I need advice.

[JowGaWolf]

ESPECIALLY if your instructor has a negative attitude towards sparring and just wants to teach the form.

By the way. This would be a valid reason for leaving a TMA school if your goal is to learn how to actually fight using the techniques. This is an example of a conflict of interest. Where your goal is to learn how to fight and your Teacher's goal is not to teach students how to fight.

As a student this would be a no win for any system, not just TMA

 

[Hanzou]

It's not different. It goes through the same process. It just takes longer because you don't have the coaching there to point out the mistakes.

Those issues would make them different Jowga. If it takes you 10 years to become decent in a MA versus 2 years, you've wasted an inordinate amount of time just learning the basics. Some people never become decent because as you said, there's no one there to point out their mistakes. Thus, the mistakes compound upon themselves over and over again, and you never actually learn the correct method unless someone comes along to correct your mistakes.

Sometimes, NO ONE comes along to correct your mistakes and you're just practicing nonsense, and then you go on to teach someone else that same nonsense, and thus we have the watering down of the art itself. Look at the "bunkai" of Kata or Kung Fu forms; Most of it reaches silly territory because there's no real guide to what it actually is. Many people just make stuff up in order to sell books or seminar tickets.

 

[drop bear]

I've said this before, but despite having no sensible counter argument, people like yourself just carry on putting feelings ahead of the facts.

Once more, training is not the martial art.
Training is skill and attribute development.
Training is what determines fighting ability.
Training varies from school to school, never mind art to art.

In 20 years of being in and around martial arts I've encountered only one martial arts school that doesn't spar.
I've encountered only one that could be called a McDojo.

Now maybe things are different here in the UK to the US or wherever you may be, but I'd wager your impression of "BS in TCMA" is based more on YouTube videos and forums than anything that could be considered evidence.

If you've never trained with a Southern crane school you have no idea about either the content of the arts nor the common cultural emphasis in their training.

If you really want to learn only what is common to combat sports all he need do is check for schools that do Sanshou

The guy is in a place far from home. What is the point in visiting the other side of the world to do the same stuff he could do in his own back yard.

My Advice to the OP: take the opportunity to experience as much as you can from as wide and unusual a variety of sources as you can.
The more you experience, the broader your perspective will be, the broader your skill set will be, the better your foundation.

After you get back home a Taekwondo school will be the best way to learn to understand how to apply your Capoeira.

That cuts both ways.

So let's say we ignore a system and just suggest a good training module is a school that has a variable record success. Either in competition or self defense.

That way we can include Machidas karate or Alan Orrs kung fu. And still say Ninjitsu is junk.

I would just do it on a case by case basis. Rather than collectively.

 

[DaveB]

That cuts both ways.

So let's say we ignore a system and just suggest a good training module is a school that has a variable record success. Either in competition or self defense.

That way we can include Machidas karate or Alan Orrs kung fu. And still say Ninjitsu is junk.

I would just do it on a case by case basis. Rather than collectively.

If you mean what I think you do, that you have to take each case/school on its merits, that's all I've really been saying. Not sure how you dismiss Ninjitsu though? I know the history is dubious, but much of the technique I've seen seems sound.

Potentially the style is a factor in the effectiveness of an individual's use of a martial art, it's just that it's usually a smaller factor because of the ubiquitous nature of fighting techniques.

If an art has your basic punch then it's potential effectiveness is the same as any other art that includes a punch.

With the obvious exceptions of the magic arts ie no touch/one touch etc, most arts contain enough effective fundamentals to make the training the more relevant factor.

The only exception I can think of is Aikido, because it seems to lack a base of applicable fundamentals, but I'm no expert on it.

 

[drop bear]

If you mean what I think you do, that you have to take each case/school on its merits, that's all I've really been saying. Not sure how you dismiss Ninjitsu though? I know the history is dubious, but much of the technique I've seen seems sound.

Potentially the style is a factor in the effectiveness of an individual's use of a martial art, it's just that it's usually a smaller factor because of the ubiquitous nature of fighting techniques.

If an art has your basic punch then it's potential effectiveness is the same as any other art that includes a punch.

With the obvious exceptions of the magic arts ie no touch/one touch etc, most arts contain enough effective fundamentals to make the training the more relevant factor.

