bushido_man96

This is another note of contention for me, and I want to address it here, since you brought it up, Dobbersky. On a side note, I'm going to swap my stance and defend forms training in a thread where I have been discussing the idea of training without forms....oh, well, that's why we like it here so much, right?! Just because a style doesn't teach forms applications like Karate kata bunkai, doesn't mean the forms are "only for grading." I'll fall back here on my experience in that ATA, for two reasons: 1. Because I have enough experience with the ATA forms, and the thought processes behind the creation and reasons for the ATA forms. 2. Because whenever the idea of "forms are just a belt curriculum," the ATA tends to pop to the minds of many. The ATA forms seem to some to be just a series of moves, put together just because HU Lee thought his style should have forms, since other TKD styles did, too, but that he wanted his forms "to be cooler." The ATA actually used Gen. Chois forms in its early days, but Lee actually learned the 16 forms taught him rather quickly, and wanted to create forms that presented more of a challenge, and also had a more focal point on kicking, which is what TKD became known for after its branch from Shotokan. My dad also remembers learning the Pal Gwe set of forms in his early ATA days. So, with these goals in mind, and as Lee established how and what he would teach as the curriculum for each rank in the ATA, he established his forms system as such. Lee established, for example, the white belt curriculum, with the focus on the reverse and lunge punch, knife hand strike high block, middle block, and low block, and the front kick and side kick, and the stances of focus were front and middle stances. So, with this in mind, he designed the white belt form to focus on these techniques, done on both sides of the body, with the form having equal movement in both directions. So, the applications of the techniques in the form are in the skill development of the techniques for that rank. White belt, very basic. Orange belt then, added the round kick, along with double forearm "guarding" blocks, and backfist strikes. It also added the back stance. The idea behind the ATA forms is to introduce new movement concepts and more advanced techniques as the student goes up in rank. So, you get a progression in the difficulty level of the forms as one gets higher in rank. Which is what one would expect to see as a student rises in ranks. The one-steps also reflect this as the ranks go up. One could also say the "applications" of the movements in the forms can be seen in the combinations of the moves done in the forms. In the ATA, its more face value and less digging and interpretation than in most Karate styles. As for the ITF forms, there is the school of thought out there that the applications of the forms were not taught to the Koreans who would go on to become masters and propagate TKD, so they didn't see any reason to adhere to the forms as-is, and made some modifications. So that's my take on that front. I appreciate he discussion so far from all fronts!

The differences there are solely rested on the shoulders of the instructors at hand. Those instructors also did something I wasn't really describing, basically making a "Kickboxing Karate" option as a class. What I am talking about is using and training the applications of Karate kata bunkai, and training those things without the kata. Because after all, most of us agree that the katas are the repository for these applications. The idea most hold to on the creation of kata was that they were created to "store" this information; whether for secrecy or some other reason is still up open to debate. So, what I'm saying is, we have the kata recorded; there really isn't any danger in today's world of this treasure of the MA past being lost. Why can't a Karateka train the applications of the katas without learning the katas? It can be done, because styles like Aikido and Hapkido successfully train self-defense applications minus kata. What I am not espousing is taking Karate and making it into random shadowboxing.

See, this is why I prefer the Jutsu. While the martial art is a huge part of my spiritual life, that is up to me to find that personal meaning. I think all of the long term guys from our family would feel this way, too, despite having very different religious views. Agreed. I don't think its part of my job as an MA instructor to attempt to instill my viewpoints, ethics, and philosophy on life in the others I come into contact with. If someone wants to know my point of view on such things, I'll gladly tell them, and if they want my opinions on their own, I'll gladly fill in those blanks, as well.

And this is what we see the most when it comes to training the two different styles, the give and take of contact levels vs target selection.

The points I list in bold give rise to some points for me. Situational awareness is something I believe that is a bit easier to train when not actively, physically training. Just taking the time while standing around to study where you are at, and come up with some scenarios in your mind of how to react to various stimuli. I'm not trying to over-simplify this concept, but I think its one that can be more easily intertwined amongst the two styles. As far as scenario training goes, I agree and disagree. No, the fight training is not likely covering weapons scenarios or impromptu muggings. But, they do plug contact levels into the scenario more often than not, and end up training under a more intense level than some RBSD scenarios. But, this is dependent on the trainers, as well. Thank you for contributing your own such experiences to the discussion. I think these experiences really lend to the discussion.

You're going to have to point to some examples for me here. I'm not sure what it is that the Western styles that is so different that the Eastern styles are set head and shoulders above them. Also, I don't disagree that other styles don't cover the gamut of combat situations. I do think some styles have perhaps helped to improve the learning curve of the process.

Thanks Bob. And if I can't remember, I have that handy YouTube recording of me I showed you.

I see what you are saying here, Bob. And I mean no disrespect to any organization that holds to their By-laws or traditions otherwise. Its just tough for me to swallow when age is the restriction, and the reason why seems to end up being "just because."

If my students travel to another school/area I would like for them to be be looked at with with some respect without always having to prove it. Sadly, in some ways it's about the politics I know they will face. More over, I would like them to have a network to reach out to when they leave the nest. If that's their desire. It's a cold world out there and if they have some brothers I feel they would have a little easier path to walk when they venture into the world. Well, in that case, you might look into trying to make your own organization, and therefore confirm your own credentials that way. It may take some time to gain traction, but its a start.

I'm not sure of the translation of those other two techniques, but I'm guessing side kick is one of them.I thought the round kick was considerably easier to learn than the side kick, and teaching a side kick is hampered by the knowledge of how to do a round kick by the student in the early phase; the new students will usually cheat and do a half round, half side kick as opposed to a really good, true side kick. So, I think there is some truth to the statement. But one should still learn and practice the round kick. Brian, Mae geri is front kick and Yoko geri keage is side snap kick. Cool, thanks Bob. I thought that was the case (not necessarily in that order, but that those two kicks were the ones being referred to), but I didn't want to assume.

Hehe, its a cool Star Wars analogy, for sure, and who doesn't love a Star Wars analogy? When it comes to those things, for me, I took my character development and spiritual development from my home upbringing and my religious beliefs from my church. MAs aren't necessary for it, in my opinion.

But, Karate wasn't always Karate-Do.

Thanks for the input here, tallgeese. Great points, to consider. It will be interesting to see if more "traditional" style dojos start to adapt to more "alive" training using MMA adapted approaches.

That makes sense. I agree that if you are wanting to make a commitment to professional fighting, then all your energies need to be focused in that area. In that sense, one probably a high level athlete as it is, and therefore possesses certain tools that will lend themselves to being able to defend oneself when need be.

Is it really a fact? Are there studies that conclude this? There are those who have achieved similar levels in Aikido, a style devoid of kata practice, yet very spiritual in and of itself. As far as "Do" goes; that's a subject I don't truly get wound up about. Not every Martial Art is about the "Do," and therefore not every Martial Artist is concerned with it, and so I think one can study Karate without concerning oneself with "Do." I'm sure this will gain me even more popularity than I am winning now, , but I don't think the "Do" mindset or path is necessary to every Martial Art or Martial Artist.

With no vest, I'd just be presenting a lot of center mass, then? This is true, but ideally, if you are shooting in the conditions you are thinking of, you would want to be behind cover if you have no vest. Also, if you are going to hold a pistol with two hands, which most people do, then its going to be tricky not to square up; at least it is for me, with my short, stubby arms. You can try to present the gun standing side on, but again this is only with one hand to stabilize and aim; not as easy to do as movies and novels would have you believe. I will also mention a few rounds of sims training will show you how much you can get shot in the hands and arms in gun fights. More food for thought. I'm not familiar with Cooper, so I can't comment on the thoughts of others here.

I remember you showing me Wankan, Bob. Good fun. I think I still remember Naifanchi, too. When my arm gets better, I'll be reviewing and practicing it with more zeal once again.

I think that's great that you got to continue learning requirements through the rank of sandan.My question is, what the difference between knowing those requirements as a junior, and knowing them when you came of age to hold the rank? To me, it seems a formality of age, and not of passing on knowledge. Unless I'm missing something that I would understand better being a Shindokan stylist, not knowing the intricacies of what you learned when you did.

I'm not sure of the translation of those other two techniques, but I'm guessing side kick is one of them.I thought the round kick was considerably easier to learn than the side kick, and teaching a side kick is hampered by the knowledge of how to do a round kick by the student in the early phase; the new students will usually cheat and do a half round, half side kick as opposed to a really good, true side kick. So, I think there is some truth to the statement. But one should still learn and practice the round kick.

I think this is the question that bothers me here. I can get that Karate may not be Karate without kata. Why do we say "just kickboxing" concerning an art with no kata? What's wrong with kickboxing? What's wrong with wrestling? Or fencing? Or Aikido? Not a thing wrong with them at all; they are what they are and so is their methodologies. So often the question of karate with no kata turns into an indirect bashing of all things non-karate. So basically, with no kata, it should just be called by another name? I'm not sure it even would have to be called by another name. After all, Karate originally meant "China hand," and then became "Empty Hand." Not "Kata Hand," or "Kata Empty Hand," or anything like that. I also agree that just because someone chose to taught Karate without kata, that it would be denigrated to being just "Kickboxing."

My question and concern with any forms training, is can you learn the things proposed to be learned in the forms, without the forms? If you learn the applications through the forms, then why not focus more on the applications, and less on the forms. Because it appears that if the applications are what is important, especially for self-defense, then why not do what is important for that aspect of the training? This is why I wonder about forms sometimes. I think they can be a good tool. But I don't think they are always the most important tool, or the most necessary tool.

Hey all. I'm interested in thoughts on the correlation that could exist between fight training, like for knockdown, grappling, or MMA competitions, and self-defense training, and if the two can be done simultaneously, but not so much with one at the expense of the other? I know there are several schools of thoughts on this; between the "traditionalist" view point, the fighter view point, and what we would call the RBSD view point (a term I've noticed hasn't been popping up as much as it used to). Once again, I look forward to any and all thought processes on this subject matter.

Its very cool that your instructor allows you to work what you need for training into the framework of the classes, then. My current instructor would not do that; I'd have to find the extra time to work in that extra work.

Perhaps you could talk to the pre-school coordinator about getting a chance to come to the school and talking to the class or having a meeting with the parents about what you have on offer.

What kind of recognition in particular are you looking for with the grades?