Brawling with a friend

Michael Gallagher wrote: I had an uncle like that. He was a royal pain in the @$$. Always wanted others' opinions but never voiced his own. My mom hated him. Just a thought.

Well...that's good to know, I guess.

Michael Gallagher wrote: You wrote that when you left Aikido, you "had a duty" to tell your instructor why and tell him about the training methods you have found. That is a pretty strong statement. You didn't just chit-chat with him and causally say, "Yeah, I found a school I like better." You felt duty-bound to explain the I-method.

My teacher is investing quite some effort into helping me learn Aikido. So, when I happen to be able to give something back, to help him learn and improve, I also do consider it my duty to do so. Everything else would be disrespectful IMNSHO

Michael Gallagher wrote: Are you sure of that? I've learned that ego and pride can drive your actions even if you think they don't. Let's look at what you have said: You wrote that when you left Aikido, you "had a duty" to tell your instructor why and tell him about the training methods you have found. That is a pretty strong statement. You didn't just chit-chat with him and causally say, "Yeah, I found a school I like better." You felt duty-bound to explain the I-method.

It is your duty to explain yourself when you leave. Why? Because if you don't the teacher will never understand what the problem is. Maybe the problem is with the student, maybe the problem is with the teacher, but if I never told him why I was leaving in detail, he would never know.

Michael Gallagher wrote: You've written that you mention it now because you hope Aikido instructors will look into it and, if they like it, adapt it. You say you are "not on a crusade to change Aikido," but what if Aikido teachers act on your statements and use the I-method? That's a change. For someone who isn't on a crusade to change Aikido, you seem to want to see something happen!

If it is beneficial to aikido, karate, jkd, bjj, distance running, math, getting dates, etc, I would indeed like to see it adopted. Why, because I am a teacher and I love teaching. I want to see everyone doing things the best way they possibly can. Personally, if tomorrow there was no aikido I wouldn't care. If tomorrow aikido was dominating the UFC, I wouldn't care. Its about aikido simply because this is an aikido forum. No more, no less. However, if someone told me that reading my post helped their training in anyway, that makes me feel good inside. If someone explains the faults in my reasoning and I learn something about my training, that makes me feel good inside.

Michael Gallagher wrote: Lastly, there is the amount of time and effort you have put into this thread. Unless you are a blindingly fast typist, it's a LOT of time. How long does it take to do one post? You seem to have invested a lot it it.

I'm a computer programmer and a part time teacher. That means I have 6-8 hours a day where I do nothing. I choose to post on forums about issues that I care about. My training is something I care about. I've had these same conversations on other forums, email lists, groups, and at coffee shops. Sometimes its about aikido, sometimes its kung fu, sometimes its tkd, sometimes it is judo. Sometimes its gun fu. If this conversation was about karate, how many people who care on this forum? Not as many who care if its about aikido.

And I can type 110 words per minute.

Michael Gallagher wrote: So, are you sure that deep down, you really are not on a crusade?

Ok you got me, I'm on a crusade to improve my own training by learning other people's viewpoints.

Michael Gallagher wrote: People can deceive themselves all the time. I've done it myself. Are you doing it to yourself when you say you are not on a crusade? Only you can answer that question.

Good point, I constantly ask myself "Why am I training?", "What am I doing?", "Why are we doing this?", "Am I being honest with myself?". Sometimes I like the answer, sometimes I don't, but I do understand my purpose on this thread. It is to explore a training method I find valuable and see how it relates to teaching aikido. If you would like we could change this to see how it relates in teaching chemistry.

Michael Gallagher wrote: Well, unfortunately for you, in class tonight, Sensei made a comment in passing that drove home a simple fact: Aikido's philosophy is integrated into the art. It is not something you read or have a little lecture on before doing joint locks and throws. The flavor of the techniques and and the intent behind them is based on the art's philosophy. It is not preached at you; you absorb it by doing things in accordance with it. If you tweak a technique a little bit so it is designed to do damage to the other person, it may look almost the same as before, but it is no longer an Aikido technique. And that's without changing the training method!

