And it is not correct. Martial arts are separated into either good or crap.
If the only people you can defend against are the other guys in your class you are probably crap. If you can defend against the best in the country you are probably good.
Well, that's a load of garbage…
For one thing, it's got nothing at all to do with whether martial arts are "good" or "crap"… it's to do with your personal perception of how they fit with your preconceived values… and, in that fashion, ignoring the huge variety of other contexts and values found in many, many, many arts. Secondly, the idea that "martial arts are separated into either good of crap" is such a small-minded statement that it's a sheer denial of reality.
As for your litmus test… come along to my school. Pit your MMA/BJJ methods against what I do… er… your sword defence is good in your MMA, yeah? I mean… your art must be crap if you can't defend against mine, right?
Can you see how far off your idea is yet? No martial art is designed for every context, and being applicable in one context means nothing when you're taken somewhere you're not geared up for. In that sense, all arts can be seen as "crap" by your reckoning… just by taking them somewhere where they don't operate.
Is it really fair to call Sanda "Kung Fu" when it's a mix of several different (many non-Chinese) styles?
Er… you do know what "kung fu" means, yeah? And, seconding Xue, how are you defining sanda?
Bjj has always been an eclectic style though. We tend to not care where it comes from as long as it works.
Hmm… and how are you defining "eclectic"? Mainly as, well, BJJ doesn't really fit the definition as commonly applied…
Traditional TMAs tend to frown upon cross training or breaking from tradition.
Sure… and that's why so many of them spawn new arts… resulting from people cross training… and creating their own form…
My point is that this statement may be correct to a degree for some arts (Kashima Shinryu come to mind as an extreme example), but it's not only not correct for many, it's not correct for the vast majority. Of course, it helps to understand the mentality and reasons for limiting outside influence when that does occur…
Hence why had all that anti-grappling fun in the other thread. The exponents of those styles couldn't bring wrestling moves back to their TMA, so they created their own moves and claimed that they were hidden in the forms the entire time.
You really do have an interesting reality you live in… have you ever considered that what they did was to express the principles and methods they have (already) in a new context (the ground)? The applicability of such is another matter, but I really doubt it was a case of them not being able to bring in outside methods… more likely that outside methods may have conflicted with their existing approach, and therefore not fit with what they did.
You have different levels of this thing though. There are a couple of Tkders I know of who mix it up kick boxing. So can handle themselves. And there are those who never go outside the class room. And would get owned by anybody with half a clue.
And there are people who cross-train who would get "owned"… and those who do just one thing that wouldn't.
This training in a traditional sense that does not allow outside influences and seems to be for the poupose of stroking the ego of the instructor.
Seems to you, perhaps. Of course, your perception and reality can be very, very different things…
Ameridote satires this school very well.
Er… no. Ameridote is far more a satire of the opposite, you realise… it is not presented as "traditional"… in fact, it's presented as a modern, Western, eclectic Kempo-based system (and therefore is satirising that concept). You know their slogan, yeah? "Best of all, worst of none"? Tell me how that doesn't imply outside methodologies being incorporated… besides which, you have the many, many videos of "X-art is BS"… which makes much the same argument as you try to.
In other words, what Ameri-do-te satirises is most closely represented here by yourself and Hanzou in terms of the way you present yourself. Not traditional arts at all.
Hmm... it occurs to me, as I write this, that you could be referring to the "X-art is BS" clips… in which case, you might want to look up what "satirising" actually is…
Otherwise what we have found with the karate guys that train with us is they can't fight us like karate guys. So even if you are not learning new technique you still have to go outside your school and mix it up with other guys to understand your own system better.
No, learning what the effect of applying your art in a different context can benefit from such… but that's about as far as I'd go.
Joe could have very easily experienced one or both of these situations. It is not uncommon to find. And can be very deceptive and seductive. I mean who does not want to do a style where you win without effort?
And so this idea that if you never fight you are somehow a better martial artist. And we don't have to put you up against an actual boxer. We can just get Barry to pretend to be one and show how we are really superior without any risk at all.
What? Honestly, I have no idea what you're going on about here…
I would also hesitate to consider a martial art that was supposedly combined with another martial art centuries ago to be considered a form of "cross-training".
So… you're putting a time restriction on what you consider cross-training? Let's test this…
The Takagi Ryu (which currently exists as a number of different forms, including the Hontai Takagi Yoshin Ryu, the Hontai Yoshin Ryu Takagi Ryu, the Takagi Ryu, the Hontai Yoshin Ryu, the Moto-ha Yoshin Ryu, etc) was founded in approximately 1660 by Takagi Oriemon Shigenobu… Takagi Oriemon had trained in Ito Kenko Ryu (sojutsu, naginata, bo, kodachi, ken, hanbo), and Kyochi Ryu (sojutsu) before creating his own system of Takagi Ryu. At this point, it was largely weapon work, with a very rough form of jujutsu based in sumo and hade (crude grappling - not meaning ground work, as, well, why would they?). It's important to note that a big influence on how Takagi Ryu was formed came from having an encounter (match, or , more realistically, a couple of matches) with Yagyu Tajima no Kami, of the Yagyu Shinkage Ryu… with swords.
