Standardisation

[hongkongfuey]

One problem that I come up against in martial arts, is the problem of a lack of standardisation. What I mean by this, is that as Bruce Lee once said (or was it Andy Murray?) "a punch is just a punch, a kick is just a kick".

Going along to a new style after a long time in another style can be highly frustrating. Imagine, for example, putting someone who won several semi-contact trophies (no, I am not talking about myself!) in another style into a beginners class for sparring (after 3 months of basic training!). It is like putting Pete Sampras into a begginers 'Lawn Tennis' class as the rules of this are different from regular tennis.

I feel that perhaps the belt system is the problem, in that the new member would have to work their way up through the ranks before being allowed to perform certain Kata / Forms / Sets or sparring.

Perhaps though, there should be a standard belt system across all arts which would indicate a level of understanding of the arts or proficiency in certain areas. Would this be too difficult as there are huge differences between many styles (Judu vs Karate vs Kenpo?).

Has anyone experienced a club that teaches on a merit, as opposed to a 'length of service' system? What about allowing high grades from other styles to join at a higher grade?

The closest I have come is a Thai Boxing club that judges purely on fitness and ability once the basic training (3 months) is done. This seems a reasonable approach as it ensures the basics of the style is learnt first to prevent injuries during sparring / training.

Any views on this lengthy rant?

[Pablo]

Well, the first thing that comes to mind is the section in 'Shaolin Temple Boxing' that talks about the 3 divisions of martial arts.
An advanced 'hard' boxer' could actually have a disadvantage coming into a purely internal style, and might be resistant to suggestions that their previous expertise was getting in the way of learning the fundamentals of the internal arts.

Even within similar styles, I see a potential problem. I know of TKD people who have expressed frustration at having to relearn their kicks for Hapkido, instead of being given 'credit' for the way that they performed kicks with the same name.
As far as being able to achieve results with their TKD kicks, there was no doubt that they could do so, but it was very hard to smoothly transition into the circular Hapkido follow-up techniques.

There *are* many things that are transportable from art to art, but in the end, if someone is asking to be ranked in a new system according to their old style, I would wonder if people who study the new art under these folks are getting the same instruction as they would from an instructor who had started at square one.

just my .02

paul

[hongkongfuey]

I agree Paul - just looking for other perspectives on this issue. Would you say that there are maybe too many 'different, but similar' martial arts?

...waiting to get shot .....

[Pablo]

Maybe that is where the 'Arts' part comes in.

I see some of the differences as akin to the differences between, say, styles of music. Given a choice, I (and I am sure others) would prefer to practice a certain style because they just plain like the 'flavor' of it.

FWIW

paul

[pesilat]

Originally posted by hongkongfuey
One problem that I come up against in martial arts, is the problem of a lack of standardisation. What I mean by this, is that as Bruce Lee once said (or was it Andy Murray?) "a punch is just a punch, a kick is just a kick".

Going along to a new style after a long time in another style can be highly frustrating. Imagine, for example, putting someone who won several semi-contact trophies (no, I am not talking about myself!) in another style into a beginners class for sparring (after 3 months of basic training!). It is like putting Pete Sampras into a begginers 'Lawn Tennis' class as the rules of this are different from regular tennis.

The way that I would handle this (as the instructor of the "Lawn Tennis" class) would be to either teach Sampras the basic differences in privates, or to put him in the beginner's class long enough to learn the basics. With his background, though, it shouldn't take him long at all to get to the advanced class and become an instructor of "Lawn Tennis" himself.

Perhaps though, there should be a standard belt system across all arts which would indicate a level of understanding of the arts or proficiency in certain areas. Would this be too difficult as there are huge differences between many styles (Judu vs Karate vs Kenpo?).

I don't think this is possible in a lot of instances. Different arts/systems/styles emphasize different elements at different ranks. An intermediate Judo player will know more about throwing and grappling than an intermediate Karateka.

What you can do would be to look at the person's skill and give him/her a rank roughly equivalent to their knowledge/ability in your curriculum ... but unless they're going, for instance, from one Judo system to another, the chances of them being anything more than intermediate level in the new system are slim.

