# Learning Versus Understanding



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 1, 2016)

One of the things that often trips up beginners in the martial arts is the difference between learning something and understanding it.

For illustration, let's take a simple upper body block.  It's a fairly easy move to learn, and it's relatively common to many different martial arts styles, although the nuances may vary quite a bit.  Imagining that a blow is coming toward's one's head, one raises their arm to get it in-between the incoming punch and their own head, and stops the punch.  This is the basic block.

Now, one can see this in a book, or on a video, or be shown it by someone else, and they think they know how to perform the block.  It's an easy misunderstanding to have.






How to Understand Basic Karate

Unfortunately, there is a world of difference between 'learning' to perform the block, and 'understanding' how to perform the block.

Some nuances that expand learning can be taught online as well.  Tips such as crossing the center line with the rising block so that if one guesses wrong about which side the opponent is throwing the punch with, it will still be blocked.  Or how to 'set' the block so that one does not get punched in the face with one's own fist as the block collapses under the opponent's power.

An in-person instructor will make additional adjustments that one typically doesn't see in a book or online, because they require adjustments that are based on the student's physical attributes.  Things like the angle of the blocking arm, the height of the elbow relative to the student's body, how the feet connect the flow of incoming power to the floor, the bend in the knees, when to begin the block and what to do with the block once it is applied (such as follow up actions, like grasping and pulling, etc).

All of these things contribute to understanding, but they do not by themselves, constitute understanding.

The only way to gain understanding is to do the technique with a qualified instructor and a partner (who can be the instructor themselves) who force the student to either make the technique work, or get hit.

This has to be done over and over again, day by day, week by week.  Adjustments will continue to be made, and there will slowly be a series of eye-opening 'ah hah!' moments involved.  They might be small revelations, but they'll be there.

Little things like watching the opponent's midsection and not their eyes, to detect the beginning of the incoming punch. where the 'lock point' is for your individual block, where you can trust your block to handle the incoming blow and not even worry about it.  The pacing that takes the place of 'only speed' so that the block is there at the right time, but not in a panic move.  The sinking into the floor feeling that redirects the power of the incoming blow so that the arm doesn't have to be super-strong to absorb it.  The 'spring tension' in the body that spreads out force.

All of these things, and more, contribute to the beginning of understanding a technique, rather than just learning it.  They all take time, lots of time, and repetition, lots of repetition.  Often one practices with a willing and trained partner who will at your request bring up the power and speed of the attack until it overmatches your ability, but forces you to improve.  Incremental improvement is the goal.

So what is 'understanding' versus 'learning' then?  Just lots of reps and tips until the technique gets locked in and works every time?

Actually, no.  It's more than that.  Being able to do a technique is one thing.  Doing it well is something else.  But true understanding means more than even that.  It means you have begun to master things that go far beyond the technique itself.  

In the case of our example, the upper body block, it means we begin to not just see, but begin to be able to demonstrate, how the block can be modified and used in other ways.  Perhaps it is not simply a block, but can be a trap, a redirection, a strike.  A combination of all of those things.  Perhaps it can be applied even through the attack does not come in the form one expected.  For example, a student is expecting a roundhouse punch, but instead a high kick is thrown, or a straight punch, or some other form of attack; the student who has some understanding of the technique is not trapped; they can use their technique anyway and it will work.

Eventually, an experienced and dedicated student will hopefully begin to think and move in terms of the abstractions that the technique represents, the parts it is made of, instead of just in terms of the bare mechanics of what the various body parts do.

There is no instruction book for this, and even though instructors who are well-qualified can talk about it and explain and demonstrate, this is something that either becomes a part of a student or it does not.

Nor does it really become part of the student's conscious thinking, like "Here comes the attack.  I am going to do X and then Y and then Z, unless the opponent does A instead of B, etc etc."  It becomes instinctive and part of the student's natural body movement.  "Attack comes, I defend, attack failed," is about as far as it gets into one's conscious thinking.

Understanding begins when the technique is so natural and normal to the student that they can apply any part of the movement at any time for any situation and depend upon it to function as the student wanted it to.  When techniques taken as a whole begin to blend together such that a 'block' technique immediately becomes a 'trap' technique to respond to the actual attack as needed, and without thinking about it.  The arms move, the body repositions itself, the modified technique is applied and works.

It's the difference between learning to play a song by reading the sheet music and learning to play music by understanding how chord structure and notes work together to flow in a free form, on the fly, and still sound like music to the ears.

Understanding is not a destination; to the best of my knowledge, one never arrives at mastery.  One simply continues to improve their understanding for as long as they live and continue to train diligently towards that goal.  Personally, I am the furthest thing from a master - perhaps it is honest to say that I have begin to perceive some of what I may yet achieve in time, if I keep training hard.  I can say that I have 'learned' to apply an upper body block.  I am beginning to understand the technique in that I am starting to be able to use it when I need it for whatever comes my way as an attack.  I am beginning to understand that attack, defense, it's all the same thing. Some people say a block is a strike and a strike is a block, but it's even more than that.  Everything is everything.  That's what it is.  The question is whether or not a student can apply that, turn that concept into reality.

Keep training, and strive for understanding to complement learning!


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 1, 2016)

Many years a go when my husband was in the RAF he was doing his CVR(T) course, it was driving Spartans and Scorpions ( small tanks). He did all the practical stuff but had to learn all the book work too so I would spend ages with the book asking him questions. I know how to drive one ( with levers) how to stop, reverse, change the tracks etc. etc. If you put me in one though I can't do any of it, it was all book 'learning'


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 1, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> Many years a go when my husband was in the RAF he was doing his CVR(T) course, it was driving Spartans and Scorpions ( small tanks). He did all the practical stuff but had to learn all the book work too so I would spend ages with the book asking him questions. I know how to drive one ( with levers) how to stop, reverse, change the tracks etc. etc. If you put me in one though I can't do any of it, it was all book 'learning'



You might do better than you think, or at least be able to figure out what to do as you thought about it.

There are those who know everything and understand nothing, but most of us are somewhere in the middle, I think.  We know more than we understand, but if we're lucky and work hard, our understanding is something we keep moving towards, to make our learning useful.


----------



## Danny T (Apr 1, 2016)

I feel there is more to it than just learning and understanding.
It is having the ability to do. Can you actually function or apply what you have learned and understand on a theoretical level. Can you actually apply your upper block movement and structure as more than just a block.


----------



## Steve (Apr 1, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> One of the things that often trips up beginners in the martial arts is the difference between learning something and understanding it.
> 
> For illustration, let's take a simple upper body block.  It's a fairly easy move to learn, and it's relatively common to many different martial arts styles, although the nuances may vary quite a bit.  Imagining that a blow is coming toward's one's head, one raises their arm to get it in-between the incoming punch and their own head, and stops the punch.  This is the basic block.
> 
> ...


I think there is a lot of truth in this, but it really depends on how "true understanding" is gauged.  Your definition of 'true understanding' is unachievable if you have neither the opportunity nor the intention of applying the techniques repeatedly in the context in which they are intended to be applied.  You may achieve some degree of facility, but the mastery you are alluding to is not possible for most people, regardless of with whom or how they train.  To be clear, this isn't because people are incapable.  Rather, it's because people will often lack the opportunity.  In other words, if you never fight (which I think is a laudable and also realistic expectation), you will never achieve mastery of fighting skills. 

