Hybrid Arts

[Tony Dismukes]

I accidentally posted the following in a different thread. Copying it over here where it's actually relevant to the conversation.

My approach to "hybrid" arts is a little different from what I've seen mentioned so far.

When I'm in class for a specific art, I train as the teacher instructs in order to understand the concepts and principles which make the techniques work and to develop whatever physical and mental attributes are necessary to execute them under pressure.

When I go to apply my skills outside of one of those classes, I'm not concerned with performing a specific art. I'm just working to solve a given set of problems under a certain set of constraints. I do that using whichever skills, tactics, body mechanics, and techniques seem appropriate for the task at hand. At this stage in my development as a martial artist I don't seem to encounter any problems with confusion over whether I should be applying this concept from art A or that mechanic from art B at a given moment.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I accidentally posted the following in a different thread. Copying it over here where it's actually relevant to the conversation.

My approach to "hybrid" arts is a little different from what I've seen mentioned so far.

When I'm in class for a specific art, I train as the teacher instructs in order to understand the concepts and principles which make the techniques work and to develop whatever physical and mental attributes are necessary to execute them under pressure.

When I go to apply my skills outside of one of those classes, I'm not concerned with performing a specific art. I'm just working to solve a given set of problems under a certain set of constraints. I do that using whichever skills, tactics, body mechanics, and techniques seem appropriate for the task at hand. At this stage in my development as a martial artist I don't seem to encounter any problems with confusion over whether I should be applying this concept from art A or that mechanic from art B at a given moment.

And I accidentally replied to it on the other thread. Here was my reply:

Your "Tony-fu" is a personal hybridization of all you've studied. In my experience, there's little chance of real conflict within personal-fu, since we each naturally combine those bits that work together. If there is a natural conflict between styles (e.g.: angles in Shotokan, circles in NGA), those get resolved by personal preference. Some folks will simply prefer one approach over the other, while others will find themselves naturally choosing each in different situations.

The difficulty for most people comes early in their learning of one or more arts, where the principles of something else causes confusion (again, that example of angles vs. circles, which still causes problems for one of my students). This resolves itself once the habits of the new stuff get more engrained, then the natural response I mentioned above tends to take over.

Note for other readers: This is a bit different from my comment about actual hybrid arts, rather than a personal hybridization of whatever you've studied. NGA is a hybrid art (and Shojin-ryu is a variation of that art). My "Gerry-fu" is not pure NGA; it is influenced by Judo (not much change, since that's one origin art for NGA), Shotokan (same comment), FMA, Ueshiba's Aikido, and even some touches of stuff like Silat and other bits I've worked on in seminars. In the dojo, I do my best to stick to NGA most of the time. In my personal practice, some of the other bits come out more often.

 

[drop bear]

There is a significant difference in the two concepts. Using a less-effective charm won't lose a battle. And there wasn't an actually more effective charm to use, instead.

Yeah. But the point is you probably wouldn't know one way or the other.

I mean the point there is proven by people taking these charms in to battle that somewhere along the line they have found out through trial and error that magical arm band stops bullets. (Which we all assume is probably not the case)

We have seen the same in medicine (also battle tested by the way) where we have had a combination of some stuff that works and some stuff that is generally pretty silly.

If we have these outright issue with the conclusions drawn from battle testing. Then battle testing is not the greatest method for testing the veracity of a method. Especially if people do not know how to draw good conclusions from what they are observing.

 

[drop bear]

I accidentally posted the following in a different thread. Copying it over here where it's actually relevant to the conversation.

My approach to "hybrid" arts is a little different from what I've seen mentioned so far.

When I'm in class for a specific art, I train as the teacher instructs in order to understand the concepts and principles which make the techniques work and to develop whatever physical and mental attributes are necessary to execute them under pressure.

When I go to apply my skills outside of one of those classes, I'm not concerned with performing a specific art. I'm just working to solve a given set of problems under a certain set of constraints. I do that using whichever skills, tactics, body mechanics, and techniques seem appropriate for the task at hand. At this stage in my development as a martial artist I don't seem to encounter any problems with confusion over whether I should be applying this concept from art A or that mechanic from art B at a given moment.

There are a few minor quirks that become set standards in hybridisation. You kind of make compromises to blend an art that you wouldnt have to do if you specialised.

If I strike and do takedowns my ability to either is made a bit crap because I am trying to account for both at once. And understanding where that happens and why that happens is important to at least know.

