# Help me choose a MA!



## Konrad (Nov 9, 2011)

Hello to all you good folk of martial arts. I have come here to ask of an advice that'll determine what martial arts shall I train. But first of all, to provide some information about myself that'll help in this advice-giving affair. I'm 18 y/o, 5'3" (160 cm) and 130 lbs (59 kg). I also wear glasses (my diopter is -2.5), so that needs to be put in consideration as well so I can choose a MA where I'm not in a huge disadvantage when it comes to sight. My only experience with MA was training karate for a couple of years.

I have befallen into a serious dilemma while considering what MA to train. I understand there is a certain criteria to each and every one, and I shall overlay what I seek from such an art, from the most important to least important factors for myself:

Stature and weight not being a factor, but only determination and strength
Achieving both physical and mental feats, those manifesting in an improved health and self-confidence, a heightened fitness and strength
Being able to apply the learnt materia in untimely events, such as an attack on my person
Encompassing both hand-to-hand combat and weapon usage, most preferably the sword and/or staff
Kata practice available both in solo and in pair
Often duels between trainees
This listing needn't be taken in the full while considering a sport for myself, but these are my wishes after all. Through browsing the Internet and of some already given advice, I have narrowed the choice on the following martial arts:

*aikido*, *jujutsu*, *wing chun*, *kendo *and *hapkido*.

I'd be most obliged if you'd take the time and explain what would I achieve in each of these arts and to tell me in short the how's and what's of their training. Got any other martial arts to suggest? Then please so (but says your reasons please)! Or maybe some questions about myself that'll help in determing what MA is ideal for me? Ask them freely. 

However, from the articles I have read and videos I have seen, the two martial arts that I like the most at the moment are aikido and kendo.

Thank you in advance!


----------



## Cyriacus (Nov 9, 2011)

Alrighty Good Sir.



Konrad said:


> Hello to all you good folk of martial arts.
> 
> *Greetings!
> *
> ...



From what i can see, if You could find a Jujutsu Form that did Grappling AND Striking together, itd Work for You. I think some use Weapons also.
That said, since You seem convinced Your Height is somehow a Factor in the slightest, Youd probably like Wing Chun, for their Application and Training Methodology/Idealogy.

Kendo is an Odd Choice for what You want, since it only Fulfils one or two Paramaters. Aikido is perhaps a bit more fulfilling in that regard.

Anything else?


----------



## SuperFLY (Nov 9, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> Kendo is an Odd Choice for what You want, since it only Fulfils one or two Paramaters. Aikido is perhaps a bit more fulfilling in that regard.


expanding on that, Aikido normally also includes some iaido or sword training as part of it (helps train you to concentrate on your center and use the circular motion) as well as some other weapons techniques and defence so would help satisfy some more of your criteria.

make no mistake though, Aikido is NOT a striking art so if you did karate and want more of the same it couldnt be further apart. that said its a great art and a useful addition to my existing karate training  (i do both)


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 9, 2011)

The cost has to be taken into consideration if you want to do kendo, my other half looked into doing it but even with second hand gear it cost too much.

Before deciding what style you want to do and finding out no one does it near enough to you, find out whats' available to you locally. The style is far less important than finding a sympathetic place to train where you get on well with the instructors who you feel are trustworthy and you can learn from them. Being taller or shorter and wearing glasses means very little to be honest and is unlikely to debar you from any style.

So your first job is to find out what's available to you, check them all out, pick which one suits you, don't sign any contracts then train hard and enjoy.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 9, 2011)

Have you looked at what is available to you in your area?  It's useless to somehow determine that Ultimate Ninja MMA Maga Do is the best art for you -- if the only place it's taught is in Antarctica, and you can't relocate.

The rest of it?  Just things you'll have to learn to work with anyway, just like you do in day-to-day life.

Look at the schools available to you.  See which ones seem like places and people you want to train with.  See which teachers impress you with their knowledge and teaching style.  Will the class schedule work with your other obligations?  Can you afford it?  Visit several schools, and go from there.


----------



## Konrad (Nov 9, 2011)

Thank you for all your replies! It helped me clear out some misunderstandings I had about martial arts and to get a clearer picture of what I want and need. And yes, all of the martial arts I mentioned are available in my area. With some further research and consideration, I have narrowed the choice down to three martial arts, and those are *aikido*, *hapkido *and *kendo*. What I now must do is to attend the dojos and finally decide what MA to undertake.

What I like with aikido is that is a highly defensive art, and is considerate of the well-being of the attacker as well, although it is amiss in strike attacks. Whereas it is that the latest department is very prevalent in hapkido. A new dilemma arises... heh.

I do wonder though how realistic it would be to cross-train, and exactly what. But right now I'm thinking aikido and kendo would the thing.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 9, 2011)

Konrad said:


> Hello to all you good folk of martial arts. I have come here to ask of an advice that'll determine what martial arts shall I train. But first of all, to provide some information about myself that'll help in this advice-giving affair. I'm 18 y/o, 5'3" (160 cm) and 130 lbs (59 kg). I also wear glasses (my diopter is -2.5), so that needs to be put in consideration as well so I can choose a MA where I'm not in a huge disadvantage when it comes to sight. My only experience with MA was training karate for a couple of years.
> 
> I have befallen into a serious dilemma while considering what MA to train. I understand there is a certain criteria to each and every one, and I shall overlay what I seek from such an art, from the most important to least important factors for myself:
> 
> ...



If I may be so outre as to recommend one of my own posts...

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?98286-For-Beginners-The-Best-Martial-Art-of-All


----------



## Cyriacus (Nov 9, 2011)

Konrad said:


> Thank you for all your replies! It helped me clear out some misunderstandings I had about martial arts and to get a clearer picture of what I want and need. And yes, all of the martial arts I mentioned are available in my area. With some further research and consideration, I have narrowed the choice down to three martial arts, and those are *aikido*, *hapkido *and *kendo*. What I now must do is to attend the dojos and finally decide what MA to undertake.
> 
> What I like with aikido is that is a highly defensive art, and is considerate of the well-being of the attacker as well, although it is amiss in strike attacks. Whereas it is that the latest department is very prevalent in hapkido. A new dilemma arises... heh.
> 
> I do wonder though how realistic it would be to cross-train, and exactly what. But right now I'm thinking aikido and kendo would the thing.


Crosstraining is Realistic.
Alot of Us do it. Its Common.
Aikido is only considerate of Your Opponent in Training. In Application, if Your Opponent doesnt move WITH the Manipulation, it will Harm them. It only looks like Youre being Careful.
Hapkido comes in 2-3 Flavors as well.

So Yeah, go Spectate.


----------



## Sanke (Nov 10, 2011)

Konrad said:


> What I like with aikido is that is a highly defensive art, and is considerate of the well-being of the attacker as well



Sorry, but as has been said, you couldn't be more wrong  Aikido is designed so that when the attacker doesn't know how to react to a defense, it hurts them. Quite badly. 
That's half the fun  but to be honest, I thought that too when I first looked at it, so I get the feeling it's a common mistake 




Sanke on the move.


----------



## SuperFLY (Nov 10, 2011)

aye the considerate part is mainly on the uke's (the person the technique is being done to) side. if they dont know how to ukemi/fall properly then it'll hurt. obviously when training you go slower and dont crank on a technique but its still effective.

should point out as well that although Aikido is not a striking art strikes do get introduced as a way of distracting and of course injuring your assailant. a shot in the groin doing a kaitenage is common or a kick to the knee when doing a nikkyo to help gauge distance and weaken their stance for example and a lot of 2nd form techniques start with a strike to bring your free hand into play but as you say it is a defensive art and primarily used for defence and control. how much you hurt your uke is up to you and if trained, up to them too.

quite often when training our instructors say 'if you (as an uke) get hurt its your fault but if your nage hurts you remember its your turn next'  heh


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 11, 2011)

Right, I'm going to weigh in here, there are a few things that seem to need some clarification.

To begin with, I'll take Cyriacus' answers to the initial post, then look at a few others....



Konrad said:


> Hello to all you good folk of martial arts.
> 
> *
> 
> ...



And welcome aboard from me.



Konrad said:


> I have come here to ask of an advice that'll determine what martial arts shall I train. But first of all, to provide some information about myself that'll help in this advice-giving affair. I'm 18 y/o, 5'3" (160 cm) and 130 lbs (59 kg). I also wear glasses (my diopter is -2.5), so that needs to be put in consideration as well
> 
> *
> 
> ...



Cyriacus is absolutely correct here, none of that really means a thing, honestly. The only times that size/weight comes into it is in competition, and in that case you are matched up with other competitors of roughly equal size.

