[QUOTE=JamesC;1093646]This is the reason I have always liked the Okinawan styles more, I think. Particularly Shorin Ryu.
They seem to be what we would consider soft-hard styles. Most likely due to their White Crane influence.[/QUOTE]
Yep, I studied Shorin Ryu with Eizo Shimabuku in Kin Village Okinawa 1966-67
[QUOTE=Phil Redmond;1093922]Yep, I studied Shorin Ryu with Eizo Shimabuku in Kin Village Okinawa 1966-67[/QUOTE]
Lucky *******, he was one of the VERY good ones.
I think it was Shimabukuro…
[QUOTE=Phil Redmond;1093922]Yep, I studied Shorin Ryu with Eizo Shimabuku in Kin Village Okinawa 1966-67[/QUOTE]
:eek:
That’s awesome Phil. That guy is simply amazing. The style of Shorin Ryu I practiced was from Kyan as well.
Lucky *******… :eek:
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1093956]Lucky *******, he was one of the VERY good ones.
I think it was Shimabukuro…[/QUOTE]
Yeah I spelled it wrong. His brother Tatsuo taught at the Camp Hansen Marine base gym. From what I understood they had a strained relationship. We were told not to go to his class. But as a young Marine I watched Tatsuo teach anyway. 
Tatsuo used a vertical fist in his forms but using the top knuckles.
If one teaches a martial style, they have a responsibility to know the system in a way that requires a lot of drills that approach fighting, and a lot of crossing hands, not simply regurgitate notes from other people who did. To not do so is poor ethics, and so one cannot claim to teach the style, not put in the time crossing hands in a constructive manner, and fulfill a traditional culture that places a premium on ethics, or one is falling into the trap that Mencius spoke of when he said it is a fault of many people to be fond of being seen as a teacher.
Further, it is a logical fallacy to assume that, by training in fight related practices with others, that there is animosity toward those others. In actual fights, there may be, but drills? Sparring? Not necessarily. I think it’s a sign of poor character to have animosity toward a sparring partner, not a necessary condition for sparring.
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1093956]Lucky *******, he was one of the VERY good ones.
I think it was Shimabukuro…[/QUOTE]
I didn’t know that back then. To me he was just some old guy that taught Naha Te. After I got back to the States I mentioned his name to someone who said he was really famous.
Youth is sometimes wasted on the young. 
[QUOTE=Phil Redmond;1093978]Yeah I spelled it wrong. His brother Tatsuo taught at the Camp Hansen Marine base gym. From what I understood they had a strained relationship. We were told not to go to his class. But as a young Marine I watched Tatsuo teach anyway. Tatsuo used a vertical fist in his forms but using the top knuckles.[/QUOTE]
It might be a phonetic thing, I h ave spellings for him BOTh ways.
Tatsuo was the creator of Isshin ryu, I never met him but went to a seminar that Angi Uezu did, good stuff.
They said that Tatsu could drive a 6" nail through wood with his shuto.
Sweet.
[QUOTE=Phil Redmond;1093982]I didn’t know that back then. To me he was just some old guy that taught Naha Te. After I got back to the States I mentioned his name to someone who said he was really famous.
Youth is sometimes wasted on the young. ;)[/QUOTE]
Ain’t it though?
[QUOTE=KC Elbows;1093980]If one teaches a martial style, they have a responsibility to know the system in a way that requires a lot of drills that approach fighting, and a lot of crossing hands, not simply regurgitate notes from other people who did. To not do so is poor ethics, and so one cannot claim to teach the style, not put in the time crossing hands in a constructive manner, and fulfill a traditional culture that places a premium on ethics, or one is falling into the trap that Mencius spoke of when he said it is a fault of many people to be fond of being seen as a teacher.
Further, it is a logical fallacy to assume that, by training in fight related practices with others, that there is animosity toward those others. In actual fights, there may be, but drills? Sparring? Not necessarily. I think it’s a sign of poor character to have animosity toward a sparring partner, not a necessary condition for sparring.[/QUOTE]
I was never as good a sparrer as I was a fighter, never got “upset” enough at my sparring partners.
Always viewed them as my best friends since they were helping me train, but that usually kept me from really going to town on them.
Wow, Kin Village has changed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HKfHlr_NNs
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1093986]I was never as good a sparrer as I was a fighter, never got “upset” enough at my sparring partners.
Always viewed them as my best friends since they were helping me train, but that usually kept me from really going to town on them.[/QUOTE]
I recognize those limits on sparring, but it’s important training toward having fighting skills. Fights lack those limits, but it’s all towaard the same goals, but removing contact makes the training weird to me, it falls into form and compliance drills, and getting together in groups to do form seems slightly anti-social to me, and compliance drills even more so, as in, let’s work together, now do exactly what I expect.
I find it far more interesting when a partner’s contribution challenges my skills than simply confirming them.
