OneKickWonder

Hi there, I haven't started MA yet but will go to a local shotokan club this week,so im no expert of course, I do however believe whilst we should place our full trust in a teacher (for anything, not exclusive to MA) you can't be so gullible to think anything, anytime will work there are so many circumstances where things just don't work so whilst I agree they shouldn't be teaching them "This will work every time" but rather "This is the most likely to work in this situation". Another thing i'd like to discuss is the " their techniques will have no effect whatsoever because they've only ever trained against a fully compliant partner." part because I'd hate to find myself in a situation and rely on a false sense of security, in other words how would you utilise your MA in the best way possible, and know you were actually able to defend yourself? One more thing, maybe this needs a thread but I see a lot of people say they don't train for the self defence it just comes along with the rest of it, my second priority after fitness is self defence... if anyone could shed some light on what i should focus on that would be great because i'd hate to start for all of the wrong reasons. I may have exaggerated slightly. It's quite rare to find a teacher that says something definitely works, but such teachers are out there. What us much more common is that techniques are not trained in such a way that they flow naturally one to another. For kids I think this is a problem. Adults can practice this flow more easily. It's not that techniques won't work under pressure. The problem is that many students are happy to accept their grade as proof of ability. The belt you are given only proves that you can demonstrate ability against a very specific criteria applicable to a part of the curriculum. So having a black belt for example doesn't prove you can fight. It proves that you can demonstrate ability within the curriculum. It's up to the student to build on that skeleton framework and through controlled practice, make it useful. Many don't bother. In ours, there are a few of us that want to develop our ability. Many others want to do what they need to to get the next belt. You can tell which is which when you partner up with them. When they put a technique on, and you resist a bit, if they get surprised and a bit annoyed when their technique fails, then they are probably after the next belt. If in the other hand they look a bit puzzled but happy, and ask why you think it didn't work, what could they have done slightly different to improve its effectiveness. Then we'll experiment with ever increasing resistance until we get it working against full resistance. Then practice some more. My point is, as long as you stay honest to yourself, you'll be fine. You'll achieve whatever you set out to achieve. If that's the next belt, great. If it's ability to make it work, also great. Trust your teacher but don't fully suppress your inner skeptic. Ask yourself regularly if the goals you are working towards are really your goals. If they are, you'll excel.

I think the buffet travesty in martial arts, and this probably extends to all sports, is the fact that people especially kids and the parents of those young students, are brainwashed into believing everything their instructor says. Things like the implication that you are training towards a black belt, eventually that becomes the goal, rather than whatever the original reasons for starting were. Worse than that, the age old standard lies. Things like 'a strike to this point will almost always immobilise your attacker'. Lies that has kids believing they can defend themselves without effort when in fact we all know that if they ever get attacked by a committed attacker, their techniques will have no effect whatsoever because they've only ever trained against a fully compliant partner. Perhaps worse than all of that, the notion of 'the attacker'. The attacker is mentioned a lot in martial arts. He is never defined. Instead we are left to form our own ideas as to how we will tell when someone is about to attack and therfore deserves a preemptive strike, or when someone just happens to be getting a bit closer to us than we'd like because their idea of personal space differs to our own. All of this can easily be overcome though. All we have to do is take an occasional step back and evaluate objectively.

Thanks. But this just supports what we're always told. It doesn't explain why my ex military friends can be so tough without stretching routinely, if it is so necessary.

A staple in many martial arts training regimes is the stretching exercises. But is it overrated? I know, if you want to deliver a roundhouse kick to a jaw line, you need to be a bit flexible. I get that. But here's the thing. I know a number of ex military people from all sections of the military. They all have two things in common that I think are relevant to our civilian martial arts. They are all tough as hell and very combat worthy not only with weapons but also unarmed. And they don't specifically stretch. They keep fit by running. They stay strong by weight training. They do endurance activities. And they hit bags. But they don't spend a lot of time with stretches. Yet they could kick most civilian butts without drawing a sweat. So this gets me wondering. Apart from display team acrobatics, is there really as much value in stretching as many of us are led to believe?

