Something else I was thinking about...How do you approach the traditional vs eclectic styles fightin

[Vankuen]

I constantly hear people talking about which is better: "the traditional man getting good at one style to the point of mastery." Or "the evolutionary man who learns whatever he can, mastering a few techniques from a few styles, to create what works for him."

Where do you all stand on this? Considering that real fighting has no preferences, what do you do to combat and deal with this truth?

"From one thing know ten thousand" - Miyomato Musashi, Book of five rings

"Loy lau hoi sung, lut sau jik chung"

[apoweyn]

I suppose I'd say that traditionally, martial arts are eclectic. And that what we now regard as being traditional was actually a few steps further than that.

If martial arts had their origins in personal combat (without discounting other more esoteric notions), then I fully expect that those martial artists had some experience with various sorts of attacks. Either you were prepared to handle the guy tackling you and trying to stick a knife in your forehead or you weren't. Proof was in the pudding and the knife wasn't lodged in the forehead.

I think that what we term 'traditional' arts really came about when we got too comfortable. When personal combat was no longer a reality for most of us. So we could settle into a routine, get comfortable with what we knew and understood, and overlook what we didn't.

Before I step on any toes, I believe that there are many traditional stylists out there that train in a way that is genuinely effective and truly traditional. I just don't know that they're the ones we picture when we use the word.

In short, traditional arts get a bum wrap. The distinction, to my mind, is eclectic (whether 'modern' or traditional) vs. noneclectic.

I regard myself as eclectic. And 'modern' if I had to put a label on it. I do believe that you have to experience something to be prepared for it. And that citing that your system "is a complete combat art" guarantees nothing. At the end of the day, I suppose the formula is the same. Guy tries to stick a knife in your head, either you can handle it or you can't.

I don't mean to discount the more esoteric aspects to an art either. I just think they afford more leeway. Less self evidence. Some guys talk about mushin and prana. Some guys talk about adrenaline dumps and fight-or-flight responses. But they're all efforts to address the same basic human truths.

Not even sure I answered the question after all that.


Stuart B.

[nospam]

Vankuen,

real fighting has no preferences

This is where I stand. Couldn't have said it any better...perhaps just a little more long-windedly :cool:

nospam.

[Vankuen]

Yeah I like that statement...can you believe its mine too? Hopefully no one will take it. :D

Stuart, I liked your reply and agree fully on what you said. I think that its right on. At least in my opinion.

I feel that when styles stopped evolving...and just tried to stick to exactly what they were told to do and nothing else, thats where the downfall of a lot of Traditional arts occurred. Their achilles heel was the fact that they were no longer pliable, and flexable in what they did. It was "this way" only, and "this way" was the best. To think that one has all the answers is a fallacy, dont you agree?

"From one thing know ten thousand" - Miyomato Musashi, Book of five rings

"Loy lau hoi sung, lut sau jik chung"

[SevenStar]

I consider myself eclectic. I believe that to be best prepared, I need to be proficient in all ranges of combat and at least experienced different styles and training in different ranges. I currently train in northern shaolin, but have trained in muay thai, grappling, karate, jun fan and kali. I had several friends who were boxers, tkd stylists and wrestlers, so I've had pretty good exposure to several different styles and methods of fighting also.

"You ain't got enough calcium to have a bone to pick wit me,
like a Gracie, I'll choke a ***** out wit his own gi" - Rass Kass

[Vankuen]

Now lets say, where does the difference lie in augmenting or enhancing a particular style (say one you were a sifu in) and *******izing it ?

Most Traditional schools of thought wouldnt dare to take away or add to their art, as that would be almost blasphemy.

Then you have those (like myself) who have no choice but to take what he or she has learned through the years and formulate it into a personal fighting system, while even sometimes giving it a tangible descriptive term.

Much like Seven star and Im sure many of the others here on this board, too, have a good amount of exerience in various arts. The reasons range from just wanting to learn something different, to geographical relocation, etc. Thats besides the point. Do you try to keep seperate all that you have learned? I would think that its an inherent and subconcious act of blending all that you know into one cohesive art. If you absorb it, then it becomes part of you does it not?

So then that being the question at hand, where does the line change from enhancing to *******izing? Is is a matter or perception?

"From one thing know ten thousand" - Miyomato Musashi, Book of five rings

[DelicateSound]

Vankuen, I couldn't agree more. Your 'style' is what comes out under pressure - as a reaction.

Insert intellectual quote here:

[SevenStar]

I wouldn't say that I *******ize the style because it's my style. I train in Northern shaolin currently. I don't add karate techniques to my forms during training. I keep the methods separate, as that's the way I learned them. The blending comes in when I fight. When I'm sparring or in the ring, I don't just use one style, I use the techniques I know work for me, regardless of what style they come from. In class the low block is commonly used to block kicks. I don't like that too much - I prefer to raise my leg, or drop my elbows, as in muay thai. By not using other techniques that I feel are effective just because they are from another style, I am only limiting myself

"You ain't got enough calcium to have a bone to pick wit me,
like a Gracie, I'll choke a ***** out wit his own gi" - Rass Kass

[fiercest tiger]

you are taught down blocks against kicks? wow man maybe you need to learn from another teacher, no disrespect here but that is so dangerous for the defender its not funny!

my view on this topic guys is every system has or should have the main fighting ranges, kicking, punching, trapping and grappling(stand up or ground)...forms are the answer its all there, anti grappling techniques, long and short range fighting as well as pressure points!

no need to go and study judo, to add grappling to kung fu! its all there in the forms...

my 2 cents worth. :)

come & visit us!
http://home.iprimus.com.au/ykm
yaukungmun@hotmail.com

[SevenStar]

Dangerous? Not really. They also raise the leg (golden rooster), but mainly the low block. When I was in karate, we also used the low block. Before getting into muay thai, I used the low block, and have used it in fights. I have never had a problem from it. I just prefer to use my hands for defense above waist level. What is the problem that you see with them? Are you referring to someone feigning with a kick to get you to drop that hand, then moving in? That could pose a problem, you just have to know when to block with what. My sifu is very good, and our sigung is regarded as an excellent fighter

"You ain't got enough calcium to have a bone to pick wit me,
like a Gracie, I'll choke a ***** out wit his own gi" - Rass Kass

[SevenStar]

"no need to go and study judo, to add grappling to kung fu! its all there in the forms..."