Ask your sensei this. I have two students in two classes. Each one learning aikido. One learns the way I was taught.

The teacher comes into class, says "Tonight we will being working on ikkyo", then he shows the technique.They have a partner shomen strike and they apply ikkyo. Reset, repeat, over and over. Eventually we move on to a new technique. At the end of the night there is a traditional 3 man randori and we work the jo kata.

The other learns in a environment similar to the training method I am talking about. The teacher comes in and says "Tonight we are going to learn about defenses against punches. What are some ways we can deal with punches? The student brings up ikkyo, and is asked to demonstrate it. A few other students demonstrate some ways they know to deal with punches. Any obvious flaws are corrected, and they are told to partner up and explore punch defenses. The students start with static drills just like the first example, they throw static strikes and work their technique. Only some are working on ikkyo, some are working on other things. The teacher is there to monitor and give advice as needed, but lets the students help each other. He only steps in if the students just don't get it, are taking a course against the philosophy of aikido, or ask him directly. This static drilling goes on for 5 minutes. This ends the inquiry phase. The teacher then moves them to dynamic drilling. The students throw punches of random types at their partner, the partner is required to defend. This starts with static position, then the uke starts to move about, changing his angle of attack requiring tori to adjust his position and be more aware of his movement. Finally the uke resists the technique as it is applied at 25%, allowing the technique to work, but resisting any obvious flaws (such as being able to simply step out of a technique, or pull your arm out). At this point there are some obvious flaws and questions the students will have, so we end the isolation stage go back to the inquiry stage and start again. The teacher goes over the approaches he watched and gives suggestions for improvement, perhaps he demo's a technique or two. Finally at the end of the night we have some form of randori/sparing to fully integrate the lesson into the student.(a 3 on one randori where the goal of the attackers is to tie up nage and pin him to the ground would be good)"

How does the student lose the philosophy by training in the second method? How is the students learning suffering? If anything they will have a better understanding in a shorter amount of time. Not only in the philosophy of aikido, but in the actual application of the techniques. This is only a mild variation that uses some principles of the I-method vs the type of training I've seen in the half dozen aikido dojos I've been in. I would of course suggest a even more in depth change with more hard sparing, but the example does show all aspects of the I-method in practice. I see a change in the training method offered in all the dojos I've seen, but I don't see a loss in the original training method. It is still there, and the principles are still there, the only difference is we have given the students a change to challenge, ask questions, and understand what they are doing.

Michael Gallagher wrote: So when you talk about the I-method, you have to recognize the basic fact that Aikido is more than just about techniques, and it is not just me saying that. Other sources focus on this. I think John Stevens' Secrets of Aikido covers this very well. You are going to disagree with this, I know, but you are disagreeing with a simple fact.

I never disagreed with that. I have said that the training method doesn't disrupt the philosophy, but that they are two distinct things that can be taught in a variety of ways.

Michael Gallagher wrote: My Kali instructor told me about the Straight Blast Gym some time ago. I found their web site ( http://www.straightblastgym.com ) shortly thereafter and read their article on cults ( http://www.straightblastgym.com/freedom.htm ). They don't sound as if they care much about tradition, culture, history, respect, etc. If they influenced your thinking, good for you! But if you go to the Inosanto Academy, you will find that yes, they spar a lot, and I wouldn't be surprised if they are open to things like the I-method. (I have heard my Kali instructors talk about "isolating" but I am not sure if that is where it is from; I'll have to get back to you on that.) But they also care about the history, culture, and, you guessed it, respect. Those things are important, even if the SBG doesn't care. You can say you can throw things out and not change anything, but can you, really? I've trained with people affiliated with the Inosanto Avademy for nine years and it is from then that I believe the answer is "no." Are they wrong and the SBG right? And why?

