something got me thinking...

[Oso]

what's the real difference between a school that requires contracts of it's students...thereby mandating that for a time, they only train with them (unless said student is wealthy enough to afford multiple contractual obligations)...and the old school sifu who would refuse to allow a student to cross train?

[rogue]

One uses loyalty and guilt, while the other uses economics.

[The Xia]

I don't see "no cross training!" rules as a characteristic of an old school sifu. I really don't get where this notion that cross training isn't old school came from. Cross training is present throughout TCMA history and plenty of big name sifus practice multiple styles and have had multiple teachers. As for contracts that say you can only train with that school, I wouldn't sign it. I think a contract that prohibits students from learning under other schools and teachers says something about the school. The impression I would get from that is that they are worried their martial arts aren’t up to par with others or they are cultish. I would also think it could be both and more. I wouldn’t train in such a school.

[syn]

Since this is based from my worries, I'd just like to say that my sifu in no way is restricting on us, and it's a pretty loose family, people come and go. But I've heard that it can **** sifus off to know that you're training somewhere else without them knowing or anything, because they can be teaching you conflicting techinques, and it can be deconstructive to developing one style.

I'm almost positive if I gave my sifu heads that I want to train a bit from another style he'd be fine with it, and maybe want to hear a bit about my experience if it's something he doesn't know alot about. He's a pretty understanding guy, and as long as you're reasonable with him he's reasonable with you.

:p

[bakxierboxer]

what's the real difference between a school that requires contracts of it's students...thereby mandating that for a time, they only train with them (unless said student is wealthy enough to afford multiple contractual obligations)...and the old school sifu who would refuse to allow a student to cross train?

If one is simply "Joe Student", it should be no big deal.

OTOH, if "Joe Student" is a disciple it's a very big deal to go elsewhere. It's tantamount to saying that your SiFu's very best is not good enough.

If you are a disciple in an honest relationship with your SiFu, when the time comes that you should move on, he'll give you a referral to a SiFu/senior who will supply whatever it is that you need next.

Pete

[Meat Shake]

I dunno...
SD had contracts.
Sifu kirk on the other hand...
Hehehe...
He would eagerly be waiting for you to come back if you trained with someone good....
"what did you learn? Lets see if it works."

He was always up for new things and new ways of working in to throws.

[xcakid]

On the topic of contracts:

Simple economics and time management. Typically schools hire a billing company to do all the billing for them. This frees up the time that would otherwise be used doing your own books and billing. You would instead get a monthly accounting/statement. Second this tends to offer saving for the school in that it bypasses credit card fees charged by credit card processing companies. This also gives an added convenience to the student by being able to use CC or EFT.

On the topic of cross training:

In my experience, both student and teacher. Cross training is bad for a novice. For example; if one was taking kung fu and also take tae kwon do. There is a difference in the styles and how they are executed. A novice will have a hard time decerning which should be learned first. It will also confuse the student on what is proper in one style and what is not.

However, a student with some experience and can understand concepts and application, I don't see the harm in it.

I also believe in cross training in another art that will compliment your current one. Kenpo and BJJ for instance. I personally like the Kung Fu and Firearms training route with a little bit of Arnis thrown in.

[Oso]

One uses loyalty and guilt, while the other uses economics.

but the outcome is the same: a student may be forced in to staying somewhere he doesn't want to out of guilt or a financially binding contract. which motive is the purer?

The Xia: you still see it fairly often (the old school teacher thing)...It happened to me and it's happened to other posters here. And, of course, you see it in the contract schools every day. I haven't said that the 'contract' specifically prohibited a student from training elsewhere but you're average Joe generally can't afford to be paying two teachers at once.


If one is simply "Joe Student", it should be no big deal.


OTOH, if "Joe Student" is a disciple it's a very big deal to go elsewhere. It's tantamount to saying that your SiFu's very best is not good enough.

If you are a disciple in an honest relationship with your SiFu, when the time comes that you should move on, he'll give you a referral to a SiFu/senior who will supply whatever it is that you need next.

Pete

I think it's the Joe Student that this situation affects (or is that effects?). The disciple has made a decision through time spent with the teacher to stay with him. The Joe Student who initially thinks school A is what he wants but after a few months decides it isn't has a harder time leaving to find what he wants under the two conditions stated above: guilt & financial obligation

i do agree with your last.


Meatshake: that's only vaguely an oblique response. :)


xcakid: you didn't really address the debate itself.

[rogue]

but the outcome is the same: a student may be forced in to staying somewhere he doesn't want to out of guilt or a financially binding contract. which motive is the purer?

Exactamundo. A person is still restricted if you use silk ropes or gaffers tape. I may be a little too Western in my attitude but I think people shouldn't be tied to a school or teacher except by them wanting to really be there. My JJJ teacher never had contracts and didn't mind if people left to go study elsewhere, he knew those of us who did and wanted what he was teaching would be back. Those who wanted something else would leave anyway.

[Black Jack II]

There are ways out of contracts. I believe the general ruling has to do with how far one lives from the location, in gyms that I have been to if you move 25 miles from the gym due to work, there is a law that breaks the contract.

I heard this from a friend who runs a gym in Naperville but I don't know for sure.

[mickey]

Greetings,

I see nothing wrong with having a contract for the first year of training at a particular school. That would scare away the dabblers.


mickey

[bakxierboxer]

On the topic of contracts:

I also believe in cross training in another art that will compliment your current one. Kenpo and BJJ for instance. I personally like the Kung Fu and Firearms training route with a little bit of Arnis thrown in.

... aaaand if you were fortunate enough to have a SiFu who could also teach you some "Gun Fu"?

Pete

[bakxierboxer]

... The disciple has made a decision through time spent with the teacher to stay with him. ...

i do agree with your last.

Most folks don't know this, but some styles also have a point at which a disciple will be "sent out" in order that he can "look around" and make double d**ned sure that he really has found "his" teacher & is willing to make the final commitment.

Pete

[bakxierboxer]

Exactamundo.

"Not-xactamundo"


My JJJ teacher never had contracts and didn't mind if people left to go study elsewhere, he knew those of us who did and wanted what he was teaching would be back.

Ummmm....this *is* a TCMA forum and the mores/ways are seldom the same as those of a relatively "open" JMA sport such as "JJJ".

Pete

[ngokfei]

the idea of contracts was adopted by martial Arts Schools (TKD) originated with Health Clubs.

todays schools are very much forumulated around the Health Club.

The better schools don't just push contracts, they push programs/courses.

The trend is to emulate a university. You pay this amount and you learn this material. A particular time frame is agreed upon (1yr-3yr) where at the end you have learned this material (if you follow the formate, don't miss classes, etc). And it doesn't guarantee the individual a degree, promotion etc. The test has to be passed.

Its just like going to college. YOu sign up for geometry for $$$ and its meets on this day and lasts for 1 semester. If you drop out you don't get your money back and if you fail you don't get the course credit.

The act of allowing the student to make monthly payments is the only difference.

