Sharing with other Arts

[MichiganTKD]

Something else I would add.

If you are truly curious about another style, I think there is a window of opportunity when it might be more acceptable to do this. Not as a color belt. During the color belt time, you are establishing your basics, getting grounded in your style's technique, history, philosophy, and establishing a relationship with your Instructor. During this time, your teacher is deciding whether or not you will advance in the style. Sort of like K-12 in school.
Not as an Instructor. As an Instructor, you are beginning to make a name for yourself within your organization and within your style. The higher you go, the more you promote your art and become known as a leading proponent of that style. Being an Instructor of that style becomes part of your identity, as much as your family, your career, and your personal life. Certainly the more you advance, the more you associate with regional, national, and world leaders of your Art.
I think the time to experiment and share with other styles, if you really want to, is the period of 1st-3rd Dan. For a couple of reasons. First, your relationship with your Instructor is established. You know what you practice, how to do it, and have a sense of loyalty to the organization. You are still innocent, because as a junior Dan holder, noone expects you to have a national reputation and be influential within your style. Even if you choose to be a tournament champion, you are still primarily concerned with the development of physical technique.
Second, as a junior Dan holder, you will not be concerned with charting the course of your organization or style. Your concern is physical practice and being a good student to your Instructor.
Would I recommend frequently associating with other styles? No. Again, they all have their way of doing things and you have your way. Karate technique is different from Tae Kwon Do technique, which is different from kung fu. Too much associating with others can lead to confusion of technique and identity. And again, there is a time for that which must be chosen carefully. When is that time? Perhaps college, when you have opportunities to observe other styles and compare. Perhaps on vacation, when your schedule is a little more free, and knowing that whoever you meet you might not meet again. I would not make it a point of purposely going out of your way to share with other styles. I think it disrespects your Instructor if you purposely contact and share with other styles, versus sharing one time because an opportunity happens to be there. If nothing else, it might make you glad you practice your art and belong to your organization.

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Miles:

".....Thank you both for your insights. Bruce, what about black belts or instructor-level people simply training with each other? I totally agree with your inference that there may be distractions to those who may not have matured within a given art. But if one is an instructor, the assumption will be that he/she has learned to be a better person, and therefore may not be so stylistically-prejudiced to presume his/her art is better...just different....."

Not to split hairs about this but I don't know that I would speak in terms of people being "instructor-level". The way I would characterize it might be something more along the lines of "Mature Black Belts." I know some people might take exception to my making this distinction and figure I am just being a raving Age-ist. Fact is, though, as we all know a person can be very mature at just about any age. The distinction I make about being a Black Belt comes from my own judgement that a person who has attained at least a Cho-dan or E-dan has made a commitment to a particular art and has a firm grounding from which to make assessments of other arts relative to their own. ('Course, I COULD be wrong. )Yes, I HAVE heard the story about "emptying your tea cup". But, I have never heard a story about substituting someone elses tea cup for your own, or re-fashioning your own tea cup so that others feel more comfortable with your company. My guess is that a mature BB has a firm grip on his own tea cup, knows how much tea he wants, and is perfectly able to dump out what he gets if its not to his liking without being made to feel bad about it. Nor do I suspect that a mature BB will be cowed into accepting that what he has committed to is somehow lacking if, when playing according to anothers' game, he finds his own skills lacking. Know what I mean? Its a matter, once again, of acknowledging things without being controlled by them. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I realize full well that Tae Kwon Do is no stranger to tournaments organized for monetary gain. One of the reasons why our Grandmaster did not recommend tournaments to us for many years. Too much Instructor politics and shady financial dealings. He waited until he had Instructors of his own in his organization who could judge and referee properly and then began to give them the responsibility of organizing the tournaments, telling them what he wanted and how they were to be organized (WTF rules, safety first, color belt forms/sparring/one step, black belt forms/sparring). Much like the ATA, it is an organization tournament supervised and run within our organization. We know what the rules will be, and (overall) what to expect. Unlike open tournaments, with their "anything goes" mentality.

One of the nice things about having a tournament organized along these lines: You know what to expect and what the rules are. There are no satin or star-spangled uniforms, no one doing a form they made up to impress the judges, no forms with flips and somersaults, and no matches with karate students fighting Tae Kwon Do students. Everyone goes home happy and in one piece.

Closed circuit tournaments are an effective way for an organization to keep others from coming in and stealing the limelight from their own people. Any failings in the organization's fighting methods or fighters are thereby hidden. Any champions are homegrown. Nobody from a competing organization can ever rock the boat by winning over the organizations golden few.

