Martial arts shouldn't take years to learn.

[Tez3]

This is why you have major and minor as you did in school.

No idea what that means I'm afraid. it depends very much on where you are in your training in your first style whether you can cope with training another style. it also depends on what other styles you want to learn.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

No idea what that means I'm afraid. it depends very much on where you are in your training in your first style whether you can cope with training another style. it also depends on what other styles you want to learn.

All northern CMA are similar. All southern CMA are similar too. The northern CMA long fist is my major, it's easy for me to cross train another northern CMA. It's difficult for me to cross train another southern CMA.

For striking art, I have cross trained

- preying mantis for it's speed generation training.
- Baji for it's power generation training.

I have no problems to integrate long fist, preying mantis, Baji because they are all northern CMA. I do have difficulty to integrate the

- northern long fist system, and
- southern WC system.

The best I can do is only to integrate on the "principles" level.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Which is not in any way a bad thing.

Agreed. If my understanding and conclusions hadn't changed in 15 years, I've wasted my time.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I've HEARD that if you do a lot of martial arts at once, it can sometimes get confusing, as you're using a different approach every time. Is that true? Or is it subjective?

It can be a problem or it can not be a problem. There are potential pitfalls, but whether they get in your way depends a lot on your mindset, your goals, and your approach to training. It's a complex subject and I'll try to write up a more in-depth discussion of the topic when I have the time.

I will say that I have trained in a lot of martial arts over the years, sometimes 3-4 at a time, and I have not found it confusing. The only downside you can't get around is the issue of available time and energy. Every hour you spend training art A is an hour that you aren't spending training art B.

My primary art for the last 18 years or so has been BJJ. In all that time, I have never encountered a student who I felt was disadvantaged by prior experience in a different art and I have met plenty who I felt gained advantages through their prior experience. Of those that were training another art simultaneously, I've never seen any be confused by the experience. I'll also add that of all the BJJ black belts I know personally, at least 90% have at least black belt or equivalent level experience in at least one other art. I don't think any of us feel that outside experience was any sort of handicap.

Yes, it can be quite confusing, on a few levels... for one thing, a martial art should be a cohesive, synthesised approach to addressing combative questions within it's context... as a result, it's meant to be unified in it's approach to things like tactical weaponry, power sources, range(s), context, and so on... to bring in something else that contradicts that is rather difficult.

To put it this way... say you're training in an art that relies on staying out at a range and kicking, using a power source of pivoting on the support leg to whip the hips around, using the full extension of the leg (say, TKD)... and you then start training in system that teaches you to move in, and employ kicks sparingly, with a power source of driving the hips forwards, and kicking low with minimal extension... you've now trained two opposing and contradictory methods for applying kicks. Now, the "common sense" thing to say here is "well, I'll just use the most appropriate at the time... if they're out, I'll use the TKD approach... if they're closer, I'll use the close quarters one"... except it doesn't work that way.

It's not a matter of using the range you're in... both arts teach you to move to the distance that they work best from... their tactical range... and you can't move forwards and back at the same time... you can't use a full extension whipping kick by moving in past their hands... and you can't drive your hips forwards with a low kick while whipping your hips around for a high, long-extension kick. You have to do one or the other. So which one do you do? Well, that decision is often made on an unconscious level... basically, your unconscious (trained) response will be to select the option that your unconscious believes is the most powerful of the two... which might be the right one, and might not... and might or might not be based in reality. You see, if you spend years watching bad Kung Fu films where everyone seems to do these big kicks, you may have taught your unconscious that that is the most powerful method... even if you haven't developed much skill in that area, compared with the other or not.

At best, you have two options that will never be utilised, so half of your training is wasted... at worst, you have two options that contradict each other, so you have simply taught yourself the entire time that neither of them are powerful, as the other method contradicts them, and you end up with nothing in your toolbox that you can rely on, as your unconscious mind believes neither are good enough to actually work.

