Hello. I want a feedback.

[Dirty Dog]

It's the pilot not the airplane. So there is no way that can fail.

I'll be the pilot, of course. I'm teaching myself.

 

[MuayJitsu]

Not inisiting further but just saying. When i said i don't really have experience, i meant i just have 2 months of kick box experience (if i remember correct). But i am yellow belt. And i know the basics like how to punch. I just meant i just know the basics.

No you don’t know the basics. 2 months is nothing so you want to do a style with palm strikes yet you don’t know how to palm strike? Can you see the major flaws in your logic

 

[Badhabits]

The issue was a side kick followed by an elbow. This is normally executed in Shotokan and TKD as long-range kicks. To have such a kick followed by a short-range strike doesn't make sense.

Pinan 4 in most Okinawan styles uses a close-range front kick before the elbow. The same with Kusanku. (It's thought that Itosu lifted this combo from Kusanku when he developed pinan 4.) Some Shotokan and TKD may do their versions with a side kick, but their modifications have strayed from the original Okinawan design and may be a case of putting form over practical function.

You: "I think the reasoning might be that if you successfully land the side kick to the mid-section, the pain will cause them to hunch over, which brings their head closer to you for the elbow strike."

You have the general reasoning correct since I detailed it for you in a previous post. I quote it below to refresh your memory




.

A couple of books I have here suggest many kicks in todays kata were originally crescent kicks used in various ways at close range, and that even some strikes with the knee were changed to kicks.

 

[Leviathan]

The "right hook, left cross" does not make sense.

- Right hook makes your body to rotate to your left. Left cross makes your body to rotate to your right. It takes times to switch your body rotation directions. also
- when your opponent dodges under your right hook, he will be on your right-side door and your own right arm will jam your own left cross.

This is why more information will be needed to input into AI in order for AI to do the smart selection.

But if the opponent dodged the right hook by leaning or stepping back, the left cross may make sense..,

 

[Gyakuto]

This thread has got to be a wind up!

 

[Gyakuto]

Wind up = Mainly UK. (v) To use information (true or fictional) to provoke, tease or deceive. (v) To invent with the intent of conning. (n)A deceptive or provocative act. A "Wind-up merchant" is somebody who is disposed to wind others up, a habitual liar, or prankster. Origin: from the act of winding a clock or other clockwork device.
"He claimed he had been in the SAS, but it was just a wind-up." "Bob would wind Mike up by claiming he'd slept with Mike's girlfriend" "That blokes a wind-up merchant" "It seemed at first glance to be two mathematicians arguing number theory, but it was a wind-up - they were just talking nonsense, it turned out."

 

[Hot Lunch]

The fact that this is a horrible idea aside, why would you even want to design a martial art with no prior training? Usually, it's the training that one has under their belt that inspires them to create their own system.

If you're talking about creating your own system for personal use (i.e., not to teach others), you're already doing that by training in martial arts. If you train in Muay Thai, your Muay Thai is not going to look the same as someone else's Muay Thai. Your own system becomes even more unique when you train in multiple arts. You're going to combine BJJ and MT far differently than someone else who has trained in both arts.

 

[Prince_Alarming]

Oh dear

 

[Akkkajuy]

No you don’t know the basics. 2 months is nothing so you want to do a style with palm strikes yet you don’t know how to palm strike? Can you see the major flaws in your logic

Oh. I meant a strike with the inside of your hand to the little empty space between the ribs of your opponent. (Like the center of your body. A bit up from the stomach.)

 

[JowGaWolf]

It's the pilot not the airplane. So there is no way that can fail.

lol still at it It's not the pilot, it's the designer. lol. He said, he's the one designing a plan.

In term of the pilot. I'm sure many of us can do a really good job crashing a perfectly functioning airplane. If get on the plane and here. "Hello, I'm Dirty Bear and I'll be your captain for the flight" Then I'm hoping off the plane, because I'm 100% sure on that day. It's going to be the pilot. So there's is no way that can fail.

I just won't be on the plane to fine out. lol

 

[skribs]

Oh. I meant a strike with the inside of your hand to the little empty space between the ribs of your opponent. (Like the center of your body. A bit up from the stomach.)

The solar plexus?

Bad target for a palm strike or ridgehand strike (which is what I think you're talking about), because you can't concentrate the damage. Good target for a punch or (if you've conditioned your fingers) a spearhand.

