Co-operation

[Gerry Seymour]

Do folks on here think that if there was more co-operation/understanding between all the different Arts and styles and folks could view things from the stand point of having an open mind then less arguments would take place and more open discussion?

I can and have been guilty of that myself and I will admit to that. Reading posts on here has really opened up my mind to different concepts and ideas (ok I have time on my hands lol). It has got me thinking that ok never thought of that or how I could translate that into what I already know or how what I have read makes more sense or could be applied if not easier etc more directly or as part of what I am trying to achieve.

I would also like to make the suggestion that there is a heck of a lot of confusion goes on between arts due to the different terminology used for either the same thing/principle/technique and that cause division. Also adding to that I do feel that could in some cases (not all) there be the lost in translation element as in what we in the west may think it means may not actually be what it means or what we think is only partially what it means. I am sure at times this is the case at times.

I am sure folks will shoot me down over this and that is fine as long as they make a logical and rational argument and not just say "NO WE DO IT THIS WAY AND THAT THE ONLY WAY" or " YOUR ART IS WRONG AND DOESN'T WORK"

It may be a pointless exercise and I may get huge flak but so be it if it opens only a few minds it worth it

No, you're wrong.

Seriously, yes. I think if folks started with the understanding that the motivation for training isn't the same for everyone. In fact, it often changes over a person's life. So, what's "good training" (or even "good technique") for one purpose might not be as good for another purpose. And also we have to allow that most of us have some wrong ideas in our heads - meaning, we should accept that we come into these discussions with some concepts that are overstated, misunderstood, etc., and not attack others who don't agree. On more than one occasion, I've had a discussion of concepts turn into an attack on me and my training approach - often without an actual understanding of my training approach. Most of it was just lack of understanding of each other - me and the other folks not communicating well. There was probably also (on both sides, I expect) some irrationality from cognitive defenses.

I try not to push my ideas on others. Where they are relevant, i share them. If others don't agree, it's really not a problem for me. I'm much more interested in trying to understand where their points come from, and perhaps help them understand what the point is I'm making (whether they agree with it or not).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The MA school I go to has multiple classes all taught by different instructors. The school owner/chief instructor is highly respected by all the martial artists and instructors at the school. If one of the Karate students wants to refine some grappling defenses, the bjj students will help them with such(no charge). Same goes for bjj guys wanting to learn or spar with the karate guys.

However, I think many of these exchanges are only possible because that's the environment the school owner encourages. A positive or negative environment is usually set by the instructor and the long-term students tend to be in more alignment with that environment or will shift towards that alignment over time.

Arguments can start for many different reasons, some rational some irrational. Having a closed mind has a lot of drawbacks, but having too open of a mind can be dangerous. Someone having a different approach to generating power is something I'm very open to. However, I'm very skeptical when someone states they can "sense my energy" with their eyes closed and can dodge attacks doing so.

IMO, the environment you are in promotes better learning. If someone there wants to focus entirely on whatever Karate style they train (and let's assume it has zero grappling other than standing sweeps during sparring), they're going to be much more aware of the limitation that creates, so they have a more realistic view of where they are. Whether they train for self-defense, sport, or pure amusement (or any combination of the three), having that understanding is better. And, of course, if they decide they want to study something different, it's possibly handily right there.

 

[skribs]

I feel I'm not really at a point in my training where I need co-operation. I still have a ton I can learn from my Master.

 

[Anarax]

I get your point of sensing energy with eyes closed but some arts do maintain that I am like you skeptical but I will not knock it totally as I look on it that it is maybe me that is not far enough advanced to sense those things.

I don't insult them nor bash it, but I am skeptical of their claim. Especially when they don't demonstrate it, same goes for the no touch knockout.

 

[now disabled]

I don't insult them nor bash it, but I am skeptical of their claim. Especially when they don't demonstrate it, same goes for the no touch knockout.

Each to there own

I have never studied or been around the schools that teach that but if you mean haragei then umm I kinda do believe in that

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I would like to see more interaction between styles and schools. But it would expose the weaknesses of the artists to the exterior...

This is so true.

When I trained the long fist system, during the weekend, my long fist teacher brought us to visit a preying mantis school. I saw the preying mantis guys can move faster than the long fist guys can.

Later on I met some Baji guys. I found out their Baji punch are much stronger than my long fist punch.

If I have never cross trained both the preying mantis and the Baji system, I probably will never be able to find out the weakness in my primary long fist system. The cross training gives me a chance to look at MA from many different angles.

