• Archive through March 22, 2006 March 22 - 10:29 am [20]

Knowledge in the right hands can be very dangerous and effective. In short, it's not always what is taught, but how the student uses it. Backarcher is probably the most critical of Aikido but you will note that he also studied some Aikido. What does this say? It says that he recognizes the value of some of the technique available in the art but doesn't agree with the way it is presented and the inability of the teacher in that particular school to adapt to change. I'm also sure that he has found some way to adapt and use some aikido technique to his fighting approach. This is not criticism.

There may be some exceptions but generally there is some value in all martial arts. The most important component is the individual. As individuals study an art they quickly discover that some techniques fit well with their abilities and others do not. Each individual gleans what is useful from the style. What works for a tall, heavy, slower individual will not work for a small, light, quick one.

As to the individual teachers, some are traditionalists who will not introduce any other MA into their teachings. Others recognize the value of other MA and incorporate them into their teachings while careful to explain that for example, "This is not Shotokan but you may find it useful." In this way they keep their style pure and and separate and simply add on a little of this and a little of that for the knowledge of the student. Then the student can apply it if it fits him. Again, the individual.

I think it is wise for any stand up style to incorporate some throws, takedowns, and groundwork in their classes. Even though it is not a part of their style and they wouldn't normally use it it becomes valuable when confronted by someone who does.

Charlie,
You saw his his reasoning much more clearly and responded much more reasonably than I did. Thanks.

The thing about people who are really only around classical martial arts (Karate, Aikido, JJJ) is they don't really know what real resistive training is, so they say that they have resistive (alive) training in their system, but really don't understand what that means.

I get on Aiki web and I'll tell the guys over there that they need to spar and that Aikido doesn't have sparring, people who don't know my philosophy over there will quickly retort "Aikido dose have sparring, we have Jiyu waza (a spontaneous footwork drill) and randori (which in Aikido means a Jiyu waza done with a meaner face)". They really think that they do have a real resistive practice, but they don't even know what that means because they’ve never been around it. You need to spend a few months around a sport style to understand what an “alive” practice is. You also get lots of Aikido people who will tell you they beat Brazilian jiu jutsu people regularly. This is because they beat some 18 year old kid who wondered into their school, after reading a Royler Gracie book and came in saying he had studied BJJ. Trust me, speaking as a certified black belt in Aikido, there are no “Aikido only” Aikido black belts who can do anything against a Bjj blue belt their size in a one on one fight.

"Alive" training as Mr. Thornton calls it, is absolutely necessary in the martial arts, and at a certain point it's the only way to get better (other then improving your physical condition). If you check out the Ninjutsu guys, they are still trying to get ol' Hatsumi Sensei to teach them new forms and techniques after 20 years of training, that's not making them any better, it's just giving them another way to avoid real life "alive" training, which would actually teach them how to use what they know.

I would differ with some of Mr. Thorntons Ideas, his example with the chess board, while cleaver, isn't exactly applicable for physical activities. While practicing your openings for chess in that manor would be silly, if you think about little kids learning to write you will see that with physical activities "dead" training helps. If a little kid fills three pages of paper writing his name, he will become better at writing his name. He only wrote his name, but his penmanship will improve, dose that mean he is Hemmingway-NO, but it does have better control over his hand and can better form letters. Or look at Football players, they don't only play football at practice, sometimes quarter backs just throw the ball, and some times receivers just run, does that mean they are not getting better at football? At the same time a football team that never scrimmaged would be at a serious disadvantage in a game.

Chris, I respect your position, but let me share my training experience. My Aikido training consisted of three classes a night, and then the "after class" training, which consisted of us trying to kill each other.We ended up being more Aikijitsu, but were still classical all the way. I know I was in an unusually fun, hard training place, but there were a lot of people who could handle themselves.I've always assumed that was the rule, rather than the exception.

And I'm with you 100% on your second point about mr. Thornton's ideas.

Forgive me if I was offensive to Aikido or traditional JJ.

My reference was centered around their "training method", not the art.

There is a progression of "live training". You begin "dead" and progressively add resistance. The problem is most traditional schools begin with dead or pre-arranged patterns and they never progress.

I truly feel you don't even have to train the "specific" ..."too deadly to train live techniques", but you have to have a foundational launching pad or delivery system in which you can train 100% live with resistance.

