# Master Al Case' Matrix Martial Arts



## TaiChiTJ

Anyone have experience working with the approach Master Al Case is presenting?


----------



## Chris Parker

(Ahem).... Do you really want an appraisal here? Okay....

Starting with the rather unrealistic attacks on the you-tube clip, through to the overly defensive ("He is the real deal, I know because I work on movies!") comments there, it's not looking good. Follow that through to the website, and things get worse.

There is a lot of heavy-handed selling aspects (the drill no-one knows! The only perfect karate!), a lot of rather bizarre claims (Aikido in months, if it is "matrixed".... whatever that means, he learnt this in 40 years of training, and you could train for 40 years and maybe be okay at some things [?], and so on), through to the very removed-from-reality statement that only people who create their own art are actually "artists" (?!?!), which just tells me that he is protecting his own history of not really getting any of the arts he claims to have studied, as well as that he doesn't really seem to get what the term artistry refered to, nor what it entails here.

Not a recommendation in the slightest.


----------



## Supra Vijai

Not much I can add to the above post really, I saw Chris Parker had replied already and almost didn't bother  

Funny thing is I came across his website last week and shared the link on my facebook with the caption wtf... The guy claims to be able to teach you Aikido and get you competent in 80 minutes and help you master it in a couple of months... all for an astounding fee of $10. Not to mention the multiple forms of Kung Fu, Karate etc. With the Aikido aspect at least, it would probably be a better sign if he learnt to spell the name of the founder correctly....

Just my thoughts


----------



## xfighter88

Supra Vijai said:


> Not much I can add to the above post really, I saw Chris Parker had replied already and almost didn't bother
> 
> Funny thing is I came across his website last week and shared the link on my facebook with the caption wtf... The guy claims to be able to teach you Aikido and get you competent in 80 minutes and help you master it in a couple of months... all for an astounding fee of $10. Not to mention the multiple forms of Kung Fu, Karate etc. With the Aikido aspect at least, it would probably be a better sign if he learnt to spell the name of the founder correctly....
> 
> Just my thoughts


 
Yeah not the highest quality if you can't check your own spelling. Did the website ask for a credit card number or to varify your bank account information as well? When in doubt if it looks to good to be true it is.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

I believe Mr. Case is a member here.


----------



## xfighter88

Then he should drop by and let the OP know what's up.


----------



## matrixman

Hi Fellows. My ears was burnin'.
Yes, I'm Al Case. Yes, I do teach a method of faster learning.
I was also a writer for the mags, had a column in Inside Karate.
I was also featured in the November issue of Inside Kung Fu.
I don't usually go on forums, because people tend to dogpile.
I check out MartialTalk out every once in a while because 
the honorable Mr. Hubbard does his best to make this a very fine site.
And my apologies for misspelling O Sensei's name.
and you definitely have my apologies for any offense I make in the future.
Do I have a better method for learning?
Look, there are a few answers.
One, I developed a method for learning which is based on Boolean Algebra.
But don't let the egghead bushwah bug you. Just research what a 'truth table' is
and see if you can use it in the martial arts.
I'm the only one to use it. Ever. Took me a few decades to figure it out.
Second, order a course. See if I'm full of bushwah. Money back guarantee.
I recommend Matrix Karate because it tells you about Matrixing basics.
Third, sign up for my newsletter, or, better yet, just follow me on myblog.
http://alcase.wordpress.com
See if I make sense over time. That's the trick, eh?
Fourth, check out the other vids on youtube.
I'm one of the few people in the world who can put out a candle
with a punch from over a foot away. The vid is on youtube.
Fifth, I'm in Los Angeles. Send me an email, arrange to meet.
I'm not shy, I'm polite, I'm not interested in fighting, only learning.
Sixth, if you don't like me, that's fine, just be rude and I'll sign off.
Guys, I appreciate the intent of keeping the martial arts honest.
But I just don't have the time or the thick skin to play with opinions versus facts.
I hope you guys all have a great new year.
I hope you all get everything you possibly can out of the martial arts.
You have my love, and I'm sorry if I have offended anybody.
Please forgive.
Thank you.
Al Case


----------



## Tez3

Not offended just bemused, I think us non Americans need a translator for what I assume is 'California/movie speak'.


----------



## Never_A_Reflection

matrixman said:


> Hi Fellows. My ears was burnin'.
> Yes, I'm Al Case. Yes, I do teach a method of faster learning.
> I was also a writer for the mags, had a column in Inside Karate.
> I was also featured in the November issue of Inside Kung Fu.
> I don't usually go on forums, because people tend to dogpile.
> I check out MartialTalk out every once in a while because
> the honorable Mr. Hubbard does his best to make this a very fine site.
> And my apologies for misspelling O Sensei's name.
> and you definitely have my apologies for any offense I make in the future.
> Do I have a better method for learning?
> Look, there are a few answers.
> One, I developed a method for learning which is based on Boolean Algebra.
> But don't let the egghead bushwah bug you. Just research what a 'truth table' is
> and see if you can use it in the martial arts.
> I'm the only one to use it. Ever. Took me a few decades to figure it out.
> Second, order a course. See if I'm full of bushwah. Money back guarantee.
> I recommend Matrix Karate because it tells you about Matrixing basics.
> Third, sign up for my newsletter, or, better yet, just follow me on myblog.
> http://alcase.wordpress.com
> See if I make sense over time. That's the trick, eh?
> Fourth, check out the other vids on youtube.
> I'm one of the few people in the world who can put out a candle
> with a punch from over a foot away. The vid is on youtube.
> Fifth, I'm in Los Angeles. Send me an email, arrange to meet.
> I'm not shy, I'm polite, I'm not interested in fighting, only learning.
> Sixth, if you don't like me, that's fine, just be rude and I'll sign off.
> Guys, I appreciate the intent of keeping the martial arts honest.
> But I just don't have the time or the thick skin to play with opinions versus facts.
> I hope you guys all have a great new year.
> I hope you all get everything you possibly can out of the martial arts.
> You have my love, and I'm sorry if I have offended anybody.
> Please forgive.
> Thank you.
> Al Case



Boolean Algebra?  Well, there go my chances of ever checking this out, as I am quite literally an idiot with math--by my senior year of high school I was barely capable of performing 7th Grade-level mathematics, and I was never able to successfully memorize the times tables


----------



## Supra Vijai

Mr. Case,

Agreed with Tez3, not offended in slightest. The comment about the spelling of O Sensei's name was from a business perspective as much as from a MA one. As someone who has run their own business and helped manage several others over the years, the crucial thing from a marketing point of view if P&E - Proofreading and Editing.

You may have found the ultimate secret but if you have obvious errors like spelling mistakes on your site which serves as your primary marketing tool then you are going to lose a lot of people right at the outset. 

Mind you, with all due respect to yourself and your students, I'm old school. I believe you don't get anything without working for it and anything you do get won't last. So I'd probably stick to slogging it out for a couple of decades with my Sensei myself 

All the best.


----------



## Chris Parker

matrixman said:


> Hi Fellows. My ears was burnin'.
> Yes, I'm Al Case. Yes, I do teach a method of faster learning.
> I was also a writer for the mags, had a column in Inside Karate.
> I was also featured in the November issue of Inside Kung Fu.
> I don't usually go on forums, because people tend to dogpile.
> I check out MartialTalk out every once in a while because
> the honorable Mr. Hubbard does his best to make this a very fine site.
> And my apologies for misspelling O Sensei's name.
> and you definitely have my apologies for any offense I make in the future.
> Do I have a better method for learning?
> Look, there are a few answers.
> One, I developed a method for learning which is based on Boolean Algebra.
> But don't let the egghead bushwah bug you. Just research what a 'truth table' is
> and see if you can use it in the martial arts.
> I'm the only one to use it. Ever. Took me a few decades to figure it out.
> Second, order a course. See if I'm full of bushwah. Money back guarantee.
> I recommend Matrix Karate because it tells you about Matrixing basics.
> Third, sign up for my newsletter, or, better yet, just follow me on myblog.
> http://alcase.wordpress.com
> See if I make sense over time. That's the trick, eh?
> Fourth, check out the other vids on youtube.
> I'm one of the few people in the world who can put out a candle
> with a punch from over a foot away. The vid is on youtube.
> Fifth, I'm in Los Angeles. Send me an email, arrange to meet.
> I'm not shy, I'm polite, I'm not interested in fighting, only learning.
> Sixth, if you don't like me, that's fine, just be rude and I'll sign off.
> Guys, I appreciate the intent of keeping the martial arts honest.
> But I just don't have the time or the thick skin to play with opinions versus facts.
> I hope you guys all have a great new year.
> I hope you all get everything you possibly can out of the martial arts.
> You have my love, and I'm sorry if I have offended anybody.
> Please forgive.
> Thank you.
> Al Case


 
Hi Al,

The main problem I'm seeing here is that you appear to be applying intellectual methods to non-intellectual situations. Martial arts are not learned intellectually, they are learned physically, and by applying something like Boolean Algebra to it (and things such as the "truth table") you seem to be implying that you can teach complex martial arts by overly categorising the various aspects of them, which intellectually compartmentalises them for a learning experience. The problem is that martial arts are learned by getting the skills into the body, not the mind, and the way to do that is to physically repeat the skills many times over under more and more stress, ensuring that the mind basically gets out of the way.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of fast-track learning, we utilise it ourselves a fair bit, especially in our self defence curriculum. But it's based far more on working similar skill-sets repeatedly, and ensuring that they carry over, rather than looking to an intellectual method of mentally understanding and categorising it.

I don't really want to start attacking you here, so please take the following comments as respectful, but I'd like to go through some of the claims you list above (note: they are not queried themselves, but the reason they are listed is).

You mention your articles in various publications, to be completely frank I have seen more utter nonsense published in magazines than actual good content overall, and there was no dispute of your writing articles, so I have to wonder what the reason was for you to mention them straight away? My only thought is that it is a way of establishing credibility, perhaps you could offer another reason that you included that part?

Next, the issues I can see with using intellectual methods to create a learning system for a physical endeavour I have already gone through, but your comment (accented by yourself there) that you are the only person to apply Boolean Algebra to the learning of martial arts (Ever!) tells me that there are two possible reasons for this. Either you are truly revolutionary in the way you teach, or no-one else has thought it really is beneficial. I also am unsure as to how you decided that this was a good way of learning martial arts that you had already learnt... did you take completely unskilled beginners and teach them using your method exclusively? Then how did you test them, were they compared with, say, a black belt in the same art to see how they performed?

The next method you have of us telling whether or not what you present is good or not is to buy your program(s), and then join your mailing list. Okay, it's a little marketing-heavy for a forum post, but I agree that actually seeing it would be the better way to go. I'll jump on your blog after this.

The videos. Honestly, that brings me back to the idea of teaching others, as that is your claim, not whether or not after 40 years you can actually do it yourself. And the candle trick? Okay, it's fun, but I'm not sure what it has to do with your teaching concepts here. Again it seems like a way to make yourself more credible, and if you are doing that with what is essentially a martial art parlour trick, it doesn't help there.

LA, well, I'm in Melbourne, Australia, so it's a bit of a commute. I'll leave that for the time being, sure you understand.

Finally, I don't think it's a matter of liking you or not, it's more about some rather unusual claims being given, and some clarification being sought. Honestly, I'm much more impressed with yourself and your willingness to enter into debate than many others, so I would hope that you don't suffer any rudeness from anyone here.

Hope to hear on these issues from you.


----------



## matrixman

Hi Chris, good to meet you. Points well taken.
I usually get a lot of raised eyes, and I usually just throw the credibility stuff out there to fend off. No offense to anyone, I trawl for the person who is interested.
The real point here, in my mind, is intellectual vs skills into the body. Youre absolutely right, an art without the skills into the body is no art at all. Worthless.
But as you point out later, the idea is to get the mind out of the way. I mean, the sooner you get the mind out of the way, the sooner the skills go into the body. Right?
Matrixing provides sufficient data that various questions in the mind are not activated, thus the mind doesnt get in the way, thus the skills go into the body faster.
Will it work for everybody? Absolutely not. You dont have to study Boolean algebra, but you do have to be relatively freed from belief systems.
Belief systems are something that the mind erects when the learning process abuses a person. Public schools, classic methods, all sorts of thing can result in belief systems. 
But I dont want to get off the track, so let me say this. The abilities of the individual are more than anybody has ever dreamed.
Horses to wagons to cars to planes to rockets to the moon and beyond...all done within a hundred years by people who put aside their minds and belief systems and started to create, to work, to believe in themselves ( as opposed to a belief system).
Speed reading? People a hundred years ago scoffed.
Nothing in my public schooling ever prepared me for the things I would learn in and through the martial arts, and I dare say it is so for you.
If you believe that people can only learn as fast as bruises are put on their body (I overstate, but you see my point), then thats how fast you learn martial arts. If you believe that human beings are not body, not mind, but something else, some unlimited something else, then the door opens.
Anyway, I apologize for ranting. I get excited. 
If this isnt for you, thats okay. If it is, Ill answer any question you throw at me, and be honest about my ignorance. If any of the points above, or ignited in your mind, are unclear, please ask.
And if I have offended anybody out there, Im sorry. Please forgive me, Ill try to do better.
Thank you.


----------



## Tez3

matrixman said:


> Hi Chris, good to meet you. Points well taken.
> I usually get a lot of raised eyes, and I usually just throw the credibility stuff out there to fend off. No offense to anyone, I trawl for the person who is interested.
> The real point here, in my mind, is intellectual vs skills into the body. Youre absolutely right, an art without the skills into the body is no art at all. Worthless.
> But as you point out later, the idea is to get the mind out of the way. I mean, the sooner you get the mind out of the way, the sooner the skills go into the body. Right?
> Matrixing provides sufficient data that various questions in the mind are not activated, thus the mind doesnt get in the way, thus the skills go into the body faster.
> Will it work for everybody? Absolutely not. You dont have to study Boolean algebra, but you do have to be relatively freed from belief systems.
> Belief systems are something that the mind erects when the learning process abuses a person. Public schools, classic methods, all sorts of thing can result in belief systems.
> But I dont want to get off the track, so let me say this. The abilities of the individual are more than anybody has ever dreamed.
> Horses to wagons to cars to planes to rockets to the moon and beyond...all done within a hundred years by people who put aside their minds and belief systems and started to create, to work, to believe in themselves ( as opposed to a belief system).
> Speed reading? People a hundred years ago scoffed.
> Nothing in my public schooling ever prepared me for the things I would learn in and through the martial arts, and I dare say it is so for you.
> If you believe that people can only learn as fast as bruises are put on their body (I overstate, but you see my point), then thats how fast you learn martial arts. If you believe that human beings are not body, not mind, but something else, some unlimited something else, then the door opens.
> Anyway, I apologize for ranting. I get excited.
> If this isnt for you, thats okay. If it is, Ill answer any question you throw at me, and be honest about my ignorance. If any of the points above, or ignited in your mind, are unclear, please ask.
> And if I have offended anybody out there, Im sorry. Please forgive me, Ill try to do better.
> Thank you.


 

I have no idea what you are talking about. 
However I do think you should stop apologising, it's weird.


----------



## Flying Crane

matrixman said:


> Second, order a course. See if I'm full of bushwah. Money back guarantee.
> 
> Al Case


 
I honestly don't trust a money back guarantee on something like this.  Just gives me a bad feeling like there's something in the fine print to make it near impossible to collect on...

how about this one:  if you believe so strongly about your method, then make one of your programs available in its entirety, for free, no limitations.  Let people see what it is all about unhindered, unhidden.  If we see the potential, then we're likely to bite again.  As it is, I'd wager most serious martial artists are just too sceptical to blow the ten bucks.


----------



## Bruno@MT

Money back guarantee... how about we say we'll pay if we are genuinely impressed? After all, it's logically the same, and you are sure enough that we'll be impressed to offer the money back guarantee. Asking for our money first seems to me to be a sign that you want to make sure you have the money first before you are confident to show us what you are about.


----------



## Chris Parker

matrixman said:


> Hi Chris, good to meet you.


 
Good to meet you too.



matrixman said:


> Points well taken.
> I usually get a lot of raised eyes, and I usually just throw the credibility stuff out there to fend off. No offense to anyone, I trawl for the person who is interested.


 
Within certain communities, there is the concept of sub-communication, in other words, what you're saying when you're not saying it. That is where this feels incongruent, honestly.

Here you are saying that you put out the "here's how good I am" information (what we would refer to as demonstrating value) in order to put off anyone who isn't genuinely interested, and that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Speaking from an analytical viewpoint, it's actually designed to impress someone who doesn't know what you're refering to, but risks coming across as bragging. So you "soften" the message by putting in a lot of overly apologetic language, which is an attempt to appear humble at the same time. It's an interesting balancing act, and can be done if it's done well. But if not, it smacks of incongruence, whether that is present or not in the speaker.

I'm also not sure what you mean when you say you "trawl for the person who is interested". Do you mean that you are looking only for potential customers?



matrixman said:


> The real point here, in my mind, is intellectual vs &#8216;skills into the body.&#8217; You&#8217;re absolutely right, an art without the skills into the body is no art at all. Worthless.


 
I think it goes a lot further than that, but yes.



matrixman said:


> But as you point out later, the idea is to get the mind out of the way. I mean, the sooner you get the mind out of the way, the sooner the skills go into the body. Right?


 
No, not quite. Really, the more the body is trained, the better the skills get into the body. And that takes it back to my issue about what level is this learning going to (when you claim on your website that you can "learn [Aikido] within 80 minutes"), as it really doesn't appear to be what I would call learning the martial art. It is getting a grip, to a degree, on some basic concepts, and that is all.



matrixman said:


> Matrixing provides sufficient data that various questions in the mind are not activated, thus the mind doesn&#8217;t get in the way, thus the skills go into the body faster.


 
Hmm, in over 20 years in the martial arts myself, I've often asked questions, and the answers have often been rather enlightening, whether they came from experience, reflection, my instructors, or other students... but not while training. So the fundamental idea of there being questions in the mind to be "activated" doesn't really gel with me there. Can you go into any more detail about what you mean by this?



matrixman said:


> Will it work for everybody? Absolutely not. You don&#8217;t have to study Boolean algebra, but you do have to be relatively freed from belief systems.


 
Ah, this is where we get interesting.... 

On the surface here, I fundamentally disagree with you. A martial art is a belief system, so it's more about embracing one than being freed from one. But I think you mean something different, and are talking more about beliefs about how we learn, yes?



matrixman said:


> Belief systems are something that the mind erects when the learning process abuses a person. Public schools, classic methods, all sorts of thing can result in belief systems.


 
First, an argument. 

No their not. A belief system is what allows you to function, it provides your values, and your behaviours. There is nothing abusive about it whatsoever, in fact, abuse would lead to a perversion of a persons belief system (it's okay to hurt animals, for instance). Your concept of what a belief system is appears to be rather lacking from this end.



matrixman said:


> But I don&#8217;t want to get off the track, so let me say this. The abilities of the individual are more than anybody has ever dreamed.


 
Honestly, you're talking to the wrong person to say things like that to.... My background and my belief system more than allows for such concepts, and embraces them at all times.

(Okay, the tonality of that line may need clarification. It was said with a beaming smile, and meant in a very friendly tone, without condescention or mocking. Rather agreeable, really).



matrixman said:


> Horses to wagons to cars to planes to rockets to the moon and beyond...all done within a hundred years by people who put aside their minds and belief systems and started to create, to work, to believe in themselves ( as opposed to a &#8216;belief&#8217; system).


 
Well, your history is a little off.... unless you think that cars really came within a hundred years of wagons! But yes, positive belief is a great thing, although that is not the greatest factor in all of these endeavours and achievements, honestly.



matrixman said:


> Speed reading? People a hundred years ago scoffed.
> Nothing in my public schooling ever prepared me for the things I would learn in and through the martial arts, and I dare say it is so for you.


 
Ha, okay. Counter question would be when do you feel that public literacy came to the fore? How long before a hundred years ago when people scoffed at speed reading? Because if the majority of the public couldn't read, that may say something about the general perception of speed reading a hundred years ago or longer....

As for prepared me, actually a lot of my psychology studies have really come into my training and teaching. But I get what you mean.



matrixman said:


> If you believe that people can only learn as fast as bruises are put on their body (I overstate, but you see my point), then that&#8217;s how fast you learn martial arts. If you believe that human beings are not body, not mind, but something else, some unlimited something else, then the door opens.


 
As I said, we employ fast-track learning methods in our schools as well, but the way they work is constant repetition of principles or tactics. It's what is refered to as a DefTac, or Defensive Tactics Program. And, honestly, what this all seems like to me is a version of that where you take the basic concepts of the physical approach to a system, and cover that briefy without the necessary repetition. And while that can give a basic overview, and can certainly be done in a very short amount of time, it is far from actually learning a martial art.

Your page on "Matrixed Aikido" has some rather unusual claims attached. For example, you claim that after going through the core concepts on the 80 minute DVDs and in the 50 page book, we will be able to "create" Aikido. To me, that is not correct. You may be able to express something out of the base concepts taken from Aikido, but that is very far from being Aikido itself. The essential aspects that make it Aikido are removed (and no, I'm not talking about any of the metioned "spirituality"... although I should say that Aikido is not "founded on religious principles", rather the Otomo Sect of Buddhism played an increasingly large part in O'Sensei's life and expression as he aged). You also ask us to compare the old footage of Ueshiba with modern practitioners, claiming that the modern members are "faster, more intuitive, more able" (?) than Ueshiba was. Honestly, I don't you and I see the same thing when we look at that footage. Ueshiba, to me, may not appear as fast, but I also see him not needing to, and that is something that the modern practitioners I see are striving towards. So we may be looking at different benchmarks there.



matrixman said:


> Anyway, I apologize for ranting. I get excited.


 
Again, no need for apologies, particularly this frequently. I could get into what it says to me, but I'll hold off on that for now at least.



matrixman said:


> If this isn&#8217;t for you, that&#8217;s okay. If it is, I&#8217;ll answer any question you throw at me, and be honest about my ignorance. If any of the points above, or ignited in your mind, are unclear, please ask.
> And if I have offended anybody out there, I&#8217;m sorry. Please forgive me, I&#8217;ll try to do better.
> Thank you.


 
Thank you for taking the time to respond.

EDIT: Oh, just as an adendum, I did check out your blog. There are a few interesting things, but there's also a lot that I would argue with as well (such as the blog on being smarter than a pigeon, the one on rankings, and most particularly the one on the Samurai versus the Tai Chi master... really, that one showed that you don't have much understanding of either weapon or art, frankly, although I must say that, apart from "laughing" at this thread, you weren't "unusually mean" yourself there, although I don't remember anyone here arguing that we "are, uh, not smart". Don't know if it was smart of you to send us there....). There's a lot of gaps in understanding being presented, honestly.


