Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 46 to 57 of 57

Thread: Learning to fight vs learning a MA style.

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    3,170
    Originally posted by MasterKiller
    Isn't this the basis for all learning?
    Yep. But as an English literature major, if I were looking for an exposition on a certain idea, I wouldn't push to find that exposition in strictly English literature. I'd go and find the idea I was interested in and then look into the sources.

    Some people opt to do the former though. Insist that the idea they're looking to investigate must be investigated only through the avenues inherent in their style. It's that limit that concerns me.

    But that's entirely up to the individual. I'm just talking about my decisions now.


    Stuart B.
    When you assume, you make an ass out of... pretty much just you, really.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    36th Chamber
    Posts
    12,423
    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?
    By being able to apply the given techniques effectively. How you look while doing them has little to do with anything, unless chicks are watching.

    Does your style change each time you act combatively? Since you would in every scenario probably use a different bag of techniques to solve?
    A competent style should have enough techniques to allow for adaptation in combat. Hence, the freedom to develop individual flavors within a given style.

    How much dillution is allowed before a person goes from X style to OTHER style? Does this depend on style also?
    Dunno. That's why we have lineage wars.

    Why does style matter? What does style do? Is it only a measure of how intact my list is from my teachers teacher?
    .
    It doesn't matter.* A style is a framework of techniques which a fighter uses to defeat opponents in combat. If the fighter fails to grasp the techniques, he will lose.

    *However, someone who is taught ineffective techniques, no matter how much he trains, will not be an effective fighter. No matter how hard you train to knock someone out with a thumb jab to the forehead, it just ain't gonna happen.

    Yep. But as an English literature major, if I were looking for an exposition on a certain idea, I wouldn't push to find that exposition in strictly English literature. I'd go and find the idea I was interested in and then look into the sources.
    But you wouldn't look in a geology book for a quote by Keats, now would you?

    How relevant would the information found in other genres be to your subject?

    BTW, I was an American Lit major.
    Last edited by MasterKiller; 09-04-2003 at 01:39 PM.
    He most honors my style who learns under it to destroy the teacher. -- Walt Whitman

    Quote Originally Posted by David Jamieson View Post
    As a mod, I don't have to explain myself to you.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,380
    Not only lineage, but what of the purity of a style?

    Basically, a style is a collection of techniques, and the proper execution of said techniques. Many styles incorporate a philosophy into their teachings as well, giving another layer to what constitutes a "style". Linear movement, circular movement, stepping patterns. All may vary within styles, although many styles may carry several similarities.
    Styles would also inherently change with the current master. After extended period of time of the same movements, it becomes imbedded into the muscle memory, and possibly becomes a neuromuscular reaction. This said, what happens when a 2nd degree blackbelt in Shotokan decides he wants to change life course and master kung fu? No matter how long he trains kung fu, he will always have a tinge of karate to his style, simply due to learned actions, and basically almagate his kung fu style and some karate.
    His students now will have a very mild karate feel to their kung fu, wheather its visible or not. What if one of these students now has a blackbelt in some fillipino art? This student trains very hard and becomes the next master. We now have an almagation of Karate, Fillipino MA, and Kung fu. (kung fu with a slight flavor of both)
    Now assume there is 2 masters or more teaching said style. They both have the same basic library of techniques, although the feel is not going to be the EXACT same from one style to the other, due to the fact that the master of style A1 has taken a different course through MA than style A2.
    On top of this, we must now take into consideration the masters personal philosophies, which will inherently change his teachings. Maybe instructor A likes kicks more and emphasizes them SLIGHTLY more than instructor B, once again changing the specifics that make up a style. So as time progresses, what can we say about styles? I completely forgot what I was getting at. Thats what.


  4. #49
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    2,614
    Apoweyn.

    My differentiation is between a fighter and a stylist.

    There are tons of great fighters out there that don't use any MA style.

    But I also see many that claim to be a stylist, but are simply fighters.

    There are also tons of people hacking away at musical Instruments.

    And there are some that received proper training and making big bucks from it.

    What will be more efficient and effective in your Opinion a guy that trained a bit here and a bit there, or a guy that stuck to a certain school/teacher and learned well what he was taught.

    If you are looking purely for effectiveness and not skill than anything goes.

    MA is not some form of spiritual thingy, but a way to aquire certain SKILLS.

    Would you rather a hire a guy that studied here and there or a guy that has done a full University course and is certified.

    Either CAN be good or bad, and in certain situations either will be more suited.

    Cheers.
    Witty signature under construction.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    36th Chamber
    Posts
    12,423
    LC is talking more about pedigree. I'm talking about application.

    Slash plays the guitar. So did Charlie Christian. Now, both were guitarists, and both accomplished what they wanted to, but you wouldn't say they played the same way. They had different styles, which were tailored for the genres they played in.
    He most honors my style who learns under it to destroy the teacher. -- Walt Whitman

    Quote Originally Posted by David Jamieson View Post
    As a mod, I don't have to explain myself to you.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,380
    Nice analogy.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Reno, Nv, USA
    Posts
    2,833
    I like this one It doesn't matter.* A style is a framework of techniques which a fighter uses to defeat opponents in combat

    So where does the individual's physical/mental attributes come into play? Such as, strength, endurance, power, speed, focus, etc?

    A 'style' would address these, no? Or are these seperate from 'style?' Some styles, it seems, would have more then just martial 'techniques' but also 'techniques' for developing 'attributes' also? How does mastering a style figure into this?