What I mean is someone who practices Judo, BJJ, or any wrestling sport are a lot more likely to be able to execute a technique from Aikido or a similar art than someone who practices Aikido the way 80% of the world does.

Give me a month with a big strong one diminsional wrestler and I'll teach them the basics of Aikido and he'll be able to execute those skills a lot better than the average Aikido study who has studied the traditional way for 20 years.

You also develop a certain "toughness" that other arts fail to develop.

Scott Sonnon often talks about how "toughness" is your ability to recover when things go wrong. In training, you should be working on decreasing the time it takes for you to recover when things go wrong.

When you say, "I know tough guys" what do you base that upon? Even in the Judo world, I know of people who think a certain instructor is a "bad dude" just because he's good at Judo. It's hard for me sometimes to tell them I know Olympic Judo champons that fail miserably when confronted with athletes who punch them in the face.

I know very few people who I'd brag about their overall "toughness". I know people who are tough in specific areas or formats, but I don't know how they would react under pressures they were not accustom to experiencing.

In the world of fighting, MMA and NHB is the closest thing we have to proving overall combat toughness, but that doesn't mean they would be able to access those skills in a streetfight, but they'd be more likely than someone with less combative training(most of the time). Nothing is definite in the chaotic and unpredictable world of combat.

When most people think of "making an art work", they think only offensively. Rarely do they consider that you can have the best offensive techniques in the world, but if you don't have the "toughness" to take a punch under pressure, recover from a hard slam or throw(under pressure/with natural body tension) you most likely not be able to execute your deadly technique. Conditioning is a major element of toughness.

We've seen this in the MMA world with man BJJ specialist who train sport BJJ and have flawless technique, but when they are on their backs getting punched in the face they cannot seem to access their "flawless" technique.

We've also seen wrestlers who were use to short anaerobic burst in 5 minute matches, suddenly find they cannot access their takedown skills due to fatigue and lack of striking skills to set up their takedowns.

Also, motor science tells use that our ability to access fine motor skills greatly decreases under pressure. These studies have been used mostly in the law enforcement field and shooting, but it also applies in hand to hand.

Developing skills that are more gross motor will put in positions that will make the fine motor skills more accessible. For example, applying a wristlock from a triangle choke.

But still, if you are not in law enforcement, security, live in a rough neighborhood or plan to fight professionally, there is so problem with doing an art for the sake of the art, cutural development or fitness/health.

Just know your limitations. We all have them.

I train a certain way because I train law enforcement officers and women's rape prevention. I can't play around with "idealistic" concepts of combat.

Archer,

My teacher taught prison guards. So, you see, we're not so dissimilar after all.

I agree that we all should strive for perfection of our art and ourselves as practitioners. And since it is a "martial" art, part of that should be to become capable fighters. Those that do this just for health and excercise have my respect, but I would not call them fully accomplished martial artists.

But you made assumptions about my training and even warned me about my saying that my teacher was indeed a capable fighter, or as you say, a "tough dude" because of your assumptions about classical stylists. When, in fact, he does exactly what you do.

Classical styles were created in a time and place where martial ability was all you had between life and death. To assume that it is all just "idealistic concepts of combat" is an underestimation of the classical styles and is incorrect.

i think that this quote, purportedly in defense of traditional Aikido came out, is very illustrative:

"Chris, I respect your position, but let me share my training experience. My Aikido training consisted of three classes a night, and then the "after class" training, which consisted of us trying to kill each other.We ended up being more Aikijitsu,"

Notice how even in defense of the traditional art, one is forced to admit, that it was not through regular instruction that one gained any martial skill, but rather through the extra-curricular activities of the students on their own time. Also is the admission that they followed more of a 'jitsu' path rather than a 'do'. Anyone who has compared japanese martial arts should understand what I mean by that. The other defense is the '3 times a night' line(So, this stephen ott guy puts in 21 training sessions a week), so common from Martial artists or bodybuilders or hard-partiers. 'More is better' and 'I do more than anyone'.
I've got some video clips i shot in China of kids that (18-25 yrs of age) that came with black-belts in karate and the like, and would ACTUALLY really train 5-6 sessions a day 4 days a week, and 3-5 sessions on two days a week (sunday off). They are of them competing in San Da with no San Da-specific training, but rather all their time was spent in forms and Chi kung. I didn't like those kids, so it's always a great time for me to watch the fights. They are pathetic. The first punch they take they basically look like a kid getting beat by his dad...

