Three types of martial arts styles

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Kung Fu Forum
1

I found this on the ROSS site. It was pretty good, and worth posting what do you think?

From: SSonnon
Date: 05-Mar-02 | 05:50 PM

There are three “types” of martial arts from my experience:

Technique-based styles – you rehearse and memorize a specific set of “if attack A, then reaction B”. These “techniques” were created BY someone for THEM. Some people will cry about “only so many way to blah, blah, blah…” But they are always the first people to order the latest “secret” techniques of the Octagon, battlefield, or street. Some progressive technique-based styles use their techniques as examples for you to learn how to organize physical laws into combat efficacy; techniques as guideline examples. You must create “variations” they insist, but then if misunderstood, you result in teaching your “technique” to your students. Your guiding criterion for development is technical proficiency.

Concept-driven styles – you develop attributes that will help you within a certain sphere/venue. These concepts were compiled by someone for their specific venue. Some concept-driven styles are actually technique-based styles in disguise, describing the purpose of their techniques by concepts. The opposite (describing concepts by technical examples) is often a static educational tool often misinterpreted by those whom have an origin in technique-based styles. These people often view the examples as “techniques” to be rehearsed and memorized. Concepts-driven styles typically explore through dynamic exercises such as grappling, fencing, boxing, free-fighting, stick-fighting. Results within those outlets lend insight on how to deepen your understanding of the concepts; outcome-based vs. performance-based education.

Movement-oriented styles – you explore particular exercises that develop attributes, shown the relevance of the exercises within particular flow/fluid drills, and then asked to perform within the drills. People often mistake the “examples” shown on how the exercises afford results in the drills as “techniques” – believing the exercises are somehow multi-functional techniques. These styles require a great deal of personal responsibility for developing technical responses, and usually people attempt to over-ride the drills with “techniques” from other styles. Others also attempt to describe and categorize the movements in terms of concepts, rather than exploring the movement for “movement’s sake”. You focus on performance-based rather than outcome-based development (meaning that the result of the drill is not as important as moving more smoothly, or using less energy, or developing more power, etc.

Styles always fall into these three types. Some people would like to believe that their style is a “combination” of two or all of these types. But life doesn’t work that way. However your style prioritizes performance determines type. If there’s confusion as to which type, ask yourself which harbors more importance: technique precision, concept application, or movement efficiency.

This should provide a blueprint to better scrutinize styles, so that you can deliberately craft your own personalized style and training routine.

2

Interesting post. I will have to go away and mull that one over for a while :slight_smile:

3

Styles always fall into these three types. Some people would like to believe that their style is a “combination” of two or all of these types. But life doesn’t work that way.

This reply box could turn into a mine-field of egg-shells, but I disagree.

One’s personal “style” is transitory. They may assimilate different things in different ways. Sometimes a concept clicks with them, sometimes a movement principle opens a door to deeper insight of concepts and tactical application of movement. Other times, a technique can excite freer exploration of other ideas.

Lots of room for overlap and shades of grey.

4

:slight_smile:

yes!

5

Dark Knight

Can you give examples of styles that you think fit into each category (I know you already have for some one of them), and what in your opinion are the strengths and weaknesses of each approach?

Thanks.

6

Scott Sonnon once again displays the depth of his ignorance!

That quoted passage is such a pile of steaming bullsh!t, it’s amazing anyone with even a basic understanding of the arts would put any stock in it whatsoever!

:rolleyes:

7

I agree with the concept. I’m not sure it’s 100 % accurate, but it does make a lot of sennse.

8

This post seems to be a waste of time. As soon as you make rules they are broken. Martial arts can’t be categorized this way. Your time would be better spent training then overanalyzing things this way.

Less talk, more DO. Thats how the martial artists of old got good.

9

In my opinion, an effective system must do all of these.

8 step does.

We are taught techniques that become concepts as we understand the techniques and are encouraged to think fluidly to make new ones.
We also spar, and keep it live, grappling etc, so I don’t really understand what is so profound about what he said.

Wrestling has techniques, concepts, drills and live action. Anything effective does. IE Basketball, soccer.

10

What I find interesting about Mr. Sonnon’s post is that only his Technical catagory is the most clearly defined. The other two are abstract and can be confused or disguises for the former. To me, he makes a point probably unbeknownst to him.

Here goes:

The translation of concept or movement based “styles” from teacher to student comes about through demontration of technique.

