Not to hijack the thread, but there is a lot really bad Shotokan videos on youtube. So make sure you're using trusted sources. You can find some excellent kata videos with Nakayama Sensei (author of the Best Karate series of books which are also excellent), where they really break down the moves and teach the fundamental details. Those are the best I've found for free on YouTube.
Learn from Youtube
- Thread starter Kung Fu Wang
- Start date
Not to hijack the thread, but there is a lot really bad Shotokan videos on youtube. So make sure you're using trusted sources. You can find some excellent kata videos with Nakayama Sensei (author of the Best Karate series of books which are also excellent), where they really break down the moves and teach the fundamental details. Those are the best I've found for free on YouTube.
Aiki Lee
Master of Arts
You should see some of the crap Ninjutsu pratitioners put out. For every one good example you can find about a hundred lousy ones.
...though of course the number of alleged ninjutsu practitioners to actual ones is an issue there.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #24
This Youtube has good information too.
Last edited by a moderator:
I've only heard it being successful once. A New York Karate fighter, Louis Delgado (RIP) taught himself Karate strictly through books and practice. (1960's) He was quite good, one of the best Karate punchers around and I think he was the last person to defeat Chuck Norris in a tournament.
I don't know how that works, either.
There are also a huge number of people who are really good fighters, though untrained; but they are typically referred to as 'street fighters' and rather than learning from books or videos, they did it by going out and fighting. So it would seem to me that proficiency comes through practical application (training), rather than by studying videos and watching others, for the most part. Exception above noted.
Yeah, no.
Yes, someone invented the technique. However, that person (and more likely, persons, in my opinion) didn't do it in a vacuum. They created fighting methods based on actual fighting; they codified what they learned the hard way. They refined what they had been shown by others. As we see in Okinawa, it may well have been a 'family style' where fathers taught sons and uncles taught nephews, and each added refinements where they saw a better way, tried it, it worked, and they shared that improvement.
In no case did the ancients read the Bubishi and emerge able to fight. It was Youtube for its day, but it was a reference manual only. Which is the appropriate role for Youtube videos and books on martial arts today. Reference material.
You can say "it is just a physical skill," all you want. The fact is that no one reads a book on how to ride a bicycle, gets on a bicycle, and rides it. It takes actual practical experience, no matter how many photos you have seen of people on bicycles. You can see a video of a man swinging a hammer at a nail, but unless you have apprenticed with a carpenter, chances are you cannot drive a heavy nail into hardwood with two blows, the tap to start it and the finishing blow that drives it all the way down. I've tried, it's not as easy as it looks; and that's just driving a nail, for crying out loud. A very 'simple' skill.
So yeah, it *is* magic in a sense. There are so many subtleties, so many variables, so many minor details that are simply not visible in a video, a photo in a book, or a written description, that I do not for one minute believe a person can watch a Youtube video and teach themselves to perform a martial arts technique properly.
So we agree here; whether or not one can learn from a video or a book, it is foolish to even try when there are real instructors available.
lklawson
Grandmaster
Never claimed otherwise.
Neither of which requires a teacher.
Didn't claim they did.
I think I will. 'Cuz it is. All physical skills are learned the same way: through physically doing. Instructors are just there to help ensure it gets done "right" sooner along the learning curve. There's an old saying, "Practice makes perfect" which eloquently speaks to the fact that physical skills require physical practice to perform properly. There's a newer variation of the same saying, "Perfect practice makes perfect." This succinctly speaks to the fact that improper training can, and often does, allow errors to be practiced; errors which may render the physical skill flawed in dramatic ways.
With all politeness, you seem to be having some confusion with conflation of my position with others which I have not taken. I have not claimed that a person can merely "look at" a skill being performed an learn it just from that. I have also not claimed that a person need not practice a physical skill to learn it. What I have claimed is that a person need not have an instructor to learn a physical skill. Yes, I said that. An instructor is not REQUIRED. As I wrote earlier, I know this for a fact because every physical skill had to be developed afresh at one point by someone who had never had anyone teach that skill. It must have been "invented" by someone. Yes, probably refined over time. Yes, through practice, trial, and error. But even with your example of a two-strike nail, someone had to learn it on their own, with no instructor, the very first time. Unless you posit that Prometheus taught hammer-and-nail skills, along with fire, to man, then there must have been a Patient Zero. It is the same with any physical skill, martial arts related or not.