I think this is what Van is talking about when he referred to styles not evolving. I agree with you to an extent, it is in the forms, but

1. The throws and locks contained in CMA forms that I have seen are applied while standing. You CAN do the locks from the ground, but you need to practice on the ground against a resisting opponent to do so (we do grapple in class, but not all schools do), not just forms practice. That being said, by cross training in grappling, I get constant training in ground grappling, which gives me the opportunity to apply the locks I learn in forms on the ground.

2. In my oppinion, in order to be properly prepared for the street, you need experience against things like a double leg take down, for example. What better way to get that than by training in grappling or from time to time working out with a grappler? There are many (I'm not saying you, as I have no idea) that say "If he does this, I'll do this, based on the application in the form" but when you try it, it often doesn't work that easily, especially when dealing with grappling.

How common was it for a kung fu practitioner to get double legged back in the day? I would imagine that it was very rare, but it is a fairly common thing now. In order to be an effective fighter, you have to evolve in order to be able to deal with these things, IMO

"You ain't got enough calcium to have a bone to pick wit me,
like a Gracie, I'll choke a ***** out wit his own gi" - Rass Kass

[SevenStar]

This is in one of the threads on this board:

"OK so you rush me going for the takedown, but what if i palm strike your nose bone up through your brain, your right the fight did go to the ground, but you aint getting up!!!"

He was hopefully either joking or trolling, but sadly, people do think along these lines. THEORETICALLY, it like this. REALISTICALLY, they find out something different. That's why grappling has had the impact that it has had on the MA community.

"You ain't got enough calcium to have a bone to pick wit me,
like a Gracie, I'll choke a ***** out wit his own gi" - Rass Kass

[Vankuen]

I saw that post too. I wanted to say something but figured he would get enough flame from everyone else. So I left it be.

And yes Sevenstar, that is what I was talking about. Those that thought that everything under the sun could be found in their forms....they just have to "find it". (Which often times is simply the imagination of how many things "this could be")

It's true that forms have many applications, and that some chinese martial arts styles do contain ELEMENTS from just about every range. But that also doesnt mean that they often times practice that range to a proper and viable extent. When I studied Shaolin, I learned their kicks, I learned their strikes, I learned chin na from a stand up, Shui Jiao, I also learned weapons. Lots of good info huh?

To make a point, I have never ever seen a shaolin class teach a "form" where you are on the ground defending an imaginary grappler. Have you? (and if you have, that still wont make you good at it unless you go against those that are)

It is my belief, that a style can not encompass all things to an equal extent. You may get a little bit here and there...but nothing to actually specialize, as that in itself is the downfall. Sure this form set has one chin na in it. Doesnt mean you can grapple. See what I mean? Going against and learning from the ones that specialize in a certain area gives you a tremendous advantage. Its similiar to the phrase, "always learn from the best teacher"

"From one thing know ten thousand" - Miyomato Musashi, Book of five rings

[Vankuen]

"you are taught down blocks against kicks? wow man maybe you need to learn from another teacher"

What one finds useless another finds useful. Didn't you say that "its all in the forms"? The gaan sau (low block) to defend against the gurk (kick) is very common in gung fu forms...

But could you elaborate as to how it is dangerous? I was curious myself. In wing chun, whenever we do that particular block, we're also moving in at an angle and hitting you with the other hand at the same time.

I mean when you really get down to it, its all dangerous, and there's always a chance you're going to get hit right? Were just looking for the most efficient means to an end. But please, elaborate for us as to the specific dangers you speak of...

"From one thing know ten thousand" - Miyomato Musashi, Book of five rings

[apoweyn]

Vankuen,

Yep, I agree completely.

Adaptation versus *******ization? I suppose it's a question of perception. And of priorities. It's a matter of where your loyalties lay in your own head. Do they lay with a particular style? If so, then alterations to or even queries about that style may be perceived as a bad thing.

But if your loyalty lays with yourself (developing your own personal method), the 'real' world, or a philosophical notion of 'truth', then it becomes adaptation. You become the center, and you draw relevant ideas to you from all sides, as you see fit.

That's my feeling anyway. I certainly have no problem with someone sticking to a given style. And what's more, I think they'll discover depths to that style that I never will. It only makes sense. Someone who's trained in taekwondo for 17 years is going to find nuances that make it more effective (if that's what they're looking for) that I didn't find in my 6 years in taekwondo.

I think that's what makes so much of the prevailing "this style does this and that style does that" attitude so pointless. Styles don't define a person unless the person chooses to be defined. Otherwise, the style is shaped by the stylist. And their priorities, experience, and abilities are what will make their art effective, eclectic, traditional, and so on.

What do you think?


Stuart B.

[Vankuen]

Sorry I was having a brain **** at the moment.

"From one thing know ten thousand" - Miyomato Musashi, Book of five rings

[SevenStar]

"If you don't accept knowledge form other sources than your style and your skills will become stagnant."

-San Shou Guru

my thoughts exactly

"You ain't got enough calcium to have a bone to pick wit me,
like a Gracie, I'll choke a ***** out wit his own gi" - Rass Kass

[Vankuen]

Yep.

"Evolution is a part of life, those that don't adapt will perish"

The same applies to everything we do. If you want to survive, then you must accept true knowledge for being just that...the truth. Do not get caught up in superficial boundries and such. Waste of time waste of time.

I think the analogy of the collegiate major/minor works very well here. Major in an art that you love, minor in other arts to ehance your styles shortcomings.

"From one thing know ten thousand" - Miyomato Musashi, Book of five rings

[SevenStar]

tonight in class, one of my sihings and I were going over some grappling techniques with a couple of students who are about to enter a local grappling tourney. My sihing and I both fall into the eclectic category. I have another sihing that does not. While we were showing a particular takedown, he came over and said "You know, in a real fight, from there you should just kick him in the nuts and hit him in the throat" The eclectic sihing and I were like "yeah, whatever" and kept training.

"You ain't got enough calcium to have a bone to pick wit me,
like a Gracie, I'll choke a ***** out wit his own gi" - Rass Kass

[honorisc]

"To make a point, I have never ever seen a shaolin class teach a "form" where you are on the ground defending an imaginary grappler. Have you? (and if you have, that still wont make you good at it unless you go against those that are)"

If it can be presumed that a technique has been handed down for generations it had some value to it for Life/Death environment, If one truely understands the technique it can be applied inseveral of it's variations without practicing those variations. And like the arcade player who gets used to how the computer moves~, even for different movement styles and mass or power hitters and damage takers; working with a partner or partners with what you'll want to try in a real fight~. But that's the same-ish as going over forms--it's learning the technique or learning it better. The Kung-Fu person does stiil need to train to understand the control, resistance, effects of actually using it, but they are bot learning what to do.

