Seasoning

[wenshu]

There are many ways to become Seasoned. On the Street, In the Ring, On the Playground.

One can be Seasoned without Technique.

But Technique without Seasoning is ineffective.

In the U.S. today most so called traditional martial arts schools offer little more than a heavily adulterated conditioning program (Forms) with perhaps a little technique (Compliant Drills). This is the reason for the current reputation of traditional Chinese martial arts in popular culture as ineffective.

They don't Season. Oftentimes even the conditioning is sub par.

If one wants to learn how to fight and learn fast; Boxing, Kickboxing, Muay Thai, BJJ will all produce a reasonably effective fighter within a relatively short amount of time assuming a level of natural athleticism and coordination. They all possess unique advantages and limitations. They all train under certain presumptions; the rules of the respective sport.

Muay Thai and Boxing are susceptabile to take downs, considering the popularity of BJJ it is imperative to at the very least learn a good sprawl.

BJJ is in many configurations a liability against multiple opponents. While applying that fancy triangle choke the opponent's buddy stomps you on your ****ing head.

What they have in common is they all Season and Season early. Moreover, one can cross train among these disciplines with little confusion thereby avoiding the trap of overspecialization.

Not Alive or Dead; Seasoned Technique.

(A practitioner will always be of the opinion that the method he is dedicated to is The Real Hotness.)

Real Gong Fu takes a level of dedication and time that most people are simply unwilling and unable to commit to in Modern Times (Months to years spent training a single Ji Ben Gong).

Furthermore, because of the language gap, access to true Gong Fu in the U.S is limited and esoteric. It can be difficult to find in China. Most elite level Chinese martial artists in the U.S and China are wushu players.

Forms are a highly effective method of high intensity conditioning. Practiced diligently under the direction of a qualified master the practice develops endurance, explosiveness, flexibility, and technique. (At least the ones I practice do; even top masters get gassed from Xiao Hong Quan practiced 用力.)

Forms practice will not produce a Seasoned fighter, Fighting will. Forms practice can prepare one for the physical rigors of sustained Seasoning but they will not teach one how to get Punched in the Face.

After two years of sustained practice of traditional forms and Ji Ben Gong I was able to jump into a Muay Thai training regime with ease. I found the conditioning regime relatively easy and was able to execute the techniques after a few minor adjustments. (Follow through on the round kick, striking with the shin rather than the instep.)

It is needlessly short-sighted to dismiss any particular method because of prejudice.

In any event, for myself, the Practice is the Goal.

[bawang]

u ned lift weits. b trong

[Hebrew Hammer]

The two most important things you need to season are your Mind and your physcial conditioning. They are your best served weapons...unless you're carrying a nice three section staff.

[SoCo KungFu]

Yes lets add another word into the mix.....

I like to season my chicken with jerk spice. I like to kick up the heat a bit more though with some crushed up red pepper.

[SoCo KungFu]

u ned lift weits. b trong

amry trong

[Scott R. Brown]

Ewwwww!!! Too much sweating is involved in all that hard work!

I season myself with plenty of sleep and day dreaming!:)

[Shaolin]

But what if I wear Affliction and Tapout gear and play UFC 2010 all day long? Can I get "seasoned" that way?

[David Jamieson]

Live life, pay attention, be involved.

[SPJ]

ways of becoming seasoned or experienced.


1. practice a lot, spar a lot--

2. given time, then the practitioner will be seasoned or mature

the same for any professions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCv6afcur40

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAQkO1bw0PI&feature=related

one is 11 year old and the other is 13 year old.

both sing well.

given time, both will be great singers when grown up

keep singing or keep up with the good work

No se-----

[tiaji1983]

There was a study done before (sorry I do not have a link) on basketball players, all with about the same amount of skill. One group practiced shooting baskets for a specified time period. The other group sat and meditated, and imagined they were shooting baskets. The group that done the meditation made more baskets than the ones who were actually practicing shooting baskets.

[SoCo KungFu]

There was a study done before (sorry I do not have a link) on basketball players, all with about the same amount of skill. One group practiced shooting baskets for a specified time period. The other group sat and meditated, and imagined they were shooting baskets. The group that done the meditation made more baskets than the ones who were actually practicing shooting baskets.

