Is it the person or the style?

[Dragon23]

Hello everyone,

I am new to Kung fu magazune.com and this is my first time to post. I found Kung Fu Magazine.com while researching the infamous Shaolin-do school. At the time I did not know that there was so much criticism for the school, but as I read through old forums that is all I seemed to find. I want to study a Chinese martial arts but my choices are quite limited due to location. Is the Saolin-do school so bad that I should avoid it or is it the person and not the style that makes a good martial artists. I have heard that the Shaolin-do school is similiar to Kenpo kararte would I be better off just studying Kenpo. The other option I have is a Wing Tsun school but it is in an inconvenient location. This seemed like a good place to get some thoughts and info. on the subject. If anybody knows of any good Chinese martial arts schools in San Marcos/San Antonio, Tx area please let me know. If this is a subject that has been beaten to death I am sorry but I am just trying to get as much info. as possible before I make a decision.

Thanks

[old jong]

Hello!
Some will answer it is the style and some will tell you it is the person! but first ,you need a real style for that person and shaolin do is certainly not "real"...
I found two schools in your area...
San Antonio

* Realistic Self-Defense "Wing Chun Concepts"
826 SW 38th St., San Antonio, TX 78237
Tel: (210) 434-8521
Contact: Rick Sanchez
Notes: System very well taught out to develop person's sensitivity to touch, speed of reaction, and economy of motion ... designed for women, men and preteens. Your action determines my reaction.
* San Antonio Wing Tsun Academy
1308 Austin Hwy, San Antonio, TX 78209
Tel: (210) 822-0035
Contact: William Parker
Notes: William Parker is a 2nd Level Technician under the AWTO and is a direct student of Grandmaster Leung Ting and a private student of Sifu Emin Boztepe. Call for class schedule

There may be others but if not,I think it is better to travel a little and take private lessons in an other city than practicing some bogus martial art.
good luck

[Suntzu]

IMO… its more than just style vs person… what about the instructor??? Is his goals for you the same as the one's you have for yourself… do u wanna learn how to fight and he just wants to teach u a bunch of forms and collect your dues… do u wanna learn to do butterfly kicks and he wants you to be the next Cung Le(since he's so popular right now)... do u want a history lesson and some dude to worship and clean up after :confused:... do u wanna be bound by technique and tradition or be allowed to explore how your body reacts and respond to situations… will said teacher allow you to explore or will he berate you for not using HIS kung fu… just a few things to think about… Good Luck…

[SLC]

I agree it is mostly the teacher that determines the quality of the student.... not the art. It is not ALL the teacher... because the student must be diligent and sincere.

I will go out on a limb and say there are probably NO bad arts... just people who teach them or learn them poorly.

Find the best teacher you can.

[carly]

Vale Tudo Rangel Team
1821 Bandera Rd, San Antonio, TX
Phone: (210)433-5755

[PHILBERT]

As old jong pointed out:

Sifu William Parker, 4th Level Technician
Glenn Tillman, 1st Level Technician
Dr. Roberto Aranibar, 1st Level Technician
Website: http://www.leungtingwingtsun.net/sawt
Phone: (210) 822-0035

Except I got his website :p

Also there are 2 other WT schools in San Antonio under Emin Boztepe.

Mauricio Blake
210-843-5253
mblake76@msn.com

Nico Lahood
210-316-6316 or 210-613-6316
Nicolahood72@hotmail.com


When all else fails, open up the phone book under martial art. But, as everyone who comes here saying "I dont know what to study", we always say "Study what you find comfortable." I find WT comfortable over say...Hung Gar. I'm not saying Hung Gar is evil, I just am not comfortable with it.

[Dragon23]

Thanks everybody for your replies and info. Actually I am going this evening to check the wing tsun that William Parker teaches. He is a bit out of the way for me but it sounds like this may be the best option. I will look into the other wing chun schools as well.

Thanks again

[TheGhostDog]

To say that the style does not matter, or that there are no bad styles is ridiculous.

Let's say I created a style which I called Ballet-fu (after going to the ballet one night I had an epiphany). It has lots of high kicks, flowery movements and you have to be super agile, athletic and flexible to perform it. I also don't allow any sparring, as ballet-fu techniques are far too dangerous. It's never been tested in challenge matches, and the few times that a student has had to use it in a fight they were beaten to a pulp- not because the art was weak though but because the student had obviously not trained hard enough.

Do you really think that Ballet-fu is going to be a match, be equal , to boxing, or bjj, or Muay Thai, or a style that emphazises heavy sparring and conditioning, as well as it's exponents having had a lot of actual fight experience and bringing that experience back into the art ?
C'mon !!!

Stop trying to be so PC. There are obviously styles that don't work as well as other styles in fights.

[scotty1]

Man's got a point. But I think most styles can be pretty effective if they're trained well, with bad intent. :)

In which case, its the person using the style, how it gels with them.

"Do you really think that Ballet-fu is going to be a match, be equal , to boxing, or bjj, or Muay Thai"

Well no. But the reason those arts are so effective is IMO not because of some technical advantage, but simply excellent down-to-earth training. Find an art that trains like any of these arts and you'll be fine. I'm taking tai chi. I had my first lesson yesterday. The first thing he did was throw me on my arse in a hundred different ways to demostrate what his art was about. Today he phoned to find out how many times a week I can practice. I know I'm onto a good thing.

Some people will tell you "if it feels right, it is" but I don't believe that, unless you have experience. You have to have some knowledge to back up a good feeling, otherwise you think you're eating caviar from a gold spoon while all you're doing is sucking sh!t off the floor. I know, I've done it.

[joedoe]

A style presents you with a theory and framework for fighting. Obviously the quality of the fighter depends on how they train and fight, but if the theory is flawed then the fighter will eventually encounter problems.

[Suntzu]

Stop trying to be so PC. There are obviously styles that don't work as well as other styles in fights. but if the student AND the teacher is on the same page than 'Ballet Fu' is effective for what it does… athleticism… explosiveness… balance… and whatever else… a style is not bad because it doesn't fit YOUR criteria for a GOOD style… there are a bunch of dancers in the MA world right now and they a happy doing just that...

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by TheGhostDog
To say that the style does not matter, or that there are no bad styles is ridiculous.

Let's say I created a style which I called Ballet-fu (after going to the ballet one night I had an epiphany). It has lots of high kicks, flowery movements and you have to be super agile, athletic and flexible to perform it. I also don't allow any sparring, as ballet-fu techniques are far too dangerous. It's never been tested in challenge matches, and the few times that a student has had to use it in a fight they were beaten to a pulp- not because the art was weak though but because the student had obviously not trained hard enough.