The SBG trains fighters, that is their tradition and philosophy. This is the same philosophy I see in BJJ, results trump all. Just because it doesn't fit the traditions you are used too doesn't mean it is not a tradition. Their is also a lot of respect among fighters and I'm sure a lot of respect at the SBG. Only the respect comes from honesty, not rank. I respect you because you kick ass in the ring, are a nice guy out of the ring, and you help me improve. If your an ass outside of the ring, or you are spouting off crap, I'll call it like I see it. Its a different kind of respect then what you would associate with martial arts. I'm not suggestion aikido schools start changing into SBG schools. As I've shown above, you can change a training method without hurting the philosophy. The only respect issue is if people will get offended for you suggesting the change. And personally, if your teacher gets offended because you have an idea, he is probably not making a good learning environment in the first place.

We had a judo instructor come into our bjj class last night. We was brought in to work throws with us. We don't bow, we don't say sir, we work in all english, we talk among ourselves, we help each other, some of us go off and do their own thing if they have a fight coming up, and we ask very blunt questions. I could tell it was an adjustment to him, but at the end of the class I got to talk with him for a while (I've been looking for judo closer to home) and he did agree that the learning environment was foreign to him, but a very good learning environment. We asked him tons of questions (How can you do this without the gi, how do you deal with a guy doing this, is this a valid defense to this, isn't this too complicated to use in competition? Do you really want to turn your back when a good single leg works just as well?) and he answered them without blinking an eye. By the end of the class we were sparing and using his throws. A lot of guys threw them out, they didn't sit well with them. Some guys gave them a try and determined them to be too complicated, or too much risk. But some guys were using them consistently and that converted some of the others back to using them and asking questions about them. This lead to a deeper understanding of the purpose of the throw and gave him a forum to explain the philosophy of judo. My current judo instructor could never come into my bjj class and teach. He demands complete silence when he speaks. Lots of bowing for everything, hundreds of reps of uchi komi before you are even allowed to throw. And there is no way he would teach throws outside of white belt throws to white belts. Hell it took 6 months for him to even allow the new people to use armbars and chokes. If you used a technique he didn't show you, then you were in trouble. Of course this is probably why he only has a handful of students, but there is no other choice for judo around (besides the YMCA, which when I watched it was just a babysitting group for children even if the instructor is one of the best judoka I've ever met). This man however seen that he had to change his training methods to reach us, by the end of class he has captured the ear of quite a few guys and got them to listen to him about judo.

Michael Gallagher wrote: I had an uncle like that. He was a royal pain in the @$$. Always wanted others' opinions but never voiced his own. My mom hated him. Just a thought.

I voiced my own opinion at the beginning of the thread. But I also will ask questions to stir things up and to look at things from other points of view. Its how I learn. I'm not out to make people like me. If that was the case I'd tow the party line on every forum on the internet. I feel the internet is for debate, you can't have debate without questions.

Michael,

I mean this sincerely, and without malice. I think you are getting too personally involved in this...perhaps taking a breather and just reading a while will help. But please keep giving us your thoughts after that. Just remember, you don't need to defend aikido....it's big enough to survive without the defense....

Best,
Ron

Don Magee wrote: Personally, if tomorrow there was no aikido I wouldn't care.

Gasp!...Blasphemy!...stone him!

Don Magee wrote: I can type 110 words per minute.

but can you think at that speed?

Ricky Wood wrote: but can you think at that speed?

Around 85 word per minute

Ron Tisdale wrote: you don't need to defend aikido....it's big enough to survive without the defense....

A very good point, aikido was here before I was born, it will still be here well after I am dead. I can't stress enough that i'm not attacking aikido.

Speaking of the SBG, this article did have a positive impact on me when I read it.

http://aliveness101.blogspot.com/200...-sbgi-way.html

Don Magee wrote: ..... I have two students in two classes. Each one learning aikido. One learns the way I was taught. The teacher comes into class, says "Tonight we will being working on ikkyo", then he shows the technique.They have a partner shomen strike and they apply ikkyo. Reset, repeat, over and over. Eventually we move on to a new technique. At the end of the night there is a traditional 3 man randori and we work the jo kata. The other learns in a environment similar to the training method I am talking about. The teacher comes in and says "Tonight we are going to learn about defenses against punches. What are some ways we can deal with punches? The student brings up ikkyo, and is asked to demonstrate it .....