Theoretically, some might say, that a real fighter must be able to analyse stuff they haven't trained against and see how what they have trained fits in to this situation to deal with what they haven't trained against. Trainging for realism is something. Yet it seems nearly not anything compared to actually really understanding the technique(s).

Kung-Fu has more than one form. Not all of these forms are the same. Each form contains something. While, each many to each form might contain a little of everything; not each form contains everything. One must be expert in several forms to be the greatest-type fighter. Unless that person or persons studyied a form that was broad enough in a little of everthing that the variations could deal with everything~.

Knowing one or a few, or a great many does not ensure that you are expert at any of the techniques...it is not necessarily enough to know...

No_Know

Very some such, perhaps might have been, likely say some, some not.

[SevenStar]

"If it can be presumed that a technique has been handed down for generations..."

I doubt groundfighting was a major issue in china back then, or they would have more ground fighting in the system. Neither the cold hard ground up north, or the softer gunk down south were conducive to rolling on the ground, so they probably avoided it. Asphalt is not an ideal place to get taken down either, but today it happens. so today, it is good to have some grappling experience. Even if you don't crosstrain, you should spar with a grappler

"Theoretically, some might say, that a real fighter must be able to analyse stuff they haven't
trained against and see how what they have trained fits in to this situation to deal with what they haven't trained against. Trainging for realism is something. Yet it seems nearly not anything compared to actually really understanding the technique(s)."

The problem with theory, some might say, it that you don't want to be on the streets at the time of testing~the theory. Analysing is what the fighter should do while training, so that they don't have to go through that step while they are getting their head handed to them on the street~

"You ain't got enough calcium to have a bone to pick wit me,
like a Gracie, I'll choke a ***** out wit his own gi" - Rass Kas

[honorisc]

However, that way, unless you go over every possibility with partners, you aren't necessarily prepared for the next encounter.

Partner people seemingly become dependant on dealing with what they've worked-on. If they haven't worked the variations or something on the street they haven't trained in Their thinking doesn't allow them to adapt. A theorist can understand how to adapt. -general broad claims :-)~

Very some such, perhaps might have been, likely say some, some not.

[omegapoint]

This is an excerpt from an interview with Matsumura Orthodox Shorin Ryu Matser Hohan Soken in the 70s. Soken was the grand nephew of Sokon Matsumura, grandfather of the amalgam of Shaolin combat techs and the Okinawan fighting traditions called 'Te" or "Ti", now generically called Karate. I have been a practitioner of one type of Shorin or another all my adolescent and adult life. Our style covers all the bases, but I still cross-train in BJJ and other arts to tighten my all-around skill. I agree that the stylists makes the style. Anyways enuff of the rant, here's what Soken says about "traditional karate": "[It should also be noted that Soken preferred to speak in his native dialect of Hogen. He often stated that he did not care for the Japanese language that much. -- Editor]"

Interviewer: Sensei, you say that Shorin-ryu Matsumura Seito Karate-do is an old style with many secrets. Since you also say that you are getting old, what do you feel needs to be passed on to modem day students of Okinawan karate?

Sensei: There are many secrets in karate that people will never know and will never understand. These ideas are really not secret if you train in Okinawa under a good teacher. You will see the teacher use these so called secret techniques over and over again until they will become common knowledge to you. Others will look at it and marvel that it is an advanced or secret technique to them. That is because they do not have good teachers or their teachers have not researched their respective styles.

Karate is much more than simple punching and kicking and blocking. It is the study of weaponry and of grappling. Weaponry and empty hand fighting go together. How can you learn about defending against a weapon unless you are familiar with what the weapon can do?

[Soken-sensei used the Spanish word for wrestling when describing this art-form but I felt that a more apt term would be grappling - much like Japanese-style jujutsu. He stated that many people often referred to the Okinawan grappling arts as Okinawan-style wrestling mainly because it was never systematized and looked like a free-for-all form of fighting.

Soken-sensei continued by stating that as a youngster on Okinawa, that grappling was taken very seriously and it was not uncommon for individuals to suffer broken arms and legs as a result of taking part in this light form of entertainment. Soken-sensei would use the terms "te-kumi" or "gyaku-te" as identifying this old Okinawan art form.

The danger of reminding Soken-sensei of the "old methods of playing" was that he would often stand up, grab you, and then apply one of these painful methods of common people entertainment - he enjoyed watching Americans "squeaking like a mouse who had been stepped on." -- Editor]

The entire interview is very refreshing. My sensei trained with him in the 60s and 70s. Soken moved to Argentina before WWII in order to avoid fighting for and teaching Japanese soldiers what he knew. He returnred to Okinawa in the early 50s to find Karate in a sad state. His ideas about being a good karateka and a good reality fighter are pretty advanced for the early 70s. He lived to almost 100 years old, and practiced his art up until 2 years before his death. If folks think that Bruce had a monopoly on cross-training they are wrong. This is how all fighting traditions should be approached. Whether traditional or modernized, reality always defines efficacy when it comes to self-protection.

[SevenStar]

"A theorist can understand how to adapt."

no doubt, but can the theorist apply his theories for the first time while getting his head kicked in?

"You ain't got enough calcium to have a bone to pick wit me,
like a Gracie, I'll choke a ***** out wit his own gi" - Rass Kass

[dzu]

If you look back at all the 'traditional' systems, the best pracitioners were the ones that were well rounded. Unlike today's society, however, they had a strong foundation in their primary art BEFORE exploring other systems.

Things that took several years to develop included a good horse, sensitivity, coordination of the body, rooting, and application of power.

In modern society, the average person does not have the time, patience, or attention span to dedicate the amount of time for these skills. Nowadays, the majority of people are technique collectors and only a small minority have the patience to develop really solid basics. There are only 24 hours in a day and more things that require your time than 200 years ago.

Many of the 'traditional' systems have a set of underlying principles towards combat. The forms, drills, partner work, etc. are the methodology that the sifu uses to teach the student. This methodology, however, is only as good as the teacher and student and can take several years before true understanding even begins. Look at your own clasmates and observe the differing skill levels even though they train under the same instructor. Some people get it, and some peope don't.

In today's more civilized society, those who don't get it are just as likely to teach as those who do. The arts become diluted and it is up to the students to seek out the best instructor they can find.

I am a mixture of traditional and modern, but I don't consider myself eclectic. I don't believe that combat can be broken down so simply into ranges, cultures, or techniques. I believe that a strong foundation is important first and some systems and instructors are better at teaching it than others. After the foundation is learned, it's easy to see how all the MA are trying to teach you the same thing, just using different methods. Only then does it help to cross train. I enjoy training with others of different systems because it opens my mind and shows me different perspectives and methods. Without the foundation, the house might as well be made of cards. Ultimately, however, its just a matter of application.

