Are Things Outdated??

[The Kai]

Drilling basics is what made the greats great and modifying/updating arts is what made the arts great.

What we think is outdated can always be modified or used - it's all in the application, angle, approach, etcetera.

Lets take the idea of traditional weaponery, here's a brick through your window-If it's traditional, it's no longer a weapon per se.

CVan you adapt some of the movements of the Chinese broadsword to your other skills, sure- but why not just train those other skills instead of investing time in weapon training that is of little use??

 

[MJS]

IMO, a great direction for MT discussion would be to start talking about these techniques that people dislike for whatever reason. Perhaps we can all help each other understand things from a different POV.

I'd like to see alot more threads that were like "What the heck is this supposed to do?" or "I don't understand" or you name the technique and we'll discuss.

That was the direction I was hoping that this thread would take. Granted we have people from various ranks posting on this forum, but anyone is free to discuss a technique from their art and voice any changes that may be needed.

Mike

 

[MJS]

I think part of the problem is that we need to distinguish the difference between the 'basic' way of doing a technique, and the 'realistic' way.

The basic way is how a newbie is first shown the technique, whether it is a simple reverse punch, or a combination of movements designed to defend against a specific attack. The basic movement needs to be learned by someone who has no experience, and no frame of reference. So it is taught in a manner that produces an unrealistic technique. But this is the first step, and it needs to start here so that the newbie can begin to understand the movement.

After the technique is taught in its basic form, then it should be studied to understand how it would be used realistically. Speed and fluidity of movement will be much greater in the realistic way of doing the technique.

The step from the basic to the realistic version could come very quickly, even in the first night of training, if the newbie is picking it up fairly well. The basic version can still be practiced as a way of focusing on, and perfecting the technique, but the application must be done realistically.

I think if this distinction is made, then much of what we might think of as 'out-dated' really is not. It is just being done in its basic phase where it should be done in its realistic phase.

Excellent points!! I agree that new things need to be taught slow so someone can grasp them, but I feel that the problem lies where once the technique is understood, it stops there. Nothing else is explored. This IMO is giving the student a potential false impression that this technique will actually work under stressfull conditions or resistance.

Mike

 

[Phoenix44]

I think Flying Crane made some very good points. The way any art is taught to a beginner may not appear "applicable" or "modern." But you have to start somewhere.

But as you become more experienced in the art, I think you have to start testing out applicability against many different attacks, and have flexibility in your actions.

I think it's odd when martial artists say, "Well, if a guy attacked me this way, then I'd use "Ramming the Silk." But if he he came in a little lower, then I'd use "Hammering Windmills". And then they debate it. HUH? You'd SERIOUSLY choose exactly those techniques for exactly those attacks?

I think it's much more important to think, "Can I move well? Can I punch? Can I kick? Do I know how the body works and doesn't work? Do I know where the weak spots are? Do I have a good level of awareness?" And this only comes with a LOT of practice and variety of your practice. And you may need to do "Ramming the Silk" many, many times before you can start adjusting your defense so it feels right to you, but may not be an exact "technique."

So I think, sure, practice against a step through punch, and against a kick, grab, overhead, takedown. Do one-steps and grappling and sparring. Eventually there will be an overall comfort level, and your specific "art" doesn't need to feel "old."

 

[Flying Crane]

I think it's odd when martial artists say, "Well, if a guy attacked me this way, then I'd use "Ramming the Silk." But if he he came in a little lower, then I'd use "Hammering Windmills". And then they debate it. HUH? You'd SERIOUSLY choose exactly those techniques for exactly those attacks?

yes, I think this can be a simplistic and unrealistic way to look at it. When someone asks me "what would you do if I attacked you with___?" I tell them that I have absolutely no idea. I could give them a laundry list of potential responses to that attack, but until it happens, I have no idea what I will actually do. And what I do in the end, is almost guaranteed to NOT be something from the laundry list. It will probably contain elements from one or several things from the list, but not something from the list in its pure form.

 

[PatMunk]

Ko Sutemi Seiei Kan has a rising block as one of its basics. The block is designed to protect the head from attack.

It rises in front of the body, about one fist width away from the torso, and rises over the head. It snaps into position, covers the head entirely from side to side, still one fist width from the head, and is exucuted and completed at a 45 degree angle.

The block is supposed to meet the strike so as to deflect, not suffer the full impact from being static. The angle of the block is aso designed to allow the striking force to be deflected.

While this block is better than nothing against a head assault, I would still expect to receive serious injury to my arm (and probably still to my head). The fact that it is taught as a basic of the system (learned within a week or so of beginning) is where I have the issue.

I don't feel the technique takes into consideration the power of a strike from a baseball bat, stick, or pipe. I feel it is more important to understand the concept of distance, closing the gap on the opponent to both protect oneself and initiate an attack.

I'm not opposed to the technique as far as covering a vital area. I simply have opposition to it being taught as a staple of the system.

There is nothing wrong with teaching rising blocks/high blocks/upward blocks or what ever the system calls it. Just like the cross hand block/X block it is very good in stopping an assualt. The only problem with these blocks is MOST systems and instructors teach them incorrectly. NO BLOCK should make contact with the weapon being used against you, unless you are also using some kind of weapon or some type of staff or baton. You SHOULD ALWAYS close the distance enough to only block the wrist area of the weapon controlling arm. This way no damage will be done to your blocking arm but quite possibly will disarm the opponent. I've seen Masters from all systems teach high blocks blocking the weapon and not taking into account that anything the weapon makes contact with will not be of any use to you for a long time.

Where this incorrect teaching method started I don't know ... but I can say for sure I teach rising blocks and X blocks to beginning as well as upper ranked students .. and Never have any of them been injured by blocking these attacks. The NUMBER ONE RULE when blocking an attack with a club or blundgen type of weapon is NEVER let the weapon make contact with ANY part of your body.

 

[Flying Crane]

There is nothing wrong with teaching rising blocks/high blocks/upward blocks or what ever the system calls it. Just like the cross hand block/X block it is very good in stopping an assualt. The only problem with these blocks is MOST systems and instructors teach them incorrectly. NO BLOCK should make contact with the weapon being used against you, unless you are also using some kind of weapon or some type of staff or baton.

Holy smokes, I don't think I would have ever thought of using this or any block against the weapon...

 

[MJS]

There is nothing wrong with teaching rising blocks/high blocks/upward blocks or what ever the system calls it. Just like the cross hand block/X block it is very good in stopping an assualt. The only problem with these blocks is MOST systems and instructors teach them incorrectly. NO BLOCK should make contact with the weapon being used against you, unless you are also using some kind of weapon or some type of staff or baton. You SHOULD ALWAYS close the distance enough to only block the wrist area of the weapon controlling arm. This way no damage will be done to your blocking arm but quite possibly will disarm the opponent. I've seen Masters from all systems teach high blocks blocking the weapon and not taking into account that anything the weapon makes contact with will not be of any use to you for a long time.

Where this incorrect teaching method started I don't know ... but I can say for sure I teach rising blocks and X blocks to beginning as well as upper ranked students .. and Never have any of them been injured by blocking these attacks. The NUMBER ONE RULE when blocking an attack with a club or blundgen type of weapon is NEVER let the weapon make contact with ANY part of your body.

I took his post as him talking about blocking the arm, not the weapon. IMO, I don't want to rely solely on this block to protect my head.

Mike

 

[The Kai]

So the idea of this thread was "Are things outdated" and the question was asked "Do we need to change"

Fast forward a half dozen posts now the premise is "NO, nothing is wrong-we just need to teach ..... different"
Who's afraid of change? Not us...

 

[Navarre]

Pat, I have no opposition to the teaching of rising blocks. I simply feel that more emphasis should be placed on the correlation between distance and the block.

This is what you suggest as well by referring to the importance of closing the gap and avoiding contact with the weapon. I agree with you.

The fallacy comes when the block is taught without addressing the underlying concepts behind it. This is why I feel the beginner should be introduced to the concepts of distance, closing the gap, and deflection leading to a technique before they focus so rigidly on performing the same block 1000 times.

The block itself is important. I just don't think it should be taught in the first class. Build the foundation of knowledge and then lead the body to perform upon that foundation.

 

[Navarre]

So the idea of this thread was "Are things outdated" and the question was asked "Do we need to change"

Fast forward a half dozen posts now the premise is "NO, nothing is wrong-we just need to teach ..... different"
Who's afraid of change? Not us...

I think the Art should be everchanging in the sense that it adapts everything useful and culls out what is not. The question seemed to be if specific techniques were outdated and needed changing.

My answer, thus far, is that the techniques seem solid overall. I think the problem lies in that the technique is sometimes taught in isolation without addressing all of the principles that goes behind it. This is what I was referring to concerning the rising block; not the technique, but the method of teaching.

Perhaps my answer then is that the techniques are okay but the teaching method is outdated. We don't spend decades in a temple somewhere mulling every nuance of a technique the way we once did. We get it in 1 hour does twice a week.

It's easy for the more experienced of us to sit back and see the whole picture but I think the beginner often does not. What needs to be updated is the manner of teaching. Concept should lead to technique, not the other way around.

 

[MJS]

Perhaps my answer then is that the techniques are okay but the teaching method is outdated. We don't spend decades in a temple somewhere mulling every nuance of a technique the way we once did. We get it in 1 hour does twice a week.

I would tend to think though that even slight modifications may be needed. Stiff, rigid movements that may have been fine in the past, may not be as well suited today.

Mike

 

[Navarre]

I would tend to think though that even slight modifications may be needed. Stiff, rigid movements that may have been fine in the past, may not be as well suited today.

Perhaps. The rising block itself is stiff and rigid. I can't say that's wrong.

However, when I only studied karate that was the way I knew to perform blocks. Now, with ju-jitsu training I tend to sweep the attack and allow it to flow to my next technique.

Is the hard block wrong? Well, only if I want to say that ju-jitsu is superior to karate. I think both have their place. After all, the block is also a strike and there's nothing wrong with damaging the arm of the opponent.

However, a more thorough understanding of both arts has allowed me to know when I need which technique. But this goes back to my belief that the concept should be taught before the technique.

p.s. - Look at me, Ma! I'm a MT black belt!!

 

[MJS]

Perhaps. The rising block itself is stiff and rigid. I can't say that's wrong.

However, when I only studied karate that was the way I knew to perform blocks. Now, with ju-jitsu training I tend to sweep the attack and allow it to flow to my next technique.

Is the hard block wrong? Well, only if I want to say that ju-jitsu is superior to karate. I think both have their place. After all, the block is also a strike and there's nothing wrong with damaging the arm of the opponent.

However, a more thorough understanding of both arts has allowed me to know when I need which technique. But this goes back to my belief that the concept should be taught before the technique.

p.s. - Look at me, Ma! I'm a MT black belt!!

Good point. I've said the same thing..everything has its time and place. Now, it comes down to the person knowing what the right time is.

BTW, congrats on your new Black Belt!!

Mike

 

[PatMunk]

Pat, I have no opposition to the teaching of rising blocks. I simply feel that more emphasis should be placed on the correlation between distance and the block.

This is what you suggest as well by referring to the importance of closing the gap and avoiding contact with the weapon. I agree with you.

The fallacy comes when the block is taught without addressing the underlying concepts behind it. This is why I feel the beginner should be introduced to the concepts of distance, closing the gap, and deflection leading to a technique before they focus so rigidly on performing the same block 1000 times.

The block itself is important. I just don't think it should be taught in the first class. Build the foundation of knowledge and then lead the body to perform upon that foundation.

This is why from the very first day of training those principles should be taught. I totally agree ... I feel that the most important part of any block isn't the blocking motion or the target of the blocking arm. I feel the most important part of any blocking motion is getting yer butt out of the path of the strike. The blocking motion is secondary.

 

[Navarre]

I feel the most important part of any blocking motion is getting yer butt out of the path of the strike. The blocking motion is secondary.

Amen, my brutha!

I always tell people my first rule of fighting is "Don't get unconscious." Your ability to punch through 3 inches of steel or to levitate like Trinity doesn't mean squat if you're lying out stone cold on the floor.

It's like the dude who pays $500 to learn to defend himself with only his bare feet...then gets the crap beaten out of him while trying to take off his shoes! This is the kind of "technique" that never gets outdated.

 

[PatMunk]

Holy smokes, I don't think I would have ever thought of using this or any block against the weapon...

I know that's right ... but then I see it all the time .. and it's not just limited to certain styles ... I've seen student after student and instructor after instructor ... block the club instead of the arm/wrist when doing techniques for club attacks.

Go figure .....

 

[Flatlander]

I think the Art should be everchanging in the sense that it adapts everything useful and culls out what is not. The question seemed to be if specific techniques were outdated and needed changing.

My answer, thus far, is that the techniques seem solid overall. I think the problem lies in that the technique is sometimes taught in isolation without addressing all of the principles that goes behind it. This is what I was referring to concerning the rising block; not the technique, but the method of teaching.

Perhaps my answer then is that the techniques are okay but the teaching method is outdated. We don't spend decades in a temple somewhere mulling every nuance of a technique the way we once did. We get it in 1 hour does twice a week.

It's easy for the more experienced of us to sit back and see the whole picture but I think the beginner often does not. What needs to be updated is the manner of teaching. Concept should lead to technique, not the other way around.

I agree in that technique and underlying principle are both necessary ingredients to form context for understanding. However, I wouldn't go so far as to suggest one necessarily come before the other when teaching. It seems to me that, as they are both necessary for understanding, the "right" order in which to teach them may viewed in different ways.

For example, had you never driven a car: I might teach you how the car works and share with you some tactics and strategies around the track, but until you get in that car and drive it around a bit, you'd best stay out of the races. Similarly, were I to just toss you the keys without discussing how you might want to go about handling that car, you may not fare too well in your first race either.

So, I think that a little knowledge can sometimes be a dangerous thing.

In the same vein, I might even say that knowledge of technique can assist with understanding how to apply principle, while understanding of principle will assist in the learning of technique.

In the end, it all comes down to application. In application, the lines between technique and principle or concept become blurred. However, first there must be learning.

In contrast to all this, a case can be made for simply teaching technique repetetively to new students. There is no substitute for countless repetitions. They develop good habits, effeciency, speed, strength, and focus. All of these are valuable contributions to a good foundation for learning.

I wouldn't say there is a this way or that way. Mind you, I have never taught others, so there is a larger context that I've not experienced.

:asian:

 

[Ceicei]

All of these are valuable contributions to a good foundation for learning.

I wouldn't say there is a this way or that way.
:asian:

And then again, there are various ways of how people learn. Some function better by learning step by step and evolving along the way. Others may like the more "hands-on" rough-n-tumble process. Then there's the other ways all in between...

To say that a certain teaching/learning method is "wrong" or needs to be fixed is overlooking the main point. The instructor, mindful of the students, will look for the best possible way to meet the students' learning processes. What is left at the very the fundamental level is the training quality between the instructor and student.

Are things outdated? In reference to whom? Compared to what? In what way? For what purpose?

Once becoming advanced, it is sometimes easy to forget how overwhelmed a student may be to begin; some things tried and true works. However, to think things should be more like this or more like that may be encouraged. The instructor should always evolve the way he teaches if he finds there is a better way of imparting information and guiding the students to become solid martial artists/stylists.

An instructor who stops analyzing his methods will eventually hinder progress, not just his own, but that of the students'.

- Ceicei

 

[Flying Crane]

Lets take the idea of traditional weaponery, here's a brick through your window-If it's traditional, it's no longer a weapon per se.

CVan you adapt some of the movements of the Chinese broadsword to your other skills, sure- but why not just train those other skills instead of investing time in weapon training that is of little use??

Arguably you are correct, in many (not all) circumstances the weaponry is irrelevant, but there are other reasons to keep these arts alive. Simple enjoyment of the practice comes to mind. In addition, if done correctly, with properly weighted weapons, this can be a tremendous strength-builder and does improve your training.