GhostDog,
Originally posted by TheGhostDog
Apoweyn, The reason I didn’t name a style was because I didn’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings cause I’m such a nice guy :).
I don’t disbelieve that you’re a nice guy. But do you honestly think that by trivializing the problem (comparing arts you disapprove of with ballet), you’re taking the high road? You aren’t.
The main reason I made up an art was to show some of the common problems associated with martial arts i.e, the system is based on a flawed premise, the system is not tested to prove its effectiveness, the system is not continually tested to ensure that the art evolves and doesn’t become stagnant.
If these problems are so common, you should have been able to describe an actual martial art that features these ‘flawed premises.’ You didn’t even attempt to honestly identify those premises. Instead, you contented yourself with parodying those styles. And that’s not something to be admired. Honest inquiry is good. Belittling isn’t.
As I said, some people seem to take the view that it is the individual, not the system that is flawed. This is incorrect. Please note however that an individual obviously plays a part, however no system is perfect.
I think you’re misunderstanding the assertion. (At least, as I view it.)
What is so hard to believe that an art could be based on a false premise ? The founders of martial arts were not gods, they were ordinary people who believed that what they developed was a viable form of self-defense. Unless they tested each and every component of their art in a fight many times, certain parts of that art are going to be based on theory, on “I believe this will work”. They could have very well been wrong ! Students of the founder are then going to take this theory and believe it a fact, believe it had been tested and proven to work.
Reread that paragraph, if you would. The founders were not gods. They failed to test their theories. Their students took their teachers’ word for it and didn’t test the theories either. And the style became doctrine.
And you’re trying to tell me that the problem begins with the style? That it’s a faulty premise? That’s all backward. It suggests that [booming biblical voice]In the Beginning, there was Style; and it was Bad.[/booming biblical voice]
That’s silly. There wasn’t a flawed premise floating around that people then failed to examine and made into doctrine instead. People were involved from the beginning. Their shortcomings were involved from the beginning. Or maybe they didn’t have shortcomings. And it was the shortcomings of later generations that led to a deterioration. Either way, it comes down to individuals. The style doesn’t exist outside of the individuals who perform it. Individuals fail to test it. And individuals can make the decision to rectify that situation.
Take an art such as BJJ. BJJ is constantly evolving because it’s students fight in tournaments, in Vale Tudo matches and in the streets. Thus the techniques are put in a pressure cooker and if they don’t work they are re-examined and either modified or thrown out. BJJ is an art where it’s theory and it’s techniques are constantly being put to the test and the experience of its exponents is being brought back into the art to benefit all students. Any new innovation in BJJ will spread around the globe in 12 months as people see it in tournaments, or NHB matches and then train and evolve it.
And I wholeheartedly agree that this is a big strength of BJJ. But it’s a big strength that is reliant on the individuals involved. If people in BJJ ever begin to slack off on that, then more theory is going to be allowed to creep in untested. As has happened with any style that gains popular acceptance. As long as all the individuals involved continue to insist on testing in a competitive environment, then all’s well. But that isn’t hardwired into the style. The style doesn’t have the ability to ‘force’ people to uphold that standard. People decide to uphold that standard. And hopefully, they’ll continue to do so.
That said, human nature is such that less dedicated people will creep in and try to capitalize on BJJ’s popularity. Already, there are teachers in my area attempting to teach BJJ without having been competitors. Or combatants. Or whatever. That’s what happens. Students don’t want that kind of pressure. Teachers want more students. So they give the students what they want. Compromises are made. And quality deteriorates. All thanks to the individuals involved.
Compare this with say, a style of karate. How many karate students are constantly being involved in fights (NHB, streetfights, etc) ? How many instructors are going to change what they do, the way they throw a punch in sparring or in kata based on their students success with it in fights ? Pretty much none, because karate instructors always believe that the founding fathers of their arts knew everything, when this is patently not the case.
Again, reread this paragraph. How many karate students… How many instructors… Karate instructors always believe…
People make the decision to believe, not to believe, to test, not to test, to adapt, not to adapt. To believe otherwise is to chalk it up to a hopeless situation. And that’s a fool’s errand. Explain to me the myriad styles of karate. If karate instructors didn’t believe in change, then there would be only one style, right? But there isn’t. People observed things, made decisions, and came out with different results. Shotokan, Goju, Kyokushinkai, etc.
So to believe that all arts are equal when some are constantly testing and evolving their art, and others train as if in a vacuum is patently false.
Many individuals train in a vacuum. Styles don’t train at all.
Personally, I do see people from many different styles testing their premises and making adjustments. And I’ll be the first to admit that we have BJJ largely to thank for that. But even then, it comes down to individuals willing to see that and apply it to their own art. So when a taekwondo teacher recognizes that his hands need work and he could use a couple of good takedown defenses, he works on those things. And the next time, he doesn’t get pummeled at punching range. He doesn’t get taken down so easily. But he still has that strong and quick lead sidekick. He hasn’t been hobbled by the fact that he did taekwondo. As a reasoning person, he observed, tested, and adapted.
So is the faulty premise of taekwondo that it’s too reliant on kicks? Perhaps. Does that mean that a taekwondoka cannot train his hands? Nope. Is he still a taekwondoka? I don’t see why not. So what’s the faulty premise? Taekwondo doesn’t disallow someone from being a good fighter. It’s simply that most people don’t want to test themselves that way. They’d rather stick with familiar territory.
We’re all reasoning people. To suggest that some of us cannot be because of a style is absurd. Styles don’t dictate understanding or choice. People do.
Stuart B.
… do u wanna be bound by technique and tradition or be allowed to explore how your body reacts and respond to situations… will said teacher allow you to explore or will he berate you for not using HIS kung fu… just a few things to think about… Good Luck…
