Thoughts on the nature and boundaries of martial arts - split from Training Log

[jobo]

I think if two American football teams that both train in America and generally compete in America, play a game in the UK, it's still American. Once you guys start your own league with your own players, and your own teams, it becomes British, even if the coach is an American.

we have our own league, it's still called American football, its exactly the same rules, in what way is it british and not american ?

that would also appear to make st Patrick the saint of New York and my usa made cycle english

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think if two American football teams that both train in America and generally compete in America, play a game in the UK, it's still American. Once you guys start your own league with your own players, and your own teams, it becomes British, even if the coach is an American.

I agree, though the term “American football” would still be appropriate, because of the communication value of the term.

 

[Steve]

we have our own league, it's still called American football, its exactly the same rules, in what way is it british and not american ?

that would also appear to make st Patrick the saint of New York and my usa made cycle english

It's british, in my opinion, though it may be authentic. It's not going to be the same, even if the rules are the same, because you guys are not American.

 

[Steve]

I agree, though the term “American football” would still be appropriate, because of the communication value of the term.

100%. I mean, that it's called American Football in the first place is a big hint it's not actually "American" anymore.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

100%. I mean, that it's called American Football in the first place is a big hint it's not actually "American" anymore.

I don’t know. I mean my British friends call American football “American football”, even when it’s in America.

 

[Steve]

I don’t know. I mean my British friends call American football “American football”, even when it’s in America.

But in America, we just call it football. Exactly the point.

When you say "sushi," as an American, do you think what you have in mind is Japanese? Would a Japanese native agree? I think what we think of when we say "sushi" is something uniquely American, that can be more or less authentic to its Japanese roots.

When you talk about going to eat Szechuan food at the Golden Phoenix Chinese Restaurant, do you think you're getting actual Chinese food? I don't. I think you're getting something that is uniquely American, that can be more or less authentic (probably less, let's be real) to its Chinese roots.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

But in America, we just call it football. Exactly the point.

When you say "sushi," as an American, do you think what you have in mind is Japanese? Would a Japanese native agree? I think what we think of when we say "sushi" is something uniquely American, that can be more or less authentic to its Japanese roots.

When you talk about going to eat Szechuan food at the Golden Phoenix Chinese Restaurant, do you think you're getting actual Chinese food? I don't. I think you're getting something that is uniquely American, that can be more or less authentic (probably less, let's be real) to its Chinese roots.

But someone referring to it as “American” is not an indicator what they are referring to isn’t American. It probably indicates there’s some ambiguity in the term involved, among the people involved.

 

[Steve]

But someone referring to it as “American” is not an indicator what they are referring to isn’t American. It probably indicates there’s some ambiguity in the term involved, among the people involved.

Or ambiguity in the activity itself. Or all of the above. Point being, whether it is actually "American" depends on where, when, how, and by whom.

So, to try and corral this back to the topic of the thread, if you do Wing Chun in America, I would argue that it is no longer Chinese, though it may be authentic to its Chinese roots. Expecting it to be Chinese leads to misery and pain. (Okay, maybe not misery and pain, but it causes predictable confusion and miscommunication).

 

[jobo]

I don’t know. I mean my British friends call American football “American football”, even when it’s in America.

well yes exactly, that because you couldn't think up an original name for it

it was originally called American football even in America and or grid iron football, to differentiate it from both association football and rugby foot ball from which it was derived

the term soccer was used extensively in this county in the 60 and 70s before changing to footy for no reason im aware

 

[Steve]

well yes exactly, that because you couldn't think up an original name for it

it was originally called American football even in America and or grid iron football, to differentiate it from both association football and rugby foot ball from which it was derived

the term soccer was used extensively in this county in the 60 and 70s before changing to footy for no reason im aware

Yeah, those guys we don't know who are long dead just weren't very creative.

Along these lines, let's consider the sport of cricket. It's a British sport, but is played outside of Britain, largely introduced to cultures during the height of the British imperial phase. The Trobrianders of Papua New Guinea play Cricket, which is Cricket, but isn't British. It's a somewhat inauthentic, uniquely local variant of the British sport. My point is simply that local variation is unavoidable. All you can really do is strive to manage authenticity.

