# Questions for those who started their own system/ style



## chrissyp (Oct 18, 2018)

So as the question states, not for those who use theirs for personal use, which is essentially what ever good martial artist does,  make their knowledge and style their own, but for those who market ot and teach it to the public 

What is it that you do differently that you feel sticks out? This isnt made to sound like an insult, but just curiosity of what you do that is unique and your mission with your system.


----------



## Kababayan (Oct 18, 2018)

I'm really glad you asked this question.  Initially I intended to post an enormously long response that included the journey that I went through when creating my martial arts system, but then I thought I was getting too far away from your question.  I still have my response, but I think I'll save it for when someone asks for suggestions as to how to create a martial arts system. To answer your question, my system is rooted around the philosophy of "few movements pertaining to many scenarios".  I've always felt that many self defense systems require too many moves to memorize. It can be challenging for students to remember a multitude of moves when under pressure. 

 For every rank that my system has there is one set of core moves to remember. They all fit into a pattern. Most defenses taught at that specific rank utilize that core set of moves.  For example my white belts learn simultaneous block/punch, knee strike, push away, and run.   They will then use that core set of moves for various punch defenses, certain grab defenses, etc. There are some defenses that won't utilize the core moves, such as ground defenses, but for the most part the defenses at that level are based around those core set of moves. I also warm up with attack defense drills where the students focus on attacks from four different angles (both right a left side) using the core set of moves.  Those four different angles are meant to simulate most attacks that a person will see (including sticks and knife defenses).  Even my stick fighting (Escrima) is based on a simple pattern of moves that are applicable to many scenarios.   The purpose is that a student has muscle memory of what to defend with if attacked, and the ability to flow from one core technique to another if need be.


----------



## chrissyp (Oct 18, 2018)

Kababayan said:


> I'm really glad you asked this question.  Initially I intended to post an enormously long response that included the journey that I went through when creating my martial arts system, but then I thought I was getting too far away from your question.  I still have my response, but I think I'll save it for when someone asks for suggestions as to how to create a martial arts system. To answer your question, my system is rooted around the philosophy of "few movements pertaining to many scenarios".  I've always felt that many self defense systems require too many moves to memorize. It can be challenging for students to remember a multitude of moves when under pressure.
> 
> For every rank that my system has there is one set of core moves to remember. They all fit into a pattern. Most defenses taught at that specific rank utilize that core set of moves.  For example my white belts learn simultaneous block/punch, knee strike, push away, and run.   They will then use that core set of moves for various punch defenses, certain grab defenses, etc. There are some defenses that won't utilize the core moves, such as ground defenses, but for the most part the defenses at that level are based around those core set of moves. I also warm up with attack defense drills where the students focus on attacks from four different angles (both right a left side) using the core set of moves.  Those four different angles are meant to simulate most attacks that a person will see (including sticks and knife defenses).  Even my stick fighting (Escrima) is based on a simple pattern of moves that are applicable to many scenarios.   The purpose is that a student has muscle memory of what to defend with if attacked, and the ability to flow from one core technique to another if need be.


I love it! Im developing my own based on classical pugilism techniques , mixed with muay chai, the elusiveness of modern boxing , and sweeps and other techniques from shotokan and enshin sabaki philosophy . The main point is in the street, you dont have big glove to defend or strike with, hand the hands are brittle. Deflect the attack while moving, counter change postion/range, repeat


----------



## Buka (Oct 18, 2018)

Go getum, Chrissy.


----------



## skribs (Oct 18, 2018)

Kababayan said:


> I'm really glad you asked this question.  Initially I intended to post an enormously long response that included the journey that I went through when creating my martial arts system, but then I thought I was getting too far away from your question.  I still have my response, but I think I'll save it for when someone asks for suggestions as to how to create a martial arts system. To answer your question, my system is rooted around the philosophy of "few movements pertaining to many scenarios".  I've always felt that many self defense systems require too many moves to memorize. It can be challenging for students to remember a multitude of moves when under pressure.
> 
> For every rank that my system has there is one set of core moves to remember. They all fit into a pattern. Most defenses taught at that specific rank utilize that core set of moves.  For example my white belts learn simultaneous block/punch, knee strike, push away, and run.   They will then use that core set of moves for various punch defenses, certain grab defenses, etc. There are some defenses that won't utilize the core moves, such as ground defenses, but for the most part the defenses at that level are based around those core set of moves. I also warm up with attack defense drills where the students focus on attacks from four different angles (both right a left side) using the core set of moves.  Those four different angles are meant to simulate most attacks that a person will see (including sticks and knife defenses).  Even my stick fighting (Escrima) is based on a simple pattern of moves that are applicable to many scenarios.   The purpose is that a student has muscle memory of what to defend with if attacked, and the ability to flow from one core technique to another if need be.



Hi, I'd be curious to see that.  Maybe I'll post a thread in the near future that will be worthy of that post 
What is your style called?

@chrissyp 

While I have not created my own style, my belief is that most new styles are created because:

The martial artist likes the techniques of their training style, but not the teaching style
Removing "fluff" from an art or adding in techniques in areas the art is lacking
Practicing different applications for the training style than what is taught
Combining arts which cover different areas or taking strengths and weaknesses from various arts
Innovation
One thing I would caution is that you should only create your own style if you're confident in what you are doing to diverge from that style.  You have essentially 5 styles it seems you want to combine.  How proficient are you in those 5 styles, or at least the components of those styles you want to combine?  

Some thoughts I would ask myself if I was thinking about starting an art:

What am I trying to accomplish that isn't accomplished by another art?
What is the goal of my art (i.e. defense, art, sport, wellness)?
What is the core foundation and base set of techniques I want to build on? (i.e. punches, kicks, grappling, blocks and counters, aggressiveness)
What is the teaching style I want to use?  (katas, techniques vs. concepts, what kind of training and drills, combine workout with class or expect workout after class, etc)
Am I competent enough in the components I want to teach that I can properly include them in the art?
Other thoughts I would have as I get more details:

How to organize the curriculum, and whether there is a progression system or not
Names, both naming the art, but also the vocabulary of the art.  Also copyright, including the art's name, the school's name, and the curriculum
Advertising, training location, equipment, fees, all the business and logistics of teaching the art
Documentation, such as videos, manuals, and notes of the art
Is there an apprentice teaching under you?  Who are they, how do you train them?
Just my thoughts.  But I'm nowhere near creating my own!


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 18, 2018)

Kababayan said:


> I'm really glad you asked this question.  Initially I intended to post an enormously long response that included the journey that I went through when creating my martial arts system, but then I thought I was getting too far away from your question.  I still have my response, but I think I'll save it for when someone asks for suggestions as to how to create a martial arts system. To answer your question, my system is rooted around the philosophy of "few movements pertaining to many scenarios".  I've always felt that many self defense systems require too many moves to memorize. It can be challenging for students to remember a multitude of moves when under pressure.
> 
> For every rank that my system has there is one set of core moves to remember. They all fit into a pattern. Most defenses taught at that specific rank utilize that core set of moves.  For example my white belts learn simultaneous block/punch, knee strike, push away, and run.   They will then use that core set of moves for various punch defenses, certain grab defenses, etc. There are some defenses that won't utilize the core moves, such as ground defenses, but for the most part the defenses at that level are based around those core set of moves. I also warm up with attack defense drills where the students focus on attacks from four different angles (both right a left side) using the core set of moves.  Those four different angles are meant to simulate most attacks that a person will see (including sticks and knife defenses).  Even my stick fighting (Escrima) is based on a simple pattern of moves that are applicable to many scenarios.   The purpose is that a student has muscle memory of what to defend with if attacked, and the ability to flow from one core technique to another if need be.


How have your students fared with your slimmed-down approach?

I have spent years studying systems with very large/cumbersome curriculum and I am a fan of the “more mileage with less material” approach.  

However, it has occurred to me that perhaps each person might need to experience that range of training for themselves before they are able to grasp the usefulness of a smaller curriculum.  It might be that trying to bring a student directly into a briefer curriculum without that wider experience might create some difficulty in developing the vision to see what is possible with a briefer curriculum.

Any thoughts?


----------



## chrissyp (Oct 18, 2018)

@skribs to answer your question, I believe i'm pretty knowledgable in all but the Muay Chai, but the techniques i'm borrowing are similar to other techniques in the other arts. All but the boxing, have an emphiesis on fighting bare handed, and a lot of the philosophies and a suprising amount of techniques I found overlap, which makes ideal for meshing. what i'm using from each isn't too different from each part of each art. IDK if i'm ever going to teach, but for my own personal journey as a martial artisist, I find my development and growth comes from me personally setting up a philosophy from my experience of what works, remove what doesn't, and figuring out a way I can make it all work together.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 18, 2018)

chrissyp said:


> @skribs to answer your question, I believe i'm pretty knowledgable in all but the Muay Chai, but the techniques i'm borrowing are similar to other techniques in the other arts. All but the boxing, have an emphiesis on fighting bare handed, and a lot of the philosophies and a suprising amount of techniques I found overlap, which makes ideal for meshing. what i'm using from each isn't too different from each part of each art. IDK if i'm ever going to teach, but for my own personal journey as a martial artisist, I find my development and growth comes from me personally setting up a philosophy from my experience of what works, remove what doesn't, and figuring out a way I can make it all work together.


Do you find consistent principles underlie these techniques that come from different sources?  For example, the methodology for generating power is identical or close to it, in all cases?


----------



## chrissyp (Oct 18, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> Do you find consistent principles underlie these techniques that come from different sources?  For example, the methodology for generating power is identical or close to it, in all cases?


on some yes, definatly. The thing that made me look into this, particular pugilism was my interest in bare knuckle techniques, and I found through research showing that while traditional karate and pugilism/bare knuckle boxing developed on the other ends of the world, around the same time, from my understanding with no influence to each other, they share many same blocks, similar hand positions and strikes. This inspired me to see if this could work together due to the similarities. I hope this answers your question


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 18, 2018)

chrissyp said:


> on some yes, definatly. The thing that made me look into this, particular pugilism was my interest in bare knuckle techniques, and I found through research showing that while traditional karate and pugilism/bare knuckle boxing developed on the other ends of the world, around the same time, from my understanding with no influence to each other, they share many same blocks, similar hand positions and strikes. This inspired me to see if this could work together due to the similarities. I hope this answers your question


I guess I am less interested in the similarities in technique between systems because I believe that similar techniques do develop independently in cultures that did not influence each other.  It would not surprise me that cultures separated by thousands of miles would each have a similar fist with which they would punch, or an open palm-strike, or a back kick or front kick or side kick. 

What I am getting at as an example is the body mechanics used to drive those techniques for maximum power.  How is the body engaged, to throw a powerful punch or kick?  How is the arm and shoulder matched with the legs and waist, for example?  Are you finding consistencies on those levels?

On this level, two punches from two different cultures could look similar to the uneducated eye, but could actually be quite different.  One may engage the feet and legs and torso more, while the other may rely on the torso and shoulders without much work done by the feet and legs.

I bring this up because if you incorporate punching techniques from different systems that use different mechanics, which one becomes the standard method?  Consistency within the method is important and goes a long way in developing skill.


----------



## chrissyp (Oct 18, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> I guess I am less interested in the similarities in technique between systems because I believe that similar techniques do develop independently in cultures that did not influence each other.  It would not surprise me that cultures separated by thousands of miles would each have a similar fist with which they would punch, or an open palm-strike, or a back kick or front kick or side kick.
> 
> What I am getting at as an example is the body mechanics used to drive those techniques for maximum power.  How is the body engaged, to throw a powerful punch or kick?  How is the arm and shoulder matched with the legs and waist, for example?  Are you finding consistencies on those levels?
> 
> ...


The hand striking is mostly runs the gauntlet from all the arts, power comes from the hips and the legs, hands up. as for kicking, the idea of combing a muay thai kick and a karate kick mechanics is what I personally use. This video can explain it better than I can.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 18, 2018)

chrissyp said:


> The hand striking is mostly runs the gauntlet from all the arts, power comes from the hips and the legs, hands up. as for kicking, the idea of combing a muay thai kick and a karate kick mechanics is what I personally use. This video can explain it better than I can.


I cannot watch the video at the moment.

