What arts are incompatible with each other?

[skribs]

I get you but as I said most of who attend the public demos would not know fake from real lol ...I am not being nasty just my opinion ...ye as MA we can usually tell if it fake but we are coming from backgrounds of MA not off the street ................In Aikido demos one should way to tell if the Uke is flipping is to look at the feet and where he/she is when the ukemi or breakfall starts ...but that only cause I kinda know where to look and what is actually demo Aikido what is classical and what no matter what unles ya really lucky lol will never work in reality but it looks good lol

Which is why, in your demonstration, you do everything you can to display your technique while making it look real.

The more recent video that was posted looked a lot more real. And appeared to be using someone who was experiencing the technique for the first time instead of participating in a memorized demonstration.

 

[now disabled]

Which is why, in your demonstration, you do everything you can to display your technique while making it look real.

The more recent video that was posted looked a lot more real. And appeared to be using someone who was experiencing the technique for the first time instead of participating in a memorized demonstration.

Yeah I agree

I cannot explain it how the folks that practice it do I can only equate it to what I have seen etc and felt in Aikido ...which is different I guess.

I agree it should be real but that is down to the folks doing the demos and how they want it to look and if you do get an uke who is ummmm overacting it well ....I think we covered that lol

 

[skribs]

Yeah I agree

I cannot explain it how the folks that practice it do I can only equate it to what I have seen etc and felt in Aikido ...which is different I guess.

I agree it should be real but that is down to the folks doing the demos and how they want it to look and if you do get an uke who is ummmm overacting it well ....I think we covered that lol

So in our Hapkido, for example, we have some techniques that look spectacular. We have other techniques that, the first time I saw them, looked fake, until I had them done on me. There are some finishing moves that just look like a pin or a hold, but in reality are excruciating.

So when you do the demonstration, you do a few things:

1. Pick which techniques you're going to use. If I was doing a Hapkido demonstration, I would pick things that look painful. For example, I think it's a Z-lock (like I said, I know the techniques, but we don't really name them at my school), looks kinda-fake to really-fake depending on how it's applied. But when you twist the wrist over, it always looks painful. A figure-4 looks pretty painful. So I would demonstrate the Figure 4 and the wristlock first. Then I might use a Z-lock to show how you can use a lot of pain. I've established the other techniques, which lends credibility to these.
2. I would work with the Uke to make it look real. So that when there's a slight amount of pressure, instead of immediately jumping away, he should simply recenter his balance (like in the 2nd video). Care should be taken to make sure that when the Uke moves, it's in direct response to what you're doing instead of in anticipation. Class and demonstration should be different, because there are different messages to convey. If I am specifically doing a demo on Z-locks, I would train with the Uke to make sure that we work together on the demo. For example, if I just touch his hand and he falls to the ground and pretends to have a seizure, it will look fake. But if he responds with a pained expression when I apply torsion to the wrist, and falls in a direction that makes sense to the unitiated, then it looks a lot better.
3. Slow down and explain where the power is coming from. If I apply a lock and the person jumps away, explain why. "He's jumping away because he felt I was going to do this and he's scared of me." "He's jumping away because he felt this pressure and wanted to avoid a joint lock." Or, if I'm doing a Z-lock, slow it down and do a close-up of the wrist and why it's causing so much pain.
4. Show how the power can fail to apply. He showed how making yourself rigid gives hold, but what is different about just rolling through the drill, vs. redirecting the energy and sending the guy flying back?

There are lots of ways this COULD have been done to provide a demonstration that would have also explained how it's effective.

 

[wab25]

There are lots of ways this COULD have been done to provide a demonstration that would have also explained how it's effective.

What if he wasn't demonstrating a wrist lock? What if he wasn't demonstrating a push, or a throw? What if he was demonstrating something else entirely?