 

[jobo]

Yeah, those guys we don't know who are long dead just weren't very creative.

Along these lines, let's consider the sport of cricket. It's a British sport, but is played outside of Britain, largely introduced to cultures during the height of the British imperial phase. The Trobrianders of Papua New Guinea play Cricket, which is Cricket, but isn't British. It's a somewhat inauthentic, uniquely local variant of the British sport. My point is simply that local variation is unavoidable. All you can really do is strive to manage authenticity.

they took two British sports mix them together and called it American football, so no, creative isnt the first adjective that comes to mind, just as they took rounders put it on a diamond instead of a circle and called it base ball or snooker, shrank the table made the pockets bigger and called it pool, i think basketball is authentically American rather than cultural appropriation, unless it was a native American game ? edit, no it turns out to be invented by a Canadian

cricket has rules, if your playing to the international rules your playing cricket, if the people you mention have made up their own rules, then there not playing cricket, any more than American footballers are playing rugby ( any more) coz it has different rules (and helmets)



cricket is no longer a British sport, its debatable if it ever really was, it was a lot more popular in Australia than it ever was here and now ridiculously popular on the sub continent

though we do seem to have invented a disproportionate amount of global sports for a small island, did you know table tennis was one of ours

 

[dvcochran]

there are a number of species that haven't changed notably for millions of years, though there have been genetic abnormalities non of there offered an advantage, so evolve or die only applies if the environment changes sufficiently to require it

That immediately made me think of the alligator. They are top of the food chain so really no need to change. I agree environment is going to force a 'change or die' circumstance. But when you think of other top of the food chain animals like lions or humans there has been significant change.
I think the real argument is in a reasonably current timeline.

 

[jobo]

That immediately made me think of the alligator. They are top of the food chain so really no need to change. I agree environment is going to force a 'change or die' circumstance. But when you think of other top of the food chain animals like lions or humans there has been significant change.
I think the real argument is in a reasonably current timeline.

the crocodilians predate the dinosaur by many millions of years on much the same body plan as they have now , though there was one that ran on two legs, a bit like a t rex, that must have been a bit scary, but it still looked like a croc with big back legs

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Or ambiguity in the activity itself. Or all of the above. Point being, whether it is actually "American" depends on where, when, how, and by whom.

So, to try and corral this back to the topic of the thread, if you do Wing Chun in America, I would argue that it is no longer Chinese, though it may be authentic to its Chinese roots. Expecting it to be Chinese leads to misery and pain. (Okay, maybe not misery and pain, but it causes predictable confusion and miscommunication).

I can agree with that. I still don't think there's a problem with using the term Chinese Martial Arts to refer to it. I don't think most folks are confused that it's actually in China and involving Chinese people just because the term is used to reference its origin.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Hey @Tony,

This is just a place-holder so I can come back and go through this in detail....

Chris, you still planning on coming back and replying? I’d be interested in reading your thoughts on the matter.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I don't know if Chris is ever getting around to posting a reply in this thread, but I happened to be looking back through the original discussion and found this quote which seems relevant to my points:

In the late 80's the Grammy's finally introduced a "Hard Rock/Heavy Metal" category for their awards. Bands up for the award included Metallica (the odds-on favourites to win), Anthrax, Bon Jovi... and Jethro Tull. Now, Jethro Tull are best known for their flute-playing lead singer, and the song "Aqualung", and would be best described as a "prog-rock" band... but the Grammy board didn't know how to class them, and there were distorted guitars, so.... Jethro Tull, a decidedly non-Hard Rock or Heavy Metal band won the first Grammy in the category. When Metallica won the following year, after the huge outcry from the metal community to the Grammy's, Lars Ulrich (drummer for Metallica) thanked Jethro Tull for "not putting out an album this year"... it got laughs. Why? Because the the entire audience, including all nominated bands (including Jethro Tull) knew that Tull were not a Hard Rock/Heavy Metal band... no matter what the "industry awards" thought.

