:topic: As a mild tangent to the 800 post thread, there is compliance and then there is compliance. This is, of course, cherry picking one specific example but don't you agree that if the uke is reacting in an unrealistic manner, it makes the technique harder to learn, not easier?
My understanding was that compliance meant that the uke WAS acting in a realistic manner eg. behaving as if you'd just kicked him in the knackers rather than forcing him to behave that way by actually doing it (which, I think you'll agree, would get rather tiresome in a training environment). Compliance whereby the uke allows evrything to happen unresisted or falls over because he should is, I think, where people are getting the wrong idea of what being a compliant uke means.
I always disagreed with that. I've been kicked in the groin before, it doesn't always hurt that bad unless they get you just right. Teaching hundreds of thousands of people that a groin kick is going to double over an attacker, is extremely irresponsible. Getting punched in the face doesn't make you lean back and arch your spine, you would know this if you ever actually hit each other in the face. I've been punched in the face bare knuckle many times, it doesn't do too much in the heat of the moment. Over-selling the tori's attack makes people think that's how it happens in reality. What if he blocks your hit to the groin with his knee? What if he jerks out of omote gyaku and takes your back? etc. You can only learn the real holes in your technique through unscripted sparring, what you're talking about is nothing more than choreographed fight scenes in slow motion.
OK, I used that as an example that sprang to mind, not a cure all for every situation as you seem to imply. What I'm referring to is that it's a gradual transition from lifeless kata, whereby compliance allows you to see the effect that is actually being sought and thus learn the principles, to the next level whereby the kata becomes less scripted ie. same attack but this time uke might attempt to block or avoid being hit, or to apply a counter, or to take advantage of holes in tori's technique. But it's still not sparring (which I'm not, in point of fact, arguing against the use of). My point is simply that compliance is a tool, one of the tools, used towards achieving an end. If used incorrectly it's no good. If used exclusively, it's no good. The same may be said for other training tools.
Nobody is advocating never using compliancy. Every art shows the techniques compliantly first and the good ones add progressive resistance.
I wasn't implying anything I was going off your example. And I'm pretty sure I'm correct in my assessment that people are taught to double over when kicked in the groin. Yes, compliancy is a training tool. You can't teach people techniques if they fight out of them all the time obviously. As I demonstrated with my BJJ vids, there was compliancy, sparring, competition, and reality. Compliancy is a good tool, but if that's the foundation for your training, you're wasting your time. By that I mean if 90% is uke compliancy and 10% is sparring, you need to flip that. I could show you how to do a triangle choke 100 times but if we don't work on applying it during a live spar, it's useless. It really doesn't take long to learn a technique. In MMA we'd spend the BJJ class learning a technique on both sides for the first 15 minutes, and then the next 45 minutes is all rolling while trying to apply that technique. You guys make it seem like you do compliancy for YEARS before ever getting into hard sparring. What good is that when the most difficult part is doing your static techniques live?
True. It's also a matter of how you define that art. I think training method is a condition of the art, not just a set of techniques. To take away the training method of BJJ is to not make it BJJ anymore (at least in my mind).
This is an outright lie. Some techniques are actually easier to perform live. That is, easier to get a result from...
No, it isn't, but then I wouldn't expect common sense from someone who calls himself "shadow hand". You can learn an armbar, hip throw, scissors sweep in ten minutes. The only thing that seperates a blue belt's armbar from a black belt's is the timing, positioning*, etc. which he/she learned from actually getting on the mat and actually doing it on people who are actually fighting back. That training like this is a good idea shouldn't take dozens of fifty page threads to get across to you people, but you're all so deliberately obtuse...
See that's one of the differences in what we do. When my BJJ coach demos a technique on me, i'm expected to resist, otherwise it's not a very helpful demo. If i'm swept, thrown or tapout it's not because i'm cooperating it's because I was forced to by correct leverage. If I were to train the way you guys do, i'd post a bunch of videos of a black belt demoing keylocks on me from under side mount or armbars with bad hip positioning and then get all indignant and go IT'S JUST A DEMO, NUTRIDER when it was pointed out that's bad technique.
It's funny when you're trying to show someone a technique and they just comply and flop there and you're like, "Dude, you gotta fight back."
Go ahead, have a cookie. It's not that easy to learn. It's funny that this overestimation of beginners's learning capabilities only exists online. Well, that just goes to prove that comparing BJJ and Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu is essentially a comparison between apples and oranges.
I don't think anyone would disagree. Exactly what makes them so different is the point of contention. Is it the principals or the application? Most, it seems, argue that it's the application. Regarding beginner's ability to learn, a well established learning style is cyclical learning. This works VERY well with adult learners and is being incorporated into schools at all ages, too. In BJJ, the first time I learned an armbar, I probably retained 10% of the details. However, attempting to apply the technique in sparring gave me context so that the next time the armbar was explained in depth, I absorbed more of the details... maybe 50%. As I watch the instruction, because I've personally tried and failed so many times, I go, "Ah hah! That's where I'm screwing up!" With 50% of the details, I was able to begin applying the technique and actually got it to work in many cases... but there were situations where I was close but couldn't make it work. Then the details get explained again and I learn more. It's no big mystery. The point of contention is that I would argue that I couldn't absorb the details unless I could apply them in context. Without the hundreds of failed attempts, I wouldn't have the experience to understand the details. I wouldn't have that "Ah hah" moment.
Every time someone makes a point you bring in the stupid godamn food analogies. Illustrates my point. Openness, effectiveness and mastery of the basics are the soil in which grows the beautiful flower of effective BJJ (two can play the gay analogy game, ninjas). BBT works more on the principle of being a furtive, bitter nerd.
In my opinion, the primary jinx is that in the Bujinkan you have to take many more things into consideration.
You seem irritated. I suggest some hot chocolate with marshmallows. If I knew I could kill those people and get away with it I would (by getting away I mean being able to continue training with my three primary sources of inspiration in Japan, of course).
And I suggest you getting skull ridden by a good purple while he lectures you about how he controls the kukan in that position. You are those people.
On a side note, I actually just had some and it was delicious. I suggest it for everybody right now, irritated or not.
