|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
Lou Demas added to this discussion on November 17, 2009
|
Rex
Have fun winterizing, I will look forward to reading your new stuff!!
Lou
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
Grant McCormick added to this discussion on November 18, 2009
|
First, thanks for getting my grey-matter stirring. Second, Askren may have been either the perfect or worst example relating to the Laws due to the fact he’s, to quote a great man, “a wrestler of the first dimension” who may be without peer in scrambling. Third, after thinking about it, here is my take on how Askren relates to the laws.
I agree that Askren “violates Repeat Position” is not the correct manner of putting it; it would be more appropriate to say that early on he failed to learn from it or failed to capably engage in a particular position that increases awareness and understanding of what that situation affords and the nuances of that position. He wrestled a Big 12 finals against Pendleton in which he repeatedly left a leg out and turned into Pendelton to invite a cradle….giving up repeated takedowns. He engaged in a particular position; however not capably, given his competition, and failed to understand the nuances of when and against whom it works. So, the Laws work and when not adhered to, undesirable results arise.
At times Askren does adhere to / apply these laws, but I’d argue that he plays outside the scope of them regularly.
Looking at Askren’s Nat. final’s match against Herbert (which he won): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWJcmCA8A8Q&feature=related (no audio---none needed)
He’s not initiating certain positions, he is going the other way---he deconstructs certain positions so that he’s creating a ‘dynamic progression’ of which the results are unknown. I contend that he does create chaos wherein he is more comfortable than his opponent and when an opponent like Pendelton won’t play his game, Askren violates Proper Form by creating attacks that are neither warranted nor have a high probability of execution. Herbert, on the other hand, allowed Askren to take the match out of the realm of the known and into some of the most gnarly scrambling I’ve ever seen. Askren didn’t know where or how Herbert is going to be/react, but Ben trusted his amazing instincts and ability to recognize when any certain position presented itself and realize the advantage before Herbert could. He doesn’t create the certain position, he is merely creating an opportunity for it to arise--- a free-form dynamic progression followed by Proper Form “the correct technical application at the right time, position, situation and opponent”.
This has really been eye opening, as I have previously not thought of scrambling as more than ‘funk’. Perhaps this is why I avoid scrambles, as it is somewhat of a foreign language to me.….I no longer look at it that way and I thank you guys.
Shazam takes me back to reading my brother's comics.
S The wisdom of Solomon;
H The strength of Hercules;
A The stamina of Atlas;
Z The power of Zeus;
A The courage of Achilles;
M The speed of Mercury.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
Mark Niemann added to this discussion on November 18, 2009
|
New idea for a slogan on a t-shirt...
SHAZAM!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
Lou Demas added to this discussion on November 18, 2009
|
Grant
I understand why it appears that Askren is creating a form chaos but I don't get from his wrestling, that chaos is his intent. To simplify what I believe Askren is doing, I will give this example - when wrestler has a great offense off a front head lock, his body reacts at a muscle memory level countering offensively the various finishes off of the front head lock he is not creating chaos but seeking advantage in position. All feel all wrestler's do this every time they seek advantage in position. I don't know if I collar tie my opponent that he may have better outside elbow control and score. I feel I am going to a position that I have have the advantage to maximize my scoring potential. that is what I believe Askren and all great wrestler's do, make their opponent wrestle them from their particular strengths. Even the purist of counter wrestler's have to give the illusion if not go in bad position or they risk stalling calls.
My understanding of the Laws Rex put forth, are they are not something a wrestler can violate or wrestle outside their confines but they just are realities of wrestling.
Grant you may also want check out a coach by the name of Eierman on flowrestling and what he has to say.I believe he was very influential in Asken's scrambling and makes some very good point's about wrestling.
http://www.flowrestling.org/videos/coverage/view_video/234202-
technique-tuesday/174404-eierman-crotchlift-series-and-defense
BY THE POWER OF GREY SKULL!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
Rex Holman added to this discussion on November 19, 2009
|
Grant-
It is not chaos although it may look that way. By your own admission, you are not a scrambler. Thus, you have impaired or limited knowledge of affordances provided by scrambling. Actually the first scramble is textbook. Askren is in great position as Herbert's position is head low and hips high whereas Askren is head high and hips low. Askren created the position with a center roll through the legs which I first became aware of in watching David Hirsch of Cornell back in the early 90s. Mitch Clark was dominant with this technique and utilized it to create situations to his advantage. I am adding some Laws today which should help illustrate my points further. In order develop these skills in wrestlers, you need to put them in the position, illustrate what to do, and then practice from the position. With continuous effort and focus on the position, a wrestler develops an understanding of what the situation affords.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
Rex Holman added to this discussion on November 19, 2009
|
After having given this some further thought. There is definitely a hierarchy. In keeping with eastern philosophy, I would like to structure it with proper form at the top or center of the structure as managing all the variables with discipline and application are the signs of a master. A master is someone that is aware(consciously or not) of the variables at play and consequently makes account of them.