 

[drop bear]

Then explain to me how we even got here. Let me. You study a Martial art that is an awesome empty hand art but that doesn't have anything, to my knowledge, that directly addresses defense against a weapon because it was designed for an environment where there will never be weapons.

Someone, asked you about weapons defense. You got defensive. You then noted one incident that "proved" you don't need weapons defense training to fight against armed assailants as if this one incident made a universal fact of martial arts. Everything that followed is from that single assertion that you made, that you proved in a global sense something isn't needed.

The only reasons an intelligent person would base a universal fact on a personal anecdote, even in the face of modern military training protocols, Dog Brothers etc., Is one of a few reasons.

1. They are so convinced that their method is THE method that one success = global success.
2. They are trolling.

As I said you even tried to point to historical Martial Arts used such as Judo, which has knife defense, then Glima, which also has blade defense and when I showed an example by showing Home from this specific section COMBAT GLIMA, since it contradicted what you said you actually claimed I made the link of the photo up.

Now after all that time trying to prove me wrong based on facts independent of both of us you say...



Such moving of goal posts, contradictions, circular logic and simply accusing someone of lying by inventing a picture on a website that advertises instruction in a MA you first claimed simply because you made said claim without adequate knowledge? These actions of yours are telling and pretty much proof that if anyone is making stuff up (like your Glima claim) it's you and not I sir.

Um........ No none of that happened on this thread. You have gone from arguing the topic to just flipping out over everything.

I never brought up MMA you just decided to add that for no reason. If you have a point about MMA then you shoud raise it. Not make up the idea that I did.

And then you just based the rest on your made up statement.

You cant just take these leaps of logic.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yeah. But the point is you probably wouldn't know one way or the other.

I mean the point there is proven by people taking these charms in to battle that somewhere along the line they have found out through trial and error that magical arm band stops bullets. (Which we all assume is probably not the case)

We have seen the same in medicine (also battle tested by the way) where we have had a combination of some stuff that works and some stuff that is generally pretty silly.

If we have these outright issue with the conclusions drawn from battle testing. Then battle testing is not the greatest method for testing the veracity of a method. Especially if people do not know how to draw good conclusions from what they are observing.

That's true. There is a difference, though. For superstitious beliefs, there is only confirmation bias to provide support and only a lucky event to the contrary can provide refutation. With physical tactics, an alternative method that is more effective will often have more survivors. As you say, there may continue to be some superstitious beliefs around physical tactics (and certainly more than a little confirmation bias), but there's actual counter-evidence that can be seen. If an opposing force does something physical that causes them to overwhelm your force, you want to have something like it, yourself. Of course, if you believe their magic charm is what led to them beating you, you might adopt the wrong part of their strategy (their charm, instead of their technique).

So there's some validity to your argument. I'm just pointing out that the two are not entirely comparable.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

There are a few minor quirks that become set standards in hybridisation. You kind of make compromises to blend an art that you wouldnt have to do if you specialised.

If I strike and do takedowns my ability to either is made a bit crap because I am trying to account for both at once. And understanding where that happens and why that happens is important to at least know.

Which is why boxers out-punch folks who do more than just box. They are about as specialized as it gets in the combat arts.

 

[drop bear]

Which is why boxers out-punch folks who do more than just box. They are about as specialized as it gets in the combat arts.

Correct.

And you only need to be in that exchange for a second or so to loose that fight.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I also see little value into trying to integrate the two. There is little overlap conceptually, and in too many cases the principles conflict.

Admittedly I'm a beginner in Wing Tsun (just under a year of practice at this point), but I've found a reasonable amount of conceptual overlap between BJJ and WT and no major conflicts. In addition, my WT friends who I've taught some jiu-jitsu to have stated that what I've taught them fits well with their understanding of WT principles. (Perhaps @yak sao can provide some of his perspective on the subject.)

Admittedly the tactics typically applied are quite different between WT and BJJ, but I'm a believer in the idea that tactics should be dictated by the situation rather than the art.

I found that trying to do Jiu Jitsu the "Wing Chun way" impeded my progress, and that my efforts to use my previous Wing Chun knowledge only got in the way as I approached blue belt level.

Yeah ... as I indicated in my previous comment, I wouldn't try to do BJJ the "WC" way or WC the "BJJ" way. Rather I learn each art as it is in order to understand the principles that make it work. Then I apply those principles as appropriate in my personal approach (My Tony-Fu, as Gerry puts it.).