There are some reasonable points here, but I disagree with a lot of your ultimate conclusions. I was starting to type a response to this, but then realized I need a full essay to properly address all your points. I'll plan on making a separate post later today or tomorrow to cover my thoughts in depth. I'm just marking this as a placeholder so someone can remind me if they don't see my post on the subject by Monday or Tuesday.

Well, a lot of it is that these aren't approached as actual martial arts... they're approached as skill sets... and, as such, are adapted with the individual to limit, or even eliminate problems such as contradictory power sources. This leads to alterations such as the MMA practitioner taking a slightly deeper (wider) stance when boxing than a boxer normally would, being a bit slower, but more geared up to launch grappling attacks as well as defend against them (which a boxer doesn't need to worry about). The skills are also drilled together... boxing into a takedown, into a submission sequence, or kicking into a takedown defence, and moving into boxing, so on and so forth. As a result, these skill sets are combined to create a new training methodology, rather than being distinct martial arts themselves. You will also note that this is most successful in sporting systems.

I'd be willing to bet you don't... you do three or four skill sets drawn from particular systems, but not actual systems in the main. At most, you may do BJJ as a separate system, but the rest is more likely skill sets.

It can be approached either way, depending on the gym and the practitioner. Some people pull specific skill sets from separate arts and blend them into what is effectively a new martial art. Others actually train the separate arts in their full forms and then also synthesize skills, principles, and tactics from those different arts into their own personal expression of MMA.

the issue with the language one (which is the closest) is that you end up trying to speak French with the grammatical structure of Japanese, and a German accent.

There are millions of multilingual people in the world who can speak different languages with correct grammar. The accent is harder to eliminate, unless they learn the different languages as a small child. Regardless, that makes no sort of argument against learning different languages. The point of becoming multilingual is to be able to communicate in contexts where you would not otherwise. Nobody reasonable would ever argue "don't try to learn French, because you'll always have a German accent."

The same applies to martial arts. If I'm teaching someone Muay Thai, I don't care if they have a TKD "accent". I care about whether they can use what I'm teaching them effectively. For most of us, the point of training in a martial art is not to perform some theoretical platonic ideal of that art as dictated by the founder unsullied by the feel of a different art. Martial arts are human creations used by human beings for human purposes. Maybe we want to be able to fight in a certain context. Maybe we want to develop certain physical or mental attributes. Maybe we just want something which makes us happy. As long as the influence of a second art doesn't get in the way of those purposes, then it isn't a problem.

John, all this does is confirm to me that you have little more than a superficial grasp of what makes something a martial art, and what the differences are. You train skill sets, not martial arts. And none of that is anything to do with training in different systems... it's superficial misunderstanding, and at the same level of a video game grasp of "systems" (with a single distinct "move" used to define them).

John has been training and teaching martial arts much longer than either of us and has a background which is fairly broad and deep, in arts which neither of us has much experience in. I've also seen posts from him on tactical principles, teaching concepts, and fundamental body mechanics as well as specific physical techniques. I've had plenty of disagreements with him, but I would be very hesitant to call his understanding of martial arts superficial, especially without the opportunity to train with him in person.

And seriously, the bizarre fantasy you have about the amount of damage your punch can do, often talking about them "killing" people, is worrying and rather sick. Just so you know how you're coming across

Chris, I think you entirely missed both the tongue-in-cheek nature of the post and its actual point.

I agree with Gerry on this. Admittedly, John's sense of humor can be rather odd at times, but I wouldn't take it too literally.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I read that Steven K. Hayes is still affiliated with Bujinkan, only he doesn't teach it? Not too sure.

According to senior Bujinkan members who lived and trained in Japan, Stephen Hayes was kicked out years ago. Due to the nature of Japanese etiquette, the Bujinkan has not made any sort of big official public statement regarding this expulsion. This lack of a public announcement has allowed Hayes to present himself as still being a Bujinkan member in good standing. It's been a few years since the last time I saw it discussed, so I don't know if he is still making that claim.