As for satin uniforms, ignore them. Go to a more traditional tournament where they don't prevail if this really causes your bile to rise. If you can stomach it for a bit get out and fight one of these yahoos and see if you can beat him at his game. If you can't, you can't. You'll at least be able to make fun of his uniform after he's thrashed you.

As for your statement that every style thinks itself superior, I'd have to agree this is often the case. If someone should make the claim, they ought to test it. If they think their method is superior, they need to back up what they say. Hosting a closed tournament doesn't do this.

As for knowing what to expect and knowing what the rules are, I've never had a problem with that when I've taken my students to open tournaments. We research the rules and train accordingly in preparation. A need for certitude and stasis is silly when one considers we practice arts that purportedly teach self-defense. There is no certitude or stasis in agonism.

To quote Charles Marsh, "...stasis in the arts is tantamount to death."

Regards,


Steve

 

[Miles]

Not to split hairs about this but I don't know that I would speak in terms of people being "instructor-level". The way I would characterize it might be something more along the lines of "Mature Black Belts." ...... The distinction I make about being a Black Belt comes from my own judgement that a person who has attained at least a Cho-dan or E-dan has made a commitment to a particular art and has a firm grounding from which to make assessments of other arts relative to their own. ..........Nor do I suspect that a mature BB will be cowed into accepting that what he has committed to is somehow lacking if, when playing according to anothers' game, he finds his own skills lacking.

No hair splitting!

I used the term "instructor-level" as the person with whom I'm been training on the side (and using as my primary example) has a background in several Chinese styles where there is no belt system. He has 36+ years in the martial arts, so he is my MA senior by 6 years and he is also 9 yrs older than I am. At this stage in our respective journeys, neither of us needs to prove anything to the other. We just enjoy training and sharing our respective arts with each other.

Take Care,

Miles

 

[Miles]

As for your statement that every style thinks itself superior, I'd have to agree this is often the case. If someone should make the claim, they ought to test it. If they think their method is superior, they need to back up what they say. Hosting a closed tournament doesn't do this.

Steve, I think you meant every style has students who think their style is superior. In my experience, these are often the students who have not matured.

As for knowing what to expect and knowing what the rules are, I've never had a problem with that when I've taken my students to open tournaments. We research the rules and train accordingly in preparation.

This is the sign of a good instructor-you research and prepare your students. Even WTF-style tournaments modify the rules. Locally, there are very few tournaments which allow full-contact WTF rules for gueps or ultra seniors. Too many lawyers!

Miles

 

[Shu2jack]

As for knowing what to expect and knowing what the rules are, I've never had a problem with that when I've taken my students to open tournaments. We research the rules and train accordingly in preparation. A need for certitude and stasis is silly when one considers we practice arts that purportedly teach self-defense. There is no certitude or stasis in agonism

To quote Charles Marsh, "...stasis in the arts is tantamount to death."

I really don't think tournaments should be equated to self-defense and evolution of an art. I think almost all of us can agree that tournaments are not street self-defense. People also train for other reasons other than self-defense.

So I do not see how open or closed tournaments would lead to killing or reviving a martial art. If you study only for self-defense, exercise, what ever, and that is what your art is about, then tournaments really do not matter to your art. They are just extra. What would kill your art is not taking into account the changes in violence and how your training deals with it. It has nothing to do with the tournament scene.

If your school focuses on competition, then it is a sport art and having closed tournaments wouldn't kill a sport. The NFL, NBA, and other sports have "closed" competitions. Only their rules, only players from their organization, etc. As long as you can keep the product fresh (remember, we are talking sport art), you should be ok.

Closed circuit tournaments are an effective way for an organization to keep others from coming in and stealing the limelight from their own people. Any failings in the organization's fighting methods or fighters are thereby hidden. Any champions are homegrown. Nobody from a competing organization can ever rock the boat by winning over the organizations golden few.

I really don't think those reasons you list are primary for holding closed tournaments. I have competed in closed tournaments in the ATA for 10 years and have attended a few open tournaments. Each have their advantages and disadvantages.

By holding a closed tournament I can greatly improve quality. Quality in competitor behavior, professionalism in judging, and a smoothly ran tournament. Because every judge, instructor, and competitor can trace a direct chain of command to the senior rank at the tournament any problems can be eliminated quickly and all the black belts know each other. We can black list those who are trobule makers or who misrepresent the art. Everyone knows what is expected of them, parents included. We have our own way of dealing with "soccer" or "little league" parents. If you give us problems, your child will lose the match regardless of how much butt they are kicking. Because of these reasons, we can hold higher standards for everyone and the organization's reputation greatly improves. I think this is the reason for closed tournaments.