 

[Juany118]

I accidentally posted the following in a different thread. Copying it over here where it's actually relevant to the conversation.

My approach to "hybrid" arts is a little different from what I've seen mentioned so far.

When I'm in class for a specific art, I train as the teacher instructs in order to understand the concepts and principles which make the techniques work and to develop whatever physical and mental attributes are necessary to execute them under pressure.

When I go to apply my skills outside of one of those classes, I'm not concerned with performing a specific art. I'm just working to solve a given set of problems under a certain set of constraints. I do that using whichever skills, tactics, body mechanics, and techniques seem appropriate for the task at hand. At this stage in my development as a martial artist I don't seem to encounter any problems with confusion over whether I should be applying this concept from art A or that mechanic from art B at a given moment.

I think @gpseymour explained it best and the way he did shows we pretty much do the same thing. When I first started at my current school I had to "check" my old skills at the door. It wasn't easy but in the long run it has paid off. I don't think I would have been able to integrate the arts I have properly if I didn't have a proper understanding of them individually.

 

[Juany118]

That's true. There is a difference, though. For superstitious beliefs, there is only confirmation bias to provide support and only a lucky event to the contrary can provide refutation. With physical tactics, an alternative method that is more effective will often have more survivors. As you say, there may continue to be some superstitious beliefs around physical tactics (and certainly more than a little confirmation bias), but there's actual counter-evidence that can be seen. If an opposing force does something physical that causes them to overwhelm your force, you want to have something like it, yourself. Of course, if you believe their magic charm is what led to them beating you, you might adopt the wrong part of their strategy (their charm, instead of their technique).

So there's some validity to your argument. I'm just pointing out that the two are not entirely comparable.

The thing is though you final point fails if both sides don't share the same belief system. Maybe I am more sensitive to this because of the arts I have studied. Filipinos did indeed, and some regions still, believe in the power of such charms. Natives such as this then faced Magellan (who they killed) and then a full on Spanish Conquest which they lost for the most part. I say the most part because the Spanish never fully conquered the southern most regions.

The point is this though. If you look at history you can always point to battles won for a combination of 4 basic reasons that obviously break down to a score of others.
1. Training
2. Equipment
3. Strategy/ tactics/logistics (which includes weather, terrain etc)
4. Morale (which can include the issue at hand.)

The thing is the issue at hand only provides a psychological boost. But many other things can. A charasmatic leader, fighting for you literal home, etc. So many things provide the same "real" effect of a talisman that the talisman ceases to have any individual value and simply belongs in the pile of morale/psychology.

 

[Juany118]

Um........ No none of that happened on this thread. You have gone from arguing the topic to just flipping out over everything.

I never brought up MMA you just decided to add that for no reason. If you have a point about MMA then you shoud raise it. Not make up the idea that I did.

And then you just based the rest on your made up statement.

You cant just take these leaps of logic.

See I don't just look at a single thread when determining motive. People have general opinions and methods. These opinions and methods follow them from thread to thread, or from place to place in real life (if you have a stable personality). So I take the whole and come to an opinion of the person. Kinda like real life.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The thing is though you final point fails if both sides don't share the same belief system. Maybe I am more sensitive to this because of the arts I have studied. Filipinos did indeed, and some regions still, believe in the power of such charms. Natives such as this then faced Magellan (who they killed) and then a full on Spanish Conquest which they lost for the most part. I say the most part because the Spanish never fully conquered the southern most regions.

The point is this though. If you look at history you can always point to battles won for a combination of 4 basic reasons that obviously break down to a score of others.
1. Training
2. Equipment
3. Strategy/ tactics/logistics (which includes weather, terrain etc)
4. Morale (which can include the issue at hand.)

The thing is the issue at hand only provides a psychological boost. But many other things can. A charasmatic leader, fighting for you literal home, etc. So many things provide the same "real" effect of a talisman that the talisman ceases to have any individual value and simply belongs in the pile of morale/psychology.

I agree. My point was that, at the time, some might have attributed wins/losses to the power of their charms (or those of their opponents). Doing so would reduce their examination of the physical tactics to see what was more/less effective. Not being an expert on those topics, I really don't know whether that would have been a factor in their "analysis" at the time or not. Certainly, today, we would not include the power of their charms in the analysis, though (as you point out) we might take their belief into account for the morale boost it gave.

 

[drop bear]

See I don't just look at a single thread when determining motive. People have general opinions and methods. These opinions and methods follow them from thread to thread, or from place to place in real life (if you have a stable personality). So I take the whole and come to an opinion of the person. Kinda like real life.