The part he was demonstrating was the first part of the move, not an application for the ending pose. The important part was how you react to the initial grab, as he is grabbing you. He was trying to demonstrate what can be done as the grab is occurring, not what can be done after the grab has been made. You are so focused on the end of the technique, that you missed the whole point. If you get the first part, as the grab is occurring, (if you capture his balance, break his structure and start to manipulate him, by going with the initial energy he gives you) you can finish it many different ways... throws, locks, chokes, punches, elbows, kicks... This demonstration is all about how to initially deal with the incoming energy of the grab. It doesn't matter whether the guy jumps back, lets go, screams in pain or wins an emmy for his acting. The whole idea he was trying to show, happened way before the acting started.

Again, I agree that this is not my favorite demonstration. I agree that he is over acting a bit. However, the thing he was demonstrating, was over and done with, before the acting started.

 

[skribs]

What if he wasn't demonstrating a wrist lock? What if he wasn't demonstrating a push, or a throw? What if he was demonstrating something else entirely?

The part he was demonstrating was the first part of the move, not an application for the ending pose. The important part was how you react to the initial grab, as he is grabbing you. He was trying to demonstrate what can be done as the grab is occurring, not what can be done after the grab has been made. You are so focused on the end of the technique, that you missed the whole point. If you get the first part, as the grab is occurring, (if you capture his balance, break his structure and start to manipulate him, by going with the initial energy he gives you) you can finish it many different ways... throws, locks, chokes, punches, elbows, kicks... This demonstration is all about how to initially deal with the incoming energy of the grab. It doesn't matter whether the guy jumps back, lets go, screams in pain or wins an emmy for his acting. The whole idea he was trying to show, happened way before the acting started.

Again, I agree that this is not my favorite demonstration. I agree that he is over acting a bit. However, the thing he was demonstrating, was over and done with, before the acting started.

Ok, there's another solution. If it's not being demonstrated, don't include it.

If you're going to include it, make it so that the layman can understand it enough to believe it.

 

[now disabled]

So in our Hapkido, for example, we have some techniques that look spectacular. We have other techniques that, the first time I saw them, looked fake, until I had them done on me. There are some finishing moves that just look like a pin or a hold, but in reality are excruciating.

So when you do the demonstration, you do a few things:

1. Pick which techniques you're going to use. If I was doing a Hapkido demonstration, I would pick things that look painful. For example, I think it's a Z-lock (like I said, I know the techniques, but we don't really name them at my school), looks kinda-fake to really-fake depending on how it's applied. But when you twist the wrist over, it always looks painful. A figure-4 looks pretty painful. So I would demonstrate the Figure 4 and the wristlock first. Then I might use a Z-lock to show how you can use a lot of pain. I've established the other techniques, which lends credibility to these.
2. I would work with the Uke to make it look real. So that when there's a slight amount of pressure, instead of immediately jumping away, he should simply recenter his balance (like in the 2nd video). Care should be taken to make sure that when the Uke moves, it's in direct response to what you're doing instead of in anticipation. Class and demonstration should be different, because there are different messages to convey. If I am specifically doing a demo on Z-locks, I would train with the Uke to make sure that we work together on the demo. For example, if I just touch his hand and he falls to the ground and pretends to have a seizure, it will look fake. But if he responds with a pained expression when I apply torsion to the wrist, and falls in a direction that makes sense to the unitiated, then it looks a lot better.
3. Slow down and explain where the power is coming from. If I apply a lock and the person jumps away, explain why. "He's jumping away because he felt I was going to do this and he's scared of me." "He's jumping away because he felt this pressure and wanted to avoid a joint lock." Or, if I'm doing a Z-lock, slow it down and do a close-up of the wrist and why it's causing so much pain.
4. Show how the power can fail to apply. He showed how making yourself rigid gives hold, but what is different about just rolling through the drill, vs. redirecting the energy and sending the guy flying back?

There are lots of ways this COULD have been done to provide a demonstration that would have also explained how it's effective.

My friend you are coming from the angle of the passionate and pure martial Artist who loves what he does and devotes a huge part of his life to achieving that.

