Vash, you put it so much better than I did. I’ve been training that way and the difference is amazing. It’s like drinking from the firehose.
Originally posted by Merryprankster
These concepts are not mutually exclusive.
I thought the question was to determine superiority, not exclusivity.
Further, do the training methods you describe…
“training with an opponent on a constantly-increasing resistance level utilizing the techniques, principles, and methodologies of the studied style”
…come down to the traing methods of the man, or the structure of the style? I mean, it could be gymnastics, fencing, bbj, boxing or TKD, so it must be a virtue of disciplined study.
The structure of the style. Notice that all of the sports you mentioned are highly competitive (with the exception of some TKD). The nature of the sport dictates that you train that way, and is thusly structured in such a manner.
training methodology is a big part of it…
Definitely, but those training methods are included within the structure of the style. When you were in SD, were you doing the same things kirk has you doing now?
Where is this BJJ white belt versus SD thread?
But is the structure of the style, as described earlier, limited only to those styles? Can it also be applied to other arts that aren’t competitive? Or even to mundane pursuits, perhaps (for Ego’s benefit) spelling bees or nintendo?
I’ll agree that the man pushes himself, using whatever tools at his disposal, to excel, and that some styles weed out non-comitted early on. But I still see it as an individual discipline, not an inate element of a given style, simply due to the fact that the principle can be applied to numerous pursuits equally, or to BBJ, Wing Chun, or Tai Chi equally.
For superiority to reside in the style, it would have to contain certain unique elements that enabled this superiority.
Like no-touch knock outs, flying, death rays from the fingertips, etc…
But thats begging the question of how to measure superiority? Fighting ability? Strategic ability? Longevity and healing powers? Personal satisfaction and enlightenment? Bags of cash and babes?
For each man its different, and in each man it resides. Don’t fear the style, fear the man.
Originally posted by Yum Cha
But is the structure of the style, as described earlier, limited only to those styles? Can it also be applied to other arts that aren’t competitive?
Sure it CAN be, but is it already? Since the inception of muay thai, it’s been that way. No matter what MT school you go to, it’s a given that you will train that way. Not every longfist school I go to will do that, nor will every karate school, etc. There are some, but if the instructor’s there add it to their system, then it’s only part of their system, not the style as a whole.
Or even to mundane pursuits, perhaps (for Ego’s benefit) spelling bees or nintendo?
I’ll agree that the man pushes himself, using whatever tools at his disposal, to excel, and that some styles weed out non-comitted early on. But I still see it as an individual discipline, not an inate element of a given style, simply due to the fact that the principle can be applied to numerous pursuits equally, or to BBJ, Wing Chun, or Tai Chi equally.
but unless every wing chun (for example) school on the planet adds that training, then it’s not inherent to the style, only to the particular schools that do it.
When you think of muay thai or kyokushin, what kind of training do you envision? When you think of shotokan, what do you envision? Now, why do you think that’s so?
But thats begging the question of how to measure superiority? Fighting ability? Strategic ability? Longevity and healing powers? Personal satisfaction and enlightenment? Bags of cash and babes?
which can be measured in different areas. I get more chicks than you - my babe magnetism is superior. You play golf better than me - your golf skills are superior. Once again, something inherent to the style. If I want decent iron palm, will I go to a muay thai school? If no, then why not?
For each man its different, and in each man it resides. Don’t fear the style, fear the man.
fear the style AND the man. If style had no bearing, why did grappling shake up the MA world when mma tournies began? There were some good athletes from other styles, and they got their clocks cleaned. That’s not saying their style is superior, but if those bjj black belts are constantly crushing black belts of supposedly equal caliber of other styles, then where is the disconnect? Two high caliber athletes, two black belts, equal training time…the difference was style, due to the training methods associated with it.
Originally posted by Yum Cha
[B]I’ll agree that the man pushes himself, using whatever tools at his disposal, to excel, and that some styles weed out non-comitted early on. But I still see it as an individual discipline, not an inate element of a given style, simply due to the fact that the principle can be applied to numerous pursuits equally, or to BBJ, Wing Chun, or Tai Chi equally.
For superiority to reside in the style, it would have to contain certain unique elements that enabled this superiority.
[/B]
I think Yum Cha has hit the nail on the head, as have others, but they have not explicitly made the statement as in his second paragraph (in quote).
