Sharing with other Arts

[MichiganTKD]

There is a difference between Instructing lessors and working out with them. Instructing them means I am superior to you in either level of technique or rank, and I am teaching you something. This is the teacher-student relationship. In traditional martial arts it is formalized and acknowledged.
Working out with lessors means that we are equal. I have a higher rank than you or my technique is better, but we are equal. I will teach lessors (meaning one of lower rank or technique than me, not standing outside class), but I will not work out with them, because to work out with them we would have to be equal. Black belts do not work out with color belts, masters do not work out with junior black belts, and Grandmasters do not work out with masters. They assist and instruct, but they do not work out, because they are not equal.

Getting back to my original point. I would use Hank Hill from the TV show "King of the Hill" as an example of my attitude toward Tae Kwon Do sharing with other arts.
Hank Hill is a propane salesman. Not only is he a propane salesman, he is very proud to be in propane. Propane is his life. Some people think propane and charcoal and wood are all the same and should associate. Hank thinks otherwise. He respects charcoal (somewhat), but is a propane man. To him, propane is something to be proud of and promote. Not that he dislikes charcoal, but the two are separate and should remain separate.
My attitude toward Tae Kwon Do is the same way. I am very proud to to be associated with Tae Kwon Do. The key word is pride. Some people think Tae Kwon Do should associate and mingle with other arts. I respectfully disagree. If you believe Tae Kwon Do is some casual activity that has no problem sharing with other styles and can only improve if it does, knock yourself out. However, I, like Hank Hill, am very proud (some might say arrogant) to be a Tae Kwon Do man, and believe Tae Kwon Do stands on its own because of its beauty and power. Sort of like a woman. You show me a woman who associates with everyone, and I'll show you a woman many people consider cheap or have questions about. You show me a woman who is very selective who she associates with, and I'll show you a woman whose reputation is unquestioned.

 

[glad2bhere]

Not too put too fine a point on this, but there are some parallels I have with Michigans' view.

In the classes I teach we "circle-up", we don't "line-up". We bow in together, not first one way to the flags and then to the teacher and then among the students. The feeling is that we are all there working our way along the same Path with some of us who have been at it longer right along side those of us who may have just started. In this sense we are very equal. There is, however, an understanding that I am the mentor for this kwan or the "teacher" if you will. I do my best to keep our focus in a particular direction, facilitate growth and coach people through challenges. From this stand-point I probably get more deference paid to me than maybe other people give and take among themselves, but it is not something I demand as much as it is something that comes my way and for which I am very appreciative. Each of us knows that despite our rank we are only as good as the last technique we executed or the last form we performed. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[shesulsa]

~MODERATORS NOTE:

~Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

~shesulsa~
~MT Moderator~

 

[Adept]

In the kwan to which I belong we train in a martial art. This means that we use a particular kind of activity to develop the ideal of realizing that the individual is part of something greater than himself and works to come out of the best part of himself so as to give that greater whole better service.

I would disagree with this a as a definition of a martial art. A martial art, to me, is anything that is designed to improve someones chances of avoiding a violent conflict, and surviving one if it is unavoidable.

On a physical level this is often realized as various S-D techniques, drills and practices, and these are almost self-evident when done. However, what is not so obvious are the effects on the intellect, emotions and spirit of the individual. These may not become apparent until months--- maybe even years--- after one enters into training

Common developmental studies disagree with you. The basis of the human brain is developed by the age of seven. Our genetics and our environments during our developmental periods aer what affects our personalities and behavioural patterns, not a martial art. Learning a martial art does not change us as a person any more than learning football or soccer does.

What one cannot do is "cherry-pick" what he wants to do and what he does not want to do because the effect of a particular part of training may not be known until long after the event.

Short term goals of such training are visible and easily verified. The long term effects you are speaking of are somewhat nebulous. Can you clarify them, and support them with scientific papers published in peer reviewed publications for me?

To my way of thinking Bruce Lee was to the Martial Arts community what Elvis was to American music, or Paris Hilton is to American society. FWIW.

I'm afraid I dont understand the comparison.

