What arts are incompatible with each other?

[Gerry Seymour]

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

In my opinion, this is how "aiki" is meant to work. It's how I teach it. The way you describe it, there's an almost simultaneous movement. That's unlikely to happen. So, how do we explain teaching that? Well, if you're actually moving, responding to the opponent, and striking, then you will sometimes find yourself properly in motion at the right moment. I see this happen from time to time in boxing: one guy throws a good punch just as the other guy decides to slip to the outside. That's a perfect set-up for aiki-style techniques, and it's not about responding to a single, specific attack (as the classical training seems to suggest), but about working the situation with other tools until the right moment opens up, then taking advantage of it. So, we don't have to be preternaturally fast, have precognition to know what's coming, or any of that. We just have to be able to hold our own and recognize the openings. I don't think a pure-aiki approach can provide that.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

@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

Actually, I've never trained using a sword-hand strike, except when visiting Aikido schools or seminars. We on occasion use a chop, but that wouldn't usually be to the head (certainly not the forehead). Mostly, we train against punches, shoves, hammerfists, and the like.

 

[now disabled]

In my opinion, this is how "aiki" is meant to work. It's how I teach it. The way you describe it, there's an almost simultaneous movement. That's unlikely to happen. So, how do we explain teaching that? Well, if you're actually moving, responding to the opponent, and striking, then you will sometimes find yourself properly in motion at the right moment. I see this happen from time to time in boxing: one guy throws a good punch just as the other guy decides to slip to the outside. That's a perfect set-up for aiki-style techniques, and it's not about responding to a single, specific attack (as the classical training seems to suggest), but about working the situation with other tools until the right moment opens up, then taking advantage of it. So, we don't have to be preternaturally fast, have precognition to know what's coming, or any of that. We just have to be able to hold our own and recognize the openings. I don't think a pure-aiki approach can provide that.

Yes you explain it better ....but to some it looks and Ueshiba does actually mention initiating lol ...mind you that could be the translation lol but do you see where the contradiction to those looking in come come from ?

I guess it just the way it taught now in many Aikido schools it stand like a plum wait and then move and pray to all the gods that the uke doesn't strike with intent lol

Kyoju diari is the teaching license (well representative teacher) the Menkyo kaiden is the full transmission


Sorry I wasn't meaning you don't know how to attack te-gatanna I was trying to say that most don't actually know how to properly hence the lack of intent and force

 

[Obsidian Fury]

Personally I've found training different martial arts very useful my TKD improved a lot with my Judo as I started not only to snap my hits in TKD but also shifting my weight like in Judo to increase their power. Sometimes on reflex I might start progressing from a TKD punch to a Judo throw during TKD practice but aside from making a mistake on reflex I can't say MA don't blend well.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

"Ueshiba" ..."Kyoju diari" ... "Menkyo kaiden" ... "te-gatanna"

I have asked, "Why do you have to use Japanese terms in discussion?" You have not respond yet.

 

[now disabled]

I have asked, "Why do you have to use Japanese terms in discussion?" You have not respond yet.

Sorry I been busy

Apologies ... I just use the terms as I know them.... The Kyoju Diari is a teaching certificate (well literally a representative instructor) The Menkyo Kaiden is a full transmission ...Te-gatanna is the hand sword

I use the Japanese terms as for some (not esp those ones) the word or words can have more than one meaning or indeed concept or depending on context what they mean, also at times the literal translation may not actually be as accurate in meaning in English as it is in Japanese, in my own language even certain words have more than one meaning depending on how they are used ... and translating them can and does cause confusion ... and to many it can start arguments when a person who is a no native speaker is set that it means what they think and will not even remotely consider it has other meanings.

sorry for not responding

 

[Flying Crane]

Personally I've found training different martial arts very useful my TKD improved a lot with my Judo as I started not only to snap my hits in TKD but also shifting my weight like in Judo to increase their power. Sometimes on reflex I might start progressing from a TKD punch to a Judo throw during TKD practice but aside from making a mistake on reflex I can't say MA don't blend well.

Nobody has said that all martial arts cannot blend well. Obviously some of them can.

However, some others not so well. And often the real reasons why they don’t blend so well are not as obvious as some people think. The actual reasons they don’t blend well are the very reasons why some people assume that they do.

