Practicality MA...

[MatsuShinshii]

For example, I'd be the first to admit that forms are inefficient, impractical, contrived. I still practice them for exercise and moving meditation.

So forms are practical then. You have found a good practical use for them.

Here's a thing about martial arts and their practicality. Very often, some folks have an extremely narrow criteria for deciding if something is practical. Often it is as specific as, has it been proven to work in the ring with whatever competition rules apply.

But 'practical' extends far beyond that. Is it practical against multiple drunken idiots that can't actually fight their way out of a wet paper bag, but are aggressive enough and number enough to pose a threat. Or is it practical against someone that doesn't really want a fight and doesn't deserve to get hurt, but has 'flipped out' and just needs to be safely restrained until they calm down. Or outside of fighting altogether, is it practical for keeping you fit and supple and mentally focused. There are many different definitions of 'practical'.

First to the bold - Forms, Kata, Hsing, etc. are practical in the sense that the postures that make up the Kata are a representation of the applications. These applications were created through lessons learned in actual combat/battle. The applications are practical in terms of actual self defence and thus the Kata (forms) are practical if taught with the applications as the intended focus.

As to the rest of your post I would say you have good points in terms of other area's of practicality. I tend to assess practical in terms of effectiveness in a real situation rather than in terms of competition. However after some thought your spot on. Practical extends to a specific goal. If it's effective in keeping you in shape and that is your goal then it is absolutely practical.

Solid Post.

[OneKickWonder]

For example, I'd be the first to admit that forms are inefficient, impractical, contrived. I still practice them for exercise and moving meditation.

So forms are practical then. You have found a good practical use for them.

Here's a thing about martial arts and their practicality. Very often, some folks have an extremely narrow criteria for deciding if something is practical. Often it is as specific as, has it been proven to work in the ring with whatever competition rules apply.

But 'practical' extends far beyond that. Is it practical against multiple drunken idiots that can't actually fight their way out of a wet paper bag, but are aggressive enough and number enough to pose a threat. Or is it practical against someone that doesn't really want a fight and doesn't deserve to get hurt, but has 'flipped out' and just needs to be safely restrained until they calm down. Or outside of fighting altogether, is it practical for keeping you fit and supple and mentally focused. There are many different definitions of 'practical'.

First to the bold - Forms, Kata, Hsing, etc. are practical in the sense that the postures that make up the Kata are a representation of the applications. These applications were created through lessons learned in actual combat/battle. The applications are practical in terms of actual self defence and thus the Kata (forms) are practical if taught with the applications as the intended focus.

Personally I agree. But I've seen that debated many many times

[sensei8]

Hypothetically, among other MAists at some gathering of MAist...

"Hey, I despise Kata and everything it stand for; can't stand, can't tolerate, can't get behind it, it's a waste of time and space, and anyone who trains in Kata doesn't have the minimum of an idea about anything MA."

Then that very same person, after the gathering concludes, goes to his/her dojo to teach, of all things, Kata; tells his/her students all the positive benefits that can become through training Kata!!

This, right here, is part of what I'm referring to, or trying to.

Edited April 28, 2018 by sensei8

[MatsuShinshii]

What you are describing Sensei8 is a hypocrite. Those that teach something but do not believe its worth teaching either needs to find another art that they can believe in or they just shouldn't be teaching at all.

IMHO this is also ignorance or arrogance.

[OneKickWonder]

What you are describing Sensei8 is a hypocrite. Those that teach something but do not believe its worth teaching either needs to find another art that they can believe in or they just shouldn't be teaching at all.

IMHO this is also ignorance or arrogance.

I wonder about this sometimes.

Let me throw in a scenario.

In our style, we have several arm lock techniques. They can very broadly be divided into two categories. One involves hype extending the opponents elbow, forcing their arm straight. The other doesn't depend on their arm being straight, but instead takes advantage of their bent elbow as leverage to put torsion on their shoulder.

I prefer the latter. I personally find it much easier to apply and sustain. But our club teaches both. So even though I don't like the straight arm version, I'll still teach it to newbies. Simply, because I don't think I could really adopt the technique doesn't mean someone else can't. I also don't like some of the more acrobatic kicks, but I'd still help teach them, because our younger, thinner, lighter students have no bodyweight to rely on, so for them the fast longer range stuff is their advantage.