What you say about punching, I guess what I am trying to get at is whether you have a consistent method, whatever that method may be and whichever system it came from.  I’m not critiqueing you.  I’m just pointing out the importance of considering this issue.  I feel that a lot of people simply combine techniques from different systems without considering compatible methodologies and compatible principles underneath it.  People sort of assume that more is better, so they throw everything into a blender and assume what comes out will be better, simply because it is more.

When you consider the compatibility of the underlying principles then you begin to realize that some things do not blend well and some things should NOT be part of the mix.  People get so hung up on adding things to what they do that they forget to consider that some things should not be added.  They are better off if some things are excluded because of incompatibility issues.

So I’m just pointing it out to make sure you are thinking about it.  Consistency in the method is important. When things are consistent, your curriculum becomes streamlined.  You need one good way to generate a powerful punch, you train that well so it becomes automatic, your body does it automatically, and you use that method every time you punch.  You do not need five different ways from five different systems to develop a strong punch.  That takes much longer and does not become automatic.  It adds clutter to your training.  It is merely collecting systems, not making good use of a method.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 18, 2018)

chrissyp said:


> on some yes, definatly. The thing that made me look into this, particular pugilism was my interest in bare knuckle techniques, and I found through research showing that while traditional karate and pugilism/bare knuckle boxing developed on the other ends of the world, around the same time, from my understanding with no influence to each other, they share many same blocks, similar hand positions and strikes. This inspired me to see if this could work together due to the similarities. I hope this answers your question


Couldn't possibly because the human body only comes in 2 basic models, and the differences between those models have little to do with fighting...

Bottom line is we all work with pretty much the same skeleton & muscle structure, in the same arrangement.  Unless you add an extra elbow, or spare head...  you can only move effectively in so many ways.  You can change what you use to generate power, how you find structure -- but you still have to stay in a recognizably narrow band of actions.


----------



## chrissyp (Oct 18, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> I cannot watch the video at the moment.
> 
> What you say about punching, I guess what I am trying to get at is whether you have a consistent method, whatever that method may be and whichever system it came from.  I’m not critiqueing you.  I’m just pointing out the importance of considering this issue.  I feel that a lot of people simply combine techniques from different systems without considering compatible methodologies and compatible principles underneath it.  People sort of assume that more is better, so they throw everything into a blender and assume what comes out will be better, simply because it is more.
> 
> ...


I follow what you're saying now.


----------



## chrissyp (Oct 18, 2018)

jks9199 said:


> Couldn't possibly because the human body only comes in 2 basic models, and the differences between those models have little to do with fighting...
> 
> Bottom line is we all work with pretty much the same skeleton & muscle structure, in the same arrangement.  Unless you add an extra elbow, or spare head...  you can only move effectively in so many ways.  You can change what you use to generate power, how you find structure -- but you still have to stay in a recognizably narrow band of actions.


Completely agree


----------



## jobo (Oct 19, 2018)

I have neither the time nor to be honest, the intest in teaching a style commercialy, but if such was to happen, 
I would emphersise fitness, that is they are at a bare minimum in the upper quartile for there age and gender, with iyt this the rest is ibcreasingly useless

Then once they had achieved the physicality necessary, 

I would have just 12 movements,

Three punches, three " kicks" ( including use of the knees ), three blocks and three throws 

And simply refine these indevidually and especially to be used incombination


----------



## Martial D (Oct 19, 2018)

chrissyp said:


> I love it! Im developing my own based on classical pugilism techniques , mixed with muay *chai*,





chrissyp said:


> @skribs to answer your question, I believe i'm pretty knowledgable in all but the Muay *Chai*, .




So it would seem. Unless that's a new drink at Starbucks.


----------



## skribs (Oct 19, 2018)

chrissyp said:


> @skribs to answer your question, I believe i'm pretty knowledgable in all but the Muay Chai, but the techniques i'm borrowing are similar to other techniques in the other arts. All but the boxing, have an emphiesis on fighting bare handed, and a lot of the philosophies and a suprising amount of techniques I found overlap, which makes ideal for meshing. what i'm using from each isn't too different from each part of each art. IDK if i'm ever going to teach, but for my own personal journey as a martial artisist, I find my development and growth comes from me personally setting up a philosophy from my experience of what works, remove what doesn't, and figuring out a way I can make it all work together.



To be clear - by "knowledgable" do you mean you've read books and attended seminars on the theory of that art, or that you've actually trained that art?

There's a difference between learning some things to incorporate into your style, and training those things to the point you have a mastery you can pass down.

I'm not trying to put you down or make assumptions here.  I'm just saying there's a big difference between someone like me saying "I'm a black belt in Taekwondo and I watched Ong Bak and Ip Man and a few youtube videos, so I'm going to make a TKD/Muay Thai/Wing Chun hybrid", vs. someone who's trained for 10 years in Taekwondo, 3 years in Wing Chun, and a few years in Muay Thai making the same hybrid.


----------



## chrissyp (Oct 19, 2018)

skribs said:


> To be clear - by "knowledgable" do you mean you've read books and attended seminars on the theory of that art, or that you've actually trained that art?
> 
> There's a difference between learning some things to incorporate into your style, and training those things to the point you have a mastery you can pass down.
> 
> I'm not trying to put you down or make assumptions here.  I'm just saying there's a big difference between someone like me saying "I'm a black belt in Taekwondo and I watched Ong Bak and Ip Man and a few youtube videos, so I'm going to make a TKD/Muay Thai/Wing Chun hybrid", vs. someone who's trained for 10 years in Taekwondo, 3 years in Wing Chun, and a few years in Muay Thai making the same hybrid.


Ive trained all for many atleast 5 years directly with the exception of muay chaiya, which i do have some hands on but not as extensive as the others.Again i have no intention of marketing this system , this is merely for my own personal use


----------



## chrissyp (Oct 19, 2018)

Martial D said:


> So it would seem. Unless that's a new drink at Starbucks.


Stupid auto correct! I ment muay chaiya!! Well played though!


----------



## marques (Oct 19, 2018)

chrissyp said:


> So as the question states, not for those who use theirs for personal use, which is essentially what ever good martial artist does,  make their knowledge and style their own, but for those who market ot and teach it to the public
> 
> What is it that you do differently that you feel sticks out? This isnt made to sound like an insult, but just curiosity of what you do that is unique and your mission with your system.



I do not teach my own system, for a range of reasons, and it would not have nothing never seen and super exciting, but would be a different mix of what I have seen and, of course, limited to what I know better and enjoy more. It would be:

- Training the art, more than sport or fitness
- Freedom. Whatever you know (or wan’ to try) is ok
- More striking than grappling, because I enjoy and and know more
- Progressive resistance
- Plenty of sparring
- Balance between safety and hardness
- Slow speed to start, rarely maximum speed in training.
- ...

The reasons are I have seen quite safe training places but very artificial and weird situations, or resistance training with plenty of injured people. I want a balance between this 2 sides and I have seen it already, so it is feasible.

Also, I don’t like to do and ‘learn’ rubbish when I already have better tools (until someone prove me wrong). I would like to simply use my stuff. So, I would not impose technical restrictions on my training.

To make it short, one last reason. In many places they do plenty of fitness, volume... but repeat all wrong in hundreds and quick to burn calories and never feel the proper technique. I would put *skill* *first*. You know when something is right, by yourself, when you train right.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 19, 2018)

A bit of background might help shorten my actual answer. I didn't start out to create something new. I started out changing how I approached my primary art. Within Nihon Goshin Aikido, there's a pretty high level of consistency in how the techniques are taught, the kinds of applications, and what you'd expect to see in the school. The quality of the result varies, but those pieces are pretty consistent.

I needed to change some things both to fit my teaching style and to address what I saw as common student difficulties. I started with small stuff, and it started piling up, until I stepped back and thought, "This is still NGA, but I don't think most NGA folks would recognize some parts of it." So, after some soul-searching, and failing to find an English name I liked, I settled on calling it Shojin-ryu Nihon Goshin Aikido. Yep, a long name that sucks for marketing. Perfect! 

Anyway, here are the things I've done differently from what I saw in mainline NGA (mainline referring to schools/instructors that are relatively similar to the NGAA's curriculum and testing).

More focus on ground work, drawing from my early exposure to Judo, and some cross-training with BJJ and MMA folks.
A lot more emphasis on striking, including a migration toward more boxing-inspired movement and guard.
Added 5 long-form kata (actually, pretty short for those familiar with kata) for solo practice.
Added very basic single-stick, double-stick from my FMA cross-training.
Added staff work to explore the principles from NGA's base and the sticks with a different weapon.
Put more material at the early colored-belt ranks, so each takes about a year to get to (as opposed to several weeks to the first colored belt rank). This should reduce average time to each of the higher colored belt ranks, though that wasn't the intention. No Japanese terms for the colored belt ranks - just the colors.
(Part of the previous point) Added a "foundation" set that has to be passed through before they start any of the formal/classical training work. This includes basic strikes, starts to their falls, a couple of ground escapes, and the elementary basics of avoidance, de-escalation, etc. Someone coming in with these pieces already in place could test past this and go straight to the classical work.
Removed (sort of) all ranks above shodan, and removed all "dan" usage. It's just "black belt" now. The "sort of": I've added back in Instructor and Senior Instructor certifications, because I'm offering specific training for those who wish to teach. For those who don't, they already have the highest rank, anyway, so they're good. This is all divergent from the mainline of the art, where shodan includes teaching certification.
Changed about half of the "Classical" forms (the traditional method of introducing a technique) to emphasize the principles differently.
Changed the emphasis from the Classical forms to the application (many mainline schools focus their time the other way around). This includes a different approach to how I teach the Classical form, so students can make better use of the pieces in them.
Went from a white to a black dogi. Because I like black better, damnit!
That's a long list, but if you look at it, it's mostly a difference in approach. If everyone else wasn't so strikingly similar, I'd have probably not bothered with a new name. If I ever come up with a better name for it - preferably in English - I'll change it in a second.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 19, 2018)

marques said:


> I do not teach my own system, for a range of reasons, and it would not have nothing never seen and super exciting, but would be a different mix of what I have seen and, of course, limited to what I know better and enjoy more. It would be:
> 
> - Training the art, more than sport or fitness
> - Freedom. Whatever you know (or wan’ to try) is ok
> ...


I like that list, Marques. If you ever decide to move to the Southern US, give me a call. I'd love to have another instructor to blame things on.....er, work with. I'm sure that move is what you have planned next in life, right???


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 19, 2018)

skribs said:


> most new styles are created because:


Here is another reason.

You teach an anti-terrorism school, or military special force. You just find out that your students don't care about winning. They only care about how to kill fast.

If you have taught sport all your life, you will have no option but evolve. For example, if you are a Taiji instructor and you teach Taiji push hand all your life, one day your military special force students ask you, "What do you do after you have pushed your opponent away?"


----------



## Steve (Oct 19, 2018)

chrissyp said:


> I love it! Im developing my own based on classical pugilism techniques , mixed with muay chai, the elusiveness of modern boxing , and sweeps and other techniques from shotokan and enshin sabaki philosophy . The main point is in the street, you dont have big glove to defend or strike with, hand the hands are brittle. Deflect the attack while moving, counter change postion/range, repeat


I prefer muay latte to muay chai.

Edit: 


Martial D said:


> So it would seem. Unless that's a new drink at Starbucks.


Dangit...  a day late and a dollar short!


----------



## Steve (Oct 19, 2018)

double post


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 19, 2018)

Steve said:


> double post


So, two days late, and two dollars short?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 19, 2018)

Steve said:


> double post


STEVE!
Double muay latte for STEVE!


----------



## skribs (Oct 19, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Here is another reason.
> 
> You teach an anti-terrorism school, or military special force. You just find out that your students don't care about winning. They only care about how to kill fast.



I believe that killing someone is a different application than winning.  Which is covered in my reasons.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 19, 2018)

chrissyp said:


> What is it that you do differently that you feel sticks out? This isnt made to sound like an insult, but just curiosity of what you do that is unique and your mission with your system.


that shouldnt be an insult at all, it is a basic tenant of business.  if your business cannot differentiate itself then you better rethink your business.
my own system ...well ill try to keep this short.  i like Flying Cranes analogy.



