So back to the original topic - this is a really good argument. Although, it depends what aspect of the comparison you are looking at. From the standpoint the arts that they created and what they set out to do, I agree, different goals.
But from public reaction and the "novelty" of what they did, I still think that it is a good comparison.
I also think it is a valid comparison.
Both decided that TMAs had too much "fluff" and that they should establish their own, new style that focuses on effective techniques.
And (this is not a bash, just a difference of opinion) I think they
were
BOTH wrong!
I think that idea works on an individual level but is wrong at the system/curriculum level.
Or, to restate, in my opinion, INDIVIDUALS should focus on what works for THEM for their personal martial art style.
But in eliminating techinques from a system, from a curriculum, you may deprive future students for something that would be great for THEM even if YOU find it doesn't work.
For example, low spinning heel kick to someone's calf — I've just never been very good at. Never quite clicked for me. Jump spinning heel kick to the head? Yep. But the low one? Not so much ...
But I see this not as a problem in the technique, but in
ME. Maybe I didn't give it a good chance, didn't try hard enough at it, didn't put in the reps.
But I've seen plenty of folk who can whip that out "like ringin' a bell."
Logically, if every generation's instructors eliminate techniques based on what they think works, eventually (over the course of hundreds or thousands of years) end up with what, a couple techniques? Zero? Eventually, each and every technique would be eliminated as there is bound to be SOMEONE who decides they can't make technique X work for them.
This doesn't mean I think CHKD or JKD are bad systems. Clearly there are many folk who are perfectly happy with them — and that is fine. Ultimately, I think people should train with the best instructor they can who is around — and if that is a CHKD or JKD instructor, so be it.
But I think slimming down systems based on an individual's proficiency with techniques is a bad idea, overall, for the martial arts. And I DO object to them implying or outright stating that their system is better than MY system because they got rid of "junk" or "fluff." Isn't that, in fact, a roundabout way of bashing me and my instructors? (Silly us, keeping these useless techniques in our curriculum, eh?)
I mean, EVERY martial art system picks and chooses techniques. And the NUMBER of techniques each system decides to focus on is hotly debated: some, like boxing, take it down to only a dozen or so (sorry if I have this number wrong — never studied boxing, but it seems about that many) while others — some style of hapkido, for example, study
thousands.
It's a judgement call, really. Do you just choose ONE technique and limit your options but become really REALLY good at that ONE technique? Or study a kajillion and only get to practice each technique a couple times in a lifetime?
Most of us pick somewhere in between these extremes and are happy with our choice.
My final comment is: maybe Pellegrini wouldn't have run into so much negative energy if he had simply called it Pellegrini's Hapkido or stuck with Chon-Tu Kwan Hapkido instead of "Combat Hapkido."
I've always found that name a bit offensive — it seems to imply that MY hapkido is, what? something not appropriate for combat? "Sport" hapkido?
ALL hapkido is "combat" hapkido (or SHOULD be — if not, then it isn't hapkido at all!)
So, yea: Lee and Pellegrini are comparable. Except Bruce didn't call his new art "Fighting Wing Chun"