I will note, though, that probably the only physical trait that may have some real bearing isn't mentioned... what gender are you? The physical dimensions you provide could honestly be either... 



Konrad said:


> so I can choose a MA where I'm not in a huge disadvantage when it comes to sight.
> 
> *
> 
> ...



Now, to be fair, it would probably rule out Kyudo (Japanese archery). Although, in many forms it's not about getting a bullseye, or even hitting the target, it's about the mindset at the point of release. So maybe not.



Konrad said:


> My only experience with MA was training karate for a couple of years.
> 
> *
> 
> ...



Okay, here's where we start to get to something useful. What did you like, or not like about the Karate you trained in? That's probably the best place to start.



Konrad said:


> I have befallen into a serious dilemma while considering what MA to train. I understand there is a certain criteria to each and every one,
> 
> *
> 
> ...



Ha, what Cyriacus is getting at here is that, while certain arts will have preferences, there really isn't anything like actual criteria for any art, other than the willingness to train and learn.



Konrad said:


> and I shall overlay what I seek from such an art, from the most important to least important factors for myself:
> 
> Stature and weight not being a factor, but only determination and strength
> *
> ...



I wouldn't look too hard at the idea of strength being a factor, you'll find that most systems try to avoid relying on that, as there is always someone stronger.



Konrad said:


> Achieving both physical and mental feats, those manifesting in an improved health and self-confidence, a heightened fitness and strength
> *
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, this is rather vague and meaningless, honestly. It's almost like saying you want a martial arts experience that lets you do things, probably things you haven't done before, so you can be more confident about doing things.... uh, okay. Well, that's all of them. The question is, what are you wanting to be able to do?



Konrad said:


> Being able to apply the learnt materia in untimely events, such as an attack on my person
> *
> 
> 
> ...



I'm going to be frank here, and probably burst a bubble or two.

No martial art on the planet is designed with self defence in mind in the modern context. In fact, none ever have been. So the idea of learning a martial art for self defence, to be completely frank, is actually fairly counter-productive, at least to begin with, even though that's why a great number of people start. That said, martial arts can form the basis of a self defence ability and skill set, and the applicability of what you learn to a self defence scenario will be more to do with the instructor and the way the system is trained than what exact system it is.



Konrad said:


> Encompassing both hand-to-hand combat and weapon usage, most preferably the sword and/or staff
> *
> 
> 
> ...



So you know, you've just gone in the opposite direction to your last criteria. You've basically just said that you want something that is designed to handle modern violence, then that you want it to have traditional weaponry components to it as well. That's not an easy thing to find... in fact, I can only think of one place that I know of that deals specifically with that exact situation, after being around for near onto two and a half decades in this. Most traditional schools don't get the disconnect between traditional methods and modern violence, and a system designed and primarily concerned with modern violence will, quite rightly, say that weapons such as swords and staves have no place in a modern system.

Oh, and that one place separates the modern and the traditional into completely separate areas of study and training, even within the one class. They are simply that different.



Konrad said:


> Kata practice available both in solo and in pair
> *
> 
> 
> ...



Okay, if your only other experience is in Karate, then you probably are referring to the Okinawan/Chinese approach to the concept of kata training, which is a sequence of movements trained solo. That is a common training device in such systems, but not universally used. The Japanese form of kata training is more often a paired form, and much shorter, similar to what many systems would simply refer to as a "technique" (in other words, an attack and a defence). In the main, you'd need to pick which form appeals to you more... but I would also say that this is of the least consequence. While a certain training method may appeal more than another, if you choose to learn a system, you have chosen to learn it. That includes it's methods of training, whether you like them or not. Now, if you don't like the long string of solo movements, then Karate and TKD systems won't be something you'd enjoy... so I wouldn't look to them. But if you do like the Karate systems, that means that you will need to embrace the training methods employed, no matter your personal take on them.



Konrad said:


> Often duels between trainees
> *
> 
> 
> ...



Probably the best thing to ask in regard to all of these requirements, or preferences, is why? Some systems won't "spar" at all, for their own reasons, others will feature it quite heavily, and then you have the systems that fit in anywhere in between. So the question is, what does sparring mean to you? Why is it considered important that it is part of the training?



Konrad said:


> This listing needn't be taken in the full while considering a sport for myself, but these are my wishes after all. Through browsing the Internet and of some already given advice, I have narrowed the choice on the following martial arts:
> *
> aikido*, *jujutsu*, *wing chun*, *kendo *and *hapkido*.
> 
> I'd be most obliged if you'd take the time and explain what would I achieve in each of these arts and to tell me in short the how's and what's of their training. Got any other martial arts to suggest? Then please so (but says your reasons please)! Or maybe some questions about myself that'll help in determing what MA is ideal for me? Ask them freely.



Explaining these arts isn't easy, as the only way to really know anything about them is to experience them. Cyriacus has made a good start on it, and I'll expand it slightly here, but bear in mind the only way to really have any understanding, no matter how detailed the answers you get are, is to get some experience in them.

*


Cyriacus said:



			Aikido: Redirecting an Opponents Force in order to Nullify their Attack. Mostly Grappling.
		
Click to expand...

*Aikido is a modern system developed in the 1930's and 40's (pre- and post-WWII) with it's basis coming from Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu as well as a range of other systems, including weaponry systems, such as Yagyu Shinkage Ryu and Kukishin Ryu. It is primarily a system of various joint locks and controls, with throws as well (often as extensions of the joint locks),  it's primary movement is circular, and has the philosophy of not meeting force with force, instead having the ideal of harmonising with the attackers incoming energy/momentum. A beautiful, flowing art, it can take a while to get competant at applying the technical methods in real time.

There are a range of branches of Aikido, such as the Yoshinkan, who were headed by Gozo Shioda, a senior student of Ueshiba Morihei, the founder of Aikido, and who left Ueshiba Sensei prior to WWII, feeling that the art was becoming too "soft". At the time, the primary dojo for Ueshiba was nicknamed the Jigoku Dojo ("Hell" Dojo) for the amount of pain endured by the students practicing there. In the 70's Kenji Tomiki founded his own form (Tomiki Aikido, also known as Shodokan), which is unique in that it has a form of competition, and knife work. The "main" line, the group that remains in the Ueshiba family, is known as Iwama Ryu, or Takemusu. This is sometimes considered the most "complete" form, and includes a weaponry component of AikiKen (sword) and AikiJo (four foot staff). It should be noted, though, that this is not the same as learning the weapons, it is more a way of expressing the Aiki (harmonising energy) concepts of the system with the weapons.


Cyriacus said:


> *Jujutsu comes in many Flavors. It can be Mostly Grappling, Mostly Striking, or a Blend. Id need more Information.*


Ah, Jujutsu. Realistically, it is both a specialised and a general term, depending on the context. As a general term, it refers to Japanese unarmed or lightly armed combative methods, and systems such as Aikido, Judo etc are really a form of Jujutsu when it all comes down to it. Due to the Japanese prevalence for grappling over striking, most Jujutsu systems will have a focus on throwing, or locks and pins, although some do have a heavy focus on striking as well, and a number of them have either overt or implied use of a range of small weapons (such as daggers of various forms, short swords, jutte etc). Additionally, it can be used to refer to a range of Japanese sourced, or inspired modern systems, often with the mis-spelling of "Jiu Jitsu" or similar. These systems include Brazilian Jiu Jitsu (originally based on early Judo, with a high emphasis on ground fighting), Small Circle Jiu Jitsu (a modern system developed in the 60's/70's by the late Wally Jay, based on Japanese methods), Can Ryu, Saduces Ryu, and more.

As a specialist term, it refers to a specific section of a particular schools syllabus, and the exact usage and definition is determined by the system itself. There is also a wide range of other specialist terms used in a variety of systems to refer to their Jujutsu and Jujutsu-related, or Jujutsu-like systems, such as Hade, Te, Yawara, Yawaragei, Wa, Wajutsu, Judo, Goho, Taijutsu, Kogusoku, Koshi no Mawari, Torite, and more. Typically these terms are found in the older traditional Japanese schools (Koryu).


Cyriacus said:


> *Wing Chun: Fast, Relaxed Striking, with an Emphasis on Angles and Centerline. I.e., Aim at the Center. It uses Short Movements.*


Wing Chun is almost unique amongst martial arts in that it is said to have been developed by a woman, a nun Ng Mui, as a practical, easy to learn, principle based system that doesn't rely on muscular strength, instead looking to overwhelm with a barrage attack. The training methods are based more in the application of principles, rather than a formal collection of techniques (there are three forms taught, and a few drilling methods that are pretty well universal in Wing Chun schools, but techniques and technical application can vary quite broadly). Some of those principles include guarding the centre line, and the shortest distance being a straight line. It is known for it's sensitivity drills (Chi Sao), and it's handwork, although there is some grappling applications (referred to as "trapping"), and some kicks, it's primary range is hands. Some schools will also teach a pole (staff) weapon, as well as Butterfly Swords (Bat Charn Dao).


