FightingArts Estore
Pressure Points
From a medical professional, straight facts on where and how to hit that can save your life.
Stretching
Limber or not, anyone can add height and speed to their kicks with this method.
Calligraphy
For yourself or as a gift, calligraphy is special, unique and lasting.
Karate Uniforms
Look your best. Max snap. low cost & superior crafted: “Peak Performance Gold” 16 oz uniforms.

MOTOBU
Classic book translation. Hard to find. Not in stores.
Who's Online
0 registered (), 49 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
333kenshin, BradleyCameron, markwn, John057, TigerandDragon
23240 Registered Users
Top Posters (30 Days)
TigerandDragon 1
March
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31
New Topics
Recent Posts
Forum Stats
23240 Members
36 Forums
35700 Topics
432769 Posts

Max Online: 488 @ 01/23/20 01:55 PM
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
#135263 - 09/03/04 05:51 PM Form follows function
JKogas Offline
Prolific

Registered: 01/25/03
Posts: 10818
Loc: North Carolina
I thought this was a great post by Matt Thornton. Enjoy ---


JKD? Form must follow function.
The word is not the thing and the description is never the described.

If performance in a specific area is indeed your goal, then the simple logic of form following function must be the standard. And everything must be tested.

As such, here is a simple paradigm for JKD following that dictate.

As well written in an article by Mark Stewart:


"Lee felt that a real fight was unpredictable and that most classical styles emphasized ďdead patternsĒ instead of live and spontaneous training. Lee believed that combative sports such as boxing and judo were practiced more realistically than most classical systems. Why? They made real impact and they practiced live training and not dead patterns. Lee also came to the conclusion the MA was Universal and that ďunless there is a being with more than two arms and two legs, that there is only one style of fighting, the human style.Ē So, Lee conceptualized martial art as a whole and embarked upon a scientific course.

Not one that blended styles but one that was born of the idea of non-style, geometry and physics. One as he described as ďsimple, direct and non-classicalĒ (functional). In a sense Leeís JKD is a martial art with no rules that is practiced like a combative sport with real impact (full contact) and live training."

This in my opinion is perfect.

Whether or not it's actually what he did is not relevant, unless one wishes to engage in endless, and meaningless conversations about what "Bruce lee" could do, which I find silly.

However, the ideal of it is common sense.

According to this idea that PROCESS is in and of itself the method of JKD. And that method, if one where to actually practice JKD would continue endlessly evolving. With the end goal of that process being summed up as PERFORMANCE. Performance in whatever theater of operations one is engaging in, self defense, law enforcement training, sports, health, enjoyment, etc.

As such, anything left in the curriculum from Bruce Lee's time, the "original" JKD material, would need to stand up under pressure testing against other approaches. It would need to be shown that that material, and its methods, serves as a better vehicles for people in the various theaters of operations.

If it does not show to be a better method, in a specific field of operations, and yet one insists on leaving it in instead of replacing it with a more efficient method, then yes you have created another traditional Martial arts "style". Fixed in time, ceasing to evolve, and therefore no longer "cutting edge".

"This approach was very revolutionary during the time of its creation"
Yes and no. Yes it was in the America of the 60's. No it was not within the history of the USA and the world.

There are no new thoughts.

I own a book called "The New Science of Weaponless Defense" By a man named Prof. F.S. Lewis. In that book he talks about strong side forward, using a strong lead vertical power jab. A lead leg kick to the shin, the ideal of interception, simultaneous parry and hit, the importance of knowing all ranges, the need for physical conditioning, etc. It also contains pictures of the mount, guard position, etc. This book was written in the United States and published in 1906.

As King Solomon says in the good book, there is nothing new under the sun.

"and is still quite rare today."

Yes and no. Quite rare in what field of operations? In Law Enforcement training? No, there are programs now for LE training, such as Luis's ISRMatrix which are cutting edge and leading the way for a new, safer, more functional paradigm of training for Police.

Quite rare for Martial Arts? Negative, every good MMA Gym in this country cross trains and comes up with new and cutting edge methods of 'beating people up'.

Quite rare for self defense schools? No, I think Tony Blauer and others have made headway way beyond what Bruce Lee was doing in his time.

