Do you study martial arts?

[shurai]

Anyway...I believe its all legit because he has quite a few hand painted "rank sign things" hanging around the Dojo.

If you're interested, I think the word you may be looking for is 'menjo;' at least that's what they called it when I got mine (which basically makes me a Certified Beginner from what I can tell).

I'm actually very proud of the enboards right now. Most of the commentary has been thoughtful and interesting, and this thread has shown a remarkable degree of enlightenment, at least as far as I can see. And its long! I never expected to spawn a 4 page thread.

I noticed that almost nobody studies my sword art, iaido.

In case anyone's interested, I wrote an article about iaido at

http://www.c-dart.com:8000/tom/

It's in the articles section. I hope you'll take the title as a bit tongue-in-cheek.

On the other hand, some people have studied my unarmed style, hung gar. I agree with you: We rarely spar in hung gar because it would be entirely too dangerous! In the first form I was taught, there are more arm-breaking techniques than punches. In addition, the kicks we learn are too dangerous for sparring because they wrench or break the knee, or else are aimed at the groin.

-S

 

[NoOneofConsequence]

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.

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.

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.

Barsoomcore, if I lived in Canada I'd move to study under you. Your comments on this thread have impressed the hell out of me.

There's a reason why people who fought for a living (founders of styles) set things a certain way and made them into forms. The forms are not (usually) a set of any old moves strung together to give you a work out.

The second unarmed form that I learnt has a whole series of close techniques in the opening third that are really hard to get right. When I asked a senior instructor about them he said "Oh they're quite advanced moves. You wouldn't be able to use them without a lot more years of training."

I wondered why I was studying them now if they were so advanced ('cause I'm not). The reason was obvious. You have to train yourself now so that, in years from now when you're a good enough fighter to use them, you've done the necessary learning to build the foundation.

That's what I love about a lot of the Far Eastern martial arts traditions. In two years you can learn to be a competent fighter, but in ten years, you'll still be learning and the foundations will have more meaning to you, not less.

 

[shurai]

I agree! Every time I see my sifu he says something that blows my mind about a technique that I've been doing all along. There's so many subtle nuances built in to every movement, every motion that we do, that it literally takes a half lifetime to really understand them.

I do have to disagree with some that have said that there's only so many ways to use the human body for self defense . . . I think that there's a corollary: There's only so many ways, but in a lifetime you cannot learn them all with any completeness.

It's like standing in a clearing and looking into the forest: At first all you see are the outer trees and a vague wall of green, but if you look closely, you can see quite a distance into the woods. Looking between the trunks and branches one can see birds flying from time to time, and get an idea of the shape of the land that's under the undergrowth. If you're very careful you can see so far into the forest that individual leaves are lost in the distance, like looking at the trees from an airplane. So much was going unnoticed, but it was right in front of your eyes all along. That's how I feel when I discover something during my training. It's amazing.

-S

 

[takyris]

Re: Cool Thread.

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.

Sure. I was one of the ones above who had a story about NOT fighting someone who was being stupid. I don't advocate starting fights. For better or for worse, I've always been pretty empathic, and I have a pretty good idea of when someone is gonna actually escalate and throw a punch versus when they're gonna just cuss a lot and then walk away.

I've avoided most situations where someone was genuinely looking for trouble. My "the fight has already started" mentality was for when I knew it was going to be physical no matter what I did. And when that's the case -- and when you KNOW that's the case -- then I firmly advise looking like a sissy, stuttering, ducking your head, taking out your wallet and telling them you don't want any trouble in a little quavering voice, holding it up in your left hand for all of them to see, and then sucker-punching the biggest one right in the throat.

No, not when it's one of your friends and he's drunk. Not when it's a guy who you dislike and he wants to push you around. In a situation where you've got multiple people surrounding you and your significant other and you feel your life is in jeopardy. Et cetera.

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.

That's excellent advice. I've gotten out of a lot of fights by not looking like a victim.

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.

Ah, but what you're describing is distance, too. I didn't just mean distance in the sense of being far away from someone. Standing on the edge of their threat range is one of my favorite tactics, but I am a big fan of stuffing them up, too -- mostly because I know what to do in those situations and most of my opponents don't -- at least, the ones I use it against. I'm not gonna try and get in close with a jujitsu expert, but that TKD guy is gonna find me right there in his personal space.

In general, you can win any fight by making it your kind of fight. If I get into a wrestling match with a grappler, I'm outta luck. I might last a little while, 'cause I've cross-trained, but they're the expert. So most of my training is in how to get OUT of a grappling situation and into a punching-each-other situation, which is what I'm good at. Distance is one part of making it your fight.