Jason,
Since I keep falsely believing that I am in a friendly atmosphere here where martial artists approach each other with respect, I was simply telling the story of my experience, and illustrating what happens in an Aikido school. How many classes a night I did was our tradition. We trained hard. It was not an attempt to put myself above anyone. Your negative interpretations of that statement are nothing like me, or my school.

You do know about Japanese arts so you know that Aikijitsu is a classical art. The difference is Aikijitsu and Aikido is merely in intent.

I don't know what you're implying by your comments about those poorly trained kids, but my intent on making my posts was to present the values of classical training, and learn from people who have different opinions. Simply doing chi kung and forms is not classical training. It's incomplete training.

I was not saying that Aikido is crap.
Or any other traditional martial arts system for that matter.

What's really important in my mind to gain the ability to apply a martial art in a self-defence, martial or competitive environment are a short list of factors as follows;

1. Realistic techniques (can this really EVER be done against an aware/resisting/potentially bigger stronger opponent?)
2. Non-Cooperative Sparring ( Can YOU really EVER do against an aware/resisting/potentially bigger stronger opponent?)
3. Physicality (are you strong enough, fast enough or have the required endurance?)
4. Willingness to Harm other- Agression.

There are other factors, but I feel that if you address these you will be covering 90% of what's truly important.

The reason that I or Backarcher or some others throughout this post may be dismissive of many traditional martial arts is that rarely do they cover all, or even more than one of these factors. If the instructor does address one or more of these factors, it is unfotuneately not from a point of expertise : ( Not an experienced fighter, not knowledgable about strength and conditioning for martial athletes, or unqualified to coach others on the moral ramifications of violence being done to them/by them).

There are many values to classical training, but often classical martial arts are not the most efficient way to gain fighting skills. However, they are misperceived by students and the general public to be such. Hence, they are misrepresenting themselves, and swindling kids out of their money. I don't like that.

please don't misinterpret our admittedly biased view of aikido or other traditional martial arts and their instruction methods as an attack on you, or again on 'aikido'.
It's not necessarily aikido that is flawed, but rather the culture that has developed around aikido practitioners and the pedagogy of aikido training/instruction.

I absolutely adore shaolin martial arts. I spent a time in China learning them. I was truly blessed to have as an instructor a former 'monk' that was also a champion in San Da, the fight sport over there that is similar to kick-boxing with the addition of standing throwing methods. Hence, I did some kind of sparring or non-cooperative drilling 1-2 times a day, 3-5 days a week. It was the first time that I realised that forms didn't help me much, when someone was trying to hit me. I was easily able to defeat the other students that were more experienced at forms(and martial arts in general)than I was, once I committed a few hours a week to actually sparring, which they all loathed. I found that wrestling was the easiest method to control these practitioners, who absolutely detested being touched at all by someone else.
Ever since then, I have been skeptical of 'traditional' methods.

Jason,

I admit to a certain bias because I've studied mostly classical styles. But I'll address the first points you made about training as I see it in relation to Aikido and all the other classical stuff I've experienced.

1. Realistic techniques against an aware/resisting/potentially bigger stronger opponent: In Aikido, Tai Chi push hands, Ba Gua's Ro Sho, or freestyle fighting are all done with opponents of all sizes. This si the first step. Next step is san da.

2. Non-Cooperative Sparring against an aware/resisting/potentially bigger stronger opponent: Same deal.

3. Physicality: I mentioned the training regimen at my school, which was not that different from others, but that was perceived as some kind of chest pounding. All the schools I've attended in the classical tradition stressed strength and endurance as part of the regimen, but it was acheived through classical, or old school methods.

4. Willingness to Harm other- Agression: There we differ, because the internal arts are generally defensive in nature. But we all train for what I would call "effectiveness." We all train for it to work.