Unfortunately there are some around who are not like that and for many reasons

for example:- If a teacher starts out with a dojo of pupils and he decides that his style is to one of very big circle and spectacular techs with no atemi and little realism (a somewhat classical style but not in any way pure what I would call classical just using the term out of need or lack of my inferior vocab) doesn't really go into a lot of depth but is adequate enough to either award grades himself or get his better pupils to a place that they will just make the minimum to gain rank ....That is his choice and the choice of his pupils too... however if some of them go on and teach and they copy the style of their teacher then that goes on and on and on and with each passing generation more and more is lost or removed ...if that makes sense. Now the reverse is the teacher who starts the same but he goes down the line of "street" style (again maybe my lack of vocab) striking very small circle very hard and direct no real flow ...gets his student to the same as the first type and then again his students go on and teach , copy their teacher and there again things are lost or left out but it their style how they were taught so it right..... Then there the last type who has all the same star etc but chooses to teach and show both the classical style but adds in the caveats of realism and says yes to gain the rank this is the way you do it and why and that is the classical style and you will gain the rank but he stresses that in the real big bad world you have to tweak and modify and add bits even to make it work ....his students go on and teach and they copy there master and so it goes on and on there.

Who is right and who is wrong? .....they all are right and they all are wrong lol........................what is right and what is wrong all depends on the person making that decision and what their perception is and what they want from it and that is down to human nature ...there is the nub lol

I could go on and say I have a very close friend (same rank as I am same background -well almost- ) who does not teach weapons and never has (I have never actually oficially taught -apart from my daughters - only filled in when needed ) oh he knows the kata and he does the suburi alone and when we used to meet up yes we did practice but he does not want to teach them ...I don't crit him for that as it his choice, his students just accept he does not teach that. His style is softer than mine and very classical (oh I can do the classical ...well I could lol) ,I am a bit more umm harder lol (probably due to I did study elsewhere than he did however he holds only the Akikai where I hold another style to ), He is not as open as I am to pinching things that I like from other things I like and "popping them in lol but again that his choice lol...When he does demos it is the big circle techs will all the classical flare yet ...who was his Uke lol....me lol why cause I could resist him and push him to make it look good but still real lol and I could take the big lovely looking breakfalls etc ...was I wrong doing that ...again open to opinion

So demos are demos are demos but I do get that some do not actually show what they ought to and when it does come down to Chi/Ki/Aiki it is difficult as it will always be viewed with suspicion lol

 

[now disabled]

What if he wasn't demonstrating a wrist lock? What if he wasn't demonstrating a push, or a throw? What if he was demonstrating something else entirely?

The part he was demonstrating was the first part of the move, not an application for the ending pose. The important part was how you react to the initial grab, as he is grabbing you. He was trying to demonstrate what can be done as the grab is occurring, not what can be done after the grab has been made. You are so focused on the end of the technique, that you missed the whole point. If you get the first part, as the grab is occurring, (if you capture his balance, break his structure and start to manipulate him, by going with the initial energy he gives you) you can finish it many different ways... throws, locks, chokes, punches, elbows, kicks... This demonstration is all about how to initially deal with the incoming energy of the grab. It doesn't matter whether the guy jumps back, lets go, screams in pain or wins an emmy for his acting. The whole idea he was trying to show, happened way before the acting started.

Again, I agree that this is not my favorite demonstration. I agree that he is over acting a bit. However, the thing he was demonstrating, was over and done with, before the acting started.

I totally agree lol

To anyone who is not "into" the Aiki/chi/Ki styles then it is hard to understand what is going on ...as you say it was really over before it started so to speak and that is hard to see or take lol when there no crash bang wallop involved ..............actually he did finish in a way as everytime he did (second vid) he did enough to escape if he had chosen to ...just my opinion

 

[now disabled]

Ok, there's another solution. If it's not being demonstrated, don't include it.

If you're going to include it, make it so that the layman can understand it enough to believe it.

The "layman" lol it very hard indeed to show aiki etc as it just happens in an instant it not really a big set up (well it can be sorta) and anything like redirecting the force back at a person like he did will never look totally believable unless you are the one on the receiving end ....