-Tacky

PS: Am I just, as they say, on crack? At work, my text box is nice and wide, but at home it's only 20 characters. Is it because I'm stuck with Netscape at home?

 

[Wolvorine]

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.

Not to sound snippy here or anything, but this is the second time you've responded to someone (at least it has seemed this way to me) and purposefully misinterpreted their meaning and intention in order to tell them how ashamed of themselves they should be. If I'm misinterpreting where you're coming from, then I of course apologize.
As far as bowing and walking away, I simply do not have the luxury or living a fully zen lifestyle. We'd paid our fees in advance, non-refundable as was required by the school (as I recall), and it is/was the only school in town that taught the style (or even a style vaguely similar) we wanted to study. With that on top of my daughters adoration of the place... we stuck it out there for as long as we could. Perhaps this is deplorable, I view it as realistic.
And, I did address the matter of antagonism and being a prig earlier, bt mentioning that the question was asked in earnest at the time.

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.

I never interfered with the sensei. I did, however, tend to ask a lot of questions, as a serious student should. This was one of them. It wasn't the first, it wasn't the last. But then again, my heart just doesn't feel for people who, after 3+ months, still couldn't remember my name correctly on a day-to-day basis out of a class of less than 15 people.
If you meant in reference to my mention of helping and correcting other students, yeah I did that once in a while. Granted I did it for the blue/green/brown/black belts about as often as the white belts. And granted, I was able to do this not because I am some form of martial arts savant, but because I understood what I was seeing when the main sensei showed it, and I watched more closely than the others. So, when he left the class for too long (how long is too long? Too long is when the entire class is starting to get upset that he's been gone too long) I helped when I was asked, or when somone looked like they were progressively not getting it. When the sensei DID return, I always asked him to go to those people and see if they had gotten it right or not, because they'd been struggling.

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.

As for the form, it was a series of stepping lunge punches. Just a cardio workout combined with repetition-training. Really basic stuff there, not a lot of hidden sub-text. And I've seen the woman spar, if there were any hidden reasons for how she was doing it, they weren't helping.

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.

Peoples is strange, I rarely learn much until I've dissected something, and satisfied myself that I understand the concept.

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.

*nods* In pretty much all of your responses, this is the basic idea I've gotten from you. For my part, people were posting amusing antecdotes, so I added mine. That was about it for the trying-to-prove-my-manhood thing.

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.

Again, you're just playing semantic games here, it seems. Again, I could be wrong, but this just sounds like a touch of pseudo circular reasoning with a dash of intended misunderstanding. But, as much as the limelight is cute and all, I really don't think the silly story warrented so much attention.

 

[Jeremy]

Re: Cool Thread.

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.

While I agree with the first, if I am in body contact with an hostile opponent, I want them neutralized. They have too much access to me. I want to grab a hold of their genitalia and pull, stick a thumb in their eye and push, shove a key up their nose, or hammer everything I've got into their throat ASAP. Because depending on how much he or she cares about fair play, any number of these things could happen to me too at this range.

I find the second (watching the eyes) impossible in practice (maybe just for me) and difficult in theory. In theory, whether metaphysical or simply physiological it may work but as you said, what's to stop your foe from looking at false targets? What's to stop your foe from not looking at anything at all and just charging you? I don't trust the eyes. In TKD when they'd tell me to stare my opponent in the eyes, I'd let my focus drift so I could see their body in my peripheral vision and scan for movement. I just couldn't read eyes. Maybe it's possible but if it is, I don't understand it.

In at least my San Soo class it is recommended we focus on the hips. From the hips a lot of powerful strikes originate both upper and lower body, and from that focal point you are less easily distracted and can more easily see the movement of both arms and legs or both simultaneously.

This has begun to work much better for me. Often I can identify a hook, crescent kick, straight kick, or straight punch just from the initial shifting of weight in the hips, prior to the limb in questions moving. Maybe I just have more proclivity for this method of analysis, I don't know.

Anyone else have good or bad experiences focusing on the eyes, belt, hips, or just past the opponent, or otherwise?

 

[Cedric]

I've taken some Tae Kwon Do, but very little actually, about 6 months worth.

However, I would add that I am an expert marksmen with either pistol or rifle. Although I choose not to compete my level of skill would certainly allow me to be competitive if I chose too.

Cedric

 

[ranix65]

I've been polling my friends who do martial arts, and so far the best self-defense technques given by a few were:
Rickon't get into the fight in the first place. Then, throw em. Far.
Vincent: A High kick to the face(I swear this man thinks arms were only made to give hands a place to live).
Jon(my original Muay Thai instructor): Hit em back(no ****! Really?!)
Jeremy(not the one from this board): Grab their testes, pull down, and RELEASE!, allowing them to snap back against their body.

