Define EFFECTIVE!

[sojobo]

At what stage is a Karateka knowledgable enough to be able to decide whether something ineffective?

Also, how do we know whether it is the technique or the person that is lacking.

I often see students doing kansetsu (joint locks) incorrectly. When I show them the correct way their eyes light up (well they usually yelp a little first lol). Point is, if that had gone unchecked and the student had not fully learnt the technique, they might decide to drop it - thinking it didn't work.

So to answer your question - how do we test it - by doing on each other - Kumite

Sojobo

[bushido_man96]

It's my fault that this thread went on a self-defense pro and con discussion because my OP wasn't concise, no, it had the air of ambiguity, and again, that was my fault. Sorry!!

No need to apologize, Bob. This is just the nature of discussion. New topics tend to arise, and others branch off the original. Its what makes it enjoyable.

You seem obsessed with martial arts only being about self defence.

Self defence is a facet of some martial arts teachings and a by-product of good training in many cases but it is just that a facet. For many it is not the overriding reason to study Martial Arts and doesn’t need to be imo.

I disagree. The point of the Martial Arts, any Martial Art, first and foremost, should be effective self-defense. All the other stuff are what should be the by-products of training, and not the other way around. If this is not the case, then I feel the original point of the Arts becomes lost.

Swords were created for one reason; as an effective weapon used to kill in self-defense, be it in single combat, or in war. It wasn't created because someone thought it would be a fun, spiritual object to dance around with. The same can be said for the Martial Arts; they were originally created and used to allow someone to defend themselves from the danger that other human beings are capable of inflicting on others. As time moved on, the other by-products came to be found in the Martial Arts because of the ideals of the different people who studied them. I have no problem with this, either. But, I think it is important to remember why the Martial Arts came about in the first place, and that when the effective self-defense aspect is replaced and is no longer the original focus of the style, then we have a de-evolution of the Martial Arts.

If this were the case, then the argument about whether XMA is a "true" Martial Art would effectively be over. But how many here feel that XMA is a "true" Martial Art?

[Jeffrey]

It's my fault that this thread went on a self-defense pro and con discussion because my OP wasn't concise, no, it had the air of ambiguity, and again, that was my fault. Sorry!!

No need to apologize, Bob. This is just the nature of discussion. New topics tend to arise, and others branch off the original. Its what makes it enjoyable.

You seem obsessed with martial arts only being about self defence.

Self defence is a facet of some martial arts teachings and a by-product of good training in many cases but it is just that a facet. For many it is not the overriding reason to study Martial Arts and doesn’t need to be imo.

I disagree. The point of the Martial Arts, any Martial Art, first and foremost, should be effective self-defense. All the other stuff are what should be the by-products of training, and not the other way around. If this is not the case, then I feel the original point of the Arts becomes lost.

Swords were created for one reason; as an effective weapon used to kill in self-defense, be it in single combat, or in war. It wasn't created because someone thought it would be a fun, spiritual object to dance around with. The same can be said for the Martial Arts; they were originally created and used to allow someone to defend themselves from the danger that other human beings are capable of inflicting on others. As time moved on, the other by-products came to be found in the Martial Arts because of the ideals of the different people who studied them. I have no problem with this, either. But, I think it is important to remember why the Martial Arts came about in the first place, and that when the effective self-defense aspect is replaced and is no longer the original focus of the style, then we have a de-evolution of the Martial Arts.

If this were the case, then the argument about whether XMA is a "true" Martial Art would effectively be over. But how many here feel that XMA is a "true" Martial Art?

Well said.

[sojobo]

Well said.

Hi Jeffrey,

I am not sure what grade you are in Wado (or what group you are with) but this may be of interest to you:

Taken from Roberto Danubio's Book Wado-ryu Karate-do -

Budo in Wado Ryu Karate:

 

"Budo is a term used to describe those martial arts methods adopted from Bujutsu (warrior arts, term used for all Samurai martial arts methods), existing under the aspect of "the way", (Do). The lethal Bujutsu combat techniques have been developed over centuries, however, it was only after being combined with the Zen philosophy in the beginning of the 17th century that they achieved an ethical content, thus becoming Budo (the way of the warrior).

 

Do is a principle of Asian ideology, the term originating in Japanese Zen Buddhism. Do can be translated as; way, path, maxim, teaching philosophy, direction, principle or method.

 

At the centre of every Asian path there is always the practicing of a skill. However the goal is NOT the acquisition of any particular skill, BUT the expansion of one's own potential and the search for and development of one' own capabilities and opportunities.

 

Training Goals

 

As in other martial arts, the training goal is NOT the acquisition of self defence techniques or the self satisfaction derived from exhibiting superiority over someone else. In Karate one strives to utilise one’s own capabilities and opportunities through the use of technique (waza). To achieve this one must first learn self awareness and the ability to think, and one must practice not to expend energy, but to transform it through movement."