Concepts are basically assumption made by your particular style of how to effectively deal with an opponent. Dealing with an opponent means a physical response in line with this concept must be applied. Therefore, a technique is born.

Movement based is similar, however, according to Mr Sonnon, realization of said movement application comes later. Therefore, movement becomes an exercise in line with mechinics, then becomes a technique.

Technique is the common language between movement and concept. All styles (assuming competent teaching) are all three.

I think he disproved his own argument. I think.

Well, I gave it my best shot.

Bye

11

I think I’m reading the first post differently than you guys. All fighting systems, at their core, are based on three things. Efficiency of movement, understanding of structure (both how to strengthen yours and destroy his), and the ability to deliver power.

The three “styles” are the three main teaching methods to get you to these points. Technique driven styles: BJJ, Shuai Chiao, Muay Thai. Concept styles: Western Boxing, Southern Mantis, Hsing Yi. Movement styles are Taijiquan, Baguazhang, Liuhebafa.

Each method has good and bad points, but they are all valid paths.

12

Serpent,

Not to be specific but Scott seems to be a real nice guy, I know of some serious players who say nothing but good things about him and his training, any of the webposts that I have read of his are nothing but first class.

I do not know him personally but I consider myself a good judge of character and the people who do know him think well of him, I think what he is doing for the western martial arts is excellent, as for his post what did you not agree with?

Just my two punt.
:smiley:

13

I think anytime you start pigeon-holing martial arts styles you run into a lot of trouble…and open up a big can of worms that would better stay closed.

14

The points he raises are just three very basic conceptions of certain aspects of martial arts. To suggest it just breaks down to these three things, and on top of that, to suggest an art can only be one of the three is plain ignorance. Any well rounded art should have at least all three of these concepts woven into the teaching, and a lot more besides.

15

Serpent,

I can agree with that, I think there is some truth to what he states, but its not that black and white, as Shooter said, more shades of gray.

Just curious as to why you seemed so ****ed.

16

Scott Sonnon hurts my head…

17

MP

So you have fought him have you? :smiley:

18

Black Jack. Sorry if I came across a little vehement in my comments! :eek:

It’s just that I repeatedly come across Sonnon’s stuff and every time I’m stunned at the way he talks like he has all the answers, yet his words betray huge swathes of ignorance!

It’s not just him. I have a real problem with anybody that attempts to speak as a total authority. Just look at the wording of that quote in the first post. Arrogant pr!ck!

OK, breathe in, breathe out. Annnnnd… relax!

:smiley:

19

Nah, haven’t fought him.

let’s put it this way–I don’t know if he knows what he’s talking about or not. And the reason why I don’t know is this:

When I was in college there was a guy who taught Sop****re physics–this is the algebra based variety taught to everybody, not the calculus sort taught to engineers…

And yet… he persisted in teaching triple integrals over closed loops to derive simple algebraic equations that he could have described conceptually.

Now, I never had him… but I helped out a LOT of his students! :slight_smile: They didn’t need to over intellectualize the stuff… but that’s what they got. Now, if this approach works for him and his students, then GREAT! But I don’t, and never will think or convey thoughts that way… I’m a bottom line, “3 keys” kind of guy. When the conversation turns to “Quantum Biomechanical Cantilevered Leveraging,” I say “Hulk like uchimata.”

20

Dude don’t apologize for anything,

I was just curious, the only reason being so is two-fold, I know of some skilled people who respect him and I like what he is doing for the western/russian martial arts, besides that I agree that when somone makes such a concrete statement it ends up biting him on the arse, something which has happened to him on other forums before.

Either way that type of writing style, a turn off to some, will not negate his teaching skills, something I again have no “first hand” knowledge of, but he seems down to earth.

But hey, I know where you are coming from, I don’t like it either when people make blanket statements as if they were 100% fact instead of a “personal” opinion.

****, have you ever seen me go off on a rant when someone here states that all the martial arts of the world came from shaolin:D

My girlfriend has to wipe the spit off the computer screen;)

MerryPrankster,

I am under the impression that when someone over complicates things with scientific sounding or even mystical names its more in an attempt to bring spice to what they say the do, in a nutshell marketing, theirs no crime in that, but its not for me either.

Though, since I do not know the first thing about RMA history, maybe these methdologies were called that over their, who knows, I sure don’t.