Common expressions that are wrong....

[Gerry Seymour]

So at what point does changing things make a new style?
Did gogen yamaguchi stop training goju ryu when he made his changes?

Did funakoshi stop training and teaching karate when he made his changes?

Styles of martial arts were constantly changing before the ‘modern era’ so why does changes to style suddenly equate to different styles now?

I'd argue Funakoshi did, and that's why it's referred to as Shotokan Karate - a specific style of the art.

But that's a valid question, and I don't think there's a clear demarcation. It would depend how uniform the art/style is before the changes. BJJ is pretty open and fluid in its approach. It would take some really major changes for me to look at it and say "that's not BJJ". It would take less change for me to say the same about Judo, I think, and even less for my primary art (Nihon Goshin Aikido). I've even questioned whether what I teach/taught is still the same style as I was taugth because of the changes I've made.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Not even close to the same thing.

Machida could land that kick on elite fighters. Most people can't.

That isn't chance. Machida is doing something different.

I'm not any kind of expert on kicking, so I could be wrong in this. I'd guess it's not the kick that's different, but how he sets them up and when he uses it. Being able to accurately recognise the opening for something like that is a separate skill from being able to make that kick properly with good power and speed.

Of course, he may also be better at disguising it, which usually means some difference in the mechanics early in the kick.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yes he trained it. He’s a professional fighter, most people are not.
What he can do and what most people can do are completely irrelevant.

So what’s boxing? What as trained in the 1800s? Or is what’s trained now boxing? The training and competition methodologies are very different.

Things change and evolve over time that evolution or change doesn’t mean it a whole new style.

There's a good point here. While I think changes do warrant calling something a new style, it's probably worth adding something to that about the changes diverging from the larger community of that style. Change over time within a style should happen, and if they are widely adopted, they are changes within the style. If one boxing gym came up with radical changes to boxing, it'd be a different style of boxing (still the same art).

I guess we could even try to differentiate styles of boxing, historically. Even keeping with post-Queensbury boxing, we could probably pick some points in time when there's a recognizable difference and give those names.

Certainly there's likely a difference in approach (style) for bareknuckle boxing vs gloved boxing, so those are probably different styles. Heck, just the difference I named might be enough.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Just remembered that stupid Bruce lee quote

I don’t fear the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks 1 time but the man who has practiced 1 kick 10,000 times.

Well if you only know one kick you’re a 1 trick pony, it’s not to hard to avoid that 1 kick. If you try to branch out on the fly to other kicks you’ll likely put yourself into a really bad position.

Agreed.

As with most quotes of this type, I think his intent was more analogous than literal. He was probably referring to someone who is really good at one kick (and has a reasonable set of other kicks) versus someone who has ALL the kicks.

 

[GojuTommy]

Agreed.

As with most quotes of this type, I think his intent was more analogous than literal. He was probably referring to someone who is really good at one kick (and has a reasonable set of other kicks) versus someone who has ALL the kicks.

I’d rather be good at multiple kicks rather than be really good at one and ok at others.

 

[GojuTommy]

I'd argue Funakoshi did, and that's why it's referred to as Shotokan Karate - a specific style of the art.

But that's a valid question, and I don't think there's a clear demarcation. It would depend how uniform the art/style is before the changes. BJJ is pretty open and fluid in its approach. It would take some really major changes for me to look at it and say "that's not BJJ". It would take less change for me to say the same about Judo, I think, and even less for my primary art (Nihon Goshin Aikido). I've even questioned whether what I teach/taught is still the same style as I was taugth because of the changes I've made.

Before it was shotokan it didn’t have an actual name. That’s why it was named shotokan.
Same with goju ryu. It didn’t have a formal name until it was officially named.

 

[GojuTommy]

That's cool I will use yours.

Yes there can be nuance in definitions, but boxing is still pugilism, and pugilism is still boxing. Nice try though.

 

[GojuTommy]

I'm not any kind of expert on kicking, so I could be wrong in this. I'd guess it's not the kick that's different, but how he sets them up and when he uses it. Being able to accurately recognise the opening for something like that is a separate skill from being able to make that kick properly with good power and speed.

Of course, he may also be better at disguising it, which usually means some difference in the mechanics early in the kick.

The ‘crane kick’ is designed as leading with a fake, so being good at disguising it just means he’s better at the kick itself.

 

[Steve]

I'd add a third component, which is really getting back to part of what you both were saying in the post you replied to and your reply, I think. It's the student, the teacher, and the art. The latter two comprise "the system" (a combination of the style and the training methods - which overlap but aren't the same thing).

Any decent art - taught with good training methods - can help most folks get pretty good, dependent upon their effort and personal limitations. A well-designed art can be taught with poor training methods and will be less useful that way than a decently-designed art with better training methods. So two different instructors, teaching the same art with different systems, can produce very different results with similar students. Of course, there are arts where the delivery method has become part of the culture of that art. BJJ adopted an open model with lots of resistance. Aikido adopted a closed model with minimal (or no, in many cases) resistance. Each of those choices has had a big impact on the overall art.

