What arts are incompatible with each other?

[now disabled]

Then what is it? Because to me, it still looks like the very start of a technique and the other guy is just leaping away or falling on his own.

It is not well presented at all but the concept of what he is saying is

I've tried to explain a few times, It is not purely that art that uses that and it not hocus pocus either lol....

The concept he is trying to convey is not meeting any force with direct force he is advocating that a way of dealing with direct force is to accept same and return it back it no more than that

 

[skribs]

It is not well presented at all but the concept of what he is saying is

I've tried to explain a few times, It is not purely that art that uses that and it not hocus pocus either lol....

The concept he is trying to convey is not meeting any force with direct force he is advocating that a way of dealing with direct force is to accept same and return it back it no more than that

I'm not arguing with the concept. I'm arguing with the way it was shown.

 

[Flying Crane]

I think these things often do not translate well on video. They need to be experienced in-person. You need to see it from different angles, you need to feel it, you need to be able to ask questions.

I tend to be very cautious about accepting things that look amazing, especially when I am simply viewing a video and do not have the opportunity to experience it in-person.

There may not be much more that can be said about it, in an Internet discussion. That is not satisfying for the discussion, but that is reality.

 

[wab25]

I'm not arguing with the concept. I'm arguing with the way it was shown.

You are also focused on the wrong end of the technique. Lets define a technique like this:

A------->B------->C

A: is the start of the initial movement of the technique
B: is the mid point of the movement
C: is the very last pose of the movement

In the video we are discussing, A is when the other guy starts to reach out to grab the demonstrator. B, is when the demonstrator is beginning to direct motion back to the attacker. C is when the attacker is leaping away like a cat. You are focused on C, and only C. But, in what he is showing, C is the least important part of the whole thing. The part he is demonstrating, the part this art focuses on is A and a tiny bit after A... not even to the first dash in the diagram above. If you can get the technique between A and A1(very close to A) then you can move on to B. From B, C is very easy... but it could have been D,E,F,G or any other technique you want.

So, why include them at all? The technique is very small, and your window of opportunity is very quick, but precise. Its like driving a manual transmission car, where if you let the clutch out at 800 rpm you stall it immediately, but at 810 rpm you have achieved max torque, lit up your tires and are facing the wrong direction. Adding B and C to the technique, is like adding a long lever to your clutch pedal, allowing you to feel and control what is going on. This is for training, to allow people to find the technique, or bite point of the clutch and then feather in the power.

This is not like TKD, where the technique is only about C, and all the emphasis is around C. In these types of arts, it really is only about A, what happens as you make your initial movement. Thats it. (TKD really does have emphasis equally on A, B and C of their techniques... but they are named after C )

Everyone here agrees that the guy over reacted and jumped. However, what was being demonstrated was demonstrated... if you bother to look at A. Have others shown A better? Sure. But this was a reasonable demonstration of A, the technique he was working on.

Getting back to the car thing... In this video, they are talking about getting a really good start off the line. The technique he is showing is about getting a really good start off the line. You are arguing that it was not a good start, because he stuffs it in the wall at turn 6. Now, before you argue... "you can't win if you crashed, and no one cares how you started if you can't win..." He wasn't demonstrating winning the race, he was demonstrating the start. A good start will put you in front to control the race. But, starting the race is one thing, and controlling is another. There are other ways to demonstrate the control and win, when they get to that part. This video, was only about the start. If you can't get the great start, you won't be in position to control the race. You have to get the start first.

 

[skribs]

You are also focused on the wrong end of the technique. Lets define a technique like this:

A------->B------->C

A: is the start of the initial movement of the technique
B: is the mid point of the movement
C: is the very last pose of the movement

In the video we are discussing, A is when the other guy starts to reach out to grab the demonstrator. B, is when the demonstrator is beginning to direct motion back to the attacker. C is when the attacker is leaping away like a cat. You are focused on C, and only C. But, in what he is showing, C is the least important part of the whole thing. The part he is demonstrating, the part this art focuses on is A and a tiny bit after A... not even to the first dash in the diagram above. If you can get the technique between A and A1(very close to A) then you can move on to B. From B, C is very easy... but it could have been D,E,F,G or any other technique you want.

So, why include them at all? The technique is very small, and your window of opportunity is very quick, but precise. Its like driving a manual transmission car, where if you let the clutch out at 800 rpm you stall it immediately, but at 810 rpm you have achieved max torque, lit up your tires and are facing the wrong direction. Adding B and C to the technique, is like adding a long lever to your clutch pedal, allowing you to feel and control what is going on. This is for training, to allow people to find the technique, or bite point of the clutch and then feather in the power.