 

[Tarrycat]

According to senior Bujinkan members who lived and trained in Japan, Stephen Hayes was kicked out years ago. Due to the nature of Japanese etiquette, the Bujinkan has not made any sort of big official public statement regarding this expulsion. This lack of a public announcement has allowed Hayes to present himself as still being a Bujinkan member in good standing. It's been a few years since the last time I saw it discussed, so I don't know if he is still making that claim.

He is, yes...
Here is the attached link:
Questions and Answers – Part 4 | An-shu Stephen K. Hayes/

But it's dated back to 2009 though. I'll google & see if I can find more information.

 

[Tez3]

All northern CMA are similar. All southern CMA are similar too. The northern CMA long fist is my major, it's easy for me to cross train another northern CMA. It's difficult for me to cross train another southern CMA.

For striking art, I have cross trained

- preying mantis for it's speed generation training.
- Baji for it's power generation training.

I have no problems to integrate long fist, preying mantis, Baji because they are all northern CMA. I do have difficulty to integrate the

- northern long fist system, and
- southern WC system.

The best I can do is only to integrate on the "principles" level.

I know. What I don't know is what you mean by major and minor in schools.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I know. What I don't know is what you mean by major and minor in schools.

In the US, in college (university), everyone declares a major course of study (mine was Psychology). That's what you get your degree in. Many also declare a minor course of study, which they take fewer courses in than their major, but enough to become knowledgeable. Had I declared one, it would have been Theatre. The analogy is that my "major" in MA is NGA, and I've "minored" in a few others.

 

[Tez3]

In the US, in college (university), everyone declares a major course of study (mine was Psychology). That's what you get your degree in. Many also declare a minor course of study, which they take fewer courses in than their major, but enough to become knowledgeable. Had I declared one, it would have been Theatre. The analogy is that my "major" in MA is NGA, and I've "minored" in a few others.

Does that mean then the 'major' course of study isn't enough to keep a student occupied? Is the course not full time as it is here and in Europe?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Does that mean then the 'major' course of study isn't enough to keep a student occupied? Is the course not full time as it is here and in Europe?

No, it just means they have more than one thing they want to study. In my brother's case, his minor was Theatre. He majored in English. That way he had a better chance of finding work (teaching English classes) until he could get into work in his real area of interest. Others do it to link together two areas, so maybe Business and a foreign language, to get into international business.

 

[Tez3]

No, it just means they have more than one thing they want to study. In my brother's case, his minor was Theatre. He majored in English. That way he had a better chance of finding work (teaching English classes) until he could get into work in his real area of interest. Others do it to link together two areas, so maybe Business and a foreign language, to get into international business.

Ah just looked up American unis, we do three year courses ( some specialised ones are as long as six/seven years though) and yours are a year longer so you have the time to fit in more studies.. The American university system – 4 ways it’s different from the UK

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I know. What I don't know is what you mean by major and minor in schools.

The major and minor in school is like:

- Computer science is your major.
- Mathematics is your minor.

 

[Tez3]

The major and minor in school is like:

- Computer science is your major.
- Mathematics is your minor.

That doesn't mean anything to anyone outside the US I'm afraid because we don't do that but luckily it's been explained. it also goes to show that not everyone does things the same way.

 

[drop bear]

That doesn't mean anything to anyone outside the US I'm afraid because we don't do that but luckily it's been explained. it also goes to show that not everyone does things the same way.

Or anyone who watches an American tv show.

 

[Tez3]

Or anyone who watches an American tv show.

No, because how many American television shows tell us that the length of academic courses are four years? It's never relevant because it's American made and for Americans who already know.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Ah just looked up American unis, we do three year courses ( some specialised ones are as long as six/seven years though) and yours are a year longer so you have the time to fit in more studies.. The American university system – 4 ways it’s different from the UK

One mistake in terminology from your link:

As you move into your sophomore (second), minor (third) and major (you guessed it… fourth) years you will have a chance to focus on something that you want to study.

