OK, let's start off with a few assumptions that I should clarify before going into this.
1. My club has a heavy focus on applied martial arts. Be able to use what you train. It is our belief that both Karate/Kenpo and Kobudo were intended to be methods of survival or warfare. They were combative in the past. If we are not training with this intent in mind today then we are really not pursuing the same thing as the originators of the system. It's fine to go your own way but don't think you are practicing the same thing as your system's originators. Only since the late 1800's have we moved away from combative use into other qualities of the martial arts.
2. The Sai is a multi-range weapon. There are two main positions for the weapon. Open, with the 'pointy' part out and the handle in your grip. And Closed, with the length of the weapon along your forearm and the end of the grip out in front. Each position allows you to do things in different ranges. Closed is for a closer range and open a slightly longer range. And I suppose you can throw it too but that gets into tactics and strategy a little deeper than I want to go for now.
Now, in a recent advanced (Shodan and up) class last week we began working on something that should be basic. Sai 101 stuff. This may be old news to some but I was not shown this coming up. I have yet to run across anyone else who was either. I always thought the basic ready position for sai was either both weapons open or both closed. This is how we always learned it before and it seems to fit well with a lot of the things we see in the katas. We have found that the paired sai work very well as a one up, one down kamae. Or, one open and one closed at the same time. Specifically with the lead hand closed. Think sword and shield position and you're pretty close.
What's interesting is that since I have started using it I have yet to shoot any holes in the idea. I see it everywhere now in the katas. We might be on to something. A few points of support...
Now that I'm looking for it, it shows up consistently throughout our Sai kata. I would have a hard time saying it is not the basic on guard position at this point. If you are working from a ready or semi-ready posture you can tie everything to this guarded lead hand and open chambered hand.
Also, it fits with the traditional idea of how the weapons were carried and drawn from the hip. Try it. Place two sai in your belt on your left hip. One just outside of the other. Now play around with different ways to smoothly remove them both into a good ready position. Did you end up with a cross draw for the right hand and a thumb hook to lift out the left? The one in the right hand is open and the left is either closed or awkwardly fumbled to an open guard. Flipping this open would be slower and more likely to lose the weapon. Me too. It's natural. It's fast and you can perform most kata techniques starting from here.
This is very similar to the way I teach other weapons such as the escrima (tanbo for our Okinawan stylists). We don't normally fold the front weapon (when using two) but the rear hand is always in a high chamber. We found this to be the preferred place to start from. Keeping the weapon back and chambered allows you to use it in either a full step forward, a half step (cutting step) in , or from punching range without a step. It makes it more versatile while eliminating the need to load before striking.
I realize reading this that the whole topic is kind of dull and basic...unless you've never heard of it. As I said, most of the people I know who practice with sai fall into that category. If you are looking for applications in your sai kata, give this a try.
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Monday, December 17, 2012
I am not my instructor.
One of the first things I told my group of new students was that my
goal is to make them better martial artists than I am. Of course, I
didn't mention that I'm also working to make me better than I am
currently. I'm slowly coming to the light on an idea and like so many
other things you learn, it was right there all along. I just wasn't
ready to see/understand it until now.
I am not my instructor. For a long time my goal was to pursue him. To be as good as he is. Well, that's only the start. My goal should be to become as good as I possibly can. To just become as good or better than any one person is really setting limits for myself. Now, my instructor may be the best, most effective practical martial artist I have met. Sure. But, I don't want to stop there. And what if I never get 'there'? What if he is always better than me? He has a head start so it would only be natural that as long as we are both making progress then he will be leading me. But, paths can split and they can re-connect later too. I recently found this to be true in a visit to an old dojo.
I rarely get to train with my first school. I only recognize a few faces anymore. Luckily the head instructor and his family are around still. Good guy and an excellent technician. I owe them a lot. But I do not owe them for any understanding of practical martial arts. It's the kind of school that made you really good at everything but the 'martial' part. On a recent training went as usual but something was different. They were looking deeper into techniques. We talked afterwards and it seems the instructor has discovered some practical influences that made him want to know more. They are just scratching the surface but it's a step forward. A big one. The art just got deeper for everyone he teaches from this moment on.
So, I don't think we should train to become a carbon copy of anyone else. After a point if I am still training to match someone's ideas of "perfect" or "complete", then I am not maximizing my own study. Different body types and experiences. Different strengths and weaknesses. I have to find the best possible way to train for me. And the most appropriate goals. People study for a variety of reasons. And within those reasons they each count a variety of ways to advance.
