nolimitskarate - who has the closed mind?

[nolimitskarate]

Originally posted by jubaji


"Wrested"?

Does that mean you took it easy?

Sorry didn't proof read - meant wrestled - although "rested" may have applied to one to many classes -

[jubaji]

[nolimitskarate]

OK - this is what I see as a summary of the debate thus far (some ideas have been pulled from other threads.)

1) I believe that learning the basics is important and that there are various ways to do this – I think we both can agree on this – and that further training is needed in addition to this.

2) I believe that Katas are valid – however, since the Katas thread got shut down I will assume that this subject has been beat to death and will leave it alone.

3) I see the validity in one step / three step sparring, simulated self-defense situations, etc ….. – however, I think we can both agree that the closer to real life a simulation is the better. This applies to contact sparring, grappling, self-defense etc …..

4) I do not consider one form of martial arts superior to another – I think that the there is validity to most of the methods and techniques and that the benefits come from the intensity and frequency of the training – you get out what you put in. (your take on this?)

5) You think I have a closed mind – I think you have a closed mind. Actually – I don’t think either of us has a closed mind, there are just certain areas that we disagree on vehemently – you won’t convince me and I won’t convince you ……….

So, I think on certain things we will agree – and others we will not, and that’s just the way it is – doesn’t make either of us necessarily right or wrong – just differing opinions.

Makes for good debate though ………

-----------------------/ Respect

[Thai Bri]

1. I agree, if those basics are done in a realistic way. Against people, or bags etc. Not thin air, not marching about.

2. Has it been shut down? Anyway, imagine a Firearms Officer training a pre set scenario in a robotic way without even having a gun in his hands. That is Kata and, as such, is useless.

3. Agreed, as long as they are not robotic affairs, where the distance is all wrong to the extent that many attacks wouldn't hit the defender anyway - like 99% of the one and three step sparring I've seen.

4. I totally disagree. Many arts are useless, diluted, money making nonsense arts that actually train people to be ineffective. They do not all have somthing of use to offer.

5. I won't convince you. Since I have been in the position you are now, I suppose I realise that you will just have to find these things out for yourself.

Respect.....

[nolimitskarate]

4. I totally disagree. Many arts are useless, diluted, money making nonsense arts that actually train people to be ineffective. They do not all have somthing of use to offer.

I agree that many instructors / schools are $$$ makers only and really don't care about the well being of there students, or for that matter the quality of there are - I won't argue that point at all.

Let me re-state my point by saying that Many arts offer something not necessarily all arts.

[ryanhall]

I think I'll throw in my two cents for a second here. I actually feel that most arts offer less than nothing in terms of practical fighing ability. Crazy stances, useless maneuvers, poor training methods, and no contact. Even adding contact, the nonsense that they train can't be pulled off against anybody who resists even the slightest bit.

That has been my experience and the experience of countless others. Some people are effective despite their art. But that is based upon the person.

Well, that's what I think.

[Toudiyama[NL]]

Agree with you there Ryan, but have to add that this is true for both traditional and modern arts
I believe a lot of people are thinking that just training with ciontact but not spending time on specific selfdefence sutuations, will still make good selfdefence, they do not seem to understand that SD is preventing a fight, if it turns into a fight, your SD wasn't good, your fighting skills are.

In my country legaly it is only selfdefence if the violence you use is in relation to the attack and this is even more so for Martial Artists

Oh and not only the person also the intensity of his training and adaptation to the rules is what make them excell, the very best of them can switch to a set of rules in no time

[IPON]

I have a comment which, I will admit may sound naive. But my feeling, generally, is that ALL MAs have value in the sense that they all have techniquies to maim and kill.

With that said I do agree with everyone becuase my therapist says I need to be politically correct and make more friends

Seriously, the problem is realistic training I think not only at the school but outside of class. I also think one variable that is missing, it is not possible to teach somone to have the eye of the tiger, to have the stomach or heart for real fighting or the preparation for those encounters. I am not talking about fighting just for fighting Imean SD.

