Style Bashing

[Kung Fu Wang]

Isn't suggesting that no styles suck also style bashing?

Because you are dragging down the performance of those styles that have put the effort in to be good.

I can understand what you have said. When I formed my fighting club, I had a

- TKD BB.
- Hapkido BB.
- Okinawan Karate BB.
- Profession MT fighter (from Bangkok).
- CMA guy (myself).

I tried to invite a Goju-Ryu Karate BB to join in my fighting club. I told him that the purpose was we could all learn from each other. He said, "My style is perfect. I don't need to learn from other MA styles".

 

[Holmejr]

In this age of victimhood, it doesn’t take much for it to be considered a bash. In management, if you want to critique an employee, it is wise to first to compliment them on what they do well and work into the criticism. We’re seem to be living in an overly sensitive age.

 

[punisher73]

To me, when I think of "style bashing" it is when someone paints another style with a huge broad brushstroke and doesn't acknowledge that each school is different. For example, "Style X is all McDojos and can't fight".

I'll also be honest, if a school is very clear that their goal isn't fighting and has a different goal I don't think that is a problem. For example, there are many Tai Chi/Taiji schools that ONLY want to focus on the health benefits. If they are clear that this is all they are teaching, not a problem. BUT, if they lead a person to believe that the mysteries of fighting are magically imparted onto them by performing the forms, then that IS a problem.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I'll also be honest, if a school is very clear that their goal isn't fighting and has a different goal I don't think that is a problem. For example, there are many Tai Chi/Taiji schools that ONLY want to focus on the health benefits. If they are clear that this is all they are teaching, not a problem. BUT, if they lead a person to believe that the mysteries of fighting are magically imparted onto them by performing the forms, then that IS a problem.

Where we have to be careful regarding the rule against style-bashing on this site is when we have practitioners of a style who do believe and assert that their art is effective for a certain purpose (let's say fighting in a self-defense context, since that tends to be the most contentious subject) and other people believe that it is not.

Perhaps a particular system is primarily built around kata practice without sparring and practitioners believe it builds self-defense fighting ability while other people believe it won't be effective for that purpose without sparring.

Perhaps another system is primarily built around combat sport training and practitioners believe it builds self-defense fighting ability while other people believe it won't be effective for that purpose because the rules of the sport make it inapplicable for "the streets."

Perhaps someone else might believe that neither approach will develop reliable fighting ability unless the practitioner actually engages in real fights (not just sparring) in the specific fighting context being discussed.

We can express our general beliefs regarding what makes certain types of training more or less effective for specific purposes. But when we take it to that next seemingly logical step - claiming that practitioners of Wing Chun or BJJ or Ninjutsu or whatever can't fight and they're delusional or fraudulent in claiming that they can - then we've crossed the line that allows us to keep this website a place that allows friendly, civil discussion.

It's a fine line to walk. We have a lot of very experienced martial artists here, which means we have a lot of strong opinions about how things work. However, the nature of the field we study is that there are practical, legal, and ethical limitations on how much verifiable data we can gather to buttress our opinions. We can't arrange for a representative sample of practitioners of each martial art to be actually assaulted by a gang on the street. We can look at combat sports, but those all have certain important elements which distinguish them from violence in a self-defense context. We can look at the real world experience of professionals in other fields which entail violence (LEO, bouncers, military, etc), but those also have important differences from a self-defense context and also are not as well recorded and available for analysis as combat sports. We can look at our own personal experiences, but that's a relatively small dataset even for those who have been through a lot and also is not generally verifiable for the examination of others.

So it boils down to the fact that many of us will have the opinion that others here are training in arts which are suboptimal or even completely ineffective for their stated purpose. But if we're going to keep things friendly and abide by the MartialTalk TOS, then we can't say that. Limit it to general discussion of what makes training effective for a given result.

Here's another thought for those of you who feel unduly constrained by having to bite your tongue to follow the rules: if you engage in friendly, open-minded conversation, you can learn useful stuff even from "ineffective" arts. Almost all martial arts were created by someone who used them in real fighting. (Or else they were created by re-mixing/re-branding arts that were derived from real combat experience.) Sometimes the passage of generations without usage in actual fighting has led the practice of certain arts to lose that connection with real violence and to become generally ineffective for the original purpose. But there are almost always valuable nuggets in the art - techniques, principles, tactical insights, exercises - that you can pull out and use to make your own training better. If you start the discussion from a basis of "here's why your art sucks and mine is better", then you'll never make those discoveries.

