Define EFFECTIVE!

[bushido_man96]

Can you give an example of such a technique?

[sojobo]

Phew... hard over the internet - that is what sensei is for.

Junzuki for starters?

Sojobo

[bushido_man96]

Ok. How about in English? My Japanese faulters a lot.

[sojobo]

Taken from a friend of mine's website.

Note the part:

"Junzuki, which should not be considered as a punch, is the practise of thrusting movement. Junte.

 

Junzuki, and the used ayumi-ashi, teaches to go from point a to b. In other words, junzuki teaches bodymovement"

http://www.ishikawa-karate.com/junzuki.htm

Now I know - seems easy but I have being trying to nail this for best part of 3 decades!!!

And thats just the start.

Sojobo

[KarateGeorge]

"Building block" techniques are fine, in so far as its understood that's the purpose. That's the application.

In other words, junzuki teaches bodymovement"

I'd agree there needs to be a level of trust between a student and their sensei, and some things may be learned over a period of many years, such as digging into the applications of a kata. But in regards to a specific technique, if I were to approach my sensei and ask them about it, I would expect more of an answer than "Because I said so." Martial arts is an age-old tradition, and even the more modern styles have their roots from the older styles, and the techniques of any given style were chosen/developed for a reason. If an instructor is going to be teaching a technique, they should know why they are teaching it.

Edited January 5, 2011 by KarateGeorge

[sojobo]

"Building block" techniques are fine, in so far as its understood that's the purpose. That's the application.

I'd agree there needs to be a level of trust between a student and their sensei, and some things may be learned over a period of many years, such as digging into the applications of a kata. But in regards to a specific technique, if I were to approach my sensei and ask them about it, I would expect more of an answer than "Because I said so." Martial arts is an age-old tradition, and even the more modern styles have their roots from the older styles, and the techniques of any given style were chosen/developed for a reason. If an instructor is going to be teaching a technique, they should know why they are teaching it.

Sorry - see above

Sojobo

[JiuJitsuNation]

Building block techniques should be drilled as part of warm ups. If you are doing foundation techniques the whole class and told you'll understand in time or it will strengthen the REAL stuff later, then you may run out of money or patience before getting to that point. Many a school keep folks busy doing endless amounts of non applicable movements. I agree with Bushido.... and webster: adequate to accomplish a purpose; producing the intended or expected result.

[sojobo]

Building block techniques should be drilled as part of warm ups. If you are doing foundation techniques the whole class and told you'll understand in time or it will strengthen the REAL stuff later, then you may run out of money or patience before getting to that point. Many a school keep folks busy doing endless amounts of non applicable movements. I agree with Bushido.... and webster: adequate to accomplish a purpose; producing the intended or expected result.

Did you read the link I posted?

And who is Webster? lol

Being serious, and going back to the OP's point - I think sincerity is the key, and although I may not learn/teach what you do - it is still not wrong. It has its basis in pure budo.

Again, sporting / SD applications are not the same as Budo per-se, but they are part of one and other - and much can be learned from all imo, but the means to the end are different - not better or worse just different.

And you should not “knock” a style (or sensei) as a result of this not being immediately tangible as sometimes the bigger picture is beyond the vision of the student.

Sojobo

[Jay]

I play it as the following. Im effective if I am using myself to the maximum I can. This involves the correct technique selection that I am good at. If I can't do something or don't like something I will not worry about it unless I think it is essential to learn.

[ShoriKid]

I don't think it has anything to do with this being the "world of instant gratification." It has more to do with the differences in cultures, and how different cultures learn to do things. Learning how to fight and defend oneself truly doesn't take very long. What takes time is building up experience and ability through training.

I have never met anyone who took one seminar or 6 months of self-defense training and then decided they had learned enough. I have never seen or heard this, and I don't think it is as prevalent as traditional MAists around the world might think. I think this thought process comes more from those who less and less worry about achieving high master ranks over decades of sticking with a style and search more and more for effective means of achieving their training goals.

I hate using long quotes, but in this case I wanted to extend on Bushido_man96's post. I hope not to offend sir.

I will go back to the cultural emphasis and direction that Western warfare and martial training has taken over the course of the last 1000 years+. While the martial culture of the West may not be well documented and preserved as that of Eastern cultures. This is primarily due to cultural forces and the outlook taken by the war fighters who lived within them. While tradition is alluring, in some fashion, to most people who have taken up martial pursuits the pieces of tradition that are valued can vary greatly. Western martial traditions have tended to value the ceremony of martial life more than techniques, weapons or formations. In Eastern cultures the techniques and materials of warfare were held in much higher regard. Eastern culture values tradition, adherence to a structured form much more highly than Western cultures have tended to.

Western martial tradition has valued effectiveness, the results, more than traditions. Massed musket fire replaced the bow and crossbow, the pike and polearms. Massed cavalry charges fell away when the cost and time involved in training a mounted warrior was out stripped by training and equipping formations on foot became a better way to fight the battle, and when training the same elite mounted warrior to fight afoot made him more effective through flexibility. The Western tradition is to abandon what has been for what works better to meet the need of now. While there may not be an over abundance of written sources of martial tradition, the physical evidence of weapon and armor evolution seems to support this. Eastern traditions of war had tended, until the late 19th Century, to force warfare to conform to the mode of fighting that tradition said was best. My readings of history places within the Western paradigm of martial arts a high importance on questioning and evolution of training. The thought process to ask questions and to toss away that which doesn't work, without thought to tradition, has less to do with modern society than what is often thought. At least in this context. So the idea of questioning what works, what is effective, is long and storied in Western martial practice. It's not new in the least. Jarring as it may be to those steeped in Eastern methodologies and tradition, it's been around since Plato debated the use and utility of training a man to fight not in formation, but as single men fighting other single men.