Do you really think that Ballet-fu is going to be a match, be equal , to boxing, or bjj, or Muay Thai, or a style that emphazises heavy sparring and conditioning, as well as it's exponents having had a lot of actual fight experience and bringing that experience back into the art ?
C'mon !!!

Stop trying to be so PC. There are obviously styles that don't work as well as other styles in fights.

The fact that you had to make up your own style for this post disproves your own point.

You couldn't think of any existing style that fit the bill? Take taekwondo. Lots of really lackluster taekwondo out there. And yet, many of us know a taekwondo guy or two not to be trifled with. Which serves as evidence that the right person coupled with the right coaches can go a long way. Regardless of style.


Stuart B.

[red5angel]

Sometimes, but I believe not very often, the style could be the weak point. More often it is the person practicin the art. This was illustrated to me while I was studying wing chun and saw there were a heck of a lot of mediocre people out there doing it, and a rare few who really were good at it. Those that really were good at it may have had some amount of natural talent, but more then anything else they all worked very hard at it and very consistantly.

[Jabb]

Well, if you want to say is some style better than other, you could look at it this way: does the style have certain techniques that are usefull in real combat and how complete the system in the style is. If the style doesn't teach you how to block a strike thats comming from your side, maybe you can't/don't know how to block it and the next thing you feel is a fist in your face. Ofcourse in this situation your reflex comes in hand and you block it.

But if the person is phatetic fighter and hes training a "good" style, the problem is in the person.

[fragbot]

Some people couldn't be good fighters even with the best training. Likewise, some people would be good fighters no matter what they did. Thus, it must be the person. Right?

Wrong. Some styles are decidedly effective than others (either due to training methods, techniques or attitude). Take two guys with reasonably similar physical and mental attributes, put one in a boxing gym and the other in, say, a northern Shaolin school. Smart money'd be on the boxer for at least the first few years. Thus, it must be the style.

More accurately, both are equally important. Furthermore, a third leg of the stool is a good coach.

[TheGhostDog]

Apoweyn,
The reason I didn't name a style was because I didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings cause I'm such a nice guy :).
The main reason I made up an art was to show some of the common problems associated with martial arts i.e, the system is based on a flawed premise, the system is not tested to prove its effectiveness, the system is not continually tested to ensure that the art evolves and doesn't become stagnant.

As I said, some people seem to take the view that it is the individual, not the system that is flawed. This is incorrect. Please note however that an individual obviously plays a part, however no system is perfect.

What is so hard to believe that an art could be based on a false premise ? The founders of martial arts were not gods, they were ordinary people who believed that what they developed was a viable form of self-defense. Unless they tested each and every component of their art in a fight many times, certain parts of that art are going to be based on theory, on "I believe this will work". They could have very well been wrong ! Students of the founder are then going to take this theory and believe it a fact, believe it had been tested and proven to work.

Take an art such as BJJ. BJJ is constantly evolving because it's students fight in tournaments, in Vale Tudo matches and in the streets. Thus the techniques are put in a pressure cooker and if they don't work they are re-examined and either modified or thrown out. BJJ is an art where it's theory and it's techniques are constantly being put to the test and the experience of its exponents is being brought back into the art to benefit all students. Any new innovation in BJJ will spread around the globe in 12 months as people see it in tournaments, or NHB matches and then train and evolve it.

Compare this with say, a style of karate. How many karate students are constantly being involved in fights (NHB, streetfights, etc) ? How many instructors are going to change what they do, the way they throw a punch in sparring or in kata based on their students success with it in fights ? Pretty much none, because karate instructors always believe that the founding fathers of their arts knew everything, when this is patently not the case.

So to believe that all arts are equal when some are constantly testing and evolving their art, and others train as if in a vacuum is patently false.

[ArrowFists]

Its certainly the person doing the style (and instruction).

An instructor could teach a guy two punches, and if that guy took those two punches, added his own little spice to the mix and trained hard, he'd kick a lot of @$$.

There's nothing magical about the martial arts, it all comes down to the training (mental/physical). Better training=better fighter in every case.

Styles truly mean squat.

[TheGhostDog]

ArrowFists couldn't be more wrong.

Of course some people are going to be naturally good at fighting, but that's not the point. The point is, some styles are going to be more effective than others in a fight.

E.g. If two people with exactly the same attributes were to train, one in BJJ and one in aikido, for six months then fight, I'd put all my money on the BJJ guy. There would be no contest. Make it ten years - same thing.

[apoweyn]

GhostDog,


Originally posted by TheGhostDog
Apoweyn, The reason I didn't name a style was because I didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings cause I'm such a nice guy :).

I don't disbelieve that you're a nice guy. But do you honestly think that by trivializing the problem (comparing arts you disapprove of with ballet), you're taking the high road? You aren't.


The main reason I made up an art was to show some of the common problems associated with martial arts i.e, the system is based on a flawed premise, the system is not tested to prove its effectiveness, the system is not continually tested to ensure that the art evolves and doesn't become stagnant.

If these problems are so common, you should have been able to describe an actual martial art that features these 'flawed premises.' You didn't even attempt to honestly identify those premises. Instead, you contented yourself with parodying those styles. And that's not something to be admired. Honest inquiry is good. Belittling isn't.


As I said, some people seem to take the view that it is the individual, not the system that is flawed. This is incorrect. Please note however that an individual obviously plays a part, however no system is perfect.

I think you're misunderstanding the assertion. (At least, as I view it.)


What is so hard to believe that an art could be based on a false premise ? The founders of martial arts were not gods, they were ordinary people who believed that what they developed was a viable form of self-defense. Unless they tested each and every component of their art in a fight many times, certain parts of that art are going to be based on theory, on "I believe this will work". They could have very well been wrong ! Students of the founder are then going to take this theory and believe it a fact, believe it had been tested and proven to work.

Reread that paragraph, if you would. The founders were not gods. They failed to test their theories. Their students took their teachers' word for it and didn't test the theories either. And the style became doctrine.

And you're trying to tell me that the problem begins with the style? That it's a faulty premise? That's all backward. It suggests that [booming biblical voice]In the Beginning, there was Style; and it was Bad.[/booming biblical voice]

That's silly. There wasn't a flawed premise floating around that people then failed to examine and made into doctrine instead. People were involved from the beginning. Their shortcomings were involved from the beginning. Or maybe they didn't have shortcomings. And it was the shortcomings of later generations that led to a deterioration. Either way, it comes down to individuals. The style doesn't exist outside of the individuals who perform it. Individuals fail to test it. And individuals can make the decision to rectify that situation.