Quite rare for traditional Martial Arts and the majority of "JKD" schools? YES, absolutely. I would agree with that 100%. Sadly most JKD schools around the world are using an abundance of dead patterns, and training methods that will by design develop habits in athletes that may likely cause them to get hurt when trying their stuff against the pressure of a real attacker.

What is especialy ironic in this case is that the above stated description of JKD is indeed very rare within the JKD community itself.

If you do not label MMA as a form of JKD, at least within the theater of operations we call "sport" then for that view to be logical, and reconciled with the above stated description, one would have to do one of two things.

You either have to say that the "JKD" you are now speaking of is no longer:

"Not one that blended styles but one that was born of the idea of non-style, geometry and physics. One as he described as ďsimple, direct and non-classicalĒ (functional). In a sense Leeís JKD is a martial art with no rules that is practiced like a combative sport with real impact (full contact) and live training."

Or you have to show how the "JKD" you are speaking of IS the most logical and FUNCTIONAL method within a specific theater of operation.
Because if one where to stand by the above stated description the PERFORMANCE would be the simple proof of the pudding. Not the performance of ONE athlete or fighter of course. That is not "scientific". But the performance of multiple athletes, over a period of time, which clearly shows one specific technique, strategy, training method, or "ideal", to be more FUNCTIONAL then others.

Which is back to the point of what we have done at SBGi, and what Burton Richardson has also done. We have based our training, methods, and curriculum on what has shown to work best under the pressure of an aggressive resisting attacker in a specific field of operations. Be it self defense scenarios', MMA fights, Law Enforcement training, etc.

As an example, both Burton and I use the boxing blast instead of the vertical fist rolling punch blast. Why? Because it has proven itself to be far safer, more powerful, and more FUNCTIONAL.

In addition, all the SBGi Gyms have now switched to the CM boxing method taught developed by Rodney King. As for myself, I started boxing at 11 Years old, and have been around traditional western boxing for decades. Other Gym coaches such as Adam and Rory Singer also have deep rooted boxing experience. We ALL switched to CM boxing because it has shown itself to work ten times better for the students walking through my door when the spar full contact, as compared to the more traditional boxing methods of defense which are more attribute based.

As for "trapping" we threw almost all of it out, and replaced it with clinch material. I had thrown most of it out Years ago, as it clearly does not function. But when I first met Randy Couture when he first began his MMA journey I realized what the missing link in the chain was, and what we had to ad in there. PROPER clinch.

There was of course some clinch before, but to understand what a PROPER clinch is like one needs to really feel what a great Greco athlete can do. Just as one needs to experience life on the ground with a seasoned BJJ player or black belt to understand just how dangerous they can be on the mat. There were no questions as to what needed to be added.

The same holds true for the weapons curriculum. The typical 'Kali' drills taught can often be more harm to the user. But Karl Tanswell developed a method that actually works, and is FUNCTIONAL when it comes to defending against a blade. It's not speculation, as we have tested it thousands of times now in a completely Alive environment.
So as you can see the basic rule for one interested in training for PERFORMANCE is rather simple. . . .

FORM MUST FOLLOW FUNCTION
Not the other way around.

So according to that rule, the root delivery systems of stand up, clinch, and ground, need to be taught and learned. These delivery systems have already been created by experts in their respective fields.

Which is not to say that they no longer EVOLVE.
However, as an example. If one where a white belt SKILL LEVEL (the belt being only a sign post of skill in this sense) in BJJ, and then believe you are ready to start creating your own delivery system on the ground would be silly, and a lesson in futility. One would need to learn guard, mount, crossides, headlock escapes, etc. Why re invent the wheel?

Likewise, if you have little to no experience in the real clinch skills of a seasoned Greco player, then one needs to become familiar with those positions of underhooks, overhooks, bodylocks, 2 on 1's, and neck ties.

This is simply because it IS true what was stated above; a human being only has two arms and two legs, and every conceivable position you can find yourself in when it comes to the clinch has already been researched and trained by those experts. Likewise, those experts have researched every position you will find the human body in on the ground.

Those positions and ROOT SKILLS are the DELIVERY SYSTEM.

