Being The Thread Wherein The Learned Mr. Moynihan Does Decry the Style Debate.

[Andy Moynihan]

For as long as I have been around martial arts of any kind, the same tired, useless "this" is better than "that" argument has raged. Whether it be a style, substyle, teacher, or training method, the whole thing can be summed up in the same two attitudes:

"My toys are cooler than yours".
"My dad can beat up your dad".

I don't know about you but I outgrew both of those attitudes by about the age of nine.

But it continues, and I begin to wonder if maybe it isn't just posturing or hubris that fuels it.

I wonder if the debate continues because the question itself is misunderstood. I say this because once I sat down and really, honestly thought about this, I came to the conclusion that I may be viewing this question in a different way than most of those who participate in such debates do, so clarifying the question from my point of view is what I will attempt to do here on the unlikely chance it will stop at least some small part of this foolishness.

On the argument of striking versus grappling, and the concept of "Styles" at all:

Most people who have had no formal training appear to grapple on natural instinct as a direct *result* of no formal training--apart from making/using weapons, humans' earliest form of fighting was to wrestle, before we even knew how to *fight*, we wrestled. Certainly I'm sure our distant predecessors used limbs to strike with, but striking in a scienced manner came a bit later because , from a purely "Man vs. Wild" perspective, human bodies , compared to other natural creatures, are not optimized to be used as weapons--even the strongest among our species don't have muscles and strength the way a gorilla or a yeti has muscles and strength, we don't have claws, we don't have jaws and teeth in the same way a bear, tiger, or crocodile has jaws and teeth. We don't have horns, we don't have natural armor the way a turtle, alligator or armadillo has--just a ribcage over our organs and a skull over our brain and good luck to you.

Our bodies aren't naturally optimized to be used as striking weapons, so it takes more training to GET them turned into striking weapons than to wrestle. That doesn't automatically render such training useless.

The thing you have to remember when you enter a discussion of "this" is better than "that" with regards to striking arts/takedown arts/groundwork/whatever, is this:

Striking and grappling were never *intended* to be taught seperately. And back in the way-back-when, they weren't. The seperation took place largely in the late 19th/early 20th centuries because of several factors: The disappearance of the old ways of war in an age when gunpowder was rising in dominance, a desire to keep the old traditions and "fighting spirit" alive anyway, and certain teachers , due to their own preference/temperament/physical makeup, choosing to emphasize certain techniques and dropping others, and *BOOM* thus were born "styles". Now as far as I can see it, that's all there is to "Styles", Okay?

Which then brings us to the next two sides typically argued from:

"All styles are equally valid"
"No style is perfect".

Okay.

As to the first: If every style were equally valid, then any fully functioning human should be able to take it and make it work equally well--after all, humans are universally designed the same way, with the same nervous, muscular and skeletal systems, with the only difference being whether that human possesses either male or female reproductive organs which do not impair or impede the basic movement systems, right?

Not so fast.

Remember the reason "styles" exist to begin with that I went into above: People's morphology left them suited to certain movements more than others--Does this person have greater height? longer limbs? They may gravitate toward striking/kicking to capitalize on the reach afforded them by their morphology. How are this other person's eyes? not so good, or their corrective lenses were knocked off? Grappling/trapping range it's most likely to be, then--once you have hold of them you almost don't need to see them anyway. And so on, and so forth till we're sick of it.

We may have Universal human design, but we have Variable human proportions.

And when variable human proportions enter the picture, NOW is where all the "questions" start arising: when a technique is designed to work on a person's body a certain way, now these variable human proportions throw a "bell curve" of sorts into that technique's effectiveness level: One person's head might snap back a little, another's, a lot, a third not at all. One person's joint, once locked, may break at a certain pressure, another's at greater pressure, and that third one may even just muscle out of it.

The concept of the bell curve relating to varying human proportions is not original with me-I first heard it from Tom Sotis of AMOK, and credit him with introducing me to it. However this second concept grew out of a talk I had the other night in class with my current teacher, Mike Williams of the Martial Arts Research Institute, and over the last few days I've thought about it and can now hopefully put it forth in a way that makes sense.

This second concept brings us around to the second half of the argument I gave above: the assertation that "No style is perfect".


After all, if a fighting style were "perfect", everyone would gravitate to it, and there would be no need for any of the others, right?

Not so fast.

The first and foremost misconception that fuels this is to miscall any martial art a "fighting style".

Why?

Because they are not "fighting" styles, they are "training" styles. They were created with certain intended design parameters, invariably set by the style's originator, based on his/her training needs, to develop specific attributes to *aid* his/her fighting style in light of his/her gifts/limitations.

Without going into pages' worth of examples, anyone who has been involved with martial arts for any length of time will hear the name of any given style and a specific combat range( weapons, striking, throwing, trapping, groundwork, etc) associated with that style will immediately come to mind as a direct result of this specialization.

