Why I decided to come up with my own martial arts concept...

[Josh Oakley]

... What on earth was that? I'm honestly not sure what that was, it looked like people doing some kinda two-man interpretive dancing rather than a SD seminar.

Still, if your response to the above questions and (frankly quite gentle) criticisms is to 'give up' (regardless if you're serious or just being tongue-in-cheek), then you probably shouldn't be going on about your 'new MA' here.
You say you're here to get insight and ideas for your system, but when people start asking questions about how and why you're doing what you are, your responses have been frankly rather juvenile. Not the best way to represent yourself, or your new system.


Sanke on the move.

Kinda looks like sensing hands from Tai chi. Kinda.

 

[Aiki Lee]

I'm sorry if I am confused about whatever it is you were trying to say when you stated you want efficacy over efficiency. I'm sorry I have no goddamn idea about what it is you are trying to accomplish here. I'm sorry you seem to think that people are "retards" or "narcissistic" for questioning the legitamacy of your "system".

But most of all, I am sorry I ever responded to your question as if you were a rational human being seeking further understanding of the martial arts.

 

[Josh Oakley]

You could avoid a lot of confusion and spam if you would carefully read what I write, and entire page of posts was kind of wasted because you mixed effectiveness with efficiency, now you say I neglect effectiveness although I stated that I put efficiency above effectiveness, which clearly is a difference.

To be fair to Himura, you said, "I put way more emphasis on efficiency than effectiveness". Yes, there is a clear difference between saying that and saying you neglect effectiveness. However, that's a backwards idea within the context of martial arts. Efficiency is very important. But effectiveness is the litmus test unless you are doing this as a performance art. Then... yeah, ok, effectiveness is not as important.

 

[Aiki Lee]

Efficiency without effectiveness is the fastest route to failure.

 

[Gnarlie]

Effectiveness is intrinsic to efficiency. If the energy input does not achieve the desired result, then the system is inefficient. Since the desired result of the martial aspect of any martial art is overcoming an opponent, the equation for efficiency must include effectiveness in achieving that. Otherwise you're learning Salsa.

 

[Josh Oakley]

Effectiveness is intrinsic to efficiency. If the energy input does not achieve the desired result, then the system is inefficient. Since the desired result of the martial aspect of any martial art is overcoming an opponent, the equation for efficiency must include effectiveness in achieving that. Otherwise you're learning Salsa.

No, you're equivocating here. Effectiveness and efficiency are not intrinsic to eachother. I already pointed the difference between the two concepts. Why this is being contested beyond me. This is an established concept in our language. Go read up on it before I throw Kant's A Critique of Pure Reason at you.

Both are important concepts in the martial arts. But they are SEPARATE concepts, both at play at the same time.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

 

[Gnarlie]

OK, in terms of pure reason and logic they are separate concepts to be applied. As soon as you apply them to a system, the qualities of the system determine whether there is a relationship between them, and the strength of that relationship.

Intrinsic alone maybe was not the right word, let me rephrase: 'Effectiveness is so strongly related to efficiency in the context of martial arts, that not to consider the relationship would be deterimental when developing a new martial arts system'.

In terms of martial arts on the scale of one movement, efficiency and effectiveness can remain separate. But under application in the context of an entire martial they become strongly related. So strongly in fact, that it is difficult to promote one without the other.

On the scale of one movement, you can be really efficient, minimising the amount of energy used to achieve whatever movement you desire. But if that movement is ineffective in contributing to the uptimate goal of overcoming an opponent, then on a macro scale the energy of that movement is wasted and therefore the macro level system is inefficient. Energy is used that does not contribute to the overall purpose.

So anyway, while I acknowledge in pure form that the concepts are seperate and discrete, it depends on your frame of reference. Micro or macro.

I'm not contesting separate concepts, I'm contesting separate application to a macro system without acknowledgement of the relationship.

 

[wingchun100]

At my school Sifu doesn't mind when a technique is questioned. He knows it will result in the student understanding the style better. I've been very fortunate in that most of my classmates understand we are in a learning environment, not out on the street. They know that the time to act like a "brawler" can come later when they have a good grasp on the style.

The only thing I wasn't a fan of was when I let Sifu know I'd like to open my own school someday, and he said you aren't supposed to open your own school in the same area as your Sifu out of respect. Well, I have kids that I don't have custody of and see only on weekends...so I don't know how far away he expects me to move to be "respectful." Personally, I think it was because he lost his day job and makes his living only from his martial arts teaching...so he doesn't want anyone stepping on his toes, especially since he is the only game in town for wing chun.

But it's all a moot point anyway. I live a 15 minute drive from the Massachusetts border. So when I want to open my own school, I'll just cross the state line to do it!

 

[drop bear]

And not slower? I took breaks from training a few times for several weeks and once I got back to training I was actually faster than after constant training for several months. You never had this experience?
I figured especially the extra muscles building up to buffer up the "snap" effect in moves like hard straight punches and kicks may be the reason?

Doesn't work like that. Ever seen a hundred meter sprinter. They have big legs.

 

[drop bear]

OK, in terms of pure reason and logic they are separate concepts to be applied. As soon as you apply them to a system, the qualities of the system determine whether there is a relationship between them, and the strength of that relationship.

Intrinsic alone maybe was not the right word, let me rephrase: 'Effectiveness is so strongly related to efficiency in the context of martial arts, that not to consider the relationship would be deterimental when developing a new martial arts system'.

In terms of martial arts on the scale of one movement, efficiency and effectiveness can remain separate. But under application in the context of an entire martial they become strongly related. So strongly in fact, that it is difficult to promote one without the other.

On the scale of one movement, you can be really efficient, minimising the amount of energy used to achieve whatever movement you desire. But if that movement is ineffective in contributing to the uptimate goal of overcoming an opponent, then on a macro scale the energy of that movement is wasted and therefore the macro level system is inefficient. Energy is used that does not contribute to the overall purpose.

So anyway, while I acknowledge in pure form that the concepts are seperate and discrete, it depends on your frame of reference. Micro or macro.

I'm not contesting separate concepts, I'm contesting separate application to a macro system without acknowledgement of the relationship.

I am not in favor of breaking a whole system but moving outside the box now and then is OK. If a movement doesn't fit the overall phylosophy but works do it.

 

[drop bear]

I think this is key: Gracie had Judo, Ueshiba had Daito ryu, Kano had various jujutsu systems, etc. They had some background in other arts-they didn't create their arts from a vacuum.

They all fought people as well.

Which is a different perspective on what works for you.