Brian's ZDK comments

Socrates wrote:This is an interesting discussion.

Do you mind if I rephrase the "do things differently" question?

If you had a couple of teenage nephews, who came to you looking for advice about training, what would you tell them? Imagine one was weedy and getting bullied at school and the other was a natural athlete. What would you get them to train? And in what order?

Interesting different angle at my question - i'd send my little sister (15) to something far more practical for sure.

Which I suppose goes against what I said above about not changing things..

It's a bit of a circular arguement really. With the bit of experience I have, I want to do things differently now, but if I hadn't done things that way maybe i'd think different etc etc:

Plenty of time to change focus though!

Ben wrote:

Socrates wrote:This is an interesting discussion.

Do you mind if I rephrase the "do things differently" question?

If you had a couple of teenage nephews, who came to you looking for advice about training, what would you tell them? Imagine one was weedy and getting bullied at school and the other was a natural athlete. What would you get them to train? And in what order?

Interesting different angle at my question - i'd send my little sister (15) to something far more practical for sure.

Which I suppose goes against what I said above about not changing things..

It's a bit of a circular arguement really. With the bit of experience I have, I want to do things differently now, but if I hadn't done things that way maybe i'd think different etc etc:

Plenty of time to change focus though!

I think that if my nephew was weedy and getting bullied, I´d tell him I´d teach him some self-defence... but only if he could get a certain number of pullups or something. I´d then spend all summer getting him to do sprints, pullups, pressups, throw medicine balls, do obstacle courses, etc, etc.

When his conditioning was in place, I´d teach him about the fence, awareness, adrenaline and get him hitting things hard and pre-emptively. If he wanted to continue training, I´d encourage him to check out every single school in town and then to sign up for the one he liked the best. I´d also encourage him to keep at the conditioning and to keep perfecting the basics of self-protection in his own time.

If my nephew was a natural athlete, I´d probably tell him to start building a good base in boxing and judo...

Socrates wrote:This is an interesting discussion.

Do you mind if I rephrase the "do things differently" question?

If you had a couple of teenage nephews, who came to you looking for advice about training, what would you tell them? Imagine one was weedy and getting bullied at school and the other was a natural athlete. What would you get them to train? And in what order?

Hmmm... Perhaps that's a whole different ballgame; perhaps it isn't...

Is the athlete getting bullied as well?

The one getting bullied? Yes. of course; get some self-protection skills ASAP...

But, say they are both 14 or thereabouts...

The 14 y.o. SP guru gets out of the scraps...

Where is he/she when she is 25. 35. 45...?

Tough as nails, but perhaps not fitting into the society that he/she needs to...

There is no easy answer here...

Double posted for some strange IT geek reason...!

Socrates wrote:

If you had a couple of teenage nephews, who came to you looking for advice about training, what would you tell them? Imagine one was weedy and getting bullied at school and the other was a natural athlete. What would you get them to train? And in what order?

I don't really have anything I can comment on here. Each individual is different and to me it's a case by case basis. My first thing would be a long talk to get a deeper look into the issues and personalities. Then I would move on from there.

Tommy

I'm on the same page with Bryson...I had a lot of other issues to work on other than just learning how to fight and karate provided the answers.

If fighting was all I was after I could have stopped after about brown belt level.

I still think the guys that put the other side of karate (and other martial arts) together were on to something. If all you do is train someone how to fight you end up with the current crop of MMA thugs we're getting nowadays.

Nick

Nick Hughes wrote:I'm on the same page with Bryson...I had a lot of other issues to work on other than just learning how to fight and karate provided the answers.

If fighting was all I was after I could have stopped after about brown belt level.

I still think the guys that put the other side of karate (and other martial arts) together were on to something. If all you do is train someone how to fight you end up with the current crop of MMA thugs we're getting nowadays.

