grabbing.  At that note, if I'm moving the arm out of the way, there's a reason (like I'm going to strike there).
For reference, this is the scene I'm thinking of:





In particular at 0:50 when Smart punches and his friend goes the other way.


----------



## zzj (Aug 14, 2018)

skribs said:


> Remember, I said I do have hapkido in my background.  Not a lot, mind you.  But enough to notice a lot of the stuff that looks fake, but is real.
> 
> So I'm looking at 1:17 in slow motion.  The only contact I see is forearm-to-forearm push.  There appears to be a lot of room for the "bad guy's" arm to give (meaning no push), and the position of the "bad guy" appears to be one that should have a firmer base, because he is facing into it with a front stance, while the "good guy" is twisting outside his centerline.
> The next one is at 1:26.  This one I see the hand get pushed back slightly, but not enough to cause pain.  Not even close in my bad wrist.  It's as if as soon as there's resistance, he jumps away.  In fact, I'm watching him push off with his left arm, and use the energy from his hand being pushed back, to push off and jump.
> ...



I see this line of discussion is still not dead. I can only try to answer your points via my own experience at the hands of Mizner's contemporary.

1. I take it you mean that the 'bad guy' seems to have a better position and space for him to disengage/neutralize 'good guy's' action. What you don't see is the difference in central equilibrium, which is much more important in the context of this style; the fact that the 'bad guy' is extending and committing to pushing is already a situation of lesser central equilibrium. On the other hand, the 'good guy' may look like he is straying off his centre line when turning, but he maintains that equilibrium internally which results in his superior position; in fact if you watch his other videos, he stresses the importance of this equilibrium concept above all.  

2. What is happening is almost opposite of what you are describing. The sensation I had in such a situation was the loss of all resistance instead of meeting resistance, you feel like you are grabbing onto a man-sized rubber ball; your instinctive reaction is not to let go as it feels like you might slip off if you do as the bounciness of the ball exerts a very subtle redirection of your balance. As the 'good guy' moves his arm, the 'bad guy' is 'sent outwards', coupled with a release of non-muscular force he would seem to jump back. - The small movement of the arm hides a much larger force than what is visible, so it looks like the bad guy is pushing off the arm rather than being bounced off.

3/4. is very much the same situation...

5. This is different only in that instead of bouncing away, the force is directed downwards, to lead the 'falling into emptiness'.

A lot of the reaction is due to the body's inability to react properly to dealing with a target that is practically 'empty' in terms of tactile sensation, you cannot even feel any center of mass much less push into his center-line, where any force coming from him would seem to come from nowhere and without warning.

As to the question of why there is no grabbing, its just a demonstration of principle, not a fighting technique. Pushing each other's arms is just the most direct and familiar (default) interaction in tai chi circles.

I've stressed in my other posts that I do not expect people from other MA's or even different tai chi styles to believe all this based on the video or what I say. My intention wasn't to start a discussion about the art itself, just a comment on how extreme the concept of abandoning muscular force is in this particular lineage/style/offshoot. I understand how fake it all looks and it is also true that Mizner himself has never been shown in a real fight or hard sparring context.

I am not Mizner's student but I am nominally a (newbie) student of the same lineage. As such I can personally attest to the viability of such principles under controlled/fixed situations, but I am nowhere near the skill level to try them out in free sparring.


----------



## skribs (Aug 14, 2018)

zzj said:


> I see this line of discussion is still not dead. I can only try to answer your points via my own experience at the hands of Mizner's contemporary.
> 
> 1. I take it you mean that the 'bad guy' seems to have a better position and space for him to disengage/neutralize 'good guy's' action. What you don't see is the difference in central equilibrium, which is much more important in the context of this style; the fact that the 'bad guy' is extending and committing to pushing is already a situation of lesser central equilibrium. On the other hand, the 'good guy' may look like he is straying off his centre line when turning, but he maintains that equilibrium internally which results in his superior position; in fact if you watch his other videos, he stresses the importance of this equilibrium concept above all.
> 
> ...



1.  I mean the "bad guy" is in a front stance with his weight on his arm.  And the "good guy" has his weight centered over his feet with his arm off to the side.  That means that he is using just a small motion of his arm with no additional force behind it to launch the "bad guy" backwards.  The only way I know for this to work is with pain.  Otherwise physics wins.

2.  A lot of this sounds like the type of mumbo-jumbo they use in B movies to explain why someone has superpowers.  If it was a force going into the guy, then his arm would compress, not extend.  His arm extending shows it's a push-off.

5.  What is directing the force downwards?

I find it very hard to believe you wouldn't feel anything.  You'd feel the arm, even if it wasn't acting like you expect an arm to.  But more important, you WOULD feel center of mass if you moved past the arm to the chest.  The chest can't slip around so easily.  Even if it did, you could roll with it for the most part.  Put your leg behind theirs and if they try to roll away from your push, they fall flat on the ground.

If you're limited to pushing arms, I can't find a realistic scenario where that would apply.  That's ignoring pushes to the chest, grabbing the arms, or anything to do with your legs.  That's assuming these techniques work on those who are not suggested to it, even in that scenario.

So I'd argue this is not compatible with other martial arts, not because of a difference in philosophy, but because in the event it DOES work and isn't just a scripted "jump" or "fall"...it would appear to only work in a strange scenario of someone only pushing your arms.

Edit to add:

Keep in mind, I try to keep an open mind.  But I really don't see anything here other than the power of suggestion.


----------



## now disabled (Aug 14, 2018)

in Hapkido do you blend?


----------



## zzj (Aug 14, 2018)

skribs said:


> 1.  I mean the "bad guy" is in a front stance with his weight on his arm.  And the "good guy" has his weight centered over his feet with his arm off to the side.  That means that he is using just a small motion of his arm with no additional force behind it to launch the "bad guy" backwards.  The only way I know for this to work is with pain.  Otherwise physics wins.
> 
> 2.  A lot of this sounds like the type of mumbo-jumbo they use in B movies to explain why someone has superpowers.  If it was a force going into the guy, then his arm would compress, not extend.  His arm extending shows it's a push-off.
> 
> ...



1. It's not pain. The visible action is minute but the 'wave' of force is larger than what the eye can see, at the same time the target is slightly off balance due to the 'ball' analogy.

2. It's literally like a wave of momentum (that's how I would describe it), you feel like you are thrown back instead of being pushed. If it were a directed muscular force then the arms would of course compress.

5. Again, a sinking momentum much in the same way as the push.

Of course I can feel the arm, but the arm feels like a part of an inflated balloon/ball. Again if you move pass the arms the body also feels similar, as if every point is equal pressure wise no matter which point you probe. There is no sense of an equal and opposite reacting line of force but that your force is dispersed and equally distributed in every part of his body. With regards to trying to put your legs behind him, it is virtually impossible (for me at least, but I suck) because the more you try to move into his space the more unbalanced you get... again the man-sized rubber ball analogy, imagine trying to move your legs behind a 6 feet diameter inflated ball.

You are not limited to pushing arms, that is just more or less our default interaction when talking about core principles. If you care enough to do so you can watch the video below for a better overview, note that the interviewer is an MA practitioner with many years of experience himself (but not in tai chi AFAIK) and Mizner demonstrates his moves on him, not his students.







EDIT: I am coming across like a Mizner groupie, unfortunately he is the most 'famous' and demonstrative representative of this style on the internet so yeah....


----------



## now disabled (Aug 14, 2018)

@skribs 

I know that looks all fake and maybe it is however 

Go watch the three vids I posted on the interviews and in them you will see something like that addressed in respect of Ueshiba Morihei as he did similar things and folks say it is fake to however go watch them it may give you a perspective on same


----------



## hoshin1600 (Aug 14, 2018)

zzj said:


> 1.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not really part of this conversation but I have to say the subtitles are really great ..." Tai Chi is chicken but chicken is not Tai chi"


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 14, 2018)

zzj said:


> 1. It's not pain. The visible action is minute but the 'wave' of force is larger than what the eye can see, at the same time the target is slightly off balance due to the 'ball' analogy.
> 
> 2. It's literally like a wave of momentum (that's how I would describe it), you feel like you are thrown back instead of being pushed. If it were a directed muscular force then the arms would of course compress.
> 
> ...


The reactions in that video are easily understood. This leads me to believe the partner in the first video was helping, either consciously or unconsciously.


----------



## now disabled (Aug 14, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> The reactions in that video are easily understood. This leads me to believe the partner in the first video was helping, either consciously or unconsciously.




He probably was like some uke do too .............but the actual thing that was being demo is well as you say easily understood


----------



## zzj (Aug 14, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> The reactions in that video are easily understood. This leads me to believe the partner in the first video was helping, either consciously or unconsciously.



That’s pretty much a given. It’s like a universal trait of most uke’s especially if the person demonstrating is considered a respected master.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 14, 2018)

zzj said:


> That’s pretty much a given. It’s like a universal trait of most uke’s especially if the person demonstrating is considered a respected master.


Agreed. And, unfortunately, it often hides (for those who can understand at least some of what's going on) the actual technique and efficacy thereof.

Even in class, I have to sometimes remind students about this. I'll start something, and the student falls. I'll ask, "Why did you fall?" The answer, usually: "I thought I was supposed to."

Sigh.


----------



## skribs (Aug 14, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> The reactions in that video are easily understood. This leads me to believe the partner in the first video was helping, either consciously or unconsciously.



It might be easily understood to you, but as evident by my post it's not to me.  What IS going on there?

Or what would be going on if the guy wasn't jumping like a startled cat?


----------



## zzj (Aug 14, 2018)

skribs said:


> It might be easily understood to you, but as evident by my post it's not to me.  What IS going on there?
> 
> Or what would be going on if the guy wasn't jumping like a startled cat?



You seem to have a genuine sense of curiosity about this, however I think we have derailed this thread long enough. 

There is no amount of explanation that can make it seem logical if you have not felt something similar. If you want to pursue this further I would suggest you go for the workshop in Los Angeles scheduled for the end of September (next month) by Mizner’s disciple & assistant instructor Curtis Brough. 
Details are on Mizner’s website, I’m not posting  them here as I’m not advertising for him.

With that I think we should let this matter rest and hopefully the thread can get back on track?


----------



## skribs (Aug 14, 2018)

zzj said:


> You seem to have a genuine sense of curiosity about this, however I think we have derailed this thread long enough.
> 
> There is no amount of explanation that can make it seem logical if you have not felt something similar. If you want to pursue this further I would suggest you go for the workshop in Los Angeles scheduled for the end of September (next month) by Mizner’s disciple & assistant instructor Curtis Brough.
> Details are on Mizner’s website, I’m not posting  them here as I’m not advertising for him.
> ...



I'm sorry, my curiosity doesn't extend to the 22 hour drive or the plane ticket I would need to purchase, and the work time I would need to miss in order to experience it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 14, 2018)

skribs said:


> It might be easily understood to you, but as evident by my post it's not to me.  What IS going on there?
> 
> Or what would be going on if the guy wasn't jumping like a startled cat?


What I see in the first video is not clear. The interview video - where he's using the interviewer as uke - seems much clearer. I've had a smidge of experience with some folks who were able to do similar things (one I think was actually a Taiji practitioner/instructor), and I even see some bits of it in my own work, though without the impressive rooting I see in that video.

So, with an inexperienced (at Taiji) uke, it's not that foreign in concept. There's some redirection, some impressive rooting and reflecting, and some of what I call "passing" - an aspect of blending where the force of an incoming push is allowed to pass just far enough that it can't exert any real effect before it can be altered. I can do much of what was in that interview video, though I won't look nearly as good, and will work harder for it than he appeared to. I might be doing it differently than he is, too, since I'm interpreting through my own knowledge.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 14, 2018)

zzj said:


> You seem to have a genuine sense of curiosity about this, however I think we have derailed this thread long enough.
> 
> There is no amount of explanation that can make it seem logical if you have not felt something similar. If you want to pursue this further I would suggest you go for the workshop in Los Angeles scheduled for the end of September (next month) by Mizner’s disciple & assistant instructor Curtis Brough.
> Details are on Mizner’s website, I’m not posting  them here as I’m not advertising for him.
> ...


This kind of interesting side-discussion happens a lot. Some of the best exchanges happen in them. Sometimes the thread returns to its prior topic, but usually the natural flow of the thread follows the interest of those involved.


----------



## skribs (Aug 14, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> This kind of interesting side-discussion happens a lot. Some of the best exchanges happen in them. Sometimes the thread returns to its prior topic, but usually the natural flow of the thread follows the interest of those involved.



Yeah, this is the first thread I've seen where the OP is taking a topic down a rabbit trail and someone else is trying to bring it back on topic!


----------



## now disabled (Aug 14, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> What I see in the first video is not clear. The interview video - where he's using the interviewer as uke - seems much clearer. I've had a smidge of experience with some folks who were able to do similar things (one I think was actually a Taiji practitioner/instructor), and I even see some bits of it in my own work, though without the impressive rooting I see in that video.
> 
> So, with an inexperienced (at Taiji) uke, it's not that foreign in concept. There's some redirection, some impressive rooting and reflecting, and some of what I call "passing" - an aspect of blending where the force of an incoming push is allowed to pass just far enough that it can't exert any real effect before it can be altered. I can do much of what was in that interview video, though I won't look nearly as good, and will work harder for it than he appeared to. I might be doing it differently than he is, too, since I'm interpreting through my own knowledge.




My friend  have you ever seen or been exposed t any of the KI Aikido of Tohei etc ?


----------



## wab25 (Aug 14, 2018)

skribs said:


> I'm sorry, my curiosity doesn't extend to the 22 hour drive or the plane ticket I would need to purchase


You could look for an Aikido or Daito Ryu school near you. They should both be able to allow you to feel similar things. What they are showing in that video is not uncommon.

In order to understand what you are seeing there, you have to first realize that you are not looking at TKD. By that, I mean, they are not trying to throw a realistic attack, or even an effective attack, and then trying to effectively defeat that attack. You are correct, people are probably not ever going to be attacked like that, and if they are, there are plenty of simpler responses that are far more effective at defeating the attacker. But, thats not the point here.

They are working on some principles and ideas, that can be very subtle. As such, they are very hard to practice, and even harder to pass on. So, they created drills with the idea of making things that are small a subtle, big enough to learn and practice. 

The attacker is not so much "attacking" the other guy as he is giving the other guy what he needs in order to practice and learn. So, uke (the attacker and receiver of the technique) often makes a "bad" attack. He telegraphs what he is doing, he over commits, and over extends. This way, the guy doing the technique, has the right energy, in a big quantity, so that he can work on the subtle technique.

Lets talk about the jump back at 1:17 that you brought up. Realize that prior to that, the attackers grip was corrected to be in a specific place. This is not an attack, so much as it is a situation to practice and learn. (or demo in this case) If the attacker were to keep his grip, and never let go he would end up in a wrist lock. (z lock... you should recognize it from you Hapkido) Additionally, when the lock starts to come on, the attackers posture would start to be compromised. In this demo, the attacker chooses to disengage and jump back, instead of allowing his posture to break and the lock to be applied. I would prefer to see those things happen, rather than the jump back... in my opinion, that would be better... but its their demo.

The thing they are looking at, is not the attack, not the defense against the attack, not the lock, and not even the push back. They are looking at taking the energy given from the attacker, redirecting it and then using it against him. When the grab happens, the attacker is over reaching, and giving his balance to the guy demonstrating. The guy demonstrating, is keeping that energy going, and using it to further off balance the other guy, and then using it to manipulate the other guy. Most importantly, he is making this big enough, that those being taught can try it out and find the principle. Once people find the principles, they start making them smaller.

Does it work? Well, define work. When I was training MMA, there was a guy their who had done Judo before. For fun, he and I were working on a foot prop throw. You use the gi, to pull the other guy into a forward step, but you use your foot to prevent him from stepping forward. He then makes a nice flip in the air, into a nice pretty fall. One of the MMA guys started to tell us that looks pretty, but would never work. The MMA instructor told me to throw him that way. I took the back of his head, and elbow, pulled him into a forward step, and propped his foot. No fancy flip, no pretty fall. But, he went face and shoulder first, into the mat. (pretty quickly actually) So, did it work? It did not look pretty. It did not produce the nice flip into the pretty fall... so it must not work. It did land him pretty quickly on the ground, with a thump. (he did not appreciate hitting his shoulder that way)... so it worked.

Does this subtle stuff work? In the real world, it probably won't cause the other guy to jump back like a cat, or flip through the air or many times even fall. But, it will take your balance and break your stance. This takes away your power and ability to effectively continue. Sure, you can make another move to recover, but he can also make another move while you make your recovery move. He will have many options, if you look at the openings produced by the off balancing and posture breaking. He is also still in a position to attack effectively, while you are not.

This type of training may not be your cup of tea. But, it should at least be seen for what it is. They are training the small details that most of us skip over. If we could apply these details in what we do already, it will greatly improve what we currently do. What if your block not only blocked the attack, but broke the other guys balance and posture? What if you could determine in which direction? What if you had multiple options, and could choose which way to send him and which way to open him up?

This isn't my favorite demo of this type of stuff. I would rather not see the proactive jump back. But, the part they are studying is still there. Have you ever done a self defense demo in TKD, where you kicked a guy who fell over? Did you really make contact hard enough to knock him down? Were you able to demonstrate your idea, even though the other guy took the fall for you?


----------



## now disabled (Aug 14, 2018)

wab25 said:


> You could look for an Aikido or Daito Ryu school near you. They should both be able to allow you to feel similar things. What they are showing in that video is not uncommon.




I would think you may struggle to find Daito-ryu and as far as Aikido is concerned imo you be better looking for KI Aikido school ...yes in Aikikai etc there most definitely is what you are talking about but it is more pronounced in the Ki style imo


----------



## skribs (Aug 14, 2018)

wab25 said:


> You could look for an Aikido or Daito Ryu school near you. They should both be able to allow you to feel similar things. What they are showing in that video is not uncommon.
> 
> In order to understand what you are seeing there, you have to first realize that you are not looking at TKD. By that, I mean, they are not trying to throw a realistic attack, or even an effective attack, and then trying to effectively defeat that attack. You are correct, people are probably not ever going to be attacked like that, and if they are, there are plenty of simpler responses that are far more effective at defeating the attacker. But, thats not the point here.
> 
> ...