Take an art such as BJJ. BJJ is constantly evolving because it's students fight in tournaments, in Vale Tudo matches and in the streets. Thus the techniques are put in a pressure cooker and if they don't work they are re-examined and either modified or thrown out. BJJ is an art where it's theory and it's techniques are constantly being put to the test and the experience of its exponents is being brought back into the art to benefit all students. Any new innovation in BJJ will spread around the globe in 12 months as people see it in tournaments, or NHB matches and then train and evolve it.

And I wholeheartedly agree that this is a big strength of BJJ. But it's a big strength that is reliant on the individuals involved. If people in BJJ ever begin to slack off on that, then more theory is going to be allowed to creep in untested. As has happened with any style that gains popular acceptance. As long as all the individuals involved continue to insist on testing in a competitive environment, then all's well. But that isn't hardwired into the style. The style doesn't have the ability to 'force' people to uphold that standard. People decide to uphold that standard. And hopefully, they'll continue to do so.

That said, human nature is such that less dedicated people will creep in and try to capitalize on BJJ's popularity. Already, there are teachers in my area attempting to teach BJJ without having been competitors. Or combatants. Or whatever. That's what happens. Students don't want that kind of pressure. Teachers want more students. So they give the students what they want. Compromises are made. And quality deteriorates. All thanks to the individuals involved.


Compare this with say, a style of karate. How many karate students are constantly being involved in fights (NHB, streetfights, etc) ? How many instructors are going to change what they do, the way they throw a punch in sparring or in kata based on their students success with it in fights ? Pretty much none, because karate instructors always believe that the founding fathers of their arts knew everything, when this is patently not the case.

Again, reread this paragraph. How many karate students... How many instructors... Karate instructors always believe...

People make the decision to believe, not to believe, to test, not to test, to adapt, not to adapt. To believe otherwise is to chalk it up to a hopeless situation. And that's a fool's errand. Explain to me the myriad styles of karate. If karate instructors didn't believe in change, then there would be only one style, right? But there isn't. People observed things, made decisions, and came out with different results. Shotokan, Goju, Kyokushinkai, etc.


So to believe that all arts are equal when some are constantly testing and evolving their art, and others train as if in a vacuum is patently false.

Many individuals train in a vacuum. Styles don't train at all.

Personally, I do see people from many different styles testing their premises and making adjustments. And I'll be the first to admit that we have BJJ largely to thank for that. But even then, it comes down to individuals willing to see that and apply it to their own art. So when a taekwondo teacher recognizes that his hands need work and he could use a couple of good takedown defenses, he works on those things. And the next time, he doesn't get pummeled at punching range. He doesn't get taken down so easily. But he still has that strong and quick lead sidekick. He hasn't been hobbled by the fact that he did taekwondo. As a reasoning person, he observed, tested, and adapted.

So is the faulty premise of taekwondo that it's too reliant on kicks? Perhaps. Does that mean that a taekwondoka cannot train his hands? Nope. Is he still a taekwondoka? I don't see why not. So what's the faulty premise? Taekwondo doesn't disallow someone from being a good fighter. It's simply that most people don't want to test themselves that way. They'd rather stick with familiar territory.

We're all reasoning people. To suggest that some of us cannot be because of a style is absurd. Styles don't dictate understanding or choice. People do.


Stuart B.

[Suntzu]

As they say on mma.tv… apowyn is correct…

E.g. If two people with exactly the same attributes were to train, one in BJJ and one in aikido, for six months then fight, I'd put all my money on the BJJ guy. There would be no contest. Make it ten years - same thing. this would be assuming that the Aikido was NOT training for competition(a hobbyist) while the BJJ IS training for a competition(a competitor)… give 2 people of similar attributes one based in BJJ… the other based in Aikido… and both training for the rules of the comp... 6 months is a good amount of time to produce 2 good fighters... and once the whistle blows... it will still come down to mano y mano...

but putting a hobbyist vs an athlete regardless of style… which I think you really mean when u put Aikido(which is gear towards a 'hobby' status) against BJJ(which is geared toward comps)… the outcome is not that hard to predict… but 2 athletes regardless of style... thats something to see...

[ArrowFists]

Originally posted by TheGhostDog
ArrowFists couldn't be more wrong.

Of course some people are going to be naturally good at fighting, but that's not the point. The point is, some styles are going to be more effective than others in a fight.

E.g. If two people with exactly the same attributes were to train, one in BJJ and one in aikido, for six months then fight, I'd put all my money on the BJJ guy. There would be no contest. Make it ten years - same thing.


Sorry, but you are the one who is wrong.

Simply because someone takes Bjj doesn't mean that he automatically will be able to beat an Aikidoka who's had the same level of training. There's simply far too many variables to consider (i.e. instruction, amount of training involved, natural ability or talent, etc.) to say that Bjj > Aikido, Bjj stylists > Aikidoka.

I will say this, Bjj schools tend to be a lot tougher in terms of fighting than more traditional schools. However, that's not the fault of the style, that's simply the way an instructor decided to teach his class. The problem is that the vast majority of MA schools, regardless of style, are places where kids and adults learn forms and kata and break boards. It's a social place, where people meet, have fun, get a taste of martial culture, and then go home. Certainly, a muscle-bound Bjj practicioner would roll up in a school like that and serve up a nice can of whoop-ass. However, that doesn't make Bjj a better style, it means that both schools of MA excel in two different directions. Even in that case, there could be a student in that class who could beat the Bjj exponent, simply because he's a better fighter.

[TheGhostDog]

ArrowFists,
Look, I'm not saying that there aren't naturally good fighters in some styles - but that doesn't mean those styles are as effective as others.

What I am saying is that some arts are based on faulty premises. E.g. Aikido. Aikido is based primarily on wrist and arm locks. The way it is trained to defend against a punch for example is to move to the side, grab the wrist or arm and apply a lock. Please ! This will not work !!! It might on someone who knows absolutely nothing about fighting, but even then it's still a big ask to grab the arm of a punch coming towards you.
Wrist locks are a great idea to control the guys arm if he's trying to draw his sword on you. Applying those principles to the way people fight today however is perilous. If he's punching at you, and he's a trained puncher, you've got virtually no chance of grabbing his wrist. Thus, this art is going to be less effective as say boxing, or wing-chun, in dealing with a punch (which is the most common attack these days).

I'm not trying to disparage Aikido. It can give someone all the benefits that you mentioned: meeting new people, having fun, getting a taste of martial culture. But a martial art is, first and foremost, about fighting and I don't believe that Aikido(as a style) is going to be equally effective in a fight as say boxing, or wing-chun or BJJ.

P.S. not all BJJ exponents are muscle-bound.

