Why don't you?
Original Poster: BLACK PANTA
Forum: Hand to Hand Combat
Posted On: 19-03-2006, 03:58
Orginal Post: BLACK PANTA: I've been thinking again. Alot of us here have always said, so and so art is very effective. For example I say TKD is an effective and great Martial Art. I've never trained in TKD, how do I know? If it's so effective, why dont I train in it? Most of us have said this without even training in the said art. How do you...(personally) know that it's effective? Why dont you train in the art?
Post: Hengest:
Simple. If I trained in every art I thought was effective, I wouldn't have time to eat or sleep.
Or drink. :wink:>
Post: BLACK PANTA:
[quote=Hengest Simple. If I trained in every art I thought was effective, I wouldn't have time to eat or sleep.
Or drink. :wink:[/quote
you only answered one of the question man :wink: How do you (personally) know...for a fact that the art IS effective. Forget history, forget lore...you personally. How do you know?>
Post: opariser1001:
I don't personally recall saying any art was effective unless I had trained in it. If anyone does though, one can assume that they are saying it because they have seen it used effectively in real-life situations. For example, we know Muay Thai, BJJ, etc. are effective because we have seen them work. I knew grappling was effective in MMA, so I started training in it.
And as for those who have never trained in an art and have never seen it used effectively, and STILL preach its effectiveness, then they are just tools.
I'd say that pretty much sums it up.>
Post: Hengest:
Same way I form most of my opinions, from personal experience. I've had a few rucks and seen many more. I know what has worked for me and have some inkling of what is likely to work in reality and, on this basis, I assess a style.
Of course, because I'm only assessing it on my own experiences, my views are only personal truths and that's why I tend to shy away from the style vs. style type discussions. For instance, my MA history began with TKD when I was a kid but, despite doing it for several years, I have never ever used any of what I learnt from it in a real-life situation. I therefore personally feel that TKD is ineffective as a style. Of course, there are probably others here who have quite a different opinion. On the other hand, my time in wing chun paid off immensely. In fact, a large percentage of my "wins" were accomplished with WC technique. Hence, I see wing chun as highly effective.
I'm not one to pull opinions out of my arse and never really have been. If I can't assess something based on my experiences, I tend not to assess it at all.>
Post: paperchaser:
In street-fighting, the way to assess a technique is not how likely it is to work, but rather how likely it is to go wrong. The most damage to the other guy at the least risk is key.
High kicks are uniformly frowned on not because they absolutely won't work...they can with devastating effect. The problem is that it they go wrong they go really wrong...usually the fighter lands on his ass.
Boxing techniques are favored because very little can go wrong. Low leg kicks are favored because little can go wrong. Simple grappling techniques (arm-bar/mount/rear choke) are favored because little can go wrong, wheras complex throws and slams can go horribly wrong...usually in a reverse or you hitting the pavement as hard as the other guy.
That said, most arts offer a mix of both low risk and high risk techniques. Good instructors know the difference between which are for training and which for fighting. Should you train high kicks? Sure. Practicing them helps you develop more power and control over your low kicks. But you avoid them in the streets. The same is true for many techniques.
Also, it varies from person to person. Especially with grappling, defects such as small hands and weak arms make it all the more likely that one person won't make a technique work whereas a guy with huge claws and muscle can sink it in.
Just remember Murphy's Law and build your street defense system around it.>
Post: setsu nin to:
In my opinion its much more important under who you train that what you train. I am not interested in practicing TKD for example, but I would rather go train TKD under good instructor than jujutsu under some soke clown. In the end I can always spend some time practicing alone without instructor working more on things that I learned and practice for years and can practice alone.>
Post: paperchaser:
setsu-
I agree with one caveat. I agree that with experience, one usually doesn't need an instructor to walk through a technique more than once. Experienced martial artists can see it once and then practice on their own or with sparring partner.
I also found its good to have instructors with the same physical build as yourself. Its easier to learn from and more of what they have to show you will likely work for you. Of course, I'm a big believer that certain arts fit certain physiques better than others.
But although one can train alone, I think its vital for development of practical self-defense skills to practice with as many different people as possible. I once had an instructor who called around to other schools to arrange for sparring and group attack practice. Novices were a plus because their attacks were usually the least predictable and unconventional, and sometimes they were more effective! Those sessions taught me that practicing alone or even with the same regular group can actually be a dangerous thing.>
Post: bamboo:
Heres an answer just for Black Panta.
You never trained aikido, you stepped on my mat but one time for actual class time. Have you any doubts as to the efficacy of aikido technique when applied in a vigorous yet relaxed manner?
You did not need train it, you felt it, when we briefly crossed shinai, could you not feel what I brought to the table?
You never trained in my arts but I am certain you have no doubts as to whether or not they can be used to an effective end.
I think the answer to your question is to experience an art is to be able to pass judgement, I do not believe you have to train in the art to get a feeling for it. Find a qualified practitioner by the standards of the art you are bearing witness to and feel it.
-bamboo>
Post: SAINT:
I wouldnt train in TKD, as we kept beating them in open tournaments. could be the worth of our instructors, but I never enjoyed watching their style. I do not like it.
I do enjoy Muay Thai, CQB however, and Kempo, but because I have done them. I believe BJJ is effective, yet have never done it to advocate it, yet I have seen it used, but not by me. So is anyones view worthy of merit?
that is equally a point of view.>
Post: Chrisy1:
It's the individual and not the art.......>
Post: graham1:
While you are involved in a martial arts club, people can usually sense when you are a fighter from your body language, so most will leave you alone. All the serious fights I had were after I left my kung fu club & was training on my own.>
Post: samurai6string:
Graham> Forgive my ignorence, but where is your quote from? It kind of reminds of F. Scott Fitzgerald, though I figure it's not. :)>
Post: graham1:
It's was from President Theodore Roosevelt.>
Post: Gazelle:
[quote=Chrisy1 It's the individual and not the art.......[/quote
It depends how you mean this. I think it is how the individual works with the art. It depends upon what they know, how well they know it, how well they can react, how they have been trained. From my limited experience, different arts have similar foundations technique wise. They have defensive techniques and authensive ones, some even have similar/same techniques, however for each art the layout will probably be slightly different. For example, some arts lean strongly towards the defensive, whilst others not so, some involve more strength than others, each style has its own 'style'. How the individual works with that style (which is as much dependant upon training as the person themselves), how they use, and understand the techniques within it will determine it's effectiveness.>
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|