This is not like TKD, where the technique is only about C, and all the emphasis is around C. In these types of arts, it really is only about A, what happens as you make your initial movement. Thats it. (TKD really does have emphasis equally on A, B and C of their techniques... but they are named after C )

Everyone here agrees that the guy over reacted and jumped. However, what was being demonstrated was demonstrated... if you bother to look at A. Have others shown A better? Sure. But this was a reasonable demonstration of A, the technique he was working on.

Getting back to the car thing... In this video, they are talking about getting a really good start off the line. The technique he is showing is about getting a really good start off the line. You are arguing that it was not a good start, because he stuffs it in the wall at turn 6. Now, before you argue... "you can't win if you crashed, and no one cares how you started if you can't win..." He wasn't demonstrating winning the race, he was demonstrating the start. A good start will put you in front to control the race. But, starting the race is one thing, and controlling is another. There are other ways to demonstrate the control and win, when they get to that part. This video, was only about the start. If you can't get the great start, you won't be in position to control the race. You have to get the start first.

The problem is, that the fakeness of C leads to A and B looking fake by association. How do I know what he's doing is real, and the other guy isn't acting on that part as well?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

When people said that he can push his opponent to fly back 15 feet away, I will always ask him to demo his pushing skill on my 90 lb throwing dummy. If one's skill is real, he should have no problem to push non-human object.

- Taiji guys like to push.
- Wrestlers like to pull.

Taiji and wrestling can never integrate together. I'm allergy to push. You should keep your friends close but your enemies closer.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

When people said that he can push his opponent to fly back 15 feet away, I will always ask him to demo his pushing skill on my 90 lb throwing dummy. If one's skill is real, he should have no problem to push non-human object.

- Taiji guys like to push.
- Wrestlers like to pull.

Taiji and wrestling can never integrate together. I'm allergy to push. You should keep your friends close but your enemies closer.

Throwing dummies are actually immune to some techniques that work on people.

And I still don’t buy the concept that two arts can’t be combined just because they use contradictory approaches. Most grappling styles have both push and pull in them.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

And I still don’t buy the concept that two arts can’t be combined just because they use contradictory approaches. Most grappling styles have both push and pull in them.

One day I played Taiji push hand with a Taiji instructor in the park. When I used

- leg to hook his leg, he said, "No leg."
- hand to grab on his wrist, he said "No grab."
- head lock on him, he said, "No brute force."

When he pushes me, I used wheeling step to move myself out of his pushing path, he said, "You lose."

After that day, I refuse to play Taiji push hand with anybody.

 

[skribs]

When people said that he can push his opponent to fly back 15 feet away, I will always ask him to demo his pushing skill on my 90 lb throwing dummy. If one's skill is real, he should have no problem to push non-human object.

There are some throws in hapkido which basically launch the person by getting them to shift their weight into it.

 

[now disabled]

There are some throws in hapkido which basically launch the person by getting them to shift their weight into it.

All throws require the person's weight to shift into the throw as unless it does the throw won't be a throw if that makes sense.....I don't mean they actually voluntarily shift their weight but the nage shifts their weight in applying the tech (shifts it thru various methods eg Aiki )

 

[Gerry Seymour]

One day I played Taiji push hand with a Taiji instructor in the park. When I used

- leg to hook his leg, he said, "No leg."
- hand to grab on his wrist, he said "No grab."
- head lock on him, he said, "No brute force."

When he pushes me, I used wheeling step to move myself out of his pushing path, he said, "You lose."

After that day, I refuse to play Taiji push hand with anybody.

Okay.

 

[hoshin1600]

And I still don’t buy the concept that two arts can’t be combined just because they use contradictory approaches. Most grappling styles have both push and pull in them.

i am thinking about Uechi ryu karate and TKD. i think they are pretty non compatible. uechi has 3 or 4 kicks and usually dont go above the waist. but the philosophy of each style is were they dont really match up. uechi fights square, TKD fights sideways. having done tkd and uechi i like both. but i cant reconcile the two into one cohesive skill set. the same holds true for aikido stances, the Ai hanmi foot position goes against everything i know in the other styles. i can do all three styles but they seem to always be fragmented and compartmentalized. i cant throw tkd kicks from a uechi stance and while "being" uechi. tkd goes against all my uechi beliefs. as soon as i throw a side kick i go right back into a tkd mode. same holds true for weapons i can be in uechi mode and as soon as i pick up a weapon my ingrained behavioral patterns turn away from uechi to aikido. styles are more than a set of techniques they are fixed behavioral patterns. there are mannerisms and quirks and programmed ways of thinking. styles also mold the way the body shapes itself and the way muscles are used. the fixed behavior patterns on some styles cannot be dovetailed with other styles and still remain the same. by this i mean if i force a fusion of two non compatible styles the result is its own unique outcome. its not uechi and its not tkd. thus new styles are born.

