old forms, outdated or not?

Asmo · Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 1:21 pm Post subject:

Some may not work in 'real combat' like a lot of Jo usage is based on sliding up and down the length of the Jo quickly. This couldn't really be done with say a broom because of splinters and wrong length in some cases.
Sword techniques are good because even if a sword is not used in a fight these days, you can use the movments for blows, parts of hand techniques and as you said baseball bat striking etc.

So, no I dont think they are dated, but some dont have the same practical application they used to have. Some may need to be modified to fit present confrontations.
_________________

This post comes in User and Supermod form.
Please select form as appropriate as both may not always apply.

KMcD · Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 1:29 pm Post subject:

it's all about packaging and the student in particular. If, as da mox said, the technique referred to by our lord had been renamed as a technique against a baseball bat then ppl would think that's worthwhile.

The reason there are so many styles is cos each person has their own strengths & weaknesses and so there is a style there for every1. Old styles are not outdated, just not suitable to some ppl.

crashaid · Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:36 pm Post subject:

As the human body hasn't changed all that much the last few centuries, and there are those who still want to hit us with foregin objects; I believe there is very few, if any, martial concepts that are irrelevant today.

Some applications of these concepts have been misunderstood, so they mean seem out of touch, e.g. if those defensives against a sword used any sort of unarmed blocking motion, you may need to question if you've got the jist of it.

mark.leonard · Drone Joined: 08 Nov 2004 Posts: 95

Training in dead patterns such as kata, forms or whatever flavor you prefer has no positive impact on your fighting ability. They are obvioulsy part of what gives a martial art its identity, but should be thought of as a tradtiion for tradition's sake moreso than something that is helping you learn to fight.

JESUS! · Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 11:30 am Post subject:

what i meant was that the moves need to be updated
ie. yeah a baseball bat is simialar but diffrent at the same time
you strike with a sword
you swing a bat as hard as you can in the direction of your opponent
not saying the moves themselves are out of date but they need to be modified for modern day application
we dont fight small battles in farmers fields and deliver heads to our chosen samurai leaders anymore
_________________
take me seriously at your own peril

lolly parton · Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 11:49 am Post subject:

tigher61 · Groupie Joined: 25 Nov 2002 Posts: 645 Location: Here!!

I think that, like all forms of flighting and or defence. You use what you have. I'm sure the techniques in martial arts can be used in any situation (except in the case of gunfire!! Shocked

)

Capt. Flame Retardant · Living it up Joined: 28 Jul 2004 Posts: 462

crashaid · Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:09 pm Post subject:

mark.leonard · Drone Joined: 08 Nov 2004 Posts: 95

I have had this argument on other discusison boards already, Matt Thornton os SBG has an article which sums up a lot of it quite well so I will let him tell it on this occasion!

crashaid · Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 6:51 pm Post subject:

It's a good article, well-thought and a smart analysis. Unfortunately it does presume too much at the beginning. I should point out that I assume alive to mean "useful to martial artists", and converse dead to mean "of no use".

mark.leonard · Drone Joined: 08 Nov 2004 Posts: 95

crashaid · Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 5:19 pm Post subject:

KMcD · Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 5:37 pm Post subject:

Capt. Flame Retardant · Living it up Joined: 28 Jul 2004 Posts: 462

kata training is useful for a single person. but not to practise fighting. in fact the philosophy common to martial arts is that when you reach the point of fighting you have already lost. However for when that time comes you will have other skills.

The kata is a useful interpretation not on the moves, but ont he ideas behind the moves, the ways of thinking about your body and about greater objects than a streeetfight. it is meditation if used properly, much like the whirling dervishes achieve ecstatic enlightenment. The kata draws us closer to the ideal of an art, exercised in a moment when the self is extinguished to the form. it is ultimately about raising the self to a higher plane of awareness. Not to fight, but just to be.

The emphasis on fighting is particularly western. While eastern martial arts have grown from real and immediate needs for self defence, they have been incorporated into broader philosophical systems, such as Buddhism and Shinto, in order to put them to other uses. in the west we are heavily influenced by an agonistic mode of engagement, which appears everywhere in Ireland for instance from the adversarial court system to 'speaking the bid' in the Irish pub. It is regrettable that we have lost any sense of spirituality to animate our prowess at martial arts and bring ourselves beyond ego-pleasing performance explanations of a given martial art. Our goal should be 'be a better individual' not 'be a better body'. The two are not commensurate.

the kata for the junior exponent does indeed teach muscle memory, but not for the purpose of learning those movements, but for understanding how the body can and cant move. By meditating on those movements, examining them in detail, the student accelerates his ability to incorporate other systems of movements into his style, while allowing his body to evolve and adapt. This rote learning enhances the student's awareness of another's body moving in space. It is important though that the rote learning is left behind and more, 'alive' arts sought out.

I find something of a paradox in the use of alive to highlight a fighting style; it seems to me to be mistaking 'alive' for 'survive'. If an art is about performance or fighting, then it is a vulgarised form of combat. Again, the eastern origins of any art teach that the fight is with yourself, not with your opponent. He is incidental to your self-mastery, not the proof of it. Externalising the art form removes its raison d'etre; to make the exponent a better person by killing his ego, replacing the illusion of self with the reality of being. The uncertainity that the opponent you face represents is the chaos that exists in your own mind. This uncertainty is what is overcome in a fight, not another person; to do that would make you into a despot: judge jury and executioner for an opponent whose only crime is to seize upon your own inner struggle. Preparing yourself for such fights is a form of cowardice, dying many times, whereas bravery is called for, dying the once, to self, so that you cannot be defeated (even if that means the defeat is avoided by running away!)