Excellent. I've never yet met an instructor that would prefer a prospective students to watch rather than join in, so I'm sure you'll get that opportunity. You might be taken aside during certain activities though and shown something else other than what the rest of the class are doing. For example, if you came to ours, you could expect something like this. You'd join in with the warm up. That would be pushups, crunches, star jumps etc. Stretches too, but you'd be watched more closely because that's the bit where people tend to hurt themselves a bit if they get it too wrong. Then it would be line drills. This is where the instructor choose a specific technique or combo for us to practice to his count. In ours, for this bit, a senior grade would be assigned to stand next to you to help keep you right. You would not be expected to get it right, and nobody will be watching you except to see how you are doing. After line drill, it gets a bit more technical in ours, with forms/kata, one step, sparring etc. At that point you'd be taken aside and given one to one tuition in the basics, maybe a chat about the style, the etiquette, the club, your goals etc. Then for the last part we usually do something fairly easy and generic and you'd be asked to rejoin the lines for that, before bowing out, which I think probably looks weird until you get used to it. Basically we take a moment to relax our minds and meditate briefly, I guess to get our heads out of martial arts mode. Then bow to instructors and flag, and then all wander off. At that point you'd get another casual chat to see what you thought, and to try to gauge if you're coming back

I understand that you may be more comfortable with Shotokan katas and longer stances but if you wanna add another Passai to your arsenal , I would recommend a tomari Passai from Matsubayashi Shorin-ryu. it is a real deal . this kata is well documented. Watch this video and the two guests from Okinawa. @ 1:46 watch Ikihara doing the tomari Passai, these people are amazing in hitting with their body not just punch and kicks. a more formal version is the one Rika Osami of Shito-ryu does. Shorin-Ryu: Shito-Ryu: In tang soo do, we fully acknowledge and embrace both okinawan and Chinese influence. In that respect we have a mix of both strong rigid stances and shorter much more relaxed ones. In fact we tend to focus on the strong rigid stuff at lower grades, then 'soften' it to more shorter, relaxed, closer techniques as we move up. Our philosophy is that we train the mind via the body, while simultaneously training the body to facilitate the development of the mind. To that end the strong 'hard' stuff is earlier in the training, to develop the muscles needed to move without conscious effort. Then gradually we ficus on more fluid movement, with the ultimate goal being 'moo shim', or empty mind. So all that said, I'm very much open to seeing how other styles do things, and where those styles are less rigid, all good as far as I'm concerned.

here is a good article on Passai kata and it is great that you look into the origin of the forms you practice in TKD/TSD. https://www.ikigaiway.com/2014/making-sense-of-passai-an-exploration-of-origin-and-style/ That's an excellent article. Thanks for sharing. I've read it and watched the clips, and will undoubtedly go through it a few more times because there's a lot to take in. Two things really stood out for me. Firstly, that the form has evolved substantially in recent decades, from being more of a soft/internal almost tai chi like form, to a much harder and more aggressive style. If my observation is correct, then I'm inclined to lean towards the view held by some historians that out of all the possible translations of the name, the most widely accepted is possibly not the original intention. The second thing that really jumped out at me was the shotokan bassai dai. It was clearly a natural evolution of earlier versions, and was undoubtedly the closest to what I practice as simply bassai. In fact it was almost identical. Close enough in fact that I'd bet if someone on my club were to perform the shotokan version of bassai dai in a grading instead of doing our version, if they did it well, I reckon they'd still get full marks in that section of the test. Feedback afterwards would possibly be along the lines of showing chambers more and being a bit more direct in some of the moves. Bassai sho also stood out for me but for different reasons. I saw in that a kind of amalgam of key elements from the pyung ahn/pinnan/heian set as well as bassai dai. Almost like bassai sho is a kind of abridged version of all the forms typically taught to pre dan grade (kyu / geup ) students. We don't have bassai sho at ours, but as it looks like a mix of other bits we do have, I might learnt it for my own interests to see if it sheds more light on the other forms I have so far.