Now as each athlete/fighter develops his/her skills in those DELIVERY SYSTEMS they will discover what aspects of those DS's work for their individual BODY, MIND, and EMOTIONAL make up. And they will begin developing their own sense of timing, and "STYLE".

And EVERY athlete will indeed develop his or her own "Style" as they acquire skill in the delivery systems of stand up, clinch, and ground, through ALIVE training, and testing themselves against thousands of training partners and opponents over time.

If you stick to the idea of a scientific method based solely on PERFORMANCE, then that process IS JKD.

As simple as that really is, it seems lost on the majority within JKD. Outsiders to the community see it more easily, but find no need for the label of "jkd".

And they are absolutely correct, as Krishnamurti stated, the word is never the thing itself. But oh how humans love to argue over labels and names. It's the attachment of the ego itself to a perceived outside source, which finds such labels meaningful.

We at SBGi are ALWAYS willing to change, adapt, throw out, or add, anything we find more FUNCTIONAL, or useful. But it does have to be SHOWN to be more functional and useful for us to do that.

Otherwise, it's just theory. And nothing we do is based on theory; it's all based on performance.
Every change, every step of evolution each of our coaches has put the curriculum through, has been based SOLEY on PERFORMANCE within a specific field of operations.

JKD should not be Bruce Lee's method, JKD should be YOUR method.

The fact that it is still BL's method may indeed be the baggage. After all, it should be each individual's own method, if it is truly JKD

Top
#135264 - 09/03/04 07:09 PM Re: Form follows function
Anonymous
Unregistered


I don't get how you can call training cutting edge and then argue we all have two arms, two legs, so nothing is new.

A cutting edge delivery method then? Sounds like the six million dollar man is getting ready for a title fight.

Top
#135265 - 09/03/04 08:06 PM Re: Form follows function
JKogas Offline
Prolific

Registered: 01/25/03
Posts: 10818
Loc: North Carolina
Why can't it be cutting edge? Sure there are only two arms/legs, etc, but there are a lot of different methods for training those two arms and legs. Some are more efficient than others.

Drunken Monkey kung fu vs. western boxing or western wrestling for example.


-John

Top
#135266 - 09/14/04 11:17 AM Re: Form follows function
MuayThai Offline
Professional Poster

Registered: 08/20/03
Posts: 2242
Loc: UK
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JKogas:
and testing themselves against thousands of training partners and opponents over time.[/QUOTE]


holy cow!!! fighting 1000's of people, damn thats a wild one indeed. Does Matt believe in reincarnation?

joking of course, I couldnt resist.

Top
#135267 - 09/16/04 12:20 PM Re: Form follows function
JohnL Offline
Professional Poster

Registered: 03/24/03
Posts: 4309
Loc: NY, NY, USA
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JKogas:
Why can't it be cutting edge? Sure there are only two arms/legs, etc, but there are a lot of different methods for training those two arms and legs. Some are more efficient than others.

Drunken Monkey kung fu vs. western boxing or western wrestling for example.


-John

[/QUOTE]

Which are you suggesting are the more efficient methods.

JohnL

Top
#135268 - 09/16/04 04:37 PM Re: Form follows function
JKogas Offline
Prolific

Registered: 01/25/03
Posts: 10818
Loc: North Carolina
Western boxing, by all means.


-John

Top
#135269 - 09/17/04 03:19 AM Re: Form follows function
still wadowoman Offline
Improved beefier techno-prat

Registered: 04/10/04
Posts: 3420
Loc: Residence:UK- Heart:Md, USA
JohnK,

Why do you say western boxing bbetter than DM Kung Fu? Is it because boxing is more "alive" or are ther other reasons?

I am not arguing, I do not know enough about either to do so, just interested in your reasononing.
Sharon

Top
#135270 - 09/17/04 04:32 PM Re: Form follows function
JKogas Offline
Prolific

Registered: 01/25/03
Posts: 10818
Loc: North Carolina
Boxing is something that people tend to have a kneejerk reaction about, crying that "It's a SPORT", and all that other nonsense. We know that boxing is COMPETED in a sportive manner, but the delivery system that is boxing can be used in a self defense scenario with deadly effective results.

