# Is it really the person not the style?



## qwerty (Feb 17, 2015)

I'm just wondering if its the person not the style, then what's the point of MA? I mean I'm a great fan of MA, but does this mean a person who doesn't train MA but creates their own style could be just as effective as if they did MA training? If not then is it actually that some styles could be more effective? If so, then why do people learn martial arts if they could do just as well with their own method?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 17, 2015)

qwerty said:


> I'm just wondering if its the person not the style, then what's the point of MA? I mean I'm a great fan of MA, but does this mean a person who doesn't train MA but creates their own style could be just as effective as if they did MA training? If not then is it actually that some styles could be more effective? If so, then why do people learn martial arts if they could do just as well with their own method?


The style plays a big role, but the person makes it work, because the style isn't fighting, you are.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 17, 2015)

qwerty said:


> I'm just wondering if its the person not the style, then what's the point of MA? I mean I'm a great fan of MA, but does this mean a person who doesn't train MA but creates their own style could be just as effective as if they did MA training? If not then is it actually that some styles could be more effective? If so, then why do people learn martial arts if they could do just as well with their own method?


Your style does not have: Conditioning; pain tolerance; sprit; fitness; ego; attitude; crazy; determination; skills; balance; posture; evil smile.... need I go on?


----------



## qwerty (Feb 17, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> The style plays a big role, but the person makes it work, because the style isn't fighting, you are.


Then would certain styles be more practical than others? Say for example would krav maga be more practical than tae kwon do in a self defence situation?


----------



## qwerty (Feb 17, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> Your style does not have: Conditioning; pain tolerance; sprit; fitness; ego; attitude; crazy; determination; skills; balance; posture; evil smile.... need I go on?


Evil smile


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 17, 2015)

qwerty said:


> Then would certain styles be more practical than others? Say for example would krav maga be more practical than tae kwon do in a self defence situation?


Yes, but a good TKD could clobber a bad Krav Maga guy.


----------



## qwerty (Feb 17, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> Yes, but a good TKD could clobber a bad Krav Maga guy.


Good point. But those of similar skill could have a different outcome. I mean yes TKD is a very powerful art but in my mind it seems to be a little impractical. But then again it could be mastered. Then again again any art could be mastered... But could one create ones art and make it work. E.g combination of boxing + grappling, combination of karate + tkd, jujitsu + tai chi, or an own system?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 17, 2015)

In short, no. There is just too much good information, out there; some of it counter-intuitive.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 17, 2015)

qwerty said:


> Then would certain styles be more practical than others? Say for example would krav maga be more practical than tae kwon do in a self defence situation?



Basically yes. And tkd will produce better kickers than wrestling. So the style does matter. And some styles will create better on average success in self defence than others.


----------



## qwerty (Feb 17, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Basically yes. And tkd will produce better kickers than wrestling. So the style does matter. And some styles will create better on average success in self defence than others.


In YOUR opinion, what's the most effective style?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 17, 2015)

Our lists will vary.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 17, 2015)

qwerty said:


> In YOUR opinion, what's the most effective style?


Here we go. LOL


----------



## Buka (Feb 17, 2015)

It's probably some of both. Some people are better suited for one thing, while others are better suited for something else. Probably depends on a lot of factors. 

Maybe even on their personality?


----------



## qwerty (Feb 17, 2015)

Just saying this post is purely opinion based for individuals
As in what works best for you


----------



## Flatfish (Feb 17, 2015)

One thing you find mentioned on here quite a lot is that it is really is the way you train. I have really limited experience being pretty much a noob but I do know that in "MY" TKD school even though we spar, we spar with WTF tournament rules which neglects handiwork. We do learn self defense moves but again not in the way that trains it realistically (IMNSHO). That is not a fault of the art but the way it is trained for liability, commercial viability, insert whatever kind of reasonable reason from a school's perspective in here. Having said that I find myself really attracted to some of the CMAs like Tai chi, bagua etc. I think they could complement what we do in TKD nicely….now if i could only get around the time and money issues……..


----------



## Shai Hulud (Feb 17, 2015)

Because martial arts that have survived to this day, or gained prominence must presumably have a degree of effectiveness, either for physical culture and fitness or combat and self-defense, whichever you're after. 

If such a hypothetical person would be able to produce his own style/system despite having no background in MA, then good on him and if it works, we ought to share and promulgate it. It is wise to note however, that there is a good share of either esotericism or "fight science" that goes into a solid martial art: a theory that weaves and binds it all together as a system. I honestly don't think it's possible to create your own MA completely from scratch, in the sense that you're utterly original. Most schools and styles borrow from other schools, blending, distilling and refining their own techniques, combinations and philosophies on combat and physical culture.


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 17, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> Yes, but a good TKD could clobber a bad Krav Maga guy.


Good points, but on average how does your average krav guy do against your average tkd guy?



drop bear said:


> Basically yes. And tkd will produce better kickers than wrestling. So the style does matter. And some styles will create better on average success in self defence than others.



This is my point with the individual vs style argument. The style does matter, all styles have good and bad but you must look at the average guy and his ability to apply technique against a resisting opponent.



qwerty said:


> In YOUR opinion, what's the most effective style?


Judo!

But to elaborate there may not be one. A start is a solid competitive system. Even better would be a foundation in a competitive grappling system, a competitive striking system, then round it out with a more self defense focused system like Arnis, krav, whatever. The training in a competitive system will ensure you can handle a resisting and aggressive opponent. The focus on self defense will keep you honest in the deadly streetz! The same could be done with a non competitive traditional martial art.


----------



## Shai Hulud (Feb 17, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> Yes, but a good TKD could clobber a bad Krav Maga guy.


May God bless this post.


----------



## Drose427 (Feb 17, 2015)

I wouldnt necessarily say that some styles are more effective. Remember, Traditional TKD or what became later TKD, was used on the battlefield in Korea when Japan invaded. But now there are many more sport schools. They don't claim to be anything else usually, thats a picture painted by the less informed. But theres still Traditional TKD guys who are doing a lot of full contact SD work. But still, many people who only see sport TKD will assume its useless.