Has anyone experienced a club that teaches on a merit, as opposed to a 'length of service' system? What about allowing high grades from other styles to join at a higher grade?

The closest I have come is a Thai Boxing club that judges purely on fitness and ability once the basic training (3 months) is done. This seems a reasonable approach as it ensures the basics of the style is learnt first to prevent injuries during sparring / training.

Yes, that's a reasonable approach. Others that I have personally seen:

I hold a 3rd Dan in Doce Pares/Eskrido from GM Cacoy Canete. Eskrido is GM Cacoy's blending of throws and locks from Judo and Aikido with his 75+ years of training in Doce Pares Eskrima. I have never formally trained in the Eskrido system. My exposure to Aikido and Judo has been *very* limited. But I've been training in Kali and Silat for 7 years. (Kali and Eskrima are, for the most part, synonymous terms). Silat incorporates a lot of throwing. Kali and Silat both have locks and my instructor in Kali and Silat (Guru Ken Pannell) has spent quite a bit of time with Prof. Wally Jay. So, while we don't have the specific curriculum of Doce Pares/Eskrido, GM Cacoy awarded us our rank based on the fact that we can do everything he teaches ... our flavor is different because our takedowns are Silat instead of Judo but the principles are the same and we understand them.

Another is Prof. Joe Lansdale at Lansdale's Self-Defense. When I moved down here to TX to train with him, Joe insisted that I wear my black sash from Sikal (my primary art) because he wanted me to guest-instruct from time to time. He's also allowed me (encouraged me, in fact) to use the school to run my own Sikal classes on weekends. I am training in his system of Shen Chuan and I started out as an orange belt (the white belt material just consists of various basic escapes/releases from wrist and lapel grabs ... real basic). But Joe has let me move at my own pace. Since I already understand the underlying principles it's mostly just rote memorization of the curriculum for me. As such, I'm now a 2nd Brown (2 belts from black) and I've been there a little less than a year (if you consider that I was gone for 2 months in the middle of the year).

Guru Ken (my Kali and Silat instructor) does the same thing with people. When they come in he puts them in the Phase 1 class unless they're from a very similar background (i.e.: they've already got a background in Filipino martial arts). If they've already got a background then he'll test their knowledge and place them in the appropriate phase on the caveat that they will know all of the curriculum material through their phase before they test out of it. Otherwise they start at Phase 1 but can progress as quickly as they learn and can do the material.

Mike

[hongkongfuey]

Thanks for the input Mike.

On a similar subject, I've been to some competitions where I have seem fighters win in the "beginners" category, and find that they are actually black belts in some other style. Surely this is not a fair system?

Could a standard "semi-contact" grading system be introduced accross all styles that practice this kind of fighting. If this was the case, then you could introduce "semi-contact fighting" as an olympic competition, (instead of tae kwon do).

I'd like to point out that I do not have anything against tae kwon do (in fact, it was the first art I studied, and I am a big fan of it), but I do think that it is a shame that not everyone can enter olympic competition in their semi-contact style.

Preparing to get shot again ....

[pesilat]

Originally posted by hongkongfuey
Thanks for the input Mike.

On a similar subject, I've been to some competitions where I have seem fighters win in the "beginners" category, and find that they are actually black belts in some other style. Surely this is not a fair system?

Well, from the perspective of the competitor and his/her current instructor, that's a tough call. If I'm a black belt in ABC and begin studying XYZ and get started as a white belt. Then I go to a tournament and represent XYZ then it wouldn't be fair to put on my black belt because I'm *not* a black belt in XYZ.

Is this any less fair than a natural athlete who is just incredible at every physical endeavor he does going to a tournament as a white belt and cleaning house? It's luck of the draw. Personally, I put former training in this category too. If he's that good by nature or by training ... nothing to be done about it.

On the flip side, though, if the competitor joined XYZ *just* to get an official white belt ranking so that he could compete as a white belt ... then he's a "ringer" and that's not right. That's no different than putting on a white belt in ABC and lying about your rank.

So, personally, I think the "fairness" of it depends on the intent of the competitor and/or his/her instructor (sometimes it's the instructor's choice to put the competitor in as a "ringer").

