Originally posted by norther practitioner
Wow the key to kung fu is… kung fu, what a new idea. Breathtaking actually. Good hard training…
Talent (Person)
Perseverance (Training)
Correct Teaching (Instructor and Style)
You need all.
Originally posted by nospam
[B]I can agree to a degree - as I see lived & breathed it, it is the teacher. If the teacher had a good teacher, this will carry onward if proper recognition is given from sifu to student (future sifu).
Problem now…too many ‘instructors’ calling themselves sifu.
Why people ask tradition is important? Tradition people say is old (snicker). Get with the times they say. It is..or was..tradition that ensured proper lineage (if you know what I mean). Proper lineage ensured good teachers. Good teachers propogated good gung fu. Good gung fu fueled ongoing interest and a cycle of renewal and growth.
So, to a degree…it is in the training. But a person who trains stupid or to a limited degree certifies a weaker generation.
nospam.
[/B]
I agree, it’s the instruction, period. 
Originally posted by Vapour
[B]Talent (Person)
Perseverance (Training)
Correct Teaching (Instructor and Style)
You need all. [/B]
you don’t need natural talent because good instruction can give you special traits…you just need the right push!.
Re: It’s not the style or the person…
Originally posted by rogue
[B]…it’s the training.
Not entirely but in general I think this is true.
I’ve met TKD guys of the same style who sucked and others that were some of the nastiest fighters I’ve seen. Stickfighters who are more concerned with looking good than looking Dog Brothers ugly and effective. The difference? The training. What makes many Muay Thai fighters dangerous? While their roundhouse is a good one and elbows and knees are great techniques most arts have them and do tend to throw them with the same body mechanics(well at least places that are serious about using them). The difference is the training. Knifefighters who are better at dancing around than taking out their opponent. Once again the training. [/B]
I agree with the premise of what you’ve said, but I want to point out a slight flaw in your argument.
TKD and Karate roundhouse kicks are not like a Muay Thai kick at all. The Thai kick is not chambered, and thrown straight up from the hip.
That said, the training is VERY important. However, if you train all out, hard core, bloody knuckles, using inferior techniques, it’s likely that someone with a mediocre training regimen using superior techniques (more biomechanically effecient) will have a good chance of defeating you.
You’re right that some schools do not focus on the practical aspects of their art. But some arts, pretty much as a whole, do not focus on them either.
If you incorporate Miyagi-style “wax-on, wax-off” blocks into your training, you will get your arse beat by a boxer when you try that against him. (Believe me, I tried it myself, back before I knew better). If you try that hippity-hop TKD side stance against a wrestler, you will end up on your back. The only way to avoid it, is to avoid using that stance, because it is only really useful in point-sparring TKD competitions.
The hypothetical question then becomes: “If a TKD school starts teaching Thai-style kicks, omoplatas, double leg takedowns, and flying arm bars, are they still teaching TKD? Can they still claim to teach this, or should they be honorbound to present their art as a hybrid style?”
At what point does an art that sacrifices traditional technique for effective technique, become a different art?
Because ultimately, there are only so many ways you can throw an effective kick, and only so many ways you can throw a punch. If all arts adopted the most effective ways, as opposed to their traditional methods, every art would be the same except for name and country of origin.
And while I’m rambling, Bruce Lee really did have it right. The best art is “No Art”. Take what is useful and don’t get stuck on names.
If a boxer uses his footwork in the field behind my house he will end up with a sprained or broken ankle. If a Thai fighter uses his kick on the steep hill on the far side of that same field he’ll fall on his ass. So the question becomes what is the definition of effective?
If all arts adopted the most effective ways, as opposed to their traditional methods, every art would be the same except for name and country of origin.
An aquaitence of mine is a pretty good kickboxer. In his last match he went up against a TKD fighter. The techniques that gave him trouble were the TKD guys ability to kick his leg and then his head with the same leg faster than he could block with his shin. The other thing that got him was TKD guy used his sidekick in the same manner that an MT guys would use a teep, but TKD could hit higher and harder with it. Lucky for my aquaitence his boxing was better and he pulled it out on points.
I watched Michael McDonald(K-1) use spinning kicks to attack his opponents and win with a high front kick to his opponents chin or neck. So if these staples of TKD are so inferior why are they still effective?
“If a TKD school starts teaching Thai-style kicks, omoplatas, double leg takedowns, and flying arm bars, are they still teaching TKD? Can they still claim to teach this, or should they be honorbound to present their art as a hybrid style?”
Why, if you use a ridge hand do are you honorbound to say you do karate?
That said, the training is VERY important. However, if you train all out, hard core, bloody knuckles, using inferior techniques, it’s likely that someone with a mediocre training regimen using superior techniques (more biomechanically effecient) will have a good chance of defeating you.
