Right.
Understand that just because you reject my premises does not mean I have not answered ALL of the questions posed (whether in general or specifically).
We'll come back to this, but straight away, no you haven't.
Fact is I was a SUPER traditional person for almost half of my martial arts history to date (15 years plus). After getting my first BB in Karate after 13 years of straight training I moved to a new city for work. There I started training Shorinji ryu, Okinawan Kobudo and Tai Chi Chuan. I stayed until reaching BB candidate in Shorinji ryu and Kobudo and completed my Tai Chi Chuan training before shipping out in the military.
I'll say a couple of things here. Firstly, I wasn't asking for your history, but thanks. Next, a black belt in karate isn't necessarily any kind of indication of being a "super traditional" person/martial artist, so I'm not sure if anything there was meant to prove anything, mainly as your posts (here and elsewhere) indicate that, if that was the case, you've forgotten everything from then.
I came to where I am by asking questions, training with everyone I could and fighting with the ideas presented. I have ONLY cared about Martial Arts from the perspective of how they can help me with self defense and survival. I have all the culture and religious influence I need with my faith.
Which contradicts your previous claim of being a "super traditional person", really. Which is it? You were a traditional minded martial artist, or you were only concerned with what you considered effective? They aren't really the same thing. And as far as you having "all the culture and religious influence you need", wow have you missed the point. And where has the religious thing come from? You do tend to keep adding things in randomly...
In terms of Physics there are only certain valid options to choose. I base all of my techniques against scientific training and testing and re-training and more testing. In the end I take the things that work the highest percentage of time and follow the training methods that achieve the most productive and efficient results.
As I said earlier, physics is not the actual primary influence that you should be looking at to see how off your idea is. And really, your idea there is more about biomechanics that physics anyway, but it's still not that. But, for fun, let's deal with the rest of this comment.
Do you really think that you're the only one to have a "scientific" approach to combative disciplines? Dude, I know arts that have been doing that for 500 years. They actually describe their technical repertoire in terms of scientific mechanical principles. But more to the point, what kind of testing? After all, you've stated that you don't have any sparring, only doing set drills and the like (and trained unnamed fighters to MMA success in that method), so how are you ensuring that what you're doing actually works? Then again, if it's for self defence, rather than competition, what are you doing, going out and getting into fights to test new theories?
Basically what I'm saying is that, based on the priorities that you've stated, and the approach you take, I can't see any form of testing that is actually what would be seen as a scientific approach, or even able to render a definitive result one way or another.
To determine the "best" punch in my world you take ALL the punches and put them in a test. The testing is done against what you want to strike. Since I focus on self defense only, I want to strike the human body. With anatomy we know there are good spots to hit with a fist and then there are not so good spots. Now that we have the striking areas defined we strike with all of the punches and measure a) damage we receive by punching and b) damage we deliver. When you take the results you have one or two that stand out. Out of the one or two I choose the most versatile punch and start training it. While this is not the most perfect process it does deliver the highest yielding percentage shots - which is what I bet on.
Except that that's a highly flawed concept.
A number of years ago there was a National Geographic program on martial arts (Fight Science)... and in it, they did exactly that. They got a bunch of different practitioners from different arts to see who had the most powerful punch, who had the most powerful kick, and so on. And at the end, they gave a list of who had the "best" so they could make up the "best" possible collection of martial arts techniques. They decided that the boxers punch was the strongest, the muay Thai knee was the most powerful leg strike, a turning TKD kick was the most powerful "full" kick, a "ninjutsu" (the guy used had no connection to the art itself, a complete fail on Nat Geo's part) hammerfist was the most devastating hand strike, and so on. Except that if you tried the muay Thai knee, or the "ninja" hammerfist, or the TKD kick from a boxers posture, they wouldn't work. By the same token, if you were set up for throwing TKD kicks, the boxers punch would be severely reduced in power as well.
What I'm saying is that, whatever you choose, it can't be in isolation, choosing just a punch, then presumably just a front kick, then a turning kick, then an elbow, and so on. It needs to be congruent and all work together, otherwise none of it will work, as each of the different elements will work against each other, and you end up with a dozen things that work in their contexts taken out of their contexts.
Really, though, the reason I asked is that if you said you were picking a horizontal (flat) fist, then I'd be pointing out that in about half the striking arts out there, that wouldn't match their punching methods, which are vertical fists. There would also be the question of if the punch is corkscrewed on the way out, some will, some will do it partway, some won't at all. In short, no matter what you came up with, it would only match the smallest percentage of martial arts.
If you had to run out into the woods and you could only grab three things you would choose the tools that you can use in the most situations and especially the most critical need areas such as survival.
