# Is science killing the art in martial arts ?



## Mike Clarke (Nov 9, 2002)

Hi all,

In magazines and on the book shelf over the past few years I've noticed a lot of writing on the science of the martial arts.

I'm not talking about kyusho-jutsu etc, but the way some people have started to explain techniques in scientific  (or Medical) language.

I've never been big myself on wanting to know the 'how' of things, I've just wanted to understand the 'when', 'where' and 'why' of my martial art (goju-ryu karatedo).

So I'm wondering, do we really need to know the scientific reason for someone falling down when we hit them ? And if we do, isn't this killing the 'art' ?

I look forward to your comments.
Mike.


----------



## Hollywood1340 (Nov 9, 2002)

All arts are scientificaly based. By knowing the "why" and "how" you can understand and apply said principles. I guess it all depends on what you're in the art for, and how you wish to apply it. Delving into the science is like all things, good for some, bad for some. It depnds on what YOU want out of it I guess.
Just my 0.02


----------



## RyuShiKan (Nov 9, 2002)

Mike, 

I agree. 
I think the new wave of "scientific" MA books is the new "Buzz word" or topic in this case for martial marketers. 
These are the folks that figure out the latest angle on how to make a buck or get that extra student into their dojo. 
I have always been of the mind set that 1,000 hours of book reading and theory can't replace 1 hour of actually hands on training in the dojo.
Knowing the scientific names for the muscles I am smashing, the tendons I am twisting or bones I am cranking on or the "color by numbers kyusho point" has never been much use for me. Hitting certain sensitive areas, twisting things the wrong way is always effective.  As my teacher said to me on several occasions "No hurt, no down". That is about as "scientific" as I need to get.


----------



## RyuShiKan (Nov 9, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Mike Clarke _
> 
> *
> 
> ...




Why do we fall down when hit? 

Simple..............because it bloody hurts.


----------



## Elfan (Nov 9, 2002)

I have noticed something of an increase in pseudo-scientific discrptions. Some people asume that if the karate guy is using fancy words they don't understand than they must be smart.

However, that certainly doesn't mean that just because something claims to be "scientific" doesn't mean its bad.  _Deadly Karate Blows: The Medical Implications _ (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_4/102-1987028-3735342?v=glance&s=books), Brian Adams famouse Black Belt Thesis would be one well known example.


----------



## chufeng (Nov 9, 2002)

I see both sides of this issue...

I agree that lots of "book-learnin" is pretty much useless if you don't get on the mat or floor and do the WORK...and I also agree that an hour of good, hard practice is always worth more than reading a book (or watching a video).

But, on the other hand, if you understand the WHY of a given application, you can apply that principle to other aspects of your art...

The traditional Chinese arts look at the four treasures in the development of a warrior...The brush, the inkstone, rice-paper, and the sword...the implication is that scholarly work is also necessary.

What I see in the publications, however, is pretty elementary stuff being passed off as scholarly OR stuff that is "way out there" (baffle them with ********)...Most people who want to sound "scientific" really don't have a clue on what real science is.

That being said, if some one hits me hard and it HURTS a lot...I don't need to be a scientist to figure out next time I better move, block, or strike first...

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## Mike Clarke (Nov 10, 2002)

Hi again,

Look, I'm not saying that those who think in scientific terms about martial arts are wrong. I just think that those who try to make martial arts into a science are missing the point.
I don't agree that "All arts are scientificaly based." I believe that people long ago found out what worked and what didn't by experience, not experiment. When your health or your life depends on it you have no time to experiment.
If the martial arts can be explained soley in scientific terms, what has happened to the "art" ?

Mike.


----------



## cdhall (Nov 10, 2002)

As a Kenpo student I have to say that "no, getting scientific does not kill the art."

If anything it lets you know the "why" so that perhaps you have more options later on.

I also agree that mat time is better than book/video time until about Brown/Black level when you might know enough and have enough mat time by then to pick something up from a book or video.

