Can someone tell me?

[red5angel]

What the quintessential argument is between sport and non sport fighters? Is it a my way is better then your way thing? What does that mean? Is it MMA is better then TMA? Is it that sport fighters can fight in the ring and out while no sport fighters cannot fight in the ring so sport fighting must be better? Maybe it's a traditional way is obsolete vs the modern way is the answer sort of thing?

[SifuAbel]

Niether side is "superior" , really. It's all just an attempt at self validation.

[Water Dragon]

Maybe it's just something to argue about when you're bored at work.

[red5angel]

LOL! @ Waterdragon, true dat!

[ShaolinTiger00]

The martial arts world is rife with debate. Practitioners of the various fighting styles appear to agree on very little when it comes to how best to answer some of the most fundamental questions of the martial arts. One of the most enduring debates, and one that seems to arouse great amounts of passion, is the long-standing debate over the relative importance of styles versus individuals. Put in its clearest form, the issue is this: "Which is more important to the overall combat effectiveness of a fighter: the attributes and qualities he or she possesses as an individual, or the style of fighting that he or she practices?"

As it's more commonly phrased: Which is more important, the style or the individual? Furnishing an answer to this question that favors style over individual inevitably offends somebody. If we claim that style is more important, the obvious implication is that some styles of fighting are more effective than others. Such a statement will obviously not sit well with those whose fighting style is counted among the less effective - nobody enjoys being told that their preferred style, in which they have invested so much time and effort, is less effective than the competition.

The more diplomatic answer appears to be the claim that combat effectiveness is entirely up to the individual. The obvious implication of this statement is that fighting style does not count. If the individual simply trains hard in whatever style they happen to practice, then they shall prevail. This makes it appear that all fighting styles are equally good - a stance that will not offend anybody.

There is something very comforting about this claim. It allows all the martial arts to get along with each other (at least in public) in harmony, since each is supposed to be equally effective. It also allows the failures of a given fighting style to be dismissed as a reflection of the individual rather than the style that he or she employs. It is no secret that the martial arts world has always been torn between these two responses to the question over style versus individual.

On the one hand, everybody wants to think of their style as the best. On the other hand, few people are prepared to risk their reputation by actually fighting other styles to determine their relative combat effectiveness. These two conflicting drives have created a double standard where most stylists privately talk about the superiority of their own style and the folly of their rivals, while publicly professing the primacy of the individual over the style

-J. Danaher

[red5angel]

Interesting article ST00. I wonder if others think and feel this way? I believe that the person using the art is about 80% of the mix. The other 20% are various things, with style being in there somewhere. I'm not even sure a lot of people feel their style is "best" when it comes down to it, although they may feel it is best for them. It appears to me that most people definitely feel their way of training might be better then others. For some it is a style vs style thing I guess.

[ShaolinTiger00]

Red, if you'll recall from an earlier thread, I posted a link to the full article and a similar one as well.

[fa_jing]

Actually, I do think style is important in that you need to choose a style that you take to somewhat naturally. That fits your mentality, body type, etc. Of course there might be multiple styles that fit the bill, but chances are not just any style will do.

[red5angel]

ST00 - yep!

fa_jing - but then is that the style? It seems to me that is the person?

[fa_jing]

It's a combination of person + style that is greater than the individual parts. To be exact. Actually I don't think it is very tough to find a style that fits, UNLESS it is the first style you have ever studied, in which case you don't know enough to make an informed decision. But as I was saying, there are multiple styles for each person that will fit the bill.

[Oso]

ok, well, imo, SifuAbel's comment is perhaps the truest thing said in these here parts lately

the hardest thing is to sublimate the ego. if you can do that than you can really go far with whatever it is you've chosen to do. the ego is what needs the self validation. if you get rid of that then you don't need to validate yourself or invalidate others.