Styles came to existence because of different needs, methodologies, situations, body styles, purpose, and many other reasons. Theres never really been one central most effective style or system in hundreds of years. In terms of SD or even sport, multiple styles gives you more options in finding what works best for your personally.

Even then, many martial arts are combinations of or piggybacked into creation off of other martial arts. Essentially, ever cross training martial artist develops their own method.

In the earliest days of UFC and Kickboxing, There wasnt one dominant striking style. BJJ did far better back then because nobody knew what it was. Now people are familiar and know how to defend against the common BJJ moves you see and its even.

The focus of your school makes a difference moreso than a style, but the ability to apply whatever knowledge and skills youve learned falls on you.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 17, 2015)

If your style doesn't emphasize on "choke", "flying knee", "single leg", or ..., will that prevent you from putting those tools into your toolbox? Where will you be able to obtain those tools? You may have to look outside of your style. Since you will be responsibility to bring those useful tools into your own toolbox, it's the person (yourself) that's important and not the style.


----------



## BeeBrian (Feb 17, 2015)

qwerty said:


> If not then is it actually that some styles could be more effective? If so, then why do people learn martial arts if they could do just as well with their own method?



Tradition and loyalty.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Feb 17, 2015)

The way I look at it is this..

Suppose I practice the most effective martial art on the planet - Superduper Ryu Jutsu, which has been scientifically designed to be 99.99% efficient in street fighting application.

Suppose you, on the other hand, practice Lameass Do, an art created by selecting the stupidest and least effective techniques from every other art and stitching them together without regard for coherent principles. Based on careful holodeck simulations, we can tell that Lameass Do is only 10% efficient in a street fight.

Clearly then, in a real fight I should defeat you every time, right?

Not so fast. What I forgot to mention is that you really, really love Lameass Do, and as a result you train your butt off every day of the week. I, on the other hand don't really care that much about Superduper Ryu. I only attend the school because it was the closest one to my house and I never train more than two days a week. My art might be 10 times as efficient, but you train 20 times harder. When we clash, you win.

Unfair comparison, some might say. What if _you_ were the one putting your dedicated work ethic into mastering Superduper Ryu? Wouldn't you be that much more badass? Possibly, but here's the catch - you tried Superduper Ryu and you didn't enjoy it. Since you didn't enjoy it, you didn't practice it that much. It wasn't until you switched over to Lameass Do that you became a training monster.

That's why I always tell potential martial arts students to find something they love practicing rather than worrying about which is the deadliest art.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 17, 2015)

Don't know why there are 2 threads for this subject.

If your style doesn't emphasize on "choke", "flying knee", "single leg", or ..., will that prevent you from putting those tools into your toolbox? Where will you be able to obtain those tools? You may have to look outside of your style. Since you will be responsibility to bring those useful tools into your own toolbox, it's the person (yourself) that's important and not the style.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 18, 2015)

Drose427 said:


> In the earliest days of UFC and Kickboxing, There wasnt one dominant striking style. BJJ did far better back then because nobody knew what it was. Now people are familiar and know how to defend against the common BJJ moves you see and its even.



No, BJJ did well because the early UFC was designed to showcase it. The UFC is a business, look up it's history. UFC is not MMA.

I think you might have people who will also dispute the TKD being used on the battlefield thing too, you might have to look up TKD history too.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 18, 2015)

Drose427 said:


> I wouldnt necessarily say that some styles are more effective. Remember, Traditional TKD or what became later TKD, was used on the battlefield in Korea when Japan invaded. But now there are many more sport schools. They don't claim to be anything else usually, thats a picture painted by the less informed. But theres still Traditional TKD guys who are doing a lot of full contact SD work. But still, many people who only see sport TKD will assume its useless.
> 
> Styles came to existence because of different needs, methodologies, situations, body styles, purpose, and many other reasons. Theres never really been one central most effective style or system in hundreds of years. In terms of SD or even sport, multiple styles gives you more options in finding what works best for your personally.
> 
> ...



You are still going to train within a structure that is going to be varying degrees of good and bad. 

I could start a school of crapjitsufu. And train honestly in my shed beating the crap out of my students. But that does not mean what i am doing is technically correct. It just means it is better than the few guys i can towel up. 

 i can towel up noobs with some pretty silly stuff


----------



## qwerty (Feb 18, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Don't know why there are 2 threads for this subject.
> 
> If your style doesn't emphasize on "choke", "flying knee", "single leg", or ..., will that prevent you from putting those tools into your toolbox? Where will you be able to obtain those tools? You may have to look outside of your style. Since you will be responsibility to bring those useful tools into your own toolbox, it's the person (yourself) that's important and not the style.


I have no ideas how the other thread was made.... Clicked post once came up twice...


----------



## Drose427 (Feb 18, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> No, BJJ did well because the early UFC was designed to showcase it. The UFC is a business, look up it's history. UFC is not MMA.
> 
> I think you might have people who will also dispute the TKD being used on the battlefield thing too, you might have to look up TKD history too.



TKD is a blanket term. When the name came to be the 9 kwans were all very different martial arts. Where they came from were a mixture of Korean and Japanese martial arts, as when japan invaded soldiers werent allowed to train in Korean arts. While the term TKD wasnt given until after the occupation, the styles that become TKD were used. Obviously the "punched clean through his chest!" anecdotes are bogus, but thats how the amalgamation that later became called TKD came to be popular.


----------



## Cirdan (Feb 18, 2015)

Drose427 said:


> TKD is a blanket term. When the name came to be the 9 kwans were all very different martial arts. Where they came from were a mixture of Korean and Japanese martial arts, as when japan invaded soldiers werent allowed to train in Korean arts. While the term TKD wasnt given until after the occupation, the styles that become TKD were used. Obviously the "punched clean through his chest!" anecdotes are bogus, but thats how the amalgamation that later became called TKD came to be popular.