 

[wab25]

This should come as no surprise... but I look at cooperation a little differently. I don't train in other systems to add something to my art, or to fill a hole in my art or even to find my arts weaknesses. (I can find my arts weakness in the mirror, anytime I want...)

The way I see this, is that each art is trying to solve the same problem. That problem is not "hand to hand combat," that problem is "how to teach hand to hand combat." When you look at hand to hand combat... that encompasses a lot of variation. So much variation, that memorizing techniques to do in each situation, becomes too cumbersome, as there are too many situations and even if you could memorize them all, there is not enough time to practice them all to remain proficient in each. The problem is what do you teach people and how do you prepare them, to solve the hand to hand combat situation, given that you cannot teach them everything, for every situation. This is why there are systems to learning this stuff. The answer is to teach core movements, core ideas and strategies, and enough ways to apply them, that the student can adapt these movements and ideas, in real time to the situation they are in.This set of movements has to be pared down to something people can learn in a reasonable time frame and be able to practice enough of, to be able to effectively apply it.

Over time, different people have found different ways to solve this problem. Whats interesting, is that even as different as the systems are from each other, they all have basically the same principles and ideas. However, they are expressed quite differently. Even when the same movement is used by different arts, many times it is used to express different principles and ideas... even when both arts interpret the same movement as a throw.

In my training, I have done quite a bit of cross training. Due to distance, most of my training currently is cross training with other systems. I train their system, as a white belt and do it exactly as they teach me. (as best as I can anyway) After class, I look for the commonalities. These could be another application of the same movement. Another way to chain moves together. More interestingly, another way to express the same idea that I already learned, expressed somewhere else.

What I have found by doing this, is that I end up learning a lot about my system. ( I learn a little about the other system as well, but not nearly as much as I have learned about my own system.)

I believe there should be more cooperation. But, I think that cooperation with another style can help you further understand your own system better. You might even close that hole in your system, through understanding your own system better. You also get to meet a lot more people... most of them pretty cool.

 

[dvcochran]

This should come as no surprise... but I look at cooperation a little differently. I don't train in other systems to add something to my art, or to fill a hole in my art or even to find my arts weaknesses. (I can find my arts weakness in the mirror, anytime I want...)

The way I see this, is that each art is trying to solve the same problem. That problem is not "hand to hand combat," that problem is "how to teach hand to hand combat." When you look at hand to hand combat... that encompasses a lot of variation. So much variation, that memorizing techniques to do in each situation, becomes too cumbersome, as there are too many situations and even if you could memorize them all, there is not enough time to practice them all to remain proficient in each. The problem is what do you teach people and how do you prepare them, to solve the hand to hand combat situation, given that you cannot teach them everything, for every situation. This is why there are systems to learning this stuff. The answer is to teach core movements, core ideas and strategies, and enough ways to apply them, that the student can adapt these movements and ideas, in real time to the situation they are in.This set of movements has to be pared down to something people can learn in a reasonable time frame and be able to practice enough of, to be able to effectively apply it.

Over time, different people have found different ways to solve this problem. Whats interesting, is that even as different as the systems are from each other, they all have basically the same principles and ideas. However, they are expressed quite differently. Even when the same movement is used by different arts, many times it is used to express different principles and ideas... even when both arts interpret the same movement as a throw.

In my training, I have done quite a bit of cross training. Due to distance, most of my training currently is cross training with other systems. I train their system, as a white belt and do it exactly as they teach me. (as best as I can anyway) After class, I look for the commonalities. These could be another application of the same movement. Another way to chain moves together. More interestingly, another way to express the same idea that I already learned, expressed somewhere else.

What I have found by doing this, is that I end up learning a lot about my system. ( I learn a little about the other system as well, but not nearly as much as I have learned about my own system.)

I believe there should be more cooperation. But, I think that cooperation with another style can help you further understand your own system better. You might even close that hole in your system, through understanding your own system better. You also get to meet a lot more people... most of them pretty cool.

Very, very well said.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Over time, different people have found different ways to solve this problem.

But people may still follow the same principles. For example, principles such as:

- Use kick to set up punch.
- Use punch to set up clinch.
- Protect your center from inside out.
- Protect your center from outside in.
- Move toward your opponent's side door, the blind side.
- Attack your opponent's leading leg. When he steps back, you attack his other leg.
- Pull your opponent, when he resists, push him.
- ...

The principles have no style boundary.

 

[pgsmith]

If I have never cross trained both the preying mantis and the Baji system, I probably will never be able to find out the weakness in my primary long fist system. The cross training gives me a chance to look at MA from many different angles.

