bushido_man96

With attention to the bold-faced section, is this the way that it should be, though? And are there more benefits to doing it this way, than the other way around? Also, now that it really isn't necessary to worry about the secret dessemination of techniques, do we cling to forms just because it has been done this way for so long?

This is pretty much a forms-based question, but I welcome any and all comments, forms-related training or not. Be warned, though, that it is a rather forms-related questioning. The title for this post comes from the title of an article in the September, 2009 issue of Black Belt Magazine. In this article, he uses the idea of Michael Johnson, and his being so good at running, and working so hard at it, and delving so deep into something so common as running, that Johnson was able to make it something people sit up and take notice of, when he does it. The author, Steven Pearlman, then relates the idea to training in a single kata. I really found this article rather interesting, and when Pearlman used Michael Johnson and his running as the comparison for studying a kata, I really think he hit on a good idea. It is said that Funakoshi was made to practice Tekki (Nahanchi?) for 7 years, before learning a different kata. This doesn't happen much today, because katas seem to be the curriculum for belt tests; each belt has a kata(s) that must be learned. I think his idea of working one kata, from the ground up, is a great way to explore how one can really dig into what one kata would have to offer. What are everyone's thoughts on this? Do you think that having a "kata-based curriculum" has in a way reduced how much one kata can be explored? Are all the katas a necessary evil? I look forward to your comments.

8-26-09 Morning: bike with dog, 1 mile. Bench press: 205x5x5 Crunches: 4x25 Push-ups: 2x20 Sit-ups: 20, 15, no foot bracing. Dumbell military press: 30x15x3, very tough Dips: 9, 6, max sets.

Kata/bunkai have a reciprocating relationship in many "traditional" styles. The practitioners learn the forms, then learn the applications of the moves in the forms, and build from there. But my question is, which came first? The bunkai, or the kata? I think it is kind of a "the chicken or the egg" arguement. In looking back, I think it is generally agreed that katas were developed as a way of transferring the techniques of a system to the next generation. Katas have been referred to as "textbooks" or "encyclopedias" of the systems. With this point of view in mind, it makes me think that applications and the like were probably there first, and took precedence as the core of what was learned. Then, some clever individuals figured out how to represent their movements and methods by placing them into forms, and then proceded to pass them on. As this has taken place, it appears that learning the katas has taken precedence over learning the applications; not that the kata is more important, but it is viewed as what must be learned and mastered first, before the applications can be applied. Anyways, as misinformed as I might be, that is my take on the subject. I look forward to everyone's thoughts on this.

Congrats!

That's great. AMC was advertising a Delta Force double feature this week, and one guy asked who would lose if Chuck from Delta Force III fought Chuck from Delta Force II. His answer was: "America."

Welcome to the Forums.

I think that this is a fair example, and I don't think it is something that everyone will be able to do right away. However, the nice thing about the Martial Arts is that you don't have to hurry. Yes, one still is working for a grade, in a way, but I don't quite line it up the same as cheating on tests in classes to pass both. Everyone will be affected differently by their training, for sure.

Welcome, Luvshak. Newcomers are more than welcome to play along.

That's pretty crazy.

It really is something that should be taken seriously. It is driving while impaired, and is wreckless. Not much different than driving under the influence of alcohol, when you consider what the consequences could be.

Does that really connotate "advanced," though? In my mind, not really. Even in the videos that Joe posted, I don't think that those techniques are that complicated. At any rate, how much time would you have to spend learning the "double punch" before you went on to adding the "collapsing" elbow? Not much. That could be done in the first 15 minutes of class, easily, I think. The footwork isn't complex, even with the follow-ups. I do think that there are some basics concepts behind body movement involved in learning self-defense techniques. But in the end, the wrist only moves 4 ways; forward, back, and a bit to each side. There's a bit of angle in there, but that's the meat of it. So, there are only so many ways to manipulate the wrist. Once one starts to tag something as "advanced" self-defense, I think it comes at the risk of adding flair or flash to the technique that is not needed, and loading too much fine motor skill into a technique that hopefully pops out in a situation where adrenaline has numbed those fine motor skills considerably.

8-25-09 Weights Leg press: 370x10x3 Assisted pull-ups: 9, 7, 6, max sets. Lunges: 25x10x3 Bar curls: 70x10x3 Calf raises: 3x15 Stretch: 10 minutes MA Session TKD: 3:30 - 3:50. Worked on black belt forms. Se-Jong x 2, Gae-Baek x 2, Po-Eun x 2, Kwang-Gae x 2. Defensive Tactics: 4:00 - 4:50. Worked on some spontaneous knife defense, against underhand stabs, overhead stabs, and slashes. This was a really good session. We then did some kick exchange exercises, and some low line kicks. My DT partner made an interesting comment, about doing some techniques differently, or approaching a drill that is different than something we do in sparring in TKD class. He said "I don't want to mess up your TKD..." and I told him that wouldn't happen. I said, "why do you think I take TKD, anyways? Its so I can apply this stuff."

