'The style is only as good as the martial artist' -Revisited

[Rich Parsons]

sorry, I didn't quite understand how the two sentences follow, keritano. could you go into more depth?

Okay Rich, I do not understand why you think I am ignoring your points, or that I am mocking you. I apologise if I ever mocked you, that was not my intention. ('Thank you for your post' was not sarcastic. I genuinely appreciate that you take so much time to answer me). I don't think we're getting through to each other, because I have accused you of not making points, and you have accused me of the same. For the record, here are my points:

-That styles differ in their emphases and specialisations. Some styles are better at some functions than others.
-By corollary, some styles are worse than others at certain functions.
-Here we define functions as situational uses, i.e. sport usage, self-defence one on one, self defense against a group, etc.
-That the style a student uses determines the kind of martial arts he will practice, not entirely, but to an extent that goes beyond just his own effort and his teacher's effort. A boxing student will almost always have better punches than a tkd student.

I actually don't think we've been addressing proper points for a while now, so that's there for simplicity's sake.

Thanks for all your posts.

I have taken a small break from from my work here in the desert.

This is the first post towards a debate or discussion you have made. you listed your points. This allows for people to make comments and or ask for clarification or to dispute your points.

Now the thread can move forward.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I am back from my work trip and have some time tonight.

-That styles differ in their emphases and specialisations. Some styles are better at some functions than others.

In general some people are better than others.

Both mine and your statement are valid.

This does not negate your initial compalint statement of it is the person not the art.

For it to do so would require you to list specific arts in specific areas, and for each case I am sure there will be someone who will bring up some example to show that your statement is not absolute. While the statement that it is the individual cannot be proven incorrect as in the end it two people in the "fight". Assumption that it is one on one.

-By corollary, some styles are worse than others at certain functions.

And some schools are better or worse. See my arguement above. I do not see where your arguement can be argued to completion for validity.

I see exceptions. Where as the counter arguement you are trying to say is not valid, is based upon the fact of exceptions and individuals. No absolutes.

-Here we define functions as situational uses, i.e. sport usage, self-defence one on one, self defense against a group, etc.

Once again nice points about the attributes of an art, but not about the inital point you were trying to argue. In each of those cases as stated in the above it depends upon the individual learning and the teacher as well and teaching methods to secondary points, but to the person who applies it is the main point.

I see some possibility that their could be discussion on the differences for theories and teaching styles. But in the end it is about the person's will to survive.

-That the style a student uses determines the kind of martial arts he will practice, not entirely, but to an extent that goes beyond just his own effort and his teacher's effort. A boxing student will almost always have better punches than a tkd student.

I do not understand your first sentence here could you clarify?

As to the rest, I know some TKD guys from the 70's who still have good hands. I also know some boxing guys from the 70's who have not trained since the mid 80's and while they may have had better hands then, now they do not. Once again it is not the art but the heart of the person in the situation.

 

[tshadowchaser]

'The style is only as good as its practicioner'

A practioner may not be able to present a style in all of its best aspects nor may he know all within the style. Therefor the statement above is some what untrue.

 

[Marginal]

Reading these boards, and any other literature on martial arts, you often come into the phrase 'The style is only as good as its practicioner'. I assume that this phrase was used to silence the debate on which martial art was 'best'. I have been trying to get this round my head, but haven't managed yet.

Puts me in mind of the ubiquitous Bullshido/Sherdog gem, "It's the art and the man."