But how do you determine that it is a weakness rather than simply a difference? Both power and speed are mostly irrelevant in the face of superior timing. I've seen a great many people that attempt to incorporate elements from diverse systems without having a good understanding of any of them. It often ends up a mishmash of techniques with no real cohesiveness as the people doing the mixing are lacking in basic understanding.

Cross training can be very enlightening, but only after achieving a certain skill level. Until then, it can seriously muddy the waters in my opinion.

 

[skribs]

But how do you determine that it is a weakness rather than simply a difference? Both power and speed are mostly irrelevant in the face of superior timing. I've seen a great many people that attempt to incorporate elements from diverse systems without having a good understanding of any of them. It often ends up a mishmash of techniques with no real cohesiveness as the people doing the mixing are lacking in basic understanding.

Cross training can be very enlightening, but only after achieving a certain skill level. Until then, it can seriously muddy the waters in my opinion.

When I did Taekwondo as a kid we had the spinning heel kick. Now we have the spinning hook. I'm pretty sure the hook kick is in every way a superior technique to the heel kick. It's faster, can be done with better balance, can be done in a smaller space, and I believe (but don't have evidence) that it's stronger, too.

You also have areas of effectiveness. For example, I train Taekwondo and Hapkido. Assuming I'm proficient in both (which I'm not, quite yet) my Taekwondo gives me excellent skills in kicking range, and my Hapkido gives me good skills in close. The weaknesses are in between (in punching range) and in ground-fighting. So it makes sense I could turn to Boxing, Muay Thai, or Karate for more experience in punching range, or I could turn to wrestling, judo, or jiu-jitsu for experience on the ground. That would take away a weakness of my training.

But people may still follow the same principles. For example, principles such as:

- Use kick to set up punch.
- Use punch to set up clinch.
- Protect your center from inside out.
- Protect your center from outside in.
- Move toward your opponent's side door, the blind side.
- Attack your opponent's leading leg. When he steps back, you attack his other leg.
- Pull your opponent, when he resists, push him.
- ...

The principles have no style boundary.

Some styles have things they do different. For example, let's take boxing and Taekwondo.

• Boxers typically have one heel up, one heel down. Taekwondo is usually both up (bouncing for sparring) or both down (strong stance for practical situations)
• Boxers typically move with slides and never cross their feet, Taekwondo has lots of cross steps
• Boxers typically stay in the same orientation (i.e. left foot forward for a righty), Taekwondo trains both sides equally

 

[pdg]

When I did Taekwondo as a kid we had the spinning heel kick. Now we have the spinning hook. I'm pretty sure the hook kick is in every way a superior technique to the heel kick. It's faster, can be done with better balance, can be done in a smaller space, and I believe (but don't have evidence) that it's stronger, too.

Spinning heel (reverse turning kick) is more difficult to get just right, but when you do get it just right there's more power than a spinning hook.

If you don't (or can't) get it right, the spinning hook is better.

Done correctly (by ITF standards) they both require the same amount of space and take about the same amount of time, but the hook is a slightly closer range.



Disregard if 'my' versions of these kicks are different to yours...

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

But how do you determine that it is a weakness rather than simply a difference?

- A long fist teacher will tell you that if you have trained this system long enough, you will understand power generation.
- A Baji teacher will tell you that if you have trained these 8 drills for 3 months, you will understand power generation.

Which teacher will you have more faith in? If a teacher cannot explain something in simple words, there is something wrong in his teaching method.

 

[pgsmith]

If a teacher cannot explain something in simple words, there is something wrong in his teaching method.

I disagree. There are many things in martial arts that require proper background to understand. You can't explain particle physics to a kid that's just learning how to add and subtract.

 

[Deleted member 34973]

This has always been kind of and interesting subject. I myself have been sucked into an argument, here on MT..that really had nothing to do with the original topic. You still see that, but really leave these types to their own.

I do find it strange that, nowadays, you see it more often than not and I believe that is simply because of the online age and the idea that you can say more online, than you can in person.

In my younger days I traveled around the country a lot (building fiber networks) in my 20's, 30's and early 40's. I tended to seek out whatever local MA school I could find in what ever town I was working in. Sometimes I would stay in the area for months at a time and wished to continue some type of training.

Usually after a few classes, the instructor would realize that I was a bit to advanced for the beginning class and we would wind up, after talking for hours, trading styles. He would teach me what he knew, and I would teach him what I knew. There was really never a school that I walked into, where this would eventually happen. Some of my best and knowledgeable times in the arts, came from this trading of ideas and styles with these different instructors.

