[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
[quote]fearnloathingnyc wrote:
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Well, I started in a mixed art and my instructors stated their training learning a mix of arts from their father and then went out and studied yet more arts at the same time, so I am not one of those proponents of sticking to just one art (especially just one say grappling or one striking art). Personally I think that misses the recognition of the totality of combat and the underlying principles and methodologies which make things work.
This is a primarily “moves” based understanding and approach to combat, which will always be inferior to a “methods/principles” based approach/understanding. Some of the biggest “Aha!” Moments I’ve had were during weekend long intensive seminars where I had done 2 hours of Wrestling with an Olympic Broze Medalist, 2 hours of Judo with a 4th degree Black Belt in Judo, several hours of Dynamic Combat unarmed stuff with GM Ryan, Several hours of Reality Clinch Fighting with Shihan Lysak, 2 hours of BJJ with a former World Champion BJJ player, several hours of Reality Ground Fighting with Shihan Lysak, 2 hours of Combat Kickboxing with GM Lewis, 2 hours of weapons stuff with GM Ryan, several hours of firearms training, 2 hours of Small Circle Jiu-Jitsu stuff, and a bunch of other stuff thrown in.
We have had everyone from Tony Blauer, to Frank Shamrock, to James Rosenbach, to John Graden, to Dana Abbot, etc…come and teach a huge variety of skills and styles, and I agree that if one was looking at things from a “moves” perspective this would be overwhelming and confusing as heck. But if you approach it from a methods perspective then you start to see how it actually all fits together and that it’s all just variations on the same themes built upon the same underlying principles.
So, go ahead and stick with Judo if that is the most convenient option for you right now. If you pay attention to the methods and principles that make it tick you should be able to apply them or adapt to whatever grappling art you decide to mix in as you go.[/quote]
Well said Sento. I haven’t really thought of it like that until you mentioned it earlier in the previous post and now I see what you are saying about understanding the various “moves” as “methods/principles” which can be utilized in a combat situation. I think this goes along the lines of absorbing what is useful and discarding what is not, in the sense that certain techniques work well in a given martial art competition but when applied in a different setting and environment, adjustments must be made such as not going for a double leg on concrete.
As far as training in various martial arts at the same time, I could squeeze in 1 Wrestling training session per week. [/quote]
Yes, similar line of thought.
More specifically what I mean is that all martial arts (or combat sports, or all physical activities for that matter) are based on the same principles of human biomechanics, Newtonian physics, and strategic concepts (Art of War stuff, behavioral conditioning, etc…). If we are going to use a Bruce Lee quote to liken this to then, “Unless there are humans with three arms and four legs, unless we have another group of human beings who are structurally different from us, there can be no different “style” of fighting.”
This is a Method based approach to combat, i.e. “How can I best utilize the tools at my disposal/in what different ways can I utilize my body as a weapon against an opponent?” When you truly analyze it, there are only so many ways that this can be done, and all Martial Arts/Combat Sports are variations of and based on these different ways. We break these down into 7 “Main Arsenals” which are (in no particular order of importance or preference):
- Striking
- Grappling
- Eye Attacks
- Nerve Attacks
- Biting
- Body Handles
- Environmental weapons
7A) Combat Specific/Conventional
7B) Improvised/Unconventional
Now within each of these categories (or several of them, depending on the “art”) you can place all techniques/moves and Martial Arts/Combat Sports “styles”. For instance, Boxing and TKD (at least the sportive version) teach primarily Striking arsenal skills, Wrestling and Judo teach primarily Grappling arsenal skills, Kino Mutai teaches primarily biting skills, Point Shooting teaches primarily Combat Specific Environmental Weaponry skills, etc… Then you have arts which teach mixes of things. For instance, while Muay Thai teaches lots of Striking Arsenal skills, they also teach Clinch skills (which would fall under the category of Grappling Arsenal skills due to the fact that they are based on controlling, positioning, and transitioning between positions of control). Many Traditional Japanese Jiu-Jitsu “styles” teach both Grappling Arsenal skills in the forms of joint locks/breaks, pins, and controls/come alongs, but also teach Striking Arsenal skills in the form of “Atemi” which is designed to damage, weaken, and distract the opponent to make them easier to manipulate with the Grappling Arsenal skills. Kali teaches Striking Arsenal skills, Grappling Arsenal skills, and Environmental Weapons Arsenal skills in the form of blade and impact weapon skills.
And really I could go on forever with this process of categorizing things into these 7 Main Arsenals. The point though, which I hope I have conveyed, is that this process is designed to simplify all of the hundreds of thousands of “moves/techniques” found in the vast array of Martial Arts/Combat Sports “styles” out there today (or even forgotten from times past or yet to be “created”) into their essential forms and uncomplicate the process of learning and engaging in combat into it’s most basic, “root” form.
None of this is to say that techniques/moves are not an integral part of learning Martial Arts; because they most certainly are. “Moves” though are effective (or sometimes ineffective, but we won’t go there for now) applications of the underlying principles/methods of combat. When first learning, people must learn “moves” so they begin to understand how to apply these principles, and the better they adhere to the principles (and IMO understand them) the more effectively the techniques will work, or the more easily they will be able to adapt techniques that don’t, or discard them all together (if they are not based on said principles at all). This also makes learning new skills (regardless of what “style” they come from) much more easy and much less confusing.
For instance, let’s take punching as an example. Effective punching is based primarily on the Newtonian physiques equations of Kinetic Energy/Momentum:
KE=1/2M * V2 (Kinetic Energy equals one half of the mass of the object times it’s velocity squared)
Newton’s 3rd Law:
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction
and
The Law of the Lever/leverage
What this means is that in order for a punch to be effective it must have maximal mass, velocity, and some form of effective bracing mechanism so all of the force is transferred into the target. The better a punch adheres to these biomechanical and physical laws, the more effective it’ll be, and the less it adheres the less effective it’ll be, regardless of what “style” it comes from.
There are also of course other human performance laws that are at play which help determine the actual outcome of the punch on a living breathing target, but these are the basic “mechanical stages of learning”. [/quote]
Thanks Sento. As always, I learn something every time you post on my thread. You really do break things down in a concise and ease to understand way that really conveys your intelligence and fighting knowledge.
I had a really abysmally sparring session today. It has me thinking that I should pick up boxing again to work on foot movement, speed combinations, and develop better punching defense. I love Thai Boxing, but, these things aren’t addressed as well as they are in Western boxing.
Feel free to look at my post above regarding today’s training.