So you propose an experiment but can't link to and think that is some sort of substantial evidence? How many people participated in this experiment? What were the skill levels of the actual shooters in each group? What positions did they play? How were they tested, did they just shoot free throws or did they actually play a game? Your stupid little scenario doesn't hold water.

For the record, there isn't an athlete alive that wouldn't agree that there is absolutely NOTHING like playing an actual game. Until you step up in the big leagues you have no idea what its like. Why do you think NFL players put so much emphasis on padded skrimages? Because that's the closest to an actual game you are going to get. Why do you think a guy can go drop every basket in a 3point shootout, but yet only shoot 30% from 3 point territory in a game?

What makes you think your non sparring will in any way prepare you? You yourself admit you have never fought since you started taichi....

[Dragonzbane76]

The group that done the meditation made more baskets than the ones who were actually practicing shooting baskets.

so the group imagining themselves making baskets made more than the actual ones shooting? Hell I can do anything in imagination land, I could score everything and anything. I don't get it. :confused:

[hskwarrior]

so the group imagining themselves making baskets made more than the actual ones shooting? Hell I can do anything in imagination land, I could score everything and anything. I don't get it.

Physical training is only HALF of it. The other half of training is MENTAL. Visualization is a powerful tool in helping to improve your martial skill. When i used to rap with my boys on stage, i used to use visualization to see myself rocking the crowd. worked every time.

My sifu also taught me what he coined as "Mental Gung Fu"......it really does work.

[KC Elbows]

So you propose an experiment but can't link to and think that is some sort of substantial evidence? How many people participated in this experiment? What were the skill levels of the actual shooters in each group? What positions did they play? How were they tested, did they just shoot free throws or did they actually play a game? Your stupid little scenario doesn't hold water.

For the record, there isn't an athlete alive that wouldn't agree that there is absolutely NOTHING like playing an actual game. Until you step up in the big leagues you have no idea what its like. Why do you think NFL players put so much emphasis on padded skrimages? Because that's the closest to an actual game you are going to get. Why do you think a guy can go drop every basket in a 3point shootout, but yet only shoot 30% from 3 point territory in a game?

What makes you think your non sparring will in any way prepare you? You yourself admit you have never fought since you started taichi....


For the record, there isn't a debate team member alive who wouldn't agree that there is NOTHING like actual debate. Until you debate someone else who is debating, there is nothing else like it. Why do you think the emphasis on debating with other debators. Because that's the closest to an actual debate you're ever going to get.

What makes you think arguing with everyone you disagree with online will in any way prepare you for a legitimate debate? Do you find yourself at your grandmother's saying "No nanna, what kind of ******* are you, keeping your money in such a low interest earning account, I have never heard of such @sshattery!" Beforehand, do you find victory against nanna more assured if you first envision yourself debating Hardwork?;):p:D

[Frost]

So you propose an experiment but can't link to and think that is some sort of substantial evidence? How many people participated in this experiment? What were the skill levels of the actual shooters in each group? What positions did they play? How were they tested, did they just shoot free throws or did they actually play a game? Your stupid little scenario doesn't hold water.

For the record, there isn't an athlete alive that wouldn't agree that there is absolutely NOTHING like playing an actual game. Until you step up in the big leagues you have no idea what its like. Why do you think NFL players put so much emphasis on padded skrimages? Because that's the closest to an actual game you are going to get. Why do you think a guy can go drop every basket in a 3point shootout, but yet only shoot 30% from 3 point territory in a game?