In Kenpo we use the Equation formula which tells us that we can pretty much alter a technique to suit our circumstances.  So for example, if I know something about nerve strikes and how they work, I might go for a "humane" knockout and see what happens before I move into crippling my opponent so that they can not retailiate.   Yes, I know everything happens at high-speed, but even in sparring I know some of you have thrown a strike that you may have thought would do something but went ahead and followed it up if you did not accomplish your original purpose.

Anyway, as they used to say on the GI cartoon "Knowing is half the battle."  I think the Science stuff enhances the Art, but as I said, Mr. Parker gave us a system built this way so my viewpoint is naturally going to reflect this.


----------



## Elfan (Nov 10, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Mike Clarke _
> 
> *Hi again,
> 
> ...



Could you elaborate on how you diferantiante between expereince and experimentation? Most people try something new and see how it works when they are sparring or what not, that sounds a lot like experimentation to me. I don't think any of the "martial science" people go so far as to claim they are doing strict experiments (ie just one independent and dependent variable).

I think it would be a combination of both.  Okay I'll try this, this, and this.  Well all of them lead to a royal **** kicking so my expereince tells me that they are bad things to do.  Maybe I'll try something else next time.


----------



## chufeng (Nov 10, 2002)

OK, 

What is the essence of the scientific method?

If "a" happens, "b" follows...
I do "a" 1000 times and "b" always occurs...
Now, I isolate out any potential variables that may influence "b" and do "a" 1000 more times and see if "b" occurs...
Now I get someone who knows NOTHING about the process and ask him to measure "b" (after teaching him how)...then I get 500 people and do "a" and I get 500 people and do something that looks like "a" (but isn't) and then compare the results of what the blinded non-interested party actually measured and see if there is any difference between "a" and "not-a" as expressed by "b."

Acupuncture can't be explained by Western medicine, but that doesn't mean that there is no science behind it..."a" causes "b" has been measured and documented over a couple of thousand years...we are just now trying to explain it in terms of Western medicine...but it has stood up to the test of science (in its most rudimentary form)...

I think the same can be said of Karate and other martial arts...those that didn't work, went to the grave with the founder...those that survived were actually battle tried...

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## cdhall (Nov 10, 2002)

I pretty much agree with chufeng as well.
I regard Mr. Parker as a scientist.


----------



## Baoquan (Nov 10, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Mike Clark_
> 
> I don't agree that "All arts are scientificaly based." I believe that people long ago found out what worked and what didn't by experience, not experiment.



Mike, i dont think the argument was made that martial arts were originated by people working wholely within the modern western scientific method, but that martial arts are pysical arts, and are therefore subject to the laws of physics, and those arts that work utilise physics to their advantage - eg Judo, Aikido..actually, by definition, all of them....

I think any argument *against* a method for explaining MA (which is all these books are) is essentially faulty. If u dont find any personal resonance within any particular method for describing an art, then dont read it....describing an art scientifically does not prevent anyone from describing it as it has been traditionally. Adding to the body of knoweldge doesn't take anything away from it.

That being said, any individual effort for describing an art should be weighed on its individual merits...and there are more than a few ***** "science of MA" books out there.


----------



## Mike Clarke (Nov 11, 2002)

Thanks for your comments everyone,

I'm I to take it then that we all train in Martial Sciences, and not Martial arts?

My main point was not to dismiss the idea that Martial arts can't be talked about in scientific terms, but whether or not this should be our 'benchmark' ?

Some people on this thread seem to still train with the idea that if their passing grading tests and reaching a particular rank, then they have some ability? (BIG MISTAKE !!!).

I'm not anti science at all in the M.A.'s I just don't see the need for me to understand the 'how' when I know the 'why', 'where' and the 'when'. 

Mike.


----------



## chufeng (Nov 11, 2002)

Mike,

I still view what we do as an art...

It is not simply kinesiology...
It is not simply physics...
It is not simply strategy...

It is all of that AND more.