 

[wab25]

Ok, there's another solution. If it's not being demonstrated, don't include it.

Just for fun... here is a demo / discussion about the same thing as in the video, only different guy teaching, and different art. However, he is showing and demonstrating the exact same principles and ideas.

If you're going to include it, make it so that the layman can understand it enough to believe it.

I am guessing that people should not teach advanced math or physics? Aren't there some finer points in TKD that you as a 3rd Dan can understand, and see and work on, that would fly right over the head for a white belt? Should your instructor not teach you those, as a layman would not get it?

 

[marques]

Well, the style of tai chi I'm currently training seems to be incompatible with all other mainstream martial arts, since it emphasizes the total abandonment of muscular force or training as shown in the video below.

Yeah, I know it looks fake as heck....

“Total abandonement” of muscular force is a way of saying extremely efficient use of force, isn’t it? In the extreme of perfection, you’ll need almost none. But with actually none, one should dye soon.

Is Systema mainstream? Their concept of relaxation perhaps is not far from this one.

 

[now disabled]

Not my style of Aikido but he actually explains what he is doing and why

 

[skribs]

Just for fun... here is a demo / discussion about the same thing as in the video, only different guy teaching, and different art. However, he is showing and demonstrating the exact same principles and ideas.

I am guessing that people should not teach advanced math or physics? Aren't there some finer points in TKD that you as a 3rd Dan can understand, and see and work on, that would fly right over the head for a white belt? Should your instructor not teach you those, as a layman would not get it?

I'll check the video out later (it's not loading on the network I'm on right now).

If you're doing a demonstration for 3rd degree black belts, do it at their level. It wasn't clear to me in the video we're discussing that it was for this level of training. If that's the case, put in a disclaimer and say "this is some advanced stuff, if you're not familiar with the system, check out these other videos." It was put out on YouTube, which tells me that the layman is probably going to see it.

Now let's talk about if my Master is teaching stuff designed for a 3rd degree. I am going to do what I discussed before, and provide a realistic response to what he's doing. That's what I do in the black belt class when I'm the demonstration dummy. He has control and I react appropriately.

My friend you are coming from the angle of the passionate and pure martial Artist who loves what he does and devotes a huge part of his life to achieving that.

It's about what you're getting out of it. I'm not going to criticize someone who does Tai Chi or Cardio Kickboxing for fitness. I'm not going to criticize someone who does a sport martial art about the impracticality of the win situation (i.e. a "pin" only works until you get up). I'm not going to criticize someone who does Krav Maga over how narrow the focus of the art is. I'm not going to criticize someone doing a 540 kick because they think it looks cool.

But if someone says they take Cardio Kickboxing to learn self defense, I'm going to have to question that. If someone says they can win an MMA match because they got more points than anyone at a Taekwondo tournament, I'm going to question that too. If someone says the 540 kick is useful in self defense because more spin = more speed = more force, I'm going to question that. And if someone barely touches the other person away from any joints and they go flying, I'm going to question it, too.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Well, the style of tai chi I'm currently training seems to be incompatible with all other mainstream martial arts, since it emphasizes the total abandonment of muscular force or training as shown in the video below.

Yeah, I know it looks fake as heck....

1. It's not pain. The visible action is minute but the 'wave' of force is larger than what the eye can see, at the same time the target is slightly off balance due to the 'ball' analogy.

2. It's literally like a wave of momentum (that's how I would describe it), you feel like you are thrown back instead of being pushed. If it were a directed muscular force then the arms would of course compress.

5. Again, a sinking momentum much in the same way as the push.

Of course I can feel the arm, but the arm feels like a part of an inflated balloon/ball. Again if you move pass the arms the body also feels similar, as if every point is equal pressure wise no matter which point you probe. There is no sense of an equal and opposite reacting line of force but that your force is dispersed and equally distributed in every part of his body. With regards to trying to put your legs behind him, it is virtually impossible (for me at least, but I suck) because the more you try to move into his space the more unbalanced you get... again the man-sized rubber ball analogy, imagine trying to move your legs behind a 6 feet diameter inflated ball.