[Jook Lum]

In my opinion it is an ego driven pointless argument that goes on forever!Find the style(s) that works best for you and be the best you can at it(them).Each style has a different way of looking at and dealing with different situations,counters,strikes and techniques.All styles are adaptable to any situation,there are so many variables that nobody can say this is the best style.It seems everytime someone does something a different way(which can be a style,technique,form or new idea)they claim it as new or innovative so it is better than what was done before.First it was karate is the best,then ninjutsu, kung fu,thai boxing,jujitsu and groundfighting,krav maga.All styles are made to adapt to anytime whether modern or traditional,the past masters of each style added to each style from their experiences and ideas,they adapted to the times and situations.Even now there is nothing new being added to any style that is not just an extension(or progression) of the basics.Nowadays people want to take the credit for or have their name on something supposedly new to boost their own egos,they want the credit to go to them and not the style(or its basics) or their teachers.These people want to lay claim,that they have made some great revelation to martial arts,which is not true.The only credit should go to the past teachers and the natural progression of the style.Some people change a punch or kick or a way of performing a technique it is a new style or that it is their own unique style and they are(self-proclaimed) masters of it.Like Billy Blanks with his Tae Bo,he trained in Tae Kwon Do to i think black belt level(not a master)then he combines Tae Kwon do and Boxing calls it Tae Bo and now he is Master Billy Blanks.Both Tae Kwon Do and Boxing existed long before he was born, but all of a sudden he makes a workout out of combining them and he is a Master taking credit for combining two styles that already existed.I know Tae Bo is not a fighting(contrary to some peoples beliefs)art.Other styles that many people think are new and therefore better than older styles include Krav Maga which is based on one mans interpretation, experience and combination of older arts that he had learned(Jujitsu,wrestling,boxingetc.)Shoot fighting and mixed martial arts are also styles that have combined older martial arts together and tried to improve upon them in their own way.This is why people should not proclaim that modern day martial arts are always better than older or traditional martial arts, they are only a continuation of the basics of the different martial arts that they have combined to fit them.If it was not for the traditional martial arts there would be no Krav Maga,Shoot fighting,mixed martial arts etc.In my opinion people look to much for what is the best style instead of what style is the best for you.All older(all traditional styles did cross-training it is nothing new). Master Gin Foon Mark tells a story about a boy who takes his cow out to the hills to eat,he takes the cow to one hill to eat but then looks at the next hill where the grass looks even better so he brings the cow to that hill to eat,while the cow puts his head down to eat the boy looks to the next hill and again sees that the grass is even greener so he brings the cow to that hill to eat the better grass he again sees that the grass on the next hill looks even better than any of the past hills,this continues until he again turns around to bring the cow to the next hill and as he looks at the cow he notices that the cow is now very skinny and starving.

[Mr Punch]

Jeez Jook, that was too long not to have any spacing. Can't read it!

Short answer: I think the argument only actually comes into the realms of reality when people are talking about reality...

most MMAers seem to think that TMAers would just get slaughtered outside, whereas most TMAers seem to think most MMAers would just get slaughtered on the outside. TMAers like to stick to one or two things, to get the full package of trad nonsense that goes with, and MMAers like to mix n match to try and get the full package of available ways to destroy people.

MMAers therefore often seem to want to put down TMAers completely, because it wouldn't be as effective for what MMAers do. TMAers seem to want to put down MMAers cos they are sport oriented.

If everyone just chilled out and realise that;

some people don't want to fight in the ring;

some people don't want trad philosophy;

some people only want exercise and a feeling of belonging or wellbeing;

and some people wanna kickazz...

in short (oops, blew that one!), many people have many different reasons for training... er, haven't we been here before...?

So there is no one argument between MMAers and TMAers!
(apart from that, of course there is the fact that, there are many different kinds of MMAs and MMAers, and many different kinds of TMAs and TMAers... innit?!)

[Jook Lum]

Sorry Mat! I planned on a short answer, started writing and before you knew it.... I was going to go back and put spaces but figured the hell with it.

[Mr Punch]

S'awright mate. It's never too late to add spaces you know... but hey, mine had plenty of spaces, and still didn't make sense...!:D