When I first began my
study with Taika, everything that he taught was a new experience.
Though having studied a (so-called) “traditional” system prior to
studying with Taika, everything that had been shown to me before, had
to be relearned (according to Taika, correctly).
Having worked with
numerous individual's who had done like myself (transferred from a
different Japanese/Okinawan system), it was interesting to observe
what was embraced, and what was discarded, if not ignored (by
those individual's).
There were a number of
them that used to (and still do) teach the “Ki”
energy/flowing B.S. I admit that I've used the water/flowing analogy
to describe motion and momentum transfer on numerous occasions, but
never as a premiss for explaining an application's
effectiveness.
It took myself a few
years to completely abandon what I taught (and did)
before, but until I made that conversion, my progress (in RyuTe) was
excruciatingly slow. There were too many opposing
principles that couldn't be resolved until I did. Until I
embraced the system (as a whole) I didn't really experience
(much of) any progress (beyond the basics).
Often the simplest
things, like learning to kick the uke's legs (only) required a
great deal of effort (on my part), after having that be a “banned”
practice for those numerous years prior to beginning RyuTe (in my
previous system).
Even the practice of kata
was vastly different when I began my study. In my prior system, kata
practice amounted to (only) being a requirement (for the next belt
test). There was no (legitimate) bunkai that was being shown (or even
hinted at).
The biggest (weight,
IMO) practice to abandon
(at least in methodology), is that of sparring (or at least,
in how it's being done). I have no problem with “1”
student donning safety gear while another is allowed to pummel them
using medium/full power strikes (in response to an aggression
attempt). My problems with how the practice is commonly being done,
begins when both person's have the gear on.
In my prior system, 1 and
2-step (practice) was considered to be basic and/or practice.
Sparring was what was supposed to be (considered) real
(OK, I was young,
and ignorant of the
ways of the world, LOL). When I began RyuTe, those two
subjects (step practice and sparring) were reversed
in their practical priority status (and sparring, was
actually demoted to a lower level than 1 and 2-step had been
at previously and is now considered to
be detrimental).
What had been practiced
for grabs, pushes and
such (grappling), was a collection of Jujutsu and Aikido
techniques (very poor substitutes for Tuite BTW, LOL). These
techniques were actually the easiest to abandon (seeing as how
what was being shown didn't posses the inherent weaknesses
that the previous techniques did).
Possibly what these other
person's studied didn't contain the (IMO) serious flaws that I
experienced, or maybe they found some use for their old
sparring techniques (that I had dismissed, and
completely abandoned, deeming them a useless waste of
my student's time).
For myself, I view what
has been learned, and what has been abandoned as being
a progression (in what I am teaching). My present concern is
that of stagnation. In those
regards, we are continuing with our research. I believe that if that
stops, then what has been gained,
will surely be abandoned,
and then lost.
2 comments:
In my opinion no sincere training is ever "a waste of time" even if it later turns out to be BS. :)
I understand your sentiment, but I disagree with your premiss. If/when that training does turn out to be BS, then you have wasted (often times) precious training time. It's been proven that it requires 5 times the amount of time to un/re-train a physical action/motion (after having learned it incorrectly). As your well aware, not everyone has the luxury of repeatedly learning/practicing motions. If/when something turns out to be BS, then it can very well be a deciding factor in a life or death situation (keep in mind, I train a number of Law Enforcement students). Sincerity, does not compensate for ineffectiveness.
Post a Comment