----------



## Bruno@MT

Chris Parker said:
			
		

> You also ask us to compare the old footage of Ueshiba with modern practitioners, claiming that the modern members are "faster, more intuitive, more able" (?) than Ueshiba was. Honestly, I don't you and I see the same thing when we look at that footage. Ueshiba, to me, may not appear as fast, but I also see him not needing to, and that is something that the modern practitioners I see are striving towards. So we may be looking at different benchmarks there.



I've seen footage of the heads of the kans, and imo it is only natural for younger guys to be physically faster. That is what youth is all about. Hatsumi sensei is certainly not bouncing around like when he was half his age. The key is: he doesn't need to. If you are good enough, you don't have to hurry because you can do the bare minimum that is necessary.

I've linked this clip several time already and I am going to do it again. Here you see a frail old iaido master decisively beating someone half his age and twice his size. And he doesn't do it by being faster, but just by moving where he has to move without too much fuss or excitement. This is what you earn through years of repetition, not by book learning.

[yt]83Xq2p0E07o[/yt]


----------



## Tez3

Bruno@MT said:


> I've seen footage of the heads of the kans, and imo it is only natural for younger guys to be physically faster. That is what youth is all about. Hatsumi sensei is certainly not bouncing around like when he was half his age. The key is: he doesn't need to. If you are good enough, you don't have to hurry because you can do the bare minimum that is necessary.
> 
> I've linked this clip several time already and I am going to do it again. Here you see a frail old iaido master decisively beating someone half his age and twice his size. And he doesn't do it by being faster, but just by moving where he has to move without too much fuss or excitement. This is what you earn through years of repetition, not by book learning.
> 
> [yt]83Xq2p0E07o[/yt]


 

Old and sneaky beats young and fit any day!


----------



## Supra Vijai

Tez3 said:


> Old and sneaky beats young and fit any day!



So says the self titled scary middle aged woman


----------



## Supra Vijai

Bruno@MT said:


> I've seen footage of the heads of the kans, and imo it is only natural for younger guys to be physically faster. That is what youth is all about. Hatsumi sensei is certainly not bouncing around like when he was half his age. The key is: he doesn't need to. If you are good enough, you don't have to hurry because you can do the bare minimum that is necessary.
> 
> I've linked this clip several time already and I am going to do it again. Here you see a frail old iaido master decisively beating someone half his age and twice his size. And he doesn't do it by being faster, but just by moving where he has to move without too much fuss or excitement. This is what you earn through years of repetition, not by book learning.
> 
> [yt]83Xq2p0E07o[/yt]



Wow great clip, thanks Bruno  Was this the Hachidan you mentioned in your reply to one of my other threads about training and humility?


----------



## Tez3

Supra Vijai said:


> So says the self titled scary middle aged woman


 
Why thank you sir!

Surely though I can't be the only martial artist who likes things simple? I like plain instruction with plain practising, I can't be doing with messing up things to make them seem something they are not. I like a punch to KO someone not to have a discussion on metaphysics with them. A kick should hurt someone not debate the meaning of life.


----------



## Supra Vijai

I'm going to try steal a quote and quite possibly mangle it here. When you train an art that's primarily based on deception, does it not defeat at least half the purpose if your enemy knows what to expect?


----------



## Supra Vijai

Wait.. that sounds random. I guess what I'm saying is we'd probably be more like "heeeeyyy want some coffee? how about a movie? let's talk life!" and then kill them when they relax and least suspect it.


----------



## Chris Parker

Is this what you're talking about Supra?

[yt]n2_Z-whRDRk[/yt]

The first kata in Araki Ryu Kempo Kogusoku is exactly that, invite someone round for tea, get them a nice cuppa, then attack!!! Some nastier versions include repeatedly stabbing the victim after throwing the serving tray in their face....

Oh, and as an aside, this kata apparently comes from when the founder was ordered to kill a friend, and chose this method. The idea is to be able to hide your intent from them until it's too late.... and people think Ninja are sneaky!


----------



## Tez3

Chris Parker said:


> Is this what you're talking about Supra?
> 
> [yt]n2_Z-whRDRk[/yt]
> 
> The first kata in Araki Ryu Kempo Kogusoku is exactly that, invite someone round for tea, get them a nice cuppa, then attack!!! Some nastier versions include repeatedly stabbing the victim after throwing the serving tray in their face....
> 
> Oh, and as an aside, this kata apparently comes from when the founder was ordered to kill a friend, and chose this method. The idea is to be able to hide your intent from them until it's too late.... and people think Ninja are sneaky!


 

Personally I'd just poison them


----------



## Supra Vijai

Chris Parker said:


> Is this what you're talking about Supra?
> 
> [yt]n2_Z-whRDRk[/yt]
> 
> The first kata in Araki Ryu Kempo Kogusoku is exactly that, invite someone round for tea, get them a nice cuppa, then attack!!! Some nastier versions include repeatedly stabbing the victim after throwing the serving tray in their face....
> 
> Oh, and as an aside, this kata apparently comes from when the founder was ordered to kill a friend, and chose this method. The idea is to be able to hide your intent from them until it's too late.... and people think Ninja are sneaky!


 
Ummm... yes.... that's exactly what I had in mind when I made that example up, I mean recalled that kata 

@ Tez - Please see my previous comment lol


----------



## Tez3

Supra, I have a long standing invite to go out to Australia (well Tasmania lol) when I save up enough money and get there we really will have to meet up........................:lol:


----------



## Supra Vijai

That sounds fun Tez  Tassie as we call it is "around the corner" from where we are so it's a short flight/swim over. Maybe you could come see us train sometime as well, might make some difference to how you view ninjutsu. AFAIK no one in our classes wears home made rope sandals and hides in bushes :lol:


----------



## Flying Crane

you all are invited to look me up if you ever make it to California.  San Francisco to be more exact.  Consider the invite open.

Just thought I'd throw it out there, since we're gettin' all warm and fuzzy...


----------



## Tez3

Flying Crane said:


> you all are invited to look me up if you ever make it to California. San Francisco to be more exact. Consider the invite open.
> 
> Just thought I'd throw it out there, since we're gettin' all warm and fuzzy...


 
But we aren't drinking tea or coffee with anyone!


----------



## Flying Crane

Tez3 said:


> But we aren't drinking tea or coffee with anyone!


 
I always have a case (or partial) of Guinness in the fridge...


----------



## Supra Vijai

Given the recent discussion, I'd personally think that not drinking coffee or tea is the safer option


----------



## Flying Crane

Supra Vijai said:


> Given the recent discussion, I'd personally think that not drinking coffee or tea is the safer option


 
I wouldn't dream of offering a cup...


----------



## Supra Vijai

Just a friendly pint?

I feel kinda bad... It seems almost every thread I post in tends to get derailed... Fun derailed but derailed so apologies to the OP!


----------



## Tez3

Supra Vijai said:


> Just a friendly pint?
> 
> *I feel kinda bad... It seems almost every thread I post in tends to get derailed... Fun derailed but derailed so apologies to the OP*!


 

to be honest it's probably me, it's how I have conversations at home, well it's probably how most women have conversations!

Besides I am still waiting for the OP to explain to me what he's talking about , I'm not that dim but it just all seems very complicated and frankly how complicated can hitting and kicking someone be?


----------



## Supra Vijai

Once again, that proves you're a sweetheart outside the ring but I can't let you take the fall for this one. Happens in threads you haven't posted on as well. For instance I started a thread in the JSA titled 'Why do you train' asking (surprise surprise) why people trained in sword arts, what the fascination was and it was going great for a page and a bit and now we're in a discussion about Sensei... I mean Mr. Parker's devilish good looks and charms....

As for the actual OP, I'm confused. I thought it was just him asking for an opinion of material shown in a video? Or you do you mean Mr. Case's reply?


----------



## Rayban

You're always involved Supra! haha.

At least no one has mentioned the zombie apocalypse yet.


----------



## Supra Vijai

Rayban said:


> You're always involved Supra! haha.
> 
> At least no one has mentioned the zombie apocalypse yet.


 
What can I say? I have free time at work lately... Oh wait, you just did


----------



## Tez3

Supra Vijai said:


> Once again, that proves you're a sweetheart outside the ring but I can't let you take the fall for this one. Happens in threads you haven't posted on as well. For instance I started a thread in the JSA titled 'Why do you train' asking (surprise surprise) why people trained in sword arts, what the fascination was and it was going great for a page and a bit and now we're in a discussion about Sensei... I mean Mr. Parker's devilish good looks and charms....
> 
> As for the actual OP, I'm confused. I thought it was just him asking for an opinion of material shown in a video? Or you do you mean Mr. Case's reply?


 

I posted up saying I had no idea what he was talking about and was hoping for a simple answer but I'm guessing I have to pay for it?


----------



## Supra Vijai

Oh right, when you said us non americans needed a translation from the california/movie speak. Totally missed that. Threw me when you said OP though cause the thread was started by TaiChiTJ asking for people's opinions on the video he provided. I blame global warming for all miscommunication


----------



## Tez3

Supra Vijai said:


> Oh right, when you said us non americans needed a translation from the california/movie speak. Totally missed that. Threw me when you said OP though cause the thread was started by TaiChiTJ asking for people's opinions on the video he provided. I blame global warming for all miscommunication


 

Sorry I meant the Original Poster as opposed to original post, my mistake, I posted further on too where I said I didn't understand what he was talking about. As I said I think I'm supposed to pay to find out.


----------



## Supra Vijai

methinks my forum speak is lacking, I always thought OP meant original post/poster - as in the person who physically started the thread. So it's more about the subject matter raised?

As for paying to find out, I'm sure Mr. Case will be on here when he's able to and reply. He's done it twice already when he really didn't have to so I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and saying he's just been really busy over the holidays and is now sorting things out offline.


----------



## Tez3

Supra Vijai said:


> methinks my forum speak is lacking, I always thought OP meant original post/poster - as in the person who physically started the thread. So it's more about the subject matter raised?
> 
> As for paying to find out, I'm sure Mr. Case will be on here when he's able to and reply. He's done it twice already when he really didn't have to so I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and saying he's just been really busy over the holidays and is now sorting things out offline.


 
I find it's the time differences too, you'll be just getting up as I go to bed. People can't always be online at the right time to answer questions etc. 

Of course when I'm on nights I'm the same time as you lol.


----------



## Rayban

Off topic.... but on topic.

How do you find a correlation between Boolean Algebra and MA?

-Boolean is a logical programming language described by logic gates.

-MA (IMO) is a journey of self discovery achieved through training, practicing and striving for perfection.

There is a connection between Boolean and learning in a sequential and logical manner, but in MA learning a technique is 5% of the art.

Once you learn the movement you train it and practice it.  With time and with subtle adaptations you then (if not straight away) learn the principle of the technique.

This is how I learn MA, but I'm just curious how Boolean plays anymore then a "I do this, then this, then this...etc" role.


Sorry Supra, I hijacked it back from you and Tez 

You can have it back if you want.


----------



## Flying Crane

Rayban said:


> Off topic.... but on topic.
> 
> How do you find a correlation between Boolean Algebra and MA?
> 
> -Boolean is a logical programming language described by logic gates.
> 
> -MA (IMO) is a journey of self discovery achieved through training, practicing and striving for perfection.
> 
> There is a connection between Boolean and learning in a sequential and logical manner, but in MA learning a technique is 5% of the art.
> 
> Once you learn the movement you train it and practice it. With time and with subtle adaptations you then (if not straight away) learn the principle of the technique.
> 
> This is how I learn MA, but I'm just curious how Boolean plays anymore then a "I do this, then this, then this...etc" role.
> 
> 
> Sorry Supra, I hijacked it back from you and Tez
> 
> You can have it back if you want.


 
I don't know anything about boolian algebra, and this was one of my questions as well.

My take on it is, if you can work in terms like "boolian algebra", and quasi-scientific notions and whatnot, it makes you look really really smart to the uneducated.


----------



## Supra Vijai

Hijack away! We pretty much hijacked this thread to form global friendships while waiting for Mr. Case's reply so it's only fair someone takes it back onto the topic lol

Again it's probably best to wait for Mr. Case to reply as this is his course we are taking the liberty of discussing but in terms of a logical sequence of learning in this context, I think it works quite well. If you take a look at the website it says that the focus is shifted to the mechanics of the techs rather than the spiritual/philosophical backing or at least that's what I'm getting from the following quote:



> I want you to think on something. Aikido is fantastic, but it is founded on religious principles. And this slows it down, makes it significant,and provides a long path.But if you look at it logically,that shouldnt take away the profound spirituality of the Art! It should just speed it up




 Purely based on that, I would guess that Mr. Case is offering a course that is simply the mechanics - I do this, then this, then this - and not the history or principles of why. He doesn't claim to teach the history or the why either, just the techs themselves with the onus being on the students to fill in any gaps if they so desire. If I may, I'd also like to refer you to a thread called '*The Hobbyist vs. The Serious Student'*

 It's not quite the same but it explores the distinction to a very slight degree between someone who is attending classes for fun, fitness and a social activity as opposed to someone wanting to absorb the art in it's entirety.


----------



## Rayban

Flying Crane said:


> I don't know anything about boolian algebra, and this was one of my questions as well.
> 
> My take on it is, if you can work in terms like "boolian algebra", and quasi-scientific notions and whatnot, it makes you look really really smart to the uneducated.



Exactly! 

"Big unknown words make smart"

I actually use Boolean pretty much every day in one form or another and its pretty specific to electronics.  You can get a logical method of learning out of it, but you kinda need to have that before you can understand it O_O.

And this would be where sooner or later someone who knows will correct you


----------



## jks9199

OP is contextual; it may mean original post or original poster.

It seems Mr. Case has some interesting ideas.  I'd like to hear more about his approach without the buzz words that don't seem to be used in their typical definitions.  For example, Boolean Algebra is a term of mathematics, and while I get the idea that there can be some use of truth tables to categorize or sort physical movements... I don't see how to tie the two together here.


----------



## Cirdan

matrixman said:


> Fourth, check out the other vids on youtube.
> I'm one of the few people in the world who can put out a candle
> with a punch from over a foot away. The vid is on youtube.


 
I bet Bruce Calkins and Ashida Kim could do that also..
What is it good for anyway?


----------



## jks9199

Birthday parties?  

Blowing out candles with a punch can demonstrate speed and snap, as it only works if you can put that punch out there fast and with enough explosiveness to create the gust.  It's also an exercise for focus.


----------



## Bruno@MT

The boolean algebra thing is a cute way of proving / showing which response goes with which attack, at what moment. It is an intellectual breakdown of the technical side. And as such it has some merit and I can perfectly believe that an experienced practicioner would need no more than 80 minutes to explain a diagram that covers all possible attacks and their responses.

What this does not do is give you any of the physical development that 40 years of practice does. Your muscles, tendons, and bones will still be undeveloped. It also does not give you coordination, balance and reflexes. And it does not ingrain the movements into your muscle memory. It does not provide the psychological training or the experience to deal with adrenaline.

So after watching that DVD and 'understanding aikido', you'd still need 40 years of time to develop your mind and body to the point where you actually have 40 years of experience.
But at least you can feel confident that your skills are 'matrixed'...


----------



## mook jong man

Check this out , after only 80 minutes of boolean algebra training I was able to do this.


----------



## Tez3

Reckon the England cricket team have been doing Boolean training? :flame:


----------



## mook jong man

Tez3 said:


> Reckon the England cricket team have been doing Boolean training? :flame:


 
Don't you bloody start.

They've been doing something thats for sure , just been way to good for our blokes.
England have totally outclassed us.
We need Warnie to come back out of retirement and play again , if we can  drag him away long enough from his mobile and texting Liz Hurley that is.


----------



## Supra Vijai

mook jong man said:


> Don't you bloody start.
> 
> They've been doing something thats for sure , just been way to good for our blokes.
> England have totally outclassed us.
> We need Warnie to come back out of retirement and play again , if we can  drag him away long enough from his mobile and texting Liz Hurley that is.



Umm with all due respect, would YOU stop texting Liz Hurley to play a game of cricket in 40 degree heat? I wouldn't and I'm Indian! lol


----------



## mook jong man

Supra Vijai said:


> Umm with all due respect, would YOU stop texting Liz Hurley to play a game of cricket in 40 degree heat? I wouldn't and I'm Indian! lol


 
You've got a point there , Liz Hurley is absolutely stunning.
Don't know what she sees in Warnie though , the mans as thick as a brick.

Although he does look as though he's had a bit of work done dont you think ?
Every time he's on tele I have to turn it off because looking at his new dazzling white teeth with the naked eye nearly burned my retinas out.


----------



## jks9199

As fascinating as cricket may be -- maybe we can stick to Al Case's approach to MA here?


----------



## Tez3

jks9199 said:


> As fascinating as cricket may be -- maybe we can stick to Al Case's approach to MA here?


 
We are waiting for him to post answers to our questions and to explain what it is, we can't discuss what we don't understand.

And on the subject of cricket surely this matrix thing isn't sport specific so if it were that good first class cricketers, athletes, soccer and American footbal players etc etc would all be doing it_?_ In that case wouldn't we have heard of it before? If it wewre martial arts specific why wouldn't those of us who had been around a while have either heard of it or worked it out for ourselves, somebody would have before now surely?


----------



## Chris Parker

As JKS has asked, let's look a little more at Mr Case's  approach here. I've spent the last hour or two going through hsi previous posts and threads to get a better idea of his method of communication, as well as his blog (as suggested by Mr Case on the first page here). And I'm afraid to say that I'm seeing a growing number of issues and misunderstandings of martial arts which appear to have lead him to the approach he's using, including thinking that it's something new.

There are frequent reference to martial arts being "jumbled up", taught in no particular order, with the hope that you will eventually be able to make sense of it all. That appears to be the central reasoning for this whole "matrix" idea. Unfortunately, it's just not the way things are... at least, it's not the way that they're designed. Every art that I have come across has it's own form of structure, but it definately has structure. In karate you learn one kata after another, each building on skill sets and tactics from previous ones. Japanese systems are incredibly systematic in their teaching methods and structural format. Aikido teaches one movement at a time, in fact their naming method indicates the order of progression (ikkyo, nikyo, sankyo...). Chinese systems are structured in that the student is taught as their skill, talent, and dedication dictate. Again, forms are followed in the correct order for the same reasons. Same with Tae Kwon Do. And so on, and so on.

So if Mr Case doesn't think that martial arts have any structure, I can only think of two possible explanations; either he wasn't told, or he didn't realise. If the former, then that is the fault of his teachers. If the latter, well, that's his misunderstanding.

There are threads in the "Articles" section such as one on combining Wing Chun and Aikido, in which the feeling I get is that Mr Case seems to think that all martial arts should be based in the same principles and ideas, a generic "martial art" kinda thing. That, of course, is not the way they work. So his issues in attending an Aikido class, and acting in a karate fashion before trying to apply Wing Chun to it in some way, and then saying that it "takes an extreme common sense to put arts together". No, it takes a lack of understanding to try that in the first place, trying to force them together without understanding the reasons for them to be different in the first place. That article can be found here: http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=84090

There is also one about reaction time which, honestly, seems rather odd at least. I think he's getting at the concept of Koteki Ryuda within the Japanese systems, however the description (stating that reaction time is one of the biggest "scams" foisted upon martial artists) seems to imply that any art that looks at a reactionary response (defence after an attack is launched) is incorrect. While, strategically, waiting is not the best option, Mr Case does seem to again miss how martial arts are designed to work (starting with basic block-and-counter methods, and moving on to more advanced tactics as time and skill improve).

When we go to the aforementioned blog, there are quite a few things that indicate to me that, despite his 40+ years in the arts, Mr Case appears not to have developed any real understanding of any of the various systems he has experienced. This includes such things as his "Reasons that you should Matrix your Martial Art", which contradicts itself, as well as contradicting how a martial art works, and in fact, what a martial art is.



> Here are 8 reasons you should Matrix your Martial Art.
> 1) Make your art logical
> 2) Get rid of lame techniques
> 3) Streamline your Art
> 4) Learn up to 10 Xs faster
> 5) Turn on your intuition
> 6) Learn entire arts
> 7) Make all arts into one art
> 8) Find out the truth of the martial arts


 
If we look at the above list, numbers 2 and 3 indicate removing aspects of your art. Now, if the art is completely understood, then I can go with that... provided the reasons for the "lame" or more "cumbersome" aspects of the art are there in the first place. But of course, if we are removing aspects, how are we achieving number 6, learning an entire art? The first thing we did, without knowing why things were there, was remove bits that didn't seem to make sense. Number 6 also contradicts number 7, making all arts into one... as as soon as you do that, you remove the aspects that make each art seperate, and complete. And as for finding out the truth of the martial arts, I am increasingly less convinced that Mr Case can actually deliver on anything close to that, as there are too many issues with his understanding from the evidence presented.

This is further evidenced in one of the blog entries, where Mr Case describes his learning Karate initially from a book. This is accompanied by a short clip about some bunkai on Pinan Five, in which I can see very little Karate, in posture, use of legs and hips, movement in striking, and so on. Amongst other clips was one entitled: Cool Knife Disarms! The disarms shown lack realism, the attacker lacks any realistic response or attacking methodology, and they are, sadly, far from "cool" to my mind.

In short, Mr Case, although he seems rather successful in his sales endeavours (if his stats and testimonials are halfway true), however the target seems to be people who want a short-cut, and are frankly not well-versed. And while I can appreciate the marketing methods he's employing, the product itself seems to be rather lacking. 

Al, I say all of this not to offend, but to offer an honest appraisal of the way your product is presented, as well as the way you present yourself in these forums and on your blog. I hope you take it in the way it was intended.


----------



## stone_dragone

Not to resurrect a year dead thread, but I have just purchased one of Mr. Case's programs out of curiosity and will review it and let folks know what I think first hand. 

I figured for the cost of a dinner out, if I can learn three things that I didn't know, then the $ and time'll be worth it. 

I'll let y'all know. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## oftheherd1

stone_dragone said:


> Not to resurrect a year dead thread, but I have just purchased one of Mr. Case's programs out of curiosity and will review it and let folks know what I think first hand.
> 
> I figured for the cost of a dinner out, if I can learn three things that I didn't know, then the $ and time'll be worth it.
> 
> I'll let y'all know.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Looking forward to it.


----------



## clfsean

I'd go for dinner myself...


----------



## TaiChiTJ

Not to resurrect a year dead thread, but I have just purchased one of Mr. Case's programs out of curiosity and will review it and let folks know what I think first hand. 



Good! I have just recently worked through his entire "Forty Monkees". It would be great to hear your analysis.


----------



## clfsean

Still say better spent $$$$ is on dinner.

Sent from my Thunderbolt on Tapatalk. Excuse the auto-correct spelling errors.