What makes you think your non sparring will in any way prepare you? You yourself admit you have never fought since you started taichi....

its on a few sites mostly those selling mental imagy programmes and no one can actually link to the real research...which raises a BIG RED FLAG with me....just like Pavel over at dragondoor.... people site his writings about a study done in the 1970s by spetnaz on kettlebells and how much more effective they are than running/weights...only problem is no one can actually find the research (because it never happened)

But even if the study did happen, it was only for 2 weeks and only on free throws. Two weeks is not long enough for acquired skills to deteriorate (indeed if they had been training hard two weeks is probably just enough for the overload effect to take place) and it was with 1 skill set, which does not require a moving opponent or reactive skill, just the ability to hit a stationary target. ANd it never mentions the relative skill levels of the two groups and what other training they were doing (two things that have a big impact on tests like this)

[SoCo KungFu]

For the record, there isn't a debate team member alive who wouldn't agree that there is NOTHING like actual debate. Until you debate someone else who is debating, there is nothing else like it. Why do you think the emphasis on debating with other debators. Because that's the closest to an actual debate you're ever going to get.

What makes you think arguing with everyone you disagree with online will in any way prepare you for a legitimate debate? Do you find yourself at your grandmother's saying "No nanna, what kind of ******* are you, keeping your money in such a low interest earning account, I have never heard of such @sshattery!" Beforehand, do you find victory against nanna more assured if you first envision yourself debating Hardwork?;):p:D

Debate is simply communication. Communication is nothing more than the verbalization of thought. The medium you use to present that thought means little. A debate is essentially the same be it in person, over the phone, through email or on a forum. So actually, this place can be nice practice for debate in other venues.

Fighting, you know being a physical engagement of the body, follows a completely different mode of development.

Summary: you're an idiot. And I'm bored.

[SoCo KungFu]

I think tonight I'm going to go in and tell our coach, "Hey you know I think I'm gonna try something different for training. For the next couple months before our next fight, I think I'm just going to visualize my training. I mean its every bit as good right?"

[hskwarrior]

I think tonight I'm going to go in and tell our coach, "Hey you know I think I'm gonna try something different for training. For the next couple months before our next fight, I think I'm just going to visualize my training. I mean its every bit as good right?"
Reply With Quote

LMFAO....if thats ALL you will do.....GOOD LUCK IN YOUR NEXT FIGHT. hahahahahahaha

Still, i know that when i'm laying down about to sleep, i start visualizing my training it aids in making it second nature a lot faster than just physically training. but yeah, i encourage you to go into your school and tell your coach that. pls keep us updated to how that turns out for ya.

[Scott R. Brown]

So you propose an experiment but can't link to and think that is some sort of substantial evidence? How many people participated in this experiment? What were the skill levels of the actual shooters in each group? What positions did they play? How were they tested, did they just shoot free throws or did they actually play a game? Your stupid little scenario doesn't hold water.

For the record, there isn't an athlete alive that wouldn't agree that there is absolutely NOTHING like playing an actual game. Until you step up in the big leagues you have no idea what its like. Why do you think NFL players put so much emphasis on padded skrimages? Because that's the closest to an actual game you are going to get. Why do you think a guy can go drop every basket in a 3point shootout, but yet only shoot 30% from 3 point territory in a game?

What makes you think your non sparring will in any way prepare you? You yourself admit you have never fought since you started taichi....

The best I can find online is this: Sports Visualization (http://www.championwebcast.com/visualization-and-sports-performance/)

"A study conducted bу Dr. Blaslotto аt thе University Of Chicago іѕ аn intriguing example.

Thе goal οf Dr. Blaslotto‘s study wаѕ tο determine thе effects οf visualization οn sports performance. Aѕ a performance measure fοr thіѕ experiment, thе researchers сhοѕе thе free throw percentage οf a group οf basketball players. First, tο establish a basis fοr thе study, thе current free-throw success rate οf each οf thе subjects wаѕ tested аnԁ recorded. Three groups wеrе thеn established, аnԁ thе athletes wеrе assigned tο one οf thе groups аt random. Aftеr 30 days οf testing аnԁ retesting, thе results wеrе аѕ follows:

Thе third group, whο nеіthеr physically practiced οr visualized shooting free-throws, ѕhοwеԁ nο increase іn percentage.

Thе first group whісh physically shot free-throws fοr аn hour daily, collectively improved thier free-throw shooting bу 24%.

Thе second group, whісh practiced daily bу visualizing shooting аnԁ mаkіnɡ free-throws, collectively improved thier free-throw shooting bу a shocking 23% without having physically shot a basketball!"