Cool. Thanks. How come it's bassai dai? It's years since I trained in a karate that admitted to being Japanese. My current style is (claims to be) Korean so my Japanese terminology is weak. Is 'dai' simply another way of saying 'second'? In Korean there are at least 2 different sets of the same numbers. Or is 'dai' something else entirely? No. Dai means greater. Sho means lesser. Bassai is the Japanese pronunciation. Passai is the Okinawan pronunciation. Pasai or Baoshi is the Chinese pronunciation. Passai Dai or just Passai was passed down from Matsumura Sokon. Passai Sho was invented by Itosu. He labelled the first Dai and his Sho. Having said this there are many variations of the Kata. If your verion comes from Funakoshi it can either be from Shuri-te (Suidi) [Matsumura] lineage or Tomari-te (Tumaidi) [Oyadomari] lineage. Hope that helps. Yes, thanks, this is awesome info. I am very interested in the history and origins of the arts we study. Trouble is there's so much politics around it all, and so much misinformation, exaggeration, and outright lies in the mainstream 'record' it's hard to figure out what's true. What you've said not only fits the more credible aspects of the record, but also builds on it to give me pointers for further research. That's greatly appreciated. Many thanks.

Cool. Thanks. How come it's bassai dai? It's years since I trained in a karate that admitted to being Japanese. My current style is (claims to be) Korean so my Japanese terminology is weak. Is 'dai' simply another way of saying 'second'? In Korean there are at least 2 different sets of the same numbers. Or is 'dai' something else entirely?

In my style of tang soo do, we have a form called bassai. It's pretty much what in shotokan is called passai shodan. I have Funakoshi's book. It lists all the kata he included when he formalised the art of karate. Passai shodan is listed in there. But there's no passai nidan in the book. And in tang soo do, passai shodan is just called bassai. Shodan, if my Japanese terminology is any good, means 'first skill'. So where's the second one? Is there no such kata as passai nidan? Was there ever? Other forms that only come in one part don't have a number on them. So why does passai have shodan if there was never a second part?

LOL!! No difficulties from me, at all!! I just wanted to start a conversation!! I giggle or frown, depending on the situation, whenever a Kyu ranked student assumes a position that they've no business or right to. Oftentimes, I don't have to be a witness for the floor because they have proven to me through a very short conversation with them what I suspected before; they've not the minimum of an idea what they're talking about. What was that old saying? The biggest threat to a black belt is his ego?

How old is the video? It looks pretty old. The narration sounds kinda of 1950s era. The video is old cinematograph film footage. In that kind of era, karate was shotokan. Of course, plenty will point out there are other styles and always have been. But the term karate was coined by Gichin Funakoshi in the early 1900s. Funakoshi formalised various similar styles, packaged it up under the label of kara-te-do, later just karate, and sold it to the Japanese public and then the rest of the world. So why not mention other styles? Probably quite simply that any spin off styles at the time the original video was made would still be in their infancy and pretty much unheard of. As a kind of interesting aside, there should be no such style as shotokan. Funakoshi never called his karate by that name. It comes from a hand painted sign his students made without asking. I'm not sure of the exact translation but it's something like 'the master's house'.

Quite fair enough!! Has your instructor ever "lied" to you, especially when it came to what he was/has teaching/taught you?? That drawn out explanation potentially enforces the simplification, in that what a beginner is taught versus what a intermediate is taught versus what a advanced is taught versus what Senior Dan's are taught/teach varies how they are addressed. Without doubt. On all counts. Then why stay his student?? I can't stand thieves and liars; I've no use for them, ever!! Because he's a very good teacher. But nobody is perfect, and even if they were, there'd be an imperfect student that thinks otherwise His approach works for most. And compared to other martial arts teachers I've encountered over the years, my current one speaks almost pure truth. You wouldn't believe some of the stuff I've heard from others over the years.

I've never noticed that he keeps his eyes closed a lot. I'll have to look out for that. But I have a theory. Sorry, it's not profound or philosophical or anything. As we only see his choreographed acting rather than his real combat skill, perhaps closing his eyes helped him remember his choreography.

Chances are they just didn't get your message. You didn't say how you messaged them. Was it on Facebook? Did their page look active? Was it via email? A nasty webform that probably worked the day they sent one yesterday message to themselves and then never tested it again? With regard to your weight and fitness, if it's a half decent school, that won't matter. We've had people join us that can't manage a single pushup. You just do what you can, and over time you improve. Everybody started somewhere. Just go for it. Go and visit the club. Get there 15 minutes before class is due to start to allow time to chat with the instructor. You can always walk away. And if it turns out you don't like that club, there are others, and they're not all the same.