Could a standard "semi-contact" grading system be introduced accross all styles that practice this kind of fighting. If this was the case, then you could introduce "semi-contact fighting" as an olympic competition, (instead of tae kwon do).

I'd like to point out that I do not have anything against tae kwon do (in fact, it was the first art I studied, and I am a big fan of it), but I do think that it is a shame that not everyone can enter olympic competition in their semi-contact style.

Preparing to get shot again ....

I think it might be possible to set up a specific "sparring" organization with a standard rank. Then competitors, regardless of style, could train and rank in that organization with its rules. Then tournaments could be organized for competitors of that organization. While I think that'd be possible and would achieve at least some of what you're talking about I think it might be a bit utopian for practical application :-)

But, even if it did happen, if you went to an open tournament, you'd run into the same issues you do now.

I don't compete much anymore ... but when I go to an open tourney, I completely ignore ranks. I mean, my instructor is a perfectionist (particularly with himself ... but the more advanced you get with him the more he expects from you too). Consequently, when someone gets their black belt from him they've *earned* it ... and are fully comparable to 2nd and 3rd Dans in many other schools that I've seen. When I was still what my instructor considers "intermediate" level (i.e.: about halfway through his curriculum) people often assumed I was a black belt ... and in their school, I would have been.

You run into the same thing at tournaments (even within the same system ... but especially at open tourneys). Some instructors are more demanding ... so the rank of their students is equivalent to a higher rank under a less demanding instructor.

Mike

[waya]

I think sparring could possibly have a standard ranking, but not the seperate arts. There are too many different philosophies behind the movements and theory of the techniques to manage it.

Rob

[Andy Murray]

Could a standard "semi-contact" grading system be introduced accross all styles that practice this kind of fighting. If this was the case, then you could introduce "semi-contact fighting" as an olympic competition, (instead of tae kwon do).

This is something the MA press has been trying to acheive for many years, especially in the UK where the market is smaller than in the states.

Judo has to be admired for acheiving Olympic status alongside wrestling and boxing as a combative Art.

This is where some of the angst comes in regarding commercialisation/capitalism blah blah blah.

The governing bodies took on a large TKD body to represent MA in the Olympics. They could not give all the arts the same recognition because we have no unity and no standards of practice. Exactly the point that HonKongFuey is bringing up!

If I had the opportunity to represent my country ( again ) at any level, I would happily pay for the priveledge as it is an honour. the money ivolved in sponsordhips and endorsements is what brings the drugs and crap into it. all the things the Olympic ideal is supposed to be about.

HKF, if a fighter of rank enters a beginners section just to win, then they are to be pitied. it is not the winning, but the taking part. Why be a big fish in a tidepool, there's a whole ocean out there. Somebody may go looking to shoot fish in a barrel.

Andy Murray

[Andrew Green]

Originally posted by hongkongfuey
One problem that I come up against in martial arts, is the problem of a lack of standardisation. What I mean by this, is that as Bruce Lee once said (or was it Andy Murray?) "a punch is just a punch, a kick is just a kick".


Stand a boxer and a shotokan stylist side by side and have them punch, a punch is not just a punch. Thats like saying a car is just a car.

As a side note, I have a hard time believing Bruce Lee ever really said anything original, it all goes back before he started telling everyone how great he was.


Going along to a new style after a long time in another style can be highly frustrating. Imagine, for example, putting someone who won several semi-contact trophies (no, I am not talking about myself!) in another style into a beginners class for sparring (after 3 months of basic training!). It is like putting Pete Sampras into a begginers 'Lawn Tennis' class as the rules of this are different from regular tennis.


I would state that no good instructor would ever do such a thing.



I feel that perhaps the belt system is the problem, in that the new member would have to work their way up through the ranks before being allowed to perform certain Kata / Forms / Sets or sparring.


The belt system is the source of a lot of problems.


Perhaps though, there should be a standard belt system across all arts which would indicate a level of understanding of the arts or proficiency in certain areas. Would this be too difficult as there are huge differences between many styles (Judu vs Karate vs Kenpo?).


You'd have to do a lot of very good convincing to get me to go along with ANY sort of standardization as being a good thing, even within the same style.