These days you are seeing more cross-training, and more schools trying to diversify their knowledge. Then you have those who are unwilling to change. You have those, who are more concerned about organizations or legitimate instructors or 1000 other differing views and ideologies concerning the MA.

I don't think we will ever fully get away from that type of thinking or be rid of those type of people completely. But, in the end, it really is irrelevant to your personal training and your personal journey. The truth is, you can invalidate just about every system out there. Whether it be due to lineage, sport vs reality, system vs system or just plain b.s.
But, in the end, we are all wrong and we are all right as the MA are an individual journey, in a group setting.

At the core though, what counts..is what is constructive for you.

 

[skribs]

Spinning heel (reverse turning kick) is more difficult to get just right, but when you do get it just right there's more power than a spinning hook.

If you don't (or can't) get it right, the spinning hook is better.

Done correctly (by ITF standards) they both require the same amount of space and take about the same amount of time, but the hook is a slightly closer range.



Disregard if 'my' versions of these kicks are different to yours...

To clarify, the Spinning Heel Kick is the prettier one that is done with a straight leg most of the way around. The Spinning Hook Kick is chambered going in, and gets a hook motion similar to a hook punch. The hook kick can be done with the heel, too, but that's not a "spinning heel kick". At least the way I've learned the two.

And the full-swing kick cannot be done in as tight an area as the hook kick.

 

[wab25]

You also have areas of effectiveness. For example, I train Taekwondo and Hapkido. Assuming I'm proficient in both (which I'm not, quite yet) my Taekwondo gives me excellent skills in kicking range, and my Hapkido gives me good skills in close. The weaknesses are in between (in punching range) and in ground-fighting. So it makes sense I could turn to Boxing, Muay Thai, or Karate for more experience in punching range, or I could turn to wrestling, judo, or jiu-jitsu for experience on the ground. That would take away a weakness of my training.

I'll give you the ground fighting. But, my experience is that TKD guys are very good at both punching range and close in range... as well as kicking range. Hapkido guys are also very good at kicking and punching ranges as well as in close. The weakness in your training, does not represent weakness in the arts you train. I think you will find it a better option to learn how your chosen arts handle those distances, rather than trying to lump together different arts for each situation that you feel might be different. I have nothing against any of the other systems you mention, but as long as you have put so much time into TKD and Hapkido, why not learn to make them effective at all the standing ranges? Those arts are effective at all the standing ranges.

 

[skribs]

I'll give you the ground fighting. But, my experience is that TKD guys are very good at both punching range and close in range... as well as kicking range. Hapkido guys are also very good at kicking and punching ranges as well as in close. The weakness in your training, does not represent weakness in the arts you train. I think you will find it a better option to learn how your chosen arts handle those distances, rather than trying to lump together different arts for each situation that you feel might be different. I have nothing against any of the other systems you mention, but as long as you have put so much time into TKD and Hapkido, why not learn to make them effective at all the standing ranges? Those arts are effective at all the standing ranges.

I'm not saying Taekwondo is bad at punches. I'm saying that Taekwondo isn't as good as Karate, boxing, or Muay Thai at punches.

However, I am saying Taekwondo is bad at ground fighting.

I am of course over-generalizing. But we spend probably 5-7 minutes of class time on punches and 20-30 minutes of class time on kicks. We mostly practice defense against haymakers, and advanced tactics in a kicks-only sparring. So when we spend 4-5x as much time on kicks as we do punches, and go into more complicated drills with kicks than punches, and spar with kicks instead of punches...that's why I think I'd need to go into an art that focuses more on the punch if I want to elevate my punching techniques.

 

[wab25]

I'm not saying Taekwondo is bad at punches. I'm saying that Taekwondo isn't as good as Karate, boxing, or Muay Thai at punches.

Being good at punches is different than being good at punching range. There are more tools to use. TKD has quite a few more tools to use in this range, other than just punching. Though, I have never thought that TKD was bad at punching. (I thought they were pretty good, to be honest) TKD also has quite a few tools to use close in. Learning to use all the tools, in all the ranges that your art does have, will be better and more effective, than trying to make your own collection of various techniques from different arts.

The way your school splits its time, is the way your school splits its time. Maybe figure out why? Maybe its more competition based. Maybe they want the students to explore the close in and punching range applications on their own. It could be any number of reasons. But TKD and Hapkido, certainly cover all the ranges.... maybe not in the same way as other arts...

 

[Martial D]

Learning to use all the tools, in all the ranges that your art does have, will be better and more effective, than trying to make your own collection of various techniques from different arts.

And then MMA happened.