# Shadow Boxing vs Kata fallacy argument.



## Acronym (Aug 11, 2020)

Whever I see someone dismiss katas as a waste of time, there is always someone pointing to shadow boxing. These two practises are worlds apart.

Just a few differences:

Shadow boxing is spontaenous and fluid. Kata is a choreographed sequences of moves.

Kata is rigid, Shadow Boxing is relaxed.


And on and on.. How could anyone not see that the analogy fails?


----------



## Headhunter (Aug 11, 2020)

So you’ve never done shadow boxing drills where you’re told what combination to throw?...e.g Instructor says do a jab cross hook, roundhouse kick...that’s exactly the same thing. But hey I’m sure you’ll have a smartass answer to come back with


----------



## Acronym (Aug 11, 2020)

Headhunter said:


> So you’ve never done shadow boxing drills where you’re told what combination to throw?...e.g Instructor says do a jab cross hook, roundhouse kick...that’s exactly the same thing. But hey I’m sure you’ll have a smartass answer to come back with



That's not kata.


----------



## Headhunter (Aug 11, 2020)

Acronym said:


> That's not kata.


Sigh I give up with you...total waste of time


----------



## Acronym (Aug 11, 2020)

Headhunter said:


> Sigh I give up with you...total waste of time



Please do.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 11, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Whever I see someone dismiss katas as a waste of time, there is always someone pointing to shadow boxing. These two practises are worlds apart.
> 
> Just a few differences:
> 
> ...


Have you found something yet to train that makes sense to you and with which you can relate?  I made that suggestion in a different thread.  Instead of pointing out what, in your opinion, is wrong with what everyone else is doing your energy might be better spent finding something that is a good fit for you.


----------



## Acronym (Aug 11, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> Have you found something yet to train that makes sense to you and with which you can relate?  I made that suggestion in a different thread.  Instead of pointing out what, in your opinion, is wrong with what everyone else is doing your energy might be better spent finding something that is a good fit for you.



This is a discussion forum. Stick to the topic


----------



## Steve (Aug 11, 2020)

Headhunter said:


> So you’ve never done shadow boxing drills where you’re told what combination to throw?...e.g Instructor says do a jab cross hook, roundhouse kick...that’s exactly the same thing. But hey I’m sure you’ll have a smartass answer to come back with


It's not at all the same thing.  Spontaneously reacting to a coach's prompts versus a pre-arranged, highly choreographed series of movements.  They're both training exercises, but that's pretty much where the comparison begins and ends.  

But hey, I'm sure you'll have a smartass answer to come back with.  (Is this how we're ending all our posts now?  If so, save yourself some time and put that in your signature line).


----------



## Steve (Aug 11, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> Have you found something yet to train that makes sense to you and with which you can relate?  I made that suggestion in a different thread.  Instead of pointing out what, in your opinion, is wrong with what everyone else is doing your energy might be better spent finding something that is a good fit for you.


Seems like a reasonable suggestion.  More constructive.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 11, 2020)

Acronym said:


> This is a discussion forum. Stick to the topic


I am.

What is the point in coming on to deride what is a common training method?  You aren’t going to change anybody.  Preaching here won’t gain converts.  Nobody is going to suddenly see the light and stop practicing their kata, just because you came here and pointed out what you feel are kata’s shortcomings.  All that happens is it turns into an argument between those who do kata and feel it has value, and those who do not.  Nobody changes their mind about it.  We have seen this discussion here over and over and over.  You are contributing absolutely nothing new with this thread. 

So find something meaningful to you, and pursue that.  And don’t worry about what others do.  That is irrelevant to you.  You don’t need validation from anyone here.  Pull on your big boy panties and make some decisions for yourself.  And move on.


----------



## Steve (Aug 11, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> I am.
> 
> What is the point in coming on to deride what is a common training method?  You aren’t going to change anybody.  Preaching here won’t gain converts.  Nobody is going to suddenly see the light and stop practicing their kata, just because you came here and pointed out what you feel are kata’s shortcomings.  All that happens is it turns into an argument between those who do kata and feel it has value, and those who do not.  Nobody changes their mind about it.  We have seen this discussion here over and over and over.  You are contributing absolutely nothing new with this thread.
> 
> So find something meaningful to you, and pursue that.  And don’t worry about what others do.  That is irrelevant to you.  You don’t need validation from anyone here.  Pull on your big boy panties and make some decisions for yourself.  And move on.


When I read the OP, it seems like the main point is that kata and shadowboxing aren't the same thing.

So, are they or aren't they?  Is there room for a civil discussion on that topic?

For what it's worth, I don't think they're very much alike, at all.  From everything I've learned about kata reading countless threads on the subject here, it seems like they're intended to serve very different functions within training.


----------



## lklawson (Aug 11, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Whever I see someone dismiss katas as a waste of time, there is always someone pointing to shadow boxing. These two practises are worlds apart.
> 
> Just a few differences:
> 
> ...


hahahaha

Ask 5 Karateka what the purpose of Kata is and you'll get 10 different answers.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 11, 2020)

Steve said:


> When I read the OP, it seems like the main point is that kata and shadowboxing aren't the same thing.
> 
> So, are they or aren't they?  Is there room for a civil discussion on that topic?
> 
> For what it's worth, I don't think they're very much alike, at all.  From everything I've learned about kata reading countless threads on the subject here, it seems like they're intended to serve very different functions within training.


They're not. They're similar in that both allow you to drill your moves in combinations, but kata tend to be longer than shadowboxing combination (and as already stated lack the fluidity). You can take out parts of kata though, and do just bits as combinations which allows you to go from kata to the drills mentioned above. 

Kata also doesn't have to be rigid. It can be just as 'relaxed' (put in quotes since I'm not 100% sure that's the right word) as shadowboxing, it really depends on the style and kata in question.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 11, 2020)

OP is right.

If you were going to build a case for Kata it can't be built on the effectiveness of something else.

I mean let's go the other way jazz ballet has similarities  to Kata and is not very effective for learning to fight.

These are very common fallacies that seem to make sense but don't necessarily hold up to scrutiny.

This also doesn't mean Kata isn't effective it just means the argument is dumb. That would be based on its merits as well.

And with all of this i will still make the case that Bunkai is where stuff becomes ineffective because it tends to work backwards.


----------



## lklawson (Aug 11, 2020)

drop bear said:


> And with all of this i will still make the case that Bunkai is where stuff becomes ineffective because it tends to work backwards.


It's interesting that you mention that.  Just a week or two ago or so I watched a Jesse Enkamp video where he argued much the same thing.  Bunkai, according to him, isn't some sort of secret hidden technique which you have to guess the application of.  It is (was?) a standard well-known technique which may have had varying applications as was appropriate for the circumstance.

Past the academic nature of the subject (just learning for the sake of learning something, outside of whether or not it is useful to me), I find the whole set of arguments surrounding the subject of Bunkai somewhere between "perplexing" and "amusing."  It seems a silly thing to argue about.  If it works for you, then use it.  If not, don't.  Why argue with someone else about it who holds a different concept of Bunkai?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Aug 12, 2020)

To be honest shadow boxing is closer to free sparring with a imiginary person.  kata (not paired) is fixed.   I will always be dubious of kata and it seems like (and i think it is actually) a formalised method of "do it like  this" that just stuck.



Also, for some reason it just bugs me when people apply things to things that dont exist in that area.  Kata is not a english word so wont be present in english boxing, that means it as a concept is not called kata if its present.     I dont go around saying i do Kihon and that for things, so i wish people would stop katafying things outside of JMA.    Like am i doing engineering kata if i show you the movement on how to remove a component?

Addendum: my doubt is towards solo kata, its a supplimentory excercise, paired effectively exists everywhere.   I also get citing something as X if thats the word you know it as, like who is going to use Mishin in england?

Addendum 2:  I could probbly come up with several "am i doing kata if" examples.   I have just thought of gun kata right now for if you dry draw and fire your pistol.


----------



## lklawson (Aug 12, 2020)

Rat said:


> To be honest shadow boxing is closer to free sparring with a imiginary person.  kata (not paired) is fixed.   I will always be dubious of kata and it seems like (and i think it is actually) a formalised method of "do it like  this" that just stuck.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, yeah.  Movement sets that seem similar to Kata exist everywhere and probably always have.  The Figueyredo manuscript on Montante (Iberian "Two-Handed" Great Sword) springs instantly to mind.  It has several sets of "simple" and "composed" (additional complexity) movements which look very like Kata and are apparently intended to be applied to certain specific situations.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Buka (Aug 12, 2020)

Rat said:


> I have just thought of gun kata right now for if you dry draw and fire your pistol.



Gun Kata, cimematically speaking....


----------



## Steve (Aug 12, 2020)

Buka said:


> Gun Kata, cimematically speaking....


Pretty good video. I watched a lot of John Woo movies in the early 90s, and remember when Equilibrium came out, too.


----------



## Buka (Aug 13, 2020)

Steve said:


> Pretty good video. I watched a lot of John Woo movies in the early 90s, and remember when Equilibrium came out, too.



I really love movies, even some outrageous ones. If it's an action movie, especially ones featuring some sort of Martial whatever, I don't care if it's unrealistic, I watch to be entertained. 

John Woo rocked. I was entertained.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Aug 13, 2020)

Buka said:


> Gun Kata, cimematically speaking....



I have legit seen gun kata in real life.   Somone has started up a shooting art based on that koryu for modern weapons.   Its quite funny to see.  (i dont remmber the word for it)  I never understood some of the movements for that koryu as well (relating to the matchlocks)


----------



## wab25 (Aug 13, 2020)

When you learn to play a musical instrument, like a guitar, you start by learning the notes, one string at a time. You are given exercises to practice. These help you learn where the notes are, how to play the notes and how to read the notes. Eventually you start to learn and practice songs like Red River Valley and Ode to Joy. You get to practice scales. You get to learn other songs, that are picked specifically to teach you things like timing or additional notes or a new technique in playing.

Everyone expects that at some point, you will move on to play music outside the method book. Once you have learned the method, you can go into classical music, Jazz, Rock, Country, Bluegrass... whatever. You will even move on to songs not included in your method book. You will probably use completely different arrangements of the songs that you once learned in your method book. You will even make up your own arrangements of songs...

This is expected growth and development for a musical instrument. The expectation of the method, and all its exercises is to teach you what the notes are, how to play the notes and read the notes. But, these exercises also teach you how the notes are related, the theory of music and how they all work together. The idea is to create a repeatable process to introduce people to music, so that they can play and arrange and even compose their own music. The expectation is that you go way beyond the method book and its exercises. 

Kata (specifically Japanese Kata) is designed the same way. It is to teach you the basics, and introduce you to the theory and how things works together. The idea is for you to eventually understand enough to make changes, to play around with it creating your own arrangements. Eventually, even composing your own. Kata is basically the method exercises used to teach beginners an art, just like you would teach a person to play an instrument. The expectation is that you learn the basics first, understand the theory and then start adapting and changing. You are expected to go beyond.

The problem is that too many people missed that for years. They treat the kata as the dictionary and definition of their art... if its not in the kata, its not in the art. They missed the part about going beyond. They did not understand Shu-Ha-Ri. Shu is the first step, copy exactly... play your scales, play Red River Valley exactly as written in your book. This is where many people stopped. They then put on the fancy pajamas and belt, called themselves Master, Soke, Sensei... and did not allow questions. This is it... scales, Red River Valley and Ode to Joy. Now, we have people that tell you that you cannot play Saints Go Marching In on your guitar, because "my master taught Red River Valley." No, you can't play that scale there or strum that chord, the book says play the note. We have been conditioned to look at the fancy pajamas and belt, and associate a ton of authority and knowledge... to people who do not even understand that what they are teaching is supposed to be changed and adapted. It is supposed to open doors, not close them.

I took the other route to learn guitar. I wanted to play Unforgiven by Metallica. It took me longer to be able to play that song, than it took me to earn a black belt, and start teaching... Sure, I can play a couple of other songs as well. I simply learned to read tabs, got the music for the song I wanted and brute forced my way through. The problem is that I can't play with other musicians, I can't make my own arrangements... as I ended up being able to play a few songs, but have no understanding of music and how it works. To learn a new song, takes me a year or more... because I took the shortcut, and skipped the method.

Yes, there are many methods... many different ways to learn something. However, Shu-Ha-Ri is being judged by many, as being less effective... because it too many of the people who practice part of it... do not realize that they are only practicing part of it. They are stuck under their master's "authority" who is in turn stuck under their master's "authority." This "authority" is what makes the kata stiff and unfluid and useless. This "authority" has been so effective, that you can go in to a random Shotokan school, and explain Funakoshi's view on what a kata is doing... and they will tell you that you have no idea what you are talking about. When you show them, that it is Funakoshi's own words, about that exact movement, in that kata... they look sheepish, then admit that it could possibly be looked at that way in specific circumstances, but its not generally accepted.... (for those who don't know, Funakoshi was the creator and founder of Shotokan... he might have an idea on what he was trying to teach with the kata that he included)

I submit that if you take only one part, of any training method... and then not only ignore, but prevent people from doing any of the other parts of that training method, you will get bad results. Especially when you start linking "authority" to it. Kata is not good or bad. It is part of a much larger method for teaching people, in a repeatable fashion. We just keep using it wrong. 

There are places that do understand it, and are using it correctly... These are places to train, if you can find them. When kata is used correctly, it can produce very good results.


----------



## Steve (Aug 13, 2020)

wab25 said:


> When you learn to play a musical instrument, like a guitar, you start by learning the notes, one string at a time. You are given exercises to practice. These help you learn where the notes are, how to play the notes and how to read the notes. Eventually you start to learn and practice songs like Red River Valley and Ode to Joy. You get to practice scales. You get to learn other songs, that are picked specifically to teach you things like timing or additional notes or a new technique in playing.
> 
> Everyone expects that at some point, you will move on to play music outside the method book. Once you have learned the method, you can go into classical music, Jazz, Rock, Country, Bluegrass... whatever. You will even move on to songs not included in your method book. You will probably use completely different arrangements of the songs that you once learned in your method book. You will even make up your own arrangements of songs...
> 
> ...


Really interesting post, and I like the analogy.  But it raises a couple of questions.  In Shotokan Karate, if kata is the corollary to exercises in a method book, then what in Shotokan Karate correlates to playing music?  

Second question is, just to clarify, are you saying that kata and shadowboxing are the same thing because they're both exercises in the method book?


----------



## _Simon_ (Aug 13, 2020)

wab25 said:


> When you learn to play a musical instrument, like a guitar, you start by learning the notes, one string at a time. You are given exercises to practice. These help you learn where the notes are, how to play the notes and how to read the notes. Eventually you start to learn and practice songs like Red River Valley and Ode to Joy. You get to practice scales. You get to learn other songs, that are picked specifically to teach you things like timing or additional notes or a new technique in playing.
> 
> Everyone expects that at some point, you will move on to play music outside the method book. Once you have learned the method, you can go into classical music, Jazz, Rock, Country, Bluegrass... whatever. You will even move on to songs not included in your method book. You will probably use completely different arrangements of the songs that you once learned in your method book. You will even make up your own arrangements of songs...
> 
> ...


Great post


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 13, 2020)

Buka said:


> I really love movies, even some outrageous ones. If it's an action movie, especially ones featuring some sort of Martial whatever, I don't care if it's unrealistic, I watch to be entertained.
> 
> John Woo rocked. I was entertained.


Check out _The_ _Warrior’s_ _Way_.  It is highly highly entertaining.  Kung-fu/ninja flick meets cowboy western meets broken down carnival in the desert, done like a graphic novel.  one of the best I’ve seen in a long time.


----------



## Steve (Aug 13, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> Check out _The_ _Warrior’s_ _Way_.  It is highly highly entertaining.  Kung-fu/ninja flick meets cowboy western meets broken down carnival in the desert, done like a graphic novel.  one of the best I’ve seen in a long time.


That is one weird *** movie, and very enjoyable!  It's available on Netflix, if you subscribe.


----------



## wab25 (Aug 13, 2020)

Steve said:


> Really interesting post, and I like the analogy. But it raises a couple of questions. In Shotokan Karate, if kata is the corollary to exercises in a method book, then what in Shotokan Karate correlates to playing music?


The simple answer is playing music equates to fighting. These are martial arts. This is where MMA and traditional martial arts differ. MMA, and boxing and wrestling... the "fighting" is defined similarly for everyone in the class. It is the competition that they are training for. In traditional martial arts classes... you will have people training for competitions, self defense, law enforcement application and military type application. These are all valid, but different types of fighting. 



Steve said:


> Second question is, just to clarify, are you saying that kata and shadowboxing are the same thing because they're both exercises in the method book?


I was not saying that they were the same or different. They are different tools. They are different. They are both exercises of a method of training and teaching. They are the same. Its really not important. What is important is that you find the place to train that uses the method that works best for you and has the same goals as you. Find a place that understands the whole training method. And don't rule out schools the use a specific exercise, just because they use that exercise. Any exercise can be used incorrectly and most can be used correctly. Whats most important is that you enjoy / like the way you train and that whatever method is used for training, the instructors fully understand that method... thus allowing the students to grow.


----------



## Buka (Aug 13, 2020)

Steve said:


> That is one weird *** movie, and very enjoyable!  It's available on Netflix, if you subscribe.



I was going to try to get through the day without spending any money whatsoever. Then I watched that trailer and said to myself, "that looks like a whole lot fun" and immediately went to Amazon.


----------



## Steve (Aug 13, 2020)

wab25 said:


> The simple answer is playing music equates to fighting. These are martial arts. This is where MMA and traditional martial arts differ. MMA, and boxing and wrestling... the "fighting" is defined similarly for everyone in the class. It is the competition that they are training for. In traditional martial arts classes... you will have people training for competitions, self defense, law enforcement application and military type application. These are all valid, but different types of fighting.


Alright. So, fighting is the corollary to playing the songs.  What would you think about a person who plays scales and such over and over, but never plays a song?  Or maybe they play songs, but only use three notes.  Is this person a musician?  If so, are they competent?  An expert?  Qualified to teach others?  

Is a cop who never gets into a fight an expert fighter just by virtue of being both a cop and a black belt in an MA?  What about a person who has never been a cop, or a soldier, or a bouncer, or a competitor?  As you note in the music analogy, training for something isn't the same as performing that thing.  Training for music isn't the same as playing a song, and training to fight isn't the same as fighting.  FWIW, I agree with you completely.   

And hopefully we can also agree that someone who does a thing will always be more skilled than someone who has never done that thing, and someone who does something frequently is going to be more skilled than someone who does that same thing infrequently.  Seems like common sense to me.  So, why do some folks believe that a person who has never been in a fight can be an expert fighter? 

I also really like your point about context.  I agree completely that law enforcement, soldiering, bouncing, competition, etc, are all perfectly good examples of various contexts for fighting.  But, as you say, if you take the songs out of playing an instrument, it's no longer music.  It might be described as "musical," but the application of the skills is missing.  So, if you practice playing an electric guitar, it may approximate rock and roll music and make rock and roll-like sounds, but it's not rock music, because (by definition) it's not music at all.  


> I was not saying that they were the same or different. They are different tools. They are different. They are both exercises of a method of training and teaching. They are the same. Its really not important. What is important is that you find the place to train that uses the method that works best for you and has the same goals as you. Find a place that understands the whole training method. And don't rule out schools the use a specific exercise, just because they use that exercise. Any exercise can be used incorrectly and most can be used correctly. Whats most important is that you enjoy / like the way you train and that whatever method is used for training, the instructors fully understand that method... thus allowing the students to grow.


I agree.


----------



## Buka (Aug 13, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> Check out _The_ _Warrior’s_ _Way_.  It is highly highly entertaining.  Kung-fu/ninja flick meets cowboy western meets broken down carnival in the desert, done like a graphic novel.  one of the best I’ve seen in a long time.



I just bought the dvd. Thanks, man.


----------



## wab25 (Aug 13, 2020)

Steve said:


> Alright. So, fighting is the corollary to playing the songs. What would you think about a person who plays scales and such over and over, but never plays a song? Or maybe they play songs, but only use three notes. Is this person a musician? If so, are they competent? An expert? Qualified to teach others?


Teddy Atlas never fought a pro boxing match. He had a few amateur matches. However, he has taught and trained a few World Champion boxers... and is an excellent boxing coach.

Being a fighter is different than being a martial artist. Being a martial artist would mean understanding the full training method and training in that method. But, as you say, being in a "real fight" is very different. Hence the difference in a martial artist and a fighter. One is not necessarily the other. You can be one, or the other or both. But, you should be honest about what you are... especially if you teach. But you should be pretty honest with yourself as well about that...


----------



## Steve (Aug 13, 2020)

wab25 said:


> Teddy Atlas never fought a pro boxing match. He had a few amateur matches. However, he has taught and trained a few World Champion boxers... and is an excellent boxing coach.


I'm not talking about pro.  Not every competent musician has a record deal.  But they've all plays songs... probably a lot of them.  Teddy Atlas never fought a pro boxing match.  But did he box?





> Being a fighter is different than being a martial artist.


Sure, but we're not talking about being a martial artist. We're talking about fighting skill as product of martial training.  As you said, fighting is the corollary to playing a song.  

And once again, I agree with you.  There are some styles where you fight... a lot.  MMA, boxing, muay thai, kyokushin karate, sambo, wrestling, TKD.  You train and then you fight.

But what we're recognizing now is that not all martial artists fight.  So, maybe there isn't an intrinsic relationship between martial arts and fighting skill.  What you're saying above is that you can be a competent martial artist and never fight another person.  You learn a system, become proficient in a system, and then teach the system without ever fighting another person.  That's actually not a problem.   

Is a person who has studied a koryu art for 30 years but never been in a fight qualified to teach that system?  Sure.  Why wouldn't he be?  But is he qualified to teach someone how to fight?  I would say most certainly not, any more than a person who has never played a song is competent to teach someone how to play music.

And if you think about it in this context, the following makes perfect sense:





> Being a martial artist would mean understanding the full training method and training in that method. But, as you say, being in a "real fight" is very different. Hence the difference in a martial artist and a fighter. One is not necessarily the other. You can be one, or the other or both. But, you should be honest about what you are... especially if you teach. But you should be pretty honest with yourself as well about that...


Totally agree.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 13, 2020)

Steve said:


> Teddy Atlas never fought a pro boxing match. But did he box?


I don't know about Teddy Atlas, but to the best of my knowledge Angelo Dundee never boxed, even at the amateur level. As far as I know, he never even sparred.


----------



## Steve (Aug 13, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I don't know about Teddy Atlas, but to the best of my knowledge Angelo Dundee never boxed, even at the amateur level. As far as I know, he never even sparred.


Exception to every rule, I guess.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 13, 2020)

Honestly, I'm not sure to what degree Dundee actually taught the technical aspects of boxing. He was trainer to some great champions, but I'm pretty sure that all of them had mastered the fundamentals of the art before they came to work with him. I've read his autobiography and I don't recall any instances of him mentioning teaching specific physical technical details. I suspect his talent may have been in areas such as providing motivation, management, cornering, and strategy.


----------



## Steve (Aug 13, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Honestly, I'm not sure to what degree Dundee actually taught the technical aspects of boxing. He was trainer to some great champions, but I'm pretty sure that all of them had mastered the fundamentals of the art before they came to work with him. I've read his autobiography and I don't recall any instances of him mentioning teaching specific physical technical details. I suspect his talent may have been in areas such as providing motivation, management, cornering, and strategy.


Probably had some guys on the training team who were skilled boxers, as well.  But your point is a good one. 

In years past, we were having a similar discussion and @Tgace (IIRC) said something about how some of the shooting instructors weren't cops, but they were all excellent shooters.  To your point, Tony, a coach doesn't have to bring expertise in everything to the table.  You can enlist the help of specialists.


----------



## wab25 (Aug 13, 2020)

Steve said:


> Teddy Atlas never fought a pro boxing match. But did he box?


He had if I recall right, 30 amateur fights. Amateur fights are very different than Pro fights. Which is not a lot of fights at all. He did teach technical aspects of boxing to many boxers. 

I think over all we are in agreement here. Martial Artist does not equal good fighter. Although, they can be. The Shu-Ha-Ri method for training can produce very good fighters... if that system is used correctly. The Shu-Ha-Ri method is the Japanese system that contains kata as one aspect... its very basic beginning aspect.

If you take only kata from that system, it will be hard to produce good fighters with only that aspect. Just as it would be hard to train a good boxer, if the only aspect of boxing training you used was shadow boxing. 

If you are going to be a martial artist, find the system that you enjoy training in. Embrace the whole system, not just the pieces. Then be honest with yourself and other about what you really trained and what you are ready for or can train other people for. In this case, results do matter. 

If you are in a Shu-Ha-Ri method art, like karate, and find you cannot fight your way out of a wet paper bag... the Shu-Ha-Ri method is not to blame. Over the years, it has produced a large number of very capable fighters. It would be your application (yours, your schools, your teachers, your organizations) of that method.


----------



## Steve (Aug 13, 2020)

wab25 said:


> He had if I recall right, 30 amateur fights. Amateur fights are very different than Pro fights. Which is not a lot of fights at all. He did teach technical aspects of boxing to many boxers.


Okay.  Just to be clear, I'm not making any kind of qualitative statement at all.  I'm strictly distinguishing between fighting and not fighting.  To revisit the analogy, we can talk all day long about whether Hip Hop or Punk is good music or not.  But I think we can all agree that it IS music.  





> I think over all we are in agreement here. Martial Artist does not equal good fighter. Although, they can be. The Shu-Ha-Ri method for training can produce very good fighters... if that system is used correctly. The Shu-Ha-Ri method is the Japanese system that contains kata as one aspect... its very basic beginning aspect.


I'm unfamiliar with this style.  Do they fight?





> If you take only kata from that system, it will be hard to produce good fighters with only that aspect. Just as it would be hard to train a good boxer, if the only aspect of boxing training you used was shadow boxing.
> 
> If you are going to be a martial artist, find the system that you enjoy training in. Embrace the whole system, not just the pieces. *Then be honest with yourself and other about what you really trained and what you are ready for or can train other people for. In this case, results do matter.*


You don't know how happy you're making me right now.  Particularly the bolded part.  I'm genuinely, sincerely happy right now.





> If you are in a Shu-Ha-Ri method art, like karate, and find you cannot fight your way out of a wet paper bag... the Shu-Ha-Ri method is not to blame. Over the years, it has produced a large number of very capable fighters. It would be your application (yours, your schools, your teachers, your organizations) of that method.


Looks like I have some reading to do.


----------



## wab25 (Aug 13, 2020)

Steve said:


> I'm unfamiliar with this style. Do they fight?


