Do you study martial arts?

[Wolvorine]

Oddly enough, I've discovered that Master Shin (my instructor) is usually dead on when I question him about whether the "proper" form is also the most effective.

Generally, it turns out that I am doing them wrong. Go fig. <g>

*Nods* If the teacher's right, that's even better. Sadly, this one wasn't. It was always obvious these were competition-teachers, not martial artists.

I have heard that Hapkido emphasizes fighting with a cane as well, but I don't think Master Shin teaches weapons (although his gym is chock full of every manner of sharp, pointy, or bashing object you can think of).

Interesting, as someone who carries a cane for equal parts neccesity and weapon, I'd be interested in some of that, thanks.

 

[barsoomcore]

Pit fighting is the term, but the movies NEVER get it right...ever. It's much more of a business environment. The fights are brutal and injuries DO occur quite often, but everyone is business like and professional.

Interesting. Where did you fight and how much money did you make in those 5 years? How did you get into the business and are you still involved?

More interesting, to me, why did you do it? Did you enjoy it?

 

[Wolvorine]

Well, it sounds like you asked in a confrontational way. Perhaps you didn't, but from your description, it sounds like you came in determined to prove that you were smarter than the instructor -- which sort of defeats the purpose of having an instructor at all.

Oh no, I went to learn. I had simply learned by the time of this incident just how little they had to give. I asked with a smile, in a friendly manner (it was actually intended as a legitimate question at the time, how do you want us to do these?). I didn't find it funny until after her reaction was so.. childish.

As for the question itself, I can see both sides. Sometimes you want to get students hitting as hard as they can, working up a sweat, while other times you want them to focus on wrist position.

However, at a certain belt level, there is no difference. The niceties of the form are there to help you hit harder.

There's always a difference. I was basically asking "Do you want me to do punches that would work if I were in a real fight, or punches that would look pretty to anyone looking in the windows". I was fully expecting, at the time, to get a logical answer and do them however I was asked. I mean it was obviousl an exersize intended to as a muscle and cardio workout, and a drill on punching -- but the topic of style vs. effective had come up in the past (non-confrontationally), so it seemed a logical question.

I like this thread, this is fun.

 

[takyris]

There's always a difference...

but the topic of style vs. effective had come up in the past (non-confrontationally), so it seemed a logical question.

Hm. I disagree. For a beginner, yes, of course there's a difference, just like when a baseball player gets trained by a batting coach, and has to change his swing -- there's always that point where he can swing harder "the old way" than he could in the new way he's learning. But once you reach a certain point, doing the punch cleanly and doing it hard are one and the same.

The path for me, at least, was as follows:

White Belt: You want me to what? I can hit harder if I just throw the punch out there instead of doing this step and pivot and turn the waist and punch deal.

Blue Belt: Ah, now I'm getting power out of the waist movements. I can punch a whole lot harder if I do it from the right stance.

Brown Belt: Okay, now I can learn how to generate the same waist motion without doing the big steps, so I can do a powerful punch without having to be in the same stance all the time.

That's all a gross oversimplification, but for me, that's roughly how it went. At this point in my training, there's no reason for me to do a sloppy punch. I don't get anything out of a sloppy punch, and I wouldn't use one on the street.

What I WOULD do on the street, punchwise:

Back-knuckle
Jab
Straight punch
Inverted punch
Hook

(off top of head -- and those are pure punches, knuckles-hitting-bad-guy strikes, without the palm strikes and rakes and such)

With those strikes, there are also a variety of movements. I can do a back-knuckle while retreating, I can do a hook while moving in, I can do a lunging straight punch, etc. Some work better than others, but any combination of movement and punching type could potentially have a use.

So I would never practice a wild lunge, but I might practice a lunging straight punch. And I would make it as clean as a standing straight punch. It would probably generate more power because of the forward motion.

But if the teacher said, "practice your punches, step and punch to the wall and back," I wouldn't default to lunging punches, since she did say stepping, yes? That she said "stepping" would imply that what she was trying to get people to practice was getting power from the waist with the step.