Anyway, I think the idea that fight training is barbarous is not true, in many it seems to teach them how to manage and have perspective on violence. On the flip side, I’ve met a lot of people who use the idea that fighting is barbarous as a knife to the reputations of their competitors in the martial arts feild who happen to compete, which is not exactly civil.
[QUOTE=KC Elbows;1093993]I recognize those limits on sparring, but it’s important training toward having fighting skills. Fights lack those limits, but it’s all towaard the same goals, but removing contact makes the training weird to me, it falls into form and compliance drills, and getting together in groups to do form seems slightly anti-social to me, and compliance drills even more so, as in, let’s work together, now do exactly what I expect.
I find it far more interesting when a partner’s contribution challenges my skills than simply confirming them.
Anyway, I think the idea that fight training is barbarous is not true, in many it seems to teach them how to manage and have perspective on violence. On the flip side, I’ve met a lot of people who use the idea that fighting is barbarous as a knife to the reputations of their competitors in the martial arts feild who happen to compete, which is not exactly civil.[/QUOTE]
Sparring gives you and understanding of the endurance and skill needed to fight, what works FOR YOU and what doesn’t.
Without it you have simply conjecture.
Competition teaches you about pain, intent and heart.
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1093996]Sparring gives you and understanding of the endurance and skill needed to fight, what works FOR YOU and what doesn’t.
Without it you have simply conjecture.
Competition teaches you about pain, intent and heart.[/QUOTE]
No fight training. No martial art. It’s not about ego, hurting people or anything like that. It’s about competent readiness.
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1093996]Sparring gives you and understanding of the endurance and skill needed to fight, what works FOR YOU and what doesn’t.
Without it you have simply conjecture.
Competition teaches you about pain, intent and heart.[/QUOTE]
I follow you, I wasn’t arguing that they are the same, more that their practices are not barbaric by default, but that the state of mind is based on the mind, not the practice, that we bring into it our own aggression, it isn’t magically created by the act of training, that it might heighten aggression that is already there, but avoiding the experience isn’t a virtue, if that makes any sense.
While I’ve sparred a decent amount, I’ve not competed, so much of my observations of the flip side are based on the better of the fighters I’ve known, who seem civilized, for the most part, while some I’ve seen who speak against it seem, by their passive aggression, to be more than willing to hurt others.
[QUOTE=KC Elbows;1093999]I follow you, I wasn’t arguing that they are the same, more that their practices are not barbaric by default, but that the state of mind is based on the mind, not the practice, that we bring into it our own aggression, it isn’t magically created by the act of training, that it might heighten aggression that is already there, but avoiding the experience isn’t a virtue, if that makes any sense.
While I’ve sparred a decent amount, I’ve not competed, so much of my observations of the flip side are based on the better of the fighters I’ve known, who seem civilized, for the most part, while some I’ve seen who speak against it seem, by their passive aggression, to be more than willing to hurt others.[/QUOTE]
I was juts trying to express that we need BOTH, to what degree of course depends on the person and their goals, but I do believe that both develop different parts of a persons MA skills and characters.
Of course IF you can get in the “real deal” that also helps.
I have found more “psychos” in the TMA than in the competition oriented sport systems.
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1094004]I have found more “psychos” in the TMA than in the competition oriented sport systems.[/QUOTE]
On the flip side, I’d be willing to bet that becomes less true. The early days of mma, it was mostly people who already had martial arts experience who were seeing the benefits of bjj and related styles, but the current marketing seems to have attracted a different sort of crowd, imo.
But it seems like you’re right.
[QUOTE=KC Elbows;1094020]On the flip side, I’d be willing to bet that becomes less true. The early days of mma, it was mostly people who already had martial arts experience who were seeing the benefits of bjj and related styles, but the current marketing seems to have attracted a different sort of crowd, imo.
But it seems like you’re right.[/QUOTE]
Time will tell and you may be right.
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1094028]Time will tell and you may be right.[/QUOTE]
Some good points by yourself and KC Elbows.
I’m on the side that I’ve met more ‘really real’ folks in the sports gyms than in the TMA clubs. Less ego, not more.
BUT! That could just be about the places themselves as well. Whatever the coaches/instructors breed is usually reflected in the types of people that join.
Just some thoughts…
[QUOTE=couch;1094033]Some good points by yourself and KC Elbows.
I’m on the side that I’ve met more ‘really real’ folks in the sports gyms than in the TMA clubs. Less ego, not more.
BUT! That could just be about the places themselves as well. Whatever the coaches/instructors breed is usually reflected in the types of people that join.
Just some thoughts…[/QUOTE]
I agree with what you’re saying re: some of the best guys I know to train with are from sports gyms, and they are good guys not just because of skill, but because they don’ t have imaginary reasons they are superior that they must defend.
That said, most of the tma guys I hang with now have moved in the same direction, and the old style cma school(meaning forms and apps and conditioning and legendary stories about ko’ing some eighteen year old nobody), for much of the local kung fu, is dying. CMA here does not have the presence of tkd or karate, so there is very strong pressure to reform.