Wide stances and ending your forms on the same spot

[jobo]

You are correct. The term “art” in martial arts means skill and method. It is not meant as aesthetically pleasing artistic endeavor.

well then all art is skill and method at its core, it's safe to say an unskilled ballet dancer with no method isn't an artist by that definition. its aesthetic qualities come from skill and method and the level of aesthetic appeal can only be measured by how many people find it aesthetically pleasing

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

If you are only training for combat then most anytime spent in a martial art is a poor use of your time.

Don't understand what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that martial art training cannot improve combat skill?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

well it certainly is, fine art is just the term refined and only applied to thing they consider art, whilst excluding things THEY dont approve of.

which is exactly the same process as he is doing, if ballet doesn't work for you, let's take a musical performance show on Broadway, the high brow wont consider that fine art. but its certainly art, which is judged in the same way as soccer

No "certainly" about it. The word has different connotations. If you attempt to make them all the same, you lose much of the meaning in some of the phrases. And changing which performance art you look at doesn't change that that's a different type of "art" than the "art" in "martial arts".

 

[Gerry Seymour]

well then all art is skill and method at its core, it's safe to say an unskilled ballet dancer with no method isn't an artist by that definition. its aesthetic qualities come from skill and method and the level of aesthetic appeal can only be measured by how many people find it aesthetically pleasing

That's reasonable. The base of the word (without some of the deeper connotations used in "fine art" and "performance art") is the same across those activities.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Don't understand what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that martial art training cannot improve combat skill?

I think he's saying there are faster ways to train for fighting than a traditional art. I'd agree.

 

[Earl Weiss]

if your extending that definition to include kata,then theres no element of the definition that doesn't equally apply to soccer. both have an element of athletic performance in them m both can be aesthetically pleasing. both have interpretation and creativity.

Depends. If you are using a system that defines technical parameters for technique (Length of stances, level of techniques, how various techniques are performed, usually as solo practice - no opponent) No similar elements are present or help you "Win" in soccer. The sole parameters are scoring points against an opponent within the rule set.

 

[Earl Weiss]

arts like ballet isn't formally judged either, its judge d by " professional critics" who write reviews , as is soccer and its judged by the crowd who are prepared to part with a significant amount of money to watch as is soccer.

I've seen many a poor, but winning soccer performance booed , you can't get much more of a firmal feed back than that

1. I submit that the "Crowd" is far different than professional critics. Professional critics often pan movies that are hugely successful.
2. Your experience is far different. Unless you refer to the non home team crowd booing winning visitors I don't see many winning performances boo'd

 

[Earl Weiss]

I think he's saying there are faster ways to train for fighting than a traditional art. I'd agree.

Yes Sir.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Doesn't seem to be much point in debating what I posted at #132 concerning no agreement on how terms re defined:

"You have chosen to consider an athletic sport performance an "Art" which of course is your right and highlights the issue since there is no agreement as to how the term is defined . "Though the definition of what constitutes art is disputed[5][6][7] and has changed over time, general descriptions mention an idea of imaginative or technical skill stemming from human agency[8] and creation.[9] The nature of art and related concepts, such as creativity and interpretation, are explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics" From Wikepedia. (Emphasis supplied)
It is impossible to have an effective discussion if people do not agree how terms are defined"

 

[jobo]

1. I submit that the "Crowd" is far different than professional critics. Professional critics often pan movies that are hugely successful.
2. Your experience is far different. Unless you refer to the non home team crowd booing winning visitors I don't see many winning performances boo'd

you've clearly never been to old Trafford's, in the last couple of years. the teams been booed win draw or lose because of the lack of aesthetic, and that was as nothing to the booing that went on at everton last season.
and indeed they are different but soccer has professional critics, called pundits, generally explayers being paid to critique performances on the TV or the press. and as soon as your being paid to critique something, your a professional critic

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I think he's saying there are faster ways to train for fighting than a traditional art. I'd agree.

Yes Sir.