More like they filed the serial numbers off Shotokan


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 18, 2015)

Drose427 said:


> I wouldnt necessarily say that some styles are more effective. Remember, Traditional TKD or what became later TKD, was used on the battlefield in Korea when Japan invaded. But now there are many more sport schools. They don't claim to be anything else usually, thats a picture painted by the less informed. But theres still Traditional TKD guys who are doing a lot of full contact SD work. But still, many people who only see sport TKD will assume its useless.
> 
> Styles came to existence because of different needs, methodologies, situations, body styles, purpose, and many other reasons. Theres never really been one central most effective style or system in hundreds of years. In terms of SD or even sport, multiple styles gives you more options in finding what works best for your personally.
> 
> ...



Tkd in the battlefield? Cite a reference please. Some of the precursors to tkd maybe, but I doubt anyone was doing 540 kicks or any fancy high kicks against guys with swords and spears.


----------



## Shai Hulud (Feb 18, 2015)

Cirdan said:


> More like they filed the serial numbers off Shotokan


You broke the code!


----------



## Danny T (Feb 18, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> No, BJJ did well because the early UFC was designed to showcase it. The UFC is a business, look up it's history. UFC is not MMA.


Yeap. In thhe first few UFCs all of the participants were hand picked. Chosen because of their particular fighting styles and were a tournament style format not a single match format of today. In the first UFC the only person the Gracie's were concerned about was Ken Shamrock because of his high school, professional and Pancrase wrestling background. Shamrock accepted the UFC fight even though he had just fought 4 days prior in Japan and fought without rest and suffering with jet lag. Gracie won the first 2 UFC's pulled in the 3rd (could not continue) because he was beat up so badly. Then time limits were put into place and other rules were added to make the UFC more 'acceptable' to sell to the general public. To Make $$$. The first few were strikers vs BJJ, as wrestler strikers began to get in BJJ was tested and Gracie quit after fighting to a draw in the 5th UFC. However BJJ/GJJ took off as the style to know. 
Today the UFC is all about selling tickets they don't care about the best fighter competing against the best it is about who will sell the most.


----------



## Drose427 (Feb 18, 2015)

Mephisto said:


> Tkd in the battlefield? Cite a reference please. Some of the precursors to tkd maybe, but I doubt anyone was doing 540 kicks or any fancy high kicks against guys with swords and spears.



Well when TKD was given that general label nobody was fighting with swords and spears....


----------



## Drose427 (Feb 18, 2015)

Cirdan said:


> More like they filed the serial numbers off Shotokan


Hey not all! My TSD school took from Goju Ryu


----------



## Drose427 (Feb 18, 2015)

Mephisto said:


> Tkd in the battlefield? Cite a reference please. Some of the precursors to tkd maybe, but I doubt anyone was doing 540 kicks or any fancy high kicks against guys with swords and spears.



Also, a lot of Traditional TKD schools barely even teach that kick. It was very much a sport creation. Before the sport, TKD was just a general label for styles that come from Korean Martial Artists training in Japanese martial arts and blending the two. TKD is far more than the sport you see on TV or internet.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 18, 2015)

Drose427 said:


> Well when TKD was given that general label nobody was fighting with swords and spears....




so the Koreans were using TKD against machine guns, tanks etc?


----------



## Drose427 (Feb 18, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> so the Koreans were using TKD against machine guns, tanks etc?



According to the articles and soldiers, in trenches!

Wherever they used it, what became labeled as TKD after the occupation was popularized in the military by soldiers seeing it in action before the civilian market.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Feb 18, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> No, BJJ did well because the early UFC was designed to showcase it. The UFC is a business, look up it's history. UFC is not MMA.


BJJ did equally well in all the other early MMA promotions that were not founded by members of the Gracie family. (Pride, World Combat Championship, Extreme Fighting Championship, etc)

Probably the biggest factor in that early success was that the Gracie family had decades of experience fighting practitioners of other martial arts, but most representatives of other arts did not have experience fighting BJJ. It took time, experience, observation, and experimentation to find the weaknesses of BJJ in an MMA environment.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 18, 2015)

Drose427 said:


> According to the articles and soldiers, in trenches!
> 
> Wherever they used it, what became labeled as TKD after the occupation was popularized in the military by soldiers seeing it in action before the civilian market.




Really? show me proof please.




Tony Dismukes said:


> BJJ did equally well in all the other early MMA promotions that were not founded by members of the Gracie family. (Pride, World Combat Championship, Extreme Fighting Championship, etc)
> 
> Probably the biggest factor in that early success was that the Gracie family had decades of experience fighting practitioners of other martial arts, but most representatives of other arts did not have experience fighting BJJ. It took time, experience, observation, and experimentation to find the weaknesses of BJJ in an MMA environment.




True but the poster specifically said UFC so I was answering that, I suspect that it's a case of the poster thinking the UFC and MMA is the same thing.


----------



## Drose427 (Feb 18, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> Really? show me proof please.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nam Tae Hi met General Choi after using what would later be named TKD on the battlefield in Korea in the 1950s. Obviously not spear handing through a mans chest, but popularizing it enough. He later did a lot of demos that helped it become popular civilian side. 

Alex Gillis did a lot of interviewing and research for his book, he even has videos of some of the interviews on his youtube page. 

Until sport TKD became popular, it was a completely different monster.


----------



## Danny T (Feb 18, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> BJJ did equally well in all the other early MMA promotions that were not founded by members of the Gracie family. (Pride, World Combat Championship, Extreme Fighting Championship, etc)
> 
> Probably the biggest factor in that early success was that the Gracie family had decades of experience fighting practitioners of other martial arts, but most representatives of other arts did not have experience fighting BJJ. It took time, experience, observation, and experimentation to find the weaknesses of BJJ in an MMA environment.


Yes they did.
I agree with they had more experience and though BJJ continues to be a force as style in MMA at the highest levels there are more wrestlers at the top in MMA than BJJers.

It is also true that both are now using aspects of each other and will continue to do so. In the mma world Wrestling is not just Wrestling nor is BJJ just BJJ.

