From: sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts
Subject: Re: Seeking Feedback (was Re: Shotokan misconceptions)
Date: 21 Aug 92 17:29:31 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1992Aug21.130348.5448@fns-nc1.fns.com> sbs@fns-nc1.fns.com (Syd B. Seifert) writes:
>I've never posted before so I hope this works right (don't you dread
>seeing that preamble....)
>
>After following the Shotokan thread as well as some of the other lines
>in this newsgroup I feel compelled to ask for some feedback from you all.
>I began taking M.A. almost 2 yrs ago from a dojo in which we learned
>a hybrid rather than any particular form.  This included jujitsu, bujitsu,
>and many other forms, lots Korean.  The point of teaching a hybrid was
>to teach efficiency and effectiveness if movement.  The Shotokan thread
>has suggested to me that some (most?) forms of M.A. teach at least
>a few moves that are more for show and that won't necessarily be useful
>(or perhaps can lead to injury) in sparring.  

I'd disagree with this. Most "traditional" (whatever the hell that means)
martial arts may teach techniques whose proper execution and martial
application may not be obvious - especially to someone who hasn't trained
very long. 

>Thus confirming the
>teachings I received in that dojo.  

Actually, the more "traditional" the art, the less showy the techniques -
at least in my experience. TKD is not a "traditional" art, since it
was synthesized in the 1950s. My experience is that flashy techniques 
tend to arise from modern, competitive exhibitions. As an example, most
older Okinawan karate systems tend to concentrate on simple, low kicking
techniques which don't look very impressive but are extremely hard to 
block, quite disabling, and don't require the kicker to compromise
stability. More modern styles tend to use higher and more complex kicks
which will certainly clobber anyone they hit, but require additional
time to execute, expose various vital areas (which often aren't legal
targets in tournaments), and require a significant commitment of 
balance and momentum which can be dangerous in a multiple opponent
situation. This isn't a "traditional" approach.

>Now, after having been out of M.A. for about 1 year because of a change
>in jobs and inconvenience getting to the old place, I decided to try
>someplace a little closer to home.  This is a Tae Kwon Do academy.  I
>expected to see differences, but I'd always heard that it's not the
>form that counts but the sensei....  Well, I tried to go with an empty
>cup, but so much of what we did went against the basic principles that
>I'd learned that my mind and body have quickly become a confused mess.
>
>What were some of the basic principles from my old dojo?
>	1.  Maintain your balance
>	2.  Never stand still or move backwards; move towards the "light"
>	3.  Never expose your blood supply
>	4.  Always respect other humans
>	5.  When a person physically, mentally, or emotionally abuses
>		you or another person, they cease to be human and
>		are an object  (chill)

Hmmm...
Personally, I think this is a bad idea. Does this mean that you feel free
to waste somebody because they hurt you feelings?

>	6.  Be able to leave a battle without bruises, scratches,
>		or other injury (this means also not to develop calluses)

An interesting principle - and one I'd agree with, theoretically. There is,
however, much to be said for "forging the weapon". There's also a lot to
be said for learning how to take a little punishment - no matter how well
developed your skill is. To quote the old Japanese proverb:

	Saru mo ki kara ochiru.
	Even monkeys fall out of trees.

>Over time it was easy to understand how these principles applied to
>other aspects of life and interpersonal relationships.  

No offense, but two years isn't enough time to *understand* much of anything.

>Further, everything
>we learned was consistent with these principles.  This made the physical
>and mental aspects of lessons, sparring, etc. pretty simple.

Most older systems *are* internally consistent. A lot of newer ones aren't.
Your mileage may vary.

>They
>aren't sublty or overtly taught to follow another's lead unquestioningly.
>In a day of "co-dependence", and so many different types of abuses, this
>was a refreshing lesson in learning to get your guidance from within.

In a day of selfishness, stupidity, and arrogant greed there's something
to be said for humility, respect, and self-discipline.

Nothing wrong with learning to get your guidance from within, but it 
always helps to have a good roadmap.

>For religious or spiritual types, this can be interpreted as their Significant
>Power speaks from within them rather than through other people.
>(FYI - group time came during practice outside of lessons and in sparring,
>seminars, etc.)
>
>SOOO - my confusion lies here:  I do not understand the point of learning
>inefficient or ineffective moves, katas, forms, blocks, rituals (answer

What makes you think they're inefficient or ineffective?

>"yes sir" loudly and count loudly to show confidence (?!!)).  

Well, there's a significant military influence in TKD...;-)

I might point out that "ritual" is an excellent way of learning to pay 
very close attention to exactly what you're doing and exactly what's
going on around you. Kata are an excellent method for teaching precise
bodily awareness and for transmission of technique. There's a lot going
on there. Learning by observation and repetition not only teaches an
individual skill, but *also* teaches you how to observe and analyze
the position, balance, and motion of another person. That's an ability
that is more valuable than *any* individual technique.

>The 
>inconsistencies and non-sense of the moves has made it impossible for me to 
>get much out of the instruction.  What am I missing here?

Enough practice to understand what's going on. 

>What do "pure" forms of M.A. have to offer that justify teaching
>"impure" moves (those that may be inconsistent with their own philosophies
>or with those that just plain make sense).  I welcome ideas and feedback!

I haven't seen any "pure" MA-s that do this. 
I can't comment one way or another about TKD - I don't practice it.

The training method of *traditional* martial arts isn't only about 
developing technical skill - it's about integrating skill and practitioner
until there is no difference between the two - until there is, as Shoshin
Nagamine put it, "not a hair's breadth of difference between a man's 
thoughts and his actions."  This process is likely to be a bit confusing
for the first decade or so.

I'd like to suggest few books (I'm sorry that my rather obvious bias
towards Okinawan and Japanese arts is reflected in this list - I'm 
sure that others can supply appropriate examples for other traditions):

_The_Martial_Arts_and_Ways_of_Japan_ by Donn Draeger (in three volumes:
_Classical_Bujutsu_, _Classical_Budu_, and _Modern_Bujutsu_and_Budo_), 
published by John Weatherhill, Inc.

_The_Way_and_the_Power_, by Frederick J. Lovret, published by Paladin
Press.

Anything by the late Masatoshi Nakayama.

_Essence_of_Okinawan_Karate-Do_ by Shoshin Nagamine, published by
Charles E. Tuttle, and Co.

_T'ai-Chi_, by Cheng Man-ch'ing and Robert W. Smith.

_The_Martial_Spirit_ by Herman Kauz, published by Overlook Press.

_Moving_Zen_ by C.W. Nicol

_The_Karate_Experience_ by Randall G. Hassell, Charles E. Tuttle & Co.


Steve