I’ve met TKD guys of the same style who sucked and others that were some of the nastiest fighters I’ve seen. Stickfighters who are more concerned with looking good than looking Dog Brothers ugly and effective. The difference? The training. What makes many Muay Thai fighters dangerous? While their roundhouse is a good one and elbows and knees are great techniques most arts have them and do tend to throw them with the same body mechanics(well at least places that are serious about using them). The difference is the training. Knifefighters who are better at dancing around than taking out their opponent. Once again the training.
Problem is I don’t think too many people aren’t honest with themselves about their training and dedication to the MA.
Many can spend plenty of time at the kwoon and on the Mat and still not become good.
Plenty of training time alone won’t make you good.
It all boils down to dedication and how much you push yourself to train correctly and fix your own flaws.
Too many people, IMO, hear that it takes a few years to become good, so they spend those years training half-heartedly to become moderate, whereas a dedicated student could become good in half that time.
Many can spend plenty of time at the kwoon and on the Mat and still not become good.
I agree and it’s not the quantity that I’m talking about LC, but the quality of the training. And also what kind of training that you’re doing.
For example in the ring Muay Thai is a great base for kickboxers, but while it’s techniques are very good they’re not that different than those same techniques in other arts. But what many Thai fighters do have are better methods for training those techniques.
Also the intent of the training is what matters. I’ve sparred with some WTF TKD fighters and they were fast but weren’t going for a knockout so their techniques lacked drive and follow through. I also have been lucky(?) to spar with other WTF fighters who were oriented toward the knock out and knock down school and their kicks had a ton of follow through all aimed at my head. Same style, same poomse, same everything except how they trained and what they trained for.
Many times it’s the training that makes the Dude. The US Marine Corp does it all the time. The Green Berets take many a bad ass indigenous group who can’t win a battle and term them into an actual fighting force. It’s all in the training.
Its the style hands down. Anyone who studies bjj immediately becomes unstoppable. How could you guys have forgotten this simple lesson?
I think rogue is pretty much right. The training is really important in my opinion. But if the technique (style) is weak or incomplete then you are wasting your time. For example, i dont care how many times a day you practice it, trying to arm lock someone with your tongue just dont work
I can agree to a degree - as I see lived & breathed it, it is the teacher. If the teacher had a good teacher, this will carry onward if proper recognition is given from sifu to student (future sifu).
Problem now…too many ‘instructors’ calling themselves sifu.
Why people ask tradition is important? Tradition people say is old (snicker). Get with the times they say. It is..or was..tradition that ensured proper lineage (if you know what I mean). Proper lineage ensured good teachers. Good teachers propogated good gung fu. Good gung fu fueled ongoing interest and a cycle of renewal and growth.
So, to a degree…it is in the training. But a person who trains stupid or to a limited degree certifies a weaker generation.
i think what it really comes down to is me. if you aren’t me you probably have a decent chance of kicking someone’s ass at some point in your life. i don’t see why we need to go any deeper than that.
“if the technique (style) is weak or incomplete then you are wasting your time.”
i agree with your post as a whole, but id have to add that if the system is incomplete you can always crosstrain to fill in the holes. i don’t think you were opposing this idea in your post, but i’m one to call people racial slurs that don’t even match their race. spic.
This post kind of gets into what im doing with my training now. Im taking 5 to 10 skills or techniques that work really well for me and training them to the extreme. I feel doing so really gives you a simple, concise arsenal that you know you can do and you know will work. What more do you want when it comes to actual combat? That is what we are talking about right, actual combat effectiveness being dependent on the style or the person practicing it? There are many more aspects to consider about martial arts, but when it comes to combat you want to find yourself a simple set of techniques or concepts within whatever style you choose and train hard to make them a part of yourself and thats it.
Agreement here. It’s the training. Some people have the best teachers in the business and still wind up awful. Some have terrible teachers and still end up truly good fighters.
It all depends on what you want and what dedication you have to the hard work (gasp! did I say hard work :o ?). Many people just don’t put in the “hard” to the work.
Some people, though, are content to be good dancers and that’s why they’re in it–for the exercise.
Unfortunately, it has been my experience that the opposite seems to be true. Individuals that come to strictly “street” orientated martial arts, that were already prone to feelings of inadequacy, shame, physiological fear, and paranoia tend to have those qualities magnified by such training, rather then eased.
Hmmmmmmm…
We get caught up in judging styles by what techniques they use, but never seem to look at how they train AS the style itself.
A f’rinstance: in an army, you can train shooting in many ways- targets, body-shapes, snap shooting, etc.- and they’re all basically just the same thing. But using body-shapes with a double shot and a dropping target seems to produce soldiers who will reliably shoot at the enemy without freezing. Its all just conditioned.
Now, is that a style? No, its a training. You can do the same [in a sense] with MAs using a variety of training platforms to make them automagic or what have you. The ability of any particular teacher to do so is the measure of their ability as teachers, IMHO, at least in that arena. Some are much better at explaining other stuff- its all good.