In the BJJ world though having come from Judo many BJJ clubs/gyms have added Judo and Wrestling programs to their curriculums.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 18, 2015)

Drose427 said:


> Nam Tae Hi met General Choi after using what would later be named TKD on the battlefield in Korea in the 1950s. Obviously not spear handing through a mans chest, but popularizing it enough. He later did a lot of demos that helped it become popular civilian side.
> 
> Alex Gillis did a lot of interviewing and research for his book, he even has videos of some of the interviews on his youtube page.
> 
> Until sport TKD became popular, it was a completely different monster.




My father was on the battlefields in Korea and certainly didn't see guys using martial arts to fight. I'm sorry but I find it very difficult to believe that TKD was an efficient weapon to be using in what is after all a modern battlefield. I wouldn't go so far as to say someone along the line is telling porkies but certainly I think someone is sexing up TKD.


----------



## Drose427 (Feb 18, 2015)

TKD wasnt what youre used to seeing back then. It was very much Shotokan or other Karate styles with Korean twists and methodologies. None of the flashy kicks, very hand to hand focused. What we see now i.e. 540, and whatever other weird kicks you see in sport TKD, didnt come for many many years after TKD was even named, and they wanted something to distinct them from Karate.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Feb 18, 2015)

_History is written by the victor....or the government._
martial arts legitimacy is in direct proportion to its age.  the older art has been seen as more authentic then the next variant that pops up.  there are many examples of cultural changes in the martial arts when governments and countries are at odds.  the oral histories that have been past down from MA teacher to student should not be taken as actual fact. often they are colored by political intervention, nationalistic retoric and self serving lies and censorship.  

"my MA teacher told me  that he had a vision of a white tiger that taught him all the secrets of fighting. after he received his Menkyo certificate in kung-fu, jiu-jitsu  he found bullets could not penitrate his skin while serving in the war. "   
Yeah yeah thats the ticket...<(old billy crystal, SNL reference for those not old enough to remember)


----------



## RTKDCMB (Feb 18, 2015)

Mephisto said:


> Tkd in the battlefield? Cite a reference please. Some of the precursors to tkd maybe, but I doubt anyone was doing 540 kicks or any fancy high kicks against guys with swords and spears.


I don't know if they were used on the battlefield (the precursors to TKD) but they were taught to Korean military personnel such as the Marines..


----------



## qwerty (Feb 18, 2015)

So it's that the more famous a martial art is the more schools there are that teach the art and the more fake or less professional schools there are? So does that means that rarer old styles are more likely to be genuine?


----------



## RTKDCMB (Feb 18, 2015)

qwerty said:


> If so, then why do people learn martial arts if they could do just as well with their own method?


Because in order to learn martial arts you need to learn from someone competent.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Feb 18, 2015)

qwerty said:


> So it's that the more famous a martial art is the more schools there are that teach the art and the more fake or less professional schools there are? So does that means that rarer old styles are more likely to be genuine?



Not really. Fake histories and incompetent teachers go back as far as the martial arts do. Regardless of the style you are considering, you do your research and you take your chances.


----------



## Zero (Feb 18, 2015)

Drose427 said:


> Hey not all! My TSD school took from Goju Ryu



yeah but you guys are paying us a royalty fee on that, so all good


----------



## Zero (Feb 18, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Not really. Fake histories and incompetent teachers go back as far as the martial arts do. Regardless of the style you are considering, you do your research and you take your chances.


Yes, there are quite a few rare/obscure styles out there that are absolutely bonkers and of less worth to the students on any level than McDojos even.


----------



## Zero (Feb 18, 2015)

Drose427 said:


> Nam Tae Hi met General Choi after using what would later be named TKD on the battlefield in Korea in the 1950s. Obviously not spear handing through a mans chest, but popularizing it enough. He later did a lot of demos that helped it become popular civilian side.
> 
> Alex Gillis did a lot of interviewing and research for his book, he even has videos of some of the interviews on his youtube page.
> 
> Until sport TKD became popular, it was a completely different monster.


No disrespect intended but it's simply hard to verify whether what he was saying or implying was the truth of the matter.  He may well have found himself in a H2H situation in Korea and used techniques that would later become part of TKD (or perhaps be left out of TKD...) but it is hard to see that happening to any large degree in the modern warfare setting of Korea with the weaponry and approach involved.


----------



## Zero (Feb 18, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> I don't know if they were used on the battlefield (the precursors to TKD) but they were taught to Korean military personnel such as the Marines..


Yeah, just like H2H is taught to a degree to contemporary Marines but how often does a Marine use this in real conflict or find himself, or put himself, in that position?


----------



## Drose427 (Feb 18, 2015)

Zero said:


> No disrespect intended but it's simply hard to verify whether what he was saying or implying was the truth of the matter.  He may well have found himself in a H2H situation in Korea and used techniques that would later become part of TKD (or perhaps be left out of TKD...) but it is hard to see that happening to any large degree in the modern warfare setting of Korea with the weaponry and approach involved.



My original point wasnt that every soldier was doing it was doing it, but that it did come from few soldiers and Korean MAists. It was still born on the battlefield as H2H. In reality, the battle with Nam Tae Hi was  really what put "Korean Karate" into the light and what led Choi and others to name it TKD and put focus wherever they wished. 

I dont believe it was ever widely taught to the Korean Military till long after the japanese left and the "TKD" label started getting slapped on to everything.

As you said in another comment, how often do you see a massive number of soldiers fighting with H2H? Never. But that was never my point.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 18, 2015)

Drose427 said:


> TKD wasnt what youre used to seeing back then



You are assuming that all I've seen is 'sport' TKD.

I would say that almost for certain that TKD wasn't 'born on the battlefield' however romantic and attractive a story that may be.
The military from most countries do learn hand to hand fighting but they learn it *before* they get to the battlefield, it isn't suddenly worked out as they are fighting the enemy. the techniques in TKD come from an earlier time and for self defence for civilians not for the military, they certainly can be adapted for military use but these aren't new and weren't born in 1950s battlefields.


----------



## Steve (Feb 18, 2015)

I understand that the thread has drifted a bit since the OP, but just to add my two cents, it's not just the person nor is it just the style, although both play a role.