----------



## jks9199

TaiChiTJ said:


> Good! I have just recently worked through his entire "Forty Monkees". It would be great to hear your analysis.


Maybe you can tell us what you thought about that program?


----------



## Flying Crane

that's the trick of it.  Make the price low enough that if people are not happy with it, they are more likely to just walk away and don't bother to collect the refund.  One can get rich off that approach.

I sometimes consider talking to a fortune teller, under the same notion.  Hey, it's not really that much money, I'm just morbidly curious, what the hell, give it a go just for giggles and *****.  But again, that's probably what the fortune teller is hoping for: someone who is just morbidly curious and willing to part with a few bucks.


----------



## Flying Crane

TaiChiTJ said:


> Good! I have just recently worked through his entire "Forty Monkees". It would be great to hear your analysis.



what the hell are "forty monkees"?


----------



## clfsean

Flying Crane said:


> what the hell are "forty monkees"?



-Several watchings of the Brad Pitt/Bruce Willis movie

-What happens after drinking with the Beastie Boys

-A buffet from "The Faces of Death"

Any of the above really.

Sent from my Thunderbolt on Tapatalk. Excuse the auto-correct spelling errors.


----------



## TaiChiTJ

Flying Crane said:


> what the hell are "forty monkees"?



Here is my take: 

The forty monkees are an organized collection of forty self protection actions that are  practiced with a partner. They come from a wide variety of traditional martial arts, encompassing chinna (joint locks), aikido projections, kung-fu / kenpo techniques, and probably some other traditional arts I dont know the name of.  

Cases organization of these techniques, as they flow from one part of the body to another, has a logical progression to it. Nothing new has been invented, Case just rearranged  existing techniques from traditional arts in a manner that respects what fighting range they are performed at and, he feels, makes logical sense and is therefore easier to learn. 

Consider the curriculum page on Bill Parsons Triangle Kenpo site. At the top of the page is a table called Techniques by Belt, with the color of the belt on the far left and the techniques belonging to that belt on the right.  

Now, scroll down past that section and you will see another table, Techniques by Attack, with strikes, grabs, sparring, kicks etc., on the far left and a further delineation one column over with right inside, right outside and what technique the IKCA teaches for that attack and the last column showing just exactly what kind of right inside punch it is. 

http://www.trianglekenpo.com/curriculum.htm


Al Cases word for table is matrix. 

I am showing my age here but lets also consider the original hardbound edition of Aikido and the Dynamic Sphere, first published sometime in the mid-seventies, I think. Some of my fellow ma elders may remember the book and especially the pull-out section that was bound in the middle of the hardbound edition of that book. This was another table that showed the particular Aikido wrist or elbow lock on the far left and then, in columns on the right, specific Aikido neutralizations or projections that lock was used in. The book is still published, I think, but only in paper back, and that table is no longer included.  I looked on the web, hoping maybe somebody had put up a picture of that pull-out section but could not find it. 

These two examples are ok, but they dont quite show the nth degree to which Master Al has gone into the analysis of human motion in the execution of a wide variety of traditional martial arts. 

His analysis favors large chunks of a particular system, not the system in its entirety. For example, the footwork of a shaolin system, or an analysis of motion in Tai Chi push hands. 


hope that is understandable


----------



## Flying Crane

TaiChiTJ said:


> Here is my take:
> 
> The forty monkees are an organized collection of forty self protection actions that are practiced with a partner. They come from a wide variety of traditional martial arts, encompassing chinna (joint locks), aikido projections, kung-fu / kenpo techniques, and probably some other traditional arts I don&#8217;t know the name of.
> 
> Case&#8217;s organization of these techniques, as they flow from one part of the body to another, has a logical progression to it. Nothing new has been invented, Case just rearranged existing techniques from traditional arts in a manner that respects what fighting range they are performed at and, he feels, makes logical sense and is therefore easier to learn.
> 
> Consider the curriculum page on Bill Parson&#8217;s Triangle Kenpo site. At the top of the page is a table called &#8220;Techniques by Belt&#8221;, with the color of the belt on the far left and the techniques belonging to that belt on the right.
> 
> Now, scroll down past that section and you will see another table, &#8220;Techniques by Attack&#8221;, with &#8220;strikes&#8221;, &#8220;grabs&#8221;, &#8220;sparring&#8221;, &#8220;kicks&#8221; etc., on the far left and a further delineation one column over with &#8220;right inside&#8221;, &#8220;right outside&#8221; and what technique the IKCA teaches for that attack and the last column showing just exactly what kind of &#8220;right inside&#8221; punch it is.
> 
> http://www.trianglekenpo.com/curriculum.htm
> 
> 
> Al Case&#8217;s word for &#8220;table&#8221; is &#8220;matrix&#8221;.
> 
> I am showing my age here but let&#8217;s also consider the original hardbound edition of &#8220;Aikido and the Dynamic Sphere&#8221;, first published sometime in the mid-seventies, I think. Some of my fellow ma elders may remember the book and especially the pull-out section that was bound in the middle of the hardbound edition of that book. This was another table that showed the particular Aikido wrist or elbow lock on the far left and then, in columns on the right, specific Aikido neutralizations or projections that lock was used in. The book is still published, I think, but only in paper back, and that table is no longer included. I looked on the web, hoping maybe somebody had put up a picture of that pull-out section but could not find it.
> 
> These two examples are ok, but they don&#8217;t quite show the &#8220;nth degree&#8221; to which Master Al has gone into the analysis of human motion in the execution of a wide variety of traditional martial arts.
> 
> His analysis favors large chunks of a particular system, not the system in its entirety. For example, the footwork of a shaolin system, or an analysis of motion in Tai Chi push hands.
> 
> 
> hope that is understandable



It's understandable as far as you describe it, but the approach is fundamentally flawed.

the movement of the technique is not what is important.  Each system has a foundational method in how techniques are delivered and used, and this method can vary widely from one system to another.  Simply mimicking the movement of the technique, without understanding and properly using the foundation for that system, will not give you a viable technique.  So if this is a collection of techniques taken from many different systems, then I can guarantee the proper foundation for each system is not being used.  What is happening is he is presenting physical movement, without understanding what it is that actually makes that movement effective.  Those different techniques from different systems are being forced onto one common foundation that is improper for many of them. Square peg, round hole.

It's a collection of unrelated movements.  Each technique may be viable when placed within the proper context of its system.  But taken outside of that context and training it without the proper foundation, the usefulness and effectiveness is severely reduced, even to the point of being useless.  

The fact that someone would create a method in this way tells me that he has very little understanding of how this stuff works.


----------



## clfsean

Flying Crane said:


> It's understandable as far as you describe it, but the approach is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> the movement of the technique is not what is important.  Each system has a foundational method in how techniques are delivered and used, and this method can vary widely from one system to another.  Simply mimicking the movement of the technique, without understanding and properly using the foundation for that system, will not give you a viable technique.  So if this is a collection of techniques taken from many different systems, then I can guarantee the proper foundation for each system is not being used.  What is happening is he is presenting physical movement, without understanding what it is that actually makes that movement effective.  Those different techniques from different systems are being forced onto one common foundation that is improper for many of them. Square peg, round hole.
> 
> It's a collection of unrelated movements.  Each technique may be viable when placed within the proper context of its system.  But taken outside of that context and training it without the proper foundation, the usefulness and effectiveness is severely reduced, even to the point of being useless.
> 
> The fact that someone would create a method in this way tells me that he has very little understanding of how this stuff works.



Brilliant... simple, direct, brilliant.


----------



## TaiChiTJ

You make good points! Keep in mind I don't claim to be skilled at his system or understand everything. There are other "chunks" to the system I know a little about, however I cannot speak with authority. 

I just have a sustaining interest in those ma's on american soil who have in some way created offshoots, such as Tak Wah Eng's "New York Nan Chuan" Shifu Mancuso has written about, Tony Annesi's bushido-kai, Sullivan and LeRoux, etc. 

With Case, we have something decidedly different, and as you believe, his matrixing has left important foundational elements out. 

I did describe it as far as I understand it, and meant it in that vein.


----------



## Flying Crane

TaiChiTJ said:


> You make good points! Keep in mind I don't claim to be skilled at his system or understand everything. There are other "chunks" to the system I know a little about, however I cannot speak with authority.
> 
> I just have a sustaining interest in those ma's on american soil who have in some way created offshoots, such as Tak Wah Eng's "New York Nan Chuan" Shifu Mancuso has written about, Tony Annesi's bushido-kai, Sullivan and LeRoux, etc.
> 
> With Case, we have something decidedly different, and as you believe, his matrixing has left important foundational elements out.
> 
> I did describe it as far as I understand it, and meant it in that vein.



I understand, and I appreciate your description. My comments are not aimed at you; I understand you are simply taking a look at what he is doing.

The approach that he is taking, at least as far as you have been able to describe it, reduces the effectiveness of a technique to a simple factor of one's physical strength.  The technique relies primarily on physical strength, and ignores the physical efficiency that the mother system builds into the methodology.  If one is physically strong, he can still find certain things effective because his strength carries him thru.  But this masks the fact that he doesn't understand how the technique is really meant to function, and fails to reach the true potential of the technique.

It's not difficult to hurt someone.  You do not need to have superior technique, or a sophisticated martial system to do so.  One can be a "tough guy" and be able to hurt someone, even tho one's martial skills may not be very high.  It's important to recognize the difference.  Being a tough guy who can fight and beat people up is not automatically the same thing as being a skilled martial artist.

Personally, I'm looking for a higher level of true skill.


----------



## Chris Parker

Flying Crane said:


> It's understandable as far as you describe it, but the approach is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> the movement of the technique is not what is important.  Each system has a foundational method in how techniques are delivered and used, and this method can vary widely from one system to another.  Simply mimicking the movement of the technique, without understanding and properly using the foundation for that system, will not give you a viable technique.  So if this is a collection of techniques taken from many different systems, then I can guarantee the proper foundation for each system is not being used.  What is happening is he is presenting physical movement, without understanding what it is that actually makes that movement effective.  Those different techniques from different systems are being forced onto one common foundation that is improper for many of them. Square peg, round hole.
> 
> It's a collection of unrelated movements.  Each technique may be viable when placed within the proper context of its system.  But taken outside of that context and training it without the proper foundation, the usefulness and effectiveness is severely reduced, even to the point of being useless.
> 
> *The fact that someone would create a method in this way tells me that he has very little understanding of how this stuff works.*





Flying Crane said:


> I understand, and I appreciate your description. My comments are not aimed at you; I understand you are simply taking a look at what he is doing.
> 
> The approach that he is taking, at least as far as you have been able to describe it, reduces the effectiveness of a technique to a simple factor of one's physical strength.  The technique relies primarily on physical strength, and ignores the physical efficiency that the mother system builds into the methodology.  If one is physically strong, he can still find certain things effective because his strength carries him thru.  But this masks the fact that he doesn't understand how the technique is really meant to function, and fails to reach the true potential of the technique.
> 
> It's not difficult to hurt someone.  You do not need to have superior technique, or a sophisticated martial system to do so.  One can be a "tough guy" and be able to hurt someone, even tho one's martial skills may not be very high.  It's important to recognize the difference.  Being a tough guy who can fight and beat people up is not automatically the same thing as being a skilled martial artist.
> 
> *Personally, I'm looking for a higher level of true skill.*



Yeah, I'm with Michael here as well. The description you proffer, TaiChiTJ, just matches the issues noted earlier in the thread, and leveled directly at Al himself. Based on his blog, the descriptions from both himself and yourself, Al's youtube clips, and so on, he seems to be missing quite a fair bit of what makes a martial art work, instead looking at them as collections of techniques, rather than bodies of congurent knowledge, and is angling towards people who want a 'quick fix' answer. He'll get customers, sure, but I'd be very hesitant to call them students (his, or even in general, honestly) as I don't think they'd get what I'd consider an actual martial arts education.


----------



## Edward F

Okay, I'm not much into forums, but I feel obligued to Mr Case, so here is my take on this subject.

This was one of the sites I stumbled across when I first learnt about Matrix MA and was looking for some info. It all seemed a gimmick, so I was cautious. To my dismay, there were not much info on the net, so I decided, relying on my instinct, to give it a try and buy a couple of courses so I could have an opinion myself.

I am no martial vet, nor do I hold any degree in Classical Martial Arts Comparated. The only thing I can tell is that those courses made me thought and helped my martial development, which was mostly stagnant at that moment. Mr Case seems to me an insightful and interesting person, with whom you can agree or disagree, but whose opinion in these matters is worth listening to, furthermore, he has been very kind and helpful with questions or even whenever there was any problem with the delivery. So, I am thankful to this man, because he has helped me growth. I do not know if Matrixing is for everyone, but I do not regret having decided to give it a try.

I'm Spanish, so forgive my bad English, and, though I don't know if I'll hang around here again, if someone has some question just send it to me and I'll try to answer from my experience.

Edward


----------



## Chris Parker

Hmm. I'm glad you got something out of his courses, but to tell the truth, when questioned here, he was rather sparce in his ability to give any actual answer, instead relying on almost "marketing" speech, dancing around the question but not actually answering it in any real way. It can sound impressive and insightful, but honestly, it's neither.


----------



## oaktree

Hi Edward 

Can you give more details on how this
Matrix system worked for you.
Examples why someone should do it
Or highlights about it.
Your endorsement sounds like an informical
Rather then an educated review so
Hopefully you can give a more thorough account.


----------



## Supra Vijai

Edward F said:


> I am no martial vet, nor do I hold any degree in Classical Martial Arts Comparated. The only thing I can tell is that those courses made me thought and helped my martial development, which was mostly stagnant at that moment. Mr Case seems to me an insightful and interesting person, with whom you can agree or disagree, but whose opinion in these matters is worth listening to, furthermore, he has been very kind and helpful with questions or even whenever there was any problem with the delivery. So, I am thankful to this man, because he has helped me growth. I do not know if Matrixing is for everyone, but I do not regret having decided to give it a try.



Hey Edward,

Welcome to MT. IF you do decide to stick around, I'm sure there's lots of information you can gather and discussions to be had 

That said, quick questions: You say you are no martial [arts] vet, nor do you hold any degree in Classical Martial Arts. I'm taking the latter part to mean no formal ranking? If these are both true, how can you know you truly managed to learn something or gained benefit from it? 

Have you in fact had other training of a more classical nature (classical in this sense meaning at a school or studio rather than strictly traditional martial arts) for you to compare your experience with? Why do you feel your martial development was stagnant?

I'm glad you had a positive experience with this and that Mr. Case was helpful when you needed it however I think the questioning in this thread is the viability of this system on a large scale and indeed the distance learning approach used. The initial claims as I remember them were clearly designed for marketing purposes and not really indicative of the quality of the training presented.

EDIT: Seems I've been beaten to the punch, so to speak!


----------



## Edward F

Thanks for the welcoming, Supra Viaji. I don't know if I will be able to stick around because I have no regular internet access. 

I am aware that this sudden burst is suspicious and in fact, I have no way to prove that I have no financial interest in this. I'm doing this out of my gratitude and wishing to be of help.

I have had formal training in Muay Thai (about half a year) and Aikido (a year). My rank in Aikido is white belt, but I would appreciate anyone not looking down upon my opinion because of this fact, which was caused by some accidents, cancelled exams and things of the sort. By some personal reasons I had to leave my school and was unable to come back (my teacher was a Sandan, so everything was official), but continued to study in every way I could find.

My school was classic style instruction, therefore, not a word was spoken during the classes. This is viewed by some as a good thing, but truth be told, slows down and in some cases even impossibilitates, comprehension of the art. Someone could say that this use encourages individual thinking, etc, etc, and I cannot disagree. But the fact is, I realized, the transmission of some techniques had been corrupted because this lack of comprehension in some students who later became teachers and when asked about something they didn't manage to figure out, answered criptical pseudo religious concepts. Matrixing helped me approach the art ina scientifical way, so to speak, and encouraged me to look within the art, to the point where I could clearly see which technique sprouted from another and the reasons behind the movements. This, in turn, boosted up my learning rate, to the point where even the vets in my class started noticing this change. 

I know Mr Case sounds like an informercial, and well, he makes a living out of this, so it is understandable, but the fact is that I read all his stuff in the blogs before ordering and found some advices valuable, which was the main reason why I decided to give it a try.

This things are harsh to speak about, and in no way I disrespect the different ways of teaching MA out there. Matrixing is a tool of many, and to me still serves a clear purpose.


----------



## Supra Vijai

Edward F said:


> Thanks for the welcoming, Supra Viaji. I don't know if I will be able to stick around because I have no regular internet access.
> 
> I am aware that this sudden burst is suspicious and in fact, I have no way to prove that I have no financial interest in this. I'm doing this out of my gratitude and wishing to be of help.
> 
> I have had formal training in Muay Thai (about half a year) and Aikido (a year). My rank in Aikido is white belt, but I would appreciate anyone not looking down upon my opinion because of this fact, which was caused by some accidents, cancelled exams and things of the sort. By some personal reasons I had to leave my school and was unable to come back (my teacher was a Sandan, so everything was official), but continued to study in every way I could find.
> 
> My school was classic style instruction, therefore, not a word was spoken during the classes. This is viewed by some as a good thing, but truth be told, slows down and in some cases even impossibilitates, comprehension of the art. Someone could say that this use encourages individual thinking, etc, etc, and I cannot disagree. But the fact is, I realized, the transmission of some techniques had been corrupted because this lack of comprehension in some students who later became teachers and when asked about something they didn't manage to figure out, answered criptical pseudo religious concepts. Matrixing helped me approach the art ina scientifical way, so to speak, and encouraged me to look within the art, to the point where I could clearly see which technique sprouted from another and the reasons behind the movements. This, in turn, boosted up my learning rate, to the point where even the vets in my class started noticing this change.
> 
> I know Mr Case sounds like an informercial, and well, he makes a living out of this, so it is understandable, but the fact is that I read all his stuff in the blogs before ordering and found some advices valuable, which was the main reason why I decided to give it a try.
> 
> This things are harsh to speak about, and in no way I disrespect the different ways of teaching MA out there. Matrixing is a tool of many, and to me still serves a clear purpose.



Thanks for taking the time to post a detailed reply. 

Interesting that something like Aikido would follow that approach of teaching. Were you learning in Japan? If not, I might say that particular school may not have been for you or their approach might not have been tailored for the audience they were teaching. 

Again, I'm glad it worked for you, just as I'm glad you acknowledge it's not for everyone. I'd dare say though that for most people on here, it's not the best approach.


----------



## jks9199

Edward F said:


> Thanks for the welcoming, Supra Viaji. I don't know if I will be able to stick around because I have no regular internet access.
> 
> I am aware that this sudden burst is suspicious and in fact, I have no way to prove that I have no financial interest in this. I'm doing this out of my gratitude and wishing to be of help.
> 
> I have had formal training in Muay Thai (about half a year) and Aikido (a year). My rank in Aikido is white belt, but I would appreciate anyone not looking down upon my opinion because of this fact, which was caused by some accidents, cancelled exams and things of the sort. By some personal reasons I had to leave my school and was unable to come back (my teacher was a Sandan, so everything was official), but continued to study in every way I could find.
> 
> My school was classic style instruction, therefore, not a word was spoken during the classes. This is viewed by some as a good thing, but truth be told, slows down and in some cases even impossibilitates, comprehension of the art. Someone could say that this use encourages individual thinking, etc, etc, and I cannot disagree. But the fact is, I realized, the transmission of some techniques had been corrupted because this lack of comprehension in some students who later became teachers and when asked about something they didn't manage to figure out, answered criptical pseudo religious concepts. Matrixing helped me approach the art ina scientifical way, so to speak, and encouraged me to look within the art, to the point where I could clearly see which technique sprouted from another and the reasons behind the movements. This, in turn, boosted up my learning rate, to the point where even the vets in my class started noticing this change.
> 
> I know Mr Case sounds like an informercial, and well, he makes a living out of this, so it is understandable, but the fact is that I read all his stuff in the blogs before ordering and found some advices valuable, which was the main reason why I decided to give it a try.
> 
> This things are harsh to speak about, and in no way I disrespect the different ways of teaching MA out there. Matrixing is a tool of many, and to me still serves a clear purpose.



Ranks don't always equate with experience, especially when you compare across styles.  Which class was so "traditional" that nobody spoke during the class?  I know a fair number of people in some very traditional styles, and they do speak.  I know a few cases where there's little speaking because the instructor doesn't speak English...  and a few others where there's not much speaking because nobody's got the breath left to speak.

I'll ask you what I'm pretty sure I asked Mr. Case:  What is "matrixing?"  How does it help learn?


----------



## Edward F

It is a pleasure to talk to you, Supra Vijai. My teacher, if I got it right, had studied some time in the Hombu Dojo, under various teachers, and took with him the use of not speaking a word during class. Instead, when a student had doubts, he showed the same technique any number of times. This approach has been documented to be used by O Sensei himself and also in the transmission of numerous Chinese martial arts, again, regarding it as a mean for the student to find himself in the art and not get some already schewed interpretation.

*jks9199*, I agree with your opinion conerning ranks. For my former teacher, you see, they didn't mean almost anything, as it seemed was with O Sensei, and that is the reason why exams were sparcely held. Everyone knew more or less their rank, independently of this. Matrixing is, from my point of view, an intent to give some order to the huge number of techniques and applications an art sees incorporated to it along the years, many of which are not well linked to its initial core concepts; techniques that accumulate to such extent that a newbie is overwhelmed when confronted with the task of learning all of them, apparently not following any order, because, as I said, transmission has gotten corrupted and many people doesn't know which movements are add-ons. In practical terms, I reduced Aikido (to start eating the pie, so to speak) to 12 core techniques, and I could see which ones were added from Judo, which ones were variations, which ones were continuations, etc. This was my personal and individual way of making my way through Aikido.


Though, it is not my intention to start an argument here.  

These posts, I repeat, I made them out of two reasons. The first is respect to a man who has taught me and therefore deserves my deepest gratitude. The second one, as I already told, was to leave a footprint behind me to those who may come here looking for help, as I did time ago, so they could find more than I did back then.  

So, I will summarize my contribution answering two questions which anyone interested in this subject might ask : 

1-Is Matrixing a tool which can be used to martial development? Yes.  

2-Is it for me? You'll have to answer that one by yourself. Hear your instinct, don't rely blindly in other's opinions, which may be clouded for some reason. If you dont want to invest some bucks in having a look at a course, read Case's free stuff (there's plenty). See for yourself if you can find gold hidden in there and that will tell you if this approach will be useful for you or not.  