Voiding contracts is possible. Each state has its own rules. Some enforce that a contract cannot exceed a set $$ to be enforcible. Alot of schools who have a 3 yr black belt program have found that their contracts can not be enforcible for this reason.

Gyms method of allowing you to get our of the contract was: Dr's Note or Moving

Today they have a cancelation fee. The one I belong to has a $100 fee for cancelation.

Some schools use an "open ended agreement" which means that a student signs a monthly EFT (electronic funds transfer) where a set amount is withdrawn monthly. A student can stop this by giving a 30 day notice.


Alot of schools now are adopting multiple methods: ex:

Trial Lesson Pgm - 2 lessons for $19.95
Trial Program - 3 months for $300

Monthly $100 (i discourage this method, no commitment)
Open Ended Agreement (EFT) $90 a month
a 1 Year Contract $80 a month
Pay up front 1 year $70x12

etc.

[bakxierboxer]

Greetings,

I see nothing wrong with having a contract for the first year of training at a particular school. That would scare away the dabblers.
mickey

Except for the fact that someone running a commercial school doesn't want to "scare away the dabblers"?
I don't particularly favor contracts myself, but such schools usually offer "free trial periods" to "help the sale along".
This can be followed with the offering of "whatever flavor"/length contract will best get a signature on the dotted line.

Pete

[ngokfei]

Cross training is great but can be seen as competition by alot of teachers.

Personally I don't care if one of my students is also training in another style. As long as they keep their $$ coming. While it would be nice of them to show improvement I leave it up to them. I don't just hand out ranks so its their loss.

Now if you've got an old world teacher. Best keep it a secret and try not to use anything you learned in this teachers school. You'll find your self on the short end of the stick and will receive mediocre training.

On a personal note. My teacher didn't really care that I was training Kickboxing outside of the school. Actually made me understrand my teacher's material better.

He only got his dander up when I began to train in another Kung Fu School and southern at that.

I remember one time I was sparring in the school and execute a bridge hand with a retreating horse. He just stared and ignored me for over a year. I can say that our relationship has never been smooth since:(

[rogue]

"Not-xactamundo"



Ummmm....this *is* a TCMA forum and the mores/ways are seldom the same as those of a relatively "open" JMA sport such as "JJJ".

Pete

Oh oh, someone has a case of the "too deadlies".;)

[Chief Fox]

What is the point of the contract?

It's only purpose is protect the school financially. There is no benefit to the student.

[MasterKiller]

What is the point of the contract?

It's only purpose is protect the school financially. There is no benefit to the student.

I especially don't see the point when **most** coaches let you out of your contract, anway, whenever you want. There is always some c0ck that will take you to small claims court, but generally school owners don't want your money if you aren't there to train, IME anyway.

[Chief Fox]

I especially don't see the point when **most** coaches let you out of your contract, anway, whenever you want. There is always some c0ck that will take you to small claims court, but generally school owners don't want your money if you aren't there to train, IME anyway.

Good point, the contract is just for the c0cks. Most other people are cool.

[SevenStar]

I don't see "no cross training!" rules as a characteristic of an old school sifu. I really don't get where this notion that cross training isn't old school came from. Cross training is present throughout TCMA history and plenty of big name sifus practice multiple styles and have had multiple teachers. As for contracts that say you can only train with that school, I wouldn't sign it. I think a contract that prohibits students from learning under other schools and teachers says something about the school. The impression I would get from that is that they are worried their martial arts aren’t up to par with others or they are cultish. I would also think it could be both and more. I wouldn’t train in such a school.

plenty of people on here and elsewhere have stated that some sifu have frowned on cross training for various reasons. some here have also had direct experience with it.

he's not saying that the contract would say you can only train at that school. He's saying that unless you can afford to train at multiple places, you are locked into only training at that one place.

[SevenStar]

If one is simply "Joe Student", it should be no big deal.

OTOH, if "Joe Student" is a disciple it's a very big deal to go elsewhere. It's tantamount to saying that your SiFu's very best is not good enough.

If you are a disciple in an honest relationship with your SiFu, when the time comes that you should move on, he'll give you a referral to a SiFu/senior who will supply whatever it is that you need next.

Pete

that line of thought is outdated. why does the sifu only give his best to his disciples and not the other students? people getting half arse taught is one of the big problems with TMA today. everyone should receive the same level of training. If what your training lacks is grappling and your sifu knows nothing about the grappling world other than what's in CMA, how is he gonna give you a decent referral?

[bakxierboxer]

Oh oh, someone has a case of the "too deadlies".;)

{snort!}
More like pointing out that a background in TKD, JJJ, and supposedly living in a log cabin don't really prepare you for the TCMA "culture".
I do very much like your stance on terrorists.... who happen to have their own "culture" which fits into our US culture just about the same way that JJJ fits into TCMA. :D

Pete

[SevenStar]

Ummmm....this *is* a TCMA forum and the mores/ways are seldom the same as those of a relatively "open" JMA sport such as "JJJ".

Pete

technically, this forum extends beyond tcma. Many of our regular posters either train other arts and no longer train cma, or crosstrain something else in addition to cma. regardless, as started before, your "ways" are outdated. a thai boxer and his coach have the same close relationship. However, if one of my guys wants to crosstrain elsewhere, that's HIS decision to make, not mine. It won't hurt me any, nor will it change how I train him.

[bakxierboxer]

that line of thought is outdated.

This is a free country, which entitles you to seek out any number of folks who don't hold with such practices.
If they had what I wanted, I'd have gone to them myself.
Of course, I'm kinda old-fashioned and outdated myself.....


why does the sifu only give his best to his disciples and not the other students?

Why not?
It's his school and he's entitled to run it whatever way he likes within the law.
The day it becomes illegal to "discriminate" based on perceived merit is the day some very good schools will close.... and relocate to the teacher's basement or garage, or "game-room".


people getting half arse taught is one of the big problems with TMA today.

You don't think that there's a large element of half arse students in there somewhere?


everyone should receive the same level of training.

How do you propose to do that?
I'm probably more egalitarian than "the next guy", but outright acceptance and enforcement of that statement would mean holding back those who can excel.
Perhaps you know some 5 year old girls who can hop in the ring with the latest MMA heavyweight contender?
I know I don't know any.


If what your training lacks is grappling and your sifu knows nothing about the grappling world other than what's in CMA, how is he gonna give you a decent referral?

If what I wanted and needed was not Chinese, then I'd be quite capable of using the Yellow pages and wouldn't need that referral at all.

Pete

[bakxierboxer]

technically, this forum extends beyond tcma.

So all that:
"Kung Fu Magazine Forums > Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum > Kung Fu Forum"
stuff across the top of the page doesn't mean anything at all?


Many of our regular posters either train other arts and no longer train cma, or crosstrain something else in addition to cma. regardless, as started before, your "ways" are outdated.

That's nice for them.
It also doesn't mean that a TCMA forum suddenly becomes a MMA forum.
"Kung Fu" is a relatively ancient term and there's a lot of folks out there who think the whole idea is outdated. They're wrong simply because they don't understand the concept or how it works.
By the way, why don't you tell me what that concept is? :D


a thai boxer and his coach have the same close relationship.