This isn't to say that boxing is complete, but that it's delivery system fills certain needs.

With that said, ANY art that trains alive is going to resemble boxing to some degree. If not, it doesn't train alive. If it doesn't train alive, it won't be as beneficial for fighting as the art that does.

Drunken Monkey if it's trained alive, will be as efficient as boxing (and will resemble boxing). But if it IS trained alive, why do we have yet another style (in an endless number of styles)?

And yes, styles are bullshit. No one needs limitations. If there are no limitations, then there are no styles.

Thus, Drunken Monkey being a "style" is bullshit. Boxing is based upon satifying performance needs. Styles are largely based on aesthetic cofigurations (they are based on form and, how something must LOOK)

Boxing and other performance centered delivery systems are based on "being in combat", whereas styles are based on "doing something about combat".

That's a subtle but huge difference.

-John

[This message has been edited by JKogas (edited 09-18-2004).]

Top
#135271 - 02/23/05 11:53 AM Re: Form follows function
Anonymous
Unregistered


Excellent thread and posts, JKogas.

Top
#135272 - 02/23/05 01:14 PM Re: Form follows function
Anonymous
Unregistered


Johns points are well taken. I can't remember wher the heck I saw this, martial arts documentary somehwere, but a teenaged desciple at the Shoalin Monestary was observed doing western style shadow boxing. They asked what he was doing - as he was obviously training daily in King Fu at the monestary - and he replied that it (western boxing) was good. It was easy to learn and very effective.

- KiDoHae

Top
#135273 - 02/23/05 08:42 PM Re: Form follows function
Anonymous
Unregistered


if you consider drunken boxing a style of fighting, then you must also consider boxing a style of fighting. with severe limitations. can only hit with the front of the fists, and no hitting below the belt or behaind the arms. now say for instance, you had no hands. in this case drunken boxing with its kicks, circular movements, and use of the entire body, would be a better STYLE of fighting than boxing. the point of jkd was too eliminate a structure for fighting given to each individual, and teach each individual how to fight with their given attributes. like limb length and position of center of gravity, strength, height, dexterity, stuff, things.

Top
#135274 - 02/23/05 09:42 PM Re: Form follows function
Chen Zen Offline
Professional Poster

Registered: 02/09/03
Posts: 7043
Loc: Ms
You cant be serious. Drunken Monkey better than Boxing. Never. Ever. Ill put everything I own on it.

John, great read. Im always interested in what you crazy concepts kids are up too.

Actually, I kind of rejected these new JKD concepts at first because, honestly, I was biased to Bruce's opinions and ideas. i was and still am a big fan but that also blocked my perception of what jkd is all about.

I used to say I practice JFJKD or OJKD. Now I just say I practice. I looked back over my first few years of JKD and back through all the books and it was weird to go back and see the things I used to practice over what I practice now. The list is a lot shorter with more emphasis on a few aspects and some aspects not being there at all, like the trapping.

What is the CM boxing you mentioned? Ive been out of the loop a little so I havent heard this yet. Anyways I plan to do some traveling in about a month or so to the east coast. PA. Got any good refferences or an estimate on the mileage to drop in where your at? My invitation is still good right? Good thread. Later

Top
#135275 - 02/24/05 01:55 AM Re: Form follows function
Anonymous
Unregistered


[QUOTE]Originally posted by JKogas:


With that said, ANY art that trains alive is going to resemble boxing to some degree. If not, it doesn't train alive. If it doesn't train alive, it won't be as beneficial for fighting as the art that does.
[/QUOTE]

Why?

[QUOTE]
And yes, styles are bullshit. No one needs limitations. If there are no limitations, then there are no styles.

Thus, Drunken Monkey being a "style" is bullshit. Boxing is based upon satifying performance needs. Styles are largely based on aesthetic cofigurations (they are based on form and, how something must LOOK)
[/QUOTE]

Styles are guiding philosophies (just as Lee laid down philosophies such as interception).

Its a common misconception, but a style is only recognised by how it looks, it is not defined by it (unless you are an outsider). Understanding a style allows one to transcend it's limitations. You can't break the sound barrier if you don't know what it is and you wont know what it is unless you limit the bounds of your research. Similarly if you have no skills or methods you consider core, you have no focus, nothing by which to develop an understanding of combat.