Nick

Actually I believed the same thing at one time. When I first began karate it was about fighting and back in the 60's it was the same for anyone else I knew. Not because of the area I lived in but because that is all anyone knew about karate at the time. Like boxing or any other fighting discipline that is what you went in for...fighting/SD. All the discipline and other head straightening didn't start to taker place for me until I started to take karate more seriously as a complete art in my 20's. That is when I started to look at the other side of it and not just the fighting (although that was still my main concern). But, my natural tendency was still to be right on the verge of starting fights. By my late 20's I was mellowed out a bit and gave "karate" credit for my change. For years I gave karate the credit....but was it? Maybe I just matured....maybe it was my girlfriend.... who is now my wife. What karate instructors get training in psychology and are qualified to straighten out unruly kids? Is it just the discipline of training? Any organized sport can do the same thing. Many boxers become peaceful disciplined and confident in themselves. I think that with confidence in ones ability comes a lessening of insecurities and a natural tendency to mellow out. Today I am a good person but deep inside me is that crazy guy tied up and imprisoned. It is my brain and my heart that keep me pure. But was that karate? Why isn't it just "me.?"

Even if karate was responsible, why does it have to become a life long endeavor. In 1989 I became an instructor; it's now 2008. If I am the one "teaching" then shouldn't I know what I am teaching and be able to apply it to myself? Why must I always have to follow the "church of karate?" Whatever I learned is still in me. If it was karate that changed me then great, I'm still changed, it did it's job, Thank you and now I continue my journey. Why does it need to be a forever thing? Why don't you get your black belt or a dan or two above and move on? Because they don't want you to....it takes power away from the guy above you who you have to bow to. I don't mind "karate' I just had my fill of the methods of training and the "systems."

When I go train at my MMA club I see what could very well be any karateka. I see well disciplined hard training and respectful young men. I see a tough sonofabitch who is in his twenties that can't believe someone would kick another person when he is on the floor (is that a thug?). I see an Iraq war vet. I see a bunch of pretty nice kids training hard and not getting into trouble and I see them acting naturally in class or training. When I trained at various karate dojo I saw similar things but minus the "acting naturally." What I did see was a lot of over acting in front of sensei. I knew guys who were so respectful and all "Japanese" in class but who were assholes outside. You can't say that a system or organization teaches anything on a psychological level to help people be good. Just look at Catholic priests for proof of that. Or people that go to Church on Sunday but back to their mob activity on Monday.

Just learning to fight isn't a bad thing. You don't need to be such a strict system. Just learning to fight means becoming confident. You can learn to fight so that you don't have to. Teaching to fight comes with responsibility. Someone just looking to be a thug won't last in training anyway. At one time karate was just that, learning defense. It was good then, why not now?

An unruly child may fair well from the discipline of karate training. But once he is in his teens and above and following a straight path I don't think he needs to stay loyal and connected at the hip to karate. Karate isn't a bad thing, the subservience it breeds and the lifelong endeavor crap develops too much dogmatic behavior IMO.

I am still a karate guy....it is part of my whole martial arts self. Why is it that karate has to be the "only" thing. All encompasing entire life endeavor? Why can't anyone ever grow out of all the "extras" of karate? Learn it and move on.

Tommy

Wish I had said that Tommy.

Sometimes I think it is hard to understand my position on traditional karate. It may seem I'm against it; I am not. I just don't believe in "systems" anymore. I only believe in the karate techniques, a method of self defense. There are many things I take into my MMA or any other training from karate but they are more principle based. Short distance power generation, control of my center, sensitivity to movement, distancing, hip control and movement and many things that seem small in nature but are what give technique its meaning. The detail of karate training.

Tommy

Tommy_P wrote:Sometimes I think it is hard to understand my position on traditional karate. It may seem I'm against it; I am not. I just don't believe in "systems" anymore. I only believe in the karate techniques, a method of self defense. There are many things I take into my MMA or any other training from karate but they are more principle based. Short distance power generation, control of my center, sensitivity to movement, distancing, hip control and movement and many things that seem small in nature but are what give technique its meaning. The detail of karate training.