Just thought they oughta be shared, some of em were pretty funny at the time, we had a good giggle.

 

[NoOneofConsequence]

This has begun to work much better for me. Often I can identify a hook, crescent kick, straight kick, or straight punch just from the initial shifting of weight in the hips, prior to the limb in questions moving. Maybe I just have more proclivity for this method of analysis, I don't know.

If you can see my kick coming then my hands aren't doing their job. BSCLF techniques are all taught in combination, with an emphasis on hiding techniques behind other techniques. Feinting, misdirection, timing etc.

Of course, I've never used it in a street fight but the principles are sound. I've seen all levels of fighters fall victim to a punch 'cause they were defending against the kick they thought was coming (and vice versa).

 

[barsoomcore]

Not to sound snippy here or anything, but this is the second time you've responded to someone (at least it has seemed this way to me) and purposefully misinterpreted their meaning and intention in order to tell them how ashamed of themselves they should be.

I certainly do not wish to be purposefully misinterpreting anyone. Nor even accidentally, although I do admit that I find myself misunderstanding people on a regular basis. Thus my efforts to make clear any murkiness I encounter.

When I perceive someone conducting themselves in a manner I consider shameful then I do indeed speak up. It's not my way to simply hold a low opinion of someone without providing them with an opportunity to explain themselves. I find people with opinions and attitudes different than my own very interesting, especially in situations where only one of us can be right.

This is how I learn things. By finding out that I'm wrong. Which I am, most of the time.

I do not doubt that you are describing this person accurately, that they are indeed incompetent. I do feel strongly about such things as dojo etiquette, and the behaviour you describe to me still seems out of line, regardless of the provocation you may have suffered. I will add to my stated reasons for thinking so that a dojo where the sensei's authority is challenged becomes a place where no structured learning can take place, and that it requires effort on the part of both teacher and student to maintain that relationship. That one party fails is no excuse for the other to do so as well.

I am not suggesting that the person you descibe is a worthy teacher. I don't know them, I've never seen them perform -- you have and I certainly trust your judgement. My point really has nothing to do with their quality or behaviour. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.

If I'm misinterpreting where you're coming from, then I of course apologize.

I don't believe you are but I appreciate your consideration. I think that we simply disagree about appropriate behaviour. Which is interesting to me and I would like to hear more of your responses to my points. For my part, I apologize if I come across as knowing better than you. I mean to make no such claim, but I do disagree with you.

As far as bowing and walking away, I simply do not have the luxury or living a fully zen lifestyle. We'd paid our fees in advance, non-refundable as was required by the school (as I recall), and it is/was the only school in town that taught the style (or even a style vaguely similar) we wanted to study. With that on top of my daughters adoration of the place... we stuck it out there for as long as we could. Perhaps this is deplorable, I view it as realistic.

The only thing I consider deplorable is how you were bliked out of money you paid in good faith. I certainly would not have stuck it out for as long as you did. Why did your daughter adore it so much?

I never interfered with the sensei. I did, however, tend to ask a lot of questions, as a serious student should.

This is one of our points of disagreement. I don't believe a serious student asks a lot of questions. I believe a serious student practices hard. Your questions should all be answered within the form and a good sensei of any tradition will guide you in that direction. They're inscrutable for a reason, those darn masters.

*nods* In pretty much all of your responses, this is the basic idea I've gotten from you.

I'm curious -- what is the basic idea you've gotten from me?

Again, you're just playing semantic games here, it seems. Again, I could be wrong, but this just sounds like a touch of pseudo circular reasoning with a dash of intended misunderstanding.

Honestly, I am not attempting to deliberately misunderstand you. I may have gotten carried away with my own cleverness, I'll grant you. Let me try and restate my point.

Actually, let me first try and restate your point, as you consider yourself misunderstood.

Your idea is that there is a difference between a form's "textbook" manner and "useful" manner. That is, executing a lunge in the textbook manner is not the best way to execute the same lunge when you actually need to use it -- in an actual fight. This is what I took to be your main point.

My response to that (and if that was not your point then I assure you the misunderstanding was not intentional) is that if you find this is the case, then either

A) your textbook is wrong (for the textbook should provide you with the most useful manner of performing the form) -- in which case you have discovered a serious deficiency in the style you are studying (hence my irreverent comment about starting your own style)
B) your assessment of what is useful is wrong (that is you don't understand combat as well you think you do)
C)or your understanding of the textbook is flawed, for if you did in fact perform according to the textbook you would find that the textbook manner is even more useful than the "useful" manner you have been using.

I make no claim to being able to judge which is the case in your situation.