The problem with the "No arts are perfect" statement arises from these two things:

1) Within their intended design parameters, they are ALL perfect

2) For whatever reason( usually either an overdeveloped sense of "style loyalty", an ignorance of other styles/ranges and how they work, or lack of access to same) We seem to LOVE taking a style *out* of its intended design parameters and then expecting it to function as if we had not.


And *this* is where so many martial artists start to have so much trouble, and why so many styles get so much bad press.

Let's take as our example most all of the Asian stand up striking arts as they have come to be practiced in the US--ever since the Karate Kid movies we've all heard far more than our share of mocking "Daniel-San" jokes, there is no earthly way it is possible to count the sheer number of Bruce Lee noises the Great Unwashed have made at Kung Fu students, and I heard one person once refer to TaeKwonDo as "TaeKwonDon't". He thought that was the very height of wit. No matter.


The point is that over the last 20 years these and other styles have had their "real world" effectiveness cynically called into question at a level which does not seem to me to have existed in the past, after reading martial arts publications from before that time.

Based on my personal experiences the main culprits I can think of are these:

*An explosion of martial arts related movies around this time
*which then led to the public getting a flawed perception of those arts
*Which then led to many(not all) teachers changing their programs around to "give the people what they want" in order to remain financially viable
*which occurred at the same time as Karate/Kickboxing becoming organized into a sport format and TaeKwonDo being included in the Olympic Games
*Which then shifted the emphasis in most(not all) schools of those types switching to a teaching mode based upon those competitions
*All of which occurred at the same time training methods had to be softened A) because of the influx of younger children being accepted into classes and B) because if you trained those arts as they were meant to be trained you were in a country where eventually some soft, ego-bruised, thin skinned prick would sue you blind.
*Thus, when mixed martial arts competitions gained popularity again, most of them were not prepared for what they received because the hard contact without safety gear, and the inclusion of grappling techniques which were part of those styles ' original, intended design parameters, were absent, but the practitioners carried on as though no changes had been made.


It isn't that the original arts don't work, but all of these events conspired to take them further and further out of their intended design parameters.

If left within their intended design parameters, *all* the arts are perfect--It's US that keep screwing them up!

 

[newGuy12]

I heard a story once. I take it to be a fable, but, still the meaning seems true even if the story is a lie.

It goes like this. Two Masters face each other to compete in the morning. At the sunset time, neither has moved. Why? Because each one wishes to COUNTER-ATTACK rather than to be the first to attack.

This meaning is that any adept practitioner is to be respected, not taken lightly. That is how I feel.

Also, you see, not all people practice just to be a good fighter. No. They also wish to be "part of a group". They enjoy the fellowship of other students in their school as they all progress and work toward better skill.

They may enjoy some competition. They see the children of the school grow up, and see them get good techniques, and perhaps become good, upstanding young adults, more or less. This gives the adults satisfaction.

So, you see, there are some people who will sacrifice SOME fighting skill for other things, they wish a more "social" type of school, where everyone knows everyone else. Also, they care for each other, everyone becoming healthy in this righteous way. Supporting each other, trusting each other not to give injury. They are students in the same school.

Someone can always seek out training to become very vicious as a fighter if they wish. BUT, for the most part, I believe that most people wish for the "total package", especially as they get older. And, this is not a disgrace to those people. I am one of them. Values change as the body starts to age. No one is unbeatable. No one.

At the end of the life, after all, one must ask themselves what this life is about. Is it ONLY about fighting people? If so, I think they have missed out a bit.

Of course, we all know that this martial art practice must be vigorous, and not sissy practice. That is no good at all to be weak!

 

[Andy Moynihan]

I heard a story once. I take it to be a fable, but, still the meaning seems true even if the story is a lie.

It goes like this. Two Masters face each other to compete in the morning. At the sunset time, neither has moved. Why? Because each one wishes to COUNTER-ATTACK rather than to be the first to attack.

This meaning is that any adept practitioner is to be respected, not taken lightly. That is how I feel.

As do I.

Also, you see, not all people practice just to be a good fighter. No. They also wish to be "part of a group". They enjoy the fellowship of other students in their school as they all progress and work toward better skill.

They may enjoy some competition. They see the children of the school grow up, and see them get good techniques, and perhaps become good, upstanding young adults, more or less. This gives the adults satisfaction.

So, you see, there are some people who will sacrifice SOME fighting skill for other things, they wish a more "social" type of school, where everyone knows everyone else. Also, they care for each other, everyone becoming healthy in this righteous way. Supporting each other, trusting each other not to give injury. They are students in the same school.

Someone can always seek out training to become very vicious as a fighter if they wish. BUT, for the most part, I believe that most people wish for the "total package", especially as they get older. And, this is not a disgrace to those people. I am one of them. Values change as the body starts to age. No one is unbeatable. No one.

At the end of the life, after all, one must ask themselves what this life is about. Is it ONLY about fighting people? If so, I think they have missed out a bit.