He passed his art onto his adopted son, Takagi Ummanosuke, who had an encounter with the head of Takenouchi Ryu, Takenouchi Hisamori. Takenouchi beat Takagi quite emphatically (despite Takagi being much younger, taller, stronger, and overall bigger), after which Takagi asked to become Takenouchi's student. Takenouchi agreed, and the Takenouchi Ryu (which had a large weapon syllabus, but was most well known for it's jujutsu) became a huge influence on the further development of Takagi Ryu… to the point that the Jujutsu side got refined to a great degree, taking a more prominent place in the syllabus.
The third generation head of Takagi Ryu, Takagi Gennoshin Higeshige, struck up a friendship with the fourth head of Kukishin Ryu, Ohkuni Kihei. Over the time of their friendship, the two had a number of matches to determine who had the "better" system… through which, it was decided that Takagi Ryu was superior to Kukishin Ryu in Jujutsu, whereas the weaponry arts of Kukishin Ryu, particularly it's use of bo, were the better. From then on, the two taught together in a joint dojo, with the Jujutsu coming from Takagi Ryu, and the weapon usage from Kukishin Ryu. When Takagi became sick, he appointed Ohkuni to be his successor, and the fourth head of Takagi Ryu. From that point on, Takagi Ryu and Kukishin Ryu were taught as one system, with many modern forms of Takagi Ryu still containing Kukishin Ryu weapon arts.
But let's skip forward…
Since then, the art has created a number of branches, a number of bunpa ryu (descendant schools), and has continued to develop itself. One line, the Hontai Yoshin Ryu, was created when Ishitani Masatsugu (the 14th head of the Ryu, according to some lineages - others have him as the 15th, depending on when you start counting…), who had already restructured the school based on his own experiences both in and outside of the ryu itself, passed the school down to his son, then to Kakuno Happeita. Kakuno set about restructuring the school himself (teaching it as a separate form, aside from the "mainline" Hontai Yoshin Ryu Takagi Ryu), creating new kata sets, and so on. He passed his art onto his successor, Minaki Masanori, who continued to refine the art and complete the restructure that Kakuno began.
He then passed the art onto Inoue Tsuyoshi Munetoshi, a rather accomplished practitioner of a number of arts, including Toyama Ryu Iai, Seitei Iai, Seitei Jo, Kyudo, Judo, and a range of other arts. Among his many accomplishments as Soke of this ryu, Inoue sensei revived some aspects of the weapon teachings of the art, such as the Iai, by drawing on his training outside of the Ryu itself. In fact, for a while, it wasn't Hontai Yoshin Ryu Iai that was taught to most students, but a line of Toyama Ryu… with the Hontai Yoshin Ryu Iai being held for senior students only. In more recent times, Hontai Yoshin Ryu Iai has been opened to all students of the Ryu.
So, here we have an art that came from cross-training, developed through meeting other martial artists, continued to have it's heads train in other systems, continued to develop, and continued to influence it's own practice through to the present day. Inoue sensei mentioned above was the previous generation soke… and the developments mentioned occurred in the late '80's/early 90's.
Does this count as cross-training? I mean… it was created centuries ago, as a result of someone training in multiple systems and methods… Speaking personally, training in any one system isn't cross-training… but cross-training in different systems is what has helped define what this system is… so I don't consider Hontai Yoshin Ryu as cross training, but the result of such.
Judo is a hybrid of several classical JJ styles, but I would consider practicing judo alone to be cross training by default.
I'd actually argue the idea that Judo is a hybrid of several classical styles… to my mind, it's not. It's Judo. It's a single system, which is informed by a number of other systems… but the fact is that Judo is a particular system, based in a training methodology and philosophy. I do have to ask, though, did you mean you would consider practicing Judo alone to be cross-training, or that you wouldn't? If the former… why? If the latter… okay, cool. You missed some letters, then.
You mean like the story of Relson Gracie supposedly cutting off his brother Royce because he cross-trained in Muay Thai before his fight with Matt Hughes? Meanwhile almost every Relson Gracie school in the country has a second or third martial art available to train in, Relson himself is quite fond of boxing and Judo, and the two brothers have been seen talking to each other several times.
Actions speak louder than words. Don't believe everything coming out of the mouths of the Gracies.
Speaking for myself, I'd say more like Royce saying that "MMA means you can't do any one thing well, so you have to do bits of everything… it means you're not good enough at what you do. BJJ is good enough to not need anything else" (training seminar with Ground Zero BJJ, Melbourne, Feb 2008). Might be paraphrasing, but that was the gist of it when he was asked "What do you think of MMA?" in the Q&A at the end of the day…
You mean other than the fact that it more closely resembles MMA than any Kung Fu style?
Not to speak for Renc, but yes. Other than that. An actual source.