Shu-Ha-Ri is not a martial art. It is a Japanese method for transmitting and art or skill. It has been used for lots of things in addition to martial arts. Its worth looking up, there are quite a few articles about it that google can find.

Shu is the first step. Here you learn kata. Kata is a sequence that is to be learned and practiced exactly. (this is the part, the only part, that many people took in the Japanese martial arts training. I suspect because, its all they got to in their training in Japan, before returning back home.) These sequences are created to teach the basics of the movement, the principles and core ideas of the art being taught.

Ha is the next stage. This is where the student needs to create variations to the kata. Let me repeat that... many folks miss this very important point. The student is encouraged by the instructor to add variation to the kata. The instructor is involved and helps the student to create and evaluate their divergences from the kata. The idea is for the student to express the same principles and ideas, in new ways, while still demonstrating an understanding for the core basics.

Ri is the final stage. In this stage,the kata is thrown away. The student now has an understanding of all the core principles and ideas and has mastered the skills. The student is now free to express those things however they want. This does not mean that they necessarily abandon doing the kata from the Shu stage. If they are to teach, they need to still do that kata. However, when they do that kata, it has much more in it. They can then create their own kata or methods of training. The idea is for them to continue onwards, using the core principles, ideas and skills to help them expand on that art as far as they wish to take it.

What we commonly see from traditional martial arts schools, where they do kata... is completely opposite. Variation is frowned on. Exploration is frowned on. Questions are frowned on. But, the full method actually follows the way music is taught very successfully.

In fact, I would say that even boxing and MMA use very similar systems, just with different names, if named at all. When a new student starts... he is taught drills and exercises to be done exactly. As they learn the skills, they start to adapt. A good coach will help the student adapt the techniques to their abilities. The student will eventually put his own drills together and combinations and find new ways to apply the what he has learned.

Saying kata sucks because kata, by itself, never produced a good fighter is both accurate and the same as saying jumping rope sucks because it, by itself, never produced a good boxer. Both of those exercises can be used to make great fighters and boxers, if used properly in conjunction with a complete system of training.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 13, 2020)

Acronym said:


> This is a discussion forum. Stick to the topic


I don’t think you understand forums. Or discussion.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 13, 2020)

Steve said:


> It's not at all the same thing. Spontaneously reacting to a coach's prompts versus a pre-arranged, highly choreographed series of movements. They're both training exercises, but that's pretty much where the comparison begins and ends.


I think they have overlap, and can be the same thing in some ways. But they are rarely used the same way, and that seems to be the bigger difference.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 13, 2020)

drop bear said:


> OP is right.
> 
> If you were going to build a case for Kata it can't be built on the effectiveness of something else.
> 
> ...


I think the comparison to shadow boxing usually comes up in response to something like “Kata is stupid. It’s a pre-set séquence, and you can’t know what will come next in a real fight. “ That is true of shadow boxing and pretty much all drills, too.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Aug 13, 2020)

wab25 said:


> Shu-Ha-Ri is not a martial art. It is a Japanese method for transmitting and art or skill. It has been used for lots of things in addition to martial arts. Its worth looking up, there are quite a few articles about it that google can find.
> 
> Shu is the first step. Here you learn kata. Kata is a sequence that is to be learned and practiced exactly. (this is the part, the only part, that many people took in the Japanese martial arts training. I suspect because, its all they got to in their training in Japan, before returning back home.) These sequences are created to teach the basics of the movement, the principles and core ideas of the art being taught.
> 
> ...


A very good summery of Shu Ha Ri.  You wrote something very important that deserves to be stressed:  Despite progressing thru the 3 stages, "This does not mean that they necessarily abandon doing the kata from the Shu stage."  It is because of mastering the Shu that it is possible to progress to Ri.  _You must *thoroughly* understand the kata, inside and out, before you can transcend it.  _At least, that's my take on it.

There is another important point re: Shu Ha Ri that was not part of your excellent post that I feel must be brought up.  That is the time frame between each of the stages.  Whether you are referring to tea, sword or karate, time is an element which must be considered.  The Oriental concept of time is different than that in the West.  What we Westerners may think is a long time in the pursuit of an art may be 10 years.  In Japan, they may view that as just an introduction and not consider a long time being any less than 30 years.

In the time when some modern Western karate dojos give out an intermediate belt (say one year), in the old style Okinawan dojos of the past, the student is just then allowed to start taking class (the previous twelve months spent cleaning the dojo and merely watching class.)  When the modern Western student is testing for their Brown belt (two to three years), the old style Okinawan student has just been considered as having proficiently learned their very first kata. 

IMO, karate's Shu stage lasts till 2nd degree black.  Ha may last till 5th or even 6th degree (if taught by an enlightened Sensei).  Only after that may one approach mastery and enter the Ri stage where the art can spontaneously flow out of them as a form a self expression, while adhering to the core elements of Shu and Ha.  

I thought it necessary to spend some time on this matter of time, since we Westerners (me included) tend to be short sighted and impatient, which I think is our cultural weakness, and wanted to be sure some readers out there don't think Shu Ha Ri is as easy as 1 - 2  - 3.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 13, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> you can’t know what will come next in a real fight. “ That is true of shadow boxing and pretty much all drills, too.


This is not always true.

One thing I'm sure is when I attack your right leg, if you step back your right leg, you will give me an opportunity to attack your left leg. If you step back your left leg again, you will give me a chance to attack your right leg again.

When you step back your right leg, I cannot attack your right leg again because it's too far away from me.

So when you do shadow boxing, you still have to following the same logic. You just can't punch anyway that you feel like. That will be dancing and not MA training.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 13, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Shadow boxing is spontaenous and fluid. Kata is a choreographed sequences of moves.


Spontaneous is not the proper term. The shadow boxing still have to follow the same logic as the combo training.

For example, in your shadow boxing, does it make sense for you to do a side kick, followed by an elbow strike? It doesn't make sense. Why? Because after your side kick, the distance will be too far for your elbow strike.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 13, 2020)

wab25 said:


> Shu-Ha-Ri is not a martial art. It is a Japanese method for transmitting and art or skill. It has been used for lots of things in addition to martial arts. Its worth looking up, there are quite a few articles about it that google can find.
> 
> Shu is the first step. Here you learn kata. Kata is a sequence that is to be learned and practiced exactly. (this is the part, the only part, that many people took in the Japanese martial arts training. I suspect because, its all they got to in their training in Japan, before returning back home.) These sequences are created to teach the basics of the movement, the principles and core ideas of the art being taught.
> 
> ...


I'd heard a few references to Shu-Ha-Ri before, but never a good, concise explanation. I'm curious - is the progression traditionally linear (stay in Shu for a while, then progress to Ha), or is it an overlapping progression (in Shu in some things, while in Ha or Ri in others, with some back-and-forth intermediate stages)? I ask because I've seen in my training exactly some of the lack of progression you refer to, and with some of my prior instructors it seems to be going backwards (they teach less progression than they used to).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 13, 2020)

isshinryuronin said:


> I thought it necessary to spend some time on this matter of time, since we Westerners (me included) tend to be short sighted and impatient, which I think is our cultural weakness, and wanted to be sure some readers out there don't think Shu Ha Ri is as easy as 1 - 2 - 3.



I'm not sure that's necessarily an accurate depiction. I suspect it's a cultural difference of progression. We - by habit and culture - expect to progress in waves. We get a little something, progress in that little something a little bit, then move on to the next related something, putting it all together as we go. That seems not to be the anticipated progression in the Asian tradition you've described here, which pairs that first something with other basic things, all held at a basic level before any of them progress.

So, while a western boxing coach might teach a jab, then some footwork, then a cross (all to some very rudimentary level), then a jab-cross combo with some footwork, then polish them all in situ....someone using the traditional Shu-Ha-Ri method would apparently focus on getting each individual piece more polished before combining them. I'm not sure the former is about impatience, but a different sequence.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 13, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is not always true.
> 
> One thing I'm sure is when I attack your right leg, if you step back your right leg, you will give me an opportunity to attack your left leg. If you step back your left leg again, you will give me a chance to attack your right leg again.
> 
> ...


You made my point right here: "_when I attack your right leg, if you_". That "if" is the uncertainty I'm talking about. There are very few points where we can have certainty about what a person will do. We can know what a given movement of theirs may make open, but even then it depends upon their balance and structure.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 13, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I think the comparison to shadow boxing usually comes up in response to something like “Kata is stupid. It’s a pre-set séquence, and you can’t know what will come next in a real fight. “ That is true of shadow boxing and pretty much all drills, too.



Shadow boxing isn't pre set though


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 13, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> That "if" is the uncertainty I'm talking about.


Will you be able to cover all cases?

If you attack my leading leg, either I step back that leg, or I don't. Can there be the 3rd case?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 13, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Shadow boxing isn't pre set though


But shadow boxing is not you punch any way that you may feel like to. You still have to follow a basic logic.

For example,

A hammer fist, upper cut combo make sense, but an upper cut, hammer fist combo doesn't make sense.

When you hit with an upper cut, your opponent may move his head back, it will be too far for you to punch him with your hammer fist.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Aug 13, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure that's necessarily an accurate depiction. I suspect it's a cultural difference of progression. We - by habit and culture - expect to progress in waves. We get a little something, progress in that little something a little bit, then move on to the next related something, putting it all together as we go. That seems not to be the anticipated progression in the Asian tradition you've described here, which pairs that first something with other basic things, all held at a basic level before any of them progress.
> 
> So, while a western boxing coach might teach a jab, then some footwork, then a cross (all to some very rudimentary level), then a jab-cross combo with some footwork, then polish them all in situ....someone using the traditional Shu-Ha-Ri method would apparently focus on getting each individual piece more polished before combining them. I'm not sure the former is about impatience, but a different sequence.



This seems to be similar to the reply you made to WAB25.  I think the progression is part linear in that some things must be learned as other things are built upon it.  But I can certainly see it being overlapping - being at one stage in some things and a more advanced stage in others.  Obviously if I practice a move for 10 years, I will be better at it than a new move I just learned a month ago.  So, we are at different stages for different things.  Not sure why you would think I meant otherwise.

In my example of black belt degrees, we are talking many years of progression.  I figure that by 2nd degree, most all the basics will have been well learned; by 5th degree, full understanding of the movements will have been pretty much attained.  I think you are looking at it one single move at a time as you referred to a jab, jab cross, jab cross & further combo.  Learning a single three move combo over a couple of months is not what reaching Ri is about.  You have hardly scratched the surface of the first stage, Shu, at this point.

With respect, this is the short sightedness (concept of time) I was referring to in my post that we Westerners are subject to.  In your boxing analogy, Ha, the second stage would not even be reached until you have some wins as a pro, or a Golden Gloves quarter-finalist.  So its not a move-by-move, month-by-month kind of thing.  Rather a full kata-by-kata and concept-by-concept and years-by-years kind of thing.  Don't get hung up on the individual trees and miss the grander forest.
.
There is no test or "aha" moment when you get to a particular stage in some facet of training.  It's more analog than digital.  Look at Shu Ha Ri as a *decades* long, layered, guided journey.  This and my first post are the best I can do to explain it.  But I'm a Westerner with that culture's orientation so may not have the skills or understanding to do any better.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 14, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Shadow boxing isn't pre set though


It can be, I suppose, but that's not the point. Even when you improv in shadow boxing, you're practicing a sequence that may not have application to someone's response. That's the point I see folks most often making when they bring up shadowboxing in a kata discussion. It's a more appropriate argument about combination drills, though.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 14, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Will you be able to cover all cases?
> 
> If you attack my leading leg, either I step back that leg, or I don't. Can there be the 3rd case?


Yes. They could lift that leg. They could drop more weight into that leg. They could counter-attack (bare minimum two more options).


Principles cover those options over time, but any given combo sequence does not, because it cannot.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 14, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> But shadow boxing is not you punch any way that you may feel like to. You still have to follow a basic logic.
> 
> For example,
> 
> ...


I don't think that's at all cotrary to his point.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 14, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> It can be, I suppose, but that's not the point. Even when you improv in shadow boxing, you're practicing a sequence that may not have application to someone's response. That's the point I see folks most often making when they bring up shadowboxing in a kata discussion. It's a more appropriate argument about combination drills, though.



Shadow boxing should have application to someones response though.


----------



## wab25 (Aug 14, 2020)

Here is an in depth article on Shu-Ha-Ri: Takamura ha Shindo Yoshin kai

Its a little lengthy, but goes into detail about each stage, and the process it takes to go through each stage.



gpseymour said:


> I'd heard a few references to Shu-Ha-Ri before, but never a good, concise explanation. I'm curious - is the progression traditionally linear (stay in Shu for a while, then progress to Ha), or is it an overlapping progression (in Shu in some things, while in Ha or Ri in others, with some back-and-forth intermediate stages)? I ask because I've seen in my training exactly some of the lack of progression you refer to, and with some of my prior instructors it seems to be going backwards (they teach less progression than they used to).



I believe the Shu-Ha-Ri process is more linear, though there is some back and forth. But, the three phases are basic phases of learning. When you learned to tie your shoe, you were taught to hold this string in this hand, and the that string in that hand. There was discussion about exactly where each string went, and how to use your fingers to manipulate it. After a while, you just tied your shoes... you were doing the exact same thing, only now you didn't think about it. Later, you started double knotting it, so that they would not come undone, or it became cool to use two different colored laces together, or you wanted to change the way they look, so you used different knots or your lace broke, and you had to improvise...

The Japanese system identifies these stages, and lays them out. But, if you learn anything, you probably went through this same sequence, whether you named the stages, or even recognized that there were stages. 

There is a lot of misunderstanding about what kata is. I think a lot of the misunderstanding comes from people not realizing that it is only the first step. When people think kata is the sum total, they start using it to limit what they can do. Instead it is a tool that should be used to expand what they can do.

The traditional Shu-Ha-Ri method may not be for everyone. Other methods of learning may work better for different people. Not everyone may have the patience required to do the traditional Shu-Ha-Ri method. However, most methods (all of the ones I am aware of) include those three stages, though the arrangement may be different. Every time I have gone to a BJJ class, they demonstrate a technique. As students, we do the basic drill, step by step exactly as shown. Then we get shown little variations and we drill those. Then resistance is added and we do the proscribed technique despite the resistance. Then we roll. Most instructors encourage the students to try applying the technique they just drilled while rolling. While this may not be as formal as Shu-Ha-Ri... those 3 stages were certainly present.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Aug 14, 2020)

wab25 said:


> Here is an in depth article on Shu-Ha-Ri: Takamura ha Shindo Yoshin kai
> Its a little lengthy, but goes into detail about each stage, and the process it takes to go through each stage.



It has been a while since I read this piece and had forgotten Takamura Sensei's name.  Glad you posted the link.  A very good article and a must, I believe, for anyone interested in understanding kata instruction and its place in the overall scheme of things. 

Reveals several concepts that have been discussed and debated here on MartialTalk, many times falling on deaf ears by those that criticize kata, not really understanding it.  This does a better job than we did in explaining it in detail and gets into the essence of Shu Ha Ri. Very eloquent.  I was tempted to refer to Shu Ha Ri as a philosophy in my posts, but having reread this article, this idea has only been reinforced. 

As I responded to Jerry's post, your ending example of going thru the 3 stages by learning a technique over the course of a single or several classes, is not true Shu Ha Ri, but a pale, abbreviated sketch that hints at its true nature - but I understand your comparison.  I know you did not equate the two as being the same (please take no offense) - Just wanted to again stress the time factor required for the true evolution from one stage to the next.  You are correct when you refer to the "patience required" to go thru the process and reap the benefits.


----------



## Buka (Aug 14, 2020)

There are different skill levels of those that shadowbox, 






And I'm pretty sure there are different levels of those that practice Kata.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 14, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Shadow boxing should have application to someones response though.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 14, 2020)

Buka said:


> There are different skill levels of those that shadowbox,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Pshaw, that's only 100x better than my shadowboxing. 200x tops. Give me another 50 years of practice and I should be able to look that good.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 14, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Pshaw, that's only 100x better than my shadowboxing. 200x tops. Give me another 50 years of practice and I should be able to look that good.


You’ll be able to move that well when you are deep into your 90s?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 14, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> You’ll be able to move that well when you are deep into your 90s?


Actually in 50 years I'll be 106. I just didn't want isshinryuronin to think I was being an impatient Westerner trying to rush things.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 14, 2020)

wab25 said:


> Here is an in depth article on Shu-Ha-Ri: Takamura ha Shindo Yoshin kai
> 
> Its a little lengthy, but goes into detail about each stage, and the process it takes to go through each stage.
> 
> ...


Interesting article by Takamatsu Sensei.  As a practitioner of a Chinese method, we place a heavy focus on our forms and we have never in my experience talked specifically about a concept akin to Shu-Ha-Ri, certainly never by name at any rate.  But it is absolutely consistent with my understanding of how one would progress in their development through the kind of training that we do.  Perhaps the concept is less clearly defined in the Chinese methods, and that may be a cultural thing.  But it is in line with what has been my own thinking on the subject for a long time.

Particularly interesting to me is the description of Ri, where it is said that one discards the kata.  I have said for a long time that our forms are a tool to teach us certain skills, and once those skills have been well learned, one could discard the forms as they have served their purpose.  And yet the continued practice of forms is always valuable for the constant honing that must be done.  That seems consistent with what had been stated about Ri.


----------



## Buka (Aug 14, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Pshaw, that's only 100x better than my shadowboxing. 200x tops. Give me another 50 years of practice and I should be able to look that good.



I hear ya, brother. And that's one of his simpler shadowboxing drills.

Here, this will make you feel even worse.....






And it just goes on and on...but a fun guy to watch and study.


----------



## Buka (Aug 14, 2020)

Buka said:


> I just bought the dvd. Thanks, man.



Well so much for that. The seller contacted me, nice guy, told me he had only one copy which sold weeks ago......but Amazon keeps trying to sell it again no matter how many times he tells them.

I'll try a different seller. But, man, Amazon got too damn big for itself. It screws up a lot.


----------



## wab25 (Aug 14, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> Interesting article by Takamatsu Sensei.  As a practitioner of a Chinese method, we place a heavy focus on our forms and we have never in my experience talked specifically about a concept akin to Shu-Ha-Ri, certainly never by name at any rate.  But it is absolutely consistent with my understanding of how one would progress in their development through the kind of training that we do.  Perhaps the concept is less clearly defined in the Chinese methods, and that may be a cultural thing.  But it is in line with what has been my own thinking on the subject for a long time.
> 
> Particularly interesting to me is the description of Ri, where it is said that one discards the kata.  I have said for a long time that our forms are a tool to teach us certain skills, and once those skills have been well learned, one could discard the forms as they have served their purpose.  And yet the continued practice of forms is always valuable for the constant honing that must be done.  That seems consistent with what had been stated about Ri.



This is great information. I do not have experience with Chinese Martial Arts or the particulars about their methods of training. However, I have suspected that their forms could be used in a similar fashion. From what you say, it sounds like my suspicions were more right than wrong.


----------



## wab25 (Aug 14, 2020)

isshinryuronin said:


> As I responded to Jerry's post, your ending example of going thru the 3 stages by learning a technique over the course of a single or several classes, is not true Shu Ha Ri, but a pale, abbreviated sketch that hints at its true nature - but I understand your comparison. I know you did not equate the two as being the same (please take no offense) - Just wanted to again stress the time factor required for the true evolution from one stage to the next. You are correct when you refer to the "patience required" to go thru the process and reap the benefits.


No offense taken. You are correct that the example was not true Shu-Ha-Ri in the formal sense. Hopefully, the idea I was getting across is that the 3 stages are not unique to Japanese or kata type arts. They are 3 stages of learning that are universal. The Japanese have formalized those 3 stages into Shu-Ha-Ri, as well as formalizing the process of going through the stages and the transitions. 

You bring up time as a big feature of Shu-Ha-Ri. In my opinion (being a westerner learning this stuff as best as I can...), the most important piece that the Shu-Ha-Ri method brings is defining the responsibilities of the teacher. When the students are at different points, the role of the teacher is different. At the beginning, the teacher ensures exact correctness in the kata. Then the teacher ensures that deviations are correct, saying the same things and expressing the same ideas. Then finally, helping the student to be free of the kata. Always through this process, the teacher must understand the goal and the path, so as not to inhibit the student. The interactions of the teacher with the student are very important and lead to either growth or stagnation...


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 14, 2020)

wab25 said:


> This is great information. I do not have experience with Chinese Martial Arts or the particulars about their methods of training. However, I have suspected that their forms could be used in a similar fashion. From what you say, it sounds like my suspicions were more right than wrong.


I cannot speak for every school of course.  But for me, yes this is how I understand it.  It actually seems pretty intuitive, to be honest.  I find myself puzzled when people have a hard time grasping this concept.

I think it is difficult or impossible to define the exact boundaries of the stages.  It is just something you keep at, it takes a long time, something to constantly engage in throughout your lifetime.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 14, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Shadow boxing should have application to someones response though.


Yep.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 14, 2020)

Shadow boxing (for striking art) and solo drill (for wrestling art) are the same thing.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 14, 2020)

Buka said:


> Well so much for that. The seller contacted me, nice guy, told me he had only one copy which sold weeks ago......but Amazon keeps trying to sell it again no matter how many times he tells them.
> 
> I'll try a different seller. But, man, Amazon got too damn big for itself. It screws up a lot.


We watched it on On Demand on Xfinity.  Got something like that?


----------



## isshinryuronin (Aug 14, 2020)

wab25 said:


> No offense taken. You are correct that the example was not true Shu-Ha-Ri in the formal sense. Hopefully, the idea I was getting across is that the 3 stages are not unique to Japanese or kata type arts. They are 3 stages of learning that are universal. The Japanese have formalized those 3 stages into Shu-Ha-Ri, as well as formalizing the process of going through the stages and the transitions.
> 
> You bring up time as a big feature of Shu-Ha-Ri. In my opinion (being a westerner learning this stuff as best as I can...), the most important piece that the Shu-Ha-Ri method brings is defining the responsibilities of the teacher. When the students are at different points, the role of the teacher is different. At the beginning, the teacher ensures exact correctness in the kata. Then the teacher ensures that deviations are correct, saying the same things and expressing the same ideas. Then finally, helping the student to be free of the kata. Always through this process, the teacher must understand the goal and the path, so as not to inhibit the student. The interactions of the teacher with the student are very important and lead to either growth or stagnation...



I agree that Shu Ha Ri depends on a close relationship between teacher and student - a relationship that's hard to forge in these modern days of large classes and impersonal instruction.  The word "intimate" comes to mind regarding the teacher's sensitivity and understanding of the student's abilities and capabilities in order to guide him into the higher levels.

I did not intend to overstate time as a dominant feature (I agree the teacher is the main guiding element) but it is, I think, the feature that's most underestimated by the lay practitioner.  That is the only reason I stressed it.  Just kind of laying out the dimensions of the playing field. 

And I agree that Shu Ha Ri can be applied to many things in life, but kudos to the Japanese for laying it out as a philosophical system of learning.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 15, 2020)

isshinryuronin said:


> I agree that Shu Ha Ri depends on a close relationship between teacher and student - a relationship that's hard to forge in these modern days of large classes and impersonal instruction.  The word "intimate" comes to mind regarding the teacher's sensitivity and understanding of the student's abilities and capabilities in order to guide him into the higher levels.
> 
> I did not intend to overstate time as a dominant feature (I agree the teacher is the main guiding element) but it is, I think, the feature that's most underestimated by the lay practitioner.  That is the only reason I stressed it.  Just kind of laying out the dimensions of the playing field.
> 
> And I agree that Shu Ha Ri can be applied to many things in life, but kudos to the Japanese for laying it out as a philosophical system of learning.


I think schedule is as much an impediment to the approach as larger classes. Someone training twice a week for 60-90 minutes, I don't think the approach works as well. This was part of my earlier point about folks not necessarily being less patient. MA is available to more people than it once was, and most of those folks simply don't have it as a priority they'll commit 20+ hours a week to for years on end, so an approach that is best suited to that time commitment won't work well for them.


----------



## Buka (Aug 15, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> We watched it on On Demand on Xfinity.  Got something like that?



I do not, no. But thanks.

I'm going back online and see if I can get a used copy from another seller, though.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 15, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Yep.



So when you say

"It’s a pre-set séquence, and you can’t know what will come next in a real fight. “ That is true of shadow boxing and pretty much all drills, too."

It is not true of shadow boxing.
.
And this.

 "you improv in shadow boxing, you're practicing a sequence that may not have application to someone's response"

Is not true of what you should be doing in shadow boxing.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 15, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Is not true of what you should be doing in shadow boxing.


Is groin kick followed by a face punch considered as shadow boxing by your definition?


----------



## drop bear (Aug 15, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Is groin kick followed by a face punch considered as shadow boxing by your definition?



Not really. Depends what context.

If someone said they were doing shadow boxing and then kicked me in the groin I would be pretty upset.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 15, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Not really. Depends what context.
> 
> If someone said they were doing shadow boxing and then kicked me in the groin I would be pretty upset.


So by your definition,

shadow boxing = punches?

Why do you want to limit the term only on punch, but not on kick, lock, or throw?

If a boxer who also trains TKD, what's wrong for him to integrate his punches and kicks?


----------



## Buka (Aug 15, 2020)

We always used shadow boxing as part of the warm up for training. With music on, usually picked by the students. We threw as many kicks as punches. It was fun.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 15, 2020)

Buka said:


> We threw as many kicks as punches. It was fun.


Agree! The term "shadow boxing" should be more general as "free technique".

In Chinese wrestling, this is "shadow boxing".


----------



## drop bear (Aug 15, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> So by your definition,
> 
> shadow boxing = punches?
> 
> ...



Yeah. You can shadow box with any technique if you want.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 15, 2020)

drop bear said:


> So when you say
> 
> "It’s a pre-set séquence, and you can’t know what will come next in a real fight. “ That is true of shadow boxing and pretty much all drills, too."
> 
> ...


Since shadow boxing is performing a sequence without input form an opponent, it absolutely does have the same issue of not being able to absolutely predict. Whether the combos in one respond to a more likely sequence is a separate question - one I expect you and I have similar views on.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 16, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Since shadow boxing is performing a sequence without input form an opponent, it absolutely does have the same issue of not being able to absolutely predict. Whether the combos in one respond to a more likely sequence is a separate question - one I expect you and I have similar views on.




I don't know. These were the arguments you made against shadow boxing and Kata. Whether or not they apply to Kata. I haven't really worried about. 

But the arguments don't apply to shadow boxing. 

Nothing absolutely predicts what their oponant will do.
That is why people get punched in the face.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 16, 2020)

drop bear said:


> I don't know. These were the arguments you made against shadow boxing and Kata. Whether or not they apply to Kata. I haven't really worried about.
> 
> But the arguments don't apply to shadow boxing.
> 
> ...


