Im not throwing poop.
When does someone change from a normal person into a “martial artist.”
:eek:
Originally posted by yenhoi
[B]Im not throwing poop.
When does someone change from a normal person into a “martial artist.”
:eek: [/B]
I know you aren’t, mate. Neither of you are really. I was just trying to keep things light.
Well, looking beyond esoteric literary theory, and accepting the fact that we, as a species, tend to categorize things according to similarity in appearance and function in order to better assimilate to and understand the world around us, one can reasonably conclude that fighting aspects which resemble can be grouped and separated from fighting aspects which do not resemble.
BJJ does not resemble Northen Shaolin.
A BJJ fighter will not practice or focus on the same techniques as a Northern Shaolin fighter, let alone place the same emphasis on standing vs. ground positioning.
A BJJ fighter will not attack or defend with the same techniques as a Northern Shaolin fighter.
Unless you are just jumping in the fray and flopping your arms and legs around, hoping to make significant enough contact to end the melee, you are adhering to a philosophy of movement, striking, and defending which you have been taught. If your opponent has been trained in BJJ, and you have been trained in Northern Shaolin, your philosophies of how to engage and end a fight will probably not be the same.
While the difference is less noticeable between one CMA style and another, the basic principle still holds.
And yes, I’m aware that I’m not typing on a K-E-Y-B-O-A-R-D, but in order to properly assimilate this thing, with keys, and letters on the keys, which is plugged into my computer, which is plugged into a T1 line, that allows me to print words online, I have to call it a ‘keyboard.’
OK, my .02 worth. What level of classifications do you want to go to. In biology there are numerous levels… we have done something similar with fighting in a way.
Fighting
Ground fighting
Fighting
stand up
Fighting
grappling
etc… do want it further expanded?
Originally posted by apoweyn
[B]
It’s not that I disagree with your feelings on the matter. I disagree with your categorization. Learning a martial art vs. learning to fight. To my mind, it’s a question of which you consider the horse and which you consider the cart.
For me, real life is the horse. It has to lead. And I’m not talking about some over-dramatized urban jungle nonsense. I’m not suggesting that my life is a day-in day-out struggle for survival on the mean streets of Alexandria.
What I’m saying is that we all learned moves in our martial arts classes. Maybe we learned them in a mirror, through forms, on a bag, whatever. In any event, we very often hit a point where we spar (or actually fight) and start receiving new feedback. The techniques don’t come off the way they did in the mirror. They don’t hit as solidly or cleanly as on the bag. They don’t flow as well as they did in the form. Whatever.
Now, at this point, there are basically two avenues. Some people will reason that they’ve failed to internalize their art sufficiently. So they’ll go back, focus more vehemently on their training, walk the walk, etc. In the hopes that, next time, they’ll have absorbed the style sufficiently that it’ll manifest itself the way it should.
Other people reason that adaptation is the key. No plan survives contact with the enemy, and all that. The basic principles are sound, but the execution needs to be less idealized. It needs to be guided by the way things really are. The way people really are. So modifications are made around those basic principles and theories. They don’t bulldoze over them.
Some people are going to make that observation and then choose their avenue earlier than others. And some styles are likely to do that sooner than others as well, depending on where in the curriculum sparring begins. So it’s not (in my opinion) that a boxer has no patience for the finer points of martial arts. (I chose boxing, but this may not be fair to your point. I apologize if it isn’t.) It’s that the boxer is brought into contact with the non-idealized mess of sparring very early on, so he has to make the choice very early on regarding his training. Try harder to internalize the style? Or make modifications to fit “reality”?
Either is a valid approach. And what bends me out of shape is the insinuation that one produces less of a martial artist than the other.
Stuart B. [/B]
Seems like the correct is contaigious… Ap has caught it also.
engage
–trap
–push
–bum rush
fight
–strike
–throw/takedown
–stab/club
In it’s most primitive state, bjj does resemble northern shaolin.
Now, here’s the question… What does it matter what you look like when you fight? After four years of longfist, when I fight, I still look like a thai boxer. Doesn’t matter - that just what I like. What matters is whether or not I survive when I have to. Even within the confines of a “style” people will still have their own distinct flavor. MP and I are both grapplers, but If you look at us, it’s likely that we don’t grapple alike. Does it matter? No. Getting the job done is what matters.