 

[now disabled]

i am thinking about Uechi ryu karate and TKD. i think they are pretty non compatible. uechi has 3 or 4 kicks and usually dont go above the waist. but the philosophy of each style is were they dont really match up. uechi fights square, TKD fights sideways. having done tkd and uechi i like both. but i cant reconcile the two into one cohesive skill set. the same holds true for aikido stances, the Ai hanmi foot position goes against everything i know in the other styles. i can do all three styles but they seem to always be fragmented and compartmentalized. i cant throw tkd kicks from a uechi stance and while "being" uechi. tkd goes against all my uechi beliefs. as soon as i throw a side kick i go right back into a tkd mode. same holds true for weapons i can be in uechi mode and as soon as i pick up a weapon my ingrained behavioral patterns turn away from uechi to aikido. styles are more than a set of techniques they are fixed behavioral patterns. there are mannerisms and quirks and programmed ways of thinking. styles also mold the way the body shapes itself and the way muscles are used. the fixed behavior patterns on some styles cannot be dovetailed with other styles and still remain the same. by this i mean if i force a fusion of two non compatible styles the result is its own unique outcome. its not uechi and its not tkd. thus new styles are born.

I do not get why you say Ai hamni goes against things as it is only that is you make it that ...also if you are facing each other in orthodox ie migi ai hamni then where is the conflict

 

[Flying Crane]

Throwing dummies are actually immune to some techniques that work on people.

And I still don’t buy the concept that two arts can’t be combined just because they use contradictory approaches. Most grappling styles have both push and pull in them.

Tibetan White Crane drills punches by pivoting the body sideways, using the torque of the full-body pivot to get power for the punch. But the body turns all the way until you face sideways to the enemy. That is how we drill the punch, but not necessarily how we would use it in a fight. It is an exaggerated movement designed to teach and develop full-body connection.

When I was training Tracy Kenpo, we would stand in a square horse facing forward and drill punches by keeping the shoulders square to the front, and punching straight ahead. It seemed to me that we were relying on muscle power of the arm and shoulder, and not really engaging the body.

Because I was doing both, I ended up not pivoting far enough when doing white crane, and pivoting too far to no longer be square facing the front when doing kenpo.

My white crane Sifu would tell me, “pivot more, you aren’t going far enough”.

My kenpo teacher would tell me, “stop pivoting, keep your shoulders straight.”

I was doing it wrong for each method, based on the parameters and standards of each method. Practicing kenpo was undermining my crane, and vice-versa.

Now, I could certainly continue to practice both methods. I could be very careful to compartmentalise my training and practice both methods, and try to not let them affect each other. But this is not efficient training.

If you want to be able to punch, you want to train a consistent method so that the skill becomes internalized within you and your body harnesses the power consistently and automatically.

What you do not need is multiple ways to throw a punch, multiple ways to harness power for the same technique. That inconsistency in the method will slow your development and confuse your automatic response if you need to throw a punch, under pressure. In terms of training, it is like trying to drive your car to the next town, but you can’t decide which of two routes to take. You get two miles down the road and then change your mind, so you go back and take the other route, but when you get two miles down the road you change your mind again and go back to the first route. And then again and again. You never reach the other town.

Pick a route and stick with it.
Pick a method and stick with it.

Training multiple systems that have conflicting methodology is like that. You simply need a reliable and effective punch. You DO NOT need two or five or eight different ways to power your punch. That may be of interest academically, but ultimately is not terribly useful.

So the incompatibility lies in the methodology, and not necessarily the body of techniques. You can swap and trade and adopt techniques from any other system, as long as they are compatible with a consistent methodology, or if the realm of combat is so different that there really is no overlap with the methodology.

 

[hoshin1600]

I do not get why you say Ai hamni goes against things as it is only that is you make it that ...also if you are facing each other in orthodox ie migi ai hamni then where is the conflict

I was using the term to label the common posture used in aikido which is technically not a correct usage of the term. But I was meaning what is sometimes referred to as a triangle stance.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

i am thinking about Uechi ryu karate and TKD. i think they are pretty non compatible. uechi has 3 or 4 kicks and usually dont go above the waist. but the philosophy of each style is were they dont really match up. uechi fights square, TKD fights sideways. having done tkd and uechi i like both. but i cant reconcile the two into one cohesive skill set. the same holds true for aikido stances, the Ai hanmi foot position goes against everything i know in the other styles. i can do all three styles but they seem to always be fragmented and compartmentalized. i cant throw tkd kicks from a uechi stance and while "being" uechi. tkd goes against all my uechi beliefs. as soon as i throw a side kick i go right back into a tkd mode. same holds true for weapons i can be in uechi mode and as soon as i pick up a weapon my ingrained behavioral patterns turn away from uechi to aikido. styles are more than a set of techniques they are fixed behavioral patterns. there are mannerisms and quirks and programmed ways of thinking. styles also mold the way the body shapes itself and the way muscles are used. the fixed behavior patterns on some styles cannot be dovetailed with other styles and still remain the same. by this i mean if i force a fusion of two non compatible styles the result is its own unique outcome. its not uechi and its not tkd. thus new styles are born.