I was surprised when I first read this thread and found out that, among all the opinions here exposed, only one person had actually purchased one course, and the rest of the opinions seemed based mostly in bizarre speculations supported for no less bizarre evidences. That is why I feel the need to mention that I have ALL Mr Case's courses, except the latest one or two, having acquired them over time and once I was convinced of their worth as well as Mr Case's, who on the other hand, proved to me that his interests were not purely monetary, something that shouldn't be easily passed by without noticing. I guess that qualifies me to express a judgment out of my direct and wide personal experience in this subject, and therefore want my take to be viewed as that of someone who has delved deep into the matter to find the truth: Mr Case is, to me, a man who dedicated considerable time to the study of the martial arts, and developed ways of enhancing their practice to those who would come after him. We all have bills to pay in this world, so no one should be surprised if he tries to make a living out of his research. 

So, these is my grain of sand for the benefit of those who are, as I was, a bit lost, among the many arguments natural to learned beings of new formation. I still shiver when I think what would have happened if I had listened without questioning the opinions expressed here, so always have present that you, the one who is reading this in the hope of finding an answer, you are the only one who can say the last word concerning what is valuable to you and what is not, in spite of what we all may say, so I encourage you to form your own opinion and your own answers, and who knows, maybe you'll prove all us wrong. 

I would like to make a final thought, without any trace of animosity. There are a lot of charlatans out there and I have no doubt that the treatment Mr Case received here was born out of the most sincere and noble desire of protecting our fellows from falling into the claws of some snakeoil seller (and in my personal opinion Mr Case is not one). But, as a finishing point, I would like to state how beneficial would be, from martial arts to medicine, that half the time is spent hunting down supposed witches and crucifying anyone who speaks apart from the crowd, was invested by those engaged in such activities in finding ways to help others. In other words, spending more time creating useful resources for the development and benefit of humans in general rather than destroying those already existing resources which, for any reason, look suspicious to one, or may be still incomplete but are, no doubt, the intent of someone to help instead of sitting with the arms crossed while vilifying that of which he/she only has a partial understanding.  

Also, a request. Mr Chris Parker, I have came to the conclusion, from watching your intense activity in this forum and your assertions in general, that you are a serious guy concerning MA, so I would really thank you if you could direct me to some contribution you have made to the martial arts world, be it a book, blog or else (available via internet, sadly, I have no current way of going to Australia) so I could learn more from you.  

I wish you all a nice day, 

Edward


----------



## Supra Vijai

Edward F said:


> Also, a request. Mr Chris Parker, I have came to the conclusion, from watching your intense activity in this forum and your assertions in general, that you are a serious guy concerning MA, so I would really thank you if you could direct me to some contribution you have made to the martial arts world, be it a book, blog or else (available via internet, sadly, I have no current way of going to Australia) so I could learn more from you.



Not quite sure I count as a contribution just yet


----------



## Supra Vijai

Edward F said:


> It is a pleasure to talk to you, Supra Vijai. My teacher, if I got it right, had studied some time in the Hombu Dojo, under various teachers, and took with him the use of not speaking a word during class. Instead, when a student had doubts, he showed the same technique any number of times. This approach has been documented to be used by O Sensei himself and also in the transmission of numerous Chinese martial arts, again, regarding it as a mean for the student to find himself in the art and not get some already schewed interpretation.



(Very) slightly more seriously however, I thought this was more of a "Koryu" approach than anything. That said, the important thing to remember is that what is done in Japan is for the Japanese. They have the cultural background, the social hierarchy and the attitudes necessary to make this style of learning practical. When teaching to a Western audience, the same approach just doesn't do anyone any favors. For one thing, students from a Western background or way of thinking are far more likely to question things or try to jump ahead because the overall attitude towards learning just isn't the same. Not to say it's a bad thing mind you, just different.


----------



## Chris Parker

Hi Edward,



Edward F said:


> It is a pleasure to talk to you, Supra Vijai. My teacher, if I got it right, had studied some time in the Hombu Dojo, under various teachers, and took with him the use of not speaking a word during class. Instead, when a student had doubts, he showed the same technique any number of times. This approach has been documented to be used by O Sensei himself and also in the transmission of numerous Chinese martial arts, again, regarding it as a mean for the student to find himself in the art and not get some already schewed interpretation.



I've known of a number of schools who have a more silent approach, but it's honestly not that common. With someone like O'Sensei, and the Chinese systems you seem to be referencing (as well as schools from other countries and cultures... it's not exclusive to the ones you mention), it's not so much a silent room when training, but more to do with demonstration over explanation as a teaching method. That's the way Ueshiba taught primarily from all accounts, simply demonstrating rather than explaining. Honestly the more "silent" dojo are trying to be something that really doesn't exist... an overly "serious, traditional" approach that is far from the reality of actual traditional schools.



Edward F said:


> *jks9199*, I agree with your opinion conerning ranks. For my former teacher, you see, they didn't mean almost anything, as it seemed was with O Sensei, and that is the reason why exams were sparcely held. Everyone knew more or less their rank, independently of this.



Ueshiba had changing opinions on rank. Initially he used the Menkyo system as he was ranked with Daito Ryu Aikijutsu, issuing licences to his students (the first Menkyo Kaiden he issued was to Tomiki Kenji). In 1940 he decided, as his art had moved completely away from Daito Ryu, and was established as a modern art (Gendai Budo), Ueshiba decided to adopt the Kyu/Dan ranking system that was being used in other modern arts, such as Judo and Karate. At this point, the Menkyo Kaiden licences were changed to Hachidan (8th Dan) rankings. So he obviously put some thought into the ranks of his students that represented his art (which was to represent Ueshiba himself, really).

I hear things like "rank doesn't mean anything" a lot, and frankly, if that was true, there'd be no point having it. So you need to understand what rank is really about. Really, in old systems, licencing is a way of conferring authority within the system. With the Kyu/Dan ranking, it's really about a hierarchy within a particular school. The higher your rank, the further up the ladder you are (there are exceptions, but I'm not getting into that here...). If a school is small, then a lack of emphasis on rank is fine, but once it becomes a part of a larger group (or organisation), it really does have meaning. It's just that that meaning isn't necessarily related to skill as much as some think it should be. Ideally there's a correlation, but that's another issue.



Edward F said:


> Matrixing is, from my point of view, an intent to give some order to the huge number of techniques and applications an art sees incorporated to it along the years, many of which are not well linked to its initial core concepts; techniques that accumulate to such extent that a newbie is overwhelmed when confronted with the task of learning all of them, apparently not following any order, because, as I said, transmission has gotten corrupted and many people doesn't know which movements are add-ons. In practical terms, I reduced Aikido (to start eating the pie, so to speak) to 12 core techniques, and I could see which ones were added from Judo, which ones were variations, which ones were continuations, etc. This was my personal and individual way of making my way through Aikido.



The problem is that every single art I can think of is structured, and the way you're describing things here (as well as the way Al Case describes what he sees as an issue in martial arts) is simply not the way martial arts are in reality. In fact, I think I've already said that... here we go:



Chris Parker said:


> There are frequent reference to martial arts being "jumbled up", taught in no particular order, with the hope that you will eventually be able to make sense of it all. That appears to be the central reasoning for this whole "matrix" idea. Unfortunately, it's just not the way things are... at least, it's not the way that they're designed. Every art that I have come across has it's own form of structure, but it definately has structure. In karate you learn one kata after another, each building on skill sets and tactics from previous ones. Japanese systems are incredibly systematic in their teaching methods and structural format. Aikido teaches one movement at a time, in fact their naming method indicates the order of progression (ikkyo, nikyo, sankyo...). Chinese systems are structured in that the student is taught as their skill, talent, and dedication dictate. Again, forms are followed in the correct order for the same reasons. Same with Tae Kwon Do. And so on, and so on.
> 
> So if Mr Case doesn't think that martial arts have any structure, I can only think of two possible explanations; either he wasn't told, or he didn't realise. If the former, then that is the fault of his teachers. If the latter, well, that's his misunderstanding.



I'd also add that Aikido doesn't have anything "added" from Judo in it.... and there really are about a dozen core "techniques" of Aikido. But that doesn't make just having those actions what you're doing Aikido, it means you have a bunch of techniques that are found in Aikido. What makes it Aikido is the way they are done within a larger context.



Edward F said:


> Though, it is not my intention to start an argument here.
> 
> These posts, I repeat, I made them out of two reasons. The first is respect to a man who has taught me and therefore deserves my deepest gratitude. The second one, as I already told, was to leave a footprint behind me to those who may come here looking for help, as I did time ago, so they could find more than I did back then.
> 
> So, I will summarize my contribution answering two questions which anyone interested in this subject might ask :
> 
> 1-Is Matrixing a tool which can be used to martial development? Yes.


 
Cool. Not a problem with your reasons. I might query your conclusions, though. Most of all the first one here. From Al's description, from the few answers he gave (that had any real answer in them, which was very little), from his blog, from all the clips of his material, and from your description, I'd be hard pressed to agree. It seems that it can come across as a simple explanation of something that really doesn't have a simple explanation, and in that way gives the appearance of aiding martial development, but in very real ways is missing major key aspects, particularly the context of the art and an accurate transmission of what it's really about. Distilling things down like this means that the real art itself is removed.  



Edward F said:


> 2-Is it for me? You'll have to answer that one by yourself. Hear your instinct, don't rely blindly in other's opinions, which may be clouded for some reason. If you don&#8217;t want to invest some bucks in having a look at a course, read Case's free stuff (there's plenty). See for yourself if you can find gold hidden in there and that will tell you if this approach will be useful for you or not.


 
Yeah, I looked over pretty much everything he had, and frankly, everything I saw was flawed, sometimes in smaller ways, often in larger ones. There were mistakes in history, mistakes in understanding of a large number of martial arts (including the ones he sells packages on), essential mistakes in understanding martial arts in general, major gaps in his approaches, and far more. No gold. 



Edward F said:


> I was surprised when I first read this thread and found out that, among all the opinions here exposed, only one person had actually purchased one course, and the rest of the opinions seemed based mostly in bizarre speculations supported for no less bizarre evidences. That is why I feel the need to mention that I have ALL Mr Case's courses, except the latest one or two, having acquired them over time and once I was convinced of their worth as well as Mr Case's, who on the other hand, proved to me that his interests were not purely monetary, something that shouldn't be easily passed by without noticing. I guess that qualifies me to express a judgment out of my direct and wide personal experience in this subject, and therefore want my take to be viewed as that of someone who has delved deep into the matter to find the truth: Mr Case is, to me, a man who dedicated considerable time to the study of the martial arts, and developed ways of enhancing their practice to those who would come after him. We all have bills to pay in this world, so no one should be surprised if he tries to make a living out of his research.



Actually, two people bought them. One (TaiChiTJ) gave a summary of the "40 Monkeys" program, which showed (again) a lot of gaps and fundamental flaws in Al Case's approach. In fact, that was just before your first post, so you might have seen it. In terms of Al's not having purely monetary interests in selling his programs, well, he pretty much said that that was his interest here, stating that he "basically trawls for those interested".

Now, that said, I have no problem with people making a living from martial arts. I'd like to be able to do that myself. However I do have issues with the product he's selling as it is desperately flawed from the outset, and his research is deeply lacking, both in martial arts and his take on what he's offering. In fact, the main thing he seems to have seriously researched is online marketing (I recognize quite a number of his tactics and strategies, as I'm pretty familiar with such methods myself. Again, not a problem I have with him, I know the type of success that can be gained that way, but I'm just saying that that's where Al's research really is). 



Edward F said:


> So, these is my grain of sand for the benefit of those who are, as I was, a bit lost, among the many arguments natural to learned beings of new formation. I still shiver when I think what would have happened if I had listened without questioning the opinions expressed here, so always have present that you, the one who is reading this in the hope of finding an answer, you are the only one who can say the last word concerning what is valuable to you and what is not, in spite of what we all may say, so I encourage you to form your own opinion and your own answers, and who knows, maybe you'll prove all us wrong.



You got something out of the programs, which is great. But that still doesn't mean anyone here is going to recommend them with the huge number of issues we have seen (which Al was asked to clarify, and either couldn't, or wouldn't). 



Edward F said:


> I would like to make a final thought, without any trace of animosity. There are a lot of charlatans out there and I have no doubt that the treatment Mr Case received here was born out of the most sincere and noble desire of protecting our fellows from falling into the claws of some snakeoil seller (and in my personal opinion Mr Case is not one). But, as a finishing point, I would like to state how beneficial would be, from martial arts to medicine, that half the time is spent hunting down supposed witches and crucifying anyone who speaks apart from the crowd, was invested by those engaged in such activities in finding ways to help others. In other words, spending more time creating useful resources for the development and benefit of humans in general rather than destroying those already existing resources which, for any reason, look suspicious to one, or may be still incomplete but are, no doubt, the intent of someone to help instead of sitting with the arms crossed while vilifying that of which he/she only has a partial understanding.



Finding ways to help others? Find a school. If it's a bad school, find another one. We really don't need to be looking for good "short-cut" approaches, as, in our estimation, there just isn't one. Honestly, as I tell my students, there are two secrets to martial arts; start training, then keep training. That's it.

With Al's programs, a member had a question, we looked, and answered. There wasn't any hunting.



Edward F said:


> Also, a request. Mr Chris Parker, I have came to the conclusion, from watching your intense activity in this forum and your assertions in general, that you are a serious guy concerning MA, so I would really thank you if you could direct me to some contribution you have made to the martial arts world, be it a book, blog or else (available via internet, sadly, I have no current way of going to Australia) so I could learn more from you.
> 
> I wish you all a nice day,
> 
> Edward



Well, thanks... no, I don't have a blog, or a book, or anything else, really. I am here, and on a few other forums, other than that I work with my students and train myself. But if you have any questions, I'd recommend asking... who knows, there might be others here who can help as well.



Supra Vijai said:


> (Very) slightly more seriously however, I thought this was more of a "Koryu" approach than anything. That said, the important thing to remember is that what is done in Japan is for the Japanese. They have the cultural background, the social hierarchy and the attitudes necessary to make this style of learning practical. When teaching to a Western audience, the same approach just doesn't do anyone any favors. For one thing, students from a Western background or way of thinking are far more likely to question things or try to jump ahead because the overall attitude towards learning just isn't the same. Not to say it's a bad thing mind you, just different.



Uh, way off base there.... so you know.


----------



## Supra Vijai

Chris Parker said:


> Uh, way off base there.... so you know.



As in, not limited to being a Koryu approach or the take on the mentality?


----------



## Chris Parker

As in that's not really typical of Koryu teaching methods. It can be found, but that's about as close as you'd get. The description given by Edward also doesn't match Japanese teaching, by and large. There's less explanation, sure, but it's not a silent class by any means. But in terms of Koryu, laughter can be common, detailed explanation can be common, swearing and bad jokes can be common... it's really not the "stuffy" environment people might think. The training is serious, sure, and very focused, but that's a far cry from what was described.


----------



## Supra Vijai

Chris Parker said:


> As in that's not really typical of Koryu teaching methods. It can be found, but that's about as close as you'd get. The description given by Edward also doesn't match Japanese teaching, by and large. There's less explanation, sure, but it's not a silent class by any means. But in terms of Koryu, laughter can be common, detailed explanation can be common, swearing and bad jokes can be common... it's really not the "stuffy" environment people might think. The training is serious, sure, and very focused, but that's a far cry from what was described.



Ahh my mistake, I've clearly misinterpreted things somewhere along the line. Thanks for the clarification!


----------



## Edward F

It is acknowledged that, among the many arts O Sensei studied, Judo was one of them, taking "formal" lessons in Kodokan Judo with Kiyioichi Takagi in 1911. As different aspects of the various arts he studied were later manifested to some degree in Aikido (along its diverse phases of development), we can assume some of Judo will be there aswell to some extent. Not to forget that Aikido bases its techniques in joint work, and for its purposes hips (our own and our opponent's) can be considered also a "joint". Judo is an art which studies thoroughly the use of hips, taking into account on the other hand, that practical hip movements in this context are not to be found in large numbers (mainly four, in fact), so I'd dare say O Sensei looked back to his Judo background when he was developing the subtleties of hip techniques, which are found in Aikido in Koshi Nage and all the Sumi Otoshi branch of techniques, which, depending of the school, are overlooked or not. I think it was even mentioned somewhere in The Dynamic Sphere, a really recommendable book. 

The evolution from the early steps of Aikibudo to Aikido as well as the additions of later masters of the art who wished to contribute with their knowledge are the main causes for the large number of techniques, or variations of the same technique, I spoke about. Of course an art is more than its technical side, but giving a newbie the core concepts can lay a good ground to work, centering his/her attention in the very core of the system instead of digressing it into the many variations. Extrapolating an example, if I may, it would be as if a musician was instructed to play random passages of a certain piece. It is a known fact by most musicians that each piece has various "central points", as we will call them for now, the number of them present in the piece depending mainly on its style and type. Those aforementioned "central points" act like gravity centers, and all the rest of the composition orbits around them, and is caused for and to them, mainly in the form of what might be called a "variation on the same idea", which serves to anticipate the main idea (a center) and to reinforce it. Also, they use to be the most difficult parts of the piece technically, interpretatively, or both. Asking a student to start practicing the "variations" instead of the "main idea" is a bad idea so much as the sense of the "little" idea can be sensed from the main one, but not vice versa, breaking thus the flow, disrupting the student's associative processes and causing considerable technical struggle. Hence, the practice should start with the careful study and understanding of this "gravity centers" and then, radiate outwards to the "variations" which sprout from them, a practice that can speed up considerably the task of learning a new piece. That is the main reason why a musician generally analyzes a given piece first of all and studies in the first place what he/she identifies as those "centers", until they are completely mastered, because he/she knows them to be the foundation of the piece, a resource to tap in when everything else fails (a good musician who controls the central points of a piece could improvise something in tone with the overall piece in case he happened to forget some part during a recital). If you take all this as if we were talking MA you'll have a clear picture of what I am talking about, or in the words of the wise, but unorthodox, Mulah Nassr Eddin: "Any number of acrobatics has not half the value of a good kick in the groin". Though, I will repeat once more, is not that the arts have no structure at all, and I am pretty sure they were well structured in the beginning, the point here is that, the longer the time passes, the further an art distances from its original source. Misunderstandings or well meaning attempts to help can cause the complete mix of the order of an art, and though its ideal learning sequence could be, and surely was, well established, once the Founder dissappears the following masters start to change things, according to their personal point of view. Summarizing: though structure in the arts is doable and desirable, nowadays is far from being the norm in many schools. 

I see that what I called silent classes has been misinterpreted. What I really meant is "exposition above explanation", and in no way I'm putting down my old school, nor would I enjoy hearing anyone doing so, which in no sense pretended to be something which was not.

Concerning the fact of rankings, it is sad to see how it has degenerated away from its former purpose, with the advent of McDojos and such, and, in the best scenario, can only be indicative among students of the same teacher or some branches of the same art (Tomiki Aikido is geared towards competition so in fact, being the ranks a supposed measure of nononly technical aspects, we cannot hope its rank to equal those of, i.e. Manseikan Aikido, which emphasizes heavily the spiritual aspect and therefore, expects a different kind of development), and in no way, as some do, intercrossed from one art to another, or even among different styles of the same art. Probably O Sensei, being a wise man, saw this in advance and that's why he never gave this matter much importance, not to forget he learnt a lot of relatively little known systems by himself, so mostly sure he understood what being an autodidact feels like and that whenever someone has the itching for learning, rank is not the main theme in his/her head, but training. Anyway, we can see that he relied, understandably, more in his own criteria than in any system, providing the strikingly fast ascent of some students, such as Koichi Tohei. I would like to make a last point on this subject: in Spain, due to the arrange of the minimum time required to pass from one exam to another, one can be Shodan in five years at best. In Japan, given they use also "waiting periods" between exams, it comes as a surprise to find out that one can be Shodan in one year if it is so deserved. Japanese, obviously, do not mistake "quality" for "quantity", an error to which our society seems prone. A final thought on this: when the first man was developing the first art, who could measure his prowess but him? That is why I insist, everyone knows or should know, in an inner way, his/her true "rank". The ranking system, as all intents to standardize something, has ended up by unintentionally killing the individual or even the exceptional. It would be curious to see the Founder caged in a system which by law, required a definite and standard amount of time to pass from exam to another, from the teaching of basics to a more advanced one, without taking into account the particularities of each student (please note here that O Sensei acquired First Grade Mastery of Daito Ryu after -just- 30 days of intense training after he first met Sokaku Takeda). 

Concerning the "gold hidden" thing, I cannot but further repeat myself: it would be hard, with the means we presently have, to measure objectively the intrinsic value of Mr Case's writings, so again, ours are just opinions, and the last word for anyone is his/her own after checking it for themselves, and seeing if it is a valid catalyst for them. Mr Case also showed me the doors to some wise writings and teachings in which, to the extent I know, he has no financial correlation whatsoever, so again I reiterate my opinions expressed above, and state that he helped to have a look at different points of view, which otherwise would have surely remained unknown to me. And the "witch hunting" thing, I never said that was the present case, rather I was, as I'm sure I stated, making a general remark, or just "thinking aloud". 

Concerning the "finding ways to help others", this can be accomplished by many means, and cannot be attempted before aiding your own self, which could be by finding a school or not. Nobody is talking of short cuts here. But neither about long-cuts. In my case, I taught how to perform the unbendable arm in seconds to anyone who would ask me out of real interest, which helped many people to understand by their personal experience the relaxation and other concepts which that technique was designed to exemplify. This was not much, but my own skills weren't that great at the moment, so I contributed with the very little I had gained out of my own research. 

To Mr. Parker: Concerning training, of course it is of the utmost importance, but unfortunately, it is a too general advice to give -such as when doctors say "eat healthy" or "do exercise"- which can be, in the hands of a inexperienced student, a serious danger to health. Just how much and what kind of? That is why I would like to know your training routines, providing there is no single template valid for everyone, and your general approach to this matter, within your art and as purely physical conditioning. I am willing to hear from your experience, and think this deserves a thread itself.  

To Supra Vijai: I find your general interventions in the forum those of a polite, open minded person, so it will be a pleasure to follow your activities from now on, whenever I am able to. Out of curiosity, what does Supra Vijai means? Are they name, surname? Are they regular words? You see, in my country most names have no meaning. I'm wondering, should I call you Mr. Supra or Mr. Vijai. 

I think none of us here can contribute now to further advance this thread's topic more than has already been done, so I would suggest jumping into a new one and leaving this in the hope that anyone coming here after us finds some answers, which I'm sure are already there.  By the way, though two people here bought Mr Case's courses I never actually found the second review. Also, if anyone is interested in my findings in Aikido or else just mail me and I'll try to be of help. 

Edward


----------



## Supra Vijai

Edward F said:


> To Supra Vijai: I find your general interventions in the forum those of a polite, open minded person, so it will be a pleasure to follow your activities from now on, whenever I am able to. Out of curiosity, what does Supra Vijai means? Are they name, surname? Are they regular words? You see, in my country most names have no meaning. I'm wondering, should I call you Mr. Supra or Mr. Vijai.