The goals can be the same but the route that you take to get there may be wildly different. This goes back to the idea of strategy and tactics. A takedown that works for one guy in class may not be the best option for someone else in the exact same situation. It's just a reality. I address this in class all the time.
I tell my training partners that I am going to show them a number of ways to do a technique. Say, to defeat a lapel grab. After all there are numerous ways in our forms that demonstrate this. We will practice them all in the most effective way we can. We will play with them and see what works and what does not. I don't expect you to use all of them anytime someone grabs you this way. That would actually be a real problem as too many answers for the same stimulus cause a freeze. Pick your favorite and do it well. Don't worry about how I do it or how my instructor does it. Try the technique. If it's a keeper plug it in as your chosen tactic for responding to the situation then train it until it is your own.
If we look to kata as a guide we see this exact process. This is why there are small differences in katas. Why one style does it with the arm turned this way and another with the arm turned that way. This individuality used to be encouraged in traditional arts.
We have lost a lot on the journey through time. And one of the most important missing pieces is the time and encouragement to play with your techniques. There is so much to learn and I know there have to be some standards but, only sticking to the standards will not keep the method of fighting alive. Take it out of the box and work it until it fails, tweak it then work it again! Failure is the beginning of competency. This is how you feed your art. This is also what sets me apart from those before me. Ironically, it is also one of the things that connects us to the past.
I know that traditionalists equate this to the idea of "Shu, Ha, Re" or "Copy, Perfect, Transcend" and I'm sure that it is. Like I said, I'm just really starting to understand it...again. Funny how perspective changes with time and experience.
Just a thought as you continue forward in your training. Your instructor is there to guide and teach. He corrects you at first and gets you to a point where you are ready to learn on your own. This time is invaluable! After enough serious practice you begin to see that if everyone painted exactly like Monet, it would not be art, it would just be paint by number.
More martial ramblings.
I am not my instructor. For a long time my goal was to pursue him. To be as good as he is. Well, that's only the start. My goal should be to become as good as I possibly can. To just become as good or better than any one person is really setting limits for myself. Now, my instructor may be the best, most effective practical martial artist I have met. Sure. But, I don't want to stop there. And what if I never get 'there'? What if he is always better than me? He has a head start so it would only be natural that as long as we are both making progress then he will be leading me. But, paths can split and they can re-connect later too. I recently found this to be true in a visit to an old dojo.
I rarely get to train with my first school. I only recognize a few faces anymore. Luckily the head instructor and his family are around still. Good guy and an excellent technician. I owe them a lot. But I do not owe them for any understanding of practical martial arts. It's the kind of school that made you really good at everything but the 'martial' part. On a recent training went as usual but something was different. They were looking deeper into techniques. We talked afterwards and it seems the instructor has discovered some practical influences that made him want to know more. They are just scratching the surface but it's a step forward. A big one. The art just got deeper for everyone he teaches from this moment on.
So, I don't think we should train to become a carbon copy of anyone else. After a point if I am still training to match someone's ideas of "perfect" or "complete", then I am not maximizing my own study. Different body types and experiences. Different strengths and weaknesses. I have to find the best possible way to train for me. And the most appropriate goals. People study for a variety of reasons. And within those reasons they each count a variety of ways to advance.
The goals can be the same but the route that you take to get there may be wildly different. This goes back to the idea of strategy and tactics. A takedown that works for one guy in class may not be the best option for someone else in the exact same situation. It's just a reality. I address this in class all the time.
I tell my training partners that I am going to show them a number of ways to do a technique. Say, to defeat a lapel grab. After all there are numerous ways in our forms that demonstrate this. We will practice them all in the most effective way we can. We will play with them and see what works and what does not. I don't expect you to use all of them anytime someone grabs you this way. That would actually be a real problem as too many answers for the same stimulus cause a freeze. Pick your favorite and do it well. Don't worry about how I do it or how my instructor does it. Try the technique. If it's a keeper plug it in as your chosen tactic for responding to the situation then train it until it is your own.
If we look to kata as a guide we see this exact process. This is why there are small differences in katas. Why one style does it with the arm turned this way and another with the arm turned that way. This individuality used to be encouraged in traditional arts.
We have lost a lot on the journey through time. And one of the most important missing pieces is the time and encouragement to play with your techniques. There is so much to learn and I know there have to be some standards but, only sticking to the standards will not keep the method of fighting alive. Take it out of the box and work it until it fails, tweak it then work it again! Failure is the beginning of competency. This is how you feed your art. This is also what sets me apart from those before me. Ironically, it is also one of the things that connects us to the past.