So from how I read gerry's post, and I may be wrong here (Full disclosure-I only skimmed the last few pages), the argument seemed to be about visualization. Basically how with shadowboxing, you are supposed to be visualizing an attacker and responding accordingly (something I agree with), and as a result that's not a pre-set thing since you can't pre-visualize what they'll do. 

If that's right, I think kata does it, just not to the same extent. Each movement in kata is meant to first visualize an opponent, and then respond to it. The difference is that with shadowboxing, you're visualizing how the opponent will act, and react appropriately. In kata, you're informed of how the opponent will act, and how you should react to that action. Which kind of makes me think of combining padwork (where you're told x combo) with shadowboxing.


----------



## wade11 (Aug 16, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Whever I see someone dismiss katas as a waste of time, there is always someone pointing to shadow boxing. These two practises are worlds apart.
> 
> Just a few differences:
> 
> ...



I've always understood that kata, or taolu (kung fu), are meant to be a way of preserving and passing along techniques and principals. Actually practicing the applications of those ideas in practical fighting is a whole other phase of training. I hear a lot of people criticizing the forms because they don't understand this distinction. Even worse, some people do understand, but choose to pretend that distinction doesn't exist so that they can advance their own art by spreading false claims about TMA.
Then, of course, there are all the TMA schools that no longer teach applications practically thus making the false claims look legit. I'd love to go back a couple of generations and watch how TMA was taught.
And yes, shadow boxing is completely different. I use that way of practicing all the time by firing off techniques randomly and constantly changing them.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 16, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> So from how I read gerry's post, and I may be wrong here (Full disclosure-I only skimmed the last few pages), the argument seemed to be about visualization. Basically how with shadowboxing, you are supposed to be visualizing an attacker and responding accordingly (something I agree with), and as a result that's not a pre-set thing since you can't pre-visualize what they'll do.
> 
> If that's right, I think kata does it, just not to the same extent. Each movement in kata is meant to first visualize an opponent, and then respond to it. The difference is that with shadowboxing, you're visualizing how the opponent will act, and react appropriately. In kata, you're informed of how the opponent will act, and how you should react to that action. Which kind of makes me think of combining padwork (where you're told x combo) with shadowboxing.



Yeah probably.

I have never heard these arguments against either shadow boxing or Kata. And they tend not to really be a commentary on shadow boxing as I don't think shadow boxing contains elements of prearranged sequences or of not acknowledging that their is supposed to be another person involved.

In shadow boxing you really are supposed to be defending and moving in a way that if there is another person there throwing stuff at you then you would have a reasonable chance of stopping them.

Normally the arguments I hear is things like Kata looks silly and stagnant from a real time fighting perspective. So dropping in to deep stances, doing slow stop start footwork, dropping your guard or doing some sort of jazz hands movements that have no real practical application.

Which you generally won't find in shadow boxing.

So this.





Now whether or not there is an argument for these sorts of movements being beneficial for fighting has very little to do with whether or not there is an argument that shadow boxing has movement that are beneficial to fighting.

It is a very flawed comparison.


----------



## _Simon_ (Aug 16, 2020)

When I shadowbox I go full on with my shadow. It's an intense battle, but my shadow always wins somehow... *shrugs shoulders*


----------



## Acronym (Aug 16, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> So from how I read gerry's post, and I may be wrong here (Full disclosure-I only skimmed the last few pages), the argument seemed to be about visualization. Basically how with shadowboxing, you are supposed to be visualizing an attacker and responding accordingly (something I agree with), and as a result that's not a pre-set thing since you can't pre-visualize what they'll do.
> 
> If that's right, I think kata does it, just not to the same extent. Each movement in kata is meant to first visualize an opponent, and then respond to it. The difference is that with shadowboxing, you're visualizing how the opponent will act, and react appropriately. In kata, you're informed of how the opponent will act, and how you should react to that action. Which kind of makes me think of combining padwork (where you're told x combo) with shadowboxing.



That's right. Not huge fan of padwork either but at least you're hitting something.


----------



## Acronym (Aug 16, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> I am.
> 
> What is the point in coming on to deride what is a common training method?  You aren’t going to change anybody.  Preaching here won’t gain converts.  Nobody is going to suddenly see the light and stop practicing their kata, just because you came here and pointed out what you feel are kata’s shortcomings.  All that happens is it turns into an argument between those who do kata and feel it has value, and those who do not.  Nobody changes their mind about it.  We have seen this discussion here over and over and over.  You are contributing absolutely nothing new with this thread.
> 
> So find something meaningful to you, and pursue that.  And don’t worry about what others do.  That is irrelevant to you.  You don’t need validation from anyone here.  Pull on your big boy panties and make some decisions for yourself.  And move on.



I want to read their rationale.


----------



## Acronym (Aug 16, 2020)

drop bear said:


> ö
> And with all of this i will still make the case that Bunkai is where stuff becomes ineffective because it tends to work backwards.



Bunkai is even more fascinating to me. Some of the intended applications are befuddling. I've actually asked a Karateka why out of every striking technique, a hammerfist to the top of the head would make ANY sense. That's Pink Panter level fighting, but hey it's in their kata..


----------



## dvcochran (Aug 16, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Bunkai is even more fascinating to me. Some of the intended applications are befuddling. I've actually asked a Karateka why out of every striking technique, a hammerfist to the top of the head would make ANY sense. That's Pink Panter level fighting, but hey it's in their kata..


In application, it is to the back of the neck, after the person has fallen forward. 

You know what they say about the word 'assume' don't you?


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 16, 2020)

Acronym said:


> I want to read their rationale.


I’m not convinced.  But that doesn’t matter.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 16, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Bunkai is even more fascinating to me. Some of the intended applications are befuddling. I've actually asked a Karateka why out of every striking technique, a hammerfist to the top of the head would make ANY sense. That's Pink Panter level fighting, but hey it's in their kata..




And Another place where this comparison breaks down. 

Why did you throw that punch?

Oh because I do it in shadow boxing.


----------



## Acronym (Aug 16, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> In application, it is to the back of the neck, after the person has fallen forward.
> 
> You know what they say about the word 'assume' don't you?


----------



## dvcochran (Aug 16, 2020)

That is why I said "in application". I never referred to an old static photo which is clearly staged. Look at how the striker is standing; not at all in any kind of en garde position, and when do you ever catch someone in such a defensive pose?


----------



## Acronym (Aug 16, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> That is why I said "in application". I never referred to an old static photo which is clearly staged. Look at how the striker is standing; not at all in any kind of en garde position, and when do you ever catch someone in such a defensive pose?



It's from a curious section titled Bunkai in a Karate instructional


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 16, 2020)

Late to the game, read almost all the post. Got lost.  

Here's my perspectives of shadow boxing and Kata /forms.  It's the reality that I train with.   Shadow boxing can be just as useless as Kata.  I'm saying this from the perspective of having to train students how to shadow box.  But before I get into that, Shadow boxing requires sparring experience to be any good at shadow boxing.  You have to have an idea of how people punch, kick, and try to attack you.  Being in a real fight doesn't help because you most likely won't remember much after adrenaline kicked in.  You'll either remember that you won or got your but kicked.  It's a real fight, so you aren't focusing on how you are being attack.  How every sparring allows you focus on such things without getting beaten up.  Now here's what happens in my experience.

When I taught students how to shadow box doing Kung Fu, It required that they have some kind of visual reference of someone in front of them trying to kick and punch them.  If the person has never sparred against someone then it's impossible for that person to do Quality Shadow Boxing.   Shadow boxing on a "blank slate" is exactly like doing kata.  It practicing techniques outside of the context of an attacker in front of you.

When I taught sparring classes, there was always 3 or 4 types of students in sparring class.

*Student who never sparred* -  They never had the visual reference to put together a good and realistic shadow boxing drill.  Most of the combos that they did were unrealistic and not true to how a people move in general when fighting.
*Students who have a sparring reference* - These students had an easier time to with shadow boxing.  You can see where they make mistakes against their opponent because they will usually stop look frustrated and then start over to work out the problems.
*Students only there for the work out* - Sparring classes were significantly harder than normal classes.  There were rarely rest breaks more than 30 seconds.  Tired of punch, do squats.  Tired of squats, do push ups.  If one body part was resting, then it was only because we were working another body part.
*Student who didn't quite believe me and wanted to do things their own way.*  These students had sparring experience but failed to visualize.  Realistic contextual visualization is the most important part of shadow boxing. If your mind can't imagine the movement's of a person and the mechanics the shadow boxing isn't going to be any good for you.  These students had the slowest learning and you often see them do things in shadow boxing that they don't do in sparring.   For me these students are often a waste of air.  You tell them one thing and they do something totally different.   If you tell them to do the thing that they are doing, they would still do something different simply because it came out of out of your mouth.  A student only has 2 chances.  If they don't listen after the 2 correction of "get rid of your ego"  then I don't bother trying to teach them.  I let them do their own thing until they can drop their ego and actually learn.

Shadow boxing is a great tool, but there's a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it.  Do it without realistic visualization and you'll discover that it is totally useless.  Drop the ego and base it off a realistic visualization and you'll being to learn the roadmap to your fighting skill.  Just because someone does Shadow boxing doesn't mean that they will be an better fighting.  I remember when I was a kid and tried shadow boxing.  I couldn't get the visualization down (no one taught me) so I thought it was stupid and useless and at time it was.   It didn't work because I was 8 and doing it wrong.

For me do Kata without purpose and it will be useless to whatever your purpose is.  Do shadow boxing wrong and all of your combos will be garbage. 

If the purpose of Kata is this below, Then your Kata will be good.  However.  If this is your understanding of it facing an opponent then your shadow boxing will be useless. For those who don't know. This is the most dangerous way to enter this technique. So many things can go wrong here and the result is all the same when it goes wrong.  You'll end up eating that left reverse punch. If you miss the first punch then you'll get hit with 2 punches instead of 1.   The picture below is not a realistic visualization for shadow boxing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 16, 2020)

drop bear said:


> I don't know. These were the arguments you made against shadow boxing and Kata. Whether or not they apply to Kata. I haven't really worried about.
> 
> But the arguments don't apply to shadow boxing.
> 
> ...


I haven't made any arguments against either in this thread. I just pointed out what I've most often seen as the point that brought up references to shadow boxing. And, yes, the argument does apply to shadow boxing, and every other drill in existinence. The basic argument (usually made against kata and one-steps) is that you're practicing a specific progression/combo, and you can't know that's what your opponent will do next. Even if I'm just shadow boxing a jab-cross combo, the argument applies, because I'm practicing a combo, and if they - for instance - step under the jab or counter-punch, that cross probably won't be my next choice. Your reaction to it being applied to shadow boxing is rather the point, itself. That it's a sequence of moves that may or may not apply to a specific situation is not really a problem. The problem arises if too much time is spent practicing an improbable sequence that doesn't provide some other benefit.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 16, 2020)

Acronym said:


> It's from a curious section titled Bunkai in a Karate instructional


I've no knowledge at all about Karate kata, but I will point out there is much misinformation in print. Some stuff is just wrong, and that may be the case here.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 17, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I haven't made any arguments against either in this thread. I just pointed out what I've most often seen as the point that brought up references to shadow boxing. And, yes, the argument does apply to shadow boxing, and every other drill in existinence. The basic argument (usually made against kata and one-steps) is that you're practicing a specific progression/combo, and you can't know that's what your opponent will do next. Even if I'm just shadow boxing a jab-cross combo, the argument applies, because I'm practicing a combo, and if they - for instance - step under the jab or counter-punch, that cross probably won't be my next choice. Your reaction to it being applied to shadow boxing is rather the point, itself. That it's a sequence of moves that may or may not apply to a specific situation is not really a problem. The problem arises if too much time is spent practicing an improbable sequence that doesn't provide some other benefit.



You are not practicing a specific progression or combo. You are making up the combo as you go.


----------



## Acronym (Aug 17, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I've no knowledge at all about Karate kata, but I will point out there is much misinformation in print. Some stuff is just wrong, and that may be the case here.



Some argue that the applications are wrong but all that matters if the de facto situation. It is a fact that they have been passed over as these applications


----------



## Acronym (Aug 17, 2020)

Another thing is that you fight out if the same stances that you shadow box. You don't fight out of the same stances that you do kata. Whatever it is that you are trying to ingrain, it's all artificial and contextually bound to the kata practise


----------



## Graywalker (Aug 17, 2020)

Interesting topic.

I look at kata like a manual of techniques, but the sequence of movements, as related to combat, is not set in stone. They are away to remember techniques, and they can be practiced in a manner of 'shadow boxing' if one desires. 

I think one of the issues, is that some believe that shadow work, is exclusive to boxing. 

I do agree with the a posters statement that, it is better to have some idea or experience in sparring, to have an effective training session in shadow boxing.

Kata are patterns, grouped together, and we should understand, that books, video and other things we take for granted today, didn't exist in the past.

Regardless, we all learn patterns while learning various strikes.

Another mistake I see, is some believe that, when engaging in combat, you will use Kata...that just simply shows ignorance of kata and its use. 

Shadow boxing, is form individualized and no two people are going to be alike in their delivery. Kata being simply a manual, in my opinion, is a set sequence of movements, with not just techniques, but how to move your feet through stance changes to escape.

Boxing, as a sport, is not looking to haul butt out of the ring. Neither is sport karate, hence why in the 80's applications were largely ignored for sparring competition.

Enter, counter, close and haul butt outta there, is a principle of non sport karate. Kata helps to teach this, I believe.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 17, 2020)

drop bear said:


> You are not practicing a specific progression or combo. You are making up the combo as you go.


I agree you can be making up as you go. That doesn't contradict what I said. You're trying really hard to argue, but I'm not quite sure about what.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 17, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Some argue that the applications are wrong but all that matters if the de facto situation. It is a fact that they have been passed over as these applications


I think you mean "passed along". And in some cases, that might be true. Doesn't make them the original applications, nor even the right interpretation of the intended movements. The point: you're making claims about something as if it were universally so. Some here are telling you that's not a correct interpretation - that someone claimed so in a book doesn't make it correct or universal. If I teach a technique incorrectly, that doesn't make the technique incorrect.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 17, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Another thing is that you fight out if the same stances that you shadow box. You don't fight out of the same stances that you do kata. Whatever it is that you are trying to ingrain, it's all artificial and contextually bound to the kata practise


This appears to be the case in the Karate kata I've seen. I suspect the stances used have a secondary purpose (developing specific muscles, working on balance, forcing the use of specific mechanics, etc.). Whether that works or not is a matter of some debate.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 17, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I agree you can be making up as you go. That doesn't contradict what I said. You're trying really hard to argue, but I'm not quite sure about what.



It directly contradicts what you are saying.

 "You're practicing a specific progression/combo,"

No. You are not. You are making it up as you go. Especially unlike Kata. In that you are not making it up as you go. 

If I decide to throw out a cart wheel in the middle of shadow boxing I can. 

 "and you can't know that's what your opponent will do next."

Also no.

You are reacting to an imaginary oponant as you are making it up as you go. As if you had a real oponant there. Contradictory to Kata that presets the oponants movements.


"You're trying really hard to argue,"

And no again as these contradictions are pretty easily evident.

The point is so far the comparison between Kata and shadow boxing as an argument to support Kata. Is not a very good one.

As the points you made against Kata. Are not really able to be made against shadow boxing.


----------



## Graywalker (Aug 17, 2020)

drop bear said:


> You are reacting to an imaginary oponant as you are making it up as you go. As if you had a real oponant there. Contradictory to Kata that presets the oponants movements.


Imagining an opponent attacking you, is a pre-set thought, in shadow boxing by the individual, using their own imagination.
In a set pattern, planned by the individual...pre arranged.

I think the difference is, one original to individual thought, the other based on what is believed to have been a tested progression of techniques.

Maybe I am confused by your statement and possibly reading to much into it.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 17, 2020)

Acronym said:


> You don't fight out of the same stances that you do kata.



We do.  but I can only speak to my own experience.



> Whatever it is that you are trying to ingrain, it's all artificial and contextually bound to the kata practise


This is not true.  Again, I can only speak to my own experience.


----------



## punisher73 (Aug 18, 2020)

The word "kata" would roughly translate "form" or a way of doing things.  

But, katas don't have to be long set of movements like most people imagine. For example, Judo uses kata in its training methods as well in certain two partner drills.  Kendo uses kata with its two partner drills.  All kata is, after removing our "mystical baggage" that people have attached to it, are pre-arranged movements.

So, if you are boxing and throwing out a predetermined set of movements then you are doing "kata" (for example, jab,cross, hook, short right).  If you are just "making it up" as you react to your imaginary opponent, then you are shadow boxing.  If you are going through your set of karate moves in a predetermined pattern, then you are doing "kata".  If you are using your kata as a template and then playing around with what-ifs of what the attacker may or may not be doing and you are changing things up, then you are "shadow boxing".

Kata is a predetermined set of movements
Shadow Boxing is not a predetermined set of movements.

All martial methods use both methods in their training, but the emphasis is different in each art as to the importance of their "kata".


----------



## Acronym (Aug 18, 2020)

Graywalker said:


> Enter, counter, close and haul butt outta there, is a principle of non sport karate. Kata helps to teach this, I believe.



Huh? Sounds exactly like the principle of Point Karate. Regardless you don't use the same footwork in Kata


----------



## Acronym (Aug 18, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> We do.  but I can only speak to my own experience.
> 
> 
> This is not true.  Again, I can only speak to my own experience.



Why do you assume that I know what art(s)you practise? Kata is operationally defined in this thread as patterns passed on from Okinawa Karate.


----------



## Acronym (Aug 18, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I think you mean "passed along". And in some cases, that might be true. Doesn't make them the original applications, nor even the right interpretation of the intended movements. The point: you're making claims about something as if it were universally so. Some here are telling you that's not a correct interpretation - that someone claimed so in a book doesn't make it correct or universal. If I teach a technique incorrectly, that doesn't make the technique incorrect.



I meant passed on. Even if there were more sensible applications, you don't learn footwork for fighting in Karate Katas, which once again makes it an isolated excercise instead of a subset of a coherent, uniform system.


----------



## Acronym (Aug 18, 2020)

punisher73 said:


> All martial methods use both methods in their training, but the emphasis is different in each art as to the importance of their "kata".



Not they don't since I don't change stances depending on whether I shadow box or spar in boxing, but do so in Karate, TaeKwondo, etc. Hence why they cannot be equivalent.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 18, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Another thing is that you fight out if the same stances that you shadow box. You don't fight out of the same stances that you do kata


I can't speak for other systems but with the system I train I fight out of the same stances that I use in  my forms.  For me, I use a variety of stances.  I just don't restrict myself to only using stances from the forms.  Some systems exaggerate their stances by going super low or super wide.  I like to keep things within a functional range.  I can take a low stance, it's just not a super low stance. 

This is about as low as I get because this is how low I need to be to defend against certain attempts and attacks.  The only reason I'm this low is because my training partner is short.  There is no need to be this low with one of the tall guys in the background. 





The thing with kata /form, is that depending on how you train it, you'll only be in that stance for a quick second before you get into your next technique.  The dramatic pauses that we see are usually for show during forms competition.  Other pauses allow you to reclaim yourself to either catch your breath or refocus.

Here you can see a variety of basic stances shown





We can see similar transitions between stances in the kata here. 





The faster you move your feet, the closer your kata footwork gets to fighting.  Add an unpredictable opponent and your footwork will move in and out of stances.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 18, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Why do you assume that I know what art(s)you practise? Kata is operationally defined in this thread as patterns passed on from Okinawa Karate.


I practice a Chinese method.  Okinawan methods were heavily influenced by Chinese methods.

Meh.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Aug 18, 2020)

punisher73 said:


> The word "kata" would roughly translate "form" or a way of doing things.
> 
> But, katas don't have to be long set of movements like most people imagine. For example, Judo uses kata in its training methods as well in certain two partner drills.  Kendo uses kata with its two partner drills.  All kata is, after removing our "mystical baggage" that people have attached to it, are pre-arranged movements.
> 
> ...



I am in agreement with your conclusions / definition of kata and shadow boxing - kata is defined and shadow boxing more freestyle.  I think this describes the two well enough for most purposes.  Karate uses both - it's not one or the other.  For me, working out on the heavy bag, throwing techniques as I see the bag as an active opponent is just like shadow boxing in front of a mirror, just more tiring.  I think it's main purpose is cardio exercise and drilling combos.  While kata has that as well, its main purpose is to pass on the techniques of the style and perfect form.  Kata and shadow boxing are complementary training methods, not mutually exclusive.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Aug 18, 2020)

Acronym said:


> I meant passed on. Even if there were more sensible applications, you don't learn footwork for fighting in Karate Katas, which once again makes it an isolated excercise instead of a subset of a coherent, uniform system.



I would say the footwork-Kata statement has some truth to it - on the surface.  Most katas are stylized, with dramatic static ending positions good for some competitions.  It's like looking at every fourth frame in a film.  What is often missed is what's happening in those missing three frames.  It is those frames that contain the meaning of that last static position.

Take a basic "low block" for example.  In kata, often the movement freezes there, where the arm would strike a middle/low front kick or punch (the 4th frame).  But now look at the 3 missing frames of our film:  There you might find an inside block along the way, a grab before the "blocking" move, allowing you to whip the opponent's arm down thus breaking his balance and creating openings.  This last point may lead to that final "block" actually being a strike (as it usually is in Okinawan karate.)

The kata stances you refer to are similar.  There is stuff going on between and during the stances (actually or potentially) that are not readily seen.  The path the foot takes during the step and the bend of the knee at the end.  These elements position one to immobilize the opponent's lead leg, break his stance and set up a takedown, for example.  I would definitely call this "footwork for fighting."

You are correct that most kata do not teach the type of things I've mentioned here.  In some cases these things were purposely left out, in others, they were just lost over the years.  Kata was originally designed to be taught personally from master to student.  There was no writing or video.  Knowledge was passed on by oral tradition.  This is where those missing 3 frames of the film were explained.

It was explained that kata is a template that once well understood, can and should be deviated from in combat.  Those deep stances should be shortened up a bit, those steps straight ahead should be angled off to the side, the stepping leg should strike the opponent's knee before setting down, or act as a check for a kick.  So you can't judge a continuous movement by just looking at one frame of a film.  You need to see the missing three that reveal the meaning.  Sometimes even then, you can't "see" what is there.  That's why a well-versed quality instructor, is needed to be sought out that knows how to read between the lines and pass on oral tradition.


----------



## Acronym (Aug 18, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> I practice a Chinese method.  Okinawan methods were heavily influenced by Chinese methods.
> 
> Meh.



There was a side by side of katas on Youtube a few years ago and it looked very different from todays Karate


----------



## Graywalker (Aug 18, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Huh? Sounds exactly like the principle of Point Karate. Regardless you don't use the same footwork in Kata


Yes, you do. Not in sport Karate no. But, yes you do, I have and have used them successfully.

As for the point comment, you are speaking of sport. But, in actual karate the objective is to put them down hard to the ground. That is the true purpose of 
In the principle of "enter, counter and close" the close part, means slamming them to the ground or into a brick wall.

Curious, what Karate do you train in or have trained in?


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 18, 2020)

Acronym said:


> There was a side by side of katas on Youtube a few years ago and it looked very different from todays Karate


That may be true, and I never claimed it was identical.  In fact, I believe it is unlikely that my particular method had any direct influence on Okinawan Karate.  But Chinese methods often rely heavily on forms as a training and transmission method.  In English we call them forms but Mandarin I believe the term is “taolu”. That is the Chinese version of what Karate calls “kata”.

You might notice that in my previous post I said I can only comment to my own experience.  

There is a lesson in that for you:  When you are tempted to say “Karate is...” or “kata is...” well, don’t.  You have only your own experiences.  You do not know what everyone else is doing.  You can only say “in my experience Karate/kata is...”

Find something that does not use kata.  It is clear you don’t like kata.  So don’t do it.  There are plenty of other ways.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 18, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> The only reason I'm this low is because my training partner is short.
> View attachment 23067


I sparred against a tall guy with this kind of low stance before. After that sparring, he refused to spar with me again. When I asked him why, he told me that my low stance made all his favor high kicks meaningless.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 18, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> That may be true, and I never claimed it was identical.  In fact, I believe it is unlikely that my particular method had any direct influence on Okinawan Karate.  But Chinese methods often rely heavily on forms as a training and transmission method.  In English we call them forms but Mandarin I believe the term is “taolu”. That is the Chinese version of what Karate calls “kata”.
> 
> You might notice that in my previous post I said I can only comment to my own experience.
> 
> ...



Yeah but then you have to qualify your method or your statement doesn't really count. 

I mean it is all well and good to say you have this method. But we don't know if the method works in any appreciable way.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 18, 2020)

Graywalker said:


> Imagining an opponent attacking you, is a pre-set thought, in shadow boxing by the individual, using their own imagination.
> In a set pattern, planned by the individual...pre arranged.
> 
> I think the difference is, one original to individual thought, the other based on what is believed to have been a tested progression of techniques.
> ...



At some point you are going to think before you act making fighting, or any action a pre set thought.

But it is not comparable to the way in which Kata is pre set.


----------



## Steve (Aug 18, 2020)

Graywalker said:


> Yes, you do. Not in sport Karate no. But, yes you do, I have and have used them successfully.
> 
> As for the point comment, you are speaking of sport. But, in actual karate the objective is to put them down hard to the ground. That is the true purpose of
> In the principle of "enter, counter and close" the close part, means slamming them to the ground or into a brick wall.
> ...


Sport karate isn't actual karate?  Do they do kata wrong?  In all my years on this forum, this is the first time anyone that I can recall has asserted that some karate is not actual karate.


----------



## wab25 (Aug 18, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Another thing is that you fight out if the same stances that you shadow box. You don't fight out of the same stances that you do kata. Whatever it is that you are trying to ingrain, it's all artificial and contextually bound to the kata practise


Jumping rope is a useful way to train for boxing. But, you don't jump rope in the ring. You don't box in the same stance that you use to jump rope. You could train jumping rope exclusively at your boxing gym. You could even enter jump rope competitions. Those competitions take a lot of skill to win. What you would find is that jumping rope exclusively is not very good training for a boxing match. However true that may be, jumping rope will always have a place in boxing training. There is a part that jumping rope teaches you, and ways it conditions you... that when used in context with the rest of your boxing training method, is very effective.

Unfortunately, too many TMA schools got stuck on the jump roping (kata) part... and exclusively train that. Taken out of context, doing kata exclusively will make you no better of a fighter than jumping rope exclusively will. My point in bringing up the Shu-Ha-Ri method was to show that kata was literally the beginning tip of the ice burg. It is a part of a greater method and was never meant to be an exclusive form of training. TMA schools did it to themselves. 