I'd say most importantly is the training model.  How is the training taught?  How well organized is the training? How is proficiency measured and tested?  The technique may be sound and the trainee may be earnest and apt, but if the training model is flawed, any real proficiency is going to be a huge challenge.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 18, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> The way I look at it is this..
> 
> Suppose I practice the most effective martial art on the planet - Superduper Ryu Jutsu, which has been scientifically designed to be 99.99% efficient in street fighting application.
> 
> ...



There is probably a limit to that as well though. Where lameasdo is actually working against you and not for you.

I have trained with guys from styles that are so deadly they think every submission is going to kill them. The collapso tap monkey effect.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 18, 2015)

qwerty said:


> So it's that the more famous a martial art is the more schools there are that teach the art and the more fake or less professional schools there are? So does that means that rarer old styles are more likely to be genuine?



No. And i am not sure why. But you look at things like American indian systems. And they are packed full of shady.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 18, 2015)

drop bear said:


> No. And i am not sure why. But you look at things like American indian systems. And they are packed full of shady.


If by shady, you mean Kenpo guys, then yeah baby!


----------



## drop bear (Feb 18, 2015)

Touch Of Death said:


> If by shady, you mean Kenpo guys, then yeah baby!


----------



## RTKDCMB (Feb 18, 2015)

Zero said:


> Yeah, just like H2H is taught to a degree to contemporary Marines but how often does a Marine use this in real conflict or find himself, or put himself, in that position?


You would have to ask Marine?


----------



## qianfeng (Feb 19, 2015)

qwerty said:


> I'm just wondering if its the person not the style, then what's the point of MA? I mean I'm a great fan of MA, but does this mean a person who doesn't train MA but creates their own style could be just as effective as if they did MA training? If not then is it actually that some styles could be more effective? If so, then why do people learn martial arts if they could do just as well with their own method?



Um... i think it means styles which have been made and improved by people over time who generally know how to fight. The basics for most styles would be the same for example straight punches hooks, front kicks uppercuts what ever.


----------



## Zero (Feb 19, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> You would have to ask Marine?



I think it's pretty well understood and acknowledged that not much actual H2H takes place on the whole in most combat zones. But noted, while I have a friend who is Marine and know quite a few people in army and navy, I am not one myself.


----------



## WaterGal (Feb 20, 2015)

Drose427 said:


> I dont believe it was ever widely taught to the Korean Military till long after the japanese left and the "TKD" label started getting slapped on to everything.



Was there even a Korean military until after the Japanese left?  Generally I don't think that's how imperial occupation works.


----------



## Drose427 (Feb 20, 2015)

WaterGal said:


> Was there even a Korean military until after the Japanese left?  Generally I don't think that's how imperial occupation works.



Official Army, no, although groups did fight back. Towards the end of world war II however many Koreans were conscripted, which is where many Korean Martial artists learned Japanese Arts in the first place.


----------



## MJS (Feb 21, 2015)

qwerty said:


> I'm just wondering if its the person not the style, then what's the point of MA? I mean I'm a great fan of MA, but does this mean a person who doesn't train MA but creates their own style could be just as effective as if they did MA training? If not then is it actually that some styles could be more effective? If so, then why do people learn martial arts if they could do just as well with their own method?



IMO, there are more than enough styles out there, so why anyone feels it necessary to run out and try to create their own thing, is beyond me.  Anyway, as for your question: yes, I believe the person plays a big part, moreso than the style.  IMO, it all comes down to how each person trains the art.


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 21, 2015)

MJS said:


> IMO, there are more than enough styles out there, so why anyone feels it necessary to run out and try to create their own thing, is beyond me.  Anyway, as for your question: yes, I believe the person plays a big part, moreso than the style.  IMO, it all comes down to how each person trains the art.


I agree, there's an abundance of styles out there and while I like innovation I don't see why some create new styles when they've never even tested it. Guys create their own blade system without ever having been in a knife fight. What's the point? Why are you better than your instructors? I read an article recently about how each instructor should tech three styles. The first is the curriculum or traditional system. The second in his instructors understanding or interpretation of that system. And the third is your own understanding and interpretation of your system based on your experience and fights/training. With this approach there is no need to create your own system it's more of an acknowledgement that everyone has a unique understanding and reference for the application of his or her art. I don't teach this way but it makes sense to me.

As far as your thoughts in the person being more important, I disagree. I'm curious if you can explain yourself more in relation to my points. First as has been mentioned each style has potential, it is the method you train that limits you. If all of your training if unrealistic one steps and compliant drills you may never learn what it takes to handle an aggressive attacker. That being said (training method is what limits a person) certain arts and systems all tend to train in the same method, therefore some arts limited by training method. The individual is important, very important and all systems will have good and bad practitioners, but you can be the strongest and most athletic guy in a system but If you only train in compliant and unrealistic methods you're never going to be better than someone with equal drive and motivation that trains in a system that does. A system can limit you based on how they train and what they know, in which case the style trumps individual ability.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 21, 2015)

Mephisto said:


> I agree, there's an abundance of styles out there and while I like innovation I don't see why some create new styles when they've never even tested it. Guys create their own blade system without ever having been in a knife fight. What's the point? Why are you better than your instructors? I read an article recently about how each instructor should tech three styles. The first is the curriculum or traditional system. The second in his instructors understanding or interpretation of that system. And the third is your own understanding and interpretation of your system based on your experience and fights/training. With this approach there is no need to create your own system it's more of an acknowledgement that everyone has a unique understanding and reference for the application of his or her art. I don't teach this way but it makes sense to me.
> 
> As far as your thoughts in the person being more important, I disagree. I'm curious if you can explain yourself more in relation to my points. First as has been mentioned each style has potential, it is the method you train that limits you. If all of your training if unrealistic one steps and compliant drills you may never learn what it takes to handle an aggressive attacker. That being said (training method is what limits a person) certain arts and systems all tend to train in the same method, therefore some arts limited by training method. The individual is important, very important and all systems will have good and bad practitioners, but you can be the strongest and most athletic guy in a system but If you only train in compliant and unrealistic methods you're never going to be better than someone with equal drive and motivation that trains in a system that does. A system can limit you based on how they train and what they know, in which case the style trumps individual ability.



