Is it appropriate to create a new martial art?

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by chufeng
The "bunkai" are where all of that 65%/35% stuff actually comes from...do you think that technique and form are separate?
Do you think that if I pull off a "naked strangle" that I divorced myself from form to do it? No...the techniques come directly from the forms...training the "bunkai" CORRECTLY will show you what I mean...again, it seems as though you haven't been exposed to GOOD traditional teaching...I certainly can't fix that over the internet...and I'm sure you'll disagree with me again on this point...but I am in the arts for more spiritual reasons and to get in touch with myself...I don't care who the baddest guy on the block is...

Fighting is fighting...what we do is much more than that...fighting is the lowest level of achievement...so, if that is your yardstick, so be it.

:asian:
chufeng

Your right we are going t see it differantly. That is normal and it is OK.

Like I said, For Me, I am learning some things from people who don't fit the profile of what I teach. And that is OK too. But when I admitted that I practice traditional arts too, thats when everybody tried to invalidate my personal system that I teach.

What I teach comes from my heart, it is my belief as to what is the most effective, executed most effiently as diretly as possible.

 

[pesilat]

Originally posted by akja
Yea I feel lucky too. I hope we can go down as a group maybe monthly. We definately plan to go down. Rrom what I've seen of the way he teaches he is the "Master Blender."

Yes, but he's also very good at keeping things separated and presenting them separately. At his academy, he and his instructors teach separate classes with separate, traditional curriculums. They do teach some "blended" systems (i.e.: Shootfighting, Maphilindo Silat, etc.) but they are all taught as individual curriculums. He leaves it up to the student to cross-train and find his/her own path.

All arts have weaknesses and what we practice is what come out in a fight. I'm not going to box a boxer or grapple a grappler. I will use grappling against a grappler but I will take the fight into another range and out of his world. Thats the way I teach.

You have to spend a lot of time fighting from your back or else what I'm saying would be crap. Most peoples weaknesses are in ranges that they don't practice. So practicing all ranges and specializing in a range or ranges that work best for you is a realistic approach to teaching.

Couldn't agree with this more. I believe it's important to be well-rounded. To be proficient in all the ranges with and without weapons. But I also think that "proficiency" has several shades.

For instance, I feel that I'm proficient in long range. But I hate it. I've got poor depth perception and I don't have very long limbs, so I don't want to stay at the long range. Consequently, most of my long range material is geared toward getting me through that range quickly. I can hold my own at the long range and if I think someone is a better fighter than I am in the closer ranges then I'll try to stay at long range. But that's rare. Usually, I go to middle range quickly. If I think they're better than me there, then I'll go to close range. If I think they're better than me there, then I'll go to standing grappling. If I think they're better than me there, then I'll go to the ground. But I don't like the ground much better than I like long range so I tend to avoid it, too. As such, my ground game, like my long range game, is geared toward finishing quickly if I can but, primarily, it's geared toward getting back to my feet. I don't like the ground primarily because of multiple opponent situations. What I prefer is to put the other guy on the ground while I'm still standing or kneeling. Generally, I find that I can gain an upper hand in either the middle, close, or standing grappling ranges and I stay there.

If, however, I'm faced with someone whose long range is good enough to keep me out, then I'm probably outta luck. If I'm faced with someone who's better than me at the close ranges and can get through my long range, then I'm probably outta luck.

The close and standing grapple ranges are where I specialize. But, like you, I feel it's important to be well-rounded and at least comfortable in the other ranges because I never know where a fight will end up.

Mike

 

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by pesilat
So often, I see a debate rage back and forth for a while and then, suddenly, both people realize that they're basically saying the same thing. They're on the same sheet of paper with different colored crayons and they're focusing more on the color used than what is actually being written.

Mike [/B]

It couldn't be any more true!

 

[pesilat]

Akja, you're in San Jose, right?

Check this group out - http://www.pentjaksilatusa.com

The head of the system, Dr. Andre KnutsGraichen is absolutely top notch. He's a great guy, a very good martial artist and instructor. I'm not sure if personally teaches (except for his senior students) but he lives in San Jose and, last I knew, there was a group being run there. The system is good and all the people I've met from the organization are good people.

