Kata, martial arts and miscellanea

Shavru said:
JW, having watched you perform sinawali with new blades as you test them for balance, I would say you are definately someone who knows. So, I am confused, and would like to clear up something I am misunderstanding. I was told that in Silat they have jurus which I was told are series of prearranged movements practiced as a single set, whose main function is to pass down all of a style's techniques and combat applications in an organised manner. To me that sure sounds like a Kata. And I was also told that kekuda or the Horse stance which is so prevelant in many Chinese martial arts is trained in Silat at the very beginning until the student can hold it a predetermined length of time easily, That is a lot like a form in any martial art. I have to admit that it is entirely possible I am confusing things as I will readily admit that I know very little about Silat at all. Help clear up my confusion please?

Scara, Oh man, I feel bad for you stuck with that sort of lack of way to train. I also remember you mentioned a training partner that is willing but you can't seem to match schedules with. Very tough. As for a wooden practice blade. We had a thread that talked about that a while back. A good suggestion during that discussion was to cutout a khuk from one of those poly cutting boards and use duct tape to round up the grip. Could also pad up the cuttting edge a bit...or not depending on how you feel about the sparring partner :D
Click to expand...
Those aren't really sinawalli-that's just freestyle response to an imagined set of circumstances.
I was taught that the fundamental goal of the way I learned was to learn to see the flow in technique, and the flow in the fight-those little clips are just working the flow from movement to movement. :)
 
So returning back to the portion where I mentioned my instructor's stance on Kata and flow drills, he takes the position that kata can be useful as long as the practitioner analyzes them and understands them and the application of each technique in combat, and does not move on to the next technique in the kata until they understand how each technique can lead to victory.
 
Scara said:
.... I have to say though, the more I talk to others, the more I realize how unorthodox what I'm learning is..... [E]verything I'm reading makes sense from the standpoint of self-defense with and against knife attacks. I just wish I could find a sparring partner. I've got someone who is willing, but never available, so I've yet to spar.
Click to expand...

You might have more luck finding a sparring partner if you use a broader approach.

You've made it clear that your main interest is in techniques that are practical and can be used without years of prior training. If you ever have to use these techniques in "real life" the chances that your opponent will have exactly the same weapon as yours, and will use the same techniques, are virtually nil.

Therefore, you might broaden your search and try to find a sparring partner who just wants to practice with whatever kinds of weapons and techniques he (or she) prefers. Obviously they can't be too incompatible. It wouldn't make sense for a knife fighter to "spar" with an archer, for example. But if someone wants to try unarmed techniques, or staff, spear or sword (or a different kind of knife) against your khukuri, why not?

Bruce Lee once said (and I can't remember the exact words) that the best practice partner is a crazy person who will come at you in a completely unpredictable way, and never the same way twice.

Anyway, this might be more fun than splitting watermelons with your khukuri (although that can be fun too, and tasty afterward).
 
Last edited:
cul4u01 said:
....

Also, the belief, is that Asians in general are smaller in stature than the peoples of the West, European, Nordic, African, etc..., and that the martial art skills, help to equalize the inequality between size, strength, and speed in assailants from a non-Asian country of origin. By teaching others their arts, Asians lose this equalizing aspect when it comes to a confrontation. Other teachers believe that by allowing non-Asians to learn the art, they will learn to respect the Asian culture more, and use the martial art learned as a bridge between cultures. Which belief is the right one? Who knows? I think it just comes down to individual belief......
Click to expand...

Apparently, disparity in size never bothered the gurkhas. I don't think it bothered the Japanese either. I think the reluctance to teach "unworthy foreign students" was a generalization of the reluctance to teach unworthy students of their own culture, and perhaps the belief that a foreigner would not be capable of appreciating the higher cultural or spiritual aspects of a martial art. There is also the reluctance to teach effective combat techniques to foreigners who might be at war with your country in the future (or were in the past). This matters less nowadays when military conflicts are mostly settled by automatic weapons, ships, aircraft and supply logistics, but old traditions persist.

My tai chi instructor, who was also a master of several styles of kung fu and several weapons, once made an interesting point in a lecture. He said that in past eras a martial arts teacher would be held responsible for the actions of his students, and if a student used his skills to break the law the master would be obligated to bring him in. For that reason, masters might not teach everything they knew. The downside of this, as he put it, is that some of the best elements of martial arts tended to be lost because the masters would only teach them to a handful of students, or to their own children -- who might not pass them on.

