Training in Three TMA

[Flying Crane]

[QUOTE="Drose427, post: 1725776, member]

Someone who can take two very different techniques i.e. MT and the traditional TKD/Karate roundhouses, and just interchange them flawlessly in a fight with picture perfect technique.

Its a very hard thing to do, even with practice/experience[/QUOTE]

What benefit do you envision here? Inconsistencies like this cause confusion in the body's ability to respond quickly. You train twice as hard to be half as good at each method. It's a misguided approach to training.

 

[Drose427]

Context.

No MMA fighters technique is as good as one focusing within one area. Nearly all the highest level MMA fighters blend various striking arts methods seamlessly.

Silva, henderson, pettis, GSP, etc. All have gone back and fourth between Karate, TKD, Muay Thai techs, and theyre some of the best strikers in modern UFC

 

[Flying Crane]

Context.

No MMA fighters technique is as good as one focusing within one area. Nearly all the highest level MMA fighters blend various striking arts methods seamlessly.

Silva, henderson, pettis, GSP, etc. All have gone back and fourth between Karate, TKD, Muay Thai techs, and theyre some of the best strikers in modern UFC

If you have the luxury of training as your full time job, you might be able to support such a claim. For the vast majority who are lucky if they can squeeze in a few hours a week for training, it doesn't pay off. It is no more than collecting techniques with a "more is better" mentality. It's not a fruitful approach to training. It's only training harder, not training smarter.

 

[Drose427]

If you have the luxury of training as your full time job, you might be able to support such a claim. For the vast majority who are lucky if they can squeeze in a few hours a week for training, it doesn't pay off. It is no more than collecting techniques with a "more is better" mentality. It's not a fruitful approach to training. It's only training harder, not training smarter.

Id say it depends on the individual.

Many people have more time to train than they tell themselves, the just dont have the obsessive interest.

I know laborers working 60-70 hours a week and still go to some combination for MMA/Boxing/BJJ every day.

Also, For any competition where folks can have various backgrounds, it is training smarter.

The only reason my two TKO's in kickboxing looked so decisive(for lack of a better word) as they were was the guys were from a Thai Style gym and hadn't even heard of axe kicks or how the knee raise roundhouse hides under a guard. Not to mention a night and day difference in movement,

We've seen it in the ufc, k-1, and glory, unfamiliarity is a real quick way to basically get yourself knocked out.

 

[Flying Crane]

Id say it depends on the individual.

Many people have more time to train than they tell themselves, the just dont have the obsessive interest.

I know laborers working 60-70 hours a week and still go to some combination for MMA/Boxing/BJJ every day.

Also, For any competition where folks can have various backgrounds, it is training smarter.

The only reason my two TKO's in kickboxing looked so decisive(for lack of a better word) as they were was the guys were from a Thai Style gym and hadn't even heard of axe kicks or how the knee raise roundhouse hides under a guard. Not to mention a night and day difference in movement,

We've seen it in the ufc, k-1, and glory, unfamiliarity is a real quick way to basically get yourself knocked out.

Ok then, I guess you know how you want to train.

 

[Steve]

If you have the luxury of training as your full time job, you might be able to support such a claim. For the vast majority who are lucky if they can squeeze in a few hours a week for training, it doesn't pay off. It is no more than collecting techniques with a "more is better" mentality. It's not a fruitful approach to training. It's only training harder, not training smarter.

I guess the other way to look at it is, if you're only training a few hours each week, it's not like this is your full time job. You may as well do what you enjoy, or what appeals to you.

As for the skills development, my opinion is that the impediments to skills development are closely related to connecting the curriculum to the feedback/measurements and connecting the feedback directly to the desired results. The styles that tend to have the most direct line from curriculum through feedback to results tend to have the shortest learning curves, in spite of the complexity of the style. The styles that have more circuitous routes tend to take the longest.

And if you're trying to learn a style that isn't very direct, just negotiating the training and reconciling the lessons can take a lot of mental bandwidth. So, in these cases, maybe one style is more than enough. However, in styles that have a direct and consistent feedback loop, the training is more efficient.