Frankly, that's a flawed analogy. Firstly, if you're fleeing into the woods, and are grabbing tools, then what you pick will all be aiming for the same aim (survival), which is not the case for martial arts (no matter your personal reasons for training in martial arts, it is not universal), the tools would be able to be consciously selected for deliberate usage to a specific purpose, enabling the conscious mind to control what you do with them, and when. For example, if you chose a box of matches, a tent, and a shotgun, you're not going to be expected to light matches while putting the tent up and shooting the gun, are you? Martial techniques, on the other hand, need to be congruent in order for them to be reliably present when needed... you need a single power source, a single approach, and a single overarching strategy. This should be able to be expressed in a number of principles, which might cover one or more ranges (depending on what your strategy is); the use of different power sources, strategies, and approaches doesn't work for a number of reasons.
There may very well be 40 different ways and types of punches, but I really only need to train one to an above average level to be more effective than most. If you are going to shoot aim for the body.
Sure, but I have no idea why you're now making this about your personal performance... you posited an idea where people would get a generic "universal black belt", which was made up of the "basics that apply to all martial arts", allowing the prospective student to "specialize" in a particular art after getting the "universal black belt". This isn't about what you would use, it's about your construct. Or are you saying that what works for you is the one thing that everyone should train in?
But, again, if you're training in that one punch, it has to fit in with everything else that is part of the course. Otherwise everything else you put in there will work against the punch, and no matter how good it is, it'll be weakened by confusing it with other approaches. That said, you're now saying that there are many different types of punches? I thought your contention was that there were underlying basics that all arts applied in a similar enough way, and that was the basis of why you thought your plan was a good idea...
I have no idea why you've now brought shooting into it, though.
A saying I use all the time when teaching BJJ is "position before submission."
Well, that's a standard BJJ strategy there... and, gotta say, doesn't seem to have much to do with the previous, or the following...
You have to earn the right to use any technique, method or concept. What gets you there and even takes you through is balance, power, speed, focus, timing, etc. Things like these are generic to everyone - the same laws apply. I focus on trying to perfect these basic elements and mastering a few tool sets that can be used in many incidences. This has proven itself for me and my students across many real world circumstances.
Firstly, the vague truisms vary wildly in how they're applied and approached from art to art. As a result, you really can't take the approach of one art when it comes to, say, power, or speed, and apply it to another. So that's a fail there. When you mention "the same laws apply", no they don't. If you're talking laws of physics, the biomechanical approach does actually alter that to a degree from art to art. If you're talking about the detail that they all have to address those truisms, sure, but not in the same way, with the same context, or by the same rules. So no.
And the second half (where again you take this to your personal approach) is completely irrelevant. I'm not asking what you do in your training time, I'm asking how you think there is any viability to a universal black belt program that doesn't contradict 99% of arts.
While I appreciate you Chris, I don't appreciate the personal jabs at me. You talk about me not addressing the ideas I put forth while you make tongue in cheek remarks in weak attempts to besmirch my training personally. You have basically called me a liar and or fraud on numerous occasions while you can be found across this entire website making "expert" remarks on more topics and disciplines then I have life to type in here now.
There have been no jabs, Jason, unlike the ones you've taken at me. Okay, maybe a small one with your Daito Ryu experience... as far as calling you a liar, I actually implied that there was more than sufficient evidence to cast doubt on your claims and statements, so having you tell us that you don't lie would require taking you at your word, which is not something that I feel many here would feel is a safe bet. You've made numerous claims, been asked details to supply credibility to your words, and have dodged the questions each time. If you've been telling the truth, okay. But you need to realize that you have created the image we have of you yourself.
If you didn't like the idea then you could have just said you didn't and left it at that like Steve did.
Well, you almost immediately addressed questions to me, not to Steve.... so I figured, you know, I'd stick around and answer them....
Thanks again for making me question why I even bother to post here in the first place.
Wasn't it that...:
Once again I say thank you to everyone for their carefully thought out posts and responses. I enjoy posting here at MartialTalk directly because of the great people, the vastness of experiences and the willingness of the community to share, critique and honestly exchange ideas.
?
Hmm.
But to address what I said at the beginning, you haven't come close to answering the questions you've been asked. If you can't remember them, here you go:
Here you go Jason
Look through these and then standarize them
Aww heck...just because I like you let's make it easy and limit it to a partial list from China, Japan and Korea...now standardize these
(see post for full list)
Honestly, I'm not sure what you're saying in a lot of this, Jason....
Hmm. Okay.
Are you saying that they were all the same OTHER THAN striking surface, angle and power, or that those aspects were all the same in each? If the former, well, that's a part of the differences between karate and Wing Chun (I'm assuming you meant Joe Lewis, can't find any "Jow" Lewis, yeah...?). If the latter, well, there should have been notable differences... the method of "rooting" to generate power for Wing Chun is markedly different from the rotational power in traditional karate, or the kinetic linking found in boxing, so unless these people were just working with what you were already doing (in which case it is far from you then learning "Wing Chun" punching or the like), then you seem like you missed quite a bit there...