If you want to train in a school that does kata, make sure that they understand what kata is. If kata is used to define what you can and cannot do in the art... if kata is all that they study... it might not be the place to learn to be a fighter. It would be the same as going to a boxing gym, to learn to box... where all they did was jump rope. Even if they have tons of trophies for jump roping competitions. 

If you find a school that understands kata, and uses kata in the proper place, along with the rest of the training method... they can make you into a great fighter, even using kata to do it.

At the end of the day, if kata is not your thing... train a different way. Just because some schools don't understand it and just because you don't understand it... does not mean that other people also don't understand it. There are people and schools out there that understand it, and use it very effectively.


----------



## Buka (Aug 18, 2020)

Steve said:


> Sport karate isn't actual karate?  Do they do kata wrong?  In all my years on this forum, this is the first time anyone that I can recall has asserted that some karate is not actual karate.



I don't remember running into much of it here over the years, but welcome to my world of the seventies and eighties in New England. Because we practice _American_ Karate, which obviously wasn't real and does not have Kata. And despite the fact that we all behaved like ladies and gentlemen with proper Martial dignity and protocol, we were considered heathens who had the gall to say we were actual Karateka.

Years later they all had me as a guest instructor at their schools. I'd always ask them, "You guys wan't to practice some of that make believe Karate?" They did.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 18, 2020)

drop bear said:


> It directly contradicts what you are saying.
> 
> "You're practicing a specific progression/combo,"
> 
> No. You are not. You are making it up as you go. Especially unlike Kata. In that you are not making it up as you go.


I didn't say you were practicing a pre-arranged progression/combo. Just that it's a specific one each time. If you happen to do a jab-cross-step progression, that may be a very good progression, but in any given conflict, it may not apply (the other guy's input may not lead from one to the next).



> If I decide to throw out a cart wheel in the middle of shadow boxing I can.
> 
> "and you can't know that's what your opponent will do next."
> 
> ...


Yeah. But any given opponent may not react that way. That's the point they make. Whether the movements are pre-set (coach says "shadow box fitting in this combo") or not is not relevant to the argument they make.



> "You're trying really hard to argue,"
> 
> And no again as these contradictions are pretty easily evident.
> 
> The point is so far the comparison between Kata and shadow boxing as an argument to support Kata. Is not a very good one.


I never said it was a good comparison. I simply pointed out the point folks are usually arguing when they bring up shadow boxing in that argument.



> As the points you made against Kata. Are not really able to be made against shadow boxing.


I haven't actually made any points against kata. You don't seem to get that I'm just relaying arguments, clarifying something. I've rather lost track of why I dropped in that clarification in the first place, because you went completely off the rails trying to argue with me. You seem to think I'm presenting my viewpoint in any of this, perhaps because you didn't bother to read my first post in this with any intent to understand.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Aug 18, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> Late to the game, read almost all the post. Got lost.
> 
> 
> If the purpose of Kata is this below, Then your Kata will be good.  However.  If this is your understanding of it facing an opponent then your shadow boxing will be useless. For those who don't know. This is the most dangerous way to enter this technique. So many things can go wrong here and the result is all the same when it goes wrong.  You'll end up eating that left reverse punch. If you miss the first punch then you'll get hit with 2 punches instead of 1.   The picture below is not a realistic visualization for shadow boxing.
> View attachment 23064


 
Re: the photo (which I'm not sure got included in this reply), there are 5 points to make this seemingly ridiculous position actually be effective and prevent the follow up reverse.
     1.  That stance is WAY too stretched out, making any further maneuvering close to impossible.  That rear foot has to be slid up.  Then the following are possible.
     2.  The blocking hand can grab the arm and the blocker's left foot can sweep the opponent's right, thus nullifying a quick reverse as he is off balance.
     3.  The blocker can grab the opponent's arm, immediately pull him in and off balance, thus nullifying a second attack, and set up his own reverse.
     4.  The blocker can simultaneously strike with his right hand so his block and attack are done on the same beat, again preventing a follow up attack.
     5.  The blocker can extend his left blocking arm into the opponent's eyes or throat in a continuous movement, also nullifying the opponent's chance to attack.

These methods depend on quickly breaking the opponent's balance, or hitting him on the half-beat, before any further follow up can occur.  Of course, as noted in #1, a balanced mobile stance is required.  These points are part of Okinawan karate and most (or all) can be found in kata.


----------



## Buka (Aug 18, 2020)

I've been shadow boxing for a long time, do it pretty much all the time, even now. The funny thing is I never picture an opponent when I do it, I just do it because I like to, and as a warm up. I don't think of a heavy bag as an opponent either, or focus mitts.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 18, 2020)

Buka said:


> I've been shadow boxing for a long time, do it pretty much all the time, even now. The funny thing is I never picture an opponent when I do it, I just do it because I like to, and as a warm up. I don't think of a heavy bag as an opponent either, or focus mitts.


One training that I like very much is to punch on a heavy bag as fast and as powerful as I can until I get totally exhausted (about 120 punches). If I have to fight someone, my 120 crazy punches (like a mad man) can scare him to death. 

I don't like to punch into the thin air. I prefer to punch on my heavy bag.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 18, 2020)

Acronym said:


> There was a side by side of katas on Youtube a few years ago and it looked very different from todays Karate


This is true.  With older kata and forms people were less about competition and looking good and more about function.  Same kata but trained with different purpose.  This is a fighting stance straight out of kata.  It looks very functional compared to what we see from some of today's practitioners.  Here you can see the weight distribution that Wang spoke of in an earlier post.  There are many ways that one can train kata.


----------



## Graywalker (Aug 18, 2020)

Steve said:


> Sport karate isn't actual karate?  Do they do kata wrong?  In all my years on this forum, this is the first time anyone that I can recall has asserted that some karate is not actual karate.


It is yes. Maybe a poor choice, in my wording.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 18, 2020)

Buka said:


> I've been shadow boxing for a long time, do it pretty much all the time, even now. The funny thing is I never picture an opponent when I do it, I just do it because I like to, and as a warm up. I don't think of a heavy bag as an opponent either, or focus mitts.


I was late to the game with shadow boxing, as such, but I have been "shadow grappling" for a long time. When I shadow box, I don't imagine an opponent, but I do when shadow grappling. Not sure I can explain that difference.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 18, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I was late to the game with shadow boxing, as such, but I have been "shadow grappling" for a long time. When I shadow box, I don't imagine an opponent, but I do when shadow grappling. Not sure I can explain that difference.


When I shadow box, I throw a hook punch, I can image my opponent dodges under my arm, I then change my hook punch into a back fist on top of his head. I can then image my opponent blocks my back fist. I then use an uppercut to punch under his chin. 

If my imaginary opponent is a guy, I will follow by a groin kick. If my imaginary opponent is a girl, I won't.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Aug 18, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When I shadow box, I throw a hook punch, I can image my opponent dodges under my arm, I then change my hook punch into a back fist on top of his head. I can then image my opponent blocks my back fist. I then use an uppercut to punch under his chin.
> 
> If my imaginary opponent is a guy, I will follow by a groin kick. If my imaginary opponent is a girl, I won't.



So, to an imaginary girl you have no problem hooking, backfisting and uppercutting her, but you draw the line at kicking her in the hooha?
I'm sure she would appreciate what a gentleman you are and ask you out for a drink after she recovers from her imaginary concussion.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 18, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When I shadow box, I throw a hook punch, I can image my opponent dodges under my arm, I then change my hook punch into a back fist on top of his head. I can then image my opponent blocks my back fist. I then use an uppercut to punch under his chin.
> 
> If my imaginary opponent is a guy, I will follow by a groin kick. If my imaginary opponent is a girl, I won't.


I think it's important to visualize because then you can start building the skill of guiding your opponent where you want them to be for the next strike.  If I can my my opponent back up with a jab then I can use that to my advantage.  I already know how he or she may respond which makes it easier to know what the follow up action should be.  
If my opponent wants me to throw a punch for them to go under to take me down,  Then I know I have something to bait him with.  If I roundhouse my opponent then I know that there are a few things he may do. 
1. Move back
2. Cover up
3. Catch my leg
4. Leg block me.
5 Rush forward.

It's very limited so all I need to know is which type of round house kicks trigger the reaction.  If I can figure that out then I can throw a round house that's looks high enough to catch but in reality is too low to try.  Then maybe my opponent will chase my leg and will leave himself open.   knowing which way a body may move is also important as well, but all of this is high level stuff. Most people don't think beyond the first punch.


----------



## Graywalker (Aug 19, 2020)

drop bear said:


> At some point you are going to think before you act making fighting, or any action a pre set thought.
> 
> But it is not comparable to the way in which Kata is pre set.


The pre set is the difference yes. But, in both you imagine an opponent.

But I don't think it really matters. Both can be beneficial to training, in my personal experience.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 19, 2020)

Graywalker said:


> The pre set is the difference yes. But, in both you imagine an opponent.
> 
> But I don't think it really matters. Both can be beneficial to training, in my personal experience.



Yeah but imaginary opponent was never brought up as an argument against.

I added that from memory.


----------



## Acronym (Aug 19, 2020)

wab25 said:


> Jumping rope is a useful way to train for boxing. But, you don't jump rope in the ring. You don't box in the same stance that you use to jump rope. You could train jumping rope exclusively at your boxing gym. You could even enter jump rope competitions. Those competitions take a lot of skill to win. What you would find is that jumping rope exclusively is not very good training for a boxing match. However true that may be, jumping rope will always have a place in boxing training. There is a part that jumping rope teaches you, and ways it conditions you... that when used in context with the rest of your boxing training method, is very effective.
> 
> Unfortunately, too many TMA schools got stuck on the jump roping (kata) part... and exclusively train that. Taken out of context, doing kata exclusively will make you no better of a fighter than jumping rope exclusively will. My point in bringing up the Shu-Ha-Ri method was to show that kata was literally the beginning tip of the ice burg. It is a part of a greater method and was never meant to be an exclusive form of training. TMA schools did it to themselves.
> 
> ...



Jumping rope is not boxing.


----------



## Acronym (Aug 19, 2020)

Sad thing is that Katas were most likely instructions for beginners, yet advance practitioners still train them as the main part of their system. Hence the lack of realism in attack and defense, because it's so basic and never meant for higher levels


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 19, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Sad thing is that Katas were most likely instructions for beginners, yet advance practitioners still train them as the main part of their system. Hence the lack of realism in attack and defense, because it's so basic and never meant for higher levels


I don't know about that.  The one thing that doesn't come to mind when I think of CMA forms is "so basic and never meant for higher levels."   I think the only reason anyone can pull off a technique from a form or a kata is because they are an advance practitioner.

If it was "so basic" then eveyone would be able to pull off the techniques in the forms or kata, and that's not the case.   Many of those who are able to pull off the techniques in a fight are also the ones who think highly of kata and the forms which is why they still practice them. 

When you think of kata and CMA forms then you have to separate those who study martial arts with the goal of being able to apply techniques and those who just want to be able to do the form and really don't care if they can use it or not.  These are 2 different practitioners.


----------



## punisher73 (Aug 19, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Not they don't since I don't change stances depending on whether I shadow box or spar in boxing, but do so in Karate, TaeKwondo, etc. Hence why they cannot be equivalent.



Your post makes no sense, I stated that they are not exactly the same thing although all martial arts use BOTH methods.  

Also, most good boxers I know change stances when shadow boxing and when sparring.  I think you need to understand the term "stance" in how it is in application.  Boxing doesn't call their transitions by different names like in karate styles, but they are doing the same thing.  Look at high/low combos, look at the simple combo of a jab/cross, but use a stance change as used in karate terms.

Just because you may label something different doesn't negate the fact that it isn't used.


----------



## punisher73 (Aug 19, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Sad thing is that Katas were most likely instructions for beginners, yet advance practitioners still train them as the main part of their system. Hence the lack of realism in attack and defense, because it's so basic and never meant for higher levels



Sad part is, you don't understand the proper training and usage of kata and are judging it from a limited perspective.

BUT, yes, there are SOME katas that were specifically created for beginners to learn basic moves.  In traditional okinawan styles you don't have this though, only the japanese ones.


----------



## Graywalker (Aug 19, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Yeah but imaginary opponent was never brought up as an argument against.
> 
> I added that from memory.


Well, probably because it wasn't necessary to bring it up, as it is one of the bases of both methods. 

The difference is, one uses pre set techniques, the other uses spur of the moment strikes. But both methods provide knowledge of an attack, before countering.


----------



## Graywalker (Aug 19, 2020)

Reading through the comments, I am not sure I even know what shadow boxing really is anymore.

Kata, is a sequence of techniques or strikes being practiced, using stance changes. Imagining an opponent, is one of the basic tools used.

But if you are shadow boxing, and not imagining an opponent, that's cool. It seems that a person is practicing strikes in combinations and that is about it, although valuable it is pretty common too every fighting art.

And in the end no its not Kata in my opinion. Its more like a method added to your training, to go over various strikes, using various attacks, like anything else you do for improving your abilities.

No, I wouldn't call shadow boxing kata, just like I wouldn't call kicks, taken from kata and then practicing various kicking combo's kata.

I guess I would call that shadow kicking.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 19, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Sad thing is that Katas were most likely instructions for beginners, yet advance practitioners still train them as the main part of their system.


For the long fist system, From training has 3 levels. It's easy to see the difference among 3 different levels of training.

You want to grow tall. You don't want to grow fat.

Beginner level:






Intermediate level:






Advance level:


----------



## Buka (Aug 19, 2020)

The reason I don’t picture people when I shadow box, do bag work or anything else is because striking people is different than striking anything else.

Strikes are thrown differently in the air, on a bag, on focus mitts, makawara etc 

The nuances are all different.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 19, 2020)

The issue of shadow "boxing" is you may forget to use your kick to set up your punch. Also since leg is longer than the arm, to use your kick to keep your opponent to be outside of your kicking range is not trained in shadow boxing.

If you learn the integration of kick, punch, lock, and throw, suddenly you forget all about kick, lock, and throw, you just work on punch. It's like a MMA guy who fights in a boxing tournament. It makes no sense to me.

1st line defense - kick.
2nd line defense - punch.
3rd line defense - clinch.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 19, 2020)

Graywalker said:


> Reading through the comments, I am not sure I even know what shadow boxing really is anymore.
> 
> Kata, is a sequence of techniques or strikes being practiced, using stance changes. Imagining an opponent, is one of the basic tools used.
> 
> ...


Interesting thoughts and it made me think about my own training.  I’ve never considered myself to be a “shadow boxer”, I guess because my image of it is within the boxing context and I’ve never been a boxer.  

But I do practice punches in combination, within the principles and methodology of my system.  My system places high value on the ability to change direction and type of punch, quickly and spontaneously.  I routinely string together series of three to 7 different punches that I will do over and over.  Which punches, and in what order, is my own choice.  It can change with every session.

So I guess I do shadow box.  And what I do is definitely not one of our forms.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 19, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> For the long fist system, From training has 3 levels. It's easy to see the difference among 3 different levels of training.
> 
> You want to grow tall. You don't want to grow fat.
> 
> ...


You beat me to it.  I was going to do the same thing.  Basic in CMA is closer to foundation building and not Basic as in easy.  Beginner's learn it because it builds the foundation that the advance techniques will stand on.   Advance user still practice the basics because they understand that it's the foundation.  It's no different in what I'm doing with my shadow boxing videos I've been posting.  Start with the basics, get good with the basics, and use the basics to build a foundation on which more advance techniques will stand on.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 19, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The issue of shadow "boxing" is you may forget to use your kick to set up your punch. Also since leg is longer than the arm, to use your kick to keep your opponent to be outside of your kicking range is not trained in shadow boxing.
> 
> If you learn the integration of kick, punch, lock, and throw, suddenly you forget all about kick, lock, and throw, you just work on punch. It's like a MMA guy who fights in a boxing tournament. It makes no sense to me.
> 
> ...


I try to factor this in my shadow boxing because I may want to use a long kick to set up a punch or use a punch to set up a kick.  I have to keep in mind things like distance and timing.  I need to make sure that I can visualize as much as possible.  My ability to do kung fu is directly tied into treating shadow boxing in this manner.   I won't get much out of it, if I just blindly punch, without purpose of function.  If I want to just punch then I'll create a conditioning drill and do 700 punches


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 19, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> Basic in CMA is closer to foundation building and not Basic as in easy.


Agree that the basic training is hard.

This is the 1st move of the 1st form in the long fist system. The requirement are to:

- stretch yourself that your back arm, body, front arm make a perfect straight line.
- be able to hold your kick in the air as long as you can.

If one can pass this training stage, he will have good body stretching and single leg balance for the rest of his life.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 19, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> I won't get much out of it, if I just blindly punch, without purpose of function.


A traffic cop can direct traffic all his life, he won't become MA person because his "intend" is missing when he directs traffic.


----------



## Buka (Aug 19, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The issue of shadow "boxing" is you may forget to use your kick to set up your punch. Also since leg is longer than the arm, to use your kick to keep your opponent to be outside of your kicking range is not trained in shadow boxing.
> 
> If you learn the integration of kick, punch, lock, and throw, suddenly you forget all about kick, lock, and throw, you just work on punch. It's like a MMA guy who fights in a boxing tournament. It makes no sense to me.
> 
> ...



Distance wise, sure, but sometimes fights start well inside kicking range.
There’s also the factor of getting into a scuffle at work, can’t really go kicking a drunken fool, no matter how much he might deserves it. Looks real bad on camera these days as well.

As for forgetting...was the “you” towards me or a “you” in general?
Because I’m a long way from forgetting things that I’ve done forever, brother. I’m sure you are, too!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 19, 2020)

Buka said:


> As for forgetting...was the “you” towards me or a “you” in general?


When I say "you", I always mean the general "YOU".


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 19, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> A traffic cop can direct traffic all his life, he won't become MA person because his "intend" is missing when he directs traffic.


Only because I think you can find anything on the Internet in some shape or form.  So I was just curious as to what would that look like


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 19, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> A traffic cop can direct traffic all his life, he won't become MA person because his "intend" is missing when he directs traffic.


I guess people getting grabbed by the shirt happens more often than I thought.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 19, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When I shadow box, I throw a hook punch, I can image my opponent dodges under my arm, I then change my hook punch into a back fist on top of his head. I can then image my opponent blocks my back fist. I then use an uppercut to punch under his chin.
> 
> If my imaginary opponent is a guy, I will follow by a groin kick. If my imaginary opponent is a girl, I won't.


That is much the way I am with “shadow grappling”.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 19, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Sad thing is that Katas were most likely instructions for beginners, yet advance practitioners still train them as the main part of their system. Hence the lack of realism in attack and defense, because it's so basic and never meant for higher levels


Basic drills are often used by advanced practitioners. They become less basic when those folks do them.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 19, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Sad thing is that *Katas were most likely instructions for beginners*, yet advance practitioners still train them as the main part of their system. Hence the lack of realism in attack and defense, because *it's so basic and never meant for higher levels*


I challenge you to support these statements. 

I think you are literally making this up.


----------



## geezer (Aug 20, 2020)

_Acronym -_ You have a very narrow opinion of what kata is, how it's practiced, and what it's benefits are. I noticed that it was only well into the discussion that you attempted to limit your discussion to kata practice in traditional Okinawan karate and not the practice of kata and forms in the broader, general martial arts context. If you truly want to so limit the discussion, you should have 1. Posted in the Karate sub-forum, and 2. Stated that in the OP. 

Not that you would have received any less blow-back. 

Now as far as forms being mere instruction for beginners, I can't see that. In the Wing Chun lineage I've trained, we continue to introduce forms at many levels over many years throughout our training. And, although long past my prime, I still find new insights from practicing and teaching our most basic form, Siu Nim Tau, or the "Little Idea". 

I will agree that forms, at least in WC are notheing like shadow boxing and have a very different function. On the other hand, the training sets in the_ escrima_ system I practice begin like kata ...each starting as a sequence of choreographed combinations performed  against visualized attacks, and then become increasingly free-form in steps, sequence and execution as you advance, ending up being essentially very much like shadow-boxing. 

Perhaps the take away here is not to make such over-generalized statements as the OP. Or at least if you do, understand that it will elicit a lot of disagreement and controversy. And maybe that's a good thing.


----------



## Acronym (Aug 20, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> I challenge you to support these statements.
> 
> I think you are literally making this up.



The reverse punch and blocking techniques are unimaginative, stiff, and dogmatic configurations that could only serve as very basic and intro to striking and blocking.  No angles, No head movement, no footwork. No even moderately advanced practitioner  atttacks or defends in the manner that is being presented. The one step and two step sparring set-ups are not even remotely realistic, yet it is trained as if it is. 

And again, the tsuki/straight punch in free sparring is thrown with dynamic footwork, often bouncy, which is in stark contrast to the flatfooted and stationary kata deliveries, with no head movement, or angles.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 20, 2020)

Acronym said:


> The reverse punch and blocking techniques are unimaginative, stiff, and dogmatic configurations that could only serve as very basic and intro to striking and blocking.  No angles, No head movement, no footwork. No even moderately advanced practitioner  atttacks or defends in the manner that is being presented. The one step and two step sparring set-ups are not even remotely realistic, yet it is trained as if it is.
> 
> And again, the tsuki/straight punch in free sparring is thrown with dynamic footwork, often bouncy, which is in stark contrast to the flatfooted and stationary kata deliveries, with no head movement, or angles.


No forms practice in my experience even remotely resembles what you describe here.  So you are wrong.

 Got any documentation you can point to in order to support your position?  Any historical documents from any founders that describe kata as intended for beginners only?  

Clearly you are making this up.

Remember what I said about making generalizations...


----------



## Acronym (Aug 20, 2020)

geezer said:


> _Acronym -_ You have a very narrow opinion of what kata is, how it's practiced, and what it's benefits are. I noticed that it was only well into the discussion that you attempted to limit your discussion to kata practice in traditional Okinawan karate and not the practice of kata and forms in the broader, general martial arts context. If you truly want to so limit the discussion, you should have 1. Posted in the Karate sub-forum, and 2. Stated that in the OP.
> 
> Not that you would have received any less blow-back.
> 
> ...



Kata is a japanese term, hence in reference to Japanese systems. I am not over-generalizing at all.


----------



## Acronym (Aug 20, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> No forms practice in my experience even remotely resembles what you describe here.  So you are wrong.
> 
> Got any documentation you can point to in order to support your position?  Any historical documents from any founders that describe kata as intended for beginners only?
> 
> ...



So you haven't done Karate then. I will not do the homework for you. You can google one step and two step-sparring and then tell me whether this looks like advanced practise. 

Itosu Anko said "advanced practitioners move freely" and that Katas are not a direct representation of fighting.


----------



## Acronym (Aug 20, 2020)

Unlike the Japanese, the Chinese realised that their method is outdated for the modern world and created Sanda, which is modern-day Chinese Kickboxing, with stand-up wrestling integrated. And Sanda has proven to be effective against trained fighters.


----------



## Acronym (Aug 20, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> No forms practice in my experience even remotely resembles what you describe here.  So you are wrong.
> 
> ...



Reference then a Karate Kata with head movement. If you even know what that means..


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 20, 2020)

Acronym said:


> So you haven't done Karate then. I will not do the homework for you. You can google one step and two step-sparring and then tell me whether this looks like advanced practise.
> 
> Itosu Anko said "advanced practitioners move freely" and that Katas are not a direct representation of fighting.


Throwing around your opinion as if it means something... does not make it mean something.

I’ll ask again:  why don’t you just find a method that doesn’t use kata?  There are plenty out there. You don’t like kata, you don’t have to do it.  In fact, nobody wants you to do it.

@Buka practices an Americanized method of karate that does not use kata.  If you are particularly interested in Karate I am  sure he could steer you in the right direction, if he is willing to suffer you.  Otherwise there are things like Muay Thai and plenty of grappling methods.  

Go find something you like.  Stop blathering about things you do not understand.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 20, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Kata is a japanese term, hence in reference to Japanese systems. I am not over-generalizing at all.


If we know your definition of "Kata" is for Karate only, CMA guys won't even participate into this discussion.

This is why I don't like to use the foreign term such as "Kata". Why not just use the term "Karate form"?


----------



## Acronym (Aug 20, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> Throwing around your opinion as if it means something... does not make it mean something.
> 
> I’ll ask again:  why don’t you just find a method that doesn’t use kata?  .



I did move on to boxing. I have not trained TMA formally for 2 years


----------



## Acronym (Aug 20, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If we know your definition of "Kata" is for Karate only, CMA guys won't even participate into this discussion.
> 
> This is why I don't like to use the foreign term such as "Kata". Why not just use the term "Karate form"?



There are Chinese Kata in Japanese systems too. Tang Soo Do has Kata directly lifted from Kung Fu and not just Shotokan.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 20, 2020)

Acronym said:


> The reverse punch and blocking techniques are unimaginative, stiff, and dogmatic configurations that could only serve as very basic and intro to striking and blocking. No angles, No head movement, no footwork.


It's not supposed to train angles and head movement.  It trains footwork in terms of foot positioning.  But that other stuff that you pointed about training angles and head movement.,  It's not supposed to do that.  If you want to use a form for this, then you'll need to take a part of that form and convert it into a partner drill.

It's like saying a plane doesn't travel on water well and it can't fly under water,  so it sucks and is useless.  But the truth is that the purpose of the plane isn't to do that.   

Kata was never meant to fit all training needs.  To my knowledge I've never heard anyone try to claim this except for people who don't understand it.   In martial arts you have Kata, solo drills, partner drills, sparring, and additional things that you do as a total package.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 20, 2020)

Acronym said:


> I did move on to boxing. I have not trained TMA formally for 2 years


So...what’s your problem then?


----------



## Acronym (Aug 20, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> It's not supposed to train angles and head movement.  It trains footwork in terms of foot positioning.  But that other stuff that you pointed about training angles and head movement.,  It's not supposed to do that.  If you want to use a form for this, then you'll need to take a part of that form and convert it into a partner drill.
> 
> It's like saying a plane doesn't travel on water well and it can't fly under water,  so it sucks and is useless.  But the truth is that the purpose of the plane isn't to do that.
> 
> Kata was never meant to fit all training needs.  To my knowledge I've never heard anyone try to claim this except for people who don't understand it.   In martial arts you have Kata, solo drills, partner drills, sparring, and additional things that you do as a total package.



