Miracle Technique and Miracle Workout

[Jiffy]

Okay, if you've opened this, you are either the audience I'm targetting or you've felt the same frustrations I have.

I've been on this site for sometime and invariably, every day I find some deluded individual that wants a miricle method or cure to something.

I thought I'd jump on and drop in some cold hard facts of Martial Arts.

1. It takes time to achieve competence

2. It should take competence to achieve black belt.

3. It takes tremendous effort and persistance to get either.

4. No art is better than another, it is what works for the individual.

5. The art does not make the fighter, the fighter makes the art.

6. You cannot bulk up without excersize

7. You cannot increase strength without strength training.

8. Both of these take time.

9. You need to rest if you want your injury to heal.

10. If it keeps hurting (not aching), you're doing it wrong.

11. The style does not make a good school, a school makes the style good.

12. ALL styles will compliment another style you are training in.

13. You are never too old or too unfit to start. Something is better than nothing.

14. Persistance is the key, not time!!!

Post your thoughts either for or against.

[MizuRyu]

I agree with every one of em. Well said man.

Don't forget: You can't, and I mean CAN'T get big unless you work your legs. All the pushups in the world won't bulk you up.

Your body's a tree, you can't have big branches unless you have a strong trunk.

[alsey]

good post. unfortunately western society is built around quick fixes, so a lot of those things are foreign or undesireable when someone first takes up MA.

[bushido_man96]

Very nice! And so very true. I love watching the commercial on TV, the latest in my area is Hydroxy-cut. "I lost 45 lbs on hydroxy-cut!" And what they don't tell you is that they scalped their diet, and exercised for AT LEAST 30 minutes a day aerobically. When I see pills and such to lose weight, I just scoff.

I don't even mess with protien drinks or muscle building compounds, or anything like that. Not that I don't trust them, I just don't use them.

[Brandon Fisher]

Great post and I mean GREAT!!. You hit the nail on the head. I have training 22 years and I am a Godan and I still learn about and improve my technique and increase my knowledge. After this many years the Kihon is easy its precise and strong but I am working to make it more precise and stronger each day. I am training hard again which I had not been allowed to do the past 10 years because of my old instructor. I encourage everyone to train hard and get the most out of each training session. This is the only way to grow and learn.

Oh by the way did I mention this thread is GREAT.

[UseoForce]

Sorry to kill the thunder, but one thing is wrong. All styles are NOT equal.

To avoid insulting people, I won't mention names, but some styles are great for self defense and others are not. Others give a great workout but have no philisophical benefits. The assumption that ALL styles are equal is preposterous. Does it really make sense, if you think about it, that every style ever created is just as good as the next? Does it make sense to you that the latest "Mcstyle" (my word, used under copyright ) created by some brown belt is equal to Shaolin, Wing Chun, Shotokan, or MMA?

Furthermore, how "good" a style is isn't determined by a peron's skill. It is determined by the needs of that person. Tai Chi, as it is taught most places in the US, is a very poor choice for self defense. That's just the nature of the art. It does not mean Tai Chi is bad. It offers philisophical and some excersise benefits. But in terms of self defense, tai chi (as it is commonly taught, I know there is a more combative kind) is not a "good" style.

[Shui Tora]

Apart from the points that have been suggested by other people, you have managed to show the main and relevent points of what people are asking... True, hard facts.

I concer with what you have said!

[Jiffy]

Sorry to kill the thunder, but one thing is wrong. All styles are NOT equal.

To avoid insulting people, I won't mention names, but some styles are great for self defense and others are not. Others give a great workout but have no philisophical benefits. The assumption that ALL styles are equal is preposterous. Does it really make sense, if you think about it, that every style ever created is just as good as the next? Does it make sense to you that the latest "Mcstyle" (my word, used under copyright ) created by some brown belt is equal to Shaolin, Wing Chun, Shotokan, or MMA?

Furthermore, how "good" a style is isn't determined by a peron's skill. It is determined by the needs of that person. Tai Chi, as it is taught most places in the US, is a very poor choice for self defense. That's just the nature of the art. It does not mean Tai Chi is bad. It offers philisophical and some excersise benefits. But in terms of self defense, tai chi (as it is commonly taught, I know there is a more combative kind) is not a "good" style.

Thank you for providing an example of those that entirely miss the point. I didn't say that all styles are equal, I said the person makes them good, not the style make the person good. In your second paragraph, you say this yourself. You mention that for some things Tai Chi is great, but for self defence, it's not good. I hate to burst your bubble, but all styles have something they are not very good at. For you, the definition of "Good" might mean it's self defence qualities, but it's not the same for everyone. Tai Chi is a good style, it just depends what you are looking for. If you ask a Tai Chi practitioner what they think of boxing, they might think the same as what some might think about Tai Chi, that's it's not that good. That's because what the Tai Chi practitioner is looking for is not what the boxer is looking for.

[UseoForce]

Sorry to kill the thunder, but one thing is wrong. All styles are NOT equal.

To avoid insulting people, I won't mention names, but some styles are great for self defense and others are not. Others give a great workout but have no philisophical benefits. The assumption that ALL styles are equal is preposterous. Does it really make sense, if you think about it, that every style ever created is just as good as the next? Does it make sense to you that the latest "Mcstyle" (my word, used under copyright ) created by some brown belt is equal to Shaolin, Wing Chun, Shotokan, or MMA?

Furthermore, how "good" a style is isn't determined by a peron's skill. It is determined by the needs of that person. Tai Chi, as it is taught most places in the US, is a very poor choice for self defense. That's just the nature of the art. It does not mean Tai Chi is bad. It offers philisophical and some excersise benefits. But in terms of self defense, tai chi (as it is commonly taught, I know there is a more combative kind) is not a "good" style.

Thank you for providing an example of those that entirely miss the point. I didn't say that all styles are equal, I said the person makes them good, not the style make the person good. In your second paragraph, you say this yourself. You mention that for some things Tai Chi is great, but for self defence, it's not good. I hate to burst your bubble, but all styles have something they are not very good at. For you, the definition of "Good" might mean it's self defence qualities, but it's not the same for everyone. Tai Chi is a good style, it just depends what you are looking for. If you ask a Tai Chi practitioner what they think of boxing, they might think the same as what some might think about Tai Chi, that's it's not that good. That's because what the Tai Chi practitioner is looking for is not what the boxer is looking for.

1. All styles have weak points, but some styles' weak points and gaps are much bigger than others'.

2. I didn't say Tai Chi is a bad style. I said it was a poor choice for self defense purposes (and it is).

3. Obviously, a person's goals will determine his or her view of a particular style. I agree there.

4. I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but the statement you made "No art is better than another" led me to believe that you're saying all styles are equal. I disagree with that for the reasons stated in my previous post. If that's not what you meant, sorry

[bushido_man96]

Both UseoForce and Jiffy are making well substantiated points. I will not express my feelings either way, but I will say that the main point does still stand: You can't accomplish anything in the martial arts without working hard at it.