 

[Flying Crane]

I guess the other way to look at it is, if you're only training a few hours each week, it's not like this is your full time job. You may as well do what you enjoy, or what appeals to you.

As for the skills development, my opinion is that the impediments to skills development are closely related to connecting the curriculum to the feedback/measurements and connecting the feedback directly to the desired results. The styles that tend to have the most direct line from curriculum through feedback to results tend to have the shortest learning curves, in spite of the complexity of the style. The styles that have more circuitous routes tend to take the longest.

And if you're trying to learn a style that isn't very direct, just negotiating the training and reconciling the lessons can take a lot of mental bandwidth. So, in these cases, maybe one style is more than enough. However, in styles that have a direct and consistent feedback loop, the training is more efficient.

I've got to be honest: I don't know what you are going on about here.

If you view it simply as a technique, then you can add as many as you want, and your results may vary. Maybe good, maybe bad, maybe inconsistent, maybe not as good as you think it is, or as it could be, maybe "good enough" for one to feel satisfied with it.

If you recognize that different methodologies are built upon different principles, then pursuing a methodology in which all the techniques are built upon the same principle is important for developing consistency in how you do what you do. I'm not talking about tactics or strategy. I'm talking about the engine that drives the techniques, where and how the techniques get their power.

One can view a roundhouse kick as simply a roundhouse kick. Or, one can look at the engine that drives a Muay Thai roundhouse kick, and how that may be different from a TDK roundhouse kick. The shape of the kick is similar enough that the weapon is in your arsenal either way. But how you execute and power the kick may be different. There is no need to have both methods. It creates physical confusion if how you drive and power your various techniques is different, and that can delay reactions.

If you are a pro fighter and have all day to train, perhaps you can overcome that. If you are a pro fighter then perhaps a valid strategy is to be able to switch like that, and be able to surprise an opponent.

Most of us are not pro fighters. We don't have the training time available to overcome that obstacle, and neither do we need the tactic because we aren't getting into a ring to have a potentially lengthy, pre-arranged and agreed-to fight where a tactic like that might be useful.

In this example, one method for a roundhouse kick, done consistently, is a better approach to the training.

Hell, I don't even like the roundhouse kick and I don't practice it anymore.

 

[Steve]

I've got to be honest: I don't know what you are going on about here.

If you view it simply as a technique, then you can add as many as you want, and your results may vary. Maybe good, maybe bad, maybe inconsistent, maybe not as good as you think it is, or as it could be, maybe "good enough" for one to feel satisfied with it.

If you recognize that different methodologies are built upon different principles, then pursuing a methodology in which all the techniques are built upon the same principle is important for developing consistency in how you do what you do. I'm not talking about tactics or strategy. I'm talking about the engine that drives the techniques, where and how the techniques get their power.

One can view a roundhouse kick as simply a roundhouse kick. Or, one can look at the engine that drives a Muay Thai roundhouse kick, and how that may be different from a TDK roundhouse kick. The shape of the kick is similar enough that the weapon is in your arsenal either way. But how you execute and power the kick may be different. There is no need to have both methods. It creates physical confusion if how you drive and power your various techniques is different, and that can delay reactions.

If you are a pro fighter and have all day to train, perhaps you can overcome that. If you are a pro fighter then perhaps a valid strategy is to be able to switch like that, and be able to surprise an opponent.

Most of us are not pro fighters. We don't have the training time available to overcome that obstacle, and neither do we need the tactic because we aren't getting into a ring to have a potentially lengthy, pre-arranged and agreed-to fight where a tactic like that might be useful.

In this example, one method for a roundhouse kick, done consistently, is a better approach to the training.

Hell, I don't even like the roundhouse kick and I don't practice it anymore.

What I'm simply saying is that it won't necessarily take longer to learn one thing if you are also learning another. The conflict you're identifying isn't because a person is learning multiple things. Rather, it's because there is something inherently consistent somewhere in the training model. And overcoming that inconsistency takes mental bandwidth.

I get that, with limited time, someone might want to focus on one thing over another. That's not the same thing.

 

[Flying Crane]

What I'm simply saying is that it won't necessarily take longer to learn one thing if you are also learning another. The conflict you're identifying isn't because a person is learning multiple things. Rather, it's because there is something inherently consistent somewhere in the training model. And overcoming that inconsistency takes mental bandwidth.