I have to disagree with both of you here. All my life, I have tried to find the "faster ways". If there is a faster way, I would like to learn it myself.

If you train this traditional art partner drill over 10,000 times, you will develop this skill. How and where can you find a "faster way" than this?

If you twist this sand container 10,000 times, you will develop strong twisting power used in wrestling. How and where can you find a "faster way" than this?

Please tell me if you can find any modern gym equipment that can help you to achieve this goal.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I have to disagree with both of you here. All my life, I have tried to find the "faster ways". If there is a faster way, I would like to learn it myself.

If you train this traditional art partner drill over 10,000 times, you will develop this skill. How and where can you find a "faster way" than this?

If you twist this sand container 10,000 times, you will develop strong twisting power used in wrestling. How and where can you find a "faster way" than this?

Please tell me if you can find any modern gym equipment that can help you to achieve this goal.

If I don't worry about the classical curriculum, I can develop fighting skill (in most people) more quickly to a higher competence. This is what we see in many MMA gyms and boxing gyms. How big that difference is will depend upon the person (where they start, how well they respond, and how much they enjoy the training). But overall, in my opinion and experience, TMA training is not usually the fastest method to fight competency. I don't think it's an order of magnitude difference. I've heard descriptions of training (not experienced it myself) that would be an order of magnitude slower (spending 6 months just learning a stance, focusing entirely on a single form or set of forms for a year or more before sparring, etc.).

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

If I don't worry about the classical curriculum, I can develop fighting skill (in most people) more quickly to a higher competence.

The issue is not the "traditional art" but the "traditional striking art".

Old Chinese saying said, "3 years of striking art training cannot match with 1 year of wrestling art training".

When A still trains the solo form, B has already wrestled on the mat. When A still punches into the thin air, B has already used his opponent's body weight to develop strength.

The day when the striking art takes the wrestling art approach (try to master 1 technique at a time), the day that this issue will no longer exist. If you spend 6 months just in "kick and 3 punches", you should be able to develop excellent fighting ability later on.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The issue is not the "traditional art" but the "traditional striking art".

Old Chinese saying said, "3 years of striking art training cannot match with 1 year of wrestling art training".

When A still trains the solo form, B has already wrestled on the mat. When A still punches into the thin air, B has already used his opponent's body weight to develop strength.

The day when the striking art takes the wrestling art approach, the day that this issue will no longer exist.

That's an over-generalization, on both sides. There are Japanese arts that have a grappling focus, but do not typically move quickly to that "wrestling on the mat" phase.

My point is that if we average things (and that's all we can really do, if we talk about "traditional" training, since there's such a huge range of things that fall into that term), then traditional Eastern training (I'm not much familiar with traditional Western methods) isn't going to be as fast to combat effectiveness as the modern methods seen around boxing, MMA, etc.

 

[dvcochran]

I have to disagree with both of you here. All my life, I have tried to find the "faster ways". If there is a faster way, I would like to learn it myself.

If you train this traditional art partner drill over 10,000 times, you will develop this skill. How and where can you find a "faster way" than this?

If you twist this sand container 10,000 times, you will develop strong twisting power used in wrestling. How and where can you find a "faster way" than this?

Please tell me if you can find any modern gym equipment that can help you to achieve this goal.

I have no doubt what you say is true. However, what I hear you saying is that there is only one way to learn and that no one can learn any quicker, or better than you. There are exceptions in every aspect of life. I try to teach to the highest level of the exceptional I have had the privilege to work with. Not everyone can reach that level but we should all swing for the fences. There will always be some who learn your 10,000 movement practice even better in just 1,000 movements. It is an incredible thing to see.

 

[jobo]

That's an over-generalization, on both sides. There are Japanese arts that have a grappling focus, but do not typically move quickly to that "wrestling on the mat" phase.

My point is that if we average things (and that's all we can really do, if we talk about "traditional" training, since there's such a huge range of things that fall into that term), then traditional Eastern training (I'm not much familiar with traditional Western methods) isn't going to be as fast to combat effectiveness as the modern methods seen around boxing, MMA, etc.