Tommy

That's what I've been saying, Tommy. It is, and should be, ALL 'principle based'. And the principles are pretty much universal.

You pesonally don't want to put a 'label' on it, and that's fine with me. I still have a label on mine, and guys trash me for it because they have their own issue with what they see that the label represents. Just a bit unfair, I reckon...! ;-)

Yes.
For example, when I taught Shotokan it had my flavor to it. Because I was also training in Kyokushin, "my" Shotokan had low/leg kicks, elbows and knee kicks...Shotokan traditionally doesn't. So when I went to train at our honbu or any other affiliated dojo I had to revert back to strict Shotokan. I think that's a load of crap and puts limits on training. I also started to use more takedowns and other non Shotokan techniques borrowed from Goju and some Shorin stuff. I was using hook punches which are a no no for Shotokan and I was fighting "inside" as a close fighter rather than Shotokan's mid to long range distance.

That is the stuff that I can no longer wrap my head around. I want my 'karate" to be just that, "karate," which is always progressing. No names no labels just karate...just martial arts with a firm karate base. No labels on anything. Not even stances.

I've been accused of being a karate basher or disgruntled or even possibly someone who was burned by karate. Not true at all. I trained and trained hard as well as studied deeply. It is my understanding that has led me to where I am now. I grew through karate and out of it and in my teaching that is how it should be. It should be a vehicle that gets you to where your headed, not something you strap to your back for the rest of your life. My karate years were like a cocoon stage. I have emerged (no..I won't call myself a butterfly ).


Remeber...like I said in a previous post "Shu ha ri." If I were an Okinawan back in the day, I would have emerged out of my training and developed into my own style based on the teachings of all my instructors. But I'm not....I'm only following the original recipe

I always want my karate or my training to be better than the guy I might have to defend myself against. For that I need to stay progressive. Who is the threat these days? MMA/BJJ right? So I learned a little BJJ to see what it is I would be defending and how I would approach it. Would you learn to defend against a knife without knowing anything about knife attacks? Now I train in MMA because I find it a valid "training method." It allows me to explore more realistically and freely. "AND" I am learning how to better defend against other MMA fighters. I am upping my game and my defenses. I am improving my overall knowledge of fighting and defense. That's me...never satisfied...nothing is enough. Someone said "I don't have a style, only a training method."

I still say that I am more traditional in my approach than most traditionalists.

Tommy

That was the beauty of Zen Do Kai...Bob let you use anything with the attitude of "if it works, use it."

I was at my Tae Kwan Do club after doing about 3 years of Judo and when these guys would throw their kicks I was sweeping them. An instructor ran over and said "you can't do that" (actually, I thought I could as I just did )

When I went to Zen Do Kai and did it they all said "awesome, show us how to do them)

I don't think there's anything wrong with Shotokan's or TKDs approach though. At first blush that sounds contradictory but where do you draw the line? TKDs theory is legs are longer and stronger and we should use them almost exclusively gets unravelled if you allow sweeps in.

No different than boxing not allowing grappling or kicks and Judo and wrestling not allowing strikes. They are focusing on a particular aspect of combat and don't have time to explore the other aspects.

Nick

Nick Hughes wrote: I don't think there's anything wrong with Shotokan's or TKDs approach though. At first blush that sounds contradictory but where do you draw the line? TKDs theory is legs are longer and stronger and we should use them almost exclusively gets unravelled if you allow sweeps in.

No different than boxing not allowing grappling or kicks and Judo and wrestling not allowing strikes. They are focusing on a particular aspect of combat and don't have time to explore the other aspects.

Nick

This is true but it is because they are focusing more on sport whether they admit it or not, I was always more interested in functional karate. For that, the strategies as well as the techniques in systems such as TKD, Shotokan and a host of other modern karate styles need to be altered drastically.

