Why is it "the person and not the style?"

[IronFist]

Give one person a Ferrari and the other person a Yugo and tell me it's the driver and not the car.

If both people have Ferraris, then it's the driver and not the car.

But to say it's the person and not the style presupposes that all styles are equivalent.

It also sounds like you're trying not to step on anyone's toes, which is respectable.

Now, in addition to the "well, some people may be more naturally suited to x style's techniques and other's may be more naturally suited to y style's techniques," (which is a pretty valid argument) I wonder what kind of replies I'm going to get.

[SPJ]

Actually it is called leveling the plain field.

When you have a competition, you have to make everything else equal except your skill in it.

If you win, YOU win.

If your ferrari wins the speed race, it is the car and not you.

Let us compete to do a short turn loop or spinning or drive around off roads--

Yugo wins. And not you.

Yes, it is always about you from the Day 1.

:D

[SPJ]

For the speed advantage, it burns more gas.

Let us provide a gallon of gas.

Let us compete the distance like who goes the further.

My money is on Yugo.

What is the point or the meaning of the competition anyway?

For one good MA move, you also incur disadvantage.

MA study is about knowing limits or capabilities of your body, your skill and your school or style of MA.

:D

[SPJ]

Most important of all,

I may sell the ferrai and buy the Yugo or take the bus and keep the money.

:D :D :cool:

[Nick Forrer]

I think that its a complex interaction of the style and the individual.

To just talk about 'styles' fails to acknowledge differences in quality of instruction within styles - For EG IMV the quality of WC (in terms of what is taught) differs drastically from school to school. Which is not say that schools wont produce good fighters- just that you should look to the lowest common denominator (the base level) when evaluating the standard as well as the high level. This way you filter out people who are good in spite of what they do rather than because of it.

OTOH, to say that it is only about the individual implies that all styles are equal which in turn implies that any choice made between styles is more or less arbitrary and that it is only about preference and availability (which ironically may in actual fact have a bigger part to play in what styles people choose to do than an honest evaluation of their indivdual merits). Nevertheless IMO if we are to say that all styles are equal (and by extension all styles within styles e.g. chen, wu, yang tai chi etc.) then we have to say, pace orwell, that some styles are more equal than others.

[joedoe]

But if the person in the Ferrari doesn't know how to drive, and you put Michael Schumacher in the Yugo, then I would put my money on the Yugo.

[SPJ]

Not all styles are equal.

Each has its own merits and along with it comes demerits.

In order to get advantages on some areas, you also gain disadvantages in other.

Ferrari is fast with a bigger engine, aerodyamic styling and low to the ground. This is all for the speed.

It works well on a speed track.

If the road is bumpy and winding curvy, if it is off road, all the merits will become demerits.

Yugo is not fast. But it is light and off the ground more. It works fine on regular city traffic or bumpy and curvy country road.

Ferrari may not go far off road.

I am a dude. I may like Chen Tai Ji better.

If you are a gal. You may like smaller moves in Wu Tai Ji.

Then Chen is better than Wu?

Chen is better for me. Wu is better for you.

:D

[lkfmdc]

The phrase comes perhaps from a time when it was assumed that all methods to train fighting are equal....

All things being equal, it is indeed the person

I know people who think just because their lineage has great fighters that they are a great fighter....

Muay Thai has some great fighters, but just joining a Muay Thai gym does't make you a fighter...

[yenhoi]

Some people are much better then everyone else because they train better and more.

Thats just how it is.

Styles are nonsense. It has to do with the teacher-student exchange and hardwork.

There are better training methods than others and all else is never equal.

:eek:

[Indestructible]

In martial arts you have to build your own car. The quality of construction is up to you.

[MonkeySlap Too]

"In martial arts you have to build your own car. The quality of construction is up to you."

Reply: No it's not. You can be a hardcore dedicated student of Chung Moo Quan, and no matter what you do, your going to su-u-u-uck.

[Judge Pen]

It is definately an interaction. I think that good martial artists can come from a bad style, but they have to train harder to make up for the deficiencies in that style. A great style may produce more great martial artists, but it's still up to the individual to put the time and training in. The real trick is to find the style that is suited to you and then train like a mother. Even then what actually suits us may change over the years.

[red5angel]

Give one person a Ferrari and the other person a Yugo and tell me it's the driver and not the car.

that logic, while seemingly logical is still incorrect. Using two different cars that perform in two different ways is one thing. No hugo on the face of the planet as it were built in the factory, could outrun a ferarri, or outperform it. The engine is not capable of producing the RPM's fast enough to even compete. Sure a really bad driver in the ferrari and a really good driver in the hugo might make for some interesting conversation but it's not the same thing.