Flying Crane said:


> People sort of assume that more is better, so they throw everything into a blender and assume what comes out will be better, simply because it is more.



my analogy is one of computers.  most people add software/ apps to there system.  the more apps and gadgets the better.  maybe they will trade out one for another because they like it better. for the most part people are playing with wallpaper apps but all that is superficial.    i started with the hard drive & mother board.  then worked the underlying coding that is normally DOS and created my own operating system. then plugged back in all the apps and software i was used to dealing with.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 19, 2018)

what i think my biggest divergence from other systems is that  i start with a philosophical base and build from there using actual science disciplines.  i do not accept that X is true because my instructor and his brothers friend who knows a guy said its so.  i challenge all assumptions and then those "facts" are not facts they are just the best explanation available at this time and open to change if new data shows that the old concepts are not correct..
i use the studies of biomechanics, neurology, human behavioral biology, genetics, physiology, criminology, victimology  ect ect ect.   as foundational concepts to build upon.  what i do is a much deeper multi level analysis.
as example, if less self defense actions are better then memorizing a lot of actions or techniques then that idea should remain a constant across disciplines.  if it does then i could consider it a "fact" and use that as a basis for the system.  i would say most of what i am do is a lot of underlying coding of the operating system that does not concern the student or next generation because the wallpaper might still look the same as before but ease of use will be optimized and the effectiveness can be relied upon.


----------



## marques (Oct 20, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I like that list, Marques. If you ever decide to move to the Southern US, give me a call. I'd love to have another instructor to blame things on.....er, work with. I'm sure that move is what you have planned next in life, right???


Sure, I am going to the US next week, to right next your dojo!  I would visit you if had a chance, for sure. 

Glad you enjoyed. That list was just what came to my mind at the moment. It would be longer if I had thought more about.Today I would have made a different one.  Another thing I missed was the purpose of the training. If it was self defence, it would include scenario training and, of course, law... and other stuff. More recently the idea as moved to striking (that list), being it simpler (or smaller scope), but still helping me to unwind after the daily troubles; and helping to keep some skill. BUT it is just an idea and perhaps it will ever be.


----------



## chrissyp (Oct 20, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> what i think my biggest divergence from other systems is that  i start with a philosophical base and build from there using actual science disciplines.  i do not accept that X is true because my instructor and his brothers friend who knows a guy said its so.  i challenge all assumptions and then those "facts" are not facts they are just the best explanation available at this time and open to change if new data shows that the old concepts are not correct..
> i use the studies of biomechanics, neurology, human behavioral biology, genetics, physiology, criminology, victimology  ect ect ect.   as foundational concepts to build upon.  what i do is a much deeper multi level analysis.
> as example, if less self defense actions are better then memorizing a lot of actions or techniques then that idea should remain a constant across disciplines.  if it does then i could consider it a "fact" and use that as a basis for the system.  i would say most of what i am do is a lot of underlying coding of the operating system that does not concern the student or next generation because the wallpaper might still look the same as before but ease of use will be optimized and the effectiveness can be relied upon.


That's exactly my approach to.my system! In my mind,  as weird as that sounds i view it like a math equation


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 20, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> what i think my biggest divergence from other systems is that  i start with a philosophical base and build from there using actual science disciplines.  i do not accept that X is true because my instructor and his brothers friend who knows a guy said its so.  i challenge all assumptions and then those "facts" are not facts they are just the best explanation available at this time and open to change if new data shows that the old concepts are not correct..
> i use the studies of biomechanics, neurology, human behavioral biology, genetics, physiology, criminology, victimology  ect ect ect.   as foundational concepts to build upon.  what i do is a much deeper multi level analysis.
> as example, if less self defense actions are better then memorizing a lot of actions or techniques then that idea should remain a constant across disciplines.  if it does then i could consider it a "fact" and use that as a basis for the system.  i would say most of what i am do is a lot of underlying coding of the operating system that does not concern the student or next generation because the wallpaper might still look the same as before but ease of use will be optimized and the effectiveness can be relied upon.


While I think you've gone into more depth in some areas of your re-analysis, I've gone through some of the same process. Keep questioning what you were taught, and you'll be passing on a better final product to your students.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 21, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> While I think you've gone into more depth in some areas of your re-analysis, I've gone through some of the same process. Keep questioning what you were taught, and you'll be passing on a better final product to your students.


for me its not just questioning what i was taught but also the studying and learning about the entire field of human combative behavior in a more indepth manner.  i really feel indebted to this web sight because most martial artists i know do not think about their art on that kind of level.  its similar to a guy who goes for a jog after work for his better health and a top pro athlete who has other professionals around him doing things like blood nutrient level studies and tailored work outs based on computer biometric results.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 21, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> for me its not just questioning what i was taught but also the studying and learning about the entire field of human combative behavior in a more indepth manner.  i really feel indebted to this web sight because most martial artists i know do not think about their art on that kind of level.  its similar to a guy who goes for a jog after work for his better health and a top pro athlete who has other professionals around him doing things like blood nutrient level studies and tailored work outs based on computer biometric results.


Human behavior has been part of my focus since high school, where I started my formal study of psychology. I've continued to dabble in that study - sometimes digging deep again - since college. It's part of everything I do, so I often don't even think about it as part of my martial arts, though it is. Again, it sounds like your examination is more focused than mine (mine is broad-based, looking at more than just combat), so probably has more depth in that area.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 21, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Human behavior has been part of my focus since high school, where I started my formal study of psychology. I've continued to dabble in that study - sometimes digging deep again - since college. It's part of everything I do, so I often don't even think about it as part of my martial arts, though it is. Again, it sounds like your examination is more focused than mine (mine is broad-based, looking at more than just combat), so probably has more depth in that area.


more focused, maybe, maybe not.  but my interest is more about civilian self defense than any kind of sport but i have a good backround in Eastern religion and philosphy as well.  i think it plays a part in combatives and mental health and performance.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 21, 2018)

was just thinking about when i was 8 yo.  we did book reports for school.  while my friends where doing their report on books like "_Benji"_ the dog, i did my report on "_The rise and fall of Adolf Hitler".   _The first books i remember reading were "Call of the wild" and "Thirty seconds over Tokyo"
i often wonder what my old teachers thought of me ... _that boy is going to grow up a serial killer_


----------



## Mark Lynn (Oct 21, 2018)

While I have created my own way of teaching/curriculum for my two main arts, and have mid way created my 3rd.  Currently I am on the rewrite of my 2nd main art.   So I don't mind sharing and I'll try and keep it brief.

I teach what we call American Karate but that's for marketing purposes, it's really American TKD.  We use the TKD forms but other than that we have no ties to Korea.   All of my instructors in karate and TKD have all been American and had no ties to the mother countries so it is an eclectic art, in our parent association we are free to add and subtract what we want (if you want to test in the parent organizations test then there are minimum requirements to be met, but we are given a lot of leeway).   What sets us apart from others in our association is in two areas.

1) Self defense    Early on I start teaching my students (mostly kids) about weapons defense which is based on my FMA training using material from my FMA class.   Also I teach a them sweeps that are influenced from the FMAs or Silat, and for the older kids they get into some locking and fighting from the ground.  We'll do some ground work but it is mostly trying to kick or defend from the ground, and we do some defenses against kicks etc. etc. which they defend against, thus taking the person to the ground etc. etc.   But the goal is to either fight from the ground and get up or take the person to the ground and get away not wrestle on the ground with another person.

If any thing that is (lack of ground work or rolling) the biggest area my curriculum lacks in.   We also are non competing (tournament) focused.

2) Weapons work.   Our Kobudo program is also different because a lot of what I teach, I teach from the concept of what I call compound learning; using the same drills, techniques or training concepts over several weapons.  So once again my FMA training is grafted over to the Kobudo program (this is the 3rd art I teach and the curriculum is currently on hold, as I'm rewriting my FMA curriculum).  This class is generally reserved for the older students in the TKD program and the FMA program. 

My FMA program will take longer to explain.


----------



## Mark Lynn (Oct 21, 2018)

Not wanting to make my last post to long my FMA program is called Presas Arnis.  Short history I got started in the FMAs back in the early 80's through Guro Inosanto and through JKD Kali, I then met Hock Hochheim and through him the Presas brothers Remy and Ernesto.  I studied with each of them during the same time frame, among others, but my focus became Modern Arnis and Kombatan Arnis.  Since then I have continued to train with senior instructors in Modern Arnis and most recently Kombatan (along with other FMAs) as well.

So what do we do that is different.  Well taking a cue from Hock, I originally blended; Inosanto Kali, Hock's, Remy's and Ernesto's and had a huge bloated curriculum, very heavy on the front side and lower belt levels and then less when it came to advanced ranks.   That was the first one.  

My 2nd rewrite I actually sat down with my senior students who had prior training and we hashed (or fleshed) out my ideas and evened out the curriculum.   Then after teaching 3 more years that curriculum and talking with other senior instructors and how they did theirs.  I rewrote mine again (3rd) and am in the process now 2 more years later going through that again.

My current curriculum I broke it down into beginner levels, intermediate, and advanced under black.  I'm currently rewriting black belt and beyond as well.   I did simplify things each time because over time with experience teaching more people my focus on what was important shifted.  So using the first five levels as an example of slimplfying here is what I am now going to.  I have a main concept for the first five levels that are build around the double stick which we call Defensive Responses (DRs) that is based on force to force blocking, one DR per level.   Students will use the same DR for double stick and empty hand (two equal weapons) and I try and tie in the singe stick with that as well where applicable.  In each level the same basic striking or feeding patterns are used, along with similar drills, so the learning process is shortened, and the student is able to use the DRs quicker.  Same goes for disarming skills, everything is tied to the DR where applicable.    

In the higher ranks then other concepts come in such as Palis Palis (or going with the force, passing) skills.  Now that the student has the five DRs down in one level the student can be introduced to passing techniques (concepts) and apply them (where applicable) using the DRs (for double equal weapons) as a base to work from.

I am currently debating on changing my original 3rd rewrite order of material so I won't go further trying to explain this, other than to say, my first view point was to have the students learn sparring type drills, such as Sumbrada, Hubud/Hubad, Tapi Tapi (Modern Arnis), and or the Freestyle (Kombatan) pattern.   My goal had been to have the first several levels giving the student the basics from which to learn to lead and set the person up for learning the sparring drills (especially for the Tapi and Freestyle patterns).   So I focused on double stick (to build both left and right sides of the body, and learning to feed with both sides), singe stick, and empty hand. Everything was geared for developing the student to that end.

Now because developing the student for the Tapi or Freestyle counters (i.e. locking, trapping, off balancing, take downs, all this fun stuff) the student really needs a lot of time to learn.  I believe, they need a lot of personal training to start getting the hang of it.  So lately I've been thinking about removing all of that type of material and putting it in above black belt (instructor) levels.  Replacing it with what I had before as after black belt material; such as knife, espada y daga (sword/stick and knife, or long and short weapons), and staff (bangkaw or spear). 

In closing I'm not a purist, by that I mean, I don't teach pure Modern Arnis as GM Remy taught it.  I don't teach pure Kombaton either, nor JKD Kali, nor Hock's system.  But all of these men (and others) have influenced my version of Presas Arnis.  Here is an idea of what is different.

Modern Arnis primarily taught 3 main subsystems or weapon groups; double stick (a little bit), single stick, and empty hand.   Kombatan taught mainly 5 adding in espada y daga and knife
I teach 6 including the staff (inspired by GM Ernesto) and my Kobudo training.   I also created several blocking striking drill series that are different than Kombatan's but where influenced/inspired by GM Ernesto's organizing of his material.

Kombatan Arnis had four systems for supported blocking
I added a 5th, and adapted it to other weapons; sai, tonfa, kama 

Modern Arnis taught passing (Palis Palis) and so did Kombatan
I adapted the concept of palis palis to coincide with the DRs.

GM Ernesto taught several blocking/striking systems or feeding patterns in Kombatan in single stick and several feeding patterns in double stick i.e. 14 count, 24 count and I heard of a 30 or 36 count drill (but never learned that one).
I went to one 12 count system from Modern Arnis for singe stick and then created one 8 count pattern for double stick (inspired by Kombatan, Modern Arnis didn't teach it in this way).

Off the top of my head those are some of the differences.  Let me finish by saying that I am not claiming my style of Presas Arnis which is a combination of Remy's and Ernesto's material is better than Modern Arnis or Kombatan.  Or that when I say I adapted this or created that, that I am inferring that I did something they didn't.  I'm only saying that I didn't learn it from them.   This is my attempt at honoring them by carrying on their teaching while evolving in my training and learning.

As I have trained with several of the top instructors in Modern Arnis and Kombatan, I have found we all have evolved in our own ways making the arts our own. My goal is to help my students do the same.


