Learning to fight vs learning a MA style.

[yenhoi]

How do you check out a 'style' without checking out its people?

And if none of the people are exactly the same, then how is there a 'style' anywhere except on paper?

[MasterKiller]

But as imperfect and amalgamated performances based on my capabilities, experiences, and decisions.

Then you are not performing either. An amalgamation is different and distinct from the original by definition.

And yet, both are manifest through me (and others).

There is a difference between personal flavor being reflected within a style, and stylistic difference between styles.

For example, Cha style uses lots of simultaneous kick-punches. Now, three Cha fighters will fight three different ways, but each will utilize many variations of these kick-punches, which would be mostly foriegn to a pure Hua (flower) style boxer. The Hua fighter is trained to grab and throw whenever possible, but the Cha fighter likes to keep opponents out of range using the kick-punch combo.

They are trained in two distinctly different ways to approach combat, even though both fall under the umbrella of Northern Shaolin systems.

Does using a few kick-punches make a Hua stylist into a Cha stylist? Not unless the focus of his training and fighting philosophy are changed to match those of the Cha fighter.

[yenhoi]

For example, Cha style uses lots of simultaneous kick-punches. Now, three Cha fighters will fight three different ways, but each will utilize many variations of these kick-punches, which would be mostly foriegn to a pure Hua (flower) style boxer. The Hua fighter is trained to grab and throw whenever possible, but the Cha fighter likes to keep opponents out of range using the kick-punch combo.


So where is the "style" then?

What difference is there between 'mastering' a so-called "style" and being effective at fighting? Im specially interested when you allow individuals to have their own flavor. What makes a style a style. Whats the definition. What does and individual have to conform to to be considered a part of a particular style? Seems to me, whatever you decide to call yourself, then thats what your called.

What makes it it?

When does a "martial artist" meld between different styles. If I as an individual decide to use high kicks when I fight, and my school doesnt teach or practice high kicks, does this cause a black hole? Does my name get erased from the lists?



AP:

In your opinion, what makes a person a "martial artist?"

[apoweyn]

Masterkiller,

Then you are not performing either. An amalgamation is different and distinct from the original by definition.

True. And I've never really claimed to be anything but a mutt.

That said, I've never really known anybody that I thought thoroughly embodied a given style either. The perfect expression of a style. I've just not seen it. Have you? (Not rhetorical and not intended to be offensive)

Really, though, this sort of question is strictly mental masturbation. So if we're getting to the point where this isn't fun anymore, don't bother answering. It ain't that big a deal.


Stuart B.

[MasterKiller]

A style is an adherence to a certain set of techniques and philosophy of fighting.

Personal flavor is an individual's preference for techniques within a given style. If your style contains 20 elbow strikes, but you use 3 of them most of the time, and your friend uses another 3, it's still the same style, but you have chosen to focus on certain moves because of personal ability, flare, or whatever the reason.

You can be good at fighting without following a style.

You can be good at fighting by using the techniques of your style effectively.

Seems to me, whatever you decide to call yourself, then thats what your called.

Don't get into semantics again. The relationship between the signifier and the signified is irrelevant to the current conversation. You wouldn't expect someone claiming to be a BJJ fighter to throw a tornado kick, now would you?

What makes it it?

A catalog of accepted techniques. We don't use the Pheonix Eye fist, but some styles do. We use a lot of forearm strikes, but some styles don't. Southern styles use different stances than Northern styles.

Standing up is standing up, but standing in a wide-horse stance is different than standing in a deep cat stance.

Does my name get erased from the lists?

Using an individual technique, or a cluster of them, from another style does not automatically convert you. Using them to the exclusion of similar techniques within your own might.

[apoweyn]

Yenhoi,

AP:

In your opinion, what makes a person a "martial artist?"

Complicated question.

It might be easier for me personally to talk about what I don't think makes a person a martial artist.

I don't think that a philosophical curriculum makes a martial artist. In the West, we perceive martial arts as having a sort of spiritual curriculum. But I think a lot of that is because the philosophy is foreign to us. Were it not, we might be much less struck by it. By contrast, boxing has a philosophy too. But many of the philosophical ideas of boxing might make people say, "well duh" because it's already thoroughly ingrained in our culture.

How would I put this...

Martial arts is a systematic study of interpersonal physical conflict. Physical because we aren't talking about debate or arguing here. Interpersonal because I don't really consider a general coordinating troop movements to be engaged in the same study as a martial artist. That distinction gets a whole lot foggier for me when we get down to individual soldiers.

I do think there's a level of introspection and self discovery implied in martial arts. Not to get too new agey about it. Even the least sentimental MMA competitor is forced to confront his own fears and limitations, in addition to confronting the dude in front of him. He's knows he's going to lose at some point, and yet he fights anyway. There's an objective there. See what I'm made of. See how good I am.

I don't really buy that martial arts aren't about fighting. They are. But you're studying fighting in a fairly intimate way. (Yeah, yeah. I said 'intimate.' Line forms to the right.) What effect it has on you. What effect you have on it. Etc.

I think I'm pretty liberal in my definition. If a person is physically, emotionally, and mentally engaged in the practice of fighting, then they're a martial artist. I don't care whether they use an epee, a wooden bench, or their own foot.

I think that probably did more to muddy the waters than clear them, but there you go.