As for beating our "golden boys", "rocking the boat", and "showing weaknesses in our training"....right. If you join an organization with closed tournaments and beat the snot out of everyone, I really don't think anyone would mind. The goal of a closed tournament is to keep out the punks and those who are just there to fight and care nothing for the traditions, competitors, or organization.

I am not saying the ATA's style of sparring or training is perfect, our methods definately have some holes, but if someone comes in to our tournament and starts sparring by our rules against people who have lived by the rules for at least a decade, the ATA person would have a great advantage in the closed ATA tournament. Could he be defeated? Absolutely. But the competiton training for our tournaments is made to take advantage of our rule set. I really don't think there is any major failing for the training for our tournaments. Other people's tournaments, yes.

That said, I think people who compete in closed tournaments should compete in open tournaments and mingle with others outside their art. It gives them room to grow, examine their own training, and question what they study in order to better understand what they do.

 

[glad2bhere]

You know what......

I'm wondering how many people wouldn't mind getting rid of tournaments?

In the DRAJJ tradition there are yearly demonstrations where folks get out on the mat in front of an audiance and show what their art/ryu-ha is about. I don't think there is competition in the sense of people winning something for best demo. Could be wrong. Its more along the line of showing what they are about. Now I know that people COULD do the same thing at a tournament but the atmosphere is sort of skewed (in my book) as the intent is towards competition. The Internationale in Jackson (which is coming up BTW) is a collection of seminars and workshops for the Hapkido community that happens twice a year. There is absolutely NO competition, but there IS a lot of taping, instruction, recording and discussion about how different people approach the same thing (Hapkido). I should also add that there are almost always large numbers of TKD/TSD people who attend to flesh-out their Hoshinsul material or maybe just to get an organized taste of another Korean art. I could see having the tournament circuit split itself into at least 50-50 mix.

Does anyone have any thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[Adept]

Lets shift this to Martial arts. You join a martial art with an eye towards becoming a Black Belt in a selected art. As you go through the training you are constantly distracted by people who think differently, who tout an "easier way", or a "better" way. Now you are conflicted and you will remain conflicted until you resolve that conflict, and until that happens you will be compromised as a practitioner.

I agree with this. However, your analogy specifically targets people who have yet to master the basics. Colour belts, if you will. At this stage of training, it is very unlikely that a martial artist will be able to discern for himself or herself what works, and what does not. Or if two things work, then what is more effective. Or at least, what is more effective for them.

But this isn't the point we are discussing. We are (or were) specifically discussing the training of a high level artist in another style, where his previous training is known and drawn upon.

The fact is that you didn't join a MA to become a BB. You joined to learn how to be a better person and a true servant of your culture. In the end, if you succeed, you earn a Black Belt--- which mean in this case you are just getting warmed-up for the rest of your life. FWIW.

Some people join a martial art simpy to get fit. Some people join an art that has no belt structure at all. Not everyone wants a belt.

I don't really have a problem with one time comparing styles with someone else out curiosity. However, if you frequently share with a karate student, or a MMA student, inevitably it will lead to questions of "why do you do it like that? Why do you kick like that? Why do you believe that?" Sometimes the questions are innocent-merely curiosity toward a different culture. However, if you share often enough with other styles, inevitably questions about why you do the things you do will surface, and doubts will be planted about how and why you practice.

A martial artist should be confident in their skills and method of training, becuse they honestly believe it to be the best way to train, not because their instructor told them. They should compare and evaluate all of their training. If someone is doing something in a different way, and it is better than your way, then why shouldn't you adpot that method of training? If you are asked "Why do you kick like that?" You should be able to say "Because it is the best way for me to kick" and you should be able to defend that assertation. You should be able to say "this is the best for me, because of X,Y, and Z". If they then put up a good argument, and you realise they are right and you are not, what benefit is there in staying with the 'inferior' technique?

 

[MichiganTKD]

A couple of issues I would like to address.
On the issue of going to open tournaments: As I have stated before, I disagree with open tournaments. A Tae Kwon Do tournament celebrates the whole package of Tae Kwon Do, not just who the best fighter is. If someone wants to go to one, that is their choice. I choose not to because, as the old saying goes, you are who you associate with. I would rather not be associated with satin or stars and stripes uniforms, made up/acrobatic forms, Hollywood wanna-be's, and poor etiquette. The fact that I am at the same event as these guys implies I condone these activities.
I also believe in the Instructor-student relationship, like the parent-child relationship. Telling someone their technique or their manners are no good is like telling them their Instructor is no good. If you frequently associate with students outside your style, inevitably they will question what you do, because it doesn't jibe with what they do. Friendly competition between organization instructors is one thing. Across different styles, it will reach whole new levels. You can't tell me a Kenpo stylist wouldn't be critical of a Tae Kwon Do stylist and vice versa. I seriously doubt various stylists would respect this traditional relationship and think nothing of voicing disapproval of why and how we do things.