Maybe even closer in many cases.


However, if one of my guys wants to crosstrain elsewhere, that's HIS decision to make, not mine. It won't hurt me any, nor will it change how I train him.

That's entirely your business.
I've taught enough folks over the last 40 years to pretty much satisfy any urges in that direction. I don't particularly care if I ever teach another person again.
I'm not here to sell anything.
Are you?

Pete

[Chief Fox]

I'm surprised that no one mentioned this earlier but something actually got Oso thinking!

CONGRATULATIONS! :D

[MasterKiller]

"Kung Fu" is a relatively ancient term and there's a lot of folks out there who think the whole idea is outdated.

The term kung fu was not popular until the 20th century, thus the word would be seldom found in any ancient texts. The term was first known to have been reported by a Westerner, French Jesuit missionary Jean Joseph Marie Amiot, in the 18th century and was known little in the mainstream English language until approximately the late 1960s, when it became popular because of the Hong Kong films, especially those by Bruce Lee, and later Kung Fu - the television series.

wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kung_fu_(term))

[ngokfei]

Regarding contracts. There is a benefit for both the student and teacher/school.

Yes. A teacher is financially secure in that there will be payment in future. Also secure in the fact that they don't have to scheme or babysit the student with watered down material. The teacher can instruct in the proper way.

For the student you are guaranteed the same monthly charge for the length of your agreement/contract. If the rent goes up or the teacher needs money for vacation, you won't be affected. Also it helps the student in becoming a mature adult. They have agreed to a length of time committed to an endeavor. Helps to prevent dabblers. You will use this discipline in many things in life, like Leasing a Car, Going to college, etc. "Finish what you start"

by what I can see most who are against agreements/contracts
1. Do not run a professional school
2. Are the individuals that are dabblers and don't finish what they start.

Contracts guarantee a service. If you want to have your house painted then the smart businessman will have you sign a contract. Money for services

Masterkiller

The term "kung fu" is an ancient phrase as it is Chinese which is a language that is more than 5000 years old. yes only since the interest of martial artshas it become a popular monicker for Chinese Martial Arts.

[MasterKiller]

Masterkiller

The term "kung fu" is an ancient phrase as it is Chinese which is a language that is more than 5000 years old. yes only since the interest of martial artshas it become a popular monicker for Chinese Martial Arts.

English is pretty old, too. But the word "laser" is only about 50 years old.

Where does the term "kung fu" appear in "ancient" texts?

[bakxierboxer]

English is pretty old, too. But the word "laser" is only about 50 years old.

Where does the term "kung fu" appear in "ancient" texts?

Not sure that it's all that common in "ancient texts".
The term is a colloquialism, and thus "beneath" the "learned scholars" who were "the few, the proud, the literate".
Literacy is far from being 100% here in the USA, and away from the more heavily settled/industrialized/controlled areas of Mainland the percentages are likely rather large.... although I think the government is making some rather heavy efforts towards "fixing" that so that everyone can properly read whatever color/size book fulfills the current powers' dictates.

Pete

[B-Rad]

So, why do you believe it's an ancient term? Is there evidence to back it up or do you just assume it is (Oral history through teacher or something else less "concrete")? I always just assumed the term was older, though MasterKiller's post sparked my curiosity.

[B-Rad]

As for contracts, what do you guys think of having both month to month and 6 month/ 1 year contracts... but decreasing the price the longer the person signs up for? A TKD school I went to briefly had monthly classes for $80/month, then a 6 month contract that worked out to about $60/month if I remember correctly. Naturally, you can always adjust things when the student becomes more advanced and part of the "family" where they're able to help teach early level classes.

[SevenStar]

Why not?
It's his school and he's entitled to run it whatever way he likes within the law.
The day it becomes illegal to "discriminate" based on perceived merit is the day some very good schools will close.... and relocate to the teacher's basement or garage, or "game-room".

why not? look around at the schools you see today and that will tell you why not. Sure, he's entitled to do it, but at the same time, his system gets propogated in a watered down fashion to the majority of people. All in all, it's a bad look on his style. But, if that's what they want, then nobody can complain about the current state of tma.




You don't think that there's a large element of half arse students in there somewhere?

sure there are, which makes it worse. If you fully teach a half arse student, in the long run, it's better of than half teaching a half arse student. Not to mention that that would make me think less of the teacher, as he just picks and chooses who he wants to fully teach. As a coach, I take pride in knowing I train all of my guys to the best of my ability. I would think any coach or teacher would feel the same, but apparently not.




How do you propose to do that?
I'm probably more egalitarian than "the next guy", but outright acceptance and enforcement of that statement would mean holding back those who can excel.
Perhaps you know some 5 year old girls who can hop in the ring with the latest MMA heavyweight contender?
I know I don't know any.

it's really not hard. their sex is indifferent, and really, the age is as well. they are learning the same material and training in the same manner. I'd would wager that you couldn't hop in the ring with the latest contender either. Most of us couldn't. But regardless, everyone we train, whether they compete or not will be in competition shape if they are consistent in class. Nothing is held back from anyone.




If what I wanted and needed was not Chinese, then I'd be quite capable of using the Yellow pages and wouldn't need that referral at all.



but of course that would never happen, because you would have to get permission first... And actually, a tcma guy once referred me to a local judo club, so...

[SevenStar]

So all that:
"Kung Fu Magazine Forums > Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum > Kung Fu Forum"
stuff across the top of the page doesn't mean anything at all?

actually, no. just as you mentioned, it's a free country and several non tcma choose to post here. Consequently, it is not a tcma forum despite what it's intent may have been. Actually, mma and sport fighting is probably discussed as much if not more than tcma on this particular forum.




That's nice for them.
It also doesn't mean that a TCMA forum suddenly becomes a MMA forum.
"Kung Fu" is a relatively ancient term and there's a lot of folks out there who think the whole idea is outdated. They're wrong simply because they don't understand the concept or how it works.
By the way, why don't you tell me what that concept is? :D

not an mma forum - an open forum. And yes, it does. the forum can only be what it's posters make it. And what, the concept of "hard work"?




Maybe even closer in many cases.

that is true.




That's entirely your business.
I've taught enough folks over the last 40 years to pretty much satisfy any urges in that direction. I don't particularly care if I ever teach another person again.
I'm not here to sell anything.
Are you?


nope.

[Oso]

I'm surprised that no one mentioned this earlier but something actually got Oso thinking!

CONGRATULATIONS! :D

:p :p :p

thanks for the laugh...i had a crappy day and am late getting to the school and kids are just 20 minutes away....

[B-Rad]

It also doesn't mean that a TCMA forum suddenly becomes a MMA forum.
Also thought I'd add that the "T" in your acronym isn't mentioned at all in the description. It leaves a lot of room for other types of discussion. Many CMA people do use their martial arts to compete in various application sports, which certainly leaves the door open to MMA discussion. And part of MMA discussion is about improving your abilities, filling holes in your game, and even learning how potential non-CMA opponents may approach things. It's all related in some way :)

[bakxierboxer]

So, why do you believe it's an ancient term? Is there evidence to back it up or do you just assume it is (Oral history through teacher or something else less "concrete")? I always just assumed the term was older, though MasterKiller's post sparked my curiosity.