He also pointed out that certain kinds of martial arts (tai chi in particular) were deliberately "watered down" because the masters were forced to teach them to the children and guards of ruling families that they did not support. Thus there are some styles of tai chi that use short, curtailed movements that are fine for exercise and look elegant, but do not easily translate into combat techniques.

He had some interesting stories. For example, as a young Chinese fighting the Japanese in the second world war, he and other soldiers survived some battles by taking shelter under the dead bodies of fellow soldiers. It was a brutal situation, as the Japanese military were generally better organized and had superior automatic weaponry.
 
Last edited:
I'm reading a book about Gurkhas, sorry I don't recall the title but I'll post it, I actually downloaded a couple. Just started the first one but it sounds like it's gonna be good. Written by a British officer who got into the Gurkhas.
In the very first chapter he talks of being on a plane and telling them they will be jumping from 1500 feet. One of the Gurkha's asked if they couldn't jump from 500 feet instead.
They were told no that their parachute would not have time to open properly before they hit the ground.

His response was oh we get to use parachutes?

Serious bad dudes, I want to be one when I grow up.
 
davidf99 said:
Apparently, disparity in size never bothered the gurkhas. I don't think it bothered the Japanese either. I think the reluctance to teach "unworthy foreign students" was a generalization of the reluctance to teach unworthy students of their own culture, and perhaps the belief that a foreigner would not be capable of appreciating the higher cultural or spiritual aspects of a martial art. There is also the reluctance to teach effective combat techniques to foreigners who might be at war with your country in the future (or were in the past). This matters less nowadays when military conflicts are mostly settled by automatic weapons, ships, aircraft and supply logistics, but old traditions persist.

My tai chi instructor, who was also a master of several styles of kung fu and several weapons, once made an interesting point in a lecture. He said that in past eras a martial arts teacher would be held responsible for the actions of his students, and if a student used his skills to break the law the master would be obligated to bring him in. For that reason, masters might not teach everything they knew. The downside of this, as he put it, is that some of the best elements of martial arts tended to be lost because the masters would only teach them to a handful of students, or to their own children -- who might not pass them on.

He also pointed out that certain kinds of martial arts (tai chi in particular) were deliberately "watered down" because the masters were forced to teach them to the children and guards of ruling families that they did not support. Thus there are some styles of tai chi that use short, curtailed movements that are fine for exercise and look elegant, but do not easily translate into combat techniques.

He had some interesting stories. For example, as a young Chinese fighting the Japanese in the second world war, he and other soldiers survived some battles by taking shelter under the dead bodies of fellow soldiers. It was a brutal situation, as the Japanese military were generally better organized and had superior automatic weaponry.
Click to expand...

Actually, Guhrkas had the skill of using the khukuri to equalize any disparities, Japanese have various martial arts, and skilled in weapons to also handle disparities. Basically, the thought is, Hulk Hogan vs a 5'6" 140lb man: if Hulk knew nothing (no wrestling or fighting style), and the other man as well, it is probable that the littler man is going to lose. If the littler person knew some fighting art, he may be able either last longer in a confrontation, win, or at least have a chance. If Hulk had the same skill level, then the littler person would again be on a level playing field, and would probably lose.
 
J W Bensinger said:
A lot of silat styles have jurus which really are kata, but the way Bruce taught, and the way his teacher taught him there were not. This may be because neither man thought they were needed.
Click to expand...

Ah ok, so we are at the different schools teach differently idea again. There are kata in the tradition but as we see in other Arts some instructors base their instruction on them, others feel they are not necessary and some probably feel they are actually harmful as Scara's who feels they might hinder actual use during a confrontation. Thanks, it is starting to make sense now. Also thanks for clearing up the Sinawali too. I also was taught to look for the flow and then to disrupt it :D I think that is common to almost all fighting styles, find the flow of the fight, then force a disruption in your favor.

Scara, I can feel your frustration. I wish there was something positive I could tell you to help. Unfortunately in this day and age people seem more and more like ostriches. If they burrow their head in the sand and ignore the unpleasant realities by keeping busy then they feel safe. Poor foolish people. The only positive I can offer you is that YOU at least are aware and it sounds like you have kept your eyes open and really looked at things instead of falling for any of the flash and lack of substance in the people you have seen so far. How to find the substance without going to a more traditional training school is a going to be a challenge that all I can offer is don't give up. The right situation is out there and you will find it, OR perhaps you will make it. Either way, I wish you much luck as you travel your path.