This is my fundamental concern with "self defense' training being conducted by people who have a gap between their depth of training and their depth of experience. 

Now, all is not lost.  I have said in the past that the issue isn't what people are learning.  Instead, it's what people think they're learning.  Committed, serious study of Goju Ryu Karate will lead to mastery of Goju Ryu Karate.  Performing kata under someone who is expert in that kata will result in the skill and understanding of that kata.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 1, 2016)

Danny T said:


> I feel there is more to it than just learning and understanding.
> It is having the ability to do. Can you actually function or apply what you have learned and understand on a theoretical level. Can you actually apply your upper block movement and structure as more than just a block.



That's my point.  I don't think that there is understanding on a theoretical level.  One begins to understand as one applies what they have learned, and it becomes part of their natural body response and movement.  If you can't apply the technique, you cannot in any way claim to understand it, in that sense.

For example, I teach a beginner how to perform an upper body block.  They 'know' what to do when I attack them with a punch to the head, for example.  And as we practice it in slow motion, they can do it.  But as I increase speed and power, my attack sails through their block or collapses it entirely.  There is more they have to 'understand' about blocking, such as how to set the block, how to absorb the energy, etc.  As they learn that, their understanding increases, but it goes in parallel with being able to actually do it.  And then eventually it goes beyond simply stopping the incoming attack and their understanding expands as they begin to use the core principles of the technique to do whatever it is they want or need to do.  I throw the punch and they trap it instead of merely blocking it, redirect my blow or take me off-balance, and all using the same core principles, because their body 'knows' how to do it and can do it.  This is what I refer to as 'understanding' the technique.

So you could say I entirely agree with you, but I include being able to do the technique in 'understanding' it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 1, 2016)

Steve said:


> I think there is a lot of truth in this, but it really depends on how "true understanding" is gauged.  Your definition of 'true understanding' is unachievable if you have neither the opportunity nor the intention of applying the techniques repeatedly in the context in which they are intended to be applied.  You may achieve some degree of facility, but the mastery you are alluding to is not possible for most people, regardless of with whom or how they train.  To be clear, this isn't because people are incapable.  Rather, it's because people will often lack the opportunity.  In other words, if you never fight (which I think is a laudable and also realistic expectation), you will never achieve mastery of fighting skills.
> 
> This is my fundamental concern with "self defense' training being conducted by people who have a gap between their depth of training and their depth of experience.
> 
> Now, all is not lost.  I have said in the past that the issue isn't what people are learning.  Instead, it's what people think they're learning.  Committed, serious study of Goju Ryu Karate will lead to mastery of Goju Ryu Karate.  Performing kata under someone who is expert in that kata will result in the skill and understanding of that kata.



I get what you're saying, but I have a couple of issues.  First, I agree with you that you have to have an environment conducive to enhanced learning that leads to understanding, yes.  I am fortunate to have such an environment for training, so perhaps I should have made it more clear that not everyone has the opportunity to train in such circumstances.

As to kata, well, I must respectfully disagree.  Kata taught properly does lead to precisely the kind of understanding needed to defend oneself.  I fear that few teach kata properly, which leads many to believe it has no self-defense application.  Understanding kata *is *understanding karate which is understanding self-defense and the application of controlled violence for a defined purpose.  Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Steve (Apr 1, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I get what you're saying, but I have a couple of issues.  First, I agree with you that you have to have an environment conducive to enhanced learning that leads to understanding, yes.  I am fortunate to have such an environment for training, so perhaps I should have made it more clear that not everyone has the opportunity to train in such circumstances.
> 
> As to kata, well, I must respectfully disagree.  Kata taught properly does lead to precisely the kind of understanding needed to defend oneself.  I fear that few teach kata properly, which leads many to believe it has no self-defense application.  Understanding kata *is *understanding karate which is understanding self-defense and the application of controlled violence for a defined purpose.  Just my 2 cents.


Perhaps.  I'll borrow from something I wrote a few years back.  I don't believe one can be an expert in "self defense" without significant, practical, real world experience applying the techniques in context. You CAN become an expert in a system. Call it Mattock-fu, include whatever techniques you want, apply measures for proficiency and teach people to an expert level in your system. Because THAT'S what they're learning and applying. They are not defending themselves in your class. They are applying a system.

I've used the analogy of a pilot in the past.   There are pilots and then there are experts pilots.  Let's say you have a guy who can do anything in a simulator, but has never flown an ACTUAL plane. Can a person truly understand the skills of piloting an airplane without ever flying a plane?   I would say no.  In order to make the leap between learning and understanding, there's a lot of hours logged in the pilot's seat of an actual plane.  You mention it yourself.  Repetition, repetition, repetition.

Would that person be competent as a flight instructor? I would say that there might be some limited, specific things he could competently share, but I'd be very uneasy if the pilot of my 747 to Orlando was brand new off the simulator having learned from a guy who had never flown a real plane, who himself learned from a guy who had never flown a real plane.

Sure, you can learn skills in a simulator. I've said this many times in the past, but it's relevant here. There's something called Bloom's taxonomy and it's very simple. People learn things in predictable stages:

Knowledge -> Comprehension -> Application -> Analysis -> Synthesis -> Evaluation

Most martial arts training stops somewhere between comprehension and application.  You seem to be getting at the difference between knowing how to do something (everything up to about application) and the development of deep expertise, which is what occurs after you can do something and have truly synthesized the skills.

But, in business, as in ANY human endeavor, competence is the FIRST step toward expertise. In other words, a person who is an expert must be competent, but not every person who is competent is an expert.  And if you don't DO something, you will never get to the point of being an expert in it.

Which leads full circle back to my suggestion that if you are learning kata, there may be application outside of the kata, but the true expertise is internal to learning the kata.  In order to make the leap you are referring to, Bill, where someone is learning a deeper context of self defense, I believe one must have some degree of expertise in the kata, and ALSO a well of experience in real world violence.   Some people have this, but most, even many who are TEACHING self defense, do not.


----------



## Buka (Apr 1, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I fear that few teach kata properly, which leads many to believe it has no self-defense application.



I'm curious, Bill. What leads you to think this? I don't mean to take that one sentence out of the context of your post, but it's the one I'm curious about.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 1, 2016)

Steve said:


> Which leads full circle back to my suggestion that if you are learning kata, there may be application outside of the kata, but the true expertise is internal to learning the kata.  In order to make the leap you are referring to, Bill, where someone is learning a deeper context of self defense, I believe one must have some degree of expertise in the kata, and ALSO a well of experience in real world violence.   Some people have this, but most, even many who are TEACHING self defense, do not.



I snipped your excellent response only because I can find nothing with which to disagree; I think we agree and perhaps it is just our choice of words that makes it appear as if we do not.

Regarding kata again, I can only say that in my very limited experience the good fortune I have had in instruction and instructors, I can't agree with your conclusion.