The term's major popularity is as a Cantonese colloquialism having to do with a high degree of skill some unspecified task and impliedly attained through great effort (many consider it a "male" "work-related-thing").
Canton == pretty much southern <> northern/mandarin/present-day-commie.
Given that "work" was not invented yesterday, it's anyone's guess just how old the term is. The Jesuit 18th century (1700s) is good enough to fit my "relatively ancient" category, but I'm pretty sure that "work" (and "skill") were around before then.

On occasion, the skill is unexpectedly brought forth "at the drop of a hat" in some unexpected manner and yields tremendous gain for the user.
Onlookers are often the ones who proclaim what they've just witnessed as
"kung fu".

Also some good points in the later thread.

Pete

[The Xia]

I'm not saying that some old school sifus didn't and don't put bans on cross training for disciples etc. But I wouldn't call it a characteristic of an old school sifu because of the sheer number of them who have studied under multiple teachers and teach multiple styles. There are many examples of this both modern and old. And new styles are created from existing ones. Look at how many styles Wang Lang drew from to create Shangdong Mantis. Look at how much Hung Gar has picked up as it evolved down the Wong Fei Hung lineage. Look at Jow Gar. Based on the evidence presented, I'd say cross training is a characteristic of old school Kung Fu.

[B-Rad]

Yes, absolutely. It's pretty obvious.

Jow Gar, Choy Lay Fut, Sun Taiji, Bagua Taiji, Eagle Claw, Yin Fu Bagua, Mantis, Tai Sheng Pek Kwar... there's tons of examples. Heck, stuff like this still goes on, lol.

[bakxierboxer]

why not? look around at the schools you see today and that will tell you why not.

You actually think those are "martial art" schools"?


Sure, he's entitled to do it, but at the same time, his system gets propogated in a watered down fashion to the majority of people. All in all, it's a bad look on his style. But, if that's what they want, then nobody can complain about the current state of tma.

It doesn't work that way.
By sticking to his principles, his art is propagated (or not) in exactly the way he wishes. The "watering down" only starts to happen when you begin compromising those principles just to get folks in the door.


sure there are, which makes it worse. If you fully teach a half arse student, in the long run, it's better of than half teaching a half arse student.

That's your opinion.
Mine is that if the potential student manages to make it obvious enough, no self-respecting teacher will take him on in the first place.


Not to mention that that would make me think less of the teacher, as he just picks and chooses who he wants to fully teach.

You know what?
There's actually an "english saying" that fits this situation:
"You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear."


As a coach, I take pride in knowing I train all of my guys to the best of my ability.

So, just what kind of coaching magic do you pull out of where-ever to put arms and legs on a quadriplegic?


I would think any coach or teacher would feel the same, but apparently not.

In the past, I once drew "my own line" at "severely disabled" when the fellow insisted that he could and would do it. He did it to the point where he was able to defend himself and the wife he'd hesitated to take before achieving that level of capability.


it's really not hard. their sex is indifferent, and really, the age is as well. they are learning the same material and training in the same manner.

Those statements fly in the face of the established facts.
Most military (jeepers, are those martial?) organizations seem to think differently.
I've yet to see any military take women and children enlistees for the most strenuous training, let alone the most hazardous duties.


I'd would wager that you couldn't hop in the ring with the latest contender either.
My "contemporary" Ron van Clief did it and lost.
Under the same circumstances, there's a pretty good possibility I'd lose, too.
I think his only "mistake" was in not insisting on his own rules.
The only problem then is the sanctioning bodies.

OTOH, "back in the day", we were in a meeting and a certain promoter was desperately looking for "someone"/"anyone" to "take on" a certain young woman.
Nobody wanted to "risk it" until I volunteered.
(I did say I was an egalitarian)
He thanked me for my offer but declined on the grounds that I'd probably kill her.
After a bit of reflection, he set up an "exhibition match" between her and Joe Hess.

Another "missed opportunity" under consideration was a match under Oyama style rules with a fellow who went on to win Mas Oyama's tournament the next year.
The would-be ("connected"?) producers never were able to put together a package, and I have no idea if Shigeru Oyama even knew about it, let alone endorsed the idea. We "hung out together" at ringside a few times, making disparaging comments about "softer stylists" and shared a few drinks on at least one occasion.


Most of us couldn't. But regardless, everyone we train, whether they compete or not will be in competition shape if they are consistent in class. Nothing is held back from anyone.

Material-wise, it doesn't sound like you're "giving" them anything either.
I still like to think that the material I teach *does* make a difference.

One of my better "jokes" was playing "head bouncer" at 2 clubs simultaneously.
Turned out that I'm small enough that no one could tell if I was there or not, so the customers usually "played it safe". Besides, one of my students worked in each of those places too. Other students were often there so as not to miss any "fireworks".


but of course that would never happen, because you would have to get permission first... And actually, a tcma guy once referred me to a local judo club, so...

It wouldn't happen in the first place.
I'd have to get a look at you first, but would probably give you a similar referral.
As for telling you where to go.......

Pete

[bakxierboxer]

Also thought I'd add that the "T" in your acronym isn't mentioned at all in the description. It leaves a lot of room for other types of discussion. Many CMA people do use their martial arts to compete in various application sports, which certainly leaves the door open to MMA discussion. And part of MMA discussion is about improving your abilities, filling holes in your game, and even learning how potential non-CMA opponents may approach things. It's all related in some way :)

It's old enough that even the French discovered the term "kung fu" in the 1700s.... which certainly seems to make it old enough to qualify as "traditional".
I also dispute the idea that martial arts done as intended are suitable for "sporting competition" or a "game" of any kind.

Pete

[bakxierboxer]

I'm not saying that some old school sifus didn't and don't put bans on cross training for disciples etc. But I wouldn't call it a characteristic of an old school sifu because of the sheer number of them who have studied under multiple teachers and teach multiple styles. There are many examples of this both modern and old. And new styles are created from existing ones. Look at how many styles Wang Lang drew from to create Shangdong Mantis. Look at how much Hung Gar has picked up as it evolved down the Wong Fei Hung lineage. Look at Jow Gar. Based on the evidence presented, I'd say cross training is a characteristic of old school Kung Fu.

OTOH, one of my teachers wouldn't take me on until he'd communicated with my previous teacher to make sure he wasn't stepping on any toes.
OTOOH, you also don't even go up-generation without specific permission.

Pete

[bakxierboxer]

Yes, absolutely. It's pretty obvious.

Jow Gar, Choy Lay Fut, Sun Taiji, Bagua Taiji, Eagle Claw, Yin Fu Bagua, Mantis, Tai Sheng Pek Kwar... there's tons of examples. Heck, stuff like this still goes on, lol.