Absolutely. I'm someone whose values have changed a bit as well. My only point is to drive home exactly that point, that the person will make of their training what they can, the person uses the training style/styles, they don't use the person, so dissing on a style serves no purpose.

 

[Steel Tiger]

That's pretty good Andy. A very compelling read. I can see exactly where you are coming from. Let me add further. We as humans seem to like to categorise things, it is the technique we use to understand things. Martial arts is no different. To understand that there is a difference between, say, Aikido and Karate we describe one as a grappling art and the other as a striking art, at the most course level. The description is artificial and somewhat arbitrary.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you examined events of about 20 years ago. That was when martial arts leaped into public consciousness and it seems to have reacted badly to the attention.

The style debate has always confused me somewhat. My own art is big and tends to include a lot of stuff, but I recognise that arts that have chosen to specialise excel at things my art does not. TKD kicking techs are way better than mine, but I have qinna. Jujustu has better grappling, but I have an intricate system of movement and repositioning. Anything I can say is present in my art is also present in another (except circle-walking, but its just weird), somewhere, and each art has its pros and cons, its benefits and deficits. As you say, they need to be looked at from the point of view of context (as a person with archaeological training context is very important to me) and what they were meant to be used for.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Oh for cryin' out loud, six hours I spent hammerin' my thoughts out, and here it is two days hence and nobody's got *anything* to say? Not even in dissent?

Something's very wrong when I post this on my myspace blog and it gets more answers than a dedicated martial arts site.

Grumble mutter cuss.


Harrumph.

 

[FearlessFreep]

First off, I think it would help Martial Artists to realize that there is nothing special about Martial Arts. I read some of the threads here and some of the questions and conflicts and there seems to be some sort of underlying thought that these issues are unique to Martial Arts or inherent in Martial Arts. No, they are not. They are the same issues, questions, conflicts, challenges and joys that come up in any worthwhile human endeavor that people invest a lot of passion, time, heart (and money) into.

I've been a musician a lot longer than I've been into martial arts, and it's the same thing.

You say "MMA vs" TMA" and I say "jazz vs rock". You say "BJJ vs TKD" and I say "Bebop vs Swing". You say "Liddell vs Jackson" and I say "Van Halen vs Malmsteen" or "Fender vs Gibson" or... on and on... same discussions, different names

Same with cars "Ford vs Chevy?" or whatever

It's not that these discussions are not worth having if they can be had in a spirit of friendship and learning, to separate the wheat from the chaff, to refine the silver. But it must be seen that it is *not* about Martial Arts, it is about Human Nature.

----------------------
That being said. One aspect I don't see mentioned often (enough) is simply because we put a lot of our time, our passion, our emotional and financial investment into it. We simply *want to be validated that we made a good choice* We want to know that out training will serve us well, that our instructor is great and can teach us great, etc.... We want to know that the new car we bought will get good gas mileage and perform well and that we got a good deal on it.

Nobody wants to spend years and hours of study and feel like "I've wasted my time"

So we naturally talk highly about our new Ford, our old house, our vintage Fender, our new sprinkler system.

Unfortunately, one of the easier and less mature ways to talk something up is to talk something else down "Chevys Suck, Counrty Is Lame....TKD is no good"

 

[Rich Parsons]

Oh for cryin' out loud, six hours I spent hammerin' my thoughts out, and here it is two days hence and nobody's got *anything* to say? Not even in dissent?

Something's very wrong when I post this on my myspace blog and it gets more answers than a dedicated martial arts site.

Grumble mutter cuss.


Harrumph.

Andy since you asked twice. - Some will be serious and others will be in humour.

For as long as I have been around martial arts of any kind, the same tired, useless "this" is better than "that" argument has raged. Whether it be a style, substyle, teacher, or training method, the whole thing can be summed up in the same two attitudes:

A lot of this is about pride as noone wants to be studying the second best art or system out there. No one wants to waste their time on something that is not the best.

"My toys are cooler than yours".
"My dad can beat up your dad".

But my toys are cooler than yours and my dad is goign to beat yours up as well.

I don't know about you but I outgrew both of those attitudes by about the age of nine.

It took me a few more years. I think it might be sometime next year. Well that is something I hope to try again next year to do.

But, I hope in public I at least stopped acting this way sooner.

But it continues, and I begin to wonder if maybe it isn't just posturing or hubris that fuels it.

Posturing is a major source. I am better than you because I study the best art there is. This is normal for most people to go throgh this phase. (* Some who are perfect do not and others who have been in fights on the street may also miss this as well. *)

I wonder if the debate continues because the question itself is misunderstood. I say this because once I sat down and really, honestly thought about this, I came to the conclusion that I may be viewing this question in a different way than most of those who participate in such debates do, so clarifying the question from my point of view is what I will attempt to do here on the unlikely chance it will stop at least some small part of this foolishness.

I have stated things in seminars. I also have talked to people afterwards and I almost could get a different understanding and or take on what I said based upon the number of people attending. Each person tries to put what others say and show into words and actions they understand. A personal point of reference for them to try to understand.

