Is it safe to say that the style is important too?

[KC Elbows]

All right, now that we seem to have a consensus that it's the stylist and not the style, can we agree that some "styles" are made up poop? I'm just sick of being pc, can't we agree that some styles are well thought out, and some are total monkey dung?

Is it safe yet? I just want to know, we don't need to say out loud whose style is total eel feces, we can just know that that's the way it is, it'll be a little unspoken thing we've got. I'm sure you know which members I'm talking about. They're a nice bunch, but they couldn't fight there way out of a Sesame Street On Ice show on a good day.

We don't need to tell them, but it's ok to know that their style sucks, right?

[fa_jing]

Styles that have been around 150 years or more, generally do not suck. Styles that are younger, but have been tested in competitive environments, and include the positive contributions of thousands, generally do not suck. In fact, most styles that suck are actually fake styles, or styles that are being mis-applied to situations they were not designed for.

Now, about the eel feces - is that a good or a bad thing? ;)

[KC Elbows]

So some of them do suck?

What if it's old, but hasn't been tested in a long time? Like the shaolin when that one emporer made them reform in order to make them effective again? Does that count, so an old style could have a sucky period?

[KC Elbows]

I'm not one to badmouth on anything, but eel feces does suck.

[Royal Dragon]

Are we talking about anyone "I" Know? An old school we both trained together at ... perhaps?? :eek:

Also, if yo don't wan't to be PC, you have to say "****", instead of all these "hinting at it" phrases you used. :D

[Ben Gash]

If it's become inneffective then it's the teaching methods used, not the style. The effective techniques and principles are all there in the forms and drills, it's just some people forget them.
Yes, much stuff does suck. There are people on this board who I know their Sifu learned half his stuff from wle.com. There are others who spout such complete nonsense about what they teach that it's laughable. Yet more are so vague and generic about what they actually do you know they're fake.

[Budokan]

Yes, of course some styles suck. That's a given. But, because the stylist himself is such an important element in the execution of martial arts, a really good martial artist can find and use techniques of even a sucky style and make them effective.

So, once again, it's the stylist and not the style that's the most important facet of martial arts...even when we're talking about a style that "sucks".

[Aramus]

Budokan makes a good statement that the stylist might/will make it work. However, some arts make it easier than others. I was going to continue but something I read from the 5 rings and from Bruce Lee entered into my thoughts, now I must stop writing.
Peace.

[No_Know]

If a style that is usually not considered effective can be used by an insightful person to make it un cararacteristically effective (along the lines of Budokan's first mention here). There is a concept that the Style is constantly effective (in it's design). It is impatient students who have not studied. Have not learned. Are not experienced, riding on the laurels of The Style (reputation)~. Delusional that membership conveys the end product of a decade(s) of training with the signing of a contract or paying a bill or a handshake or the such. Training becomes as busy work as they are now the archetype Kung-Fu person with fantasic skills, undefeatable; and needs not fear getting hurt so they talk big, are not smart, and allow bad situations that were avoidable, anxiously to happen.

It is not to be said that the students are poor (there are however a great many people who merely take classes). It is more at people who lack understanding. At least a lack in understanding what they can get from the Style or how to get it. And a lack in understanding what they would like (to do (in Life)).

Perhaps some might say some-such

[Royal Dragon]

;)

[Chang Style Novice]

Style is only important inasmuch as your options in any given situation are a result of your training. Some styles of martial arts provide more options. Some provide faster options. Some provide more damaging options. Some provide easier options.

The more you train the techniques you have learned, the more those techniques are going to be fast, damaging, and easy.

[HuangKaiVun]

My preference is for simplicity in combat.

I don't get into details, and I'm not into doing deep twists or long postures for the sake of doing them.

Nor do I do much static stance training, as I need my mobility in combat. No dead stances, no techniques that I can't get in and out of.