Sooo.... you think "just any old body" can slap together a worthwhile "system"?
Look around & you'll see it just isn't so.

Pete

[B-Rad]

It's old enough that even the French discovered the term "kung fu" in the 1700s.... which certainly seems to make it old enough to qualify as "traditional".
Never said kungfu couldn't qualify as traditional, or that the word wasn't old.


I also dispute the idea that martial arts done as intended are suitable for "sporting competition" or a "game" of any kind.
And you would be "wrong".

[B-Rad]

Sooo.... you think "just any old body" can slap together a worthwhile "system"?
Look around & you'll see it just isn't so.
I never said that either. You seem to have some serious reading comprehension problems.

[MasterKiller]

It also doesn't mean that a TCMA forum suddenly becomes a MMA forum.
"Kung Fu" is a relatively ancient term and there's a lot of folks out there who think the whole idea is outdated. They're wrong simply because they don't understand the concept or how it works.
By the way, why don't you tell me what that concept is?


Kung fu, a word used by Taoists for their practice of breath channeling, was first brought to Europe by French missionaries returning from China about two hundred years ago.

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/ezine/article.php?article=581

Apparently, the concept originally involved working real hard at channeling your breath.

[bakxierboxer]

Never said kungfu couldn't qualify as traditional, or that the word wasn't old.

No, not specifically.
You stated that since the word "Traditional" did not appear in the title of a forum defined with multiple uses of a traditional term that said forum was not traditional.


And you would be "wrong".

A truly august opinion from someone who's been alive a whole 20 years or so....

Pete

[bakxierboxer]

I never said that either. You seem to have some serious reading comprehension problems.

You popped off a list of styles whose founders combined other arts into theirs.
There are a whole bunch more combined styles than that.
Given the number of folks involved throughout the lengthy history of TCMA, one might think there'd be many more than there are....
There aren't.
There is a reason.
It's not easy.

Pete

[bakxierboxer]

Kung fu, a word used by Taoists for their practice of breath channeling, was first brought to Europe by French missionaries returning from China about two hundred years ago.

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/ezine/article.php?article=581

Apparently, the concept originally involved working real hard at channeling your breath.

I did a quick scan, and it looked like the author used the good old "everything including the kitchen sink" approach.

There is a specific term for Taoist Breath Control, and "kungfu" isn't it.
Having said that, being amazingly good at demonstrating the effects of said breath control would definitely be considered kung fu.

Pete

[B-Rad]

A truly august opinion from someone who's been alive a whole 20 years or so....
You have punching, kicking, throwing, and grappling... the four basic categories of techniques found in just about every traditional Chinese martial art out there. David Ross even has an excellent article on here for doing just this kind of thing, and I'm sure you could find other articles giving good guidelines (rather than having to try and re-invent the wheel). It definitely makes things easier. Just because you don't want to do something, or don't care to do something, doesn't mean it's impossible... or even that complicated. If a young naive kid like me can figure out, you should be able to. Maybe that's an advantage of youth, not realizing that something is "impossible". Though, you haven't explained what's so difficult or negative about this kind of training. Chinese arts have been using sport type training for a long time, since the development of Shui Jiao. Many schools developed their own systems of safely training their techniques. I don't see what's so different about MMA, San Da, etc. other than it allows for relatively safe testing of techniques outside of your own little group. In fact, having some kind of sport fighting/free fighting early on can help reinforce the basics of combat quicker and earlier, making it easier to teach a traditional art later on. If someone can already punch, kick, and trow well the more complex and dangerous techniques should be easier to teach.


You popped off a list of styles whose founders combined other arts into theirs.
There are a whole bunch more combined styles than that.
Given the number of folks involved throughout the lengthy history of TCMA, one might think there'd be many more than there are....

Again, what's your point? I never said that was all of them, as the list of styles developed through cross training is certainly too numerous for me to list off the top of my head, not to mention I don't know the history of every single style out there. In fact, I stated right out that there's many examples. And I never said it's "easy". It obviously requires more hard work and dedication than the average joe weekend warrior is going to put into it. Anyway, thanks for proving my point by reinforcing just how many old masters out there cross trained :)

[B-Rad]

I did a quick scan, and it looked like the author used the good old "everything including the kitchen sink" approach.

There is a specific term for Taoist Breath Control, and "kungfu" isn't it.
Having said that, being amazingly good at demonstrating the effects of said breath control would definitely be considered kung fu.
That doesn't mean a Taoist group didn't call their breath control methods "kungfu", or told a foreigner that that's what it was called. Just like Chinese martial arts isn't literally "kungfu", though the demonstration of wushu techniques effects would be considered "kungfu". Without knowing specifics of the group (as that wasn't the focus of this article), it's impossible to say why they used that term. Considering you don't seem to know much on the subject yourself, or are unwilling to share sources, I don't think you're really in a position to dispute it.

[xcakid]

... aaaand if you were fortunate enough to have a SiFu who could also teach you some "Gun Fu"?

Pete


Not at the present time. I take firearms training elsewhere.

However, I have been throwing the idea around of opening a school again. Along with teaching the traditional martial arts curriculum, I would add firearm safety course in the intermediate levels. A handgun proficiency test to be included with your brown or green belt test. I would pattern the test along the lines of TX concealed handgun shooting test. For Black belt, I would include a carbine shooting proficiency exam and passing an NRA instructors course. Back in the day, you trained in weapons of that era: Broadsword, staff, spear etc. So why not modernize the weapons training in MA.

But then again, I don't think I would want the hassle of openning another school.

[bakxierboxer]

You have punching, kicking, throwing, and grappling... the four basic categories of techniques found in just about every traditional Chinese martial art out there.

"Nice list", again? :rolleyes:
Somebody want to tell him why it's worthless?


David Ross even has an excellent article on here for doing just this kind of thing,

David wouldn't make the mistake you made above.


and I'm sure you could find other articles giving good guidelines (rather than having to try and re-invent the wheel).

Try actually thinking about those words, rather than just regurgitating them.


It definitely makes things easier. Just because you don't want to do something, or don't care to do something, doesn't mean it's impossible... or even that complicated.

You might also consider that just because someone would like to avoid something so badly that they forget about it doesn't mean they don't need to practice it.


If a young naive kid like me can figure out, you should be able to.

You're not so young that you should still be "naive".
But since you claim to be....


Maybe that's an advantage of youth, not realizing that something is "impossible".

Which normally leads to banging one's head against some wall or other in their "youthful enthusiasm" while trying to re-invent that same danged wheel.


Though, you haven't explained what's so difficult or negative about this kind of training.

Scientific observation normally serves to delineate the negative aspects.
In the absence of anyone willing to suffer the no doubt dreaded rigors of science, just plain observation should do the trick.... now, all you've gotta do is go about digging out some representative samples to observe.
What's that?
You've never even seen any?
How about that!?


Chinese arts have been using sport type training for a long time, since the development of Shui Jiao.

"Sport characteristics" have changed a bit over the millennium or so.