On the argument of striking versus grappling, and the concept of "Styles" at all:

Most people who have had no formal training appear to grapple on natural instinct as a direct *result* of no formal training--apart from making/using weapons, humans' earliest form of fighting was to wrestle, before we even knew how to *fight*, we wrestled. Certainly I'm sure our distant predecessors used limbs to strike with, but striking in a scienced manner came a bit later because , from a purely "Man vs. Wild" perspective, human bodies , compared to other natural creatures, are not optimized to be used as weapons--even the strongest among our species don't have muscles and strength the way a gorilla or a yeti has muscles and strength, we don't have claws, we don't have jaws and teeth in the same way a bear, tiger, or crocodile has jaws and teeth. We don't have horns, we don't have natural armor the way a turtle, alligator or armadillo has--just a ribcage over our organs and a skull over our brain and good luck to you.

While man is not optimized for force to force against other predators, I think we used otehr weapons such as the BRAIN to make weapons and to level the playing field and over time give us the edge.

As to wrestling at first I think this is part of our make up, as my frined Cruentus stated in a post quiet well, people are not canabals in general and we are not murderers in general as well. We do not seek out to kill our own species. (* It happens with war which is either population growth or resource gathering or requirements or both *) So the little person who has not been trained to kill yet, wrestles as is natural for our species.

Our bodies aren't naturally optimized to be used as striking weapons, so it takes more training to GET them turned into striking weapons than to wrestle. That doesn't automatically render such training useless.

I disagree. I love hammer fists and palm heels which are gross motor skills and little children know and can do from very early ages. I understand that elbows and knuckle strikes are harder to target on the opponent. The others go with what I said above with the wrestiling and that these strikes cause others either to submit or be forced into submission.

The thing you have to remember when you enter a discussion of "this" is better than "that" with regards to striking arts/takedown arts/groundwork/whatever, is this:


Striking and grappling were never *intended* to be taught seperately. And back in the way-back-when, they weren't. The seperation took place largely in the late 19th/early 20th centuries because of several factors: The disappearance of the old ways of war in an age when gunpowder was rising in dominance, a desire to keep the old traditions and "fighting spirit" alive anyway, and certain teachers , due to their own preference/temperament/physical makeup, choosing to emphasize certain techniques and dropping others, and *BOOM* thus were born "styles". Now as far as I can see it, that's all there is to "Styles", Okay?

I agree that they should be taught together.

Which then brings us to the next two sides typically argued from:

"All styles are equally valid"
"No style is perfect".

Okay.

I think all styles are valid. If there is a natural person who has great attributes they can take minimum skills and overcome others no matter the art. So all arts would be equal for them. (* of course this is looking at it from one perspective. *)

I think no style is perfect, as there will always be someone to look at tis from a different aspect. Ther will be some new technique to address oem new weapon or change in environment. But that does nto mean they could not adapt, only that during that period they are not perfect.

Of course this is my opnion.

As to the first: If every style were equally valid, then any fully functioning human should be able to take it and make it work equally well--after all, humans are universally designed the same way, with the same nervous, muscular and skeletal systems, with the only difference being whether that human possesses either male or female reproductive organs which do not impair or impede the basic movement systems, right?

Not so fast.

I do not think all humans are designed the same way. (* Variations in the size and strength that is natural not trained. *) I have had a break in one arm that makes me not feel the pain of certain locks, but I do feel the tension in the bones but no pain. I know others who are double jointed or just do not feel certain things.

Remember the reason "styles" exist to begin with that I went into above: People's morphology left them suited to certain movements more than others--Does this person have greater height? longer limbs? They may gravitate toward striking/kicking to capitalize on the reach afforded them by their morphology. How are this other person's eyes? not so good, or their corrective lenses were knocked off? Grappling/trapping range it's most likely to be, then--once you have hold of them you almost don't need to see them anyway. And so on, and so forth till we're sick of it.

I agree with this. But I think that styles can cross different body types. Balintawak was created by Anciong Bacon who was a very small man. I do the system and even teach it was well, and I am much larger than he was.

yet, I agree that certain techniques are easier for one body type over another. Breaking a center is easier for someone whose center is lower. Other techniques are easier for the taller person. But it may not be exclusive to a size. So are we talking the good practictioners or the average beginners?

We may have Universal human design, but we have Variable human proportions.

Yes, we do. I like some variation more than others.

And when variable human proportions enter the picture, NOW is where all the "questions" start arising: when a technique is designed to work on a person's body a certain way, now these variable human proportions throw a "bell curve" of sorts into that technique's effectiveness level: One person's head might snap back a little, another's, a lot, a third not at all. One person's joint, once locked, may break at a certain pressure, another's at greater pressure, and that third one may even just muscle out of it.

I agree with all this.

