Man I hate this crap.
Green Cloud - the reason 7 is frustrated is because he’s saying this:
“Fighting looks like fighting. There’s a good reason for this. Principles transcend stylistic boundaries.”
you are saying
“Kung Fu is unique and special in the way it translates to fighting.”
Ok, well, yeah. BJJ is unique and special. Boxing is unique and special. Wrestling is unique and special. Yoga is unique and special.
And if everything is unique and special, then nothing is.
On the other hand, if TCMA is genuinely unique and special, then there should be something demonstrable about that unique specialness.
And if that is in fact the claim, then it is quite legitimate to say “prove it.” There might be myriad reasons why somebody might not care to prove it. Some of those reasons may be actual reasons, others may be excuses. But the question itself is more than valid.
I’ve sparred guys from all different types of backgrounds. When reviewing the tape, it all looks like fighting. You can identify preferences sure, both personal and stylistic - but preferences is all they are.
A “style” is nothing more than an approach to fighting. It’s a collection of preferred methods for solving a problem. Nothing more.
Prefering one set of advantages and disadvantages over another is one thing. Declaring one set unique and special is another. And if the latter is the case, it must be demonstrably so.
As of right now, I’ve seen nothing to convince me of the special uniqueness of ANYTHING. In fact, what I have witnessed over time has convinced me that physical activities are more alike than different. I do what I do not because I think it’s special and unique or the best, but because I enjoy it very very much. I happen to want to be very very good at it, but I also really wanted to nail down throwing the discus too.
A throw is a throw is a throw.
A punch is a punch is a punch.
A kick is a kick is a kick.
It’s not style that makes it work, it’s good mechanics. And those good mechanics are not unique to the style but to the TOOL AND ITS PURPOSE. A hard roundkick designed to knock somebody’s leg in two is going to follow through with a turned over hip, regardless of whether it’s in Kenpo/Muay Thai/TKD. If you are using a chambered snap kick, the purpose of that kick is different, and it will look different, but that’s not because of style - it’s because the tool is for something different.
Are there going to be slight stylistic differences in recovery, follow-up or follow-through? Probably. But the fundamental mechanics are going to be nearly identical because they have to be. Flying Mare, one arm shoulder throw, Seio Nage. No difference really. If you know one, you know the other.
To sum up: The sooner we get over style, the better off we will all be. But as long as people want to use the term style as a term that inspires loyalty, vice a short hand for how we tend to approach fighting, we’ll be having these arguments till the cows come home.
In Ohio 
Loyalty to the team? Yup. To the guys? Yup. To the instructor? Yup. And all of those are conditional on them deserving it.
But to the “style?” Why? To what purpose?
Don’t get me wrong, I’ll be the first to declare something is unique and special if evidence comes forward that it is. But until then, I think I’m going to remain skeptical.