What my previous experience as an MP in the Marines taught me was that one of the keys to 'street fights' if you can call them that is simply to trust your training and to remain calm.  Deliberate movement overcomes wild crazy swinging every time.  You can still get clocked; hell, you can get killed by someone who is utterly unskilled, you could fall down and hit your head on a rock for that matter.  But if you are calm and deliberate, you're generally ahead of the game.  If you have training, even more so.

With regard to kata, I just keep finding deeper and deeper core principles embedded within them that directly apply to every aspect of self-defense.  From power generation to leverage to body movement and so on.  My gosh, even the smallest things like generating power by rolling the ridge of muscle at the top of one's abdomen under the rib cage, done in many katas, has resulted in one of my dojo partners commenting that he doesn't like to spar me, because punching me in the gut is like hitting a brick wall and it hurts his hands.  Me, Mister fat-boy blubber gut.  Everything is everything.

Beyond what I've experienced, seen, and had explained and demonstrated to me, I have a very deep 'feeling' that there is so much more here that I have only scratched the surface of.  I have learned to trust my instincts; I know in my heart that this is the real deal, and I'm not one to follow fad or fashion, I've never been a part of a cult of personality.  When it's real, you just know it.

Didn't mean to turn this into a discussion of the efficacy of kata, but since you brought it up, that's how I personally feel about it.  If I could do nothing else but train kata, I found find that more than sufficient for all purposes, from self-defense to self-enlightenment.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 1, 2016)

Danny T said:


> more than just a block.


Agree! It's more than just a block. The "upward block" is like raising the curtain with one hand, you then walk under it. It can be used as offense, raise your opponent's "head guard", you then punch his chest when you step in. Your "upward block" can be considered as "plow the way" when you enter.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 1, 2016)

Buka said:


> I'm curious, Bill. What leads you to think this? I don't mean to take that one sentence out of the context of your post, but it's the one I'm curious about.



I think it is because I am gifted with such amazing instructors, who themselves were trained by a legendary karateka.

More to the point of your question, I used to go to a lot of seminars.  Most, to be quite honest, were atrocious, although I did not know that at the time as a newbie.  What I 'learned' was more or less garbage for the most part.  However, there are a few seminars taught by people whom I have come to respect to the utmost, whose seminars I will gladly attend.  What amazes me is how many people who hold high rank and have trained for many years are utterly gobsmacked when shown techniques found within the katas we all do that they had never seen before.  In my dojo, we see and learn all of them; these seminars for me are simply intensive workouts of what we are already taught, not new material (for the most part).  But so many others find it so novel, I have to conclude that they're simply not being taught at a high level.  I say this with humility and respect for them; I do not know what they know, and I am no expert myself.  It's just an observation on my part.

I find I spend a lot of time nowadays thinking about and practicing kata.  As I do, I seem to make discovery after discovery.  Nothing that hasn't been known for a very long time by very many people, of course, I'm not blazing a new trail here, but things which serve to open my eyes and which directly apply to all aspects of my karate - even to how I order my life.

Simple example, although to many it may seem weird.  I am known for popping off at business meetings where I work.  I hear something I object to, I say something, and often not a very kind or respectful thing.  Sometimes it's appreciated and sometimes it is seen as quite rude (and it is), even when I am technically right.  Then I started thinking deeply about the 'settling movement' in kata, where you really dig down and grip the floor before you move.  You drop your center, you adjust your base and perhaps your stance.  Your shoulders drop, your arms relax, and your eyes and ears open.  You breathe out and pause, then you explode.  But the explosion always has purpose, direction, intent, and it's devastating.  Believe it or not, I am trying hard to apply that technique to simply responding to things in business meetings.  Before I pop off, I settle.  Drop weight, relax, open eyes and ears, pause.  Then, if need be, explode.  But say the right thing, at the right time, to the right people, in the right way.  Much more effective and it doesn't tend to get me seen as a loose cannon.

Kata is everything.  Believe it or not.  At least to me.  And that makes me think if others are not seeing this, they can't be getting the training I am getting.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 1, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Kata is everything.


I think "strategy" is more important. A strategy can be mapped into different techniques. For example, a "side kick, back reverse punch" can be considered just as a "kick punch combo". That kick can be any kick and that punch can be any punch.

If you have learned a Kata that has "side kick, back reverse punch", you should be able to figure that you can also do:

- side kick, palm edge strike,
- turn back kick, spin back fist,
- foot sweep, hook punch,
- ...

It may be interested to see how many strategies that's used in your Kata than to see how many techniques that's used in your Kata.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 1, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I think "strategy" is more important. A strategy can be mapped into different techniques. For example, a "side kick, back reverse punch" can be considered just as a "kick punch combo". That kick can be any kick and that punch can be any punch.
> 
> If you have learned a Kata that has "side kick, back reverse punch", you should be able to figure that you can also do:
> 
> ...



With respect, I think strategy is surface-level.  Important in the beginning.  Eventually it is all movement.  What matters is moving effectively and kata informs this.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 1, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> With respect, I think strategy is surface-level.  Important in the beginning.  Eventually it is all movement.  What matters is moving effectively and kata informs this.


When you throw a skip in left side kick at your opponent's cheat, your opponent can use his arm to block your side kick and spin your body to your

- left, you can then right punch at his face.
- right, you can then right spin back fist at his face.

Since after your side kick, your next move doesn't depend on you but depend on your opponent's respond, IMO, it's "strategy - borrow your opponent's blocking force, spin your body, and strike back" and not just "moving effectively". Of course we may use different words that mean the same thing.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 1, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Kata is everything.


I'm on board with this.  Kata/form is where it starts. Kata/form is the seed.  If the kata/form is incorrect then how can anything that grows from it be correct? 

If the kata is the technique to be used in fighting, then it only makes sense to that performing kata correctly means that technique during fighting will be performed correctly.

Performing kata is step 1.     Applying technique from kata is like step 50.   There's a lot that goes on in between.  It's not a 2 step process which is what many people assume at first.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 1, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> Performing kata is step 1.     Applying technique from kata is like step 50.


I would like to think in the reverse order.

First you decide what finish move that you want to use (for example, a neck choke). you then try to find a path that can help you to reach there (such as a front kick, foot sweep, leading arm jam). It doesn't matter whether this combo sequence is in any form/Kata or not. The advantage of this approach is your MA skill doesn't have to be restricted by the form/Katas that you have trained. You will have much more freedom this way. There are many entering strategies that can help you to apply your "finish strategy" depending on your opponent's different responds.

entering strategy -> finish strategy


----------



## Steve (Apr 1, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm on board with this.  Kata/form is where it starts. Kata/form is the seed.  If the kata/form is incorrect then how can anything that grows from it be correct?
> 
> If the kata is the technique to be used in fighting, then it only makes sense to that performing kata correctly means that technique during fighting will be performed correctly.
> 
> Performing kata is step 1.     Applying technique from kata is like step 50.   There's a lot that goes on in between.  It's not a 2 step process which is what many people assume at first.


Are katas and forms synonymous?


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 1, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When you throw a skip in left side kick at your opponent's cheat, your opponent can use his arm to block your side kick and spin your body to your
> 
> - left, you can then right punch at his face.
> - right, you can then right spin back fist at his face.
> ...




