Originally Posted by
GaryR 
What fun are these boards if we agree!
This demonstrates my point a little actually. You said the top aikido guy hits harder than any "hard" guy you know? That is what I said - the "soft" aikido guy should be able to hit harder! Adding soft to hard training is obviously showing your friend that it should be added, AND should take over. He hasn't yet the experience to know what more of the soft would do v the hard if his skill set was reversed and not tainted.
Wrong, wrong, wrong! We do know, we do understand. As I said, he is one of Australia's top martial artists. He has been training soft for fourteen years, me only seven. We can both use soft which is why I can understand much of what you are saying. I even agree with a lot of what you say, but I will not agree that soft is the only way to the top.
I do enjoy our discussions K-man! You might understand, this stuff is soooooo much easier to discuss in person, this is a tough venue. 14 years can be nothing, especially without the right well-rounded training and instructors to give you the keys. If you can use soft well, the hard will be discarded. Though these terms can be so vague and ambiguous we could both be correct and aligned in practice and not know it. Do you have clips of this guy????
I said..."Well there go you, you agree, I am talking about the pinnacle, the pinnacle of practice, and teaching hard v soft."
Yes but the pinnacle is only reached by a select few. Most practitioners of soft would get their **** whipped in a real fight and I don't care how long they have been training.
Very true, I agree completely. It's a big problem I've been fighting for years in our community...every few years I start a "pussification of taijiquan" thread on emptyflower / rumsoakedfist and create quite the stir!
I said..."Well then you would be contradicting yourself, either the soft beats out at the pinnacle, or the hard does, can't have it both ways. "
Yes I can. At my pinnacle a lot of styles come together. What I teach is enter with irimi hit with kokyu, it doesn't matter what I am teaching, the principle is the same.
They can come together, but my argument is that at the top, the internal trumps, period, there is no "coming together" into one same skill-set / martial level. The internal wipes the floor at the pinnacle, and thats that.
I said..."I don't know what bas does exactly, but FYI, I would categorize many boxers / MMA types as more "soft" than hard. "
I don't think anyone on this planet would describe Bas Rutten as 'soft'. I might disagree with some of the things he teaches but when the rubber hits the road, I'm looking on from the pavement. You reckon you could go near Bas, I'll run up the BS flag!
As I said, I am not familiar with Bas, so I simply claim ignorance. I do think some MMA guys have internal qualities, and some more internal than external. But there is not a UFC guy on the planet I would be deathly afraid of in the street, in the ring ---hell yes, they are professional athletes, I might be tied up and worn out so fast my head would spin!
I said..."It depends on the teacher and the student. In most cases, I agree, the soft takes longer, but that is the fault of the teacher and the training method they use. Take the average Tai Chi guy for example, can't fight, but done properly it's a devastating system that can fair well against anyone even on the same timeline; boxer, krav, etc. "
I agree it can be good, but so too can boxer, Krav, etc and in a shorter time frame. (I'll comment on Krav later, when I have more time.)
There we go.
I said..."Why don't you believe that? What are your criteria for a soft system?"
With what you see on the Internet and DVDs Systema looks like a soft art. At the very top it contains a lot of soft which is what we are both saying. I know a lot of people who have trained Systema. I trained with them when I visited Toronto. They practise soft like Aikido practises soft but it is not the soft part that is effective without years of training. It is a hard combat system that is taught to Russian Special Forces to use in combat immediately.
I have seen systema guys who look soft at the basic level, perhaps our definitions of hard / soft need refining for a more effective discussion?
I said..."I would also back the hard statistically, but this is not due to style - but training methodology. There are more tai chi people who do a health dance, not a martial art, and a TKD person (and I consider TKD a sport and poor SD martial art), could on average wipe the floor with a taiji person. This is simply a matter of how one applies their training goals and their system together. A soft-style guy focused on combat I would back over a hard-style guy with the same focus everytime - provided of course there was realistic training for pressure testing. "
I will put up against you there and take your money. The soft guy that could do that is one in 10,000, the hard guys 9,999 in 10,000. Gary, if what you are claiming could be achieved, all the special forces would be doing it, and I know first hand what they are teaching.
Ummmmmm, I think you misread me. I said I would statistically back a hard-style guy. So no taking my money! I have been formally contracted to teach the special forces myself, so yeah, I know what they are training first hand as well, mostly American SF, but some foreign as well. I have also trained them in War zones....have you?
I said..."The hard will be burried in the dust at the very highest levels---my point exactly. Your next statement about them being indistinguishable is contradictory. They won't be, one wipes the floor with the other, period, they are quite different."
No contradiction, at the very top it's all the same. I'm not claiming to be at the top like some, but at least I can see the top and it's not exactly what you say it is. :asian:
lol, we may have to agree to disagree here pending a demonstration. It's not all the same, at the top it becomes VERY apparent to the hard practitioner the fallbacks / level. I
am claiming to be at the top, I can see it, experience it, and I am willing to demonstrate it, you may not believe it until you feel it-that is often the case. And yes, it is exactly what I say---but like I said, statistically I would back the hard.
With respect,
G