If you don't use the stances when sparring, all you are doing then is performance martial arts, and that's not what they are marketed as. And I know of no TMA place that use Kata as warm-ups. It is the essential feature of their systems


----------



## Acronym (Aug 20, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> So...what’s your problem then?



Do I need to have a problem with the universe to discuss physics?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 20, 2020)

Acronym said:


> I did move on to boxing. I have not trained TMA formally for 2 years


Boxing may not separate beginner training and advance training. All TMA has at least 2 levels of training, the beginner training and the advance training. 

To say that form training is only for the beginner is not true.

For example,

beginner level - static punch (punch while feet are not moving).
advance level - dynamic punch (punch while feet are moving).

Example of dynamic punch:


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 20, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If we know your definition of "Kata" is for Karate only, CMA guys won't even participate into this discussion.
> 
> This is why I don't like to use the foreign term such as "Kata". Why not just use the term "Karate form"?


I have no qualms over participating in a thread like this.  Chinese methods played a big influencing role in the development of Okinawan methods, and many Chinese methods follow the similar practice of forms.  The perspective of the CMA crowd is definitely appropriate.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 20, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Do I need to have a problem with the universe to discuss physics?


Physics??  Oh now THAT is comedy!

You are here to whine and complain about a method that you are embittered over.  Grow up.


----------



## Acronym (Aug 20, 2020)

I have a challenge. How many people did actual combat systems - Boxing, Kickboxing, Judo, BJJ, and  TMA, and found TMA superior? They invaribly  see the light when introduced to real combat systems and we rarely hear Boxers, Kickboxers wanting their money back lol..


----------



## Headhunter (Aug 20, 2020)

Acronym said:


> I have a challenge. How many people did actual combat systems - Boxing, Kickboxing, Judo, BJJ, and  TMA, and found TMA superior? They invaribly  see the light when introduced to real combat systems and we rarely hear Boxers, Kickboxers wanting their money back lol..


Me


----------



## Acronym (Aug 20, 2020)

This forums seems to be a refugee for kung fu practitioners getting battered around in regular, non friendly forums. 99% of the USER replies seems to be Kung Fu and not Karate practitioners in here replying to a thread about kata and Japanese based systems. And users in general seems to do american martial arts and or kung fu, instead of more mainstream stuff like Karate, TaeKwondo  

What gives?


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 20, 2020)

Acronym said:


> This forums seems to be a refugee for kung fu practitioners getting battered around in regular, non friendly forums. 99% of the USER replies seems to be Kung Fu and not Karate practitioners in here replying to a thread about kata and Japanese based systems. And users in general seems to do american martial arts and or kung fu, instead of more mainstream stuff like Karate, TaeKwondo
> 
> What gives?


Once again, you are wrong.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 20, 2020)

Acronym said:


> So you haven't done Karate then. I will not do the homework for you. You can google one step and two step-sparring and then tell me whether this looks like advanced practise.
> 
> Itosu Anko said "advanced practitioners move freely" and that Katas are not a direct representation of fighting.


I looked it up and found this and I agree with everything that he says.  Especially when he talks about the purpose of it, the errors that people make, and the fact that you still have to train beyond the One step sparring in order to learn how to actual do it.  He states that it shows the student the options of attacks that they may be able to do. It follows closely to my shadow boxing function.  After A then what?  One step and two step sparring helps you to identify what may come next after a strike or a block.  By training your eyes what to look for, in a controlled exercise like this,  it makes it easier for your brain to process the options that may appear.  This also will make the brain process things faster in a real fighting has it builds familiarity of what's open.  This means you aren't trying to search for possible opens, because you are already familiar with where they might be.


----------



## Acronym (Aug 20, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> Once again, you are wrong.



Says a kung fu practitioner, with a kung fu USER name


----------



## Headhunter (Aug 20, 2020)

Acronym said:


> This forums seems to be a refugee for kung fu practitioners getting battered around in regular, non friendly forums. 99% of the USER replies seems to be Kung Fu and not Karate practitioners in here replying to a thread about kata and Japanese based systems. And users in general seems to do american martial arts and or kung fu, instead of more mainstream stuff like Karate, TaeKwondo
> 
> What gives?


Wrong yet again


----------



## Acronym (Aug 20, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> I looked it up and found this and I agree with everything that he says.  Especially when he talks about the purpose of it, the errors that people make, and the fact that you still have to train beyond the One step sparring in order to learn how to actual do it.  He states that it shows the student the options of attacks that they may be able to do. It follows closely to my shadow boxing function.  After A then what?  One step and two step sparring helps you to identify what may come next after a strike or a block.  By training your eyes what to look for, in a controlled exercise like this,  it makes it easier for your brain to process the options that may appear.  This also will make the brain process things faster in a real fighting has it builds familiarity of what's open.  This means you aren't trying to search for possible opens, because you are already familiar with where they might be.



So get rid of the middle man and throw the katas out of there! It's amazing, the lengths they go to justify keeping these old relics.


----------



## Headhunter (Aug 20, 2020)

Acronym said:


> So get rid of the middle man and throw the katas out of there! It's amazing, the lengths they go to justify keeping these old relics.


Why should they? You think you can do better go make your own style and tell us how you get on grandmaster


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 20, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> The perspective of the CMA crowd is definitely appropriate.


I'm not saying that we are know-it-alls but CMA practitioners go over hundreds of movements so it's easier to for us to see similarities in other systems.  Just from the fact. It's not unusual for a CMA beginner form to have more than 100 movements and more than 10 techniques.  Before you even get to the middle section of the form.  In my Jow Ga beginner form the first 6 sections has more than 20 unique techniques.  There's about 24 sections all together.

Things like that are not unique to Jow Ga.  We can look at Tai Chi and see the same thing. It doesn't make us experts in someone else's system, but we often have a familiarity that makes it easier for use to grasp concepts and techniques from other systems.

But one would have to Train in Martial arts to actually see how much is going on.  Kung fu has even been criticized for doing too much.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 20, 2020)

Acronym said:


> So get rid of the middle man and throw the katas out of there! It's amazing, the lengths they go to justify keeping these old relics.


  The kata's still have value, just not in the way that you keep trying to apply value to it.


----------



## geezer (Aug 20, 2020)

Acronym said:


> There are Chinese Kata in *Japanese* systems too. Tang Soo Do has Kata directly lifted from Kung Fu and not just Shotokan.



Tang Soo Do is *Korean* with Chinese influence. (Tang Soo = China Hand). For somebody trying to limit the discussion strictly to kata in _Okinawan_ karate, you seem to be, literally, all over the place ... Okinawa, Japan, Korea...

So what are you really on about? If you don't think formal kata (or forms) is an efficient training method for fighting, that's a fair position and a lot of folks might agree. Others might not. But you seem to be more interested in just being contrary.

...or am I missing something?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 20, 2020)

Acronym said:


> I have a challenge. How many people did actual combat systems - Boxing, Kickboxing, Judo, BJJ, and  TMA, and found TMA superior? They invaribly  see the light when introduced to real combat systems and we rarely hear Boxers, Kickboxers wanting their money back lol..


The shadow boxing jab, cross is no difference from the combo training of:

- roundhouse kick, side kick,
- elbow lock, shoulder lock,
- hip throw, single leg,
- ...

The mind set is identical among all those training.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 20, 2020)

Acronym said:


> I have a challenge. How many people did actual combat systems - Boxing, Kickboxing, Judo, BJJ, and TMA, and found TMA superior?


My Answer.  Show me one technique in MMA that can't be found in a TMA.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 20, 2020)

This discussion reminds me of how the Martial Arts Tutor guy used to be.  Ironically after he started taking MMA classes he began to have a higher appreciation and a better understanding of TMA systems


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 20, 2020)

Acronym said:


> Says a kung fu practitioner, with a kung fu USER name


I have no idea what you are going on about.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 20, 2020)

Acronym said:


> So get rid of the middle man and throw the katas out of there! It's amazing, the lengths they go to justify keeping these old relics.


Why?  Just because you aren’t up to it, does not mean it doesn’t work for others.

Go do your own thing.  Nobody cares what you do.


----------



## Headhunter (Aug 20, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> Why?  Just because you aren’t up to it, does not mean it doesn’t work for others.
> 
> Go do your own thing.  Nobody cares what you do.


No Don’t be silly...every martial arts instructor on earth should change how they teach just to suit him


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 20, 2020)

Acronym said:


> This forums seems to be a refugee for kung fu practitioners getting battered around in regular, non friendly forums. 99% of the USER replies seems to be Kung Fu and not Karate practitioners in here replying to a thread about kata and Japanese based systems. And users in general seems to do american martial arts and or kung fu, instead of more mainstream stuff like Karate, TaeKwondo
> 
> What gives?


Plenty of people here do karate and taekwondo. Most of them replied to you earlier on, then gave up when you didn't want to engage in an actual discussion with them and instead just continued to bash their systems. I'm guessing the CMA guys on here either didn't see those first few (since they actually were karate/tkd/boxing based), or just didn't care as much so they're the only ones still engaging with you.


----------



## Graywalker (Aug 20, 2020)

Acronym said:


> This forums seems to be a refugee for kung fu practitioners getting battered around in regular, non friendly forums. 99% of the USER replies seems to be Kung Fu and not Karate practitioners in here replying to a thread about kata and Japanese based systems. And users in general seems to do american martial arts and or kung fu, instead of more mainstream stuff like Karate, TaeKwondo
> 
> What gives?



I would, as a long time practitioner of Karate, like to answer this question....

'and not Karate practitioners in here replying to a thread about kata and Japanese based systems.'

Because we have heard it all before, over the last 30 to 40 years. Every 5yrs, every decade, something new pops up, some unheard style, some new method. And, zealots of these 'better than Karate' start squawking, the exact same regurgitated nonsense about Karate and how it sucks. And open gyms, schools, and tend to denounce and spew the same tired gospel, near those sucky karate schools.

Some even have the balls, to walk into Dojo's and prove it sucks. Same nonsense, same children.

But, as time goes on, the school of bad****ry, those awesome gyms, usually close within 5yrs.

Point in case, the Dojo I started in, at 14yrs old is still open, I am 51years old. I seen at least two MMA schools open and close within 3-5yrs. The Dojo is still there, it is still putting out longterm students and high quality people. Heck, the town I currently live in, has a school that has been there 25yrs and yup, gyms opened there as well...not now but yeah,  you know, karate sucks.

In simple words

1) There is nothing to defend...karate outlast.
2) This one might shock you...you are not the first to spew this nonsense. We have heard it before and we will hear it again...
3) which leads me to third...we are still here, and to stay.

In the end, its our time to waste, and we love wasting time.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 20, 2020)

Headhunter said:


> No Don’t be silly...every martial arts instructor on earth should change how they teach just to suit him


Oh of course!  How silly of me.  He is the chosen one, the enlightened one.  I am ready now to drop everything I have done in the past and recognize the error of my ways.  I am so fortunate that he came along to share his enlightenment with me.  I could have wasted the rest of my life, wallowing in the muck and backwardness of forms practice.  Now I understand, because of his Great Teaching, how near the chasm of the abyss I had strayed.  Fortune has smiled upon me on this most auspicious day.  I shall remember this day forever and shall marketh it upon my calendar as a day Most Holy of All Days and shall instill amongeth mine own students the Wonder and Marvels of the Most Holy Master, What’s-His-Name!

Jeezuz.  Just...Jeezuz.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 20, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Plenty of people here do karate and taekwondo. Most of them replied to you earlier on, then gave up when you didn't want to engage in an actual discussion with them and instead just continued to bash their systems. I'm guessing the CMA guys on here either didn't see those first few (since they actually were karate/tkd/boxing based), or just didn't care as much so they're the only ones still engaging with you.


Did see them.  

Just bored at the moment.  So, ya know, just needing entertainment.


----------



## Acronym (Aug 20, 2020)

Graywalker said:


> I would, as a long time practitioner of Karate, like to answer this question....
> 
> 'and not Karate practitioners in here replying to a thread about kata and Japanese based systems.'
> 
> ...



 And the makiwara? Is it still being used?


----------



## Headhunter (Aug 20, 2020)

Acronym said:


> And the makiwara? Is it still being used?


Yes it is and it will continue to be so. Why do you care what other people do? You spend more time talking than you do training


----------



## Graywalker (Aug 20, 2020)

Acronym said:


> And the makiwara? Is it still being used?


This shows that you are lacking in your knowledge concerning Karate, let me explain why...

You think its a stick in the ground wrapped in straw. You are correct and yes, I imagine some places use them.

But, there are hanging ones as well, aka punching bags. Do you think that modern practitioners, do not use what is currently available, material wise?

And, why would you even attack that, that is like insinuating that a free standing punching bag is useless.


----------



## Headhunter (Aug 20, 2020)

Graywalker said:


> This shows that you are lacking in your knowledge concerning Karate, let me explain why...
> 
> You think its a stick in the ground wrapped in straw. You are correct and yes, I imagine some places use them.
> 
> ...


Lacking in knowledge this guy?....shocker in other breaking news water is wet


----------



## Headhunter (Aug 20, 2020)

Graywalker said:


> This shows that you are lacking in your knowledge concerning Karate, let me explain why...
> 
> You think its a stick in the ground wrapped in straw. You are correct and yes, I imagine some places use them.
> 
> ...


Oh and actually yeah he will say that tbh because according to him hitting a punch bag is useless and ineffective


----------



## Graywalker (Aug 20, 2020)

Headhunter said:


> Oh and actually yeah he will say that tbh because according to him hitting a punch bag is useless and ineffective


Well, its ok.. I have to go teach a crappy karate class, so I need to head out and get a bail of hay.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 20, 2020)

Acronym said:


> I have a challenge. How many people did actual combat systems - Boxing, Kickboxing, Judo, BJJ, and  TMA, and found TMA superior? They invaribly  see the light when introduced to real combat systems and we rarely hear Boxers, Kickboxers wanting their money back lol..


I faced a judo guy once.  We agreed to fisticuffs, using only our martial training.  As he moved to close the distance and lay hands upon me, I drew forth my dao (Chinese big knife/saber) and I relied upon my training with said weapon to quickly remove his brain-cage from his shoulders.  I snickered at the sound of his skull bouncing across the flagstones.

I faced a Muay Thai fellow once, under agreement to a trial of martial skills in combative contest.  As he approached me with his guard held high and his leg poised to kick, I snatched forth my spear and I ripped out his guts with the razor-edged before pinning him to the tree behind by driving the spear through his chest.  I laughed as he screamed and died.

A BJJ fellow wished to cross hands with me.  I consented and we signed the customary injury and death releases.  When he reached for my jacket I took up my long staff and smashed the end of it down into the joint between his neck and shoulder, driving him down to the pavement.  I then split his head like a melon with a second strike, giggling gleefully as his brains painted the floor.

A kickboxer accosted me outside of Kathmandu.  He danced near with a jab and I pierced his heart with my jian (Chinese double-edged straight sword).  He died instantly; I watched the light of life flee from his eyes as he fell.  I later made rude jokes about it on Twitter.

I had word that a boxing champion was heading for my home, determined to avenge some imagined grievance.  I saw his approach through my open window.  I was ill with the flu that day so I drew forth my rifle and took lazy aim.  I pulled the trigger and guffawed as his head exploded in a cloud of bone and brains.  I sent a letter via certified post to my true love, describing in lurid detail the mess left on the pavement.

You got any other stupid things that you want to say about “actual combat systems”?


----------



## Steve (Aug 20, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> This discussion reminds me of how the Martial Arts Tutor guy used to be.  Ironically after he started taking MMA classes he began to have a higher appreciation and a better understanding of TMA systems


Training a TMA the way folks train MMA will definitely make one’s TMA better.  No doubt in my mind.


----------



## Steve (Aug 20, 2020)

Graywalker said:


> I would, as a long time practitioner of Karate, like to answer this question....
> 
> 'and not Karate practitioners in here replying to a thread about kata and Japanese based systems.'
> 
> ...


Some good stuff here.  But just to address the new stuff argument, BJJ is as old as most karate styles, and modern MMA is over 25 years old, and goes back further if you look at shoot fighting and similar things in Asia. 

This isn’t about what’s new or not.  I’ve also seen quite a few karate schools close over the years.   Being a successful business person isn’t always a reliable indicator of martial skill or the quality of the product.


----------



## Steve (Aug 20, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> I faced a judo guy once.  We agreed to fisticuffs, using only our martial training.  As he moved to close the distance and lay hands upon me, I drew forth my dao (Chinese big knife/saber) and I relied upon my training with said weapon to quickly remove his brain-cage from his shoulders.  I snickered at the sound of his skull bouncing across the flagstones.
> 
> I faced a Muay Thai fellow once, under agreement to a trial of martial skills in combative contest.  As he approached me with his guard held high and his leg poised to kick, I snatched forth my spear and I ripped out his guts with the razor-edged before pinning him to the tree behind by driving the spear through his chest.  I laughed as he screamed and died.
> 
> ...


After a post like that, I’d be careful casting stones at others for posting stupid things.  This was an utterly ridiculous piece of fan fiction.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 20, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Plenty of people here do karate and taekwondo. Most of them replied to you earlier on, then gave up when you didn't want to engage in an actual discussion with them and instead just continued to bash their systems. I'm guessing the CMA guys on here either didn't see those first few (since they actually were karate/tkd/boxing based), or just didn't care as much so they're the only ones still engaging with you.


For me I'm more willing to take a back seat, so that practitioners in the said systems can "defend" or educate other's about how their system trains. Once that stuff is said, I like to build off some of those comments in wider perspective of things.

I'm really big on people seeing "a larger picture"  I even teach in the same manner.  It's not about watching for the punch, it's about watching the entire body and how it shifts in preparation to punch.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 20, 2020)

Steve said:


> Training a TMA the way folks train MMA will definitely make one’s TMA better.  No doubt in my mind.


It will.  MMA guys train to fight. if TMA guys train to fight then they improve greatly in terms of being able to use and understand martial arts through the experience of using it vs just the experience of doing the form. My personal blinded opinion is that all TMA should train to fight.  But that's with the understanding that just because I train to fight doesn't mean I'm looking to get into fights.  For me it's a faster path to understanding the martial arts techniques that one trains.

My son learned this the hard way 3 days ago.  I told him about how the eyes track targets and why Jow Ga techniques work.  He tried to be a Smart A. and was going to prove me wrong. During the explanation of the concept I moved to my left and he was going to prove that he would track my fist and not my body movements.  He was waiting for me to move left.   This time I moved right, His eyes tracked my body and not my fist.  My fist stopped in front of his face and he never saw it coming.  I knew he understood the lesson because he gave a laugh of amazement, as he knew without a doubt that his dad got the best of him..

The point of the story is that I could tell someone the same thing for weeks and months.  They will think the same as he did and then build assumption based on how they thought I was wrong or just full of it.  For my son it wasn't until he was engaged in the fighting part that he really understood what I was telling him in the beginning. *Hitting an tennis ball with  tennis racket *is different than *going through the form of hitting a tennis ball with tennis racket*.

Like you stated, if they train with the same focus that MMA fighters have then it will definitely make their TMA better.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 20, 2020)

Acronym said:


> dismiss katas as a waste of time,


If you say that the "too much" form training may "delay" a person's sparring training, I'll agree with you there.

One of my Chinese wrestling students wants to learn the long fist system from me. I asked him how much training time will he put in. After he told me that he has a full time job, wife and kid, and mortgage payment. I told him that he may not have enough training time to learn the "complete" long fist system.

In the long fist system, there are 10 open hands forms that one needs to learn.

Here are those 10 open hand forms (one can find all these forms online - I love the internet age).

1. 10 roads Tantui.






2. Lien Bu Chuan.






3. Gong Li Chuan.






4. 1st road Mai Fu Chuan.






5. 2nd road Mai Fu Chuan.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 20, 2020)

6. Shi Tzi Tang Chuan.






7. Shi Lu Ben Da.






8. 3rd road Pao Chuan.






9. 4th road Cha Chuan.






10. Tai Zui long fist.






After the open hand form training, there are 8 more weapon form training :

- 1 staff form.
- 2 Dao forms.
- 2 sword forms.
- 1 spear foem.
- 1 Dao against spear form, and
- 1 Guan Dao against spear form.

The issue is, unless one starts from a young age, after he has finished all those training, he may be too old to spar/wrestle.


----------



## Buka (Aug 20, 2020)

I gotta go make some popcorn for this.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 20, 2020)

Acronym said:


> If you don't use the stances when sparring, all you are doing then is performance martial arts, and that's not what they are marketed as. And I know of no TMA place that use Kata as warm-ups. It is the essential feature of their systems


I only trained in two Karate systems, one of them being Shotokan (I've don't know what the other was, but I suspect it was American Karate). Neither instructor used kata in any of the classes I attended. Clearly your statement ("It is the essential feature of their systems.") isn't as universal as it seems.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 20, 2020)

Acronym said:


> I have a challenge. How many people did actual combat systems - Boxing, Kickboxing, Judo, BJJ, and  TMA, and found TMA superior? They invaribly  see the light when introduced to real combat systems and we rarely hear Boxers, Kickboxers wanting their money back lol..


I was a Judo student well before I got into NGA (which is more traditional). I found NGA more comprehensive and concept-based. I don't consider either superior - they are different, and play well together.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 20, 2020)

Acronym said:


> This forums seems to be a refugee for kung fu practitioners getting battered around in regular, non friendly forums. 99% of the USER replies seems to be Kung Fu and not Karate practitioners in here replying to a thread about kata and Japanese based systems. And users in general seems to do american martial arts and or kung fu, instead of more mainstream stuff like Karate, TaeKwondo
> 
> What gives?


If you didn't want it to be a general discussion, perhaps "General Martial Arts" was the wrong sub-forum to post in.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 20, 2020)

Acronym said:


> So get rid of the middle man and throw the katas out of there! It's amazing, the lengths they go to justify keeping these old relics.


You assume everyone wants the same approach you want. That's clearly not the case. Some folks like kata for the practice it is (rather than getting wound up in what it is not). Why does that bother you so much?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 20, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you say that the "too much" form training may "delay" a person's sparring training, I'll agree with you there.
> 
> One of my Chinese wrestling students wants to learn the long fist system from me. I asked him how much training time will he put in. After he told me that he has a full time job, wife and kid, and mortgage payment. I told him that he may not have enough training time to learn the "complete" long fist system.
> 
> ...


Lots of memory needed lol.   I've done Gong Li Chuan but only following the person in front.  I didn't spend any effort to try to remember it.  We used to do it in the schools to make our punches longer and to improve flexibility.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 20, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> If you didn't want it to be a general discussion, perhaps "General Martial Arts" was the wrong sub-forum to post in.


This just remind me when I was in a Judo forum.

A: You may try .....
B: You are not even a Judo guy. Nobody cares about your opinion. Why are you still handing around here.

I tuck my tail between my back legs, took off, and left that forum with shame.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 20, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This just remind me when I was in a Judo forum.
> 
> A: You may try .....
> B: You are not even a Judo guy. Nobody cares about your opinion. Why are you still handing around here.
> ...


Thankfully, the Wing Chun guys around here don't take that attitude when I butt in on their forum.


----------



## Graywalker (Aug 21, 2020)

Steve said:


> Some good stuff here.  But just to address the new stuff argument, BJJ is as old as most karate styles, and modern MMA is over 25 years old, and goes back further if you look at shoot fighting and similar things in Asia.
> 
> This isn’t about what’s new or not.  I’ve also seen quite a few karate schools close over the years.   Being a successful business person isn’t always a reliable indicator of martial skill or the quality of the product.


I was speaking from own personal knowledge concerning these things and is why I said or 'some unheard of style'...

I was making the point that zealots, tend to bark the same putdowns concerning karate, whether they are new or old arts, or new or old methods of training and despite the repeat insults, Karate is still popular, and you are seeing people taking a renewed interest in it.

It wasn't my intention to make less of these arts that you mentioned, yet to show that karate last, changes and competes with other systems very well.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 21, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I only trained in two Karate systems, one of them being Shotokan (I've don't know what the other was, but I suspect it was American Karate). Neither instructor used kata in any of the classes I attended. Clearly your statement ("It is the essential feature of their systems.") isn't as universal as it seems.


Same. One of my kenpo systems was directly okinawan kenpo (different from the american kenpo lineage, basically okinawan karate), and they didn't teach forms. Also I've done various TMA (various ken/mpo, kung fu, tai chi and FMA) and combat sports (boxing, kickboxing, BJJ, sambo, judo) but I'm still perfectly happy with my current TMA. But based on his previous reaction to experience that contradicts his current beliefs, it's irrelevant. All of that doesn't count because it doesn't agree with his statements.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 21, 2020)

Steve said:


> Training a TMA the way folks train MMA will definitely make one’s TMA better.  No doubt in my mind.


Yup. But people do actually train TMA in just that way.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 21, 2020)

Steve said:


> Some good stuff here.  But just to address the new stuff argument, BJJ is as old as most karate styles, and modern MMA is over 25 years old, and goes back further if you look at shoot fighting and similar things in Asia.
> 
> This isn’t about what’s new or not.  I’ve also seen quite a few karate schools close over the years.   Being a successful business person isn’t always a reliable indicator of martial skill or the quality of the product.


Outlast was the wrong term, but I think the point wasn't so much that those styles won't last, so much as that karate will. And yeah business isn't an indicator of quality, but at some point, even if they become hugely successful, and make the founder/CEO rich, they'll crash at some point if the quality isn't there. That's true of just about any product.


----------



## Graywalker (Aug 21, 2020)

I think that Acronym, should understand that some Karate schools, base their training around the ability to fight.

Not all schools went the route of early days point  tournament, not that it is bad, but training changed and a lot of the combat side, was left out. Karate has never been, just about Kata. There are some schools that  tend to be focused more, on the fighting aspects. 

We in our school, still practice the same basic bunkai, as we did in the early 80's. There are 13 kata to black belt and about 75 bunkai to learn. That is just the base, but there are 3 ways that they are taught. The last way, is sparring semi full contact, only using specific bunkai from a specified Kata. That is simply kata sparring, just one of ways we spar. Really, from these basic bunkai, the student is encouraged to build off of the basic patterns. But they must know them individually and in the basic form, and use them individually, before combining anything.

This is how, I learned it in the 80's and still teach, but that is different from the Free sparring that we do. That, focuses on distance, basic kicks, strikes, knees, and really just about anything needed for a well rounded fighter. Including takedowns and grappling. Yes grappling on the ground, quite a few styles have a ground game, another one where the basics haven't changed much since the 80's, but we always grow and seek new methods of training.

This is a small part of the Karate I trained in  the 80's, and a small part in how I still train and teach till this day.

But, I am a Toyama Kanken line, and although being a Karate-ka, he traveled to different places and learned various arts and he incorparated many different concepts into his personal system. And, encouraged it in his students as well. I posted a picture of an old article from 1949 in an earlier thread where Toyama described karate as a mixture of Jujitsu, boxing, fencing and wrestling. It shows, a well rounded Karate method. Again, from 1949...