So right now, based on what I know, your argument wasn't actually style versus effectiveness. Your argument was stepping versus lunging, or straight punches versus hooking punches. If I were teaching a class and someone insisted that a lunging punch were inherently more effective than a stepping punch, and that a stepping punch was therefore just an example of niceties of the form as opposed to what one would really use, I would politely disagree.

But basically I wasn't there, I don't know you, and I don't know the teacher. As a teacher, I've had a lot of beginning students inform me that their way of punching is better than my way of punching. They have, to a man, been wrong. So that was my default opinion.

Now that I think about it, I suppose that there CAN be a difference between style and effectiveness -- in that sometimes you want to practice one more than the other. I will sometimes slow down my katas to check and see if they're still clean at lower speeds. And I will sometimes go faster than I normally, putting more energy into the moves. But that's just what you're focusing on during practice. And the fast, high-energy one isn't inherently more effective than the slower, style-focused one.

On the street, a fast wild swing is little better than a slow controlled punch. What you want is a fast, controlled punch. You want style AND effectiveness. That style might not be as much fun, but it's there to keep you from overextending your arm, hyperextending your arm, pulling muscles or hurting tendons in your arm, telegraphing your attack to your opponent, or leaving yourself unguarded while attacking.

I like this thread, this is fun.

I'm really glad it hasn't devolved into which style is better. I hate that.

-Tacky

PS: Please allow me to reiterate the I-wasn't-there-ness. So I got nothing against you. I'm just debating "punching with attention to form is inherently less effective and not what you'd do on the street."

 

[barsoomcore]

I'm really glad it hasn't devolved into which style is better. I hate that.

Impressionism rocks! You'd never use Neo-Classicism in a REAL fight, seriously dude...

 

[takyris]

I fought a Cubist once. I beat him, but now my nose is sticking out of the side of my head, and my eyes are somehow vertical.

-Tacky

 

[Wolvorine]

Hm. I disagree. For a beginner, yes, of course there's a difference, just like when a baseball player gets trained by a batting coach, and has to change his swing -- there's always that point where he can swing harder "the old way" than he could in the new way he's learning. But once you reach a certain point, doing the punch cleanly and doing it hard are one and the same.

Ahh, here's the problem. It wasn't a 'i know better' ignorant white-belt question or anything. I was a white belt yes, but not an ignorant one. *grins* I'm just very self-aware, I know my body's natural positioning when I throw a punch (which is a fair match for technically proper). I actually did end up doing them 'right' (along with my partner, a green belt in Wadu Ryu some years back), and afterward she was apparently obliged to admit that they were correct, solid, and effective. I think the real problem was that they were crap teachers. It's very possible that they did want them done right, but didn't have the teaching chops to instruct someone how to do them right. Fairly often my little white-belt self made corrections to the other students (who'd been there longer), because the teacher had left the room for about 20 minutes, and they weren't doing their form right, or didn't understand what the form was intended to simulate (and thus couldn't grasp how to get it right).

The path for me, at least, was as follows:
<snip>
So I would never practice a wild lunge, but I might practice a lunging straight punch. And I would make it as clean as a standing straight punch. It would probably generate more power because of the forward motion.

Oh lord no, wild punches are for goofing off, if then. You just have far, far too small a chance of even hitting a target with a wild punch, it's just silly.

So right now, based on what I know, your argument wasn't actually style versus effectiveness. Your argument was stepping versus lunging, or straight punches versus hooking punches. If I were teaching a class and someone insisted that a lunging punch were inherently more effective than a stepping punch, and that a stepping punch was therefore just an example of niceties of the form as opposed to what one would really use, I would politely disagree.

I think, when it all comes down to it, my arguement (although I couldn't have put it in this light at the time) was basically that they were bad teachers. She showed the punch, and it was sloppy, half-hearted, and she couldn't have blocked a tuna thrown from 20 feet while she was doing it. And so the class started emulating this silly, ineffective punch that was entirely worried about if their stance was properly diagonal, heels set, stop-paused throughout, with no blocking hand in ready throughout the punch, etc. I just kind of refused to do it badly.

