Where is the "Reality" forum?

[Black Bear]

I like MacYoung's books. I read one of Quinn's too, which was pretty good. But I saw a vid with the three of them, and it had a lot more traditional stuff in it than I'd expected. Fairly practical, but still having the flavour of the ancestral art. Like wearing hakamas. (I kid you not.)

Didn't look anything like folks like Blauer, Franco, Thompson, Wagner, etc. who achieved proficiency in a couple TMA's, discard most of it, and build something from the ground up with its own structure.

Matt Thornton is one of my favourite people alive right now.

 

[MJS]

I like MacYoung's books. I read one of Quinn's too, which was pretty good. But I saw a vid with the three of them, and it had a lot more traditional stuff in it than I'd expected. Fairly practical, but still having the flavour of the ancestral art. Like wearing hakamas. (I kid you not.)

Hakamas?? Really?? I've read a few of Macyoungs books and Francos. I realize that they have trained in traditional arts prior to their change, but I never saw anything in the books that looked that traditional to me.

Matt Thornton is one of my favourite people alive right now.

Matt is AWESOME!!! The guy I train my BJJ with is a huge Thorton fan!! He's gone to a few of his seminars and speaks very highly of him. I have some of his tapes and I really like the way he puts his stuff together.

Mike

 

[8253]

True to a point. Sure, anything that works can be said to be reality, but if you really look at more of a traditional art and then compare it to something like Krav Maga, or something that you'd see Peyton Quinn or Marc Macyoung teach, you can see an obvious difference.

Mike

Im not so sure there is a difference between these arts. Maybe psychologically, but not physical. I dont know what Krav Maga is or who Peyton Quinn or Marc Macyoung is but it is very interesting to see the psychology of other Arts. Just one question though just so i can maybe have a better understanding of Krav Maga. Is Krav Maga a killing art or a tournament art?

 

[moving target]

I don't practice Krav Maga but to the best of my knowledge it came from military hand-hand training so if the options are killing and tournament I would place it in killing.

 

[Black Bear]

KM divides itself into self-defense techniques, military apps (killing, etc.) and a third category, I forget what they call it, but it's somewhat sportive, contact, single combat like vale tudo. I guess the fourth category would be cardio-kickbox, which is common in a lot of American KM gyms.

 

[MJS]

Im not so sure there is a difference between these arts. Maybe psychologically, but not physical. I dont know what Krav Maga is or who Peyton Quinn or Marc Macyoung is but it is very interesting to see the psychology of other Arts. Just one question though just so i can maybe have a better understanding of Krav Maga. Is Krav Maga a killing art or a tournament art?

True, there are many things that are very similar in all arts, its just they way the things are applied thats gonna make the difference. As for KM....its definately a SD art more than a tourny art.

Mike

 

[8253]

Thank you for the insights into Krav Maga. It sounds very interesting.

 

[7starmantis]

What is it that makes KM so pure in its self defense training? Is it the fact that the day you begin you start throwing elbows and knees, using contact, and hitting the bags? I mean you do start learning realistic techniques quickly, is that what makes it so self defense oriented?

7sm

 

[moving target]

I mean you do start learning realistic techniques quickly

What MA doesn't start out with realistic techniques?

I don't practice KM or even know anyone who does. From what I have read/seen on the net it just seems to be orientation. I think (good) KM instructors treat fighting how a good boxing couch teaches boxing. It's just more to the point than some other MA.

 

[MJS]

What is it that makes KM so pure in its self defense training? Is it the fact that the day you begin you start throwing elbows and knees, using contact, and hitting the bags? I mean you do start learning realistic techniques quickly, is that what makes it so self defense oriented?

7sm

What makes it so pure? There are a few things that I like about it, and that stand out in my eyes.

1- Easy to learn.

2- Does not require a huge amount of practice everyday for you to remember what it is that you need to do.

3- Eliminates the kata, fixed stances, meditation, etc. and focuses on the simple, effective things---your knees, elbows, etc.

4- The same movement can be applied to the same sort of attack. Example: The movement that you would use for a front 2 hand choke is the same that you would use for a choke from the rear or the side. Therefore, it takes out the thinking, Example 2: Do you really want to stand there while someone is choking you and think to yourself, "Ok, this guy is choking me. Which one of the 20 choke defences do I do now?"

The debate over the arts that take longer vs. the arts that are 'quick to learn' has been going on for a looooooooooooong time! Every art has something to offer. What matters is what the person who is taking the art wants to get out of it.

Mike

 

[7starmantis]

What MA doesn't start out with realistic techniques?

There are alot of arts that start you learning basic stances, or punches or kicks, without applying them to anything. Just simply learning the stance or form of the stance.

7sm

 

[MJS]

There are alot of arts that start you learning basic stances, or punches or kicks, without applying them to anything. Just simply learning the stance or form of the stance.

7sm

I agree with that post 100%

Mike

 

[Black Bear]

"If half the things you do are useless, you are wasting 50% of your training time." Tony Blauer

"Do nothing which is of no use." Miyamoto Musashi

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

"Drink Beer." - Me.

 

[Touch Of Death]

"If half the things you do are useless, you are wasting 50% of your training time." Tony Blauer

"Do nothing which is of no use." Miyamoto Musashi

Would you consider eliminating the horse stance from your training?
Sean

 

[Black Bear]

"Would"????? I did six years ago!

 

[Black Bear]

Now: I'm not going to get into a debate here as to whether the horse stance is effective in combat. Because of course some TMAist is going to say I "misunderestimate" it, it's a crucial transitional position, blah blah blah. That's not the point. The point is that I eliminated it because I regarded it as useless. IF you regard it as useless, then you should too. And of course if you don't, then by no means!

I will post shortly about Tony Blauer's precept of "three-dimensionality", which incidentally I no longer adhere to, but it's interesting and relevant to the discussion of "usefulness". But now-- sleep. :O

 

[7starmantis]

"If half the things you do are useless, you are wasting 50% of your training time." Tony Blauer

"Do nothing which is of no use." Miyamoto Musashi

Very true, I agree completely. However this can be subjective. What one person sees as useless could be what has saved another in combat.

To me useless techniques are those without application.

7sm

 

[moving target]

It does depend on the person. a guy I know nails me with inverted hook kicks (in jkd terminology: a round kickmoving inside to outside rather than outside to inside). I never even try to land one and I don't practice it. I just don't see all that much use for me. To take a more extreem POV. One of my friends doesn't like to kick much. Basicly all he does for kicks is a front thrust. I on the other hand love kicking things (perhaps a little to much ).

But it seems odd to me that you would practice anything when you couldn't see a point in it objectivly.

 

[Black Bear]

Very true, I agree completely. However this can be subjective. What one person sees as useless could be what has saved another in combat.

To me useless techniques are those without application.

7sm

Yes. Or indeed techniques whose ostensible application is so remote and implausible as to be useless. I think that much that much most MAists would agree on.

I myself go further to say that useless includes any technique whose function is encompassed and surpassed within other, more efficient methods. If it is superfluous, it is "useless", philosophically speaking.

But I know that others are liable to disagree on that.