Hey Edward, 

Yeah when it came time to pick a username for the forum, I got extremely creative - Supra is my first name and Vijai is my surname  Calling me Supra will be fine, I really don't expect anyone to use the title "Mr." as I find it quite formal and I am neither at that age nor rank which demands it


----------



## Edward F

Mr Chris Parker, I feel the need to call your attention over some point I have observed re-reading our conversations which worries me to great extent, I apologize because I do it before you have had time to answer my previous post, but you will see it is a very delicate matter. I presume this was made by you without any conscious intention, but the fact is that, by expressing yourself in such categorical ways (this is black, that is white) you are, I repeat I assume unconsciously, further than calling into doubt my opinion, implying it is not really of any worth. Categorically implying, indeed, that you are right and therefore, I am wrong.


This surprises me in a strong way, mostly because I had great care in laying out my interventions devoid of such categorical affirmations, except those belonging to my direct personal experience and always stating clearly so (i.e. I didn&#8217;t say &#8220;there&#8217;s gold in Mr Case&#8217;s writings&#8221;, but more or less &#8220;I found something of value there, so I would recommend those interested tocheck it and form their personal opinion&#8221. And I did this because I am well aware that one can be convinced of something and then proved wrong, negatively influencing those around in the meanwhile, so I always tried to leave room for someone who disagreed with my opinion, and even encouraged anyone to find their own one, using mine only as a reference; while I disturbingly found you, definitely not pretending to do it, situating your opinion above that of some white belt by giving it the form of a categorical affirmation. 


So instead of stone written &#8220;there&#8217;s no gold in Case&#8217;s writings&#8221; (not literally transcribed), I would have find &#8220;I didn&#8217;t find any gold in there and I don&#8217;t really think there is any, but, well, this dude Edward found it, so there may be some nonetheless, because I do not think he speaks out of ignorance or is directly an utter fool&#8221; more adequate, though longer, to the tone of the exchange we were having and to the tone of forums in general, whose purpose, we should not forget, is allow people to exchange opinions in their journey not having to submit to any particular self assured authority&#8217;s inner convictions. Your speech was written in a way that automatically disqualified my opinions as valid (approx.: this guy says this is that, but actually it is not &#8211; instead of &#8220;actually I think it is not&#8221;. The difference is subtle but existing). 


I will repeat that I have purchased most of Mr Case&#8217;s courses and based my analysis in those courses themselves. From what you say, you have based your whole analysis in his blog/tube material and evaluations concerning his person (not the actual courses), and therefore we could objectively say that I have had access to more data than you. This, given together with the fact that, I suppose, you don&#8217;t think I am an ignorant wishing to master the &#8220;martial arts&#8217; secrets&#8221; in one weekend, should stop you from throwing away my conclusions so quickly. I value the voice of experience, and I have no doubt you are more experienced than me in this, but you&#8217;ll understand I cannot dismiss my own findings made by my own researching efforts just because someone says so; after all, I have a brain and I sometimes even use it. I positively know that Mr Case helped me, that means he can help others also, and why on earth should anybody deny them that right? Would you have denied it to me?


Also, we were not talking whether the system is X% perfect or X% flawed. Almost no tool has no handicap. What we were talking was if it could be useful to some people. My opinion was to let anyone make the choice, and I just gave my experience as a guide which may, or may not, be useful. But categorically denying my opinion since my very first post would mean dismissing the accuracy of my own research, and in turn would constitute an insult to my intelligence. I am sure that is not your intention, Mr Parker.


If you look closer to my takes, you will surely find that I spoke at all times out of the awareness that I could be wrong, an awareness I, unfortunately, didn&#8217;t find in your own interventions on this matter, even though being wrong is an ever existing possibility independent of how much convinced we are of the contrary. We all know how sadly forums, in which I have not participated so much, yet read a lot, use to be plagued by some certain kind of individuals who go running to Wikipedia, spitting acid all the way, just to demonstrate some poor dude that &#8220;Karate X Style&#8221; was started in, let&#8217;s say, &#8220;beginning February, 1998&#8221;, instead of &#8220;ending January, 1998&#8221;, taking pleasure in proving others wrong anyhow. I&#8217;m sure you all know what I am talking about. And the thing that disturbed me most is that, by such non-conscious categorical interventions, a serious fellow who has things to say and who deserves to be listened could be labeled by mistake as some of those certain individuals by a newcomer who hadn&#8217;t taken a look at his general activity! I would be deeply annoyed if that was to happen with Mr Chris Parker, who as I said before, seems a serious guy concerning martial arts and, I believe, has still countless contributions to make out of his experience for the benefit of us all and the clarification of many questions. Someone overlooking Mr Parker&#8217;s opinions because of the aforementioned mistaking would be indeed a sad thing.


There is no way of establishing a productive dialogue when the interlocutor is already convinced that he is right and the other is wrong no matter what, in other words, in order to make a beneficial forum talking we all should be ear-opened and entertain the notion that, no matter how impossible it seems to us now, we could be in an error, or at least, not formulating our opinions as if they were the ultimate truth. That is why I beg you to understand, Mr Parker, and I&#8217;m sure you will, that I had to put into words the concern, without any bad feeling attached to it, which had arisen in me about such issue, which I am convinced was not intentional. It is my sincere hope to exchange many more opinions with you, if circumstances allow, but from now on without an atmosphere spoiled by, even unintentional, categorical affirmation and categorical thinking. 


Furthermore, I would like to make clear that I am not stating &#8220;Mr Case&#8217;s courses are this or that&#8221;, but rather encouraging those interested to find an answer by themselves. I found mine, and I share it here. That doesn&#8217;t mean it is the only one. I re-state, however, that Mr Case&#8217;s opus can be used as a tool for development by some people, as is my case, and as we cannot measure its effectiveness for any given individual but in general terms, is the individual who has to make the choice, and we cannot and shouldn&#8217;t deny anyone that right to choose by defending our convictions categorically. For example, if I had not decided to find out an answer to this matter by myself I would have missed some ways which have served me to grow in various areas of my life. 


To put it simply, I saw this door had been categorically closed and reopened it only to the middle, minding that someone coming here, as I myself did, could miss some important points if some things were left unsaid.


I have spent two workouts&#8217; worth time throwing some light into this thread (I produced really lengthy posts now that I see them, a sure pain to be read), so I will be gone for a while, catching myself up. 


PS: To the &#8220;marketing approach&#8221; thing, well, it shouldn&#8217;t come as a surprise that someone trying to live of a business studies/applies marketing tactics. Those seem pretty much market rules nowadays, independntly of the quality of your product. 


Wishes you all a good day,
Edward


----------



## oaktree

Hi Edward,
I have watched the videos alot of them are on Youtube or at least a show of Mr.Chase's skill.
To someone who never trained in Martial art or has little exposure to them they might think he is very skilled.

I watched him perform the Baguazhang in the "true martial art define" video on Youtube,  It looks like he tried to use Ko Bu or inner step to trip the person but I think his application just looks a little off to me.  To me, it looks like someone on a novice level applying it which in itself isn't bad just I would expect higher standards for someone who created his own Baguazhang system.  

If you enjoy the training then great. By the way you spoke about Aikido coming from Judo. It is doubtful that this is true even if Ueshiba did do some Judo training he also trained in other Koryu jujutsu and kenjutsu styles the one that had the greatest impact on his Aikido is Daito Ryu Aikijutsu in fact he was teaching his version of Aikijujutsu which with his belief in the Omoto sect slowly formed Aikido. I believe someone online broke down all of Aikido's techniques and showed how they come from Daito ryu.


----------



## Chris Parker

Uh, this'll be a long one.... 



Edward F said:


> It is acknowledged that, among the many arts O Sensei studied, Judo was one of them, taking "formal" lessons in Kodokan Judo with Kiyioichi Takagi in 1911. As different aspects of the various arts he studied were later manifested to some degree in Aikido (along its diverse phases of development), we can assume some of Judo will be there aswell to some extent. Not to forget that Aikido bases its techniques in joint work, and for its purposes hips (our own and our opponent's) can be considered also a "joint". Judo is an art which studies thoroughly the use of hips, taking into account on the other hand, that practical hip movements in this context are not to be found in large numbers (mainly four, in fact), so I'd dare say O Sensei looked back to his Judo background when he was developing the subtleties of hip techniques, which are found in Aikido in Koshi Nage and all the Sumi Otoshi branch of techniques, which, depending of the school, are overlooked or not. I think it was even mentioned somewhere in The Dynamic Sphere, a really recommendable book.



Let's clear a couple of things up here. Yes, Ueshiba did study Judo in 1911. It was for less than a year, and, in his words, he only came to study seriously from the following year. Next, there is no such thing as "Koshi Nage" in Judo... there are koshi waza (hip techniques), which include a range of what would be called koshi nage, such as Hane Goshi Nage, Harai Goshi Nage, O Goshi Nage, and so on. Finally, the Koshi Nage of Aikido shares no real traits of any of the koshi waza of Judo, other than the fact that they are throws and centre on the hips... but even the usage of the hips is very different. 

Let's do a comparison:





Judo, featuring a range of koshi waza





Aikido Koshi Nage

When it comes to Sumi Otoshi, again there are almost no connections between them.





Judo's Sumi Otoshi





And Aikido's Sumi Otoshi.

To see where Ueshiba got his forms of Koshi Nage and Sumi Otoshi from (as well as the majority of everything else), look to Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu.






I see no reason to believe that there is anything "taken from Judo" at all in Aikido 



Edward F said:


> The evolution from the early steps of Aikibudo to Aikido as well as the additions of later masters of the art who wished to contribute with their knowledge are the main causes for the large number of techniques, or variations of the same technique, I spoke about. Of course an art is more than its technical side, but giving a newbie the core concepts can lay a good ground to work, centering his/her attention in the very core of the system instead of digressing it into the many variations.



The evolution from Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu to Aikido was from a range of influences, with the influence of the Otomo sect of Buddhism being one of the major ones. For the record, there are Daito Ryu groups that use the term "Aikibudo", but others don't. The important thing here is the idea of giving a newbie core concepts... that's fine, but that's not what Al's programs are being sold as. He talks about "mastering Aikido in 80 minutes... by MATRIXING!" And that's our big issue, as his claims fly in the face of reality and understanding of martial arts.



Edward F said:


> Extrapolating an example, if I may, it would be as if a musician was instructed to play random passages of a certain piece. It is a known fact by most musicians that each piece has various "central points", as we will call them for now, the number of them present in the piece depending mainly on its style and type. Those aforementioned "central points" act like gravity centers, and all the rest of the composition orbits around them, and is caused for and to them, mainly in the form of what might be called a "variation on the same idea", which serves to anticipate the main idea (a center) and to reinforce it. Also, they use to be the most difficult parts of the piece technically, interpretatively, or both. Asking a student to start practicing the "variations" instead of the "main idea" is a bad idea so much as the sense of the "little" idea can be sensed from the main one, but not vice versa, breaking thus the flow, disrupting the student's associative processes and causing considerable technical struggle. Hence, the practice should start with the careful study and understanding of this "gravity centers" and then, radiate outwards to the "variations" which sprout from them, a practice that can speed up considerably the task of learning a new piece. That is the main reason why a musician generally analyzes a given piece first of all and studies in the first place what he/she identifies as those "centers", until they are completely mastered, because he/she knows them to be the foundation of the piece, a resource to tap in when everything else fails (a good musician who controls the central points of a piece could improvise something in tone with the overall piece in case he happened to forget some part during a recital).



Well, I am a musician (guitar, drums, some bass, a few other things...), and I have to say that this isn't quite accurate. Individual pieces will have central themes, hooks, or something similar (depending on the genre), but there's a big difference between a musical variation on a theme (which can be as much a part of the piece as the original theme itself) and the studying of the piece. I really don't know any learning of a musical piece that includes learning variations, unless they're a part of it already. When it comes to martial arts, though, variations become a natural part of the learning process, moving on from established base techniques, in some cases to further the understanding of those basics.



Edward F said:


> If you take all this as if we were talking MA you'll have a clear picture of what I am talking about, or in the words of the wise, but unorthodox, Mulah Nassr Eddin: "Any number of acrobatics has not half the value of a good kick in the groin".



Hmm. Honestly I don't see there as much of a connection between your story and that quote. Are you trying to say that variation for variation sake isn't particularly helpful? If so, agreed, but that misses the point of the variation in the first place.



Edward F said:


> Though, I will repeat once more, is not that the arts have no structure at all, and I am pretty sure they were well structured in the beginning, the point here is that, the longer the time passes, the further an art distances from its original source. Misunderstandings or well meaning attempts to help can cause the complete mix of the order of an art, and though its ideal learning sequence could be, and surely was, well established, once the Founder dissappears the following masters start to change things, according to their personal point of view. Summarizing: though structure in the arts is doable and desirable, nowadays is far from being the norm in many schools.


 
Actually, that's backwards. Daito Ryu (in it's current form) was largely structured by Takeda Tokimune, Aikido was structured by Kisshomaru... when Ueshiba taught Aikido, he didn't name any techniques, or differentiate what he was doing, it was all just "aikido". The structure came later.

With regards to your last comment, structure in martial arts is the norm.  Honestly, there is no escaping this. Arts are taught in a structured form, starting from point one and going from there. If a particular instructor doesn't understand it, or utilise it, that's a problem, but each and every art I have ever come across is structured, specific, and makes sense (within their context). That's one of the big mistakes that Al keeps making.



Edward F said:


> I see that what I called silent classes has been misinterpreted. What I really meant is "exposition above explanation", and in no way I'm putting down my old school, nor would I enjoy hearing anyone doing so, which in no sense pretended to be something which was not.



Okay.



Edward F said:


> Concerning the fact of rankings, it is sad to see how it has degenerated away from its former purpose, with the advent of McDojos and such, and, in the best scenario, can only be indicative among students of the same teacher or some branches of the same art (Tomiki Aikido is geared towards competition so in fact, being the ranks a supposed measure of nononly technical aspects, we cannot hope its rank to equal those of, i.e. Manseikan Aikido, which emphasizes heavily the spiritual aspect and therefore, expects a different kind of development), and in no way, as some do, intercrossed from one art to another, or even among different styles of the same art.



What do you think the "former purpose" of ranking was? The fact that some groups (such as the maligned "McDojo") have lax standards doesn't mean that there is any real difference between ranking used in the past, and currently. To be blunt, I'd suggest that you're not that familiar with ranking systems, how they're used, and so on.



Edward F said:


> Probably O Sensei, being a wise man, saw this in advance and that's why he never gave this matter much importance, not to forget he learnt a lot of relatively little known systems by himself, so mostly sure he understood what being an autodidact feels like and that whenever someone has the itching for learning, rank is not the main theme in his/her head, but training. Anyway, we can see that he relied, understandably, more in his own criteria than in any system, providing the strikingly fast ascent of some students, such as Koichi Tohei.



Hmm. Nope. Ueshiba's usage of ranking adapted as he aged, and as the art he was teaching matured along with it's practitioners. This is no different to the ranking of any organisation, really. 



Edward F said:


> I would like to make a last point on this subject: in Spain, due to the arrange of the minimum time required to pass from one exam to another, one can be Shodan in five years at best. In Japan, given they use also "waiting periods" between exams, it comes as a surprise to find out that one can be Shodan in one year if it is so deserved. Japanese, obviously, do not mistake "quality" for "quantity", an error to which our society seems prone. A final thought on this: when the first man was developing the first art, who could measure his prowess but him? That is why I insist, everyone knows or should know, in an inner way, his/her true "rank". The ranking system, as all intents to standardize something, has ended up by unintentionally killing the individual or even the exceptional. It would be curious to see the Founder caged in a system which by law, required a definite and standard amount of time to pass from exam to another, from the teaching of basics to a more advanced one, without taking into account the particularities of each student (please note here that O Sensei acquired First Grade Mastery of Daito Ryu after -just- 30 days of intense training after he first met Sokaku Takeda).


 
Hmm, not sure where to start with this... The idea of five years to Shodan, in most Aikido organisations, is not unusual. The "shodan in a year" in Japan is offered really only in certain specific circumstances, such as Uchi Deshi programs, or an intensive program associated with the Tokyo Police department. 

The idea of "the first man, developing the first art" is really nothing to do with anything regarding ranking, as it didn't exist (particularly the way it's applied now). And the ranking approach has really not had anything to do with standardizing the arts, it's actually the other way around, nor do they stop or prohibit the idea of the exceptional individual. The rest of this comment has some problems as well, honestly...



Edward F said:


> Concerning the "gold hidden" thing, I cannot but further repeat myself: it would be hard, with the means we presently have, to measure objectively the intrinsic value of Mr Case's writings, so again, ours are just opinions, and the last word for anyone is his/her own after checking it for themselves, and seeing if it is a valid catalyst for them. Mr Case also showed me the doors to some wise writings and teachings in which, to the extent I know, he has no financial correlation whatsoever, so again I reiterate my opinions expressed above, and state that he helped to have a look at different points of view, which otherwise would have surely remained unknown to me. And the "witch hunting" thing, I never said that was the present case, rather I was, as I'm sure I stated, making a general remark, or just "thinking aloud".



Agreed that it's up to everyone to make up their own minds, but that doesn't mean that we're going to recommend anything that shows as many glaring problems as Al's products and knowledge do. As far as Al showing the the way other reading material, was that online material, out of interest....? There's a reason I ask....



Edward F said:


> Concerning the "finding ways to help others", this can be accomplished by many means, and cannot be attempted before aiding your own self, which could be by finding a school or not. Nobody is talking of short cuts here. But neither about long-cuts. In my case, I taught how to perform the unbendable arm in seconds to anyone who would ask me out of real interest, which helped many people to understand by their personal experience the relaxation and other concepts which that technique was designed to exemplify. This was not much, but my own skills weren't that great at the moment, so I contributed with the very little I had gained out of my own research.


 
Look, I'm going to be blunt. The "unbendable arm" exercise is essentially achievable by anyone in seconds, and exists in a range of methods (Tai Chi, Aikido, stage performance and magic shows, and a lot more), and really doesn't mean anything here. When it comes to "finding ways to help others", agreed that the first step is to help yourself, but in martial arts, if you don't find a school, you're going to be very very limited in how far you can go. And everything that Al has shown has been about short cuts.



Edward F said:


> To Mr. Parker: Concerning training, of course it is of the utmost importance, but unfortunately, it is a too general advice to give -such as when doctors say "eat healthy" or "do exercise"- which can be, in the hands of a inexperienced student, a serious danger to health. Just how much and what kind of? That is why I would like to know your training routines, providing there is no single template valid for everyone, and your general approach to this matter, within your art and as purely physical conditioning. I am willing to hear from your experience, and think this deserves a thread itself.


 
No, it's not too general a form of advice, the specifics will be determined by the school being attended. My training routines really only work when taking into account the arts I train in, my schedule, the desired aims, and so on. I could talk about how much Kihon Suburi I do, or my work on grips, or anything else, but it's really not going to mean anything to anyone not training with me in the arts I train in.



Edward F said:


> I think none of us here can contribute now to further advance this thread's topic more than has already been done, so I would suggest jumping into a new one and leaving this in the hope that anyone coming here after us finds some answers, which I'm sure are already there.  By the way, though two people here bought Mr Case's courses I never actually found the second review. Also, if anyone is interested in my findings in Aikido or else just mail me and I'll try to be of help.



There was only one review posted (by TaiChiTJ), the other person who bought it didn't give a review.

Now, onto the more personal message.



Edward F said:


> Mr Chris Parker, I feel the need to call your attention over some point I have observed re-reading our conversations which worries me to great extent, I apologize because I do it before you have had time to answer my previous post, but you will see it is a very delicate matter. I presume this was made by you without any conscious intention, but the fact is that, by expressing yourself in such categorical ways (this is black, that is white) you are, I repeat I assume unconsciously, further than calling into doubt my opinion, implying it is not really of any worth. Categorically implying, indeed, that you are right and therefore, I am wrong.



This might not be what you're expecting, but yeah, it was deliberate and conscious. However, that method of posting is used when I am dealing with facts and observation, not opinion.



Edward F said:


> This surprises me in a strong way, mostly because I had great care in laying out my interventions devoid of such categorical affirmations, except those belonging to my direct personal experience and always stating clearly so (i.e. I didn&#8217;t say &#8220;there&#8217;s gold in Mr Case&#8217;s writings&#8221;, but more or less &#8220;I found something of value there, so I would recommend those interested tocheck it and form their personal opinion&#8221. And I did this because I am well aware that one can be convinced of something and then proved wrong, negatively influencing those around in the meanwhile, so I always tried to leave room for someone who disagreed with my opinion, and even encouraged anyone to find their own one, using mine only as a reference; while I disturbingly found you, definitely not pretending to do it, situating your opinion above that of some white belt by giving it the form of a categorical affirmation.


 
I said (a few times) that I'm glad you found things of worth in the programs you purchased from Al, however the huge number of errors he consistently makes, the lack of understanding he demonstrates repeatedly, and the flaws in the basic approach the programs represent mean that I am not going to recommend them, or support the purchase of them. That's my opinion, and I backed it up by pointing out the problems. So far, your opinion is based on "I have the programs, and I got something out of them". Okay, great. I'm not arguing that. If you can answer the issues in Al's work, then do so. I'm not expecting that you can, though, as Al couldn't (or wouldn't) do so himself.



Edward F said:


> So instead of stone written &#8220;there&#8217;s no gold in Case&#8217;s writings&#8221; (not literally transcribed), I would have find &#8220;I didn&#8217;t find any gold in there and I don&#8217;t really think there is any, but, well, this dude Edward found it, so there may be some nonetheless, because I do not think he speaks out of ignorance or is directly an utter fool&#8221; more adequate, though longer, to the tone of the exchange we were having and to the tone of forums in general, whose purpose, we should not forget, is allow people to exchange opinions in their journey not having to submit to any particular self assured authority&#8217;s inner convictions. Your speech was written in a way that automatically disqualified my opinions as valid (approx.: this guy says this is that, but actually it is not &#8211; instead of &#8220;actually I think it is not&#8221;. The difference is subtle but existing).



Well, let's look at what was actually said. You said you found some "gold" in his efforts, I reviewed what I found, and what I had examined. I concluded the list of my findings with the phrase "No gold". In other words, I said that, in everything Al had presented, I had found no gold. I could be a little colder, and say that I found a lot of iron pyrite (fool's gold), which is largely accurate as well, but I didn't.

For the record, though, I wouldn't have said what you suggest, as frankly, I don't agree with the statement. Honestly, I would put down your finding of "gold" there to a degree of ignorance, when it comes down to it (although, based on your eloquence and grace, I would certainly not class you as even close to a fool). That is due to your own statements of very minimal experience, and the experience you had being far from optimal in the first place.