Chris expresses the opinion that Jethro Tull's genre was wrongly categorized by the Grammy's. Here's the thing though - musical "genres" are primarily marketing categories, not inherent, invariant attributes of the music. This is why the same song might end up classified as "rock" when performed by a white artist or "blues" when performed by a black artist. (Or as "country" if performed by a singer with a twang and a pedal steel in the background.)

In the specific example he gives, the best classification for Jethro Tull is, well, just Jethro Tull. They combine elements of folk, blues, jazz, classical, rock, proto-grunge, proto-metal, and really just anything that strikes Ian Anderson's fancy. You could call that synthesis "prog-rock" if you want, but that's really just a marketing category. You wouldn't confuse a song by Jethro Tull with one by ELP or Genesis any more than you would confuse it with one by Metallica.

Labelling music by genre can be useful either for marketing or as a shorthand for making broad generalizations about aspects of music that you like or dislike, but that's about it. Genres have boundaries just as fuzzy and imprecise as any other label. That fuzziness isn't just a feature of artists who blend multiple stylistic elements. Quick quiz - what genre does Johnny Cash's cover of "Hurt" fall into? It's a cover of a rock song written by a rock artist, but it doesn't contain any of the elements you would normally list as typically characteristic of rock. It's sung by a singer who is normally lumped into the "country" genre, but it doesn't contain the typical signifiers of country either. If you came to the song knowing nothing of the singer or the original composer, probably the best descriptor for the song you could find would be "heartbreak." It's just music, expressing pure emotion, not bound to any particular pigeonhole.

As might be gathered from my previous comments, this is how I think about martial arts as well. "Styles" can be useful tools for organizing a training curriculum or examining the historical evolution of martial practices, but I don't think that it's helpful to view them as rigid boxes that confine the practitioner.

 

[drop bear]

I don't know if Chris is ever getting around to posting a reply in this thread, but I happened to be looking back through the original discussion and found this quote which seems relevant to my points:

Chris expresses the opinion that Jethro Tull's genre was wrongly categorized by the Grammy's. Here's the thing though - musical "genres" are primarily marketing categories, not inherent, invariant attributes of the music. This is why the same song might end up classified as "rock" when performed by a white artist or "blues" when performed by a black artist. (Or as "country" if performed by a singer with a twang and a pedal steel in the background.)

In the specific example he gives, the best classification for Jethro Tull is, well, just Jethro Tull. They combine elements of folk, blues, jazz, classical, rock, proto-grunge, proto-metal, and really just anything that strikes Ian Anderson's fancy. You could call that synthesis "prog-rock" if you want, but that's really just a marketing category. You wouldn't confuse a song by Jethro Tull with one by ELP or Genesis any more than you would confuse it with one by Metallica.

Labelling music by genre can be useful either for marketing or as a shorthand for making broad generalizations about aspects of music that you like or dislike, but that's about it. Genres have boundaries just as fuzzy and imprecise as any other label. That fuzziness isn't just a feature of artists who blend multiple stylistic elements. Quick quiz - what genre does Johnny Cash's cover of "Hurt" fall into? It's a cover of a rock song written by a rock artist, but it doesn't contain any of the elements you would normally list as typically characteristic of rock. It's sung by a singer who is normally lumped into the "country" genre, but it doesn't contain the typical signifiers of country either. If you came to the song knowing nothing of the singer or the original composer, probably the best descriptor for the song you could find would be "heartbreak." It's just music, expressing pure emotion, not bound to any particular pigeonhole.

As might be gathered from my previous comments, this is how I think about martial arts as well. "Styles" can be useful tools for organizing a training curriculum or examining the historical evolution of martial practices, but I don't think that it's helpful to view them as rigid boxes that confine the practitioner.

The issue is there are multiple ways to define expertise. And they conflict.

I had a conversation that started with if you call an AR an assault rifle then you know nothing about guns.

So in this case expertise is considered knowledge of terminology and categories. Rather than effectively shooting or being able to rebuild the thing or numerous other aspects of expertise that don't really rely on correct terms.

 

[jobo]

The issue is there are multiple ways to define expertise. And they conflict.