 

[Adept]

Working out with lessors means that we are equal. I have a higher rank than you or my technique is better, but we are equal. I will teach lessors (meaning one of lower rank or technique than me, not standing outside class), but I will not work out with them, because to work out with them we would have to be equal. Black belts do not work out with color belts, masters do not work out with junior black belts, and Grandmasters do not work out with masters. They assist and instruct, but they do not work out, because they are not equal.

Imagine, for a day, that everyone in your organisation had the same belt on. What then, would be the problem with one person working out with another, even if their level of skill was slightly different?

I cannot see one. I, as a black belt in TKD have worked out with people who were on their very first night of training. And there was no problem.

Now, if without different belts, there is no problem, then why should the belts be a problem? They are, after all, only there to hold your pants up.

Getting back to my original point. I would use Hank Hill from the TV show "King of the Hill" as an example of my attitude toward Tae Kwon Do sharing with other arts.

There is no need to get into different analogies about propane, loose women, university sports coaches, or anything else. We can call a spade a spade here, it isn't a complicated issue.

Now, I can see why you would not want to incorporate other martial arts techniques into your TKD teaching. You wish to maintain it as it was first designed. Fair enough. But you also consider it wrong for other people to contribute to their TKD syllabus. And you haven't really said why.

 

[Shu2jack]

As someone who has only studied TKD for 11 years now, I have no problem openly associating with someone of a different style and training with them. By training with someone who places a different focus in their training and puts greater emphasis on different techniques, I begin to better understand how my own system works and how it works against someone who doesn't train in TKD.


I agree with you MichiganTKD, I wouldn't train with a 15 year old jr. black belt from a judo school simply because of the age, experience, and maturity difference. I would train with a adult who is well grounded in his system so when I ask him about specific techinques or why that technique countered mine so well, he could give me a good answer.

I do disagree that instructors can not work out with his juniors and that it implys equality. I think by working out with your students, you set the standard by way of example and show your students how an experenced, skilled practioner does it. Also, you can always learn a new trick, or find a different way of doing something, or work on improving something.

I had the privilege of meeting the late Grand Master H.U. Lee a few times. Once at our national tournament he was observing some rings when this little 8 year old girl came up to him and said, "Sir, everybody has an instructor to learn from. You don't have a instructor. Who do you learn from?"

When I heard the answer I knew I was in the presense of a true master. (And not because he didn't take offense to this little color belt girl simply walking up to him and asking a question.) He smiled, knelt down to her level, and said, "I learn from you." From that point on, I have always made it a point to improve on something or learn something when working with students.

 

[okinawagojuryu]

Awesome story ! Before I went to Okinawa , in one of the phone calls I had w/ him , I had inquired if he had any Dojo here in the US . He replied no , he said , maybe you can open one . I then asked what the requirements are . He said most important is having a good personality . I said Shin (heart) ? He said yes , shin , gi , tai (heart,body,&technique) , he said , but of all three , heart is the most important .
When you meet him , there's no helping but to like him , you can actually see his heart . He is always smiling , & brings out the best in others . I miss him very much , & cant wait to go back to see him .
I think your story depicts what heart means , as well . You are very lucky !

 

[Shu2jack]

Awesome story ! Before I went to Okinawa , in one of the phone calls I had w/ him , I had inquired if he had any Dojo here in the US . He replied no , he said , maybe you can open one . I then asked what the requirements are . He said most important is having a good personality . I said Shin (heart) ? He said yes , shin , gi , tai (heart,body,&technique) , he said , but of all three , heart is the most important .
When you meet him , there's no helping but to like him , you can actually see his heart . He is always smiling , & brings out the best in others . I miss him very much , & cant wait to go back to see him .
I think your story depicts what heart means , as well . You are very lucky !

Are you referring to my story okinawagojuryo? I believe we are thinking of two different Grand Master Lees. The late G.M. Lee of the ATA was teaching in the United States before either of us were born and he passed away about 4 years ago from cancer. Otherwise, you are correct. Appartently both of the Lees we know/knew were awesome martial artists, but what made them masters were the type of men they were.