Many schools developed their own systems of safely training their techniques. I don't see what's so different about MMA, San Da, etc. other than it allows for relatively safe testing of techniques outside of your own little group.

Was that a joke?


In fact, having some kind of sport fighting/free fighting early on can help reinforce the basics of combat quicker and earlier, making it easier to teach a traditional art later on. If someone can already punch, kick, and trow well the more complex and dangerous techniques should be easier to teach.


Actually, the opposite is true of all of that.


Again, what's your point? I never said that was all of them, as the list of styles developed through cross training is certainly too numerous for me to list off the top of my head, not to mention I don't know the history of every single style out there. In fact, I stated right out that there's many examples. And I never said it's "easy". It obviously requires more hard work and dedication than the average joe weekend warrior is going to put into it. Anyway, thanks for proving my point by reinforcing just how many old masters out there cross trained :)

The actual question that needs to be answered is just how many old masters developed systems through cross-training that would actually work for anyone else.
I once asked Wong Ark Yuey if there was some specific style that would suit me best.
His answer: "Any one can learn anystyle."
It took a while to figure out that his answer had been in purest Chinglish, and most definitely did not mean what I initially thought I'd heard, which was:
"Anyone can learn any style."

Pete

[SevenStar]

You actually think those are "martial art" schools"?

by nature of the term, yes. Can they actually fight? In some cases. But that wasn't my point. My point was that the decision to be choosy can result in the types of schools so common today. Joe wasn't a disciple, so he didn't receive the full curriculum, and now he's teaching an incomplete system. Over the years, the teaching continues to degrade, especially if joe follows a similar method of picking students that his sifu did.




It doesn't work that way.
By sticking to his principles, his art is propagated (or not) in exactly the way he wishes. The "watering down" only starts to happen when you begin compromising those principles just to get folks in the door.

so a traditional sifu made disciples of ALL of his students? If not, then some aren't receiving everything, right?




That's your opinion.
Mine is that if the potential student manages to make it obvious enough, no self-respecting teacher will take him on in the first place.

what if... so what if he doesn't make it obvious?




Those statements fly in the face of the established facts.
Most military (jeepers, are those martial?) organizations seem to think differently.
I've yet to see any military take women and children enlistees for the most strenuous training, let alone the most hazardous duties.

women can undergo the same training, that's really not the issue. We tend not to send women and children to die, it's been that way for centuries. women CAN fight and undergo the training. We CHOOSE not to send them.



My "contemporary" Ron van Clief did it and lost.
Under the same circumstances, there's a pretty good possibility I'd lose, too.
I think his only "mistake" was in not insisting on his own rules.
The only problem then is the sanctioning bodies.

I would put money on him losing anyway, despite the rule set. I refer to it all the time, but I will again - watch the fight between nakai and gordeau, in which nakai was eye gouged. He is blind in that eye to this day, but he still beat gordeau AND his next opponent.


Material-wise, it doesn't sound like you're "giving" them anything either.
I still like to think that the material I teach *does* make a difference.

LOL, if this wasn't the internet, I'd be offended. :D Anyway, a few weeks ago, a female student was walking to the gas station (her car broke down and she didn't have her phone) when a man walked up to her and asked for money. she told him that she couldn't help him. Refusing to take that answer, he reached toward her - she punched him in the nose and he fell down. She then took off running. I KNOW that whatever I'm giving them makes some sort of difference.


One of my better "jokes" was playing "head bouncer" at 2 clubs simultaneously.
Turned out that I'm small enough that no one could tell if I was there or not, so the customers usually "played it safe". Besides, one of my students worked in each of those places too. Other students were often there so as not to miss any "fireworks".

Ideally, there should be no fireworks. Naturally, that's not always the case though.





As for telling you where to go.......


Aw, that's no fun. Tell me...

[bakxierboxer]

That doesn't mean a Taoist group didn't call their breath control methods "kungfu", or told a foreigner that that's what it was called.

That also doesn't mean they weren't lying to them of brushing them off because they were too uninformed to understand the actual significance.


Just like Chinese martial arts isn't literally "kungfu"

You'll also find folks on either side who are remarkably resistant to having "their art" dumped in the "wrong" classification.


though the demonstration of wushu techniques effects would be considered "kungfu"

Not likely.
It happens that there's yet another anglic phrase that says just that.


Without knowing specifics of the group (as that wasn't the focus of this article), it's impossible to say why they used that term.

Try xenophobia?


Considering you don't seem to know much on the subject yourself, or are unwilling to share sources, I don't think you're really in a position to dispute it.

Some number of folks actually consider me to be a source myself.
Nobody has to do so.
You don't have to.
In fact, I'd rather you don't ask in the future.

Parting thought... perhaps you ought to not try so hard to live up to your screen name.
Go "Be Radical" in some other context.
(or was that actually a self-critical reference to definition #2 in the urban dicitonary?)

Pete

[bakxierboxer]

by nature of the term, yes. Can they actually fight? In some cases. But that wasn't my point. My point was that the decision to be choosy can result in the types of schools so common today. Joe wasn't a disciple, so he didn't receive the full curriculum, and now he's teaching an incomplete system. Over the years, the teaching continues to degrade, especially if joe follows a similar method of picking students that his sifu did.

You've got the wrong guy here.
I am a "traditionalist" (small "t")
I'm also an "American" (capital "A")
I/we cannot exercise the same kind/degree of control as masters of the past.
We are (pretty much) forced to "make do" with what we can legally do.
I will not take responsibility for the students of others of my generation.
It's "bad enough" for me with my own one "bad example".
Of course, his "major crime" was in not listening to me, and he "paid the price".
(nothing I did to him)(but pretty extreme, in any case)
He did a few other things, misrepresented some others, etc.
But that was all a long time ago.... so long ago that on finding out about it I didn't even bat an eye, let alone get angry at him. (wouldn't do any good, either)


so a traditional sifu made disciples of ALL of his students? If not, then some aren't receiving everything, right?

Some won't teach anyone other than disciples.
In some cases disciples aren't capable of receiving "everything".
In many cases, they get "something else" that the others won't.... usually because they won't have any real need for that something else.


what if... so what if he doesn't make it obvious?

Sometimes "bad seeds" can become disciples... fortunately, learning "everything" generally takes long enough that the error becomes self-evident.


women can undergo the same training, that's really not the issue.

That's plain bull****.
Training has been downgraded to "accommodate" our women.
PC uber alles.


We tend not to send women and children to die, it's been that way for centuries. women CAN fight and undergo the training. We CHOOSE not to send them.

In spite of my "egalitarian leanings", I tend to agree with that position.
That said, the idea that men and women are "the same" is nonsense.


I would put money on him losing anyway, despite the rule set. I refer to it all the time, but I will again

Why bother?
It won't look any different.


watch the fight between nakai and gordeau, in which nakai was eye gouged. He is blind in that eye to this day, but he still beat gordeau AND his next opponent.

Was that one of those "relatively safe" "sporting matches"?


