Posted by: David Shain
My Philosophy on Martial Arts - 07/16/11 12:46 AM
Muay Thai
Shotokan
Krav Maga
Judo
etc
Ever hear some old zen saying that goes 'All things are one and connected'? You ever think it's a load? Me too. But, I realized that those zen guys and gals aren't wrong, they just can't articulate to save their lives.
I never liked hearing 'styles' divided up into categories like the ones above because, for me, it never made sense to do that. No one who developed a set of moves to work on ever said 'Before I do any testing or even theorizing, I only want to use body movements that you use a snapping motion with/ throw a person with/ grapple and pull on their limbs or joints with/ yada yada yada.'
When whoever started developing a particular training regiment, they observed and theorized on what could work and what couldn't. Then they practiced it to see if it did. Plus, even after they incorporated a certain movement or set of moments into their personal repertoire, it didn't change the physics or bio-mechanics behind it.
After all, if you took all 'savate techniques' and called them 'taekwon doe techniques' would that change anything about them? If jiu-jitsu were renamed 'kung-fu' what happens then?
The point of all this is that, when I'm learning unarmed combat, I don't even want moves to be taught as 'ground moves' and 'standing moves' or 'striking moves' and 'grappling moves.' I'd rather see all aspects taught as if they always were part of the same thing, which they are. They're all movements designed to cause an outcome to a situation which you find acceptable.
Thoughts and comments?
Shotokan
Krav Maga
Judo
etc
Ever hear some old zen saying that goes 'All things are one and connected'? You ever think it's a load? Me too. But, I realized that those zen guys and gals aren't wrong, they just can't articulate to save their lives.
I never liked hearing 'styles' divided up into categories like the ones above because, for me, it never made sense to do that. No one who developed a set of moves to work on ever said 'Before I do any testing or even theorizing, I only want to use body movements that you use a snapping motion with/ throw a person with/ grapple and pull on their limbs or joints with/ yada yada yada.'
When whoever started developing a particular training regiment, they observed and theorized on what could work and what couldn't. Then they practiced it to see if it did. Plus, even after they incorporated a certain movement or set of moments into their personal repertoire, it didn't change the physics or bio-mechanics behind it.
After all, if you took all 'savate techniques' and called them 'taekwon doe techniques' would that change anything about them? If jiu-jitsu were renamed 'kung-fu' what happens then?
The point of all this is that, when I'm learning unarmed combat, I don't even want moves to be taught as 'ground moves' and 'standing moves' or 'striking moves' and 'grappling moves.' I'd rather see all aspects taught as if they always were part of the same thing, which they are. They're all movements designed to cause an outcome to a situation which you find acceptable.
Thoughts and comments?