There are many references to the study, but I cannot find one link to the actual study!

It did find this study as well, but so far no link to the actual study: Sports Visualization (http://sportsmedicine.about.com/od/sportspsychology/a/thinkstrong.htm)

"Researchers from the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in Ohio investigated the strength benefits of imagining exercising a muscle. They reported that just thinking about exercise helped maintain muscle strength in a group of subjects.

They split 30 healthy young adults into 3 groups. For 15 minutes a day, five days a week for 12 week, Group #1 imagined exercising their little finger muscle. Group #2 imagined exercising their biceps muscle and Group #3 acted as a control group and did no imaginary exercise. Those in the first two groups were asked to think as strongly as they could about moving the muscle being tested, to make the imaginary movement as real as possible. The researchers measured muscle strength before, during and after the training sessions.

Group #1 (the finger exercisers) increased their strength 53 percent, wand Group #2 (the biceps group) increased strength by 13.4 percent.

Sounds unbelievable, but consider that measurements of the brain activity during visualization sessions suggest that these strength gains were due to improvements in the brain's ability to signal muscle activity. Suddenly the benefit of visualization is clear."

[taai gihk yahn]

http://www.totalmotionrelease.com/researcharticles.html


North American Journal of Psychology, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 1 189-200
Mind Over Matter: Mental Training Increases Physical Strength
Erin M. Shackell and Lionel G. Standing
Bishop's University
This study tested whether mental training alone can produce a gain in muscular strength. Thirty male university athletes, including football, basketball and rugby players, were randomly assigned to perform mental training of their hip flexor muscles, to use weight machines to physically exercise their hip flexors, or to form a control group which received neither mental nor physical training. The hip strength of each group was
measured before and after training. Physical strength was increased by 24% through mental practice (p = .008). Strength was also increased through physical training, by 28%, but did not change significantly in the control condition. The strength gain was greatest among the football players given mental training. Mental and physical training produced similar decreases in heart rate, and both yielded a marginal reduction in systolic blood pressure. The results support the related findings of Ranganathan, Siemionow, Liu, Sahgal, and Yue (2004).

-------------------

doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2003.11.018
From mental power to muscle power—gaining strength by using the mind
Vinoth K. Ranganathan, Vlodek Siemionow, Jing Z. Liu, Vinod Sahgal and Guang H. Yue
Received 3 February 2003; Revised 17 June 2003; accepted 20 November 2003. Available online 3 February 2004.

Abstract
The purposes of this project were to determine mental training-induced strength gains (without performing physical exercises) in the little finger abductor as well as in the elbow flexor muscles, which are frequently used during daily living, and to quantify cortical signals that mediate maximal voluntary contractions (MVCs) of the two muscle groups. Thirty young, healthy volunteers participated in the study. The first group (N=8) was trained to perform “mental contractions” of little finger abduction (ABD); the second group (N=8) performed mental contractions of elbow (ELB) flexion; and the third group (N=8) was not trained but participated in all measurements and served as a control group. Finally, six volunteers performed training of physical maximal finger abductions. Training lasted for 12 weeks (15 min per day, 5 days per week). At the end of training, we found that the ABD group had increased their finger abduction strength by 35% (P<0.005) and the ELB group augmented their elbow flexion strength by 13.5% (P<0.001). The physical training group increased the finger abduction strength by 53% (P<0.01). The control group showed no significant changes in strength for either finger abduction or elbow flexion tasks. The improvement in muscle strength for trained groups was accompanied by significant increases in electroencephalogram-derived cortical potential, a measure previously shown to be directly related to control of voluntary muscle contractions. We conclude that the mental training employed by this study enhances the cortical output signal, which drives the muscles to a higher activation level and increases strength.

