A Style vs. Style Analogy

Let me use an analogy that hopefully sums up and highlights the meaningless of the style vs. style debates.

Bob: Hey Joe, why do you waste your time mountain climbing? Don't you know that mountain biking is superior?

Joe: Really? How so?

Bob: Mountain climbing sucks. I can get to the top and back down before you even make it half way up.

Joe: That's great for you. How do you deal with cliffs?

Bob: Cliffs are for wimps. You can't bike on a cliff.

Joe: Exactly. What can you tell me about the scenery as you are rushing up and down the mountain?

Bob: Scenery sucks. It is just an obstacle. I'll have plenty of opportunity to look at the scenery when I am sitting on top of the mountain watching you crawl up below me.

Joe: OK, if that's what you want to look at. That's not why I climb. I climb because I like to climb and because it takes me places I can't go on a bike.

Bob: Whatever. Enjoy your tree-hugging hippie garbage while I'm screaming past you on my way back down.

Joe knows that Bob can get to the top faster on his bike, but doesn't care. This is not why he goes to the mountain. He also knows that he can climb some mountains that Bob simply can't. Bob just doesn't get it. He doesn't understand why you wouldn't just want to get to the top as soon as possible.

Then ... Bill flies up in his helicopter.

For anyone that missed the analogy:

People that focus on performance in the ring as the only true test of a system's merit, are missing the big picture. That is not the only reason to practice. People that claim that the ring is the best way of measuring a system's real world combat efficacy know very little about real world combat.


-Brent

hey r u back on KFO now often? havent seen you in the fu-ragz room for a long time :)

dawood

I feel like I am now dumber for reading that.

Brent, I think you are probably wasting your time. I say that because those of us who know what you are talking about don't do why you are talking about it. those who do what you are talking about, don't get it anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BrentCarey
Enjoy your tree-hugging hippie garbage while I'm screaming past you on my way back down.-Brent

---

Now wait a minute- I used to climb, and I ain't no hippie. Well, I was a member of the Spokane Mountaineers, so I guess you could argue guilt by association. But :rolleyes:

Havn't heard from you for a while. How 'ya been?

Oh, and dawood is right- you are wasting your time. Everyone knows that American Kenpo and Tai Chi Chuan with a little grappling on the side is the best way to go. :p

I get it. I just think it's wrong. It's amusing when people try to oversimplify things and speak on perceived generalities.

Rock climbing and its techniques are superior to mountain biking for climbing vertically up a rock face and for coming down a rock face.

Mountain biking is superior if your goal is to move the fastest on a trail.

Each of these disciplines have equipment and techniques that have been proven to be superior to others within the specific discipline.

Most activities share these same types of classifications, including fighting and self-defense. As in all activities, there are methods, techniques, and equipment that are better than others. If your goal is fighting or self-defense, the style vs. style question is a valid one. Just as you want to know the proven pluses and minuses of a mountain bike before plunking down your money on a new one, you should know the same about different styles before committing you time and money to training.

Brent .

I think is happens when anybody specialises too much on only one aspect of the style/system.
May it be effectivnes, Health, spirtual development.

I know it is not easy to fall into the same trap.

For me only specialising onto one aspect is the thing that waters down the Arts.
i.e. Stupid things like "Martial Arts are only for fighting" or "Look at the old Masters how much they fought, etc."

For me those People look at one Tree in the Forest and start to idolise that one Tree.
They also start to judge all the trees by the one they think is the best.

Funny thing is that they normally talk about one or two out of how many practicioners during the existence of a style?

Just my Opinion naturally.

Brent - that is a well thought out analogy, i hope i can manage to remember it.

Thanks for the welcomes.

Just been getting my school off the ground and working on my book. I've managed to score a beautiful studio - about 1000 sq ft hardwood floor downstairs, a big balcony with a smaller studio, a couple of private rooms, some office space, and a small exercise hall. So, just working on recruiting students to help pay for it all now.

I figured I would catch up on the forum and see if we have finally all agreed on the critical issues: which style is superior, whether or not Temple Kung Fu is the devil, etc. :D

That, and I've got writer's block.

By the way, I quite agree that I am wasting keystrokes on most people. I am not attempting to persuade the Bobs of the world. I have that up years ago. My intent is to give the Joes some moral support.

Hang in there Joe.


-B

Sounds like mountain climbing elite-ism to me.

IMMVHAVFUO

:eek:

I think it's time for your pills yenhoi :D
i liked that story btw

Brent,

Of course you know the Royce would choke tell all.


[Aw c'mon someone had to say it.]

:D ;) :p

- Adam