Being sent out

[exile]

To parrot what Paul and Exile are saying, I think it would not be the best of ideas to take Tae Kwon Do and say Shotokan Karate. Reason for this line of thinking lies in the fact that until you reach dan in the art you would currently be in then you are suseptible to much confusion and mismashing the different forms.

Matt---interesting point---it ties in with the one that Paul may have been (in part) making. TKD and Shotokan, as per your example, are close enough---even now, there are massive resemblances in the poomsae of one wrt the katas of the other---that you could very well mix them up and wind up with a weird hybrid. That's much less likely to happen when the forms are quite separate, as I think Paul was getting at. The positive advantage of studying genuinely disparate arts is that you'll get a really different take on movement and balance and so on---the fundamentals; the negative advantage is that you won't mix up things which are similar but distinct.

 

[Adept]

f someone just thinks, well, I'll learn these two separate MAs, that's probably a mistake. The trick I suspect is to identify just what it is about your primary art that could be taken to a new level by what you learn in the new art.

I would take it a step further, and stop thinking of the arts as being different. It's hard to put in words exactly what I mean. I think if you imagine your style as a tool box, and your techniques as tools, you'll be close to the mark.

So as a new student, you are unsure of what all these tools do and how to use them. As you get more experience, you will come to understand that you don't need some of the tools you have, you will never use some of the tools you have, and some of the tools you have aren't working properly. This is when you should start looking around to see how you can supplement your learning, to see how you can get some more, or better, tools.

So rather than thinking of yourself of as X type of martial artist, with elements from Y, I believe it is healthier for someone just to think of themselves as a martial artist (or fighter, whatever term they want to use), and to use whatever works for them.

Rather than using Toolbox X, with a few tools from Y and Z, just take all the tools you like, and put them in your own individual toolbox.

 

[Brandon Fisher]

I am always up for learning new things and I encourage that of the students. However I tend to bring in other instructors to allow the students to learn from others.

 

[mrhnau]

I am always up for learning new things and I encourage that of the students. However I tend to bring in other instructors to allow the students to learn from others.

Thats interesting. On a full time basis or occassionally?

I've seen alot of schools that teach multiple arts. Alot of them tend to have one "main" teacher for almost everything. Do you in any way "oversee" or approve what is taught?

 

[exile]

I would take it a step further, and stop thinking of the arts as being different. It's hard to put in words exactly what I mean. I think if you imagine your style as a tool box, and your techniques as tools, you'll be close to the mark.

So as a new student, you are unsure of what all these tools do and how to use them. As you get more experience, you will come to understand that you don't need some of the tools you have, you will never use some of the tools you have, and some of the tools you have aren't working properly. This is when you should start looking around to see how you can supplement your learning, to see how you can get some more, or better, tools.

So rather than thinking of yourself of as X type of martial artist, with elements from Y, I believe it is healthier for someone just to think of themselves as a martial artist (or fighter, whatever term they want to use), and to use whatever works for them.

I hear what you're saying, Adept, and agree, to the extent that we're talking about tactics. A good throwing technique that lets me set up a shot to the attacker's throat or temple is going to be of interest to me no matter where it comes from.

The problem I see arising comes when you try to reconcile very different strategies. This isn't my distinction, it's one that's made in Kane and Wilder's great book The Way of Kata, and their point is that what gives a particular martial art its distinctive character is the overall perspective on how to conduct the fight, not necessarily the moves involved. There was an interesting thread---maybe still going on, I think it is---`when your cup is too full', or something very close, was/is the name---where the original poster expressed surprise that an Aikido teacher, demonstrating a takedown move to someone, didn't supply a finishing move as followup, and when she asked him what it would be, he responded `That's it'. A couple of Aikidokas following the thread noted that, from the point of view of Aikido, the takedown could well be regarded as the finish---it was a move such that a bit more application of force in the right way would result in a broken wrist or arm, but unless there were actual reason to supply that extra force, the takedown indeed ended the fight, form the Aikido perspective.