“He got his butt kicked, but you sure can tell he studies mantis!” When it comes to fighting, style really isn’t a necessity.
I kinda forgot where I was going with all this, so I’ll stop here. It’s time to hit the gym anyway.
Jews, Christians, and Muslims all pray, right? So their religions must all be the same. :rolleyes: Once you start looking at the details, differences become glaringly obvious.
After four years of longfist, when I fight, I still look like a thai boxer. Doesn’t matter - that just what I like.
The reason you fight like a Thai Boxer is because you believe in Thai Boxing. If you don’t accept the training, it doesn’t automatically sink in, no matter how many forms you do.
In it’s most primitive state, bjj does resemble northern shaolin.
Again, once you start looking at the details, differences become glaringly obvious.
Whatever you’re looking for becomes glaringly obvious. I can see great similarities between eskrima and shotokan. But that’s what I look for. Common ground.
Nevertheless, eskrima is different than shotokan is some respects. Therefore, they are separate STYLES.
Originally posted by MasterKiller
Nevertheless, eskrima is different than shotokan is some respects. Therefore, they are separate STYLES.
And yet, both are manifest through me (and others). Not as pure entities unto themselves. But as imperfect and amalgamated performances based on my capabilities, experiences, and decisions.
How do you check out a ‘style’ without checking out its people?
And if none of the people are exactly the same, then how is there a ‘style’ anywhere except on paper?
:eek:
But as imperfect and amalgamated performances based on my capabilities, experiences, and decisions.
Then you are not performing either. An amalgamation is different and distinct from the original by definition.
And yet, both are manifest through me (and others).
There is a difference between personal flavor being reflected within a style, and stylistic difference between styles.
For example, Cha style uses lots of simultaneous kick-punches. Now, three Cha fighters will fight three different ways, but each will utilize many variations of these kick-punches, which would be mostly foriegn to a pure Hua (flower) style boxer. The Hua fighter is trained to grab and throw whenever possible, but the Cha fighter likes to keep opponents out of range using the kick-punch combo.
They are trained in two distinctly different ways to approach combat, even though both fall under the umbrella of Northern Shaolin systems.
Does using a few kick-punches make a Hua stylist into a Cha stylist? Not unless the focus of his training and fighting philosophy are changed to match those of the Cha fighter.
For example, Cha style uses lots of simultaneous kick-punches. Now, three Cha fighters will fight three different ways, but each will utilize many variations of these kick-punches, which would be mostly foriegn to a pure Hua (flower) style boxer. The Hua fighter is trained to grab and throw whenever possible, but the Cha fighter likes to keep opponents out of range using the kick-punch combo.
So where is the “style” then?
What difference is there between ‘mastering’ a so-called “style” and being effective at fighting? Im specially interested when you allow individuals to have their own flavor. What makes a style a style. Whats the definition. What does and individual have to conform to to be considered a part of a particular style? Seems to me, whatever you decide to call yourself, then thats what your called.
What makes it it?
When does a “martial artist” meld between different styles. If I as an individual decide to use high kicks when I fight, and my school doesnt teach or practice high kicks, does this cause a black hole? Does my name get erased from the lists?
:eek:
AP:
In your opinion, what makes a person a “martial artist?”
Masterkiller,
Then you are not performing either. An amalgamation is different and distinct from the original by definition.
True. And I’ve never really claimed to be anything but a mutt.
That said, I’ve never really known anybody that I thought thoroughly embodied a given style either. The perfect expression of a style. I’ve just not seen it. Have you? (Not rhetorical and not intended to be offensive)
Really, though, this sort of question is strictly mental masturbation. So if we’re getting to the point where this isn’t fun anymore, don’t bother answering. It ain’t that big a deal.
Stuart B.
A style is an adherence to a certain set of techniques and philosophy of fighting.
Personal flavor is an individual’s preference for techniques within a given style. If your style contains 20 elbow strikes, but you use 3 of them most of the time, and your friend uses another 3, it’s still the same style, but you have chosen to focus on certain moves because of personal ability, flare, or whatever the reason.
You can be good at fighting without following a style.
You can be good at fighting by using the techniques of your style effectively.
Seems to me, whatever you decide to call yourself, then thats what your called.
Don’t get into semantics again. The relationship between the signifier and the signified is irrelevant to the current conversation. You wouldn’t expect someone claiming to be a BJJ fighter to throw a tornado kick, now would you?