Cyriacus said:


> *Kendo is a Sword Art, so to Speak. It doesnt exactly sound like what Youre looking for. It WOULD be good for You to Crosstrain in though, so You got the Weapon Aspect.*


Kendo, ah. Kendo is a modern sporting approach to sword methods, and isn't really swordsmanship in regard to learning to use a sword. There are a range of reasons for this, including the targets allowed in contests, the emphasis on striking rather than cutting, and so on. While lots of fun, there are better things to train in if you are after actually learning to use a sword.


Cyriacus said:


> *Hapkido: Mostly Grappling and Anti-Grappling with some Strikes Blended in.
> Now, Im not a Walking Encyclopedia. Id Advise asking more Specific Questions.*



Like Aikido, Hapkido comes from Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu, although not as complete an understanding of it. It is then combined with the Korean prevalence for kicking techniques, as well as having a higher emphasis on striking than Aikido does in general. The range of Hapkido schools and approaches covers quite a degree as well, with some being more skewed towards the joint locks and throws, and others being almost Tae Kwon Do with some grappling thrown in.



Konrad said:


> However, from the articles I have read and videos I have seen, the two martial arts that I like the most at the moment are aikido and kendo.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Right. Cross-training. I'm really not a fan of it at all, particularly not in the early stages of training. It's just too easy to get confused, which can lead to a much longer journey before any real progress is made, or, worst case scenario, a lot of wasted time with one being basically discarded. I'd look more for something that covers as much as possible, or narrow down what you're looking for. 

But, from the list we have or needs and systems, Aikido (Takemusu/Iwama Ryu) will give you unarmed methods, as well as some use of sword and staff, but will be missing sparring (although there is a form of randori, free form training, that is employed) and striking to a great degree.

Wing Chun, depending on the school, will give you the bladed and staff weaponry, as well as a striking heavy unarmed system. 

The various Ninjutsu organisations will give you quite a range of unarmed and weaponry methods, although the street defence side of things will vary wildly, with the Jinenkan having pretty much no focus on it, the Genbukan having their own form, and the Bujinkan being terrible, or great, or anywhere inbetween, depending on the instructor.

If you're after cross-training, then I'd probably go for something like BJJ (as you mentioned fitness, and that, as well as sparring, referred to as "rolling" with them, is a big emphasis), and then add a traditional Japanese weapon school, either Iaido (sword drawing methods), or Jodo (staff fighting, where you also learn sword as the "attacker").



SuperFLY said:


> expanding on that, Aikido normally also includes some iaido or sword training as part of it (helps train you to concentrate on your center and use the circular motion) as well as some other weapons techniques and defence so would help satisfy some more of your criteria.
> 
> make no mistake though, Aikido is NOT a striking art so if you did karate and want more of the same it couldnt be further apart. that said its a great art and a useful addition to my existing karate training  (i do both)


 
Just to clarify, only the Iwama Ryu/Takemusu have any sword methods within their system, and it is not the same as learning swordsmanship. Additionally, no Aikido system has any Iai in it whatsoever, with any dojo that offers it having brought it in from outside.



Cyriacus said:


> Crosstraining is Realistic.
> Alot of Us do it. Its Common.
> Aikido is only considerate of Your Opponent in Training. In Application, if Your Opponent doesnt move WITH the Manipulation, it will Harm them. It only looks like Youre being Careful.
> Hapkido comes in 2-3 Flavors as well.
> ...



As I said, I'm not fond of cross-training. Once skill and understanding in your base system is gained and established, it can have a place, but initially it's just not a good idea.



Sanke said:


> Sorry, but as has been said, you couldn't be more wrong  Aikido is designed so that when the attacker doesn't know how to react to a defense, it hurts them. Quite badly.
> That's half the fun  but to be honest, I thought that too when I first looked at it, so I get the feeling it's a common mistake
> 
> Sanke on the move.



One of the base philosophies of Aikido, particularly the post-WWII forms (such as Takemusu/Iwama Ryu) is that no undue injury is caused to the attacker. It should be noted that that does not mean that no injury is caused, just that care is taken to not have injury caused where it is not absolutely required. This comes, to a fair degree, from Ueshiba Sensei's further immersion in a particular sect of Shinto (Omoto Kyo, which some have referred to as a cult), as well as his early studies in Shingon Buddhism. The aim for a lot of Aikido is to immobilise an attacker without causing undue harm, and certainly without killing or permanent injury or maiming. In that way, Aikido is rather considerate to the attacker... far more than other systems are, anyway!

Ah, almost forgot to say this part.

The two best pieces of advice in this thread are Bill's reference to his thread, and JKS's comments about finding out about what is nearby yourself first. Read Bill's thread a few times.... and then look around to see what is nearby for yourself. Visit as many places as you can, and see what "speaks" to you. The right instructor and the right school, with an atmosphere you feel comfortable in, and an instructor you trust, is far more important than the system you study.

All the best with it all.


----------



## rainesr (Nov 11, 2011)

You might consider Wado-Ryu if it is in your area. It is a blend of Shotokan Karate and Japanese Jujutsu. Wado-Ryu has both the longer Okinawan/Chinese style Kata and the Japanese paired Kata Mr. Parker mentioned. 

If you have poor eyesight, styles that are up close and personal like Japenese Jujutsu, Aikido, Judo, Hapkido, Yudo, Wado-Ryu and Shuai Jiao may provide more opportunities early on to develop a sensitivity to touch. As stated above any art should be fine, we have a legally blind instructor at my Kung Fu school and he is very effective.

~Rob


----------



## Cyriacus (Nov 11, 2011)

Dont mind the Blank Spaces. I feel theyre Imperative for Context.



Chris Parker said:


> Right, I'm going to weigh in here, there are a few things that seem to need some clarification.
> 
> To begin with, I'll take Cyriacus' answers to the initial post, then look at a few others....
> 
> ...



Ill mention I brought up Crosstraining so much, because its literally the only way He can fulfill every Parameter. Which I think He needs to Rethink, Honestly.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Nov 11, 2011)

You're 18. Go try each of them out for a few weeks and see what fits you best.


----------



## softstylist (Nov 11, 2011)

Much has been said to assist you in your choice so i,ll stick to just one point and that is concerning your eyesight. If you have a vision inpairment then I would definatly consider an art that uses a hands on grappling/trapping element. I say this a because ones trained your sense of touch is far better than your sense of sight when things get physical and I know this because I have trained in jujutsu for 15 years and always feel a person move/react in a certain way before i see them do it so i believe that arts such as jujutsu, aikido and wing chun are a good choice for you.

I hope you find what your after!


----------



## Konrad (Nov 12, 2011)

I want to thank you all once again, and especially Cyriacus and Chris Parker for your efforts and explaining all those distinctions between martial arts! And also a thanks to Bill Mattocks for that superb thread.

I might not have been clear enough of what I seek in a MA and some of my "demands" might have been a bit unrealistic, but I've finally understood what I desire. I have already decided upon a MA, and that is *aikido*. This great art has everything that I believe I want. I have gone through a complete list of dojos in my area, and have befallen into a consideration between two of them, both officiated from the Hombu dojo. I have already attended a training session in one, and the techniques displayed there have left me in astonishment and in awe. Tomorrow I will attend the other dojo and see which one I favor more. I'll thus begin training next week.

When it comes to cross-training, I won't do that just as yet, or even at all. It will depend on my progression in aikido. I'm thinking maybe in 6 months or a year I'd choose a MA to cross-train in, and I have actually already chosen it. And it is kendo.

And to answer a question from Chris Parker:



> So the question is, what does sparring mean to you? Why is it considered important that it is part of the training?



Cyriacus got it right. It would be something that I'd enjoy in. I want to directly be able to test my skill through sparring.

Also, thanks again, for explaining that distinction between Chinese and Japanese approach to katas. That clarified some matters.


----------



## Cyriacus (Nov 12, 2011)

Best of Luck with all that


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 12, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> Dont mind the Blank Spaces. I feel theyre Imperative for Context.
> 
> *Of course its Vague - The Statement relates to the fact that any Art will give Him that. His Parameter is what needed to be more Specific.*



Maybe some clarification is needed here, I was perhaps not clear enough. I was more saying that Konrad's desired factor was vague, so we were in agreement. It wasn't a criticism of your comment, it was an expansion of it. Sorry if that wasn't clear, my friend.