----------



## Buka (Oct 21, 2018)

Mark Lynn said:


> While I have created my own way of teaching/curriculum for my two main arts, and have mid way created my 3rd.  Currently I am on the rewrite of my 2nd main art.   So I don't mind sharing and I'll try and keep it brief.
> 
> I teach what we call American Karate but that's for marketing purposes, it's really American TKD.  We use the TKD forms but other than that we have no ties to Korea.   All of my instructors in karate and TKD have all been American and had no ties to the mother countries so it is an eclectic art, in our parent association we are free to add and subtract what we want (if you want to test in the parent organizations test then there are minimum requirements to be met, but we are given a lot of leeway).   What sets us apart from others in our association is in two areas.
> 
> ...



I teach what we call American Karate, too, because you have to call it something. Can't just call it _That Martial Stuff We Do_ because that would look kind of silly on a patch.


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 21, 2018)

chrissyp said:


> @skribs to answer your question, I believe i'm pretty knowledgable in all but the Muay Chai, but the techniques i'm borrowing are similar to other techniques in the other arts. All but the boxing, have an emphiesis on fighting bare handed, and a lot of the philosophies and a suprising amount of techniques I found overlap, which makes ideal for meshing. what i'm using from each isn't too different from each part of each art. IDK if i'm ever going to teach, but for my own personal journey as a martial artisist, I find my development and growth comes from me personally setting up a philosophy from my experience of what works, remove what doesn't, and figuring out a way I can make it all work together.


Please, please do not take this as any kind of knock on what you are doing. I am curious to your time experience with the different styles/techniques you are marrying. If I understand you post, you are not teaching your "style" to anyone else? So how to you measure the effectiveness of what you are doing? And how have you created your curriculum?


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 21, 2018)

jks9199 said:


> Couldn't possibly because the human body only comes in 2 basic models, and the differences between those models have little to do with fighting...
> 
> Bottom line is we all work with pretty much the same skeleton & muscle structure, in the same arrangement.  Unless you add an extra elbow, or spare head...  you can only move effectively in so many ways.  You can change what you use to generate power, how you find structure -- but you still have to stay in a recognizably narrow band of actions.


I like you last paragraph and agree with it in large. But, how do you explain the exceptions? People with incredible physical or mental ability such as inventive scholars and Olympic level athletes? Or on the other end of the spectrum, people with no known deficits who just cannot figure out how to effectively perform the most basic techniques? I have a hard time putting people in two categories (yes, I get the male/female reference). We are creatures that are all built a little differently. The "art" in learning and especially teaching a MA technique is divining these inherent differences in people and showing them how to make the standard model of the move work for them. It is not an obvious thing most of  the time. Maybe after hours and hours, usually years and years of doing it.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 21, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> was just thinking about when i was 8 yo.  we did book reports for school.  while my friends where doing their report on books like "_Benji"_ the dog, i did my report on "_The rise and fall of Adolf Hitler".   _The first books i remember reading were "Call of the wild" and "Thirty seconds over Tokyo"
> i often wonder what my old teachers thought of me ... _that boy is going to grow up a serial killer_


I read Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo as well, probably I was in fourth grade or a bit higher. Guadalcanal Diary and The Battle of the Bulge as well.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 21, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> I like you last paragraph and agree with it in large. But, how do you explain the exceptions? People with incredible physical or mental ability such as inventive scholars and Olympic level athletes? Or on the other end of the spectrum, people with no known deficits who just cannot figure out how to effectively perform the most basic techniques? I have a hard time putting people in two categories (yes, I get the male/female reference). We are creatures that are all built a little differently. The "art" in learning and especially teaching a MA technique is divining these inherent differences in people and showing them how to make the standard model of the move work for them. It is not an obvious thing most of  the time. Maybe after hours and hours, usually years and years of doing it.


There are outliers; note that I said "pretty much."  But -- by and large -- we're all given the same basic "kit" to start from.  There are individual differences; you may be ambidextrous, someone else may have perfect pitch.  Don't overthink it...  Some folks have or lack a talent for something, just like some have a better sense of rhythm, are better natural athletes, etc.  And some aren't...  Even so -- a person can overcome weaknesses or build on strengths with hard work and dedication...

A martial system is an answer to a seemingly simple question: within the context of my ethos and beliefs, and given the natural environment I live in, and my own natural abilities, how do I defend myself.  Within a system, there are individual choices, as well.  You may like to kick; I like to punch or elbow.  Someone else may prefer grappling.  Some systems are diverse enough to let you use them with a lot of personal variation.  Some don't have as much.


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 21, 2018)

jks9199 said:


> There are outliers; note that I said "pretty much."  But -- by and large -- we're all given the same basic "kit" to start from.  There are individual differences; you may be ambidextrous, someone else may have perfect pitch.  Don't overthink it...  Some folks have or lack a talent for something, just like some have a better sense of rhythm, are better natural athletes, etc.  And some aren't...  Even so -- a person can overcome weaknesses or build on strengths with hard work and dedication...
> 
> A martial system is an answer to a seemingly simple question: within the context of my ethos and beliefs, and given the natural environment I live in, and my own natural abilities, how do I defend myself.  Within a system, there are individual choices, as well.  You may like to kick; I like to punch or elbow.  Someone else may prefer grappling.  Some systems are diverse enough to let you use them with a lot of personal variation.  Some don't have as much.



Staying in the MA vein, it is true that everyone no matter their station can improve from their baseline with training. One of the greatest things about TMA's. It seemed the OP was speaking only about the physical which, at its core may be the fundamental element of MA. The mental benefits to help us with the world we live in are immeasurable. At least for me. Without personal variation within the confines our style we would be practicing exclusivism. We should not be threatened by opinion but instead confident enough in our craft to explain why we do what we do.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 22, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> I read Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo as well, probably I was in fourth grade or a bit higher. Guadalcanal Diary and The Battle of the Bulge as well.


it must be a generational thing.  i look at my 8yo now and he is reading Captain Underpants and Ninja Turtles.  maybe i baby him to much and i will have to have him read Viktor Frankl  Mans Search for Meaning.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 22, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> it must be a generational thing.  i look at my 8yo now and he is reading Captain Underpants and Ninja Turtles.  maybe i baby him to much and i will have to have him read Viktor Frankl  Mans Search for Meaning.


I read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings while still in grade school as well, certainly before eighth grade.  The Hobbit was originally written as a children’s story, complete with battles and death.

Another favorite was Lloyd Alexander’s Prydain stories, which are kind of Lord of the Rings-ish but for a younger audience, yet still has battles, death, loss, real dangers, etc.  I read that series multiple times before I was finished with grade school.  I am reading it to my almost-five-year-or son right now.

LeGuin’s Wizard of Earthsea stories were another favorite from grade school days, that still holds up as a good read now that I am approaching 50.

I contrast these with Harry Potter, which I did read all the way through but found to be very disappointing.  I just felt the writing was inferior, the story was weak and honestly felt dumbed-down for a younger audience, very sterilized of any genuine conflict or violence and minimal death.  Supposedly Harry’s life was always in danger, yet every time something legitimately threatening happened, they couldn’t seem to bring it to the attention of anyone who could do anything about it because they might end up on detention.  I found it really annoying.

Things are different in what is expected or assumed, with regard to what children can handle.

Edit to add:  it is my opinion that Harry Potter was a cheap rip-off of LeGuin’s Earthsea.  The school of wizardry with a young, gifted student was much much better handled by LeGuin.  It ought to be required reading for anyone who reads Harry Potter.


----------



## ShotoNoob (Oct 28, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> I like you last paragraph and agree with it in large. But, how do you explain the exceptions? People with incredible physical or mental ability such as inventive scholars and Olympic level athletes? Or on the other end of the spectrum, people with no known deficits who just cannot figure out how to effectively perform the most basic techniques?



Leave out the extremes, your next set of statements will give you a clue to my thinking.



dvcochran said:


> I have a hard time putting people in two categories (yes, I get the male/female reference). We are creatures that are all built a little differently. The "art" in learning and especially teaching a MA technique is divining these inherent differences in people and showing them how to make the standard model of the move work for them.



My philosophy is that the standard model, traditional karate which by my definition includes TKD, TSD, works broadly for everyone, all of us.  As a general rule, those tinkering with the model or creating "new" systems aren't adding or creating anything which hasn't been done over the history of traditional karate, and then traditional martial arts going back to China or other eastern areas.



dvcochran said:


> It is not an obvious thing most of  the time. Maybe after hours and hours, usually years and years of doing it.



And here is the divide between me and others.  When I really started training traditional martial arts (adult), I came into them with the express goal of unraveling and understanding the principles underlying them, behind the skills & effects.

I was fortunate and lucked out in that my first TMA instructor was an intelligent person.  He had more or less taken the same approach in your last quote block, himself, and myself.  He didn't explain in a lot of descriptive detail like I do, however, he was very precise in both the design of the curriculum and in his instruction.

Although his original TMA was TKD, with the school's curriculum and training regimen along with very precise instruction (not hand holding), I very soon came to realize how for starter's TKD and the Japanese karates all had the same underlying basis, all had common principles.

I absorbed the excellent curriculum and progressed very rapidly.  So much so that in months, I defeated two of the three assistant instructors in sparring.  That was no-contact sparring.  In that short time period though I was in shape physically, I hadn't really developed any karate power, the whole body strength and then beyond.

I never sparred the head instructor because one, my training roughly paralleled the manner in which he trained... he really didn't spar much.  We had come to the same conclusion that training the curriculum to it's principles develops the true & high level abilities and skills.  We never sparred because we both understood it to be a waste of time.  I will never catch up to him in ability for a host of reasons.  For practical purposes, I knew I would lose.

We had another student there at the time I joined.  He was Mr. Boxer, fighter, what have you.  He used to constantly challenge the head instructor.  It was truly a silly display of ineptitude on the challenger's part.

SO the divergence between me ,myself, and all those who want to improve TMA or traditional karate with some add ones, significant modifications, extensive cross training; PLUS, want to include a goodly measure of spirited sparring with actively resisting, physically forceful non-compliant opponents --  my approach was to focus internally, practicing the curriculum of kihon, kata, kumite as tradition called for.  With sparring supplemental.  Sparring for testing.

Now these two of three assistant instructor which I defeated within months of (concentrated) training, of course full contact would have been a different story.  Their strength base was above to considerably above mine.  My goal was to re-devote my energies into the curriculum in order to close the base strength gap.

And that's what I did and that's what I've always done.  And that is the reason I've defeated every karate instructor I've ever fought.  Part reason being they weren't as good as they thought by training the way I read so many here.  And probably some more emphasis on the active sparring and resistance testing would have helped them... as so many here propose.  But not enough to make up for where I went.

I don't go around challenging karate instructors either.  I don't challenge superior skill.  That's dumb.  It's a waste of time & training effort when (if) you realize the curriculum provides the answers to defeating strong opponents, not fighting them.  This IMO, is the traditional karate model in its pure form.

BOTTOM LINE:  My philosophy is that its' the curriculum laid out by the masters which provides the answers to martial success.  The base for that.  The weakness in TMA practitioner, is their weakness in not truly understanding what the TMA model is.

So they try to make up for  that by doing a lot of sparring.  Making "improvements."

Is learning the traditional karate model as you put it difficult?  YES.  Is understanding it problematic? SURE.  Is it easy to get sidetracked by other styles or trying to make the model be what you want or think it should be?  MOST definitely.  the masters weren't gods or all knowing.  But they did their homework.  They knew, basically, what constituted a successful model.  It's the rest of us who must live up them, the standards they set.  That's the challenge of TMA.

Based on that conclusion, then the premise for why TMA is under-represented and not so successful in the commercial MMA forum is (1) TMA is harder to master to a solid working level (incorporating the lengthy time investment you speak of), (2) one has to realize how to best approach it, in order to tap it's true power.  This is a minority.