We don't really use the names of the locks in my HKD school.  They're more numbered than named.

If this really is a case of "wrist lock is starting, better get away," it still appears to be an overreaction, where the "bad guy" is moving away of his own free will.  I would much rather see the effect of the technique than see the technique start followed by a jump away.

(Not that I want to see the wrist lock finished by actually breaking his wrist...I just want to see what it would do).


----------



## Buka (Aug 14, 2018)

I don't thing Sinanju and Ameri-Do-Te mesh well. Others may disagree.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 14, 2018)

now disabled said:


> My friend  have you ever seen or been exposed t any of the KI Aikido of Tohei etc ?


No, I’ve never had the pleasure, though there is a Shin-Shin-Toitsu school not far from me.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 14, 2018)

wab25 said:


> You could look for an Aikido or Daito Ryu school near you. They should both be able to allow you to feel similar things. What they are showing in that video is not uncommon.
> 
> In order to understand what you are seeing there, you have to first realize that you are not looking at TKD. By that, I mean, they are not trying to throw a realistic attack, or even an effective attack, and then trying to effectively defeat that attack. You are correct, people are probably not ever going to be attacked like that, and if they are, there are plenty of simpler responses that are far more effective at defeating the attacker. But, thats not the point here.
> 
> ...


That’s a better explanation than I’ve ever managed for aiki training.


----------



## now disabled (Aug 14, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> No, I’ve never had the pleasure, though there is a Shin-Shin-Toitsu school not far from me.




Go along and have a look see as the KI boys are more into that kinda thing


----------



## zzj (Aug 14, 2018)

skribs said:


> We don't really use the names of the locks in my HKD school.  They're more numbered than named.
> 
> If this really is a case of "wrist lock is starting, better get away," it still appears to be an overreaction, where the "bad guy" is moving away of his own free will.  I would much rather see the effect of the technique than see the technique start followed by a jump away.
> 
> (Not that I want to see the wrist lock finished by actually breaking his wrist...I just want to see what it would do).



He is not jumping away of his own free will, I have to emphasize that again. It certainly looks like he does but there is no benefit or merit for him to do that in a demonstration.... what Mizner did was to control, break his balance and send him away simultaneously.

Look at the video below.
Liang De Hua is Mizner's friend and they have much in common except that he is less subtle in his movements so you can better tell what is going on. This video is interesting because it shows a visitor from US experiencing this type of skill fro the first time. Note how his genuine amazement, how 'weird' it feels and how he 'cannot feel the arm' (as per my description)





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1974148715989739
			




Unlike with Mizner, I have actually experienced Liang De Hua's skill. He is a surprisingly humble and personable teacher.


----------



## skribs (Aug 14, 2018)

zzj said:


> He is not jumping away of his own free will, I have to emphasize that again. It certainly looks like he does but there is no benefit or merit for him to do that in a demonstration.... what Mizner did was to control, break his balance and send him away simultaneously.
> 
> Look at the video below.
> Liang De Hua is Mizner's friend and they have much in common except that he is less subtle in his movements so you can better tell what is going on. This video is interesting because it shows a visitor from US experiencing this type of skill fro the first time. Note how his genuine amazement, how 'weird' it feels and how he 'cannot feel the arm' (as per my description)
> ...



With this one I can see a lot of why the "bad guy" is doing what he's doing.

With the first video you posted, the guy is definitely pushing off on his own.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 15, 2018)

zzj said:


> He is not jumping away of his own free will, I have to emphasize that again. It certainly looks like he does but there is no benefit or merit for him to do that in a demonstration.... what Mizner did was to control, break his balance and send him away simultaneously.
> 
> Look at the video below.
> Liang De Hua is Mizner's friend and they have much in common except that he is less subtle in his movements so you can better tell what is going on. This video is interesting because it shows a visitor from US experiencing this type of skill fro the first time. Note how his genuine amazement, how 'weird' it feels and how he 'cannot feel the arm' (as per my description)
> ...


The difference I see is the nature of the hop back. The guy in this video uses a hop that’s just enough to regain his balance. I think the other guy hops a shade early to keep from having to stumble back. Does that make sense? This, again, has a parallel to some of the big breakfalls Aikidoka use: they could wait a little longer and be forced into a fall, but it would be rougher and actually take more energy.


----------



## zzj (Aug 15, 2018)

that’s quite astute. I can wholeheartedly agree.


----------



## now disabled (Aug 15, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Aikidoka use: they could wait a little longer and be forced into a fall, but it would be rougher and actually take more energy.




Oh how true that is ....but they should wait to be put over or down as that is part of being a good Uke ...flipping or falling just cause they know what is coming really helps no one ...and in all truth that is why alot of Aikido get such a rough time lol... Also (in Aikido in am speaking of) taking breakfalls and ukemi is really a missed part of the "whole" ...if you are deshi then you have to make that part of the whole as your gonna get a lot of it when your sensei is teaching lol... what most do not really get is imo you really can learn a heck of alot if you take full and proper ukemi and break falls ...but hey maybe I'm just old fashioned there lol


----------



## now disabled (Aug 15, 2018)

zzj said:


> He is not jumping away of his own free will, I have to emphasize that again. It certainly looks like he does but there is no benefit or merit for him to do that in a demonstration.... what Mizner did was to control, break his balance and send him away simultaneously.
> 
> Look at the video below.
> Liang De Hua is Mizner's friend and they have much in common except that he is less subtle in his movements so you can better tell what is going on. This video is interesting because it shows a visitor from US experiencing this type of skill fro the first time. Note how his genuine amazement, how 'weird' it feels and how he 'cannot feel the arm' (as per my description)
> ...




The way I am viewing this video etc is (and this is only from my background)

The teacher is using Aiki and Ki 

He is blending by accepting what the other guy is giving him by relaxing and not meeting it with force or strength and at least once he redirected it of to side the other times how I see it is he again used what I would call Aiki and blended and accepted what the other guy gave him and at the instant the other guy pushed (no matter how small a push) he relaxed thereby in the split second he over extended him (even by the smallest amount) thereby he had his centre and he had disrupted his structure and intent then he exploded it back at him (KI) when he was at his most vulnerable...may sound stupid but that is how I see it working ...it not mystical or secret it being able to use perfectly what he has studied 

As to if he could do the same when another skilled person in either the same art or one that uses similar principles and techs that is another question entirely (and I am not hitting at the teacher btw)


----------



## skribs (Aug 15, 2018)

now disabled said:


> Oh how true that is ....but they should wait to be put over or down as that is part of being a good Uke ...flipping or falling just cause they know what is coming really helps no one ...and in all truth that is why alot of Aikido get such a rough time lol... Also (in Aikido in am speaking of) taking breakfalls and ukemi is really a missed part of the "whole" ...if you are deshi then you have to make that part of the whole as your gonna get a lot of it when your sensei is teaching lol... what most do not really get is imo you really can learn a heck of alot if you take full and proper ukemi and break falls ...but hey maybe I'm just old fashioned there lol



I mean, in a demonstration there is a little of that.  But you have to make it look real.  (Hence my linking of the clip from Get Smart).  If you're doing a demonstration, then most or all of it will be scripted and practiced.  But it should be scripted and practiced to look as real as it can, while being as safe as it can.

We have a problem at our school of some of the kids underacting a lot, which makes the techniques not look as effective.  This guy is overacting, which makes the techniques look fake.



Buka said:


> I don't thing Sinanju and Ameri-Do-Te mesh well. Others may disagree.



Ameri-Do-Te doesn't mesh well with anything, because according to it, everything else is male bovine excrement.  They also have a long-standing agreement with the rest of the community that if you convert to Ameri-Do-Te you can turn in your old tattered black belt in whatever pointless art you train in, and get a shiny new Ameri-Do-Te white belt.  Seems like a good deal to me, because you get to join the only martial art in the world that is certified to be 100% street lethal.  Unfortunately there are no Ameri-Do-Te dojos in the area for me to enter.


----------



## now disabled (Aug 15, 2018)

This may be slightly of original topic and I am sure there will be a few folks that will not agree but I will post anyway lol (full Brim hard hat is firmly on lol)

An analogy first lol:-

Two guys are out in the woods bucking up timber .... one guy gets it wrong and the cut buck rolls on him trapping him ...his friend rushes over and proceeds to lift the buck of his buddy freeing him ...great ...however ordinarily he would never be able to have lifted that buck ...no way on his own ...so how did he ? was it fear, was it adrenaline was it he needed to act to help his friend ...whatever but from somewhere he drew that bit extra and performed something that ordinarily he could not have done. Us in the west would say it was possibly as I have already stated or it was super human etc etc etc ....In China and Japan they might well say he used not only his outer energy (his strength) but that he harnessed his Ki/Chi is give him the extra ...now most will just say no but did he ? to me he did he got the extra he needed and not from some mystical power or magic he got it from within as every human has that power born into them (some may say rubbish ...ok ...some may say I don't believe it ...ok ...some may not even give it a thought as they never had to do something like that ...ok but it came from somewhere) the trick is (i that the right word) is to be able to summon that from within that little bit extra and not just at times of crisis but at will when you need or want to (sound silly or nuts lol) and not even having to believe in any mystical force or superior beings or what ever ... to me everyone has it it just if we can use it and use the methods taught to bring it out.

Like Ueshiba Morihei when he gets stick for saying he was faking or people were just flipping for him ...I disagree and I base that on an interview I watched and I did post them where a deshi of his said (not a direct quote lol) I taught some military Police one day (time scale would mean probably US MP's) and when I did I used strong powerful Aikido put them done hard so they would see how powerful I was and Aikido was ....Then we went to a class being taught by Ueshiba Morihei and they would not believe it as I was uke and was getting sent rolling like a ball. The MP's would not believe it and said how as I was so powerful etc could I not put down an old man like that it had to be fake ...so he went and spoke to Ueshiba Morihei and told him and asked him if they could try ..He agreed and duly the big strong MP's all were put on their butts by the little old man ...after that the sensei explained to them it was his ki and his Aiki as he was totally incapable of defeating them with strength but it was not some magical power (I'm adding that bit as it is in context) but merely Ueshiba Morihei put them where he wanted them to be using his Aiki etc and put them down he was so well versed that he could and did have that "feel" and knowledge that he had that ability to put a person where he waned to put them by disrupting their force without opposing it with strength (he couldn't he would have been late 70's at least if not in his 80's) taking it and then simply making use of it and adding what he could summon from with in at will (the little extra) and put them down, Not by any magical power etc just because he was well versed and an adept at Aiki and knew how to pull that little extra when needed as he had spent years studying 

Ok give me flak at will lol but Ki/Chi to me are not mystical powers at all just the little extra we all have and can have some of us (umm not me btw lol) can call it up at will and the Aiki well that is training study and many years of practice to attain the levels of being able to put a person where you want them and blend so much they dunno that is what is happening lol and return the force they give to your advantage ...to me nothing mystical just training and study and having the ability to react in the split second 


Ok sorry for the rant I await the fire lol


----------



## now disabled (Aug 15, 2018)

skribs said:


> I mean, in a demonstration there is a little of that. But you have to make it look real. (Hence my linking of the clip from Get Smart). If you're doing a demonstration, then most or all of it will be scripted and practiced. But it should be scripted and practiced to look as real as it can, while being as safe as it can.
> 
> We have a problem at our school of some of the kids underacting a lot, which makes the techniques not look as effective. This guy is overacting, which makes the techniques look fake.




Bro i agree totally 

But as I said most (not all )Uke these days will do the flips etc as they know what coming and think in doing that they are actually being good Uke 

The prob with demos is imo the people there like seeing the big high falls and the spectacular throws and honestly I would say 99% of them don't know any better lol  (not their fault) or actually care as that is what they want to see ...so the demo people give them that and if it gets students it pays the bills ....is it wrong ? yes ......and no .....it all depends really on what is taught in the real dojo  and to an extent what the students training actually want


----------



## skribs (Aug 15, 2018)

now disabled said:


> Bro i agree totally
> 
> But as I said most (not all )Uke these days will do the flips etc as they know what coming and think in doing that they are actually being good Uke
> 
> The prob with demos is imo the people there like seeing the big high falls and the spectacular throws and honestly I would say 99% of them don't know any better lol  (not their fault) or actually care as that is what they want to see ...so the demo people give them that and if it gets students it pays the bills ....is it wrong ? yes ......and no .....it all depends really on what is taught in the real dojo  and to an extent what the students training actually want



My point is, if it looks fake it won't actually get the students coming in.


----------



## now disabled (Aug 15, 2018)

skribs said:


> My point is, if it looks fake it won't actually get the students coming in.




I get you but as I said most of who attend the public demos would not know fake from real lol ...I am not being nasty just my opinion ...ye as MA we can usually tell if it fake but we are coming from backgrounds of MA not off the street ................In Aikido demos one should way to tell if the Uke is flipping is to look at the feet and where he/she is when the ukemi or breakfall starts ...but that only cause I kinda know where to look and what is actually demo Aikido what is classical and what no matter what unles ya really lucky lol will never work in reality but it looks good lol


----------



## now disabled (Aug 15, 2018)

Believe me if you took ukemi/breakfalls as a deshi when your sensei was teaching and you did not take it properly then at the time they just would pick another Uke but look out after class as ummm  you would get ya balls chewed lol...and well see getting your balls chewed when the person doing the chewing is being very polite is a very strange and unnerving experience lol


----------



## skribs (Aug 15, 2018)

now disabled said:


> I get you but as I said most of who attend the public demos would not know fake from real lol ...I am not being nasty just my opinion ...ye as MA we can usually tell if it fake but we are coming from backgrounds of MA not off the street ................In Aikido demos one should way to tell if the Uke is flipping is to look at the feet and where he/she is when the ukemi or breakfall starts ...but that only cause I kinda know where to look and what is actually demo Aikido what is classical and what no matter what unles ya really lucky lol will never work in reality but it looks good lol



Which is why, in your demonstration, you do everything you can to display your technique while making it look real.

The more recent video that was posted looked a lot more real.  And appeared to be using someone who was experiencing the technique for the first time instead of participating in a memorized demonstration.


----------



## now disabled (Aug 15, 2018)

skribs said:


> Which is why, in your demonstration, you do everything you can to display your technique while making it look real.
> 
> The more recent video that was posted looked a lot more real.  And appeared to be using someone who was experiencing the technique for the first time instead of participating in a memorized demonstration.




Yeah I agree 

I cannot explain it how the folks that practice it do I can only equate it to what I have seen etc and felt in Aikido ...which is different I guess.

I agree it should be real but that is down to the folks doing the demos and how they want it to look and if you do get an uke who is ummmm overacting it well ....I think we covered that lol


----------



## skribs (Aug 15, 2018)

now disabled said:


> Yeah I agree
> 
> I cannot explain it how the folks that practice it do I can only equate it to what I have seen etc and felt in Aikido ...which is different I guess.
> 
> I agree it should be real but that is down to the folks doing the demos and how they want it to look and if you do get an uke who is ummmm overacting it well ....I think we covered that lol



So in our Hapkido, for example, we have some techniques that look spectacular.  We have other techniques that, the first time I saw them, looked fake, until I had them done on me.  There are some finishing moves that just look like a pin or a hold, but in reality are excruciating.

So when you do the demonstration, you do a few things:

Pick which techniques you're going to use.  If I was doing a Hapkido demonstration, I would pick things that look painful.  For example, I think it's a Z-lock (like I said, I know the techniques, but we don't really name them at my school), looks kinda-fake to really-fake depending on how it's applied.  But when you twist the wrist over, it always looks painful.  A figure-4 looks pretty painful.  So I would demonstrate the Figure 4 and the wristlock first.  Then I might use a Z-lock to show how you can use a lot of pain.  I've established the other techniques, which lends credibility to these.
I would work with the Uke to make it look real.  So that when there's a slight amount of pressure, instead of immediately jumping away, he should simply recenter his balance (like in the 2nd video).  Care should be taken to make sure that when the Uke moves, it's in direct response to what you're doing instead of in anticipation.  Class and demonstration should be different, because there are different messages to convey.  If I am specifically doing a demo on Z-locks, I would train with the Uke to make sure that we work together on the demo.  For example, if I just touch his hand and he falls to the ground and pretends to have a seizure, it will look fake.  But if he responds with a pained expression when I apply torsion to the wrist, and falls in a direction that makes sense to the unitiated, then it looks a lot better.
Slow down and explain where the power is coming from.  If I apply a lock and the person jumps away, explain why.  "He's jumping away because he felt I was going to do this and he's scared of me."  "He's jumping away because he felt this pressure and wanted to avoid a joint lock."  Or, if I'm doing a Z-lock, slow it down and do a close-up of the wrist and why it's causing so much pain.
Show how the power can fail to apply.  He showed how making yourself rigid gives hold, but what is different about just rolling through the drill, vs. redirecting the energy and sending the guy flying back?
There are lots of ways this COULD have been done to provide a demonstration that would have also explained how it's effective.


----------



## wab25 (Aug 15, 2018)

skribs said:


> There are lots of ways this COULD have been done to provide a demonstration that would have also explained how it's effective.


What if he wasn't demonstrating a wrist lock? What if he wasn't demonstrating a push, or a throw? What if he was demonstrating something else entirely?

The part he was demonstrating was the first part of the move, not an application for the ending pose. The important part was how you react to the initial grab, as he is grabbing you. He was trying to demonstrate what can be done as the grab is occurring, not what can be done after the grab has been made. You are so focused on the end of the technique, that you missed the whole point. If you get the first part, as the grab is occurring, (if you capture his balance, break his structure and start to manipulate him, by going with the initial energy he gives you) you can finish it many different ways... throws, locks, chokes, punches, elbows, kicks... This demonstration is all about how to initially deal with the incoming energy of the grab. It doesn't matter whether the guy jumps back, lets go, screams in pain or wins an emmy for his acting. The whole idea he was trying to show, happened way before the acting started.

Again, I agree that this is not my favorite demonstration. I agree that he is over acting a bit. However, the thing he was demonstrating, was over and done with, before the acting started.