You've said that classical stylists, in your words, are "rarely" adept or experienced at what you've described above, yet I've seen all of those things in every DECENT school I've attended. As far as students getting gouged, we're in complete agreement. As I've said in my posts above, its a crime for a teacher to teach what he terms as a fighting style when it isn't. And if someone is doing 90% forms, and doesn't want to get into sparring, as with your expeience in China, then they are receiving bad instruction, not classical instruction.

We agree on a lot, actually. But you imply that the problem exists in all or most of the classical schools, and from my exprience I see it as some of them. The same may be true for your mixed arts teachers. Are all of them experienced fighters with great credentials? Are all of them able to train the average student to a level in which they can fight an attacker of any size and strength?

Do I think someone who can barely navigate a Tai Chi long form, or fifteen minutes of push hands, can fight? Of course not. No more than the guy who can barely navigate some of your basic wrestling drills or get through ten minutes on the heavy bag. But if both artists are brought to an accomplished level, through careful training, then we've got something.

I've just never seen an aikido school with real sparring, or strength/endurance training methods that I would consider effective or appropriate. My aikido school had a teacher that was somewhat experienced in competition, as he was also a black belt in Judo. But not really 'fighting' in a real well rounded sense.

Teaching cops isn't the same as being one.

I have an uncle with about 20 years of experience in TKD. He had some kind of advanced black belt. The first time he had to 'subdue' someone when he was working corrections, he started asking me all sorts of questions about BJJ.

I think that we do agree on many things. Where we disagree is that you think that crappy schools are the exception in 'traditional' martial arts, where as I think they are the rule. I've been around enough, and talked to people from different places, and just always kept my eyes open. The bullshit far outweighs any truth. I am glad that you have had such positive experiences in Aikido and TaiJi. I wish i could find teachers like those.

I dont understand the refence to being a cop. I thought you said you trained cops and my teacher happened to train corrections officers.

As far as TKD goes, I don't see that as a fighting style, and certainly not an internal one.

I'm sure you do have had experience. I've also had extensive experience and the attributes I'm referring to are in any decent classical school that teaches the complete art. It stands to reason that since the classical arts are actually my interest and area of expertise( at least the subject) then I most likely have seen more and explored more than someone who isn't as interested. Any more than your knowledge of mixed arts must be superior to mine.

So,no, "most" of the classical schools are not wrong. Some are. And I'm sure the same may be said for mixed arts schools that fail to train their students in proper techniques,either through their own technical failings, or lack of expertise.

We both expect truth in the arts, for them to actually work, and to stop the lowest common denominators from attracting too much attention or students. So I think we've agreed and agreed to disagree. If you're ever in New York, please drop me a line and we'll, as Jackie Chan says, drink tea together!

i am not really a MMA guy. Nor did i claim to be a cop or train them.

In the past though, i have observed in person or through video what some traditional martial artists offered to LE or armed forces types. It was funny. I only know anecdotally how difficult it is for cops and others in similar lines of work to practice and apply smart martial arts. Most would agree that you could lump TKD in with Karate, Aikido and Kung Fu and the like, that are by no means homogenous but are often regarded as 'tradtional'.
What I will say is that i've never seen a cop hang around for very long in any of my 'traditional' kung fu training environments. They seem to be drawn like flies to Judo though...
The meat and potatoes of my training has been in Shaolin Kung Fu, San Da and now Judo. What I have found is that I have learned the most from my peers, rather than instructors, and these peers have always been from competitive backgrounds, ie boxing, judo, wrestling or san da. All have traditional elements to them, but most are considered 'sport'. However, these sportsters were the only ones with in depth knowledge about how to apply techniques to resisting ooponents, especially aware/prepared ones, and what was realistic to expect from an opponent, and what would realisticly work against the aforementioned opponents.
As Tim once said (paraphrasing)(in defense of competitive martial arts and as a counter to the we are more deadly etc line) "sure, i can teach people to sucker punch their opponents, but after that, then what?"

Jason,
Re: cops, I mixed up your comments with Backarcher's. Sorry 'bout that. I assumed you were an mma guy based on your comments. Sorry bout that, too.

I don't know about "most" people's ways of defining the arts, but I think the most effective and precise way is to determine what the goals of the training are, the methods of training and the applications of it.