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 28, 2018)

ShotoNoob said:


> Leave out the extremes, your next set of statements will give you a clue to my thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That is a very cogent answer that one has to say is intelligent and thoughtful. As a proponent of TMA, as many on this forum are, I will say you have gone into great personal detail to explain a version of how accurate repetition is the nexus of TMA. I haven't heard anyone hear claim there is a short track to becoming a "true Master". 
Most of us here have our own personal journey that in many way parallels or surpasses yours. I am glad you have had this revelation in you MA journey. I would encourage you to continue using your passion to help shore the opinion of TMA. While there are some big chunks missing in constituting a full summation of what TMA is, it is good to hear a passionate argument. I urge you to challenge your own depth of understanding. Repetitively challenging higher level students and instructors to reach a summation, whatever the outcome, is not a complete formula. 
You come dangerously close to claiming the old idea of mysticism from the Masters. I love, love my TMA. My experience is great having worked out in over 200 different schools in many style with different philosophies. I can go on and on but that is not my point. While I see and understand the material differences between TMA and FMA (MMA, etc... not included), I do not think there is a hard, absolute line between them. Many TMA styles heavily cross over into what many consider FMA. In my opinion all should. Unfortunately, some have established curriculum that does lose effectiveness so, of course this taints the whole model. Not the rule but the exception. 
When I use the term MMA here, I am including most all the modern fighting styles. As it is, they are an evolutionary expression. Over time, people have absorbed enough information and come to understand, in broad brush strokes what TMA is. And just like the evolution of anything, people have challenged it, learned from it, perceived its strengths and weaknesses and adapted. It is a fools errand to think if you take a large sample of tenured TMA and MMA people and score them on purely fighting to a set of rules used in the ring that MMA would not have a lopsided win. However, if the scoring is based on the whole of each contestants skills the win would be lopsided for TMA. In the realm of SD, I believe most of what is taught in MMA is effective SD, after the point which physical contact has encountered. To my knowledge, it does nothing at all to prevent you from getting in the physical encounter, and from some I have heard and seen even encourages it. 
I am not sure what you are arguing for. You passionate, strange and misguiding story is wonderful to hear and should be heard. But the story needs to be refined as it is not in a model that will be effectively heard. One reality is that MMA and the like is not going away. It is evolution happening before out eyes. The conversation must be about how/why we bash each other and how we bridge a gap so that ALL Martial Forms can become united and stay healthy.


----------



## marques (Oct 28, 2018)

I did not start my own system, but trained long time in a new system. I was like the 2nd or 3rd generation.

The reason for it to start was a group a karate masters did not find it adapted for self defence in modern days; and got smashed by kickboxers as well. So they researched and trained with European experts of that time and then made up their own system. The result, in the 90’s, was not far from the MMA these days, technically speaking. Just got the takedowns more from karate and judo than wrestling. Also more stand up grappling / joint locks. Even the gloves made specifically for the system, are still very much the like the ones now used for MMA training (more pad than competition gloves).

While fitness training was constantly recommended, the training was very much technique and light sparring focused. It was made by people getting old for adults and not young athletes.


----------



## ShotoNoob (Oct 28, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> That is a very cogent answer that one has to say is intelligent and thoughtful. As a proponent of TMA, as many on this forum are, I will say you have gone into great personal detail to explain a version of how accurate repetition is the nexus of TMA. I haven't heard anyone hear claim there is a short track to becoming a "true Master".



Took  a few moments to check in.  Wanted to mention I feel I've reached the 'true' karate black-belt level, maybe some beyond.  Mastery of karate is something I fear I won't ever be ale to achieve.  'Fear,' colloquially speaking.  What I'm doing to build & improve is going back over what Shotokan specifies as the Heian series of kata.

Plenty of folks here such as yourself who have learned and accomplished more kata, know the nomenclature, lineages & aims of more kata.  I believe, however, it was an Okinawan karate master somewhere along the line who said the Okinawan version of the Heian kata (Pinan?) would provide one all you need to become a superior fighter.  I believe that to be true, within the bounds of traditional karate.

Shotokan's Heian may not be the best or most sophisticated versions, yet if people would chill about what's wrong with karate and try to practice the principles embodied in the Heian series, they could benefit the way that Okinawan master stated.  This of course parallels your thematic here.

The kung fu's don't win the popularity contest to the extent traditional karate does re the general populace.  The commercial MMA environment pans kung fu all the time.  TMU, kung fu(s) is a large leap more difficult that traditional karate.  So in my mind, that explains why no one's getting to kung fu to work in MMA.

An interestingly, the kung fu instructors in my area, several are in complete alignment with what I propose.  One kung fu school let's me come in and train for free.  They look down on my rather elemental karate style.  I make them to back & forth on the karate one steps.  I point out that karate is trying to be more practical and attainable in skill level compared to kung fu, which they have sorta acknowledged.

BTW: "Mastering the Heian series, or perhaps the more difficult Okinawan version, makes for a very tall order.  Very tall.  A minor percentage of karate practitioners realize how to approach that.  This has been my experience.  As per the whole thread on kata = "performance art."  Nothing could be farther from the truth if one understands the principles behind traditional karate.


----------



## O'Malley (Oct 28, 2018)

@ShotoNoob what is your training background? What rank do you hold under which instructor?

Edit: what do you mean by "defeated"?


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 28, 2018)

O'Malley said:


> @ShotoNoob what is your training background? What rank do you hold under which instructor?
> 
> Edit: what do you mean by "defeated"?


Those questions have been asked many times, he refuses to answer.

Best thing to do is not engage with him.  I’m about to put him on ignore.  He is not worth wasting time on.


----------



## Martial D (Oct 28, 2018)

ShotoNoob said:


> Leave out the extremes, your next set of statements will give you a clue to my thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I literally spit milk out of my nose reading the ''defeated my instructors during NO CONTACT sparring" bit.

Thanks for that...


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 28, 2018)

Martial D said:


> I literally spit milk out of my nose reading the ''defeated my instructors during NO CONTACT sparring" bit.
> 
> Thanks for that...


Yeah, I found that bit...revealing.


----------



## ShotoNoob (Oct 28, 2018)

O'Malley said:


> @ShotoNoob
> 
> Edit: what do you mean by "defeated"?



Same overall free sparring rules as formal karate kumite.  Why?

P.S.  How long you been working on that green belt?


----------



## ShotoNoob (Oct 28, 2018)

Kababayan said:


> I'm really glad you asked this question.  Initially I intended to post an enormously long response that included the journey that I went through when creating my martial arts system, but then I thought I was getting too far away from your question.  I still have my response, but I think I'll save it for when someone asks for suggestions as to how to create a martial arts system. To answer your question, my system is rooted around the philosophy of *"few movements pertaining to many scenarios".*  I've always felt that many self defense systems require too many moves to memorize. It can be challenging for students to remember a multitude of moves when under pressure.



The weakness in your system is that it revolves around you.

Furthermore, one of the Prinicples of the Japanese karates is exactly what you propose in that bold-ed text.

To be sure, there are a myriad of techniques in traditional Japanese karate.  And some numerous, variety of applied techniques and kumite / self defense tactics.  Yet the driver in Shotokan training is perfecting kihon technique, which then is adapted to very efficient fighting.  That's if one takes a open minded perspective on the curriculum as a whole.

Shotokan and Japanese traditional karate as a group certainly aren't the most efficient or specialized TMA.  And we need to be careful about generalizations; for instance we have TEZ's Wado Ryu for instance which is more involved with added grappling emphasis.



Kababayan said:


> For every rank that my system has there is one set of core moves to remember. They all fit into a pattern. Most defenses taught at that specific rank utilize that core set of moves.  For example my white belts learn simultaneous block/punch, knee strike, push away, and run.   They will then use that core set of moves for various punch defenses, certain grab defenses, etc. There are some defenses that won't utilize the core moves, such as ground defenses, but for the most part the defenses at that level are based around those core set of moves. I also warm up with attack defense drills where the students focus on attacks from four different angles (both right a left side) using the core set of moves.  Those four different angles are meant to simulate most attacks that a person will see (including sticks and knife defenses).  Even my stick fighting (Escrima) is based on a simple pattern of moves that are applicable to many scenarios.   The purpose is that a student has muscle memory of what to defend with if attacked, and the ability to flow from one core technique to another if need be.



Sounds like a specialized self defense system.  With all that complexity, how do you expect everyday students to remember all that theory in the heat of a self defense battle?  I could see maybe some professional mastering what you propose.


----------



## ShotoNoob (Oct 28, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> _*Yeah, I found that bit...revealing.*_



Yeah GPS, and I found that bit ... revealing also.  Right on the heels of the who? account that marks themselves by this.

_Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. 

*E. Roosevelt.*_

Sounds from a used car salesman, not martial arts.  You two are the martial "it" people.


----------



## ShotoNoob (Oct 28, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Most of us here have our own personal journey that in many way parallels or surpasses yours. I am glad you have had this revelation in you MA journey. I would encourage you to continue using your passion to help shore the opinion of TMA. While there are some big chunks missing in constituting a full summation of what TMA is, it is good to hear a passionate argument. I urge you to challenge your own depth of understanding.* Repetitively challenging higher level students and instructors to reach a summation, whatever the outcome, is not a complete formula.*



The bolded text makes all the sense in the world.  Collective knowledge is superior particularly when one is ignorant.  I find everyday karate instructors who are quite knowledgeable on the technicals, the techniques, for instance.  This approach is also implicit in your opening sentence.  What makes you think this is some isolated method for my program?

I have a very sound understanding of what TMA is, unlike the majority of the commentators here.  Not sure how surpassed they are.  I've heard that refrain from continuous string of martial artists who thought they had 'surpassed.'  Because they valued themselves relative to a peer group of either like thinkers, or against obviously weaker practitioners.

My gap with TMA is in understanding how to develop and assimilate the skills beyond say the black-belt level. Theres' plenty of quote - Master ranks - quote in my own org. (and elsewhere) who I wouldn't consider Masters.  Again, it's the kung fu practitioner's in my area including instructors who tend to shy away from thinking of being masters and just work on the training.

QUERY: Since you have indicated there are some big chunks missing from a full summation of what TMA is, why don't you provide me / us with a working definition based on your study & achievement.  Moreover, same would be apropos if and when one would consider creating a "new" style.  The ostensive subject of this thread.


----------



## ShotoNoob (Oct 29, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> *You come dangerously close to claiming the old idea of mysticism from the Masters.* I love, love my TMA. My experience is great having worked out in over 200 different schools in many style with different philosophies. I can go on and on but that is not my point. While I see and understand the material differences between TMA and FMA (MMA, etc... not included), I do not think there is a hard, absolute line between them. Many TMA styles heavily cross over into what many consider FMA. In my opinion all should. Unfortunately, some have established curriculum that does lose effectiveness so, of course this taints the whole model. Not the rule but the exception.



On the bolded statement, I think you're just throwing balm at the posters who doubt TMA, have had trouble making it work FOR THEM.  Being ambassadorial.

You remind of certain TMA instructors I've run into who always claim there's alway something I'm not doing the way they want.  I went to a local Isshin Ryu club.  The Head Master was nigh on eighty.  Now Okinawan karate is a superior karate style in certain ways to my more Japanese link-ed karate style.  So I kind of expected his arrogance when I got it.  I really didn't like Isshin Ryu at all.  It was too stylized with complexity, and I understand the founder created the style around WW II to make karate (supposedly) more effective at fighting.

Anyway, he was talking down my style and then interrupted to point out a a young woman, a new student relatively.  Oh how poor her technique was, really in trouble.  I thought her technique was good for the number of months sher had been there, and she was practicing very diligently.  That really soured me on his mentor-ship.  Incidentally when we were discussing TMA styles, he said that the kung fu practitioners made the best fighters he had ever witnessed.  Which silently I concurred.

Later in another class, he asked me if I would like to spar.  I didn't come in talking about any rank.  I'm sure I came across exactly like I do to the majority here.  So by his voice, he didn't think I was accomplished at all.  To make a long story short, I refused.  Because sparring how's it's conventionally trained is most often stupid.

For one, they had a kickboxer there who was fairly new, and he was beating up all the students up to black-belts, where there was three assistant instructors.  Two of the instructors were 2nd degree.  The one kinda ran the class and didn't spar.  He didn't care for me at all.  The other was a fighter.  That fighter in another class was matched against the newbie who sucker punched me out of the blue when we standing observing the class.  The match didn't get very far because they believed in moderate contact.  The 2nd degree - fighter dropped the newbie (all anxious to show his athletic talent) with a spinning back kick.  The newbie rolled around on the floor in pain for some time.  At that I left.  Another reason I left was I knew with my 'inferior' Japanese karate style, I could beat him.