If you palm strike the solar plexus, the ribs are going to catch your fingers and prevent you from doing any penetrating damage, which is what you need to disrupt the diaphragm.

As with everything else you've posted, this is wrong on multiple levels. This is wrong because you're making this up at home on your own, instead of training with other people to see what works (initially based on your instructor's experience, and then over time based on your own). Not only do you not know what the appropriate target is for the kind of strike, you don't seem to know the strike name, the striking implement name, or the target name.

There's a joke in BJJ that white belts will ask coaches, "Can you show me the technique, I don't know the name of it, but it's where you grab the guy and then you put your leg somewhere, and then you turn and pull and it does a submission, I can't remember what it's called. Can you show me that move?" This is what your post looks like.

 

[Akkkajuy]

The solar plexus?

Bad target for a palm strike or ridgehand strike (which is what I think you're talking about), because you can't concentrate the damage. Good target for a punch or (if you've conditioned your fingers) a spearhand.

If you palm strike the solar plexus, the ribs are going to catch your fingers and prevent you from doing any penetrating damage, which is what you need to disrupt the diaphragm.

As with everything else you've posted, this is wrong on multiple levels. This is wrong because you're making this up at home on your own, instead of training with other people to see what works (initially based on your instructor's experience, and then over time based on your own). Not only do you not know what the appropriate target is for the kind of strike, you don't seem to know the strike name, the striking implement name, or the target name.

There's a joke in BJJ that white belts will ask coaches, "Can you show me the technique, I don't know the name of it, but it's where you grab the guy and then you put your leg somewhere, and then you turn and pull and it does a submission, I can't remember what it's called. Can you show me that move?" This is what your post looks like.

Oh thanks for the Info. But in he move im saying, you don't just open your hand. You move your fingers backwards and expose your palm.

 

[Stuarto]

Oh thanks for the Info. But in he move im saying, you don't just open your hand. You move your fingers backwards and expose your palm.

What your describing sounds like a palm strike. I would listen to the advice of these guys. Some of them have decades of knowledge and experience in various martial arts styles. I couldn't even imagine trying to create my own style, being a newbie Kenpo practitioner. Maybe find a MA you enjoy and start training. From what I've seen, guys who have decades of experience sometimes create their own style, but that is usually based on the style they mastered. This comes after many years of training and later training others. This is just my opinion, but I would take the advice from the guys on this forum.

 

[Prince_Alarming]

Oh dear dear

 

[ap Oweyn]

I think the general this-doesn't-make-sense-ness of this idea has been well covered. So I'm going to try and stick to the idea behind what you posted. If your intent was to teach, then you have no business doing that. End of story for the next few years. And if that next few years involves some earnest practice with qualified teachers and dedicated training partners, then sure. Perhaps then.

If your intent was just to organise your work around practicing self-defence, then you've got a few things to think about:

• This doesn't need a name, because it's solely for your reference. It doesn't need a poetic metaphor like "dragon slaying." It doesn't need an acronym to sound all tactical and wotnot. It doesn't need any of that. It's just a list to help you organise your thoughts.
• What it does need is experience. Which implies that it also needs someone with experience. And someone with whom to gain experience.

Even as an organising document, this isn't much use. Because you could take any one thing from this document and practice it ad nauseum, and it won't help if you're not practicing it well. Which brings you right back around to experience.

If your sole intent is to learn to defend yourself, you'd be better off stepping away from the keyboard, casting your mind back to your scant kickboxing lessons, fervently hoping that you got the basics of a jab down, and practicing that jab over and over again until you can perform it reliably. But without the experience to evaluate whether you're performing it properly, even that isn't likely to steer you right.

As for new styles, here's my thought (for whatever it's worth):

Creating a new style is all about accountability. People do it either out of a right sense of accountability or to avoid accountability. That second one is simpler to explain. People who lack experience often like to float the idea of establishing their own style so that--when someone with more experience says "that's not right"--they can say "it's how my style does it." It doesn't do you any favours from a technical standpoint. Shaky fundamentals don't get less shaky just because someone gives them a different name.

New styles make sense when someone is taking accountability for the fact that their practice of something has become sufficiently different from the thing they've been representing that it begins to feel like a misrepresentation of whatever they were doing. Take GM Ciriaco "Cacoy" Canete for instance. (Apologies for missing the tilde in that name. I never manage to do that in HTML.)