Dzu

[HuangKaiVun]

All too often, the need to crosstrain is due to the incomplete training in a single style of student or teacher or both.

[Vankuen]

What I keep hearing from hardcore traditionalists is the idea that "the only reason one needs to cross train is because he is deficient in what he's doing."

This idea comes off to me in other words as, "it's because you're not perfect at what you do." And that in itself is a fallacy. No one is perfect at what they do, nor will they ever be.
In a perfect world that statement would hold water, but not in real life, not with imperfect beings such as ourselves.

Keep in mind that everyone at one point must change. It's the way of life. It's okay to hold true to where the things came from, but to limit yourself from stubborness or from a fear of change is ultimately self defeating isnt it?

Like I said, I think it is better to pick a style that one can embrace fully, their major. And then go ahead and enhance yourself as a martial artist by minoring, and learning a bit or all of some other art(s) that deal in areas your style might be lacking in. And yes, no style, is complete, sorry to burst your traditional bubbles.

So then correct me if Im wrong, but do you actually think that the totality of real fighting can be found in your style of martial arts?

"From one thing know ten thousand" - Miyomato Musashi, Book of five rings

[Vankuen]

"Partner people seemingly become dependant on dealing with what they've worked-on. If they haven't worked the variations or something on the street they haven't trained in Their thinking doesn't allow them to adapt. A theorist can understand how to adapt."

Those are unsubstantiated claims as well. The difference to me is, that partner people will have more experience doing what they practice hands on, rather then imaginary application. And if they train with the proper mindset, in a spontaneous manner, making sure to analyze the variations, then in my opinion they are one up on the "theorists" that you speak of. Would you rather learn how to ride a bike from someone who's actually ridden one for years or someone who has never seen a bike, but just read books on the different ways one could ride a bike?

The answer to me is clear.

"From one thing know ten thousand" - Miyomato Musashi, Book of five rings

[Vankuen]

What Im talking about, when I say complete fighting, or totality of fighting, is not simply having one of two techniques from every "range", but rather one who has EXPERIENCE with those different ranges, and has put in some time dealing with the variety of situations one can find himself in. Does that make sense?

To make an example, some people nowadays are saying that they have techniques from all ranges:

"We have punching, kicking, shui jiao, chin na, grappling, sweeping, jumping, pressure point fighting, etc."

What this usually equates to is:

Lots of forms that contain plenty of punches and kicks, some prearranged sets (no so much forms) that are with partners that you learn maybe two or three throws, also within those partner sets you will see a handful of chin na from standing. The grappling might be an insertion from recent events, or something "hidden" in the formset. The pressure point fighting is because they learned some of the basic meridians, and common points that even club bouncers know about.


Now this doesnt mean that you have a good working knowledge of any of those "ranges" let alone experience. What needs to be done to be good, is to have a hands on "workshop" in various areas, where you can see the things that work and dont work, getting some real training hours in instead of just practicing a few techniques in the air or in a prearranged set with a compliant partner.

Hopefully this doesnt seem like Im attacking anyone in here, Im not. So pleeeeeeaaase dont get sensetive on me. Im just trying to get to the bottom of this thinking ya know? So when you debate this, which Im hoping you will, use logic, rather then degenerate into insults as Ive seen on other threads please thank you!

"From one thing know ten thousand" - Miyomato Musashi, Book of five rings

[apoweyn]

It's an interesting point that crosstraining is made 'necessary' by a student who didn't get the whole picture in his base style or by an instructor who wasn't skilled enough to present the whole picture.

But if a teacher is capable of presenting the totality of martial art while still adhering to one style, it seems to me that it's because someone somewhere along the lineage of that art was eclectic. Someone crosstrained. And that was passed on to the point that students today don't need to crosstrain.

If such schools exist, I say great. Sounds good. I don't think there's any inherent need to crosstrain if your school is addressing your needs. The only thing is that it takes a certain amount of understanding and honesty with yourself to figure out whether your needs genuinely are being met. If they really are, then game on, as far as I'm concerned.

One of the arguments that is constantly passed along is that because style A has been practiced this way for so long, then there must be good reason for it. And therefore it must be effective. But if you look at it historically, imagine this:

A soldier in ages past trains a sword technique. He's a good swordfighter. No questions asked. His swordwork is quick and precise. But then a new enemy is introduced into the mix. This new enemy has heavier armour, or horses, or bows, or whatever. All of a sudden, there's a need for this soldier to wield a heavier sword (to cut through the heavier armour), or polearms (to deal with attackers on horseback), or larger shields (to protect against arrows). Presumably, he's going to need new training to address that new situation. And that's crosstraining. Now, maybe the results of that crosstraining remain in this soldier's 'style.' Perhaps he teaches new recruits this style. Including the heavier sword, the polearm, and the shield. Now they have a more complete system.

But now it's modern day. People don't swordfight. Or ride horses. Or shoot arrows. They don't wear armour either. So perhaps the elements of those arts that are no longer so pertinent fade a little. Teachers pay less attention to them in favour of techniques that are more timely. Or teachers simply have no experience applying polearm combat against horseback attackers. Etc. And slowly, what was a complete system changes. It's still complete in that those elements are there. But they haven't been aptly tested in a while because there's not the need there once was. And because the system was indeed applicable for a while, there's also not the sense that new needs should be investigated and addressed.

Safe to say that the 'enemy' today is a little different. We're not fighting swordsmen or archers. Maybe handgunners. Maybe knifefighters. Maybe just drunks out for a Friday night ****up. presumably, much of that changes the combative landscape. while wrestling in armour may have been a nightmare (limited range of movement, difficult to get up again because of the weight, guys running around the battlefield stabbing you while you're down), perhaps today it's more of a likelihood. People aren't fighting for keeps anymore. They're not looking to kill an invader. Just to enforce their will. So your needs, as a defender, might change.

I don't know. I'm not really making an argument here. Just thinking out loud.

What do you think?


Stuart B.

[honorisc]

The heavier, bigger to fight the new, is not cross training. The soldier became expert in that technique for that style of fighting. And hopefully understands that there are only certain situations in which that technique is to be soundly used. This soldier desisted that style. This soldier began a style of fighting that was reasonabl as he will be dealing with it. Although he can't practically use the literal technique of the lighter style, the mechanics develped from the looking-at and study and repetition of the concepts of that single technique are likely useable by comparison at least of the core of the heavier style.