Cul, As a Westerner myself I have constantly seen differences is the way westerners are trained even within the same school. Many Asian instructors will hold Asian students to higher standards, or even teach them things they do not teach in the rest of the class. Davidf99's point about being forced to train some they do not support is also a good point. Still I have to point out, not many westerners are willing to go live within a school which really is the only way to properly learn the full Art. So I wonder how much of the differences are brought about by the demand for quick simple get my belt types vs the number of people that really want to learn the full Art.
 
Shavru - honestly, I just tell everyone who asks me, what do I think about them learning this or that. I tell them that learning anything is better than nothing. My only suggestion, learn what you want to learn, but learn it well. Any kind of martial art, or specialized fighting style (even street fighting...:)), if you understand the how, why, and when, then you are better off than people who only know less than those 3 attributes.
 
Shavru said:
Ah ok, so we are at the different schools teach differently idea again. There are kata in the tradition but as we see in other Arts some instructors base their instruction on them, others feel they are not necessary and some probably feel they are actually harmful as Scara's who feels they might hinder actual use during a confrontation. Thanks, it is starting to make sense now. Also thanks for clearing up the Sinawali too. I also was taught to look for the flow and then to disrupt it :D I think that is common to almost all fighting styles, find the flow of the fight, then force a disruption in your favor.

Scara, I can feel your frustration. I wish there was something positive I could tell you to help. Unfortunately in this day and age people seem more and more like ostriches. If they burrow their head in the sand and ignore the unpleasant realities by keeping busy then they feel safe. Poor foolish people. The only positive I can offer you is that YOU at least are aware and it sounds like you have kept your eyes open and really looked at things instead of falling for any of the flash and lack of substance in the people you have seen so far. How to find the substance without going to a more traditional training school is a going to be a challenge that all I can offer is don't give up. The right situation is out there and you will find it, OR perhaps you will make it. Either way, I wish you much luck as you travel your path.
Click to expand...

Though I did reread that part of my instructor's book, and his stance on katas seems to be heavily influenced by the user and the teacher. A teacher who teaches nothing but katas and never allows randori will end up with students who have no ability to put the katas to practical use in an engagement. I actually like his stance more now that I understand it more accurately, that they can be effective but you have to understand what you're doing and how it works and can be used to achieve victory in combat.

On the plus side, I am meeting people who understand or are willing to understand substance to some extent. Last week I ended up grappling a little with a friend just for fun, and when I couldn't dislodge him I started striking. I also mentioned that I normally carry a knife and that to grapple the way he was would result in him getting a knife in his liver, and dying very painfully. He replied that if he knew I was going to start striking or knew he'd be dealing with a knife, he would have kept his distance. My reply was "Why would you ever do it then? It doesn't make sense to practice something that only works when you have a partner you know won't kill you and isn't armed. You never know when they'll pull a knife on you, you need something that keeps you safe and allows you to end the fight decisively and quickly. Wrapping your hands around their legs and waist doesn't do that." To be honest I didn't think he really listened to what I had to say, but this morning he came to me and told me he'd watched a Youtube video from someone, I don't know who, and they'd made the exact same points I had made about it being foolish to train that way. It's also been learned that I have bought a book on knife defense and fighting, and as a result I've been asked to train a group of people. The problem is that I have no business training until I actually get some experience. The guy who asked then agreed to be a sparring partner, but our schedules haven't worked. And amusingly he walked into the room as I was typing this.
 
cul4u01 said:
Actually, Guhrkas had the skill of using the khukuri to equalize any disparities, Japanese have various martial arts, and skilled in weapons to also handle disparities. Basically, the thought is, Hulk Hogan vs a 5'6" 140lb man: if Hulk knew nothing (no wrestling or fighting style), and the other man as well, it is probable that the littler man is going to lose. If the littler person knew some fighting art, he may be able either last longer in a confrontation, win, or at least have a chance. If Hulk had the same skill level, then the littler person would again be on a level playing field, and would probably lose.
Click to expand...

Your point is valid for unarmed combat. That's why there are weight divisions in Judo, wrestling and MMA competitions. Not so much when weapons are involved. I do think it would be good for a laugh to see Hulk Hogan doing Tai Chi. Or ballet, for that matter.