I know that traditionalists equate this to the idea of "Shu, Ha, Re" or "Copy, Perfect, Transcend" and I'm sure that it is. Like I said, I'm just really starting to understand it...again. Funny how perspective changes with time and experience.
Just a thought as you continue forward in your training. Your instructor is there to guide and teach. He corrects you at first and gets you to a point where you are ready to learn on your own. This time is invaluable! After enough serious practice you begin to see that if everyone painted exactly like Monet, it would not be art, it would just be paint by number.
More martial ramblings.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Everything is cross training.
Everything is cross training. I've been looking at this for awhile
now. I brought it up in the last post briefly so, I thought I'd put it
up and see if anyone else has opinions about it. And as usual, just to
get it out of my head in a somewhat organized manner.
To start let's take three seemingly unrelated activities and watch them converge. Three things I have experience with and can readily relate. Martial arts, weight/resistance training, and shooting.
All three have good and bad habits that can be learned. Every technique, lift or rep is up for criticism when you want to improve performance. The line of movement should be clean and consistent for all three. There is a most efficient way to punch just as there is a most efficient way to press heavy things overhead. Proper bone alignment will allow you to hold that weight or prevent weapon jams or transfer maximum energy into a strike. Of course balance and breathing are important in all three as well.
Similar movement patterns. Here's the good part. I have noticed that correct stances and breathing, skeletal alignment and similar muscular tension are the same, if not identical across the board. I'm sure there are a number of other activities that this applies to as well. Over time I have studied/trained in the three above activities under a number of separate instructors. I have reached a point now where my stance is almost exactly the same on the range as it is when addressing a punch (minus the pointing of imaginary weapons!). My hips and spine align in almost identical ways whether I am trying to punch correctly or press a kettlebell overhead 20 times. In all cases it seems that closer is generally better, within appropriate circumstances. For example, there is such thing as too close for a carbine rifle. Or sitting on the floor as opposed to standing over a weight you are trying to lift perhaps. But long range shooting is less effective. Being too far from the bar when lifting can cause injury, and backing up in a physical conflict can get you in trouble fast.
I like the idea of a common set of habits. It makes for better and faster transfer to other skill sets. Especially with any activities that are closely related to a violent scenario. When put under pressure you will default to a percentage of what you can do instinctively or habitually. It's nice to have less things to process.
So, when you think about it anytime you are training one skill, you are really practicing all of them to some degree. Habit forming. If you are practicing good habits, this is good news. If not, then you are effectively cross training or cross contaminating weakness into the system.
To start let's take three seemingly unrelated activities and watch them converge. Three things I have experience with and can readily relate. Martial arts, weight/resistance training, and shooting.
All three have good and bad habits that can be learned. Every technique, lift or rep is up for criticism when you want to improve performance. The line of movement should be clean and consistent for all three. There is a most efficient way to punch just as there is a most efficient way to press heavy things overhead. Proper bone alignment will allow you to hold that weight or prevent weapon jams or transfer maximum energy into a strike. Of course balance and breathing are important in all three as well.
Similar movement patterns. Here's the good part. I have noticed that correct stances and breathing, skeletal alignment and similar muscular tension are the same, if not identical across the board. I'm sure there are a number of other activities that this applies to as well. Over time I have studied/trained in the three above activities under a number of separate instructors. I have reached a point now where my stance is almost exactly the same on the range as it is when addressing a punch (minus the pointing of imaginary weapons!). My hips and spine align in almost identical ways whether I am trying to punch correctly or press a kettlebell overhead 20 times. In all cases it seems that closer is generally better, within appropriate circumstances. For example, there is such thing as too close for a carbine rifle. Or sitting on the floor as opposed to standing over a weight you are trying to lift perhaps. But long range shooting is less effective. Being too far from the bar when lifting can cause injury, and backing up in a physical conflict can get you in trouble fast.
I like the idea of a common set of habits. It makes for better and faster transfer to other skill sets. Especially with any activities that are closely related to a violent scenario. When put under pressure you will default to a percentage of what you can do instinctively or habitually. It's nice to have less things to process.
So, when you think about it anytime you are training one skill, you are really practicing all of them to some degree. Habit forming. If you are practicing good habits, this is good news. If not, then you are effectively cross training or cross contaminating weakness into the system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)