I get that, with limited time, someone might want to focus on one thing over another. That's not the same thing.

Yes, it is the inconsistency in the methodology that creates a problem. Not simply learning many things. If you understand the underlying methodology then you can learn anything you want and apply that methodology and maintain the consistency. Maintaining that consistency makes everything easier.

For something like the roundhouse kicks mentioned, I can't understand why someone would want to spend time developing the same kick, using different delivery methods. Why would someone want to knowingly create that inconsistency? It suggests to me that someone does not understand the underlying methodology, they only understand that "it's a kick".

 

[Steve]

Yes, it is the inconsistency in the methodology that creates a problem. Not simply learning many things. If you understand the underlying methodology then you can learn anything you want and apply that methodology and maintain the consistency. Maintaining that consistency makes everything easier.

For something like the roundhouse kicks mentioned, I can't understand why someone would want to spend time developing the same kick, using different delivery methods. Why would someone want to knowingly create that inconsistency? It suggests to me that someone does not understand the underlying methodology, they only understand that "it's a kick".

What if, instead of focusing on multiple ways to execute a roundhouse kick, you focus on the desired result? The inconsistency I'm speaking about is a confusion between the technique for its own sake or the technique in order to actually create a result. Golfers don't work to perfect their swing for its own sake. They want to see the ball go further, straighter.

 

[Flying Crane]

What if, instead of focusing on multiple ways to execute a roundhouse kick, you focus on the desired result? The inconsistency I'm speaking about is a confusion between the technique for its own sake or the technique in order to actually create a result. Golfers don't work to perfect their swing for its own sake. They want to see the ball go further, straighter.

Ok, that's worth discussing, and a couple things come to mind right away.

There are probably many ways to get a desired result and perhaps impossible to objectively say that one is better than the others. So all are fair game. What is the best approach? Spreading ones efforts on multiple methods, some of which may actually conflict with each other in how they are executed? Or focusing ones efforts one one method, to get really good at it?

 

[Flying Crane]

What if, instead of focusing on multiple ways to execute a roundhouse kick, you focus on the desired result? The inconsistency I'm speaking about is a confusion between the technique for its own sake or the technique in order to actually create a result. Golfers don't work to perfect their swing for its own sake. They want to see the ball go further, straighter.

Does a golfer change up how he swings if his goal remains to hit the ball farther and straighter, or does he strive for consistency in his swing technique?

Granted, his swing is different if he is teeing off, vs. if he is chipping onto the green. But the goal and purpose has changed, so a change in technique and delivery would be warranted.

 

[drop bear]

[QUOTE="Drose427, post: 1725776, member]

Someone who can take two very different techniques i.e. MT and the traditional TKD/Karate roundhouses, and just interchange them flawlessly in a fight with picture perfect technique.

Its a very hard thing to do, even with practice/experience

What benefit do you envision here? Inconsistencies like this cause confusion in the body's ability to respond quickly. You train twice as hard to be half as good at each method. It's a misguided approach to training.[/QUOTE]
You learn how to learn. You learn all of a system rather than the bits you think you should. And you can ajust your game to the situation at hancd xexexexeFighters do this all the time to train to beat specific fighters.

So say for boxing. And whether or not you are an in fighter or out fighter depends on how tall the other guy is.

 

[Flying Crane]

What benefit do you envision here? Inconsistencies like this cause confusion in the body's ability to respond quickly. You train twice as hard to be half as good at each method. It's a misguided approach to training.

You learn how to learn. You learn all of a system rather than the bits you think you should. And you can ajust your game to the situation at hancd xexexexeFighters do this all the time to train to beat specific fighters.

So say for boxing. And whether or not you are an in fighter or out fighter depends on how tall the other guy is.

Well no. The discussion wasn't really about competition or MMA, it was about studying multiple TRADITIONAL martial arts at one time. And learning how to do a roundhouse kick in Muay Thai is from one system, while learning to do a roundhouse kick from TKD is, well, from a different system...so no, it's not about learning a complete system vs. picking and choosing. Actually, combining the methods is more in line with picking and choosing.