Has anyone experienced a club that teaches on a merit, as opposed to a 'length of service' system? What about allowing high grades from other styles to join at a higher grade?


High grades from other arts typically start back at white, but move up through the colors pretty fast. Some schools will let you retain rank, but most students I've taught don't even ask, they just show up with a white one.

Depending on what they know I would have no problem having someone who didn't know the kata wear a higher belt, provided thats all they really don't know.

But then I'm pretty liberal in my curriculum.


The closest I have come is a Thai Boxing club that judges purely on fitness and ability once the basic training (3 months) is done. This seems a reasonable approach as it ensures the basics of the style is learnt first to prevent injuries during sparring / training.

Any views on this lengthy rant?

Right, kickboxing is a sport, they have to group you by skill. In a 'Martial Art' skill may or may not always be a factor. We can say stuff like "time in", "Stylistic variations", etc.

Belt ranks are just a good idea gone wrong, thats all.

[pesilat]

Originally posted by Andrew Green


Stand a boxer and a shotokan stylist side by side and have them punch, a punch is not just a punch. Thats like saying a car is just a car.

Depends on how picky you get. When you're defending against them, though, it's still a weapon moving along a straight line toward you and can be dealt with in similar fashion.

Philisophically, a punch is a punch. There are differences in details. Same is true of cars. A car is a car. If you're looking at details then there are differences. But if you're blindfolded and your foot gets run over by a Porsche and a Yugo, your foot won't really care which was which they'll both hurt in ... and in a very similar fashion :-)

As a side note, I have a hard time believing Bruce Lee ever really said anything original, it all goes back before he started telling everyone how great he was.

You're absolutely right ... and I think Bruce would have been the first person to tell you that. I've heard him say it in interviews ... that nothing he was saying or doing was original.

As far as him telling everyone how great he was ... I'd agree with that too. I've heard he was pretty arrogant. As Dan Inosanto said at a seminar, "When Bruce first came to America, he was just another young pup fresh off the boat from China telling us stupid Americans how we were doing things wrong. We'd seen it a hundred times before ... whether the pup was from China, Japan, Okinawa, wherever ... they all came to America with a chip on their shoulder. The difference with Bruce was that he could back up every claim he made and could prove that what he was saying was valid."

Mike

[Andrew Green]

Originally posted by pesilat


Depends on how picky you get. When you're defending against them, though, it's still a weapon moving along a straight line toward you and can be dealt with in similar fashion.

Philisophically, a punch is a punch. There are differences in details. Same is true of cars. A car is a car. If you're looking at details then there are differences. But if you're blindfolded and your foot gets run over by a Porsche and a Yugo, your foot won't really care which was which they'll both hurt in ... and in a very similar fashion :-)



I don't have to get to picky. Different power generation, different force disspersment, different follow through, different retraction, different angle, different striking surface, linear/circular, etc.

I just have to go beyond fist impacts some other surface.

Perhaps you could elabarate on what you mean by "Philosophically" they are the same. If your trying to bring philosophy of language into this I hope you have a background in that field :)

And if you really want to argue that a porshe and a Yugo are basically the same, let me know if you ever get a Porshe, I'll get a Yugo and we can do a swap.

[pesilat]

I just have to go beyond fist impacts some other surface.

But that's precisely my point. At that level, they are the same. Perhaps "picky" was too strong a word. The phrase, "a punch is a punch" is valid at a certain level. Same as "a fruit is a fruit." They share certain aspects in common because they are both fruits. An apple and orange are very different fruits ... but they're both fruits.

Perhaps you could elabarate on what you mean by "Philosophically" they are the same. If your trying to bring philosophy of language into this I hope you have a background in that field :)

Nope ... no background in philosophy ... but I'm not sure what impact that has on anything.

Of the various definitions for "philosophy", the one that I use (especially in this particular discussion) is:

"the general principles or laws of a field of knowledge, activity, etc."

The general principles or laws of one punch are the same as the next. All punches rely on the same basic body mechanics to generate power.

And if you really want to argue that a porshe and a Yugo are basically the same, let me know if you ever get a Porshe, I'll get a Yugo and we can do a swap.

