Mixing techniques?

[Kajukenbopr]

Your probably correct. Is KodenKan Danzan Ruy (Judo) what one of the founders of Kajukenbo studied?

To be more precise, the Okazaki Dojo was called the "Kodenkan". There Henry Okazaki taught both "Danzan Ryu Jujitsu" and "Kodokan Judo".

Kajukenbo founder, "Joe Holck" received black belts in both of those arts from Sig Kufferath (Okazaki student). Kajukenbo founder, "Frank Ordanez" also trained with one of Okazaki's students, Sam Luke.

thank you for the correction

[Hitman]

Hang on a second...if a Black Belt is simply having learned all of the basics, or mastered the basics, and you shouldn't "cross-train" until you have mastered the basics, then you are saying that you shouldn't try anything but one one style until you reach Black Belt level?? I couldn't disagree more.

An example...I train in Shotokan. Shotokan does not (very generally) teach any kicks above the level of the solar plexus. The style is noted for it's VERY low, solid stances and powerful techniques. Personally, I am quite limber through the legs, so I learned very early to use Tae Kwon Do-esque kicks in my sparring- using my natural ability to "accent" my Shotokan training. I would use the same Shotokan style technique on a roundhouse kick, just throw it at head height, sometimes with a spin...or a Shotokan style front kick at head height with a jump. It worked...FOR ME. And I did this after I had mastered (or at least learned well) how to throw a particular TECHNIQUE. Not ALL tchniques, just THAT technique. I didn't try to throw a spinning kick until I knew how to throw that kick, but I didn't wait to perfect a side kick before I tried throwing a front snap kick with a little hop planted in there.

I also think you guys are a little too concentrated on a style's philosophy. A lot of a style's general philosophy of self defense or of fighting are opinions and not much more. Once upon a time, someone said this is how you throw a kick. Someone else disagreed, and so a new style was formed. Is either opinion wrong? Is either differing style of kicking correct for any and all situations? This is true even among different schools or even different instructors of the same style. In Shotokan, some schools teach to throw a roundhouse kick with the ball of the foot making contact (the area under the toes on the sole of the foot) and others teach to connect with the top of the foot on the toe knuckles. Which is "correct?" Do I REALLY have to "master" throwing this roundhouse kick with the ball of my foot before I try doing it with the knuckles??

Finally, I will shoot a little disclaimer in here. I do believe it is good and maybe even necessary to have a "thorough familiarity" with a style's philosophy and reasons for teaching a certain way before trying something new. There actually are reasons for a style to teach techniques in a certain way, and students should learn those reasons before branching out. However, individuals are individuals and what works for me may not work for you. Imagine what "Superfoot" Bill Wallace would have become if he hadn't said, "I wonder if I can do EVERYTHING with just one leg?" Like Bruce Lee said, "Absorb what is useful." Geez I'm wordy tonight...

[Menjo]

I agree with you,~~But very much to a lesser degree...

[Kajukenbopr]

Hang on a second...if a Black Belt is simply having learned all of the basics, or mastered the basics, and you shouldn't "cross-train" until you have mastered the basics, then you are saying that you shouldn't try anything but one one style until you reach Black Belt level?? I couldn't disagree more.

An example...I train in Shotokan. Shotokan does not (very generally) teach any kicks above the level of the solar plexus. The style is noted for it's VERY low, solid stances and powerful techniques. Personally, I am quite limber through the legs, so I learned very early to use Tae Kwon Do-esque kicks in my sparring- using my natural ability to "accent" my Shotokan training. I would use the same Shotokan style technique on a roundhouse kick, just throw it at head height, sometimes with a spin...or a Shotokan style front kick at head height with a jump. It worked...FOR ME. And I did this after I had mastered (or at least learned well) how to throw a particular TECHNIQUE. Not ALL tchniques, just THAT technique. I didn't try to throw a spinning kick until I knew how to throw that kick, but I didn't wait to perfect a side kick before I tried throwing a front snap kick with a little hop planted in there.

I also think you guys are a little too concentrated on a style's philosophy. A lot of a style's general philosophy of self defense or of fighting are opinions and not much more. Once upon a time, someone said this is how you throw a kick. Someone else disagreed, and so a new style was formed. Is either opinion wrong? Is either differing style of kicking correct for any and all situations? This is true even among different schools or even different instructors of the same style. In Shotokan, some schools teach to throw a roundhouse kick with the ball of the foot making contact (the area under the toes on the sole of the foot) and others teach to connect with the top of the foot on the toe knuckles. Which is "correct?" Do I REALLY have to "master" throwing this roundhouse kick with the ball of my foot before I try doing it with the knuckles??

Finally, I will shoot a little disclaimer in here. I do believe it is good and maybe even necessary to have a "thorough familiarity" with a style's philosophy and reasons for teaching a certain way before trying something new. There actually are reasons for a style to teach techniques in a certain way, and students should learn those reasons before branching out. However, individuals are individuals and what works for me may not work for you. Imagine what "Superfoot" Bill Wallace would have become if he hadn't said, "I wonder if I can do EVERYTHING with just one leg?" Like Bruce Lee said, "Absorb what is useful." Geez I'm wordy tonight...

Shotokan is shotokan, different instructors teach different stuff, but it is still in the system.

not everyone is capable of developing a style on their own... (for the Bruce LEe remark) suddenly eveyrone wants to train in 7 styles as if they were to develop this amazin styles out of thin air.

I've seen people try to develop new styles without proper foundation just to develop themselves as fighters and followers with half-developed systems.