Soldiers have divisions-ish. And specialize. If this Heavy style is the new warfare, the lighter system would not be used; as it is not suitable for a well equiped miltary. Pieces of the ligthter style might be mandatory instruction because, part of the new warfare requires ditching the heavier style methods when the armor or shields or sword has been demolised, elimiated or knocked off or knocked away--Judo, karatedo, Kendo, chado, Kyudo...There was perhaps an intensity that led to serenity that comes from having your life and another's hinged on each decision/move/reaction you make~that there are pieces of in the Arts I mentioned. Without the skill, this Intensity (from realization) might not be the same as Juijitsu, Okinawan Kara-Te, Kenjistu, chajitsu, Kyujitsu...any more.

"no doubt, but can the theorist apply his theories for the first time while getting his head kicked in?"

Yes.

"And if they train with the proper mindset, in a spontaneous manner, making sure to analyze the variations, then in my opinion they are one up on the "theorists" that you speak of. "

If they do this then they are theorists.

"Would you rather learn how to ride a bike from someone who's actually ridden one for years or someone who has never seen a bike, but just read books on the different ways one could ride a bike?"

If the booker read more than books on ways to ride a motorcycle--rules of the road, safty hazards of the road and other drivers, the best conditions for riding. Emergency situations when riding. How-to for simple motorcycle repair. Whose your friend when you're a biker. Dangers of the road. People you meet on the road. Safty when you're off your bike...and told me things that that person can't tell me, then they would both say the same things. In this case, Either.

Your example is empty. Although it might have been the same as what I just outlined~ it looked a lot like an attempt to trap me into realizing that one needs more than book learning (under the presumption that book learning is seperated from actually understanding the words or the reality or application of the information).

A person would need to be cross-trained~ yet, this does not require cross-training.

[This message was edited by No_Know on 10-05-01 at 12:17 PM.]

[This message was edited by No_Know on 10-05-01 at 12:19 PM.]

[apoweyn]

No Know,

I believe that is crosstraining. Recognizing a deficiency in your personal abilities and seeking out a source of practical information.

You'll love this part though. It's largely semantics. Right? If I recognize a deficiency in my personal abilities and go to my own instructor for answers, it's just progress. And if I go to another teacher, it's crosstraining.

Maybe the soldier ditches the elements of his training that are no longer applicable. (After all, we don't still teach the military to swordfight.) But that's presumably because a soldier's allegiance is to winning. But a teacher, who's first allegiance might be to preserve and pass along an idea, might keep those elements of a previous style. Even though they aren't necessarily applicable, they are a part of the whole that the teacher is attempting to preserve. That's his goal.

That, to my mind, is the dichotomy. Whether you're looking to preserve an art or to address specific issues. Either, I think, will lead to proficiency. It's just a question of approach.

I have no earthly idea whether that makes sense. Put a fork in me. I'm pretty sure I'm done.


Stuart B.

[dzu]

I believe that the majority of people that cross-train in other arts do so because of a 'deficiency' in their core system. For example, some people may supplement Wing Chun with Eskrima, Tae Kwon Do with Judo, Muay Thai with Brazillian Jujutsu, etc.

If you look at the traditional styles, it was not uncommon for a student to have several Sifu or Sensei in certain skills. These Sifu or Sensei may have been well rounded, but they either had a preference or a specialty that they were known for. In many cases, the student was referred to another Sifu/Sensei more accomplished in another system to help augment the student's skills.

The danger in being eclectic is that the underlying concept behind the technique may not be fully understood before discarding it or selecting it. The traditional systems were built from the ground up with certain specific concepts and approaches towards fighting. The techniques were based off of these concepts. When you selectively cut and paste techniques to create a melting pot, the conceptual part can be left behind.

For example, many in JKD use a strawman arguments against Wing Chun to justify Bruce Lee's modifications. Wing Chun has it's own method of generating power that is similar but not the same as Boxing. ALthough both are based upon human anatomy, the Wing Chun punch is tailored for Wing Chun footwork. You can try to make it work with Boxing footwork, but then you lose some of the little things that make it so effective to begin with. The reality is that they may be discarding based upon false assumptions without experiencing enough of Wing Chun to make an educated decision. The same can be said of many other Martial Arts that cross train for the sake of shoring up a deficiency.

I think it is important to be exposed to other systems and it can be fun to train in more than one. I also think that a strong core should be developed first so that later on, if the decision is made to train in another art, it's an educated one.

All systems have evolved over time with each master contributing and making the changes. In a sense, they all are eclectic because a Martial arts system is more work than one person can perfect in a lifetime. You do your best and hope that your students can carry on your work by making their own contributions.

I've studied other systems, but it was always in search of one that fit me best. I still enjoy studying other systems, but I keep them separate and enjoy them on their own merits. The systems are nothing more than a collection of knowledge and training methods. In the end, it's my own style and expression that is applied in combat, and not the system itself. I'm the one that hit you and not the system.

Dzu

[This message was edited by dzu on 10-05-01 at 03:50 PM.]

[omegapoint]

Wow, are you guys that post here the same ones that post on the main forum? Everyone here has very sound views on what works for them and I think that in the end that is all that matters.

Training in a system that deals with only one range of fighting, gives the practitioner a false sense of security. For example, many people who train in BJJ exclusively, without any knowledge of striking, think they will be as effective as a Gracie if they had to use it on the street. They may be right, for one-on-one encounters involving familiar terrain, and open spaces for groundwork.

Could you use this type of art in a confined, crowded place, or let's say, on an airplane? Hmmmm, maybe and maybe not, depending upon whether or not you've drilled in BJJs Self-Defense techs. If all you do is train for Sport JJ comps, then your abilities might not be efficacious in certain situations. In fact, it could be a hindrance, and of no practical real-world use at all.

Similarly, a person who trains in Boxing or Muay Thai, may find that their styles don't translate that well in a one-on-one grappling scenario. Flashbacks of the first couple'a UFCs come to mind. Muay Thai guys like to over-commit with their strikes, and this can lead to balance probs which would not be good on the street. Boxing guys put 10 pounds of gauze and tape on their hands when they fight and train, and this is not good for executing hard fist strikes on the street, hence the term "Boxer's Fracture".

I think in the end that we all train for different reasons. I know my training intentions are purely based on my experiences with knuckleheads in life. I also know that so far my training hasn't had a negative physical or mental effect on me. I've been around the world and interacted with different cultures, each having a slightly different view on this subject.

Most of the real fighters I've had a privilege to meet and train under or interact with, had similar views on self-protection, though. Caique has basically the same opinion as to what to do in a real life scenario as did the excellent American, Okinawan and Filipino Senseis I've had the privilege to train under.

