# Your view on "body hardening" training??



## heretic888 (Jul 9, 2003)

I have been told that things like toughening the fists through punching sand and then small rocks was once part of Koto-ryu training. I seem to recall, however, that Takamatsu-soke was said to have stated that such training was "useless" in today's society.

What is your view on the so-called "body hardening" training such as students striking one another in rhythm to toughen the muscles up or hardening the fists through repeateded strikes on rocks and so on???

Laterz.


----------



## RCastillo (Jul 9, 2003)

Along with the hits people take to soft tissue areas on purpose, all this would catch up with you later on in life, I think.:asian:


----------



## Pervaz (Jul 10, 2003)

I have never heard of koto ryu conditioning like that before - it was my favourite school alongside koppojitsu (and maybe koshjitsu).  Hatsumi sensi has said that as long as you practice taijitsu it was enough excercise you needed - other conditioning like hand in sand destroys your hands and knuckles - and I have never seen anyone win a fight becuase they had 'hard' hands!

P

p.s.  no point destroying my pretty boy looks either !!


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by heretic888 _
> *I I seem to recall, however, that Takamatsu-soke was said to have stated that such training was "useless" in today's society.
> *



I recall reading the same thing, and honestly, I gotta trust his opinion on this one...


----------



## Jay Bell (Jul 11, 2003)

It's all in the context...  

Koto ryu training is very brutal...historically speaking.  The Atemi no Tanren (rocks/hard things/etc) helped give Takamatsu sensei his claw-like hands and feet.

However...the reason that Takamatsu sensei explained that we no longer needed this type of training is because the world has moved on.  We have guns today...we have weapons that we carry where ever we go....there is no need to cause permanent, mangling damage to your body just to be effective and survive.


----------



## Ken JP Stuczynski (Jul 11, 2003)

Not to sound anti-Japanese (because I'm not),  but this whole thread is the perfect example of how Chinese wisdon and science didn't quite make it wholesale to Japan -- something was lost.  Perhpas A LOT.

Conditioning is not "hardening" to hit "hard" -- that's not only stupid and self-abuse for a modern world.  It always was.

PROPER, TRUE CONDITIONING will not disfigure the body at all, and is done for impact resistancer and penetrating power.

Iron palm, iron shirt, etc.. (in Chinese Kung Fu training), does not give you callouses or calcification.  The difference?  It's like the difference between trying to make the tires on your car harder instead of properly inflating them.


----------



## Jay Bell (Jul 11, 2003)

It's interesting you bring that up...because in the 13 plus years that Takamatsu sensei lived in China teaching martial arts, he never lost a match.

Beyond his Japanese budo schools, he was also highly skilled and trained in internal arts (Chinese).

In fact...in a talk with Hatsumi sensei, Takamatsu sensei explained, "Raw violence will beat internal arts every time".

Though I feel that martial arts should heal you...not harm your body, different does not mean better over the broad scale of everyone.



> PROPER, TRUE CONDITIONING will not disfigure the body at all, and is done for impact resistancer and penetrating power.



In your opinion, true.


----------



## Ken JP Stuczynski (Jul 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Jay Bell _
> *It's interesting you bring that up...because in the 13 plus years that Takamatsu sensei lived in China teaching martial arts, he never lost a match.*


*

Every school has its legends (true or not) of being undefeated in China, Japan, wherever, except for the fact that no one in their lifetime could fight more than a pitiful sampling of the masters of a culture literally one thousand times larger than the Japanese.  I don't know his record (how many fights against who of what schools), but such a statement to mean "undefeated in China" is meaningless.




			Beyond his Japanese budo schools, he was also highly skilled and trained in internal arts (Chinese).
		
Click to expand...


Not picking a fight, but if he was so skilled or trained, why would he diss (if he did) a form of "conditioning" that (for anyone) would be better than the primitive hardening you're talking about.  Then again, conditioning isn't usually part of internal arts even though it has a heavy internal component.




			In fact...in a talk with Hatsumi sensei, Takamatsu sensei explained, "Raw violence will beat internal arts every time".
		
Click to expand...

*
If that were true, then he was saying that it's a waste of time to learn something that does not defend against something that takes no skill (raw violence).  I must not get what he meant -- it's so self-defeatist.  Or is it arrogance?  Maybe it's his personal experience, but I find it hard to believe.