----------



## skribs (Aug 15, 2018)

wab25 said:


> What if he wasn't demonstrating a wrist lock? What if he wasn't demonstrating a push, or a throw? What if he was demonstrating something else entirely?
> 
> The part he was demonstrating was the first part of the move, not an application for the ending pose. The important part was how you react to the initial grab, as he is grabbing you. He was trying to demonstrate what can be done as the grab is occurring, not what can be done after the grab has been made. You are so focused on the end of the technique, that you missed the whole point. If you get the first part, as the grab is occurring, (if you capture his balance, break his structure and start to manipulate him, by going with the initial energy he gives you) you can finish it many different ways... throws, locks, chokes, punches, elbows, kicks... This demonstration is all about how to initially deal with the incoming energy of the grab. It doesn't matter whether the guy jumps back, lets go, screams in pain or wins an emmy for his acting. The whole idea he was trying to show, happened way before the acting started.
> 
> Again, I agree that this is not my favorite demonstration. I agree that he is over acting a bit. However, the thing he was demonstrating, was over and done with, before the acting started.



Ok, there's another solution.  If it's not being demonstrated, don't include it.

If you're going to include it, make it so that the layman can understand it enough to believe it.


----------



## now disabled (Aug 15, 2018)

skribs said:


> So in our Hapkido, for example, we have some techniques that look spectacular.  We have other techniques that, the first time I saw them, looked fake, until I had them done on me.  There are some finishing moves that just look like a pin or a hold, but in reality are excruciating.
> 
> So when you do the demonstration, you do a few things:
> 
> ...




My friend you are coming from the angle of the passionate and pure martial Artist who loves what he does and devotes a huge part of his life to achieving that.

Unfortunately there are some around who are not like that and for many reasons

for example:-   If a teacher starts out with a dojo of pupils and he decides that his style is to one of very big circle and spectacular techs with no atemi and little realism (a somewhat classical style but not in any way pure what I would call classical just using the term out of need or lack of my inferior vocab) doesn't really go into a lot of depth but is adequate enough to either award grades himself or get his better pupils to a place that they will just make the minimum to gain rank ....That is his choice and the choice of his pupils too... however if some of them go on and teach and they copy the style of their teacher then that goes on and on and on and with each passing generation more and more is lost or removed ...if that makes sense. Now the reverse is the teacher who starts the same but he goes down the line of "street" style (again maybe my lack of vocab) striking very small circle very hard and direct no real flow ...gets his student to the same as the first type and then again his students go on and teach , copy their teacher and there again things are lost or left out but it their style how they were taught so it right..... Then there the last type who has all the same star etc but chooses to teach and show both the classical style but adds in the caveats of realism and says yes to gain the rank this is the way you do it and why and that is the classical style and you will gain the rank but he stresses that in the real big bad world you have to tweak and modify and add bits even to make it work ....his students go on and teach and they copy there master and so it goes on and on there.

Who is right and who is wrong? .....they all are right and they all are wrong lol........................what is right and what is wrong all depends on the person making that decision and what their perception is and what they want from it and that is down to human nature ...there is the nub lol 

I could go on and say I have a very close friend (same rank as I am same background -well almost- ) who does not teach weapons and never has (I have never actually oficially taught -apart from my daughters - only filled in when needed ) oh he knows the kata and he does the suburi alone and when we used to meet up yes we did practice but he does not want to teach them ...I don't crit him for that as it his choice, his students just accept he does not teach that. His style is softer than mine and very classical (oh I can do the classical ...well I could lol) ,I am a bit more umm harder lol (probably due to I did study elsewhere than he did however he holds only the Akikai where I hold another style to ), He is not as open as I am to pinching things that I like from other things I like and "popping them in lol but again that his choice lol...When he does demos it is the big circle techs will all the classical flare yet ...who was his Uke lol....me lol why cause I could resist him and push him to make it look good but still real lol and I could take the big lovely looking breakfalls etc ...was I wrong doing that ...again open to opinion 

So demos are demos are demos but I do get that some do not actually show what they ought to and when it does come down to Chi/Ki/Aiki it is difficult as it will always be viewed with suspicion lol


----------



## now disabled (Aug 15, 2018)

wab25 said:


> What if he wasn't demonstrating a wrist lock? What if he wasn't demonstrating a push, or a throw? What if he was demonstrating something else entirely?
> 
> The part he was demonstrating was the first part of the move, not an application for the ending pose. The important part was how you react to the initial grab, as he is grabbing you. He was trying to demonstrate what can be done as the grab is occurring, not what can be done after the grab has been made. You are so focused on the end of the technique, that you missed the whole point. If you get the first part, as the grab is occurring, (if you capture his balance, break his structure and start to manipulate him, by going with the initial energy he gives you) you can finish it many different ways... throws, locks, chokes, punches, elbows, kicks... This demonstration is all about how to initially deal with the incoming energy of the grab. It doesn't matter whether the guy jumps back, lets go, screams in pain or wins an emmy for his acting. The whole idea he was trying to show, happened way before the acting started.
> 
> Again, I agree that this is not my favorite demonstration. I agree that he is over acting a bit. However, the thing he was demonstrating, was over and done with, before the acting started.




I totally agree lol

To anyone who is not "into" the Aiki/chi/Ki styles then it is hard to understand what is going on ...as you say it was really over before it started so to speak and that is hard to see or take lol when there no crash bang wallop involved ..............actually he did finish in a way as everytime he did (second vid) he did enough to escape if he had chosen to ...just my opinion


----------



## now disabled (Aug 15, 2018)

skribs said:


> Ok, there's another solution.  If it's not being demonstrated, don't include it.
> 
> If you're going to include it, make it so that the layman can understand it enough to believe it.




The "layman" lol it very hard indeed to show aiki etc as it just happens in an instant it not really a big set up (well it can be sorta) and anything like redirecting the force back at a person like he did will never look totally believable unless you are the one on the receiving end ....


----------



## wab25 (Aug 15, 2018)

skribs said:


> Ok, there's another solution. If it's not being demonstrated, don't include it.


Just for fun... here is a demo / discussion about the same thing as in the video, only different guy teaching, and different art. However, he is showing and demonstrating the exact same principles and ideas.








skribs said:


> If you're going to include it, make it so that the layman can understand it enough to believe it.


I am guessing that people should not teach advanced math or physics? Aren't there some finer points in TKD that you as a 3rd Dan can understand, and see and work on, that would fly right over the head for a white belt? Should your instructor not teach you those, as a layman would not get it?


----------



## marques (Aug 15, 2018)

zzj said:


> Well, the style of tai chi I'm currently training seems to be incompatible with all other mainstream martial arts, since it emphasizes the total abandonment of muscular force or training as shown in the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


“Total abandonement” of muscular force is a way of saying extremely efficient use of force, isn’t it? In the extreme of perfection, you’ll need almost none. But with actually none, one should dye soon.

Is Systema mainstream? Their concept of relaxation perhaps is not far from this one.


----------



## now disabled (Aug 15, 2018)

Not my style of Aikido but he actually explains what he is doing and why


----------



## skribs (Aug 15, 2018)

wab25 said:


> Just for fun... here is a demo / discussion about the same thing as in the video, only different guy teaching, and different art. However, he is showing and demonstrating the exact same principles and ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'll check the video out later (it's not loading on the network I'm on right now).  

If you're doing a demonstration for 3rd degree black belts, do it at their level.  It wasn't clear to me in the video we're discussing that it was for this level of training.  If that's the case, put in a disclaimer and say "this is some advanced stuff, if you're not familiar with the system, check out these other videos."  It was put out on YouTube, which tells me that the layman is probably going to see it.

Now let's talk about if my Master is teaching stuff designed for a 3rd degree.  I am going to do what I discussed before, and provide a realistic response to what he's doing.  That's what I do in the black belt class when I'm the demonstration dummy.  He has control and I react appropriately.



now disabled said:


> My friend you are coming from the angle of the passionate and pure martial Artist who loves what he does and devotes a huge part of his life to achieving that.



It's about what you're getting out of it.  I'm not going to criticize someone who does Tai Chi or Cardio Kickboxing for fitness.  I'm not going to criticize someone who does a sport martial art about the impracticality of the win situation (i.e. a "pin" only works until you get up).  I'm not going to criticize someone who does Krav Maga over how narrow the focus of the art is.  I'm not going to criticize someone doing a 540 kick because they think it looks cool.

But if someone says they take Cardio Kickboxing to learn self defense, I'm going to have to question that.  If someone says they can win an MMA match because they got more points than anyone at a Taekwondo tournament, I'm going to question that too.  If someone says the 540 kick is useful in self defense because more spin = more speed = more force, I'm going to question that.  And if someone barely touches the other person away from any joints and they go flying, I'm going to question it, too.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 15, 2018)

zzj said:


> Well, the style of tai chi I'm currently training seems to be incompatible with all other mainstream martial arts, since it emphasizes the total abandonment of muscular force or training as shown in the video below.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





zzj said:


> 1. It's not pain. The visible action is minute but the 'wave' of force is larger than what the eye can see, at the same time the target is slightly off balance due to the 'ball' analogy.
> 
> 2. It's literally like a wave of momentum (that's how I would describe it), you feel like you are thrown back instead of being pushed. If it were a directed muscular force then the arms would of course compress.
> 
> ...



Finally got a chance to watch these videos so I could address the side conversation. Here's my take on what I'm seeing ...

First point: "abandonment of muscular force" doesn't exist. Every single bit of body movement you can do (other than falling straight down) is based on muscular contraction. That includes breathing, standing, walking, having a beating heart, and all of the techniques Mizner is showing. A more accurate term for this sort of approach is "using muscular force _very efficiently_." People think it's not using muscular force because they're so used to wasting effort and using force inefficiently.

Second: Mizner clearly has a good degree of martially relevant body skill. Whether he has the chops to actually use those skills in an actual combative context, I have no idea.

Third: In the first video, his demo partner is responding to his (legitimate) technique in very unrealistic ways. (Jumping away unnecessarily, collapsing like a doofus) This may not have been a conscious decision. Sometimes students who have spent too much time training in an artificial format and being demonstrated on by a skilled teacher who encourages them to react in the wrong way can end up with some ... let's say stylized dysfunctional responses to receiving the technique.

Fourth: in the second video the interviewer is reacting much more realistically to Mizner's technique. He is doing one thing which makes it easy for Mizner to look good. He's attempting his "attacks" (throws, trips, locks, etc) without doing anything to compromise Mizner's structure first. I do the same sort of demo sometimes to show my students why it's necessary to break an opponent's structure before doing any of those kinds of techniques. Otherwise, it's easy to reverse the attack. Judging from the video, I think Mizner is probably better at this sort of demo than I am, but without feeling his energy or that of the other guy, I'm just guessing on that.


----------



## skribs (Aug 15, 2018)

Tony Dismukes said:


> First point: "abandonment of muscular force" doesn't exist. Every single bit of body movement you can do (other than falling straight down) is based on muscular contraction. That includes breathing, standing, walking, having a beating heart, and all of the techniques Mizner is showing. A more accurate term for this sort of approach is "using muscular force _very efficiently_." People think it's not using muscular force because they're so used to wasting effort and using force inefficiently.



I'm actually going to disagree with you here.  You can contract opposing muscles simultaneously and place a lot of tension on yourself.  It's common amongst lower level belts who are trying too hard.  I have to tell them to relax and then their technique improves.  So I can see how relaxing can affect your martial art skill.



Tony Dismukes said:


> Third: In the first video, his demo partner is responding to his (legitimate) technique in very unrealistic ways. (Jumping away unnecessarily, collapsing like a doofus) This may not have been a conscious decision. Sometimes students who have spent too much time training in an artificial format and being demonstrated on by a skilled teacher who encourages them to react in the wrong way can end up with some ... let's say stylized dysfunctional responses to receiving the technique.



This is probably it.  The problem is, the guy leaping like a cat that's just seen a cucumber actually hurts the demonstration, because it makes the entire thing look fake.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 15, 2018)

skribs said:


> I'm not going to criticize someone who does a sport martial art about the impracticality of the win situation (i.e. a "pin" only works until you get up).


Just wanted to respond to this little bit. If by "pin" you're talking about a wrestling or Judo pin and by "practicality" you're referring to a self-defense context, then I have to say that there are plenty of self-defense circumstances where being able to pin someone in that manner can be very practical and may even be the best option. It's situational of course. Sometimes it's not a good idea. Sometimes it is.


----------



## skribs (Aug 15, 2018)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Just wanted to respond to this little bit. If by "pin" you're talking about a wrestling or Judo pin and by "practicality" you're referring to a self-defense context, then I have to say that there are plenty of self-defense circumstances where being able to pin someone in that manner can be very practical and may even be the best option. It's situational of course. Sometimes it's not a good idea. Sometimes it is.



The problem with a pin in self defense is 2-fold.


You've only "won" until you let go.  Then they may start again.
What if there are two of them?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 15, 2018)

skribs said:


> I'm actually going to disagree with you here. You can contract opposing muscles simultaneously and place a lot of tension on yourself. It's common amongst lower level belts who are trying too hard. I have to tell them to relax and then their technique improves. So I can see how relaxing can affect your martial art skill.


You're not disagreeing with me at all. That is precisely correct and it's part of what I'm referring to when I talk about wasting effort and using force inefficiently.

If none of your muscles are contracting, then you can't move (and will soon be dead due to the lack of respiration and circulation).

If you contract the muscles necessary for movement and also contract the muscles which oppose that movement, then you're pressing down the gas pedal and the brake at the same time. That's not using muscular force. That's _wasting_ muscular force.

The trick is activating only the muscles that help you in a given moment and not the ones which get in your way. That's skill.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 15, 2018)

skribs said:


> The problem with a pin in self defense is 2-fold.
> 
> 
> You've only "won" until you let go.  Then they may start again.
> What if there are two of them?



Some situations where a pin _may_ be appropriate in self-defense:

You don't want to injure your opponent. Maybe it's a drunk family member or a mental patient having a psychotic break.

You have backup coming and they don't.

You want to hit them in the face a bunch and you can do it more easily while they're stuck underneath you and unable to move.

You want to exhaust them so they don't have the physical or mental stamina to continue fighting effectively.

Obviously there are also situations where trying to pin a opponent would be a bad idea. Defending solo against multiple attackers would be around the top of that list.


----------



## skribs (Aug 15, 2018)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Some situations where a pin _may_ be appropriate in self-defense:
> 
> You don't want to injure your opponent. Maybe it's a drunk family member or a mental patient having a psychotic break.
> 
> ...



I'll agree with some of that.  But if you're going to ground-and-pound, then a pin is the way to achieve that goal, and not the goal itself.  And you wouldn't ground-and-pound from most of the positions I was pinned in when I did wrestling.

I mean...the positions I pinned people in.

Okay, yeah, I was the one pinned most of the time.  But you get my point!


----------



## zzj (Aug 15, 2018)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Finally got a chance to watch these videos so I could address the side conversation. Here's my take on what I'm seeing ...
> 
> First point: "abandonment of muscular force" doesn't exist. Every single bit of body movement you can do (other than falling straight down) is based on muscular contraction. That includes breathing, standing, walking, having a beating heart, and all of the techniques Mizner is showing. A more accurate term for this sort of approach is "using muscular force _very efficiently_." People think it's not using muscular force because they're so used to wasting effort and using force inefficiently.
> 
> ...



With regards to abandonment of muscular force, I had written an entire paragraph in one of my earlier responses to qualify the term but deleted it before posting cos it didn't seem to fit with the flow. In any case, yes, you can't move without muscles; the term is used to convey a concept/approach, it is not meant to be understood as a scientific certainty.


----------



## zzj (Aug 15, 2018)

marques said:


> “Total abandonement” of muscular force is a way of saying extremely efficient use of force, isn’t it? In the extreme of perfection, you’ll need almost none. But with actually none, one should dye soon.
> 
> Is Systema mainstream? Their concept of relaxation perhaps is not far from this one.



I wouldn't classify Systema as mainstream, but that's my own understanding.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 16, 2018)

skribs said:


> Ok, there's another solution.  If it's not being demonstrated, don't include it.
> 
> If you're going to include it, make it so that the layman can understand it enough to believe it.


I think this varies somewhat depending who the audience is. If I'm demonstrating to potential students, versus current students, versus a group of martial artists interested in learning a little about the art (seminar, etc.), those are very different needs. In some of those, including an "incidental" finish might be helpful, even though it's not what's really being demonstrated. It gives some context to the entry point or initial reaction being shown.

And, of course, if I'm demonstrating for entertainment value, there's an entirely different set of considerations.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 16, 2018)

skribs said:


> The problem with a pin in self defense is 2-fold.
> 
> 
> You've only "won" until you let go.  Then they may start again.
> What if there are two of them?


That's the "situational" component. If there are two, you don't pin. If you use a pin that allows mobility, you can release quickly if a second shows up. There are a lot of situations where a pin can be useful in self-defense. Running is less often a good option than is commonly asserted in self-defense training. I saw an instructor recently say he didn't need to pin, because he'd be running. The guy is my height and probably 100 lbs heavier - and not with muscle - and doesn't practice running. For him, a pin makes far more sense than running in most cases.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 16, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. And, unfortunately, it often hides (for those who can understand at least some of what's going on) the actual technique and efficacy thereof.
> 
> Even in class, I have to sometimes remind students about this. I'll start something, and the student falls. I'll ask, "Why did you fall?" The answer, usually:* "I thought I was supposed to."*
> 
> Sigh.



Or feel great pain of have a joint dislocated?


----------



## skribs (Aug 16, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> Or feel great pain of have a joint dislocated?



There's a middle ground here, between "looks fake" and "got hurt."


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 16, 2018)

skribs said:


> There's a middle ground here, between "looks fake" and "got hurt."



I think I understand you to mean that many times look fake but are not.  Is that what you meant?


----------



## skribs (Aug 16, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> I think I understand you to mean that many times look fake but are not.  Is that what you meant?



I mean, there's:


Instructor barely touches your arm.  You do a backflip.
Instructor grabs your hand and applies a technique that results in you falling to the ground, and shows how you can apply pressure to break the wrist.
Instructor wrenches your hand so hard it nearly breaks as you fall to the ground, and then actually breaks your wrist.
Obviously #3 is bad.  But #1 is also just as bad for a demonstration.  #2 shows, safely, how the technique can be effective.  So if you can show effective technique, why overblow it with obvious fakeness?