My first question to you: How did he learn what ikkyo was in the first place?

A few other students demonstrate some ways they know to deal with punches. Any obvious flaws are corrected, and they are told to partner up and explore punch defenses. The students start with static drills just like the first example, they throw static strikes and work their technique. Only some are working on ikkyo, some are working on other things. The teacher is there to monitor and give advice as needed, but lets the students help each other. He only steps in if the students just don't get it, are taking a course against the philosophy of aikido, or ask him directly. This static drilling goes on for 5 minutes. This ends the inquiry phase. The teacher then moves them to dynamic drilling. The students throw punches of random types at their partner, the partner is required to defend. This starts with static position, then the uke starts to move about, changing his angle of attack requiring tori to adjust his position and be more aware of his movement. Finally the uke resists the technique as it is applied at 25%, allowing the technique to work, but resisting any obvious flaws (such as being able to simply step out of a technique, or pull your arm out). At this point there are some obvious flaws and questions the students will have, so we end the isolation stage go back to the inquiry stage and start again. The teacher goes over the approaches he watched and gives suggestions for improvement, perhaps he demo's a technique or two. Finally at the end of the night we have some form of randori/sparing to fully integrate the lesson into the student.(a 3 on one randori where the goal of the attackers is to tie up nage and pin him to the ground would be good)"

Thak you! Remember I asked you if the I-method could be adapted to the kind of semi-free practice in Aikido. Apparently the answer is yes.

How does the student lose the philosophy by training in the second method? How is the students learning suffering? .....

He won't if the instructor has been careful about it. When it comes to what you do on your own time, that's your own business. When it comes to teaching a formalized system, it's not about just you anymore. You may roll your eyes at debating whether that method should be used, but the question is there. It has to be answered. You may ignore it or give it an automatic yes but it is there. If one is a teacher in a formalized martial arts sytem, one has obligations to his seniors, his instructors, and to the system. Maybe he can do whatever he wants; maybe he can't. Or maybe he can as long as he does some other things. But those issues are there. On your own time, do whatever. Within a system, you have other concerns.

.... I never disagreed with that. I have said that the training method doesn't disrupt the philosophy, but that they are two distinct things that can be taught in a variety of ways.

That's the problem. In Aikido, the philosophy isn't separate from the techniques but integrated with them; students internalize the philosophy by doing it. If you use an I-method, you have to maintane that integration. So you'd have to have a pretty good understanding of Aikido from the inside to "reverse engineer" and use the I-method. It's not a quesiton of reading a tract by O Sensei and then teaching joint locks and throws; teaching the joint locks and throws is meant to impart the philosophy. If the techniques lose the quality that makes them Aikido techniques, then the training method doesn't matter. It's not Aikido anymore.

So I'm not saying "We must never use the I-method because of tradition!" I am saying that someone who wants to try the I-method has to address many issues and be careful about it so at the end of the day, he's still teaching Aikido.

Let me try and sum this up. I think may formalized martila arts are the way they are because they face several issues. Having someone with some cool moves is the easy part. And let's assume they work:

1. Can you teach it to people with with no previous experience? TO someone who hasn't worked on motor skills since he learned to walk? You have to make life easy for beginners. In the case of Aikido, that's one reason, I think, why katate dori is used a lot: It's a simple, straightforward reference point. Whether you are teaching boxing, BJJ, or whatever, you have to make life easier for the new people. But then there's another level:

2. Can you teach people to teach other people without any help from you? Some of your students may become teachers, and their students become teachers, and so forth. 200 years after you die, can someone else teach Dan Magee Ryu to someone else? That's why I said martial arts are meant to be passed down.