In his words "Karate is whatever you make it". 

Karate is just a word a basic description. It of itself, is not one method set in stone. Its an individual method that grows however you individually choose.

Honestly, it seems as if a lot of people that walked away from karate, just wanted to learn how to damage an opponent, instead of controlling the opponent. Although there is an art to destruction, the true art is in control.

Just a little history of the Karate I learned 30yrs ago and continue to learn, and how some of us dug in and hung in there, and will be here 20yrs from now.


----------



## Steve (Aug 21, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Yup. But people do actually train TMA in just that way.


And those folks who do, do well.  And they tend to be held up by those who don't as proof validating all tma. The key is how one trains more than what one trains.  The culture of some styles makes them more effective based on how they are commonly trained, not whether they are old or not.   Said differently, age doesn't make a style TMA; rather, how it is trained, which is in contrast to how a style like bjj or MMA trains.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 21, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Outlast was the wrong term, but I think the point wasn't so much that those styles won't last, so much as that karate will. And yeah business isn't an indicator of quality, but at some point, even if they become hugely successful, and make the founder/CEO rich, they'll crash at some point if the quality isn't there. That's true of just about any product.


While true, it depends how the consumers define “quality” - what they are looking for.


----------



## Buka (Aug 21, 2020)

I was friendly with a lot of dojos, we helped each other out with anything we could. Anytime a new place opened in the surrounding towns I'd bring them a new heavy bag and some kicking shields as a house warming gift. Not a big deal as I was a distributor for all the equipment companies so I got everything wholesale.

Our students and theirs were always welcome in each other's dojos. Any time myself or one of our guys went to their places for a class they were always thoughtful enough not to practice Kata in that class because they knew we didn't practice Kata. A class move on their part.

But I really don't remember any badmouthing. Except from me, as there are some charlatans that I have personal animosities towards and always will. And, I must admit, I have made fun of Monkey Style Kung Fu a few times, but only to friends in personal conversation. Can't really wrap my mind around seeing Monkey style and thinking "I really want to do that." Close minded of me, I know, but what can I say?


----------



## Steve (Aug 21, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> While true, it depends how the consumers define “quality” - what they are looking for.


Cool outfits and a plucky attitude.


----------



## geezer (Aug 21, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Thankfully, the Wing Chun guys around here don't take that attitude when I butt in on their forum.



No. We don't. But then we are better than your_ typical_ Wing Chun people.

....and modest too!


----------



## drop bear (Aug 21, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Yup. But people do actually train TMA in just that way.



I know some guys who do.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 21, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Outlast was the wrong term, but I think the point wasn't so much that those styles won't last, so much as that karate will. And yeah business isn't an indicator of quality, but at some point, even if they become hugely successful, and make the founder/CEO rich, they'll crash at some point if the quality isn't there. That's true of just about any product.



Not really. 

Astrology, crystal healing, aikido. All still successful businesses.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 21, 2020)

Steve said:


> age doesn't make a style TMA; rather, how it is trained, which is in contrast to how a style like bjj or MMA trains.


The following issue bother me big time.

- WC has 3 open hand forms and 2 weapon forms.
- Long fist has 10 open hand forms and 8 weapon forms.

When TMA guys are still training in form, BJJ and MMA guys already wrestle and fight in the ring. Of course we need to develop a strong foundation. But how much foundation is enough? We can't stay in elementary school forever and refuse to move to high school.

What's the solution for TMA?


----------



## Graywalker (Aug 21, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The following issue bother me big time.
> 
> - WC has 3 open hand forms and 2 weapon forms.
> - Long fist has 10 open hand forms and 8 weapon forms.
> ...


I am a little confused, is MMA a style or a training method.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 21, 2020)

Graywalker said:


> I am a little confused, is MMA a style or a training method.


It doesn't matter whether MMA is a style or training method.

MMA, boxing, MT, BJJ have no form training. They can spend all their training time in the ring or on the mat.

A MMA guy may not be able to hold his side kick in the air for 30 seconds like a TKD guy can. But is that kind of foundation training truly that important?


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 21, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The following issue bother me big time.
> 
> - WC has 3 open hand forms and 2 weapon forms.
> - Long fist has 10 open hand forms and 8 weapon forms.
> ...


Why is this a problem?  The solution is obvious: begin interactive drills and progress to some form of beneficial sparring whenever you feel it is appropriate.  Please don’t tell me you would not begin those things until after you have taught them all of the forms??  Why in the world would you think they need to do nothing but forms?


----------



## drop bear (Aug 21, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> I faced a judo guy once.  We agreed to fisticuffs, using only our martial training.  As he moved to close the distance and lay hands upon me, I drew forth my dao (Chinese big knife/saber) and I relied upon my training with said weapon to quickly remove his brain-cage from his shoulders.  I snickered at the sound of his skull bouncing across the flagstones.
> 
> I faced a Muay Thai fellow once, under agreement to a trial of martial skills in combative contest.  As he approached me with his guard held high and his leg poised to kick, I snatched forth my spear and I ripped out his guts with the razor-edged before pinning him to the tree behind by driving the spear through his chest.  I laughed as he screamed and died.
> 
> ...



Yeah. When you have to throw the basic concepts out the window and only fight people at disadvantage that is an example of a broken system.

The argument is that you train with a spear and so you are better with a spear. But you needed the spear because your hands were deficient.

So if both people have the spear. Then you are back at a disadvantage and so on.

The idea of a combat system that actually works would be advantage on an even playing field.

That is how you can tell if the system works.

This is basically the celestial tea pot at work. It is a system you can never actually see working.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 21, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> Why is this a problem?  The solution is obvious: begin interactive drills and progress to some form of beneficial sparring whenever you feel it is appropriate.  Please don’t tell me you would not begin those things until after you have taught them all of the forms??  Why in the world would you think they need to do nothing but forms?


The more forms that you have to train and review, the less time that you can devote in sparring.

IMO, life time is too short to do everything. The day when I get serious into my Chinese wrestling training, the day I gave up my weapon training.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 21, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The more forms that you have to train and review, the less time that you can devote in sparring.
> 
> IMO, life time is too short to do everything. The day when I get serious into my Chinese wrestling training, the day I gave up my weapon training.


There is certainly truth in this.  While I do a lot of forms training and I enjoy it, I personally believe that forms can be overdone.  They are a good tool, but only one of several that you should use in your training. 

My method in my lineage has something like 15-17-ish empty hand forms, which each tend to be quite long.  We also have 12-15 or so weapons  forms.  I’ve learned about a third to a half of that, only completing the beginning and intermediate levels.  I like them all and am glad to have them.  I’ve seen my Sihing do the others so I am familiar with them.  I think that to learn them could be good, they are valuable and worthwhile.  But at the same time, if I never learn them I don’t feel like I am actually missing out on anything. 

Forms ought to teach and reinforce the major principles, with good technical examples.  They do not define the complete body of techniques nor possibilities that the system holds.  They present examples and possibilities and should give you the tools to respond spontaneously and effectively, even if what you do is not found in any of the forms. 

I feel that forms are a good tool for this.  However, you should not need 17 forms to learn these lessons.  How many do you need?  That depends on the individual, but I will say that if you have learned maybe 5-8 forms and you still don’t understand these lessons then learning 10 more is unlikely to be helpful for you.  Perhaps you need to practice a different method that does not contain forms.

Likewise, if you have learned 3-5 forms and those lessons have really sunk in, then learning another 10-15 is unlikely to be especially useful or necessary for you. 

I spend a lot of time on my fundamentals, more so than my forms.  I think the time is better spent that way.  I value my forms, but I try to keep perspective for what they are and for what they are useful.  Practicing an endless number of long forms can become a full-time job and leaves little time or energy for other things.  I think they becomes counter-productive at that level.

I like weapons as well, for example I practice two spear forms.  But again I spend a lot more time working on spear fundamentals and exploring movement possibilities with the weapon in order to be effective with it.  I believe that has given me a realistic understanding of how versatile and lethal the spear can be.  It is awesome.  But practicing the forms is less useful for that.  Again, I like them and feel they are important and useful, but keep them in proper perspective.  I’ve taken a similar approach with staff, dao, double dao, butterfly swords and jian as well.  Learning the forms was useful but mostly because it helped me understand fundamentals and movement with the weapon.  Practicing the fundamentals and exploring the movement is more important than doing endless forms.  I’ve even forgot some of my weapon forms, though I hope for an opportunity to relearn them when Covid gets under control. 

I don’t have much opportunity right now for interactive training with most of this, so I do the best I can by myself.  I feel my training is effective for what I do.  But I don’t practice my forms as much as I do other things.

I’ve even felt anxiety in the past, over trying to “keep up” with all the forms that I’ve learned.   It was liberating when I chose to become focused on one system and I let go of the other systems I had been working on.  Developing anxiety over your training obligations is counter-productive.  It’s not helpful and it’s not right.  That is a sign that something needs to change.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 21, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The following issue bother me big time.
> 
> - WC has 3 open hand forms and 2 weapon forms.
> - Long fist has 10 open hand forms and 8 weapon forms.
> ...


I can think of two approaches that might help. 1) simplify the core curriculum (what’s in forms) down to a solid few necessities. Or 2) use forms for exploration after a foundation is built, so beginners can get to sparring and wrestling.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 21, 2020)

Graywalker said:


> I am a little confused, is MMA a style or a training method.


Or a rule set. And the answer is kinda all 3.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 21, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I can think of two approaches that might help. 1) simplify the core curriculum (what’s in forms) down to a solid few necessities. Or 2) use forms for exploration after a foundation is built, so beginners can get to sparring and wrestling.


The 3rd approach can be:

- Throw away all tradition form.
- Create partner drill from combat situation.
- Create solo drill as partner drill without partner.
- Link solo drills in sequence for teaching, learning, and recording purpose.

PRO:
- Training is the same as fighting.
CON:
- Some traditional information may be lost forever.

Here is an example:


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 21, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The 3rd approach can be:
> 
> - Throw away all tradition form.
> - Create partner drill from combat situation.
> ...


Well, my Sifu has said that If all we want is to learn how to fight quickly, he can train us for a year to accomplish that and it would include no forms.

It’s very intuitive to me how to go about that.  It’s all about the foundation and fundamentals and drilling them to be able to use them.  I don’t think there is anything mysterious or secret about it, although I suspect how my Sifu would approach it could be different (but similar) from how I might approach it.

It’s an interesting thought: maybe could be a very successful approach to teaching.  For a new student, teach no forms until going through that process for the first year.  Forms are only taught after that first year when foundation is strong and fundamentals are solid enough to be functional and useful. At that point, forms would enrich the training.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 21, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> For a new student, teach no forms ...


That was what I did for the past 20 years. No form but partner drill. I start to teach form because the COVID-19.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 21, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> That was what I did for the past 20 years. No form but partner drill. I start to teach form because the COVID-19.


Well, I would teach forms but I would do it a bit later in the process.  I wouldn’t wait for a global pandemic.


----------



## Graywalker (Aug 22, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> That was what I did for the past 20 years. No form but partner drill. I start to teach form because the COVID-19.


This is a concept that we mix. We have 3 basic forms called House Forms. They are taught in a two person drill from the get go. These moving partner forms, are the very first things taught. 

We teach forms in this manner, through the advanced forms as well. Drills are taught in conjunction with Kata.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 22, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The following issue bother me big time.
> 
> - WC has 3 open hand forms and 2 weapon forms.
> - Long fist has 10 open hand forms and 8 weapon forms.
> ...


Easy.  Do both.  When I was teaching we has drill days, form days, sparring days.  For me 2 hours of sparring training in one day was enough to give me a good boost.  The time that I didn't spend sparring was good for healing bruises and and other injuries.  Very Light sparring after class was allowed on non sparring days for those who had a thirst for sparring. 

I don't think I would do more more than 4 hours a week of sparring training, because I would be afraid that there wouldn't be enough healing time in between sessions. 

The schedule that I'm currently using is.

Learn the form in small pieces

Take the small parts that you learn from the form and train them in sparring.
This keeps things in small enough portions that don't overwhelm the student.  I would use the application of a technique to determine when the next part of the form will be allowed.  Keep in mind this is only for students who want to be able to actually fight with the techniques.

Students who just want to learn the form will still be required to spar but at a lighter level. Instead of the ability to use the technique driving their progress. Learning how to do the form properly will drive their learning path, light sparring will be used to help them understand the techniques in their forms.

I think if I train people this way. I can then have Scholars and Warriors. In other words people who have a lot of knowledge and people who have a lot of personal experience.  That way these 2 can compare their knowledge and keep the system fresh. People who only have knowledge of kung fu may not know the various ways to set up and deploy techniques.  People who have personal experience will know this stuff and can share those who basically collect the knowledge and keep the knowledge of the system.

From what I can tell the people who really enjoy teaching martial arts are often those who don't actually use it.  Those who actually use it,  are often the ones who don't teach it, or don't teach it in a large school setting.

Another way to think of it is.  Those who forge the weapon are often not the ones fighting in the battle.  It's often the user that brings information back to the forger to make improvements.  2 factors of a system depending on each other for application.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 22, 2020)

drop bear said:


> The argument is that you train with a spear and so you are better with a spear. But you needed the spear because your hands were deficient.
> 
> So if both people have the spear. Then you are back at a disadvantage and so on.


I don't see it this way.  If I have the spear then you are at a disadvantage.  My goal is to defeat you not to compare open hand skills.  If you have a gun and someone attacks you with a knife, do you throw away your gun and pull out your knife?  

If I have a spear and you don't have a spear then the deficiency is that you don't have a spear.  Or that you have a spear and you don't know how to use it.  When we talk about MMA then we talk about the WHOLE OF MMA.  When we talk about Kung Fu we strip parts of kung fu and only talk about PARTS OF KUNG FU.

The beginner form in kung fu has a hook that lands on the back of the head.  In MMA I'm not allowed to do this.  So for this specific technique, I can't even do the beginner stuff.  It's one thing to compare specific areas of a system but if you compare then WHOLE OF SOMETHING.  Then you can't leave out the other parts.

Chinese Martial Arts is dirty fighting.  Our goal is to win the fight.  So if I have my staff while I'm walking and someone is stupid enough to pick a fight with me, then they deserve to be hit with my staff.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 22, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The 3rd approach can be:
> 
> - Throw away all tradition form.
> - Create partner drill from combat situation.
> ...


This is in line with my #1.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 22, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> Well, my Sifu has said that If all we want is to learn how to fight quickly, he can train us for a year to accomplish that and it would include no forms.
> 
> It’s very intuitive to me how to go about that.  It’s all about the foundation and fundamentals and drilling them to be able to use them.  I don’t think there is anything mysterious or secret about it, although I suspect how my Sifu would approach it could be different (but similar) from how I might approach it.
> 
> It’s an interesting thought: maybe could be a very successful approach to teaching.  For a new student, teach no forms until going through that process for the first year.  Forms are only taught after that first year when foundation is strong and fundamentals are solid enough to be functional and useful. At that point, forms would enrich the training.


I’ve taken a bit of the approach you posit. I don’t teach any of the traditional approaches (except where a student needs a slower approach) until a foundation curriculum has been covered. This takes a few weeks (usually less than 3 months), and could be held longer.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 22, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> Well, I would teach forms but I would do it a bit later in the process.  I wouldn’t wait for a global pandemic.


Let’s hope that doesn’t become something regular enough to plan curricula by.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 22, 2020)

Graywalker said:


> This is a concept that we mix. We have 3 basic forms called House Forms. They are taught in a two person drill from the get go. These moving partner forms, are the very first things taught.
> 
> We teach forms in this manner, through the advanced forms as well. Drills are taught in conjunction with Kata.


I do teach 1 punching drill and 1 kicking drill by using the toolbox concept.

1. Hoop punch, back fist, uppercut, hammer fist, jab, cross, side punch.
2. Front kick, roundhouse kick, side kick, back kick.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 22, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> Easy.  Do both.


The problem is I only meet my guys once a week for 2 hours. 8 hours a month doesn't give me time to do both.

This is why I told my guy that I can't teach him the complete long fist system. When I was a long fist student, I spend 2 hours a day, 5 days a week during school time (M, W, F was my class. Tu, Th I helped my teacher for his night school class). During the summer, I spent 6 hours a day, 6 days a week.

Since to teach a complete system for just 2 hours a week is impossible. That's why I had to change to teach partner drill only. At least partner drill 1 has no logic connection to partner drill 2.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 22, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The problem is I only meet my guys once a week for 2 hours. 8 hours a month doesn't give me time to do both.


Yeah that's a big challenge.  I now understand better why you do things the way you do.  Only 8 hours every month is a huge challenge.  You are literally in a situation where you have to answer the question, "If you only had 8 hours a month to teach someone, what would you teach?"  And it's only 2 hours once a week.

Definitely not an easy schedule in terms of being able to teach all that you are able to teach.  I could burn 2 hours just talking and demonstrating and helping students drill 2 techniques.  It usually takes more than 2 hours of training for them to get a technique down, to where they understand enough of what they should be doing in order to practice on their own.  It could be me and my teaching, or it could be the student having difficulty in trusting the technique vs trying to force it to work the way they think it should.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> When I was a long fist student, I spend 2 hours a day, 5 days a week during school time (M, W, F was my class. Tu, Th I helped my teacher for his night school class).


This sounds idea.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> Since to teach a complete system for just 2 hours a week is impossible. That's why I had to change to teach partner drill only. At least partner drill 1 has no logic connection to partner drill 2.


lol  I should have read your entire post before I maid the first comment above lol.  I'm very impressed that you are able to accomplish what you do with such time restrictions and that says a lot about the type of students you have.  Let me know if your student takes the slow road to learning long fist.  I'm curious to see how bad he wants it.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 22, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't see it this way.  If I have the spear then you are at a disadvantage.  My goal is to defeat you not to compare open hand skills.  If you have a gun and someone attacks you with a knife, do you throw away your gun and pull out your knife?
> 
> If I have a spear and you don't have a spear then the deficiency is that you don't have a spear.  Or that you have a spear and you don't know how to use it.  When we talk about MMA then we talk about the WHOLE OF MMA.  When we talk about Kung Fu we strip parts of kung fu and only talk about PARTS OF KUNG FU.
> 
> ...



There is nothing stopping  your attacker also grabbing a stick. Negating your martial arts.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 22, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The problem is I only meet my guys once a week for 2 hours. 8 hours a month doesn't give me time to do both.
> 
> This is why I told my guy that I can't teach him the complete long fist system. When I was a long fist student, I spend 2 hours a day, 5 days a week during school time (M, W, F was my class. Tu, Th I helped my teacher for his night school class). During the summer, I spent 6 hours a day, 6 days a week.
> 
> Since to teach a complete system for just 2 hours a week is impossible. That's why I had to change to teach partner drill only. At least partner drill 1 has no logic connection to partner drill 2.


Your students need to be practicing on their own time, in addition to the time spent with you.  Everybody needs to do this.

If your student does this, you can teach him all of the forms for Longfist, even if you only see him 8 hours a month.  Application always takes longer, but if he just wants to learn the forms and is willing to work more gradually on application, I see no reason why it cannot be done.

But he needs to take responsibility for working on and developing what you teach him.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 22, 2020)

drop bear said:


> There is nothing stopping your attacker also grabbing a stick. Negating your martial arts.


This is true, but having a stick does not guarantee that it will be useful for him.  In truth, it may make his situation worse because to do so would take him completely out of the skill sets that he does know, which would then give me an even bigger adavantage.

Here's an example.  If you know how to use this and I don't, then you'll have a bigger advantage if I pick this up this up to try you with it.   The staff and sticks are like that as well.







If I don't know how to use a stick, then I could be making things worse for myself if I bring one to a fight.  In that scenario you could realistically take it from me and use my own weapon to beat me.  The video below shows this reality where 2 guys who clearly don't know how to stick fight pick up a bat and what looks to be a cut of wood with corners.  Anyone that knows how to fight a stick would just get the right stick to do the job. The objects would never be first choice.





But since I do have some training fighting with a staff, the person who is picking up the stick would have to have equal or greater skills to have an advantage of having a stick.  There is always luck and that counts too.  But going back to a weapon that I don't know how to use.  I would be better off walking away, unless I understood enough about the mechanics of how the weapon moves and how you hold on to it so I can disarm you.  If I didn't know who to do that then I wouldn't engage.  If you had a staff /stick and I could tell you didn't know how to use it, then I might take a chance to disarm you.  If a person knows how to use a staff and I can clearly see that, then I'm walking away.   A person that knows how to really use a staff is going to do a lot of tricky stuff like jab the end of that staff in my face.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 22, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> Your students need to be practicing on their own time, in addition to the time spent with you.  Everybody needs to do this.
> 
> If your student does this, you can teach him all of the forms for Longfist, even if you only see him 8 hours a month.  Application always takes longer, but if he just wants to learn the forms and is willing to work more gradually on application, I see no reason why it cannot be done.
> 
> But he needs to take responsibility for working on and developing what you teach him.


Once I taught a Taiji class for the Chinese community. I intend to finish the 108 moves long Taiji form within 3 months. We met once a week, 2 house a class. After 3 weeks, I found out that students still could not remember the initial 12 moves. 

A: Do you people train at home?
B: No! We don't.
A: ...

There is nothing that a teacher can do if students don't want to train at home.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 22, 2020)

drop bear said:


> There is nothing stopping your attacker also grabbing a stick. Negating your martial arts.


One more thing about this in terms of grabbing my staff and taking it.  That would depend on how the person is holding a staff.  If they hold it in the middle then that may prove to be more difficult that it seems.  If they swing it  like a bat then you can simply rush in between the gaps.  If they hold it like a spear then just walk away.

This is how most people swing a large stick.  You will be fine if they swing it like this.  Take advantage of the gaps, don't get hit on the head. This is a real fight





Martial artists from CMA systems don't swing staff or sticks like this.  In the video below you can see what type of issues are cause by swing sticks like that.  





Japanese bo staff, chinese staff techniques avoid the big overhead baseball bat swings, because it takes a long reload time and not to mention the gap that it creates. You'll see indian martial arts use the big swings, but I think it's for show and entertainment.  Watch the lady use the staff here and you'll see the same concept of not bringing that staff / stick way back as if you are swinging a baseball bat.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 22, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> This is true, but having a stick does not guarantee that it will be useful for him.  In truth, it may make his situation worse because to do so would take him completely out of the skill sets that he does know, which would then give me an even bigger adavantage.
> 
> Here's an example.  If you know how to use this and I don't, then you'll have a bigger advantage if I pick this up this up to try you with it.   The staff and sticks are like that as well.
> 
> ...




But the purpose of the weapon in the argument  is because your unarmed is junk. Otherwise you would just manhandle the guy head to head.

That is why the argument is created in the first place. You can't beat a whatever style. So you need an advantage. 

So why is your weapon skills not junk as well?

It is the celestial teapot.

A theoretical argument with no evidence can constantly shift the goal posts to defend its position. 

And that is why a theoretical argument without evidence is discounted Exept in theology. Where it gets treated as some sort of point.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 22, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Once I taught a Taiji class for the Chinese community. I intend to finish the 108 moves long Taiji form within 3 months. We met once a week, 2 house a class. After 3 weeks, I found out that students still could not remember the initial 12 moves.
> 
> A: Do you people train at home?
> B: No! We don't.
> ...


I agree 100% with this.  Unfortunately we are social creatures and that carries over into training as well, where training as a group feels better and training by yourself is lonely.  This is still true for me and my training.  The only difference is that I'm not lonely once my focus kicks in.  When I get to that point everything else fades away.  It's just me and kung fu and no other thoughts.  Which is why my wife didn't like coming with me on my Sunday Training sessions.  I could stay their forever.  She would always say.  "I have other important things to do like cook dinner and get our son ready for school"  the next day.  lol.  She was right.

I've met very few students who can actually train on their own in this way.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 22, 2020)

drop bear said:


> But the purpose of the weapon in the argument is because your unarmed is junk. Otherwise you would just manhandle the guy head to head.


The purpose of my argument is to win.  Even if I thought I could beat you with my fist, I would still hit you with the staff. Because that's the easier win.

Just like if you had a gun and I came attacking you with my fist.  You will throw away your gun to fight me fist vs fist? Or will you use your gun?

Say we get into an unarmed fight.  You're boxing skills are better than mine, but my kicking and sweeping skills are good enough to make it more difficult for you to use your boxing skills, so I use my kicking skills which allows me to win the fight.  After 2 minutes I win the fight, by sweeping you.  You fall from the sweep and hit your head on the ground.  You try to get up while dazed, I kick you in the face and knock you out.  Here are the facts.
1. You get to brag about how good your punching skills are compared to my crappy punches.
2. I get to brag about how I won.
3. Your better punching skills didn't matter when the fighting was over. You still lost.

Everything in this is within my capability.  I don't know if a fight between me in you would turn out like that, but I do know that I have the ability and skill set to sweep someone and to kick someone and you have seen videos of this. So for me to think this way isn't far fetch.

I can also use professional fighters to show the same thing.  The kick boxer could have used boxing skills to fight the boxer, but kicking was the easier win. You can say that the kick boxer's punching skills were trash. It doesn't matter, he used kicking to win.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 22, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> One more thing about this in terms of grabbing my staff and taking it.  That would depend on how the person is holding a staff.  If they hold it in the middle then that may prove to be more difficult that it seems.  If they swing it  like a bat then you can simply rush in between the gaps.  If they hold it like a spear then just walk away.
> 
> This is how most people swing a large stick.  You will be fine if they swing it like this.  Take advantage of the gaps, don't get hit on the head. This is a real fight
> 
> ...



Not really. You would have to show evidence of some sort of competency in stick fighting to make the argument you have some sort of competency in stick fighting. 






You can't just say you do a thing. This is a massive misconception within martial arts and especially self defense.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 22, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> Only 8 hours every month is a huge challenge.


In that 8 hours, I can teach my student a form. I can also help him to grow a tree. For example, a tree with 14 branches from the same root of "under hook leg spring". I would rather help my student to grow a tree than to lean a form.

*The following 14 moves can be set up by the same move - under hook leg spring 胯崩*

*1.    Leg break
2.    Shin bite
3.    Tie
4.    Scoop
5.    Out hook
6.    Front cut
7.    Foot sweep
8.    Knee seize
9.    Double legs
10.  Reverse knee down leg seize 回马勺
11.  Reverse knee seize 倒推船
12.  Reverse knee seize, inner hook
13.  Shoulder spin 叉闪
14.  Shoulder pull 叉撤

Example of leg spring, Tie combo.