The human body can only do so many things. If you take a crappy art, and give it to someone who is atheltic, strong and fast, he could demolish a guy who is training in a so called "good" art if that guy wasn't in the same sort of condition.
Take wingchun for example - I have never met anyone smaller then me I couldn't take in wingchun except for one guy, and he was more athletic then me, and alot more tough.

as much as people hate to admit it on this forum, even the crappy arts can be used to good effect if someone trains hard enough in them. Some arts are indeed more efficient and you would have to get into a lengthy discussion on all the various factors, age, athleticism, how many years in martial arts, how many years studying that aprticular art, and so on. I use this example all the time but its a good one, alot of people say sport TKD sucks, but it's the only art other then high school wrestling, I've ever seen win a street fight.

[Meat Shake]

Good posts SPJ.

If this was my scenario, Id beat the crap out of the guy driving the ferrari, steal it, sell it for parts, and buy hookers and have a crack party.

You guys can come if you want.

[Meat Shake]

If the ferrari was driving too fast for me to beat him and steal it, Id call the cops on that wreckless speeding *******.
:eek:
:D

[FngSaiYuk]

Originally posted by Judge Pen
It is definately an interaction. I think that good martial artists can come from a bad style, but they have to train harder to make up for the deficiencies in that style. A great style may produce more great martial artists, but it's still up to the individual to put the time and training in. The real trick is to find the style that is suited to you and then train like a mother. Even then what actually suits us may change over the years.

One of the missing pieces here is the instructor/teacher/coach and the teacher student dynamic.

So basically there are 3 factors, the individual, the style & the instructor. There is then the relationship between the factors, such as the style in relation to the individuals genetics and demeanor and in relation to the instructors teaching methods.

[Meat Shake]

Also time devoted to training, effectiveness of training, the way said persons body responds to said training, etc etc etc....

[FngSaiYuk]

Originally posted by Meat Shake
Also time devoted to training, effectiveness of training, the way said persons body responds to said training, etc etc etc....

I'd consider that the individuals genetics & demeanor...

[Indestructible]

Originally posted by MonkeySlap Too
"In martial arts you have to build your own car. The quality of construction is up to you."

Reply: No it's not. You can be a hardcore dedicated student of Chung Moo Quan, and no matter what you do, your going to su-u-u-uck.

Please refrain from desputing my logic. There's only so much my fragile ego can take.

But seriously, to stay within the original analogy, determining what is a good or bad part(style) is part of the process as well. That would include testing yourself against others, and if what you do gets your azz kicked, it's time to find a better part.

[David Jamieson]

first of all, a ferrari is something outside yourself. It is not your expression of what a fast car is or should do, it is a fast car that is designed to do this or that and because of this, it has advantages over the yugo in many areas because it was only designed to goi from point a to point b .

(maybe) :)


Every generation of a style holds a shadow of the former practitioners but its true expression is only within those who express it in the here and now. And so, as well as a person is able to express a given codified and systematized style is as well as that style is.

wing chun for instance may be designed for short close range fighting utilizing the centreline theory, but if you put wing chun into a flimsy wrapper unable to hold it, it will fall out the bottom of the bag so to speak and it will be expressed poorly.

Think more of people who make art. Some are copyists who's labours are dedicated to reflecting truly the masters edition of the painting. THen there are the avante garde who want only to learn the technical aspects of how the painting was achieved. They then learn this aspect and with other knowledge, apply it to their own painting.

They (the copyist and the avante guard) are both painters, both using the same "style" but only one is carrying forward and truly expressing the style creatively.

So, it is the person and not the style. style is principle and shape. The person is to meet the requirements to fit the shape and to understand the principles so as to properly express the style.

The cycle is endless, there is no such thing as one style being better than another. a person can have no style and defeat all who claim to have a style. And there is the crux of it.

[brothernumber9]

why is it the person not the style? I'll take my own experience. At a tournament I competed in, I a Hung Fut stylist fought a Tae Kwan Do student from a TKD school I don't remember the name of so for the sake of the example will call 'Kim's' TKD. Anywhoo the first round I beat a Kim's TKD student, therefore Hung Fut is better than Kim's TKD. In the finals I lost to a Kim's TKD student therefore Kim's TKD is better than Hung Fut? So somewhere between my first and last fights, TKD which initially was inferior to Hung Fut suddenly improved and surpassed Hung Fut? A logical impossibility. Therefore It had to be the individuals involved and not the styles.

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by FngSaiYuk
One of the missing pieces here is the instructor/teacher/coach and the teacher student dynamic.

So basically there are 3 factors, the individual, the style & the instructor. There is then the relationship between the factors, such as the style in relation to the individuals genetics and demeanor and in relation to the instructors teaching methods.

You are right. I did leave that out.

[Ray Pina]

First it is the person and the amount of time he puts into his training and serious he or she is about it.

Then, after learning to control ones body and mind, get timing down, distancing, etc., then they may want to seak other ways that appear to be more efficient .... and they will improve.

But they could have gone from any style to any other style and they would improve, because they are physically better and are adding information to their base.

With that said, I am a firm believer that certain styles are better (more practical, easy to learn and use, more realistic) than others.