S
sweeper
Guest
but at the same time the question arises "is it worth it to practice a particular skill" example: I don't cary #2 pencils with me and I'm genneraly not around them so why should I practice to fight with them?
R
RyuShiKan
Guest
You have obviously taken what I said too literally. Things (conceptual as well as practical) from martial training can be used in everyday life and things from everyday life can be used in martial training. Sorry to be rude/blunt but the statement you made shows a lack of in depth martial knowledge.
Why don't you contemplate what I originally wrote a bit more.
Why don't you contemplate what I originally wrote a bit more.
C
chufeng
Guest
For those of you who think the horse stance is useless...
STOP DOING IT...
Clearly your teachers were just pulling your collective legs.
There is NO value in it, so stop already.
I just had surgery on my right leg...specifically, a high tibial osteotomy...as soon as I can put weight on the darned thing, the first thing I'm going to do is Horse Riding Stance...because I just don't want to break with the tradition of putting myself and my students through so much useless training.
As far as useless on the streeets...I guess you just aren't looking deep enough.
:asian:
chufeng
STOP DOING IT...
Clearly your teachers were just pulling your collective legs.
There is NO value in it, so stop already.
I just had surgery on my right leg...specifically, a high tibial osteotomy...as soon as I can put weight on the darned thing, the first thing I'm going to do is Horse Riding Stance...because I just don't want to break with the tradition of putting myself and my students through so much useless training.
As far as useless on the streeets...I guess you just aren't looking deep enough.
:asian:
chufeng
R
RyuShiKan
Guest
So true......so true..........
S
sweeper
Guest
well as far as martial training goes... I'm a relative newbie. So naturaly I lack depth of knowledge 
.
I think I understood what you were saying, my point wasn't specific to a #2 pencil I just used it as an example because you did. My point is there are aspects of martial training that sometimes can't or won't be applied because of the aspects of an individuals life. as you said "It's not the art but the person.". And when an incompatability arises the individual has to adapt. That means altering their interpretation of the art or altering that aspect of themselves that is incompatable.
.I think I understood what you were saying, my point wasn't specific to a #2 pencil I just used it as an example because you did. My point is there are aspects of martial training that sometimes can't or won't be applied because of the aspects of an individuals life. as you said "It's not the art but the person.". And when an incompatability arises the individual has to adapt. That means altering their interpretation of the art or altering that aspect of themselves that is incompatable.
Matt Stone
Master of Arts
I would agree with that insofar as it applies to those with situations that impact on their training that are beyond their control, such as handicaps, missing limbs, etc.
See comment above for when I would agree with that comment. Beyond those situations, I would disagree. There are no reasons, beyond personal preference, where an art is "incompatible" with a person. Short, fat people can kick high just like tall, skinny people. Just not as high up (they are short after all, and lack the reach). However, a tall, skinny person may feel uncomfortable with that approach, and their preference may be for a grappling art instead. Whatever.
Not necessarily altering the interpretation. Since there was the example of the horse riding stances and their applicability to real fighting, let's go with that for illustration. While it is unlikely that a person would get into a low, hips-level-with-knees horse stance in a "real" fight, it is still a valuable training tool. The legs and hips are strengthened, movement while in an ungainly position is developed making normal movement easier and more controlled, and "root" is developed. While the horse stance itself may seem out of place (though personally I don't think so), the benefits from its practice are not.
Returning to the #2 pencil - I think what RSK is trying to get across is the fact that martial principles go beyond mere technique or tools. The principle of movement applies to regular walking just as much as it does in moving from one classical stance to another. The principles of weapons use are to be applied to empty hand combat. The principles of empty hand combat can be applied to daily interaction with regular people that aren't engaging you in physical combat. The pencil was just an exaggeration of a common, non-martial object finding martial expression through the medium of the MAist's innovation.
The things that people think are best left in the dustbin are, all too often, the things they know the least about. With more practice, I have found at least a dozen things (and I am still working on more) that I had previously thought silly or wasteful to be filled with insight and application. I found that by continuing to practice them until I understood...
Gambatte!
:samurai:
S
sweeper
Guest
when I said
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you are saying that the practice of certain aspects of MA give more benafit than the direct product of such movements(there is more to it than what meats the eye).
If that's the case what I'm trying to say is "is it worth it to practice a particular skill". It has nothing to do with indirect benafit but is the total benafit worth it.