The concept of the bell curve relating to varying human proportions is not original with me-I first heard it from Tom Sotis of AMOK, and credit him with introducing me to it. However this second concept grew out of a talk I had the other night in class with my current teacher, Mike Williams of the Martial Arts Research Institute, and over the last few days I've thought about it and can now hopefully put it forth in a way that makes sense.

My first instructor explained that all arts fit into an upside down funnel. The person can go straigh up one part of the funnel. Others may spiral around in their path and get to the top. But in general not all learn the whole funnel they learn what works for them and move on to the next point. Near the top/bottom of the funnel the size is constant and this represents that is one watches the masters of all the arts they seem to have an efficeincy of motion. They even may move alike while being of different styles.

This second concept brings us around to the second half of the argument I gave above: the assertation that "No style is perfect".


After all, if a fighting style were "perfect", everyone would gravitate to it, and there would be no need for any of the others, right?

Not so fast.

This is true, if we assume we all have the same definition of prefection. Not everyone is looking for the same thing.

The first and foremost misconception that fuels this is to miscall any martial art a "fighting style".

Why?

Because they are not "fighting" styles, they are "training" styles. They were created with certain intended design parameters, invariably set by the style's originator, based on his/her training needs, to develop specific attributes to *aid* his/her fighting style in light of his/her gifts/limitations.

This is why people including myself have said for years it is not the art but the person. A training style with a person who has attributes and natural skills can apply the techniques. While others may not be able to. Just because others in the same art can does not mean everyone can. The logic does not compute.

Without going into pages' worth of examples, anyone who has been involved with martial arts for any length of time will hear the name of any given style and a specific combat range( weapons, striking, throwing, trapping, groundwork, etc) associated with that style will immediately come to mind as a direct result of this specialization.

True, but most people assume that one of the arts I train in does not have any real ground work. But, I have rolled with some on the ground, and been able to hold my own. Of course I ate some when on the streets and even in arts or on the mats I also ate some. But, I also was able to do my techniques on the ground, my way, even though the art is not know for ground work.

So, based upon this, I know that I can do it so others should be able to do it. But it does not mean that they SHALL do it. It means I can in that situation. It does not even mean I could again tomorrow.

The problem with the "No arts are perfect" statement arises from these two things:

Perfecetion is such a tough road or word to agree upon.

1) Within their intended design parameters, they are ALL perfect

Nice wording. I would have stated "Within their intended design parameters, they all meet the requirements."

2) For whatever reason( usually either an overdeveloped sense of "style loyalty", an ignorance of other styles/ranges and how they work, or lack of access to same) We seem to LOVE taking a style *out* of its intended design parameters and then expecting it to function as if we had not.

I agree that it may not be optimized, but if one has the sensitivity or the body and the weapons possible then one can change the aspects of the technique to fit the weapon or environment. Maybe from my exposure the blade and the stick and empty hand being called the same, but knowing that the attributes fo the weapons changes the technique as well. But the sensitivity I pick up for handling a stick helps me with the blade and also with the empty hands as well. If on the ground, I can feel the body, and use my knowledge of joint locks and feel the feedback from the opponent to know if I am in trouble of if I have something on him or should move onto the next technique.

And *this* is where so many martial artists start to have so much trouble, and why so many styles get so much bad press.

I also would add in that the average person is not trying to adapt like I stated above.

Let's take as our example most all of the Asian stand up striking arts as they have come to be practiced in the US--ever since the Karate Kid movies we've all heard far more than our share of mocking "Daniel-San" jokes, there is no earthly way it is possible to count the sheer number of Bruce Lee noises the Great Unwashed have made at Kung Fu students, and I heard one person once refer to TaeKwonDo as "TaeKwonDon't". He thought that was the very height of wit. No matter.

I think perceptions are based upon their exposure to an art of exposure via others to that art.

The point is that over the last 20 years these and other styles have had their "real world" effectiveness cynically called into question at a level which does not seem to me to have existed in the past, after reading martial arts publications from before that time.

But I think it still matters upon the intent of the person.

Based on my personal experiences the main culprits I can think of are these:

*An explosion of martial arts related movies around this time
*which then led to the public getting a flawed perception of those arts
*Which then led to many(not all) teachers changing their programs around to "give the people what they want" in order to remain financially viable
*which occurred at the same time as Karate/Kickboxing becoming organized into a sport format and TaeKwonDo being included in the Olympic Games
*Which then shifted the emphasis in most(not all) schools of those types switching to a teaching mode based upon those competitions
*All of which occurred at the same time training methods had to be softened A) because of the influx of younger children being accepted into classes and B) because if you trained those arts as they were meant to be trained you were in a country where eventually some soft, ego-bruised, thin skinned prick would sue you blind.
*Thus, when mixed martial arts competitions gained popularity again, most of them were not prepared for what they received because the hard contact without safety gear, and the inclusion of grappling techniques which were part of those styles ' original, intended design parameters, were absent, but the practitioners carried on as though no changes had been made.

