You always hear “it’s not the art, it’s the practicioner.”
But when can you say one art is better than another?
If there are 100 fights between style x and style y, and style x practicioners win 95% of the time, would you reason that “well, 95% of the better practicioners happened to choose style x as their style?” Or would you say “style x must be better?”
The only way to have 100 fights between style x and y is to have the same two people fight all 100 times.
Styles do not exist.
:eek:
Originally posted by yenhoi
[B]The only way to have 100 fights between style x and y is to have the same two people fight all 100 times.
Styles do not exist.
:eek: [/B]
Um, no.
Have 100 people from style x fight 100 people from style y.
Ok, don’t get techincal here. You all know what I mean when I say “style x.”
I disagree. If you are talking learning how to fight, some arts do this better than others.
Subjectively we could all go on why everybody ELSE s@cks, but there a few on this board who get it. And frankly even ‘style’ is falling by the wayside and being replaced by ‘school’, which is as it should be.
The PC thing to say is ‘it’s the practitioner’, and that is true to a point, but a good practitioner doing, say OOM Yung DOE, is going to get OWNED by a practitioner of, well dang near everything else.
Better training methodologies and more experiienced coaches produce more better fighters more often. Period. Martial Arts is too full of 3-year wannabe masters who have never been in a fight.
Originally posted by IronFist
When can you say one art is better than another?
Whenever I darn well please.
Not one single “art” trains its individuals the same consistantly accross the board from school to school teacher to teacher. I suppose you can have contests between individual familys or schools or whatever to decide who are better fighters/who trains better. This will only show you which teachers are better not which collection of “techniques.”
:eek:
But like I said, you know what I mean.
Some styles are inherently better than others…
There I said it.
But at what? One style isn’t the best at everything to do with fighting!!!
Every style also has it’s own niche so to speak.
Some styles take the long range niche, some take the short range niche, some take the ground niche, some take the strength niche, some take the no-strength niche, some take the soft, the hard, the etc, etc, etc…
some just take your money…
but we won’t talk about them…
So as a practitioner of martial arts seeking to reach his full potential you might ask your self the following?
What is the niche of my art?
Is my art the most effective available in this niche?
Am I generally suited to this niche? (ie a 6’5" guy might be better off learning Chang Quan rather than Monkey Fist)
How well do I understand the movement prinicples within the niche that this art claims to own?
Can I expand the principles of my art to other niches or is it exclusive to my niche?
How well does my teacher understand the priniciples of my niche?
How well can he apply them?
How experienced is he?
How well can he teach those priniciples/movements to me?
The point is that any particular art can’t be all things. It might have aspects that are designed to balance it out. But there is always the bread and butter (ie the niche) of a style and the stuff that it just does OK.
For example, I study Chen Taiji and CLF kung fu. Both of these styles are well suited to my body type because I’m a big guy.
CLF owns the long range fighting. It is fast, highly mobile and agressive. You can close the gap between your opponent and smash them in the face 3 times before they even know what happens. CLF is pretty good medium range with knees and elbows. When you get into short range it’s pretty weak. Groundfighting, non-existent.
Chen Taiji on the other hand can fight “long range” but it owns the inside. The closer you are to your opponent the better because you want maximum leverage. The footwork in Chen Taiji is less intricate but more properly rooted.
When you know both and chose one
Every art form has its strong points and weakness.
The strong point is Yang. The weakness is Yin.
Yin and Yang are inherent and inseparable.
Everything is defeatible.
On the other hand, he who masters his art well will win. Because he will present most of his strong points and hide or shield most of his weakness.
It is true that the better or more skillful practictioner wins.
So study both strong points and weakness of your arts well.
The opponent will for sure go for your weakness and not your strong points.
I would quite happily put money on 100 of thailands top muay thai fighters putting some serious smackdown on japans 100 top aikidoists, or koreas top TKDists. imo, there is such a thing as a style being, in a broad sense, better than another. kyokushin is, overall, better than other karate styles. you can cry about how its the practitioner not the art, and when I see aikidoists and TKDers winning even just local event full contact vs other artists, I might retract that. hasnt happened yet.
Originally posted by Ikken Hisatsu
I would quite happily put money on 100 of thailands top muay thai fighters putting some serious smackdown on japans 100 top aikidoists,
Well ya, maybe in their 20’s but, what if you put the same 100 Thai’s against the same 100 aikidoists against each other 50 years later. Oh wait, the average life span in Thailand is only 59. Wonder if that is a stylistic difference or just a coincidence?
I’ll put my money on the aikidoists.
Actually, bamboo leaf has already correctly answered the question. 
Originally posted by count
[B]
Oh wait, the average life span in Thailand is only 59. Wonder if that is a stylistic difference or just a coincidence?
[/B]
I’d have to say it probably has more to do with poverty and the fact that Thailand is a 3rd world country more than anything else.
People most likely die sooner because of a lack of modern medicine than because maybe 5 % of the population are Thai Boxers.
Originally posted by MonkeySlap Too
And frankly even ‘style’ is falling by the wayside and being replaced by ‘school’, which is as it should be.
This statement is so correct it hurts.
MSToo has taken the correct, told it it’s style sucked, then repeatedly pounded it into the dirt.
There was a weapon merchant that sells all kinds of weapons.
He said his spear would penetrate everything.
He also said his shield is so good and almost impenetrable.
The customer then quieried how about using your spear against your shield.
This is called Mou Dung (Spear and shield).
I have several college mates from Thailand.
They are Chinese Thai’s. They are good soccer players and kickboxers.
In the early 80’s, every morning, I practiced Tai Ji, Tong Bei, Xing Yi, Ba Gua and Mantis. They practiced kickboxing outside the dorms.
They said. They have a big HIV epidemic. Guys will visit W house before going home. They are famous for all kinds of she-males, he-females. All the beauty is from Chiang Mai.
Also the country is closer to the equator. People there have higher metabolic rate and shorter life span. In contrast, in cold Russia, people live over 100’s years.
I am not going any where near the knee, or shin of a Thai boxer.
Beware of the beautiful women you see on the streets of Bangkok. You don’t know “it’” is he-she or she-he or she-she. That is what they told me.
Originally posted by SPJ
Beware of the beautiful women you see on the streets of Bangkok. You don’t know “it’” is he-she or she-he or she-she. That is what they told me.
Classic.
Originally posted by Water Dragon
I’d have to say it probably has more to do with poverty and the fact that Thailand is a 3rd world country more than anything else.
People most likely die sooner because of a lack of modern medicine than because maybe 5 % of the population are Thai Boxers.
Might well be true WD, only the same numbers probably hold for Aikido practitioners in Japan where the average life span is in the 80’s.
Long time, eh Larry? This summer when I get there we have to hook up.