I did have one final meeting with the 3rd black-belt instructor, a middle aged man.  He toyed the egregious kick-boxer around like a dog.  Your know how those fighter types are... they are just going to outfight you (not). We had maybe two conversations about 20 minutes each.  He was very eager for me to join, and respected very much my approach.  He was the bona fide instructor among them all.  Should I cross train, it wouldn't be Isshin Ryu.

I understand your well accomplished and hold high achievement in TMA.  However, I respectfully disagree.  And you're not going to prevail on the issue by claiming _mysticism_.  That is an excuse for ignorance.  Mysticism is a formless, shapeless label that can have myriad meaning and applications across & among a plethora of circumstances.  No intelligent / scientific argument can be made in an environment of mysticism.  Mysticism makes the perfect foil for rhetoric.

This is where on of the common principles of TMA sheds so much light and I'll post a video.  Shotokan karate, IMO is on the bottom end of the ladder of sophistication in TMA.  The kung fu's as a group are near or approach the top.  They (these styles)  for practical argument sake, couldn't be farther from each other in their level of sophistication and ultimate overall martial strength or power.  Yet the JKA and the serious kung fu instructors here where I live, both focus on training the TMA model.  The TMA model is on an underlying basis the same, they both develop the human potential in all the key areas.  It's training that model properly, whether it's Shotokan and the Japanese karates, or the Chinese kung fu's that make the difference.  And mysticism has nothing to do with it.  It's in the TMA manual's, it's in the curriculum itself what defines TMA and how it works.

Here's my Shotokan / JKA training video.
*Training at JKA (Japan Karate Association) Honbu Dojo*
*



*53,267 views



Ryan Hayashi
Published on Sep 21, 2014

The female instructor early on is Miki NAKAMACHI.  She is a JKA kata champion.  Frankly, I don't think of her kata as championship kata.  It's also Shotokan which I don't like the style.  It's also hard to tell from a computer screen sometimes.

I could also  take issue with certain aspects of the JKA training regimen depicted in the video.  The answer to your cautions is what is wrong with Shotokan and what is wrong with Miki's kata let's say, is not the point.  The TMA empirically model speaking, contains all the principles to develop martial skill way above what boxing, wrestling, and the Muay Thai we see today anyway, BJJ, etc.  The challenge is to gain the accurate insights and then train those insights in a highly disciplined manner.

And that is precisely what the JKA practitioners are doing, Miki is instructing, in that JKA video.  When done properly, Shotokan karate will approach or reach the lower level kung fu's and Okinawan kempos in effect.  That what the serious kung fu practitioners and instructors in my locale are doing.  That's my personal view.  And who in general needs more than that?  This is necessarily a small percentage who achieve this level of martial skill, because of the understanding & investment involved.

OTOH, I have no doubt the far majority of commercial MMA fighters would find it a _*very hard day*_ challenging the JKA seniors @ the HQ.   I wouldn't dream of it for a number of reasons, mainly in that it's a waste of time & stupid TMA.  Miki's kata is the top way to train, in principle.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Oct 29, 2018)

ShotoNoob said:


> Yeah GPS, and I found that bit ... revealing also.  Right on the heels of the who? account that marks themselves by this.
> 
> _Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.
> 
> ...


So what does it mean that you're so focused on what people you are talking to?


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 29, 2018)

ShotoNoob said:


> On the bolded statement, I think you're just throwing balm at the posters who doubt TMA, have had trouble making it work FOR THEM.  Being ambassadorial.
> 
> You remind of certain TMA instructors I've run into who always claim there's alway something I'm not doing the way they want.  I went to a local Isshin Ryu club.  The Head Master was nigh on eighty.  Now Okinawan karate is a superior karate style in certain ways to my more Japanese link-ed karate style.  So I kind of expected his arrogance when I got it.  I really didn't like Isshin Ryu at all.  It was too stylized with complexity, and I understand the founder created the style around WW II to make karate (supposedly) more effective at fighting.
> 
> ...



I hear some slight accuracies in very small parts of what you are saying, but man, you are pathological.


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 29, 2018)

ShotoNoob said:


> The bolded text makes all the sense in the world.  Collective knowledge is superior particularly when one is ignorant.  I find everyday karate instructors who are quite knowledgeable on the technicals, the techniques, for instance.  This approach is also implicit in your opening sentence.  What makes you think this is some isolated method for my program?
> 
> I have a very sound understanding of what TMA is, unlike the majority of the commentators here.  Not sure how surpassed they are.  I've heard that refrain from continuous string of martial artists who thought they had 'surpassed.'  Because they valued themselves relative to a peer group of either like thinkers, or against obviously weaker practitioners.
> 
> ...



When I joined this forum, I tried to be thoughtful of others and provide a good bio on my profile. The relevant information is there for anyone to see. I checked yours and there is nothing. Nothing. How about you enlighten us all and provide your apparently very comprehensive background. Help us all get on the same playing field so we can digest the wellspring of information you provide.


----------



## ShotoNoob (Oct 29, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> When I joined this forum, I tried to be thoughtful of others and provide a good bio on my profile. The relevant information is there for anyone to see. I checked yours and there is nothing. Nothing. How about you enlighten us all and provide your apparently very comprehensive background. Help us all get on the same playing field so we can digest the wellspring of information you provide.



You'd be justified in your position, if I were applying for a job with you.  But that presumes I'd want to work for you, which I don't.


----------



## ShotoNoob (Oct 29, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> When I joined this forum, I tried to be thoughtful of others and provide a good bio on my profile. The relevant information is there for anyone to see. I checked yours and there is nothing. Nothing. How about you enlighten us all and provide your apparently very comprehensive background. Help us all get on the same playing field so we can digest the wellspring of information you provide.


 When I came to my current dojo, all my past rank and belts went out the window.  They have that tradition that everyone with the org. begins as a white belt.  Fine with me.

The counterpoint is the professional respects other's accomplishments of that person.  Which they didn't really recognize.  And so many made fools out of themselves, as indicated is some of the posts I've recounted.

However, the doubters and arrogant, most came around pretty quickly.  There's always those sore losers.  Like I said, the instructors now come to me for advice.  Can't help with much of that since it's related to the org. politics and instructor / student & marketing issues.  All that kind of business issues that those running the dojo must handle beyond the art.

I'm there as an informal  resource for those who want to gain a better understanding of the curriculum.


----------



## ShotoNoob (Oct 29, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> I hear some slight accuracies in very small parts of what you are saying, but man, you are pathological.


 Well, your answer is cute.  I wondered what you'd do if I called your "mysticism" trump card.  And extensive resume on paper doesn't a master make.

As I recounted, there is always the desire to be the top dog.  At the Isshin Ryu club, the eighty year old 6th degree was more interested in preserving his past glory, evident by his dumping on the new students.  The 2nd degree who ran the class was all involved in his instructor-ship.  The newbie who pulled the sucker punch stunt on me, was all eager to be the next Bruce Lee.  The 2nd degree black-belt fighter couldn't resist dropping the newbie with that power spinning back kick.

I didn't participate because I'm not a dog.


----------



## ShotoNoob (Oct 29, 2018)

kempodisciple said:


> So what does it mean that you're so focused on what people you are talking to?



I've got more than a decade of training the TMA, primarily a fairly basic karate style adapted largely from Shotokan karate.  Many thousands of hours of training.

Two TMA I attend free @ my current dojo I was awarded a scholarship to train to black-belt free.  My 1st TMA school shut down and reopened under the head instructor.  I'm free to come there to train any time without charge.

I've also defeated every single karate instructor I have ever sparred.  But of course, those instructors had a false idea of how skilled they were.  There's other karate instructors and TMA instructors around town I know I couldn't defeat.  The most frequent style of those being the kung fu instructors.

That's my "blog" resume.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 29, 2018)

ShotoNoob said:


> I've got more than a decade of training the TMA, primarily a fairly basic karate style adapted largely from Shotokan karate.  Many thousands of hours of training.
> 
> Two TMA I attend free @ my current dojo I was awarded a scholarship to train to black-belt free.  My 1st TMA school shut down and reopened under the head instructor.  I'm free to come there to train any time without charge.
> 
> ...


A whole decade????

Wow.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Oct 29, 2018)

ShotoNoob said:


> I've got more than a decade of training the TMA, primarily a fairly basic karate style adapted largely from Shotokan karate.  Many thousands of hours of training.
> 
> Two TMA I attend free @ my current dojo I was awarded a scholarship to train to black-belt free.  My 1st TMA school shut down and reopened under the head instructor.  I'm free to come there to train any time without charge.
> 
> ...


Well, i have twice the training time, but i actually hadnt asked for your resume at all. That was some other people. Id also much rather spar with the instructors that would whoop my ***, then with the ones i know i can beat. Its nice to say, but doesnt improve my skill at all


----------



## Headhunter (Oct 29, 2018)

ShotoNoob said:


> I've got more than a decade of training the TMA, primarily a fairly basic karate style adapted largely from Shotokan karate.  Many thousands of hours of training.
> 
> Two TMA I attend free @ my current dojo I was awarded a scholarship to train to black-belt free.  My 1st TMA school shut down and reopened under the head instructor.  I'm free to come there to train any time without charge.
> 
> ...


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 29, 2018)

ShotoNoob said:


> You'd be justified in your position, if I were applying for a job with you.  But that presumes I'd want to work for you, which I don't.


Oh y


ShotoNoob said:


> You'd be justified in your position, if I were applying for a job with you.  But that presumes I'd want to work for you, which I don't.


Yea sure, I'm certain you are underqualified. Your name is half right. You certainly are a noob.


----------



## ShotoNoob (Oct 30, 2018)

kempodisciple said:


> Well, i have twice the training time, but i actually hadnt asked for your resume at all. That was some other people. Id also much rather spar with the instructors that would whoop my ***, then with the ones i know i can beat. Its nice to say, but doesnt improve my skill at all


Silly, they (the instructors) challenged me. You're in the who can I beat up mindset / camp.  The only thing one learns from sparring with higher-skilled instructors is what you should have know to begin with.  You aren't good enough.

Reminds me of the hard sparring pair during my intro stint @ the Isshin ryu school.  The Newbie who gets his clock cleaned (he knew nothing when he thought he could try something on a 2nd degree black-belt who prizes fighting); and that 2nd Degree Fighter who can't resist the kill shot against the self-puffed newbie.

You've trained twice as long yet haven't progressed in understanding the objectives of training compared to where I was in a month.

Your's it the mindset of the boxer (I think that was in your list).  Sparring can produce good, even higher level skills.  This is quite evident in boxing progress.  Not @ the level of traditional karate though.


----------



## ShotoNoob (Oct 30, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Oh y
> 
> Yea sure, I'm certain you are underqualified. Your name is half right. You certainly are a noob.


Yeah, well since this is an internet blog, I only know you can type in intelligent sounding stuff; however, the giveaway is the slant of self made superior you.  Just like the eighty-something Isshin Ryu 6th degree holding onto past glories.

Top dog-itis.


----------



## ShotoNoob (Oct 30, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> When I use the term MMA here, I am including most all the modern fighting styles. As it is, they are an evolutionary expression. Over time, people have absorbed enough information and come to understand, in broad brush strokes what TMA is. And just like the evolution of anything, people have challenged it, learned from it, perceived its strengths and weaknesses and adapted. *It is a fools errand to think if you take a large sample of tenured TMA and MMA people and score them on purely fighting to a set of rules used in the ring that MMA would not have a lopsided win.*



This is well written with wrong conclusion.  It proposes an absolute* without*  you providing your definition, description of TMA.  What you proclaim is that there is quote- big chunks missing - then like all typical MMA proponents, conveniently drop the ball.

Here's a buzzword; "evolution."  Meaning _* I know better *_than the collective wisdom of the let's say karate masters.  So of course, "fools errand" makes the perfect case - out of nothing.

Your next paragraph talks about the scoring on the whole of each contestants skills then TMA would prevail.  Huh?  Traditional karate principles extend universally.   The skills are universal, and readily transferable.



dvcochran said:


> I am not sure what you are arguing for. You passionate, strange and misguiding story is wonderful to hear and should be heard. But the story needs to be refined as it is not in a model that will be effectively heard. One reality is that MMA and the like is not going away. It is evolution happening before out eyes. *The conversation must be about how/why we bash each other and how we bridge a gap so that ALL Martial Forms can become united and stay healthy.*



I've said this multiple times already, we are communicating on an internet blog... It's not like hands on practice or training.  Oh, back to you're donning the superior one mantle ) "strange," "misguided."