-------------------

12th Annual Congress of the ECSS, 11–14 July 2007, Jyväskylä, Finland

THE EFFECT OF PETTLEP-BASED IMAGERY ON STRENGTH PERFORMANCE
Wright Caroline, Smith Dave
(University of Chester, United Kingdom)

Neuroscience researchers have found that imaged and actual performance of motor skills share common neurophysiological mechanisms, a phenomenon termed ’functional
equivalence’ (Decety, 1996). Holmes and Collins (2001) developed the PETTLEP model of imagery based on these findings. PETTLEP is an acronym, with each letter standing
for a guideline aimed at producing functionally equivalent imagery interventions. These are Physical, Environment, Task, Timing, Learning, Emotion and Perspective.
The aim of this study was to test the model with a strength task. 50 participants were assigned to five groups: PETTLEP imagery, ’traditional’ imagery, physical practice, PETTLEP imagery combined with physical practice (PETTLEP combination) and control. Pre- and post-tests consisted of one repetition maximum (1 R.M) tests on the Cybex bicep curl machine. The PETTLEP group attended the gym, sat at the bicep curl machine and imaged completing two sets, whilst watching an internal perspective video of themselves performing a set of biceps curls. The ’traditional’ imagery group completed two sets of their imagery at home, in a relaxed position, with eyes closed. The physical practice group physically performed two sets of the task to volitional
fatigue. The combination group physically performed one set and imaged another set. Each intervention was completed twice per week for six weeks. A group x test ANOVA revealed no pre-test differences between the groups, F (4,44) = .33, p>.05, but there were
significant post-test between-group differences, F (4, 44) = 12.60, p<.01. Tukey HSD tests revealed that the PETTLEP imagery, PETTLEP combination and physical practice groups improved significantly from pre-test to post-test (p<.01) whereas the traditional imagery and control groups did not (p>.05). The PETTLEP combination group also improved to a significantly greater degree than the PETTLEP group and marginally more than the physical practice group. There was no significant difference in the magnitude of improvement shown by the PETTLEP imagery group and physical practice groups (p>.05). These results strongly support the use of PETTLEP-based imagery in enhancing strength performance. This contrasts vividly with much previous research, which showed imagery to be relatively ineffective at improving performance of strength-based tasks. However, previous research has often used more traditional ’visualisation’ imagery techniques. Therefore, sports psychologists should use the PETTLEP model in order to maximise the functional equivalence of their imagery interventions and have the greatest
positive effect on performance of strength tasks.

Decety, J. (1996). Do imagined and executed actions share the same neural substrate? Cognitive Brain Research, 3, 87-93.

Holmes, P.S. & Collins, D.J. (2001) The PETTLEP Approach to Motor Imagery: A Functional Equivalence Model for Sport Psychologists. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13 (1) 60-83.


---------
12th Annual Congress of the ECSS, 11–14 July 2007, Jyväskylä, Finland

A KNOCKOUT PSYCHOLOGICAL INTERVENTION: THE EFFECT OF PETTLEP-BASED IMAGERY ON BOXING PERFORMANCE
Smith Dave, Wright Caroline
(University of Chester, United Kingdom)

Holmes and Collins (2001) developed the PETTLEP model to help practitioners produce functionally equivalent imagery. PETTLEP is an acronym, each letter representing
a key issue to consider when implementing imagery interventions: Physical, Environment, Task, Timing, Learning, Emotion and Perspective. Recent studies suggest
that PETTLEP-based imagery interventions are more effective than more traditional interventions (Smith, Wright, Allsopp & Westhead, in press). However, it will not always
be possible to incorporate all the guidelines into imagery interventions, and therefore information regarding the effects of interventions focusing on different PETTLEP components would be useful. Also, the model still needs to be comprehensively tested with various skills. Therefore, this study examined the effects of interventions focused
on the environment and timing components of PETTLEP in boxing. Fifty-two amateur boxers were divided into three groups: An ’environment’ group, a ’timing’ group and a control group. Participants performed pre-tests and post-tests consisting of three commonly-used punch combinations against a defensive boxer using pads. A qualified boxing judge scored the punches. Following the pre-test, imagery participants imaged performing the combinations successfully three times per week for six weeks. The timing group imaged at home whilst listening to an audio recording of them performing successful combinations. This recording acted as a template enabling participants to image in ’real time’ (cf. Smith & Holmes, 2004). The environment group imaged in the boxing ring where testing took place, dressed in their boxing clothing. Controls read boxing literature. A group x test ANOVA for performance scores revealed a significant interaction effect, F (2,45) = 10.67, p<.001. Tukey HSD tests revealed that both imagery groups improved significantly between pre- and post-tests, with the environment group improving to a significantly greater degree than the timing group, but the control group did not improve. These results support the efficacy of interventions focusing on the environment and timing PETTLEP components, and suggest that the environment component is particularly important to obtain optimal results from imagery. Implications for practitioners will be explored, and practical recommendations suggested, regarding the incorporation of these PETTLEP components into imagery interventions.
References:
Holmes, P. S., & Collins, D. J. (2001). The PETTLEP approach to motor imagery: A functional equivalence model for sport psychologists. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13, 60-83.
Smith, D., Wright, C., Allsopp, A., & Westhead, H. (in press). It’s all in the mind: PETTLEP-based imagery and sports performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology.
Smith, D., & Holmes, P. (2004). The effect of imagery modality on golf putting performance. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 26, 385-395.


