Define EFFECTIVE!

[bushido_man96]

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

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.

I would also not be keen to downplay the sincerity or the committment of those who don't prefer to take that kind of building block into their training. They have a more immediate goal in mind, so training something like that over a period of years is not a concern to them. Focusing on more applicable things early and often will lead to success in the Martial Arts, as well.

ShoriKid, I think that's a great summation of what the Western Martial culture has been about. Adaptation is a big key to remaining successful in the Martial Culture.

[honoluludesktop]

............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." ...........

While I can relate to the concern here, the fact is that there are many "craft like" things, and manners that can not be conveyed precisely with words. IMO, "Because I said so", really means "I don't know" why, something that's difficult for any sempai, or teacher to admit. You got to look at your teachers history, demos, etc. to see if he's experienced, and competent in this matter. If he is, and it doesn't amount to physically damaging abuse, you got to have faith. If you can't, you must find a new Sensei.

If the skill in question is currently beyond ones ability, he can not be expected to understand a vague explanation (by words) at that time.

[JiuJitsuNation]

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.

Excellent post!

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.

[sojobo]

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.

Also; your point about needing to produce efficiency in a more timely manner is something that I tell my students to look elsewhere for if they want or need that.

Many traditional forms of budo, have specific pedagogies that only works if you join up all the pieces of the jigsaw - and that takes time - but it is tremendously fulfilling and rewarding in the process also.

Sojobo

Edited January 6, 2011 by sojobo

[bushido_man96]

I guess that's the difference between budo and self-defense, then?

[sojobo]

............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." ...........

While I can relate to the concern here, the fact is that there are many "craft like" things, and manners that can not be conveyed precisely with words. IMO, "Because I said so", really means "I don't know" why, something that's difficult for any sempai, or teacher to admit. You got to look at your teachers history, demos, etc. to see if he's experienced, and competent in this matter. If he is, and it doesn't amount to physically damaging abuse, you got to have faith. If you can't, you must find a new Sensei.

If the skill in question is currently beyond ones ability, he can not be expected to understand a vague explanation (by words) at that time.

I actively encourage my students to ask questions - and I will always answer them if I can.

If I can't however, I will be honest and say so.

There are questions however where the answer has to be "arrived at" - by training, practicing and then "realising" as a result.

You simply can’t verbalise the answer and also doing so would de-value the answer anyway. These are the types of things that I think honoluludesktop was alluding too.

Sojobo

Edited January 6, 2011 by sojobo

[bushido_man96]

Instructors need to be honest with there students, first and foremost. Not knowing is ok. It gives me a chance to find out something knew. However, evading a question does both instructor and student a diservice.

[sojobo]

Instructors need to be honest with there students, first and foremost. Not knowing is ok. It gives me a chance to find out something knew.

Indeed, and this is where the student needs to be patient and above all trust his sensei.

He/she may not be able to give the student the answer on a plate but "should" have been in that students shoes as it were and therfore know how to guide.

Sojobo

[MasterPain]

While respect is important, "because I said so" is a dangerous concept. Respect and deference are not the same thing.

[sojobo]

While respect is important, "because I said so" is a dangerous concept. Respect and deference are not the same thing.

Couldn't open the vid where I am (copyright issue), but I don't think anyone was serious about the "because I said so" thing.

Sojobo