If I lived in San Jose, that'd be where I'd train (along with the visits to Guro Dan).

Also, since my brother-in-law lives in San Jose, I may actually be out in your neck of the woods sometime within the next couple of years

Mike

 

[RyuShiKan]

Originally posted by akja
The answer is in the top of my other post. Its about the ranges.
.

Ya I read it. What makes you think other arts don't teach/do the same thing?


The stuff you think is "ground breaking research" is old news to many people.

 

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by pesilat
Yes, but he's also very good at keeping things separated and presenting them separately. At his academy, he and his instructors teach separate classes with separate, traditional curriculums. They do teach some "blended" systems (i.e.: Shootfighting, Maphilindo Silat, etc.) but they are all taught as individual curriculums. He leaves it up to the student to cross-train and find his/her own path.



Couldn't agree with this more. I believe it's important to be well-rounded. To be proficient in all the ranges with and without weapons. But I also think that "proficiency" has several shades.

For instance, I feel that I'm proficient in long range. But I hate it. I've got poor depth perception and I don't have very long limbs, so I don't want to stay at the long range. Consequently, most of my long range material is geared toward getting me through that range quickly. I can hold my own at the long range and if I think someone is a better fighter than I am in the closer ranges then I'll try to stay at long range. But that's rare. Usually, I go to middle range quickly. If I think they're better than me there, then I'll go to close range. If I think they're better than me there, then I'll go to standing grappling. If I think they're better than me there, then I'll go to the ground. But I don't like the ground much better than I like long range so I tend to avoid it, too. As such, my ground game, like my long range game, is geared toward finishing quickly if I can but, primarily, it's geared toward getting back to my feet. I don't like the ground primarily because of multiple opponent situations. What I prefer is to put the other guy on the ground while I'm still standing or kneeling. Generally, I find that I can gain an upper hand in either the middle, close, or standing grappling ranges and I stay there.

If, however, I'm faced with someone whose long range is good enough to keep me out, then I'm probably outta luck. If I'm faced with someone who's better than me at the close ranges and can get through my long range, then I'm probably outta luck.

The close and standing grapple ranges are where I specialize. But, like you, I feel it's important to be well-rounded and at least comfortable in the other ranges because I never know where a fight will end up.

Mike

I think we think alike alot. Arts change and technique varies. I never stated being a master at anything, but I do train to master what I do.

 

[pesilat]

Originally posted by RyuShiKan
Ya I read it. What makes you think other arts don't teach/do the same thing?


The stuff you think is "graound breaking research" is old news to many people.

In all fairness, Jujitsu guys said the same thing about BJJ before they saw it

This is why I try to keep an open mind and not make judgments until I see/feel it firsthand.

You may well be right -- but you could also be completely wrong.

Mike

 

[RyuShiKan]

Originally posted by akja
I understand your point but your assuming that training from kata will hold up in the modern world martial arts and modern training application of technique.

Obviously you don’t or we wouldn’t be seeing your post.
You think people that train in kata just do a kata a couple of hundred times and then say “Well, that was a good work out see ya tomorrow”
Not hardly. Most people I know that train kata also extract the bunkai and train using it to practice real situations.

Originally posted by akja
And like I said before, you really need to do the math. 65% standup and 35% groundgrappling. For every hour of training, there is approximately 20 minutes on the ground.
There is no kata bunkai that can teach you like that!

Just what do you think bunkai is and how do you think people train in it?

 

[chufeng]

Chufeng, understand there are many ways to do things. Some of us just see things differant. We always will see things differant. And that is why are arts are differant.

And my goal is to make my students better than myself. And I will teach my students how to beat any system that I have learned.

I agree entirely...as a parent, the teacher should wish that his students do better...but the parent must supply the proper tools...

I know this is a difficult endeavor...if that IS your focus, you are on the right path...but PLEASE listen to some of the other stuff here...I think that you and I can both benefit from continuing to explore other things.........

:asian:
chufeng

 

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by RyuShiKan
Ya I read it. What makes you think other arts don't teach/do the same thing?


The stuff you think is "graound breaking research" is old news to many people.

Of course not groundbreaking or next fad to be. Especially not the next martial sport. I just don't believe that training primarily in a traditional fashion is enough. and what i teach is a reflection of me.