Again, there had to have been a "first person"; the guy who invented the technique. If he can do it, so can someone else. Once again, to be clear, I am not saying attempting to do so is a preferable, or even a good idea. It is not. Attempting to hash out even a single a martial skill will, of necessity, take dramatically more time and will probably be dangerous to the person trying to "figure it out on his own." If there is a teacher available at all, this is is labeled, in technical terms, a "bad idea." Not only bad, but foolish to boot. If there is an instructor available, why spend dramatically more time and risk to yourself? Pride?
Take your nail driving example, for instance. I guarantee that I do not need to Apprentice to a carpenter to learn it. Through trial and error I could learn it all on my own. But it might take me days, weeks, or even months to "figure it out," and possibly risk damage to my tools, my materials, or even to my arm, when a carpenter should be able to show me the proper form and cut that learning curve down to a fraction.
Physical skills aren't magic, they're just physical skills. They take time, effort, and repetition to learn, all of which are either foolish or dangerously stupid to try to do with a martial skill when an instructor is available. But someone had to do it the first time. I'm just thankful that they did so that I don't have to (usually).
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
OK, I misunderstood you, my apologies. Yes, I agree, an instructor is not required. But practical experience is. I believe we are in agreement. A person definitely teach themselves BY DOING. Not by watching a video or reading a book. I'm sorry I did not clearly understand your points.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #30
One guy in Taiwan wanted to compete in tournament. He tied a coconut between 2 trees with ropes. He spend 6 months to chase that coconut with his fists. He won the 1st place in his next tournament because nowbody could get away from his head hunting, hard fist, and fast footwork.
I think that says more about the man
Brother John
Senior Master
Boarman, I think you raise an excellent point.
It's sort of like the difference between a person who doesn't know hardly anything about cooking (lets call him "Brother John") watching the "Cooking Chanel" with his wife who DOES know a lot about cooking and his mother in law who is a trained and experienced Chef.
1. John would gain an idea of "Yum....I'd like to eat that."
2. His wife would gain new recipes that she'd be able to experiment with and learn something about the inclusion of ingredients or devices she's not yet used but now she may.
3. The mother-in law might gain insights into specific technique, finer points than others would pick up.... inner principles that could affect MANY different dishes that she makes. PLUS: knowing more about WHY different cooks do things in different ways... she'd gain FAR more than the other two.
a trained master, observing others.... can learn SO much. But they would learn even more if they were THERE working WITH the other person. But that doesn't take away from the value that can be found in good observation. Especially if:
The person on video/Tv/computer screen...etc, is a good demonstrator and themselves have a profound understanding on how to impart the inner elements that makes it really come together.
I personally think that there's great value in video, Youtube....etc., the more you already KNOW and UNDERSTAND.... the more value it can offer you. But that foundational knowledge/understanding must first be there, or else.....you'll only get a notion of what you might like to try.
PLUS: There's a LOT to be said for trained discernment. I've seen more mediocre and POOR video than good. As with ALL of your training and education... seek out and OBSERVE the hell out of the MASTERS!!! Ingest everything they have to offer on a regular basis in whatever format you can get them. Video is Great. Books, magazines, internet articles.. Discern whom you want to be like, move like....teach like....anything. Then: Take it in, make it yours, pass it on.
Your Brother (who enjoys the occasional Food Chanel show and youtube instruction)
John
Brother John
Senior Master
True. BUT: an instructor and the coaching / guidance of a MORE experienced person is So Very helpful that it's far more than just an advantage. I'm a BIG believer in self education!!! But that...supplementary.....not in place of....instruction and guidance from a master.
Your Brother
John
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
It's not always a matter of simply adding a tech to your curriculum. In some cases, you might decide there is no reason to have it. Personally, I'm not a fan of the roundhouse kick. I've learned in in the context of the various systems that I've studied, but over time I've come to like it less and less, so I include it in my practice less and less. Same for things like hook kicks, axe kicks, etc.
It's also possible that a certain technique, or specifically, HOW that technique is being done in that particular instructional video, isn't compatible with the foundational method of your system. You may still be able to incorporate a hook punch, for example, but it might not be a hook punch done like THAT one.
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
I don't know anything about Louis Delgado so I'm not commenting specifically about him. However, it's not difficult to hurt someone, it doesn't require superior technique nor a sophisticated system. But just because one can hurt someone, just because one can fight, doesn't mean they are skilled in a martial method. You can go a long way on natural talent, athleticism, strength, and raw aggression. So someone who taught himself thru video and books could come out and whup some butt, but that doesn't mean he's a skilled martial artist. It just means he's a good fighter. If someone like that got some quality training to really understand a method and develop quality technique, then this kind of person could be awesome.
lklawson
Grandmaster
Truth.