 

[geezer]

... Sometimes on reflex I might start progressing from a TKD punch to a Judo throw during TKD practice but aside from making a mistake on reflex I can't say MA don't blend well.

^^^^ This is the biggest problem with blending different MA. If you are ever going to be effective at applying your skills, you must progress to the level where you do react reflexively. If you train two arts that teach different, even contradictory ways to respond to a situation, rather than respond instantaneously, you will have to take the time to choose which way to respond. That´s slower. Worse, under stress, you can freeze up ...the old ¨deer in the headlights¨ syndrome.

IMO that's why combative arts always keep things simple. It's OK to know a lot of responses, but the stuff you plan to use, what you actually train over and over and burn into your "muscle memory" should be very selective.

 

[geezer]

To add to my previous post, I believe that this tendency towards excessive complexity is one of the very real problems with most traditional martial arts, and with traditional martial artists.

Sometimes we become collectors of techniques and even whole systems, and in the process become less effective at real life application. I prefer the old idea that if you want to judge the level of martial practitioners' skill (aside from fighting or competition), look at how they move rather than how many movements they have!

 

[Flying Crane]

To add to my previous post, I believe that this tendency towards excessive complexity is one of the very real problems with most traditional martial arts, and with traditional martial artists.

Sometimes we become collectors of techniques and even whole systems, and in the process become less effective at real life application. I prefer the old idea that if you want to judge the level of martial practitioners' skill (aside from fighting or competition), look at how they move rather than how many movements they have!

Interestingly, I’ve never seen this tendency in traditional martial arts. I have, however, seen it in modern and Americanized renditions of what came from older systems.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

^^^^ This is the biggest problem with blending different MA. If you are ever going to be effective at applying your skills, you must progress to the level where you do react reflexively. If you train two arts that teach different, even contradictory ways to respond to a situation, rather than respond instantaneously, you will have to take the time to choose which way to respond. That´s slower. Worse, under stress, you can freeze up ...the old ¨deer in the headlights¨ syndrome.

IMO that's why combative arts always keep things simple. It's OK to know a lot of responses, but the stuff you plan to use, what you actually train over and over and burn into your "muscle memory" should be very selective.

I don't find that ever happens, except when I'm trying to do something specific. I just react. If the new material is too new, it simply won't be one of the reactions. The only other time I find I don't react smoothly is when I run into an area I'm trying to avoid (start into a technique that's not appropriate for the setting or my partner).

 

[Martial D]

^^^^ This is the biggest problem with blending different MA. If you are ever going to be effective at applying your skills, you must progress to the level where you do react reflexively. If you train two arts that teach different, even contradictory ways to respond to a situation, rather than respond instantaneously, you will have to take the time to choose which way to respond. That´s slower. Worse, under stress, you can freeze up ...the old ¨deer in the headlights¨ syndrome.

IMO that's why combative arts always keep things simple. It's OK to know a lot of responses, but the stuff you plan to use, what you actually train over and over and burn into your "muscle memory" should be very selective.

Sometimes you freeze up, but other times you are just responding according to muscle memory. For instance, maybe style A uses a certain technique as a response to Attack #1. But you also know style B, which offers a slightly more useful response to an overextended version of attack number one. You can condition a separation between the two on a reflexive level.

One example could be a rear hand shot. Your striking training might tell you to parry it inward or slip it, but if it's a lunging shot you might also come under it for a body lock or a double leg. It's better to have both of these options imo.

 

[geezer]

Sometimes you freeze up, but other times you are just responding according to muscle memory. For instance, maybe style A uses a certain technique as a response to Attack #1. But you also know style B, which offers a slightly more useful response to an overextended version of attack number one. You can condition a separation between the two on a reflexive level.

One example could be a rear hand shot. Your striking training might tell you to parry it inward or slip it, but if it's a lunging shot you might also come under it for a body lock or a double leg. It's better to have both of these options imo.

This works fine ...if the two systems complement rather than contradict each other. For example, I train Ving Tsun, Escrima, and have a few basic wrestling responses still in my muscle memory from my youth. Each comes into play instinctively at the appropriate range or situation. Or at least on good days!