Now, here's the kicker:

3. Can you do 1 and 2 at the same time?

That's where drills, exercises, and forms come in. You are not just teaching them the technques but teaching the formalized system they can use to teach others, at the same time. And even then:

4. Can 1-3 preserve the goals and intentions of the founder?

This is where things get tricky. This is why you have to be careful. If you use a new method and take the system away from what the founder wanted, you've failed; your not doing that system. If you are true to what the founder wanted in the course of using a new mothd, then you have succeeded. That assumes the method itself doesn't go against what the founder wanted; then you've got problems.

So, you want my final answet to "Can the I-method be used to teach Aikido?"

My answer: Maybe, but it's probably a bit trickier than you think it is.

Ron Tisdale wrote: Michael, I mean this sincerely, and without malice. I think you are getting too personally involved in this...perhaps taking a breather and just reading a while will help. But please keep giving us your thoughts after that. Just remember, you don't need to defend aikido....it's big enough to survive without the defense.... Best, Ron

Thabnks Ron, you've got a point. I usually try to avoid contentious threads; they are emotionally draining and ultimately pointless. This time, I didn't. Hopefully this won't go on for too much longer.

Don Magee wrote:

I can type 110 words per minute.

Me too, but they all come out like sdflkjsd wef23f sfhjkwe.

Michael Gallagher wrote: My first question to you: How did he learn what ikkyo was in the first place? Thak you! Remember I asked you if the I-method could be adapted to the kind of semi-free practice in Aikido. Apparently the answer is yes. He won't if the instructor has been careful about it. When it comes to what you do on your own time, that's your own business. When it comes to teaching a formalized system, it's not about just you anymore. You may roll your eyes at debating whether that method should be used, but the question is there. It has to be answered. You may ignore it or give it an automatic yes but it is there. If one is a teacher in a formalized martial arts sytem, one has obligations to his seniors, his instructors, and to the system. Maybe he can do whatever he wants; maybe he can't. Or maybe he can as long as he does some other things. But those issues are there. On your own time, do whatever. Within a system, you have other concerns. That's the problem. In Aikido, the philosophy isn't separate from the techniques but integrated with them; students internalize the philosophy by doing it. If you use an I-method, you have to maintane that integration. So you'd have to have a pretty good understanding of Aikido from the inside to "reverse engineer" and use the I-method. It's not a quesiton of reading a tract by O Sensei and then teaching joint locks and throws; teaching the joint locks and throws is meant to impart the philosophy. If the techniques lose the quality that makes them Aikido techniques, then the training method doesn't matter. It's not Aikido anymore. So I'm not saying "We must never use the I-method because of tradition!" I am saying that someone who wants to try the I-method has to address many issues and be careful about it so at the end of the day, he's still teaching Aikido. Let me try and sum this up. I think may formalized martila arts are the way they are because they face several issues. Having someone with some cool moves is the easy part. And let's assume they work: 1. Can you teach it to people with with no previous experience? TO someone who hasn't worked on motor skills since he learned to walk? You have to make life easy for beginners. In the case of Aikido, that's one reason, I think, why katate dori is used a lot: It's a simple, straightforward reference point. Whether you are teaching boxing, BJJ, or whatever, you have to make life easier for the new people. But then there's another level: 2. Can you teach people to teach other people without any help from you? Some of your students may become teachers, and their students become teachers, and so forth. 200 years after you die, can someone else teach Dan Magee Ryu to someone else? That's why I said martial arts are meant to be passed down. Now, here's the kicker: 3. Can you do 1 and 2 at the same time? That's where drills, exercises, and forms come in. You are not just teaching them the technques but teaching the formalized system they can use to teach others, at the same time. And even then: 4. Can 1-3 preserve the goals and intentions of the founder? This is where things get tricky. This is why you have to be careful. If you use a new method and take the system away from what the founder wanted, you've failed; your not doing that system. If you are true to what the founder wanted in the course of using a new mothd, then you have succeeded. That assumes the method itself doesn't go against what the founder wanted; then you've got problems. So, you want my final answet to "Can the I-method be used to teach Aikido?" My answer: Maybe, but it's probably a bit trickier than you think it is.

