Affliction of Principles

[Adaptation-M.R.]

Hello Everyone,

I am currently in the process of creating a training style; something to keep up my Martial arts training, for there are very few schools where I (temporarily) am. I care a lot about my skills and know that if not practiced, they will deteriorate. It may go on to be more than a simple regime, but for now, let us maintain its humble roots.

My question (which will also answer some of yours): I have come up with all concepts possible from every martial art I have studied. They are: Fluidity (the concept of evading blows without having to take them; either defensively dodging or offensively counter-striking), Eruption (the concept of attacking in short powerful bursts; utilizing the strengths and limitations of the fast twitch mucle fibers, conserving energy, and giving opportunity to study the opponent. also, it less endangers the martial artist.), Gravity (the concept of using gravity, both of the martial artist and the opponent, to generate the most force or cause the most damage), Rigity (the concept of conditioning the body to resist blows and deliver more devastating ones), Misdirection (leading the attention of the opponent to one area then striking at another), and Seperation (the methods of seperating the body, directing the limbs to different targets; purpose: to overwhelm the opponent).

Well here comes the actual confusion: I have trained for a while incorporating these concepts, but have found them constantly cluttering. In other words, there are too many and too many contradicting each other. For example, the concept of rigidty defies that of fluidity. It may be too difficult for the general public (if ti ever gets to taht point). So, what should I do? I am elaning towards more fluid direct principles, for they are easiest to learn and can overpower rigidty if mastered.

Thoughts?

p.s. I know I am probably missing a lot so if you have anything please speak up! forgive the lack of knowleadge.

Matt

[Toptomcat]

You seem to be trying to reinvent martial arts from the ground up, starting with first principles. This is probably overambitious. Try learning more from other sources before you try to codify all you know into one grand, unifying framework.

[WireFrame]

They don't have to conflict at all. Each has it's purpose and use.

For example: I train in Shotokan and in our dojo, Eruption is often the result of combining Fluidity and Rigidity. It is possible.

I think the most rounded martial artists would recognise the benefits of each and try to learn to incorporate them all where appropriate. Focusing too much on one point leaves gaps.

[KarateGeorge]

Toptomcat is right. Rather than try to work from the ground up, take a look at what others have already done.

Also, opposing ideas don't necessarily mean contradictions. It comes to striking a balance between them. In your example, there's a time for rigidity and a time for fluidity. There's a time to be on the offensive and a time to be on the defensive. There's a time to conserve energy, and a time to explode into rapid bursts of attack. Yin/yang and all. Just a thought....

[algernon]

Some of the conflict likely comes from trying to mix incompatible systems; any system, after all, is dependent on the ability of its components to function as a complete unit. A good martial art is not the sum of its parts, but rather the relationship between those parts. This is why we have many wildly different, but equally excellent systems. When you take a martial art's basic elements individually, or add them to an art into which they do not fit, you loose the cohesion that made the art function as a system. A Lamborghini's engine and a Maserati's suspension both come from fine machines, but you wouldn't try to squeeze them into a complete Ferrari.

Also, while your principles are sound, they are too broad and vague to really be of much use. Don't let Occam's Razor become a trap; more specific principles are involved that inform our bodies of when to employ each of those broader concepts, and how, and to what end. Lifetimes have been spent honing each of our styles into complicated and finely tuned machines; working backward to vague generalizations would accomplish nothing but to undo that work of precision, reducing each art to its skeleton. You are essentially trying to improve the piano by describing it as keys, strings, and mallets.

You will be better served by learning to use your various systems together, and lending them whatever innovation you feel would compliment each, rather than compiling them into a single, awkward style. What you are trying is akin to a carpenter making a building from four blueprints; an effective, cohesive fighting style requires an expert architect.

[Athena]

I just thought that an example would be nice.

Fluidity helps with speed.

speed is good. But sttrength is too. put them togetehr and you get power.

fluidity+rigity= power

um right...to the point. When I punch, I don't clench my fist tight from the start. My initial fist is loose, this helps me to get my fist to its target faster. Only when I am within an inch do I tense up and deliver the strength behind it, which is then coupled with the speed that I gained from the concept of fluidity. For an extra boost, add the concept of eruption

um.. did this help any?

[Kuma]

Hello again, Matt.

I think if you're attempting to create a martial art after only 7 years of training, you might want to keep training in the one you first started off in so you're not reinventing the wheel. I'd say you simply just don't have the experience yet to even consider something like that.

[ninjanurse]

Hello Everyone,

I am currently in the process of creating a training style; something to keep up my Martial arts training,...

Matt

I think Matt is talking about a way to train not creating a new style of martial arts...possibly looking for drills and ideas to work on the concepts he has identified....?

[Kuma]

He has similar posts on another forum of this same nature of him attempting to create his own martial arts style. Must have gotten the two confused as they have the same content verbatim.

If you've been training in Tae Kwon Do for seven years, you already know what to do. Just hold a class session for yourself.

[tallgeese]

Kuma's right on that. To keep training in what you're already doing just throw a session yourself. Adaptation to solo training is much easier than conceptualizing a new training methodology.

That being said, I'm a huge fan of prinicple based training. There's an article I did on the subject in the Articles sectin.

If you're bound a determined to do something like that, then detailed trining in multiple arts is very useful. Further, you might want to look at broader principles to work with, ones that are more outcome focused. The defintions of each of these outcomes will then over lap to show you where you're going beginning of conflict to end.

Many of prinicples you're talking about are what Lee would have probabily classified as Attributes, which has more to do with the indivuidual fighter than the game plan for winning in combat. Again, his is not the only way to breakdown and classify such things, but it is very useful and it goes to no re-inventing the wheel as someone mentioned.

Just a few thoughts.