What Defines a System?

[Kung Fu Wang]

That makes sense, though I'm not sure...is that part of the system, or part of the organization? If someone taught the same material outside that organization, and didn't require the tournament record, does it become (by definition) a different system?

For the Chinese wrestling system, if you can't use it on the mat, even if you can demonstrate your skill nicely, nobody will pay attention on you. The first thing that people will ask is "What's your tournament record?"

 

[Gerry Seymour]

...

For the Chinese wrestling system, if you can't use it on the mat, even if you can demonstrate your skill nicely, nobody will pay attention on you. The first thing that people will ask is "What's your tournament record?"

Okay, I can see that, where there's a focus on competition in the art. Of course, if that person can step on the mat and clean up, wouldn't the lack of a tournament record be irrelevant? (I'd be really surprised to find someone who could clean up without a tournament record, but I think you know what I mean.)

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

if that person can step on the mat and clean up, wouldn't the lack of a tournament record be irrelevant?

People can turn down your personal challenge. Your mat experience can be limited. But people cannot turn you down in tournament.

A and B may never meet and test skill against each other. But they may meet in national level tournament.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

People can turn down your personal challenge. Your mat experience can be limited. But people cannot turn you down in tournament.

A and B may never meet and test skill against each other. But they may meet in national level tournament.

I agree with all that. My question was about the hypothetical (though not entirely mythical) person with little to no tournament experience who is still highly competent in that context. The only ones I can think of who come close to that were folks who had a lot of informal "matches" with other folks - I guess what you'd call "challenge matches", though I've never heard any of those folks call them that.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

who had a lot of informal "matches" with other folks - I guess what you'd call "challenge matches", though I've never heard any of those folks call them that.

When a stranger wants to spar/wrestle with you, if you don't call that challenge, what will you call that?

I have people knocked on my front door (with his girl friend) and wanted to challenge me in Taiji push hand in my living room.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

When a stranger wants to spar/wrestle with you, if you don't call that challenge, what will you call that?

I have people knocked on my front door (with his girl friend) and wanted to challenge me in Taiji push hand in my living room.

I've never seen it as a challenge. If they beat me, I probably lose nothing, and probably gain some knowledge. If I beat them, much the same. I think it's just semantics, really. What you'd call a challenge match, I'd call an informal match.

Now, if someone shows up at my home, I consider that impolite. If they showed up during a class, I'd be happy to set up a convenient time to play.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

If they beat me, I probably lose nothing, and probably gain some knowledge.

If you are national champions in your MA system, someone who doesn't have the courage to test his skill in tournament, but if he can defeat you, he can go out and say that he is better than the national champion.

It's like if you can beat up Mike Tyson, you will be on TV next day. In CMA, this is called "helicopter master". If the challenger loses, he doesn't lose anything. If he wins, he can be famous over night.

Since everybody will get sick and old some day, people always use a special strategy to deal with this kind of "unfriendly" challenge.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If you are national champions in your MA system, someone who doesn't have the courage to test his skill in tournament, but if he can defeat you, he can go out and say that he is better than the national champion.

It's like if you can beat up Mike Tyson, you will be on TV next day. In CMA, this is called "helicopter master". If the challenger loses, he doesn't lose anything. If he wins, he can be famous over night.

Since everybody will get sick and old some day, people always use a special strategy to deal with this kind of "unfriendly" challenge.

I suppose. I've just never really "gotten" that concept. Everyone can be beaten by someone. And someone who wins one fight doesn't prove much by the declaration (though the manner of the win might prove something useful).

 

[dvcochran]

Interesting. I never thought of testing method as defining a system. Within an organization, it tends to be moderately (or more) consistent, but outside an organization, testing methods can be highly variable - more dependent upon the instructor's approach.

Some of the same can be said for training method, but @wab25 did a good job outlining how the core transmission method (distinguished from individual drills) is actually a part of the system.

In my experience the methodology regarding testing is consistent systemwide. Similar drills, same forms, same sparring, etc... Where I see some variation is from person to person, which I think is a good thing. If someone is exceptional they should be allowed, and pushed, to a higher degree (not rank). For those who are engaged in their MA more under the vein of exercise, say a much older person, they should be required to do all the curriculum components like anyone else but it should be implied that their "polish" may not shine as much as others. Subjective? I suppose it is.

 

[wckf92]

If you broke your system down to the very core. What defines it as a system? What makes a movement part of the system (or not)

A system is defined by the practitioner who is learning/practicing/teaching it. Just as the state of the art/system is individual based. For example, I can say "I know the wing chun system" but what if I was never taught an element of the system and I did not know it? Does that mean I lack the "system"? What if I can make what I DID learn functional? Just my opinion... thanks.

n. A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In my experience the methodology regarding testing is consistent systemwide. Similar drills, same forms, same sparring, etc... Where I see some variation is from person to person, which I think is a good thing. If someone is exceptional they should be allowed, and pushed, to a higher degree (not rank). For those who are engaged in their MA more under the vein of exercise, say a much older person, they should be required to do all the curriculum components like anyone else but it should be implied that their "polish" may not shine as much as others. Subjective? I suppose it is.

My experience is that the testing methodology often changes when someone goes independent, suggesting that the organization (not the system) restrains the testing options. Does that make sense?

 

[geezer]

...the organization (not the system) restrains the testing options. Does that make sense?

yep.

 

[Danny T]

When a stranger wants to spar/wrestle with you, if you don't call that challenge, what will you call that?

In what context is the stranger wanting to spar/wrestle? During the sparring/open wrestling portion of the training session? Cool...high five and let's play.

We have open sparring and grappling (wrestling and bjj) often.

I have people knocked on my front door (with his girl friend) and wanted to challenge me in Taiji push hand in my living room.

In this context...Not cool. I'd tell him/her when our next open mat time is and invite them to come to it. Come with a good attitude but not to prove themselves. If they can do that they will be allowed to participate in the session.

 

[dvcochran]

My experience is that the testing methodology often changes when someone goes independent, suggesting that the organization (not the system) restrains the testing options. Does that make sense?

I suppose. I know of no system that is able to wield that kind of control in this day and age; nor should they. Any system/school/instructor should be confident enough in their capabilities not to be offended by the occasional difference or something new in class or testing's. I do not think any system is totally "complete" so an open mind is a smarter approach. There is just too much out there to learn to amalgamate into one system. I do think when someone goes independent and start changing things considerably there should be some kind of identifying qualifier.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I do think when someone goes independent and start changing things considerably there should be some kind of identifying qualifier.

I tend to agree. I've struggled with this, myself. What I teach is still NGA, but I feel like a qualifier/identifier clarifies things. I added "Shojin-ryu" to the name, but never actually use it in discussion. And others I've discussed my changes with just see it as a different approach to NGA, rather than a sub-style, in spite of the fairly significant changes. I find myself often reminding students at other schools that what I teach is no longer quite the same as what they're learning, so they don't pick up habits from me that will be problematic at their school.