I do forms regularly, but I don't get TOO worked up over the details. As long as I'm getting the right jing out of the form, I don't worry if my hand is an inch too low or too high. In the context of a real fight, it's all a wash anyhow.

[KC Elbows]

And if the style doesn't teach you to have your arms up? Will getting hit in the face be the fault of the practitioner if the style does not have a good reason for this.

Also, if memory serves me correctly, the problem of the shaolin wasn't just a training thing. Their style needed work.

Remember, forms weren't always well documented. /subtle changes could happen from one generation to the next that lost the details.

RD,

Not really talking about anyone in particular at all, just thought it was an interesting topic.

[HuangKaiVun]

I think it's the responsibility of the practitioner of a style to CHANGE the style if it doesn't work for him.

How else would a style grow?

For example, I used to study Northern Shaolin kung fu intensely. But as a result of sparring, I ended up completely reorganizing the style for my own purposes.

It's not that the style was lacking anything, it was simply a matter of rearranging the method into something palatable for me.

Lineage doesn't block punches.

[SevenStar]

Is it safe to say your style sucks if it's grandmaster jumped off of an 11 story building?

[Former castleva]

Sevenstar,
No,not generally if he survived.
I´d be happy to join his branch.
:)

[Crimson Phoenix]

You want names don't you? :D

[Odie-wan]

We all know that every style/ school has its limitations. If you think your style is perfect, you're either deluded or what you are studying will take forEVER to get close to mastering. If you can devote that much time to your studies, you're a luckier person than I am.

Truth is that today MA are a hobby far more than a way of life, in comparison to what it was when they were derived/collected/tested. Many styles require us to be in much better shape to be effective than most Americans are willing to be (with regard to the diet and exercise).

One Korean art that is about 90% kicks and is an Olympic style (that shall remain nameless) is a prime example. It is so commercialized that many of thier "Black Belts" might be able to do the movements necessary, but not in the time required to be effective. I saw a public exhibition put on by a school of this style once where a female Black Belt could barely kick above her waist. This was not due to an injury, she just couldn't do it. Wrong style for that person to be effective. In this country (US) where a new student with a checkbook is almost NEVER turned away, promotion just a matter of time. In fact, some places put a Black Belt assurance in the contract!!

Just some observations and opinions.

[Merryprankster]

Take practicioner of made up style "A", who has a school where they beat the crap out of each other regularly--you've essentially got a decent streetfighter.

Take a practicioner of 8000 year old style "B," who doesn't do full contact sparring on anything resembling a regular basis, but who has great "technique."

My money's on A.

I think it's about how you train. If you even have rudimentary MA skills and train them hard a lot, you're not going to be TOO bad off.

That said, some stuff just SUCKS! :D

[Chang Style Novice]

Odie Wan's tagline "It's not the Art, it's the Artist" brings up an interesting point for me. I disagree with this statement very strongly, although I'm certain I'm interpreting it differently than he is, based on his actual post.

He mentions a TKD BB who is unable to attain the flexibility needed for a kick higher than waist level. To which I say, "so what?" not because I believe it's unimportant or dangerous to kick at the head of a standing opponent (although certainly in some cases that it is dangerous, and therefore an unimportant ability to have) but because it is the artist who makes the art, not the art that makes the artist.

We all know that even with 'perfect' form, no two individuals will move in exactly the same way - the fact that we ARE unique individuals is the reason for this. And so two tkders, or bjjers, or karateka, or whatever of equal experience will have different strengths and weaknesses. These strengths and weaknesses may cancel each other out, and the two may be equally formidable. But NOT THE SAME! My Ch'ang Taijiquan is going to be inevitably and permanently different from a classmates, even if we each win against the other exactly 50% of the time. We have different Ch'ang Taijiquan. It's the same set of techniques and practices and whatever else, but mine is mine and his is his.

So, this stifflegged TKD BB will have to use the TKD she has learned and make it work with her limitations. And her TKD will be her own. And maybe incredibly effective - who can say? But even if it doesn't look like Hwang Jwing Ming, it will still be TKD.