Anyone should be able to transcend their training methodolgy (TKD, etc.) and be able to apply their art against a resisting opponent. If a particular style has an inherent weakness then even changing the way the practitioner trains would be useless, which would seem to contradict some of the previous posts.
So I still say that it is the practitioner and not necessarily the style that counts.
To quote myself:
“but unless every wing chun (for example) school on the planet adds that training, then it’s not inherent to the style, only to the particular schools that do it.”
You can be the baddest tkd guy on the planet, but not have the foresight to change your training methods. If it’s inherent in the style, it doesn’t matter.
WC revisited
Actually, I consider WC an important stop in my martial life. It was my first style after Isshin-Ryu and that’s where I learned to stick and trap, two important elements that helped my later learning.
As for my ability in wing chun, only I and anyone I played with could say … I scored a gew medals in the advanced free fighting and chi sau at the Won Fe Hung about 5 or 6 years ago after 2 years of WC study.
The weaknesses that were shown to me and I felt were weaknesses that were shown to me and I felt. I shared them here. Agree or disagree, that’s fine.
As for evolution, things change. The human body is capable of much, but even more so is the human brain and the way it can adapt and evolve and solve problems.
Michael Jordan still dribbles the ball, bounce passes it and takes jump shots … but he completely changed the game of basketball. The things he does on the outside are the same, but completely different at the same time.
“training with an opponent on a constantly-increasing resistance level utilizing the techniques, principles, and methodologies of the studied style” is an integral part of learning.
That’s a matter of training, not style. It’s only common sense that to get better you have to raise the challenge level along with your education. And anyone who says you don’t have to spar or fight during your training is an idiot.
Notice that all of the sports you mentioned are highly competitive (with the exception of some TKD)
Why only some TKD 7*? Is it your consistant experience that there is a large proportion of TKD schools that don’t compete or have a competitive attitude? Or is it that TKD hasn’t impressed you as an art? There’s tons of TKD schools out there that compete, I can’t even think of a TKD school here that doesn’t have a huge trophy rack or disply in their front window. My guess is the percentages probably work the same for alot of other so called sport arts.
No matter what MT school you go to, it’s a given that you will train that way
apparently you’ve never been to a aerobic kickboxing class. 
but unless every wing chun (for example) school on the planet adds that training, then it’s not inherent to the style, only to the particular schools that do it.
You can’t fairly qualify that statement for one art and not for another. Unless any art includes that sort of training in all of their schools. Your bias shows itself in your argument here 7*. To imply that one style has inherent training while another may not, as it comes to training apropriately to be a good style, isn’t a correct statement. While some arts may have a higher percentage of schools that may not spar or compete, by your estimate, any art that has atleast one school that does not spar or train like that, is not a good art in the context of this argument.
fear the style AND the man. If style had no bearing, why did grappling shake up the MA world when mma tournies began?
Two high caliber athletes, two black belts, equal training time…the difference was style, due to the training methods associated with it.
your logic is incorrect. Grappling shook up the MA world because it had been neglected for so long. When it was “re-introduced”, people were unprepaired for it. Now things are different.
The difference was not style. It had as much to do with setting as it did with anything else. Grappling lends itself very well to the ring and so called NHB fighting. Now, people have adapted and the spread has evened out, proving that it’s not the style but the way people are training.
E-fist, actually you helped to make my point - Michael Jordan isn’t doing anything any differently from anyone else on the court, he’s dribbling, jumping, running, but there are two factors playing into his success - a - his training methods most likely differed, or atleast he foiund a combination that worked well for him (used his brain to adapt, as you said) and b - genetics probably plays a big part in how he performs as well.
Wing Chun is a great style. But when you know it, there are a lot of self distruction mechanisms in there. Somehow we have to organize a big chi sau event through this board, so everyone can show their stuff and no one has to worry about getting banged up too badly.
All arts, have their strengths and weakneses. A good martial artists learns to see those and cover or compensate for them in effect, adapt. Wingchun, is actually a pretty solid art in my opinion. However, given your instructors history, having been kicked out of Yip Man’s school supposedly, would probably leave him bitter enough to have a special place in his heart for learning how to defeat it properly. Therefore taking a student who practiced the art for 2 years and “showing” him the supposed “weaknesses” in wingchun.