From everything I've read and experienced, the learning curve is higher on internal arts and therefore at lower levels he may have been right, but at higher levels it's the other way around.

Then again, my students (with very little training) have overcome "raw violence" situations with no effort (and no exaggeration).

In other words, I respectfully disagree.  :asian:


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 15, 2003)

I'll try and add my 2 centz in here and there....



> Not to sound anti-Japanese (because I'm not), but this whole thread is the perfect example of how Chinese wisdon and science didn't quite make it wholesale to Japan -- something was lost. Perhpas A LOT.



So says you.



> Conditioning is not "hardening" to hit "hard" -- that's not only stupid and self-abuse for a modern world. It always was.



So says you. Extreme conditions dictate extreme measures.



> PROPER, TRUE CONDITIONING will not disfigure the body at all, and is done for impact resistancer and penetrating power.



And just what is it that makes that kind of conditioning "proper" or "true"?? I do agree that the disfiguring methods are too much, but the kind of conditioning you are most likely referring to is also contained in Ninpo, in my experience.



> Iron palm, iron shirt, etc.. (in Chinese Kung Fu training), does not give you callouses or calcification. The difference? It's like the difference between trying to make the tires on your car harder instead of properly inflating them.



It sounds to me like you're comparing apples and oranges here. The iron palm and iron shirt methodologies are, to my understanding, largely a method of internal conditioning (ie., you use ch'i to protect the body or to hit with). The Atemi no Tanren that Jay mentioned is external conditioning and done in more arts than Ninpo. They are also done in some external Chinese arts, as well.



> Not picking a fight, but if he was so skilled or trained, why would he diss (if he did) a form of "conditioning" that (for anyone) would be better than the primitive hardening you're talking about.



What makes you think he did??



> If that were true, then he was saying that it's a waste of time to learn something that does not defend against something that takes no skill (raw violence).



Whoever said "raw violence" takes no skill??



> From everything I've read and experienced, the learning curve is higher on internal arts and therefore at lower levels he may have been right, but at higher levels it's the other way around.



I think Jay's quote should probably be looked at in the context it was said (which I don't know). He may have said that to Hatsumi when he was still fairly new at the Ninpo training. And, the actual truth is that it takes years to develop enough "internal power" to really stop someone much bigger or stronger than you. Learning how to use "raw violence" will be a much quicker route to effective self-protection.

Laterz.


----------



## Ken JP Stuczynski (Jul 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by heretic888 _
> I'll try and add my 2 centz in here and there....
> 
> ...  So says you. ...



Yes, SAYS ME.  I just spent most of my life doing comparitive cultural analysis, Eastern in particular, that's all ...

And I am aware that both internal and external conditioning is found in both cultures.  My point is that many internal studies (outside of Aikido and Ninjitsu, perhaps) were lost or distorted into simplified practices, less detailed theory, etc.. by the time they reached Honshu.



> And just what is it that makes that kind of conditioning "proper" or "true"?? ...



My words are not predicated on personal raw assumptions.  It's common sense.  Stuff that hurts you is bad.  Stuff that still works but doesn't hurt you is better.

And you would almost be right about circumstance if it took longer to condition internally, but it is debatable whether or not it does.  The difference is what knowledge is available, and to some extent herbal medicinal knowledge as well (supplemental to some advanced training).




> What makes you think he did [say those things] ?? ...



I made it clear I was not sure what he meant by what he said, but it could be interpreted the way I took them.



> Whoever said "raw violence" takes no skill??



So people who have raw violence are so high and mighty to attribute this to skill and not personality.  Are you talking about training with the dark side of the force, or real life?

I SAY raw violence takes no skill.  I find it hard to believe anyone who has been in or even seen a real fight would question this.  The fact someone has skill AND raw violence is irrelevant.  "Raw" violence is sloppy yet instinctual, and yes, effective.  And that's why a pi**ed off teenage girl with no training could very possibly rip you a new **** and take the black belt off your gi just to smack you with it afterwords.

Yes, it takes training to overcome this.  But why glorify it?  It's like saying it takes skill to start a house on fire because it takes a lot of training to put it out safely.