[TheGhostDog]

Apoweyn,
You've made some good points.
However, most people don't know about fighting - they only know what their instructor tells them, and I haven't heard too many instructors expound on their styles weaknesses to the students. So how are these people to know that what they are doing is ineffective ? Or where the holes in their art are ? Most people don't want to be getting into fights to see if what they do works - especially if they have a family or they're only doing a martial art as a hobby. I would suggest that probably many instructors haven't been in too many fights and are just passing on what they are told and so wouldn't know themselves, and would falsely believe that dropping an elbow on the back of their opponent's neck will stop the double-leg, or that their ****-weak reverse punch will stop their attacker.

You've even made my point by using TKD. I don't believe that TKD is as effective an art as Goju-Ryu. I actually have a black belt in TKD and went to a Goju school and got hammered because I couldn't keep my opponent at kicking distance. The goju mentality is to always move in or sideways, which easily counters the TKD strength, its kicks.
Q. Where do most fights start ?
A. At punching distance or closer.
Here is where Goju is strong, and where TKD is weak. Thus I believe in terms of self-defense on the street, Goju is far more effective than TKD.

[ArrowFists]

Originally posted by TheGhostDog
ArrowFists,
Look, I'm not saying that there aren't naturally good fighters in some styles - but that doesn't mean those styles are as effective as others.

What I am saying is that some arts are based on faulty premises. E.g. Aikido. Aikido is based primarily on wrist and arm locks. The way it is trained to defend against a punch for example is to move to the side, grab the wrist or arm and apply a lock. Please ! This will not work !!! It might on someone who knows absolutely nothing about fighting, but even then it's still a big ask to grab the arm of a punch coming towards you.
Wrist locks are a great idea to control the guys arm if he's trying to draw his sword on you. Applying those principles to the way people fight today however is perilous. If he's punching at you, and he's a trained puncher, you've got virtually no chance of grabbing his wrist. Thus, this art is going to be less effective as say boxing, or wing-chun, in dealing with a punch (which is the most common attack these days).

I'm not trying to disparage Aikido. It can give someone all the benefits that you mentioned: meeting new people, having fun, getting a taste of martial culture. But a martial art is, first and foremost, about fighting and I don't believe that Aikido(as a style) is going to be equally effective in a fight as say boxing, or wing-chun or BJJ.

P.S. not all BJJ exponents are muscle-bound.

I understand where you're coming from Ghost, MOST traditional MA schools like Aikido are slipping in their training. I agree that Bjj/Judo (or competitive fighters in general) are more inclined to be better fighters than your average black belt out of a McDojo. Honestly, if a Bjj blue belt went against your average karate black belt, I'd also probably put the money on the Bjj stylist, because I'd know what he had to go through as a Bjj stylist to get it.

The black belt in karate I'm not so sure about...

However, that's not the style, that's the TRAINING within the style. Aikido's concepts aren't flawed, its the way they're taught that's flawed (not that all Aikido instructors don't know what they're doing, but some stuff I've seen in a few Aikido schools are highly questionable). Get a good teacher and an eager student, and Aikido can send some folks to the hospital. I know, I've seen it being performed by friends of mine who were bouncers, and very highly ranked within the art.

Martial Arts is about fighting to some people. Not everyone enters the Martial Arts for the same reasons.

I didn't mean any insult by stating that Bjj stylists are muscle-bound. I was implying that they tend to be in shape, and highly athletic.

[TheGhostDog]

ArrowFists,
I'm not saying that the concepts in Aikido won't work at all, just that as a method of self-defence against someone trying to punch you, other arts would be more effective i.e. boxing, wing-chun. My whole point is to say that when it comes to fighting, not all arts are equal. Does it mean the other arts have no value ? Of course not, but it does mean that as a system of self-defence there are some arts better than others.


P.S. I was only pointing out that not all BJJ stylists are muscle-bound because unfortunately I'm not either :)

[joedoe]

I think the long and the short of it is that one art may handle a given self defence situation better than another e.g. BJJ handles being taken to the ground better than say, wing chun.

[TheGhostDog]

Joedoe is correct. Some things are going to occur in fights more often than others. The defenses to these things (such as grappling, punching, headbutts) are handled better by some arts than others, which leads me to believe that these arts are more effective in a fight than others, and thus the assumption that not all arts are equal when it comes to fighting.

[joedoe]

I can see your point - some arts deal with the more 'common ' elements of your 'typical' fight better than others - but don't you think it is still situation dependent?

[SLC]

Even the "BEST" art, taught by a very poor teacher will not produce good results.

Even a "poor" art (in some people's minds ;) ) will produce good results with an excellent teacher.

If a person is new to martial arts, they should seek out the best teacher in their community... period. Haggeling over this art or that art is a waste of their time. In a few years, maybe they will want to change... maybe not.

['MegaPoint]

Originally posted by TheGhostDog
Apoweyn,
The reason I didn't name a style was because I didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings cause I'm such a nice guy :).
The main reason I made up an art was to show some of the common problems associated with martial arts i.e, the system is based on a flawed premise, the system is not tested to prove its effectiveness, the system is not continually tested to ensure that the art evolves and doesn't become stagnant.

As I said, some people seem to take the view that it is the individual, not the system that is flawed. This is incorrect. Please note however that an individual obviously plays a part, however no system is perfect.

What is so hard to believe that an art could be based on a false premise ? The founders of martial arts were not gods, they were ordinary people who believed that what they developed was a viable form of self-defense. Unless they tested each and every component of their art in a fight many times, certain parts of that art are going to be based on theory, on "I believe this will work". They could have very well been wrong ! Students of the founder are then going to take this theory and believe it a fact, believe it had been tested and proven to work.

Take an art such as BJJ. BJJ is constantly evolving because it's students fight in tournaments, in Vale Tudo matches and in the streets. Thus the techniques are put in a pressure cooker and if they don't work they are re-examined and either modified or thrown out. BJJ is an art where it's theory and it's techniques are constantly being put to the test and the experience of its exponents is being brought back into the art to benefit all students. Any new innovation in BJJ will spread around the globe in 12 months as people see it in tournaments, or NHB matches and then train and evolve it.

Compare this with say, a style of karate. How many karate students are constantly being involved in fights (NHB, streetfights, etc) ? How many instructors are going to change what they do, the way they throw a punch in sparring or in kata based on their students success with it in fights ? Pretty much none, because karate instructors always believe that the founding fathers of their arts knew everything, when this is patently not the case.

So to believe that all arts are equal when some are constantly testing and evolving their art, and others train as if in a vacuum is patently false.