You are not limited to pushing arms, that is just more or less our default interaction when talking about core principles. If you care enough to do so you can watch the video below for a better overview, note that the interviewer is an MA practitioner with many years of experience himself (but not in tai chi AFAIK) and Mizner demonstrates his moves on him, not his students.

EDIT: I am coming across like a Mizner groupie, unfortunately he is the most 'famous' and demonstrative representative of this style on the internet so yeah....

Finally got a chance to watch these videos so I could address the side conversation. Here's my take on what I'm seeing ...

First point: "abandonment of muscular force" doesn't exist. Every single bit of body movement you can do (other than falling straight down) is based on muscular contraction. That includes breathing, standing, walking, having a beating heart, and all of the techniques Mizner is showing. A more accurate term for this sort of approach is "using muscular force very efficiently." People think it's not using muscular force because they're so used to wasting effort and using force inefficiently.

Second: Mizner clearly has a good degree of martially relevant body skill. Whether he has the chops to actually use those skills in an actual combative context, I have no idea.

Third: In the first video, his demo partner is responding to his (legitimate) technique in very unrealistic ways. (Jumping away unnecessarily, collapsing like a doofus) This may not have been a conscious decision. Sometimes students who have spent too much time training in an artificial format and being demonstrated on by a skilled teacher who encourages them to react in the wrong way can end up with some ... let's say stylized dysfunctional responses to receiving the technique.

Fourth: in the second video the interviewer is reacting much more realistically to Mizner's technique. He is doing one thing which makes it easy for Mizner to look good. He's attempting his "attacks" (throws, trips, locks, etc) without doing anything to compromise Mizner's structure first. I do the same sort of demo sometimes to show my students why it's necessary to break an opponent's structure before doing any of those kinds of techniques. Otherwise, it's easy to reverse the attack. Judging from the video, I think Mizner is probably better at this sort of demo than I am, but without feeling his energy or that of the other guy, I'm just guessing on that.

 

[skribs]

First point: "abandonment of muscular force" doesn't exist. Every single bit of body movement you can do (other than falling straight down) is based on muscular contraction. That includes breathing, standing, walking, having a beating heart, and all of the techniques Mizner is showing. A more accurate term for this sort of approach is "using muscular force very efficiently." People think it's not using muscular force because they're so used to wasting effort and using force inefficiently.

I'm actually going to disagree with you here. You can contract opposing muscles simultaneously and place a lot of tension on yourself. It's common amongst lower level belts who are trying too hard. I have to tell them to relax and then their technique improves. So I can see how relaxing can affect your martial art skill.

Third: In the first video, his demo partner is responding to his (legitimate) technique in very unrealistic ways. (Jumping away unnecessarily, collapsing like a doofus) This may not have been a conscious decision. Sometimes students who have spent too much time training in an artificial format and being demonstrated on by a skilled teacher who encourages them to react in the wrong way can end up with some ... let's say stylized dysfunctional responses to receiving the technique.

This is probably it. The problem is, the guy leaping like a cat that's just seen a cucumber actually hurts the demonstration, because it makes the entire thing look fake.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I'm not going to criticize someone who does a sport martial art about the impracticality of the win situation (i.e. a "pin" only works until you get up).

Just wanted to respond to this little bit. If by "pin" you're talking about a wrestling or Judo pin and by "practicality" you're referring to a self-defense context, then I have to say that there are plenty of self-defense circumstances where being able to pin someone in that manner can be very practical and may even be the best option. It's situational of course. Sometimes it's not a good idea. Sometimes it is.

 

[skribs]

Just wanted to respond to this little bit. If by "pin" you're talking about a wrestling or Judo pin and by "practicality" you're referring to a self-defense context, then I have to say that there are plenty of self-defense circumstances where being able to pin someone in that manner can be very practical and may even be the best option. It's situational of course. Sometimes it's not a good idea. Sometimes it is.

The problem with a pin in self defense is 2-fold.