[KC Elbows]

So some stuff just does suck?:D

[Crimson Phoenix]

Yeah, but what about if you have "C" who studies a 8000 year-old style and he and his fellow students beat the crap out of each others regularly...
Who wins then?? LOL

[GeneChing]

Going back to the original question, I don't think I could fight my way out of Sesame Street on Ice. I mean Oscar has some attitude and Grover can withstand some big hits. Not to mention Big Bird has the size over me.

Of course, some styles suck. But that doesn't mean that it still cannot produce a great fighter or an enlightened warrior. Some of the most intense fighters I've seen have never even trained martial arts, like a lot of my security/bouncer/biker associates. So if you can learn to fight that well on the streets, it's possible to do likewise in a McDojo. Mayby not probably, but well within the realm of possibilities. And if you beleive in sudden enlightenment, some vision might even originate there too.

Martial arts are vital. Each style is evolving to meet it's communities needs. Tai Chi is becoming more therapeutic. Wushu is becoming more dramatic. NHB is becoming bloodier. So even though a style might suck today, it might not tomorrow. And nothing is impermanent. A great style, established for centuries, could falter just as easily.

But I never really worry about whether a style sucks or not. I just see if there's anything in their for me, take it if there is, then go on.

Note to BG: That's hilarious what you said. Someday, Sifu Lam and some of his instructors (like me!) should pay a visit to all those schools and cash in. Actually I think that's great. Having authored the bulk of those videos, I feel I've done my best to spread my seed and elevate my art. Just remember all you video students. There are a few errors in those videos, just enough so we can always tell whose really got the teachings. ;)

[KC Elbows]

I dunno Gene, I mean, Big Bird's a soft beaked bird, and he's a little out of shape, if you didn't notice.:D

Good point. That's also why I wasn't really wanting to get into specific schools or anything like that, as I've known practitioners in really bad schools who were brawlers, and could manage to work unworkable stuff.

However, over time, I've noticed one common phenomenon. Every good fighter I've met from a cheesy school performed differently from their fellow students and their higher belts/elder students/teachers. A great example is my own teacher. He's a natural fighter who became well trained over the years. Once, I saw another martial artist showing him a form. My teacher is very open and interested in other styles, so he was doing the form along with the other practitioner for a while. Now, after repetition, my teacher's form had more power, precision, and discernable technique than the person who showed it to him. However, he was not taught that as part of the form, he inserted it into the form, and it was a clear fit. [note that I'm not saying this other person was a cheesy martial artist, he was a very nice guy and a good martial artist, my teacher is just one of those prodigies].

My point is that those brawlers make the style work for them by INJECTING ATTRIBUTES THAT ENABLE THE STYLE TO WORK. However, I have yet to see a single cheesy school then take those attributes that the good fighters contribute, and incorporate them into the style. That's what makes them so cheesy: they fail to see the inovators in their own midst.

So again, the style remains cheesy, one inspired practitioner comes along, learns some, moves on to something more befitting their level of skill, and the style remains cheesy until they take advantage of the prodigies.

That's why I always pay attention to what the prodigies are doing. What comes to them naturally can be learned by others.

[Odie-wan]

Chang Style Novice,
You make a good point that the female TKD BB may have adapted very well to her limitations and become a very good fighter. My point was that some styles are much easier to become proficient with if you consider the individual's abilities and shortcomings.

In short, for an individual with limited flexibility, TKD would be my last choice for a fighting system. Other systems that take advantage of different personal attributes would IMO make for a more effective system for that individual.

but as you said....

[Royal Dragon]

"There are people on this board who I know their Sifu learned half his stuff from wle.com"

Reply]
Question, did their Sifu learn the Hungar?? Or the BSHL?? Maybe the Shaolin Monk video's??

Just curious, I never thought someone would actually create a curriculem mostly from video.