 

[okinawagojuryu]

No , I didnt mention my instructors name , Nakamoto Masahiro , not Lee , lol . I was just saying thats an awesome story of heart .

 

[glad2bhere]

".......In the kwan to which I belong we train in a martial art. This means that we use a particular kind of activity to develop the ideal of realizing that the individual is part of something greater than himself and works to come out of the best part of himself so as to give that greater whole better service.


I would disagree with this a as a definition of a martial art. A martial art, to me, is anything that is designed to improve someones chances of avoiding a violent conflict, and surviving one if it is unavoidable......"

Your observation would probably be more apt in describing a military art rather than a martial art. Big difference between the two things.


"..........On a physical level this is often realized as various S-D techniques, drills and practices, and these are almost self-evident when done. However, what is not so obvious are the effects on the intellect, emotions and spirit of the individual. These may not become apparent until months--- maybe even years--- after one enters into training.


Common developmental studies disagree with you. The basis of the human brain is developed by the age of seven. Our genetics and our environments during our developmental periods aer what affects our personalities and behavioural patterns, not a martial art. Learning a martial art does not change us as a person any more than learning football or soccer does....."

You will probably have to explain your position to the generations of individuals who have, as adults, been inculcated with the martial spirit by virtue of their training. You may not know it but you are confusing predisposition with result.


".....What one cannot do is "cherry-pick" what he wants to do and what he does not want to do because the effect of a particular part of training may not be known until long after the event.


Short term goals of such training are visible and easily verified. The long term effects you are speaking of are somewhat nebulous. Can you clarify them, and support them with scientific papers published in peer reviewed publications for me?...."

I could, but unfortunately that would make little difference to you as you have already decided what you believe. My effort to document would simply give you more information to disagree with and I, for my part, am not mandated to change your mind inspite of your own belief system. The only place at which I take any interest at all in this conversation is that folks who espouse a position perhaps identical to your own state that they practice "martial arts". By definition, then, you are then stating that you pursue an activity whose commulative effect is to induce a Martial approach towards meeting your responsibilities. Now if what you actually want to do is learn to fight, defend yourself, experience a wide range of approaches to either of these goals or whatever I heartily encourage you to follow your goals. All I ask is that you not identify what you are doing as a "martial art". Call it a "military skill set", or "martial sport", or "martial commerce"-- any thing you choose, but "martial art" speaks to a very specific approach towards accomplishing a specific goal and that label is already taken.


"...To my way of thinking Bruce Lee was to the Martial Arts community what Elvis was to American music, or Paris Hilton is to American society. FWIW.

I'm afraid I dont understand the comparison......"

Bruce Lee was a movie personality and as such was as much a product of his marketing or publicity department as anything else. I don't recall him getting into the ring with Benny Urquidez, or on the mat with Mifune, or doing "sticky-hands" with Cheng, or a few rounds with Oyama. I saw where Bruce Lee was touted as the greatest Martial Artist of the 20th Century which was probably done by the same dullards who figured Elvis was the greatest musical talent of the same time. Certainly there is nothing wrong with adopting the personality of your choice as a model, but I would probably be careful about throwing too much of his buzz-phrases around. Some of us actually know a little something about what we do. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[Adept]

Your observation would probably be more apt in describing a military art rather than a martial art. Big difference between the two things.

From Dictionary.com

mar·tial ([font=verdana,sans-serif] P [/font]) Pronunciation Key (mär

sh

l)
adj.

1. Of, relating to, or suggestive of war.
2. Relating to or connected with the armed forces or the profession of arms.
3. Characteristic of or befitting a warrior.

It would appear the common definition of the word would disagree with you. Lets simply set this part of the debate aside, and agree that our definitions of a martial art are different.

I could, but unfortunately that would make little difference to you as you have already decided what you believe.

Not at all. I approach life with as open a mind as I can manage. Please, bring out the papers in question.

The only place at which I take any interest at all in this conversation is that folks who espouse a position perhaps identical to your own state that they practice "martial arts". By definition, then, you are then stating that you pursue an activity whose commulative effect is to induce a Martial approach towards meeting your responsibilities.