Again, what is to be gained by frequently sharing with other stylists? How does a Tae Kwon Do Grandmaster, supposedly a world leader in his chosen style, justify be associated with non-Tae Kwon Do Instructors? Yes, there are Instructors who do, but I mean legitimate Masters and Grandmasters.

 

[Adept]

How does a Tae Kwon Do Grandmaster, supposedly a world leader in his chosen style, justify be associated with non-Tae Kwon Do Instructors? Yes, there are Instructors who do, but I mean legitimate Masters and Grandmasters.

He can continue to learn.

 

[MichiganTKD]

This is his Instructor's job, as well as the result of associating with other world-class Tae Kwon Do Instructors. Why would I need to learn from some karate Instructor when I can benefit from my Instructor's knowledge, his connections, and the knowledge of high ranking Tae Kwon Do Masters and Grandmasters the world over?
Other than simple curiosity, I see no reason to pursue this type of association. It's like saying "I'm going to study French because I know all I need to know about English." If you want to study French, great. But not because you have mastered English.

 

[Adept]

This is his Instructor's job, as well as the result of associating with other world-class Tae Kwon Do Instructors. Why would I need to learn from some karate Instructor when I can benefit from my Instructor's knowledge, his connections, and the knowledge of high ranking Tae Kwon Do Masters and Grandmasters the world over?

To improve your knowledge base. Those TKD grandmasters are unlikely to have a ground game which is as good as the Gracies of Brazil. Nor are they as likely to have a solid grounding in RBSD skills as the people who train LEOs for a living.

Thats why I would and do train openely with people from other arts. But the nature of the argument is not for us to provide a reason why, but for you to provide a reason why not.

Because someone might question you or your techniques? So what. Your techniques should be able to stand up to the questioning and scrutiny they might come under in a MMA environment. If they don't, then why train like that?

Other than simple curiosity, I see no reason to pursue this type of association. It's like saying "I'm going to study French because I know all I need to know about English." If you want to study French, great. But not because you have mastered English.

This analogy is poor. The nautre of the argument really prohibits analogies. Learning skills to aid oneself in a violent confrontation is vastly different from just about anything else. G2BH has come up with the best analogy so far (marine boot camp) but even that was critically flawed. A better analogy would be -

As an instructor at marine boot camp, you teach your recruits to do one thing a certain way (say, sight down the rifle with one eye closed). You associate with an army instructor, who asks why you do it that way. You explain, and he in return explains why he does it with both eyes open. You think about it, try it, and find it works better. You then train your recruits to sight with both eyes open.

Or, you explain it, and he realises you are right, and now he trains his recruits with one eye closed.

You learn, compare, and choose what works best for you. The techniques you use should be the best available to you, not just the ones your instructor tells you to use.

 

[glad2bhere]

"....Some people join a martial art simpy to get fit. Some people join an art that has no belt structure at all. Not everyone wants a belt...."

The belt issue is actually superfluous. Traditionally Korean Martial Art and Martial Science never had a belt system, but thats an arguement for another string.

If a person truely joins a martial art to "get fit" I suggest to following points to consider.

1.) That person is not actually pursuing a martial art in his heart anymore than one would join the Marines to get fit.

2.) That an activity that suggests that they allow a person to participate physically without an eye towards shaping his character is not only NOT a Martial Art, but is probably a gross waste of time.

3.) That the key to this discussion is the level to which a person aspires to become something more than that with which he started. This he might do by exposing himself to variants outside of his own discipline. However, he need do this without losing touch with who he is or what his original goals were. This takes maturity which may, or may not, coincide with a belt rank. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[glad2bhere]

"....As an instructor at marine boot camp, you teach your recruits to do one thing a certain way (say, sight down the rifle with one eye closed). You associate with an army instructor, who asks why you do it that way. You explain, and he in return explains why he does it with both eyes open. You think about it, try it, and find it works better. You then train your recruits to sight with both eyes open.

Or, you explain it, and he realises you are right, and now he trains his recruits with one eye closed.

You learn, compare, and choose what works best for you. The techniques you use should be the best available to you, not just the ones your instructor tells you to use....."