Let us not forget the liability insurance of those who had full contact psarring in the 60's and 70's. I know of at least one school that closed because they could not afford the insurance payment. This drops the level of contact down and this makes it easier for kids and more people to train, but does not get the military application.

It isn't that the original arts don't work, but all of these events conspired to take them further and further out of their intended design parameters.

If left within their intended design parameters, *all* the arts are perfect--It's US that keep screwing them up!

Well I cannot speak for US, but I know it could be me that screws it up.

 

[exile]

We simply *want to be validated that we made a good choice* We want to know that out training will serve us well, that our instructor is great and can teach us great, etc.... Nobody wants to spend years and hours of study and feel like "I've wasted my time"..

Good OP and good responses, everyone.

If I had to try to zero in on one decisive factor for the `nasty comparison' syndrome Andy is talking about, it's FF's point that I've excerpted above: the constant state of low-level anxiety that people doing the MAs suffer because, fundamentally, mostly we don't get the chance/find ourselves forced to validate our training in actual survival-stakes combat. We have to take a lot on faith, even if well-informed faith. If you think about it, it's a little odd: many of us train for years, developing what we believe are effective destructive techniques, the ability to break multiple board stacks without spacers, automatic reactions to common assault initiators that will almost certainly leave an attacker with a concussion or a broken jaw or severely damaged vital organs... if we really are quick enough, skillful enough, decisive enough to do what we think we know how to do. There are so many aspects of our training, however, that we simply never get to put to the test, and would much prefer not to put to the test. And this is true for TKDers, Kenpoka, CMAists... everyone. All of 'em people who spend years or decades honing skills whose effectiveness they will very likely never get to test out.

I think the situation I've just described is a bit strange, a bit of an anomaly—in virtually all other aspects of our lives, when we work very hard at something it's likely that we get to actually carry out that something—and it shouldn't surprise us that people deal with the contradiction at its heart in various, sometimes quite peculiar and not necessarily very constructive ways. The `all styles but mine suck' attitude is just one of the reflection of this aspect of our MA preoccupation...

 

[Xue Sheng]

I had every intension of staying completely out of this but I decided to make a comment and I doubt I will contribute much

But it continues, and I begin to wonder if maybe it isn't just posturing or hubris that fuels it.

In many cases yes

"All styles are equally valid"
"No style is perfect".

Yes

It isn't that the original arts don't work, but all of these events conspired to take them further and further out of their intended design parameters.

True and False; I could go into this in greater depth but you pretty much have already said this yourself. Design parameters in some cases peoples perceptions in others based on fantasy and myth and people expectations that just walking into a martial arts school makes you dangerous, no training required. A lot of this is the reason many internal arts are no longer as effective as they use to be, its all magic you know and how do you train magic

If left within their intended design parameters, *all* the arts are perfect--It's US that keep screwing them up!

Whole heartedly agree

I use to let this upset me and at times it still does but mainly I try to not let it because it distracts me from what I need to do which is train.

 

[geezer]

Oh for cryin' out loud, six hours I spent hammerin' my thoughts out, and here it is two days hence and nobody's got *anything* to say? Not even in dissent?
Something's very wrong when I post this on my myspace blog and it gets more answers than a dedicated martial arts site.
Grumble mutter cuss.
Harrumph.

No wonder you're complaining about the lack or dissent to your post. You make a totally reasonable, well informed and thorough argument here. So, what kind of respose do you get? Agreement! You call yourself a curmudgeon? Bah! A real curmudgeon would be far more curmudgeonly-- ie cantankerous, vitriolic and outrageous in his or her attempts to be a martial gadfly. If, for example, you had titled this thread, "My style is the absolute best" and then opened with just a few, enigmatically brief comments, you can imagine the results. Then, you could weigh-in later to clarify your perspective. I, of course am indisputably right about this and shall now prove it with my own curmudgeonly thread in which I shall proclaim that all martial artists are essentially either bullies or nerds. I dare you to disagree.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Actually a curmudgeon An ill-tempered person full of resentment and stubborn notions. Not someome that is just inflamatory for the sake of being inflamatory, but this is getting off post

No wonder you're complaining about the lack or dissent to your post. You make a totally reasonable, well informed and thorough argument here. So, what kind of respose do you get? Agreement! You call yourself a curmudgeon? Bah! A real curmudgeon would be far more curmudgeonly-- ie cantankerous, vitriolic and outrageous in his or her attempts to be a martial gadfly. If, for example, you had titled this thread, "My style is the absolute best" and then opened with just a few, enigmatically brief comments, you can imagine the results. Then, you could weigh-in later to clarify your perspective. I, of course am indisputably right about this and shall now prove it with my own curmudgeonly thread in which I shall proclaim that all martial artists are essentially either bullies or nerds. I dare you to disagree.

This to is off post and but I will gladly disagree with you, that is making a generalized statement and attempting to catagorize millions of people into two very small catagories.