That only hinders you if you stick to each style. People blend contradicting tenets all the time - sometimes within a single style. If you don’t allow the principles to become absolutes, you can use what you need when you need it. That you move from one to the other shows they aren’t incompatible. Again, think boxing and BJJ. Nobody has an issue with the fact that, once on the ground, they are almost entirely in BJJ mode. It’s the right mode for the situation. You might see a bit of a blend at the clinch. Over time, principles from one art start to color some movement in the other art. Someone blending Shotokan Karate and NGA might use more angular motion in their grappling entries than I do. They might have longer entries (from Shotokan distance) than me (from about boxing distance). Their Shotokan might have some new directions of movement. But the real blending will be that they can work at more distances and angles, and with more weapons, when they flow between the two.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Tibetan White Crane drills punches by pivoting the body sideways, using the torque of the full-body pivot to get power for the punch. But the body turns all the way until you face sideways to the enemy. That is how we drill the punch, but not necessarily how we would use it in a fight. It is an exaggerated movement designed to teach and develop full-body connection.

When I was training Tracy Kenpo, we would stand in a square horse facing forward and drill punches by keeping the shoulders square to the front, and punching straight ahead. It seemed to me that we were relying on muscle power of the arm and shoulder, and not really engaging the body.

Because I was doing both, I ended up not pivoting far enough when doing white crane, and pivoting too far to no longer be square facing the front when doing kenpo.

My white crane Sifu would tell me, “pivot more, you aren’t going far enough”.

My kenpo teacher would tell me, “stop pivoting, keep your shoulders straight.”

I was doing it wrong for each method, based on the parameters and standards of each method. Practicing kenpo was undermining my crane, and vice-versa.

Now, I could certainly continue to practice both methods. I could be very careful to compartmentalise my training and practice both methods, and try to not let them affect each other. But this is not efficient training.

If you want to be able to punch, you want to train a consistent method so that the skill becomes internalized within you and your body harnesses the power consistently and automatically.

What you do not need is multiple ways to throw a punch, multiple ways to harness power for the same technique. That inconsistency in the method will slow your development and confuse your automatic response if you need to throw a punch, under pressure. In terms of training, it is like trying to drive your car to the next town, but you can’t decide which of two routes to take. You get two miles down the road and then change your mind, so you go back and take the other route, but when you get two miles down the road you change your mind again and go back to the first route. And then again and again. You never reach the other town.

Pick a route and stick with it.
Pick a method and stick with it.

Training multiple systems that have conflicting methodology is like that. You simply need a reliable and effective punch. You DO NOT need two or five or eight different ways to power your punch. That may be of interest academically, but ultimately is not terribly useful.

So the incompatibility lies in the methodology, and not necessarily the body of techniques. You can swap and trade and adopt techniques from any other system, as long as they are compatible with a consistent methodology, or if the realm of combat is so different that there really is no overlap with the methodology.

I’m not saying there aren’t issues in training. When I teach someone with an angular-movement background (e.g. Shotokan), their movement is “wrong” on a lot of techniques. That makes it harder to learn the entries to our techniques. But once they learn those entries, there’s no conflict. In fact, they’ll often find ways to make good use of angular entries where I wouldn’t.

And the same is true of multiple punching mechanics. For a while, they conflict in your brain, and slow down the process (the same happens for some untrained people, too, having to fight odd habits). But once both are well-learned, they become automatic, and a right one (not necessarily the “best” one) shows up in each situation. You might not be able to control which, which could cause problems in keeping either pure, and I gave that condition earlier.

 

[Flying Crane]

I’m not saying there aren’t issues in training. When I teach someone with an angular-movement background (e.g. Shotokan), their movement is “wrong” on a lot of techniques. That makes it harder to learn the entries to our techniques. But once they learn those entries, there’s no conflict. In fact, they’ll often find ways to make good use of angular entries where I wouldn’t.

And the same is true of multiple punching mechanics. For a while, they conflict in your brain, and slow down the process (the same happens for some untrained people, too, having to fight odd habits). But once both are well-learned, they become automatic, and a right one (not necessarily the “best” one) shows up in each situation. You might not be able to control which, which could cause problems in keeping either pure, and I gave that condition earlier.

Explain to me why you need both.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Explain to me why you need both.

I never said anyone did. One adaptable punch is enough.

 

[Flying Crane]

I never said anyone did. One adaptable punch is enough.

That’s what I’m getting at. One consistent method makes much more sense than trying to do a whole bunch. They interfere with each other, you spread your training out and make slow progress.