----------



## Ken JP Stuczynski (Jul 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by heretic888 _
> And, the actual truth is that it takes years to develop enough "internal power" to really stop someone much bigger or stronger than you. Learning how to use "raw violence" will be a much quicker route to effective self-protection.




Uh ... not necessarily.  Especially for those of us who do not want to be violent, or don't have the personality for it, i.e. most of humanity in the civilized world.

Yes for some people you could be right, especially if they are fighting someone skilled (instead of just violent), but I've had beginning students of mine take dow people larger and more agressive than them with no effort, and I don't mean in class.  

But I can see why you would think this.  Most internal schools develop a students skills over a longer period of time (like I spoke of in original post), and then can overcome SKILLED people who are larger, stronger, faster, etc..  It is rare to find anything internal taught for immediate use, but that's exactly what I do given the limited environment I teach in.


----------



## Jay Bell (Jul 15, 2003)

I think I need to set something straight about 'raw violence', since the point altogether was missed.

Raw violence in this context is not NHB type "brawling".  It is the physical reality of combat.  Biomechanics, psychology and working (controlling?) with the opponent's instinctive reactions.

Sorry to not clarify this earlier...you spent a great deal of time typing posts that really didn't have to do with what I'd talked about.


----------



## Ken JP Stuczynski (Jul 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Jay Bell _
> *I think I need to set something straight about 'raw violence', since the point altogether was missed.
> 
> Raw violence in this context is not NHB type "brawling".  It is the physical reality of combat.  Biomechanics, psychology and working (controlling?) with the opponent's instinctive reactions.
> ...



Sorry.

I really did not know that's what you meant.    Why would you call that "raw violence"?  Now it sound like you meant "skilled, intense agression" or something.  Lost in the translation, no doubt, and misleading IMO.  Oh well.  :asian:


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 16, 2003)

> And I am aware that both internal and external conditioning is found in both cultures. My point is that many internal studies (outside of Aikido and Ninjitsu, perhaps) were lost or distorted into simplified practices, less detailed theory, etc.. by the time they reached Honshu.



Hmmm... ok, I'll grant you that.  



> My words are not predicated on personal raw assumptions. It's common sense. Stuff that hurts you is bad. Stuff that still works but doesn't hurt you is better.



Ah, ok. Now that you've put your comments into a proper context, I would agree with that. Before, it sounded just a little too "holier than thou" for my taste.



> And you would almost be right about circumstance if it took longer to condition internally, but it is debatable whether or not it does. The difference is what knowledge is available, and to some extent herbal medicinal knowledge as well (supplemental to some advanced training).



I think it should be added that the time these methods were developed was during a period of almost continuous feudal and civil warfare in which your typical bugeisha wore heavily plated armor. My guess is the Atemi no Tanren was developed for a lil' ninja smashy-smashy when confronted against armored samurai.

And, I am still of the conviction that it typically (but not always) takes longer to develop impressive internal "power" (ch'i, ki, or whatever) than to "toughen" the body and/or develop impressive physical skill (taijutsu).



> But I can see why you would think this. Most internal schools develop a students skills over a longer period of time (like I spoke of in original post), and then can overcome SKILLED people who are larger, stronger, faster, etc.. It is rare to find anything internal taught for immediate use, but that's exactly what I do given the limited environment I teach in.



Well, if what you say is true (and I'm not saying its not, mind you), then your approach would be the exception rather than the norm, I'd say.



> Uh ... not necessarily. Especially for those of us who do not want to be violent, or don't have the personality for it, i.e. most of humanity in the civilized world.



I fail to see what any of that has to do with the issue of internal vs. external self-defense.



> I think I need to set something straight about 'raw violence', since the point altogether was missed.
> 
> Raw violence in this context is not NHB type "brawling". It is the physical reality of combat. Biomechanics, psychology and working (controlling?) with the opponent's instinctive reactions.



Errrrr..... taijutsu, then?  

Laterz.


----------



## Ken JP Stuczynski (Jul 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by heretic888 _
> *... Ah, ok. Now that you've put your comments into a proper context, I would agree with that. Before, it sounded just a little too "holier than thou" for my taste... *



Yeah, I was bordering on being and a**.  Sorry.

:flushed:


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 17, 2003)

> Yeah, I was bordering on being and a**. Sorry.



It's okies. No apology needed.


----------