I didn't say that "they are basically the same." I said that from a particular perspective (i.e.: the foot that gets run over by them) they are virtually indistinguishable. There are worlds of difference between a Porsche and a Yugo (having ridden in the former and owned the latter I can certainly attest to that) ... but they are both still cars. Their engines both run on the same mechanical principles. They both require the same fuel (though one generally wouldn't waste the money for premium fuel in a Yugo :-) They both get you from point a to point b.

At a certain level of perspective they are the same. This is true also of punches.

Mike

[Andy Murray]

Was it Bill Gates that said " all you need is an idea that is 10% new". It is really hard to be original in any aspect of life. The techniques we practice were taught us by someone else, and we just adapt them to our own use.

The 'punch is just a punch' thing that HongKongFuey is referring to is something I used to start the thread 'Miscellaneous Philosophy'. I would read the passage again, as you need the whole thing.

As a side note, I have a hard time believing Bruce Lee ever really said anything original, it all goes back before he started telling everyone how great he was.

Anyone succesful or with strong views is automatically shot down in our society. Is this jealousy? ( Yes, Bin Laden should be shot )

The difference with Bruce was that he could back up every claim he made and could prove that what he was saying was valid."

The real attraction about Bruce and JKD ( regardless of whether it was all actually Kenpo or not ) is that he/it opens minds, changes attitudes and eliminates a hell of a lot of bullsh*t.

The criticism after the fact is like pointing out that Elvis had all his songs written for him, couldn't in fact play the guitar and was in fact a coked up, obese greasball with in Ice cream addiction.

Sorry Melanie, I know your'e a big Elvis fan!

[Melanie]

That's Ok Andy, at least you didn't pick on Perry Como too! I would have been devastated!!! ;)

Melanie

[Cooler]

I'd just like to jump in here with the 'a punch is just a punch and a kick is just a kick' quote.

What I believe Bruce ment by this and what I believe is ment by this is that when you first learn to punch or kick it is basic technique, you watch people of higher grades than you doing fancy punches and kicks and you think 'wow' wish I could do that.
You then progress in your style and learn these techniques you realise that it is still just a punch or still just a kick no matter how fancy or advanced it is.

What does it matter what punch or kick you hit your opponent with if it works use it, a punch is just a punch and a kick is just a kick.

Cooler

[pesilat]

Originally posted by Cooler
I'd just like to jump in here with the 'a punch is just a punch and a kick is just a kick' quote.

What I believe Bruce ment by this and what I believe is ment by this is that when you first learn to punch or kick it is basic technique, you watch people of higher grades than you doing fancy punches and kicks and you think 'wow' wish I could do that.
You then progress in your style and learn these techniques you realise that it is still just a punch or still just a kick no matter how fancy or advanced it is.

What does it matter what punch or kick you hit your opponent with if it works use it, a punch is just a punch and a kick is just a kick.

Cooler

Good post, Cooler. The best analogy I've ever heard (and one which most everyone can relate to) for this is related to driving a car.

When you were a kid watching your parents drive, they were just driving.

When you began learning to drive, it was suddenly a lot more. It was clutch, brake, gas, gears, turn signals, mirrors, blind spot, etc.

Over time, though, it becomes "just driving" again.

Mike

[Andy Murray]

Did Perry Como like Ice Cream as well?

Thanks for dotting the eyes, crossing the tees and giving me my first s*dding star Melanie. LOL

[hongkongfuey]

So is a block just a block, and a grapple just a grapple? Eventually we will have no techniques at all to discuss.

It will make the magazine section easier to write though!!

[Andy Murray]

So what do you think HKF. After all; you are number one superguy!

[pesilat]

Originally posted by hongkongfuey
So is a block just a block, and a grapple just a grapple? Eventually we will have no techniques at all to discuss.

It will make the magazine section easier to write though!!

LOL :-) IMO, techniques are just a way to illustrate underlying principles. When we discuss a given technique, we, really, are discussing the underlying principles or how a given art/system/style applies a particular principle.

Mike

[Andrew Green]

Originally posted by pesilat


But that's precisely my point. At that level, they are the same. Perhaps "picky" was too strong a word. The phrase, "a punch is a punch" is valid at a certain level. Same as "a fruit is a fruit." They share certain aspects in common because they are both fruits. An apple and orange are very different fruits ... but they're both fruits.