Law of Presupposition-This law explains the process of presupposition and its’ relative benefit and hindrance. We carry with us attitudes, biases, and filters. These subjections developed in response to our experience and act as mechanisms which affect our perceptual abilities. These mechanisms can aid or detract from a given ambition. An increased awareness of our presupposition allows us to identify and evaluate it. The advantage to this process is that we may further identify the mechanisms that assist or detract from our ambitions and take further ownership of our capacity for thought.i.e. A wrestler does something a certain way because it has brought him past success, when he elevates to another level it may no longer be true, yet he is unaccommodating to new modalities as he is entrenched in his own attitudes, biases and filters. With reflection and sage advice from peers, and coaches, the athlete can adjust attitudes,biases and filters through acts of will and personal growth.
Law of Subjective Response-Subjective response entails judging, projecting, filtering or imposing biases, attitudes onto a given thing as response to interaction with said thing. Subjective viewership precedes subjective response.
Law of Objective Viewership-Objective viewership entails seeing the processes and undeterred nature of a given thing. Objective viewership precedes an objective response.
Law of Analysis-In assessing technical reliances, positional propensities and physical abilities of an opponent, one must remain objective in viewership in order to extract the true nature of those qualities. With that information, one might correctly devise proper strategy and tactics for said opponent.
Law of Means-We should entertain opportunities to score that are within our means.
Law of Strategy-Strategy should entail those technicalities, of which we are well-versed, procreate positions for which we have affinity, and engage the strengths of our physicality. Constructive strategy shall attempt to do opposite for our opponent. It should entail technicalities of which our opponent is of limited awareness, positions of discord, and engage physical weaknesses.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
Lou Demas added to this discussion on November 19, 2009
|
Rex
Great stuff, I believe what you have written could apply to many aspects of one life not just wrestling and I say this not being real advocate of eastern philosophy because I believe it can tend to lead people toward narcissism.
I am curious because what you have written is written with in the context of eastern philosophy, how would reconcile this:
Gable's win was proper form and although it may have been unsatisfying, it was the right thing to do. As I recall, Gable wrestled with a torn cartilage in his knee. Let's say he increases his risk and does more in the way of penetration and his knee locks on him and he is severely compromised which affects his ability and consequently he does not win an Olympic title. Can you imagine Gable being revered as the best ever without a '72 Olympic title---not so much.
with the Buddha's:
Though he should conquer a thousand men in the battlefield a thousand times, yet he, indeed, who would conquer himself is the noblest victor."
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
Rex Holman added to this discussion on November 20, 2009
|
Lou-
The last thing Gable needed to conquer was in fact himself as he need understand the nature of his situation and accept it as a condition of his circumstance. In doing so, he would not develop the attachment to always scoring but rather wrestling masterfully within one's ability in a given task. In doing so, there would be no misgivings over the performance.
Actually, the attitude of always having to score and its consequent attachment opens the door to immature behavior. While this is fun for the fan and makes for good drama, it is not the way of a true master
As far as the narcissm goes, I don't see it. If you could please explain as I see western philosophy and capitalism as more of an impetus for it.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
Rex Holman added to this discussion on November 20, 2009
|
I like the idea of mastering things or said another way, being of highly functional form. There are areas of sport which require our energies in order to develop. i.e. execution of technique, discipline, toughness, strategizing, emotional maturity, etc. Some are given greater emphasis than others. While a person may excel at execution of technique, toughness and winning, they may neglect other aspects central to their whole person. That is why I prefer a Law of Proper Form at the center of the hub in regards to a Natural Law philosophy. It takes into account all forms of the laws rather than neglecting some.
If winning is of the only importance, then your resources are going into those things governed by those laws. Which explains why some athletes are so highly evolved in some aspects and relatively juvenile in others.
Many times, winners are given a free pass. Since they are winning, their behavior is deemed acceptable. They are in a position to be role models as many people aspire to their capabilities. By default, the other aspects to their person become acceptable and matter of fact. Most people learn by imitation or emulation when they are young and carry those habits going forward. Draw your own conclusions.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
Lou Demas added to this discussion on November 20, 2009
|
Rex
I would say that, what Gable said was something that would fit in very well within eastern philosophy. The martial arts which were developed within eastern philosophy are called arts for a reason, not just combat training. Gable, after having won the highest medal you could win was not satisfied. Because for him wrestling is and art in which he creates,when he choose to stop wrestling to secure the win, an attachment to need of winning, maybe he did this please his coaches,family,fans or to be revered all of them are considered 'attachments'(something eastern philosophers warn against having). He was not in the moment but controlled by the moment. He ceased to create for fear of losing. It would be like Leonardo Da Vinci choosing to not finish the Mona Lisa for fear of not getting smile right.