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 16, 2018)

skribs said:


> I mean, there's:
> 
> 
> Instructor barely touches your arm.  You do a backflip.
> ...



I never saw a demonstration by masters or GM in the kwan I studied in that "looked fake" at least to me.  I have seen a lot of internet videos by GM that I had to play over and over again with a lot of stopping at certain places to see what was really done.  I think demonstrations put on by members of the kwan I studied in were related to things I already knew, so it was easier to see what was being done.

But just because I saw people moving with a technique didn't make me think it was fake, but just that they didn't want to be injured.  Even so there is often enough twisting or throwing done to cause pain.


----------



## skribs (Aug 16, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> I never saw a demonstration by masters or GM in the kwan I studied in that "looked fake" at least to me.  I have seen a lot of internet videos by GM that I had to play over and over again with a lot of stopping at certain places to see what was really done.  I think demonstrations put on by members of the kwan I studied in were related to things I already knew, so it was easier to see what was being done.
> 
> But just because I saw people moving with a technique didn't make me think it was fake, but just that they didn't want to be injured.  Even so there is often enough twisting or throwing done to cause pain.



I'm specifically looking at the video linked early in this thread which features someone jumping away or falling over what appears to be nothing.


----------



## now disabled (Aug 16, 2018)

skribs said:


> I'm specifically looking at the video linked early in this thread which features someone jumping away or falling over what appears to be nothing.




That was an Uke over acting plain and simple he was trying (and he ultimately failed) to make his teacher look good and really there was no need for that ...that said it could have been he actually didn't feel and was really trying again to make it look like he did

What the first vid showed is possible totally it was presented wrong and was over acted in bits (again that could be for multiple reasons) ...I am not going to slam anyone at all all I am going to say is ..........it does work and with the right adept doing so and it is not hocus pocus ....but how it is presented makes it look so lol


----------



## now disabled (Aug 16, 2018)

skribs said:


> I mean, there's:
> 
> 
> Instructor barely touches your arm.  You do a backflip.
> ...




Yes you are correct in what you say 

however 


#1 hmmmmm it may look like it no touch and filmed that way (yup that can and does happen) but is it ? there can be other things at play ie the set up all the things that led to the look of no touch ..... as has been said (not being nasty ) but if you have been in that situation then it easier to know what your looking for and that cannot really be adequately or fully explained in words but it is not hocus pocus lol (well it could be depending on who is doing it lol)


----------



## skribs (Aug 16, 2018)

now disabled said:


> Yes you are correct in what you say
> 
> however
> 
> ...



Having done some hapkido I know a lot of what to look for.  I may not know all the moves but I can at least see how the body is reacting.


----------



## now disabled (Aug 16, 2018)

skribs said:


> Having done some hapkido I know a lot of what to look for.  I may not know all the moves but I can at least see how the body is reacting.




I am not doubting you sir 

I have no doubts nor any qualms over your ability or knowledge in any way 

If you ever get the chance to actually go and experience from a teacher who has developed that side of things then take it ....even better if you can do that in the east ....I say that as I have seen many teachers come over and well they do kinda modify what they do or how they teach (not all btw) and I say that because (and I can only speak to Japanese teachers) they are not stupid and they know all to well how the west views certain things and that well they have to make a living so to speak ....get them on their home turf so to speak and get them to trust you that you are open to learn and study then it a different ball game ...

You may shoot me down and others too but when masters/GM/Shihan do come over they well teach what they know will be accepted widely


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 16, 2018)

skribs said:


> I mean, there's:
> 
> 
> Instructor barely touches your arm.  You do a backflip.
> ...


You may miss this one.

4. Student grabs on teacher's wrist. Teacher flips that student. That student is stupid enough not to release his own grip.

When you choke my throat, if my hands are

- fighting against your grips, that's normal.
- dropping next to my legs and my body shake like a fish, that's fake.

In other words, fake demo = no common sense (you hand is burned but you don't know how to pull it back).


----------



## marques (Aug 16, 2018)

zzj said:


> I wouldn't classify Systema as mainstream, but that's my own understanding.


It is not in most places. But we all know it (or what it looks like).


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 17, 2018)

skribs said:


> I'm specifically looking at the video linked early in this thread which features someone jumping away or falling over what appears to be nothing.



I know you were.




skribs said:


> I mean, there's:
> 
> 
> Instructor barely touches your arm.  You do a backflip.
> ...



Here and elsewhere, you seem OK with making a technique look good, rather than letting the technique speak for itself.  And I don't agree with any kind of faking.  Slowing the technique at the point of most pain to allow going into the flow may be necessary to prevent injury.  But techniques imho should only be done on people who know the technique and therefore can recognize it and react to it.



skribs said:


> I mean, in a demonstration there is a little of that.  *But you have to make it look real.*  (Hence my linking of the clip from Get Smart).  If you're doing a demonstration, then most or all of it will be scripted and practiced.  But it should be scripted and practiced to look as real as it can, while being as safe as it can.
> 
> We have a problem at our school of some of the kids underacting a lot, *which makes the techniques not look as effective*.  This guy is overacting, which makes the techniques look fake.
> 
> ...



As to the bolded parts, that has not been true in my experience.  Properly applied, the technique will look real, and underacting is only going to increase their pain if they don't go with the flow of the technique.  That doesn't mean a properly applied technique won't hurt.  But we don't want to dislocate a joint just to prove the demonstration of a technique that will do so.  I don't call that being fake.  Maybe that is what you were trying to say, but it just didn't come over to me that way.



skribs said:


> Having done some hapkido I know a lot of what to look for.  I may not know all the moves but I can at least see how the body is reacting.



You are fortunate.  I have done more than "some" Hapkido, and although I know a fair amount of techniques (nowhere all of course) I still see techniques that I have to play over and over to be sure I can see what is being done.


----------



## now disabled (Aug 17, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> I know you were.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Much in any demo depends not just on the person who is applying/performing the tech but on the uke/person receiving to and I agree that applying a tech just to prove it works isn't the way to go imo doing that really could be viewed as arrogant.

In any demo you have to chose not just the person applying the tech carefully (ie they really know what they doing) but the choice of uke is equally as important as they have not only got to know the tech applied but how to take ukemi and if needed the breakfall and not get hurt.....If folks look at demo's it is not hard to tell if the uke actually is good or not ....for example a demo I watched recently (yes I have the time these days ) was a Hachidan and what were his uke .........Godan and rokudan .....so it depends greatly on the uke to provide the resistance necessary not to under act or overact but to make the high grade perform ..............................


----------



## skribs (Aug 17, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> I know you were.



Then why were you getting defensive about my comments?



> Here and elsewhere, you seem OK with making a technique look good, rather than letting the technique speak for itself.  And I don't agree with any kind of faking.  Slowing the technique at the point of most pain to allow going into the flow may be necessary to prevent injury.  But techniques imho should only be done on people who know the technique and therefore can recognize it and react to it.



If you leap back before the technique is even applied, it doesn't let the technique speak for itself.  It just shows how staged it is, and makes everything look fake.  If it looks fake, how can you trust you'll learn anything real?



> As to the bolded parts, that has not been true in my experience.  Properly applied, the technique will look real, and underacting is only going to increase their pain if they don't go with the flow of the technique.  That doesn't mean a properly applied technique won't hurt.  But we don't want to dislocate a joint just to prove the demonstration of a technique that will do so.  I don't call that being fake.  Maybe that is what you were trying to say, but it just didn't come over to me that way.
> 
> You are fortunate.  I have done more than "some" Hapkido, and although I know a fair amount of techniques (nowhere all of course) I still see techniques that I have to play over and over to be sure I can see what is being done.



So in the video we're talking about, does it look like the technique is properly applied that sends the guy flying a few feet?  With your greater experience than mine in Hapkido, do you see what is causing the guy to leap back?


----------



## now disabled (Aug 17, 2018)

skribs said:


> do you see what is causing the guy to leap back?




Yes I do ...it not well presented for sure but yes it is recognizable


----------



## skribs (Aug 17, 2018)

now disabled said:


> Yes I do ...it not well presented for sure but yes it is recognizable



Then what is it?  Because to me, it still looks like the very start of a technique and the other guy is just leaping away or falling on his own.


----------



## now disabled (Aug 17, 2018)

skribs said:


> Then what is it?  Because to me, it still looks like the very start of a technique and the other guy is just leaping away or falling on his own.




It is not well presented at all but the concept of what he is saying is 

I've tried to explain a few times, It is not purely that art that uses that and it not hocus pocus either lol....

The concept he is trying to convey is not meeting any force with direct force he is advocating that a way of dealing with direct force is to accept same and return it back it no more than that


----------



## skribs (Aug 17, 2018)

now disabled said:


> It is not well presented at all but the concept of what he is saying is
> 
> I've tried to explain a few times, It is not purely that art that uses that and it not hocus pocus either lol....
> 
> The concept he is trying to convey is not meeting any force with direct force he is advocating that a way of dealing with direct force is to accept same and return it back it no more than that



I'm not arguing with the concept.  I'm arguing with the way it was shown.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 17, 2018)

I think these things often do not translate well on video.  They need to be experienced in-person.  You need to see it from different angles, you need to feel it, you need to be able to ask questions.

I tend to be very cautious about accepting things that look amazing, especially when I am simply viewing a video and do not have the opportunity to experience it in-person.

There may not be much more that can be said about it, in an Internet discussion.  That is not satisfying for the discussion, but that is reality.


----------



## wab25 (Aug 17, 2018)

skribs said:


> I'm not arguing with the concept. I'm arguing with the way it was shown.


You are also focused on the wrong end of the technique. Lets define a technique like this:

A------->B------->C

A: is the start of the initial movement of the technique
B: is the mid point of the movement
C: is the very last pose of the movement

In the video we are discussing, A is when the other guy starts to reach out to grab the demonstrator. B, is when the demonstrator is beginning to direct motion back to the attacker. C is when the attacker is leaping away like a cat. You are focused on C, and only C. But, in what he is showing, C is the least important part of the whole thing. The part he is demonstrating, the part this art focuses on is A and a tiny bit after A... not even to the first dash in the diagram above. If you can get the technique between A and A1(very close to A) then you can move on to B. From B, C is very easy... but it could have been D,E,F,G or any other technique you want. 

So, why include them at all? The technique is very small, and your window of opportunity is very quick, but precise. Its like driving a manual transmission car, where if you let the clutch out at 800 rpm you stall it immediately, but at 810 rpm you have achieved max torque, lit up your tires and are facing the wrong direction. Adding B and C to the technique, is like adding a long lever to your clutch pedal, allowing you to feel and control what is going on. This is for training, to allow people to find the technique, or bite point of the clutch and then feather in the power. 

This is not like TKD, where the technique is only about C, and all the emphasis is around C. In these types of arts, it really is only about A, what happens as you make your initial movement. Thats it. (TKD really does have emphasis equally on A, B and C of their techniques... but they are named after C )

Everyone here agrees that the guy over reacted and jumped. However, what was being demonstrated was demonstrated... if you bother to look at A. Have others shown A better? Sure. But this was a reasonable demonstration of A, the technique he was working on.

Getting back to the car thing... In this video, they are talking about getting a really good start off the line. The technique he is showing is about getting a really good start off the line. You are arguing that it was not a good start, because he stuffs it in the wall at turn 6. Now, before you argue... "you can't win if you crashed, and no one cares how you started if you can't win..." He wasn't demonstrating winning the race, he was demonstrating the start. A good start will put you in front to control the race. But, starting the race is one thing, and controlling is another. There are other ways to demonstrate the control and win, when they get to that part. This video, was only about the start. If you can't get the great start, you won't be in position to control the race. You have to get the start first.


----------



## skribs (Aug 17, 2018)

wab25 said:


> You are also focused on the wrong end of the technique. Lets define a technique like this:
> 
> A------->B------->C
> 
> ...



The problem is, that the fakeness of C leads to A and B looking fake by association.  How do I know what he's doing is real, and the other guy isn't acting on that part as well?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 17, 2018)

When people said that he can push his opponent to fly back 15 feet away, I will always ask him to demo his pushing skill on my 90 lb throwing dummy. If one's skill is real, he should have no problem to push non-human object.

- Taiji guys like to push.
- Wrestlers like to pull.

Taiji and wrestling can never integrate together. I'm allergy to push. You should keep your friends close but your enemies closer.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 17, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When people said that he can push his opponent to fly back 15 feet away, I will always ask him to demo his pushing skill on my 90 lb throwing dummy. If one's skill is real, he should have no problem to push non-human object.
> 
> - Taiji guys like to push.
> - Wrestlers like to pull.
> ...


Throwing dummies are actually immune to some techniques that work on people. 

And I still don’t buy the concept that two arts can’t be combined just because they use contradictory approaches. Most grappling styles have both push and pull in them.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 17, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> And I still don’t buy the concept that two arts can’t be combined just because they use contradictory approaches. Most grappling styles have both push and pull in them.


One day I played Taiji push hand with a Taiji instructor in the park. When I used

- leg to hook his leg, he said, "No leg."
- hand to grab on his wrist, he said  "No grab."
- head lock on him, he said, "No brute force."

When he pushes me, I used wheeling step to move myself out of his pushing path, he said, "You lose."

After that day, I refuse to play Taiji push hand with anybody.


----------



## skribs (Aug 17, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When people said that he can push his opponent to fly back 15 feet away, I will always ask him to demo his pushing skill on my 90 lb throwing dummy. If one's skill is real, he should have no problem to push non-human object.



There are some throws in hapkido which basically launch the person by getting them to shift their weight into it.


----------



## now disabled (Aug 18, 2018)

skribs said:


> There are some throws in hapkido which basically launch the person by getting them to shift their weight into it.




All throws require the person's weight to shift into the throw as unless it does the throw won't be a throw if that makes sense.....I don't mean they actually voluntarily shift their weight but the nage shifts their weight in applying the tech (shifts it thru various methods eg Aiki )


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 18, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> One day I played Taiji push hand with a Taiji instructor in the park. When I used
> 
> - leg to hook his leg, he said, "No leg."
> - hand to grab on his wrist, he said  "No grab."
> ...


Okay.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Aug 18, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> And I still don’t buy the concept that two arts can’t be combined just because they use contradictory approaches. Most grappling styles have both push and pull in them.


i am thinking about Uechi ryu karate and TKD.  i think they are pretty non compatible. uechi has 3 or 4 kicks and usually dont go above the waist.  but the philosophy of each style is were they dont really match up.  uechi fights square, TKD fights sideways.  having done tkd and uechi  i like both.  but i cant reconcile the two into one cohesive skill set.  the same holds true for aikido stances, the Ai hanmi foot position goes against everything i know in the other styles.  i can do all three styles but they seem to always be fragmented and compartmentalized.   i cant throw tkd kicks from a uechi stance and while "being" uechi.  tkd goes against all my uechi beliefs.  as soon as i throw a side kick i go right back into a tkd mode. same holds true for weapons i can be in uechi mode and as soon as i pick up a weapon my ingrained behavioral patterns turn away from uechi to aikido.  styles are more than a set of techniques they are fixed behavioral patterns.  there are mannerisms and quirks and programmed ways of thinking.  styles also mold the way the body shapes itself and the way muscles are used.   the fixed behavior patterns on some styles cannot be dovetailed with other styles and still remain the same.  by this i mean if i force a fusion of two non compatible styles the result is its own unique outcome.  its not uechi and its not tkd.    thus new styles are born.


----------



## now disabled (Aug 18, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> i am thinking about Uechi ryu karate and TKD.  i think they are pretty non compatible. uechi has 3 or 4 kicks and usually dont go above the waist.  but the philosophy of each style is were they dont really match up.  uechi fights square, TKD fights sideways.  having done tkd and uechi  i like both.  but i cant reconcile the two into one cohesive skill set.  the same holds true for aikido stances, the Ai hanmi foot position goes against everything i know in the other styles.  i can do all three styles but they seem to always be fragmented and compartmentalized.   i cant throw tkd kicks from a uechi stance and while "being" uechi.  tkd goes against all my uechi beliefs.  as soon as i throw a side kick i go right back into a tkd mode. same holds true for weapons i can be in uechi mode and as soon as i pick up a weapon my ingrained behavioral patterns turn away from uechi to aikido.  styles are more than a set of techniques they are fixed behavioral patterns.  there are mannerisms and quirks and programmed ways of thinking.  styles also mold the way the body shapes itself and the way muscles are used.   the fixed behavior patterns on some styles cannot be dovetailed with other styles and still remain the same.  by this i mean if i force a fusion of two non compatible styles the result is its own unique outcome.  its not uechi and its not tkd.    thus new styles are born.




I do not get why you say Ai hamni goes against things as it is only that is you make it that ...also if you are facing each other in orthodox ie migi ai hamni then where is the conflict


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 18, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Throwing dummies are actually immune to some techniques that work on people.
> 
> And I still don’t buy the concept that two arts can’t be combined just because they use contradictory approaches. Most grappling styles have both push and pull in them.



Tibetan White Crane drills punches by pivoting the body sideways, using the torque of the full-body pivot to get power for the punch.  But the body turns all the way until you face sideways to the enemy.  That is how we drill the punch, but not necessarily how we would use it in a fight.  It is an exaggerated movement designed to teach and develop full-body connection. 

When I was training Tracy Kenpo, we would stand in a square horse facing forward and drill punches by keeping the shoulders square to the front, and punching straight ahead.  It seemed to me that we were relying on muscle power of the arm and shoulder, and not really engaging the body.

Because I was doing both, I ended up not pivoting far enough when doing white crane, and pivoting too far to no longer be square facing the front when doing kenpo.

My white crane Sifu would tell me, “pivot more, you aren’t going far enough”.  

My kenpo teacher would tell me, “stop pivoting, keep your shoulders straight.”

I was doing it wrong for each method, based on the parameters and standards of each method.  Practicing kenpo was undermining my crane, and vice-versa.

Now, I could certainly continue to practice both methods.  I could be very careful to compartmentalise my training and practice both methods, and try to not let them affect each other.  But this is not efficient training.

If you want to be able to punch, you want to train a consistent method so that the skill becomes internalized within you and your body harnesses the power consistently and automatically.  