In TKD a takedown isn't usually regarded as a finish; a throw isn't an end in itself, and so on---the more general idea is that they bring vulnerable points on the attacker's body into range of a severe damaging strike, and that's what ends the conflict. Sure, there could be exceptions based on opportunity and circumstance, but the general perspective of TKD and other karate-based systems seems to me to be, end the thing right now, with a hard damaging strike. Aikido, karate, TKD and kenpo might all use the same locking/throwing move, but they have different strategic ideas about how to conduct the fight, and the same holds pretty much for any two MAs that are genuinely distinct. Just how distinct depends on how much the strategy differs---between Aikido and Muay Thai, say, it would be quite a bit!

I don't see mixing strategic ideas in the same toolbox, is my take on this. Tactics, fine. But if you try to mix strategic ideas, you'll probably wind up like the proverbial donkey given two pails of food at opposite ends of its stable who starves to death because he can't decide which one to eat from.

IRather than using Toolbox X, with a few tools from Y and Z, just take all the tools you like, and put them in your own individual toolbox.

Again---as long as we're talking tactics and techniques you can adapt to your `home' strategy, no quarrel with with you're saying at all.

 

[The Kidd]

Interesting discussion, I like the toolbox analogy but it does come down to tactics and situations. As an Instructor I have to teach my students to know their surroundings and act or react accordingly. I teach alot of kids who are still in school, they cannot use the same force in responding to a threat in school than they can if someone accosts them on the street for fear of consequences. So in teaching them I use a Tae Kwon Do style self defense for street attack that would cause harm to someone, but I teach an Aikido or Ju Jitsu style of self defense for school where they can submit or hold an attacker until an adult can arrive on the scene so there will not be reprecussions on them from school personnel for inflicting damage. I teach my beginners the basics and my more advanced students different techniques and discretion when to use them. Being a school administrator myself I realize there is a difference in settings and a level of force being used, if I did not train my students that way I would not be preparing them appropriately but setting them up to fail.

 

[exile]

Interesting discussion, I like the toolbox analogy but it does come down to tactics and situations. As an Instructor I have to teach my students to know their surroundings and act or react accordingly. I teach alot of kids who are still in school, they cannot use the same force in responding to a threat in school than they can if someone accosts them on the street for fear of consequences. So in teaching them I use a Tae Kwon Do style self defense for street attack that would cause harm to someone, but I teach an Aikido or Ju Jitsu style of self defense for school where they can submit or hold an attacker until an adult can arrive on the scene so there will not be reprecussions on them from school personnel for inflicting damage.

Yes---different strategies for different situations (maybe different `levels of force' is the way to classify these). But in any given situation, competing strategies is probably a bad idea---the old saying about the hedgehog and the fox comes to mind.

I teach my beginners the basics and my more advanced students different techniques and discretion when to use them. Being a school administrator myself I realize there is a difference in settings and a level of force being used, if I did not train my students that way I would not be preparing them appropriately but setting them up to fail.

This is a very sensible approach, as vs. teaching beginners the nasty advanced applications, or teaching people purely destructive techniques where they might need only a moderate level of force.

 

[Paul B]

Again---as long as we're talking tactics and techniques you can adapt to your `home' strategy, no quarrel with with you're saying at all.

Taken a bit out of context from the post..but dead on. I was thinking from almost a purely technical standpoint. Good technique is good technique,no matter where it comes from.

The "toolbox" is also the way I tend to think of my own skillset (such as it may be) in that all of what I have studied doesn't get brought out into my Hapkido...it stays where it is.

Some would say that is selfish,and by "not sharing" I'm doing a disservice. I would say that I have went out to find it,and came to my own conclusions about what I would keep or discard..and would probably be shown over time to be a lot smarter in holding those same conclusions close. :lol2:

Which is in part why I would say CT is a must.

 

[tradrockrat]

My instructor mandated it after I got my Black belt - in fact, he told me to forget about 2nd level if I didn't.

Bando (as we learned it) had been resurected from the ashes so to speak by utilizing other MA's - so it was considered a very important part of our learning to be exposed to other styles.