For example Shotokan is very much based on Kendo movements and body shifting/footwork. that works well for tournament and long range defense but not for self defense. This is fine, as you noted, but then they shouldn't pass themselves off as a valid means of self defense also...as they do.

A Shotokan knife hand block is normally combined with a back stance and steps backward at an angle against a straight punch (oi or gyaku zuki). At more advanced levels you would move in at a 45 degree angle or 90 degrees to the side. The shape/configuration of the block has you at arms length from the attacking limb of your opponent. You are so far away, you actually don't even need the block!! Now to hit him you have to take a step to get back in range. This is sword defense passed off as empty hand or self defense. The knife hand block works better while "moving in" combined with muchimi or a heavy/sticky type of hand/arm. It has to be offense and defense all at once rather than Shotokan or TKD (which is based on Shotokan) one-two type of block and counter. A self defense situation has no such count.

When I taught I never used the stepping back method or 3 step sparring. When I saw students step back away from a punch or kick I would ask them why. It is because they don't want to get hit...right? Ahhh, I see, so you're afraid of that punch or kick. So now that you successfully stepped back out of range and are safe, you still have to hit him back don't you? So how do you do this? By once again moving back into striking range. So now the punch that you were so afraid of and moved back to escape, you now have to face a second time as you move back in.

So yes, as you said , there is nothing wrong with their approach as far as them being what they are. But there is a problem when they say or try to be what they are not and still use the same approach.

Tommy

I almost agree with you entirely but

the stepping back thing and blocking is something I've done tons of time. I look at it this way...

When we drive in the car we put on seat belts and we have airbags...we don't count on just one to save our arses, cause they won't.

So, if I'm relying on a block alone, and I don't get it there in time (or I'm too fast with it) I could get clocked. If I step back at the same time am I not buying an extra measure of safety.

Likewise, if I'm relying on just the step and I'm a second too slow, or misjudge his reach etc, I get clobbered. By putting up the block at the same time it's more security.

Also, by stepping backwards, if my block fails me and my step back wasn't far enough, I'm at least riding the punch so it won't do nearly as much damage as it would if I'd stepped in to it.

Is it my only option? No. But I don't rule out anything in a fight and have never liked the "forward drive" response as if it's the only tactic that works. As Southnarc noticed during his course in the UK a lot of the guys following that train of thought got stabbed in the back while driving down the first guy.

Nick

I can accept your point (what? ). But you may be thinking on a slightly different plane. I too won't count out stepping back. But I'm talking about only 'enough' back, or a shuffle or a half step or even a short step. Not a whole back stance length where I am way too far out as done in Shotokan. I want to step back just far enough to be out of range of getting hit but still in range enough to counter. I'm sure you must be thinking the same (but then again I can't be sure because you didn't even like Batman).

As for range examples and what I called the "game of inches' in fighting I used to use a simple karate fighting stance. I would have my left leg forward and my body angled...a typical stance. I then had my trainee put is fist from his extended reverse punch on my midsection as if making contact with a punch at extension. So now his fist would be on my left side ( around the floating rib for example). Now, all I do is switch my feet to a right leg forward stance. With that simple switch his fist would now be an inch or two off of me rather than touching. "BUT" I can still hit him with no difference in "my" distancing. I am out of range but still in range, so to speak. It is only an example but it brought out the importance of "proper" distancing and how to move 'just enough." Out of his range but in yours. On a larger (and more realistic) scale, I want the same thing in my fighting distance and blocking. So yes, there are times I will move back....but only enough. (and if there are no curbs for me to step back off of and fall )

Shotokan as well as other styles teach it as a rule...move, block then counter. Hip cocks back and then forward....that stacatto one/two type of movement is too slow for reality.

P.S.

I feel safe to say you will agree with me on this and we were probably talking about the same thing

(even though I rarely agree with anyone.....I hope I never run out of defenses for my stance on issues....then I will be forced to agree)

Tommy