It’s a broad and narrow minded statement to make since it’s only been your experience. If wingchun were so filled with holes, I’dimagine it wouldn’t be so popular
TKD competes, no doubt about it but they compete in TKD tournaments. I tried fighting in one a year and a half ago and they through me the hell out of there… they can try and treat my head like a soccer ball but they don’t like it when you treat their head like a volley ball, or trap their leg and charge them making them fall … they feel silly when that happens and disqualify you.
As for the MJ discussion: “his training methods most likely differed, or atleast he foiund a combination that worked well for him (used his brain to adapt, as you said)”
That is my point. Styles are just names, what makes them unique is the way that they train. We are all kicking, punching and blocking but the difference is in the how.
they feel silly when that happens and disqualify you.
or is this against the rules in their tourneys?
That is my point. Styles are just names, what makes them unique is the way that they train. We are all kicking, punching and blocking but the difference is in the how.
Then I have to disagree with your example. Everyone in Basketball does basketball. There’s only one way to dribble, there’s only a couple of ways to score, and everyone in basketball does it the same for all intents and purposes, hardly a good comparison to martial arts. While basketball can be broke down simply, what your saying is more like the difference between basketball and soccer. The idea is to get the ball in the goal to score but soccer guys kick the ball for the most part and basketball players use their hands. They both dribble, but it’ snot the same thing.
In the martial arts, you kick and I kick. there are different ways to do it, although I would argue that a front kick is a front kick is a front kick. While you might choose to kick one way more often, and I may choose to kick another, neither is weaker. Here’s a great example, I know a TKD guy who can kick like you wouldn’t believe. You know the story, can’t see his leg coming til it’s too late, and all that crap. He has a lot of power for someone his size - small - and I have no doubt that he could fight effectively using what he knows. He’s trained all his life to kick that way and he’s awesome at it. Some might say that some of the techniques he uses are “weak” because they are long kicks, to the head. But he can get them off, and he does it quick and with power. He can punch to but he doesn’t need to. Sure some grappler may come along and take him down, but that isn’t because that grapling is somehow better then kicking, but that it’s a different approach. Now it’s up to the guy kicking to have trained in grappling to be able to compete in that arena as well.
red5angel,
I must admit that I had a certain impression of you from previous posts in other threads, but your thoughts in this thread are well reasoned and presented in a very readable style.
The fact that I agree with much (or all) of what you say is a bonus.
Anyway, keep posting.
Despite their intial ideas, most people commenting in this thread seem to be converging on the person over style viewpoint, even if they don’t realise it!!
Actually Red, you are missing the point exactly.
Karrem Abdul Jabar played basketball and center but his style (sky hook) is completely different than say Shak.
How does this relate to Martial Arts: a front kick is not a front kick is not a front kick.
Tai Boxers use the round house differently that TKD players. E-Chuan does it completely different from both of those, borrowing from Ba Gua ideas.
Most styles plant and kick and are stationary at that moment. E-Chuan looks at that as being dangerous for a few reasons.
-
My teacher calls it Saving Private Ryan, you offer your foot with little or no support (BJJ guys usually have to dig in for your leg, here you give it to them for free) from your hands.
-
You lose all your mobility.
-
Your only using the power of the leg.
Ba Gua uses the hidden kick and practices it while walking the circle.
The idea is to drive off the back leg, while shielding your groin with the leading knee. The kick is somewhat of a knee and somewhat of a roundhouse kick at the same time striking with the shin.
It’s our roundhouse. It’s different than TKDs roundhouse and different than Tai Boxer’s roundhouse.
My entire point, and the reason that I am know studying internal is, it’s not what you are doing (after 26 years of MA I can kick, punch, block) it’s how you are doing it. Each style, for better or worse, has their own way of doing it and there is a difference.
Otherwise it would just be "MARTIAL ARTS:, like it’s hockey, or football, and we’d have teams not styles … which could be the future when everybody gets the best of everybody elses if you’re looking.
I believe it comes down to practicianer, style and methodology, not just 2 out of three of those catagories.
Lets say you have a very talented and athletic person, practicing art ‘x’ in with a methodology that will best prepare that person for full-contact competition and/or a street encounter using the technology of art ‘x’… but art ‘x’ doen’t have as effective a technique/answer to deal with a mauy thai round kick or, to be fair, a knife attack as art ‘y’, then the results may come down to style, despite the practicianers talent and efficiency of training that particular style. Different styles have different answers (and often different training methodologies).
A not-so-talented fighter who trains in an effective style using an efficient methodology may beat a more talented guy who’s not training effectively and not realizing his potential (and who may not even realize this). So its not all ‘the practitioner’ although that has a lot to do with it.