How many people ever fight for real OR a living? About 10-15% at the most and I doubt that most folks on here have ever been in a real life-or-death, grown-up conflict. So please, no talking from the arse! You make good points, but there is a lot of fallacy in your argument(s). All things that fail to adapt will perish. Adaptation doesn't include change for changes sake. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Of course all good systems, traditional or otherwise, have adapted to better suit the needs of today. The human body hasn't changed for 100,000 years, so many times what worked "back then" in the old days will work just fine now. What do you really know about BJJ/GJJ?

If you talk to the Gracies they will say that they have not changed a darn thing! They emphasize the basics they've always taught,and tend to stay away from butterfly guards and other tournament manifestations. Now you hear MMA guys talking about how TRADITIONAL GJJ can't cut it. B ullsh it!!! K.I.S.S., ya' know? Presently, Rorion is restructuring his tournaments so that wrestling tactics are harder to accomplish. You know- take down, pin and stall. Win by points. The only points on the street are gun, stiletto and knife points, hahaha! He wants it like it WAS (I guess that's devolution) before BJJ become commercialized. Submissions and good takedowns and controls are what count in real grappling. Not booty hugging for 15 minutes! Now Caique, their number one BB outside the family, has some different ideas, but not drastically. He can do that though as he is just like a Gracie or Machado.

You have very limited knowledge of real karate, huh? You probably think that Japanese Karate is the epitome of Karate. Hahaha, oh well, What real (Okinawan) karate-ka know WILL hurt you, fo' sheez', as the youngsters say. Do not lump all Karate or Chuan Fa together. You'll be surprised to find that the US Military (Army) sees utility in teaching BJJ to its Rangers as well as TKD! Go figure. The Marines teach their recruits Okinawan karate and they even have a belt system. The government doesn't waste money on things like that, usually. They may not research the $500 toilet seat cover, but they rarely waste money on life-or-death things.

Let me address my fellow Es-Say from SA! Bruh, forget Vale Tudo Rangel. It is BS. Bad budo and bad for you. Those people are just sadistic know-nothings. If you wanna learn GJJ or BJJ Check out Karun (a dude) at SW Karate Institute. Do you want to learn a Chinese art specifically? I study Mastumura Orthodox Shorin (Okinawan MA) with one of the best and most knowledgeable Karate-Ka in the world! It is very Chinese yet very Okinawan, haha! Weapons, grappling, forms, fighting, 2 man drills, koteate (kotekitai)>body hardening, and Chi gong. The only thing is it is in Bastrop at his private dojo in his backyard, and he has to interview you before he will teach you privates, the way you should learn MAs.

There are like 3 Wing Chun schools here. Wing Tsun/Chun is a sister (crane influenced) art. I like to look at it as "Matsumura light". I checked them out and the instructor was mediocre at one, and really defensive at the other. I never visited the third. Forget the other schools 'cause there ain't shi t in So-Tex! No real BJJ, except me for awhile ;). I don't teach it anymore, but me and my bro still roll. I use to be Caique's rep here, but I figured that grappling stuff out well enough and am concentrating on my base art- Shorin Ryu. Good luck in finding something. I am a Nidan (2nd degree BB) in Matsumura Orthodox, and depending upon things maybe you could train with my "group". Hit me up on here if it sounds cool. Good luck and have a pleasent journey up the mountain......

As Rakim said: "Is it the style or the stylist?" Hmmm, I think, no, I KNOW it's both....

[TheGhostDog]

'Megapoint wrote:
What do you really know about BJJ/GJJ?
I'm a brown belt in Machado BJJ. What belt are you ?

You have very limited knowledge of real karate, huh? You probably think that Japanese Karate is the epitome of Karate

I trained in Okinawan Goju-Ryu for 3 years. I believe it is a very effective style for streetfighting, in fact, I believe it is probably one of the best. Is it a better style than shotokan for fighting ? God yes.
Does it have weaknesses though ?
You bet !

I still stand by my original statement though that karate is not being constantly tested in real fights and updated. Boxing has a much better system than karate for punching, e.g. a right cross has been proven to be more powerful than a reverse punch. So why keep doing reverse punches ? Why punch from the hip still ? Nearly everyone in a streetfight is going to punch at your head, so why not keep your hands up to protect your jaw as in boxing ? Because of tradition ?


Once again, it is ridiculously PC,and inaccurate, to make the claim that all arts are equal when it comes to fighting.

['MegaPoint]

I can't verify your claims, but I'll take your word for it. If you truly believe what you said about innovation being a trademark of "real fighting" arts like BJJ, then I'd have to say that most of the modern progenitors (ie: the Gracies) don't necessarily agree with you. They haven't changed anything about their teaching curriculum at Gracie Torrance because they didn't feel it needed fixin'. 'Nawmean? Which school do you study at? Yes I would agree that you know about Machado JJ, especially at Brown.

What style of Goju did you do (ryuha)? Goju is a good art, but like you said it deals a lot with strengthening and such, and is sometimes lacking in continuous offensive tactics. You sound like a person who has had numerous street encounters in your life? Some of us do, due to circumstances beyond our control. Familiarity with this aspect of conflict, and some semblance of proof lends credence to one's argument. Did you ever use MJJ to protect your neck for the reals? How about Goju?

Yes, I would agree that boxing is an awesome hand "science". I started in Judo at 7, did that until I started boxing at 10, did that until I moved to the Philippines in my teens and began Shorinkan. There's more, but I'll spare you the autobiography. The thing is I was in an environment, as a teenager and young man, to see real fights on a regular basis. Muay Thai and boxing fared as well as hard rock mofo ryu and steal-you-from-behind-with-the-elbow foo'! I have stuck with what I do now for years and years because it worked for me, and it is smart (safer).

How you gonna wrap your hands on the street? Over-protecting your weapons for sport safety doesn't forge them for bone-on-bone contact. My Shinshii (Sensei) was the Austin Texas Golden Gloves Champ in the 60s. He played starting fullback for the Tx. A&M Aggies, graduated and was commisioned to fight in the Army during 'Nam. His duty station was on Okinawa, and there he met Fusei Kise and Hohan Soken. All his size, speed, dexterity, youth, athleticism and boxing/"grappling" skills weren't sh it. He never boxed again. It's been 30+years now. Now who am I gonna believe? Two experienced martial artists or one experienced martial artist? I go with me, experience and reality.

Peace... Hope your art is around for the long term. It is a great one, just like boxing is.

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by 'MegaPoint
If you truly believe what you said about innovation being a trademark of "real fighting" arts like BJJ, then I'd have to say that most of the modern progenitors (ie: the Gracies) don't necessarily agree with you.

Most BJJ practioners I know will disagree with the above statement.