Once again, obviously our definitions of 'martial art' are different. There is no need for conflict on this issue

Bruce Lee was a movie personality and as such was as much a product of his marketing or publicity department as anything else. I don't recall him getting into the ring with Benny Urquidez, or on the mat with Mifune, or doing "sticky-hands" with Cheng, or a few rounds with Oyama. I saw where Bruce Lee was touted as the greatest Martial Artist of the 20th Century which was probably done by the same dullards who figured Elvis was the greatest musical talent of the same time. Certainly there is nothing wrong with adopting the personality of your choice as a model, but I would probably be careful about throwing too much of his buzz-phrases around.

I'm still missing both the relevance, and the comparison between Elvis and Paris Hilton. It seems you have some kind of grudge against Bruce's popularity. I suggest you take this particular issue to the JKD forums.

Some of us actually know a little something about what we do. FWIW.

Yes, some of us do...

NOW THEN

I'm not entirely certain how that post above relates to the thread, so could you please outline for me your stance on cross-training martial arts, and your supporting arguments?

 

[Simon Curran]

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that we should all be able to work and learn together regardless of rank/style whatever, looking at how others do things and comparing things allows us all to progress personally.

Like I said just my opinion.

 

[glad2bhere]

Sorry, fella, but I take particular exception to your dis-ingenuous approach to this discussion. To my mind it is readily apparent that you are being very selective in what it is that you do and do not understand and I have no interest in playing the foil to your agenda. Your selective use of a definiton which conveniently disregards the Latinate origins of the term "martial" as compared to the French derivation of the term "military" are telling. And if you are unable or unwilling to understand the parallels between the contrived adulation for Bruce Lee as compared with other pop stars there is little or nothing I can do for you other than to suggest that you make TV and Movies a smaller part of your life-style.

To my mind you have declared very clearly that you hold with less structure and take a particularly liberal approach to where you accept the influences in your development from. I have participated in way too many strings on these themes not to know beforehand where this string will go. Therefore, if you think that pursuing activities such as are reported here on this string, and in the manner in which they are portrayed here are acceptable who am I too rain on your parade? Feel welcome to pursue your intersts in the manner in which you select anywhere in the World that you care to with, of course, the exception where I teach and train. FWIW.

Regards,

Bruce

 

[shesulsa]

~MODERATORS NOTE:

~Gentlemen, this is your second warning to keep the conversation polite and respectful.

~shesulsa~
~MT Moderator~

 

[MichiganTKD]

I am very aware that many people, particularly American students raised in an American culture, will have a problem accepting my attitude toward "martial art mingling". Do not take it as me degrading other styles or feeling they are unworthy of me associating with them. I am not and do not. Where I am coming from is a traditional point of view utilizing the mindset of the culture from where the Art I practiced originated. Korea was not called the Hermit Kingdom for nothing. And the symbol of Tae Kwon Do and Korea is the tiger for a reason.
Now, some of you practice styles that are perhaps much more informal than traditional Tae Kwon Do. Some that come to mind are MMA, FMA etc. The etiquette and culture are more loosened. It is perfectly acceptable to hang out and associate with other arts.
As it was explained to me, the Tae Kwon Do mindset is like sand. Sand particles stay separate, and only come together when forced (gravity, wind etc.). Similarly, Tae Kwon Do students are like sand. We stay separate and only come together when forced. Part of it has to do with the nature of the Art. We spend our time keeping people away from us (punching, kicking, blocking etc.). Similarly, our mindset is to keep people away from us. It is the nature of the art. Judo is different. Judo is like dirt. Dirt clumps together and sticks. Judo people, because they practice a skin-on-skin martial art, are much more comfortable being close to people. Two different arts, two different attitudes.
You cannot criticize traditional Tae Kwon Do students for staying apart from other people any more than you can criticize Americans for being freedom-loving. It is part of who we are.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I am very aware that many people, particularly American students raised in an American culture, will have a problem accepting my attitude toward "martial art mingling". Do not take it as me degrading other styles or feeling they are unworthy of me associating with them. I am not and do not. Where I am coming from is a traditional point of view utilizing the mindset of the culture from where the Art I practiced originated. Korea was not called the Hermit Kingdom for nothing. And the symbol of Tae Kwon Do and Korea is the tiger for a reason.
Now, some of you practice styles that are perhaps much more informal than traditional Tae Kwon Do. Some that come to mind are MMA, FMA etc. The etiquette and culture are more loosened. It is perfectly acceptable to hang out and associate with other arts.
As it was explained to me, the Tae Kwon Do mindset is like sand. Sand particles stay separate, and only come together when forced (gravity, wind etc.). Similarly, Tae Kwon Do students are like sand. We stay separate and only come together when forced. Part of it has to do with the nature of the Art. We spend our time keeping people away from us (punching, kicking, blocking etc.). Similarly, our mindset is to keep people away from us. It is the nature of the art. Judo is different. Judo is like dirt. Dirt clumps together and sticks. Judo people, because they practice a skin-on-skin martial art, are much more comfortable being close to people. Two different arts, two different attitudes.
You cannot criticize traditional Tae Kwon Do students for staying apart from other people any more than you can criticize Americans for being freedom-loving. It is part of who we are.