there's more on the link as well...

[Scott R. Brown]

Show off!!!:p :D ;)

[KC Elbows]

Debate is simply communication. Communication is nothing more than the verbalization of thought. The medium you use to present that thought means little. A debate is essentially the same be it in person, over the phone, through email or on a forum. So actually, this place can be nice practice for debate in other venues.

Since debate is, at best, simply a form of communication, whereas communication is not, by default, debate, you're wrong on point one, which is always bad form when you call another an idiot by the end of it all.

To debate someone who is merely discussing something with you, or seeking a sounding board, is called being rude in the real world. Online, there are some who magically erase this rule, but most still follow it, the exceptions being twelve year old boys and older men who hang out too much with twelve year old boys.


Fighting, you know being a physical engagement of the body, follows a completely different mode of development.

Honing one's debate by ARGUING(not debating) with random people online using stock arguments is analogous to training fighting by attacking random people in the streets for moving around like they do. Not clever at all.


Summary: you're an idiot. And I'm bored.

You should find someone taking some topic too seriously and troll them for it, it helped cure my boredom.:D

[David Jamieson]

some concepts are difficult for people to understand. :)

[hskwarrior]

Originally Posted by SoCo KungFu:
I think tonight I'm going to go in and tell our coach, "Hey you know I think I'm gonna try something different for training. For the next couple months before our next fight, I think I'm just going to visualize my training. I mean its every bit as good right?"

I'm still waiting to find out what happened and what your COACH had to say about this.

[SoCo KungFu]

I'm still waiting to find out what happened and what your COACH had to say about this.

It was not PG rated....

[SoCo KungFu]

Wall of text

For the record, the world would be so awesome if everyone provided this kind of link and argument....

So, to the details. Its not that surprising. Imagery increases muscle recruitment. The most telling information I thought though was in the differences between the first 2 and the 3rd test. The first two simply recorded a strength measure. This is really too isolated though to be applicable (in terms of fighting) as shown in the 3rd example. In the first example, neither the image or the PT group held significant advantage. Though they were using established athletes. I wonder if the differences would be different had they used subjects who were less physically developed?...

The second test showed the best results in terms of strength came from the use of both. Which makes my last question more interesting to me. What happens when used with those not physically developed?

The last one tried to address another trait of physical development; timing, and by nature of the test it would involve coordination and all the other things that would become relevant to such an action. Unless I'm reading their terms wrong, the environmental (in other words, the group doing physical training in the gym) had the most significant results. Though imagery did help the timing group, it said environmental group held much higher returns (and while we're on it, its impossible to eliminate imagery from that group, people are still going to think about and picture their actions). Which is just what is to be expected. How about that, partners and padwork and sparring are actually very important.....

I have no problem in stating that imagery is a good support for actual physical training. However, taiji1983 is suggesting (not in this thread but in others) that "partners aren't important." In other words, imagery (visualization of applications with forms) can replace rather than support. That is entirely wrong.

[hskwarrior]

In other words, imagery (visualization of applications with forms) can replace rather than support. That is entirely wrong.