What you do not need is multiple ways to throw a punch, multiple ways to harness power for the same technique.  That inconsistency in the method will slow your development and confuse your automatic response if you need to throw a punch, under pressure.  In terms of training, it is like trying to drive your car to the next town, but you can’t decide which of two routes to take.  You get two miles down the road and then change your mind, so you go back and take the other route,  but when you get two miles down the road you change your mind again and go back to the first route.  And then again and again.  You never reach the other town.

Pick a route and stick with it.
Pick a method and stick with it.

Training multiple systems that have conflicting methodology is like that.  You simply need a reliable and effective punch.  You DO NOT need two or five or eight different ways to power your punch.  That may be of interest academically, but ultimately is not terribly useful.

So the incompatibility lies in the methodology, and not necessarily the body of techniques.  You can swap and trade and adopt techniques from any other system, as long as they are compatible with a consistent methodology, or if the realm of combat is so different that there really is no overlap with the methodology.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Aug 18, 2018)

now disabled said:


> I do not get why you say Ai hamni goes against things as it is only that is you make it that ...also if you are facing each other in orthodox ie migi ai hamni then where is the conflict


I was using the term to label the common posture used in aikido which is technically not a correct usage of the term. But I was meaning what is sometimes referred to as a triangle stance.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 18, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> i am thinking about Uechi ryu karate and TKD.  i think they are pretty non compatible. uechi has 3 or 4 kicks and usually dont go above the waist.  but the philosophy of each style is were they dont really match up.  uechi fights square, TKD fights sideways.  having done tkd and uechi  i like both.  but i cant reconcile the two into one cohesive skill set.  the same holds true for aikido stances, the Ai hanmi foot position goes against everything i know in the other styles.  i can do all three styles but they seem to always be fragmented and compartmentalized.   i cant throw tkd kicks from a uechi stance and while "being" uechi.  tkd goes against all my uechi beliefs.  as soon as i throw a side kick i go right back into a tkd mode. same holds true for weapons i can be in uechi mode and as soon as i pick up a weapon my ingrained behavioral patterns turn away from uechi to aikido.  styles are more than a set of techniques they are fixed behavioral patterns.  there are mannerisms and quirks and programmed ways of thinking.  styles also mold the way the body shapes itself and the way muscles are used.   the fixed behavior patterns on some styles cannot be dovetailed with other styles and still remain the same.  by this i mean if i force a fusion of two non compatible styles the result is its own unique outcome.  its not uechi and its not tkd.    thus new styles are born.


That only hinders you if you stick to each style. People blend contradicting tenets all the time - sometimes within a single style. If you don’t allow the principles to become absolutes, you can use what you need when you need it. That you move from one to the other shows they aren’t incompatible. Again, think boxing and BJJ. Nobody has an issue with the fact that, once on the ground, they are almost entirely in BJJ mode. It’s the right mode for the situation. You might see a bit of a blend at the clinch. Over time, principles from one art start to color some movement in the other art. Someone blending Shotokan Karate and NGA might use more angular motion in their grappling entries than I do. They might have longer entries (from Shotokan distance) than me (from about boxing distance). Their Shotokan might have some new directions of movement. But the real blending will be that they can work at more distances and angles, and with more weapons, when they flow between the two.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 18, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> Tibetan White Crane drills punches by pivoting the body sideways, using the torque of the full-body pivot to get power for the punch.  But the body turns all the way until you face sideways to the enemy.  That is how we drill the punch, but not necessarily how we would use it in a fight.  It is an exaggerated movement designed to teach and develop full-body connection.
> 
> When I was training Tracy Kenpo, we would stand in a square horse facing forward and drill punches by keeping the shoulders square to the front, and punching straight ahead.  It seemed to me that we were relying on muscle power of the arm and shoulder, and not really engaging the body.
> 
> ...


I’m not saying there aren’t issues in training. When I teach someone with an angular-movement background (e.g. Shotokan), their movement is “wrong” on a lot of techniques. That makes it harder to learn the entries to our techniques. But once they learn those entries, there’s no conflict. In fact, they’ll often find ways to make good use of angular entries where I wouldn’t.

And the same is true of multiple punching mechanics. For a while, they conflict in your brain, and slow down the process (the same happens for some untrained people, too, having to fight odd habits). But once both are well-learned, they become automatic, and a right one (not necessarily the “best” one) shows up in each situation. You might not be able to control which, which could cause problems in keeping either pure, and I gave that condition earlier.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 18, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I’m not saying there aren’t issues in training. When I teach someone with an angular-movement background (e.g. Shotokan), their movement is “wrong” on a lot of techniques. That makes it harder to learn the entries to our techniques. But once they learn those entries, there’s no conflict. In fact, they’ll often find ways to make good use of angular entries where I wouldn’t.
> 
> And the same is true of multiple punching mechanics. For a while, they conflict in your brain, and slow down the process (the same happens for some untrained people, too, having to fight odd habits). But once both are well-learned, they become automatic, and a right one (not necessarily the “best” one) shows up in each situation. You might not be able to control which, which could cause problems in keeping either pure, and I gave that condition earlier.


Explain to me why you need both.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 18, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> Explain to me why you need both.


I never said anyone did. One adaptable punch is enough.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 18, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I never said anyone did. One adaptable punch is enough.


That’s what I’m getting at.  One consistent method makes much more sense than trying to do a whole bunch.  They interfere with each other, you spread your training out and make slow progress.


----------



## now disabled (Aug 18, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> I was using the term to label the common posture used in aikido which is technically not a correct usage of the term. But I was meaning what is sometimes referred to as a triangle stance.




Ok I see what ya mean now ,,,,,I guess I was just being overly picky lol

Kamae is the stance (jodan, chudan and gedan per se) Ai hamni is really you are mirroring  each other so to speak gyaku hanmi is opposing posture (yeah hanmi is used to mean stance to but I see it as more as you say a posture )


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 18, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> That’s what I’m getting at.  One consistent method makes much more sense than trying to do a whole bunch.  They interfere with each other, you spread your training out and make slow progress.


They would interfere at the time of training. In the long run, I don't think they would. If you're looking for fastest path to effectiveness, one is better. For most versatility, two might (or might not) be better, but it's a matter of diminishing return. So I agree with your basic premise.

What I'm addressing, though, is the premise contained in the question in the thread's title. There's a difference between "conflicting during training" and "incompatible".


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 18, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> They would interfere at the time of training. In the long run, I don't think they would. If you're looking for fastest path to effectiveness, one is better. For most versatility, two might (or might not) be better, but it's a matter of diminishing return. So I agree with your basic premise.
> 
> What I'm addressing, though, is the premise contained in the question in the thread's title. There's a difference between "conflicting during training" and "incompatible".


I believe in the long run they would continue to conflict and ultimately reduce your level of proficiency.  In my mind, they are incompatible, but anybody is welcome to mash them together if they really want to.

Yes, you can have some level of skill with more than one.  But overall your skill will be lower.  And I cannot conceive of a realistic circumstance where it would make sense to switch between one and the other in an altercation.  Real skill with a method means you can effectively apply it under any conditions.  You don’t need an alternate method to be used under special circumstances.

This is my assessment based on my experiences.  I’ve spent years training in methods that are heavy on striking, including Crane, Kenpo, and Wing Chun.  These systems represent methods that are quite different, in their development of similar techniques.  I find them to conflict.  That is all there is to it.

I have little experience with grappling methods, and I would not try to make a judgement on those.  I defer to those who have the expertise.  I don’t know how much experience you have with a variety of striking methods.  Perhaps what I am describing is simply outside of your experience?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 18, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> I believe in the long run they would continue to conflict and ultimately reduce your level of proficiency.  In my mind, they are incompatible, but anybody is welcome to mash them together if they really want to.
> 
> Yes, you can have some level of skill with more than one.  But overall your skill will be lower.  And I cannot conceive of a realistic circumstance where it would make sense to switch between one and the other in an altercation.  Real skill with a method means you can effectively apply it under any conditions.  You don’t need an alternate method to be used under special circumstances.
> 
> ...


Your points make sense. My point only differs in two substantial areas. Firstly, there are things I "can apply" in situations where I have other options that work better. If a jab will work in a given situation, that doesn't mean it's the only good option, nor that there isn't a better one. Some of the better ones will require less skill and precision to be as effective. So, while I agree that real skill with a given punch (or set of punching mechanics) should mean it can be applied in a wide range of situations, that doesn't exclude a different punch (or set of mechanics) from being a better option at times. Secondly, once you study a given technique (be it punching or grappling) for a period of time, your returns for additional skill at it become minimal. So, if you were to plateau at "8 year skill" on a given punch, and add "8 year skill" of a second, you're probably as well equipped (or better) as if you had "16 year skill" in the one punch. That's largely because you're not just at "8 year skill" on two punches, but you are something near "16 year skill" at punching in general, in understanding the use of, control of, and defense against them. Mind you, that doesn't quite apply if you have to throw away everything you knew in order to conform to learn the second punch - which was part of my reason for saying blending requires that you not be a purist.

I'll add that the CMA methods you refer to are largely outside my experience, so it's possible there's something I just don't get about them. The different punching methods I've encountered all blended quite nicely once understood reasonably - as did the grappling methods I've encountered. It's also possible this is something that depends on how our minds look at things. Some people's minds work best with rules (they create their own to order things, and adopt useful rules wherever they find them), and for that type of mind it may be that blending two styles simply isn't a good fit for them.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 18, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> I believe in the long run they would continue to conflict and ultimately reduce your level of proficiency.


Agree! Sometime even similar styles may conflict with each other.

I have a student who had Judo background before. Every time before he steps in, he always steps back first. It took a long time for me to remove that habit from him. Every time he stepped back before he stepped in, I always gave him a quick pulling. Soon he realized that his backward stepping could telegraph his forward intention and he stopped doing that soon.


----------



## now disabled (Aug 18, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree! Sometime even similar styles may conflict with each other.
> 
> I have a student who had Judo background before. Every time before he steps in, he always steps back first. It took a long time for me to remove that habit from him. Every time he stepped back before he stepped in, I always gave him a quick pulling. Soon he realized that his backward stepping could telegraph his forward intention and he stopped doing that soon.




But surely stepping in every time is not always the right thing or the best option, I guess I just have a different thought process but it is good to see how others approach things (all be it in theory)


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 18, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree! Sometime even similar styles may conflict with each other.
> 
> I have a student who had Judo background before. Every time before he steps in, he always steps back first. It took a long time for me to remove that habit from him. Every time he stepped back before he stepped in, I always gave him a quick pulling. Soon he realized that his backward stepping could telegraph his forward intention and he stopped doing that soon.


Yes, and for a time I was also doing some Shaolin long fist material that was also complicating the issue.  In some ways it was more similar to the crane, but still not the same.  Again, I was doing it wrong for both of them, what I was doing was in between them.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 18, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> I was doing it wrong for both of them, what I was doing was in between them.


I can understand your pain.

The first day that I started to train WC, I already had long fist training for 8 years. When I did the 1st WC form, instead of freezing body and only moved my arms.  I rotated my body anyway.

IMO, I either do a bad WC, or I no longer believe in my long fist training. I just can't do anything in between.

Even today, I still believe in

move the body and not moving the arm > move the arm and not moving the body.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 19, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Your points make sense. My point only differs in two substantial areas. Firstly, there are things I "can apply" in situations where I have other options that work better. If a jab will work in a given situation, that doesn't mean it's the only good option, nor that there isn't a better one. Some of the better ones will require less skill and precision to be as effective. So, while I agree that real skill with a given punch (or set of punching mechanics) should mean it can be applied in a wide range of situations, that doesn't exclude a different punch (or set of mechanics) from being a better option at times. Secondly, once you study a given technique (be it punching or grappling) for a period of time, your returns for additional skill at it become minimal. So, if you were to plateau at "8 year skill" on a given punch, and add "8 year skill" of a second, you're probably as well equipped (or better) as if you had "16 year skill" in the one punch. That's largely because you're not just at "8 year skill" on two punches, but you are something near "16 year skill" at punching in general, in understanding the use of, control of, and defense against them. Mind you, that doesn't quite apply if you have to throw away everything you knew in order to conform to learn the second punch - which was part of my reason for saying blending requires that you not be a purist.
> 
> I'll add that the CMA methods you refer to are largely outside my experience, so it's possible there's something I just don't get about them. The different punching methods I've encountered all blended quite nicely once understood reasonably - as did the grappling methods I've encountered. It's also possible this is something that depends on how our minds look at things. Some people's minds work best with rules (they create their own to order things, and adopt useful rules wherever they find them), and for that type of mind it may be that blending two styles simply isn't a good fit for them.


Keep in mind that I am not saying that all systems are incompatible.  Some may operate on essentially identical manifestations of the principles and so can blend very well.  Others may deal with very different aspects of combat to the point where there is no overlap, and again can blend seemlessly.  You can also take techniques or combinations from one system and adapt it, if they can be used with the principles of your system.  I actually feel that certain pieces of kenpo could be used on the crane foundations quite well.  Other pieces, not so much.  But whatever I might adopt, would need to be functional withing the framework and on the foundation and principles upon which crane is built.  

That is not simply out of loyalty to crane.  It is because the crane method makes sense to me and works effectively.   So that is the method that I practice, and anything I might bring into the system would need to be useable in the same way, or it is incompatible.  For example, I find that many of the combinations and forms from kenpo do not work well on the crane foundation of body-connection.  The kenpo combinations put you into postures and positions that make it impossible to effectively use full-body connection, and limit you to the power of your limbs alone.  I find those combinations to be impractical and for me, unusable.

This goes back to what I keep saying about foundations and principles.  A good system ought to be built upon a foundation and with principles that are consistent.  All aspects of the system ought to operate with these principles, or there need to be good reasons for any exceptions.  It isn’t just a collection of techniques, and the techniques are not what make the system.  The techniques are an expression of the principles, and once you understand the principles, you can then do anything you want in terms of technique, as long as it is compatible with those principles.

So different systems may operate on the same principles, but how those principles are expressed through the practice of technique may be quite different.  But the end result may be the same: a very powerful punch, for example.  But how you trained and practiced to develop that punch could be very different.  But in order to develop that punch, your training needs to be consistent, and once you have developed that punch, there is no need for the methods of another system, because you have developed your technique to a high level already.  Incorporating a different methodology now is pointless. 

It’s like I said before:  trying to drive to the next town over, you need to pick a route and stick with it.  Either route will get you there.  But you need to pick one, whichever one makes the most sense to you, and stick with it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 19, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> Keep in mind that I am not saying that all systems are incompatible.  Some may operate on essentially identical manifestations of the principles and so can blend very well.  Others may deal with very different aspects of combat to the point where there is no overlap, and again can blend seemlessly.  You can also take techniques or combinations from one system and adapt it, if they can be used with the principles of your system.  I actually feel that certain pieces of kenpo could be used on the crane foundations quite well.  Other pieces, not so much.  But whatever I might adopt, would need to be functional withing the framework and on the foundation and principles upon which crane is built.
> 
> That is not simply out of loyalty to crane.  It is because the crane method makes sense to me and works effectively.   So that is the method that I practice, and anything I might bring into the system would need to be useable in the same way, or it is incompatible.  For example, I find that many of the combinations and forms from kenpo do not work well on the crane foundation of body-connection.  The kenpo combinations put you into postures and positions that make it impossible to effectively use full-body connection, and limit you to the power of your limbs alone.  I find those combinations to be impractical and for me, unusable.


That makes sense. That's going back to the issue of trying to do one art while in the mode of another, and that can create problems. I can do FMA movements in pure/classical NGA mode, but not boxing movements while in that mode. But I can slide seamlessly between modes, if I don't require any of them to be pure. So, I can be pretty "boxy" at times, "karateish" other times, "aikido-like", and so on. It's only when I try to put moves from one mode into the other that I might have a conflict (as you said, sometimes they can be used in other modes).

You've found White Crane to be a good fit for your personal system, so you stay within that mode. That has advantages. My early experience was mixed enough that I've pretty much always just used an amalgamation of approaches, and have been comfortable moving between those modes without being bothered by apparent contradictions in the principles. That NGA is a (relatively) young hybrid art is also a contributing factor. Within NGA, there are some contradictory principles in evidence, because they apply in different situations, so the system still has cohesion.


----------



## now disabled (Aug 19, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Within NGA, there are some contradictory principles in evidence, because they apply in different situations, so the system still has cohesion



Ah but are they contradictory ?

I would suggest that they are not but to an outsider they may be, or to a person just starting out they may be until you grasp and absorb that there is not a "one fits all" .....then they no longer are contradictory 

Even in Aikido there is a major contradiction and everyone ignores it and just looks at what they see and hear lol


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 19, 2018)

now disabled said:


> Ah but are they contradictory ?
> 
> I would suggest that they are not but to an outsider they may be, or to a person just starting out they may be until you grasp and absorb that there is not a "one fits all" .....then they no longer are contradictory
> 
> Even in Aikido there is a major contradiction and everyone ignores it and just looks at what they see and hear lol


That's the point. If I take a principle and apply it to all situations, it will conflict with other principles. But if I allow for the situational nuances, and recognize that the principles are guides to how a technique works - not necessarily how I have to operate in every instance - then two that seem contradictory become complementary. Aiki is nice when it fits the situation. When it doesn't, sometimes force-on-force is a concise answer to open the door to aiki.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 19, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> That makes sense. That's going back to the issue of trying to do one art while in the mode of another, and that can create problems. I can do FMA movements in pure/classical NGA mode, but not boxing movements while in that mode. But I can slide seamlessly between modes, if I don't require any of them to be pure. So, I can be pretty "boxy" at times, "karateish" other times, "aikido-like", and so on. It's only when I try to put moves from one mode into the other that I might have a conflict (as you said, sometimes they can be used in other modes).
> 
> You've found White Crane to be a good fit for your personal system, so you stay within that mode. That has advantages. My early experience was mixed enough that I've pretty much always just used an amalgamation of approaches, and have been comfortable moving between those modes without being bothered by apparent contradictions in the principles. That NGA is a (relatively) young hybrid art is also a contributing factor. Within NGA, there are some contradictory principles in evidence, because they apply in different situations, so the system still has cohesion.


For a long time I did not understand these issues.  I had been training in a few different systems and I was just going along with what I was shown and didn’t think much beyond it.  To me, a punch was a punch was a punch and I didn’t have any concept of what was (or should have been) going on underneath it.