I was refering to people who aren't choosing the martial art over over aspects of dlife (including personal habit) what I meant is if someone doesn't want to use a technique than they shouldn't practice it (unless they plan to use it latter in life). I'm not talking about the posability of a technique being usefull, I'm talking about people who see MA as a hobby not training a technique or weapon to the point of being combat worthy. I'm not saying that some martial arts techniques should be dropped from the practice of that MA at the whim of the practitioner, I'm saying if you aren't going to use it than you shouldn't train it for use. when I say "altering their interpretation " I don't mean there's no point in a shorter stockyer person kicking high, I mean if you are un willing or unable to implament a technique that was designed to be implamented in a fight than you have to look at the art through diffrent eyes. If you are learning to fight from a horce stance, and I mean fight not just practice to fight, than you decide that if you get in a figh you will not drop down into a horce stance and you will fight in some other manner, you do have to adapt and re-interpret what you are doing. That doesn't mean stop practicing from a horce stance, but at the same time if there was another way of practicing that would give you all the same benafits of practicing in a horce stance it would be just as worthy.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you are saying that the practice of certain aspects of MA give more benafit than the direct product of such movements(there is more to it than what meats the eye).
If that's the case what I'm trying to say is "is it worth it to practice a particular skill". It has nothing to do with indirect benafit but is the total benafit worth it.
Absolutely everything can be used as a weapon. I've been taught that even though you haven't "practiced with number two pencils" per se, you still know how to stab, yes?
Take your average dinner table... you've got hot food on plates, wine in glasses, a wine bottle, silverware, and a tablecloth. should you end up in trouble in a restaurant, you can throw the food in someone's face, splash wine in their eyes, break the wine glass and bottle and have edged weapons, and the uses of the silverware is kinda obvious. Even the tablecloth can be a weapon. Throw it over someone's head. If he can't see you, he'll have a hard time fighting you.
Stuff like this got drilled into me when I was a little kid. I learned that you have to:
1. be aware of your surroundings, people, places, things
2. know how to use your surroundings to your advantage.
Frankly, if I'm in a fight and I've got a pencil in my hand, I'm sure as heck not gonna throw it off to one side because I haven't practiced using it. You practice (or at least, you probably should be practicing) eye pokes and throat jabs. It isn't a big alteration to do that with the point of a pencil rather than the point of your finger.
C
chufeng
Guest
May I respectfully suggest that you check out Infinit Insights Vol 2 by Ed Parker. I think you will find that the Horse Stance is far from useless.
Seig,
You clearly missed my point.
Of course there is value in the Horse-riding stance, both in training the legs and in actual combat...
My point was that the student with limited experience should NOT throw the baby out with the bath water simply because he doesn't see the benefit of a particular stance/movement, etc.
One would probably not assume a horse-riding stance to deliver punches straight on at an attacker...but, from a close quarters distance and at an angle there are many applications...hence my comment about Not looking deeply enough.
Sorry for the confusion.
:asian:
chufeng
Seig,
You clearly missed my point.
Of course there is value in the Horse-riding stance, both in training the legs and in actual combat...
My point was that the student with limited experience should NOT throw the baby out with the bath water simply because he doesn't see the benefit of a particular stance/movement, etc.
One would probably not assume a horse-riding stance to deliver punches straight on at an attacker...but, from a close quarters distance and at an angle there are many applications...hence my comment about Not looking deeply enough.
Sorry for the confusion.
:asian:
chufeng
Cruentus
Grandmaster
and hopefully it won't suck.
Actually it is a Martial Art/franchising idea
The Name of my club will be "Bruce Paco's Karate and Taco's"
It will be a fast-food franchise/Karate Dojo. Kinda like a Taco Bell with a Karate Theme.
We can have creative names for food items such as: Tae Kwon hard Taco's; brazillian borrito-jitsu; Ciniman twist-kicks....the possibilities are endless!
We can run specials too...
I can hear it now:
"Can I have a #2 please"
"A number 2; two hard taco's, a medium drink, and 1 free submission technique. Would you like to supersize that to a large drink and complementary groin kick?
"No."
"Thank you, please pull around."
Come on now....50 some odd years ago someone had the grande idea to franchise burgers and fries, and call it "McDonalds"
It's the 21st century, we've got to be innovative.
So....who's with me!!??
Come-on people, work with me....
Actually it is a Martial Art/franchising idea
The Name of my club will be "Bruce Paco's Karate and Taco's"
It will be a fast-food franchise/Karate Dojo. Kinda like a Taco Bell with a Karate Theme.
We can have creative names for food items such as: Tae Kwon hard Taco's; brazillian borrito-jitsu; Ciniman twist-kicks....the possibilities are endless!
We can run specials too...
I can hear it now:
"Can I have a #2 please"
"A number 2; two hard taco's, a medium drink, and 1 free submission technique. Would you like to supersize that to a large drink and complementary groin kick?
"No."
"Thank you, please pull around."
Come on now....50 some odd years ago someone had the grande idea to franchise burgers and fries, and call it "McDonalds"
It's the 21st century, we've got to be innovative.
So....who's with me!!??
Come-on people, work with me....
F
fist of fury
Guest
What comes with the blackbelt pack?
K
Kirk
Guest
Wouldn't that be McBlackbelt?