If you have philosophies that govern technique, and philosophies that govern use of those techniques (strategy) you have a style. Training "alive" or not is a choice, it has nothing to do with the style its self (usually more to do with the culture surrounding the school).

John, you sound like your saying that only one set of strategies are effective?

[/QUOTE]
Boxing and other performance centered delivery systems are based on "being in combat", whereas styles are based on "doing something about combat".
That's a subtle but huge difference.
[QUOTE]

Thats quite an assumption, I'm curious to know what your basis is for believing that?

Here's another idea. Most styles that have survived from the distant past (150yrs plus) are amalgamations of even older systems and have been tested and proven time and time again in challenge matches, battle fields, self defence scenarios and tournaments. Those that didnt survive such tests died out.

Top
#135276 - 02/24/05 05:08 AM Re: Form follows function
JKogas Offline
Prolific

Registered: 01/25/03
Posts: 10818
Loc: North Carolina
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Shonuff:
Styles are guiding philosophies (just as Lee laid down philosophies such as interception).

Its a common misconception, but a style is only recognised by how it looks, it is not defined by it (unless you are an outsider). Understanding a style allows one to transcend it's limitations. You can't break the sound barrier if you don't know what it is and you wont know what it is unless you limit the bounds of your research. Similarly if you have no skills or methods you consider core, you have no focus, nothing by which to develop an understanding of combat.
[/QUOTE]

I understand your point. I agree with it to a certain extent. However, people are taught to fight in many different ways around the world. There are good ways and there are many bad ways. Iíve seen a lot of the latter. You have to find the more functional methods of training what you are taught. That is where aliveness comes in. Many MANY techniques will be dropped from oneís curriculum in an alive format. I mean, thereís nothing like fighting to actually see what is functional and what isnít. There is a LOT of non-functional martial arts in this world.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Shonuff:

If you have philosophies that govern technique, and philosophies that govern use of those techniques (strategy) you have a style. Training "alive" or not is a choice, it has nothing to do with the style its self (usually more to do with the culture surrounding the school).
[/QUOTE]

Agreed. Aliveness is always a choice and I also agree that is has nothing to do with a certain style. You can take any style and train it alive. BUT, that style will likely change a great deal under those circumstances as it begins to throw off all the dead weight of non-functional technique.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Shonuff:

John, you sound like your saying that only one set of strategies are effective?
[/QUOTE]

Not really. What Iím saying is that oneís technique and the drilling of that technique must come directly out of sparring and fighting. If not, it likely will have no direct relevance to sparring and fighting. Iíve seen a lot of technique that had NO bearing on fighting. Chi sao is one example of those things. Better methods of drilling sensitivity exist. There is NO reason for the use of chi sao in oneís training. Thatís an example of what Iím talking about. Does chi sao ďlookĒ like any fight you have ever seen? It doesnít to me. Iíve seen a LOT of fights in my time, pro, amateur and street fights. Not ONE TIME have I ever seen anything that even came close to looking like chi sao. Thatís something that can and should be dropped, as it has been from my curriculum.

[QUOTE By John Kogas]
Boxing and other performance centered delivery systems are based on "being in combat", whereas styles are based on "doing something about combat".
That's a subtle but huge difference.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Shonuff:

Thats quite an assumption, I'm curious to know what your basis is for believing that?
[/QUOTE]

Boxers fight. They fight with the intention on knocking someone the F out. Whenís the last time you saw that in a TKD school? Go to your average strip mall dojo and let me know if theyíre sparring to knock out.

The times Iíve watched karateka practice, they were hitting the air. Let me know if thatís changed. They were also doing cooperative self defense techniques (that would never work in a zillion years against a quality fighter) where their partners were assisting them to make sure that their technique succeeded. Let me know if thatís changed.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Shonuff:

Here's another idea. Most styles that have survived from the distant past (150yrs plus) are amalgamations of even older systems and have been tested and proven time and time again in challenge matches, battle fields, self defence scenarios and tournaments. Those that didnt survive such tests died out.

