A man or a style

[zuti car]

There is indefinite discussion about efficiency of different styles . Often opposite opinions about same style coming from different people . There are argument which style is more original, more complete , what lineage is more "pure" , older ect. All this in order to prove some style's superiority over others . But , is it really about that, is it really a style , a technical content of the style what makes someone a good fighter ? Or is it a person who puts a lot of hard work over time actually a main reason why someone becomes good fighter ? Or is it both , and if it is how important is the style and how important is a man himself ?In every style we can find some very good fighter , but most of the followers of any given style will not be that good , or even not able to fight at all . Of course , everyone will point out thous good fighters as example of a styles effectiveness , but no one will talk about great number of others who cannot fight . Question is , does the style really matter if the person is determined and puts a lot work ( with qualified instructors ) or no matter what at the end style is the most important part of training process ?

 

[Drose427]

There is indefinite discussion about efficiency of different styles . Often opposite opinions about same style coming from different people . There are argument which style is more original, more complete , what lineage is more "pure" , older ect. All this in order to prove some style's superiority over others . But , is it really about that, is it really a style , a technical content of the style what makes someone a good fighter ? Or is it a person who puts a lot of hard work over time actually a main reason why someone becomes good fighter ? Or is it both , and if it is how important is the style and how important is a man himself ?In every style we can find some very good fighter , but most of the followers of any given style will not be that good , or even not able to fight at all . Of course , everyone will point out thous good fighters as example of a styles effectiveness , but no one will talk about great number of others who cannot fight . Question is , does the style really matter if the person is determined and puts a lot work ( with qualified instructors ) or no matter what at the end style is the most important part of training process ?

Style is a matter of individual preference and bodies

Some are more natural people than others. For example, our High Knee chamber kicks in TSD complimented my boxing better than MT does. It isnt because ones better than the other, but my light and quick fight style just makes those kinds of kick feel more natural and fluid.

No 2 schools train the same style the exact same way, different degrees of emphasis are placed on different things. The only really commonalities are typically:
TMAs have SD, Forms, Sparring
Sport styles focus on their sport

Both sides of the coin use the same equipment, the same drills, etc. But its up to the instrcutor and instructor alone to decide how to do go about them.

If an instructor lets 2 guys walk through SD drills or Sparring, it isnt the styles fault...

At the end of the day, youre the one throwing the punch.

its just hard work + half decent instruction

 

[Orange Lightning]

There's a thread called "Is it really the person not the style?" on this subject. I think it was well said by Tony Dismukes.

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.

 

[Danny T]

I first learned boxing from a man who had, due to an accident, almost all of his forearm removed. His style of boxing was completely different from what everyone else did however, he was a very good boxer and even better coach. Had a glove on the stump and he inside game was very powerful. He boxed, his style was very different yet 'he' had become very good with it.

The thing is he worked it until he became good with it. The individual will always be more important than the style. Like Tony stated, find what you love doing and do it. Don't be concerned with what it is called or who else does it. Just do it because you what to.

 

[Mephisto]

I'm gonna play Devils advocate and get on my soapbox here. I say yes, style most certainly matters of your goal is to gain fighting ability and self defense ability. Some think the two (fighting and self defense) are completely separate things, I believe that fighting ability is a huge part of self defense (soft tactics aside, awareness, avoidance, ect).

The individual is important when it comes to style, there will always be good and bad practirioners of every style. But I posit that some styles have differing ratios of good to bad. If style truly didn't matter than I could develop a windmill style where I flail my arms in a circle of death and run at the opponent. This would certainly not be a good style. But if I never sparred or tried it out against a resisting partner I may never realize how bad it is. Some systems are the same way. You have teachers that have never been in a conflict telling people the best way to handle a fight or conflict.

It is often the case that the majority of schools within a given art train in the same manner. In some systems nearly all schools spar and in some almost none spar. if the majority of schools within a system fail to spar that that system as a whole is less likely to produce competant fighters.

In short, the individual is important but style is certainly a factor when it comes to ability to fight.

 

[zuti car]

Let's take an example . There is a club A and club B . Both instructors learned from same teacher , they have same knowldge and their style have same technical content . Now , in club A emphasis is on sparring and in club B on chi sao and "techniques". People from club A can fight , people from club B can't .(this is a real life example ) . So , people from same stayle with same technical content have different fighting abilities . I say , the most important thing is what person is ready to invest in his martial development .