I've never encountered anything like your closing line.  And we have some super egos heading up our org.  Your statement about the how/why of bashing, I had it right, you are squarely in beat the other guy up camp.  With martial health in mind. no less.  Whatever that means & let's toss in "evolution" again.

My model ain't your model.


----------



## ShotoNoob (Oct 30, 2018)

dvcochran said:


> Oh y
> 
> Yea sure, I'm certain you are underqualified. Your name is half right. You certainly are a noob.


Speaking of noobs, here's your elite (marketing to your MMA minded, pays the bill students) MMA competitors, top ranked in the UFC.
*Was Khabib Rocked Against Michael Johnson? Joe Rogan Exposed*
136,210 views







FR MMA 2
Published on Apr 12, 2018

Yeah, the narrative on martial art training models isn't getting through.  True Champion Wrestling's always gonna win over wild hay makers.  MMA's constantly evolving alright, from not knowing how to fight to - something or other.

What MMA the business does, is make tons of money.  Time for you to cash in, eh?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Oct 30, 2018)

ShotoNoob said:


> Silly, they (the instructors) challenged me. You're in the who can I beat up mindset / camp.  The only thing one learns from sparring with higher-skilled instructors is what you should have know to begin with.  You aren't good enough.


Entirely untrue, in any sport or event. One of the best ways to improve in something is to compete against those who are better than you. This has been factually proven, and was actually one of the first social psychology studies done.



> You've trained twice as long yet haven't progressed in understanding the objectives of training compared to where I was in a month.



Or maybe we have different objectives? If you want, you can share yours, I can share mine and we can compare.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Oct 30, 2018)

ShotoNoob said:


> Silly, they (the instructors) challenged me. You're in the who can I beat up mindset / camp.  The only thing one learns from sparring with higher-skilled instructors is what you should have know to begin with.  You aren't good enough.
> 
> Reminds me of the hard sparring pair during my intro stint @ the Isshin ryu school.  The Newbie who gets his clock cleaned (he knew nothing when he thought he could try something on a 2nd degree black-belt who prizes fighting); and that 2nd Degree Fighter who can't resist the kill shot against the self-puffed newbie.
> 
> ...


Forgot to add two things to my original reply...1: The places you've trained at seem F'ed up. Instructors challenging students, people actively trying to hurt new students, or show their superiority. None of the places I've trained at do anything like that, and honestly if I went to a school and saw what you've described going on, I would walk out.
2: I actually don't care in the slightest who I can beat up. I'm not out to challenge anyone or prove myself better...I had enough of that in my teens. Now for me it's about self-improvement (and teaching beginners, I've found lately that I get an odd joy out of that), but like I said in my last reply, competition has been proven, in any field, sport or otherwise, to help improve oneself.


----------



## ShotoNoob (Oct 30, 2018)

kempodisciple said:


> Entirely untrue, in any sport or event. One of the best ways to improve in something is to compete against those who are better than you. This has been factually proven, and was actually one of the first social psychology studies done.



Well, I qualified my stance to differentiate the difference between sport methods, what you propose; and the traditional martial art method.  You cite factually proven.  I can cite TAM'rs who have different experience, including myself.

So you say some "first" social psychology studies 'factually" proves so.  I guess a social psychologist is then who you should hang on the wall of your dojo.  Here's a sample of my kind of study:

http://www.tkdchungdokwan.com/files/TkdStudentManual2012.pdf

This one has pluses + minuses.  Theres' quite a variety among traditional karate manuals, given the numerous styles and orgs. within styles.  Quality is all over the place, some cover or emphasize this, others that.  Hey, there's even social studies content in there too, like rules for practicing the art, and codes of conduct.



kempodisciple said:


> Or maybe we have different objectives? If you want, you can share yours, I can share mine and we can compare.



We have some commonality on objectives, some difference.  Difference in approach.  For one, the styles of Shaolin kempo and American kenpo are much more sophisticated TMA styles compared to my rather basic karate style.  The bane of these styles is that they are of such higher level and complex, is practitioners fail to access their higher strengths and effectiveness.

So practitioners and this is true of karateka as well, go to the active kumite to learn, as you clearly propose.  I'm mean look at how Stephen Thompson fights in MMA, or his kickboxing full contact.  It's almost nothing like the kempo he claims to have mastered (3rd degree?).  Look at his MMA training, it's kickboxing done rather poorly at that.  When the high pressure was on with physically daunting MMA opponents, he crumbled.

This is why I train a much more basic karate like Shotokan, but not Shotokan.  It's so much more doable than kenpo, yet very difficult compared to MMA sport training.  Note however, as one approaches the black-belt, the techniques in my style begin to assimilate somewhat of a kenpo nature.  Not really kenpo, not that sophisticated.

What I think is very interesting on this forum is to see how Simon, that Kyo Greenbelt progresses.  I saw you guys started a post regarding the flinching, which I just commented upon.   HHHmmmmm.


----------



## ShotoNoob (Oct 30, 2018)

kempodisciple said:


> Forgot to add two things to my original reply...1: The places you've trained at seem F'ed up. Instructors challenging students, people actively trying to hurt new students, or show their superiority.



People have overworking egos.  It's prevalent in human nature, especially prevalent in social media.

At my first TMA school, one of the assistant instructors told me one day that you aren't a bona fide karateka until you've had a bone broken.  He continued to say that another karate school of some Okinawan style, the instructor broke on of his bones.  Later one class, he elbowed me hard in the ribs, and oh did that hurt.  Of course he was much bigger and was stronger than I was too.

Part of that stemmed from his frustration outside of the school.  He was working as a temp, non-union position at a company and had been waiting years to get a full time union spot.  Out of frustration, he came in and was in the rut of over-training.  He kept doing kata on & on out of frustration, to work off his frustration.

He was the first TMA instructor who challenged me to sparring, there clearly point fighting.   I said ok.  The instant he said go, I hit him so fast he never saw it coming.  The truth is the technique and the mindful manner in which I hit him made the strike fast in effect so that he had no time to react.  From then on he was very cordial to me, he took the loss like a good sport.  He later opened his own TMA school.

See, I had realized TMA effectiveness powered by the principles I've talked about.  And I had been practicing about 4-8 hours a day for say three months when he challenged me.  As I spoke earlier, I didn't have any real power in my strikes at that time.  I was in really good condition though.



kempodisciple said:


> None of the places I've trained at do anything like that, and honestly if I went to a school and saw what you've described going on, I would walk out.



Well you're on a different planet than I'm on.  There's always showoffs, bullies, the arrogant. Surprise, surprise.  I posted how I walked away from the Isshin Ryu club.



kempodisciple said:


> 2: I actually don't care in the slightest who I can beat up. I'm not out to challenge anyone or prove myself better...I had enough of that in my teens. Now for me it's about self-improvement (and teaching beginners, I've found lately that I get an odd joy out of that), but like I said in my last reply, competition has been proven, in any field, sport or otherwise, to help improve oneself.



In my teens, I never cared to beat people up.  It's that I could would be important.  You believe in competition; for brevity I believe in repetition done to principle.  There's more karate practitioner's in the kumite training camp like you; that's not the traditional karate model,  however.

Plus the main posters here are invested in martial arts schools.  They have to appeal to the public for financial success.  Look a the goings on in the Isshin ryu club.  The only solid practitioner, with a nod to the 2nd degree fighter, was the middle aged 3rd degree.  The kickboxer was running over all the belt ranks. The quality of competitor in TMA schools is often low.  They walk through the program, like MMA competitors work through their camps, with brain largely off.  You can get away with that in sport fighting, it can kill you in TMA, sap the life right out of it.

I'm perfectly fine with people relying on free sparring, the sport competition model.  However, that's not way to excel at traditional karate, American kenpo, or Shaolin Kempo by my understanding.


----------



## Headhunter (Oct 30, 2018)

ShotoNoob said:


> Silly, they (the instructors) challenged me. You're in the who can I beat up mindset / camp.  The only thing one learns from sparring with higher-skilled instructors is what you should have know to begin with.  You aren't good enough.
> 
> Reminds me of the hard sparring pair during my intro stint @ the Isshin ryu school.  The Newbie who gets his clock cleaned (he knew nothing when he thought he could try something on a 2nd degree black-belt who prizes fighting); and that 2nd Degree Fighter who can't resist the kill shot against the self-puffed newbie.
> 
> ...


Oh be quiet, you do realise no ones taking your nonsense seriously right now?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Oct 30, 2018)

ShotoNoob said:


> Well, I qualified my stance to differentiate the difference between sport methods, what you propose; and the traditional martial art method.  You cite factually proven.  I can cite TAM'rs who have different experience, including myself.
> 
> So you say some "first" social psychology studies 'factually" proves so.  I guess a social psychologist is then who you should hang on the wall of your dojo.  Here's a sample of my kind of study:
> 
> ...


To clarify, i was not asking the differences between the purpose of shaolin kempo and shotokan karate. I wanted to know what YOUR (as an individual) objective is to learning martial arts, and i will share my own (as an individual) objective so we can compare. Identifying what my arts objective is only tells you what the founder of the art cared about, and honestly i cant stand the founder of SKK (@Buka want to go on a villari rant?)

Ive no clue what flinching comment youre referring to. I probably havent read that thread and your getting my comment confused with someone else...or just lumping all the forum posters together.


----------



## ShotoNoob (Oct 30, 2018)

Headhunter said:


> Oh be quiet, you do realise no ones taking your nonsense seriously right now?


Of course not, 'cause you're right you said so.


----------



## ShotoNoob (Oct 30, 2018)

kempodisciple said:


> To clarify, i was not asking the differences between the purpose of shaolin kempo and shotokan karate. I wanted to know what YOUR (as an individual) objective is to learning martial arts, and i will share my own (as an individual) objective so we can compare. Identifying what my arts objective is only tells you what the founder of the art cared about, and honestly i cant stand the founder of SKK (@Buka want to go on a villari rant?)



Well, for one, I suspect the "realness" of some of the posters here.  When I recount examples clearly specified by, most definately contained in the traditional karate curriculum of the 20th Century let's say, and comments come back as incredulous, well....

This is why I typically get along with karate instructors.  I'm open to what they have to say, but I always relate how I practice and what I believe back to the curriculum.  And can provide a coherent explanation.  I also got thrown out of a karate dojo by a woman black-belt instructor who didn't want to hear anything I had to say.  OTOH, I'm usually more compatible with woman instructors than men.  Most karate instructors in my area will listen and discuss.  It's typically the more sport-competitor ones who believe they know it all, are so good in there own mind.  And like the 2nd degree Isshin ryu black-belt, they can be very, very good fighters.

What I did was walk into TMA schools and learn what the curriculum was about.  Followed the curriculum as taught by various instructors. Listened to what they said.  Followed along and practiced what they taught.  Got a hold of manuals and compared and studied them.

Like many people, I was interested in self defense.  I was also interested in winning at kumite competition because then this was a test.  So that's a start.

I have no interest in creating my own martial art.  Zero.  Within that, there are some areas of my own karate style which I diverge or depart from the strict curriculum.  Instructors will tell you some dumb stuff along the way because we are all flawed.  So I ignore what I have come to understand as dumb or wrong.  But this is ok because I'm always using traditional karate or TMA principles.



kempodisciple said:


> Ive no clue what flinching comment youre referring to. I probably havent read that thread and your getting my comment confused with someone else...or just lumping all the forum posters together.



I'm tying subject areas together.  This was in response to kumite tournament trouble Simon was recounting, and a thread was just started.  And having_ no_ idea is a standard reply here.

So, what's motivating your participation in martial arts?


----------



## ShotoNoob (Oct 30, 2018)

kempodisciple said:


> Identifying what my arts objective is only tells you what the founder of the art cared about, and honestly i cant stand the founder of SKK (@Buka want to go on a villari rant?)



Bruce Lee was of course an inspiration to me.  An inspiration, not an idol.  He once quoted the traditional karates as a "classical mess."  IMO this is true.  Yet it is an incomplete truth; therefore false as a principle truth.

This BUKA you say have founded SKK, which I take it is some kenpo karate style.  People founding their own arts, and like GPS, presume the TAM models, like Bruce advocated, were somehow broken or seriously impaired.