Oh have you noticed then I basically use your arguments. Which are fine when you use them. But are illogical and silly and you love MMA when anybody else does.

I just like watching you do backflips.

 

[Juany118]

I agree. My point was that, at the time, some might have attributed wins/losses to the power of their charms (or those of their opponents). Doing so would reduce their examination of the physical tactics to see what was more/less effective. Not being an expert on those topics, I really don't know whether that would have been a factor in their "analysis" at the time or not. Certainly, today, we would not include the power of their charms in the analysis, though (as you point out) we might take their belief into account for the morale boost it gave.

You actually raise a good point but often I think it would have balanced out (former history student incoming!!!! )

If you look at the historical periods where people uses such talismans or religious faith, the warfare itself actually acts as a control. You either have both sides using the same (example Crusaders vs Muslim) or one side using them (Ghost Dancing Lakota Warriors vs repeating Carbine Armed US Army.) In the first place both sides said "god is with us" but it was the "terrestrial" realities of warfare that resulted in victory. In the last all the faith in the world couldn't beat terrestrial realities.

That is why the only even small merit is the psychological boost. If all measurable things are equal, that faith in the supernatural can be the deciding factor. But if one side has the clear edge in the measurable, (such as repeating carbines vs faith) faith falls.

 

[anerlich]

I just like watching you do backflips.

I used to be able to do backflips. Did the last one on my 59th birthday. Think my fast twitch leg strength has diminished too much now.

 

[Juany118]

Oh have you noticed then I basically use your arguments. Which are fine when you use them. But are illogical and silly and you love MMA when anybody else does.

I just like watching you do backflips.

I noticed you tried to use them but failed because my method used measurable facts. See my response immediately above. The verifiable history of combat, when taken as a whole, shows that once battle is joined, such talismans aren't actually proven, rather disproven. Both sides either had them and so the victory went to the better army in terms of measurable factors. When one side had them and the other side lacked talismans but better measurable factors, the ones without talismans lost. There is a term in legal circles that also applies to looking at history, if you want a true picture and not a subjective one, "the totality of the circumstances."

In other words you raised, whether you knew it or not, a strawman argument. You tried to say "ah ha...People used to believe this". Well people go to war today say "I believe in this..." Otherwise the saying "there are no atheists in foxholes" would not exist.

I tried to avoid the following but you opened the door and wouldn't just let it go so here goes. Do you realize the hypocrisy of your last few responses? You go on about "proven" pulling out my quotes from another thread, even throwing something I said at someone else because they seemed to speak against your point of view. I then mention you failed in that thread. Includeding you claiming I invented links that showed ignorance on your part (hi Glima) but you then say you like to watch me do backflips?

First posting stuff just to watch someone do backflips is practically the definition of an internet troll. Second I have been consistent, and this standing my ground, in terms of my responses here.

You are the one who has been all over the place with illogical responses between multiple threads. Your moving goal posts, claiming someone invented links and thus entire websites in moments because they cut he legs off a claim you made. Lastly throwing quotes I made at someone else. Those are the actions of the "backflipper", or a troll. Which are you?

 

[Juany118]

I used to be able to do backflips. Did the last one on my 59th birthday. Think my fast twitch leg strength has diminished too much now.

Hell man I can't do one at 45. Good one you (seriously my left knee hurts just thinking about it.)

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You actually raise a good point but often I think it would have balanced out (former history student incoming!!!! )

If you look at the historical periods where people uses such talismans or religious faith, the warfare itself actually acts as a control. You either have both sides using the same (example Crusaders vs Muslim) or one side using them (Ghost Dancing Lakota Warriors vs repeating Carbine Armed US Army.) In the first place both sides said "god is with us" but it was the "terrestrial" realities of warfare that resulted in victory. In the last all the faith in the world couldn't beat terrestrial realities.

That is why the only even small merit is the psychological boost. If all measurable things are equal, that faith in the supernatural can be the deciding factor. But if one side has the clear edge in the measurable, (such as repeating carbines vs faith) faith falls.

Agreed. Perhaps the risk would be where the group with better "measurables" also has a talisman not held by the other. They would win due to tangible factors, but might attribute the win to their talisman. I can't think of an example of that, so it's purely hypothetical.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Hell man I can't do one at 45. Good one you (seriously my left knee hurts just thinking about it.)

Agreed. I never got around to learning to do one, but I suspect the jumping muscles are past that point now.