In hindsight, I think that says a lot about the quality of the instruction I had been receiving.  Teachers were showing me things and that was it.  This combo, that kata, etc.  Over the years I think I had a nagging suspicion that something might be missing in my understanding, but nobody was teaching me any differently.  I first had an inkling of something more when I started training crane, because we have a very specific way of training our basic techniques, and quite honestly it is kind of odd compared to other systems.  But it still took me a while to really understand it. In the middle of that, I had a few years of wing chun and from that I also began to get a glimpse of something deeper underneath the techniques themselves, although I can say that I never fully understood the wing chun method, even though I learned all three of the primary forms.

It was not until my first white crane Sifu, after over a decade with him, introduced me to his Sifu, my Sigung, and I became that mans’s student, that it really started to sink in.  The quality of the instruction was way above all the other teachers I had previously.  He had a way of presenting the instruction in a way that it really made sense to me and I finally understood what was supposed to be going on underneath it.  Honestly, the five or so years I spent training with him was worth more than the previous 25 combined.

I have said before that I think it is a good idea to train in multiple systems, but not to try to master them all, nor to keep them all.  You do it in order to get some wide experience so that you can then make a good decision about which method, and which teacher, is the best fit for you.  And it can take several years of training in each system before you are in a position to make the best decision.  You do the best you can with what you have, until you find something better.  Once you discover that, I recommend you stop training the others.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 19, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> Tibetan White Crane drills punches by pivoting the body sideways, using the torque of the full-body pivot to get power for the punch.  But the body turns all the way until you face sideways to the enemy.  That is how we drill the punch, but not necessarily how we would use it in a fight.  It is an exaggerated movement designed to teach and develop full-body connection.
> 
> When I was training Tracy Kenpo, we would stand in a square horse facing forward and drill punches by keeping the shoulders square to the front, and punching straight ahead.  It seemed to me that we were relying on muscle power of the arm and shoulder, and not really engaging the body.
> 
> ...





Kung Fu Wang said:


> I can understand your pain.
> 
> The first day that I started to train WC, I already had long fist training for 8 years. When I did the 1st WC form, instead of freezing body and only moved my arms.  I rotated my body anyway.
> 
> ...



I think (as I mentioned in my earlier comment) that the key to integrating different methods is to understand why they are done differently and the trade-offs being implemented in a given method.

Regarding Kenpo, practitioners do not actually fight or spar standing in a horse stance square to an opponent and throwing punches straight ahead with no body rotation. That's a drill. In order to decide whether the drill is compatible with a different style, you'd need to understand what the purpose of the drill is. Personally, I suspect that the exercise may have been adopted from some earlier style and kept for tradition's sake without comprehension of its meaning, but I'm open to being corrected on that point.

Wing Chun, on the other hand, does advocate fighting with shoulders square to an opponent. Hip/body rotation can be added to a punch, but usually only when accompanied by an angle shift relative to the opponent, so the practitioner still ends up with shoulders squared off after the rotation. Since this is more of a special case, most lineages don't seem to include it in the first form.

The purpose of this squared stance is to allow both hands to be equally and simultaneously engaged in the fight. The downside is the significant penalty to power due to the lack of body/hip rotation. Despite this penalty, WC practitioners can develop functional (if not exceptional) power. The main engines for this power are "elbow power" (which actually originates in the back muscles and is transmitted through the arms via good structure not arm strength) and forward body motion, typically from a pull step.

My primary art for punching is western boxing, which relies heavily on body/hip rotation for power. It also uses forward body motion for power, but typically with a push step or drop step instead of a pull step.

What I've found is that I can integrate "elbow power" into most of my boxing punches with no problem. The power still starts with my feet, I still rotate my body, but now the structure for transmitting the power from my back through my elbow is cleaner. Even for punches where that exact structure doesn't apply (like an overhand right), I am now more aware of structure principles in general.

For the body movement, I can use push steps, pull steps, drop steps, or some combination, depending on where my feet need to be at a given moment.

Bottom line, I'm not any sort of WC expert, but WC training has given me some subtle tools to make my boxing better. To be clear, there are plenty of boxers out there who use these same kinds of subtle body dynamics. The difference is, they aren't generally taught explicitly in boxing. Boxers are given the big tools for power generation, then spend countless hours throwing punches. Along the way, many of them subconsciously pick up these nuances for extra power. In contrast, WC opts not to use the big power generation tools and so it can develop more conscious awareness of some of the smaller tools.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 19, 2018)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I think (as I mentioned in my earlier comment) that the key to integrating different methods is to understand why they are done differently and the trade-offs being implemented in a given method.
> 
> Regarding Kenpo, practitioners do not actually fight or spar standing in a horse stance square to an opponent and throwing punches straight ahead with no body rotation. That's a drill. In order to decide whether the drill is compatible with a different style, you'd need to understand what the purpose of the drill is. Personally, I suspect that the exercise may have been adopted from some earlier style and kept for tradition's sake without comprehension of its meaning, but I'm open to being corrected on that point.
> 
> ...


I agree, it is a drill, which is how you train your body to internalize and understand the mechanics.  How you fight can be quite different from the drill.  

That is where I keep saying, you need consistency in how you drill.  That is the methodology.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 19, 2018)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Wing Chun, on the other hand, does advocate fighting with shoulders square to an opponent.


I don't like shoulder square for the following reasons:

1. My arm can't reach to the maximum length.
2. My chest is completely exposed.
3. I can't generate punching power by moving from 1 extreme to another extreme.
4. I can't spring forward or backward from that position.
5. My opponent can attack my right leg and left arm at the same time.
6. My opponent can attack both of my legs at the same time.
7. My opponent can pin both of my arms at the same time.
8. ...

Of course the POR is I can punch with both arm with equal length instead of 1 long arm and 1 short arm. But the advantage of 1 long arm and 1 short arm is the long arm can change into the short arm, and the short arm can change into the long arm. I prefer to have 1 arm that I can reach to my opponent than to have 2 arms that I can't reach to my opponent. The advantage of that short arm is my opponent can't control it.

If my opponent can attack my right leg and left arm at the same time, in wrestling, that's as bad as you allow your opponent to attack both of your legs at the same time. A sweep right leg to the left and pull the left arm to the right can be as bad as the double legs.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 19, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> you need consistency in how you drill.  That is the methodology.


Agree! This is why when I drill groin kick, face punch combo, my punch always coordinate with my foot landing. I find it to be very difficult to coordinate punch

- one day with foot landing,
- next day before foot landing, and
- the next day after foot landing.

No matter which method that you decide to train in your drill, after you have developed that habit, that habit will be with you for the rest of your life. You may cross train many different MA systems after that, your habit will never change (if you truly have faith in it).


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 19, 2018)

If a Chinese wrestler cross trains the Bagua system, he will have argument with his Bagua instructor during the first day.

When a Bagua guy walks in circle, he will move his leading leg first. This will immediately cause a leg crossing. In wrestling, it's a big NO NO.






When a Chinese wrestler moves in circle, he will move his back leg first.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 19, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If a Chinese wrestler cross trains the Bagua system, he will have argument with his Bagua instructor during the first day.
> 
> When a Bagua guy walks in circle, he will move his leading leg first. This will immediately cause a leg crossing. In wrestling, it's a big NO NO.
> 
> ...


What is the advantage the Bagua guys gain from using that cross-step?


----------



## now disabled (Aug 20, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> That's the point. If I take a principle and apply it to all situations, it will conflict with other principles. But if I allow for the situational nuances, and recognize that the principles are guides to how a technique works - not necessarily how I have to operate in every instance - then two that seem contradictory become complementary. Aiki is nice when it fits the situation. When it doesn't, sometimes force-on-force is a concise answer to open the door to aiki.




I agree 

Hence I said there is a contradiction in Aikido and from Ueshiba himself ( if you look at his book budo and at he actually explains how you do Ikkyo from shomen uchi you will see that he actually contradicts how that is taught these days and how he described irimi nage is umm again a bit different) Yes Ueshiba was well now for changing things and he did ....relentlessly infact ...that could be he was refining things but there again it could be the influence of oomoto, the war and yes him getting older and also I still stick to the Aikido that was exported to the world was more the Aikido of the second Doshu etc than purely Ueshiba Morihei


----------



## now disabled (Aug 20, 2018)

And for the record lol Shomen uchi is not how most people today practice it lol (ie with no intent or conviction) and for that matter neither is any of the attacks and that includes the grabs that has been softened a heck of alot ...ok maybe by individual teachers or may be by the students themselves that is open to debate lol... 

Go to either an Iwama style school (not the current Iwama well sort of) or go to the Yoshinkan and the strikes and grabs are done with intent and you have to deflect or move and "peform" less you get hit 

And also so many of the schools now do not actually teach the weapons as they were meant to be taught( (imo) they play at them (again that could be more the students themselves either not knowing or not wanting to get hit or they cannot control the bokken or jo properly) there by the actual strikes used in the attacks are not fully understood and then are not delivered either properly or with any intent ...they are more oh ok I'm gonna strike shomen uchi do it slowly and leave it there no follow thru or intent so my partner can easily perform was he or she wants ..... and that really gets to me big time lol........................it really just acting as such ...as if you really want to know how to and understand what the strikes are and are supposed to be then (imo) you have to understand and have a bokken in your hands or a jo (slightly different) to get that ....I am not saying that people need to be swordsmen at all but if you do not have the understanding of any of the strikes then how can you do them and thereby how can a person actually learn do defend them lol.

Yes I will defend Aikido as it has been good to me and even the classical free Flowing Aikido I love and it does and did give me a big buzz but what I will say and have is that how most is being taught will not work as there is no intent at all to much is placed on the aesthetic side and the peace and love bit rather than what it actually is a n art with martial heritage and intent


----------



## now disabled (Aug 20, 2018)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I think (as I mentioned in my earlier comment) that the key to integrating different methods is to understand why they are done differently and the trade-offs being implemented in a given method.
> 
> Regarding Kenpo, practitioners do not actually fight or spar standing in a horse stance square to an opponent and throwing punches straight ahead with no body rotation. That's a drill. In order to decide whether the drill is compatible with a different style, you'd need to understand what the purpose of the drill is. Personally, I suspect that the exercise may have been adopted from some earlier style and kept for tradition's sake without comprehension of its meaning, but I'm open to being corrected on that point.
> 
> ...




I so agree with what you say and how you have stated it 

especially the point about drills .....they are just that drills and imo is it not just down to the teacher to make that clear and also and just as important that the student themselves actually understands that and is capable (not being nasty) of actually understanding that you do not in the real world fight like that, that is for the dojo and to learn basics whether it be power generation or to gain stremgth from the stance you are in (i mean develop core and leg strength).

You may not agree but does the student not have to play there part by actually engaging there brain (again not nasty and I am not hitting at anyone at all or at any style or art) and be able to make the adjustment between what is done in the dojo to gain insight in to the hows and whys and what is the real world.

I am not saying that any of the classical stances will not work or have not or cannot but as you pointed out and in my opinion correctly there are trade offs and that to me is what the student themselves has to learn and accept and not be so set in stone as to think ...this is the way the teacher said so this is what I will do !!! you may not agree or I am not explaining what I mean in words well enough but I feel that studying any art is a two way street between teacher and student and that may have broken down over time or in some ways that folks seem to think if they are taught that stance then that is it period that is how ya fight !!!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 20, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> What is the advantage the Bagua guys gain from using that cross-step?


I truly don't know. That stance has very weak balance.


----------



## now disabled (Aug 20, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I truly don't know. That stance has very weak balance.




I spoke to a friend of mine whose teacher studied that style and he said that in his teachers opinion is was designed for small spaces and etc Ie the circle walking ....I am probably wrong or what I was told was wrong but anyway


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 20, 2018)

now disabled said:


> I spoke to a friend of mine whose teacher studied that style and he said that in his teachers opinion is was designed for small spaces and etc Ie the circle walking ....I am probably wrong or what I was told was wrong but anyway


I think it's more for health and performance. It's not for combat.

Most of the time when you use foot sweep, you will need a pulling force. When your opponent has leg crossing, your foot sweep don't even need pulling.


----------



## now disabled (Aug 20, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I think it's more for health and performance. It's not for combat.




I dunno as I said just what a friend said his teacher had told him ....mind you walking a tight circle pattern not crossing as you showed is gonna be difficult as then it becomes sliding and shuffling really but that just my look at it


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 20, 2018)

now disabled said:


> I dunno as I said just what a friend said his teacher had told him ....mind you walking a tight circle pattern not crossing as you showed is gonna be difficult as then it becomes sliding and shuffling really but that just my look at it


You can cross your legs as long as you are not right in front of your opponent. You are safe to cross your leg while you are in your opponent's side door.


----------



## now disabled (Aug 20, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You can cross your legs as long as you are not right in front of your opponent. You can cross your leg while you are in your opponent's side door.




yeah fair comment I am not disagreeing 

me personally I wouldn't do that even then but that just me lol...I would feel to unbalanced and out of sync


----------



## wab25 (Aug 20, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If a Chinese wrestler cross trains the Bagua system, he will have argument with his Bagua instructor during the first day.
> 
> When a Bagua guy walks in circle, he will move his leading leg first. This will immediately cause a leg crossing. In wrestling, it's a big NO NO.
> 
> ...


What am I missing here? Both the Bagua guy and the Chinese Wrestler are taking the same step. The Bagua guy is showing the cross step as his first step in his video. The Chinese Wrestler is showing the same cross step as his second step. Maybe the Bagua guy is starting his circle from the side door? Anyway, why argue when the same step is used in both arts?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 20, 2018)

wab25 said:


> What am I missing here? Both the Bagua guy and the Chinese Wrestler are taking the same step. The Bagua guy is showing the cross step as his first step in his video. The Chinese Wrestler is showing the same cross step as his second step. Maybe the Bagua guy is starting his circle from the side door? Anyway, why argue when the same step is used in both arts?



Looks like the wrestler is only crossing his legs once he has gotten off to his partners side, so it's not as risky.

Personally I think the cross step is still unnecessary there, but at least it's lower risk.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 20, 2018)

now disabled said:


> I so agree with what you say and how you have stated it
> 
> especially the point about drills .....they are just that drills and imo is it not just down to the teacher to make that clear and also and just as important that the student themselves actually understands that and is capable (not being nasty) of actually understanding that you do not in the real world fight like that, that is for the dojo and to learn basics whether it be power generation or to gain stremgth from the stance you are in (i mean develop core and leg strength).
> 
> ...



Yes and no ...

I do believe that the teaching process should be a two-way dialogue, where the student is actively questioning, experimenting with, trying to understand, and even challenging what the teacher is showing.

I also understand that many teachers don't encourage or actively discourage that sort of interaction. If I, as a teacher, have my students training drills which are significantly removed from actual applications, and where the true purpose of the drill is not intuitively obvious, but do not point my students towards the actual point of the drill or encourage them to ask about it, then blame them for not being clever or "dedicated" enough to figure it out on their own - then I'm just being a bad teacher.

If I then raise up a crop of students who have been taught to unquestioningly perform the drills and exercises by rote without understanding of their purpose and application, award some of them instructor rank, and send them out to continue the cycle - then I have no-one but myself to blame for the degradation of the art.


----------



## now disabled (Aug 20, 2018)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Yes and no ...
> 
> I do believe that the teaching process should be a two-way dialogue, where the student is actively questioning, experimenting with, trying to understand, and even challenging what the teacher is showing.
> 
> ...




Again I agree 

I know what you mean about some teachers do not like questions ....but even then the student should still be able to if they are studying the art differentiate between a drill and what is actually  used per se


----------



## wab25 (Aug 20, 2018)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Looks like the wrestler is only crossing his legs once he has gotten off to his partners side, so it's not as risky.
> 
> Personally I think the cross step is still unnecessary there, but at least it's lower risk.


My point was that he said the two arts are incompatible and that an argument would start, due to the difference. He showed the Bagua circle step, then he showed the Chinese Wrestling clip. He since, followed up with how risky the cross step was, but because Bagua is 


Kung Fu Wang said:


> more for health and performance. It's not for combat.


 Its probably ok to do so. However, his Chinese Wrestling clip clearly shows the guy doing a Chinese Wrestling pull, followed by immediately starting the Bagua Circle walk, complete with the cross step... this is the same circle cross step, demonstrated by the Bagua guy. This shows they are compatible, since the Wrestler uses the Bagua circle step following his pull.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 20, 2018)

wab25 said:


> the Wrestler uses the Bagua circle step following his pull.


As long as when you cross legs, your opponent's leg cannot reach to your leg, you will be safe.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 20, 2018)

now disabled said:


> I agree
> 
> Hence I said there is a contradiction in Aikido and from Ueshiba himself ( if you look at his book budo and at he actually explains how you do Ikkyo from shomen uchi you will see that he actually contradicts how that is taught these days and how he described irimi nage is umm again a bit different) Yes Ueshiba was well now for changing things and he did ....relentlessly infact ...that could be he was refining things but there again it could be the influence of oomoto, the war and yes him getting older and also I still stick to the Aikido that was exported to the world was more the Aikido of the second Doshu etc than purely Ueshiba Morihei


I might have to give that book a look someday. I'd be interested in seeing some of those contradictions.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 20, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I truly don't know. That stance has very weak balance.


I agree. I assume there's some reason they do that, but I can't for the life of me think what it is.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 20, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I think it's more for health and performance. It's not for combat.
> 
> Most of the time when you use foot sweep, you will need a pulling force. When your opponent has leg crossing, your foot sweep don't even need pulling.


It hardly needs the sweep.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 20, 2018)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Yes and no ...
> 
> I do believe that the teaching process should be a two-way dialogue, where the student is actively questioning, experimenting with, trying to understand, and even challenging what the teacher is showing.
> 
> ...


Agreed. And I think that has happened a lot. in the hyper-hierarchical world of TMA, often it is expected that the student simply follows instruction and learns the lesson later. This has even become a stereotype (we see it in the Kung Fu series, the Karate Kid, and a bunch of other pop culture sources). That unquestioning following doesn't build thinking students, and weakens the instructor. I think some of it comes from instructors not being willing to say "I don't know", or even "you know, that's a better thought than I had".