GM Cacoy created Eskrido as a combination of eskrima, judo, jiujutsu, etc. out of recognition that what he was practicing no longer strictly resembled what he'd been doing. With someone of experience and training, it's a way of taking accountability for the adaptations and alterations that naturally occur over the course of decades of training. That's not necessarily required, but it makes sense to me as a reason to found a new style.

As with most fields of endeavour, you don't build a new thing unless you thoroughly understand the nature of related things that came before.

If you're serious about this, train. But people who are serious about training find people who have been serious about training for a long time. Intuition isn't going to get you there.

That's probably too many words. Apologies to those who slogged through them all.

 

[Akkkajuy]

I think the general this-doesn't-make-sense-ness of this idea has been well covered. So I'm going to try and stick to the idea behind what you posted. If your intent was to teach, then you have no business doing that. End of story for the next few years. And if that next few years involves some earnest practice with qualified teachers and dedicated training partners, then sure. Perhaps then.

If your intent was just to organise your work around practicing self-defence, then you've got a few things to think about:

• This doesn't need a name, because it's solely for your reference. It doesn't need a poetic metaphor like "dragon slaying." It doesn't need an acronym to sound all tactical and wotnot. It doesn't need any of that. It's just a list to help you organise your thoughts.
• What it does need is experience. Which implies that it also needs someone with experience. And someone with whom to gain experience.

Even as an organising document, this isn't much use. Because you could take any one thing from this document and practice it ad nauseum, and it won't help if you're not practicing it well. Which brings you right back around to experience.

If your sole intent is to learn to defend yourself, you'd be better off stepping away from the keyboard, casting your mind back to your scant kickboxing lessons, fervently hoping that you got the basics of a jab down, and practicing that jab over and over again until you can perform it reliably. But without the experience to evaluate whether you're performing it properly, even that isn't likely to steer you right.

As for new styles, here's my thought (for whatever it's worth):

Creating a new style is all about accountability. People do it either out of a right sense of accountability or to avoid accountability. That second one is simpler to explain. People who lack experience often like to float the idea of establishing their own style so that--when someone with more experience says "that's not right"--they can say "it's how my style does it." It doesn't do you any favours from a technical standpoint. Shaky fundamentals don't get less shaky just because someone gives them a different name.

New styles make sense when someone is taking accountability for the fact that their practice of something has become sufficiently different from the thing they've been representing that it begins to feel like a misrepresentation of whatever they were doing. Take GM Ciriaco "Cacoy" Canete for instance. (Apologies for missing the tilde in that name. I never manage to do that in HTML.)

GM Cacoy created Eskrido as a combination of eskrima, judo, jiujutsu, etc. out of recognition that what he was practicing no longer strictly resembled what he'd been doing. With someone of experience and training, it's a way of taking accountability for the adaptations and alterations that naturally occur over the course of decades of training. That's not necessarily required, but it makes sense to me as a reason to found a new style.

As with most fields of endeavour, you don't build a new thing unless you thoroughly understand the nature of related things that came before.

If you're serious about this, train. But people who are serious about training find people who have been serious about training for a long time. Intuition isn't going to get you there.

That's probably too many words. Apologies to those who slogged through them all.

You really care wasted your time replying. Thanks for everything you said. About the name thing. I don't really care. I just thought it sounds.

 

[Akkkajuy]

I think the general this-doesn't-make-sense-ness of this idea has been well covered. So I'm going to try and stick to the idea behind what you posted. If your intent was to teach, then you have no business doing that. End of story for the next few years. And if that next few years involves some earnest practice with qualified teachers and dedicated training partners, then sure. Perhaps then.

If your intent was just to organise your work around practicing self-defence, then you've got a few things to think about:

• This doesn't need a name, because it's solely for your reference. It doesn't need a poetic metaphor like "dragon slaying." It doesn't need an acronym to sound all tactical and wotnot. It doesn't need any of that. It's just a list to help you organise your thoughts.
• What it does need is experience. Which implies that it also needs someone with experience. And someone with whom to gain experience.

Even as an organising document, this isn't much use. Because you could take any one thing from this document and practice it ad nauseum, and it won't help if you're not practicing it well. Which brings you right back around to experience.

If your sole intent is to learn to defend yourself, you'd be better off stepping away from the keyboard, casting your mind back to your scant kickboxing lessons, fervently hoping that you got the basics of a jab down, and practicing that jab over and over again until you can perform it reliably. But without the experience to evaluate whether you're performing it properly, even that isn't likely to steer you right.

