fragbot

unfortunately, there's no remove button.

Done from memory, if it's incorrect. Tell me. The page you listed was quite helpful in understanding some of Mr. Duggan's comments. When I wrote earlier that I thought he was being hyperbolic, I didn't have the whole picture. I'd say it's likely I was mistaken and he wasn't over-stating his case.

Ummm, it would be helpful if you could be more specific. For now, I'll assume by Shaolin Kempo you mean one of the bajillions of schools out of the Cerio/Villari/godKnowsWhoElseTheySeemToGrowExponetially branches of the convicted murderer who died in prison James Mitose's Kempo instead of Doshin So's Shorinji Kempo*. Anyhow, as a bit of general advice, I'd suggest you'd be well-served to checkout the instructor and school very conscientiously. Unfortunately, I can't assume anything about the JJJ since it's a huge topic. Overall, I'd be leery of people teaching jujutsu who created their own system and who have a primary art of karate. While some judokas have done this, it's inarguable that judo is closer to jujutsu (koryu or gendai) than karate is. *even with its religious overtones, I like this system. It has a nice mixture of techniques, it's honest about where they originated, and hasn't even the slightest whiff of the old fry grease oft-associated with commercialization.

What is your response would be to the material on Bob Duggan's site (NOTE: I don't do HWD, KSW, or hapkido at all; so I don't have a dog in this fight)? Having seen this sort of thing happen before in other than Korean styles (though the Koreans seem to have made a science of it; they're definite masters of marketing), what he describes seems quite likely. Likewise, I have heard similar information from another fella in those pictures who no longer practices Korean systems having moved on to a Chinese system. As an aside, I think he goes a tad hyperbolic when he uses the term martial arts cult.

But the last time I did some research on the style (I was researching a local instructor; he came up good). I found the mantis cave was my friend: http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Pagoda/1501/indexe.htm

This is gonna sound harsh, but I'd suggest your choice of reading material is rather limited. Last time I was interested in this topic, the best information I could find put Hwa Rang Do at a little over 40 years old. Whether you do Hwa Rang Do, TKD, Vovinam, or box, I could care less and hope you have good fun doing it. However, remaining cheerfully and willfully ignorant about the origins of what you train, well, I'd hesitate to call that a healthy attitude for a student. As an aside, I have two general questions for discussion: 1) why is there often an impetus to associate a system as being N years old (where the larger N is, the better)? 2) why do people often respond so poorly to historical criticisms? There are numerous interesting and effective styles (in my experience, people with, hopefully, extensive training one place who can't/won't attribute it for whatever reason) with questionable histories. If a style is effective, what drives the hesitation of moving towards accuracy over time?

The age old question applies: what's better? Reverse punch or bong sao?

Before I start, I actually enjoy and practice kuen. This is fundamentally untrue. Since proof by contradiction only takes one, I'll choose yiquan. Put less formally, the previous paragraphs assumes you need kata for a martial art. This ignores systems that don't have forms. Some premises you need to justify: a) hard-core training like they did 100 years ago isn't possible b) kata gives karate students a way to "fight without fighting" I've noticed some of the people who hate forms have extensive experience in systems with forms. Your definition of "true Martial Artist" is self serving. Using your definition, anyone who's skilled at a system w/o forms isn't a true martial artist. I agree the solo training aspect is a valuable quality of forms. However, I'd ask how you reconcile it with another oft-promulgated purpose of forms--as a catalogue of technique. If it's a catalogue then it should have one/multiple specific purposes. OTOH, if they're designed to encourage creativity, I'd then question how they can be a catalogue. Throwing Daoist concepts in to a discussion of Japanese systems is unnecessarily muddlesome. . .since Buddhism and Shintoism were dramatically more prevalent. Again, I agree you've illustrated some useful attributes of kata. Now, how do you tradeoff time doing forms versus, say, heavybag or makiwara work? It's not just the MMA community that says this. As I stated earlier, I've heard experienced karatekas say the same thing*. *I think your hyperbolize erected a strawman. I don't think they'd use the term "useless and outdated." Instead, I've often heard complaints along the lines of "yeah, it works over time. However, compared to your other training options, it's an inefficient way to train." I sorta agree. That being said, if elegance is an important attribute of art, I'd argue simplicity is a crucial aspect to elegance in any endeavor. Furthermore, I'd argue simplicity is paradoxical. IMO, some of the simplest systems are principle based (eg "enter and turn"). These systems have simple principles that, in practice, are famously difficult. [ ... a buncha stuff I agree with was elided ....] I think it's unreasonable to put this on the students in many cases. I think it's more likely that many teachers *don't know* the bunkai for the kata they teach. In fact, I've often read many speculations that many founders of Japanese karate systems didn't know much bunkai at all (Okinawan chauvinism?; prolly some). I've seen that sentiment before, but I've never found it compelling. ============a question for discussion=============== From two people now (both are instructors for internal Chinese systems; AFAIK, they don't know each other), I've heard the following quote regarding training people to be proficient in TJQ: "if he doesn't have to teach you, he'll teach you the form." Any thoughts?

physician, heal thyself As a point of contention, I can only assume you didn't like my final paragraph. I'll state it again and elaborate. Assume a two hour class, 2-3 times/week. spending 30 minutes of class time doing nothing but standing is a waste of time when you consider the following: --the person has already been taught the proper alignment --with the exception of providing correction, solo work should be practiced outside of time that's available for partner time. If you don't, too bad, there's no reason your lack of discipline should hold up everyone else. --in every system I trained in, partner time is way more productive as well as dramatically more scarce than solo time If you disagree with anything above, attempt to explain why. *edited to fix a difficult to comprehend sentence*