 

[Mephisto]

Let's take an example . There is a club A and club B . Both instructors learned from same teacher , they have same knowldge and their style have same technical content . Now , in club A emphasis is on sparring and in club B on chi sao and "techniques". People from club A can fight , people from club B can't .(this is a real life example ) . So , people from same stayle with same technical content have different fighting abilities . I say , the most important thing is what person is ready to invest in his martial development .

That's fine if that's what you think. You're still looking at isolated schools and I'm looking at systems on the whole. If the majority of the schools that make up the system in your example don't spar than club A is an outlier and possibly the only school in the whole system that can fight. Therefore if most of the schools in your system are like club B and only do chi Sao and can't fight than its safe to say that the system in mention does not consistently produce competant fighters, therefore said system would not be advisable if your goal is to gain fighting ability.

Now if club A started a trend and more clubs started favoring sparring as a method of skill development, and eventually if most of the clubs in the system changed and sparred than that system would have more potential to produce fighters of consistent ability.

I'm not saying some systems are better because of the techniques they use (but it may be true in some cases). It's the favored method of developing and testing skill that makes or breaks a system. Most systems have the potential to be effective but their favored training method limits them.

 

[zuti car]

. It's the favored method of developing and testing skill that makes or breaks a system. Most systems have the potential to be effective but their favored training method limits them.

Exactly my point . It is not the system it is a person who is responsible for his own development . Looking at systems as whole in not possible , take Wing Chun for example , there will always be a clubs\instructors who produce fighters and others who do not practice any king of contact training . Is that a system's error or an instructors /practitioners wrong approach ? Is the system bad because some people do not practice seriously ? Yes , some systems are more consistent in their training practice (boxing, Thai boxing , some karate styles) , but we cannot say these systems are better than others . It is a person who chooses what and how he will practice .

 

[Mephisto]

Exactly my point . It is not the system it is a person who is responsible for his own development . Looking at systems as whole in not possible , take Wing Chun for example , there will always be a clubs\instructors who produce fighters and others who do not practice any king of contact training . Is that a system's error or an instructors /practitioners wrong approach ? Is the system bad because some people do not practice seriously ? Yes , some systems are more consistent in their training practice (boxing, Thai boxing , some karate styles) , but we cannot say these systems are better than others . It is a person who chooses what and how he will practice .

You can look at it however you want. I don't know or care who's fault it is, I'm just sharing my thoughts. IF the majority of schools that comprise a system can't produce fighters than that system is not reliable and not advisable if your goal is to become a good fighter. You can seek out the few good instructors or schools within a system but chances are if you can't already fight you won't know what to look for. You're getting caught up on individuals and viewpoints that fit your opinion.

Would you go to a surgeon where most of his or her patients died? Would you pay a company to build you a house if most of their houses fell apart after a few years? Would you say it's not the surgeon or construction company to blame If some patients live or some houses aren't falling apart? It's a matter of overall tends and statistics.

 

[Drose427]

You can look at it however you want. I don't know or care who's fault it is, I'm just sharing my thoughts. IF the majority of schools that comprise a system can't produce fighters than that system is not reliable and not advisable if your goal is to become a good fighter. You can seek out the few good instructors or schools within a system but chances are if you can't already fight you won't know what to look for. You're getting caught up on individuals and viewpoints that fit your opinion.

Would you go to a surgeon where most of his or her patients died? Would you pay a company to build you a house if most of their houses fell apart after a few years? Would you say it's not the surgeon or construction company to blame If some patients live or some houses aren't falling apart? It's a matter of overall tends and statistics.

Whats your criteria for deciding if the majority of schools within systems that have thousands of school, can produce fighters?

Whats your proving ground here?

 

[Mephisto]

Whats your criteria for deciding if the majority of schools within systems that have thousands of school, can produce fighters?

Whats your proving ground here?

To really know for 100% sure you'd have to visit every school in a system. There's no way to do that so you have to rely on other means. All I have to go on is my personal experience and that of my peers. You can also visit YouTube and see how systems present themselves and discuss this with forum members to validate if the video is a common trend. Take aikido for example, all I've seen is compliant drils in person, all I've seen is compliant drills online. People I talk to in person and online share similar experiences. So I feel comfortable saying that the majority of aikido schools employ cooperative training as their primary learning tool. I could be convinced that I was wrong and change my opinion. Either way I would not have to visit every school to arrive at a plausible solution.