I agree, overall, but the key there is what we have in mind when we say "pretty good." I'd say for any art that doesn't have a clear venue for application (e.g., sports or direct application in a professional setting), "pretty good" would equate to functional beginner.

I think a lot of this is just folks needing to be realistic about, and okay with what they're doing and not doing.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

…So here is yet another thread derailed so that certain people can trot out the ” if you aren’t doing what I’m doing, you aren’t skilled” trope. It’s honestly pathetic at this point.

 

[Steve]

…So here is yet another thread derailed so that certain people can trot out the ” if you aren’t doing what I’m doing, you aren’t skilled” trope. It’s honestly pathetic at this point.

On a positive note, "if you aren't doing what I'm doing, you aren't skilled" is a common expression that is wrong, so well done for getting things back on track.

 

[drop bear]

I'm not any kind of expert on kicking, so I could be wrong in this. I'd guess it's not the kick that's different, but how he sets them up and when he uses it. Being able to accurately recognise the opening for something like that is a separate skill from being able to make that kick properly with good power and speed.

Of course, he may also be better at disguising it, which usually means some difference in the mechanics early in the kick.

Yeah. Which in all practical sense makes it a different kick.

As Bruce Lee should have said. "Don't focus on the finger. You will miss everything thing it took to get that finger there in the first place."

 

[drop bear]

Yes there can be nuance in definitions, but boxing is still pugilism, and pugilism is still boxing. Nice try though.

My boxing isn't mike Tyson's boxing. They are completely different animals.

Mike Tyson's boxing isn't 1800's pugilism. Even modern bare knuckle isn't pugilism.

Like the old spice ad. You might smell the same. But you are not the same.

And this is important practicality because if for example you want to learn Machidas crane kick, or Mike Tyson's boxing or bare knuckle that is worth a damn. And you go to Barry's back yard martial arts, because they are teaching the same thing. You are not getting the same thing. You are basically getting the wish version.

 

[tkdroamer]

I agree, overall, but the key there is what we have in mind when we say "pretty good." I'd say for any art that doesn't have a clear venue for application (e.g., sports or direct application in a professional setting), "pretty good" would equate to functional beginner.

I think a lot of this is just folks needing to be realistic about, and okay with what they're doing and not doing.

Yeah, it is just too subjective to call. I do think there are reasonable generalities that can be made. For example, any school that does not pressure test is not even going to be okay and certainly not 'pretty good Which is sad because it is quite likely someone in the school has the potential to be good.

 

[Steve]

Yeah, it is just too subjective to call. I do think there are reasonable generalities that can be made. For example, any school that does not pressure test is not even going to be okay and certainly not 'pretty good Which is sad because it is quite likely someone in the school has the potential to be good.

I would agree with this. Without application, “pretty good” is the high bar.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Before it was shotokan it didn’t have an actual name. That’s why it was named shotokan.
Same with goju ryu. It didn’t have a formal name until it was officially named.

Yes, that tends to be the case with most branchings - they start out keeping whatever the old name was until someone decides it's different enough to have a new one and gives it.

 

[GojuTommy]

Yes, that tends to be the case with most branchings - they start out keeping whatever the old name was until someone decides it's different enough to have a new one and gives it.

That’s not how karate styles got their names though.

Goju ryu used to be called Naha-te which just meant fist of Naha, and in Japan at the time wasn’t considered a real style name.
A representative of miyagi’s was asked the name of his style made up the name half hard style on the spot, because it would have made him and his instructor look amateurish for lack of a better term. Miyagi then came up with goju ryu afterwards.

 

[GojuTommy]

My boxing isn't mike Tyson's boxing. They are completely different animals.

Mike Tyson's boxing isn't 1800's pugilism. Even modern bare knuckle isn't pugilism.

Like the old spice ad. You might smell the same. But you are not the same.

And this is important practicality because if for example you want to learn Machidas crane kick, or Mike Tyson's boxing or bare knuckle that is worth a damn. And you go to Barry's back yard martial arts, because they are teaching the same thing. You are not getting the same thing. You are basically getting the wish version.

Lmao ok. Whatever you say. Any decent boxing coach can teach you how to box like Tyson. Not really sure what you’re trying to get at.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That’s not how karate styles got their names though.

Goju ryu used to be called Naha-te which just meant fist of Naha, and in Japan at the time wasn’t considered a real style name.
A representative of miyagi’s was asked the name of his style made up the name half hard style on the spot, because it would have made him and his instructor look amateurish for lack of a better term. Miyagi then came up with goju ryu afterwards.

That’s not really different from what I said. They asked the name of the style - indicating they considered it a separate style.

 

[GojuTommy]

That’s not really different from what I said. They asked the name of the style - indicating they considered it a separate style.

No they asked the name because at the time people in Japan had no clue what Te later called karate was.