What arts are incompatible with each other?

[now disabled]

I might have to give that book a look someday. I'd be interested in seeing some of those contradictions.

Remember though that book was written around 1938 or so and it was the one that was given (or so they say) to the military as a manual so it was before Aikido as such ...there are a few contradictions in it if you compare with what is being taught these days

the bit about nage instigating is a bit confusing until you get what he is meaning lol....ie nage is and isn't lol he is blocking deflecting the strike long before it is reaching full velocity (waiting until it does that well no good idea lol) so it looks like nage is initiating as rather than the accepted approach these days of stand like a plum until the strike comes lol which again leads to the part of strikes are not delivered with any intent lol and again if the students do no know what the strike actually is then there in lies the problem !!!

Most now deliver that strike as if it were a gentle tap and in slow motion rather than as it kinda meant lol as in try and cleave the guys head in half lol and if it was delivered with that intent (as was really intended) then how they do ikkyo from there these days no be working lol ...well it could but ummm you gotta do other things and deal with another set of issues tat guess what they don't lol

 

[now disabled]

I think many teachers use training/teaching approaches that guide students into non-thinking. We are programmable, to an extent, and if we are given answers and not rewarded for questions, many of us stop asking them, even internally.

This is very true as then the teacher has an easier time an doesn't have to actually think him/herself.

The point of being programmable yes I so agree with that ....see something repeat it and take it that it the way and only way ...then wonder why it does not work ...................I do think that at times a better understanding of how the human bodies dynamics work would aid many a martial artist starting out. Like you said movies and media do seem to play a massive role. I actually have said to youngsters when I saw them doing the standing on one leg ready to engage (I know it a legit thing and not knocking the system it comes from) and said to them ......yup your cool I hope you got the wire attached to your *** like they do in the films you are watching as ummmm otherwise you lose lol

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I think many teachers use training/teaching approaches that guide students into non-thinking.

This issue is easy to fix. For each and every principles, you ask your students to create 3 concrete techniques beyond what you have taught them.

 

[now disabled]

This issue is easy to fix. For each and every principles, you ask your students to create 3 concrete techniques beyond what you have taught them.

Good idea

However that then leads to can most students do that?

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I agree, it is a drill, which is how you train your body to internalize and understand the mechanics. How you fight can be quite different from the drill.

That is where I keep saying, you need consistency in how you drill. That is the methodology.

In the case of that particular drill from Kenpo, I'm not totally convinced that it does help the student internalize or understand proper Kenpo mechanics. It may be inconsistent not just with other arts , but with itself.

(As I said before, I'm open to correction on this point. I'm only familiar with Kenpo in passing.)

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I have a student who had Judo background before. Every time before he steps in, he always steps back first.

Consistently stepping back before stepping in is not a standard Judo principle. Probably just that one student had picked up the habit for some reason.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I know what you mean about some teachers do not like questions ....but even then the student should still be able to if they are studying the art differentiate between a drill and what is actually used per se

I think many teachers use training/teaching approaches that guide students into non-thinking. We are programmable, to an extent, and if we are given answers and not rewarded for questions, many of us stop asking them, even internally.

It's also possible for a teacher to encourage questions, but lead the students to asking the wrong questions and accepting dubious answers. I've encountered that before. (It's generally not malicious. It works because the teacher believes the wrong answers and doesn't know the right questions to be asking themselves.)

 

[now disabled]

It's also possible for a teacher to encourage questions, but lead the students to asking the wrong questions and accepting dubious answers. I've encountered that before. (It's generally not malicious. It works because the teacher believes the wrong answers and doesn't know the right questions to be asking themselves.)

Yes I get you there and possibly that comes from the scenario you described earlier in that if a teacher turms out future teachers in his image believing that all is right and good then that carries on ..................As you say not malicious just misguided,

I dunno if you would agree with this and I am looking for your input and insight here .....Going back in time (before any of us were around) before the current grading and ranking systems , when a person had to be "licensed " to teach it took much longer to attain that and people had to stick with it to gain that (if that makes sense) where as now with the current ways could it not be said that more instructors are being churned out so to speak and sooner than they should be?

Also could the introduction of the grading system as was put in place by a good many Arts be( unlike it was intended) really a mistake and have possibly caused more trouble than it solved (trouble I mean in this context)

 

[now disabled]

It's also possible for a teacher to encourage questions, but lead the students to asking the wrong questions and accepting dubious answers. I've encountered that before. (It's generally not malicious. It works because the teacher believes the wrong answers and doesn't know the right questions to be asking themselves.)