"Crazy stances, useless maneuvers, poor training methods"

I don't completely disagree with you here. The point of of these methods I have always viewed as tools to prepare mind and body and then be disgarded. Similar to what william Esper told me about using the Meisner technique for acting.....learn the technique, absorb then throw away. So I never locked myself into the robotic mentality that Bri talks about

"and no contact. Even adding contact, the nonsense that they train can't be pulled off against anybody who resists even the slightest bit."

I have a 2 part problem with this (not with what you are saying Ryan):

1. Going back to what I said about having heart...there are alot of people that simply are not interested in training hard, which is frustrating. so I don't know if it is the techniques per se or just like you say the method of training and committments of the dents.

2. My biggest pet peeve, unqualified (in terms of rank) instructors that perpetuate crap and further weaken the art: I think this is a huge problem for a teacher. I am not saying if you and I were to share ideas I mean you are a 1st dan (or lower) and open a school. I agree with you regarding SD, but the point is that most instructors are not even teaching the respective style correctly.

I knew a lady that blamed TKD for her back problems. When questioned her I found that she liked the idea of not having to use a title (master XYZ or Sensi something" and used they guys first name. He convinced her that belts were not important and then I find he only had a Brown belt...for the sake of brevity.....the techniques that were taught were sub par and that's why she was injured. I think teaching is a huge responsibility and should only be completed by people that are qualified (usually 4-5 dan) and that have the mentality for it. I recived instructor stautus in JKD but I thought it was crap, plus I didn't feel I was truely able to teach all of effectively though I could use it.


Anyway, I am way off topic so I will stop now.

[Greenthink]

Originally posted by jubaji
So now you have graduated from a little idiot, to a little mental patient. Good work okama.

Why how big are you? Is that what your problem is ?

[nolimitskarate]

K Thai Bri -

Seems that we have deviated from the point of the thread - shall we move on to something else and let the kids play?

[Szczepankiewicz]

they all have techniquies to maim and kill.

And therein lies the problem. How often do you get to test out the techniques to maim and kill???

Tai Gip got punked for this crap as well.

In my primary 'kung fu' style there are many many techniques that can result in 'breaking' or 'maiming' or 'killing' someone. Most of those derive from the parent arts (Chuan Fa, Tae Kyon, Jujutsu, and Chin Na) But they are only possible outcomes. If I drop you on your face there is a chance you might break something critical. But that's not to say it's always going to work. And we certainly don't practice it that way.

Last week I went to watch Coidman in a Shaolin demo at the local college. His instructor and a bunch of other blackbelts were there and it was a set of traditional style kata.

Personally I wouldn't go to a generic Kung Fu school to train after I have learned what I know. But this particular instructor has a very good outlook on the kung fu training. He emphasized that all of the techniques could be translated into self-defense situations.

He teaches the traditional art while fully aware of it's strength and weaknesses. But to keep the art whole you have to teach the entire thing. You can't pick and choose what you want to pass along or the art dies a slow death.

I've trained with or talked at length with Wing Chun, Shaolin, Shotokan, Aikido, Judo, EP Kenpo and Dillman stylists. Each art has holes. Each art has strengths.

The key is that to a man, the people I have talked to are open minded and aware of what they can and cannot do, irregardless of the style(s) in which they train.

I could lay the smackdown on a lot of them in MMA, but I wouldn't wanna deal with them on 'the street' if I could avoid it.

Which of course, when I run away screaming like a little English Tart, I avoid violence very well!



Spanky

[Thai Bri]

"Each art has holes."

Yes. Spunker has made a detailed study of this. So much so he is now internationally recognised as a Master of Arts-Holes.

[choylifutrocks]

Originally posted by Szczepankiewicz

Personally I wouldn't go to a generic Kung Fu school to train after I have learned what I know. But this particular instructor has a very good outlook on the kung fu training. He emphasized that all of the techniques could be translated into self-defense situations.

Which style of Kung Fu is your primary style?

[jubaji]

Originally posted by Greenthink


Why how big are you? Is that what your problem is ?

How 'small' you are is the problem, numbskull.

[Tom Yum]

Originally posted by jubaji


How 'small' you are is the problem, numbskull.

Yeah those cold showers......WHAT?? WHO TOLD YOU?