You missed one key point. You don't stop drilling the basics, you add the I-method to your existing training. Obviously if your students don't drill the basics, they wont be able to be creative. Its not about a student reinventing ikkyo, its about the student learning how to apply and get to ikkyo though trial and error. The I-method is only a phase of the training, not the only training. This is why it is easy to apply training methods to any type of martial art, because each training method should only be a part of your training.

I wont argue the techniques and philosophy are not integrated. I will however argue that teaching methods can be adapted to any philosophy. Thus teaching methods and philosophy are not so closely related.

I thank you for your final answer.

Don Magee wrote: You missed one key point. You don't stop drilling the basics, you add the I-method to your existing training. Obviously if your students don't drill the basics, they wont be able to be creative. Its not about a student reinventing ikkyo, its about the student learning how to apply and get to ikkyo though trial and error. The I-method is only a phase of the training, not the only training. This is why it is easy to apply training methods to any type of martial art, because each training method should only be a part of your training.

Yes, I had been thinking if this sort of thing would be more suited to students who have been there for a while. Wasn't sure whether that would be another point of contention; glad it wasn't.

I wont argue the techniques and philosophy are not integrated. I will however argue that teaching methods can be adapted to any philosophy. Thus teaching methods and philosophy are not so closely related.

In the case of Aikido, that might be debateable. They may be more closely related than in any other art, so it gets tricky. Not impossible, not forbidden, just difficult.

Of course, how well this could work isn't for you or me to thrash out: You left Aikido and I'm a "dappler," so we are both disqualified from having a sufficient understanding of Aikido to start with. This would be more for a job for a black belt with many years of training under his belt, preferably someone with no life.

Ron? Seriously, it's be a big job! I don't know, but I'm too blinkin' lazy to even think about it.

I thank you for your final answer.

You're welcome.

Hi Mike,

Well, I'm not interested in teaching right now, so no, inspite of no life, not very interested beyond thinking about it a bit. My own personal opinion is that more focus needs to be put on the type of body skills that Dan Harden, Mike Sigman, and others speak of. If I had more than a minuscule clue about that stuff, then I would try approaching that with the l-method. But I don't know enough to postulate sucsess or failure.

So for right now, I do the best to absorb and learn what my teachers teach. More than enough challenge for me right now.

Best,
Ron

Ron Tisdale wrote: Hi Mike, Well, I'm not interested in teaching right now, so no, inspite of no life ....

Um, I was kidding about that; sorry if I offended.

..... not very interested beyond thinking about it a bit. My own personal opinion is that more focus needs to be put on the type of body skills that Dan Harden, Mike Sigman, and others speak of. If I had more than a minuscule clue about that stuff, then I would try approaching that with the l-method. But I don't know enough to postulate sucsess or failure. So for right now, I do the best to absorb and learn what my teachers teach. More than enough challenge for me right now. Best, Ron

Thanks. And I'm not saying you, personally should look into the I-method. I'm saying someone with a lot more understanding of Aikido thant me or Don has would be best suited to doing it, if that's what he/or she wanted to do. And after all that, it still might not fit. It may come down to the personal inclinations of a particular teacher. But that's who'd be suited to try it.

I stumbled across this link on bullshido today. Its a good read and ties into the conversation.

Samurai Restaurant Critic

Hi Mike,

Oops! my bad, I forgot a smilie No, I wan't offended in the least, I know I have no life, ask my GF, she'll say the same thing!

Best,
Ron

I read that article a short time ago, and really liked it.

Best,
Ron

Ron Tisdale wrote: Hi Mike, Oops! my bad, I forgot a smilie No, I wan't offended in the least, I know I have no life, ask my GF, she'll say the same thing! Best, Ron

At least you have a GF! That's one up on me.