True. This won't work. BUT, if a study was done where someone with no fighting experience and someone with mental training, i'm sure the person with mental training would react differently than the one who never fought or mentally trained at all before.

when i pass this on, i tell my students "IN ADDITION TO" your physical training try to visualize yourself executing applications over and over and over. Or, to practive your form from beginning to end. Visualizing your training is difficult at times due to "MONKEY MIND"......many times in the past i couldn't finish my form in my mind cause i got caught up with other trivial shi!t popping up in my head at the same time. but, the key is to keep going until you can finish your form from start to finish.

[Jimbo]

Another challenge during visualizations is actually feeling yourself doing the visualized activity correctly. I remember hearing about a young gymnast who was having trouble with a particular move on the balance beam. After lots and lots of practice, and still making the same mistake, her coach told her to visualize herself, from the point of view of the doer (i.e., not as if watching herself, but in the first person), performing the move flawlessly. She sat down, closed her eyes, and after a while, her coach heard her saying, "Oh! Darn!....Darn!.....Darn!" He asked her what's wrong, and she said, "I keep messing it up in my mind, too!"

It's clear from the above story that the young girl was so used to and wrapped up in the same mistake, it was almost as hard visualizing the correct feel of it as actually doing it correctly. If she could correct that on the mental level, along with continued proper physical practice, then the mental practice becomes a very powerful supplemental tool. This could apply to virtually anything one wishes to apply it to.

[Hebrew Hammer]

It was not PG rated....

We're all adults here...except Gene.

[KC Elbows]

I have no problem in stating that imagery is a good support for actual physical training. However, taiji1983 is suggesting (not in this thread but in others) that "partners aren't important." In other words, imagery (visualization of applications with forms) can replace rather than support. That is entirely wrong.

Unfortunately, it isn't entirely wrong. There is not a move in existence that was not imagined before coming into being. Now, reinventing the wheel seems unnecessary, but so does calling everyone who opts to do so idiots when it's really not that important. Not everyone who does these things is claiming to be the end all be all.

Now, to taiji1983's argument, it is similar to something cheng man qing(sp) believed, I think, essentially that absorbing the structure(including moving structure) is more important than absorbing the structure's use.

The examples he uses are spontanteously expressing interpretations of techniques against others that were not applications of those techniques he was taught or exposed to before.

In my view, I see a minor problem with this interpretation, in that, one could assume that, having spontaneously reacted in this new way, it is fairly normal to then view the new app as concrete, an option to be used when applicable, which is the same as saying "informed by contact, I have this app," and not the same as saying that contact was unnecessary, as without the opponent's action, there would have been no context to respond in that way.

This criticism is not an excuse for others to say "yeah, what an idiot." Honestly, every adult on this board knows that the people speaking constantly like this would be loathe to let the people truly close to them in life hear them act this way, and, while some might suggest my argument is overly moralistic, the ones calling out everyone for their idiocy rob themselves of the opportunity by the simple fact that they believe it is their moral role to act as they are, but again, they hide the details of this role from the people close to them in life, unless they are married to other internet drama queens, have internet drama queen mothers and fathers, and work for a firm of internet drama queens.

I'm just suggesting a problem with his argument, but opting not to use ad hominem attacks to stop all discussion. One can't constantly scream at everyone they think is wrong or dumb and then claim they really don't care.

Now, a further problem I see in this view(structuralist, in that absorbing the structure is the goal, not specific techniques that comprise a specific style) is that I feel the goal of systems like these is to take something that normally has many variables(fighting), and reduce the variables so that response is more efficient. By defining the key responses of the style to the various inputs, and keeping the number succinct, efficiency is greater. The structuralist view, imo, creates more variables instead of promoting efficiency. Every move is a myriad of moves in this view, and so every situation requires more selection than before learning the style. My view is that every technique has optimum usage in certain situations, and these are the things best focused on, thus attaining greater efficiency and cultivating a narrower number of complementary techniques deeply.

Now, if I'm an idiot, I'm an idiot who has rebutted his point better than you have. Since I don't think you're an idiot, I'm okay with that.:)