EDIT:

I see you already started this thread elsewhere
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=58067
Why not keep it there and not bring it into an unrealted thread

 

[Andy Moynihan]

No wonder you're complaining about the lack or dissent to your post. You make a totally reasonable, well informed and thorough argument here. So, what kind of respose do you get? Agreement! You call yourself a curmudgeon? Bah! A real curmudgeon would be far more curmudgeonly-- ie cantankerous, vitriolic and outrageous in his or her attempts to be a martial gadfly. If, for example, you had titled this thread, "My style is the absolute best" and then opened with just a few, enigmatically brief comments, you can imagine the results. Then, you could weigh-in later to clarify your perspective. I, of course am indisputably right about this and shall now prove it with my own curmudgeonly thread in which I shall proclaim that all martial artists are essentially either bullies or nerds. I dare you to disagree.

But you forgot the One Dark Secret Of All True Curmudgeons Without Which A True Curmudgeon Is No True Curmudgeon But A False One:

Deep within the refusal to view the world through rose tinted glasses, Hidden in amongst the biting sarcasm, Between the breath expended in our trademark Exasperated Sigh(TM, C, R), is the secret belief that despite this things will, for the most part, turn out all right.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

.

A lot of this is about pride as noone wants to be studying the second best art or system out there. No one wants to waste their time on something that is not the best.

Absolutely, no one likes to see anything they've invested in have its validity challenged.

But my toys are cooler than yours and my dad is goign to beat yours up as well.

Is not

I have stated things in seminars. I also have talked to people afterwards and I almost could get a different understanding and or take on what I said based upon the number of people attending. Each person tries to put what others say and show into words and actions they understand. A personal point of reference for them to try to understand.

Well it's like what Steel Tiger said earlier, categorizing seems to be the main technique we use for understanding things.

While man is not optimized for force to force against other predators, I think we used otehr weapons such as the BRAIN to make weapons and to level the playing field and over time give us the edge.

That's what I was saying, it's only our brains and the ability to make tools which secured us our current place despite physically more powerful competition.

As to wrestling at first I think this is part of our make up, as my friend Cruentus stated in a post quite well, people are not cannibals in general and we are not murderers in general as well. We do not seek out to kill our own species. (* It happens with war which is either population growth or resource gathering or requirements or both *) So the little person who has not been trained to kill yet, wrestles as is natural for our species.

As in being less immediately damaging than certain other movements arising out of that wish not to prey on our own? Makes sense.

I disagree. I love hammer fists and palm heels which are gross motor skills and little children know and can do from very early ages. I understand that elbows and knuckle strikes are harder to target on the opponent. The others go with what I said above with the wrestiling and that these strikes cause others either to submit or be forced into submission.

Good point that ties into the above one.

I think all styles are valid. If there is a natural person who has great attributes they can take minimum skills and overcome others no matter the art. So all arts would be equal for them. (* of course this is looking at it from one perspective. *)

I think no style is perfect, as there will always be someone to look at tis from a different aspect. Ther will be some new technique to address oem new weapon or change in environment. But that does nto mean they could not adapt, only that during that period they are not perfect.

Of course this is my opnion.

And it makes sense

I do not think all humans are designed the same way. (* Variations in the size and strength that is natural not trained. *) I have had a break in one arm that makes me not feel the pain of certain locks, but I do feel the tension in the bones but no pain. I know others who are double jointed or just do not feel certain things.

What I was referring to is that the nervous, muscular and skeletal systems are the same. Just as with any other machine, they can be upgraded( through training or genetics as they mature to adulthood), "defective" ( as in the double jointedness you suggest, or my extreme nearsightedness requiring corrective lenses), or damaged( as in the residual effects of your broken arm).

I agree with this. But I think that styles can cross different body types. Balintawak was created by Anciong Bacon who was a very small man. I do the system and even teach it was well, and I am much larger than he was.

yet, I agree that certain techniques are easier for one body type over another. Breaking a center is easier for someone whose center is lower. Other techniques are easier for the taller person. But it may not be exclusive to a size. So are we talking the good practictioners or the average beginners?

Certainly you *can* train in other techniques than you are suited to, but their corresponding "bell curves" will be proportionately more difficult to obtain full benefit from( I used to kick like a motherkicker. In my teens I had my first serious sparring amongst others without my glasses, almost every kick I threw was quick, strong, technically sound---and landed about half a foot short of its target).

My first instructor explained that all arts fit into an upside down funnel. The person can go straigh up one part of the funnel. Others may spiral around in their path and get to the top. But in general not all learn the whole funnel they learn what works for them and move on to the next point. Near the top/bottom of the funnel the size is constant and this represents that is one watches the masters of all the arts they seem to have an efficeincy of motion. They even may move alike while being of different styles.

Makes sense--the human body possesses a fixed shape, and thus only a finite number of ways it can move. So the fact eventually we are going to see some technical overlap regardless of beginning style is about as predictable as nightfall.