 

[Kirk]

Originally posted by RyuShiKan
Just what do you think bunkai is and how do you think people train in it?

I've never heard of the term, and have no idea of it's meaning.
After you're done discussing this with him, please go into some
depth on this.

 

[RyuShiKan]

Originally posted by chufeng
Exactly !!!

YOU haven't seen it...but it is out there...

If he hasn’t seen it then it doesn’t exist. (This is what Chinese call a frog in the well looking upward)

 

[pesilat]

Originally posted by Kirk
I've never heard of the term, and have no idea of it's meaning.
After you're done discussing this with him, please go into some
depth on this.

Bunkai is a term used in Japanese arts. Not sure of the exact translation. But, basically, it means to extrapolate application from the movements in a form.

In Silat, I've most often heard it called "buah" (fruit) and the form is the "bunga" (flower). I've also heard the term "sambut" (answer) used.

Since you do Kenpo, Kirk, I believe this concept may be what you would consider "extensions" (I believe that's the proper term, but may be confused since I'm not a Kenpo player at all) -- and the "form" would be one of your techniques; it's just a 2 person form as opposed to a solo form.

Mike

 

[RyuShiKan]

Originally posted by akja
Of course not groundbreaking or next fad to be. Especially not the next martial sport. I just don't believe that training primarily in a traditional fashion is enough. and what i teach is a reflection of me.

Can you give some characteristics of what you consider to be typical “traditional” weak points?

 

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by RyuShiKan
If he hasn’t seen it then it doesn’t exist. (This is what Chinese call a frog in the well looking upward)

There are techniques within the Kata! I did not deny that. What I did say that you will not learn how to fight from your back from Bunkai. You could learn grappling techniques but you won't get the sensitivity that it takes fight on the ground.

You give me the impression that your technique revolve around the one-punch mentality and if thats true , then you must be right.

 

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by RyuShiKan
Can you give some characteristics of what you consider to be typical “traditional” weak points?

You want an example. How are you going to deal with a shootfighter?

 

[RyuShiKan]

Originally posted by pesilat
Bunkai is a term used in Japanese arts. Not sure of the exact translation. But, basically, it means to extrapolate application from the movements in a form.

That’s a pretty good definition.
When the Colombia crash happened the Japanese news described it as “ku chu bunkai”.
Basically it means mid-air separation, or breaking apart.

Bunkai is actually a verb but westerners have opted to use it as a noun. When studying a kata one uses bunkai to discover the omote and ura techniques within the kata.
Omote means the obvious stuff ura means the not so obvious stuff…….ura is usually the “sneaky stuff” the resembles dentist drill pain.

 

[RyuShiKan]

Originally posted by akja
You want an example. How are you going to deal with a shootfighter?

That's not giving me your opinion, that's asking a question.
Would you like me to restate the question so you understand it better?

 

[chufeng]

There are techniques within the Kata! I did not deny that. What I did say that you will not learn how to fight from your back from Bunkai. You could learn grappling techniques but you won't get the sensitivity that it takes fight on the ground

Again, you assume that those who train in traditional systems don't go to ground...don't look at "real world" situations...

Please stop assuming and start looking at possibilities...

I acknowledge that what you teach might be effective in a fight...but how does that fight relate to the martial art that you profess to teach?

My point is that martial training goes beyond what we train for in the gym.

:asian:
chufeng

 

[pesilat]

Originally posted by RyuShiKan
That’s a pretty good definition.
When the Colombia crash happened the Japanese news described it as “ku chu bunkai”.
Basically it means mid-air separation, or breaking apart.

Beautiful! Never heard that before. Then, definition-wise, it's actually more related to the Indonesian term, "pecahan."

The actual translation of pecahan (pronounced "pet-cha-han") is "fragment." However, it also is used to describe a form of divination in which a glass container is dropped and the future is read from the pattern formed in the shattering.

In martial arts, they use it to describe the concept of extrapolation. When a punch comes at me, it is the glass being dropped. All of the options I have for dealing with that punch are the "pecahan." They're the fragments of my skill/ability that can be applied to dealing with that punch.

Mike