Hmmm, my take on zanshin is that it is not so much the "after" of the altercation (or rather that this is only a part of it - and it is about being able to avoid the situation and thus the "after" phase). It is more the exact state of mind you always should be in so to be fully aware of your surroundings and potential threats, be it from the environment itself or from other humans. I am pretty sure on my discussions on zanshin that this is the more correct translation/explanation -and application - of the concept. And this in itself is a crucial component of SD.
Importantly, this state of mind is also retained when in an actual altercation or fight (now, that is the real litmus test...), one is operating at a level where one can fight/defend but one is still open to the surroundings and the risks or inputs (such as other potential assailents incoming, getting too near to the edge of the building etc, getting backed into a fence, cop sirens, etc)
Other than the zanshin comments I must confess I may be inclined to agree with you on the most part, not that that bothers you either way : )
To look at the kanji for "zanshin", they are: 残心, with the first character meaning "left over/remaining", so it really does refer to "after". That said, different systems use slightly different terminology for similar or related concepts... what you're describing is closer to Musashi's concept of "heijoshin" (平常心
, which is a reference to a constant, consistent mindset (awareness, preparedness etc) as an "everyday" mental attitude.
Well, if you know what it is I am thinking then who can argue with that? : )
Ha, no, I was more saying that I was more than aware of what I was meaning, and was not doing any disservice, as I know exactly what the realities are of both sides of the situation. You said you thought I was doing a disservice by not taking into accounts such things, and I was saying that, yes, I certainly did take such things into my comments.
By far guys I didn't mean for this thread to be pointed at me as a personal question. But I was thinking of the many altercations people come across and when it get bad you want to be prepared. Some may need more protection than others given the fact they are in a bad demographic area than others.
In that instance, it isn't so much what technical skills you have, it's more to do with the understanding of the forms of violence you're likely to encounter (social violence, asocial violence, resource predators, monkey dances, etc). When it all comes down to it, if you're skilled at grappling, you can use grappling skills against any of the above... if your skill is in striking, you can use that. It doesn't matter. But if you don't have some real understanding of where, when, and why you're potentially going to encounter a violent confrontation, you can be easily caught out and "cleaned up", no matter the skills you've trained in. Which just gets back to my first comments in this thread.
Looking at history, you can see when people tend fight miitary that they hand weapon training and hand to hand combat. Just look at the samurai when they wasn't needed by the emperor. They started teaching martial arts to regular people. Kendo was born andjujitsu was taught to the masses and then branch to numerous styles. It is only right that if you want to protect yourself then you train for ever aspect of that. Striking, grappling, and weapon.
Hmm, your histories a little out... none of that is really correct at all.
Too clarify when I was talking about the web sites of people with many arts, I was meaning that some people will take many striking systems when you need one. I am sure I am not the only one that don't read other martial arts bios.
"Need"? The question there is always "need for what?" The simple fact is that not everything is trained just to suit a perceived "need" in handling violence... it might be to get a broader understanding, to pad a resume, to understand the interplay of related arts, or simply be that the person has moved from one area to another, and had to change styles at the time.
Now that also is interesting and on making a similair comment about an altercation/SD situation I had faced, Chris Parker responded something along the lines of that: "perhaps this is because that was (deep down) the form of combat/technique you had most confidence in". I had done judo all through primary school (and had used it to good effect to end fights in high school) and did TKD all through high school; however when I was actually attacked in the street I used simple hard and fast punches. For some reason I never responded with any kicks (I was capable in) or to try any judo throws (that said there was more than one attacker). Maybe the same applied to you, although you have training in various styles, when it came time to actually put your money on the line you just felt more secure in striking? perhaps on a level that was what was your best strength?
Although that does not mean that if an artist is very proficient in several different styles they would not be more than comfortable with applying multiple and varying responses/techniques (knee jam/upper cut/leg sweep/etc). Having been in a SD psotion first hand, it is very clear to me that things happen fast, very fast, and particularly if there is more than one assailent (although the same applies to just one) you need to use something that is simple, devastating and that can be used in a "chain" approach, ie quick succession with no flash or superfluous moves in between. As an example, punching fits the bill in that respect.
Actually, it's to do with what you unconsciously perceive as being the most powerful... similar, but not the same thing at all, really.
