Range Of Movements

[sensei8]

Well that depends on what parts you think of as "small". Our movements are, in ways, huge, but they have a lot of elements where they have been compacted to be tighter than other movements that look smaller at first glance. Conservation of angular momentum, lines and so on are important, but they have to be taught. If the movement is too subtle, it is hard to communicate the important parts.

Minimal movements are small movements. You say that if the movement is too subtle, it is hard to communicate the important parts. I disagree wholeheartedly because it's not what is being taught, it's how 'it' is being taught to the students so that they can grasp and understand even the most subtle of technique(s).

Sure, being big at first is ok for the student, but that's where it needs to end, and then whittle it down to that compactness.

[sensei8]

unfortunately, I can't work with an answer that vague and lacking in ideas that I can understand from my viwpoint that does not contain a lot of study in your style. Neither can the students who are trying to learn it. the movements are often taught large simply so that the teacher is kinesthetically en-nun-ci-at-ing the parts that are important so that the student can start by doing the techniques in a functional, albeit verbose and expansive, way. They are learning our kinesthetic language. We are en-nun-ci-at-ing e-ver-y syl-la-ble of our mo-ve-men-t so that they can clearly hear the words of our muscles and joints, rather'n slur'n 'thing mmgether 'nmak'n'll "c'mpac" 'n'speccn'm un'stan'.

I didn't mean to be vague, I meant to be compact in my comment. Are you implying that my students aren't learning anything from me because of the vagueness of my post?

Shindokan embodies compactness. When a student learns any new technique(s) it's presented to them in such a way that there's nothing vague about it in any shape, way, and/or form...both past, present, and future.

[JusticeZero]

No, I am saying that "small, compact" movements can also be seen as similar to terse sentences with lots of adjectives and vague impliedness in it. If you are trying to make the "sentences" terse like that, that is fine - but when learning, all of the parts need to be visible, pronounced, un-abbreviated, and explicit in order to communicate how it is constructed. it is entirely fine to then immediately communicate that in practice, the movements must be compacted, then explaining the method behind which they are compacted. "Here are the parts, decomposed and explicitly shown. Drill them this way for a bit to see the structure. NOW, here is the way that the movements are folded down tightly in ways that achieve even more."

It has been theorized by several people that the way ones' martial art form approaches problems is reflected in their communicative style. Statements such as the one referenced are profound, but they have been compacted to the degree that they rely on understandings which the reader may not yet possess, and the very compactness of the statement often seem to make those understandings difficult to unpack. no excess is left to create the redundancy needed to grasp the idea that was unseen.

Martially, this is good. profound, without waste and with each movement serving multiple purposes. in communication, it might be more frustrating.

[sensei8]

No, I am saying that "small, compact" movements can also be seen as similar to terse sentences with lots of adjectives and vague impliedness in it. If you are trying to make the "sentences" terse like that, that is fine - but when learning, all of the parts need to be visible, pronounced, un-abbreviated, and explicit in order to communicate how it is constructed. it is entirely fine to then immediately communicate that in practice, the movements must be compacted, then explaining the method behind which they are compacted. "Here are the parts, decomposed and explicitly shown. Drill them this way for a bit to see the structure. NOW, here is the way that the movements are folded down tightly in ways that achieve even more."

It has been theorized by several people that the way ones' martial art form approaches problems is reflected in their communicative style. Statements such as the one referenced are profound, but they have been compacted to the degree that they rely on understandings which the reader may not yet possess, and the very compactness of the statement often seem to make those understandings difficult to unpack. no excess is left to create the redundancy needed to grasp the idea that was unseen.

Martially, this is good. profound, without waste and with each movement serving multiple purposes. in communication, it might be more frustrating.

Solid post!!

[Dobbersky]

No, I am saying that "small, compact" movements can also be seen as similar to terse sentences with lots of adjectives and vague impliedness in it. If you are trying to make the "sentences" terse like that, that is fine - but when learning, all of the parts need to be visible, pronounced, un-abbreviated, and explicit in order to communicate how it is constructed. it is entirely fine to then immediately communicate that in practice, the movements must be compacted, then explaining the method behind which they are compacted. "Here are the parts, decomposed and explicitly shown. Drill them this way for a bit to see the structure. NOW, here is the way that the movements are folded down tightly in ways that achieve even more."

It has been theorized by several people that the way ones' martial art form approaches problems is reflected in their communicative style. Statements such as the one referenced are profound, but they have been compacted to the degree that they rely on understandings which the reader may not yet possess, and the very compactness of the statement often seem to make those understandings difficult to unpack. no excess is left to create the redundancy needed to grasp the idea that was unsee

Martially, this is good. profound, without waste and with each movement sving multiple purposes. in communication, it might be more frustrating.

Solid post!!

Yes I have to agree, I can't really add to this, OSU

[bushido_man96]

unfortunately, I can't work with an answer that vague and lacking in ideas that I can understand from my viwpoint that does not contain a lot of study in your style. Neither can the students who are trying to learn it. the movements are often taught large simply so that the teacher is kinesthetically en-nun-ci-at-ing the parts that are important so that the student can start by doing the techniques in a functional, albeit verbose and expansive, way. They are learning our kinesthetic language. We are en-nun-ci-at-ing e-ver-y syl-la-ble of our mo-ve-men-t so that they can clearly hear the words of our muscles and joints, rather'n slur'n 'thing mmgether 'nmak'n'll "c'mpac" 'n'speccn'm un'stan'.

Very good word analogies here. They made me smile.

I also agree. I think over time, we just learn how to make things a bit tighter, and more compact, while still retaining the integrity of the technique. I think this is something that comes in time with so much training. It would be nice to learn how to do it all right up front in our MA careers, but you have to crawl before you can walk.