 

[skribs]

It's a fine line to walk. We have a lot of very experienced martial artists here, which means we have a lot of strong opinions about how things work. However, the nature of the field we study is that there are practical, legal, and ethical limitations on how much verifiable data we can gather to buttress our opinions. We can't arrange for a representative sample of practitioners of each martial art to be actually assaulted by a gang on the street. We can look at combat sports, but those all have certain important elements which distinguish them from violence in a self-defense context. We can look at the real world experience of professionals in other fields which entail violence (LEO, bouncers, military, etc), but those also have important differences from a self-defense context and also are not as well recorded and available for analysis as combat sports. We can look at our own personal experiences, but that's a relatively small dataset even for those who have been through a lot and also is not generally verifiable for the examination of others.

Reminds me of my college psychology professor explaining the difficulty in getting data on humans. If we're being observed, we behave different than if we aren't. And most studies require informed consent. The example she provided was that it would be unethical to do an uninformed study on "The mating habits of homo sapiens." But an informed study would also prove biased in many ways.

So it boils down to the fact that many of us will have the opinion that others here are training in arts which are suboptimal or even completely ineffective for their stated purpose. But if we're going to keep things friendly and abide by the MartialTalk TOS, then we can't say that. Limit it to general discussion of what makes training effective for a given result.

It's not just martial arts. For example, I grew up in the church. There are some people who reached out to people outside the church and tried to show them love and compassion to get them to come on Sunday. There are others who took the "you're going to burn in hell" approach. Guess which group got more parishioners, and which group got more middle fingers?

If you were to say that Hapkido sucks, who am I going to believe? Some random dude on the internet, or my training and my Master that I've trained under for 8 years? It's much, much easier for me to continue what I'm doing and label the random dude as nuts.

Here's another thought for those of you who feel unduly constrained by having to bite your tongue to follow the rules: if you engage in friendly, open-minded conversation, you can learn useful stuff even from "ineffective" arts. Almost all martial arts were created by someone who used them in real fighting. (Or else they were created by re-mixing/re-branding arts that were derived from real combat experience.) Sometimes the passage of generations without usage in actual fighting has led the practice of certain arts to lose that connection with real violence and to become generally ineffective for the original purpose. But there are almost always valuable nuggets in the art - techniques, principles, tactical insights, exercises - that you can pull out and use to make your own training better. If you start the discussion from a basis of "here's why your art sucks and mine is better", then you'll never make those discoveries.

This has always been my perspective. And like @punisher73 said, my philosophy has always been "it's the school, not the art." With that said, I recently posted in the Hapkido forum about a Hapkido school that I did not like. The class was 75% yoga and 25% hapkido, the Master contradicted himself a lot, and had no respect for any other martial art. My Dad had been looking for a Hapkido school and we tried it out together, and we did not like it.

However, if it was the only martial arts school available, I could see that I could learn some things there. I also like some of the statements he made (even if he didn't follow through on them). When I eventually run my own school, I would like to take those statements and follow through.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

So it boils down to the fact that many of us will have the opinion that others here are training in arts which are suboptimal or even completely ineffective for their stated purpose. But if we're going to keep things friendly and abide by the MartialTalk TOS, then we can't say that. Limit it to general discussion of what makes training effective for a given result.

There's one more spot here. I'm going to use kali as an example as that's what I practice the most nowadays, so I'd be biased towards it not against it.

We can say that a weapons art isn't viable for self-defense, as you won't always have a weapon on you. And that arts that focus on weapons don't do enough empty hand stuff.

We can even then say (and this would normally be in the context of someone requesting recommendations for/against a specific school) that kali is a weapons-based art.

Or whatever other argument you might have. But, as you mention, the issue is when someone combines them to say 'kali sucks because it doesn't focus on empty hands and you won't have a weapon on you'. Not all that much different from what you're saying, just wanted to add that one extra step that blurs the line even more.

 

[Steve]

To me, when I think of "style bashing" it is when someone paints another style with a huge broad brushstroke and doesn't acknowledge that each school is different. For example, "Style X is all McDojos and can't fight".

I'll also be honest, if a school is very clear that their goal isn't fighting and has a different goal I don't think that is a problem. For example, there are many Tai Chi/Taiji schools that ONLY want to focus on the health benefits. If they are clear that this is all they are teaching, not a problem. BUT, if they lead a person to believe that the mysteries of fighting are magically imparted onto them by performing the forms, then that IS a problem.

Totally agree with this. And pointing the bolded part out isn't bashing the style, even if the person who is misguided feels like it is.