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 20, 2018)

now disabled said:


> Again I agree
> 
> I know what you mean about some teachers do not like questions ....but even then the student should still be able to if they are studying the art differentiate between a drill and what is actually  used per se


I think many teachers use training/teaching approaches that guide students into non-thinking. We are programmable, to an extent, and if we are given answers and not rewarded for questions, many of us stop asking them, even internally.


----------



## now disabled (Aug 21, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I might have to give that book a look someday. I'd be interested in seeing some of those contradictions.




If you look at the part where he talks about shomenuchi and doing Ikkyo he actually says nage should instigate and even where to deliver atemi lol


----------



## now disabled (Aug 21, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I might have to give that book a look someday. I'd be interested in seeing some of those contradictions.



Remember though that book was written around 1938 or so and it was the one that was given (or so they say) to the military as a manual so it was before Aikido as such ...there are a few contradictions in it if you compare with what is being taught these days 

the bit about nage instigating is a bit confusing until you get what he is meaning lol....ie nage is and isn't lol he is blocking deflecting the strike long before it is reaching full velocity (waiting until it does that well no good idea lol) so it looks like nage is initiating as rather than the accepted approach these days of stand like a plum until the strike comes lol which again leads to the part of strikes are not delivered with any intent lol and again if the students do no know what the strike actually is then there in lies the problem !!! 

Most now deliver that strike as if it were a gentle tap and in slow motion rather than as it kinda meant lol as in try and cleave the guys head in half lol and if it was delivered with that intent (as was really intended) then how they do ikkyo from there these days no be working lol ...well it could but ummm you gotta do other things and deal with another set of issues tat guess what they don't lol


----------



## now disabled (Aug 21, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I think many teachers use training/teaching approaches that guide students into non-thinking. We are programmable, to an extent, and if we are given answers and not rewarded for questions, many of us stop asking them, even internally.




This is very true as then the teacher has an easier time an doesn't have to actually think him/herself.

The point of being programmable yes I so agree with that ....see something repeat it and take it that it the way and only way ...then wonder why it does not work ...................I do think that at times a better understanding of how the human bodies dynamics work would aid many a martial artist starting out. Like you said movies and media do seem to play a massive role. I actually have said to youngsters when I saw them doing the standing on one leg ready to engage (I know it a legit thing and not knocking the system it comes from) and said to them ......yup your cool I hope you got the wire attached to your *** like they do in the films you are watching as ummmm otherwise you lose lol


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 21, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I think many teachers use training/teaching approaches that guide students into non-thinking.


This issue is easy to fix. For each and every principles, you ask your students to create 3 concrete techniques beyond what you have taught them.


----------



## now disabled (Aug 21, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This issue is easy to fix. For each and every principles, you ask your students to create 3 concrete techniques beyond what you have taught them.




Good idea 

However that then leads to can most students do that?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 21, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> I agree, it is a drill, which is how you train your body to internalize and understand the mechanics.  How you fight can be quite different from the drill.
> 
> That is where I keep saying, you need consistency in how you drill.  That is the methodology.


In the case of that particular drill from Kenpo, I'm not totally convinced that it does help the student internalize or understand proper Kenpo mechanics. It may be inconsistent not just with other arts , but with itself.

(As I said before, I'm open to correction on this point. I'm only familiar with Kenpo in passing.)


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 21, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have a student who had Judo background before. Every time before he steps in, he always steps back first.


Consistently stepping back before stepping in is not a standard Judo principle. Probably just that one student had picked up the habit for some reason.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 21, 2018)

now disabled said:


> I know what you mean about some teachers do not like questions ....but even then the student should still be able to if they are studying the art differentiate between a drill and what is actually  used per se





gpseymour said:


> I think many teachers use training/teaching approaches that guide students into non-thinking. We are programmable, to an extent, and if we are given answers and not rewarded for questions, many of us stop asking them, even internally.



It's also possible for a teacher to encourage questions, but lead the students to asking the wrong questions and accepting dubious answers. I've encountered that before. (It's generally not malicious. It works because the teacher believes the wrong answers and doesn't know the right questions to be asking themselves.)


----------



## now disabled (Aug 21, 2018)

Tony Dismukes said:


> It's also possible for a teacher to encourage questions, but lead the students to asking the wrong questions and accepting dubious answers. I've encountered that before. (It's generally not malicious. It works because the teacher believes the wrong answers and doesn't know the right questions to be asking themselves.)




Yes I get you there and possibly that comes from the scenario you described earlier in that if a teacher turms out future teachers in his image believing that all is right and good then that carries on ..................As you say not malicious just misguided, 

I dunno if you would agree with this and I am looking for your input and insight here .....Going back in time (before any of us were around) before the current grading and ranking systems , when a person had to be "licensed " to teach it took much longer to attain that and people had to stick with it to gain that (if that makes sense) where as now with the current ways could it not be said that more instructors are being churned out so to speak and sooner than they should be? 

Also could the introduction of the grading system as was put in place by a good many Arts be( unlike it was intended) really a mistake and have possibly caused more trouble than it solved (trouble I mean in this context)


----------



## now disabled (Aug 21, 2018)

Tony Dismukes said:


> It's also possible for a teacher to encourage questions, but lead the students to asking the wrong questions and accepting dubious answers. I've encountered that before. (It's generally not malicious. It works because the teacher believes the wrong answers and doesn't know the right questions to be asking themselves.)




Yes I get you there and possibly that comes from the scenario you described earlier in that if a teacher turms out future teachers in his image believing that all is right and good then that carries on ..................As you say not malicious just misguided, 

I dunno if you would agree with this and I am looking for your input and insight here .....Going back in time (before any of us were around) before the current grading and ranking systems , when a person had to be "licensed " to teach it took much longer to attain that and people had to stick with it to gain that (if that makes sense) where as now with the current ways could it not be said that more instructors are being churned out so to speak and sooner than they should be? 

Also could the introduction of the grading system as was put in place by a good many Arts be( unlike it was intended) really a mistake and have possibly caused more trouble than it solved (trouble I mean in this context)


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 21, 2018)

Tony Dismukes said:


> In the case of that particular drill from Kenpo, I'm not totally convinced that it does help the student internalize or understand proper Kenpo mechanics. It may be inconsistent not just with other arts , but with itself.
> 
> (As I said before, I'm open to correction on this point. I'm only familiar with Kenpo in passing.)


I agree, actually.  I had been struggling with making sense out of a fair bit of how things were being done in the kenpo that I had studied, and that is why I ultimately stopped training it.

But at any rate, it makes a good example of two different ways of training a similar technique, that cause conflict with each other.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 21, 2018)

Sorry, I have been busy and doing good if I get in to look at some of the threads, much less answer.  However, see my answers in your post:



skribs said:


> Then why were you getting defensive about my comments?
> 
> *I didn't think of my comments as being defensive, but disagreement with explanations.  As I have gone back and read some of your comments I think I see that you were talking more from the perspective of a demo that had the sole intent of gaining students (I guess in some way most do).  That might change a little my answers, but not so much.  I don't think, at least in Hapkido, any faking is necessary.  I am not even sure explanations are necessary, maybe once, the rest of the time I would simply tell them the techniques work, and if they want to learn the demonstrated techniques, come join our school.*
> 
> ...



And before you get too put off, let me agree that if we are giving a demonstration, we do need to be careful not to react to some part of the technique that has yet to be employed.  It's just that imho, when looking at demo of a MA we are not familiar with, we have to be careful not to make judgments.

Again, my apologies for my snide side.  I always enjoy reading your posts, whether I agree or disagree.  I always find them insightful.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 21, 2018)

now disabled said:


> If you look at the part where he talks about shomenuchi and doing Ikkyo he actually says nage should instigate and even where to deliver atemi lol


That is different from what's usually taught.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 21, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This issue is easy to fix. For each and every principles, you ask your students to create 3 concrete techniques beyond what you have taught them.


There are lots of easy ways to fix it. Unfortunately, some teachers seem to prefer students not think for themselves too much.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 21, 2018)

now disabled said:


> Good idea
> 
> However that then leads to can most students do that?


If they understand the principles, they can. It's not something I'd expect every first-year student to be able to do. It is something I'd expect later. In fact, it's part of my requirements for black belt.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 21, 2018)

Tony Dismukes said:


> It's also possible for a teacher to encourage questions, but lead the students to asking the wrong questions and accepting dubious answers. I've encountered that before. (It's generally not malicious. It works because the teacher believes the wrong answers and doesn't know the right questions to be asking themselves.)


That's true. If the teacher never asked (at least to himself) good questions, he'll have a hard time passing that skill along.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 21, 2018)

now disabled said:


> Yes I get you there and possibly that comes from the scenario you described earlier in that if a teacher turms out future teachers in his image believing that all is right and good then that carries on ..................As you say not malicious just misguided,
> 
> I dunno if you would agree with this and I am looking for your input and insight here .....Going back in time (before any of us were around) before the current grading and ranking systems , when a person had to be "licensed " to teach it took much longer to attain that and people had to stick with it to gain that (if that makes sense) where as now with the current ways could it not be said that more instructors are being churned out so to speak and sooner than they should be?
> 
> Also could the introduction of the grading system as was put in place by a good many Arts be( unlike it was intended) really a mistake and have possibly caused more trouble than it solved (trouble I mean in this context)


Did it take longer, though, compared to some of the systems out there? It took me more than a decade of training to get my shodan, which is also the instructor certification in that organization. There are organizations where it takes longer.

I've not seen much to compare to the license of full transmission, but my understanding is that was usually reserved for someone either taking over the art or being sent off to teach without connection to his instructor (Japanese instructor sending someone off to spread the art to Australia, for instance).


----------



## now disabled (Aug 21, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Did it take longer, though, compared to some of the systems out there? It took me more than a decade of training to get my shodan, which is also the instructor certification in that organization. There are organizations where it takes longer.
> 
> I've not seen much to compare to the license of full transmission, but my understanding is that was usually reserved for someone either taking over the art or being sent off to teach without connection to his instructor (Japanese instructor sending someone off to spread the art to Australia, for instance).





What I was getting at and maybe (with my lack of vocabulary) 

To my understanding a teaching license and a full transmission are different things (but I will stand to be corrected there) 

I just feel that some who are holding Dan grades should not be teaching as yes they have maybe passed a test to reach that but does that (as seems to be the case in some aspects) are they fully equipped to teach? By that I mean if they are challenged on something (and I have seen it and read it) they are not willing or indeed able to explain and get extremely teed of  and basically they are the teacher so that goes as that is what they were taught. Now ok they can only teach what they have been taught ....however could it not be that until they reach a certain level some things will not be for want of a better word be revealed (I'm not talkind secret or hocus pocus lol) for example the thing I mentioned about nage initiating ......well that is and isn't but it looks as if it is lol now to a shodan or even nidan that will and may not be clear (I'll try and explain in the reply to that post) but as many are teaching at that level then they do not have a deep enogh understanding and are only going thru the mechanics there by thru time things are getting lost or more accurately not transmitted fully.

Now in the old way (again I stand corrected) a license would be granted and conditions would be placed on same eg who to teach and what you could teach there by to me a safe guard was in place an example could be made of none other than Ueshiba Morihei himself he taught at the Asahi newspaper and yup the first 6 volumes of the soden from there are put down to his teaching (and he had a teaching license) but the remainder of the soden are from Takeda Sokaku  (ok there are lots of theories on why and for what reason that happened -I mean why Ueshiba and Takeda split so to speak- ) and the person who got all that did get a Menkyo Kaiden (Takuma Hisa) I dunno if that makes sense or it just my pure lack of vocab skills that is not allowing me to properly explain what I am getting at if it is then my humble apologies


----------



## now disabled (Aug 21, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> That is different from what's usually taught.




There in lies the riddle as it were 

Yes nage is initiating but actually is he ....

yes he looks like he is and it is written to look that way and yes again it is but and here is where I see the riddle lol ............

the partners are going to do shomen uchi ikkyo ..... Uke nows he is going to strike nage knows he is going to apply Ikkyo 

Now  uke  makes the strike nage moves with the traditional block/deflection  then goes on to do ikkyo (omote or ura it matters not) and it all goes well .......... that is what I think you will have seen and what is mostly taught?

Ok that will all go as planned and will all go brilliant ................if the strike by nage is just token strike and no intent or force is there as if the force and intent are there your screwed as it just will not work period ...why well you are meeting force with force if you do it the way it is taught now and then unless you are very lucky or incredibly powerful you will find it very challenging to do ikkyo that way (unless you put other things in and draw it out more but a fast ikkyo (which is what ya aiming for ain;t happening lol to much force on force and no time to do else really before uke clocks you again ) 

Now as the old book says same set up (but uke is going to deliver the strike with full intent as in try to cleave ya head in two) as he starts his movement then nage "goes" an by the time he (nage has entered ) the velocity of the strike is not at full force (some if not a large part is still stored in uke) block /deflect apply atemi then  go for Ikkyo and use the stored engery of the strike to allow the technique to work fully ...make sense from your aiki background ? and the atemi is not only to break his structure but also to allow the "stored" energy out and for you to use it 

so yes nage is initiating but umm really he isn't but he is lol see the contradiction ? and that leads on to what I said about if the people that are teaching are not able to "get all that then well it gonna slowly and surely get lost and then well it won't work 


Even look at the way Ueshiba did irimi nage lol that way diff from how it is taught now ..........well in the Aikikai anyway


----------



## now disabled (Aug 21, 2018)

@gpseymour

You will well know how to make a proper sword hand strike to the head however most that now practice don't even in the vids of demos it actually funny seeing how even some yudansha are striking shomen uchi ....As so much has been lost or has been written out or is just missed out cause either no one can be bothered to actually teach what the strikes are or are supposed to be and what they are based on 

It doesn't take much to actually teach that for all strikes .....use a bokken ....even at home use a bokken (after the instruction on how to has been given) buy an old tyre a few old cement blocks some concrete and of ya go lol ...............and striking the tyre when you can do so at full force with proper tech and the bollen dont bounce back up then you know how to deliver shomen uchi lol 

Even the grips and grabs i could go on about as again if you look at the older books then it is a wee bit different so to speak ....but again that been kinda glossed over lol ...well imo


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 21, 2018)

now disabled said:


> What I was getting at and maybe (with my lack of vocabulary)
> 
> To my understanding a teaching license and a full transmission are different things (but I will stand to be corrected there)


No, that's my understanding, too. Kojo dairi and menkyo kaiden were different things. As usual, I've completely forgotten which is which.



> I just feel that some who are holding Dan grades should not be teaching as yes they have maybe passed a test to reach that but does that (as seems to be the case in some aspects) are they fully equipped to teach? By that I mean if they are challenged on something (and I have seen it and read it) they are not willing or indeed able to explain and get extremely teed of  and basically they are the teacher so that goes as that is what they were taught. Now ok they can only teach what they have been taught ....however could it not be that until they reach a certain level some things will not be for want of a better word be revealed (I'm not talkind secret or hocus pocus lol) for example the thing I mentioned about nage initiating ......well that is and isn't but it looks as if it is lol now to a shodan or even nidan that will and may not be clear (I'll try and explain in the reply to that post) but as many are teaching at that level then they do not have a deep enogh understanding and are only going thru the mechanics there by thru time things are getting lost or more accurately not transmitted fully.
> 
> Now in the old way (again I stand corrected) a license would be granted and conditions would be placed on same eg who to teach and what you could teach there by to me a safe guard was in place an example could be made of none other than Ueshiba Morihei himself he taught at the Asahi newspaper and yup the first 6 volumes of the soden from there are put down to his teaching (and he had a teaching license) but the remainder of the soden are from Takeda Sokaku  (ok there are lots of theories on why and for what reason that happened -I mean why Ueshiba and Takeda split so to speak- ) and the person who got all that did get a Menkyo Kaiden (Takuma Hisa) I dunno if that makes sense or it just my pure lack of vocab skills that is not allowing me to properly explain what I am getting at if it is then my humble apologies


I don't know much about the old ways, but I suspect they weren't drastically different from the current ways, if you averaged them. Many styles now have "provisional" teaching levels  - you can teach but not promote, teach only to a certain level, or some such. To me the bigger issue is (and I suspect was then, too) that people are expected to just "absorb" good teaching. They're taught the techniques and necessary knowledge around them, but are rarely taught how to teach. And then they go on to make another generation of teachers, who make another generation, none of whom have been actually taught how to teach. It's a lot like the mess that goes on with managers in the business world: someone does a better-than-others job as a staff member, so they are promoted to management...without any training in how to manage. We make this mistake with martial arts instructors, too. This is why so many of us have seen excellent practitioners who struggled to teach. Teaching is a learnable skill, and that skill level can be predictably raised by including some simple teaching basics in instructor prep programs.

I'd rather have a well-prepared instructor who is a 5-year practitioner (which could be shodan, nidan, or perhaps higher in some systems, or might only be purple or brown belt in other systems) than a poorly-prepared instructor who is a 10-year practitioner - if I had to choose blindly. Of course, I'd rather have that 10-year practitioner as a well-prepared instructor.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 21, 2018)

now disabled said:


> Now as the old book says same set up (but uke is going to deliver the strike with full intent as in try to cleave ya head in two) as he starts his movement then nage "goes" an by the time he (nage has entered ) the velocity of the strike is not at full force (some if not a large part is still stored in uke) block /deflect apply atemi then go for Ikkyo and use the stored engery of the strike to allow the technique to work fully ...make sense from your aiki background ? and the atemi is not only to break his structure but also to allow the "stored" energy out and for you to use it


In my opinion, this is how "aiki" is meant to work. It's how I teach it. The way you describe it, there's an almost simultaneous movement. That's unlikely to happen. So, how do we explain teaching that? Well, if you're actually moving, responding to the opponent, and striking, then you will sometimes find yourself properly in motion at the right moment. I see this happen from time to time in boxing: one guy throws a good punch just as the other guy decides to slip to the outside. That's a perfect set-up for aiki-style techniques, and it's not about responding to a single, specific attack (as the classical training seems to suggest), but about working the situation with other tools until the right moment opens up, then taking advantage of it. So, we don't have to be preternaturally fast, have precognition to know what's coming, or any of that. We just have to be able to hold our own and recognize the openings. I don't think a pure-aiki approach can provide that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 21, 2018)

now disabled said:


> @gpseymour
> 
> You will well know how to make a proper sword hand strike to the head however most that now practice don't even in the vids of demos it actually funny seeing how even some yudansha are striking shomen uchi ....As so much has been lost or has been written out or is just missed out cause either no one can be bothered to actually teach what the strikes are or are supposed to be and what they are based on
> 
> ...