S
sweeper
Guest
nightingale I think you missed the point of what I was saying, I'm not saying that it would be pointless for me to know how to use a weapon I'm saying it would be pointless to train it specificly, I mean you probably wouldn't dedicate much time to practice throwing food or table cloths, it's just not woth the time. that doesn't mena you cna't do it..
For example I practice kali virtualy any of the hand movements can be done with a weapon, if I were to have a #2 pencil I would probably treat it kind of like a knife, but I wouldn't nessisaraly take a #2 pencil to class to train it..
it comes down to a matter of efficiencie.
What I said was " I don't cary #2 pencils with me and I'm genneraly not around them so why should I practice to fight with them?". I didn't say I will never ever use one, just that I'm genneraly not near them, and if one was available and it was the best choice it's pritty obvious it would be advantagious to use it. My point wasn't that because I don't cary a pencil it isn't a weapon but rather because they aren't redaly available I won't train it specificly because my time will be better spent training something else.
For example I practice kali virtualy any of the hand movements can be done with a weapon, if I were to have a #2 pencil I would probably treat it kind of like a knife, but I wouldn't nessisaraly take a #2 pencil to class to train it..
it comes down to a matter of efficiencie.
What I said was " I don't cary #2 pencils with me and I'm genneraly not around them so why should I practice to fight with them?". I didn't say I will never ever use one, just that I'm genneraly not near them, and if one was available and it was the best choice it's pritty obvious it would be advantagious to use it. My point wasn't that because I don't cary a pencil it isn't a weapon but rather because they aren't redaly available I won't train it specificly because my time will be better spent training something else.
Matt Stone
Master of Arts
I think it is very common these days to try to second guess one's art and to think at a certain time that we understand enough about it to pick and choose what parts we train or don't train...
I think it is also very common, especially in what seems to be an era of martial arts innovation what with the rush of newly founded "new and improved" styles popping up every day, for people to think they know better than all the instructors that have come before, as well as the decades to centuries of experience and experimentation that went before us...
Folks love to quote Brucie Boy with his whole "take what is useful" nonsense, but what they seemingly fail to realize is that he did absolutely nothing that had not been done by someone else, somewhere else, somewhen else... He just got his opinions published while others didn't...
Now, I'm not saying that every art is a perfect vehicle in and of itself, and simply studying your one single art in more depth will suffice to teach you all there is to know about armed and unarmed combat. If for no other reason, that simply fails the logic test (if there were multiple arts that all taught 100% of everything there is to know about fighting, they wouldn't be separate arts now, would they?).
But.
There are those folks out there that reach a certain level of competence in their chosen styles, and they begin examining what they are practicing and training with a very critical eye. The problem, though, is that critical eye lacks the perspective of history.
It was commented on elsewhere that nothing has really changed all that much from several hundred years ago. "It is more violent now, so things are worse today than in the past!" Not really. There are more people today than 500 years ago, so our crime statistics look pretty imposing due to the ratio of crime to population, but we also have better law enforcement than 500 years ago, so in comparison today is actually a bit safer. "There were roving groups of bandits and thieves in the past, and so many people had weapons that the past must be worse!" Not really. There are roving bandits now, we just call them by different names (what are gangbangers, after all, other than bandits and hoodlums?), and lots of people are armed these days (and the gangs are packing automatic weapons, and are often better armed than the police), probably just as many if not more than in the past (think of all the thugs walking the streets packing Saturday Night Specials, the folks armed with knives of all sorts - I carry at least three at any time...). So in comparison today is actually a bit more dangerous...
So who are we to necessarily say what is to be deleted from our training and what is to be added?
It has been my meager experience that when you think you have it, you really don't. The person that thinks they are a saint is often furthest from the truth. The person that thinks they know all there is to know needs to do a little more reading. Likewise, in martial arts, the person that begins thinking they can determine what is appropriate or inappropriate might just need a little more training...
We need to practice with everything we can get our hands on, in as many ways as possible, in as many settings as we can think of. Sure, it is time consuming. Sure, if we are working toward another goal then perhaps training in something that doesn't necessarily follow that direction may seem to be taking away from the pursuit of that goal. But in my humble opinion, everything we do is heading toward the same goal, and to limit that pursuit by chasing only one set of skills, or one technique or form to master, cheapens the development of the whole.
We can argue at great length the value of certain aspects of all our respective arts when placed in certain situations. BJJ is great for one on one, but less useful for multiple attackers. Bagua is great with multiple attackers, but circle walking doesn't necessarily have a direct impact on ground fighting. But would that therefore mean since the Bagua man sees ground fighting as extraneous to his pursuit of ultimate Bagua ability, he should never consider training in such grappling situations? Hardly, and I doubt anyone here would argue that point...