I have to admit I'm curious and _please don't take this as an attack,_ it's just something that I find odd. You always post lists of techniques to do in whatever thread you post on, in answer to just about everything, is there a particular reason for this? This thread is about 'learning v understanding' but you have posted techniques to use again. I realise it's probably to make a point but it seems your point is about strategy  not 'learning v understanding'?  It's probably me but I don't understand why the techniques all the time.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 1, 2016)

Steve said:


> Are katas and forms synonymous?



I believe so, yes.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 1, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> I have to admit I'm curious and _please don't take this as an attack,_ it's just something that I find odd. You always post lists of techniques to do in whatever thread you post on, in answer to just about everything, is there a particular reason for this? This thread is about 'learning v understanding' but you have posted techniques to use again. I realise it's probably to make a point but it seems your point is about strategy  not 'learning v understanding'?  It's probably me but I don't understand why the techniques all the time.


I try to stay away from "abstract" discussion. I like to use concrete example to map abstract discussion into concrete discussion.

My example was used to point out that even a set of kick, punch combo may exist in your form/Kata, depending on your opponent's respond, your punch may be different from the punch that you have learned from your form/Kata. That's an example of "strategy" can cover more ground than "technique" can.

When I learn

- English text, not only I want to learn the words used in that text. I also want to learn the grammar used in that text. By using subject, verb, object grammar, I can construct many sentences.

- MA form/Kata, not only I want to learn the techniques used in that form/Kata. I also want to learn the strategies used in that form/Kata. By using "kick low punch high" strategy, I can construct many combo techniques.


----------



## Danny T (Apr 1, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree! It's more than just a block. The "upward block" is like raising the curtain with one hand, you then walk under it. It can be used as offense, raise your opponent's "head guard", you then punch his chest when you step in. Your "upward block" can be considered as "plow the way" when you enter.


Or, it may just be slammed against his mandible.


----------



## Lameman (Apr 1, 2016)

I like what I hear, but one thing stands out. Instict is king. That never changes, but relying on instinct is like relying upon your muscle to hit hard. To be good at fighting you have to be able to think. To see and anylyze. To not only see the current opening but the next opening. Fighting is like chess, the best fighters see several moves ahead. I remember learning chess. I spent many hours learning end game. You understand the end game you understand what you need to do to set it up. Instict, merely focuses on the here and now. Strategy wins fights, instict merely blunders into it. While training instict is good (and nessecary), too much and it leads to ghost fighting. Where the body reacts, but there is nothing there. Learning is how, understanding is when.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 1, 2016)

Lameman said:


> I like what I hear, but one thing stands out. Instict is king. That never changes, but relying on instinct is like relying upon your muscle to hit hard. To be good at fighting you have to be able to think. To see and anylyze. To not only see the current opening but the next opening. Fighting is like chess, the best fighters see several moves ahead. I remember learning chess. I spent many hours learning end game. You understand the end game you understand what you need to do to set it up. Instict, merely focuses on the here and now. Strategy wins fights, instict merely blunders into it. While training instict is good (and nessecary), too much and it leads to ghost fighting. Where the body reacts, but there is nothing there. Learning is how, understanding is when.



Fighting is movement. Chaotic, impossible to predict, brutal, and dangerous. The goal in any self-defense situation should be to end the engagement as quickly as possible with as little risk to oneself as can be achieved.  The time for planning and strategic thinking is over. Now it is time for trust in one's training, and decisive movement.

It is not instinct, but training. Instinct is what compels us to fight or flee. Training gives the body tools to act and react when the time for running away is gone. If one is playing chess in a fistfight, one is going to have trouble.


----------



## Lameman (Apr 1, 2016)

Not if one plays very well. And by instict, I mean muscle memory. Moves firing from the nerves. Which is very important. Don't get me wrong. Too much thinking and you start doing mr. roboto. Slow and ineffective, you quickly lose. It takes a lot of training to get to the point where you can think effectivly in a fight. But if you can, you have an edge over those who can't. You have to find that sweet spot. Where you become reaction, with purpose.


----------



## Lameman (Apr 1, 2016)

For the record, thinking, period, slows you down. Can't get away from that. Its the number one reason I have such a strong focus on movement discipline. (Not wasting movement) Because I have to make up for that lose in speed, with increased efficiency.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 1, 2016)

Fight should not last that long. Seriously.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 2, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I would like to think in the reverse order.
> 
> First you decide what finish move that you want to use (for example, a neck choke). you then try to find a path that can help you to reach there (such as a front kick, foot sweep, leading arm jam). It doesn't matter whether this combo sequence is in any form/Kata or not. The advantage of this approach is your MA skill doesn't have to be restricted by the form/Katas that you have trained. You will have much more freedom this way. There are many entering strategies that can help you to apply your "finish strategy" depending on your opponent's different responds.
> 
> entering strategy -> finish strategy


For me, I don't think what I want to finish with.  I take what my opponent gives me.  I don't try to force a path.  This is probably what Bruce Lee was thinking when he says be like water.  If I put you in a neck choke, it's because your motions created that path for me, and not because I created that path by planning it.  the other instructor in my school thinks like you do.  He tries to plan a path to a end result.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 2, 2016)

Steve said:


> Are katas and forms synonymous?


For the most part yes.  There are some slight differences but not enough to separate the benefits that they both give which are similar.  Forms are associated with Kung Fu and are usually more strenuous than kata. Kata also usually has more pauses than in forms.  With forms it's more of flow, almost a continuous movement.  Beyond that I don't know how they differ.

Both serve as a "dictionary" or "reference book" of techniques that otherwise would be extremely difficult to remember outside of the kata / form. 
Both help the student to remember techniques while practicing the techniques
Both help build some form of strength and cardio endurance.
Both help train the mind and focus.
Both help teach correct breathing and power generating
Both help teach muscle memory.
Both help teach speed and accuracy
Both help the student to better understand their body
Both help the teacher make corrections in a students technique, which would other wise be difficult to do in a free sparring or competitive fight situation.

All of this can be trained all at once by doing Kata /Forms. There's no need to create a separate exercise to address these areas.  Application training helps to build understanding and conditioning helps forge the body into flexible steel so that it doesn't break when we do the techniques in the forms.  

When I look at kata, I see kung fu.  When I look at kung fu I see kata, which is why learning about the other fighting system sometimes shed light on my own fighting system.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 2, 2016)

Lameman said:


> I like what I hear, but one thing stands out. Instict is king. That never changes, but relying on instinct is like relying upon your muscle to hit hard. To be good at fighting you have to be able to think. To see and anylyze. To not only see the current opening but the next opening. Fighting is like chess, the best fighters see several moves ahead. I remember learning chess. I spent many hours learning end game. You understand the end game you understand what you need to do to set it up. Instict, merely focuses on the here and now. Strategy wins fights, instict merely blunders into it. While training instict is good (and nessecary), too much and it leads to ghost fighting. Where the body reacts, but there is nothing there. Learning is how, understanding is when.