LOL, if this wasn't the internet, I'd be offended. :D

The statement I referred to cited nothing other than conditioning.... which is much better than nothing, but not awfully much in the technique department.


Anyway, a few weeks ago, a female student...

Good for her! (and you)


Ideally, there should be no fireworks. Naturally, that's not always the case though.

That's the desired routine.
"Best practices" usually involve being extremely alert and "nipping it in the bud".
Too much in the way of "fireworks" brings the PD down on the club,which is actually what you're there to prevent.


Aw, that's no fun. Tell me...

I think you've got a good enough grasp of the situation already.

Pete

[SevenStar]

That's plain bull****.
Training has been downgraded to "accommodate" our women.
PC uber alles.

sure they can. From the context of what you teach, what is there in your training that a woman cannot do?




In spite of my "egalitarian leanings", I tend to agree with that position.
That said, the idea that men and women are "the same" is nonsense.

that's different. I didn't say they were the same. I said they can train the same. women can run several miles, hit the bag for several rounds, work the mitts and do powerlifting movements just as a male can. Doesn't mean she can go beat down other males, but she CAN train the same.




Was that one of those "relatively safe" "sporting matches"?

there were far fewer rules back then, and he was knuckle deep in nakai's eye. He still lost, though.

[B-Rad]

Some number of folks actually consider me to be a source myself.
Kind of feel sorry for them :(

Nobody has to do so.
Thank God.

In fact, I'd rather you don't ask in the future.
It's not like you had anything worth while to say in the first place. Seriously, you can't comprehend the simplest logic. It's like I'm trying to talk to a preschooler with a larger vocabulary.

Well, I'm out of here. Have fun stoking your ego. ;)

[bakxierboxer]

sure they can. From the context of what you teach, what is there in your training that a woman cannot do?

In the military context:
PT standards have been lessened...
Number of reps, etc
Some exercises modified.
Times for runs extended
Women are also directed into less-combat-oriented support/MOS(?) roles
Women also don't usually get to fly the hotter fighters
(of course, a lot of men don't either)

In my training?
Iron Vest, etc.


that's different. I didn't say they were the same.

Might as well have said it.


I said they can train the same. women can run several miles, hit the bag for several rounds, work the mitts and do powerlifting movements just as a male can. Doesn't mean she can go beat down other males, but she CAN train the same.

As one of my students said: "What ARE our standards?"
That's actually an easy one.
There's only one for each level, male or female.
It was even easier because I generally chose not to teach children.
(hard-style training screws up younger bodies)


there were far fewer rules back then, and he was knuckle deep in nakai's eye. He still lost, though.

"Can't say he didn't try..."

Pete

[B-Rad]

bakxierboxer,

While I certainly stand by many of the opinions I have, I think I took things too far and acted like a complete di(k in the end. I've always been taught to take the high road, but I think I failed that miserably in this case. Personal issues caused me to lose my cool, and for that I apologize (nothing quite like finding out a close family member has only two weeks to live). I handled the argument poorly. Hopefully, I'll get thicker skin as I become more experienced ;)

Now I'm leaving this thread for good. Really, lol.

-Brad

[bakxierboxer]

bakxierboxer,

While I certainly stand by many of the opinions I have, I think I took things too far and acted like a complete di(k in the end. I've always been taught to take the high road, but I think I failed that miserably in this case. Personal issues caused me to lose my cool, and for that I apologize (nothing quite like finding out a close family member has only two weeks to live). I handled the argument poorly. Hopefully, I'll get thicker skin as I become more experienced ;)

Now I'm leaving this thread for good. Really, lol.

-Brad

This is a discussion forum.
People exchange facts/opinions and try to understand each other and possibly even "learn something new".
They might even develop a better understanding of themselves.

I tend to participate in this kind of thing by questioning, posing hints and suggestions and quoting their own words back at them to get folks to think about what they've said and, perhaps, change the way they think about some subjects.

The truest form of apology would be to try to do that and re-open the discussion.

Pete,

[Judge Pen]

but the outcome is the same: a student may be forced in to staying somewhere he doesn't want to out of guilt or a financially binding contract. which motive is the purer?


What is the intent? If the intent is to have financial security that you can budget certain income for school expenses and you have no issue with a student trains elsewhere as long as they meet the obligations of the contract, then the two are different. If the intent is to bar or discourage outside training, then the two are the same. The effect may coincidently be the same, but the intent determines whether or not its a smart business decision or the byproduct of insecurity and ego.

[SevenStar]

In the military context:
PT standards have been lessened...
Number of reps, etc
Some exercises modified.
Times for runs extended
Women are also directed into less-combat-oriented support/MOS(?) roles
Women also don't usually get to fly the hotter fighters
(of course, a lot of men don't either)

In my training?
Iron Vest, etc.


I think you're being nitpicky, man. the training is still the same, even if number of reps, length of time, etc. is changed. If I've got a girl with a fight coming up, she's gonna run, do mitwork, do bagwork, spar... just like a guy would do. same training. maybe a different workload, but it's the same training, with the same result - she is competition ready.

[MasterKiller]

Women in the ARMY still have to take combatives Level 1, just like the guys. They do the same drills and are expected to perform the same techniques. PT requirements may be different, but their combat training is IDENTICAL.

[Chief Fox]

This is a discussion forum.
People exchange facts/opinions and try to understand each other and possibly even "learn something new".
They might even develop a better understanding of themselves.

I tend to participate in this kind of thing by questioning, posing hints and suggestions and quoting their own words back at them to get folks to think about what they've said and, perhaps, change the way they think about some subjects.

The truest form of apology would be to try to do that and re-open the discussion.

Pete,
Dang dude, how about just accepting the guys apology instead of saying that his apology wasn't in the truest form.

Everything isn't a discussion or an argument and people are allowed to think and feel differently. Sometimes you have to stop arguing and just be cool.

And FYI, quoting people's own words back at them to get them to think about what they've said just ****es people off.

[Chief Fox]

Women in the ARMY still have to take combatives Level 1, just like the guys. They do the same drills and are expected to perform the same techniques. PT requirements may be different, but their combat training is IDENTICAL.

Yeah, I mean haven't any of you seen G.I. Jane? Geeze!

[bakxierboxer]

I think you're being nitpicky, man. the training is still the same, even if number of reps, length of time, etc. is changed. If I've got a girl with a fight coming up, she's gonna run, do mitwork, do bagwork, spar... just like a guy would do. same training. maybe a different workload, but it's the same training, with the same result - she is competition ready.

And you're being "pick'n'choosey"
I volunteered that military stuff because I'd mentioned it before and the physical requirements were lowered to allow more women to qualify/"pass".

What you actually asked about was my curriculum.
I answered that one and now you're trying an end-run around the answer.
The training is not the same in that and similar respects.
Fortunately, the better part of that inequality can be largely remedied with other techniques.... although there's nothing quite like "having it all".

You may be satisfied with having folks "competition ready".
I don't have to be.
That may well be because I like the title and appreciate the "angle" behind that good old classical work
"No Second Place" by Bill Jordan.