This dynamic is very common in Martial Science. In fact there is an arm of each military branch whose sole purpose is to review and make recommendation for military instruction. This is not Martial Art. Different situation. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[Adept]

This is not Martial Art. Different situation. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Could you explain what you mean and how it relates to the discussion at hand?

 

[glad2bhere]

Yes, I can.

For years now people have been calling what they do "martial art". In the last thirty years or so, effectively since the "Bruce Lee Revolution" what people have been practicing is "Martial Science". Yes, they still call it "martial art", but its not. The minute you quantify a body of knowledge and begin to subject it to Scientific Method you have stopped practicing Art and started practicing Science. CAN you make an art out of a science? Well, obviously, that what started most of the arts we discuss here. Can you make a science out of an art? Certainly, anytime you introduce the Scientific Method. What is creating so much confusion is that people keep rocking back and forth between the two wanting to have things one way but call them or experience them in another way. They want the authenticity of history in an art, but also the innovation that comes with practicing a Science. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[Adept]

For years now people have been calling what they do "martial art". In the last thirty years or so, effectively since the "Bruce Lee Revolution" what people have been practicing is "Martial Science". Yes, they still call it "martial art", but its not. The minute you quantify a body of knowledge and begin to subject it to Scientific Method you have stopped practicing Art and started practicing Science.

Once again it seems we are getting bogged down in semantics. While the minuteia (sp?) of tiny label differences can be interesting and make understanding easier over the internet, I feel that in this case it is counter-productive.

The discussion at hand is with regard to the positive and negative elements of an experienced martial artist* openly associating with martial artists of a different style.

While I understand that this is not something everyone would want to do (some people are happy learning from only one syllabus) I do not understand how it can be viewed as something that is bad for other people to do.

* - Call it combat sport, martial science, boxing, whatever label seems best to you.

 

[glad2bhere]

".....Once again it seems we are getting bogged down in semantics. While the minuteia (sp?) of tiny label differences can be interesting and make understanding easier over the internet, I feel that in this case it is counter-productive....."

Yes, this is a popular arguement, but in itself is counter-productive. We Humans communicate in symbolism. Taken to its higher forms that symbolism becomes language and finally writing. The venue we are using here is the American Dialect of the English branch of that language. The ability to communicate productively requires that we are all calling the same thing by the same label. It has been my misfortune to participate in scads of discussions that revolve around why certain liberties cannot be taken with a Martial ART using protocols, or approaches that are used for Martial Science.
For instance, why can't we simply pick "what works and leave the rest". You CAN do this with a Martial Science. In fact the nature of science nearly requires it. Martial Art does not bow to this since the idea is to polish the individual by utilizing the same body of practice over and over. Indeed, it is the very ability to most accurately reflect a set standard such as a hyung or sool that defines much of the expertise in Martial Arts. In this way, if one were to get together with others within the context of a Martial Art one might only reasonably expect to learn how to do what one knows better rather than add some new construct to their art. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[Adept]

Martial Art does not bow to this...

I say it does, you say it doesn't, neither of us can prove it either way since we both define the words differently, so lets not bother our heads about it, and instead concentrate on the issue at hand.

I repeat from above -

The discussion at hand is with regard to the positive and negative elements of an experienced martial artist* openly associating with martial artists of a different style.

While I understand that this is not something everyone would want to do (some people are happy learning from only one syllabus) I do not understand how it can be viewed as something that is bad for other people to do.

Although I think you may be leaning towards a conclusion somewhat like this:

It is not wrong for a martial artist to openly associate with martial artists of a different style, but he must then call himself a martial scientist, and not an artist.

* - Call it combat sport, martial science, boxing, whatever label seems best to you.

 

[glad2bhere]

".....Although I think you may be leaning towards a conclusion somewhat like this:

It is not wrong for a martial artist to openly associate with martial artists of a different style, but he must then call himself a martial scientist, and not an artist....."

Not quite but I do have that sensitivity, thats true. What I am thinking of is more along the lines of this.

a.) If people want to get together and train I think that is fine. I see a need for the participants to have a solid founding in their own art and practice, which means an understanding and maturity commensurate with the activity. Well and good. In that case......

b.) If you are getting together to practice an art then the focus will be on doing what each person knows and understanding how to do that knowledge-base better. I don't know how practitioners of different Martial Arts would do this but I suppose it IS possible. On the other hand.......

C.) If you are getting together to compare what one person does to what another person does with an eye towards moderating or modifying the knowledge-base itself thats some thing different.

The dog that I have in this race is that folks not say they intend to do one thing, call it another and perform yet something else, that all.

Regards,

Bruce