Conversely, my boxing coach and Judo sensei had more of a self-glory view about fighting and how it relates to money and prestige for yourself and your "art". I didn't necessarily agree with them, but I know where they are coming from. They never claimed to be teaching bujutsu or "martial science", just violent sport, which can help or hinder you in the long run.

I learned many good techs when I boxed and trained Judo, but since then, I've learned effective real world solutions to the vexing problem of self-defense. That's my feelings and I'm sticking to them.

One more thing. Many BJJ/GJJ guys that trained in Brazil, like all of the Gracies, Joe Moreira, the Machados, and Caique (to name a few) fought for the reals, on the street alot. These guys have practical fighting experience outside of a controlled venue. They don't need to focus so much on the street stuff 'cause they already figured out what works for them. The emphasis on Sport JJ in the U.S. doesn't hamper their street fighting skills at all, but for Americanos who during their adult life have never or rarely been involved in a street altercation, it just might. You fight like you train, period.

Oh yeah, Wasn't that guy that bum-rushed those hijackers on the 3rd plane a Judoka? I wish we could actually know how effective he was in that situation. From the looks of things what he did worked to some degree. I think it's apparent, though, that training in any legit MA will make you a better person in the long run, regardless of what your ideas behind fighting might be. Thanks for your attention. This was a great thread! Smart training...

[honorisc]

Loveable concept ap Oweyn.

It was ditched for the battlefield's new direction, yet he maintains and advances the lighter style for private and personal situations. As the heavier style is too lumbersome and defensive costly w/o the armor and shield and damage-done by the bigger sword.

Good position stumper, one's own teacher progress~, another, crosstraining. Hence the invention of whatever whatevr, thingies, whatever you believe, and the such :-) .

Very some such, perhaps might have been, likely say some, some not.

[apoweyn]

Thought you'd appreciate that, No Know. :)

[Vankuen]

What I like about this thread is that we are analyzing everything, rather then just agreeing. I like your comment no know on my bike analogy. I didnt think of it in that way. I didnt even elaborate in my own mind to that extent. So its nice to sometimes see an idea from a different perspective.

Im not saying that one should always crosstrain or that being traditional is "bad" by any means. Im just saying that I think that those who are trapped in their own "Iron will" of theory, are doing themselves an injustice by not at least seeing what other sources have to offer.

Yeah

"From one thing know ten thousand" - Miyomato Musashi, Book of five rings

[SevenStar]

The marines have put in place a 12 million dollar training program which teaches MA to the marines, looking to make them all black belts. This takes eclecticism™ (I think I made up a new word) to a new height - the article I read referred to an intructor who was proficient with particular dim mak strikes, and another who preferred knives. It sounds like they are taking their MA experience and military tactics and creating theif own style, similar to the chinese lien bu chuan style. Their aim is to make a "gentleman warrior".

"You ain't got enough calcium to have a bone to pick wit me,
like a Gracie, I'll choke a ***** out wit his own gi" - Rass Kass

[HuangKaiVun]

Every REAL kung fu teacher I ever had consistently taught the techniques of other forms.

My sifu, who is a master of his one style, always talks about Baji and Wing Chun and Pigua and Bagua and Hsing Yi and UFC and everything else he can think of.

However, he's less interested in teaching me the actual techniques from those arts as he is in getting me to think of solutions to those problems using the style that I have.

I don't think that it's necessary for one to consistently train the techniques of other styles, depending on what one's goal is.

[apoweyn]

Huang,

I think that's a good point. The objective is perhaps not so much to master multiple styles (whatever 'master' means in this context) but to avoid being in situations that are completely foreign to you.

So while I might never be a brilliant grappler, at least I can get to a point where I'm not completely clueless in the face of a shoot. Or a double leg. Or whatever.


Stuart B.

[Vankuen]

I think that sometimes I am too cluttered with "eclecticism" as Seven puts it...

I want to finish out and master the art of wing chun, but after training with my step brother years ago have not been able to find another suitable teacher to continue with. This is just one example out of many that can inadvertently spawn an eclectic fighter. I trained in what I could when I could, and my body retains what it retains. The end result is one so unique that no one could duplicate it.

I think in life one does what they have to do. I love martial arts, all types. Its an avenue in my life that I need to function correctly. Thats the bottom line for me. I grow tired of many of the styles wars, although I do have my opinions of what works and what doesnt, Im sure the opinion varies from person to person based on experience of course.

How is it, that those of you who have some eclectic background, have come to be that way?

And also, those of you who are more traditional orientated, how is it that you think your style has come to be as far as techniques are concerned?

Just some more food for thought...

"From one thing know ten thousand" - Miyomato Musashi, Book of five rings

[dzu]

Vankuen,

I have learned or dabbled in other systems. I don't consider myself 'eclectic' as defined by collecting techniques from other systems though. I look at my experiences in other systems as exposure and knowledge, but for one reason or another, I never stuck with them. Nor did I attempt to take a kick from A, a punch from B, and a hip throw from C.

Like most people, I started with what was in my area. Reading MA magazines, books, and the internet have exposed me to other arts. I've left arts because of injury, instructor attitudes, relocation, instructor divorce, etc. It wasn't until I found my current Sifu that I felt growth as a MA and decided to stay and invest the time to learn and explore my art. The traditional arts are very deep but it takes a good instructor to be able to teach the different subtleties.

I am an 'eclectic' within my traditional system. I learn the concepts, but try to apply them in ways that suit my own body and mentality. We learn a system but how we express the concepts is our own individual style.

I think that an eclectic system is an oxymoron. Take a look at modern JKD. I think that once you take some techniques and create ways to drill them, develop some overlying concepts, figure out a teaching methodology, and begin teaching everything under a regimented curriculum, then the eclectic becomes a system in the traditional sense.

IMHO the difference between 'eclectic' and 'traditional' is that most traditional systems have certain concepts, themes, or guidelines that they feel is the best way to fight. This is developed over many years from many different instructors contributing. Everything else derives from these. A lot of times (from what I have seen) the 'eclectic' styles don't have this glue that binds everything together.

Dzu

[apoweyn]

Vankuen,

I think I know what you mean.

Why did I become eclectic? Well, I started in taekwondo with a friend of mine. I was good. He was better. And it became frustrating continually being bested by a friend. Embarrassing too.

At that age, the solution was to start over elsewhere. Learn something he didn't know. So that I'd have it over him, in theory if not in practice. (I was about 17 then. Made sense at the time.)