We, in YiLiQuan, work on developing the ability to "feel" the attacker's intent...according to the classics...first Yi, then Qi, then the body moves...if we are able to develop a sensitivity to the other's Qi, we feel the attack before the opponent actually makes a physical movement...then we are not there when the actual attack arrives.

That clearly is not based in science as we view it in the West, and may border on mystical...however, we downplay the mystical and focus on the practical...

We also learn how to infuse our techniques with Qi...

Can I demonstrate that Qi exists??? No
Can I hit you with a physical punch and then an "internal" punch and ask if you can tell the difference? Yes...but that doesn't prove anything...I may have held back on the first technique...

So,  the hard to explain subtleties of our art is what makes it an art...it is not all science.

What makes me analyze our movements down to the tiniest detail are the questions my students ask...so, the more I teach, the more I understand the "why" of something...and the more I realize how little I really know...

Great thread, thanks for starting it.

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## cdhall (Nov 11, 2002)

Once  again I agree with chufeng although I don't know much of anything about Ki/Chi/Qi or how to perceive an attack before it happens and I admit I don't think he is talking about "spider-sense."  I just wanted to say that I agree.


----------



## Matt Stone (Nov 11, 2002)

I believe that there is some phenomenon, some "energy" that is referred to in Chinese as _qi_, and in Japanese and Korean as _ki_ (although the translation and understanding in each language is somewhat different).

I believe that that "energy," that (in the Monty Python vein) certain _something_, can be developed, manipulated and controlled by a person to augment their martial techniques.

I believe these things and more based both on personal experiences (email me if you want weird stories), as well as an objective belief that we simply don't know all there is to know in the world.

Quantum physics has shown that the human _mind_ has a direct influence on the fabric of space.  In experiments dealing with subatomic particles, the _intent_ (dare I say _yi_?) of the experimenters had a direct result on the outcome of the experiment.  If such a phenomenon exists within the confines of "hard science," and since I believe the saying that "there is nothing new under the sun," I find it difficult to state with any degree of certainty that some things _can't_ be done...

Feeling the movement of someone's _qi_ seemed, the first time I was exposed to it, to be a bunch of nicely worded horse $h*t.  Until I was able to do it the first time...

I was in class, and Sifu told us we were going to practice "connecting" to our opponent.  So, at first, we held a staff between our lower abdomens and practiced mirroring our opponent's movements.  After a time, he took the staves away.  We continued practicing.  Shortly thereafter, with and evil look in his eyes, he told us were were going to make it a little more difficult - he turned off the lights.  Now we were trying to avoid half strength strikes and kicks without the benefit of seeing them coming (which, admittedly, wasn't helping all that much in the first place anyway).  I spent quite a good amount of time just getting hit, over and over again.  But then, without warning, I just felt a need to move, so I moved.  And my opponent flew right past me.  It happened again and again, interspersed with shots that landed.  It was only the first time, and I got hit more than I got missed, but over the years I got better at it.

Call it what you want, while it _isn't_ a "spider sense" like in the movies, sometimes it feels pretty darn close.

And ultimately, even if there is a really detailed scientific answer to it, I don't care.  The answer would actually take away from the "art" of learning how to do it in the first place.  Making it a clinical thing, instead of a wondrous development, would lessen the accomplishment in my mind.  I don't pretend that it is mystical at all; quite the contrary I know it is something _anybody_ can do.  That doesn't make it any less wondrous when it is accomplished, however.

Just my useless and misinformed 2 cents...

Gambarimasu.


----------



## Baoquan (Nov 11, 2002)

Please correct me if i am misunderstanding everyone, but there seems to be a meme operating here that details science as a thief of magic/wonder/art.

Why is science (as a monothithic, philosophical phenomenon) percieved as anti-art?  Is science the martial artist's anathema? Why? Does having an explanation of a technique available (note: it's not necessary to read/discuss/value the explanation - one can ignore it at will) necessarily devalue its worth as a causal phenomenon? How? Does explaining the physics of a well-timed lead hook make the subsequent knock out less effective, or valuable? And in the more esoteric vein if Yi/Quantum effectual-intent, you will not find a physical scientist worth their salt who will discount the possibility of something not currently explained by science - because that which is currently unexplained by the scientific body of knowledge is the theoretical scientists bread and butter.

If you will permit a brief foray into etymology, the root of the words *technique* (that which we are taught in our arts) and *technology* (hardware that is the effective end result of science) is _*techne*_ from the Greek, meaning skill. Technology is a skill, encoded as a piece of phyisical hardware; similarly martial arts are a technology, encoded as a set of rules in our wetware. The two, on many levels, are one and the same. The only difference is the method via which the techne is packaged.


Was it Asimov (BTW thats not rhetorical..i'm really asking...i cant remember) who said that any sufficiently advanced technology is to all intents and purposes, magic? Are our arts sufficiently advanced "wet" technologies? Learned people have been bug-fixing them for thousands of years...

Science and art are not IMHO oppositional. They are just methods of expression. The quanta does not have a problem with yi, and niether does yi with quanta...who the hell are we to start causing trouble?  

this is a wicked thread.

cheers

Bao


----------



## chufeng (Nov 11, 2002)

Bao,

One man's science is another man's magic...no doubt about it...

the fact that we can do what we can do certainly can be explained at some point in time (perhaps what we call the future)...but let us old men enjoy our present illusion...

But really, I think what Mike and RyuShiKan are getting at is we spend too much time thorizing and not enough time training...

I agree...
Now let's get back to work.

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## Hollywood1340 (Nov 11, 2002)

Oh the joys of being human


----------



## Baoquan (Nov 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Chufeng_
> 
> the fact that we can do what we can do certainly can be explained at some point in time (perhaps what we call the future)...but let us old men enjoy our present illusion...
> 
> ...



*rueful smile*


Good point, Shixiong.

Cheers

Bao


----------



## Elfan (Nov 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Yiliquan1 _
> *Quantum physics has shown that the human mind has a direct influence on the fabric of space.  In experiments dealing with subatomic particles, the intent (dare I say yi?) of the experimenters had a direct result on the outcome of the experiment.  If such a phenomenon exists within the confines of "hard science," and since I believe the saying that "there is nothing new under the sun," I find it difficult to state with any degree of certainty that some things can't be done...
> *



??? I doubt you learned that in a physics class my friend.

http://www.theness.com/articles/quantumconfusion-cs0203.html

Yes that was off topic on my part.


----------



## Mike Clarke (Nov 11, 2002)

It's great watching threads take off like this.

I don't think science  (as such) is killing the ' art ', but I think some people are using science to explain (read, sell) everything. The problem I have with that is the assumption that we (humans) know, or would even recognise, all that is out there in the cosmos.

I don't know how to explain to someone the concept of balance if they can't ride a bike. Or floating, if they can't swim. But I do know that once someone "understands" these things, no explinations are necessary. I view my karate like this. For some it may well be necessary to know the in's and out's of every last detail, but for me I only have to come to an understanding that I can make it work (or not, as the case may be) to accept it.

To Elfan,
Experience is built up over time and not by design as is experimentation. When you experiment it is in order to prove (disprove) an idea you already have. Experience is the result of things done already, things you may not have even thought of before you had the experience?
Experience gives you the answer before you know you've recieved it. It's only when you get the lesson (the kick in the head you didn't block?) that you understand.
As I said before. When it comes to reality (not sparring), you have no time to experiment.

Karate to me is an education, and you know what they say about education; "It's the stuff that's left over when you've forgotten everything you learnt."

I'm learning lots here though, and I thank you all for it.

Mike.


----------



## Elfan (Nov 12, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Baoquan _
> 
> *If you will permit a brief foray into etymology, the root of the words technique (that which we are taught in our arts) and technology (hardware that is the effective end result of science) is techne from the Greek, meaning skill. Technology is a skill, encoded as a piece of phyisical hardware; similarly martial arts are a technology, encoded as a set of rules in our wetware. The two, on many levels, are one and the same. The only difference is the method via which the techne is packaged.
> 
> Was it Asimov (BTW thats not rhetorical..i'm really asking...i cant remember) who said that any sufficiently advanced technology is to all intents and purposes, magic? Are our arts sufficiently advanced "wet" technologies? Learned people have been bug-fixing them for thousands of years... *



On techne (that is a really great thing to bring in BTW, do you study etymology?)

A few translator notes from my copy of _The Republic_:

- "It may thus be said to cover and skilled activity with its rules of operation, the knowledge of which is acuired by training.  But is is a very elusive word to translate varying between *art*, craft, profesional skill, and *sceince* acording to the emphasis of the context."


"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke



> _Originally posted by Mike Clarke _
> 
> *
> To Elfan,
> ...



Thanks.


----------



## Baoquan (Nov 12, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Elfan_
> 
> "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke



Thanks...i dont like to misquote, and i post from work, with no references  

Off topic...studying etymology - kinda...i have a degree in communication, which covers language theory, construction of meaning etc etc.

Back on topic...



> _Originally posted by Mike Clark_
> 
> I don't know how to explain to someone the concept of balance if they can't ride a bike. Or floating, if they can't swim. But I do know that once someone "understands" these things, no explinations are necessary. I view my karate like this. For some it may well be necessary to know the in's and out's of every last detail, but for me I only have to come to an understanding that I can make it work (or not, as the case may be) to accept it.



That is IMHO the salient point here. Cant possibly disagree. However, once someone rides a bike, introducing _gearing_ will improve the bike riding experiece...but, granted,  its not necessary. This is how i take on physical/scientific description of the arts...its definately not the core of my art, or learning experience, but it improves my understanding and ability.

Cheers

Bao


----------



## sammy3170 (Nov 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Hollywood1340 _
> 
> *All arts are scientificaly based. By knowing the "why" and "how" you can understand and apply said principles. I guess it all depends on what you're in the art for, and how you wish to apply it. Delving into the science is like all things, good for some, bad for some. It depnds on what YOU want out of it I guess.
> Just my 0.02 *



We've had Patrick McCarthy at our school a number of times and you want scientific names for things well he'll tell you.  He seems to describe most of what he's doing when demonstrating a technique this way.

Cheers
Sammy


----------



## Nightingale (Nov 13, 2002)

I think knowing the science behind what you're doing can only make you a better martial artist...

if you drive a car, could it possibly make you a better driver if you know how an engine works?  A car is a tool, just like your martial arts are a tool, and the more you know about them, the better.

For example, if my instructor does an block when I punch him, and my arm goes numb, if I didn't know better, I might think its just because he hits really hard, so I will probably not try to duplicate this when someone hits me, because he has a lot more strength than I do.  However, having some knowledge of kinesiology, I know that he hit the radial nerve in my upper arm, and that it doesn't take a whole lot of strength to create the effect of numbing a limb.  Therefore, I may work harder to target my strikes, rather than working on striking harder.

knowledge is NEVER a bad thing. The more you know, the better you can make informed decisions.

Personally, I think kinesiology is a must for any martial artist.  When I injured myself, I was able to tell the doctor that the pain was specifically at the joint of the first carpal (the little bones in your wrist) and metacarpal (the long bones inside your hand that connect the wrist to the fingers).  This told her exactly where the pain was, rather than saying "um...my hand hurts."

Kinesiology also teaches muscle movements, proper stretching, and how the muscles move.  You'll learn about the difference between a sprain, a strain, and a hyperextension, and know what kind of injuries you can walk on, and what kind you need to immobilize.  My martial arts are better because of what I've learned.

For example, did you know that the "hurdler's stretch" where you put one leg forward in front of you, and one leg bent at the knee to your side, with your foot next to your rear, is really, REALLY bad for your knees?  nobody except hurdlers should do this stretch, EVER.  The safe way to do this is to take the leg that is normally by your butt, and bend it inward instead of back, so your legs make a 4 shape.  then bend forward and touch your toe as usual.  I was shocked to see how many martial arts instructors used the harmful version of this stretch, and they all did it because they didn't know any better.  An adjustment so simple could save some of their students a plethora of knee problems.

Just my $0.02

-Nightingale


----------



## Matt Stone (Nov 13, 2002)

I don't believe that anyone would decry the benefit of knowing the specific mechanics of what we do.  Knowing the medical and physical science behind what we do lends credence to both the effectiveness of our technique as well as to our knowledge as instructors.

I think the point being debated is that the above mentioned credibility (e.g. an instructor being able to say "move your arm this way to punch," but to also be able to say "the adduction of the humerus caused by the contraction of the pectoralis major and minor and stablilized by the contraction of the anterior deltoid is what makes you punch") should be in addition to the instructor's already established credibility, and should not be taken in place of other qualifications...

Any idiot can pick up a copy of Gray's anatomy and learn how the body moves.  Does this substitute for functioning, experienced understanding of the martial techniques in quesiton?  Not hardly.  I would rather have an experienced, knowledgeable teacher that can only communicate a technique via "monkey see, monkey do" than have some slouch with a mouthful of medical terms trying to tell me how to smack somebody...

I think that one of the issues Mike brought up is that there are folks out there that think such terminology can replace their inherent lack of other knowledge, and that the masses can be satisfactorily wowed by their command of medical terminology.  It is easy enough to see in the trade rags with articles on "scientific streetfighting," and other such faddish trends.

Knowing the physics behind what we do, and the _real_ names of body parts is only a component of what makes a superior teacher.  The bulk of what makes a superior teacher is understanding the art of applying his knowledge.  To paraphrase another saying, the parts can never replace the whole.

Mike, am I right here, or did I misunderstand you?

Gambarimasu.
:asian:


----------



## Nightingale (Nov 13, 2002)

kinesthetic knowledge should be used to SUPPLEMENT martial arts knowledge, not surplant it.


----------



## Matt Stone (Nov 13, 2002)

itty bitty living space...

Everything I said in a lot less words, but the crux of the problem nonetheless.

The problem is that many Uhmurikan martial artists are not all that concerned about their academic knowledge in the first place, and this keeps them from delving deeper into their understanding.

That doesn't mean, however, that they can't be incredible exponents of what they study - just that it is a level of understanding that supplements their ability as instructors.

Gambarimasu.
:asian:


----------



## Mike Clarke (Nov 13, 2002)

Hi Matt,

No you didn't misunderstand me, thanks for making some points better than I could.
I have no problem with people looking at science and the answers it gives to the questions they have, my 'core' questions are really about whether or not such information is necessary to 'understanding' your 'art', and whether or not science alone should be the benchmark by which 'old wisdom' is be judged?

I believe karatedo to be more than just kicking and punching, and I don't think this is something I'm projecting on to it myself as much of what I've learnt about myself and methods of combat, I had no real idea about before I 'discovered' things for myself through the training and instruction I've been lucky enought to have over the years.

Intresting to see how some folk view their marial art and their place in it, while others view their martial art, and it's place in them.

As for all' knowledge being good? and, the more we know the better? I'm not sold on this at all. One of the things I've learnt from my time training is that less is very often more. This goes to the physical and mental sides of karatedo. Just look at the mess people get themselves into trying to learn 30+ kata and the 6.000.000 bunkai that go with them in order to pass some grading test!!!!

Regards,
Mike.


----------



## Nightingale (Nov 13, 2002)

all knowledge is good...

especially the knowledge of when and how to learn what.  you can't do trigonometry until you know addition.


----------



## RyuShiKan (Nov 13, 2002)

Anybody ever see the movie "Rainman"?

In the movie Dustin Hoffman's character could tell you all sorts of useless information like the square root of all the matches dropped on the floor, the statistics for airline crashes broken down by each airline, and so on..........and yet he could not hold a job or barely function in life. 

Kind of the same thing with knowing all the anatomical correct names for body structures. 
Unless you know how to deliver a technique under fairly realistic circumstances and the reactions they might cause you are just like "Rainman"........lots of knowledge with no practical use. 
Miyamoto Musashi fought and killed over 60 people by the time he was 30 years old........I seriously doubt he could have told which artery he was cutting while killing his opponents. I would suspect he DID have a "rudimentary" knowledge of anatomy in order to better facilitate his technique.   

I have noticed in recent years the tendency to over emphasize the "Gray's Anatomy" and "color by numbers kyusho" teaching style explanation. This way of explaining/teaching things does two things. One it makes the person sound like an extremely knowledgeable instructor. Two it makes up for the knowledge that instructor usually doesn't have in "real life" application. I have also noticed the ones that tend to use this kind of "instruction" are usually pretty cluless.

To give an example:
I have had several student/instructors of the Dillman, Moneymaker, Clark lineage come to my dojo and spout off their "Gray's Anatomy" and "color by numbers kyusho" explanations.........when I have asked to see their ideas put to use what followed was a poor excuse for technique that didn't work.

Better time would be spent finding out the ways the body parts move and especiallly don't move, the weak points of the body and how to get them into the most painful position possible in a practical manner using the *hands on* approach.
Forget the "University Professor" approach.

_the *way* is in training....._
Miyamoto Musashi


(Note: I have trained in TCM in China for 3 years, 4 years in Japan and am a Nationally Licensed practitioner here in Japan)


----------



## RyuShiKan (Nov 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by nightingale8472 _
> 
> *all knowledge is good...
> 
> especially the knowledge of when and how to learn what.  you can't do trigonometry until you know addition. *




You also can't learn to walk until you can stand. But some folks think they can skip the whole process and go from crawling to flying without ever putting the time and energy (i.e. sweat) into the basics of standing, walking, and then running first.

Learning how to throw your first punch and then running over to "Gray's Anatomy" to find out which muscles were used and where is the best place to hit is about the same thing.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 13, 2002)

Sometimes the mythology can help. If the move you're doing is called "Dragon whips its tail" then all the science in the world may be inferior to imagining a dragon whipping its tail as far as helping you get the "feel" that the technique is intended to have. This is an issue of historical knowledge, in a way--what the technique was meant to be like originally, as opposed to an analysis of how it actually functions.

I'm in favor of the scientific approach, but I also think one can over-think it.


----------



## chufeng (Nov 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Mike Clarke _
> 
> *Hi Matt,
> 
> ...



Mike...

Excellent point...less is more.
...and I agree with you and RyuShiKan and Matt and several others on this topic...

But, we go from a simple punch (because we don't know any better) to learning the many methods of punching and the mechanics involved (through hard training) back to a punch is just a punch...full circle...some of that was understanding on the intellectual level...MOST of it is based on training the body to move a certain way (hours of repetition)...

It is in that in between level that people get stuck intellectualizing...they don't do the work...so, they just don't get it.

:aisan:
chufeng


----------



## Matt Stone (Nov 14, 2002)

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> 
> *Sometimes the mythology can help. If the move you're doing is called "Dragon whips its tail" then all the science in the world may be inferior to imagining a dragon whipping its tail as far as helping you get the "feel" that the technique is intended to have.*



This is an important point, I feel.  Many of the poetic names in CMA are there to describe what a movement looks like, but others are there to help you understand what you are supposed to feel like.  If we reduced it down to "medial adduction of the femur to strike with the distal head of the first metatarsal" it wouldn't be quite the same, would it?



> *I'm in favor of the scientific approach, but I also think one can over-think it. *



Again, this is the central point of what Mike was trying to say earlier...  "Over thinking" and using the pseudo-scientific explanations to supplant rather than supplement a teacher's knowledge is the issue, not the other way around.

Gambarimasu.
:asian:


----------