All TKD is relatively new...it was only formed in the 1940's and is obviously an amalgam of traditional Korean style( all that's left of it), Shaolin and Karate. I've never found a TKD school that trains in what I would call effective technique or realistic fighting conditions. The forms are a great workout, and the sparring is also a great workout, but that's that. I think it was created for combat, or from combat moves, but its training methods don't cover that.

TKD is as far from Tai Chi, Aikido, or Ba Gua as you can get. And as far as the definitions of all of them, I'm sure you already know them.

The Chinese internal arts, Ba Gua, Tai Chi and Hsing Yi, taught in their complete form, were created to be combat effective.

Pre World War 2 Aikido was a combat art. Then after the war, the Founder wanted to shift it to a more "soft" approach and took away stuff like killing blows. But some people still teach that way.

Anyway, my point is that though some people would see them as all classical styles, they are very different in approach and intent.

Sounds like you've got solid experience in what you do. Again, I think we're pretty close here in a lot of our opinions, and I've appreciated the exchange.

the problem with being created to be combat effective is: who in the last 2-3 generations of instruction has really had to apply these skills in war or 100's of fights?
that's what it takes to develop skill.

Surely the old-timers had it. But then the forms and the like get codified, and the great fighters, who may not necessarily have been great teachers, teach a set of drills and such. In most all of the "traditional" martial arts schools i have seen, there has been little real sparring.
There are always restrictions. Types of strikes, rules everything is different wherever you go. So, what styles embrace the training methods that many of us here would agree are the fastest to attain mastery? Very few.

I would say muay thai, BJJ, san da. But even these have limitations. Bjj, no striking in comp. Muay Thai and San Da, no real groundwork. Everyone does this. But when you can create a format that is not perfect, but with the fewest flaws, then your on to something. BJJ is a great step. Your just not punching. San Da is everything but BJJ rolling.

In Muay Thai, many of the traditions have been left behind, and are remembered by few. But people all over the world will still agree that it is the most efficient training method for stand-up. Simple, direct, tough, with an absolute emphasis on application. Who's going to show you any respect in a muay thai circle when you've never stepped into the ring?

But you can make it a long way in the TaiJi world, or Aikido even, without entering an intense competition where your physical and technical preparation in the style are tested. There's no format directly created by practitioners of CIMA for this type of combat. Instead, inability and inefficiency is covered up by 'what we practice is too deadly' or 'we don't do that here' or 'i can't fight you without hurting you' or 'not until your a blackbelt' or 'points are just as good a display as a knockout' or 'i wouldn't go to the ground in a real fight'.

Before you say "that's not the way it is at my aikido school"...
i know. I am not talking about your aikido school. I am talking about all kinds of 'traditional' martial arts school all over the country. Perhaps you do have to knock someone out before you get your yellow belt.
Perhaps your calisthenics are pistols and handstand pushups, and everyone has the leg power to backflip.
All I've been trying to say is, if that's the case, it's not your average Aikido school.

"who in the last 2-3 generations of instruction has really had to apply these skills in war or 100's of fights?"

Do you apply that same standard to any other training? MMA? Wrestling? Does the average wrestler have to be in a war, or do a hundred matches for him/her to be "effective?"

The whole reason I bring up my own experiences is not in any way to bring attention to msyelf, or my schools, but to demostrate that anyone can find a classical school that does the right thing. I came to New York and didn't know anyone and I didn't have any connections, yet I managed, just by looking around and asking a few questions, to find many schools that teach classical arts as well as my Aikido school at home.

You've put Muay Thai up as an example, and I'm inferring, a good example of training. You say it's "Simple, direct, tough, with an absolute emphasis on application." I would place wrestling and jiu jistu in that family as well. If that's your thing, awesome. I think those guys are amazing.

Now, let's talk Wu style Tai Chi. Their push hands consists of long, frustrating hours, being pushed at different angles until you can change your body alignment enough to have your opponent push himself. It is going to take me a lot longer to learn that and apply it to self defense? Yeah. Does that change its worth as a martial art? No.

Again, I'm not a special inside guy, I'm just joe blow, and I've seen and felt tai chi in application by people who know what they're doing. And despite your statement about "getting far in the Taiji and Aikido world without being tested", the CIMA people in New York, for instance, are very clear on who can deliver and who can't. If anyone is telling you they'd kill you with one blow, but can't demonstrate a push or a joint lock, then they aren't a martial artist. They're a BS artist. I don't need to answer for them anymore than I'd ask you to answer for a wrestler or boxer who acts the same ridiculous way.