Actually, I've never trained using a sword-hand strike, except when visiting Aikido schools or seminars. We on occasion use a chop, but that wouldn't usually be to the head (certainly not the forehead). Mostly, we train against punches, shoves, hammerfists, and the like.


----------



## now disabled (Aug 21, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> In my opinion, this is how "aiki" is meant to work. It's how I teach it. The way you describe it, there's an almost simultaneous movement. That's unlikely to happen. So, how do we explain teaching that? Well, if you're actually moving, responding to the opponent, and striking, then you will sometimes find yourself properly in motion at the right moment. I see this happen from time to time in boxing: one guy throws a good punch just as the other guy decides to slip to the outside. That's a perfect set-up for aiki-style techniques, and it's not about responding to a single, specific attack (as the classical training seems to suggest), but about working the situation with other tools until the right moment opens up, then taking advantage of it. So, we don't have to be preternaturally fast, have precognition to know what's coming, or any of that. We just have to be able to hold our own and recognize the openings. I don't think a pure-aiki approach can provide that.



Yes you explain it better ....but to some it looks and Ueshiba does actually mention initiating lol ...mind you that could be the translation lol but do you see where the contradiction to those looking in come come from ?

I guess it just the way it taught now in many Aikido schools it stand like a plum wait and then move and pray to all the gods that the uke doesn't strike with intent lol 

Kyoju diari is the teaching license (well representative teacher) the Menkyo kaiden is the full transmission 


Sorry I wasn't meaning you don't know how to attack te-gatanna I was trying to say that most don't actually know how to properly hence the lack of intent and force


----------



## Obsidian Fury (Aug 25, 2018)

Personally I've found training different martial arts very useful my TKD improved a lot with my Judo as I started not only to snap my hits in TKD but also shifting my weight like in Judo to increase their power. Sometimes on reflex I might start progressing from a TKD punch to a Judo throw during TKD practice but aside from making a mistake on reflex I can't say MA don't blend well.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 25, 2018)

now disabled said:


> "Ueshiba" ..."Kyoju diari" ... "Menkyo kaiden" ... "te-gatanna"


I have asked, "Why do you have to use Japanese terms in discussion?" You have not respond yet.


----------



## now disabled (Aug 26, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have asked, "Why do you have to use Japanese terms in discussion?" You have not respond yet.



Sorry I been busy 

Apologies ... I just use the terms as I know them.... The Kyoju Diari is a teaching certificate (well literally a representative instructor) The Menkyo Kaiden is a full transmission ...Te-gatanna is the hand sword  

I use the Japanese terms as for some (not esp those ones) the word or words can have more than one meaning or indeed concept or depending on context what they mean, also at times the literal translation may not actually be as accurate in meaning in English as it is in Japanese, in my own language even certain words have more than one meaning depending on how they are used ... and translating them can and does cause confusion ... and to many it can start arguments when a person who is a no native speaker is set that it means what they think and will not even remotely consider it has other meanings.

sorry for not responding


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 26, 2018)

Obsidian Fury said:


> Personally I've found training different martial arts very useful my TKD improved a lot with my Judo as I started not only to snap my hits in TKD but also shifting my weight like in Judo to increase their power. Sometimes on reflex I might start progressing from a TKD punch to a Judo throw during TKD practice but aside from making a mistake on reflex I can't say MA don't blend well.


Nobody has said that all martial arts cannot blend well.  Obviously some of them can.

However, some others not so well.  And often the real reasons why they don’t blend so well are not as obvious as some people think.  The actual reasons they don’t blend well are the very reasons why some people assume that they do.


----------



## geezer (Aug 26, 2018)

Obsidian Fury said:


> ... Sometimes on reflex I might start progressing from a TKD punch to a Judo throw during TKD practice but aside from* making a mistake on reflex I* can't say MA don't blend well.



^^^^ _*This*_ is the biggest problem with blending different MA. If you are ever going to be effective at applying your skills, you must progress to the level where you_ do _react reflexively. If you train two arts that teach different, even contradictory ways to respond to a situation, rather than respond instantaneously, you will have to take the time to choose which way to respond. That´s slower. Worse, under stress, you can freeze up ...the old ¨deer in the headlights¨ syndrome.

IMO that's why combative arts always keep things simple. It's OK to _know_ a lot of responses, but the stuff you plan to _use_, what you actually train over and over and burn into your "muscle memory" should be very selective.


----------



## geezer (Aug 26, 2018)

To add to my previous post, I believe that this tendency towards excessive complexity is one of the very real problems with most traditional martial arts, and with_ traditional martial artists._

Sometimes we become collectors of techniques and even whole systems, and in the process become less effective at real life application. I prefer the old idea that if you want to judge the level of martial practitioners' skill (aside from fighting or competition), look at _how they move_ rather than how many movements they have!


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 26, 2018)

geezer said:


> To add to my previous post, I believe that this tendency towards excessive complexity is one of the very real problems with most traditional martial arts, and with_ traditional martial artists._
> 
> Sometimes we become collectors of techniques and even whole systems, and in the process become less effective at real life application. I prefer the old idea that if you want to judge the level of martial practitioners' skill (aside from fighting or competition), look at _how they move_ rather than how many movements they have!


Interestingly, I’ve never seen this tendency in traditional martial arts.  I have, however, seen it in modern and Americanized renditions of what came from older systems.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 26, 2018)

geezer said:


> ^^^^ _*This*_ is the biggest problem with blending different MA. If you are ever going to be effective at applying your skills, you must progress to the level where you_ do _react reflexively. If you train two arts that teach different, even contradictory ways to respond to a situation, rather than respond instantaneously, you will have to take the time to choose which way to respond. That´s slower. Worse, under stress, you can freeze up ...the old ¨deer in the headlights¨ syndrome.
> 
> IMO that's why combative arts always keep things simple. It's OK to _know_ a lot of responses, but the stuff you plan to _use_, what you actually train over and over and burn into your "muscle memory" should be very selective.


I don't find that ever happens, except when I'm trying to do something specific. I just react. If the new material is too new, it simply won't be one of the reactions. The only other time I find I don't react smoothly is when I run into an area I'm trying to avoid (start into a technique that's not appropriate for the setting or my partner).


----------



## Martial D (Aug 26, 2018)

geezer said:


> ^^^^ _*This*_ is the biggest problem with blending different MA. If you are ever going to be effective at applying your skills, you must progress to the level where you_ do _react reflexively. If you train two arts that teach different, even contradictory ways to respond to a situation, rather than respond instantaneously, you will have to take the time to choose which way to respond. That´s slower. Worse, under stress, you can freeze up ...the old ¨deer in the headlights¨ syndrome.
> 
> IMO that's why combative arts always keep things simple. It's OK to _know_ a lot of responses, but the stuff you plan to _use_, what you actually train over and over and burn into your "muscle memory" should be very selective.


Sometimes you freeze up, but other times you are just responding according to muscle memory. For instance, maybe style A uses a certain technique as a response to Attack #1. But you also know style B, which offers a slightly more useful response to an overextended version of attack number one. You can condition a separation between the two on a reflexive level.

One example could be a rear hand shot. Your striking training might tell you to parry it inward or slip it, but if it's a lunging shot you might also come under it for a body lock or a double leg. It's better to have both of these options imo.


----------



## geezer (Aug 26, 2018)

Martial D said:


> Sometimes you freeze up, but other times you are just responding according to muscle memory. For instance, maybe style A uses a certain technique as a response to Attack #1. But you also know style B, which offers a slightly more useful response to an overextended version of attack number one. You can condition a separation between the two on a reflexive level.
> 
> One example could be a rear hand shot. Your striking training might tell you to parry it inward or slip it, but if it's a lunging shot you might also come under it for a body lock or a double leg. It's better to have both of these options imo.



This works fine ..._*if *_the two systems complement rather than contradict each other. For example, I train Ving Tsun, Escrima, and have a few basic wrestling responses still in my muscle memory from my youth. Each comes into play instinctively at the appropriate range or situation. Or at least on good days!

On the other hand, our "soft" VT would not blend well with a hard style of Karate, say ...Shotokan? The whole "feeling," method of power generation,  concept of deflection, and so forth, are contradictory. If you were training both simultaneously, you would not do well at either. Especially in my lineage of VT which demands relaxed, "springy" energy ...something that I found really hard to develop, and even harder to maintain under pressure.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 26, 2018)

How can Taiji and wrestling be compatible if Taiji guys don't like to grab?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 26, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I truly don't know. That stance has very weak balance.





gpseymour said:


> I agree. I assume there's some reason they do that, but I can't for the life of me think what it is.


Not fully caught up, so this may have been addressed. But in my kempo, we learned some Fu Jow Pai (I think actually hung ga, since I never got advanced in that aspect), which included a 't stance'. My understanding of it/what was explained to me, is that there are times you lose balance, and that is a good 'recovery' transition stance for when that occurs. It's not a stance you want to be in, but if you train it, you can quickly get back to a safer stance.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 26, 2018)

I don't have much to contribute, as kung fu wang and flying crane have already said most of what I think. Just posting to voice my agreement with their general statements and sentiments.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 26, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> How can Taiji and wrestling be compatible if Taiji guys don't like to grab?


I don’t know if that is an accurate description of the taiji method. I do know that it cannot be an absolutely accurate description of every person practicing taiji.

The person can find taiji to be a good fit for him.  But even if it is true that Taiji avoids grabbing (which I am doubtful of) the person might find grabbing to also be useful and might also practice a grabbing or grappling method.

I find that there are rarely any absolutes in martial arts that hold up to honest scrutiny.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 27, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> I don’t know if that is an accurate description of the taiji method. I do know that it cannot be an absolutely accurate description of every person practicing taiji.
> 
> The person can find taiji to be a good fit for him.  But even if it is true that Taiji avoids grabbing (which I am doubtful of) the person might find grabbing to also be useful and might also practice a grabbing or grappling method.
> 
> I find that there are rarely any absolutes in martial arts that hold up to honest scrutiny.


I have not heard about any Taiji guy who trains grip strength. Most of the Taiji guys that I have met would consider grip strength as "brute force".

The definition of wrestling is "the sport of strength". The Taiji slogan is "strength is low level and sweating is bad".

In training, when a

- wrestling coach tells you that you will need to sweat.
- Taiji instructor tells you that you should not sweat.

Who are you going to listen?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 27, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> How can Taiji and wrestling be compatible if Taiji guys don't like to grab?


I can only respond conceptually, since I'm not an expert in either (and have only passing acquaintance with Taiji). When grabbing isn't an option, or not the best option, Taiji adds tools to the wrestler's toolset. And wrestling does the same for the Taiji practitioner, giving him some options for using grabs. With fluency in both approaches, he's able to select when Taiji works well and when wrestling (and grabbing) is a better option. Without the fluency in wrestling, he has to make the Taiji the right answer even if the situation isn't a good fit.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 27, 2018)

geezer said:


> This works fine ..._*if *_the two systems complement rather than contradict each other. For example, I train Ving Tsun, Escrima, and have a few basic wrestling responses still in my muscle memory from my youth. Each comes into play instinctively at the appropriate range or situation. Or at least on good days!
> 
> On the other hand, our "soft" VT would not blend well with a hard style of Karate, say ...Shotokan? The whole "feeling," method of power generation,  concept of deflection, and so forth, are contradictory. If you were training both simultaneously, you would not do well at either. Especially in my lineage of VT which demands relaxed, "springy" energy ...something that I found really hard to develop, and even harder to maintain under pressure.


I think there's some mixing of issues in this thread - it's inherent to the topic. What you describe here sounds like conflicts in training. I (and some others) have been talking about compatibility once they are learned. I'll use my own experience here, because I have some conflicting areas of training. There's the aiki stuff, which is generally pretty soft in execution (less so in NGA than in some styles). I also use some "hard" Judo approaches (hard leverage and muscle to complete), as well as direct (rather than off-line) entry for striking. Training these on the same technique can cause conflicts during training. But I don't experience those conflicts. If things flow, I'm pretty aiki. If I get tension, I automatically select either an aiki flow (go with the tension), Judo response (reverse with the tension or use good technique to overcome it), or hard striking responses in direct opposition. Many times in training I've stumbled over these choices, because I was trying to get to a specific "mode". But when I just go with what my body (subconscious mind) wants to do, I don't stumble.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 27, 2018)

kempodisciple said:


> Not fully caught up, so this may have been addressed. But in my kempo, we learned some Fu Jow Pai (I think actually hung ga, since I never got advanced in that aspect), which included a 't stance'. My understanding of it/what was explained to me, is that there are times you lose balance, and that is a good 'recovery' transition stance for when that occurs. It's not a stance you want to be in, but if you train it, you can quickly get back to a safer stance.


Interesting. I'll have to play with the concept at the gym today.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 27, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have not heard about any Taiji guy who trains grip strength. Most of the Taiji guys that I have met would consider grip strength as "brute force".
> 
> The definition of wrestling is "the sport of strength". The Taiji slogan is "strength is low level and sweating is bad".
> 
> ...


I believe you are looking at this more on a level of technique and strategy.  In my opinion, those things can always be compatible IF they can function with the same principles.

In the white crane I have learned, we lean much more heavily on striking, and less so on chin-na or any grappling.  However, I could learn some grappling, see how it is compatible with the same white crane principles, and then that grappling could have a legitimate home in white crane.

Likewise, I believe wrestling could have a home within taiji.  It would require learning wrestling and then seeing how it may be compatible with the principles on which taiji functions.  

If in fact it is not compatible and always is in conflict with the principles, then they are not compatible.  But I suspect there could be some compatibility there.

And my understanding of taiji is definitely NOT that they do not work hard.  Taiji, like any method, requires hard work and sweat, in order to build skill.


----------



## geezer (Aug 27, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I think there's some mixing of issues in this thread - it's inherent to the topic. What you describe here sounds like conflicts in training. I (and some others) have been talking about compatibility once they are learned....



OK. To a certain extent I can agree with that. Often you can see more conceptual similarities between very high level practitioners of differing systems than you will between lower level students. It's the old thing about climbing a mountain from different sides. You start out very far apart but get closer as you approach the summit, ....that is assuming you are not climbing _a mesa_. Then you will still be far apart even at the top!


----------



## FriedRice (Aug 27, 2018)

Kata/Flowery Forms = incompatibility 

Ever had some dude make you change your stance and pretty much, your complete style of fighting because you tried out his class/school for fun?


----------



## geezer (Aug 27, 2018)

FriedRice said:


> Kata/Flowery Forms = incompatibility
> 
> Ever had some dude make you change your stance and pretty much, your complete style of fighting because you tried out his class/school for fun?



Not sure what you mean here. Of course certain systems use very different stances, while others use pretty similar ways of standing and moving. Either way, stances are fundamental ...so if you try out a different system, of course you have to adopt whatever stances they use. Unless you are just there to spar or something, I guess...


----------



## FriedRice (Aug 27, 2018)

geezer said:


> Not sure what you mean here. Of course certain systems use very different stances, while others use pretty similar ways of standing and moving. Either way, stances are fundamental ...so if you try out a different system, of course you have to adopt whatever stances they use. Unless you are just there to spar or something, I guess...



I was there to take a class and it wasn't fun being forced to change my stance...but to be fair, we do the same to other stylists that come in to learn Muay Thai.  However, the MT stance and style is not that strict.  

Don't get me wrong, I completely submitted to their directions as best as I could (as old habits are hard to break). But I didn't like it. It was very difficult in terms of memorization and such...this was Shaolin Kung-Fu and I wanted to learn weapons (to improve my LARPING, haha)......and I told them this but they still made me go through the whole shabang with the animal stances.


----------



## geezer (Aug 27, 2018)

FriedRice said:


> I was there to take a class and it wasn't fun being forced to change my stance...but to be fair, we do the same to other stylists that come in to learn Muay Thai.  However, the MT stance and style is not that strict.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I completely submitted to their directions as best as I could (as old habits are hard to break). But I didn't like it. It was very difficult in terms of memorization and such...this was Shaolin Kung-Fu and I wanted to learn weapons (to improve my LARPING, haha)......and I told them this but they still made me go through the whole shabang with the animal stances.



OK, I get it, but I'm not surprised. Traditional martial arts, if taught by an instructor who cares, tend to be almost obsessive-compulsive about those kinds of details. In my limited experience with competitive sports, the focus is a little more on what works rather than on doing things "the correct way". Learning TCMA seems like a lot of work for a little material to help your recreational LARPing. Then again maybe you are more hard-core about it than most!


----------



## FriedRice (Aug 27, 2018)

geezer said:


> OK, I get it, but I'm not surprised. Traditional martial arts, if taught by an instructor who cares, tend to be almost obsessive-compulsive about those kinds of details. In my limited experience with competitive sports, the focus is a little more on what works rather than on doing things "the correct way".



I'm actually like that and get overly nitpicking when teaching; so I guess I'm getting a does of my own meds.  There's a lot of details in BJJ too, so I guess I know what you mean.



> Learning TCMA seems like a lot of work for a little material to help your recreational LARPing. Then again maybe you are more hard-core about it than most!



It's got to the point where I'm looking for other things to have fun with. One of the biggest hurdles I've notice was to be able to withstand the monotony of training repetitive techs to get good. At this point, I can do 20-30 straight rounds of shadow boxing + bag work,  2x /week, then 2-3 classes = 4-5 days of training at the "Gym-Rat" level, religiously. It's been like 12 straight years of this shiznit since I got serious....so training less to Larp once a week is incredibly fun right now.


----------



## Buka (Aug 28, 2018)

kempodisciple said:


> Not fully caught up, so this may have been addressed. But in my kempo, we learned some Fu Jow Pai (I think actually hung ga, since I never got advanced in that aspect), which included a 't stance'. My understanding of it/what was explained to me, is that there are times you lose balance, and that is a good 'recovery' transition stance for when that occurs. It's not a stance you want to be in, but if you train it, you can quickly get back to a safer stance.



Brought back some great memories, Fu Jow Pai was the first Kung Fu I ever trained in. Almost forgot about that. I really liked it, too.


----------