 

[Steve]

We can express our general beliefs regarding what makes certain types of training more or less effective for specific purposes. But when we take it to that next seemingly logical step - claiming that practitioners of Wing Chun or BJJ or Ninjutsu or whatever can't fight and they're delusional or fraudulent in claiming that they can - then we've crossed the line that allows us to keep this website a place that allows friendly, civil discussion.

I really don't think you can do one without the other. I mean, we can be friendly and civil, and some folks are going to get upset occasionally. In any conversation of substance, there will be differences of opinion, and cognitive dissonance can create some pretty awkward interactions. As a martial arts community, I think it's more constructive and interesting to acknowledge and appreciate arts for what they are, rather than to pretend that they're all the same.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I really don't think you can do one without the other. I mean, we can be friendly and civil, and some folks are going to get upset occasionally. In any conversation of substance, there will be differences of opinion, and cognitive dissonance can create some pretty awkward interactions. As a martial arts community, I think it's more constructive and interesting to acknowledge and appreciate arts for what they are, rather than to pretend that they're all the same.

It may not always be easy or even logically consistent, but you absolutely can do one without the other. I've been on this site for 18 years and have expressed a lot of opinions regarding effective training methodology. I don't believe that during that time I have ever told a practitioner of XYZ-fu-jutsu that "hey, your art won't work in a fight and you're delusional or a fraud if you say it will."

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Isn't suggesting that no styles suck also style bashing?

Because you are dragging down the performance of those styles that have put the effort in to be good.

You're confusing style bashing with something else. If I don't say something bad about a style, that doesn't automatically say something bad about another style.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I can understand what you have said. When I formed my fighting club, I had a

- TKD BB.
- Hapkido BB.
- Okinawan Karate BB.
- Profession MT fighter (from Bangkok).
- CMA guy (myself).

I tried to invite a Goju-Ryu Karate BB to join in my fighting club. I told him that the purpose was we could all learn from each other. He said, "My style is perfect. I don't need to learn from other MA styles".

Even in being incorrect, though, he didn't say anything bad about those other styles - he just had an unreasonable view of his own art.

 

[Steve]

It may not always be easy or even logically consistent, but you absolutely can do one without the other. I've been on this site for 18 years and have expressed a lot of opinions regarding effective training methodology. I don't believe that during that time I have ever told a practitioner of XYZ-fu-jutsu that "hey, your art won't work in a fight and you're delusional or a fraud if you say it will."

Not at all what I'm trying to say. There's a difference between intentionally misleading folks (which is fraud) and appreciating that there can be a lot of fun and benefits to training in a style that may not be developing any practical fighting skill.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In this age of victimhood, it doesn’t take much for it to be considered a bash. In management, if you want to critique an employee, it is wise to first to compliment them on what they do well and work into the criticism. We’re seem to be living in an overly sensitive age.

That's not just about people being overly sensitive. It has long been considered that just jumping into criticism can cause people to become defensive (just a part of basic human psychology, apparently). The "sandwich" method isn't a magic pellet (I've seen it done very badly, having a worse effect than just being overly blunt about the criticism), but the concept behind it is solid.

 

[Steve]

This reminds me of that scene from Austin Powers Goldmember where folks get super indirect.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I really don't think you can do one without the other. I mean, we can be friendly and civil, and some folks are going to get upset occasionally. In any conversation of substance, there will be differences of opinion, and cognitive dissonance can create some pretty awkward interactions. As a martial arts community, I think it's more constructive and interesting to acknowledge and appreciate arts for what they are, rather than to pretend that they're all the same.

I think we absolutely can. I've said several times that I think developing fighting skill without sparring is unreliable and unpredictable. It can work, and I've even seen a few times where I think it definitely did work. But there was no way to know that until the person needed it (in those cases), because it had never been pressure-tested against an actual resisting partner.

I've never applied to that to a specific art, because I think you could take any art to either end of that spectrum (no resistive training, or full resistance in training).

 

[geezer]

In this age of victimhood, it doesn’t take much for it to be considered a bash. In management, if you want to critique an employee, it is wise to first to compliment them on what they do well and work into the criticism. We’re seem to be living in an overly sensitive age.

You need to BACK OFF buster.

Your comments have totally triggered me. You have no idea what terrible, emotionally damaging experiences I've had in my life dealing with criminally insensitive supervisors who have come down on me for "underperforming" and using incredibly demeaning epithets like "slacker". It's almost like they have no respect for people with disabilities. I've been diagnosed with SMC (severely motivationally challenged).

I'd, say more, but I really need to get over to the break room and check if any of the office staff have left out any bagels to go with my coffee.