*


Cyriacus said:



			Indeed - There are still some perhaps better suited to it than others for different People. But lets not get too into this Discussion - I know what Youre saying, and I Agree.
		
Click to expand...

*
Ha, I could link a few threads where I've gone through it.... they're always fun!

*


Cyriacus said:



			Yep - I cant honestly see this Criteria being met. But hey - One can try.
		
Click to expand...

*
Yeah. What I was concerned with, though, was getting Konrad to a more realistic approach, which may mean dropping some ideas in favour of others, rather than try to cater to everything. I don't think that's actually possible no matter how much you may try...

*


Cyriacus said:



			I presume He enjoys it.
		
Click to expand...

*
Cool. I'll come back to this with Konrad in a second.

*


Cyriacus said:



			Contextually, neither am I. Unless its for Fitness, or something like that. But blending Two Martial Arts can be... Cumbersome. Its still pretty Common though.
		
Click to expand...

*
Common, yeah. But that doesn't mean we need to advise it (although some still will, I know, as they have a different belief).



Cyriacus said:


> Ill mention I brought up Crosstraining so much, because its literally the only way He can fulfill every Parameter. Which I think He needs to Rethink, Honestly.



Which was the thrust of what I was getting at. Cool.



Konrad said:


> I want to thank you all once again, and especially Cyriacus and Chris Parker for your efforts and explaining all those distinctions between martial arts! And also a thanks to Bill Mattocks for that superb thread.
> 
> I might not have been clear enough of what I seek in a MA and some of my "demands" might have been a bit unrealistic, but I've finally understood what I desire. I have already decided upon a MA, and that is *aikido*. This great art has everything that I believe I want. I have gone through a complete list of dojos in my area, and have befallen into a consideration between two of them, both officiated from the Hombu dojo. I have already attended a training session in one, and the techniques displayed there have left me in astonishment and in awe. Tomorrow I will attend the other dojo and see which one I favor more. I'll thus begin training next week.
> 
> ...



My pleasure, and glad you got something out of it all. Aikido is a great art, I hope you'll enjoy it.

Now, to the sparring issue. I will say that the only thing that sparring tests is your ability to apply what you learn in a sparring context, not in a real fight context, or anything similar. It's the same with any testing or training method, really, they should always be looked at in the context of what they actually are. Sparring can be great, it can be a very powerful and useful training tool, it can be great fun, but it is far from the be-all end-all as some seem to want it to be.

Within Aikido you'll be hard pressed to find sparring in this context. What you will find, however, is a form of training known as Randori. Randori literally refers to "chaos capture", and is a way of handling un-nominated attacks. As Aikido has a non-aggressive ideal, the idea of having two training partners attacking each other in order to out-perform each other goes pretty well against the training and teaching concepts of the system, so sparring in that way is not really suited. But you will find that Randori will be very similar in terms of testing your ability to apply techniques in a free-form way, so all in all, a good thing.

All the best with everything!


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 12, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> Now, to be fair, it would probably rule out Kyudo (Japanese archery). Although, in many forms it's not about getting a bullseye, or even hitting the target, it's about the mindset at the point of release. So maybe not.



I don't see any reason to rule out Kyudo. I've never done Kyudo, but I have shot (and hunted with) compound, recurve and (European) longbows. Same with rifle, small bore rifle and handguns from .22 to .50 calibre. I shot small bore rifle competitively in HS, with a 270 (of 300) average, and a number of perfect rounds.
I only have one eye, and it's a -6.5 diopter. I spar without glasses, and it's not really an issue. 

The rest of your post is, as usual, excellent reading, but being a little myopic is not an issue for MA training.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 12, 2011)

The method of aiming in Kyudo is fairly different, though, and relies, to a great degree, on both eyes having decent if not good long-range sight. It comes down to the difference in the draw changing the position of the arrow in relation to the eyes and the target, one eye is going to require more compromise and alteration than in the Western projectile methods. But, that said, I was being a little, uh, pithy in my mentioning of Kyudo there, and my point was more that any person-to-person (unarmed, close quarter armed etc) methods wouldn't really be ruled out by such issues.

Agreed on your last point, obviously!


----------



## Cyriacus (Nov 12, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> [/B]
> Maybe some clarification is needed here, I was perhaps not clear enough. I was more saying that Konrad's desired factor was vague, so we were in agreement. It wasn't a criticism of your comment, it was an expansion of it. Sorry if that wasn't clear, my friend.
> 
> *Right
> ...



For the Sparring, if You really just want to do it Recreationally, You could always talk to a _more experienced _Aikidoka, and the Instructor (Sensei, whatever Aikido calls it), and ask if You can do some Friendly Before or After Class Attack/Defense stuff. Similar to Sparring, but shorter in length.
Its an Option to Consider.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 12, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> *Yeah, it doesnt seem like something alot of People would Agree on. But then, I suspect thats often just because they Underthink the Fundamental Functionality of Fighting.*


*
*
More often it's a misunderstanding of what self defence actually entails, which is not really about violence, conflict, or fighting when it really comes down to it. That is the least aspect of self defence, really.



Cyriacus said:


> For the Sparring, if You really just want to do it Recreationally, You could always talk to a _more experienced _Aikidoka, and the Instructor (Sensei, whatever Aikido calls it), and ask if You can do some Friendly Before or After Class Attack/Defense stuff. Similar to Sparring, but shorter in length.
> Its an Option to Consider.



Ha, yeah, it's a Japanese art, so Sensei would be correct. And I'd still advise against suggesting things that go completely against the very ideas that the art itself is trying to teach. There's a reason that Aikido isn't a "sparring" art, same as there are reasons my arts aren't "sparring" arts (the reasons are fairly different, while at the same time, exactly the same), and there are reasons that TKD, Karate, Judo etc all are.


----------



## Cyriacus (Nov 12, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> [/B]
> More often it's a misunderstanding of what self defence actually entails, which is not really about violence, conflict, or fighting when it really comes down to it. That is the least aspect of self defence, really.
> 
> *Yeah. Of course, if it comes down to Violence, Martial Arts do give You many Prequisites to be rather Good at it. But theres alot more to Self Defense than Physical Violence.*
> ...



Overall, Sparring is Unnecessary. Ive Experienced it used Frequently, and now Infrequently. Id have to say, that the things You could be doing to benefit Your Capacities that arent Free-Sparring are Superior to Free-Sparring.


----------



## Konrad (Nov 12, 2011)

Well, when it comes to sparring, as far as I understand it, as long as it's within your chosen dojo and in the cause of improving your abilities and of course yourself. Thus only a friendly match, where both of you are trying to best the other. I imagine this would be available in aikido, even with it's philosophy of non-aggression.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 12, 2011)

The very idea of a match, though, goes against the idea of Aikido. A sparring match in Aikido (in it's purest form) would be two people standing apart, not attacking. The only exception to this is Tomiki Aikido, and for that reason some Aikidoka don't consider it "real" Aikido.


----------



## Konrad (Nov 12, 2011)

Ah, oh well. I guess it's not such a big issue. After all, you get the privilege of learning a very beautiful technique and personal amelioration, and that's what matters anyway.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 12, 2011)

No martial art on the planet is designed with self defence in mind in  the modern context. In fact, none ever have been. So the idea of  learning a martial art for self defence, to be completely frank, is  actually fairly counter-productive, at least to begin with, even though  that's why a great number of people start. That said, martial arts can  form the basis of a self defence ability and skill set, and the  applicability of what you learn to a self defence scenario will be more  to do with the instructor and the way the system is trained than what  exact system it is.

*Indeed - There are still some perhaps better suited to it than others  for different People. But lets not get too into this Discussion - I  know what Youre saying, and I Agree.

*Well, I would be curious.  In another of your posts here Chris Parker, you seem to be saying that self defense is first just doing any and all things that avoid a fight.  That is indeed a good first step.  However, life isn't always so accommodating*.  *When it isn't, then other means of self defense must be used.  That usually is some application of physical action. In that respect I would think most MA are defenses.  If that is what you meant, I can agree.  But to somehow imply that no MA is useful for self defense, in that it can be used that way doesn't gell for me.  Granted many are at least if not more so, useful and geared toward attack as well.  Some, such as Aikido and Hapkido, are very much defense oriented.  Hapkido is mostly responding to an attack of some sort, punch, kick, grab, knife, sword, etc.