I honestly have no idea what this has to do with the idea being put forth here... are these high ranking black belts entering a new school as beginners, and don't know what they're doing there, or is this in some kind of competition? Or are you trying to say that people here aren't respecting your experience enough, and we should agree with you, or give your ideas more credence due to your 30 years experience? Frankly, none of it seems to have any relevance.
In what? What are you actually talking about here? And consistency only needs to be within the same context. There is no need for consistency between Hung Gar and Seitei Iaido....
Remedy for what? That karate practitioners don't do the same thing as Aikido practitioners, let alone members of the Dog Brothers?
Hmm, missed this bit.
Better at what? What use does Daito Ryu have for such things? Daito Ryu is claiming to be a Koryu, which means it's concerned with preserving the way things are done in that art. What use does Iaido have for any of it? What about Kyudo? Martial arts are not (I'm going to emphasise this, as it's a common misconception that I see a lot) NOT about self defence. They can be, aspects of them can be, but that's not the single reason for them. If you are training for Judo competition, then knife conflict, punching and kicking mean absolutely nothing. If you are training in Filipino martial arts, knife is going to be a big aspect, but it's going to be completely different to Japanese knife methods, with very different attacks, weapons, and far more.
I can go on for hours, Jason. This single statement shows gigantic gaps in your understanding of martial arts in the breadth of their ranges. Make us all better? Not in the slightest.
Hi Jason,
I would have to say no, there can't be a universal BB. That would imply that there'd have to be 1 art. However, looking at your last paragraph, where you talk about specialties in specific arts...could you clarify that please?
Using your analogy universities would offer courses in "Generic Literature 101", which would not cover any specific literature. Once students received their B.A. degree, they could go on to graduate school for classes in "18th century English novels", "20th Century French short stories" and "16th century Chinese poetry". It doesn't work that way.
Leaving aside the flawed comparison to college education, what exactly would be covered in "punching class 101"?
How to form a fist?
How to generate power?
How to land a punch without being blocked or countered?
How to use punches in combination?
When to use a punch?
The answers to these questions (and many more) are completely different in arts such as Wing Chun, Shotokan, Boxing and Bujinkan Taijutusu. There is no "generic" answer to any of these questions that would carry over into those various arts. You might have the opinion that a certain approach to punching might be a "superior" approach, either in general or for an individual, but that's very different from being a generic approach that would have any connection to most martial arts.
Ok, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, and if so please clarify. Going on what you're saying, if the BA or BS was the univ. BB, and then goes on to study in a specific area, the univ. BB would teach someone a basic set of skills, ie: how to punch, block, kick, etc, and then they'd go on to pick the art that interested them, ie: TKD, BJJ, etc.?
Okay, you're willing to be wrong... so, after you were immediately corrected, and given example after example of how wrong you are, why are you still trying to argue?
That is what you see at most martial arts schools....... where are you looking?
I have not seen that at any martial arts school in almost 40 years of training. Don't get me wrong, I have seen some pretty bad schools but if that is what you are using to support your argument, something that appears to be an obvious spoof then you have no support for what you are saying at all
And exactly what are you tryig to proove with the first video of various arts most of which are not kung fu by the video label, and do you have any idea what you are really saying when you say Kung Fu?
The thing about using YouTube to support anything is there are just as many examples to the contrary of anything you are trying to prove
But what about those generic college degrees that are really not generic that you spoke of before?
Hmm, actually, we'll try it this way.
Jason, you're wanting to come up with a single set of basic, universal approaches that people would learn (to a level of black belt) before "specializing" in their preferred art, yeah? Then let's look at what that might involve. Let's look at a punch.
What is the "basic" punch like? How is the fist held? How is it formed? How is the power generated? Does it come from the hip, or the shoulder? Or somewhere else? How are the hips used? What is the stance used that the punch is thrown from?
Give some answers to that, and we'll see how it fits with a range of arts, yeah?
And how does that punch apply to BJJ in the Universal approach?
Why? Why will we have to take your word for it about either the legends that you hinted at, or the fact that you don't lie? None of us know you except by the reputation which you've garnered here on this forum, and that reputation does not presuppose anyone to excessive trust.
Why would you want to "prevent things like this"???
I find that exceptionally hard to believe. Even at the bad schools I've visited, they're commonly way better than what you have represented here.
If you're unsure of where the questions are, or what they're referring to, just click on the arrow in the quote name tag, and it'll take you to the post itself.
Oh, and who said I'm nice in real life..... damn lie that is...
