sanjuro_ronin
12-19-2007, 06:38 AM
With the many and varied approaches out there for training, both old and new, one wonders how to choose.
In terms of MA training, one must develop not only fighting skills, but the attributes that go with them: explosive power, speed, endurance, strength, body conditioning, etc.
TMA have their "unique" methods and approaches, as do modern sport arts, it really isn't a question of which is better, but which best suits us.
Or is it?
In the world we live today, time is, unfortunetly, the dictator, one must balance all:
Work ( and at times work and school), family, eating, sleeping and training.
Time being at a premium, how do we choose a method?
We can "blindly" follow advice, easy but not always the bets way to go.
we can experiment and see for ourselves, time consuming but way worth it.
So, lets look at the "experiment" option.
Personally, I keep things simple.
I will try out ANY training regime for 6 months, I give it 6 months because ANY gains for ANY regime will be visible in 6 months time, or at least SHOULD be.
What of those regimes that last years Paul?
There is a difference between seeing gains and getting the full benefit, take IP for example, the regime last 2 years, YET, visible gains are present in less than 6 months.
Take any modern ST regime, within the first 6-8 weeks you will see results, some more than others, but results never the less.
And that becomes the crucial part of choosing a regime, comparison.
Lets take for example a person that wants to develop greater explosive power, to be able to "blast off" the line quicker and with more impact than he currently has.
There are many modern approaches to it: Plyometics, olympic lifts, explosive drills on the heavy bag and thai pads, etc.
Then there are the more "traditional" methods of a given system (take your pick).
One must honestly approach them and experiement with them.
Back to the 6 month "rule", some TMA systems say that exercise A will take years to work, so one compares what the modern methods have to offer ( if there are any for what is being developed, sometimes there aren't) and compares not only the TIME investment, but thew results.
Look at the case pf explosive power, one compares the EP of a group of individuals training with modern methods and then compares a group individuals training with "older" methods, which is more explosive?
Simple eh?
Things get dicey with Exotics like body conditioning and forging, but even there we have examples.
For instance, the ability to take strikes to parts of the body.
When I started MA "seriously", sanchin training was the order of the day, you would stand in a the stance and using proper breathing methods, take shots all over you bosy from a partner that would go from taps to ful force punches and kicks.
It worked great, still does.
Then I was exposed to boxing and saw boxers take the comparabel punishment but with no sanchin training, yet at the time, comparison was not high on my list of things to do, being young and all that.
Later I was exposed to MT and saw their body conditoning.
Again no sanchin, but they could take anyting and more.
I started to train in MT and realized that their methods was quicker, more practical.
Notice I didn't say better.
Sanchin gave me a better core, but MT took me to the next level, it conditioned me to take shots as I fought, not just in a stance, it was fight specfic.
I now combine the two for anyone that wants to learn that.
There are many old methods (like IP) that don't have a modern counter-part, at least not one that is "tit-for-tat".
In those cases the debate is "mute", other than the possible debate of "why?".
But when one is perfecting their art and being a dynamic and physical art, their ability to perform their art, one must be open to choosing what is best and not fall into the "we do it this way and it worked in the past" view point, and at the same time realize that newer isn't always better.
In terms of MA training, one must develop not only fighting skills, but the attributes that go with them: explosive power, speed, endurance, strength, body conditioning, etc.
TMA have their "unique" methods and approaches, as do modern sport arts, it really isn't a question of which is better, but which best suits us.
Or is it?
In the world we live today, time is, unfortunetly, the dictator, one must balance all:
Work ( and at times work and school), family, eating, sleeping and training.
Time being at a premium, how do we choose a method?
We can "blindly" follow advice, easy but not always the bets way to go.
we can experiment and see for ourselves, time consuming but way worth it.
So, lets look at the "experiment" option.
Personally, I keep things simple.
I will try out ANY training regime for 6 months, I give it 6 months because ANY gains for ANY regime will be visible in 6 months time, or at least SHOULD be.
What of those regimes that last years Paul?
There is a difference between seeing gains and getting the full benefit, take IP for example, the regime last 2 years, YET, visible gains are present in less than 6 months.
Take any modern ST regime, within the first 6-8 weeks you will see results, some more than others, but results never the less.
And that becomes the crucial part of choosing a regime, comparison.
Lets take for example a person that wants to develop greater explosive power, to be able to "blast off" the line quicker and with more impact than he currently has.
There are many modern approaches to it: Plyometics, olympic lifts, explosive drills on the heavy bag and thai pads, etc.
Then there are the more "traditional" methods of a given system (take your pick).
One must honestly approach them and experiement with them.
Back to the 6 month "rule", some TMA systems say that exercise A will take years to work, so one compares what the modern methods have to offer ( if there are any for what is being developed, sometimes there aren't) and compares not only the TIME investment, but thew results.
Look at the case pf explosive power, one compares the EP of a group of individuals training with modern methods and then compares a group individuals training with "older" methods, which is more explosive?
Simple eh?
Things get dicey with Exotics like body conditioning and forging, but even there we have examples.
For instance, the ability to take strikes to parts of the body.
When I started MA "seriously", sanchin training was the order of the day, you would stand in a the stance and using proper breathing methods, take shots all over you bosy from a partner that would go from taps to ful force punches and kicks.
It worked great, still does.
Then I was exposed to boxing and saw boxers take the comparabel punishment but with no sanchin training, yet at the time, comparison was not high on my list of things to do, being young and all that.
Later I was exposed to MT and saw their body conditoning.
Again no sanchin, but they could take anyting and more.
I started to train in MT and realized that their methods was quicker, more practical.
Notice I didn't say better.
Sanchin gave me a better core, but MT took me to the next level, it conditioned me to take shots as I fought, not just in a stance, it was fight specfic.
I now combine the two for anyone that wants to learn that.
There are many old methods (like IP) that don't have a modern counter-part, at least not one that is "tit-for-tat".
In those cases the debate is "mute", other than the possible debate of "why?".
But when one is perfecting their art and being a dynamic and physical art, their ability to perform their art, one must be open to choosing what is best and not fall into the "we do it this way and it worked in the past" view point, and at the same time realize that newer isn't always better.