The only exception I can think of is Aikido, because it seems to lack a base of applicable fundamentals, but I'm no expert on it.

Name a ninjitsu school that has a variable result?

If you can't. Then that really is all of ninjitsu.

 

[DaveB]

Name a ninjitsu school that has a variable result?

If you can't. Then that really is all of ninjitsu.

No, it means I don't know all Ninjitsu schools in the world or what they aim to achieve in training, I highly doubt it is ring fighting though.

What habe you seen to label the art as junk?

 

[Hanzou]

No, it means I don't know all Ninjitsu schools in the world or what they aim to achieve in training, I highly doubt it is ring fighting though.

What habe you seen to label the art as junk?

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

That cuts both ways.

So let's say we ignore a system and just suggest a good training module is a school that has a variable record success. Either in competition or self defense.

That way we can include Machidas karate or Alan Orrs kung fu. And still say Ninjitsu is junk.

I would just do it on a case by case basis. Rather than collectively.

100% agree with all that, except the Ninjitsu thing, Not that I disagree, but never being to a ninjitsu school I have no schools to think of case by case on.

 

[drop bear]

No, it means I don't know all Ninjitsu schools in the world or what they aim to achieve in training, I highly doubt it is ring fighting though.

What habe you seen to label the art as junk?

And that is where you go off. It is not about accepting the vague possibility of every method working until you can prove it doesn't.

You use methods that work. Because there is evidence they work.

I am not here to try to validate every martial art. Just to honestly look at what has results and then use those results.

No evidence of working equals junk. So imagine I am thinking about using reiki to cure cancer.

And I look up medical journals and it says the treatment is not supported by science.

I will consider reiki junk.

Not. Well has science tested every single reiki practitioner on every single patient? No? Then shut up and take my money.

 

[drop bear]

100% agree with all that, except the Ninjitsu thing, Not that I disagree, but never being to a ninjitsu school I have no schools to think of case by case on.

When the evidence presents itself I will change my view.

 

[DaveB]

And that is where you go off. It is not about accepting the vague possibility of every method working until you can prove it doesn't.

You use methods that work. Because there is evidence they work.

I am not here to try to validate every martial art. Just to honestly look at what has results and then use those results.

No evidence of working equals junk. So imagine I am thinking about using reiki to cure cancer.

And I look up medical journals and it says the treatment is not supported by science.

I will consider reiki junk.

Not. Well has science tested every single reiki practitioner on every single patient? No? Then shut up and take my money.

But you don't need to test all reiki because reiki is a method.

My contention is that what you think is testing a method, ie a martial art, is invariably actually a test of an individual's training.

Effectively your saying heart surgery doesn't work because all the doctors trained at the Quack school of medicine have high mortality rates.

Even that analogy fails to account for all the flaws in your thinking.

If you wanted to test Ninjitsu in the manner you speak of, you'd need to build a dojo that took expert fight coaches from various disciplines and trained exclusively for MMA to a professional standard.
That is what boxing, just Thai and bjj all get before "proving themselves" in MMA.

But if you did that, the likes of hanzou would say that any victory was down to the other arts that influenced the training or any cross training that may have happened.

The only other thing would be to place a thousand Ninjitsu students in a variety of self defence situations and count the survival rates.

 

[Hanzou]

But you don't need to test all reiki because reiki is a method.

My contention is that what you think is testing a method, ie a martial art, is invariably actually a test of an individual's training.

Effectively your saying heart surgery doesn't work because all the doctors trained at the Quack school of medicine have high mortality rates.

Even that analogy fails to account for all the flaws in your thinking.

If you wanted to test Ninjitsu in the manner you speak of, you'd need to build a dojo that took expert fight coaches from various disciplines and trained exclusively for MMA to a professional standard.
That is what boxing, just Thai and bjj all get before "proving themselves" in MMA.

But if you did that, the likes of hanzou would say that any victory was down to the other arts that influenced the training or any cross training that may have happened.

The only other thing would be to place a thousand Ninjitsu students in a variety of self defence situations and count the survival rates.

Or you could just view the source where Ninjas got their training from, which comes from Masaaki Hatsumi or Stephen Hayes.

A fish rots from the head down.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Are we back on the ninja stuff now?