1/23/2009 7:12pm, #11
Well, according to wikipedia, the founder of your style died in 1948, so the style itself can't be much older than, say 100 years, which is pretty short in the grand scale of things. I would imagine that there must have been some watershed event or change of outlook that they felt justified them to change the way they were doing things and start a new style.
Whether or not you think it's the right way to go, the rise of combat sports and especially promotions like UFC has been the recent watershed event that has people looking at things differently, questioning what they themselves are doing and the efectivenes of what they teach.
I don't think that means every one should be switching to MMA though. For one thing, most instructors just aren't qualified to teach all aspects of the fight game, and so face the choice of either hiring in talent, or else basically bluffing it. Secondly, while it's not my bag, I do appreciate that other people are into martial arts for reasons other than that they like hitting & choking people - they want the culture type stuff, etc., and it would be a shame to lose that.
One thing you should do though, is look at the training methods used by modern MMA atheletes, and see what you can take from that to improve what you're teaching. You've got to accept that strenght and atheleticism is a huge factor in winning fights, put the myth of the little 70 year old man that can take on all comers to bed, and start encouraging your students to work on strength training to improve their martial art. You should be using aliveness in your training, cut down on the basic air punching and move on to things that challange your sense of ballance, timing and distance. Techniques need to be practiced against resisting oponents, and you should embrace compitition as one of the best simulations we have for a real life altercation. (Yes, I know it's not perfect, but it's the best thing we've got.)
What you should end up with is something that looks reasonably similar to what you started with, only works better. You don't need to make all these changes over night either, but if you see something you could change, give it a try, see how it goes.
1/23/2009 7:53pm, #12Originally Posted by Gezere
1/23/2009 8:28pm, #13
Combat at all ranges would be (very) nice, but I don't think it's a necessity. People go to boxing gyms or MT schools and don't complain about not learning grappling.
As long as the karate school trains and spars in a manner where they can compete with the other good striking styles it's A-OK in my book.
The real difficulty is finding middle-ground competition for your students to test themselves in. Mma and kickboxing are great, but realistically, only a minority of students want to compete in a format where they are fighting to a K.O. MMA is even more prohibitive because you need a ground game to compete as well as the standup you teach. More knockdown or Koshiki style tournaments would be ideal to provide that reasonably tough/realistic middle ground for the average person (because otherwise, it's just point fighting for them), but in many areas they are non-existant.
Last edited by maofas; 1/23/2009 8:33pm at .
1/23/2009 8:55pm, #14
Did you and your sensei have this conversation in English? What kind of floor is in your dojo? Do you have kids' classes? What color belts do you use? How much time do you spend on makiwara training? Do you wear gloves when you spar? Do you spar? Do you EVER use or teach ANY technique that isn't part of your style?
I only ask these questions because if you think about the answers, I bet all of them differ from how the founder of your style would have answered them. You've already updated your training many times over the years if you are honest with yourself, I'm willing to bet. If I'm right, then why draw the line at training shoots and sprawls and clinchwork or whatever you think you shouldn't add?It seems to me that the Sanjuriu Martial Art is not in guestion, but, rather the character of Mr. Galt.
1/23/2009 9:01pm, #15Originally Posted by Kung-Fu Joe
My point is that karate used to be, and in my eyes should be, an all-ranges affair, a complete martial art.
But you're right.
1/23/2009 11:21pm, #16
Hi, Sensei Tucker.
....shouldn't it be Tucker Sensei?
1/24/2009 1:06am, #17
Originally Posted by 3moose1
- Join Date
- Nov 2008
- Brandon, Ms
Yes, It is Tucker Sensei formally. As is used in my Dojo by students and on my web site. Its only used as Sensei Tucker as a log in name on most forum sites for me. Tucker Sensei was already taken on a few sites so just stuck with the latter.
1/24/2009 5:43am, #18Originally Posted by 3moose1
As a default I'd refer to someone from Japan the proper way, but in the U.S., ehhhh, whatever, I really don't think it's a huge deal.
Last edited by maofas; 1/24/2009 5:48am at .
1/24/2009 11:02am, #19
Personally, I don't really like the whole title thing. I call my coach, "Coach" or by his name. When he gets blackbelt, though, i joke about calling him Sensei.
1/24/2009 11:15am, #20
Meh, as long as they remember that it's an honorific and not a title, and that in Japanese these two things are used differently to English (where the two terms mean practically the same thing) it's all good.
Using "sensei" in your user name is kind of pushing it though.