I'm with tg again here. If you want to give it a go, then do. I think that even having an interest in checking something else out is a good enough reason. You may learn some different concepts in the different schools, and you can apply them accordingly. If you begin to feel overwhelmed, then back down to just one art. Just do what you can.

Perhaps, but I didn't see that the punches in this kata rose that high.

Well, its like anything that you do a lot of. The more you study it, the more you see. Naturally, this can only come with time and experience. I don't like to put the shodan rank on such a high pedestal. It is an achievement to be proud of, and it should be taken seriously, but in the end, its just another step that you take....and you can't take it until you get there.

I tend to agree with tallgeese here. If you want to do both, and have the time and resources to do so, then go for it. If you find it a bit overwhelming, then stick to one for a while. I also think that you can master/perfect/whatever you want to refer to it as, more than one art. Its all about how well you can pick it up, and how hard you work on them. Its possible. Maybe not easy, but hey, if it were easy, then everyone would do it.

My deal here is that these guys have to start somewhere, and have to get that experience from somewhere, so I don't have a problem in working with someone who doesn't have as much experience as others do. One can only become great one day at a time. Who knows? You may end up becoming a part of something special.

I agree with your sentiments here. I like to gain the control and maintain it, especially since its more applicable to cuffing and the like. Yes, I have noticed this, too. Aikido movement, for lack of better terminology, seems to be a lot more technical than the Hapkido movement that I do. However, I have found spots where I do a bit of cross-over with each. Of these two 'soft' styles, I find that Hapkido is the 'harder' of the two styles. However, in reading books put out by the Yoshinkan, I've seen more serious striking involved. The system I study in tends to be less aggressive with the strikes. Thanks for the comments thus far, guys.

That is something that bothers me about Fencing footwork, that it is all back and forth, with no lateral movement. Its good footwork for what it is, but having that lateral movement is a big helper, in my opinion.

Randy Couture vs. Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira……………Nogueira Keith Jardine vs. Thiago Silva…………………………………….Jardine Chris Leben vs. Jake Rosholt………………………………………Leben Nate Marquardt vs. Demian Maia……………………………….Marquardt Brandon Vera vs. Krzysztof Soszynski………………………. Soszynski Gabriel Gonzaga vs. Chris Tuchscherer……………………..Gonzaga Ed Herman vs. Aaron Simpson……………………………………Simpson Michael Russow vs. Justin McCully………………………………Russow Todd Duffee vs. Tim Hague………………………………………….Hague Mark Munoz vs. Nick Catone………………………………………..Cantone Marcus Aurelio vs. Evan Dunham………………………………..Dunham

I have been studying Combat Hapkido for several years now, and I have also been studying Aikido for a while now too, although the college break has put me on hiatus from Aikido. I have seen some difference in the two, and wanted to share them here. 1. Energy. In Aikido, there is more focus on energy. It may be given by the attacker, in the form of a push or a pull, or the defender can give some energy to create movement for projection. In Combat Hapkido, this isn't always the case. Attacks with punches or kicks will produce some energy, but grabs are not usually accompanied by a push or a pulling motion. 2. Rolls/breakfalls. Many of the Aikido techniques end in a throw, or a "projection" of the attacker; the attacker is thrown, and rolls back to a standing position many times. However, there are some breakfalls, and there are also pins and locks taught, as well. However, I feel that Combat Hapkido does a lot more takedowns and restraints/holds, which means for the attacker, that there is less rolling, and more breakfalling, and more tapping out. 3. Striking. Combat Hapkido contains strikes, and they are usually part of every technique done. They are used as distraction techniques, as well as finishes. In Aikido, there isn't near as much striking as the defender, and striking technique is not worked on as a part of the curriculum. It is in Combat Hapkido.

8-24-09 Bench press: 165x10, 175x8, 185x6, 195x4, 215x2, 235x1. I may go up on the early sets. Crunches: 4x25 Sit-ups: 20, 15. I used less foot brace on these today. Push-ups: 30, 25, max sets. I don't seem to be making gains here. Dumbell military press: 30x15x3 Dips: 10, 8 max sets.

In watching one of the videos posted on a thread, the instructor started by stating that they were demonstrating "advanced" self-defense techniques. I don't like the use of the term "advanced" so much in regards to self-defense. What exactly would "advanced" entail? Is there anything that you can't learn self-defense to early on? I don't like to think so. I like to think that you have self-defense; no titles or otherwise. I think that if an instructor has a good system of concepts and strategies, then those things will reach across the board for most, if not all, self-defense scenarios. Just my take, though. Thoughts?

Welcome to KF, and welcome to the world of Martial Arts.