Don Magee wrote: I stumbled across this link on bullshido today. Its a good read and ties into the conversation. Samurai Restaurant Critic

Interesting. Thanx.

It really seems like this comes down to Lineage vs Performance to me.

For some people Lineage will matter above all things. For some people, Performance will be the only thing that matters.

-
Lineage:

Traditional martial arts are almost obsessively concerned about their Lineage. Lineage serves as a kind of proof or validation of techniques in TMAs. TMA student Iris can say: "Well my teacher is sensei Dandelion. He is the student of sensei Rose. Who is the student of Shihan Berber Daisy. Who was the student of Soke Tulip. Who was the student of O Kancho Lily. Who was the student of the great warrior and expert in Botany-do Jujitsu Fu, ... Grand Master Flash.

This is important because it shows that the Botany-do Jujitsu Fu that Student Iris is practicing actually resembles the Botany-do Jujitsu Fu of Grand Master Flash in some way. Also, it is important because Grand Master Flash used Botany-do Jujitsu Fu on the battlefield and in real fights, thus proving the effectiveness of Botany-do Jujitsu Fu. Perhaps even O Kancho Lily used Botany-do Jujitsu Fu in some fights. But as Botany-do Jujitsu Fu moves further and further away from Grand Master Flash, the less first-hand, empirical evidence each person in the chain has in regards to how to perform the techniques of Botany-do Jujitsu Fu in a conflict situation. All sorts of issues arise as to whether the techniques that are passed down retain their effectiveness. The skill of the teacher, the teaching methods used, the dojo environment, the students themselves, and so on and so on. Then there is another problem. I like to use the circle game analogy.

I'm sure most of us have participated, or heard of the game where a dozen or more people gather together in a circle. The first person whispers a 3-4 sentence story to their right, and people continue to repeat what they heard around the circle. Invariably by the time the last person hears the story and repeats what they heard aloud, it barely resemble what the first person originally said. Amplify that over decades, generations of instructors (good and bad), cultural misunderstandings and mistranslations, and the sheer volume of material included in Botany-do Jujitsu Fu and it is amazing that it still retains the same name!

Also an important part to consider about Lineage, especially in regards to TMAs of the Japanese/Korean/Chinese origin (Botany-do Jujitsu Fu traces its origins to all 3 countries) is a certain amount of conformity and, at times, an obedience to authority that might seem to border on obsequiousness to Westerners. In this environment, students of Botany-do Jujitsu Fu is to be copied at all times, and there is to be no questioning of the teacher!!!Conformity to standards is all important in Botany-do Jujitsu Fu!!!

Now, in modern times there are two schools of Botany-do Jujitsu Fu. One allows limited contact point-sparring sparring and one focuses entirely on cooperation and has no sparring of any sort. Both schools of thought think the other one is silly. The light sparring thinks that the cooperation guys can't really do technique. The cooperation guys claim their technique is "too deadly" for sparring, even light, point sparring, not to mention that it "waters down the purity of the art."

-
Performance:

MMAers, BJJ, Sambo, Judo (to an extent, it depends on the type) players, boxers, etc. are concerned with Performance. Who one's teacher is, or who they were a student of, doesn't really matter that much. If it does matter, it only matters because either their teacher, or the teacher above them (never any further away than that) was a good X (fighter, grappler, etc. won many fights/tourneys in fully-resistant environment). Even then, that is down the list, because all that matters is how one performs. No one gives a crap if you know the entire syllabus of BJJ, if you can't apply it in a fully-resistant environment (rolling).

It doesn't matter who the teacher is because the entire onus of the martial art is placed upon the student. If the student can't perform the techniques, they don't matter. For the student interested in Performance, it doesn't matter where techniques came from, or who invented them, or what culture they are from. All that matters is how effectively can the student perform the techniques in a "live" environment.