Yes I get you there and possibly that comes from the scenario you described earlier in that if a teacher turms out future teachers in his image believing that all is right and good then that carries on ..................As you say not malicious just misguided,

I dunno if you would agree with this and I am looking for your input and insight here .....Going back in time (before any of us were around) before the current grading and ranking systems , when a person had to be "licensed " to teach it took much longer to attain that and people had to stick with it to gain that (if that makes sense) where as now with the current ways could it not be said that more instructors are being churned out so to speak and sooner than they should be?

Also could the introduction of the grading system as was put in place by a good many Arts be( unlike it was intended) really a mistake and have possibly caused more trouble than it solved (trouble I mean in this context)

 

[Flying Crane]

In the case of that particular drill from Kenpo, I'm not totally convinced that it does help the student internalize or understand proper Kenpo mechanics. It may be inconsistent not just with other arts , but with itself.

(As I said before, I'm open to correction on this point. I'm only familiar with Kenpo in passing.)

I agree, actually. I had been struggling with making sense out of a fair bit of how things were being done in the kenpo that I had studied, and that is why I ultimately stopped training it.

But at any rate, it makes a good example of two different ways of training a similar technique, that cause conflict with each other.

 

[oftheherd1]

Sorry, I have been busy and doing good if I get in to look at some of the threads, much less answer. However, see my answers in your post:

Then why were you getting defensive about my comments?

I didn't think of my comments as being defensive, but disagreement with explanations. As I have gone back and read some of your comments I think I see that you were talking more from the perspective of a demo that had the sole intent of gaining students (I guess in some way most do). That might change a little my answers, but not so much. I don't think, at least in Hapkido, any faking is necessary. I am not even sure explanations are necessary, maybe once, the rest of the time I would simply tell them the techniques work, and if they want to learn the demonstrated techniques, come join our school.

If you leap back before the technique is even applied, it doesn't let the technique speak for itself. It just shows how staged it is, and makes everything look fake. If it looks fake, how can you trust you'll learn anything real?

That is correct up to a point. In the first video I think I may see what is going on. I also think that being able to see other angles should make it easier to see some subtleties difficult or impossible to see from the angle taken. In my case, given that, I am not positive what he is doing so I cannot evaluate things properly. But I consider my weakness. Given that, I am not always sure where the technique begins. Therefor I am not sure it is staged as I take you to mean it.

So in the video we're talking about, does it look like the technique is properly applied that sends the guy flying a few feet? With your greater experience than mine in Hapkido, do you see what is causing the guy to leap back?

Please don't take my comment (that caused you to make the response I underlined) too personally. If you are not yet belted in Hapkido (which you have stated), and I am, of course I have more experience in Hapkido, its techniques, and how its techniques work. And even so I will be the first to tell anyone I am not an expert.

That said, I do apologize for a certain amount of snideness in my answer. I thought it wrong to say your incomplete knowledge of Hapkido techniques was a reason for knowing what was demonstrated was fake. It is a different art. (I should have simply stated that.)

The first (or sometimes subsequent views) of Aikido may have made you think they were demonstrating fake or useless techniques. Did they?

And the demo we are talking about I have already commented on.

And before you get too put off, let me agree that if we are giving a demonstration, we do need to be careful not to react to some part of the technique that has yet to be employed. It's just that imho, when looking at demo of a MA we are not familiar with, we have to be careful not to make judgments.

Again, my apologies for my snide side. I always enjoy reading your posts, whether I agree or disagree. I always find them insightful.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If you look at the part where he talks about shomenuchi and doing Ikkyo he actually says nage should instigate and even where to deliver atemi lol

That is different from what's usually taught.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This issue is easy to fix. For each and every principles, you ask your students to create 3 concrete techniques beyond what you have taught them.

There are lots of easy ways to fix it. Unfortunately, some teachers seem to prefer students not think for themselves too much.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Good idea

However that then leads to can most students do that?

If they understand the principles, they can. It's not something I'd expect every first-year student to be able to do. It is something I'd expect later. In fact, it's part of my requirements for black belt.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It's also possible for a teacher to encourage questions, but lead the students to asking the wrong questions and accepting dubious answers. I've encountered that before. (It's generally not malicious. It works because the teacher believes the wrong answers and doesn't know the right questions to be asking themselves.)