 My presumption, based upon my personal training experience, is that I DO NOT know more than the masters, in principle.  There is all kinds of trouble, etc.  with karate styles, we can criticize like Bruce Lee.  Yet that overlooks the bigger picture of why the masters proposed what they did and why this is common, why these commonalities are spread across all the traditional karate styles which sprang up all over asia, the TMA model.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Oct 30, 2018)

ShotoNoob said:


> Bruce Lee was of course an inspiration to me.  An inspiration, not an idol.  He once quoted the traditional karates as a "classical mess."  IMO this is true.  Yet it is an incomplete truth; therefore false as a principle truth.
> 
> This BUKA you say have founded SKK, which I take it is some kenpo karate style.  People founding their own arts, and like GPS, presume the TAM models, like Bruce advocated, were somehow broken or seriously impaired.
> 
> My presumption, based upon my personal training experience, is that I DO NOT know more than the masters, in principle.  There is all kinds of trouble, etc.  with karate styles, we can criticize like Bruce Lee.  Yet that overlooks the bigger picture of why the masters proposed what they did and why this is common, why these commonalities are spread across all the traditional karate styles which sprang up all over asia, the TMA model.


To clarify, fred villari is the one that founded skk (shaolin kempo karate). Buka just happens to share my immense dislike for the guy.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Oct 30, 2018)

ShotoNoob said:


> Well, for one, I suspect the "realness" of some of the posters here.  When I recount examples clearly specified by, most definately contained in the traditional karate curriculum of the 20th Century let's say, and comments come back as incredulous, well....
> 
> This is why I typically get along with karate instructors.  I'm open to what they have to say, but I always relate how I practice and what I believe back to the curriculum.  And can provide a coherent explanation.  I also got thrown out of a karate dojo by a woman black-belt instructor who didn't want to hear anything I had to say.  OTOH, I'm usually more compatible with woman instructors than men.  Most karate instructors in my area will listen and discuss.  It's typically the more sport-competitor ones who believe they know it all, are so good in there own mind.  And like the 2nd degree Isshin ryu black-belt, they can be very, very good fighters.
> 
> ...


Regarding realness: you think theyre the same person in multiple accounts, or you think they dont practice anything? 

To make sure i understand: your initial purpose for training was self defense and kumite/sparring? Is that still your goal or has it changed? From your posta ive gathered its more along the self-enlightenment route, although i could be wrong.

For me, my reason for training is that it is something I can focus on, and takes me out of whatever is happening in my life. Its something where i can see consistent improvement, and the dojo is a place of peace. I also learned a lot on how to handle anger and aggression through martial arts, qnd going back to class can help me with continue my own anger management. The fighting and stuff is very much secondary for me, at least currently.

Regarding the tournament, i think i read the first page or two, then stopped. So youre probably getting me confused with someone else.


----------



## Buka (Oct 30, 2018)

ShotoNoob said:


> This BUKA you say have founded SKK, which I take it is some kenpo karate style.  People founding their own arts, and like GPS, presume the TAM models, like Bruce advocated, were somehow broken or seriously impaired.



I'm sorry, bro, I'm slow on the uptake sometimes. I don't understand. Please be patient explaining.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 30, 2018)

ShotoNoob said:


> I've said this multiple times already, we are communicating on an internet blog


Yes. Yes, you have. And you've been wrong every time you've said it. But what do such details matter, when you can't fill in the bigger concepts of your own posts?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 30, 2018)

kempodisciple said:


> Forgot to add two things to my original reply...1: The places you've trained at seem F'ed up. Instructors challenging students, people actively trying to hurt new students, or show their superiority. None of the places I've trained at do anything like that, and honestly if I went to a school and saw what you've described going on, I would walk out.
> 2: I actually don't care in the slightest who I can beat up. I'm not out to challenge anyone or prove myself better...I had enough of that in my teens. Now for me it's about self-improvement (and teaching beginners, I've found lately that I get an odd joy out of that), but like I said in my last reply, competition has been proven, in any field, sport or otherwise, to help improve oneself.


His description of the places he goes to - and his disparagement of his "current" school - remind me of another poster who complained about his school and talked about how good he was in spite of it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 30, 2018)

ShotoNoob said:


> Well, I qualified my stance to differentiate the difference between sport methods, what you propose; and the traditional martial art method.  You cite factually proven.  I can cite TAM'rs who have different experience, including myself.
> 
> So you say some "first" social psychology studies 'factually" proves so.  I guess a social psychologist is then who you should hang on the wall of your dojo.  Here's a sample of my kind of study:
> 
> ...


Stuff and nonsense. You use so many words, and actually say so very little. No real substance, in spite of all that effort. Effort, it seems, put into avoiding saying anything really important.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 30, 2018)

ShotoNoob said:


> In my teens, I never cared to beat people up.


You seem quite keen on claiming to have done so quite a lot since then. Where did you lose your way?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 30, 2018)

ShotoNoob said:


> What I did was walk into TMA schools and learn what the curriculum was about. Followed the curriculum as taught by various instructors. Listened to what they said. Followed along and practiced what they taught. Got a hold of manuals and compared and studied them.


Hmm...two interesting points here.

You appear to have been in and out of a lot of schools. Yet you take every opportunity to claim some sort of style purity when someone shares that they've gained experience in more than one styles (going so far as to castigate one person who had experience in ::gasp:: 3 styles). Hypocrisy, anyone?
You really think studying a manual really lets you learn much about an art?
It's pretty clear your "more than a decade" of experience isn't really that, at all. You've dabbled for more than a decade. You haven't really been listening to instructors, from what you've said. So you dabble. And, apparently, get in a lot of challenge fights, initiated by instructors. And win them all. Including one that apparently happened early on at your first TMA school.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 30, 2018)

ShotoNoob said:


> Bruce Lee was of course an inspiration to me.  An inspiration, not an idol.  He once quoted the traditional karates as a "classical mess."  IMO this is true.  Yet it is an incomplete truth; therefore false as a principle truth.


Nice attempt to sound wise, while actually saying absolutely nothing. Well done!



> This BUKA you say have founded SKK, which I take it is some kenpo karate style.  People founding their own arts, and like GPS, presume the TAM models, like Bruce advocated, were somehow broken or seriously impaired.


You should actually read what you're replying to.



> My presumption, based upon my personal training experience, is that I DO NOT know more than the masters, in principle.  There is all kinds of trouble, etc.  with karate styles, we can criticize like Bruce Lee.  Yet that overlooks the bigger picture of why the masters proposed what they did and why this is common, why these commonalities are spread across all the traditional karate styles which sprang up all over asia, the TMA model.


Yet, you clearly presume to know more than everyone in this forum (regardless of their experience) and your stories show you believe yourself superior to every instructor you've ever had, as well. The only advantage those masters have, in principle, is you've not met them.


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 30, 2018)

ShotoNoob said:


> This is well written with wrong conclusion.  It proposes an absolute* without*  you providing your definition, description of TMA.  What you proclaim is that there is quote- big chunks missing - then like all typical MMA proponents, conveniently drop the ball.
> 
> Here's a buzzword; "evolution."  Meaning _* I know better *_than the collective wisdom of the let's say karate masters.  So of course, "fools errand" makes the perfect case - out of nothing.
> 
> ...



If you had taken the time to read the first paragraph, you would have understood it was focused on MMA. Even when you are spoon fed the answer, you get it wrong. 

The definition of evolution - "the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form."
I don't know what the hell you are talking about. 

Model? For certain. I am guessing your model is make with match sticks or tinker toys.


----------



## Headhunter (Oct 30, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> His description of the places he goes to - and his disparagement of his "current" school - remind me of another poster who complained about his school and talked about how good he was in spite of it.


Was that the kick boxer who said how bad kickboxing is and how boxing would destroy any kickboxer....that guy was funny


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 30, 2018)

Jeezuz.  The self-delusion on display in this thread is truly...Trumpian...


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 30, 2018)

Headhunter said:


> Was that the kick boxer who said how bad kickboxing is and how boxing would destroy any kickboxer....that guy was funny


I was thinking of the TKD guy. But that one works for the example, too.


----------



## Headhunter (Oct 30, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I was thinking of the TKD guy. But that one works for the example, too.


May hVe been taekwondo as well I dunno. I lose track of all the trolls we get here


----------



## ShotoNoob (Oct 30, 2018)

kempodisciple said:


> To clarify, fred villari is the one that founded skk (shaolin kempo karate). Buka just happens to share my immense dislike for the guy.


Why don't you care for Fred Villari?


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 30, 2018)

skribs said:


> I believe that killing someone is a different application than winning.  Which is covered in my reasons.





> From Steve:
> 
> What am I trying to accomplish that isn't accomplished by another art?
> What is the goal of my art (i.e. defense, art, sport, wellness)?


If I am wrong correct me please.  But the above are the closest I could see to your answer as also quoted above. 

I think most arts started out with a goal of disabling/damaging or killing an opponent (martial).  That would not be true for a purely sport oriented art, but I think most arts want to accomplish that, at least in their initial form.  Granted, killing isn't as socially acceptable as it may have been before (thankfully).

If an opponent is trying to kill you and you kill him instead, you have won.

I like your well thought out comments and particularly the lists you had.  But I don't think your answer above is quite correct, while I think that @Kung Fu Wang's post is very valid.

And my comments are probably all a whirlwind in an overturned bushel basket.


----------



## Kababayan (Nov 8, 2018)

ShotoNoob said:


> The weakness in your system is that it revolves around you.



Sorry I haven't responded earlier.  I haven't been on for a few weeks.  I understand what you are saying and it is a very valid point. That was a main issue that I had to overcome when first creating the system.  I didn't want it to turn into "Kababayan's Karate"...meaning just a mix of my favorite techniques.  If I had done just that (a mix of my favorite techniques), then the system would have revolved around me.  By creating it around a principle that the system revolves around, and I am taken out of the equation.  That way a student of any size and strength can apply the system effectively.  That holds true with most martial arts systems that revolve around principles.   I think strong examples would be TKD and and Ed Parker's Kenpo.  Because TDK revolves around the principle of kicking, anyone no matter size or shape can effectively learn how to kick well.  Because Ed Parker's Kenpo revolves around the principle of speed hands (sorry, I simplified the principle) anyone no matter size or shape can effectively develop really fast hands.  

A perfect example of revolving a system around a group of "favorite" techniques (hybrid art) would be the Kempo system that I studied and taught for many years.  I'm a tall, thin person and my friend (and fellow dojo owner) is a short, very stocky person.  We both taught the same techniques but perform them very differently.  My students tend to reflect my style whereas his students reflect his style.  We both taught the same system but performed it very differently.  My students had better kicks but his students focused more on power. That would be a perfect example of a system revolving around a particular instructor rather than a particular principle.


----------



## Kababayan (Nov 8, 2018)

[QUOTE="ShotoNoob, post: 1933340, member: 33216".  Sounds like a specialized self defense system.  With all that complexity, how do you expect everyday students to remember all that theory in the heat of a self defense battle?  I could see maybe some professional mastering what you propose.[/QUOTE]

I don't know how to multiple quote, so I am just separating the responses from your post.  I understand what you are asking, but you are presuming that the self defense system is too complex to memorize.   Because the system focuses on just a few key movements at each rank, the students are creating the muscle memory needed to perform the techniques in high stress situations.  It's a similar principle to Krav Maga, which I have to admit I modeled after.  It's also a similar idea to Tony Blauer Outside 90 principle or Michael Janich's Knife system: simple moves to use in high stress situations.  

In contrast, the Kempo system that I used to teach required ten overhead clubs and ten side clubs defenses for Black Belt.  That's twenty different club defenses that a students needs to scroll through within the split seconds of being attacked.  In my system the overhead club defense has similar movements to a hook punch defense (or essentially any attack coming from the upper-side of the body...minus a gun attack).  The students will have performed the movements so many times that it become a natural response no matter the attack.  Here's an example from my system:

I have a technique that I teach for in-for-your-face threats.  It involves pushing the threat across your body while hammer striking the opponent's nose and face multiple times (then push and run away).  I originally learned the technique years ago in a Panatukan/Silat system, and it is also similar to the old-school Krav Maga Toy Soldier technique.  That one set of movements can be applied to:

- Knife to the face
- Gun to the face
- Finger threat in the face
- Push
- Single Lapel Grab
- Third person defense
- Straight punch defense

I'm sure that there are others that I am forgetting to mention.  Rather than having the students memorize a defense to seven different situations, they memorize one set of movements that can be applied to multiple attack scenarios.


----------