Gichin Funakoshi explains in his book, karate do kyohan, that there are several reasons why he settled on the 'empty hand way'. One reason is that it requires no equipment to either train or fight. The word 'requires' is important here. It requires no equipment. That's not the same as shunning equipment. In fact in the same book he describes how to construct makawari and other training tools. They're not required. You can train with empty hands. But you don't have to. He also states that another reason for the word 'empty' is not literal. He is quite open that it means in the philosophical sense. He teaches that we train to have an empty mind, and our hand, is empty in the sense that anything in it is not being held by the practitioner but is part of them. There is a section in the book dedicated to fighting with an assortment of different weapons types including long and short sword, and long and short staff. This is all in a book written by Gichin Funakoshi himself. So I'd say it's a fair bet that Shotokan traditionally includes weapons training.

Kind of a philosophical question I guess. I doubt there's a right or wrong answer. This is just pure interest. But I was wondering, what is a martial art, and when is it not one. First up, the term in its strictest sense, martial, as in pertaining to Mars, god of war. Art, as in skill set. Ergo, martial art is war skill. So what makes a martial art, and when is it not one? Taking karate as an example, we call it a martial art. But it has never been one. Gichin Funakoshi named his style karate, and then pushed it as civilian self defence, physical exercise and spiritual development. He tried to get the Japanese navy to adopt it but not with the intention of getting off the ship to fight hand to hand with their enemies, but rather as a means of keeping fit. So is the most popular martial art in the world a martial art? It is derived from earlier Okinawan arts, but these were mostly sports. Again not war fighting. But here's the thing. These combat sports and acrobatic displays were based on actual combat skills from real soldiers and general thugs. So in that sense it very much is martial art or war skill. Then I got to thinking, in another thread someone asks if archery is a martial art. Of course it is. Or is it? It is beyond shadow of doubt that 8th certainly was. There's a wealth of historical evidence depicting war with archers. But would it be a war skill now? Are there any people left in the world that would still go into battle with a bow? So it could be said that archery used to be a martial art, but is it still? Sorry for my lengthy musings, and I really don't want to offend. I'm not suggesting that anybodys art is in some way not worthy. I'm just thinking purely in the meaning and philosophy of the terminology. And after this little mental/philosophical jolly, as far as I'm concerned karate is still a martial art.

I think a potential source of skepticism with chi is in a misunderstanding of the term, which I believe is partly down to the lack of direct translation of the term, and partly politics. For the first part, lack of direct translation, in the West we generally think of chi as some kind of magic that modern science can not prove. But while there is, as far as I know, no literal translation, I believe it is something close to 'air', 'breath' or life force. That latter one, life force, whatever it is, depends if course on breath, and the air it brings into us and the c2o we expell through it. Perhaps then if we think of chi energy as the energy (both mental and physical) that we cultivate when we give some attention to breathing, then suddenly it seems far less mystical and much more scientific. On the other point, politics, tai chi is a Chinese art. And sadly, China has sold out. Classic example, the Shaolin temple. Once a secretive sacred site, now a major tourist attraction. Chi generates revenue. People marvel at the abilities of orange suited young men that were "encouraged" to train hard from a very early age, who will demonstrate seemingly superhuman abilities. They're tougher than me. No question. But they're not magic. So while 'chi' generates revenue, it is inevitably going to be over egged.

Quite fair enough!! Has your instructor ever "lied" to you, especially when it came to what he was/has teaching/taught you?? That drawn out explanation potentially enforces the simplification, in that what a beginner is taught versus what a intermediate is taught versus what a advanced is taught versus what Senior Dan's are taught/teach varies how they are addressed. Without doubt. On all counts.

Good question. I've experienced that a few times, and have probably been unintentionally guilty of it a few times too. I personally like to say 'OK, let's see it your way', and then dissect it honestly, acknowledging good points, but showing bad points by demonstrating how they can be easily overcome. For example, if a takedown attempt has no effect on me, rather than smugly pointing out that their way didn't work, I like to explain why it didn't. Perhaps they were positioned a bit too far away, perhaps they didn't take my balance, perhaps they tried to force the strongest part of my arm etc. But equally it's a tricky one because if a student resists a technique, there is a chance it won't work, in the context of safe training and demo. If I am demonstrating a takedown for example, and my opponent resists, I have two options. I can abandon the attempt, or I can add some realism of my own. The trouble with the former is it can result in you being undermined slightly. The trouble with the latter is if someone genuinely tries to make you fail, it takes a lot of control to find just the right balance of force to make it work but without causing injury, remembering that the technique being demonstrated might be designed to destroy several joints to immobilise the assailant, while in the training hall of course the goal is to make your friend go to the floor in a controlled way, able to get up again, bow, and continue training.