[SevenStar]

unfortunately, I would believe that.

[No_Know]

T'ai Chi Ch'uan seems not comprable. It's not the physical form it's the principle. It's much looser learning a style or form of T'ai Chi Ch'uan than slap punch (move hand to protect ribs); backfist (nosebridge); (elbow down, infacing palm, palm eye height, side block (left hook); cover punch (guard against attacks to upper body/face, while punching to sternum); horizontal punch (to sternum); follow (in with) rising elbow (to chin). It's not precise as the non-"three classical Internal arts" Tiger's claws should be done to an exact shape from the start. Lady's hand can vary at the start. Tiger's claw is something to correct immediately.

I might not have looked up for a decade or so (and even then didn't look around, but the difference between the things I've read here and how I thought things to be seems perhaps vaster than the space in outer space.

[David Jamieson]

only you can suck.

a style is a vehicle to understanding.
some styles are big and deep, others are shallow and quick to learn. all are "made up" either one at a time or iteratively over time.

again, only you can "suck".

peace

[chingei]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
only you can suck.


again, only you can "suck".

peace


a message from Smokey the Bear's brother, 'Lenny the Pimp'

[Merryprankster]

Improperly taught anything sucks Kung Lek, and it doesn't matter how good YOU are as an athlete, if you are applying your attributes to something that doesn't take advantage of biomechanics, it's only going to suck a little less.

If you have a style that teaches you to "punch properly," by using only your arm and no body behind it, or teaches you to throw without breaking structure, it sucks.

Of course, we all know this is not usually the case. What usually is the case is some things from one style, like thai elbows, are very good, whereas somethings, like, say, the kicks in a BJJ dojo (overexaggeration for the sake of a humorous point) aren't so good for causing damage (or even really, for entry, even though it worked on people who didn't know anything about grappling)


NHB is becoming more bloody

Not exactly true. It's gotten a lot less bloody.

[David Jamieson]

A human body works in such a fashion as to either be mechanically sound in the application of fighting techniques or not sound.

The proof is in the pudding. Also, regardless of what one thinks of "style", it is the stylist who will either succeed or fail.

I too know a few guys who have trained nothing but can really go toe to toe.

Everybody's body works in more or less the same way with variation according to their frame. muscles work the same, bones align the same, breath is taken in and expelled the same.
Really, there is not a huge margin of difference outside of special cases.

Most styles take heed of this. Many here talk about "phony" styles and give examples of bad techs from these styles but never name the style or how they have experienced this "bad" technique. It is empty bashing.

kungfu is dancing, karate is stick man fighting, only ring styles that are on tv are superior.

this is a limited understanding of any of it in my opinion. It's all good. It's all got something that is useful and it's all "made up" just as the atom bomb was made up.

name names, name styles and be prepared to back up what you're saying about these people and their arts.

peace

[TkdWarrior]

being a TKD practiconer myself i'll bet on chang's story that the girl must hav tried her best to kick above the waist...unfortunately Gen Choi never said anything about kicking above waist or things like that..kicking above waist can be effective and cannot be effective depending upon the artist... having said that lemme tell u one story myself being the HERO :D
ok once i tried nitpicking on aikido sytle saying they are all soft and girlies things...not meant for guys like me... did i told yea i said that in front of aikido master?? no u can guess wat happened to me after that...i was flying all over the park and the master didn't move his muscles...ouch thnx to him he didn't hurt me badly just got my shoulder and wrist joints loosen a bit... :(
anyways that told me something is missing here(i havn't told this incident to my teacher)i hav spend couple of year by that time in MT and TKD...anyways the same aikido master hav very good repo and he respects my teacher too because he find my teacher good fighter... after 20 yrs of practicing my teacher hav almost rounded off his styles to fight almost any kind of styles...be it judo, aikido or anything else for that matter... 20 yrs?? me only 3 n 1/2 years...so u all can guess i stand no chance... so this got me thinking again and i started studying different style for crosstraing... and yea it helped me... now i bet i can hold my fort against grapplers may be i loose but still i won't be THAT BAD...
anyways all this ranting was about a individual not his style...my teacher with 20 yrs behind him and me with just 6 yrs(total in MT and TKD)
i think everything is there in system but u need time and practice and good teacher...simple...
three factors i should say
style(using olympic rules in fight will get u killed)
experince (bad experince will get u killed)
individual(bad invidual??huh)
-TkdWarrior-

