Blog Article/Post Caveat (Read First Please: Click the Link)
In truth, as I believe; as I stated a time or two; as I have written in various articles styles are personal labels and symbols to a person’s perception and distinction as to how they, and they alone, apply their practices, training regimens and teachings of a system of multiple methodologies applied in situations that require certain levels of force for defense or to combat an enemy.
I advocate that styles are not what truly matters in self-fense, fighting or combatives but that fundamental principles along with multiple methodologies and force decisions, etc. Now, in this light I read an article by a respected martial arts expert where a ‘master’ from Japan provided a demonstration on why it is not about styles and this is what was written:
Sensei grouped the men together and asked for a volunteer. He blind-folded the man and randomly asked for a second volunteer from the group to apply a joint lock to the blind-folded man’s arm. He then asked the volunteer to tighten his stomach muscle in preparation for a light kick and punch from the 2nd volunteer. At the end of the demonstration the 2nd volunteer returned to the group as sensei removed the blind-fold and asked the 1st volunteer to tell everyone which style had applied the joint lock, the kick, and the punch etc.? Naturally, he could not. “A punch is a punch, a kick is a kick, and the elbow only bends one way” sensei said!
Now, to my mind, that makes sense because if you remove all outward manifestations and sensory input effected by perceptions and distinctions of the mind all you are left with is, “Principles, methodologies and force applications.” In a sense deprived way you find that without sensory input effected by perceptions you CANNOT perceive actual styles being applied. So, if that is actually true and relevant then styles don’t matter except toward a very human condition of both perceptions and distinctions caused by conditioning by the very sources of styles.
So, even tho styles exist and are important to humans or the martial arts and karate communities they actually have nor real applicable purpose in the scheme of things as to self-defense or the actual application of such methodologies such as, “Actual tactics and attack methodologies of impacts, drives (pushes), pulls, twists, takedowns/throws and compression.”
I would also remind the reader about those principles I advocate over styles as the underlying foundation to the way of applied methods and forces regardless of style designations because they don’t vary just because they are applied under the heading of one style or another, i.e., as follows:
Principles of, “Theory, Physiokinetics, Technique, Philosophy, Self-Defense and Chemical Cocktails,” with sub-principles of physiokinetics that seem to dominate in the physical teachings and applications that tend to govern how we perceive and distinguish styles from one another, i.e., “Breathing, posture, triangle guard, centerline, primary gate, spinal alignment, axis, minor axis, structure, heaviness, relaxation, wave energy, convergence, centeredness, triangulation point, the dynamic sphere, body-mind, void, centripetal force, centrifugal force, sequential locking and sequential relaxation, peripheral vision, tactile sensitivity, rooting, attack hubs, attack posture, etc.”
Query: If anyone can provide an example that refutes the above demonstration and theory on detecting styles in applications of principles, methodologies and force levels, please make a comment with the material used and any applicable references so I may analyze and synthesize my theories, idea’s and teachings. Much appreciated!
ATTENTION: To my mind, styles MATTER because they are useful to humans and to teachings and toward satisfying certain non-physical philosophies of martial arts and karate. After all, one main fundamental principle is philosophy and styles although cannot be put into a wheel barrow do apply as part of philosophies and therefore matter. But, as indicated herein, as to its actual application in defense and/or combatives not so much.
Bibliography (Click the link)
No comments:
Post a Comment