Example of leg spring, shoulder spin combo:
*


----------



## drop bear (Aug 22, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> The purpose of my argument is to win.  Even if I thought I could beat you with my fist, I would still hit you with the staff. Because that's the easier win.
> 
> Just like if you had a gun and I came attacking you with my fist.  You will throw away your gun to fight me fist vs fist? Or will you use your gun?



That's fine but you are still arguing from your pool of infinite fantasy. 

And I would use my trained SAS team that just happens to be there at the time.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 22, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Once I taught a Taiji class for the Chinese community. I intend to finish the 108 moves long Taiji form within 3 months. We met once a week, 2 house a class. After 3 weeks, I found out that students still could not remember the initial 12 moves.
> 
> A: Do you people train at home?
> B: No! We don't.
> ...



Sure, I understand that problem but the truth of the matter is, if your current students who meet with you 8 hours a month are not practicing on their own, then they are also failing in their training.  Really, people need to be responsible for their own training, I cannot emphasize that enough, it is the plain truth.  Otherwise, they will reach a low/mediocre level of skill and will never move beyond that.  They will reach a point where they cannot remember new stuff because they never practice, and your sessions together cannot cover everything.  

If your student who wants to learn Longfist is willing to embrace that responsibility, then he can do it.  So give him a chance, but have a straight-talking discussion with him about what it will take.  If he fails to practice and cannot remember what you did last week, and cannot show improvement, then he gets nothing new until he does.  Give him six months to convince you. After that, if he is not stepping up, well the deal is off.

With my previous Sifu, before I was able to get further instruction in White crane with my current Sifu, he taught me mostly through private lessons.  His main class was Taiji, which I participated in, but I wanted other stuff.  So he taught me White Crane and Longfist and other Taiji stuff that he wasn’t teaching in regular class, and over the years I learned a lot of forms from him.  But it was because I practiced a lot, outside of class.  Granted, my application was not so great because the emphasis was on learning these forms, but like I said, that is a trade that can be made.  But I’ve done it, I know it can be done, I am often mystified when people cannot do it.  It’s just a willingness to put in the hard work.  That is what kung fu means, after all.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 22, 2020)

drop bear said:


> You can't beat a whatever style. So you need an advantage.


That's the whole point.  To have an advantage.  Would you fight me in competitive fight if you didn't think you had an advantage that you could use to win?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 22, 2020)

Old Chinese saying said, 穷文富武 Scholar is for the poor. MA is for the rich.

One needs time and money to train MA.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 22, 2020)

drop bear said:


> So why is your weapon skills not junk as well?


My weapons skills are junk compared to someone who knows how to use it better than I do.  But they are golden compared to someone who has none.  The staff is something that I train which is why you never hear me talk about knife fighting.

If you want me to talk about punching skills then let it be known that we are not talking about the whole of Kung Fu.  We are talking about one aspect and my ability to punch.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 22, 2020)

drop bear said:


> That's fine but you are still arguing from your pool of infinite fantasy.


How is it fantasy when I take walks with my staff?

I live in Georgia USA, and have seen many people walk around with guns and knives on their hip. That's not fantasy either.  Here you are more likely to run into someone with a gun than a staff.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 22, 2020)

drop bear said:


> But the purpose of the weapon in the argument  is because your unarmed is junk. Otherwise you would just manhandle the guy head to head.
> 
> That is why the argument is created in the first place. You can't beat a whatever style. So you need an advantage.
> 
> ...


Here's the evidence.  If you and I had a fight that only includes sweeping people, would you win?
If you and I had a fight that only includes using a staff could you beat me?  I'm assuming you don't train staff.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 22, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> Here's the evidence.  If you and I had a fight that only includes sweeping people, would you win?
> If you and I had a fight that only includes using a staff could you beat me?  I'm assuming you don't train staff.


Since I was a baseball pitcher in high school, I then switch to knife throwing after high school. I love to challenge people by throwing rocks at each other and see who will remain standing.

I think to dodge throwing rock (or throwing knife) is a must have MA skill. It's missing in most of the MA school training.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 22, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Not really. You would have to show evidence of some sort of competency in stick fighting to make the argument you have some sort of competency in stick fighting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I almost posted that same Donga fight, but changed my mind. not enough clothing on.   The video that you posted is a rights of passage fights.  The fight is meant to cause harm but not the same harm that you would do to an enemy.  They use this fight to help secure wives and to prove their man hood.  Strikes to the face and poking with the sticks are not allowed.  Even thought they are swinging hard with the sticks the sticks are flexible and bend significantly more.  This is stick fighting that you can survive because it's ritual stick fighting.

But on to your point.  I don't have to show evidence that I can hit someone with a staff.  I would still have my Jow Ga skill sets even if I have never shown a Jow Ga video.  The videos don't validate my Jow Ga skills.  It just shows you what I already know I can do.  If I can't do it, then I'm more happy to say that I can't.  Just like I said that I can't knife fight.

You should know this much about me after the years we spent posting on here.
1. I don't say that I can do unless I can do it.
2. I don't have a problem with saying that I'm wrong.  More than once, I've thanked people for correcting me on here.
3. I'm not so stuck on myself that I can't apologize.

I could sit here and waste time lying about stuff, but I don't because no one can learn from a lie, including me.  I don't have video of me hitting someone with a staff because that stuff hurts.  Anyone who has trained with a staff and has had their fingers smashed are always thankful that it the swing was not full force.

Anyone who has been hit in the head with a staff are equally as thankful that the swing was not full force.

People don't dress up like this because staffs don't hurt


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 22, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Since I was a baseball pitcher in high school, I then switch to knife throwing after high school. I love to challenge people by throwing rocks at each other and see who will remain standing.
> 
> I think to dodge throwing rock (or throwing knife) is a must have MA skill. It's missing in most of the MA school training.


probably because throwing your only knife just gives your weapon to the enemy.  In Jow Ga we say throwing a knife means you won't have anything to use on the other guy.  So if you and you friend have a knife and I hit him, now you can attack me with your knife since I threw mine away.   Also If I threw my knife at you and I miss then you can use my knife against me. 

I do think dodging knifes are good but not so much throwing knives.  In general knowing how to dodge is good and should be trained in martial arts. It's clear from the MMA vs kung Fu masters videos that it's needed lol.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 22, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> throwing your only knife just gives your weapon to the enemy.


Not if I have plenty of knives. I used to carry 3 throwing knives when I was young in Taiwan (fire arm was not allowed) when someone threatened to kill me. That guy belonged to a local gang. I was not. I was in a true self-defense mode.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 22, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Not if I have plenty of knives. I used to carry 3 throwing knives when I was young in Taiwan (fire arm was not allowed) when someone threatened to kill me. That guy belonged to a local gang. I was not.


Let me find out you were a hitman in the old days lol.    What did your throwing knives look like.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 22, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> What did your throwing knives look like.


I used to make my own throwing knifes from diamond shape hand file by using a hand grander. To make the blade is easy. The hard part is to make the handle. I collected some plastic bags, melt it into black glue, wrap it around the end of the blade, wait it to cool off, and use knife to make it into handle shape. This kind of handle will not break when drop on the ground.

My throwing knife look like this:


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 22, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Once I taught a Taiji class for the Chinese community. I intend to finish the 108 moves long Taiji form within 3 months. We met once a week, 2 house a class. After 3 weeks, I found out that students still could not remember the initial 12 moves.
> 
> A: Do you people train at home?
> B: No! We don't.
> ...


This is the tough part for motivated teachers. We want to move folks forward, but can only move as fast as their commitment. And in group classes that gets especially frustrating at times.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 22, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> Let me find out you were a hitman in the old days lol.


Right after the 4 seas gang leader in Taiwan was shot by a foreign hitman, I went back to Taiwan and got in a Taxi from airport back to Taipei. The taxi driver asked me why I came back to Taiwan for. I told him that I would helping my brothers to settle down some business (I was joking). Since I had long hair back then, the Taxi driver was afraid to take my taxi fair. The taxi driver thought I was a hitman too.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 23, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> Here's the evidence.  If you and I had a fight that only includes sweeping people, would you win?
> If you and I had a fight that only includes using a staff could you beat me?  I'm assuming you don't train staff.



We would have to do it and find out.

Either of our back stories don't make a bit of difference. There are no lies on the mat.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 23, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> How is it fantasy when I take walks with my staff?
> 
> I live in Georgia USA, and have seen many people walk around with guns and knives on their hip. That's not fantasy either.  Here you are more likely to run into someone with a gun than a staff.



Because you are completely inventing the scenario.  And so you have control of the narrative.

You didn't realise it but you forgot your staff that day. And I had two people with staffs and one of them was Monkey.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 23, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I’ve taken a bit of the approach you posit. I don’t teach any of the traditional approaches (except where a student needs a slower approach) until a foundation curriculum has been covered. This takes a few weeks (usually less than 3 months), and could be held longer.


Ive seen forms taught as nearly the first thing for a student.  Either little or no foundation training was done first, even fundamental techniques like a basic punch was left untaught until it was encountered in the form.  And then the form becomes the entire practice.  Foundation and fundamentals are never developed, technique is never drilled, application is never worked on even if application is shown on occasion as a way of giving context for the movement in the form.  Form is simply done.  I have received some instruction in this way as well.  It never made sense to me.

I think traditionally it was never done that way.  I don’t know when and how some schools started doing this.

When fundamentals are strongly developed, then quality is raised up for all aspects of training.  Training forms becomes more effective, training on the heavy bag becomes more effective, partner drills become more effective, sparring in whatever manifestation it is done becomes more effective.  If the fundamentals are not developed, then all of those other aspects of training become less effective and move closer to just movement without purpose. It’s funny how when more time is spent on one aspect of training, fundamentals, then everything  is elevated and the benefits of all other aspects of training real greater results.  And it’s a smarter use of time.

Let’s say you practice for an hour and you are unsatisfied with your progress.  You practice a little bit of fundamentals, a little bit of forms, a little bit of heavy bag, a little bit of partner drills, and a little bit of sparring.  And it doesn’t seem to be adding up.

So you decide you need more training, and you double or even triple the time spent on each section.  So now you train two or even three hours and while you may see greater progress, it becomes difficult to dedicate so much of your time to regular training.

What is the solution?  Focus on the fundamentals.  Really dig into it and be mindful of it and spend more of the training time on it.  Now maybe you’ve added 15 minute or a half hour to your training session, instead of adding one or two hours.  But the quality of that time is higher.  You don’t need to pile on more time with the other things.  If the fundamentals are improved, and that mindfulness is applied to all the other aspects, then they will all improve.  You can improve your overall quality without dramatically increasing your time, if you focus your efforts properly.

If I spend little time on my fundamentals, and spend two hours practicing all my forms five times each, I end up exhausted and with poor quality.  But if I spend an hour on my fundamentals and then spend a half hour doing all my forms once, the quality of all of it is higher and I’ve saved a half hour.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 23, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Because you are completely inventing the scenario.  And so you have control of the narrative.
> 
> You didn't realise it but you forgot your staff that day. And I had two people with staffs and one of them was Monkey.


So having a staff with me is one scenario but unbelievable, yet not having a staff with is another scenario but that's believable, yet there are tons of situations where people use bats is that believable?  Not sure how people swinging bats is a thing.  I own a bat too.  Instead of picking up a bat I can pick up a staff.





People in the U.S. get shot with shot guns, hand guns, stun, guns, pepper spray, arrows, stabbed with knives, cut with swords, ran over by cars, hit with brick, hit with bats, hit with chairs, hit with trash cans, but me hitting someone with a staff is unrealistic?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 23, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> Ive seen forms taught as nearly the first thing for a student. Either little or no foundation training was done first, even fundamental techniques like a basic punch was left untaught until it was encountered in the form.


It took a few months before I could even begin my first form.  They made me learn the basic punches and kicks.  At one point I almost thought I wasn't going to be taught any forms.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 23, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> So having a staff with me is one scenario but unbelievable, yet not having a staff with is another scenario but that's believable, yet there are tons of situations where people use bats is that believable?  Not sure how people swinging bats is a thing.  I own a bat too.  Instead of picking up a bat I can pick up a staff.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All of the situations we make up are made up.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 23, 2020)

drop bear said:


> All of the situations we make up are made up.


There is nothing wrong with giving a realistic scenario and then coming up with a realistic reaction based on your personality and resources available .  Most of us call it planning.  When we plan we often plan for things that may or may not happen.   Contingency plans are all about planning for things that we make up as we have no way of knowing if or when it happens.

You don't have to wait for something to happen in order to know how you would respond to a realistic scenario.  You should know yourself and your abilities well enough to know what type of actions you would do in a scenario.  As you can see from the videos, it didn't take kung fu skills for people to decide that they would hit someone with a stick.

Based on your logic these guys did not plan to use the swords or have the swords around for the purpose of defending themselves against robbers.  I can guarantee that they ran the scenario "if someone breaks into my store and I have my sword, then this is what I'm going to do."    One day it happened and One day they did exactly what they said they would do.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 23, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> There is nothing wrong with giving a realistic scenario and then coming up with a realistic reaction based on your personality and resources available .  Most of us call it planning.  When we plan we often plan for things that may or may not happen.   Contingency plans are all about planning for things that we make up as we have no way of knowing if or when it happens.
> 
> You don't have to wait for something to happen in order to know how you would respond to a realistic scenario.  You should know yourself and your abilities well enough to know what type of actions you would do in a scenario.  As you can see from the videos, it didn't take kung fu skills for people to decide that they would hit someone with a stick.
> 
> Based on your logic these guys did not plan to use the swords or have the swords around for the purpose of defending themselves against robbers.  I can guarantee that they ran the scenario "if someone breaks into my store and I have my sword, then this is what I'm going to do."    One day it happened and One day they did exactly what they said they would do.



Yeah well in imaginary world I win all my fights whether I have a stick or not.

Because I know how cool I am.





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2071495102915812


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 23, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Yeah well in imaginary world I win all my fights whether I have a stick or not.



if you had a staff and someone PHYSICALLY attacked you.  Would you not use the staff to defend yourself?
If you didn't have staff and someone PHYSICALLY attacked you.  Would you or would use your hands to defend yourself?

It's not that difficult man.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 23, 2020)

It seems to me that MMA discussion and weapon training discussion don't go well together.

When my student's school had 3 person sparring format. When 2 persons spar, the 3rd person on the side can attack either person. The BJJ students in his school felt very uncomfortable with that kind of rule set.

Whenever I showed my spikes ring to my BJJ friends, I always made them to be mad at me big time.

I don't know how long will it take for people to feel comfortable about talking the following areas all together.

- MMA,
- Weapon,
- Rock/knife throwing,
- 1 against many,
- ...

Sometime we may forget that sport is only the "path". Combat will be our true goal.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 23, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It seems to me that MMA discussion and weapon training discussion don't go well together.


I didn't think it would be this difficult, since it's so basic. And all I was trying to do is explain the mindset of CMA.  As a CMA practitioner that ring sums up the mindset that I've been speaking of.  I'm not even shocked that you have something like that lol.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 24, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> Ive seen forms taught as nearly the first thing for a student.  Either little or no foundation training was done first, even fundamental techniques like a basic punch was left untaught until it was encountered in the form.  And then the form becomes the entire practice.  Foundation and fundamentals are never developed, technique is never drilled, application is never worked on even if application is shown on occasion as a way of giving context for the movement in the form.  Form is simply done.  I have received some instruction in this way as well.  It never made sense to me.
> 
> I think traditionally it was never done that way.  I don’t know when and how some schools started doing this.
> 
> ...


Okay, needed to wait until I was at a PC to reply.

I entirely agree that a bit of focus on fundamentals goes a long way toward helping with everything - including forms. I can (and used to) teach NGA's grappling starting from forms and focused mostly on forms (they're 2-man forms, with static starts), reinforcing with what we call "applications" (less-stylized versions, still with minimal chance of failure - think basic grappling drills). If I teach grappling fundamentals, and spend significant time on those, folks learn the techniques faster AND are better at the form. And they are able to actually apply the principles the forms are meant to teach in actual grappling/rolling situations.

Same goes for the punches and kicks. Some time focusing on the fundamentals (rather than a specific form) brings competency much more quickly.

Like you, I believe this is how it was meant to be, though I'm not sure I have more than a hunch and how I've seen people learn to back my belief.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 24, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> It took a few months before I could even begin my first form.  They made me learn the basic punches and kicks.  At one point I almost thought I wasn't going to be taught any forms.


This is how I think it works best, when forms are involved.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 24, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> Ive seen forms taught as nearly the first thing for a student.


What do you think if this is taught on the 1st day?






I believe one can develop foundation through application (partner drill). I don't believe one can develop application through foundation. I have seen too many people who has good foundation but can't fight.

I like to teach this on the 1st day. I want all my students to know that I care more about application then foundation.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 24, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What do you think if this is taught on the 1st day?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's entirely possible to develop a fantastic punch but no ability to apply it, by lacking footwork or some other component. I'd label those components "fundamentals". It's also possible to develop that problem by never sparring, and I know of no better solution to that problem than, well, sparring.

However, it's also possible to have theoretical ability to apply without foundation, which leads to useless application. Someone could develop great targeting and footwork, but have a punch that - even when landed - has little effect. That's application lacking fundamentals.

For real applicability, it has to have those fundamentals. To me, that kick is unlikely to be useful to most brand new students. They don't have the balance and timing to make it useful, to say nothing of the risk they're accepting with little payoff as reward.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 24, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What do you think if this is taught on the 1st day?



I would never teach something like that on day one.



> I believe one can develop foundation through application (partner drill). I don't believe one can develop application through foundation. I have seen too many people who has good foundation but can't fight.
> 
> I like to teach this on the 1st day. I want all my students to know that I care more about application then foundation.



I believe application is a distraction in the beginning, when foundation is being built.  Application can he done, but if it is overdone then foundation never gets properly built.  More application can come, but ought to wait a bit until foundation has a chance first.

When foundation is strong, application is much stronger.  It is easy to dive straight into application, and never be as effective as it could be, because foundation is always “put off for later” which never becomes now.  Foundation is often neglected indefinitely.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 24, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> However, it's also possible to have theoretical ability to apply without foundation, which leads to useless application.


The issue is one can still develop foundation when he is old. One cannot develop fighting experience when he is old. So sparring should be done when one is still young.

A: If I ever see you with my girlfriend again, I'll kill you.
B: I refuse to fight you until I have developed a strong MA foundation.

A: You have developed a strong foundation. Now you should test your skill in the ring, or on the mat.
B: But I'm already 50 years old with glaucoma. My eye doctor told me that I should not bend my head below my heart level.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 24, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> Foundation is often neglected indefinitely.


- Bill Gates was Harvard University (dropped out).
- Steve Jobs was Reed College in Portland, Oregon (dropped out).
- Mark Zuckerberg was Harvard University (dropped out).

If we compare

- university education with MA foundation,
- career with MA application,

a perfect MA foundation is not that important after all.

Application require: 

- catch good timing, 
- recognize an opportunity,
- move in through a right angle.

All has nothing to do with foundation.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 24, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> - Bill Gates was Harvard University (dropped out).
> - Steve Jobs was Reed College in Portland, Oregon (dropped out).
> - Mark Zuckerberg was Harvard University (dropped out).
> 
> ...


Why would you compare the highest level of education to foundation? If you're going to decide to make that comparison (without knowing if it's valid) you should at least use something like high school to compare foundation.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 24, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Why would you compare the highest level of education to foundation? If you're going to decide to make that comparison (without knowing if it's valid) you should at least use something like high school to compare foundation.


Most people need a college degree to find a job. One of my friends could not get a job with a

- liberal arts degree.
- PhD degree in physics. He went back to school to obtain his computer science PhD degree. When he started to work his 1st job, he already had white hair on his head. He had spent too much time to build his foundation. All his life, he had a very bad attitude. 

This remind me a MA guy with strong foundation and get knocked out within 8 second in the ring.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 25, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> if you had a staff and someone PHYSICALLY attacked you.  Would you not use the staff to defend yourself?
> If you didn't have staff and someone PHYSICALLY attacked you.  Would you or would use your hands to defend yourself?
> 
> It's not that difficult man.



It depends how bad I wanted to hurt them to be honest. 

Which is why I also don't wear rings to do unnecessary damage. 

But my martial arts isn't so ineffective as to need to walk around with a stick or spikey rings.


----------



## Buka (Aug 25, 2020)

I don’t have a college degree, even though I went to college for three years in Liberal Arts as an English major.

It was taking too much time away from my study of Martial Arts so I left.

And I got a dandy of a job. But that was then.

Probably not a good idea, but forty plus years later I don’t have one single regret. That being said, I would NOT recommend that particular path to anyone. Times have changed.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 25, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Most people need a college degree to find a job. One of my friends could not get a job with a
> 
> - liberal arts degree.
> - PhD degree in physics. He went back to school to obtain his computer science PhD degree. When he started to work his 1st job, he already had white hair on his head. He had spent too much time to build his foundation. All his life, he had a very bad attitude.
> ...


So the comparison would then be that you need a college education to find a job, would be the experience needed to be a pro boxer/wrestler/etc. I would hope that at that point you would be past the foundation stage.

As for your friend, that seems to be more about him than his education. I know people who have gotten jobs with both of what you listed.


----------



## Steve (Aug 25, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> So the comparison would then be that you need a college education to find a job, would be the experience needed to be a pro boxer/wrestler/etc. I would hope that at that point you would be past the foundation stage.
> 
> As for your friend, that seems to be more about him than his education. I know people who have gotten jobs with both of what you listed.


I don't know about the boxing, pro boxing, foundation discussion.  But regarding the analogy, how and why people have the jobs they have is fascinating to me.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 25, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The issue is one can still develop foundation when he is old. One cannot develop fighting experience when he is old. So sparring should be done when one is still young.
> 
> A: If I ever see you with my girlfriend again, I'll kill you.
> B: I refuse to fight you until I have developed a strong MA foundation.
> ...


Or, you learn how to develop your foundation from the very beginning and your make that a regular part of your training.  You keep working on it.  After six months it is somewhat functional and you actually understand it.  After two It is powerful and highly functional.  Your skills are growing right along with it, from the get-go.  

When people put this kind of thing off for “later” I believe that in most cases later never comes.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 25, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> - Bill Gates was Harvard University (dropped out).
> - Steve Jobs was Reed College in Portland, Oregon (dropped out).
> - Mark Zuckerberg was Harvard University (dropped out).
> 
> ...


I’ve got to ask you: what is your interpretation of foundation and fundamentals, and how do you go about training them?

Regarding Jobs and Zuckerberg, please don’t tell you you think their unusual situations have any relation to most people.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 25, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> I’ve got to ask you: what is your interpretation of foundation and fundamentals, and how do you go about training them?


Foundation is to develop personal abilities such as:

- Endurance.
- Stretching.
- Single leg balance.
- Stances switching.
- Speed.
- Power.
- Body alignment.
- Body framing (Peng Jing)
- Body unification.
- Body coordination (hand coordinate with foot, ...).
- ...

The issue is the foundation has nothing to do with "opponent". Fighting has to do with opponent such as:

- timing,
- opportunity,
- angle.
- balance (when handle opponent).
- power (also when handle opponent).

For example, one cannot develop "good timing" by himself alone.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 25, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> When people put this kind of thing off for “later” I believe that in most cases later never comes.


Agree! But does it matter?

- One guy has 18-2 under his belt. When he entered the form competition, he got very low score. If he can use single leg to take down everybody on this planet, he doesn't need any more foundation. This guy may improve his foundation later, or he may not.

- One guy who has great foundation. He could throw 6 punches in 1 second. His kicks was as fast as Bruce Lee's kick. He got knocked down in 8 seconds. This guy's excellent foundation has 0 value.

When I look at these 2 examples, it's not difficult for me to draw my conclusion. Foundation may be important in fighting. But "fighting experience" is even more important than foundation.

Foundation has no value if one can't use it in fighting (I'm pretty sure that my long fist teacher won't agree with me on this. He always think that I care about fighting too much).


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 25, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree! But does it matter?
> 
> - One guy has 18-2 under his belt. When he entered the form competition, he got very low score. If he can use single leg to take down everybody on this planet, he doesn't need any more foundation. This guy may improve his foundation later, or he may not.
> 
> ...


See, I’ve pointed this out before.  You keep looking at things with an “either/or” perspective and it does not need to be that way.  You can get both, although it probably works best to delay one for a time.  But that isn’t forever.  And then you build them both together.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 25, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> You keep looking at things with an “either/or” perspective and it does not need to be that way.


This has to do with my personal experience.

When I competed in tournament, my head lock was not strong enough. When my head lock was strong enough, I don't compete in tournament any more.

Something is not right here. But I don't know how to solve this kind of problem.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 25, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This has to do with my personal experience.
> 
> When I competed in tournament, my head lock was not strong enough. When my head lock was strong enough, I don't compete in tournament any more.
> 
> Something is not right here. But I don't know how to solve this kind of problem.


Do you work on one thing at a time, to the exclusion of others?  I try to keep working on them all, a bit at a time.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 25, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> Do you work on one thing at a time, to the exclusion of others?  I try to keep working on them all, a bit at a time.


I have developed my foundation through my long fist system. Since I no longer teach long fist to my students, I need to find a different way to help them to develop their foundation. I try to find "kill 2 birds with 1 stone" solution. I believe one can develop foundation through partner drill.

Bruce Lee's foundation was from the WC system. When he started JKD, did he still teach his students those 3 WC forms? How did Bruce Lee help his students to build up their foundation?


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 25, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have developed my foundation through my long fist system. Since I no longer teach long fist to my students, I need to find a different way to help them to develop their foundation. I try to find "kill 2 birds with 1 stone" solution. I believe one can develop foundation through partner drill.
> 
> Bruce Lee's foundation was from the WC system. When he started JKD, did he still teach his students those 3 WC forms? How did Bruce Lee help his students to build up their foundation?


So what is the foundation for shuai jow?  I imagine it must be different from long fist.  My experience says that one foundation does not fit all systems.  Each system has its own foundation and develops it in their own way.  If you are teaching shuai jow then you ought to be teaching the foundation that shuai jow is built on, not Longfist foundation.

I don’t know what Bruce Lee didand I don’t find it relevant to most people.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 25, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> - Bill Gates was Harvard University (dropped out).
> - Steve Jobs was Reed College in Portland, Oregon (dropped out).
> - Mark Zuckerberg was Harvard University (dropped out).
> 
> ...


There are many people who know application and how to do it.  But they lack the foundation needed to actually deploy it, themselves.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> - Bill Gates was Harvard University (dropped out).
> - Steve Jobs was Reed College in Portland, Oregon (dropped out).
> - Mark Zuckerberg was Harvard University (dropped out).
> 
> ...


No one is accepted to Harvard University without a strong foundation.  Even with small colleges, you have to have a decent foundation in order to make it through it.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 25, 2020)

drop bear said:


> But my martial arts isn't so ineffective as to need to walk around with a stick or spikey rings.