In the Hapkido I learned, we were only taught offensive use of techniques just before our BB tests.  Often they were different applications of techniques we had already learned.  We were taught knife defense at the red belt level, but I understand that is now at the 1st Dan level.  At the 1st Dan level we were also taught basic skills with bamboo sword, and then using the short stick to defend against the bamboo sword.  At the 2nd Dan level, we learned a great many short stick techniques.  

I wouldn't say Hapkido uses a lot of kicks.  We are taught them and use them, mostly low kicks for actual combat, but also as a way of understanding what we may defend against.  The are also good for stamina when done repeatedly.  But we really have no expectation of using them in defense as a TKD practitioner would.

Of course, all this refers to the Hapkido I was taught, YMMV.

Konrad - I think you will enjoy Aikido.  It is a great art.  Just to be sure, you might want to stop by a Hapkido school too.  But don't dwell on it too much.  Aikido has a lot to teach and I have thought about studying it myself, when I get myself back in shape.  Hapkido is a little hard to get to where I live.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 12, 2011)

oftheherd1 said:


> Chris Parker said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ah, now here's where it all gets tricky....

To begin with, here's an overview I put in another thread a while back, based around why you wouldn't necessarily want to be training to handle a "trained", or "skilled" opponent if you are looking at self defence as a primary training goal. Go to post 39, page three: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?92226-Kenpo-Ground-Fighting/page3

That said, there are a few bits where you missed what I was saying, so I'll attempt to clarify here.

As you say, life isn't always accommodating enough to let you talk your way out of trouble, or give you enough warning to avoid it, but that should be the main aim of self defence. Basically, the hierarchy of self defence goes - awareness, avoidance, de-escalation, distraction, pre-emptive striking, then defence itself (against a physical attack). If you get to that point, then a lot of things have gone wrong so far.

When it comes to martial arts being defences, that's also not really the case. For one thing, no martial art is designed to handle modern violence (with MMA being probably the closest, honestly, but that's more due to the influence MMA has had on modern violence than the other way around), nor are they designed to deal with modern societal and legal realities. Many martial arts teach things that are simply bad advice from a legal standpoint in many areas as "self defence techniques". I've seen demonstrations of techniques that involve multiple broken bones, potential concussions, and stomping down onto the head of a downed opponent. This is in response to a simple grab. 

There is also a disconnect between the methods used and reality outside of the context of the art. 

You also said that I "imply that no MA is useful for self defense", well, no I didn't. What I said was that "martial arts can form the basis of a self defence ability and skill set", as they can. Almost all self defence systems and bodies of knowledge have martial arts as their base, and that art informs the mechanics, movement, postural concepts, power source, and more. But the self defence system is necessarily removed from the martial art approach, because it needs to be.

You then mention that Hapkido (for instance) is mostly responding to an attack of some sort... which is true, but doesn't make it a self defence system. Especially if you're dealing with things like swords... that's the disconnect I was referring to. A martial art teaches responses against it's own methods; when you're the attacker, you should be learning the attacking methods of your system. There's a reason attacks are different in each art.

Essentially, having responses, or defences against attacks is not the same as being a self defence system, it's a method of combative techniques. And when it comes down to it, those combative techniques are really just the way the system presents it's lessons, they aren't even necessarily designed to be highly combatively effective, unless that is part of the drive of the system itself. It's more important that they present the lessons, really.



oftheherd1 said:


> In the Hapkido I learned, we were only taught offensive use of techniques just before our BB tests.  Often they were different applications of techniques we had already learned.  We were taught knife defense at the red belt level, but I understand that is now at the 1st Dan level.  At the 1st Dan level we were also taught basic skills with bamboo sword, and then using the short stick to defend against the bamboo sword.  At the 2nd Dan level, we learned a great many short stick techniques.


 
That's another part of it. A self defence system needs to be, by requirement, simple in structure, methodology, and syllabus. Having "a great many techniques" goes against that, as it just increases the amount of time to simply learn them, let alone get good at them. A self defence system needs to get you decent (having applicable skills) within the shortest time possible, and having lots of techniques goes against this. Additionally, having a lot of techniques typically means that there will be a number of them being rather fine motor, which simply won't be available to you under a high-stress sudden adrenaline event without literally decades of training it (and training it properly at that!). A martial art, on the other hand, can have as many techniques as it wants/needs to express it's lessons, with more adding to the depth and richness of the art itself. So you know, though, the more techniques, and the more complex they are, the more removed from actual violence the art is. 



oftheherd1 said:


> I wouldn't say Hapkido uses a lot of kicks.  We are taught them and use them, mostly low kicks for actual combat, but also as a way of understanding what we may defend against.  The are also good for stamina when done repeatedly.  But we really have no expectation of using them in defense as a TKD practitioner would.
> 
> Of course, all this refers to the Hapkido I was taught, YMMV.



There's quite a range of groups/schools under the Hapkido name, some have a great deal more kicks than that, almost becoming TKD with some grappling, others more like the Daito Ryu that was the origin of the system. But one thing that they all have to differentiate them from Aikido/Daito Ryu is a larger kicking syllabus, which is due to the Korean prediliction for such.



oftheherd1 said:


> Konrad - I think you will enjoy Aikido.  It is a great art.  Just to be sure, you might want to stop by a Hapkido school too.  But don't dwell on it too much.  Aikido has a lot to teach and I have thought about studying it myself, when I get myself back in shape.  Hapkido is a little hard to get to where I live.



Seconded.


----------



## Cyriacus (Nov 12, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> Ah, now here's where it all gets tricky....
> 
> To begin with, here's an overview I put in another thread a while back, based around why you wouldn't necessarily want to be training to handle a "trained", or "skilled" opponent if you are looking at self defence as a primary training goal. Go to post 39, page three: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?92226-Kenpo-Ground-Fighting/page3
> 
> ...



Mostly Curious of another Perspective.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 13, 2011)

Ha, you're getting there, just a few things to clear up.



Cyriacus said:


> *Yeah, it isnt exactly Clever. However, could one not say that Learning how to Conduct Excessive Force grants both Confidence, and the Opportunity to Consciously Decide to not use it? Mostly the Second One. The First One is more or less Factual to a Certain Point. Its the Second One, really.*


*

*The issue here is that there is no conscious decision to be made. One of the points of training is that you are programming in responces on an unconscious level, as if you need to consciously remember, or decide, what to do, you've already been hit a couple of times. Essentially it comes down to the way you act will be based on the way you train, and if you train such overkill, or unrealistic responce, that will be what you have available to respond with.

Additionally, in a high stress, sudden adrenaline situation like an assault, you will naturally go to what you unconsciously believe or feel is the most powerful responce you have available, so if anything, the natural responce would be to go more for overkill rather than to "scale back".

*


Cyriacus said:



			Which is why, of course, teaching Techniques should be more about a Fundamental. For example, You might not enter a Perfect Stance and Perform a Perfect Push and Pull Type Traditional Fore Fist Punch. But You might bend Your Front Leg slightly (Assuming youre not standing Paralell - Well assume one foot slightly back. Hands are by your side though.), and Punch Forward from the Hip Initially, as oppose to needing to raise Your Hand up First. Same goes to the second Punch, which wouldnt need to be raised. In addition, Your Hips would Rotate to some extent, as Natural Movement. So it isnt Technically Accurate; And the Punch would probably be more Bent than Straight... But I suppose what Im suggesting is that Techniques can Teach less Entrenched Capabilities. But if You think Youre going to be using a Proper Technique in a Real Situation, Youre probably Wrong. To some extent. Additionally, Martial Arts would enable You to more Rapidly switch Hands whilst Striking, give You Speed, Power, Conditioning (Not too terribly Helpful, but its better than nothing), and Cardio. And Possibly the Capability to Stop when Youve done enough. Otherwise, You cant expect to do things like You Train them.
		
Click to expand...

*
That's not really what I was getting at when I said there was a disconnect... I was referring more to the attacks and defences not being truly representative of modern violence.



Cyriacus said:


> Mostly Curious of another Perspective.



And glad to provide it.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 13, 2011)

Chris Perke,

I understand what you are saying, and I can agree up  to a point.  When I studied TKD some 40+ years ago, it might have been  closer to the truth.  We basically had only blocks, punches and kicks.   But by the time one became a BB (which I did not), they had great speed  and power.  Things were reacted to almost at the instinctive level.  The  only people I knew who had BB, would not have been fun for anyone to  tangle with.  Even the two brown belts would have inflicted harm on most  unarmed attackers, without harm to themselves.  There was a mindset to  try to avoid a fight by walking away if allowed, but to let anyone who  wouldn't, know it had been a bad choice to push a fight.