I had a conversation that started with if you call an AR an assault rifle then you know nothing about guns.

So in this case expertise is considered knowledge of terminology and categories. Rather than effectively shooting or being able to rebuild the thing or numerous other aspects of expertise that don't really rely on correct terms.

multiple? I can only think of one, name three!

 

[Steve]

I don't know if Chris is ever getting around to posting a reply in this thread, but I happened to be looking back through the original discussion and found this quote which seems relevant to my points:

Chris expresses the opinion that Jethro Tull's genre was wrongly categorized by the Grammy's. Here's the thing though - musical "genres" are primarily marketing categories, not inherent, invariant attributes of the music. This is why the same song might end up classified as "rock" when performed by a white artist or "blues" when performed by a black artist. (Or as "country" if performed by a singer with a twang and a pedal steel in the background.)

In the specific example he gives, the best classification for Jethro Tull is, well, just Jethro Tull. They combine elements of folk, blues, jazz, classical, rock, proto-grunge, proto-metal, and really just anything that strikes Ian Anderson's fancy. You could call that synthesis "prog-rock" if you want, but that's really just a marketing category. You wouldn't confuse a song by Jethro Tull with one by ELP or Genesis any more than you would confuse it with one by Metallica.

Labelling music by genre can be useful either for marketing or as a shorthand for making broad generalizations about aspects of music that you like or dislike, but that's about it. Genres have boundaries just as fuzzy and imprecise as any other label. That fuzziness isn't just a feature of artists who blend multiple stylistic elements. Quick quiz - what genre does Johnny Cash's cover of "Hurt" fall into? It's a cover of a rock song written by a rock artist, but it doesn't contain any of the elements you would normally list as typically characteristic of rock. It's sung by a singer who is normally lumped into the "country" genre, but it doesn't contain the typical signifiers of country either. If you came to the song knowing nothing of the singer or the original composer, probably the best descriptor for the song you could find would be "heartbreak." It's just music, expressing pure emotion, not bound to any particular pigeonhole.

As might be gathered from my previous comments, this is how I think about martial arts as well. "Styles" can be useful tools for organizing a training curriculum or examining the historical evolution of martial practices, but I don't think that it's helpful to view them as rigid boxes that confine the practitioner.

Doesn't it depend a little on what one's priority is? I mean, if the style is about providing context, it can be helpful, but isn't critical.

If the priority is about preserving the historical integrity of a style (e.g., kyudo or HEMA) or about preserving the purity and preventing dilution of a style (e.g., the Sumo reforms I posted about recently), then the definition of the style is of paramount importance, even if that is to the detriment of the quality of the style (however that might be defined). Not saying it is or isn't effective; rather, that being effective is less important than being pure or being historically accurate.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Not saying it is or isn't effective; rather, that being effective is less important than being pure or being historically accurate.

Is it possible that the "pure" or "historically accurate" versions of a style may actually be more effective than its modern versions? Going back to the musical analogy, many covered versions (redone by another artist) of a classic hit are not as moving (effective) as the original and perceived by many as being a cheap imitation.

In TMA, many modern versions of a style have actually been degraded over time, having some techniques modified (their original purpose lost) or eliminated and others added, resulting in a less pure and often less effective version. Sort of like messing around with a great recipe.

I think it's fair to say that many believe modern "PC" culture is not as beneficial to society as a whole as, say, the culture of our grandparents, when there was a lower rate of out of wedlock births, lower crime rate, less homelessness, less drug use, greater national pride, and less desire to be on welfare.

Many products today, mechanical, service, and food, are not of the same quality as when I was young, plus being relatively more expensive. Full service gas stations and free air for your tires? House calls by your long time physician? I can tell you its harder to find good produce at the supermarkets than in years past. Overdependence on technology where hackers or energy burst can put our computerized society in dire straits? Personal attention from a human when you call a business? Younger readers here may have little idea of these things.

Sure, there have been many beneficial advancements on all fronts, but certainly not all. My point is simply that just because something is from the past, it is not necessarily less "effective" or preferable than the modern version. In such cases, the historical style can be celebrated and embraced for its positive traits, guilt free.