As far as Rorion's tourneys being realistic representations of a fight, I don't think they are. I believe he is "de-evolving" with a majority of his ideas.

No points for takedowns? Takedowns are a major component of a groundfight.

Switching from bottom guard to top? What's up with that? Like two guys in a fight are going to stop and say "Hey, you know what? I've been in your guard for too long now. Let's switch from top to bottom."

Can't hold both sleeves because it is stalling? But it's OK to jump into full guard and hang on for dear life?

And as for no time limits, when is the last time you saw a street fight last for 30 or 40 minutes?

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by SLC
Even the "BEST" art, taught by a very poor teacher will not produce good results.

Even a "poor" art (in some people's minds ;) ) will produce good results with an excellent teacher.

If a person is new to martial arts, they should seek out the best teacher in their community... period. Haggeling over this art or that art is a waste of their time. In a few years, maybe they will want to change... maybe not.

Amen.


Stuart B.

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by TheGhostDog
Apoweyn, You've made some good points.

Likewise.


However, most people don't know about fighting - they only know what their instructor tells them, and I haven't heard too many instructors expound on their styles weaknesses to the students.

So how are these people to know that what they are doing is ineffective ? Or where the holes in their art are ? Most people don't want to be getting into fights to see if what they do works - especially if they have a family or they're only doing a martial art as a hobby. I would suggest that probably many instructors haven't been in too many fights and are just passing on what they are told and so wouldn't know themselves, and would falsely believe that dropping an elbow on the back of their opponent's neck will stop the double-leg, or that their ****-weak reverse punch will stop their attacker.

Again, that's a shortcoming of the instructor. An individual. Not a style. If a WTF taekwondo teacher decided to bring in a good boxer to spar with his guys, his guys would probably end up getting punched in the brainbox a lot. Right? That might lead said teacher to suggest that his guys keep their hands up. Does it then cease to be taekwondo? I don't think so. I think that would be absurd. Would it affect the success rate of those guys against the boxer? Yep. Would more such adjustments likely be necessary? Entirely likely, yes.

So, again, what's the faulty premise? Taekwondo is too reliant on kicks. So you work on that. Now you've plugged some of those holes AND you've got a good, solid set of kicks as well. Experimentation weeds out the kicks that are more show than useful. And laboratory-approved mechanics ensure that the remaining ones are solid.

The fact that the taekwondo guy might have incorporated things that don't typically appear in taekwondo doesn't invalidate the style though. The central premise of taekwondo is the kicking. So if a smart practitioner can incorporate some handwork and some grappling experience in order to create opportunities to use that kicking (without getting mauled), then the premise is sound. It's just supported by other things.

And that's really no different from other styles. You're into BJJ, right? Many BJJ practitioners also study something else. Why? Because that experimentation process you mentioned has shown that sometimes, other things are necessary. Boxing. A good low round kick. Etc. Does that mean that BJJ is inferior to styles that feature those things? No, of course not. It means that BJJ is populated by individuals smart enough and open-minded enough to experiment, take what they learn, and run with it. And if BJJ practitioners can do that, so can the rest of us. That's the real lesson of MMA.

And even if a BJJ practitioner doesn't have to incorporate boxing or kicking, the same principle holds. So the elbow to the back won't stop a shoot. I agree wholeheartedly. Now make that a big knife. Won't stop the shoot either. Not dead in its tracks. But the shooter will be a whole lot worse off with a knife in his back. So is BJJ inferior to an art where knives are taken into account? Nope.

'Style' is just a shortcut. It doesn't say anything real about the people involved. You say you've studied BJJ for 10 years. I still don't know anything about how well you fight. If some styles were inherently superior to others, then I should be able to say with a high degree of confidence that you could beat someone from a different style. And I can't. Can you? Can you, with absolute honesty, say that you can beat any taekwondoka out there?


You've even made my point by using TKD. I don't believe that TKD is as effective an art as Goju-Ryu. I actually have a black belt in TKD and went to a Goju school and got hammered because I couldn't keep my opponent at kicking distance. The goju mentality is to always move in or sideways, which easily counters the TKD strength, its kicks.

Again, do you then maintain that every goju person can defeat every taekwondoka? Because that's precisely the assertion that you're suggesting.

Personally, I don't think it's that simple. And if it isn't that simple, then getting hung up on disembodied styles makes no sense. It makes no sense to say that taekwondo loses to goju. That's meaningless without seeing taekwondoka losing to goju fighters. It's just paper. Pretending to be able to know what we can't possibly know. And that, to my mind, violates the sense of scientific method on which your argument hinges. (A sense that, despite this argument, I agree with.)


Stuart B.

[TheGhostDog]

Apoweyn,
I'm not silly enough to suggest that every goju-ka could beat every TKD'er. Two of my TKD instructors were huge (one was 6'5" and 320 pounds and beat 8 guys in a brawl in a bar) and would give anyone a run for their money. I will say this though, and that is I believe I am a far better fighter now, after doing Shootfighting and BJJ for years, than if I had stayed with TKD, and I believe I would stand a far better chance against my TKD instructors (and most probably win) than if I'd continued to do TKD.

What I'm trying to do though is to take away the personal attributes and concentrate on what the style teaches. Goju is a more in close style, uses a lot more grappling than TKD (which is virtually bereft of any grappling techniques) and so is far more suited to fights that would occur in a bar or a crowd, which is where most fights will occur. The effective fighting range for TKD is kicking distance, and most fights just do not happen at that distance. When people want to fight you they get in your face, at punching distance or closer, and if you take a step back to give yourself distance to throw a kick if you need to, they will step forward to stay in your face - thus negating TKD's greatest strength. Will TKD still work ? Of course it will. Will it be as effective in most situations as Goju, I don't believe so.

Thus I've come to the conclusion that not all styles are equal.

BTW, thanks for keeping this a civil, intelligent debate. Very appreciated.

['MegaPoint]

Originally posted by Knifefighter


Most BJJ practioners I know will disagree with the above statement.

As far as Rorion's tourneys being realistic representations of a fight, I don't think they are. I believe he is "de-evolving" with a majority of his ideas.

And as for no time limits, when is the last time you saw a street fight last for 30 or 40 minutes?

I think he wants submissions and dominant positioning to count more than the other "wrestling" aspects of the game. I have seen a fight between 3 guys standing back-to-back vs. about 30+ assailants in the middle of a bar in Olongapo City, RP. It took about 5 minutes and the 3 cats kicked butt! That is the longest street fight I have ever seen. Most are over in seconds, and last rarely more thatn a minute or two even when grappling was involved. That's why I KNOW what can work on the street and what can't.