 

[drop bear]

Well no. The discussion wasn't really about competition or MMA, it was about studying multiple TRADITIONAL martial arts at one time. And learning how to do a roundhouse kick in Muay Thai is from one system, while learning to do a roundhouse kick from TKD is, well, from a different system...so no, it's not about learning a complete system vs. picking and choosing. Actually, combining the methods is more in line with picking and choosing.

Fair enough. So learning more than one traditional system You learn how to learn. You learn all of a traditional system rather than the bits you think you should. And you can ajust your game to the situation at hand traditional fighters do this all the time to train to beat specific traditional fighters.

So say for boxing. (A legitimatly traditional system) And whether or not you are an in fighter or out fighter depends on how tall the other guy is.

 

[Flying Crane]

Fair enough. So learning more than one traditional system You learn how to learn. You learn all of a traditional system rather than the bits you think you should. And you can ajust your game to the situation at hand traditional fighters do this all the time to train to beat specific traditional fighters.

So say for boxing. (A legitimatly traditional system) And whether or not you are an in fighter or out fighter depends on how tall the other guy is.

So now, where did this notion come from about picking and choosing what you learn from whatever system you are training?

 

[drop bear]

So now, where did this notion come from about picking and choosing what you learn from whatever system you are training?

It is just a random advantage of learning more than one style. Otherwise you either only learn one system. Or learn one system and disjointed chuncks of another system.

 

[Flying Crane]

It is just a random advantage of learning more than one style. Otherwise you either only learn one system. Or learn one system and disjointed chuncks of another system.

And sometimes that can be a good thing, and sometimes it's not such a good thing.

 

[Drose427]

What benefit do you envision here? Inconsistencies like this cause confusion in the body's ability to respond quickly. You train twice as hard to be half as good at each method. It's a misguided approach to training.

You learn how to learn. You learn all of a system rather than the bits you think you should. And you can ajust your game to the situation at hancd xexexexeFighters do this all the time to train to beat specific fighters.

So say for boxing. And whether or not you are an in fighter or out fighter depends on how tall the other guy is.[/QUOTE]

Exactly

I dont have to master a Thai Rounhouse, or outfighting.

I just have to familiarize myself with them that I wont get knocked out by them, and can resort to them if the need arises

 

[TSDTexan]

Er… no, not really. Not at all, actually. And certainly not "full body contact with weapon fighting".

PS I'm assuming that you mis-typed, and meant to say it's Ninjutsu's UNarmed combat… but, as Argus said, your kanji are wrong as well…



Jutaijutsu is a ryu-ha specific term used in a couple of systems linked in with the "Ninjutsu" schools… specifically Hontai Takagi Yoshin Ryu and a line of Shinden Fudo Ryu. It has also been applied as a generic term in Ninjutsu schools to apply to grappling (locks, throws, chokes etc) methods… but is not really "ninjutsu" at all, nor is it the unarmed combat of ninjutsu… at best, it's a term to describe one aspect of modern ninjutsu schools' unarmed combat methods.



And… it's really completely different, you know. I mean, you get that the dancers are working to a choreography, a consciously thought-through sequence of actions, yeah? And that, well, no-one's trying to punch them while they do it?



It's a big thing to get through… if you have the time, you might want to read the following thread: Looking for Custom Tambo - Martial Arts Planet if you're short on time, just go to page 4, post 58 for most of the breakdown.

Having read the MAP article... I fully concur with chris' take on power generation conflict, and disparity and absence of congruence found in most eclectic martial arts.

And he is right... systems of techniques do not a martial art make. Which is usually what you get with eclectic mixes.

If there is incoherence or cognitive disonance in the fundamentals then the training is dangerous on a number of levels.

Karate powers on muscles. (And not all karate is the sane wrt to power generation, nor are WC branches identical amongst in this issue. )

WC on tendons and recapturing recoil.


Ankle/knee/hip/spine/shoulder/elbow/wrist/fist.
Not all striking arts use this the same way for power generation.

Even the methods of breathing can be in conflict.

I don't know anything about the OPs eclectic MA.

I suppose the could bring Dan Inosanto or a high level jkd guy to iron out WC integration.