I'm not sure that's true, or has to be true 3ven if that is a common experience and clearly depend on what units of time your using and what constitutes combat effectiveness.

enough technique s required to say reach yellow belt, generally no more than 12 months should be sufficient to call yourself combat ready. or if your not the fault lies with you and not the lack of technique.

I'd suggest 5he learning curve for basic boxing proficiency would be much the same, with the same caviete on personal issues.

if boxing has an advantage its it tends to have combat as part of the learning where many trad ma do not. that may be the real difference.

of course if you project forward, someone could be 7 years into a trad art and still not experienced combat, so in that case its isn't so a much " longer in the learning" so much as will never happen at all

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'm not sure that's true, or has to be true 3ven if that is a common experience and clearly depend on what units of time your using and what constitutes combat effectiveness.

enough technique s required to say reach yellow belt, generally no more than 12 months should be sufficient to call yourself combat ready. or if your not the fault lies with you and not the lack of technique.

I said nothing about lack of techniques. In fact, I suggested quite the opposite: that limiting the number of techniques gets to fight effectiveness more quickly. So either I'm misreading your point, or you misread mine. I'm really not sure which.

I'd suggest 5he learning curve for basic boxing proficiency would be much the same, with the same caviete on personal issues.

I agree there's a similar learning curve...with the same approach to training. But if a style focuses significantly on forms (which can happen in TMA, since there are more purposes in play than just fighting skill), that will delay the learning of application.

if boxing has an advantage its it tends to have combat as part of the learning where many trad ma do not. that may be the real difference.

That's actually my original point. My point here about boxing was that I could get someone to fight effectiveness faster in a broader area of combat with hand/arm strikes than with grappling. This is a natural advantage for boxing.

of course if you project forward, someone could be 7 years into a trad art and still not experienced combat, so in that case its isn't so a much " longer in the learning" so much as will never happen at all

Agreed.

 

[jobo]

I said nothing about lack of techniques. In fact, I suggested quite the opposite: that limiting the number of techniques gets to fight effectiveness more quickly. So either I'm misreading your point, or you misread mine. I'm really not sure which.


I agree there's a similar learning curve...with the same approach to training. But if a style focuses significantly on forms (which can happen in TMA, since there are more purposes in play than just fighting skill), that will delay the learning of application.


That's actually my original point. My point here about boxing was that I could get someone to fight effectiveness faster in a broader area of combat with hand/arm strikes than with grappling. This is a natural advantage for boxing.


Agreed.

just limits technique s doesn5 get you their faster, if you limit them to one, they will learn it quickly, buts its combat efficiency will be somewhat limit. you clearly have to have sufficient technique to fight and that's going to be in the order of 10 to 20 no matter what you learn

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I have no doubt what you say is true. However, what I hear you saying is that there is only one way to learn and that no one can learn any quicker, or better than you. There are exceptions in every aspect of life. I try to teach to the highest level of the exceptional I have had the privilege to work with. Not everyone can reach that level but we should all swing for the fences. There will always be some who learn your 10,000 movement practice even better in just 1,000 movements. It is an incredible thing to see.

I'm talking about training method. I'm not talking about individual difference.

If you want to learn

- throwing skill, you will need to throw your opponent over and over.
- punching skill, you will need to punch on your opponent over and over. The issue is this is difficult to do.

The throwing art training has natural advantage over the striking art training.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

just limits technique s doesn5 get you their faster, if you limit them to one, they will learn it quickly, buts its combat efficiency will be somewhat limit. you clearly have to have sufficient technique to fight and that's going to be in the order of 10 to 20 no matter what you learn

I know a guy who trained hip throw only for 2 years. He won the champion in the national tournament.

I had forced myself to use just "single leg" for 6 months. In one Chicago tournament, I used that technique to win 7 rounds in a role.

When you force yourself to use just 1 technique, you have to force yourself to set up your technique from all different situations.