It also doesn't matter if the techniques have changed since they were originally created. In fact, hopefully they have changed! By having techniques placed in an environment where Performance matters above all, the good, "high percentage" techniques rise to the top and the poor, "low percentage" techniques fall to the wayside. Not to mention that students are encouraged, right from the beginning, to make techniques their own and modify them so they can effectively apply the technique. Questioning is also encouraged. If a student thinks a technique or movement is suspect, they are encouraged to speak up and the class will examine it if their objection is judged to have merit.

-
Never the twain shall meet?

Of course, Performance matters in these cases because there is a winner and a loser. Competition is key to performance. By competing, students get to test, and better, their skills. Performance matters because in competition, techniques actually have to be able to be put into play. A spinning-circle-wrist-twist-spinning-flip-kick from Botany-do Jujitsu Fu might look good, and our TMA student Iris can perform it when she is with someone who only attacks once. However, when fully resistant, Team Slaughterhouse-Hardcore, MMA-BJJ, sparring partner Buddy is introduced, she can't apply the move at all. She can't even apply it to Buddy's friend Bob who started training BJJ 6 months ago, and Iris has been training in Botany-do Jujitsu Fu for 3 years! So why is she doing it?

Iris likes Botany-do Jujitsu Fu because it is aesthetically pleasing. She appreciates the culture and philosophy of the art as well. Performance is not really an issue to her. To someone whose sole concern is Performance, they might think Iris is wasting her time. They probably even think that Iris is romanticizing the martial arts and enjoys "playing samurai." However, Iris doesn't care about performance, she enjoys her time at the dojo, gets a workout, and has fun. Buddy and Bob have fun too, they just don't mind having to push themselves to the level that Performance requires, in fact, they thrive on it.

So, which is better? Can there be a compromise between the two? Can they exist in the same gym/dojo? The same person? The same art? If they are in the same art, will the art lose its culture, tradition, lineage and just evolve (or devolve depending on some people's opinions) into MMA?

Just my thoughts, I'm curious as to everyone's opinion.

Interesting, however I would argue that eventually Botany-do Jujitsu Fu would have lost the martial part of martial arts. This is becuase overtime, without people keeping it on the right track changes will be made to make techniques more pleasing to the eye over combat effectiveness. Sooner or later there will be few if any people who know how the techniques were actually ment to be used for self defense. That is when you start hearing the bullcrap with one or all of these problems: unrealstic responses, fake techniques, brainwashed students, the sole purpose is to set it to music and dance (XMA I'm looking at you). Sooner or later you are doing tai chi at a arobics dance gym and you can't really call it martial arts anymore (Note that there are a few people left still training tai chi for self defense, but it is very very rare). My point is when you start doing nothing but spining a chromed staff, screaming, and doing back flips are you still doing a martial art?

Learning how to actually apply your techniques should be an important part of martial arts. Just as important as the philopshy behind the martial art you are training. I dont think performance matters because of competition, it matters because we call it a martial art. If the you can't teach people to make the techniques work then is it still martial? Why not teach swing dancing?

I'm not saying you need to be able to handle yourself against a MMA fighter. I dont expect someone who doesn't train to be a MMA fighter to handle themselves against a MMA fighter. But you should be able to leverage your technqiues against a resisting partner on some scale. And you should strive to increase this skill.

It reminds me of a quote I ran across a few days ago

Today is your victory over yourself of yesterday. Tomorrow is your victory over lesser men" - Miyamoto Musashi

I'm not saying you need to be able to handle yourself against a MMA fighter. I dont expect someone who doesn't train to be a MMA fighter to handle themselves against a MMA fighter. But you should be able to leverage your technqiues against a resisting partner on some scale. And you should strive to increase this skill.

I think what you just said is very important, and I know that there are TMA that do this. Aikido dojo as well. An important differentiation.

Best,
Ron

Keith,

But, as the "aliveness" guru said:

"All that matters is that you grow in comparison to where you were before, NOT in comparison to who you could or could not beat before." Matt Thornton

Hi all,

Sport vs Martial art debate Some of you may already read this article and I think this is a gem of an article. Read it if you haven't, and make up your decision. I have made mine.

Boon.