Pete

[bakxierboxer]

Women in the ARMY still have to take combatives Level 1, just like the guys. They do the same drills and are expected to perform the same techniques. PT requirements may be different, but their combat training is IDENTICAL.

Is there a Level 2?
(didn't they call that AIT?)('zat the Corps?)
Do they have to qualify in that training as well?

As for performing the same techniques... to the same level/effect?
It shouldn't be "just going through the motions".

In any case, what's the point?
Different/lower PT requirements allow us to consider the possibility that they just might not have what it takes to make it through a given combat "situation".
Congress should have considered that, and may actually have based the 1994 legislation excluding women from combat on that data.
(although Congress doesn't always seem to think that they need a valid reason for passing any given legislation)
Until Congress changes its mind, they're supposedly excluded from combat.

Even given completely equal Level 1 training, the "end product" in combination with the lower PT requirements is not the same.
Of course, there is always someone like Sgt.(?) Hester who does the job so well that she got a Silver Star...... but the odds for that are not as favorable as they could be.

Pete

[MasterKiller]

Is there a Level 2?
(didn't they call that AIT?)('zat the Corps?)
Do they have to qualify in that training as well?

AIT is different. I'm talking ARMY Combatives, here.

There is a Level 2, 3 and 4. Only Level 1 is mandatory for ALL soldiers. Level 2 and up are instructor-based classes and are only assigned on a per-case basis (these are the guys who generally teach their units).

The drills are pass/fail. You either do it, or you don't.

One of the drills is called "Punch Drill," and involves the instructor teeing off on you with 16-oz gloves while you try to clinch him. All you can do is shield and clinch. Some kid actually got killed at Benning (I think) doing this drill.

[SevenStar]

And you're being "pick'n'choosey"
I volunteered that military stuff because I'd mentioned it before and the physical requirements were lowered to allow more women to qualify/"pass".

What you actually asked about was my curriculum.
I answered that one and now you're trying an end-run around the answer.
The training is not the same in that and similar respects.
Fortunately, the better part of that inequality can be largely remedied with other techniques.... although there's nothing quite like "having it all".

You may be satisfied with having folks "competition ready".
I don't have to be.
That may well be because I like the title and appreciate the "angle" behind that good old classical work
"No Second Place" by Bill Jordan.

Pete

not being choosey about anything. you mentioned military training at length, but only mentioned one aspect of your training - iron vest. Consequently, there is more discussion for the military example. But that's cool.... Is there anything besides iron vest that the women cannot do? why can they not perform it in some fashion?

humor me. As opposed to competition ready, what would you prefer them to be? please don't say something like street ready...

[bakxierboxer]

Dang dude, how about just accepting the guys apology instead of saying that his apology wasn't in the truest form.

An apology wasn't necessary, since he does have the right to hold his own opinions.
Of course, if those opinions are not supportable....

I didn't really have to say anything at all.
I also think that inviting him back into the conversation was more than I had to do.


Everything isn't a discussion or an argument and people are allowed to think and feel differently.

So you prefer a bunch of folks standing around making faulty proclamations from their own little soapboxes?
Don't you ever disagree with some opinions?
Hey! You seem like you're disagreeing with me right now!


Sometimes you have to stop arguing and just be cool.

I don't think I was injecting any particular amount of "heat".


And FYI, quoting people's own words back at them to get them to think about what they've said just ****es people off.

That ought to be less of a problem for him than dropping his guard and taking a shot in the nose. (or worse)
If that happened, who is to "blame" for the bloody nose?

Pete

[Chief Fox]

An apology wasn't necessary, since he does have the right to hold his own opinions.
Of course, if those opinions are not supportable....

I didn't really have to say anything at all.
I also think that inviting him back into the conversation was more than I had to do.



So you prefer a bunch of folks standing around making faulty proclamations from their own little soapboxes?
Don't you ever disagree with some opinions?
Hey! You seem like you're disagreeing with me right now!



I don't think I was injecting any particular amount of "heat".



That ought to be less of a problem for him than dropping his guard and taking a shot in the nose. (or worse)
If that happened, who is to "blame" for the bloody nose?

Pete

This is exactly what I was expecting. Thanks for breaking down my entire post, now I'm really thinking about what I said. :rolleyes:

BTW, I'm all for open discussion, disagreement and even argument sometimes but when a person is man enough to apologise, then the other person should be man enough to accept the apology.

Just my two cents. Feel free to break my post down and address each point.

[bakxierboxer]

AIT is different. I'm talking ARMY Combatives, here.

Tsk!
Now everybody's getting picky.


There is a Level 2, 3 and 4. Only Level 1 is mandatory for ALL soldiers. Level 2 and up are instructor-based classes and are only assigned on a per-case basis (these are the guys who generally teach their units).

Who'da thunkit?
So, the Army guys'n'gals don't get to experience the joys of AIT or it's equivalent?


The drills are pass/fail. You either do it, or you don't.

Sounds right to me.


One of the drills is called "Punch Drill," and involves the instructor teeing off on you with 16-oz gloves while you try to clinch him. All you can do is shield and clinch. Some kid actually got killed at Benning (I think) doing this drill.

Interesting.
Color me impressed.
It's a little bit similar to something I used to do to my students when they were ready for it and seemed to need a "refresher course".
Aside from lighter gloves, a major difference was that they were expected to actually block and stay on their feet.

Pete

[bakxierboxer]

This is exactly what I was expecting. Thanks for breaking down my entire post, now I'm really thinking about what I said. :rolleyes:

Mheh!
Looks like I fell for it! huh?:D


BTW, I'm all for open discussion, disagreement and even argument sometimes but when a person is man enough to apologise, then the other person should be man enough to accept the apology.

It was a pro forma apology.
I'm not big on pro forma in "no-forma" situations. ;)


Just my two cents. Feel free to break my post down and address each point.

That work for you? :D

Pete

[Oso]

What is the intent? If the intent is to have financial security that you can budget certain income for school expenses and you have no issue with a student trains elsewhere as long as they meet the obligations of the contract, then the two are different. If the intent is to bar or discourage outside training, then the two are the same. The effect may coincidently be the same, but the intent determines whether or not its a smart business decision or the byproduct of insecurity and ego.

i'll buy that response. ;)


now, the rest of you off topic meatheads...play nice or daddy takes the thread away. :p :p :p

[bakxierboxer]

not being choosey about anything. you mentioned military training at length, but only mentioned one aspect of your training - iron vest. Consequently, there is more discussion for the military example. But that's cool.... Is there anything besides iron vest that the women cannot do? why can they not perform it in some fashion?

The military stuff was mostly to parallel your own training list, and you did say that you didn't expect them to be able to take out the guys.
(although some definitely can function at a suitable level for that)
No such thing as one size fits all.

That was Iron Vest, etc
Includes Iron Bridge, etc
Bone structure.
"Femininity". (usually when afflicted with the indicated upper-case version)


humor me. As opposed to competition ready, what would you prefer them to be? please don't say something like street ready...

OK, I won't say it. :D
'Zat humorous enough for you?

Pete