Perhaps 'lied to' is a bit strong. But I tend to be quite literal in my thinking and if somebody tells me something and we both know it to be untrue, it is a lie. I should be clear. I intend no disrespect to my instructors or anyone else. I kind of understand why they sometimes lie. Lying provides an opportunity to keep up a simplified pretense which might work for some, especially younger students with no life experience. I guess it's easier to explain to a child that you have to do this and this to generate the power needed to block a kick, than it would be to explain that this technique serves no purpose in itself but trains many different principles that form part of the foundation upon which everything else is built. So I understand the potential reasons for the lies. But I also wish the custom would be to say 'it's this and more', and maybe introduce more practical applications earlier to keep the interest and to provide an opportunity to train these things earlier in partnered drills, rather than waiting til higher grade, and noticing that this new advanced technique you've just been taught is actually just principles from basics assembled into something simple yet powerful. Or maybe not. Maybe half the magic and excitement comes from making these observations for ourselves.

Because it's not formalised as one. It's quite literally close combat. There is no lineage of former masters that dictated what it means. It's literally just the Israeli army close combat. Every army has its way of training for the eventuality that a soldier mat fund himself unable to fire a gun to neutralise an enemy. They all call that part of training various things like unarmed combat, combatives, hand to hand combat etc. The Israelis call there's krav maga, which just means something like close combat in their language. So based on your definition Karate before the Japanese took it and made it what it is today is not a style but rather just close combat. So close combat makes it what? Too many view fighting as a long distance engagement when this couldn't be further from fact. All fights end up in close quarters and turns into close range strikes, clinches, grappling, submissive/controlling techniques or throws. Just because Krav Maga has these elements it's not a style? What then is Judo, Jujitsu, or a 100 more styles/arts. If it teaches one to fight effectively then it's an martial art and thus is constituted as a style. I have never taken Krav Maga (so I'm no expert) but I have watched it in a few seminars and I just looked it up on google and to be honest I'm not sure why you are saying it's not a style. Like Sensei8 points out it basically has the makings of every style I've ever taken. Whether its an all around effective art or not, well... I'll leave that to those that study it. But style or no style? I think it's a style. Something happened in that lose last few sentences that solidified my opinion of what's happening, here. I think the word "style" should be replaced with "art." Krav Maga doesn't have forms, that I know of. They also don't use a special uniform, or etiquette. Like any other martial "style" that was adopted by a military, it was meant to be make relatively effective soldiers as quick as possible, and thus was pruned of forms, uniforms, etc. Is it a hand-to-hand combat style? Sure. Krav Maga will probably always be referred to as a martial art... We can just assume they lean more toward martial than art, though. Just my thoughts. Exactly. It's very much martial art. More so than anything most of us experience. It's just not a style. It's the ultimate martial art because it's about fighting and enemy that wants to kill you. There can be no yellow belt in krav, because you can't really have 'sort of shows some ability to not get killed'. You can either fight or not.