[/QUOTE]

Is that so? How do we know? Because someoneís sifu or sensei SAID so? Is it because someoneís sifuís, sifuís, sifuís sifuís, sifuís, sifuís sifuís, sifuís, sifu some thirteen hundred years ago used it to kill an ox?

What someone ELSE did years ago has little bearing or relevance on the present. Nor does it have little relevance to ME. What someone else did was GREAT for them. Iím glad it worked back in the Ming dynasty. Fantastic. Now, lets focus on the present shall we? What about now? What about Joe Shmoe down the block. How do we know it will do the same things for him?

Times have changed. I donít use the same technology that my grandfather used. There are more efficient ways of doing things these days. Out with the old and in with the new. Lets discuss efficiency and a more scientific way of fight training shall we?


-John

Top
#135277 - 02/24/05 06:05 AM Re: Form follows function
Anonymous
Unregistered


John

I'm curious, how much should one train and test a technique before deciding it's non-functional and disgarding it?
Very often I find that techniques viewed as having no use are quite combat effective when properly understood and practiced.

When you talk about Chi sau being useless are you talking about Wing chun Chi sau, or all chi sau practices? Also are you saying that the only exercises one should do are exercises that mimic real fighting? If so is lifting weights or kicking a bag a no no (bags dont hit back)?

[QUOTE]
The times Iíve watched karateka practice, they were hitting the air. Let me know if thatís changed. They were also doing cooperative self defense techniques (that would never work in a zillion years against a quality fighter) where their partners were assisting them to make sure that their technique succeeded. Let me know if thatís changed.
[/QUOTE]

Its changed. It was not how I was trained, nor any of my friends. Go to the school next door and they will be doing something different. You admitted training methods are down to choice so how are you now holding them against these MA styles?


[QUOTE]
What someone ELSE did years ago has little bearing or relevance on the present. Nor does it have little relevance to ME. What someone else did was GREAT for them. Iím glad it worked back in the Ming dynasty. Fantastic. Now, lets focus on the present shall we? What about now? What about Joe Shmoe down the block. How do we know it will do the same things for him?
[/QUOTE]

But a moment ago MA were universal due to the comonalities of the human form? This is some how negated by the passage of time?

We dont know that Mr Shmoe will have any luck with a particular MA, but that goes fr all MA, its the man who makes the choices who puts the work in who fights the fight, not the style or even the training methods.

[QUOTE]
Times have changed. I donít use the same technology that my grandfather used. There are more efficient ways of doing things these days. Out with the old and in with the new. Lets discuss efficiency and a more scientific way of fight training shall we?
[/QUOTE]

Gladly, show me a new idea?

If history is so irrelivant (then we are doomed to repeat it) then so are any records of success, thus there is no factual basis on which to argue anything, its all theory.

Top
#135278 - 02/24/05 06:48 AM Re: Form follows function
Anonymous
Unregistered


I find it interesting that "pressure testing" a given set of techniques has become associated with 'modern' training.

WAY back in the day, all martial arts were pressure tested, right?

So does that make 'tradtional' style training not really so traditional?

Not a slam at traditional training, just an observation.

Top
#135279 - 02/24/05 03:31 PM Re: Form follows function
JKogas Offline
Prolific

Registered: 01/25/03
Posts: 10818
Loc: North Carolina
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Shonuff:
John

I'm curious, how much should one train and test a technique before deciding it's non-functional and disgarding it?
[/QUOTE]

That would be determined through your practice against resisting partners. When you can pull it off when your partners are completely resisting then I would say that itís a functional technique. If you canít pull it off despite a good deal of practice against resisting partners, then perhaps it should be dropped. There are only so many hours in a day and there are plenty of other techniques that due to their high percentage ARE fairly easily executed. Itís senseless to stay with something that you can never get to work. Move on and perhaps come back to it later.