Instinct will get you killed.  In my school we train to take advantage of a person's instinct.  We will target certain areas because we know the reaction will be an instinctive one.  I'm not saying that it's all bad, because sometimes it's instinct is what keeps you alive in non-fighting situations. For us we don't analyze as much as we sense and feel. "The ability to see" would be considered a sensing characteristic. For me and the other instructor, it's like time slows down and a fraction of a second seems like 5 seconds worth of understanding. The benefit of this skill set is that we don't have to think or analyze.  We "see."  I put it this way.  When we can get it to work, we can literally see that you are going to punch and we can counter before your arm even moves.  It's not an easy thing to master.  We get flickers of it like a light trying to come on.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 2, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> the other instructor in my school thinks like you do.  He tries to plan a path to a end result.


If you let your girl to take you to Macy's, you may have to spend a lot of money. If you take your girl to Dollar Tree, it won't cost you too much money. If you are a grappler, you should try to force your boxing opponent to play your grappling game ASAP.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 2, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you let your girl to take you to Macy's, you may have to spend a lot of money. If you take your girl to Dollar Tree, it won't cost you too much money.



Sorry, that's a bad analogy. 'Your girl' no, she's her own person, she may well be paying or she might be going Dutch. Likewise the boxing/grappling comment, you don't want to be grappling on the ground when you are attacked for many reasons, use your grappling skills to get you bas PDQ if taken down and use what stand up grappling skills you have but try always never to be on the ground.


----------



## Lameman (Apr 2, 2016)

And I've learned the hard way, that just because they box, doesn't mean they can't grapple. And, in a fight that only last 6 or less seconds you don't think you just act. But a fight starts, when you know that you are going to be in a fight. If I take the time to anylyze and stratagize then, then I can use that during the 3 second fight. To JowGaWolf, that does sound like what is happening. Though, I probably do anylyze more then you do. Anaylizing helps the most when you find yourself in a situation where you absolutly do not know what you are doing. And you have to improvize or create new techniques on the fly. Professionally trained martial artists, probably, don't run into those situtions as much as generic fighters. That is one of the major drawbacks of untested systems. The very reason I recomend proffesional training in something that has been tested and proven.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 2, 2016)

Tez3 said:


> you don't want to be grappling on the ground when you are attacked for many reasons, use your grappling skills to get you bas PDQ if taken down and use what stand up grappling skills you have but try always never to be on the ground.


Agree with you on this. I'll never go to the ground unless I was dragged down. I have always believed "mobility - hit and run" is more important than "ground skill".


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 2, 2016)

Lameman said:


> just because they box, doesn't mean they can't grapple.


If you are a grappler and you lose to a

- grapple, that means your grappling skill is not good enough and you need to train harder.
- striker, that means your general MA skill is not good enough to switch a striking game into a grappling game.

In both situations, more training in different areas will be needed. How fast that you can switch a striking game into a grappling game depends on how fast you can obtain your "clinch" and control your opponent's punching arms.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Apr 2, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you are a grappler and you lose to a
> 
> - grapple, that means your grappling skill is not good enough and you need to train harder.
> - striker, that means your general MA skill is not good enough to switch a striking game into a grappling game.
> ...


Or you just got unlucky. I am primarily a striker. If I do not see someone coming, get distracted by another person, or just get unlucky and they get a really good punch in, that doesn't mean my striking skill is not good enough.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 2, 2016)

kempodisciple said:


> Or you just got unlucky. I am primarily a striker. If I do not see someone coming, get distracted by another person, or just get unlucky and they get a really good punch in, that doesn't mean my striking skill is not good enough.


In the field of striking, the word "lucky" may make sense. But in the field of grappling, the word "luck" does not make sense.

There is no way that a white belt

- Judo guy will be able to throw a black belt Judo guy no matter how lucky that white belt Judo guy is.
- BJJ guy will be able to tap out a black belt BJJ guy no matter how lucky that white belt BJJ guy is.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Apr 2, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In the field of striking, the word "lucky" may make sense. But in the field of grappling, the word "luck" does not make sense. There is no way that a white belt Judo guy will be able to throw a black belt Judo guy no matter how lucky that white belt Judo guy is.


For the most part yes, especially if you are looking at that much of a difference (white judo to black judo). If you're looking at two decent grapplers, this isn't the case as much. Especially if it is a chaotic environment, distractions, and the other guy using one at just the right time, can get him that hold he needs to sweep you/choke you/etc.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 2, 2016)

kempodisciple said:


> For the most part yes, especially if you are looking at that much of a difference (white judo to black judo). If you're looking at two decent grapplers, this isn't the case as much. Especially if it is a chaotic environment, distractions, and the other guy using one at just the right time, can get him that hold he needs to sweep you/choke you/etc.


Agree that 2 persons on the same level, luck may play some important rule even in the grappling art. This is why the "strategy" is important. If you can lead your opponent into an area that you are more familiar with than he does, you will have advantage.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 2, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> One of the things that often trips up beginners in the martial arts is the difference between learning something and understanding it.
> 
> For illustration, let's take a simple upper body block.  It's a fairly easy move to learn, and it's relatively common to many different martial arts styles, although the nuances may vary quite a bit.  Imagining that a blow is coming toward's one's head, one raises their arm to get it in-between the incoming punch and their own head, and stops the punch.  This is the basic block.
> 
> ...


There's even a world of difference even between  "doing" and "understanding".

There are parts of my art I didn't understand for years, though I learned to do them fairly early. I could do the technique, and had no idea it wasn't quite the right way, until one day I finally understood the principle, and suddenly it was much more effective.

To my mind, "mastery" is simply short-hand for understanding the principles. It is a starting point for a deeper level of understanding.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 2, 2016)

Steve said:


> Are katas and forms synonymous?


I tend to use the terms mostly interchangeably. If I draw a distinction, it's that in my head "kata" are longer forms.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 2, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> "kata" are longer forms.


Chang/Yang Taiji long form has 108 moves. I have not heard any Karate Kata has that many moves.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 2, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I would like to think in the reverse order.
> 
> First you decide what finish move that you want to use (for example, a neck choke). you then try to find a path that can help you to reach there (such as a front kick, foot sweep, leading arm jam). It doesn't matter whether this combo sequence is in any form/Kata or not. The advantage of this approach is your MA skill doesn't have to be restricted by the form/Katas that you have trained. You will have much more freedom this way. There are many entering strategies that can help you to apply your "finish strategy" depending on your opponent's different responds.
> 
> entering strategy -> finish strategy


IMO, the point of kata is not the specific sequence of techniques or responses. Yes, that's useful for practicing transitions, etc. However, the real value can be broken into two very broad categories:

Physical: the weight shifts, stances, etc. that you get to practice over and over. These often occur in more than one kata, and become that basic movement set ("just movement") that flows without thought.

Principles: the kata force the student into specific situations (transitions, balances, etc.) where specific principles can be learnt. I think this is what Bill is talking about. The forms in my art follow movement sequences that are not always useful as-is. Why are they that way? They force the student to use the principle in question, rather than muscling or using speed to compensate.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 2, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Chang/Yang Taiji long form has 108 moves. I have not heard any Karate Kata has that many moves.