Could you prove that?
I’ll repeat it for those who may have forgotten
EVERYTHING counts. Although you’ve had a nice little talk here!
Originally posted by rogue
If a boxer uses his footwork in the field behind my house he will end up with a sprained or broken ankle. If a Thai fighter uses his kick on the steep hill on the far side of that same field he’ll fall on his ass. So the question becomes what is the definition of effective?
True. I agree. But I’m pretty sure that any martial artist who doesn’t train on uneven terrain will have similar problems.
Originally posted by rogue
An aquaitence of mine is a pretty good kickboxer. In his last match he went up against a TKD fighter. The techniques that gave him trouble were the TKD guys ability to kick his leg and then his head with the same leg faster than he could block with his shin. The other thing that got him was TKD guy used his sidekick in the same manner that an MT guys would use a teep, but TKD could hit higher and harder with it. Lucky for my aquaitence his boxing was better and he pulled it out on points.
I watched Michael McDonald(K-1) use spinning kicks to attack his opponents and win with a high front kick to his opponents chin or neck. So if these staples of TKD are so inferior why are they still effective?
[/b]
Nobody said those techniques are inferior. In fact, the only techniques I specifically ragged on were the “hippity-hop” and side stance used by a lot of TKD fighters, and a specific karate block. I’ll be the first to say that you can learn some things from TKD. In fact, I actually used that exact combo kick you mentioned a few weeks ago in sparring myself. I wasn’t quick enough to re-chamber the leg for the headshot after getting blocked, so the guy I was sparring with moved out of range before I could land it.
Even if it landed, it wouldn’t have been as powerful as a Thai kick directly to the head, because of the chambering, but it is enough to damage your opponent.
Muay thai does spin kicks as well, but I think we’re probably digressing at this pont.
Originally posted by rogue
Why, if you use a ridge hand do are you honorbound to say you do karate?[/b]
That’s exactly what I asked myself in my previous post. At what point does a style become something else when outside techniques are incorporated into it?
Originally posted by rogue
Could you prove that? [/B]
[/b][/quote]
If I had the budget to do the experimentation, I’m pretty sure I could. It’s more than logical to assume that if you’re an expert at using a sledgehammer, you might get beat in a nailing contest by a mediocre carpenter using a regular claw hammer.
Using the right tool for the job is important.
I have a question to you now, do you flatly reject the assertion that some techniques are more effective than others, and that some techniques are generally ineffective and impractical?
I occasionally see few who developed atrociously bad technique/habit because they tried too hard.
Most typical example is stiff shoulder/arm. And these people won’t get better just because they train harder. More likely, as they train/spar harder, they get stiffer and slower.
Usually decent instructor would spot this before this become permanent habit. But ocassionaly there are few bad instructor who think, “Let him spar and he will get better”. In that case, any talent/effort will be wasted, IMO.
That’s exactly what I asked myself in my previous post. At what point does a style become something else when outside techniques are incorporated into it?
Currently the main arts I study are old school TKD and Isshinryu. The TKD is combination of Shotokan and additions that the Koreans added from who knows where taught to me by a Master who holds rank in Karate and Judo. Isshinryu is a hybrid of the what Shimabuku thought was the best of Shorin Ryu and Goju Ryu. The Hakkoryu I was learning is a combination of Daito Ryu and various ideas and techniques that Okuyama Yoshiharu picked up in China as taught to me by a sensei who was a bouncer and body guard. I’ll skip the JKD, BJJ, Muay Thai, boxing, and kali that I’ve done.
The point is every art that I can think of is a hybrid that incorporates techniques and ideas from other styles and the experiences of the instructors. In many ways names, outside of those used for sport styles which have strict rules of consensual engagement which help define them, are just labels and not a box with things inside and things outside. At least to me and the traditional and modern instructors that I’ve had.
For instance, supposedly Kano learned one of Judos main throws from Funikoshi, a shorin ryu karateka. So is Judo now karate or a hybrid art?
What I think matters most is how well the techniques integrate together into something usefull. Is it still TKD, karate, BJJ, Tai Chi or Muay Thai when you’re done? That’s up to you to decide.
If you incorporate Miyagi-style “wax-on, wax-off” blocks into your training, you will get your arse beat by a boxer when you try that against him.
In UFC 4 a boxer got beat by a ninjitsu guy if I remember right. So is ninjitsu the ultimate art? One major teaching flaw I’ve seen in many karate and TKD schools is teaching things like “blocks” without teaching tai sabaki. The karateka would stand a better chance if he used the wax on block(kake shuto uke?) while moving to the boxers side or back. I’ve tried to out box a boxer with karate too.