Do I think aikido is all bad? No, I think it has a lot of potential, currently I see the best way to exploit and use that potential is to have experience in another system that trains with resistance and supplement aikido. I also don't think the common method of compliant drilling done by aikido is a way to produce reliable fighters. I would not recommend aikido to someone who was seeking fighting ability. I have friends that train aikido that would say the same. It's not all about fighting in martial arts, different peoe train for different reasons and that's fine. But if we are talking martial arts systems that produce fighters, sone are better and more reliable than others. But most of them have the potential to produce good fighters.

 

[Drose427]

To really know for 100% sure you'd have to visit every school in a system. There's no way to do that so you have to rely on other means. All I have to go on is my personal experience and that of my peers. You can also visit YouTube and see how systems present themselves and discuss this with forum members to validate if the video is a common trend. Take aikido for example, all I've seen is compliant drils in person, all I've seen is compliant drills online. People I talk to in person and online share similar experiences. So I feel comfortable saying that the majority of aikido schools employ cooperative training as their primary learning tool. I could be convinced that I was wrong and change my opinion. Either way I would not have to visit every school to arrive at a plausible solution.

Do I think aikido is all bad? No, I think it has a lot of potential, currently I see the best way to exploit and use that potential is to have experience in another system that trains with resistance and supplement aikido. I also don't think the common method of compliant drilling done by aikido is a way to produce reliable fighters. I would not recommend aikido to someone who was seeking fighting ability. I have friends that train aikido that would say the same. It's not all about fighting in martial arts, different peoe train for different reasons and that's fine. But if we are talking martial arts systems that produce fighters, sone are better and more reliable than others. But most of them have the potential to produce good fighters.

Fair enough, so what would you consider the proving ground for producing fighters?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

is it really a style , a technical content of the style what makes someone a good fighter ?

Many years ago in Taiwan, one guy wanted to fight full contact tournament, instead of finding a MA teacher, someone suggested him a special training method. He drew 2 holes on both sides of a coconut. Tied 2 ropes on both sides of that coconut and tied on 2 trees. Everyday he just chased and hit on that coconut that bounced back and force, up and down between those 2 trees. He trained like that for 6 months everyday (not very long). During the tournament, his punches were so fast, so accuracy, and his feet could advance and retreat so fast that nobody could get away from his "head hunting". He had developed a good "head hunting punches" in those 6 months and he had trained no style at all.

He might not know any kicks, joint locks, throws. He may not even know uppercut and hook, but he was very good at jab and cross. He might be able to defend himself better than those who train MA for health, self-cultivation, and inner peace.

 

[drop bear]

Yellow bamboo. No amount of individual talent is going to make that work.

 

[Drose427]

Yellow bamboo. No amount of individual talent is going to make that work.

I've never heard of anyone outside of those guys consider it an MA....do....do we count it?

 

[drop bear]

I've never heard of anyone outside of those guys consider it an MA....do....do we count it?

Of course. Because there is no requirement a style is going to work or even make sense. Martial arts is all encompassing like that.

 

[drop bear]

I've never heard of anyone outside of those guys consider it an MA....do....do we count it?

Ok then. Wolf style

 

[dlcox]

Man or a Style? Hmmm..........Is there a third choice? Like the beer and a sandwich option?

 

[Mephisto]

Man or a Style? Hmmm..........Is there a third choice? Like the beer and a sandwich option?

The third choice is both, both are important but a good man with potential may be limited by a style that doesn't spar. It's not as simple as "the individual is more important than the style" that statement holds some truth but it's not an absolute.

 

[wtxs]

Lets not forget WHY martial art styles are created. They are effective in their own right, they become less effective is the result of our own doing. Think of MA is an weapon ... use to inflict bodily damage or to kill, you have to have an good teacher with that mindset and paid you dues in order to be good at it,

Weapon such as gun, with its many designs (styles). You need to learn from an expert beside having to know its capabilities intimately in order to use it effectively, So if you can't hit the side of the barn with it, who's at fault? You, your teacher, or the gun?