So I went to eskrima, based on what I had observed of Dan Inosanto. After being in a commercial school for 6 years, give or take, I was happy with what I'd learned but not with the environment. To many children, too much emphasis on demonstrations, sparring not free enough, etc. So I found a teacher from Inosanto's lineage in the area and went there.

After that, a series of moves introduced me to different instructors. Wherever I ended up, I'd find something or someone. And I'd practice with them for a while.

It was never really my intent to absorb different styles or anything like that. Just to keep practicing wherever I ended up. I did make conscious decisions to address shortcomings though. When I thought the eskrima school was no longer helping me much, I left. Not the style. The school.

Thing is that the more different instructors I met, the more varying ideas began to fit into a central framework I was developing. So that regardless of whether I was learning eskrima or shotokan, there were still commonalities that I could understand. So the common theme was always me. That's my sense of eclecticism (thanks SevenStar).

That said, where there isn't commonality, I'd stil try to find someone to teach me. Grappling, for instance. Completely foreign territory. So a study of that is a deliberate and conscious choice on my part to be 'eclectic.'


Stuart B.

[apoweyn]

Dzu,

Nice post. I agreed with much of it.

The one thing I would add is that the glue that binds an eclectic approach is you. So that your eclectic practice is only as cohesive as you make it.

The traditional arts come with that cohesion. And that's an advantage in a sense. As long as the cohesion doesn't prevent one from acknowledging potential contributions from outside.

But as far as eclectics, if a person is going around trying to collect the kicking from one style, the hands from another, and the wrestling from yet another, I agree that it may well lack the necessary cohesion. But if a person develops a framework then passes other ideas through that framework, then I think the eclectic result can work.

It's a tough distinction for me to make sense of now that I'm trying. But I think it's an important one, all the same. Is your emphasis on collecting styles or on looking constantly at yourself, identifying strengths and weaknesses, and making informed choices based on that?

That's the glue that keeps eclecticism together, to my mind.


Stuart B.

[dzu]

Yes I'd agree that the individual is what binds everything together. The system is constantly changing, in a sense, by the different instructors throughout the years. So although your style is uniquely your own, when you begin to teach it to others, it becomes a system that they draw upon to develop their own style. I think everything starts eclectic but the more people that touch it, the more it becomes a collection of knowledge that each subsequent student can draw upon.

I think the 'traditional' label leads people to believe that the system is unchanging when in actuality it is constantly changing. I seriously doubt that any traditional art is the same as when it was first conceived. 'Traditional' refers to the cultural origins and boundary for a system. It's a means of categorizing things.

I think that as we move forward in the 21st century, we have global scale communication and more ways to share information. The MA are no longer limited in the provincial, cultural sense. You no longer are limited to whatever is within walking distance. Your MA has exposure to everything that is out there.

Two hundred years from now, their may no longer be eclectic MA vs traditional MA vs Mixed MA. Everything will be combined into just 'human style' as the cultural boundries dwindle and we continue to evolve.

Dzu

[This message was edited by dzu on 10-11-01 at 11:00 AM.]

[apoweyn]

Dzu,

That's really excellent. I'll be referring people to this post the next time it comes up.


Stuart B.

[Vankuen]

Hey, I was just thinking about something else tonight. I like to ponder on things revolving about training realistically...

I was practicing my wing chun with a couple of loyal student-friends, and one of them is a very very muscular man, probably about twice my size. We were going over drills that focused on turning to dissolve the energy and also simultaneously attacking whereever possible. I noticed that with a straight punch one of the drills worked great, but then a slight arc in the oncoming punch changed things dramatically.

So here is the thing I was pondering...why focus so much time on something where the only way it will work is to have the opponent attack in a very specific method?

Many styles fall to this dilemma, whether they choose to see it or not. The open minded individuals will see this to be true. So what would your answers be to this question?

"From one thing know ten thousand" - Miyomato Musashi, Book of five rings

[BaleFire]

On the grappling thing, I haven't been taught any in my kung fu class but Im new (only been to like 7 classes). I assume it is taught because before class I saw one of the instructors grappling with one of the senior students on the ground and when the 2 instructors were practicing one of 'em did some sort of standing armbar on the other one so its there.

[honorisc]

"I noticed that with a straight punch one of the drills worked great, but then a slight arc in the oncoming punch changed things dramatically.

So here is the thing I was pondering...why focus so much time on something where the only way it will work is to have the opponent attack in a very specific method? "

Theoretically, that one way is a common way of attack. Also, the one way could be a foundation method. You learn to deal with that one way, you form a foundatioon of mechanics and comprehension to deal with others, to be determined in other lessons or drills~.

The purpose of a single exercise or drill is not to make you perfect for every attack variation. That's what Understanding is for. The purpose of a single drill or exercise would be to introduce you to a concept, train you with some ground-work to be built upon. You're to get very good at doing one thing~ for develpopment, understanding or both-ish.

Very some such, perhaps might have been, likely say some, some not.

[HuangKaiVun]

That's a good question, VanKuen.

I've pondered that same thing in WC myself, and I came to my own (misguided?) conclusion that many of WC's drills were add-ons that don't necessarily reflect the CORE CONCEPTS as presented in the 3 empty hand sets.

The WC style leaves tremendous room for variation, which is why we have a WC board filled with enthusiastic debatants. This technical flexibility is what makes not just WC, but many other traditional single kung fu styles very very TOUGH.

My personal practice focuses on the basics of my sets more than my own sifu's does, and I do his drills willingly if a bit begrudgingly.

[Vankuen]

I agree with you for the most part. I think that drills have been created over and over again through the years, and through the various focus points of many teachers.

We all come up with drills to make our wing chun better, I personally love application drills, thats when you get to really "feel" the technique, and learn the ins and outs of what works and what doesnt...and if it doesnt, why. Could be the technique wasnt used to the application, could be I dont do the technique well enough, could be many things. But through diligence comes success.

"From one thing know ten thousand" - Miyomato Musashi, Book of five rings

[Demi @ CSPT]

Martial arts practitioners veiw Self Defense, Self Protection or Self Preservation as a series of martial arts problems which they feel they will be able to solve within the framework of "their" art, largely ignoring the issues of larger/more skilled assailants, armed assailants or firearms. Gun people see it as a series of shooting scenarios, always assuming that they will be able to get the gun in their hand from it's concealed carry holster or somehow have it at the ready and then miraculously be able to "fight" with it.

At The C.S.P.T. we do not veiw Self Preservation as a "boxing problem" or a "grappling problem" or a "shooting problem"... We veiw it as a survival problem! Whatever weapon you may be depending on is only a tool. You are the weapon. Your survival begins and ends with you.