You see Rex, your emphasis on winning to be a master along with your asking the question, would Dan Gable be Revered had he lost, shows attachments you have not Gable.I spent a year of my life in Japan,
studied Judo for years and can tell you they emphasize form,art and self improvement over winning. One top Judo Instructor said, do you want to learn Judo or do you want to win in competition? His point being, Judo was a way of life, always seeking self improvement not just winning. Winning may be a by product of a proper way of living and only one aspect judo but not to be confused in thinking it is the end all be all.So when the Buddha says,'Though he should conquer a thousand men in the battlefield a thousand times, yet he, indeed, who would conquer himself is the noblest victor." he is hammering in, victory is self improvement. I find it interesting that when Japanese instructors come to you U.S they get frustrated by the fact that we just want to learn the fastest way to win over learning Judo and they are the best in the world at Judo. Dan Gable wants his wrestlers not to concern themselves with winning but to continue create art in the scoring and he is one of our most winning coaches,coincidence?
All that being said, I think you have done great job with in expressing the realities of wrestling and how they relate to eastern philosophy.
P.S Got to get somethings done will give my views on eastern philosophy as whole later.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
Rex Holman added to this discussion on November 20, 2009
|
Our interpretation of Gable is different.
I see him as a type A personality who puts the most emphasis on winning, and not just beating opponents but conquering them is his goal because I see it play itself out with his disciples. There is no student and teacher concept it is just selfish desire to win.
I see his situation with an injured knee as a sign of contempt for his situation and anger that he is unable to wrestle uninhibited limited by his physicality.
If he wrestled controlled by fear, then yes his emotion drove him, which is undisciplined, but in his lesser condition it is possible to master the situation and not become controlled by one's emotions while engaging with intelligence and ability
I would have to ask Gable questions to discern a meaning of his comment
Again, we are both subject to the Law of Presupposition by imposing judgment on his statements
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
Lou Demas added to this discussion on November 20, 2009
|
I agree, we are both subject to the Law of Presupposition by imposing judgment on his statements and I think many people can't have civil discussion's because they don't Take the Law of Presupposition into account. For this I thank you.
I do think that many of Gable's students may not have understood his teaching. Gable said , he was more pleased with matches in which he lost, leads me to believe they missed something in his teaching's. You find top musician"s who say they were more please with an album that did not well in regard's to awards or money yet it was still their favorite. More pleased with matches he lost does not express to me he was trying to convey a selfish desire to win on contrary he would have rather have had wrestled in to moment to his fullest ability and lost.
Also is it not a selfish desire to win that leads wrestler's to stop wrestling and only maintain position win? Do they not have an obligation to the fans who come to watch wrestle to do just that "wrestle''?
There no real easy answer's it is very subjective will differ for fan and wrestler.
My view on how eastern philosophy would view this is: that if your art is wrestling and this is a medium in which you have choose for self improvement then winning and scoring are meaningless and that you would only wrestle in the moment to your fullest ability till the match ended.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
Rex Holman added to this discussion on November 20, 2009
|
Lou-
Based upon his comments about losses it expresses an interest in learning what his weakness was and he was thankful that his opponent was able to expressly deliver that information to him, which enabled his continued progression. A true teacher/student engagement. Of this, we agree.
Now, with regard to self interest and altruism, there becomes a whole new set of laws of which one must become accountable. Again, I believe that most people are selfish based upon my experience on this planet, but again that is my presupposition. I like Maslow’s hierarchy to explain this matter as certain needs must be met before one can self actualize and engage in altruism. I believe that meeting the needs of self precedes altruism. I believe that a rational and objective mind engages in altruism(responsibility to the fan) after the need of self(winning)has been met. I believe that a subjective (emotional mind) can put altruism ahead of self, but it is not grounded in self preservation and is thus somewhat irrational.
I believe in order to express laws and their intended meanings that you have to group laws together in order to account for comprehensive analysis.
I think you have made me aware that the Laws of which I write are not necessarily true Eastern in nature but a hybrid of high level function and form while being held accountable to winning.
I am greatful for your willingness to express your ideas and our mutual collaboration on this topic.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
Lou Demas added to this discussion on November 23, 2009
|
Rex
I like your use of Maslow’s hierarchy to illustrate that one must fulfill their need of winning before they can wrestle with any sense of altruism. When I coach wrestling I try to de emphasize winning because to many kids get caught up in wrestling not to lose, rather than wresting to win. I stress winning is any match you wrestle, in which you learn while wrestling to your full potential. However at times I have some kids that lose so often I that they have no joy of the sport, in this case I may have to coach them to win some matches by stalling if necessary to fulfill their need of winning. In both cases the need of winning may have to be met for a wrestler to move on and get past self imposed limitations.
