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