We had a decent fight coach up recently. And sort of on that point.the fighter pretty much can get away with doing what he is told. The good coach crafts the style to suit the fighter.


----------



## Steve (Feb 23, 2015)

MJS said:


> IMO, there are more than enough styles out there, so why anyone feels it necessary to run out and try to create their own thing, is beyond me.  Anyway, as for your question: yes, I believe the person plays a big part, moreso than the style.  IMO, it all comes down to how each person trains the art.


Don't most people train the way the they're asked to train?   What I mean is, in addition to a certain amount of individual talent and motivation, there is a very large, institutional component to training success.  If you go to a school, you will train pretty much what and how they ask you to.   Some schools will be more practical and effective than others simply because the instructors are more competent and the training model is more effective.  This can be true, even if the curriculum is identical.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MJS (Feb 24, 2015)

Mephisto said:


> I agree, there's an abundance of styles out there and while I like innovation I don't see why some create new styles when they've never even tested it. Guys create their own blade system without ever having been in a knife fight. What's the point? Why are you better than your instructors? I read an article recently about how each instructor should tech three styles. The first is the curriculum or traditional system. The second in his instructors understanding or interpretation of that system. And the third is your own understanding and interpretation of your system based on your experience and fights/training. With this approach there is no need to create your own system it's more of an acknowledgement that everyone has a unique understanding and reference for the application of his or her art. I don't teach this way but it makes sense to me.
> 
> As far as your thoughts in the person being more important, I disagree. I'm curious if you can explain yourself more in relation to my points. First as has been mentioned each style has potential, it is the method you train that limits you. If all of your training if unrealistic one steps and compliant drills you may never learn what it takes to handle an aggressive attacker. That being said (training method is what limits a person) certain arts and systems all tend to train in the same method, therefore some arts limited by training method. The individual is important, very important and all systems will have good and bad practitioners, but you can be the strongest and most athletic guy in a system but If you only train in compliant and unrealistic methods you're never going to be better than someone with equal drive and motivation that trains in a system that does. A system can limit you based on how they train and what they know, in which case the style trumps individual ability.



Sorry, I haven't been on for a few days, so I just saw this.  Sure, I'll clarify my comment.  Sure, some systems out there, are probably not as realistic as others.  Of course, the person training said style, probably isn't going to think so.  But all that aside, why couldn't the student go out and train in a more realistic fashion, cross train, etc?  I'll use myself as an example.  I've trained Kenpo for 20+yrs.  For the record, I no longer actively train at a Kenpo school...I've moved on to another art...but I'll still go through some SD now and then, just to keep things fresh.  Anyways, I have a number of training partners who I workout with on a regular basis.  Now and then, I'll take some of the things from Kenpo and cross reference them with the arts that my workout partners do.  So for example, I'll take a take down defense from Kenpo, and see how well it works with someone who trains BJJ.  IMO, the BJJ guy is going to train their take down stuff a bit more realistic than the average Kenpo school.  Of course, some die hard Kenpoists will claim that it is realistic, just that I didn't learn it right, blah, blah, blah.  Perhaps, or perhaps they're too busy drinking the kool aid, and refuse to take off their rose colored glasses, to see that some things, well...just suck!

Some people will just stick with the unrealistic drills, and never take it a step further.  For example: I got into a heated debated with someone who used to be on here, over what is considered sparring, in Modern Arnis.  That is also an art that I've trained in for quite a while, and also have a Black Belt in.  Anyway, this person was claiming that the stationary drills/patterns that we see in the art, are sparring.  I disagreed.  Sparring, in the FMAs, IMO, is akin to what you see in the Dog Bros. clips.  Oddly enough, all of the stick disarms that you see, which are usually done in a static fashion, usually go out the window, once you're put into a sparring scenario.  Things are just moving a bit too fast, for all of the fancy static stuff that you see.  But that's the thing...that static stuff is fine...in the beginning, but if you ever want to get good, if you ever want to really test yourself, you need to step out of the box, out of the comfort zone, and train alive.  

Trust me, if I knew then, what I know now, about the various training methods, and arts that're out there, I'd have made some serious changes.  But it is what it is.  I'll give credit where it's due, and I do credit past training, poor or not, because if it wasn't for my initial training, I'd never have been exposed to what I have been today. 

So, it's probably a mix of both....a realistic art, and realistic training, on the part of the student.

I hope this answered your question.


----------



## MJS (Feb 24, 2015)

Steve said:


> Don't most people train the way the they're asked to train?   What I mean is, in addition to a certain amount of individual talent and motivation, there is a very large, institutional component to training success.  If you go to a school, you will train pretty much what and how they ask you to.   Some schools will be more practical and effective than others simply because the instructors are more competent and the training model is more effective.  This can be true, even if the curriculum is identical.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I agree Steve.   And that's fine, if that's what the student wants.  BJJ is pretty popular with competition, but I'm sure there are some students, who just want to learn the art, roll in class, and call it a day.  They probably don't care about going to a tournament.  I may be wrong, but I doubt every single student, in every single gym, is into competing, as much as the next guy, or someone who's a bit younger.  My point with using that as an example, is that some are content with things being what they are, nothing more.  There are some, I'm sure, that might go out, and cross train, because while they like the school, they are looking for a bit more.


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 24, 2015)

MJS said:


> I agree Steve.   And that's fine, if that's what the student wants.  BJJ is pretty popular with competition, but I'm sure there are some students, who just want to learn the art, roll in class, and call it a day.  They probably don't care about going to a tournament.  I may be wrong, but I doubt every single student, in every single gym, is into competing, as much as the next guy, or someone who's a bit younger.  My point with using that as an example, is that some are content with things being what they are, nothing more.  There are some, I'm sure, that might go out, and cross train, because while they like the school, they are looking for a bit more.