This is why people including myself have said for years it is not the art but the person. A training style with a person who has attributes and natural skills can apply the techniques. While others may not be able to. Just because others in the same art can does not mean everyone can. The logic does not compute.

Exactly.





True, but most people assume that one of the arts I train in does not have any real ground work. But, I have rolled with some on the ground, and been able to hold my own. Of course I ate some when on the streets and even in arts or on the mats I also ate some. But, I also was able to do my techniques on the ground, my way, even though the art is not know for ground work.

So, based upon this, I know that I can do it so others should be able to do it. But it does not mean that they SHALL do it. It means I can in that situation. It does not even mean I could again tomorrow.

Nice wording. I would have stated "Within their intended design parameters, they all meet the requirements."

I actually do agree that this is a better way to phrase it. Good Call.

But I think it still matters upon the intent of the person.

I still agree.

Let us not forget the liability insurance of those who had full contact sparring in the 60's and 70's. I know of at least one school that closed because they could not afford the insurance payment. This drops the level of contact down and this makes it easier for kids and more people to train, but does not get the military application.

A second good call, right on the money.

Well I cannot speak for US, but I know it could be me that screws it up.

You, me and about a million other people, bro.

 

[exile]

There is a particular kind of toxic intensity which drives the kinds of arguments/monologues/outbursts that the OP is alluding to—agreed, in advance, that it's not an MA-specific thing, but certainly gets its fair share of exposure in MA fora—and that's really what I find interesting. I think anyone with any kind of cool-headed objectivity to spare will agree with Rich's and Andy's overall conclusions about the relative goodness of design of any of the TMAs within their parameters of use, let's say; but then, why do people get so bitter and twisted in the course of utterly pointless pissing matches about style effectiveness??

I have a suggestion that might make some sense of that kind of response.

The major idea is that the need for vindication is among the very most powerful drives that human beings as social animals possess. NB: I'm not saying it's a basic drive, a wired-in instinct. I don't think that's the case. But I do think it emerges from such basic drives by virtue of the way we as a species live. We live in communities, we're social animals; bigger-stronger-quicker-smarter are less important to our survival than our ability to get other people to accord us respect, special status, social privileges, etc. And that's why we badly need to be seen as having been right.

For younger people, getting others to admit that you were right means that you are more likely to be someone whom others will open doors for down the road. Since you were right, you're more likely to be right again than someone who's known to have been wrong. Your future is brighter and brighter the more people see your potential contribution as being on target, because if you're with them, and you're right, then they can piggyback on your shrewd judgment. There's a lot of competition out there—being seen to be right, being vindicated, is a way to get a long leg up on that competition.

Older people have for the most part gotten where they're going to go, and they have progressively less future to set store by as each year passes. What they have lots of is their past—past choices, past actions, past achievements. How people view you, at that point, is determined by how they view your past—whether you were right or not. And because (unlike the younger people with a good deal of time ahead of them to be right in, even if they were wrong earlier) you are pretty much stuck with what you've already done, you have even more of an incentive to try to get people to... well, admit that you were right (and, most deliciously, that they were wrong... it happens only rarely, but oh, what a transcendent experience when it does happen :lol. After all, that's how you're going to be evaluated after you go on to join the vast majority. As the Viking poem has it,

Cattle die
Friends die
Thou thyself shall die,
I know a thing
That never dies:

Judgment over the dead.
​

My point is just that the desire for vindication, the drive to be acknowledged as having been right all along, is fierce in the young and almost desperate in the old, especially as the latter only have what they've already done to offer to posterity as the justification for having lived, so it better seen as good. And against the background of this need to be seen as right, we have this obsessive MA activity whose test of value, the `payoff', will in all likelihood never come. If this isn't a recipe for getting bent out of shape, I don't know what is.

Grownups, of course, learn how to force conflicts of this kind into perspective. That's a big part of what being grown-up consists of. But a lot of people, as we know, never grow up. They remain pissed-off, angry Peter Pans till their last breath. And for people like that, the conflict posed by the need to be seen as right, on the one hand, and the brutal fact that they may never be able to prove their choice of MA, and training in that art, to have been wise, competent, whatever, winds up stripping their gears. Those are the people who go off on endless rants about how all other MAs suck except the one they do. There are whole MA discussion boards built on the mass membership of people like that, eh? :wink1:

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Too soon for me to rep you again, but I think you just nailed another reason behind this puzzle.

Grownups, of course, learn how to force conflicts of this kind into perspective. That's a big part of what being grown-up consists of. But a lot of people, as we know, never grow up. They remain pissed-off, angry Peter Pans till their last breath. And for people like that, the conflict posed by the need to be seen as right, on the one hand, and the brutal fact that they may never be able to prove their choice of MA, and training in that art, to have been wise, competent, whatever, winds up stripping their gears. Those are the people who go off on endless rants about how all other MAs suck except the one they do. There are whole MA discussion boards built on the mass membership of people like that, eh? :wink1:

I think I will choose to decline comment because I feel a *ahem* SNEEZE coming on.....