That's true. If the teacher never asked (at least to himself) good questions, he'll have a hard time passing that skill along.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yes I get you there and possibly that comes from the scenario you described earlier in that if a teacher turms out future teachers in his image believing that all is right and good then that carries on ..................As you say not malicious just misguided,

I dunno if you would agree with this and I am looking for your input and insight here .....Going back in time (before any of us were around) before the current grading and ranking systems , when a person had to be "licensed " to teach it took much longer to attain that and people had to stick with it to gain that (if that makes sense) where as now with the current ways could it not be said that more instructors are being churned out so to speak and sooner than they should be?

Also could the introduction of the grading system as was put in place by a good many Arts be( unlike it was intended) really a mistake and have possibly caused more trouble than it solved (trouble I mean in this context)

Did it take longer, though, compared to some of the systems out there? It took me more than a decade of training to get my shodan, which is also the instructor certification in that organization. There are organizations where it takes longer.

I've not seen much to compare to the license of full transmission, but my understanding is that was usually reserved for someone either taking over the art or being sent off to teach without connection to his instructor (Japanese instructor sending someone off to spread the art to Australia, for instance).

 

[now disabled]

Did it take longer, though, compared to some of the systems out there? It took me more than a decade of training to get my shodan, which is also the instructor certification in that organization. There are organizations where it takes longer.

I've not seen much to compare to the license of full transmission, but my understanding is that was usually reserved for someone either taking over the art or being sent off to teach without connection to his instructor (Japanese instructor sending someone off to spread the art to Australia, for instance).

What I was getting at and maybe (with my lack of vocabulary)

To my understanding a teaching license and a full transmission are different things (but I will stand to be corrected there)

I just feel that some who are holding Dan grades should not be teaching as yes they have maybe passed a test to reach that but does that (as seems to be the case in some aspects) are they fully equipped to teach? By that I mean if they are challenged on something (and I have seen it and read it) they are not willing or indeed able to explain and get extremely teed of and basically they are the teacher so that goes as that is what they were taught. Now ok they can only teach what they have been taught ....however could it not be that until they reach a certain level some things will not be for want of a better word be revealed (I'm not talkind secret or hocus pocus lol) for example the thing I mentioned about nage initiating ......well that is and isn't but it looks as if it is lol now to a shodan or even nidan that will and may not be clear (I'll try and explain in the reply to that post) but as many are teaching at that level then they do not have a deep enogh understanding and are only going thru the mechanics there by thru time things are getting lost or more accurately not transmitted fully.

Now in the old way (again I stand corrected) a license would be granted and conditions would be placed on same eg who to teach and what you could teach there by to me a safe guard was in place an example could be made of none other than Ueshiba Morihei himself he taught at the Asahi newspaper and yup the first 6 volumes of the soden from there are put down to his teaching (and he had a teaching license) but the remainder of the soden are from Takeda Sokaku (ok there are lots of theories on why and for what reason that happened -I mean why Ueshiba and Takeda split so to speak- ) and the person who got all that did get a Menkyo Kaiden (Takuma Hisa) I dunno if that makes sense or it just my pure lack of vocab skills that is not allowing me to properly explain what I am getting at if it is then my humble apologies

 

[now disabled]

That is different from what's usually taught.

There in lies the riddle as it were

Yes nage is initiating but actually is he ....

yes he looks like he is and it is written to look that way and yes again it is but and here is where I see the riddle lol ............

the partners are going to do shomen uchi ikkyo ..... Uke nows he is going to strike nage knows he is going to apply Ikkyo

Now uke makes the strike nage moves with the traditional block/deflection then goes on to do ikkyo (omote or ura it matters not) and it all goes well .......... that is what I think you will have seen and what is mostly taught?