I think you made some good points in your reply to me. My point is some styles train more realistic than others, that's it. As for bjj guys not competing, you're right not everyone competes. Same at my boxing club, not everyone competes, some choose not to spar. But they benefit from the knowledge of the fighters that do compete. An instructor can tell you a technique works and is realistic because he's used it against guys trying to sub him or pound his head in many times. Additionally, his competing students have used the same technique with similar outcomes. The problem arises when a system does not compete or spar, they don't have the knowledge base that a sparring/fighting system does. An instructor might be a bouncer or tough guy that's used his stuff in some scuffles but that evidence is a little more anecdotal but not every I structure will have that same experience and knowledge consistently.


----------



## Steve (Feb 24, 2015)

I don't know that I'd go so far as to say that sparring/competition is necessary in order to have an effective training model.   But, I'd come at it from the other side.  It's really about outcomes and what you expect to gain from your training.  Whatever your training goals, if you aren't making consistent and reasonable progress toward your goals, you are doing something wrong.  As I said in another thread, you are either training the wrong thing, or are training the right thing in the wrong way. 

Mephisto, I agree with your thoughts on sparring and competition, and appreciate your point that having training partners who compete help even those who choose not to.  I'm personally an advocate of sparring, but I wouldn't say it's the only way to develop skills.

But, the proof is in the pudding.  If it takes years to develop a fundamental proficiency, you're being taken for a ride.  And if you're being told that "it's" better because it takes longer or is more complicated or harder or anything like that...  that's a red flag, IMO.  

For example, BJJ is perceived as being difficult to learn.  But, the formula for success in BJJ is no secret, and it's foolproof.  Regardless of your fitness level at the outset, as long as you can physically engage in the training, you will become proficient.  Guaranteed.  If you train regularly, at least 3 times per week, engage in the training and don't stop, you will make steady, measurable progress and within a year or two EARN a blue belt.  Every time.  Big, small, tall, short, fat, skinny, weak, strong, athletic, clumsy, young or old.  If you train consistently, you will have demonstrable skills that you will be able to execute under pressure against people who are actively trying to thwart you. 

If I got to the end of my first year and couldn't apply the skills I was learning, I'd find a new school or reassess my training goals. 

If your goal is to lose weight, and you aren't losing weight, there's a problem somewhere.  If your goal is to learn self defense, but are being told that you have to master techniques over years for "it" to work, something is terribly wrong.


----------



## MJS (Feb 25, 2015)

Mephisto said:


> I think you made some good points in your reply to me. My point is some styles train more realistic than others, that's it. As for bjj guys not competing, you're right not everyone competes. Same at my boxing club, not everyone competes, some choose not to spar. But they benefit from the knowledge of the fighters that do compete. An instructor can tell you a technique works and is realistic because he's used it against guys trying to sub him or pound his head in many times. Additionally, his competing students have used the same technique with similar outcomes. The problem arises when a system does not compete or spar, they don't have the knowledge base that a sparring/fighting system does. An instructor might be a bouncer or tough guy that's used his stuff in some scuffles but that evidence is a little more anecdotal but not every I structure will have that same experience and knowledge consistently.



Absolutely!   While sparring is often a 'hot topic' around here, I'm a big advocate of it.  I currently train Kyokushin, so sparring is a big focus.  There are many tournaments around, ie: Canada, NY, CT, Maine, etc, that my teacher encourages us to go to, but we're not required to compete.  I fought a few years ago.  Although I lost, I felt that I gained a lot of experience from it.  My teacher hosts one every Oct, so I'm planning on fighting again this year.  

*side note* regarding my 'hot topic' comment: there have been many thread on here, regarding sparring.  Some feel that its good, while others argue their point that it hinders training.  This really isn't a sparring thread, but if you're interested in reading those threads, you can do a quick search.  They're rather interesting.


----------



## Shai Hulud (Mar 24, 2015)

Little bit of both. As a student of the art it's your responsibility to understand it from every possible angle and how it translates to real-life demands. Rote memorization on its own is worthless without some critical thought and practical application to follow through on. 

The art itself also must at least somehow recognize and conform to general principles of combat. It must have tactics and technique that are applicable, efficient and within the bounds of physics and natural law. 

You could be the best student in your class, but if you happen to be a Yellow Bamboo practitioner and attempt to Chi-blast a mugger, you're going to get thumped.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 25, 2015)

If you have cross trained both

- MT and TKD, when you apply roundhouse kick, it's up to you whether you want to use the MT roundhouse kick, or to use the TKD roundhouse kick.
- boxing and XingYi, when you apply uppercut, it's up to you whether you want to use the boxing uppercut, or to use the XingYi Zhuan Quan.
- boxing and CLF, when you apply hook punch, it's up to you whether you want to use the boxing hook punch, or to use the CLF hay-maker.
- wrestling and Judo, will you not use "single leg" just because Judo has dis-allowed it in Judo tournament?
- ...

How much are you going to allow "style" to put restriction on yourself?


----------



## Emilee <3 (Mar 31, 2016)

qwerty said:


> I'm just wondering if its the person not the style, then what's the point of MA? I mean I'm a great fan of MA, but does this mean a person who doesn't train MA but creates their own style could be just as effective as if they did MA training? If not then is it actually that some styles could be more effective? If so, then why do people learn martial arts if they could do just as well with their own method?




I think it's a bit of both, but mainly the person. I've seen people with the same color/degree of belt countless times, and one person is clearly putting in effort (and are therefore performing really well), and then another person doesn't really try that much and they aren't as good at the martial art. It's also good to keep in mind that because everyone has a different height, weight, amount of strength, speed, etc, there's always going to be people within a martial art that excel or don't excel at all. So in short, everyone's physical strengths and capabilities, as well as their mental determination, are different, which impacts whether or not they succeed in their martial art.


----------



## Lameman (Apr 1, 2016)

As someone who has built a system from scratch. Go out and learn a MA. Effective, has more to do with person then art, but having a good foundation to build on is very important. I have only ever taught someone as a supplemental. I understand fighting, I'll teach you how to read an opponant. But that isn't enough to win. You need good technique. And the discipline to train.


----------



## marques (Apr 1, 2016)

qwerty said:


> I'm just wondering if its the person not the style, then what's the point of MA? I mean I'm a great fan of MA, but does this mean a person who doesn't train MA but creates their own style could be just as effective as if they did MA training? If not then is it actually that some styles could be more effective? If so, then why do people learn martial arts if they could do just as well with their own method?


Interesting question. In a few word, I think people should start following someone or something. Then they can adapt the style(s) to itself, creating (?) its own style.
Re-invent everything from nothing will take ages. On the other hand follow bad instruction is worst than nothing...


----------



## Kenpoguy123 (Apr 1, 2016)

Anyone can beat anyone simple as that it all depends on circumstances and seriously are you really to lazy to type fhe words martial arts


----------



## drop bear (Apr 1, 2016)

Pretty sure we are all training in a style to get better. 

If it was the person then that would be a whole lot of time and money in the bin.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Apr 2, 2016)

qwerty said:


> In YOUR opinion, what's the most effective style?



My advice to you is to not worry about styles. Just worry about training in one. Do it course look for good instructors though. People here can help you identify a bad one from a good one.


----------



## DaveB (Apr 3, 2016)

I've said it before and I'll say it again,  given that most styles overlap in terms of techniques and even strategy, and given that our individual genetics are not things we can manipulate, the factor that plays the biggest part in determining an effective fighter is training. And since training changes from school to school even within a given martial art style, it can only be concluded that training is not the same thing as a martial art style. 

Ask yourself which ma can you categorically identify through listing their training activities? 

Which ma owns sparring? How about pad work? 

Yes TMA have certain activities and even occasionally philosophies of training that are passed on, but they are neither definitive (you can do karate without sandon kumite) nor exclusive (doing sanbon kumite doesn't stop you spending 90% of your time in free full contact sparring).

The idea that training and ma are one and the same is an easy mistake to make because we go to ma classes and spend 90 minutes training. But if that is the martial art, what is it we do when we fight?  

And it's. not just ma-ists? Is the.dancer practicing knee bends in the mirror and doing pilates doing the same thing as when she is on stage performing a ballet? Of course not.

Training is an activity in its own right, distinct from applying the strategies and skills of which an ma is a collection. And it is training that determines effectiveness.


----------



## Kenpoguy123 (Apr 3, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> My advice to you is to not worry about styles. Just worry about training in one. Do it course look for good instructors though. People here can help you identify a bad one from a good one.


I agree one point I always think is every style is obviously good and worthwhile otherwise there wouldn't be any schools of that style because everyone would know it doesn't work


----------



## drop bear (Apr 3, 2016)

We had an example of this in the escape thread.

Escape thread.











Same escape one demonstrated by a guy who knows what he is doing and one demonstrated by a guy who doesn't. If you practice the version that is good. You will be a better martial artist.

This is aside from individual sise skill or natural ability. This is aside from the amount of time spent learning each technique

Stylistic differences matter.


----------



## Hanzou (Apr 3, 2016)

Drose427 said:


> I wouldnt necessarily say that some styles are more effective. Remember, Traditional TKD or what became later TKD, was used on the battlefield in Korea when Japan invaded.
> .



Which would explain why the Japanese invasion was successful......


----------



## Hanzou (Apr 3, 2016)

drop bear said:


> We had an example of this in the escape thread.
> 
> Escape thread.
> 
> ...



Interesting how comparatively simple and efficient the more effective technique is. Makes you wonder why people would waste time with the less efficient technique that requires you to expend far more energy to achieve less desirable results.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 3, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> Interesting how comparatively simple and efficient the more effective technique is. Makes you wonder why people would waste time with the less efficient technique that requires you to expend far more energy to achieve less desirable results.



It is tricky to verify that what you are doing is correct. 

Martial arts can be full of misconceptions. So the guy in the first video may believe that is the best version available. He may even validate that by sweeping everyone in the room.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Apr 4, 2016)

drop bear said:


> We had an example of this in the escape thread.
> 
> Escape thread.
> 
> ...



This isn't a matter of style difference, it is a matter of individuals being better at it. Also the techniques aren't the same. I know it seems like splitting hairs but one controls the guy by the neck and the other by the torso.


----------



## DaveB (Apr 4, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> This isn't a matter of style difference, it is a matter of individuals being better at it. Also the techniques aren't the same. I know it seems like splitting hairs but one controls the guy by the neck and the other by the torso.



I would say it's a matter of specialisation. This is clearly a secondary skill set for the gentleman in the first video. Most of those I've seen in his position are quite clear that if you want to ring fight you should learn the skills from specialists in that area.

Whether he caveats his teaching or not, the big deal in most of these discussions is how he and his students apply resistance to this and their other techniques and methods. If they don't have access to a Gracie trained grappler to help them refine what they do but they fight their hardest and grow as a result, isn't that more realistic than expecting everyone who teaches to be a master of all things?

Surely we have to draw a line somewhere?


----------



## drop bear (Apr 4, 2016)

Ironbear24 said:


> This isn't a matter of style difference, it is a matter of individuals being better at it. Also the techniques aren't the same. I know it seems like splitting hairs but one controls the guy by the neck and the other by the torso.



Not really.  The neck control example has issues that are just incorrect. 
so regardless how good you get at that method. It is still the wrong method


----------



## RTKDCMB (Apr 4, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> Which would explain why the Japanese invasion was successful......


Because TKD wasn't invented yet.


----------



## Hanzou (Apr 4, 2016)

RTKDCMB said:


> Because TKD wasn't invented yet.



Because the Japanese hadn't taught them Shotokan yet.


----------



## Buka (Apr 4, 2016)

Rimshot!


----------



## RTKDCMB (Apr 5, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> Because the Japanese hadn't taught them Shotokan yet.


And the Koreans changed and perfected it.


----------



## DaveB (Apr 5, 2016)

RTKDCMB said:


> And the Koreans changed and perfected it.



Ha! Now that's funny!


----------