Rorion and most BJJ guys claim that you can't fight multiple opponents either. How will you stop that from happening? If his boys want to yoke you because you were jibbin' with one of their females, whatchgonnado about it? Tell them you can't fight more than one guy, because you would never win? I'm sure Brazil is rowdy, but they must have a lot of chivalrous, one-on-one confrontations. Not in the Philippines, and yes I have seen 1 guy defend himself from multiple knuckleheads (successfully) on many occasions. You probably can't believe it, but it is very real and true.

At brown you could probably concentrate on the all-encompassing art of Goju, and get away from the specialization. Fighting is entropic, and it sometimes takes many options in order to control chaos. One solution is never the answer, unless there are myriad "ranges" in that answer. 'Nawmean? Thanks for the good discussion and good luck in MAs and life. It's good to know that other real fighters trained in the Uchinanchu martial traditions. BTW tegumi/gyakute/ti/tuite/Okinawan Sumo whatever you want to call it, is very similar to BJJ. Have you ever seen it?

[apoweyn]

TheGhostDog,

Hey, you've done as much to keep this civil as I have. So thanks to you too, mate.

I think we've come to that seemingly inevitable point in any good debate. The point where you and I start to agree on things. I think we both overstated our original points a bit and are now figuring out that what we really think is somewhere in the middle. (I hope I'm not being presumptious in that.)


I'm not silly enough to suggest that every goju-ka could beat every TKD'er. Two of my TKD instructors were huge (one was 6'5" and 320 pounds and beat 8 guys in a brawl in a bar) and would give anyone a run for their money. I will say this though, and that is I believe I am a far better fighter now, after doing Shootfighting and BJJ for years, than if I had stayed with TKD, and I believe I would stand a far better chance against my TKD instructors (and most probably win) than if I'd continued to do TKD.

I agree with this. I trained in taekwondo for about 5 years before moving to another style. And that was, indeed, based on the weaknesses I observed. I guess I just never went so far as to say that taekwondo had a faulty premise. I still don't believe it does. The premise of taekwondo is the strength of its kicks. And a good taekwondoka does indeed have good, strong, quick, solid kicks. So it's not that premise that's flawed. If you maintain that the premise is that good kicking is all you need, then I agree with you wholeheartedly that it's flawed. But it's flawed, to varying degree, for the great majority of martial arts. And even in those cases where a given martial art claims to cover all the bases (kicking, punching, grappling, weapons, groundwork, etc.), that doesn't really speak to the proficiency of any given individual in all of those areas. Eskrima does single stick, double stick, empty hand, stick and dagger, knifefighting, etc. That doesn't, regrettably, mean that someone will be skilled at knifefighting just by virtue of studying an art that purports to teach it.

So that's my take on taekwondo (which I've been using as my example because 1) we've both studied it and 2) it generally takes a lot of flak for its ineffectiveness). The curricula of most taekwondo schools is incomplete. Arguably even more so than some other styles. But what it does well is worthwhile. Taekwondo theory has left an indelible mark on my kicking. Yes, my kicking tactics have shifted around my experiences in eskrima and kickboxing. But the basic mechanics were established in taekwondo. And I don't think they're faulty.

The kicking strategy of taekwondo, though, does need other things built around it. As do the hands of boxing. And even the grappling of BJJ (though grapplers really did throw the strikers for a serious loop for a long time; hell, we're still in that loop). I just don't really view that as a weakness or an indication of weakness. Taekwondo does one thing very well in the same way that BJJ or boxing do one thing very well. Organize other things around that one thing, and you become more formidable still.

That said, I have to admit that a person learning just taekwondo is going to have a hard time with a boxer who's going to have a hard time with a BJJer (as evidenced in the first UFC by Melton Bowen). I've learned that if a person wants to get inside a given range, inevitably they will. I'm not a big believer in keeping people away with your kicks. It only seems to work if the other person wants to stay at that same range anyway. But as a base around which to organize other things, I think taekwondo is as valid as the next art.

As I mentioned, I studied taekwondo, then eskrima, then JKD-type stuff. Now, I'm a complete mutt. Wouldn't know what to call myself. At the same time, my friend Matt (with whom I basically started taekwondo when we were teens) remained in taekwondo this whole time. He integrated boxing from his experiences in the Army. And some judo he picked up along the way. But the framework around which those things were organized is his solid kicking ability. The result: We were pretty evenly matched.

Now, you can (and have) make the argument that a style that already encompasses kicking and punching is superior to a style that only encompasses one. But my feeling is that if an individual learns solid kicking in one style and solid punching in another, it doesn't reflect poorly on either style. They served the purposes for which they were designed. No less effectively than how goju served the purpose for which it was designed. So who's better? The goju fighter or the fighter who's trained in taekwondo and boxing? (That question is largely theoretical obviously.)

Then, when that taekwondo sabumnim turns around and teaches his students, perhaps he recalls his boxing experiences and emphasizes to his students that they keep their hands up. And they stay mobile. And they turn their hips when they punch. Etc. (Note: Most schools I've seen don't actually advocate punching from the hip in a sparring situation. They punch essentially the same way a boxer does.) So do the students cease to be taekwondo practitioners in that instant? What do they become? Mixed martial artists? And how many adept martial artists haven't been 'mixed' by that definition? Not many, I'd guess. Even when I was learning taekwondo alone, I had teachers with experience in hapkido, ninjutsu, etc. That influence creeps in too. So none of these stylistic lines are really all that clear to me. They just don't seem very meaningful.

To me, it's always seemed more productive to concentrate on the individual. A person can do what a person can do. And they learn to do those things from other individuals who absorbed things from various sources. In 18 years, I've never really known anyone I thought was pure anything. And if I've never known the pure embodiment of any style, then I don't really even know what it means to say that 'taekwondo does this and that.' I've seen taekwondoka do a whole spectrum of things. So, to me, it's been more useful to say 'Tony does this' and 'Frank does that.' After all, that's really where your information is coming from.

Does that make sense?


Stuart B.

[No_Know]

"I still stand by my original statement though that karate is not being constantly tested in real fights and updated. Boxing has a much better system than karate for punching, e.g. a right cross has been proven to be more powerful than a reverse punch. So why keep doing reverse punches ?"

Perhaps not every fight will be streetfight/bar fight. Me being No_Know though...does the left elbow retreat as the right cross crosses?.. You Know, like the left elbow pulls back while the right fist is turned over and pushed out for the reverse punch? Not holding a brown belt except to put along my pants to keep them up
I might not have the training understanding of many of the certified or certifiable people who post or lurk here...

"Why punch from the hip still ?"

Do you punch from above the stomach anchored at the abdominal too?