The answer for surviving a violent encounter... Learn your best options at all ranges: empty hands, weapons and firearms. Learn the best training methods to develop them and train them under all circumstances and environments. This must be done structurally, methodically and dynamically.

We've updated the website.

There is an OC Spray class coming up too.

Demi Barbito
The C.S.P.T. - "A Lethal Force Institute"
www.DemiBarbito.com (http://www.DemiBarbito.com)

[Vankuen]

He simply pasted his opening page add from his website onto this thread.

Is there any way to delete that post off this thread? Moderators wanna help here?

"From one thing know ten thousand" - Miyomato Musashi, Book of five rings

[apoweyn]

Vankuen,

I think I know what you mean about the drills. I was practicing hubud drills (filipino sensitivity drills similar, I'd guess, to chi sao). When I practice them with people from certain backgrounds, the drill flows very nicely. I expect it's because certain styles punch with a looseness and fluidity that feeds into the drill.

Then when I tried to show hubud to a karate/tang soo do friend of mine, it didn't work as well. His punching was so linear and so rigid that while evading it was far from impossible, it didn't feed into the directional flow of the drill. I was stymied. I could have dealt with it, but not within that drill.

Still, I don't think that the solution is to dismiss that drill. Perhaps the trick is to find the 'root' of the drill, train that, and then train the variations. So that, when the root doesn't work, you've practiced flowing to the next possible solution.

For example, karateka punches. I try to transfer his arm upward and zone to the outside. But his arm isn't flowing upward. It's too rigid. So I instead launch into counterstrikes from there maybe. Take advantage of the opening left by the more rigid punching style.

I don't know. What do you think?


Stuart B.

[dzu]

Drills are just exercises to isolate one particular aspect of the system. It's not a surprise that you can't practice a drill with someone from Karate/Tang Soo Do.

The reason sensitivity is so important is that it gives information that can be used to change in response to the opponent. If you do the drill mechanically and just go through the motions, you are ignoring the feedback given to you by your partner and may not be able to adjust when he doesn't play by your rules. Let me ask you this: What are you trying to develop during hubud? What is the purpose of hubud?

There is a saying in Wing Chun: "Don't play with hands." It's very easy to fall into the trap of 'flowing' for the sake of doing the drill and developing a rhythm with your partner. Then it becomes too much like a cooperative dance.

Vankuen,

I don't know what drill you are doing but dissolving your energy should also be your simultaneous 'attack'. If the energy or force changes slightly, you need to adjust your response to compensate for this. Your response has to be based upon feeling and then changing.


Dzu

[apoweyn]

Dzu,

I was practicing a transfer. Transferring an opponent's attacking limb upward so that I can zone outside and behind him, limiting the threat of his other hand. It's a technique that occurs within the basic hubud drill. (There are variations on hubud that address different angles of attack, the linear one perhaps being more appropriate in this case.)

The basic hubud pattern is actually designed to address a swinging motion (stick, on the most basic level). But if an opponent's punching style is relatively relaxed and your timing's okay, the transfer will still work off of a straight line attack.

The karate stylist's punch was not relaxed. Didn't want to be transferred. So, much like chi sau, the tactile feedback of hubud tells you to abandon the transfer and feed into something else. But my point was that the 'something else' should perhaps be built into that drill. So that you train flowing from a failed transfer into a centerline offensive, for example.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Can't loose sight of the point of the drill. The drill doesn't exist for its own sake. Only to facilitate an understanding. So while I was initally frustrated at being unable to properly execute the drill, now I'm trying to address the actual feedback I got from that.


Stuart B.

[iblis73]

Isn't the history of CMAs filled with "cross-trainers"? I mean almost every hsing-i teacher I've seen also does some bagwa. Most shuai chiao people do some tai chi. Without cross training styles like choy lee fut,tai shing pek kwar or jow ga wouldn't exist.

On defeating grapplers or boxers, one really needs to practice against those styles. But it really matters WHO you practice against-for example, learning some grappling techniques and going against another classmate is one thing, going against a bjj black belt is another. Likewise I can feed my partner boxing techniques but someone who say a state boxing champ will be a bit different to train with.

[Laine Nakachi]

I constantly hear people talking about which is better:
" the traditional man getting good at one style to the point of mastery .
" Or " the evolutionary man who learns whatever he can ,mastering a few techniques from a few styles,to create what works.

Where do you all stand on this ?
Considering that real fighting has no preferences,what do you do to combat and deal with this truth ?

" From one thing know ten thousand"-
Miyamoto Musashi,Book of five rings
"Loy lau hoi sung , lut sau jik chung

______________________________________

Vankuen ,

Actually you can learn whatever martial arts,you like and make it electic.

That's where your own personal thinking process comes into play.
Example:If an opponent delivers an uppercut to you.
Which type of block in your own martial system can defend against an uppercut and so on.
But to me really, it is the man who makes the art.

The human body can be attacked in many different ways.
So every martial system regardless of system or style has it's purpose in certain street defense situations.

So if you ended up on the ground in a street defense situation.
You can use grappling skills.

Your attacker grabs you by the wrist or shoulders you can use joint locking or breaking techniques.

Or if your attacker just throws punches and kicks,strikes with finger jabs,palms,or chopping hand techniques.
Then you can use any hand to hand combat techniques.

Now this is just my input to your topic.
I would prefer to learn and go deeper into the chinese martial arts.
Mainly,because it had a huge influence on the martial arts,which evolved from all over the world.
And do your own research on different aspects of martial arts and you'll find your answer.
To me it all depends on you as the martial arts practitioner.
To overcome the attacker in any real life street defense situations.
So condition and strengthen your mind and body the best way you know how,or find the best teachers.

Every martial arts has their on way of blocking a kick or punch.
And fighting theory or strategy.
The next thing you must do is figure out which techniques you like to use against a kick or punch.
Or strikes like hand strikes to the eyes ,groin area.
Or at any part of the human body.

Take Care,


Fe luk

[Laine Nakachi]

Vankuen,
Excuse me , I forgot to include elbows and knee strikes.
Which is usable for close quarters street defense training against your attacker.

But traditional is the way you've been taught by your teacher.
When you were first learning the martial arts.
Electic is basically on your own,your own personal thoughts towards your own fighting system.
But don't forget though the traditional arts.
If it was'nt for traditional arts,we would'nt know how to go about creating our own unique martial system.
And also the philosophy and the teachings of how the arts regardless of traditonal or electic can benefit us in life.

Take Care,


Fe luk