But basically I wasn't there, I don't know you, and I don't know the teacher. As a teacher, I've had a lot of beginning students inform me that their way of punching is better than my way of punching. They have, to a man, been wrong. So that was my default opinion.

Oh I agree here. An ignorant beginning white belt is more often than not little more than a smart-ass who can't stop from continually displaying what he doesn't know. By the time I ever got into a class, I had a fair idea of what I was doing. I wouldn't ever infer 'I know all', but I know when a lower-rank move's done wrong.

Now that I think about it, I suppose that there CAN be a difference between style and effectiveness -- in that sometimes you want to practice one more than the other.

Yeah, basically. In actual use, your 'pretty factor' has a strong tendancy to get a bit lax, you're putting the form to it's actual use, not worrying if sensei will walk over and tell you your shoulder was slightly off-center, or yout stance was slightly off, or you didn't kia at the right point. I guess it's which you're focus is on, utilizing the form, or making sure you do it textbook.

((edited multiple times for far too many little goofs))

 

[barsoomcore]

I think the real problem was that they were crap teachers. It's very possible that they did want them done right, but didn't have the teaching chops to instruct someone how to do them right.

Wolvorine, all I can say is that the only appropriate response to crap teacher is to bow and walk away. Showing people up doesn't help anyone, least of all yourself.

It's great that your ability is naturally high and that you're able to help so many students, but honestly, dojo ettiquette exists for really good reasons. As a yellow belt it's not really your place to interfere with the sensei. If you really disagree with what they are teaching (and certainly that happens all the time -- there's no shortage of crap teachers out there) then just leave. In the long run it will save you a lot of trouble.

And so the class started emulating this silly, ineffective punch that was entirely worried about if their stance was properly diagonal, heels set, stop-paused throughout, with no blocking hand in ready throughout the punch, etc. I just kind of refused to do it badly.

I didn't see the form being practiced but over and over again I've been shown forms that looked utterly ridiculous to me, only to find out that they actually make perfect sense. I've found it much more rewarding to always assume I don't understand what I'm seeing when I don't understand what I'm seeing. Rather than assume I'm seeing something being done incorrectly. Then I get taught the ideas behind the movement and as I say, very often I realise I was working from incorrect assumptions.

And almost always the only way to find out is to try doing it sensei's way. Asking questions almost never provides me with useful information.

I want to add that when people tell me how they are really good at something, I tend to wonder why. I wonder why they need to describe themselves that way. When people tell stories about how they were smarter than someone else, or tougher, or stronger -- I wonder what it is that is prompting them to share that with me. What it is that they are so concerned with getting me to believe.

I guess it's which you're focus is on, utilizing the form, or making sure you do it textbook.

The best textbooks are all about utilizing. If you think you can use a form more effectively than the "textbook" method, either you need a new textbook or you're ready to found your own style. Or you're wrong, and in fact if you did it "textbook" you'd be more effective.

EDIT: missed "say" in the first sentence.

 

[Drakmar]

Cool.. one of the things I have found interesting over the years is the different views of sparring..

when I did TKD (Moon Lee - one of the big ones in Australia - more of an "Art" than a fighting style) a few of my friends and I sparred.. and sparred hard.. almost every week one of use would walk or hobble away with an injury of some type. The most important things that the sparring did was teach me how to take a punch/kick and how to read my opponent.. and how to move fast.

then I when I did Wing Chun... there was not really sparring until the higher levels.. but.. the lower level stuff really showed me how to use attack/defend at the same time. And it showed me that I didn't have to kick anymore (I am not particularily found of kicking.. I may have had fantastic flexability when I was 17.. but now.. at 26 without doing a lot of streching, my kicking flex is way down.

More recently.. Hung Gar.. and a couple of the other Kung Fu styles that I have done.. they don't spar. no free sparing.. Mainly because most of the strikes are...dangerous and all sparring does.. it teach you not to use them.. and how to consistently miss.

That is not to say that you don't do any conditioning exercises... heck.. I would have to say that Drunken Fist/Hung Gar/Tong Long have all show me how to train in a very hardcore manner.. lots of pain.. lots of gain. just no sparring.