"Nearly everyone in a streetfight is going to punch at your head, so why not keep your hands up to protect your jaw as in boxing ? Because of tradition ?"

Perhaps it had been tradition to punch at the head. But opportunists and lazybones that streetfighters might can be, they shift targets because people start to expct, then counter. (or hit you in the gut as you rush in. And twist my knife as your blood warms my hand but at least your face was guarded (thankfully, I couldn't have stabbed you if not for that).


But with you Gentlemanly Art, diluted hands up to guard your face, I'll pace so that your back is to one of my three people[color] (or hit you in the gut as you rush in. And twist my kife as your blood warms my hand but at least your face was guarded (thankfully, I couldn't have stabbed you if not for that)

(Since I don't have direction I took a direction where I could most easily influence people. I mess with their minds and make trouble. Because I wasn't shown how better to apply myself. At least I'm a leader. Even if they are stupid worthlesses),

and she'll take out your knee from behind and the side. OOps opened your guard, what did you say? Oh yes right cross. To knock your leaning head closer to the ground or the wall or counter. Actuall you might recover and this would be fair again. That would be stupid on my part so my other person strategically maneuvered in the crowd (we worked on this strategy), grabs you from behind.

If you struggle I'll beat your face you know you should be guarding or try that gonad smash with my knee so you can spit blood on my shoulder...

And I will use my hip because I use my feet one flat one heel bobbing, to transition and make striking easier. Like boxers of Today and today's methods.


People follow trends. Counter the choice techniques. One day things might get such that reverse punch so not used would be the answer for the then newest most advanced right hook evolution. Such as hook and drag the hook while reverse punch the right side of the faceglancing off of the chin.

Very whatever.

['MegaPoint]

If there are any karate BBs that fight like they do kata, chambering their hands with no guard, then they are not real karateka. Punching begins where the elbow meets the hip. If you bring your hand down to where your elbow was at, and rest it on your hip, you'll have the classic "chambered" punch of ti. This teaches the student how to elbow someone who's bear hugging him from behind, while punching to the front to defend against an opponent in front of you. Well, that is one training methodology.

If there is greater flexibilty in your delivery system or weapon (arms or legs), combined with thickness or "strength" of the muscle, power or force distribution will be greater. Compare a pocket rocket "slingshot" that uses surgical tubing to a small slingshot that uses a rubberband. Which is stronger and why?

So chambering is also a conditioning tool for the sinews and to some degree your muscles. Try and chamber your hand against your hip, in line with your ear and notice how your elbows stick way out. You need to condition your arms properly for quick strikes. Force=MxV (basically). M=Mass V=Velocity (speed). Imagine ythe ROM (Range Of Motion) and looseness your punch will acquire after 20+ years of chambering during Kata. Your own sinews and muscles will keep you from being as effective as possible when delivering a punch. Keeping your elbows in is a standard western boxing strategy. Karate teaches you to do this to the extreme. At least good karate does. So, yeah, this is another reason for chambering.

You do Goju GhostDog (hey Forest Whitaker is gonna sue you, haha), right? Goju has a lot of grappling in it. Is it Tuite (Okinawan Grappling) or is it more akin to Aikijutsu or Chin Na? Have you noticed that many of the kata include a "double chamber" where one fist is chambered at the hip on the bottom and the other rests on tiop of it, thumb facing your hip. This is to teach grappling/gyakute, also. Many reasons for traditiona; training. It's all relative. Whatever....

Dowhatchalike, gotta go, gotta go....

[TheGhostDog]

'MegaPoint,
I understand why karate people punch with the other arm chambered near the hip - I just don't believe that the reasons given are worth the lack of power and keeping the head unprotected. Here's some points:
1) If I want to teach someone how to elbow behind them - I'll show them how to throw an elbow.

2) The punching style of karate is definately not quicker than boxing and does not promote speed. If you want to increase the speed of your punches you want less focus (i.e. Kime). Too much focus stops the punches being free flowing. Also, pulling your left arm back will not make your right punch faster. If you want to speed up your right punch, pull your right hand back quickly first so you get a stretch-reflex in your pec.

3) Locking your hips at 90 degrees is not going to help you develop power, it will just stop you getting more torque into your punches.

4) Keeping your shoulders down will not make your punches more powerful either. Watch a boxer throw a right cross and their shoulder will come up, allowing them to get more hips and shoulder power into the punch. The raised shoulder also protects the jaw from being hit with a left hook.


Put a boxer in against a karate guy and the boxer will have faster, more powerful punches, and will also be a harder target to hit because he fights with his hands up protecting his jaw and because he won't be trying to block punches but parry and slip them.

Once again it comes down to this - is karate bad at punching ? No.

Is it as good as boxing ? No.


As far as grappling I'm not too sure what the origins are. I haven't studied Goju in about twelve years.

[Ryu]

"Once again, it is ridiculously PC,and inaccurate, to make the claim that all arts are equal when it comes to fighting."

Very few things in real life are "equal" in the way people would wish them to be. That's just reality.

For what its worth, "styles" are based on the founder's ideas, and years of development. The objectiveness we're looking for tends to come from proper training.
If you were to ask me I would say that both situational relativity and objective truth can exist together and at the same time. If someone constantly wants to compare the "equality" of a proper right cross and a proper finger flick when it comes to knocking someone out....the right cross will win every time. This is because the right cross is objectively more powerful than the finger flick in terms of knockout power. You can train the finger flick as much as you want with speed, power, accuracy, etc. But it will never be a right cross. The two are NOT equal in the realm of knockout power.
However.... the finger flick can attack what the right cross cannot. There is a time and place for it. If it's trained correctly it can become a very dangerous weapon in its own right. And try as you might, your right cross will NEVER become the finger flick. That's just objective reality.

So in terms of whether it is the style or the art...I do not think all ideas are equal to each other, so yes it is very possible to base an art on faulty logic. However, that being said, I do not see that in martial art to tell the truth. Or at least very rarely. Most of the time, it is the person's training methods that are not up to par with objective reality. Not necessarily his art.

I don't know if that helps, but that's my two yen.

Ryu

[rogue]

Don't know where this fits but a MT guy I was talking to the other day had some trouble with a fighter he called a TKD master. Seems that the TKDM used the tactic of using alot of double kicks, one low to buckle the leg and then one high to the head or body. The MT fighter is pretty good and switched to boxing to win on points. Now the TKDM may have studied some MT but he used TKDs quick double kicks to shut down the MT fighters kicking game. So to me it's some the fighter and some the style. In many ways the art is just a box of tools and it's up to the person to build something with it.

Wish I could have seen the fight, but all I got to see was the guys bruises.:)