If you canít really practice it because of its potential ďdamaging effectsĒ, then you canít really say for sure whether you can actually execute it or not because any such practice would only be pretend practice. It would therefore be completely dependent on what sort of technique it is and how itís practiced in other words.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Shonuff:

Very often I find that techniques viewed as having no use are quite combat effective when properly understood and practiced.
[/QUOTE]

Well, if theyíre (the techniques) practiced for real as opposed to merely pretending, then I would agree. Not saying that YOU pretend train, but I have seen a herd of people doing just that in their typical, day-to-day martial arts training. If you CANíT train those techniques for real then, thatís another matter entirely.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Shonuff:

When you talk about Chi sau being useless are you talking about Wing chun Chi sau, or all chi sau practices?
[/QUOTE]

Iím referring to any fight training practice that doesnít come about through real fighting and sparring. If thatís all chi sao practices, then its all chi sao practices. The chi sao I was specifically referring to was wing chun chi sao.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Shonuff:

Also are you saying that the only exercises one should do are exercises that mimic real fighting? If so is lifting weights or kicking a bag a no no (bags dont hit back)?
[/QUOTE]

Those practices donít teach you how to fight however, they make your fighting better through attribute development. Lifting weights doesnít teach you ďhow to fightĒ, nor does hitting the heavy bag. They develop certain attributes that do a lot for developing your physical ability to fight.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Shonuff:

If history is so irrelivant (then we are doomed to repeat it) then so are any records of success, thus there is no factual basis on which to argue anything, its all theory.
[/QUOTE]

Didnít say history was irrelevant. However, much of history is bullshit. History is written by the winners, bullshit artists and propagandists. You have to do your own research to often discover the truth, especially when such history is being delivered by the vehicle of someoneís mouth.

It's always been about finding discovering the truth for yourself as opposed to having it spoon fed. I feel certain this isn't anything new to any of you here however.

-John




[This message has been edited by JKogas (edited 02-24-2005).]

Top
#135280 - 02/24/05 08:57 PM Re: Form follows function
Anonymous
Unregistered


[QUOTE]Originally posted by MattJ:
I find it interesting that "pressure testing" a given set of techniques has become associated with 'modern' training.

WAY back in the day, all martial arts were pressure tested, right?

So does that make 'tradtional' style training not really so traditional?

Not a slam at traditional training, just an observation.
[/QUOTE]

Thats a good point Matt,

It's interesting that with Japanese Karate, it was being called traditional Japanese by the first generation practitioners (Funakoshi's students) even though it had no history in Japan and was previously an alien martial art.

You are absolutely right, at one time all fighting arts were practiced by fighting. TKD gets so little respect, but according to He-il Cho and Hwang Jang Lee when they were being trained there was blood and teeth being moped off the floor after every lesson. Yes this could be bullsh!t, but these stories are usualy backed by numerous similar accounts, and if people train without regard for safety then it does seem likely.

Heres a thought, perhaps the training methods, rather than reflecting the art, reflect those who wish to train in the art. i.e. someone more aggressive, fight oriented and less worried about pain or injury will go for something like boxing because of the training and conversely someone worried about going to work with a black eye might pick something like modern TKD or a non contact Karate school?

Top
#135281 - 02/25/05 09:39 AM Re: Form follows function
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote by Shonuff -

[QUOTE]Heres a thought, perhaps the training methods, rather than reflecting the art, reflect those who wish to train in the art. i.e. someone more aggressive, fight oriented and less worried about pain or injury will go for something like boxing because of the training and conversely someone worried about going to work with a black eye might pick something like modern TKD or a non contact Karate school?[/QUOTE]

Good point, and certainly relevant in the modern world ( for the most part ).

Three cheers for law and order!!

Top
#135282 - 02/28/05 01:58 AM Re: Form follows function
Anonymous
Unregistered


in a nutshell, ya gotta spar.

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >


Moderator:  Cord, JKogas, MattJ, Reiki 




Action Ads
1.5 Million Plus Page Views
Monthly
Only $89
Details

Fight Videos
Night club fight footage and street fights captured with the world's first bouncer spy cam

How to Matrix!
Learn ten times faster with new training method. Learn entire arts for as little as $10 per disk.

Self Defense
Stun guns, pepper spray, Mace and self defense products. Alarms for personal and home use.

TASER MC26C
Stop An Urban Gorilla: Get 2 FREE TASER M26C Replacement Air Cartridges With Each New TASER M26C!

 

Unbreakable Unbrella

krav maga