Train everything as often as you can, in as many ways as you can imagine. Only then will your training really develop. I hacked on Brucie Boy earlier, but I will admit that one thing he did do for martial arts was to emphasize the definite need for an innovative approach to comprehensive and holistic training.
So, would you like fries with that?
I think it is also very common, especially in what seems to be an era of martial arts innovation what with the rush of newly founded "new and improved" styles popping up every day, for people to think they know better than all the instructors that have come before, as well as the decades to centuries of experience and experimentation that went before us...
Folks love to quote Brucie Boy with his whole "take what is useful" nonsense, but what they seemingly fail to realize is that he did absolutely nothing that had not been done by someone else, somewhere else, somewhen else... He just got his opinions published while others didn't...
Now, I'm not saying that every art is a perfect vehicle in and of itself, and simply studying your one single art in more depth will suffice to teach you all there is to know about armed and unarmed combat. If for no other reason, that simply fails the logic test (if there were multiple arts that all taught 100% of everything there is to know about fighting, they wouldn't be separate arts now, would they?).
But.
There are those folks out there that reach a certain level of competence in their chosen styles, and they begin examining what they are practicing and training with a very critical eye. The problem, though, is that critical eye lacks the perspective of history.
It was commented on elsewhere that nothing has really changed all that much from several hundred years ago. "It is more violent now, so things are worse today than in the past!" Not really. There are more people today than 500 years ago, so our crime statistics look pretty imposing due to the ratio of crime to population, but we also have better law enforcement than 500 years ago, so in comparison today is actually a bit safer. "There were roving groups of bandits and thieves in the past, and so many people had weapons that the past must be worse!" Not really. There are roving bandits now, we just call them by different names (what are gangbangers, after all, other than bandits and hoodlums?), and lots of people are armed these days (and the gangs are packing automatic weapons, and are often better armed than the police), probably just as many if not more than in the past (think of all the thugs walking the streets packing Saturday Night Specials, the folks armed with knives of all sorts - I carry at least three at any time...). So in comparison today is actually a bit more dangerous...
So who are we to necessarily say what is to be deleted from our training and what is to be added?
It has been my meager experience that when you think you have it, you really don't. The person that thinks they are a saint is often furthest from the truth. The person that thinks they know all there is to know needs to do a little more reading. Likewise, in martial arts, the person that begins thinking they can determine what is appropriate or inappropriate might just need a little more training...
We need to practice with everything we can get our hands on, in as many ways as possible, in as many settings as we can think of. Sure, it is time consuming. Sure, if we are working toward another goal then perhaps training in something that doesn't necessarily follow that direction may seem to be taking away from the pursuit of that goal. But in my humble opinion, everything we do is heading toward the same goal, and to limit that pursuit by chasing only one set of skills, or one technique or form to master, cheapens the development of the whole.
We can argue at great length the value of certain aspects of all our respective arts when placed in certain situations. BJJ is great for one on one, but less useful for multiple attackers. Bagua is great with multiple attackers, but circle walking doesn't necessarily have a direct impact on ground fighting. But would that therefore mean since the Bagua man sees ground fighting as extraneous to his pursuit of ultimate Bagua ability, he should never consider training in such grappling situations? Hardly, and I doubt anyone here would argue that point...
Train everything as often as you can, in as many ways as you can imagine. Only then will your training really develop. I hacked on Brucie Boy earlier, but I will admit that one thing he did do for martial arts was to emphasize the definite need for an innovative approach to comprehensive and holistic training.
So, would you like fries with that?
S
sweeper
Guest
originaly all I meant to say was if for whatever reason you don't think you are going to use it, there isn't much point in training it...
I don't mean if you aren't good enough at it so you won't use it you should stop training in it, but there are some things people just won't use, doesn't matter why, but if it isn't going o be used than why train it?
I'm not saying someone should second guess their instructor or create a new style..
I don't mean if you aren't good enough at it so you won't use it you should stop training in it, but there are some things people just won't use, doesn't matter why, but if it isn't going o be used than why train it?
I'm not saying someone should second guess their instructor or create a new style..
R
RyuShiKan
Guest
To quote something I read in Go Rin No Sho: To know one thing well is to know ten thousand..... I am not sure if Musashi was the first to say it but it is still true today.
Interesting post Yiliquan1. I know that my experience with Uechi-Ryu was to think "cool but worthless in a fight" for the year + I was studying it, but now, years later, I more and more see the wisdom built into it. It can take quite a while to see the logic behind the techniques! Filipino systems tend to teach principles first, and so you can more easily judge the system--other systems have you eke out the principles through years of practice and so when you get them you really "get" them, because you sweated for it.
People "dis" arts much too easily nowadays. I do believe that some styles simply suck, but many are great for the right person and the right type of threat.
People "dis" arts much too easily nowadays. I do believe that some styles simply suck, but many are great for the right person and the right type of threat.