Different combinations of these variable will yield different results.
Lame style, uncoordinated pracitioner, and poor methodology yields a terrible fighter, which we see many of at local McDojos.
Capable style, talented athlete and effective training methodology can produce a great fighter. And somewhere in between you have everyone else with numerous variables.
Of course certain styles generally utilize certain training methodologies so there is a lot of correlation. But I have also see a lot of variable here (jeet kun do for example, or tae kwon do, wing chun, kickboxing, you name it..) so I think its nessary that methodology be considered related, but a seperate component.
CFT - sorry if I’m not as entertianing as usual! that’s only when I’m fighting the axis fo ignorance.
E-fist, I disagree, just because Kareem might have his own personal touch to what he does, both he and MJ are doing the same thing, even more so then any two martial artists.
Of course I know of all the ways martial artists do things or claim to anyway but that’s because they need a selling point. Ever seen those threads someon starts griping about how kungfu guys stat to look like their doing TKD or muy thai when they fight? ever wonder why that is? In all of the kungfu fights or fights containing kungfu in them that I have seen, one thing stil stands. While you can see a few trademark techniques, things start to look alot like other things. ultimately what I am trying to say is there may be only what a few basic techniques, the rest are just the same things with a little personal touch, mostly cosmetic.
A not-so-talented fighter who trains using an efficient methodology may beat a more talented guy who’s not training effectively and not realizing his potential (and who may not even realize this). So its not all ‘the practitioner’ although that has a lot to do with it.
That’s how I’d word it. I don’t believe in ineffective styles. I believe in ineffective people. Sometimes you can get a bad match up. If I were to practice TKD, I wouldn’t be fighting to my full potential, because I’m much better with my hands then my feet. But that’s not fault of the style.
which we see many of at local McDojos.
What I see at Mcdojos are watered down versions of other arts that are indeed effective. Not only that, but you can take a MCdojo taught style and be effective with it. I’ve seen it. Mcdojo has less to do with the style then the training methodology and the business approach.
I think its nessary that methodology be considered related, but a seperate component.
I think individual methodology is more the issue then style. If you wanted to learn say Karate, form National Karate down the street. If you put your heart and mind into it. Busted your butt, and adapted to cover your weaknesses, cause all styles have them, then you could probably be a pretty darn good fighter.
Interesting Thoughts so far…
Sevenstar-
A couple of things you wrote caught my attention. You said:
but unless every wing chun (for example) school on the planet adds that training, then it’s not inherent to the style, only to the particular schools that do it.
You also mentioned how Muay Thai was more standardized training. That no matter what gym or boxing club you trained at, Muay Thai would be pretty much the same across the board. At least that is how I interpreted it.
So, would you like to see more things standardized? I could see the point in that.
However, correct me if I am wrong, but there are several types of Muay Thai (thai fist right?). There are more traditional ones that have forms, and a whole art aspect to them. Like in the movie Ong Bak? There is also the popular sport version which is more widely spread out through the world. There are probably sub system in each class. Like northern thai fist, and southern thai fist. I don’t know, but I am guessing there is. So, if it were to become standardized then, would it not be more like a sport and not an art?
Every art has its strenghts and weaknesses
It has been my observation that almost all southern styles of kung fu (taiji, wing chun, white crane, bagua, hsing-i, choy lay fut, etc etc) share some aspects. The concepts and theories are similar as well. Some motions and energies are different. Then there are a few unique techniques behind them that gets the style known for something. I see similarities in them all the time. You will see similar if not the same concepts amongst many martial arts. That is because people are big fans of using what works.
Certain styles like Choy Lay Fut have been known to be good against wing chun fighters, because of all the chum techniques (or crashing, sinking however you interpret it) that crash and destroy your bridges. Even if its known to be effective that does not mean it will work everytime. Wing Chun people obviously started training against it, and now its not as shocking are as hard to stand up to CLF people. Of course this was not proven just stories from china, so I have no idea how true this actually was. Same thing happened with grappling. It won ring fights, it got huge, now people train against it.
So, my final point is, you must train all aspects of combat with your art (or other arts if yours is lacking somewhere) to be a well rounded martial artist. This includes stand up, ground, clinch, grappling, striking, long and short range, and entering techniques. No matter what style you train.
Originally posted by rogue
OK Asia, you may be right…
My job here is done!
flys off into the sunset!