I guess cops really suck butt at fighting being that they have to carry weapons.  They must have no skills at all.  Just going by your logic.

Not speaking ill of the dead.  I'm pretty sure he felt good about his fighting skills as well.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 25, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> I would never teach something like that on day one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don’t think it has to be a distraction, though in the more traditional approaches I’ve seen it would be. In modern Western approaches, early application seems to fit well.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 25, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> I believe application is a distraction in the beginning, when foundation is being built.


I strongly believe the other way around is more correct. I believe foundation can be a distraction for application.

I teach all beginners on their 1st day class to against

1. All punches - Use front kick to counter all punches.
2. Straight line kick - Deflect front kick, jam leading arm, and punch.
3. Circular kick - Catch a roundhouse kick.
4. Leg shooting - Use downward pulling to counter leg shooting.

I want to tell all beginners that MA training is to solve problems. Today, our problems are:

- Boxer's punch.
- Kung Fu guy's front kick.
- TKD guy's side kick.
- MT guy's roundhouse kick.
- Wrestler's leg shooting.

After a student has learned the application of "downward pulling",







I then teach him how to develop pulling power by using the weight pulley.











So I 1st teach someone how to apply a technique through the partner drill. I then tell him how to develop foundation for it. This way a student can see the goal. He will spend time to build foundation to reach that goal.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 25, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> early application seems to fit well.


I like the teacher in case 1. I don't like the teacher in case 2.

Case 1:

A: Dear master! I want to learn the technique that you just did on me.
B: In order for you to learn that technique, you will need to build foundation for ... and ...

Case 2:

A: Dear master! Why do I need to spend all day just staying in my horse stance?
B: One day when I teach you how to fight, you will need this kind of foundation.
A: But you haven't taught me any fighting skill yet.
B: One of these days, I'll.
A: ...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 25, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> early application seems to fit well.


Method 1:

Father: If you study hard, you will find a pretty wife.
Son: Where is that pretty girl?

Method 2:

Girl: If you want to marry me, you will need to graduate from MIT.
Boy: I'll do all I can to meet your requirement.

I don't believe in method 1. I strongly believe in method 2.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 25, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I like the teacher in case 1. I don't like the teacher in case 2.
> 
> Case 1:
> 
> ...


Agreed. I think there can be over-emphasis in either direction. Sprinting too quickly to application can have students struggling to attempt something they don't have the foundation to do. Staying too long on foundation (or focusing on foundation minutae too much) can lead to having attributes with no way to actually use them. With the latter, we'd be falling into the fantasy world of the original Karate Kid movie.


----------



## Steve (Aug 25, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. I think there can be over-emphasis in either direction. Sprinting too quickly to application can have students struggling to attempt something they don't have the foundation to do. Staying too long on foundation (or focusing on foundation minutae too much) can lead to having attributes with no way to actually use them. With the latter, we'd be falling into the fantasy world of the original Karate Kid movie.


I disagree. Application can replace training.   You can learn to do things without any training. It may take longer, but it can be done, and is done all the time.  But training can never replace application.  

Kids play tee ball games after just a few practices.  Best way to learn to play chess is to play chess.  

It's never too soon to apply skills, and doing so makes any training you receive more effective.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 25, 2020)

Steve said:


> Application can replace training.


Agree! I have learned how to swim by just jumping into river without any instruction.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 26, 2020)

Steve said:


> You can learn to do things without any training.


 I don't think the issue is so much can you learn to do something without training.  The issue is more of the quality of learning that you get from the training vs the quality of learning that you get just by trying to go out and do something.

The entire advancement of humans regardless of cultures has been based on knowledge built on foundation.  The better the foundation the faster the advancement and the better the skill.



Steve said:


> Best way to learn to play chess is to play chess.


Someone say chess?

The best way to learn chess is to learn the basics.  Starting with the easiest piece first (the pawn) and understanding how that piece moves. The applications of that would be pawn vs pawn only. Once that is mastered, add another piece.  Here's why I think this.

Once you have an understanding of how to use the Pawn, then you begin to build more advanced skills upon that.  The Pawn is the foundation of one's chess skills,  Failure to know how to use the pawn can result in the quickest lost.  The Pawn and the King are the most important pieces and are the only 2 pieces that are for the most part limited to moving 2 spaces at as a first move and then only one move afterwards.

The Pawn is the only piece that can grow in ability.  The King is the only piece that can lose.  The knight the rook are important, but not as important as the pawn.  Pawns maneuver to set up defenses and offensives.  All of the other pieces are supportive roles. Used to strike or defend based on the movement of the Pawns.  Similar to Chess.  The better you're able to apply your foundation the better off you'll be. Both made moves which the pawns, but only one did better better with the foundation.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 26, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree! I have learned how to swim by just jumping into river without any instruction.


When I was a kid, my swimming teacher pushed me in the deep end.  Probably 20ft. when I didn't know how to swim.  But I did what I could to not drown. I wouldn't call that swimming.  It was more like not drowning. I remember this because I would dream about how I cried out of fear as I tried not to sink below the water.  I begged to be help but he didn't help me as other children watch me as the teacher made me dog paddle the length of the pool.

There are many kids who fall into the water and never learn how to swim, but they learn how to drown.

The only things I learned from that day was 2 things.  Learn to be good at holding my breath and how to come up  to get a quick breath.   My logic was simple.  If I could hold my breath long enough, then I could reach the side of the pool.  To this day, I still can't swim above water well. When I swim now, I do all of my laps underwater.  Still following that same logic.  If I can hold my breath long enough then I can swim to the edge.  If I fall in the middle of the ocean then I'm just screwed.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 26, 2020)

Steve said:


> I disagree. Application can replace training.   You can learn to do things without any training. It may take longer, but it can be done, and is done all the time.  But training can never replace application.
> 
> Kids play tee ball games after just a few practices.  Best way to learn to play chess is to play chess.
> 
> It's never too soon to apply skills, and doing so makes any training you receive more effective.


That last sentence is key. If you're applying skills, then you have some skill to apply. If you take someone and say, "go spar with kicks" without teaching them kicks (and assuming they don't have that skill from some other source), you're asking them to learn the skill while they apply. Which is going to slow down learning. Better to get some basics going, then get to that sparring. Sure, you CAN start immediately to sparring, but unless that's just evaluation, it's going to limit them.

There are situations where I could see "application" looking the same as "evaluation". Let's say a new guy comes into a BJJ class. The instructor might want to roll with him briefly (or have some other advanced person do so) to get a quick measure of where they're starting. That way if they have some useful ability (from horseplay with their siblings, or whatever), that could be leveraged from the start.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 26, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree! I have learned how to swim by just jumping into river without any instruction.


Which is only going to work if you already are able to swim (by which I mean stay afloat and control your movement in the water). You didn't learn how to swim by jumping in the river, because if you couldn't swim, you stand a good chance of just drowning. Can't learn while drowning.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 26, 2020)

Steve said:


> Best way to learn to play chess is to play chess.


I missed this on my first read. I'll disagree entirely. If you just go play (no teaching), then your first several games will consist almost entirely of you breaking the rules and getting demolished, while having no idea what's going on. Chess isn't a physical skill, so the comparison isn't going to line up well, but the best way to learn chess is probably something like this: watch a little while someone explains the rules, then start playing while someone walks you through the rules and explains your options at key points. Which is pretty analogous to someone teaching some basic foundation then starting into sparring/application with some teaching interspersed at key points.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 26, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> That last sentence is key. If you're applying skills, then you have some skill to apply. If you take someone and say, "go spar with kicks" without teaching them kicks (and assuming they don't have that skill from some other source), you're asking them to learn the skill while they apply. Which is going to slow down learning. Better to get some basics going, then get to that sparring. Sure, you CAN start immediately to sparring, but unless that's just evaluation, it's going to limit them.
> 
> There are situations where I could see "application" looking the same as "evaluation". Let's say a new guy comes into a BJJ class. The instructor might want to roll with him briefly (or have some other advanced person do so) to get a quick measure of where they're starting. That way if they have some useful ability (from horseplay with their siblings, or whatever), that could be leveraged from the start.


----------



## Steve (Aug 26, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't think the issue is so much can you learn to do something without training.  The issue is more of the quality of learning that you get from the training vs the quality of learning that you get just by trying to go out and do something.
> 
> The entire advancement of humans regardless of cultures has been based on knowledge built on foundation.  The better the foundation the faster the advancement and the better the skill.
> 
> ...


Couple of things going on here.  First, I think you've missed the forest for the trees.  I'm not arguing against training nor foundational instruction.  I'm arguing against training as a replacement for application.  In the same post, a sentence you snipped out made this more clear.  

Second, knowledge based on foundation only works in context.  To really understand the foundation, you have to apply the foundation in context.  In order to understand the more nuanced application, you have to be adept at the foundational application.  This is such a simple concept, and it goes out the window with martial arts.  Confounding to me.

Lastly, it's never too early to get to application.  The specific issue here is the suggestion that one should wait to apply any foundation until one has firmly grasped the foundation.  Sure, good training makes a huge difference.  But if I had to choose between really, really good training without application or adequate training with application, I choose the latter.  The person who trains a little and applies a lot will always progress faster than the one who does not. 

Let's consider chess.  You have 24 people.  There are 12 who play chess and 12 who don't know how, and they're all paired up together.  The idea is to teach all 12 of the novices how to play chess with some degree of competence.  After 30 days and at 60 days, they are interviewed to assess their general understanding of the game, and then at 1 year they all play each other.  We could get into what the actual measures are, but for now, just picture whatever that looks like in your mind.  There are three teaching models on the table: death through training, sink or swim, and a hybrid of the two.


Four of them read the books, watch YouTube videos, and talk to their coaches about chess.  They get to hold the pieces in their hands, but they never get to play a game.  
Four of them play the game.  While their coach may demonstrate the rules and various tactics during the game, these four are learning the game by playing the game.  They are being required to intuit the rules from observation, and trial and error.   
Four of them are in the hybrid.  They get a brief explanation of the general rules on day one, and then play the game. After each game, they talk about what went right and wrong, ask questions, and then play more.  They play a lot of chess, but the mentors are able to explain their actions and coach in real time.  
At the end of 30 day interview, who's doing well?  I'd argue that out of the gate, the hybrid group is doing best.  Applying skills right away puts them into context and helps build a framework so that they remember nuance.  The death through training group will talk a good game, and the sink or swim group will appear to be mostly sinking.  

As the year progresses, the hybrid group, who is training and also applying their training in context, will excel.  At the end of the year, I would expect each of the four of them to easily win matches against the other two models, and the real competition would be among themselves.  

Second, though, would be the sink or swim group.  Initially, they would lag behind everyone, because they're having to figure it out.  But over time, they're going to be creating a structure for themselves and just by logging the hours playing with someone who is competent, they will become proficient.  

Lagging far behind would be the death by training folks.  Never actually applying the techniques, they would plateau very quickly, and their skill progression will stall.  

All of that said, there is an instructional design model that's been around for a decade or so, that's sort of a "sink or swim" with a life vest model.  I could get more into it, but the gist is that you are essentially thrown into the pool on day one, and if you start to drown, you're given a pool noodle.  But the struggle is an essential part of the model.


----------



## Steve (Aug 26, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> That last sentence is key. If you're applying skills, then you have some skill to apply. If you take someone and say, "go spar with kicks" without teaching them kicks (and assuming they don't have that skill from some other source), you're asking them to learn the skill while they apply. Which is going to slow down learning. Better to get some basics going, then get to that sparring. Sure, you CAN start immediately to sparring, but unless that's just evaluation, it's going to limit them.
> 
> There are situations where I could see "application" looking the same as "evaluation". Let's say a new guy comes into a BJJ class. The instructor might want to roll with him briefly (or have some other advanced person do so) to get a quick measure of where they're starting. That way if they have some useful ability (from horseplay with their siblings, or whatever), that could be leveraged from the start.


Ummm... so we can agree that the folks coming in can have some useful ability without instruction, from horseplay or whatever?  How can that be?

To be clear, we can debate the ideal ratio of training vs application.  There's room for discussion.  But....

Can we agree that 100% training vs 0% application does not work?  Best case scenario, you end up with something like cops firing their weapons indiscriminately, hitting their intended target about 1 out of every 5 shots they fire?  There is a transfer of learning that must occur.  The transfer of learning from training to application is always far less reliable than the application of a skill from one context in another.   In fact, we can be pretty sure that the accuracy rate of cops is not a training issue.  More training hasn't helped improve their accuracy.  It's an application issue.

Can we agree that 0% training vs 100% application is not ideal?  While is does work, it can take longer and often leads to skills gaps and potentially some creative problem solving (aka, bad habits).  

Can we agree that some mix of the two is ideal?


----------



## Steve (Aug 26, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I missed this on my first read. I'll disagree entirely. If you just go play (no teaching), then your first several games will consist almost entirely of you breaking the rules and getting demolished, while having no idea what's going on. Chess isn't a physical skill, so the comparison isn't going to line up well, but the best way to learn chess is probably something like this: watch a little while someone explains the rules, then start playing while someone walks you through the rules and explains your options at key points. Which is pretty analogous to someone teaching some basic foundation then starting into sparring/application with some teaching interspersed at key points.


Playing the game is the key, though.  Right?  Not analogous to sparring at all, IMO.  Because, unless your goal is to be an expert sparring partner, that's not what you're trying to learn.  Is it?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 26, 2020)

Steve said:


> Couple of things going on here.  First, I think you've missed the forest for the trees.  I'm not arguing against training nor foundational instruction.  I'm arguing against training as a replacement for application.  In the same post, a sentence you snipped out made this more clear.
> 
> Second, knowledge based on foundation only works in context.  To really understand the foundation, you have to apply the foundation in context.  In order to understand the more nuanced application, you have to be adept at the foundational application.  This is such a simple concept, and it goes out the window with martial arts.  Confounding to me.
> 
> ...


Thanks that clears it up for me


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 26, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree! I have learned how to swim by just jumping into river without any instruction.


First of all all jumping into a river, with a current, without knowing how to swim, is a deathwish.  I’m guessing that if an adult threw a minor into that situation, there might be an arrest for child endangerment.  Some people might have actually survived such a stupid incident and therefor might be tempted to brush it off as a fine way to teach swimming.  I suspect the law might see it differently because most reasonable people now would recognize how dangerous that can be.

A similar, but more controllable situation, would be to do that in a swimming pool.  In this case, I seriously doubt that someone would learn to swim any better than dog paddle.  Which is a very inefficient form of swimming.  Without actual instruction, it is unlikely said person would ever progress beyond that.  

That’s what you get when you try to jump over the foundation and technical aspects of good instruction.  Yes, you can become functional quickly.  But you remain at a low level.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 26, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I strongly believe the other way around is more correct. I believe foundation can be a distraction for application.
> 
> I teach all beginners on their 1st day class to against
> 
> ...


So what you are really saying is that you teach application and foundation simultaneously.  Which is pretty close to what I’ve been saying all along.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 26, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> Thanks that clears it up for me


I think we have sidetracked a bit here.

We are not talking about how to start sparring without knowing how to kick and punch. We are talking whether one can develop foundation through partner drill (application) or not.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 26, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I think we have sidetracked a bit here.
> 
> We are not talking about how to start sparring without knowing how to kick and punch. We are talking whether one can develop foundation through partner drill (application) or not.


Is that what we are talking about?  The title of the thread had me believing that we were talking about whether or not shadowboxing is the same as kata.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 26, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> Is that what we are talking about?  The title of the thread had me believing that we were talking about whether or not shadowboxing is the same as kata.


We were sidetracked into jump into water without swimming knowledge (or sparring without learning kick/punch).


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 26, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> We were sidetracked into jump into water without swimming knowledge (or sparring without learning kick/punch).


Sure, the discussion can go into any of a number of directions, and can do so simultaneously.  So I guess nothing is “sidetracking”.


----------



## Steve (Aug 26, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> Is that what we are talking about?  The title of the thread had me believing that we were talking about whether or not shadowboxing is the same as kata.


I think we've already sorted that one out.  Consensus is that it is not.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 26, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> First of all all jumping into a river, with a current, without knowing how to swim, is a deathwish.  I’m guessing that if an adult threw a minor into that situation, there might be an arrest for child endangerment.  Some people might have actually survived such a stupid incident and therefor might be tempted to brush it off as a fine way to teach swimming.  I suspect the law might see it differently because most reasonable people now would recognize how dangerous that can be.
> 
> A similar, but more controllable situation, would be to do that in a swimming pool.  In this case, I seriously doubt that someone would learn to swim any better than dog paddle.  Which is a very inefficient form of swimming.  Without actual instruction, it is unlikely said person would ever progress beyond that.
> 
> That’s what you get when you try to jump over the foundation and technical aspects of good instruction.  Yes, you can become functional quickly.  But you remain at a low level.



Be like a self defense instructor that hasn't had to defend himself.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 26, 2020)

Steve said:


> Ummm... so we can agree that the folks coming in can have some useful ability without instruction, from horseplay or whatever?  How can that be?
> 
> To be clear, we can debate the ideal ratio of training vs application.  There's room for discussion.  But....
> 
> ...


We can definitely agree to that last point. That was pretty much my initial assertion.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 26, 2020)

Steve said:


> Playing the game is the key, though.  Right?  Not analogous to sparring at all, IMO.  Because, unless your goal is to be an expert sparring partner, that's not what you're trying to learn.  Is it?


If you’re learning to grapple people, you need to actually grapple people (who are trying to grapple back). If you’re learning to punch people, you need to actually punch people (who are trying to punch back).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 26, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I think we have sidetracked a bit here.
> 
> We are not talking about how to start sparring without knowing how to kick and punch. We are talking whether one can develop foundation through partner drill (application) or not.


To me, partner drills aren’t application (though that’s the term we use in NGA). They are drills. When you get to resistance, you enter the realm of application.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 26, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Be like a self defense instructor that hasn't had to defend himself.


That’s a different issue. More like a swimming instructor who has never almost drowned, teaching how to recover from that situation.


----------



## Steve (Aug 26, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> We can definitely agree to that last point. That was pretty much my initial assertion.


Yeah, where you lost me was when you said something about focusing on foundational skills and deferring application.  What got us down this road is that application should be incorporated as absolutely soon as is reasonable, and after the absolute minimum amount of training needed to get there.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 26, 2020)

Fair warning: none of the below will really be relevant to the thread, or it's offshoot topics. It's also a bit rambly. Feel free to read it if you like, but don't expect to gain anything insightful from it.

@Steve I had a whole long post I made last night using your chess example, explaining how even with chess you need both the training and experience, and it goes back and forth. In response to this line "Application can replace training." 

Didn't send for some reason, but today I see that you clarified with the post starting with this "I'm not arguing against training nor foundational instruction. I'm arguing against training as a replacement for application." 

What's funny is my post that didn't send was basically me explaining how that hybrid model you talked about is needed for chess, based on me teaching it. 

Except not so much the hybrid model you described, but a different hybrid. Training first-then application (playing chess) for a while, then when a plateau is hit, diagnose and train, then go back to application (you dip a bit but then get past your plateau) and rinse and repeat. If you try to analyze each and every game afterwards, I've found (at least for the levels I taught to) then you end up a: spending too much time analyzing, not enough playing, and b: have too many things you're trying to focus on and no set clear goal with it. At higher levels (basically the level I grazed at my peak, nowhere near where I'm at now, or where I could teach to..), the b isn't really true since you're doing a lot more fine tuning.

Focusing on B: let's say I play a game and I'm doing well, but ultimately end up losing. I go back over the game, by myself, with my opponent, or with my coach. We realize that the key point in the game seemed to be a move my opponent made with his knight, that I could have stopped had I been paying more attention to his knight. So next game I play, I make sure that I don't forget about the knight (or even, I make sure that I'm paying attention to the individual potential of each piece). This may be too much for me to focus on and I completely fall apart. But let's assume I'm past the level where I can't focus on each individual piece. I do so, but now I'm not looking at the board state, and while he isn't able to make any moves that my coach or other spectators would label as brilliant, he ends up with control over the center by middlegame, and I end up losing. Okay, so now I've got to watch out for that. And I should also probably watch out for the individual pieces, but that seems like a lot to focus on, so let me just make sure I don't get caught off guard by the knight again. I'm playing a new game, watching for center-board control and the knights, and get caught in a key fork without realizing it. Oops. Maybe I need to do some chess tactic puzzles again. i do a bunch, I'm ready for any tactics, but again I get focused on that and lose control of the center without realizing it. 

You can see how that could (and does) easily spiral out with me focusing on a bunch of different things, but never actually improving in any of them. Even with some wins splattered in, I'm still stuck where I am. The better option (again depending on your elo, really good players who just need to fine tune and can focus are past this part) would be to play 10-20 games seriously, record them (or have a coach watch) then review them afterwards to see if there are any themes. So if I was the player mentioned above, I might notice that my openings are weak and I need to focus more on control of the center. I do some practice games and learn some new opening variations to help me with that, and make sure I'm paying attention to it going forwards. I might miss some things I would have caught had I not been focusing on it, but eventually I win a lot more by doing that, and get to the next level of competition where I stall out and start losing more often than I'm winning. Now I go through again, review my last 10-20 games to see what changed, and see if there's some tactics I'm missing, did I start getting worse with control, am I not thinking far enough ahead, am I staying too far ahead, is my endgame failing, etc. And repeat the process.

I'm sure there's some relationship here to martial arts. If someone else wants to find it, feel free.


----------



## Steve (Aug 26, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> If you’re learning to grapple people, you need to actually grapple people (who are trying to grapple back). If you’re learning to punch people, you need to actually punch people (who are trying to punch back).


So, then, being an expert sparring partner is the goal?  
Question: "Hey man.  What are you learning in your martial arts class?"
Answer:  "I'm learning to spar."  

I've never heard anyone say that, but if that's the apex of your training, that's what you're learning to do.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 26, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> When you get to resistance, you enter the realm of application.


The term resistance can be misleading.

If the moment you touch me, I sink down (resist as hard as I can), you will never be able to develop your hip throw by using me as your training partner.

So where will you draw the line between technique developing vs. technique testing?

No resistance in this hip throw training.






When someone resists your hip throw, he is helping you to train a different technique.


----------



## Steve (Aug 26, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Fair warning: none of the below will really be relevant to the thread, or it's offshoot topics. It's also a bit rambly. Feel free to read it if you like, but don't expect to gain anything insightful from it.
> 
> @Steve I had a whole long post I made last night using your chess example, explaining how even with chess you need both the training and experience, and it goes back and forth. In response to this line "Application can replace training."
> 
> ...


I actually think you're explaining what I'm trying to say better than I did.  Train a little, apply a lot...  hit a plateau, train a little more (in the broad sense of training which could be analysis, coaching, etc)., apply a lot more. Rinse and repeat.


----------



## Steve (Aug 26, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> To me, partner drills aren’t application (though that’s the term we use in NGA). They are drills. When you get to resistance, you enter the realm of application.


That sound you hear is me groaning uncontrollably....  like Tina from Bob's Burgers.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 27, 2020)

Steve said:


> Yeah, where you lost me was when you said something about focusing on foundational skills and deferring application.  What got us down this road is that application should be incorporated as absolutely soon as is reasonable, and after the absolute minimum amount of training needed to get there.


I must've been unclear. So, if we looked at a basic bridging escape, you'd want a new student to get a little time playing with it in some simple drills, starting with a purely static version. You'd want those drills to add resistance gradually. And you'd want them to get to (try to) use it while rolling as soon as they have any hope of doing so (rather than waiting until they develop full "static competency" before they get to roll).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 27, 2020)

Steve said:


> So, then, being an expert sparring partner is the goal?
> Question: "Hey man.  What are you learning in your martial arts class?"
> Answer:  "I'm learning to spar."
> 
> I've never heard anyone say that, but if that's the apex of your training, that's what you're learning to do.


Learning to punch/throw/whatever against a resisting opponent (and successfully resist the same from them) is the broad goal, in that example.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 27, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The term resistance can be misleading.
> 
> If the moment you touch me, I sink down (resist as hard as I can), you will never be able to develop your hip throw by using me as your training partner.
> 
> ...


Preface: When I speak of "resistance" in this context, I'm not talking about resisting a specific technique during a drill, but about having an opponent who doesn't want to be thrown/hit so is using their skills against you.

I agree. But it's not really application if it's in a vacuum (as it the case where there's no resistance). Getting to apply the skills isn't about a specific skill (usually), but about applying the skill set. So in a given grappling/sparring session, I may not get to use my hip throw, because of the resistance.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 27, 2020)

Steve said:


> That sound you hear is me groaning uncontrollably....  like Tina from Bob's Burgers.


I know. You and I fundamentally disagree about context.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 27, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Preface: When I speak of "resistance" in this context, I'm not talking about resisting a specific technique during a drill, but about having an opponent who doesn't want to be thrown/hit so is using their skills against you.


If I just running around you (avoid contact), what technique can you use to against me? I will not be a good training partner for you because I cannot help you to develop any MA skill (except running).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 27, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If I just running around you (avoid contact), what technique can you use to against me? I will not be a good training partner for you because I cannot help you to develop any MA skill (except running).


In that case, you're not trying to use your technique against me, so you're not a good training partner. I can also outline a couple dozen things people can do that make them bad training partners, and none of them have much to do with what I said.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 27, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If I just running around you (avoid contact), what technique can you use to against me? I will not be a good training partner for you because I cannot help you to develop any MA skill (except running).


That depends, are we in a ring? Or a wide open space. If wide open space, then yeah we're just practicing running. if we're in a ring/octagan/square/whatever, then it's an opportunity for me to practice using footwork and feints to force a position where you can't run.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 30, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If I just running around you (avoid contact), what technique can you use to against me? I will not be a good training partner for you because I cannot help you to develop any MA skill (except running).


Depends on  how close you are.  If you are within striking range then there's a number of techniques that can be used.  If person you are running around is quicker than you then the best you can get is a delay of attack from that person.

For me, I've had no difficulty in sweeping people who want to stay on the outside like that.  Here's why the sweep worked.  If the person wants to always maintain a 5ft distance away from me, then all I have to do is cut that distance down by 3 feet and sweep. The sweep will land as the person is trying to regain the original 5 ft difference.  This is the same technique I used on the ex boxer who was taller and had a longer reach.  His goal was to always stay out of my range so he could out jab me.  All I needed to do was to start my advance when he's starting to root.  This would always allow me to get within 2 ft of the 5ft that he tried to stay away.  2ft was enough time for me to back sweep before he could fully retreat.

My theory on back sweeps is this.  Back sweep those who want to run away and front sweep those who come in aggressively.


----------