It all works out well for me.. cause I am more interested in the tradition and the inner power side of things.. and the health benefits..than the styles actual application to a fit.. I have never been in a "real" people get hurt fight. managed to talk or bluff my way out of all of them. My potential opponents seemed to all get nervous by the fact that I wasn't scared.. and by my calm voice.

 

[Silly Orc]

Cool Thread.

My Kung Fu is stronger then your Kung Fu!!!
Tae bo!!! 2 Weeks!!! - j/k
<start slightly more serious mode>
What a great thread, very interesting indeed.

Do you study a martial art?

Sure do.

Which one?

Many many, it's hard to keep track sometimes, but mostly my own bastardized version of old yang style t'ai chi ch'uan, hmmm... over 22 years now.
And before you jump the gun and think you know what I do I'll dispel a few ideas, no, I don't do it for meditation or spiritual, no, I rarely do it slow, and no, I don't care how forms look.
I'm currently mostly involved in my sparing, tui shou, chi sao, chin na, dim mok, touch range strikes and many many weapons, oh how I love my weapons...

Any good stories or experiences to relate?

Mmmm... I donno, even though I've been in a lot of fights and stuff it seems kinda lame to talk about them unless there is a specific point to it.
Maybe, the best thing i've learned is know the limits of what you can do (whether they are stylistic, skill, mental, or physical limits), to both overcome them and to understand how exploit other peoples limits when in combat.

How about some advice for gamers who might want to begin studying for themselves.

Find a style that holds your interest for starters, if you really want to learn about say breaking boards, you probably don't want to do a style that is mostly about throwing people, if you don't like rolling around on the floor don't take Brazilian jujitsu, if you like to dance maybe capuera is for you, in you want to learn about a weapon it's probably not a good idea to focus on an empty hand style.
Ask yourself what do I really want to learn the style for? What do you want to do with it? And maybe more importantly figure out what you don't want to do?
To defend yourself?
To hurt people for fun?
To show off your Leetness?
To help get better coordination?
To cure your hypertension?
To get out of the house?
To hang out with your friends?
To be safer when you fall off your bike?
To jump around like a power ranger?
To become a disciple of a golden god?
To compete in a ring?
There are many arts that can help you do all of these things and more.
It's time to do a little research on your own now.
Cost can be a factor, look at your budget and how much you can afford to spend on a regular basis.
Then find a school that sounds like it might do what you want that is close enough to get to on a regular basis, if it's to hard to get there you'll probably stop going after a while.
Then make sure the teacher isn't to much of a jack azz, check out the class, ask if you can watch what the class is doing from the side for an hour or so to see if this looks like something you want to do, look to see how the teacher treats the students.
Then if it still seems like something you want to be involved in go for it! Just make sure it's going to be enjoyable to you, that's what should really matter.

Here's a question for eveyrone out there.
I don't know when this occurred to me, but it seems that all the martial arts I have seen always wind up with the aggressor losing in any given situation. No matter how we are taught to deal with a situation, we all take advantage of the fact that someone else has committed to a single attack and learn all manner of unfriendly things to do to them.
I suppose this is consistent with the fact that many empty-hand forms grew out of the need to defend one's person and family, but I wonder if there is anyone out there who has been taught the opposite - to initiate an attack, overcome a solid defense, and subdue an opponent.
This is sort of an academic question. I don't think we should all run out and jump people, but I'm interested to see what everyone thinks.
As far as my training goes, I would think that the best way to do this would be to launch an attack at about knee level to either hobble or stun the opponent and then proceeding. Anything else would seem to open me up to a counter too easily.
Ideas?

Now you're talking my language.
I am very proactive in my fighting style, much more then when I was younger.
I close the distance and prepare to launch an all out attack at the slightest hint of an attack.
I don't allow them to take a stance or allow them to begin a body movement that can become an attack, also any attempt they make to touch me will result in an attack.
I used to hold back a lot more, not wanting to hurt people to much when I was attacked, at time this has resulted in me getting tired out or eventually getting hit.
I don't do that anymore, now I strike as quickly as possible and build up to a more devastating attack in a quick manner that will end the fight in seconds.

