Are you bound by tradition?

[Holmejr]

The book by Steven Pearlman addresses the underlying principles and mechanics of the human body and the martial arts. Once you recognize the underlying concepts it means you need not hop around, mixing and matching different parts from other arts. This book is worth its weight in gold to the martial artist who chooses to apply the lessons it shares.

Doesn’t sound good to me. I can take Eskrido for a lifetime and never fully get BJJ. If i “skip around” a bit, I might practice and become proficient in take down defense or defending oneself in a full mount, but to know what it is like to roll for hours and become proficient on the ground takes dedication to that art. And vice versa.

 

[Taiji Rebel]

Doesn’t sound good to me. I can take Eskrido for a lifetime and never fully get BJJ. If i “skip around” a bit, I might practice and become proficient in take down defense or defending oneself in a full mount, but to know what it is like to roll for hours and become proficient on the ground takes dedication to that art. And vice versa.

Fair enough

 

[isshinryuronin]

But when I fight Jow Ga vs Jow Ga it's the worst. Nothing falls into place because for the most part the techniques and footwork help to prevent the things that we would normally try to exploit.

In this case, don't fight the style, fight the opponent. Make it more personal using tactics, exploiting his individual combat behavior - reactions and preferences as well as his particular physical skills. While the opponent's system has strategic implications, it's the individual that provides the tactical opportunities that will be the major factor.

 

[Taiji Rebel]

In this case, don't fight the style, fight the opponent. Make it more personal using tactics, exploiting his individual combat behavior - reactions and preferences as well as his particular physical skills. While the opponent's system has strategic implications, it's the individual that provides the tactical opportunities that will be the major factor.

Most of you guys seem to talk about martial arts from a sporting angle. Competition fighting with someone of the same (or different style) is not really what I think of as martial arts. The entertainment/sports perspective never attracted me to study fighting methods. The concepts keep me training, along with seeking more efficient methods for handling a real confrontation - so, in some ways I guess I am bound by the warlike and philosophical/spiritual aspects of the martial arts.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Once you recognize the underlying concepts it means you need not hop around, mixing and matching different parts from other arts.

It's chicken and egg issue. Where do you get the information about the "underlying concepts"?

In CMA, there are 4 major parts of training (ground game is not included):

- foundation (long fist, CLF, Hong Gar, ...),
- power generation (Baji, XingYi Liu He, Chen Taiji, ...),
- speed generation (praying mantis, Zimen, WC, ...),
- throwing skill (Chinese wrestling, ..).

It's impossible to train just 1 CMA system and be able to get all those "underlying concepts".

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Can you give an example of what you mean by seeing weaknesses in your primary art?

- A long fist guy can't do a hip throw.
- A Chinese wrestling guy can't do a roundhouse kick.
- A praying mantis guy is lacking knock down power.
- A Baji guy can't throw 4 punches within 1 second.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Most of you guys seem to talk about martial arts from a sporting angle.

I can only speak for CMA. The purpose of the CMA training is not to train how to fight open hand but how to fight with a cold weapon.

Why do you train "dodging a tennis ball"? because you want to dodge a throwing knife.

单刀进枪（加飞刀）成功局_哔哩哔哩_bilibili

 

[Gerry Seymour]

One of the bigger mistakes I see in the martial arts is people encountering systems other than their own and immediately scrambling to point out weaknesses in the other art as justifications as to why their own art is superior.

What I find much more productive is to learn enough about the other art to switch perspectives and ask "what would a practitioner of this other style see as flaws or weaknesses in my own training, and what can I do to address those potential problems?"

Agreed. When I've visited schools as a guest (not as a student, but invited), I'm happy to share a bit of what I teach, but I'm at least as interested in getting them to show me what they think they're better at. If they're right, I get to learn about a possible weakness in my own training.

In addition, I've found that often someone in the other system understands something I do better than I do. Maybe they explain weight-dropping (an important principle in my primary art) better than I've heard before, and it suddenly makes more sense to me (something that happened in a 2-day seminar I attended). So I'm always looking for those shared principles, too.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Jow Ga makes more sense to me when it's used against other systems. Jow Ga vs Outside system = fast-paced learning of Jow Ga. Jow Ga vs Jow Ga = contaminated learning and confusion

The best way I can think of it is like gears falling into place. Everything makes sense. But when I fight Jow Ga vs Jow Ga it's the worst. Nothing falls into place because for the most part the techniques and footwork help to prevent the things that we would normally try to exploit.

I'm thinking Aikido, Wing Chung, Tai Chi, Bagua and many other systems have that same issue.

It depends who I'm working with. NGA works astoundingly well against NGA folks who have never trained with resistive training. They can be quite bad at defending against their own art (and others), even at instructor levels. But once there's any amount of resistive training, it's much like you describe. Some of what I do works against other styles only because it's surprising to them, and it's not so surprising to someone from NGA.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I agree, but sometimes it doesn't even have to be other arts. Sometimes it can just be another school within the same art, which for one reason or another doesn't have the same weakness as the first school.

Oh, definitely. I went through a string of instructors during my time in the NGAA, and also visited with (and taught at) other schools, so was exposed to some differing approaches within the art, so I sometimes take for granted that folks are exposed to different perspective within the art.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yes, and this is the point of the book

It helps you understand principles and how they apply to every style and the human body.

Can you give an example of what you mean by seeing weaknesses in your primary art?

If you only ever trained NGA (Nihon Goshin Aikido - my primary art), within schools using the curriculum introduced in the US, you'd likely think you had some decent grasp of groundwork. If you visited an old-school Judo school (they did more groundwork back then than I understand to be typical today) or a BJJ school or an MMA gym, you'd quickly understand how weak that ground game is. You'd also start to learn how to apply NGA's principles (and some of techniques) more effectively on the ground than the NGA curriculum teaches.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Most of you guys seem to talk about martial arts from a sporting angle. Competition fighting with someone of the same (or different style) is not really what I think of as martial arts. The entertainment/sports perspective never attracted me to study fighting methods. The concepts keep me training, along with seeking more efficient methods for handling a real confrontation - so, in some ways I guess I am bound by the warlike and philosophical/spiritual aspects of the martial arts.

This doesn't have to be organized competition. Resistive training (where your opponent is trying to stop you from doing what you want to do) gets you the same effect. I've never competed in any event, but I've sparred/rolled/whatever with folks from different styles and arts. It's a good way to quickly learn a bit about your own abilities.

 

[dunc]

I feel that there's nothing more in keeping with tradition than updating your approach so that it is practical in today's context

 

[Buka]

One of the bigger mistakes I see in the martial arts is people encountering systems other than their own and immediately scrambling to point out weaknesses in the other art as justifications as to why their own art is superior.

What I find much more productive is to learn enough about the other art to switch perspectives and ask "what would a practitioner of this other style see as flaws or weaknesses in my own training, and what can I do to address those potential problems?"

You can't say that, Tony, it makes way too much sense! (feeble attempt at humor)

Bound by tradition, not bound by tradition - the common ground we have is doing the best we can in this crazy Martial stuff that we all chose as a path. (damn, what were we thinking?)

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

One of the bigger mistakes I see in the martial arts is people encountering systems other than their own and immediately scrambling to point out weaknesses in the other art as justifications as to why their own art is superior.

I'm the opposite. When I found out that

- TKD roundhouse kick training is better than my long fist roundhouse kick training, I immediately replaced it.
- MT roundhouse kick training is better than the TKD roundhouse kick training, I immediately replaced it again.

The reason that I like MT roundhouse kick is because the "body pull/push limb" makes sense to me. I use my logic to decide what I like and what I don't like. The word "style" has no meaning for me.

 

[JowGaWolf]

In this case, don't fight the style, fight the opponent. Make it more personal using tactics, exploiting his individual combat behavior - reactions and preferences as well as his particular physical skills. While the opponent's system has strategic implications, it's the individual that provides the tactical opportunities that will be the major factor.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you can't separate the individual from the style. It's the style that opens the opportunities and provides the defense. The individual is just vehicle that the style travels. In other words. A BJJ practitioner is going to do BJJ, It's not like some traditional martial arts where someone trains System A but doesn't Spar using System A.

Style = Engine of Car
Body of car = Individual

I don't know how you can separate the two. The only person that can separate the system from the individual, is the individual.

When System A spars System A then. System A only knows the Offensive and Defensive strategies of System A. When System A meets System B (who has the same problem). Then the person who is able to quickly learn the offense and defense of the other will have the advantage.

However. Had the individual of System A sparred against System B in training Then System A will be at an advantage from the beginning. System A would now be informed about how to attack and defend against System B.

Real Story Very Simple

My first time sparring against the Sanda School in Atlanta went like this.

Initial thought.
Me (student)
1. I understood Sanda enough to know what they would try ahead of time

The 2 Jow Ga Instructors
1. They were just going to go in and spar like they do in the school System A vs System A


Training.
Me
2. Trained low stance to use against grappling attempts. I knew they wanted some take downs. (Use what you train. Right?) I change my approach and training of Jow Ga to fix this format "System A vs System B"


The 2 Jow Ga Instructors
2 They said they will use the defenses that were taught in the school "which are functional " but they are functional for high take down attempts. When we train the techniques, it was System A doing the technique on System A. Ideally it would have been better to get someone who does single leg take downs frequently to feed us quality take downs.

The instructors had the mentality of "System A vs System A"


Day of the sparring match
3. I used the solid rooting of Jow Ga to defend against someone trying to lift me and was able to successfully defend against take downs.
3. They approached as if Sanda students were going to spar like Jow Ga students and ended up getting tossed.


They knew Jow Ga techniques and concepts but abandoned them (They separated themselves from the system).
I knew Jow Ga techniques and concepts and embraced it. (I remained the Jow Ga practitioner and not the guy who abandons training)
The Sanda students fought 3 systems that day. Jow Ga Kung Fu, Brawling , and Boxing . Out of those 3 systems. Which one do must of use have experience going against? That sanda school would have easily had many sparring sessions against 2 of those systems. As a result, they were already informed on how to apply Sanda to those systems.

The 2 instructors didn't have an informed approach. It was their first time against Sanda. They didn't even bother to watch the videos of the Sanda students sparring competitions. I must have spent 5 hours watching their videos and trying to understand Jow Ga in the context of using it against them. As individuals, I didn't know them. But I understood the system that they were going to try to use against me.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Real Story Very Simple

My first time sparring against the Sanda School in Atlanta went like this.

One time I sparred against a boxer. I didn't throw any punch. Whenever my opponent shifted weight on his leading leg, I would step on his knee, or sweep his leg. When you know that your opponent will only punch you (without kicking), the fight can be so simple.

From a traditional boxer point of view, a boxer doesn't know how to deal with leg attack can be a problem.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You can't say that, Tony, it makes way too much sense! (feeble attempt at humor)

Bound by tradition, not bound by tradition - the common ground we have is doing the best we can in this crazy Martial stuff that we all chose as a path. (damn, what were we thinking?)

Wait, were we supposed to be thinking??

 

[isshinryuronin]

When System A spars System A then. System A only knows the Offensive and Defensive strategies of System A.

Exactly my point. That's why in such a case you don't concentrate on the strategic system, but rather on the individual's unique personal proclivities using tactics. Does he tend to move to the right or left? Does he flinch and be susceptible to feints? Does he like to kick/strike with his left or right? How aggressively does he attack? etc. etc..... This info will give you the path to winning.

Think of a car race where both drivers have the exact same car (system). It then come down to the individual driver and how he drives the car. When both cars are equal, you compete against the driver.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Most of you guys seem to talk about martial arts from a sporting angle. Competition fighting with someone of the same (or different style) is not really what I think of as martial arts. The entertainment/sports perspective never attracted me to study fighting methods. The concepts keep me training, along with seeking more efficient methods for handling a real confrontation - so, in some ways I guess I am bound by the warlike and philosophical/spiritual aspects of the martial arts.

Agreed. Sport MA and combat TMA have many differences. Chances are, in a street fight, you have no idea of what kind of fighting style (if any!) the opponent has, or his personal tendencies. So, in order to come up with some SIMPLE tactics, you have only a few seconds to observe and come up with one or two things that might help you land your attacks. I mentioned in another thread a few days ago that in actual combat, shock and awe is a good strategy, relying on your trained speed, power and combos to overcome him. Less stress on tactics and more on superior technique and fighting spirit!