Stuart B.

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by apoweyn


And yet, both are manifest through me (and others). Not as pure entities unto themselves. But as imperfect and amalgamated performances based on my capabilities, experiences, and decisions.

D@mn you, AP... that's the point I was getting ready to make.

[apoweyn]

You wouldn't expect someone claiming to be a BJJ fighter to throw a tornado kick, now would you?

I try not to make assumptions about what they will and won't throw. And I wouldn't be dumbfounded if a BJJ guy did throw a tornado kick. Nor would I insist that they were now some sort of BJJ/TKD hybrid. It's just a person. Who picked up a tornado kick somewhere along the line.

I don't think either view is wrong here. I personally just don't see the utility in getting hung up along stylistic lines.

Using an individual technique, or a cluster of them, from another style does not automatically convert you. Using them to the exclusion of similar techniques within your own might.

But where do you draw the lines? When does a person cross over from one to another? If styles are concrete things, that sort of question should be pretty cut and dry.

There was a time when there was no long staff in wing chun. So the dude that introduced long staff, did he cease to be wing chun? Or did they have to officially accept the longstaff into wing chun? Or did it just sorta happen that he was into the longstaff, passed that along, etc.? If it's the latter, then styles are made pretty fluid by the interests of those who practice them.


Stuart B.

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by SevenStar


D@mn you, AP... that's the point I was getting ready to make.

Make it again, mate. I'd bet my guts to garters you could make the point clearer than I did.

[MasterKiller]

But where do you draw the lines? When does a person cross over from one to another? If styles are concrete things, that sort of question should be pretty cut and dry.

Most people who mix styles to form a hybrid acknowledge that fact by changing the name of the style, or adding a family designation (pai) to it. Hung Gar is an example.

Adopting a technique to fill a void does not violate a style's integrity (like adding a staff form), per se.

Where do you draw the line? Who knows? That's why there are so many lineage debates. Some people are more strict than others.

The benefit of a 'style' is that it allows you to focus on a certain group of techniques. Focusing allows you to perfect those techniques better, which makes them more useful to you in a fight. The opposite is also true in that tunnel vision might also be a deterent to maintaining strict allegiance to a style.

[yenhoi]

So what does a "style" do?

So far, all a style is, is a collection of some things called "techniques" and "principles" and some sort of governing "philosophy."

What does the style do? Why do we have names for collections of techniques?

[MasterKiller]

So what does a "style" do?

So far, all a style is, is a collection of some things called "techniques" and "principles" and some sort of governing "philosophy."

What does the style do? Why do we have names for collections of techniques?

Whatever. You can be as obtuse as you want. That doesn't make the world operate any differently.

[apoweyn]

The benefit of a 'style' is that it allows you to focus on a certain group of techniques. Focusing allows you to perfect those techniques better, which makes them more useful to you in a fight. The opposite is also true in that tunnel vision might also be a deterent to maintaining strict allegiance to a style.

True. But a style is still basically a set of decisions made by whomever came before you. Right?

Certain people decided what to emphasize, what not to emphasize, whether and when to change that emphasis, when to make additions, when to leave things alone, what was significant enough to warrant a new "style", and so on.

Yes, you could make the argument that a style represents the level of consistency between one generation and another. If you took everything your teacher told you and tossed it out, you probably wouldn't claim you were teaching the same style as he. Right?

The fact that your teachings would basically (though not precisely) mirror those of your teacher is what constitutes a style. Does that sound right?


Stuart B.

[MasterKiller]

True. But a style is still basically a set of decisions made by whomever came before you. Right?

Certain people decided what to emphasize, what not to emphasize, whether and when to change that emphasis, when to make additions, when to leave things alone, what was significant enough to warrant a new "style", and so on.

Isn't this the basis for all learning?

Yes, you could make the argument that a style represents the level of consistency between one generation and another. If you took everything your teacher told you and tossed it out, you probably wouldn't claim you were teaching the same style as he. Right?

Right. Unless I came to the same conclusions on my own.

The fact that your teachings would basically (though not precisely) mirror those of your teacher is what constitutes a style. Does that sound right?

Not really. I mean, anyone can invent anything they want to. I could go out and invent some forms, blend some things together, and determine preferences for certain moves. It would still be a style even though I didn't learn it from anyone in particular. Hung Gar was still a style before Wong Fei Hung taught it to anyone else.

A style is a pre-determined set of techniques set within the paramateres of close-combat philosophy. Some styles emphasize getting in close, some emphasize keeping the opponent at arm's reach. These are preferences for that style based on the technqiues someone, at some time, thought were useful.

If someone 1,000 years ago determined them, and they survived in tact, then there is probably some merit to it. If I determine them today, maybe there isn't so much credibility, but it is still a style, nonetheless.

[yenhoi]

MK: I think we have some "cross posting" going on, as you answered my questions before I posted.

Anyways.

So how do you master a style? 'Knowing' all the techniques and principles? Or combat effectiveness? Or is it looking a particular manner when combating?

Does your style change each time you act combatively? Since you would in every scenario probably use a different bag of techniques to solve?

How much dillution is allowed before a person goes from X style to OTHER style? Does this depend on style also?

Why does style matter? What does style do? Is it only a measure of how intact my list is from my teachers teacher?