Have you ever just started you martial arts all over from the begining ...

[MJS]

Odd. The OP is now banned yet still online, something I would not have thought possible. Wonder what happened. He just signed up a few days ago as I recall.

Daniel

The member in question was banned due to TOS violations. Banned members seem to be able to log on but not post.

 

[terryl965]

Who knows, as far as starting over I have and would have no problem doing it again under the right circustances. I believe we all need to remember we are students first and instructor second, so many times we play instructor and forget about what it is we all want. I am and forever will be a student first.

 

[ap Oweyn]

This sounds good in theory but it is a RARE, RARE person who can truly empty his cup and start anew. Let's face it, we are the culmination of all our our experiences, whether they came in the dojo or not. If one has been a long time student of a particular art, where one has engrained the principles and patterns of the system into muscle memory, it is next to impossible to just forget it and then learn material that is frequently contradictory to the original art. One might 'learn' the new way on a superficial CONSCIOUS level, but in moments of stress the prior patterns will always re-emerge.

That's true. For a while.

It takes much commitment and effort to make the secondary art the new primary one.

This I'm not so sure about. I consider eskrima my primary style, even though my first style was taekwondo (5 years).

It certainly took time for my eskrima training to supplant my taekwondo instincts. But I don't feel like I put an inordinate amount of effort into "deprogramming" the former in favour of the latter. It's just that the eskrima approach made more sense to me. And now, while I still use some fundamental mechanics from taekwondo in my kicking, the framework around which I organize all new training is eskrima. There's no question that it's my primary style.

Maybe I'm selling myself short here. But I feel like this was a natural byproduct of being exposed to something that simply suited me better.


Stuart

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

The member in question was banned due to TOS violations.

Just a question: what does TOS stand for? I assume that it is not a salad

Daniel

 

[Chris Parker]

TOS is Terms Of Service, the conditions we all agree to when we become a member here.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

This sounds good in theory but it is a RARE, RARE person who can truly empty his cup and start anew. Let's face it, we are the culmination of all our our experiences, whether they came in the dojo or not. If one has been a long time student of a particular art, where one has engrained the principles and patterns of the system into muscle memory, it is next to impossible to just forget it and then learn material that is frequently contradictory to the original art. One might 'learn' the new way on a superficial CONSCIOUS level, but in moments of stress the prior patterns will always re-emerge.

It takes much commitment and effort to make the secondary art the new primary one.

Generally, I find that contradictory or completely unrelated material is easier for people to take the empty your cup and learn approach than similar yet different enough that doing things the way that you did in the old art will hold you back considerably.

When two arts are both similar in their end result, it is very easy for the student to do new moves in the idiom of his or her old style rather than learn the subtleties of the new style that makes those new moves more effective. There is always that tendency to say, 'but in _____, we do it this way.' whereas with contradictory material or completely different material, getting by with skills from your previous art simply will not be an option.

Daniel

 

[dancingalone]

Generally, I find that contradictory or completely unrelated material is easier for people to take the empty your cup and learn approach than similar yet different enough that doing things the way that you did in the old art will hold you back considerably.

When two arts are both similar in their end result, it is very easy for the student to do new moves in the idiom of his or her old style rather than learn the subtleties of the new style that makes those new moves more effective. There is always that tendency to say, 'but in _____, we do it this way.' whereas with contradictory material or completely different material, getting by with skills from your previous art simply will not be an option.

Daniel

Hmm, two examples to illustrate what I am referring to:

1) In goju-ryu karate, you learn the sanchin hourglass stance as a precursor to rooting, to hold proper structure so that you are strong and immovable when needed. The sanchin stance is really just a training tool - it's easier to learn how to tighten certain muscles in this position that leads to correct body structure. As you become more advanced, you can exhibit solidity in any stance.

As I learned it and teach it, sanchin is a relatively high stance. Students coming from front-stance (zenkutsu dachi) dominant systems frequently have trouble understanding sanchin though. They like to think of dropping low in zenkutsu dachi as rooting and this delays their development as different muscle groups are engaged. I've noted before that I find it easier to teach a complete beginner sanchin than someone with prior training in something like shotokan karate.

2) Consider the primary punching methods in goju-ryu and shorin-ryu. Goju thrusts out firmly from the shoulder and elbow and uses some chained power from the legs and hips. It's more of a thud and uses the concepts of mass and momentum more so than its shorin-ryu cousin which is more of a whipping, wave power movement.

One can learn both methods successfully as I did. I'm certainly no marvel, but it's true enough that it can be a tough transition to make.

==================================
So are these similar concepts or contradictory ones? Yes and no, maybe, maybe not. The point I make is that while all martial arts share the same principles, the methodology in which they implement the principle can be very different.

To get back to the OP, there's no point in switching systems and becoming a 'beginner' just for the heck of it. One, you're not a true beginner and two, you're wasting your time learning the same basic techniques only with sometimes a completely different way of execution. What difference does it make how you punch? In the end, it's still a damaging blow from your fist regardless of the emphasis in shoulder thrust or in snapping power.

There is more value in learning a striking system and then becoming a beginner in a grappling system if that floats your fancy.