Any classical school that trains well, and is not focused on training for health, uses a controlled form of applications( push hands, ro sho, randori, etc.) and a free form. I don't know where you train, or where you've looked, but I found them easily.

Out of respect for your opinion, I was willing to acknowledge that there are "some" schools that aren't complete in their training, as I'm sure that there are "some" mma schools that are the same way. Your insistance on saying that "most" classical schools are faulty shows a bias, one that may have come from a bad expreience, several, or maybe a bias toward your own style of training. Since I'm sure that you haven't visisted and trained at "most" classical schools, and I've researched and lived in the classical scene for a long while, I completely disagree.

I'm sure that after our lengthy posts, neither will change the other's minds. Anyone trying to find a decent classical school, as with any other style of training, will find one. We all have the "lowest common denominator" elements in our styles and training. It's unfortunate, but it's there. I do my best, as I'm sure you do, to train as well as I can, and make the art better in whatever small way I can.

If you're ever coming to New York, drop me a line.

"Do you apply that same standard to any other training? MMA? Wrestling? Does the average wrestler have to be in a war, or do a hundred matches for him/her to be "effective?" "

the average wrestler would have to be victorius in the better half of 100 or more matches to be considered a good wrestler. They go out every season and fight at least 20-30. That's my point.


"And despite your statement about "getting far in the Taiji and Aikido world without being tested", the CIMA people in New York, for instance, are very clear on who can deliver and who can't. If anyone is telling you they'd kill you with one blow, but can't demonstrate a push or a joint lock, then they aren't a martial artist. They're a BS artist. I don't need to answer for them anymore than I'd ask you to answer for a wrestler or boxer who acts the same ridiculous way."

I've found that it IS more common to hear these sorts of claims, and for them to remain unchallenged in the 'traditional' martial arts world. You and I won't answer for them, but there are a lot of gullible young guys out there who don't know much about fighting, and they've gone to a teacher like that to learn.

"Your insistance on saying that "most" classical schools are faulty shows a bias, one that may have come from a bad expreience, several, or maybe a bias toward your own style of training."

I have had a lot of disappointing experiences chasing after CIMA training. As far as my own style of training? I am a big fan of 'the scientific method'. As such, I like to look at a problem, formulate a hypothesis, and test it with multiple experiments. I then try to be objective about the results and what they really mean. Most of my disappointments of come at the hands of people, instructors and students alike, that totally ignore questions, problems and conflicts with reality, only to answer them with 'because' type answers. If one were to juxtapose science and religion, I would say that great instructors and schools need to have a healthy dose of science, and too much religion will slow or stop their evolution.

My style is for evolution. Ever more efficient methods of using your body to control another's.

i'm sorry if i seemed rude when i picked this thread up. I appreciate your position as well. I've had experiences where I could not convince others of the value of something i was sure of, simply out of misconceptions that were unbreakable.
I also appreciate your invitation. I have family in Brooklyn, maybe one day I will stop by. What's the name of your Aikido school?

It's called "the school that Jason M.Struck aint ever gonna visit" or even "the school that Jason M.Struck once threatened to visit"

Keepin it Real !!!

Jason,
You're gracious to apologize, but I never took it personally. Like everyone here, I love what I do and I've worked hard at it. I used to be an investigator by trade, so I have been very careful about where I learn. I'm proud of my teachers and former schools, not because of blind loyalty, but because of their standards. So I do defend them. But thanks for apologizing and I send the same back to you if I copped attitude.

On that note, there are faulty claims from every side of the fence. I remember one mixed arts guy who had been studying for about a year telling me that he'd be able to beat my Tai Chi master. It was laughable. But we all deal with these things, people who just don't approach the art in the way we'd choose to.

Your scientific approach to training is shared by all quality teachers and instructors. The days of a teacher saying some vague thing about chi and all the American students saying "Whoa man! He's a genuis!" are long, long gone. In the NY CIMA community, the one I know, quality counts.

My Aikido school is back home in Syracuse, but I'm friendly with come folks in the CIMA scene in New York and would gladly show you around here. Let's exchange e-mail addresses and we'll talk more.