This is only at the most basic level possible within the definition of the word punch. Basically what you are saying is that we define the word punch as being an impact with the fist. And then saying that any impact withthe fist is therefore the same.

Red is a color
Blue is a color
Therefore Red and Blue are the same thing

It just doesn't work


The general principles or laws of one punch are the same as the next. All punches rely on the same basic body mechanics to generate power.



Then you have a very narrow understanding of methods of generating power in a punch, they do not all rely on the same mechanics.

If all you mean is that a punch is a punch, in only a literal sense, then yes, that is a tautology and I can't possibly argue with that. But if you want to say that all punches are more or less the same, you need to do a little more research on the subject.

[Andy Murray]

Posts seem to be getting jmbled from one column to another!

If you want to make a judgement on the 'punch is just a punch' thread then please read the article on 'Miscellanous Philosophy' before you do

[pesilat]

Originally posted by Andrew Green

Then you have a very narrow understanding of methods of generating power in a punch, they do not all rely on the same mechanics.

OK ... you explain the difference in body mechanics for generation of power between a Shotokan and a boxing punch.

Here's my perspective:

Power = Force * Velocity
Force = Mass * Acceleration
Acceleration = the change in Velocity / the Time it took
Velocity = the distance travelled / the Time it took

Body mechanics come into play, primarily, in getting Mass into the Force equation. There are only so many ways to do this ... and, in my (apparently narrow) understanding these all have to do primarily with the hips. The whole body plays a role ... but the hips are the primary key. They translate the power from the lower body to the upper body and add even more torque to it. The energy ends up being like the ball in Jai Alai and the hips are like the cesta in Jai Alai. They take the energy from the lower body and, through the use of torque, "whip" the energy into the upper body where it is directed toward the target by the shoulders.

If I've got something wrong in my explanation, educate me (I'm here to learn). If I don't have anything wrong in my explanation then explain how there is a difference (aside from expression of these principles) in how any art/system/style generates power. Some apply the above principles better or worse ... but, as far as I can tell, they all use these same principles to generate power.

The only other method (assuming it is a different method) is when you get into "internal" generation of power which takes us into a whole different world where my understanding and exposure is *very* limited and I would have to leave the discussion up to others with more exposure and understanding of that topic.


If all you mean is that a punch is a punch, in only a literal sense, then yes, that is a tautology and I can't possibly argue with that.

Yes, that is basically what I was saying. I kind of sidetracked myself somewhere along the line ... this isn't where I intended this to go (probably what I should expect when I write some posts late at night instead of sleeping). But that's OK :-) There's some interesting stuff here too :-)

Mike

[Andrew Green]

Well discussing power generation in text can be difficult, but I will give it a try...

Originally posted by pesilat

Here's my perspective:

Power = Force * Velocity
Force = Mass * Acceleration
Acceleration = the change in Velocity / the Time it took
Velocity = the distance travelled / the Time it took


First I would suggest you stop trying to treat it as a physics equation. Otherwise you will have to take into account a lot more things then you have there.


Body mechanics come into play, primarily, in getting Mass into the Force equation. There are only so many ways to do this ... and, in my (apparently narrow) understanding these all have to do primarily with the hips. The whole body plays a role ... but the hips are the primary key. They translate the power from the lower body to the upper body and add even more torque to it. The energy ends up being like the ball in Jai Alai and the hips are like the cesta in Jai Alai. They take the energy from the lower body and, through the use of torque, "whip" the energy into the upper body where it is directed toward the target by the shoulders.


Not always, power comes from getting the whole body into it, fine. But the reason the hips come into it so often is because the are a central part of the body.

Power can come from:

Twisting, shifting forward, dropping, expansion, retraction, whipping and a few other that slip my mind right now, combining methods will obtain better results. Only one really requires the twisting of the hips, at least two don't use any hip movement at all.


If I've got something wrong in my explanation, educate me (I'm here to learn). If I don't have anything wrong in my explanation then explain how there is a difference (aside from expression of these principles) in how any art/system/style generates power. Some apply the above principles better or worse ... but, as far as I can tell, they all use these same principles to generate power.