As for new styles, here's my thought (for whatever it's worth):

Creating a new style is all about accountability. People do it either out of a right sense of accountability or to avoid accountability. That second one is simpler to explain. People who lack experience often like to float the idea of establishing their own style so that--when someone with more experience says "that's not right"--they can say "it's how my style does it." It doesn't do you any favours from a technical standpoint. Shaky fundamentals don't get less shaky just because someone gives them a different name.

New styles make sense when someone is taking accountability for the fact that their practice of something has become sufficiently different from the thing they've been representing that it begins to feel like a misrepresentation of whatever they were doing. Take GM Ciriaco "Cacoy" Canete for instance. (Apologies for missing the tilde in that name. I never manage to do that in HTML.)

GM Cacoy created Eskrido as a combination of eskrima, judo, jiujutsu, etc. out of recognition that what he was practicing no longer strictly resembled what he'd been doing. With someone of experience and training, it's a way of taking accountability for the adaptations and alterations that naturally occur over the course of decades of training. That's not necessarily required, but it makes sense to me as a reason to found a new style.

As with most fields of endeavour, you don't build a new thing unless you thoroughly understand the nature of related things that came before.

If you're serious about this, train. But people who are serious about training find people who have been serious about training for a long time. Intuition isn't going to get you there.

That's probably too many words. Apologies to those who slogged through them all.

But i have a question. You said you have experience. If you trained my style, would it be useful or useless?

 

[ap Oweyn]

You really care wasted your time replying. Thanks for everything you said. About the name thing. I don't really care. I just thought it sounds.

I don't want this to sound rude, but is English your first language? I'm wondering if perhaps that's part of the

But i have a question. You said you have experience. If you trained my style, would it be useful or useless?

I have yeah. I've been training since about 1983.

I can't really answer that question because you haven't got a style. You have words on a screen.

If you had experience, that would be different. I'd been training for many years when I moved down to Richmond for a little while and found a kickboxing school. The instructor, Sensei Dan Wilson, taught a variation on the front kick. If he'd handed me a document that said "front kick," I'd have said "I know the front kick. I know several variations on the front kick in fact." But I didn't know this one.

If you had the experience to show me something I hadn't seen before--something I found compelling--your "style" might be useful to me. But I don't think you have the background to show me something that fits these two criteria simultaneously:

• I haven't seen it before (so it's doing something technically different than I've done previously)
• That "something different" is valuable (so it's not just variation for the sake of being different)

If you want to be taken seriously, you have to put in the legwork. Simple as that.

(Pun not intended, but I'll happily take it.)

 

[Akkkajuy]

I don't want this to sound rude, but is English your first language? I'm wondering if perhaps that's part of the

I have yeah. I've been training since about 1983.

I can't really answer that question because you haven't got a style. You have words on a screen.

If you had experience, that would be different. I'd been training for many years when I moved down to Richmond for a little while and found a kickboxing school. The instructor, Sensei Dan Wilson, taught a variation on the front kick. If he'd handed me a document that said "front kick," I'd have said "I know the front kick. I know several variations on the front kick in fact." But I didn't know this one.

If you had the experience to show me something I hadn't seen before--something I found compelling--your "style" might be useful to me. But I don't think you have the background to show me something that fits these two criteria simultaneously:

• I haven't seen it before (so it's doing something technically different than I've done previously)
• That "something different" is valuable (so it's not just variation for the sake of being different)

If you want to be taken seriously, you have to put in the legwork. Simple as that.

(Pun not intended, but I'll happily take it.)

You don't sound rude in any way. And yes, English is my second language. So you say you cant say if the styles will work or not if there is no proof of it being used on a fight.

 

[ap Oweyn]

You don't sound rude in any way. And yes, English is my second language. So you say you cant say if the styles will work or not if there is no proof of it being used on a fight.

I'm 53 years old and have never had an actual "fight" in my life. I'm not demanding proof of success in a fight. I am looking for proof of concept though. And what constitutes proof of concept depends on the concept you're putting forward. If you tell me you have a more powerful way of delivering a side kick--and you posted video of you hammering a heavy bag with that side kick--that would be something. If your concept is that you've devised a self-defense system, then yeah that proof is going to be more difficult to provide. Hitting a heavy bag isn't proof of that concept.

But here's my counter question: Why do you ask if it would be useful to me if you're not preparing to teach this? It doesn't matter whether it would be useful to me. Only whether it would be useful to you. Which it won't. Not as it exists now. There's no sidestepping that.