Those who would dismiss the higher aspects of the martial art are merely thieves in the temple.

There is of course a corollary to all this: the discipline of the body is tied to broader processes of producing certain kinds of citizens. The formalisations of many martial arts have their roots in various attempts at nation building in history. But I don't think that we want to go there!

mark.leonard · Drone Joined: 08 Nov 2004 Posts: 95

Capt. I think that is just a load of pseudo-philosophical rhetoric to justify training in forms that don't improve your performance.
The proof as they say is in the pudding, when I get up to you for a cross training class the best thing we can do is compare our different methods and learn to understand each other better, I might get a better idea of why you attach so much emphasis to training in Kata, and you might understand the way I teach a little better also. Smile

Capt. Flame Retardant · Living it up Joined: 28 Jul 2004 Posts: 462

no, mark, the difference is right here, before we ever step on the mats. you're thnking that a fight will sort out the problem. seriously. there's always someone better than me, in my style and and in others. what i learn teaches me about me. but let me explain further.

you distinguish yourself as an instructor from me as a student. that's not entirely fair! anyway, it sounds like pseudo philosophy for a couple of reasons. first, because of the popularity of philosophical systems like zen buddhism which have been poorly understood in the west, it is difficult to speak of ego without invoking the 60's and hippy philosopy ideas that have nothing to do with facing yourself. they are concerned with creating a artificial nirvana to avoid the inevitability of their deaths. but that's something else entirely. what is your ego, your belief about who you are, (any of us), must be mastered. this isn't philosophy, it's real. which leads me to the second reason. it is your ego that dismisses my post as pseudo philosophy. now im not looking for a fight; but if you believe me to be sincere in my post, then however clumsily i may have stated my case, your dismissal speaks to your lack of understanding about the philosophy of martial arts, not mine.

in a fight, the battle happens in your mind a thousand times befreo you throw a punch. martial arts have the potential to offer us a way of cutting the root of mind, and diminish the importance we place on phenomena, or things and events as they appear to be. do you teach your students how not to fight, how to use their knowledge of martial arts not to hit? i think you might, you certainly come across as a concerned instructor, but do you actually teach them more than not hitting someone, that if the only tool they have is a hammer, then every situation becomes a nail (that's pseudo-philosophy! but still do you see the point?)?

finally, and here is where we may be able to agree to disagree. like i have learned with the drama society: SUFFER THE AUTHOR. if your first foray into martial arts teaches you the cleverness of your own take on fighting then you are screwed, you'll walk around like many boxers i know waiting for a fight, secure in the knoweldge that you'll win (i actually know such ill-tempered pugalistic morons from a previous life bfore college). but everyone knows that these guys are tossers. that's what they got out of boxing, advanced asocial masturbation.

learn the form, read the philosophy, train your body, and after a few years of hard graft, consider your apprenticeship over and start learning how to fight, after you have served your time. if you want pseudo philosophy, then Newton once said "if i have seen further than other men it is because i have stood on the shoulders of giants". learn from the best and copy them until you have learned all you can, then innovate.

and consider what fear you are seeking to conquer that you train your students to be at defcon 2 at all times. we laugh at the americans for it, why not deride other martial arts for it too?

mark.leonard · Drone Joined: 08 Nov 2004 Posts: 95

I think these debates will be a lot shorter once we meet up, going by your impressions of my attitude, I think I have mis-represented myself badly here!

I am NOT looking for a fight with you or anyone else. I do not see training as fighting, while I do think that the training we do should prepare us as best it can for some future encounter which we will hopefully be able to avoid non-violently anywaym the goal of each class I partake in is to have fun and just enjoy myself. If training wasn't fun I wouldn't still be doing it!
I also don't carry myslef around like I think I can beat everyone, I lost my last two fights up North and I am not even slightly ashamed to admit that I was beaten! (I even shared the video of my last fight on the net!).

At the cross training class I will talk a little bit about the training philosophy I subscribe to, and hopefully you will get where I am coming from a little easier. We will train together and I will learn from you and everyone else probably more than you will learn form me! This isn't done by a face off and then a match to the death! It will be with some technique work and some light rolling and we will move on from there.

I have ten years of traditional ITF Taekwondo behind me and I have done an abundance of patterns in that style, while I still enjoy doing them, I no longer believe they have any value in terms of improving my performance. I cam to this conclusion by testing what I was doing against people who used different training methods, I found my training methodology lacking so I began to change it until I was able to hang with the people that had formerly trounced me. Since then I don't take anything on faith, I would need to be convinced in real terms that something works before I will take it on board, does that make sense?

Capt. Flame Retardant · Living it up Joined: 28 Jul 2004 Posts: 462

Yeah cool! i didn't think you were lookin for a fight, i just wanted to ensure that you knew i wasn't either! i think its hard to get into it over the net, but we're not so far apart. humility and respect for tradition are two important first lessons. the fighting is incidental, i happen to think. it just keeps me fit. what really draws me is the attitude to life that martial arts can provide. fights are really far down the list for me.

kata forms are important first steps, an apprenticeship to bring you to a level of awareness of body and of self before the real work begins. they provide a grammar for the initiate to absorb basic learnings, and at the higher levels (eg in tai chi) they are meditation. innovation is necessary i think to really own the title 'martial artist', but i would like to see how your innovations have shaped your philosophy of life more than your fighting style! might be interesting....
_________________
Otto (on being called an ape): Aha! Apes don't read philosophy!
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it.