Just thought as a Wadoka (and the fact the Wado and Budo are indelibly entwined) it may interest you.

Sojobo

[bushido_man96]

We do the stepping punch as part of our basics, too. I've never used it in sparring, though, and highly doubt I'll ever use it in self-defense.

Taking something like this, and using it as a building block is not necessarily a bad thing. But, it is important to also make sure things that can and are more readily usable and applicable are also taught so students can take something effective out with them in a more timely manner.

That's my point I guess -It is not a punch (and therefore not designed to be a sporting combative or SD technique). It is an exercise in body movement. It is designed to embed a way of moving - utilising maximum efficiency.

The difference in viewpoints here has more to do with effectiveness vs. efficiency. This method of training you talk about with this technique may produce an effective way of moving over time, but as far as how long it takes to develop this, I think it is not efficient. However, as you say, it may produce and efficient way of moving. Funny how that works out, isn't it? Although I may not view the training method as efficient, it may produce and efficient movement over time.

[JiuJitsuNation]

Also, how do we know whether it is the technique or the person that is lacking.

This is a good point.

"Jiu Jitsu is perfect, it is people that make mistakes." Rickson Gracie

[bushido_man96]

At what stage is a Karateka knowledgable enough to be able to decide whether something ineffective?

Also, how do we know whether it is the technique or the person that is lacking.

I often see students doing kansetsu (joint locks) incorrectly. When I show them the correct way their eyes light up (well they usually yelp a little first lol). Point is, if that had gone unchecked and the student had not fully learnt the technique, they might decide to drop it - thinking it didn't work.

This is the natural course of learning and teaching, and these things will happen. It is important to know that you're not discarding something merely because you don't understand it, or haven't been shown properly. Like Bob said, and as you've mentioned, the testing arena is what is important to address. In Judo, it would be randori, in BJJ, its rolling, in Karate its kumite, in Boxing its sparring, and so on. There has to be a process involved in getting rid of a technique, not just dumping it because it didn't work right after first learning it, and working various applications

[bushido_man96]

You seem obsessed with martial arts only being about self defence.

Self defence is a facet of some martial arts teachings and a by-product of good training in many cases but it is just that a facet. For many it is not the overriding reason to study Martial Arts and doesn’t need to be imo.

There may be another end result; that's fine. Along the way, though, the aquisition of Martial Skill in a timely manner to allow for effective self-defense should be the core, as you mentioned. Self-defense should always be there. I think we agree there, perhaps.

[JiuJitsuNation]

not just dumping it because it didn't work right after first learning it, and working various applications

I did this with many a technique in the beginning because I had poor hip movement, only to pick those same techniques up later and be effective with them. Good stuff

[Jeffrey]

Well said.

Hi Jeffrey,

I am not sure what grade you are in Wado (or what group you are with) but this may be of interest to you:

Taken from Roberto Danubio's Book Wado-ryu Karate-do -

Budo in Wado Ryu Karate:

 

"Budo is a term used to describe those martial arts methods adopted from Bujutsu (warrior arts, term used for all Samurai martial arts methods), existing under the aspect of "the way", (Do). The lethal Bujutsu combat techniques have been developed over centuries, however, it was only after being combined with the Zen philosophy in the beginning of the 17th century that they achieved an ethical content, thus becoming Budo (the way of the warrior).

 

Do is a principle of Asian ideology, the term originating in Japanese Zen Buddhism. Do can be translated as; way, path, maxim, teaching philosophy, direction, principle or method.

 

At the centre of every Asian path there is always the practicing of a skill. However the goal is NOT the acquisition of any particular skill, BUT the expansion of one's own potential and the search for and development of one' own capabilities and opportunities.

 

Training Goals

 

As in other martial arts, the training goal is NOT the acquisition of self defence techniques or the self satisfaction derived from exhibiting superiority over someone else. In Karate one strives to utilise one’s own capabilities and opportunities through the use of technique (waza). To achieve this one must first learn self awareness and the ability to think, and one must practice not to expend energy, but to transform it through movement."

Just thought as a Wadoka (and the fact the Wado and Budo are indelibly entwined) it may interest you.

Sojobo

Very interested Sojobo. Thanks for the info. I'll be sure to order that one next book order.

I'm part of the Shintani Group in Canada but before you judge, we are a club that is trying to do things differently. I know there is a lot of interesting politics surrounding the different Wado groups. I spend a lot of time reseaching traditional Wado as compared to what is considered Shintani Wado. I first noticed it when a another member pointed out some youtube videos and the body movements stuck out like an eyesore.

Thanks again.