What makes it it?
A catalog of accepted techniques. We don’t use the Pheonix Eye fist, but some styles do. We use a lot of forearm strikes, but some styles don’t. Southern styles use different stances than Northern styles.
Standing up is standing up, but standing in a wide-horse stance is different than standing in a deep cat stance.
Does my name get erased from the lists?
Using an individual technique, or a cluster of them, from another style does not automatically convert you. Using them to the exclusion of similar techniques within your own might.
Yenhoi,
AP:
In your opinion, what makes a person a “martial artist?”
Complicated question. 
It might be easier for me personally to talk about what I don’t think makes a person a martial artist.
I don’t think that a philosophical curriculum makes a martial artist. In the West, we perceive martial arts as having a sort of spiritual curriculum. But I think a lot of that is because the philosophy is foreign to us. Were it not, we might be much less struck by it. By contrast, boxing has a philosophy too. But many of the philosophical ideas of boxing might make people say, “well duh” because it’s already thoroughly ingrained in our culture.
How would I put this…
Martial arts is a systematic study of interpersonal physical conflict. Physical because we aren’t talking about debate or arguing here. Interpersonal because I don’t really consider a general coordinating troop movements to be engaged in the same study as a martial artist. That distinction gets a whole lot foggier for me when we get down to individual soldiers.
I do think there’s a level of introspection and self discovery implied in martial arts. Not to get too new agey about it. Even the least sentimental MMA competitor is forced to confront his own fears and limitations, in addition to confronting the dude in front of him. He’s knows he’s going to lose at some point, and yet he fights anyway. There’s an objective there. See what I’m made of. See how good I am.
I don’t really buy that martial arts aren’t about fighting. They are. But you’re studying fighting in a fairly intimate way. (Yeah, yeah. I said ‘intimate.’ Line forms to the right.) What effect it has on you. What effect you have on it. Etc.
I think I’m pretty liberal in my definition. If a person is physically, emotionally, and mentally engaged in the practice of fighting, then they’re a martial artist. I don’t care whether they use an epee, a wooden bench, or their own foot.
I think that probably did more to muddy the waters than clear them, but there you go.
Stuart B.
Originally posted by apoweyn
[B]
And yet, both are manifest through me (and others). Not as pure entities unto themselves. But as imperfect and amalgamated performances based on my capabilities, experiences, and decisions. [/B]
D@mn you, AP… that’s the point I was getting ready to make.
You wouldn’t expect someone claiming to be a BJJ fighter to throw a tornado kick, now would you?
I try not to make assumptions about what they will and won’t throw. And I wouldn’t be dumbfounded if a BJJ guy did throw a tornado kick. Nor would I insist that they were now some sort of BJJ/TKD hybrid. It’s just a person. Who picked up a tornado kick somewhere along the line.
I don’t think either view is wrong here. I personally just don’t see the utility in getting hung up along stylistic lines.
Using an individual technique, or a cluster of them, from another style does not automatically convert you. Using them to the exclusion of similar techniques within your own might.
But where do you draw the lines? When does a person cross over from one to another? If styles are concrete things, that sort of question should be pretty cut and dry.
There was a time when there was no long staff in wing chun. So the dude that introduced long staff, did he cease to be wing chun? Or did they have to officially accept the longstaff into wing chun? Or did it just sorta happen that he was into the longstaff, passed that along, etc.? If it’s the latter, then styles are made pretty fluid by the interests of those who practice them.
Stuart B.
Originally posted by SevenStar
[B]
D@mn you, AP… that’s the point I was getting ready to make. [/B]
Make it again, mate. I’d bet my guts to garters you could make the point clearer than I did.
But where do you draw the lines? When does a person cross over from one to another? If styles are concrete things, that sort of question should be pretty cut and dry.
Most people who mix styles to form a hybrid acknowledge that fact by changing the name of the style, or adding a family designation (pai) to it. Hung Gar is an example.
Adopting a technique to fill a void does not violate a style’s integrity (like adding a staff form), per se.
Where do you draw the line? Who knows? That’s why there are so many lineage debates. Some people are more strict than others.
The benefit of a ‘style’ is that it allows you to focus on a certain group of techniques. Focusing allows you to perfect those techniques better, which makes them more useful to you in a fight. The opposite is also true in that tunnel vision might also be a deterent to maintaining strict allegiance to a style.