Interestingly, professional Sumo wresting doesn't have weight divisions, and highly skilled competitors often win against much heavier opponents. There are weight divisions in amateur Sumo wrestling. I suppose one could debate whether Sumo is a martial art. It certainly isn't intended for actual combat or self-defense, but neither is wrestling, though both have skills that could be adapted to combat. Some of the best MMA fighters started as collegiate wrestlers.
 
Last edited:
davidf99 said:
Your point is valid for unarmed combat. That's why there are weight divisions in Judo, wrestling and MMA competitions. Not so much when weapons are involved. I do think it would be good for a laugh to see Hulk Hogan doing Tai Chi. Or ballet, for that matter.

Interestingly, the one competitive sport where weight ought to make the most difference doesn't have weight divisions, as far as I know. That's Sumo wresting.
Click to expand...

Though some have used ballet as a means of improving precision of footwork. I seem to recall hearing that Jean Claude Van Damme learned ballet for that purpose. I personally have found that there are all kinds of odd ways that one thing helps another. As an example, a friend who has studied martial arts at one point commented that I am much more coordinated when I walk than normal. He said that most people look like their being controlled by a marionette, while I look like I have strings running from my extremities into my core. After some thought I realized that this is a combination of what I learned when I was on track all those many years ago and lots of drill and ceremonies with the Air Force.
 
For some of the best edged weapons work out there find your local AMOK crew. Tom Sotis has put together a really stellar program, and his methodology is the best I've seen in nearly 30 years of training.
Don't know why I didn't post that before-my bad.
 
AMOK? Sound it out......Annihilation, Mayhem, Omnipotent, Krispy Kremes.?

Somehow I don't think I got it.

Luv
The dumb one.
 
JW, looked it up and I have to say looks VERY good! One of the things I really like is that the first points he makes are about Pre-fight and how to escape a confrontation. Finally a trainer that understands the #1 goal should be to avoid needing to fight and the fighting happens after that part fails. I really like his methodology chart as well. I plan to look a lot harder into what he has on his site (do a google search on Tom's name and amok for anyone looking for it) Thanks The only downside is he doesn't seem to have a lot of hands on stuff out this side of the US, a couple in CA that I might be able to arrange for. But most seem to be NE US and International. The video samples for the training videos seem really well done though.

I will have to do some more research, but maybe I will be running AMOK! LOL.

Scara, Good to hear the sparring opportunities are looking up. I hope that works out and gives you a chance to put into practice what you have been learning.

As Cul points out when he says if you know the How, Why, When you are better off that people who don't know that. As for training what you do know. Just be honest about what you can and can't show them. You can teach them to be more aware and show them what you do know as well as making sure you tell them when you reach things you don't. I will occasionally teach basics, as a sandan I am technically "qualified" to teach but I still consider myself a student and don't really feel I am good at teaching so I don't often. However people that I care about I want them to have enough understanding to be able to use in self-defense situations as well as determine if this Art is a good fit for what their goals are. For me the important part is to figure out when a student has passed the point I should be teaching them and send them to a teacher better suited for the more advanced training they need. So for an informal group like you describe as long as you are providing them good quality information and you are comfortable they are gaining from it then they will be better off than they were before. Don't consider it teaching, consider it leading a group who are all interested in finding out the same information together. You are helping them become more aware and determine if this is something they want to continue to pursue in a more formal advanced way. As long as that is the case and you are honest about your limitations, I do not see how they can do anything but benefit from the experience.
 
Shavru, you may be interested to know that one of the first things my instructor deals with in his book is situational awareness to avoid fights altogether, followed by staying alert and maintaining your distance from a potential or actual attacker, followed by mindset during an attack. He even has a section right after it on the effects of clothing, both male and female.

I suppose I could probably teach some of the basic techniques, but I'm still learning the more advanced stuff on defense myself. Still, if by teaching it I end up with the opportunity to practice it, it might be beneficial.
 
That is great Scara, I always notice that most MA instructors kind of figure you are already at the defend yourself or get a whoopin' phase of the fight when they start teaching. I love hearing that some are still teaching ways to avoid and escape fighting as well. It is still the best way to win after all.
 
Always avoid, escape if you can, if you must confront, you fight for keeps.
 
<Nod> Very true Cul. far too many variables involved in a fight. Too many ways it can and will go wrong for even the most skilled fighter. Always better to not fight if you can figure out how. What is interesting is when you really watch people how you can tell the ones that have learned that. Just little things about the way they move and act. How they are watching around them. Where they place themselves in public situations. How they move around a group of people but never through.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top