I've been told that it takes 1/3 the time to punch or kick a target, then it does to for that target to counter that punch or kick. So from the time your eyes see the blow coming, it will take 3 times longer to respond to it then you actually have.
The time ratio is off, I cant recall the "real" numbers. But it was something to that effect. The point being unless you know when the blow is coming you cannot block it. You can get lucky, true.
What do you kids think about this?

I don't know if the exact amount of time is true, but I've seen people of great ability unable to block attacks because it's to fast, some people are inhumanly fast they can kick you in the head before you can even begin to raise your arm to block, as if an arm could block a kick that is moving at that kind of speed.
The eyes can also be fooled, an attack like an axe kick hits on it's return, a lot of people fail to block it (I've seen knock outs resulting from this).
From experience the best think seems to be (for me) to make contact at a touch range, after that it's all about waiting for them to make a mistake and exploiting it.
Also being in contact allows you to feel what they are preparing to do through weight shifts, muscle contractions, etc.
Also I always keep my eyes looking into the opponents, never my target, it will tell you his target but wont telegraph yours, unless your opponent is doing the same, in which case I will look at false targets.
Also blocking is overrated, you really want to not be hit at all, some people will destroy the part of your body you block with because they have such powerful abilities, Advanced Uechi-Ryu Karate practitioners will for starters, it's better to not be hit at all.
One of the reasons I don't like iron body techniques.

Actually, I think that "the aggressor loses" is a big fallacy in the arts. I don't advocate starting fights, but I also advocate the fact that the fight starts well before the first punch is thrown. If I'm in a situation where I've got a bunch of people around me and I can tell that the leader is psyching himself up by talking trash, that a fight is definitely going to happen, then I am DEFINITELY going to strike first and hard.
Because we don't want to start fights, most of our techniques are reactive. But when we do sparring, we learn a lot of offensive techniques -- some of which will work well in a no-rules environment as well. I mean, heck, if you and another guy are sizing each other up and you can ease yourself into threat range without him noticing and then side-kick him in the knee or stomach, you have, if not WON the fight, at least taken him down a few notches and hurt his confidence a great deal.
At my school, all my techniques start against attacks. But I'm also taught how to use them offensively if the situation demands it -- although not until higher levels, when it's assumed that I'm not going to use it to beat up bank tellers and stuff.

You've kinda got the idea down.
But I have been in more situations where trash talking did not result in a fight then did.
Be calm and confident in yourself, people are less likely to attack if you look more secure in your own abilities then they feel they are in theirs.
Also there are visual ques you can look for, often a angry person will become quiet and turn away for a moment before they attack to attempt to surprise you (police training) most often a large haymaker like punch with their right hand or a kick to the groin.

I think that that's true. The defense against it is distancing. If you let someone close enough to you that they can hit you without taking a step, you're gonna get hit. At my school, we do a lot of distance training at higher levels -- learning how to keep them at that frustrating range where they can't quite hit you without tiring yourself out by running away or using up too much room.
Most of the time, the attacker will get frustrated after seeing you easily block his stuff, and after about the third time he'll come in with something bold and aggressive. At which point you side-kick him in the knee or stomach. Or, on the street, you catch his arm, break it, take him down, jump on top of him, and break his neck.
Or whatever.

Distance can be key, depending on who you are and what you do it can be many different lengths, I prefer to be at such a close range my opponent cannot make an attack without having to step back or wined up a punch by pulling his arm away, since I can do attacks at touch range any attempt to do so would be a mistake.
But it's really all about personal style.
Environment is also always a factor, obstructions, walls, cars, tables, can be made to your advantage if you know how to get someone in the right spot.

Inner clam, hmm? Getting in touch with the scientologist in you?

Or possibly just developing his mussels.

Impressionism rocks! You'd never use Neo-Classicism in a REAL fight, seriously dude...

I fought a Cubist once. I beat him, but now my nose is sticking out of the side of my head, and my eyes are somehow vertical.

Good stuff. My my my, your verbal kung fu is leaving me in stitches.
BTW no disrespect intended, but every time I see you guys type wtf with tae kwon do I think of something else, and it's cracking me up, lol.