Edward F said:


> I will repeat that I have purchased most of Mr Case&#8217;s courses and based my analysis in those courses themselves. From what you say, you have based your whole analysis in his blog/tube material and evaluations concerning his person (not the actual courses), and therefore we could objectively say that I have had access to more data than you. This, given together with the fact that, I suppose, you don&#8217;t think I am an ignorant wishing to master the &#8220;martial arts&#8217; secrets&#8221; in one weekend, should stop you from throwing away my conclusions so quickly. I value the voice of experience, and I have no doubt you are more experienced than me in this, but you&#8217;ll understand I cannot dismiss my own findings made by my own researching efforts just because someone says so; after all, I have a brain and I sometimes even use it. I positively know that Mr Case helped me, that means he can help others also, and why on earth should anybody deny them that right? Would you have denied it to me?



I would have stringently recommended against it. I would also still recommend getting to a good school... but would warn you to be prepared to hear that what you think you know of the arts as taught by Al Case to be rather flawed. But, for the record, my analysis is based on a lot more, for example my last two and a half decades training and three decades researching and reading (yeah, I started young...). That means I was able to look from a deeper perspective than yourself, to be frank. 



Edward F said:


> Also, we were not talking whether the system is X% perfect or X% flawed. Almost no tool has no handicap. What we were talking was if it could be useful to some people. My opinion was to let anyone make the choice, and I just gave my experience as a guide which may, or may not, be useful. But categorically denying my opinion since my very first post would mean dismissing the accuracy of my own research, and in turn would constitute an insult to my intelligence. I am sure that is not your intention, Mr Parker.



Actually, I've been dealing with whether or not the programs are what they claim to be, in which they are desperately lacking, and that is backed up by your review of them, honestly. I haven't denied your opinion, I have, however, questioned your experience outside of Al's programs in order to make a real assessment of what they claim to offer.



Edward F said:


> If you look closer to my takes, you will surely find that I spoke at all times out of the awareness that I could be wrong, an awareness I, unfortunately, didn&#8217;t find in your own interventions on this matter, even though being wrong is an ever existing possibility independent of how much convinced we are of the contrary. We all know how sadly forums, in which I have not participated so much, yet read a lot, use to be plagued by some certain kind of individuals who go running to Wikipedia, spitting acid all the way, just to demonstrate some poor dude that &#8220;Karate X Style&#8221; was started in, let&#8217;s say, &#8220;beginning February, 1998&#8221;, instead of &#8220;ending January, 1998&#8221;, taking pleasure in proving others wrong anyhow. I&#8217;m sure you all know what I am talking about. And the thing that disturbed me most is that, by such non-conscious categorical interventions, a serious fellow who has things to say and who deserves to be listened could be labeled by mistake as some of those certain individuals by a newcomer who hadn&#8217;t taken a look at his general activity! I would be deeply annoyed if that was to happen with Mr Chris Parker, who as I said before, seems a serious guy concerning martial arts and, I believe, has still countless contributions to make out of his experience for the benefit of us all and the clarification of many questions. Someone overlooking Mr Parker&#8217;s opinions because of the aforementioned mistaking would be indeed a sad thing.



I do have a reputation as being rather definite in my approaches, mainly as I don't tend to talk on issues I'm less than sure of. Every experienced martial artist on this thread, aside from Al himself (and his experience is rather questionable, frankly, such as his claim that he learnt karate from a book, which shows up in some highly questionable takes on karate, and videos of his) has agreed with my assessment, or come up with the same independently. That should be a clue as to why I am so confident in my statements.



Edward F said:


> There is no way of establishing a productive dialogue when the interlocutor is already convinced that he is right and the other is wrong no matter what, in other words, in order to make a beneficial forum talking we all should be ear-opened and entertain the notion that, no matter how impossible it seems to us now, we could be in an error, or at least, not formulating our opinions as if they were the ultimate truth. That is why I beg you to understand, Mr Parker, and I&#8217;m sure you will, that I had to put into words the concern, without any bad feeling attached to it, which had arisen in me about such issue, which I am convinced was not intentional. It is my sincere hope to exchange many more opinions with you, if circumstances allow, but from now on without an atmosphere spoiled by, even unintentional, categorical affirmation and categorical thinking.



There has been nothing to demonstrate that my take on things is incorrect in the slightest, though. If you had something to convince me, I am more than open to hearing it, as I was when I was questioning Al, however there has been nothing to do so.



Edward F said:


> Furthermore, I would like to make clear that I am not stating &#8220;Mr Case&#8217;s courses are this or that&#8221;, but rather encouraging those interested to find an answer by themselves. I found mine, and I share it here. That doesn&#8217;t mean it is the only one. I re-state, however, that Mr Case&#8217;s opus can be used as a tool for development by some people, as is my case, and as we cannot measure its effectiveness for any given individual but in general terms, is the individual who has to make the choice, and we cannot and shouldn&#8217;t deny anyone that right to choose by defending our convictions categorically. For example, if I had not decided to find out an answer to this matter by myself I would have missed some ways which have served me to grow in various areas of my life.


 
And there hasn't been any question of you liking what you've gotten. 



Edward F said:


> To put it simply, I saw this door had been categorically closed and reopened it only to the middle, minding that someone coming here, as I myself did, could miss some important points if some things were left unsaid.



Which has given us the opportunity to ask more specific questions about the program, but honestly, it's just given us the same impression we already had.



Edward F said:


> I have spent two workouts&#8217; worth time throwing some light into this thread (I produced really lengthy posts now that I see them, a sure pain to be read), so I will be gone for a while, catching myself up.


 
Okay.



Edward F said:


> PS: To the &#8220;marketing approach&#8221; thing, well, it shouldn&#8217;t come as a surprise that someone trying to live of a business studies/applies marketing tactics. Those seem pretty much market rules nowadays, independntly of the quality of your product.



And, as I said, I have no problem with someone making a living, but the question is about what exactly he is offering in exchange for the living he's making. And frankly, there are enough questions about the quality to warrant concern.



Edward F said:


> Wishes you all a good day,
> Edward



And you.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

I finally got around to reading this thread and looking through some of Mr. Case's articles and videos.  My first reaction is that Chris is being a lot more tactful than I would be.

Other thoughts:

Mr. Case says that Matrix Martial Arts is a "science".  He keeps using that word.  I do not think it means what he thinks it means.  (Hint - pretentious jargon does not make something scientific.)

Certain claims are on their surface so absurd that it's not even worth taking the time to debunk them.  I remember an advertisement a while back that basically promised "the easily-learned secret techniques that will allow an unarmed 90 pound weakling to effortlessly cripple any opponent - Navy Seals, professional boxers, biker gangs - without breaking a sweat."  Strangely enough, I wasn't worried that I was missing out by not sending that person my money.  I feel the same way when Mr. Case promises that we can "master" Aikido in a few months.

For someone who claims to offer quick mastery of all these different arts, his own technique as displayed on video doesn't appear all that masterful. (I have seen worse, but I've definitely seen much better.)

I have yet to see an actual explanation of what exactly his "Matrixing" method entails.  

For Edward F - you seem sincere, but a little vague on
a) what exactly were the improvements to your skills that you have experienced as a result of studying Mr. Case's materials? and
b) given that you have only a short time of formal training and are not currently receiving instruction in the martial arts, how exactly do you measure those improvements that you feel you have made?


----------



## 72ronin

As the origional video is no longer available, i looked around youtube for some vids.
Found a karate video named pinan 5, which was lacklustre to say the least.

Thats not an empty statement either, as Mr Case seems to not even want to put in 100% effort, additionaly, he chambers incorrectly which is a sign of copying movements from books and never actualy training karate! Distance/footwork, all wrong and yes, even his punching is wrong!
I cannot understand presenting a video like this?

Anyway, what is most odd is a statement Mr Case makes in answer to a question to this particular video presentation.

He is asked "What style is this"
He answers "It was called Kang Duk Won, it came from a classmate of Funakoshi's, and thus didn't have the Japanese influence."

I'll google kangdukwon to see what pops up, but im thinking theres a lot of
 :BSmeter:


----------



## Chris Parker

In his blog, Al mentions that he did, indeed, "learn karate from a book"... and "a classmate of Funakoshi's, and thus didn't have a Japanese flavour"?!? To a Japanese art (karate)? With a Korean(ish) name to the art he's claiming? What the hell is this? 

Sorry, Edward, it's these types of completely ridiculous, basic mistakes that show up when we see Al's material. I really do think that if you go into a real school, the first thing you'd be asked is where you got such bad information from....


----------



## Gentle Fist

I searched his site up and down, where is Mr. Case's resume?


----------



## Chris Parker

Good question.

His resume is on the "Instructors" page of his Matrix Martial Arts website (http://alcase.wordpress.com/martial-arts-instructors/), and it really doesn't fill me with any confidence at all... he lists primarily Chinese and Korean systems that I haven't heard of, as well as Aikido, "weapons", and "etcetera" as "systems studied". There's supposed to be an image of his original black belt certificate, but I get no image there, so who knows what it was in... I can state that he, in one of the blog entries, states categorically that his training in Karate was from a book.

The next couple of instructors listed on the page don't make things any better... there are constant vague credentials (such as listing individual weapons, not systems), and constant mistakes in spelling and terminology, which would be something that really should be picked up on.

In short, there are no credentials, other than a claim of having "studied" (but no indication of what depth) a range of arts, some of which are questionable to say the least. This actually struck me as I was watching his clip on "Aikido in 80 minutes", and basically thought "That is not Aikido". His karate also doesn't fit karate, on a number of levels, and so on. Seriously questionable.


----------



## 72ronin

And ofcourse, Al makes the seemingly standard claim of pakua chang. I think (certain) people gravitate towards claiming expertise in Bagua because they think its quite obscure, which it really isnt.
Just that claim itself speaks volumes..

And whats with half his (apparent) instructors being blackbelts in "outlaw karate"? I can remember 15 to 20 or so years ago in maybe blackbelt magazine there being adds for "outlaw karate", it was a book(let) or something a worthless piece of crap! Instant blackbelt type of thing and even a school badge the works, remember those crap adds in those days lol.

Im suprised there's even a market for this crap anymore!


----------



## Supra Vijai

72ronin said:


> And ofcourse, Al makes the seemingly standard claim of pakua chang. I think (certain) people gravitate towards claiming expertise in Bagua because they think its quite obscure, which it really isnt.
> Just that claim itself speaks volumes..
> 
> And whats with half his (apparent) instructors being blackbelts in "outlaw karate"? I can remember 15 to 20 or so years ago in maybe blackbelt magazine there being adds for "outlaw karate", it was a book(let) or something a worthless piece of crap! Instant blackbelt type of thing and even a school badge the works, remember those crap adds in those days lol.
> 
> Im suprised there's even a market for this crap anymore!



Fantasy sells? I had a strange thought the other day that when it comes to MA, fantasy = sex. Everywhere else, sex sells. With being a totally cool, uber awesome warrior assassin, you can't beat fantasy!


----------



## Aiki Lee

I watched the video of Al performing what he called 5 different sttles of martial arts on his home page and read a few of his articles. Frankly, it's all rather ridiculous and I'm surprised people have been as tactful as they have been when discussing it. His approach really is quite flawed.


----------



## jks9199

I've been away for the last few days.  I don't know if Al Case has something or not -- but I'm skeptical.  It's not that he claims to have categorized techniques; lots of people and systems have done that.  It's that he claims to have done more than simply classify them, using words from mathematics and logic to support his claims -- but wouldn't give the barest explanation beyond jargon when we asked him.  I'm skeptical -- but that doesn't mean it's useless or that nobody can claim usefulness.

My comment here concerning ranks also seems to have been perhaps misread.  Ranks aren't meaningless, by themselves.  But they are only meaningful in context, both within the ranking organization or style, and within the individual.  Rank is not automatically congruent with experience.  I've known guys with decades of experience, who were "only" first or second dan because they simply hadn't tested or been evaluated.  And I've seen people shoot up through ranks in various styles... sometimes because of lots of hard work and dedication, other times through natural talent and/or bringing previous experience to a new art, sometimes for _other _reasons.


----------



## Edward F

Hello everyone.




Oaktree: although I was skeptical, because I saw the same as you, I found that the ideas spread by Al were interesting and thought provoking. I have not yet managed to find a teacher of Pa Kua near my area, nor studied it deeply, so I cannot talk about that art. 


I found a quote from Ueshiba himself (translated form Spanish): 


&#8220;Direct influence of Sokaku&#8217;s Dayto Ryu techniques in Aikido&#8217;s formation is not that great, it has just been an element among many&#8221;


Again, I would be reluctant to state that Morihei didn&#8217;t put in Aikido some of what he had learnt about Judo. I have to study further the resources Mr Parker has kindly given me. Could you share the link of the breaking down of Aikido's techniques from Daito ryu? I would be very grateful. 
_____________________________


Mr Parker: thanks for the material. It will be a valuable resource for my studies. 


Though, I have decided not to answer you anything from now on and for a reason. I had already written six pages detailing every tidbit as you had done, but then found no sense to it. You have already proved me that you don&#8217;t reckon my opinion as valid, trying to undermine it in a wide number of ways, so no matter what I say to you. I would have liked to address some points and start a productive debate, so it is a shame you took so much care in establishing you had all the reason from the very beginning, discouraging me of any attempt to talk to you. You can say you defeated me with your powerful evidences but in fact it was more something like &#8220;the power of narrow-mindedness&#8221;. In other words, I have come to think that you find none opinion valid other than yours and those which support it, based in the fact that anytime I express my opinion in anything you are prompt to start dismantling it, even if you are not right, even if it was summarized and simplied to avoid making larger an already large post, as was the case with the ranking system (a chance you took to suggest I am not familiar with something as basic as that). Pardon me, but it looks to me as if the only way for you to be right is to prove me wrong however and in whatever. 


Your bitter talk about the unbendable arm implying I was a fool believing it was such a feat teaching it in seconds when in fact I stated it was not a big thing, mentioning Tokimune Takeda, the arranging made by Kisshomaru, Omoto kyo influences&#8230; How you answered my question about training when in fact it was out of curiosity and aimed as well to conventional conditioning, if used&#8230; All looks to me as if oriented to making me appear as an ignorant, what you called me more overtly somewhere in your post, but I cannot think of any example more illustrative than the pyryte-fool's gold, a statement to which I have to reply that I expected a different behavior coming from a over-two-decade veteran other than such concealed blow. So I am more than inclined to think that you are convinced of my ignorance concerning Aikido, MA, or just plain everything, and you try to use that to indirectly invalidate my opinion. If you prefer that to a sane dialogue, your choice. I am not into demonstrating anything. My point from the very start has been: no one could objectively deny that someone might take some benefit from Mr Case&#8217;s courses, as jks9199 has also said, so let those interested decide for themselves, a point you have not been able to take down and I&#8217;d dare say you have deliberately avoided because addressing it in a direct manner would equal "everyone do as I say". I am just stating freedom of choice and freedom of opinion, while your point seems to have been all the time trying to prove that only one opinion is right: yours (and those in accordance), by questioning even my slightest remarks (even musical ones, when I know for a fact I am the vet there, and I could state it sharply based on what you said). Stating once and again that no good can be taken out of Mr Case&#8217;s courses, where does that leave me? Does that mean they could have something good? &#8220;No, it has to mean you are wrong -is what I infer from your answers and general comments-. It worked for you, but just because you are an ignorant white belt. It won&#8217;t work for any other&#8221;. You simply imply it rather than stating it plainly.   


Now I think Mr Case left the forum because he found it very difficult to explain everything. Moreover when the first answer to this thread was not precisely a humble, neutral and inviting one, in which appeared a statement I would like to comment: that of being an artist. In music, someone who plays what other&#8217;s wrote is an interpreter, while someone who has made his/her own what others wrote can began creating and is regarded as an artist. Have a look at Takemusu Aiki and maybe you&#8217;ll find the similarities.  You seem to speak assuming everyone ought to think like you, and those not doing it are foolish. I have no problem with that. I prefer being foolish by my own self than well learned by other man&#8217;s eschewed thoughts. And I would like to quote your very first post finishing line: "Not a recommendation in the slightest", a very surprising statement for someone who hasn't actually reviewed any course and laying from the very beginning the "base" for your later contributions.


Mr Case learnt Kang Duk Won from a classmate of Funakoshi? So the founder of Kang Duk Won and Funakoshi were studying at Okinawa and therefore that Kara-te had not yet being subjected to the variations implemented by Funakoshi to teach the children, the students, the rich and the USA army, and therefore had not the &#8220;Japanese flavor&#8221;? I&#8217;m sorry I cannot find the mistake you are talking about in your last post. Maybe I am just tired of running in circles. 


I don&#8217;t agree with you in a lot of things, and to my dismay, I find no sense in trying to dialogue with you when in fact you seem immersed in &#8220;I am right&#8221; monologue. I am sure you understand this. Maybe you have a decades-piled deeper perspective but&#8230; still not any course to look at, so again, you are making sound judgments concerning something you hadn&#8217;t even laid a finger on, opposed to those of mine, who were based in that same element your opinions were lacking, so I guess you just had to say I knew nothing about MA and rant a lot about the free stuff and Mr Case himself for your point to be successful. I would earnestly ask you not to think that my library is only composed of Mr Case&#8217;s writings, I have made my own research. 


By the way, I was using Mr Case&#8217;s approach while attending to a &#8220;real school&#8221;. No one there told me my new approach was bad or flawed, as you supposed it would happen in such circumstances, being the only difference that I was getting better faster. I should infer, then, that you are suggesting my whole school, veterans and instructors included, were wrong and that you are right. 


In my opinion, you are not expecting me or anyone to prove you Matrixing could work even though you claim so. I think you already have made up your mind about that and you are trying to validate it at all costs. Again, I have no problem with that. I just stop talking to you. This makes me truly sad, because I was willing to hear from your experience, as I told you, but I cannot as long as you refuse switching to other subject than &#8220;I am right&#8221;, a switching I have proposed a number of times, but seemed overrun by your necessity to demonstrate you are right in everything.


Now, I guess my statements will be rebated, quoted, psychologically analyzed, turned upside down, double senses found or just plainly ignored. I don&#8217;t care because to me this has all started to look like a pointless argument. Everything I have just said is at sight.


No hard feelings, though.
___________
Tony Dismukes: I understand your concern about Aikido. When the DVD finished the people weren&#8217;t &#8220;masters&#8221;. Nonetheless, they had almost all the core concepts under their belt, and I have yet to see some place where students have that grasp after their first 80 minutes. To me, the course provided a base to work on. Concerning the explanation of Matrixing, I think Mr Case can do it better. He has some free explanative pdf in his pages. 


a)I seem vague because these posts are already large enough. My improvements were: learning about the core concepts of Aikido and its applications in an ordered fashion (joint manipulation, footwork, circling, square-triangle-circle, irimi&#8230; I am sorry I have no time to be more precise or ordered, I hope it is clear enough) and in minutes, not weeks or months. So to say, everything was laid in front of me and I just had to practice hard to pick everything up, but I knew how to study and what to look for. This speeded up my learning rate. I knew how to make a technique work because I knew the physics and anatomical principles behind it, to which some mates tried all sort of ways: jumping, pinching you in the arm, hitting you, outweighing you&#8230; That was not Aikido, and although it was most common among beginners, it hampered down their progression. An example of a mix of Mr Case&#8217;s and my own approach applied to Nikyo: instead of &#8220;try to make it work watching others and being applied the technique in yourself&#8221;, &#8220;circle the oponent&#8217;s wrist inward until it can go no more (subluxation) and hold the other arm narrower than 90º (this is debatable if another technique is to follow that Nikyo) while you stay still, do Irimi or do tenkan (which may allow to continue with Ikkyo) or both&#8221; &#8220;circle the other way and you got Kote gaeshi&#8221;, and then working on the footwork (this is not a standard lesson, just an example of how the student can learn that each technique has a counterpart doing to the other side). The work could be ordered applying the technique first standing still, then doing irimi and then doing irimi tenkan.


b)I measure my improvements in that I knew what I was looking for in my practice to make techniques work. I knew when to act over a joint, when putting the other out of balance was the best thing to do, etc. Knowing what to do lead me to knowing how to do it by continued practice, but not practicing for the sake of it, rather with definite objectives in mind (to learn timing, i.e.). My techniques were more effectively applied (this is not polite, but I saw it in the faces of my mates whenever I accidentally over applied any, whenever before they were acting enough so I could learn more or less the motions of an opponent taken down by a technique). This meant I had to start taking care of how I applied a technique striking a delicate balance between not seriously hurting but not leaving the technique ineffective, which opened a new world of training for me, whereas before I was just struggling to figure out how a technique worked). Aikido joint work is based, and it couldn&#8217;t be otherwise, in joint behavior. A lock which could be easily applied on the wrist (ellipsoidal joint) is a different ball game in a shoulder (ball and socket joint) but doable in an ankle. Mr Case&#8217;s course encouraged me to study how each joint works, what affects each and what doesn&#8217;t, what is easy to do and what is less easy. My teacher noticed my sudden change as well as some mates who had been there for years. At first, they seemed puzzled by it. Training became something more productive than before, because I was not there waiting to find by chance the key of a technique. I already knew what to look forward to attain.




__________________
jks9199, your diplomacy is appreciated. 
____________




I will not write anything more in this thread. My interventions could fill now a booklet and I wasn&#8217;t looking after this. Each post has been an effort made out of gratitude to a man who taught me. Yes, you asked him to explain himself. Yes, he tried his best though it was not much. Yes, he left. I guess he was cleverer than me and saw where this was leading to. To me, it has lead to nowhere, and I wasn&#8217;t even trying to sell a course! I was defending each one&#8217;s right to form their own opinion as well as my right to express mine. I had to give my take, even though knowing I was going to be attacked and I wouldn&#8217;t stand a chance, so long as my papers read &#8220;white belt&#8221; and that is the measure of a man&#8217;s intelligence, effort, insights and instincts: a colored belt. I had to do this nevertheless because that&#8217;s what you do when you are grateful to someone. That&#8217;s what you do when you see there can be something good for others and you want them to discover it, although they will be the ones deciding if they follow that path or not. Enough said.


Edward


----------



## oaktree

Hi Edward,


> although I was skeptical, because I saw the same as you, I found that the ideas spread by Al were interesting and thought provoking. I have not yet managed to find a teacher of Pa Kua near my area, nor studied it deeply, so I cannot talk about that art.


 Maybe his ideas are interesting and thought provoking they sound pseudo scientific to me but since my main experience is in Baguazhang I can tell you what was displayed was novice level. 




Look at 0:48 see how he goes in to use Kou Bu or toe in step, he is rooted sunk so his balance is not strong.