I'm not comparing your "form" to someone else's "kata". I'm talking about how I use the words. When I use the word "kata" I'm usually referring to a "form" that is longer than other "forms". I rarely refer to shorter "forms" as "kata" - they are just "forms". There's no logic to it - just how I use them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 2, 2016)

Lameman said:


> I like what I hear, but one thing stands out. Instict is king. That never changes, but relying on instinct is like relying upon your muscle to hit hard. To be good at fighting you have to be able to think. To see and anylyze. To not only see the current opening but the next opening. Fighting is like chess, the best fighters see several moves ahead. I remember learning chess. I spent many hours learning end game. You understand the end game you understand what you need to do to set it up. Instict, merely focuses on the here and now. Strategy wins fights, instict merely blunders into it. While training instict is good (and nessecary), too much and it leads to ghost fighting. Where the body reacts, but there is nothing there. Learning is how, understanding is when.


Instinct can be replaced with learned responses. Learned responses (in this context), if rooted in solid principles, are based on effective pattern matching. We match patterns of input to patterns of output. That pattern of output, in many arts/styles comes from kata and styles. It's driven by principles, which include strategy, psychology, and kinesiology.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 2, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree that 2 persons on the same level, luck may play some important rule even in the grappling art. This is why the "strategy" is important. If you can lead your opponent into an area that you are more familiar with than he does, you will have advantage.


In a contest, this is perhaps effective. In self-defense, there's no time for figuring out what area you know that the attacker does not. Strategy gives way to principles of effective technique, psychology, etc.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 2, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> There's even a world of difference even between  "doing" and "understanding".
> 
> There are parts of my art I didn't understand for years, though I learned to do them fairly early. I could do the technique, and had no idea it wasn't quite the right way, until one day I finally understood the principle, and suddenly it was much more effective.
> 
> To my mind, "mastery" is simply short-hand for understanding the principles. It is a starting point for a deeper level of understanding.


Something similar recently happened to me with a technique  that I was working  (grabbing punches).  I learned that the technique in my system for grabbing the punch is dependent on the wrist.  Then I did the same technique but with a shorter reach.  I discovered that I can grab a punch by locking it between my wrist and forearm.  It was a stronger grip on the punch making it really difficult to pull the hand back.  The real surprise is that it looked similar to the praying mantis system. Like the lead arm in the picture below.  






I don't know praying mantis, so I don't know how closely the shortened Jow Ga technique is to actual praying mantis.  But I think if I put a video of the technique, people would assume that it was a technique from praying mantis.  I'm also learning that I probably should be doing some finger conditioning since lately I've been getting punched in the fingers because my timing is off.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 2, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Instinct can be replaced with learned responses. Learned responses (in this context), if rooted in solid principles, are based on effective pattern matching. We match patterns of input to patterns of output. That pattern of output, in many arts/styles comes from kata and styles. It's driven by principles, which include strategy, psychology, and kinesiology.


You just reminded me of something my sifu stated. He told me that the strategy is actually in the forms.  Certain combinations are trained together because that combination contains the strategy.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 2, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> Certain combinations are trained together because that combination contains the strategy.


The most common striking combo is:

- right hand on your opponent's wrist,
- left hand on his elbow,
- right hand on his neck.

If you can move from wrist -> elbow -> neck, you will have a successful "entering strategy".


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 2, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> You just reminded me of something my sifu stated. He told me that the strategy is actually in the forms.  Certain combinations are trained together because that combination contains the strategy.


When I use the term "strategy" in classes, I'm usually teaching about multiple attackers or the potential thereof. Everything else comes down to "principles" (a term whose usage I think I mostly picked up from Guru Mike Casto of Anjing Gembala Penchak Silat - which I think I just misspelled). I suspect what I call "principles" would be closer to your sifu's use of "strategy". Or maybe not - I'd love to find out some day. Maybe yet another something new to learn from another art!


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 2, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> Something similar recently happened to me with a technique  that I was working  (grabbing punches).  I learned that the technique in my system for grabbing the punch is dependent on the wrist.  Then I did the same technique but with a shorter reach.  I discovered that I can grab a punch by locking it between my wrist and forearm.  It was a stronger grip on the punch making it really difficult to pull the hand back.  The real surprise is that it looked similar to the praying mantis system. Like the lead arm in the picture below.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is part of the reason I love to watch videos of other styles, and attend seminars in other styles. I always learn something about my own style along the way. My biggest gain in my understanding of NGA came right after attending a seminar in Yanagi-ryu. The explanations of their techniques gave me a new way to think about my own.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 2, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> When I use the term "strategy" in classes, I'm usually teaching about multiple attackers or the potential thereof. Everything else comes down to "principles" (a term whose usage I think I mostly picked up from Guru Mike Casto of Anjing Gembala Penchak Silat - which I think I just misspelled).


To me, the term "strategy" and "principle" are the same. For example, will you call the following "strategy" or "principle"?

- Attack both legs if you can, otherwise attack one leg first and then attack the other leg afterward.
- Attack in one direction, when your opponent resists, borrow his force, and attack the opposite direction.
- When your opponent attacks you, you move yourself to be outside of his attacking path, borrow his force, add your own force, and lead him into the emptiness.
- If you kick, I'll run you down. If you punch, I'll run you down. If you do nothing, I'll still run you down.
- Redirect your opponent's leading arm to jam his own back arm.
- Jam your leading leg on your opponent's leading leg so he can't kick you at that particular moment.
- ...


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 2, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The most common striking combo is:
> 
> - right hand on your opponent's wrist,
> - left hand on his elbow,
> ...


What system is this combo for?


----------



## drop bear (Apr 2, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> In a contest, this is perhaps effective. In self-defense, there's no time for figuring out what area you know that the attacker does not. Strategy gives way to principles of effective technique, psychology, etc.



Strategy is more important  in self defence as your environment can have more impact.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 2, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> What system is this combo for?


The praying mantis system "磨盘手(Mo Pan Shou) - 3 circular palms". Here is an example. It can be used to set up many "finish moves".


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 2, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> To me, the term "strategy" and "principle" are the same. For example, will you call the following "strategy" or "principle"?
> 
> - Attack both legs if you can, otherwise attack one leg first and then attack the other leg afterward.
> - Attack in one direction, when your opponent resists, borrow his force, and attack the opposite direction.
> ...


That was rather my point - the way different people use them may or may not overlap. I posted my comment to remove any confusion over my usage. You and I use them a bit differently, but not so much so that we can't read and respond to each other's comments, so long as we are aware of the differences and don't get wrapped up in the semantics.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 2, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Strategy is more important  in self defence as your environment can have more impact.


Here, I think you're referring to what I'd term "principles". Strategy (my definition, not necessarily yours), refers to high-level plans that are executed through tactics. In battlefield terms (an easy analogy for my usage), a General deals with strategy, while a Sergeant deals with tactics. So, in martial arts terms, what I call strategy is the planning before a contest ("You know he has some trouble with his left leg, so keep him moving left as much as you can - keep his weight on that leg.")

Clearly, that's not something you get to do before a self-defense situation. Just as clearly, that's probably not what you mean when you use the word. I think your usage would fall within "principles" for me. That's only a guess, since I don't yet know what your definition is. You could argue that strategy includes things like maneuvering to more stable ground, and I'd have no problem with that definition - which would certainly be important in self-defense.


----------



## Lameman (Apr 2, 2016)

The last time I got jumped, I saw it comming some 30 feet out. I had plenty of time to straegize. Not always the case. I have also turned around to find someone in full tackle. If you find yourself in a fight half a second before contact. You just act. Half a minute. You have time to strategize. Strategy is the overarching plan. Tactics, or principals (if I understand the meaning), are used to implement that plan. Walking home from the library one day. Four guys jumped out of te bushes. First one was in mid punch, counterclockwise roll to an inverted arm. He fell and I have a bat coming in from the left, a chain from the right. Block the bat, take the chain, fight lasted maybe 6 seconds. There was no strategy, no tactics. 30 feet and I have worlds of time to think all kinds of things. (I did think of running away, but I figured, since they were no danger, let them get the stupid out of their system. Without the risk of them attacking someone else. They attacked me and no one got hurt. Hopfully they went home and didn't do it again. Maybe not, who knows.)


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Apr 2, 2016)

Lameman said:


> (I did think of running away, but I figured, since they were no danger, let them get the stupid out of their system. Without the risk of them attacking someone else. They attacked me and no one got hurt. Hopfully they went home and didn't do it again. Maybe not, who knows.)


How did you have time to evaluate that people attacking you with weapons were no danger in that half a second? And why would you assume they werent?


----------



## Lameman (Apr 3, 2016)

Sorry, the 30 feet, was a different situation all together. Edit: Honestly weapons are often more of a handicap then an advantage. They don't tend to concern me much since they usually mean that the person can't fight. And is probably a coward. Re-EDIT: Give a man a knife and you make him weaker. Because he forgets about his other weapons.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 3, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> There's even a world of difference even between  "doing" and "understanding".
> 
> There are parts of my art I didn't understand for years, though I learned to do them fairly early. I could do the technique, and had no idea it wasn't quite the right way, until one day I finally understood the principle, and suddenly it was much more effective.
> 
> To my mind, "mastery" is simply short-hand for understanding the principles. It is a starting point for a deeper level of understanding.



So what you are saying is that although you thought you were doing the techniques, you were not actually doing them, because you didn't properly understand them.

This is actually what I am saying.  To understand, you must be able to do.  To do (properly) you must understand.  Learning a technique means you can perform it, but it doesn't mean you can perform it correctly.  This is what I was trying to get at; the difference between learning and understanding.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 3, 2016)

Lameman said:


> The last time I got jumped, I saw it comming some 30 feet out. I had plenty of time to straegize. Not always the case. I have also turned around to find someone in full tackle. If you find yourself in a fight half a second before contact. You just act. Half a minute. You have time to strategize. Strategy is the overarching plan. Tactics, or principals (if I understand the meaning), are used to implement that plan. Walking home from the library one day. Four guys jumped out of te bushes. First one was in mid punch, counterclockwise roll to an inverted arm. He fell and I have a bat coming in from the left, a chain from the right. Block the bat, take the chain, fight lasted maybe 6 seconds. There was no strategy, no tactics. 30 feet and I have worlds of time to think all kinds of things. (I did think of running away, but I figured, since they were no danger, let them get the stupid out of their system. Without the risk of them attacking someone else. They attacked me and no one got hurt. Hopfully they went home and didn't do it again. Maybe not, who knows.)


If you know half a minute in advance, your strategy should be to leave. The rest of your post reads like a bad martial arts movie.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 3, 2016)

Lameman said:


> Sorry, the 30 feet, was a different situation all together. Edit: Honestly weapons are often more of a handicap then an advantage. They don't tend to concern me much since they usually mean that the person can't fight. And is probably a coward. Re-EDIT: Give a man a knife and you make him weaker. Because he forgets about his other weapons.


Spoken like someone who knows nothing about actually being attacked with a weapon, and wants to impress readers.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 3, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> So what you are saying is that although you thought you were doing the techniques, you were not actually doing them, because you didn't properly understand them.
> 
> This is actually what I am saying.  To understand, you must be able to do.  To do (properly) you must understand.  Learning a technique means you can perform it, but it doesn't mean you can perform it correctly.  This is what I was trying to get at; the difference between learning and understanding.


Precisely! I could do an Arm Bar, for instance, but was having to work too hard. Once I understood it correctly (which understanding I'll likely later determine was also flawed), it became much easier and more effective.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 3, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Spoken like someone who knows nothing about actually being attacked with a weapon, and wants to impress readers.



I agree.  The only part of it I actually agree with is that weapons can be a liability as well as an advantage to the person using them.  That is because the person carrying the weapon must defend it as well as defending themselves.  Weapons are still extremely dangerous, and cannot be ignored.


----------



## Lameman (Apr 3, 2016)

I could care less. If I wanted to impress, I could do it a lot better. Have you ever been hit with a bat or a pad-lock or whatever? A fist can be just as dangerous, do you let someone punch you in the face? I'm more concerned about someone with confidence in their fighting skill over someone who is bringing a weopon because they think they need it to even the odds. Guy with the bat attacks with the bat. He loses his bat and tries to pick it up, or runs away. Having been hit in the head with a bat, twice. (Once in a fight)  Not on my top ten favorite things to do list. But having fought people with bats. Fighting a professionally trained martial artist, scares me a **** of a lot worse then some coward with a bat. And if I have the choice to fight someone with a bat, you're gonna see some impressive running skills. (Hopfully) If I have to fight someone with a bat, just like any other fight, except your opponant is, usually, a one trick pony. And its just like every other fight, trust your training, neutralize the strengths, attack the weaknesses. Or are you saying I should panic in a dangerous situation?


----------



## Buka (Apr 3, 2016)

What a fascinating thread. I've always said that Bill gives great thread.

I think "understanding" changes over time. The example given, the upper body block. That was the very first Martial technique I ever learned. It was in Greek Gojo-ryu/Pankration. A year later, when I first took up American Karate, the same technique (in this new school called a rising block) was also the first technique I learned. They were slightly different as the Goju one had an "initial protector" (which I liked better.) Over the years I've trained different disciplines, most of which have the same, or similar, rising blocking motion.

As a yellow belt (I always thought that was a strange color for a Martial Arts belt) a boxing gym opened down the street. For some reason, I felt threatened and started to prepare to fight boxers. Every night after class I stood in front of the mirror throwing rising blocks to stop a boxers punches. (Hey, I was a teen and it was right after the sixties.) I had, what I considered, a decent understanding of that rising block.
A few years later, I told the guys in that boxing gym that story, we all had a good laugh.

So....about ten years ago, during a summer where I went to a lot of Martial Arts dinners and get-togethers, I asked a lot of instructors if they had ever actually used that block in a fight or in sparring. Most were Okinawan, Kenpo, Tae-kwon-do, Tang Soo Do, American Karate or Shotokan Instructors. I asked about thirty of them. None ever had. They were friends and I believe them, I never had either. I'm quite sure other people have indeed used that block in fighting, just not anyone I know or ever saw.

Although I don't think it applies to actual fighting, at least as I know it, I'd probably still teach it today if I was still teaching beginners. Why? Because in tandem with other blocks in a hard blocking set, it teaches "areas" -  as in areas of the body and head to protect in blocking. It's also a great intro to students as to why the baby finger side of the hand is always up. I've found this sparks their interest in body mechanics more than any other technique at a beginners level and causes them to retain these things better out of sheer curiosity.