    With so much variation between schools, are individual schools (the place where you, your 'classmates' and your teacher study and train together..) the actual "framework of techniques which a fighter uses to defeat opponents in combat" and the style they claim just a name?

    strike!

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Reno, Nv, USA
    Posts
    2,833
    If you are looking purely for effectiveness and not skill than anything goes.


    Doesnt a 'skill' have to be effective for it to be a 'skill?'

    strike!

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    2,614
    Originally posted by yenhoi
    [i]Doesnt a 'skill' have to be effective for it to be a 'skill?'
    Yes and No.

    For me the fighter is the High school graduate and standard Military soldier.

    The MA is the University graduate or the equivalent to a SAS or SEAL in military terms.

    Both the Soldier and SEAL/SAS are fighting troops, but the seal received additional training.

    This is for me the difference.

    Seeya.
    Witty signature under construction.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    36th Chamber
    Posts
    12,423
    So where does the individual's physical/mental attributes come into play? Such as, strength, endurance, power, speed, focus, etc?
    When don't they? If two people train the exact same way, with the exact same techniques, odds are one will inherently be better than the other because of genetics, athletisicm, strength, etc...The individual is ultimately responsible for their performance.

    A 'style' would address these, no? Or are these seperate from 'style?' Some styles, it seems, would have more then just martial 'techniques' but also 'techniques' for developing 'attributes' also? How does mastering a style figure into this?
    Building strength and endurance should be part of any training regiment, be in CMA, western Boxing, or Juko-Kai. Leanring 30 elbow strikes means nothing if you run out of gas 30 seconds into a fight.

    That being said, some styles use certain conditioning techniques specific to that style. Black Tiger has various exercises to make the fingers stronger for Tiger techniques, which a Crane stylist would not necessarily need. If you break your fingers performing Tiger strikes, the style becomes useless.

    Since mastering a style means being proficient in the style's repetoire of techniques, one would also have to be conditioned enough to perform these techniques without injuring yourself.

    With so much variation between schools, are individual schools (the place where you, your 'classmates' and your teacher study and train together..) the actual "framework of techniques which a fighter uses to defeat opponents in combat" and the style they claim just a name?
    Possibly. If you train with crappy fighters, odds are you will be only slightly better than them in the long run. But training with world-class athletes that have been taught ineffective skills is just as bad, maybe worse.
    He most honors my style who learns under it to destroy the teacher. -- Walt Whitman

    Quote Originally Posted by David Jamieson View Post
    As a mod, I don't have to explain myself to you.

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    3,170
    MasterKiller,

    But you wouldn't look in a geology book for a quote by Keats, now would you?

    How relevant would the information found in other genres be to your subject?
    No. Obviously not. I wouldn't look anywhere but in books by or on Keats, really.

    But that's a very narrow subject. I wouldn't look anywhere but wing chun for the "little idea" form either. But then, the little idea form wouldn't really be what I was researching. Close range combat would be the subject. The little idea form (siu lum dao?) would be a resource.

    And that's kinda how I look at styles, I suppose. They're resources. Not the objective itself. But I recognize that that's strictly a question of personal perspective.


    Stuart B.
    When you assume, you make an ass out of... pretty much just you, really.

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    3,170
    Originally posted by Laughing Cow
    Apoweyn.

    My differentiation is between a fighter and a stylist.

    There are tons of great fighters out there that don't use any MA style.
    Well, I'll take your word for that. But what are talking here? Guys that frequently get into Friday night p|ssups? Guys with literally no combat training? Just a high tolerance for pain and ham hands?

    But I also see many that claim to be a stylist, but are simply fighters.
    This is what I perceive as a heavy bias in your argument. You say simply fighters as if that's somehow simpler or less profound. I've seen plenty of martial artists with a solid hold on courtesy, respect, and various other hallmarks of martial arts that couldn't fight their way out of an old folk's home. Are they also not martial artists?

    There are also tons of people hacking away at musical Instruments.
    That's an unfair analogy in my opinion. Hacking away at music is an indication of a bad musician. Hacking away at an opponent is an indication of the inherent chaos of a fight.

    And there are some that received proper training and making big bucks from it.
    I'm a little unclear on how this fits in.

    What will be more efficient and effective in your Opinion a guy that trained a bit here and a bit there, or a guy that stuck to a certain school/teacher and learned well what he was taught.
    Well, since I myself am the former, I believe there's validity to doing that. I'm not talking about a school hopper here. But that's just common sense. I've trained with myriad teachers and schools over the years. And I've done pretty well for myself, I think. Not better than I would've done sticking with one school, perhaps.

    That's my point. I think various approaches are valid. You seem to want to draw a line. And that's fine. It's your opinion. I'm not trying to take that from you.

    If you are looking purely for effectiveness and not skill than anything goes.

    MA is not some form of spiritual thingy, but a way to aquire certain SKILLS.
    Effectiveness is dictated by 1) SKILLS, 2) blind luck, or 3) high attributes. Clearly, to be effect reliably, blind luck is out. That leaves skills and attributes. Good fighters have both. So, logically, they are martial artists.

    Someone with high attributes and no skills excelling at fighting would be a rare duck indeed.

    Would you rather a hire a guy that studied here and there or a guy that has done a full University course and is certified.

    Either CAN be good or bad, and in certain situations either will be more suited.
    Not a great analogy. The university system is specifically set up to require specialists in a certain area to study to take courses outside of that area. A full university course already recognizes that a person needs exposure to various disciplines to be prepared.

    Cheers.
    Right back at ya. And please don't take anything I'm saying as hostility. It's a good conversation.


    Stuart B.
    When you assume, you make an ass out of... pretty much just you, really.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •