Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
My wife reckons I could do with some training at one of them marital arts schools. :uhyeah:
:uhohh: I have no idea waht you oare talking about :uhohh:
I just love the edit function :wink1:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
My wife reckons I could do with some training at one of them marital arts schools. :uhyeah:
I don't think great kata should be based on grace!!!! It should show the power and force of the battle one is training for,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Obviously, I'm not into the sport that uses kata or forms as a way to judge gymnastic ablity.
If it has no self defense aspects taught and trained then it is not karate for that is what Karate is. JMO
Today many martial arts teach to get in to a competition, to get results, medals...but where is the real meaning of practicing martial art?. I mean, the real idea of practice martial art, if you will use in a real situation, is just for one reason: survive.
But today is not what we see....The simple practice for the "art" or to find the meaning of practice being a better human being, growth in a physical and spiritual way...where is all this today?.
Training to be the best in a competition is great, nothing against that, but you are not doing Martial Art, you are just practicing Sports....like anyone that practice football, cricket or archery.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martial Arts UK and Worldwide: http://pakuauk.blogspot.com
You probably wouldnt out-box him. You may kick him in the testicles, break his knee with a kick, put his arm in a joint lock , use pressure points , poke his eyes out etc etc. Im still yet to see multiple attackers , weapons , unseen attacks etc in sport fighting. Both fighters know the rules (and there are lots of them) , they know when the fight starts , they even wear clothing designed to fight in. Bottom line , it is a sport , it is nothing like a street fight and not everyone wants to learn a sport.In boxing, a sport, if you cannot even out punch a boxer when there is rules. What makes you think you can out punch a boxer without rules in the street?
You can find spirituality in anything you do, even sport such as football, basketball, swimming. I don't think you understand what is art. Art is in the doing. Basketball can be an art too, throwing the ball perfectly into the net. That is art.
Competition keeps the martial art honest. Without it, any unrealistic technique would become part of the curriculum.
Hi,
I'm actually going to come at this from another angle.... essentially, I'm going to state that no martial arts are designed for self defence. And the real meaning is not self defence, or even combat effectiveness. That is simply the vehicle used to get to what they are really all about.
Okay, a little different I'll admit, martial arts aren't about fighting and all that, but I'll explain.
To begin with, let's look at them objectively. Martial arts, as we often say, take at least a lifetime to master. It is .............................
Today many martial arts teach to get in to a competition, to get results, medals...but where is the real meaning of practicing martial art?. I mean, the real idea of practice martial art, if you will use in a real situation, is just for one reason: survive.
But today is not what we see....The simple practice for the "art" or to find the meaning of practice being a better human being, growth in a physical and spiritual way...where is all this today?.
Training to be the best in a competition is great, nothing against that, but you are not doing Martial Art, you are just practicing Sports....like anyone that practice football, cricket or archery.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martial Arts UK and Worldwide: http://pakuauk.blogspot.com
Tks Chris, that was a very complete answer...
And let me continue with the idea of the subject....
Yes I agree that Martial Art is not only self defence... No one today join a martial art class because he want to defence for some one in the street or so, today you have people carrying knifes or even a gun, which kind of martial will help you against that?.
For that reason I believe that martial arts it's a way to growth like a human being, like a person in a society that want to be better, better than himself of yesterday, better inside the mats and in a daily basis....in they personal life, in they family environment...And I don't think that competitions help in this way, think a little bit, the all society push you all the time to compete, in the school, at work, everywhere, we growth competing with everyone. Why?, why need this?, why I need to be better than you, or him?. I just need to be better than me!, be better than the others is easy in some point, but be better than yourself is the real challenge.
And please, don't forget the main reason why someone join a martial art class, inside or not, that person feel fear...
You didn't really disagree. You agreed that in it's original the 'art' was martial skills.This I subtly disagree with...
The original skills for combative success were certainly designed with only that one thing in mind, however I think it is inaccurate to describe such teachings as martial arts, in the same way that I don't think modern military training is a martial art. It is a military, or martial teaching and education, but it is not an art.
If we go back in time, there is a theory that only the wealthy could actually afford to train in martial arts, as they were the only ones with enough cash to lure the secrets out of the warriors, and the only ones with enough time to actually devote to the study. To simply have combat effectiveness as an aim does not require (or demand) an art side of things (that type of depth of knowledge is actually counter-productive if you are going to battle next week). Instead, the arts are designed to teach more than just how to kill/injure other human beings.
As an example, in class last week I taught a range of topics (as our structure always does), including the traditional art techniques, weapon techniques (often traditional, but this time around it's a modern, and therefore less martial-art, and more DefTac program), and a modern self defence section (not martial arts). The weaponry section (this month) is a program for defending against a blunt weapon with a short bladed weapon (knife versus club/iron bar/baseball bat), the art side is dealing with joint locks (and their application in the traditional techniques), and the modern is RBSD-style applications, this month it's pre-emptive striking. That's a very simple exercise, where you are approached, you get distance, they continue in, and you strike, then escape. If all you were after was self defence, that's pretty much all you'd get.
But the art side is still there as well. The lock this week was Hon Gyaku (a wrist lock, similar to Aikido's Ikkyo), and we looked at a few applications, including a technique called Renyo. This technique has an attack sequence of a right punch, then a right kick, then a right grab, and finally a resistance to the applied lock. It's actions include evasive movements, a striking block, a counter-kick, a softening strike, an Ura Gyaku (inside wrist twist), and then finally as the opponent attempts to resist the Ura Gyaku, you apply the Hon Gyaku (other versions apply a different lock, but this is the one we were looking at...) As you can see, it's a slightly involved sequence, and is against attacks not common today, with responces not necessarily practical against the types of attacks you do come up against. Even back in it's day, such a sequence would be highly unlikely, so why is it taught like that?
Well, the technique has quite a number of lessons, including dealing with all the common standing unarmed ranges, teaching the student to alter the distance as required each time, as well as teaching a range of tactical and strategic aspects. But it is not what I would refer to as "combat effective". The lessons involved are, but the technique itself is not. And that is the common idea to all martial arts, the idea is transmitting knowledge, insight, values, strategies, tactics, not combat effective techniques.
If you watch Kurosawa's The Seven Samurai, the villagers there learnt combat techniques, not martial arts. They were given long bamboo poles, sharpened at one end like a spear, and tuaght basically how to hold it and thrust. And that is how you approach training for a war. Martial arts come afterwards, and are really seperate.
Well, those skills are used as the vehicle to get across what is a martial art, however I don't think those skills make a martial art at all. A martial art is a seperate thing and is not concerned with combat effectiveness, although the skills taught in them often are combat effective, having come from lessons learnt is such violent situations.
I suppose to me it's like saying that flour equals a cake. Flour is often a main ingredient, but it is not a cake. Military or martial skills (combative effectiveness) are not a martial art any more than a cake is flour. Saying that a martial art was originally designed for only one thing (killing/injuring other people) to my mind denies what makes them martial arts, rather than just military training. As I said, it is a subtle disagreement...
I suppose the disagreement is that when it's only concerned with combat effectiveness, it's not a martial art. And when it's a martial art, it's gone beyond being concerned only with combat effectiveness (if it still is at all). Does that make more sense?