A timely topic. . .just last night I was re-reading Loren Christensen's "Solo Training: The Martial Artist's Guide to Training Alone." At the beginning of one of his chapters he says something like the following: most TKD tournaments are won with kicks most open tournaments are won with punches most people with extensive experience in extra-legal fighting will tell you punches, elbow strikes, and grappling rule the roost I can't really find any reason to disagree with him. I have an unformed opinion on this one, so I'll leave it be.

then why did they call him a "pressure point striker" but yes he also trained in Karate. If you re-read my post, you'll notice I simply said it's unlikely he's a student of anyone from the DKI $$$ machine. Since ryukyu kempo doesn't have a monopoly on kyusho, that's entirely different than saying he's not a pressure point guy. Though, in his case, he's more known for his kiko breathing allowing him to stand there at take a beating. I stand corrected. Apparently, he presents himself as a judoka as well. I just took the card from the UFCII I attended at face value. . .though Gary Goodrich used to be a KSW guy and now he goes by something else so that's maybe not a stellar idea.

Obviously, it depends on the gym. However, in my experience, one side's training intensity is, on average, markedly different from the other.

George dillman wrote an article in Black belt magazine about how a "pressure point striker" could walk through the competition at the UFC..Luckily they gave him a chance to show everyone. Go rent UFC 7 and watch his top student Ryan Parker Get thrown and Choked out in the first round by a judoka name Remco Pardoe. A coupla small things. . . Ryan Parker's an Okinawan Shorin Ryu guy. I don't know who his instructor is/was, but this makes it unlikely he's one of Dillman, Moneymaker or any of the other kyusho salesmen's students. Secondly, Remco Pardoel is a jujitsu guy. End result: a guy who can take (after adequate preparation, therein lies the rub for both kyusho and kiko) full power shots just about anywhere on his body lasted *36* seconds. . .not that Orlando Weit (ahh, anyone else nostalgic for the 250 lb v. 150 lb mismatches in the original UFCs?) did much better.

Let's hope I'm not too late to the party. My take: 1) judo -- primarily a sport focused on throwing with groundwork a close or distant second (depends on the coach), but it's a sport like rugby. Specifically, it's practitioners are tough. This is mainly, I suspect, due to the liveness of the free play training method they call randori. FWIW, it also contains a two-man kata component designed for specific self-defense situations. This is where it gets its atemi as well as some locks prohibited in competition (AKA kote gaishi). Signature techniques: standing full body throws (eg tai otoshi or seoi nage), foot sweeps, sacrifice throws (eg tani otoshi or tomoe nage), joint locks to the elbow, and choking 2) jujutsu -- really a pretty broad umbrella. You have koryu styles like Araki Ryu that are what Ellis Amdur non-pejoratively calls "fossils." I'm not all that familiar with them, but, in my experience, they tend to have more of a weapons focus than meiji-era jujutsu (I've often heard these labelled gendai systems). Over the last decade or so, jujutsu has often been associated with the Machados and Gracies out of Brazil. Likewise, jujutsu is often used as a term by judokas who teach judo+ or (IMO, sadly) karate+. Signature techniques: too broad a term to list 3) aikido, OTOH, is a wholly different beast. It's a descendant of Daito Ryu aikijujutsu mixed with some cultish Japanese religion (someone help me out here). It's labelled an internal art and, as such, will have more extreme and exacting body alignment requirements. Going by branch stereotypes, it runs the gamut from Yoshinkan (widely perceived to be pretty rough'n'tumble) to Ki Society (usually look like Cirque de Soleil on Bravo). Signature techniques: any wrist lock or throw (particularly kote gaishi and shihonage), tenkan, and irimi nage (I guess it's okay to call those techniques). As an aside, Morihei Ueshiba is widely quoted as saying "aikido is 90% atemi." If it is, why is it an unusual aikidoka who can clobber someone (as an aside, I recommend Ellis Amdur's book "Dueling with O-Sensei" for his chapter on atemi in aikido)? ===================comparison=================== I once read something a karate sensei said about taijiquan (he also studied that system). He was asked, "how does karate compare to taiji?" Since I don't have the quote anymore, I'll paraphrase "karate is a super art for humans. taiji is an art for superhumans." I put aikido in that same category--it's freakin' amazing for the people who can make it work but the people who can carry off the body mechanics to make it work are too rare for my taste. OTOH, while only a tiny fraction of judokas end up as Olympians, I'd wager the majority of the guys who're still around after 2.5-3 years will be significantly more formidable an opponent than they were previously. I've always wondered how much attracting and retaining students in various systems has much to do with self-selection. Thus, over time, stereotypes (good or bad; y'alll's choice) tend to be self-fulfilling.

I practice several forms of standing: 1) san ti -- xingyi's 3 body posture 2) several Dai family xinyi postures -- tiger, chicken, and monkey 3) the normal standing post (I suspect this is the same as your 3 circle stance) 4) another standing from Chen Qing Zhou's style of TJQ How long? This is where we (Che style xingyi) digress from other xingyi systems. Unlike others who spend eons of time in santi, the Che system recommends you not overdo it on static methods. Furthermore, the xingyi methods are close to single leg standings and, in my experience, are much more rigorous than the double-weighted postures. FWIW, I'd suggest that 30 minutes of standing during classtime is a waste of valuable partner time. I've never understood why coaches have people stand in class *after* they've been taught the appropriate alignment.