I must ask again:

Why are you here?

If not to share then why?

No disrespect towards your choice in martial arts. No disrespect towards your choice to follow this path. I just have a problem seeing how you can share here, and not in person. For is not the greatest weapon the mind. For is not what you just said; it was the mentality of the traditional TKD to separate themselves and keep separate that is what sets you apart.

:idunno: Confused, yet hopeful you will share and educate me on you point of view.

 

[okinawagojuryu]

So are you saying the founder of your style Gen. Choi Hon Hi , & the founder of your Kwan , Won Kuk Lee were both wrong , for having trained in more than one style ? How about their teachers , Tatsuo Shimabuku & Gichin Funakoshi , were they wrong too ? You come from a lineage of people that have trained in more than one art , why was it ok for them , but not you , or present day TKD practicioners ?

 

[Teh Tot]

If not to share then why?

Exactly what I was trying to say. Also, General Choi trained with others from martial arts other than TKD. I think he set a great example with that and that is just one of the reasons why I train with an instructor in the WTF even though I am strongly USTF based. and I would like to find someone else to work out with on a regular basis in my area.

I hope that is polite enough for this forum shesulsa.

 

[MichiganTKD]

Gen Choi was not the founder of my style, but that's another thread. Both Choi and Won Kuk Lee studied karate because of the circumstances of their eras. They didn't have much of a choice. When you pretty much have to go to Japan or you don't have a future, your options are limited.
I don't have a problem discussing my art with another stylist, or even having a practice session with another stylist. I draw the line at loudmouths or those convinced that tae kwon Do doesn't work or that their art is superior to all others. I also won't have regular practice sessions with other stylists. Once or twice is enough, simply to compare. And I have to like them as people.
If you'd been paying attention, I stated that I do not regularly associate with other stylists, go to "open to all styles" events, belong to all styles "Soke Organizations", regularly go to other gyms, or belong to organizations outside my chosen style. The key word is "regularly". I will have discussions with people, whether live or in the MT forums, the same way I will discuss politics or sports. Discussing tae Kwon Do is not the same as comparing technique, comparing form, free fighting etc. It is just that-discussion. To me, sharing and comparing is more physical and demonstrative.
And for the record, my aikido organization is the same way. Very traditional, it does not share and compare with other styles because its mindset is the same as mine-aikido is separate from the other arts. Not that they don't have their own merits, but they stand separate from what we do.

 

[okinawagojuryu]

Ok , you got me now . You study both Aikido , & TKD ? So , whats the problem ?
Why do you keep mentioning Soke organizations ? You're the only one mentioning them . I wouldnt accept a piece of paper from them if you paid me . All of my present ranks come from recognized instructors/organizations in Okinawa , or Japan .
When I was training TSD , I trained w/ KJN Kim Jae Joon , Dan # 38 under Hwang kee .
I presently train under Nakamoto Masahiro Sensei , & have trained w/ Hichiya Yoshio Sensei , who I hope allows me to train w/ him when I return to Okinawa .
I dont think any of those men would recognize rank from a Soke organization , nor do I .