If all you want to do is punch the target on the machine and get a higher score, nothing.

But a foreknuckle strike to the throat and a hook with a boxing glove work differently.

Oh and what about strikes that hit on the returning motion?

Strikes that hit solid vs strikes that "rake" accross the target?



The only other method (assuming it is a different method) is when you get into "internal" generation of power which takes us into a whole different world where my understanding and exposure is *very* limited and I would have to leave the discussion up to others with more exposure and understanding of that topic.


No, there are at least the 6 methods I listed above, all done externally.

[pesilat]

Originally posted by Andrew Green
First I would suggest you stop trying to treat it as a physics equation. Otherwise you will have to take into account a lot more things then you have there.

OK ... what other things?

Not always, power comes from getting the whole body into it, fine. But the reason the hips come into it so often is because the are a central part of the body.

Power can come from:

Twisting, shifting forward, dropping, expansion, retraction, whipping and a few other that slip my mind right now, combining methods will obtain better results. Only one really requires the twisting of the hips, at least two don't use any hip movement at all.

Uh huh ... that's exactly what I meant by "The whole body plays a role ... but the hips are the primary key." You can isolate to exclude the hips. But for the most generation of power, you combine methods (as you said) ... and the most powerful (not necessarily the most "effective" since the effectiveness of a given strike will depend on the situation) strikes include the hips somewhere in the equation.


If all you want to do is punch the target on the machine and get a higher score, nothing.

But a foreknuckle strike to the throat and a hook with a boxing glove work differently.

Oh and what about strikes that hit on the returning motion?

Strikes that hit solid vs strikes that "rake" accross the target?

This is semantics. A foreknuckle to the throat and hook with a boxing glove use the same dynamics to generate power ... the effect differs because the knuckle gives more pinpoint focus to the energy.

Strikes that hit on the returning motion will still use the same principles ... just on a different line.

Strikes that hit vs. strikes that "rake" are completely different critters. Strikes that hit require penetration. Stirkes that rake don't. The intention is completely different ... and therefore rely on different principles for their effectiveness.

Mike

[Andy Murray]

The technique is the equation. The body posture, and mechanics are merely the variables of the equation. I see no reason not to treat this as physics, as it is certainly not 'magic', 'the force' or any other mysterious energy.

Andrew, when you talk about a foreknuckle strike and a boxing gloved punch having differences in their effect, are'nt you talking about a pressure equation? i.e. pounds per square inch, or PSI for short.

You can only compare these energies if they are being applied to the same test material, as the effect is yet more physics, dealing with the transferral of energy E=Mc squared and all that stuff! ( Einstein forgive me ). A lit match transferrs it's energy more effectively to a petrol tank, than it does to a sheet of Asbestos!

The confusion lies in our understanding of the conversion process involved in changing our bodies latent energy to kinetic energy. I would agree that the hips are an important part in that process.

[Thomas Vince]

Hong Kong,
Whats up? I wanted to mention that Ed Parker put together the first International Karate Championship in 1964 and it was held in Honolulu and Robert Culp and Elvis Presley were the MC's. The fighters came from all over the world and all different styles. Mr. Parker standardized the fighting rules so that all arts and styles could compete. Many competitors I will list a few of them for you. Many of the greatest champions stemmed from the IKC. Mike Stone, Chuck Norris, Joe Lewis, Darnell Garcia, Steve Sanders, Ron Marchini, Ralph Castellanos, Arnold urquidez, Glen Oyama, Leong & Robert Yagi, Stanley Sugai, Toshio Ikehara, Tak Kubota, Fumio Demura, Jhoon Rhee and many others more contemporary. The next IKC is being held in Boston, USA in 2003. Last year it was held in Madrid and is still open to all styles.

[hongkongfuey]

Thomas,

the trouble in my opinion is not that there are no open tournaments, but no 'universal open semi-contact tournament style'. I have competed in different open tournaments across the UK, but each has slightly different rules. Whilst it is not difficult to learn the new set of rules on arrival, if everyone could agree on a standard I'm sure a strong case could be put forward for much larger 'world championship' style events, or inclusion of a 'semi contact' category in the olympics.

