MightyB
02-10-2003, 02:03 PM
I keep revisiting that skills based approach desribed on the Mat and I keep coming up with the same conclusion. Martial Arts don't have to be difficult or secretive. As a matter of fact, they can be broken down to a few base principles that can be drilled to perfection leading to an endless variety of movements and possibilities. These can be applied easily on an unwilling opponent to great effect and greatly increase your chances of victory. Training and conditioning play a huge factor and there are several skills based drill sets that exist in other sports that are directly transferrable to the martial arts.
The traditional martial arts as we see them today, are overspecialized. At the same time, the competitive MMAs are really base styles, they do have some perceived problems-- They under-utilize striking and over-specialize in ground tactics-- but they are the closest thing that we have to a true Base Style of martial art. A true base style is the core of all martial arts. For kung fu, San Shou with ground fighting is the core. After one begins to understand the principles and actually applies the methodology of those styles under combat and gains some measures of success, they are then free to go about a process of specialization. This is where we get the great multitudes and divisions in martial arts. For example, some say high kicking is ineffective. It works for Cung Le, it worked for Bill Wallace, it worked for Benny Urquidez-- get the point.
What I'm trying to say with all of this is that it is possible (a lot of people are attempting this) to examine and find a core "truth" to CMA. Once that core truth is found, a person can drill it to perfection. It's finding those fundamental truths that's the problem. How would a person begin to dissect CMA to find the core and take into account all the gains and knowledge that has been discovered in the past couple of centuries? There needs to be a stripping away of the superstitions and inefficiancies, but not a total discard. Some of the more "hokey" stuff does have value, but not in the way that it's being taught and passed on.
Any thoughts? Have any of you started to dissect your styles?
The traditional martial arts as we see them today, are overspecialized. At the same time, the competitive MMAs are really base styles, they do have some perceived problems-- They under-utilize striking and over-specialize in ground tactics-- but they are the closest thing that we have to a true Base Style of martial art. A true base style is the core of all martial arts. For kung fu, San Shou with ground fighting is the core. After one begins to understand the principles and actually applies the methodology of those styles under combat and gains some measures of success, they are then free to go about a process of specialization. This is where we get the great multitudes and divisions in martial arts. For example, some say high kicking is ineffective. It works for Cung Le, it worked for Bill Wallace, it worked for Benny Urquidez-- get the point.
What I'm trying to say with all of this is that it is possible (a lot of people are attempting this) to examine and find a core "truth" to CMA. Once that core truth is found, a person can drill it to perfection. It's finding those fundamental truths that's the problem. How would a person begin to dissect CMA to find the core and take into account all the gains and knowledge that has been discovered in the past couple of centuries? There needs to be a stripping away of the superstitions and inefficiancies, but not a total discard. Some of the more "hokey" stuff does have value, but not in the way that it's being taught and passed on.
Any thoughts? Have any of you started to dissect your styles?