 

[Steve]

That's not just about people being overly sensitive. It has long been considered that just jumping into criticism can cause people to become defensive (just a part of basic human psychology, apparently). The "sandwich" method isn't a magic pellet (I've seen it done very badly, having a worse effect than just being overly blunt about the criticism), but the concept behind it is solid.

We disagree about the value of the sandwich method. It's almost always goes badly, even when it's done well.

 

[Steve]

I think we absolutely can. I've said several times that I think developing fighting skill without sparring is unreliable and unpredictable.

Oof... sounds like style bashing to me, Gerry.

It can work, and I've even seen a few times where I think it definitely did work. But there was no way to know that until the person needed it (in those cases), because it had never been pressure-tested against an actual resisting partner.

I've never applied to that to a specific art, because I think you could take any art to either end of that spectrum (no resistive training, or full resistance in training).

This is getting to my point here. I'm being cheeky above, but I really don't think we're too far apart. We agree on the gist of the above. But if the training model is intrinsic to the style, then the strengths and weaknesses of the training model represent the style, not the stylist or the school. In situations like this, I don't think it's a bad thing to just acknowledge that, so that we can accurately advise posters on the site when they ask questions on the subject. Said another way, if a style, for whatever reason, doesn't reliably or predictably develop fighting skill, I don't think it's bashing the style to say that out loud.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

We are ignoring (we always do this) that we do not know what we do not know. And anyone who is not proficient (at the minimum) in Style X is simply not qualified to state what its characteristics are, let alone criticize them.

A person could say "Style X" has no ground game, therefore it is deficient. It may be a matter of fact that Style X has no ground game. What is not known is whether or not Style X *should have* a ground game. That isn't something a person non-proficient in that exact style could say. It has become opinion. You could say Style X has no ground game. But continuing to say "therefore, Style X is deficient" is opinion. And if a person persists in insisting the deficiency exists, then in my opinion they are style bashing. Or, put another way, they are talking out of their nether orifice.

We have members here who measure all martial arts styles based on criteria that are important to them. Useful when one is evaluating systems for oneself. Perhaps less so when a given style isn't intended for what that person wants it to be.

"How good is it in the cage?" Not at all? Then it's garbage.

"How good is it in self-defense?" Not? Garbage.

"Can you win a tournament with it?" No? Garbage.

Do you understand that we measure things by our own frame of reference, and despite what we all think of our standards, they are opinions, and that's all they are.

"The sky is clear today" can be a factual statement. "Therefore it's a nice day." That's opinion. What if I'm a farmer hoping for rain?

I practice a style that is well-respected in general terms. I am a below-average practitioner, nonetheless I try my best and I enjoy it. I don't practice it for the octagon, or for self-defense, or for tournaments, or for anything really describable. I practice it because *I WANT TO* and that's all the reason I need. I believe I can use it to defend myself should I be called upon to do so. Will I have to? Not likely. Will I be able to beat a 'roid raging practitioner of Style X or Y or whatever who has ground game and high kicks and bulging pectoral muscles? No idea. Maybe not. WHO CARES? I'm in my 60s. I'm beyond all that kiddy garbage.

But still we get the usual accusation. If you can't use it in a cage match, it's no good.

Dude. If you want to get in the cage, do that. Leave me out. I'm fine doing what I do, as well as I can manage to do it.

We also continue to pit style against style as if there were not great, average, and lousy practitioners of each of them. Style A is far superior to Style X because this guy and that guy, blah blah blah. Except you can have a lousy Style A practitioner lose to a great Style X practitioner any day of the week. There's no objective standard to compare, but we insist on doing it. Gets a little old, to be honest.

But hey, "I'm just stating facts," so you can't take offense.

 

[geezer]

As a practitioner of an art that gets a lot of bashing, I think there is a huge and obvious difference between honest criticism and mean-spirited style bashing.

If somebody politely points out things that are true, like that my style lacks well developed ground fighting, I'd be the first to agree. Or if they point out that from the standpoint of functionality, we neglect sparring with other systems and place an awful lot of emphasis on complex sensitivity drills that don't immediately translate into (or maybe never translate into) practical fighting skills when applied against well trained, resisting opponents. Yeah, I can totally see that perspective.

Basically, from their perspective, and considering their goals, they are saying that my style seems ineffective to them.

Politely questioning the effectiveness of a style or training method for specific goals is not the same as saying your system, you, and the horse you road in on "suck"! Although many will take it that way.

.... Hmmm. Maybe that's why I not very popular in my old association any more?