[Andy Murray]

HKF, I agree, and we have probably been to some of the same Tournaments. The big opens, like MAI and Combat, set their own rules into place, but some organisations use different rules 'just' to be different.

Personally, I didn't find the rule thing to be a problem. the key thing with Lau Gar's approach to combat, is that it is much more adaptable than most different systems. The reason being our fighters are taught to analyse and sense like fencers, probing for the opening. I have two TKD trophies, as they made a mistake, thinking they would invite some Kung Fu guys to their Nationals to show them up. I walked away with 1st in Semi, and 1st in continuous sparring. Oh yes, and we won Team 1st. The rules were bizarre to me, but I chose to compete, so I had accepted the rules!

Now I remember, back in 1956', it was a cold Sunday Morning.............................blah, blah,blah....

[hongkongfuey]

Andy,

I also am not concerned about adapting to various rules. My point was that if you are to make MA appeal to the mass public, then you need a standard form of competition that they can understand. One league and 'ranking system' would also show which styles excelled at semi-contact as opposed to 'we are world champions with the X organisation' - how many world champions have we all met? (I trained with at least 8 different world champions, although a lot of these were in open tournaments.)

Not that I have any particular preference for semi-contact systems - I just think it would be nice if they could standardise so they could be compared.

[Andy Murray]

HKF,

I hate to point elbows, but; A lot of these styles, can't get their own schools in order, let alone agree with another style. I think you hit on a key point when you said you have trained with 8 world champions. If you standardise things, then you can only have one world champion in each division. If you have a world title, would you go and put it on the line with the ideal of unifying all styles? Idealist? Realist? Capitalist?

The truth is there are a lot of big fish, in small ponds!

Look at Boxing! It suffers from the same thing.

Perhaps we need something significant to happen. Something unifying. A Martyr perhaps.

Crucifiction anybody?

[waya]

I think things depend more on everyone opening their eyes and realizing that noone is better than any other student or instructor, and that no one art is perfect or necessarily better than any other art. Alot of people tend to think that after all their years of training, they have all the answers...... After 100 years of training you would still have another 1000 years of questions. The only way things could be standardized is for an individual. I can't test or train by the same standards in even the same art as any of you and the same the other way. Unity should be something we all want as students. We can all learn more from cooperating than we can by arguing who did what with who's twinkies behind what bush etc etc etc. Just my opinion.

Rob

[Andy Murray]

Tell us more about the Twinkies Rob, I sense a deep emotional scar! lol

I agree with your post entirely. So does anyone have a suggestion as to how unity can be acheived, or is this just an Idealist fantasy?

[waya]

I always have scars over food :-)

I think the only way this will be achieved is the pulling of the collective head out of the collective well, n/m ya get the picture. Noone is willing to admit they don't know it all, and that their art is not necessarily the right art for Joe Blow down the road. Also many people don't want to admit that what you learned from another instructor can benefit you in what you do in another art. If we could get past this egotistical closed mindedness alot could be done for all the arts.

Rob

[Andy Murray]

A logical question then, as an extension would be....

Which arts have got their acts together in terms of standard management?

Judo?

err..... umm ...........duhh......???

[waya]

From my own experiences I would say none do completely. At least not in the manner I am speaking of.

[Freeform]

The house of Judo is probably the most ordered house there is right now (unless you go to the Judo forum and read about IJF, BJA and SJF).

In my opinion when you show up at a new school wanting to learn and its obvious you have prior experience, you should have to work your way through that schools grade system and learn all there is about that art and its philosophies (albeit at a slightly accelerated pace), when I moved into shotokan and judo I was still doing basics to start with (even though I thought I knew them ;) ), but I was doing them with the senior grades, after all, an advanced technique is merely the correct application of many basic principles!
So this way your still working through their syllabus but your doing it at an advanced level.

Thanx

[Thomas Vince]

FF,
Shotokan is such a cool art. I have had the pleasure of training with a State Police officer here in SC that is a black belt in Sotokan. Nishiama is his instructor and I know you know this guy. I am impressed with Shotokan because like my philosophy it is important to keep the real physical applications of the art strong!!!!!