A students 3rd and 4th years in school are referred to as their junior and senior years, respectively. Minor and major has nothing to do with that.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

He is, yes...
Here is the attached link:
Questions and Answers – Part 4 | An-shu Stephen K. Hayes/

But it's dated back to 2009 though. I'll google & see if I can find more information.

Sigh. I've always liked Steve Hayes well enough in person. He's a thoughtful and creative martial artist and teacher. However this particular screed illustrates something else he is good at: spin, misdirection, obfuscation, and self-aggrandizement. Those were always part of his nature, but it appears he's really cranked them up to 11 these days.

 

[Tarrycat]

Sigh. I've always liked Steve Hayes well enough in person. He's a thoughtful and creative martial artist and teacher. However this particular screed illustrates something else he is good at: spin, misdirection, obfuscation, and self-aggrandizement. Those were always part of his nature, but it appears he's really cranked them up to 11 these days.

Wait, WHAT??? You know Steven?

Do you think in your opinion that there is some truth to this interview though?

I haven't really heard anything good about To-Shin-Do. So many people don't like this guy's approach. I don't really know why. I don't know enough...

I was thinking about establishing a Bujinkan or Genbukan dojo this side. The only thing I'm concerned about, is that we still need modernised techniques that can be applied in this day & age. A lot of those movements are so big, that they aren't very practical. At least that's what I've learnt over the years. I'm not too certain if all the techniques are that big... I speak under correction...

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Wait, WHAT??? You know Steven?

Just as a passing acquaintance. I met him a number of times when I was training in the Bujinkan and he was still part of the organization. I wasn't a direct student, but I attended a bunch of his seminars. I also ran into him around town occasionally since we lived in the same area for a while.

Do you think in your opinion that there is some truth to this interview though?

Some truth, some irrelevant distractions, some puffery and exaggerations, some unfounded insinuations, some distortions, some important facts omitted. Steve is a master salesman and story teller, which allows him to present a misleading picture without necessarily telling a direct lie. (I'm not in a position to know personally whether there are any direct lies in that essay, but I can certainly recognize where the spin is happening.)

I haven't really heard anything good about To-Shin-Do. So many people don't like this guy's approach. I don't really know why. I don't know enough...

Lots of people do like Toshindo. I would hope you've heard good things about it from your instructor since that's what he's teaching you. Of those who don't like it, they probably fall into a couple of major camps:
Those who don't care for any of the X-kans and their derivatives.
Those who belong to the Bujinkan and are annoyed because they feel Hayes is misrepresenting his association with and his level of understanding of the Bujinkan arts.
What should matter to you is whether you like what you are learning, not what a bunch of people you don't know say about the art.

I was thinking about establishing a Bujinkan or Genbukan dojo this side.

To do that, you'd need a qualified instructor from one of those organizations. If you don't have one in the area already, you'd need to spend a long time travelling to train with qualified teachers before you had the requisite knowledge to start your own school.

The only thing I'm concerned about, is that we still need modernised techniques that can be applied in this day & age. A lot of those movements are so big, that they aren't very practical. At least that's what I've learnt over the years. I'm not too certain if all the techniques are that big... I speak under correction

The big classical movements you are referring to are for training the student's understanding of concepts and principles. Actual application can be much smaller.

 

[Tez3]

One mistake in terminology from your link:

A students 3rd and 4th years in school are referred to as their junior and senior years, respectively. Minor and major has nothing to do with that.

We have freshers as in new starter and then just students. Another difference I hadn't thought about but had seen it on FB of all things was that British students don't have to share rooms with anyone, they all have single rooms sharing just kitchens and perhaps bathrooms. An American poster was sharing her amazement that we don't share rooms with complete strangers. Most move out of halls after a year and live in private accommodation sharing a house with other students. We also don't have fraternities or sororities something we do see on American television films and television and find immensely perplexing ( as in really weird actually, I mean why would you?)