Notice at 1:04 Al technique.It works but you can tell the level of skill of his Baguazhang compared to the video I posted.

If you can not find a Baguazhang teacher in your area and you want to learn it then you will have to make arrangements or travel. There is a certain Baguazhang style that is not in my area so I contacted the nearest school and made arrangements to train with them. That is the differences between the skilled and the not skilled. This lesson is something you can not learn from a video it is a life lesson training in a school with a real teacher. 


> &#8220;Direct influence of Sokaku&#8217;s Dayto Ryu techniques in Aikido&#8217;s formation is not that great, it has just been an element among many&#8221;


Interesting because alot of the techniques that are found in Daito ryu are found in Aikido just Ueshiba changed some of them in his idea fashion.
Here is a quote from Stanley Pranin:


> Despite some sources which imply otherwise, it is quite clear that the main technical influence on aikido are the Daito-ryu techniques of Sokaku Takeda


http://www.aikidojournal.com/encyclopedia.php?entryID=723
It makes sense since Ueshiba trained in Daito ryu the longest, taught Daito ryu and slowly with the religious sect started to create Aikido.
I trust Stanley Pranin's work since he is well known in Aikido circles over the Spanish site you quoted.
Also you can do a google search for Aikido and Daito ryu techniques: *blog.aikidojournal.com/.../10/daito-ryu...aikido-techniques
*


> Again, I would be reluctant to state that Morihei didn&#8217;t put in Aikido some of what he had learnt about Judo.


 He trained in many different arts but in his own words:


> Takeda Sensei opened my eyes to budo


Is it possible Judo or Yagyu ryu or Kito ryu or any of the other styles Ueshiba studied influenced his technique its possible we may never know but we do know
 the *greatest impact *is Daito ryu and Omoto religion.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Edward F said:


> My point from the very start has been: no one could objectively deny that someone might take some benefit from Mr Cases courses



EdwardF - I'm not sure that anyone in this thread has stated that no one could ever take any benefit from Mr. Case's materials. The reaction we're all having is primarily to Mr. Case's claims that he has invented a totally unique and original method of teaching which allows the student to "master" an art such as aikido in just 3 months. Speaking for myself, I find that about as believable as claiming that his course will teach the student how to levitate.

Let me ask you this. You have most of Mr. Case's videos. I presume you have applied yourself to them for at least 3 months. Do you feel that you have "mastered" aikido? Do you feel that you are anywhere close to such mastery?





Edward F said:


> My improvements were: learning about the core concepts of Aikido and its applications in an ordered fashion (joint manipulation, footwork, circling, square-triangle-circle, irimi I am sorry I have no time to be more precise or ordered, I hope it is clear enough) and in minutes, not weeks or months. So to say, everything was laid in front of me and I just had to practice hard to pick everything up, but I knew how to study and what to look for. This speeded up my learning rate.



It sounds like you are the sort of student who learns more quickly when you have an overview of the theory behind an art before you start drilling the individual techniques. Me too! If you were training at a dojo where the instructor never explained anything and just expected you to imitate him by rote, then I can absolutely see where it would be helpful for you to have an introduction to the concepts behind the techniques to give yourself a handle on what you were aiming for.

The thing is, providing that sort of conceptual framework to an art is nothing that is unique to Mr. Case. I've had lots of teachers who worked to explain the concepts before drilling down into the technical details. I often do the same when I'm teaching. Now in my experience, it's not generally useful to go over all the concepts of an art in a single class. I think it works much better to just go over the concept(s) behind the technique(s) which are being drilled in that particular class. 

It's also good to remember that a high-level map of the principles behind an art is inherently simplifying and by necessity leaves out all sorts of important details that you need to make things work. I've run into martial artists who thought they understood much more than they actually did because they could describe the high-level theory behind an art. As in anything, there is a large gap between theory and practice.


The other thing that people are reacting to is the quality of Mr. Case's own technique, as demonstrated on the videos he has publically available. As I said earlier, I have seen worse. If Mr. Case was just participating on this site as a regular member discussing the martial arts, then I doubt too many people would go out of their way to excoriate him for his technique. The problem is that Mr. Case claims to have found a way for students to quickly reach a high level of mastery in a wide variety of martial arts. Judging from those videos, however, it does not appear that he himself has reached a high level of mastery in those arts. That being the case, it casts serious doubt on his claims.

None of this goes to deny that his explanations of concepts might have some value for a beginning student whose teacher provides no explanation at all of concepts, which seems to be the situation you were in. A tricycle can have value. It's only a problem if I claim to be selling you a Maserati and deliver a tricycle instead.


----------



## Chris Parker

Edward F said:


> Mr Parker: thanks for the material. It will be a valuable resource for my studies.
> 
> 
> Though, I have decided not to answer you anything from now on and for a reason. I had already written six pages detailing every tidbit as you had done, but then found no sense to it. You have already proved me that you don&#8217;t reckon my opinion as valid, trying to undermine it in a wide number of ways, so no matter what I say to you. I would have liked to address some points and start a productive debate, so it is a shame you took so much care in establishing you had all the reason from the very beginning, discouraging me of any attempt to talk to you. You can say you defeated me with your powerful evidences but in fact it was more something like &#8220;the power of narrow-mindedness&#8221;. In other words, I have come to think that you find none opinion valid other than yours and those which support it, based in the fact that anytime I express my opinion in anything you are prompt to start dismantling it, even if you are not right, even if it was summarized and simplied to avoid making larger an already large post, as was the case with the ranking system (a chance you took to suggest I am not familiar with something as basic as that). Pardon me, but it looks to me as if the only way for you to be right is to prove me wrong however and in whatever.
> 
> 
> Your bitter talk about the unbendable arm implying I was a fool believing it was such a feat teaching it in seconds when in fact I stated it was not a big thing, mentioning Tokimune Takeda, the arranging made by Kisshomaru, Omoto kyo influences&#8230; How you answered my question about training when in fact it was out of curiosity and aimed as well to conventional conditioning, if used&#8230; All looks to me as if oriented to making me appear as an ignorant, what you called me more overtly somewhere in your post, but I cannot think of any example more illustrative than the pyryte-fool's gold, a statement to which I have to reply that I expected a different behavior coming from a over-two-decade veteran other than such concealed blow. So I am more than inclined to think that you are convinced of my ignorance concerning Aikido, MA, or just plain everything, and you try to use that to indirectly invalidate my opinion. If you prefer that to a sane dialogue, your choice. I am not into demonstrating anything. My point from the very start has been: no one could objectively deny that someone might take some benefit from Mr Case&#8217;s courses, as jks9199 has also said, so let those interested decide for themselves, a point you have not been able to take down and I&#8217;d dare say you have deliberately avoided because addressing it in a direct manner would equal "everyone do as I say". I am just stating freedom of choice and freedom of opinion, while your point seems to have been all the time trying to prove that only one opinion is right: yours (and those in accordance), by questioning even my slightest remarks (even musical ones, when I know for a fact I am the vet there, and I could state it sharply based on what you said). Stating once and again that no good can be taken out of Mr Case&#8217;s courses, where does that leave me? Does that mean they could have something good? &#8220;No, it has to mean you are wrong -is what I infer from your answers and general comments-. It worked for you, but just because you are an ignorant white belt. It won&#8217;t work for any other&#8221;. You simply imply it rather than stating it plainly.
> 
> 
> Now I think Mr Case left the forum because he found it very difficult to explain everything. Moreover when the first answer to this thread was not precisely a humble, neutral and inviting one, in which appeared a statement I would like to comment: that of being an artist. In music, someone who plays what other&#8217;s wrote is an interpreter, while someone who has made his/her own what others wrote can began creating and is regarded as an artist. Have a look at Takemusu Aiki and maybe you&#8217;ll find the similarities.  You seem to speak assuming everyone ought to think like you, and those not doing it are foolish. I have no problem with that. I prefer being foolish by my own self than well learned by other man&#8217;s eschewed thoughts. And I would like to quote your very first post finishing line: "Not a recommendation in the slightest", a very surprising statement for someone who hasn't actually reviewed any course and laying from the very beginning the "base" for your later contributions.
> 
> 
> Mr Case learnt Kang Duk Won from a classmate of Funakoshi? So the founder of Kang Duk Won and Funakoshi were studying at Okinawa and therefore that Kara-te had not yet being subjected to the variations implemented by Funakoshi to teach the children, the students, the rich and the USA army, and therefore had not the &#8220;Japanese flavor&#8221;? I&#8217;m sorry I cannot find the mistake you are talking about in your last post. Maybe I am just tired of running in circles.
> 
> 
> I don&#8217;t agree with you in a lot of things, and to my dismay, I find no sense in trying to dialogue with you when in fact you seem immersed in &#8220;I am right&#8221; monologue. I am sure you understand this. Maybe you have a decades-piled deeper perspective but&#8230; still not any course to look at, so again, you are making sound judgments concerning something you hadn&#8217;t even laid a finger on, opposed to those of mine, who were based in that same element your opinions were lacking, so I guess you just had to say I knew nothing about MA and rant a lot about the free stuff and Mr Case himself for your point to be successful. I would earnestly ask you not to think that my library is only composed of Mr Case&#8217;s writings, I have made my own research.
> 
> 
> By the way, I was using Mr Case&#8217;s approach while attending to a &#8220;real school&#8221;. No one there told me my new approach was bad or flawed, as you supposed it would happen in such circumstances, being the only difference that I was getting better faster. I should infer, then, that you are suggesting my whole school, veterans and instructors included, were wrong and that you are right.
> 
> 
> In my opinion, you are not expecting me or anyone to prove you Matrixing could work even though you claim so. I think you already have made up your mind about that and you are trying to validate it at all costs. Again, I have no problem with that. I just stop talking to you. This makes me truly sad, because I was willing to hear from your experience, as I told you, but I cannot as long as you refuse switching to other subject than &#8220;I am right&#8221;, a switching I have proposed a number of times, but seemed overrun by your necessity to demonstrate you are right in everything.
> 
> 
> Now, I guess my statements will be rebated, quoted, psychologically analyzed, turned upside down, double senses found or just plainly ignored. I don&#8217;t care because to me this has all started to look like a pointless argument. Everything I have just said is at sight.
> 
> 
> No hard feelings, though.



So, to get this straight, you appreciate that I have good information for you, but won't talk to me because I correct you? Hmm.

To clarify, though, I have no need to be right by proving you wrong. I do, however, want to clarify and support my claims, and have requested answers that would help convince me that there is much of value in Al Case's material. Nothing that has been said has done such. And when it comes down to your experience, and belittling that, I would remind you that your own words describe you as having little experience... so I'm not sure why my mentioning it would be considered an attack towards you. Yeah, I'm definite in my language, but then again, I back it all up. And there has been nothing to even suggest I have been slightly off in my assessment. Still, if you don't want to keep talking, and improve your understanding of why we have issues with Al's approach, that's fine. You don't have to agree with us... but by the same token, we don't have to agree with you. I'm sure you understand that.


----------



## matrixman

Good lard, my ears is burning!


Hi gang, this is Al Case, the culprit you have been speaking of, and I wish you all a good day.


Eduardo! Thank you for your kind words! I truly appreciate your efforts.


Before I say something, let me offer something&#8230;
I&#8217;m up to 900 blogs, well over a thousand if you count some of my other sites.
Got several sites.
Well over 500 articles on the martial arts. I&#8217;ve lost track of how many there are.
Over 500 newsletters, each of which is like an article.
And, my favorite...500 PAGES OF WINS! That&#8217;s individuals who have written to say thanks.
And, I might say, since I started MonsterMartialArts(dot)com a half dozen years ago, I have had only two returns. One of which wasn&#8217;t even opened. Apparently he made up his mind between ordering and receiving. Oh, well. 
At any rate, if you wish to see what people have had to say about my matrixing tool and a specific art, check the wins, or do a search through the blogs. There&#8217;s a lot of stuff there.


Unfortunately, I&#8217;m not rich. Apparently I am selling my courses at an insufficient price. My fault. I figured making the material possible to everyone was better than getting rich. Oh, well. Some day.


Now, that said, the reason I dropped out of this forum was because people were dogpiling me, and didn&#8217;t seem to be interested in finding out whether I had anything new, but rather in making themselves right.


Well, I have no problem with that. I think everybody should be right.


Eduardo, I am so glad you found value, I learn just as much from you. Thank you.


And you other guys are right, there&#8217;s nothing there. It&#8217;s all a sham. I don&#8217;t think there&#8217;s even a man behind the curtain.


So, you guys have a great day. I really wanted to just thank Eduardo, not get in a tizzy fit with any of you fine people. 


I probably won&#8217;t be back, but that shouldn&#8217;t stop you from having a great work out!


Al


----------



## Supra Vijai

matrixman said:


> Before I say something, let me offer something&#8230;
> I&#8217;m up to 900 blogs, well over a thousand if you count some of my other sites.
> Got several sites.
> Well over 500 articles on the martial arts. I&#8217;ve lost track of how many there are.
> Over 500 newsletters, each of which is like an article.
> And, my favorite...500 PAGES OF WINS! That&#8217;s individuals who have written to say thanks.



Al,  I've got a damn text message conversation with one of my best friends on my phone that is up to over 1600 messages back and forth just by itself. Impressive number but doesn't mean there is much substance there! We just put everything in text as opposed to calling each other. 

I'm not necessarily saying nothing you have to say has any substance or that articles and text messages are the same thing but it's contextual. Quantity doesn't automatically equal quality. Whilst you may have thousands of works of writing out there and hundreds of satisfied customers, if you re-read everything here, all anyone has really asked is for some explanation of what you offer in layman's terms without marketing buzz words or intricate sales pitches. 

I for one still have no idea what Matrixing actually is aside from that thing Keanu Reeves does and a chapter or 2 in my sisters high school maths textbook. Without trying to sell me on it, can you please explain to me what it actually is, how it works and how it's different to any other approach out there already? IF I could have that in plain English, I'd probably check out at least one of your programs to see if I can get anything out of it that works for me. Without knowing what I'm buying though... no sale. So yeah, looking forward to your reply


----------



## oaktree

Hi Al,
You really haven't said anything on the forum to make your case(No pun intended). A lot of us think what skills you display is at a novice level and some things that look odd.
 which is fine but you are the one who is trying to sell/market your martial art at a level that clearly by watching the video it does not match up. 

I have watched your Baguazhang video I find you have to struggle a bit to pull off the technique that is just my observation. 
  When someone looks up to purchase Al Chase's videos they will look at this thread and weigh the opinion set forth from the members and yourself. 
The clearer your presentation on what it is you are attempting on selling would only help your case(again, no pun attended) 

You might not be aware of this and why some of us are a little bit skeptic and cynical in regards to things you talk about and this is due to people in the martial arts presenting things similar to what you are displaying causing some of us to rise questions and doubts. 

Anyway Mr.Chase my intentions as far as discussions involving you and what you are selling is to have a better understanding of you and your material and present my own experience either to support or contradict your findings. 

I hope we can continue to have a friendly conversation and reach a middle ground.


----------



## Chris Parker

Al, I genuinely have no idea what you thought this was going to accomplish, but for the record, a number of things need setting straight in your post here.



matrixman said:


> Good lard, my ears is burning!
> 
> Hi gang, this is Al Case, the culprit you have been speaking of, and I wish you all a good day.
> 
> Eduardo! Thank you for your kind words! I truly appreciate your efforts.
> 
> Before I say something, let me offer something&#8230;
> I&#8217;m up to 900 blogs, well over a thousand if you count some of my other sites.
> Got several sites.
> Well over 500 articles on the martial arts. I&#8217;ve lost track of how many there are.
> Over 500 newsletters, each of which is like an article.
> And, my favorite...500 PAGES OF WINS! That&#8217;s individuals who have written to say thanks.
> And, I might say, since I started MonsterMartialArts(dot)com a half dozen years ago, I have had only two returns. One of which wasn&#8217;t even opened. Apparently he made up his mind between ordering and receiving. Oh, well.
> At any rate, if you wish to see what people have had to say about my matrixing tool and a specific art, check the wins, or do a search through the blogs. There&#8217;s a lot of stuff there.



Frankly, meaningless. This is the same argument as "50,000 people can't be wrong!" Well, yes they can. The 100's of thousands of other people are evidence of that. More important would be who those who claim to have found something of value in your material are... and I'm fairly sure that the vast majority, if they're real, would be people like Edward... who, let's remember, claims half a year in muay Thai, and a year in a dojo where the teaching style was leaving him not learning anything. Not what I would call experienced by a long shot. And as such, how would they know if they are getting something of quality? Next, every single blog or article of yours I've seen has been flawed in a number of ways... and more commonly, in large ways. So having 900 blogs that show a deep lack of understanding of what you're trying to talk about is hardly something to be proud of (and, let's face it, most are little more than thinly veiled ads for yourself, or oddly structured "poetry"). An example? Sure! 

Here's your latest, "How Karate Was Ruined 60 Years Ago" (http://alcase.wordpress.com/). 

In this blog, you make a point of saying that karate isn't Japanese... that it is actually Okinawan (with the techniques taken from "everywhere"?). Well, yeah. But you do miss the fact that there are Japanese Karate systems, even when discussing the JKF (as the "most powerful political Japanese karate association"... well, yeah, it's really for Japanese Karate, not the Okinawan forms, hence the name), attributing to them the idea of wearing gi, having belt ranks and so on... despite the JKF not being founded until 1964, by which time both belt (kyu/dan) ranking and gi were very well established. You go on (past some rather bizarre hyperbole of karate being "one of the most powerful closed [sic] combat systems ever. People could shatter bricks with a punch, twist green bamboo until it splintered, and sorts of other things [sic]") to complain about the JKF's Shitei Kata (compulsory kata for JKF competitions), complaining that they allow no freedom, things must be done the way that the kata dictates... ignoring the fact that the Shitei kata are one side of things, there are also Tokui Kata (personal choice kata), and the real aim of the Shitei approach was to give a level field to members from a range of karate backgrounds in competition. You rejoice at the JKF removing the Shitei kata... except that they haven't. The Shitei kata were also adopted by the WKF (World Karate Federation), and it's the WKF that have decided to remove them... so, uh, wrong. Again. You continue to claim that the Shitei kata were "nothing but some wannabe Japanese masters favourites". Dude, again, wrong. 

Gotta say, the next part is my favourite... 

You basically blame "politics", and essentially claim that the JKF shaped karate in this manner for 60 years (uh, it hasn't quite been around that long....), "and stupid people bowed and went along with it". Seriously? One of the largest governing bodies was setting standards and enabling competition between multiple styles, focusing on the Japanese forms of Karate, and people who were following their approach were "stupid"? Seriously?

Of course, then you get even better....

"I am so glad that I studied Kang Duk Won and never studied the bastard versions of that incredible art." Really? Oh, this has got to be a joke.... "Yes, you heard me. Bastard versions. Versions without parents." Are you freakin' kidding me here? You studied a minor Korean version of a Japanese approach to karate, which was founded by a couple of former instructors from the YMCA Kwon Bop Bu, which was headed by Yoon Byung-in, a student of Toyama Kanken (learning Shudokan Karate, a Japanese form) while at University in Tokyo, and Chuan Fa from a "Manchurian teacher" when he was younger. Yoon's students included the founders of Kang Duk Won. Now, tell me about how your system is better than, say, Shito Ryu? Or Shotokan? How it has a better pedigree than Kyokushinkai? 

Seriously, learn your own history.

That then turns, again, into an ad for your "Matrix Karate", what you call "the only true karate" (uh, quick question, if all you know of karate is a bastardized and eclectic form, created by some students of a student of two separate arts, only one of which was karate, that was one of the nine kwans used to establish Tae Kwon Do, what on earth do you know of "true karate"?), and another plug for another of your blogs, again missing the point of what you were arguing against, and so on. 

Bear in mind that I can do that for any blog of yours I've seen, and I'm hardly going to be impressed with 900 different blogs similarly flawed. Do you want to try again?



matrixman said:


> Unfortunately, I&#8217;m not rich. Apparently I am selling my courses at an insufficient price. My fault. I figured making the material possible to everyone was better than getting rich. Oh, well. Some day.
> 
> Now, that said, the reason I dropped out of this forum was because people were dogpiling me, and didn&#8217;t seem to be interested in finding out whether I had anything new, but rather in making themselves right.
> 
> Well, I have no problem with that. I think everybody should be right.



"Dogpiled" you? Seriously? You came on, gave a barely intelligible post, it was responded to, you didn't answer anything in your response to that, and then disappeared, even though there was really very little that was being asked at the time. You were hardly "dogpiled", Al. You were asked repeatedly, and constantly dodged the questions, instead seeking to confuse the issue with essentially marketing talk and badly presented ideas. Even the ones you had that were decent weren't well dealt with, as well as being incorrect (for example your idea that you were the only person to systematically put a martial arts approaches in a "truth table" or similar... mate, I know systems that have used that concept for over 500 years. You're hardly new with this... but you are lacking).



matrixman said:


> Eduardo, I am so glad you found value, I learn just as much from you. Thank you.
> 
> And you other guys are right, there&#8217;s nothing there. It&#8217;s all a sham. I don&#8217;t think there&#8217;s even a man behind the curtain.



See, this is the problem we're having in dealing with you, Al. Instead of actually answering the questions, you hide behind this false modesty, wanting to be seen as a victim of those who don't see the value in what you're offering... really, that isn't the case.



matrixman said:


> So, you guys have a great day. I really wanted to just thank Eduardo, not get in a tizzy fit with any of you fine people.
> 
> I probably won&#8217;t be back, but that shouldn&#8217;t stop you from having a great work out!
> 
> Al



Just in case you do come back, can you answer, well, any of the questions aimed at you? Otherwise, it's basically as Oaktree said... all this thread will do is show that you can't, or won't, back up anything you've claimed, and avoid questions about it from anyone who isn't your target market. And that's hardly an image of someone who really has anything of value to offer.


----------



## Edward F

I see myself forced to break my promise not to post in this thread again.

I will try to be more direct than I was in previous posts, and I have not reread the thread so I will try to address some points by heart:

Chris Parker, I have done a bit of research and this is what I have found: http://www.tesoma.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2&Itemid=7
You only teach 3:30 hours of class a week, which I assume gives you plenty of time to be a keyboard warrior and extensively quote anyone who does not agree with your view, paraphrasing from your library as if you needed the written words of others to justify your beliefs. Also, I have found other interventions of you in different forums, many showing a tendency from your part to attack anyone not agreeing with you, with hostility and arrogance, and false humbleness whenever it is finally made clear that you are wrong.

So far, everything you have said in this thread has been oriented towards reassuring your self-appointed role as an authority, be it by covertly trying to downgrade me or overtly attacking Al because his system doesn&#8217;t fit in your scheme. Are you afraid of people learning faster than you did? Are you worried about finding that you wasted a lot of time which could have been put to a better use? If not, I don&#8217;t really understand why you so desperately try to pull people towards your personal (IMO narrow) vision of the arts.