The kicking thing would be a good example except- dont they teach you there are different ways to make impact with the same kick? of course, certain things will be preferred, but all aspects are(or should) be shared.Maybe you need to question your instructor if he wont teach you practical stuff(different apporoaches to different people)

On the comment of phylosophy, some thigns go with you, some dont, but you dont need each and every one to say, huh, I'll stick to this part and that part and it will be perfect. OR are you saying you cant stick to a path you selected?

Find a style you like, train with that, when you have mastered what you have, go learn something else that might help you with what you already have. you dont need to train in every art to be effective. and you can be pretty effective with one art.

[bokendowanderer]

I've been involved in martial arts for over 25 years. I still practice a front kick, side kick, back kick, roundhouse kick, front punch, reverse punch, blocks, etc. the same way I was taught by my first instructor. But, I do take each basic technique and alter them for different situation. I practice high kicks (head level) and low kicks ( down to shin level). I've had different instructors try to make me change my basics. Some I changed a little as long as it still fit. But if I found the original technique was better I kept it.

The key thing is I was given a good FOUDATION to work with and i don't see a need to change that. I worked on that foundation untill I was comfortable straying away without disturbing that.

I'm not saying you have to be a master of an entire style or art before you can do that. I did'n't. I wasn't even a black belt before I explored a different style. I had been training for about four years constantly.

Today I practice different styles and still practice the same basics in warm up and cool down. I think when you can do all your basics without your instructor watching over your shoulder and do them correctly, you should follow your ambition. If that's a single style great. That's whats best for you and you should go for it. If your hungry for other things and feel theres stuff out there you could use go out and feed that hunger. If you don't you may never be satisfied.

I don't think your wrong if you say stick with one style or one way to do a technique and I don't think you are wrong if you think you should study different style or ajust techniques for different application or situations.

Let your imagination be your guide.

P.S. Keep in mind. If certain technique are done improperly and you constantly strees a joint, such as a knee, past its capabilities like overextension you could injure it permenantly. Some basics are designed that way to preserve the body instead of tearing it down. I know a lot of people who have had knees and hips replaced in martial arts because they put to much stress on the joints.

[Hitman]

I think I understand your point Kajukenbopr. You are saying that not everyone can simply take a month's worth of classes in this style, a month's worth in that style and a 3rd month's worth of classes in this other style and make it fit together as if they had taken 3 month's classes. However, the original question on this thread was not the mixing of STYLES, but the mixing of techniques. That was my point when I was talking about different Shotokan schools teaching slightly differently. Yes, it is the same "core" system, but it can have a very different "flavor."

Not all instructors are open minded enough to even consider much in the way of altering techniques either. Some seriously traditional schools will ALMOST say "this is the ONLY way" on many techniques. For example...

I have been in an "open" tourny where a competitor threw a nearly perfect Kung Fu style "Eagle Arm" strike to the opponent's head. He was not awarded the point because the "Ridgehand" was not proper form. The official was a Karate stylist (so was the competitor, but that's another story) and probably had no clue that the strike was in very proper form for another style. In his mind, the strike was simply not right, and frankly, this does go on a LOT in some schools.

My point is that certain schools and cetain instructors do NOT necessarily teach you practical stuff. Some teach traditional stuff to the exclusion of practicality. Some schools and instructors- even in the same style- teach the same techniques differently based on their own experiences and their own instruction. Well, much like this discussion- we have 2 different view points and neither one is necessarily correct and neither is necessarily wrong. However, I do like being able to explore your opinion and learn from it.

[KF Dude]

I move within the framework of my system because it works. I don't feel limited at all - far from it. No technique is writen in stone but you do need mastery of the basics of "x" style to start from. Over time even the most traditional style will take on the characteristics of the individual practioner.

As far as fighting goes everything is fair game. The only objective is to survive.

[Kajukenbopr]

I think I understand your point Kajukenbopr. You are saying that not everyone can simply take a month's worth of classes in this style, a month's worth in that style and a 3rd month's worth of classes in this other style and make it fit together as if they had taken 3 month's classes. However, the original question on this thread was not the mixing of STYLES, but the mixing of techniques. That was my point when I was talking about different Shotokan schools teaching slightly differently. Yes, it is the same "core" system, but it can have a very different "flavor."

Not all instructors are open minded enough to even consider much in the way of altering techniques either. Some seriously traditional schools will ALMOST say "this is the ONLY way" on many techniques. For example...

I have been in an "open" tourny where a competitor threw a nearly perfect Kung Fu style "Eagle Arm" strike to the opponent's head. He was not awarded the point because the "Ridgehand" was not proper form. The official was a Karate stylist (so was the competitor, but that's another story) and probably had no clue that the strike was in very proper form for another style. In his mind, the strike was simply not right, and frankly, this does go on a LOT in some schools.

My point is that certain schools and cetain instructors do NOT necessarily teach you practical stuff. Some teach traditional stuff to the exclusion of practicality. Some schools and instructors- even in the same style- teach the same techniques differently based on their own experiences and their own instruction. Well, much like this discussion- we have 2 different view points and neither one is necessarily correct and neither is necessarily wrong. However, I do like being able to explore your opinion and learn from it.

difference in approaches then,instead of techniques, those change with the people and instructors of a place. but I think everyone has enough common sense to change how they punch or kick if its more comfortable and effective for them.

if you cant use something, train with it as part of your curriculum, but you dont need to use it if you dont know how to apply it....specially not in a fight...