So, my "understanding" of that technique might be different than somebody else's. I think the term "understanding" differs based on a lot of contributing factors, one of which is experience. That does not mean either of our understandings is better or worse than the other.

Dominique Bouhours (1628-1702) French Jesuit priest, essayist, critic and grammarian, while prone on his deathbed, said to one of his students "_I am about to - or I am going to - die: either expression is correct_."
I think "understanding" might be that way, too.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 3, 2016)

Lameman said:


> I could care less. If I wanted to impress, I could do it a lot better. Have you ever been hit with a bat or a pad-lock or whatever? A fist can be just as dangerous, do you let someone punch you in the face? I'm more concerned about someone with confidence in their fighting skill over someone who is bringing a weopon because they think they need it to even the odds. Guy with the bat attacks with the bat. He loses his bat and tries to pick it up, or runs away. Having been hit in the head with a bat, twice. (Once in a fight)  Not on my top ten favorite things to do list. But having fought people with bats. Fighting a professionally trained martial artist, scares me a **** of a lot worse then some coward with a bat. And if I have the choice to fight someone with a bat, you're gonna see some impressive running skills. (Hopfully) If I have to fight someone with a bat, just like any other fight, except your opponant is, usually, a one trick pony. And its just like every other fight, trust your training, neutralize the strengths, attack the weaknesses. Or are you saying I should panic in a dangerous situation?


LOL. I'm saying that you're making a REALLY dangerous assumption. You're assuming the person with a weapon is less dangerous than an unarmed person BECAUSE they chose a weapon. A skilled fighter who also has a weapon is much more dangerous. A knife is NEVER less dangerous than the fist holding it. A fist to the gut can hurt. A knife to the gut can kill. Period.

And, no, a fist is NOT as dangerous as a bat. Get a half-ripe watermelon. Hit it with your hand as hard as you can. Now hit it with a bat as hard as you can. The result is unmistakable.


----------



## Lameman (Apr 3, 2016)

Fair point. And to be fair, I have never been stabbed, and only had to fight a man with a knife once. A lot of my cockyness comes from the fact that most of the fights I have been in that involved a weapon, didn't turn out bad. And in all cases, they ran shortly after losing their weapon. If I have to fight a trained weapons expert, I'm probably screwed. But I still shouldn't let that weapon get into my head, because then I am in a worse situation. Stay calm and remember my training. I'm about to need both. Really, my original point was to illistrate, that some fights you don't think, you just act. Others, when you have opportunity, you think and gain every advantage that observation and planning can give. Sun Tzu said, know yourself, know your opponant, and you will find victory. But obviously, that is not always possible.


----------



## Paul_D (Apr 3, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> And, no, a fist is NOT as dangerous as a bat. Get a half-ripe watermelon. Hit it with your hand as hard as you can. Now hit it with a bat as hard as you can. The result is unmistakable.


That would be a demonstration of a bat being able to generate more powerful than a fist, not being more dangerous.

A fist doesn't have to generate that level of power to kill, it mearly has to render you unconcious so that you strike your skull on the pavement when you fall, and every week there is a news story somwhere of exactly that happeneing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 3, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> That would be a demonstration of a bat being able to generate more powerful than a fist, not being more dangerous.
> 
> A fist doesn't have to generate that level of power to kill, it mearly has to render you unconcious so that you strike your skull on the pavement when you fall, and every week there is a news story somwhere of exactly that happeneing.


And a bat can do that by accident, as well. I never said a fist wasn't dangerous. My point is that anything a fist can do, damage-wise, can be done with a stick, as well. And the stick can do much more, besides. To say that a fist is as dangerous as a bat (his original implication was that it was actually much worse) is a fallacy.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 3, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Here, I think you're referring to what I'd term "principles". Strategy (my definition, not necessarily yours), refers to high-level plans that are executed through tactics. In battlefield terms (an easy analogy for my usage), a General deals with strategy, while a Sergeant deals with tactics. So, in martial arts terms, what I call strategy is the planning before a contest ("You know he has some trouble with his left leg, so keep him moving left as much as you can - keep his weight on that leg.")
> 
> Clearly, that's not something you get to do before a self-defense situation. Just as clearly, that's probably not what you mean when you use the word. I think your usage would fall within "principles" for me. That's only a guess, since I don't yet know what your definition is. You could argue that strategy includes things like maneuvering to more stable ground, and I'd have no problem with that definition - which would certainly be important in self-defense.



Something as simple as calling the cops when you see someone in you back yard would be considered strategy in my opinion.

Organising a group to leave a violent confrontation safely would be another.

A homless man asks you for money. And you start moving into a position where it is harder for him to rob you


----------



## Lameman (Apr 3, 2016)

Gpseymour, okay, let me ask you this. Is one knife more or less dangerous then two? Its not that a weapon is less dangerous then a fist. But because the person weilding it often forgets about his other weapons. Fist, feet, head, knees, etc. He is handicaped. Not because the knife is less dangerous then his fist, but because he soley relies upon one weapon. Average, wannabe, isn't going kung fu, with a bat. Hes swinging a bat. He is handicapped. And I've been kicked in the head harder then that bat hit me. Potential, is not always reality. I mean, if your strategy for winning a fight against a bat is to eat one to the head. That is a bad idea. Obviously, its dangerous. But don't let it get into your head. If it takes you out, it takes you out. You stay calm, be willing to get hurt, and you will have a good chance to come out unharmed. Be afraid, and then what? If you are too worried about getting hurt, you wont be able to do what is nessesary. No, stay calm, neutralize the weapon quickly. Usually that ends the fight, if not, you still have control. Stay calm. Do what you need. Survive. (And for the record, I'm willing to take a beating if it means someone else doesn't have to. Even if that risk isn't 100% Especially, if there is little or no risk to myself. My inactions heve cost the life of a friend. I live with enough guilt. If by my actions I can increase the probability that someone else doesn't get hurt, without anyone getting hurt. Why not?)


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Apr 3, 2016)

Not familiar with using a bat, but am familiar with knife fighting. When it goes to knife fighting, it is not worth the risk of staying around. 
A: regardless of what you do there is a high chance you will get cut. 
B: If the person does not know how to use a knife, the strategy of dealing with the knife and hoping that they don't give it up is the best strategy assuming your unarmed (IMO). Judging from what you (Lameman) have said, I assume this is your strategy as well. However, 
C: People learn very quickly that they should not limit themselves to the knife. The first time they lose because they did (in sparring..the only actual knife 'fight' I've been in I didn't exactly stick around to ask what he learned) they will state that they realized that's the problem. Due to this, if they have any experience specifically with losing a knife fight, you can no longer rely on B and may have completely screwed yourself over by relying on it.

Not sure how well this carries over to bats, golf clubs, sticks, etc. But, considering that if C is in play B backfires, it is not worth the risk to me.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 4, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Something as simple as calling the cops when you see someone in you back yard would be considered strategy in my opinion.
> 
> Organising a group to leave a violent confrontation safely would be another.
> 
> A homless man asks you for money. And you start moving into a position where it is harder for him to rob you


Agreed. As I said, those don't fit the definition I use when talking about strategy, but would fit many people's (including your own). Using a definition that includes those activities, strategy is, indeed, a part of in-the-moment response selection for self-defense.


----------