[KC Elbows]

Kung Lek,
Again, my point is not related to any one specific style. However, I think it is somewhat naive to assume that every system that is being taught out there has sound principles at the core. Why is it wrong to assume absolutes in all other aspects of life, but to denounce such an absolute when it comes to style is just empty bashing, especially when it is merely an intellectual exercise/interesting discussion that is not related to making any particualr style look bad?

The point was made that if a style teaches to punch wrong, they are teaching to punch wrong. If the individual fixes this, that's the plus of the individual, not the style. The style still has a major problem that makes it inneffective. In fact, according to the context of the style, the individual who punches with correct body mechanics is doing it wrong. So who's right? The individual. And what's wrong? The style.

To place the discussion in the context that all styles are complete compendiums of a series of related concepts in fighting applied is not intellectually honest. If ALL arguments must start with that assumption in mind, it will always be entirely the stylist and not the style, but only because of an artifice at the base of the discussion, not because of evidence culled from reality.

To establish that I am NOT talking about a certain art whose stylists I have always taken to task(more for their cultish behavior, but also some of their martial beliefs and practices), I would say that THAT style has sufficient moves to make an acceptable fighter.

Anyway, I still say there is suckiness in the universe.

[ZIM]

One could teach/learn tai chi externally
and one could teach/learn western boxing internally.

I'd think both could suck very much, yeah? But for different reasons.

& I think they've been done, too. ;)

[fa_jing]

Originally posted by KC Elbows
I'm not one to badmouth on anything, but eel feces does suck.

You just killed Beethoven! :D :p

[No_Know]

Styles are a process. People are impatient. If I can hit with it it's a punch and I don't need all those detaily things to hit. You say correct way to punch. But you have a particular effect in mind. There are aspects--landing the punch, giving damage, effect of punch on wrist/elbow/shoulder/back/hip/foot. And yet you say or agree, Correct Punch.

The target is moving and might have force or resistance going in a direction counter to your punch. And yet you say a correct way. There are at least three types of punch each one and it's variations perhaps should take at least these factors in to consideration.

That style might be going for a particular effect which the preceeding and following techniques play off of. Th Style might be designed to train layers of skill. One form punch done one way to teach a certain something then anotherway for a fuller understanding of punching...

[Merryprankster]

I too know a few guys who have trained nothing but can really go toe to toe.

And I would argue that these guys are far better off than somebody who has learned how to do something the "right way," from a guy who doesn't know how to do something efficiently/well.

I'm not knocking specific styles or people. I'm just pointing out that if you learn how to do algebra completely wrong because that is what you were taught is "right," having a good brain in your head is only going to take you so far.

[KC Elbows]

The "correct punch" thing was just a model to explain what I'm trying to say. Which is that some things that get passed off as styles DO NOT HAVE UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES INVOLVED IN THEM.

If a style lacks underlying principles, and it teaches a punch a certain way for no real reason other than the founder doesn't know any better, and if that punch is worked from a specific angle and power that would injure the wrist, then is it the individual's fault, or can we say that that specific style at that time sucks, at least for punches?

[KC Elbows]

Saw this quote by needlefist in the southern forum, and I thought it applied pretty well to the argument at hand:

"Forms are not 'the' style, any style. Styles are made up from the qualitative sum of their practitioners - no practitioners is no style.
So, howsoever poorly ONE or even several representatives of a given system may appear to be, they cannot be all of that style, maybe not even typical of it."