Now touch upon a question you asked, ''As far as the narcissm goes, I don't see it. If you could please explain as I see western philosophy and capitalism as more of an impetus for it''. and a statement you made, ''I believe that a subjective (emotional mind) can put altruism ahead of self, but it is not grounded in self preservation and is thus somewhat irrational''.
First I would like to examine what eastern and western philosophy have in common. Both of there philosophies influenced their religious movements and both seem to have a need for cosmic justice. Western Christianity need to have a Just God who punishes the wicked and and eastern religions need to use karma-reincarnation to in reality do the same. Now a Taoist may seek immortality , Buddhist unattached oneness with universe and many western Christians seek God only to escape hell, all pretty much motivated by self interest not real altruism. Now one could look all philosophy from the point of view their is no God in that case we are animals in an impersonal cold universe and morales,altruism and ethics only serve your self interest. If we take our cues from the animal kingdom we are really just animals, driven to first, past on our genetic make up and secondly to protect our species to ensure we can pass on our genetic make up. If this is the case we are all alone crazy people with no real free will.
Now here is where I am going to risk sounding preachy. The more we study quantum physics the more we find all things are created interconnected. This is how I believe God created us to be, not alone but connected. Connected to God and all others. I view the act of creation as an act of love but in one in which we are given out of love the choice to reject love, 'free will'. Where western christian thought influenced by Greek philosophy felt to need to have God just; to to point he would kill torture and his own son (penal substitution). I view Christ sacrifice as one done out of love to seek to reunify mankind with God. I believe God created out of love and God is love and we were created in his image but we can because of free will reject that love and choose not to be the likeness of God. Our hell in the end is our choosing, our burning is being in the presence of God, who we reject. In other words you will be basking in God's presence or burning in it.
I had to say all that to show my reasoning on why eastern and western philosophy can lead toward a form a of narcism and that there can be no altruism unless you believe God is the ''Tao'' and his way is Love. A love we can reject.
P.S if you google River of Fire its a good read on how western philosophy influence western Christianity.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
Rex Holman added to this discussion on December 14, 2009
|
Lou-
I just looked at this thread as I was inspired again after watching the Iowa v UNI dual and saw your response.
Here is my interpretation. It is naturalistic accounting for the always present terms of human nature. I would like to address what they have in common at a level just below the surface. I believe that the the movements (East and West) are a semi-collective view voiced by the prevailing philosophers of the time in response to the environment of which they found themselves in an attempt to make sense, right or advantage of their situation.
Be it philosophy or religion, both provide a means for personal structure. A platform, if you will humor me. This platform provides an evolutionary force that is underwritten in terms of emotional discourse. They all reflect the self and its engagement with this world. Both set the terms on how they wish to perceive world and display consequent affect. This perception is entirely subjective and reflects the prevailing ideologies of the time. This platform provides a psychic tool,(an aquired skill) that makes right of a world that is beyond the grasp of human intellect. If this construct were not present, then people would be largely be intelligent animals trying to pass on their DNA(I am fairly certain some people do this anyhow). It is an intelligent skill that precludes us from a larger evolving destiny of which we do not know. This construct prevents the flock from being consumed by fear. It is natural for people to adhere to constructs which are easy. This world is not easy.
Only by superceding this world can one arrive at doctrines of a metaphysical nature.
I believe that our time on this rock is a course on metaphysical contemplation and experiencing humanity all with limited understanding. Exactly where we are on a spiritual continuum is unknown.
I believe in the metaphysical. I don't need some televangelist, or self help guru with business acumen to tell me so.
We are part of an intelligent design, an organic design that is evolving and making apparent the similarities between metaphysical and physical.
Religion or philosophy will always be subjective as it is influenced by human nature.
Now with regards to the Iowa v UNI dual, this I do report to know:
Law of Pace-Pace is the rate at which events unfold as determined by the pace setter. The pace setter is the athlete who is the initiator of action and is responsible for making an opponent react to attacks. The rate is dependent upon the speed, number and legitimacy of the attacks. Increased pace may be used to exploit an unprepared athlete as pace has a cumulative effect. Over time, the unprepared athlete will succumb to duress, which will cause a material change of position for the worse. The consequent advantage to the pace setter, likely will be capitalized on in terms of scoring. There may be a momentous loss of position in the pace settee as the cumulative effect of duress overwhelms their mental capacity. Thus, they are unable to accommodate further attack and fold.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