In the Hapkido I learned,  it was understood that one should avoid fighting, but not so stressed  as such, but the art does normally wait for attack and respond to that.   But that should not be taken to mean it can't be used agressively.  The  police special response teams who trained for the Seoul Olympics  learned Hapkido.  One of the Korean's special response military units I  know of required a 3rd Dan for acceptance.  Hapkido was preferred, but  others were allowed, and Hapkido taught.  Underlying Hapkido, at least  as I learned it, was a subtle disregard for attackers once agression  began.  (I saw the same thing with high level Korean TKD artists many  years ago.)  Avoidance when possible, but no real mercy when it had  deteriorated to an attack.  But most techniques are quick and decisive,  assuming they work.  We don't continue to twist, thump and pound after  the technique is applied as it usually results in sufficient damage or  control that there is no need.  Most techniques work when applied  correctly, but we can transition to another technique or retreat for  another try.

I simply can't agree with your premise that learning  a lot of techniques is counter-productive.  I have seen some train  learning really well, only those techniques which seemed to work easily  for them, intending to use those when testing.  I guess that would fit  what you are talking about.  I did not do that.  They all had value in  my eyes.  Some were more devastating to an opponent than others.  I  trained to wait for an attack and respond.  The technique used was the  one that came to mind.  If I did anything, it was tend to the less easy,  since they did require more skill and therefor more practice.  But  anything went when responding.  Maybe that doesn't work for most people,  but it worked for me.  I just think it has to be that way to be  effective; making the response more instinctive.

As to no system  being good against modern fighting, I am sorry, I don't quite  understand.  It that is true, why study an MA that isn't?  That assuming  you want to learn an art for self defense, among whatever other reasons  you may have.  Can I box a boxer?  Certainly not!  But why would I even  try?  Why not do something that prevents an attacker from getting close  enough to use their art on me?  That is what I would do.  For any  attacker if possible.  Street fighting is a different set of skills the  attacker will have.  But again, why let them use their best skills if  one of mine can overcome them first?  And having a larger skill set is  only to my advantage.

You are correct there are many versions of  Hapkido.  I think there are for all arts.  That is why I usually talk  about the Hapkido learned.  I can only account for that.  We learned  defenses against grabs, then punches, then kicks, then multiple  attackers, then knife defense.  Then after earning our 1st Dan BB, we  did many of the same things, but also ground techniques, and other  grappling defenses, such as hair and head locks, and often new  techniques against grappling we had already learned.  Also sword use and  defense, with and without the short stick.  I am guessing that you  learned a Hapkido that didn't teach sword defense, or that you didn't  get to that level.  After 2nd Dan, you begin by learning defenses  against the grappling techniques previously learned.  An eye opener but  fun.  Then against punches and kicks, primarily with the short stick, as  well as other defense moves.  Any who studied a Hapkido that didn't do  that, very well may have learned a very good set of skills nonetheless.

But  perhaps the way MA are being taught many places is the difference.  I  am not sure survival is really being taught, only technique.  I think in  the MA I learned, survival was taught, and the MA was the means.  I would be interested in your opinion of that.

Thanks for your thoughtful responses.  I always enjoy reading them.  It causes me to think, and often I gain a new perspective.


----------



## Cyriacus (Nov 13, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> Ha, you're getting there, just a few things to clear up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And glad to read it.


----------



## Cyriacus (Nov 13, 2011)

oftheherd1 said:


> Chris Perke,
> 
> I understand what you are saying, and I can agree up  to a point.  When I studied TKD some 40+ years ago, it might have been  closer to the truth.  We basically had only blocks, punches and kicks.   But by the time one became a BB (which I did not), they had great speed  and power.  Things were reacted to almost at the instinctive level.  The  only people I knew who had BB, would not have been fun for anyone to  tangle with.  Even the two brown belts would have inflicted harm on most  unarmed attackers, without harm to themselves.  There was a mindset to  try to avoid a fight by walking away if allowed, but to let anyone who  wouldn't, know it had been a bad choice to push a fight.
> 
> ...



I am Addressing the Underlined Text.

The Issue is, that He could say the same about Your Hapkido.
The Oversight is that the Attacker is at an Initial Advantage. He may well be able to Attack You with Boxing Form, faster that You can get into Hapkido Form. Assuming You see it coming.
Plus, You wouldnt know He was a Boxer.
And He wouldnt know You did Hapkido.
Theres an Element of Surprise on both sides.

This isnt a Criticism - You dont seem to be far off.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 13, 2011)

oftheherd1 said:


> Chris Perke,



Ha, "Parker", but I'll let it slide.... 



oftheherd1 said:


> I understand what you are saying, and I can agree up  to a point.  When I studied TKD some 40+ years ago, it might have been  closer to the truth.  We basically had only blocks, punches and kicks.   But by the time one became a BB (which I did not), they had great speed  and power.  Things were reacted to almost at the instinctive level.  The  only people I knew who had BB, would not have been fun for anyone to  tangle with.  Even the two brown belts would have inflicted harm on most  unarmed attackers, without harm to themselves.  There was a mindset to  try to avoid a fight by walking away if allowed, but to let anyone who  wouldn't, know it had been a bad choice to push a fight.



Ah, but that's fighting, not self defence. Big difference.



oftheherd1 said:


> In the Hapkido I learned,  it was understood that one should avoid fighting, but not so stressed  as such, but the art does normally wait for attack and respond to that.   But that should not be taken to mean it can't be used agressively.  The  police special response teams who trained for the Seoul Olympics  learned Hapkido.  One of the Korean's special response military units I  know of required a 3rd Dan for acceptance.  Hapkido was preferred, but  others were allowed, and Hapkido taught.  Underlying Hapkido, at least  as I learned it, was a subtle disregard for attackers once agression  began.  (I saw the same thing with high level Korean TKD artists many  years ago.)  Avoidance when possible, but no real mercy when it had  deteriorated to an attack.  But most techniques are quick and decisive,  assuming they work.  We don't continue to twist, thump and pound after  the technique is applied as it usually results in sufficient damage or  control that there is no need.  Most techniques work when applied  correctly, but we can transition to another technique or retreat for  another try.



Most systems are almost purely reactive when looked at that way.... but the "attacking" methods are there as the attacks that you are responding against, in a lot of cases. Interestingly, many old systems have plenty of "attack them!" techniques, it's the modern ones that seem to miss it.

Here's a favourite:




This is one of the forms from the San Kyoku no Dan of Araki Ryu, with the other two being a little more, uh, brutal. Including one where the Tori (the guy performing the technique) basically throws the tea in his opponents face, pulls a knife, and stabs him repeatedly. The story behind this kata is that the founder of the Ryu was ordered to kill a friend of his, and this is the method he used. It's the basis of the Torite and Jujutsu of the Ryu-ha, by the way.

In terms of the techniques "working" or not, that isn't something I've been talking about. What I have been talking about is the design of them, and whether or not they are optimised for modern self defence, or even modern violence. The example I gave of such overkill isn't found everywhere, but is prevalent enough to be commented on.



oftheherd1 said:


> I simply can't agree with your premise that learning  a lot of techniques is counter-productive.  I have seen some train  learning really well, only those techniques which seemed to work easily  for them, intending to use those when testing.  I guess that would fit  what you are talking about.  I did not do that.  They all had value in  my eyes.  Some were more devastating to an opponent than others.  I  trained to wait for an attack and respond.  The technique used was the  one that came to mind.  If I did anything, it was tend to the less easy,  since they did require more skill and therefor more practice.  But  anything went when responding.  Maybe that doesn't work for most people,  but it worked for me.  I just think it has to be that way to be  effective; making the response more instinctive.



That's a martial art approach. Self defence, if it comes to the point of violence, is a different animal, and in that case, you want a small number of low risk, high return, gross motor, and thoroughly drilled techniques, say, two or three strikes, two or three kicks, two or three gross motor throws, and maybe some basic controls, combined with evasive, defensive, and offensive footwork.

In a self defence situation, you don't want to rely on the less easy methods, so you were training for a completely different situation.



oftheherd1 said:


> As to no system  being good against modern fighting, I am sorry, I don't quite  understand.  It that is true, why study an MA that isn't?  That assuming  you want to learn an art for self defense, among whatever other reasons  you may have.  Can I box a boxer?  Certainly not!  But why would I even  try?  Why not do something that prevents an attacker from getting close  enough to use their art on me?  That is what I would do.  For any  attacker if possible.  Street fighting is a different set of skills the  attacker will have.  But again, why let them use their best skills if  one of mine can overcome them first?  And having a larger skill set is  only to my advantage.



Ha, just because martial arts are marketed as "self defence", or "great at handling modern attacks", that doesn't mean that they are... As to why study a martial art that isn't good against modern fighting, well, because that's all that there is, really! Oh, just a detail, though, what I said was that they aren't designed for it, not that they aren't good for it universally. Some systems are relatively close, although they are still designed for different environments (Krav Maga for military usage and the types of violence found in Israel due to the political and social conditions there, MMA for competitive use etc).

And again, you're missing the difference between what I've been saying, and what the differences are between something not being designed for a specific use, and not being able to be used for it. But really, how well a particular art is adapted to handling modern violence will be down to the instructor, not the art. 



oftheherd1 said:


> You are correct there are many versions of  Hapkido.  I think there are for all arts.  That is why I usually talk  about the Hapkido learned.  I can only account for that.  We learned  defenses against grabs, then punches, then kicks, then multiple  attackers, then knife defense.  Then after earning our 1st Dan BB, we  did many of the same things, but also ground techniques, and other  grappling defenses, such as hair and head locks, and often new  techniques against grappling we had already learned.  Also sword use and  defense, with and without the short stick.  I am guessing that you  learned a Hapkido that didn't teach sword defense, or that you didn't  get to that level.  After 2nd Dan, you begin by learning defenses  against the grappling techniques previously learned.  An eye opener but  fun.  Then against punches and kicks, primarily with the short stick, as  well as other defense moves.  Any who studied a Hapkido that didn't do  that, very well may have learned a very good set of skills nonetheless.



Ha, well, there's really only one Judo... 

In terms of the structure here, this actually just highlights one of the differences between martial arts approaches and self defence approaches... I mean, you just said that you didn't really cover ground work until after 1st Dan? What if you were attacked and it went to the ground before then? This is what I was talking about when I said that martial arts work on a different timeline to self defence requirements (martial arts can afford to take a long time, whereas self defence needs to give you the skills now). To give you an idea, that school I was talking about earlier, the one that covers traditional, modern, weaponry etc in different sections, well, that's mine. It's the way I teach. And to go through everything I have to give in a martial art context (the traditional methods, the weaponry etc) it would take me about 10-15 years to cover everything just once, let alone really get into it, however the self defence methods I cover in about 18 months, which includes:
- Verbal de-escalation
- Awareness drills
- Knowledge of the legal system and it's application
- Pre-emptive striking
- Group defence
- Knife defence
- Ground defence (based around getting up and away)
- Close-quarters brawling
- Power striking
- Tactical responce (something we refer to as "Fight Science")
- Impact weapon defence
- and more.

And no, I haven't studied Hapkido myself, but sword defences and so forth are a rather large area of study in what I do. I have however done quite a bit of research into Hapkido, as well as many other systems, including long conversations with practitioners.



oftheherd1 said:


> But  perhaps the way MA are being taught many places is the difference.  I  am not sure survival is really being taught, only technique.  I think in  the MA I learned, survival was taught, and the MA was the means.  I would be interested in your opinion of that.



It comes down to which comes from the art, and which is from the instructor. Most sytems provide little more than the technical side of things, the application and adaptation to modern needs, including "survival" aspects, are down to the instructor. I can only think of a couple of systems that have such as part of their teachings specifically, and even then such things are not necessarily anything to do with the here and now.



oftheherd1 said:


> Thanks for your thoughtful responses.  I always enjoy reading them.  It causes me to think, and often I gain a new perspective.



Glad you enjoy them.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 13, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> *Which is somewhat the Point - Of course, Overkill shouldnt be all You Learn. But if You put someone Face Down, Head Stomping or Down Punching isnt a Fast Process. It takes a Second. Perhaps long enough to decide otherwise. But then, I also know one could get carried away.
> *
> *Initially, of course. I see your point though.*



Hmm, no, under adrenaline, it doesn't take that long, honestly. And until the adrenaline starts to wear off (which can take minutes, or longer) the capacity to make such lucid decisions just isn't present. Basically the instinctual drive is to "punish" the attacker, for making you feel small, weak, vulnerable etc. And that means that we aren't talking about "initially", we're talking about the entire event. Talk to someone after an assault, and see how long it takes for the mind to come back to you, it's certainly not during the altercation itself.


----------



## Cyriacus (Nov 13, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> Hmm, no, under adrenaline, it doesn't take that long, honestly. And until the adrenaline starts to wear off (which can take minutes, or longer) the capacity to make such lucid decisions just isn't present. Basically the instinctual drive is to "punish" the attacker, for making you feel small, weak, vulnerable etc. And that means that we aren't talking about "initially", we're talking about the entire event. Talk to someone after an assault, and see how long it takes for the mind to come back to you, it's certainly not during the altercation itself.


That would make sense.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 13, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> Ha, "Parker", but I'll let it slide....
> 
> *Thank you so much for your understanding!  There may be a gremlin in my keyboard.  Most likely, my brain just gets ahead of my fingers (or behind it ;-) ).* *When I tried to get in to fix it just now, my browser did show the edit button.  It must be my keyboard.  ;-)*
> 
> ...



Just some questions on thoughts I had as I read your response.  Again, I thank you for your time in presenting thoughtful answers.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 14, 2011)

oftheherd1 said:


> *Thank you so much for your understanding! There may be a gremlin in my keyboard. Most likely, my brain just gets ahead of my fingers (or behind it ;-) ). When I tried to get in to fix it just now, my browser did show the edit button. It must be my keyboard. ;-)*


*
*
Ha, happens to the best of us.... and, yeah, I can be pretty magnanimous....
*


oftheherd1 said:



			The design of the TKD I studied, as well as the Hapkido I studied, relied on speed, accuracy, and power. The two arts have little else in common. In Hapkido we block and counter-attack. The same was true of TKD, but we might, on accepting that physical violence had to be engaged in, assume a stance as in sparing, and look for an opening, or wait for an attack, block and strike with the hand or foot. That was an accepted thought on fighting/sparing, not a fact of life since I don't recall anyone talking about using their TKD in a real fight. However, seeing some of the students spar, I did not doubt an attacker would wish he hadn't. But as you have been saying, there is something to be said for getting in to real life fight and that it will bring some things to the fray that sparing may not. But I still believe a well trained MA has the advantage.
		
Click to expand...

*
In handling violence, yeah, a martial artist can have an advantage (not necessarily, though), but that's again far from saying that martial arts are designed for modern violence or self defence itself.
*


oftheherd1 said:



			I'm not sure I understand that. What other situation was I training for? I thought I was training for the fights I hoped I would never get into, but if I did, I would win quickly and if necessary, savagely.
		
Click to expand...

*
What you were training for, and what the system was designed for, are not necessarily the same thing. You had an idea of what you wanted out of the training, which is great, but that doesn't mean that that's exactly what the art was giving you. For instance, I might want a healthy meal, but being at Pizza Hut doesn't mean I'm going to get it.

What I'm getting at here is looking specifically and objectively at the construct and make up of martial arts, and contrasting that against the needs, requirements, and so forth. 
*


oftheherd1 said:



			Well sir, I don't think it is what you mean, but it sounds like you are saying only Krav Maga is useful in today's world.
		
Click to expand...

*
No, Krav Maga has it's own set of issues, same as any other system. So, no, it's not what I mean, nor what I'm saying (I specifically said that Krav is designed for a specific environment, which is not self defence).
*


oftheherd1 said:



			Well, I guess I really don't understand. My apologies. However, Hapkido, and some of the MA I think I understand a little, are designed defend against punches, kicks, grabs, and weapon attacks. What else will the modern attacker bring to the fray?
		
Click to expand...

*
Different kinds of punches, kicks, grabs, weapons than the art deals with. Additionally, the pre- and post-fight conditions aren't covered in most martial arts, with them dealing only with the "during" aspect.
*


oftheherd1 said:



			Well sir, it takes you 18 months to teach that. I expect I wasn't far behind in time line for my ground work. I did that by going 5 or 6 times a week and training hard. Also worked out of the dojo. It may have been an advantage that I studied directly under my GM for much of the time. But what happens if your students need a perfected skill before the 18 months are up? It sounds like you may have a good school with good teaching, but all take some amount of time to learn and learn correctly. You just can't teach everything in two weeks. Perhaps you think in traditional Hapkido we teach too much. If so, I just don't agree. I also don't agree that learning the more difficult, if in fact I have learned them, in some way makes them less effective. I also know the easy ones for that matter, but I am not restricted to them.

Click to expand...


*
I can get someone "street ready" in about 6-8 weeks, if time's an issue, to cover all the aspects that I consider essential as parts of a full self defence curriculum would take about 18 months, with 1 month dedicated to each area. That's based on the schedule I teach more than anything else, I could reduce it if I wanted to, but honestly I don't. Additionally, the majority of the material dovetails, meaning that the skills are designed to be transferable... the principles of pre-emptive striking are part of the group defence, same as with the power striking, the knife combat and knife defence are very similar, and so on.

I don't think that Hapkido teaches too much, or too many techniques, unless you're looking at a purely self defence skillset. As a martial art, it's fine. And learning the more difficult ones is part of the martial arts approach, and doesn't make them less effective, but they will be far less accessible, to the point of completely unaccessible under adrenaline and the stress of an actual assault.
*


oftheherd1 said:



			Just for curiosity, how do you equate a large study of sword defence to defending against the modern attacker?
		
Click to expand...

*
I wouldn't. It's part of the martial arts side of things.
*


oftheherd1 said:



			I would be interested in which arts you think specifically teach survival as opposed to all others. I really think it was the whole idea in what I learned. It wasn't part of the syllabus, but was instilled in us in subtle ways.
		
Click to expand...

*
Some Koryu systems have such a wider syllabus, as well as the Ninjutsu systems (although how well known that is comes down to the instructor, I've found...). But none of that is geared up to a modern environment, especially not a modern Western environment.

Bear in mind here that by "survival" I'm talking about are the broader concepts of knowledge of the environment, tactical positioning, going to things such as castle fortification, and so on. Additionally there are aspects of what may be referred to as "survival techniques", which are outside of a number of systems, especially sporting arts.



oftheherd1 said:


> Just some questions on thoughts I had as I read your response.  Again, I thank you for your time in presenting thoughtful answers.



And I hope I provided some answers for you.


----------



## Konrad (Nov 14, 2011)

So I had my first aikido training today. I must that I am pretty confused about it now. I can see why people say it's very hard to begin with aikido. Heck, even the first and most basic techniques seemed complex to execute. There are some things I had problem with, such as keeping the proper stance and holding my elbows beside the body. But I enjoyed the training very much and I must say it was very fun and I can't wait for another training class.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 14, 2011)

Konrad said:


> So I had my first aikido training today. I must that I am pretty confused about it now. I can see why people say it's very hard to begin with aikido. Heck, even the first and most basic techniques seemed complex to execute. There are some things I had problem with, such as keeping the proper stance and holding my elbows beside the body. But I enjoyed the training very much and I must say it was very fun and I can't wait for another training class.



Glad to hear you enjoyed your first class.  Don't be too discouraged.  I don't think I have ever felt so clumsy in my life as when I started taking Hapkido.  Nothing I did seemed to work right.  If Aikido is like Hapkido, feet are important.  Watch how others move their feet.  It may help.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 14, 2011)

Seconded. The class where you feel the most uncoordinated, the most uncomfortable, is the first one. Every class after that you at least have a frame of reference, and previous experience to fall back on. Well done on just attending in the first place, that's further than a lot of other people get!


----------



## Konrad (Nov 20, 2011)

So I can say that I'm making progress and even after my third training I can make the moves I barely could on my first training. Today I had even a training with the staff. I have just one question for you all:

What's the best method of taking down notes? Elaborate on defining a technique in your notes, illustrating the moves and of finding the proper name on Japanese etc.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 20, 2011)

Konrad said:


> So I can say that I'm making progress and even after my third training I can make the moves I barely could on my first training. Today I had even a training with the staff. I have just one question for you all:
> 
> What's the best method of taking down notes? Elaborate on defining a technique in your notes, illustrating the moves and of finding the proper name on Japanese etc.



You really cannot take notes (other than mental notes) during your training. You could make notes after class. You could make notes during your practice at home.

This is one place where I think books/videos can be useful. You'd need to find sources that teach, as closely as possible, the system you're studying. This can be problematic. Our Moo Duk Kwan school teaches the Palgwe forms, but they have been slightly modified over the years. Finding a source that demonstrated the forms as they are taught in our system was impossible. Ultimately, I wrote a textbook for our students, but that's not an option for a new student. 
One thing I would strongly recommend if you use books/videos is to avoid the temptation to "read ahead". Systems are designed in such a way that new knowledge builds on old. If you have not learned "A" properly, your learning of "B" will be flawed, and it will be more difficult to unlearn it and learn it properly when the time comes.


----------



## Instructor (Feb 22, 2012)

My teacher occasionally filmed moves for me to practice at home.  It is a custom that I maintain with my own students.


----------



## zilverkakashi (Mar 26, 2013)

i would recommend Krav Maga or Filipino Martial Art.. try it.


----------



## Jimfaul (May 9, 2013)

*1. Define your goals* 
Before you begin your search for you a school you should try to understand your motivation for wanting to train in the martial arts. Everybody has different expectations as to what they plan to get out of there training. For example some people are just in it for fitness, some self-defense, and some want to compete. It could be a mix of any number of things. Understanding your motivation will help guide you in selecting not only the school but the style.
*Try to answer the following questions honestly:*

What is my primary motivation?

i. Is it Fitness?
ii. Learning a Traditional Martial Art?
iii. Competition?
iv. Self-Improvement?

I have trained at a number of schools they ranged in price from 90-125 dollars a month. Couple of things you should look out for are the schools that charge extra money for belt tests, which is more common in traditional schools like Karate. A monthly fee plus some basic training equipment is all you should have to spend money on. Decided I ahead of time what you can afford to spend on classes. Typically you are charged a flat monthly fee.
Once you have completed the previous two steps it is time to start visiting schools. I recommend calling ahead of time and ask the head instructor if you can watch a class. Watching a class is going to tell you a lot about the school, and typically after the class the instructor will talk with you to answer any questions you might have. They usually offer you a couple weeks of free classes so you can try it out before you commit.

Once you can define what your goals are this will help to guide you in your school selection.

*2. What is your budget?*

I have trained at a number of schools they ranged in price from 90-125 dollars a month. Couple of things you should look out for are the schools that charge extra money for belt tests, which is more common in traditional schools like Karate. A monthly fee plus some basic training equipment is all you should have to spend money on. Decided I ahead of time what you can afford to spend on classes. Typically you are charged a flat monthly fee.

*3. Visits Some Schools*

As you look around take note of the cleanliness of the school, what kind of training equipment they have, if it is a BJJ or wrestling school do they have padded floors.

Once the class begins you should note how it is run. For example:

*Is the class organized and well run by the instructor?* Ideally the instructor has a strong lesson plan and is able to control the flow of the class

*How many instructors on the floor?* If you have only one instructor and there are 50 students you are not going to get much in the way of personal attention. Ideally the instructor should be able to provide critiques on your form or performance during the class.

*Do they take safety seriously?* In all sports you run the risk of injury, but a good school will take steps to mitigate injuries. I trained at an MMA school that got fighters ready for the UFC, and believe it or not that was the most safety conscious Martial Arts school I have trained at. In comparison I have trained at a Muay Thai school that didnt even require students to wear mouth guards. Instructor is going to set the tone of the school so it is important you agree with that tone.

*4. Try before you buy.* Once you have visited a couple of school it is time to give it a try. Most schools will give you a couple of weeks for free. This will give you a chance to see if the school is for you. If you have any questions about this process feel free to send me your questions. Also check out my article on being the new student in the class.

&#8203;http://martialartsevolved.blogspot.com/2013/03/how-to-select-martial-art-school.html


----------



## K-man (May 9, 2013)

Jimfaul said:


> &#8203;http://martialartsevolved.blogspot.com/2013/03/how-to-select-martial-art-school.html


Welcome to MT. Just a couple of points. Was that your blog? If it was you probably could have told us it was yours, and secondly this thread was a specific question from 18 months ago and the OP began his aikido at that time.  It may have been better to start a new thread than to resurrect this one.   :asian:


----------



## grumpywolfman (May 9, 2013)

[video=youtube_share;IVPxAgy7lBA]http://youtu.be/IVPxAgy7lBA[/video]


----------



## GiannisMalkavian (Sep 16, 2013)

Maybe your area has a Ninjutsu teacher. I know it's specialised and not many westerners can teach. However it is a martial art which uses striking, weapons and self defense techniques. Also I believe a short and slim body can make a good ninja. Not joking 
Also, do not leave MAs out of your list just because they seem to be uninteresting for you. If you 've not tried them, then you can't really know.
Sometimes it's more about your psychology and character and about the teacher than it is about what you 're doing. I mean not only does the what question matter, but also the how question!


----------



## Instructor (Sep 16, 2013)

I think the others have given sound advice.  I'll just say the best thing to do is get out there and sample the schools in your area.  Chances are you will feel right at home in one or another for many intagible reasons.  Less speculation and more action!


----------