1. You've only "won" until you let go. Then they may start again.
2. What if there are two of them?

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I'm actually going to disagree with you here. You can contract opposing muscles simultaneously and place a lot of tension on yourself. It's common amongst lower level belts who are trying too hard. I have to tell them to relax and then their technique improves. So I can see how relaxing can affect your martial art skill.

You're not disagreeing with me at all. That is precisely correct and it's part of what I'm referring to when I talk about wasting effort and using force inefficiently.

If none of your muscles are contracting, then you can't move (and will soon be dead due to the lack of respiration and circulation).

If you contract the muscles necessary for movement and also contract the muscles which oppose that movement, then you're pressing down the gas pedal and the brake at the same time. That's not using muscular force. That's wasting muscular force.

The trick is activating only the muscles that help you in a given moment and not the ones which get in your way. That's skill.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

The problem with a pin in self defense is 2-fold.

1. You've only "won" until you let go. Then they may start again.
2. What if there are two of them?

Some situations where a pin may be appropriate in self-defense:

You don't want to injure your opponent. Maybe it's a drunk family member or a mental patient having a psychotic break.

You have backup coming and they don't.

You want to hit them in the face a bunch and you can do it more easily while they're stuck underneath you and unable to move.

You want to exhaust them so they don't have the physical or mental stamina to continue fighting effectively.

Obviously there are also situations where trying to pin a opponent would be a bad idea. Defending solo against multiple attackers would be around the top of that list.

 

[skribs]

Some situations where a pin may be appropriate in self-defense:

You don't want to injure your opponent. Maybe it's a drunk family member or a mental patient having a psychotic break.

You have backup coming and they don't.

You want to hit them in the face a bunch and you can do it more easily while they're stuck underneath you and unable to move.

You want to exhaust them so they don't have the physical or mental stamina to continue fighting effectively.

Obviously there are also situations where trying to pin a opponent would be a bad idea. Defending solo against multiple attackers would be around the top of that list.

I'll agree with some of that. But if you're going to ground-and-pound, then a pin is the way to achieve that goal, and not the goal itself. And you wouldn't ground-and-pound from most of the positions I was pinned in when I did wrestling.

I mean...the positions I pinned people in.

Okay, yeah, I was the one pinned most of the time. But you get my point!

 

[zzj]

Finally got a chance to watch these videos so I could address the side conversation. Here's my take on what I'm seeing ...

First point: "abandonment of muscular force" doesn't exist. Every single bit of body movement you can do (other than falling straight down) is based on muscular contraction. That includes breathing, standing, walking, having a beating heart, and all of the techniques Mizner is showing. A more accurate term for this sort of approach is "using muscular force very efficiently." People think it's not using muscular force because they're so used to wasting effort and using force inefficiently.

Second: Mizner clearly has a good degree of martially relevant body skill. Whether he has the chops to actually use those skills in an actual combative context, I have no idea.

Third: In the first video, his demo partner is responding to his (legitimate) technique in very unrealistic ways. (Jumping away unnecessarily, collapsing like a doofus) This may not have been a conscious decision. Sometimes students who have spent too much time training in an artificial format and being demonstrated on by a skilled teacher who encourages them to react in the wrong way can end up with some ... let's say stylized dysfunctional responses to receiving the technique.

Fourth: in the second video the interviewer is reacting much more realistically to Mizner's technique. He is doing one thing which makes it easy for Mizner to look good. He's attempting his "attacks" (throws, trips, locks, etc) without doing anything to compromise Mizner's structure first. I do the same sort of demo sometimes to show my students why it's necessary to break an opponent's structure before doing any of those kinds of techniques. Otherwise, it's easy to reverse the attack. Judging from the video, I think Mizner is probably better at this sort of demo than I am, but without feeling his energy or that of the other guy, I'm just guessing on that.

With regards to abandonment of muscular force, I had written an entire paragraph in one of my earlier responses to qualify the term but deleted it before posting cos it didn't seem to fit with the flow. In any case, yes, you can't move without muscles; the term is used to convey a concept/approach, it is not meant to be understood as a scientific certainty.