The problem here is not Al, but the fact that you are reviewing something you haven&#8217;t even looked at (have you bought a course in the meanwhile? I don&#8217;t think so) and discouraging people to think for themselves. Al has plenty of free stuff and articles. Anyone interested can read them and form an opinion: they don&#8217;t need your well-meaning paternalism.

Lots of students drop out of dojos because the ones like you. Nothing you can say or quote from someone will make me change my mind concerning something I have discovered from my very own personal experience.  

Re: &#8220;I am Al with a different nick&#8221;, anyone worried about that possibility can PM the board administrator asking him to check if my IP is the same as Al&#8217;s, but it&#8217;s not even in the same country.

Re: the books & resources Al directed me to. Among others: the Project Gutenberg page and The Dynamic Sphere book, I could put more examples, but I&#8217;m not bothering to. I doubt that he derived any material benefit from it, but who knows, that&#8217;s just my opinion.


----------



## oaktree

Wow 9 months since anyone posted on this thread. 
  To think Edward you have spent that time obsessed
With chris parkers post and life is really sad.

This thread stands on its own merit other martial artist
Have shown that mr.case has not brought anything ground breaking
And has a skill level of a novice his skills on YouTube and in this
Thread have showcase it well enough.  If you wished to disbelieve
This and follow mr.case style then do so. The forum is based on opinion
And experience.  Mr. Parker on this and other forums though
May come off as blunt some may say egocentric or arrogant (not my words)
But his posts are well informed and he has experience to back that up.


----------



## Edward F

oaktree said:


> Wow 9 months since anyone posted on this thread.
> To think Edward you have spent that time obsessed
> With chris parkers post and life is really sad.



I have not stated any obsession on my part, in fact I hadn't had internet connection for a while, as I stated, and I hadn't even read the last response. Re: Chris Parker (written in capital letters, mind you) a quick google search gave the info in less than a couple minutes.

What is really sad is that you attack me like that. I don't need your compassion nor your false pity, so please refrain from using it with me. 

I am coming back because not only Al was attacked but also myself and how I understand freedom. I have no need to demonstrate you, or anyone for that matter, anything. But I wanted to say what I think of all this. Al offered to me a new way to look at the arts. I am not stating that everything he says is gold. It gave me something to think about and encouraged me to start my research on MA, a thing I would not have done were I to follow my previous path. I am not one to objectively value Al's work, but I can say it served me in my own personal way. As none of you can deny that, you try to make me look as a newbie "looking for a quick fix", even though that is not true.

Again, I am not defending Al. He is the one to do that or not. I am defending my point of view. And concerning Chris Parker experience, I have not yet notice of his international achievements.

BTW, you don't have to write everything in stanzas, it difficults reading.


----------



## oaktree

Dude this happen like 9 months ago almost a year.
 To think that after almost a year and having to go searching
For chris parkers school website or other forums and rehash after almost
A year is sad in my opinion.  It wasn't my intention to attack you
But an observation of someone in my opinion is obsessed.
Also I type on my awesome Samsung galaxy note 2 and it auto types
For me. If you feel al cases matrix style is the best for you great.
Other people can draw their own conclusion.


----------



## Edward F

oaktree said:


> Other people can draw their own conclusion.



That's the point I tried to make since the beginning. It took "almost a year", but I am glad someone got it 

As I stated before, I read the final responses recently, and then I did a *quick *search just to be sure who was giving me his opinion, because unlike many in this thread I am open to the possibility of being wrong.

Finally, I don't follow Al Case's style and have never stated so. That is a spurious conclusion (and not the only one to be found in this thread) drawn from your personal opinion or misunderstanding of something I said. Al inspired me and taught me some things. He has some interesting ideas. Nothing more, nothing less.

And, it doesn't matter wether a year passed by, facts are facts, and what I said above still holds true.


----------



## oaktree

Well even if you do not follow his style you did purchase his instructions.
I had to reread some of of this thread to remember you better. You were the one going on about Ueshiba getting most of his Aikido from Judo.:drinkbeer As someone who has practice Baguazhang I can 100% tell Al Chase's Baguazhang is novice level at best. Other people in other arts have commented that Al Chases's skills are not up to par of an instructor level. 
If Al inspires you great if you are happy with what you paid for great and feel your money is well spent then more power to you. 
But for the rest of the people who read this forum who have no clue what is good or bad and wondering if they should buy his $50 DVD or take local Karate classes at the YMCA well hopefully the people on this forum who combined have decades of experience might be pointing at the local YMCA. Anyway good luck I am sure you will disappear and reappear again in another year or so.


----------



## Edward F

oaktree said:


> Well even if you do not follow his style you did purchase his instructions.
> I had to reread some of of this thread to remember you better. You were the one going on about Ueshiba getting most of his Aikido from Judo.:drinkbeer As someone who has practice Baguazhang I can 100% tell Al Chase's Baguazhang is novice level at best. Other people in other arts have commented that Al Chases's skills are not up to par of an instructor level.
> If Al inspires you great if you are happy with what you paid for great and feel your money is well spent then more power to you.
> But for the rest of the people who read this forum who have no clue what is good or bad and wondering if they should buy his $50 DVD or take local Karate classes at the YMCA well hopefully the people on this forum who combined have decades of experience might be pointing at the local YMCA. Anyway good luck I am sure you will disappear and reappear again in another year or so.



I like to read lots of things because my mind is not clouded by prejudice. 

Please, show me exactly where did I say Ueshiba got "most of his Aikido from Judo", because I can't find such a statement; you are misquoting me to your advantage. 

The courses were not $50 last time I checked.

Re: disappearing, etc. I would really like to do so and not reappear again. I don't like forums, I prefer devoting my time to researching and training, and most important, I find the general tone of this thread and the attitude of some virtual high belts a bit tiresome, to say the least. So, if I don't see fit comenting anything more I will simply delete my account.

If that was the case, I apologize (as Al did) to anyone I could have offended here, because insulting was not my intention. Everything I stated were just my opinions and, as such, they could be wrong.

Good luck to you too.


----------



## Aiki Lee

Edward F said:


> Chris Parker, I have done a bit of research and this is what I have found: http://www.tesoma.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2&Itemid=7
> You only teach 3:30 hours of class a week, which I assume gives you plenty of time to be a keyboard warrior and extensively quote anyone who does not agree with your view, paraphrasing from your library as if you needed the written words of others to justify your beliefs.



Who cares if he doesn't spend the majority of his time teaching? That has nothing to do with whether or not his arguments are valid.



Edward F said:


> Also, I have found other interventions of you in different forums, many showing a tendency from your part to attack anyone not agreeing with you, with hostility and arrogance, and false humbleness whenever it is finally made clear that you are wrong.



I have seen Chris directly confront opinions he believes are wrong and/or dangerous to hold on to. I have never seen him directly attack a person on this site only his or her arguments. Nobody likes hearing harsh truths, I know I don't, but they are necessary for growth. When I ask his opinion I want an honest response, and I know I will get it. I would rather have a harsh criticism that helps me grow than a useless ego stroking.



Edward F said:


> So far, everything you have said in this thread has been oriented towards reassuring your self-appointed role as an authority, be it by covertly trying to downgrade me or overtly attacking Al because his system doesn&#8217;t fit in your scheme. Are you afraid of people learning faster than you did? Are you worried about finding that you wasted a lot of time which could have been put to a better use? If not, I don&#8217;t really understand why you so desperately try to pull people towards your personal (IMO narrow) vision of the arts.



I would suggest re-reading the thread if you truly are open minded. Even if you end up not agreeing with Chris's posts you should be able to see that he at least backs up his statements with logical thinking. If you feel he is wrong then you have to attack his reasoning, not his character.


----------



## Chris Parker

Oh boy. Well, as I seem to be a focus here, might as well weigh in again....



Edward F said:


> I see myself forced to break my promise not to post in this thread again.


 
What on earth "forced" you to "break your promise"? Certainly none of us here... you did that to yourself. You had no reason to come back, nothing to add, and this is all just a case of sour-grapes (or, at least, comes across that way). But let's examine, shall we?



Edward F said:


> I will try to be more direct than I was in previous posts, and I have not reread the thread so I will try to address some points by heart:



Oh, good. You were "forced" to come back... but didn't re-read the thread to remember what it was you were "forced" to answer? Really?



Edward F said:


> Chris Parker, I have done a bit of research and this is what I have found: http://www.tesoma.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2&Itemid=7
> You only teach 3:30 hours of class a week, which I assume gives you plenty of time to be a keyboard warrior and extensively quote anyone who does not agree with your view, paraphrasing from your library as if you needed the written words of others to justify your beliefs. Also, I have found other interventions of you in different forums, many showing a tendency from your part to attack anyone not agreeing with you, with hostility and arrogance, and false humbleness whenever it is finally made clear that you are wrong.



Ah, but there's a few issues here.... yes, I teach 3 and a half hours (well, three and three quarters, really) a week standard... but also train in a couple of other things another 6+ hours a week (which has me teaching or training 5 nights a week), teach another 3 hour class on occasional Saturdays, work full-time (which includes most weekends, as well as late/long shifts on Fridays), have quite a schedule of personal home training, and a social life. But I suppose googling didn't give you my other activities, did it? Additionally, I don't attack. I make strong, clear, and backed up arguments. And it's damn rare that I'm "shown to be wrong", for the record.... but when my take is challenged, and forced to adapt, there's no "false humility".

Try again, kid.



Edward F said:


> So far, everything you have said in this thread has been oriented towards reassuring your self-appointed role as an authority, be it by covertly trying to downgrade me or overtly attacking Al because his system doesn&#8217;t fit in your scheme. Are you afraid of people learning faster than you did? Are you worried about finding that you wasted a lot of time which could have been put to a better use? If not, I don&#8217;t really understand why you so desperately try to pull people towards your personal (IMO narrow) vision of the arts.



No, son, you really should have re-read the thread.... I haven't downgraded you, I've simply used your own comments to point out certain facts about your lack of experience and knowledge. And I'm not "afraid" of people learning faster than myself (as I said earlier, we use fast-track learning ourselves), I'm more concerned with the detail that Al's approach doesn't actually seem to qualify as learning what he's claiming it does... and none of his comments, yours, or anything else, have challenged that take on things. And as far as my vision of martial arts being "narrow", wow, you really don't have a clue who you're talking to, do you? My background is probably more rounded than any you've come across, including Al's. As well as deeper.



Edward F said:


> The problem here is not Al, but the fact that you are reviewing something you haven&#8217;t even looked at (have you bought a course in the meanwhile? I don&#8217;t think so) and discouraging people to think for themselves. Al has plenty of free stuff and articles. Anyone interested can read them and form an opinion: they don&#8217;t need your well-meaning paternalism.



All Al's articles are flawed, inaccurate, thinly veiled ads, and so forth. If they're indications of the quality of material he puts out, why on earth would I want to buy one of his courses? I've demonstrated that a number of times, for the record, most notably in the last post (an answer to Al) here.



Edward F said:


> Lots of students drop out of dojos because the ones like you. Nothing you can say or quote from someone will make me change my mind concerning something I have discovered from my very own personal experience.


 
Please. Students drop out of dojo's because of people who know what they're talking about? Right... 



Edward F said:


> Re: &#8220;I am Al with a different nick&#8221;, anyone worried about that possibility can PM the board administrator asking him to check if my IP is the same as Al&#8217;s, but it&#8217;s not even in the same country.



Hmm, I thought you hadn't re-read the thread...?



Edward F said:


> Re: the books & resources Al directed me to. Among others: the Project Gutenberg page and The Dynamic Sphere book, I could put more examples, but I&#8217;m not bothering to. I doubt that he derived any material benefit from it, but who knows, that&#8217;s just my opinion.



Doesn't really mean much... especially things like the Project Gutenberg page.



Edward F said:


> I have not stated any obsession on my part, in fact I hadn't had internet connection for a while, as I stated, and I hadn't even read the last response. Re: Chris Parker (written in capital letters, mind you) a quick google search gave the info in less than a couple minutes.



Right.... maybe some deeper research would be advised? Oh, and coming back 9 months later to, well, just attempt an attack on someone who disagreed with you does certainly come across as rather obsessive, you know... 



Edward F said:


> What is really sad is that you attack me like that. I don't need your compassion nor your false pity, so please refrain from using it with me.



Hmm, that didn't look like an attack from Oaktree, really... more an observation on your action. The post he replied to, though.... 



Edward F said:


> I am coming back because not only Al was attacked but also myself and how I understand freedom. I have no need to demonstrate you, or anyone for that matter, anything. But I wanted to say what I think of all this. Al offered to me a new way to look at the arts. I am not stating that everything he says is gold. It gave me something to think about and encouraged me to start my research on MA, a thing I would not have done were I to follow my previous path. I am not one to objectively value Al's work, but I can say it served me in my own personal way. As none of you can deny that, you try to make me look as a newbie "looking for a quick fix", even though that is not true.



And, for the nth time in this thread, if you got something out of it, great. But we're not going to recommend what is a flawed, and highly ill-advised approach that denies the realities of martial arts from a source that makes constant and consistent errors in technique, history, philosophy, understanding, knowledge, and more. Okay?



Edward F said:


> Again, I am not defending Al. He is the one to do that or not. I am defending my point of view. And concerning Chris Parker experience, I have not yet notice of his international achievements.



"International achievements"? Seriously, what?!? You do know that the systems I study have no such thing, yeah? And, for the record, other than Al's own self-publicizing methods, he doesn't really have anything like any "international achievements"  to speak of either... 



Edward F said:


> BTW, you don't have to write everything in stanzas, it difficults reading.



It's part of Oaktree's charm... 



Edward F said:


> That's the point I tried to make since the beginning. It took "almost a year", but I am glad someone got it



Seriously, read the thread. That's been said (to you) from the beginning. But again, just because we agree that everyone can make up their own mind, doesn't mean we are in any way going to advocate, endorse, recommend, or even suggest that such a path is a good idea. Especially with the concerns, and the availability of better alternatives.



Edward F said:


> As I stated before, I read the final responses recently, and then I did a *quick *search just to be sure who was giving me his opinion, because unlike many in this thread I am open to the possibility of being wrong.



Please. You haven't shown the slightest indication of being open to anything of the kind. And, if you want to know who is giving you the information and opinion, you're talking to someone who has been researching (studying) martial approaches for 30 years, training for 25, including 20 years in his primary system, has trained in modern, sporting systems, RBSD systems, modern non-sporting systems, and very old arts. I have experience in BJJ, boxing, MMA, TKD, karate, Aikido, Iai, Ninjutsu, Koryu, RBSD (with a few different people), and far more. My current routines include teaching or training 5 nights a week, with a solid home-training regime in addition. I constantly read, research, and engage with practitioners of an incredibly wide variety of backgrounds, again, from very old (Koryu) systems through to very modern, cutting edge approaches to RBSD. I am familiar with the structure of more martial systems than you probably know exist, as well as the training and teaching pedagogy of them. Additionally, I am versed in a range of teaching methodology, as well as learning methods such as NLP, and more.

Any of that come up in google searching for me? Or did you just get the English actor and the jazz drummer?



Edward F said:


> Finally, I don't follow Al Case's style and have never stated so. That is a spurious conclusion (and not the only one to be found in this thread) drawn from your personal opinion or misunderstanding of something I said. Al inspired me and taught me some things. He has some interesting ideas. Nothing more, nothing less.



Please. You came along here to say how good it was, we asked for your background to ascertain how you know it was good, and haven't shown anything to support your ability to make a real, reasoned appraisal. You have commented that your use of Al's material helped you in your "real" classes, although the classes were spoken of in a past tense, so I'm not sure when you got Al's material (near the beginning of your Aikido time, or the end...?). Now you're saying that you don't follow his approach, but he has some interesting ideas, that's all? Really?



Edward F said:


> And, it doesn't matter wether a year passed by, facts are facts, and what I said above still holds true.



You haven't presented any facts, though. You've presented an attempted attack towards myself, and missed the mark quite badly, and added nothing to your previous arguments. What was the point of your return again?



Edward F said:


> I like to read lots of things because my mind is not clouded by prejudice.



Yeah... you told me that I gave you good information that would be a valuable resource, but are going to ignore me because I argued with you, but you're not clouded by prejudice? Really? 



Edward F said:


> Please, show me exactly where did I say Ueshiba got "most of his Aikido from Judo", because I can't find such a statement; you are misquoting me to your advantage.



Most? Nope. But in post 82, you talk about being able to see "which Aikido techniques came from Judo" (uh, none, really), which then continued in post 89, where you tried to give an example (Koshi Nage and Sumi Otoshi). Thing is, the Aikido methods that use that terminology didn't come from Judo, they came from Daito Ryu... which I showed in post 93. And, you were completely wrong. So no, Oaktree isn't "misquoting you to his advantage", but it could be argued that he's slightly misrepresenting what you said... but not by a lot. 



Edward F said:


> The courses were not $50 last time I checked.



Honestly, if they were 50 cents, I'd consider them overpriced.



Edward F said:


> Re: disappearing, etc. I would really like to do so and not reappear again. I don't like forums, I prefer devoting my time to researching and training, and most important, I find the general tone of this thread and the attitude of some virtual high belts a bit tiresome, to say the least. So, if I don't see fit comenting anything more I will simply delete my account.



So you don't like forums, don't have consistent internet access, don't "follow Al Case's style", don't have any vested commercial or financial interests in his material, can't counter any observations or criticisms, don't like dealing with people telling you you're wrong, don't like the "tone" of this thread (as it disagrees with you, although there is nothing you've said to make your case any better), find the attitude here a "bit tiresome" (because we get a little blunt when needing to repeat the same thing over and over again...?), but you still came back to add nothing to the thread? If you don't like forums, don't log on. If you don't want to be here, you're not being forced to. 

But we don't delete accounts. You don't want to be here, don't be here. That's up to you.



Edward F said:


> If that was the case, I apologize (as Al did) to anyone I could have offended here, because insulting was not my intention. Everything I stated were just my opinions and, as such, they could be wrong.



Al didn't apologize for anything. And yes, insulting was your intention (if it wasn't, you need to look at how you write, and what you say). And I thought you said you were posting nothing but facts, now they're opinions? Hmm....

Oh, and yeah, they are wrong.



Edward F said:


> Good luck to you too.



Right.


----------



## Cyriacus

How did i miss this gem of a thread?

Comment from a third party (me):
"So far, everything you have said in this thread has been oriented towards reassuring your self-appointed role as an authority, be it by covertly trying to downgrade me or overtly attacking Al because his system doesn&#8217;t fit in your scheme. Are you afraid of people learning faster than you did?"

Now, i cant help but think that someone providing their input on things is the exact opposite of slowing down peoples learning curves. Particularly if its useful.

"And concerning Chris Parker experience, I have not yet notice of his international achievements."

I cant really speak for other peoples systems, but as far as i know, Chris Parker is indeed inexperienced in earning international achievements. Much like how my cat is inexperienced in the art of barking.

And finally, i shall actually look at the video in question.
Oh, wait, its been removed.
To the blog!

"


But,


what if I didn&#8217;t care about that?


What if a cousin came to me,


said there were bullies who were going to beat him up on monday


could I teach him to fight over the weekend?


Hmmm.


Yes.


No prob.


There are two things to consider,


one,


his basics.


Two,


enough actual fighting experience.


Depending on the situation,


I might focus on things like


poking somebody in the eye.


But,


maybe it&#8217;s a school situation,


and I don&#8217;t want him to come home


with a felony on his record,


so&#8230;


two days in which to train him


how to have a straight wrist when punching.


And I have to do it,


without wearing him out.


So you get a light ball


and throw it at him,


and have him punch it back to you.


Or kick it back to you.


If he punches it wrong it flies to the side.


So his timing must be


impeccable.


The other thing,


get him enough fighting experience.


So rhythmic freestyle


until it comes out of his ears.


That&#8217;s on the Matrix Karate course.


Get him used to moving,


blocking,


hitting back.


Slow enough so he doesn&#8217;t tire out,


and you can keep going


and going


and going!


And,


spice it up with hours of rolling fists,


right out of the How to Fight course.


Now,


those two things,


basics


and actual fight experience,


and then spice it up with lots of little things.


Work him for 15 to 20 minutes of freestyle,


then practice hitting him on the body,


on the  shoulders,


in the head,


in the face.


Very light,


very controlled,


slowly giving him the idea


of what a hit is like,


and let him practice not getting flustered.


Now,


I don&#8217;t particular like what I am saying here,


because I am training to fight.


I am not training for the long view,


for the peace of mind


that comes with learning the true art.


But,


this is the real world,


and somebody is not going to stick around


long enough to learn the real art,


if they are getting beat up on the street.


So it is valid


to make him survive,


and polish him up later.


But,


it is a severe second choice


to training him from the ground up


as an artist.


So,


you want to train somebody fast,


heck,


you have to train somebody fast,


or,


here&#8217;s a good one,


you want to train somebody to stay aware


in the middle of a fight,


what I have told you here


is the start.


Heck,


notice that on the front page of monster,


it is designated as second black belt material.


It is advanced,


on the fighting side of things,


very advanced,


but,


simple.


But that&#8217;s the truth of your studies.


If it is simple,


it is going to be easier to remember,


and easier to make work,


to use in a fight.


But,


I would prefer that you use it


to build on the classical.


As I said,


I don&#8217;t like it,


just teaching fighting,


but who cares?


Your life


is more important


than what I like.


Right?


Oinky dokey.


Remember the URL&#8230;


http://www.monstermartialarts.com/Learn_How_to_Fight.html


Now,


have a great week end,


a great work out,


and I&#8217;ll talk to you later.


Al


"


And to think, Edward thought Oaktree used stanzas.


Well, all i have to say is, id have just suggested the kid take the day off school, or let himself get knocked down right away, or just hit first. *shrugs*


----------



## Chris Parker

Yeah, I read that blog post as well.... and, not surprisingly, I have some major issues with it. Namely that the idea of teaching "techniques", or technical material, is the exact wrong approach to take with the aim in mind, his teaching method (to give a fighting skill in a weekend) is inconsistent to the point of being unfeasible (there are much better methods that are regularly employed in areas such as Security training, for the record... or RBSD training...), and, what do you know, even though this is something that Al "doesn't teach", or focus on... and has no interest in... "It's in the Matrix Karate course"! How am I not surprised! I get the feeling that if Al was asked if he could teach someone to fight entirely while walking on their hands, it'd already be in one of his programs... 

Oh, and his take on "awareness" is deeply flawed, and, well, unaware of what it actually means, let alone how it is expressed and trained/taught in many, many systems. He hasn't improved in the last 9 months.


----------