Ok that will all go as planned and will all go brilliant ................if the strike by nage is just token strike and no intent or force is there as if the force and intent are there your screwed as it just will not work period ...why well you are meeting force with force if you do it the way it is taught now and then unless you are very lucky or incredibly powerful you will find it very challenging to do ikkyo that way (unless you put other things in and draw it out more but a fast ikkyo (which is what ya aiming for ain;t happening lol to much force on force and no time to do else really before uke clocks you again )

Now as the old book says same set up (but uke is going to deliver the strike with full intent as in try to cleave ya head in two) as he starts his movement then nage "goes" an by the time he (nage has entered ) the velocity of the strike is not at full force (some if not a large part is still stored in uke) block /deflect apply atemi then go for Ikkyo and use the stored engery of the strike to allow the technique to work fully ...make sense from your aiki background ? and the atemi is not only to break his structure but also to allow the "stored" energy out and for you to use it

so yes nage is initiating but umm really he isn't but he is lol see the contradiction ? and that leads on to what I said about if the people that are teaching are not able to "get all that then well it gonna slowly and surely get lost and then well it won't work


Even look at the way Ueshiba did irimi nage lol that way diff from how it is taught now ..........well in the Aikikai anyway

 

[now disabled]

@gpseymour

You will well know how to make a proper sword hand strike to the head however most that now practice don't even in the vids of demos it actually funny seeing how even some yudansha are striking shomen uchi ....As so much has been lost or has been written out or is just missed out cause either no one can be bothered to actually teach what the strikes are or are supposed to be and what they are based on

It doesn't take much to actually teach that for all strikes .....use a bokken ....even at home use a bokken (after the instruction on how to has been given) buy an old tyre a few old cement blocks some concrete and of ya go lol ...............and striking the tyre when you can do so at full force with proper tech and the bollen dont bounce back up then you know how to deliver shomen uchi lol

Even the grips and grabs i could go on about as again if you look at the older books then it is a wee bit different so to speak ....but again that been kinda glossed over lol ...well imo

 

[Gerry Seymour]

What I was getting at and maybe (with my lack of vocabulary)

To my understanding a teaching license and a full transmission are different things (but I will stand to be corrected there)

No, that's my understanding, too. Kojo dairi and menkyo kaiden were different things. As usual, I've completely forgotten which is which.

I just feel that some who are holding Dan grades should not be teaching as yes they have maybe passed a test to reach that but does that (as seems to be the case in some aspects) are they fully equipped to teach? By that I mean if they are challenged on something (and I have seen it and read it) they are not willing or indeed able to explain and get extremely teed of and basically they are the teacher so that goes as that is what they were taught. Now ok they can only teach what they have been taught ....however could it not be that until they reach a certain level some things will not be for want of a better word be revealed (I'm not talkind secret or hocus pocus lol) for example the thing I mentioned about nage initiating ......well that is and isn't but it looks as if it is lol now to a shodan or even nidan that will and may not be clear (I'll try and explain in the reply to that post) but as many are teaching at that level then they do not have a deep enogh understanding and are only going thru the mechanics there by thru time things are getting lost or more accurately not transmitted fully.

Now in the old way (again I stand corrected) a license would be granted and conditions would be placed on same eg who to teach and what you could teach there by to me a safe guard was in place an example could be made of none other than Ueshiba Morihei himself he taught at the Asahi newspaper and yup the first 6 volumes of the soden from there are put down to his teaching (and he had a teaching license) but the remainder of the soden are from Takeda Sokaku (ok there are lots of theories on why and for what reason that happened -I mean why Ueshiba and Takeda split so to speak- ) and the person who got all that did get a Menkyo Kaiden (Takuma Hisa) I dunno if that makes sense or it just my pure lack of vocab skills that is not allowing me to properly explain what I am getting at if it is then my humble apologies

I don't know much about the old ways, but I suspect they weren't drastically different from the current ways, if you averaged them. Many styles now have "provisional" teaching levels - you can teach but not promote, teach only to a certain level, or some such. To me the bigger issue is (and I suspect was then, too) that people are expected to just "absorb" good teaching. They're taught the techniques and necessary knowledge around them, but are rarely taught how to teach. And then they go on to make another generation of teachers, who make another generation, none of whom have been actually taught how to teach. It's a lot like the mess that goes on with managers in the business world: someone does a better-than-others job as a staff member, so they are promoted to management...without any training in how to manage. We make this mistake with martial arts instructors, too. This is why so many of us have seen excellent practitioners who struggled to teach. Teaching is a learnable skill, and that skill level can be predictably raised by including some simple teaching basics in instructor prep programs.

I'd rather have a well-prepared instructor who is a 5-year practitioner (which could be shodan, nidan, or perhaps higher in some systems, or might only be purple or brown belt in other systems) than a poorly-prepared instructor who is a 10-year practitioner - if I had to choose blindly. Of course, I'd rather have that 10-year practitioner as a well-prepared instructor.