Where do we begin when teaching or training? What is our focus? In many cases, when it comes to Karate, it is first on stances; walking, turning, proper form, etc.
From there it is on to punching, blocking, and kicking, moving basics/Kihon, then Kata, then into partner drills, sparring down the line, which is often taught with a different set of principles.
There was a conversation with someone a while back, someone that runs their own school who stated that their focus, now, was 'more combative' and that they were 'reworking everything with combat and real fighting in mind.'
Okay? So that goes right back to previous posts on this subject, what do you mean when you say that? What, exactly, is being reworked? What, exactly, are you changing? Are you also getting into fighting shape?
Many pay this aspect lip service, seldom knowing what it even means, mostly it is just to sell an angle to get more students through the door because bills have to be paid.
Looking at their page, nothing has really changed about what they are doing, it is still Karate, they are still doing things the standard Karate way, even if they pay lip service to being different.
What do I mean by this? They start with stances, moving drills while punching and kicking the air, lots of Kata, lots of talking, very little on actually concepts that could serve a person who winds up in an actual violent situation, or even a person who chooses to enter the Ring or Octagon.
All they are doing is repetitive Kihon/Kata type training, zero Kumite or Iri Kumi from what I could see and the 'stop and go' aspect of basic Karate remains, they have not broken that habit.
In my opinion, if we are going from a more Combative angle, the concepts that would serve someone in a Combative situation should be taught first and remain central to the training with everything else taking secondary supportive roles.
Those things which do not serve to support these concepts and principles should be dropped entirely, especially if they only cause confusion and work against the more Combative concepts.
Stances are good for training, building up muscle, and they do have combative aspects to them, but to approach the Combative side we need to forget all about stances and focus more on footwork, positioning, rhythm, and timing.
Form is important only insofar as it has a function, most of what is taught is NOT functional. You cannot just throw your hand out and call it a strike, there are mechanics that serve a proper strike which are meant to deliver more heat into the opponent whilst protecting you from injuring yourself.
Kata? I do believe in the combative usefulness of teaching and training Kata as it does teach quite a bit about positioning, functional form, footwork, proper mechanics, etc., but not really much in the way of rhythm and timing that one would get from partner work and sparring with a live resisting opponent.
That said, Kata is more for solo work, while class would be focused on taking the lessons FROM Kata and applying them wasting very little time on punching or kicking air, little time on lecturing, more time for actual work.
I watched a video from Ramsey Dewey on Youtube in which he had sent out a poll stating 'the Average Martial Artist can't fight,' a good percentage of people agreed, myself being one of them.
It is a true statement, the average Martial Artist CAN'T Fight and would be made to look like a fool if they were every attacked by an assailant in the street, or even if they stepped into the Cage without prep work, even by an untrained attacker.
Mr. Dewey brings up three ingredients required to be good at fighting;
* Technique
* Athleticism
* Aggression
He is correct in saying that if any one of these are missing then there is going to be a problem.
Technique is only one third of the formula, if you have technique, but lack conditioning you MIGHT win based on your aggression, but if the other guy has conditioning AND aggression they may well steam roll you as if you weren't even there.
I would say that there is a fourth aspect of this formula, namely Strategy, Tactics would fall under Technique and Technique would be more principles and concepts driven.
Just some food for thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment