I would say that the arts evolved in the direction that they did because practitioners were seeking generic movements that are applicable across a wide variety of dangerous situations Specifically they assumed that your attacker is most likely to be armed Moving your whole body off the line of an attack makes a load of sense when you don't know what your attacker has in their hands. Less so if you know he's unarmed for example
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ll3uipTO-4A"]For the love of money - O' jays Full Version - YouTube[/ame]
I just don't understand the point of an average citizen learning how to wage guerrilla warfare in 16th century japan. *drops mic* *begins to swagger away*
Dunc could. Mt opinion changed after that last thread I started about who the best to learn from. Seems like a few solid guys in a world full of crap.
The vast majority of the population think that about all martial arts. Can I remind everyone of the rules for posting in this forum please. Junk posts and trolling are not tolerated here. Mitch
I was only trying to explain myself, and my initial answer to the question, while done in jest, is a reflection of my understandings of the style. Granted though, there is a big difference between physical activity and quite a lot of what i've been told and seen said about ninjitsu, however, i remain open to being shown new ideas about the style, if they were produced.
I think it's weird when people say that. No style is "geared towards MMA". Some styles simply work better in the MMA environment than others for whatever reason. I think the issue with Ninjutsu and other classical styles is that they're simply not designed for modern day application. That's why Judo happened.
Well Kano-Sensei wanted to convert jujutsu into an activity that was more socially acceptable to Japanese society in 1880's & it has evolved along these lines since then I feel this is an important factor that often gets ignored because the people focus on discussing the benefits of sparring as a training method
Because training with resistance > training without resistance TBH I don't think most of us care or find relevant the impetus for change so much as that the change produced markedly better competence.
I don't understand you Ben. You preach exactly the stuff I would say if I could word stuff better. But then you do Wing Chun. I'm very confused by this
My point was that there were 2 key changes that Kano-Sensei made and they are connected; 1 He increased the focus on resistive training 2 He removed several dangerous / unpleasant techniques Most people seem to conveniently forget to consider both these points and focus on one or the other
As you note, these two changes are connected. One of the prerequisites for safely training in a resistive manner is removing some "dangerous" techniques (getting rid of whatever is "too deadly" to train). People understand this, they just don't consider it much of a loss because without resistive training they weren't actually training these techniques, they were LARPing. The too deadly techniques were the problem. The loss of these techniques strengthened Judo, because now Judo consisted of techniques that could be trained in a meaningful manner.
IMO, - training without resistance is "developing", - training with resistance is "testing". You have to "develop" your skill first before you can "test" it. For example, when you try to "develop" your - "hip throw", the moment that you try to apply it on your opponent, the moment that he sinks down, - "foot sweep", the moment that you try to apply it on your opponent, the moment that he lifts up his foot, - "side kick", the moment that you try to apply it on your opponent, the moment that he jumps back, - "face punch",the moment that you try to apply it on your opponent, the moment that he leans back, - "wrist lock", the moment that you try to apply it on your opponent, the moment that he raises his elbow, - ... you will never be able to develop your "solo" skill this way. Of course, you can take advantage on your opponent's reaction and apply another technique on him, but that's "combo skill development" and not "solo skill development".
Interestingly the Judo ruleset evolution isnt as clearcut as you might think, all kinds of things we're still legal for a long time since Judo was founded. I'll dig out my history of judo if your interested.
My point is this: By removing certain techniques and situations (e.g. weapons) the art evolves, pretty quickly it seems, in a new direction. Over time (a) alternative (perhaps less efficient) techniques emerge to replace the ones removed and (b) practitioners become less well equipped to deal with the aforementioned situations There is, of course, a trade off as the removal of techniques, situations etc allows for more resistive training which has great benefits Personally I think that finding a balance between the two is best (for my objectives) I find it quite interesting to see how things have evolved in accordance with the ruleset and objectives of the style eg Kano-sensei, who is likely an example of someone who understood both sides of the argument, retained many traditional kata for self defence Hope this makes sense