How does it not?
I think that, as dedicated martial artists, we keep forgetting that martial arts, at its original base and core, is about hurting people and breaking stuff. That is the kernel of martial arts. Everything else that we like to promote it as, even the reasons that we do it ourselves (health, strength, fun, confidence, etc.) are all very very secondary to the base intention of martial arts. We forget the "martial" part and focus on "art." But even that, we misunderstand in its historic context. The term, "Martial Art" isn't original to any of the Asian traditions that I've ever been able to find. The first, and original, application of the term "Martial Art" was Western in origin and was, apparently, termed "The Arts Martial" describing certain "Arts" as being oriented to fighting. At the time the term "Art" was frequently used to describe the study or application of any advanced human skill such as bricklaying, stone cutting, or philosophy. It wasn't about the creation of something aesthetically pleasing. It was about developing or studying a skill.
This is why, in the tradition of Western Civilization, we have "Martial Arts."
I may be veering a bit off the path from where you wanted to take this, but this misapplication is kinda a pet peeve of mine. Every "Martial Art" was, at least originally, about being a better fighter.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
Last edited:
I had a look at some of his clips online, and compared to some of the others I have been looking at, which they are all technically the same kata. It's amazing the little differences each sensei has. And you can pick up slight variants with each. I'd say they are all correct in their own right, but Nakayama Sensei definitely seem to have more "snap" to his movements. Thanks for putting me on to his tubes, he has some verbal detail in his clips that are good for explaining why a certain move is performed and how it can be applied.
punisher73
Senior Master
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2004
- Messages
- 3,959
- Reaction score
- 1,062
I have read through these, and I actually agree with both sides presented here based on HOW we are defining the term "learn". If we are talking rote memory, then "yes" we can mimic the movements through visual representation. Isn't that what all classes start off as anyway to beginners or new material? Now, if we are defining "learn" as in the deeper levels, then I think we are in agreement that the fastest and safest way is through a compotent instructor that can point out the fine details.
I think we can all find exceptions to the rule of a very dedicated person who kept on refining and refining a "self taught" technique to make it successful. Again, human interaction is required for it though.
I think that is the other part of the definition about "learning", is the application of that learned skill. Even in this idea we are going to have different levels of "learning" that occur. For example, I could watch that judo video on ouchi gari and be able to apply it after a couple of tries on a compliant partner. There is one level of learning it. Then I can keep on adding other factors to learn the other parts of it such as the off balancing, the off setting, the complimentary angles of footwork to make entry easier until I have "learned" the technique enough to create it when the situation arises and not try to force the technique to happen. I'm sure we've all seen beginners in sparring keep doing the same thing over and over whether or not it's successful because it's what they know and they are trying to make it work.
Learning and human neuro activity along with the subconscious mind can do alot of things that the "science" says it can't. For example, repeating the behavior thousands of time to make it into habit almost to the point of reflexive action due to the reinforcement of the nervous system etc. Yet, we have all heard stories and I've experienced it too where we see a technique in class and maybe work it a couple of times and then a real situation happens and that technique 'just happens'.
So again, we are back to the real question, "what is learning?"
I think we can all find exceptions to the rule of a very dedicated person who kept on refining and refining a "self taught" technique to make it successful. Again, human interaction is required for it though.
I think that is the other part of the definition about "learning", is the application of that learned skill. Even in this idea we are going to have different levels of "learning" that occur. For example, I could watch that judo video on ouchi gari and be able to apply it after a couple of tries on a compliant partner. There is one level of learning it. Then I can keep on adding other factors to learn the other parts of it such as the off balancing, the off setting, the complimentary angles of footwork to make entry easier until I have "learned" the technique enough to create it when the situation arises and not try to force the technique to happen. I'm sure we've all seen beginners in sparring keep doing the same thing over and over whether or not it's successful because it's what they know and they are trying to make it work.
Learning and human neuro activity along with the subconscious mind can do alot of things that the "science" says it can't. For example, repeating the behavior thousands of time to make it into habit almost to the point of reflexive action due to the reinforcement of the nervous system etc. Yet, we have all heard stories and I've experienced it too where we see a technique in class and maybe work it a couple of times and then a real situation happens and that technique 'just happens'.
So again, we are back to the real question, "what is learning?"
OP
- Thread Starter
- #39
It depends on whether you know what you are looking for or not. If you know what you are looking for, you don't even need youtube. Sometime just few words will be enough.