On the other hand, our "soft" VT would not blend well with a hard style of Karate, say ...Shotokan? The whole "feeling," method of power generation, concept of deflection, and so forth, are contradictory. If you were training both simultaneously, you would not do well at either. Especially in my lineage of VT which demands relaxed, "springy" energy ...something that I found really hard to develop, and even harder to maintain under pressure.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

How can Taiji and wrestling be compatible if Taiji guys don't like to grab?

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I truly don't know. That stance has very weak balance.

I agree. I assume there's some reason they do that, but I can't for the life of me think what it is.

Not fully caught up, so this may have been addressed. But in my kempo, we learned some Fu Jow Pai (I think actually hung ga, since I never got advanced in that aspect), which included a 't stance'. My understanding of it/what was explained to me, is that there are times you lose balance, and that is a good 'recovery' transition stance for when that occurs. It's not a stance you want to be in, but if you train it, you can quickly get back to a safer stance.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I don't have much to contribute, as kung fu wang and flying crane have already said most of what I think. Just posting to voice my agreement with their general statements and sentiments.

 

[Flying Crane]

How can Taiji and wrestling be compatible if Taiji guys don't like to grab?

I don’t know if that is an accurate description of the taiji method. I do know that it cannot be an absolutely accurate description of every person practicing taiji.

The person can find taiji to be a good fit for him. But even if it is true that Taiji avoids grabbing (which I am doubtful of) the person might find grabbing to also be useful and might also practice a grabbing or grappling method.

I find that there are rarely any absolutes in martial arts that hold up to honest scrutiny.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I don’t know if that is an accurate description of the taiji method. I do know that it cannot be an absolutely accurate description of every person practicing taiji.

The person can find taiji to be a good fit for him. But even if it is true that Taiji avoids grabbing (which I am doubtful of) the person might find grabbing to also be useful and might also practice a grabbing or grappling method.

I find that there are rarely any absolutes in martial arts that hold up to honest scrutiny.

I have not heard about any Taiji guy who trains grip strength. Most of the Taiji guys that I have met would consider grip strength as "brute force".

The definition of wrestling is "the sport of strength". The Taiji slogan is "strength is low level and sweating is bad".

In training, when a

- wrestling coach tells you that you will need to sweat.
- Taiji instructor tells you that you should not sweat.

Who are you going to listen?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

How can Taiji and wrestling be compatible if Taiji guys don't like to grab?

I can only respond conceptually, since I'm not an expert in either (and have only passing acquaintance with Taiji). When grabbing isn't an option, or not the best option, Taiji adds tools to the wrestler's toolset. And wrestling does the same for the Taiji practitioner, giving him some options for using grabs. With fluency in both approaches, he's able to select when Taiji works well and when wrestling (and grabbing) is a better option. Without the fluency in wrestling, he has to make the Taiji the right answer even if the situation isn't a good fit.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This works fine ...if the two systems complement rather than contradict each other. For example, I train Ving Tsun, Escrima, and have a few basic wrestling responses still in my muscle memory from my youth. Each comes into play instinctively at the appropriate range or situation. Or at least on good days!

On the other hand, our "soft" VT would not blend well with a hard style of Karate, say ...Shotokan? The whole "feeling," method of power generation, concept of deflection, and so forth, are contradictory. If you were training both simultaneously, you would not do well at either. Especially in my lineage of VT which demands relaxed, "springy" energy ...something that I found really hard to develop, and even harder to maintain under pressure.

I think there's some mixing of issues in this thread - it's inherent to the topic. What you describe here sounds like conflicts in training. I (and some others) have been talking about compatibility once they are learned. I'll use my own experience here, because I have some conflicting areas of training. There's the aiki stuff, which is generally pretty soft in execution (less so in NGA than in some styles). I also use some "hard" Judo approaches (hard leverage and muscle to complete), as well as direct (rather than off-line) entry for striking. Training these on the same technique can cause conflicts during training. But I don't experience those conflicts. If things flow, I'm pretty aiki. If I get tension, I automatically select either an aiki flow (go with the tension), Judo response (reverse with the tension or use good technique to overcome it), or hard striking responses in direct opposition. Many times in training I've stumbled over these choices, because I was trying to get to a specific "mode". But when I just go with what my body (subconscious mind) wants to do, I don't stumble.