So I sometimes wonder, if a teacher doesn't like a technique, yet sings it's praises, is he really a hypocrite, or is he acknowledging that everybody is different, with their own strengths and weaknesses, and what is really a bad technique for one might be very well suited to another?

[MatsuShinshii]

What you are describing Sensei8 is a hypocrite. Those that teach something but do not believe its worth teaching either needs to find another art that they can believe in or they just shouldn't be teaching at all.

IMHO this is also ignorance or arrogance.

I wonder about this sometimes.

Let me throw in a scenario.

In our style, we have several arm lock techniques. They can very broadly be divided into two categories. One involves hype extending the opponents elbow, forcing their arm straight. The other doesn't depend on their arm being straight, but instead takes advantage of their bent elbow as leverage to put torsion on their shoulder.

I prefer the latter. I personally find it much easier to apply and sustain. But our club teaches both. So even though I don't like the straight arm version, I'll still teach it to newbies. Simply, because I don't think I could really adopt the technique doesn't mean someone else can't. I also don't like some of the more acrobatic kicks, but I'd still help teach them, because our younger, thinner, lighter students have no bodyweight to rely on, so for them the fast longer range stuff is their advantage.

So I sometimes wonder, if a teacher doesn't like a technique, yet sings it's praises, is he really a hypocrite, or is he acknowledging that everybody is different, with their own strengths and weaknesses, and what is really a bad technique for one might be very well suited to another?

I understand what your saying and agree that we all have preferences.

I found that I do not execute wrap around throws well but can use other types of throws with devastating effectiveness. Others are able to utilize these throws effortlessly and are very effective with them.

I would never say that these throws are useless because others can use them very effectively. Yes it's my preference not to use them because they do not work well for me, I think primarily because of my body type or mechanics.

In your example; we use both forms of manipulation and have found both very effective based on circumstances. I can use either with devastating efficiency and love executing both. You prefer one over the other but teach both. This makes perfect sense as you understand that it works for others.

The difference in your example and what I previously posted is you understand that it may not work well for you or you may prefer one over the other but you do not dismiss these techniques as you understand they are effective. In my post I was speaking directly to those that would put on one face while in one set of people and then turn around and put on another face in front of others.

I guess it boils down to this - if you had been told for decades that this is the best thing since sliced bread and later you happened to see your instructor with their peers and over heard them say that what they were teaching you was useless what would you think?

I'm not saying you have to drink the kool-aid, but to teach something that you know in your heart of hearts is useless (at least in you opinion) but turn around and tell others it's effective makes you a Hypocrite or a charlatan.

If you do not believe in something at all, why would you teach it?

If a technique doesn't work for me and conversely for anyone else then I will not teach it. If I did I would be a fraud.

If it doesn't work for me but does for others and I teach it to my students then I'm a teacher. This is what we are there for. The student can discover if it works for them on their own after they are taught it.

There is a difference between something not working for you and acknowledging it (I tell my students that this technique doesn't work well for me but it works very well for others, try it and form your own opinion) and teaching something that you feel strongly enough that it's useless that you would tell your fellow instructors your views but then turn around and put on a totally different face in front of your students.

There are instructors that are of the opinion that Kata is useless and they refuse to teach them. I respect this. I think they are wrong but I respect them for their stance and strong beliefs. I feel that Kata is invaluable and teach it as such, they think I'm wrong. Neither of these are hypocritical. Its a strongly held opinion that others may not agree with but you hold to your convictions. To say one thing but think another is not a conviction, it's hypocritical IMHO.

[sensei8]

What you are describing Sensei8 is a hypocrite. Those that teach something but do not believe its worth teaching either needs to find another art that they can believe in or they just shouldn't be teaching at all.

IMHO this is also ignorance or arrogance.

Exactly!!

If one doesn't believe in Kata, for example, whatsoever, and stand behind their belief, I can support them. But to be wishy-washy about whatever MA, well, I simply can't support them. It's no skin off their nose whether I support them or not because they've their mind up one way or another.