I think it's a difficult one. I think sometimes instructors oversimplify to the point of actually lying. An example be in explaining the simple low block. Fist comes to opposite shoulder before driving down and across. Oh and we twist at the hips too. And our other hand comes across the body in counter motion. Because this generates power. And of course you can do all of this in less than the length of time it takes for a front snap kick to arrive. All rubbish. I believe instructors explain it like this partly for simplicity and partly to encourage the development of many principles. Our lowly basic low block is so many things, but unless our attacker is delivering the world's slowest front kick, it is not a block. How you've described a "simple low block", is that how your instructor teaches it?? If not, how does your instructor teach it?? And is how he teaches it, dependent on the student level?? Kind of. As you reach higher grades, gradually more truth is revealed. But what is sometimes frustrating is that the student realizes they're being lied to before the truth is revealed. For example, some of the more mature students have actual life experience to draw from, even if they have no martial arts experience. That's kind of the worst case, because those folks will realize that the blocks they are being taught can't possibly work in the application they've been told, but don't have the martial arts knowledge to see alternative applications yet, so they conclude they're being taught rubbish. I suspect this is probably why many don't stick around that long. Those that make it a couple of grades in generally stay the long haul, because they're either patient enough or because they spot things. Or perhaps just because they're having fun. "lied to" are pretty strong words!! The lower block doesn't work!?! Then why have it in the curriculum?? Why teach it, or something similar?? Sorry. I thought I'd already explained this. The low block is an essential teaching tool in my opinion. There are so many principles involved that are core to the art. It does feel right if posture is not stable, it doesn't feel right of hips don't move right, if you time your breath wrong it will feel bad, it teaches elbow strikes, hammer fist strikes, escapes from various grips etc. It is an excellent teaching tool. It is not an effective blocking technique. To the bold type above... If not, then the fault belongs to the practitioner, alone, and not of the style!! Albeit, our receive/deflection, to an outsider, might have the appearances of a block...and it's not, if ours is ineffective, then the fault belongs to said practitioner. Sorry. You are missing the point. It is sold as a block. It is not a block. It is a training tool. But it is not a block. You could, if your opponent is a combination of very slow and very inaccurate, use it to strike his leg while he is attempting, badly, to kick you, but it's not a block. You could use part of the motion to block a roundhouse kick to your jaw, but the actual blocking action is not a block. I would challenge anyone to show me the bog standard low block, complete with all its setup, being used effectively in full speed sparring or combat. It doesn't happen. That's because it's not a block.

I think it's a difficult one. I think sometimes instructors oversimplify to the point of actually lying. An example be in explaining the simple low block. Fist comes to opposite shoulder before driving down and across. Oh and we twist at the hips too. And our other hand comes across the body in counter motion. Because this generates power. And of course you can do all of this in less than the length of time it takes for a front snap kick to arrive. All rubbish. I believe instructors explain it like this partly for simplicity and partly to encourage the development of many principles. Our lowly basic low block is so many things, but unless our attacker is delivering the world's slowest front kick, it is not a block. How you've described a "simple low block", is that how your instructor teaches it?? If not, how does your instructor teach it?? And is how he teaches it, dependent on the student level?? Kind of. As you reach higher grades, gradually more truth is revealed. But what is sometimes frustrating is that the student realizes they're being lied to before the truth is revealed. For example, some of the more mature students have actual life experience to draw from, even if they have no martial arts experience. That's kind of the worst case, because those folks will realize that the blocks they are being taught can't possibly work in the application they've been told, but don't have the martial arts knowledge to see alternative applications yet, so they conclude they're being taught rubbish. I suspect this is probably why many don't stick around that long. Those that make it a couple of grades in generally stay the long haul, because they're either patient enough or because they spot things. Or perhaps just because they're having fun. "lied to" are pretty strong words!! The lower block doesn't work!?! Then why have it in the curriculum?? Why teach it, or something similar?? Sorry. I thought I'd already explained this. The low block is an essential teaching tool in my opinion. There are so many principles involved that are core to the art. It does feel right if posture is not stable, it doesn't feel right of hips don't move right, if you time your breath wrong it will feel bad, it teaches elbow strikes, hammer fist strikes, escapes from various grips etc. It is an excellent teaching tool. It is not an effective blocking technique.

I think it's a difficult one. I think sometimes instructors oversimplify to the point of actually lying. An example be in explaining the simple low block. Fist comes to opposite shoulder before driving down and across. Oh and we twist at the hips too. And our other hand comes across the body in counter motion. Because this generates power. And of course you can do all of this in less than the length of time it takes for a front snap kick to arrive. All rubbish. I believe instructors explain it like this partly for simplicity and partly to encourage the development of many principles. Our lowly basic low block is so many things, but unless our attacker is delivering the world's slowest front kick, it is not a block. How you've described a "simple low block", is that how your instructor teaches it?? If not, how does your instructor teach it?? And is how he teaches it, dependent on the student level?? Kind of. As you reach higher grades, gradually more truth is revealed. But what is sometimes frustrating is that the student realises they're being lied to before the truth is revealed. For example, some of the more mature students have actual life experience to draw from, even if they have no martial arts experience. That's kind of the worst case, because those folks will realise that the blocks they are being taught can't possibly work in the application they've been told, but don't have the martial arts knowledge to see alternative applications yet, so they conclude they're being taught rubbish. I suspect this is probably why many don't stick around that long. Those that make it a couple of grades in generally stay the long haul, because they're either patient enough or because they spot things. Or perhaps just because they're having fun.